"Mysticism" in Context

PAULINE MYSTICISM
By: James S. Stewart

We have had occasion more than once to use the word "mysticism"; and it is necessary to grasp quite clearly what this term means, as applied to Paul's religious experience.

Efforts are periodically made to banish this conception altogether. But it is hard to destroy; it has a way of reasserting itself, and coming back into its own. Indeed, the stubborn survival-power of this term, in face of trenchant criticism and attack, suggests that it stands for something quite indispensable and essential in religion. Many imagine that mysticism represents something so shadowy and ill-defined and non-intellectual that to use the term is simply to "darken counsel by words without knowledge." Others go further, and proclaim a personal aversion to the mystic and all his works. He is accused of a selfish aborption in his own individual experience. He is regarded as culpably negligent of religion's roots in history. He is criticized for an alleged indifference to moral judgments.

Behind all this there lies a serious confusion of thought. The type of character which seeks emotions and ecstasies for this own sake, which dissolves history in speculation and is defective in respect of moral duty, is unfortunately not unknown: the pity is that to religion of this kind the noble name of mysticism should ever have been applied.

For Paul, it was in the daily, ever-renewed communion, rather than in the transient rapture, that the inmost nature of Christianity lay. This was the true mysticism. This was essential religion. This was eternal life.

Paul, by the grace of God, discovered the glorious experience that was waiting for any soul which gave itself in faith to Christ. Not only so: such union with the divine, he knew, need be no transient splendour, flashing for a moment across life's greyness and then gone: it could be the steady radiance of a light unsetting, filling the commonest ways of earth with a gladness that was new every morning. It would make men not less efficient for life, but more so. It would vitalize them, not only morally and spiritually, but even physically and mentally. It would give them a verve, a creativeness, an exhilaration, which no other experience in the world could impart. It would key life up to new pitch of zest and gladness and power. This is Pauline mysticism; and great multitudes who have never used the name have known the experience, and found it life indeed.

In some degree, then, every real Christian is a mystic in the Pauline sense.

From: A Man in Christ: The Vital Elements of Paul's Religion.

Pilgrim

Mysticism is simply having a direct experience with God that is positive and edifying with God being the center. Some would like to seek only experiences and "manifestations" without proper respect or reverence for God or his glory. Some would dispense with all experiences altogether and simply content themselves with a conceptual apprehension (doctrine and teaching) only. There is a place for mysticism which is not at either of these extremes but exists somewhere in the middle.

I get accused occasionally by some of these hard-edged theologians of being a mystic, which I don't deny. A mystic is simply somebody who believes it is possible to commune with God Almighty right now through Jesus in the Spirit and know it and have a sense of heaven all around him and being in the presence of God even when He's in the presence of men. If that's being a mystic then I plead guilty and I am. - A.W. Tozer

Interesting thread. Pilgrim777, I have no problem with your OP, other than a slight concern with the term "mysticism" because of so much associations it has had with doctrines of demons, as BrotherTom pointed out quite well.

Great quote from Tozer Miccah.

Sort of like the issue concerning "Fundamentlism" I posted on. It all depends on what you mean regarding any given term.

Glad we are in agreement that good words can be given bad "reputations".

The Revelation of John was quite "mystical".

He'd be run out of town, today. Diotrephes certainly did not like him.

Great posts everyone, I'm feeling quite gay now. Oops, can't use that word anymore.

:-)

Pilgrim

Like the post Pilgrim. If mysticism is defined as you defined it I guess I am a mystic. The point made in the 3rd paragraph is a good point. If we define the term in its original context it is not a bad thing. If we define the term by those who get their eyes off of Jesus and begin to seek "mystic experiences" for their own sake and wind up in error we will reject all true mystic experiences. The word has gotten a bad rap. I recall a time when I was 16 and was seeking God intensely. I prayed at an altar at a church camp from 9 pm until 2 am and was not even aware of the time that passed. During that time I would be so overcome with the glory and presence of God that I felt what can only be described as rapturous joy. I left the altar physically exhausted but spiritually awake and refreshed in a way I cannot describe. It should be the norm for us to hear from God on a regular basis, if not daily. I have had dreams, a vision, and have had God reveal things to me that I could not have known. But all of these things were not for their own sake, nor were they to make me feel more "spiritual". If I were to put my eyes on these things and feel that I had to seek the experiences I would get off the road very quickly. God used these things to accomplish in me or in others a more important and eternal purpose.

Awesome testimony, Twayneb.

Mysticism in its proper context is what we are all engaged in when praying and hearing the Lord in the Spirit.

Look at how often Jesus talked about His Father speaking to Him and how He always did what He saw His Father doing and spoke what His Father was saying. What?

The one overriding thing that comes through with Paul, is not the doctrine of sanctification, or justification or any other doctrine (thank God for them), but what really comes through is "Union with Christ" or "Communion with Christ".

Take away the Spirit of God and the indwelling Lord and what does Christianity have except the same thing that every other religion has. A book. Without the Spirit of God indwelling man, Christianity would not have survived throughout the centuries, especially when the Bible was not available or in scant supply.

Islam says we are the "people of the book". But, they don't understand that we are people of the Spirit (the Holy Spirit). And thank God for the Scriptures.

But if we did not have the Holy Spirit, we would not have communion with the Lord. Fellowship, comfort, guidance, counsel.

In the OT, they were people of the book for the most part (except for a few individuals here and there that the Spirit came upon).

But now the Lord has written upon the tablets of our hearts, and guides us by His indwelling Spirit.

God bless you guys,

Thanks for responding with your contributions,
Pilgrim

Enjoy this:

When Phillips Brooks first spoke to Helen Keller of Christ, she at once exclaimed, " Oh, I never knew His name before, but I always knew Him." She was acquainted with Him as the Christ of experience, the Universal Christ who lighteneth every man coming into the world; but she did not know Him as the Christ of history, the Christ who lived a human life in Palestine long years ago. Alas! There are many who know Him as the Christ of history who do not know Him as the Christ of experience. They know His name, but they do not know Him. They are familiar with the facts of His earthly life, they accept His system of teaching, they follow Him as an impersonal and abstract ideal, but they have not experienced the dynamic power of His living personality. They know Him as the Christ who came, but they do not know Him as the Christ who is here. The complete knowledge of Christ is possessed by those alone to whom the Christ of history has become the Christ of experience.

We are indebted to Paul for making known to us the spiritual Christ, the Christ of experience, the Christ of today; yet it must be acknowledged that his failure to turn back to the Christ of history and linger lovingly over the details of His life, so as to understand Him as the Christ of experience, has made His testimony one-sided (so) that some of those who came after him went to the extreme of denying the humanity of Christ altogether. The Apostle John had to set himself against their error by declaring that whosoever denied that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. In the present day the tendency in the opposite direction has often been so strong, that there may be need to declare that whosoever denieth that Jesus Christ is come in the spirit, is not of the household of faith.

The Church of today needs Paul's mystical message that she gain a revived consciousness of the presence of her Lord. She needs to realize that the same Jesus of whom we read in the Gospels, the same Jesus whom the disciples saw going up into heaven, has returned in another form, and is now in her midst. This truth is the life-blood of her faith. This truth, and not the doctrine of justification by faith, is the article of a standing or a falling Church. Take away from the Church the conviction of the presence of a living, working, and abiding Christ, and you tear the very heart out of her religious life.

The world, too, needs Paul's mystical message to give it a new sense of the reality of Christ, a vivid realization of His actual presence. It is not enough to know that He once lived on earth, what men want to know is that He now lives, and that His saving help is now available. Important as it is to know what He has done for them, it is still more important to know what He can now do for them.

From: Paul the Mystic: A Study in Apostolic Experience. By: James M. Campbell

That's good Tom. Appreciate your posts.

Abiding is Christ, not yourself and not another spirit (familiar spirit), is the key.

Pilgrim

Brothertom, I think we all can learn something from "Roman Catholic Mystics" including Fenelon and Guyon, particularly Fenelon. Far from suffering narcissism, they teach walking by the Spirit and not by the flesh. You have to remember most of the "Roman Catholic Mystics" were actually persecuted by the the Roman Catholic Church. I find that most who would call themselves protestant shy away and will not even give the Mystics a try, and I feel they are poorer for it. I think there are some beautiful jewels from Heaven in the writings of the Mystics if you are willing to read some of them.

I would like to list a few of my favorite books written by Mystics if anyone is interested.
1. The hidden life of the soul. by Jean Nicolas Grou
2. Spiritual crumbs from the Masters table. by Gerhard Tersteegen
3.George Fox's Journal
4. Madame Guyon's autobiography
5. Any of fenelon's writings ( maybe start with " Let Go")
6. The life of Moses by Gregory of Nyssa
7. The power of the Spirit by William Law
8. Prison meditations by Girolamo Savonarola
9. Teatise on keeping the heart by John Flavel
10. Both books written by Philippe Vernier. (With the Master) and (Not as the World giveth)

Just for the record I have learned many things from reading some of Guyon's books, and some of Law's books.

Some good things and some not so good things, but we are all just men and no one is perfect except Jesus Christ.

Good night, All.
Pilgrim

Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

Because of the "elephant" Tom described, I've been wary of Mysticism. For some it does threaten to unmoor people from scripture. However, over the years I've grown increasingly interested and appreciative of the subject...even as I still remain cautious.

For me, at least some of the appeal in mysticism, can be explained by the frustrating limitations of language to convey our experiences with God. Our words simply fail to mediate between us and reality adequately. We inherit vocabulary and conceptual frameworks that don't always line up with the world, both physical and spiritual, as we find it. For many Christians, I think the legitimacy of myticism validates something very meaningful; that our profound personal experiences with Jesus are more real then the nouns and verb symbols of language.

This is a paradox! Mystics have often been characterized as wanting to experience some other reality, but I find that many of them have quite the opposite aim: They believe that our human langauge and concepts prevents us from fully experiencing reality. (This inability of langauge to touch reality also explains why some Christians intuitively mistrust fundamentalism and its emphasis on doctrinal conformity, just as others might mistrust mysticism, and it's emphasis on personal experience!)

To look at this frustrating limitation of langauge, consider this experience by many Christians: a young man believes the Gospel sincerely, but his initital saving peace lasts only for a season, is lost, and then through a crisis is regained in even greater perfect strength. Some Christians describe this process as backsliding and repenting, some as the second blessing, and still some as simply growing in grace.

After awhile some find that none of these conceptual frameworks is completely satisfactory to explain the loving personal attention and undeserved faithfulness shown to them by the Holy Spirit towards their salvation. They decide, more or less, that in order to continue folllowing after Christ, they simply may have to let go of the rhetorical and intellectual demands placed on them by a particular denomination or school. To them, the main thing is what they are expriencing with God, not how their experience fits into descriptive systems. Indeed, even the most capable of writers and speakers find that their language skills cannot always follow them in the deepest aspects of real life.

Words are only symbols of reality, and man can't live on symbols alone;)

Blessings,

MC

I think it is important that we remember that the term mysticism is a term coined by man to describe something that they categorized and talked about. Nowhere in scripture do we find the term mysticism. We do find, as Brother Tom so aptly said, men and women who through abiding in Christ were used in some very supernatural ways and experienced the power and presence of God operating in their lives. I have seen those who focused on mysticism for its own sake and they always got into the ditch. Then again, the same is true of those who focus on anything other than Christ and Him crucified. It is a bit like the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We are to covet earnestly to be used in the gifts. However the more excellent way mentioned in the next chapter is that the focus is operating in God's kind of love. If we are closely linked to Him and working from a motivation of His agape love then we can covet to be used in the gifts of the Spirit to see His love in operation ministering to people in need. One could easily classify Smith Wigglesworth as a mystic. I have been reading again about his life and what I saw was death to self and life in God with a motivation to see God's love and compassion poured out to bless and minister to people precious in His eyes. The result...well it is recorded in history.

Edited: Some new lines added.

That is very true, twayneb. Mysticism is a term not found in the Bible. For the most part, Christians should speak the language of the Bible otherwise it usually results in vain wranglings and debates.

It is interesting that Paul, when talking about meat, drink, respect of certain holydays, new moons or even sabbath days, tells us to not let any man beguile us of our reward by their "peculiar" practices. And you could also throw in many other things such as the subject we are discussing. Then Paul goes on to basically say what you are saying (twayneb) as far as what to focus on. "Holding to the Head" (Col 2:19). He is the one we receive our nourishment from and who causes us to grow in the grace and knowledge of Him.

Col 2:18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

Col 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

With that said, I prefer the Bible word "spiritual", but look how that word is being co-opted today.

So, we don't have to belabor this thread and I think many have brought a good balance. My OP was to do just that and bring balance.

Because the word is not part of the language of the Bible, I think it would be helpful if we speak of mysticism that we should always elaborate regarding what we are really trying to convey. Because in our union and fellowship with Christ, it is never an act of our skill and many "mystics" and "contemplatives" teach as if it is an act or skill that they have acquired. "Contemplative" is another word that I don't like that much but I try to understand what is being communicated without shutting my ears.

The "mystics" and "contemplative", don't appeal to me because I came out of Roman Catholicism and I see how those words are abused and "mystics" and "contemplatives" are treated as "special" people.

On the other hand, it is interesting how people that have never been in the RCC are drawn to mysticism and contemplative life. If it takes you away from Jesus and He is decreasing and you are increasing, then of course it is deception.

We come to God on the basis of the shed blood of Jesus, and should never think that there is some "mystical" skill that we must acquire in order to come to God and "know" Him.

This is the problem I have with those who actually focus on mysticism and the contemplative. While there are good things to be found in them, one must remember that the enemy draws one away from Christ by "good" things.

There is no shortcut to God, no secret way to approach Him. Relationship with God is dynamic and not formula or skill based.

Pilgrim

...it is interesting how people that have never been in the RCC are drawn to mysticism and contemplative life.

There is widespread discussion in many circles about our society moving from a "modern age" (defined by confidence in rationalism) to a "post-modern age" (defined by a mistrust of rationalism).

In general I think that there is merit in this idea. The reaons for this could be varied. For instance, I think people feel very uncertain about the most basic institions of our day, from their government to their churches. We see that rationalist thinking can't assure us that we will never use weapons of mass destruction. We are astounded that rationalism's most brilliant minds could create so tottering a tower as the global economy in which all our lives are built upon. And on an even deeper level, I think rationalism leaves no room for emotions and feelings, alienating the modern soul that is mournfully conscious of being alone in a material world in a way previous ages wouldn't have experienced.

All of this I believe is a force for an increased interest in not only mysticism, including various Christian mystic traditions, but also "new age" spiritualism, as well as pagan and eath belief systems. We sense that modernity, both secluar and religious, is about to collapse in on itself at any moment, and we want an anchor when it does.

It is worth noting that mysticism is almost always viewed as "returning" to something ancient, rather then discovering something new. The underlying idea, not just for the Christian, but for Homo modernus secularis as well, is that we have all lost our souls years ago, and now are forced to live out our lives as hollow biological and economic machines without the sense of meaning our primitive ancestors had. So, trapped in our modern techno-scoiety, we inwardly admire the ancients and try to recapture some of their lost world views. Even if we don't believe their "mythologies" we can still practice their rituals, if only to find psychological relief from rationlism's implication that we as individual's have no intrinsic value or purpose.

It is also worth noting, that in the schema I just described, strict athiests such as Dawkins and the late Hitchens are considered fundamenatlists as much their "religous" counterparts. It's their supreme certainty in their own beliefs that disqualifies them from being post-modern....and in that sense they are anitquated and curiously victorian.

My point in laying all of this out, is to see there is a correlation between the 21st century interest in mysticism and the dispair over the failure of modern secular rationalism. Rationalism renders any subject, including God, into an impersonal and alienating object of study. Mysticism is concerned with being connected, touching essence with essence, rather then being seperated by our telescopes or microscopes.

So perhaps we can say much of our interest in mysticism is an impulse and instinct to put back together and make integrated that which has been descontructed and categorized by rationalistic religion. In this light, I think it is a healthy impulse.

MC