Tuesday, September 7
Follow us on twitter!
Mysticism
We have posted a new article by Bruce Demarest at Metamorpha.com entitiled Mysticism: Peril or Promise? For many this term in and of itself raises red flags, and often for very good reasons. For this reason and others Demarest's article is a much needed exploration of a topic that has lacked thoughtful Christian theological inquiry. As Demarest notes, "Some remain skeptical of the mystical because of associations with Eastern religions and occult movements such as theosophy, nature mysticism, and New Age enlightenment. Mysticism, we are told, is something that begins in mist and ends in schism."
Demarest goes on to state, "The word mysticism derives from the Greek, mu, meaning “to conceal.” The related English word, mystery, denotes what is obscure or unknown. To understand mysticism I find it helpful to distinguish between hard, occult, and soft forms of mysticism." It is this latter form, "soft mysticism" which Demarest wishes to explore and believes to be at home within orthodox Christianity. As he states, "Both hard and occult forms of mysticism are fundamentally opposed to orthodox Christianity...What I call soft mysticism, on the other hand, seeks deepening relational union with God, not emptiness, fusion, or an ontological union. An important feature of soft mysticism is the believer’s experience of intimate, relational union with Jesus Christ, which involves no loss of individuality or selfhood."
Demarest seeks to guide us through his view of soft mysticism and explores Scriptural basis, insights from Church history and potential questions and dynamics at play in the discussion of mysticism. I would encourage you to check out the article and return to let us know what you think. Do you find Demarest's approach helpful? Do you still have concerns or questions?
- Jamin Goggin's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Continued thoughts
DRALTANG and Kyle thank you for your feedback and thoughtful interaction with Demarest's article. I think you both add helpful questions and insights. I would agree with Kyle about our use of the term "Mysticism." The question for me is, what is the value or goal in attempting to redeem a word and attempting to fill it with distinctly Christian meaning? In some cases I think there is certainly value in this project, but in others it appears to have little value. Mysticism appears to be one of the cases in which I wonder whether it is worth attempting to redeem the word, simply because of the wide gamit of religious connections and uses. Does the word have something to offer to the dialogue to such a degree that we need to defend its use and help identify a distinctly Christian form of mysticism, when it rings the alarm of concern for so many within Christian circles because of its broad usage? In closing, my concern is that our energy will be used in defending a term (mysticism) which is not necessary to talk about what we hope to talk about (namely, an evangelical spiritual theology).
Also, it seems that a focus on mysticism may also lead to a misguided approach at understanding Christian spiritual experiences. I would agree with Kyle that I would rather begin by talking about the Triune God who reveals Himself relationally to human persons, than what we might be seeking from such experiences contra other religions. I suppose what I am saying is that, Christian spiritual experience is not distinct from other religions most fundamentally because of its goal, but rather because of its source.
That being said, I am deeply thankful for Demarest's article. I think he has much to offer, and am thankful that a theologian is attempting to clarify some of these issues within spiritual formation that are simply often not addressed or assumed to be of no consequence in "practicing" formation.
utonQHPDXszIV
, xanax withdrawal, buy ultram, xanax, depakote, cialis, buy cialis,
DFzCNxcUalshIVqksP
7sLFEZ , what does xanax look like, discount phentermine, buy depakote, purchasing tramadol, buy cialis,
Defining Mysticism
While I appreciate his division of mysticism into soft, hard and occult forms, I find that it is too artificial a division. To limit 'soft' mysticism to orthodox Christianity, 'hard' mysticism to Buddhism and Hinduism, and 'occult' mysticism to New Age is to limit our understanding of mysticism.
Demarest is right to point out the numerous mystical experiences in the biblical records. However, as he also points out, Meister Eckhart and the Rhineland mystics may be included in 'hard' mysticism and if I may suggest 'occult' mysticism (as defined by Demarest) too. The ascetic practices of the desert fathers and mothers are dangerously close to 'occult' mysticism. Would we exclude Meister Eckhart and the desert fathers and mothers from 'orthodox Christianity'?
Buddhist mysticism seeks awareness of the non-self rather than 'absorption into Nirvana.' Hindu mysticism seeks a transcendent insight that will leads to a better karma. Christian mysticism seeks intimacy with God. Personally, I will prefer describing mysticism as from the traditions such as Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sufi, Native American etc rather than soft, hard and occult.
The taxonomy of Christian mysticism will then include Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Lutheran, Roman, Orthodox, Pentecostal...
Delineating Mysticism
I think all that Demarst is trying to say is that there is a Christian way to approach God and non-Christian ways. Therefore, if the likes of Meister Eckhart and others stayed from that, their practices were beyond the bounds of orthopraxis, which doesn't necessarily include themselves. I think you are probably right though about wanting to delineate these according to broad traditions (Christian, Buddhist, etc). I personally want to avoid the term entirely for a variety of reasons. First, taken the reality that Chrisitanity is not just another religion, but describes a certain state of affairs that is wholly other (triune God, incarnated in Christ, sends Spirit to indwell believer, etc.), we should develop a more robust grammar for Christian discourse that avoids linking these with other religions, as if all we are doing is the same thing they are, just to a different God. I think that is ultimately misguided and unhelpful. Nonetheless, I think Demarest is an important voice to listen to in all of this.
Defining Delineating Mysticism
I agree with you that Demarest is an important voice to listen to and it is gratifying that someone of his learning has taken on the subject of mysticism. It is timely that we develop an evangelical understanding of mysticism.
Religious experiences are really difficult to study, let alone classify. Mostly it is due to the use of language as Alistair MacIntyre and Newbigin has pointed out. Like you wrote, we need 'a more robust grammar.'
AEGPEJeVRFoedtllssv
aDJ5aC , viagra, long term effects of xanax, depakote, what does xanax look like, discount cialis,