So this little meditation is for two audiences: those who would like to consider what is true about a religion based on its mystical traditions; and those Christians who may have dismissed the mystical streams in their own faith, because of extremes of exaggerated versions. I would like to define a mystic as someone who seeks or claims to encounter the ultimate truth of their religion or faith, and to directly encounter it. Not all mysticisms are the same. I focus in this dialogue with Dallas Willard’s thoughts, mostly on the theistic forms of mysticism, because these are the ones I’ve studied most. I am convinced that mysticism is one way to look carefully at what a religion is really grounded in and saying. How it is lived out. For this reason the study of mysticism is a window into what is essential faith. What is your ultimate, and how does that cause you to live in real life? Anyways, i begin with some long but helpful quotes about mysticism from the late Dallas Willard. Helpful thoughts, i think.
I hope this article helps those who are open to at least the mystical streams in the world religions, and helps them as well as Christians to consider Christian mysticism as a valid option for true spirituality in our times.
Dallas WIllard on christian mysticism: with my notes in between and at the end: doing some midrash here with this keen thinkers thoughts on mysticism. Fun dialogue!
Is there a distinction to Christian mysticism? Are all mysticisms the same? Is his and my basic question in this article.
Some people don’t like the sound of mysticism, too esoteric or impractical, but if you look at it as those who are seeking the true essence or Source of your religion, and wanting to express and live it, it gets more interesting for study. To see it as the actual spirituality (the lived out-ness of it!) of your religion.
Mysticism becomes practical as a way of reading what is at the center of your faith or belief system. It’s a good way to look at and read, the fruit of your core beliefs. The Mystics in your tradition are one way, and perhaps the most overt ways, to do this.
Here’s some things which Willard points out on the topic:
“Certainly ‘nominal’ Christianity, or Christianity merely as a social form, does not involve union with God on the relational model. That is always a sore spot within the social/historical reality of the Christian movement. From the earliest centuries, however, Christians who have thrown themselves into the actual following of Jesus Christ have lived from their experiences of union with God. They have always insisted that correct belief and outward conformity is not what the life in Christ is about. A long line of famous and not so famous Christ-followers have kept the “mystical” substance of their living “union with the Absolute” alive down to the present time. And they have usually been in trouble—often very serious trouble—with the nominally “Christian” people, leaders and institutions in the midst of which they lived. “Spirituality” was used as a term of derision to apply to Madame de la Mothe Guyon and her associates, in the 17th Century, because of her insistence upon living a life of intimate, experiential relationship with God. The “Rhineland Mystics,” and most notably Master Eckhart among them, had earlier suffered similar reproach and persecution from “official” Christianity. Both his critics and his admirers have assigned Pantheism to him because they have not read him carefully and did not understand the theological language in which he spoke of the mystical relationship of the Christian to God. (See Jeanne Ancelet-Hustache, Master Eckhart and the Rhineland Mystic for excellent information and interpretation of these particular Christian mystics.)
Union with the Absolute also can be understood in a distinctively Christian manner, and one with substantial overlap on the other theistic religions. The key differences from the illusionist interpretation are two: The “Absolute” for the theist is understood to be a Person. And union with the Absolute, thus understood, consists, not in identity with Him, but in personal relationships of knowing, feeling and willing, on some substantial analogy with what is to be found among human beings in their better conditions. It involves conscious attitudes and actions between God and the human being, and then harmonious actions together with the divine and the human. Each side contributes to the relationship—though obviously not in the same proportion. Such a union is aptly described as “God with us.” It is less a status than it is a modulated flow of life in which transformative experiences of God come and go, along with a constant undertone of divine presence interwoven with the events of a normal human existence. In the records of Christian life, this relationship is often thought of as a journey toward God that is, at the same time, a journey in God. A readily available source for studying such lives anecdotally would be William James’ Varieties of Religious Experience. But reports and testimonies of out of those lives are widely available.
Of course the source for understanding such a “with God” life is the Bible. For example, the Twenty-Third Psalm is a straightforward description of the human experience of union with God—once you understand that the writer is not engaging in lofty whistling-in-the-dark, but relating his actual experience and condition of life “with God.” The entire Bible conveys a picture of a life of personal union of God with his people, and the New Testament interpretation of how Christ lives in his people becomes a central part of the Christian understanding of life, especially for such passages as the Gospel of John chapters 14-17, Colossians chapters 1-3, and Galatians 2:20-21, to mention only a few passages. James Stewart’s A Man In Christ, or the Introductory Materials and Notes to The Renovaré Spiritual Formation Bible can guide anyone further in studying along these lines. Albert Schweitzer’s The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle is also a very useful source.”
That psalm illustrates that it is us constantly confessing and praising God and trusting Him to be our shepherd, actively and daily. That is the human situation. The practice of dependence! It shows or models for us as humans how to live with God—in complete tranparency about our own mess, and entire adoration of who He is. It’s one of our clearest model poems.
Theistic religions basically believe that there is a personality to the Ultimate Reality , which we are meant to be in relationship with.
Back to Willard’s thoughts:
“One of the standard things that misleads people in approaching Christian mystics is how they frequently mention the loss of consciousness of themselves in their most ecstatic experience of God. Loss of self awareness is in fact a common human phenomenon, and not one that occurs only in religious or mystical experiences. But this loss never implies, to Christian mystics, that they cease to exist as individuals or that they are absorbed into the Absolute. Theirs is a different metaphysics, which is one of persons in relationship, not of an illusory separate being dissolving into the “All.”
The specific “color” of Christian mysticism is devotion to Jesus Christ. There is a lot of room for spelling out exactly what that means, and a lot of ways of putting it into practice. Pretty clearly this was the “mysticism” of Florence Nightingale, as is shown from her explicit language, the people she consulted with, and the context of religious life in her times. Her departure from various details of the nominal or real Christianity she encountered around her is better explained by her devotion to Christ than by any reversion to plain-wrap mysticism or to non-orthodox beliefs. The overriding question faced by most professionals today, including nurses, has to do with what they are really devoted to, and what are their life sustaining resources, in pursuing their profession. An honest, thorough inquiry into the possibilities here is what is called for. Are there any preferable alternatives to an all-out, experiential devotion to Christ? Then let us find them and live them. If not, let us live in union with the Absolute who is Jesus Christ.”
My closing notes:
Been looking at how mystical experiences informed the spirituality of some of the church fathers as well. St John being the most obvious, but I’m considering Paul a mystic also.
Been studying St Paul as a mystic lately. Paul as a master of word and Spirit…
St Paul as a mystic. Someone who was given “revealed theology” from God directly! Consider it. His entire conversion was a mystical experience, then he is directed directly by God’s intervention on his missions. We think of him as the great theologian, but he clearly also had direct encounters with even Jesus, which is why he claimed to be an apostle! But his spirituality was replete with mystical encounters with God. Visions, dreams and spiritual training from above etc. Good to remember that some of the early apostles actually were mystics, though in a uniquely Christ centered way.
I’ve been thinking lots about Paul’s spirituality, since he is considered to be the first to really lay out a Christian theology. It’s important to consider that he had direct encounters with God—even the risen Christ, if we are to believe scriptures!
When you think of it, Paul’s entire spirituality was really begun by a mystical encounter with the Risen Jesus. The rest is history. Don’t discard your mystics.
He also got his fresh gospel for the gentiles—a mystery revealed to him, concealed in God beforehand, as Paul puts it in Thessolnians.. His entire journey was informed by mysteries previously concealed by God but which were revealed to him. One basic one being that non-Jews are included in the Kingdom!
A useful revelation! Paul considered himself a steward of the mysteries of God!
It is still remarkable to me how many “founders of our faith” had extremely mystical spiritualities. St John is overt, but many don’t think of Paul as someone who was directly informed by his encounters with God. Yet, he was, as we are meant to be.
For Christians, the ground of all Being, The Absolute, is Jesus Christ Himself. That sets it apart even in its mystical streams of expression. The Absolute is not a nebulous “sacred” but a living personal loving God, who makes Himself encounterable! It still matters what or Whom your Ultimate is.
Ours is a relational mysticism, less about dissolving into Other, and more about a loving relationship with the Ultimate Other who has made Himself known in history—Jesus, the Christ. That’s unique to Christ-ianity, which is always centered in the sustainer of all things—the sacrificial Son of God, the Christ, the Anointed by God one. This gets uniquely expressed through the lives of the mystics within true church history. This is a useful and helpful way to read christian history. Read history through its mystics. Those who claimed to have encountered the essence of their faith—in this case, those who have met and are friends with Jesus. The Real Jesus who sustains all of Reality! And the Author and Sustainer of our faith!
Distinctions help especially when studying mysticism. I will define a mystic as someone who claims to have encountered ultimate reality directly. So it matters what each religion’s ultimate or upper storey is.
In college, I studied comparative religious art specifically looking at mystical traditions within various religions. Still fascinates me as it’s easier to read the direct symbols which stream through the mystical traditions of the worlds religions. Fun place to start if you want to see the essence of a religion.
Rather than throwing out all claims at mysticism, I want to consider what they express about each religion’s ultimate or highest absolute.
There are many ways to study religious traditions, the mysticism of each faith is a helpful way in.
I think it’s a good topic again in our day of watered down easy to digest religious supermarkets.
I’m convinced that Christianity offers the most true form of mysticism available. Yet it is often misunderstood even within Christianity. Yet as people search for a more authentic spirituality, I think it’s useful to consider what makes Christian mysticism unique or distinct from other religions.
All the theistic religions have a personal most High God as ultimate. And they have a relational rather than merging into model for mystical Union.
In Christianity the marriage metaphors is most often used for ultimate Union. Groom and bride metaphors are throughout the Jewish prophets and again in the New Testament where it is specifically applied to Jesus as Groom and His church or people as the bride. This central metaphor speaks of a knowing intimacy. To know in Hebrew refers among other things to sexual or most intimate knowing.
So we are meant to come into marital intimacy with Christ. That’s a basis for true Christian intimacy. We take on and receive His Name–Christ. We do so as in getting married to Christ. That’s a core foundation in true Christianity. It is a marital level of union with one another. And in doing so, we get caught up in Our Groom’s intimacy with His Father, which space is our home. It’s a very family relations religion! But the way we come into the family is to marry Jesus. That’s what true mystical practice is about–that marriage or type of union between two. This is what Jesus was talking about in John 17–you in Me, and Me in Father. That space is the aim of Christ centered mysticism.
This is one reason why marriage is such a “high symbol” in Christianity-it speaks of the nature of our relationship with Christ!! It’s meant to have the level of contact and encounter as marital intimacy. A marital intimacy not with a nebulous other, but with The Person of Jesus Christ. It’s not a random marriage with being itself, or energy, it is a relationship with a Someone.
That’s a core image of Christian mysticism. Union is relational and it is ultimately with Jesus Christ who Christians believe to be the “ground of all Being”, or the Absolute or Ultimate—the name or Identity above all other Names and Identities so to speak. And we are offered a relational mystic union with Him. That’s the core offer of Jesus coming to earth, and into “our hearts”.
Of course not all mysticism are the same or equal. Depends on what or Whom your ultimate is! Mysticism is typically defined as some form of union with The Absolute or Ultimate. In Christianity, this would be with Jesus, the Author and sustainer of Reality. The Logos or Way of God incarnate.
There are basically theistic forms of mysticism which see the ultimate as Person, and others, usually Vedic faiths, which see the “ground of all Being” as impersonal. That’s one major dividing line, as depending on which you believe, you live differently. Where you treasure is, there your heart will be also!
It matters what we union with or center ourselves in, and what is the nature of that union. Is it loving relationship with a Personal God, or a merging with consciousness, or nothingness etc…”Choose your ultimate wisely, it will determine your course!” as one of my mentors put it.
Jesus claims to be the Ultimate come down into human history and making God available to us through intimacy with Him and His spirituality-His living ongoing relationship with His Father. Union with His Spirit in His relationship with His Father. That alone makes christianity peculiar, as my grandmother used to say. You have ultimate ground of all being incarnating into His own creation and offering a gateway into The Most High God Father. Christlikeness would be union with His Nature over time. That is the actual daily practice of Christian mysticism–confession, thanks into praise and into relational transformational union with the Life of Jesus. That’s basic Christianity, and turns out to involve direct encounter with Him.
Storehaufovic's Blog 