Christianity is NOT a Mystical Religion

[Shakuhachi]

Yes, we need to ask but we also need to be still and listen.

 

[franklinstower]

You are correct but they are linked up inextricably. This is why a poster earlier said he thought “Centering Prayer” was an attempt at a shortcut because he felt that a good long period of time spent in vocal prayer, and meditation (thinking deeply about scripture and theology) is needed first to develop the proper intention and understanding of the path.

Christian contemplation is INTENTION based-- not attention based. This is very important. Even if two people used the same word, one from the Christian tradition, and one from the Hindu tradition it would not be the same meditation anyway because the intention is vastly different not to mention the focus on attention in the majority of eastern approaches VS the focus on intention in Christianity.

It is possible in the Christian tradition to attain the highest level of spirituality without getting a quiet mind if we are to take Teresa of Avila at her word. Intention rather than attention is the reason.

 

[franklinstower]

^^^^^^^^

Using Teresa of Avila as our guide there are also several states that one can experience that qualify as contemplative. A restful semi quiet state where you are alert but enjoying God’s presence, a sleep like state that is not sleep but that you will wonder if it is sleep when coming out of it (people entering this stage will resist if they don’t have a good guide), a deep sleep like state that when you come out you KNOW is not sleep and other more advanced stages.

 

[EndTimes]

Mystical or not, God’s Holy Spirit is not foreign to Believers.

 

[Shakuhachi]

I’d anyone yet define mystical? Did I miss it?

 

[Hunho]

How about this definition from the Oxford Dictionaries website:
mystical—having to do with seeking by contemplation and self-surrender to obtain unity with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or believing in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

 

[Shakuhachi]

Sounds like Christianity to me. At least one aspect of it.

 

[EndTimes]

I’d anyone yet define mystical? Did I miss it?

Most likely has a plethora of definitions

In Questions concerning Catholicism

• it would be Catholic definitions which would apply in discussion…

ABRIDGED.

With [Christianity] the history of Mysticism enters into a new period.

The Fathers recognized indeed the partial [truth] of the [pagan] system, but they pointed out also its fundamental [errors]

They made a distinction between reason and [faith], philosophy and [theology];
they acknowledged the aspirations of the [soul] , but, at the same time, they emphasized its essential inability to penetrate the mysteries of Divine life.

They taught that the [vision of God] is the work of grace and the reward of eternal life; in the present life only a few [souls], by a special grace, can reach it. On these principles, the [Christian] [school] of Alexandria opposed the [true] gnosis based on grace and [faith] to the [Gnostic heresies]

 

[ragus93]

I’ve been making my way through the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, an absolutely fantastic read so far, so thank you once again for that.

I’m beginning to realize that indeed different theologies open different possibilities in mysticism, so this opens me to the importance of theology, an importance that I never understood in this manner before. I don’t mean to say I understand it now, but I certainly have a better inkling of an idea about it.

This brings a question to mind:
• How can we know, before we engage in mysticism by following a particular religion, whether the religion’s theology is the correct one? It seems to me to be very clear that the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. The theology and the mysticism sort of “prove” each other. You follow the Hindu theology, and you reach the apex possible under that theology - but from that point, how are you to know that there is something beyond? Is there no indication in that mystical experience that there is something beyond? And could you know that the Christian theology is correct without any kind of mystical experience? (I am honestly inclined to say no to this personally).

To someone like myself who already believes in the Christian religion this isn’t much of a problem, but then not everyone shares the faith.

On another note, with regards to Eastern practices being attention focused. That seems to be the way they are taught in the West (where they are a stripped-down version of what they are in the East, with the theology removed, leaving just a bare-bones mysticism of sorts), but in the East it seems that equal importance is given to attention. You may find this interesting: accesstoinsight[.]org/lib/authors/thanissaro/foodforawakening.html ← remove the [ ] brackets around the dot.

 

[franklinstower]

I am glad you are reading that book. It is by far the most important book I have ever read.

I cannot answer you questions about how we know a theology is correct in a definitive way but I will share some experience with you that could possibly shed some light on this question.

For me at least Christian theology came by way of experience first. I was surrounded by eastern ideas, mostly Hindu and some Buddhism also, but I also has a significant influence from the New Age movement too.

As my spirituality and mysticism grew it became more and more clear that none of these theologies matched the experiences I was having in prayer and meditation or in life. I grew out of the eastern ideas through my mysticism. However this is because I was sincerely a disciple of Christ even though my understanding of him was terribly limited by what certain Hindus and Buddhist and the New Age had to say about him.

Because I was under the influence of Christ I outgrew eastern ideas and eventually against everything I thought was true, I became a full fledged Christian. I am a Catholic too, but may be considered a bad one because on one single issue I side with the Orthodox Church, and that is the issue of Hell not being eternal.

Also just in general I think it is good for people to NOT limit themselves to what is in the books as far as spiritual experience goes. I am and try to always remain open to the possibility that the Holy Spirit will continue to bring new things forth, especially in response to culture situations. I do not want to experience anything that is out of bounds or heretical but within the bounds of Christian theology I am open to lots of new ways in which it can unfold.

I do use mysticism to help convert others to Christianity though-- especially those coming from the New Age or eastern religions as the differences can be pointed out in a logical way that makes sense and I really think that Christianity is a better approach than others.

 

[franklinstower]

^^^^^^^^

The christian approach does not rely on Karma and people find that very freeing upon hearing that, it depends on a relationship with a loving God and not on technique or skill, there is grace that can do for you what you cannot. For anyone who believes there is a God who is personal these points almost always sway them towards Christ.

As to your question about attention vs intention there is a world of difference between the two approaches. I am at pains to see how they look the same to you and so cannot address them. In conversation with people who come from the eastern approach there is A LOT that must change in their practice to Christianize it. The conversion on that level can take months with a sincere person.

 

[ragus93]

Great, it sounds that we agree that to a certain extent some form of mystical experience is required to validate theology, and then theology also guides mysticism from the other side so there seems to be an interplay between the two.

In your case it is clear that your practice of mysticism, even within another theology, ended up guiding you towards the Lord. Why do you think that people who practice mysticism within other religions aren’t guided by their own mystical experience (via the Holy Spirit) towards Christ?

Let’s take a look at something very New Agey. Eckhart Tolle’s The Power of Now. Do you think that if someone were to practice The Power of Now and achieve a mystical experience of bliss and a feeling of union with the absolute - do you think that there is something, say, demonic in that?

As to your question about attention vs intention there is a world of difference between the two approaches. I am at pains to see how they look the same to you and so cannot address them. In conversation with people who come from the eastern approach there is A LOT that must change in their practice to Christianize it. The conversion on that level can take months with a sincere person.

About this, I am sorry if I had made you think that I don’t see a difference between the two. Obviously the intention is different when you do contemplative prayer in under guidance of Christian theology as opposed to when you engage in Buddhist meditation. I was just trying to underline that Buddhist meditation is also a matter of intention. For example, loving-kindness meditation is almost entirely about intention, and not attention. So I don’t agree that Eastern forms of meditation focus entirely on attention and ignore intention. I do agree that their intentions are different though.

 

[franklinstower]

I am enjoying our dialogue.

Thanks for clarifying that last paragraph and it seems I sort of misunderstood much of your last post actually. I agree wholeheartedly that a certain level of mysticism is required to validate theology. In fact mysticism in the source of theology to some extent as it describes for us and defines for us our spiritual experience.

I really don’t know the answer to your question about Buddhism. The existence of mystics and saints from non christian religions is a bit of a mystery to me beyond what I mentioned about theology forming very real bounds that you don’t go through unless you are told about other possibilities.

It may be that evangelism is the only way to get someone to open to other possibilities.

My approach was unique in that the decision made at the very beginning was to not believe anything anyone said unless I came to see it to be true myself. I’m not even sure if that is a good thing but its what i did and then I spent 3-5 hours a day in prayer for the next 10 years until it drew me to Christ. I don’t think that would have happened had I not had a strong commitment and bias against religious traditions though and the time to really sit and listen to what was being said.

It is interesting that you bring up Tolle. I am actually deeply suspicious not only of his state of being but also his motives and teachings actually. I have read a couple of his books FYI. His awakening came by way of reading ACIM. I also began my journey there and spent about 4 years deeply immersed in that work.

I am 100% convinced that ACIM is a demonic work. It is channeled by a woman and the voice claims to be Jesus but it contradicts so many core biblical principles that it simply cannot be Jesus (for lots of reasons). It is false but there is a lot of power that comes through when reading it but I don’t think it comes from God. It was this power that Tolle awakened to and I had already decided it was demonic power before he hit the scene.

Tolle seems pretty certain that none of Jesus’s disciples understood the message Jesus was sharing— but Tolle tells us the true meaning of Christs words… I find that profoundly arrogant but also not in accordance with the line of saints the Christian Church has produced in every generation since the time of Jesus.

Many of the people I end up knowing get a start with Tolle and from the “moment”, to a relationship with Christ, is a massive divide.

I think the New Age movement is demonic in origin but is filled with sincere people and because of that the Holy Spirit is in it saving people in spite of the bad theology contained in it. They New Age movement is very dangerous and I associate Tolle with it. When I meet someone coming from Tolle I know that we have A LOT of work to do sifting out the wheat from the chaff.

This is a very interesting documentary on the demonic origins of the new age movement. I have never caught this guy lying about anything. He is a fundamentalist christian though so just know that going in IF you decide to watch this.

 

[ragus93]

In fact mysticism in the source of theology to some extent as it describes for us and defines for us our spiritual experience.

Clearly - I think that without some form of mysticism you can’t have revelation and all religion is, in the end, based upon revelation. But then theology kind of codifies this revelation, so that the rest of the community can make use of it. All mystical experience is, to a certain extent or another, ineffable. So being able to distinguish between good and evil, and dead ends, becomes very important in mysticism, and this is not possible without dogmatic guidance.

I think this is why the Church, despite all its defects, plays a crucial role as an organisation to safeguard the mystical truth of Christ

My approach was unique in that the decision made at the very beginning was to not believe anything anyone said unless I came to see it to be true myself.

Yeah, I think it’s quite a common approach, especially in the Eastern religions circles, mostly influenced by Buddhism. Buddha is quoted as saying, in the Kalama Sutta:

Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.

I think this reflects the attitude very well.

I spent 3-5 hours a day in prayer

Just prayer, or also other practices like eastern meditation?

the time to really sit and listen to what was being said.

Do you reckon it’s possible to come to the faith without mystical experience and contemplation?

My path was, in a way, similar to yours. I was born an Eastern Orthodox, then got into the New Age via Osho and my father’s influence. The trouble with the New Age is that there is a lot of truth there mixed with falsehood, so it’s very difficult to sort out the wheat from the chaff. This is why I took a negative stand vis a vis certain forms of mysticism at the start of this thread.

My path then followed with Buddhism, atheism and finally back to Christianity. I am not a Catholic though, and probably feel closer to the Eastern church especially theologically, and when it comes to the eastern view of heaven and hell.

I have watched the full video you posted about the New Age, and I agree with the thesis that the movement is spiritually sustained by demonic spiritual entities, who do seem to have a clear purpose behind these actions.

 

[ragus93]

I am 100% convinced that ACIM is a demonic work.

I am not familiar with ACIM, but from what you’re saying, it does sound like a demonic work.

It is interesting that you bring up Tolle.

I have read Tolle’s The Power of Now, but not A New Earth or other books. Personally though, I see Tolle as being on the outskirts of the New Age, at least in the way he presents himself in The Power of Now.

Clearly he doesn’t see Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity, so he is not a Christian, nor writing in the Christian tradition. But what he advocates for, as practice, isn’t something I see as dangerous. Basically practicing presence, and centering yourself in the present moment. If nothing else, that is good psychological hygiene. And all the stuff about our egos standing in the way of a deeper communion with the divine is true. I see this as preparatory work, at the ascetic stage, when one seeks to overcome the passions so that they can prepare for deeper communion.

What parts of Tolle’s practical teachings do you find troublesome?

So I guess my next question, and also something at the heart of this thread, is how do we draw the demarcation line between “good” mysticism and mystical practices, and “bad”, occult mysticism?

 

[franklinstower]

Concerning Tolle he denies Jesus is the Christ, denies that the disciples understood Jesus teachings or had enlightenment, claims to actually understand the message but turns it into Zen Buddhism, and Got his awakening form A Course In MIracles which transmits an certain energy, the energy that woke him up.

That is a lot wrong don’t you think? Doesn’t it demonstrate precisely the arrogance of the New Age movement and carry its energy?

I don’t see Tolle as outside the New Age movement at all. I see him as being the definition of New Age. In fact following the video I presented he, in fact, carries the very core and essence of that message. I can’t see any way around that.

I don’t feel any difference in his energy and the energy of the New Age movement and I see no difference in his teachings either. I would personally rather see someone look into Zen than Tolle.

In the first epistle of John it says very clearly that you can know the antichrist by the denial of Jesus as the Christ… If Tolle just had his own thing going (as Zen does) it would not bother me. It is the combination of denying Jesus while simultaneously teaching the “real” understanding of Jesus that is the giveaway along with that being the epitome of the demonic New Age movement and the source of Tolle’s awakening.

I don’t know how you can get more clear cut than that. Demonic forces are the content of the energy Tolle transmits and the main theological underpinning of the antichrist is in Tolle’s teachings. I would not even have that book in my home let alone read it at this point.

---

I spent that time in prayer and meditation. The meditation was Christian but I did not know it at that time, as it had not matured and revealed itself to be contrary to eastern methods and results yet. I was lucky in that the foundation of what I was practicing came from 12 step programs and those 12 steps were taken out of the New Testament and the words of Jesus. They happen to be very compatible with Christ. What was happening to me was totally Christian and that was clear as soon as I was able to talk about it clearly with others but that took a long time.

 

[ragus93]

Concerning Tolle he denies Jesus is the Christ, denies that the disciples understood Jesus teachings or had enlightenment, claims to actually understand the message but turns it into Zen Buddhism, and Got his awakening form A Course In MIracles which transmits an certain energy, the energy that woke him up.

That is a lot wrong don’t you think? Doesn’t it demonstrate precisely the arrogance of the New Age movement and carry its energy?

I don’t see Tolle as outside the New Age movement at all. I see him as being the definition of New Age. In fact following the video I presented he, in fact, carries the very core and essence of that message. I can’t see any way around that.

I don’t feel any difference in his energy and the energy of the New Age movement and I see no difference in his teachings either. I would personally rather see someone look into Zen than Tolle.

In the first epistle of John it says very clearly that you can know the antichrist by the denial of Jesus as the Christ… If Tolle just had his own thing going (as Zen does) it would not bother me. It is the combination of denying Jesus while simultaneously teaching the “real” understanding of Jesus that is the giveaway along with that being the epitome of the demonic New Age movement and the source of Tolle’s awakening.

Yes, with regards to this I agree with you. I probably worded it the wrong way, but I mentioned in my previous post that I was referring to his “practical” teaching based on the Power of Now. His rejection of Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity, along with his acceptance of New Age doctrine about the coming new age of higher consciousness are part of his theoretical teachings. In fact, Jesus, whether Son of God or just a prophet of God is not central to his teaching. Nor are his claims that the Apostles didn’t understand Jesus.

The reason I personally consider him on the outskirts of New Age is since I don’t consider that he advocates any dangerous practices for his followers. Pretty much presence, shedding the ego, and centering in the now. He does not advocate for channeling, hypnosis, occult rituals, trying to empty the mind, and all the rest.

Just like the video you linked mentioned, the New Age has different levels - some more dangerous than others. I see Tolle as one of the less dangerous ones.

Now, what is your take on Islam? Islam outright rejects Jesus as Son of God and Second Person of the Trinity. And yet, I’m pretty sure that there are saints in Islam. So if the demarcation line between “good” mysticism and “bad” mysticism is the non-acceptance of Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity, then it is puzzling to me how we are to interpret these facts. Do these saints know Jesus, even if they don’t know it is Jesus per say?

 

[ragus93]

Demonic forces are the content of the energy Tolle transmits

Again, do you mean through the practical side of his teaching, or the theoretical one, or both? I’m not sure how being present in the moment, attempting to subdue the ego and the passions, and all the rest of it are “demonic”.

12 steps

Is there a reference to the 12 steps, out of curiosity?

 

[franklinstower]

These are good questions man.

I think with Tolle there is a real danger and it is in the transmission of the energies that he puts off. I cant see any problem with the actual practices you mentioned though.

Again with Tolle it is the combination of things that makes me question who he is (and some private revelation specific to him actually). On the level of what can be known without recourse to private mysticism it is specifically his endorsement of ACIM which I know to be demonic and redefines Christianity and claims to be Jesus talking, his denial of Christ and his claim to know more than the disciples that for me is an obvious massive red flag.

As far as the practices goes he also quotes scripture but makes the meaning into Zen. I am actually offended by this deeply.

I am less willing to discuss Islam because I don’t have any experience with it. I did study with a Sufi for a VERY SHORT period of time and I just don’t know enough about it, or have enough exposure to the results it produces.

Bottom line for me though is that if someone is truly sincere, no matter how wrong the theology is, God and Christ are with them in some way.

Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous | Hazelden Betty Ford

 

[ragus93]

Thanks for the detailed answers, I am greatly enjoying our conversation and find it very productive!

I think with Tolle there is a real danger and it is in the transmission of the energies that he puts off.

Not intending to be pedantic, but what exactly do you mean by the “energies that he puts off”?

Again with Tolle it is the combination of things that makes me question who he is (and some private revelation specific to him actually). On the level of what can be known without recourse to private mysticism it is specifically his endorsement of ACIM which I know to be demonic and redefines Christianity and claims to be Jesus talking, his denial of Christ and his claim to know more than the disciples that for me is an obvious massive red flag.

Okay, it seems we agree there!

As far as the practices goes he also quotes scripture but makes the meaning into Zen

What is your take on Thomas Merton then? He tended to move towards a Zen-like mysticism later in life before he died. I think, as we were discussing before, this is more to do with focusing on attention (ie, the practice of presence, as well as one’s own work) vs intention (reaching out for God’s grace).

Bottom line for me though is that if someone is truly sincere, no matter how wrong the theology is, God and Christ are with them in some way.

Right, this is a view I definitely share, and I’m glad to see that we agree on this. I quoted Kierkegaard earlier:

If one who lives in a Christian culture goes up to God’s house, the house of the true God, with a true conception of God, with knowledge of God and prays—but prays in a false spirit; and one who lives in a idolatrous land prays with the total passion of the infinite, although his eyes rest on the image of an idol; where is there most truth? The one prays in truth to God, although he worships an idol. The other prays in untruth to the true God and therefore really worships an idol

Thanks for sharing the 12 steps, those are definitely very interesting!

On the topic of mysticism and Christianity, I’m also wondering what your opinion is on two related topics:

1. How are we as Orthodox/Catholic to persuade some Protestants of the value of mysticism? Think along the lines of:
   • Who was Teresa of Avila? | GotQuestions.org
   or
   • What is Christian mysticism? | GotQuestions.org

These articles are quite negative in relation to the practice of mysticism/contemplation and also some prominent Saints of Catholicism/Orthodoxy. What would be the most effective way to critique this approach?

1. Given your experience with people coming from Eastern mysticism, how would you go about helping bring someone to Christ who IS interested in mysticism, but does not believe in a personal God?