Christianity is NOT a Mystical Religion

[franklinstower]

I see the 12 steps as a true innovation for the world. The steps were adapted from “The Oxford” group which had the 5 absolutes which were pulled from the teachings of Jesus as a direct means of overcoming “sin”. If you think deeply about each of the steps you can see that a good chunk of Christian theology is encapsulated in them in a very practical and solid manner.

I have meditated upon these steps for many years and think there is a certain genius in them.

I am not sure how to answer the energies question if you don’t already know what I mean. Do you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in church? Can you feel it differently church to church or priest to priest? Can you feel the presence of spiritual energies in a yoga studio or a new age book shop?

I am extremely sensitive to this aspect of spirituality. It is a form of discernment specific to mystics. In an article written by a Trappist monk near my home it was said that both mystics and non mystics can and do reach the same degree of love but that non mystics come up primarily by way of faith and mystics come up by way of their mystical encounters. Not all of these encounters are accurate or from God. If a mystic is successful in the spiritual journey it will be because they have developed a high degree of discernment of these experiences (but you could also say “spirits” or “energies” to use the Orthodox term).

Tolle puts off a certain energy or spirit rather. It is not the energy of the Christian Church , nor or Zen. It is the energy of the New Age movement and that is a demonic movement for certain.

The Course In MIracles is where Tolle received the “energy” that awakened him. I think Tolle’s awakening and message is congruent with demonic intent and I also do not think he is in the state or enlightenment that he claims to be in. That is just my opinion and not a fact though. i also do not see that state, even if it is what he says it is, as being what Jesus had and so I am not interested in it.

I personally shy away from Merton but for different reasons. He is a Christian who went to Zen out of interest and wrote about the similarities and differences of those two systems. I don’t see a demonic or nefarious angle to what he did. I shy away from him though because I want my spirituality to be completely under the influence of Christ alone and nothing else and so i don’t want a zen influence in it. I am interested in furthering and refining Christian spirituality. I also don’t see him as being particularly advanced on the spiritual life. HIs gift seems to be more one of the intellectual insight of a scholar who is also spiritual. It is very valuable to the Catholic Church.

 

[franklinstower]

On the topic of how to reach Christians that are not Catholic or Orthodox and help them see the value of contemplation.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this topic if you don’t mind? I am interested in reaching these people too but find it a difficult wall to mount. Would you mind sharing what you think about all of it? I do reach people like this but it’s always people who have already come to see a spiritual need that is not being filled by their present church and theology.

I will say a couple of things. Sola Scriptura is the main and fundamental doctrinal obstacle in my opinion. Anyone who thinks everything that is not in the Bible and stated explicitly in it is evil is in profound error. I don’t see any way to reach these people on lots of topics concerning Christianity.

The other thing I will say, and it applies to an article linked in this thread written by a Catholic in criticism of Thomas Keating is that you cant help someone to see something they do not want to see. So many of these criticisms by Christians of Catholic mysticism seem to me to be born of tribalism and jealousy.

Tribalism in that “my” church does not teach this and so there is an automatic defensiveness towards the outsiders teaching. Jealousy in that the Saints obviously have many degrees of spirituality that the average preacher does not have and that is a massive threat. Also if you read a lot of this kind of thing it becomes clear that the people often are not even trying to understand the Catholic position and very often intentionally misstate and frame the Catholic position in a way that seems contrary to biblical teaching.

I just have no respect whatsoever for this approach and I don’t think you can reason someone out of it since it is not reason that got them there in the first place.

Add to that the difficulty that contemplation brings into ones life. Transformation is messy and often painful. While it leads to a greater spirituality and deeper relationship with Christ the way to that is fraught with purification and disorders brought to the surface. No matter how long someone has been on a spiritual path, if they add serious prayer to it, and begin entering a contemplative state, they will have disorder arise again and often disorder they thought was healed.

That is a hard sell in my experience.

 

[ragus93]

I see the 12 steps as a true innovation for the world. The steps were adapted from “The Oxford” group which had the 5 absolutes which were pulled from the teachings of Jesus as a direct means of overcoming “sin”. If you think deeply about each of the steps you can see that a good chunk of Christian theology is encapsulated in them in a very practical and solid manner.

Yes, they are indeed fantastic. I never knew about them, but I guess the applicability of the 12 steps can be extended to pretty much any addiction or sin really.

The hardest thing about most sins and addictions is the inner resistance that we encounter to change. Part of us wants to get rid of the sin, but another part doesn’t. This is St. Augustine’s famous “God grant me chastity and continency, but not yet”.

By surrendering to God and recognizing our inability to change we recognize our own resistance to change. And God’s love which can be felt through prayer can melt this resistance away. I see this “resistance” as key to a lot of mental illness too. For example, sufferers of anxiety are clearly harmed by their anxiety, but part of them also enjoys it because they get to depend more on other people and avoid feeling responsible.

Do you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in church? Can you feel it differently church to church or priest to priest?

Yes, I do feel the Presence, but I cannot distinguish it as different from church to church. I find myself being “less aware” of it at certain moments though. Maybe you could say that that counts as it being different from church to church?

Can you feel the presence of spiritual energies in a yoga studio or a new age book shop?

I’ve not been to a yoga studio, nor to a new age book shop for that matter, so no. I have read Tolle’s The Power of Now though, and I did not feel a particular spiritual presence at all. Back many years ago when I first got introduced to Eastern meditation, chanting, and even hypnosis, I do remember burning incense and meditating trying to practice some form of self-hypnosis when I suddenly felt surrounded by a demonic presence - I experienced very intense anxiety that would not stop, and I felt terrified. I felt “something” that wanted to hurt me was watching. I stopped what I was doing and never did it again, and the feeling gradually lessened, but I suffered for years from anxiety after that.

it was said that both mystics and non mystics can and do reach the same degree of love but that non mystics come up primarily by way of faith and mystics come up by way of their mystical encounters.

An interesting point. But don’t mystical experiences also generate faith? What is your take on the relationship between faith and mysticism?

 

[ragus93]

Tolle puts off a certain energy or spirit rather.

I don’t doubt you, just that from my limited experience reading his book I did not feel it. My discernment is probably weaker than yours though.

I also don’t see him as being particularly advanced on the spiritual life.

Have you read his Seven Storey Mountain? His “sincerity” seems to me to have changed if you compare that with his later writings.

Would you mind sharing what you think about all of it?

Sure, I will do so by commenting on some (very good) points that you have made. I seem to have an easier time discussing matters with Protestants that with, say, Buddhists or those who don’t believe in a personal God.

 

[ragus93]

Sola Scriptura is the main and fundamental doctrinal obstacle in my opinion. Anyone who thinks everything that is not in the Bible and stated explicitly in it is evil is in profound error. I don’t see any way to reach these people on lots of topics concerning Christianity.

I agree with you. The first thing to note, I think, is that Scripture itself requires interpretation. That was, from the very beginning, the point of the church - to guide believers in the interpretation and understanding of Scripture for the benefit of all, and to guard this right understanding. Even if you were to read just the Bible, you would still interpret it according to your own idiosyncracies and cultural biases - without understanding the concepts of the Bible as the early Church fathers, or the Ancient Jews would have understood them, you will be lost.

The evidence for this is the thousand and one Protestant sects that exist. There are so many churches precisely because each one has a different cultural baggage and different individuality and hence each interprets the Scriptures as they wish. So when you remove a body like the Church, then meaning is always lost in the process, and Scripture itself becomes subjectivized to a large degree.

Furthermore, if you look at Ancient Judaism you will see that nobody relied just on the written Torah. You had the written Torah, and then you also had the oral Torah, which was passed by word of mouth from generation to generation, much like the Qu’ran was passed for Islam. In fact, if you look at passages from the New Testament, such as Matthew 23:3, you’ll see Jesus Himself referring to the Oral Torah as equal in importance to the Written Torah: “All therefore whatsoever they [the scribes and Pharisees] bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not according to their works: for they say, and do not.” Here Jesus is clearly referring to the oral Torah - the teachings of the religious establishment, and not the written Torah which was universally accepted by all sects of Judaism.

So as you see above, understanding Scripture requires understanding the context. And that simply CANNOT be done by relying just on Scripture itself and shutting your eyes and ears to everything else.

It usually takes time to explain and outline this argument, but I have found it to be very powerful. And of course, the most powerful thing as Psalm 34:8 teaches us is to “Taste and see that the LORD is good” - meaning you would take someone from vocal prayer to meditative prayer, to finally opening the soul towards God in contemplation so that they can see for themselves. They don’t even have to be told it is “contemplation”.

 

[ragus93]

Tribalism in that “my” church does not teach this and so there is an automatic defensiveness towards the outsiders teaching. Jealousy in that the Saints obviously have many degrees of spirituality that the average preacher does not have and that is a massive threat. Also if you read a lot of this kind of thing it becomes clear that the people often are not even trying to understand the Catholic position and very often intentionally misstate and frame the Catholic position in a way that seems contrary to biblical teaching.

I agree.

I just have no respect whatsoever for this approach and I don’t think you can reason someone out of it since it is not reason that got them there in the first place.

What do you think got them there in the first place?

That is a hard sell in my experience.

Yes - but also greater peace, inner strength, and faith in the Lord.

Now I’m curious what’s your take on this:

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?

I struggle a lot more when talking to these people I don’t see how you can get someone to accept a personal God without having some kind of mystical experience. How else can they have faith in a personal God?

To summarize my questions:

1. What is the relationship between faith and mysticism? Can one have faith without being a mystic at all (even a very basic one)?
2. (referring to people who are interested in mysticism (think Buddhism), but who don’t believe in a personal God) I don’t see how you can get someone to accept a personal God without having some kind of corresponding mystical experience. How else can they have faith in a personal God? (also, I will add that the difficulty in this case is compounded because these people usually don’t think evil exists, and so do not believe in the devil - this seems to make accepting a personal God even more difficult).

 

[silentwitness]

Because contemplative prayer is focused on blocking out the senses and intellect in order to be in touch with the “divine spark” inside as Meister Eckhart would call it. Essentially, you are blocking out the external world and going into yourself. This is the opposite of coming OUT of yourself and pouring love into the world, isn’t it?

I understand your basic comment and think you make some good points about the danger of turning away from God and towards yourself for the source of ‘salvation’. I guess it depends on how much recognition of God is present in one’s ‘contemplative prayer’.

Also perhaps some people turn to God in contemplative prayer as a sort of ‘resetting of oneself spiritually’ in order to act in the world.

Somewhat similarly, I have even heard of flotation tanks where people go in and are completely shut off from the outside world for about an hour before re-emerging. There is lots of relaxation and contemplation going on there with external stimulus being ‘shut off’. When those people emerge from the tanks they tend to engage with the world in a more active and enthusiastic manner. Perhaps in some ways it can be like that for contemplative prayer.

But I agree with you that God should ultimately be the focus, not only ourselves.

 

[franklinstower]

Ok man what a wonderful discussion. I appreciate all of the points you are making a great deal. Your approach to reaching protestants sounds good to me. I think I will try it in the future. The problem is that my mind is unable to recall specific scriptures in the moment of need and since many protestants can quote the scriptures verbatim I feel at a great disadvantage.

On your point about faith in the mystics vs faith in non mystics. Certainly faith is in both groups and rooted more deeply than mystical experience anyway. The point of this article was to show that the non mystics develop a greater faith and also I failed to mention, a greater inner strength from having come all that way with very little perceived sweetness from God.

Mystics still come in by way of faith as per John of the Cross “the only proximate means to God is faith” however a plethora of sweetness from God and other transforming encounters and experiences allows them a certain vision of it too. Since not all of these are true and accurate and since no one can tell for certain which is which faith is required anyway but over time these all come out in the wash and one is able to tell which were from God and which were not. I think it is this retrospective reflection that develops the sensitivity.

This monk also stated that the non mystics often are assigned difficult duties within the church that makes use of the greater inner strength and the mystics get assigned jobs that require a great deal of sensitivity and discernment.

Reaching someone who does not believe in God is not to hard for me as a proposition, so long as they are interested in meditation or eastern approaches too. This is because you can have them point out what it is like to be in a certain state and relate to that with them, and then add what seems missing from that state based upon what it is like for you to know a personal God.

This assumes the person wants to be talking about this with me as I am not interested in converting people (who might be more mature than me) otherwise.

I also think the Christian approach is a kind of a proof of a personal God. It’s the reason we don’t have so many techniques for our accent. I like to describe to people that this path could not work were it not for a personal God as we don’t have enough technique to pull it off.

 

[franklinstower]

^^^^^^^

I just tell them this straight out. "We still attain enlightenment, levitate, work miracles, (get our chakras open) have visions etc etc, but all of this happens without any of the technique you use to get at it". "And it unfolds better for us because it is under the direction of a loving God and unmerited grace."

Instead of relying on breathing techniques and visualizations and channeling energies into certain chakras etc-- we just give our whole system to God and God begins to do all of that in us by way of grace. I also always mention that we don’t have to quiet our minds-- that God quiets them for us by way of grace and that this path does not require good karma in order to do well with it.

I have found this to be compelling to some people.

The only other thing to add is to just simply share the experience of knowing and being loved by a personal God with them. That this subjective experience is possible.

 

[franklinstower]

accidental post

 

[ragus93]

I understand your basic comment and think you make some good points about the danger of turning away from God and towards yourself for the source of ‘salvation’. I guess it depends on how much recognition of God is present in one’s ‘contemplative prayer’.

Yes, I think if the practice isn’t God-centered then one risks practicing for the wrong reasons which could make the practice ineffective and even sinful.

 

[ragus93]

Ok man what a wonderful discussion.

Thanks, I find it the same

The problem is that my mind is unable to recall specific scriptures in the moment of need and since many protestants can quote the scriptures verbatim I feel at a great disadvantage.

For me personally, I have found out that going through those arguments in writing, as we do here, and then several times with different people goes a long way in helping you remember the specific Scriptures that you need. But definitely writing things down is the first step - it gives you clarity, and your mind will naturally remember it better if you have written it in addition to speaking it. The more senses you use to do something, the better you remember it, as a general rule.

Certainly faith is in both groups and rooted more deeply than mystical experience anyway.

What gives rise to faith though if not mystical experience?

To make this more clear… I understand that faith is a response to revelation, but then why have this response to Christian revelation and not, say, Islamic revelation? To me it seems that mystical experience is required, I don’t necessarily agree with the Thomistic interpretation that one can reach this through intellect alone.

and then add what seems missing from that state based upon what it is like for you to know a personal God.

The problem with this that I have found is that, as I said, some of these people do not believe in a personal God. So what happens when you share things like these with them is that they will see them through that prism. So they will basically interpret the experience you share with them in a different way, taking God out of the picture.

The way I see it, some degree of faith is required. So how can we go about to get people to open to this faith? Does faith require mystical experience of a certain kind to begin growing, does it require reason and argument, or what is the process of coming to believe in a personal God?

 

[ragus93]

@franklinstower

Pertinent to this thread and the current discussion is also this book, also by Vladimir Lossky, more specifically the first chapter “Faith and Theology”: Orthodox theology an introduction - профессор Владимир Николаевич Лосский

Lossky seems to agree with my intuition that faith is borne out of a direct “mystical” encounter with God. Here Lossky writes:

Outside of faith, theology has no sense: it can only be based on interior evidence of the truth in the Spirit, on the teaching of the truth by the truth itself. The regula fidei is the first actuation of this evidence. It is this interior evidence that is stressed by St. Augustine in his treatise on the biterior Master: I have spoken to all. However, those in whom anointing does not speak, those who are not taught inwardly by the Holy Spirit always departed indocti. “The flesh of Him Who teaches is found in the heavens: I speak of the Lord. . …” “Only the action of Christ in the heart allows the heart not to remain in solitude. Only the Interior Master teaches. Where His anointing is absent, external words assail the ears to no purpose.”

This means that quite possibly the distinction between mystic and non-mystic isn’t so clear cut at all…

 

[franklinstower]

The Orthodox Church places a heavier emphasis on mysticism than Catholicism. Also Losky has been criticized by theologians for pressing his point about mysticism far enough that he leaves orthodoxy. (He quotes the most mystical of the early fathers while leaving out those who were not so.) That is paraphrased from a biblical scholar that I was once in dialogue with.

I have no definite opinion on this topic though as i feel like God can and does work within and outside of what we know and can define.

 

[ragus93]

Okay I see! Thanks for your opinion on this.

I’m interested to read more about the relationship of faith and mysticism. Also interested to read about what would give rise to faith if not mystical experience of some sort (I would agree that you don’t need to “contemplate” or engage in contemplative prayer to have such an experience, but to me it still seems that some sort of mystical experience is necessary - it certainly was that way for me).

The point of this article was to show that the non mystics develop a greater faith and also I failed to mention, a greater inner strength from having come all that way with very little perceived sweetness from God.

How could I access this article? I think I’d find it fascinating to read!

 

[franklinstower]

I am going to see one of the monks right now and I will check to see if it still available. I don’t know how widespread it is. If I can get it I will mail you a copy.

 

[ragus93]

Oh that would be fantastic! Thank you very much, very much appreciate it!

God bless!

 

[Maximus1]

I am not sure if this post is directed towards Richard Rohr( he has one of the highest profiles of Catholic Contemplatives)
His facility is called Action and Contemplation. Which I think is consistent with the idea of NOT either/ or expressed by others.
I am no authority on what they do there but the title suggests action and contemplation are compatible. Their website suggests it is and they include a boast of radical compassion, which I imagine involves a lot of something that is good, but more important, interactive.
His CV identifies decades of service to men in prison, people with addiction and others.
He writes a bunch of books and travels extensively on a schedule like Bishop Barron.
It seems contemplative prayer need not be full time.
Thomas Merton was quite active considering he was a Trappist.
I have to tell you, mystics are fascinating. They give you a glimpse into the Divine mystery which is EXPERIENTIAL. What can be more interesting.
I am mindful that they represent the unfamiliar for we run of the mill Catholics, and that unfamiliarity gives off a vibe of not Orthodox.
It isn’t for everybody, and that’s OK. Personally, I love the diversity of Catholic Orthodoxy as one of our blessings. Whether it be a God gifted Poet and mystic writing about the Dark Night of the Soul, or Anchoress, like Julian of Norwich. Those of us who are not blessed with experiential encounter can at least read about it from those who are. Get a glimpse. But more importantly mystics give insight we would not have without them. Our tendency toward," single serving salvation" is clarified by mystics and a reality that we are the Body of Christ for example.

 

[franklinstower]

Unfortunately that publication is not available anymore. There are a few monks left here and none of them have any copies. I tried man.

 

[ragus93]

Alright no worries @franklinstower ! Appreciate the effort

Do you have any other reading suggestion where I can read about the differences between mystics and non-mystics and how faith is related to the difference? Thanks!