Theology vs. Gnosis according to Diadochus of Photike?

[TimothyH]

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, this post is not about the heresy Gnosticism. By “Gnosis” is meant the Greek word for “Knowledge”.

I’m having difficulty grasping the concepts of “Theology” and “Gnosis”, or “Theologian” and “Gnostic”, according to Diadochus of Photike in his work titled “Dicourse on Judgement and Spiritual Discernment” (also titled “One Hundred Gnostic Chapters”) and am hoping to get an assist here from anyone who may have studied his work.

Take for example the following passage…

72. The theologian who is satisfied and set aflame by the very words of God, sets his soul, after many vicissitudes, onto the wide open path of impassibility. For it is written, “the words of God are chase, silver tested in fire and purified of every stain”. The gnostic, in his turn, fortified by his experience, rises above passions. The theologian, if he remains humble, tastes the gnostics’s experience. The gnostic, if he leans his part of infallible discernment of spirits, acquires a little contemplative virtue. The two gifts do not concur entirely in the same person…

This type of writing is very new to me, and I’m wondering if it is because I have simply not been exposed to eastern spirituality. But my immediate concern is grasping the difference between what the author means by “Theologian” and “Gnostic.” I believe that I have a basic understanding of the author’s idea of gnosis, or knowledge of God gained through the experience of God in prayer and other intimate contact, what the translator’s notes calls “Lived theology”, as explained in the following passage…

This type of experience, to which Diadocuhs refers can be achieved through prayer and intimate contact with the divine Beloved. Such experinces fill the soul with light that the world can never offer. Such experiences occure in the sense and result in knowledge.

But then chapter 72, which is partially quoted above, and a few other passages confused me. What is meant by “Theologian” vs “Gnostic”? It is almost as if the author uses some terms familiar to me as a twenty-first century Roman Catholic in a manner opposite to what I am used to, but that may be something I have to work through.

So if anyone can shed some light on the terms Gnostic and Theologian as used by the author, I would be most appreciative. If not, I’ll read on, pray about it, put it down, and know that I will understand some day if it is God’s will.

-Tim-

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

Take for example the following passage…

72. The theologian who is satisfied and set aflame by the very words of God, sets his soul, after many vicissitudes, onto the wide open path of impassibility. For it is written, “the words of God are chase, silver tested in fire and purified of every stain”. The gnostic, in his turn, fortified by his experience, rises above passions. The theologian, if he remains humble, tastes the gnostics’s experience. The gnostic, if he leans his part of infallible discernment of spirits, acquires a little contemplative virtue. The two gifts do not concur entirely in the same person…

I suspect key clues are found in the words “impassibility” and “experience” in the passage above. The Theologian is “set aflame” by the Words of God found in the Bible, but can only get so far with that. He lacks direct “experience” of God. Direct “experience” of God is not gotten through reading and studying the Bible, but through a set of techniques, methods and so on (special prayers, meditations, study of certain extra-Biblical texts, etc.) that only the Gnostic employs.

This same dichotomy is also found, I believe in Judaism, between the rabbi who studies conventional Torah and the rabbi who also studies Kabbalah/Cabala (a form of Jewish gnosticism, according to a Catholic encyclopedia I have consulted).

As you know, the Eastern Church was more influenced by Plato and Platonic thought than the West (Augustine being a possible exception, I suppose). I’ve heard that is the origin of the emphasis on “gnosis.” And though there is a form of gnosis that was found to be heretical, the different between the orthodox gnosis and heretical gnosis is not as great as many people suppose. Plato also influenced Judaism, and helped form Jewish Kabbalah, though the Kabbalists say it the Kabbalists who taught Plato (which is possible).

Western saints such as Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross had a spirituality that was really quite similar to the Gnostic ways of the Eastern Church and the Gnosticism that was ultimately condemned. Even St. Paul in the New Testament writes a lot like the condemned Gnostics at times. There are web sites that show the quotes from St. Paul that really sound very much like Gnosticism, even though they don’t claim that St. Paul actually held the body of views that the later condemned Gnostics held. Even the writings of Blessed John Paul II, who write a doctoral dissertation on St. John of the Cross, show traces of certain “gnostic” ideas, in the opinion of some. You’ve probably heard how some say that John Paul II was a bit of “mystic.”

Hope that was of some value to you. If so, or if not, I’d be interested in reading your comment in this thread.

Also, why are you studying this material? Just curious.

 

[fhansen]

I suspect key clues are found in the words “impassibility” and “experience” in the passage above. The Theologian is “set aflame” by the Words of God found in the Bible, but can only get so far with that. He lacks direct “experience” of God. Direct “experience” of God is not gotten through reading and studying the Bible, but through a set of techniques, methods and so on (special prayers, meditations, study of certain extra-Biblical texts, etc.) that only the Gnostic employs.

This same dichotomy is also found, I believe in Judaism, between the rabbi who studies conventional Torah and the rabbi who also studies Kabbalah/Cabala (a form of Jewish gnosticism, according to a Catholic encyclopedia I have consulted).

As you know, the Eastern Church was more influenced by Plato and Platonic thought than the West (Augustine being a possible exception, I suppose). I’ve heard that is the origin of the emphasis on “gnosis.” And though there is a form of gnosis that was found to be heretical, the different between the orthodox gnosis and heretical gnosis is not as great as many people suppose. Plato also influenced Judaism, and helped form Jewish Kabbalah, though the Kabbalists say it the Kabbalists who taught Plato (which is possible).

Western saints such as Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross had a spirituality that was really quite similar to the Gnostic ways of the Eastern Church and the Gnosticism that was ultimately condemned. Even St. Paul in the New Testament writes a lot like the condemned Gnostics at times. There are web sites that show the quotes from St. Paul that really sound very much like Gnosticism, even though they don’t claim that St. Paul actually held the body of views that the later condemned Gnostics held. Even the writings of Blessed John Paul II, who write a doctoral dissertation on St. John of the Cross, show traces of certain “gnostic” ideas, in the opinion of some. You’ve probably heard how some say that John Paul II was a bit of “mystic.”

Hope that was of some value to you. If so, or if not, I’d be interested in reading your comment in this thread.

Also, why are you studying this material? Just curious.

I believe the Eastern Church was, ironically perhaps, much less influenced by the Greek philosophers than the west. In any case the gnosticism that Diadocuhs refers to has much in common with western mysticism and nothing at all to do with the heretical gnosticism which claimed esoteric knowledge. Teresa of Avila combined the theologian and the mystic better than most, IMO, having authentic direct experience of God which confirmed Church teachings, teachings she continuously sought to grasp better. She was later to be named a Doctor of the Church because of her own great understanding of and teachings on the faith.

 

[TimothyH]

Also, why are you studying this material? Just curious.

Helpful, yes, but I will have to go over what you wrote in more detail at a later time. The response is appreciated more than you know.

I was at a Cistercian monastary some time ago, and asked the novice director, a very spiritual man, about ascetic practices in relation to a particular author, and the monk reacted very strongly, almost rebuking me. He said that one could fast and do all of these ascetic practices of self denial if one wanted but that “Moving from the image of God to the likeness of God is a process of subtraction.” That last comment, for some reason, and a few other words he said, have been rattling around inside my head for a year and a half.

In the interim, I’ve come across some quotes from Diadochus of Photike here and there, including some which reference image and likeness as was mentioned by the monk. I looked up Diadochus’ work and found a book containing all of his works on a website specializing on Cistercian and Benedictine monastic spirituality. Supposing the obvious link between what the monk was telling me and what was written by Diadochus, I went ahead and purchased the book.

The book is aptly titled, “Following the Footsteps of the Invisible.” I’m thinking that the Holy Spirit is leading me somewhere but have no clue where.

Hope that makes sense! Thanks again.

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I believe the Eastern Church was, ironically perhaps, much less influenced by the Greek philosophers than the west. In any case the gnosticism that Diadocuhs refers to has much in common with western mysticism and nothing at all to do with the heretical gnosticism which claimed esoteric knowledge. Teresa of Avila combined the theologian and the mystic better than most, IMO, having authentic direct experience of God which confirmed Church teachings, teachings she continuously sought to grasp better. She was later to be named a Doctor of the Church because of her own great understanding of and teachings on the faith.

This makes a lot of sense.

Is it safe to say, in answer to my original question, that “Mystic” may be used synonymously with “Gnostic”, at least at my level of understanding and for this particular study?

That would make a whole lot of sense based on what I am reading and would clear up some of my struggle.

-Tim-

 

[fhansen]

This makes a lot of sense.

Is it safe to say, in answer to my original question, that “Mystic” may be used synonymously with “Gnostic”, at least at my level of understanding and for this particular study?

That would make a whole lot of sense based on what I am reading and would clear up some of my struggle.

-Tim-

Just recently (today) I was reading about the Eastern concept of image and likeness in a book by Timothy Ware. According to him, ‘image’ indicates rationality and freedom, attributes we share in common with God and which separate us from the animal creation and makes us a person, ,which gives us kinship with God, while ‘likeness’ indicates ‘assimilation to God through virtue’. This speaks of the potential in us for deification/ divinization/theosis, the ability to become gods -without being God, of course-which is said to be God’s plan for man.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

The quote in the original post is fascinating to me, as it shows, I think, that there are forms of Gnosticism that are condemned by the Catholic Church, but also other forms of Gnostic practice and experience that are acceptable to the Catholic Church.

The quote in the original post clearly shows an orthodox writer using the term “Gnostic” in a way that is not heretical, yet which still does mean what it means: hidden dimensions of knowledge obtained via experience.

Recall St. Paul’s reference to a man who ascend up to the seventh heaven (presumably humbly referring to himself). (2 Corinthians 12:2-4) Many would describe that as a Gnostic experience. Did Paul really go to Heaven? Did his soul ascend to Heaven?

Reading the writings of St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and St. John Climacus, (author of The Ladder of Divine Ascent) sure shows saints getting special secret knowledge of things. Then there are the writings of the life of Jesus by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. She provided secret knowledge that other sources don’t have, and apparently got that knowledge while in prayer.

Things are sometimes not so simple as we often hear from certain apologists who are are aiming to accomplish the good task of warning the Faithful away from what is bad. Yet, in doing so, they perhaps also scare people away from a few things that aren’t really bad at all, but can be quite helpful.

To me this is all fascinating.

To me, mysticism should be more of the norm even in the life of lay Catholics. It is regarded as something eccentric and exceptional. Yet, when reading the Bible, it is quite the norm in the lives of Moses, Jesus, David, Ezekiel, Paul and others, and in lives of the saints, it the norm, I would say. Think of St. Francis of Assisi. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, that arch-rationalist, had a mystical experience near the end of his life and renounced all this philosophy as mere “straw.” We modern Catholics have become TOO rational, too intellectual, too much into the Olympic Games like intellectual battle of apologetics. We seem to think souls can be saved by the kind of arguing that lawyers do in court, or that professors do in their colloquies.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

I found the following on the Wikipedia article about saint in question, Saint Diadochos of Photik. It seems to add to this discussion, so here it is:

Sometimes, this work has been referred to as the Gnostic Chapters; however, this can be misleading, as “Gnostic” in this case refers to theoria (the knowledge of God) and has nothing to do with Gnosticism, which is considered a heresy by Orthodox Christians.

Quote from Chapters 11 & 12:

*Spiritual discourse always keeps the soul free from self-esteem, for it gives every part of the soul a sense of light, so that it no longer needs the praise of men. In the same way, such discourse keeps the mind free from fantasy, infusing it completely with the Love of God. Discourse deriving from the wisdom of this world, on the other hand, always provokes self-esteem; because it is incapable of granting us the experience of spiritual perception, it inspires its practitioners with a longing for praise, it being nothing but the fabrication of conceited men. It follows, therefore, that we can know with certainty when we are in the proper state to speak about God if during the hours when we do not speak we maintain a fervent remembrance of God in untroubled silence.

Whoever loves himself cannot love God; but if, because of ‘the overflowing richness’ of God’s love, a man does not love himself, then he truly loves God (Ephes. 2,7). Such a man never seeks his own glory, but seeks the glory of God. The man who loves himself seeks his own glory, whereas he who loves God loves the glory of his Creator. It is characteristic of the soul which consciously senses the Love of God always to seek God’s glory in every Commandment it performs and to be happy in its low estate. For glory befits God because of His majesty, while lowliness befits man because it unites us with God. If we realize this, rejoicing in the glory of the Lord, we too, like Saint John the Baptist, will begin to say unceasingly, ‘He must increase, but we must decrease.’*

An English translation of this work can be found in Vol. I of The Philokalia: The Complete Text.[1]

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diadochos_of_Photiki

 

[TimothyH]

The quote in the original post is fascinating to me, as it shows, I think, that there are forms of Gnosticism that are condemned by the Catholic Church, but also other forms of Gnostic practice and experience that are acceptable to the Catholic Church.

The quote in the original post clearly shows an orthodox writer using the term “Gnostic” in a way that is not heretical, yet which still does mean what it means: hidden dimensions of knowledge obtained via experience.

Recall St. Paul’s reference to a man who ascend up to the seventh heaven (presumably humbly referring to himself). (2 Corinthians 12:2-4) Many would describe that as a Gnostic experience. Did Paul really go to Heaven? Did his soul ascend to Heaven?

Reading the writings of St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, and St. John Climacus, (author of The Ladder of Divine Ascent) sure shows saints getting special secret knowledge of things. Then there are the writings of the life of Jesus by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. She provided secret knowledge that other sources don’t have, and apparently got that knowledge while in prayer.

Things are sometimes not so simple as we often hear from certain apologists who are are aiming to accomplish the good task of warning the Faithful away from what is bad. Yet, in doing so, they perhaps also scare people away from a few things that aren’t really bad at all, but can be quite helpful.

To me this is all fascinating.

To me, mysticism should be more of the norm even in the life of lay Catholics. It is regarded as something eccentric and exceptional. Yet, when reading the Bible, it is quite the norm in the lives of Moses, Jesus, David, Ezekiel, Paul and others, and in lives of the saints, it the norm, I would say. Think of St. Francis of Assisi. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, that arch-rationalist, had a mystical experience near the end of his life and renounced all this philosophy as mere “straw.” We modern Catholics have become TOO rational, too intellectual, too much into the Olympic Games like intellectual battle of apologetics. We seem to think souls can be saved by the kind of arguing that lawyers do in court, or that professors do in their colloquies.
.

You could have written the book description on the back of the book, perhapse.

***Fifth-centry Christianty was a theological battlefield. With the Messalian heretics and their experientialist spiritually on the one side and the intellectualist school on the other, represantatives of both extremes found themselves condmned by the Church. In this mileau of subjective notions of grace and negative anthropology, there appeard a true mystic, Diadocusus, Bishop of Photiike in Epiros. … Diadochus’s ability to salvage what was orthodocx from the Messalians and the intellectualists proves that, rather than a reactionary, he was a true theologian capable of synthesis, open to the truth even if found in his adversary, and yet firm in his faith, unwilling to compromise. ***

I like your post very much and agree. When regular Christians speak of mysical experiences, they are looked at like they are whacky, that they are not rational and a bit insane. If I take one thing away from this book, the idea of knowledge of God through direct experience - call it prayer, contemplation, meditation, mysticism, or whatever you will - that it is not at odds with rational people, that will make the price of the book worth it I think.

I want to thank everyone for their posts. You have all helped me in some way. Thank you.

PAX

-Tim-

-Tim-

 

[fhansen]

You could have written the book description on the back of the book, perhapse.

***Fifth-centry Christianty was a theological battlefield. With the Messalian heretics and their experientialist spiritually on the one side and the intellectualist school on the other, represantatives of both extremes found themselves condmned by the Church. In this mileau of subjective notions of grace and negative anthropology, there appeard a true mystic, Diadocusus, Bishop of Photiike in Epiros. … Diadochus’s ability to salvage what was orthodocx from the Messalians and the intellectualists proves that, rather than a reactionary, he was a true theologian capable of synthesis, open to the truth even if found in his adversary, and yet firm in his faith, unwilling to compromise. ***

-Tim-

One thing that should probably be noted is that in Catholicism mysticism is a type of private revelation, a way God reveals Himself and gives immediate knowledge to an individual. Heretical gnosticism involved a worldview or system of beliefs that adherents believed gave them a deeper insight into things-it wasn’t direct, intuitive theoria. Now private revelation can never contradict doctrines of the Church and I never heard of any contemplative, etc whose experiences did so. They also cannot add to the “public revelation” that the church received once for all in full form 2000 years ago. Rather, if authentic, they help clarify and confirm Church teachings, perhaps giving further insight into them at most. And they help encourage the receiver of these experiences as well as the rest of us who hear them, building faith. In some cases they may have very specific purposes, but the end reason for them is always the advancement of the Kingdom of God in some way.

 

[Bartolome_Casas]

One thing that should probably be noted is that in Catholicism mysticism is a type of private revelation, a way God reveals Himself and gives immediate knowledge to an individual. Heretical gnosticism involved a worldview or system of beliefs that adherents believed gave them a deeper insight into things-it wasn’t direct, intuitive theoria. Now private revelation can never contradict doctrines of the Church and I never heard of any contemplative, etc whose experiences did so. They also cannot add to the “public revelation” that the church received once for all in full form 2000 years ago. Rather, if authentic, they help clarify and confirm Church teachings, perhaps giving further insight into them at most. And they help encourage the receiver of these experiences as well as the rest of us who hear them, building faith. In some cases they may have very specific purposes, but the end reason for them is always the advancement of the Kingdom of God in some way.

I think the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mystics say this KEY thing to us:

You can’t KNOW God second hand.

Or, it is not enough to know God second hand.

Or, it is not best to know God second hand.

Or, we should strive to have more than a rational intellectual system of religion in our head. Why?

Because GOD IS A PERSON !!!

Our current pope is no dummy. He knew what he was doing when he wrote his first encyclical as pope to the whole church.

Read this from the very beginning of that encyclical:

*“We have come to believe in God’s love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person…”
*vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

See? See what he’s doing there! See what error he is trying to correct?

In other words, it is not best or sufficient to know God based on reading descriptions about God or hearing descriptions about God.

The mystics attest that it IS POSSIBLE for ALL of us (or at least many of us or more of us) to know God and Jesus JUST AS DIRECTLY as the Apostle Paul did when he ascended up into the Third Heaven, or just as direct as the St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.

Imagine a person who never met his earthly human father or mother, but only had written descriptions him or her. Compare that to actually meeting and knowing him or her. That’s the difference. The mystics say to us: It is not so far fetched! You can know and FEEL and experience God directly. YOU CAN!

Near the end of his life, the arch-rationalist St. Thomas Aquinas, while in prayer in a church, did have a mystical experience in which he feel and saw and knew God DIRECTLY. After that, he refused to work any more on his famous work The Summa. It is unfinished to this day. His Dominican brothers urged him to work on it, but he said that after what he’d seen in his mystical experience, he regarded his writing as mere STRAW. Straw! Worthless.

God means us all to be mystics, in own way, to some degree. It is not God’s intention that we be scholars, amateur scholars, scholar hobbyists, etc. God doesn’t need scholars. God doesn’t need debaters. God needs saints. God needs lovers of God. God wants us to EXPERIENCE Him, to REALLY know Him, and not remain so aloof.

Yet, today, rationalism, in the classic sense of ancient Rome and Greece is all the rage. People seem to think that Socrates and the Sophists show the way to save American and save the world (from Liberalism, Atheism, Socialism, Globalism, etc.).

But Rationalism and Classicism are cold things, and the leave most people cold. Yes, some people are fascinated by the “architecture” of high intellectualism and rationalism. But they are a minority, and, they don’t seem moved by Divine LOVE of God and man, but mostly moved by a strong desire for ORDER, and SYSTEMS, STABILITY and TRADITION.

It’s all in the Gospels. The Gospels, the firmest foundation of our Faith, are full of mysticism. They are like a textbook of mysticism. The Church is always telling us to read the Gospels. There is nothing akin to Greco-Roman style arguing, debating, or philosophy in the Gospels. Jesus spoke mystical parables, and uttered prophecies, and did healings, and taught mystical things that require years of contemplation. “Blessed are the meek.” Who can understand that? Who can survive in the real world if he is meek? It is unfathomable, except to the mystic who has EXPERIENCED God for himself.

 

[fhansen]

I think the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox mystics say this KEY thing to us:

You can’t KNOW God second hand.

Or, it is not enough to know God second hand.

Or, it is not best to know God second hand.

Or, we should strive to have more than a rational intellectual system of religion in our head. Why?

Because GOD IS A PERSON !!!

Our current pope is no dummy. He knew what he was doing when he wrote his first encyclical as pope to the whole church.

Read this from the very beginning of that encyclical:

"We have come to believe in God’s love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person…"
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

See? See what he’s doing there! See what error he is trying to correct?

In other words, it is not best or sufficient to know God based on reading descriptions about God or hearing descriptions about God.

The mystics attest that it IS POSSIBLE for ALL of us (or at least many of us or more of us) to know God and Jesus JUST AS DIRECTLY as the Apostle Paul did when he ascended up into the Third Heaven, or just as direct as the St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross.

Imagine a person who never met his earthly human father or mother, but only had written descriptions him or her. Compare that to actually meeting and knowing him or her. That’s the difference. The mystics say to us: It is not so far fetched! You can know and FEEL and experience God directly. YOU CAN!

Near the end of his life, the arch-rationalist St. Thomas Aquinas, while in prayer in a church, did have a mystical experience in which he feel and saw and knew God DIRECTLY. After that, he refused to work any more on his famous work The Summa. It is unfinished to this day. His Dominican brothers urged him to work on it, but he said that after what he’d seen in his mystical experience, he regarded his writing as mere STRAW. Straw! Worthless.

God means us all to be mystics, in own way, to some degree. It is not God’s intention that we be scholars, amateur scholars, scholar hobbyists, etc. God doesn’t need scholars. God doesn’t need debaters. God needs saints. God needs lovers of God. God wants us to EXPERIENCE Him, to REALLY know Him, and not remain so aloof.

Yet, today, rationalism, in the classic sense of ancient Rome and Greece is all the rage. People seem to think that Socrates and the Sophists show the way to save American and save the world (from Liberalism, Atheism, Socialism, Globalism, etc.).

But Rationalism and Classicism are cold things, and the leave most people cold. Yes, some people are fascinated by the “architecture” of high intellectualism and rationalism. But they are a minority, and, they don’t seem moved by Divine LOVE of God and man, but mostly moved by a strong desire for ORDER, and SYSTEMS, STABILITY and TRADITION.

It’s all in the Gospels. The Gospels, the firmest foundation of our Faith, are full of mysticism. They are like a textbook of mysticism. The Church is always telling us to read the Gospels. There is nothing akin to Greco-Roman style arguing, debating, or philosophy in the Gospels. Jesus spoke mystical parables, and uttered prophecies, and did healings, and taught mystical things that require years of contemplation. “Blessed are the meek.” Who can understand that? Who can survive in the real world if he is meek? It is unfathomable, except to the mystic who has EXPERIENCED God for himself.

I think we benefit both ways-from the dogmatists and rational theologians as well as from the mystics. Yes, God is ultimately a direct experience-like you or me in that sense-but a whole lot more, of course-and that experience is what our faith aims us towards, whether we know it or not. The Beatific Vision is the final such goal, where we’'ll contemplate or “see” God “face to face”. But until then, while we can seek such experience, it’s up to Him to grant it or not.

 

[fhansen]

BTW, I tend to think our Pope has had such a personal contact with God, going by some of the insights and things he’s mentioned in some of his writings, although he’s never come out and admitted such in so many words as far as I know. Such experiences are not always proper to speak about, I suppose, but can give the person a confidence and greater depth of understanding to speak from.

 

[TimothyH]

So how much does the written word of God contriute to not only our understanding (theology) of God, but our intimate knowledge (gnosis) of God and personal contact with God?

My own conversion to God came to a climax through reading scripture. God was calling me for some time, and God came to me and revealed himself to me through scripture in a very powerful way.

Or are they mutually exclusive, mysticism and theology? Lectio comes to mind.

-Tim-