Comments on: Christian Mysticism of the Future

By: Al Jordan

Al Jordan — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:04:35 +0000

Carl. I am a recent discoverer of your web-site. What a delight. I concur with your seven ways Christian mysticism will evolve in the future. I very much look forward to the publication of your book (hopefully) in 2010.

My particular interest in Christian mysticism has to do with the praxis or the working out of inner transformation into the everyday world. The fruits of contemplation and mystical transformation need to become more normative within conventional religious experience and less esoteric. From what you have outlined, I think you are attempting to address this.

Also, on the Trinitarian aspect of Christian mystical experience, I have my own understanding of that which perhaps may be a little too revisionist; but I think of the Father as Source and uncreated ground of being, Pure Light and ultimately mystery; the Son is God expressed in creation and particularly as the Divine within Man and uniquely as the Christ (i.e. the Christ within – theosis); the Spirit, in addition to being Comforter is also the creative agency of God bringing all into manifestation. Just for what it’s worth.

I also think much of our terminology for talking about God and spirituality will change to include new and old concepts such as theosis, kenosis, divinization, metaphoric meaning, etc., and that this will become incorporative in conventional religious experience.

By: Matt Stone

Matt Stone — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:46:32 +0000

Mike. Simple answer. Avoid trigger words when you’re around people who react to trigger words. I find “listening prayer” can serve as a useful substitute for “meditation” and “Christian spirituality” or “spiritual theology” may serve as useful substitutes for “mysticism”. Usage depends on the context.

I find most people who react to trigger words have very little understanding of the concepts the words refer to. They only know the surface, not the substance. They have a Pavlovian response to superficial markers. If you avoid the markers and go straight to the substance you can often subvert the cultural conditioning and have a much better conversation. Incarnating back into the church is what I call it.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:15:49 +0000

Thank you Carl. I am big fans of both McLaren and Wright. I look forward to reading more from you.

By: Carl McColman

Carl McColman — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:47:10 +0000

Thanks, Mike. I’m sorry the words are scary! I think for Christians who have a certain methodology for reading scripture, those words will probably always be scary, and until or unless they are willing to re-think the entire foundation of their theology, there’s probably not a lot I can say to take away the scariness. For those who understand that the Bible is a historical document, embedded in history (and that history inevitably shapes how we read the text), I believe they will find the history of mysticism, as well as the history of the conversation between faith and science (‘evolutionary’) or the conversation between Christianity and other faiths (‘interreligious’) to be powerful tools that can help deepen our reading of the text — rather than undermining that reading. But again, it all goes back to our basic theological perspective. Do we see Christ’s immersion into history to be a blessing? If so, then approaching the text historically makes sense.

I think the writings of N.T. Wright and Brian McLaren can be really helpful here.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:20:41 +0000

Carl, The initial statements will scare the crap out of most Christians. They made me nervous until I read your post. How do we overcome scary words like “mysticism” and “evolutionary” and “interreligious”? Most Christians I know will cut me off quick.

By: DaCosta

DaCosta — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:53:56 +0000

Whoa! God bless you Carl! Thanks for sharing that with us and I’m looking forward to that day! God bless.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:12:27 +0000

Sorry, I must have hit a wrong key. I was trying to revise “God’s merciful love for us enables” and type instead: Remaining in the powerful flow of merciful love transforms all of our relationhips and the way we view the world. We become increasingly aware that our actions are a participation in that ever flowing torrent of God’s love. Through grace God enables us to participate in divine agape love. We just have to say “yes” at each moment to that love.

I’m not sure that I agree that mystics will be on the front lines of social justice issues or ecology or any particular issue. We are to be Christ’s presence on earth, but there are many different paths where we may be led. In particular, I see prayer as more powerful than action alone. Actually, prayer is a potent form of action, hence the contemplative life. The Jesuit spirituality of “contemplation in action” is one model that I think works. Action that is not based on a life of prayer or discernment of God’s will cannot be as fruitful and can be harmful if filled with anger rather than love. In fact, a person may be a great social activist, but if that person is not in loving relationships with those closest to him or her, then that person is truly “missing the mark.” Our primary duty is to God, family, and friends. When those relationships are in harmony and balance and filled with love, then the person can add social activism as discerned as God’s will. I have known people whose activism was to the detriment of their personal lives. It can be easier to love the stranger than the spoouse. It can be, but doesn’t have to be, an escape from the demands of family life.

For me the bottom line is to be faithful to God’s unique loving call to each of us and that requires ongoing discernment, preferably with a spiritual director who is more objective than we are with ourselves.

By: Nancy

Nancy — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:39:10 +0000

Carl,
Of the interesting 7 characteristics that you describe, I was particularly happy to see the relational aspect of trinitarian mysticism and Julian’s quote “Fullness of joy is to behold God in all.” In my experiences of God, the foundation that was first laid down was God’s eternal and personal love for me, but that love was the same as for each person ever created. As Abbot Francis Michael would say, God can only love 100% so one person can’t receive less or more of God’s love. From there, God takes the mystic where that person needs to go, which is probably a somewhat different path for each of us due to our unique histories. Since mystical experiences of God are gifts, we cannot control the what, where, or when of these experiences. The mystic enters the powerful flow of love within the Trinity and that loving presence within creation. God is as present to me while I sit at computer, participate at Mass, hold my granddaughter in my arms, or look with awe at the wondrous beauty of creation. When we sin (“miss the mark”), we are stopping the flow of love like a boulder in a river diverts water around it. The mystic is especially aware of his or her imperfections which can help when the shortcomings of others is evident. God’s merciful love for us enables We come to appreciate God’s presence within each person and

By: DFish

DFish — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:55:37 +0000

You’re one of my favorite stops. But only did I take the time to read this post. Currently, I’m reading The Monks of Tibhirine and Kenneth Leech’s Soul Friend. There’s a lot of monastic in these 2 books so that the paradigm of the “flight of the alone to the alone” still pervades my consciousness. With your forecast, there’s obviously some “shaking of the contemplative foundations,” especially when you emphasized the communitarian and relational nature of the Trinity. This emphasis seem to be really in keeping with what’s on going on in the scientific community. Even the tendentiously atheistic evolutionary biologists like Elizabeth Sahtouri are admitting that co-operation from the cellular level up is how the universe operates and is going currently. Facebook and other social networks are some manifestations of this restless, growing need to connect. I also like how you count in postmodernism as a philosophical contribution to this emerging type of contemplative spirituality. Most often, postmodernism is bashed as anti-spirituality with its lack of a center that holds. But you’re saying: “wait, all of us bloggers, facebook owners, YouTube posters, book writers – we are actually benefiting from postmodernism in the way we bring out personal stories into the public arena so that sharing of stories have been made possible so far.”
But as other commenters have pointed out – there’s a lot of spiritual stuff from the forecast that we are still left with so many questions on the structural face, for example, of particular churches.
Sacramental as your 7 forecasts are, i simultaneously wish with you that the metaphorical nature of all churches could be held in healthy tension with their juridical boundaries. How? I don’t know.
Thanks for this great post!

By: More on the Future of Mysticism « The Website of Unknowing

More on the Future of Mysticism « The Website of Unknowing — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:37:46 +0000

[...] on the Future of Mysticism Michael Morrell calls my recent post on the future of mysticism “the most important spirituality post I’ve encountered thus far in 2009.” Wow, [...]