As you mention “real knowledge”, I think you may be confusing mystical experience with the deficient form of gnosticism discussed earlier, in which gnosis becomes an end unto itself. In the comment thread of that post, Carl noted the “interesting question of how both creative and destructive energies can co-exist within the same community or tradition”. These Jean Gebser called efficient and deficient modes of consciousness, which I personally believe co-exist in every discipline in existence, which is why if I had to produce a label for my own philosophical inclinations (and I frequently have lately), it would be “eclectic”.

I read your comments regarding your prayer life and am unsure if you realize that the more ecstatic states of being you describe might be construed as mystical, especially if the “ebb and flow, waxing and waning” feels like being immersed in an ocean of Love.

Mysticism has less to do with knowledge, imho, than it does with depth of feeling and meaningful relationships. As RW Emerson put it, “It is not length of life, but depth of life.”

Our problem in the church is not a lack of contemplative spirituality….

In one sense, I agree with you on this point. In another, I disagree. The problem with “the church”, as I see it, is over-mentation: over-thinking, over-standing, over-in-form-ation, all of which could only result in uni-formity (as opposed to unanimity), spirituality-by-rote, and faith in a can, if left to its autonomic devices. Now that you mention it, though, it occurs to me that this may well be the result of losing touch with the true meaning of “contemplation” itself. It seems to be widely understood as synonymous with “mentation”, but contemplation and mentation are not the same thing.

Contemplation, imo, is quiet-minded meditation wherein we exercise the intuitive perception we were born with — listening attentively, “seeing” with the mind’s eye, feeling with the heart of hearts and patiently awaiting revelation. You think this is opposed to something else. Would it surprise you to learn that I agree? It is opposed to something else. It is a counter-balance to our “ordinary” senses, those “lovely liars, with such a fantastic tale to tell that you believe it without question” in Seth’s words; the physical senses that lull us into the illusion that what we see, hear and feel with our physical eyes, ears and nerve endings is all there is.

I find it unfortunate that “opposition” is nearly always thought of in terms of bi-polar extremes: “contradictory”, “mutually exclusive”, “antagonistic”, etc. All opposites are complementary … until we think them otherwise.

As a religion, Christianity requires….

…

I will never accept the Trinity or vicarious atonement or the resurrection

Interesting to note, though, these concepts not only have their parallels in many cultures, but don’t mean what people think or expect it to mean to all Christians, either.

“Trinity” is roughly equivalent to the “Dantian” of Eastern disciplines. (Father=Mind; Son=Heart; Holy Spirit=Vital Energy.) The Dantian is further mapped to energy centers in the body as in the Yogic tradition, whereas the Trinity is still primarily conceptual in Christian denominations that I’ve found.

Resurrection or being ‘raised from the dead’ means to rise from a state of ignorance and/or suffering much as Jim has described it, though I’m not sure it entails all that much work. We’re not only already en-lightened, we’re already in heaven and heaven in us, but fail to realize it much of the time for our ignorance of the fact. (All gifts of the Spirit are free.)

Vicarious atonement is a wee bit more problematic. While I don’t agree with everything Ms. Kingford has to say in this article on the subject, I do agree “they were not forgiven because Christ died; they were changed because he loved” and so are we.

I’d have to echo Richard Rohr’s assessment that Protestant denominations are a little worse for taking such concepts literally, but that Orthodox denominations tend to set their interpretations in concrete doesn’t seem all that helpful either. I’m not sure how we expect the Spirit to move us as long as “Thou” is perpetually confined to the mental boxes we construct.

According to its requirements, I don’t qualify as a Christian either, but take solace in the fact that Yeshua didn’t require anything of his disciples, asking only that they follow his guidance through the spiritual quagmires. Of those, I think Emerson said it best: “As long as a man stands in his own way, everything seems to be in his way.” (The statement reads just as well when the “a” is dropped.)

More contemplation of vocabulary needed!

This reminded me of an off-hand comment made by the prolific author of another blog in a fit of frustration: “Doesn’t anyone speak English anymore?!” I couldn’t help but laugh aloud at the time but, of all the serious comments he made, that one has stuck with me like no other. A former English major, I nonetheless don’t think we do, and one of the finest examples is the word “ignorance” itself. People tend to consider this word synonymous with stupidity, but this blog’s author had a habit of hyphenating words to stress their original (i.e creative) meanings, and this one delightfully made its appearance frequently as “ignore-ance”, which is precisely what it means. It is not a derogatory term by any stretch of the imagination and means merely to be in a temporary state of being in which we are actively ignoring what is present to us.

I’m reminded also of Carl’s posts on the subject of rest-less-ness. We tend to think of this as a state of agitation, but it is a state of agitation brought on by lack of rest.

It grows ever more apparent to my mind, at least, that we over-stand words and concepts much better than we understand them. One has to wonder, for example, what it is about “at hand” in the biblical passage, “the kingdom of God (or Heaven) is at hand” that we don’t understand? It means the kingdom of heaven is here, now — i.e. right under our noses — and perpetually available to us. Why, then, do we tend to wait for some future time to see it? Because we have that ultra-linear, storybook sense of time in the West?

“Time is a stubbornly persistent illusion.” — Albert Einstein

Einstein, of course, was not referring to clock time, which we invented. Past is memory; future is a dream. Here and now is all we ever have…eternally.

Divine Presence means the Divine is eternally available to everyone. We have only to be present to the Divine and there’s nothing really “secret” or “mystical” about this, imho.

“More contemplation of vocabulary” is one of the best suggestions for enhancing the spiritual life I’ve heard lately. Thank you, Gannet Girl, for mentioning it.

If mysticism really upsets you so much, why do you hang around at my website? Of course you’re welcome here, but you’re hardly the first person to come attacking. Frankly, you haven’t said anything to me, on this post or previous ones, that others haven’t said before you. I’ve gotten the memo that you, and many others before you, think mysticism is opposed to Biblical Christianity. I disagree with you. So you can either accept that, or not, but if you feel the need to keep attacking Christian mysticism, maybe you should go start your own blog.

I do not think that impersonal mystery is a higher state of spirituality. Jesus was intensely personal with Abba, Father. It speaks of fellowship with each of the Three Persons in the New Testament. It speaks of eternal fellowship with them, The Triune God never becomes just a generic unity as we know Him. In fact, if it does, it’s a sign we don’t know yet as we ought. Impersonal unitary mystery is a dumbing down of deity. As humans we are each particular individuals with an absolute uniqueness and “feel” though having a common humanity with others. We are made in the image of God, how much more will each Person of the Godhead be particular and have a unique “feel” and indeed concreteness and yet a shared Deity. Of course as humans of differing souls we will have our unique response to each Person, even as different friends and family members in my life each have a different relationship with and perception of me. Though, when these people compare notes they will agree on a common “Jeffness”. Stephen when filled with the Holy Spirit saw heaven open and Jesus standing at the right hand of the glory of God. A sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit is a personal perception of and revelation of the Father and the Son and of course of the Holy Spirit. This personal Trinitarian awareness of God is laced through Saint Patrick’s Confession, and indeed the New Testament and is found in eternity – “For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd; he will lead them to springs of living water and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes” and “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb . . . . . . The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him”. Book of Revelation.

How does the spirituality of Saint Patrick, the evangelist and Apostle of Christ to the Irish fit into your mystical definition? Apparently, according to your definition of Christian mysticism, evangelism (that embarrassing ‘come to Jesus’ stuff) drops out of the picture for a mystic, as he has moved on to higher things – into the world of non-duality where he no longer has to offend people with Jesus, Son of God, Savior of the World and can just dialog with non-christians about how we have so much in common in the grand dumbed down MYSTERY. Again, Carl, I think if you truly consider Jesus of Nazareth, as to who he is, he is too big to fit into your system – unless you do plastic surgery on him – nips and tucks and redefinitions to make him a tamed perennial philosophy Ken Doll Jesus; instead of concrete reality, flesh and bone, Holy Spirit baptizing eternal Son of God with eyes of flame, whose face shines like the sun, who bore our sins in his body, and at the same time can be your friend and eldest brother and servant who washes your feet and teaches you to do the same to others!

Sorry for the rant, I’m frustrated with these categories and language of saved(conservatives) and us(mystics) isn’t healing the Church.

I benefit greatly from the insights that you make available through this blog, and from the wisdom that you bring to the table from which those of us with a wider sense of the Christian communion do sup. Thankyou for this post.

I’m reading a little about the history of monasticism in a Christian context at the moment, and I would love to hear your thoughts about the relationship between asceticism and mysticism, a relationship that you point to in item 6, above.

In your last sentence in that item, you identify that mystical spirituality extends her hand out, and reaches to the unknown God. Historically, it would seem to me that asceticism preceeds many of the experiences that the mystics identify as mystical. In some ways it looks like there is an ordered progression, that typically mysticism, the identified connection with the divine, emerges out of asceticism, the period spent ‘en hypomene’, waiting on the divine.

I’d love to understand your thoughts on this relationship – whether you see one as implying the other, or not so much so.

Thanks and blessings,
Trish