Talk:Christian mysticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello. Many thanks to DJ Clayworth for reworking this article. I have a question about the list of Christian mystics. Is Augustine of Hippo generally considered a mystic? Happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why is Dag Hannerjkskold (sp) considered a Christian msystic?

---

Contents 1 VFD 2 William Blake, Martin Luther 3 Fasting and alms-giving 4 I'm wondering.... 5 Experiencing God

[edit] VFD

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 23 to Apr 26 2004, removed from listing and kept as article was reworked. Discussion:

Two nonsense dictionary definitions. Guanaco 00:36, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Changing vote to keep. Guanaco 20:39, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• A bad dicdef of "mysticism" and a bad dicdef of "Christian", with no connection between the two. Delete. RickK 02:49, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Delete -- chris_73 08:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• A terrible article on an important subject, which I have rewritten as a stub. Keep now? DJ Clayworth 17:25, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Marvelous rework. Keep. - Lucky 6.9 20:39, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. DJ did a good job on this, keep it now. RickK 23:06, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Well done. Keep, of course. Smerdis of Tlön 00:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Great article. You inspire me to spend a bit more time just reading and enjoying Wikipedia, when we concentrate (understandably) on the stuff that most needs work then it's no wonder we get irritable at times. Can the stub warning go, do you think? Andrewa 15:57, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep updated version. -- Graham :) | Talk 21:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

[edit] William Blake, Martin Luther

William Blake is clearly a Christian mystic as evidenced in his article here. Martin Luther is known as an intellectual rather than a mystic. There is nothing in his article here to indicate a mystical nature on his part. If he does belong on the list, please supply a reference for the assertion. --Blainster 23:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both these assertions. ThePeg 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fasting and alms-giving

The practice of alms-giving may be considered a spiritual discipline, but I am not aware of instances reported in the literature where it is considered mystical. Fasting, on the other hand, is known to be an avenue to mystical experience. --Blainster 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In a Christian context, you are understanding "mystical experience" far too narrowly. As the article points out, Christian mysticism is directed toward communion with God, a state of personal wholeness, and this may, or may not, include the sorts of experiences which your statement presupposes. --Midnite Critic 17:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I request a citation for this interpretation. I agree with your statement that Christian mysticism is directed toward communion with God, a state of personal wholeness, but mysticism is widely acknowledged to be a non-ordinary experience. Without that part of the definition it loses its meaning. In the meantime I will replace alms-giving, which I inadvertantly removed with my long edit. --Blainster 18:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored the Matthew citation to the Sermon on the Mount. See also the bibliography below, especially "Way of the Ascetics" and "Celebration of Discipline". See also the entire thrust of the "practice" section of the article, especially the fact that all of these terms ("prayer, fasting, and alms-giving") are defined broadly, the latter basically including anything that is done for another, to include what are called the spiritual and corporal (or physical) "works of mercy". I will see if I can find a concise quote. --Midnite Critic 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like you are contending that almost anything can be construed as mysticism. If so, the term becomes useless as a descriptor. (Of course the basic problem with mysticism is that ultimately it cannot be described, but that has not stopped the mystics from trying.) I checked Celebration of Discipline, and it does not address alms-giving, but from your previous post perhaps you intend the discipline of service. If this is the case the narrower term in the article should be replaced with the broader one. Are you saying that spiritual disciplines are the same as mysticism? They overlap with mysticism (specifically asceticism and prayer) but I cannot agree that they coincide. --Blainster 19:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In a Christian context, "mysticism" and "spirituality" are synonymous and you are right: "alms-giving" is synonymous with "service to others." Like "prayer" and "fasting," "alms-giving" is defined broadly. In a Christian context, spirituality, and thus mysticism is geared toward restoring communion, with God, with others and all of creation, and with oneself. I have made some textual changes to the opening paragraph which may clarify some of this. See what you think. --Midnite Critic 17:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm wondering....

If this article ought to be linked to the Christianity as it is the biproduct of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.52.66.10 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Experiencing God

I don't believe it is a general Christian believe that man can experience God in this lifetime; I'm somewhat certain this is contrary to Catholic doctrine. I've been working on Marguerite Porete on and off and believe I've seen this somewhere. Not sure though, so I stuck a fact tag on it. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding; however, I'm not sure that Porete, Eckhard, et. al., are relevant to this discussion, given that the issues there seem to have revolved around two issues: the concept of the soul's "annihilation" in God and the notion that direct experience of God made the Church superfluous. In contrast, St. John of the Cross and others, certainly not considered heretics by the RCC, speak of "mystical marriage" in which the soul is united with God but remains itself. More pertinent, I think, is the debate between East and West in which those in the East, such as St. Gregory Palamas, insisted that they, the hesychasts (see Hesychasm) were experiencing God directly, but their Western or Western-oriented opponents insisted that this was not possible, since "grace is created". However, I think Rome would not be too likely to insist upon that today. In any event, is there an alternate wording that you would be comfortable with, such as dropping the word "directly" or perhaps replacing it with "personally"? --Midnite Critic 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which distinguishes between the type of union with God which can be achieved in this life, and the type which can not, which I'm sure is what I was thinking of. I'll have to ponder a wording that would properly apply to all Christians. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you mainly concerned, then, that the statement doesn't distinguish between the experience of God in this life and the experience of God in the life/age to come?

I suppose that's it, the we see as if through a mirror darkly aspect which seems to be different from what this article currently suggests. So much of Protestant theology reappropriates language in ways that say things incorrectly, but in a way which makes it difficult to say exactly what's incorrect (consider the current article on Christian perfection which is, as it plainly admits, a Methodist POV, but surely Weselley knew he was blantantly reworking the Catholic idea, per the above link, into something completely different). This may be something I'll have to revisit down the line. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an introductory section, what we're striving for, I think, is a general statement that covers, as far as possible, all the major bases. Therefore, how about this: "All mainstream forms of Christianity teach that God dwells in Christians through the Holy Spirit, and that therefore, even in this life, Christians can, to a greater or lesser extent, experience God personally." Does that work for you? --Midnite Critic 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's even less correct; I wouldn't put the phrase All mainstream forms of Christianity teach in front of anything not in the Apostles' Creed; I'm flipping through the catechism and I don't find anything the that effect. For example here or here. This teaching says it is the grace of God, not God himself, which dwells in Christians through the Holy Spirit. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

But if the Holy Spirit, being God, dwells anywhere, then there God dwells. Please note the definition of grace in 1997 as "participation in the life of God". --Midnite Critic 01:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As I see it, "experience of God", especially "direct experience of God", can be understood in quite different ways. If the discussion here is basically about the introduction to the article, then my poor opinion is that, at that point of the article, which should be uncontroversal, the word "experience" should be avoided. Would it not be better to use the word "consciousness"? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition gives the following definition(s) of "mysticism" (in the sense in which it is used in this article): "a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God. b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics." In this definition, the word "experience" is indeed used, but with direct reference to consciousness of or communion with God. I think that "experience" has overtones that perhaps link it to some extent to the senses rather than just to the mind, and that it is therefore not the most appropriate word to use concerning God or to link with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Christian. Lima 05:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Consciousness" seems a little weak to me, at least by itself. We can, after all, be conscious of God in a purely intellectual way without being particularly engaged. "Immediate consciousness" from the dictionary definition is better. "Perception", perhaps, at least in a qualified way? "Noetic perception"? Or is that too technical?

With your last comment you put your finger on one of the main issues in the Palamite controversy, as it happens. St. Gregory's argument was that we can indeed experience God through our senses; that the Light of Tabor, which he asserted (and the Orthodox Church agrees) was a sensible light yet uncreated, is also that light seen by those who experience this kind of direct communion. But I think we don't want to bring this up in the intro. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Csernica. Wikipedia cannot, right at the start of the article on Christian mysticism, adopt Saint Gregory's view as its own. So we need a term other than "experience". Perhaps "consciousness" preceded by an adjective such as "acute". I am sure others can think of better solutions. Lima 05:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about "immediate consciousness"? --Midnite Critic 14:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)