Is it "mysticism" or just deeply living the Christian life?

What I'm trying to say about a "true" mysticism is that I've found that compared to other Christian writings, some of those called mystical convey a deep love of God and a high view of God, to an extent I don't find anywhere else, and based on scripture too.  And it's contagious:   it has the power to lead the reader closer to the same experiences.  You get some of this in other writings, even theological writings, but the mystics I have in mind spend their time living in this deep love and high view of God to an extent others generally don't, and seek to live daily even more deeply and magnify God in His majesty more and more too.

There is often a progressive pattern to their writings, as if every word of scripture can be understood by stages of revelation of its truth, each stage deeper and higher than the previous, as if it penetrates by degrees deeper into the soul. Deeper sense of humility, stronger hatred of sin, stronger power over sin, greater sense of God's love, God's mercy to sinners, God's majesty, God's sovereignty, greater trust in God, sense of dependence on Him in all things.

It's all in the Bible, but what happens all too often is that we get in the habit of reading even the most sublime descriptions of God in a way that turns them into mere empty words and ends up trivializing the very revelations that should magnify Him. This could be the result of spending way too much time in the company of unbelievers. It's like what has been done to words like "awesome" that is so often made to apply to things that are anything but awe-inspiring. In our day it seems we have to make a special effort to appreciate the reality that is there in the words if only we could apprehend it. I think some acquaintance with the God-melted mystics could raise our understanding of scripture.  The same result might be had just by reading the Bible with a view to deepening our understanding, praying for that understanding as we read. The important thing is to understand that we need a higher view of God than we have and to determine to do whatever it takes to develop it.

Googling "a high view of God" turns up this quote from A.W. Tozer at more than one website. It's from his book The Knowledge of the Holy.

The Loss of a High View of God

"The church has surrendered her once lofty concept of God and has substituted for it one so low, so ignoble, as to be utterly unworthy of thinking, worshiping men. This she has done not deliberately, but little by little and without her knowledge; and her very unawareness only makes her situation all the more tragic. This low view of God entertained almost universally among Christians is the cause of a hundred lesser evils everywhere among us. A whole new philosophy of the Christian life has resulted from this one basic error in our religious thinking.

With our loss of the sense of majesty has come the further loss of religious awe and consciousness of the divine Presence. We have lost our spirit of worship and our ability to withdraw inwardly to meet God in adoring silence. Modern Christianity is simply not producing the kind of Christian who can appreciate or experience the life in the Spirit. The words, 'Be still, and know that I am God,' mean next to nothing to the self-confident, bustling worshiper in this middle period of the twentieth century.

This loss of the concept of majesty has come just when the forces of religion are making dramatic gains and the churches are more prosperous than at any time within the past several hundred years. But the alarming thing is that our gains are mostly external and our losses wholly internal; and since it is the quality of our religion that is affected by internal conditions, it may be that our supposed gains are but losses spread over a wider field."

-A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy

A pretty sad assessment but only too true for most of us.

Rev. 2:4-5: Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works ...

A hope of returning to my first love is what has led me back to the mystics. I didn't know if there was anything that could rekindle any of that first love, but thanks to God some of it has come back from reading a little of Gerhard Tersteegen, and I'll get to him eventually here. The Bible still conveys its truths, but I want to FEEL those truths as they are meant to be felt, as I once felt them.

Here's a sampling of Gerhard Tersteegen, 18th Century Protestant mystic, yes Protestant:

True godliness (eusebeia) is that inward state or disposition, which is wrought by the Holy Spirit, and the occupation of the soul, which springs from it, by which she again renders that homage and worship to the triune God, which is due to him, and which is in some measure worthy of him. It consists in filial fear and veneration, in a heartfelt confidence and faith, and in a fervent attachment and love to God, which three things are like so many essential parts of the spiritual temple, in which God is worshipped. For since he is a Spirit, it necessarily follows, that he must be worshipped not in a mere external, ceremonial,and hypocritical manner, but inwardly, heartlily, in spirit and in truth, if it is to be done in a manner worthy of him, as our divine Teacher himself demonstrates. (John iv. 24.)

I say the Holy Spirit produces this state or disposition of the soul, whilst inwardly giving her to know, (to one soul more, and as though at once, and with great power, and to another more imperceptibly and gradually,) in a (supernatural, vital, and powerful manner), the truth, glory, land loveliness of the omnipresent being of God.

This immediately produces in the soul an unspeakably profound veneration, admiration, filial reverence, and inward humiliation of all that is within her, in the presence of the exalted Majesty of God. This glorious being appears to her to be alone great and good, and she herself, together with every other creature, utterly mean, little, and despicable.

What is a "mystic" anyway? Seems to me it's often a Christian who seeks God more earnestly than most of the rest of us, seeks really to live for Him and for nothing else. Those who seek with such intensity and diligence to understand and know God through His word may come to have an actual experience of some of the very qualities of God and dispositions of our own souls that we are all exhorted to learn anyway. If God chooses to reveal them to some in a greater depth than to others, that seems to make that person a "mystic" though there's nothing different in the content than what a good preacher exhorts us all to practice.

Is there a true Christian mysticism?

In contrast with the Emerging Church's "contemplative prayer," the mysticism I want to defend is so difficult to practice rightly it's hard to see that it could ever become a large movement in the churches. In fact it wouldn't be wrong in many cases to think of it as the entire life of a Christian's growth in sanctification condensed into intense periods of prayer and meditation on the Bible and other appropriate sources of inspiration.

The rightly criticized current practice is nothing at all like the Christian mysticism of John of the Cross or Madame Guyon or Gerhard Tersteegen, whose main practices were self-denial and mortification of sin and of the fallen nature and worldliness. As I mentioned in the previous post, I haven't found one advocate of today's popular version of contemplative prayer saying anything about self-denial or mortification of sin, it's all quite the opposite, seeking an experience of your "true Self" which is far from a Christian objective. And as the critics warn, that sort of pursuit will not lead you to God, but may very well lead you to demonic counterfeits and even possession. In fact it should be kept in mind that even when we are sincerely seeking God, the attempt to practice a deeper sort of prayer that focuses on having an experience of God is also open to such counterfeits, just because we are prone to deceive ourselves about whether we are truly denying ourselves and mortifying our sins, or really seeking God for that matter.

One of the Emerging Church teachers I didn't mention in the previous post is Richard Rohr who has many lectures at You Tube, a Catholic as so many of these teachers are, a Franciscan priest, who apparently specializes in "contemplative prayer." According to Rohr, "contemplation" is "non-dualistic thinking" which he says we desperately need to learn. Dualistic thinking is making distinctions, discriminating between true and false, right and wrong, but what we need is unity, coming together, giving up our distinctions, giving up conflict in order to find true ecumenical accord. I don't know if this is New Age or Postmodernism, or both or neither, but it isn't Christianity.

Besides the technique of meditation I described in the previous post, which is basically Transcendental Meditation done with a more or less Christianized "mantra" of your own choosing, there is another method he says Karl Keating, another Catholic priest, describes, of simply watching your thoughts: letting your thoughts arise, labeling or acknowledging them and sending them away, in a boat or something like that I think he said. This he calls "self-denial" because it's giving up such an entrenched habit that you are attached to. It's very much like some Buddhist technique I read about, if I remember rightly, and the word for it may be "mindfulness." Watching your thoughts and letting them go.

The utter lack of a prescribed content, any content at all but certainly Christian content, in all these video presentations is something to marvel at. Everything is scaffolding or skeletal structure without an edifice, without content. We are taught to get rid of our thoughts, the idea being to leave yourself open to whatever then comes in, supposedly God but it won't be God. Also in this nondualistic system we are exhorted to give up our "differences" without any of those differences being discussed or in some cases even mentioned. Doctrinal differences between Catholic and Protestant are a major theme because these are the groups coming together in the Emerging Church. But the doctrinal differences between Catholicism and Protestantism are a matter of life or death, eternal life or death, no small thing. No matter, all that is to be ignored in the service of ecumenical unity, one big happy family, apparently embracing a big emptiness of nondualistic thinking or in other words nonthinking.

But if there is such a thing as true Christian mystics, their mysticism is full of Christian content, biblical content. That is, they are actively seeking the God of the Bible, not just some generic god or generic experience. If there is an aspect of their seeking that is similar to the emptying of the mind of the new agey practices of the Emerging Church, it's the negating of everything that is not God, the purging of the fallen nature, of sin.

I don't want to recommend the 16th century Catholic mystic John of the Cross beyond saying that his method, if it can be called a method, is clearly Christian, clearly Biblical. He aims to quiet his own fallen nature in order to draw close to God, which quieting he calls a "dark night" because it's a closing off of the natural physical senses so that the spiritual nature can reach out to God. And along with quieting the soul, at the same time he is cultivating a deep love toward God.

Here are a few stanzas of the famous poem of John of the Cross:

The Dark Night of the Soul

On a dark night, Kindled in love with yearnings–oh, happy chance!– I went forth without being observed, My house being now at rest.

In darkness and secure, By the secret ladder, disguised–oh, happy chance!– In darkness and in concealment, My house being now at rest.

In the happy night, In secret, when none saw me, Nor I beheld aught, Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart.

This light guided me More surely than the light of noonday To the place where he (well I knew who!) was awaiting me– A place where none appeared.

Oh, night that guided me, Oh, night more lovely than the dawn, Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover, Lover transformed in the Beloved!

This poem is the basis of John of the Cross's treatise on this method of approach to God, titled The Ascent of Mount Carmel. This is no emptying of the mind, there is no emptiness here at all. As the fallen nature is mortified and the dark night darkens, the soul is filled more and more with the spiritual love and yearnings toward God.

Mysticisms False and True -- or are they all false? The Emerging Church and Contemplative Prayer

Mysticism is a bad word among the majority of Christian churches, and for the most part it should be.  The latest mysticism to capture Christians is "contemplative prayer," which is associated with the Emerging Church movement.  Not knowing much about this movement I've been watching some You Tube discussions of the phenomenon, by both its leaders and its critics.  After some acquaintance with these sources it becomes clear that contemplative prayer is only one of the errors of the movement, that the whole thing is gross apostasy.  Brian McLaren, for instance, maybe the main leader of the movement, quotes the Bible quite freely, but makes its words mean something altogether different from what the traditional Church believes.  Without going into his viewpoint it can be said that he's made the otherworldly religion of Christ into a formula for worldly action of various sorts.  Instead of being taught how to put off the old man and put on the new man we're treated as able to engage with the world on social and political issues apparently just as we are.

I haven't found a video of McLaren discussing contemplative prayer, but there are some Catholic priests who discuss it, and consider themselves to be part of the Emerging Church movement.  I've always associated the idea of contemplative prayer with the Catholic mystics of five or six centuries ago, such as Theresa of Avila and John of the Cross, though I don't have a clear idea of how they would define it.  One thing that was true of them, however, is that they taught a very rigorous practice of dying to self, taking up your cross, mortifying sin and "inordinate desires," the works of the "old man" or fallen nature, as the essential work of a contemplative Christian.  The 'mysticism" was something that happened in response to that work, that is, it was something that God did, that they themselves didn't bring about, various experiences of God. 

That is a very different sort of mysticism, a very different sort of contemplative prayer, than what I've been finding in connection with today's Emerging Church movement.  The rigorous death to sin and self is exactly what is missing from all the Emerging Church presentations.  They use language more like "finding your highest Self" which is the exact opposite of losing yourself for Christ.  I haven't heard one mention of sin or the problems of dealing with sin, it's all how to have an experience, and their "mystical"  practices are definitely their own seeking of an experience, not something given by God that you can't control. 

There is a superficial similarity with the old mystics in one respect, in that they sought to subdue the fallen nature in order to be open to God.  This involves mortifying our love of the world, our love of the creature rather than the Creator, the quelling of our selfish passions,  The subduing the current mystics do is an attempt to silence the mind in order to hear from the spirit world.  If that sounds similar, it's not:  it's a mechanical practice rather than a moral work.  Whereas the old mystics sought to be conformed to the character of Christ, today's Emerging Church mystics just want to empty their minds.

As many of the critics pointed out, this is really eastern religion, Hinduism or Buddhism, rather than Christianity.  Silencing the mind can open a person to the work of demonic spirits, but not to God.  It's a method practiced in shamanism and the seeking of occult powers.

One of the Catholic priests who described the method made it sound exactly like Transcendental Meditation, the method of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi who was popularized by the Beatles back in the seventies.  I went to a TM class myself in those days and learned the method, which was promoted as a "scientific" way to manage the stresses of life.  To believe that it's scientific you have to do some mental gymnastics, at least ignore all the religious trappings that go with it, such as the altar with the large picture of Maharishi over it, the offering of fruit and flowers you are asked to bring to lay on the altar alongside everybody else's offerings.  But the method is very simple.  You are given a strange word or sound that one of the leaders whispers in your ear, which is to be your own personal "mantra," to be kept private.  Then you are instructed to spend twenty minutes every day sitting in meditation and focusing your mind on your mantra.  You are told to go about this quietly and calmly, to quiet yourself before introducing the sound into your mind, and if your mind wanders, to quietly and calmly resume focusing on it. 

This is exactly how the priest on You Tube (Keating I believe) described the practice of "contemplative prayer" in today's Emerging Church context.  Only he instructed people to choose their own "sacred word" to meditate on, in the place of the foreign-sounding Hindu mantra.

Let me tell you my own experience of Transcendental Meditation.  I'd only done the twenty-minute sitting for a few days when on the next occasion, soon after I began to focus on my mantra, that strange sound that had been whispered n my ear, I had a very startling experience.  My eyes had been closed and I was concentrating on my mantra when it was as if a curtain parted behind my closed eyelids, or a sliding door slid open with a sudden whoosh, and I was in another place.  Or I was seeing another place.  I was facing a vast landscape with a city barely visible in the far distance.  There was a feeling associated with the vision, something otherworldly, maybe in a sense beautiful, though I was so startled I didn't continue in the experience.  There was nothing frightening about the image or the feeling, it could have been interpreted something like "You are beginning your journey toward the far celestial city" or something like that, but just the fact of being so vividly "transported" (it was that real)  to this other place was frightening in itself.  I jumped up and never practiced TM again. 

That all occurred at least a decade before I became a Christian and I had no categories for understanding it, except to say that it was a "vision" or something definitely "transcendental" or otherworldly.   Why was I frightened?  Others might have welcomed such an experience and pursued it.  All I can think is that God protected me from continuing into something that was surely demonically inspired.  (A similar experience of being protected occurred some years later when a friend who was practicing Zen Buddhism took me to "sit zazen" with her, which means sitting cross-legged facing a wall for something like forty-five minutes, and my legs fell asleep so that I was unable to bow down to the Buddha statue afterward, thus being spared that act of idolatry.  From some things my friend told me about her experiences in Zen meditation they were definitely otherworldly in a similar way to the one I'd had through TM.)

I'm glad I had that experience of what meditating on a mantra can do because it puts reality to the sense that practitioners of "contemplative prayer" are opening themselves up to something dangerous, something supernatural that is not God.  These are Christians, or nominal Christians at least, sheep to the slaughter, far from the disciplines of a follower of Christ.

All that certainly accords with the criticism and warnings about "mysticism" so many church leaders are giving these days.  There are some very thorough presentations at You Tube of what these practices are and how they are dangerous deceptions that Christians should avoid.  Ray Yungen is one of the most thorough, worth listening to.

There is a false mysticism for sure.  Is there also a true mysticism?     

 I'm writing this on the blog intended to explore such experiences, the "higher" Christian teachings including mysticism, because I still think there is a valid mysticism and that the blanket dismissal of all unusual spiritual experiences by so many good Christian teachers risks losing something important.   

But I'll write this much for now, about the false mysticisms, hoping to follow it with some thoughts about true mysticism, or at least questions about it.