Talk:Christian mysticism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian mysticism article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Editing

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)

[edit] Dag

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.151.93 (talk) 11:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[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 the context of mysticism this practice does not make sense to me either. Can giving up worldly possessions be construed as a kind of one-off alms-giving? Can we get some references for alms as mystical discipline? Cyrusc 22:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm going to cut "alms" and subsume it under "service to others." Cyrusc 22:11, 30 May 2007 (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)

Talking about Christian mysticism in this way undermines a historical understanding of struggles with mysticism in the Christian church. There were early forms of Christianity that were specifically mystic, ie Alexandrianism, a neo-platonic interpretation of Christianity, which said that one could directly commune with God. However the Church came to reject this type of mysticism, insisting that one could only understand God through the tradition of the religion, and its symbols and readings, through which one does his communion with God. The argument that you could directly commune with God--which is what the Church labeled mysticism--was thoroughly attacked. It was even a major issue into the 19th century, where you have Christian philosophers try to critique mysticism in favor of the mode of treating religion in the Christian tradition. There was some sympathy among Christian thinkers for Buddhism, except for the aspects of mysticism which were roundly critiqued. Brianshapiro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.24.152 (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The terms "prayer, fasting, and almsgiving," while each broadly defined, need to be retained, especially in the context of discussing the Sermon on the Mount, since it is largely concerned with the proper pursuit (from a Christian POV) of these three practices. --Midnite Critic 02:25, 31 May 2007 (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).

- This article is about about "Christian mysticism," andGregory Wonderwheel 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC) the first sentence purports to be a universal definition of mysticism as a touchstone to which the term Christian Mysticism can be related. However, by its use of the term "God" the first sentence is not in fact a universal definition of mysticism since a definition using "God" thus by definition confines itself to the religions of the Levant (as Joseph Campbell called them) Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam. I propose that the first sentence be rewriten to make it clear that "mysticism" is a human phenomenon shared by all people in all cultures whether or not they have the Levantian conception of "God", such as the Greek mysticism schools, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Taoists, Celts, Wiccans, and shamans and spirit questers of indigenous peoples thoughout the world. My suggestion is this: "Mysticism is the philosophy and practice of a direct experienial communion or unification with ultimate reality." This is much closer to the dictionary definition as found in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary at http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Mysticism - Gregory Wonderwheel 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. This article is speicifically about Christian mysticism--not mysiticism in general. An article about Christian teaching is permitted to make use of Christian concepts, just as an article on Hinduism would be expected to make use Hindu concepts. If a term is technical and not widely understood, a general definition would be called for. But I doubt any reader would misunderstand the opening sentence as originally written. Gregory Wonderwheel appears to be touting his own spiritual agenda (or Joseph Campbell's), which is not NPOV. MishaPan 17:47, 30 July 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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. -- Kendrick7talk 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)

[edit] My addition

I just included "Esoteric Christianity" in the "See Also" section listings. I think they are somehow related with Christian Mysticism.

Kind regards -Bill

July 16, 2007

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.127.84 (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I propose that Esoteric Christianity be merged into Christian Mysticism. Alternatively, I believe Esoteric Christianity should be merged into Theosophy. Alternatively, I invite contributors to Christian Mysticism article to have a look at the Esoteric Christianity article, which is a bit of a mess and could use your help.Typing monkey 14:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merging "Esoteric Christianity" with this article. Merging it with "Theosophy" would be more appropriate. --Midnite Critic 23:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this field, just an interested reader. It seems to me that the Esoteric Christian idea that Christianity is a kind of continuation of the Mystery tradition with an initiatory component makes it distinct from Christian Mysticism in its more general sense. Theosophy seems heavily involved in the promotion of Eastern concepts into the western inner tradition which is also difrent from Esoteric Christianity (maybe I'm confused on that point). Perhaps it should stay its own article.Darrell Wheeler 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merging with either "Esoteric Christianity or "Theosophy". Christian mysticism has ancient roots in orthodox Christianity, and merging it with either of those would give a false impression. While the other two may have their own mystical traditions, those traditions could be treated in their own articles, or in a subsection of this article. But to combine this article with either of them would be innacurate. MishaPan 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I'm withdrawing the proposal.Typing monkey 06:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)