I've read a number of Rahner's books, and they're very good, if occasionally a bit technical for the layman.
And Rahner has proved to be right. The people who are sustaining spiritual practice and belief in this age are the mystics; and more and more contemporary people turn to the historical mystics seeking wisdom. It's the non-mystics, the church legislators and intellectuals, the literalists and fundamentalists, who have turned Christianity into the troubled religion that it is today, a religion that is bleeding membership away from itself by its refusal to adapt to modern times.
Over the years, I've come to appreciate the "non-mystics" -- the quiet, dull ones who fundraise, organize potlucks for the poor, define dogma on blogs, or bake the brownies for First Communion. They provide the supportive environment for the "mystics" -- indeed, they often are the mystics.
To downplay or judge them is to risk becoming one of those who mouth the cliché so prominent since at least the 1970s: "I'm spiritual, but I'm not religious." As if we lived in the ether and not in a place where somebody has to pay the heating bills for the yoga center or organize the menu for the spiritual retreat.
John of the Cross warned about going after mystical experience directly, as an end in itself -- So alluring in a day when we crave highs, whether from meth or meditation. Spiritual addictions can be just as delusional as substance ones.
I think Art and Cynthia are both right because I think the people Cynthia refers to are the same people Art refers to -- i.e., people for whom faith isn't theory, but practice, the practice being love of God expressed as love for others.
I disagree that the "ordinary folk" who go along on faith and get things done are de facto mystics—but I absolutely agree that they are wonderful, necessary, and even essential. They're what holds most things together, in this or any other endeavor, and they are the real heores of life. I agree with St. john of the Cross that mystical experience isn't necessary for it to be a goal in itself.
Yet I think there's a confusion here about what mysticism is. The "ordinary folk" don't really have anything to do with mysticism, or frankly want to; although it's available to everyone as an experience, it's usually a disruptive experience, and has a not always positive effect on everyday, repetitive, traditional forms of experience, practice, and belief. It can destroy usual beliefs and faith. Ask any mystic how that happens; they all talk about it.
Mysticism is experience-based. It's not intellectual, it's not theoretical, it's not theological. Mysticism is direct experience of the Divine. It's an experience that's available to everyone. But again, the usual mistake most smart people make is thinking that it's a mental thing, when it's not. Drugs don't have anything to do with it' although meditation can. Or has been known to.
And mysticism is not a matter of belief, or even of faith. It's a matter of having an experience. The experience can lead TO faith and belief, certainly, but is neither contained by those, nor does it derive FROM them. It's something else.
As for being spiritual rather than religious, the reason it's become a cliché is because there's a lot of truth behind it. A LOT of truth. A lot of the traditional forms and dogmas of religion just don't work for, or satisfy, a lot of people any more. And lots of folks have voted with their feet, and gone elsewhere. And other folks have found that they really do have a spiritual life, but it's not like anything they grew up with, or supported by the church. So the cliché has a lot of genuine weight behind it. I wouldn't be so dismissive of it out of hand, therefore.
Well, Art, as Evelyn Underhill pointed out in Practical Mysticism quite a few mystics -- e.g., Teresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen, Meister Eckhart -- were very practical people with complex administrative posts. One might also mention Dag Hammarskjöld. Brother Lawrence's mysticism was grounded in his daily activities working in the priory kitchen. As you say, mysticism is experiential, and experiences are as various as the people having them. All the great mystics -- and perhaps most most especially the great Zen masters -- warn against passivism.
In a sense of the word "Christian", one has to become a mystic in order to become a Christian. Note John 3:3-8 (NIV):
3. Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” [The word for "again" also means "above". So this could be interpreted to mean, "born again, and this time from above."]
4. "How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!"
5. Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [or just "but spirit"] gives birth to spirit. 7. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You ["You" being second person plural] must be born again.' 8. The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
I wonder if it's true....
ReplyDeleteIt's true.
ReplyDeleteI've read a number of Rahner's books, and they're very good, if occasionally a bit technical for the layman.
And Rahner has proved to be right. The people who are sustaining spiritual practice and belief in this age are the mystics; and more and more contemporary people turn to the historical mystics seeking wisdom. It's the non-mystics, the church legislators and intellectuals, the literalists and fundamentalists, who have turned Christianity into the troubled religion that it is today, a religion that is bleeding membership away from itself by its refusal to adapt to modern times.
Over the years, I've come to appreciate the "non-mystics" -- the quiet, dull ones who fundraise, organize potlucks for the poor, define dogma on blogs, or bake the brownies for First Communion. They provide the supportive environment for the "mystics" -- indeed, they often are the mystics.
ReplyDeleteTo downplay or judge them is to risk becoming one of those who mouth the cliché so prominent since at least the 1970s: "I'm spiritual, but I'm not religious." As if we lived in the ether and not in a place where somebody has to pay the heating bills for the yoga center or organize the menu for the spiritual retreat.
John of the Cross warned about going after mystical experience directly, as an end in itself -- So alluring in a day when we crave highs, whether from meth or meditation. Spiritual addictions can be just as delusional as substance ones.
I think Art and Cynthia are both right because I think the people Cynthia refers to are the
ReplyDeletesame people Art refers to -- i.e., people for whom faith isn't theory, but practice, the practice being love of God expressed as love for others.
Didn't mean to quarrel.
ReplyDeleteThe more I go on, Frank, the less inclined I am to even have reservations about people who look "theoretical" to me.
Given my own mistakes, what the hell do I know?
Well, now.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the "ordinary folk" who go along on faith and get things done are de facto mystics—but I absolutely agree that they are wonderful, necessary, and even essential. They're what holds most things together, in this or any other endeavor, and they are the real heores of life. I agree with St. john of the Cross that mystical experience isn't necessary for it to be a goal in itself.
Yet I think there's a confusion here about what mysticism is. The "ordinary folk" don't really have anything to do with mysticism, or frankly want to; although it's available to everyone as an experience, it's usually a disruptive experience, and has a not always positive effect on everyday, repetitive, traditional forms of experience, practice, and belief. It can destroy usual beliefs and faith. Ask any mystic how that happens; they all talk about it.
Mysticism is experience-based. It's not intellectual, it's not theoretical, it's not theological. Mysticism is direct experience of the Divine. It's an experience that's available to everyone. But again, the usual mistake most smart people make is thinking that it's a mental thing, when it's not. Drugs don't have anything to do with it' although meditation can. Or has been known to.
And mysticism is not a matter of belief, or even of faith. It's a matter of having an experience. The experience can lead TO faith and belief, certainly, but is neither contained by those, nor does it derive FROM them. It's something else.
As for being spiritual rather than religious, the reason it's become a cliché is because there's a lot of truth behind it. A LOT of truth. A lot of the traditional forms and dogmas of religion just don't work for, or satisfy, a lot of people any more. And lots of folks have voted with their feet, and gone elsewhere. And other folks have found that they really do have a spiritual life, but it's not like anything they grew up with, or supported by the church. So the cliché has a lot of genuine weight behind it. I wouldn't be so dismissive of it out of hand, therefore.
Well, Art, as Evelyn Underhill pointed out in Practical Mysticism quite a few mystics -- e.g., Teresa of Avila, Hildegard of Bingen, Meister Eckhart -- were very practical people with complex administrative posts. One might also mention Dag Hammarskjöld. Brother Lawrence's mysticism was grounded in his daily activities working in the priory kitchen. As you say, mysticism is experiential, and experiences are as various as the people having them. All the great mystics -- and perhaps most most especially the great Zen masters -- warn against passivism.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense of the word "Christian", one has to become a mystic in order to become a Christian. Note John 3:3-8 (NIV):
ReplyDelete3. Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.” [The word for "again" also means "above". So this could be interpreted to mean, "born again, and this time from above."]
4. "How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!"
5. Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit [or just "but spirit"] gives birth to spirit. 7. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You ["You" being second person plural] must be born again.' 8. The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."