ommunitdiscipleship in c y: discipleship in community ...are the bible and neoplatonism. the...

Discipleship in Community:

Transcript - SF501 Discipleship in Community: © 2019 Our Daily Bread University. All rights reserved.

1 of 13

LESSON 13 of 24SF501

Historical Factors: Mystical Spirituality – Part I

Discipleship in Community:

In our prior two sessions, we began the discussion of those factors that have created the biases, the predispositions, the presuppositions that have prevented us in the contemporary church from understanding and incorporating the corporate model, the corporate dimensions of spirituality that are taught in the New Testament. We began that discussion by looking at the cultural factors that existed in our contemporary society; those factors and forces and influences from the outside, from without, that have impacted us; that have shaped our own thinking; that make up the world and the flesh that we are; and those things that we have to deal with in our efforts, in the 20th century, not to be conformed to this world.

In this session, we want to begin looking at the factors that have contributed to our present theology of spirituality, our present, very individualistic way of looking at things that have come through the history of the church itself. And, basically, what we want to do over the next few sessions is to consider two strains of church teaching concerning spirituality that have developed through the history of the church. In our discussion, we will follow, in these sessions, Donald Bloesch’s discussion in his book The Crisis of Piety, in which he develops these two strains in one of the chapters.

As we look at the history of the church; and, again, this will be rather simplistic for the sake of argument; but as we look at the history of the church, there have been two basic types of spirituality discernible. We will label them mystical spirituality and then evangelical spirituality, following Bloesch’s terminology in his book. As we discuss these types, as we compare and contrast them, we are going to be dealing with ideal types in our discussion. We are going to be dealing with extremes in order to provide a framework, a spectrum, if you would, by which we can then analyze various systems.

John R. Lillis, Ph.D.Experience: Dean and Executive Officer

at Bethel Seminary in San Diego, CA.



2 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

In any real theological system, we would see one or the other type as characteristic of a system; but probably no one system would be totally exemplified by either of the ideal. We are going to spend much of our time focusing on the mystical aspects of spirituality, or the development of the mystical strains of spirituality. Here, again, we need to make a qualifier. This is a very difficult concept and a very difficult view of spirituality to nail down or define. It is very diverse and varied in its approach, in its expressions, throughout the 2,000 years of church history. So the model that we will be presenting will be a simplistic, ideal type of model that we will present for the sake of discussion and argument. We need to be aware of that.

Each of the types of spirituality, mystical and evangelical, has been more characteristic of specific strains of Christianity than others throughout the history of the church. For example, that which we are going to describe and label as mystical spirituality has been dominant in the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy. Evangelical devotion, on the other hand, has been more characteristic throughout the history of the church, a mainstream Protestantism. That is not to say, again, that there has been no crossover in the different groups.

As we look at mystical Christianity, in terms of its sources, we see that historically the two principal sources of mystical Christianity are the Bible and Neoplatonism. The syncretistic mystery religions of the ancient Greco-Roman world also played a role in its development. To fully understand the ideas of mystical spirituality, we need to understand a bit of what Neoplatonism was saying. Neoplatonism was the principal form of Greek philosophy from the third to sixth centuries A.D. As such, it became the foundation and the key influence in the intellectual world and life view that existed in that time. It impacted many people, including those who were Christians. It is usually described as being founded by Plotinus, who lived in 205 to 270 A.D. But perhaps a more accurate statement would be that Plotinus was the most creative thinker within this movement of later Platonism.

Plotinus himself was born in Egypt and studied in Alexandria. After accompanying the Emperor Gordian on a campaign in the east, he settled in Rome about 244 and began his own school there. Plotinus wrote essays for his students about their philosophical discussions. His own pupils collected these and arranged them in a somewhat systematic manner into six books. Plotinus himself was reported to have had a mystical experience of union with the



3 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

Divine on four occasions. That description of that union, in the collected works of Plotinus, is one of the classics on mysticism.

As you look at Neoplatonism, especially as it is articulated by Plotinus, you need to understand that his system begins with the One. Imagine with me a series of concentric circles, with the One being represented by the innermost circle. The One is the supreme transcendent principle, and it can be described only by negation. It is the ground of all being. It is immaterial, and it is impersonal. As the number one is different from all other numbers, yet makes them possible, so the One is the ground of all being and the source of all worlds. The One, in Plotinus’ concept, transcends all duality, duality of thought and duality of reality. It transcends all duality of being and nonbeing. As we go back to those concentric circles, the innermost circle representing the One is one level of being. And you have to see each of the circles as a different level of being, a different level of reality.

Out of the One, but without any change in the One, there proceeded by emanation Mind (or nous), the intellectual principle, the next level of being, if you would. Mind is the principle of divine intelligence, the “eternal consciousness,” the highest really knowable entity. This element now partakes of duality, whereas the One is totally indivisible. The Mind, the next level, is divisible; it partakes of duality, for it has consciousness. And consciousness contains the knower and the known. So there is that divisibility.

Going out now to our third circle, the next emanation was the World Soul (the psyche). This is the moving power behind the whole universe. The World Soul is intermediary between Mind and bodily reality. It is the World Soul which is the principle at work in the moving stars, the animals, the plants, and man; but it itself transcends individual souls.

Finally, the lowest creative principle is Nature. As the descent from the One is characterized by increasing individuation and multiplicity so Nature finds itself in direct contact with matter. Bare matter, then, becomes the limiting principle of reality, and in many of the great views, the lowest principle of reality.

As the Neoplatonists, then, looked at man, the Neoplatonists would see man as a microcosm of reality, a microcosm that contains Matter, Nature, Soul, and Mind in himself. And this manifoldness that is man longs to be reunited to the One. This which is divisible, this which is multiple and manifold, longs to



4 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

be reunited with the indivisible One. And man, by contemplation, has the possibility of returning to the One, so that contemplation is the most perfect human activity, according to Plotinus and the Neoplatonists. And, by it, may be achieved a state of ecstasy, an experience of unification with the One; that is, a person finds the One by going within, through contemplation; because within one has the microcosm of reality. And one goes through Matter, Nature, Soul, and Mind to reach the One. The importance of mental concentration is the reason for describing Plotinus’ view as intellectual mysticism.

As we are going to see, when we look at Christian mysticism, the difference between Plotinus’ view and the just pure Neoplatonic view of mysticism, from Christian mysticism, is that the experience of union in the Neoplatonic view is not the result of divine grace. Union is achieved rarely in the Neoplatonic mysticism, the intellectual mysticism of Plotinus. And then it is as a result of asceticism and prolonged effort of the will and understanding.

As you look further at Neoplatonism, another aspect of this philosophical school, of this worldview that developed as a result of the philosophical school, has to do with evil. Evil is not an ontological reality in this system. Nothing is evil in its nature. Rather, evil is nonbeing, but Plotinus did not mean by this unreal. He did not mean that nonbeing is unreal or unreality. Nonbeing is a state of privation, and it is a real possibility for beings to turn away from life towards nonbeing.

That understanding of Neoplatonism is necessary in order to understand the development of Christian mysticism that resulted from the third century onward. For what happened is that the biblical theologians, the Christians of the time, came into Christianity, approached the Bible, read the Bible, through Neoplatonic glasses, from the perspective of a Neoplatonic worldview. And much of the mystical perspective that developed as a result of that came more from this Greek Neoplatonic worldview than it did from Scripture. Just as the psycho-culture and the various trajectories of that, ethical egoism, psychotherapy, individualism, feminist ideology have impacted the way we read Scripture and influenced the spirituality that we have developed, so this Neoplatonic worldview impacted the Christians of the third through the fifth centuries, primarily, to result in this Christian mysticism. In fact, as one reads the writings of the classic mystics, one can often detect a tension between the biblical piety and the Hellenistic philosophy, the Neoplatonic philosophy, underlying



5 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

the biblical piety.

As we trace the development of Christian mysticism throughout the centuries—in more recent times—Christian mystical piety has garnered further insight from Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, one of the leading Christian mystics of this century, a Catholic monk named Thomas Merton, dialoged quite a bit with Buddhist monks in Thailand. He was comparing notes, essentially, in terms of the practice of mysticism, the various mystical techniques.

As we contrast those sources of mystical Christianity—the sources being Neoplatanism, the Bible, some influence from the mystery religions, and then in more contemporary times Hinduism and Buddhism—as we contrast that with evangelical piety, the evangelical piety that we will be developing, according to Bloesch, is biblical, being grounded in the New Testament and the Old Testament.

Emil Brunner has called this strain biblical personalism to distinguish it from the monastic mystical religion in which personality, as we are going to see, becomes transcendent or negated in this mystical quest, in this practice of the mystical quest in which one is seeking union with the undivisible One. Personality becomes negated or transcendent. Contrasted to that is the evangelical piety in which the personality is maintained.

The hallmark of evangelical piety is the doctrine of justification by free grace. In contrast to the systems of works righteousness, characterizing nearly all of the world’s religions and mystical piety, to a degree.

Before we actually begin discussing some of the aspects of mystical piety, it is helpful to be aware, historically, of who some of the mystics have been and who some of those are that represent the evangelical piety. This will help us to get a better understanding of what we mean by each particular strain.

In terms of mystics, well-known mystics include different individuals. From the early Eastern church, there was Dionysius, John of Damascus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great. Merton claims that Gregory of Nyssa was really the true Father of Catholic Mysticism, rather than Dionysius.

In the medieval church, those whose writings on spirituality reflect more of the mystical tradition include Augustine, Thomas



6 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

Aquinas, Meister Eckhart, Henry Suso, Catherine of Genoa, Catherine of Siena, Richard Rolle, Thomas à Kempis, and Johannes Tauler.

Post medieval and then modern mystics would include: Teresa of Ávila, John of the Cross, Brother Lawrence, Fénelon and Thomas Merton.

Noted Protestant mystics have included Jakob Böhme, William Law, Johann Arndt, Gerald Heard, Albert Day, Rufus Jones, Douglas Steer, Evelyn Underhill, and probably Friedrich Schleiermacher and Paul Tillich.

Those who would be characteristic more of the evangelical piety that we are going to discuss would include, from the classical era, writers like Irenaeus, Luther, Calvin, Richard Baxter, John Bunyan, John Wesley, and Jonathan Edwards. Contemporary Protestants who would reflect this evangelical piety would include Kierkegaard, William Booth, Blumhardt, Dwight Moody, Karl Heim, P. T. Forsyth, Reinhold Niebuhr, Emil Brunner, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Karl Barth, and G.C. Berkouwer.

The Roman Catholic theologian Hans Küng, at least in his earlier writings, which were oriented towards justification by divine grace, would also be characterized or characteristic of evangelical piety, as we are going to develop that.

There have been those thinkers and writers who, throughout the ages, have sought to combine both mystical and evangelical piety. Again, for the sake of understanding the ideas better, it would be helpful to understand some of those writers. Catholic writers, for example, who have had at least one foot in evangelicalism would include Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, Johannes Tauler, Thomas á Kempis, John of the Cross, and Pascal. In more recent times, and Catholic writers who have spoken of the lift to heaven, in contrast to the ladder of merit, as they have developed their ideas of mystical piety, would include: Hugo Rahner, Karl Rahner, Thomas Merton, and Thérèse of Lisieux.

Protestants who have sought to appropriate what is biblically valid in mystical spirituality would include men like Luther, Calvin, George Fox, Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards. Pietists, such as Philip Jacob Skinner, August Francke; holiness devotional writers, such as Andrew Murray, Anna Smith, Agnes Sanford; and then Protestant mystics who are evangelical in orientation would



7 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

include Johann Arndt and Gerhard Tersteegen. The evangelicals from the Modern Protestant Community Movement would include Max Thurian, as well Mother Basilea Schlink. Then religious historians, such as Friedrich Heiler and Nathan Söderblom.

These are just some of the individuals that represent the different thoughts. And so, as you’re doing further reading, as you’re reading in spirituality and spiritual formation, perhaps from a historical perspective, this would give you an idea of who represents what.

Let’s focus now on mystical spirituality, and let’s talk about what we mean by mystical spirituality. We want to begin, first of all, by talking about the basic concepts of mystical spirituality. We need to reiterate that here we are going to be dealing with the kind of mysticism that has penetrated into the life of the church. Now you need to realize that the nature of mysticism, in general, means there will be common characteristics between Christian and that which we call pagan mysticism. It’s only natural. However, because of the Christian commitment to the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ, Christian mysticism will reflect unique biblical motifs as well.

There are two key aspects that make up the basic concepts of mystical spirituality. The first of these, and that which distinguishes it from the other evangelical piety, is that a primary aspect of mystical piety is that it is centered in direct or immediate experience of ultimate reality. Mystical spirituality, mystical piety focuses first and foremost on achieving an immediate experience with that which is ultimate reality. Now that ultimate reality is most commonly identified with Jesus Christ, or God, or the Word of God. Often, however, in some of the mystical writings throughout the ages, it is also envisioned in some more impersonal terms, such as the “world spirit,” “the Infinite,” the “ground of being.” And, again, you can see from that terminology and from that whole idea of this immediate experience of ultimate reality, the role that the Neoplatonic worldview has played in the shaping of Christian mysticism.

Even as we use the words “immediate experience of ultimate reality,” we need to be aware that in the history of the writings, there’s not a little disagreement in each one of those terms. What do we mean by an immediate experience? What do we mean by experience? And what do we mean by the ultimate reality? There has been some diversion, diversity, and difference in the way that is defined; but the one common factor that we see coming



8 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

throughout the almost 1700 years of the history of mysticism in the church is this emphasis, this attempt in the mystical quest, in having a direct or an immediate experience of that which is ultimate reality.

A second characteristic of mysticism, a basic concept, is that this experience of ultimate reality, this mystical union with God, if you would, is regarded as an encounter with mystery and is therefore ineffable, incapable of being expressed in words. This has to do with the nature of the ultimate reality, especially as we go back and consider the One of Plutinus’ worldview, the One, the undifferentiated unity of the Neoplatonic structure. This became equated with God, and this then was the ultimate goal of the mystical quest, to be united with that. And by the very nature of whom and what this God is, then the mystical experience itself entirely transcends our sensory intellectual consciousness, and therefore it is ineffable. It is trans-rational. It is incapable of being understood or even being explained. One cannot describe what it is. One can merely tell what it is not, because it transcends the reason.

Some mystics have said that “intellectually, the soul is blank in contemplation.” Often, therefore, the great mystics, as I’ve indicated, rest content in describing their experience in negative terms, telling what it is not. And so the mystic experience becomes that which is ineffable, incapable of being described and expressed in words.

So these two basic concepts become the basic building blocks for understanding what Christian mysticism is all about. First of all, it centers on a direct or immediate experience with ultimate reality, a union, a mystical union with God. Then, because of the nature of this ultimate reality, this direct or immediate experience, this union with God, is an encounter with mystery; and it is ineffable. One cannot describe it. It goes beyond reason.

Having looked at those basic concepts, let’s spend some time discussing the theology of mysticism, how this is worked out. For the basic concepts really do not differ any at all from the intellectual mysticism of Plutinus. He talked about the immediate experience of the ultimate reality of the One, and that it did transcend reason. And what has happened in the Christian mysticism is that this worldview, this way of looking at reality, was simply brought into the reading of Scripture; and now, instead of just an experience with the “ground of all being,” one was having



9 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

a mystical union with God. Obviously, this worldview, this way of looking at Scripture, worked itself back into a theology.

So let’s talk about some of the points; and, again, this will not, by any means, be an exhaustive study of the theology of mysticism. For we are interested here, really, in just seeing how mysticism has influenced our present views of spirituality; and, in particular, the individualistic approach that we take to spiritual formation. So we will look at some key aspects of the theology of mysticism and how this has influenced our present views.

First of all, let’s talk about God and the view of God. God is often depicted in mystical literature as being both above and beyond being, from an ontological perspective. What the theologians here were seeking to overcome was what they considered to be an inadequate anthropomorphic understanding of God. And here I think they are going in the right direction. Of course, God is much other than we are. God is totally other than we are. The mystics would often refer to God as Father and Everlasting King. However, they were very quick to point out that these terms were to be understood symbolically and not literally. God, they maintained, is the source and ground of all being. He is both the world’s soul and the core and center of the human soul.

Often what you would find in some of the mystic writings is that Plutinus’ One, the “ground of all being,” would be equated with God the Father. Then the nous, the Mind, the next level of reality, would be equated with God the Son. And then the world’s Soul, which is the intermediary between Mind and Matter, would be associated with the Holy Spirit; so that God becomes both the world’s soul and the core and center of the human soul. God is spoken of often in the Christian mystic writings as the undifferentiated unity.

You can see from those words and those terms the impact and the influence of Neoplatanism and why we say that Neoplatanism was a key source for Christian mysticism. An important thing to see there and something that we will come back to again is that mystics view God as being both the world’s soul and the core and center of the human soul, the God that is within. Remember, again, the Neoplatonic anthropology, the Neoplatonic way of looking at man. Man was manifold. Man contained all aspects of reality. Man was a microcosm of reality containing matter, nature, soul, and mind in himself. That is why the intellectual mystical quest was a valid one, one within to link up with the undifferentiated unity.



10 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

Going on, though, with our mystical description of God: God, because of what He is, is above love and affection, according to some of the mystics. Because He is above and beyond being, He is above love and affection. If He was an object of love and affection, then He is no longer an undifferentiated unity. One mystic even says, “We cannot even say that He is an objective reality.”

Because God is viewed as both the world’s soul and the core and center of the human soul, man is understood as being in basic continuity with God. That’s an important aspect of the theology that we need to realize. To come to God means to descend into the soul, to journey to the center. And you will often hear those words used in mystical writings. The image of God in man, then, becomes a divine spark implanted in the human heart. So the image of God is that divine spark, and we must find that divine spark within in order to find God. To find God we descend to the center, we journey to the center, we center, centering. You’ll find that emphasis throughout mystical writing.

Another aspect of the theology of mysticism that is unique and worthy of note has to do with faith. Faith, for the mystic, is an ecstatic state of being grasped by mystery. Faith is what we are operating on and operating in when we participate in God or the ultimate reality. Now faith does not involve a confrontation by that reality, but a trans-rational participation in that reality. As the mystic becomes involved in the mystic union, as the mystic becomes involved in this immediate experience of ultimate reality, he or she enters into the realm of faith. And it becomes the realm of faith because it is beyond reason. Often you will hear this experience described as the dark night of faith. And that dark night of faith refers to the soul’s being overwhelmed or blinded by the uncreated light of God. As one draws nearer and nearer to the undifferentiated unity of the One, one draws nearer and nearer to that which is trans-rational, which the mind cannot understand, and therefore one is thrown into the arms of faith. One’s reason is literally blinded by the shafts of light that one encounters.

In the book Spiritual Traditions for the Contemporary Church, an article by Maas and O’Donnell, dealing with mysticism; and, in particular, dealing with John of the Cross. It says, “For John of the Cross, faith in its most comprehensive sense, includes not just intellectual ascent to revealed propositions, but also the whole existential attitude of radical openness to God’s love. Indeed, contemplative prayer itself is a certain activation and unfolding of the inner reality of faith, which together with hope and love



11 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

serves as our support, protection, and guide for the entire journey to God.” Now there is some use of words there, as they talk about faith and add to it hope and love, which sounds very good. It sounds very biblical. Indeed, the words do come from Scripture; but as we develop our understanding of mysticism, you are going to see that their definition of faith, the definition of love, the definition of hope is quite different from that which we have come to understand from our evangelical perspective as being the biblical definitions of those concepts.

So as we consider the mystical view of faith, especially the higher faith, the faith that really matters as one enters into the mystical union and reaches the upper levels of the mystical quest, faith becomes not a confrontation by the reality of God, but rather faith is an ecstatic state of being grasped by the mystery of the undifferentiated unity.

A fourth aspect of the theology of mystical piety has to do with grace. Grace is usually seen as an infused power by which our nature becomes transformed or divinized. This idea of grace is illustrated by some quotes. For example, Athanasius said, “Christ became man so that man might become God.” And, of course, man becomes God by grace. And so the object of grace, the object of this infused power, is the divination or the transformation of our being into God’s being.

Catherine of Genoa, a noted mystic, said “My being is God, not by simple participation, but by a true transformation of my being, that transformation being made possible by the infusion of grace.” Now, again, what you have to understand and have to see here is that continuity of being between God and man. Ultimately, man and God are connected ontologically. There is an ontic connection between the being of God and the being of man that makes this transformation possible. We have within us, at the very center of our soul, at the very center of our being, the divine spark; so that there is not an infinite difference in terms of God and man, but there is this ontic continuity.

This concept of grace is closely bound up, historically, traditionally in the mystics, with that of merit, by which man is made worthy of the glory of God. Aesthetics preparing themselves for the privileges of divine sonship do so by the rigorous disciplines. Most, however, acknowledge, even here, that their merits are really the gifts of God; and so you see this contrast as well.



12 of 13

Lesson 13 of 24

A fifth concept, in addition to God, man, faith, and grace, which is unique and which we must be aware of, has to do with authority. Authority in mysticism, in spite of what is often said, real authority, as it’s shown by the writings and the practice, becomes the spiritual or the mystical experience. For most mystics, the real basis of authority is subjective. It is the mystical experience itself. Schleiermacher described his mystical experience in terms of a “feeling of absolute dependence on God.” And Quaker mystics have talked about the inner light, which becomes that basis of authority. The mystical experience itself is the authority. And often, as a result of this, as you study the history of the church, you find that predominant mystics were often at odds with the church itself and with the hierarchy of the church. For, as we look at mysticism, we see that, in a very real sense, in terms of salvation, of terms of ultimate union with God, the mystic was performing an end run around the church. Salvation was basically found in the mystical experience. The mystical experience itself becomes the basis of authority, the basis for salvation, the basis for redemption and union with God.

A sixth aspect of the theology of mysticism has to do with the ascent to God, the actual mystical quest, the climb, the ascent to the mystical union with God. This ascent in the mystical literature is often pictured as three stages. It was first recorded in the Pseudo-Dionysius, who borrowed it almost en masse from the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus, who was actually the one who documented Plutinus’ writings. So the three stages of the mystical ascent to God are basically the three stages of the intellectual mystic quest to the One, to the union or the immediate experience with ultimate reality.

The three stages are the purgative stage, the illuminative stage, and the unitive stage. The purgative stage is usually preceded by some sort of religious awakening. One is converted in some sense. And the purgative stage itself focuses on the body, focuses on the material; and it involves aesthetical exercises in an analogous manner to the training of an athlete. It is often characterized by terminology such as mortification of the flesh. Here what one is doing is putting oneself into a position where they can move to the upper stages and the more contemplative aspects of the mystical quest, freeing oneself of the demands and the desires and the lusts of the flesh, in the purgative stage.

The second stage is the illuminative stage. In the illuminative stage one begins, in a very real sense, in the contemplation that


Christ-Centered Learning — Anytime, Anywhere

13 of 13

Historical Factors: Mystical Spirituality – Part ILesson 13 of 24

is at the center of the mystical quest. The illuminative stage requires one to focus all of one’s faculties on God. One must learn to trust God further than one can see rationally. During this stage, God sends shafts of light into the soul, providing the mystic with sensible comforts. The idea here is that in the contemplation one draws nearer and nearer to the One, to God, and to that trans-rational experience. There is much in the illuminative stage that is not understood rationally, as a matter of fact. And John of the Cross, in his writings as he described the illuminative stage, as he described that period in which he was actually drawing nearer to God, described it as the “dark night of faith.” A dark night because it was beyond reason, beyond his rational powers; the dark night of faith, because now he was thrown into the realm of faith.

The final stage is the unitive stage. It is the stage which has been often misinterpreted and which can have the odor of, as Bloesch says, pathological deification. Most mystics understand this final complete union with God as an almost unreachable ideal. This is one in which the being and the person is totally lost in that undifferentiated union, in which, as Catherine of Genoa says, “My being has become God.”

We will continue in the next session with our study of the theology, and we will focus on the centermost part of their theology, the part that is necessary to really understand mysticism; and that has to do with the mystical idea of prayer.

ommunitdiscipleship in c y: discipleship in community ...are the bible and neoplatonism. the...

Documents