Talk:Christian mysticism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questionable content: Where did all this text come from?

A lot of the text in this article reads well, but it unclear if it is correct, and in some cases it is clearly not correct, because there are no references. Very questionable content here. History2007 (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

Well, I think the cases should be distinguished. The cases which are clearly not correct should be corrected; the cases which are unclear if correct should be marked for clarity, and the cases which are clear and correct but lack references should be marked with the appropriate tag as well. I think it would be better to think not in terms of "questionable content" in a vague sense, but rather, what would a good organization of this article be? What are the main streams of Christian mysticism? Who are the important classical and modern authors? In general, the article seems to me to be not so much questionable, as lacking the context to understand the topic. What is here is pretty much all good afaict, but its connections to the tradition are basically either blankly asserted, or not clear to non-experts. Tb (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

But lack of refs is obvious. So until that is addressed, the text can not be relied upon. History2007 (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Division of labor serves Wikipedia well. Three WikiProjects have listed the article as "mid-importance", and all have labelled it a B quality. I find both ratings incomprehensible. It should be High importance for Spirituality, at least, and C quality. We can ask the projects to work on text; particularly the Spirituality project. The tasks of writing, organizing, editing, sourcing, and so forth, are different, and require different skills and temperaments. Hence my reply calling for the cases to be distinguished. Perhaps that is your vocation here, to mark the ones you think are clearly not correct, unclear if correct, or correct but lacking references. This can then help others with the talent or skill to address particular things to begin doing so. Tb (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My less philosophical view: I want to fix it, but I am too busy or lazy. I will get to it one day. I have put it on my list of articles to think about. History2007 (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Tb: Since you seem to know the the topic, could you clarify something for me please before I add it, to be sure I get it right. In general, by reading the article, I am not sure if communicates the idea to myself as a newcomer. It seems to go on and on without saying what mystical experiences are in a few sentences, and it does not seem to mesh with what Avila, John and the Cross etc. teach in a smooth way. It needs work.

But the key question I have is about phenomena. In: An Anthology of Christian mysticism by Harvey D. Egan 1991 ISBN 0814660126 page 539 he says that Gemma Galgani experienced more "secondary mystical phenomena" than any other Christian mystic. So I asked if that is secondary, if there also "primary phenomena". The search for "secondary mystical phenomena" leads to many references, but there does not seem to be much on primary phenomena. So what are they? The article should discuss the phnomena of course. References for 2ndary phenomena are:

• Mysticism: a variety of psychological perspectives by Jacob A. Belzen, Antoon Geels 2004 ISBN 9042011254 page 295

• The Holy Spirit: medieval Roman Catholic and Reformation traditions by Stanley M. Burgess 1997 ISBN 1565631390 page 177 (talks about Ignatius)

• The mystical experience and doctrine of St. Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort by Joseph Raja Rao 2005 ISBN 8878390305 page 178

So what are primary phenomena and how are they distinguished from 2ndary? Ideas will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is, if I recall correctly, an idea from John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. The "primary" is the experience of God himself; the "secondary" are all those other things. However, the point more here is that this is specifically Carmelite language, which comes to be of great importance after John of the Cross. A good section for a revamped article would be about John of the Cross, though what are the best things to talk about is unclear to me. Saying "what mystical experiences are" is not really something we can tackle, for the basic reason that mystics themselves struggle to find language. All I think we can do is describe the "next level out": the different language that mystics use to describe their experiences, and the "traditions" or "schools" associated there. There is, for example, the hesychast school of the East, the Desert Fathers, the Carmelites, the distinctive meditation of the Jesuits (see the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius), moderns like Evelyn Underhill or Thomas Merton, medievals like Hildegard of Bingen and Julian of Norwich. It's a huge topic. Tb (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So I am beginning to get the idea (which is reasonable) that it is hard to put the experience into words. In fact Teresa of A. just had to compare it to watering the garden etc. But I am not sure if Julian was along the same lines, although she did report talking to God. Harvey D. Egan mentions a whole pile of people, Galgani, Kowalska etc. I guess by the time I write about this, I end up learning about it anyway: which is partly my motive for writing it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Christianity vs Mainstream Christianity, Liberal mysticism?

Working from the assumption that there is indeed something like biblical based mysticism:

How do we divide the true from the false? Surely all Christians would not agree that the mysticism exersized by Freemasons for example is true Godly illuminism?

If the big majority agree that all illumination is from Yahweh, and if all Christians would agree on that, then surely there would be no need to divide the holy from the not holy. But if there is a large stream within Christianity, who are drawn to the hidden things of God and becoming still before God in prayer and sees having spiritual encounters as something normal for a Christian, but who also believe that there are deceptive movements and encounters with an "angel of light" as Paul warned about, that is not from God, then surely the article should allow for a discussion from various angles. Unless the word "Christian mysticism" had been "hijacked" by Liberals and Gnostics to mean only their kind of mysticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Paul felt so strong about this that he wrote

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed

Galatians 1:8,9. Looking at the Soteriology of Christian mystics such as Jacob Boehme, Swedenborg, Jakob Lorber, Leopold Engel, to name but a few, it is clearly different from Mainstream Christianity. (See Great Gospel of John ). Surely Christians that takes Paul's words serious, should be concerned about mysticisms that brings another gospel of selfrighteousness and earning one's salvation, disregarding the cross and the blood of Jesus for our redemption? (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC))

Concerning the above discussion: Like trying to define the canon of scripture by way of discussing heretical sermons-- the discussion cannot achieve its goal.

If we wish to write articles about late Eastern Spiritual (e.g., Hindu, Buddhist, and such) influences on Christian prayer, then that article can be written, but "Christian Mysticism" is not that article. If we wish to write an article about Christian heretics who were associated with Christian Mysticism, then that, too, would be another article. If we wish to write about how authors of fiction, secret societies, charlatans, and others have made use of themes surrounding Christian Mysticism, that would be a different article as well. Meanwhile, the best start, is to remove all of that "Christian Mysticism is not" content and begin stating what it is without looking over our shoulder.

Let this be a systemic article as regards the topic without undue weight be given to any extremity.

Using what seemed appropriate from what now exists, I threw out some rough ideas on my userpage. cregil 02:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion concerned 50k of text added to the article with POV violations, Original Research Violations, Forking violations, and others. All of that content has sense been removed.

The starting point

This article is written from the starting point assuming that Christian mysticism is Christian just because it is labelled as such.

There is much debate about this and many articles have been written where all mysticisms have been described as originating from Babilonian mysticism, introduced to the Jews in the time they were in exile in Babilon.

Whether mysticism has a Chinese, a Christian, or a Muslim flavour, at the root of it it remains mysticism, and mysticism is totally removed from everything that Pauline Christianity propagates.

The article is thus very biased and those who participated all seems to come from the entry point that it is Christian, looking for sources which can selectively be quoted to support their stand.

Having mystical experiences with God is by no means something foreign to a true Spirit filled believer Christian, but labelling that under mysticism, is not acceptable.

How can this subjectiveness of this article be changed?

My research has taught me there are two kinds of illuminism, Lucifarian illuminism and Godly illuminism. Jesus and Lucifer were both referred to in the bible as star of the morning, illuminators.

The illumination they give however are worlds apart, and one originates from the Tree of Life and the other from the Tree of knowledge of Good and evil.

Christian Mysticism along with other mysticisms has thus nothing to do with Christianity and it's central message.

This is not just my opinion, many sources can be named.

Based on one site on mysticism I read, mysticism (whatever type it is) is based on prayer, good works of love and meditations. Because these three things can be incorporated into any kind of religion, they continue, it can be for Christians, Muslims, Hindu etc.

But Christianity is different from all other religions, in the sense that we do not choose our God, He chooses us. He finds us when we do not yet seek Him. He died for us while we were yet sinners. And all we have to boast about is His grace and no effort of our own. Once we respond to grace, He starts transforming us into His image, but it is not due to our striving and our working, it is due to His grace alone. Now we worship and love Him, simply because He is worthy, not in order to advance to some higher level of spirituality. It is not a matter of what we bring to Him, but a matter of what He puts into us. That is what His work of grace is all about.

Gnosticism propagates that Christ is in all, that Christ is your true self. That is part of the teachings of mysticism, but a total distortion of the gospel brought by the Apostle Paul. Paul teaches that all have sinned and falls short of the glory of God. Gnosticism and Mysticism teaches that we all are god.

Therefore the bible teaches the Christian, the law came through Moses, but Grace and Truth came through Jesus Christ. (John 1)

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not one of spiritual experiences or love. It is a gospel of Grace and Truth.

All spiritual experiences is not of Jesus Christ. There are many spiritual experiences from other sources. That is why Truth was always so important to Jesus.

How do we fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jampies9 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ on almost every single point in your comments, which are made without WP:RELIABLE references. This article was in really bad shape a few days ago, and sadly your edits have made it even worse. I have other things to do now, but please do not interpret my lack of edits to this article as a sign of the acceptance of your viewpoint. History2007 (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The crux of the matter is this : what is mysticism? Can what is associated with the theology and worldview of mysticism be reconciled with Christian systematic theology? (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)) If mysticism merely meant "a person that has a supernatural kind of experience", then surely it would logically follow that there could be a Christian branch for it as well as a pagan branch for it. But inherent to the meaning of mysticism and the general associations with the term, mysticism and gnostic illuminism has become inseperable terms. So is Christian mysticism gnostic? Absolutely yes! Even if you just look what the participants of the article wrote about the "theology" of Christian mysticism, making statements such as "God became human so that man might become god", there could be no doubt that it has the same origin. As Gnosticism and Lucifarian illuminism is related, using a term such as "Christian mysticism" would be like using a term such as "Lucifarian Christians". It is an oxymoron to start with. It is so indeed that where there is a truth, there is always a variety of lies that distorts that truth, and in similar way, if Jesus is the Truth, there would be a variety of false Jesus's and false teachings that distorts the truth. Therefore all Christian mystics doesn't teach always the exact same things. It depends on the opennes of the audience to receive Gnostic teachings, and to introduce the concepts thereof gradually, bit by bit, as to not "scare away" the potential convert. Which Evangelical Christian would listen to a Gnostic teacher telling them that they are going to introduce them to Gnostic Occult teachings that would eventually lead to Lucifarianism? No way! It is brought subtely and sly, bringing little lies with existing truths, and gradually building on those lies, layer upon layer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC) The tactic of the snake is just the same as in Genesis, to target one questioning what God said, twisting it, and making it appealing to eat of the gnostic tree of knowledge of good and evil, with a false promise that then you will be "god". Unfortunately one cannot eat from the Tree of life and the Tree of knowledge simultaneously. It is either the one or the other. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 10:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

Those sound like your personal views and read more like a sermon than an encyclopedia entry. In any case, suitable tags were added, given the rapid decline in quality, and the introduction of material out of the blue that has no relevance to the topic. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks. I suggest the following, why don't we write an article on differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism. Then some of the content discussed here could be moved in a more orderly and structured way there. Would you agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The article as mentioned above is written now. I am ready now to delete duplications, that is on this article, so that the other one can be finalized first. Hope you would agree. (WalkingInTheLight2 (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

WalkingInTheLight, please do that. And the lead on this article needs to be wikified too. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at Bernard McGinn's Introduction to his Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, it seems we may have a model as well as help in an objective definition as McGinn does refer to the historic development of the term as well as the broad subject matter which it regards. Not using this entry on Christian Mysticism as a pulpit for anti-mysticism will do much for removing the threat presented by subjectivity, such as has been discussed above.

Some of the discussion in this heading might be tempered by reading about the Christian Mystics and their writings. John of the Cross, Walter Hilton, Theresa of Avila, Francis De Sales, Athanasius' The Life of Saint Antony, the author of The Cloud of the Unknowing, and such, were not Gnostics, nor are their writings; therefore, that discussion does not seem to be pertinent.

We need to allow the editing to address the topic for what it is, and not from an objection to the topic. Like many of you, I am both very interested in seeing this article developed and I am very busy. It will help us to collaborate. If one's position regarding Christian Mysticism is antagonistic, it would seem that that this is not an article suitable for such a person's involvement as such would amount to mere censorship. Crews Giles (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that everybody that participate here either have had first hand mystical experiences or are very interested in mysticism.

The issue however is: is all mysticisms Christian? Even if it is called Christian? Some mystical teachings and practices allows only union with God through the mediator Jesus Christ, and sees all direct unions with God as unscriptural and occult. Other mysticisms denies the need for mediation and mixes together mysticisms from various streams. Some mysticisms allows only strict adherance to Biblical guidelines in their practices. And other disregard Scriptural guidelines as optional. To some people making this "divide" is not improtant, for they consider all types of mysticisms to be equally valid. To some others however, who sees a danger in Christian mystical practices outside of Scriptural context, it does matter, and enormously so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkingInTheLight2 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Concerning differences between Christian mysticism and Evangelical mysticism the statement soon followed:

The article as mentioned above is written now. I am ready now to delete duplications, that is on this article, so that the other one can be finalized first.

These do need to be deleted. They understandably appear as hostile to the subject of this article. I fear the scope of this article must be too narrow to include adequate discussion necessary to allow "Christian Mysticism" to be addressed in the light of the many controversial items evoked by such issues as you have proposed.

Please note that "Christian Mysticism" is categorized under Christianity, Spirituality and Religion, and therefore the content of the article should reflect such a perspective. cregil 04:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

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)

The exiting definition citation from "Theological Dictionary," a blog, is un-sourced itself and appears to violate the rule regarding original research. Crews Giles (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

==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)

Issue moot, material was deleted some time ago. --cregil 20:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

--: I felt I could not leave the new revised definition as it was. An introduction to Christian Mysticism that only speaks of Jesus as a teacher and an example ignores 2000 years of Christianity and the very basis of that faith. Christianity without the resurrection, the divinity of Christian, the trinity and it all. is not Christian...Read the Apostle's Creed for a start. The whole genus of Classic Christian Mysticism in Europe is steeped in Catholic Theology. God help us if all we have is Jesus a "teacher and an example".Georgeblast (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

==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)

==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)

This discussion is moot. Too detailed and unbalanced for opening paragraph and the material has since been removed.--cregil 20:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

== 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)

Not nonsense from a certain perspective. The article does seem to hinder itself by that definition. Christian mysticism, as the item appears at present, seems to be associated with a technical term (with which I am unfamiliar) regarding a heresy or sectarian approach. In a broader view, I believe that the topic would more naturally be open to spiritual experience and religious experience within the Christian tradition. Examples as visions, private (as opposed to universal) revelation and an encounter not with God, but with God's love, God's wisdom, and so on. In other words, mystical experiences taken broadly. Certainly, meditative and contemplative prayer ought to be a part of this. In the present state, the perspective seems forced from a tangential understanding (e.g., Illuminati, Conspiracy, Gnosticism-- none of which are easily associated with the topic heading). Crews Giles (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

[comment to the author]God is the initiator of the experience not man. Man cannot by seeking find Him out and He dwells in unapproachable light. Jesus is the express image of God, the way, the truth, and the life. This is where many Christian Mystics fall down. They turn what ought to be a heartfelt response to a living God into a method under the power of man's will. Grace is the foundation under every step of the life that knows it's Creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.209.160 (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

== 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)

Link violated POV as hostile to the subject and has been deleted. --cregil 21:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

== 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)

This is now moot, no merger proposal exists.--cregil 21:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Christianity defined as Trinitarian Christianity?

I am just curious if the term "Christian" in this article would be defined as the predominant trinitarian Christian faith? The reason I'm asking is that while the article seems to be primarily from a trinitarian perspective, quite a few of the links in this article don't represent that stream. - Bob K | Talk 19:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont know what's the point of adding non-catholic people in the list of mystics, since there is nothing even slightly simmilar to mysticism in protestantism - let alone sects. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this discussion active? In as much as some (certainly not all) Protestant denominations are hostile to the studied practice of Christian Mysticism, this article cannot be a forum for attacks on the practice.

Furthermore the heading inclusion of "Trinitarian" as it relates to the discussion is likely to lead into point-of-view violations no matter the outcome of this discussion. It seems reasonable to assume that the doctrine of the Trinity will remain a defining Christian tenet as it has remained historically and so need not be considered a concern to be addressed in this article. --cregil 21:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

==Proposed removal== The article describes mysticism in the catholic (Roman/Greek/Russian/etc) tradition; and the list includes some people who are definitely against this doctrine. We should take into account that having "visions" or something like that does not mean a person is a mystic. I propose to remove the following people:

• Dag_Hammarskjöld, in his youth he read the mediaeval mystics and wrote a diary about it. I did that too, but Im not a mystic.
• Catharose de Petri, she should be listed in Esoteric Christianity because her teachings are Gnostic. Gnosticism branched out of chritianity in the III century.
• Jan van Rijckenborgh, same as above
• Max Heindel, same as above. Read the article, do you see anything about occultism and magic? This article is about "christian mysticism", use Esoteric Christianity in staid.
• Aiden Wilson Tozer said:

Some of my friends good-humoredly – and some a little bit severely – have called me a 'mystic.' Well I'd like to say this about any w:mysticism I may suppose to have. If an w:arch-angel from heaven were to come, and were to start giving me, telling me, teaching me, and giving me instruction, I'd ask him for the text. I'd say, 'Where's it say that in the Bible? I want to know.' And I would insist that it was according to the scriptures, because I do not believe in any extra-scriptural teachings, nor any anti-scriptural teachings, or any sub-scriptural teachings. I think we ought to put the emphasis where God puts it, and continue to put it there, and to expound the scriptures, and stay by the scriptures. I wouldn't – no matter if I saw a light above the light of the sun, I'd keep my mouth shut about it 'til I'd checked with Daniel and Revelation and the rest of the scriptures to see if it had any basis in truth. And if it didn't, I'd think I'd just eaten something I shouldn't, and I wouldn't say anything about it. Because I don't believe in anything that is unscriptural or that is anti-scripture.

This shows he is believes firmly in evangelism, so he is no mystic.

• Guy Finley, i cant find any source that claims any mysticism. It does say he was influenced by mystical writings, not that he was a mystic himself.
• William Blake: He said imagination was "the body of God" and a lot of things that cant be classified into any christian denomination.
• Simone Weil: She was a jew, attracted to christianity but never baptized, because she chose not to. So, are we listing christian mystics or what?
• Vernon Howard: influenced by eastern mysticism, Jung's pscicology and trascendentism. Among his books we find: Cosmic Command, Esoteric Mind Power, The Power of Your Supermind, Secrets of Mental Magic, How to Use Your Full Power of Mind. I dont think the "esoteric cosmic magic of the supermind" is christian.

I'd like to hear some oppinions. Argentino (talk/cont.) 19:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• This response concerns the issue of Trinitarian Christianity vs. Esoteric Christianity as well as what is immediately above: it seems that this article has conflated the two and perhaps therefore should be renamed something like "Traditional Christian Mysticism and Spirituality" and purged of the esoteric references. Regarding various names suggested for removal: Tozer may not have liked the word "mysticism", but from his whole body of work, it is clear that he qualifies. He was deeply influenced by medieval RC spiritual writers and also, very occasionally, speaks of experiences that he had which are clearly "mystical" in character. Weil was indeed never baptized, at least not in water, but had an encounter with the risen Christ, and embraced the faith. I don't have much of an opinion on removing any of the other names proposed for removal. --Midnite Critic (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the two articles idea; but im not sure if an encounter with Christ makes a person a mystic. I dont know much about protestant mysticism (in fact I used to think it didnt exist), but for what makes traditional mysticism (roman, egyptian or greek), such an encounter is unlikely to qualify because it's not spiritual union. Argentino (talk/cont.) 16:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion appears closed and has been addressed both in other discussions as well as edits. --cregil 21:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

==Mystics?== I'm in disagreement with a number of the people listed as Christian Mystics. Before a list like this goes public, perhaps we should create a list of life criteria that would qualify someone for inclusion as a "mystic?" Perhaps I will work on this. For now, I have removed Erwin McManus. He's a pastor, church planter, postmodern apologist, author, and strong type A (I say that in a positive sense). How does he qualify as a mystic? Richard Foster, I would propose, is a good example of contemporary mystic. I've also added Bede Griffiths to the list. 216.57.66.65 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

== Dag Hammarskjöld == Responding to this comment:

"Dag_Hammarskjöld, in his youth he read the mediaeval mystics and wrote a diary about it. I did that too, but Im not a mystic."

With all due respect, perhaps his tendencies and talents led him exactly to mysticism. Have you read "Markings?" There's a nice review thereof on his wiki page.Soltera (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously addressed, DAG was removed--cregil 21:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Christian Mysticism template Christian Meditation

I posted a call for discussion at Template talk:Christian Mysticism. If we're going to delete the template here (and the template never uses the word mysticism), maybe the template should be renamed. Otherwise, it should be added to this article. Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• Cancel--it's already been moved.... That was fast! Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
• Nope, it's been reverted.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head...

Academically: While prayerful meditation and mysticism share the common root of "prayer" the perceptions of both practice and discussion are widely varied-- so much so that one practicing one may not recognize the similarity of the practice of the other. Much mysticism is centered upon meditation and much meditation is centered on mysticism, but they are not equivocal.

We could call it "Christian Prayer" and have the sections named,

• Prayer with words, asking for stuff
• Prayer with words, grateful for stuff received
• Prayer with words, adoring God.
• Prayer without words which seeks to hear, see and understand.
• Prayer with thoughts concerning words, ideas and concepts pertaining to God / Meditation
• Prayer with inward direction seeking to find an awareness of self in relation to others and to God / Contemplation
• Prayer in which images are often given as examples in which the person seeks to articulate or understand Godly truth and wisdom which remains beyond the the mental capacity of a human to know or to comprehend/ Mystical
• Prayer which manifests itself in, through, and of any or all of the above which transforms (in cooperative influence from within and from without) the person from mere temporal awareness to a heightened spiritual existence/ Transcendent Mystical Prayer.

But of course, that won't work, because persons centered upon one definition of prayer may have a tendency to deny that any other form exists, or deny that it rightly exists. Christian Mysticism, however, is a recognized discipline, is treated academically as a subject unto itself, and has historical and continuing meaning as a distinct set of teachings, practices and articulations.

Personally: I've been working my tail off here trying to undo the spam and vandalism after five years of neglect, while hoping not to step on toes of well-meaning additions but none-the-less contributions which came with personal agendas; and the fist sign of help comes with a "scrap this and start over under a new title" suggestion-- that is going to get me wearing my mean suit.

Practically: This article was asked to be developed and we are going to develop it, nurture and raise it to maturity even I have to wear armor to do it. If your interest leans toward meditation without the broader interest in Christian mysticism, please fork from here and submit the Meditation article elsewhere. This is not the place to fully develop an article on Christian mediation, no more than it was some little break-away sect's place to develop an article on conspiracy theories spinning off because some seminarian watched a movie! (Which defines my re-active work for the last three months).

Thanks for any help; but please, sit back and watch, read and re-read, find what is common, go back and research from your own library, read what has been and is being published on the topic (not a tangent topic-- BUT THIS TOPIC) and then contribute to make what is here better, and not look to turn it into something it is not. (Which defines my pro-active work for the last three months).

Growling yours, (but really, I'm an amiable guy and grateful for help)

--cregil 20:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Conceptualization of Re-Write

At present, this article proceeds from scholarship antagonist to the the topic. The article is heavily weighted, in its present form, as a criticism of Christian Mysticism rather than an article on Christian Mysticism. This cannot be a platform for an attack on the studied practice of Christian Mysticism by those whose traditions do not include or allow such praxis:

• The opening discussion of "primitive mysticism" contrasted to "Pauline Mysticism" is not about "Christian Mysticism" but a criticism of it.
• "Common Core Theory" appears to be original scholarship.
• Livingston is not a defining source on Christian Mysticism.
• Winfried Corduan is a scholar whose writings criticize Christian Mysticism.
• Defining an "absolute" of Christin Mysticism on the doctrine of the Trinity is unnecessary rhetoric.
• The statement that CM's interpret scripture metaphorically is setting up a straw man to push over. It is untrue as far as it goes in defining the topic, and the issue of "literal interpretation" has no part here.
• The "Theological Dictionary" is no dictionary at all, cannot be referenced, and itself is unsourced. It is an unattributed blog which presents no scholarly citations to support its material. Standard sources for help with definitions are available and should be consulted.
• The statement that CM's interpret scripture metaphorically has no historical foundation as regards the subject.
• Concerning the approachability of God, this consideration does not help to define CM.
• Allegorical interpretation of Scripture (sigh) like the previous two related claims above, has no part on the subject. CM is not a bible interpretation method, and it does not speak to the issues.
• The Sermon on the Mount and its interpretation is an example of Lectio Divina, but does not define, or help to define, CM.
• Dan Cohn-Sherbok's scholarship (Zionism, Jewish Christian relations, and such) does not serve for an initial discussion of CM-- it is, at best, tangential.
• "Carl McColman, a catholic blogger..." That is fine, but pales to the likes of McGinn or Underhill, or the CM's themselves. Scholarship based upon the accepted and widely read experts are available to us and ought to be used instead.
• Simply (and rather obviously) not true is McColman's quotation, "no absolutely clear distinction can be drawn between Christian and non-Christian mysticism." Defining "clear distinctions" may be difficult to articulate, but is probably unnecessary as a start for this article.

Nothing in the preamble serves this article, but rather sets it up as an article addressing very narrow and issue-based controversies. The whole of that present preamble needs to be deleted, as well as all subsequent material which addressed the same bias and criticizing discussion of CM. Unless there is an academic justification provided for such treatment of this topic, then editing by deletion of such material needs to take place, and quickly. cregil 18:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

MANY items deleted-- comprising about 70% of prior content.

The vast majority of what was deleted was spam which was pertaining to unrelated issues or overtly provocative: Conspiracy Theory, Occultism, Secret Societies, and such. The originator of that content no longer has a user account and could not be contacted.

Matters concerning the interpretation of scripture were removed. While some were sourced with citations, the material was not representative of mainstream thought concerning Christian Mysticism and need not be debated in this article.

Variations in practice and ideology related to the topic may be addressed as content to the extent suitable but addressing them as controversies is disordered.

One or two minor but lengthy digressions from the main topic were also deleted.

Please discuss how much of the "Theosophy" material weighs as belonging in this article as opposed to the article which exists by that name.

Each deletion is documented in "view history" and includes justification. --cregil 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

--cregil 21:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC) fixed strike outs--cregil 22:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Scope of article v. Christian meditation and Christian spirituality

Both in planning the revisions to this article and in the body of the article, we need to explain how this subject differs from Christian meditation. I support having two different articles, but we should keep our eye on the meditation article in order to better delineate the scope of this one. We should also consider the relation of mysticism to spirituality. There is presently no article Christian spirituality (note that it redirects to Christianity) even though there are numerous books on the topic that are not about theology but that might not cover the same ground as "mysticism". In fact, I was going to add some material to this article based on some of the books I own, but I realized the books were about "spirituality" and I wasn't sure how much overlap this article intends to allow. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC) --Georgeblast (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

--It may be useful to refer to "a History of Christian Spirituality" by Urban Holmes III (page 4), which proposes that spirituality (i.e. Prayer) usually has one of 4 different emphasis. He suggests that meditation can be "...an emptying (apophatic) technique of meditation or an imaginal (katiphatic) technique of meditation." They both fall in the category of Christian Spirituality.Georgeblast (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the books I was going to use. I just wasn't sure if we wanted to equate spirituality with mysticism.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

--:I see. Good question. My thinking is that spirituality encompasses more than mysticism even though mysticism and contemplative practices are all that I need. Holmes suggests (and others in later articles make explicit) Spirituality encompasses theology, social action , and evangelical forms as well as mysticism.Georgeblast (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I've rewritten the lead. The way it was when I arrived at it, having had 81.107.150.246's changes reverted, was a mess. You cannot simply have an article open with quotes from Evelyn Underhill. That is blatantly against the Manual of Style. I've rewritten it to include a citation of Underhill, but the lead really ought to follow the style, if not the content, of the way 81.107.150.246 or myself has written it.

I've removed the Underhill quotes from the lead because they don't tell me anything about what makes Christian mysticism specifically Christian. I've restored 81.107.150.246's version because it gives some examples of what might be considered Christian mysticism, although it would be useful if that could be expanded. The Underhill quotes told me what mysticism was in general, but if I want to know what mysticism in general is like, I'll go and read Mysticism rather than Christian mysticism.

I've got access to two reasonably large theology libraries in London, and am able to help find sources for this article, although I am primarily interested in philosophy first rather than theology. I'll also put out a call for help on Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion (etc.). —Tom Morris (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Tom. You caught the article in mid-edit. What you restored was a definition I put together so as not to require sources but which I didn't want to force on anyone, so I put Underhill above it so when it got deleted-- we would have something other than the Illuminati discussions as before.

81.107.150.246's edits were a tangle of add material, delete material and move material-- it is going to take a while to comb out the nits. I have already received a personal email from a friend about "a Way" as opposed to Christ being "the Way." --69.171.166.125 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin

The article claims that Jesus referred to his disciplines as a way to eternal life. That is simply not true. There is nothing of the bible of this sort or in any documented history books.

Jesus did refer to himself as THE Way and THE Life.

I ask for you to please change that section to reveal accurate facts. I tried but it was reverted. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessica5 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It was reverted because you changed the link to a disambiguation page. Also, "the bible" is not a valid reference in that there are many versions of "the bible," not to mention the original languages and non-church sanctioned texts. Don't think that "the bible" is the final authoritative word on any given subject. 69.181.249.189 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I respect that people have different views, but please insert the reference that was used to state that Jesus referred to his disciplines as a way to eternal way. I refute that claim as ungrounded and untrue, and as merely somebody's opinion, not even providing a valid source of any kind. As far as I know Wikipedia is for research and not the promotion of personal views, without sources. If it was stated that some Christian mystics believes that, it would be different and not so alarming to me. Thanks (14:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)~) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessica5 (talk • contribs) Within Christian mysticism there are two streams. Those who considers Jesus' teachings as guidelines to help people in their spiritual journey. Their concept of the Christ correlates much with ancient Greek philosophy.

Then there are Christian mysticism streams, such as Pauline mysticism and Evangelical mysticism, that sees Christ as Jesus the Anointed Messiah, through whom alone a person can have true intimacy with the Father. Jesus is considered by these type of mystics, as the (only) mediator (God-man), making possible union with a holy God through His atoning blood. All other religions are considered excluded from experiencing true oneness with God, and the grace of God to mankind in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is considered the central point of this faith. It is believed that by the veil that was torn as Jesus died, taking the sin of the world upon Himself, access to the very Throne of God has been granted to believers, making it possible for all sinful unworthy people to have intimacy with Almighty God in Him (Christ). Spiritual experiences of other religions, where Jesus the Christ is not believed upon as mediator, are generally reckoned to be originating from another source and not the biblical God, Yahweh. Note that this kind of mysticism is not the focus of this article.

The above was inserted by me. It contains proper reference to a source. I want to understand why this has been deleted? Surely you can't just delete entries because it doesn't support your point of view. If it is from a creditable source I can see no reason for it to be deleted without even consulting with me. (Yessica5 (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Current Edits

Nature of Mysticism

A section added by user 81.107.150.246. These additions seem to dilute as the article now begins (again-- it once did) with a definition of mysticism which seems not to add understanding. The roots of Christian Mysticism are not related to the root of the word, nor to the Eleusinian Mysteries; therefore, they ought not be mentioned.

Furthermore, major edits which move content, add content and delete content (all at once) are very difficult to manage-- especially when no summary is provided -- as had been done here. Please make use of this Discussion Page.

While some of the content seems appropriate, reverting seems (unfortunately) necessary due to the scope of the changes.--cregil 17:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

TOM: GEORGE: HAVING TO MANUALLY UNDO THE VANDALISM. THIS SECTION WILL GO AWAY. WE WILL REVERT, MANUALLY, TO PRIOR EDITION BEFORE 81.107.150.246 EDITS, THEN RE-WRITE, PLEASE? --cregil 16:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

The opening box

Beginning, "There is Primitive Mysticism, in which local..." is unnecessary and inappropriately ties this article to a perspective from the "Pauline Mysticism" article.

cregil 21:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed: Contributer forked this material -- a POV fork, forked article was rejected, and user-account has since been deleted.

The Preamble Text

Beginning, "Christian mysticism, according to the Theological Dictionary [2]..."

• The Theological Dictionary cited is a blog
  
• that blog entry is, itself, unsourced-- no editors, no ascription of any kind.
  
• the definition is both narrow and (apparently) biased only in that the perspective does not seem to be a general one.
  
• The dictionary is not searchable, and is presented only in "word of the day" format.
  
• It does not seem to meet even tertiary reference source criteria.

(deleting own comments for brevity in lieu of the above summary)--cregil 18:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The next statements in the current article begins, "Christian mystics interpret sacred texts..."
This is too early in the item to be discussing specific practices as doing so implicitly limits the scope of the broader subject. I submit the Preamble need not distinguish itself from unrelated or narrowly focused entries (e.g., "Pauline Mysticism")--cregil 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

===== Via Negativa and/or Cataphatic ? =====

Concerning what presently exists in the article:

Christian mysticism in its philosophies and theologies relates closely to Mystical theology. Dan Cohn-Sherbok, (rabbi of Reform Judaism, Professor at the University of Wales, and Jewish theologian) in his book Jewish and Christian mysticism, for example, concludes that both share a belief in divine intermediaries and the via negativa as a true path of enlightenment.

• It seems to me that the rabbi discusses an iceberg and the quoted statement is the tip. But I am not sure this article is the iceberg he discusses.
• Both apophatic and cataphatic need be discussed in the section of "Types" to follow. --cregil 19:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Now deleted --cregil 20:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Mysticism in General

The article cited from the American Peoples Encyclopedia defines mysticism outside of a Christian perspective which is, then, of little use here. Such a beginning sets this item to a reactive mood regarding its subject matter.

(deleting own comments for brevity)--cregil 18:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Three main types of mysticism identified Types of Christian Mysticism

• Currently includes "Three types": "the mysticism of nature, [monastic] mysticism, and theistic mysticism"
• (deleting my own prior comments for brevity)
• Since Christian Mysticism is clearly of the theistic type, is there justification for a section defining the other two?
• propose re-title section "Types of Christian Mysticism"
• propose expand to include specific categories of Christian Mysticisms which may be identified.

cregil 21:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

* Reheaded Section as "Types of Christian Mysticism

* Have retained "Three types" of Mysticism have added "Two types" of Christian Mysticism.

* Now Types of practice? Perhaps in terms of the kinds of religious experiences? --cregil 18:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Biblical Foundations

It now reads, in part, "At least three texts from the New Testament set up themes that recur... "

• From what source are these themes defined?
• Why are these themes being developed here in this article?
• These themes seem exegetical. That seems as content to be avoided here.
  
• This appears to represent original research.
• (deleting own additional comments for brevity, summarized above)--cregil 19:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Now deleted. --cregil 20:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the reference to types of Mysticism being distinct be removed and a reference added. I also propose adding a new sentence reading "These aspects are not necessarily mutually exclusive. " the three types of Mysticism (nature-mysticism, Soul mysticism and God-Mysticism)cited here are not distinct ( See "Mysticism -a Study and Anthology", The Study- chapter 9, p 43, by F.C. Happold, 1964) He proposed the three types ( calling them aspects) and clearly says they "are not necessarily mutually exclusive. He also follows with examples of each from Christians, implying that it is not a matter of one type being Christian and the others not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeblast (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I like that, George. That it is theistic and includes apophatic and cataphatic is useful for the direction I expect this article will wish to take-- I have seen such discussion in multiple articles and it seems a natural categorization. Although, that which is not theistic may be available within Christian Mysticism, by lacking that theistic component the others types are not specifically related to Christian Mysticism; so... do we want go there? It appears to me even without the distinctive aspect of a theistic, shall we say, content, the interpretation (understanding and meaning) will be theistic. If you agree, then how thinly do we wish to split that hair in an encyclopedic article? --cregil 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We are on the same wavelength. Let me see if I can come up with something similar that has proper references and makes the point that there are three ways the "Christian Mystic" comes to God e.g. by God's immanence in nature, Christ in us, as "it is not I but Christ in me" i.e. true self, and God as transcendent and ineffable and "wholly other". --Georgeblast (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Practice

Original Research:

• This is very good material but lacks sources.
• Perhaps it is more appropriate for a discussion of trans-personal psychology (Washburn, Jung, et. al.) as regards Christian Mystical experiences?
• The several paragraphs presently in this section take for granted certain themes not previously developed in the article. It ends by slipping sideways into Ascetism. All of the discussion is good, but we may wish to provide this within a greater structure.

Expansion:

• Difficult to tackle, but perhaps a section on Practice, needs to include:

* Fasting and Self-Denial

* Lectio Divina

* Meditation

* Contemplation

* Content regarding Theistic nature of experiences

* Content regarding Apophatic experiences

* Content regarding Cataphatic experiences

• Some means of expanding and providing reasonable limits to that expansion of this section.
• A means of subdividing. For example, Chronological Development (if there is any such distinction), or merely, "most common practices" or maybe even the way I just bulleted them?

--cregil 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Biblical Influences

Hebrew Scriptures

Added two examples (simply keying the word "vision") and commentary to expand the concept, then tied to the existing examples of Ezekiel and the Psalms.--cregil 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Christian Scriptures (New Testament)

Two critiques:

1. the bulleted format does not provide for relevant explanation
2. the selections given seem unduly focused upon the concept of the indwelling which is not specifically related to the teaching or practice of Christian Mysticism (that is to say, the indwelling is quite apart from any practice since it simply is whether it is acknowledged, perceived or in anyway experienced. --cregil 23:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Similarities in teachings, non-orthodox teachings

• This appears to be included as critical of the topic
• Christian Mysticism really does not support controversy and ought not be treated as such
• Relevance to this article is questioned.

--cregil 22:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I do not see any direct relevance of this section to the rest of the article. I have no idea what the point is.I vote to delete it. 70.27.233.55 Georgreblast (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• What are the "three schools" referred to in the section. I vote to delete it a second time. GeorgeBlast Georgeblast (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesuit conspiracy theories

Recommend Deletion. This material may be topically related from a certain perspective, but it is not essentially related to the article. cregil 22:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Crews Giles (talk

Agreed. I tried tidying that section up (and removed an encyclopaedia quote defining Illuminati - which would belong on the Illuminati page), but what remains is supported by a reference to a conspiracy theorist website article. This might be a point of view held by a significant number of people, but I think it need further citations to justify it's presence. Given the amount of pre-Jesuit historical material about mysticism cited in the rest of the article, this section frankly seems silly.

Timbomb (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the material seems silly in the context of this article.

This article is neither born out of nor effected by the subject of "Conspiracy Theories." That the "conspiracy theorist website" (mentioned above) refers to Christian Mysticism may suggest that "Conspiracy Theorist" must mention (and even link to) "Christian Mysticism," but not the other way around. It is an unnatural marriage. Increasing traffic to a conspiracy theorist website is not a function of this article and will only serve to confuse someone wishing to cite this article. It is unrelated-- logically, rhetorically and historically unrelated.

This matter will effect the Bibliography, See also, and references. Conspiracy theorists will need to do their work on their articles without relying on this one to do it for them. I recommend deletion of the Conspiracy Theory inclusions.

cregil 00:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Section Deleted : POV issues: Contributor Forked, Forked Article speedily deleted, user account subsequently deleted.--cregil 19:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical development: Greek philosophy, Christian mysticism, and related movements

This entire section (and its subheadings) was but a vehicle for including Conspiracy Theory material (Gnosticism, Illuminati, Freemasonry, and so on) and has been deleted as SPAM or vandalism.

--cregil 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

See Also

• Consolidated and alphabetized with entries from previously contiguous section entitled, "Related Articles" most of which were redundant.
• There is a line crossed in which an exhaustive list becomes merely exhausting. In the apparent aim at the former, we have nearly achieved the latter.

--cregil 22:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

Fox, Suso and Lorber entries seem of tertiary significance to this article. Recommend deletion. cregil 19:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Christ mysticism

New entry made, let's discuss:

"A survey of the mysticism of Paul the apostle explains that there are different types of Mysticism. Paul's mysticism is not of the kind that attempts a contact with the cosmic or super-natural. It is of a different kind. This mysticism is not a God-Contact- Mysticism. It is a Christ-Mediation-Mysticism, in which man cannot achieve a union with God directly, but may enter into a union with Christ, who is both man and God. This contact is made not by magical rites, sacraments or any works on our part,; but by a literal co-experiencing of Christ's death and resurrection. Pauline mysticism and Gnostic or Hellenistic Christian mysticism have been considered to be in direct contrast with one another.

As per the Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology with regards to the views of Albert Schweitzer, Schweitzer did not believe that Paul represents an appropriation of Hellenistic or Greek ideas into Christianity. Pauline mysticism is not about “being one with God or being in God” (Schweitzer, 1930, 3) and sonship to God is not conceived as “an immediate mystical relation to God, but as mediated and effected by means of a mystical union with Christ”.

Paul does not commend any kind of “God-mysticism”, but rather saw human beings to enter into relation with God by means of a “Christ-mysticism”, and it is this mysticism which is central to Paul's message." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessy543 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that this entry was simply just deleted without even discussing it. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessy543 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I removed it just now, since you had the "discuss" notice on it and that doesn't belong on the article page. Also, there seems to be some disagreements over what belongs in the article--lots of reversions lately. And I notice that all the references to Pauline mysticism have been removed as well. What's the reason for putting it in, and what's the reason for keeping it out? Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't notice I copied the discuss notice with when repasting it after previously been deleted. Thanks for pointing out.

The issue here that there are different types of Chrisitianity. And therefore there are different types of "Christian mysticism" and it seems that the person that police this article doesn't want to cater for any other view or practice of Christian mysticism but his own. You will also see in comments below how the two main streams was described, but after some edit war it was removed over and over. Thanks for getting involved. Wiki is supposed to be neutral. The Practice section on this article is not at all the way my type of Christian mysticism believes, and in my view what they describe here is mere New Age with a Christian flavour. I would like to see the practice of the presence of God as Brother Lawrence in his book described to be placed in here rather. (Yessy543 (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

With you here overseeing that there could be neutrality and fairness here, with administrators not using their powers to simply force their views, I took the liberty of restructuring the article to allow for a much more neutral and balanced representation of Christian mysticism. Thanks for being here and showing interest. (Yessy543 (talk) 08:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC))

The contributer of that material is no longer a user-- the account was deleted. The "edit war" is that the content added was known by that user to have already been discussed and rejected. The user was warned for multiple violations of guidelines on several articles and then booted.--cregil 04:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

I'm confused why you say that account was deleted when it's still up and since the user made edits just today. Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope of the article as of March 2011

There is currently an edit war going on related to the incorporation of Pauline mysticism into the article. This apparently is an old battle and was part of the reason the article was radically gutted and rewritten recently. The question then is how to define the scope of this article. With a title like "Christian mysticism", it seems the article needs to be as inclusive of all kinds of Christian mysticism--Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, non-Western, Ancient, Medieval, Modern, etc. We could rename the article "History of Christian Mysticism" and put each type in its separate section. Or name it "Roman Catholic Mysticism" or some such thing to restrict its contents to the RC tradition, which is often the tradition referred to as "Christian mysticism" (it's the one most people think of). We need to find some sort of solution that allows for conflicting views of mysticism while remaining NPOV. Any ideas? Aristophanes68 (talk) 03:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit war among peace seeking meditators? Interesting. But I think this article has missed the mark on so many issues and makes so many incorrect and contradictory statements now that I do not even want to make a single edit to it. Look at it this way: an article on mysticism and apart from being on a list, John of the Cross is mentioned in passing just once in the text, "in the Eastern section"! That says a lot about the lack of focus. And the statement that "Plato provides the basis of most later mystical forms" is flatly incorrect by most accounts, although it has some type of reference glued to the end of the sentence in this article. I do not have time to work on this, but I think it needs a flag at the top that it needs a "total rewrite". Wikipedia can not be perfect (yet) but the potential reader needs to be warned that they are reading a collection of random sentences, not an article. History2007 (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I see your point about John of the Cross being an Eastern mystic. That was a recent change done by one of the warring parties, and I've reverted because it's obviously incorrect. Thanks for pointing that out. Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ha! If you read the vandal's material you will find the he/she/they likely believe Saint John of the Cross is Saint John the Apostle-- who he/she/they reject as a late Eastern influence on Christianity and at the same time represents an Hellenization.

IMPORTANT: We have lost control of this article because changes are made by "real" editors without first checking if previous vandalism needs to be undone. Once you make a change, vandalism must be removed by tedious edits. Before you make a change, you may simply use the "undo" link. Also, combining moves with simple edits in one step makes following the changes very difficult. Please try to d those in separate steps (saves).

HOW TO REPAIR: I think one of us needs to set up a user page for a complete re-write. I have on on my own page which you are welcome to use.--cregil 22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Doing the edits on your page makes sense, except that the other editors will either start editing your draft or will start editing the finished page once you move it here. Either way, we need to decide how to handle the Pauline mysticism material that keeps getting added back in. At what point does it truly describe Paul's theology and at what part is it something completely different? CG, you gave me some solid concerns about the legitimacy of that whole subject, and I think it would be useful if you restated those concerns here so that we could discuss them. Meanwhile, we can ask the editors to name some Pauline mystics, for instance. And if we think the theory is completely modern and/or anti-catholic, we need to find ways of pointing that out in the article. To downplay the potential doctrinal conflicts, my sense is that this article might be safest done in a historical fashion, describing different practices as they developed across time. Editors can debate all they want what is or isn't "Christian", but they can't deny that certain forms of mysticism happened in the church in certain places and/or times. (Meanwhile, I'm trying to mediate the content that's on the page, but I will try to make my edits smaller and easier to revert.) Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your RFC question, if the article is titled 'Christian mysticism' then it should encompass all flavours and aspects of Christian mysticism (with respect for due weight) and not limit itself to particular subsets. If there is indeed material available for non-Catholic mysticism, then renaming the article wouldn't be appropriate and the material should be included here in an appropriate section, or split to a new article if the volume of material is sufficient. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no discipline regarding many of the edits. A contributer specializing in Hinduism rearranged the structure in two huge edits with NO discussion, and left us with the mess. The conspiracy-theorist added sixty-five thousand bytes of material on Illuminati and Gnosticism-- linking those to the likes of Saint John of the Cross! Again, no discussion. Pauline Mysticism begins with the false claim that Christian Mysticism rejects the teachings of Paul but then provides no definition of the mysticism it embraces, if any. That is rhetoric which seems to purpose a reactivity, rather than a contribution to this topic.

At this point, discipline is needed before anything is added.

The Canon of Scripture plus these three ought to be addressed and known by any editor: the writings regarding Christian Mysticism in 1) the undivided Church (before the schism), 2) in the Church of both East and West after the schism, and then the writings of the Catholic, Orthodox and/or Protestant denominations after the Reformation.

The problem with Pauline Mysticism is that it sets itself apart from all of the above and seems not to address any of the above. That it is again becoming an issue (after deleting the warnings, the calls for discussion, the point-of-view and undue-weight tags) I see it is nothing more than vandalism. We have 35 typewritten pages of discussion here-- it takes considerable time to read through-- and it is that long because of the incessant determination to proselytize or put forth personal agenda while never remotely engaging the material available to us regarding the subject at hand.

We are swatting at a swarm of gnats, and blocking users and IP addresses who show no discipline and no familiarity with the subject-- no engagement of what the Christian Mystics wrote and taught and believed-- that seems our first course of action.

When we are no longer constantly engaged in trying to accommodate those who have no interest in Christian Mysticism from taking the article "too far," then we might engage and contribute what Hilton, John of the Cross, Theresa, and others had to say.

1. Block the spammers and vandals.
2. Never contribute without first reverting from spammers, vandals and any other major edit which appears to redirect the focus from the topic. We must start with the "View History" tab. Did a POV tag get removed? Revert. This has not been done.
3. Someone create a page (not mine, please) for a new draft of the article to overlay this one when we have something manageable and then invite editor who show they have thoughtfully engaged the subject.
4. Re-tag this one as requiring a major edit, that it has several issues (our Hindu specialists removed those, I believe).
5. Delete the ancient, moot and ever-growing rehashing of the current Discussion page and start anew.

--cregil 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Soaking Prayer

Soaking Prayer is a form of practice of Christian mysticism within many Charasmatic churches. May we please add a section on that also.

PS: John Westley John Wesley, who started the Methodist church was also known for introducing mysticism to Protestantism. Brother Lawrence from who came The Practice of the Presence of God is celebrated amoung Catholic and Protestant mystics. Mysticism is not just amoung Cathoics. (Yessy543 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

Errorous mysticism, warnings within Catholic circles from the Bishop

May we please include a summary of the Bishops letter about Christian mysticism as it started to become very popular in the late 1800's. The letter is available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19891015_meditazione-cristiana_en.html

I quote from the letter one section: " With the present diffusion of eastern methods of meditation in the Christian world and in ecclesial communities, we find ourselves faced with a pointed renewal of an attempt, which is not free from dangers and errors, to fuse Christian meditation with that which is non-Christian. Proposals in this direction are numerous and radical to a greater or lesser extent. Some use eastern methods solely as a psycho-physical preparation for a truly Christian contemplation; others go further and, using different techniques, try to generate spiritual experiences similar to those described in the writings of certain Catholic mystics.13 Still others do not hesitate to place that absolute without image or concepts, which is proper to Buddhist theory,14 on the same level as the majesty of God revealed in Christ, which towers above finite reality. To this end, they make use of a "negative theology," which transcends every affirmation seeking to express what God is and denies that the things of this world can offer traces of the infinity of God. Thus they propose abandoning not only meditation on the salvific works accomplished in history by the God of the Old and New Covenant, but also the very idea of the One and Triune God, who is Love, in favor of an immersion "in the indeterminate abyss of the divinity."15"

(PS: It was in this time that movements, like that of John Westley's started as well, wanting to practice a pure form of mysticism)(Yessy543 (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

I think for now we need to stick with building up an article that describes the history and practices of Classical Christian mysticism. We can devote space later to developing a discussion of later syncretic developments like those the letter is warning about. But I think the danger of mixing Buddhism in with Christianity is a very recent development and therefore won't be significant to this article. (P.S.: No, it was not in that time that John Wesley started--that letter is from 1989, not 1789!) Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Please be aware also that the term "Evangelical mysticism" is also a term used from round about that time. ( John Fletcher, The Works of the Reverend John Fletcher, vol. 4 (New York: T. Mason and G. Lane, 1836), p. 7. The article “On Evangelical Mysticism.”) PS: thanks for your input and help with this article. (Yessy543 (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

Pauline Christianity - Paul's Gospel - Pauline mysticism

Pauline mysticism is not a new thing as somebody edited the article to state. It is mysticism practices by Christians that holds fast to the Gospel of the Apostle Paul. It is Christians that places high importance on the biblical books where Paul explained his Gospel in Romans and Galatians and Collosians especially. There have been Christians throughout the ages that were mystics, but which deviated from mystical theology and Gnosticism, yet longing to experience the presence of God from an uncompromising biblical perspective.

Many Christians may not have known even about the term Pauline mysticism, but if you made them to choose between the practices and beliefs of Eastern Christianity and that of Pauline Christianity, they would have selected the latter.

Many Christians today are practicing Pauline Christianity but they may also never have heard the term.

And whether or not a person holds fast or rejects the Gospel Paul brought, will make a phenominal difference in all their belief systems, and enormously in how they practice the presence of God. It is either by grace through faith, or by emphasising mystical methods. Where the emphasis is placed is the core issue here. Is it on the cross or is it on methods and rituals.

Pauline Christianity and the mysticism associated therewith was part of Early Christianity before there was any denomination. See also http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_Petrine_Christianity_and_Pauline_Christianity_and_how_do_they_differ and also http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_3_original_sects_of_Christianity. I edited (removed) that one sentence in the article that says it is a modern movement. (Yessy543 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

I added that the movement was modern, since the link to Paleo-orthodoxy--which you added--said it was; I'm glad that you removed the link entirely. But I need you to name some famous Pauline mystics. Your ideas might make sense in terms of Pauline spirituality, but you haven't established the existence of any kind of significant mystical tradition, set of practices, or actual mystics. I sincerely doubt that most Christians today are Paulinists, since a very large chunk of the church is now located in Latin America, Africa and Asia, and therefore have a much more complicated sense of spirituality than the sola scriptura approach you're taking. I also don't like the way you claim that the mysticism being discussed in this article is all Eastern--as if the Roman Catholic church didn't develop it's own mystical practices. In short, I find your facts to be very questionable. Meanwhile, you need to provide a list of Pauline mystics and of Pauline mystical practices. Otherwise, you aren't really talking about a significant stream of mysticism. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, please accept my apology for not differentiating more directly between Eastern Christian mysticism and Roman Catholic mysticism. It was wrong of me. Quite a few mystics I personally know that experience God in a profound supernatural way, have been influenced to some degree by Brother Lawrence and the book The Practice of the presence of God. He was a Catholic monk. Although many don't write books that I can source here, I can refer you to the website of Barry Hall who teaches on and wrote a book on "Experience heaven now". He is a self proclaimed Pauline mystic. You'll find him on google. Other mystics which holds fast to Paul in their teachings are Jason Westerfield, and Ana Mendez Farrell. Also Ivan & Isabella Allum. Their sites are also on googles and the books they wrote. There are so many. Just refer to the Bethel church that is a training centre to equip people in walking in the supernatural. There kind of mysticism is not like the roman Catholic's and especially not like Eastern mysticism. All of these 3 mystics I mentioned have been to heaven and back often times and experience profound supernatural phenomina in their day to day life. You can read their testimonies if you like. They associate with the Charasmatic church, most of them, but that is less important to me. They have a cross-centred theology, and that is what is prominent about them.

About the practices : the gospel is so simple that a child can understand it yet intellectuals tend to struggle to "get" it. Pauls Gospel is a gospel of Grace through faith. That is how salvation comes, but that is also how everything comes. Where other spiritualities will encourage people to go through sacriments and purification processes in order to become more "spiritual" or ready for encounters, the Pauline mystic trains his heart to believe about his new identity and his inheritance and his new position in Christ the way the bible tells him. If he can believe it, he can receive it. Paul said we are seated in Christ in heavenly places. If one don't experience it it is because you don't believe it. So the issue is for the believer to train his or her heart to believe the truth of God's Word, and coming boldly to the Throne of Grace based on absolutely nothing you have done or deserved but based entirely on what Jesus Christ did and deserved and gave you. And because you believe God, you are declared righteous. Only because of that. And because you train your heart to believe, you can inherit your full inheritance as God has given to each believer and promised in His Word. How to train the heart may vary, but this is the principle and this is the essence of the Gospel of Paul. Jesus made a way for us. And all that is keeping us from experiencing life the way He intended for us is our unrenewed mindsets and beliefs. And for that we need the Word of God to drop deep into our innermost being, like a seed, to transform us, from the inside out. The mysticism also entails a co-experiencing the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - "I have been crucified with Christ, it is no longer I that live but Christ that lives in me". But it is not the "egoic" self that is Christ - like other mystic streams or Gnosticism teach. (Yessy543 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

Notice that the four names you've given me are all alive today. You have not given any evidence that there is a specific line of Pauline mystics that has endured through the centuries. So unless you can find evidence that there Pauline mysticism is a tradition that has existed throughout the history of the church, then we have to treat this as a modern movement and discuss it in the article as such. You also need to provide more reliable sources to back up your discussion, because the prophets' blogs aren't going to meet Wikipedia standards. You need scholarly books or mainstream magazines that discuss Pauline mysticism as a real movement in itself. Right now, most of what I can find is related to Albert Schweitzer, which again does not support the notion that this is a well-developed "stream" of Christian mysticism. Rather, I get the impression it's a theory of Schweitzer's and not something that anyone actually practices. (I can't find any connection between Pauline mysticism and any of the four names you mentioned.) This article is about the practices of Christian mystics. Anything you want to add needs to give concrete information on historical traditions that have been documented and analyzed by reliable sources. Your second paragraph here, while nice, is completely inappropriate for a historical, encyclopedic discussion of the practices of Christian mysticism as they have been studied and analyzed by scholars. Does that make sense? Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)