Talk:Christian mysticism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Streams of Mysticism

We digress into a false dichotomy by stating that one stream (Pauline Mysticism) believes Jesus to be the Christ-- implying (falsely) that the other "stream" does not. From defining Christian Mysticism into "types," have we changed this to defining "streams" SO THAT Pauline Mysticism may indict Christian Mysticism? That is inappropriate, it is aggressive, and it is antagonistic-- unnecessary controversy.

Rewriting section headings so that the article on Christian Mysticism is from the perspective of Pauline Mysticism is indicative of a clash which in not appropriate here. Pauline Mysticism, in as much as it differs or objects to Christin Mysticism is not in need of declaring so on this article. The added paragraph adds nothing to understanding of the topic-- it argues against it.

These comments (from the second paragraph) belong on the article on Pauline Christianity, Pauline Mysticism, Albert Schweitzer, perhaps -- none of which is an authority on Christian Mysticism; and in the case of the first two, cannot be an authority because the teachings are founded on the indictment and subsequent rejection of Christian Mysticism, and even that is based almost entirely on a single work of Albert Schweitzer.

This is a repeat of previous edits which have already been rejected because of POV violations, original research violations, undue weight violations, and forking violations. --cregil 17:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul opened up a mystery:

1 Cor 2:7 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age new; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" Romans 16:25 "...according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began but now has been made manifest..." Ephesians 3:9 "..of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God..to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known.." Eph5:32"This is a great mystery..." Eph 6:19 "..to make known the mystery of the gospel for which I am an ambassador in chains..." Coll1:26 "the mystery which had been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints." Col2:2 "..to the knowledge of the mystery of God". (Yessy543 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

My Bible has those too. In what way do these quotes from Paul sorted by reference to the word "mystery" engage this discussion? Why are you quoting these?

Was Paul speaking of the theology received from the universal Church, East, West, Protestant and Catholic as well as across 2,000 years... or only from a single 19th Century German Bible Scholar who once wrote a leaflet which had virtually no impact on the discussion and which adds nothing to the subject of Christian Mysticism? I do not believe anyone can reasonable hold that the later ought to squelch the former.

So, we turn to an academic understanding-- using sources common to the subject instead of sources tangent to the subject. This is not a new teaching nor a new method, and it has its advantages-- one being that we can do something productive rather than prevent that.

Begin with a noted Christian Mystic or authority on Christian Mysticism-- John of the Cross and Evelyn Underhill being two good, respected and well-known examples. From them, indicate how these deny Paul's Epistles, how they deny that Jesus is the Christ, how they attempted to keep this knowledge secret by publishing their wisdom, how they limited mystical activity to a Eastern style union and oneness with God, and how the are related to Zoroastrianism. Until you are able to engage the primary sources, please refrain from posting such things as those accusations which seem to be required to discuss "Pauline Mysticism."

How many times must this be stated before it sinks in? Deal with the primary sources and post nothing else. We are beating a dead horse by continuing this discussion if you refuse to engage it.

--cregil 21:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

The primary issue

The primary issue is, that there are a stream of Christian mystics, call it whatever you want, that can not and will not be associated with Theosophy and Theosophia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(wisdom) ). Many well known "christian mystics", such as Jakob Boehme was ( see http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/setting/boehme.html ). If I can not have that divide by using the term Pauline mysticism, how can I have it shown on this article? Our type of Christianity and mystic experiences is not of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Hand_Path_and_Right-Hand_Path (neither of the two). (Yessy543 (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

No, that is not the primary issue. We're trying to provide a historical survey of the people and practices associated with mysticism, whether we agree with them or not. Your concerns about theosophy and occultism are (1) not relevant to an encyclopedic summary of the topic and (2) not really an issue, given that Boehme and Theosophy are simply mentioned once in a list--there's nothing else in the article to privilege or endorse them in any way. I imagine a lot of the people currently in the article would also not be associated with either of them. But you can't pretend they didn't exist historically. And you can't pretend that everyone on the list is guilty by association either. We don't judge which mystics were right or wrong; we simply look at who has been discussed by experts in the field. Moreover, as to Pauline mysticism, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that it was a significant factor in the history of Christian mysticism prior to 1850. It's simply not a stream of mysticism that has been recorded historically until very recently. If you want to point out how, in the 20th century, more attention was paid to Paul as a mystic, fine. But you have yet to produce any sources that suggest it has ever been a stream of mysticism in any coherent way. Your concern about establishing "correct" forms of mysticism is irrelevant to an encyclopedic article that is trying to explain what has already occurred--we don't try to decide what should have happened. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

For me it is the primary issue. The article on Sophia (wisdom) associates with Christian mysticism, yet no distinguishment is made on here. You can expect of a person who passionately loves the Lord Jesus Christ to watch silently while darkness and light are casually lumped in the same group. (Yessy543 (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia isn't a doctrinal tome or treatise, merely an encyclopaedia - ie. not prescriptive, just descriptive. Each of us who claim to be Christian will have our own understanding as to the correct practice of the faith but to insist that a Wikipedia article reflect our own understanding of correctness seems to be beyond the scope of Wikipedia. - Bob K | Talk 05:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I see the problem. I am trying to engage here. I read the article you recommended on blavatsky.net.

Quoting from that source,

"Jacob Boehme's God was a Universal Principle, not a Being, but rather the potentiality of Being. He did not consider It even as the First Cause, but declared that It preceded the First Cause, expressing Itself as the First Cause only at the beginning of a "New Day of Creation." He described It as the Essence, or Source, from which everything in the universe has emanated. It is Eternal Unity,"

• He is, earlier defined as an occultist.
• I have yet to find the mystical period in his life as defined as Christian.
• He appears to be a duelist
• It appears he was a student of the Gnostics (e.g., "Jacob Boehme taught the Theosophical doctrine that the universe, arising from the unknown, evolves on seven planes, thus giving everything in the universe a septenary constitution.")

From what I have now read, I gather he is indeed a mystic and one who perceives many truths, but he is not a Christian mystic-- not merely because he taught in error, but because he denies God. From what I can tell, he does not call himself a Christian. Neither his practice nor his teachings suggest Christianity.

I note that the wikipedia article, Jacob Boehme, begins by stating he is a Christian but supplies references and sources which seem to contradict that.

There are several categories of mysticism which are listed at the bottom of that article. Can none of those define him? Does he need to be categorized? Would he wish to be categorized?

I'll help suggest, if you like, and take some time to study the man more, but his experiences and own writing, so far, rather cut him from inclusion here.--cregil 06:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks cregil. Let met just point out to you, that if you agree that Boehme isn't Christian, then we can say the same about Meister Eckhard. See http://www.members.shaw.ca/cgjung/Jung_Eckhart.html It would apply to other mystics mentioned in the main article also. (Yessy543 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

You've given one person's opinion of Eckhart, which is hardly representative of scholarly interpretation of him. Granted, Eckhart was controversial, and he was in trouble with the church, but nowadays he is included in most discussions of Medieval Christian mysticism. He might not have been the most orthodox Christian, but he was a Dominican monk. Moreover, as Eckhart's WP article points out, the Catholic church admits they never condemned him and thus he is considered "a good and orthodox theologian" in the Catholic tradition--the Pope even quoted him. Keep in mind that many Catholics have treated Luther and Calvin as heretics--would we remove them from articles on Christian topics because the Catholic Church rejects them? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That link to the lecture on Jung, Boehme and Eckhart doesn't prove your point. It doesn't make any connection between Eckhart and Boehme. Why would we have to discount Eckhart's Christianity because of Boehme, who came later? And what does Jung have to do with it? The lecturer even shows that Jung doesn't accurately read either one. So this lecture you've posted doesn't give anything I can use to assess the validity of the Christianity of either Boehme OR Eckhart. Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

See the issue here, is more than doctrinal differences. One person could for example believe it best to go to church on Saturdays, another on Sundays. So what. But when we start touching the supernatural and having encounters from the spirit realm, we are either busy with occultism, engagement with demons masking as an angel of light or we are engaging directly with God, His Holy Spirit and His angels. There are no middle ground. There are only two kingdoms. And classifying demonic encounters and occultism as Christian would go going against the grain of everything that Christianity is about. A Christian person may get involved in occult practices without realising the danger, for on the surface it may look close to the same thing. Is his mysticism now christian mysticism, because at one stage he associated himself with Christianity or joined some Christian denomination? That shouldn't be the criteria to call it christian mysticism. (Yessy543 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)) PS: That is the reason I kept hammering on Paul, for by the books of Paul (taken as entire books in context) all deception is exposed. Paul was against occult mysticism masquerading as "Christian". That was the very reason he wrote in Galatians 1:8 "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." If Paul cursed mystics having supernatural experiences which they claimed to be from God and his angels, based on whether or not they accepted or rejected the gospel he preached, then shouldn't us Christians do the same today? This is the same age old issue we have still today, than what Paul had in his days. Nothing's changed. We need Paul as the dividing factor. Not denominational groupings. (Yessy543 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

Yessy, Discernment of spirits is an important aspect of this, and should be addressed. I disagree, for personal reasons, that there is no middle ground. Paul's vision of some part of Heaven is neither God nor Angel-- it is place. A very good place, but the spiritual reality may (possibly) contain "place" in which spiritual activity is encountered-- the place having only passive influence. I see a cloud-- it is neither Good nor Evil.

I believe you have encountered much anti-Paul rhetoric in your experience. I am unfamiliar with such experiences- and do not understand your position that seems due to it. I have not encountered the sort of dismissiveness of Paul as you seem to relate. If you assume that I and the other editors here have some anti-Paul stance, I believe you are in error in that assumption.

Christian Theologians (and I am one) are usually quick to detect errors such as occultism. Much of my work on the article has been to keep watch for just that sort of thing being entered into it- I removed Boehme because you caught that one. Not only do I not think any here are your enemy-- I cannot seem to understand who your real enemy is.--cregil 20:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

To Yessy: Again, you don't understand the point of the article. This is a historical review of Christian mystics, as acknowledged by authorities on the subject. Whether you agree with the tradition is irrelevant, because historically, this is the tradition of mysticism that developed through the history of the Christian church and that the Christian church itself found to be valid. Lots of folks call themselves mystics without being taken seriously. But everyone on this page has been acknowledged as being mystical by people in the church itself and by scholars who study mysticism. Moreover, there's nothing on this page related to demonism or the occult--I don't know why you keep bringing that up, because you haven't proved that any of those issues relate to anyone on this page. So your accusations are moot because you've only accused two people, and your evidence for one of those accusations doesn't hold up. Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Where we are missing one another is here : I mentioned Boehme, influenced by Eckard as examples, but in shooting down people, even if I can build a solid case, will not bring me what I want. For one person could have pure godly encounters, for a very long time and then gradually start slipping into deception, and not realize it at first even. For those of you who have flown in the prophetic you will know that you can flow pure from the Holy Spirit and then you may be off guard and may receive a word from a spirit of divination which if your discernment is not fine you will flow with that and bring the word and wouldn't even know that you have just been engaged in charasmatic withccraft, for the counterfeit is SO close to the true!!! So testing the spirits is vital. But the principle I am hammering on is the streams. And one person could operate within both streams. And we need to be able to divide what is of Christ and what is of Satan. Now some mystics are so far gone that they have never ever experienced a true move of the Holy Spirit, all they know is occult practices packaged as Christian. Their message will always but always bring people's focus away from the cross. Go look at the Great Gospel of John channeled through so called Christian mystic Lorber and occultist Leopold Engel who was a high degree freemason and who revived the illuminati in Germany in the 18OO's. The mystic channeling produced a message that is all about love and all about Jesus, but which distorts the gospel entirely, and nullify the power of the blood of Jesus in such subtle way, you will barely recognize it in the books if you don't look for it. Read the theology in that article. If I were a follower of Leopold Engel and wanted to put occultist Leopold Engel in as a Christian mystic, what would be your grounds for not wanting to include him??? What will be the basis?? That is what I am trying to get at. (Yessy543 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

What you are wanting to do is Original Research. It is not our job as editors to evaluate anyone's Christianity. If you want to "build a solid case", you need to use Reliable Sources. It's odd that you're so obsessed with Lorber and Engel and crew, since no one is trying to put them in this article. (And there's no theology or mention of Christianity at all in Leopold Engel--none. What are you talking about?) In this article, we are dealing with people who have been accepted by mainstream churches as representing them. Even Eckhart passes this test, apparently. Long story short: don't worry about people who aren't in the article. Focus on history, on describing people who are widely acknowledge to be Christian mystics, and on finding reliable sources to make your claims. Cheers, Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

In short : we sit with a church today that is not pure. Greek philosophy had influenced many things, even Christian mysticism. We need to get back to pure Christianity and pure Christian mysticism excluding all these influences. We need to get back to where it was right at the start. Right at Paul, who brought the pure unaltulterated gospel to us, the Gentiles. Paul said: 1 Cor 1:20-25 "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the message preached to save those who believe. For the Jews request a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified,to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Any christian mysticism thus that deviates from Christ Crucified is not preaching the wisdom of God and not experiencing the power of God. They may preach the wisdom of man, and experience occult powers, but they are fools in God's eyes. That brings us back to paleo-orthodoxy, a movement that wants to get back to Christianity the way it was when it originated. And for that I have only the research article on this move, and I have my bible. That is the authority with which I speak.If you want to see how the mystics had all been influenced by greek philosophy, go and read the article "who is who in western mysticism" (its on the main page)(Yessy543 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)) http://www.religiousworlds.com/mystic/whoswho.html And as for the comment not understanding who my enemies are - my enemies are any mystic preaching a message or a spirituality that takes any focus away from Christ Crucified and from the precious blood of Jesus. (See Romans 2:16 - there is only one true gospel and it is Paul's gospel) Honouring the Queen of heaven is idolatry (see Jeremia 7:18, 44:18,25), no matter how spiritual it may seem to be. (Yessy543 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

The truth and the facts are - Paul was the apostle commissioned by God to take the gospel (start the church) amoung the Gentiles,whereas the other apostles were sent to the Jews. I am not a Jew. Paul taught mysticism, mystery, I quoted about 10 scriptures earlier where Paul himself said it. And as for Evelyn Underhill and other mystics that openly involved themselves with occultism, and even joined themselves to Freemasonary organizations - no matter how many church groups or denominations says its fine with them, the truth will still remain the truth, that the demonic and the holy things of God can not and should not mix. The God of the bible, Jahweh is holy, and that holy means seperate, set apart - my God does not mix with occultism, and if their god does, then they are not serving the same God as me. (Yessy543 (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

Proposal to archive sections 1-6

Since this page has gone through major rewrites in the past two months, and since someone above mentioned how unwieldy this page has become with out-of-date discussions, I propose that we archive everything in section 1-6 (up to but not including the "Current Edits" section), since those issues have basically been removed by CG's extensive deforestation of the article. Are there any objections to doing this? Should we include Section 7 as well, and allow the current discussion to start from the Rewrite section? Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If a balanced article is to be written, demonstrating the development of Christian mysticism, you cannot take it as it developed from Gnostic Greek philosphers, influencing catholics, influencing protestants, up to we are today. You need to take it from where Christianity started, when it was taken to the Gentiles by Paul, as he was the apostle appointed by God to take the gospel to the Gentiles (non-jews) like you and me, how the original mysticism was experienced and explained. From there you can include how Greek influences mingled with what was originally introduced by Paul, to where it is today. And then you can include the movement of paleo-orthodoxy that had increased in the 20th and 21th century, but had always been there - a yearning to go back to things God originally intended it to be for Christians, excluding all Gnosticism and occultism. Then alone you will be able to incorporate all parties, and give a balanced perspective in this article. (Yessy543 (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

They may be the way you discuss the issue in your church, but that's not how an encyclopedia works, because you are completely re-writing the history of the field based on your personal doctrinal positions. Whether you like it or not, the study of Christian mysticism is well established, and we have to look at history the way it is, not at the way we want it to be. THAT is what balanced means. The problem you don't seem to realize is that there's a lot more to Christian history than the teachings of Paul--why are you so focused on him, instead of allowing that the early church was influenced by Peter, James, John, Jude, Luke, Matthew, Mark, John the Baptist, the Hebrew scriptures the Septuagint and other Greco-Judaic writings? You are vastly oversimplifying Christianity, both doctrinally and historically. You sound kind of like a Marcionite.... Meanwhile, Paul never talks about mysticism; so you're creating a stream that never really existed. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

PS: there are two factors of mysticism. Gnosticism twists Paul's mystery to fit with ancient greek philosophy, making of Paul's message of who the believer is in Christ, something totally different, propagating that the true christ is your true self, and redefining the meaning of Christ altogether, which means really "the annointed Messiah" to mean something completely different. The other issue is this, how spirituality is practiced, how contact to the spiritual realm is made and how the presence of God can be experienced. Occult influences will lead one to connect with the Kundalini (false holy spirit) opening chakras...all those things (New Age), but giving it a "christian flavour" as to not offend the participant in any way. When experiences of love is enjoyed, it is so easy to believe it is from God, for God is love, but to tap into the love energies released on this planet does not mean you are connecting directly with the Holy Spirit. Just because something is packaged as Christian, does not make it authentic from the Holy Spirit. I can not but come back to Paul over and over, for it is but the only way to seperate the pure from the contaminated. (Yessy543 (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

Six months ago, I was a user wishing to find general information and resources on Christian Mysticism, but instead found a ridiculous article on Conspiracy Theories and a smattering of vague and unfounded accusations by contributers focusing solely upon something called "Pauline Christianity." We are past that now. Right?

This discussion page is NOT a source of good documentation-- it is not servings us in the present form, and endless discussions on Pauline Mysticism (being at a perpetual impasse) is of no help either.

If any believe it is needed, I will (if asked) create and post a short summary of relevant (operative word) discussion so we can archive all of this discussion page, and set a new standard for a possessional and useful resource for the editors.

I recommend we simply archive and delete all of it, with no summary, and start with a blank page.--cregil 16:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Evelyn Underhill

Evelyn Underhill was a member of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. Need I say more? (Yessy543 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC))

And in spite of that fact, she is commemorated by the Church of England (see June 15). Sorry, but for this article, their judgment has more authority than yours. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The truth and the facts are - Paul was the apostle commissioned by God to take the gospel to the Gentiles and to teach them the hidden mysteries of God. Paul was a mystic. I quoted about 10 scriptures earlier where Paul himself said it. And as for Evelyn Underhill and other mystics that openly involved themselves with occultism, and even joined themselves to Freemasonary organizations - no matter how many church groups or denominations says its fine with them, the truth will still remain the truth, that the demonic and the holy things of God can not and should not mix. The God of the bible, Jahweh is holy, and that holy means seperate, set apart - my God does not mix with occultism, and if their god does, then they are not serving the same God as me. (Yessy543 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)) In Paul's own words: Ephesians 3:8-10 "To me, who am less than the least of the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages had been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places" (Yessy543 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

Truth

I have diligently brought the Gospel, warned of deceptions and faught for the truth. Just because the truth is uncomfortable, unfamiliar, painful or even may sound rediculous, the truth is still the truth, and Jesus IS the Truth. To love Truth is to love Him. I resolve to leave it here, and to move away, in a sense shaking the dust off my feet and quoting the words of Paul in 2 Thes 2:10-11 "..because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they may believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness". With this I withdraw from this discussion. (Yessy543 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC))

Just in time, too. By secret message from a Jesuit-Freemason-grand Poobah, I learned that at tonight's Gnostics of the New World Order meeting, they had on the agenda that Shirley MacLaine would be flown by one of their black helicopters to the Star Chamber where she would channel a reincarnated druid astrologer so as to put a voodoo hex on you if you didn't stop. You timely note has, no doubt, spared the lives of many innocent chickens.--cregil 19:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs)

Influential Christian Mystics and Texts

Assuming the audience and perhaps presuming...

The present list of persons, categorized by Church era (which may have been my doing-- I forget), was originally presented by other contributors as an indication of the systematic influences toward the development of the subject treated by this article. However...

It seems to me that the typical reader accessing this article is less concerned about development than about the practice. To that end, I am expanding the bulleted and named persons to include their seminal works so that a person researching the topic may find the classic and accepted writings supplying instruction. Not surprisingly, I am including those examples which I, personally, have found to be excellent for beginners as well as for those having more experience.

I ask that other editors include their own favorites regarding instruction in the practice of Christian Mysticism.

--cregil (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the article needs to have both--I was hoping to add more of the details of each author into the historical section, but it is certainly useful to have a list of books for each author as well. We also need to expand the existing "practices" section--I simply threw in some placeholder comments to flesh out the structure of the page. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

General comments

Aristophanes: I had not looked on here for a while, and I do not watch this page. Now that I have briefly looked at it after some time, the structure seems to have improved a lot. So it flows much better, but if anything, some of the sections now look too long and in this day and age I am not sure if people will digest all of this in a first reading. Somehow something upfront needs to telegram the message in 7-10 paragraphs just after the lede, and I would suggest a trim of some of the other material that will scare away readers - just because there is so much to read. But overall, a pretty good improvement in my view. History2007 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What sections do you think are too long? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

As of this writing the lede is one paragraph and the Origins and Major historical movements sections seem to be there as part of an "obstacle course" before the reader can figure out what the topic is. Part of the problem is the language used in the definitions section. Unless one reads to the end of the article very carefully the question remains: "but what is it?" And the Bernard McGinn definition is ok, but not the last word on the subject.

I guess the problem I see is that for a first time reader, the effort to figure out "what is this topic about?" is just too high. There is no way anyone can get an idea from the definitions section. So I would suggest reworking that into a longer section called "Definitions and overview" or something like that summarizes the article. And somehow reducing all the "where it came from" items in favor of "what is it?" type discussions earlier. I would in fact suggest moving out large chunks of text into a Origins of Christian mysticism article so there is less of an obstacle course before the reader gets to subject. Of course the French Spirituality and the Spanish mystics articles are in need of 2 ambulances, but that is a separate emergency call. History2007 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ran across an interesting point made elsewhere in my study this morning:

The distinction that pagan religions contemporary with the beginning of Christianity, generally speaking, had as their intent (goal, aim) the mystical experience whereas the Judeo-Christian religion merely acknowledges them, but without emphasis.

I thought that might be useful to explore among the editors as helpful in the early sections.--cregil (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

== See Also ==

"Astrology in the Bible" article has no relation to this topic. Deleting from "See also" listings.--cregil (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the feature to indicate what other articles link to this one, I see we have similar problems elsewhere.

Perhaps we need to include a statement in the opening section along the lines of "Christian Mysticism is not to be confused with 19th Century occult, New Age, or other esoteric movements and practices; but, instead, refers to the spiritual life, especially as regards the intangible..."

Thoughts?

--cregil (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

External Links Issues

External Links:

A recent edit included an addition to the External Links section to the Wikipedia page The Order of Christ Sophia. This brings up an issue which will need to be discussed (apart from the matter that the link is misplaced as it is not external):

• The Order of Christ Sophia is, by its own definition, "A New Religion" (see: Levine, Nicholas, The Children of Jesus and Mary: The Order of Christ Sophia, Oxford University Press, p. 1.)
• Several pages can be found on the Internet from former members and family of members claiming the OCS is a cult, with troubling claims of psychological abuse.
• The Wiki article (linked above) mentions, for a glaring example, one tenant as being reincarnation-- significantly diluting the meaning behind the use of the word Christian and therefore setting itself apart from Christian Mysticism.

The OCS is not a widely known entity, marginally established (if at all-- its own blog has not been updated since 2009) and hardly the sort of Order with which to begin a list of links for further study. In essence, the OCS would appear to contradict the content of the CM article, rather than logically stem from it.

My choice is to delete the link as inappropriate from this article. I am asking for discussion and consensus.--cregil (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted link. Chiefly, the linking of specific orders-- particularly alternative orders-- is not the purpose of the external link section. Carmelites, maybe, Christ Sophia, no-- should a need to list CM orders seem appropriate at all; and the reason for that is the nature of the article against the confusion some well meaning editors have had with Christian Mysticism and what would be considered by students of CM as tangential or blended practices and belief systems such as New Age, 19th Century Mysticism, and such.--cregil (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Shekhinah??

In section Jewish antecedents it is alleged that Shekhinah is an important source of Christian mysticism. The concept of Shekhinah was formulated within medieval Kabbalist Orthodox judaism abt 13th century. Christian mysticism in one and another form was present since the beginning, whereof Origen and Clement of Alexandria are considered representatives. Some branches of Christian mysticism took interest in the kabbalist concepts, but essentially put them to another use than in the Judaic original. But Christian mysticism essentially derives from the original Christian ways of using the Bible as a vast collection of divine symbols, containing an esoteric message. Some of it derived from fringe Judaism, but others were constituted from Platonic patterns of reasoning.

The section Jewish antecedents is written to give the ambiguous impression that either Shekhinah predated Christianity, or that Christian mysticism originated within Judaism. I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect, mysticism is as inherent in Christianity itself as it naturally is in any religion. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes.

That entire section needs work, primarily because it does not lead toward a better understanding of the topic-- but distracts which it need not do. I think far more obvious "Jewish Antecedents" are the Biblical accounts of visions and the historical ascetics, rather than the esoteric. To put that another way-- Christian Mysticism did, indeed, originate in the Jewish tradition but the disparity becomes a focus when seen as schools of mysticism rather than the organic relation that it is.

Look at mainstream iconic Christian mystics, and none is beholding to particular philosophies or schools of thought or even movements contemporary to their lives (which this section seems to try and present)-- but simply write of their experiences-- and most of those mystics have much in common. There is not an "us verses them" focus among them-- but always an "I-Thou."

--cregil (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Same picture twice?

Why do we have to have the same picture twice, once on the sidebar and than on the picture? It just looks silly. And the size of it is way to small, same size as on the sidebar, which is really small. I tried to remove the sidebar at least, but now it is back. Why not an another picture at least? Hafspajen (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that is better now. Hafspajen (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Here I haven't been able to find a different and better image. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe not, I agree. Hafspajen (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the picture. As for the "See also"-section, duplicates may be removed of course. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that was really nice! I mean the picture, but even nice of you. Twice nice... :) Hafspajen (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)