What Is Christian Mysticism?

Fr. Dale Matson

          “The business and method of mysticism is love.” (Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness, p.85, 1930).

            There are many definitions for mysticism but my operational term is restricted to Christian mysticism. There are other paths that are wider but the parameters provided by Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Christian church provide secure guard rails for the spiritual pilgrim. Mysticism is a perilous road to travel and I do not encourage people to take this journey if it is the mystical experiences and not God that they are seeking. It is to those who have an insatiable hunger for God and have had several mystical experiences that I encourage on this path of self-discovery. Actually it is in Christ that we learn who we truly are. In Him our personality is not annihilated; in Him our personality is brought to fruition.   The ultimate aim of the Christian mystic is union with Christ. This is also the hope and end for any Christian pilgrim. In Him we know as we are known (1 Cor. 13:12). We are saved by God’s grace through faith in His son Jesus Christ. On earth we are incorporated into a mystical union with His body the church through the sacrament of baptism. There is salvation in no other and there is no other name given in heaven or on earth whereby we may be saved (Acts 4:12). “There is one Lord, one faith and one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5) These are the non-negotiables of the Christian faith.

            I also believe it would be useful to include Bernard McGinn’s definition to round out our understanding of mysticism.  Christian mysticism would be "that part, or element, of Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of a direct and transformative presence of God.” (The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism). The key word here would be “presence” of God. Perhaps it is a less intimate word than “union” but may be a better descriptor of most mystical experiences.

            Finally, I would like to stress the reactive aspect to mysticism (see Adolf Deissmann, The Selly Oak Lectures ,p. 245, 1923). It is God acting and the mystic reacting. St. Paul was not seeking Christ when he was knocked off his horse. Both St. Teresa of Jesus and St. John of the Cross advised against trusting private revelations and encouraged others not to seek them. Within the church itself, I believe the Word of God, the sacraments and loving service to others is the best avenue for those seeking a closer relationship to God, for ultimately, mystical experiences are really a byproduct of a life devoted to God.  It is ultimately God’s decision if, when, how and why He will bless anyone with a mystical experience. This is because He is gracious but more important than this; He is sovereign. If we could determine the time and place of a miracle, then we ourselves would be God. To even believe that through some effort on our part we will obtain anything from God is to exchange the precious faith God has given us for magic. In humility, patience and submission to His will we seek Him and Him alone.

“But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you”. (Matt. 6:33). 

           

           

The Mysticism Of St. Paul

Fr. Dale Matson

Christ is the prototype of the perfect human and I would say that St. Paul is the prototype of the converted and sanctified human. As a psychologist with a background in developmental psychology, the domain of spiritual development is of particular interest because I am a priest.

Sanctification is the process of spiritual development following conversion. Most would agree that Paul had a powerful conversion experience as reported by St. Luke in Acts chapter nine.  Paul was on his way to Damascus to arrest followers of the Way and was knocked off his horse.  There he encountered the resurrected Christ.

Paul, though he was converted, was not fully formed. Christ is revealed by St. Paul more than any other New Testament author and in so doing; Paul revealed much about himself also. While he focused on revealing the mysteries of Christ, he also provided a longitudinal record of his own spiritual development lasting about 30 years.

Just as the Synoptic Gospels and St. John’s Gospel give us a differing perspective on the portrait of Christ, St Paul gives us a differing perspectives on Christ in his early, middle and later writings. This is not to say that any period of St. Paul is less inspired than the others.

The model of spiritual development that has been traditionally employed by the church consists of the Purgative, Illuminative and Unitive stages. For an expanded explanation of these stages, please refer to my previous posting on Soundings. http://sanjoaquinsoundings.blogspot.com/2011/08/sanctification-iii-doctrine-of-three.html

Evelyn Underhill in Mystic Way A Psychological Study In Christian Origins , wrote the following, “There is a marked development in the Pauline epistles, which also throws light on their author’s growth in the new life. The series of letters from 1^st Thessalonians to Philippians, from A.D. 50 to A.D. 60 clearly reflect the changes taking place in the mind which composed them: its steady process of transcendence, its movement on the Mystic Way.” (1913, p.180).

The late Bishop of Durham J.B. Lightfoot offered fascinating comments in his book Biblical Essays (1893) “1^st and 2^nd Thessalonians reveals Christ as Judge and penance. This would coincide with Paul’s Purgative stage of spiritual development. Romans, 1^st and 2^nd Corinthians and Galatians would coincide with his Illuminative stage of development and reveals Christ as “Savior-God”. Philippians, Philemon, Ephesians and Colossians portray Christ as the “Indwelling Word”. This would be a product of the Unitive stage of spiritual development. “We turn to the third group of Epistles and at once we notice a change of subject-matter. The metaphysical, mystical, contemplative aspects of the Gospel are brought out into special prominence.” (p.232).

The church has traditionally attributed all the epistles mentioned here, to Paul. Modern scholarship has cast doubt on the authorship of many of Paul’s letters but has not always taken into account the fact that Paul was not the same person thirty years after his conversion.

It is also worth considering when conducting Bible studies, what stage of spiritual development the participants are at. Curriculum development should be geared to the level of those being instructed. For spiritual directors this also has application. For those who want to focus on doctrine, it might be useful to take a second look at the end of Paul’s writings, not just the middle.

“Many a phrase which has provided a handle or an obstacle for critics, is but the hopeless attempt of the mystic to communicate by means of artistic symbols his actual and supernal experience to unmystical men.” (Mystic Way A Psychological Study In Christian Origins  (Evelyn Underhill, p.194)  

The Baptism Of Our Lord: Action And Reaction

Fr. Dale Matson

There are parallels with both our Lord’s baptism and His transfiguration. Unlike miracles that Jesus performed they are miracles that happened to Him. There is the miracle that happened to Him following his baptism where God the Father also said, “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” (Luke 3:22). There is another parallel. The Baptism of Jesus is celebrated on the first Sunday after Epiphany and it is at the beginning of his ministry.  The Transfiguration account is part of the lectionary for the last Sunday after Epiphany and it is near the end of his ministry. God identified Jesus as His son at the beginning of his ministry and as His son at the end of his ministry. Both His baptism and transfiguration were supernatural manifestations by which God the Father authenticated Jesus as His Son. There is one other occasion where God speaks in response to Jesus asking for God to glorify His name. It is in the temple in Jerusalem. “”Then a voice came from Heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again” (John 12:28). Although Jesus initiated this, He did not do this for His own sake but for the sake of the listeners that His Father would be glorified.

These are miracles of God, Who, in His sovereignty, acted unilaterally. His actions were followed by responses by those who observed and witnessed to the miracles. I am convinced at this point in my life that God can be asked to intervene in our affairs but in His sovereignty may chose not to intervene or intervene in a way that we did not ask. I also believe in those things He commanded us to do, He will faithfully involve Himself. This is especially true of the sacraments. The onus is not on God to show up. The onus is on our expectant faith to look for Him. Even the faith we employ was given to us by God. I believe with all my heart that even a Eucharist with only two believers is also attended by all the company of Heaven.

I am not attempting to set up another formula for invoking God’s presence for to do so would be making God nothing more than a puppet on a string at best and superstition or magic at worst. What I am saying however, is if we are seeking God’s glory and not our own and willing to submit our will to His, He will show us extraordinary things.

Does this require of us that we must reach a certain level of holiness before God will show up? Does it require self-flagellation and self-immolation and an ascetic life? Does this mean that we must climb some spiritual ladder? If this is your plan, then Satan will either fill you with empty pride or the despair of a treadmill going nowhere. No, it is none of these things. As the Blessed John Henry Newman once said, “It is the saying of holy men that, if we wish to be perfect, we have nothing more to do than to perform the ordinary duties of the day well.”(A Short Road to Perfection, 1856).

God was initially in the Charismatic movement but was later excluded by those who attempted to  formalize, systematize and catalog ways to buy and sell His power. God is not wooed by false praise and self-appointed prophets. He is not manipulated by quoting a series of Bible verses and does not need a cult following of this or that guru in a crowded venue. God is sovereign. Our role is to react to His actions. We are to wait upon Him and to follow Him when He chooses to reveal His will to us. We did not earn nor do we merit God’s grace. Because of both His sovereignty and grace He can even offer consolations when we least expect it whether we deserve it or not. Be ready at all times.

He In Us And We In Him

Fr. Dale Matson

“…that He may dwell in us and we in Him.” (From Great Thanksgiving, BCP, Rite I, page 336)

It has been said that good theology is God centered and I would add that it is reactive also. I have a spiritual kinship with the Apostle Paul. We both have a background in religious training but are at heart, blue collar Christians as tradesmen (like our Lord). We both have experienced visions and I would say that at heart, we are both mystics. For me, Paul was not just a converted Pharisee who reinterpreted the Law in the light of Christ’s teachings, yet that is how some theologians have portrayed him. They have made doctrine out of situation-specific advice he gave to the churches. It became an early version of “What would Jesus do?” Reformation theologians understood Paul as a lawyer using legal language to convey his Gospel but Paul was chiefly speaking as a man with a converted heart who considered himself to be crucified, dead to the world and a new man “in Christ”.  

Years ago, the phrase “In Christ” in St. Paul’s writings gave me pause every time I encountered it. What did Paul mean by this phrase? Adolph Deissmann noted that the phrase “in Christ” (or a similar form) occurred 164 times in Paul’s writings, while it did not occur at all in the synoptic Gospels. Paul uses “In Christ” 27 times in Ephesians alone.  Does this phrase point to the heart of Paul’s Gospel in some way?

Many evangelical protestants believe that justification by faith is the heart of Paul’s Gospel and the church, particularly the Protestant church, has viewed it this way. By doing this they have diminished the church. It is my contention that justification by faith while important was not the heart of Paul’s Gospel. Paul, ever the reactive Christian stated, “But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being.” (Gal. 1:15-16)  The heart of Paul’s Gospel is the mystical union of Christ and the believer and the mystical union of Christ with His body the church. How closely is Christ identified with His church? “And he [Paul] fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4)  This mystical union of Christ with the believer is also illustrated in John’s Gospel in the parable of the true vine in Chapter 15. Some writers believe that John incorporated some of Paul’s ideas (James S. Stewart and Aldolph Deissmann among them). One of the reasons this is so important is that it means that Christ is not just an impossible standard and exterior “role model” but empowers and acts through us. It is really the difference between living in Romans 7 and life in Romans 8. It is this Christ in me/me in Christ understanding of Paul which is the heart of Paul’s understanding of his Gospel. It is this me in Christ that helps us understand the church as the mystical body of Christ and explains the church as such a leveling force in the world. It is the believers in Christ that make up the mystical body of Christ, the church. It is this mystical body of Christ that is the Kingdom of God. Paul’s Gospel is directed to the non-Jew and intended to rescue sinners and bring them into God’s Kingdom through baptism and faith “in Christ”.

“Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink His blood, that we may evermore dwell in Him, and He in us. Amen. (From Prayer of Humble Access, BCP, Rite I, Page 337).

“…and we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, the blessed company of all faithful people” (From concluding prayer, BCP, Rite I, page 339).

Vainglory

Fr. Dale Matson

            “Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves” (Phil. 2:3, NASB)

Since it was the end of this year, it was also time to take care of old business before the start of the New Year. It was rather simple to catalogue and recount my sins since the last confession, under the infamous seven deadly sins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins.  Some sins on the list are more problematic for me than others. If vainglory is a form of pride, it is the ugliest form of pride. While vainglory is not easy to define, it is easy to describe. I know it when I see it.

In making his escape, Odysseus blinded the Cyclops and told the Cyclops that “no man” had done it to him, when asked by the Cyclops who had blinded him. This was to keep the Cyclops from recruiting his friends in pursuing the men.  Later Odysseus yelled back to the Cyclops from his ship as they sailed away.  The Cyclops threw giant boulders in the direction of the voice as they sailed away imperiling the ship. Odysseus could not resist setting the record straight by yelling back to shore that it was he, Odysseus that had blinded him. That is an example of vainglory. Vainglory is also the football player celebrating in the end zone after scoring a touchdown. While a professional vitae can be a form of credential, it can also be a historical archive of vainglory.

St. Paul had been shown the glory of the third heaven yet was careful in describing himself as the “least” of the apostles (1 Cor. 15:9). He would only glory in the cross. (Gal. 6-14, KJV). Let him who boasts, boast only in the Lord. (1: Cor. 1:31)

The problem is once again the almighty ego. Am I working for my glory or the glory of God? What is the underlying reason for the goal setting and the accomplishments? Is this sometimes why God brings our schemes crashing down like the log chute in Zorba the Greek? The local priests even gave their blessing prior to this “splendiferous crash”.   There was a formal confession to our “Bishop in Residence” JDS about this and a host of other misplaced efforts (missing the mark).

There was also a less formal confession prior to this via email as my friend, another priest, and I commiserated. “That's the problem. There is too much aspiration and goal setting, for my sake. I spend too much time checking to see whose paying attention. Too much need of adoration. Too much need for "atta boys". Too much who’s up and who’s down? Too much score keeping and not enough of God's glory in it. Why is there is so much time spent buttressing my own ego? Forgive me Lord.”

“…those who have never been driven to the point of seeing that their own achievements are nothing, and God’s grace everything, and that real religion begins only on the other side of the line where everything human has broken down; who have not recognized the subtle desperate hold that self lays upon the soul, making it’s very piety a barrier to Christ, and its morality an offense in God’s sight; who have never stared into the eyes of moral defeat, nor know the joy which comes when God floods a life and God’s power takes control, nor felt the consuming passion of a Christ filled man to impart his joyous secret to all the world. A Man In Christ  James S. Stewart

The Changing Face Of 21st Century Anglicanism

Fr. Dale Matson

            There are approximately 80 million Anglicans worldwide which makes it the third largest Christian denomination. While the Church of England is considered the largest province, the numbers are somewhat misleading since English citizens are automatically included as members of the established church whether they attend or not. Today, the average Anglican is an African female. There are nearly 40 million Anglicans in the 11 African provinces.  What does it mean to be Anglican in the 21^st century? This is perhaps the main question and the primary task before us today.  This is a time when Anglicanism is experiencing both realignment, and related cultural shifts in membership. Some would say that the realignment is a matter of conservative versus liberal ideology. Some would even say that it is a battle for the faith once delivered but it is also a struggle for control of who shapes Anglican identity. The liberal (sometimes called Broad Church) focus is on inclusion, social justice and the right to innovate. They see God doing a new thing in this generation. They also advocate autonomy from centralized authority. They see themselves as relevant to contemporary society because they are informed and changed by culture. This includes embracing issues such as environmental sustainability and related measures to ensure this, like energy conservation and population control. This portion of Anglicans is located primarily in the North and West (also New Zealand and parts of Australia) and includes the See of Canterbury, the historical center of Anglicanism. The See of Canterbury is the residence of the Archbishop of the World Wide Anglican Communion and it is the Archbishop who recognizes who is and who is not Anglican by which bishops are invited to the Lambeth Conference held every 10 years. The liberals are ahead of their theology with their practice but practice is precedence and precedence creates “new tradition.” Liberals have established their branding ahead of the conservatives who have defined themselves in the negative by saying essentially that they are not like the liberals. Those conservatives who have separated themselves for the sake of truth as they understand it have lost the public relations battle with the liberals who have successfully portrayed conservatives as schismatic and bigots in the media. The liberals have most of the money because of endowments, a higher  per capita wage and governmental financial support as in the established church in England. However, The liberal face of Anglicanism is disappearing. For example, in 2011 the Episcopal Church (TEC) reported a 16% decline in membership over the previous decade. There are also significant membership declines in the Church of England. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/faith/will-the-last-person-to-leave-the-church-of-england-please-turn-out-the-lights-2269185.html  and The Anglican Church of Canada with a decline of more than half its members in the last 40 years.  http://www.christiantoday.com/article/statistics.suggest.anglican.church.of.canada.in.huge.decline/5307.htm

Conservatives are more likely to be found in the other traditional Anglican streams which include Evangelical, Anglo Catholic and Charismatic and constitute the green shoots on the Anglican tree. The majority of Anglicans are in what is called the Global South, which includes Africa, South America, Asia and Sidney Anglicans. Conservatives are increasing. For example the newly formed Anglican Church North America (ACNA) increased membership by 15% in its first year. http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/acna-reports-15-growth-in-number-of-congregations-in-its-first-year-the-church-of-england-newspaper-may-7-2010-p-6/.  Many conservative Anglicans live in former English colonies where Christianity was introduced by Anglican missionaries.  The 1662 Book of Common Prayer is still used by many African Anglicans. What do these conservative groups have in common? I believe they would all agree on the basic four tenants of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, 1888. Scripture is the revealed Word of God; The Nicene Creed is a sufficient statement of the Christian Faith, Baptism and Communion are the two dominical sacraments. There is a Historic Episcopate locally adapted. This is of course the minimum standard since it was designed as ecumenical outreach toward greater church unity. Conservatives would also insist on the primacy of Scripture along with Tradition and Reason, the 39 Articles of Religion and the call of the Great Commission. There is another important issue that is increasingly dividing the liberals and conservatives. It is Christology. For conservatives Christ is the only way one may obtain salvation (Article XVIII). He is God and He was raised bodily from the dead. Problems emerge for conservatives when Evangelicals tend to emphasize the Protestant and reformed side of Anglicanism and others including Anglo Catholics emphasize the reformed and Catholic aspects of Anglicanism. Women’s ordination is an unresolved issue also. Where are the roots of Anglicanism? Is it The Apostolic and undivided church or Cranmer, Parker and the Calvinists? Is it both?

Lastly, there is a disconnect  between the liberal power structures of the WWAC and the people they lead. The leaders do not reflect the mind of the communion. The power structures are based on history and tradition but underlying this is also the scent of imperialism and colonialism. There is also a rift that has become an irreconcilable chasm between liberals and conservatives.    

This is one of several pieces that has been and will be posted on our Soundings Blog for discussion. Self-knowledge and identity are important for both individuals and for Anglicanism. This is especially true in North America where our Anglican Christianity is attracting a new generation of those who seek the face of God in a culture that is less tolerant and increasingly hostile. (See the article on "Anglican Fever.") We offer structure and discipline for those who need it. We offer a Mystical faith for those who seek it. We offer a historic faith for those looking for context. But primarily, we offer Christ in Whom we are being saved.

“But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.” (1 Peter 3:15)

    

Thomas More, Henry VIII and the Future of Anglicanism

On July 6, 1535 Sir Thomas More was beheaded because he was unable to agree with the conscience of King Henry VIII, in opposition to the Conscience of the Church.

Thomas More defended his refusal to sign the oath acceding to Parliament's Act of Supremacy because:

• The Act of Supremacy contravened God's Law.
• English subjects could not be removed from the corps of Christianity by an act of parliament.
• That corps is represented by the General Councils of the Church (over king and pope).

Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley ruled against More stating, “if the Act of Parliament be not of unlawful, then the indictment is not in my Conscience invalid.” In other words, with some obvious sarcasm, if the acts of Parliament were valid, than the verdict stood. Audley ignored the entire point of More's argument, which was that neither the acts of Parliament, nor the King could overrule the corps of Faith, as held by the Conscience of the Church.

When More defended his inability to defy conscience, it was not in defense of an arbitrary personal conscience but the conscience of the Church, which was proclaimed and protected by the Councils of the Church. More did not elevate the Councils of the Church above Holy Scripture, but saw them as the guardians against the whims of individuals.

Contemporary Anglicans would do well to follow More's example. We rely too much on a sense of individual personal conscience, without first exploring and submitting to the conscience of the Church. North American Anglicans did well to recognize that the leadership of The Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada abandoned the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, and reoriented themselves back toward their Anglican roots where the authority of Holy Scripture is honored.

However, this reorientation is incomplete and confused. Some are reorienting themselves to the Reformation Movement with particular respect to Thomas Cranmer. Some are reorienting themselves toward the Roman Catholic Church. Some are orienting themselves toward a form of Evangelical non-denominationalism. Some are finding their identity in the Global South – so long as it doesn't require too much submission. And, some look to 1662 or 1928 as their defining ethos. Others look to Canon Law to define who they are.

Even as we endeavor to re-embrace a genuine and orthodox Anglicanism, we are struggling with our identity. We are so accustomed to being western individuals that we struggle to be authentically Catholic. In other words, submission to our ancient catholic corporate identity does not come naturally to us. We value Apostolic Succession in our catechisms but have difficulty honoring it in actual practice.

There is much that we can learn from all of the post-reformation expressions of Christianity. However, these are not our roots if we are a Catholic Church. Our catholic legacy did not begin with the Reformation Movement, but with Pentecost, and the Apostles, and was carried to us by the faithful Church Fathers. This is evident as we read the history of the Church in the British Isles from the Third Century onward, as well as from the writings of so many of the Anglican Divines, who constantly referred back to the Church Fathers as the source of Anglicanism.

Anglicanism is not the illegitimate child of Henry VIII. It is not the invention of Archbishop Cranmer. Anglicanism is no longer ethnocentric and imperialist. Anglicanism is not a pale reflection of Roman Catholicism, as though there never was an undivided Church.

The primary emphasis of Anglicans in North America over the past several years has been to re-establish Biblical orthodoxy, which must be our first concern. This led to a variety of Anglicans, with different identities, banding together for the sake orthodoxy – but not necessarily unity. While agreeing on Biblical orthodoxy, numerous debates have ensued over the Instruments of Unity and other Anglican distinctives. Discussions and meetings about canons and covenants occupy a considerable amount of attention throughout the Anglican Communion.

It is going to be extremely difficult to overcome these differences (if not impossible) until we come to an agreement on who we are and what our lineage is. If we continue under the mistaken identity that our patrimony is Henry VIII, Thomas Cranmer and the Reformation Movement, then we will be hopelessly embroiled in all the personal conscience issues that those embody. If, however, we recognize, as did Thomas More and the Anglican Divines, that our identity and lineage is to be found in the corporate conscience of the Fathers and Councils of the Church, we will find an appropriate standard through which we can find catholic unity, not only for ourselves, but also with the Churches of Rome and Constantinople.

As for the general councils assembled lawfully, I never could perceive but that in the declaration of the truths it is believed to be standen to; the authority thereof ought to be taken for undoubtable, or else were there in nothing no certainty, but through Christendom upon every man's affectionate reason, all things might be brought from day to day to continual ruffle and confusion, from which by the general councils, the spirit of God assisting, every such council well assembled keepeth and ever shall keep the corps of his Catholic Church. (Thomas More to Thomas Cromwell – March 5, 1534)

- Fr Van McCalister

Note: The historical references are from lectures by Prof. Dale Hoak of Wm and Mary College, and The Last Letters of Thomas More, Letter 5 “To Thomas Cromwell, Chelsea, 5 March 1534.” Edited by Alvaro de Silva.