From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 08 2005 - 11:03:24 BST
Hi DMB,
Here we go again. At least it has its own thread so those bored by this can
tune out.
> dmb says:
> This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say I wish you'd make a
> case. This is not a case. All you've offered here is the naked assertion
> that you're right and that I, Campbell and Pirsig are wrong. Are you
> trying to tell me that there are strains of Christianity, beyond that
> esoteric mystical core, where Jesus Christ is NOT viewed as the one and
> only son of God?
Well,. I have written copiously about mysticism and Christianity to you over
the last few years. See in particular the conversations we were having in
November/December 2002 when I spelt out at great length how I see things (MD
Traditions of mysticism thread).
It never seems to get anywhere and I think the above comments hint at why.
You say "Are you trying to tell me that there are strains of Christianity,
beyond that esoteric mystical core, where Jesus Christ is NOT viewed as the
one and only son of God?"
I think there are two mistakes in that sentence. The first is a division
between an 'esoteric mystical core' and 'strains of Christianity'. As you
know, I don't accept the notion of a 'mystical core', so I don't accept that
it's a legitimate distinction. I think there are different religious
traditions, which more or less resemble each other, and that the most
accurate representation of those resemblances is through Wittgenstein's
notion of 'family resemblance'. I think the search for a 'common core' is a
product of standard, Western, SOMish Platonic intellect - it is the search
for an 'essence' (or 'form'), and I think that is intellectually defunct. As
I say, I've written a _lot_ on that...
The second mistake is, again, a distinction assumed between asserting that
Jesus Christ is the only son of God (standard Christian doctrine) and the
doctrine of theosis, ie, that a Christian can become a son of God. What you
see as the radical, hidden stuff is actually the mainstream. St Paul, for
example, writes about it in Romans chapter 8. Now we can get into a
discussion about whether becoming a child of God is the same as Tat Tvam
Asi, but the specific point I was making about Campbell was to dispute his
claim that "The final sense of a religion such as Hinduism or Buddhism is to
bring about in the individual an experience, one way or another, of his own
IDENTITY with that mystery that is the mystery of all being. ...it is the
mystery also of many of our own Occidental mystics; and many of these have
been burned for having said as much. Westward of Iran, in all three of the
great traditions that have come to us from the Near Eastern zone, namely
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, such concepts are unthinkable and sheer
heresy". If it was heresy, how does Campbell interpret Paul saying
(Galatians 2.20) "I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live,
but Christ lives in me"? Is that not an assertion of identity between Paul
and the principle of creation?
The thing is, Campbell is simply wrong. Any unbiased investigator will be
able to establish that he is wrong. There is overwhelming evidence that he
is wrong; that evidence is publicly available to anyone who wants to find
it. There comes a time when you just have to be blunt, because further
explanations aren't getting anywhere. Campbell is wrong on this point,
that's it.
Now I pointed you to the wikipedia article (NOT a dictionary definition,
nota bene) - which I guess you haven't bothered to read - because I think
you reject any claims that I might have to knowing anything about this
subject. So I thought if you had access to other sources (for example, all
the links that Google will throw up) other than my perspective you might
give it a bit more credence. The thing is _theosis_ is ABSOLUTELY MAINSTREAM
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. It's the fact that Campbell thinks it so radical that
destroys his credibility, IMHO.
> Are you telling me that there are demoninations of Christianity that
> foster the mystical experience and are perfectly OK with people who claim
> to be one with the Father? If so, put them on the table. Show me. After
> all these years you have failed to produce any such voices. All you ever
> do is drop names and book titles of theologians and such. And now your
> supporting material is the dictionary. That, my friend, does not make a
> case.
Well, this is the thing. A) your emphasis on 'experience' is a problem,
because (as I have gone into many times before) it presumes a Modernist
epistemology (aka SOM) which I reject, and which, more importantly, the
Christian mystics reject; and B) you're asking me for denominations which
'foster the experience'. Well, they don't "foster the experience" because
the "experience" isn't what mysticism is about (union with the divine is NOT
AN "EXPERIENCE"). But all the historic mainstream denominations are geared
around the mystical path. The ones that aren't are the denominations that
were formed at the same time as Modernism, and which didn't anchor
themselves in the doctrines of the early church - in other words, all the
contemporary Protestant denominations (dominant in America because America
is itself so Modernist, and so the ideology is congenial to the temper of
that nation) like the Southern Baptists, and, in particular, all the
"conservative evangelical" movements.
So, to be more positive, the denominations in which the mystical path is
accepted and officially approved (ie where 'theosis' is integral to the
nature of the faith) are: Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican,
Methodist, Lutheran and probably others that I'm less familiar with. *Some*
Calvinist based churches will also be comfortable with it.
Now you accuse me of only ever dropping names etc. Well I don't think that's
true, but there comes a time when I run out of things to say, and all I can
do is say 'look, the evidence is out there, if you can't see it that's
because you don't want to look'. Of course, that's the mirror image of what
you are accusing me of, and so our spiral of debate carries on. The
difference is that I'm fairly familiar with the people you keep quoting
(Campbell, Watts etc) and, to be blunt, I think they're crap. At least, if
not crap (Campbell in particular is very interesting) they DON'T UNDERSTAND
MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANITY.
> You know where I get the impression that mysticism is lacking in
> Christianity? From former Christians who have become mystics, that's who.
> How about Alan Watt's, the former Anglican priest who became a Buddhist?
> Campbell was raised as a Catholic. These people are not complaining about
> the pope or Jerry Falwell. So trying to distance yourself from
> fundamentalism and the church's hierarchy just doesn't cut the mustard. In
> fact, most of the time I am responding to you and your position
> specifically, not just Christianity in General.
Which is why you need to get more acquainted with "Christianity in General"
because I don't think you have a clue what it involves. That wikipedia
article might be a good place to start.
> I know there a mystical message buried deep within Christianity. At the
> bottom of things that's what it really all about. My problem is that an
> overwhelming majority of Christians would totally freak out if they knew
> about that.
Only the Modernist Protestants (dominant voices in the USA, but not
elsewhere).
> The more generous critics will point out that the church doesn't
> explicitly prohibit such things, but will also point out that they
> certainly don't encourage it or offer any help either.
Bollocks.
> But there is one thing we agree upon. Some branches are better than other
> and fundamentalism is just about the worst kind of Christianity. Its
> barely even religion, its just fascism with a religious accent.
Good desription.
> If "blasphemy" is allowed, encouraged, nutured or taught within the
> Christian tradition you know and love so well, then you should be able to
> provide actual examples. As a priest, even if you don't like it, you are
> the resident spokesman for theism. Make a case. Show me. Where is this
> mysticism?
> How is it expressed? How is it taught?
Well, again, you're assuming an identity here between 'blasphemy' and the
mystical path, which I think is false. But asking where is the 'mysticism'
in the Christian tradition is like asking 'where is the prayer'? It's what
it's all about. This isn't to say that there aren't people out there who
have a deficient understanding of Christianity, but why do you accept their
authority? That would be like accepting the authority of the people I met in
Mongolia about what Buddhism is - you ask the monk to pray for you and
that's that.
I don't think you'll be able to understand the answers to 'How is it
expressed? How is it taught?' until you can loosen yourself from the grip of
SOMish epistemology and let go of the idea that mysticism is about an
'experience'. If you did, you might be able to accept the answers that I
have given here _ad nauseam_.
Let me put it in simple terms:
Christianity is about walking in the way of Christ. That _is_ 'mysticism'.
This is NOT AN EXPERIENCE. It is, precisely, a WAY - a way of life.
The way you do that is by developing your relationship with Christ.
This is done through contemplation and prayer, aka "the Christian Spiritual
Tradition" (try Googling that)
As you develop in contemplation and prayer, and develop the ability to
'listen to Christ', so too do you 'come into your inheritance as a child of
God' (New Testament language).
And the more you do this, the more you become a saint, "at one with God".
Now, you want material for where this sort of thing is taught. Well, it
begins in the New Testament (Gospel of John in particular, and St Paul), and
moves on with the Church Fathers. You should begin by looking at the
Cappadocians, especially Gregory of Nyssa. Then look at Augustine,
especially the Confessions. Then go on to Dionsyus (aka Pseudo Dionysus,
Pseudo Denys, the Areopagite). Then go on (via Aquinas, understood
correctly) to the great medieval mystics. So look at the Beguines, Hildegard
etc; look at Bonaventure and Bernard of Clairvaux, look at Eckhart, the
Cloud of Unknowing, Julian of Norwich, and especially the great Carmelites:
Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross. Look at Ignatius. Then STOP. Because
unless you know what you're doing, you'll then be misled, because after this
you have the impact of Modernist Protestantism and it all gets complicated.
In particular, you need to avoid some of the dominant commentators, eg FC
Happold, Evelyn Underhill AND ESPECIALLY WILLIAM JAMES, because they
interpret the Christian mystical tradition through the lens of SOM and
therefore emphasise "experience".
In terms of modern commentators who understand this sort of thing, the most
important is Denys Turner's "The Darkness of God", but see also the work by
Grace Jantzen that I've mentioned many times before, plus Mark McIntosh's
'Mystical Theology' or Andrew Louth's "The origins of the Christian mystical
tradition".
The thing that I need to emphasise is that a) this is what I was taught,
both in academic theological terms, and in terms of my training as a priest;
and b) this is what I teach my congregation, in particular it is the core of
what I teach those coming for confirmation. And I am by no means unique in
this. This is just 'normal' Christian teaching, certainly as far as the
denominations mentioned above go. I'm quite prepared to accept that
fundamentalists do things differently, but as I don't think they qualify as
'Christian' I don't care.
Which seems to me to mean that either a) you'll insist that mysticism is
about an 'experience' - and as this _isn't_ about experience it's not
mysticism (which is pretty much where we had got to before now, I think); or
else b) you might just open your mind up and entertain the possibility that
mysticism isn't what you think it is, and start to explore outside the
narrow box of SOM dominated descriptions of the religious way.
>
> It seems to me that you have had several postions on this matter before
> your present assertions. If memeory serves, you have said at various times
> that A) There is no such thing as a mystical experience, B) There is such
> a thing as a mystical experience, but it not important in the least, C)
> the mystical experience is really just a romantic feeling and now D) the
> mystical experience is a foundational concept in the church because the
> Greek word "theosis" appears in our english dictonaries. ("Blasphemy" is
> also in the dictionary.) What am I supposed to make of all this? Even if I
> were a far more generous and patiet person, I'd still have to insist that
> your actual postion lacks clarity and coherence.
Communication requires both parties to seek understanding. The unclarity may
not be solely a product of my words, but also of your reading.
A) is still true, if 'mystical' is taken to mean a religious path; B) is a
clarification of A) in other words, of course people have 'experiences'
which can be described (following William James) as 'mystical', but they're
not important for the religious path; C) is a pointer to where the
infatuation with "experiences" came from in the West; D) is using a
different understanding of 'mysticism' to the (SOM) one that you accept.
> But if you want to make a case, a real case and not just naked assertions
> about how wrong and bigoted and ignorant everybody is, I promise to read
> it. I'll read it twice, padre.
>
> Hugs and kisses,
> dmb
<smooch>
Two relevant quotes:
"What makes a subject hard to understand - if it's something significant and
important - is not that before you can understand it you need to be
specially trained in abstruse matters, but the contrast between
understanding the subject and what most people want to see. Because of this
the very things which are most obvious may become the hardest of all to
understand. What has to be overcome is a difficulty having to do with the
will, rather than with the intellect." (Wittgenstein, 1931)
"...atheists are, as it were, but theologians in an arrested condition of
denial: in the sense in which atheists ...say God 'does not exist', the
atheist has merely arrived at the theological starting point. Theologians of
the classical traditions, an Augustine, a Thomas Aquinas or a Meister
Eckhart, simply agree about the disposing of idolatries, and then proceed
with the proper business of doing theology." (Denys Turner)
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 09 2005 - 11:04:20 BST