First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. 

This or that “scientific truth” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture.  It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture—and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency—and nowhere more clearly that 2 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: “The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God “for every good work.” 

So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach sola Scriptura is simply wrong. (Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 2)

John MacArthur

HT: Email Brigade

You need to understand that this spurious CSM—the refried Roman Catholic mysticism “discovered” by Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster, and now perpetrated within the mainstream of evangelicalism as supposed Spiritual Formation with an able assist from his spiritual twin SBC minister Dallas Willard, was a core doctrine in the EC right from its hatching in Hell. In Good Shepherd Church Going Ape…Almost I gave you another pathetic exhibit of how just how squishy—man-pleasing—evanjellyfish is becoming as a result of practicing this mysticism.

In The Gloves Must Come Off yesterday I told you that there will be nothing gained by foolish “conversation” with unregenerate Apostles of Unbelief in the EC; and among their number you’ll find mystics like rock star Emerging Church pastor Rob Bell and his good friend, heretical quasi-universalist Emerging Church pastor Doug Pagitt who heads the Emergent Solomon’s Porch where the equally heretical Tony Jones happens to be his “theologian in residence,” who’ve long been teaching counterfeit forms of Christianity to young mainstream evangelicals.

The quicker you come to understand that such as these long ago jettisoned the proper Christian spirituality of Sola Scriptura—of course we can experience God in His Word—for myth-based mysticism the better for you; for you see, their mentors like Living Spiritual Teacher and Roman Catholic mystic Richard Rohr along with his fellow Red Letter Christian pal Living Spiritual Teacher and leading Emergent Church guru Brian McLaren, are just as off spiritually as the original Gnostics, which were being roundly rebuked by the authors of the New Testament.

A couple of years ago in Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) Of Spiritual Formation Is Reckless Faith I pointed you to Reckless Faith: When The Church Loses Its Will To Discern , oft-overlooked 1994 book by Dr. John MacArthur. In this book, one of our Lord’s most trusted generals told you—three years before their even was any Emerging Church—why in this postmodern time these neo-Gnostics, who’re neo-orthodox in their theology (at best), would run to embrace mysticism:

Neo-orthodoxy is the term used to identify an existentialist variety of Christianity. Because it denies the essential objective basis of truth—the absolute truth and authority of Scripture—neo-orthodoxy must be understood as pseudo-Christianity… Neo-orthodoxy’s attitude toward Scripture is a microcosm of the entire existentialist philosophy: the Bible itself is not objectively the Word of God, but it becomes the Word of God when it speaks to me individually.

In neo-orthodoxy, that same subjectivism is imposed on all the doctrines of historic Christianity. Familiar terms are used, but are redefined or employed in such a way that is purposely vague—not to convey objective meaning, but to communicate a subjective symbolism… Thus while neo-orthodox theologians often sound as if they affirming traditional beliefs, their actual system differs radically from the historic understanding of the Christian faith. By denying the objectivity of truth, they relegate all theology to the realm of subjective relativism.

It is a theology perfectly suited for the age in which we live. And that is precisely why it is so deadly… [Contemplative Spirituality aka] Mysticism is perfectly suited for religious existentialism; indeed, it is the inevitable consequence. The mystic disdains rational understanding and seeks truth instead through the feelings, the imagination, personal visions, inner voices, private illumination, of other purely subjective means. Objective truth becomes practically superfluous.

Mysticial experiences are therefore self-authenticating; that is, they are not subject to any form of objective verification. They are unique to the person who experiences them. Since they do not arise from or depend upon any rational process, they are invulnerable to any refutation by rational means… Mysticism is therefore antithetical to discernment. It is an extreme form of reckless faith.[1]

Now I’ll be blunt; if you can’t see what MacArthur has just told you fits these Emerging Church mystics perfectly, then in my view it’s because you just don’t want to. Charles Spurgeon dealt with their fetid forebears in the original Cult of Liberalism; do you remember what it would cost him in the Downgrade Controversy? Too bad in this New Downgrade, while so many praise him, there doesn’t appear to be any Spurgeon on the immediate horizon. If there were, here’s what he’d be saying:

Beloved, your risen Lord wants you to be happy. When He was here on earth, He said, “Let not your heart be troubled”; He says just the same to you today. He takes no delight in the distresses of His people. He loves you to believe in Him and be at rest.

Find if you can, beloved, one occasion in which Jesus inculcated doubt or bade men dwell in uncertainty. The apostles of unbelief are everywhere today, and they imagine that they are doing God service by spreading what they call “honest doubt.” This is death to all joy! Poison to all peace! The Savior did not so…

I have not much patience with a certain class of Christians nowadays who will hear anybody preach so long as they can say, “He is very clever, a fine preacher, a man of genius, a born orator.” Is cleverness to make false doctrine palatable? Why, sirs, to me the ability of a man who preaches error is my sorrow rather than my admiration.

I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would fain make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers.

“That is your bigotry,” says one. Call it so if you like, but it is the bigotry of the loving John who wrote—”If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

I would to God we had all more of such decision, for the lack of it is depriving our religious life of its backbone and substituting for honest manliness a mass of the tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.

He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to whom it is all the same whether it be God’s word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. Oh, if some of you were like fathers you would not have tolerated in this age the wagon loads of trash under which the gospel has been of late buried by ministers of your own choosing. You would have hurled out of your pulpits the men who are enemies to the fundamental doctrines of your churches, and yet are crafty enough to become your pastors and undermine the faith of a fickle and superficial generation.

These men steal the pulpits of once orthodox churches, because otherwise they would have none at all. Their powerless theology cannot of itself arouse sufficient enthusiasm to enable them to build a mousetrap at the expense of their admirers, and therefore they profane the houses which your sires have built for the preaching of the gospel, and turn aside the organisations of once orthodox communities to help their infidelity: I call it by that name in plain English, for “modern thought” is not one whit better, and of the two evils I give infidelity the palm, for it is less deceptive.

I beg the Lord to give back to the churches such a love to his truth that they may discern the spirits, and cast out those which are not of God… (Online source)

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] John MacArthur, Reckless Faith: When The Church Loses Its Will To Discern [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994], 27, 28.

See also:

DID JESUS ARGUE DOCTRINE?

THE EMERGING CHURCH SOWING ITS NEO-ORTHODOX CONFUSION ON SCRIPTURE

IS ROB BELL EVANGELICAL?

PD/SD PASTOR SCOTT HODGE AND THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON MYSTICISM

SADDLEBACK CHURCH, RICK WARREN, AND SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES

MARK DRISCOLL AND NEO-REFORMED NEW CALVINIST CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY

THE PERILS OF ‘WANNABE MYSTIC’ CHRISTIANITY BRETT MCCRACKEN

The Bible nowhere describes an inward journey to explore the realm of the spirit. God chose to reveal the truth about spiritual reality through His ordained, Spirit-inspired, biblical writers. What is spiritual and not revealed by God is of the occult and, therefore, forbidden. We have discussed this in many articles and have produced DVD seminars on the topic.

But the concept of sola scriptura is totally lost on mystics such as Richard Foster. They, like the enthusiasts that Calvin and Luther warned against, believe they can gain valid and useful knowledge of spiritual things through direct, personal inspiration. Foster describes the idea of the disciplines that are the topic of his book: “The classical Disciplines of the spiritual life call us to move beyond surface living into the depths. They invite us to explore the inner caverns of the spiritual realm.”

So Foster has conceptually repudiated sola scriptura on page one to replace it with a journey inward to explore the realm of spirits. Something must have been seriously amiss in evangelicalism already in 1978 to render this book a bestseller! It ought to have been repudiated on the spot. In a footnote to that statement Foster writes, “In one form or another all of the devotional masters have affirmed the necessity of the Disciplines” (Foster: 1). The devotional “masters,” by the way, are mostly Roman Catholics who never were committed to the principle of sola scriptura.

It is not surprising that they looked for spirituality through experimentation. But as an “inner light” Quaker, Foster never was committed to sola scriptura either. Forgetting that the Bible forbids divination, Foster explains what he is after: [W]e must be willing to go down into the recreating silences, into the inner world of contemplation. In their writings, all of the masters of meditation strive to awaken us to the fact that the universe is much larger than we know, that there are vast unexplored inner regions that are just as real as the physical world we know so well. . . . They call us to the adventure, to be pioneers in this frontier of the Spirit. (Foster: 13)

Realizing that his readers would likely take this as an endorsement of Eastern religions, he makes a disclaimer that it is not Transcendental Meditation (TM) or something of that ilk: “Eastern meditation is an attempt to empty the mind; Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the mind in order to fill it” (Foster: 15). But what Foster wishes us to fill our minds with are personal revelations from the spirit realm that we naively are to think are the voice of God. This sort of meditation is not meditating on what God has said, but uses a technique to explore the spirit world. In other words, it is divination.
(Online source)

Pastor Bob DeWaay

See also:

“CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE” BY RICHARD FOSTER AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGICAL ERROR 

CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY OF RICHARD FOSTER ROOTED IN THE EASTERN DESERT AND THOMAS MERTON 

DALLAS WILLARD ENCOURAGES CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER

NEW CALVINISM’S MARK DRISCOLL ENCOURAGES CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES?

THE NEW CONTEMPLATIVE CALVINISM

TIM KELLER ENDORSING COUNTER-REFORMATION CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY?

CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY/MYSTICISM (CSM) OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION IS RECKLESS FAITH

Pietism & Subjective Christianity

Balance. Is there anything more elusive? Most of us are constantly striving for balance, whether it is with our time, money, diet or relationships. If few of us are ever content that we have found just the right balance in these areas of life, the same can be said for the historical church. God’s people tend to swing from one extreme to another with great regularity, causing considerable tension within the body of Christ. One such tension has been, and still is, between the academic and the experiential, between those who place great emphasis on the theological and those who place the bulk of their emphasis on the subjective. Subjective oriented believers cast the term “dead orthodoxy” at their counterpart. I vividly remember an extremist group marching around the walls of Moody Bible Institute when I was a student there, crying out, “Babylon is falling down.” This same group purposely mispronounced seminary (calling it cemetery) and loved quoting II Corinthians 3:6b, “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Doctrinally inclined Christians cast aspersions such as “heterodox” at such people (you have to be doctrinally inclined to cast such aspersions). The proper biblical balance is for theology to result in doxology, and doxology to lead to holy, passionate living for Jesus Christ. Unfortunately it seldom seems to be that easy, and so the tension between theology and experience goes on and balance is hard to find. This is a modern day struggle but it has much historical precedent. One such precedent, which still has major ramifications for us today, has been termed Pietism.

A Little History:

Pietism began as a reaction to the highly intellectualized orthodoxy that had become common in Lutheran and Reformed churches in the decades following the Reformation.

Pietism made its appearance as a distinct historical movement within Protestantism, at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth centuries, around 1690-1730. Its aim was to stress “practical piety,” as distinct from the polemical dogmatic theology to which the Reformation had initially given a certain priority. Against the intellectualist and abstract understanding of God and of dogmatic truth, pietism set a practical, active piety (Praxis pietatis): good works, daily self-examination for progress in virtues according to objective criteria, daily study of the Bible and practical application of its moral teaching, intense emotionalism in prayer, a clear break with the “world” and worldly practices (dancing, the theatre, non-religious reading); and tendencies towards separatism, with the movement holding private meetings and distinguishing itself from the “official Church.”[1]

While there have been many leaders among the Pietists most recognize the big four as follows:

Johann Arndt (1555-1621). He is considered by modern Historians to be the Father of Pietism. Arndt’s most lasting influence came through his six volume devotional work True Christianity (1606). This was a collection of sermons which relied heavily on the mystics, especially Thomas à Kempis. Arndt was not a classical mystic but he was concerned, especially in book three with how one could find the Kingdom of God within oneself. His answer was found in self-denial as opposed to intellectual pursuit. Arndt, in reaction to what he considered dead-orthodoxy of Lutheranism, preached that the evidence of conversion was not correct doctrine but a changed life.

Philip Jacob Spener (1635-1705). Spener wrote his major work Pia Desideria (Pious Desires), subtitled, Heartfelt Desire for God-Pleasing Reform, in 1675. Many Lutherans date the beginning of Pietism with the publication of this book, which became a manual of Pietistic reforms. Spener, taking Arndt one step further, more aggressively combated those who promoted doctrine to the neglect of piety. Spener did not minimize Scripture but there was a subtle, almost indiscernible shift toward experience.

Auguste Hermann Francke (1663-1727) As Spener’s successor Francke continued, and expanded, Spener’s emphasis on a changed life and practical theology. He was known for his kindness and great interest in foreign missions, as well as his ecumenical spirit.

Count Nicolaus Ludwig Von Zinzendorf (1700-1760). In Zinzendorf the teachings of Arndt, Spener and Francke bear their natural fruit. Zinzendorf developed a system he called, “Theology of the Heart” which basically meant that heart-felt religious convictions and experiences were more trustworthy than theological understanding. As a natural outworking of this philosophy Zinzendorf emphasized the ecumenicalism of Francke, teaching that doctrinal difference between believers should be tolerated. Zinzendorf is best known today because of his leadership within the Moravians, a Pietist sect that had profound impact on the life of John Wesley.

What Did Pietism Teach?

While Pietism had its original roots in Lutheranism, historians identify at least three other branches of early Pietism including Reformed, Moravian and Radical.[2] It is therefore difficult to pin down the exact beliefs of the Pietists, but there were some definite common threads that can be traced throughout all of these branches.

Spener offered six proposals for reform in Pia Desderia which became a short summary of pietism:

• There should be “a more extensive use of the Word of God among us.” The Bible, Spener said, “must be the chief means for reforming something.”
• Spener called also for a renewal of “the spiritual priesthood,” the priesthood of all believers. Here he cited Luther’s example in urging all Christians to be active in the general work of Christian ministry.
• He appealed for the reality of Christian practice and argued that Christianity is more than a matter of simple knowledge.
• Spener then urged restraint and charity in religious controversies. He asked his readers to love and pray for unbelievers and the erring, and to adopt a moderate tone in disputes.
• Next he called for a reform in the education of ministers. Here he stressed the need for training in piety and devotion as well as in academic subjects.
• Last he implored ministers to preach edifying sermons, understandable by the people, rather than technical discourses which few were interested in or could understand.[3]

On the surface there seems little to object in Spener’s proposals; but while he had a concern for proper exegesis, and a high regard for the Bible, he and other Pietist were slowly allowing experience and subjectivism to become more authoritative than Scripture. By the time we get to Zinzendorf this exchange had become obvious. Experience, despite what might be officially stated, had in practice become the final arbitrator in the lives of the Moravians. “Zinzendorf stressed the importance of experiencing God,”[4] to the extent of allowing for personal experience to determine the meaning of Scripture and frame Christian living. Based upon the studies of J. E. Hutton, historian of the Moravian movement, Arnold Dallimore writes:

To them the value of the Bible consisted, not in its supposed infallibility, but in its appeal to their hearts…. The Bible was not its supreme authority, but authority lay also in personal experience, and, of course, varied according to the sentiments of the individual. Nor was the Bible a book to which they gave diligent study; they regarded it somewhat as a compilation of texts and mottoes, and they had the curious practice of opening it at random and accepting the first verse their eye lighted upon as the immediate guidance of heaven. They employed it also in the casting of lots and we are told that the Count “carried his lot apparatus in his pocket; he consulted it on all sorts of topics and regarded it as the infallible voice of God. The Moravians give little attention to systematic theology…. The Society’s gatherings were characterized by an extraordinary fervour, but because of the lack of clear doctrinal teaching, its members proved susceptible to varying religious influences.[5]

On the positive side Pietism rejected cold orthodoxy and called believers back to the Scriptures, not just for intellectual knowledge but also for heart-felt change and authentic personal experience. On the negative side Pietism led to subjectivism which ultimately drew Christians away from truth as found in God’s Word. Many church historians, including Mark Noll, believe that Pietism paved the way for the theological liberalism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Others, but not all, see a link between unchecked Pietism and the Enlightenment. These are odd outcomes for a movement that attempted to bring the church back to the Scriptures and the proper application of truth. But they are not surprising outcomes given the dominate role that subjectivity ultimately played in the Pietistic movement. Once our lives and churches become untethered from the Scriptures there is no limit where they might land.

Where Did Pietism Go Wrong?

Of course that is a loaded question and presupposes that Pietism did go wrong. Given the fact that Pietism, to some degree, lives on in church related groups as diverse as Amish, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal and the Amana Society it is hard to be precise. But, wherever experience and subjectivity reigns supreme over Scripture in the lives and churches of twenty-first century believers there is something wrong. William Nix summarizes our concern well:

Although Pietists adhered to the inspiration of the Bible, they advocated individual feeling as being of primary importance. That may have been an adequate method for avoiding cold orthodoxy of “Protestant scholasticism,” it opened the door for the equally dangerous enemy of “subjective experientialism.” The first generation of Pietists could recall and reflect on its grounding in Scripture while validly advocating the need for individual experience. A second generation would stress the need for individual experience, but often without a proper Biblical or catechetical basis. This would leave a third generation that would question individual experience with no Biblical or doctrinal “standard” to serve as an objective criterion. In turn, their unanswered questions would tend to demand an authority. When Scriptures were neglected, human reason or subjective experience would fill the need as the required “standard.” Thus while not causing other movements Pietism gave impetus to three other movements in the post-Reformation church: deism, skepticism and rationalism.[6]

What Are the Implications for Today?

The great-grandchildren of Pietism live on in modern evangelicalism. On the positive side, much like original Pietists there is a great hunger today for spirituality. People want a spirituality that works in the trenches of life. They want a faith that is relevant, provides answers and draws them closer to God. There is little interest in “dead orthodoxy.” People want to feel something – experience something. George Gallup documents this spiritual hunger in his book, The Next American Spirituality. Unfortunately much of the spirituality that he observes is without biblical foundation leading him to warn, “Contemporary spirituality can resemble a grab bag of random experiences that does little more than promise to make our eyes mist up or our heart warm. We need perspective to separate the junk food from the wholesome, the faddish from the truly transforming.”[7] But perspective is hard to come by due to the massive level of biblical illiteracy, not only in America but among Christians as well. Half, he says, “Of those describing themselves as Christians are unable to name who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Many Americans cannot name the reason for celebrating Easter or what the Ten Commandments are. People think the name of Noah’s wife was Joan, as in Joan of Ark.”[8] Then there is what some have called “the great disconnect.” That is, there is a wide chasm between what Americans in general, and self-proclaimed Christians in particular, claim to believe and how they live. While the general populace claim to have a great interest in spirituality, and Christians claim to be followers of Christ, our societies, homes and churches are inundated with corruption, violence, substance abuse, racism, divorce and materialism. This “cluster of moral and theological shortcomings seemingly throws into question the transforming power of religious beliefs,”[9] Gallup admits, leading him to state, “Just because Americans claim they are more spiritual does not make them so.”[10] That leans into an excellent question, “Is the church really rediscovering its spiritual moorings – or just engaging in retreat from seemingly insoluble problems?”[11]

Well, as Yogi once said, “Prediction is very hard, especially when it’s about the future,” but if the New Testament is any indication, things don’t look all that bright. The negative affect of Pietism, in many circles, is the development of Christians desiring a heart-felt faith who, nevertheless, have become increasingly distanced from the Word. Such spirituality may, as Gallup said, give us misty eyes and warm hearts, but it does not create Christians who know Christ in terms described by the Bible. Paul clearly taught in Ephesians 4:11-16 that if we are to grow to maturity, equipped for the “work of service” it will be as a result of biblical teaching from gifted leaders given to the church for that purpose. Without adequate biblical teaching we will be like children “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (v.14). The perfect spiritual victims for deceitful schemers are those with warm hearts and empty heads. The church is full of folks today who have “a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge” (Romans 10:2). They have a form of godliness but it is not biblically grounded. They are seeking feelings and experiences but not doctrinal truth. They are content to attend churches that do not expound the Scriptures, just as long as they are emotionally moved by the music or drama.

Such “piety” is changing every facet of Christian and church life. Take worship for example. Monte E. Wilson has noted, “For the modern evangelical, worship is defined exclusively in terms of the individual’s experience. Worship, then, is not about adoring God but about being nourished with religious feelings, so much so that the worshiper has become the object of worship.”[12] The cause for this type of worship, Wilson believes, is the loss of devotion to Scriptures. He writes in pejorative terms, “Others—probably the majority in modern American evangelicalism—have utterly neglected any commitment to the content of the Word and have ended with narcissistic ‘worship’ services where everyone drowns in a sea of subjectivism and calls it ‘being bathed in the presence of the Holy Spirit.’ These people come to church exclusively to ‘feel’ God.”[13]

Pietistic leanings, of course, are not limited to worship and the gathered church. Where they are most evident, and most concerning is in the area of “God’s leading.” How does God speak to and lead His people according to Scripture? And how has Pietistic understanding of these things affected the way we interpret both Scripture and our subject feelings? This will be the topic of our next paper.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:    

[1] http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articlesprint/YannarasPietismP.htm. p. 1.

[2] See Christian History Vol. V. #2, “Pietism, a Much Maligned Movement Re-Examined.” p. 19.

[3] Mark Noll, Elwell Evangelical Dictionary (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pietism.htm). P. 2.

[4] Christian History Vol. V. #2 p. 15.

[5] Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield (The Banner of Truth Trust: London, 1970), PP. 172-174.

[6] As quoted by F. David Farnell, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol. 13#1, “How Views of Inspiration Have Impacted Synoptic Problem Discussions”, p. 46.

[7] George Gallup Jr., The Next American Spirituality (Victor: Colorado Springs, 2000), p. 15.

[8] Ibid., p. 30.

[9] Ibid., p. 32.

[10] Ibid., p. 29.

[11] Ibid.

[12] John H. Armstrong, General Editor, The Compromised Church, “Church-o-Rama or Corporate Worship,” Monte Wilson (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1998 ), p. 67.

[13] Ibid., p. 68.

The article (May 2005 – Volume 11, Issue 5) appears in its original form here.    

See also:    

INTRODUCTION TO MYSTICISM    

MYSTICISM—PART 1    

MYSTICISM—PART 2   

MYSTICISM—PART 3

MYSTICISM—PART 4

Mysticism’s Inroads   

Most evangelical Christians probably would not recognize themselves in the previous discussion of mysticism (as found in our last three papers), but there are subtle influences at work drawing believers in this direction even without their knowledge. While firmly denying any part in classical mysticism many are actually participating in time-honored mystical practices. It must be recognized that many are doing this unintentionally for new opportunities are turning up that seem to defy recognized categories. Some are innocently adopting ancient mystical practices because they are being endorsed by trusted Christian leaders, or even the medical community. The danger is that involvement in some of these things; no matter how pure the motive, may easily lead the participant away from a biblical faith and into the quagmire of subjectivism and mysticism, or at times even into the occult. I will only take time to identify and explain two experiences which are paving the way to mysticism.   

Labyrinths   

I will deal most extensively with labyrinths because they have had a recent resurgence into evangelical circles without sounding many alarms. The Labyrinth Society is only 6 years old but boasts 800 members and wide ranging influence. A labyrinth is sort of a maze, some developed with bushes or other vegetation; others created with stones, tiles, wool or even canvas. Labyrinth lovers recoil from the word maze, however, pointing out that “Labyrinths are not mazes, although in the English language the words labyrinth and maze are frequently confused. Mazes contain cul-de-sacs and dead ends. They have more than one entrance and more than one exit and are designed to make us lose our way; they’re a game. Labyrinths have the exact opposite purpose: they are designed to help us find our way. They have only one path–from the outer edge into the center and back out again.”[1] Labyrinth’s sometimes go by handles such as “Pneuma Labyrinths or simply “prayer walks.”   

Labyrinths are by no means distinctively Christian. As a matter of fact according to The Rev. Dr. Lauren Artress, President and Founder of Veriditas™, The Voice of the Labyrinth Movement, “Labyrinth is an ancient pattern found in many cultures around the world. Labyrinth designs were found on pottery, tablets and tiles that date as far back as 4000 years. Many patterns are based on spirals from nature. In Native American culture it is called the Medicine Wheel and Man in the Maze. The Celts described it as the Never Ending Circle. It is also called the Kabala in mystical Judaism. One feature they all share is that they have one path which winds in a circuitous way to the center.”[2] While the history of labyrinths is sketchy, their entry point into Christianity appears to be during the Middle Ages. Many Christians during that time attempted to make pilgrimage to the Holy City of Jerusalem at some point in their lives but the Crusades made the visits increasingly difficult, if not impossible. Labyrinths were constructed in and around many Catholic cathedrals as a substitute, allowing Christians to fulfill their obligations (some seemed to believe these pilgrimages were necessary for salvation) symbolically. One of the best known labyrinths was constructed in the early 13^th century of tile and inlaid in the floor of the Cartres Cathedral in France. But walking the labyrinth fell out of favor during the 16^th and 17^th century as the Catholic Church moved away from mysticism and more into rationalism. Until very recently the labyrinth at Cartres was covered with chairs, having not been used for its original purpose for centuries. Rev. Lauren Artress, after a visit to Cartres, brought a replica of the 11-circuit labyrinth back to Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church in San Francisco in 1992. Since then over a million people are reported to have walked that labyrinth alone, and the labyrinth movement has been given new life. As some walk a labyrinth they claim a feeling of coming home. Others say they recall “ancient memories,” tapping into a level of consciousness not experienced before.   

The Purpose of Labyrinths   

All are in agreement that labyrinths are archetypes of the divine which are found in all religious traditions throughout the world. To the leaders of the movement they have rediscovered a long-forgotten mystical tradition. Dr. Artress says that, “The labyrinth has only one path so there are no tricks to it and no dead ends. The path winds throughout and becomes a mirror for where we are in our lives. It touches our sorrows and releases our joys. Walk it with an open mind and an open heart.”[3] Artress then describes the stages of the walk and the best method for experiencing it.   

Three stages of the walk:    

• Purgation (Releasing) ~ A releasing, a letting go of the details of your life. This is the act of shedding thoughts and distractions. A time to open the heart and quiet the mind.
• Illumination (Receiving) ~ When you reach the center, stay there as long as you like. It is a place of meditation and prayer. Receive what is there for you to receive.
• Union (Returning) ~ As you leave, following the same path out of the center as you came in, you enter the third stage, which is joining God, your Higher Power, or the healing forces at work in the world. Each time you walk the labyrinth you become more empowered to find and do the work you feel your soul reaching for.

Guidelines for the walk: Dr. Artress recommends that the walker, “quiet your mind and become aware of your breath. Allow yourself to find the pace your body wants to go. The path is two ways. Those going in will meet those coming out. You may “pass” people or let others step around you. Do what feels natural.”[4]   

For those who are familiar with classical mysticism of any stripe, or have read our previous papers on the subject, you will immediately recognize that labyrinths are merely a tool to move the worshipper into a mystical union with God (as you understand Him). And “as a device, the labyrinth has been compared to, in terms of function, rosaries, Stations of the Cross, and the tao-te-ching, or the Chinese Book of the Way.”[5] Yet, even with all of its obvious connections with various world religions and Medieval Roman Catholicism, some have tried to conjure up biblical support from Jeremiah 6:16, “Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.”[6]   

All of this would be of little consequence if the labyrinth revival were confined to a few European cathedrals, and a liberal church in San Francisco. The fact is interest in labyrinths have caught fire both inside and out of the evangelical community. The Lighthouse Trails, one Christian watchdog organization which does research on such subjects, reports that a Google search (if you don’t know what that is, ask your kids) on labyrinths revealed 116,000 hits in March 2004. But less than a year later a Google search brings up 290,000 hits. But more alarming is that labyrinths are rapidly becoming a recognized form of worship in many evangelical organizations and churches. They are being promoted by Youth for Christ, Youth Specialties, Intervarsity Christian Fellowship, The Emergent Church Convention, Navpress, Rick Warren (through his recommendation of Navpress’ pro-contemplative magazine, Discipleship Journal and speaking at Youth Specialties conferences), Zondervan Publishing, National Pastors Convention, Leadership Magazine, Group Publishing and a host of others. At the 2004 National Pastors Convention, held in San Diego, the daily morning schedule included: opportunities to walk the labyrinth (from 7 a.m. – 10:30 p.m.); “Contemplative Morning Prayer Exercise” (8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.); and “Sustainable Life Forum: Stretching and Yoga” (8:30 a.m. – 9:15 a.m.). Speakers at this convention included Rick Warren, Howard Hendricks, Dan Kimball and Brian McLaren (the latter two are Emergent Church leaders and the topic of an upcoming paper). Sadly I have heard of very conservative Bible Colleges offering labyrinth walks to their students, and can only hope that their leadership is ignorant of the true purpose behind the labyrinth (which is why we publish these papers).   

Visualization   

A number of years ago Karen Mains pretty much torpedoed the ministry of Chapel of the Air, her own ministry, and that of David, her husband, when she wrote Lonely No More. In that book she chronicled her journey into Jungian psychology, visualization and the occult. She of course denied any involvement with the occult, but judge for yourself. Mains describes dreams about her “male-self,” a man she called Eddie Bishop. “He was tall … well formed and trim, somewhere in his early thirties … His fine, dark hair fell in a thick lock across his forehead … his blue-gray eyes looking earnestly into mine.” The details of his communication are specific: “‘You are everything I have ever wanted spiritually,’ he said before I [in the dream] started to drive away.” Mains claims that this experience has taken place “six or eight times a year for the last four or five years.”[7] and has had a “positively profound effect” on her, compelling her to seek psychospiritual counsel. A later session with her “spiritual director” at Cenacle, a Catholic contemplative retreat center, Mains tells of a drastic change in the entity which has been appearing in her mind. She describes an “idiot-child sitting at a table with other people. Its head totally bald and lolled to one side. It was drooling and seemed to be six, seven or eight years of age…. It was so emaciated and malnourished…. He turned his sad, huge eyes on me and smiled sweetly…. This is my idiot-child, the idiot-self of my self.”[8] Her “spiritual director” has her close her eyes and see the child again. She does so and begins to communicate with the image who surprises them both by revealing that it is the “Christ child.” Mrs. Mains ponders the thought that the young man and the idiot-child are both Jesus Christ who has “been attempting to woo me because an essential part of my identity in Him has been expelled from my adult development.”[9] We find that this “Christ child,” whom she is instructed to always take with her, is her “spiritual authority” which she is “afraid of having” and has “rejected not only [as] a part of myself, but a part of myself that is Christ.[10] While she admits that the psychological concept of the male-within-the-female (and visa versa) was developed by Carl Jung, she has always seen it as scriptural.[11] In her self-analysis of her visualized experiences Mains writes, “Through my hardships I discover there’s a small part of myself that hasn’t grown whole along with the rest of me. It’s been maimed by neglect during years of married life. I call it my “idiot-self.” I’m discovering that this malnourished orphan needs to be nursed and nurtured. I must find the idiot-self creeping about in the infrastructure of my soul….Self of my self, this abandoned child is very much a part of me….I understand that in some way, I, the intuitive, introverted, feeling-proficient female, have become the substitute for [my husband] David’s own female self, his anima, to use the Jungian terminology. He…functions for me as my animus….I have abdicated to my husband my own maleness.”[12]   

The spiritual path that Karen Mains describes in Lonely No More can easily be found in most occult spiritual transformation books.   

An uproar ensued following the publication of Lonely No More and it was immediately removed from the bookshelves and taken out of print, but not before irreparable damage was done. The people of God were just not ready for a heavy dose of visualization and occultic practices at the time. Fast forward a dozen years and the spiritual landscape is different today, and apparently more primed for such techniques. David Seamand, a frequent guest on such programs as “Focus on the Family” has written a number of books advocating “Christian” visualization including, Healing for Damaged Emotions and Healing of Memories.   

Recently, popular author and theologian Gregory Boyd has written a similar book entitled Seeing Is Believing. Seeing Is Believing is a good example of how occultic visualization practices are creeping into evangelicalism. Boyd’s thesis is that “It’s not what we believe intellectually that impacts us; it’s what we experience as real”.[13] Experience is the key word, used literally hundreds of times in this small volume (57 times in the 8 page introduction alone). How does one go about experiencing Jesus? Using 2 Corinthians 3:17-4:6 as his main text, Boyd tells us that imagination, when guided by the Holy Spirit and submitted to the authority of Scripture, is our main receptor to the spiritual world.[14] The problem is that our Western mindset rejects imagination as make believe (pp. 72, 86, 95, 127-128, 134, 205). So it is necessary to reject this worldview and adopt an Eastern, mystical understanding. When this happens we begin to use our imagination to discover the real Jesus.[15]   

The most disturbing part of Boyd’s imaginative prayer methodology is that it evolves into New Age visualization. Boyd does not deny this; his caveat is that his program should not be condemned through guilt by association.[16] By visualization what we mean is that at some point in this process the image imagined (the spirit-guide in New Age mysticism) actually comes alive and begins to act independently of the person (such as happened with Karen Mains). At that point contact has been made with the spirit world in ways clearly condemned by Scripture. For example Boyd gives numerous examples such as this one, “Sometimes as I rest with the Lord he will say something unexpected like, ‘Are you ready for more of my freedom?’” Then Jesus leads him to some memory from his past and reconstructs it. This is not wholesome imagination but the altering of reality and contact with the spirit world (he naively assumes the spirit speaking to him is really Jesus). Boyd maintains that only in this manner can a person grow in his knowledge of Christ and/or have his memories healed.[17]   

John Weldon and John Ankerberg tell us, “Visualization is the use of mental concentration and directed imagery in the attempt to secure particular goals, whether physical, psychological, vocational, educational, or spiritual. Visualization attempts to program the mind to discover inner power and guidance. It is often used as a means to, or in conjunction with, altered states of consciousness (e.g., as produced by meditation), and is frequently used to develop psychic abilities or make contact with spirits.”[18]   

Visualization is being used today not only in the occult but also in New Age medicine in an attempt to manipulate mystical life energies; education to tap the “higher self” and its powers; psychotherapy and the church, to bring about inner healing.   

Visualization must be distinguished from imagination. Healthy imagination is a good and wonderful gift from God, but visualization is something very different. In visualization a person is attempting to either directly alter reality or make contact with the spirit world. Both of these practices are condemned in Scripture. David Hunt distinguishes visualization proper from the nonoccult use of the imagination. He observes:   

The visualization we are concerned with is an ancient witchcraft technique that has been at the heart of shamanism for thousands of years, yet is gaining increasing acceptance in today’s secular world and now more and more within the church. It attempts to use vivid images held in the mind as a means of healing diseases, creating wealth, and otherwise manipulating reality. Strangely enough, a number of Christian leaders teach and practice these same techniques in the name of Christ, without recognizing them for what they are.[19]   

A practitioner of visualization describes it in this manner:   

Programmed visualization…is the deliberate use of the power of your own mind to create your own reality….there is nothing too insignificant or too grand for you to visualize. Our lives are limited by what we see as possible….A basic rule of visualization is: you can use visualization to have whatever you want, but YOU MUST REALLY, REALLY WANT WHAT YOU VISUALIZE (emphases in original).[20]   

Visualization has gained popularity in the Western culture as Eastern mystical thought has invaded and been increasingly accepted. This is true because visualization fits best with a pantheistic worldview that sees humans as divine and creators of their own reality. Visualization is an important technique that supposedly taps the higher self and initiates contact with the ultimate cosmic reality.   

By contrast, the Scriptures do not teach or encourage visualization for the healing of memories, healing of body or soul, or spiritual growth. Rather we are called to be renewed daily by the Holy Spirit, prayer and the Word of God.   

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:    

[1] http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/excerpts/exc_20010328.shtml   

[2] http://www.gracecathedral.org/labyrinth/   

[3] Ibid.   

[4] Ibid.   

[5] Steven Spearie, “A Spiritual Journey on Canvas,” “The State Journal-Register” January 16, 2005, p. 19.   

[6] The Berean Call, July 2004, p 6.   

[7] Karen Burton Mains, Lonely No More (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993), Mains pp. 114-115.   

[8] Ibid., p. 123.   

[9] Ibid., p. 124.   

[10] Ibid., p. 124.   

[11] Ibid., p. 115.   

[12] Ibid., p. 71.   

[13] Gregory A. Boyd, Seeing Is Believing (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), p. 12.   

[14] Ibid., p.196.   

[15] Ibid., pp. 72, 86, 95, 127-128, 134, 205.   

[16] Ibid., pp. 117-134.   

[17] Ibid., p. 114.   

[18] John Weldon and John Ankerberg, “Visualization: God-Given Power or New Age Danger” Part 1, p. 1.   

[19] David Hunt and T. A. McMahon, The Seduction of Christianity (Eugene, Or: Harvest House, 1984), p. 124.   

[20] Adelaide Bry, Visualization: Directing the Movies of Your Mind (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1979), p.1   

The article (April 2005 – Volume 11, Issue 4) appears in its original form here.    

See also:    

INTRODUCTION TO MYSTICISM    

MYSTICISM—PART 1    

MYSTICISM—PART 2   

MYSTICISM—PART 3

MYSTICISM—PART 5

Contemplative Prayer, the Heart of Mysticism 

The heart and soul of mysticism, any type of mysticism, Christian or otherwise, is the art of meditation or contemplation. Georgia Harkness informs us that “among the church fathers, ‘contemplation’ was the usual term to designate what was later to be called mystical experience.”[1] Contemplative prayer, also known as centering prayer and breath prayer, is rapidly gaining popularity and acceptance in evangelical circles, so it is vital that we understand exactly what is being promoted and why we are concerned. 

What is Contemplative Prayer? 

First we must distinguish between normal prayer, which is found, recommended, and demanded throughout Scripture and contemplative prayer, which is not. Prayer is our communication with God. If the Lord speaks to us through His Word, we speak to Him in prayer. Such prayers are rational, intelligent and flow from our minds. Paul said that he would pray with his spirit and he would pray with his mind also (1 Corinthians 14:15), not either/or. We are to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17) and in those prayers we are to make our requests known (Philippians 4:6). In prayer we praise God for His known attributes. In prayer we confess specific sins (1 John 1:9). Gibberish, mindless or wordless prayers are not found in the Word, contrary to the charismatics’ assertion to the contrary. Similarly contemplative prayer is not of the Scriptural variety; its origin is not the Bible but Eastern and Christian mystics. It should be mentioned that contemplative prayer (often simply called meditation) is the essence of Hinduism and Buddhism and is practiced virtually identically to the Christianized form. 

So exactly what is it? It begins with detachment. Richard Foster, in his original 1978 edition of Celebration of Discipline wrote, “Christian meditation is an attempt to empty the mind in order to fill it” (p. 15). Fill it with what? In Eastern religions a person empties his mind in order to become one with the universe (or the Cosmic Mind). In Christian mysticism one empties the mind in order to become one with God, who is found by the way, in ourselves (it is important to keep in mind Meister Eckhart’s divine spark found within the soul of each human being). Foster quotes a number of mystics to describe this experience. For example there is Russian mystic Theophan the Recluse who said, “To pray is to descend with the mind into the heart, and there to stand before the face of the Lord, ever-present, all seeing, within you.”[2] 

The constant theme of the mystic is that union with God is possible through contemplative prayer, and that union with God is found within us. St. Teresa of Ávila states, “As I could not make reflection with my understanding I contrived to picture Christ within me.”[3] She is quoted as also saying, “Settle yourself in solitude and you will come upon Him in yourself.”[4] Such statements show why the mystics were accused of pantheism. Silence is a noted feature of contemplation. Catherine de Haeck Doherty writes, “All in me is silent and… I am immersed in the silence of God.”[5] Francis de Dales notes, “by means of imagination we confine our mind within the mystery on which we meditate.”[6] Imagination is highly important to the mystics. As Teresa informs us, this is not an endeavor that comes from their understanding. Mystics are hung out in thin air, so to speak, and must make contact with God through imagination rather than through the rational use of their minds. The power of such experience becomes evident as Foster tells us, “We are to live in a perpetual, inward, listening silence so that God is the source of our words and actions.”[7] 

So, through contemplative prayer the person is to empty his mind (detach) then fill it with imaginative experiences with Christ (attach) who we will find in the silence of our souls, resulting in God becoming the source of our words and actions. Sounds attractive to many, even if no such teaching is found in Scripture. But how is it actually practiced? 

The Techniques 

Just how does one go about practicing contemplative prayer? The techniques are identical to those of Eastern religions and so are familiar to most of us through media presentations of TM and yoga. Gary Thomas gives these typical instructions: “Choose a word (Jesus or Father, for example) as a focus for contemplative prayer. Repeat the word silently in your mind for a set amount of time (say, twenty minutes) until your heart seems to be repeating the word by itself, just as naturally and involuntarily as breathing. But centering prayer is a contemplative act in which you don’t do anything; you’re simply resting in the presence of God.”[8] So, the repetition of words or short phrases, a mantra, is key to this experience. What else? While Richard Foster suggests a number of methodologies he says, “I find it best to sit in a straight chair, with my back correctly positioned in the chair and both feet flat on the floor…. Place the hands on the knees, palms up in a gesture of receptivity. Sometimes it is good to close the eyes to remove distractions and center the attention on Christ. At other times it is helpful to ponder a picture of the Lord or to look out at some lovely trees and plants for the same purpose.”[9] Brennan Manning gives these instructions in his book, The Signature of Jesus: “The first step in faith is to stop thinking about God in prayer…. Contemplative spirituality tends to emphasize the need for a change in consciousness… we must come to see reality differently…. Choose a single, sacred word… repeat the sacred word inwardly, slowly and often…. Enter into the great silence of God. Alone in that silence, the noise within will subside and the Voice of Love will be heard.”[10] It is apparently the repetition of the mantra that triggers the blank mind. With the mind blank and the heart open to whatever voices or visions that it encounters, accompanied with a vivid imagination, the individual enters into the mystical state. This is the state so prized in mysticism and it is made possible through contemplative prayer. Concerning all of this Foster encourages, “Though it may sound strange to modern ears, we should without shame enroll as apprentices in the school of contemplative prayer.”[11] By contrast, we search in vain to find any such encouragement or instruction in the Scriptures. We do however find this type of contemplation at the heart of Eastern religions. That is why I find it both bold and revealing that Foster, in his recommendation of Catherine de Haeck Doherty’s ministry, actually admit that the title of her book is, Poustinia: Christian Spirituality of the East for Western Man.[12] This leaves little doubt as to the source for this type of prayer. 

But Is It Biblical?

No experience or methodology promoting spirituality can be dismissed or accepted out of hand. Scripture is the final arbitrator and as we have seen Scripture in no way promotes the mysticism that we have been examining. I found the following admission in Winfried Corduan’s book, Mysticism, an Evangelical Option? to be most interesting. Corduan would not take as strong a stand on the Scriptures as we would and would even see a mild form of mysticism valid for the Christian. But toward the end of his book he raises some important questions and points.

Set into the context of the New Testament, this aspect of the mystical experience becomes problematic. For it would entail that mystical experience becomes a source of revelation, a private avenue of insight into God and his workings. If so, as Arthur L. Johnson points out, the evangelical commitment to Scripture as the sole source of revelation becomes undermined. “The Scriptures nowhere teach that God gives us any knowledge through ‘spiritual experience.’ Knowledge of spiritual matters is always linked to God’s propositional revelation, the written Word.”[13]

Corduan sounds an important alarm. Mysticism, both ancient and modern is chocked full of supposed revelations from God. As a matter of fact, this is the draw – God will personally meet you in the center of your soul and communicate to you matters far beyond anything found in Scripture. “Christian meditation, very simply is the ability to hear God’s voice and obey his word,” Foster tells us.[14] This is no slip of the pen. Foster is not advocating listening to the voice of God in the written revelation of God. He is not even equating “his word” with the Bible. He is speaking of hearing God’s voice outside of the Scriptures, and obeying that revelation. This is one of the greatest dangers of mysticism. Corduan continues.

We have claimed that mysticism is a very important aspect of New Testament theology [he defines mysticism somewhat differently than in this paper]. And yet there is no mystical experience to be sought. There is no truth to be learned through New Testament mysticism. There is no plan of asceticism or meditation to actualize this mystical reality. Rather, there are two important imperatives. The first is, “Believe on the Lord Jesus!” (Acts 16:31). Immediately the realities discussed above are actualized. The second is, “Live…. according to the Spirit!” (Rom. 8:5). The point now is to live a life in the light of the fact that those realities are given by God’s grace. Christians do not need to seek present realities, but to enjoy them. As they yield to the work of God, the Holy Spirit produces a new supernatural life in them.[15]

This is New Testament spirituality: regeneration and the indwelling, enabling power of the Holy Spirit, all based on the propositional revelation of Scripture. If God had wanted us to encounter Him through mystical practices such as contemplative prayer, why did He not say so? Why did He not give examples and instructions? How could the Holy Spirit inspire the writing of the Scriptures yet forget to include a chapter or two on mysticism, spiritual exercises and mediation of the Eastern variety? Are we to believe that all of this is a great oversight, a huge “oops” on God’s part to have left out such vital instructions on an indispensable experience that is absolutely essential to Christian spirituality? Then, having realized what He had done, are we to believe God, centuries later, revealed this missing ingredient of Christian living to Roman Catholic monks, where it was rejected by the Reformers, only to have Richard Foster reintroduce it all to the twentieth century. This is a bit hard to swallow, but apparently is being accepted by many today.

Modern Promoters of Mysticism If the mystical practices that we have been describing were contained in some little corner of the Christian subculture we have spent far too much time addressing them. But unfortunately what was once in a corner has moved mainstream. More and more organizations, colleges, seminaries and authors are proclaiming the superiority of mystical Christianity. And the focus of all this attention seems to be directed toward the young. For example, in the late 1990s Youth Specialties, the highly influential youth ministry organization, and the San Francisco Theological Seminary teamed up to do a three-year test project to develop an approach to youth ministry which incorporates contemplative practices. The project was funded by the Lilly Endowment Fund. Mike Yaconelli, co-founder of Youth Specialties, grew interested in contemplative prayer during a spiritually dry time of his life after reading a book by Henri Nouwen on the subject. Yaconelli and Youth Specialties have now incorporated contemplative prayer and mysticism in their annual pastor’s conferences and national youth conventions that reach over 100,000 youth workers each year.[16] Each conference now offers courses on how to develop a contemplative youth ministry, pray the Lectio Divina (an ancient four-step form of contemplative prayer) and walk the prayer labyrinths. Christianity Today’s sister publication Christian Parenting recently published an article (Fall 2004) promoting the Lectio Divina for young people. “Christian” singers such as John Michael Talbot boldly endorse contemplative prayer as well as Eastern practices such as Tai Chi and yoga. Without question former Catholic priest Brennan Manning is steeped in mysticism yet Michael W. Smith gives away his books, Michael Card turns to him for advice and named his son after him, Larry Crabb seeks his counsel, Eugene Peterson loves his work, Max Lucado endorses his books, Philip Yancey considers him a good friend,[17] and Multnomah and NavPress, evangelical publishers, publish his books. Mysticism and contemplative prayer is seeping into evangelicalism from many sources and a deluge could very well be in the offing. We need to be prepared to defend the faith against this highly dangerous perversion of biblical Christianity.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes: 

[1] Georgia Harkness, Mysticism, (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1973), p. 25.

[2] Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline, (New York: HarperCollins, 1998), p. 19.

[3] Ibid., p. 25.

[4] Ibid., p. 96.

[5] Ibid., p. 102.

[6] Ibid., p. 25.

[7] Ibid., p. 166.

[8] Cited in James Sundquist, Who’s Driving the Purpose Driven Church?, (Bethany, OK: Rock Salt Publishing, 2004), p. 93.

[9] Richard Foster, p. 28.

[10] Cited in Ray Yunger, A Time of Departing, (Silverton, Oregon: Lighthouse Trails, 2002), p. 84.

[11] Richard Foster, p. 15.

[12] Ibid., p. 107.

[13] Winfried Corduan, Mysticism, an Evangelical Option?, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1991), p. 120.

[14] Richard Foster, p. 17.

[15] Winfried Corduan, p. 138.

[16] Yungen, pp. 133-134.

[17] Agnieszka Tennant, “The Patched Up Life and Message of Brennan Manning,” Christianity Today, June 2004, p. 42.

The article (March 2005 – Volume 11, Issue 3) appears in its original form here. 

See also: 

INTRODUCTION TO MYSTICISM 

MYSTICISM—PART 1 

MYSTICISM—PART 2

MYSTICISM—PART 4

MYSTICISM—PART 5

Modern Christian Mysticism

Medieval mysticism has managed to survive within small pockets of Roman Catholicism for centuries but has gone largely unnoticed by evangelicals. It is true that a few groups, such as the Quakers, have always kept some aspect of mysticism within range of evangelical awareness, and elements of mystical practices have actually thrived in charismatic circles right down to the ranks of Fundamentalism. But classical mysticism was virtually unknown in Evangelical circles until 1978 when Quaker minister Richard J. Foster published Celebration of Discipline, the Path to Spiritual Growth. Hailed by Christianity Today as one of the ten best books of the twentieth century and voted by the readers of that magazine as the third most influential book after the Bible, Celebration of Discipline has blown the doors off evangelicals’ understanding of spirituality. What Foster has done, in essence, is reintroduce to the church the so-called “masters of the interior life” as he likes to call the Medieval mystics. He declares that they alone have discovered the key to true spiritual life and slowly, over the last few years, convinced multitudes that he is right. It seems to me that Foster’s recipe for Christian living has been simmering in the pot for over two decades but as of late has caught fire. New forces and new players have popularized Foster’s ideas to a new set of Christians and it seems to be rapidly taking hold. This is due to the efforts of organizations such as Youth Specialties, numerous Bible colleges, and a rash of books and speakers, all introducing mystical practices and theology to our young people and our young ministers. Many of these, having grown up in churches that no longer major on the teaching of Scripture and are thus lacking biblical discernment, are easy prey for spiritual sounding techniques, especially those that promise such personal and life changing encounters with God. Before we look into the disciples of Foster, we should first get a good overview into Foster’s key teachings.

In General

Celebration of Discipline alone, not even referencing Foster’s other writings and teachings and ministries, is a virtual encyclopedia of theological error. We would be hard pressed to find in one so-called evangelical volume such a composite of false teaching. These include faulty views on the subjective leading of God (pp. 10, 16-17, 18, 50, 95, 98, 108-109, 128, 139-140, 149-150, 162, 167, 182); approval of New Age teachers (see Thomas Merton below); occultic use of imagination (pp. 25-26, 40-43, 163, 198); open theism (p. 35); misunderstanding of the will of God in prayer (p. 37); promotion of visions, revelations and charismatic gifts (pp. 108, 165, 168-169, 171, 193); endorsement of rosary and prayer wheel use (p. 64); misunderstanding of the Old Testament Law for today (pp. 82, 87); mystical journaling (p. 108); embracing pop-psychology (pp. 113-120); promoting Roman Catholic practices such as use of “spiritual directors,” confession and penance (pp. 146-150, 156, 185); and affirming of aberrant charismatic practices (pp. 158-174, 198).

However, all of these are minor in comparison to the two main thrusts of Foster’s book and ministry that we will get to in a moment, but first who are a few of Foster’s mystical champions?

A Few Mystic Heroes

Foster introduces to the unsuspecting reader literally dozens of mystics, some from the Christian tradition, some not. Many of these, he assures us, have traveled to depths of spiritual experience that we moderns cannot even imagine. Foster wants us to know that these individuals knew the secrets to an encounter with God. If only we would follow their pattern we too could enjoy what they enjoyed. Just who are these mystics? Let me give you a thumbnail sketch of three of Foster’s favorites.

Meister Eckhart

Eckhart, a Dominican monk who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, ranks among the great Roman Catholic mystics such as Teresa of Ávila, John of the Cross, and Julian of Norwich. Toward the end of his life Eckhart was charged (and found guilty after his death in 1327), with heresy for his mystical assertions which the Catholic Church determined had bled over into pantheism. Eckhart “believed that in every human soul there is something of the very nature of God. Here it is that the human soul meets God…. [His] doctrine of the human soul has lasted to the present, and is reaffirmed whenever one speaks of a Divine Spark within each of us.”[1] Eckhart made statements such as these, “Henceforth I shall not speak about the soul, for she has lost her name yonder in the oneness of divine essence. There she is no more called soul: she is called infinite being.” And, “She plunges into the bottomless well of the divine nature and becomes one with God that she herself would say that she is God.” Such statements not only bothered the Medieval Church but some more modern researchers have found agreements in Eckhart’s philosophy with all the major points of Hindu mystics.[2] Other scholars are not so certain about Eckhart’s pantheism but his statements certainly leave the door open for such interpretations. Yet Eckhart is considered to be one of the most important Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and both ancient and modern mysticism reflect his views. Eckhart’s Divine Spark corresponds almost directly with the teachings of Eastern Mysticism, with the difference that the Divine Spark in Christian Mysticism is defined as God who resides in every human being.

Thomas Merton

Foster cites and/or quotes Merton on at least nine separate occasions in Celebration of Discipline, yet Merton was not a Christian as far as we can tell. He was a twentieth-century Roman Catholic who had so immersed himself in Buddhism that he claimed he saw no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity and intended to become as good a Buddhist as he could.[3] But despite his doctrinal views and New Age leanings Foster considers Merton’s Contemplative Prayer, “A must book,”[4] and says of Merton, “[He] has perhaps done more than any other twentieth-century figure to make the life of prayer widely known and understood.”[5] Merton wrote, “If only [people] could see themselves as they really are. If only we could see each other that way all the time. There would be no more war, no more hatred, no more cruelty, no more greed…. I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other.”[6]

Ignatius Loyola

We know Loyola today mainly due to his founding of the Society of Jesus, or the order of the Jesuits in 1534. One of the missions of the Jesuits was to fight the battles of the church against infidels and heretics, in what is now termed the “Counter-Reformation.” For our purposes Ignatius’ contribution lies in the creation of his Spiritual Exercises which provided specifications for spiritual self-examination and the mental and spiritual conditioning of the Jesuits. Foster’s disciplines seem to draw heavily upon Ignatius.

St. John of the Cross and Teresa of Ávila are also mystics of note, involved in the sixteenth century Counter-Reformation seeking to overturn the Reformation. These mystics believed that through contemplation a union with God could be obtained which would eradicate sinful actions and tendencies.

Main Teachings

As concerning as many of Richard Foster’s teachings and mentors are, far more disturbing are the two main thrusts of his spiritual formation system. The first is his use of what he calls the “Spiritual Disciplines.” The second is closely related, but deserves its own paper. I speak of what is called contemplative prayer, which is rapidly becoming the rage throughout much of evangelicalism, especially among the youth.

Spiritual Disciplines as a Means of Grace

It might be best to begin this section by relaying an experience that Foster shares in Celebration of Discipline. Having come to the conclusion that there must be “more spiritual resources than I was experiencing,” he prayed, “Lord, is there more you want to bring into my life? I want to be conquered and ruled by you. If there is anything blocking the flow of your power, reveal it to me.”[7] God seemed to answer this prayer through a growing impression that something in his past was impeding the flow of life so he set aside blocks of time on three consecutive days to listen to God in absolute silence, through the use of journaling, a process whereby God is supposed to reveal His mind to the silent participant. After the third day Foster took his lists to a friend, who volunteered to serve as his confessor, who prayed for healing for all the sorrows and hurts of Foster’s past as presumably revealed by God. It was following this experience of journaling, an experience not taught in the Bible but common in the occultic world, that it seemed to him that he “was released to explore what were for me new and uncharted regions of the Spirit. Following that event, I began to move into several of the Disciplines described in this book that I had never experienced before.”[8] It is most disturbing that Foster’s magnum opus stems from a questionable Divine encounter of a dubious nature. But it is also significant to realize that Foster’s system for spiritual formation is not drawn from the Scriptures but from subjective experiences involving unbiblical methodologies and reinforced by Roman Catholic mystical practices. At the very least this should give pause to any seeker of truth. It must not be automatically assumed, as many seem to do, that Foster has rediscovered the missing jewels of spirituality. Or as Eugene Peterson describes it in the twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Celebration of Discipline, “Like a child exploring the attic of an old house on a rainy day, discovering a trunk full of treasure and then calling all his brothers and sisters to share the find, Richard J. Foster has ‘found’ the spiritual disciplines that the modern world stored away and forgot, and has excitedly called us to celebrate them. For they are, as he shows us, the instruments of joy, the way into mature Christian spirituality and abundant life” (p. 206). Even more to the point, the dust jacket of this edition assures us “that it is only by and through these practices that the true path to spiritual growth can be found” (emphasis mine). If spiritual growth is dependent upon the spiritual disciplines described in Foster’s book, should not we have expected to find this truth in the Scriptures? Why did God reveal them, not to the apostles but to apostate Roman Catholic mystics, and then to Richard Foster as he studied the mystics and used occultic techniques of meditation? We need to tread very carefully through this spiritual minefield. If this is in fact one of the ten best books of the twentieth century, I am not too anxious to read the other nine.

The Spiritual Disciplines

But just what are the Spiritual Disciplines which are absolutely essential to our spiritual development? Foster breaks them into three categories: inward, outward and corporate. The first two inward disciplines both deal with prayer and will be the subject of our next paper. Fasting is the third and as might be expected his instructions on fasting are purely extrabiblical. The purpose behind fasting, the value of it, and the methodology are interesting but purely subjective and unauthorative. The final inward discipline is study. The new reader of Foster might expect that he would direct us to the study of Scripture as the primary means of spiritual growth. But Foster has broader ideas. Actually there are two “books” to be studied: verbal and nonverbal. Verbal books include any literature and one of the important means of study is repetition. Here he sees the use of a rosary and/or Hindu type prayer wheel as being effective (p. 64). After a number of suggestions on reading books, Foster finally discusses the type of books to read to enhance spiritual growth. At last, we think he will turn to the Word, and he does – for two paragraphs, before rushing off to recommend reading the Medieval mystical classics. The nonverbal book is mainly the “reading” of nature. Here with St. Francis he encourages “making friends with the flowers and trees and the little creatures that creep upon the earth” (p. 74). We should also be students of people and of ourselves, and while there is undoubted value in this, many have spent a lifetime studying nature, people and themselves and have no clue about God. Repeatedly we find in Foster that he is just not that interested in the study of Scripture except as it serves his purpose for contemplative meditation.

The outward disciplines begin with simplicity, starting with the simple life as modeled by the heretical cult known as the Shakers. Extreme mystic Thomas Kelly tells us that simplicity allows us to live out of “The Divine Center” (whatever that is) and existentialist Kierkegaard claimed it led to holiness. In attempting to find a biblical base for his view Foster makes the Old Testament civil laws a pattern for New Testament Christianity, and manages to misinterpret virtually every scriptural passage he uses, although he scores points on seeking the kingdom of God first. Next up is solitude. What follows is not a nice chapter on the importance of breaking free from the noise and distractions of our world and focusing on God and His Word. Instead we enter into the mystical world of Medieval Catholicism, Quakerism and Eastern mystics. Quotes flow from Merton, Teresa of Ávila, John Woolman, George Fox, and St. John of the Cross. Terms like “The Divine Center,” “The Divine Opening” and “the dark night of the soul” dominate. It is here that we are taught to keep a journal as we “listen to the thunder of God’s silence” (p.108). The next discipline is “submission” and it is in this chapter that we receive our heaviest dose of psychobabble including: “self-fulfillment,” “self-actualization,” “loving ourselves,” and mutual submission within marriage. To be fair he also explores accurately some of what the Bible teaches on greatness and submission. The final discipline is service, and as with the others this one too is based more on writings of the mystics than on the Scriptures. This is only expected from Foster because he places far more importance on mystical experiences than he does on the Word. For example he writes, “True service comes from a relationship with the divine Other deep inside. We serve out of whispered promptings, divine urgings” (p. 128). But he does warn, “The fact that God speaks to us does not guarantee that we rightly understand the message. We often mix our word with God’s word” (emphasis his) (p. 140). Not only does Foster consistently elevate these subjective experiences over the Scriptures, but in this chapter on service Foster recommends self-abasement: “The strictest daily discipline is necessary to hold these passions in check. The flesh must learn the painful lesson that it has no rights of its own. It is the work of hidden service that will accomplish this self-abasement” (p. 131, cf. p. 133). This is in direct contradiction to Paul’s teaching in Colossians 2:20-23, which tells us that self-abasement has no affect on the passions of the flesh.

The final category of disciplines is the corporate – and here Foster does no better. The first corporate discipline is that of confession; and we are not surprised to discover that Foster supports the position of the Roman Catholic Church, complete with penance and absolution (pp. 146-149). And why not? for Dietrich Bonhoeffer assures us that “when I go to my brother to confess, I am going to God” (p. 146), and Foster wants us to know, “The assurance of forgiveness is sealed in the Spirit when it is spoken by our brother or sister in the name of Christ” (p. 148). Since none of this is drawn from Scripture how can Foster be so sure? Well, not only do his favorite mystics back his view but so does personal experience. Once when receiving the confession of a lady she, “looked at me and ‘saw’ superimposed upon my eyes the eyes of Another who conveyed to her a love and acceptance that released her to unburden her heart” (p. 155). While nothing in the Bible remotely implies such an experience we are left to assume that the eyes she saw were the eyes of God. I am not so certain.

As for the discipline of worship, we find that worship “is a breaking into the Shekinah of God, or better yet, being invaded by the Shekinah of God…. We have not worshiped the Lord until Spirit touches spirit…. [And] it all begins as we enter the Shekinah of the heart” (pp. 158-162). This convoluted understanding of worship is augmented with a strong charismatic flavor. As a matter of fact “if Jesus is our Leader, miracles should be expected to occur in worship. Healing, both inward and outward, will be the rule, not the exception” (p. 165). Such services will have prophecies and words of knowledge (p. 165) and that is because, “The mightiest stirring of praise in the twentieth century has been the charismatic movement. Through it God has breathed new life and vitality into millions” (p. 168). But even more disturbing is the idea that in the worship of God, “Our rational faculties alone are inadequate…. That is one reason for the spiritual gift of tongues. It helps us to move beyond mere rational worship into a more inward communion with the Father. Our outward mind may not know what is being said, but our inward spirit understands. Spirit touches spirit” (p. 169). Remember above how we have not worshiped until Spirit touches spirit — now we see the process. It is as we move beyond the mind and into mystical, subjective experiences, that true worship takes place.

With all that Foster has already communicated, the discipline of guidance is predictable. “Many,” he tells us, “Are having a deep and profound experience of an Emmanuel of the Spirit – God with us; a knowledge that in the power of the Spirit Jesus has come to guide his people himself; an experience of his leading that is as definite and as immediate as the cloud by day and the pillar by night” (p. 175). The model, of course, of this kind of guidance is the mystic. We are also introduced at this point to the Catholic concept of Spiritual Directors (pp. 185-187), something that Foster believes only Roman Catholic monastics know much about today.

Foster brings everything together with his last discipline, that of celebration. Here we are to express joy in all that we have learned thus far in the book, even participation in “holy laughter” on occasion (p. 198).

Robert Webber, professor of theology at Wheaton College sums up Foster’s impact well, “Over the past two decades my own personal spiritual pilgrimage has taken me away from the propositional and rationalistic mind-set that proclaims an intellectualized proof-oriented faith toward a Christianity of practice and experience” (p. 208). Webber is of course erecting a strawman. No one is calling for a purely intellectualized faith devoid of practice and experience. What those who draw their cue from Scripture and not mystics are calling for is a Christian faith, experience and practice that is rational, intellectual, makes sense, and most importantly is solidly grounded on the Word of God. Foster and company have taken many far afield in pursuit of mystical experiences that lead to a pseudo-Christianity that has the appearance of spirituality but not the substance.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] Georgia Harkness, Mysticism, (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1973), p. 106.

[2] See Winfried Corduan, Mysticism: an Evangelical Option?, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), pp. 106-107.

[3] See Ray Yungen, A Time of Departing, (Silverton, Oregon: Lighthouse Trails Publishing Company, 2002), p. 75.

[4] Richard Foster and Emilie Griffen, Spiritual Classics, (San Francisco: Harper, 2000), p. 17.

[5] As cited in Yungen p. 75.

[6] Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander, Image Edition of 1989, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), pp. 157, 158.

[7] Richard Foster, Celebration of Discipline, Third Edition, (San Francisco: Harper, 1978), p. 149.

[8] Ibid., p. 150.

The article (February 2005 – Volume 11, Issue 2) appears in its original form here.

See also:

INTRODUCTION TO MYSTICISM

MYSTICISM—PART 1

MYSTICISM—PART 3

MYSTICISM—PART 4

MYSTICISM—PART 5

Mysticism, a Way of the Past, the Wave of the Future

I am often asked what I see as the next important challenge facing evangelical Christianity. Such questions are asked in the wake of major movements that have changed the face of evangelicalism in the last two decades, including the market-driven church and the closely related “Purpose Driven Life” (PDL) campaigns that have so greatly impacted God’s people. The legacy of both of these movements will not be that the church discovered new ways of worship, or new methodologies to replace the outdated. Instead, I fear that they will be remembered by future generations for their undermining of the authority of Scripture. To be sure these movements were not the genesis of the lack of confidence in God’s Word – there have been many forerunners. Actually they have capitalized upon this trend and have taken it to a new level. It is not that everything the church growth experts and PDL espouses is wrong; it is that the authority for what the church now believes has shifted. It has shifted from the infallible Scriptures to psychological and sociological experts, opinions of the masses, trends of the moment and the philosophy of pragmatism. This shift has been subtle, which has made it all the more dangerous. Few have bothered to deny the Bible itself, they just misquote it, abuse its meaning, force their opinion on it, and if necessary mistranslate it to give the appearance that the Scriptures are backing their claims. The affect of all of this scriptural manipulation is to both erode the authority of God’s Word and to give the appearance that what Scripture has to say isn’t really important. It is only a short step from here to a Christian community that no longer has much use for the Bible. As a matter of fact, if the increased popularity of people coming to church services without their Bibles, sermons being reduced to PowerPoint presentations and sermon note taking digressed to fill-in-the-blank outlines, are any indication, we may be there now.

Such Christianity is devoid of the majesty of God and the wonder of His Word. It is only a matter of time until true believers grow tired of this insipid brand of evangelicalism with its 7-11 choruses (seven words sung eleven times); its dramatizations; its dumbed-down Bible teaching; its latest fad that promises to change lives but does not; and its “me-centered” orientation. When (and as) they do, they will turn in a number of directions. Happily, some will come back to the Word and to churches that faithfully proclaim it. Some will head to Roman Catholicism and Orthodox for more liturgical, traditional and authoritative expressions. Still others will write off the faith and declare that “it doesn’t work for me.” As we might expect, we are seeing these things now, and will increasingly in the future. But many thirsty believers, wanting something more, something deeper than has been their experience, are also becoming infatuated with two other overlapping fads. One of these is ancient, harkening back to premodern times (mysticism). The other is new and considers itself postmodern (the emerging church). They have in common disdain for modernity, a distortion of Scripture and a rejection of much that conservative Christians hold dear. Despite these flaws both are rapidly gaining popularity, especially among the young, which seems to be the targeted demographic.

Let me be very clear about what I am trying to communicate in these next few papers: There is only a superficial link between the market-driven church (including PDL) movement and mysticism and the emerging church movements. And while the market-driven church is not a direct conduit to mysticism and postmodernism, it certainly has opened the door. By hollowing out the core of biblical substance and replacing it with superficial theological fluff, the movement has created a hunger for true spirituality. One can only live so long on cotton candy before a steak, or at least a hamburger, is craved. As more and more Christians tire of their spiritual diet many are turning to even more unhealthy alternatives. It is these alternatives that we are describing.

The trend which I will address first is the one embracing mysticism which has its roots in Medieval Roman Catholic monks and hermits (the desert Fathers). This mysticism promises to bring us into contact with God in ways not experienced by most believers, and is especially appealing to those tired of fluffy Christianity. The other leaning is toward postmodernity. Many, including myself, have referred to the market-driven church as postmodern, and while they have some characteristics of this worldview, they would not consider themselves to be postmodern by the normal understanding of the term. As a matter of fact they would strongly deny that they were postmodern and would give evidence of their similar doctrinal beliefs to historical evangelicalism. But a truly postmodern “evangelical” movement has arisen, which boldly affirms its postmodern understanding of life in general and Christianity in particular. This movement, which for now calls itself the “emerging church,” is extremely popular on college campuses and among twenty-somethings, although its leaders are middle-aged. But before we tackle the emerging church we need to spend considerable time dealing with mysticism. Our starting point will be to grasp the meaning of mysticism in a Christian context, and then examine how it was practiced in ancient times. This will help us get a handle on why it is becoming all the rage today.

Mysticism Defined

The first obstacle encountered when discussing mysticism is trying to define it. When I once declared in print that Henry Blackaby is a Christian mystic, a young man wrote his master’s thesis challenging my claim and proving that Blackaby was more in line with Pietism than classical mysticism. His point was well taken when using, as he was, a formal definition of a mystic. I was using the term more loosely as represented by this quote from John MacArthur, “The mystic disdains rational understanding and seeks truth instead through the feelings, the imagination, personal visions, inner voices, private illumination, or other purely subjective means.”[1] By this rather loose definition Blackaby is indeed a mystic. This type of mysticism, which I believe to be a functional denial of sola scriptura, is running rampant throughout the Christian community with devastating consequences. But in the more technical, official sense MacArthur’s definition is inadequate. Classical mysticism, which is now making a strong return to Christianity, goes far deeper. Someone has said mysticism “begins with a mist and always ends in schism,” and that is not far from the truth. Mysticism is the search for unio mystica, personal union with God.[2] But what does this union encompass and how is it attained? Here things get sticky for as Georgia Harkness tells us in her book, Mysticism, there are at least twenty-six definitions of mysticism by those who have studied it carefully.[3] Winfried Corduan, in his Mysticism: an Evangelical Option? boils it down to the essentials when he writes, “The mystic believes that there is an absolute and that he or she can enjoy an unmediated link to this absolute in a superrational experience” (emphasis mine).[4] But even here there are at least three distinct categories of mysticism: panenthenic, in which, as Carl Jung thought, a segment of the collective unconscious intrudes on the conscious mind; monistic such as found in Hinduism and Buddhism whereby the individual is merged into the impersonal All, whatever that is called; and theistic in which the absolute is God, although not necessarily the true God.[5] The actual experience by these various types of mystics is very similar. But with whom the mystic believes they come into union is determined by the mystic’s belief system, as William James’ research demonstrated decades ago.[6]

The Road to Mysticism

The journey to mystical experience, almost universally, involves three stages: purgation, illumination and union.

Purgation

Purgation is the cleansing stage which begins with self-examination and penitence and leads to a holy life. Sixteenth-century monk, St. John of the Cross, is best known for his description of this stage which he called the “dark night of the soul.” During the dark night the soul of an individual feels abandoned by God, spiritually dry and at the point of despair. John saw this as a way in which God purified the soul by suffering, for only when the soul has been purified is it in a position to experience a rapturous union with God. This purgation involved detachment from the things of the world including material and physical desires; and mortification, the building of new paths to replace the old ones now rejected.

Illumination

At some point the purgation stage bleeds over into the illumination stage in which the mystic begins to experience inner voices and visions. The goal of illumination is to know genuine spiritual truth, but such truth cannot be found in conventional or even rational ways. This differs, at least in theory from the “mystical” Christian as defined earlier by MacArthur. These still believe that truth is primarily found through rational means, but they feel their thoughts and mental impressions can be explained as the inner voice of God. The true mystic has come to the conclusion that the secret and “deep” things of God cannot be understood rationally. They can only be understood through the experience of illumination. One of the earliest Christian mystics, who is known today as Pseudo-Dionysius, taught that to achieve the ultimate prize of union with God, “The soul must lose the inhibitions of the senses and of reason. God is beyond the intellect, beyond goodness itself, and it is through unknowing, and the discarding of human concepts, that the soul returns to God and is united with the ‘ray of divine darkness.’”[7] The means by which mystics achieved illumination was through fasting, long seasons of specialized prayers known as contemplative prayers and by following various spiritual disciplines of which the best known today were designed by the Catholic monk and founder of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola. As we will see later, it is upon Ignatius’ “Spiritual Exercises” that Richard Foster patterns his famous book, The Celebration of Discipline.

Union

The ultimate goal of the mystic is unmediated union with God. This point, at which the soul attains oneness with God, “was the mystical ecstasy in which, for a brief indescribable moment, all barriers seemed to be swept away and new insight supernaturally imparted as one gave himself over fully to the Infinite One.”[8] The ancient mystics would frame this experience in romantic, even sensual terms. John of the Cross “describes the union in terms of spiritual betrothal, where the soul, conceived of as feminine, is married to Christ as the bridegroom. In other places he may say… ‘The centre of the soul is God.’”[9] Bernard of Clairvaux (12^th-century), who managed to turn the Song of Solomon into an erotic love story between God and man, described this moment of union as the time when the believer is “kissed with the kisses of His mouth.”[10] Similar depictions are common in mystical literature.

Pseudo-Dionysius (so called because we don’t know his real name but he used Dionysius borrowed from a convert of Paul in Acts 17:34) set the table for the need for this type of mysticism with his belief that God can never be truly known through the intellect. Harkness describes it well,

The author’s position is that God is completely transcendent, beyond all human thought, reason, intellect, or any approaches of the mind. A term, which occurs repeatedly in this writing (Mystical Theology), is “the Divine Dark.” The human mind can only say what God is not, never what God is. There is nothing within the human self to give us a clue. But is there no way to penetrate this divine darkness? Yes, there is one. This is the via negativa by which the soul strips off its selfhood and, in ecstatic union with transcendent deity, both feels and knows its oneness with the Infinite. This has become the classic pattern of Christian mysticism…. To this there is often linked a disparagement of the human capacity to know God saves by the mystical vision, and to this end the need of rigorous disciplines of prayer, fasting, prolonged meditation, and ascetic living.[11]

In other words, the mystic has no confidence in human knowledge accessible through normal means such as the propositional revelation of God (Scripture). If we are to know God, it must come from a mystical union with Him that transcends the rational thought process or even normal sensory experience. This takes place through following the three stages of purgation, illumination and union; implementing the spiritual disciplines and most importantly, practicing contemplative prayer. Roman Catholic monk, William Johnston describes the mystical process this way, “In this mystical life one passes from one layer to the next in an inner or downward journey to the core of the personality where dwells the great mystery called God.”[12]

Other well-known mystics, holding to these or similar views, throughout church history include: Meister Eckhart, Juliana of Norwich, Thomas à Kempis, Tereas of Ávila, Evelyn Underhill, St. Francis of Assisi, Madam Guyon, George Fox, Thomas Merton and Agnes Sanford. Modern mystics of import include Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning and most importantly, Richard Foster. Of Foster, Eugene Peterson enthusiastically writes on the cover of the 25^th anniversary edition of Celebration of Discipline, “Richard Foster has ‘found’ the spiritual disciplines that the modern world stored away and forgot, and has excitedly called us to celebrate them. For they are, as he shows us, the instruments of joy, the way into mature Christian spirituality and abundant life.” What Foster “found” many others are discovering as well. As a result classical, Medieval Roman Catholic mysticism has been dusted off and offered as the newest and best thing in spirituality. But there is one little problem. If this is how God wanted His followers to connect with Him why didn’t He bother to say so in His Word? If contemplative prayer (We will further describe this in a future paper.) is the key that will unlock this greater dimension of spirituality, as we will see is being claimed, why did God not give us instructions on how to pray in this manner? Why did He leave it up to monks and nuns hundreds of years later to unveil this key to true godliness? Of course, the answer is that He did not. God’s Word is sufficient; all that we need for life and godliness is found there (I Peter 1:4; II Timothy 3:16,17). That brings us to a number of questions: What does the face of modern mysticism look like, where is it leading us and why is it so popular? We will look into these next time.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] John MacArthur, Reckless Faith, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994), p. 27.

[2] Brian Moynahan, The Faith, (New York: Doubleday, 2002), p. 269.

[3] Georgia Harkness, Mysticism, (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1973), p. 19.

[4] Winfried Corduan, Mysticism: an Evangelical Option, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), p. 32.

[5] See Corduan, pp. 45-46.

[6] William James, The Variety of Religious Experiences, (New York: Longmans, Green and Co. 1922), pp. 377-429.

[7] Moynahan, p. 270.

[8] Harkness, p. 32.

[9] Corduan, p. 35.

[10] Moynahan, p. 270 and Harkness p. 39 (Bernard also considered the “kisses of the feet” in The Song as picturing the purgative stage and the “kisses of the hand” as the illuminative p. 91).

[11] Harkness, pp. 26-27.

[12] William Johnston, The Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion, (Collins/Fount, 1981), p. 127.

The article (January 2005 – Volume 11, Issue 1) appears in its original form here.

See also:

INTRODUCTION TO MYSTICISM

MYSTICISM—PART 2

MYSTICISM—PART 3

MYSTICISM—PART 4

MYSTICISM—PART 5

Well after all, they were only following Acts 15:1-2 in their new Missional Bible translation Anything Goes Evangelicalism: How To Make The World Love You:

Some inovative church planters came from Judea and started teaching the Lord’s followers that they could not be saved, unless they were circumcised as Moses had taught. This caused lead apostle Paul and his missiologist bro Barnabas to include them in the next Explosive Growth conference so they share how they had contextualized the gospel.

So it was decided to send Paul and Barnabas and a few others to Jerusalem to have a missions conference with the apostles and the church leaders there to teach them how the missional church planters were engaging the Jewish culture and bringing the church back to her Jewishness.

Now I’ve pointed out before that a core doctrine of the Emergent Church has always been the corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM), which numbs critical thinking skills, and is now being perpetrated as so-called Spiritual Formation (SF), e.g. by Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster along with his spiritual twin and SBC minister Dallas Willard. This teaching is critical for the new big tent progressive Liberalism 2.0 they’re calling Emergence Christianity because this form of postmodern Progressive Christianity is more metaphysical and existential i.e. centered of self.

Once again I point you to Dr. Gary Gilley, pastor of Southern View Chapel, in five subsequent posts here at Apprising Ministries as I republish his excellent five part series on mysticism. Dr. Gilley did this series beginning in January of 2005 and his words now seem rather prophetic:

I am often asked what I see as the next important challenge facing evangelical Christianity. Such questions are asked in the wake of major movements that have changed the face of evangelicalism in the last two decades, including the market-driven church and the closely related “Purpose Driven Life” (PDL) campaigns that have so greatly impacted God’s people. The legacy of both of these movements will not be that the church discovered new ways of worship, or new methodologies to replace the outdated. Instead, I fear that they will be remembered by future generations for their undermining of the authority of Scripture.

To be sure these movements were not the genesis of the lack of confidence in God’s Word – there have been many forerunners. Actually they have capitalized upon this trend and have taken it to a new level. It is not that everything the church growth experts and PDL espouses is wrong; it is that the authority for what the church now believes has shifted. It has shifted from the infallible Scriptures to psychological and sociological experts, opinions of the masses, trends of the moment and the philosophy of pragmatism…

Such Christianity is devoid of the majesty of God and the wonder of His Word. It is only a matter of time until true believers grow tired of this insipid brand of evangelicalism with its 7-11 choruses (seven words sung eleven times); its dramatizations; its dumbed-down Bible teaching; its latest fad that promises to change lives but does not; and its “me-centered” orientation… The trend which I will address first is the one embracing mysticism which has its roots in Medieval Roman Catholic monks and hermits (the desert Fathers). This mysticism promises to bring us into contact with God in ways not experienced by most believers, and is especially appealing to those tired of fluffy Christianity. The other leaning is toward postmodernity…

[A] truly postmodern “evangelical” movement has arisen, which boldly affirms its postmodern understanding of life in general and Christianity in particular. This movement, which for now calls itself the “emerging church,” is extremely popular on college campuses and among twenty-somethings, although its leaders are middle-aged. But before we tackle the emerging church we need to spend considerable time dealing with mysticism. Our starting point will be to grasp the meaning of mysticism in a Christian context, and then examine how it was practiced in ancient times. This will help us get a handle on why it is becoming all the rage today… (Online source)

See also:

MYSTICISM—PART 1

MYSTICISM—PART 2

MYSTICISM—PART 3

MYSTICISM—PART 4

MYSTICISM—PART 5