Christian mysticism and other mystical traditions

A reader named Guido posted the following comment on the Christian Mysticism page of this blog:

Does it not occur to us that all “mysticism” is not the same? I came back today from hearing a conference on Christian/catholic mysticism. It spoke of the dark night of the soul and its place in the path of union with God. However, in making her points, the speaker used Buddist quotes. Does this not seem problematic given that the aims of Christianity and Buddhism are not the same. In the former the idea is a union with God understood as intimately connected with His creation and yet distinct from it. He is the creator. In the latter, God is that ultimate reality of consciousness behind the illusionary material world. God is not really a being per se in the Eastern non-Christian traditions. He is not a creator because all of what we see created is a part of the divine whole. Having read through this site, I get the impression that several feel that somehow it is all the same. Why do we persist in that way? Is it not disrespectful to both traditions to insist they are saying the same thing when they are not?

Thanks for this comment, Guido. I agree with your assessment that Christian mysticism celebrates relationship and communion with God “understood as intimately connected with His creation and yet distinct from it.” Likewise, many other types of spirituality seek not so much communion with a creator but union or identity with the monistic “One” — as Plotinus put it, “the flight of the alone to the Alone.” In fact, I would say the single most significant factor differentiating Christian from non-Christian mysticism is this question of whether mysticism is seen as culminating in Divine-human communion or in some sort of boundary-erasing union with the One/All/Brahmin/deity (however you wish to name the Absolute).

However… just because we can easily chart the distinctions between Christian mysticism and, say, Buddhist mysticism, is not to suggest that Christians can never learn from Buddhist wisdom, or apply Buddhist teaching to Christian practice (or vice versa). First of all, I think a measure of humility is in order here: ultimately, whatever we say about mystical experience remains, at best, attempts to put the Mystery into words, which means therefore that there is always an element of paradox, ambiguity, darkness, unknowing, and mystery in and beneath our discourse about mystical experience. Given this, we do well to remember that, no matter how eloquent our ability may be to put into words our understanding of Christian mysticism and how it differs from all the other mysticisms of the world, we might also bear in mind that all of our words ultimately fail to convey the full splendor of the mystery. Which means, quite frankly, that the “difference” between different wisdom traditions or different understandings of mysticism may ultimately be more a matter of our own linguistic and conceptual limitations than of any real ontological divide. Put another way: I think it is wise to understand the differences between wisdom traditions, and I believe it is also wise not to dwell on those differences overly much. After all, if we make it our business to emphasize what divides us, we then remain a divided people. I for one cannot believe that this is really what the Holy Spirit ultimately wants.

My second reason for accepting the use of non-Christian wisdom in exploring Christian mysticism is rather pragmatic. Frankly, true mysticism is such a rare phenomenon that I believe it is important to draw wisdom from every possible source of contemplative or mystical insight. Just because the ends of Christianity and Buddhism may differ does not mean that we cannot find much in the way of common ground. If our ultimately loyalty is to truth rather than to dogma, we must be prepared to recognize truth wherever it occurs, even if it is beyond the doctrinal bounds of our own faith tradition. To me, Christians who rely on Buddhist wisdom are not adulterating Christianity so much as they are ennobling it, by drawing on the riches of wisdom available to us from the east.

Certainly my views may be controversial, and so I will shut up now and, perhaps, some folks will see fit to comment here and perhaps take this conversation further. But let me summarize: yes, indeed, there are real differences, at least on the level of theory, between Christian and Buddhist mysticism, but I see no reason why Christians should therefore avoid Buddhist wisdom. If Buddhist teaching can shed light on our own journey into deeper communion with God, then I say “Bring on the Buddhist wisdom!”

Four Dimensions of Christian Spirituality for Our Time

About a month ago I wrote this:

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about how my spiritual identity is shaped by the contemplative tradition (as exemplified by the Lay-Cistercian community where I am in formation), my Celtic heritage (of which I have written several books and which continues to inform much of my self-understanding as a Christian), my love for mysticism (primarily Christian mysticism, but extending into all the wisdom streams of the world) and the emergent conversation (which is primarily a Christian phenomenon, but which I believe also has significant interfaith implications and in any event signifies the unfolding of a truly loving, hospitable, justice-oriented, postmodern way of doing faith). I won’t go into how I see these four dimensions of spirituality working together just yet; I’ll save that for a future post.

Okay, so now it’s time for that “future post.”

I just finished reading Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity (review coming soon!) and last night I started to read J. Philip Newell’s Christ of the Celts. Putting these two books side by side, I thought it was rather obvious that, in many ways, they were saying the same things. There seems to be quite a bit of overlap between McLaren’s “new kind” of following Christ, which of course is linked to the postmodern and emergent conversations, and the Christ that Newell suggests the Celtic people have been following all along. McLaren begins his book by suggesting that we need to deconstruct the Greco-Roman assumptions that color our way of reading the Bible (and, therefore, of understanding Jesus). The Celts, as a cluster of tribal peoples who never lost their sovereignty to the Roman empire, just might be an excellent resource for considering how we can strip Christianity of its Greco-Roman distortions and yet still explore how the message of Jesus remains relevant to all people, across cultures. “Celtic” Christianity may be a culturally specific expression of the faith, but its value lies in how it testifies to the truth of Christ’s message in a way that transcends the particularity of the Celtic experience.

But Celtic and Emergent ways of being a follower of Christ are not the only “alternative” approaches to discipleship. I believe two other categories need to be considered: the monastic and the contemplative. At first blush, this may seem to be a redundancy, so maybe I should expand these two to delineate their distinctions: the monastic/communal/exoteric dimension of discipleship, and the contemplative/mystical/interior dimension. Both are vital, both have both a long tradition and exciting new expressions, and ideally they complement each other in a truly symbiotic manner, as exemplified by the best monastic/contemplatives, like Thomas Merton, Thérèse of Lisieux, Jan Ruusbroec and the author of The Cloud of Unknowing.

The monastic/communal dimension recognizes that Christian spirituality requires a relational expression. Even those called to the deepest kinds of solitude need some form of community for discernment, support, guidance and grounding. The desert fathers and mothers quickly adapted their life from solitary to monastic expressions of discipleship; the Carthusians who are the most solitary of monks still gather together for worship and for Sunday recreation; great hermit mystics like Julian of Norwich or Merton at the end of his life still engaged in the larger Christian community through their writing and spiritual direction. An important part of Christian discipleship is growth in humility and healthy self-forgetfulness; the experience of community is the single best tool for nurturing this dimension of maturity in Christ.

Monasticism is exciting not only because of its traditional/historical expressions (find a vibrant Benedictine or Trappist monastery and you will find a goldmine of resources to assist you in your own spiritual growth), but because of the exciting new forms of Christian community, or “neo-monasticism,” emerging, with communities like Koinonia, L’Arche, the Simple Way, or the Lindisfarne Community, all exploring new ways to create community and be people of faith and service together.

The shadow side of community is, of course, that it can favor an extroverted, externalized expression of discipleship, so it needs to be complemented by the contemplative/interior expression of spirituality. Historically, Christian mysticism thrived primarily in monasteries, and I predict that mysticism of the future will likewise have a strong connection the community, whether traditional monasticism, neo-monasticism, or other forms. Contemplation is grounded in Christ’s instruction about prayer: “whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you” (Matthew 6:6). Secrecy, silence, solitude, withdrawal: these are key elements for contemplative practice, in which we seek to encounter the face of God in darkness, loneliness, and stillness. Here we move beyond the certainties of the mind into the paradox and ambiguity of unknowing. Thanks to the cross-fertilization that has occurred between many Christian contemplatives and the practitioners of other contemplative paths, we have begun to see that the path of contemplation is the path of entering into altered or higher forms of consciousness, which in turn can transform how we engage in community and how we relate to the world at large. So while it may be tempting to dismiss contemplative practice as a form of spiritual self-indulgence, in reality it is an essential component to maintaining healthy relationships: with God, with ourselves, and with one another.

So. Here, then, is a diagram I have created to integrate these four essential dimensions of Christian spirituality…

It’s not a perfect diagram, as of course these things never are. But I think it can be a fruitful tool for reflecting on how mysticism, Celtic Christianity, the emergent conversation, and Christian community all can work together in the formation of a mature spirituality.

First, we have the vertical axis: the “love God” axis, with the Body of Christ — Christian community, particularly but not exclusively in its monastic form — forming the foundation. The body grounds us, and anchors us through our DNA to our ancestors and to the physical world. Through the Body of Christ we receive the wisdom of the tradition, the insight of all those who have gone before us and whose efforts to follow Christ are the foundation on which we build our spiritual lives today. But just as the human body needs the mind, so too the Body of Christ needs the Mind of Christ — the expansive, visionary, inclusive consciousness and experience of divine presence that comes to us through contemplative practice and through the guidance of the great Christian mystics. The wisdom of the mystics is the wisdom of growing in conscious love of God, and so it both animates and nurtures our experience as embodied/communal Christians.

Completing the diagram is the horizontal axis: the “love neighbors” axis, in which we turn to two alternative/marginal but truly vital expressions of Christian discipleship for guidance and nurture. The Celtic tradition, with its roots in late antiquity but its continuing relevance today, provides a wisdom from the past that is particularly relevant for expression Christian discipleship in terms of the love of nature, of matter, of God as immanent present in our world today. Counterbalancing this ancient/particular expression of faith is the postmodern/universal expression of the emergent conversation, integrating Christian wisdom with the unique concerns and demands of our age in order to equip the followers of Jesus to more fully and authentically love all people, including those who have traditionally been marginalized by the church, those who follow other wisdom paths, and those who stand truly in need of mercy, forgiveness, support and comfort. This encompasses those who have victimized by religion, those who have suffered due to addiction, poverty, disease or other challenges, and those who have danced with the sirens of secular culture only to find their lives hollow and meaningless, but too embittered and cynical to engage with traditional forms of religiosity. I’m sure the list of possible neighbors could go on and on.

So this is a basic overview of how I see my own faith in Christ shaped and formed, nurtured in particular by these alternative or liminal expressions of spirituality and discipleship. I’m not sure if this will work for anyone else, but it clearly works for me. I hope that anyone who shares my interest in mysticism, Celtic Christianity, the emergent conversation, and monasticism (both ancient and new) might find in this diagram a way to put all the “pieces” together into a coherent and unified expression of faith and love and obedience to Christ.

So now for the really interesting question: where will this take us?

P.S. The beautiful Celtic Cross I used in my diagram (which is found on the cover of one of my books) comes from the amazingly talented Cari Buziak over at Aon Celtic Art.

The Protestant Mystics

Here are the details of my forthcoming class:

Mystics of the Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical Traditions

Six Tuesday Evenings, April 6 through May 11, 2010
7:00 – 8:30 PM
First Christian Church of Atlanta
4532 LaVista Road
Tucker, GA 30084

Ours is an age of Spiritual renewal, and many Christians are sensing a call to a deeper life of devotion and conscious contact with God. Traditionally, the spiritual disciplines — and resulting experience — associated with such a hunger for the presence of God has been known as “mysticism.” This concept has met with resistance among many Protestants and Evangelicals because of its historical association with Catholicism. But in fact, many great and lesser-known Protestants have been mystics. In its best sense, mysticism is not contrary to the Gospel, but actually a way to live the Gospel more deeply, fully, and joyfully. This class will explore the writings and wisdom of some of the Protestant mystics and prayerfully consider how their teachings can be applied to the Christian life in our day.

For the purposes of this class, “Protestant” refers to any church with roots in, or after, the 16th century Reformation of northwestern Europe. The mystics we will study in this class come out of the Anglican, Quaker, Reformed, Methodist, Holiness, Presbyterian, and Evangelical traditions; including: George Fox, Jonathan Edwards, William Law, John Wesley, Phoebe Palmer, George MacDonald, Evelyn Underhill, T.S. Eliot, A. W. Tozer, and C.S. Lewis. We will also consider the question of “Is mysticism in the Bible?” and how mysticism (or spiritual practice) relates to the overall calling of Christian discipleship.

The class will meet on six Tuesday evenings, April 6 through May 11, from 7:00 – 8:30 PM, at First Christian Church of Atlanta, 4532 LaVista Road, Tucker, GA 30084. There is no required textbook for the class. Class is taught by Carl McColman, author of the forthcoming Big Book of Christian Mysticism and the Website of Unknowing Christian mysticism blog (www.anamchara.com). There is no set tuition for the class but an offering will be taken to cover expenses and to help support future spiritual development programming at First Christian Church.

For more information or if you have any questions, please contact Carl at mccolman @ anamchara.com.

Zealous Love

Zealous Love:
A Practical Guide to Social Justice

Edited by Mike and Danae Yankoski
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009
Review by Carl McColman

Zealous LoveHuman trafficking. Refugees. Hunger. Unclean water. Education. Poverty. HIV/AIDS. The environment. The areas in life where injustice or social inequality threaten both individual lives and the common good are, alas, all too numerous. The Christian life mandates that we care for those in need (Matthew 25:31-45; Luke 10:25-37). But it is far too easy to simply feel overwhelmed by the enormity of the need in our world today. Where should I begin to respond to the call to love my neighbor, to feed the hungry, to shelter the homeless, to comfort the afflicted?

Enter Zealous Love. This “practical guide to social justice,” written for ordinary first-world Christians, focusses on eight specific areas of need in today’s world. Each section begins with a brief overview of the nature of the scope of the problem, and then provides a number of “Field notes” — first person narratives in which activists describe their experiences encountering the problem, and then working to fight it, in different ways and different places around the world. “Now What?” at the end of each section provides concrete suggestions on how to reflect and pray about the issue at hand, with practical suggestions on how to respond, spread the word, and connect with organizations engaged in work related to the issue.

What I think makes this book useful is how it combines honest assessment of how serious each issue is with a manageable list of suggested action steps that concerned persons can take to join the fight for justice. “A thousand mile journey begins with a single step,” as the old saying goes, and Zealous Love is all about resolving to take that first step. Just casually flipping through the book will open your eyes to social and political problems you may either not have known about (or preferred not to know about). The Field notes make the issues come alive, with real stories about real people involved. And then the recommended action steps offer a range of possible responses, from simply learning more to making a commitment to full-time service.

In our time it is easy to feel overwhelmed just with the challenges that face even those of us who are, by global standards, quite affluent. Considering the depth of suffering and the enormity of problems such as environmental threats or economic inequality, and it is easy to feel tempted to retreat into a shell of apathy or indifference. But such is not the Christian way. We who have been touched by the wild love of the Holy Spirit are called to share that love with others, and fighting injustice is an important way to do just that. Zealous Love provideas a full range of gentle — and challenging — ideas on how average folks like you and me can join in the fight.

Unconditional Confidence

Unconditional Confidence:
Instructions for Meeting Any Experience With Trust and Courage

By Pema Chödrön
Boulder: Sounds True, 2009
Review by Carl McColman

Unconditional ConfidenceHere is a wonderful audio book filled with gentle wisdom for transforming all of life’s experiences into occasions for spiritual growth. If you (like me) sometimes feel like you relate to life more from a position of fear or anxiety than from a place of deep trust and confidence, then this teaching program just might inspire you to cultivate courage in your own life.

Unconditional Confidence is really two programs on two CDs. The first disc features a talk given by Buddhist teacher Pema Chödrön before a live audience; the second features a more intimate  approach to the topic, in which Pema is interviewed by Sounds True owner Tami Simon. The first disc provides the message of “unconditional confidence” in a more formal way; the interview functions as a “behind the scenes” look at the wisdom and life experience that helped to shape Pema and her message.

And what is her message? Simply put, that if we choose to approach all of life mindfully, we can learn to trust and relax into anything that comes our way — even times of suffering, or anxiety, or stress. Any experience that arises is an opportunity to learn non-attachment, to practice gentleness and mindful awareness, and to cultivate a spirit of trust and basic friendship toward ourselves (even our failings) and our experiences. “Unconditional confidence” does not mean living a robotic life in which we never feel doubt or fear or disappointment, but rather a mindful and “heartful” life in which even the challenges that come our way are seen as dharma — as occasions to grow.

Pema Chödrön is a wise and warm teacher, and her down-to-earth manner makes her message accessible and inviting. Her ability to laugh gently at herself is a witness to her humility (in the best sense of the word) and the quality of her message. Listening to her (whether lecturing or conversing in her interview with Tami Simon), I came away with a sense that true confidence and trust is available to anyone who really wants it; the key is not years of almost super-human meditation practice (although she is clear that a disciplined meditation life can only help the fostering of confidence); rather, the key seems to be learning to cherish every moment that life brings us, by “leaping into, smiling at, and experiencing” all of life, even those moments that seem to be filled with fear or angst.

The interview disc includes honest discussion of such issues of physical pain and health issues, facing death, dealing with explosive interpersonal relationships and “triggers,” and other real-world considerations of when confidence is not something that flows naturally, but must be mindfully cultivated. Pema’s vulnerability in speaking of her own imperfections and challenges is particularly inspiring and reinforces her basic message that unconditional confidence is not about living a perfect life void of any doubt or fear, but simply a life in which all of our messy imperfections are embraced with kindness and mindful non-attachment.

Protestant Mystics and Catholic Mystics

C. S. Lewis

C. S. Lewis, the mystic who claimed he wasn't one. Image via Wikipedia

I’ve begun work on a lesson plan for a course on “the Protestant Mystics” that I will be offering at the First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Atlanta this spring (details as to date and time, etc. still have to be worked out, but as soon as I know the particulars I’ll post them here). For my research, I’m using an old, out of print anthology edited by Anne Fremantle, The Protestant Mystics. The book features a wonderful introduction by W. H. Auden, which I’ve quoted from on this blog several times over the last few days. Fremantle and Auden set out to do this book because they wanted to prove W. T. Stace wrong — Stace being a Protestant philosopher who said, “There are no Protestant mystics.” The anthology includes a wide variety of voices, from Jacob Boehme to George Herbert, George Fox to Thomas Traherne, William Law to Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley to George MacDonald, Rufus Jones to T. S. Eliot, and so forth. And while the authors seem to be more comfortable with heterodox mystics than I am (Emmanuel Swedenborg and Ralph Waldo Emerson are among the other-than-orthodox figures represented), all in all it’s a wonderful anthology and a clear refutation of Dr. Stace’s arrogance.

But why would someone as eminent as Stace make such a sweeping generalization? In his defense, probably most of the so-called Protestant mystics would, themselves, be uncomfortable with the designation. C. S. Lewis is included in the anthology, and he explicitly disclaimed himself as a mystic (see his Letters to Malcolm). I suspect that Lewis would hardly be alone. For Protestants, mysticism long was tainted by the perception that it arose not from devotion to Christ, but rather from Catholic excess.

In his wonderful book Beloved Dust, Robert Davis Hughes offers a historical survey of the history of Christian spirituality, and suggests that, in the wake of the Reformation, Protestants and Catholics alike began to view mysticism with suspicion, seeing its claim to direct experiential union with God as an affront to the good order of church authority as established by God. Ironically, for Protestants the claims of mysticism were rejected because it was too Catholic; for Catholics the same rejection implied that mystical experience was too Protestant! Since to a large extent the Protestant / Catholic divide is an argument over authority, mysticism with its experiential, but liminal, claim to personal authority directly given by God would be perceived as dangerous by both parties. Mysticism did not just go away, of course, but Catholics and Protestants successfully marginalized mysticism in different ways. In the Catholic world, mysticism became increasingly associated with persons who had little or no ecclesiastical power: gone were the days when great theologians or bishops like Augustine, Richard of St. Victor, Nicholas of Cusa or Meister Eckhart were also the greatest mystics. In post-reformation Catholicism, mysticism increasingly became associated with women, and typically obscure women in religious life: Rose of Lima, Marie of the Incarnation, Thérèse of Lisieux, Faustina Kowalska, Emma Gelgani, and so forth. Meanwhile, Marian apparitions at places like Lourdes and Fatima became the province of children. Mysticism could survive in Catholicism as an essentially non-threatening private devotion, charming and pious but ultimately having little real impact to the larger church. Indeed, the “messages” promulgated by these latter-day Catholic mystics all seem to be variations on a single theme: pray the rosary and obey the church. And it seems that when a Catholic mystic does come along with a more transformational or visionary message, he (or she) is soon marginalized by the church: think of Teilhard de Chardin, Thomas Merton, or even Thomas Keating in our own time.

On the Protestant side, mysticism retained more influence, but only by divesting itself of the name. Protestant mystics simply never were called mystics, by either their supporters or their detractors. This, Auden brilliantly explicates, has to do with the fact that Protestantism represented a fundamental break in the tradition: the Protestant “mystics” did not have access to the same contemplative culture that their Catholic brothers and sisters enjoyed. Thus, a young woman like Thérèse of Lisieux could write a theologically nuanced book (and win a designation as a doctor of the church) because she was immersed in the living contemplative tradition not only of the Carmelite Order but of Catholicism as a whole. Protestants, meanwhile, had only one reference point for their experiential spirituality: the Bible. Thus, Protestant mysticism tends to be scripturally informed in a manner that has not been seen among Catholic visionaries since probably the time of the church fathers (I do not mean to suggest that Biblical resonance is absent from Catholic mystics. But figures like Julian of Norwich or John Ruusbroec derived their Biblical knowledge through the Divine Office rather than through the culture of personal Bible study as promulgated in the Reformed world, and their mysticism was as richly informed by the writings of the saints as by scripture).

So this, then, is the defining mark of a Protestant mystic: an experiential and direct knowledge/relationship with God, informed almost exclusively by scripture, and completely unconcerned to label itself as “mystical” or “contemplative.” After all, the words mysticism and contemplation (theoria) are of pagan rather than New Testament origin. Does this, then, render the concepts of mysticism and contemplation obsolete or unnecessary? I don’t think so. If nothing else, they are markers that invite us to acknowledge the depth and transforming power of the spirituality that figures like John Wesley or Jonathan Edwards experienced. One could almost argue that the tradition of Protestant mysticism, even among the great theologians like Wesley and Edwards, falls under what Merton called “masked contemplation” — the experience of ordinary Christian men and women who seek to live a holy and transformed life in Christ, but who don’t engage in any particular method or technique of prayer and who lack any sort of self-consciousness regarding their spiritual life. To me, this kind of masked contemplation sounds healthy in its very humility and hiddenness. Perhaps we who fancy ourselves as contemplatives would do well to follow their obscure example.

Quote for the Day

The mystics themselves do not seem to have believed their physical and mental sufferings to be a sign of grace, but it is unfortunate that it is precisely physical manifestations which appeal most to the religiosity of the mob. A woman might spend twenty years nursing lepers without having any notice taken of her, but let her once exhibit the stigmata or live for long periods on nothing but the Host and water, and in no time the crowd will be clamoring for her beatification.

— W. H. Auden, “Introduction to The Protestant Mystics
anthologized in Forewords and Afterwords

“People of Christlike Love”

In A New Kind of Christianity, Brian McLaren ponders the question of what the church’s “one mission, message, and quest” should be. In other words, here in our fragmented, postmodern world, where the church has splintered into so many different theological, ecclesial and cultural forms, what can Christians rally around as a unifying message to inspire the community of faith as we move into the third millennium? McLaren goes on: “What one great danger do people need to be saved from, and, more positively, what one great purpose do they need to be saved for?” And then he provides his answer:

Of many possible answers, there is one to which I am continually drawn, embarrassingly obvious and simple to understand, but also embarrassingly challenging to do: the church exists to form Christlike people, people of Christlike love. It exists to save them from the great danger of wasting their lives, becoming something less than and other than they were intended to be, gaining the world but losing their souls. (p. 164)

Really nothing radical here. McLaren is just pointing out that the heart of Christianity is the two great commandments:

One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12:28-31)

So simple. So obvious. And yet, so difficult. Those of us who are engaged in the contemplative practices: silent prayer, meditation, contemplation, the Daily Office, Lectio Divina, working with a spiritual director, making retreats and quiet days, participation in a third order or oblate community, engaging in the “higher consciousness” projects of thinkers like Ken Wilber or Jim Marion, studying the writings of the great mystics and contemplatives, and/or interfaith spiritual practices such as Shambhala Training, Christian yoga, Christian zen, or so forth — we need to keep asking ourselves, over and over again: is all this “stuff” that we are doing, A) helping us love God better; B) helping us to love our neighbors better, C) helping to love ourselves in healthy ways better; and D) helping us to become, more and more, people of Christlike love? If we cannot enthusiastically, honestly, and simply say “yes” in response to all four of these questions, then something is out of joint. You can do all the contemplation in the world, but if it isn’t making you a more loving person, it’s a waste of time.

Of course, I believe that the contemplative practices do slowly but inexorably form us into “people of Christlike love.” That’s the whole point: not gaining higher levels of consciousness, or attaining secret knowledge (gnosis), or experiencing mind-blowing union with God, or even feeling as if our sins have been washed away. Those are all worthy goals in themselves, and the dedicated contemplative will reap benefits in each of these ways. But all these “goals” are secondary, to a practice that ultimately has no “goals” at all: for contemplation is not meant to make us into something different, but rather to call us back to who we really are to begin with: children of God, ambassadors of love. By keeping that essential goal front and center, all the other benefits of contemplative practice will assume their proper perspective.

And I suppose it must be said that if a person is humbly working on growing in Christlike love without doing any of the contemplative exercises, than he or she is further along on the mystical path than someone who meditates flawlessly, practices lectio daily, etc. etc. but whose heart remains trapped in anger and fear.

Keep the mission alive: walk with wisdom — live in love.

Quote for the Day

Broadly speaking, then, we can say that there are three kinds of contemplation: one is philosophical and its peak-point is a metaphysical experience of being; the second has for its object Christian dogmas the inner meaning of which it savors with the light of faith; the third is a high form of union with God, conferred gratuitously upon His intimate friends. A consideration of these three kinds of contemplation helps us to understand the traditional relationship between reason, dogma, and mysticism.

— William Johnston, The Mysticism of The Cloud of Unknowing

Quote for the Day

Contemplating a loving God strengthens portions of our brain — particularly the frontal lobes and the anterior cingulate — where empathy and reason reside. Contemplating a wrathful God empowers the limbic system, which is ‘filled with aggression and fear.’ It is a sobering concept: The God we choose to love changes us into his image, whether he exists or not.”

— Michael Gerson, quoted by Brian McLaren in A New Kind of Christianity
(original source: The Washington Post)

© Copyright www.anamchara.com - Theme by Pexeto