I'm finding more and more of my friends are turning to the mystics.
As a scientist my gut reaction is to be disturbed. Yet, as a Christian I acknowledge that by definition I worship a mystery, and to engage with mystery is to engage with the mystical. This is necessarily a scientific conclusion! So why my hesitancy over the mystics? I think my reservations are rooted in how the mystics are being used for mysticism. Three simple letters, 'ism', is all it takes to transform something proper and purposeful into a dark deceit that tries to turn simple reality into an object of desire – its a slippery slope. If carefully considered, mysticism is ridiculous (like most '-isms') - its like desiring gravity! I don't understand gravity but I need to live with it. However, it would be stupid to become fixated in gravitism. There is much that these past “mystics” have written which is rightly helpful and valuable. However, the mystics of yesteryear are increasingly being used as a tool towards mysticism. These are expressions of individuals, mostly wrapped in metaphor and evocative imagery. Thus a selective choice of their sometimes opaque expressions can easily be used paint a picture that's as comforting as it's deluding. For we do not know the wholeness of the persons who made these mystical writings, and so we do not know the wholeness that completes and properly frames each selected utterance. Mysticism seems to be trapping some in their search for comfort, even though most would profess otherwise. (Is this a signal of being trapped, like an alcoholic denying alcoholism, or the climate change denialist defending their addiction to rampant consumerism?) This tendency to seek a more friendly alternative to reality’s disturbing truths is a classic path to all sorts of 'isms. Relativist theology, syncretism, deep ritual of smells and bells, flexible and adaptive epistemology, and even the paradox of the new atheists, are all attempts to wrap reality into something more comfortable. For example Bell's “Love is all you need” (that seemingly ignores Love's marriage to Justice), Rohr's living on the edge of orthodoxy (which confusingly fights against the gravity of being centered), and even Dawkins' militant crusade to seeming nihilism, are all in some way victims of an abuse of the mystics. We know all we know only by reference. Logic would say (unless you believe we are no more than biology) that Jesus is the reference. Hence, we know the value of the mystic by contrasting them with the one reference. Does the mystic paint a picture of the reference? Is it like the way an artists distillation clarifies the essence of a world that exists independent of preferences? Or is it like abstract paintings that are the product of an imagination seeking escapism. 'ism – what will be it's fate when justice comes to call? (For some reasonable writing on the Mystery of God, knowing the unknowable, try this)
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
Why?
Probably the best therapy is to express yourself. Why do you think psychiatrists make you lie on the couch and talk, while all they do is murmur "hmmm", "uhuh", or "go on"? Archives
May 2017
|