|
henny -> RE: Book on Christian Mysticism (6/5/2008 9:17:38 PM)
|
Mysticism can be fun and worthwhile, although the term itself doesn't connote any systematic type of writing or thinking -so it doesn't mean much as a category, really. To me it usually just pertains to Christian writings that focus in some way on ecstatic experiences of God, which for me is the most interesting aspect of mystical writings, as in most of them you can see a continuous struggle to render what is always outside of language (i.e. said experience of God) into representation. So all the best mystical writings will always demonstrate a certain apophatic straining, which I think forces them to do things conceptually and stylistically that are much more interesting and worthwhile than your typical dogmatic Christian screed (and I think sections of the Bible actually demonstrate this sort of straining, and thus could also be deemed "mystical" according to my own working definition of the term).
Although, I'd avoid most modern "mystical" stuff as usually it's written to cash into cheap, feel good, New age-isms, and I've yet to see anything that's really compelling or rigorous intellectually and spiritually (including, after a quick perusal, the book linked to above, which really seems to be mysticism of the bland, easy, new-agey, sort).
Jewish mysticism is a whole complicated story all its own, but if you are going to get into Christian mysticism, I'd recommend starting with some of the Medieval Catholic mystics like Julian of Norwhich and Margarete Porete.
Then when you are done with them you can graduate to the protestant mystics like Jacob Boehme (aka Jakob Behmen).
Behmen is my favorite, and a lot of people argue that he's the foundation of German philosophy (i.e. Hegel stole a lot from him, and several people have argued that strains of postmodernist thought are really just Boehme's unique take on negative theology repackaged in secular terms), so he's definitely worth reading even if your interest in him is purely secular.
But he's valid as a theologian, I think, and his explanation for the existence of evil is interesting (it's too complicated to explain here, but he ties it to the self-manifestation of God in a way that makes the possibility of evil inevitable, but also does not make God, as a discreet identity, directly responsible for it, just as it also maintains the possibility of free will and choice in humanity). Most modern evangelicals would probably see him as heretical (although most modern evangelicals see basically everything as heretical -so that doesn't mean much), but he does keep the basic 3 in 1 structure of the trinity intact, as well as maintaining all the main points of Christianity (i.e. the fall, Christ's redemption, etc) throughout his writings (even if he does very different things with it). He does psychologize heaven and hell (As well as the functions of the trinity) somewhat, though, which is probably where most evangelicals would part ways with him, as it leads him to the belief that heaven and hell are mental states of existence which are possible right now on earth, as oppossed to holding cells of punishment or pleasure we only get to after we die (and one of the most interesting things about him, is that in outlining the trinity and the functions of heaven and hell he is also sort of outlining a basic psychological take on the human mind, its drives and functions, and how we all come to be discreet "selves" -all hundreds of years before the existence of Freud). Although from everything I've read of him, he still maintains the idea of an eschatological heaven and hell, they just aren't as mundane as the traditional Christian view of these things.
But I think as long as one approaches said mystics as theologians and philosophers who are trying to solve basic questions that have always plagued man about the nature of God, existence, etc, as oppossed to taking their writings as "gospel," there's no harm in reading them. I also think one needs to maintain a level of critical distance and engagement with the texts to be able to tell who exactly has something worth while to say and who is just a mindless, quick fix, charlatan.
So basically it's no different than Christians reading philosophers of any variety, even if they aren't Christian. There's a lot to gain from doing this, but you can't do it stupidly.
|
|
|
|