Mysticism / Scholasticism

[ITS]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

[Malcolm]

Ahhh, the experience of intellect. Pros - the Bible was written from the experiences that God formulated for those who wrote the book. We have the opportunity to experience what they did by reading the Bible and reflecting on those experiences from the basis of the Bible. On the other hand, we are given to Bible and all the research into the past that it has afforded us, to understand a little better the God we serve and the future He has planned for us. Hand and hand these coexist beautifully but like most things humans do we fail because most lay people will only base their relationship with the Lord on experience while the scholastics will only base their relationship on head knowledge. Unmerged, they do not complete the relationship.

[troy.trout]

Paul said, "I pray in the Spirit, and witht he understanding." Clearly, it is not an either or proposition. We must study to show ourselves approved of God. We know that all scripture is, "God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." At the same time we must make certain that we come not with "wise and persuasvie words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power." Paul's desire was that one's faith, ". . . might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power." Paul started a Bible School in Ephesus, yet in that same city the believers received the Holy Spirit, not through Biblical study, but through the laying on of hands.

[troy.trout]

Ahhh, the experience of intellect. Pros - the Bible was written from the experiences that God formulated for those who wrote the book. We have the opportunity to experience what they did by reading the Bible and reflecting on those experiences from the basis of the Bible. On the other hand, we are given to Bible and all the research into the past that it has afforded us, to understand a little better the God we serve and the future He has planned for us. Hand and hand these coexist beautifully but like most things humans do we fail because most lay people will only base their relationship with the Lord on experience while the scholastics will only base their relationship on head knowledge. Unmerged, they do not complete the relationship.

"Unmerged they do not complete the relationship," how true. A pitcher of lemonade with all of the sugar resting on the bottom must be stirred in order to bring refreshment. The Spirit sweetens what would otherwise be difficult to swallow. The experiences of the early Church do us no benefit without the Spirit spurring us on to do the same. Without the Holy Spirit the book of Acts is merely historical narrative and has nothing to say to us today. Read the same history with the Spirit stirring in your being and you are challenged an thirsting for even more. The bitter lemons of life become lemonade in the hands of God.

[davidkim04]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.
I think that Christians should experience God through mysticism and scholasticism because the balance between mysticism and scholasticism is very important. However, Christian needs to experience direct existential encounter. At the beginning of church history believer?s life was made by mysticism. The Holy Spirit played an important role in believer?s life in the time of church beginning. Also, I think that a believer can have a radical experience through mysticism. So this experience will help a believer walk with God during his whole life.

[davidkim04]

Paul said, "I pray in the Spirit, and witht he understanding." Clearly, it is not an either or proposition. We must study to show ourselves approved of God. We know that all scripture is, "God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." At the same time we must make certain that we come not with "wise and persuasvie words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power." Paul's desire was that one's faith, ". . . might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power." Paul started a Bible School in Ephesus, yet in that same city the believers received the Holy Spirit, not through Biblical study, but through the laying on of hands.
We need to understand the word of God by our mind. When we come to God, we must believe in God through faith, not through our understanding. If we want to believe in God through understanding, we can't believe in him. After having faith, however, we must use our mind to be a mature believer, to get the rock ground of faith; in other words, we must study the Bible and theology. So the balance between mysticism and scholasticism is important in a christian life.

[DonnieJack]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

I believe if you look at the life of Paul the Apostle, he based his faith upon what his understanding of God was and not how he felt. If Paul based his faith upon how he felt, then there is no way he would of trusted God through the beatings, the mockings, the shipwrecks and so on. Even through God does use our emotions to respond to Him, he does not want our emotions to speak louder than our knowings of who God is according to the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God must be our ultimate source for faith and living. This is our foundation in how we experience God our Creator.

[DonnieJack]

Ahhh, the experience of intellect. Pros - the Bible was written from the experiences that God formulated for those who wrote the book. We have the opportunity to experience what they did by reading the Bible and reflecting on those experiences from the basis of the Bible. On the other hand, we are given to Bible and all the research into the past that it has afforded us, to understand a little better the God we serve and the future He has planned for us. Hand and hand these coexist beautifully but like most things humans do we fail because most lay people will only base their relationship with the Lord on experience while the scholastics will only base their relationship on head knowledge. Unmerged, they do not complete the relationship.

Yes, this is so true! The fact that head knowledge and our experiences with God must merge. For example, one of the most powerful things that we can share with believers and nonbelievers alike is our personal testimony of what God has done in our life. That is plainly a experience. However, one must come to a knowledge of God and His redemptive plan for their life before they can respond to Him.

[brian.tung]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

Scholasticism and mysticism both complement one another. At a Childrens' Ministry conference, I attended a session on teaching children to hear God. The session was conducted in a seminar format, where the facilitator presented a framework of scriptures and examples, and then participating members could share their experiences in the topic. After some discussion, we all prayed together, and we entered into a practical application of quietly listening for the voice of God. Then, after some time had passed, members of the class, had an opportunity to share how God had just spoken to them. In this simple exercise, we embraced the principles of scholasticism through our study and discussion of how to hear God, and we also embraced the principles of mysticism, by seeking to have a direct existential encounter with God. Many shared what they heard, and it remains in my memory as a powerful example of the symbiotic relationship between cholasticism and mysticism.

[brian.tung]

Ahhh, the experience of intellect. Pros - the Bible was written from the experiences that God formulated for those who wrote the book. We have the opportunity to experience what they did by reading the Bible and reflecting on those experiences from the basis of the Bible. On the other hand, we are given to Bible and all the research into the past that it has afforded us, to understand a little better the God we serve and the future He has planned for us. Hand and hand these coexist beautifully but like most things humans do we fail because most lay people will only base their relationship with the Lord on experience while the scholastics will only base their relationship on head knowledge. Unmerged, they do not complete the relationship.

Yes, this is so true! The fact that head knowledge and our experiences with God must merge. For example, one of the most powerful things that we can share with believers and nonbelievers alike is our personal testimony of what God has done in our life. That is plainly a experience. However, one must come to a knowledge of God and His redemptive plan for their life before they can respond to Him.

Amen. His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them we may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption caused by evil desires. For this very reason, we make every effort to add to our faith, goodness, and to our goodness, knowledge, and to our knowledge, self-control, and to self-control, perseverance, and to perseverance, godliness, and to godliness, brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness, love. For when we possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep us from being ineffective and unproductive in our knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. As we abide in the vine of Christ, and draw near to Him as our very best friend, we grow in our knowledge of Him and participate in His divine nature.

Billy Graham once preached at a gathering of predominantly Pentecostal students. During his sermon, as the end of his time drew near, he edited out a portion of his sermon. As he closed, the Lord inspired an utterance in tongues to be given, and the Lord inspired another to give the interpretation. The interpretation was essentially the portion of the sermon that Billy Graham had omitted. When we have knowledge of tongues and interpretation, we know about it, but when we have a personal encounter with God, it really becomes real.

[eric.j.davenport]

As Gregory the Great put it, “We need to study the Bible (which shows us he wasn’t entirely a Mystic because he used his mind to study the Bible), pray and prepare ourselves, then in humility and purity of heart open ourselves up to a face to face encounter." Worship should be a direct existential encounter with the God. We as charismatic evangelicals can talk about encounter with God in Jesus Christ as the Mystic tradition within our own heritage. As Dr. Rosell said in his lecture, “When we call people to faith, we call them not simply to a mental accent; we call them to an active relationship and involvement with the living Lord. In that way we become part of the Great Mystic tradition.” In our worship services we need to have this intimacy towards the living Lord. We need to worship Him for the forgiveness of our sins. We do need to seek after God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. However, we need to be careful in worship services so that the church service does not become disorder. We need to follow the guidance of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 for the order of service. There may be times where the service might flow in the direction of worship where the minister doesn't have an opportunity to preach the message. However, this should not be the case in every service. God has a message for the church in the preaching of the Word because through the studying of the scripture is the source of our knowledge. I also believe that God blesses the minister through his preperation in the studying of Scriptures.

As far as examples, there have been times growing up in my home church that the service seemed to flow towards worship and prayer. There would be messages in tongues and interpretations. I do not remember anytime that there was disorder. Also there were times when I was in Bible College that the minister didn’t have an opportunity to preach the message during the chapel service because the direction of the service flowed towards worship. I feel that this shouldn’t be the case in every service. I feel that the ministering of the word is important and is necessary for the believers to grow in Lord.

[eric.j.davenport]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

I believe if you look at the life of Paul the Apostle, he based his faith upon what his understanding of God was and not how he felt. If Paul based his faith upon how he felt, then there is no way he would of trusted God through the beatings, the mockings, the shipwrecks and so on. Even through God does use our emotions to respond to Him, he does not want our emotions to speak louder than our knowings of who God is according to the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God must be our ultimate source for faith and living. This is our foundation in how we experience God our Creator.

I agree that we should not base our faith upon how we feel. When we do feel down it doesn't mean that we aren't saved anymore. We need to look up and trust the Lord. We know that "All things work together for good for those who love the Lord and who are called according to His purpose." It is because of knowing that Jesus Christ is alive and "if that same Spirit who raised Christ from the dead dwells within you, He will quicken (make you alive) your mortal bodies." In fact, by reading the word of God, the Holy Spirit will begin to minister to you. As your reading be in an attitude of prayer. If your looking for God to give you guidance, read His Word. It is the inspired word of God.

[Debbie]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

This battle is one which especially rings true for those in the Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. It is difficult to say for which one the Christian better experiences God because Christians need a balance of both. Mysticism without scholasticism can be dangerous just as much as scholasticism without mysticism can be dangerous in the sense of experiencing God.

For example, in the Pentecostal/Charismatic services without having this knowledge of God through studying biblical theology or continuing to use the mind to balance experience, these movements are prone to follow whatever spiritual "fad" comes through the church. One could say that the Apostolic or Prophetic movement coming through these circles is one example of a "fad" that could be used to manipulate others in a congregation due to the "existential" claims of leaders who use their mystical experiences to have authority over others.

People within these circles are mystical in their nature and desire to have some sort of existential experience with God. This is not a bad thing, but balance is one thing every Pentecostal/Charismatic believer struggles with.

On the opposite side there are those of other faith traditions which struggle to have that experience with God. They are only taught biblical and doctrinal foundations without having that personal experience with God which is a catalyst to bring about change in a person's life. They could live life going to church, but not know God in a personal manner.

Both of these work in tandem with each other and cannot be separated.
Just as the mystics of old struggled with being accepted, and the scholastics struggled with not being accepting and missing out on experiencing that part of God, balance is key in today's church, in the whole body of Christ.

[Debbie]

As Gregory the Great put it, “We need to study the Bible (which shows us he wasn’t entirely a Mystic because he used his mind to study the Bible), pray and prepare ourselves, then in humility and purity of heart open ourselves up to a face to face encounter." Worship should be a direct existential encounter with the God. We as charismatic evangelicals can talk about encounter with God in Jesus Christ as the Mystic tradition within our own heritage. As Dr. Rosell said in his lecture, “When we call people to faith, we call them not simply to a mental accent; we call them to an active relationship and involvement with the living Lord. In that way we become part of the Great Mystic tradition.” In our worship services we need to have this intimacy towards the living Lord. We need to worship Him for the forgiveness of our sins. We do need to seek after God for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. However, we need to be careful in worship services so that the church service does not become disorder. We need to follow the guidance of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 for the order of service. There may be times where the service might flow in the direction of worship where the minister doesn't have an opportunity to preach the message. However, this should not be the case in every service. God has a message for the church in the preaching of the Word because through the studying of the scripture is the source of our knowledge. I also believe that God blesses the minister through his preperation in the studying of Scriptures.

As far as examples, there have been times growing up in my home church that the service seemed to flow towards worship and prayer. There would be messages in tongues and interpretations. I do not remember anytime that there was disorder. Also there were times when I was in Bible College that the minister didn’t have an opportunity to preach the message during the chapel service because the direction of the service flowed towards worship. I feel that this shouldn’t be the case in every service. I feel that the ministering of the word is important and is necessary for the believers to grow in Lord.

This is so true - I did appreciate Dr. Rosell's openness toward things of this nature, and his insight on these topics. He made them more relevant towards today, although the books he recommended were over 10-15 years old.
I also remember the moving of the Spirit in church services where the gift of tongues, interpretation and other gifts were present. They hardly ever seemed out of order, but lately it seems as if people do not know how to apply that part of the "mystic" experience in a way that is orderly and in conduct. It could be because of the lack of balance in churches. Because Pentecostal churches have been blamed to be too much on the existential side of things, they seem to be swinging the other way so as not to offend those who are the scholastics or the unbelievers. So much to the point that when the Lord wants to move in that manner, believers do not know how to properly move in the gifts, and some pastors do not seem ready or patient enough to deal with those who might be disorderly without making the person feel uncomfortable in front of everyone else so that they may not move in the gifts at all.
As scholasticism comes through the Pentecostal churches, and more ministers are being educated, the task is to keep the mystic traditions and teach them through scholastic means or practical means as well.

[MichaelA]

The use of the mind and the use of the heart are both essential to the worship of God. Worship to God is not a feel-good pep rally nor is it a dry lecture hall. One of the crucial things to keep in mind is that when we worship God, the emotions and thoughts that we have should not just be an extension of the emotions and thoughts found in the world around us, rather they should be changed and conformed into emotions and thoughts that are out of response to God, both in his word and by his Spirit

[Canadian_Shawn]

The question assumes a duality that is foreign to Biblical thought, and therefore should be rejected. Medieval thought in its mystical and scholastic paradigms accepted the form/matter distinction in Greek philosophy and incorporated it into their theology, giving birth to the erroneous distinctions between nature/grace, revelation/reason, matter/spirit, mind/body, mind/matter, etc. These are all essentially pagan notions, without Biblical warrant, and even more embarrasing, they have all been widely discredited philosophically. In other words, they should be jettisoned from Christian thought. A tall task, I know, but one which Christians have been trying to do for at least 500 years or so. See especially the works of Calvin, Kuyper, and Dooyeweerd for a more self-consciously Biblical ontology which even non-Calvinists (such as myself) can benefit from.

The Biblical concept of the person is holistic, being neither irreducibly mind, nor irreducibly body, nor exhaustively spirit or matter. Nor can we say it is both, as if a synthesis of the false dualism provides us with a better way. If our thinking is not spiritual, then it is not thinking Christianly. If our spiritual encounters are not intellectual, then they are not truly spiritual in the Biblical sense.

I would venture to say that the Chalcedonian definition of Christology provides us with the best starting point for developing holistic Christian thinking that avoids both the dangers of mysticism and scholasticism. Chalcedon emphasized the unity of the divine and human in the person of Jesus Christ, "two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation." The same could be said about our theological thinking, and religious experiences. It must be whole, and not divided, lest we fall into the heresies of docetism (by only emphasizing the spiritual), nestorianism (by dividing the the spiritual from the bodily), and gnostisicm (by thinking of salvation primarily in terms of saving knowledge, rather than bodily experience).

[Canadian_Shawn]

When we come to God, we must believe in God through faith, not through our understanding. If we want to believe in God through understanding, we can't believe in him. After having faith, however, we must use our mind to be a mature believer, to get the rock ground of faith; in other words, we must study the Bible and theology. So the balance between mysticism and scholasticism is important in a christian life.

I'm not sure that I follow the distinctions you are making between believing in God through 'faith', rather than though 'understanding.' St. Augustine said, "I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe." I think he is pointing out a truth about human understanding, specifically about the interplay between faith and reason, that has only lately been recovered in modern thought.

There is no such thing as value-free reasoning ("I believe in order rto understand"). All of our thought is based on hidden beliefs (usually religious belief: see Clouser, Myth of Religious Neutrality). Beliefs that we exist, that our senses are reliable, that other minds exist, that there is order and regularity in the universe, etc. So you are right to say that we must believe in God through faith, because the truth is, we can't even begin to think at all without some kind of faith. Moreover, faith itself must be a kind of understanding. We always have faith in something. To have faith in God, one must already understand something about God to believe in, and that in turn, already presupposes some kind of faith. And though our later thinking (our understanding?) depends upon this faith, the more we learn and build conceptual systems, whether theological or scientific, our faith can either change or deepen ("I understand, the better to believe.") giving rise to new paradigms in our thinking. Reason is always based on faith, and faith gives rise to new processes of reasoning. These, in turn, often changes our faith. So its not a question marrying both mysticism and scholasticism in our thinking, its seeing that the distinction these systems make between faith and reason is fundamentally mistaken, because one does not actually exist without the other. There is no separating faith and understanding.

[jslay25]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

I believe if you look at the life of Paul the Apostle, he based his faith upon what his understanding of God was and not how he felt. If Paul based his faith upon how he felt, then there is no way he would of trusted God through the beatings, the mockings, the shipwrecks and so on. Even through God does use our emotions to respond to Him, he does not want our emotions to speak louder than our knowings of who God is according to the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God must be our ultimate source for faith and living. This is our foundation in how we experience God our Creator.

I agree that we should not base our faith upon how we feel. When we do feel down it doesn't mean that we aren't saved anymore. We need to look up and trust the Lord. We know that "All things work together for good for those who love the Lord and who are called according to His purpose." It is because of knowing that Jesus Christ is alive and "if that same Spirit who raised Christ from the dead dwells within you, He will quicken (make you alive) your mortal bodies." In fact, by reading the word of God, the Holy Spirit will begin to minister to you. As your reading be in an attitude of prayer. If your looking for God to give you guidance, read His Word. It is the inspired word of God.

This is something that we all must be completely aware of. Our feelings are something that change all the time...salvation and God working in us does not. I am overwhelmed by the fact that the Bible says that it doesn't matter what I am feeling...I am continually saved. There was a student in my ministry that felt he should be saved, but every time someone explained salvation to him, and he prayed to receive Christ, he didn't said he didn't know if God saved him because he didn't FEEL any different than before. After I explained to him, it is not about feeling, it is about KNOWING, then he understood and KNEW that God had saved him. This marriage of mysticism and scholasticism should be handled carefully. We do have feelings, and we do have knowledge of many different aspects of our lives as Christians, but we should not be controlled by one or the other, but be controlled by the Holy Spirit.

[Canadian_Shawn]

There was a student in my ministry that felt he should be saved, but every time someone explained salvation to him, and he prayed to receive Christ, he didn't said he didn't know if God saved him because he didn't FEEL any different than before. After I explained to him, it is not about feeling, it is about KNOWING, then he understood and KNEW that God had saved him. This marriage of mysticism and scholasticism should be handled carefully. We do have feelings, and we do have knowledge of many different aspects of our lives as Christians, but we should not be controlled by one or the other, but be controlled by the Holy Spirit.

I appreciate the difference you are drawing between 'feeling' and 'knowing' when it comes to salvation, but I think it is false distinction. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem as though you are defining 'knowing' in a propositional sense. In other words, I think you might be reducing our knowledge of God, and our self-knowledge, to assenting to certain propositions about what Christ did on the Cross and for whom, such as that: (a) we are universally sinful, (b) Christ's death was universal/particular, (c) Christ's death was penal/moral/exemplary, etc.

It is not clear to me, however, whether this itself is a Biblical notion of 'knowing.' The Biblical sense of knowing someone cannot, I think, be separated from 'feeling' and experiencing the object or subject of that knowing. The Bible often uses the analogy of marriage to explain the relationship that we (the Church) have with God. I myself am married, very happily, I might add. When I say that I know my wife, it is far more than the fact that I know certain propositions about her, say, her age, weight, date of birth, likes and dislikes, etc. There is an intimate give and take relationship that involves the whole of my being and personhood in communion with her own, where our very lives interlap with each other. I never reduce our marriage to the propositional fact that we were married one summer morning by Pastor S, in Texas, etc.

Evangelical theology often preaches a reductive gospel by saying that our knowledge of God is essentially or basically reduced to propositions. I think this also reflects a reductive anthropology that sees a person essentially as a 'mind'. Someone who must be preached to, who must have their minds filled with information about theology, and the Bible, that can be put in propositional form. But we are far more than mind. We are emotions, we are memories, narratives, habits, virtues, etc. If we don't minister to the whole person there will be no growth, only stagnation, and spiritual death.

To concretize what I am saying, let's take the student in your ministry, for example. It seems to be that he was already aware of the propositional nature of the Gospel message. He did not need to be told again what those propositions are, nor did he need to be told that knowing those propositions were the essence of Christianity. I think that is simply false. What should have been pointed out is that knowing God does involve the emotions and feelings, but it is by no means an instantaneous thing. A basic knowlege of Christian spirituality through the ages should have been enough to know that developing our total knowledge of God takes time. It is a long process filled with days and exstasy and nights of darkest doubt. In other words, our experience/knowledge of God in Christ becomes developed through (a) the liturgy and community of the church, where the whole being worships God through the read and preached word, songs of praise, and prayers of adoration; (b) through the service of the poor, where our actions are said to directly minister to Christ through those we meet; and (c) through our moral habits and virtues that train our body and soul to worship God and preach the Gospel through the manner of our lives, if not through our words.

As I said in another post, the distinction between mysticism and scholasticism is a false one. It was smuggled into Christian theology from the form/matter distinction of Greek philosophy. We should make every effort to return to a Biblical/holistic notion of personhood in order to make progress in our knowledge of God and of ourselves. Otherwise we will never be able to treat the whole person. We will only be treating 'one half' as it were, instead of the whole.

[Dean Lewis]

Too many people in Christian churches today do not concern themselves with study of the Bible. Doctrine and Theology have become foreign words to most laypeople. Instead what they often seek is just to feel good through a worship experience. They desire for worship to lift them up into the presence of God. While there is certainly a place for this in the life of a Christian, it cannot replace knowing God through our minds. God created all aspects of our being, our mind as well as our emotions, and I believe that He intends for us to use each and every part of our being to know and experience Him better.

[Dean Lewis]

Paul said, "I pray in the Spirit, and witht he understanding." Clearly, it is not an either or proposition. We must study to show ourselves approved of God. We know that all scripture is, "God breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." At the same time we must make certain that we come not with "wise and persuasvie words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power." Paul's desire was that one's faith, ". . . might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power." Paul started a Bible School in Ephesus, yet in that same city the believers received the Holy Spirit, not through Biblical study, but through the laying on of hands.

Troy is right on target when he says that it is not and either / or proposition. God did not create us as strictly emotional beings, but He also did not create us as strictly intellectual beings. God created us in His image and I believe that the blend of intellect and emotion is a part of that divine image. If we are to truly know and experience God as He is, then we have to experience Him on both levels.

[wcorym]

The best answer anyone can really give is both. There is a need for both experience and intellect when one approaches a worship service. However, either one of these taken apart from the other one causes a decline in true worship. For example, worship can be done in a number of different styles. However, if I were to try a worship style based soully on experience I may find myself doing something unbiblical (like bark like a dog). On the other hand, if I were to try to worship with only scholasticism, my worship my grow cold and boring, not really glorifying to God.

[timkong]

I believe that in the Christian walk, it is important to have a balance in everything we do. Experiencing God should be able to come in many different forms. The advantage of mysticism is in many forms. First off, I believe mysticism commits people to a strong devotion of faith that requires one to surrender their personal desires to God. I really enjoy how mystics used many forms of art to connect with God (hymns and the painting of religious art). To me, this really helps enrich our encounter with God. There are many other people who connect to God through other ways, such as intellectually. For me, many theologians from this era has helped shaped my relationship with God. Men like Anslem, Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. So our experience to God must come with our mind and encounters. :D

[timkong]

Too many people in Christian churches today do not concern themselves with study of the Bible. Doctrine and Theology have become foreign words to most laypeople. Instead what they often seek is just to feel good through a worship experience. They desire for worship to lift them up into the presence of God. While there is certainly a place for this in the life of a Christian, it cannot replace knowing God through our minds. God created all aspects of our being, our mind as well as our emotions, and I believe that He intends for us to use each and every part of our being to know and experience Him better.

I like what you have to say. I agree with your assessment that churches in general may not place much emphasis with reading the Bible. I see that Christians today lack the necessary doctrine and theology needed for growth in the Christian faith. Though I'm very strong with finding balance in the Christian faith. I agree with you that God wants us to use every part of our being to worship Him and get to know him better. There must be a balance and a urgency to know God more each day.

[johnt]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

The battle of the intellectual and the emotional side of Christianity has been present from the beging of the Churh.

We need to recognize that the encounter with our Lord so necessary to sustain us as Christians is in the relm of the Mysticism belief of reaching the encounter and then using this experience for the betterment of mankind; draining our energy and then obtaining another encounter. This is a direct link between the human soul and the bonding pressance of the Holy Spirit within every believer.

The theological educational studies are required to provide the depth to our faith necessary to preach the gospel, minister to the sick, teach the fellow Christian, disciple the new believer and rebuke the false doctrines or practices of the church.

We can therefore see that both mysticism and theology are necessary for a fully rounded and useful Christian in the kingdom of God.

[johnt]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

I believe if you look at the life of Paul the Apostle, he based his faith upon what his understanding of God was and not how he felt. If Paul based his faith upon how he felt, then there is no way he would of trusted God through the beatings, the mockings, the shipwrecks and so on. Even through God does use our emotions to respond to Him, he does not want our emotions to speak louder than our knowings of who God is according to the Holy Scriptures. The Word of God must be our ultimate source for faith and living. This is our foundation in how we experience God our Creator.

I agree that we should not base our faith upon how we feel. When we do feel down it doesn't mean that we aren't saved anymore. We need to look up and trust the Lord. We know that "All things work together for good for those who love the Lord and who are called according to His purpose." It is because of knowing that Jesus Christ is alive and "if that same Spirit who raised Christ from the dead dwells within you, He will quicken (make you alive) your mortal bodies." In fact, by reading the word of God, the Holy Spirit will begin to minister to you. As your reading be in an attitude of prayer. If your looking for God to give you guidance, read His Word. It is the inspired word of God.

This is something that we all must be completely aware of. Our feelings are something that change all the time...salvation and God working in us does not. I am overwhelmed by the fact that the Bible says that it doesn't matter what I am feeling...I am continually saved. There was a student in my ministry that felt he should be saved, but every time someone explained salvation to him, and he prayed to receive Christ, he didn't said he didn't know if God saved him because he didn't FEEL any different than before. After I explained to him, it is not about feeling, it is about KNOWING, then he understood and KNEW that God had saved him. This marriage of mysticism and scholasticism should be handled carefully. We do have feelings, and we do have knowledge of many different aspects of our lives as Christians, but we should not be controlled by one or the other, but be controlled by the Holy Spirit.

Your assessment is well rounded and on track for the Christian who wishes to serve Christ. Our emotional experiance is as much a part of our natural God given personality as it is how we seek to find the perfect encounter with God. As we study and become more and more familiar with the scholastic side of our faith we must remember that it is the Holy Spirit's revelation of God's Word and God's will and not the commentaries that should direct our Christian walk and the direction of our lives

[its_brad]

Posted By: Cheryl
Post Date: Thu Jun 07, 2007 11:57 am
Post Subject: Re: Mysticism / Scholasticism

davidkim04 wrote:
ITS wrote:
The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.
I think that Christians should experience God through mysticism and scholasticism because the balance between mysticism and scholasticism is very important. However, Christian needs to experience direct existential encounter. At the beginning of church history believer?s life was made by mysticism. The Holy Spirit played an important role in believer?s life in the time of church beginning. Also, I think that a believer can have a radical experience through mysticism. So this experience will help a believer walk with God during his whole life.

I think that believers will have a complete experience in the worship of God if they allow both mysticism and scholasticism in their experience. Mysticism gets the heart and mind ready for what God will do in their life. This is our faith in action. Scholasticism is knowledge we have obtained from other sources and it helps us in responding to what God has done or is going to do in our life- what He is able to do. We have to be prepared for this, and that means obtaining knowledge and wisdom through others that God has put in our life.

[its_brad]

Posted By: Cheryl
Post Date: Thu Jun 07, 2007 12:29 am
Post Subject: Re: Mysticism / Scholasticism
ITS wrote:
The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.
Today, people still worship through mysticism and scholasticism. An ideal worship service, I believe is both worship experiencs work together. Mysticism helps your heart to be open to what God has for ou. It prepares one for the church service. Sing hymns and chorusses helps get one's mind in tune with the thoghts of God. Faster chorusses and hymns gets one excited about God in that place and what He's got for you. Scholasticism opens up your mind to the things of God and what He will do and what He wants you to do. It's a learned response from other people, sermons, the Bible, books, experiences that can be shared with others to hellp them also whenever the time is appropriate. Your heart and emotions (existentialism) need to work together with the mind and its acquired knowledge, and the outcome will be a fuller, richer and more exciting experience with God.

[aaronwesson]

I like to follow the example of Augustine and find a happy medium between mysticism and scholasticism. Like everything in life, there must be a balance. You cannot go through life eating only meat but you must have a balanced diet of vegetables, fruit, grains, and of course, meat. The same is with our spiritual lives. If all we ever do is experience God through the knowledge of the scriptures and books, our relationship does not adequately grow. In the same way, we cannot rely only on our feelings and emotional experiences with God, for we must also learn who God is through the intellectual knowledge of the scriptures. They are interwoven with one another. The key is a healthy balance of the two. Having an existential encounter with God is just as important as seeking Him through study.

[aaronwesson]

The use of the mind and the use of the heart are both essential to the worship of God. Worship to God is not a feel-good pep rally nor is it a dry lecture hall. One of the crucial things to keep in mind is that when we worship God, the emotions and thoughts that we have should not just be an extension of the emotions and thoughts found in the world around us, rather they should be changed and conformed into emotions and thoughts that are out of response to God, both in his word and by his Spirit

Michael: Very true. I think many times still today, people get all caught up in the emotional aspect of experiencing God and then totally neglect what His Word teaches and the valuable principles we must apply our lives. I’ve seen many times where an individual will experience God through a worship service or a powerful sermon illustration and will rededicate their life to Christ, only to go back to their old ways when they come down from their high. It becomes a cyclical effect, never completely transforming the life of the individual. The fact is that it takes work to complete the relationship with God. We must take the time to study the scriptures and know Him through the written Word. This only enhances and deepens our relationship with Him.

[ssavage]

In order to believe, we must have understanding. Our mind must complement the heart. It is not enough to have a direct existential encounter with God. We must study His truths in the Scripture in order to have a firm foundation. His Word gives us revelation of himself to live that truth out in our daily lives. Intimacy with God starts first with a born-again experience, then feeding your spirit with the Word of God, fellowship, worship, prayer, and contemplation. We Christians must have a balance of these elements. There is a place for the mystic and a place for the scholastic in the church. This allows for the fullness of the Gospel and supreme Wisdom to anoint and edify the believers. Our head and heart must be in unity with God; this allows us to be in full spiritual unity with God. As St. Augustine believed; we must mix the mind and the heart; add the hands and you have the whole of the faith.

[ssavage]

Scholasticism and mysticism both complement one another. At a Childrens' Ministry conference, I attended a session on teaching children to hear God. The session was conducted in a seminar format, where the facilitator presented a framework of scriptures and examples, and then participating members could share their experiences in the topic. After some discussion, we all prayed together, and we entered into a practical application of quietly listening for the voice of God. Then, after some time had passed, members of the class, had an opportunity to share how God had just spoken to them. In this simple exercise, we embraced the principles of scholasticism through our study and discussion of how to hear God, and we also embraced the principles of mysticism, by seeking to have a direct existential encounter with God. Many shared what they heard, and it remains in my memory as a powerful example of the symbiotic relationship between cholasticism and mysticism.

Thank you for this wonderful example of the symbiotic relationship between mysticism and scholasticism. His Word is our foundation for enlightenment and encounter with God. These two must go hand in hand. These simple biblical exercises are important in bringing balance to our Christian walk. Yes, at times God does give us a "Damascus experience," but as Christians we must teach the very important principles of teaching discipline and study in the journey to mysticism. The mystics of early Christianity kept our faith on the map of the hearts during the Middle ages; the scholastics kept our minds on the steady course.

[EloiseThomas]

Clearly, God never intended for us to be only “mystical” or only “scholastic.” He created us with the capacity for both, and both are necessary individually and corporately. The fact that the historic Church has moved back and forth between the two extremes is evidence of this. However, many by nature are more gifted in one area than the other, and God has used both groups to bless and motivate the Church. For example, people like Bernard of Clairvaux and Dame Julian of Norwich have contributed a great deal to motivate us toward a deep, heart-felt, visceral connection with God. However, scholastics such as Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas help us base all of our experiential relationship with God on solid theology that comes from both reason and faith. Mysticism and Scholasticism are the two fence lines between which we must always remain. However, there is a lot of room in the middle for each of us to travel based on our own natural dispositions and our current needs and experiences.

[EloiseThomas]

Troy is right on target when he says that it is not and either / or proposition. God did not create us as strictly emotional beings, but He also did not create us as strictly intellectual beings. God created us in His image and I believe that the blend of intellect and emotion is a part of that divine image. If we are to truly know and experience God as He is, then we have to experience Him on both levels.

I absolutely agree, Dean. What is it about us humans that we are more comfortable reducing ourselves to separate components instead of viewing ourselves as complete beings made in the image of God? We seem to prefer either/or positions, and those views often get us into trouble. I have been involved with many different “flavors” of Christianity in my lifetime, and so often each group focuses on one area at the exclusion of others. I have been in very rigid groups where any emotions are “of the flesh” and need to be ignored. I have been in other extremely experiential groups where I was required to check my brain at the door. Both approaches are damaging because God did create us as physical, emotional, intellectual, psychological, social, spiritual beings. Then, God said, “It is good.”

[M1C]

I think the first thing we must do is define a "worship service." In today's worship services some people do not believe that God was there unless He shows Himself to them in a vision of sorts. Others think a "worship service" is the only the music before the sermon. However, I do not think either way. I think a worship service is when you are in submission before God giving Him praise and thanksgiving. You can have a worship service in your car, in your kitchen or in church.

Now to answer the question is it Mysticism or Scholasticism. I think it must be both. We can not worship God without knowing God. We can not know God without feeling His presence in our hearts. The more we know God intellectually, the more we know His presence and feel His presence. The more we feel His loving arms wrapped around us the more we want to learn and gain more knowledge about Him.

Today's worship can have both Mysticism and Scholasticism to a degree. I do not think it is just one.

[M1C]

Clearly, God never intended for us to be only “mystical” or only “scholastic.” He created us with the capacity for both, and both are necessary individually and corporately. The fact that the historic Church has moved back and forth between the two extremes is evidence of this. However, many by nature are more gifted in one area than the other, and God has used both groups to bless and motivate the Church. For example, people like Bernard of Clairvaux and Dame Julian of Norwich have contributed a great deal to motivate us toward a deep, heart-felt, visceral connection with God. However, scholastics such as Peter Abelard and Thomas Aquinas help us base all of our experiential relationship with God on solid theology that comes from both reason and faith. Mysticism and Scholasticism are the two fence lines between which we must always remain. However, there is a lot of room in the middle for each of us to travel based on our own natural dispositions and our current needs and experiences.

I agree with EloiseThomas when she said Jesus, "created us with the capacity for both, and both are necessary individually and corporately. The fact that the historic Church has moved back and forth between the two extremes is evidence of this." We were created to do both. We must use our minds and gain knowledge about the Lord, but we also must be about to know by experience that we are saved through faith.

I appreciated the references to Peter Abelard & Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux & Dame Julian of Norwich for references of both sides.

[thedude57]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.

My belief is that you cannot continually truly have experience without knowledge of God. Continually is the verifying word here. In the Bible I have not found a place where an individual had an experience with God and then continued having them without seeking God. Moses for instance, God gave him an experience and then he sought God. Paul, had an experience that lead him to seeking God, even to the point of going to the Apostles, who were first had witnesses of Christ. Even Abraham, who lived before the Torah, had God's covenant to walk by with his experiences.

On a whole if one is done with out the other trouble can be the only outcome. If the mind is left out of the equation, you will have some wierd things like playing with snakes or trying to ammend the cannon by creating different cults and heresies. But at the same time without the experience with God you will have a dry lifeless religion.

As for our personal spiritual walk, it is unhealthy to lack one of the two. If we lack the experience we could loose the fire for God or begin to believe that God no longer interacts with the world. But, if we lack the mind part of our relationship with God we will fall for any new "prophet or man of God." Then we will be easy targets to be taken advantage of. Experience and the mind are vitally interlocked and one without the other is like have neither.

[thedude57]

I couldn't agree more. We must have both experience and knowledge to have a healthy growing walk with God. Living in only one of these realms will create an unbalanced life that can easily be taken advantage of. I honestly believe that part of the reason that people take to cults like Mormonism is because of a lack of balance between these two. This is why I am pleased to see more people not only going to church and experiencing God there, but also doing their own studies of the Word and growing by leaps and bounds. With incorporating these two into the Christian world will build men and women of God who will be capable of far more than one who neglects either the mind or experience for the sake of the other. We will have true followers of Christ who stand on a solid faith.

[sullivan2008]

I’m not sure that a Christian can better experience a relationship with God through mysticism or scholasticism alone. I do believe however that a Christian can better experience God, and spiritually mature in their relationship with God through the combination of both thereof. However, through mysticism, I believe that it is much easier for one to encounter a relationship with God because as the individual is convicted it would seem as though there would be a much swifter acceptance of the gift of eternal life, while the scholastic approach seems to probe the individual with questions that spur their own thinking which may create confusion or more questions which could potentially blind the person or defer their entering a relationship with the Lord. The benefit of scholasticism however would be that it would better educate the individual about the Lord and what salvation truly involves. This will surely make them stronger in their relationship while mysticism seems to encourage a quick decision as Paul would say “zeal without knowledge.”

[sullivan2008]

I think the first thing we must do is define a "worship service." In today's worship services some people do not believe that God was there unless He shows Himself to them in a vision of sorts. Others think a "worship service" is the only the music before the sermon. However, I do not think either way. I think a worship service is when you are in submission before God giving Him praise and thanksgiving. You can have a worship service in your car, in your kitchen or in church.

Now to answer the question is it Mysticism or Scholasticism. I think it must be both. We can not worship God without knowing God. We can not know God without feeling His presence in our hearts. The more we know God intellectually, the more we know His presence and feel His presence. The more we feel His loving arms wrapped around us the more we want to learn and gain more knowledge about Him.

Today's worship can have both Mysticism and Scholasticism to a degree. I do not think it is just one.

What a response! You are exactly right. Today so many people are confused about what worship really is. Worship can be and should be something that is constant. I would also agree that mysticism and scholasticism must be intertwined. Simply having a head knowledge of God does not constitute salvation. The same can be said for simply feeling the presence of a Divine Being without knowing the truths of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It must be a combination of both thereof in order to completly worship the Lord and grow in our relationship with Him.

[joewyrostek]

Ahhh, the experience of intellect. Pros - the Bible was written from the experiences that God formulated for those who wrote the book. We have the opportunity to experience what they did by reading the Bible and reflecting on those experiences from the basis of the Bible. On the other hand, we are given to Bible and all the research into the past that it has afforded us, to understand a little better the God we serve and the future He has planned for us. Hand and hand these coexist beautifully but like most things humans do we fail because most lay people will only base their relationship with the Lord on experience while the scholastics will only base their relationship on head knowledge. Unmerged, they do not complete the relationship.
The comments made by the writer can be summed up in the phrase “lukewarm”. As with most lay people and clergy alike the writer can hardly understand the need in the modern church for a balance in these areas nor does the writer know how to formulate an appropriate answer that will truly fulfill the words of Jesus when He said the greatest command was to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Note, that both heart and soul correspond with mind and strength, thus the inward and outward man is to serve God 100%; both spiritual and mental.

Therefore, the "lay" people must be taught by the clergy to have both an emotional/spiritual encounter with God daily and to also have deep times of study and reflection upon God's truths with their minds utilizing their strength and come to grasp God’s great mystery's revealed in the Bible and the world around them.

[joewyrostek]

The medieval battle between mysticism and scholasticism continues today with the tension often seen in worship services. How do you think the Christian better "experiences God" - through direct existential encounter (mysticism) or through the use of the mind (scholasticism)? Give examples.
We are commanded by Jesus Christ to love God 100% with both our heart and soul and our mind and strength. We are not to be so "heavenly minded" that we are no earthly good, nor are we to be so "earthly minded" that heaven doesn’t know our name.

We as true disciples of Jesus Christ our to live our life today in total love and abandonment to Jesus Christ in deep intense heart felt worship and prayer and meditation. And at the same time we are to love and worship God with discipline and dedication to his truths and the deeper wisdom found in the Bible and revealed through His creation. Therefore, we must love God in our heart and in our mind.

[satavasusan]

My take on "mysticism" is a problem with the very word. Why must a close relationship with God be made to seem spooky, ethereal? I for one don't need anyone else made privy to my confessions (God knew it before I did, anyway), so it's really an acknowledgement of my weakness and his sovereignty before his face. Scholasticism--knowledge--is really the flip side of this coin. I really should know the history of the faith to maintain the ability to give an answer for the faith that I take responsibility for...but not to get a big head about it, for learning and growth in the spirit is lifelong. (However, the coursework can be a real bear...)

[satavasusan]

We are commanded by Jesus Christ to love God 100% with both our heart and soul and our mind and strength. We are not to be so "heavenly minded" that we are no earthly good, nor are we to be so "earthly minded" that heaven doesn’t know our name.

We as true disciples of Jesus Christ our to live our life today in total love and abandonment to Jesus Christ in deep intense heart felt worship and prayer and meditation. And at the same time we are to love and worship God with discipline and dedication to his truths and the deeper wisdom found in the Bible and revealed through His creation. Therefore, we must love God in our heart and in our mind.

I think we should replace the word "mysticism" itself to something which more closely identifies this relationship of ours--spirituality, love, closeness?

[satavamtv2008]

Mysticism, according to the Encyclopedia comes from ‘an initiate of a mystery religion.” Whereas, according to the same Encyclopedia, Scholasticism attempts to reconcile the Theology of the Church Fathers with that of the Grek Philosophers. The question is under which of these ‘philosophies’ does a Christian better experience God. I don’t believe the Christian experiences God in either of these to man-made philosophies. God can’t be associated with a Mystery Religion. Take a look at Revelation 18 and what happens to this Mystery Religion. Then there is the problem with trying to reconcile Christian Theology with the Greek Philosophers. Paul said that the Greeks thought Christ crucified was not accepted by the Greeks as foolishness. You can’t reconcile God to Greek foolishness. Christ said there would come a time when mankind would worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth. There is not much truth in a Mystery Religion nor is there much truth in Scholasticism. Besides the Greek philosophers never found eternal life.

[satavamtv2008]

The best answer anyone can really give is both. There is a need for both experience and intellect when one approaches a worship service. However, either one of these taken apart from the other one causes a decline in true worship. For example, worship can be done in a number of different styles. However, if I were to try a worship style based soully on experience I may find myself doing something unbiblical (like bark like a dog). On the other hand, if I were to try to worship with only scholasticism, my worship my grow cold and boring, not really glorifying to God.

I agree that humans must use their experiences and intellect. We are made in God's image and He has an eternity of experiences and the best of all intellects. The real problem is trying merge Mysticism and Scholasticism. These two man made philosophies have little to do with worshiping God. We are to worship God in spirit and in truth. Scholasticism is trying to reconcile what the Christian Fathers preached and Greek philosophy. The Greek philosophers never claimed to have a relationship with God. In fact, according to Paul, they thought what he taught about Christ was foolishness. We should not try to put New Wine into the old wineskins of Greek philosophy.