Mystical
- Thread starter Peairtach
- Start date
- Status
The word can be used in a good or bad sense. In a good sense it involves an appeal to that which is beyond reason to fully understand but is received by faith as an article of revelation, e.g., the mystical union of believers with Christ. In a bad sense it refers to a belief in things which are contrary to reason or the refusal to employ reason in matters where it has a legitimate function. This bad sense is well explained by James Buchanan, Essays and Reviews Examined, pp. 84-85: "While we guard against the abuse, we would equally vindicate the legitimate use, of reason in matters of faith, and protest against that bastard humility which scepticism sometimes assumes when it represents our noblest faculties as incapable of receiving even Divine instruction, and professes that reason, however it may be aided by revelation, can never soar into the region of faith. And we are the less disposed to defer to this mystical doctrine, even when it is propounded by philosophers and divines, both because it has been a fertile source of fanatical delusion at various eras in the history of the Church, and also because it has been employed by many avowed sceptics to undermine the foundations of all religion."
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Senior
Below are two definitions of Mysticism. The first is a pretty general definition by Alan Cairns in his Dictionary of Theological Terms. The Second has to do with out union with Christ.
MYSTICISM
The search for a higher initiation into spiritual mysteries, or a higher consecration to spiritual realities, or a union with deity, by a withdrawal from the external world and by means of contemplation. In this way, mystics profess to apprehend truths which are beyond the understanding. While some have sought to conjoin mysticism and Christianity, the two are mutually exclusive. Christianity is, first and foremost, an objective divine revelation through which the Holy Spirit communicates a subjective revelation in the souls of God’s elect. “Higher consecration” can be experienced only through a progressive sanctification or conformity to Christ, which is a work of God’s Spirit, not the product of a course of contemplation.
However, Christian meditation, as distinct from a humanistic or pantheistic type of contemplation, is a sanctifying virtue, too little practised by God’s people. “Think on these things” (Phil. 4:8) and “Meditate on these things” (1 Tim. 4:15) are scriptural precepts. To meditate deeply and continuously upon a scriptural theme, in a prayerful spirit, will mortify the flesh, and be a means of sweet communion with the Lord.
Cairns, A. (2002). In Dictionary of Theological Terms (pp. 293–294). Belfast; Greenville, SC: Ambassador Emerald International.
Below is a narrower definition of Mystical having to do with our union with Christ.
This is a quote from paragraph three below. “The word “mystical” itself is open to varied associations and is, in fact, used in many different ways.”
“Mystical” union with Christ by G. C. Berkouwer
The tendency to isolate the designation “body of Christ” has often been connected with a specific characterization of fellowship with Christ being “mystical” by nature: a “mystical union” (unio mystica). Then the body of Christ was more precisely defined as corpus Christi mysticum. It is not easy to say what is meant exactly by this addition to the body of Christ and to unio cum Christo. Various further qualifications distinguish the unio mystica from any “substantial” union or identification. But the intention is to indicate the reality of this union. Thus, the unity of the Church in this union comes to the fore. Mention is made not only of a subjective belief with all its possible, pluriform variations, but also of fellowship, of Christ’s presence, which radically excludes any plural.
As is generally known, Reformed theology has frequently dealt with this “mystical union.” As far as I can see, there was no special concern about the implications of this doctrine for the unity of the Church. One was especially concerned with the nature of this union. With regard to the “mystical” union, reference is always made to the hidden, unsearchable nature of this union with Christ. Through this fellowship, in which Christ becomes ours, we are engrafted into His body, and we are made one with Him.22 It is emphasized that fellowship is not simply with the gifts given by Him, but rather with His person, with Himself. This excludes all isolation of His gifts and accentuates the personal character of fellowship with Christ.23 At the same time, however, the Reformed tradition rejects all identification and mixture, as, for instance, is the case with Calvin in opposition to Osiander.24
The word “mystical” itself is open to varied associations and is, in fact, used in many different ways.25 One calls Paul “mystical,” while another calls him “completely unmystical.” And, as a result, there is great confusion. This confusion is also apparent in the intense Roman Catholic interest in this “mystical” aspect, especially in connection with the Church as “the mystical body of Christ.” This formulation has long played an important role, and it has been connected to the (self-evident) unity of the Church, for instance, when the statement is made: “the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church.”26 The encyclical of 1943 about the mystical body of Christ has greatly stimulated reflection on the nature of fellowship in the body of Christ. The occasion of the encyclical was an interpretation of “mystical” that strongly tended towards identification, against which protests had arisen already before 1943.27 The encyclical rejects all mystical identification and states that Paul “spoke only metaphorically about these things.” One must not understand it in the sense of a fusion into one physical person. Here the encyclical brings up an important viewpoint: Paul does make a wonderful connection between Christ and His mystical body, but he can also place both opposite each other, as the bridegroom stands opposite (gegenüber) the bride.28 It is not that an antithesis is postulated here; the Gegenüber does not threaten fellowship, but rather belongs essentially to it. Basically, the protest is against the connection of mystical reality with a vague, irrational, and occult reality that loses sight of the concrete, visible Catholic Church. Identification is inherent in her too, but it makes room for concrete, juridical, and hierarchical structures, where Christ is also honored as Head of the Church. This concrete identification can then be opposed to false mysticism, which lacks appreciation for the essence of the “perfect society” (societas perfecta) because of its view of the inner fellowship of grace.29 In contrast to this, the encyclical understands “mystical” as the wonderful, supernatural aspect of union, which becomes a reality here in the concrete, visible Church.30
Berkouwer, G. C. (1976). The Church (pp. 84–86). Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.
- Status
