[Christian] educators ought to remember that a religion which is first entirely bound up with narrow and childish theological ideas, and is then presented as true in the absolute sense, is bound to break down under greater knowledge or hostile criticism; and may then involve the disappearance of the religious impulse as a whole, at least for a long period.Did we know our business, we ought surely to be able to ensure in our young people a steady and harmonious spiritual growth. The "conversion" or psychic convulsion which is sometimes regarded as an essential preliminary of any vivid awakening of the spiritual consciousness, is really a tribute exacted by our wrong educational methods. It is a proof that we have allowed the plastic creature confided to us to harden in the wrong shape. But if, side by side and in simplest language, we teach the conceptions: first, of God as the transcendent yet indwelling Spirit of love, of beauty and of power; next, of man's constant dependence on Him and possible contact with His nature in that arduous and loving act of attention which is the essence of prayer; last, of unselfish work and fellowship as the necessary expressions of all human ideals—then, I think, we may hope to lay the foundations of a balanced and a wholesome life, in which man's various faculties work together for good, and his vigorous instinctive life is directed to the highest ends. -Evelyn Underhill, Life of the Spirit (1922).
"The Christian of the future will be a mystic or will not exist at all." –Karl Rahner[1]
I've been fascinated these past two semesters by mysticism and, I would argue, it's necessity in the Christian life (for the purposes of this post, my definition of mysticism is simply 'union with God'). To that end, I've been reading Evelyn Underhill, an Anglo-Catholic mystic who wrote from around 1912-1941. Even though an Anglo-Catholic in a time when factionalism in the Church of England was bitter, Underhill’s keen attention to the balanced spiritual life led her to frequently hearken back to the evangelical John Wesley’s life and work. Underhill counts him as a saint and her approving mentions of Wesley are also representative of her willingness to pull from all of the Anglican tradition in her work, though she was also by no means limited by the Anglican Communion--or even Christianity--in her examples.
The above quote came from a book Underhill wrote in 1927 which included a chapter on Christian education. What interested me about it is what I interpret to be a reference to what is nowadays called a 'born-again experience,' an experience which some evangelicals claim to be necessary in order to call oneself a Christian. Often this is described in Evangelical circles as the moment one can point to, to the day or time, in which a person felt Jesus 'come into his or her heart,' usually after the admission of grievous sin. Then one prays the 'Sinner's prayer,' Jesus makes residence in the person, and the person is considered saved. If you are ever asked if you are 'saved,' you are probably being asked if you've ever experienced something like this.[2, see footnote below]
I think what is being described by Evangelicals as the born-again experience qualifies as a mystical experience and is real. To say otherwise would be to admit limit to God's capability to reach people. But I am unconvinced that this introductory experience is the only way to understand or gauge one's entry into the Christian life. Further, I worry that when mystical experience in a certain prescribed way becomes the basis of deciding who is made truly Christian and who is not, it opens up a Christian group to drawing the borders of the faith too narrowly. It also opens up the Christian group to attempting emotional manipulation in order to bring about the belief in a certain mystical experience. I think Underhill would agree with my assessment, and she points to the particular type of born-again experience as a failure of education in the Christian tradition-- a tradition which in its fullest expression understands and discerns the direct experience of God. She wished instead to instruct others (particularly children) into a 'steadier' entry in the life of God.
So why is mystical experience so important? First and foremost, Christianity is a religion with many abstract concepts and theologies which attempt to explain an objective reality that its own concepts grant to be ultimately indescribable. But faith in something cannot live on it's philosophical underpinnings alone. It is precisely reliance on these concepts that Underhill is worried about, especially if these concepts never evolve beyond simplistic and too-rigid understandings of the faith. A simplistic understanding of Christianity in the abstract-- particularly that which does not allow for further knowledge, self-examination, or the admission that one may be wrong-- does not prepare someone to maintain their own convictions under the realities of human life or criticism from others. Experience is necessary for fully understanding what one believes because Christianity is not a religion that posits a disinterested God, but of a god who seeks full relationship with the created universe.
Christianity is a faith of ever-expanding relationship--of relationship both to God and to all of Creation. The Christian, in the mystical experience of Reality (The way God would see the world, mediated through Christ, and sustained by the Spirit), receives “the vision of an intensely loving heart; and love, which cannot keep itself to itself, urges him to tell the news as widely and as clearly as he may.”[3] John Wesley would certainly agree. For if one wants to preach the Gospel of Christ, one must already possess the experience of God in order to relate it others.[4] Without this experience, the love of God is hearsay and a proposition, and not much more.
The above quote came from a book Underhill wrote in 1927 which included a chapter on Christian education. What interested me about it is what I interpret to be a reference to what is nowadays called a 'born-again experience,' an experience which some evangelicals claim to be necessary in order to call oneself a Christian. Often this is described in Evangelical circles as the moment one can point to, to the day or time, in which a person felt Jesus 'come into his or her heart,' usually after the admission of grievous sin. Then one prays the 'Sinner's prayer,' Jesus makes residence in the person, and the person is considered saved. If you are ever asked if you are 'saved,' you are probably being asked if you've ever experienced something like this.[2, see footnote below]
I think what is being described by Evangelicals as the born-again experience qualifies as a mystical experience and is real. To say otherwise would be to admit limit to God's capability to reach people. But I am unconvinced that this introductory experience is the only way to understand or gauge one's entry into the Christian life. Further, I worry that when mystical experience in a certain prescribed way becomes the basis of deciding who is made truly Christian and who is not, it opens up a Christian group to drawing the borders of the faith too narrowly. It also opens up the Christian group to attempting emotional manipulation in order to bring about the belief in a certain mystical experience. I think Underhill would agree with my assessment, and she points to the particular type of born-again experience as a failure of education in the Christian tradition-- a tradition which in its fullest expression understands and discerns the direct experience of God. She wished instead to instruct others (particularly children) into a 'steadier' entry in the life of God.
So why is mystical experience so important? First and foremost, Christianity is a religion with many abstract concepts and theologies which attempt to explain an objective reality that its own concepts grant to be ultimately indescribable. But faith in something cannot live on it's philosophical underpinnings alone. It is precisely reliance on these concepts that Underhill is worried about, especially if these concepts never evolve beyond simplistic and too-rigid understandings of the faith. A simplistic understanding of Christianity in the abstract-- particularly that which does not allow for further knowledge, self-examination, or the admission that one may be wrong-- does not prepare someone to maintain their own convictions under the realities of human life or criticism from others. Experience is necessary for fully understanding what one believes because Christianity is not a religion that posits a disinterested God, but of a god who seeks full relationship with the created universe.
Christianity is a faith of ever-expanding relationship--of relationship both to God and to all of Creation. The Christian, in the mystical experience of Reality (The way God would see the world, mediated through Christ, and sustained by the Spirit), receives “the vision of an intensely loving heart; and love, which cannot keep itself to itself, urges him to tell the news as widely and as clearly as he may.”[3] John Wesley would certainly agree. For if one wants to preach the Gospel of Christ, one must already possess the experience of God in order to relate it others.[4] Without this experience, the love of God is hearsay and a proposition, and not much more.
[1] Karl Rahner, Concern for the Church: Theological Investigations Vol. 20 (New York, Crossroad Publishing Co., 1981), 149.
[2] Broad, sweeping, too-simple theological proviso: I don't think 'salvation' works like what I've described above. Salvation (which is not to be easily explained) is an incomplete work on all of Creation brought to completion at the Eschaton, and to worry about being "saved" in an afterlife is to completely jump over other important concepts of Christian theology and life: justification and sanctification (or theosis), which are linked to salvation.
[3] Underhill, Practical Mysticism.
[4] Underhill, Life of the Spirit.
No comments:
Post a Comment