Abstract
While mysticism can at times be viewed with skepticism by Protestants, recent research by Bernard McGinn suggests that it is often misunderstood. As such, mysticism deserves an honest appraisal concerning its biblical merit, and doing so reveals that “doctrinal mysticism,” in which the “mystical element of Christianity” is guided by Scripture and doctrine, can and should be applied within a Christian’s life as an aid in spiritual growth and vitality. The application of McGinn’s heuristic definition of “mysticism” to the mystical elements of Meister Eckhart’s and John Calvin’s works, along with a Scriptural critique of their positions, shows the spiritual benefits of doctrinal mysticism and the necessity of developing a conscious awareness of the presence of God in one’s spiritual life.
Introduction
The impact of the Reformation upon the life of the church extended far beyond doctrinal matters such as justification by faith and sola scriptura. Having escaped from under the authority of the pope, Reformed churches reexamined the identity of the church and Christian life, including the spiritual theology of the church. While mysticism had been a common spiritual path within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the Reformers did not always view mysticism favorably within their sola scriptura world. More recently, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, some Protestant theologians have rejected mysticism either for its attempt to have a direct encounter with God through an inner experience, for its past association with gnosticism and pantheism, or as an element of paganism that has survived within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. 1 Bernard McGinn has suggested that this Protestant reaction against mysticism has often been based on the flawed view that mysticism derives from the Greek idea of a “mingling” of divine and human natures. While union with God is important to mysticism, it was rarely viewed in history as such a “mingling.” 2 Irrespective of Protestant misgivings, one must admit that mysticism—in a variety of forms—has played an important role in the life of many godly men and women throughout the life of the church. 3
When such points are considered, mysticism is shown to deserve an honest examination concerning its biblical merits and demerits. I argue that mysticism can be scripturally sound when guided by doctrine. In other words, while Christian doctrine—when used as an authoritative guide—sets definite limits as to how mysticism can be developed, doctrine upholds and does not destroy the “mystical element in Christianity.” When the mystical element in Christianity is guided by Scripture and doctrine, one discovers a doctrinal mysticism that should be applied within a Christian’s life as an aid to spiritual growth and vitality.
In order to demonstrate this position, three questions will be explored in this paper. First, what is mysticism? The meaning of the term “mysticism” is notoriously difficult to define. Instead of defending a specific definition of mysticism, the first section will sketch a short history of mysticism and explore Bernard McGinn’s heuristic approach to the “mystical element in Christianity,” to enable a clear and simple comparison of mysticism in Meister Eckhart and John Calvin.
Second, to what extent is the mystical element in Christianity scriptural and doctrinally sound? In order to answer this question, the mystical element in Christianity will be traced through the works of John Calvin and Meister Eckhart, accompanied by a doctrinal critique of their positions in hopes of coming to a “doctrinal mysticism,” or in other words, the doctrinally grounded mystical element of Christianity. The main content of the paper will consist of this comparison and critique. The purpose of this section will be to highlight the boundaries and the center of doctrinal mysticism. Meister Eckhart and John Calvin are key dialogue partners for this task. First, Eckhart was a more radical Neoplatonic mystic whose teaching was condemned as heretical. Eckhart’s mystical view of “the birth of the Word in the soul” will function as a foil to doctrinal mysticism, and a critique of Eckhart’s position will help clarify the boundaries that doctrine places on the mystical element of Christianity. Second, Calvin was not a mystic in a systematic sense, but he did uphold a christocentric mystical element in his theology. An examination of Calvin’s doctrine of “mystical union with Christ” will help reveal the center of what can be labeled “doctrinal mysticism.”
Third, and finally, how does doctrinal mysticism, as represented by the doctrinally-grounded mystical element of Christianity, aid believers in spiritual vitality and growth? The terms “spiritual vitality” and “spiritual growth” will be defined, and the spiritual benefits of doctrinal mysticism will be enumerated along with specifics on how doctrinal mysticism reveals the necessity of developing a conscious awareness of the presence of God in one’s life.
The Mystical Element in Christianity
Long before the terms “mysticism” and “mystic” were in use, individuals were having, teaching, and writing about mystical experiences and ideas. Moses met God in the light of a burning bush, and later met with God in the great darkness upon Mount Sinai (Ex. 3; 19—20). On a high mountain, Peter, James, and John saw the divine light of Christ and heard the voice of God (Mat. 17). Praying to his Father, Jesus asked that his disciples might be in Him and the Father, as He is in the Father (John 17:21). In his letters, Paul talks about living “in Christ” and about a miraculous ineffable vision (2 Cor. 12:2-4; Gal. 2:20). Clement of Alexandria, looking at these texts in the second century, believed that the goal of spirituality was a unifying vision of and loving union with God. 4 Origen of Alexandria built an entire theological system around a mystical exegesis of Scripture, and in the fourth and fifth centuries, monastics lived out this system institutionally. From the fifth century onward, mystical theology was viewed and developed in a variety of ways as a communal and liturgical way of life directed at developing a deep awareness of God’s presence and attaining union with God. 5 In the twelfth century, terms such as “ascetic” and “mystical theology” were used to describe a lived, contemplative faith in distinction from a Scholastic and speculative rationalism. 6 The modern terms “spirituality” and “mysticism” originated in the seventeenth century, both synonymously referring to a direct and internal knowledge of the divine. Since then, both terms have been used in a plethora of ways, creating confusion. Some scholars have used the terms generally in reference to one’s personal relationship with God. Others have used the terms in narrower senses, such as to refer to a type of spirituality that seeks direct and unmediated experience of God. Additional terms such as “mystical theology” and “spiritual theology” exacerbate the issue all the more. 7
At least three points are clear from this short and fragmented historical survey from Moses to modernity. First, until the seventeenth century, no one was explicitly claiming to practice “mysticism.” Individuals were having mystical experiences and writing mystical theology long before historians applied the terms “mystic” and “mysticism” to specific theologians and movements. This reality makes the study of mysticism a historical study, and historically, Christian mysticism “is inherently elusive and pluriform,” defying and resisting “stagnation, reification, or essentialism.” 8 Second, as a result, terms such as “mystical,” “mystical theology,” “mystic,” and “mysticism” do not have universally accepted meanings. Noting the disagreement over their meanings, Frederick Bauerschmidt wrote, “The words ‘mystic’ and ‘mystical’ and ‘mysticism’ seem to have as many meanings as there are people who use the words.” 9 Similarly, William Inge wrote, “No word in our language—not even ‘Socialism’—has been employed more loosely than ‘mysticism.’” 10 Third, in consequence, scholars disagree over what individuals should or should not be counted as mystics. Are Moses and Paul mystics? Their religious devotion contained a clear mystical element, but they did not systematically develop that element. 11 Origen and Meister Eckhart would clearly count as mystics because they developed and systematized the mystical element of Christianity. What about figures such as Ignatius of Loyola, Martin Luther, and John Calvin? Recently, some scholars have started to label them as mystics in a qualified since but not all have agreed on this assessment. 12 Overall, to come to a clear definition of mysticism and a clear distinction between who is and who is not a mystic is difficult, if not impossible.
In order to cut through this historical complexity in a short amount of space, Bernard McGinn offers us a way forward in the form of a heuristic device. McGinn’s simple definition of Christian mysticism is currently the most influential and most cited definition in the field. 13 In The Flowering of Mysticism (1998), he defined mysticism as “a special consciousness of the presence of God that by definition exceeds description and results in a transformation of the subject who receives it.” 14 Earlier in The Foundations of Mysticism (1991), however, he developed a heuristic approach to mysticism, arguing that simple definitions of mysticism are “utopian.” 15 This heuristic approach to mysticism lies behind his later definition as its foundation, and as a heuristic, it is a broad and flexible understanding of mysticism that enables one to easily engage with and analyze occurrences of the core elements of mysticism. Whether one finds mysticism in the works of theologians such as Calvin, who did not develop a systematic and explicit mysticism, depends largely on the definition of mysticism used. McGinn’s broad definition qua heuristic device allows for an effective exploration and comparison of the mystical elements in both Eckhart and Calvin. 16
McGinn began his heuristic sketch of mysticism by discussing it under three headings. First, mysticism is one part of a religion and not the religion itself. Mystics do not believe in “mysticism;” they believe in Christianity or another religion. This explains why mysticism can be present to varying degrees. Second, mysticism is a process and a way of life. The goal of mysticism is a specific kind of encounter with God, but the process to and effect after this encounter must also be counted as elements of mysticism. Third, mysticism is a consciousness of God’s direct presence. 17 Summarizing his heuristic into a single statement, he wrote, “The mystical element in Christianity is that part of its belief and practices that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the reaction to what can be described as the immediate or direct presence of God.” 18
McGinn elaborated three additional terms concerning the mystical element of Christianity: “consciousness,” “presence,” and “direct or immediate.” First, the term “consciousness” is preferable over “experience,” because the idea of experience can tend to emphasize ecstasy and altered mental states while many mystics were hostile toward such experiences and preferred to emphasize an awareness of God’s habitual presence. Second, the concept of “presence” is preferred as the unifying concept within Christian mysticism, instead of “union with God,” because union with God is only one of many ways that the consciousness of God’s direct presence has been explained by Christian mystics. 19 Finally, all mystics claim that this consciousness of God’s presence is immediate and direct. In some way, God’s presence is felt in a fundamentally undeniable way, deeper than one’s ordinary consciousness. 20 Overall, then, the mystical element of Christianity can be understood as the consciousness of God’s direct presence. While this heuristic leaves much undefined about mysticism, it enables the comparison of theologians, such as Eckhart and Calvin, who developed the mystical element of Christianity to various degrees and in vastly diverse ways.
A Critique of the Mystical Element in Meister Eckhart and John Calvin
When applied to the writings of Eckhart and Calvin, McGinn’s heuristic reveals that the mystical element of Christianity, namely the consciousness of God’s direct presence, most clearly is found in Eckhart as union with God through “the birth of the Word in the soul” and in Calvin as “mystical union with Christ.” Meister Eckhart (c. 1260 – c. 1329) was a German Dominican priest, influenced by and a part of the German and Dutch mysticism of his time which sought to appeal inclusively to clergy and laymen alike with a this-worldly orientation. 21 His theology was a mix of philosophical speculation and practical application. Some scholars hold that Eckhart was essentially a Neoplatonist who defended an emanation theory of creation. 22 His metaphysic, summarily stated, was that all things “derive their being by immediate outpouring from God” in creation and “flow back in and [receive] the outpouring from God” in union. 23 Influenced by Aquinas, Eckhart believed that God’s essence is existence. Moving beyond Aquinas, he argued that God is life qua self-birth, a pouring of oneself into oneself. So, the eternal Word (the Son) emanates from the Father, who is the beginning of the Godhead, and the Holy Spirit emanates from both the Son and the Father. Both the Word and the Spirit remain within the Godhead and are thus, a pouring of God into God. 24
In distinguishing the three persons of the Trinity from the Godhead, Eckhart also drew parallels between the Trinity and the human soul. Commenting on Exodus 3:14, Eckhart remarked that the divine name “indicates a reflexive turning back of [God’s] existence into itself and upon itself and its dwelling and remaining fixed in itself,” and this is “a ‘boiling’ (bullitio) or giving birth to itself.” 25 Within this bullitio, Eckhart distinguished between the Godhead and the Trinity, viewing the Godhead as the ground of the Trinity. 26 Beyond this bullitio, which excludes “everything that comes from without,” all of creation emanates out (ebullitio) from the Godhead. 27 Therefore, the Godhead is the ground of the Trinity as well as all of creation, including the human soul. One of Eckhart’s most well-known sayings is that “God’s ground and the soul’s ground are one ground.” 28
One of Eckhart’s main points is that creatures gain their life and being from God. 29 From this position he developed his view of the soul’s union with God. Applying this point to his own existence and identity, Eckhart explained, “What is life? God’s being is my life. If my life is God’s being, then God's essence must be my essence, and God’s self-identity my self-identity, neither more nor less.” 30 The origin and emanation of the human soul out from the Godhead creates a shared identity between God and the soul, a union without “distinction” or “multiplicity.” 31 Eckhart’s doctrine of union with God explicitly moves beyond a union of willing and loving, to an ontological and substantial union of non-dualistic identity. 32
Union with God is not solely the ontological origin of the soul in Eckhart’s theology. The soul came from God and desires to return to God. Union with God, therefore, is also the goal of spirituality. Eckhart explained that this goal is achieved in three stages within the soul of the believer. 33 Commenting on the first stage of union, Eckhart explained, “As much as you go out in forsaking all things, by so much, neither less nor more, does God go in, with all that is his, as you entirely forsake everything that is yours.” 34 Eckhart labeled this stage “detachment,” which is a withdrawal from all things in order to concentrate on perceiving God through an unknowing. 35 Detachment is a poverty of spirit and a suspension of the intellect that does not rely on consolation or understanding. Union with God requires stillness, silence, disinterest (suspension of the will), and a rejection of multiplicity, including the Trinity. 36
Once detachment is attained, according to Eckhart, union with God is achieved in two stages: “the birth of the Word in the soul” and a flowing back into the divine ground which is “a breakthrough to the Godhead.” Commenting on John 1:1, Eckhart wrote, “The Father gives birth to the Son without ceasing; and I say more: he gives birth to me, his son and the same Son. I say more: he gives birth not only to me, his son, but he gives birth to me as himself and himself as me and to me as his being and nature.” 37 God begets His Son in the soul because God and the soul are already united. So, through detachment, the soul receives God, not ideas about God. This birth of the Son in the soul, which is the same birth of the Son in the Trinity, is also the birth of the person in God. 38 The birth of the Word in the soul, in other words, is also the breakthrough of the soul to indistinct union with the Godhead, rejecting and breaking through the Trinity in order to achieve union with the God beyond God. 39
When approached via a Scripturally-based doctrinal filter, multiple issues become evident with certain aspects of Eckhart’s mysticism. 40 First, his distinction between the Godhead and the Trinity and his view of the breakthrough to the divine ground imply a modalistic conception of God, namely that the Godhead is a fourth entity that is more fundamental than the Trinity. 41 The undifferentiated and impersonal Godhead becomes the one, true God, while the Trinity is a lesser being. Second, Eckhart’s views of creation, detachment, and the birth of the Word in the soul seem pantheistic. They do not sufficiently uphold the distinction between Creator and creature. Furthermore, his idea of “detachment” implies a dualistic rejection of one’s personhood in order to attain union with God. Yet, God created humans as persons, and God’s grace perfects nature (Aquinas, ST I, Q. 83, A. 1, ad. 3). Therefore, union with God must be the perfection of personhood, not its rejection or annihilation. Christian mysticism, if it is to remain Christian, must be personal. 42 Included in this proposition is a positive view of human reason and the need for discernment (1 Thes. 5:19-21). 43 Lastly, Scripture is clear that the basis of union with Christ is the Savior’s atoning death and resurrection, not self-purity or detachment as Eckhart taught. 44
This critique shows that while Eckhart developed aspects of the mystical element in Christianity with modalistic, pantheistic, and dualistic characteristics, the boundaries of doctrinal mysticism exclude these aspects of his mysticism—as well as any hint of works-based salvation—in order to cohere with established Christian doctrine. 45 This is not to say that all of Eckhart’s writings should be summarily dismissed as flawed. Rather, Eckhart’s development of the mystical element of Christianity, insofar as it does not move beyond the boundaries of doctrinal mysticism, can and should be applied within a believer’s life, as will be shown in the following section.
Unlike Eckhart, John Calvin (1509–1564) developed the mystical element of Christianity fully within the bounds of orthodox doctrine, revealing the center of doctrinal mysticism. 46 Binding himself to the limits found within Scripture, Calvin did not fall prey to the same theological issues that Eckhart’s speculative Neoplatonic mysticism did. Advising Christians to avoid speculation and to be content with the limits of God’s revelation, Calvin exhorted, “Therefore, let us willingly remain hedged in by those boundaries within which God has been pleased to confine our persons, and, as it were, enclose our minds, so as to prevent them from losing themselves by wandering unrestrained.” 47
As a result of this doctrinal restraint, Calvin developed the mystical element in Christianity within the bounds of an overarching and biblical system of doctrine, focusing on the presence of God within salvation through the believer’s union to Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. 48 He referred to the believer’s union with Christ with the term “mystical union,” describing union with Christ as “the residence of Christ in our hearts” in which “he deigns to make us one with himself.” 49 Mystical union with Christ is based on faith as knowledge, which is the “firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.” 50 Union with Christ is intimately connected with grace through faith, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the Gospel as the means of union. 51
Calvin rejected the idea of an undifferentiated, substantial union with God. While Calvin does talk of believers sharing in the substance of Christ, mainly in correlation with the doctrine of participation, he does not mean a mixture of substances but rather a spiritual and relational union. In his criticism of Osiander, who taught an “essential righteousness” that implied a mixture of divine and human substance, Calvin rejected the idea of a substantial union between Christ and believers that mixed the divine and human together in the believer’s union with Christ. 52
In his commentary on Gal. 2:20, Calvin identified two sides to union with Christ in salvation, stating, “Christ lives in us in two ways. The one consists in His governing us by His Spirit and directing all our actions. The other is what He grants us by participation in His righteousness, that, since we can do nothing of ourselves, we are accepted in Him by God. The first relates to regeneration, the second to the free acceptance of righteousness.” 53 Furthermore, Calvin stated that by partaking of (being united with) Christ, Christians receive a double grace: “first, being reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father; and, secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we aspire to integrity and purity of life.” 54 So, for Calvin, union with Christ is a necessary and essential aspect of having a salvific relationship with God, and it involves becoming conscious of God’s direct presence in one’s life, insofar as union with Christ consists in regeneration, justification as a participation in Christ’s righteousness, and sanctification by the power of the Spirit. 55 Connected as it is with salvation, union with Christ is a trinitarian reality. The Father sends the Son, the Son is the means of union, and the Spirit is the sanctifying power of union. 56
By revealing the connection between mystical union with Christ and the Trinity’s activity and presence in salvation, Calvin’s theology shows that the center of doctrinal mysticism—or the doctrinally grounded mystical element of Christianity—consists of a consciousness of God’s presence through union with Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit within the order of salvation (ordo salutis). The mystical element of Christianity must be developed along these trinitarian and soteriological lines if it is to remain grounded within Christian doctrine. Beyond this doctrinal development of union with Christ, Calvin left the doctrine of union with Christ a mystery, focusing solely on mystical union with Christ as a relational or spiritual reality that is limited by clearly-defined, biblically-based doctrine. 57 In a letter to Peter Martyr, commenting on union with Christ in 1 Cor. 1:9, Calvin penned, “We so draw life from [Christ’s] flesh and blood, that we may, with propriety, call them our food. How that is done, I confess, is very far above the comprehension of my understanding. I rather humbly admire, than labour to comprehend this mystery.” 58 Calvin stated that our response to this great mystery should be to “labor more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature of that intercourse.” 59
Application and Conclusion
In summary, McGinn’s heuristic approach to mysticism stated, “The mystical element in Christianity is that part of its belief and practices that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the reaction to what can be described as the immediate or direct presence of God.” 60 Doctrinal mysticism, in particular, can be defined as the mystical element in Christianity as developed under the authority of established Christian doctrine. Applied to the works of Eckhart and Calvin, each is seen to develop the mystical element in Christianity in different ways. Eckhart developed the mystical element in Christianity via Neoplatonism, resulting in the doctrine of union with God as “the birth of the Word in the soul,” achieved by “detachment” and resulting in a “breakthrough to the Godhead.” At times, Eckhart pushed beyond the boundaries of established Christian doctrine, and the doctrinal critique of his position showed that the boundaries of doctrinal mysticism exclude any implications of modalism, pantheism, dualism, or works-based salvation. Calvin’s doctrine of “mystical union with Christ,” on the other hand, was christocentric rather than Neoplatonic and observed the limits placed upon understanding by doctrine and revelation. By relating union with Christ to the Trinity’s work of salvation, Calvin showed that doctrinal mysticism is centered on the trinitarian presence of God as experienced through union with Christ within the stages of salvation.
To clarify, doctrinal mysticism occurs when scripturally-grounded doctrine is held as an authority over the mystical element of Christianity, safeguarding doctrine while developing a consciousness of the direct presence of God. While acknowledging the consciousness of God’s direct presence, which necessarily entails a recognition of the “mystical union” that believers have with God through Christ and the Holy Spirit, doctrinal mysticism also upholds the orthodox views of creation, salvation, the Trinity, the authority of biblical revelation, the distinction between divine and human natures, and the personal nature of union. Doctrinal mysticism is both doctrinal and experiential, meant to be a balance of both when applied within spiritual life as an aid to spiritual growth and vitality.
Spiritual growth and vitality is synonymous with sanctification. Yet, the terms are used, instead of “sanctification,” to make explicit that spiritual life consists of a gradual process (growth) of becoming like and drawing closer to God, who is the source of all life (vitality). Broadly conceived, doctrinal mysticism is synonymous with spiritual growth and vitality, seen in how Calvin connected mystical union with Christ to regeneration, justification, and sanctification. Narrowly conceived, doctrinal mysticism can be applied to spiritual growth and vitality as an intentional development of a consciousness of God’s direct and personal presence in one’s life.
The spiritual benefits of and needs for doctrinal mysticism, narrowly conceived, are multiple. First, doctrinal mysticism safeguards against a fragmented theology that would lead to a crisis of spirituality. One scholar, noting the resurgence of mysticism within late-Reformation Protestantism, argued that the Reformers took recourse to mysticism to counter a crisis of piety evident in the divide between theology and piety and its relation to spiritual laxity among later generations of Protestants. 61 Given the current fragmented nature of the theological disciplines within both academia and church, there is a similar tendency today, or at least a temptation, to divide theology from spirituality, resulting in a lax spirituality and a heartless theology. 62
Eckhart is of help on this point. As mentioned earlier, the more heterodox parts of his theology do not discredit his entire theology, and aspects of his mysticism can fit within the boundaries of doctrinal mysticism. His views of the ground of the soul being God and the birth of the Word in the soul, when doctrinally aligned, accurately acknowledge that God is the source of one’s life and that God is actively living and working in every believer, making them new through the indwelling Christ and Holy Spirit. Therefore, believers should not allow their lives to be fragmented, with heads, hearts, and hands disconnected. Instead, Christians can and should actively work at reassembling their humanity, fragmented by sin, upon the ground within themselves of God’s indwelling presence. 63 Evan B. Howard makes a similar point, writing, “God wants mystical union, yet this mystical union is not merely a felt oneness of interior experience, but a real harmony of all experience, every aspect of our lives: personal, doctrinal, social, ecological. God desires that we share in the divine life so fully that our very actions and character display the divine: a ‘mystical life.’” 64
Second, doctrinal mysticism is needed in our current culture of amusement and distraction, where one fault of some churches is to present Christianity as an easy and amusing past-time, rather than a narrow way, a cross to carry, and a painful sacrifice of one’s whole life to God. 65 A doctrinally grounded form of Eckhart’s idea of “detachment” is true and needed in today’s culture. As stated earlier, Dutch and German mysticism during the time of Eckhart was practical and this-worldly. Eckhart’s sermons were likewise practical and often focused on detachment as a way to put aside sin and follow Christ in humility and love. 66 While a nuanced application of detachment is important, Scripture is clear that if anyone loves the world, the love of God is not in him or her (1 John 2:15). Therefore, believers must detach themselves from the world in order to pursue God and grow in sanctification (Matt. 6:19-34; 10:39; Luke 14:26 Phil. 3:8).
Third, doctrinal mysticism helps locate the role of experience in the construction of theology. Consciousness of God’s presence is necessarily experiential, and this experience, for it to be discerned as true, must be judged by doctrine. However, experience is also a valid form of authority within theological construction, albeit a lesser authority than revelation. 67 The trinitarian shape of Calvin’s doctrine of “mystical union” clarifies this point by how it relies upon the experience of the illumination of the Holy Spirit within the life of the believer. 68
Fourth, doctrinal mysticism helps connect the contemplative and active aspects of the Christian life. The closer one grows in union with God, the more like God one will become, and thus the more one’s desires will mirror God’s will. To be like God includes striving to act out the will of God. 69 Evidence of this connection between contemplation and action is found in the works of Eckhart, when he wrote, “If a man were in an ecstasy as St. Paul was (2 Cor. 12:2-4), and if he knew of a sick person who needed a bowl of soup from him, I would consider it far better if you were to leave that rapture out of love and help the needy person out of greater love.” 70 In other words, Eckhart is saying that no matter how advanced in contemplation one might be, even if one is as advanced as the apostle Paul was, contemplation is never an excuse for ignoring or abandoning acts of service and love. These four spiritual benefits and necessities of doctrinal mysticism are by no means exhaustive. Surely, a study of other mystics through the lens of doctrinal mysticism would find more. Nonetheless, these four benefits show that doctrinal mysticism is indeed fruitful when applied to spiritual vitality and growth.
One final question remains: How should doctrinal mysticism be applied to spiritual growth and vitality, specifically within the spiritual disciplines? Most often, mystics have used the three-fold path of purgation, illumination, and union to apply mysticism within Christian spirituality through specific spiritual disciplines, and these disciplines are similarly used in doctrinal mysticism. 71 These disciplines include fasting, silence, solitude, simplicity, confession, study, learning, submission, journaling, meditation, guidance, worship, celebration, service, stewardship, evangelism, and so on. 72
All of these spiritual disciplines are not unique to doctrinal mysticism. However, doctrinal mysticism takes place when each is practiced for the express purpose of cultivating one’s consciousness of God’s direct presence, or as Calvin said, of laboring “more to feel Christ living in us, than to discover the nature of that intercourse.” 73 If Calvin is correct that mystical union with Christ is an essential aspect of salvation, then developing the consciousness of God’s presence within one’s life—and making such consciousness the intended goal of practicing the spiritual disciplines—is essential to the practice of the spiritual disciplines for spiritual growth and vitality to take place. If Christ really is with us always, as Matthew 28:20 states, then, a pronounced consciousness of Christ’s direct presence, which is the goal of doctrinal mysticism, should be a reality within every believer’s life.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
