From: Sondra Brasile (sbrasile@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 10:37:57 EST
Dear Robert and others,
I've read all the posts about mysticism. I'm not quite sure what it is
referring to. I'm sure I've seen it/experienced it, but what would the
definition of it be? It seems to be a bit vague for me still. Is it a
personal divine revelation, a vision?
Thank you,
Sondra Brasile
>From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
>To: "Don Winterstein" <dfwinterstein@msn.com>, "Rich Blinne"
><e-lists@blinne.org>, "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
>CC: <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
>Subject: Re: personal revelations
>Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:26:02 -0500
>
>To avoid confusion, it may be helpful to distinguish between various forms
>of revelation. I note three that have emerged throughout this discussion:
>(1) mystical revelations, (2) prophetic revelations, and (3) personal
>revelations. I think all three are attested in Scripture, and I agree that
>such revelations did not end with the closing of the canon. I know for
>certain that God has gifted me with two of these three. One I would
>consider mystical: it was a moment of what Rudolf Otto in _The Experience
>of the Holy_ referred to as a "mysterium tremendum"; it left me literally
>trembling with awe at the Power that animates the univserse. It happened
>only for a minute or so. The other was a personal revelation which
>happened just a few months before, a word (I didn't hear a voice, yet the
>words were very clear) that spoke to me in my deepest pain and brought
>peace, healing and reconciliation. It was also a very brief moment. The
>first was an experience of transcendence; the second of immanence: both
>brought me back to faith. I don't know if I have ever spoken
>prophetically, though it is possible that I have done so without realizing
>it. I tend to think, however, that one who is called upon to speak
>prophetically in the classic sense is one who is compelled and impelled to
>so speak, and has a clear sense that God is calling him to do so.
>
> There is a rich tradition of Christian mysticism that, as has been
>noted, is not well known to many evangelicals. Its history has been
>charted particularly over the past decade by a number of scholars; some in
>particular have been attracted to such medieval mystics as Hildegarde of
>Bingen, Mechthild of Magdeburg, Marguerite Porete (whom my wife Maria
>Lichtmann has published on), and Meister Eckhardt. Bernard McGinn, a
>prolific scholar on things mystical and apocalyptic, has been writing a
>multivolume history. The title of the series: "The Presence of God: A
>History of Wesern Christian Mysticism." Three volumes have been issued:
>(1) _The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century_, (2) _The
>Growth of Mysticism: Gregory the Great through the Twelfth Century_, (3)
>_The Flowering of Mysticism: Men and Women in the New Mysticism--1200-1350_
>. The fourth and fifth not yet completed volumes will be titled (4)
>_Continuity and Change in Western Mysticism_ and (5) _The Crisis in
>Mysticism_. These are thick tomes; there's a lot to write about.
>
> I have begun to appreciate St. Paul's mysticism, thanks to Alan
>Segal's excellent study, _Paul the Convert_. Segal is a Jewish scholar who
>writes on early Christianity. He traces the influence of "Merkabah
>mysticism" on Paul. I can see now the mystical dimension of some of Paul's
>most inspired utterances.
>
> The issue of the nature of revelatory experiences takes a new turn
>with all of the recent work in the burgeoning field of neuroscience, and
>the attempts to identify parts of the human brain that seem to be active
>during periods of meditation and religious experience. It will be
>interesting to see to what degree these studies help to illuminate the
>psycho-physical dimensions of religious experience.
>
>Bob Schneider
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Winterstein
> To: Rich Blinne ; asa
> Cc: bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:08 AM
> Subject: Re: personal revelations
>
>
>
>
>
> > bivalve wrote:
> >
> > >Can such principles also apply to other claims of revelation? What
> additional principles for assessing such claims have I overlooked?
> > >
> > >
> > First and foremost the rule is consonance with Scripture.
>
>
> It would be very instructive to review everything in the Bible on this
> fascinating topic. But that would be a book-length undertaking.
>Throughout most
> OT times there were bands or schools of prophets. On rare occasion one
>prophet would
> prophesy one thing, and another would contradict him. Prophecy did not
>stop
> with Jesus, as the Acts describes instances of prophecy, and Paul
>himself was
> a prophet. There is no scriptural reason for saying that prophecy
>should
> end with the Bible. In fact, to say that any new revelation is not of
>God by virtue of being new would be to lay a major constraint on God. I
>think I know him well enough to say he'd find that particular straitjacket
>uncomfortable.
>
> Rich Blinne in writing on mysticism said, "Those of us
> who are evangelical, born-again Christians are by definition to
> affirm the mystical. How are we to have a personal relationship with
>God if
> we have no subjective relationship?" By implication, then, all
>Christians who have a personal relationship with God have a personal
>revelation of God and hence are prophets when they speak of that
>relationship, because the basic meaning of prophet is one who speaks for
>God from personal revelation.
>
> In ordinary usage we reserve the word prophecy for special and unusual
>revelations. Although consonance with Scripture is perhaps a good rule in
>our time, how about OT times when Scripture of any sort was minimal or
>nonexistent? People asked Moses how to tell when a message came from God.
>He said (Deut. 18:22), "If what a prophet proclaims.does not take place or
>come true, " then don't believe him. But by this standard you can only
>know in retrospect, so it's not always the most useful standard. I'm not
>sure, honestly, how Ezekiel would fare by this standard, either. He makes
>predictions about Sodom and Tyre that several years ago I was unable to
>verify were ever fulfilled. He also seems to imply in one of his later
>chapters that the Messiah (the "prince") would have children. Another
>informative study would involve checking out all the detailed prophecies
>made by canonical prophets about foreign nations to see whether fulfillment
>could be verified. The Bible has been so thoroughly studied I wouldn't be
>surprised to find that someone's already done this.
>
> Jesus gave us a very simple standard (Matt. 7:15-16): "Watch out for
>false prophets..By their fruit you will recognize them." What does this
>mean? Obviously it would include such things as grossly immoral behavior,
>self-aggrandizement, sucking the flock dry of their earthly possessions for
>one's own benefit and instructing the flock to live in ways contrary to the
>teachings of Jesus and the apostles. But care is required. For example,
>Isaiah ran around nude for--what was it?--three years, Ezekiel lay on his
>left side for 390 days. So obviously you don't rule out a prophet just
>because he's odd. Contemporary Christians as a rule are gun-shy about
>special revelations because of all the ones in the past that were clearly
>not from God, and now they are perhaps more gun-shy than they should be.
>
> As one who has had probably one of the most startling revelations of
>all, and who at this time feels constrained by God to make it public
>despite the fact that at the time it was very private and it occurred more
>than 40 years ago, I have a personal interest in how this question gets
>answered. First of all, you may decide that the particular revelation is
>not meant for you and therefore ignore it. What I call my revelation I
>suspect is not going to be of much consequence for many Christians, and I'd
>expect them to take no special action. However, I can't help but believe
>that it is going to be of consequence for Christianity as a whole. This is
>partly because I don't think God would do something of this sort just for
>my personal benefit, even though I was willing to accept that idea for four
>decades and so told no one about it. My revelation introduces a high
>degree of novelty relative to previous divine revelations, but it should
>not be dismissed for that reason. God occasionally likes to startle and
>even shock people. It involves no teachings that cannot also be gleaned
>from Scripture, although admittedly they come from parts of Scripture most
>people are not familiar with. My deductions about origins from this
>revelation, of course, are inconsistent with a literal reading of Genesis
>but consistent with science; but this should not be a problem for people
>here.
>
> What I suggest is that you don't make snap judgments. If you decide my
>revelation might be relevant to you, then carefully assess what I say and
>what my objectives seem to be. If it still doesn't seem right, then forget
>it. I won't be offended. Frankly, this task God has set for me seems
>totally impossible, so I won't be at all surprised if nothing comes of it.
>But I have made a commitment to God to follow through on this, and if I
>didn't do it on my own, he wouldn't let me rest until I did. That's the
>kind of person he is. So, yes, I'm doing it eagerly on my own, but back
>behind me somewhere I sense this really big boot poised to strike.
>
> Don
>
> PS - Correction on that "I won't be at all surprised if nothing comes of
>it" thought: Humanly speaking, I wouldn't be surprised; but because God is
>behind me here, I actually will be surprised if nothing comes of it.
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 10:39:08 EST