There's also the matter of mysticism being traditionally linked with women's religious experiences. The patriarchical context of the Bible's writing/compilation excluded female voices as has church doctrine. By continuing to discount mystical spirituality in favor of strictly androcentric writings/teachings/tradition, Challies is attempting to continue to exclude the spiritual voice of women.

Tweeted by Unvirtuous Abbey at the Homeletics Convention:

'If we only had male disciples, we might not know to this day that Jesus was risen from the dead!' - Bishop Michael Curry (Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina)

makes a nice tweet and its good for high fives, but that is about all. if the men and women were silent God would make sure the stones were crying out. "He IS RISEN!"

That thought certainly entered my mind. I think you may be right.

Yes, women were and are mystics. But while women have been equal among the mystic voices, mysticism is not threatening because it is gendered. Meister Eckhardt, Thomas Merton, Jacob Boehme, and George MacDonald were not viewed as a threat to the church for their feminism. Mysticism..the witness of women and men who articulated a similar encounter with the Numinous...shatters presumptions about power and authority, and that threatens both ecclesiastical and textual idolatry.

come on. can't we have a couple of posts into which patriarchy is not drug and vilified.

Patriarchy should be publically flogged at every opportunity. IMO. ;)

Nope. It's a painful, sinful way. It should be taken out and beaten regularly.

"Traditionally linked with women's experiences" specifically? Not so sure about that, unless you use the Renaissance Roman Catholic mystics as your base.

At what point does the Bible become an idol and actually replace the Jesus we worship? This is my biggest frustration with the reformed movement. So many times in discussions people have said, "well I dont know what you believe but I believe the Bible," as if that is the end of the discussion and the doubts and as if I don't believe the Bible. Reformed Evangelicals seem so scared that someone, somewhere is experiencing our infinite God differently than themselves and they can't seem to think that our God is bigger than our doctrines.

"Reformed Evangelicals seem so scared that someone, somewhere is experiencing our infinite God differently than themselves and they can't seem to think that our God is bigger than our doctrines."
LOVE this! 10
•
Reply
•

Very well said Amy!

I've asked people why they worship the Bible.

Allandthompson - your comment just literally blew my mind ... YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 'God is bigger than our doctrines' - Exactly !

Everybody has "doctrines" through which they understand the Real God. The question, then, is not whether or not God is bigger than our doctrines, but are our doctrines consistent with His character? How do we know? Upon what do we rely to stretch our doctrines out to see if they are inline with how God has revealed Himself?
What seems to be questioned here: Do I stretch my doctrines out upon the Word of God in the Scriptures, or do I stretch them out upon the Word of God to my heart, and what do I do if those are shown to conflict? Which is the "truth referee" of God's revelation?
On a side note: the questioning of Mr. Challies' intentions regarding silencing women is illogical, and frankly underhanded. Mindreading shows us more about the mindreader's heart than it does the mind read.

I think calling it mysticism creates a knee jerk reaction, because there are mystics in all faiths. There is definitely a mindset within Christianity which says that the Bible somehow has to mediate our relationship with God, which is something Jesus never said. Imagine him saying, "guys, in just a few decades you, Peter, and you, John, are going to write some beautiful letters. There will be one named Paul who will write some as well. Be sure you tell people that they can never hear my voice unless they hold and read and study and dissect those letters. My life in found only in those letters. If you are ever without them, or if they ever become lost or mistranslated, you will never ever be able to know me or hear from me."

He never said that. The early church didm't have the letters. The people on whom the Spirit fell at Pentecost had only Him, and one another. They were newborns, and they knew Him. And then Gentiles began to know him, and they had never learned the Scriptures. How did they function?

I realize that this reply is coming in quite late, but I hope that you still see it. Anyway, it's true that Jesus never did say that, but Jesus made constant references to what became (and still is ) known as Old Testament Scripture. I'm quite sure that Jesus did regard Scripture as being the Word of God. My point is that, in my view, there has to be a balance between using Scripture to find God and finding God through the other ways that He reveals Himself to us.

you forgot to write " drops mic and walks away"

Oh, and also, no mystics, no scripture.

Yep!

may i use a play on Elisabeths' words -

know scripture, know mystics.

how about no mystics know Scripture? ...not true, but I venture that many on this blog who are defending mysticism have spent more time today reading rachel's post than they did their bibles.

Sarah: Why would you think so? I would think mystics especially would be well familiar with the Bible. They recite the Psalms, lectio divina is repeated reading of scripture, and much prayer has a direct link with scripture. Just because you don't have a Bible in one hand and a commentary in the other doesn't mean you haven't read your Bible!

the reason I think that is because according the barna research only 29% of professing christians read their bibles weekly and the average time read per weeek by those who do read their bibles is 52 minitues;.

Let's suppose that all those who read and comment on this post are among the 29% and read the average amount of time. That is less than 8 minutes per day which is less time than it takes to read rachel's post.

Also since evangelicals read their bibles more often than do non- evangelicals, it is save to assume that many if not most posting on this blog are not among the 29%.

If people are not reading their bibles there is no way they are going to be able to test their mystical experiences with the scriptures like rachel and tim both say they should therefore, the can easily be led into error by those experiences.

I agree with you that engaging with the Bible is necessary to test one's mystical experiences, but I wonder if the quantity of time spent reading correlates to the quality of one's relationship with God. Surely there has to be a point of diminishing returns?

Perhaps. yet, if the Scriptures are a light to our feet and a lamp to our path and if we don't live by bread alone, but by every word which comes from the mouth of God, does that not mean a lot of people reading this blog are starving as they walk in the darkness hoping that some sort of inner light is going to guide them to the place they need to go.

Are we called to just blow through scripture? Is it consumption we require, or digestion?
I'm a very fast reader and I've had stages in my christian life where I was reading way too MUCH scripture. I'd read for 30-50 minutes, stand up and forget all of it. I was idolizing the Bible, but not using it correctly.
Mere contact with the Bible doesn't fortify us. We need to read it and live it, and things like this blog help many of us do that.

the point is, most don't digest it and some substitute blogs for the bible.

So... I mentioned this in a comment on the main thread, but I think it's pertinent to this discussion: there was a time when I had to refrain from reading the Bible because reading the Bible led me away from God. I could not see a loving God in it; I could only see an egotistical tyrant. Was the problem with me or the Bible? Likely with me. But nonetheless, the fact remains that *reading the Bible did not help me in my spiritual growth.* On the contrary, it hurt me. It was certainly not a light to my feet.

(Oh, and I should add that I know the Bible well; I have had lots of exposure and teaching, and have also read it lots on my own. Was raised in a tradition that saw the Bible in an almost superstitious way: there is some sort of power in the words themselves and in hearing/reading the words themselves. I think it ironic that this teaching is not actually in the Bible so far as I can see.)

I am not sure what David was speaking of exactly in Psalm 119 that you reference. He certainly wasn't speaking of the NT or the prophets... I've heard the teaching that he was speaking of the law specifically... I don't know much about that. At any rate; the NT reveals Chirst is the Logos, the Word of God.

Emily - YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Amazing, but true. I too have lived through seasons where the bible 'got in the way' ... and they usually follow seasons of intense biblical & theological study ... as if God needed to call me away from the bible for a bit so He could talk directly to me. I've been studying the bible in depth for close on to 35 years now. And I've studied it with and without the Holy Spirit ... and I've communed with God fully both in His word and outside His word. Thank you so much for sharing your story !

...or having heard (& sung onself) way too many verse snippets put to music.

turns them into annoying advertising jingles that you can't get out of your head.

Yes, Jesus is the Logos, the word of God in flesh...the ultimate revelation of God himself. Jesus said, if you have seen me you have seen the Father, the same one you see in the Old Testament.

The scriptures which Jesus memorized, obeyed, quoted and fulfilled was the Old Testament. So, don't throw out the OT, Jesus didn't. don't reject the God of the Old, Jesus didn't. in fact he is the God of the old in human flesh. If you will reread the OT you will see a God of tender mercy and one who is full of grace. If you reread the Gospels you will see in Jesus a glimpses of the one you have mislabeled an egotistical maniac.

Jesus is both the lamb and the lion. Those who embrace him will know him as the lamb who died to take away their sin. Those who reject him will know him as the lion who devours them.

"If you will reread the OT you will see a God of tender mercy and one who is full of grace. If you reread the Gospels you will see in Jesus a glimpses of the one you have mislabeled an egotistical maniac."

You imply that simply rereading the Bible is the answer. It isn't. I've done that. Again and again and again.

Also, I didn't not say that God *is* an egotistical tyrant; I said at a certain period of my life that was how He appeared to me from reading the Bible. It took years of reading other books and conversations and relationships and good teaching for me to even begin to see God as good.

My point was, for me, at that time (and now, actually) the Bible was not enough. And not only not enough; it was hurting me. I'm not saying this is the Bible's fault. I don't think it was. But it happened.

Emily, i am sorry for my insensitivity to your journey.

Thanks, Sarah. No offense taken; no apology needed. Thanks for engaging here. It's important for opposing views to be voiced and discussed.

i've sat back and listened and it is not uncommon for the opposing views to be shouted down and thus the voices silenced.

I know :) That's why I always try to put in a good word for them even if I disagree.

:-)

it is true that just reading the bible doesn't mean one understands and correctly applies it. it is also true if you don't read the bible you wont know what it teaches.

Marcus, you inadvertently proved my point. the metaphors I used are found in the bible itself -- one was used by king david and the other by Jesus.

you are also correct, hermeneutics can indeed be difficult and a lot of work, perhaps that is one of the reasons most christians have to their spiritual detriment stopped reading their bibles and some are seeking mystical experiences and spiritual feelings.

The apostle peter wrote in his first letter "We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place," Too many progressive Christians don't understand this, neglect their bibles, and are thus easily lead astray by their own brand of spirituality.

Reread my posts Marcus. I was not denouncing experiencing God on a personal level. Tozer, a self-described evangelical mystic is one of my favorite authors and Jonathan Edwards, one for whom I have great respect, had some experiences with God which were beyond description. Both of these men were Scripture saturated.

As someone also rightly posted, people of other religions (false religions) have mystical religious experiences. What that means is that just because a person has an experience or have some sort of feeling or quiver in their liver it sure doesn't mean it is from the God of the bible and sadly too many are too ignorant of the bible to "test the spirits"..

yes, that is my assumption, why is that a false assumption? have you received some mystical revelation which give you information about the study habits of those who post here so that you can make that sort of declaration?

In an interview with Assist News Service Rhodes quotes a recent poll, which indicates that 35% of born-again Christians do not read the Bible
at all. In addition, Rhodes indicates that among those who say they read the Bible, the vast majority only read it during the one hour they attend church each Sunday morning.(Assist News Service / Agape Press, 25/26 December)

“American Christians are biblically illiterate. Although most of them
contend that the Bible contains truth and is worth knowing, and most of
them argue that they know all of the relevant truths and principles, our
research shows otherwise. And the trend line is frightening: the
younger a person is, the less they understand about the Christian
faith.” —Barna Research

Excuse me for jumping in late here. I was traveling to my mission in Crimea when this all began. I am impressed with the depth of this conversation especially from the female disciples. I am from the older group of evangelical Christians, have memorized thousands of verses in the KJV and understand that the canon is the reed or measuring rod by which we may judge any new writings or revelation. Some of you may be thinking, "OH, NO here we go, another so-called fundamentalist cessation theologist." No...in fact I think there is one yet better way to judge new revelation. That is not the writings of the OT and NT alone but Jesus CHrist himself. He is the Word made flesh. He is the measure mentioned in Ephesians 4:13 by which we may measure our growth. If I am his disciple, as the Jewish young men who were called to follow the ultimate Rabbi I must aspire to follow Him closely enough that his dust clings to my. robe. Following His example, I read the scripture in live context and parse it with the aid of the Holy Spirit in real time. John tells us He did things that never even made it into the Holy Writ. (Jn 21:25). As a fisher of men, when He advised me to cast my nets on the other side of the boat I obeyed and the catch was great. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever. He still gives his disciples power to prevail.

"there is just no evidence that the people on this post are that naive .
-- I guess we'll just have to differ on this one. as you counseled me
so I counsel you, just because they agree with you does make them as
biblicaly literate as you.

oops... I meant to write, Marcus, just because most of the people on this blog may argee with you that isn't evidence that they are as biblicaly literate as you.

The down arrows on this post are ridiculous unless you are saying that Barna's research is in error or that Sarah's conclusion is wrong. Otherwise the reason you chose the down error is that you don't like truth and that should be a very scary place to be.

I didn't thumbs-down any posts- but I would assume it isn't the Barna data people were responding to, but Sarah's assertion that people who read blogs read less Bible.