This post was chosen as newsworthy at Sensus Divinitatis News….

With Catholics it’s “trance-channeling Mary”. That’s how we got the Baysiders, Hill-of-Hopers, and lots other Tridentine Flake Cults.

Makes me wish St Mary WOULD appear to some of these wannabe visionaries and slap some sense into them.

In my own experience I feel a mixture of skepticism and envy when someone tells me of their supernatural experiences of a religious nature. — Joe M

Same here. Too many times when “their supernatural experience of a religious nature” became just another weapon in the game of One-Upmanship — Charismatics looking down on Cessationists as “not REALLY Saved”, Cessationists looking down on Charismatics as “deluded” to “demonized”, both looking on the other (unlike themselves) as A Second-class Christian.

All I can tell you for sure about Tongues is I don’t do them. All I can tell you about blatant miracles is none have gone down in my presence and were recognizable as such. All I can tell you about demon possession and exorcism is I haven’t experienced or witnessed it (and I’m not sure I want to).

(Actually, I look upon miracles as a subset of paranormal phenomena, which I in turn view as analogous to Very Rare natural phenomena — they exist, they get reported reliably, but chances are you or I won’t be on hand to see one.)

http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/ConferenceMessages/ByConference/45/3958_Keys_to_Understanding_the_Church_and_Kingdom/

Happy reading!

In my own experience I feel a mixture of skepticism and envy when someone tells me of their supernatural experiences of a religious nature. If the experience sounds credible, I might conclude that life is unfair and that God gives and does not give as He sees fit. And the next step usually involves some soul searching as to why I don’t rank up there high enough for God to treat me similarly. The NT is full of examples of people having supernatural experiences and others not. I suppose Christians with mystical experiences can feel elite just like those with any other gift, be it smarts, or health or wealth or extraordinary talent. And we can envy them for what God has given them.

Maybe a paraphrase from Eleanor Roosevelt says it best for me: “no one can make you feel small unless you give them permission to do so.”

By your definition of a mystic, you do think there are spiritual elites (in the early church and in OT times), just none now. I honestly don’t think God considers folks who experience him in those ways as “elite,” especially considering how he framed issues of greatness and the way certain persons acted, but c’est la vie.

God gives more to some people than to others in a variety of ways. The 12, for example were chosen out of many, and 3 were given more than the other 9. It doesn’t make them “elite.” To whom much is given, much is required.

I have had several of them, even before I started thinking about Catholicism. I do think that one thing that made my journey easier was that.

Do I think they are normative. NO WAY. Just like some of us don’t really get deep into philosophy and theology. (GRIN)

Nor would I ever advise anyone to seek them out. First, if you seek them out, you might find counterfeit ones; secondly they are scary (or at least mine were), thirdly, mine were/are extremely personal. Not for sharing. (Though I do wish that I could find a spiritual director that eventually I could trust and share about them.)

To clarify about being scary, I don’t mean as being scared as one should of hell or a raging forest fire. But, perhaps “aweful” (purposely spelled that way. Like a birthday cake candle loving and being loved by the sun.

I am not trying to be problematic. If you are still reading this post comments could you do some writing on a statement you made?

“In this world where the incarnation invests God with us completely.” I’m afraid you lost me completely on this one.

I can see, then, why you might distrust the concept of mysticism. Obviously the word is used in different ways, not all of which would be welcome in every religious circle.

Some churches assume the term to refer to something inherently bad. For example, many Baptists assume “mysticism” to include things like astrology and spiritualism. Catholics and other liturgical churches of course have their very significant tradition of mystics…but these could not be said to be self-authenticating, or removed from accountability. (Someone mentioned spiritual direction.)

In recent years, psychologists of a certains stripe have examined various types of spiritual experience which are often called “mystical.” Even Baptists would accept, for example, that a person might experience a feeling of grace, or the promptings of conscience, even if they avoid the m-word. Of course a feeling cannot authenticate itself, and the purpose of religion should not be to inculcate certain feelings of experiences. (If you want that, take drugs.)

Pietism seems to have arisen out of a desire among Protestants for their Christian devotions to feel meaningful. Its opponents accused the pietists of thereby disbelieving in solo fide (saying one only needs faith, not any “special” experience). And of course the content of Christian “mystical” experience can easily, if too individualized, blend into novelties such as special revelations. (Whence your friend who apparently trance-channels God.)