THE EVANGELICAL
ATTRACTION TO MYSTICISM
By
Alan Morrison
INTRODUCTION
Since the time of the European Reformation, there has been a clear
gulf between the body of teaching represented by the Church of Rome and that
which is represented by the Protestant churches. However, in recent times,
as the process of ecumenism (which now includes interfaithism) has gathered
apace in the Christian scene, it has become increasingly fashionable to claim
that the situation has changed immeasurably and that there is now very little
which should divide these two religious bodies. Many would say now that there
is today no such 'clear gulf', and that explorations should take place as
to how the "tragic" rift (their words) caused by the Reformation
can be healed — indeed, the claim is that such a healing would be highly profitable
from an evangelistic standpoint because then we would be seen to be a loving
church, united in the faith.
And of course, certain passages of Scripture are invoked:
Psa.133: 'Behold, how good and how pleasant it is For brethren
to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious oil upon the head,
Running down on the beard, The beard of Aaron...'
or Jn.13:34-35: 'A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love
one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall
all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.'
or Jn.17:20-23: 'Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that
the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest
me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them,
and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may
know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.'
So we have this gathering notion that the church of Rome is different
today — far more evangelical, far more amenable to the teaching of the Word,
and that we should be edging our way towards some kind of unifying relationship.
As you will know, there are a number of well-known Evangelical personalities
— especially from the
Of course, this is nothing new. Even during the time of the Reformation,
there were many such voices. The great Church of England puritan theologian,
William Perkins, in his treatise, A Reformed Catholicke (1597), gives
as his primary reason for writing it: 'To confute all such politickes as
hold and maintain that our religion and that of the Roman church differ not
in substance and consequently they may be reconciled.'
It is interesting that Perkins should use the term 'politickes' to
describe these people — a term which perfectly encapsulates all the carnal
conniving and craftiness which needs to be applied in order to effect this
'reconciliation'. In fact, Perkins concludes his dedicatory epistle by saying:
'It would be the greatest height of unthankfulness if we were not to stand
out against the present Church of Rome but instead yield ourselves to plots
of reconciliation.'
Politickes and Plots — that's the name of the game!
Although much of the movement towards this 'reconciliation' has taken
place at the doctrinal level (all the tinkering with words such as 'justification',
'faith', 'grace', etc), there are also other means by which this 'reconciliation'
is being effected.
One such means involves straightforward ecumenical activity, "Churches
Working Together", leaving aside all doctrinal considerations, but just
getting on with being matey. This ecumenical approach is mainly operational
in the thousands of "good-works-without the-true-Gospel" type of
churches which form a large base in the professing Christian scene today.
There is yet another means being used to effect this
'reconciliation' — a means which occurs not at the doctrinal level, nor at the
'matey good works' local church level, but at the level of shared, personal
religious experience. Again, this could be broken down into various categories;
but we shall deal with them under the one general heading of 'Mysticism'.
Through mysticism and mystical experiences, the attempted reunion
and reconciliation of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism is being effected —
often at a very subtle level. I say 'subtle' because there is an increasing
number of professing evangelicals involved who, under normal circumstances,
would have nothing to do with the Church of Rome, but who, wittingly or
unwittingly are caught up in mystical practices (or at least advocating such
practices) which are either a direct legacy of Roman Catholic mysticism or are
a deceptive derivative of it.
It would seem that there are many professing evangelicals today who
fail to understand the difference between religious mysticism and biblical
spirituality.
The mystically-influenced writings of teachers who profess to be
evangelical, such as Richard Foster and Joyce Huggett, have had an enormous
influence on neo-evangelicalism — especially through their books Celebration
of Discipline and Prayer by Foster, and Listening to God
by Huggett. And their teachings are then avidly propagated by such media as
Alpha Magazine, which claims to be the most widely-read evangelical magazine
in the
However, there are also many scholars who, although plainly bright
enough to know the difference between religious mysticism and biblical spirituality,
fail to alert their readers to it. For example, the well-known book Great
Leaders of the Christian Church published by Moody Press has, as one of
those great leaders, the Spanish Counter-Reformation mystic, Teresa of Avila.
She is literally sandwiched between John Knox, Blaise Pascal and John Owen!
And when the book The Serpent and the Cross, which exposes
the New Age today, was reviewed in the neo-evangelical newspaper, Evangelicals
Now, the reviewer was most put out that 'mystical traditions within
the church should be ejected on the basis of their roots in Gnosticism',
and he lamented the fact that the author dared to criticise those the reviewer
termed as 'much-respected mystics such as Teresa of Avila, Meister Eckhart,
the Quakers and others'. And the amazing thing is that this reviewer is
a professor of apologetics in a
Another example is provided in the New Dictionary of Theology (published
by the Intervarsity Press). In the article on 'Mystical Theology', it just
gives a scant amount of information, without any caveats whatsoever. The impression
is one of complete acceptance of Catholic mysticism as if it is a perfectly
acceptable way of life for an orthodox Christian.
Surely, the purpose of such a Dictionary — which claims on its dust-jacket
to combine 'excellence in scholarship with a profound insight into current
theological issues' — is to acquaint people not only with the bare facts
but also with any important controversies on the subject. But there is nothing.
One would think that mysticism had never had any opponents.
This is a classic symptom of neo-evangelicalism, which always involves
a denial of the negative aspects of Christianity — do not judge, do not forbid,
but merely love. That is the name of the game.
And then there is the politically correct book Daughters of the
Church by professors Ruth Tucker and Walter Liefield of the
We could present countless further examples of the passive neo-evangelical
acceptance of Catholic Mysticism; but it is not our purpose to trot out, one
after the other, all the various pecadilloes in the evangelical scene relating
to the advocation and practice of Catholic mysticism. Instead, we need to
engage in something far more revealing and instructive.
Let it be said that at one time, mysticism was rigorously opposed
in orthodox Protestant circles as, at best, a highly suspect development, at
worst, a highly dangerous one. The Zondervan Dictionary of Cults, Sects,
Religions and the Occult (p.201) rightly says:
"Mysticism has had outspoken opponents — mostly from Protestant
circles, who maintain that it was a derivative of ancient paganism and Gnosticism
because it diverts attention away from the Gospel".1
That is precisely
our position in this paper.
The headings we hope
to cover are as follows: First, we will begin by giving a Basic Introduction
to Mysticism, involving an attempt to define it, plus the manifestation of
mysticism in World Religion, and the workings of Mysticism in Roman Catholicism;
Second, we will show How Mysticism has influenced Evangelical Protestantism
in History — looking particularly at the 14th Century Dominican Mystics such
as Meister Eckhart and Johann Tauler, the German 17th Century Pietist Movement,
the Response of the Reformers to Mysticism, and the Mystical Legacy of John
Wesley on Revivalism, the Holiness Movement and Early Pentecostalism; Third,
we will expose the Links Between Catholic Mysticism and the Pentecostal and
Charismatic Movements; Fourth, we will offer Thirteen Reasons why Mysticism
is not Compatible with Evangelical Christianity; Fifth, we will conclude
by posing and answering the question: "Why have so many Protestant
Christians Become Attracted to Catholic Mysticism?"
I.
A BASIC INTRODUCTION TO MYSTICISM
1.
DEFINING MYSTICISM
It has been well-said
that mysticism 'begins with a mist and always ends in schism'! There
is more than a degree of truth in that witty aphorism. Chambers' Dictionary
defines 'mysticism' as 'the habit or tendency of religious thought and
feeling of those who seek direct [with the accent on this word 'direct']
communion with God or the divine',2 while a mystic is defined as 'one who seeks or attains direct
intercourse with God in elevated religious feeling or ecstasy'.3
Aldous Huxley wrote:
The technique of mysticism may result in the direct intuition of, and union
with, an ultimate spiritual reality that is perceived as simultaneously beyond
the self and in some way within it.'
Professor Ferguson,
Dean of the Open University and an ardent advocate of mysticism, lists five
generalised points which one can identify in any manifestation of mysticism:
'First, mystics believe
that there is an Ultimate Being, a dimension of existence beyond that experienced
through the senses...[which] is often, though not invariably, conceived in
personal terms and called God... Second, mystics claim that the Ultimate can
in some sense be known or apprehended... Third, the soul perceives the Ultimate
through inward sense... Fourthly, it would be widely held by mystics that
there is an element in the soul akin to the Ultimate, a divine spark...a holy
spirit within. In this way, to find God is to find one's true self... Fifth,
mysticism has as its zenith the experience of union with the Ultimate... The
mystic seeks to pass out of all that is merely phenomenal, out of all lower
forms of reality, to become Being itself'.4
We can see from this
description of mysticism, first, that God is reduced to a pantheistic 'dimension
of existence' beyond the normal senses, although this is sometimes called
'God' for convenience; second, that there is an element of this divinity,
a divine spark, a 'holy spirit within' all people (a foundational error);
third, that it is possible to tap into this 'inwardly' so that one is absorbed
into it, and can even become that 'Ultimate Being' oneself; fourth, the relegation
of this present life to a 'lower form of reality', something 'merely
phenomenal'. Finally, there is the idolatrous and even blasphemous assertion
that 'to find God is to find one's true self'.
There is very much
more we could say, as there are as many definitions as there are people to
make them. What we find is that the operation of mysticism, wherever it occurs,
involves the utilisation of certain practices in order to bring about an altered
state of consciousness so that a person can not only personally experience
the Divine presence — however that may be perceived — but actually become
unified with the Divine Essence, usually in a stupendous ecstatic experience.
And so we find that
what mysticism is all about — as it has manifested throughout the world over
the centuries, whether it is Eastern mysticism or so called Christian mysticism
— can be reduced to two heads: 1) The seeking out of a direct experience
of God, without any mediator; 2) The setting up of the individual's
subjective experience as the sole arbiter of religious truth.
And the manifestation
of these twin-tenets of mysticism in the Christian scene has been diverse:
ranging from one extreme in the passive navel-gazing of the Quietists, to
the opposite extreme in the enthusiastic fanaticism of the Holy Spirit Movements
which have dogged orthodoxy throughout the Gospel Age. (The so-called 'Toronto
Blessing', for example, is a classic manifestation of manipulated mysticism,
as we shall come to appreciate).
These twin-tenets
of mysticism have always played a vital part in the religions of the world.
Some world religions are primarily mystical, e.g., Hinduism and Buddhism.
Whereas other religions are primarily formalist but have their mystical wings,
such as the Sufism of Islam and the Kabbalism of post-AD.70 Judaism. How Roman
Catholicism came to be involved in mysticism is a complex story, with a number
of seemingly disparate influences.
2.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF CATHOLIC MYSTICISM
Augustine of Hippo
has often been claimed to be the Father of Roman Catholic mysticism, but there
is no real evidence for this. As with all the Church Fathers, there is an
ambiguity of language in certain areas which is open to misinterpretation,
but he certainly never spoke of a direct, personal, essential union between
a believer and God in this life. And he always stressed the role of the Lord
Jesus Christ as Mediator in the restoration of the image of God in man. We
will come to see how an understanding of this is fundamental to our resistance
of mysticism — that it is precisely in this area of the misunderstanding
of the image of God in man which provides the seedbed for so-called Christian
Mysticism.
The main origin in
the development of Catholic mysticism occurs in the late fifth or early sixth
century A.D., when a Syrian monk wrote a number of theological treatises to
which he fraudulently affixed the name of 'Dionysius the Areopagite', who
is mentioned briefly in the Book of Acts as a convert of the Apostle Paul
(Acts 17:34).
These works represented
an attempt to reconcile Christianity with the Neoplatonic thought which had
pervaded Graeco-Roman culture. Neoplatonism was a Greek ascetic metaphysical
system operating from about the end of the second century until the middle
of the sixth. Its chief architect was a man named Plotinus (c.205-270),
who "advocated asceticism and the contemplative life".5 The actual system of Neoplatonism originally arose as a hostile response
to the claims of Christ, absorbing the earlier Platonic mystery school to
become the syncretic religion of the age.
In spite of the fact
that this Neoplatonism is said to have "provided the philosophical
basis for the pagan opposition to Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries",6 its syncretisic co-mingling with a profession of Christian
faith was carried out by Satan with great stealth, and provided the religious
foundations for all 'Christian' mysticism — however much it may profess otherwise.
William Inge, Dean of St. Paul's,
The dissemination
of all these carriers of syncretistic mysticism was carried out through the
offices of such men as Gregory of Nyssa (335-394) and his brother Basil of
Caesarea (330-379).8 Gregory, in particular, specialised in the wildly allegorical approach
to the Scriptures (a common feature of mystics); and by the time that pseudo-Dionysius
appeared on the scene, the way had been paved for the compounding of a quasi-Christian
mystical theology which would be mistaken by many for the heart of Christianity
itself.
This Neoplatonist
Syrian monk who took the name of the Pauline convert, Dionysius, for his own
— presumably to guarantee his writings acceptance within Christian circles
— was an advocate of what is known as the via negativa (the negative
way), whereby through asceticism and certain meditation practices one gradually
eliminates from the mind all that is not God in order to penetrate the mystery
of His 'dark no-thingness'. The leading features of pseudo-Dionysius'
written works are "the exaltation of the via negativa above revealed
theology", coupled with "the doctrine of the perfection by ecstasy".9
In the 12th and 13th
centuries, there was a massive arousal of interest in mysticism in the Roman
church with many new orders of monks and nuns being formed. These were greatly
influenced by the writings of this pseudo-Dionysius.
Then in the sixteenth
century, we find mystics such as Ignatius Loyola, Teresa of Avila and John
of the Cross developing a systematised mysticism in their writings, laying
out the steps by which one may achieve personal union with the divine, as
if it was an ascent up a ladder or mountain, or down into the labyrithine
depths of the soul.
These writings have
been popularised throughout the Christian scene for many years, especially
in Charismatic and neo-evangelical circles today where they are recommended
as wholesome reading matter. For example, in Power Evangelism by John
Wimber, we find that Ignatius Loyola and Teresa of Avila are commended.
3.
CATHOLIC MYSTICISM AND WORLD RELIGIONS
However, when we read
these mystical works through an orthodox biblical Christian filter, we find
that Catholic mysticism is actually nothing other than a 'Christianised' form
of Eastern mysticism, however much their advocates may want to protest. Mysticism
is mysticism — wherever it occurs — it simply adapts itself according to the
religio-cultural situation in which it develops.
In his book The
Inner Eye of Love: Mysticism and Religion (Collins/Fount, 1981, p.127), the
Roman Catholic monk, William Johnston, .states:
"In the mystical
life one passes from one layer to the next in an inner or downward journey
to the core of the personality where dwells the great mystery called God —
God who cannot be known directly, cannot be seen (for no man has ever seen
God) and who dwells in thick darkness. This is the never-ending journey which
is recognizable in the mysticism of all the great religions. It is
a journey towards union because the consciousness gradually expands and integrates
data from the so-called unconscious while the whole personality is absorbed
into the great mystery of God".10
Here we have one of
the foundational errors of all mysticism: that 'at the core of the
personality dwells the great mystery called God' in all people. And
In his book on mysticism
(Mysticism and Philosophy, Collins, 1960, p.100), the philosopher W.T.
Stace frankly admits that 'the Christian [mystical] experience is basically
the same as that which is described in the Mandukya Upanishad [of the Hindus]'.11
Having read a great
deal of both Eastern and Christian mysticism, both before coming to repentance
and since, I am convinced that Christian mysticism, so-called, has been a
major weapon of the devil, under the disguise of piety and godliness, which
is being used in order to bring about a reunion of Protestantism and Romanism.
Ultimately, it will
also lead to a closer relationship between Roman Catholicism and other world
religions. As the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:
"Enlightenment,
as a natural experience of reality... possesses a spiritual value. The endeavours
to introduce Oriental forms of meditation in Christian spirituality... deserve
sympathetic attention and encouragement".12
And in a Catholic
charismatic journal, a priest writes:
"Let us be able
to recognise that Christian Yoga can be beneficial and conducive to greater
growth in union with God".13
So we see that whenever
mysticism takes a hold in a person's life the inevitable progession is in
the direction of syncretism and increased tolerance of pagan religion.
II.
HOW MYSTICISM HAS INFLUENCED EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTISM IN HISTORY
First, any consideration
of how mysticism has influenced evangelical Protestantism in history must
take into account:
1.
THE 14TH CENTURY GERMAN DOMINICAN MYSTICS
i. Meister Eckhart
The first of these
is: Meister Eckhart (1260-1327/8), a Dominican priest who taught that in every
person there is a 'divine ground' or 'spark'. In one encyclopaedia, a writer
says:
'One of the essential
elements in Rhineland mysticism... is the emphasis laid on the divine element
in humanity variously known as the 'spark' or 'ground' of the soul, the 'divine
image' or 'holy self', the 'inner light' or the 'Christ within.'
This is very similar
to the mystical teaching of the world's religions and of the Quakers and other
'Inner Light' movements. The founder of the Quakers, George Fox, devised a
universalist doctrine of the 'Inner Light of the Living Christ' in all people,
from the beginning of time; which, as we know, is complete nonsense.14 From whence did Fox receive such teaching? The answer probably
lies in the fact that he believed that the truth is to be found not in Scripture
or theology "but in God's voice speaking to the soul".15
In the recently published
work Biblical Theology by John Owen (Soli Deo Gloria), there is contained
a great treatise entitled A Defense of Sacred Scripture Against Modern
Fanaticism which is specifically aimed at the mystical doctrine of the
Inner Light made fashionable by the Quakers in Owen's time.
Returning to Eckhart,
although it is now fashionable in some academic circles to say otherwise today,
I can find no reason to alter the judgement that Eckhart was a classic pantheist.
Consider these quotations from his works:
'The being and the
nature of God are mine. Jesus enters the castle of the soul; the spark of
the soul is beyond time and space; the soul's light is uncreated and cannot
be created; it takes posession of God with no mediation; the core of the soul
and the core of God are one.'
'If I were not, God
would not be God'.
'God's ground and
the soul's ground is one ground.'
'The eye by which
I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me.'
One writer on mysticism
says:
'Equally distinctive
is [Eckhart's] teaching about the birth of Christ in the soul. Eckhart is
more interested in this than in the historic life of Jesus of Nazareth. For
him what matters is that in us Christ is born, dies and rises again.'
This is a strange
kind of 'incarnationalism' that we commonly find in Christian mysticism, teaching
that Christ is fully incarnated in the soul of a person when he discovers
that mystical union with the spark of God which dwells within.
So, to be born again
in Eckhart's theology is to first detach oneself from all created things and
then discover and be unified with the God within — at which point there is
'the birth of the Son in the Soul', the image of the Father. Small wonder
that the Zen Buddhist, D.T. Suzuki, in his book Mysticism: Christian &
Buddhist (Pelican), can make a straight comparison between Zen Buddhism
and the teachings of Meister Eckhart.
Now you may say, well
what does all this have to do with Catholic mysticism and Evangelicals. Evangelicals
don't advocate Eckhart, do they? Well, no, evangelicals don't actually advocate
Eckhart. They wouldn't dare because of the obvious heresy in Eckhart's writings.
But they do very significantly advocate one of Eckhart's major disciples,
Johann Tauler. And this is our next consideration when looking at how mysticism
has influenced evangelical Protestantism.
ii. Johann Tauler
Johann Tauler (1300-1361)
was also a Roman Catholic Dominican who was a disciple of Eckhart. This is
why we gave the background to Eckhart. Presumably to avoid accusations of
heresy Tauler moderated the language used by Eckhart; but this merely provided
a cloak behind which he continued to teach many of the same essential principles
as Eckhart.
An examination of his sermons shows that Tauler speaks of the three stages in the mystical life: 1) a life of spirituality and virtue, bringing us close to God's presence; 2) Spiritual poverty, when God withdraws himself from the soul, leaving it anguished and denuded; 3) the transition into a divinised life, into what he describes as 'a union of our created spirit with God's uncreated one' (Sermon on 1 Pet.3:8). That is unequivocal mystic language. Very similar to the three stages of the pseudo-Dionysius we spoke of earlier.
Many evangelicals
seem to regard Tauler as a precursor to the Reformation. But I believe that
this is a profound error. He was certainly not a great fan of the Roman Catholic
church, but that was simply a trait which he held in common with all mystics,
who eschew any kind of organisational church, which simply stands in the way
of the mystic's spiritual quest of being 'oned with God'.
We find this notion
of Tauler as a forerunner of the Reformation in, for example, The Puritans:
Their Origins and their Successors, by Martin Lloyd Jones, in which the
statement is made that:
There were certain
movements of the Spirit within the body of the Roman Catholic Church even
before the Protestant Reformation. A man like John Tauler in
Elsewhere in the same
book, Dr. Lloyd Jones says:
Before the Reformation
there were those who were very interested in holiness and godliness and in
coming to a knowledge of God. These were called mystics, and some of them
were very "evangelical" mystics. There was, for instance, John Tauler
in
I have read a translation
of Tauler's sermons, which have been published by the Roman Catholic Paulist
Press, and I am amazed that anyone could describe them as evangelical — in
the true sense of the word. Here are three extracts from Tauler's sermons
on the seasonal Masses:–
1) 'In this denuding of ourselves, we are reformed in the form of God,
clothed with His divinity. It is the hidden darkness of which St. Dionysius
(pseudo) spoke.'
2) 'Christ also said: "You shall be witnesses in
3) 'God commanded Abraham to go out of his land and leave his kin,
so that He might show him all good. "All good" signifies the divine
birth, which contains all good within itself.'16
Tauler is here claiming
allegory in this story as symbolising a person leaving worldly things and
pursuing good things so that 'the divine birth can be effected in us.' This
is a Christmas sermon on the three aspects of God being born: a) the first
birth is the Father begetting the Son; b) the second birth concerns maternal
fruitfulness through virginal chastity and true purity; c) the third birth
is effected when 'God is born within a just soul by grace and out of love'.
How could anyone be
fooled by this mystical humbug? One insightful writer says on this (Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology, Baker, 1984, pp.1070-1):
'The assumption that
Tauler limited the mystical union to a conformity of divine and human wills
by grace alone has made Protestant authors sympathetic to Tauler. But this
interpretation... must be understood in the context of his assumption that
an innate likeness to God within the human soul makes possible a union of
essence or being, and also in view of his emphasis on human cooperation with
divine grace in the path toward union.'
There is nothing whatsoever
of the Atonement of Christ in Tauler. He does not preach an atoning Christ
who has died as the substitute for the sins of His people, or who has brought
reconciliation between a wrathful God and a repentant people, or who has served
as the propitiation for our sins. Then we would know that he was indeed
an evangelical. Instead, it is all Dominican mysticism, pietistic language
without any genuine Bible theology and all wrapped up in the most extreme
forms of allegorisation.
Tauler's desire was
not to preach Christ crucufied but, as Chambers Encyclopedia states, 'to
spread the teaching of the mystics among the unlettered devout'. That
was the real basis of his preaching.
Essentially Tauler
teaches that the human soul is a Divine spark which can be kindled though
living the right kind of life and practising the right kind of works. This
is standard Roman Catholic mystical redemption teaching.
It seems astonishing
that these sermons are held up by knowledgeable people such as Dr. Martin
Lloyd-Jones as a kind of precursor to the Reformation! On the contrary, the
Reformation was a gigantic NO! to this medieval mysticism.
At one stage in his
life, Tauler had a mystical experience when he heard a voice in his head which
made him fall into a trance and lose consciousness — a kind of 'slain in the
spirit' experience. When he came round, he found that he was completely changed
and all fired up with a new outlook on life. This is claimed by the second-blessing
advocates to be evidence that Tauler received the Baptism in the Holy Spirit,
as can be seen in the book advocating the Charismatic 'slain in the spirit'
experience Overcome by the Spirit, by the Roman Catholic Dominican
priest, Francis McNutt (with a preface by the Church of England Bishop David
Pytches).
It is this experience
that fired up his preaching. In his book The Sacred Anointing, Tony
Sargent mentions Dr. Lloyd-Jones's reference to Tauler when he writes:
'He reported the case
of John Tauler, a German R.C. priest, who preached in one of the great cathedrals.
God suddenly took hold of him, filled him with his Spirit, and as a result,
his whole preaching was transformed.'
But that is not what
had happened at all. What had really happened was that Tauler had a mystical
experience when he heard a voice in his head and promptly lost all consciousness.
Is that what it means to be filled with the Holy Spirit?
What this mystical
experience then made Tauler go out and preach fervently was not the atoning
work of Christ on the cross but the importance of achieving a mystical
experience of God. In one example, he preached to astounding results, as
Francis McNutt reveals:
'When the sermon was
over, Tauler went and offered Mass, but fully forty men stayed behind in the
churchyard, lying as it were in a swoon... Then Tauler said to a man standing
nearby: "Dear son, what do you think we should do with these men?"
Then the man touched them but they moved very little and lay there almost
as if they were dead.'
Does this remind
you of the Charismatic mysticism of today? Remember, we've been told by Dr.
Lloyd-Jones that "John Tauler used to preach in a church where great
crowds gathered, and there were many conversions.' Were these allegedly
'converted' men convicted of sin? Not at all. They had merely been profoundly
affected by Tauler preaching the teaching of the mystics. They had gone into a
rapture.
Last year, I attended
a Bible Rally in what would be regarded as a highly orthodox church and heard
a similarly highly orthodox and well-known Reformed preacher (who, incidentally,
had spent his formative years at Westminster Chapel) suddenly start waxing
lyrical about how John Tauler had preached to cathedrals-full of people and
brought about many conversions. But he seemed to be completely unaware that
the people were converted to Catholic mysticism rather than Bible Christianity.
Recently, I read an
interview in the 'Jesus Army' magazine with John Arnott, Senior Pastor in
the Airport church in
As an illustration
of the confusion about mysticism in evangelical circles, I was sent a fax
by a well-known evangelical leader recently asking to be faxed back a copy
of a leaflet I had written critiquing the Slain in the Spirit experience.
It was duly sent and I received a very patronising reply advising me to study
Church History and then to put out an amended second edition of the leaflet
taking account of what I had learned about revival. He asked me: "Have
you never read what the Doctor [Lloyd-Jones] wrote about John Tauler and other
mystics?" To which I replied, firstly, that I was thankful that I didn't
idolise the Doctor, and secondly, that having abandoned mysticism in favour
of Christianity on becoming a believer, I was in no mood to apostatise.
So much for the 14th
century German mystics. Our second topic in our examination of how mysticism
has influenced evangelical protestantism in history involves
2.
THE RESPONSE OF THE REFORMERS TO ALL FORMS OF MYSTICISM
The Catholic mystics
of the Reformation period — people such as Ignatius Loyola, who founded the
Jesuits and, later, Francis de Sales, were decidedly anti-Reformation. Then
there was John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila in
In fact, we find that
the whole issue of whether or not mysticism is a valid Christian pursuit comes
into perspective at the time of the European Reformation with the vast number
of individuals and groups which claimed some sort of mystical inspiriation
from the Spirit. These 'spiritualists' as they were known, who were mystical
charismatics, simply abounded.
It is interesting
that one so often finds that mysticism and mystical notions will come in like
a flood when a society or civilisation is going through big changes. As Philip
Schaff puts it:
'Protestantism had
reached a very critical juncture. Reformation or revolution, the written Word
or illusive inspirations, order or confusion. That was the question.'
There was the Roman
Catholic Church with all its corruption. The Reformers appear on the scene.
But there was competition. Two groups vied to be the one which would 'restore'
the
All the while that
the genuine Reformers were at work on this process of restoration, they were
regularly plagued by various sects and characters who claimed they had received
'words from the Lord' about this, that and the other matter. Martin
Luther called them schwarmer, (swarm is derivative), fanatics, enthusiasts.
This continued right through into the Puritan period in the seventeenth century
and beyond.
The essence of
'enthusiasm is the subjective Inner Light versus the objective external Word of
God. This was one of the principal controversies at the time of the
Reformation. And this is epitomized in Luther's dealings with the revolutionary
Thomas Muntzer, who was instrumental in the Peasant's War in 1525. He believed
that justification by faith alone was an invented doctrine, and he was
violently opposed to the notion of sola Scriptura, saying, like any good
enthusiast, that 'they poison the Holy Spirit with the Holy Scripture'.
In his very interesting
book The Third Reformation, which examines Luther's relationship to
mystics and charismatics, Carter Lindberg of the Institute for Ecumenical
Research in
'The key to Muntzer's
theology is a mystical spiritualism... mystical theology of an experiential
self-disclosure of God to the person.'
Luther's response
to Muntzer was to declare that he would not listen to him "even if
he had swallowed the Holy Ghost, feathers and all!" Lindberg writes
that it was significant for Luther that Johann Tauler was of catastrophic
importance for Muntzer. Apparently Muntzer carried around with him Tauler's
sermons, bound in a double volume.
Another of the confrontations
between the Word and mystical inspirations involved three men who were friends
of Muntzer, known as the
'Those who are expert
in spiritual things have gone through the valley of the shadow. When these
men talk of sweetness and being transported to the third heaven, do not believe
them. Divine Majesty does not speak directly to men. God is a consuming fire,
and the dreams and visions of the saints are terrible.'
It is ironic that
Luther in his younger days had an attraction to Tauler. But it seems that he
liked to adapt Tauler's concept of God's grace being necessary to religious
mystical experience to his own developing idea of Justification. Luther
certainly rejected the teaching of the mystics (including Tauler) on union with
the Divine. And so did Calvin. In a footnote to Calvin's use of the term unio
mystica, 'mystical union' (an unfortunate adoption of a term used in
Mystical Theology), in the Battles edition of the Institutes, it says:
'Niesel notes that
Calvin nowhere teaches the absorption of the pious mystic into the sphere
of the Divine Being.'
We find numerous references
to the rejection of mystical notions in the Lutheran confessions. In Article
13 of the Apology of the
'It is good to extol
the ministry of the Word with every possible kind of praise in opposition
to the fanatics who dream that the Holy Spirit does not come through the Word
but because of their own preparations. They sit in a dark corner doing and
saying nothing, but only waiting for illumination.'
In his Smalcald Articles,
Luther even reckoned that the Pope was an enthusiast:
'We must hold
firmly to the conviction that God gives no one His Spirit or grace except
through or with the external Word which comes before. Thus we shall be
protected from the enthusiasts... The papacy, too, is nothing but enthusiasm,
for the pope boasts that all the laws are in the shrine of his heart, and he
claims that whatever he decides and commands in his churches is spirit and law,
even when it is above and contrary to the Scriptures and the spoken Word. All
this is the old devil and old serpent who made enthusiasts of Adam and Eve.'
We say again that
the Reformation was a gigantic NO! to Catholic mysticism. But that did not
stop it working vigorously, as we know.
Thirdly, any consideration
of how mysticism has influenced Protestantism in history must take into account:
3.
THE PIETIST MOVEMENT
This was a seventeenth
Century movement among German Lutheranism, which arose as a reaction against
the prevalence of dogmatic theology in conjunction with spiritual deadness.
Pietism was the reaction
of the spirit against the letter. It laid stress on the subjective rather
than the objective aspect of faith. However, not all the Pietists are to be
condemned. Many were well-meaning devout men. Philip Spener (1635-1705), for
example, was clearly a godly man who had the best of intentions. However,
as so often happens with reactive movements which are knee-jerking against
some other extreme (or often what they imagine to be some other extreme),
those who take up the baton from the founders pervert even the good morsels
into a wholly extremist venture.
For example, Gottfried
Arnold (1666-1714) started out as a Pietist, a disciple of Spener, but ended
up as a fanatical mystic. And this often happened. Johann Arndt (1555-1621)
is generally regarded as the Father of European Pietism. His work, Four
Books on True Christianity took up many of the themes of the medieval
mystics, and was very influential on German Pietism. Yet it is significant
that the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church says of Arndt:
'In contrast to the
prevalent forensic view of the Atonement, he dwelt on the work of Christ in
the heart of man.'
&nbs