Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Contemplative
Is it possible to be a “Do It Yourself” Christian Mystic? Evelyn Underhill would say “No” — and I agree with her

Is it possible to be a “Do It Yourself” Christian Mystic? Evelyn Underhill would say “No” — and I agree with her

Last updated on: December 15, 2018 at 4:27 pm by Carl "Skye" McColman

Is it possible to be a “Do It Yourself” Christian Mystic? Evelyn Underhill would say “No” — and I agree with her 2018-12-15T16:27:10-04:00 Carl "Skye" McColman

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Nearly all Christian mystics maintain that an essential characteristic of Christian mysticism is participation in the Body of Christ, which is to say, in the Christian community of faith. In other words, to be a Christian mystic, it is as important to be a follower of Christ as it is to be a mystic. And to be a follower of Christ means to express spirituality in a communal way.

The above statements annoy a lot of people. Sorry about that, but that’s how it rolls.

Community. If it's good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us (Image credit: Shutterstock).

Community. If it’s good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us (Image credit: Shutterstock).

Recently a reader of this blog forwarded me an email from a friend of his who criticizes some of Evelyn Underhill’s ideas in her book Mysticism: A Study in the Nature and Development of Spiritual Consciousness. These two people, whom I’ll call “the reader” and “the friend,” were looking at a passage in Mysticism where Underhill describes two core mystical principles. I’ll post the complete email at the end of this post, but for now, here’s just the highlights.

Here are Underhill’s two principles, from Mysticism, pages ix-x (Kindle location 63) :

While mysticism is an essential element in full human religion, it can never be the whole content of such religion. It requires to be embodied in some degree in history, dogma and institutions if it is to reach the sense-conditioned human mind.
The antithesis between the religions of “authority” and of “spirit,” the “Church” and the “mystic,” is false. Each requires the other.

Underhill goes on to say:

The “exclusive” mystic, who condemns all outward forms and rejects the support of the religious complex, is an abnormality. He inevitably tends towards pantheism, and seldom exhibits in its richness the Unitive Life. It is the “inclusive” mystic, whose freedom and originality are fed but not hampered by the spiritual tradition within which he appears, who accepts the incarnational status of the human spirit, and can “find the inward in the outward as well as the inward in the inward,” who shows us in their fullness and beauty the life-giving possibilities of the soul transfigured in God.

What Evelyn Underhill is doing here is very simple: she is drawing a distinction between mysticism in a generic sense, and mysticism as specifically manifested within Christianity. And Christian mysticism, at least, is a spirituality where mystics are “fed, but not hampered” by the community and tradition from which they emerge.

Put more simply: Christian mystics are formed by the Christian tradition and the Christian Church; therefore, to be a Christian mystic requires being positively and creatively engaged with Christian community.

As I have said, this annoys some people. Why? Because we live in an individualistic culture, which affects the way we think about spirituality.

My reader’s friend appears to be one of the annoyed. He accuses Underhill of “historical fettering” (that’s vague but I assume he means enslaved to the past), overly “rooted in history, dogma and institution,” and simply “very wrong.”

In a way, we Christians have only ourselves to blame for this kind of anti-communal thinking. After all, some Christians can be aggressive in trying to evangelize (convert) others. Such aggressive proselytizing always seems to come from a place that says “we have the truth, and you outsiders are simply wrong.” No wonder people outside the Church have begun to mirror this perspective back, and just dismiss the Church (and its advocates) as simply “very wrong”!

Because so much Christian rhetoric has, historically speaking, been so hostile to those outside the church, it has now become almost a “secular dogma” for non-churchgoers to see religious community as inherently flawed, limited, constraining, “fettering,” and — most damning of all — anti-mystical.

I am a blessed man. I have had the privilege to be mentored by so many creative, visionary, joyful, nondualist, interspiritual (or interspiritual-friendly) Christian contemplatives, that I know in my bones how engagement in faith community — even a community as toxic and dysfunctional as many churches are — actually enhances, rather than constrains, the authentic Christian mystic.

Back to my reader, his friend, and the quote from Evelyn Underhill. Needless to say, I agree with Underhill, although I might use more gentle language to make my point. I think accusing her of “historical fettering” or being overly “rooted in dogma” sheds no light on the strength (or weakness) of Underhill’s ideas; it is simply a reflection of the individualism that is pervasive in our society.

Now, the friend goes on to refer to a former Catholic priest who, a half a century ago, wrote a book called A Question of Conscience in which he describes his crisis of faith which led to leaving the church. In the words of my reader’s friend, this book “shows how a faith became a system. He also describes powerfully the effects of that system on the hope and joy of the Christian. It can be inimical to spiritual growth and often is.”

Now, I haven’t read A Question of Conscience so I can’t really comment on it, but I know well enough how many people do get hurt by religions (not just Catholicism). But the problem here is not that all religious groups thwart mystical spirituality, but that religious groups which have lost their mystical heart do precisely that.

When Catholicism or other forms of Christianity are hostile to mysticism, the solution is not to reject community, but to reform it. The solution to anti-mystical religion is not rejecting religion, but embracing truly mystical religion — religion grounded in contemplative practice, in silence, and in a joyful engagement with the God who is radical love.

But let me make a few final comments as to why I think Christian mysticism is, at its heart, communal mysticism.

I think it’s important to remember that Christian mysticism is a unique expression of mysticism, as authentic and as deep as any other “flavor” of mystical spirituality, but also marked by its uniquely Christian character. Engagement with community is integral to Christian mysticism. Other forms of mysticism, maybe not so much.
Obviously, I am a student and a writer concerned with Christian mysticism, so my work will explore mysticism with a Christian “view” in mind. But it’s disingenuous to dismiss the Christian view as limited or wrong just because it is anchored in tradition and community. That’s like saying a zebra is an inferior mammal because it’s not a horse.
Furthermore, other forms of mysticism — whether Buddhist, Vedantist, Advaitic, Sufi, or SBNR — all have their own unique view. Is that historical fettering? Not hardly. It is, to echo Underhill, how these mysticisms are “embodied” so that they may speak to the “sense-conditioned mind.”
If someone does not like the character of Christianity (and Christian mysticism is simply a contemplative expression of Christianity in toto), then do not be a Christian. But please do not criticize those of us who are Christians. Even my reader’s friend admitted that he recognized “the good hearts, kindness, spiritual wonderfulness of so many Catholics.” But apparently he couldn’t connect the dots and see that the institution he clearly disliked has been instrumental in fostering those good and kind and wonderful hearts.

In this blog post’s headline I ask the question “Is it possible to be a ‘Do-it-Yourself’ Christian mystic?” The key word here is Christian. If it’s really important to you to explore the interior worlds of silence and contemplation without being “fettered” by “history, dogma and institution,” go for it. I personally don’t think you’re going to go very deep, but that’s my opinion, and you’re free to disagree. Just don’t call yourself a Christian mystic — or, for that matter, a Buddhist mystic or a Vedantist mystic or a Sufi mystic. Because all of those kinds of mystics ground their spirituality in history, community, and established teaching, just like the Christians mystics do.

Here’s the text of the email my reader send me. I’ve redacted some personal information to preserve both his and his friend’s privacy. The italicized text is the words of his friend, and bold-type is quotes from Underhill. My commentary is interspersed.

(Beginning of the email has been redacted)

Freedom and spirituality are not dependent on being part of a tradition or organisation. One can be free in a church and outside. One can be in slavery inside a church and outside. Freedom and spirituality are a matter of consciousness. I think Evelyn is very wrong – in everyday reality we see God shining and sometimes brilliantly in those without formal membership of a religion.

Yes, sometimes God shines brilliantly in the outsider. And sometimes musicians are brilliant without any formal training. But it’s naive to look at the occasional prodigy and decide that music school is a waste of time. Likewise, Christian spirituality, expressed communally, is a “school” for service and love (as described by Saint Benedict and the early Cistercians). At its best, it’s also a school for theosis (union with God), the heart of mystical Christianity. Don’t look at the rare genius and decide that schooling is universally unnecessary — that is a prescription for the triumph of mediocrity.

Evelyn is a very good example I believe of what we might call historical fettering. Evelyn wanted to become a Roman Catholic but couldn’t accept the treatment of the Modernists under Pius X. She became a devout Anglo Catholic and a pretty orthodox one I think. I remember reading her on Quietism for my Masters and while she was no doubt a good and erudite lady she misunderstood Quietism – probably because she saw things through orthodox glasses. This is a common phenomena. The Cure of Ars was a wonderful man of God but practiced flagellation, ate the worst food and believed that most people went to Hellfire eternally. Historical conditioning is very strong – we are all affected by it. I think Evelyn’s statements are a reflection of her High Church Anglicanism which are of course firmly rooted in history, dogma and institution.

I don’t know that anyone regards the Curé d’Ars as a mystic, and the fact that he abused asceticism is not particularly relevant to this argument (St. Benedict and Henry Suso are just two of many mystics who argue against excessive asceticism, seeing it as a violation of humility). Once again, it’s unfair to judge the church on the basis of those who are abusive. That’s like saying America is a terrible nation because you disagree with one of the political parties.

I think some errors in Evelyn’s thought are the following:
First, that while mysticism is an essential element in full human religion, it can never be the whole content of such religion.
But if Mysticism is Union with God and knowing our true identity what else could be the content?

Christian mysticism is actually much much more than “knowing our true identity” — that sounds like gnosticism, not mysticism. Christian mysticism is Union with Love, which is expressed not only toward God, but toward other humans as well. So it is radically grounded in service, in community, in compassion, and in care for others, especially those in need.

The “exclusive” mystic, who condemns all outward forms and rejects the support of the religious complex, is an abnormality. He inevitably tends towards pantheism, and seldom exhibits in its richness the Unitive Life.
What is the evidence for this ? What about the great Hindu and Buddhist mystics who did this? Is their Mysticism voided then?

I think it’s fair to say that Underhill made a mistake here in not specifying that she is speaking about a specifically western (that is, Christian) expression of mysticism. But within that Christian context, her words are perfectly fair.

It is the “inclusive” mystic, whose freedom and originality are fed but not hampered by the spiritual tradition within which he appears, who accepts the incarnational status of the human spirit, and can “find the inward in the outward as well as the inward in the inward,” who shows us in their fullness and beauty the life-giving possibilities of the soul transfigured in God.
Yet the Mystics who move beyond form find God in the outer as well as the inner.

At this point I think we’re quibbling over semantics. Underhill is making a fairly strong statement for nondual consciousness. But apparently it wasn’t strong enough for my reader’s friend.

I also think Evelyn misses the point that often the official religion is the one that opposed the Spirit – Yes – Authority versus Spirit. It was the Jewish Religious leaders who rejected Jesus with their authority and tradition. It was the priests and bishops of our own faith who persecuted the Catholic mystics. Although not a mystical work, Charles Davis’s A Question of Conscience is the best book I know which shows how a faith became a system. He also describes powerfully the effects of that system on the hope and joy of the Christian. It can be inimical to spiritual growth and often is. To tie faith and spirituality to this mediated form is – in my view – very wrong. Not when we can fly with wings freely like the Eagle into the Heart of God.

But an eagle who does not know how to fly may as well be earth-bound; likewise, an aspiring mystic who lacks the guidance and formation of wise elders and the riches of the tradition will, at best, waste time reinventing the wheel, and is at risk for deluding him- or herself into thinking a dip into the shallow waters of self-directed spirituality is actually a meaningful transfiguration. Once again, I have no argument that institutional forms of Christianity (not just Catholicism) have at times been distressingly anti-mystical. But to throw out the communal baby with the institutional bathwater leads not to a flowering of “unfettered” mysticism, but to the banalities that we see characterizing our current secularized society.

PS – this is not to deny the good hearts, kindness, spiritual wonderfulness of so many Catholics.

The friend ends with a word of grace. I just wish he would think this through and recognize that the “spiritual wonderfulness” that he recognizes in so many Catholics comes about because of how their engagement with Christian spiritual tradition and community has formed them.

Enjoy reading this blog?
Click here to become a patron.

Christian mysticism

Evelyn Underhill

Mysticism

spiritual individualism

spirituality

Previous Post

April 7, 2017

Compass Points for the Spiritual Life (Video)

Next Post

April 12, 2017 Seven Things I've Learned from the Vinyl Revival

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Activism Announcements Art Books Catholicism Celtic Christianity Christian mysticism Christianity Contemplation Current events Etc. Family humor interfaith dialogue Interfaith Wisdom Interspirituality Lay Cistercians Living the Faith Meditation movies Mysticism Mystics nature Poetry Reviews Scripture silence Spirituality Uncategorized Writing

Select a Month February 2025 January 2025 November 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 March 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 August 2023 June 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 October 2013 September 2013 July 2013 May 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 March 2012 December 2011 September 2011 October 2010 August 2010 March 2010 September 2009 July 2008 January 2008 December 2007 September 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the Roman emperor when Jesus was born?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Tiberius Augustus Nero Julius Caesar

Support this
Column