Super Blog.
This is all work received to date.
Sunday 13 January Posted at 14.48
Thank-you.
Ernest Corbin
Topics in Mysticism
Class II
After reflecting upon the Song of Songs and the Gospel of John one can clearly see why these books became significant for Christian mystics. They are different kinds of literature, written in different languages and at different eras, but provide to the mystic different ways of seeking the divine. It struck me how the Song of Songs seemed to be a template for the “Way of Love” type of mysticism and the Gospel of John for the “Intellectual” approach. These two works contained in the same body of literature, i.e. the Bible, would seem to offer Christians a well-rounded approach to mysticism or at least provide them with several canonically approved options for it.
The Song of Songs as allegorically understood as the relationship between the soul and God is the great mystical love story of humanity and its Creator. The use of romantic and sexual imagery is a profound metaphor for the union between the soul and God. The Song of Songs in describing the deep longing between two lovers humanizes the longing that God has for us and we have for God. It is almost surprising that Christian mystical writers would be open to such an interpretation. Perhaps their openness goes beyond simply dealing with a troubling text, but shows the kind of longing they had for their God.
The Gospel of John seems to be a jumping off point for the “Intellectual” approach. While a complex cosmology or ontology is not explicitly described or deeply expounded upon, it seems to be assumed even with the first words of the Gospel, logos having a much deeper meaning than simply verbum or Word and containing its own philosophical connotations beyond the Christian Scriptures. But beyond even the reflection that the idea of logos would provide, John’s Gospel speaks of veiled realities, of rebirth, of earthly and heavenly things, and uses symbolic language. All of these would seem to provide a deep well from which mystical writers could draw upon.
Eugene Ver
The
Gospel of John reads differently from the synoptic gospels. Written later than
the others, it is the one narrative which emphasizes the divinity of Jesus,
reflective of the beliefs of the community of Christians at the end of the first
century. The beginning of the gospel contains mysterious, powerful references to
light and eternal life. Jesus is described as God coming into the world as human
flesh. There is a richness of symbolism thorughout the book, with the series of
miracles, or signs, presented as evidence of Jesus' divinity.
The colorful use of metaphor, such as the "lamb of God," "the bread of life,"
and the "light of the world," to name a few, draws the reader to contemplate
Jesus as the human Son of Man who transcends the earthly realm into the eternal
kingdom of God. These writings invite the reader to experience God beyond the
mere intellect, but to experience the transcendence of God through the depth of
Jesus' coming into the world. This testimony celebrates the mysteries of God and
the spiritual dimensions of the cosmos, inspiring contemplation of that which
lies beyond what can be experienced simply through the powers of observation
here on earth.
The Song
of Songs is a sensuously written poem artfully expressing love in terms of
physical attraction and desire. The text is rich in metaphorical references to
the beloved in terms of rare, fragrant spices, ripened fruits of the garden,
flowing streams of delight, and drunkeness on the physical pleasures of the
flesh. The poem's imagery appeals intensely to the senses of touch, smell,
taste, and sight. Terms of endearment and passion are interspersed with words
expressing an intense desire for physical union of the two lovers. The colorful
use of sensual descrptions and the mounting sexual tension throughout, create
an intensity of desire and passion like no other book of the Bible.
Jewish scholars have interpreted this book as illustrative of God's love for
Israel, while traditional Christian scholars have assigned this love as that
between God and the church. It is undoubtedly, a passionate appeal to the
senses, reveling in the ecstatic expression of love as a God given gift to be
celebrated and enjoyed. Love is exalted for its unabashed appeal to the senses.
Through the intensity of sexual union, one experiences the ecstasy of being in
mystical communion with God.
Eugene Ver
01/03/08
Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School
Reading Reflection: In Preparation for Class Two
Submitted for
CH 1604: Topics in Mysticism
Robert Dean
Rochester, NY
January 4, 2007
In considering the Song of Songs and the Gospel of John as mystical texts, I find myself amazed. The main reason for my amazement is the difference in the nature of the texts. The two texts seemingly come from opposing worldviews, and yet both have been considered mystical texts.
The Gospel of John begins in a very Greek way. Jesus first appears as the disembodied word who was God.[1] Jesus has not taken physical form, and if viewed from a Gnostic viewpoint, could be seen as remaining free from the corruption of corporeal nature. As the Gospel progresses, Jesus enters creation and became flesh.[2] To a certain extent, John could even be seen as distancing God from Jesus in the process. John 1.18 states that nobody has seen God, even though Jesus was God prior to incarnation, but they have seen Jesus who is close to God’s heart. There is a subtle derogatory tone towards the flesh in the opening verses of the gospel, and throughout Jesus’ dealings with humanity.
The Song of Songs has an entirely different tone. The entire book drips with sensuality. The words are strung together expertly, taking actions that the Gnostic Greeks might consider corrupt and lowly, and connecting them together like string on a harp. Although there are mentions of violence and indications of struggle in the text,[3] the book generally dwells lovingly on the beauty of God’s created order and especially on the most primal nature of humanity. The author of the Song of Songs cherishes the physical nature of things and dwells on it with adoration and grace.
I find myself amazed that these clearly opposing texts were both read as mystical texts by the same people at the same time. While one could certainly sanitize the Song of Songs by reading a different meaning that what is in plain sight, surely there is some pull towards the sensual when you read such stirring poetry. While one could certainly gloss over the subtle downplaying of corporeal nature, one would surely realize that there is something greater becoming somewhat lesser by taking a human form. Both of these texts are mystical, and they create tension with one another. Their tension brings out the beauty in both of their contrasting visions.
.You may want to use fewer hard breaks. You have stepped into a fascinating hermeneutical circle: that Scripture passages, perhaps because they are scripture, have both an evocative and a literal meaning. In that respect, the Bible or the Quaran or Talmud serves as much as a mirror of the soul, individual or corporate, as they do of the times in which they are written. In terms of non-literary art, we are very familiar with the distance between the reading of an icon by a art historian or by Rowan Williams and the reading of that same icon by a people bowing in prayer before it. Part of the art of interpreting religion is to find ways to hold both of these together in one’s interpretation of a religious phenomenon.
Hildegard von Bingen
Assignment 2—Topics in Mysticism
Will Colston—Jan 6. 2008
Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179) was a German abbess of exceptional talent. She was a female visionary, religious leader, theologian, historian, philosopher, author, composer, songwriter, playwright, physician and herbalist, naturalist and much more—and was very good at all of these things in a period when men ruled. She appears to me to be a very creative person and a good manager (establishing and running convents, etc.) at the same times, a very difficult thing to do. (I wonder how many other mystics we study will possess both these skills.) One might say that she was a Renaissance lady in the middle Ages.
She had two spiritual advisors—the “anchoress” (what an interesting concept!) Jutta and her tutor, the monk Volmar, who later became her scribe. In turn, she became an advisor to leaders of the world of her time, including popes.
In our course we will concentrate on her visions. In them she first describes the vision, then gives an interpretation. She says that they occurred while she was awake and therefore were not dreams. But she did not see and hear them with the eyes and ears of her body, nor was she delirious when they occurred. Instead, she says, she perceived them with the “eyes and ears of the inner self.” I assume she means mental
pictures, which is understandable, but what about the voices? I know that we speak of “voices in the head,” but I think normally not of such volume of words and detail as in Hildegard. And I wonder how Hildegard is able to remember such vivid detail and be able to dictate it to Volmar years later. I guess what I am saying is, I wonder how much of what Hildegard attributes to God inside quotation marks comes from Hildegard.
Hildegard’s descriptions and interpretations are exceptionally clear, well organized and well written. Both Hildegard and the translator probably deserve credit for this.
I found two things in the readings and some research I did on Hildegard that are of special interest to me:
First, I found a passage in Scivias where Hildegard writes about how God decides when it is time for us to die and under what conditions our life might be extended especially appropriate for me now, as I recently underwent two near-death experiences.
Second, I began to have visions/apparitions (and still do) somehow related to these experiences or medications I was and am taking. Some of what Hildegard has to say about visions appears to be applicable to my situation, as do some of the things said about Hildegard’s visions by others (relating them to migraines, etc.). Also, as Hildegard was an herbalist, I want to research whether Hildegard might have been using herbs that caused her visions. I do not know which herbs might have been involved.
Theresa of Avila Submitted by Margo Markesteijn
I’m not quite sure why her writing brings tears to my eyes. There is something so incredibly sincere and loving about her words and the way they come alive in the writing. I added her book The Interior Castle to my library and started reading it from the beginning. My boyfriend actually picked it up and has a bookmark in it as well.There is something very unique about her. She is so comparatively different from Hildegard. Perhaps there is something to be said about her Spanish nature as well as the beginning of her religious life which she entered willingly and when she was more mature.
Over the past few years I have met with only one Carmelite nun. They still dress in full habit and live a life of seclusion, even after Vatican II. The sense of being brides of Christ is very present in their physical being. There is almost an un-earthliness to their posture and demeanor.
The sixth and seventh dwelling places of the interior castle are those that I agree one must contemplate with courage. Theresa says that, in several ways. The descent into the depth of psyche and soul brings forth the power of the devil, and she warns us about this. I am constantly reminded in my own journey as well as those pursuing a spiritual life with whom I work, that the devil works harder at penetrating the psyche of everyday life when we are seeking to be closer to God. The patience this requires is phenomenal. The energy it takes to distinguish the sincere “locutions” from those that are devil-induced, and/or ego induced! To delve into the no-thing of being takes a great deal of trust…and faith, and the ceaseless need for humility.
The intent behind what we do, the sincerity is, as Saint Theresa points out, what God will see in the end. She warns us to not build castles in the air. Her writing on the comparison of the spiritual union and spiritual marriage reminds me of the Jungian notion of the Hermeaphrodite concept. Makes me reflect on the similarities in Dante’s Inferno as well. It helps when we have a soul guide! I like your use of that word as opposed to spiritual director. Thank you!
Jessica Moore
jreginamoore@hotmail.com
On the Song of Songs and the Gospel of John
I enjoyed the Song of Songs very much, I hadn't read it before and (though, I had been told about it and expected it ) was surprised at the lush imagery. Since romantic love is among the strongest passions a human can experience, I found the emotion easy to understand. The series of poems puts me in mind of Gn 1:27 "And God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them". Perhaps, its through the union of the male and female that we get closest to God. Is the product of such a union (a child) akin to creation? Is the creation from God (ex nihilo) mirrored in child birth (not that a child is created out of nothing, but it does usher forth from the mother, she does not 'sculpt' it out of rock, for instance) ?
When I was first reading the poems I assumed that the female imagery referred to Israel (or to the human element of the relationship). However, the passages of the poems which compare the women to the perfection found in natural, earthy elements seem more like descriptions of the divine: "Your limbs are an orchard of pomegranates" (4:13) "Your breasts are like two fawns, Twins of a gazelle, Browsing among the lilies"(4:5) This is unusual imagery and makes me think of 'you' as God and the 'fawns' as humans browsing in creation. If the female imagery does not refer to God (in this case): Is it possible that such perfection can be so easily found in the human?
Some of the imagery I found especially interesting was the description of the lover as being 'dove' eyed and the recurring image of cedar. "Your eyes are like doves" (4:1) the use of dove strikes me as unusual; the Greeks use the term 'cow eyed' as a description of beauty and, if I'm remembering correctly, that the Indian culture also use 'cow eyed'. How modern is the identification of a dove with peace? Is it possible that this association is imbedded in the dove-eye description?(Wishful thinking on my part). "If she be a door, We will panel it with cedar"(8:9) As the daughter of an expert knitter I've been taught to be I'm a fan of cedar; not only for its strength, but also, for its ability to protect (itself and objects it surrounds or is exposed to) from infestations--a protector of purity?.
I respond to the narrative voice in the Gospel of John--it somehow seems familiar. Its nature is almost purely metaphorical (or at least this is how I perceive it), and I'm comfortable in this realm (esp. when it comes to events like miracles etc) . Perhaps, its my typical 'scientific' post 'enlightenment' education that keeps me entrenched in linear thought. As a linear thinker, I have a difficult time with the Holy Spirit impregnating the virgin Mary--however, "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God..."(1:1) gives me insight into something I wouldn't have otherwise: The role and the relationship. (Although, quite frankly, this points to something too big and all encompassing for me, not to feel a little panic.) "Father, glorify me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made." (17:5); "for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee"(17:8) I know I am not alone in responding to the Christ as the word of God. In thinking about the word of God: In a sense being part of creation are we surrounded with the word of God and a part of the word of God ("God said let there be..."Gn1) what fickle creatures we are to need the word incarnate to explain to us of what we should have an intimate knowledge. Not only were we tutored by the 'word' we are counseled by the Holy Spirit "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."(14:18)--we clearly need a lot help to know God. Why are we this way? Why do we hesitate?
Jessica Moore
jreginamoore@hotmail.com
On Zohar
I found this reading fascinating. I have really enjoyed the classes I've taken on the Hebrew Scriptures--they are ancient and I enjoy the window into another time.
I had to look-up a few words (on MyJewishLearning.com) including, Shekhinah (the primary female representation of YHVH; the settling presence of YHVH) and Zaddiq (from what I could gather, a righteous person--one who understands all actions emanate from God?). If I am not mistaken, synagogue means congregation or a gathering of people to study Torah. God is present within the congregation "calls them to bring them close to Him...join together and enter the synagogue"(p128). I believe that in this congregation God is an active member-- the early arrival enters into union, the community can be formed by one human and God "Whoever arrives earliest joins himself to Shekhinah in a single bond!"(p129). I find this active relationship attractive; it speaks to God's constancy which is such a frequent theme within the Hebrew Scriptures. Community seems central to these pieces, illusions to joining with Shekhinah and engaging in Torah seem to abound. Community through Shekhinah creates the heart of (the more modern) synagogue.
I really like the female essence of YHVH; this seems to be a development of the female aspects of YHVH's love for Israel (for example: womb love) into a character figure which is less immutable. Although, the God of the Hebrew Scriptures is not as incomprehensible (unknowable) as the Hellenistic view of God. Had the Greek culture effected the Jewish understanding of God? Was the development of different aspects of YHVH intended to be a move away from Hellenistic influence on the Judaic view of God-- a way to get back to knowing YHVH in the manner of their ancestors?
I'm curious about the different aspects of God, in this reading we find Shekhinah, YHVH and Elohim; mother-queen, compassionate one and one of judgment-respectively (I'm assuming that the White Head, impatient one and patient one, are also aspects of YHVH). I read on MyJewishLearning.com that there are ten aspects of God; are the aspects in relationship with each other in the manner of the Trinity of Christianity? I got the sense from this reading that this is the case, at least in part, "Mother comes and grabs hold of His right arm"(p137). Its interesting that Moses was privileged enough to step in for her in the story of the Golden Calf--is this an example of a Mother stepping away from her child, forcing him to stand on his own? A right of passage for Moses and human kind through him? As the aspects of God seem familiar, David and the five heroes seem almost like saints or minor deities, especially "King David says, 'No weapon formed against you will succeed!' For he has been appointed over all weapons of the world."(151) And, of course, the child in our final reading seems Christ like.
I didn't understand the description of the Will of the White Head (165-166); I assumed that its describing creation. With all the spark imagery we've been discussing , I like the thought that the "breathed upon spark" could be the essence of creation, and thinking about this analogy with the analogy of spark within us--warms me inside. The spark within is the spark of creation. (Spark equals logos?) I'm interested in learning about the 270 worlds and the Skull imagery.
CH1604 -- E-mail Seminar #7
Andrew C. Files
Due: Monday, January 14, 2008
NOTE: I have no interest in seeing anyone else’s responses/analyses.
Jacob Boehme
There were two parts to today’s reading. The first part was “The Seventh Treatise: The Precious Gate on Divine Contemplation”. The second part was “The Eighth Treatise: Conversation Between an Enlightened and Unenlightened Soul”. Of the two, I found the second (The Eighth Treatise) a much more comfortable read. It just resonated more with me, whereas the first (The Seventh Treatise) seemed very cumbersome and almost alchemical in places.
The Eighth Treatise seemed almost common sensical to me. It just seemed to make a lot of sense. I especially liked the description of the “poor soul in Paradise” and his/her exchange with the devil. That does seem to be how the devil tends to draw us (or at least me) away from God.
The Seventh Treatise, as I said, was a bit more cumbersome of a read. It didn’t flow for me, and there appeared to be a lot of italicized words which I interpreted to mean their definition could be found in the glossary or end notes – however, I had neither the glossary nor the end notes. Since I the previous reading was Marguerite Porete, I found the style (somewhat dialogical) to be similar to Marguerite’s style and so that facilitated the reading. As for content, there were a few places that I could find resonance (or at least interest). For example, “[Abandoned reason] seeks rest in something that does not have it in itself. It desires the death of its “I” and yet does not desire to be a nothing, but desires only to die to torment so that it might rest in itself.” (Chapter One, Paragraph 4) Oh, how I have felt like that! And oh, how unpleasant a feeling/desire that is!
Another example is, “Life then went forth from God’s speaking, and came into the body, and is nothing other than the formed will of God. If now one’s own self-image and willing are still, divine forming and willing will rise up. For whatever is without will is one thus with the nothing and is beyond all nature, which abyss is God Himself.” (Chapter Two, Paragraph 20) This sounds very much like some of Marguerite Porete, which I referred to in my previous Reflections/Seminar and which, as I mentioned in that previous Reflection, reminds me of the monks of Mount Athos who are striving for Theosis or Christification or union with God. It is getting out individual “I”s out of the way so that God’s “I” can lead the show.
In all, the reading as a whole was a bit laborious, although I found the Seventh Treatise much more so in that respect than I did the Eighth Treatise, which I actually enjoyed quite a lot. The difference in enjoyment between the two treatises had mostly to do with content, but style might have also played into it. Although I haven’t read St. Plato, I get the impression that the Seventh Treatise was very Platonic in style, whereas the Eighth Treatise was a bit like “the Mirror of Souls” by Marguerite Porete, which I enjoyed immensely.
Andrew C. Files January 7, 2008
Bibliography for Mount Athos Presentation
• Angold, Michael, Ed., 2006. The Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 5, Eastern Christianity; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
• Markides, Kyriacos, 2001. The Mountain of Silence: A Search for Orthodox Spirituality; Doubleday, New York, NY.
• Markides, Kyriacos, 1995. Riding with the Lion: In Search of Mystical Christianity; Penguin Books, New York, NY.
• Sherrard, Philip, 1982. Athos: The Holy Mountain; Alexandria Press Ltd, London, England.
• Sophrony, Archimandrite, 1973. The Monk of Mount Athos: Staretz Silouan 1866-1938; Mobrays, London, England.
Personal Reflection: Hildegard of Bingen 1/7/2008
Kenneth l. Dawson
In addition to physical suffering, Hildegard experienced doubt, which delayed her adherence to God’s command. Once she responded to God’s will, her health was restored. She experienced several visions, many with detailed discretions of objects as well as fire. The cataphatic visions of shapes, shadows and of a mountain the color of iron, with God enthroned atop it represents the strength and stability within God’s eternal Kingdom, the mountain. The many windows in the mountain represent God’s wisdom and ability to see the world and the deeds of humanity from on high. The human heads that appear in the window are those who are part of the kingdom. The glory of God is so bright that one cannot look upon God; one must encounter God spiritually.
In the first vision, God instructed Hildegard to speak instruction of salvation until those who have the secrets of the scripture planted within them, harvest the Holy word and preach it to others, as is God’s will. She is reminded that her mystical knowledge and heavenly enlightenment, comes not from humanity, but the Divine, therefore humanity has no bases to judge her credibility to speak by direction from God. The reward to those who fear and serve God in love and humility is a shining calmness that God wills to those who pursue the justice of the Eternal Vision.
The Fear of the Lord, as revealed to Hildegard, is a female image without form, standing before God. This image is a force that stabilizes humanity by means of contemplation on God, which calls God’s justice to remembrance. God’s glory flows from her head. Another image appears as both human heads and children covered in quiet colors and white shoes, they represent the poor in spirit, who follow the Lord and are divinely and supremely favored for their submission to God. Yet, most embody both fiery and slacking commitment to God. This slack is the source of poverty. God admonishes humanity to be lead by the Holy Spirit on the “wings of faith.” Hildegard interprets those who fear God and are humble in spirit as “the guardians of virtue.” They receive the divine power of God’s glory, which come forth as virtue. The receipt of these gifts, release God’s will to protect them.
In the third vision, she interprets the universe. God reveals the universe as his egg-shaped instrument through which humanity will know God’s magnificence and Glorify Him. There are three areas of the universe, within, around and under. The fire within, is God purifying those of the Catholic Faith. A flaming globe, the “sun of justice,” reveals God’s charity to humanity. Three torches, which symbolize the trinity, uphold it. The fire surrounding the universe is the vengeance of God consuming those outside the faith. Opposition to God’s will is sent to the zone of shadowy darkness below.
The devil’s evil rages against God directed at humanity appear to Hildegard in the vision as burst of dark fire that propels forth with such horror, like vomit. This is a most vivid interpretation of humanity following the self instead of following God. Under the influence of the self, the devil seizes his opportunity to invade human life and influence murder, rape and other calamities through the subtlety of greed. The Son of God must intervene.
God revealed the ascent and decent of the sun to Hildegard. The ascent is the incarnation of the undefiled-Son of God in redemption of humanity, in accordance to the will of God powered by the Holy Spirit; God received this purest of sacrifices. The decent symbolizes the undefiled-Son, in his mercy descending, reaching down with mercy to take upon himself, the afflictions of humanity. After reveling himself to the world, he returns to the Father, into the cloud of unknowing (Acts 1:19).
Serene Faith, innocent brightness and great honor are the characteristics of the Church. It stands in defiance of the devil in world. It appeared to Hildegard, in a clear place in space, as a magnificent globe of white fire supported by two torches, the Old and New Testaments. Hildegard interprets the white globe as the Church, a corporal unified body, which renews its strength by continually returning to Christ. The Church must be of pure faith in its discipleship in order for the miracles of Christ to pass through the Church to humanity. Christ shows his love for his bride, the Church by blessing the righteous efforts of the Church, and forgiving the Church its trespasses. From such unified faith come true confessions of God, which spread across the earth.
It is only through a Church established in faith that God manifest salvation, the fruits of the baptism. Two types of messengers, “apostle of truth,” in the announcement of the baptism were revealed to Hildegard: those with the gift of charismatic preaching, who rapidly draw large numbers of people to the word, those who reach smaller numbers on a perhaps more personal level. Great numbers of baptized believers will deliver sermons testifying to the truth that God has revealed. God is calling humanity to loyalty, faithfulness and an open declaration to the universal Church. Although God has placed humanity above all other creation, there exist an eternal connected to other creation. Humanity remains loyal and faithful to God by witnessing in acknowledgement to the wonders of the plants, birds and other creation from God’s hand.
Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School
Reading Reflection: In Preparation for Class Two
Submitted for
CH 1604: Topics in Mysticism
Robert Dean
Rochester, NY
January 4, 2007
In considering the Song of Songs and the Gospel of John as mystical texts, I find myself amazed. The main reason for my amazement is the difference in the nature of the texts. The two texts seemingly come from opposing worldviews, and yet both have been considered mystical texts.
The Gospel of John begins in a very Greek way. Jesus first appears as the disembodied word who was God.[4] Jesus has not taken physical form, and if viewed from a Gnostic viewpoint, could be seen as remaining free from the corruption of corporeal nature. As the Gospel progresses, Jesus enters creation and became flesh.[5] To a certain extent, John could even be seen as distancing God from Jesus in the process. John 1.18 states that nobody has seen God, even though Jesus was God prior to incarnation, but they have seen Jesus who is close to God’s heart. There is a subtle derogatory tone towards the flesh in the opening verses of the gospel, and throughout Jesus’ dealings with humanity.
The Song of Songs has an entirely different tone. The entire book drips with sensuality. The words are strung together expertly, taking actions that the Gnostic Greeks might consider corrupt and lowly, and connecting them together like string on a harp. Although there are mentions of violence and indications of struggle in the text,[6] the book generally dwells lovingly on the beauty of God’s created order and especially on the most primal nature of humanity. The author of the Song of Songs cherishes the physical nature of things and dwells on it with adoration and grace.
I find myself amazed that these clearly opposing texts were both read as mystical texts by the same people at the same time. While one could certainly sanitize the Song of Songs by reading a different meaning that what is in plain sight, surely there is some pull towards the sensual when you read such stirring poetry. While one could certainly gloss over the subtle downplaying of corporeal nature, one would surely realize that there is something greater becoming somewhat lesser by taking a human form. Both of these texts are mystical, and they create tension with one another. Their tension brings out the beauty in both of their contrasting visions.
Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School
Reading Reflection: In Preparation for Class Two
Submitted for
CH 1604: Topics in Mysticism
Robert Dean
Rochester, NY
January 4, 2007
In considering the Song of Songs and the Gospel of John as mystical texts, I find myself amazed. The main reason for my amazement is the difference in the nature of the texts. The two texts seemingly come from opposing worldviews, and yet both have been considered mystical texts.
The Gospel of John begins in a very Greek way. Jesus first appears as the disembodied word who was God.[7] Jesus has not taken physical form, and if viewed from a Gnostic viewpoint, could be seen as remaining free from the corruption of corporeal nature. As the Gospel progresses, Jesus enters creation and became flesh.[8] To a certain extent, John could even be seen as distancing God from Jesus in the process. John 1.18 states that nobody has seen God, even though Jesus was God prior to incarnation, but they have seen Jesus who is close to God’s heart. There is a subtle derogatory tone towards the flesh in the opening verses of the gospel, and throughout Jesus’ dealings with humanity.
The Song of Songs has an entirely different tone. The entire book drips with sensuality. The words are strung together expertly, taking actions that the Gnostic Greeks might consider corrupt and lowly, and connecting them together like string on a harp. Although there are mentions of violence and indications of struggle in the text,[9] the book generally dwells lovingly on the beauty of God’s created order and especially on the most primal nature of humanity. The author of the Song of Songs cherishes the physical nature of things and dwells on it with adoration and grace.
I find myself amazed that these clearly opposing texts were both read as mystical texts by the same people at the same time. While one could certainly sanitize the Song of Songs by reading a different meaning that what is in plain sight, surely there is some pull towards the sensual when you read such stirring poetry. While one could certainly gloss over the subtle downplaying of corporeal nature, one would surely realize that there is something greater becoming somewhat lesser by taking a human form. Both of these texts are mystical, and they create tension with one another. Their tension brings out the beauty in both of their contrasting visions
.You may want to use fewer hard breaks. You have stepped into a fascinating hermeneutical circle: that Scripture passages, perhaps because they are scripture, have both an evocative and a literal meaning. In that respect, the Bible or the Quaran or Talmud serves as much as a mirror of the soul, individual or corporate, as they do of the times in which they are written. In terms of non-literary art, we are very familiar with the distance between the reading of an icon by a art historian or by Rowan Williams and the reading of that same icon by a people bowing in prayer before it. Part of the art of interpreting religion is to find ways to hold both of these together in one’s interpretation of a religious phenomenon.
Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School
Reading Reflection: In Preparation for Class Three
Submitted for
CH 1604: Topics in Mysticism
Robert Dean
Rochester, NY
January 7, 2007
In reading the selections from Scivias[10] by Hildegard of Bingen, I found myself challenged in two different ways. The first way I found myself challenged was in terms of the style of Hildegard’s presentation. Hildegard used repetition a great deal. The same idea might be expressed several times in the seemingly the same way, which caused me a great deal of difficulty in following the direction of the reasoning of the words. Hildegard also seemingly switches point-of-view a great deal during her visions, and that made it difficult to follow. These two stylistic areas made it difficult for me to follow, but I found reading the work aloud helped me to follow the direction of the reading.
The second area in which I was challenged was in my understanding of the Trinity. I have always relied heavily on the usage of a three-leaf clover to describe the Trinity. The Trinity cannot be present unless the three-leaves enter into the one being. It is an analogy that has served me well.
Hildegard proposes something different though. Hildegard proposes that the Trinity can be described like human words. The Trinity can be expressed in terms of sound, meaning, and breath. Sound is that which allows a word to be heard. Meaning is that which allows a word to express something. Breath is that which propels the word from the speaker’s mouth. Without meaning and breath, a sound would be neither understandable nor hearable. Without meaning and sound, a breath would not expel something of purpose. Without sound or breath, meaning could not be expressed. All three are necessary for an idea to be expressed.[11]
This has challenged me to reconsider my understanding of the Trinity. With the three-leaf analogy, a person could ask the purpose of the leaves. Why wouldn’t two leaves be capable of being a clover? With Hildegard’s reasoning, the Trinity is understood in terms of purpose-filled parts of the same expression. It has challenged me to think deeply about the nature of the Trinity and how human words bear purpose. What is the nature of the Trinity? What is its purpose? Why did God choose the expression of three persons in one person? It will require much thought.
CH1604 -- E-mail Seminar #1
Andrew C. Files
Due: January 5, 2008
NOTE: I have no interest in seeing anyone else’s responses/analyses.
The Gospel of John
The Gospel of John has been my favorite book of the bible for quite some time. What Jesus says, and how he says it, has just somehow (by the grace of God) resonated for me. But I have learned that interpretations and meanings gleaned from Scripture can change over time. For instance, since I took ST1601 (Living Trinitarian Faith), I now am able to appreciate much more Jesus’ place within the Trinity as revealed in this Gospel. The most obvious place is in the Prologue (John 1:1-18) but it also seems to come into play in other places, such as in John 17:24, when Jesus says to the Father, “…because you loved me before the foundation of the world.” And the Trinity itself, while being Church doctrine, has somewhat of a mystical aura about it.
But getting back to the mystical nature of the Gospel of John, there is just so much there; the Gospel seems to reek of language that is intentionally not blunt or blatant in its meaning. The language is mysterious in a way because of how it explains a message, but not necessarily one that everyone can understand or agree upon. But the “story” the Gospel tells, and especially the truths that Jesus explains, are wonderful in a sense that is very difficult to describe. I guess what is so unique is that not only can we consider this Gospel as mystical in nature, and pregnant with meaning, but it is also part of Holy Scripture and therefore inspired by God. So, the truths available to us here, especially those spoken to us by Jesus, can carry all the more authority for those of us who consider ourselves Christian than maybe the mystical writings of a Saint or a great philosopher. In a way, the teachings in this Gospel in large part have the flavor of a parable where the meaning is “hidden” to many, but that does not mean that the meaning (or truth) of what is said is any less important (but actually maybe more important) than what is plainly written (or spoken).
Song of Songs
I have only read the Song of Songs a few times, and this may be related to the fact that the text does not do much for me spiritually. It is lovely poetry, but from a spiritual perspective – even when I read how it is often times described as the relationship between God and Israel or Christ and the Church – it doesn’t do much for me. Having said that, I must counter with the fact that there is one passage that appears a number of times in the text that really hits home for me (“I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, do not stir up or awaken love until it is ready!”). This passage makes complete sense for me from a spiritual perspective of the relationship between and individual and God (or Christ), but alas this is about the only passage that does. For me, this passage is saying, “do not rush or force a relationship with God (or Christ) but let it unfold on its own accord.” Implied in this passage is that “rushing” a relationship between oneself and God (or Christ) can lead to problems.
As with the Gospel of John, the Song of Songs is Holy Scripture and as such its writing is inspired by God. As such, it has intrinsic value and thus must be treated with respect and any difficulty in understanding is to be attributed to the reader and not the text. Thus, I just hope that there may come a time when I am graced enough to understand this text from a spiritual perspective and not just as nice poetry.
CH1604 -- E-mail Seminar #2
Andrew C. Files
Due: January 7, 2008
NOTE: I have no interest in seeing anyone else’s responses/analyses.
Hildegard of Bingen
First of all, let me say that I enjoyed this reading for the most part. My concern is what to do with it? That is, how to treat it? Since it is not Holy Scripture, what do I make of the teachings and the visions? Do I follow their prescriptions steadfastly or just acknowledge that some things “make sense” or that other things “ring true most of the time”? I only hope (and pray) that the Holy Spirit will one day make the answers to this issue more obvious to me.
For the sake of this assignment and my readings of the passages assigned, let’s not treat them casually, but rather let’s treat them as divinely inspired (although not as Holy Scripture, since they aren’t). As such, I was very impressed with the amount of teaching that went on in these readings – especially about the Trinity and the Eucharistic sacrament. I also enjoyed the fact that the meanings of the “visions” were described and interpreted, as opposed to the Song of Songs where it is strictly up to the reader to make an interpretation. Along those lines, I was pleased to see references in Hildegard to the Song of Songs with interpretations included. It helped to tie together this reading assignment with the previous reading assignment.
Getting back to treating the readings as divinely inspired….as such, again, I am impressed by the degree of teaching that is involved. And since it tends to be teaching, I would tend to classify Hildegard as coming from the “intellectual” side as opposed to the “way of love” side with regards to the style of writing. And there were many passages that hit home with me, but one of them from Vision Three (paragraph 21) is very impressive, “O human, if a stone lay before you on which, if you looked carefully, you could read what was going to happen to you,… Now what would that stone have conferred on you? Would it have taken away or given you anything? It could not be either against you or for you.” What strikes me about that passage is that it is so true with many events in our lives. They neither convey good or bad, but rather it is how we interpret them and what we let our minds do with the events, that makes them, to us, either good or bad. They are quite often nothing by themselves.
Another set of passages I found interesting were the ones in Vision Six (paragraph 31 and others) which talk about there being water and wine in the Eucharist and not just wine. Is this admonition followed today, either in the Catholic Church or in the Protestant Church? The passages seem to imply some rather accurate theological reasons for doing so, but my impression is that this admonition is not followed anymore. This brings us back to the question of what to do with these Visions of Hildegard? How are we to implement them in our lives if they are not Holy Scripture (and so do not necessarily have to be followed), but are at best divinely inspired? Because I like and agree (or maybe I like because I agree) with much that she writes, but if it were Holy Scripture I would have to work to like even that material that I do not presently agree with. But as it is, with Hildegard (and other mystics) it seems as though since at best it is divinely inspired (and at worst just one person’s thoughts/insights), it seems as though I can pick and choose what I wish in the material. I assume this topic will likely come up in class, so I will try not to beat the point to death any further.
CH1604 -- E-mail Seminar #3
Andrew C. Files
Due: Tuesday, January 8, 2008
NOTE: I have no interest in seeing anyone else’s responses/analyses.
Teresa of Avila
Whereas I had much confusion as to how to, or whether to, integrate/use the writings of Hildegard because they were written from the perspective of God and Jesus (but were not Holy Scripture), I find less confusion with the writings of Teresa of Avila, because she writes from her perspective -- as a woman, a nun, a confessor – and so I can treat her writings as such. There is essentially no confusion with the form of the writings. Having said that, I do like what Teresa writes, although having not experienced much of what she is referring to, I find it somewhat difficult to comprehend/envision most of what she talks about.
In her writings, I find a few things interesting. First, while I would describe her writings as “intellectual” (as compared to “the way of love”), there is a fair amount of references to the Bride, the Spouse, betrothal and the like. As such, there is a strong sense of love in the writings we were assigned to read and that sense creates a nice change from the intellectual style of most of the assigned readings.
Second, Teresa makes reference to the devil on numerous occasions and on at least one occasion indicates that the devil may sometimes be sent by God. This is interesting because of what seems like a modern-day difficulty in accepting the acceptance of the devil. And that the devil might be sent by God would probably trouble many present-day folks.
Third, Teresa repeatedly emphasizes the need for humility in our path to God. How important that is! (and how I wish I was able to incorporate that within myself to a larger degree!)
Finally, Teresa writes, “…it would be extremely bold to want to choose a path while not knowing what suits me more. Such a matter should be left to the Lord who knows me – for He leads me along the path that is fitting – so that in all things I might do His will.” (p.161, Classics of Western Spirituality edition) If only I had been aware of this teaching in my earlier years! For how true it is; God knows us. We may think we know ourselves, but it is truly God that knows us – our strengths, our weaknesses, our fears, our desires. And if we, or in this case I, could only step aside and get out of the way, God could much more easily lead me.
I also like the way, although Teresa does not do it much, that she incorporates references to Scripture in her writings. And I did notice at least one reference to the Song of Songs, which I found comforting.
So, in conclusion, I like the contrast between the first three reading assignments. As I see it, the first was Holy Scripture, the second was a vision from God and Christ as told and interpreted by God and Christ through a woman, and the third was an incite or a vision which was presented and interpreted by a woman and passed on to readers as recommendations.
CH1604 -- E-mail Seminar #5
Andrew C. Files
Due: Thursday, January 10, 2008
NOTE: I have no interest in seeing anyone else’s responses/analyses.
Ibn ‘Abbad of Ronda
While the writings of Zohar were perceived as difficult because of the difference in cultures ad religions, at least Christianity derived in part from the Jewish faith so that there was some basic understandings of the writings of Zohar. However, with the writings of Ibn ‘Abbad of Ronda, there is such a difference between my experience of Christian writings and culture and that of Islam, that I found these writings very difficult to read. And whereas Song of Songs and Theresa of Avila had a fair amount of, if not complete, content of “the way of love”, the writings of Ibn ‘Abbad of Ronda seem to be entirely “intellectual”, with very little “heart material.
While part of the difficulty with the assigned readings has do with cultural differences and the understanding of the Islamic culture, part may also be attributed with unfamiliarity with the readings themselves. I found myself finding inconsistencies and contradictions in the readings, but then I realized I would probably find the same in the Gospel according to John, too, if I were reading it for the first time. So, I am trying to cut the readings some slack.
I did find interesting the amount of time the author spent on the topic of innovation and unquestioning acceptance of authority. Here is a perfect example of what seems to the un-initiated/un-tutored to be a classic example of a contradiction. The author puts down unquestioning acceptance of authority, but yet also puts down innovation (or as I see it, creative analysis/thinking). So, to an un-initiated such as myself, these two seem very contradictory. Suffice it to say that if I were to spend sufficient time with these writings (rather than a once-through), the truthfulness and understanding of their deeper meaning may become clearer to me.
The parts of these readings that did resonate with me were the occasional short stories that were incorporated within the body of the text. An example of this is at the beginning of Paragraph 26 (in Letter 3 at the bottom of page 88 in the Western Classics edition). These tended to impart a message or meaning in a very direct way as opposed to what seemed like a very drawn out process of the bulk of the text.
In conclusion, in all fairness I attribute my difficulty with this reading to my unfamiliarity to it or the culture from which it springs. Maybe if time permits, at some point I may be able to re-visit it and get more out of it.
CH1604 -- E-mail Seminar #6
Andrew C. Files
Due: Friday, January 11, 2008
NOTE: I have no interest in seeing anyone else’s responses/analyses.
Marguerite Porete
What a great read!! While it took me a bit to “get into” the style/format, the content is wonderful. And what we were assigned to read was only part of the Mirror of Souls – how much did she write and over what timespan did this writing (and incite) take place. But let’s get back to the content – it is great. There are places where I could imagine the Roman Catholic Church had some issues, but overall it is some very inciteful/inspired writing.
The passage, “….it is no longer her will which wills, but now the will of God wills in her…” (Chapter 7, p.84) is almost identical to the concept of Theosis or Christification held by the Eastern Orthodox Church where one unites with the will of God. In the presentation on Mount Athos, it is in a situation such as this union where healing miracles can take place.
At least one place where Marguerite may have run into some problems with the Church is the passage, “This one is saved by faith without works, because faith surpasses all work…” This sounds reminiscent of the Reformers arguments, although I do not know/remember the timing/era in which Marguerite lived.
I guess what struck me about this writing is the way the will becomes aligned with the Will of God. Having read so much recently from Eastern Orthodoxy, this part of Marguerite’s writing just adds to my awareness of that issue. But since Eastern Orthodoxy believes along these lines, is it fair to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church does not?
Another place that Marguerite may have run afoul of the Church was when she writes in terms of the Holy Church and the Holy Church the Little – as if there is an ideal Church and then the “real” Church.
Still another place she may have run afoul of the Church is when she wrote about Jesus possesses in Him three natures – “…the same nature which the Father possesses, and the nature of the soul, and the nature of the body…” (Chapter 14, p. 96) There seems that there was plenty of controversy in the early Church about Jesus having one or two natures (divine and/or human), so to say that he might have three wills (or natures) could cause some controversy.
But all in all, this reading was wonderful. Marguerite touches on some wonderful concepts and images (although apparently some of them were deemed heretical). One might be able to more prudently use this writing if one knew what parts the Church had concern with.
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1I have often read John before, but reading it for the purpose of finding examples of mysticism showed me new things. The familiar prologue is full of repetition: Word, life, light. Repetition comes again at the end, when Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him (21:15-17). John cries out in the wilderness (1:23) and “saw the Spirit come down from heaven like a dove” (1:32), seeming that John is himself a mystic who can’t keep quiet about what he’s seen and using “like” language. “No one has ever seen God” (1:18), then the book goes on to show God through his son Jesus. The first things we learn about Jesus is that he can see things far away, such as Nathanael under the fig tree (1:48), and he can perform miracles, such as changing water into wine at Cana (2:1-10). There seems to be the earthiness of drinking, as in the choice of wine for the first miracle, and eating, such as the miracle of feeding the multitude (6:5-13) . The writer of John describes terms for the reader, such as the meaning of Rabbi (1:38), Messiah (1:41), Cephas (1:42), Siloam (8:7), The Pavement (19:13), and The Skull (19:17). The writer also draws on the writings of Moses and other prophets (ex: 1:45; 19:24), as mystics read each other an build on what a previous person has said. It is mystical that someone could be “born again” (3:3), because it’s physically impossible. John is the only gospel that speaks of Jesus’ hour not yet coming, having a mystical preoccupation with time not being the same as of this world. Shifting time and suspension of physical laws is also shown by Jesus walking on the water to the boat, and the boat immediately arriving on the far shore (6:19-21). The divine can break into the physical realm and heal an officer’s son (4:46-53) or even bring Lazarus back to life after having been dead (11:1-44) - both by Jesus just saying the word. Jesus uses images to describe himself such as door (10:9) and vine (10:9) which aren’t true in the physical realm, because they could see he’s a man. Jesus uses “figures of speech” (16:25) to explain the divine, because there are no words that can describe it. Things can’t be described, and if it could be told, “the world could not hold the books that would be written” (21:25). The book of John speaks about love, but as the divine choosing humans and the world not recognizing those chosen by divine love (15:9-21).
The Song of Songs also speaks of love, but it uses comparisons in the context of sex. I’ve read it before, but always got confused figuring out who was speaking. The Revised English Bible has the headings of bride, bridegroom, and companions. Being able to just read it through quickly, it goes quickly, boom, boom, boom, from one image to another. In attempting to describe the undescribable, things are used for comparison such as wine, oil, henna, doves, lily, apples, gazelle, smoke, goats, pomegranate - things we would never normally list together. The comparisons start out with “love is more fragrant,” as in “it’s like this, but not quite, because it’s more.” The whole book is like a mystical experience, because it’s over quickly, but the impact stays.
Cindy Lufkin
Sandy Robinson (CRCDS)
Topics in Mysticism: January 2008
Prof. Glenn Miller: BTS
Mirror of Not-so-Simple Souls:
Marguerite Porete and the Beguines
Presentation Outline: basic headnotes
I. The Beguines
A. Brief historical/theological context
B. Daily lives
C. Hadewijch, Mechthild
II. Marguerite Porete (Marguerite of Hainault)
A. Brief bio
B. Relationship with church
III. Mirror of Simple Souls
A. Full title: Two versions
B. Linguistic significance: Courtly language (minne)
C. Literary analysis
1. Structure
2. Themes
D. Concept of the “mirror”
IV. Marguerite’s death: the Inquisition
V. Points of reflection
A. Mystic, prophet, martyr… “active resistor?”
B. Phoenix Rising: a hopeful note in conclusion
Sandy Robinson (CRCDS)
Topics in Mysticism: January 2008
Prof. Glenn Miller: BTS
Mirror of Not-so-Simple Souls:
Marguerite Porete and the Beguines
Presentation Outline: basic headnotes
I. The Beguines
A. Brief historical/theological context
B. Daily lives
C. Hadewijch, Mechthild
II. Marguerite Porete (Marguerite of Hainault)
A. Brief bio
B. Relationship with church
III. Mirror of Simple Souls
A. Full title: Two versions
B. Linguistic significance: Courtly language (minne)
C. Literary analysis
1. Structure
2. Themes
D. Concept of the “mirror”
IV. Marguerite’s death: the Inquisition
V. Points of reflection
A. Mystic, prophet, martyr… “active resistor?”
B. Phoenix Rising: a hopeful note in conclusion
Will Colston’s Presentatio
Topics in Mysticism
I. Introduction
· Tell near-death story and my recovery
· Describe accompanying visions
· Relate these visions to some elements of mysticism
· Get your input
II. Illness & Treatment
· Medical problem
· Diagnosis of lymphoma (50/50)
· Treatment—extensive chemotherapy
· Near death twice
· Massive prayer support
· My reaction-pledge
· Good & bad news/more prayer
· Resolution
III. Visions/Types
· Persons standing by mybed
· Two nurses/nuns (Teresa/Julian?)
· Some images of Jesus
· One like Virgin Mary holding out her hand
· Some babies or large dolls
· Joggers/runners
· Writing hands writing Eastern characters left to right.
· Two voices only
· Some objects
· One distinctly diabolical
· One pulled my arm
IV. Visions/Conditions
· Most were figures standing by my bed
· Some elsewhere in room
· Ghost-like but with clearly defined figures
· Always appear when I open my eyes, stay briefly then disappear