http://www.bereanbeacon.org/EvangelicalAttraction.html

anyone read this and NOT see a clear road to a ONE WORLD CHURCH? to be lead by the one and only false prophet to the AC???? Hmmmmm????? Mush all religions together under a melting pot of belief's and methods and you got a world church.

Is there anything wrong with this? Warning bells go off in anyones heads? Is it just me, am I just crazy???

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 U.S.A. — who are suggesting this.

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 U.K.

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 Bible School!

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 Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in the U.S., published by Zondervan in 1987. There we have the mystic women of all eras presented without any real critical examination of their views and practices. An angel is said to thrust a spear through the nun Teresa of Avila's entrails in an ecstatic mystical trance vision. Fine. We'll just report it without any comment as if it was a perfectly valid experience for a Christian. Blood is said to flow from a stigmatic hole in Jacoba Bartolini's side. No problem. We'll just report it as one more remarkable aspect of this saint's life. That is the neo-evangelical response to medieval mysticism.

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

Evelyn Underhill's defines Mysticism as 'the art of union with Reality. The mystic is a person who has attained that union in a greater or less degree, or who aims at it and believes in such attainment.'

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 assertion that blasphemous'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, London from 1911-1934, and a leading Anglican scholar who had a major role in re-arousing ecclesiastical interest in mysticism, frankly "admitted that Christian mysticism owed a debt to the Greek Mysteries".⁷

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 Johnston's assertion that 'this is the never-ending journey which is recognizable in the mysticism of all the great religions' is quite correct. Mysticism is mysticism, wherever it occurs; but it adapts itself according to the religio-cultural situation in which it develops.

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 continued in next blog: