Truth is a Person, and can be communicated only person to person.
Aristotle’s insistence truth can be objectified served merely to guarantee the most important things we can know will never be addressed. The existence of all the universe is directly tied to the existence of a living being. Envision it as Creation, or however you like it, but the whole reason for the universe is a place for life. Given we know only the life on our own planet, there’s not much point speculating about other forms of sentient life on this plane of existence. The problem is Aristotle in essence denied there was any other plane.
That we are detached from the higher plane is the result of choices made far away and long ago. We are born into a broken world, and before we can develop any sense of being ourselves, that brokenness is absorbed and forms a part of our nature. But if we do not absorb the brokenness, we are simply animals. Humanness comes from dealing with other humans, however many the barriers are between us. We all experience those nameless urges for some Other, despite how our communion with other humans never quite satisfies.
The only way we know anything at all is because of our contact with other knowers. I’m sure Aristotle and his friends were well acquainted with the various mystical religions of the world. We know those religions had representatives in that part of the world, and it’s hard to imagine their documents weren’t available in one form or another. Thus, it was a conscious choice of Aristotle to reject anything they suggested about knowing on a level beyond the conscious intellect. For those who accept the Bible narrative as any reflection of the truth, this was nothing more than affirming the Fall. Whatever else we take from the Fall narrative in Scripture, we can see that business of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was about taking the presumption of judging what was good and evil. It was the choice to place the intellect on the throne, and this was what severed our direct link to the higher realm, and to higher knowing. The stain was indelible, and spread to all humanity.
For a Christian, this means asserting truth can be propositional is simply asserting the Fall was the right choice, the Eve was right in taking the fruit of that forbidden tree. Agreeing with Aristotle is agreeing with Satan as to what our destiny in Creation should be. I find most of the ones who insist faith has to be reasonable are folks who simply fear the unknown ground of mysticism. They hate it because they can’t assert their control over it. The Fall is partially wrapped up in denying God’s authority, and seizing control over the business of knowing. There is evil to be found in exploring mysticism as an approach to knowing, but there is no truth in knowing without it.
A primary doctrinal assertion of our ministry has always been the utter necessity of person to person communication. We see historically how written communication can serve a useful purpose in either provoking interest, or reminding someone of an experience of personal contact, but nothing can replace face to face communion. That’s what we lost in the Fall, and we have to reestablish it to the degree possible. So while I am willing to put my ideas out here on the Net by writing, you will not ever see an audio or video recording. Those things build a false link; they give the impression of knowing another person, but it’s artificial, scripted. Nothing replaces time spent in the presence of another, seeing them when they aren’t performing for an audience — we all do it, it’s part of our brokenness. If you don’t like reading, you’ll need to arrange a face to face meeting with us.
It’s not simply the lack of technology which prevented the early Christians using any other means of communication. They knew instinctively it required time and personal presence. Had you given them a printing press, they would still have insisted on going in person to the places they felt led to take their message. That business of laying hands directly on another person was not entirely symbolic. There’s no magic, as we tend to think of things today, but it’s the necessity of hearing, feeling, even smelling another person which cannot be duplicated any other way.
Truth is communicated only through the living presence of someone who is wired to that truth. That’s because Truth itself is a Person, and He cannot be known objectively.
I read a quote from Aristotle in the paper today…it said “Mothers are fonder than fathers of their children because they are more certain they are their own.”
Isn’t that typical of Aristotle? The truth from above teaches us such facts are not that important in the bigger scheme of things. Besides, it’s not exactly true, anyway. It’s just his interpretation of what he saw.
Ed,
Is this a Mormon blog or something? Either way, I think you’re winning.
Thanks, John. No, I’m not a Mormon. The only proper label for my brand of faith is unaffiliated Christian Mysticism. The closest established denomination would be Anabaptist or Mennonite, though they don’t much like the mysticism part. If my work seems to strike a chord of recognition with Mormonism, it’s an accident, but I’m not offended by the idea. My family worships with me in the front room of our home, and anyone is welcome to join. By the same token, I’m willing to go and share with any group who wants to hear what I have to say.
Ed what is your definition of Christian mysticism?
As you might guess, my dear Brother Charles, the question depends on the context. This is something I answer rather often on this blog, but each time it takes the flavor of the context in which the mention of it appears.
Mysticism itself is not a body of understanding, but the path by which one arrives there. It deals with that fancy word “epistemology” — the study of knowing, examining how we arrive at the place we say something is true or not. Mysticism is a method of knowing, which includes intuition and any number of non-conscious faculties. When we wed that approach to the word “Christian” it becomes a statement about how we as Christians ought to study and teach our faith. It presumes a direct encounter with God Himself on a non-rational level, something utterly personal between you and Him. It will naturally escape words because our intellect is not able to grapple with it fully.
Christian Mysticism is defined, then, as a life of following Christ which acknowledges the necessity of not relying on the intellect. Use it, sure, because the intellect is how we organize our actions in this life, but that is merely implementation of something decided on a much higher level. Anything we say or organize on the way to executing that divine decision is never more than a temporary approximation within a given context.
More than once I’ve been told I should write a book, but I find it impossible to put it in that format. It’s something caught, not taught.