Our Mysticism Is Not As Their Mysticism

Mysticism includes a whole range of things, not simply the practice of Transcendental Meditation.
There will always be movements within a larger whole of any demographic. The mere existence of a thing which can be labeled “a demographic” requires acknowledging it will never be all one thing. Every group we can identify will always be composed of individuals who aren’t carbon copies of each other. Even in the shared identity label, there are usually variations on the theme.
Mystics are not all one thing. Mysticism is not so much a belief or practice or combination of the two, but a means to arriving at practices and beliefs. By definition, it is an approach which assumes there are at least two realms, and one which cannot be perceived by normal human senses. This is not inherently hostile to Christian faith because the Bible says most bluntly and literally “God is a spirit” and not a fleshly being confined to this fallen realm of existence. If He were otherwise, there would be something we could point to, leaving us with a totally different kind of debate restricted to mere minutiae, not major questions suggesting there may be no God.
Christianity is defined as following the teachings of Jesus. While there may well be much debate over what He said and what it meant, the mere presence of the thought one could evaluate any part of His teachings to pass judgment on them excludes you from the category “those who follow Christ.” That’s because Christ Himself said it was all or nothing. Conservative Christians rightly reject selective obedience to His teachings. My primary complaint with mainstream Christianity is this pernicious insistence on a form of logical approach which is inherently hostile to following Christ. It’s their particular intellectual assumptions going into the question of, “What did Jesus teach?” Their Aristotelian approach is what I find objectionable.
This approach necessarily results in a huge divergence into denominations, all with mutually exclusive definitions of “biblical faith.” Only when you restrict your epistemology to Aristotle to you end up trying to make a divine experience something subject to the Scientific Method. Just what tools would you use to examine a spirit born from above, and the move of the Holy Spirit upon someone? It leaves you excluding anyone who doesn’t fit into your narrow and precise clinical definition of God and His ways. That’s blasphemous. You can’t contain Almighty God in your written theology and creeds. Paul’s insistence on “pure doctrine” most certainly did not come from Aristotelian epistemology, but from ancient revelation.
I also reject the wide open Eastern mystical approach. I realize academically the whole thing can be lumped together as “anything other than Western.” To then judge the entire thing evil is silly on the face of it for Christians. Jesus was a Hebrew man; His Father was a Hebrew God, even as He said He was Creator of all things. While many of the statements in Hebrew Scripture are mysterious, it’s pretty hard to ignore the statements from the prophets in that Scripture and from Jesus that revelation came most clearly to the Hebrew people (see John 4:22). Jesus also said the current religious leadership of His day didn’t understand the God they were supposed to know, but the legacy of revelation to the Hebrews itself was not undone by their intransigence. This was a direct result of that leadership having embraced Aristotle and leaving behind something quite different, something unique among the various other brands of mysticism east of the Mediterranean Sea — the unique Hebrew culture, and the unique Hebrew intellectual approach, which God Himself created.
Mysticism among the Hebrews was simply the recognition there is something beyond the range of human perception. It assumes ultimate truth, however much we humans could access it, must come by revelation. The initiative rests wholly with God. Thus, if we are going to imagine those who worship Him would enter an altered state of consciousness, it is not at human behest. It does not require any particular atmosphere, nor any attempts by men to get into the right mode of operation and transcend their conscious state. When God chose, someone prophesied. Some folks were seized by the Spirit of Prophecy right in the middle of opposing God Himself. If they were called to such work, and comfortable with it, then it might happen pretty often. Still, the initiative always rested in God’s hands, and human efforts to cross the divide on their own initiative availed nothing.
There is nothing in Scripture demanding the followers of Christ enter an altered state of consciousness to be righteous and at the top of their game, so to speak. Yes, the Apostle John did enter a state he called “in the Spirit” during his introduction to Revelation. Yet we see plenty of times when someone was “in the Spirit” and fully conscious. Whatever you wish to make of that phrase, it does not require an altered state. To critics standing outside Christian faith, it seems it never occurs to them John was not on drugs or out of his mind, but was using standard Hebrew figures of speech. They want to insist it all has to be read from as literal a viewpoint as possible. That so many Christians agree with that intellectual approach is a real shame, given Jesus made so much of parabolic expressions to convey ineffable spiritual content.
When mainstream Christians insist on an Aristotelian approach, they presume to be careful with the definitions of terminology. So why do they then so quickly descend into propaganda mode and sling the term “mysticism” around like a dirty word? The whole thing smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Yeah, I’m suggesting some know, or could know, they are being deceptive. What’s the point of pretending to be academic and rational when you use the methods of propaganda, of trying to stir passions by hiding facts? Yes, there is a threat from the likes of the Spiritual Formation movement, but it’s their actions and doctrines so obviously contrary to Scripture (even from a Hebraic approach) which shows us their errors. Examining how they got there requires honestly examining the whole thing in detail, not simply slapping convenient sloppy labels on things you’d rather not discuss. You’ll notice Paul in his letters emphasizes opposing heresy based on its results, not the methods of arriving at heresy.  Paul walked away from his Aristotelian rabbinical training, and returned to the ancient Hebrew ways.
So long as mainstream Protestant evangelicals refuse to examine the basic question of how different is the original Hebrew intellectual approach to things, they can never claim to understand Jesus. Refusing to understand how the Jewish embrace of Aristotelian epistemology (AKA Hellenism) is a major element in what made such a mess of Old Testament religion, they will find themselves followers of Pharisaism, not followers of Jesus. There is a uniquely Hebrew brand of mysticism, and God requires it to understand Him and His revelation.
Mysticism itself simply acknowledges the most important things to us as humans is beyond our normal faculties, because it is not constrained by the limits of our existence.