Mysticism or Charismaticism?

Exchanging Azusa Street for the Church.

If you know me, then you know that I have many friends who are a part of – or who have been formed in – what can only be labeled a ‘Charismatic’ tradition. Truth be told, upon my conversion from Judaism, it was the Charismatics who first welcomed me in the name of Christ. They were the ones who taught me the Gospel, who brought me to the waters of Baptism, and finally, it was they who fed me at Christ’s table (insofar as any apart from the Apostolic lineage may do so). It is fair to say that whatever was theirs to offer a staggering child in the faith, they readily gave to me. For these and many more acts of charity, I will forever be grateful.

And like many of my friends who have remained a part of that particular tradition (‘tradition’ because I do not know what else to call it), there was a time where I could seldom conceive of anything ‘Christian’ beyond the framework we had inherited from Azusa Street. It was fiery and it was bright, but –as you likely know– I inevitably progressed beyond this unique exegetical framework into what I would consider to be a far more robust and authentic form of the faith we have all been baptized into. It is from this place of maturity (or as much of it as a 25-year-old with a theology degree can muster) that I have found myself reflecting on my own lived experience within that fold, why I departed from it, and the conversations that I continue to have with my former compatriots. These reflections serving as a kind of source material, I now endeavor to engage in a thoughtful, empathetic, and kind explanation as to why I will never be returning to that party.

❧ Somewhat Common Ground

The first point, and really the only point, that is necessary to make is that all of the discernable good that is present within the ‘Spirit-filled’ party can be found natively within the greater Catholic Tradition. In fact, the Charismatics are spot on when they insist that the Spirit of God continues to ‘move’ in the present day. They are absolutely correct when they assert the miraculous nature of the Christian life. Along with them, we must readily cry ‘Amen!’ On these points, no [honest] student of Christian History could ever dispute. Rather, the issue arises when the miraculous is conflated with the experiential, and a miracle is reduced to mere ecstasy. What’s more, it is this emphasis on the (for lack of a better word) showy elements of Christianity that proves that they are not quite at home within the supernatural as they think that they are. It is still foreign to them. “A wicked and perverse generation asks for a sign” (Matthew 16:4) because only a wicked a perverse generation is impressed by a sign. Or to put it in a less inflammatory way: a fish is not amazed by water or a bird by flight. In this way, the Christian is not amazed by the miraculous because her very existence is miraculous.

Here is what I mean: who has quickened my heart and drawn my affections heavenward? Who wooed me through the preaching of the Word? Who penned that same Word for my comfort and salvation? None other than the Holy Ghost. It was the Holy Spirit who raised me to life in Baptism! Every witnessed Baptism is a witnessed resurrection! It was the same Spirit who adorned me at Confirmation! Who feeds me with the very Body and Blood of Christ each Sunday! Such feats are only unimpressive to those who have not yet learned that spiritual eyes are much harder to heal than physical ones. But even these are only facets of the greatest miracle of all – the forgiveness of sins. – “For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?” (Matthew 9:5). The forgiveness of Adam’s children will forever be the supreme miracle because it is the act that cost Heaven its very life. – Now, to be fair I do not doubt that many of the other party would affirm these things, but they are likewise never their emphasis. Seldom (read: never) are the sacraments touched upon, nor does anybody tremble to handle the Divine Scriptures. Rather, they are satisfied with altar-calls without Altars.

Now at this point, I can already hear my hypothetical-interlocutors inquire: “But what about the genuine miracles? Our churches have them, and yours believes that they have ceased! What you have said is all well and good, and we can affirm these things, but what we have seen is undeniable!” To these (admittedly self-imposed) questions I must first say that far be it for me to blaspheme the Holy Spirit! (Matthew 12:22-32) I would never say that whatever genuine miraculous thing that has been accomplished within your church is not, in fact, the work of the Holy Spirit. I will touch on this point in a moment, but in the meantime, it is better to err on the side of charity. What I will say is that we have more common ground than one would think. Our Church has always maintained the kind of miraculous testimonies that Charismaticism seeks. Here are some of my favorites:

1.    Healing wrought by the Relics of St. Charles, King & Martyr. – Again, if you know me (and I suspect most of my readers do), then you know that I love St. Charles. I especially love that after his martyrdom we have accounts of his relics healing those who they came into contact with. The histories present us with the healing of a girl who suffered from growths on her face. These lumps protruded from her lips and head to the point where she had lost sight in her eyes for a whole year. “She could scarce discern the light of a Candle”. Her mother, remembering the story of the Apostles’ healing through handkerchiefs (see 2 Kings 13:21, Acts 19:12), acquired one which had been dipped in the King’s blood. When she returned home, she stroked her daughter’s eye and the swelling under her chin. After several days of this the mother reported: “she is now perfectly recovered, as you see, in her eyes, and the swelling under her chin is almost gone, the color of her flesh is recovered, and the pain totally gone: with this mall piece of a Handkerchief was all this done, which many have desired of me; but, although I am but a poor woman, and of mean condition, I protest I will not sell it for forty pounds.” – You can read the two accounts here, and here.

2.    The Incorruptible Bishop Grafton. –[St.] Charles Grafton was the Bishop of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, a good personal friend of St. Tikhon, and an incorruptible. What is an incorruptible? According to Christian History, sometimes certain individuals who have lived a particularly saintly life do not decompose once they have died. Our own Bishop Grafton is just such a figure. When his body was exhumed and translated, onlookers wrote: “The casket, taken from the cemetery, was opened, with only the glass slab over the remains, and it was found, to the surprise of the observers, that the Bishop's features and hands were as natural as on the day he died. The mitre was somewhat discolored and the chalice which he grasped in his hand was tarnished, but the body itself showed no indications of decay.” – You can read more here.

3.    John Wesley’s Eucharistic Miracle – On Thursday, January 18th, 1736 John Wesley writes in his journal: One who was big with child, in a high fever, and almost wasted away with a violent cough, desired to receive the holy communion before she died. At the hour of her receiving, she began to recover, and in a few days was entirely out of danger.” – Wesley records the healing of pregnant woman through the reception of Holy Communion. This is only one example of the Church Catholic’s many Eucharistic Miracles and is particularly fond to me as Wesley was, and died, a loyal Anglican. You can read this account (and many other strange ones like it) in his own personal journal found here.

4.    The Exorcism of Mr. M – The Rev. Charles Hulleat served as British Chaplain to a community of expatriates in Messina, Sicily. While there, he encountered a man who had become demonically possessed through acting as a medium for seances. Rev. Hulleat record the following events in his letter to Archbishop Temple: “The evil spirits sometimes spoke as Mr. M, & sometimes claiming him, but there was no difficulty in discerning their utterances from his personal ones… They wished to force him to write. His hand moved convulsively in the effort, but we held his hands so that he couldn’t & prayed for his deliverance. They asked before I had said anything ‘why do you call us evil?’ … They said ‘we have come to claim this servant.’ I replied ‘He is no servant of yours but of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Finally, the doctor arrived halfway through the exorcism. Rev. Hulleat writes that upon seeing the doctor, the spirits spoke clearly in Italian “this is no doctor for he does not know what is the matter.” After the deliverance, Rev. Hulleat notes that three more demons came after Mr. M, but that he likewise intervened. – You can read the whole account in this volume.

Naturally, these are all extremes that have been encountered within my branch of the Catholic Faith – this is intentional. Even our dead perform miracles. The point I hope to make is that there is nothing so outlandish within Charismatic circles that can outrival, whilst remaining Christian, what is already present within classical expressions of the faith. Alongside these examples are thousands of stories of visions, healings, angelic visitations, and whatever else the mystic heart could long for. So then, the ‘supernatural’ put aside, where does the gap lie between my faith and theirs?

❧ Parting Ways

The difference between our ‘supernatural’ and their ‘supernatural’ is a much finer point than many realize because our similarities are greater than many realize. We both insist upon the sheer other-worldliness of the Christian religion, and we both posit seemingly absurd mystical events as fact. However, the implications of these assertions are all too different. This difference is a matter of temperance. My party may indeed believe that the miraculous (that is, an extraordinary occurrence outside of the ordinary means of grace) is ‘normal’, yet it is by no means normative. Generally speaking, there is a dangerous narrative within Pentecostal and Charismatic circles. This narrative insists that every individual Christian must ‘operate’ in the same gifts. Everyone must speak in ‘tongues’. Everyone must ‘prophesy’. Everyone must have visions. Never mind that these ‘gifts’ are given functionally meaningless definitions, this principle itself cuts fiercely against the grain of the Apostle’s words: “Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?” (1 Corinthians 12:30) – The rhetorical answer is no. Instead, St. Paul promises:

For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. -1 Corinthians 12:8-11

This point is made again and again throughout the rest of the chapter. There have been innumerable souls grievously wounded by this insistence that the individual act is the normative work of the Church. Such a practice is altogether strange for a people who have been told to do good in secret and to go into their closet to pray. Contrarily, classical Christian Religion instructs us that the particularities of the Christian’s life are never to be spectacles. Whether my private sins or my private gifts, these are not the focal points for the people of God. Rather, what Christ has done for us all is where our eyes must be fixed. – The Cross. The Water. The Blood. – Here we find the Christian monuments; here are the spectacles that we must flock to.

Of course here is where the question once more presents itself: “What you have said is all fine and good, but what about the GENUINE events? What about when my aunt’s brother’s son’s pastor told that story about the missionary who performed [INSERT MIRACLE]? Surely these vindicate our position!” Once again, I do not doubt the testimony, whether firsthand or thirdhand. It’s outlandish nature or origin is not at all the point. Sure I think that much of what is purported as genuine is really hyperbole, and I sincerely doubt that much of what masquerades as ‘tongues’ or ‘prophecy’ is any such thing, but in reality, this is neither here nor there. I’m sure there are fabrications in my tradition as well – just as sure as I am that there are genuine testimonies. Again, we believe in the miraculous. But because it is miraculous does not mean that it is appropriate or holy, and just because it is God’s(yes, even God’s) work does not mean that it not damnable (please pardon the strong language, I simply do not know how else to put it). I would remind my dear hypothetical-friend of the example of our teacher Moses. We are told in the Law that he struck the rock in the wilderness when he was instructed to speak to it (Exodus 20:1-13). What does God do? He still provides water for Israel despite Moses’ indiscretion. He is faithful despite our unfaithfulness. Thank God that the worthiness of the minister does not impede the work of God! But is this the end of the story? Unfortunately not: Our teacher Moses was cut off from the Land of Israel. He was forbidden from entering into the promise made to Abraham! Indeed his judgment was severe. (Numbers 27:12-14). God’s faithfulness did not excuse the punishment that was due to Moses for his disobedience. In the same way, a miracle does not excuse how it was brought about. This is the exact definition of the sin of presumption. Do not presume that all must ‘operate’ in the same way despite what St. Paul says. Do not presume that because it is miraculous that it is justified. Finally, do not presume that because God is faithful that he will excuse our unfaithfulness, especially when He has directed how to regulate such matters. Too much is presumed and too little is obeyed. “Obedience is better than sacrifice” after all (1 Samuel 15:22).

❧ No Going Back

Unfortunately, there are many subjects that I did not have the opportunity to touch on. I wish that I had enough time or energy to talk about the implications of the ‘Oneness Pentecostals’ or the common assumption that all bad is the ‘Devil’s fault’. I so badly wanted to distinguish good mysticism from bad mysticism. I had hoped to find a way to include [St.] Julian of Norwich’s insistence that whatever her visions may reveal, that they ought to be interpreted according to the teachings of the Church. But in my mind, these are all really secondary to what I’ve said already. Really all that must be answered now is a single question: “well, can’t we just fix this? Can’t you come back and apply these truths?” That’s just the thing – I cannot come back, because there is no way back. If what is good within the movement is already a part of the ‘Great Tradition’, then whatever remains and makes it a unique movement, that is, the particularities that set it apart from other traditions, are only the negatives. Whatever remains after subtracting that which is merely Christian, are those things which ought to be avoided. The entire movement in its most pristine form is nothing but redundancy. I can never come back because what it aims to be I already am.