We Know God Through Scripture…and So Much More

We Know God Through Scripture…and So Much More May 16, 2014

Shortly after we were married, Daniel and I traveled to Boone, North Carolina—home of Daniel’s alma mater, Appalachian State University—so he could introduce me to his college stomping grounds. Our weekend included a Sunday morning service at the Baptist church Daniel had attended during college. The pastor closed the service with a prayer that, according to the pastor’s introduction, was written many centuries ago by a young man named Julian who was preparing for ordination. I looked at my bulletin, where the prayer was printed out. And I noted that the prayer was attributed to the mystic Julian of Norwich, who was most definitely not a man. I was dumbfounded that a learned pastor with many years’ experience and a seminary education would not be familiar with one of the great mystics of Christian history, nor know that she was a woman. Perhaps the pastor’s ignorance merely represented a hole in his seminary education and scholarly readings. Or maybe this vignette, equal parts funny and sad, reveals just how entrenched male bias continues to be in the Christian faith, such that a great Christian mystic who saw visions and spoke of God as both mother and father would be repackaged into the more familiar guise of a male pastor.

I thought of that long-ago Sunday morning when a friend sent me a link to Tim Challies’s blog post claiming that another female mystic, Teresa of Avila, was a “false teacher.” Her false teaching? Mysticism itself, which Challies claims undermines the Protestant tenet of sola scriptura —that the holy scriptures are the final and absolute authority for our knowledge of God. Sola scriptura was behind the Protestant reformers’ emphasis on translating the Bible into people’s common language, so that people could read and interpret scripture for themselves, rather than relying on the Pope, other authorities, or church tradition to tell them what to believe and how to live a faithful life. Challies claims that mysticism violates the primacy of scripture because, “Mystics seek to experience God directly rather than through the mediation of the Bible. Scripture demands for itself a unique place in the Christian life and church and mysticism threatens to supplant it.”

I think it’s fair to say that many Christians find the experiences and writing of mystics, including Teresa and Julian, to be a little bit freaky. All those fevered visions and ecstatic utterings. But to reject mysticism outright as a serious threat to scripture and our very knowledge of God strikes me, like the pastor’s misidentification of Julian of Norwich, as both misguided and sad. It is misguided given how much of scripture itself describes intense encounters with God, fevered visions and all—Moses and the burning bush, Paul on the road to Damascus, the Transfiguration. It is sad because of how it belittles God, as if the God of the universe cannot break into our human experience but must be known solely through a book. An inspired, sacred, primary book, yes—but still a book.

The mystics are just one example of how God speaks to God’s people through the ineffable, the poetic, and the beautiful. I have had no ecstatic visions. But I have sucked in my breath in awe while overlooking Yosemite’s Half Dome at sunset, utterly convinced of God’s eternal power that will remain even after those mighty rocks are dust. I have sat my sore, leaking body into a rocking chair, latched a baby onto my breast, watched as she gulped and swallowed, milk dribbling out of the corners of her mouth and eyes glazing over with contentment, and understood just a little more what it means to give body and blood to a beloved. I have read poetry that cracks open a wordless understanding or sense of peace deep within me. I have written words that reveal something about God that I didn’t even know I knew until I wrote them. In all of these experiences, and more, as well as my reading of scripture, and worship, and prayer, I have encountered God.

The visions of mystics like Teresa and Julian arose from emotional states that were fevered, ecstatic, out of control, outside the boundaries of much human experience. I suspect that rejection of female mystics is just another way that women’s “out of bounds” tendencies—our intense emotions, our swelling bellies and breasts, our passionate expression mislabeled as “bossy”—are pushed aside as irrelevant and dangerous to a male-mediated culture and religion. Perhaps that North Carolina preacher’s mistake was an honest misstatement, but I’ve always suspected it reflected deeper assumptions about from where and to whom holy wisdom comes.

Through her mystical experiences, Teresa of Avila came to understand the power of sin and our absolute subjection to God. She enacted reforms in response to lax living in her monastery, and enlisted some like-minded male monastics to her cause. Julian of Norwich’s mysticism revealed God as absolutely compassionate and loving. Rejecting such revelation of a boundless God because it falls outside the boundaries of scripture doesn’t make me angry as much as it grieves me, that God is rendered so limited, so small. I don’t think Challies is a false teacher, but I do think he’s wrong. And unlike 15 years ago, when I failed to tell that pastor that Julian of Norwich was a woman, I’m willing to say so.

Julian of Norwich’s most famous words—”All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well”—settle into one’s heart and calm the shenanigans of one’s mind as only God’s truth can do. There is nothing false about believing that the God of all things can be encountered in sacred story, and in mundane human experience, and in the strange visions of the mystics.


"as a disabled person my two cents is of course we deserve human treatment of ..."

Disability as the Last Acceptable Prejudice: ..."
"Sad article to contemplate. Personally I believe if you don't have compassion for the disabled ..."

Disability as the Last Acceptable Prejudice: ..."
"If the time is right for you to write a piece for the Disability series, ..."

Disability as the Last Acceptable Prejudice: ..."
"Such a wonderful post that I will return to again and again for many reasons. ..."

Disability as the Last Acceptable Prejudice: ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • As you quote above, Challies rejects mysticism because “Mystics seek to experience God directly rather than through the mediation of the Bible.” Yet the Bible itself says there is only one mediator, Jesus (I Tim 2:5) — I don’t think it states that we experience God only through the mediation of the Bible. And Jesus promised to ask God to send the Holy Spirit, who comforts, guides, leads into truth, etc. So I think we can experience God in a variety of ways without denying Scripture’s “unique place.”

    • Yes. And one of the sticking points with taking the “sola scriptura” view to the extreme, as Challies seems to, is that the idea of the Bible as the sole authority for faith is not actually found in the Bible!

      • ADG

        This has always baffled me. As Sola Scriptura is not itself Biblical, it is consequently false on its face. I knew a convert from a Jewish background who found the idea of separating scripture and tradition preposterous. “Who ever heard of such a thing?!”

  • Tim

    When it comes to recorded mysticism, I think John’s Revelation takes the cake. Julian and Teresa would have been right at home with him had they been exiled on Patmos too.

    Mr. Challies not only takes sola scriptura to an extreme I doubt the Reformers meant it to go, but he also bases his criticism of teresa on scant evidence. I wonder if he’d done real research into her life and beliefs if he would have found the reforms you mention, along with perhaps something that revealed her own view of Scripture.

    We’ll never know from his post because he didn’t do the real research required. And sloppy research is a terrible foundation for the extremely serious charge of calling someone a false teacher.

    • I admit I knew next to nothing about Teresa before writing this post. I knew more about Julian. But I agree that calling someone a false teacher without digging really really deep into their work and life is irresponsible. I’m still just dumbfounded by the notion that we’re ONLY supposed to encounter God in scripture and anything outside of that is dangerous. I can see how we ought to test our experiences of God against scripture, to explore how those experiences relate to what we know of God from the Bible. Otherwise it could become very easy to decide that we know what God wants and what God is telling us, and to screw up big time. But the Bible itself is so layered and deep and even, at times, mystical.

      • Tim

        Right. John tells us to test the spirits, not ignore them for failing to put their messages in writing.

  • pastordt

    Well done, Ellen. Thank you.

  • J_Bob

    You might want to look at the classic “Mysticism” by Evelyn Underhill. It’s been my companion for over 60 years.

    • I actually have an old copy sitting on my bookshelf. You have inspired me to go find it and re-read!