QUESTIONS AND DEFINITIONS--IN PREPARATION FOR DISCUSSION

This addressed primarly to David Talcott, though any others are welcome to jump in.

David said the following (I have cut down his comments to what struck me as the essence, at least as regards what I speak of below)

I am in general inclined to agree with his condemnation of mysticism...
...Sola Scriptura holds that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith--not that you should run off to the woods alone with the Bible and never talk to anyone else. The emphasis is upon the number and kind of sources of revelation (today), and not upon the particular interpretive method. The Protestant rejects the idea that there is infallible, God-breathed truth preserved in liturgies, the creeds, personal mystical revelations, or any other sources...
...I'll say this also--I'm not sure that my goal in life is communion with God in the sense you mean it--I feel a lurking mysticism, which, as I said above, I reject. I'm inclined to say something more like my goal in life is to obey God, and to glorify Him. Though, I believe He abides with me and my family, and with all His people.

First, I wonder what you mean by mysticism. A definition thereof would be useful. While avoiding a technical definition for the moment, here are a couple Scriptural examples of what I tend to mean when I speak of Christian mysticism. 1) Acts 7:55-56. This is precisely an instance of contemplation of God, the rejection of which by Ellul struck me as so strange. 2) II Corinthians 12:1-9 I don't know what this experience of Paul's was if not mystical.

Obviously there are many others. That's not the point. You assert, I think, judging from your comment on Seraphim's blog, that "...no Protestant would deny that God acts today, and that He acts powerfully. Yet, He does not act in the same way as He did 2000 years ago an earlier. Indeed, there is a scandal of particularity. And, indeed, for us, the Heilgeschicte is over."

Which is to say, I think you dismiss mysticism by saying that things just don't work that way anymore--visions, miracles, hearing the voice of God in an audible and quotable way (as seen in II Corinthians 12:9, etc) are a part of a previous dispensation (or equivalent terminology--I don't particularly want to open up the can of worms associated with that term at the moment, unless you're keen to do so), and no longer apply.

My question, I guess, is "Why?" That is to say, is there a reason you think mysticism no longer operates in the Church apart from the fact that it does not operate in your church?

That's not an accusation, just a question. That's how I used to answer it, but obviously I found the answer non-satisfactory when confronted with a tradition which DID possess an ongoing mystical tradition.

My focus in the discussion is, I think, a little different from Seraphim's. The primary rift between us at the moment seems to be that I think a mystical experience of God is in some sense necessary to Christianity in its fullness--and clearly you don't. I'd like to examine why.