Talk:Participation in Christ

Pauline Christianity - Preamble
The opening words are problematic: "Pauline mysticism shows distinct differences from mystical theology. Mystical theology shows secret paths to seekers on how to obtain oneness with the divine."

This definition of "Mystical theology" is unsourced and seems to refer to Gnostic Theology (as in, non-Christian with Zoroastrian roots as "secret knowledge" is a essential and defining hallmark of that sect). I believe the use of the term "secret silence" by Dionysius the Areopagite is both archaic and anachronistic in modern usage in that it refers to the intimately private aspects of the spiritual life as opposed to salvific knowledge shared among initiates.

To the contrary and from a Christian perspective, "Mystical Theology" is a technical term regarding the study of the Christian spiritual life and such a definition is overwhelmingly evidenced by both ecclesiastical and secular dictionaries. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, various contemporary works of Bernard McGinn, and so on).

Surveying various articles using the term, "Pauline Mysticism" suggests that the article is grounded in a work by Albert Schweitzer. If this is so, perhaps the article will be served by addressing such a perspective in the opening discussion? cregil 17:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting the utter lack of engagement with discussion, as well as the various edits and sources, this article seems increasingly to be a sermon or seminar without an academic context. Please ground this article within an encyclopedic context.  At present, this article does not seem "ready for prime time."


 * The sources provided do not seem to support, clarify, address, nor define the topic "Pauline Mysticism."


 * Are there persons who identify themselves as "Pauline Mystics"?
 * Are there groups, denominations, churches, or religious orders who make use of the term, "Pauline Mysticism?"
 * Does the term, "Pauline Mysticism" appear in any of the sources or any of the works cited within the Bibliography?


 * I am recommending deletion so that this article may be developed in a user area until such time as it can articulated as an existing subject by the title. -- cregil  (talk)  18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Saving the Article
If it is the appropriate context upon which the contributor to this article are agreed, then perhaps you may define Pauline Mysticism in relation to the categories of Christianity mentioned in one your sources (The Early Christian Community: From Diversity to Unity to Orthodoxy): Paul, John, Jewish, Gnostic and Marcion influences-- in as much as the mystical beliefs and practice were influenced by those sources, tying the differences to the influences and grounding the article upon that.

I am not at all sure that it can be accomplished as I think the specifically spiritual beliefs and practices of the early Church can not bear the distinction of those groupings used in the Wells College discussion (linked above). While useful for discussing early influences upon the development of unity and community toward orthodoxy, I suspect that the spiritual practices within the early Church, as with those which are with us today, are not distinguished by those influences which led toward unity and ultimately to defining orthodoxy (and the unity and orthodoxy, of course, divested of the Gnostic and Marcion followers).

As an opinion, I suspect the individual spiritual gifts and life experiences account for any and all variation in the spiritual Christian practice considered, "Mystical." If I am wrong in my assumption, this article will require a major effort to document and support its claim that it is otherwise. I am asking that you show the reader that the distinction exists, that it is identifiable, and that the relationship to the early Church, and in particular to those associated with Paul and his writings, may be supported.

Otherwise, this article appears to be nothing more that an internal discussion among those who were captured by an idea and gave it a name-- such is not an encyclopedic entry.

In its present form, it seems to assume (wrongly by any academic treatment of the matter) that John's writings within the Canon as well as canonical Jewish works had corrupted the Church belief and practice apart from what Paul articulated, and thus changes the meaning of Pauline from an influence to faith and practice to the sole founder of a non-Christian sect-- denying all other orthodox influences as heretical. If that is, in fact, the intent, then the sources provided neither suggest nor agree with the article in the form present at this time.

-- cregil  (talk)  19:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition (in opening section)
Here, we lack context.

"Pauline Christianity," if required as a definition for Pauline Mysticism, then that needs to be explained.

Perhaps, helpful would be wording beginning, "Pauline Mysticism is a term referring to the mystic or spiritual practices of..." Is it: It is not clear what is meant without such description.
 * "...of Paul" or
 * "...of the followers of Paul" or
 * "of Christians who place special emphasis on the canonical writtings of Paul" or
 * of... what?

Beginning with "It centers around..." what follows could apply to most any subject concerning Christianity. Specifics are needed.

-- cregil  (talk)  19:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Origin
It begins:

"Some consider Pauline mysticism a recent theological development,[1] while others, like Thomas C. Oden refer to Paleo-orthodoxy as Classical Christianity.[2] Professor Arthur J. Bellinzoni identifies Pauline Christianity as a distinct type of christianity within the early Christian Community.[3]"

Yes, but that refers to Pauline Christianity and in the context of the devlopment of orthodoxy in the Early Church, but does not address mysticism.

It continues:

"Mainstream western mysticism had been linked with ancient Greek philosophy, that dates back even before the birth of Christ. Professor Bruce B. Janz, illustrates this in his study of "Who's Who in the History of Western Mysticism".[4] Pauline mysticism however, dinstinctly differentiates itself from the mysticisms that originated from Greek philosophers.[citation needed]"

"Mainstream western mysticism" does not address mainstream Christian Mysticism and so does not help here. The next statement concerning "distinctly differentiates" is true of any discussion of Christianity and does not address mysticism-- it also needs specifics of those distinctions and requires a source. -- cregil  (talk)  20:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Practice
The Barry Hall statement needs to be sourced.

The scriptural quote from Jeremiah seems unrealted to what is written before (and after) and so ought to be deleted or explained as regards to how the reference supports what preceeds it.

"Through practical..." Practical (here, but no so much in the previous paragraph) may be true but is subjective and therefore suggests intent to pursuade rather than describe. We need to short-leash our opinions here.

"...that brings along some Biblical based mindset shifts..." Need to specify what these are. Also needs sourcing.

"It is explained how it is the inheritance..." This is largely a paraphrase of Christain Scripture, and it does not directly address the topic. Perhaps: "Pauline Mysticism holds that the Christian soul is able to 'pierce the veil' (Ref Hebrews), and attain entry into the Holy of Holies which is the Heavenly realm of God; and that both the soul and body may partcipate." I don't know if that is accurate, but that seems like the intent of what is presently written.

The "...'work up' any state of spirituality..." hangs there unexplained. To what is that referring?

Accept by grace and not by merit... So far, nothing in this section sets the practice of Pauline Mysticism apart from other Christain practices. Context. Context. Context! -- cregil  (talk)  21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Reactive Spirituality verses Proactive Mysticism
It seems (only that, because it is not stated) that a line has been drawn between works and faith-- that the Pauline Mysticism may be defined as a "Spirituality which has mystical characteristics but which the Christian experiences without intent." In which case, we need to define "intent" or else re-work this section and its heading because it is internal contradictions. Read on, please...

The claim that Paul's mysticism is of the passive type, is unsubstantiated. The translation with which I am most familiar uses the words, "caught up" which certainly does connote a passive experience, but by no means does that alone deny intent as understood to be a desire to find oneself in the presence of God. One would hope that Paul may be said to have that very intent.

Then we read, "In separating Christianity from the mystery religions, David Rightmire..." The statement is unsourced (who is David Rightmore, and in what medium is this contained?). What follows is confusing. Are there Christians who equate Christianity to the usual meaning of "mystery religion" (e.g., secret knowledge, after-death-navigate-to-Jupiter-then-turn-left-and-straight-on-to-Saturn type stuff)?

A list of practices is given as proactive but which has an overlap with the list of reactive. Yet both lists included "works" by a broad definition and thus a false dichotome is presented: "Silence" is considered "works to intiate" whereas singing hymns is not? This seems like ill-conceived rhetoric which I do not believe can be repaired, but it can be deleted.

But we do have a list, it seems, for the practice of Pauline Mysticism, although the discussion of pro-active verses reactive distracts from this section and implies a thinly-veiled attack on some unnamed villain. We can build on the positive but ought to avoid erecting straw men.-- cregil  (talk)  23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC) -- cregil  (talk)  23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Christ the Messiah
While a true statement from a Christian perspective, what is it doing here? This is irrelevant to the article as it adds nothing to the immediate subject. Is this a place holder for future development? If so, it needs to be developed on a user page before being placed on the live article. -- cregil  (talk)  23:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The mystical teachings of St. Paul, as a reactive mysticism
In an early edit, much of this section composed the body of the article. My original discussion included a reference to the Schweitzer connection. If Pauline Mysticism is principly based upon Albert Schweitzer's text, then that needs to be stated much earlier-- probably as part of the opening paragraph.

This section, in the context of the previous sections, suggests that there may be a hint that Pauline Mysticism is fundamentally a reference to the departure from Greek philosophy and then is seen permeating much of subsequent Western thought and practice beyond the influence of the Greek. But, as has been stated in most of the discussion in prior sections, this is not tightly articulated as regards the mystical practice and teachings of Paul, of his followers, or of those who are largely influenced by Paul.

Little, if any, of the focus separates the teachings from Paul in any significant way, from other mainstream Christian teachings, regarding the nature of Christ, the relation of man as creature to Him, nor of spiritual practice.

Yet again, I read looking for the unnamed villain, and see only a shadow of a straw man.

"Sola fide" adds nothing to the article-- it belongs and exists already in other articles, but appears here without any suggestion as to a connection with Pauline Mysticism.

I think Jesus might have a bit more to do with the "Cross-centered theology" than Paul had, so Paul seems to have been brought in to hold a door open which the Christ rather kicked-in. Don't you think?

We read, "Redemption is seen as an act of ascent, not mystical experience." (Assuming "assent" was meant-- as in agreement and acceptance of that which is provided; but "ascent"-- as in attaining more and higher by the recapitulation of mankind in Christ Jesus; that might work as well). So, Yes! -- and please, I beg you, name the straw man who disagrees!

We next bring in "agape love" on a sola fide theme with passing reference to post-modernism, and none assists the article.

We do gain a mention of "mystical teachings of Paul" but are not told what those might be. If there is anything I have read which sounds like secrets being held only for the initiates-- this is it!

Wisdom is a Judeo-Christian topic and not rightly tied to (or burdened with) Greek philosophy. Equally reasonable is to assume that God, in His wisdom, intended the Incarnation to coincide with Greek philosophy so as to correct it as well as make use of its reasoning. Who is to say? Scripture is silent and so is the Church as to the intent, but many have speculated as to its results. Is such an assumption necessary for a presentation of Pauline Mysticism? It may be, but sources and references will be needed to explain. -- cregil  (talk)  00:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul's mystical experiences as interpreted by proactive mysticism
Nothing here seems to address the section heading, much less the article. Something about occult practices because the 1st Century Jews did not experience spirituality in the atoning blood of Christ. We do not need to state the obvious nor demonize the Jews who did not accept Christ, and neither serves the article.

Where is mention of Paul's mystical experience?

Where is that experience interpreted by pro-active mysticism?

Where is a source reference that pro-active mystical practices claim the same experiences?

Where is the source reference and the data that the pro-active practices do not have the same or similar experiences?

What is referenced is an article about the Church in the post-modern world and is of a sociological theme.

This seems unnecessarily contentious. Inciting fear, uncertainty and doubt about the "proactive" approach without actually making an accusation or supplying evidence. Above, I mentioned that the pro-active and reactive approaches seemed a false dichotomy, and this section strengthens that impression.

I think it is a false dichotomy and needs to be seriously considered as to its value and use in this article.

-- cregil  (talk)  00:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mysticism and the external authority of Holy Scripture
(I am getting tired, apologies for terseness): Here we quote some man claiming something that most Christians Mystics would find objectionable -- at least without significant qualification, and then we state, "Pauline Mysticism is not that kind of mysticism."

That seems contrived. Who would have thought Pauline Mysticism would embrace the claim?

But for the sake of discussion: What if all humans have within them, as part of the "image and likeness" of God, an occasional (albeit, usually vague) perception of the spiritual? What if? And so would it not be expected that those experiences would send the soul searching for understanding, meaning and purpose? Maybe even crying out "Abba! Father!" and not knowing to whom the spirit (or Spirit) within them called?

Perhaps it is that all souls have been hindered until the manifestation of the One True God, first to the Jews and then to all in the Incarnation? This isn't my idea, this has been discussed since Biblical times and by Jews and Christians. Paul seeing the place of worship "To an Unknown God" and how he makes use of that-- does that not suggest that mankind is viewed even my Paul as inherently spiritual? Carl Jung was fascinated with the concept and seemed to have believed that Christianity was the fullest answer to that very human need.

Next...

Do we need to bring up authority of Scripture? It is a source of contention when it is couched as against the authority of the Church, of the Magisterium, of Reason, etc.. Without the "against" part, is it not safe to assume that Christians, whether considering themselves as "Pauline Christians" or otherwise, already understand the issues regarding the authority of scripture?

That need not be made issue here, as it does not pertain to Pauline Mysticism. Who reading an article on Pauline Mysticism is reading so as to find a section of the authority of Scripture?

The whole section seems a digression away from the topic.

'''Uh-oh! An idea! ..'''.

Increasingly, the topic seems to be being "branded" as Evangelical or Fundamentalist, and that, from my experience with Christian Mysticism, is problematic. In fact, it causes me to wonder if the hidden purpose of the article is really as offering an apology for mystical experiences within a (mostly hostile) fundamentalist and evangelical environment.

That would explain the vague but noticeable nod toward anti-catholicism, the surfacing of sola fide and sola scriptura, and how prayer and reading and study of scripture is somehow given as antithetical to lectio divina. Hmmmm.

If I am working with a group of "fundies" who happen to be Christian mystics and having some identity issues, then I feel a sermon coming on! Only teasing, but even if that is so, I can help. Ha! What a fun thought!

-- cregil  (talk)  01:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Throne room meditations
Okay, this part is just beautiful. I don't know what it has to do with Pauline Mysticism and I don't care-- it is just beautiful. I may print it and tape it on my bathroom mirror so I see it first thing in the morning.-- cregil  (talk)  01:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion
"This page was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus."

I am sorry I missed the discussion. As the sole contributor to this Talk page, and having no response-- direct, indirect, private or public (here)-- of any kind, I am ambivalent (at best!).

Those who express that it needs to remain because it is "important" betray its lack of importance by their lack of action. Lack of action by those who want it kept and the only one working on it (me) wishing it to be deleted is a consensus. Kill it.

I am not going to write this article, and if no one else is going to do so, much less address the issues which I took the time and effort to investigate and articulate-- then kill the article. Make it go away, or address the issues in a timely manner. I would suggest today would be a reasonable time frame to do so.

Frankly, that it has existed in such a form for so many months as published article is an embarrassment. That I attempted to save the article and was ignored by its supporters is difficult to reconcile. Maybe this is nothing but an advertisement... and if so... I feel used because, my minimum for advertising copyright begins at $750.00 (US) a day plus expenses-- and I don't think you can afford me.-- cregil  (talk)  19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Move
I've moved this page from "Pauline mysticism" to "Participation in Christ," the phrase being used by Sanders to characterise Pasul's theology. Sanders, to my best knowledge, mentions Schweitser, but gives a different interpretation. I've also removed undue and unsourced info. I hope this helps. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Where is the old page of Pauline Mysticism? How do I access that page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B076:B331:5144:3C21:D00A:984E (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * see here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  14:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Torah
"Paul redefined the people of Israel, those he calls the “true Israel” and the “true circumcision” as those who had faith in the heavenly Christ, thus excluding those he called “Israel after the flesh” from his new covenant (Galatians 6:16; Philippians 3:3). He also held the view that the Torah given to Moses was valid “until Christ came,” so that even Jews are no longer “under the Torah,” nor obligated to follow the commandments or mitzvot as given to Moses (Galatians 3-4). They now have a new “Torah of Christ” that replaces the old Sinai covenant mediated by Moses with a new “Torah of Christ” (2 Corinthians 3; 1 Corinthians 9:19-21; Galatians 6:2)."

"As Israelites, Samaritans and Jews in Late Antiquity shared a fierce, identity-defining attachment to the Torah – albeit distinctive versions of their common text. They did not merely hold the sacred canon in high esteem; they dramatized it, personified it, and composed lyrics (called piyyutim in both communities) to express their devotion to it. In both traditions Scrip-ture was understood as possessing properties of agency. It was not merely a document symbolizing the covenant between God and Israel – a passive object linking two active parties – but God’s primary creation, and one pos-sessing the ability to act, mediate and engage both deity and people. Scrip-ture becomes a character in the ongoing story of God and God’s people, and revelation constitutes a process of ongoing reaffirmation of divine selection. Neither Samaritan nor Jewish traditions develop a Logo theology, in which divine Word becomes divine Person incarnate, to the extent that Christianity does, but in writings from both communities we do see the divine Word personified both conceptually and performatively." – 2605:A000:160C:8CED:C199:9CC8:F802:A8BA (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Other salvation viewpoints
[Per Philippians 2] Salvation appears to stand for the future goal of all Christ-believers, their stay in the heavenly politeuma when Christ will have changed their lowly bodies and made them symmorphic with his own body of glory (3:20-21). [...] Paul first speaks of the Philippians as working on their own salvation (2:12) and then (apparently) of the end of that work, namely that they become (‘morally’) blameless and spotless (2:15)... – 2605:A000:160C:8CED:C199:9CC8:F802:A8BA (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)