posted April 27, 2013 02:49 PM
So, this guy I'm reading (yes, Tomberg again) appears to have a pretty deep experience of "the mystical core" or "heart" of spirituality, while emphasizing the importance of the "organs", or whole "body", typically called religious, which constitutes, in his view, the fullness of the spiritual life. As he defines it, mysticism is only the first member of the spiritual "trinity": Mysticism, Gnosis, and Magic. What begins in the experience of the One, beyond mind (Mysticism), passes into spiritual knowledge, or revelation, through the alchemical crucible of the intellect (Gnosis), and culminates in actions reflecting a ritualistic or ceremonial relationship to the world (Magic).Tomberg, formerly an adherent of Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy, and perhaps the most brilliant disciple of that great occultist, ultimately chose to align himself with Roman Catholicism, for rather complex reasons (as might be expected, and tolerated, from a man of his "overreaching" genius).
For a long time, I've been drawn toward the Anglican, or Episcopal, approach to Christianity, which appears to reflect a fairly well developed appreciation for this mystical-gnostic-magical synthesis. Anglicans see their approach as a "Via Media", or middle way, between the free-form personal revelation expressed in Protestantism and the more rigid, ceremonial traditionalism of Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity.
At the same time, I find myself strongly identifying with the Quakers, those free spirits at the far outposts of Christianity, whom even most Protestants consider radical. My understanding of the Quaker, or radically Protestant, approach, as opposed to the Roman and Eastern Orthodox approach may be expressed in the following analogy, which is hardly an analogy, concerning the Mass; also called the Divine Liturgy, or the taking of Communion.
This is the more or less symbolic eating of the bread (or flesh) of Christ, and drinking of the wine (or blood), in order to be, or to experience one's being, united with the mystical body of Christ, or the Church; be it the visible and historical Church, or the invisible community of souls united in their intention to embody love as exemplified in the life and teachings of Jesus. The Liturgy is perhaps the last real vestige of Theurgy, or Divine Magic, as it is practiced within the Christian tradition.
Basically, for the Quaker, no outward action is needed, warranted, or wise. The taking of communion is a purely symbolical process referring to the inward communion of mystical experience. To the extent that it is effective, it would be outwardly manifested, not in ritual forms, but in a life of simplicity and social activism. The bread need not be broken, and the cup need not be lifted, unless it is to be offered to another.
For the Catholic or Orthodox Christian, the bread and wine are almost literally, if not literally, transformed into flesh and blood, while the mere act of partaking of the bread and wine, regardless of one's intention or inward disposition, signifies a profound spiritual transmission.
The middle, or Anglican, way, would be to unite the inward disposition with the outward, ceremonial manifestation. If the sacrament is taken inwardly, and wholeheartedly, there is no reason for it to be disregarded outwardly. Whether or not, as the Quakers propose, the inward act is, in some sense, enough, nevertheless, the outward act, though seemingly unnecessary, expresses an act of submission or obedience which the truly liberated spirit will not disdain. The sacrament, in the widest sense, should continue after the service, and ultimately be reflected in a life of simplicity and social activism, but it is not without significance in its own right, as a shared experience, a clear and particular manifestation of the common will of the members of the Church, and even as a magical act, with resonances beyond the ordinary.
I'm curious to hear other's reflections on these matters.