Last year there was a bit of an internet hubbub when a well known Christian Reformed blogger reviewed a a well known book by an offbeat female author. The details really don’t matter. But one of the main complaints about the book was that author flirted with mysticism. The Reformed blogger suggested that mysticism is outside the mainstream of Christianity and bordered on heresy if it did not actually step over the line. The blogger got a lot of push back from the author’s fans for dismissing her book. But what was more concerning to me (because I have not read the book in question) was the the blogger was dismissing the long history of Christian mysticism. Eventually the blogger apologized for the way that he criticized the book, but he did not apologize for dismissing mysticism.
Clearly the church has always had its stream of mystics. And yes, some of those mystics have skirted the line of orthodoxy. But there are many groups that skirt the line of orthodoxy. We do not dismiss all academics, because some academics skirt the line of orthodoxy. We do not dismiss all missionaries because some cross over the line into syncretism in their attempt to spread the gospel. I found it interesting that in the comments of the review, there were people that denied that mysticism had always been a part of mainstream Christianity. I specifically mentioned Bernard of Clairvaux as an example of a very mainstream mystic and was told that Bernard and many other middle age Catholics were an example of what is wrong with mysticism. To which it was clear to me, that these reformed commenters did not know anything about the stream of Christianity that they were criticizing.