Mystical Identification
Some years ago, I wrote an unwieldy article for a
particular journal. In that article I
offered an interpretation of the Apostle Paul’s statement in Galatians 6:17, “From
now on let no one cause me trouble, for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.” The term “marks” in the Greek is “stigmata.” My mind went to odd places, and I argued that
Paul might mean (and I may have
written that he did mean) the word
literally.
Now, many people would say that the marks of Jesus come
from his being shipwrecked, beaten, hit with rocks, etc. in the course of his
ministry. In other words, his scars are
the marks he has received in the work of Christ. That certainly makes sense.
But what I argued in that article was that maybe he didn’t
mean it that way. Maybe Paul meant that
he had what is more commonly thought of as the stigmata – the bleeding hands –
that demonstrate a powerful and mystical connection with Christ.[1]
I bring this up only because I recently read a quotation
from the medieval theologian, Bonaventure who described three ways to encounter
God: “symbolic, by which we deal correctly with sensible things, proper, by which we deal correctly with
intelligible things, and mystical, by
which we are taken up into mind-transcending ecstasies.”[2] Paul describes such an event in 2nd
Corinthians 12.
What I found intriguing is the subversive idea of
mysticism. It is a means to encounter
God, but it is one that is out of the control of the church or, in the case of
Paul, the Jewish tradition or the emerging Christian tradition. And for “modern” stigmatics (13th
century and forward), the question is an engaging one: what does it convey? Because if it is declared legitimate, then
the church finds itself in a bind.
If the stigmata is an example of personal piety, then the
church begins to lose its control over the ‘true’ works of God. By that I mean that stigmatics were the
ultimate example of sharing in Christ’s suffering and had, in essence,
“bypassed the need for the intercessions of the Church.”[3] What the
stigmata did was to empower those who had little or no voice in the established
church. As a history of stigmatics
indicates, most stigmatics have been women.
And while the church encouraged individual piety, the priests were the
ones who had a ‘direct’ line to God through the celebration of the
Eucharist. Therefore, these stigmatics
were encountering God through their own individual lives without church
involvement. So what the stigmata does, by orthodox definition, is
demonstrate piety and God’s favor.[4] Yet it has inevitably done so in such a way
that the phenomenon circumvents the orthodox traditions of the Church in
particular. Genuine stigmatics could
supersede the authority of the Church yet not be denied by that same institution.[5]
It is here that I find the church in a precarious
position. We encourage people to
encounter God, but if that encounter is beyond our control, we have to wrestle
with questions of legitimacy. Perhaps
Paul was echoing words that were designed to say, “I have the authority to
declare what I declare,” which is precisely what he argues in the opening
chapter of Galatians (see 1:11-24, especially 1:12).
Paul’s own proclamation is that God has worked through
him despite who he was, and this is
the message of the church – God can work for your benefit with or in spite of
you, and that this is what was done in Christ.
What I find so interesting is that Paul’s claim, and the claims of
stigmatics, is subversive. God moves
inside and outside the boundaries of established religious understandings. In the Bible God is seen working and speaking
outside the walls of organized religion over and over again. Persecuted prophets, rule-breaking Judges, less-than-morally-stellar
Jacob, prostitutes, a messiah whose family thought he was crazy, and an apostle
who opposed the teachings of the early Christian movement.
God will do what God will do, it would seem. The problems tend to arise when God doesn’t
operate how we believe God should
operate. It is the mystic, the one who
seeks to encounter God on a far more spiritual level, that seems to be able to
grasp this fact. Perhaps in our effort
to be so orthodox in our various settings, we have failed to be able to
encounter God.
Well, I think I will stop here and let this sit for a while. This is all a thought in progress. I may return to it at some point.
[1] The stigmata are broken into categories: The
stigmata are documented phenomena that, for many, are deeply powerful
manifestations of the wounds of Christ on the body of a devout believer. Generally the stigmata will manifest itself
in the form of bleeding hands, feet, and side (from the nails and the spear
wounds, respectively). Most typically,
the stigmata are generally bleeding hands.
Yet other less common wounds occur in the feet, side, and (sometimes)
brow (from the crucifixion, spear would, and crown of thorns – see John 20:25,
19:34 and Matthew 27:29).[1] But the term stigmata
has also been understood in cases that do not conform to the aforementioned
wounds. These wounds (hands, feet, side,
and brow) are known as “complete stigmatization.” There are other less common ‘stigmatic
imprints’ such as: the marks of scourging; wounds on a shoulder, wounds on
wrists; bruising from whipping; and on the mouth (from the sponge supped with
vinegar).
[2] I read this in the book Mysticism and
Dissent by Steven Ozment (p.4)
[3] Ted Harrison Marks of the Cross p.
119
[4] See Albert Farges Mystical Phenomena
[5] See Harrison pp. 114-125
Comments
Post a Comment