Affiliation:
1. Department of Theology and Religion, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
Abstract
The experiential bias in modern understandings of spirituality has led to readings of the pre-modern texts of Pseudo-Dionysius as referring to “negative experiences” of faith. Denys Turner, Bernard McGinn, and others have outlined the mistaken “spiritual positivism” of such readings and their contrast with the negative dialectics of the classical apophatic tradition. Indeed, the philosophical parameters of the Christian mysticism of the Dionysian tradition would deny “mystical experience” to be “experience” as such. Nevertheless, several modern theologians have attempted to integrate interpretations of the experiential in Christian mysticism into their theology. These include Sara Coakley in the idea of spiritual sense in her theology of the body, Karl Rahner in the conception of spiritual touch within his theology of grace, and Louis Dupré’s view that there is religious significance in the experience of “emptiness” in modern-day atheism. I shall contrast these attempted integrations with the critique of “mystical experience” within classical understandings of apophaticism.
Reference46 articles.
1. Mitchell, Arthur (1911). Creative Evolution, Henry Holt & Co.
2. Audra, R. Ashley, and Brereton, Cloudesely (1954). Two Sources of Morality and Religion, Doubleday.
3. Woods, Richard (1980). Mysticism: An essay on the history of the word. Understanding Mysticism, Image Books.
4. Coakley, Sarah (2002). Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Blackwell.
5. Coakley, Sarah, and Stang, Charles M. (2009). Introduction: Re-thinking Dionysius the Areopagite. Rethinking Dionysius the Areopagite, Wiley Blackwell.