The Evangelical Universalist Forum

JRP interviews Joe Hinman on THE TRACE OF GOD

Studies Books
#41

Hi Joe –

That makes sense. I really wasn’t trying to derail you conversation with my bonnet full of wild bees.

Yes of course I agree with your broad aim entirely. And I have to apologise if I came over as a spanner in the works man – it’s just me being an Englishman :laughing: .

Obviously you and Jason have an apologetic purpose in your discussion here to find a middle space between Jason’s metaphysical apologetic and your work which is based on sifting subjective data for the same purpose. Atheists – well not all Atheists but certainly the Dennet and Dawkins crowd – want to dismiss all religious experience as a form of mental illness, as a malignant meme. Freud said something similar – but his methodology had less claims to objectivity. I personally think the whole New Atheist project is absolute tosh and certainly in the UK it seems to be pretty widely derided now even by atheists and agnostics. There was a hilarious article by an agnostic comedian in a UK paper imagining Richard Dawkins grabbing the microphone from Martin Luther King when he was making his famous ‘I have a dream speech’ and shouting testily at the crowd, ‘Stop listening to this rubbish. What you really need to do is read a good biology text book (and I’d recommend one of my own of course)’.:smiley:

We all come from different perspectives at things. And I appreciate the Wuthnow and Noble indicators of religious experience you’ve cited. Yes I’d agree that these are excellent criteria for evaluating healthy religious experience that is life transforming in a most excellent way. It may be because of early experience – but not just this – but I guess I come at this from a slightly different perspective of being aware of varieties of religious experience not all of which are healthy and some of which can destroy people. And I think my main concern in life has not been so much an apologetic one but a pastoral one of discernment in these matters.

So I’ll just outline some stuff and then I’ll let you proceed apace (Jason can tag me if he thinks I might have something useful to say).

This definition of the mystical as a state of experience of undifferentiated unity – it sounds very much akin to the via negative mysticism that we find in the tradition of Dionysus the Areopagite though the Cloud of Unknowing. This is certainly one form of religious experience. But there are others which are to do with sensual visionary experiences – via positiva ones of seeing the world in a grain of sand a heaven in a wild flower for example.

And something that’s always interested me is the fit between the type of person having the experience and the type of experience itself. William James’ chapters on the experiences of those who are ‘Sick Souls’ and the experience of those who are Healthy Minded in their appropriation of religious experience are wonderful on this score.

Atheists may say that religious experience is the result of mental illness. That’s really overstating the case. But people of different temperaments – some of which can become pathological if taken to extremes – have slightly different types of religious experience. So sometime the two can be linked. I’m thinking of George Fox and his terrible struggles with scrupulosity– a condition that a number of lovely people here struggle with. And the basic sanity of his conclusions from his struggles with scrupulosity and all of the temptations to blaspheme and utter profanities that seemed to assail him. He didn’t; accuse himself in the end – He cried to God ‘Lord why is it that I am assailed by these when I have nothing but love for thee, And was given the reply so that you may have a sense of all conditions and be able to minister unto all conditions’. That’s a healthy response. But I also remember many examples of pathological masochism detailed by James in his chapter on saintliness for example.

I note also – of interest to many people here – that Jonathan Edwards actually wrote some very beautiful stuff on his own via positive mystical experiences of apprehending God in nature – and these experiences built him up. However, the work that he is most known for here is Sinners in the hands of an Angry God. Delivered in a monotone to a congregation in this men got down on all ground and barked like animals and woman and children screamed in terror. Since his revivals seemed to lead to burn out in the areas of his visitation I see this as purely negative emotional stimulation. I’m well acquainted with the Calvinist literature of seventeenth century England and how total depravity teaching often completely undermined people and induced pathological states from which some recovered, some went mad beyond retrieval and some killed themselves. That’s one example of negative religious experience and I often worry about Calvinist sermons with dreary and threatening musical back tracks on the internet today. MY experience is that they often have a devastating effect on people.

That’s just one example of religious experience or experience induced in the name of religion actually being, at least for some (and not just a few), a cul de sac of destruction (although for a few it might be the door to transformation. I’ve used it because lots of people here have issues with it. I would always want to draw a distinction between good and bad religious experiences – and what is purely emotional stimulation leading to unhealthy states of consciousness and what actually leads to the love that builds up

#42

Joe,

I just wanted to tell you that I received my copy of your book. Looks like it’s going to be good. Thanks! :smiley:

#43

I don’t want to derail the thread, but Joe I was tooling around your site a little bit. Your article on kephale as source is exactly how I see it, and just to tie into this thread, was revealed to me in a vision, and has become a defining point for my theology. Its very exciting for me to see some historical backing for this.

Also your models of revelation article is wonderful, and very much how I view these things, as far as I’ve skimmed the article. ( I have my first book by Keryni sitting on my counter, waiting for some vacation time to dig in. )

This is the article for other readers on revelation
doxa.ws/Bible/Models_rev.html

Jason thanks for bringing Joe here, the timing of me coming back on this site after almost a year, and being introduced to Joe’s work is serendipitous for me.

#44

great. glad you like it. thanks for buying it. At least that’s one. A small step for Joe, let’s hope not the only step for Joe.

#45

that’s cool. do you know about the egalitarian movement? It’s mostly evangelicals women and men, they seek to uphold an evangelical framework but view the teachings of the bible in a more fair less gender biased light. They have a big movement. There are a lot scholars that support it.

I have a whole section on Doxa (my web site) defending the egal position:

This section contains lots of articles

#46

No no I didn’t take it that way. I just thought some readers “out there” might think it’s about the mystics if I followed my inclination and began talking about them.

ahhahaah he probably would too. I’ve been saying this for years, let’s see Dawkins ride the bus with the freedom riders.

That was my perspective too. I only discovered these studies doing apologetic. The book should be of interest to more than just the apologetics crowd.

Have you read Stace? Hood et al don’t rule out a person as a mystic merely because they have sensual oriented phenomena. They tend to assign that to the larger umbrella of STE. James talks about people with physical phenomena. For Hood it’s based upon validating Stace. I’m not sure of all of Stace’s reasons for limiting it to that, but I think was part of the literature for a lot longer, even Underhill uses that same criteria.

Those are great comments. I wont add anything and I don’t disagree with anything. I appreciate your contribution.

I will say this about the definition of “beyond word, thought, or image.” Stace uses that and Underhill before him (he may have gotten it from her). I talk about this in the book, really it does need to be overhauled. For example there two kinds of experience, introvertive and extroversion. The intro is without words thought or image, can’t be described. The extra is usually keyed through nature and is triggered by scenes of nature.

Pretty much all the examples one finds are extrovertive since introvertive can’t be described. Then there’s the sense of the numinous which usually accompanies the undifferentiated sense of unity, that is the sense of the holy, a special nature to things. That is keyed through visual sense too.

Then the noetic aspects, when one feels that one has gained from the experience a rational knowledge, such as “God is love.” All of these are exceptions to the definition and they illustrate its inadequacy. But that is part and parcel of the experience as a whole, describing it is always problematic. The nature of mysticism is always bound up with language problems.

#47

I’m busy at ‘work’ work today (and probably tomorrow, too), so I’m only passing through today – I may not be able to continue the interview until Friday. Hopefully people will be comfortable continuing to ask Joe questions about the work in his book.

As a quick sidequestion meanwhile, are there more direct connections between mystical experience and Kuhn’s paradigm shifting?

Also, the whole topic of paradigm shifting is, I think, super-important not only for minority beliefs (such as ourselves, or for that matter Christians of any kind in other cultures around the world), but also for understanding and working through apologetics and evangelism – and for understanding how people deconvert out of Christianity, too! (Generally more people leave Christianity than are born out of it in the Western world.)

So I wouldn’t mind if someone started a new thread on that soon before I get around to doing so :wink: , and if Joe guest-contributed to that discussion that would be nifty.

(Not even kidding guys, Joe has access to a lot of material I think would be interesting to a wide variety of people here, even if maybe for different types of person. I know several people here who would love to hear about his work with Mexican social revolutionaries, just to give one example! :laughing: If you wanted to start a thread a week on various topics here, which of course just happened to promote the book along the way :mrgreen: , I think you’d enjoy the audience, Joe.)

#48

Joe,

I’ve been reading some and scanning some here, and I’m wondering . . . some of the language is a bit over my head I’m afraid . . . what exactly IS a mystic? How do you define it? Sometimes people tell me I am one, but I never thought so. I’d be curious to know more about the definitions of mysticism.

Thanks! Cindy

#49

I really answered that above. A mystic is one who has mystical experiences. I think in the traditional sense you have to have them for at least 30 minutes and more than once (they usually last 30 minutes if it’s the Undifferentiated unity). But the modern researchers in social science call all their respondents who have such experiences mystics weather they have more than once or not.

Mystical experience is an experience of the undifferentiated unity of all things, it’s one, accompanied by the sense of the numinous (the sense of the Holy–special quality to the experience that gives it an aspect of the sublime). It can be either beyond words, thoughts, or images, or it can be keyed to experience of nature. A lot of people experience such things when out in nature or looking at the stars at night.

It’s easy to fool yourself into thinking that woolgathering or being amazed by beauty or experiencing the sublime is mystical.

#50

I’m not just a guest I’m also a member. I am not a mystic but I play one on tv.

I have been meaning to start posting here anyway. I will. just show me to the Kuhn link. Also if there are any fans of the Legion of super heroes about.

#51

I kind of LOL’d at the time component of a mystical experience, but not really in a funny way. How can you time your experience? Is this to differentiate between levels of mystical experience? My first experience, I’m not sure how long it lasted in real time, but I was gone for a long time. I was standing when this happened and when I returned to my living room I was still in the same place. My legs weren’t tired at all, I have no clue how long the event lasted, but I can’t even imagine at that moment thinking, “how long was I gone for?”. I know everyone’s different, and this is from a research perspective, so there has to be factors that can be measured. But this kind of gets at my initial uneasiness of trying to quantify mystical experiences. Maybe I’m in need of a change in my paradigm :slight_smile: It wouldn’t be the first time.

So is the time thing, or multiple events, there to disqualify the sense of sublime while woolgathering and such?

Thanks, and I hope you don’t take my tone as annoyed with you, I know you didn’t make up the time thing. I appreciate your contributions and time here greatly. :slight_smile:

#52

mystic is just a label that humans give to a certain set of ideas and experiences. So what? I would rather really know God and have 15 minute long experiences than missing really knowing and be able to call myself “mystic.”

I don’t think Underhill expected anyone to sit there with a stop watch. So when they say 30 minutes I don’t think they meant that to the second. Modern researchers might have timed it. I know that more than one expositor says that the drug induced form lasts much longer than the “natural” version.

#53

I think what Joe means is that (some) researchers who are quantifying experience for purposes of scientific classification and study, categorize a person as certainly being a mystic if they evidence repeated experiences which tend to last around 30 minutes or more.

Such researchers wouldn’t classify me (for example) as a mystic, even if they decided by the M Scale criteria that I had had mystical experiences – which they might not that, either! Other people would say I’m a mystic for having some prophetic dreams of a particular kind of hyper-realized emotional unity (for want of a better description), even though those experiences were (with one far outlier which was itself the most important of the experiences) limited to a few years, and probably none lasted half an hour or even longer than a few minutes.

#54

The interview has gone well so far, so I’m going to finish up my side of it, but members are entirely welcome to keep talking with Joe of course and asking questions.

Joe may decide to answer these somewhat separately, btw, and that’s okay.

1.) You indicated upthread that some researchers do think that at least one (or more?) of the drug experiments resulted in categorically ‘mystical’ experiences. That could make people nervous for several reasons, and generally you’re critical of past experiments along this line. Would you go into some more detail about this, and the limits to the implications?

2.) In your final chapter(s) you talk about how you recommend integrating or considering the results of mystical experiences into Christianity more particularly. That seems like the best place to end an interview on a Christian forum, too! :slight_smile:

#55

Thanks Joe, and Jason. I guess thats what I was wondering was where did the 30 minute time come from. I agree completely Joe that a 15 minute experience of knowing God and actually knowing is the point. I also agree that the term is just a term. I guess I need to read your book to get a better feel for how the field of research into mystical experiences is conducted. :slight_smile:

When I think of the trying to scientifically study mystical experiences, I picture a bunch of whitecoats trying to pin jello to the wall. :smiley:

#56

LOL! that was my first sort of feeling too. If you just think about they are not studying the way the experience is presented in your head but the effects it has on you. To do that they have to be able say “this is it” nor “this is not one.” That’s why they they deal with issues like how long it lasts.

I’ve talked to several of the researchers they are all over the place. Some of them are quite serious about God in their private lives, even though they are not Christians, some are not serious about God at all.

#57

There are several triggers that can evoke mystical experience. They don’t cause it but they facilitate it. One example is music, especially religious music or classic music. Certain kinds of drugs is another. Not just any drug will do it. Mostly it’s psilocybin and mescaline. I said that this is the receptor argument. The drugs just stimulate the natural receptions that God put in us to receive the Trace and understand the experiences of God’s presence. Just like saying he gave us ear drums to hear vibrations as sound. If he wants to talk to us audibly he has to do it audibly so we can hear it. That doesn’t mean we can attach a drug culture to our experiences of God. It also doesn’t mean we need drugs to open the receptors. We can do that through prayer or through other of the other triggers. Prayer can be a trigger.

I talked about the Good Friday experiment. This guy gave some people psilocybin and some people just went to a church service. The drug group had much more experiences, much deeper experiences which affected them throughout their lives. Those experiences were life transforming. The church going group was very lack luster. Most of them were not deeply effected long term.

That doesn’t prove that the drugs cause the effect. All of the people in both groups were seminary students, they all had experiences of God as children. The guy who did the study chose them that way for a reason but it also contaminated his data. It opens the door to the receptor argument: were the experiences in the study caused by the drug or did the drug just wake up old experiences that had been buried in the psyche?

Of course it could also be that the life long effect was a placebo caused by actually taking a drug. The drug experience reawakening memories of childhood experience reinforces the issue more than just a church service. Something else to consider is charismatic/pentecostal theology; if the church group was not “spirit filled”, they weren’t worshiping in a “deep” manner or in a “spirit filled” manner, so perhaps had they been “spirit filled” going in they might have had a more long lasting effect.

In any case even through there are groups that sincerely advocate the use of drugs in religious context, like the Native Americans, I am opposed to that. Technically it’s pharmoukia, the term in Revelation translated witchcraft. But moreover, it’s not necessary. These drugs are still illegal. Praying can accomplish the same thing. I’m sure of that. It takes practice and cultivation. Just one church service “cold” so to speak is not going to do. That’s so western, we want our quick fix. Quickie nirvana.

In that next to the last chapter on drugs I present the 8 tie breakers. Those are worth buying the book for. The tie is, brain chemistry and chemicals could be either agents to open the receptors so we experience God, or they might cause the experience. It could be either, which is it? WE can assume it’s God, why? Because of the tie breakers. Buy the book read the tie breakers.

In general terms, I deal with two major issues in the last chapter. First, I’m accused by atheists of giving an amorphous view of God that can be anything depending upon the argument. They want it all pinned down and dissected for them. I used to give talks at a “philosophers forum” in Dallas when I was a Ph.D. candidate. There was a guy there who would always chime in. I thought he was silly, I could never figure out what he was saying. My bother and other friends would laugh. Every time he said something he would preface it by saying “I’m a mystic.” He would drag it out “IIIIIIIII’ a mYYYYYYYStic!” then he would talk about how the pyramid is the strongest structure. Regardless of what the topic was! Why? I don’t know.

I’m sure that’s what the atheists think of me when I start talking about “Mystical Experience.” I hope I’m not like that. In this chapter, I talk about phenomenology and William James in this connection. What I’m saying is that spiritual life (what is usually called “being a Christian”) is not about reading words on paper. That helps but that’s not the point of the faith. Being able to describe all about God is not the point of the faith.

The point is to experience God. I talk about the chapter in Jeremiah 31 that is quoted in Hebrews, “The new covenant won’t be like the old one…” The new one will be written in the heart. You wont have to tell the other guy “Know the Lord”, they will all know Him. Why? Because it’s a matter of experiencing God. I’m not saying that anyone should think we need to be a mystic. I’m not advocating seeking an experience so that one can use a label “mystic.” I never say “I’m a mystic” in prefacing anything. It’s not about reading words on paper.

The other major issue is universality of mystical experiences seems to refute the exclusivity of Christianity. I argue that’s just the surface appearance. We have become so used to thinking of joining a church as 'getting saved." We associate knowing God with joining the church and being a Christian. Thus we assume God can’t save people in other faiths. We also hear about “no other name given under heaven” so therefore if you don’t know the name Jesus you can’t be saved.

I do the C.S. Lewis thing. I assume that “no other name” will save you but that doesn’t mean that who don’t know they are following Jesus won’t be saved because they are seeking the good, they seeking the true creator, they are seeking to follow the moral law that God puts on your hearts. God is drawing all people to Jesus, but he has to start with them where they are. So everyone has the receptors and everyone has the ability to sense the Trace of God. It’s a mattering choosing to follow it.

Those two issues, the vagueness of God (beyond our understanding) and the universality of the experience vs exclusivity of Jesus, come together at that point. Because it’s about experiencing God as a reality, not about spitting out formal doctrines.

Having said that I do follow the creeds. I think they are important. I don’t suggest that we based doctrines upon experiences. Those are two different functions of the Spirit. Doctrine is a specific example of the Spirit leading us into all truth, and mystical experience is a general sense of communion with God. More goes into the basis of doctrine (which is teaching) than just experience: the general noetic aspects excepted. There’s logic, analysis of scripture and so on.

I don’t advocate seeking to become something called a mystic. I advocate being aware that experiencing of God is valid and it’s good for us and that we should seek God and the experiences will come. Don’t expect the experience, just seek the giver of the experience. The rest will follow.

#58

Thanks a lot, Joe! Great interview! I hope your book will sell well.

The thread remains open for people to continue talking with Joe, asking questions, etc. If you’re coming in late, don’t worry. :slight_smile: The nice thing about having an internet thread interview is that the guest isn’t restricted to being on stage for a couple of hours and then has to leave.

Note: I’m not entirely sure Joe’s pmail has been set up correctly, so if you’ve used private mail to try to contact him don’t feel bad if he hasn’t responded.

#59

Joe has provided us a free essay summarizing the book, which I’m appending here in doc and pdf formats. It’s only 1050 words (or six pages of large (18pt) monospace type), so it isn’t long, but it gives a quick focused look at the book’s contents.

He also has a podcast interview with Nick Peters which he’ll be posting a link to here next week.
The Trace of God – promotional essay.pdf (42.9 KB)
The Trace of God – promotional essay.doc (30 KB)

#60

That survey really whet’s one’s appetite for reading the book!