Essay On Mysticism And The Future

Harvey Cox is a professor from Harvard Divinity School. He thinks that fundamentalism is in its dying stages and will be replaced by a new era of mysticism as the chief driving force of religiosity. He is probably wrong.
Mysticism is something of a catch-all term, and Cox himself doesn’t especially like the term because in common usage it has a fuzzy, ill-defined definition that he feels undercuts the important parts of what he means by mysticism. He defines it in an experiential way, and uses it to refer to an encounter with God or the spiritual that is not mediated by religious institutions. It is a concept found in one way or another in most every religion, and is generally viewed with suspicion or hostility by religious authorities, who naturally see themselves as the mediators between the religious client and the divine. This is a concept that fits the way most people traditionally viewed as Christian mystics saw and were treated by their religion, and it fits well into Weber’s Legal Rational vs Charismatic dichotomy.
Cox trots out the old saw about how more and more people view themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” Another point Cox discusses is the election of Pope Francis, the first pope to take the name. Saint Francis was of course a mystic, and Pope Francis is a popular figure with youth and even non-Christians. What Cox fails to take into account is that a large part of the reason why Pope Francis is popular with non-Christians has nothing to do with mysticism and everything to do with the fact that his devotion to helping the poor enrages other Christians in positions of power by disrupting their comfortable lives. That does not translate into a respect for Catholic doctrine in general or Christian mysticism in particular. Rather, it is a sign of widespread dislike for the organization he is the leader of. Schadenfreude is not a basis for a reorientation in religious sentiment.
Cox is wrong about how mysticism is the future of religious experience because he underestimates the power of organization and ease of use. Let’s return to his analogy of religious authorities as mediators between the consumer and the divine. In the world of day to day life quality is not what wins out; cost-effective, easy to use services are. McDonalds is far and away not the best source of food or even fast food out there, but they manage to churn out a product just edible enough in just enough consistent quality at just the right price point to be the path of least resistance for a huge chunk of the population. As a result McDonalds is a wildly successful and profitable international franchise that serves the exact same just good enough double cheeseburger from Dallas to Beijing. A similar principle applies to religion. As much as Cox might talk about Christmas and Easter Catholics, going to Mass once a week or similar mainline church worship arrangements is far easier and simpler to fit into a schedule than some sort of mystical, charismatic direct encounter with the divine that by definition cannot be fit into a routine, workaday mold. Being a mystic means doing things like changing your routine and lifestyle, giving up personal wealth and comfort and generally taking responsibility for things most people do not want to take responsibility for. That is why we have religious organizations and hierarchies to begin with.
Cox’s example of youth disillusionment with organized religion due to such issues as authoritarian teachings and homophobia can be addressed the same way. Cox assumes that factors such as these are driving people away from establishment religion and toward mysticism. But leaving aside the way he’s probably over-estimating how much young people care about gay people, none of those things are inherent to organized religion. Those are specific problems with specific religious organizations, and they can be satisfied at least as well by the rise of new, more democratic, less homophobic churches as by a reorientation toward mysticism and personalized religious experiences. Christians would not have spent the past two thousand years killing each other over doctrinal differences if the nature of the religion and its practitioners wasn’t inclined toward institutions and orthodoxy and a need to establish who is right. Further, people who claim to be ‘spiritual but not religious’ can just as easily mean it as a euphemism for the fact that they flat out do not believe in Christianity but don’t want to deal with the social stigma of being an open atheist or agnostic. Thus, I predict that future faith will be neither more mystical nor more entrenched in rational dogmas. Rather, it will be political. I foresee the rise and expansion of liberal churches, along with homophobic and right-wing churches and in general churches that appeal throughout the political spectrum. As it has for two thousand years Christianity will try to be all things to all people, and in doing so people will find in it confirmation of what they already wanted to believe and put their trust in the leaders who give that validation to them.