can be determined it is first necessary to recognize that Ambrose and other Puritans
were equally critical of certain spiritual practices and their resulting mystical
experiences in the seventeenth-century. More problematic in addressing the prospects
of a contemporary retrieval of a contemplative-mystical piety is the well-known
resistance of Karl Barth who once referred to mysticism as “esoteric atheism.”^2
Barth’s theological influence casts a very long shadow over the landscape of the
contemporary academy and even to some degree the Church. However, Barth does
not speak for all Reformed Christians and his interpretation of mystical experience
distorts a more balanced understanding of the contemplative-mystical piety of the
Reformed tradition. The term “Reformed tradition” is used here to speak of the
theological descendants of Calvin. Therefore, this chapter will first examine the
seventeenth-century concerns regarding mysticism followed by an analysis of Barth’s
misgivings pertaining to contemplative experiences. The focus will then shift to
Herman Bavinck for reconstructing a more balanced Reformed understanding.
Finally, this chapter will conclude with a summary of contemplative-mystical
principles from Ambrose that can be retrieved for the contemporary Church.
Seventeenth-Century Resistance to Mysticism
While this thesis has been exploring the possibility of a seventeenth-century
contemplative-mystical piety within Puritanism, at one level the Puritans were
strongly suspicious of mysticism. Consequently Ambrose and most Puritans would
have been aghast to be called mystics. McGinn reminds readers that this label would
have equally confused Bernard and other medieval Christians.^3 In fact, chapter 1
reported, mysticism was an invention of the seventeenth-century in France. A
2
3 Barth, McGinn, CDFoundations of Mysticism I/2, 322.^ , xvi. cf. Harmless, Mystics, 232.