doing when we are knowing?’”^178 McGinn was deeply influenced by Lonergan, and
McGinn’s questions of what is the mystical element; mystical vocabulary, mystical
theology, mystical consciousness, mystical path, and how we read and interpret the
mystical texts will exert a strong influence in this thesis. A significant challenge
during this third step is to negotiate the conversation between the two horizons of the
reader and text. Further, Sheldrake stresses the value of a contemplative approach to
this reading.^179 This reinforces Frohlich’s comments about the childlike nature of
Lonergan’s questions since children’s questions model a desire to understand and
enjoy, not to analyze and control.
The importance of the community of readers is Tracy’s fourth step. Reading
is not done in isolation and the insights of others either resonate and confirm
understanding encouraging a hermeneutic of consent or further provoke and challenge
the person to examine more deeply his or her own awareness and whether or not it
was a possible interpretation of the text. McGinn’s consistent usage of a broader
definition of mysticism is ultimately a confirmation of the more isolated previous
usages of the mystical element or its variations on that theme. While the resistance of
many scholars to find evidence of Puritan mysticism causes numerous readers to be
skittish about this possibility, the research of Jean Williams and Simon Chan assert
the reality of the contemplative-mystical piety within moderate Puritanism, not as a
rarity but as a common feature of a healthy Reformed piety. I too join that
community in engaging this study. Chapter 6 will revisit the hermeneutical matter of
178
Frohlich, “Spiritual Discipline, Discipline of Spirituality,” 66. cf. Lonergan,Method in Theology (^179) Sheldrake, “Spirituality and Its Critical M, 261. (^) ethodology,” 25-9.