The combination of distorted perceptions among Protestants and Roman
Catholics alike and the inability to find a consensus definition among scholars has
raised the question of the validity of this term. Alister McGrath argues, “[t]he
difficulty in using the term ‘mysticism’ to refer to what is now more widely known as
‘spirituality’ is that the term has so many unhelpful associations and misleading
overtones that its continued use is problematic.”^18 While McGrath is correct to
recognize the problematic nature of the word mysticism, his solution of collapsing the
term into spirituality continues to advance a similar misconception by implying that
all expressions of spirituality are synonymous with mysticism. What McGrath fails to
recognize is that typically mysticism is a more distinctive and carefully defined
component of the more general term spirituality. Many expressions of spirituality do
not reflect the depth of intimacy suggested by mysticism. Thus there has been an
attempt to retrieve the term and its validity for use in speaking of one’s experience of
God. Denys Turner also raises questions about the usage of mysticism; however, he
affirms the positive value for “historical reconstruction” of the term.^19 Accepting this
premise, this thesis seeks to explore the validity of a “historical reconstruction” of
mysticism within seventeenth-century Puritan piety.
Further, some scholars differentiate between two broad traditions of Christian
mysticism. As with all generalizations there is a danger in pressing these distinctions
too far, however, history has revealed a christocentric affective love mysticism that
gives prominence to the via positiva which has its biblical foundation in St. Paul.
This kataphatic approach is in stark contrast to the via negativa or apophatic way that
18
19 McGrath Turner “Mysticism.” s.v., 460, Christian Spirituality-1., 6.