experiences”^101 and continues his judgment that “[o]ne suspects that Barth’s theology
would perhaps have been enriched if he had been able to appreciate equally fully the
music of Beethoven or Brahms or perhaps even Rachmaninoff in addition to that of
Mozart!”^102 Therefore, it is indeed unfortunate that Barth’s misgivings of experience
of God in general and contemplative piety in particular have created a distorted
perception and fear that is still present today within some portions of the Reformed
Church.
Continuation of Barthian Resistance to Contemplative-Mystical Experience
Significantly, the trajectory of resistance to mystical experiences begun in
Barth has continued into the twenty-first century with his disciples. Donald Bloesch
is one Reformed theologian who both acknowledges his deep appreciation for Barth
and continues to exhibit a similar resistance to contemplative piety.^103 Since he
addresses contemplation and mysticism in a number of his writings only his most
recent work that represents his mature thinking will be used. While occasionally
Bloesch can affirm that the terms “Christian” and “mysticism” can actually coexist^104
his fundamental conviction is that “[m]ysticism has been treated in this book as a
Christian aberration” and “stands in contrast to biblical, evangelical faith.”^105 Bloesch
also works from an inflexible binary model that tends to ossify his categories.
Therefore, rather than appreciating the dynamic biblical interaction between
(^101) Torrance, “Christian Experience of Schleiermacher and Barth,” 112. (^)
(^102) Torrance, “Christian Experience of Schleiermacher and Barth,” 111.
(^103) Bloesch, Spirituality Old & New, 20 and Chung, Karl Barth and Evangelical
Theology 104 , xv.
105 Bloesch, Spirituality Old & New, 37, 50, 137.^
“Reflections on Mysticism,” 167. Bloesch, Spirituality Old & New , 143, 145, cf. 18, 50, 68, 81. cf. Houston,