As if the continent didn’t have enough problems on its mind, a new report says the biggest source of illness in Europe is now psychiatric disorders. The study, published in European Neuropsychopharmacology, reveals that 38.2% of Europe’s population grapples with some kind of psychiatric problem. From the abstract of a three-year study by the Technical University of Dresden:
In every year over a third of the total EU population suffers from mental disorders. The true size of “disorders of the brain” including neurological disorders is even considerably larger. Disorders of the brain are the largest contributor to the all cause morbidity burden as measured by DALY in the EU. No indications for increasing overall rates of mental disorders were found nor of improved care and treatment since 2005; less than one third of all cases receive any treatment, suggesting a considerable level of unmet needs. We conclude that the true size and burden of disorders of the brain in the EU was significantly underestimated in the past. Concerted priority action is needed at all levels, including substantially increased funding for basic, clinical and public health research in order to identify better strategies for improved prevention and treatment for disorders of the brain as the core health challenge of the 21st century.
(Via: Freakonomics)
September 12th, 2011 | 12:17 pm
If you look at the way psychiatrists define “disorder” in the DSM, arguably 100% of the population suffers from them.
September 12th, 2011 | 12:23 pm
“We conclude that the true size and burden of disorders of the brain in the EU was significantly underestimated in the past.”
Maybe. Or maybe the complete opposite conclusion could be reached. Ain’t science grand!
September 12th, 2011 | 1:04 pm
Europe is a little ahead of us in what Philip Rieff predicted would the voluntary Western replacement for the old Soviet Gulag–the psychiatric hospital. Insanity will be the mitigating plea of a culture without God driven solely by materialistic desires; the final admission that our desires cannot be satisfied.
September 12th, 2011 | 1:22 pm
Brian, it was underestimated due to not including under-eighteen people in the results. Articles on the web expanding the abstract indicate 14 new mental illness conditions were added due to that. Not sure which ones they are.
September 12th, 2011 | 1:22 pm
I’m not a traditional believer. But the idea of universal disorder, seems to me, comes full circle with biblical notions of original sin. Everyone “disordered” = everyone guilty, not the “everyone does it = “I’m excused.”
September 12th, 2011 | 1:46 pm
Dave: Or maybe, just maybe, the true size and burden of disorders of the brain in the EU is being significantly overestimated in the present?
September 12th, 2011 | 2:10 pm
The only item I previously read about this study named insomnia as one of the disorders. I wonder how many of them are on that level of seriousness. Good grief, I sometimes have insomnia, but that doesn’t mean I have “unmet needs.” Or rather, I can take a melatonin or a benadryl and meet my need on my own, without a government agency.
September 12th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
I’m not a traditional believer. But the idea of universal disorder, seems to me, comes full circle with biblical notions of original sin.
Psychiatrists vote on what is or is not a “disorder”. There is – and never will be – a “scientific” way to determine what is “disordered” because the very category “disordered” is inherently subjective.
So “disorder” could be viewed as a wish list of what needs to be “changed” or “fixed” in order for man to build his perfect world here on Earth. It is a statement of what man ought to be, described through what man is and (in their opinion) should not be.
But if the Christians are right, then sin = estrangement from God, and being estranged from God does not lead to feeling good or being at peace. It leads to …yep … disorder.
September 12th, 2011 | 3:05 pm
A little more information from the paper puts some things in perspective:
September 12th, 2011 | 3:13 pm
What caught me was the statistic, 38.2% of the population, when less than a third of that is treated. Given the lack of treatment, i.e. seeing a professional, how could they possibly know the number let alone to that precision. Innumerate scientists should be an oxymoron.
September 12th, 2011 | 3:48 pm
“But if the Christians are right, then sin = estrangement from God, and being estranged from God does not lead to feeling good or being at peace. It leads to …yep … disorder.”
I’ve thought a lot about what is happiness and what is being at peace. And I’ll freely admit religion, in particular Christianity, believing that there is a God who is there for you and will make everything alright in the end, greatly helps.
However, I observe a lot of Christians as not happy in the sense that they are “neurotic”/emotionally reactive. But it could be that their emotional sensitivity led them to be more religious in the first place.
True happiness comes from transcending your emotionally reactive state and making peace with reality. And reality isn’t something you can either plan or will go the way you desire. I find a great deal of happiness-wisdom in Stoicism, Eastern philosophy, and in the largely ignored mystical aspects of Judeo-Christianity.
September 12th, 2011 | 5:32 pm
What caught me was the statistic, 38.2% of the population, when less than a third of that is treated. Given the lack of treatment, i.e. seeing a professional, how could they possibly know the number let alone to that precision. Innumerate scientists should be an oxymoron.
Mike Melendez,
For the sake of round numbers, say that they are working with a population of 400 million. (It’s actually larger than that.) One percent (1%) is 4 million people. A tenth of a percent (0.1%) represents 400,000 people. Rounding up or down from 0.5% is plus or minus 2 million. When working with such huge numbers, accuracy to a tenth of a percent is not unreasonable at all.
September 12th, 2011 | 6:25 pm
Brian:
I don’t know. I used to think so, but ever since I played MMOs, I’m not so sure. I single them out because an interesting study on the game Everquest 2 pegged 19% of male and 37% of female players as having been diagnosed with depression. I wrote on an old blog at one point I was worried those games were used to house mentally ill people since they seemed so prevalent as part of the population.
It seemed I couldn’t help but run into depressed, or aspergers, or gender disordered(transsexuals, I forget the clinical term for being the wrong gender that wasn’t used perjoratively) people. I think maybe we aren’t over diagnosing sometimes, and our modern environments might be making us crazy.
September 12th, 2011 | 6:42 pm
David, the point is, you can’t know a number to a fairly high degree of precision *if you’re only guessing about 66% of the people involved in the first place.* Two million people seems like a lot, but how do they know it’s not one million or five million if only 1/3 of the number is based on a solid diagnosis to being with?
September 12th, 2011 | 7:30 pm
Jon Rowe,
Reality is also truth. Moral relativism denies the existence of objective right and wrong.
People say that as long as something does not harm someone else, it’s okay. They forget that they are also someone.
And what they do harms themselves as well.
September 12th, 2011 | 7:36 pm
“Europe will return to the Faith, or she will perish”
-Hilaire Belloc
September 12th, 2011 | 7:57 pm
David,
What the lady said. I would add the accuracy is limited by the size of the sample space. The idea they reviewed records (non-existent for 2/3rds) let alone interviewed and diagnosed even the 2,000,000 error you suggest is preposterous. The largest studies take in maybe 100,000. Three significant digits is engineering accuracy no matter the size of the sample space.
The only surveys that involve numbers this large are elections. I would be very surprised if those in the U.S. were accurate to 1% votes no matter how hard they try (and should try).
September 12th, 2011 | 8:14 pm
Savy: I never defended moral relativism on these threads.
As for the if it feels good do it line; I think everyone needs to ask themselves am I happy doing this? Do I feel guilt over it? Is the guilt I feel something real or I learned that I can unlearn? (Or it could be, sadly, there are certain things that you learn in your developmental years that you can’t really ever fully unlearn.)
People have to figure these things for themselves.
September 12th, 2011 | 10:29 pm
However, I observe a lot of Christians as not happy in the sense that they are “neurotic”/emotionally reactive. But it could be that their emotional sensitivity led them to be more religious in the first place.
True happiness comes from transcending your emotionally reactive state and making peace with reality.
That’s not happiness. That’s serenity.
There is no universally agreed-upon definition of happiness. The standards that left-tilting psychologists use to prove partisan points in partisan studies are not standards I find relevant, for instance.
But I am amused by the idea that you can tell just from looking that Christians are less happy. I can’t even tell who is and is not a Christian from just looking.
September 12th, 2011 | 10:48 pm
Concerted priority action is needed at all levels, including substantially increased funding for basic, clinical and public health research in order to identify better strategies for improved prevention and treatment for disorders of the brain as the core health challenge of the 21st century.
What these guys got up their sleeve is an arm, with an outstretched hand at the end of it.
September 13th, 2011 | 8:42 am
“But I am amused by the idea that you can tell just from looking that Christians are less happy.”
I never said this; rather I said I observe a lot of Christians are neurotic and emotionally reactive, have problems with anger, etc. It’s just what I see.
September 13th, 2011 | 8:53 am
I never said this; rather I said I observe a lot of Christians are neurotic and emotionally reactive, have problems with anger, etc. It’s just what I see.
And no one here believes you have that much insight into people you encounter casually.
September 13th, 2011 | 9:45 am
Art Deco: I don’t care. I’m going to still call it as I see it.
September 13th, 2011 | 10:20 am
Savvy made a very good point.
On a different note, in my experience, all the Christians I know are obviously happier, more stable, less reactive, and more caring than the non-Christians I know. It’s not even close. Not that the purpose of Christianity is to improve our lives, it’s not. But knowing the truth has to be liberating.
It’s interesting that Jon’s experience is so different. I can’t speculate as to why that is.
September 13th, 2011 | 10:35 am
It is amazing how much we can find to disagree about concerning an abstract of a paper in European Neuropsychopharmacology when it is doubtful that anyone arguing in this thread has ever read anything at all from the journal, let alone the paper in question.
Commenters have questioned the validity of defining disorders at all, questioned whether disorders listed are legitimately classified as disorders, questioned the ability of the researchers to determine accurate numbers, and questioned the motives of those who did the study and wrote the paper—”What these guys got up their sleeve is an arm, with an outstretched hand at the end of it.”
September 13th, 2011 | 10:48 am
Mike: If you read my comments very carefully, you’ll notice I NEVER said Christians were less happy than non-Christians as a class. I observe a lot of emotionally reactive, crazy non-Christians too. I actually noted in my comment September 12th, 2011 | 3:48 pm that belief in the Christian God probably helps one move closer to a sense of well being.
September 13th, 2011 | 11:02 am
“It’s interesting that Jon’s experience is so different. I can’t speculate as to why that is.”
It could be the Christians I encounter on the Internet who seem willing to engage me and exchange tens of thousands of words with me. I dunno. If they really had peace of mind that should come with knowing the Truth, they wouldn’t be so neurotic, impatient and irritable about having to defend what they see as every jot and tittle of absolute Truth. I once debated a woman for months who thought God woke her out of bed in the middle of the night to check to see if I responded in a comment thread just so she could answer and defend with the “Christian” truth.
In her mind, if she let just one little thing go, God’s entire Truth would fall apart.
She admitted to me, privately, she suffered from panic attacks before she was a Christian (they result from an obsessive compulsive emotionally reactive mindset; though I think genetics and biology determine this psychology to a considerable degree).
I’m sure becoming a fundamentalist helped her, but it didn’t seem to cure her.
The answer to her problem was right there in the Bible: “Be still, and know that I am God.” Psalm 46:10
She didn’t seem to have internalized this Truth, at all.
And I’ve come across this personality type among traditional Christians over and over again. Just recently I chased two of them off a prominent conservative (fushionist-libertarianism) listserv, without intending to.
So that’s basically why I claim as I do, if anyone cares.
September 13th, 2011 | 12:33 pm
Jon Rowe,
Christians have the same sins as everybody else. We are all human, but it’s learning how to cope with our struggles that counts.
The religion of the cross is being joyful even when it’s very dark, because God came into the darkest places of humanity and redeemed it.
This also takes a certain level of maturity level to grow into it.
The reason I am Catholic, is because it helps me deals with these issues in a better way.
We have saints who were downright crazy, but they still became saints because they were able to overcome their demons.
I find moral relativism to be a part of Protestant thought in general.
I am sorry, If I offend anybody, but this is true.
The Liberal Protestants read their liberal views into the Bible, and makes the Bible think like them.
The Fundamentalists read their views into the bible and makes the Bible seem fundamentalist.
They like the warm fuzzy holy spirit movements, but once that dies down they end up losing faith altogether, because what they had was a feeling.
Either way it’s a subjective projection.
A lot of secularists are the same way.
You can tell them that a dog has four legs, and they will keep insisting that their dog, has five legs, because that’s how they see things.
And if you disagree, you are intolerant, blah, blah.
A very clear case of mental illness.
Once, again I am sorry if this has been offensive to any readers.
September 13th, 2011 | 2:59 pm
That reminds me of a quotation of Abraham Lincoln, “If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four, calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” Sorry, that’s probably off-topic.
@Jon Yes, alot of us internet denizens are a little nutty. :)
September 13th, 2011 | 4:16 pm
If they really had peace of mind that should come with knowing the Truth, they wouldn’t be so neurotic, impatient and irritable about having to defend what they see as every jot and tittle of absolute Truth.
I can tell you my own issue: I don’t just want to know the truth. I want to learn how to communicate it.
Cognitive dissonance is a terrible barrier.
Think about it: in WWI the poets wrote terrible things about their experiences of the war – and shortly after the war, Yeats just edited the entire bunch of them out of the big poetry anthology that was used as a school text, because Yeats thought war should be depicted as glorious and their poetry wasn’t “appropriate”.
I don’t know what makes you think Christianity is supposed to be about feeling good and enjoying this life, anyway. Most of the Christians I know have some sort of ‘calling’ – some task or service that they feel they’re supposed to be doing – and it’s almost always about making the world a better place.
Incidentally – perhaps to someone who equates bodily appetites with happiness – or any of the other numerous humanist core beliefs – a person who deals with the problem of limits in any way appears “neurotic”, but it seems to me that the desire to label Christians as a group as being unhappy people says more about those trying to pin the label than it does about Christians.
September 13th, 2011 | 4:18 pm
Art Deco: I don’t care. I’m going to still call it as I see it.
Wonder why you feel the need to do so.
September 13th, 2011 | 4:45 pm
“Incidentally – perhaps to someone who equates bodily appetites with happiness…”
I’m not sure who you are referring to. I certainly never did this. A lot of the insights I get from Stoicism or Eastern philosophy deny bodily appetites but teach a way of getting there that most Christians don’t seem to understand. Perhaps they should.
I will admit though a lot of gurus seem to talk big but may not be all they are cracked up to be. The Maharishi didn’t approve of the Beatles’ hedonism. And he in turn claimed to be free from all worldly desire including lust. But, he apparently (at least to John, Paul and Ringo, not George who took his side) had the hots for Prudence Farrow.
Likewise I don’t think I ever labeled Christians as a group “unhappy”; I just noted I see a lot of unhappiness, emotional reactivity and neurotic-ism there. I’m not sure if the Bible teaches Christians should “feel good” and “enjoy life” in an exciting, thrill seeking sense. It does seem to teach, in many oft-forgotten verses and chapters, Christians should be patient and still. That is, non-neurotic. See Psalm 46:10.
September 13th, 2011 | 5:10 pm
“Wonder why you feel the need to do so.”
I’d like to think that I don’t feel a need to do so, but rather this is something that I enjoy discussing.
If I “feel a need” then what I should do it is step back and lay off. Come back a little later.
Admittedly, though I’m still not to the point I desire which is a total transcendence of emotionally reactive state. Whatever it is I enjoy should be enjoyed in a calm peaceful state, not a state of “excitement.” I believe in calm and peaceful highs.
September 13th, 2011 | 6:53 pm
Europe is Losing Its Mind
In other words, just one more example of how it’s always lagging behind the US. ;-)
September 13th, 2011 | 7:09 pm
About the “Christians and neurotics” question, I think it’s hard to generalize. There are so many different kinds of Christians. I have been to some churches where I have seen so many perverted and perverse people that all I could say to myself is “Get me out of here!” And then I know other churches which attract much more sane, healthy, kind, and wholesome people. And some churches have a very disconcerting wide-ranging mix of people.
On the question of happiness, my main criticism to liberals is that they do not care about having a conscience. The main question about happiness for them is simply *feeling* happy, no matter how disoriented, dysfunctional, and downright destructive they are with their “happiness.” When you don’t have a conscience, what will make you happy can be entirely monstrous but the latter is not what they pay attention to. Liberalism is individualism taken to its most grotesque extreme.
People with a conscience who are not extremely privileged and lucky might well be more unhappy than the conscience-disabled ones, yet be much better human beings.
This is why I find being in environments where you are surrounded by liberals is often so unpleasant. One individual after another who has such blunted consciences and are simultaneously extremely concerned about their bloated quest for happiness-type feelings.
September 13th, 2011 | 7:54 pm
Jon Rowe,
Christianity does not deny hedonism, because the world or the body is bad. Everything that God created is good.
It’s how it’s applied that can make or break it.
We are bodily persons. Self-mastery is the ability to exercise reason over one’s passions.
Christians take the world with the seriousness it deserves, something the so called “worldy” do not.
September 13th, 2011 | 7:58 pm
Alessandra,
I agree that the 60s philosophy is destructive.
September 13th, 2011 | 10:36 pm
About the “Christians and neurotics” question, I think it’s hard to generalize.
I disagree: I think it’s very easy for them to generalize.
“Conservativism is a disease” is one of the central metaphors of humanist politics.
Think about it: if the Enlightenment makes people Enlightened, how come those who are more evolved than us primitives aren’t doing better at the polls? One would think it would be like light bulbs replacing candles.
Hence the idea that something is “blocking” evolution.
Listen for the metaphors – conservatives suffer from repression, anxiety, dysfunction, disorders, sexual problems, cognitive disabilities, etc. Sometimes they even combine multiple terms together (“homophobia”).
Then look at the framing: they are not just insulting their target, they are diagnosing these people.
Of course real mental health professionals can only ethically diagnose under certain controlled circumstances: the person asks for help, or the person is not able to give informed consent and/or is a threat to society. This only adds power to the frame – the implication is that this mental health diagnosis is somehow warranted because those Christians are a threat to society! with their dumbness and their fearfulness and their killjoy!
Pay attentions to the metaphors and the framing: these things reveal a lot.
“Enlightenment” frames involve the general idea that the one who embraces “enlightenment” is – well, “enlightened”. Higher. Above the rest of us. They’re more evolved and more advanced. We’re primitive in comparison to them. (The primitive is compatible with with – not in competition with – the disease metaphor: cognitive and emotional disabilities explain why we are incapable of becoming Enlightened).
It’s actually the central conceit of the Enlightenment itself – hence the name.
If you’re going to do away with aristocracy, then who gets to rule the world? The Enlightened. The natural elite. They gravitate toward this philosophy is proof that they’re more intelligent; as a result of having gravitated toward this philosophy they’re better educated. They’re the scientifically literate professionals and experts – which is why you’ll notice they use the word “neurotic”, which sounds a lot more professional than “uptight”.
Because being part of the elite is just plain better than having to live in a democracy.
Watch for it: you’ll be amazed how often this particular form of self-flattery is used as a political tactic.
September 14th, 2011 | 8:42 am
Art Deco: I don’t care. I’m going to still call it as I see it.
But at what are you looking?
1. It is not wise to draw too many conclusions about people derived from interactions in fora like this. (And I have to say the level of vulgarity in news and political fora I have participated in well exceeds that in Catholic and evangelical fora).
2. You are a strange bird if you are making anthropological excursions to religious congregations. (And in thirty-plus years of churchgoing I pretty much draw a blank when asked to name a congregant any time anywhere with obtrusive problems with anger).
3. Yours is a peculiar workplace if people therein make a habit of having contentious conversations on matters religious.
4. It is poor form to trash your relatives.
September 14th, 2011 | 11:56 am
I wasn’t thinking of 3 & 4. Though in reflecting on it, I probably could come forth with some examples.
Re # 2, I suggest, perhaps you need to open your eyes a little more. Though, understandably, when you interact with folks at the surface, social level, they tend to wear polite masks that disguise their warts.
I admitted, though, numerous times here that religion probably does make things better for folks. So I understand your point in #1.
Like the fundamentalist woman to whom I referred in my comment September 13th, 2011 | 11:02 am. I think she was bipolar. She didn’t admit that to me. Though she did admit having panic attacks years ago. And that currently (in her 60s) she couldn’t listen to a lot of music because it affected her too emotionally.
I could tell she had issues when I debated her; but if I knew I was making her get up in the middle of the night, I probably would have cut it off much earlier.
She didn’t seem too well with her religion. But without it, she probably would have been in a mental institution or on the streets.
So I guess the point I am making about Christianity is, in a great deal of instances I see it as putting a band-aid on these problems. Doing “good” like taking a xanax. In many circumstances I don’t see it as totally transforming the person and eliminating these demons (of anger, anxiety and emotional instability).
In this regard, I see more “mental wellness” transformation potential in the teachings of someone like Eckhart Tolle. But I’d like to see Christians recover the glorious mystical tradition of someone like Meister Eckhart and show these ideas really do have basis in Judeo-Christianity, not just the East or New Age.
September 14th, 2011 | 5:54 pm
Jon Rowe,
There’s a difference between reality and fantasy. Christians acknowledge the existence of sin, the new age does not.
Something is not going to go away by just wishing it away.
The only perfect people are those in heaven.
Nobody goes through an over-night transformation. Conversion is a life long process.
September 14th, 2011 | 6:07 pm
Savvy:
That’s why I mentioned the existence of sin affirming Christian mystics in anticipation of your criticism of the New Age.
“The only perfect people are those in heaven.”
Arguably the Bible says different. It talks about becoming perfect as a matter of the salvation process.
September 14th, 2011 | 7:54 pm
Blake,
“Then look at the framing: they are not just insulting their target, they are diagnosing these people.”
Take a look at the link below, from some “gay” site on Eve Tushnet –they’re fascinating.
On the funny side, it’s a bunch of people with very deformed personalities and profound psychological problems (the “gays”) calling Eve “crazy.” The irony completely escapes them.
She doesn’t fit the gay “straight jacket” so they puzzle away…
Hypothesis # 1 – she’s deranged
No. 1 · patrick
She’s as f*cked-up as they come……
============
(To which we could reply: and you’re not? LOL)
7-Asperger’s syndrome. Totally.
34-She could really use some psychological help.
Her parents did a number on her.
==========
This is too funny. The commenters never bother to ask just what happened to their psychological history and how their family environment may have contributed to deforming their personalities and sexuality, but Eve, on the other hand, must have suffered some sort of “number.”
Others prefer the “vile character” hypothesis–and yes, send in the Nazi equivalents:
===========
38-Reminds me of the Jews who aligned themselves with the Nazi’s during the war and outed other Jews for the sake of personal gain. It’s sad she’s working against her own community for the sake of whatever spiritual gain she sees herself attaining after her time on Earth. This is what happens when you are brainwashed… and selfish.
No. 29 · Lamar
Traitor …
63-Eve, thank you so much for your celibacy. As a lesbian, I can tell you that we don’t need or want you in the “available” pool.
Often, intelligence is the twin of madness, and both exist in the same head. No doubt that you, Eve, are the host of said twins…
A closed mind should come with a closed mouth. I think duct tape would complete the look nicely. Eve, would you be kind enough to apply it yourself? We don’t want to touch you.
(BTW, another series of comments continue with the “you’re grossly ugly” type of insults)
========
Then they truly dismay over and over again at what they see as her being “smart” and having graduated from… Yale. (LOL). When we can imagine that most of the commenters maybe didn’t even make it through community college, that is explained. They can’t call her stupid, so she must be crazy OR evil (and obviously ugly).
It’s like people desperately wringing their hands trying in every way to attack someone in the most vile manner because this individual doesn’t submit to their stupid “gay”ideology and doesn’t fit any of their shoddy stereotypes about conservatives (she didn’t grow up in a horrible, conservative religious family, she doesn’t seem to loathe herself at all, etc).
And the “gays” display this vicious hatred of her given that Eve has declared she has a homosexual problem. Because if she had resolved her problem and were no longer a homosexual, then I’m sure these people would want to stone her to death.
In any case, there are many calls for her to “shut up.”
======
Then there are some nice comments defending her right to religion and to decide how she wants to live her life, such as:
No. 22 · Beldar
People who disagree with you are “unacceptable”?
Wow. Talk about your thinly veiled threats.
=======
No. 27 · Paul A’Barge
=======
No. 30 · ChrisP
“But she is a person with a platform who is out harming human beings with her instruction, and that’s simply unacceptable.”
Yeah – because freedom of speech is only acceptable if you don’t influence anyone!
http://www.queerty.com/eve-tushnet-is-gay-catholic-and-celibate-and-she-wants-you-to-quit-whining-about-marriage-20100605/
Obviously, IMO, both the little Yale Eve and the fanatical gays lack the intelligence to investigate why they all developed a homosexual problem in the first place.
September 15th, 2011 | 10:47 am
I know I have a lot to learn. But in the modern era we have figures from CS Lewis to Thomas Merton who in some way operate in or at least well understand the mystical tradition of Judeo-Christianity that traces back to figures like Meister Eckhart. Lewis, I understand did a lot of work on Taoism.
September 15th, 2011 | 1:20 pm
Jon Rowe,
The New Age tries to hijack Christian mysticism. The differences are huge.
Author John A. Hardon, S.J., in his book, Pocket Catholic
Dictionary, defines Christian mysticism as:
“The supernatural state of soul in which God is known in a way that no human effort or exertion could ever succeed in producing. There is an immediate, personal experience of God that is truly extraordinary, not only in intensity
and degree, but in kind. It is always the result of a special, totally unmerited grace of God. Christian mysticism differs essentially from the non-Christian mysticism of the Oriental world. It always recognizes that the reality to which it penetrates simply transcends the soul and the cosmos; there is no confusion between I
and Thou, but always a profound humility before the infinite Majesty of God. And in Christian mysticism all union between the soul and God is a moral union of love, in doing His will even at great sacrifice to self; there is no hint of losing one’s being in God or absorption of one’s personality into the divine.”
A good book that helps explain Christian mysticism is “The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism”, by editor Bernard McGinn.
September 15th, 2011 | 1:53 pm
Thanks for the source. I will check it out.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact