On Theology IV - Gertrude's Graces: Symbol or Mystery
A short meditation on symbols and mystical language for theology and prayer
In the introduction to her English translation of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Gertrude of Helfta (a particular favorite of mine1) scholar Gertrud Jaron Lewis notes the ubiquitous presence of bridal imagery in the mystical writings of St. Gertrude (and nearly all late medieval, and particularly female, mystics). Those who use this literary form, this linguistic world, whereby the union and identity of the soul with God in Christ is spoken of in the nuptial terms of marriage and love-making, are called Brautmystiks (bride-mystics). Lewis says “Bridal imagery (Brautmystik) is derived from the Song of Songs and has, in fact, had a long tradition in the history of the church. Mystical language, of course, has to be symbolical since the mystical experience is per se ineffable; and the symbol of spousal love at least comes close to describing the mystical relationship between God and the soul.”2
You may be able, after three entries, to guess what I intend to take to task in this seemingly harmless passing line in Lewis’ introduction, and what I think is at stake here. Lewis haphazardly presumes that mystical language “of course, has to be symbolical”, and she presumes this because “the mystical experience is per se ineffable”; but the symbol of spousal love is still used because “it at least comes close to describing the relationship between God and the soul”.
We have thus far, in our mystical christology (or Christological mysticism), dismantled this strict separation3 between the ineffable and the effable given that the same Person, Jesus Christ, unites—and is—both of them; we have also eschewed the infinite analogical interval that, replacing this Person, subsequently fills in the gap as the mediator between sign and signified. When the personal identity of God and Man, Jesus Christ, who is the “only mediator between God and Man” (1Tim2:5), is replaced as the “center of all disciplines and […] learning”4, by an account of analogy the result can only be intellectual tensions and reductions of mystical experience to “mere symbol”, never capable of truly actualizing the Mystery spoken of. Secondarily, we have exposed the irrationality, the absurdity, of the idea that any thing at all—let alone “the symbol of spousal love”—could “at least come close to describing the mystical relationship between God and the soul”. God does not have a relationship to the soul, God is His relationship to the soul. Jesus Christ, by His incarnation, takes a human body and rational soul to Himself thus becoming the very medium, the Mediator, between God and the soul—“we have the mind of Christ” (1Cor2). As Eckhart says “the incarnation itself, like a medium between the procession of the divine Persons and the production of creatures, tastes the nature[s] of both [God and Man]. This happens in such a way that the incarnation itself exemplifies the eternal emanation and is the exemplar of the entire lower nature”5. If it is true, however, that God personally is the relationship between Himself and the soul then that relationship is God—is the Holy Spirit. As such, it is beyond all comparison: “there is nothing like the LORD” and “to whom will you liken Me, says the LORD”. If nothing, and no symbol, can be like God, and is therefore beyond the grammar of “coming close to describing” Him, then we must come to a near opposite conclusion to Lewis. The nuptial imagery, and language of spousal love, used by the Brautmystiks to describe the union shared between God and the soul is not a symbol of the Mystery; it IS the Mystery6.
In the 5th chapter of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, the divine apostle speaks of the marital love of two spouses in which they achieve union “in one flesh”. So deep is this union that if a husband loves and nurtures the flesh of his wife he loves and nurtures his own flesh, and deeper than the flesh, “he who loves his wife, loves himself” (Eph5:28). He concludes his commentary with this line: “This is a great Mystery, but I am speaking about Christ and the church.” (Eph5:32). He who loves his wife loves himself, this is true for us because it is first true of God, or is the Truth of God—for God is Love. God loves His wife (Israel, the Church, the individual believing soul) and it is not another love than the very love by which He is God, the love by which the Father loves the Son: the Holy Spirit. Thus the Mystery of a spouse’s love for his/her beloved being an erotic form of self-love is not a merely a symbol of the mystery of divine love, but is the mystery of divine love. We can discern this by noticing what Paul does not say. He does not say “this is a symbol of a mystery, that at least comes close to the Reality, but never quite expresses it because the reality is per se ineffable”. Rather, Paul boldfaced-ly says “this is a great Mystery”. St. Maximus tells us the Mystery of Christ is both Reality and the whole economy of signs, symbols, parables and enigmas bearing witness to that reality:
“For in His measureless love for mankind, there was need for Him to be created in human form (without undergoing any change), and to become a type and symbol of Himself, presenting Himself symbolically by means of His own self, and, through the manifestation of Himself, to lead all creation to Himself”7
Or, as flemish mystic Jan van Ruusbroecc says:
“God's image is in the mirror of our soul and is united with it without intermediary… Furthermore, the very image of God which we have received and which we bear in our soul is the Son of God—the eternal mirror and the wisdom of God—in whom we all live and are eternally imaged forth. Nevertheless we are not God's wisdom, for in that case we would have created ourselves, which is impossible and contrary to faith, for all that we are and have comes from God and not from ourselves.
Even though the nobility of our soul is great, it is hidden from sinners and even from many good persons. All that we can know in natural light is imperfect, lacking in savor and feeling, for we cannot contemplate God or find his kingdom within our soul without his help and grace and without our own efforts practiced genuinely in his love and in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is a willing mirror of himself.”8
“But we all, with open face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2Cor3:18)
Christus Speculum; the Christ Mirror: Christ both is God and is the likeness of God.
I cannot overstate how spiritually enriching it will be for you to read Gertrude’s Herald of Divine Love published by Paulist Press, if you have not read it before. Every page drips with the sweet honey of the experience of God, and of the Mystery of Jesus Christ’s love for us. Link here:
St. Gertrud the Great of Helfta, Spiritual Exercises, introduction pg6
The four modifying adverbs of the Chalcedon Definition of 451AD, describing the union of the Divine and the Creaturely natures in one person, are asynchutos (ἀσυγχυτως), atreptos (ἀτρεπτως), adiairetos (ἀδιαιρετως) and akoristos (ἀχωριστως) that is: without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Lewis’ strict separation between the ineffable experience of God and the merely symbolic representation of it in language is thus a christological issue. That Jesus is both the ineffable God and the speakable man, the Word of God, means that mystical language cannot be reduced to a mere sign signifying an always deferred ineffable experience. Derrida is right about this, even if it leads him to disastrous conclusions.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center intro pg28
Meister Eckhart, Comm. on John 185
St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua 10.77
Jan van Ruusbroecc, or John Ruysbroeck, Mirror of Eternal Blessedness (III.B)