The abstracting impulse seeks ultimate explanations in impersonal, not-biological/ physical abstractions such as spirit, energy, vibrations/ frequencies.
It is often associated with sciences such as astrology, numerology, systems of divination and healing. Also with expert priesthoods or magicians, sacred temples, rituals, texts.
The abstracting influence is rooted in deity, and deity is regarded as non-personal (a personal god is regarded as ultimately an error, due to child-like or ignorant thinking).
The personalising impulse seeks ultimate explanations in terms of Beings, who are living persons with purpose and some degree of consciousness; the structure of reality comes from the relationships between these Beings.
It is associated with family-/ tribe-like arrangements; with mystical, spiritual, intuitive modes of thinking - and the conviction that there are no 'things' - but all is alive, aware, purposive.
So, the personalising influence is rooted in god/ gods who are actual person, agents, conscious and purposive - and the change and changelessness of reality explained in terms of these Beings and the relations.
The abstracting impulse regards Beings and persons as either illusory; or as temporary phases en route to the permanence of abstraction; because real Truth is abstract.
The personalising impulse regards abstractions as ultra-simplified models of reality - sometimes useful for short-term and practical purposes - but never True, because they leave out most of reality.
As may be seen, we are dealing her with different metaphysical assumptions. And such assumptions come first, are deeper than 'evidence' (because evidence is itself structured by these assumptions).
My point is that the abstracting and personalising point in opposite directions.
Christianity, as is, is an internally-contradictory and incoherent mixture of abstracting and personalising.
The future of Christianity would seem to be in one or other of these directions; but not both.
We need to ask whether we personally regard Christianity as ultimately abstract, or is it personal?
And ask our-selves whether we ought to aim for consistency and coherence in the way we regard it?
Whatever our decision - whether we take the abstracting or personalising path; there is work to be done, because there is much inherited and accumulated confusion to be sorted-out.
