Spiritual History - The compulsion and demand - And the Impossibility, here-and-now

There is an activity that might be termed Spiritual History; by which I mean a purported history that derives from within a particular spirituality. 

And this Spiritual History will typically become regarded as "objectively true" by adherents of the spirituality: true for everybody (not just for the adherents). 

So, what is a Spiritual History? 

As one example; Helena Blavatsky described a vast, detailed, and complicated panorama of supposed world history, which became integral to the Theosophical Society she founded. 

This includes descriptions of creation from its earliest stages; many historical "races" of proto humans (the earliest very un-like modern humans; and lost civilizations such as Lemuria, and Atlantis -- indeed; it is mostly because of Blavatsky that so many people have heard-of, and been-discussing, Atlantis over the past century-plus. 

Blavatsky's Spiritual History was very influential on the emerging occult societies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries; was expanded and reshaped (and extended millennia into the future) by Rudolf Steiner into his Anthroposophy; and has since become a part of the vast and diffuse New Age movement of the past several decades. 

My point is that in the past a spiritual society - or a religion - would nearly-always tend to elaborate (or as it is presented "discover") a vast, detailed ,and complex historical picture; which then forms a kind of metaphysical backdrop to the everyday practices and beliefs.  

We can see something similar among the best-documented of the recent world religions, Mormonism; particularly stark in that the Book of Mormon* came before the beliefs and practices that distinguished Mormonism from mainstream Christianity had been elucidated and fixed.  

An analogous process of elaborating a Spiritual History apparently applies to mainstream Christianity, in that the process of elaborating a justifying and explaining vast/ detailed/ complex historical backdrop was apparently separate from, but in this case later than, the foundational teachings**. 

In other words, the Gospels (especially the Fourth, and earliest, Gospel) depict a very different - far-briefer/ less-detailed/ much-simpler "religion" from the colossal artefact that Christianity became over the following centuries - which means that mainstream Christianity also discovered/ developed a Spiritual History. 

So far as I know, something similar applies to all religions - not to the same extent, but to a significant degree. 

This suggests that - at least in the past, and especially until about a century ago; a detailed Spiritual History was probably both necessary-to the establishment, and sustaining, of a successful church; and was demanded-by the members of a church (e.g. to answer their natural questions regarding their religion's origins, purpose, and validity). 

But that was then, this is now; and Spiritual Histories (especially the historical factuality of The Bible) have been undergoing systemic challenge, subversion, and destruction from mainstream secular "scholarship" - for at least 200 years. 

And this continual challenge has its effect whatever the conclusion; because the process implicitly regards the religion as disprovable by the same secular mechanisms as other knowledge-claims. 

(Most of the most-effective attacks on religion are implicit; and these are pervasive and unavoidable. Because the entirety of the systems of modern society are based upon secular - God-excluding - assumptions. This includes religions, which survive only by compliance with multiple laws and regulations of a secular type: to do with personnel and employment, "human rights", "hate speech"; buildings; taxes and exemptions and subsidies... many, many such.)    

The process of evaluation of Spiritual History accepts the definitive nature of secular scholarship - so that religion always and necessarily loses - religion has pre-conceded defeat, by assumption. 

Yet the "fundamentalist" approach of asserting the validity of Spiritual History does not work, either! - it just puts the History into a sealed capsule where Spiritual History cannot (therefore does not) have anything to do with the mainstream secular world of history. 

Consequently, even the most fundamentalist church Christians are just as subservient to the processes and procedures of totalitarian secular society as everybody else; believing and supporting nearly-all of the main strategies of totalitarian evil - except for a symbolic handful of dissenting denials that adherents merely-say, and a handful of self-reassuring dissenting-activities that are (currently) tolerated by The System. 

In other words; Spiritual History has, in the modern era, come to represent an unprotectable Achilles Heel for all religions - and the bigger, more detailed, and more complicated the History, the more points that will be attacked - both explicitly and (even more powerfully) implicitly. 

Consequently Spiritual History no longer convinces many people; and those who remain "convinced" are not substantively affected by their encapsulated dissent - because they live "in" a society with which these Historical assertions are incompatible.  

My conclusion is that Spiritual History needs to be abandoned as a requirement of a spiritually viable, and sufficiently-motivating religion***. 

I feel that we simply cannot afford to open ourselves to the process of refutations, in a situation where we cannot ourselves deny the validity of that process. 

Or, to put it differently: our belief in Alternative Histories must be made independent of the processes of Historical validation. 

And this includes beliefs concerning the foundation of our church or the origins of our scripture - because these are just as vulnerable to secular assumptions and processes as are the "factual content" of the Spiritual Histories...

I mean that we cannot argue the validity of our church on the basis of History; because that historical "evidence" is itself vulnerable. 

And we cannot argue the validity of the Bible, for the same reason. 

My conclusion is that we need to rely for our deepest and most-motivating convictions, only upon "evidence" that is derived personally and by criteria that satisfy our-selves primarily, and for which only self-validation is necessary. 

I mean, in other words, Direct Knowing - which might also be called a kind of intuition - needs to be our "bottom-line". 

This also means that - by eschewing external "evidences" - we cannot convince other people that we are right!...

But we can't do that anyway! 

So we are not being asked to give-up very much. 

+++

*I am not saying that the Book of Mormon is entirely or even mostly fictitious - IMO it does seem to include a good measure of objective fact and other phenomena that suggest that at least some of it was divinely inspired and "true", rather than "made-up". Nonetheless it is a valid example of Spiritual History because of the BoM's provenance and role in Mormonism.  

**As with the BoM; I am not suggesting that there is zero objective fact in the post-ascension Spiritual History of Christianity - but that its development is separable from the beliefs and practices of core- "Christianity". 

***We can continue to derive benefit from Spiritual History - as, for instance, I do from the Christmas Story. But, for this to be safe and personally-effective, we must regard the truth and reality of Spiritual History to be a qualitatively different and more personally-validated thing than that of secular history. And this in-turn is something we will need to sort-out for, and from, our-selves. As a favourite example; I regard The Lord of the Rings as a true and real history of the world and Men; but not as an objective or "evidenced" history.   

Perhaps a womanly and procreative aspect of God is necessary for a solid belief in eternal life?

I am re-reading Geoffrey Ashe's fascinating study The Virgin (1976), which is focused on Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ (Ashe was a Roman Catholic) - but takes in the broader perspective of goddesses throughout history, in a non-hostile - indeed sympathetic - fashion. 

He makes the stimulating suggestion that a Goddess was primal in ancient spirituality, because she was the assumed basis of the procreative hence creative; and that some form of female deity is needed for Men really to believe in a life beyond life. 

The idea is that a supreme male deity cannot sustain belief in a full life beyond life. So that when the ruling Goddess goes; the afterlife becomes very partial, ghostly, and all-but irrelevant. 

Male deities could never bestow life of their own nature as the Mother had done. Zeus and his colleagues were immortal, but they did not transmit that quality to their human subjects... 

Through most civilized and semi-civilized lands... death ceased to be a passage to a future life... the dead were no longer pictured as significantly existing. They were reduced to feeble, bloodless shades in a gloomy underworld. For the Greeks this was Hades...

With the fading of the Eternal-Womanly, with her cutting-down or anathematisation, [for the vast majority, with extremely few exceptions] death had become the end with no prospect of rebirth. 

Israel's shift was similar... The Old Testament has no doctrine of survival or return... the dead become shades. They do down to an underworld called Sheol, The Grave.

The sole Israelite immortality is collective... God's chosen community...  

I think it likely that Ashe is "on to something" here. 

In the book; Ashe is preparing the ground for an attempted explanation of the rise of Mary the mother of Jesus as a more and more important focus of Christian faith - recognizing that this phenomenon cannot be accounted for by Scripture, or by the practices of the earlier generations of Christians. 

With Mariolatry (Ashe says) we seem to be dealing with some kind of deep and direct apprehension of spiritual reality, probably coming from grassroots, bottom-up, the "masses". Christian leaders and theologians seem merely to have been trying to explain and validate theoretically something that already was beginning to become important in practice. 

From my own experience; I find it striking that Mormonism included a very strong element of the "Eternal-Womanly" with its dyadic deity composed of Father and Mother in Heaven. 

And - perhaps in consequence? - the "Mormon culture of salvation" was (at least until fairly recently) probably the most vividly lived and believed-in form of Christian afterlife among the major Christian churches. 

The spiritually unsatisfactory and unconvincing nature of one-sidedly masculine, Christianity is something I find very striking. I mean the monochrome hardness, negativity, heartlessness, legalism and this-worldliness of Mary-rejecting forms of Protestantism is something I feel is very evident. It is one reason why England ceased to be "Merrie" with the reformation.

But there is something of this in all of Christianity. 

(And this defect has not-at-all been ameliorated, let alone cured, by the dominant trend towards secular materialism in all the Christian churches, which comes-in on the back of leftist ideology. Spiritual problems can only be made worse by "liberalization" - which is actually and always covert apostasy.) 

Insisting upon the non-sexual nature of God does not work either - this is just an attempt to escape contradictions absences and by raising abstractions; which has the effect of confusing people - and thereby impairing motivations.

Furthermore, the idea and ideals of ultimate transcendence of sexuality point away from Christianity (rooted in Jesus, the divine incarnate mortal Man) and towards Oneness spirituality, where (eventually) every-thing merges with everything else - in a timeless stasis.   

The problem is that it does not really make deep theoretical and theological sense to insert Mary alongside the (masculine) Trinity; and she is therefore always accorded an ultimately secondary and intercessionary" role in creation - no matter how central is her position in everyday worship (eg. devotion to the Rosary, or Marian icons). 

But even worthwhile degrees of habitual lifestyle and provision of psychological comfort are insufficient motivations in a world so dominated by evil-affiliated institutions. 

In our unavoidably self-conscious era; these inner contradictions about Mary have become nigh-lethal to strong Christian faith - as is evident all around us.

 

This is why I regard Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Mariolatry as "on the right lines" but ultimately insufficient and unsatisfactory. 

And, as Ashe described , this requisite kind of development can only come from directly apprehended knowledge - it is not already existent. 

To emphasize: what is required is not something that can honestly be derived from existing Scripture, theology or history.

Furthermore it needs to arise bottom-up; which means from individuals, not institutions.  

If modern Men are to grasp and retain the needful structuring-focus on resurrected eternal life; if we are to live-by knowledge of Heaven; then we will need explicitly to discover and embrace what will be new truths of eternal verities concerning women in relation to creation and salvation. 

Online, free, searchable, no-frills King James Bible and Book of Mormon

Friend of this blog and administrator of the Romantic Christianity aggregator New World Island, David Earle; has made available a plain text (no frills!) version of the Bible in the Authorized Version - and done the same for The Book of Mormon. 

For those with an exploratory mind-set; this has a facility for looking at "random" verses from these volumes, and their subdivisions.   

Enjoy!

Is everybody a "latent" Christian?

When I was an atheist I used to get very annoyed by Christians who would argue that I was "Really" a Christian, whether or not I knew it; and I only needed to acknowledge the "fact". This struck me is untrue; and I sure I was right - not least, because when I did become a Christian it caused a massive change in my mind and life; a far greater change than if conversion had merely been a matter of 'admitting' what I already was. 

However, I think it may in the past have broadly been true that "everybody" (i.e. most people) was a Christian. In other words; perhaps it was once possible to take for granted that people would choose to convert to Christianity if they:

1. Knew what Christianity offered - i.e. resurrection, eternal life, Heaven. (i.e. A "better deal" than any other religion.)

2. Believed these claims were true. 

Thus early Christian missionaries seemed to emphasize that Christianity offered the believer more than their previous religion - so that the potential convert wanted to believe it was true. 

Then the missionary tried to convince the potential convert that the missionary's claims were true.

This 'convincing' was, in the early days, often by miracles, answered prayers, and other 'supernatural' means.

The early days of Mormonism provide a well-documented example of this process, when the first wave off missionaries were sent to England. 

To simplify; the missionaries would describe what was 'on offer' from this new version of Christianity (representing, for many people, an enhancement of the trad-mainstream Christian afterlife); and then (to convince of truth) the missionary would give the potential convert a Book of Mormon (having described its miraculous provenance). 

This was done with instructions to read with a truth-seeking-intent, and while doing-so to ask God in prayer whether the book was true - thus the potential convert was seeking a personal divine revelation of the validity of the Mormon claims (the availability of such personal revelations being a major element of Mormonism, and the Book of Mormon itself). 

This 'method' worked sufficiently well in the middle 1800s that the missionaries would convert a couple of people every day, on average. Most of these converts would be sufficiently convinced and enthused by their new religion to leave their homes and families (forever, potentially); and emigrate thousands of miles over sea and land - to settle permanently in and around Salt Lake City. 

Such experiences with Christian conversion fit with the assumption that if only a person knew what Christianity offered, and believed it; then he or she would become a Christian. 

But that was then; this is now. 

Now it cannot be assumed that people will, in general, want an afterlife at all; and even if they do want an afterlife, that they would desire the kind of afterlife that Christians describe. 

(For instance, it seems that many people want something more like 'Nirvana' - a barely-conscious, depersonalized state of timeless bliss.)

So, even if such people could be convinced of the reality of what Christians claimed, and convinced that they themselves could obtain this outcome - they would not want it, but instead something else.

 

Furthermore, there are many modern people cannot be convinced of the truth of Christianity; and the reason they cannot be convinced is not due to lack of evidence, but because their fundamental assumptions (i.e. metaphysical assumptions) rule out the possibility. 

In other words, they do not believe that miracles are real, or that answered prayers could happen. Any possible evidence is already explained-away by prior exclusion. 

An apparent miracle Must Be due to delusion or fraud; an answered prayer just 'wishful thinking' operating on coincidence etc. 

An excellent example of this mind-set is depicted by CS Lewis in The Last Battle, the final book of the Narnia Chronicles. There are a group of dwarfs who are actually on the threshold of Heaven, surrounded by Good Things - but who have decided that the whole set-up is a malicious trick. 

The dwarfs therefore actually perceive almost everything Good as trash: good food tastes of muck. Any pleasing event is a deception. 

Their whole mind-set is focused on a determination not to be fooled - and therefore a determination that every-possible-thing is (underneath the surface) malign and nasty. 

Such is an accurate allegory of many modern people. 

• They (we) have pre-decided that this is a purposeless, meaningless and impersonal universe. 
• Any suggestion that there is a loving God who created it, is regarded as childish delusion. 
• Such suggestions met with incredulity, and regarded as an attempt at manipulation. 
• Any 'evidence' of a miraculous or supernatural kind, is explained-away as necessarily fraudulent.    

In conclusion; however differently it was in the past; mainstream modern people are Not latent Christians; but indeed are pre-immunized against serious belief in religion generally - but Christianity in particular. 

 

Christianity is (or should be) a religion of inequality

Equality is supposed to be 'a Good Thing', but isn't; as William Wildblood demonstrates in a forthcoming book - which I have had the privilege to read in manuscript.

As well as equality being a Bad Thing to aim-at; indeed, equality is not even a real thing. 

The word and concept of equality is, of course, very vague in terms of its actual (i.e. rhetorical) usage, which resembles an hypothetical black box, more than a useful category; but 'equality' can usually validly be reduced to an assertion of sameness... 

Either an assertion that some-particular-things are, or ought to be, The Same. 

But are things ever the same? 

Well, in some sciences, especially the physical science, science there has been an assumption of sameness among things like particular chemicals or atomic particles. Yet even here, the progress of science has usually been towards finding differences among things that were originally assumed to be the same: for instance all atoms were originally assumed to be identical - even between different elements and substances. And in biology, an assumption of sameness is much less frequent, and soon breaks-down, the closer we look. 

Perhaps the only genuine sameness is in mathematics (and formal logic), where the sameness is axiomatic and wholly abstract: a matter of definition. 

But mathematics is not the real world. 

What about in religion? Well, so far as I know, there has never been any actual, viable religion where all people are judged to be the same. 

In the past, human differences were often simplified (for practical purposes) into categories, or classes of Men - but even there, there was always provision for making distinctions. 

e.g. Priests may have been in a different category than non-priests; but priests were internally differentiated in many way - even down to the individual level.  

But what of a divine level? Again, it seems there has never been equality of divine regard of Men - but sometimes this has been simplified into categorical levels of classes of divine esteem; which often reflected social organization.  

So where does the idea of equality come into religion? Well, sometimes there is an equality of 'destination' in terms of post-mortal, afterlife fate. In some religions it seems that all Men will (sooner or later) end-up in the same situation. 

For instance, the Ancient Greeks and Hebrews seem to have regarded the afterlife of all Men as a an underworld of demented ghosts: Hades/ Sheol. 

Or the Eastern Religions Hinduism and Buddhism have sometimes envisaged all Men as sharing the same fate of eventually (after varying numbers of incarnations) being re-absorbed back into the divine, from which they came - at least, that goal was the same for all Men. 

Christianity has always divided the destinations between at least two (not-equal) possibilities: Heaven and Hell; and this has sometimes been elaborated by additional possibilities such as Limbo and Purgatory; and by differentiation of fates and roles within both Heaven and Hell (e.g. the circles of Hell, or the layered Mormon 'Heavens') - sometimes differentiation by categories of people, sometimes at the individual level. 

The main assertion of, and emphasis upon, 'equality' in Christianity is almost-wholly modern (coming after the emergence of political leftism, with is promiscuous talk of actual or aspirational 'equality'), and is related to God's supposed attitude of Love to all Men being absolutely 'equal'. 

But God's 'equal' love can only be entertained as a possibility either if Love is regarded in an extremely abstract way (because in real life, including in the Bible itself, love is always differentiated and selective) -- and/or if equality is redefined into a very vague notion that because God Loves all His children, this 'must' (or should) mean that God (somehow, for some reason) loves all his children in exactly the same way and to exactly the same degree...

This supposed 'equality' has been spun into highly abstract assertions of God's absolute and unconditional - therefore equal - Love; rather as if God's love was an evenly-distributed gas, or a radiation of completely equal intensity that bathed all Men without distinction. 

To my mind, this (frequent) attempt to express God's Love as equal and unconditional is probably an alien import to Christianity; either derived from politics; or apparently derived by back-projection from the (not Christian - but nonetheless held by some self-identified Christians) idea of post-mortal Men all returning to be assimilated-into the divine...

Maybe the argument hinges on the idea that if all Men end-up equally, then this happens because God regards all Men as the same. 

At any rate, these two ideas of the supposedly unconditional and universally-equal Love of God, and a Nirvana-like life after death destination of all Men - seem to go-together. 

For a Fourth Gospel derived and focused Christianity; I would regard it as obviously wrong to regard equality in Christianity as a Good Thing. 

Christians ought instead to be trying to understand God's plans for men in the most differentiated and individualistic way possible; much as the ideal attitude of earthly human parents to their children is one that recognizes each child as individual, unique; and needing (ideally) to be regarded as such in terms of their destined and best path through mortal life and beyond. 

Ideal earthly parents would not love all their children 'equally'. Neither would they love their children in a rank-order. Instead they would 1.) love all their children, and 2.) love and value each child in a particular and unique way to correspond with his or her individuality.  

In other words, it is high time Christians set-aside 'equality-talk'; and began to recognize that the traditional categories and classes of past-Christianity were an imperfect representation of what is actually - from God's point of view - an individual-level scheme of Man's salvation and theosis.  

Socio-Political, Jungian, Romantic Christian - Three ways of regarding JRRT Tolkien's work

Looking back over the past fifty years I have been reading Tolkien; I can perceive that my attitude to the books (especially The Lord of the Rings) falls into three broad phases. 

Socio-Political

When I began reading, in my middle teens, I regarded LotR as, pretty much, a blueprint for how we ought to live in a socio-political sense. My attitude was that the lesson of the book was that we ought to deindustrialize substantially, and return to an agrarian society, divided into mostly self-sufficient units (i.e. a kind of feudalism), based upon a much simpler level of technology. 

Thus, my interest in Tolkien led to an interest in pre-modern history - Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Medieval. And also an interest in the 'self-sufficiency' and 'intermediate technology' movements, 'ecology', and the politics of William Cobbett, HD Thoreau, William Morris, RH Tawney, the 'distributism' of Hilaire Belloc and GK Chesterton, and EF Schumacher of 'Small is Beautiful' fame.  

In essence; I saw the spirit of Tolkien located in a type of society; and I hoped to live by this spirit via living in what I understood to be a Tolkienian society. I therefore read the books almost as if they were a manual or blueprint for how we ought to live. 

Jungian

In younger adult life, I lost faith in both the power and goodness of politics - and realized that its direction was against the agrarian. I realized that Men were not passive products of social systems - and I developed the broadly-Jungian idea that 'the psyche' was the primary reality. 

I saw the psyche as a third realm in-between the subjectivity of the everyday and mundane mind on the one hand, and the objectivity of the material world (including society and politics) on the other hand. 

My broad conclusion was that the 'lessons' of Tolkien ought to be developed in terms of living in accordance with the collective unconscious - which I saw as an objective realm of archetypal and mythic realities that was shared by all Men. 

In sum; I saw Tolkien as the greatest modern exemplification of this mythic world; and reading him as a way of discovering and strengthening the mythic in my own life; with the goal of living an integrated life - feeling part of society and guided by the wisdom of myth. 

Romantic Christian

In middle age I became a Christian, and then more and more of a 'Romantic' Christian - under the influence of Mormon theology; and writers such as Blake, Coleridge, Steiner, Barfield and Arkle. 

Thus, from about 2009, I began increasingly to read and experience Tolkien in a different way. This new era began with my immersion in JRRT's posthumously-published and unfinished novel: The Notion Club Papers. The NCPs contains a good deal of Tolkien autobiography, and was intended as a framework and bridge between the modern world and the world of the 'legendarium' (ie. the Silmarillion annals, The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings). 

The Notion Club Papers blog then began to record a new practice of reading Tolkien, and some of the other Inklings, as what used to be termed 'devotional literature' - in the same spirit that past generations might have read Milton's Paradise Lost or Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. 

So, this is where I am now: in my third era of Tolkien. 

Should Christians hand-over their eternal salvation to... historians? Romantic Christianity at the cutting-edge

At the cutting-edge of experienced-life - 

The Church = What (some) Historians Say. 

All claims of knowledge reduce to intuition/s; but for traditionalist Christians, the baseline intuition is that The Truth is a matter of history; and history is known through the work of 'historians' - broadly conceived. 

Whenever a Christian makes a statement about the past, about what happened, and how things were (for example in the life of Jesus or The Church - whichever he adheres-to); in practice the implication is that 'history' defines truth. 

How can we know this history? 

Well, if we regard the church as primary, then in some sense we are saying that true knowledge of history lies outside our-selves. That we cannot be a Christian (or, at least, not properly) without this historical knowledge... 

Christianity is indeed an historical faith, intrinsically - based on Jesus making interventions in reality at some historical point. 

For the Christian this history is true. Yet true by what account, by what authority? 

Too often this is understood to mean that being a Christian means accepting the authority of (one or another bunch of) historians - as primary. 

Thus Christians put themselves in the position of being at the mercy of 'historians' (including scholars of many stripes - historical linguists, archaeologists, translators and editors, theological interpreters (the modern informing us about, and interpreting, the ancients) etc. 

According to church-primary Christianity; that which Christians are called upon to believe and the ways they are called upon to live, are rooted in historical work... yet are we really so confident about handing over our immortal souls to historians?

I Am Not! I am not at all confident about handing over my eternal salvation to the work of historians and other scholars. 

Why should I accept one selected and specifically interpreted set of historical statements, upon which to base my mortal life and resurrection - when there are so many and contradictory statements of history? 

To answer my own question: I would only accept a particular version of history when it has been validated at the deepest and most enduring level by what could be called intuition: when my deepest-possible, sustained reflection on the matter tells me that this particular history is true: even if not 100% true in every possible respect - that it is true in the ways that matter. 

What this means is that faith rests ultimately upon such intuitions - and therefore does Not rest upon any external source of knowledge. External knowledge must be checked against intuition. In different language: our faith needs to be confirmed by 'personal revelation' - as the Mormons term it. 

Such intuition is an ongoing process, which never ends in this mortal life; which is why our faith is a living and renewing thing - or else it dies. 

But having reached the insight that our faith rests upon this internal knowing - this personal revelation; then we may further recognize that this internal knowing is not restricted to confirming externally-derived information. 

When our personal revelations have confirmed that we are sons and daughters of God, and that the ascension of Jesus Christ made possible our communing and consultation of The Holy Ghost for knowledge and guidance...

Then we may realize that intuition (in this sense) may be a primary source of Christian knowledge and guidance - independent of external sources: independent of churches.  

And this insight and affirmation is (more-or-less) Romantic Christianity. It amounts to the personal revelation that we ought not to handover our external salvation to 'historians' and their like. 

To live (unconsciously, spontaneously) by external guidance was natural and necessary in the past, in many civilizations - but it is nowadays neither necessary: nor indeed possible.  

Modern Men cannot do what ancient Men universally did - and our choice is therefore between denial and acknowledgement of how we actually do live (when at our best): as autonomous agents, as choosing consciousnesses; guided by intuitions from our own divinity and the Holy Ghost...

We can only know such intuitions for our-selves - from our-selves - and in our actual circumstances; and these may guide us to a particular denomination and church; to particular persons and books and statements, and what we ought to think/say/do - Or Not, as the case may be. 

The aim being to bring us to affiliate with God and creation in the spiritual war; aiming after mortal death to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected life in Heaven. 

We can by such means - and at the cutting-edge of actually being-experienced life - learn those churches, teachings, 'histories' which are in-accord-with truth, and help these aims - and learn to detect and reject those which are not. 

Note added concerning Mormonism - a case study of personal revelation: 

The Book of Mormon was published in 1830. According to the scholarship of Terryl Givens; the BoM is broadly highly compatible with the Bible. Its production functioned mainly as a sign that new Christian revelations were being made by God, via a new prophet. But the BoM has one theological innovation, which is that individuals ought to seek personal revelations to confirm all significant and foundational Christian claims. 

For example the BoM itself served as an instrument of conversion. The missionary would ask an individual to read the book, then seek personal revelation as to its truth. If revelation confirmed the truth of the BoM, then this was (pretty much) sufficient for baptism - which might follow immediately or very soon. This process has striking similarities with the almost instant conversions described in the Gospels, and Acts of the Apostles - such as the Ethiopian Eunuch.     

But the explicit insistence on a need for personal revelation was new, and foundational of the new denomination.    

  

Yet, the scope of personal revelation was soon limited explicitly by top-down CJCLDS rulings; because low level church members were claiming major revelations about many and fundamental whole-church matters, and these were leading to schism and disruption. By revelation of the prophet Joseph Smith; the scope of revelation then became hierarchically limited, especially in relationship to church order, official theology, doctrine, practices etc. Only church officials were allowed valid revelations in accordance with the scope of their office; up to the church President (the prophet) who was the only person allowed fundamental and church-wide revelations. 

This meant that henceforth the Mormon church assumed primary authority over all fundamental matters, and that the church's teaching on all vital matters must be regarded as a unit; either to be accepted as a whole, or else rejected - but nobody had the right to pick and choose, modify, or add-to that unified body of mandatory beliefs. 

However necessary to the survival of the church were such hierarchical limitations on the scope of revelation; the validity of such limitation on the scope of personal revelation is itself subject to the need for confirmation by personal revelation. And that personal revelation may lead to the rejection of such limitations - and instead lead to the potential validity of personal revelations up-to and including fundamental matters of theology, doctrines, life-practices etc.

In a nutshell, if personal revelations of unlimited scope are allowed to all Mormon believers; this will lead to the destruction of top-down church authority. The Mormon Church (CJCLDS) would then become regarded in an expedient fashion, as being more or less helpful to theosis and salvation (in terms of its teachings and practices), and itself subject to the imperatives of personal revelation.  

This is my own attitude to Mormonism. I regard the BoM as true, and Joseph Smith as a real prophet, and Mormon theology and metaphysics as a major breakthrough (and revelation) in world historical terms. Yet I am not, and never have been, a CJCLDS member, nor have I ever attended services nor placed myself under church authority (indeed, I have attended selected Church of England services, and support some of these particular congregations). 

What I get from Mormonism is the ultimate validity and necessity of personal revelation - and I do not accept (for myself) the pragmatic necessity or primacy of 'official' revelations from the leadership. In other words, I see myself as having accepted, and benefitted from, Joseph Smith's original revelations concerning the primacy of personal revelations - without the later-added institutional restrictions. 

That this is a timely and correct course of action seems to be confirmed by the ongoing 'convergence' of the CJCLDS with several of the purposively-evil strategies of the global totalitarian establishment. In short, the Mormon church has already ceased to be a Christian church overall, and is engaged in its own further and further self-destruction by alliance with the demonic side in the spiritual war of this-world. 

If this is correct, then those who continue to maintain their own inability to have general, church-wide, unlimited personal revelations will be led into greater convergence, and more extreme and active alliance with Satan. 

This is one example of why the matter of personal revelation/ intuition/ direct-knowing/ heart-thinking - that is, of Romantic Christianity - is of such urgent importance. 

Philip K Dick's vision of God - 17 November 1980 (From The Exegesis)

From Exegesis [1:301] - I have slightly edited this for clarity and emphasis:

Strange to say, when I look back to 11-17-80 what seems to me now the most proof that it really was God is not so much the bliss but the distinct individual personality (with its intense love); the distinctness, the uniqueness, the individuality of the personality. 

I could then and still can imagine what he would look like were he physically visible: an old man in a robe, very old, very dignified and wise, but, most of all, loving and kind and gentle (yet firm, very firm) - but not as he is usually pictured, not a patriarch in the usual sense.

More, perhaps, like a magician - in contrast, though, to (say) Gandalf; much darker: gray and brown and black, in shadow, yes: in shadow, like Michelangelo painted him in his creating Eve. Yet not so, but close to it. 

Not heroic, as Michelangelo painted him, and not Hebrew. More supernatural. 

Really sort of physical, not “spiritual.” Yes: physical and supernatural, not a king or patriarch, all dark. Like a druid or humanist: learning. Not classical. Like a tree or a scholar. 

I know: like a book! Hence made of parchment, tree, branches, paper, cloth. 

He was not a type, like “the wise old King,” not an archetype, not like a statue; he was an individual, not man but a given specific man (in contrast to sort of Platonic eidos). It was as if the universe had been created by one given specific individual man. 

Book. Robe. Tree. Gray. Brown. Dark shades and fabric. 

There was nothing generic about him. No so to speak DNA. No latency; all was actualized and distinct. 

As if you had gone from the physical, material realm of specifics to the Platonic archetypal—and then back to the specific man! Like a complete circle. 

Strange. He was like all ontogeny! As if a wise old scholar, a sage, had conjured-up creation. Not God as we normally think of him, but a scholar of love and tenderness, but of vast learning. 

Again I see a book.

*

For those who do not know PKD's Exegesis; it comprises about eight years worth of the copious notes he made for himself; triggered by several Christian religious experiences that began in February of 1974 - trying to analyze and explain these experience using a wide range of often-contradictory schemata. 

The work is therefore not cumulative, is incoherent, and has no overall arc or conclusion. 

The Exegesis is, instead, a series of insights of many different types and degrees of quality; but characterized by extreme honesty and earnestness. The best of them I find extremely worthwhile and stimulating; and I am inspired by the actuality of this long-term and deicated 'project' of Dick's. 

Here; Dick describes a visionary experience of God as a person - which has close resemblances to my own (Mormon-esque) understanding of the nature and being of God. 

Note on The Exegesis. A large selection from this (edited by Pamela Jackson and Jonathan Lethem and others; none of whom are Christian, which is significant) was published in 2011. 

I own the Exegesis as an e-book, the paper copy; and as an audiobook - which is superbly narrated by Fred Stella, and is 52 hours long (yet only costs one credit to buy...)! 

In passing, we owe the survival of Exegesis mostly to the timely, decisive (and dubiously legal) actions of Tim Powers - then a young student friend of PKD, and now a successful SciFi-Fantasy author (and a lifelong, traditionalist Roman Catholic). 

Synchronicity and Serendipity are Signs

By a Sign I mean when some happening is intended - by God - to teach us something. 

Since this is the function of a Sign, typically the fact of it - its 'form' - is the key to its importance; while the specific 'content' of the Sign is much less important. 

Synchronicity describes a person's experience of coincidences that seem so unlikely as to seem meaningful. Calling it Synchronicity means that we do not believe it is a coincidence. And if not a coincidence, then it is planned. 

Synchronicity could be regarded as a sign that there is a creator, and this creator is God. 

Why? Because the organization of many events to create such coincidences implies that there is a purposive creator, with a unified will; and the fact that the coincidences are personally directed - that we notice them - suggests that  the creator is himself a person (i.e. God); and concerned with individual persons. 

(Because why would an impersonal 'deity' arrange Synchronicities?) 

In other words, the fact that I experience synchronicities (if I accept it as a fact), implies a planner - and what is more a planner who takes a me-focused view of the world. 

But a Synchronicity may be - often/ usually is - something apparently meaningless; or at least trivial. Therefore the significance is in the fact of Synchronicity - not the content of it. Thus Synchronicity is a Sign - designed to teach us some particular thing - but not to teach us everything! 

  

Serendipity could be regarded as a sub-type of Synchronicity when the coincidences make a 'happy accident'. 

Examples of Serendipity include when a scientist makes a fortunate discovery based on some unplanned event - such as Alexander Fleming's happy accident in the discovery of penicillin. 

But fortunate coincidences happen in everyday life - when someone arrives 'just in time' without knowing in advance that time was critical; when someone was in the right place at the right time; or happens to be carrying just exactly what would be needed... etc. 

Serendipity can be considered a sub-type of Synchronicity - a Synchronicity that has fortunate consequences. 

Serendipity could therefore be regarded as a Sign that, not only is there a creator God; but that this God loves us personally.  

Serendipity may therefore be understood as a Sign of the working of the Christian God - or a God much like Him. Not only does He personally arrange events around us to make remarkable coincidences; but these are fortunate coincidences. 

In other words; 'happy accidents' are signs of the truth of the Christian God.

But Synchronicity and Serendipity only work as Signs for those who regard Signs from God as a possibility. 

An atheist/ materialist who assumes that there is only impersonal causation and random chance, can never be convinced of a Serendipity - he has ruled-out the possibility, by his assumptions. 

Signs therefore do not prove anything -  because what counts as proof requires metaphysical assumptions concerning what is real. 

So, if we have already decided (perhaps implicitly, without being aware of this prior decision) against God - that there is no God, or cannot-be God, or that a deity cannot be personal. or if we had re-decided that it is silly wishful thinking to suppose that God might arrange a happy 'accident', a fortunate 'coincidence'... 

Then when the possibilities of a loving, personal, creator God have already-been ruled-out; then clearly any Sign will be ignored, reinterpreted, explained-away. 

And the intended teaching behind that Sign will not be regarded as purposive; so the chance to learn will be missed. Indeed - that there was a chance to learn will be missed. 

Such is normal, mainstream and officially-approved behaviour - here-and-now. 

Therefore, Synchronicity and Serendipity are Signs of the reality and nature of God; intended for those who are open to such possibilities. 

Each instance is tailored for the needs and situation of each particular person. A Sign is 'for' a specific individual and circumstance - not intended as a general proof for everybody. 

The lesson of Signs is to recognize them for what they are; to learn from what is intended by their form - and therefore not to get bogged-down on trying to interpret the specific details of the content. 

Synchronicity is telling us, personally - here and now, that God is active in the world; it does not mean that what happens by remote coincidence is also a form of covert but specific life guidance. Even a serendipitous discovery in science may turn out later to be inaccurate, false - or some better theory may emerge later. The value of a happy accident is intended specifically for the time it happened and that person - not 'happiness forever', nor happiness for everybody.  

If we begin to think in terms of Signs; if we focus on the forms rather than specific contents; we may find great encouragement from the daily events of our lives. 

After all, personal re-affirmations of the reality of God, creator of this world, of His Goodness and Love, are of inestimable value. 

One cannot get too-much of such things!

Note: I got this concept of a Sign from By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl Givens (2003); which is an historical examination of the way that the Book of Mormon functioned as a Sign for most of the history of the CJCLDS. Only recently (the past several decades) did the specific content of the Book - its scriptural teachings - become a focus. Up to the 1970s; the BoM functioned mostly as an instrument of conversion, as evidence of a new 'dispensation'; as evidence of God's active intervention in the modern world by personal revelations. It was more the circumstances and fact of the BoM that was important, and little attention was paid to the teachings that could be gleaned from its text. (Currently, however, Mormons tend to regard the BoM as a scripture on the same level, and to be studied in the same way, as The Bible.) This history clarified for me the nature of a Sign, and the kinds of things it could accomplish. 

Warbreaker by Brandon Sanderson - a notice

Brandon Sanderson has been one of the the best of modern fantasy fiction writers. I have a particular affection for The Rithmatist which has become one of the handful of favourite books I keep re-reading. Otherwise, I greatly enjoyed nearly all of his books (especially the Mistborn trilogy) yet without wanting to re-read them - with the exception of Warbreaker (2009). 

I have read Warbreaker three times so far; and it is a really good book - ranging across humour, adventure, horror and with several scenes of great beauty and heart-warming heroism which do not fail to make me weep. 

The characters are excellently done; varied, interesting, many are very likeable (even some of the baddies) - several are (in the end) genuinely, memorably heroic. 

It displays Sanderson's supreme ability to invent many and different, complex and interesting magic systems. This remarkable system (based on 'breaths' and colours) has an extra symbolic level, with moral and aesthetic aspects. 

He also invents a linked religion; which is unveiled through the plot. And the plotting itself is a real virtuoso effort - as intricate and satisfying as the best whodunnit detective novel - and like writers in that genre Sanderson springs his plot twists honestly; having explicitly given the readers everything necessary to predict the surprise - but misdirecting us from the implications. 

Indeed, I have never come across any writer who is more adept than Sanderson at the plot-twist - and there are many in Warbreaker. This is linked to the fact that when Sanderson is at his best: nothing goes for nothing. 

The reader needs to be alert and attentive from the first sentence; because everything has a payoff later (mostly, in some unexpected way). 

Warbreaker is almost certainly the best book Sanderson will ever write - because it uses the fullness of his character to the maximum. 

A book cannot be greater than the Man who writes it - and Sanderson has not at any point been a Great Man like Tolkien and CS Lewis. Nor (to mention two of the best modern fantasy writers) is he a genius at the level of Susanna Clarke when writing Strange and Norrell, or JK Rowling when she was writing the Deathly Hallows. 

(Genius creativity is fragile, and temporary - especially among women geniuses, who nearly always suffer labile weirdness or craziness; whereas only some male geniuses do.)  

In a nutshell, Brandon Sanderson has been about as good as a not-genius, professional author can be; because the heights of genius accomplishment are inner-driven ('endogenous'), and a genius is almost-never a professional. 

Also because "Branderson" is now several years into in what looks like a permanent and self-willed decline; partly caused by relentless over-production. Including by the (related) mechanism of pro-fiction-production. Nowadays, this grossly over-uses the input of others, including activist editors - leading to a kind of composition-by-committee - a process that purges individuality, and smooths-away the peaks, as well as filling the troughs. 

And lastly from the incurably deadly poison of creeping political correctness. Brandon Sanderson was resistant to this, due to a devout Mormon upbringing; but like the CJCLDS generally (although further advanced) he is now keenly spiraling-down the vortex of Establishment-pandering Leftism.   

Is it possible for a nation, for the world, to be taken-over - yet almost nobody notices?

William James Tychonievich ponders this question at his blog; using an example from the beginning section of The Book of Mormon; and the complementary section of 'Kings' from The Bible. I contribute a comment.

Note added: William summarised the situation very exactly in a comment: "We find it hard to believe that everyone could fall for an obvious lie -- and therefore, everyone falls for an obvious lie."

Jesus on the Sabbath and God as his Father - from William James Tychonievich

Regular readers will know that my understanding of Christianity is based upon the Fourth Gospel - called John; and that I have written a small 'book' about this.

One happy consequence has been that William James Tychonievich has embarked upon a somewhat-complementary project of putting the Fourth Gospel under a microscope, moving through it in considerable detail - and with a greater focus on linguistic and historical aspects; as well as exploring links with the Old Testament and other parts of the New.

William's latest offering is another extremely valuable addition to the series, in which he focuses on the passages of the Fourth Gospel describing the 'Take up thy bed and walk' incident at the healing pool in Bethesda.

Two points he makes towards the end of the post struck home particularly strongly (I have made a few cuts, indicated...):

Chapter 5:[16] And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

While it is true that Moses decreed the death penalty for sabbath-breaking, the Jews of Jesus' time had no authority to execute that penalty. Judaea was under Roman rule, and only the Romans could put a man to death...

[17] But Jesus answered them, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work."

This is perhaps not the sort of defense we might have expected. Jesus does not say that carrying a "bed" (probably just a mat) hardly counts as "bearing a burden" and is not a violation of the sabbath. He does not say that, while keeping the sabbath is important, healing a man who needs healing is even more important. Instead, he says, "God is still working, and so am I." God, contrary to what Moses said, never rested from his labors, and neither should we. Rather than argue that his apparent sabbath-breaking was justified in this particular case, Jesus denies the whole idea of the sabbath.

If you search the Gospels, I think you will find not a single instance of Jesus keeping the sabbath or encouraging anyone else to do so. Even when he rattles off some of the Ten Commandments in response to the rich young ruler's query (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20), he is careful to omit that one. The only time the sabbath ever comes up in connection with Jesus is when he is breaking it, which he does repeatedly and deliberately.

[18] Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

Centuries of Christianity have made it so natural to think of God as "Our Father" that it is easy to forget that the fatherhood of God is not a Jewish doctrine and was among Jesus' more controversial teachings. Although I am open to correction on this point, I do not believe the Old Testament contains a single unambiguous reference to God as the Father...

It may seem a small thing to say "Father" rather than "Creator," but I think Jesus' would-be murderers were right to regard it as revolutionary and to equate it with "making himself equal with God." If a man builds a house, the house is never going to be anything like the man who created it -- but begetting a son is another thing entirely. A son is fundamentally the same sort of being as his father and is destined to become like him. 

To call God one's Father is to make an astonishing claim about oneself, and the Jews are not to be faulted for finding it shocking in the extreme.

Read the whole thing

My reflections:

It suddenly seems obvious (to one who regards the Fourth Gospel as primary) that the breaking of the Sabbath was Jesus's message, rather than its keeping. This is surprising, considering the history of most of the Christian churches; but then, the idea of an institutional church and priesthood of Jesus Christ is itself alien to the Fourth Gospel.

Aslo; I had not reflected before that Jesus was making a new designation of God as Father; and, in the Fourth Gospel, very literally and repeatedly so.

Later mainstream Christians (before the Mormon 'Restoration' in 1830) have failed to take into account the implications of Jesus's claim that God was his Father. Which is: "A son is fundamentally the same sort of being as his father and is destined to become like him."

Instead, presumably under the influence of Greco-Roman Philosophy, mainstream Christian theologians have abstracted God into a infinitely-alien 'Omni-deity' (or what William terms a Supergod).

So, by taking the Fourth Gospel with full seriousness, and as the primary source on Jesus; we get two striking conclusions: 1. That the Sabbath ought not to be observed (at least not in a way analogous to the Anceint Jews); and 2. That for Jesus to tell us that God is our Father, is a qualitative break with the Ancient Jewish understanding of the nature of God, and brings God much closer to Man: continuous-with Man.

From only 'Rome' to Not Rome: How much I have changed in eight years

Eight years ago on this blog, in my review of a book about Christopher Dawson; when at the peak of my immersion in Eastern Orthodoxy, I stated: "As Rome dies over the centuries, so civilization-as-such dies, and is not replaced. Rome or nothing or something altogether alien and unChristian - these are the only civilizational alternatives."

I have now changed my understanding so much that I regard a continuation of Rome (its civilisation and religion) and not only un-desirable, but impossible. 

What brought about such a change?

Well, it was a sequence. First of all, from around the turn of 2012-2013, I began properly to understand Mormon theology, and soon became convinced of its superiority, its rightness. Then, about a year later  I got to grips with William Arkle. And soon afterwards, began my encounter with Owen Barfield. So, within a year of writing the following, I had begun the transformation of my understanding - and within a couple of years it was complete in its main features; after which there have been only relatively minor tweaks. 

**

Wednesday, 19 September 2012 - Christopher Dawson and the Byzantine blindspot

Christopher Dawson - 1889-1970. Once very famous Roman Catholic historian of ideas, now all-but forgotten. Admired by Tolkien, C.S Lewis (who knew him) and TS Eliot.

See Sanctifying the World: The Augustianian mind of Christopher Dawson by Bradley J Birzer.

Excerpts from Progress and Religion, 1929 pp 157-166.

Dawson in italics - my comments [in square brackets].



It cannot be too strongly insisted that the victory of the Church in the 4th century was not... the natural culmination of the religious evolution of the ancient world, It was, on the contrary, a violent interruption of that process which forced European civilization out of its old orbit into a path which it would never have followed by its own momentum.

It is true that the classical culture and the religion of the city state ... were losing their vitality, and that nothing could have arrested the movement of orientalization which ultimately conquered the Roman world. But this movement found its normal expression either in the undiluted form which is represented by the different Gnostic and Manichaean sects, or in a bastard Hellenic syncretism.

[So, 'a bastard Hellenic syncretism', or 'orientalism' is how Dawson characterizes the millennium of the Byzantine continuation of the Christian Roman Empire! The coherence of Byzantium - as I see it by far the most coherent Christian society which ever existed on earth - is dismissed as a weird or exotic (yet centuries-long) suspension of crudely-mixed Judueo-Christian an Greek elements in asolvent of 'orientalism'.]



...the Byzantine culture does not simply represent the fusion of the Hellensitic-Roman tradition with Christianity. It contains a third element of oriental origin which is, in fact, the preponderant influence in Byzantine civilization. It is to be seen in the social and political organization of the Empire which borrowed from Sassanian Persia all the external forms of the oriental sacred monarchy.

The rigid hierarchy of the Byzantine state which centres in the Sacred Palace and the quasi-divine person of the Holy Emperor is neither Roman nor Christian, but purely oriental.

[This is just name-calling! For Dawson, 'Oriental' is clearly a bad thing in and of itself, and 'rigid' added as a meaningless adjective to 'hierarchy'; 'quasi-divine' as a sniping and inaccurate characterization of the concept of the Emperor. The ideal Emperor was actually conceived as an Apostle, God's representative on earth, and an intermediary with Christ Pantocrator (that is Christ as active and Heavenly ruler of all, ruling Earth via his intermediary). But actual Emperors were judged against this ideal, and deposed when their behaviour showed they were not the real Emperor and a mistake had been made in choosing them. Anyway, Dawson doesn't like this kind of thing, and he needs to distinguish The West from it. But in doing so he is actually taking a pro-modernizing stance. Because 'orientalism' is the ideal of unity, fusion or harmony of church and state - and in attacking this, Dawson introduces - not just as a pragmatic reality but as an alternative ideal - a distinction between the realm of God - the Church, or City of God; and the secular realm of the state - politics, military and economic activity. In other words, functional specialization: modernity. Once begun, unstoppable.]



And the same influence is to be seen in Byzantine religion in its tendency to neglect the historical and dynamic elements in the Christian tradition, and to become absorbed in theological speculations regarding the nature of the Godhead.

This tendency reaches its climax in the writings of the so called Dionysius the Aeropagite, which probably date from the close of the 5th century, and have exerted and incalculable influence on the religious life of the Byzantine world. Here we may see the most extreme assertion of the Divine Transcendence and the negation of all finite modes of being.

In fact, Byzantine 'theological speculations' were mostly reactive to heresy and criticism from Western Christianity - and were not core to Christian life. Byzantine Holiness was not 'absorbed' in theological speculations, its purpose was for the human spirit to be 'absorbed' with (in communion with) the Godhead itself: so that man becomes Saint, who lives partly in Heaven in communion with God, partly on this earth to learn, teach, and act as intermediary. The 'neglect' of historical and dynamic elements actually meant that for Byzantium at its best, Christianity was a living presence in daily life, which tried to create (by ritual, arts, ascetic practices, devotions, prayer) model itself upon and emulate Heavenly life. A moment-by-moment earthly copy of the permanent Heavenly ideal. Naturally, historical and 'dynamic' elements were subordinated to this timeless task (not 'neglected'). Dawson accepts the modern secular revisionist history that Dionysius is the work of a late author ('Pseudo' Dionysius) - when for many centuries the ancients accepted the identity of the originator of these teachings as the disciple of St Paul. I believe the ancients.



Thus abstract mysticism [of Dionysius] is linked up with a fixed ritual and ceremonial order which is its earthly and sensible counterpart...

Again this harping on Byzantium as fixed, ritual, ceremonial!... yet ultimate reality is fixed, surely? So why should not earthly copies be fixed? If the Byzantine fixity was unreal then the Empire could not have endured as it did! And why does Dawson, a pre-Vatican II ultramontane Roman Catholic, criticize Byzantium for its use of devotional ritual and ceremony? In seeking to distinguish, positively, Western from Eastern Christianity - he has drifted into anti-Catholic sentiment.



...the moral ideal of the Byzantine world found its expression in the uncompromizing other-worldliness of the monks of the desert which represents the extreme development of the oriental spirit of asceticism and world-denial within the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.

[But elsewhere, and rightly, Dawson is unstinting in his praise of the Irish, later Scottish and Northumbrian ascetic monks and hermits who maintained the last Western outpost of Christianity in the remote 'deserts' of the British Isles. St Boniface - who Dawson regards as perhaps the most important figure in the whole of European Christian History - was a Lindisfarne product of this non-Latin tradition. What were these if not example of uncompromizing other-worldliness of precisely the type that Dawson brands as 'oriental'? The 'Celtic Christian' church of Anglo Saxon times was precisely Byzantine or Eastern Orthodox - albiet not 'Greek'!) in all its distinctive respects. The whole Synod of Whitby dispute was a prefiguring of the Great Schism in terms of the Latin Christians (Pope as supreme bishop, a church led by priests) versus Byzantine Christian (Emperor as supreme authority, the bishop of Rome as having precedence but not authority over other Patriarchs, and led by monks)]



Nevertheless, even this radically oriental version of Christianity did not satisfy the Eastern world. With the coming of Islam it reverted to a simpler type of religion (etc)  

The drawn-out and bitter conquest of the Byzantine Empire by Islam is represented as having happened merely because the 'orientals' were not 'satisfied' by Eastern Orthodoxy, and wanted something 'simpler'... I wonder why so many Byzantines bothered fighting to the death to resist something that supposedly satisfied them more than what they had? And why so many of the conquered over the next centuries, even until now, continued to practice Byzantine Christianity despite its entailing subordinate status?]



In the Roman West, in spite of its lower standard of civilization, the conditions were more favourable to the development of an original and creative Christian culture.

[This is true: Western Catholic Christianity is indeed much more original and creative than Eastern Orthodoxy, and thus much more satisfying to creative geniuses. Unfortunately, being creative and original does not imply or entail its being more true, or more Holy. Indeed, if ancient Christianity during its first millennium had as much Christian truth as was available in the fallen world; then everything that came since - no matter how original and creative - has been deviation from that truth.]



In his Byzantine blindspot, Dawson is typical of most historians.

Indeed, I believe that our whole understanding of the modern world, the nature of civilization, and the human condition is distorted and perverted by a vast and pervasive Byzantine blindspot.



Constaninople was the second Rome, the capital of the Byzantine Empire was the Christian Roman Empire.

The core, essence, and highest manifestation of Christian Rome was Byzantium; of which the Latin West was - spiritually speaking - a pale and fragmented outgrowth. Rome was (in its variants and descendents), the only model and pattern of Christian civilization we can ever know.

As Rome dies over the centuries, so civilization-as-such dies, and is not replaced.

Rome or nothing or something altogether alien and unChristian - these are the only civilizational alternatives.



The Third Rome was Moscow - and Orthodox Russia was the lineal descendent of Byzantium: the Tsar (in ideal) was the continuation of the Byzantine Emperor. The Russion revolution a century ago was therefore the end of Rome as a cohesive spiritual-political organization; the fragmented Holy Roman Empire in the West ended about at the same time. It was the end of Rome which marked the qualitative rift with the Christian past - the Great War was only a mechanism. The twentieth century was then unleashed in all its various horrors. The end times began. 
 

Albion Awakening - The Book of The Blog!

What you have been waiting for! - The Book of the Blog - Albion Awakening, by John Fitzgerald and William Wildblood - with an introduction by me:

Introduction by Bruce G Charlton

Albion Awakening was a blog which was shared between the triumvirate of myself, William Wildblood and John Fitzgerald. The theme is contained in the title: the blog was dedicated to the hope that ‘Albion’ - the legendary, mystical soul of ‘Britain’, would awaken and take-up her true spiritual destiny.

The blog was launched summer 2016, in the aftermath of the referendum vote in favour of Brexit; which we understood to represent a spiritual rejection by The People of Albion of the plan to subsume Albion in a European, bureaucratic super-state. Beyond that, we all agreed that leaving the European Union was - at best - only a first step; and that for any good to come from it the next step would need to be spiritual, not political. The blog continued for more than two and a half years, until it reached a natural close in spring of 2019.

The three of us brought different qualities to the blog. We are all Christian, all - indeed - inclined to a Romantic Christianity that sees a large and vital role for imagination, creativity and direct personal experience. We all, too, regard the Oxford Inklings group as spiritual mentors: in particular JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, Charles Williams and Owen Barfield.

Beyond that - like the Inklings - we each have a somewhat different Christian emphasis. I was a lifelong atheist who converted in late middle age, and became an essentially unaffiliated Christian. My spiritual practice is rooted in a pluralist and evolutionary metaphysics deriving from sources such as Mormon theology, and the spiritual philosopher William Arkle.

William came from a Church of England background, and became a lifelong spiritual seeker - focused on Christianity; but at times including experience of Eastern, specifically Hindu, practices. He has a long experience of meditation and a vital period during young adulthood when he participated in direct contact with spiritual Masters.

John comes from a Roman Catholic, ultimately Irish, background - and sees his Christian life as rooted in the tradition, legend and myth of the British Isles. He is a story-teller as well as an historian; and sees a vital role for the imaginative arts in awakening Albion.

My contribution, as the blog administrator, was mostly to write a large quantity of mostly topical and off-the-cuff posts. I used the blog as something rather like a notebook, and produced something like a stream of consciousness of ideas relating to the main theme. Consequently, my posts were of essentially ephemeral interest, and we decided not to include them here.

William’s and John’s blog posts took more of a set-piece form; they contributed many rounded and polished mini-essays - also, in John’s case, short imaginative fictions - on many topics relating to the Awakening theme. This volume is an edited selection of such pieces from Albion Awakening. Their value is of two main kinds: knowledge and inspiration.

In one sense, this book could be regarded as a ‘crash course’ in those people and events that make Albion - the phenomena that raise mere Britain to the mythic significance of Albion. In a second sense; this volume is a collection of potentially inspirational fragments of the Albion myth - which, we hope, will encourage (that is, give courage to) all lovers of Albion in sustaining and growing the reality of our national myth - from and within each of our-selves.

As arranged in this volume William and John’s essays constitute a mosaic or collage of colourful reflections and suggestions on the subject of the spiritual nature of Albion: what we have-been, are, could be… and what we should be.

Order from Amazon -

Paperback, 346 pages: £8.65

Kindle - £4.99

NOTE: If you read it (and like it); why not post a review?

Why I am a philosopher: The practice of accusing modern Christians (such as Mormons) of ancient 'heresies' - Arianism, Pelagianism, Gnosticism...

You know what I mean; maybe you have done it yourself. In discovering some aspect about some other denomination or practice of Christianity than your own - you mentally point the finger, saying something like 'But that's just Pelagianism'... or whatever.

The implication is intended to be that this is an old and dangerous error of theology; which arose, was exposed and was refuted in the early centuries of Christianity. A further assumption is that there can be 'nothing new under the sun' - that all modern attempts to say anything different from the past are not only mistaken in intent and dangerous in outcome - but merely some permutation of ancient errors.

My belief is that this is an ignorant way of proceeding. In the first place the ancient 'heresies' are (mostly) hardly understood - since we do not know what their adherents really believed. In some cases, the descriptions sound very like straw men: that is, accusations from enemies rather than genuine beliefs.

(The equivalent of a modern person trying to learn the truth about Christianity from the pages of The New York Times.)

But in the second place - and most importantly - this way of proceeding prevents any genuine comprehension and grasp.


I will give the specific example of Mormon theology. I am not, and never have been, a member of the  Mormon church; however I have come to believe in the truth of Mormon theology (and indeed the validity of Joseph Smith as a prophet and the validity of the Book of Mormon as a scripture).

Even as a sympathetic investigator, it took me about five years before I grasped the distinctiveness of Mormon theology; because it is very, very different from mainstream orthodox Christian theology. It is, indeed, so radically different in its basic, metaphysical assumptions; that it entails a 'pluralist'  philosophy outside the Western Canon - only being represented by William James, and such 'fringe' figures as Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield.

Now, I can easily understand that many people are perfectly satisfied by their mainstream orthodox Christian theology, and are not interested in examining the claims of some radically different and alternative conceptualisation of Christianity. I can understand that some people find Mormonism just too silly, trivial or boring to want to make any significant effort in understanding it.

Other people (most people) just aren't interested by really basic metaphysical philosophy, that challenges the most fundamental assumptions regarding the nature of God, reality, time etc. I think that such an attitude, here and now, is a very serious error; since most people have false and wicked basic assumptions of reality, derived from an evil secular culture; and for their own good and salvation they need to discover and examine these assumptions. But this need not have anything to do with Mormonism.

But I have, again and again, encountered the lazy and ignorant excuse that Mormon theology is 'nothing but' some kind of incoherent mish-mash of various ancient Christian heresies such as Arianism, Pelagianism and Gnosticism.

The accuser has pre-decided that this is the case because it 'must be' the case; and proceeds to fit Mormon theology into checklist categories of ancient heresies that he has derived from some secondary literature that purports both to know and to understand the faiths of these unorthodox early Christians.

This is no way to understand anything new. It is merely a recipe for ensuring that you will never learn anything outside of your existing compass.


In complete contrast; the way to learn some radically different way of thinking requires, in the first place, a lot of motivation - because the process is nearly always slow and requires sustained effort. But the effort needs to be directed at understanding from the inside out. It entails an act of sympathetic identification - to see things from the inside as an adherent sees them.

Lacking this, the understanding is a fake, 'machine-learning', flow-chart, algorithmic process - not worthy of being called understanding at all.

We need to see how it all fits together, how it derives from a few basic assumptions, how it makes sense in its own terms... Of after this has been achieved, can there be a genuine critique or development. 

This is not a counsel of perfection. It is possible to do it, and I did it with Mormonism (after, as I say, about five years). Because this is what is actually being done by all serious adherents - although they typically lack self awareness of it (that being the nature of humans). And you know when you've done it, pretty much; because serious adherents will accept your descriptions of them and their beliefs.


My point is that serious philosophical work is not a matter of pick-and-mix, of selection and combination. On the contrary it is a process of empathic identification and a development from-within, that is both intuitive and rational.

You cannot pick your subject, idle curiosity is insufficient motivation; rather, your subject will pick you - in the sense that your deepest concerns and wishes will seek understanding and answers; and this is what drives you to the necessary work and thinking.

But for me, this kind of philosophical grappling has been the greatest satisfaction and value in my intellectual and personal life; and why I regard myself as primarily 'A Philosopher' - despite that my work has been in the realms of science, medicine, literature and (most recently) theology - and almost never in the areas that professional 'philosophers' in colleges regard as academically significant.

  

Is there a difference between God-without and God-within? Yes, and this is the basis of our participation in creation

In the classical theology of mainstream Christianity; God outside of us is 'transcendent' and God inside us is 'immanent' (in the sense that God is in all of creation) - so they are 'the same thing'. This seems to imply that if we have one, then we did not need the other - and that having both God-without and God-within is redundant.

Traditionally - from the early days of a church - this was interpreted to mean that God would come to the Christian primarily from outside; the revelation was interpreted by the church and given to the follower. Later, from the Reformation (with the Quakers as an extreme version); God-within was given primacy. But both extremes share the understanding that both inner and outer God are the same - because God is a unity.

However, the pluralistic theology which I believe holds that God inside us includes our own unique and eternal self - which has been, has existed, eternally - as well as that divinity we have from the creator as consequence of being a child of God. Whereas God outside does not have our-own self in it.

So God-without and God-within are distinct, and both are necessary*.


God-without is generic, and applies to all Men - indeed to all creation: this makes us a part of God's destiny and all of Men our brothers and sisters.

God-within is what makes each of us a child of God, and makes God a matter of concern to each of us individually and personally.

We need both God-within and God-without if God's creation is to be both universal and specific.

And therefore revelation has both external and internal aspects. There is a universal revelation and a personal revelation possible - and both are necessary.


In navigating our way through life - we need both inner and outer God. It is the meeting of inner and outer that defines our own path, distinct from the path of any and every other person - but equally God-given.

It is the interaction of God-within and God-without that enables Men to become gods: in other words enables Men to participate in creation. It is love - between each Man and God and between Men - that makes the interaction of internal and external divine sources an harmonious interaction; each a positive and mutually-reinforcing contribution to creation.

(This is one reason why love is fundamental to Christianity - love is the cohesion of creation.) 

And it is the meeting of inner and outer - which differ - that is the basis of our participation in creation. When we became God's children, it became possible for us to join with God in the ongoing work of creation - precisely because we each bring something unique and distinctive and potentially valuable to creation.


God-within is unique, and yet also includes God as consequence of being a child of God; this is how we can make a contribution to the creation which was begun only by God; but continues with the participation of newly made gods.

These newly made gods were men and women always with some divine nature, but able to develop to become fully-divine in nature.

It is because men and women were not wholly made by God, but instead each have something eternal which existed before we were made children of God, that we are unique Beings, and able to become gods - of the same kind as our Heavenly Parents and Jesus Christ.


*(God is not, therefore, a unity. God is, in the first place, a Heavenly Mother and Father; and later included Jesus who began as a Man and became fully divine. Because of the work of Jesus, potentially all Men could become divine - although in practice not all Men make this choice.)

Note: the above is an interpretation of Mormon theology, which I have also discussed further in my mini-book Speculations of a Theoretical Mormon from five years ago.

Unreliable Prophecy

The problem with prophecy is that - when it is made public - it never seems to come true; or - even when some would interpret it as validated; prophecy never seems to do any good.

I have read many sincere, detailed prophecies made over the past fifty years or so; and they are often completely wrong - as wrong as it is possible to be.

There were, for example, from the 1970s - 1990s (and again leading up to 2012) many channelled messages about an imminent landing of aliens on earth and the consequences, and multiple predictions of an imminent planetary breakthrough to a higher 'frequency/ vibrational' level of consciousness. Didn't happen.


The only valid prophecy I have encountered has been Rudolf Steiner's of 1918 - about which I have written extensively. Perhaps significantly this was a pessimistic prophecy - about what bad things would happen if Western man continued to reject the reality of the spiritual; if we continued to assume the truth of materialism. And even in 1918 this was an extrapolation of a century-plus trend. 

But Steiner's main prophecy - of the Second Coming of Christ in c1933, was completely wrong - at many levels. Instead of Christ we got Hitler as Chancellor - although Anthroposophists actually interpret Hitler as a demonic reaction against the Second Coming. But if the 1918 prophecy is straightforwardly true, then the Second Coming prophecy is falsified by the same common sense criteria.

Another of Steiner's main prophecies was that Ahriman (Satan, the Antichrist) would be incarnated in c2000 - so I suppose that remains a possibility, although I think we might have noticed by now?

But from Steiner we can see that being A Prophet does not mean that one is correct about most things, most of the time. And if only a small percentage of  statements are accurate - and we don't know which percent until afterwards - then this really isn't much use.


There are several ways by which, it has been suggested, God could enable prophecy. But the question is why he would want to do this.

Prophecy essentially assumes divine planning to a timetable. And why would God (at least the Christian God) want to do that? And if he did, why would he want people to know about it. And if he did want people to know about it - why choose a human prophet as the mechanism - and expect the message to be accurately disseminated and understood?


There is no doubt that - through the ages - there has been a fascination with prophecies. But public, objective, social prophecy is beginning to strike me as a wrong idea at root. It may be a fascination - one I personally feel pretty strongly; but that fascination may be idle or evil rather than good.

I can certainly see the value in personal prophecy - among family, friends and the like. This can serve a function of retrospective validation - as apparently happened among Jesus's disciples when after his resurrection, they recalled some relevant prophecies. But something goes terribly wrong when these are made public, with 'general prophecy', when prophecies are made into objective statements, applicable to 'all'; when they are supposed to affect public policy.

Indeed, the most convincing stories of prophecy are when The Public disbelieve and ignore The Prophet, but a much smaller group of the prophet's family, friends, followers do believe; and these 'believers' are able to escape some prophesied disaster.

A good example is at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, when the prophet Lehi are ignored by the authorities, but he and his family escape the destruction of Jerusalem. Or in fiction when, in Watership Down, the shaman rabbit Fiver predicts the destruction of the burrow, is ognored by teh chief rabbit, but escapes with his brother and a small group of followers.   



I am certainly guilty, many times over, of worrying about what the future holds in general terms unless... or of trying to avert one or another prophecy. But surely this is a fault? Surely I ought to be discerning what I ought to do now - and (so far as possible) setting aside what might (but probably will not) happen as a consequence?

Or, if I did recieve a real prophecy, then this would surely not be about anything large scale - but about what should happen to myself or my family; something I can directly affect: where my personal decision is significant. 


Like most people, I want to be reassured that If I do X, then Y will eventuate; but we know that it is seldom possible really to know what will happen - too many factors impinge. Most importantly, all people (all Beings) have agency, and are capable of choosing. In principle, conscious behaviour cannot be known in advance - only guessed.

And therefore what we ought to do, ought not primarily to be aimed at consequences - especially when we know what it is right to do regardless of consequences. That seems the case in real prophecy - the future is not known with any great precision; but what ought to be done is clear. 

We may, if we are sincere, come to understand the reality of our situation - and this will include what we personally should do in consequence. To get back to that broadly-fulfilled 1918 prophecy of Steiner - we may reasonably infer that the bad consequences happened for broadly the reasons Steiner stated 100 years ago. But we only knew that for sure in (perhaps) the past generation or two; many decades after the prophecy was made.

And what we do not know is the consequences that would actually eventuate from here-and-now if we (from this point) did what Steiner rrecommended and remedied the defects Steiner outlined... If we (you and me, other people) regarded the spiritual realm as real, developed a more frequent and intense awareness of the spiritual realm etc.  What effect would this have?


In sum, even if we know that the prophecy was true, and what we ought to do about it  - this does not tell us what would happen if we actually went ahead and did it. If (for example) there was a general recognition that 'Steiner was right after all!' (at least, in that particular lecture of 1918).

What then: what would be the resulting consequences?

It seems we would need yet another prophecy!