Romantic *and* Christian - Both are needed for sufficient motivation, requisite courage

Romantic and Christian - both are needed. 

Christianity comes first, because it is the structure of reality. But without Romanticism... well, "Christianity" does not involve us, each, personally, powerfully. 

Without the Romantic and personal involvement, then Christianity is just theory and/or just a social institutions. And, as of here-and-now - such a Not-Romantic Christianity Will Not motivate us sufficiently to resist the pervasive and otherwise-overwhelming evil of our civilization. 

On-paper, or legal, or social religion (including Christianity) has been demonstrated to be radically insufficient. Its adherents - no matter how strident! - are actually engaging in mainstream atheist-materialist cultural activities... 

Whatever they spout or assert (and no matter of what they have convinced themselves); they Actually Are doing nothing-more than socializing, doing politics, seeking status, or an economic niche, or survival - or pursuing some-other of those things that everybody does, and is encouraged to do, in the mainstream of ideology.  

Such theoretically/ legalistic/ institutional Not-Romantic Christianity is literally irrelevant; it is spiritually-indistinguishable from the atheism, agnosticism or anything-but-Christianity spirituality. 

Not-Romantic Christianity is no-better than the prevalent values of our society. 

And, what this means in practice; is that Non-Romantic Christians will not choose the actuality of salvation after their mortal lives; for the simple reason that there are other things they want more than salvation. 

And because they have assimilated the value-inversions and anti-creation values of the actual Western Civilization into-which their churches are thoroughly assimilated. 

To recognize this fact, we need to understand that things really were different in the past, because people were intrinsically different. 

Romanticism - the need for a personal and passionate engagement with Life; was not really "a thing" at all, until the late 1700s, and did not spread at all widely for another century. 

In the more remote past - especially in the Medieval era and before - all religion was "social" in nature; and for Men of that era it was potentially very powerfully motivating. Personal engagement, motivation... these things just-happened, spontaneously - or by passive-acceptance. 

Indeed; such religion with such people was for centuries (millennia) the single most powerful motivator in life, such that individuals were extremely courageous in loyalty to their church (in many religions) - men would risk and indeed sacrifice much in adherence to the Christian church. 

Even monarchs (certainly not the best of Men!) could be remarkably courageous! 

While Henry VIII was a monster of pride, lust and spite; his children (Mary, Elizabeth, Edward VI) all displayed tremendous individual courage and tenacity in pursuit of their religious convictions...

Even when (especially in the case of Mary and Elizabeth) they found themselves isolated, their lives in danger, and with all the powers of the state and institutional church ranged against them - each continued to be loyal to (and risked everything for) what he or she regarded as the true church.  

Such motivation is now gone, and long gone; such courage in loyalty to a religious vision is now a thing of the past. 

What was an automatic, passive, spontaneous involvement in Christianity - must now actively be sought as a personal necessity, a lifelong quest. 

This is necessary if a Christian is to find the motivation necessary to transcend the endemic evils of Western Civilization, 2026.

Christian polytheism - from William Wildblood

William Wildblood's latest post analyses and expresses well something I have felt for as long as I have been a Christian. 

Edited excerpt:

Paganism died out for a reason. It was superseded by the advent of Christ who really did make all things new. 

And yet some things were lost in the process, in particular a real connection to creation and a contact with the inner workings of nature as well as a proper relationship with the spirit of place. 

This is why the contemporary Christian needs to re-engage with paganism and even add a pagan element to his Christianity. This element should be seen in the light of Christ, in other words it must be baptised, but it provides a form of spiritual nourishment that Christianity lost as it lost touch with nature, with the earth and the land. 

This is what I mean by Christian polytheism. Such a polytheism does not mean believing in many gods rather than one God. It means that under God there are many what we can justifiably call gods who carry out his work in creation. 

This is not too great a leap from where Christians already are, characterising them as angels, but angels are often regarded as somewhat abstract or, worse, sentimentalised. By seeing them as gods our minds can enter more deeply into the spiritual universe and the inside of creation. 

You could call them the inner energies of creation though with the understanding that behind these energies are beings not mere impersonal forces.

This could be envisaged as a way of understanding the two concepts included in the term "Romantic Christianity" - with "paganism" doing the work of "romantic". 

My understanding of Christianity being essentially about choosing to accept Jesus's offer of post-mortal resurrected eternal life in Heaven; is of course easily compatible with many aspects of paganism. 

I assume this is why it was so easy and straightforward for pagans to become Christian - they regarded Christianity as an addition, a bonus: paganism-plus. 

The main (and only essential) difference between what they already had from paganism, and what they would get with conversion to Christianity; was that Christianity offered the possibility of a Happy Ending beyond death. 

Sturgeon's Law again - or, is Romantic Christianity *necessarily* just-another liberal apostasy?

If Romantic Christianity is an insistence that the individual (rather than any external authority, such as a church or a prescribed-interpretation of Scripture), and his deepest intuition (rather than e.g. "evidence" or "reason"), ought to be ultimately responsible for his Christian belief...

Then is this not just-another version of the kind of liberal-apostasy - just another attempt to create hedonic or socially-advantageous wriggle-room from the obvious and necessary truths of [insert favoured church or tradition]?

The best answer is not-necessarily, but sometimes, yes... it is bound to be. 

Especially when that individual attempts to impose his own personal intuition on "other people" in some kind of general, quasi-institutional, of self-advantaging fashion.

But even when an individual is going his best, the actual practice of Romantic Christianity will sometimes or even mostly be contaminated by the basic nature of this reality we all inhabit: which is undercut by entropy and permeated by evil.    

After all - so far as I can see - some version of "Sturgeon's Law" seems to apply almost everywhere - in the sense that in any category of phenomena involving people: most of that category is "more or less" crap. 

But the proper question is in that word "necessarily": the question of whether Romantic Christianity must be from-it-nature merely wriggle-room liberalizing-apostasy?

Because even if Romantic Christianity is, by the nature of all mortal earthly things, mostly crap; this is compatible with it being at its best actually good and true. 

I would first say that RC does not have to be, ought not to be a liberal apostasy; and that Romantic Christianity can instead be a genuine, positive, really new (and better!) way of being a Christian: a more authentic and divinely-approved way of "following Jesus".

   

Litmus Test choices - a choice of totalitarian authority and surrender to that (versus heresy, versus Romantic Christianity)

There is a sense in which anybody that takes one step away-from obedience to an "authority", will continue to diverge - will continue to become more of what they have started. 

There is the observed fact that failure on one Litmus Test issue, or failure on a new Litmus Test as it arises, almost always leads towards greater corruption. 

And in this case, the corruption is an (in practice) assimilation towards the totalitarian program. 

So... people take a first step, and implicitly accept the authority of those who launched and perpetuated the Birdemic/ Peck international coup; or who provoked and escalated the Fire Nation conflict; or who propagandized and imposed the post-November-2022 "AI" pseudo-revolution...

Doing this involves both a decision to:

1. Accord authority to the powers who have devised and sustained these strategies; and

2. Also the decision to submit (to a significant extent) to that authority. 

(This applies to individual persons - but also to institutions - including churches.) 

So it is obvious why any single Litmus Test failure is usually a significant step towards further corruption; because the powers being accorded authority are overall-evil in their motivations; and the choice implies obedience to that authority. 

Authority to evil and obedience to that evil. 

To summarize: a Litmus Test failure is therefore both a decision to confer authority upon evil - thereby inwardly submitting to that evil; and a decision to think and act in accordance with that evil. 

In the short term, this "feels good" - exactly because totalitarian evil is dominant in our world (especially in The West); and in joining oneself with The System (even to what is, initially, a limited extent) there is a sense of becoming "part of something bigger", and of a larger world of increased opportunities for personal status, power, wealth...  

So (in practice) when someone chooses a Litmus Test failure; this is not something they do with shame and try to hide; but on the contrary, something boasted-about - and (as far as possible) parlayed into increased career, business or social opportunities.

The public discourse is currently full of people who have one or more radically dissenting opinions - but whose Litmus Test fails are actually the basis of their fame, or wealth, or other appeal. 

And this number is net-expanding with every new Litmus Test - so there have been many new recruits to the totalitarian agenda since "AI" began to be implemented across all major institutions, top-down.  

Some of these happy-successful-collaborators are individuals (entrepreneurs of one sort or another; whether would be "me cultists" or money-seekers, or combinations) - but many are church-Christians of one sort or another. 

This is how it looks to me. But I can see that there is a superficially-similar critique operating from the perspective of "traditional" Christian religious orthodoxy of the kind that sees "Christianity" as an entity authoritatively defined and controlled by some particular church (or system - such as a system of authority accorded to "The Bible" or other scripture; including a particular interpretation of it). 

Any individual who steps away from the institutionally-controlled and -validated orthodoxy of Christianity; can be seen (from this church/ system perspective) to be "on the road to heresy" - because, having rejected church-authority and been disobedient in one respect - nearly-always leads to further rejections and disobediences. 

Therefore, the traditional orthodoxy of the favoured church is defended strongly by asserting that particular church's primary authority; because perceived the alternative is likely to be a collapse of "faith", that (it seems) does not have an end-point - and leads (it seems) towards Christian apostasy: abandoning the Christian faith altogether... 

This perception of the anti-Christian consequences of rejecting the chosen-authority in any single point; is almost inevitable if and when somebody believes that Christianity Just Is embodied in an external institutional authority. 

For an individual instead to assert his personal authority to discern the nature of Christianity; and to accord primacy to (what he believes) is a personal, direct and unmediated relationship with Jesus Christ, and God - is therefore regarded by the traditionalist as amounting to "the same thing" as mainstream atheistic materialism and its accompanying New Agey "spiritual"-hedonism.  

For the trad-orthodox church-based religious person; true authority is always external, and true virtue always depends on voluntary obedience to external authority. 

The crucial distinction for church-Christians is between what they regard as the real and valid authority of their church on one side; and the false authority of global totalitarianism on the other.

No other possibility is recognized.  

So any heresy seems analogous to a Litmus Test failure. 

Yet from my Romantic Christian (Christian individual) perspective; I observe that the trad-orthodox church-based Christians have in fact failed one after another of the Litmus Tests, and continue to do so!

And for the simple reason that their churches are In Fact part-of the System of global totalitarianism.

As of 2025; a church cannot exist as a socially-significant institution, except by being mandatorily locked-into The Totalitarian System in a multitude of ways: 

...Financial and economic, legal and employment-wise, and as part of a dense network of regulations to do with buildings, gatherings, social interactions etc. 

All of which is enforced by the police, the bureaucracy, and the immense destructive power of the mass/social media.     

It is a question of whether one is opting-out or opting-in; and what is being opted-into or out-from. Into authority or out. 

Is the opting out-from one authority (e.g. a church) into another authority (...secular totalitarianism)? 

Or, is it an opting out-from the primacy of external authority. 

It is a question also of the decision about the location and nature of ultimate authority.

Is authority to be outer-institutional to be obeyed - or is it aspirationally-rooted in a personal relationship-with the divine? 

And answers to such questions are, in turn, based on what one regards as possible... Mainstream materialists regard the divine as false and impossible. Church-Christians regard the divine as necessarily institutionally-mediated. 

But Romantic Christians regard the divine as real and rooted in personal relationship. That is the basis of its claim to provide a third option with respect to ultimate authority.  

Participation in Romantic Christianity

I have found Owen Barfield's concept of "participation" - as expounded in Saving the Appearances - to be a deep and fertile insight - a gift that keeps giving, and demanding! 

This affected me so strongly because I had already recognized "alienation" as the distinctive problem of modern Man (and, especially, of me personally); and the driven-need to "cure" (or, in practice, temporarily alleviate or forget) felt-alienation, to be a core and increasing motivator of human life in our current civilization.   

In particular; I have found it necessary repeatedly to explore the relationship between participation and Christianity - having become aware that a great deal of mainstream Christianity is strongly alienating - not just in practice, but also in theory (which makes the defect incurable, without theological change).

It is important to realize that participation is the truth and reality of creation. It is not an optional extra, not merely a psychological feeling; but participation is intrinsic and unavoidable. 

Yet we modern Men are mostly unaware of the actuality of our own participation - and have erected an incoherent pretence of an external objectivity, something that supposedly exists without our consciousness, and to which we must conform - like it or not. 

So our task, as alienated modern Men, is not really to "seek participation" as such (although that is a shorthand for the process) - because participation Just Is - but to seek consciousness of the reality of our own ongoing participation. 

Mainstream Christianity often encourages participation of certain types, in specified circumstances...

For example, during prayer the person praying is encouraged to participate in a two-way and mutual communication. Something similar applies to participation in Holy Communion; or any other of the sacred rituals. 

On the other hand; the context of prayer is presented as happening in a context of objective and external fact - and something in which participation has no role. Thus; if a prayer is directed at God, then according to mainstream theology this is not a participating relationship, because God is infinitely "other", without any necessary role for human (or other) consciousness. 

The Christian is told the nature of God, creation, reality - how things work; what is appropriate ritual and symbol; what is real scripture and what it means etc... and the Christian's job is first and foremost and mandatorily to accept these "factual" (unparticipated) descriptions. 

Only after A Lot of objective, external and not-participated descriptions have been accepted, is the mainstream Christian supposed to work on participating in them. 

And, of course, such participation carries with it a more-or-less detailed expectation of what is allowed to come-out from the attempt...

In other words; the "mystical" Christian who desires participation, has already been told The Answer! 

The mainstream Christian who seeks conscious participation has been told what he will find in his mystical participation, and what it means - as a matter of objective truth; so that the seeking for participation is regarded as secondary, subjective-essentially; and an "optional extra" to the "realities" of Christianity that are objective, external - and matters about which our personal experience is irrelevant. 

Because I regard participation as necessary and intrinsic to the human condition; I regard this to be a fatal flaw in mainstream Christianity... Because participation is an unavoidable reality, thus our un-consciousness of it (an unconsciousness that is encouraged and enforced by mainstream Christianity) must be an error or an untruth. 

In sum: Seeking conscious participation in reality, including divine realities, is not some kind of optional or esoteric activity for Christians; on the contrary, it is a matter of working towards what Christianity needs to be and must become - if it is to be motivating and truthful. 

 

Romantic Christianity is not Only negative and reactive...

The cultural era (commencing in Western Europe in the late 1700s) known as Romanticism, is usually described in terms of being a negative reaction; partly against the newly dominant "rationalism" and scientism - reducing divine creation to a contrivance of clockwork wheels; and then fuelled by the beginnings of urbanization, noise, regimentation and pollution from the Industrial Revolution. 

And much the same applies to those of us "dissident" Christians whom I have termed Romantic Christians - they/we are usually understood as reacting-against. 

As I say - this is correct, so far as it goes - but it is not the whole story. 

But Owen Barfield (following Rudolf Steiner) clarified that Romanticism also had a positive agenda; it tended to regard "nature" as much more significant, alive and purposive than did Medieval or Reformation Christianity. This included an interest and seriousness about "the supernatural", and the "magical".   

There was a strong focus on the value of more intense personal states of awareness, intuition, revelation and the like - a "poetic" perspective on life. 

There was a new high-valuation of individual creativity including genius. 

In terms of Christianity; these might briefly be translated as striving for a faith rooted in direct personal experience and responsibility. 

Altogether; Romanticism - and this includes Romantic Christianity - has now been around long enough that surely it ought to be accorded more than the usual dismissive condescension - or quasi-puritantical abhorrence - that is its fate among orthodox and traditionalist Christians?

As I understand it; Romanticism among Christians is partly a negative and reactive rejection of the corruption, dullness, triviality, and superficiality of the churches; but when it is serious is has a more motivating and positive agenda: which relates to an inner conviction that a better Christianity is possible than that resulting from the primacy of church obedience - a Christianity that is more honest, more coherent, more inspiring, and more responsible. 

This refusal to subordinate ones primary religious convictions to the external authority of a church does not - Of Course Not - mean that a Romantic Christian is obliged to live a solitary and isolated life of abstention from all ritual, music, scripture, tradition...

It merely means that these come second, and not first; and the Romantic Christian's engagement with the forms and symbols of Christianity are subordinated to his direct and personal relationship with the divine - which is given primacy, as his motivating ideal. 

Traditional Christianity - in practice a New Age type of "radical traditionalism"?

I often dip-into the writings of John Michell - who had a truly delightful ability to evoke an imaginative and romantic vision of the past; especially of past societies and places. 

Michell sometimes defined himself a radical traditionalist - in that his lifestyle, methods and society were radical, countercultural and New Age. He is, indeed, regarded as a founder of New Age in Britain, with a delightfully inspiring 1969 book called The View Over Atlantis. A very modern kind of chap, then; eccentric, eclectic, a magpie-collector of lost perspectives and knowledge... 

But Michell consistently advocated traditionalism. His greatest hero was Plato, or more exactly the Neoplatonic (perrenialist) tradition that is said to date back at least to Pythagoras; and sees abstract and ideal numbers and geometry, as the basis of created reality. 

Michell wrote and spoke eloquently about the ideal civilization as one of perfect unity, balance and form; a society that was served by its people - who were united and found their deepest satisfaction by their love of divine harmony, and whose life was spent in sustaining that harmony. 

In spite of his many neo-pagan followers; Michell publicly identified himself as a Christian, in the Catholic tradition of the Church of England; and his vision was a distinctly deistic version of the kind of society most closely approached here during the "Merrie England" era of the Middle Ages. 

  

It struck me that even the most ardent and sincere traditionalists among current Christians, are much more like John Michell than they are like the denizens of Medieval-type societies of the kind they hope shall return. 

In other words, like it or not (and they would not embrace the label like John Michel did) they are essentially "New Age Traditionalists" - who are inspired in the present by contemplating an imaginative vision of the past.

More exactly; I regard New Age spirituality as (approximately) an individual centred seeking after participation of consciousness - a personal quest for alleviation of modern alienation; often by discovering "technologies" by which their own consciousness may be manipulated in the desired direction. 

And the bottom line is "whatever works for me". 

Traditionalist Christians are typically also doing this: they have discovered a religious system, with characteristic ritual, symbolism and sacred books and activities - that "work for them" in inducing the desired spiritual state. 

But in most of New Age, this quest may be hedonic, may be wholly here-and-now and this-worldly...

While for traditionalist Christians, such effects, while usually present (I mean, joy, or at least pleasure, from living and participating in church-endorsed activities) is subordinated to other-worldly goals; perhaps including the transformation of this-world into a specifically-Christian version of Michell's more generic ideal structure and forms.  

 What I am getting-at is that the modern attitude to traditional and (more-or-less) ideal-modelled societies - whether actual and historical or potential and aspired-to - is contemplative and imaginative (at best) - and because of the actuality of our consciousness; it nearly-always takes (as with John Michell) a modern, New Age, and indeed "radical" form. 

In sum, traditionalism cannot help but be a radical traditionalism; and this includes individualistic and New Age discernments and evaluations. 

No matter how viscerally a traditional Christian may despise New Age spirituality - his own religious life shares essentially the same generic aims and methods. 

 

No matter how earnestly someone may seek to become a traditionalist like those of the past; our whole attitude and method will be "radical" - not least because we need actually to be modern society nonconformists and rejecters - that is radicals; in pursuit of becoming (it is hoped, at some point in the future) obedient traditional society acceptors. 

I regard this as an inevitable constraint - a product of the way that we now are, and the way that our consciousness is set-up - individualist and agentic, spontaneously-alienated, inescapably fated to make personal discernments and evaluations. 

For a Christian truth is never just "my" truth; but for a modern Christian, strong and motivating saving-truth needs also to be "my" truth - in a way that was not the case in the past.  

Thus the spiritually-effective Christian life will inevitably share some version of the New Age "Seeking" quest, and will be calibrated by means of a spiritual-responsivity that may well be individually-distinctive, or else rare among the mass of people.  

There can be no political "Right" - so, what instead?

I have often noted that there can be no political Right that is genuinely distinct from the Left; unless it is rooted in religion. 

In other words, what people call the Right (including the "far Right" - whatever that may be) are from a Christian perspective and at root, just a type of Leftism - that is, they are all this-worldly and aiming at hedonic outcomes (i.e. human psychological gratification).

I believe this is true, and consequential; but whereas 15 years ago I saw religion in terms of a church, now I regard it as unavoidably personal: Romantic Christianity. 

So how then does religion work as an alternative to the pervasive Leftism? 

The answer is that the real alternative to Leftism is much, much more radical than anything ever dreamed of by any kind of The Right. 

The Right tries to keep what it likes from our Leftist Western civilization, and eradicate what it does not like; but Romantic Christianity recognizes that this process must cut very deeply indeed to eradicate the roots of evil - so deep, indeed, that our kind of civilization seems inconceivable. 

What would happen instead is also inconceivable in detail and at large - except that it would be more like a family than a state. 

However unsatisfactory this individualist/ romantic world view may seem to be, especially to those whose ideology continues to be socio-political and group-ist in nature - it does seem to be the only positive (Christian) possibility; given the way that human consciousness has developed.  

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!

Destroying "enchantment" in the arts

Ever since I became self-aware in my mid teens, I have valued "enchantment" - that magical quality of what I might now call "participation" - which is depth and breadth, significance and beauty. Enchantment is the same thing that CS Lewis called Joy, and Novalis called Sehnsucht - and was something of an obsession for the Romantic Movement.  

I found it first in Tolkien - and realized quickly how rare it was, and how it was altogether absent from most of what most people valued and praised. Furthermore, there didn't seem to be anybody else who valued it as I did - rather, more exactly, there were differences of opinion as to where it might be found, even among those who did value it. 

Finding it was therefore something of a personal quest; and I began to realize that even when I located a source of enchantment, the trend of our times was working against it. 

I found enchantment in the work of the electric folk group Steeleye Span, especially in their supernatural and magical ballads. But after seven LPs of reliably enchanting music - I noticed that in 1975 "All around my hat" was a considerable step down in this respect. It was something to do with a feeling of "overproduction" in the music - which was apparently intended to make it more "commercial", more instantly appealing to a mass audience; and this being achieved by what seemed like excessive messing around with sound and arrangements and (presumably) performance; excessive production-control - such that the delicate bloom of the songs was somewhat rubbed-off. The following album - Rocket Cottage - was poor, and then the band broke up. 

The thing about enchantment is that it isn't usually a conscious goal, but happens as a by-product, as a part of a larger and spontaneously integrated activity. Indeed, it is not possible to get enchantment by making it primary - as CS Lewis describes and explain in Surprised by Joy.

But enchantment can be prevented or destroyed by any focus on almost any specific - it can be pulled-down, but also killed by breaking-up.

So, whereas I quite often found an almost accidental enchantment in many amateur plays and music; I only seldom found it in the work of professionals - especially when they were required to repeat performances, and these became routine. I have never seen a play with enchantment in the West End London theatre, for instance - where actors do long runs of the same play. 

Routine is a killer of enchantment; as is management, "mugging" (exaggeration for effect, as when performers show-off); more generally a striving for entertainment, shocks, horror, laughs. 

A political agenda dominating is maybe the commonest cause of deadly disenchantment. Politics is one of the most disenchanted of all domains. 

Any priority, that is, which arises from outside, and imposes onto the creative process and interaction.

The death of enchantment is a product of separation... Modernity takes an original unity, analyses it into components, treats it as a collection of attributes - and then pursues these singly, perhaps in sequence - or emphasizes on or a few at the expense of the whole.

I have even come across modern attempts - some genuine, others probably insincere - to make enchantment itself an externally imposed priority, to layer it onto works or an intrinsically anti-enchantment aspect of life (such as politics, bureaucracy, mass media, or corporate life) - as if it was some kind of sauce! This never works, but achieves the opposite. 

Enchantment is either integral to the creative process, to Life; or else it is absent   

Now, although enchantment is still discerned and valued by a few people, and can still be found and still arises (but almost exclusively outwith professional and official sources); our civilization lies on the far side from it - the nature and trend of our whole world is systematically and pervasively hostile to enchantment.  

This is apparently what I sensed fifty years ago, back in 1975; although I didn't realize how far the process had yet to go. 

And, as usual, we can't go back. The future of enchantment in the arts, or anywhere, must be something essentially unprecedented; because it can only arise from the large perspective of a lived enchanted life - more exactly from that part or aspect of a Man's life which is enchanted. 

Note: Exactly the same problem of disenchantment happens in churches, and over much the same timescale. There is near zero enchantment in church services, or in any aspect of church life - even when the Christianity is sincere, the atmosphere is as mundane as an office. And probably a majority of serious modern Christians have set their face against many of the manifestations of enchantment - which they reject vehemently as demonic. The truth his the opposite: enchantment is a manifestation of the divine, is indeed Heavenly, and the hope of resurrection. Whatever its intent; mundane Christianity does the work of Satan, quite literally.  

Why can't our life have a "magical" or transcendent quality at all times?

It seems like, even when life is going well, we cannot experience it at the best and highest level "on demand". 

We sometimes experience the "romance" of this-life, a magical moment, or even magical hours and days; but this state does not become continuous - nor can we have this magic whenever we want it, nor even when we may feel we most need it. 

There are always mundane periods, and these may be normal; there is of course suffering, illness, ageing, and the prospect of death all around and about. But even when we are not immediately affected by such things, life may be experienced as mundane; that is dull, everyday, trivial, niggling... just stuff that happens. 

And sometimes, oft-times, we cannot snap ourselves out of this, nor can we do anything that genuinely works in attaining that magical and romantic state we may desire or even crave. 

The question is whether this inability of ours is something that might in principle be overcome. The question is whether or not it is theoretically possible that "life at its best" could become everyday life? Whether and/or when we feel most trapped in everyday life, or most in need of elevation and enchantment - we could learn how to rise from that dull situation to live life at its best, again?

I think we tend to go one way or another, and end-up claiming something that is untrue or impossible. 

Mainstream secular materialism has it that this life is really mundane; and that the romantic and magical is illusory, a temporary subjective aberration merely - and this is also the view of "oneness" spiritualties such as Western Buddhism. 

On the other side are claims that the romantic, magical, enchanted life of "higher consciousness" can (and should) become either permanent, or else available on demand - perhaps by some kind of spiritual self-improvement, or by practice of some kind of technique, method, skill - or maybe by adoption of a right attitude. 

But the basic idea is that this-life in this-world could and should become a paradise. 

For me, neither of these one-sided extremes are valid. It is an evil form of despair to assume that the bad things in life are real and the good experiences are illusory. Yet, there is nothing solid (just wishful thinking and unsubstantiated claims and rumours) to indicate that it is possible to live a magical life at all times or on demand - nobody ever seems to have done it. 

Christianity is the only form of understanding that I know, which takes both sides into account - both the reality of the romantic, and the inevitability of the mundane; and which goes beyond them.

Jesus Christ knew that paradise is real but temporary, and never available "on demand" because of the nature of this life and world (which is both entropic and evil); therefore the only really-real and actually possible paradise is by resurrection to life in Heaven, which lies outside this world, beyond our "biological" death. (And which, of its nature, can only occur by personal choice.) 

Only Heaven is "romantic" on-demand and eternally; and that only because Heaven has left-behind both death (entropic change) and evil, which are intrinsic aspects of this-world. 

It is exactly because Heaven on earth is real, that Jesus was able to create Heaven and make it possible for us to want and choose Heaven; and it is exactly because we cannot have a permanent or on-demand Heaven in mortal life and on this earth, that Jesus enabled resurrection and created the sustained and everlasting romantic-reality of Heaven.   

I am Not a relativist about Christianity - Here's an explanation why

I have recently been having some discussions in the comment sections at Derek L Ramsey's blog, initially in relation to The Trinity (as conceptualized in mainstream Christianity); interactions that have been helpful to me - and apparently to him as well. 

In particular, I responded to his question about whether my brand of Romantic Christianity would become relativistic in practice, if it were to become common. He found my answer helpful in clarifying my beliefs - so I reprint it here, edited somewhat:

Question from DLR: 

It isn’t that you hold an explicitly relativist philosophy—you obviously don’t—but that, IMO, the consequences of your beliefs lead to relativism, despite your intentions or stated beliefs. 

Imagine there were 100 copies of you, scattered throughout the world. Each one would be gaining divine knowledge directly, but unless you were historically unprecedented, they’d all come to a set of (ultimately) mutually incompatible positions. Without any objective standard, there would be no way to determine what knowledge was correct and what was imagined.

This is ungrounded. Each one of you would think they were right. This is indistinguishable from relativism where truth, morality, and knowledge are not found in the absolute. I don’t see how you avoid this problem. 

Am I explaining myself well enough?

Answer from BGC:  

Oh yes, I understand you perfectly – and I asked myself the same question. 

Recall that when I converted I did so because I thought Christianity could be (and was the only hope of) the basis for a good (or at least good-seeking) society. That was my priority for a few years, and why I found it hard to find a church (either within, or outside, the CofE), why I changed direction a few times. 

It’s a matter I have addressed in my blog scores of times; but my answer is not acceptable – nor even regarded as a real answer! My answer is apparently invisible. 

One answer is to consider the primacy of motivation. 

I believe that, insofar as Christians are honestly motivated, there will be sufficient convergence on the essence of truth to enable salvation at least, and probably a good deal more than that. 

Another answer is that this line of questioning derives from a world view that seems the truth of Christianity, the truth that Jesus provided and taught, as bound-up with social organization – that it is bound-up with mechanisms for ensuring (or at least incentivizing) uniformity of beliefs. 

In other words; a world view that sees Christianity as church primarily – then state. That sees Christianity as primarily social not individual. 

Like the Judaism of the OT – such a Christianity is tribal – the tribe is the nation. For the Ancient Hebrews, the Messiah was understood as primarily a tribal/ national leader. The individual’s spiritual job was merely to serve the tribe. Salvation was of-the-tribe. 

And this role was externally forced-upon Jesus during his life, and after (especially by the evangelist Matthew) – pretty successfully!

I do not believe that this Christian tribalism or groupishness is any longer possible; my evidence being – look around and consider the past couple of centuries! 

I also believe, more controversially, that the attempt to reintroduce mechanisms for unity of belief can (here-and-now) only lead to evil. 

In other words, it is possible even nowadays in The West to enforce unity of belief (e.g. 2020) but this Will Be evil. 

Good (i.e. taking the side of God) can no longer be enforced top-down. 

I suspect that the only path to good (at least in The West, for you and me) is therefore non-institutional, much more like a family than an organization or nation. 

This must develop bottom-up, and from love. 

What such a human society would look like if it happened, I do not believe can be foreknown – because there can be no blueprint for it, just as there is no blueprint for a loving family.

Distinguishing Christianity from a/The Church

We just have to learn to distinguish Christianity from Church - whether that be "a Church" - churches in general; or The Church - which is your particular choice of church to believe-in and serve. 

This is a Must Do - or else, soon, there won't be any followers of Jesus left in the West (there are exceedingly few already, as it is). 

When Church is mandatorily (and willingly, apparently) incorporated into the bureaucratic and therefore value systems of globalist totalitarianism - Churches are (overall, on average, by general intent) part of the Satanic agenda. 

So, obviously we must stand apart from, and discern, and judge, our Churches! 

Non optional - if you are serious about being a Christian. 

And if you are doing this, then you also need to be clear and honest about the fact of it - and not pretend you are a "faithful servant" of the-real-true Church which is in fact a product of your discernment. As when somebody (or some small minority) define and redefine what the real-true church really is, such that they (the tiny minority) are the only real-true adherents of the real-true church...

That is plain dishonesty. That is actually standing outside of Church; it is personally discerning and judging that Church - but then dishonestly claiming that you are merely, being obedient to that real-true Church's objective and eternal divine authority!

So, if you are a serious Christian - you are already doing this. You are already half-way to being what I term a Romantic Christian...

But you are not all the way, because you are lying to yourself and other people about the core principles of your faith. 

Why do people say these lies? Partly from worldly motives. They want an objective and external Church as the basis foe a decent society. 

I understand this desire - but it is not on the table, it is not an available option - so it needs to be put aside. 

They also lie to themselves because they can't make sense of how to be a real Christian without objective external authority that demands obedience. They think that Christianity Must Be like that, because that was how it was regarded in the past.

These people need to do some hard thinking - about God. They need to make themselves believe what they say, that God is the creator and our Heavenly father - we are all his children; And that Jesus Christ really has offered us resurrection to eternal Heavenly life. 

They need to go back to this kind of deep and fundamental Christian conviction, and then try to see the world in that light; in the light of how such a creator must have made things, and how Jesus Christ must have set-up salvation so that all who desired it (i.e. who primarily wanted that which he actually offered) could achieve it. 

It's a stark choice between fundamental personal reflection on the essence of Christianity; and joining the side  of the devil - which is now, I'm sorry to say, the ultimate and spiritual side which has been taken by your Church... However much your Church pays lip-service to the language and concepts of Christianity.  

 

What is the meaning of "Romantic" in Romantic Christianity - and how does it differ from "pleasure-seeking" or psychotherapy"?

We need clearly to distinguish between, on the one hand, the "psychotherapeutic" aspects of spirituality and religion; and, on the other hand, participation. 

Romantic Christianity is primarily and essentially about participation, not pleasure or therapy. 

(Although Romanticism without Christianity usually devolves into pleasure-seeking and/or therapy.) 

Therapy focuses on emotions and feelings; while participation is a fact about reality. 

Participation is the fact that we are involved-with reality; including that our "inner life" is involved with reality. 

In other words; we are not separate from reality, we are not cut-off from reality, even in our innermost thinking and feeling - even though most modern people feel that they are cut-off; even though we wrongly believe that we are observers rather than participants in "the universe". 

So, participation means that we Just-Are (like it or not, know it or not, want it or not) participants in divine creation. 

The felt-need of Romanticism is to be aware that we are participants in reality. 

Thus, Romanticism is a good impulse for Christians - it is spiritually positive - because it is the aspiration to become more spiritually-developed, more God-like in our consciousness of reality. 

**

Psychotherapy is not only distinguishable from Romanticism, but also the two can be separated and dissociated; so that we can have one without the other: we can have therapy without participation, and participation without therapy. 

Obviously, there can be therapy without participation - and this is the normal, mainstream and dominant form of therapy in modern Western civilization. 

(It is also what historically happened to Romanticism when it rejected Christianity - we got the pleasure-seeking of Byron instead of the participation-seeking of Coleridge; and a century later, we got the therapeutic intent of Jung instead of the participation-seeking of Steiner and Barfield.)

For instance, people can be made to feel happier or less-miserable, by distraction from reality (as by the mass and social media), or by suppression of awareness (by inner-materialism and bureaucracy). 

Distraction-from and suppression-of awareness of the fact of participation both diminish participation and are anti-Romantic. 

And there can be participation without therapy. 

This happens when recognition of our involvement with reality makes us feel more miserable here-and-now. 

This might be through a recognition of evil in our situation; or by recognizing the tragic quality of a life that ends with death (tragic even when death has "lost its sting" from resurrection); and of a mortal earthly world of endemic degeneration, disease, and loss.

In sum; Romanticism is not some form of pleasure-seeking; but is instead a recognition of the benefits, indeed I would say necessity, of consciously recognizing the fact of our continuing-participation in God's created reality.  

 

Double-negative Christian thinking blocks the search for a positive solution

One of the themes on which I have harped in recent years is the importance of recognizing when we are engaging in double-negative thinking, without any positive strategy behind it. 

I mean that pervasive deformation of modern Western thinking which organizes society in terms of what people are against, with absolutely no notion for what people are for.  

This is a recipe for social destruction; but also for personal despair - since emotions are negatively triggered, and social life becomes a multi-pronged, recurrent sequence of urgent and often fanatical crusades against this, that, or the other "bad-thing"; but with no concept of where this is supposed to be leading. 

Thus we live in a society of dystopias, without any remotely plausible - or even remotely appealing, utopia For instance; the supposed-utopias put forward by the WEF over the past years "own nothing and be happy", "fifteen minute cities" etc. are actually horrific nightmare visions of the future, as well as ludicrously implausible. 

But a somewhat analogous situation applies to Christians; who are much clearer about what they are against than what they are for. And when most Christians do describe what they are for - typically they only succeed in painting a kind of nightmare scenario (usually with a totalitarian flavour); or else some more-or-less ludicrous and unconvincing clearly-subjective-and-partial daydream (e.g. of a sexual nature). 

This is apparently a basic and civilizational phenomenon, because what is most striking about the trajectory of religion in the West is the extent to which it replicates all other social institutions; and the extent to which broadly the same path has been followed by all the Christian denominations - and indeed all the religions, and all the political ideologies. 

Thus the publicly observable faith of all kinds of Christian is obviously much feebler than in the past; but also we can see the same in all other religions in the West. 

And the same again applies to political ideologies such as nationalism/ communism/ socialism; ideals that - only a century ago - inspired extreme personal heroism at a mass level -- yet now are feeble and tawdry excuses for personal hedonism, careerism, money-grubbing and power-seeking. 

Furthermore; while religion and ideology have declined; so has romanticism. People are more mundane and materialist in their thinking than ever before; accepting or indeed embracing of mechanistic, dehumanized, life-less and soul-less workplaces, art and architecture, music, movies and TV, literature - and churches. 

All of which are organized and conceptualized in bureaucratic terms - ruled by such abstractions as flow charts, auditing, hierarchy, surveillance and micro-control - and in which creativity is replaced by systematic plagiarism and fakery. 

There has been no significant mass movement in favour of individualism for half a century -- and even that one (in the late 1960s-early 1970s) was largely a fake: stage-managed by the Establishment/ Mass Media and Intelligence services.  

So if we honestly and rigorously seek for a genuinely positive outlook on life; we will search in vain through the public arena and public discourse. 

At all turns we will be baited-and-switched with (more or less disguised) double-negations of things-we-are-against; instead of things we are positively for.  

This change is so pervasive that I personally believe that it only makes coherent sense to regard it as a change in human beings, in human "consciousness" - that is; a change in the way we approach, perceive and understand The World, Our-Selves and The Divine. 

The above analysis and interpretation is why I feel that Modern Man already-is in a situation where the public realm is net-harmful (overall and by intent); where all forms of external guidance are harmful, not helpful; where all kinds of institutions, organizations, formal groupings are harmful, not helpful...

And therefore a world in which the only place to look for a positive approach to the future is in ourselves as individuals, and the direct and unmediated relationships we have with other individual selves - including those we love among the living and the "so-called dead"; among the material-beings and spirit-beings; among human-beings and not-human-beings; and especially with God the Creator and Jesus Christ. 

How we personally formulate and describe this individual situation matters less than that we actually do it - that we actually take personal responsibility for doing it. 

This is why I put-forward, describe and affirm my personal vision of Romantic Christianity - despite that I simultaneously urge each individual person not to accept this but to do it for himself.* 

The first step (but only the first) is to break free from the self-imposed prison of dependence on external authority - and to take personal responsibility for ones fundamental assumptions and convictions. 

Then comes the process of self-critical evaluation and development of a coherent world-view in harmony with all of our deepest assumptions and convictions. 

Because of the entropic nature of this world, and the triumph of evil in the public realm; this process has no end point in this temporary mortal life - but must aim beyond it and towards resurrected eternal Heavenly life.  

This is why there is no coherent or plausible utopia in this-world. 

And this is also why Romantic Christianity is the opposite of subjectivist escapism - in spite that it is rooted in each individual and seeks salvation beyond life. 

The real subjectivity is willingly and by choice, to be subordinated to the nihilistic will of evil-affiliated demons, Men, and institutions - and to be manipulated by them, at their will - towards their goal of opposing creation by means of unending double-negations. 

The real escapism is to be deluded into regarding this death-pervaded, temporary, and mortal world as a possible location for Heaven.

Whereas the Heaven reached after death, by resurrection, and through following Jesus; is the only proper object of, and context for, positive hope. 

*Note: A particularly important point that I want to get-across, is that there is more than one way of being-a-Christian. 

That the Orthodox-Traditional-Mainstream theology (shared by all Catholics and Protestants) is not the only possible way of sustaining Christian faith. 

That there is more than one set of assumptions that - with broad coherence - can sustain Christianity. 

This was first evident to me when I began to understand Mormon theology, how its assumptions were qualitatively different from the Mainstream assumptions; and that it had important advantages (in terms of explaining and validating free agency, and the nature and origins of evil) compared with Catholic-Protestant theology.

But Mormon theology is only semi-rooted in its metaphysical assumptions; and Mormon doctrine and everyday practice almost ignores, and sometimes contradicts, its own theological metaphysics. 

Which is why I first realized that a more-coherent and comprehensive theology was possible than either mainstream-traditional or Mormon - but that discovering this needed to be an individual and inwardly-motivated project. 

Romanticism: ecstatic, intoxicating, magic, enchantment

When a tortured romantic relationship goes bad... Hermione and Birkin from the movie of Women in Love

Romanticism has a bad name among most Christians, probably because it is regarded as being emotional and sensuous rather than metaphysical. 

This is likely due to the fact that we are emotional Beings - indeed, it may be that incarnation is a way of intensifying emotion and making it more effectual. If we consider actual examples of human greatness, from the lives of Saints, through great creators, and the examples of good and loving human relationships - all are bound-up with emotions. 

It is therefore rather strange and sinister when Christians become anti-emotional; but on the other hand it is clearly dangerous, and sooner-or-later evil, if emotion becomes primary: if we become sensation-seekers.

This is a real danger in a godless and materialistic society such as ours - indeed intense emotionalism has been, and still is among the young, probably one of the most alluringly advocated ideologies of these times and this place.  

In my later teens and early twenties, I was very much a seeker of this kind of emotion-seeking romanticism - although mine was of a distinctly highbrow type, focused on music, literature, and drama; as much as upon intense human relationships. 

I was very much taken with the ecstasies of musicians like Glenn Gould or Michael Tippett, the intoxicated prose of DH Lawrence or James Joyce, the magical dramas and poetry of Shakespeare and much else. In life; I was very keen on deep conversation, intense friendships and tormented romances. I sought to live an enchanted life. 

This "worked" as a lifestyle for a while, so long as it was fuelled by the vitality of youth - although the mundane dullness of most "normal" life was a continual problem - and my own energies and motivations were never sufficient to fill long periods or to overcome subjective adversities. 

But as time went by, there was a habituation whereby the ecstasies-etc. (especially the epiphanic intoxications of living in the moment) diminished in strength, I became disillusioned by their incompleteness and brevity and the fact that they led nowhere in particular (nowhere better); and the mundane become oppressive and unavoidable. 

Yet, although materialistic romanticism is a dead-end - it cannot be ignored or suppressed, because our culture offers nothing better. Indeed Christianity offers nothing better - since the deeper into Christianity one goes, the stronger becomes the anti-romanticism: the crushing of ecstasy, and the fear of magical enchantment. 

The idea of Romantic Christianity includes a recognition that we are romantic creatures, because of our incarnation - and that this is a Good Thing, not just now, but forever. 

We ought never to accept, or regard as best, a Christianity that is mundane, disenchanted, dry, dull, anti-emotional - anti-the-physical. 

If we our wise, Christian practice ought to be romantic in its aims - and Christians need to beware of focusing on the supposedly-safe: the comfortable, the friendly, the "ethical", the political. Because (as of 2024) there is no safe way of being a Christian. 

Jesus was himself an intensely romantic, spontaneous, and emotional personage - who lived at a high level of engagement with reality (including spiritual reality) that our earthly attempts can only approach, and only briefly.

When God is depicted as is usual, as an abstract and philosophical entity, defined by attributes, and especially when God's "impassible" nature is insisted-upon (i.e. the assertion that God is incapable of "passions" or emotions) - then we are being dangerously misled (no matter how ancient and venerable such assertions may be!).  

If we accept, acknowledge, embrace our romanticism in a rigorous spirit; it leads towards theosis in this life, and resurrection in the life to come; and it is a partial guide to the deep nature of Christ's message and work.   

If a strategy or policy is net-evil - like AI - then we should not be distracted by its partial (and personal) advantages

The world has been corrupted, over the past several/ many generations , by embracing policies, strategies, technologies, social arrangements that are decisively and predictably net-evil over the long term; because they offer upfront personal and specific advantages - or even just conveniences and fashionability.

Examples would include pretty much everything that has happened over the past few decades, from the internet to so-called AI. 

The bureaucratic and ideological changes that (in my experience) demolished science, education and medicine are all of this kind - but the generalization applies to global (especially Western) culture as a whole. 

I am not arguing this from a traditionalist perspective - that it would have been better for things not have have changed; because I know that people have changed and therefore culture and society will change. 

I am saying instead that the actual changes have made things worse and worse - until now we are so degraded (including in our own estimation) that there seems no basis for resisting anything. 

The reason that we invariably choose the wrong changes, the ones that destroy and demoralize, is that we have abandoned "religion" - and without religion our motivations are pathological and perverse. 

(The "morality" of mainstream young people is a prime instance: they almost invariably are "passionate" about one or several of the evil-motivated Litmus Test issues - climate "emergencies", some remote and never experienced foreign people, something about sex or sexuality, something about abstractions like inclusion and equity - or whatever crisis or scandal is fed them by the media.  

Such concerns are not just stupid and futile- but actively harmful overall and by strategic design. 

The only substitute is religion (and serious religions converge upon Romantic Christianity). 

This need for religion is not simple, because for known history religion has meant churches, and (because of the underlying changes in Men) the churches do not suffice and cannot be made to suffice - they are part of the problem in what they actually do, and the ways of thinking they encourage. 

This, in turn, means that there cannot be organized resistance to wrong changes, which means that resistance at the material level will be feeble. 

We must therefore do what we ought to do anyway, which is aim at spiritual reform of the world by spiritual reform in our-selves; which must be (by default, as well as because desirable) an individual activity. 

My observation is that hardly anybody puts any effort into this at all - certainly not compared with the vast effort they put into other (and net/ long-term destructive attitudes and activities. 

Neither can I see any way of persuading people to do this. Good cannot be done to those who do not desire Good. 

The best motivation is faith in the power of genuine spiritual endeavour, on the basis that God (who is creator) can (in mostly unknowable ways) amplify whatever individuals can do. Our job is simply to do what we can do. 

NOTE ADDED: I think this strategy of individual spiritual endeavour is an example of Gandalf's strategy in The Lord of the Rings, of sending Hobbits into Mordor to destroy the One Ring - as contrasted with the more short-term-expedient Boromir Strategy that cannot possibly succeed.  

Christianity is pure choice - with no compulsion

Christianity, properly grasped (and I personally fail in this all-too-often) is pure choice. 

There is no compulsion; because we can affiliate with God only voluntarily; as love must always be voluntary (else it is not love). 

So there is no compulsion to join with God in His creation - only the natural consequences that flow from our choices. 

Many people over the past two-plus centuries have rejected Christianity outright, because they experienced and regarded it as necessarily a package of choices mandatorily backed-by coercive compulsions. 

While this rejection may merely be an excuse for sinning; rejection has been felt most deeply by those of romantic disposition; those who felt and valued their freedom, their creativity, and personal love; and who intuitively opposed any attempt at external compulsion - whether of motivation, thinking, feelings, purpose...

They rejected the reality of the Christian understanding of God as a personal creator; because they could not believe that any loving person would relate to us as an absolute tyrant demanding obedience or else. 

Thus they rejected (variously) the Christian reality of God and creation (choosing instead determinism), the personal nature of God (choosing instead abstraction), or the goodness of God (choosing instead power to satisfy need or pleasure). 

We (here and now) need to ignore centuries of misrepresentation and manipulation; dig-down to the root of reality; and recognize that the essence of Christianity is - and always has been - the opportunity to choose or not to affiliate our-selves with God's creative will - in Heavenly life eternal.  

**

If you don't want it - then just walk away. We Christians ought not to try and stop you. 

What we can and should try to do (especially if we love you) is clarify just what is on offer when Jesus made-possible resurrection. That isn't easy, and is impossible unless you want to know, and will therefore (really) listen.   

But if resurrection and the eternal life of loving creation really is not for you, if your preferences lie elsewhere - then that's that.

It's your decision. That's what you need to grasp. 

You cannot avoid it, you have not avoided it. Either you make this decision your-self; else you instead decide to let someone else (or some-thing else) make the decision for you. 

And if you make the choice on the basis of what I would regard as too little thought or a lazy failure of imagination; then it was your choice to do behave thus. 

From my Christian perspective; the choice is, ultimately, inescapable; because it comes to everyone after death (if not before): the choice of yes or no to joining your purposes with God's. 

Forget about compulsion, if you can - set it aside!

Think of it as pure choice; as purely your choice. 

Saving us from what? The twin prongs of Romantic Christianity

From what does Jesus save us?

To simplify, one might first say Jesus saved us from death, by his offer of resurrection. 

And Jesus also saved us from an ultimately purposeless and meaningless mortal life - i.e. "alienation", by resurrection into that "second creation" which is Heaven. (Both are achieved by an eternal commitment to live by love.) 

Salvation from death and from alienation are the "twin prongs" of Romantic Christianity (the Christian, and the Romantic) - which are distinguishable, but which can be separated only by destruction of the valuable whole. 

In theory (as of here-and-now) we might be Christian or Romantic solely; in practice, in these End Times ruled by evil; unless both are present, then motivations are so enfeebled that we shall become corrupted into conformity with the demonic agenda. 

In stereotypical traditional societies (although not nowadays in The West) - this might be summarized as the first appeal of Christianity being different for those who live in expectation of death (e.g. in famine, war, or old age); than for those (adolescents and young adults, mostly) who are preparing for a functional adult life, and who are often afflicted by a sense of the pointlessness of mortal existence. 

In the past; alienation was often ameliorated by social palliatives - by those leaving their birth family becoming members of another close-knit group. hence the vitality of churches. But this alternative has been largely abolished by modernity and bureaucracy - and changes in human consciousness. Mostly, such communities are now experienced negatively: as intolerably oppressive, as exploitative. 

From here-and-now it seems that the answers of Christianity remain qualitatively the same; but have shifted from the material and external (e.g. churches, and the objective efficacy of religious symbolism and observances causally-linked to resurrection) to the spiritual - to inner commitments within the realm of thinking.  

Of course; to regard Jesus as Saviour is an instance of double-negative theology; and the underlying reality is that in a positive sense Jesus offered a possible basis for living well this mortal life; for a mortal life that escapes futility and gains eternal purpose and meaning from the expectation of resurrected life.  

In other words; both prongs of Romantic Christianity ought to arise from the same root; which is that we know with inner and intuitive sureness that our own individual reality is truly personal, and we have chosen to be part of divine creation - and that our part is eternally significant for the whole. 

Halldor Laxness and Taoist Christianity

Having been tipped-off that the 2007 Halldor Laxness biography by Halldor Gudmundsson had been issued in paperback and Kindle; I bought myself a copy to re-read. 

Although I did not much enjoy the biography, because Laxness was such a "high psychoticism" kind of genius as to make uncomfortable company with prolonged contact, it has set me to re-read (for the fourth or fifth times) my two favourite among his novels: The Fish Can Sing, and Christianity At Glacier (re-issued as Under the Glacier).

(Both superbly translated by Magnus Magnusson - a name very well known to all Brits aged above fifty; for his role as quizmaster of TV "Mastermind".)  

The Fish Can Sing of 1957 is better literature, indeed a near-perfect novel; while Christianity at Glacier rather falls-apart structurally, as Laxness's mental powers began to wane; but both are well worth reading as imbued with "spirituality". 

In TFCS the spirituality is Taoism - in a Western manifestation, yet sincere and pervasive; and made tragic by awareness of its unsustainability beyond childhood. 

In CAG, it is "Christian" - or rather an examination of the Christian, an exploration or striving-towards a new/different kind of Christian spirituality. 

(Laxness was born into the tepid Lutheranism of Iceland in 1902, for a few years became a very keen  Roman Catholic (considering ordination); before discarding all this for USSR-focused Marxist materialism in the middle 20th century - then returning to a stronger and stronger spiritual focus from the later 1950s - re-assuming Roman Catholic practice in his last years.)

By the time of CAG, Laxness clearly rejected the symbolism and ritual of institutional Christianity; and seemed to desire a kind of Taoistic Christianity in which the religion was absorbed-into everyday life, without being made explicit in public discourse. 

I think this is what he wanted; although he didn't achieve it - perhaps due to confusion over what Christianity ultimately is (i.e. not-of-this-world and about post-mortal resurrected life).    

More exactly; what Laxness wanted from Taoism does correspond pretty-closely to Barfield's Original Participation, the primal spirituality of young children and the earliest cultures of nomadic tribal people - which is, in a sense, naturally Christian - in that such people will (when available) choose salvation quite spontaneously and unconsciously.

But Taoism is the attempt to make a symbolism or "model" out of Original Participation - which must fail because anyone self-conscious enough "be a Taoist" is too self-conscious actually to be a Taoist! The spiritual adolescent cannot choose to think as a young child, or hunter-gatherer.  

What might a Taoist Christianity be like? Well - it is a type of Romantic Christianity. One in which Christianity is not spoken of; and in which there is not participation in Christian-themed public discourse. 

(When compelled to converse on spiritual matters, the "Taoist" becomes poetic, enigmatic, obtuse, surreal, deliberately misleading...) 

Starting point: Modern Man is in a situation of existential freedom, because we need consciously to choose that which was once spontaneous. 

Furthermore, this conscious freedom is primarily in the realm of thinking, so that the hardly-thinking spontaneity of the young child or tribesman is replaced by a freely-chosen and explicitly-thought mode of being. 

So an actual Taoist Christian (rather than the Christianised Taoism that Laxness often reverts-into) would be lived in awareness of the living, created world of many Beings; a world of Good and evil and entropy; and a world in which we are called-upon consciously to discern and affiliate with the side of Good/ God/ Divine Creation. 

We would not be striving for Taoist immersion in the present moment, or for Taoist indifference to values and choices; because a Christian recognizes that this life is transitional and temporary; and properly aimed-at Resurrected eternal Heavenly life. 

But there is a possibly Taoist flavour to the idea of recognizing and appreciating our actual, living experiences - here-and-now - as opportunities for spiritual learning - rather than this-worldly betterment.   

Maybe something-like this was where Laxness was pointing in Christianity At Glacier? Maybe that accounts for the special flavour, quality, and appeal I get from the book?