Thursday, 18 January 2018

Directly-participated Christianity

I have been struggling to find a term to express what I believe is needed in the modern West, here-and-now, for you and me; and the best I came up with was Spiritual Christianity, which I was never happy with since 'spiritual' is such a vague and multi-meaning kind of word.

(And a word that mostly refers to mostly-bad things, and things which are mostly-bad.)

Perhaps Direct Christianity is a better term?

What I am trying to express is that we need to be Christians (first and foremost) - and/ but we need to be Christians whose faith is based primarily upon what is directly-known.

There are two direct sources of knowledge: inspiration and intuition.

Inspiration is direct knowledge of God-without, of God as a separate Being. It is an old form of knowledge - for example Socrates describes very explicitly his inspiration by The God (his daemon, as it is sometimes called). Inspiration may come from prayer, meditation or simply arrive in the mind - the point being that inspiration is experienced as directly knowing the nature, motivations, wishes of God.

Intuition is direct knowledge of God-within, of God within-us - made possible because we are sons and daughters of God, therefore partly divine. Intuition is, I believe, a recent possibility - only possible since we became self-conscious in the modern way - and only made possible by means of the slow developmental-unfolding of the 'cosmic' work of Jesus Christ.

So, Direct Christianity would be something relatively new (only possible at all for a couple of hundred years, and only becoming widely possible more recently) - something that is active and a choice, something only possible by being able to know (consciously, explicitly) the true, divine self we all have-and-are.

For most people, attaining Direct Christianity can only be a goal, gradually and intermittently attained, and of variable strength and intensity. It provides us with the essential experience from which we can learn reality - this learning being a thing that happens at the level of eternal and universal reality (and not within our mortal brains or bodies).

Anyway, the idea is that Direct Christianity is now the primary form of Christianity, and indeed the only truly honest and viable form of Christianity - something which almost all serious Christians actually-do... but more-or-less unconsciously... And to do it un-consciously is not really to do it at all!

What I mean is that to be a serious Christian as a Westerner in The West and Now cannot be the passive and obedient, unconscious and childlike thing that it used to be some hundreds of years ago - and cannot means cannot. Those who think they can, are fooling themselves.

But anyway, we shouldn't want-to - we should want-to move forwards to something better, because more divine, more Christ-like.

Since it can be done - we ought to choose-to do it: but is must be chosen, cannot be compelled.

Note added: If you wonder why I suppose Direct Christianity is possible; one possible answer is that it is necessary. Here-and-now, with psychology, society and churches as they are, it is necessary that we have access to direct and personal forms of guidance - and preferably at least tow such, in case of errors. And because it is necessary, God has ensured it is available. 

Further note: In a simultaneous post, William Wildblood clarifies that (to use the terms above) Inspiration needs to come before Intuition.


  1. Many thanks. I also like the term "Direct Christianity" as it implies to me that there is no middle-man, no institution that one must belong to first in order to find Christ.

  2. @Ama - What do you make of Steiner's 'Christ in the etheric' ideas?

    1. I am reminded of an analogy that Steiner makes with reference to knowing Christ. He uses the physical eye for the analogy, and points out that the eye, which is essential for sight, cannot see itself.
      I don't know that it is intentional, but the same phenomenon seems to be at the centre of Steiner's epistemology. On my own path of understanding the Philosophy of Freedom I discovered thoughts that, according to all the descriptions by Steiner and others, had the character of the Christ being.
      Then I discovered that, according to Steiner, one who understands the the philosophy of freedom finds himself in the etheric realm.
      My starting point then, for interpreting such an opaque term as "Christ in the Etheric" would that.
      I also observe that the book is more of a confirmation of what one can anyway know intuitively, ie, naively. But, in a world where there is so much thought distraction and manipulation, where thinking can be so easily mislead and confused, the book is a sort of essential antidote, a means to finding certainty - solid ground!
      I like your latest post on the subject.

    2. That's my understanding too. To a very considerable extent, I think we can regard the destined trajectory of developmental-evolution as a return to the child's knowledge and being (or that of what we know of 'primitive' hunter gatherer Man) but in full consciousness and freedom.

      It is this which makes me thnk that 'civilisation' is meant to be temporary - and that we will return to a very simple mode of life.

    3. Thanks, the idea of "beyond civilisation" is an entirely new thought to me. I must spend some time on it.

  3. @Ama - Please do. I have just posted a couple of other things I wrote on this theme from another blog... In sum, it seems to me that this social change is implied by what I understand of the nature of higher consciousness (Final Participation). I was initially startled (and somewhat appalled!) by this conclusion I had reached (a bit more than a year ago) - but my conviction has continued to solidify.