Bruce Charlton's Notions

*

Offers of paradise are merely us as we are dwelling in perfect conditions; but in real Heaven it is us as we have become, dwelling in perfect conditions: the gap between us as we are and us as we have become is called theosis - it is the process through which men become more like God.

Heaven lies on the other side of theosis. 

*

Theosis is the process by which Man becomes like God - God-like - specifically a Son of God. It is an essential but often neglected aspect of Christianity - essential in that it seems to be one way of describing our purpose in mortal life. 

An account of the nature, operation and scope of theosis - an understandable account of how Man becomes like God - is (or ought to be) near the heart of Christianity.

Because without theosis, Heaven does not make sense; and if Heaven does not make sense then the necessary virtue of Hope is rendered incomprehensible.

So: here we go...

*

Theosis can be conceptualized in various ways - but I think they can be boiled down to two:

1. Man can become like God because Man starts out with a divine potential or essence. In other words, Man shares some kind of divine nature with God, a seed of divinity within (as it were) - and theosis is a process of growth: a process of growing this tiny divine potential.

2. Man can become like God by God's action - because God is omnipotent and can transform anything into anything else. God and Man are utterly different in nature, in kind - but Jesus Christ was both in a way that is incomprehensible, and we may become both in ways that are ultimately incomprehensible.

*

One of the problems for theosis is that many Christian traditions see salvation as the main thing to such an extent that being saved (from death, from Hell) becomes almost the whole thing. This makes sense when damnation is regarded as the default for mortal men. The saving of souls by evangelism, mission work, conversion is then the main activity of Christian churches.

Because:

Salvation is qualitative (yes-no) while Theosis is quantitative (how much?).

*

Theosis can only become a focus when there is a sense that either salvation has been-achieved already, or else when theosis is considered to contribute to salvation, contribute to that bimodal outcome - but this is not really theosis, but rather a path to salvation.

At any rate, and whatever the theological justification, a real-life church focus in the practice of theosis is seen when there is a background of solid faith in salvation: the theosis of monasticism in the the Catholic ages of faith, the focus on sanctification among puritans of the 17th century (with their assurance of salvation), and now spiritual progression among Mormons (for whom salvation, of varying degrees, is the default state and happens unless will-fully rejected).

*

I have had some difficulty in finding a metaphor to help me understand theosis - for instance I got stuck on the idea of theosis as an evolutionary process, which didn't seem to help at all. But I think I may have found a useful metaphor in terms of (a real) education.

Theosis is like education, especially when education is considered in its fullest and truest form when education is a about attaining performance of a complex role - attaining mastery: for example the education of a real musician such as a symphony conductor (called a Maestro - master), or a traditional doctor.

Such an education uses multiple methods to attain the goal of autonomous mastery: Experience, organized practice of tasks, repetitive drills, overcoming opposition (solving 'problems given by the Master), observation of Masters at work, formal teaching of facts and principles, multiple tests and evaluations with a final examination by performance of the real job and/or production of a Master-piece...

*

Without wanting to be too explicit, I think that there are potentially helpful analogies between the various processes of education, and what could be inferred to be theosis; if mortal life is considered as overall having been structured by God as a potentially educational process.

And just like education there must be educable potential and will to be educated in the apprentice, and educative elements (formally structured and informally personal) in the environment; and both sides are required.

When theosis happens, and how prolonged may be the period (restricted to mortal life, or going beyond mortal life?) varies between Christian traditions; as does the potential degree of theosis (i.e. different interpretations of the meaning and implications of Son-ship in the promise that Christians may become Sons of God - just how God-like may Men become?)

*

Still, such differences of detailed explanation aside, theosis broadly understood could be seen as the purpose of mortal life for those who have confidence in their own salvation; and its mechanisms could perhaps be understood by analogy with education.

*

*

The sin of spiritual pride is a focus of the ascetic monastic tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy. It is also recognized by the Western Catholic tradition - although not given such prominence; and indeed by monastic Zen Buddhists.

*

Spiritual pride is the particular sin of those who embark upon a personal quest for holiness, for sanctity (the path to Sainthood), for theosis (becoming more like God) - and the sin is something like regarding one's own will as if it were the divine will - or perhaps being deceived into regarding demonic promptings as if they were divine.

The particular problem of spiritual pride, is that the person who suffers it imagines they are at a higher spiritual level than those around them, and so becomes immune to advice, warning, criticism.

The Eastern Orthodox antidote is to embark on ascetic disciplines only under supervision of a spiritual Father - and initially in a monastic (group) setting, with the monks 'looking out for each other'.

The assumption is that the spiritual Father has attained a sufficiently high level of theosis that he can detect and help solve the problems in the apprentice; and the apprentice must, for his own good, submit to this authority. The religious life is thus transmitted from Master to apprentice in an unbroken chain - implicitly originating and emanating from the Apostles at the time of Christ. (

However, it seems that the chain of tradition has been broken in many or most places in the world, which means that this method of attaining theosis is no longer possible - at least for most people in most places.)

*

My impression is that spiritual pride is especially a problem of spiritual ambition, when spiritual ambition is contaminated by the desire for one's own power and glory - e.g. the desire to make a 'successful career' of being a recognized Holy Man (rather like those fake 'gurus' of the 1960s), or simply the status of holiness - even purely the the self-satisfied 'smugness' of regarding oneself as of higher holiness than others.

*

Yet of course spiritual ambition is in itself 'a good thing' - and very necessary in a world such as ours where spirituality is at a pitifully low ebb.

But it seems that an onslaught on spirituality, aided by fasting, many hours of prayer, vigils (staying awake all night to pray) is - while often effective - hazardous; and hazardous in a similar way to the 1960s use of psychedelic drugs to create spiritual experiences - selfish, evil, demonic experiences are mistaken for insights, miracles and divine revelations.

These smack of a very modern impatience, sensation-seeking, mere curiosity, desire for novelty and impressive, extreme, experiences which can be boasted about.

*

It might have been expected that, on theological grounds, the Mormon religion would be especially prone to spiritual pride - since it makes theosis (called exaltation) into a central tenet: we are God's children - hence of the same nature as the divine - in a much more literal sense than in mainstream Christianity; there is a different concept of The Fall, thus no Original Sin to 'worry about'; and there is at least a remote and theoretical potential of each human becoming a God (under God the Father, but of similar scope) - which would seem like a very direct invitation to arrogance, selfishness.

Furthermore, all Mormons are told to ask for and expect to receive personal divine revelations - direct communications from God - to guide them through life

And yet spiritual pride is not a particular feature of Mormons nor much of a problem in the LDS church.

*

This apparent relative immunity to spiritual pride (at least, compared with other Christian traditions which emphasize theosis/ sanctification) may be related to the much more human ('anthropomorphic') understanding of God.

Mormons would tend to regard God the Father as a vast, almost infinite amplification of Man - i.e. starting from Man; while most mainstream Christian theology starts with abstract definitions of God, and tries to move towards Man - but typically cannot get very far with the comparison. It is a matter of starting at opposite ends.

Terryl and Fiona Givens - writing in The God Who Weeps - also suggest that the traditional Mormon emphasis has been much less on a God of infinite Power and Glory, and more on a God of infinite love and compassion (as depicted in the weeping God of Enoch's experience and depicted in the scripture Moses 7: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/7?lang=eng).

To become ever more like a God the Father whose love is 'infinite' such that his suffering for the sins of the world is 'infinite' (like the mortal earthly Father of a vast family of deeply loved and profoundly suffering children) is not really the kind of goal likely to be provoking of spiritual pride.

*

Another difference is that the Mormon spiritual life is ideally in a family context - not a monastery nor in solitude.This guards against the many problems of ascetic monasticism.

Indeed, the opposite problem of worldly busy-ness - too much social doing, and not enough solitude, contemplation and prayer - would seem to be the characteristic limitation of Mormon spirituality.

*

Another difference is that for Mormons the path of theosis (exaltation) goes beyond death into the next life - and indeed stretches out into infinity.

Mormons may be aiming to become a God at some point in the unimaginably remote future, but in the meantime the main business is the hourly, daily, yearly business of living by the Commandments, working, serving, striving and so on - and this continues into the after life.

In other words, for Mormons there is not much sense of urgency about theosis - quite the reverse, since it stretches into an eternal future - exaltation it is mostly a matter for patience and endurance.

*

This is in stark contrast to mainstream Christianity where sanctification/ theosis is urgent and the clock of mortality is ticking.

Protestants generally regard spiritual progress as stopping at the instant of death, at which point the possibilities of salvation are fixed.

Catholics acknowledge a short period of potential spiritual development after death (e.g. the forty days of Orthodoxy or Roman Catholic purgatory) during which salvation/ theosis may be affected - but this seems to be conceptualized as a period when the soul may be helped by the intercessions of others, rather than its own efforts.


*

All this is very important stuff, to my understanding, since sanctification/ theosis/ exaltation is the main business of our continued experience of mortal life - it is what we ought to be focused on as our main business, day by day, hour by hour, year on year.

The main business of incarnate mortal life is - as the name implies - to experience 1. living in a body, and 2. dying. It is these which are the essence of this life we live - and these are experienced by everybody.

*

Beyond that, human experience is very varied - some die in the womb, or as infants, others live for varying times and in varying circumstances. The question is, beyond the necessity of not-rejecting that salvation which Christ has given us - what should we do with our days?

The answer is theosis - so we are called-upon to be spiritually ambitious, to progress as far as we can towards divinity during incarnate mortal life.

Therefore (assuming the above reasoning is correct), theosis is a topic which deserves, which requires, a lot more consideration than it is given in most Christian traditions.

*

Theosis is the process of becoming more like God, more divine, more saintly (sanctified) during mortal life; theosis is the purpose of an extended mortal life (rather than simply being incarnated and then dying).

But this idea of becoming more divine tends to make theosis sound more rare and difficult than it really is; perhaps because we tend to regard it in a primarily moral way - so that the assumptions is that we are supposed to become more virtuous. Well, that is one type of theosis, the theosis of some great Saints: the saints of virtue.

But there are other kinds of Saints, and other kinds of theosis - for example of knowledge; specifically knowledge of truth, knowledge of reality - which is also a god-like attribute.

This fits ith the idea that extended mortal life is mostly about having experience and learning from it; every person, every place, every day is different - there is a lot to learn-from and a lot to learn... And we ourselves change, in both mind and body - for example we develop through childhood, mature, have emotions, get sick, age and die. We make decisions (good and bad) and live with the outcomes...

Mortal incarnate life therefore seems to be an excellent situation in which to learn; and perhaps/ presumably in this respect it is far superior to pre-mortal spirit life, and post-mortal resurrected life.

Theosis could be conceptualised, in a general and inclusive sense, as exactly this learning; we are meant-to learn from our life experiences; and when we do this is theosis - it brings us quantitatively closer to the divine level of knowledge as well as virtue.

Theosis is a term for the process of divinization, sanctification or spiritual progression which Men are meant to undergo during mortal life.

So the task of mortal life can be summarized as: attaining salvation (not damnation) and - on top of this - moving as far as possible towards the same level of being as God (alternatively, which means the same, of becoming more Christ-like).

I regard theosisconceptualizing degree of theosis : For instance person A has gone two feet up the path, person B, two hundred yards, Saint C a mile and a half...

This linear metaphor works well enough in those branches of Christianity when ascetic monasticism is seen as THE path to sanctification and each person can be measure by the progress along this path - and even Saints can be ranked: For example among Old English Saints, Cuthbert is judged to have ascended higher than the Venerable Bede (great Saints although both were).

But when theosis is not seen as a single path, when for example Marriage and Family life are seen as potentially a greater path to salvation than monasticism, there is the problem that each marriage and each family is unique in a way that each monk is not. We have moved from a model of theosis in which everyone attempts to conform to a single, perfect but not-fully attainable ideal to one in which each person is seen as intended to be unique.

That is, at any rate, how I understand these things: God wants us each to become more fully ourselves so that ultimately Heaven will be populated by a vast multiplicity of distinct persons; all spiritually advanced and still advancing - all relating to one another as peers or siblings: in essence, on a level of friendship.

Here in mortal life we have rules and constraints, which ultimately derive from the nature of reality, and which are for our Good: these include summaries such as the Ten Commandments, and other laws and regulations. Theosis must proceed within these boundaries; and when, as inevitably happens, we fail to live up to this ideal, we need to repent by acknowledging our failure and endorsing the revealed reality of the nature of things. 

But in the context of these rules, these constraints, our destiny is theosis - to advance spiritually; or rather, not so much to advance as to build our own pattern. So theosis can be seen as - for each of us - a destined pattern - or type of pattern, towards which we grow and which we increasingly elaborate.

But 'pattern' is too abstract, geometric, and simplified a word: we are organic beings. So perhaps a better metaphor is a tree - we are each a type of tree (an oak, beech, birch, blackthorn) and our destiny is to become a mature example of that tree - and, of course, all individual trees are different and in a sense meant to be different (due to their initial innate differences, differences in experiences, and in a sense different choices during maturation and growth).  

All metaphors break down if pushed, and this is no exception - but at a first level of analysis we might thing of our life on each as a period of growth, maturation, elaboration within proper bounds and towards something which is both characteristic and unique - like a particular oak tree.

And that God does not want all His trees to be oaks, nor does he want all his oaks to be identical - but for each to be the best of its kind and most fully developed of its nature.

In the end, the purpose of this post is simply to illustrate that our metaphors do constrain our thoughts, and that we need some more elaborate and personal metaphor to self-explain the (mostly unfamiliar) concept of theosis than the usual one of everybody progressing up along a path in single file.

Mortal life is, and is meant to be, complex and multi-faceted - and each person's life is both characteristic and distinctive - and our thinking ought to reflect that.

I think this may be counterproductive, overall, in the modern West.

Of course, salvation is the most essential - whereas theosis (spiritual progression, sanctification or deification - the becoming-more-divine while during mortal life) can seem like a sort of 'optional extra'; but that is not really the case, because one without the other leads to trouble.

Those of us who got beyond childhood must know what to do in our lives - and a purely salvation -orientated Christianity cannot tell us that. It is extraordinary how Christians know, on the one hand, that anybody may saved in a moment (by repentance and acceptance) - yet they also apparently assert that the whole of the rest of life is also about retaining, securing this salvation.

In fact the rest of life ought to be about becoming more divine - theosis.

But within theosis there is a large range of assertion - the Eastern Orthodox understand theosis mainly in terms of the primacy of the ascetic, monastic (or hermit) life; and how closely this can be approximated. Other traditions see theosis mainly in terms of Good Works of various types.

Furthermore, there is a tendency to regard theosis as a process of convergence upon a single template - all humans trying to become more like the great Saints or a specific Saint, or Christ - 'modelling' all human lives towards convergence upon what is known of the life of (say) Francis of Assisi or Jesus.

It depends what you suppose the ultimate purpose of creation to be. If you suppose that the creator wanted all humans to be the same-kind-of-perfect, like 'clones'; then theosis will indeed be a single model or pattern. Many Christians do understand Heaven to be a state in which all that is individual is discarded - included the sexes as well as whatever is distinctive about our ultimates selves...

- But, if you agree with the idea that God wants us each to develop towards being ultimately, a fully divine but utterly unique, and individual, and distinct son or daughter of God...

- Then you will need to regard your own theosis as (although, of course, constrained/ guided by the commandments and constraints of Christianity) ultimately an unique destiny which you, personally, must discover and develop.

This, is a worthy focus of a human life, no matter what is nature or length - a goal both in general and also in all particulars; a goal that is absolutely personal and also harmonious with the creation.

God aims at our salvation and also at our theosis. For God's ultimate goals to be achieved, that is the reason behind Creation, both salvation and theosis need to happen in as many individuals as possible.

(The plan works no matter how few individuals, but each individual who does Not choose salvation and theosis is a loss compared with what might have been possible.)


Salvation is when someone chooses Heaven: that is, chooses to follow Jesus Christ through death to immortal resurrection. 

Theosis is the process of raising the level of consciousness - from the immersive and passive to the free and agent.

There can be salvation without theosis, as when someone chooses Heaven but chooses to remain spiritually 'a child'.

Theosis can occur without salvation, as when a mortal Man rises in freedom and agency, becomes truly creative as an individual, 'grows-up' to some extent; but rejects Heaven.


Theosis is to develop consciousness of a divine nature, towards the goal of reaching a level of participation in the work of divine creation.

But without salvation, the attainable level of theosis cannot be high - because the individual's creation must be harmonious with divine creation in order to be taken-up into it and to exist eternally. Otherwise, individual creativity is a temporary and labile thing of men's minds only.

Harmony-with divine Creation comes from Love of God, Good and God's Creation - which for mortal Men can be simplified to love of, faith in, trust in, the (always potentially present, as the Holy Ghost) person of Jesus Christ.

The fullness of creation from a Man is when creation comes actively, personally, originally, as a product of our divine selves, in harmony with God's creation, that harmony coming-from our love of God and creation.


There is no System, ultimately. And we are coming to realise that.

System and Symbol were important to our ancestors; but for us they are losing their power and generality - a spiritually-effective system nowadays is likely to be personal, idiosyncratic - and that in itself limits the effectiveness of the system.

In practice, now; system increasingly equates with bureaucracy; so that dependence on any system will usually (and eventually certainly will) be captured and turned; bureaucracy will subvert then dictate symbol; insistence on specifci symbolism will lead to monitoring and control systems... And any specific system will converge onto/into 'the single linked bureaucracy' of Global totalitarianism.


So, for us, we must cease to depend on system - on pain of being drawn into the instrument of purposive (demonic) evil...

As bottom line, all system and symbol must be disposable; there should eventually be no system; because there is no system of creation (nor of love).

Individual creativity (like love) is a 'product' of A Being, not a system.

True, everlasting and universal creativity is an overflow of the self, motivated by love; harmoniously enhancing God's original and continuing Creation.

 

It strikes me that something which distinguishes these End Times is that there is a convergence between salvation and theosis. Salvation is having chosen to align with God's creation - rejecting Hell and embracing Christ's gift of Heaven. And theosis is the process of becoming more divine in our nature, more god-like, Christ-like (or saint-like, when sainthood is understood in this way).

In principle, in theory, and as a first step it is certainly possible to be saved (to attain salvation) just 'as we are' and without any change in our-selves, our behaviour, our thinking. This is - indeed - the great insight of the Reformation, and the core truth of the Evangelical movement.

But in practice, in the modern world, in these End Times; this is insufficient - or, let's say, it is only momentarily sufficient. At the moment it happens, at the born-again moment, it is true. But in the modern West almost-always, soon-or-later, salvation will be repudiated, will be rejected - unless there is theosis.

My point here is that it seems to be a feature of our time and place that salvation must (almost always; almost immediately) be followed by theosis - and theosis is a process. When these have converged, it means that in practice salvation is the process of theosis.


To put it differently, there used to be a possibility of being saved despite zero spiritual progression; but that possibility has been (all-but) closed-off by the pervasiveness of evil.

In these End Times, that which used to unconscious, passive, automatic; must become conscious and actively, explicitly chosen or else it will be lost.

It is not enough to know: we must know that we know. It is not enough to have-chosen Jesus: we must be-choosing Jesus. It is not enough to have-repented: our daily living must be-repenting.

The forces of unconscious manipulation into evil habits of thinking are so pervasive and powerful; that consciousness is the only strong defence.


So, we must do what we (anyway) ought-to do - this is yet another instance of 'things coming to a point'. Even among self-identified, born-again, sincere Christians there is a sorting and separation. The middle ground disappears and the extremes are easily distinguished.

Choices are stark, black and white - and to deny the reality of starkness is to be corrupted: moderate, grey Christians are possible in theory and have existed in some times and places; but in practice now, grey Christians are not Christians, because there are no grey areas or persons: the 'grey' are simply not-white; hence they just-are aligned with the dark powers against Christianity.

Theosis is now necessary. Yet many traditional methods of theosis are collapsing or already corrupted. This is the most urgent question for Western Christians - how can I personally, here and now, without relying on social institutions (because I must act now, yet the actual institutions are corrupt), make overall progresion in my awareness of being Christian; so that life becomes a moment-by-moment process of conscious knowing, choosing, being.


We are promised a wondrous eternal life of love and participation in God's work of creation. Our life therefore should not be mainly 'negative' - not just a defensive war focused on rejection of evil; but needs to be positive, hope-full, faith-full - based on confidence in Good.

Because how can we recognise evil to reject it, unless we already know Good? And when we do know Good, and our knowledge is explicit; then it is easy to recognise evil.

God is the creator of this world, is our father, and loves us - therefore, our trust in God to do what is ultimately right for us, each personally; is always justified. 

Traditional Christians are often salvation-focused; and may be hostile to ideas of theosis (regarding it as an heretical belief in salvation by works); may ignore theosis almost-entirely in their overwhelming desire for salvation at the end of life; or else may conceptualize theosis (or variant concepts such as sanctification deification, spiritual progression, exaltation) as "merely" a means to the all-important end of salvation. 

On the other side "spiritual but not religious" people (including the "anything-but-Christianity" kind of spiritual people) are often focussed upon theosis while rejecting the need-for or desirability-of salvation - their end-point is not resurrected Heavenly life, but reincarnation, or some sort of oneness-Nirvana. 

The basic stance is that this life is (or ought to be) about continual spiritual self-improvement; and that to introduce considerations of what happens after death is a contamination of spiritual purity by an ego-driven desire for self-gratification.   

My understanding is that salvation and theosis are indivisible - that we must both aim-at resurrected eternal life, and also live this mortal life such that we learn-from its experiences. 

This may be made clearer by regarding salvation as the purpose of life and theosis, as the meaning of life.

Distinguishing-between purpose and meaning is a perfectly valid thing to do; yet ultimately they are indivisible and we cannot have one without the other. 

The purpose of life is what makes meaning possible within that purpose; and the meaning of life is how purpose actually manifests in life. 

When not-Christians pooh-pooh the Christian demand for salvation as the purpose, they also obliterate any possibility of coherent meaning; and spirituality degenerates into merely a kind of self-therapy, which itself becomes indistinguishable from pleasure-seeking or suffering-avoidant hedonism - as can be seen with the New Age movement. 

And when Christians revile, neglect or subordinate theosis and "the spiritual" they destroy any ultimate reason for continued mortal life - mortal life becomes a negative thing - a double-negative attempt to avoid sin (which, Jesus tells us - and Paul) is impossible; and a mere waiting for death that is an implicit denial of the validity of God's creation. 

But when salvation and theosis are understood as indivisible purpose and meaning of this mortal life; then we have a solid basis for a properly aimed and fulfilling existence here on earth. 

*

One major reason that I regard Protestant and Catholic as complementary rather than in competition relates to their specialisms: conversion versus theosis.

Protestants are, or ought to be, experts in evangelism and mission - in getting people 'saved', and 'across the line' into Christianity.

What then?

Well, there is a period of strengthening the conversion, learning scripture and removing errors: and this may take many years.

So there tends to be a lot of repetition, and a focus on the moment of conversion, being born again.

The aim is perhaps to secure salvation, to make the state of being saved stronger. 

*

At some point some people begin to want more, or perhaps more accurately want something different (for whatever reason) - and Protestants tend to channel this desire, or this surplus energy, or the need to fill the days with activity into... well, Good Works principally - primarily more evangelism and mission (for which there is always a need) but also into Good Works like health care, social care, education...

The devout Protestant model of church once or twice a week, absent or infrequent (and non-mystical) Holy Communion, perhaps home Bible study groups, and extempore prayer is not well-suited to theosis.

(Protestants tend to be salvation egalitarians, to the point of being reluctant to acknowledge the existence of and gifts of those with exceptional Holiness - for example Saints.)  

*

But for Catholics, conversion is (or ought to be) the start of a process of sanctification (theosis, moving toward being a Saint in communion with God).

And this is aimed at by things such as frequent Holy Communion, ascetic practices, and frequent formal and ritual activity - ideally that kind of fusion of all aspects of life in pursuit of sanctification which reached its highest in Byzantium.

*

Theosis  is, in a way, orthogonal to conversion.

Theosis does not (until its highest levels) render salvation stronger - indeed it tends to risk salvation, by tending to encourage spiritual pride (which can overturn almost any state of salvation - so that very advanced ascetics may fall, presumably into damnation, even after many years of endeavour).

Nonetheless, theosis is probably the main thing which Christians should do after conversion is (reasonably) solid.

*

On this line of argument, Protestants secure salvation and then some Protestants will want to embark on theosis with a Catholic denomination.

But one major problem is that - while there are numerous successful Protestant evangelicals - there is a serious shortage of Catholic denominations orientated towards theosis. Few Roman Catholic churches seem to offer daily mass. Orthodoxy is weak in the West and does not pervade life. The monastic life is weak and rare. There are few living (or zero) models of advanced sanctification.

But in principle, as an ideal, it would be best (at least in a moderately Christian society) to have both strong Protestant and strong Catholic denominations.

*

Error 1. An exclusive focus on salvation - when theosis should be the main activity of mortal living

Traditional theology has tended to make salvation a problem, a difficulty, the proper main focus of our mortal lives. When actually salvation is as easy as wanting it and committing to follow Jesus through death into Heavenly life eternal. 

This is clear from the Fourth Gospel (of 'John') - but traditionally Christianity chose to subordinate the Fourth Gospel into a framework provided by Matthew, Luke and Paul.

Salvation is in truth therefore a choice - and that choice is finally made after death; our nature and what we do in mortal life contributes to the outcome of that choice. 

But salvation is not 'a problem', and attaining salvation is certainly not supposed to be the focus of Christian life. Each Christian is meant to have the happiness that comes from hope - and the hope which comes from faith - and to derive happiness and security from his decision to follow Jesus. 

Christians are Not supposed to be fretting and worrying (or despairing) in doubts concerning the certainty of our salvation.  

The proper focus of Christian life should therefore be 'theosis' or becoming more divine (more God-like) - more divine not temporarily in this mortal life; but eternally after resurrection. 

In sum, this continued mortal life exists in order that we may become more God-like after resurrection: that is the reason of mortal life (and why we do not all die as soon as incarnated, while innocent - and before we have a chance to fall into damnation).   

Error 2. Double-negative theology of mortal life - when it is actually an education

Traditional theology has sometimes included theosis, but only in a 'double-negative' context. 

Original Sin is an example of double-negative theology. This posits that damnation (and Hell) is the default for all humans of whatever age, time or place - unless they are saved (by faith, the church, good works - or whatever). The negative is assumed, and Christianity posited to remove that negative. 

For another example of negative theology; Medieval Roman Catholic theology and practice developed the idea that the post-mortal state of purgatory could be shortened and ameliorated by the activities of the living (prayer and other offerings). By the actions of mortal life, post-mortal life would be less-bad - which is what I mean by a double-negative conceptualization. 

This is a negative theosis - we are not becoming better Men with a positive pay-off after death; not becoming more like God - but are alleviating various sufferings imposed by God. 

The nature of mortal life was often conceptualized especially by Protestants in terms of salvation almost-purely (leaving out theosis) - so that by wrong choices in this mortal life would could fail to commit to following Jesus and be damned, or could sin and fail to repent and be damned... 

At the extreme, our eternal state was dictated by our spiritual state at the moment of death - and the rest of life had no effect. Mortal Life was therefore a test; something that could be failed - but not something by which we could be spiritually and eternally improved. 

Such a view of mortal life devalues it into a problem 

But - especially after we have realized that salvation is not a problem - once we want it, and are prepared to do whatever is necessary to follow Jesus after death; then Mortal Life should be seen positively. 

Our mortal life should be seen as potentially incremental and building towards a positive post-mortal outcome. We have experiences (provided for us by God, the creator) - and we may learn (what God intends) from these experiences - and thereby undergo theosis; and become better equipped for a more God-like life after death and resurrection. 

   

Error 3. Regarding only Men as alive and conscious - when universal consciousness of beings is the reality

This error was already present at its foundation but has become much more severe over the history of Christianity. Until by now, Christianity is assumed to be only about men and women (Men) - human beings; and the rest of creation is assumed to be unconscious, lacking purpose - and most of the world is regarded as 'dead' - i.e. the 'material' world of physics which operates only by deterministic causes or 'randomness'. 

This has led to the present usual idea of Christianity as being almost exclusively about 'morality'; as a moral play acted-out against a backdrop of dead and/or unconscious stuff. 

But the truth is that this is a universe of Beings, who are all - in different ways - alive, conscious and with purpose. The drama of salvation and theosis plays-out for all Beings - in different ways. 

As ancient Men knew, and as human children are born knowing; Man lives among Beings - and all that we know, we know about Beings. 

When God created reality - God created Beings - and Beings are what God created - God did not create merely dead/ unconscious/ inert stuff

A corrected Christian theology

When these traditional errors are corrected we can realize firstly that - for those who have become Christian, and chosen to follow Jesus through death to resurrection as their primary commitment - this mortal life is mainly about theosis. Secondly that this theosis is positive - which means that the lessons we learn in this mortal life have a positive benefit for our post-mortal, Heavenly life. And thirdly that the drama of our mortal lives is enacted in a living and conscious world of purposive Beings - most of whom are not human.  

Theosis (at root the same notion as sanctification, exaltation or deification) is the general idea that throughout our earthly mortal lives we are supposed to become (in some way) more like God, or perhaps more like "a god". 

"Supposed to" because this is why we are sustained alive -- After all, why stay-alive (in the past and now) rather than simply dying and achieving salvation as soon as we choose to follow Jesus Christ to eternal life?

(Because that would surely be a more certain salvation: To die at the split second we converted, at the instant we made a commitment to follow Jesus. There must therefore be a very important reason why it does not happen.)  

But theosis is difficult to conceptualize except in the rare instance of the greatest Saints; who have very obviously become more divine throughout their mortal lives (head in Heaven, feet still upon earth - as the Eastern Orthodox say). 

It has often, and truly, been observed that becoming a Christian does not (or only seldom) make somebody overall a better person - so that, if theosis is indeed an integral aspect of genuinely Christian living, then the process doesn't seem to work very well... 

I have, therefore, found it difficult to explain to myself - in some kind of comprehensible 'model' - what is supposedly going-on with theosis - but I now think I may have found a useful picture of the process, as it is intended to operate. 

My assumption is that we have a primal self - which could also be called our real, true or divine self; and it is this which is eternal, and has existed from eternity. My primal self is "encased" within a mortal and temporarily-incarnated self; which is (approximately) our body and our personality - that which other people observe, and which interacts with The World. 

The process called theosis describes the transformation of my primal self, across a timescale of eternity; but at present intended to be achieved by interaction-with, and learning-from, the experiences of my mortal self in this world. 

So -- if I succeed in my God-given task of learning from the experiences God has set-up for me in this mortal world; then it is my primal self that is positively-transformed by this learning. 

And it is this process of positive transformation of the primal self that can be called theosis. 

This model may explain why it is that theosis is not necessarily (or usually) observable in a Christian individual. 

What is happening is that the primal self is being-transformed positively and eternally - but the bodily behaviour and actions, and personality level motivations and thoughts; are Not (or not usually) being transformed. 

So the primal self is getting-better when we learn Godly-lessons from our life experiences  - whether or not the mortal self improves... or even gets worse!

This depiction maybe explains why and how it is that we may know someone who we are convinced has a Good Heart (i.e. the primal self); despite that his behaviour is clearly sinful and not improving; or exhibits grossly inconsistent, incoherent or chaotic behaviour.  

And, on the other side; why it often seems (to our intuitive inference) that someone who leads "a Christian life", who seems to think and do the Right Things, who is nice, socially responsible, devout, a good neighbour etc.; may strike us as heartless, cold, unloving - and certainly Not improving as a result of his continued-living. 

Or why we perhaps are sure that we our-selves are being made better by being-a-Christian; despite that we continue to sin in the same ways as much as ever, or in new ways, or backslide repeatedly - or even behave (to an external observer) overall worse than we did before becoming a Christian.  

Another aspect of this mismatch between primal self and mortal self, is that it becomes understandable why God would allow (or even want) such a divergence. 

The reason why we are sustained alive is to challenge us with repeated and multiple interactions with this world: experiences that are intended as learning opportunities. 

And this situation may be easier to arrange if our mortal selves are Not (or not much, or only unevenly) positively transformed by life. 

After all; the ultimate value of this mortal life is not within this temporary world, where nothing lasts and everything dies; its ultimate value is found in Heavenly life everlasting. 

It was seemingly difficult for Owen Barfield to express clearly what he meant by Final Participation of human consciousness - indeed I think he exhibited a reluctance to be explicit on this point.

I now feel I have sufficiently understood Final Participation to re-explain it in my own words; but in doing so I take a step further than Barfield was willing to go in most public fora; and I think I can understand why.

To make Final Participation clear involves acknowledging its basis in Christianity - which has a tendency to alienate non-Christians; while at the same time claiming to move-forward-from, and in that sense 'supercede' Historical Christianity - which would tend to alienate most Christians: thereby leaving Barfield with only a very small audience!

Anyway, whether or not the above understanding is a correct guess: here is my understanding of the assumed historical sequence of Original Participation - going through various phases to our current almost wholly-alienated Modern Western Consciousness Soul - to Final Participation.

The key concept is theosis, which is the process of becoming divine. The consciousness of theosis therefore clearly depends on the concept of the divine: in becoming like-god it depends what we understand by god.

Original Participation was the situation of the first Men - who lived in hunter gatherer societies. They understood the divine to be something like energies in a process of circulation and transformation. Theosis was therefore the living daily experience of participating in these energies and transformations. The system was closed, all is as it was and ever will be. Man is part of the divine, but not a separate self.

This was the childhood of Man.

Then came the start of an increasing degree of self-consciousness, of Man as aware of Himself as an Agent with 'free will'; which brought with it an increasing sense of separation from the divine. At first the separation was only temporary and could be overcome by the activities of priest, performing rituals, in temples - and the ultimate aim was to restore each man into the divine. Mundane life was an exile - the aim was reabsorption of the individual self-consciousness back into the divine consciousness. Man conceived himself as as 'a worm', with the merest glimmer or vestige of autonomy - and that autonomy essentially wicked.

By stages, over many centuries, the separation of self-consciousness and awareness of the self as unique increased until it became almost (but never fully) complete; so that now and for many generations Man regards himself no longer as a worm, but as the only god - which either leads to absolute (but brittle) pride at his self-creation of his own reality out of nothing; or (and eventually) to despair at his belief that therefore reality depends on his own continuous creation and is therefore feeble and temporary and doomed to end with death - Man regarding himself as something even-less-than a worm.

At this stage theosis has stopped, is no longer a purpose, life has no meaning outside of the contigent and ephemeral and private subjective consciousness.

This is the adolescence of Man.

Final Participation is the renewal of a new kind of theosis in which God and the Self are both regarded as real (eternally real) - and there are many selves, each on the path towards divinity. So the aim is not immersive participation in divine energies; it is not reabsorption into the divine; but the aim of Final Participation is instead to participate in the process of ever more, and ever more loving and creative, relationships between the many eternal selves of Men on the one hand and God (in divine multiplicity) on the other hand.

Final Participation is Final because the system is no longer closed (as it was in Original Participation) but open-ended and capable of eternal expansion, as we as individuals each and collectively grow towards a divinity of the same kind and level as God - but an unique, and continually added-to divinity; and with many others (being added-to) all around us, in relationships with us, who are doing the same.

To move towards Final Participation we need to consider the nature of our relationship with the divine - and that we are to understand ourselves as immature and very-partial divinities - but that God has a loving and paternal relationship with us; so we need have nothing to fear from him and an attitude of trust and confidence in him as he will always want the best for us and work for that end.

For Final Participation, therefore, we need to see God as a person and a personal friend; and not somebody or some-thing vast and mysterious to be awed by and needing to be appeased, not somebody to be pleaded-with, nor an alien and incomprehensible being to be worshipped - and not an abstract infinite perfection which we seek to 'lose ourselves' into. At least, such attitudes cannot be foremost and regulative of our relation to God - but only background, exceptional and temporary.

Of Course, God condescends greatly to meet us at our level, and for that we should be grateful; but having said that we just need to put aside that fact and get on with the relationship at our own childish or adolescent level (just as a child knows that the adult is condescending to play, but the play cannot be play unless that condescension is 'forgotten' while the play is in progress). Respectful friendliness, trust, confidence - and an 'equality' which (like the child's in play with  parent, as he grows) is not less real for continually being superceded by higher levels of maturing and diminishing magnitudes of difference. 

Barfield - following Coleridge - saw reality in terms of distinguishable, dynamic but not separable polarities. The Polarity of Final Participation may be between God as an eternal and fully-divine person; and each of ourselves as eternal and partially-divine persons. The poles never to be united, but always bound-together in dynamic process, energized by that thing we could call Love - so long as we are clear that Love contains many positive aspects such as creativity, intelligence, power...

In sum - the movement from Original to Final Participation (leaving-out the long transitional state that occupies recorded history, and in which we still seem to be 'stuck') is therefore centred on the work of Christ; understood as enabling the change from theosis as loss of the self and reabsorption back-into the divine - to theosis as a stronger and maturing self-awarness and consciousness; closer and closer towards the adulthood of a full friend-like relationship between the personal loving God and his growing-up child.

It is the lived experience of this theosis which is Final Participation.

*

Note added: Having posted the above I almost immediately came upon an explicit confirmation of my interpretation on page 154 of What Coleridge Thought by Owen Barfield:

...The polarity God [polar-with symbol] Man is the basis of all polarity, in nature and elsewhere.

This leads to my final summary:

Original Participation = Divine Unity
Consciousness Soul = Human Separateness
Final Participation = Divine-Human Polarity

Theosis is the 'process' by which Men may become more divine. (Similar terms include divinisation and sanctification.)

For me, theosis is the primary purpose of mortal life - i.e of life extended beyond mere incarnation - whether that be to the stage of foetus, embryo, baby, child, adolescent, adult of into old age. In other words, I believe that God sustains our life (beyond mere incarnation) in order that we may have experiences and learn from them such tha we become more divine in this mortal life.

Albeit this 'being more divine' is (at most) a temporary experience; something we cannot 'hold-on-to during the changes of mortal life. Nonetheless, if we assume that learning has a spiritual and eternal dimension, and is not merely a matter of brain-sustained-memory, then even brief experiences of more-divine states may have a permanent effect on our-selves.


(If you ask why we cannot, in practice, hold-fast to anything in mortal life - or cannot be sure of doing so - then I would answer that this is because it is about experiences. We are not supposed-to make eternally-binding decisions in mortal life; because the proper time to do so is after death when it comes to a choice between resurrection in Heaven or other alternatives. Our experiences in mortal life are intended to aid that final, post-mortal decision which may be eternal; and eternally-binding.)


I would say that - with the qualified exception of the monastic type of Eastern Orthodoxy - theosis has never been a central goal in mainstream Christian life.

And the reason is obvious. It is that the 'gap' between Man and God is asserted to be infinite and qualitative - therefore there can be no-such-thing as movement-towards becoming 'more' divine. This because (according to mainstream, classical theology) we are creatures but God is uncreated; we are finite but God is infinite (omni-potent/-scient-/present etc.) The gulf is un-bridge-able.

This would seem to make it impossible for man to progress spiritually and become 'more divine' - whether that progression be gradual or incremental.


The description of Jesus Christ as having a dual-nature of both God and Man is of no practical help in explaining theosis; because in the first place it does not make literal sense but is a mystical formulation, while in the second place it merely kicks the can further down the road.

The dual concept of Christ has his divine nature as being the-same-as the divine nature of the Father and Holy Ghost, thus with all the infinite and omni attributes (infinitely-remote-from Man); and furthermore Men are Not part of that uncreated divine trinity, therefore Men cannot (presumably) have any share in real divinity. 


Therefore, for theosis to be comprehensible and explicable in ordinary language (without recourse to non-coherent mystical word-formulations), entails that classical and mainstream theology be rejected and Man and God (and Jesus Christ) be seen as of the same basic kind (and presumably having the same ultimate origin), such that the difference between Man and God is quantitative rather than qualitative.

If so; then Men can become God bit-by-bit; by a spiritual progression - happening through time.

And theosis can then be seen as a divinely-intended goal of our mortal (as well as pre- and post-mortal) life.

 

It seems that many Christians are and have been focused on the problem of achieving salvation by faith and right choices during mortal life: this links-up with an understanding of Heaven as a reward for those who have achieved salvation - and Hell as the place of punishment for those who do not.

Mortal life is then seen as a battle to attain salvation and/ or to avoid damnation (the emphasis varies) - and a good life beyond death is the reward for good performance. From this perspective nothing much important 'happens' in Heaven - it is a state of being.

But if we instead take the view that Jesus won salvation as a gift for everyone, by his life and death - then salvation is there for us, and the primary condition is simply that we accept it.

Of course, accepting salvation entails more than merely saying 'yes, okay' - because salvation is into God's world and God's plan, and entails accepting and embracing these. And this is something that, apparently, some people - probably many people - do not want and will not accept.

If salvation is a gift to those who will accept it, then salvation is straightforward and secure (for those who want it); and the main purpose of mortal life is not salvation but theosis - the process of striving to become more God-like; or more exactly the voluntary process of becoming more God-like on the basis that we begin as partly divine (being children of God) and end-up as being brothers and sisters of Christ - of the same nature as him.

Heaven is the not a reward but the place where people who have chosen theosis continue to work on this - Heaven is a place of striving, of change, of work.

Hell, by contrast, is the place for people are are not aiming at theosis - people who are not trying to become more divine, more like Jesus Christ.

Which is the reward and which the punishment depends on what is wanted.

God was creator and has a plan for his creation - this plan includes creating possibilities for those who want-to 'join' God as a god; to become fully-divine sons and daughters of God - being able to 'work on' this goal, co-operatively and with love - partly during mortal life, but also necessarily after it.

By this account, God's main concern is theosis - so that men and women may choose to become divine, and may incrementally (and over a long timescale) achieve this by being born incarnated, dying and resurrecting; and also by learning from their experiences throughout.

Our primary choice is whether to join God's plan - or not. Hell is the place of nay-sayers. Not joining the plan may mean going-it-alone, or it may mean living among the others who rejected God's plan - and seeking what solutions and satisfactions that company may bring in a universe without meaning or purpose.

In sum, since the 'Mormon Restoration' of Christianity, and the change in understanding it brings; there has been a qualitative change in explaining the basic nature and purpose of Heaven and Hell.

(The extent to which Mormonism was a cause of these general changes in understanding Heaven and Hell, and to what extent it was a shared consequence of underlying spiritual causes, I don't know - something of both I expect.)

I don't think many Christians have fully 'taken on board' this change, aside from feeling a deepening dissatisfaction with the idea of Heaven and Hell as merely reward and punishment, and mortal life as merely a kind of qualifying exam.

But if (thanks to Christ) salvation is there for for the accepting, and on conditions no more onerous than repentance; then theosis is the main business of human existence - theosis in pre-mortal, mortal and post-mortal life - then the nature and purpose of Heaven and Hell are profoundly different.

Heaven and Hell are not states of being, but domains distinguished by the positive or negative purpose of those who choose them. Their 'state' is a consequence of this choice, and of the make-up of the populations that result from that choice.   

Heaven is not a fixed state of being, but the place of mutual love where a particular purpose of divine destiny is being actively, voluntarily and joyfully pursued - and Hell is... well, all the rest.

When Owen Barfield described the evolution of consciousness, he used 'evolution' in a pre-Darwinian sense of a developmental change analogous to the fertilised egg 'unfolding' to become a mature, adult organism.

In other words, Barfield regarded evolution not merely as change, but as purposive change, change with an aim or 'teleology'.

If the evolution of consciousness has a unified purpose and aim (isn't just a different purpose and aim for each entity), then this implies that there is a deity - as the source of purpose. Therefore, the evolution of consciousness is a consequence of some divine plan.

What could this divine plan be? For many Christians it will be 'theosis' - or the process of Men becoming more and more like God; aiming at becoming Sons and Daughters of God.

So, the evolution of consciousness is about our consciousness - that is, our way of thinking - becoming more divine, more like God's way of thinking.

This is a measure of the importance of the evolution of consciousness; and the need for it. Our life on earth is about 1. Accepting that salvation which is the gift of Jesus; and 2. Theosis - or working on the task of making ourselves more divine in our nature.

The moral aspect of theosis is very well known - but the consciousness aspect of theosis is almost wholly neglected - especially in mainstream Christian life.

In theosis we are not supposed only to 'do the right things', nor even to think the right things - but to think in the right way...

We should strive for a divine quality of thinking.

That is how important the evolution of consciousness is.  

*

I am pondering the work of William Arkle -

http://www.billarkle.co.uk/

by fitting his ideas into my existing scheme of understanding, where they seem to explicate, enrich and expand some vital elements.

*

My understanding is that - thanks to the work of Jesus Christ - salvation is ours if we choose it; and the main purpose of Man's mortal life is 'theosis' - becoming more like God.

This entails following God's rules - because they are a summary of the intrinsic constraints of reality - but beyond that our job of theosis is creative (recalling that all creativity is within a framework).

Arkle's (strange) terminology has this in terms of a divine friendship. The main motivation God had for making Man was to have friends - and with this end he seeded sparks of his divine fire into each Man - this inner spark is then 'surrounded' by the products of our own choices and efforts.

But Men need to grow and develop to become loving friends of God (first commandment) - and the mortal context is loving family and other humans (second commandment). The growth and development are essential if we are to be real and distinct individuals, and not just clones or copies (because we want our eternal friends each to be different, and each also to continually develop, to grow).

*

So we are to 'make' ourselves into friends of God and assist in the 'making' of other friends for God (and ourselves) - this is Arkle's way of explaining theosis in down-to-earth terms.

So theosis is this creative project (within constraints of reality) to choose and grow into divine friends of God. It almost-inevitably involves trial and error, but the experiences of temptations, and even errors, will be educative if they are unintended and repented.

Thinking of theosis as creative opens-up a positive an engaged attitude to life; and emphasises that the 'perfection' of mortal life is in its striving and growth towards a nature both divine and distinctive - not in its freedom from error nor conformity to a pattern.

*

*
Although seldom formulated in such terms, it is perhaps the greatest triumph of Mormonism to have recognized and implemented in practice the understanding that God's great purpose for this universe is that Man should become divine; and that salvation - although vital to this aim - is but a means to that end.

*

For any real Christian, God is firstly and completely a loving entity; and God is our Heavenly Father who loves us as his children.

What, then, can we infer that our God of love wants primarily? As a loving being, He wants others with whom to share love - which is why He had children; and these children should include some who grow to the same general level as himself (i.e. adult with respect to God Himself) - as this is the highest form of love of which we know.

*

This apparently means that, although God surely loves us as 'immature' children (just as we love so much our own young children) it is a part of this love of immature children that (in a timescale of eternity) we hope that at least some, perhaps as many as possible, will ideally and voluntarily mature and 'grow-up' to become sufficiently like in adult-nature to ourselves that there can be the possibility of the fullest possible reciprocity of loving relationship.

(Mature to be like in nature, but different as individuals - there would be no point in loving an array of identical persons; there is no need for more than one distinctive person. The loving nature of God includes the implication that each individual is unique and individually valuable because of their uniqueness.)

Indeed, as a wholly loving being; for God there would be no limit to how grown-up these children should become in relation to God Himself; and no limit to how many such children there should eventually be.

(Although - equally - it would always be desirable to have young children, still-growing, in the family).

*

Thus theosis, the growth in God-nature, in divinity, would seem to be our loving God's main purpose in making and sustaining the universe of reality; and in begetting us, His children.

Salvation - that is, the process of incarnation, death (separation of body and soul), resurrection (reuniting of a perfected body and a purified soul) and eternal life can therefore be seen as 'merely' means to this eternal end of theosis.

*

(Salvation is apparently essential to theosis, but is not an end in itself - salvation is a stage on the pathway of theosis. Because if salvation was the primary goal then there would be no point in life and living - since there would be no point in being born as incarnate mortals - we would be better to be born and stay as angels in Heaven; because in living we are always at risk of losing salvation. This surely suggests that mortal incarnate life must be about gaining something so important that it is worth the risk of losing salvation. That 'something' is God-like divinity.)

*

The divinization of Man throughout eternity is the primary purpose of reality, of our God of Love; and all else (including salvation) is instrumental with respect to theosis.  

*

It is a huge fact, yet one that is seldom made explicit, that nowadays nobody on earth lives in a Christian society. 

Of course, it could reasonably be said that - judging by the highest standards, as we should judge - nobody ever has! 

Nonetheless, there have been, throughout history and in several places, whole empires or nations where the rulers and the principles by which they ruled were explicitly Christian -- starting with the Roman Empire from Constantine and its descendants in Orthodox Eastern Europe and Catholic Western Europe; then later Protestant societies in Western Europe and its diaspora... and other relatively recent places such as Deseret (Utah) under Brigham Young. 

But now no such situation exists anywhere in the world, so far as I know. Furthermore, the world-as-a-whole has become actively anti-Christian - and operates a strategy of subversion, destruction and inversion of Christian churches and states that has now reached an advanced stage. 

Nobody now lives in a Christian society - and every Christian is experiencing the consequences of the ongoing corruption and 'convergence' of self-identified churches and (especially) church leaders; as these become assimilated to a Satan-affiliated global bureaucratic-media System.  

How much does this matter - ultimately? That is, in terms of our personal salvation and theosis? 

(In terms, that is, of our ability to choose to follow Jesus Christ to Heaven, and to learn the lessons of life that divine providence places in our path.)

Well, it matters greatly and fatally if we assume that our Christianity comes from without - if we assume that salvation and theosis are meant to be a matter of individual Men following the rules and practices of the society in which they find themselves.  

If salvation and theosis really depend on us obeying the sources of social authority around us - then in a world without Christian societies, nations or empires - there does not seem to be much, or any, chance of being a real Christian. 

Yet, if we assume instead that God (who is the prime creator) is able to create a divine providence for each individual one of His children; and if this personal concern is assumed to extend to providing the necessary means of salvation and the life-lessons for theosis - then it may not matter ultimately what kind of 'society' we dwell in. 

It would then be the case that God would simply take 'whatever this world has to offer', and shape it such that each and every Christian (who has chosen to follow Jesus Christ to Heaven) will get enough of what he needs from The World to be able to achieve his heart-felt goals...

And that this will be the case whatever kind of society that Christian happens to dwell-within. 

This is certainly how I see it. 

While I certainly do yearn-for, and try to attain, a Christian society (instead of - as I regard our current world - By-Far the most evil society that ever has been in human history)... 

Nonetheless, when my faith is strongest; I trust that God is always working via ongoing-creation to provide whatever I personally require for salvation and theosis; using those materials with which Men's evil choices have supplied Him. 

And that what applies for me, applies equally for all of God's other children whose desire is to follow Jesus. 

Promiscuous abstract altruism is a phrase that captures a trait relentlessly encouraged by the mass media, and enforced by peer pressure.

I mean by it the unending parade of human interest stories that are collected from around the world, and which form a large part of the daily consumption of Modern man - the natural disasters, wars and famines, consequences of accident and terrorism, the effects of disorders and diseases and death... The sufferings of children, old people, the innocent, the 'vulnerable', approved-minorities etc.

Every day, in every 'news' source we will be told of something that has happened to someone, somewhere - and our empathy will be enlisted. The aim, apparently, is that we ought to have an altruism - a 'care' of the well-being of others - that is abstract in the sense that we know nothing of the persons and situations, beyond what we are told by the media; and promiscuous in that we are expected to respond sympathetically to no-matter-how many such stories are thrown at us.


Why would the mass media be so keen on everybody, everywhere, being in a continual state of fake involvement in the miseries of others?

Whether these human interest stories are really-real is another matter; and of course most of them are not - being either made-up and 'staged'; or so selective and distorted and misinterpreted as to bear near-zero relationship to actuality.

But my point here is that it is clearly Very Important to those who control the mass media that most people most of the time, ought to be fascinated-by, and involved-in, these empathy-inducing news items. And 'ought' is the correct word; because those who express uninterest, or who are not convincing in their heart-felt 'concern ' for the alleged griefs of alleged persons thousands of miles distant will be judged (especially by women) to be monsters of stony-hearted selfishness...

What's it all about?


Clearly - since we are dealing with the mass media, and the media are tools of the very worst of The Establishment - who are themselves the hosts, servants and dupes of the demonic powers; the motives are not good; are indeed evil.

My guess is that the purpose of promiscuous abstract altruism is to displace the proper concerns of mortal Men. Which are love of God and neighbour; where neighbour implies direct  knowledge and concern - in not proximity and personal involvement, then close personal ties, such as family and friends.

And secondly, that most neglected of vital matters for this mortal life; our-real-selves. The basic reason why we are and remain alive is that we have things we need to learn-from. Aside from Love (which about our salvation) we therefore have theosis (which is about our spiritual development towards higher divinity).

Promiscuous abstract altruism is opposed to theosis, displaces theosis.

Theosis requires that we attend to our actual, personal, lived experience - through-which God is trying to 'teach' us lessons that it is vitally important we learn. Actual, personal, lived... these are the opposites of that second-hand, abstracted, depersonalised, manipulated kind of forced-empathy that is imposed by the mass media.


The intent is that we will be - every day and always - more concerned about the media stories of remote people about whom we know nothing for sure than we are about what is happening to us and around us. 

And, I would say, the media has largely succeeded in their aim; and to a greater extent with every passing year.

Inhibition of theosis? Thwarting of spiritual development?

Job Done!

*

The purpose and function of mortal incarnate life is not reducible to one thing - mortal incarnate life is not reducible to salvation unless salvation is given a dual meaning, in which case the duality of purpose is being covertly (and often insensibly) smuggled-in.

All Men live and die - that experience is common to all Men and to Jesus Christ - and that is the 'mechanism' of salvation. All that humans need to do is accept Christ's offer and gift of salvation (although that acceptance may not be as easy as it sounds given the corruptions of a long life in this world; and certainly acceptance of Christ's work cannot be assumed to be universal.)

But most Men are incarnated and die either in the womb or at or soon after birth; and more die while innocent babes or young children. These all experience the essential experience which is necessary for salvation.

*

The basic experience of mortal life is that our pre-mortal eternal souls are clothed in a body, then die and become separated from that body - but not only the 'physical' body. Our souls also experience dwelling within a personality, a specific set of dispositions, abilities, motivations etc. You could summarize this by saying our souls dwell inside a mind, and the characteristics of that mind - and the mind is not the soul.

This 'personality' or mind is also part of the body (that is it depends on the body - especially the brain) and the soul also separates from the mind at death.

So, during mortal life the soul and personality/ body are in a state of necessary disharmony (this is what some Christians call original sin) but after resurrection the soul is perfectly in harmony with the body/ personality.

*

Spiritual progression is linear and sequential, like Time. The primary aim of mortal incarnate life is salvation - which is first the experience of the soul dwelling in a state of disharmony with a personality/ body and then dying to be resurrected to the condition of a soul dwelling in harmony with personality/ body (unless the soul refuses the resurrection to harmony - unless the soul refuses to let go of the conflicted aspects of the body/ personality).

The aim of resurrection into harmony can only be achieved via the experience of mortal incarnate life and death, and via the work of Jesus Christ who underwent these experiences.

*

All this is salvation - but theosis refers to the degree of progress towards divine-nature achieved during mortal incarnate life; and this depends upon length of life and circumstances and opportunities of life - as well as upon choices, will, and other personal factors.

A long life (i.e. to maturity, to include more primary experiences such as marriage and children, creative work, friendships, self-sacrifice etc) offers more possibilities of theosis - of a higher degree of advancement, and more possibilities of corruption.

The value of a long life may be remedial in some instances (a chance for those who most need it; pre-mortal spirits who are significantly deficient), or to enable a more advanced level of spirituality (a chance for those best able to make the most of opportunities). Or mixtures.

*

Most of religious discourse which purports to be about salvation is really about theosis - it is about that small minority of humans who have lived a long life.

We should never forget that God's plan will very probably have been focused primarily on the majority of Men who never made it out of the womb, or early childhood. The plan was mostly about them; and only secondarily about us, about you and I - part of that tiny minority of long-lived Men whose business ought to be theosis.

(Although, tragically, many of us who live in the secular West explicitly state that we fully intend to reject salvation - and actively aim to persuade others to do likewise. But, fortunately, this madness has not afflicted the mass of men in history and does not afflict the majority alive today.)

*