Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 2

The change of human consciousness throughout my life-span

We all begin our lives in the state of immersive, spontaneous, initially un-conscious Original Participation - which was, pretty much, the consciousness of mature adults in the earliest (e.g. hunter gatherer) phase of human history - a state of mind when we are in direct contact with an animistic (living, purposive, aware) universe of beings/ spirits, gods. 

The Medieval Consciousness (aka Intellectual Soul) is that of the great span of recorded human history, of agricultural society, of civilization - the "axial age" when religions were developed; changing through the Ancient Egyptian (for example), Ancient Greek, Roman and into the Medieval era. 

During this era, spirituality was largely communal, and contact with the world of spirit (experience of the spirit within us) was via intermediaries such as church structures, priests, symbolism and ritual. 

For Christians this type of consciousness reached a peak in the Byzantine and Holy Russian societies of Orthodox Catholicism; and for Westerners it peaked in the Medieval times with Roman Catholicism in Western Europe. 

Modern Consciousness - in which man is alienated from God, the gods, the world of spirits, and other beings; began to emerge with the Renaissance and Reformation (as traditional forms and symbols began to lose their objectivity and power) - and accelerated through the Industrial Revolution up to now. 

So that now it seems obvious common sense that this is a purposeless, meaningless, dead universe - going nowhere, and in which we humans and individual persons are irrelevant; such that our "morality" is merely maximizing pleasure and minimizing suffering until we die and are annihilated. 

Looking back; it now seems that I experienced the dying residuum of the Medieval Consciousness; which, although relatively feeble and only among a minority, was behind the radicalism of the counter-cultural desire for a simple, "natural", agrarian - and essentially modified-Medieval - life and society. 

My point is that until the late 1970s a restoration of Medieval Cosnciousness actually seemed a realistic possibility; such that alternative living and self-sufficiency were topics of mainstream social discussion and aspiration. The revival of folk music and arts, and even "hippie" styles of dress and fashion - all seemed to presage this. 

It really seemed possible then that we might "go back" to a village-based and agricultural society - on lines described earlier by William Cobbett, and depicted fictionally by William Morris. 

Much of the mass youth interest in Tolkien was related to the hope aroused by his work that a Middle Earth kind of life might yet be genuinely possible. 

And for some (but not me, at that time), this included an expectation that Christianity would again have a central and pervasive influence on society: a Chesterton/ Belloc type Distributism.  

But through my life span the Medieval Consciousness has faded in objectivity and power; until now it is not regarded as a realistic possibility - or only except in a remote, abstract, wishful and as-if kind of fashion. 

This can be seen in the disintegration, decline and corruption of all the major Christian churches; and their extreme alienation and giving up of shaping spiritual experience.

But the most significant decline of Medieval Consciousness (and the cause of church changes) is in the minds of Men - an inexorable dwindling which I have both experienced and observed. 

This is where we find ourselves. I regard these changes in consciousness as objective, as causal, and as irreversible. 

So it is from here that we ought to regard the future.

Since we cannot go back, and (further) my experience and observations suggest that trying to revert ourselves and society to Medievalism of consciousness is not just ineffective; but actually spiritually harmful... That, any rate, is how I read the various "utopian" experiments in back-to-the-land, communal and Alternative living. 

Since what we have now is so dominated by the powers of evil, and so devoid of both purpose and meaning and hope - it seems to me that it is imperative we actively and consciously attempt to move our consciousness, and consequently our lives, forward into nigh unprecedented territory. 

**

NOTE: It may sound, from the above, as if I regarded Original Participation and Medieval Consciousness as taboo, necessarily harmful and to-be-shunned; but this is not the case. For many people, in many situations, both still have much to offer in the way of "therapy", encouragement, and even guidance. However the point I wish to emphasize is that they are not enough. They are both too feeble for what is necessary in our world, and both are harmful if made a strategy. They cannot suffice. There is no future in them. 

Knowing Jesus from personal experience - how is it done?

Meeting Jesus in a dream...

What does it mean, how should we understand it? 

I suppose that - for a Christian to have strong faith - he needs to know Jesus from personal experience. 

But what does this actually mean, in practice? - and in a world where there is an apparently infinite amount of conflicting advice concerning how to do it. 

Where should one even begin to look? 

Most sources of advice on how to know Jesus will direct us at specific secondary and second-hand sources, that need first to be discerned and recognized as true (among a mass majority of other sources of information that are required to be rejected), and then the information provided about Jesus needs to be understood. 

This will not suffice for obvious reasons; including failure to locate, failure to evaluate correctly, failure to comprehend correctly. 

And it observably does not suffice for most people most of the time - who never get to know Jesus.  

To know Jesus, indeed to know anything, we need to know it directly, unmediated. 

Know from inner contact, yes; but specifically the contact of Love. 

This knowing is and must be simple; because it must be comprehended by a single mental "moment".

With Jesus; the need and purpose is to have a clear and simple apprehension by which we know a few things (whether separately or perhaps all-at-once); such as what he offers us, that this offer is real, and what to do if we want to accept his offer. 

This experience of direct-knowing is what matters - but it does Not matter how this experience is achieved...

Possible examples of "how" people get to know Jesus include the usual religious activities: scripture, ritual, symbolism, churches, prayer, meditation, spiritual and physical disciplines...

It may included divinely-purposed experiences in this mortal life: such as miracles, answered prayers. 

Or it may include dreams, near-death, or post-mortal encounters (e.g. meeting Jesus, meeting a beloved resurrected person). 

But in practice; how we get to know Jesus may also include many negative experiences; such as realization of death, rock-bottom despair, extreme fear, sin, loneliness... 

Therefore; in principle, almost anything that induces a turning-away which becomes a turning-toward may lead a person to experience Jesus directly and personally. 

So much for the direct experience; but this is useless unless recognized as such! If we insist on rendering the clarity and simplicity of direct knowing into indirect forms - by translating into words, concepts, pictures - then we have made it into something abstract, complex, ambiguous... 

Into something that requires theoretical interpretation. 

Consider the example of a dream. 

In a dream we may meet Jesus in visual or audial imagery - and there is a strong tendency to focus on dream content: what Jesus looked-like, what did did, what he taught us...

Thus we get misleadingly caught-up by trying to interpret the meaning, decode the message, understand the implications... 

But the proper way to understand this kind of dream - or any other experience of Jesus - is to disregard specific content; and instead reflect on what we know experientially in consequence; and know so simply and so clearly that we can grasp it whole. 

**

NOTE ADDED: The above came from my reflecting upon how it is that the Fourth Gospel ("John") had become so important to me over the past years - its simple and clear "message" hitting me with the force of revelation; but that I would not expect other people to learn from reading it in the same way. 

For me, that particular means worked towards the desired end. But for other people, a very wide range of means might lead to the same end. 

In sum: the means to the end are personal, contextual - hence idiosyncratic. 

The problem is that - for too many people - being given the right answer is insufficient, because they are set-up to reject any answer when that answer is simple. 

Furthermore (as I said in a comment over at Francis Berger's place) It is a huge change of attitude required, from people assuming that reality is going to be something forced-upon them (almost irresistibly) by external power -- to recognizing that (as of here-and-now) people who want to know reality must make an explicit choice and pursue reality actively - and as an individual. 

That people do not do this is partly from psychological factors such as laziness and wrong priorities; but also most people assume that any belief or knowledge that is actively-chosen on the basis of inner-conviction (no matter how solidly-affirmed that conviction), must be just engaged in a wishful-thinking fantasy.

Nothing quite so nerve-rending, quite so demoralising, as the sight and sound of the Stuka

Theoretically, there is no target so easy to hit as a plane approaching directly head on; in practice, it never worked out that way. 
In the Arctic, the Mediterranean, the Pacific, the relative immunity of the torpedo-bombers, the high percentage of successful attacks carried out in the face of almost saturation fire, never failed to confound the experts. Tension, over-anxiety, fear—these were part of the trouble, at least; there are no half measures about a torpedo-bomber—you get him or he gets you. 
And there is nothing more nerve-racking—always, of course, with the outstanding exception of the screaming, near-vertical power-dive of the gullwinged Stuka dive-bomber—than to see a torpedo-bomber looming hugely, terrifyingly over the open sights of your gun and know that you have just five inexorable seconds to live… 

Any plane that hurtles down in undeviating dive on waiting gun emplacements has never a chance. Thus spoke the pundits, the instructors in the gunnery school of Whale Island, and proceeded to prove to their own satisfaction the evident truth of their statement, using A.A. guns and duplicating the situation which would arise insofar as it lay within their power. 
Unfortunately, they couldn‘t duplicate the Stuka. 
Unfortunately,“ because in actual battle, the Stuka was the only factor in the situation that really mattered. One had only to crouch behind a gun, to listen to the ear-piercing, screaming whistle of the Stuka in its near-vertical dive, to flinch from its hail of bullets as it loomed larger and larger in the sights, to know that nothing could now arrest the flight of that underslung bomb, to appreciate the truth of that. 
Hundreds of men alive today—the lucky ones who endured and survived a Stuka attack—will readily confirm that the war produced nothing quite so nerve-rending, quite so demoralising as the sight and sound of those Junkers with the strange dihedral of the wings in the last seconds before they pulled out of their dive.
**
I have recently finished reading (actually listening to the superb audiobook) of Alastair Maclean's HMS Ulysses. 
This was an absolutely superb war novel - Maclean's first, and written from personal experience - and (clearly) from the heart. 
The numerous characters are convincing and (mostly) empathic - including that rarest of types: a really good man; the situations are vividly and memorably described; the trajectory a stepwise (almost merciless!) cranking-up of power and horror. 

The above passages are vivid evidence of the unique ability of the Stuka, the best Axis dive-bomber - indeed the best "pure" dive bomber ever, in terms of accuracy; as a weapon in which the element of induced terror was so great as to lift its tactical effectiveness to another level beyond its mechanical capabilities.
Consequently; as an anti-shipping weapon; the Ju-87 destroyed more allied shipping than all other aircraft types put together.  

Giving-up on clear and effective communication - "Footway" bureaucratic notices

 

I noticed this on the (interminable, clearly maliciously-motivated) roadworks on the Great North Road; and I thought: 

"Who the dickens decided that "pavement" or "footpath" - terms that everybody from the youngest child to oldest codger understands - should instead be called a Footway?" 

But a moment's reflection was enough. 

The bureaucrats it is (together with their friends the politicians), who always and endlessly decide to rename things. 

Rename them without regard for clarity of communication or traditional associations* - and in accordance with their own incentive structures that reward institutional change - including change for the sake of change, or change for the worse (it does not matter which). 

That the purpose - the only proper purpose - of a sign is to communicate information, and that "Footway" fails to do this - is irrelevant to the bureaucrats/ politicians, and fellow travellers. 

 

I first noticed this more than 20 years ago when I saw that the road signs and marking in Hay-on-Wye (which straddles the border between England and Wales) had important instructional highway signage in a bilingual form - with Welsh coming first! 

Presumably this is for the benefit of the (non-existent) hordes of monoglot Welsh who could pass their driving tests only in Cymraeg.

The 99.99 (recurring) percent of road users who can only be distracted and delayed by the priority of a foreign phrase, and who need to read the English in order to obey the important and urgent traffic instruction; are irrelevant compared with the all-conquering bureaucratic imperative of making a point. 

*In 1974 the then "Conservative" government, gratuitously abolished or renamed many of the traditional counties of the UK. My then place of residence, Somerset; was renamed "Avon". Most egregious was the Scottish county of Clackmannanshire charmingly became... "Central Region". Some of these changes were later reverted by popular demand. 

Totalitarianism and/or Chaos: Ahrimanic backlash and/or Sorathic escalation in response to the latest global Litmus Test

The latest global Litmus Test (aka the most recent Establishment agenda theme) is playing-out negatively and for evil - as any change must, when not motivated by positive good. 

Whatever the original intent of the event and its propagation may have been, the existing Establishment power blocs are competing over what it implies.

Competing, often within different parts of the same media outlet! - as would be expected when there is a genuine schism and "civil war" within the Establishment.  

We need to be clear that in this war, both sides are of evil intent; but different types of evil. 

On one side, and this includes the political "Right" (actually, part of the Left); and this also includes the nationalistic "Christian Right" - there are the Ahrimanic totalitarians. 

These desire - first and foremost - an efficient and effective international System... A coherent political-bureaucracy-media complex. 

And the Ahrimanic totalitarians are trying to escalate and use the new Establishment agenda to make the System work better, mainly so-far by undoing some of the more egregious consequences of political correctness. 

This is the true nature of whatever is real in the "anti-woke" backlash assiduously reported by the mainstream sources. 

What motivates these System-reformers is a materialistic and this-worldly desire for a more comfortable, prosperous, and secure life (first and especially for themselves, and those of whom they approve). To be done by means of working-towards an effective and efficient System. 

This is why there is such a strong enthusiasm among such people, for ruthless coercion of individuals justified by "rational" objectives and "the common good." In other words: "enemies" are to be made to conform to the new rules of a better System.

For a truly Ahrimanic totalitarian, this coercion of conformity is done impersonally, without sadism - because it is the result of "objective" calculation of System necessity.  

In sum: For mainstream Establishment totalitarians; it is the individual person's role, whether voluntarily or coerced, to serve the System...

The only difference between the "Political Right" and the "Christian Right", is that the System to be ruthlessly imposed is intended to be one that is explicitly Christian in its forms: a Church System. 

(Insofar as any totalitarian bureaucracy can really be Christian when it is intrinsically evil!)

Consequently; our old friend The Boromir Strategy is very much in evidence! 

The Political/ Christian Right advocate using the "weapons" of the enemy, including the psychological motivations of leftist materialism - rationalized by the excuse that this is the most effective way to win... 

Under the assumption that "our System winning" (by whatever means are judged to be expedient) is the same thing as "Good". 

In sum: For Christian totalitarians; it is the individual person's role, whether voluntarily or coerced, to serve the Church System...

Mixed-in with totalitarianism (of various stripes) - and sometimes dominant - is explicit expression (across the board, including the "Right", including among self-identified-Christians) of the characteristically "sadistic" emotions of spiteful Schadenfreude. 

In other words, we see the fingerprints of strengthening Sorathic Chaotic Evil.

This is motivated mainly by personal gratification at the sufferings and destruction of "enemies"; or, at first enemies... 

Instead of the impersonal and calculating Ahrimanic justification of coercive imposition for reasons of Systemic-necessity; the Sorathic "Right" will characteristically express positive pleasure in the "need" for imposing suffering on their enemies. 

They typically express delight at the prospect of the misery and destruction of those who will not conform to the new programme. 

...But later, as evil feeds-upon-itself, they will go on to enjoy the suffering and destructions of anybody and anything that opposes or ignores our personal interests and enjoyments.

(And finally the ultimately nihilistic destruction of divine creation - and at last, the suicidal annihilation of their own self; as something created by God.)  

In other words - because people are currently riled-up and feel free to express their dark and usually-secret motivations - we can currently observe the inevitable waxing of evil that happens when both "sides" are actually rival factions of the spiritual war that opposes God and Divine Creation. 

Both totalitarian and chaotic evil are, in their different but overlapping ways, de facto working towards the self-chosen damnation of self-righteous sinners. 

In other words, all varieties of evil are working towards an increase of the self-exclusion of the unrepentant from Heaven; which self-exclusion includes those unrepentant for whom this-worldly expediency is affirmed as primary...

Those for whom their superficial assertion of wanting a more-Christian world and future Heaven, has become an insincere excuse for advocating and doing More Evil Now.

Belief in the Hereafter: Glenn Gould

This passage is  quoted in 32 Short Films about Glenn Gould - and also Glenn Gould. Hereafter.

ELYSE MACH: I’d like to ask: Do you believe in the afterlife? 

Glenn Gould: Well, I was brought up as a Presbyterian, though I did stop being a church goer, ohh, about the age of 18 … but I always have had a tremendously strong sense that there is, indeed, a hereafter … that we all must reckon with, and lead our lives according to, this belief that there is, inevitably, a transformation of the spirit. As a consequence, I find all ‘here-and-now’ philosophies quite repellent … lax, if you will. I do recognize, however, that it is a great temptation to try and formulate a comfortable theory of eternal life, so as to reconcile oneself to the inevitability of death. But I’d like to think that’s not what I’m doing—I honestly don’t think that I’m creating a deliberate self-reassuring process. For me, it intuitively seems right … I’ve never had to work at convincing myself of a life hereafter. After all, don’t you think it seems infinitely more plausible than its opposite … oblivion?

 

There is surely a direct relationship between Gould's conviction of the reality of a personal afterlife, and the extraordinary and unique spiritual dimension he brought to the best of his life and performances. 

When I am able to grasp the fact of it; I am absolutely staggered at the perfection of the gift of Jesus: I mean resurrected eternal life in Heaven. It is so absolutely and exactly what I would most have wanted!

Yet most people, most of the time (almost everybody, almost always) are utterly insensible to this extraordinary thing. I know, because for most of my life I was one of them. 

I know how - in the particular and peculiar environment of this modern era - it seems natural (as well as adult and intelligent) to adopt a flippant attitude to this most important of all questions. I know the arguments - from the inside - about how eternal life, resurrection, Heaven etc - don't really make any difference to the wise Man of true values; how these are childish panderings to the weakness and vanity of... etc. etc...

Consequently we do not allow ourselves even to begin to grasp what is actually on offer; and oscillate back and forth between regarding the astonishing gift of Jesus as too-good-to-be-true, and then of-no-interest at all - or (somehow) hold both beliefs at the same time...

One common, and stunningly wrong, attitude is that the reality of eternal life makes no difference to this life! I have felt this myself. It is so incredibly, stupidly and obviously wrong, that such an attitude is itself a key to much of the pathology of modern thinking. I mean; the fact that I and others can and do think this way, is a revelation of a profound (i.e. deep rooted) incapacity to reason that is near universal.

I realise that Jesus's offer does not appeal to everyone. Which is presumably why only Christianity (and only some understandings of Christianity) 'offer' this destination after death. But I think there are plenty who, like me, want nothing different from what Jesus offers - and it ought to be a simple matter for us to get past the first step of acknowledging "Yes, that's what I most want"; and (but only) then move on to the question: "Is it true?"

Step one: do we want what Jesus offers? Step two: is the offer true? 

And, as Gould said, evaluating the truth of Jesus's offer is a matter of intuition. 

No 'evidence' is of relevance. But intuition must have something to intuit! An idea must be grasped with the fullness of imaginative understanding before it can be tested by intuition. 

And that is exactly where most modern people go so fatally wrong: they/we cannot imaginatively grasp the reality of resurrected, eternal Heavenly life (or, we do not allow ourselves to do this); therefore we cannot intuitively evaluate its truth. 

We cannot get past step one. 

Note: This post seems significant to me. It is re-blogged from September of 2020, at which it passed without apparent notice. 

Christian theology ought to build-upon our innate, spontaneous, natural assumptions - not subvert them

Since the creator is a personal and good God who loves us; it seems to make sense that we would be born into this world with the kind of assumptions (hence understanding) that is supportive (or, at least, compatible with) our salvation. 

I regard this as a deep truth; and that the "animistic" consciousness of young childhood - the assumption of inhabiting a living universe of other Beings - is therefore a true understanding of reality.

Truth about reality is therefore something originally inside us, within us, something we do not need to look for elsewhere, or to "other people", to find.  

In other words - if truth about reality is inborn, within, divinely implanted - then it is something we can know for ourselves, from our-selves - and therefore be sure about. 

This means that much of Christian theology is false when it asserts that ultimate realities are impersonal and/or abstract in nature - or too complex to comprehend. 

This is a lethal objection to Christian theology when it is asserted to be something that need to be derived second-hand, from other people or other places - a kind of hearsay - that we are supposed to obey: uncomprehendingly if necessary. 

From this perspective it is also clear that "mainstream modern materialism" (which inculcates and permeates assumptions that ultimate reality is a dead, purposeless, meaningless - a matter of physical and chemical processes) is false. 

(And, insofar as Christian theology tries to incorporate materialism, then to that extent it makes itself incoherent, self-subverting.) 

What modern materialism and mainstream Christian theology both do to a person, is inculcate the assumption that he must get his understanding from outside himself - because both replace our innate childhood world-view, with some-other world view that we must find somewhere in our culture. 

When people are looking around to "other people" or social systems to understand the world - then Satan holds most of the cards; and the Christian truth becomes just another option among many-more - lost among a much larger and constantly-changing mass of alternatives.

Even when people become Christian under such circumstances and with such an "external-seeking" mind-set - then it becomes very difficult to have strong faith - i.e. difficult to have sureness and confidence in the rightness of our particular world-view...

Once we leave behind the innate - and God given! - perspective that the true understanding has been  built-into us; then any and every world-view that comes from outside is a threat to our present conviction. 

In a world where truth is not-innate, where truth is said to be (or may be) external, abstract, impersonal, hyper-complex - then we find ourselves trying to cling to a particular and second-hand/ adopted understanding...

And constantly being offered alternative external views: constantly under attack from external world views: constantly needing to defend and justify our specific choices.  

No wonder Christian faith is so feeble! - when we have built it under the assumption that our childhood knowledge is something that is merely immature, and needs to be set-aside; such that we Must derive Truth about Reality from sources outside ourselves, from among the many, Many alternative offered by people and by culture! 

We can never really believe "other people" sufficiently to have a strong faith - unless, perhaps, all of those other-people are saying the same thing - which nowadays they certainly never are; not even within the strictest of churches! 

 

All too often - Christianity succeeds in subverting our natural childhood assumptions with abstract and complex theological dogmas - and succeeds only in enfeebling the consequent faith.

As was made blazingly evident in 2020. 

I conclude that (from here-and-now) the truth of Christianity "must" (if Christian faith is to be strong) therefore be such that it can simply be added-onto the innate and spontaneous assumptions about reality with which God provided us on entering incarnation; and with which we are (apparently) all born. 

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.  

In theology, it impresses me to find evidence of active thinking - rather than defensive parroting

Its a sad, but inevitable, fact that almost all of Christian theology - is merely defensive parroting. 

Which is to say that the discourse is just people expounding arguments and evidences they have learned from sources approved by the church to which they have chosen to affiliate. 

It is awareness of this parroting quality (on one or both sides) that may produce that sense of frustration at lack of engagement, of unseriousness, of insincerity - or even cowardice; which has been so off-putting to so many modern people who are considering becoming Christians, or who are expressing genuine (not merely expedient) doubts about aspects of their church or Christianity generally.

I suppose there must have been some people who were actively thinking about Jesus Christ and Christianity at some point in history! Indeed, I suppose that the letters of Paul are evidence of this kind of grappling. 

But there has been in Christianity, and very early, and for most (not all) of subsequent history - probably as in most other religions - a strong tendency to draw a line under this thinking for oneself - and a switch to stating (dogmatically) that this primary engagement has been done, the results are in - and the answers are as follows...

From which point the idea is that good Christians need to understand and believe, to learn and rehearse, and to parrot. 

At which point there is no point in talking to them! Arguments are futile! Debate is simulated!

Unless - that is - you are merely curious about such people; or if your goal is to become like them, and be guided in all your fundamental life understandings, motivations and choices - by an institution. Which is, evidently, still a popular aspiration - although almost-never actually achieved.   

  **

Further Note: I have often myself engaged in this defensive parroting! So I know it by inner experience. 

For instance, in medicine, doctors explanations are of this kind, because the doctor has never himself been through the background to medical facts and claims, but is merely repeating what he has been taught or otherwise learned. And, of course, most enquiries and dissenting directed at doctors is (almost inevitably) itself shallow and ignorant, or selfish or manipulative... and is not motivated by a genuine desire for discovering truth. 

At other times, after becoming a Christian, I sometimes found myself in the same situation. I accepted the truth of some external claim - but did not really know it for myself or from primary experience - and indeed such experience tended to refute the external claim, but I deferred to authority on the basis that cleverer and better informed people than myself had been deemed to have sorted-this-out long ago. 

It was really when I - almost against my will - was nigh-compelled to dig deeper and deeper towards the most fundamental aspects of Christianity; that I began to find it ever more obvious that this would Not be how God would set-things-up! 

I mean; I began to feel clear and sure that God would Not create us and the world; such that we were supposed to pick some particular social institution (a church), then adopt an attitude of obedient service and trusting credulity to that institution. 

That would be an absurdly unreliable, fragile, contingent way to plan a system for the salvation of Mankind!  

At around this point, I began to notice when I was parroting about Christianity, and to dislike myself for doing it; and instead felt a necessity to discover the truths by my own thinking and spiritual experience - and to regard such as the bottom line or my understanding of reality - rather than regarding Christian faith as deference-to and parroting-of any particular external source. 

 

Why is "pride" often considered the worst sin?

The sin of pride is especially insidious and perhaps ineradicable, and an absolute barrier to salvation: because it is the ultimate complacency that "I am good enough as I am".

Salvation is resurrection, and resurrection is a remaking such that we become wholly good, wholly motivated by love...

This includes our recognition that we need remaking, that we need to reject and leave-behind that of us which is dissonant with the euphony of divine creation.

But if we are spiritually-proud, we see no reason why we need to be remade to be fitted for Heaven. 

The proud Man wants, instead, that Heaven be fitted around himself as-is.

Such pride seems very common and normal, and is found among the despised, weak, poor and sick - as also (more obviously) among the strong, arrogant and famous.

**

Note: Of course, pride is not the only blockage to salvation. Self hatred is another, because it is our-self who is resurrected. If we hate our self, we will not desire to be resurrected.