How to turn your entire family into ceremonial magicians (or light, fluffy pagans) with just a small wardrobe change!

Trust me, if you haven’t seen the television commercial, you’ll think the same thing immediately when you do!

It seems to me, among many other flies that I could point out in the ointment, Thelema—and, more specifically, those organizations who proclaim themselves bastions of thelemic culture—misses one vital piece of the whole floating device on the ocean of religiosity. Allow me, if you will, to quote at length one of the foremost experts (if not the foremost expert of experts) in the studies on the historical Jesus, John Crossan. This quote, completely out of the original context, to be sure, grabbed me immediately and spoke volumes as to part of the key both to Christianity’s success outside of Judaism and to Thelema’s failure—thus far—to secure a position as a viable spiritual and religious culture outside of Christianity.

[In Luke 24.13-33, two individuals] travel from Jerusalem to Emmaus on Easter Sunday. One is named and male; his companion … unnamed, is presumably female …. The risen Jesus joins them on their journey. But the road to Emmaus is not the road to Damascus [where Pauline Christianity, as a separate faction, would arise]. This is an apparition without blinding light or heavenly voice. This is a vision without slow demonstration or immediate recognition. Even when Jesus explains the scriptures about suffering and glorification of the Messiah, the travelers do not know who he is. But they invite the stranger to stay and eat with them. He does not invite them. They invite him.

As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. (Luke 24:28-29)

You will notice how that invitation is emphasized. The pair have presumably arrived at their village home and, but for the invitation, the stranger would have passed on and remained unrecognized. … [But] it is the invitation that leads to the meal that leads to recognition. “Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight,” as 24:31 puts it. Resurrected life and risen vision appears as offered shelter and shared meal. Resurrection is not enough. You still need scripture and eucharist, tradition and table, community and justice; otherwise, divine presence remains unrecognized and human eyes remain unopened[1].

The bold emphasis is mine. Let me quote that portion again in pieces.

You still need scripture and eucharist. In other words, you still need the external Word and the semiotic element of internalizing that Word.

You still need tradition and table. Such a powerful combination right there. Tradition is the binding force of the community and the individual alike, but it is the table that not only is tradition shared, but tradition is challenged in an appropriate manner and even changed through the stable guidance of a shared meal, of a shared experience among those who are equals around the table.

You still need community and justice. I find these two individual pieces to be fascinating as presented. Community and justice as yet another layer of that divine presence. I might have phrased these in a bit different manner, but I think the point of community as larger aspect of justice is incredible. Look at the other two groupings. Scripture is the larger, more public or communal piece of that pairing. The eucharist is the individual or more personal aspect of what scripture symbolizes. Tradition, again, is the larger piece. The table, as a symbol, is the smaller aspect of that same piece. And so we see community as the larger piece here and justice as the subset, the individual piece. And justice, if it is to be a binding force, must be instilled on the individual level before it will function on the communal level.

In all of these pairings what we find is spirituality in action on both a macrocosmic and microcosmic scale of personal religion (scripture and eucharist), foundational and developmental culture (tradition and table), and communal society (community and justice). But it is not specifically the symbol, i.e., the resurrection, that is the key to either the resurrected life or the divine presence itself. It must be invited into the hearth and shared with a meal.

I started out by saying that I believe thelemic organizations, or many of them, had missed the boat. There are several reasons for this, but one of them is this lack of understanding as to the divine presence. We have people who have lost touch when both themselves and this presence of life itself by proclaiming naturalistic religion and psycho-babble as the same as this divinity within. They deny the scripture and the sacrament. By denying the scripture they betray the external symbol of our religion. By denying the sacrament they betray the internal symbol our of spirituality. These same people, whether they like to admit it or not, are influential in shaping our next generation.

But equally as dangerous is cultic tendencies of organizations to horde the Truth and betray both tradition and the table. By holding so closely to tradition they betray its living nature. By denying the table, they betray the nature of universal change, i.e., that inner sense of rebellion and questioning of authority that promotes healthy and positive evolution, that constantly shapes tradition for new and future generations.

The glue that has the potential of reconciling these two extremes is community and justice. And both extremes deny these and betray the nature of the social and individual in near equal measure.

It is important to realize that with any religious or spiritual path, the “resurrection is not enough”—whether literal or metaphorical. Just because there is an event does not mean that it is important without any follow through that comes later and puts that events both into perspective and into personal practice. Part of the push to see the HGA experience as something more than just an event but as a lifelong “conversation” process is precisely for this reason.

One can have the knowledge, i.e., the “resurrection,” but without the ongoing conversation. This last piece is not related to dialogue per se—though there is certainly some correlation—but actually comes from the Latin word conversātiō (which, ironically, is a feminine word in the Latin) which means a “way of live, conduct, or behavior.” It is more directly related to conversion and a monastic life than any kind of verbal discourse. The Conversation portion of the HGA experience is directly related to what Christians call “born again.” The problem is that they see it as a single point-event—much as Thelemites see the Knowledge portion of the HGA experience—and then it’s over. The conversion is a one-time deal[2].

But to know something, i.e., to have that “resurrection,” is not enough. One must go on to the conversation, to the conversion, that is a change in the way of life itself. And such an experience is not something that will go unnoticed. Nor, might I add, is it something that will only happen once in a lifetime. This is an ongoing evolution in one’s life. And it is through that evolution that we manifest these changes to the world. The real promulgation of the Law is through our lives living out both the scripture and the sacrament, the tradition and the table, and the community and the justice out in the real world to real people with real meaning.

Anything less is just lip service.

innervox

1. Crossan, John. The Birth of Christianity, 1998. xi. [↩]
2. Granted, depending on which sect of Christianity you pull out from under their rock this may be a bit different. [↩]

So my normal Sunday post didn’t really work for me. Here’s a quick replacement. I’ve been mulling over this for a while now. Tillich presents five presuppositions necessary for rejecting both the old and the new orthodoxy as provided, mainly, by Karl Barth.

First, one must say that revelatory experiences are universally human. Religions are based on something that is given to man wherever he lives. He is given a revelation, a particular mind of experience which always implies saving powers. One never can separate revelation and salvation. There are revealing and saving powers in all religions. God has not left himself unwitnessed. This is the first presupposition.

The second assumption states that revelation is received by man in terms of his finite human situation. Man is biologically, psychologically, and sociologically limited. Revelation is received under the conditions of man’s estrange character. It is received always in a distorted form, especially if religion is used as a means to an end and not as an end in itself.

There is a third presupposition that one must accept. When systematic theologians assume the significance of the history of religions, it involves the belief that there are not only particular revelatory experiences throughout human history, but that there is a revelatory process in which the limits of adaptation and the failures of distortion are subjected to criticism. Such criticism takes three forms: the mystical, the prophetic, and the secular.

A fourth assumption is that there may be—and I stress this, there may be—a central event in the history of religions which unites the positive results of those critical developments in the history of religion in and under which revelatory experiences are going on—an event which, therefore, makes possible a concrete theology that has universalistic significance.

There is also a fifth presupposition. The history of religions in its essential nature does not exist alongside the history of culture. The sacred does not lie beside the secular, but it is its depths. The sacred is the creative ground and at the same time a critical judgement of the secular. But the religious can be this only if it is at the same time a judgement on itself, a judgement which must use the secular as a tool of one’s own religious self-criticism.

Only if the theologian is willing to accept these five presuppositions can he seriously and fully affirm the significance of the history of religions for theology against those who reject such significance in the name of a new or of an old absolutism.

On the other hand, he who accepts the significance of this history of religion must stand against the no-God-language theology. He must reject also the exclusive emphasis on the secular or the idea that the sacred has, so to speak, been fully absorbed by the secular.

—The Significance Of The History Of Religions For The Systematic Theologian. Paul Tillich, 1965

Man has the right to live by his own law—

to live in the way that he wills to do:
to work as he will:
to play as he will:
to rest as he will:
to die when and how he will.

We covenant to affirm and promote the inherent worth and dignity of every person.
—First Principle of Unitarian Universalism

Before the Unitarian Universalist[1] was its own coalescing entity, they were separate religious strains (prior to 1961). Of course, it is often wondered what was the main difference then between the Unitarians and the Universalists? As the joke goes, the Universalists believed that God was too good to send anyone to hell, while the Unitarians believed that they were too good to be sent to hell.

As I explore UU a bit more closely, I find that I’m drawn to their seven principles. In dealing with the first principle, I was immediately struck by the word inherent. Inherency is a tricky subject at best, but it is vital to understanding both humanity and the religious notion on an individual and collective level. The short end of what could be a long and difficult argument is that in order for something to be inherent it must be a part of the essential nature of a thing.

Some dismiss essence as a fundamental aspect of humanity. I think there are some pretty good arguments there. But I also think it misses the point. But, in fact, most of the arguments for humanity or for humanism fall flat on their face without at least a subtle acknowledgement in some form of an inner essence or inner self that is from an outer self[2]. But, unlike some, I do not believe this inner self or essence is some kind of buffer against the knowledge (assumption?) of an apathetic universe. It is part and parcel of that universe which makes that universe, at the least, not so apathetic anymore.

I love this quote that I use all the time in relation to freedom, equality, and the human condition (and most especially in relation to politics when Gerald brings out his “All men are created equal” arguments):—

In the same way, when it is asserted that “all men are born equal,” of what “men” are we speaking? The statement is evidently untrue of all “outer men,” for we see that they are both physically and mentally differently endowed and that natural aptitudes have to be considered even in nominally egalitarian societies. A predication of equality is only absolutely true of all inner men; true of the men themselves, but not of their personalities.
—Coomaraswamy, The Bugbear of Democracy, Freedom and Equality, p. 151.

All human liberty is predicated on the equality of the essential nature of human beings. One can beat around the bush all they want about the ephemeral and unverifiable qualities of this nature, but the point remains that without some postulate of an essential nature, we are reduced to mere machines without independent thought or will to action. The reductive properties to the argument of biopsychosocial phenomenon to not properly address the logical conclusions of such an position. In fact, as Quinn points out:—

Without a higher worldview … the modern person has nothing to replace the notion of equality once it is shown to be fallacious. The modern therefore clings to it as an ideal, rationalizing that the overt differences between people are wholly explained by the differences in their early environment, genetic composition, or other such reductions.
—Quinn, The Only Tradition, p. 280.

It is through this higher worldview and the recognition of this essential nature that we find the principle of inherent worth and dignity of each person[3]. Ultimately, Thelema proclaims that “Every man and every woman is a star (AL 1.3).” The principles of inherent dignity have been mistaken for rabid individualism, but nonetheless there is a sense of integral union with the inner self that must manifest in the outer self. Once we recognize the inherent worth and dignity of ourselves we are capable of passing that onward or forward or outward through the recognition of the inherent worth and dignity of others.

One of the reasons I am drawn toward UUism is this particular principle. It resonates with me deeply.

I’ll leave off here with one final UU joke.

Three religious persons are discussing when life begins.
The Catholic said, “Life begins at the moment of conception.”
The Jew said, “Life begins at the moment of birth.”
The Unitarian Universalist said, “Life begins when the last child goes off to college and the dog dies.”

Oh yeah. That’s my kind of religion!

innervox

1. Granted, I’m not calling myself a UUer (yet), but I find that any religion that can laugh at themselves is a religion worth exploring. I can remember a day when Thelemites too laughed at ourselves. Anyone remember the Book of the In-Laws? How many religions actually have—and endorse—a parody of their own “Holy Book”? Regularly, even. There is something affirming both about the ability to laugh but in the lightness of spirit that comes from such laughter. [↩]
2. Indeed, Thelema also demands this distinction on the most fundamental level of existence. [↩]
3. It would appear that there is (or was) some controversy over this wording in that some felt that it should read “every being” rather than “each person.” I will not debate here the natures, different or alike, of humans beings and animal/plant/whatever being. I find it ultimately to be a waste of time. [↩]

Our first Sunday at church. It was definitely interesting.

Jinx tends to stick close to me in unfamiliar places and we decided that we would start out in the lobby for the first part of the service when the children are still a part of it all and haven’t separated out to their grade-appropriate classes. He wasn’t really sure he wanted to sit inside the main congregational area. That’s fine. That’s what the lobby is for anyway.

The Chalice Lighting was of especial interest to him. That alone might get us in the door next week. And it really was pretty cool for such a very minor detail with such great symbolic meaning. I was seriously affected by the chalice affirmation which I had never heard before:

Love is the doctrine of our church;
The quest for truth is its sacrament,
And service is its prayer.
To dwell together in peace,
To seek knowledge in freedom,
To serve humanity in harmony with the earth,
Thus do we covenant together.

Totally amazing. I’m not sure that I could find a more direct and profound affirmation of my perception of a clear and unambiguous thelemic religious path. It was just awesome.

As we sat to watch the presentation at the beginning of the service, Jinx popped up excitedly as a lady and four kids walked through the door. One of the little girls in his class at school is also an attendee at this church. Instantly he went from okay with doing all this and interested in if we would like it to “Dad; We’re coming here every Sunday, right?” Given that his friend sat in the main area and participated in the children’s part, I think that too will get us in the door next week.

At the appointed time, the children left to go to their respective rooms. I walked Jinx down to his and made some brief comments about who he was. The acquaintance that we’d made last weekend met us at the room to  make sure that we had been welcomed warmly. We had been already so it was quite nice to just let him go. He had already begun to settle within seconds of entering the room so I just let him be and returned to the main congregation.

The initial prayer started out with “Spirit of life and love” and ended with “enlighten our minds, strengthen our hearts, and comfort our bodies.” I could not have been more at home there.

Today’s sermon was entitled Heretics, Heathens, Agnostics, and Believers. During the Readings just before the Offertory, the Senior Minister and the Ministerial Intern took turns reading from a list of names. I was immediately transfixed in my seat when the first name was Joan of Arc followed by the likes of Dionysus, Rabelais, Pythagoras, Basilides, Valentinus, Paracelsus, Hypatia of Alexandria, Meister Eckert, Eliphas Levi, Mary Shelley, and Siddhartha. Those are just the names that I could get written down fast enough in some kind of shorthand I could decipher later. Many others I recognized. It was almost like a veritable list of Gnostic Saints that could have been perfect for the likes of Liber XV.

As both a heretic and a wannabe theologian I was completely amused by the comment during the sermon which quoted a Roman Catholic priest who said heresy was the only honest way to be a theologian. Not a direct quote but, again, it’s that shorthand notes thing. Sometimes I can’t even read it myself. But it’s close enough to the quote to be accurate. I loved it. I think I had a smile or some odd thought that brought a smile to my face the entire sermon.

Since church ended and we left, I have been seriously trying to figure out why we I have never taken the time to explore this route in the past. It’s boggling to me. I’m not sure the OTO/EGC or any other current group come this close to anything remotely thelemic in its message, presentation, or purpose.

Now: that all said, this was just one Sunday. Jinx had a great time in his class. I had a wonderful experience in the main service. And we have a deal to do four Sundays in a row and then discuss again if this is the right place for us. So far, so good. It feels right for a first time. But first times usually have that kind of afterglow to them when it’s all over. We’ll see how it goes once the novelty is worn off and it becomes a practice in discipline. Also, we’ll see how it goes if we decide to stay and become actively involved rather than merely Sunday morning attendees. There are incredible opportunities for Jinx from here until he’s out of high school (assuming we stay in the area and that’s no longer certain anymore). The youth group is currently in the middle of their fund raising for their trip to Boston. Not sure what they do there—I didn’t ask—but it sounds like there is certainly more going on for the kids than just morals and dogma.

So, we’ll be back there next Sunday.

I’ll finish up here with the Seven Point Covenant they promote. I think I’ll do the next seven Solemn Sunday posts on each one of these as I explore them myself. They are, in my opinion, some of the most directly thelemic statements that could undergird the foundation of a new movement toward a more healthy thelemic worldview even if a couple of them needed to be modified in wording a bit without removing the intent or tone. These are just great.

We … affirm and promote:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person,
• Justice, equity, and compassion in human relations,
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations,
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning,
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large,
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all,
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence, of which we are a part.

I say, Verily and Amen!

For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all. For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all! They feel little; what is, is balanced by weak joys; but ye are my chosen ones. (AL 1.29-31)

I once believed that I had many of the answers. Not all of them, mind you. Just many of them. They were as obvious as the nose on my face. As knowledge gives way to wisdom one of the more interesting results is how one approaches life in general.

Life runs in cycles. I’m not particularly interested through which cycle one chooses to examine their life, but I’m quite sure that any solid pattern could be used just fine. For me I find that the pattern of the Tarot is quite sufficient—and quite enlightening. But I think it is really blind to assume that life just goes and goes, unchanging or even randomly changing without the slightest hint of being able to see these patterns. They may truly, of course, be more akin to chaotic patterns in nature, but they are still patterns nonetheless.

Being able to see these patterns is not a gift. It’s an ability that can be learned and a framework that can be examined. Pick a door. Any door. Just pick one. You will be able to change your mind if you want later. The framework is unimportant so long as it is meaningful to you.

So where am I going with this? And especially in relation to "divided for love’s sake"?

Examining my own patterns I find an interesting trend of relationships that grows wider over time—and I don’t mean, necessarily, romantic or familial ties though those are included as well. That is to say, my relationships last longer and longer each time because they are built not only on the experiences of the previous ones but they are maturing over time. The youthful exuberance of flitting from bed to bed and from heart to heart is drawing to a close. It was fun. It was necessary for maturity. But it is nonetheless a part of a larger cycle that must eventually continue to spiral upward through evolution or it will continue to run in circles until it exhausts itself and dies from a lack of growth.

The verse says that we are "divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union." If union was not an option, then there would be no division in the first place. But we focus so much on the division, on the combination of opposites, that we fail to focus on the union or the result of that union. Yes, yes: I know—"delivered from the lust of results" and all that. We’re not talking about the "lust of results" but the results themselves. What is the result of union from division?

I think it is ironic that we see bloggers and forum posters all over the place that decry in some kind of mock amazement (or offer in some kind of mock enlightenment) that Thelema has many, many similarities and common themes of Christianity as well as the greater concept of religion in general. I’ve often been amazed and approached such "insights" with a sense of Duh! Union of opposites is not only not some kind of unique theme to Thelema or occultism as a whole but it is a part of all religions and all mystical experiences throughout time. What seems to be unique to Thelema is the focus on the temporal rather than merely the spiritual. It proclaims that the physical union is just as important as the spiritual union. This is one reason why the HGA event and communion cannot be merely a spiritual or initiatory experience. It must be a physical and rational experience as well.

But as I become older, and these cycles become wider, I find that I’m not as disturbed by this movement as I thought I would be when younger. I find just as knowledge evolves into wisdom so the more temporary, polyamorous movement from one passionate and fiery relationship to another that is abundant in youth evolves into a more monogamous and steadily burning commitment as age progresses. The peaks are less oxygen-depriving and the valleys are less monotonous. And I find that opposites don’t seem so opposing after all.

Unfortunately not everyone experiences this evolution into maturity. Mid-life crisis in men—something I apparently missed completely—could be attributed to this lack of maturity. The counterpart in women, a "cougar-ism" so to speak, also attributed to the same. I find both of these behavior issues to be distasteful and inane. Certainly, these fall under "weak joys."

Both physical and spiritual, external and internal, life is about movement toward union. I find myself at a loss to explain how I’ve missed this somehow.

Hoor hath a secret fourfold name: it is Do What Thou Wilt.
Four Words: Naught—One—Many—All.
Thou—Child!
Thy Name is holy.
Thy Kingdom is come.
Thy Will is done.
Here is the Bread.
Here is the Blood.
Bring us through Temptation!
Deliver us from Good and Evil!
That Mine as Thine be the Crown of the Kingdom, even now.
ABRAHADABRA.
These ten words are four, the Name of the One.

—The Book of Lies, Chapter 2

I think it is important to reiterate just how impermanent a metaphysics can be so that there is no misunderstanding as to the nature of our metaphysics in this discussion. It is important. This is true. But it needs to be recognized that metaphysics are, first, a dime a dozen. This may seem to cheapen them, but without at least some coherent metaphysics underlying one’s hierology the rest falls away unfounded.

I believe that Whitehead, in Process and Reality, actually puts this into perspective best. So I will allow him to make this point much more succinctly than myself.

Metaphysics is nothing but the description of the generalities which apply to all the details of practice.

Is the question of god important? Yes. But it is still little more than a generality that must be assumed in order to examine the details of a praxis coherently. Whitehead continues on, saying:

At the best such a [metaphysical] system will remain only an approximation to the general truths which are sought. In particular, there are no precisely stated axiomatic certainties from which to start. There is no even the language in which to frame them. The only possible procedure is to start from verbal expression which, when taken by themselves with the current meaning of their words, are ill-defined and ambiguous. These are premises to be immediately reasoned from apart from elucidation by further discussion; they are endeavours to state general principles which will be exemplified in the subsequent description of the facts of experience. This subsequent elaboration should elucidate the meanings to be assigned to the words and phrases employed. Such meanings are incapable of accurate apprehension apart from a correspondingly accurate apprehension of the metaphysical background which the universe provides for them. But no language can be anything but elliptical, requiring a leap of the imagination to understand its meaning in its relevance to immediate experience. The position of metaphysics in the development of culture cannot be understood without remembering that no verbal statement is the adequate expression of a proposition. (13, bold emphasis mine)

I’d like to stress Whitehead’s final sentence in which he states that we must keep in mind “that no verbal statement”—and the written word, such as in this blog, is merely verbal statements in print, so to speak—”is the adequate expression of a proposition.” We know that any metaphysics is going to be inadequate but yet a coherent metaphysics is necessary for our systematic approach to hierology. I’ve said this in the past, but I’ll reiterate it here again: just because language is inadequate to express certain concepts is no reason to not express certain concepts in the most adequate way possible. Assuming an unfathomable expression of god is no reason to suggest that fathomable expressions of god are improper. So long as the inadequacies are acknowledged, many different hurdles are laid to rest as stumbling blocks to discussion and progress.

The Metaphysical Presupposition

The metaphysical presupposition is probably one of the most difficult aspects of a thelemic worldview. There are those who we know are all too willing to accept some half-baked tales about inspired or dictated religious texts but are not willing to accept the existence of a god who did the inspiring or the dictating or need to devise elaborate psychological excuses to ease their faith. They mix and match their own metaphysical assumptions on top of a foundation that cannot hold water, metaphysical or otherwise. The end result is a lack of consistency or comprehension over the subject matter at all.

This assumes, of course, that we can ever come to an agreement on the existence and nature of god in the first place. But this is a vital piece of a thelemic worldview. It is a vicious but self-referential cycle the importance of which cannot be underestimated. For if we accept the veracity and validity of the Book of the Law, then we must assume some form of god in existence. If we accept some form of god in existence, then there is no obvert reason to dismiss the Book of the Law as a product of something intimately related to that god.

We should examine some terminology. I make absolutely no claims that this particular study is complete by any means. Should I take this further at a later point, I would add several more layers of discussion not only for the main bullet points but also for any direct conclusion I offered.

Theism and Deism

Theism is the belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. Deism, on the other hand, is the belief—based solely on reason—in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. I don’t think that a lot of deists see the “abandoned” part very much or take it too seriously. It’s more of an agnostic approach than a formal denial. Or at least such has been my minimal experience with professed deists thus far.

There isn’t a whole lot of difference between theism and deism. For the most part, theism is more faith based whereas deism is more reason based. I don’t think this necessarily holds out in practice very well, but I can at least accept the academic differences on paper. The end result is a difference in whether God takes a personal interest in the universe or just doesn’t bother with the personal touch.

The Law of Thelema would lean more toward a theistic approach over deism—assuming a strict definition. The revelation of the Book of the Law would lend a sense of a more than less personal interest of some form of divinity into the progress and development of mankind. It may not be quite to the extent of a personal relationship as some religions have with their god—e.g., Christianity with Christ—but it is an interest nonetheless that may be just enough to separate a pure deist perspective from a more moderate theist one.

Most pagans, like most Christians, proclaim a theistic devotion while practicing a deistic worldview. That is to say, God is great so long as God stays in his own playground and comes out only when called. The only substantial difference between pagans and Christians is the prefix poly- added to the former’s particular -ism or -ic of choice.

Atheism

It is not really any surprise that atheism—disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods—is specifically dismissed by the Law of Thelema. This does not take into consideration Crowley’s word play with the term atheist in his essay Gematria. I generally agree with his use there, but it does not make for consistency in thought. The only academic usefulness it possesses is the third type: “The philosophical adept, who, knowing God, says ‘There is No God,’ meaning ‘God is Zero,’ as qabalistically He is.” In this, it is not atheism by definition but atheism by acknowledgement of the incomprehensible. This kind of theism/atheism is beyond the scope of this investigation while still being acknowledged as a more specialized and enlightened perspective of divinity.

Pantheism

I have to immediately discard pantheism as intrinsic to a thelemic worldview for the simple reason that our Trinitarian (Hexatarian—Dual Trinitarian?) theogony is made up of interlaced forms and functions rather than independent gods and goddess. As simply as possible, though without any suggestion of completeness, Nuit is the infinitely infinite; Hadit is the infinitely finite; Ra-Hoor-Khuit is the intersection of those two extremes. This is, as I mentioned, extremely simplistic.

All through the Book of the Law there is both specific communication as well as general metaphysical constructions that indicate that these relationships between our “gods” are symbiotic and symbolic.

Panentheism

Does the universe take form and communicate? Probably. We have a multitude of evidence that would suggest this is true. However, we should separate how we approach divinity in the sense of the “All” and in the sense of our personal perceptions of the “All.” If we see the singular Nuit as the embodiment of this “All” then we are then defining her as fully transcendent and transrational while fully immanent and observable. This is as close to the proper definition of panentheism as it gets.

When approaching this perspective there is a type of dialectical monism that comes into play. I don’t want to compare it directly to panentheism, but certainly there is a common playground between them. I’m not convinced, personally speaking, that there is enough examination into this particular theory to draw conclusions quite yet. But I do think that it is worth the time to explore.

Conclusion

In the end, and at least online, I am not going to take a specific stand on this issue with any definitive notions. I will suggest that I think the Law of Thelema presents a panentheistic, a henotheistic, or even, by extension, a kathenotheistic worldview as most probable for its metaphysical presupposition. In each case there is a cognizant divinity that is capable of being expressed or manifested in different, individual ways while being transcendent and above reason itself.

The presupposition that will be used here is that the divine, by whatever name one wishes to label it, is both inherent (a bit deeper than merely “immanent”) and transcendent and, at the same time, embodies both the manifest and occult (ambiguous, concealed, hidden, obscure) reality by whatever perception one has of those concepts. Language may be (and it is) inadequate to describe the nature of god in either positive or negative terms to any proper satisfaction, but that should not inhibit us from communicating our observations either way. We cannot say that god is a certain way but we can say that we perceive god is or is not a certain way or to have or to not have certain traits.

This stance may be labeled by some as panentheistic. There are those who are familiar with such theology who would disagree. But if we need a term immediately to satisfy our legalistic need for definitions, panentheistic might as well be as good as any other for the moment.

The Prolegomena is the actual beginning of the preconditions that we need to set out in discussing a thelemic worldview. It is here that we determine several different pylons on which we will build up our worldview from scratch. These range from the metaphysical to the revelational to the hermeneutical to the methodological and on to other presuppositions that need to be addressed and understood for any thelemic worldview to be comprehensive and, ultimately, to be comprehendible.

So here we go—

The Law of Thelema presupposes* that there is a spiritual holarchy to which individuals relate in a variety of individual perspectives (metaphysical presupposition) and from which intervention is possible that may be perceived by some as miraculous (preternatural presupposition) and also from which the revelation of the nature of the universe is found in a general and special revelation (revelational presupposition); this revelation has a relationship with reason while being capable of transrational experiences (rational-experiential presupposition), contains objective and meaningful statements (semantical presupposition) which are true on several different levels (epistemological presupposition) and can be understood through analogous language (linguistic presupposition) which then may be systematized through a comprehensive hierological method (methodological presupposition).

That’s the basics. Or at least my working draft of the basics. I haven’t worked out each one precisely yet, but I’m getting there. I may also end up changing at least one but also adding two more. I haven’t finished those studies yet so I’m not sure if they particularly hold water as necessary for a systematic approach. Being challenged to explain a thelemic worldview can be a daunting task but it is an incredible adventure. Some of my terms and conclusions may change a bit as I work through each of these. But that’s okay. That is one reason why we do studies like this.

*Those who are familiar with Norman Geisler’s incredible four volume Systematic Theology will certainly recognize the outline of presuppositions. While not a precise one-to-one match, but giving credit where credit is due, my own approach is heavily influenced by his work due to its clear and concise manner of writing and outlining the key topics and points needed to support his approach. I believe we have a lot to learn from those religions around us and should be mindful of both the approaches that work and those that don’t. “Test all things—hold on to that which is good no matter its origin.”

The second precondition is really more of a sideline. This is not to say it is unimportant, but it really isn’t a precondition as much as it is a scaffolding that is necessary to form the parameters in which good exegesis and study can occur. I probably should have started out the last precondition and this one with a label of pre-precondition since they really undergird this whole discussion. But, alas, what is is what is. This is a blog, not a graduate thesis. Get over it already.

All of life is a hermeneutic process. Every time you see a red light and stop your car while waiting for it to turn green is a process that involves hermeneutics. Reading Dostoevsky or Tolstoy or Rand or Crowley or Dr. Suess is all about hermeneutics. The manner in which we approach the interpretation of various things with which we interact is what hermeneutics is all about. We would not read Green Eggs & Ham with the same perspective or approach as we that with which we would read Paradise Lost. It would be silly at best. But the point here is that we cannot escape “doing” hermeneutics or going through a process of hermeneutics. So it comes down to what is the best approach.

Spoken or unspoken, written or unwritten, there are rules by which one tackles a given subject. When it comes to things like textual criticism or theology, many times those rules are understood to keep us within a certain frame of mind as well as open up doors that might otherwise be overlooked by too narrow of an approach.

One of the first things I wrote for the Society for Thelemic Literature was the (Proposed) Rule Concerning Thelemic Hermeneutics. It ran something like this:

• Rule One: Each Scripture must be understood within, though not limited to, a grammatical, historical, mythological, prophetic, qaballistic, religious, and social context.
• Rule Two: Personal integrity, intellectual honesty, common sense and a quality of rational inspiration are required in order to analyze and discriminate between a principle of truth and a dogma of convenience.
• Rule Three: The principle underlying each Scripture or statement of counsel or instruction must be recognized in order to understand its relevance for those in different times or places including our contemporary era.
• Rule Four: Two Scriptures that seem to contradict each other by appearances must wait until a third Scripture arrives and resolves their apparent contradiction.
• Rule Five: Spiritual application must overcome historical accuracy as interpretation may involve multiple layers of meaning and must take into account mystical and qaballistic modes inherent in the text.
• Rule Six: Careful consideration must be given to the production of an exegesis that it does not devolve into a personal verse-by-verse commentary that is presented as a matter of truth.
• Rule Seven: Though the potential for contradicting themselves exists in the written word, we must allow for the maturing experience of authors and exegetes—even prophets—in that truth is unfolded to them only as fast as they are able to understand it.
• Rule Eight: Recognize progressive revelation through spiritual maturity, appreciate that all truth is revealed over time and meditation, and understand that any process of hermeneutics will necessarily be as incomplete as it is personal

The Rule is flexible and, of course, merely a proposal. It is not meant to limit discussion but to ensure a complete and yet functional set of parameters by which exegesis can occur. It also prohibits merely random free-for-alls that have little meaning in the first place. Serious study is the goal rather than merely an accident. This Rule also recognizes the importance of the personal and individual nature of the Law of Thelema while ensuring the door remains wide open for more social interpretations.

Also, I will be the first to admit that the Rule was written in response to the “anything goes” crowd who believe that Thelema can mean anything at all no matter how silly or how obviously erroneous a conclusion may be. Unlike some who believe that Thelema means something different for every single individual, I side with Umberto Eco on this when he wrote, “I accept the statement that a text can have many senses. I refuse the statement that a text can have every sense.” Dog can mean many different things. It can mean a Labrador Retriever, a Pug, a Border Collie, a German Shepherd, ad nauseam. But dog cannot mean cat. And it is for this simple reason that the Rule was designed. It is the buffer to maintain a sense of responsible exegesis against those who feel the need to insist that dogs are cats and Cthulhu really does, physically, slumber in the depths of the Pacific.

As previously mentioned—and let me be equally as clear again here—I find this to be a most ridiculous place to start a discussion on the makeup of a thelemic worldview, but the nature of the beast—no pun intended—seems to suggest that we must start out here in order to eliminate the most obvious issues and objections first.

Therefore …

The first precondition of a thelemic worldview is that it must, without any exceptions or qualifications, accept the veracity and validity of Liber AL vel Legis, the Book of the Law.

Nothing else added to that statement. It is my opinion that the rest falls into place once that precondition is affirmed, but there is nothing that must be added to that foundation in order for it to be a necessary cornerstone for a proper and balanced thelemic worldview.

The Book of the Law is self-referential. When asked by the Prophet and Scribe “write unto us the law” (AL 1.33), the immediate response was given: “the Law is for all” (AL 1.34). And then, finally, the clear identification of the Law itself. “This that thou writest is the threefold book of Law” (AL 1.35). The Book of the Law stands as the centerpiece of the Law of Thelema.

If there is one nice thing about Liber AL it is that we have the actual manuscript itself. I realize the other challenges that go with that but those are not the subject here. An extended review of this entire subject would be necessary and if I was going to do that, I’d write a book on the topic. (Wait. I am writing a book on the topic. My bad.) But since we do have the manuscript and it is in English, we don’t really have a whole lot to worry about. Right? Right!? Okay. Admittedly there are other issues to worry about, but translation from one language to another and to another and back again is just not one of those worries. It could be worse. It could be all sigils like Liber Arcanorvm των Atu του Tahuti Quas Vidit Asar in Amennti. Good luck to you there.

There are other holy books included in the thelemic protocanon. All but one are penned by the Prophet himself. They range from oddly prophetic to instructional to inspirational in nature.

What does this precondition mean by no exceptions or qualifications? I’m not a fan of O.T.O. doctrines, but I do believe that they provide a very minimal and workable perspective on this subject allowing for the widest possible interpretation without eliminating any rational basis for moving past it. In order to join the Order, one must agree to accept the Book of the Law without changes. There is no actual qualification of what “accept … without changes” means outside the affirmation that one accepts the Book of the Law without the need to add or subtract to the text itself. This is a very literal approach, but I see nothing that would prohibit such a notion from being a very minimal ideal. It make no claims as to how one accepts without change. That could be a very broad agnosticism or, just as easily, a fanatical blind adherence.

But further than this, there is the injunction within the Book of the Law itself that demands no changes. Twice it ensures its own textual integrity: “[The scribe] shall not in one letter change this book” (AL 1.36) and “The stops as thou wilt; the letters? change them not in style or value!” (AL 2.54).

Having made it this far, I think that the objections based on history and language are sufficient to afford a pause to examine them here even if only briefly.

One of the objections to the Book of the Law is that Thelema (or Θελημα, to be proper) predates the text itself. And so it does.

The Ghost of Rabelais

Some will suggest that this is the same as Rabelais’ “Abbey of Theleme” from Gargantua and Pantagruel that mirrors a phrase that has been variously interpreted as “Do what thou wilt” and “Do what you want.” There is certainly no dispute that there is a direct link between Rabelais and the central tenet of the Law of Thelema. But to suggest that it is relevant is about as helpful as indicating DaVinci drew sketches of airplane-like objects centuries before the invention of the airplane and should be, somehow, ultimately credited with our ability to fly from New York to Beijing. However, that said, we should fully admit that Rabelais was probably tapping into some emerging sense of Thelema even then.

But was it the Law of Thelema? No.

Backing it Back to Augustine

Augustine provided us with the protothelemic understanding of “Love and do what you will.” I sincerely doubt that anyone would mistake Augustine for a Thelemite. We should fully admit that Augustine was probably tapping into some emerging sense of Thelema even then.

But was it the Law of Thelema? No.

I think it is important to dive into a small tangent here if only to make Gerald a happy man.

Augustine, a couple of hundred years after the death of Christ, was not merely tapping into some kind of protothelemic ideal. It is my opinion that he was tapping into a particular “golden thread,” so to speak, that exists unchanging but reframed throughout each of the Aeons. Call it the actual source of the covenantal aspects of the Law and the Aeons that I’ve been hinting around.

With the Law of Thelema it is the doctrine of “Love is the law, love under will” (AL 1.57). It is from here that we take our first steps out of the old Aeon and into the new. So, for us, Thelema has reframed Christianity’s “for God so loved the world” (Joh 3.16 ESV) as much as Christianity reframed Judaism’s “Love your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself” (cf. Deu 6.5, Lev 19.18).

And Speaking of the Devil

Jesus’ speeches and prayers were some of the first recorded uses of the Greek Θελημα in the New Testament. Probably the most famous and quoted is Christ’s Model Prayer in which he says, “ελθετω η βασιλεια σου γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω και επι της γης”—”Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Mat 6.10 ESV). The word Θελημα is used sixty times in the New Testament. And in every case it is used within a very narrow parameter of meaning.

But does mere word use make it the Law of Thelema? No.

Allow me to clarify a little something based on the perceptions of the Prophet: Crowley believed that the teachings of Christ was Thelema, but ended up in a twisted state by the disciples of Christ and packaged as Christianity instead. Personally, I’m not buying that, but I do understand why he would make such a claim. I just don’t think it holds water very well. Whatever Crowley may have assumed about the teachings of Christ, they do not properly fall within the realm of thelemic doctrine. His teachings undergirds the Law of Thelema just fine and as much as the law of Moses (still) undergirds Christian doctrine. I find no contradiction or problem with this at all. It is just not a very popular opinion in those circles where open rebellion against Christianity (or any form of organized religion) is practiced. The desire to be seen as juvenile antinomians over balanced spiritual seekers displaces reason and the pragmatic pursuit of truth with untenable subjectivism and arrogance. My response to such people is: get over it already.

So, to recap here:

The first precondition of a thelemic worldview is that it must, without any exceptions or qualifications, accept the veracity and validity of Liber AL vel Legis, the Book of the Law.

Without the Book of the Law, there is no Thelema. There are many, many things that Thelema currently enjoys that could be eliminated without destroying the baseline of wh

at defines Thelema, but the Book of the Law is not one of those things. It is a vital part of the foundation of Thelema itself. The Prophet wrote, “Accept the Law, and everything is lawful. Refuse the Law, you put yourself beyond its pale” (Liber ABA, Part IV, Chapter VIII).

This is, of course, the barest of examinations. It does no justice to the topic at hand nor to the subject of the Book of the Law itself. But for an online review, it should suffice for the moment as a baseline for further conversation and study.