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. [↩]