Tag Archives: gnostic

Gnosticism and Nature

Posted on by
Reply

How should the spiritual person look upon nature? Is it a manifestation of the divine, full of numinous energy, in which everything is a marvelous, harmonious whole? Or is it nature red of tooth and sharp of claw, where life is painful, brutish and short, and where death and entropy eventually destroy everything?

In general, Gnosticism has been accused of having the second approach. After all, most Gnostics believe the world was created by a “demiurge” – an evil or incompetent creator whose domain must be transcended by the children of light. In seeming contrast to this are the pagans, who find the highest divinity in the natural world and the forces that animate it.

One of my initial objections to Gnosticism was this reputation of animosity for the material world. After all, most of us have had experiences of “nature mysticism”. We have felt numinous, almost religious awe at a starry sky, or the perfection of a flower, or the miracle of the human body. Small wonder the pagans find their connection to the divine in nature.

On the other hand, there are parts of nature that aren’t quite so “nice”, at least when judged from a human perspective. Are parasites and viruses really part of the greater good? What about bizarre genetic mutations or terminal cancer? What about the tremendous amount of death that is fundamental to natural selection – the thousands who must die so that the “fit” can survive to improve the species? Perhaps we can rationalize and come to terms with this on an intellectual level. But try to feel that way when watching a pack of predators tear apart a baby animal screaming for its mother. Try it when looking at an infant born with harlequin baby syndrome – a grotesque and fatal genetic defect that will slowly strangle the baby to death in its own hardening skin. And try to reconcile an uplifting view of nature with the overriding cosmic principle of entropy – which tells us that the entire universe is doomed to slowly wind down into a lifeless darkness of absolute cold.

So there we have the facts. Nature is cruel and depressing, yet nature seems to have divinity peeking through it. William Blake sensed this dichotomy in a pair of his poems. In the Songs of Innocence he praises the lamb, who is a picture of the peaceful kingdom of God, and seems to echo the goodness of his Creator:

Little Lamb, who made thee?

Dost thou know who made thee?

Gave thee life, & bid thee feed

By the stream & o’er the mead;

Gave thee clothing of delight;

Softest clothing, wooly, bright;

Gave thee such a tender voice,

Making all the vales rejoice?

Little Lamb, who made thee?

Dost thou know who made thee?

 

Little Lamb, I’ll tell thee,

Little Lamb, I’ll tell thee:

He is called by thy name,

For he calls himself a Lamb.

He is meek, & he is mild;

He became a little child.

I a child, & thou a lamb,

We are called by his name.

Little Lamb, God bless thee!

Little Lamb, God bless thee!

(From the Songs of Innocence – William Blake)

But then he seems to re-think the situation in a later poem:

Tiger, Tiger, burning bright

In the forest of the night,

What immortal hand or eye

Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies

Burnt the fire of thine eyes?

On what wings dare he aspire?

What the hand dare seize the fire?

And what shoulder and what art

Could twist the sinews of thy heart?

And, when thy heart began to beat,

What dread hand and what dread feet?

What the hammer? What the chain?

In what furnace was thy brain?

What the anvil? What dread grasp

Dare its deadly terrors clasp?

When the stars threw down their spears,

And water’d heaven with their tears,

Did He smile His work to see?

Did He who made the lamb make thee?

Tiger, Tiger, burning bright

In the forests of the night,

What immortal hand or eye

Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

There are certainly plenty of forms of life abounding on the planet that strain our belief that any sense of beauty resembling our own had anything to do with their creation. (Have a loot at some of the candidates at http://listverse.com/nature/top-10-ugliest-creatures/ )

So which is it? Is this, as the pagans would prefer, a wonderful and harmonious world of natural beauty and balance? A place of infinite natural wisdom through which we can reconnect to a golden age of enlightenment? Or is it a black-iron prison of pain and fear and death from which our only hope is a quick escape?

Perhaps it is both.

Woven into some of the Gnostic myths, particularly the Valentinian, is the idea that the purpose of the higher God is not simply to redeem the divine sparks that are trapped in evil matter – but to transform the world of matter and make it a place where the spirit is supreme.

Paul seems to allude to this in one of his more Gnostic verses:

For the creation waits with eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to vanity, not of its own will, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of decay into the liberty of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. Not only so, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption, the redemption of our body.

(Rom 8:19-23 WEB)

The Gospel of Thomas, a document with early gnosic elements, seems to say the same thing in verse 113:

His Disciples say to him: When will the Sovereignty come? || (Yeshúa says:) It shall not come by expectation. They will not say: Behold here! or: Behold there! But the Sovereignty of the Father is spread upon the earth, and humans do not perceive it.

Perhaps, then, the beauty and numinous energy that we seem to feel from nature isn’t something native to it. Perhaps what we feel is the kingdom of heaven which is the higher God’s power beginning to infiltrate and transform the earth in a tremendous act of transubstantiation. Perhaps, when we feel the harmony of nature, what we are sensing is not the material world AS IT IS, but rather how Spirit INTENDS it to be.

“Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

This is, in effect, the Bodhisattva version of Gnosticism. We may recognize the corrupt elements of the material world as evil. But we are committed to raising the vibration of the material world and all the divine sparks in it.

So What is a Christian

Posted on by
Reply

It gets harder every day to explain my spirituality to others. I am a follower of the Master Jesus, and an independent priest. But am I a Christian? Many would say no, because I have unorthodox beliefs.

C. S. Lewis argued, in Mere Christianity, that “Christian” should mean someone who claims to hold to the “Christian doctrine”. He was arguing against those who prefer to use “Christian” as a word meaning someone who is loving and charitable. Lewis would prefer us to say of a baptized scoundrel, “he’s a bad Christian” rather than “he’s not a Christian”.

But what, exactly, constitutes “Christian doctrine?” At one time, we could identify the earliest Christian creeds and doctrines and insist that a Christian must claim to believe them. But with the emergence of early Christian writings such as the Nag Hammadi texts, our view of what early Christianity looked like is changing. Early Christians were a much more diverse bunch than originally thought. From the very beginning, there existed apostolic groups with radically different notions of what Jesus message was.

I would tend to call myself a “gnostic” Christian, but this is misleading also. No Christian group actually called itself “gnostic”. This was a catch-all phrase for several groups that differed considerably with each other. There are a few common features of “gnosticism”, such as the emphasis on individual enlightenment, that are appealing. Then on the other hand are the strange cosmologies and a very negative attitude toward the material world.

“Mystical Christian”, “Esoteric Christian”, and “Hermetic Christian” are also possibilities, but seem to conjure up strange images in the modern mind.

So, what do you think is the best self-label for an “inner” Christian in the modern world?

The Mystic and the Esoteric

Posted on by
10

I had mentioned in one of my posts earlier the categories “mystic” and “esoteric”, and that there is a distinct difference between them. I ran into this distinction in a really excellent book by Richard Smoley titled “Inner Christianity“. Since the distinction is his I’d best let him clarify it:

Esotericism is characterized by an interest in these different levels of consciousness and being. Mysticism is not quite so concerned with these intermediate states; it focuses on reaching God in the most direct and immediate way. The mystic wants to reach his destination as quickly as possible; the esotericist wants to learn something about the landscape on the way. Moreover, mysticism tends more toward passivity: a quiet “waiting upon God” rather than active investigation.

I had mentioned that Eckhart Tolle, for example, is a mystic, whereas I think Ken Wilber is more of an esotericist. Myself, I’ve wandered back and forth as the mood strikes me. This distinction is similar to Ken Wilber’s distinction of “ascending” vs. “descending” spiritual currents. The “ascenders” focus on finding God in the absolute, infinite unity of being. They often disdain the physical manifestations. This group includes such folks as most gnostics, particularly Manicheans. Also in this category would be the Christian contemplatives and practitioners of Raja yoga.

The “descenders” on the other hand, celebrate God in the infinite variety of physical manifestation. Most forms of wicca, paganism and shamanism fall into this category, along with tantric yoga and “social” Christianity. The descenders often seem somewhat unconcerned with higher reality as a goal.

Both currents of spirituality are important, because God exist equally as the infinite one, and as the infinite many. Perhaps this makes esotericism a sort of compromise, because it seeks the divine unity while making plenty of interesting tours of the infinite many on the way up.

What can be frustrating about esotericism is that the “facts” of the esoteric tend to vary somewhat from teacher to teacher and from school to school. One of my favorite topics, for example, is angeology. But although nearly every religion and every esoteric school agrees that there ARE angels, and that they are important – none agree about exactly what they are, what their nature is, or their names, activities and heirarchy.

The trick seems to be to pick a system and stick with it, while realizing that all esoteric systems are somewhat arbitrary – vehicles for focusing the efforts of the student as he or she progresses on the spiritual path.

How about you? Are you a mystic or an esoteric?

About the Church of the Holy Archangels

Reply

The Church of the Holy Archangels is an independent ministry in the process of affiliation with the Home Temple under the jurisdiction of Bishop Lewis Keizer.

In form we are part of the Independent Catholic movement, with lines of authority from most if not all of the surviving branches of apostolic succession. We administer the sacraments to any who wish to receive them, without membership or doctrinal requirements and without charge.

We have no fixed body of dogma, but reverence the Master Jesus. We believe his gift to us consisted primarily in spiritual power and transformation, rather than a set of statements of belief.

Our understanding of the spiritual world is not bound by any one tradition, but is influenced by many traditions, including orthodox Christianity, Gnosticism, Vedantism and other Eastern philosophies, and the teaching of various Esoteric Schools.

About the Apostolic Priesthood

Reply

The apostles of Jesus and their successors who left Jerusalem established independent lines of priesthood. It was not only Peter who passed on his authority. Mark established an independent apostolic branch in Egypt. Bartholomew and Thaddeus in Armenia, Thomas in India, etc. These apostolic branches all passed on the same authority and sacraments, but had different rites and even different “takes” on the teachings of Jesus. Eventually, the Roman Rite assumed (using the political power of Rome) jurisdiction over most Western branches of the Church. But elsewhere other branches survived, and as time went on various branches split off from Rome, while still retaining bishops and sacraments.

It’s important to understand that in the western tradition, anytime a validly consecrated bishop lays his hands on someone, with the intent to consecrate another person bishop (or priest or deacon) that person is a “VALIDLY ORDAINED” bishop (or priest or deacon). It doesn’t matter if the bishop had the Pope’s permission. It doesn’t matter if the bishop doing the ordaining is a heretic. As long as a valid bishop lays on hands and intends to ordain, the ordination is valid.

The ordination may NOT, however, be “LICIT” in the eyes of one or another Catholic jurisdictions. An “illicit” ordination means that the bishop did not have permission from his presiding bishop or patriarch, and this may make him – in the eyes of his presiding bishop or patriarch, a “bad boy”. He and the people he ordains may not be welcome in that Catholic jurisdiction. However the ordinations are still valid. The sacraments performed still carry the same spiritual authority.

Over the years, various bishops have ordained other bishops outside of the authority of their jurisdictions. One of the primary lines of succession for independent Catholics is through the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. Their story is a bit complicated, but I’ll try to give it in brief (in oversimplified format) [for the complete story, you might start at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Catholic_Church]

Beginning about 1552, The Archbishops of the Netherlands were granted by two Popes and a Council two very important perpetual (irrevocable) privileges:

1. The right to appoint their own successors.
2. The right to never be tried by any Roman Catholic tribunal.

This established the Catholic Church in the Netherlands as an autonomous jurisdiction, out of the direct control of Rome. During the upheavals of the Protestant Reformation, when the Bishop of the Netherlands was thought to be too kind toward Protestants and heretics, the Pope attempted to revoke these irrevocable privileges and remove the Archbishop. He refused. Although the Pope appointed his own new Archbishop, most of the Dutch Catholics remained loyal to the Old Archbishop and the “Old Catholic Church” that formed around him.

During the time of the First Vatican Council, many of the German and other European bishops who opposed the dogma of Papal infallibility but wanting to remain Catholic, decided to move into the jurisdiction of the Old Catholic Church. Since then, it has been a “home” for many diverse groups who want to preserve apostolic authority and the sacraments, but do not accept some or all of the dogmas or practices of Roman Catholicism. Bishop Keizer of the Home Temple, for example, ordains women to the priesthood and episcopate, and his jurisdiction does not enforce any dogmatic formula at all.

A very diverse “Independent Catholic” movement grew out of this – and there has been an effort to collect and preserve all the different apostolic lines of authority in the independent movement.

The Home Temple for example has lines of authority from various bishops of the Antiochian, Roman, Armenian Uniate, Syro-Chaldean, Anglican/Celtic, American Greek Melchite, Orthodox Patriarchate, Russian Orthodox, Non Juring Bishops of Scotland, Syrian-Malabar, Syrian-Gallican, Coptic, Coptic Uniate, Anglican/Non-Celtic,Irish, Welsh, Mariavite, Old Greek Melchite (Byzantine), Old Armenian, Corporate Reunion, Liberal Catholic, Templar and Gnostic lines of apostolic succession. The Independent Catholic movement has been consolidating and unifying the different apostolic lines of succession for many years.

Independent priests (such as myself) are VALIDLY ordained in the catholic apostolic succession. A Roman Catholic for example, could come to me for the sacraments, particularly in an emergency and be assured that they were valid. Whether they would want to regularly receive the sacraments from a priest who disagreed with Roman Catholic dogma would be a matter for their conscience. Unlike Roman Catholicism, which restricts the sacraments to Roman Catholics in good standing, the Home Temple priests offer the sacraments to whoever sincerely wishes them, even non-Christians.

Anti-Intellectualism

Posted on by
Reply

The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. “You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that.” – Frank Zappa

Zappa, of course, wasn’t the first to find God’s behavior in Genesis 2 absurd. Shortly after Jesus, the Christian Gnostics read the Genesis account and saw something entirely different than what the orthodox saw. To them, it was obvious that the God of Genesis 2 was a bully – ignorant if not downright malevolent. To them, it was basically this “God” of Genesis 2 who was the REAL devil, and the serpent was sent from the true God to deliver Adam and Eve from Ignorance. The Gnostic “Testimony of Truth” put it in words Zappa would probably have approved of:

“But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said “Adam, where are you?” God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, “Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever.” Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger!”

But other mystical interpretations of Genesis pick up on additional subtleties. It is not simply wisdom that the fatal tree gives Adam and Eve – it is dualistic knowledge – categorical knowledge. Good vs. Evil. Light vs. Dark. Ultimately – myself vs. everything NOT myself. In other words, the developed Ego. The story in Genesis is basically the story of humanity rising above animal awareness and developing self-consciousness; a story repeated in the psychological development of every subsequent human being. Thorough the ego, humanity not only becomes aware of good and evil, but also life and death. We come to understand, anticipate… and dread our own mortality.

This is our “fall”. But it is a fall UPWARDS. The Ego is our only vehicle upwards toward transcendence, but it also can become our prison.

And so, in one important sense, the intellectual, categorical, dualistic mind IS an obstacle. Not because it allows us to question dogma or doubt doctrine, but because it isolates us from the rest of the universe in a prison of concepts, tortured by the suffering of remembered or anticipated pain and death and annihilation. The ego is our hell, and our only salvation is that the ego is temporary. To live forever in our present state would indeed be a grim fate.

Every mystical tradition recognizes that the intellectual mind is an obstacle to be overcome in the spiritual path. Zen masters give their disciples torturous, insoluble mental puzzles (koans) to trick the mind into exhausting itself. Yogis practice for years to quiet the noise of the mind. In Christianity, “contemplative prayer” involves a long discipline of focusing the mind on divine emptiness.

John Wren-Lewis, an atheist mystic, describes his experience of awakening from the conceptual world into emptiness:
“Now all the judgments of goodness or badness which the human mind necessarily has to make in its activities along the line of time were contextualized in the perspective of that other dimension I can only call eternity, which loves all the productions of time regardless.”

About The Church of the Holy Archangels

Posted on by
Reply

The Church of the Holy Archangels is an independent ministry in the process of affiliation with the Home Temple under the jurisdiction of Bishop Lewis Keizer. 

In form we are part of the Independent Catholic movement, with lines of authority from most if not all of the surviving branches of apostolic succession. We administer the sacraments to any who wish to receive them, without membership or doctrinal requirements and without charge.

We have no fixed body of dogma, but reverence the Master Jesus. We believe his gift to us consisted primarily in spiritual power and transformation, rather than a set of statements of belief.

Our understanding of the spiritual world is not bound by any one tradition, but is influenced by many traditions, including orthodox Christianity, Gnosticism, Vedantism and other Eastern philosophies, and the teaching of various Esoteric Schools.

The Life and Times of Satan

Posted on by
1

In the collection of sources that went into the Bible, there were several different perspectives regarding Satan and the role of evil in the world. In fact, the book of Job is an all-out argument right in the pages of scripture between several of these competing views. Israel was in a unique position to experience and ponder the problem of evil because they lived in a land that was a crossroads between Egypt on one side and Asia and Mesopotamia on the other. During much of their history they were constantly conquered or invaded by one ambitious empire after another.

Before this period, God’s attitude toward Abraham and his descendents is one of unqualified benevolence:

Now Yahweh said to Abram, Get out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your fathers house, to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation. I will bless you and make your name great. You will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you. All of the families of the earth will be blessed in you. (Genesis 12:1-3 WEB)

God continues to bless Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in spite of their personal failings and problems.

The “Prophetic” View

As Israel began to experience repeated conquests by their neighbors, a religious question arose. If God promised to bless Israel and give them their land as a possession forever (see Gen 13:15), why were they often conquered and subjugated by their neighbors? The answer that developed has been called the “Prophetic” view of good and evil. God blesses Israel when they obey him, but he is prepared to punish them when they do NOT obey him.

Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you shall listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God, which I command you this day; and the curse, if you shall not listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which you have not known. (Deuteronomy 11:26-28 WEB)

Remember that Deuteronomy was written long after the fact. The Deuteronomist (possibly Jeremiah) was looking back at Israel’s history from the perspective of repeated periods of suffering. Also notice that the blessings and curses are entirely physical, in there here-and-now. For example:

“I command you this day to love Yahweh your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, that you may live and multiply, and that Yahweh your God may bless you in the land where you go in to possess it.” (Deuteronomy 30:16 WEB)

The reward for obedience to God was not heavenly happiness. It was life, possessions, and posterity. Physical prosperity and happiness was the sign of God’s favor. Physical misfortune was the sign of God’s displeasure.

Also at this time, the concept of “Satan” began to occur in scripture. We are used to thinking of the serpent in the garden of Eden as the first appearance of Satan, but this is a later association. In the primitive original story, the serpent is only a serpent. “Satan” originally meant simply “adversary”. For example, in 1 Samuel 29:4, The Philistines are worried that if they take David into battle with them against Israel (David is serving the Philistines at that time) he will turn on them in battle and become a “satan” (an adversary).

God sends angels as “satans” to either oppose or test various individuals. In Numbers 22, for example, God sends an angel as a “satan” against Balaam, to prevent him from cursing Israel.

Gods anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Yahweh placed himself in the way for an adversary [Hebrew = “satan”] against him. Now he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. (Numbers 22:22 WEB)

In one case, God himself acts as the “satan”. We read:

Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1 WEB)

But in a parallel version of the text, we read:

Again the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1 WEB)

Was it Satan, or Yahweh, who moved David to number Israel? It was God, acting as an adversary (satan) against David. He was, in other words, testing David.

Satan as God’s Prosecutor.

By the time the book of Job is written, the view is beginning to shift again. There have been various religious reforms in Judah and Israel, and even during periods of religious righteousness, the people continue to suffer from invading armies on several sides. Physical misfortunes don’t seem to be confined only to the wicked. The good suffer also. The book of Job addresses this issue.

Job, whom we are told is an entirely righteous man, suffers horrible calamities. He looses his children, his livestock, his health. His friends, echoing the prophets and the book of Deuteronomy, insist that if Job is suffering, he must have done something to anger God.

Is it for your piety that he reproves you, that he enters with you into judgment?
Isnt your wickedness great? Neither is there any end to your iniquities. (Job 22:4-5 WEB)

What Job’s friends don’t know, of course, is that Job is suffering at the hand of “Satan”. Instead of being just an occasional role filled by whatever angel is convenient, however, the role of “Satan” now seems to be a full-time position. Satan is seen as the chief prosecutor of the court of heaven. He is still an honored member of the “sons of God”, the highest angels. But his role is now to seek out unrighteousness and bring it to God’s attention for punishment, and to test even the righteous with trials.

Now it happened on the day when God’s sons came to present themselves before Yahweh, that Satan also came among them. Yahweh said to Satan, Where have you come from? Then Satan answered Yahweh, and said, From going back and forth in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. Yahweh said to Satan, Have you considered my servant, Job? For there is none like him in the earth, a blameless and an upright man, one who fears God, and turns away from evil. Then Satan answered Yahweh, and said, Does Job fear God for nothing? Haven’t you made a hedge around him, and around his house, and around all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will renounce you to your face. Yahweh said to Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power. Only on himself don’t put forth your hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of Yahweh.
(Job 1:6-12 WEB)

We see here the beginnings of what will come to be called the “Apocalyptic” worldview. The good can expect to suffer in this life as a test of their faith. God will eventually make things right. In Job God shows up personally in the last chapter in a “personal” apocalypse, and makes everything right. But Job also begins to hint at the fact that not everything may end up justly resolved in this life. The unwarranted suffering of the righteous may require rewards AFTER this life.

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: (Job 19:25-26 KJV)

These rewards are still seen in terms of a physical resurrection. They are still physical rewards – but postponed until the resurrection.

The Apocalyptic View

After the Babylonian captivity, the returning exiles rebuilt Jerusalem in a spirit of religious purification and reform. The Torah was codified and followed rigorously. And yet in spite of unprecedented religious purity and righteousness, Judea soon experienced some of the worst persecution of its history at the hands of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus, ruler of the Empire, prohibited Jewish religious practices, and punished any demonstrations of Jewish piety with unprecedented cruelty. Jewish scriptures were burned and even women and children tortured and killed for refusing to sacrifice to pagan idols.

During this period, the “Apocalyptic” worldview came to full flower. It seemed obvious that a righteous God would not willingly order such atrocities toward the pious simply as a test. Borrowing perhaps from the Zoroastrian dualism to which they had been exposed by the Persians, the Jews began to see Satan not as the prosecuting attorney of heaven – but a fallen angel in total rebellion against God. This idea of fallen angels begins to appear in Daniel, which was written at the time of the persecutions of Antiochus. An angel is sent to Daniel, but is delayed due to having to fight off the “prince” (a fallen angelic governor) of Persia.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but, behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (Daniel 10:13 WEB)

This is also one of the first mentions of Michael the Archangel. The introduction of angelic names and hierarchies – also a favorite topic of the Persians, would proliferate in later years.

Daniel is also filled with apocalyptic visions. God would eventually destroy the kingdoms of the world and set up his own. Until then, the righteous could expect persecution, because of the evil angelic powers – but God would reward them in the resurrection. For example, in 2nd Maccabees, an inter-testamental writing from this period, we read of seven brothers who were tortured to death for refusing to violate religious law. He says to his tormenters:

So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life. (2 Maccabees 7:14 KJVA)

We begin to see that God will not only reward the righteous in the resurrection, but punish the wicked. This theme is amplified in another intertestamental writing, 1 Enoch.
Then I looked and turned myself to another part of the earth, where I beheld a deep valley burning with fire. To this valley they brought monarchs and the mighty. And there my eyes beheld the instruments which they were making, fetters of iron without weight (or of immeasurable weight) Then I inquired of the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, saying, For whom are these fetters and instruments prepared? He replied, These are prepared for the host of Azazeel, that they may be delivered over and adjudged to the lowest condemnation; and that their angels may be overwhelmed with hurled stones, as the Lord of spirits has commanded. Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel shall be strengthened in that day, and shall then cast them into a furnace of blazing fire, that the Lord of spirits may be avenged of them for their crimes; because they became ministers of Satan, and seduced those who dwell upon earth. ( 1 Enoch 53: 1-6)
Here we have the concept of a hell of burning fire. Satan also has been “promoted” to the head of the fallen angels.

 

The Gnostic View

Things continued to be difficult for the Jews under the Roman Empire, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. This event crushed the hopes of the most pious Jews. In a world that at times seemed utterly evil, some of the Jews began to question the wisdom of God in permitting such a situation. Combining influences of earlier philosophies, Jewish and Christian Gnostics took the next step past the apocalyptic viewpoint. The righteous suffered, said the Gnostics, not because evil was a test permitted by a good God, and not because a powerful fallen angel was on the loose opposing a good God. The righteous suffered because the God who had created the material world itself and all the powers that controlled it was an EVIL God (or at best, an incompetent one). This “Demiurge” had been created by a cosmic accident. He had incompetently created the world and ruled over it, demanding worship and obedience. To a number of these Gnostics – Satan basically WAS the God of the Old Testament. Satan had created the world and given the Old Testament law – demanding worship as the one and only God.

But above him was a TRUE God, of complete goodness and pure light. The true God, taking pity on the tortured creation of the Demiurge, had sent messengers into the world to show the way to escape from the clutches of the evil God of the material world.

The Apocryphon of John describes this incompetent creator:

"Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come.”

The Gnostic equating of Satan with the Demiurge or god of this world has it’s echos even in the New Testament writings

I will no more speak much with you, for the prince of the world comes, and he has nothing in me. (John 14:30 WEB)

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the worlds rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
(Ephesians 6:12 WEB)

in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4 WEB)

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
(1 John 5:19 WEB)

 

The Gnostic view also regarded the next life as entirely spiritual. The physical world was evil, and so a physical resurrection made no sense.

Summary

To review, then, the conception of Satan has undergone considerable change in Biblical and extra-biblical writings, going hand in hand with a change in worldview and the perception of Evil. These changes can be summarized as follows:

The conception of Satan:

Primitive: An occasional role of God or his angels.
Prophetic: God’s official prosecutor.
Apocalyptic: A cosmic rebel against God.
Gnostic: The evil or incompetent creator of the world.

Conception of evil:

Primitive: An occasional fact of life.
Prophetic: God’s punishment.
Apocalyptic: Part of Satan’s civil war.
Gnostic: The primary nature of the material world.

Conception of rewards/punishments

Primitive: Earthly – unconditional
Prophetic: Earthly – conditional
Apocalyptic: Future earthly – conditional
Gnostic: Future spiritual – conditional
 

 

 

States of Consciousness

Posted on by
Reply

What is the place of symbols in spirituality?  Myth and symbol have an important role in nourishing the human spirit. I’m very comfortable myself with “sacramentalism” – with using items in the physical world as symbols of and vehicles of divine power, grace and knowledge. This might be a good time to bring up the different “states” of consciousness that can impact spirituality.

 Studying the record of mystical experiences over time and across cultures, we find that there are basically four different “states” of mystical experience that are available to all people. These manifest as “peak experiences” of four general kinds. However, in spite of the similarity of these states as they are experienced by different people – the states will be INTERPRETED according to the level that person is at, spiritually. Here’s what the four states look like:

 Nature mysticism. This state is experienced as a profound sense of the unity, aliveness and wonder of the natural world and our connection to it. The whole world seems alive with beauty and meaning. We also feel a unity with all other human beings. People can often be pulled into this sort of state while gazing at the night sky, for example, or climbing a mountain. It is a spiritual state often associated with such paths as new-age paganism or Native American spirituality but is also seen in the writer of the psalms and St Francis of Assisi.

  1. “Subtle” mysticism (or “deity” mysticism) This state corresponds in some ways to the dream state. People experience visions and apparitions. Angels, spiritual guides, gods and other non-material beings are seen, and reality becomes fluid and dream-like. The person becomes aware of a “higher” spiritual order behind the world of form and substance. This spiritual state has examples in many spiritual paths – from Ezekiel to Carlos Castaneda to Paul on the road to Damascus.
  2. “Causal” mysticism (or “formless” mysticism). In this state, external objects and even spiritual objects fade and one is immersed in an infinite abyss of light, love and formless, timeless emptiness. This is also paradoxically a fullness – or an abyss so deep that all fullness is within it. You are one with this fullness and light, and experience it as your true self. There are many examples of descriptions of such states from the Gnostics, the Sufi, the Cabbalists, the Buddhists, the Christians mystics such as Eckhart, etc.
  3. Non-dual mysticism. This state unifies the others. One sees the manifest world of things and forms as an expression of the formless emptiness – and one sees in the formless emptiness the potential for all the manifest forms, physical and spiritual. You are the vast emptiness in which all manifest forms arise and fade, and you are the forms themselves.

One’s “God view” can change considerably in each of these states. A form or symbol of God that is highly meaningful  in the subtle state  can become trivial or even an impediment in the causal state. In the non-dual state, God is seen in all the symbols as well as in the emptiness devoid of symbols.

The Latest Home Temple Questions

Posted on by
2

>1. What are the seven spirits of God?

Actually, there is some disagreement about that. The Home Temple uses the menorah, not because there are any specific spirits that are invoked, but because of its association with temple Judaism. However, there is some indication in scripture that the temple menorah was associated with “the seven spirits of God” Revelation 4:5 "From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God." Since the temple menorah had seven lamps, this seems like a reasonable association. As to what the “seen spirits of God” actually ARE, speculation abounds. They may be seven aspects of the Holy Spirit (See Isaiah 11:2) or seven archangels, or seraphim or cherubim. Or they may represent the seven (anciently known) planets. Or all of the above. For example, they could represent angels who also govern planetary bodies who are also associated with specific aspects of God's spirit. If anyone has the definitive answer, I don't know it yet.

>2. Do the three bases of the menorah have the same symbolic meaning as the three candlestands in a Masonic Lodge?

Unfortunately, I was careless with the preceding answer. There are FOUR bases on the stand and FOUR kabbalistic worlds. So the answer would be no. However, for the record, Bishop Kiezer is active in a modified and synthesized form of Masonry called Pansophic Freemasonry which is open to both genders. I know little about it and have not yet participated in it. I only say this only to make it clear that I don't expect he'd be in the least adverse to appealing to Masonic symbolism if the occasion warranted.

>3. How does Jesus Christ fit into the Shema Israel?

He's not specifically mentioned in that particular prayer. “Hear oh Israel – the LORD thy God, the LORD is one” For that matter, he's not mentioned specifically in the Lords Prayer. But he's clearly central to the Liturgy.

>4. In re your description of the resonators of the power of the ritual, is this what is meant by vibrations?

I don't think I actually used that word. I said: “An emphasis is placed on the musical tones and specific sounds intoned, as these are believed to be important resonators of the power of the ritual” What I meant is that specific musical tones and vocal sounds are believed to have various spiritual effects which augment the other spiritual benefits of the Mass. This is a rather complex field in which I am only a neophyte. I hope to improve my knowledge of it.

 >5. Do you ever actually hear a voice or voices at your liturgy, or is everything that takes place interior?

No, I haven't. The only time I've quite distinctly heard an actual disembodied voice, that I recall, was during a morning family devotional. We were quite throughly Roman Catholic at the time, and several of us heard a rather resonant “Amen” after the Fatima prayers during the Rosary. It was a bit startling. I've often had inner impressions of various sorts during prayers and liturgies, but except for that occasion nothing on the physical plane.

>6. Is the nacham a ritual of Judaism from the Kabbalah or from the time of Christ?

 I'm afraid I don't know if the gesture itself is ancient or recent. “Nacham”in Hebrew indicates repentance or submission to God. The right arm (representing the ego or lower self) is placed across the chest touching the left shoulder, and covered by the left arm touching the right shoulder while making a slight bow. This indicates the submission of our personal will to that of God. I'm told by several from the Eastern Rite that this is how they receive communion – which is ironic, as it is the gesture adopted by the modern Western Rite to indicate “I'm not receiving communion, just give me a blessing”.

>7. Your understanding of the nature of sacraments is actually much better than the understanding a lot of Catholics hold, though it is the same understanding that is taught in our catechism.

Thank you.

>8. According to Gershom Scholem, I believe Merkabah mysticism was being taught at the time Christ walked the earth. Kabbalah, however, is from the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church condemned the mysticism borrowed from the Kabbalah.

Traditional Jewish practitioners, of course, believe the concepts of the Kabbalah date back to Adam, but it certainly didn't exist in present form till the middle ages. On re-reading, I see how my sentence on this was confusing. Jesus, the early Jewish mystics, and the early Jewish Gnostics had access to a body of mystical teaching which by that time was called Merkabah, and which only later became the seed for the more extensive concepts of Kabbalah. Although the Roman Catholic condemnations don't persuade me, as I find many Kabbalistic concepts very helpful and profound, I'd be interested in reading them.

>9. Are ascended masters what Catholics call saints?

The concept is similar and there is probably some overlap in the groups, but ascended masters are primarily those of various esoteric traditions who are believed to have achieved great spiritual progress and enlightenment, and who guide and help humanity. The concept is, I believe, primarily a Rosicrucian/Theosophical one.

>10. What is the difference between theurgy and magic?

As I understand it, Theurgy is the work of using instruments or vehicles of divine power to achieve divine purposes – particularly union with God. Some esotericists would describe the Mass as an example of Theurgy. Magic tends to indicate that the instruments, vehicles and purposes of the operation may be less than divine in some way. Some would say that Theurgy is always under the umbrella of “Thy will be done”, whereas magic is more of a direct imposition of the human will. However, at some levels it is more difficult to distinguish the two, as the Higher Self is an expression of the divine.

>11. I have downloaded and printed Dr. Keizer's book on Wandering Bishops. In there he refers to C. W. Leadbeater as a saint. I'm sure you know that he had some difficulties with a young boy, or with several young boys, depending upon the source of reference. Yet Dr. Keizer has labeled Leadbeater a saint in the book. While it is true that we have had bad popes, we have not canonized them.

Actually, I only recently became aware of Leadbeater, and about the accusations against him I only know what I could quickly Google. Leadbeater is by no means a “saint” in the sense of having passed through a complex canonical process proving his heroic virtue – having his own feast day – being mentioned in the prayers of the Mass – being invoked for intercessory prayer, etc. No such process exists for the Independent movement. As far as I can tell, Kiezer uses this term informally and generally meaning “mystic” – someone advanced in esoteric knowledge and ability. Leadbeater certainly was this. However, Bishop Keizer only labels Leadbeater a “saint” in one of the photos, and in the text says that he was “…more scientist than saint”. If the worst of the accusations against him are correct (and I have no way of knowing that they are) then he certainly should not be regarded as heroically virtuous. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't canonize the Borgia, but there have certainly been several individuals who have not made it through the process (or partially through the process) without considerable opposition and accusation. I'm sure you can think of a couple names.

>.12. Have many Catholics joined the Home Temple Movement? Have former Catholic priests joined the Home Temple Movement?

I know of some Catholics that have joined. I know of several people who were ordained in other jurisdictions and denominations who have joined, but I'm not directly aware of any Catholic priests. But as I said, this is a small, home-church movement, and I don't know the exact number who consider themselves affiliated.