[Part I: Thelemic Philosophy | Part III: Thelemic Psychology]

Part II: Systematic Theology

Prolegomena
Chapter 1: Theology Proper
Chapter 2: Hierology
Chapter 3: Cosmology
Chapter 4: Anthropology
Chapter 5: Soteriology
Chapter 6: Ecclesiology
Chapter 7: Teleology
Chapter 8: Eschatology

Prolegomena

Developing a systematic approach to the Law of Thelema is daunting. It's an endeavor that has never been done. In fact, one might suggest that it is impossible—though the existence of the Canons would suggest otherwise—and that it is a wild chase to define the indefinable. Unlike a revelation, a systematic theology is a construction and requires a coherent view of both theology and Thelema alike.

Too many see theology as a boogieman of the previous aeon and its current religious factions. I see it as the ability to grasp the theological foundation of Thelema at its most basic. If anything, despite the depth of textual archaeology involved, the Canons is a simplified theology. Ever since the death of Karl Germer in 1962 (though I could be hard-pressed to give it until the sidelining of Phyllis Seckler by the head of the O.T.O. in the early 2000s), Thelemites have been avoiding the hard tasks of nurturing the evolution of Thelema to a mature state. The community-at-large is filled with adolescent angst. Even the so-called 'academics' of the occult are not serious people when it comes to tackling Thelema. The aesthetic of the court jester so brilliantly portrayed by Anton LaVey remains in contrast to the sense of urgency to world change that Thelema brings to the table yet is avoided by those who grift online courses to "find one's True Will," push impotent secret societies, and spend time building websites rather than soup kitchens. (This irony is not lost here, trust me!)

Thelema, as a community-at-large, continues to exemplify two equally unuseful extremes.^[1]

On the one hand, there are those who believe that a Magisterium approach to the Law of Thelema is the best. This is found in the so-called "Secret Orders" that have popped up in spite of and in response to the heavy-handed gender essentialist doctrines of O.T.O. These are the types of people who believe that only Crowley's word on any subject is important, and try to convince people that either (a) every word of Crowley is important, (b) only the magical writings of Crowley are important, or (c) that only the latest work of Crowley is important—but everything revolves around the work of Crowley so much that it devolves more into a personality cult as opposed to a thelemic culture. These types are also prone to prop up "world teachers" and other personalities that tend to be primarily public relations managers for one organization or another. The promulgation of Thelema is an afterthought, if there at all.

These are writers of a personality cult. While I would agree with them that Crowley cannot be dismissed, the distance is vast between assessing Crowley as evidential support and using Crowley as a crutch for expansion.

On the other hand, there are those who dismiss Crowley entirely due to some perceived (or very real) character flaw in the man. They typically form ideas around radical individualism (hyper-individualism)—a concept not found in Thelema but perpetrated on the Thelemic community in the 1970s and 1980s by fascist elements found in O.T.O. leadership. Even when not directly associated with such ideologies, the radical individualist undertones of the 21st century remain in the hands of those who prefer dark rooms, heavy incense, and black eyeliner while waving their hands around on YouTube. Even those so-called academics that pretend to understand Thelema are still cosplaying with 20th century nonsense that has little to do with the textual revelation handed to Crowley himself.

These individuals almost always exemplify a "Thelema+" approach: that is, Thelema plus something else. They aren't satisfied with the complete system of philosophy and religion that was revealed in 1904.

Quite frankly, we do not have any Pauls or Johns or Augustines or Luthers or Constantines or Polycarps or Tertullians. We do not have any communities of Maccabees or Essenes or Zealots or Gnostics. We do not have the teachings and letters and extra-canonical writings of significant authors that advance the notions of Thelema in a very real world. All anyone can do is write another beginner book or another biography. Through the inconsistencies of a Man and the idiotic notions of individuality and sovereignty of a flock of Thelemic sheep, we have lost the direction of Thelema in less than a hundred years since its revelation. [...] We have the works of snakes and snake-oil vendors who are looking to increase the numbers in their playacting guilds of spiritual darkness while the rest of occulture sits around with nearly impossible assumptions for metaphysics and ridiculous constructs of epistemology that contradict themselves on any given day based on the "feelings" of the adherent.^[2]

It is hoped this project will go toward correcting this oversight in the community and encourage others to engage in serious pursuits of Thelema at levels that go beyond the mental masturbation, cosplay theatrics, and grifting relics.

This Prolegomena is divided into three parts: first, an explanation of the purpose of this project; next, the aims of a Systematic Thelema (what it is and what it is not); and finally, an outline of the presuppositions of this systematic approach including its integral/unifying theological model.

Purpose of a Thelemic Systematic Theology

The purpose of a systematic theology in relation to Thelema is two-fold: (a) to provide a logical and categorical approach to the Law of Thelema in relation to human endeavors, and (b) to strengthen an understanding of the Law of Thelema in a manner that is accessible to those without specialized training or "occult" language sets.

A systematic theology utilizing the Law of Thelema as the foundation runs the risk of being reductionist, or oversimplifying theology that is essential to Thelema itself. It requires a set of presuppositions (vide infra) and a coherent selection of topics (see Table of Contents). It also runs the risk of merely being a personal theology. However, systematic theology is a branch of theology "that attempts to present theological thinking and practice in an orderly and coherent way. It may be based on Scripture and expressed through doctrines. It implies an underlying philosophical frame of reference and a method to be followed."^[3] While I take issue with the use of the word 'doctrine' here, such a definition serves its purpose. I fully admit formulating the presuppositions for a Thelemic systematic theology requires stepping both into and out of specific worldviews while rejecting the views of both the Magisterium and the radical individualist as foundations.^[4]

Foundation of a Thelemic Systematic Theology

Within a Thelemic systematic theology, divisions similar to those in the systematic theology of other religions are present. However, there are some notable omissions. These omissions are either included in existing sections or deemed irrelevant to the core theology intended for this presentation. For instance, while "angelology" could logically be included due to the broad element of Enochian Magick foundational to The Vision and The Voice, it is excluded in favor of discussing "the supernatural" within the cosmology section. Similarly, any form of "Crowleyology" (comparable to a Christology section) is excluded in favor of focusing on hierology as the study of the Thelemic canon. This approach is taken because the only definitive source of the specific revelation of the Law of Thelema is the Book of the Law.

The eight sections chosen for this approach to a Thelemic systematic theology are theology proper [study of the divine], hierology [study of the Thelemic canon], cosmology [study of the universe], anthropology [study of nature of humanity], soteriology [study of sin and salvation], ecclesiology [study of community], teleology [study of the Thelemic life], and eschatology [study of last things, including aeonic theory].

Overall, this systematic theology does not dismiss other approaches to Thelema—like magical, spiritual, psychological, informational, or meta models—but offers a foundational understanding of Thelema from the basis of a mature philosophy and religion comparable to and contrasted with other world religions.

Developing a Thelemic Systematic Theology

Thelemic Systematic Theology is not

• focused on a single doctrinal theme or pericope study,
• a historical review,
• comprehensive commentary to the Book of the Law, or
• body of infallible truths.

Thelemic Systematic Theology is

• comprehensive: covers all aspects of a doctrine or set of doctrines as fully as possible,
• coherent: shows a clear, consistent message of the Book of the Law,
• contextual: engages historical and contemporary points of view,
• conversational: interprets the fullness of doctrine in terms of contemporary questions, existential anxiety, and the human situation,
• a process not a directive, and
• inherently incomplete

A more intensive look at defining religion itself is found here.

Six Features of Teaching a Thelemic Systematic Theology

There are six distinctive features about how I believe Systematic Thelema should be taught.

A Clear Hierological Basis for Doctrines

I believe teachings about Thelema should be explicitly based on Liber AL vel Legis. Because of the particular and individual providence of other Class A texts, while still personal to Crowley himself, I believe those words have authority that should not be taken lightly.

Clarity in the Explanation of Doctrines

I believe whatever power(s) revealed the Book of the Law and inspired the rest of the current Thelemic canon had no intention of causing confusion and frustration. This is not to suggest that the codes and the qabalistic elements of the text are either unintentional or unnecessary for the understanding of a further aspects to the text. However, Thelemic doctrine is not determined by such elements though they can be supported and confirmed by them.

Application to Life

I believe Thelema was intended to studied as a way of life. All of the internal evidence within the Class A texts points to a means of living, worshiping, and becoming more than something left on a shelf to gather dust.

Focus on the Thelemic World

I believe an authentic system of Thelema can only be constructed from within what we might call a "conservative" hierological tradition—that is, by those who certify the truthfulness of the Class A texts. Conservative here is not to be meant in any kind of political or moral sense, but in an academic or religious sense of both understanding and a skepticism of arbitrary change. I do not believe that so-called "liberal" approaches to Thelema will accomplish anything at all that has not already or could be not accomplished through a conservative approach. It is my belief that there is the possibility for a rich and meaningful dialogue of different viewpoints and insights into the Class A texts.

Hope for Progress in Doctrinal Unity in the Community

I believe there is still much hope for the Thelemic community to attain deeper doctrinal understanding, and to overcome barriers, even those that have already begun to creep into place over the last half century. In the course of examining Thelemic doctrines with a fresh and systematic perspective, there is more that can come through reason and agreement than from hostility, conflict, and opposition. It has long been a personal belief that when those who are serious about the study of Thelema as it applies to life come to reason together that more would be found in common than not. It must be stressed here that doctrinal unity in no way infringes upon individual application.

A Sense of the Urgent Need for Greater Doctrinal Understanding in the Whole Body of Nuit

I believe there is an urgent need in the whole community—that which we call the Body of Nuit—for a much greater and deeper understanding of Thelemic doctrine. It is not merely a few initiates here and there or those in this Order or that fraternity; though these certainly need to understand Thelema in greater depth. It is all Thelemites. One day we may actually have temples and sanctuaries full of Thelemites who can study, apply, and live the doctrinal teachings of the Class A texts as quickly and easily as they can discuss their children’s sports teams or the latest television series. It is not that Thelemites lack the ability to understand doctrine; it is that there has been no accessible form of Thelemic doctrine. Once that happens, I believe many Thelemites will find that understanding and living the doctrines of Light, Life, Love, and Liberty is one of their greatest joys.

General Hermeneutic of the Canons

[introduction here]

Any theological or philosophical system that purports to be an extension of the Law of Thelema must meet the needs of the greater Thelemic community. It cannot be subject to any specific cultic interpretation—though this is a difficult criteria to measure since a system of thought is necessarily going to be judged as competition for any existing or future ideology that feels threatened by examination—and it must be sensitive to both tradition and progress. Briefly, a theological system should satisfy two fundamental needs: the statement of truth of the Law of Thelema and an exploration of this truth within each new generation. Few systems of thought existing today have been able to balance these two needs with any success. Most of them give up elements of the Law of Thelema in order to engage specific prejudices or they cannot relate to the situation of humanity. Some, like the American neo-orthodox approach, fail to relate to the present situation of our temporal existence for the simple reason they speak from a situation of the past. They have elevated the finite and transitory to the status of infinite and revelatory.

Unified Kingdom Theology

There is what could be seen as a pre-presupposition in this work: the theology of the Unified Kingdom. The Unified Kingdom takes an integral approach to Thelema, that is, (a) affirmation of both the individual and the community, (b) acceptance of the Book of the Law in its entirety rather than focused on prooftexting favorite verses, and (c) a rejection of both the Magisterium and radical individualism as ideological worldviews.

A comparison of all three ideological or theological models:

Hyper-Individualistic (Lone Wolf) Model

1. Ego-centric.
2. Homo est Deus.
3. "center of Universe".
4. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." [AL 1.40 as prooftext]
5. Liber Oz.

Magisterium Model

1. Ethno- [or socio-] centric — via O.T.O., or any other similar tribal approach.
2. the "few and secret". [AL 1.10 as prooftext]
3. Exclusive membership in-group. [typically initiatory]
4. Hierolatry.
5. Primitive Crowleyanity.

Unified Kingdom Model

1. World- [or possibly kosmo-] centric.
2. "The unveiling of the company of heaven." [AL 1.2]
3. "Every man and every woman is a star." [AL 1.3]
4. [The entire] Book of the Law.
5. "Duty"^[5] informing Kingship. [AL 2.58-59]

The Three Presuppositions

There are three basic presuppositions that define the general hermeneutic that I believe encapsulates a fundamental approach to a Thelemic systematic theology: that is, (a) what I call The Three Rivers, which is also a stand-alone set of three propositions that work together in forming a teaching element, or mnemonic, similar to the Buddhist concept of 'taking refuge in the Three Jewels,' (b) Egyptosophical Scaffolding, and (c) Spiritual Continuity or dialectic.

1. The Three Rivers (& To Take Refuge Therein)

The Three Rivers are: (a) The Revealer, (b) The Revelation, and (c) The Revealed. These tributaries form the actual body of authority when examining the Law of Thelema through the trifold lens of the Spirit of the Law (The Revealer), the Letter of the Law (The Revelation), and the Tradition of the Law (The Revealed). Any one of these without the others is unbalanced authority and becomes pathological.

The Three Rivers also forms the basis of "refuge" for an adherents much like the Buddhist refuge of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha, respectively.]

2. Egyptosophical Scaffolding

I believe we have to be careful with asserting an egyptological centrality within the Book of the Law rather than an egyptosophical influence^[6] adjacent to the Book of the Law.

Ultimately, egyptosophy is about fantasy. It is the assertion that a romanticised and imaginary Egypt is the wellspring of all esotericism. Fantasy, however that is defined, shouldn’t be an elimination factor when exploring any kind of religious strain or technology. The much derided Scientology and its space opera, the Urantia Book and its space/ascended masters mythology, even Theosophy and its fantastical Tibetan assertions, Judaism and Christianity with their borrowed creation stories (among others), or Mormonism and its occult connections with angelology—all these and so many others are grounded in a sense of fantasy that makes up a good portion of their doctrinal mythos.

With the Book of the Law, we find these egyptoid concepts (ex. Nuit, Hadit, Ra-Hoor, Khabs, Khu, etc) all loosely connected to the flavor of a mythical Egypt. Yet we are reminded regularly by the Prophet himself that Thelema transcends the past, that it revolutionises all aspects of humanity. The masturbation-by-numbers continued by OTO insiders and Crowleyan Fundamentalists ignores this revolutionary aspect of Thelema and continues to pigeonhole the past into the present and wipe away any progress into the future. Thelema uses symbols, like these egyptosophical vapors, to provide parameters for reality through the perspective of a new consciousness. One might say that in order to assert the truth, Thelema uses falsehoods to reach around the objections of the conscious mind and offers a symbolic representation of life, the universe, and everything. (Nietzsche comes to mind here.^[7])

3. Spiritual Continuity and the Dialectic Unfolding Within History

Thelema proposes an inherently dialectic view of history (aeons) rather than a syncretic accumulation of religious form and function. While it is correct that assimilation (and to a lesser extent, syncretism) is somewhat unavoidable in any religious culture due to the influence of ideas in motion through temporal history, there is a huge difference between a syncretic fusion of ideas and a dialectic movement within the frame of history. All major spiritual (aeonic) movement is dialectic, not syncretic.

It should be noted that, unlike most occult and New Thought influenced history, the dialectic approach within Thelema (and reality, for that matter) does not propose that progress through time inherently offers a "better than" present or future in relation to the past. While some things do get better, from one perspective, not everything could be seen as such. For example, capitalism brought about an increase in the living conditions for the majority of the planet but it also accelerated the destruction of the ecosphere in which we live.

Attribution

No part of this publication may be used or redistributed for any purpose without the express prior written consent of the author.

Canons of Thelemic Philosophy & Religion © 1996-2024 by Qui Vident.

Comments

If you wish to comment about the materials here, feedback is welcome. Feel free to email questions, comments, and concerns regarding the Canons to curate@quivident.co.