Quest Magazine

Printed in the Spring 2013 issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: Creech, Jimmy. "Born to be Lovers" Quest  101. 2 (Spring 2013): pg. 54 - 58.

By Jimmy Creech

Throughout my twenty-nine years as an ordained minister in The United Methodist Church, among my greatest joys was conducting weddings. Every couple was different—some young and some old, some marrying for the first time and some for a second, some rich and some poor, some gay and some nongay— yet their love for each other and their hope for the life they would share were the same. For me, no matter how vul­nerable and tenuous (for all things human are), the love that brought the couples together was the reality of God in their lives—and in the world.

When I counseled couples prior to their weddings, I reminded them that I would not "marry" them, and neither would the church or state. The love they had for each other and the commitment they made in their most intimate moments created their marriage long before any public ceremony or legal recognition.

On Sunday, September 14, 1997, in the sanctuary of First United Methodist Church, Omaha, Nebraska, I conducted a wedding ceremony for Mary and Martha. It was a simple but profoundly moving event: two per­sons pledged their love and faith to each other before their families, friends, and God. I prayed God's bless­ings upon them; I prayed that their life together and their home would be filled with God's grace and peace. Their union was recognized by neither the church nor the state. Nonetheless, it was a sacred and solemn moment that honored the marriage they had created.

On Monday morning, all hell broke out in The  United Methodist Church. My bishop, Joel Martinez, informed me that more than 150 complaints against  me had been filed in his office, accusing me of "disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The United Methodist Church" because I'd conducted a wedding ceremony for two women. The bishop chose one of the complaints to represent them all and initiated a judicial  process that would ultimately end in a church trial in March 1998. While I would be acquitted in this trial, I was found guilty in a second trial in 1999, and my cre­dentials of ordination in The United Methodist Church were taken from me for conducting another wedding  for a same-gender couple.

Just one year before Mary and Martha's ceremony, the General Conference of The United Methodist Church had adopted language prohibiting its clergy from conducting union ceremonies for same-gender couples. I was in strong disagreement with this pro­hibition and had informed Bishop Martinez and the lay leadership of First United Methodist Church that I would conduct Mary and Martha's wedding in spite of the prohibition. Mary and Martha were members of  First Church and deserved to have their loving commit^­ment to each other honored and recognized in the con­text of their faith community. To deny them this would have been an injustice and expression of bigotry.

I strongly disagreed with my church on same-gender marriage and felt compelled to celebrate cer­emonies for lesbian and gay couples because of Adam, who confided to me in April 1984 that he was gay. At the time, I was the pastor of a United Methodist church in Warsaw, North Carolina. I'd known and worked with Adam in the church for three years before and was surprised to learn he was gay. He came out to me when he informed me that he was leaving the church because of its antigay policies. He was in his late forties and had been a Methodist all of his life. But he would take the abuse no longer. His decision to leave caused him deep anguish. His revelation changed my life and ministry. I tell this story in my book Adam's Gift: A Memoir of a Pastor's Calling to Defy the Church's Persecution of Les­bians and Gays.

Adam was a leader in the church and community. He was generous, gentle, and kind, a person of deep and devout faith He did not fit the stereotype I had about homosexuals. My attitude and understanding of homo­sexuality was negative, a prejudice shaped entirely by the heterosexism and homophobia of the Southern cul­ture in which I lived, a prejudice I had accepted with­out critical reflection. I assumed gay people would be psychologically unhealthy and physically dangerous. And before Adam I'd never talked with anyone who self-identified as gay.

Adam did not destroy my assumptions about gay people by offering a new interpretation of the Bible or some theological insight. He destroyed them with his dignity, with his character. My prejudice had no defense against the integrity of his humanity.

After Adam came out to me, I reflected on my per­sonal history, about what I'd learned about homosexu­ality and about how I developed my negative attitude toward gay people. I first learned about homosexuality when I was a boy from what my friends said about Pee­-wee. They said he was a "queer." Nobody explained to me what that meant, except to say that "queers do bad things to little boys like you." I sensed this meant some­thing violent and sexual in nature. Pee-wee was four or five years older than I, and I feared him. As I grew into adulthood, my fear was never challenged.

But Adam's humanity banished my childhood fear of Pee-wee and pushed me beyond my personal experi­ence to study and search for a deeper understanding about the basis for the religious and cultural prejudice against homosexuality. My undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill was in biblical studies. The issue of homosexuality in the Bible was never discussed during my four years of study. Nor was it discussed during my three years of study at the Divinity School of Duke University Nevertheless, I had accepted without question the conventional claim that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.

Eager to understand, I studied every piece of bibli­cal scholarship I could find on the subject. At the end, my conclusion was that there is no legitimate use of the Bible to condemn same-gender-loving people and their sexual intimacy. There are a few passages (only four that are clear: Genesis 19:1-29; Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; and Romans 1:26-27) that refer to same-gender sexual activity. In each case, the sexual activity is con­demned because it happens within the context of either violent rape or idolatry. There is no reference to same­-gender-loving sexual relationships in the Bible, so it cannot be said the Bible condemns them. My search for what the Bible says about homosexuality provided no basis for the claim that it is a sin. Same-gender sexual relationships simply are not an issue within the Bible.

In addition, there was no understanding of sexual orientation in biblical times. Homosexuality, heterosex­uality, and bisexuality are variances in sexual orienta­tion that were discovered during the late 1800s through the emerging science of psychology. Only then were these words created to describe the different categories of sexual orientation, a newly discovered innate aspect of the human personality. This is another reason it is false to claim that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin: there was no understanding of sexual orientation and consequently no words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek for homosexuality in biblical times. We cannot say the Bible condemns something that its writers didn't know about. Medical science and psychology have evolved in understanding sexual orientation so that today there is a consensus that homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are equally normal, natural, and healthy aspects of the human personality.

In Adam's Gift, I observe:

The way the Bible has been used against gay people is not unique. It has been misused in similar ways to support other cultural prejudices, practices and institutions, such as slavery, racism, anti-Semitism, sexism, wars, inquisi­tions, colonialism, and classism. Such misuse does not serve the biblical understanding of God, Christ, or the church. Each misuse, along with the bigotry against gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons, is an offense against God, assaults the souls of God's children, and compromises the ability of the church to be a faithful witness to Jesus Christ. Any use of God's name to condemn the essential humanity of any people is blasphemous. (Creech, 36)

When I did not find the basis for the cultural prej­udice against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the Bible, I turned to the history of the Christian church for the answer and was not disappointed.

When Emperor Constantine I of Rome officially ended the persecution of the Christian church with the Edict of Milan (313 cr) and gave it favored status, the church fathers _[it was an exclusive all-male club] began putting together the first systematic Christian theology. They were obsessed with sexuality. They abandoned the Jewish view that God's creation—the earth and all that dwells upon it—was good; that a human being is a unity of body and spirit; and that sexuality is a blessed gift for lovemaking, shared pleasure, and childbearing. Marriage was discour­aged; virginity and chastity were honored. Because many of the early church fathers were monks or hermits, at one time or another in their careers, their views of sex were dominated by ascetic values. Asceticism became the pre­ferred way to commune with God. Because they believed a human being was a spirit trapped in a body, the pre­eminent challenge for Christians seeking eternal salvation was to deprive and conquer the physical appetites, espe­cially the erotic. (Creech, 38)

The church father whose views on sexuality most influenced the early Christian church's teachings was Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE). As a young man, before his conversion to Christianity, he was influenced by Manichaeism and Neoplatonism, both dualistic phi­losophies that considered the physical world to be cor­rupt and evil, in contrast to the spiritual world, which was regarded as good. Sexuality was physical and con­sequently sinful. Augustine was the first to associate the fall of Adam and Eve with sexuality, which he regarded as the original sin. He believed sexual desire was the foulest of human wickednesses. Begetting children was the only acceptable excuse for sexual intimacy. None­theless, sexual pleasure was always a sin. He was not alone in his negative view of sexuality, and his teaching about it became the standard for the Christian church during the Middle Ages and beyond.

Augustine's teaching separated spirituality and sexuality.

When spirituality is understood as our capacity to con­nect with and love the Holy, the neighbor, and the nat­ural world, and sexuality is understood as the way we embody ourselves in the world, then spirituality and sexuality are inseparable and interdependent. Sexuality is the embodiment of our connection with realities beyond our individual selves: our spirituality. Spirituality deter­mines the character and values of our embodiment: our sexuality. When the unity of sexuality and spirituality was denied, spirituality was disembodied and sexuality reduced to a physical appetite narrowly defined as lust. Sexual intimacy, consequently, was separated from love and approved only as a necessary evil for the sole purpose of procreation. (Creech, 39)

In his book, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medi­eval Europe, James Brundage observes:

Writers [i.e., medieval Christian theologians] who place primary emphasis on sex as reproduction, therefore, con­demn homosexual relations as well as heterosexual oral and anal sex practices and often maintain that even the postures used in marital sex are morally good or bad depending on whether they hinder or promote conception. Those who consider reproduction the primary cri­terion of sexual morality usually deny any positive value to sexual pleasure . . . Hence they minimize the value of sexual satisfaction as a binding mechanism in marriage. (Brundage, 580)

In the thirteenth century, theologian and philoso­pher Thomas Aquinas expanded on Augustine's view and specifically categorized same-gender-loving peo­ple as sinners. Aquinas used neither the Bible nor the teachings of Jesus to do this. He used instead the philosophy of Aristotle, who lived some 300 years before Jesus. Aristotle proposed that using something according to its design or purpose is good and using something contrary to its design or purpose is evil. Aquinas applied this philosophical theorem to sexual ethics, claiming, as had Augustine, that the sole design and purpose of sexual intimacy was procreation. Same­gender-loving people were then, by definition, sinners and unwelcome.

In Sex in History, Reay Tannahill writes:

Just as Augustine ... had given a rationale to the Church Fathers' distaste for the heterosexual act and rendered it acceptable only in terms of procreation, so Thomas Aqui­nas consolidated traditional fears of homosexuality as the crime that had brought down fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, by "proving" what every hetero­sexual male had always believed—that it was as unnatural in the sight of God as of man ... Homosexuality was thus, by definition, a deviation from the natural order laid down by God . . . and a deviation that was not only unnatural but, by the same Augustinian token, lustful and hereti­cal ... From the fourteenth century on, homosexuals as a group were to find neither refuge nor tolerance anywhere in the Western Church or state. (Tannahill, 159--60)

Aquinas's view of sexuality was made the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and homopho­bia was institutionalized. Soon after, church laws were enacted that condemned same-gender sexual intimacy, and civil laws became widespread in Europe calling for the violent execution of people caught in or believed to be guilty of it.

"The appalling truth," I conclude in Adam's Gift, 

is that the dominant expression of Christian sexual moral­ity that shaped Western culture over the last two mil­lennia, affecting both intimate relationships and social institutions, was formulated during the historical period known as the Dark Ages by celibate men who believed the physical world to be evil, held women in contempt, considered pleasure a vice, and equated sex with sin. They could not have taken us further from Jesus. The course they established led tragically in the wrong direction for the spiritual evolution of humanity. In spite of a vastly superior knowledge of human sexuality, we continue to be victims of their medieval ignorance, fear, and prejudice embedded in the teachings of the Christian church and in archaic civil laws. More tragic than the external violence done to bisexual, gay, and lesbian people is the fact that they have been taught by the Christian church and the society that it has shaped for centuries to hate themselves and believe themselves to be rejected by and separated from God because of their sexuality, because of who they are and whom they love. The Christian antipathy toward same-gender sexual loving comes from the fear of sexual­ity, not from the Bible. Because of this fear, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people have been oppressed, persecuted, and killed in the name of God and in defense of society. It's a scandalous and shameful history. (Creech, 40)

With this new understanding of the Bible, human sexuality, and church history, I began to challenge my church's teachings and policies about same-gender-lov­ing people. As a pastor, my responsibility was to help people overcome whatever damaged them spiritually—whatever diminished their capacity to trust God's love, to love others, and to love themselves. After Adam came out to me, I discovered my church was teaching lesbian, gay, and bisexual people to fear God's judgment, to fear loving another intimately, and to hate themselves for being who they are. I believe the church cannot be an authentic witness to God's love when it is persecuting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

Sexual orientation—whether it is toward the same gender, different gender or both genders—involves more than behavior for sexual gratification. It's a pre­disposition toward persons of a particular gender for romantic or emotional attraction and bonding. Sexual orientation is primarily about relationships, not behav­ior. It's about whom one loves, chooses to marry, and creates a family with. To label as sin a person's capacity for a healthy, adult, loving relationship is an act of spiri­tual violence. Sexual intimacy is one physical way we express our love and commitment, one way we create and sustain the marriage bond.

In the spring of 1990, James and Timothy asked me to conduct a holy union ceremony for them. They attended worship at Fairmont United Methodist Church in Raleigh, North Carolina, where I was then the pastor. They had been together for several years and owned a home together. James was an educator and Timothy, a landscape architect. The celebration of their commitment to each other would be in the back­yard garden that Timothy had planted and tended at their home. I accepted their invitation with delight. I would later write about it:

While conducting a holy union for two men was a new experience for me, I didn't think of it as controversial. In fact, it was a rather traditional Christian thing to do. How could I recognize and affirm gay people as individuals without recognizing, affirming and supporting their loving committed relationships? Civil and religious authorities may deny them recognition, but none can invalidate a relationship grounded in love and integrity. Such ground­ing is the very reality of God, the ultimate authority and blessing. James and Timothy's holy union ceremony, using the traditional United Methodist marriage liturgy with the Eucharist, was the first of many [same-gender weddings] that I would conduct over the remaining years of my min­istry. (Creech, 77)

It was because of the dignity and integrity of the couples whose loving commitments I celebrated over the years that I could not and would not comply with my church's prohibition of such ceremonies when Mary and Martha invited me to conduct theirs in 1997.

In 1998, I was invited to preach at The Riverside Church in New York City. In my sermon, "Free to Love without Fear," I told the story of Mary and Martha's covenant ceremony and reflected on its theological significance. I explained that their religious traditions had taught them that God had rejected and condemned them because of who they were and whom they loved. To survive, they left their homes, families, and, they believed, God. Ultimately, their separate journeys brought them to Omaha, Nebraska, where they found each other and a God who had loved them all along. It was, I said,

. . like a homecoming. Not a return to a home they had left behind, but a coming for the first time to a home they had been denied by the religious traditions in which they grew up. While they thought they left God, God never left them. God was the power within each of them that would not let them deny themselves, that nudged them to leave behind the dishonesty and embrace and honor their true selves as a sacred gift. This was God's active gracious love. It did not come from their religious training, nor from the expectations of family and friends. It came from the deep­est place within their souls that knew the truth. This is what we Methodists call "prevenient grace," the grace of God, the love of God that comes to us even before we know it's there, and claims, embraces, and empowers us Mary and Martha's covenant ceremony was a victory of faith and love over fear and oppression. It was a sign that they had individually survived their long tortuous journeys and were finally able to love themselves. Once able to love themselves, they were able to love each other. Finally, they were free to love without fear. The Christian church must no longer demand that the Marys and Marthas of the world remain in the closet of fear, rejection, and self-hatred. No, the Christian church must join God in offering to all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender peo­ple the assurance of what God has already done: blessed them and their loving with dignity and honor. When I prayed God's blessing upon Mary and Martha, I was only voicing what God already had done. By God's grace, they had been set free from fear and free to love. (Creech, 284)

To be a lover is what it means to be created in God's image. The capacity to love is not just a gift from God. It is God's presence alive and active in our very beings. We are not meant to be alone. It's basic to who we are as human beings to move out of ourselves to bond with someone, and to care for, nurture, empower, and pro­tect the ones we love. We embody God, when we love. There is no such thing as an unholy love.

The freedom to love without fear and judgment is a human right than cannot be denied to anyone by law, religion, or culture. No government, religion, or cultural convention has the authority to tell us whom we cannot love. We are all born to be lovers, free and fearless.

Sources

Brundage, James. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval

Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Creech, Jimmy. Adam's Gift: A Memoir of a Pastor's Callingto Defy the Church's Persecution of Lesbians and Gays.Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2011.

Tannahill, Reay. Sex in History. Rev. ed. Chelsea, Mich.:

A native of Goldsboro, North Carolina, JIMMY CREECH was an ordained elder in The United Methodist Church from 1970 to 1999. He holds a bachelor of arts in biblical studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master of divinity from the Divinity School of Duke University. Mr. Creech is the author of two books: Rise above the Law: The Appeal to the Jury, The United Methodist Church's Trial of Jimmy Creech (Swing Bridge Press, 2000), and Adam's Gift: A Memoir of a Pastor's Calling to Defy the Church's Persecution of Lesbians and Gays, published by Duke University Press in 2011.

Printed in the Spring 2013 issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: Bloom, William. "Not Another New Age!" Quest  101. 2 (Spring 2013): pg. 50 - 53.

By William Bloom

It was embarrassing when I read Norman Cohn's book The Pursuit of the Millennium and discovered that, decade by decade for centuries, there had been many groups of crackpots claiming that a new age or an apocalypse was imminent. 

My embarrassment deepened when, as a mature student, I took a degree at the London School of Economics, studied social anthropology, and learned that it was normal for excited groups of people, including scholars and intellectuals, to make extravagant claims, some of which have led to religious cults. In particular, I squirmed when I read about cargo cults, a phenomenon that occurred when previously isolated tribal peoples met European explorers for the first time and thought they were gods sent from heaven. 

Before learning about these common social and cultural movements, influenced by altered states of consciousness and reading many books, I had been naively confident that we were living at the beginning of a New Age. I had experienced the 1960s and Flower Power, with its anthem about the dawning of the Age of Aquarius. Then I took a two-year retreat beginning in 1972, disappearing into the High Atlas Mountains of southern Morocco to perform the six-month ritual of Abramelin the Mage, which is designed to enable the practitioner to obtain knowledge of and conversation with his holy guardian angel. (For an account of my retreat see my book, The Sacred Magician: The Diary of a Ceremonial Magician, Glastonbury, U.K.: Gothic Image, 1992.) I also read a weighty trunk full of esoteric books including the major works of H.P. Blavatsky, C.W. Leadbeater, Annie Besant, and Alice Bailey. In all of these substantial texts, there was a underlying and recurring message that humanity was in the process of a cosmic growth spurt and all was about to change. I felt that they explained and described my own personal experience of the zeitgeist. It was obvious, wasn't it? Everything was changing. 

I wrote about the New Age. I started a New Age community. I edited the first anthology of New Age writings for a television series for Britain's Channel Four. I became part of the faculty at Europe's leading New Age center, the Findhorn Foundation. I helped start a major New Age program at St. James's Church, Piccadilly, in London. I befriended leading New Age thinkers such as David Spangler and Eileen Caddy. I became a speaker at academic conferences on the New Age.

Yet in reflective moments I could not ignore the psychological, historical, and anthropological insights. Perhaps this New Age was just another myth, another cargo cult, layered on top of irrational human arousal.

There were also realistic questions to be asked, such as, is our age more significant than the Stone Age, Iron Age, Ice Age, the settling of hunter-gatherers, the Reformation, the Renaissance, or the Industrial Revolution? Certainly there are some profound social and cultural shifts, notably the dismantling of ageism, sexism, patriarchy, and racism, as well as the information technology revolution, which has created the global village. These are important significators, but do they constitute a New Age? 

The Theosophical approach presents us with a really grand cosmic claim that humanity is experiencing the most significant shift in the whole of its history. At the core of this claim is a cosmic map and humanity's crucial role within it. To state the obvious first, this map contains the basic premise that we human beings are souls in incarnation. We have personalities, but these are just temporary vehicles for identities that are far more enduring and meaningful. Moreover, our souls"sparks emerging from a divine and cosmic breath"are not only individual but are also part of a collective endeavor. The purpose of this endeavor is to anchor spirit "compassion, benevolence, and unconditional love"into the dense matter of earth. We are all souls, incarnate in flesh and blood vehicles, and we are, so to speak, on a collective mission sent by deity.

This process is a long journey of experience, learning, and development for all of us. Beginning as innocent and unrealized waves or sparks of love, moving through cycles of incarnation, we develop and manifest consciousness, compassion, and wisdom"until finally it is our individual destiny to manifest an incarnation so radiant with consciousness and love that we are freed from the cycle of reincarnation, freed from samsara, and join the community of liberated adepts, bodhisatwas, and realized Masters of Wisdom.

At the very core of this process is a cosmic intention. We, as souls, are agents of spirit, bringing the resonance of love and new consciousness down into dense matter. This story is told not only in Theosophy but also in Tibetan Buddhism, the Vedas, Gnostic Christianity, Kabbalah, Sufism, the Western and Middle Eastern Mysteries, and other esoteric traditions. It is told too in the symbolism of myths about fallen angels and slain solar deities. Our purpose as souls is to bring love into matter and revibrate it. And this is happening within a greater context and set of relationships in which earth is connected to the other planets in our solar system, and our solar system is linked with other stars and constellations. (For a detailed explanation of these planetary chains and cycles see H.P. Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine as well as Alice Bailey's Treatise on Cosmic Fire and Esoteric Astrology.) Within this context, we human souls are playing out a role that is significant not just for each of us personally but also for our solar system and beyond. 

This long process begins with a cycle that lasts millions of years as our souls seek to land and anchor fully into earthy matter. In Theosophy this long first stage is called the involutionaly, cycle. The crucial claim made by Blavatsky and Bailey is that the involutionary cycle is today finally beginning to achieve its purpose: the vibration of our souls"the resonance of compassion and unconditional love"is now landing deep into matter. Over millions of years our souls have been slowly descending through the mental and astral planes down into the etheric planes. Finally we are beginning to fully touch down into the densest etheric, gaseous, liquid, and material planes.

This involutionary achievement was, it is sometimes suggested, made possible by the collaborative endeavor of the Buddha and Christ, the Buddha preparing the mental energy body of humanity as a whole for such a deep incarnation, and Christ penetrating deep through the emotional and physical realms. These two great beings were leaders of our flock.

According to this map, now that our souls have fully descended into matter through the involutionarly, process, they can now begin to ascend, as a whole, into a more graceful evolutionary cycle. This collective shift is a pivotal time for our planetary chain, the Solar Logos, and beyond.

Now —just to play devil's advocate for a moment—this is a really fabulous piece of anthropocentricity, isn't it? Just in case we humans are not pompous enough, this viewpoint asserts that humanity is pivotal in the evolutionary process of our solar and  galactic system and beyond! Hm. Such delusion. Such arrogance. 

So why do I believe it? For two reasons. 

The first is that this model explains to me the extraordinary experience of being human. Without exception every spiritual traveler that I know, including me, endures (and enjoys) the wildest and most paradoxical roller-coaster of a journey. Inside our minds, emotions, and psyches, we are all mood-swinging dramatists, one moment cosmic, divine, brilliant, and wise, and the next moment irritable, driven by uncontrollable mammalian instincts, defensive-aggressive, neurotic, and incredibly petty (Speak for yourself, I hear you say No, I reply, I speak for all of us!)

We are all of us strung out between cosmic consciousness and neurotic pettiness. What explains this extreme polarity? Our drama"our sacred drama"is, I believe, explained by our location in the scheme of things. We are central agents of transformation as spirit meets, marries, and revibrates matter, as involution turns to evolution. That is our essential esoteric function and purpose. We are the pivot where spirit meets and transforms matter. That is bound to create esoteric friction and "electric fire" playing out in and through us.

Then there is a second reason why I believe it, which points to something more easy, enjoyable, and graceful. Let me pose it first as an enquiry: How might you personally experience the full involutionary incarnation of your soul? What would it feel like when your spirit successfully incarnates into your matter? How would you recognize it?

The answer seems obvious to me, and it behooves us here to be kinesthetically and clairsentiently wise. As our souls ground fully into our bodies, down into our cellular and atomic matter, we would sense and feel the sensations of spirit, compassion, and unconditional love anchoring down into our vehicles. We would feel the incarnation of love in our bodies.

In my case, this is precisely the experience I have when I am in a state of graceful meditation. Perhaps for you too. This is also precisely the experience I have when I am centered, compassionate, and present. My mind and psyche are calm and watchful, whilst my body feels subtle sensations of well-being and goodwill.

I hear from my friends, colleagues, and students that they too have many similar experiences, some within meditation or other spiritual practices, but also in many other circumstances such being in a natural landscape, caring, healing, reading, making love, and participating in the arts, dance, sport, and so on. 

This is supremely and gracefully simple, isn't it? When spirit incarnates fully into matter"when love earths"of course we feel it as a deep and contented sensation in our physical bodies. Why should it not be that simple? The major cosmic narrative is that spirit is incarnating into matter. As it is above, so it is below. Our microcosms reflect the macrocosmic process. In his case, you and I are the space of encounter for both "above" and "below," and when it happens "below" we have love descending into the matter of our bodies, the soul fully entering its temple.

We can therefore see that a crucial part of our work as esotericists and travelers on the spiritual path is to land love into our bodies. It is no idle coincidence that at precisely the same time that meditation practices and Theosophical ideas began to emerge in Western culture, so also did the body-based approaches of yoga, martial arts, sacred dance, Tantra, breath work, and healing bodywork. In my own life, for example, I was very lucky when in my early thirties my oldest friend brought me over to California to experience deep tissue massage and healing hot springs. Initially my esoteric intellectuality was resistant, but my body opened up to receive my incarnation. I felt love and healing in my cells.

This was true incarnation. The altered states of consciousness and transcendent energies of my meditations were landing in my flesh and blood temple. I began experientially to understand incarnation and the involutionary cycle.

This embodiment must, I suggest, be a core part of the mature practice of a modern esotericist. Using whatever method and circumstances work best for you, come down into your body, sink into your flesh, relax, and allow your soul to find accommodation fully within you. Do this mindfully and with waking, expanding consciousness. You probably already do this very successfully when you are relaxed after a good meal or have walked and paused to enjoy a view. Your body is relaxed. You are naturally meditative. In those moments, you can just become more mindful and allow love and goodwill and compassion to sink into you. There is a wonderful simplicity here. The more we do it, the easier it becomes. But this requires self-management, discipline, and focus.

In all spiritual practices there is the consistent call to ground, earth, center, and embody. This is not just for stability and integration. It is also to allow the soul fully to inhabit its temple"your body. 

Imagine a society filled with people who have love anchored and radiating from their bodies"and are conscious and awake. That would be a new age.

WILLIAM BLOOM is a modern Western mystic and considered by many to be Britain's leading and most experienced mind-body-spirit teacher. He is the founder of Spiritual Companions. He cofounded and directed the famous Alternatives Program of St. James's Church, Piccadilly, London. For thirty years he was a senior faculty member of Europe's leading green and spiritual community, the Findhorn Foundation. He is the author of many books, including the influential The Endorphin Effect, Psychic Protection, and most recently The Power of the New Spirituality (Quest Books). His Web site is www.williambloom.com. This article originally appeared in the British Theosophical journal Esoterica

VOLUME 101, NUMBER 2

CONTENTS

Not Another New Age!
William Bloom

Born to Be Lovers
Jimmy Creech

Gay and Lesbian Love
David Christensen

What I Know about Love: Making of a Mystic
Arlene Gay Levine

Kundalini and the Chill
Andrew Nesky III

The Look of Love: A Theosophist's Vision
Robyn Lawrence Finseth

From the Editor's Desk
Richard Smoley

Viewpoint: Less Is More
Tim Boyd

Presidents Diary

Printed in the Winter 2013 issue of Quest magazine. 
Citation: Boyd, Tim. "Viewpoint: Why Can't We All Get Along?" Quest  101. 1 (Winter 2013): pg. 8.

 By Tim Boyd

Recently I have found myself wondering.  The text of the question would be something like, "Why do we keep repeating these same mistakes?", or "When will we ever learn?", or in the famous words of the late Rodney King, "Why can't we all get along?". The catalyst for this line of thinking is not some recent event, or some despondency over the state of the world. It is just one of those persistent questions that reemerges from time to time. Pick a day, any day, look around you and see if it isn't a question worth asking. Whether it is the world news, the office, or the home, if we really look at it we see that there is work we need to do. 

Any parent with a young child can tell you that this "why" line of inquiry is challenging. If persisted in, it has a way of ending up at the door of the unknowable. Why is the sky blue? Because the molecules in the earth's atmosphere scatter the blue waves more than the rest of the spectrum. Why do the molecules scatter the blue waves more than the rest of the spectrum? Because it is the nature of oxygen and nitrogen to absorb the other waves. Why is it  the nature of oxygen and nitrogen to absorb the other waves. Because... It all leads to one or two ultimate answers, either "I don't know", or  "God made it that way, and don't ask me any more questions!" 

As with many things perhaps it is not the specific answers which are valuable, but the process of exploration and openness that comes with questioning. The fact that any question, diligently pursued, must naturally exceed our intellectual grasp should not deter us.  In the words of the poet Robert Browning, "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for". Our quest for knowledge begins with an assumption — that it is possible to know. Really, it is deeper than a mere assumption. Somewhere inside of us there is an intuitive, unassailable awareness that all knowledge is available to us.

Not too long ago while cleaning around the house I got something in my eye. Try as I might I could not get it out. All of the usual methods and tricks just could not dislodge it. I had no idea what it was, but I knew it was big. Honestly, it felt like a boulder had lodged itself in my eye. After a day and a night of constant discomfort I went to an eye doctor. He sat me down in his chair, focused the light on my eye, rolled back the eye lid, and removed the offending object. The sense of relief was immediate. For the past twenty-four hours I had gone about my normal duties doing my best to give them the proper attention, but the whole time my thoughts had been centered on the throbbing discomfort in my eye. When I asked the doctor to show me the particle I was amazed at its size. It was no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. 

Thinking about it later, the whole thing seemed a bit incongruous. A particle that almost required a magnifying glass to be seen, something maybe one one-millionth the size of my body had fully taken over the field of my attention. The physical discomfort it entailed fixed my attention, first on the pain, and second on how to get away from it. Ideally, I was looking for a cure, but in the short term I would have settled for something to dull the pain or distract me from the suffering. 

When Buddha had his awakening and he delivered his first teaching, the first of his Four Noble Truths was the truth of suffering. It was an expression of the fact that living in the realms of body, emotion, and mind necessarily involves suffering on many levels, from the grossest physical pains to the subtle, pervasive awareness that nothing is constant or secure. During his life he often referred to himself as a doctor saying that his work was to prescribe a cure for this most basic of human maladies. In countless ways he noted that our methods for distracting ourselves from suffering, or dulling our sensitivity to it were not merely unproductive, but assured that the basic condition would continue and even grow. 

Some familiarity with the ageless wisdom teachings gives a sense of how we might approach the problem. They describe the process by which all things come into being. Simply put, there is Spirit, the One Life, which clothes itself in ever denser layers of "matter",  each successive layer serving as the vehicle for the expression of the previous, less material one. We are composed of everything from highest spirit to lowest matter. What we describe as our personalities — the combination of physical, emotional, and mental attributes — are the densest vehicles for the hidden spirit. A variety of terms have been used to identify these different vehicles of consciousness — koshas, principles, planes, fields, even "bodies". In the terminology of Theosophy we have the atma, buddhi, manas...progression. The central idea is that this process has its beginning and ending in Spirit — the One Life. 

So why can't we all get along? One of the reasons has been expressed in a variety of ways across spiritual traditions. It has also been expressed in the wisdom of popular common sense phrases. One such phrase is "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" - the idea that the loudest voice will be heard and attended to. In our case that voice is the clamor of desires and thoughts constantly calling out to be heard and satisfied. The technical term used to designate this dimension of human consciousness is kama-manas — the mind of desire. Even though the most powerful dimensions of our being lie outside of this narrow band of consciousness, we find ourselves habituated to serving the wants of this desiring mind which by its very nature continually places us in conflict with countless others whose differing desires seem to compete with ours. 

H. P. Blavatsky, in The Secret Doctrine, put her finger on the problem and its solution.

"Whatever plane our consciousness may be acting in, both we and the things belonging to that plane are, for the time being, our only realities. As we rise in the scale of development we perceive that during the stages through which we have passed we mistook shadows for realities, and the upward progress of the Ego is a series of progressive awakenings, each advance bringing with it the idea that now, at last, we have reached "reality"; but only when we shall have reached the absolute Consciousness, and blended our own with it, shall we be free from the delusions produced by Maya [illusion].

I have known people living in major cities who never left their neighborhood, never traveled so far as downtown. I have also known people who have traveled around the world, but never met or talked with the people who support their luxurious lifestyle, those that they viewed as servants — cooks, waiters, bell hops, drivers, farmers. In both our outer and inner life we tend to suffer from a lack of exposure. We are often content to find comfort in the familiarity of our current condition rather than risk the unknown.

The ray of hope for all of us is found in a simple fact. When it becomes clear that the suffering we experience and the collateral suffering we cause through our unintelligent living is just too much, we will decide that we have had enough. In the words of civil rights activist  Fannie Lou Hamer, "All of my life I've been sick and tired, but now I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired". The extremity of our discomfort drives us to find a better way. When this realization finally dawns on us we embark on the great experiment of self transformation. It is then that we  respond to the wisdom teachings and begin to acquaint ourselves with deeper dimensions of our own being. We study what has been said about these deeper layers. We take quiet time to first approach them, then immerse ourselves in that "field" that Rumi described as "out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing". Gradually we can establish a "new normal" for ourselves, a state that no longer requires conflict and competition for us to feel alive. This possibility is something which is available to us at any moment. In our quieter moments when we are alone and still we can sometimes feel it. As Dane Rudhyar writes in his  book, Occult Preparations for a New Age:

The Ocean of Infinite Potentiality surrounds us; we live, move, and have our being in it, but most of us refuse to feel, refuse to see, so wrapt are we in our frantic agitation, our fear, our masochistic concentration on how much we suffer. Such a suffering is in vain and calls for endless repetition. We must become still, and "feel" the soundless sound of the vast tides of spirit lapping at the shores of our consciousness, or perhaps beating at the jagged rocks of our pride and our greed. We must turn our consciousness toward this inner sea and try to sense the end of a cycle of experience peacefully moving into the yet imprecise and unfocused beginning of a new cycle. We must dare to summon the potentiality of an essentially new and, for us unprecedented beginning.

Peace.