Thelema: A Religion? Who’s Still Afraid of Crowley's Big Bad Wolf?

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Religion, as such, has become one of the largest boogiemen of Thelema since Crowley proclaimed calling Thelema a religion “a rather stupid kind of mischief.”¹Crowley, Aleister. 1994. “Religion–Is Thelema a ‘New Religion’?” In Magick Without Tears. New Falcon Publications, 219. There is some wisdom in that statement when you see the kind of approach many take toward Thelema today, either in the course of a superstitious faith or in attempting to narrow down “academic” discussions of religion to the level of magisterial legitimization. Or Frater Schadenfreude trying to convince people that Thelema isn’t a religion at all despite the literal shit-ton of evidence otherwise.

Granted, the exploration of Thelema as a religion is a topic that requires some delicacy of approach if only to ensure that we step lightly around the toes of those who are most offended by the idea that Thelema may, indeed, be a religion and their emotional trauma would be too great to risk the acceptance of such. So allow me to be the elephant in a porcelain factory and get this over with quickly.

Thelema is a religion. It’s like calling water wet.

And the controversy so many influencers create over all this really is “a rather stupid kind of mischief.”

Crowley nailed that one close to home, for sure.

Classification of Religion

Despite our Prophet’s need to muddy the waters through many of his own personal expressions of Thelema, he was quite correct in his letter on religion, found in Magick Without Tears, that the Book of the Law does not, anywhere, include the word religion. His tongue-in-cheek comment included in the former series of letters betrays his exasperation at the questioning from his correspondent but also shows how little thought he put into the response. The dismissal of the question, using the amount of cheekiness Crowley does in the letter, rises to the level of almost incompetence when compared to other letters in the same collection.

It is important to note that those who fancifully wish for Thelema not to be a religion do so against all rational evidence to the contrary. Almost all—if not, in fact, all—of the elements that define religion historically, sociologically, psychologically, philosophically, functionally, phenomenologically, theologically, and critically can be found within even a superficial examination of Thelema. A deeper dive leaves no doubt.

Defining Religion

Wiber calls religion something “extremely meaningful or [viewed as an] integrative engagement.”²Wilber, Ken. 1999. “A Sociable God: Toward a New Understanding of Religion.” In The Collected Works of Ken Wilber, Volume 3. Shambhala Publications, 71. By this he means that religion is something that “is a particular functional activity [in] search for meaning, truth, integrity, stability, and subject-object relationship.”³Wilber, “A Sociable God,” 71. This could mean just about anything. Wilber admits this when he suggests that while some might balk at this definition—even though there is a great deal of common sense to it—they usually come to an understanding of the definition when an example of science as Einstein’s religion is provided (though this example from Wilber is almost spurious given Einstein’s deep religious devotion) or, alternately, that Star Trek‘s Spock held logic as his religion (a better, if fantastical, example). This definition of religion does not require any supernatural inclination or institution. It is more in the nature of a search or a journey than a specific discovery or a final destination.

What do we mean when we say that something is a religion? How do we define that concept? Despite some minor discussion to the contrary—and we’ll see some of that in a moment—religion has been consistently defined through broad strokes for centuries.

One of the earliest formal definitions comes from Friedrich Schleiermacher [1831], who defined religion as “das schlechthinnige Abhängigkeitsgefühl”—which is commonly translated as “the feeling of absolute dependence,” though there is some contention as to whether or not that should be “the absolute feeling of dependence.”⁴Finlay, Hueston E. 2005. “‘Feeling of Absolute Dependence’ or ‘Absolute Feeling of Dependence’? A Question Revisited.” Religious Studies 41 (1): 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034412504007462. Not too long after, Friedrich Hegel [1895], in what could be interpreted as one of the nearest foreshadowings of the metaphysics of the Law of Thelema, submitted that religion “is the Divine Spirit’s knowledge of itself through the mediation of finite spirit.”⁵Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1895. Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion, Together With a Work on the Proofs of the Existence of God. Edited by Speirs. Translated by J. Burdon Sanderson and E. B. Speirs. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company Ltd. I admit that I like this one quite a lot.

While it is not my intention to survey the entirety of definitions of religion here, I think it is important to see both the diversity and the similarity of definitions over the span of time. I will quote a few for examples, though I won’t be deep-diving into any of them specifically here. It is merely important to note that while they have some differences between themselves—and will have some differences from the definition I ultimately use for my own work—they have a congruency between them that all point in the same direction.⁶Note that this is an acknowledged bias of using definitions that point to and in support of my own assertions. While I have yet to find any definition that does not support my own conclusions, I recognize that there are definitions that attempt to negate religion as a category of examination rather than redefine it outside even the variety found in these examples.

James Frazier [1890] wrote, “By religion, then, I understand a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of nature and of human life.”⁷Frazer, James George. 1911. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion (Complete): A Study in Magic and Religion. Macmillan. William James [1902] stated that religion is “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.”⁸James, William. 1922. The Varieties of Religious Experience; a Study in Human Nature, Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901-1902. Longmans, Green, and Co. Following up from there, Durkheim [1912] published a definition of religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.”⁹Durkheim, Émile. 1947. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology. Free Pr.

Later we see two definitions published that move into the area of religion as symbols. Clifford Geertz [1966], coming at religion as both a symbolic and cultural system as well, said that religion is:

(1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.¹⁰Geertz, Clifford. 1993. “Religion as a Cultural System.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. Fontana Press.

Then Thomas O’Dea [1983] proposed that “Religion, like culture, is a symbolic transformation of experience.”¹¹O’Dea, Thomas F., and Janet O’Dea Aviad. 1983. The Sociology of Religion. Prentice Hall.

Catherine Albanese [2012] agreed with this in her definition that religion is “a system of symbols (creed, code, cultus) by means of which people (a community) orient themselves in the world with reference to both ordinary and extraordinary powers, meanings, and values.”¹²Albanese, Catherine L. 2012. America: Religions and Religion. Cengage Learning.

I have left out two definitions to which I will return in a moment, but I will end the litany of definitions here with the submission from Fredrick Streng [1985] that “Religion is a means to ultimate transformation”¹³Streng, Frederick J. 1985. Understanding Religious Life. Wadsworth. to which Joseph Adler [2014] tacked onto the end a very appropriate “and/or ultimate orientation.”¹⁴Adler, Joseph A. 2014. Reconstructing the Confucian Dao: Zhu Xi’s Appropriation of Zhou Dunyi. State University of New York Press.

By now, even if I have belabored the point, I think it is clear that religion is a complex topic and there is no single definition that is conclusive or “right” in the way it approaches the subject while also seeing a continuity of similarity through all of these definitions.¹⁵Something of note is that many of these same definitions are used repeatedly through various textbooks to show the variety of approaches to the subject.

In 1871, Edward Tylor suggested that the “minimum definition of Religion [is] the belief in Spiritual Beings.”¹⁶Tylor, Edward Burnett. 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches Into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. J. Murray. Yet in that same work, Tylor provides this “minimum definition” through a specific examination of those who question the legitimacy and existence of religion at all. The idea mentioned previously that religion is a “construct” of examination is not a new idea. It has been with scholars for some time now.

Timothy Fitzgerald claims that “there is little or no agreement among academics on what religion is or is not.”¹⁷“Fitzgerald, Timothy.” 2017. The Critical Religion Association. August 8, 2017. https://criticalreligion.org/scholars/fitzgerald-timothy/. I think the brief examination of the definitions above shows that agreement is not about uniformity of specifics but about consistency in the broad strokes. Fitzgerald believes that religion is a subversive category that stands apart from the idea of the secular, dividing the examination into power games. While that is partially accurate, we find such definitions as Durkheim, and agreement from Albanese, that do not make any separation between the ordinary (secular) and extraordinary (religious). Are we bound to such ideas and power games? I submit we are not and that, in fact, Thelema breaks down that ordinary/extraordinary separation entirely and subverts those power structures.

In approaching my own examination of religion—and Thelema as a religion—I gravitate toward two specific definitions.

• The first is from Paul Tillich [1963]¹⁸A large portion of my own theological metaphysics is informed through Tillich’s existential theology. who stated that “Religion is the state of being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifies all other concerns as preliminary, and a concern that in itself provides the answer to the question of the meaning of our existence.”¹⁹Tillich, Paul. 1963. Christianity and the Encounter of the World Religions. Columbia University Press eBooks. Columbia Univ. Press. I have yet to find a more theologically and functionally accurate definition of Crowley’s “True Will” than Tillich’s own “ultimate concern.”

• The second definition, and the one around which the rest of this section is generally designed, is from Gerd Theissen [2010], German Protestant theologian and scholar, who posited that “Religion is a cultural sign language which promises a gain in life by corresponding to an ultimate reality.”²⁰Theissen, Gerd. 2010. A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion. SCM Press.

However, whatever else religion may be, I posit that at its most basic, religion is a praxis between the individual and something deeper than himself and generally a manner in which these communicate in some form or fashion.

To Answer The Question

But have we answered the question? Is Thelema a religion?

Of course it is. By any reasonable definition, it’s a religion. Saunter back through those definitions above, and Thelema could fit nearly all of them.

But we can go further down the rabbit hole.

Trust me. I’ve been all the way into Wonderland with Alice on this one. It is, after all, one of my areas of expertise.

Three Characteristics of Religion

It is from here that we move into examining the character of religion and tie that back into one approach to the nature of Thelema as a religion. To be sure, this is not the only way to examine the subject, but it is one that disregards institutional claims and avoids a dogmatic approach to such a sensitive subject.

Religion, in general, appears to take on three characteristics that transcend type or mode.

Semiotic Character

Within Thelema’s semiotic characteristics, we find all three forms of expression as defined by Thessien: that is, as a sign system, Thelema exhibits myths (linguistic expressions), rituals (praxeological and material expressions combined), and ethics.²¹Theissen, 2010. A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion.

• Myths explain in narrative form what fundamentally determines the world and life. Myths, as I have stated in the past, are not a matter of something that is a lie but a truth that is enshrined through a larger pictorial (symbol) language pattern and applied universally.

• Rites are patterns of behavior that repeat themselves, patterns with which people break up their everyday actions in order to depict the other reality that is indicated in myths. Rites are made up of three specific aspects: words of interpretation, actions, and objects.²²Theissen, 2010. A Theory of Primitive Christian Religion.

  • In the words of interpretation, the myth is made present in a concentrated form.

  • Through those words and forms, actions take on symbolic surplus value and, as signs, are related to the ‘other reality.’

  • On the basis of this ‘surplus value’ the objects present in the rite are removed from everyday, secular use—including the places and buildings in which the rites take place. [There is a whole discussion on place that could be had here that will have to wait for another time.]

• Ethics is a part of the religious sign language insofar as behavior is integrated into the sign language itself. This is more or less a matter of consistency in norms and values. While Thelemites, in the general communal consciousness, typically attempt dogmatically to eschew the prescription of ethics on the whole, the Law of Thelema does not do away with the category of ethics itself.

Systemic Character

Religion exists within a systemic field as an adaptive shape of social reality. It can integrate into both systems of survival and growth (thriving). It is a motivating system of social relations that exists outside of a specific historical timeframe and yet within the flow of history itself.

The systemic character of religion, however, includes concepts such as authority, meaning, obligations, and any taboosthat arise out of aggregated individuals engaged in social construction. Thelema also exhibits systematic characteristics in that its sign (symbol) set comes together to form a distinct and clear language—and even has various dialects of that language that we are seeing in our current times.

It is important to note that despite the slow demise of the ‘radicalization of individualism,’ the idea that community is some kind of pariah to Thelema is just not accurate. Crowley’s personal trauma via radical Christianity is not (and should not shape) the norm of Thelema. This idea that modern Thelema—mainly via O.T.O. and translated through its detractors that haven’t broken free of the (un)fraternal model it showcases—must be a set of radically individual and isolated supernovas waiting to explode like little jihadists is just ludicrous and completely incoherent in relation to the message of the Book of the Law.

This isn’t to say that individualism isn’t important in Thelema. It absolutely is. It’s vital. But suggesting that community is not important, is to be ignored, or is less valuable, is to ignore half of all human development, spirituality, psychologically, and functionally.²³This is the Aeon of the Crowned and Conquering Child. It is not the Aeon of the Spoiled Brat. I’ll return to this another time, but there is no dialectic of Mother-Father-Child. These are developmental steps as clear as day. People aren’t asking the right questions. They want to reject Crowley when he’s inconvenient (racism, misogyny, etc) but uncritically accept him without question when it suits their prejudices (HGA, religion, etc).

Religion is evolutionary. It’s something we both inherit and pass down, generation upon generation. It’s a community bond, a stabilizing force against the political divisions that are created to draw lines in the sand and borders between nations. Which leads us to the final characteristic of religion …

Cultural Character

Religion offers a cultural context for individuals who adhere to the fundamental principles of a given religious community. Religion, like politics, is intrinsically bound up in culture itself. To that end, examining such concepts is a spectrum and not a binary process of in-groups and out-groups within the greater Thelemic community. While such an examination does show a divide between Thelemic culture and non-Thelemic culture, it is not the scope of this essay.

Finally, Thelema is a cultural phenomenon in that it is not merely a set of rituals to perform or a language to speak, but it involves people utilizing these rituals and this language to interact with each other at scale.

Addendum

I was asked to write some thoughts on Thelemic religion for an online “underground newsletter” about twelve years ago (right before I dropped out of the internet life). I smashed together some pieces from a paper I was writing at the time about Thelema and religion, but then I got self-conscious about it and stalled. I missed the deadline. But my bias against churchy fraternities and their like (and dominator hierarchies) is quite obvious even that far back.

This is an excerpt from that piece:

Functions of an Authentic Religion in Relation to a Thelemic Expression

It has been said in the past that Thelema is resistant to being defined as a religion in any meaningful way; yet the echo chamber is filled with those who have regurgitated the Victorian spectator sport of pauper, prison, and priest alike. They have taken a piece of Thelema here and a piece of Crowley there and chewed it all just enough to vomit it back up in a manner that is palatable just enough for conventional society outside the insulated fraternities left behind or inspired by the Prophet while hoarding so-called secrets for an elect that could never find its way to offer the world something meaningful to its clear and present concerns. Conversely, there is a world teacher on every corner that would deny the pragmatic asset of a Thelemic worldview by continuing a pseudo-literalism of Crowley’s magical work in a manner for self-aggrandizement.

The lives of Thelemites on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis show incredible resilience in pursuing religious inclinations, from public worship to private devotion. Although the influences of the New Age Movement seem to be filtering off,²⁴Ha! I wish this was true. I was naive! the same underlying desire—a longing if you will—for the sublime as a personal and meaningful aspect of existence remains.

While we have seen attempts at religious facade or liturgy through O.T.O./EGC, there has been no serious attempt to explore religious expression outside that limited Victorian occultism of O.T.O. and Gnostic Catholic revivals of the 18th/19th century. Any attempt to break the mold of O.T.O./EGC has been little more than a mimicry of the same with tweaks to include “progressive” social elements within the same liturgy or the creation of a close approximation. No trueinnovation has been made in the area of religious expressions of the Law of Thelema since the days of Crowley.

But how do we construct liturgy? How do we approach religion within Thelema? Is there even a common ground on which diverse individuals can stand in relation to religion? The truth of the matter is that Thelemites are impoverished and ignorant when it comes to religion and spirituality. They are “magicians” waving their dicks around. That’s it. Those who have any sense of spirituality, of true religion, all end up aground elsewhere, with Gnostic revivals and Catholic offshoots or Buddhist factions. No one is working Thelema for Thelema because every single one of the big names, every single person with a name on a book, is afraid of one single word: religion. They will do anything at all to avoid Thelema. Magick, initiation, Calls of the Aethyrs, devotion to Babylon, pathworking, Crowleyan Bookclub Meetings, whatever—so long as we don’t call it “Thelema.” And, for fuck’s sake, don’t call it religion. Don’t call it spiritual. Don’t call it “a faith” in the sense of a spiritual sense of confidence.

We don’t need nor do we require a church. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have a religion on our hands. Only a fool goes around telling people that Thelema isn’t a religion—and it’s an ignorant reading of Magick Without Tears to suggest Crowley didn’t know that too. He had better things to do with his time than entertain stupid questions. His tongue-in-cheek response was just that: tongue-in-cheek.

We do, however, need new forms of community that move away from this mimicry of spectator sport churching. O.T.O. can keep it. They want to be the next Magisterium anyway. Let them have it. The problem is even their detractors keep mirroring exactly the same thing: fraternities, secret societies, initiatory clubs, and Catholic-style churches. For fuck’s sake, stop!

Granted, the “church” may be required in name-only because it’s the form that most people are familiar with and a legal entity that society can handle. That’s a formality. But the form of the church doesn’t need to be a mirror of the Roman Catholic Church with its pedophilic hierarchy. We are stars in a constellation, not Masters/slaves groveling and rising from sin through grace or up/down an imaginary Tree of Life, and our forms of gathering should reflect that, in my opinion.

However, to that end, there are six important functions to any public form of the Law of Thelema that must be targeted if it is to be vibrantly authentic and sustaining into the future:

1. a sense of personal and communal mystery in religious experience,

2. a worship expression centered around the Law of Thelema,

3. a sacramental reality,

4. a historical identity,

5. a feeling of being part of the entire Body of Nuit, and

6. a holistic spirituality.

Every one of these is supported in the Book of the Law. Not a little bit. Not “kinda.” Full-chested support.

Conclusion

In the end, Crowley was right. We can make an awful mischief out of religion. But only because people either want to control it for their own purposes or warp it into something it isn’t. Crowley talked a lot about the natural religious impulses of humanity. Thelema resolves those quite nicely for multiple developmental levels. People who spend more time trying to “debunk” Thelema as a religion do more harm than good, and they really are stirring up “a rather stupid kind of mischief.”

If we spent more time just applying Thelema rather than arguing over whether it was or wasn’t a religion, we’d be far better off.

Love is the law, love under will.