Panentheism and the Trinity

Panentheism is an English word derived from Greek roots: pan = “all”, en = “in”, the, from theos = “God”.  This is in distinction from pantheism, meaning “all God”, or “all is God”.  Before more fully defining panentheism, we’ll briefly review the Christian Trinity in order to compare and contrast.

The Trinity from an Historically Orthodox Christian Perspective

The Christian God, known as the Trinity, is a tri-unity consisting of God the Father, God the Son (Christ, the Word), and God the Holy Spirit. Each Member of the Trinity is co-essential (united in essence/being) and co-equal with the others.  God is spirit, i.e., incorporeal, having no physical body.  There are a number of divine attributes associated with the Godhead, including omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.  Christian philosopher Thomas V. Morris explains the interrelationship between these three attributes with respect to His creation:

Perhaps the best understanding of the attribute of omnipresence is that of its being the property of being present everywhere in virtue of knowledge of [omniscience] and power over [omnipotence] any and every spatially located object [creation].¹

God is immanent, i.e., present in/among His creation (as opposed to within, immersed inside its substance, though indwelling true Christians, of course), by virtue of His omnipresence.  He is infinitely aware of even the tiniest details concerning the universe – which the Godhead created out of nothing (ex nihilo) – and, due to the Word’s continuous sustaining activity holding it together (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3), “He keeps the cosmos from becoming a chaos,”² to borrow H.C.G. Moule’s memorable phrase.

The ultimate display of God’s immanence is when the Son humbled Himself by taking on human form in the Person of Jesus Christ (Immanuel – God with us), retaining full divinity in becoming fully human, and then dying in our place, in His plan of redemption.  What a God we serve!

Yet, God is also transcendent, wholly outside His creation, as the Trinity is not affected in any way by the cosmos (creation).  In no way does it act upon Him.  God is self-existent, self-sufficient, immutable (unchanging), and eternal, existing outside time, yet acting within it (immanence).  An inherent aspect of creation, time is His own construct.  As such, the Godhead Lord’s over it, thereby fulfilling time, according to His purposes.  God has been present and active throughout the entire history of humanity, is currently active in human affairs, and will continue to be actively governing humanity, though allowing free will.

While imprisoned by the Nazis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer proposed a different understanding of transcendence. He contended that Jesus’ “being for others” is the true meaning of transcendence, suggesting that we not think of immanence and transcendence as opposites.³  Thus, in Jesus’ dying on the Cross for the sins of mankind – because God “so loved the world”, thereby providing eternal life for those who believe in Him – the ultimate display of God’s immanence climaxes in the supreme act of ‘transcendence’.

Recognizing the beautiful, poetic force of Bonhoeffer’s words, yet still we understand that God truly is transcendent – so wholly other than His creation – yet God is also immanent, fully active in/among His creation. He is the Potter; we are the clay.

The Christian Trinity is a divine mystery.  Attempts to fully explain the mystery of God’s three-in-one-ness can lead to heretical conclusions such as tritheism (three Gods), modalism (one God in three different modes, one at a time), or other distortions.⁴

Panentheism Defined in ‘Christian Esotericism’

While there are a number of different views of panentheism in the various and varying religious systems in the world, there are some consistencies in the doctrine with respect to how it relates to the Christian Trinity and Jesus Christ in esoteric literature.  In Richard Smoley’s book Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition is a general view of the doctrine of panentheism as it pertains to ‘Christian esotericism’:

…The Father is the ineffable, transcendent aspect of God; the Son is God’s immanent aspect. This divine spark or Logos is the first sounding-forth of existence from the depths of infinity: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men” (John 1:3-4). [Jesus] Christ is the embodiment of this immanent aspect of God.

So are we. “Without him was not any thing made that was made.” Nothing comes into existence unless this divine spark of consciousness, no matter how faint or dim, lies at its center. This was true of Jesus, it is true of me, and it is true of you…We may not be as exalted as Christ…But at the core we are the same.⁵

This is obviously a purposeful distortion of the true Christian Trinity, with its use of similar terminology.  Note the two separate aspects of ‘God’: the transcendent, which is the ineffable (inexpressible) “Father”, and the immanent (within all creation) aspect, which is the “Son”.  While the way in which this immanence is described is not at all congruent with the Christian Trinity, importantly, transcendence is described in such a manner that it more closely approximates the true Trinity (though see below), marking this as one of the keys in making the doctrine appear ‘Christian’.  This “immanence” is alternatively called divine seed, divine spark, divine (spark of) light, logos, or Christ.  So, the Son/Christ is a divine entity, and this divine entity is diffused throughout creation as a seed / spark / light.

This view of panentheism is such that all is in God (the transcendent Father is wholly outside, enveloping all of creation), and God is in all (the Son/Christ is immersed within all of creation), yet God is not present among creation.⁶ 

In the quote above, observe that, by implication, the two separate aspects are indeed separate.  The Father is not immanent, and the Son is not transcendent.  This indicates that the Father is not omnipresent, as he is not present at all in creation.  On the other hand, the Son is divided up within creation, with each spark, seed, etc. separated from all other sparks or seeds by its outer matter (body, sheath), making omnipresence a bit murky at best, as the seeds / sparks seem individually disunified, though all parts of a whole; however, without an explicit claim of the Son being also among creation, omnipresence is implicitly denied.

It appears as if the Father has absolutely no access to and no power over creation, while the Son is confined within creation, with neither Father nor Son seemingly possessing the ability to interact with the other.  But not to worry, the “Holy Spirit”, a “divine principle”, acts as an intermediary between the two:

How do these two, the Father and the Son, interact with each other?  What enables them to have any connection at all, while still in some way remaining distinct?  There is…a principle that makes this interaction possible.  It is called the Comforter, or the Holy Spirit.

Here, in essence, is the Christian Trinity…Between them [Father and Son] is the Holy Spirit, the divine principle of relatedness, which accomplishes perhaps the most astonishing of all miracles: uniting two separate entities while still allowing them to be separate.⁷

This implies that the “Holy Spirit” is omnipresent.  However, besides the problems with this doctrine already noted above, from an historically orthodox Christian perspective, this devolves into tritheism (three gods) as opposed to a Trinity, despite its claim of Trinitarianism – that is, assuming that one can even term a “divine principle” a god. 

In addition, notice in the first Smoley quote above that Jesus Himself is called Christ (“Christ is the embodiment of this immanent aspect of God”), rather than merely, for example, Jesus of Nazareth, as some cults claim.  Smoley quotes from A Course in Miracles to describe Him:

The name of Jesus is the name of the one who was a man but saw the face of Christ in all his brothers and remembered God.  So he became identified with Christ, a man no longer, but at one with God.⁸

This statement identifies this doctrine as explicitly antichrist per the Apostle John’s words in his first epistle (1 John 2:22, 4:1-3), as it separates Christ from Jesus.  Smoley  then goes on to quote the “Jesus” of the Course as saying all can do what He did, describing Him as an exemplar, making the impossible (the distance is too great between us and the Father) into possibility.⁹  By this he means that the man Jesus became “at one” with God, thereby bridging the gap and becoming an example for others, claiming that all are Christs, at least potentially.¹⁰

Of course, according to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus Christ, as the God-man (fully God and fully man), is the intermediary between mankind and God through His redemptive work on the Cross.  One’s acceptance of Jesus Christ as our sin substitute, thereby reconciling the individual back to God through His remission of our sins, is the only way to salvation.  However, Smoley depicts Jesus as merely a man who subsequently attained divine status, becoming a model for others to follow to actualize their own ‘latent divinity’, becoming gods.

Far too many (laypersons and theologians alike) make statements to the effect that Jesus was reliant upon God during His earthly ministry, stressing His humanity at the expense of His Deity.  We must always recognize that Jesus Christ was/is God Himself, the second ‘Person’ of the Trinity, as God in the flesh.  Of course, there are times in Scripture in which Jesus’ humanity is emphasized (growing tired, hungry, etc.), perhaps the most striking example of which is when He is on the Cross crying out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”  Yet these must be balanced out by those occasions in which Jesus declares His own Deity (“I am” – John 8:58; “I and the Father are one” – John 10:30, John 14:9, etc.). To be clear, as the Incarnate God-man, Immanuel (God with us), Jesus Christ submitted, in obedience, to the Father; however, as the second Member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ was/is co-equal with the Father (and the Holy Spirit), and in no way subordinate.  Such is the mystery of the Incarnation!

Now that we have a general view of panentheism in ‘Christian esotericism’ (though also looking at one particular part of A Course in Miracles in the process), we’ll take a look at one specific view.  The false trinity in Theosophy will be discussed – the school of esotericism founded by Madame Blavatsky in 1875 and perhaps better known as associated with Alice A. Bailey (in her channeled works) in the twentieth century, forming the basis of much of the New Age / New Spirituality of today.

The Panentheistic Trinity in Theosophy

Before proceeding, the goal of this section is not to educate the reader on a specific occult teaching as an end in itself.  The intent is to make the reader aware of how the Christian Trinity is perverted such that a Christian could be fooled into thinking another individual is a true Christian when similar terminology and concepts are used, or worse, the Christian could be duped into following this dangerous doctrine.

Without getting bogged down into too much detail regarding the rather complicated Theosophical schema, illustrated graphically in one of Bailey’s books,¹¹ an attempt at explaining and simplifying it will be made, though the following may not be absolutely accurate due to the convoluted nature of it.

There are two separate “trinities”: the “Solar Logos” (The Solar Trinity or Logoi [plural of Logos]) and “Sanat Kumara”.  The Solar Logos is made up of “the Father”, “the Son”, and “the Holy Spirit”.  The Father constitutes the transcendent aspect, the “Absolute Reality”, also referred to as the ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID – the all is in ‘God’ aspect.¹²  The Son is “Life, the Spirit of the Universe”, constituting the immanent aspect, the ‘god’ immersed within creation – the ‘God’ is in all aspect.  The Holy Spirit is “Cosmic Ideation, the Universal World-Soul”,¹³ and “Creative Wisdom”,¹⁴ which makes the Holy Spirit the communicator, the one bringing revelation, and, in effect, seemingly omnipresent, though this is not explicit.

The “Planetary Hierarchy” is headed by Sanat Kumara, the Lord of the World, aka Ancient of Days, the One Initiator,¹⁵ the Hierophant¹⁶ – clearly all names for Satan (taking into account their respective contexts in Theosophic literature), though some were appropriated from Scripture.  Sanat Kumara (the name is taken from ancient Hindu philosophy) fashions himself as a trinity, with three separate “Kumaras” emanating from him (the “Buddhas of Activity”), one of which is the Bodhisattva, aka the Christ (not Jesus), the World Teacher.¹⁷  But, there are also lesser ‘deities’ in the Planetary Hierarchy, many of whom were, according to this doctrine, former humans who evolved into godhood (“Ascended Masters”), which thereby reduces Theosophy to polytheism (many gods).

Yet in analyzing this schema it becomes obvious that Satan, through these channeled works of Bailey, is cleverly presenting himself as both Sanat Kumara and the Solar Logos, with the Solar Trinity/Logos merely a ruse in order to purposely approximate, yet distort the Christian Trinity.¹⁸  Evidence of this is found in that the “Lord of the World” is also called, “the God in whom we live and move and have our being.”¹⁹  Further support of this collapsing of the two trinities into one is found in a work by H. P. Blavatsky in which the “Serpent” in the Garden of Eden is equated to the “Lord God”,²⁰ and later in this same book, Logos is termed “WISDOM”, which is then equated to both Satan and Lucifer.²¹

By their functions in portions of the texts, both the transcendent and immanent aspects overlap somewhat, such that when taken together these resemble the Christian Trinity in certain ways, though clearly the graphic indicates something entirely different.  In other words, though the illustration pictures a totally different ‘god’ (or ‘gods’), when described elsewhere in sections of the texts apart from the graphic, one could understand it as not inconsistent with the Christian Trinity with the overlapping functions and the similar terminology.  Though no Christian would likely be fooled into thinking any of the Theosophic texts were remotely Christian when read in complete context (if one doesn’t get lost in the confusing nature of it), the stated goal is to subvert Christianity from the inside by readapting this material into Christian contexts,²² as Bailey remarked in another work, “Christianity will not be superseded.  It will be transcended, its work of preparation being triumphantly accomplished….”²³  This demonic threat should not be taken lightly.

Like second century Gnosticism, there is a Dualism, a dichotomy between spirit and matter (creation).  Matter is the “not-self”, as opposed to the soul/spirit, which is the “self”.  However, this does not mean that matter has no function.  It’s not quite the ‘evil’ of second century Gnosticism, for “matter, being inspired by spirit, conforms”,²⁴ providing the means (the vehicle) by which spirit can evolve:

…The development of spirit can be only expressed as yet in terms of the evolution of matter, and only through the adequacy of the vehicle, and through the suitability of the sheath, the body or form, can the point of spiritual development reached in any way be appraised…²⁵

In other words, the outer body will improve concurrent with spiritual progression, or so it’s claimed.  The human is made up of soul/spirit, mind and body.  However, once “perfected consciousness”²⁶ is attained, the body is destroyed, annihilated²⁷ marking the “escape of Spirit, plus mind, to its cosmic centre”²⁸ – the cosmic center being the transcendent aspect of this version of panentheism.  So the formerly ‘trapped’ (inside the “not self”) essence of the particular individual (the “self”), as part of the immanent aspect, is now united to the ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID, the transcendent aspect.²⁹

Spiritual progression is  accomplished through meditation,³⁰ in other words, contemplative or centering prayer.³¹  The method is described as emptying one’s mind, yet controlling thought, requiring full concentration:

The true meditation is something that requires the most intense application of the mind, the utmost control of thought, and an attitude which is neither negative nor positive, but an equal balance between the two.  In the Eastern Scriptures the man who is attempting meditation and achieving results, is described as follows… ‘The Maha Yogi, the great ascetic, in whom is centred the highest perfection of austere penance and abstract meditation, by which the most unlimited powers are attained, marvels and miracles are worked, the highest spiritual knowledge is acquired, and union with the great Spirit of the universe is eventually attained.’³²

When one reaches “perfected consciousness” through meditation, one has achieved “union with the great Spirit of the universe”.  Along the way, as one ‘grows spiritually’, one will receive supernatural powers to include the ability to work miracles, or so goes the claim.  The exact method of approach to meditation is left to the individual:

True meditation (of which the preliminary stages are concentration upon and application to any particular line of thought) will differ for different people and different types.  The religious man, the mystic, will centre his attention upon the life within the form, upon God, upon Christ, or upon that which embodies for him the ideal…We need to find our own method of approach to that which lies within, and to study for ourselves this question of meditation.³³

Ultimately, the panentheistic god (Satan) of Theosophy is dependent upon mankind, for “humanity itself is the key to all evolutionary processes and to all understanding of the divine Plan, expressing in time and space the divine Purpose.”³⁴  This “divine Plan”, aka “divine Purpose” is anything but divine!  “The Plan” includes receiving extra-biblical revelation from “Masters”, former humans (or so it’s claimed) who have attained godhood.  And this extra-biblical revelation resulting from meditation (centering prayer, contemplative prayer, “soaking”), in turn, brings one into union with the divine, meaning the attainment of self-divinity.  In reality, this leads to bondage or outright possession.³⁵

And last, but certainly not least, as earlier hinted, Jesus is depicted as merely a man, though a very good man.  Because Jesus was deemed worthy, He had the Christ spirit (part of the “trinity” of Sanat Kumara) descend upon Him, thereby manifesting the Theosophical Christ, eventually attaining His own divinity (becoming “Master Jesus”), and providing a model for the rest of humanity to follow.  Of course, as noted earlier, this is antichrist doctrine.

Is Your Teacher or Church Promoting Panentheism?

Armed with the above information, we may be able to determine if our favorite teachers, including those at the church we attend, are promoting panentheism, rather than a Christian orthodox understanding of the Trinity.  Answering any of the following questions (not an exhaustive list) in the affirmative is not absolute proof the doctrine is being taught, but at the least should provide food for thought, and, hopefully, a desire to seek more information:

1)      Is there an emphasis on “going inside yourself”, centering prayer (aka contemplative prayer), “soaking”, seeking the “manifest presence of God”, etc.?

2)      Is Jesus Christ diminished in some way, i.e., is Jesus described as being somehow less than fully God.  Is he humanized at the expense of His Deity?  Is it claimed that He was totally reliant upon the Spirit (or God) for all supernatural workings?

3)      Is Jesus described in an overly personal manner, such that He’s discussed as one would a family  member rather than One Who is so far above us, worthy of our worship, our Savior and Lord?

4)      Is there a focus on receiving extra-biblical revelation for human direction?  Is this revelation superior to Scripture?  Is this revelation integral to ‘spiritual growth’?

5)      Is God presented as One who is dependent upon humanity, as practically helpless in creation without our assistance?  Is mankind depicted as integral to God’s plans, such that our importance is overemphasized?  Is humanity spoken of in equivalent, or near-equivalent terms as the Godhead?

The panentheistic trinity in ‘Christian esotericism’ is certainly quite different from the Christian Trinity; however, there are enough similarities that the unsuspecting seeker or Christian may not notice a difference at first, or even at all.  This potential is especially possible with the increasing Biblical illiteracy rampant in, and quite frankly, promoted by some churches.  Without at least somewhat of an understanding of the Christian Trinity, the possibility of individuals falling for a false view of the Trinity – and potentially led astray – is a real threat indeed.

 

¹ Thomas V. Morris The Logic of God Incarnate, 1986, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY & London, UK, p 91.  Bracketed comments added.
² H.C.G. Moule Colossians Studies, 1898, Doran, London, p 78, as cited in David E. Garland (Terry Muck, Gen. Ed.) Colossians and Philemon: The NIV Application Commentary, 1998, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p 89.
³ Bonhoeffer quote and ideology from Widerstand und Ergebung: Briefe und Aufzeichnungen aus der Haft, new ed., Ed. Eberhard Bethge, 1977, Chr. Kaiser, Munich, translated by John F. Hoffmeyer “Christology and Diakonia” in Andreas Schuele and Gunter Thomas, Eds., Who is Jesus Christ for us Today?, 2009, Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY, p 161
⁴ See Alister McGrath Heresy: A History of Defending the Truth. © 2009, HarperOne, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY, pp 30-31.
⁵ Richard Smoley Inner Christianity: A Guide to the Esoteric Tradition, 2002, Shambhala, Boston, MA, pp 134-135; all emphasis added.   Cf. p 103: “…the immanent aspect of God [is] the part of the divine nature that is active and present in the world…But there is something beyond the Word.  It is the silent vastness out of which everything, even the Word arises.  It neither exists nor does not exist…It is the transcendent aspect of God.  Meister Eckhart spoke of it as the ‘Godhead’; the Kabbalists call it the Ain Sof (which is Hebrew for the ‘infinite’) or the ‘Ancient of Days.’  In esoteric Christianity it is the Father.”  This seems to imply that “the Father” is superior to all else (see note 25 below).
⁶ Some panentheistic systems seem to imply that the immanent aspect and the matter surrounding it (body, shell) are ontologically equivalent (or almost equivalent), which would amount to pantheism (all is god); however, this immanent aspect is also usually viewed as inferior to the transcendent (see note 5 above), resulting in the conclusion that the immanent ‘god’ has lower status than the transcendent ‘god’, thus devolving into ditheism (two gods), or even polytheism (many gods), depending on the specifics.
⁷ Smoley Inner Christianity, pp 103-104; emphasis added.
⁸ Quoted in Smoley Inner Christianity, p 135; from  Helen Schucman A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume, 1992 (2^nd ed), Foundation for Inner Peace, Glen Ellen, CA, Teachers Manual, p 87; italics in original, other emphasis added.
⁹ Smoley Inner Christianity, p 135
¹⁰ Smoley Inner Christianity, pp 135-136
¹¹ Alice A. Bailey Initiation, Human and Solar, © 1951 Lucis, NY, (4^th paperback ed, 1980), Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY, pp 48-49
¹² “There is one Boundless Immutable Principle; one Absolute Reality which antecedes all manifested conditioned Being.  It is beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression. The manifested Universe is contained within this Absolute Reality and is a conditioned symbol of it” [Alice A. Bailey A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, © 1951 Lucis Trust (1925, 4^th ed 1951), Lucis Publishing Company, George S. Ferguson, Philadelphia, PA, p 3; italics in original, other emphasis added].  The Son and Holy Spirit also appear to be a part of the “Absolute Reality”, thus overlapping roles, as described below.  Cf. Bailey Initiation, pp 19, 150, 162; Bailey Cosmic Fire, pp  148-149, 292, 511, 1161, 1230, 1242.
¹³ Bailey Cosmic Fire, p 3
¹⁴ Bailey Cosmic Fire, p 94
¹⁵ Bailey Initiation, pp 28-29, 48-49
¹⁶ Bailey Initiation, p 161.  Here “the Hierophant” is equated with “the Lord of the World”.
¹⁷ Bailey Initiation, pp 48-49.  In ancient Hindu philosophy, in the Chandogya Upanishad, is one “Sanatkumara”. Much of Theosophy is appropriated from Hinduism.
¹⁸ The way in which the graph depicts “Sanat Kumara”, it is clear that these “Three Kumaras” correspond to the same identical three separate “Aspects” of each member of the “Solar Trinity”, thus amounting to the two “trinities” collapsing into one, though the intent is seemingly to make it appear as though one is subordinate to the other.  We must not be unaware of Satan’s schemes.
¹⁹ Alice A. Bailey The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, © 1957 Lucis, NY, 6^th printing 1981, Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY, p 551
²⁰ Helena P. Blavatsky The Secret Doctrine, Vol II: Anthropogenesis, 1888 (1977 Facsimile edition), Theosophical Publishing/University Press, Pasadena, CA, p 215
²¹ Blavatsky Secret Doctrine II, p 230; cf. pp 231, 233-237
²² “ …[T]he church movement, like all else, is but a temporary expedient and serves but as a transient resting place for the evolving life.  Eventually, there will appear the Church Universal, and its definite outlines will appear towards the close of this [20^th] century…This Church will be nurtured into activity by the Christ [ED: the false Christ] and His disciples when the outpouring of the Christ principle [ED: in a “mass incarnation”], the true second Coming, has been accomplished…
“The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished…The church must show a wide tolerance…The church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance [ED: occult/esoteric meaning].  The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages.  Teachers must be trained; Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated” [Bailey Externalisation, pp 510-511; emphasis added].
²³ Alice A. Bailey From Bethlehem to Calvary: The Initiations of Jesus, © 1937 by Alice A. Bailey, renewed 1957 by Foster Bailey; Lucis Trust, 4^th paperback ed., 1989; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY, p 20.  Emphasis added.
²⁴ Bailey Cosmic Fire, p 148
²⁵ Bailey Cosmic Fire, pp 49-50.  Here is where one can construe a quasi-pantheistic element in the “immanent” aspect; though, as noted below (note 27), matter is eventually destroyed.  Moreover, as noted earlier, it’s also implied that “the Father” is superior to “the Son”, thus reducing the immanent aspect to inferior in status as compared to the transcendent.
²⁶ Bailey Cosmic Fire, p 51
²⁷ Bailey Cosmic Fire, pp 51-52.  “…[T]he first Logos [ED: “the Father”] is called Destroyer, because He is abstraction, if viewed from below upwards [ED: from the point of view of creation / the immanent aspect].  His work is the synthesis of Spirit with Spirit, their eventual abstraction from matter, and their unification with their cosmic source.  Hence also He is the one who brings about pralaya [ED: death; cf. p 128] or the disintegration of form, – the form from which the Spirit has been abstracted” [Cosmic Fire, pp 148-149].
²⁸ Bailey Cosmic Fire, p 52.  UK spelling, e.g., “centre” rather than center, is used throughout the Bailey material.
²⁹ Bailey Cosmic Fire, p 148; Bailey Initiation, p 19, 150, 162
³⁰ Bailey Initiation, pp 150-162
³¹ Alice A. Bailey The Consciousness of the Atom, © 1961 Lucis Trust (1^st prtng 1922, this issue 9^th prtng 1974 {2^nd paperback ed.}), Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY, pp 110-116
³² Bailey Atom, pp 110-111; italics in original, other emphasis added.
³³ Bailey Atom, pp 111-112; emphasis added.
³⁴ Alice A. Bailey Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle, © 1950 Lucis, NY, (2^nd printing, 1957), George S. Ferguson, Philadelphia, PA, p 126
³⁵ Actual possession is the stated goal: “Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection…man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control…” [Bailey Externalisation, p 588; emphasis added].

Advertisement

Misplaced Trust, part I

[Part II here]

“I would really render a service if I could show people how I became what I am from what I was. It might be useful to know how a rabid orthodox Christian worker could become a well-known occult teacher.” [1]

Alice A. Bailey relates the above from a friend’s letter who felt Bailey herself should write an autobiography.  Bailey (AAB) wrote, or more accurately, acted as a medium through which Djwhal Khul (Djwal Khul), also known as “Master D. K.,” “The Tibetan,” or simply “D K,” ‘dictated’ his books.  These books, all written between 1919 and 1949  (including her own Unfinished Autobiography), are distributed by Lucis Trust[2].  According to Constance Cumbey, these works provide most of the doctrine of the New Age / New Spirituality teachings of today:

“…The esoteric thrusts of the [New Age] Movement as well as the aims of its groups are largely derived from the Alice Bailey books.” [3]

Brief History of Theosophy

The Bailey material can be seen as an extension of the work begun by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (HPB) who primarily formed the initial doctrine of Theosophy.  Blavatsky, along with H. S. Olcott and W. Q. Judge, founded the Theosophical Society of New York City in 1875[4].  Annie Besant was appointed successor to HPB, and, along with C. W. Leadbeater extended Theosophic doctrine[5].  AAB (and husband Foster Bailey) was initially involved in the Theosophical Society but later split with the group [6].  However, clearly, her work is in the same vein; and, Bailey/The Tibetan quotes from both HPB and Besant in her books.

The term theosophy comes from the Greek theosophia (knowledge of divine things; theos, god, and sophia, wisdom, from sophos, wise) and is defined:

1.      Any of various philosophies or religious systems that propose to establish direct contact with divine principle through contemplation, revelation, etc. and to gain thereby a spiritual insight superior to empirical knowledge.

2.      [often T-] the doctrines and beliefs of a modern sect of this nature that incorporates elements of Buddhism and Brahmanism.[7]

Definition 1 is a general definition for much of esoteric/occult doctrine, while 2 [Theosophy, with a capital ‘T’ – the one of Blavatsky, Besant, Bailey, et al] is a specific sect.  Interestingly, the first definition seems to be applicable for Latter Rain [8] theology and some forms of modern Christian charismaticism with their inherent gnostic beliefs.

From Lucifer Publishing to Lucis Trust

In 1919, AAB hesitatingly began[9] her telephathically generated literary works emanating from “The Tibetan” (Djwhal Khul).  She would continue acting as a medium for The Tibetan until her death in 1949.  In the early 1920’s she and her husband Foster Bailey founded Lucifer Publishing Company as a vehicle to publish the books.  The name was changed in 1925 to Lucis Publishing Company which it remains to this day[10] and, as stated above, these books are all available through Lucis Trust.  The Baileys were:

“…serious students and teachers of Theosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus “the fall”) from Venus to our planet eons ago to bring principle of mind to what was the animal-man.  In the theosophical perspective, the descent of these solar Angels was not a fall into sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in the name “Lucifer” which means light-bearer. [11] [emphasis in original]

Obviously, this is a mischaracterization of Lucifer/Satan according to orthodox Biblical Christianity and a redefinition of Revelation 12:3-4, 7-9 as well as Isaiah 14:12-15.  In addition, the Theosophic belief in evolution is exposed (“the animal-man”).  It’s quite interesting how Lucifer’s rebellion is changed to “an act of great sacrifice.”

Scripture is clear that Satan “masquerades as an angel of light” and that his servants will “masquerade as servants of righteousness” [II Corinthians 11:14-15 NIV] so, we shouldn’t be surprised by the infiltration of this type of thinking within the “Church.”   In fact, this is one of the stated aims of the New Age / New Spirituality as explained by AAB/The Tibetan:

“The Son of God is on His way and he cometh not alone.  His advance guard is already here and the Plan which they must follow is already made and clear….” [12]

  “[They are] already active in the form of the New Group of World Servers; they are as potent a body of forerunners as has ever preceded a great world Figure into the arena of mankind’s living…” [13]

“The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished….” [14] [all emphasis added]

The “Son of God” and the “great world Figure” of the first and second quotes respectively are referring to the future antichrist.  While there are divergent views of the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11, I cannot dismiss the similarity of the above with one of the stated “prophecies” and goals of International House of Prayer’s “Forerunner Curriculum”:

“God is raising up a generation of end-time messengers like John the Baptist to prepare the way for His Son’s return by boldly proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom to all the nations” [15]

Regardless of one’s view of the Revelation 11 witnesses, it is clear in verse 11 that they are overcome by the “beast” rather than remaining part of the “victorious Church” contrary to Mike Bickle’s “Apostolic Premillennialism” belief system[16].

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the Day of the Lord [the time of judgment for God’s adversaries contrasted with blessings for His faithful], Jesus Christ’s return, will not come until the rebellion/apostasy occurs first (II Thessalonians 2:1-3) and the “man of lawlessness is revealed” (the antichrist).

9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.  They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  11For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.
[II Thessalonians 2:9-12 NIV; emphasis added]

Compare this Scripture above with AAB as we pick up where the passage left off–the one ending in …world illumination may be may be accomplished:

“…The church must show a wide tolerance, and teach no revolutionary doctrines or cling to any reactionary ideas.  The church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance.  The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages.  Teachers must be trained; Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated.” [17] [underlining from emphasis in original; bolding added]

In taking this last quote and the II Thessalonians Scripture, it seems that healing could well be one of the “counterfeit miracles” of which Paul is referring.  Of course, this is not to say the True Church does not heal through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Unfortunately, many in charismatic circles put an emphasis on the “power” of “the Spirit” as if the power is theirs’ to wield at will.  Yet Scripture is clear that the Holy Spirit disburses gifts as HE determines [I Corinthians 12:11].

Bill Hamon, one of the recognized “fathers” of the “third wave” charismatic movement says:

“Every believer has the ability to manifest the supernatural in a miraculous way….

 “In my book, The Day of the Saints, I prophesied what would be many of the truths and ministries… …[including] every saint manifesting the supernatural… In the last several years, we have seen these things happening in the Body of Christ, such as through the increased emphasis of signs, wonders and miracles…” [18]

Who is bringing the “increased emphasis of signs, wonders and miracles?”  Is this the work of the Holy Spirit or is it man-induced?  If man-induced, then by what spirit?

The “Master Jesus” and the “Christ” of Lucis

According to the occult teaching of Theosophy, Jesus is also a “light-bearer” having attained the title of “Master” as a result of His extraordinary life and utilization of the “Christ” which was in Him.  His example is the one we are to follow in order to attain the status of “Master” ourselves.  “Christ” then is the inherent but not yet actualized divinity within all individuals according to the esoteric perspective.  This view of “Christ” should be kept in mind as explained in the following:

“There is a growing and developing belief that Christ is in us, as He was in the Master Jesus…” [19] [underlining from emphasis in original; bolding added]

I’m reminded of a quote from Bill Johnson’s When Heaven Invades Earth in which “Christ” is referred to as “the anointing”:

“…The anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine…” [20]

While “Christ” is inside individuals according to Theosophy, the meaning of the term “ the Christ” (and sometimes just “Christ”) can be different depending upon context and is explained in a footnote in the Lucis book The Externalisation of the Hierarchy:

“…The Tibetan has asked me [AAB] to make clear that when he is speaking of the Christ he is referring to His official name as Head of Hierarchy.  The Christ works for all men, irrespective of their faith; He does not belong to the Christian world any more than to the Buddhist, the Mohammedan or any other faith.  There is no need for any man to join the Christian Church in order to be affiliated with Christ.  The requirements are to love your fellowmen, lead a disciplined life, recognize the divinity in all faiths and all beings, and rule your daily life with Love.” [21]

To be clear, “the Tibetan” is not “the Christ.”  He (the Tibetan) is explaining that “the Christ” is the official name of the “Head of Hierarchy” [Jesus of Nazareth, now “Master Jesus,” was the previous incarnation of  “Christ” and He will be succeeded by the forthcoming “Christ” or, in actuality, the antichrist empowered by Lucifer].  Keeping this perspective of “Christ,” the “Christ” in the preceding and the following is actually the coming antichrist:

“Christianity will not be superseded.  It will be transcended, its work of preparation being triumphantly accomplished, and Christ will again give us the next revelation of divinity…. 

“…Can there not be revelations of God utterly unprecedented, and for which we have no words or adequate means of expression?  The ancient mysteries, so shortly to be restored, must be re-interpreted in the light of Christianity, and readapted to meet modern need….” [22] [emphasis added]

And, with the substitution of “Christ” for antichrist (empowered by Lucifer), one can see how confusion can quickly develop as to who this “Christ” is to the unsuspecting true Christian.  Also, note how the Apostle Paul and theologians are denigrated:

“The wonder of that Life lived two thousand years ago is still with us and has lost none of its freshness; it is an eternal inspiration, hope, encouragement and example…. The words He spoke were few and simple, and all men can understand them, but their significance has largely been lost in the intricate legalities and discussions of St. Paul, and the lengthy disputations of theological commentators since He lived and left us – or apparently left us.

 “Yet – today Christ is nearer to humanity than at any other time in human history; He is closer than the most aspiring and hopeful disciple knows, and can draw closer still if what I here propose to write is understood and brought to the attention of men everywhere.  For Christ belongs to humanity, to the world of men, and not only to the churches and faiths throughout the world.”  [23] [emphasis added]

So, according to the Theosophic view, “Master Jesus” is part of the “Spiritual Hierarchy” along with Master D.K. (The Tibetan) among others with the forthcoming “Christ” (empowered by Lucifer) as the near-future “Head of the Hierarchy.”  The intent as evident in the title of the book, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, is to take the current “internal” spiritual hierarchy (in the spirit realm) and “externalize” it on the physical plane.[24]  In other words, the goal is to take the demons from the spirit world and bring them physically to earth ushering in the antichrist and the end of the age!

Some theologians are of the view that Revelation 12:3-4 and 12:7-9 are describing the same event: Satan’s initial rebellion and his expulsion from Heaven.  However, I hold these are separate and distinct accounts with verses 3-4 depicting the initial rebellion while verses 7-9 are prophesying a future event in which Satan and his demons are thrown from the heavenly realms and confined to earth during following the Tribulation period.  Taking the esoteric views of the Bailey books in conjunction with Scripture, much like a negative to its corresponding photo, lends credence to this belief.  Further, passages such as Job 1:6-7; 2:1-2 and Ephesians 6:12 show that Satan had access to Heaven and still currently has access to the heavenly realms:

“12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the powers of this dark world and against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” [NIV; emphasis added]

From Pisces to Aquarius

A central tenet of the Lucis books is the Zodiac.  Accordingly, we are currently in the Piscean Age (old age) which will very soon give way to the Aquarian Age (New Age).   The Piscean Age is referred to as the Christian Age[25] or “old order”[26]; so it follows logically that the Age of Aquarius – of “soul consciousness,” “divine awareness” and “capacity for abstraction” (idealism)[27] – will be the post-Christian Age.

With the Piscean Age coming to a close and the concurrent dawning of the Age of Aquarius, there are those who are fully on board with the New Age (although I believe most do not fully understand the implications) and those who are clinging to the old (I proudly call myself an old ager).  The Piscean Age is part of the “fourth kingdom in nature” while the Aquarian Age is the “fifth kingdom in nature.”  According to this esoteric teaching, this “fifth kingdom” is also the “kingdom of God on earth.”[28]  To enter the kingdom of God one must have the “over-shadowing” or be “soul-controlled” – in other words: be demonically possessed:

“Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection.  …man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…. …The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control. …The fact will appear that the Kingdom has always been present but has remained unrecognized, owing to the relatively few people who express, as yet, its quality….”[29]

I’m reminded again of the II Thessalonians passage in which God Himself will send a “strong delusion” to those who “perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.”

The Piscean Age is also viewed as one of selfishness rather than the “inclusiveness” of the Aquarian Age[30].  Therefore, individual salvation, for example, is viewed as being exclusivist and thus, an impediment to the New Age in which “group initiations” will be done en mass[31].   In fact, the only recognized “sin” by Theosophy/Lucis and New Age/New Spirituality is the “sin of separatism”:

“First, the active energy of loving-understanding will mobilise a tremendous reaction against the potency of hate. To hate, to be separate, and to be exclusive will come to be regarded as the only sin, for it will be recognised that all the sins as listed, and now regarded as wrong, only stem from hate or from its product, the anti-social consciousness….” [32]

“…Yet sin and evil do exist on Earth.  We are told by the Tibetan that the only true evil is the sin of separatism. [33]

Accordingly, the Aquarian Age will have no room for monotheistic religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – as they are viewed as detracting from the furtherance of a one world religion and one world government since they are exclusivist by nature.  The Lucis works are also anti-semitic[34].  The Jewish race is seen as “perpetuating the Jewish dispensation” and thereby remaining in the Age of Aries rather than growing in the “Christian dispensation” – the Age of Pisces[35].

There are certain areas of evil in the world today through which these forces of darkness can reach humanity. What they are and where they are I do not intend to say. I would point out, however, that Palestine should no longer be called the Holy Land; its sacred places are only the passing relics of three dead and gone religions. The spirit has gone out of the old faiths and the true spiritual light is transferring itself into a new form which will manifest on earth eventually as the new world religion. To this form all that is true and right and good in the old forms will contribute, for the forces of right will withdraw that good, and incorporate it in the new form. Judaism is old, obsolete and separative and has no true message for the spiritually-minded which cannot be better given by the newer faiths; the Moslem faith has served its purpose and all true Moslems await the coming of the Imam Mahdi who will lead them to light and to spiritual victory; the Christian faith also has served its purpose; its Founder seeks to bring a new Gospel and a new message that will enlighten all men everywhere. Therefore, Jerusalem stands for nothing of importance today, except for that which has passed away and should pass away. The “Holy Land” is no longer holy, but is desecrated by selfish interests, and by a basically separative and conquering nation.

 The task ahead of humanity is to close the door upon this worst and yet secondary evil and shut it in its own place. There is enough for humanity to do in transmuting planetary evil without undertaking to battle with that which the Masters Themselves can only keep at bay, but cannot conquer.The handling of this type of evil and its dissipation, and therefore the release of our planet from its danger, is the destined task of Those Who work and live in “the center where the Will of God is known,” at Shamballa; it is not the task of the Hierarchy or of humanity. Remember this, but remember also that what man has loosed he can aid to imprison; this he can do by fostering right human relations, by spreading the news of the approach of the spiritual Hierarchy, and by preparing for the reappearance of the Christ. Forget not also, the Christ is a Member of the Great Council at Shamballa and brings the highest spiritual energy with Him. Humanity can also cease treading the path to the “door where evil dwells” and can remove itself and seek the Path which leads to light and to the Door of Initiation.[36] [emphasis added]

So, according to The Tibetan (DK), the “door where evil dwells” is in the “three dead and gone religions” of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Keep this in mind as you read the fourth stanza of The Great Invocation – the prayer of the New Age disciple:

From the centre which we call the race of men
            Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
            And may it seal the door where evil dwells.[37]

It has pompously been declared that The Great Invocation, “if given widespread distribution, can be to the new world religion what the Lord’s Prayer has been to Christianity and the 23^rd Psalm has been to the spiritually minded Jew.”[38]  For more on the significance of The Great Invocation according to the New Spirituality / New Age see this section on the inplainsite.org website.

This war against the monotheistic religions will be fought with “mental weapons” and in the “emotional realm.”  Of course, we know that our enemy is not of flesh and blood but rather spiritual forces (Ephesians 6:12):

“Years ago I said that the war which may follow this one would be waged in the field of the world religions.  Such a war will not work out, however, in a similar period of external carnage and blood; it will be fought largely with mental weapons and in the world of thought; it will involve also the emotional realm, from the standpoint of idealistic fanaticism.  This inherent fanaticism (found ever in reactionary groups) will fight against the appearance of the coming world religion and the spread of esotericism.  For this struggle certain of the well-organized churches through the conservative elements (their most powerful elements), are already girding themselves… …Fanaticism, entrenched theological positions, and materialistic selfishness are to be found actively organised in the churches in all continents and of all denominations…

“The coming struggle will emerge within the churches themselves; it will also be precipitated by the enlightened elements who exist in fair numbers already, and are rapidly growing in strength through the impact of human necessity.  The fight will then spread to thinking men and women everywhere who — in a protesting revolt — have denied orthodox churchianity and theology.”[39] [emphasis added]

The goal of infiltrating the churches to destroy from within seems to be well underway.  As but one example, Rick Warren, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), on the advisory board of Tony Blair’s ecumenical Faith Foundation, and who is even recognized as a New Age guru among New Agers, has stated that fundamentalism will be:

 “…one of the big enemies of the 21^st century.”

“Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism – they’re all motivated by fear.  Fear of each other.” [40]

I’m really annoyed when perfectly good words are redefined to further an agenda.  In my old Webster’s dictionary the word “fundamentalism” is defined:

1.      Orthodox religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., complete acceptance of the story of creation as given in Genesis and rejection of the theory of evolution) and regarded as fundamental to the Christian faith.

2.      the movement among some American Protestants emphasizing this belief; opposed to modernism. [41]

Does Warren have a problem with that?  Well, obviously, he’s not opposed to modernism; but, it seems his use of the term “fundamentalism” is more one of extremism.  He’s bought into the negative stereotype of the term as portrayed in the liberal media.  Personally, I’m quite fine with both definitions above; but, I’m vehemently opposed to both extremism and modernism.  However, it’s apparent that Warren does not mind watering down Christianity in his bid for ecumenism; and, in so doing, he marginalizes the Faith.

[Part II here]

Added 03/26/13:

Below is one of a number of full page advertisements posted in newspapers around the world on April 25, 1982.  This particular one comes from the Los Angeles Times and is found on the back of Constance Cumbey’s book The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow (see 3rd footnote below for a full citation).

THE CHRIST IS NOW HERE ad

This obviously refers to the coming Antichrist, not Jesus Christ.

Endnotes:

[1] Lucis Trust website. About Alice Bailey. <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/books/alice_bailey_books/about_alice_bailey> par 3; as accessed 12/05/10
[2] Lucis Trust main page. <http://www.lucistrust.org/> as accessed 12/05/10
[3] Cumbey, Constance. The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow. 1983, rev. ed., Huntington House, Shreveport, LA; p 55.  This resource is also available as a free download at <https://public.me.com/cumbey> “HIDDEN DANG…ND COVER.pdf” p 39
[4] Theosophical Society home page <http://www.theosociety.org/> par 1; as accessed 12/05/10
[5] Kazlev, M. Alan, Kheper website Adyar-Theosophy School.  <http://www.kheper.net/topics/Theosophy/Adyar.html> par 1; as accessed 12/05/10
[6] Lindsay, Phillip. Alice A. Bailey, H.P. Blavatsky and Helena Roerich.  <http://www.esotericastrologer.org/EAauthorEssays/AABHPBHR.htm>  copyright 2004; as accessed 12/05/10
[7] McKechnie, Jean L. Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, 1983; Simon and Schuster; p 1893
[8] Wikipedia Latter Rain (post-World War II Movement), <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Rain_(post-World_War_II_movement)>
[9] Lucis, Op.cit. About Alice Bailey.  par; as accessed 12/05/10
[10] Lucis Trust website. The Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer.  <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_esoteric_meaning_of_lucifer> as accessed 12/05/10
[11] ibid.
[12] Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ.  1948, Lucis Trust, 9^th printing 1979 (4^th paperback ed.); Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 60
[13] Bailey, Alice A. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy. 1957, Lucis Trust, renewed 1985, 8^th printing 1989 (4^th paperbook ed.) ; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 598
[14] ibid. p 510
[15] International House of Prayer website. IHOPU Forerunner Curriculum. <http://www.ihopkc.org/ihopu/schools/forerunner-curriculum/> 2013 International House of Prayer; bullet point 1; as updated/accessed 03/25/13
[16] International House of Prayer website; Forerunner bookstore. Apostolic Premillennialism (CD Single). <http://store.ihop.org/store/product/4236/Apostolic-Premillennialism-%28CD-Single%29/> Product Description; as accessed 12/05/10
[17] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. pp 510-511
[18] Elijah List website; Hamon, Bill. 2008 is the beginning of the Third and Final Apostolic Reformation. <http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word/6195> February 25, 2008; par 1, 2; as accessed 12/05/10
[19] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. P 592
[20] Johnson, Bill. When Heaven Invades Earth. 2003; Destiny Image, Shippensburg, PA; p 79
[21] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. P 558
[22] Bailey, Alice A. From Bethlehem to Calvary. Copyright 1937 by Alice A. Bailey, renewed 1957 by Foster Bailey; Lucis Trust, 4^th paperback ed., 1989; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; pp 20-21
[23] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. pp 592-593
[24] ibid. pp 593-594
[25] Bailey, Alice A. Discipleship in the New Age I. Copyright 1972 by Lucis Trust [1^st printing 1944], 8^th printing 1972 (paperback); Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; pp 611, 633
[26] ibid. p 785
[27] Bailey, Alice A. The Destiny of the Nations. Copyright 1949 by Lucis Trust; 5^th printing, 1974 (2^nd paperback ed.); Fort Orange Press, Albany NY; pp 112-113
[28] Bailey, Op.cit. Bethlehem. pp 184-186
[29] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. p 588
[30] Bailey, Alice A. The Rays and the Initiations. Copyright 1960 by Lucis Trust; 5^th printing, 1976 (2^nd paperback ed.); Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 109
[31] Bailey, Op.cit. Discipleship. p 76
[32] Lucis Trust website. The Use and Significance of the Great Invocation. <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/the_great_invocation__1/the_use_and_significance_of_the_great_invocation> as accessed 12/06/10
[33] Lucis Trust website. Descent and Sacrifice. <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/descent_and_sacrifice> par 8; as accessed 12/06/10
[34] Bailey, Op.cit. Rays. pp 534, 548, 705-706
[35] ibid. p 548
[36] ibid. pp 754-755
[37] Lucis Trust website. The Great Invocation. <http://www.lucistrust.org/invocation/> 4^th stanza; as accessed 12/06/10
[38] Lucis, Op.cit. Use and Significance.
[39] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. pp 453-454
[40] Nussbaum, Paul The Philadelphia Inquirer. The Purpose-Driven Pastor  <http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1555425/posts> last 2 par; as accessed 12/06/10
[41] McKechnie, Op.cit. p 742