Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00938)

----------
> From: Jerry Hejka-Ekins <jhe@toto.csustan.edu>

> I'm happy to hear that the LCC is developing its own identity in
> your area.  My experience with the LCC is from the Los Angeles
> and Ojai areas where the TS Bishops still run the churches.  I do
> remember one person about ten years ago at Far Horizons camp who
> was involved in the LCC and was trying to compile a set of
> doctrines for it (under the auspices of the proper authorities of
> course).  I remember that he personally regarded CWL's writings
> as ridiculous but was rather fond of Alice Bailey's.  He lives in
> your neck of the woods now, so you may know him.

The two bishops that ran the Chicago church since 1971, one
now deceased, were obviously Theosophists and included
theosophy in their talks, but never actually mentioned any link
with TS or encouraged it.  There is a new bishop, consecrated in
1993, who is closely connected with TS and aggressively proselytizes
TS to any members who have not joined TS.  As I suspected, it
depends on the individual's approach.  But they've been
battling about whether the LCC should be primarily Theosophical or 
Christian for decades.

I'm not aware of the person you describe, unless he's a closet
Baileyite.

> AEB
> >I'm not sure I understand you about the one important
> >function of the LCC.  To provide bishops who will then be
> >leaders of TS?  Very few bishops or priests that I know have
> >much to do with the other groups - they're too busy trying to
> >make a living, keep a church running and have time for
> >their families.
>  
> JHE
> I'm writing from the point of view of the inner group of the TS,
> not from the point of view of the LCC.  Of course the LCC sees
> itself as a religious institution and sets its aims accordingly. 
> On the other hand, for potential TS leaders to work their way up
> through the ranks of influence in the TS, they are expected to be
> involved in the LCC, Co-Masonry and the ER.  

The Emergency Room? :-)

Well, those potential high-flyers must have working
wives support them while they pursue this course, or they manage
to function without sleep.  Active holy orders would require their
Sundays, not to mention clergy and vestry meetings.  Co-M is at
least several hours once a month in this area.  I have
no idea when the ES meets or how often.

They also better be well off, as the clergy robes at
the LCC have to be tailored to CWL's specs (unless you have a
wife who is handy at sewing - but there's still the material.  Linen
is $10-15 a yard.)  And in the Co-M, you pay more the higher
you climb through the lodges.  Is there a fee for ES?

I strongly suspect that the requirements to be a part of all
these groups were made at a time when people had more time.

JHE
>This is why the
> current lawsuit over the Larkspur Co-Masonic split is considered
> so critical to the TS. 

I had heard about the split, but was told it was about one group
trying to take all the resources and form another group.  Are
you saying that another Co-Masonic group that is not linked with
TS is a potential threat?

> Perhaps the LCC will also eventually
> split and the whole system in the TS will fall apart.

Numerous priests and clergy have gone off to start their own 
churches or join other independent ones.

> AEB
> As for new associations, there is a rather large congregation in
> Fairfield, Iowa, near Maharishi's school that is filled with 
> members who publicly espouse both Liberal Catholicism
> and Maharishi's philosophy.
>  
> JHE
> Great.  I've noticed that the TS doesn't seem to be threatened by
> Maharishi philosophy.  I wonder what would happen if Alice Bailey
> people filled the church. 

I'm not sure they'd be interested.

BTW, I received Candle in the Sun today.

Thank you,
-AEB