Miracle Principles 16-19
January 8, 2021
Principle 16 Commentary
This is a Course in giving; learning what giving means. True giving increases the giver and receiver. The giver may temporarily have more, and when he expresses a miracle he will “increase the reserve of his strength,” simultaneously “suppl[ying] the lack of strength in the receiver.”
Principle 17 Commentary
The two principles (16, 17) offer a glimpse into the process of healing. The spiritual seeps through into the physical in healing. Something from outside ourselves travels through us. The miracle has the effect of healing the body by not seeing the body. The miracle goes to the source of illness, and as a result the physical manifestation disappears.
Principle 18 Commentary
With most epic stories, the topic of sex enters early. Should we expect the Course to be different? Of course, not! We wait only to page 10 in a 2,000-page tome to read this:
“On sexuality: Homosexuality is lacking in love only to the extent it is based on the principles of exclusion. Everybody should love everybody. It is wrong to deny the beauty of some souls because of the body structures of which you are afraid.”
We need to take all the paragraphs in Principle 18 as a whole to appreciate it. It starts with “loving your neighbor as yourself”, which means the same as it did in the Gospel of Mark, with the highest regard. The way you do this is not to hold anything against him. When we hold against anyone his “hurts and hates” then we diminish our own infinite value in our own mind.
That idea is the jumping off point for this opening statement of a larger discourse on sexuality. It reads, “everyone should love everyone.” Interesting way to go from neighbor to lover, isn’t it? We love one as ourselves, and now we love everyone. Can we love everyone the same? Or in the same way? Practically, the answer is no. Though we can, quite practically, love others in a way that removes any selfish motive.
“[Children] already have the gift of life, and their parents provide them with the opportunity to express it…Nothing physical, mental or spiritual should be used selfishly” (4:5-5:1).
He means sex here. Parents provide children with the opportunity for expressing the “giving of life.” That starts with the parents bringing them into this world, an act of selfless giving. The child then expresses her love in the same way, by “giving life” as well.
The statement on homosexuality is controversial. We will soon read a cameo essay entitled, Notes on Sex and see that the above quote is the start of a longer discourse interwoven into the first chapter.
Here is the original note, (and for relevance, I’ll mention that Bill was gay):
“Now tell him [Bill] that homosexuality is sinful only to the extent it is based on the principle of exclusion. Everybody should love everybody. It is wrong to deny the beauty of some souls because of body-structures of which you are afraid. This is essentially an unhealthy attempt to limit fear, but fear cannot be limited, just as love cannot have limits.
Heterosexual attitudes can be similarly distorted, but do contain a more natural potential. Sex relations are intended for children.”
It may sound like the Course is picking on gay people by calling homosexuality sinful (or “lacking in love” in CE). The point seems to be that the love-lack is due to homosexuals being afraid of body structures that are their opposite gender. The binary here is obvious for two reasons.
First, the author is generalizing a particular sex distortion (fear of certain body-structures) to an entire group – homosexuals. Generally, homosexuals have exclusive attraction to half the gender binary (their own).
Secondly, he next turns to the heterosexual for a criticism of their similar “distortions.” Similar is defined asresembling without being identical. There may be multiple distortions that manifest which are similar other than excluding sexual attraction from half the gender binary. Heterosexuals do the same exclusion from attraction based on gender, but it not being identified as the same distortion as it is with homosexuals. I am sure there is fluidity to that spectrum of distortions, but it does appear that this particular fear is being generalized to homosexuals in the above passage.
This passage does not tell us why those body structures are fearful. Perhaps this fear is based simply on the other gender’s body being different, perceived as unattractive and “denied beauty.” This denial appears to be a broad-stroke strategy “to limit fear,” broad in the sense that an entire group can be isolated and denied beauty based on one common distinction in body structure.
Other sex distortions we likely make include our valuation of others’ bodies. The ego places bodies into hierarchies of worthiness. We do this by size, color, age, attractiveness, performance and gender. This is all deeply unconscious. But again, Jesus does not provide full analysis of the sex distortion, other than to tell us that all of us (hetero and homosexual) are similarly distorted, and that sex is only for having children.
This all can sound rather judge-y. It is no wonder Helen and the editing team chose to leave this material out of the original edition. The ego does not want us to recognize any source of perceived threat. We hide our fear of union and sameness to our brothers in a deep and vast unconscious, buried from our awareness. Later in Chapter 15 we find out that we go a layer deeper. We place individual bodies into their own hierarchy of value based on specific body parts:
“The ego’s use of relationships is so fragmented that it frequently goes even further: One part of one aspect suits its purposes, while it prefers different parts of another” (T-15.V.7:1)
Jesus is apparently familiar with dating apps. He is suggesting that there is someone out there whose lips, hair, skin, and other titillating parts are of more “value” than the same parts on another, at least in someone’s mind. It seems whether we are straight, gay or somewhere in-between that the Course is sucking the life out of sex. Or perhaps we are the ones that suck the life out of it. We are told in this principle that we need to stop using sex selfishly. All too often, we try to gain by another’s affection.
The discourse on sex becomes dismal if you perceive sex as anything less than a way to give life. Remember how this principle started; in whichever manner we express “giving life” it should mean that we love everyone in the same manner as we love our neighbor; and we must love our neighbor as ourselves. We strip every relationship of selfish motive, from self to lover to neighbor to those far away, the seeming stranger. This does not mean that we express that love the same way to everyone. If we can hold that in mind, Jesus’ hardline approach of not excluding anyone from our love can be softened. After all, “God is the giver of life” (T-1.3) and we are created in His likeness.
Whether a relationship is gay or straight, it is what it accomplishes through its expression that gives testimony to how loving and stable it is, whether it gives life. For straight people this could be a newborn child, but the miracle of life may still be expressed in other forms, no matter one’s orientation or whether the relationship produces children.
If you find these notes on sex discouraging, (or upcoming notes on this topic), I want to suggest it is possible to take a sex-positive viewpoint from the teaching. But be prepared to have your views on sex reframed and challenged. God does not give pleasures that pass away (W-Ep.4:2). The meaningless (body) cannot be made meaningful through animation; you cannot join what is incapable of joining. When Jesus tells us that meaningful joining cannot be achieved through physical means, it is not out of prudishness or to drive us away from desired intimacy and human connection. He is telling us to uplift us so that we long for a more satisfying, joyful connection, thereby placing sex in its proper place.
Finally, take note in the last paragraph that there is a commentary on parenting as a way to develop abilities (in the child). In the Course’s worldview, parents – like therapists, teachers, and healers – play a role in God’s unfolding plan by the model of their teaching and their greater wisdom. The child develops under the parent’s guidance. This does not mean that the one serving in this role remains untaught in the process. Everyone is learning, parent and child alike, but what is being passed from parent to child is helping develop the child in a way that will help the accomplish their function.
Principle 19 Commentary
This is a principle that had been bungled in the early editing (this includes the “Original Edition”) where it states, “miracles depend on cooperation.” It is the other way around: cooperation depends on miracles, and industry that depends on cooperation.
Miracles (produce) > cooperation (produce) > industry.
or
Industry (depends on) > cooperation (depends on) > miracles.
If you have ever learned the value of working cooperatively within a group, board or committee, this principle is well understood. We do not always cooperate by nature. Our separate agendas stand in the way of cooperating. We need expressions of love to increase the reserve of cooperation to see through on a project or endeavor, which Jesus here calls industry. This is how the “church of God” completes its mission. That church is us, “the sum of the minds He created.”
Practice Recommendation:
Jesus has forgiven me. That means all hurt and hate I have ever expressed is cancelled. He needs the children of light now.