Is New Thought Turning Gray?
By Mitch Horowitz
Science of Mind magazine columnist and ministerial student Masando Hiraoka recently lamented on this blog the paucity of “Millennials” within Centers for Spiritual Living (CSL) churches and communities.
The fact is, many metaphysical congregations and organizations on the alternative spiritual scene are experiencing an aging membership base.
I recently delivered the keynote address at the conference of a major New Age organization and, according to registration records, the 300-plus attendees were about 70 percent female (no surprise there – the same demographics hold at most traditional churches), and a large majority was over the age of 50, with many well into retirement age.
Our friends in the Christian Science movement face a similar situation. As I recounted in my book One Simple Idea, visits to Christian Science services in New York City showed, at least when I dropped in, aging and sparse congregations. A church official confided to me – with admirable candor – that the healing church was either going to do better demographically or disappear.
A part of me feels that this “graying effect” is really no problem at all.
As I’ve told silver-haired audiences at Theosophy conferences and similar gatherings, isn’t it perfectly legitimate for an organization to exist for itself? Why must we chase after some kind of mythically relevant outsider? Simply declare what you stand for and welcome whomever thinks similarly.
But at some point a member-based organization – be it CSL or the Edgar Cayce centers – must contend with demographic realities – or risk turning into a Shaker village.
Part of the problem in attracting young people is that America is no longer a nation of “joiners.” Membership in civic and fraternal organizations, such as Freemasonry, is older and smaller across the nation.
But the blog made several good suggestions for how to appeal to younger members.
The idea that most resonates with me is emphasizing New Thought’s ardently ecumenical and interdenominational character. Marriage often sends people “back to church,” so to speak. I like the idea of New Thought communities hanging out a shingle as radically free assemblies (thanks Thomas Jefferson) with no entry tests or loyalty oaths. Historically, that has helped Unitarianism grow – along with its ethic of radical egalitarianism, a trait shared by New Thought.
I have friends who have been married in Ethical Culture, Unitarianism and by judges and village clerks, as well as in New Thought congregations. Welcoming people who are happily “non identified” (America’s fastest-growing denomination) accomplishes many things: 1) it provides a needed service for those who want to mark life ceremonies in a spiritual setting; 2) it extols the incredible openness at New Thought’s core; and 3) it is a way of inviting people to check out New Thought with no strings attached. Every couple could be given a copy of Ernest Holmes’s This Thing Called You, for example – just a gift, a way of saying: “Here’s our outlook; you’re welcome any time.”
Another thing that could help is emphasizing – and forgive the coarseness of expression – a practical payoff. Yoga studios attract lots of young people – who want to be in shape, look beautiful, etc. Transcendental Meditation attracts lots of young people – who want the brain benefits, the relaxation, etc. What does New Thought offer that can be easily translated into a concrete benefit? Obviously, this is not the whole of it. But having one tangible, straightforwardly enunciated benefit (e.g., Think and Grow Rich) – one that is sincere and defensible – can be a real help.
Mitch Horowitz is the PEN Award-winning author of Occult America and One Simple Idea: How Positive Thinking Reshaped Modern Life. He is turning fifty in November.
Horowitz’s new column “Real Positivity” begins in the October issue of Science of Mind: Guide for Spiritual Living magazine available at Barnes and Noble mid-September.
His books “One Simple Idea: How Positive Thinking Reshaped Modern Life” and “Occult America: White House Seances, Ouija Circles, Masons and the Secret Mystic History of Our Nation” are available at Amazon.
There may be other challenges to be considered as well, if increased membership and survival of specific churches are the sticking point. These New-Agey types are everywhere! They have spread themselves thin through scores of blogs where there are no commitments to show up and pass the basket. So they may not be congregating, but this does not mean the message, and all hope, is lost.
Plus, I personally believe that there are certain seeds of truth that were set out literally ages ago. Along comes one group, philosophy, or movement after another to adulterate the original teachings, adapt them to changing cultures, etc. Consider radical changes between the Old Testament, New Testament, and all warring factions that followed. – After a while though, these revolutionary modifications may wander too far from those original verities to satisfy the old guard. (Check out the newly expanded edition of Jonathan Livingston Seagull wherein they start to revere the ceremonies while forgetting the teachings). I personally learned to feel comfortable with what I read in theosophical texts and letters from the masters a long time ago. Now, seeing them re-interpreted into 6th dimensional commands for the people of earth from counsels of light in other galaxies, and karma doesn’t exist unless you want it to – or lighting the perfect color candle for health as opposed to wealth – Well, for me, this has traipsed too far from home. It challenges me, as key moments and tests along the path are meant to; and shakes me loose a bit, which is good.
I head back to home base where I feel more comfortable, but I may now have slightly evolved in my outlook as I gave serious consideration to what these new interpretations might be telling us about the old, however deluded they may sound to me when I first come across them.
So I am fine with going grey and honing true to beliefs it has taken me lifetimes to evolve. But truth be told, these “crazy” new approaches actually open my eyes to other possibilities. If it is the path that counts rather than the goal, then why would I want to join one church and stay there?
One of my criticisms might feel a little judgmental. Sorry about that. I think that a big group of people, maybe the largest group, who turn to religion are people in some sort of spiritual crisis. And many of them come from the poorer classes of our society. And when they turn to Religious Science, one of the first things they encounter is a price list for “salvation”: a cost for help.
I’m not saying that churches should not charge for classes. But when it may be difficult for a family to put food on the table or keep a roof over their head of a myriad of other problems that are confronting people every day, it’s easy to see why such a family may seek spiritual solace elsewhere. For me, that’s a shame because “elsewhere” is often a dogmatic literal practice that can close a mind for a lifetime. Even consultation with a New Thought “Priest”, as it were, has an hourly fee attached to it. Again, not saying it’s wrong. I’m saying it limits the outreach.
I did a little research before writing this. Harvey, I must say that I’m impressed with Mile Hi’s $25 fee for classes in the core concepts of Religious Science. That’s more reasonable but I’m still of a mind that the core concepts of Religious Science, at a minimum, should be given away. If you want people to turn to New Thought in a time of need then they need to know what it is they’re turning to and how to use it.
Some of the greatest New Thought teachers ever didn’t even bother with a church. Joseph Murphy and Neville Goddard taught at the Wilshire Ebell Theater here in Los Angeles and in many such theaters across the country. In Dr. Murphy’s case, across the world! These men are gone now but one could make the argument that their work is more popular now than when they walked the earth. Especially in the case of Neville Goddard. These guys offered not just an understanding of New Thought but techniques to help people. (Note: I’ve only found a handful of Religious Science practitioners and ministers who have even heard of Neville even as his popularity grows). And that kind of popularity can be utilized to grow a church. Have an inexpensive or free weekly study group for Dr. Murphy’s The Power of Your Subconscious Mind or Neville’s Your Faith is Your Fortune and see what happens.
There has always been a hunger out there for Truth. Unfortunately Truth has been defined in many ways by many different religious factions. We have a lot to bring to that discussion and we should be in on it.
Turning Gray in our center is certainly true. Such a congregation, although amazingly dedicated to Religious Science, is at the age of retirement and I find a lack of energy for new projects, outreach and programs exists.
The Unitarian-Universalist Church in my area is vibrant. They operate a private school on the premises. One member said to me that the school brings in the parents. This worked very well for the Catholics, too. Now the argument could be made that the Catholics are losing membership, too, but their religious dogma is not modern.
I approached our board with the school idea, I suggested it to home office and in both instances it was shot down. The congregations that make up Religious Science centers are highly educated, there are always members who are teachers. I cannot think of any higher honor than being associated with a school where detention is learning to love yourself. We need youth programs that not only reach our children but those in the neighborhood…the city, the state, the country, the world—well that is our mission, isn’t it?
Good thoughts, Rob. In response to your comment that the core concepts of Religious Science should be given away for free, I wanted to let everybody know about some ways that the organization is doing just that. Science of Mind magazine (started by the founder of Religious Science, Dr. Ernest Holmes) has been promoting the reading of the “Science of Mind” textbook in a year. Those who don’t have the book can access the contents on the magazine’s website. By December, the entire textbook will be available absolutely free. Find it here: http://scienceofmind.com/july-2015-readings/.
http://www.ScienceOfMindArchives.org also has a wealth of information that is available absolutely free, including almost 150 ebooks and talks by Dr. Holmes. Plus, every Science of Mind magazine from 1927 through 2007 is available free on the site.
In addition, the publishing department of Centers for Spiritual Living works with World Ministry of Prayer to provide free subscriptions to Science of Mind magazine to prisoners.
Two thoughts here, given some experience in management consulting along my life’s jolly path — plus a bonus point.
First, I get the point of this post and it makes sense but when I put on my organizational analysis hat, I ask to what extent is today’s reality different than yesterday’s for New Thought churches? Aside from people who were members from birth because their parents brought them, is there a noticeable difference in the age at which people show up at the door now, compared to, say, 20 or 30 years ago? My sense is that people tend to come to New Thought during their adult journeys — and probably not until they are in their 30s at the earliest, so this may not be quite as bleak as it seems at first — at least on a purely demographic basis.
Second, it is always wise in a consulting situation to ask if someone else is getting the result that you want and, if so, how? So, I’d say some of the megachurches offer a good example to draw on. While many are really hardcore on the religion, I recall an article in the past few months that pointed out that people come to many of them more for the community and its many services — and that the lessons or sermons or whatever aren’t so very far removed from a New Thought message. They seem to be especially vibrant in regions that have large populations of people “from someplace else” who are open to finding a new community to be part of. As I recall the article, they have yoga, they have family events, they have fun. Narrowing back to New Thought, which ones are bucking the trend? Which ones are attracting millenials or young families or whomever you want sitting beside you? What are they doing? What does it take to do something similar?
While I’ve never been a rocket scientist (you wouldn’t want to be in a rocket that I had a key role in designing or building), I’m pretty sure you don’t have to be one to figure out best practices in growing a community of people who are getting what they need and who are happy to be part of that specific community as a way to get it — including millenials.
That sets up my bonus point on the state of Christian Science. Mitch points out in his book that it arose when the practice of medicine was often dubious. For all its problems today, modern medicine is not seen as flat-out dubious by most people. Thus those people will never feel compelled to investigate, let alone adopt, the Christian Science perspective. It answers questions, particularly about health, that they figure they already have perfectly acceptable answers to — and even if they prefer alternatives to “modern medicine,” every bookstore (real or virtual) now offers lots and lots of choices on how to apply mind to health. No compelling need for a religious institution for a similar thing. They do face a profound challenge.
Yes, I think that’s an important point about Christian Science. Actually much of the New Thought movement was bound up in health as well in the early days — sometimes under the names Mind Cure or Mental Healing. After mainstream medicine leaped forward, the New Thought teachers — first slowly and then quickly — gravitated towards prosperity. Hence, the two movements — not just in that area alone! — have a different feel/culture today.
Hey Chris. I wanted to make a few comments on your first point. What is different today is huge. One big difference is that folks don’t have to find a New Thought community to get New Thought teachings because a great deal of what we teach has been acculturated. In decades past, to find a small subculture of like-minded folks could only be accomplished by finding one of our churches, that isn’t true today. Like minded folks are available everywhere, and they self-identify. We also have, with the advent of the internet, ready access to the immense New Thought library of books, lectures, podcasts, etc. In times past, the only way to locate even the books was to know someone that knew something, go to a library or bookstore, or find one of our churches. The net effect of these things is that, at least in my experience as a minister, folks don’t come ‘to’ New Thought; they come ‘with’ it.
All is not lost, of course. I believe that nothing will ever replace the face to face gathering that is supportive, loving, uplifting, and safe, because we humans are really made for each other– it’s hard-wired into us. So while much is different, and even the form of spiritual community may need to morph or change outright, there will always be a need.
Excellent point, other Chris and it becomes part of the thinking that New Thought institutions need to factor in. How do you connect with the like-minded people already on that path but who may be interested in more? What brings them in and what are the reasons they might not consider joining? Circling around to my first point, if you can get the right questions, the right answers should emerge.
Oh, and on the Shaker village point — any faith that puts a big emphasis on celibacy has “dealbreaker” stamped all over it.
The Shakers actually used to take in orphans. But as time passeed, and social conditions changed, that practice, too, became less necessary and less possible. Then the celibacy practice caught up with them demographically. They had other difficulties, too — kids and younger people who grew up in the fold wanted to be part of modern culture. The Shakers were ascetics (although also great artists and craftspeople) — and the younger lot wanted to be in the world.
After reading this article and the other about millennials, I thought I’d jump in here with my own personal observation. My husband and I began attending Science of Mind Churches back in the mid 80s and at the time we were clearly the “younger generation.” As students and eventually as SOM ministerial students we lamented the lack of young people and diversity in the face of largely older white people that we saw in both classes and in church. That really hasn’t changed that much. As far as what is being offered and whether it is relevant or not, that too really isn’t that different. After finishing our ministerial classes we found ourselves gradually left adrift from the community because it didn’t want to keep growing and evolving. In our opinion, the minister, the board and the vast majority of the congregation were completely happy with what they had created and we no longer fit. Okay, so fast forward 30 years later and although I still claim to follow New Thought as my primary “religion” I do not attend any church. Both my husband and I have an active practice but we are largely on our own because we don’t fit. While I suppose a church can’t be everything to everyone, I do believe that if they don’t change, evolve and stay on the edge of transformation, they will have “had their life.” Ultimately what happens in the meantime is probably due to the consciousness of the existing minister, board and congregation. Some successful, some not. How could the out-picturing be otherwise? ~Kathy
Thanks, Kathy — that’s very interesting. If I may ask, what were the issues of friction regarding change? I am part of a community called the Workmen’s Circle, which is an old Jewish socialist/mutual aid society (yes, I’m very with the times! 🙂 ). We had some growing pains because current members — myself included — wanted the kids school and other facets of the organization to grow closer to the Occupy movement, etc. That’s pretty much what happened, but it succeeded only because a large majority wanted to move in that direction. I feel strongly that if an organization wants to hold onto to creative, productive people it has to give those people a lot of free sway — it has to allow them to do what they want. Because maverick folks are just that way; they don’t like leashes! So, I tend to believe in as fluid a structure as possible.
What if the answer is a lot more radical? What if it’s not a matter of attracting a specific generation but of reworking from the ground up how we share our message?
From what I’ve read/witnessed, religious and secular organizations across the board are complaining that people are no longer willing to commit time and energy to participating in and maintaining groups. It’s not necessarily a “Millennial” thing – people across all age groups are dropping such affiliations. As much as I like the idea of a physical place to gather with others, it could be that the time of such things as “centers” has passed. If people no longer value such places (and by value I mean actually participate in the creation, support and maintenance of these groups/facilities), perhaps it’s time to let them go in favor of other ways of outreach.
I would rather see centers close and communication move to technologies like webcasts and teleclasses than to water down our teaching to the point that it is acceptable to the masses in the hopes that a few of them will choose to stick around. By adopting these new means of getting our principles out, we can keep the teaching intact without having to worry about having to make compromises so that we can make the mortgage payment. In turn, I believe that having a clear message will actually attract more people, though I don’t think that should be the objective. Fewer people who really get it would have a greater effect on the world than large numbers of people who show up for entertainment but don’t really understand or put the principles into practice.
I’m really hoping that local centers can not only survive but thrive; however, I think we need to be open to letting go of old structures so that something new can grow.