Is Religious Science Losing Its Identity or Living Up To Its Promise?
By Harv Bishop
Is Alcoholics Anonymous’s (AA) scrupulous avoidance of social issues a model for New Thought churches?
As AA has a single purpose — alcoholics helping other alcoholics maintain sobriety, Religious Science and other New Thought churches have a single purpose — teaching spiritual principles, a retired Religious Science minister recently told me via Facebook.
Religious Science risks losing its identity, the minister wrote, if it focuses on social justice rather than teaching spiritual principles. This minister (who will remain anonymous for privacy) was responding to my recent blog post about Religious Science’s support for LGBT equality issues and the organization’s mission of “creating a world that works for everyone.”
Demonstrating equality within churches is more important than “active advocacy,” he told me.
“As a Religious Scientist, I firmly believe in the Law of Attraction,” he wrote. “While individual members are perfectly free to pursue whatever issues move them to action (as if they would do anything else), as an organization I believe we can do the most good by conducting ourselves as examples of what we teach rather than engaging in issues.
“To quote Ernest Holmes, the founder of Religious Science, ours is a teaching and healing work. Let the people we teach pursue the issues of their own choice using the principles they have learned. Wherever there are issues, there is a higher idea seeking to express which those on both sides of an issue can embrace.
“An example of how an organization can destroy itself is the Washingtonian Society, an early 19th century predecessor of Alcoholics Anonymous. They expanded their mission beyond alcoholism to tackle the issue of abolition and fell apart. AA adopted the philosophy of ‘shoemaker, stick to thy last’ and assiduously avoided all outside issues no matter how worthy. By sticking to its principles, AA has become the largest and most successful self-help movement in the world. LGBTs have always been welcome. In AA it’s a non-issue, just as it is in Religious Science.”
This minster’s thoughtful arguments are not easily dismissed. Ernest Holmes led by example when he held a large rally in Los Angeles in the 1940s open to blacks and whites in a time when segregation was a festering national wound.
Another minister told me that about half of Religious Science clergy identify as gay and that has been so historically. New Thought historian and author Mitch Horowitz also points to the long-standing historical radical inclusiveness of New Thought churches which have included women clergy and the LGBTQ community.
The retired minister’s argument above presupposes that example and teaching principles to adherents’ leads to positive social change in and of itself.
New Thought’s historically inclusive home is admirable. But the very members welcomed in churches may find themselves shunned in the larger society, limited in opportunities for work and housing and in other ways that are anything but a “non-issue.” For me, there is a fundamental difference between issues (such as, “should the city sewer system be updated?”) and human rights; respecting the fundamental dignity of human beings.
Is it a fair comparison to invoke the Washingtonian movement and AA to judge Religious Science’s social justice mission?
The Washingtonian movement had remarkable success as early as the 1840s with alcoholics helping other alcoholics (minus the moralizing and condemnation of churches) 100 years before AA. At 600,000 strong, their membership expanded beyond alcoholics. Many accounts say that outsiders tried to steer the movement’s power base towards various hot-button issues, which fragmented the group. But human slavery is a hard issue to ignore, nor can it be characterized as an issue like a sales tax going up or down a few cents.
AA provoked controversy and was criticized for excluding African-Americans from AA groups a century later in areas where segregation was law. Segregation was regarded as “accepting the things we cannot change” according to author Ernest Kurtz’s “Not God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous.” AA did not lead by example.
Holmes did more than lead by example. He corrected editors of Science of Mind magazine for relegating an African-American Religious Science church to the bottom of a directory of Religious Science churches and he went to that church to apologize.
That goes beyond leading by example. Holmes made a declarative statement about the evils of prejudice and implemented sanctions because the editors violated the core Religious Science ethic that everyone is an equal and unique manifestation of the Divine. That goes much farther than Bill Wilson, a co-founder of AA, ever did in standing for racial equality.
I see today’s progressive New Thought ministers and adherents advocating for social justice as acting in the tradition of Ernest Holmes.
This is, like everything you discuss, Harv, an important conversation. As a new thought minister who has been in 12 step for over 10 years and is very familiar with the 12 step (AA) tradition of not taking positions on outside issues, I have considered this as a new thought minister. It all comes down, as you observe, to the definition of our primary purpose.
We have a set of beliefs. And it is our purpose to teach them and to live them. One of our primary beliefs is that there is no separation. That means there is no thing out there called “politics” or “controversy” that is outside of Spirit or outside of spiritual practice. We also believe in a world that works for everyone. One way to ride the rail on this is to simply know the truth in detail. For example, I know that the next President of the United States is nothing but love. This president acts from love, moves from love, lives from love, speaks from love. This is all that this candidate and then president is. I speak my word for the power of love bringing forth a president that inspires, fosters and moves love to reveal and heal all things. Which it already does.
One person hearing this prayer can be positive that I’m talking about Bernie Sanders. Another can be positive (although I can’t imagine for the life of me how) that I’m talking about Donald Trump.
I believe that this is an issue of cultural evolution. Our New Thought culture has evolved and continues to evolve. One of the values that is increasingly present is the value of spiritually-directed social activism. There is no denying that this value is more prevalent today than it may have been fifty years ago.
There is a companion value – one of claiming personal authority – that has also evolved over the past fifty or more years. Where congregations used to passively follow the directions and authority of a minister, that is not the case today. Postmodernism (Green in Spiral Dynamics terminology) is a very different lens through which to view the world than the traditionalist/modernist (Blue/Orange) lens of the past half century or more, the value system in which Ernest Holmes and the other founders lived.
People, especially young people, today are more interested in the experience of the teaching than in deep explorations of the theory of the teaching – and experience means real-world experience. I believe that this challenging (for traditional forms of spiritual authority) but very positive development means that New Thought is ready to take our principles to the world, both as Holmes and others did by example in the past, and by social activism in a modern context.
Combining the postmodern values of full inclusiveness in decision making, claiming personal authority, and the desire to actively participate in the creation of a world that works for everyone, New Thought is uniquely poised to bring great positive, healing possibilities to a world that is reeling from a failure to practice mature spiritual and psychological principles. This can be done consciously and wisely, if there is an intention to do so.
Those who still reside in the traditionalist/modernist mindset may see this development as something negative or to be feared, but isn’t that the way with most progress in the values arena?
Young people are voting on this issue with their feet – they are leaving our centers in droves and have been for some time. They are seeking a combination of spiritual relevance and a fuller engagement with the world around them. My belief is that unlike the Washingtonian movement of the 1840’s, New Thought will fade away if we DO NOT engage with the world around us in more significant ways. We may simply age-out like Christian Science is now doing.
As Bob Dylan wrote: “It’s the times. They’re a-changin”.”
Excellent points all around and yes, young people (“millennials”) don’t want to sit and learn principles in a class; they want the Smartphone summary so they can get out there and get their hand in it! The Centers that not only survive but THRIVE will be the Centers who are engaged with their communities, supporting the people in those communities.
As a lifelong and hardcore Religious Scientist, I know that you don’t change the world by trying to change the world. That fails when tried. Remember this old story?
A man tried to change the world. He was unsuccessful.
So he tried to change his country. He was unsuccessful.
So he tried to change his community. He was unsuccessful.
So he tried to change his street. Again, he was unsuccessful.
So he tried to change his family. Still, he was unsuccessful.
So he tried to change himself — and he was successful.
And that changed his family.
And his family changed the street.
And the street changed the community.
And the community changed the country.
And the country changed the world.
This is how we do it. SOM has focused on individual self-development for a good reason. While we cannot help but be involved in the world at large, we do our work within ourselves (for where else is there), and join with others in community to do it.
That’s not to say that centers shouldn’t have community projects. Ours has “adopted” the neighborhood school and we have sponsored a family for Christmas. Those are “for something, against nothing” kind of projects. But when you get into contentious political issues, not only do you lose focus, you lose potential members and supporters.
Everyone has a mission in life, and so does every organization. Ours is to build a world that works for everyone by reminding humanity of its spiritual magnificence.
Don’t be diverted form your path by shiny objects.
I don’t disagree with much of what you have said here Tim. But I don’t see that changing our consciousness is now off the table in CSL churches in the pursuit of contentious political issues or that the two missions are mutually exclusive. (See Rev. Chris’ comments below).
It seems to me that over the last 20 years or so that there is a concerted effort by some to label previously non-contentious consensus issues such as environmental protections, non-discrimination, care for those down on their luck etc. as contentious or even trumped up non-issues supported by fabrication. Labeling formally consensus issues as “political” is a strategy for taking them off the table by rebranding as a matter of opinion rather than consensus.
Prior to that there were conservative approaches to, say for example, environmental protection (market based), and liberal responses (regulation). Somewhere along the line concern for the environment came to be seen as as liberal only issue and hence “political” as a way to shut down discussion. What gets lost in all this is ways to bring conservatives and liberals together to find creative solutions that might include the market and regulation or some as yet not considered 3rd way that gets lost when people shout at each other rather than talk.
Similarly I don’t want to see CSL churches and leaders shut down from speaking out on LGBTQ rights simply because it might be seen as contentious by some. Being in favor of equality doesn’t tell anyone how to vote or who to vote for or even what combination of laws and/or consciousness change is required. I have a student, gay, who is studying to be a Lutheran minister. He is also ardently and wonderfully Republican AND he is also equally outspoken for LGBTQ equality. It is that kind of creative synthesis that is excluded when this kind of thing is cast in black and white terms. Surely there is room for both/and in religious Science and New Thought generally. As Dr. Jim notes above there are costs in losing members and supporters if nothing is done. If my millennial student where RSc instead of Lutheran he would likely be one.
Those things were always contentious. I expect that it will be so for a long time. People simply disagree.
The reason that environmental issues became perceived as “liberal” is that liberals took over the organizations and tried to impose their solutions and ideas on everyone who got involved. (Sadly, this seems to be SOP.)
It’s one thing for members of the church to take a position on a contentious issue; it’s another for the church per se to do so. I do not believe in politics in the pulpit. When the church as an organization speaks out on a given issue that is in the political realm, it implicitly excludes all who disagree with the position it takes. Today, I see this practice all too frequently in Religious Science and in New Thought generally.
We need to reach millennials where they are — but I’m not sure that announcing ourselves on contentious issues is the way to go about that. Millennials are all over the map. But I think our basic message of empowerment, prosperity, opportunity, taking responsibility for your life, changing your life by changing your thought, and building a world that works for everyone resonates — if we can figure out how to deliver it where it will get noticed. Obviously, we haven’t been doing a very good job of that. How can we do it better?
One of my favorite stories about Dr. Holmes was his habit of sitting on the front steps of the headquarters in LA and chatting with the homeless people and alcoholics that came by. If they were open, he’d bring them into the offices, give them new clothes and a chance to clean up. He’d pray with them and help them, as much as possible, to open up to a new way of life. Some of the people he helped went on to become practitioners. Politics isn’t, in my opinion, a part of our legacy as SoM. But social justice, caring for one another in a real, palpable way, most certainly is. As a ministerial student, I hope to live up to Dr. Holmes’ example.
Some great perspectives have already been shared — in the original post and comments. Here’s my two cents…
On AAs singleness of purpose: I’m sober eighteen years. I recall reading that part of the reason the ‘no opinion on outside issues’ is so important is that alcoholics, in the AA literature, are recognized as basically psychological messes — ego driven, petty, resentment-filled. The old-timers learned that this was not a good collective psychological profile for complexity! Better to stick with one thing and one thing alone. Nonetheless, AA is all about taking action; it’s just that the action is limited to its world — the world of recovery from the disease of alcoholism.
Our world is bigger and we should rightly be concerned with taking action so that the most good is possible for the most life forms. Nothing will ever convince me otherwise. However, there is a BIG factor in our efforts to bring about a world that works for everyone, and that is that we realize the foundational importance of where we act FROM. Said another way, where is the consciousness-space from which we act? Can we act for something as opposed to against something? Can we act from a place of love and unity rather than anger and divisiveness? You get my point.
As Jim mentioned above, our collective evolution has moved from a ‘me’ to a ‘we’ orientation, and this is so because an aggregate of individuals’ evolutions have done so. On good days, I remember that nothing I say will move someone still at an ‘me’ worldview — eggs crack from the inside if they are to be about life. Me bashing from the outside will never help (although I forget this…alot). The ‘me’ — a life that works for me — is necessary BEFORE entering into the ‘we’ with consciousness that heals as opposed to spreads more dis-ease.
In the end, from my space on the evolving spiral, the ‘me’ is necessary but not sufficient. Same is true for the ‘we.’
Grateful for the dialog, y’all!
Beautifully stated. I have always thought Ernest would want us to stand in and for what we teach in these ways.
I believe one must put into action the principles of religious science. Anything else demonstrates a lack of courage and belief. Standing up for justice and equality in all circumstances demonstrates both courage and belief.
I love how God works. I’m preparing for a Sunday talk tomorrow morning, and just before I set down my contemplation for the night this article comes into my awareness. The talk title is, Desire: From not Toward.
One of the things I feel inspired to explore further with the world, and was working through before being brought to this post, is a concept I call “conscious activism.” This should not be confused with social activism where the New Thought metaphysician wants to advise against focusing on conditions. I’m talking about #ConsciousActivism.
Conscious activism is about treating the cause, not the effect. It’s about the realization that if I’m God, and I’ve got infinite potential, why would I limit myself? However, there’s a catch. I call it the Desire Paradox. The more we try to change our world the more our power eludes us. More on that tomorrow… 🙂
That said, I believe that as a 44 year old Minister of Religious Science, leading a Centre for Spiritual Living I am being called to inspire people to awaken to their spiritual magnificence. Ernest Holmes once wrote, “MAN, BY THINKING, CAN BRING INTO HIS EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER HE DESIRES, IF HE THINKS CORRECTLY AND BECOMES A LIVING EMBODIMENT OF HIS THOUGHTS. This is not done by holding thoughts but by KNOWING THE TRUTH.” It’s my calling to know the Truth and to inspire people to choose to think correctly.
I recognize that what Holmes is telling me through his words is that I must BE the answer to my affirmative prayers. I must BE the change I wish to see in the world. I must recognize that when I am witness to reprehensible and unwholesome choices that I am being reminded to look within and apply the beautiful principles of the Science of Mind. In short, when I am witness to ANY condition that does not jive with my soul I look within and do my work there. I celebrate that Ernest Holmes acted upon the serious error of listing a black church at the bottom of the Science of Mind Magazine directory, and personally went to apologize to the community. That, my friends, is conscious activism!
From time to time I may feel a desire to be more active about something. I will likely recognize that in others and Spirit, through me, may inspire them to be more consciously active. I will savour their freedom and know them as God in motion. I will apply myself to Conscious Activism by embodying that which I wish to see AND applying myself in the world of conditions by embodying cause. I will deepen and spiritually advance, ever mindful that it is for me to make wholesome choices and to call out the ego for what it is. I will embrace the revelations of Quantum Physics that are informing us of things such as: Our DNA can control light; we are all connected whether we know it or not; and our DNA gives us access to the energy of the Universe. How exciting it is to see and read that science is really starting to catch up with my spirituality in telling me that, as I observe, so it is!
As my ministry advances I will continue to include, and refine my understanding of, Conscious Activism as a part of my calling. I don’t believe in limits. I don’t hold to a mindset that tries to tell me that because we treat cause, and not condition, that I am required to settle back and be an observer. No. I’m not that kind of Minister. I’m a participator. I’m the kind of Minister that is going to get more and more consciously active. And do you know how I’m going to start? I’m going to teach those that wish to listen to me how to do so AS they embody the New Thought principles of the Science of Mind. Oh yes, it’s a great time to be alive.
Love and blessings <3
Beautiful reflection Rev. Carmien. Much appreciated. Please let us know more about the desire paradox and how your thoughts on Conscious Activism progress!
Blessings,
Harv