A world that works for everyone doesn’t exist
By Sara Nichols
We must reject all ideas that politics is any different from spiritual practice.
After close to 20 years as an attorney and professional legislative advocate for consumer and labor rights in Congress and the California legislature, I became the full-time Spiritual Leader of the Center for Spiritual Living, a Religious Science church in Davis, California. Our center is being pulled by this mission, “embody All is Well to transform hearts, minds and lives,” towards the revelation of a “world that works for everyone.”
We are discovering that it is a radical and offensive proposition to live from the notion that “All Is Well” when it is apparent that all, is so manifestly, unwell for so many. The same is true for the vision of a world that works for everyone—it doesn’t. The current world that is perceived by almost all of us includes vast and deep poverty and violence built on a foundation of racism, sexism, capitalism and disrespect for Mother Earth.
As Rev. Dr. Michael Beckwith says, “we are pushed by pain until we are pulled by vision.” Rev. Dr. Edward Viljoen points out that people come to us in pain. They don’t come to us as practitioners and say “I’m here because all is well.”
Yet, I submit, this is precisely the reason that “All Is Well” is so transformative. If someone walks in, as really happens, who is sick in the body and experiencing poverty in their finances, we can look at this situation not from their perspective but from the perspective of “All Is Well.” If we proceed from the assumption that “All Is Well,” we can begin to ask ourselves what we’re missing. If all truly Is well, where is the evidence of that? We can begin to look with her for evidence of health, of abundance, of joy. And as we shift the focus of our attention, she will begin to experience the health, the abundance and the joy that she is.
The same is true on the global or community level. And while it is true that if enough of us shift the focus of our attention to abundance, peace, love and joy, it will reveal global change, the key call to action here is how to get that to happen. This then is our work.
As practitioners of New Thought, including Science of Mind, we must begin to connect the dots for people in pain to have them understand that the poverty, the disease they are feeling is connected to the poverty and disease the planet is experiencing. Since we are all one and all connected, there is no such thing as the spiritual personal realm and a separate public political realm. Again, we must reject all ideas that politics is any different from spiritual practice. We must begin to vote for “All Is Well” and “a world that works for everyone” in every sphere of our existence. To do that, we must recognize, name and point out when it doesn’t work for everyone.
In addition to her public policy and spiritual work, Rev. Sara Nichols is also a longtime blogger.
Your post caused me to flash back to some sociological theory classics. In The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Emile Durkheim introduced a key concept: “la conscience collective.” In English, this is rendered as: collective consciousness, or collective conscience. The term connotes both a moral sense, and a sense of intelligent awareness. In sociology, collective consciousness refers to the ensemble of beliefs and sentiments shared among a collectivity. Durkheim showed empirically how social life and culture affects individual minds and behavior; and, simultaneously, how individuals contribute to the collective consciousness through their words and actions.
In order to have a world that works for everyone, we need to affect the culture, including the culture of politics. We need to find language that helps people understand the many ways in which we are connected. Science –including social science—makes it easy to identify material connections and social interdependence. What SOM & New Thought folks uniquely offer is a way –through specific language and practices—to open a space for expanding this sense of connection at the level of “all is well-ness.” This is harder to write about because it is more a feeling-sense that can only be imperfectly communicated in words. It is Buddha’s finger pointing to the moon: a person needs to experience “it” to understand.
I very much agree with that point — and the connection between “collective consciousness/conscience.” I would suggest, however, that the term “politics” can be a conversation stopper insofar as people of goodwill can, of course, have different approaches. I’m voting for Bernie (very committedly) and my wife leans toward Hillary — while our in-laws, uh, don’t ask. We have to preserve a “house united” even when overt politics differ. The thing that is non-negotiable is ethics or, put in a more ultimate sense, conscience. A base disrespect or violence toward others abrogates, and cannot coexist with, an authentic spiritual search. People ask me: Where do I draw the line? Any ideology that denigrates the individual or communities of individuals — that dehumanizes and eradicates a shared sense of existence with another — is, in my view, violent. Of course, that definition won’t settle all differences, but it’s my version of the Boy Scout Code of Honor. So, I wonder if there’s a way to make these points, which I support, without using the term (or overt language of) politics? All best, m
Hmm. I guess even “politics” can be considered loaded language. Perhaps we can seek a point of connection that by-passes the buzz words. For example, there is a sentiment in our culture (part of collective consciousness) that elevates the individual above all else. Ayn Rand followers, for instance, buy into this framework. Recognition and celebration of individual uniqueness is great – but to advocate individualism as the ne plus ultra of human evolution is to deny the interconnectedness of existence. It is the denial of community. It’s the denial of commerce, for heaven’s sake! So, I guess I would encourage conversations that recognize connection and the fruits of collective endeavor. Civilization has advanced, after all.
De Tocqueville recognized two dangers in American democracy: the potential for a tyranny of the majority, and for individualism. Looks like we’ve avoided the first, since we’ve got a tyranny of the minority at the moment, but the second is rampant. De Tocqueville’s remedy was “self-interest properly understood.” He meant that we can develop a perspective whereby we see that community improvements (e.g., public health, education) ultimately benefit the individual. So you pay taxes, because you will benefit from clean air, good roads, safe food, etc. That would be a good theme to emphasize out in public these days, IMHO.
There is a strong individual sense in New Thought, as each of us is a unique and individualized expression of God, and each individual expression is sacred. Each individual expression matters; everyone is important.
In that sense, as was discussed in another post on this site, there is a place of overlap between libertarianism, even the extreme individualism of Rand, and New Thought.
And the libertarian-ish writer Dr. Leonard Read, founder of the foundation for Economic Education (which is VERY free-market) had selections from his book “Meditations on Freedom” quoted in the July 1975 issue of Science of Mind Magazine. (If you can find a copy, it’s interesting.) His essay, “I, Pencil” (available at http://fee.org/freeman/i-pencil/) strikes some themes that resonate well with New Thought.
Our movement is supposed to be for everyone, yet many New Thoughters tend to be judgmental, exclusive, and hostile towards those who do not share the dominant political views in the movement. For example, how would most characterize Donald Trump or Ted Cruz — and their supporters? (I was even asked once about our center’s outreach, “Well, why would we want them anyway?”)
Does that help or hinder “a world that works for everyone”?
Interesting that you cite Alexis de Tocqueville, who is a favorite of conservatives.
Re: A world that works for everyone doesn’t exist
I believe that it’s a question of the absolute vs the relative. When we’re anchored in the absolute, we have the power to re-create our own world. That is true for everyone. We can teach others how to do it — that’s an essential part of our mission, if not the essential part of our mission — but we can’t do it for them, nor can anyone else do it for us. When we are anchored in the relative . . .
Bill Arrott
The medieval mystic Julian of Norwich wrote (and she was quoted by Eliot in one of his poems):
All is well
And all shall be well
And all manner of thing shall be well.
And she’s right. All IS well — otherwise, why do we do a treatment the way we do, in a positive, present way?
That’s the Truth of the matter. Always.
But sometimes our circumstances and surroundings don’t reflect that Truth. Truth is one thing; the facts sometimes don’t match up.
That’s why we do treatment. It’s why we have practitioners and ministers — and our communities: to see the Truth behind the condition (behind the facts on the ground) and to support us in walking through it. As one of our Center’s founding ministers used to say, you may have to walk through the valley of the shadow of death, but you don’t have to build a house there. You can only walk halfway into a dark forest; after that, you’re walking out of it.
So there is some truth to the fact that a world that works for everyone doesn’t exist. If we woke up tomorrow in a perfect world, not only would there be nothing left to reach for, but it would not be so perfect for those whose identity is invested in “helping”, in creating that world. They would be out of work and have no remaining mission.
Yogi Berra was right: “if the world were perfect, it wouldn’t be.” Yet the metaphysical Truth is that it is, always has been, and always will be.
BTW, the poem where Eliot quotes Julian of Norwich is “East Coker”, the last of his “Four Quartets”. Look up the Four Quartets. There is a lot of magnificent mysticism in those poems that eresonates beautifully witth our teachings.
On the subject of changing the world, remember the 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.
I love this entire post and ensuing conversation! Grateful for the perspectives.
Beautifully stated… I focus on building “A Community That Works for the World!”
I am a member of CSL Crossroads in Kansas (Overland Park). I want to hear, read more. What I read here seems a little more realistic.