Blaming the Poor for Poverty
BY HARV BISHOP
Ernest Holmes did not use the term social justice in his Science of Mind textbook one of my readers said, implying that we shouldn’t be concerned about it.
The reader was challenging my interview with Centers for Spiritual Living (CSL) spiritual leader Dr. Kenn Gordon about the evolution of New Thought to include social justice.
The reader consulted his concordance for “the textbook” first published in 1926 and could not find the term social justice, but the term did not mainstream until after Holmes death in 1960. It is now in the forefront of the mission to create a world that works for everyone embraced by CSL (Religious Science) and more widely through the Association for Global New Thought (AGNT).
Of course, Holmes did not mention smart phones in “the textbook” either. Should we not use smart phones?
There is tendency among some in Science of Mind to take “the textbook” as Holmes’s final word on his teachings.
But Holmes himself says in “The Ernest Holmes Papers”: “In my own mind, I am more teachable and more flexible today than I was 40 years ago. At that time being new, young, crude and raw, I thought I knew it all.”
The reader also pointed to Holmes thoughts from “Creative Mind and Success” where Holmes wrote “….All the charity on Earth has never done away with poverty, and never will, if it could have done so it would have done so… God has given us a power and we must use it. We can do more toward saving the world by proving this law than all that charity has ever given it.”
Fair enough, but there are three points to be made here.
Our cultural trances
First, “Creative Mind and Success” was written in 1923. It took The Great Depression six years later to begin to shift the social consensus away from blaming individuals for their economic misfortune and to realize that government must provide a safety net through social programs.
At the time Holmes was writing in 1923, the economy was recovering from a downturn and there was full employment, but Social Security did not exist and child labor was not fully outlawed. Labor was still fighting for hard-won victories.
Holmes goes on to write that the poor are surrounded by opportunity and so “brought these conditions upon” themselves. God may strike me down, but, dare I say, Holmes can occasionally be wrong-headed and like all of us influenced by the cultural trances of our times.
Holmes views expanded
Second, would any of us want the dogmatic declarations of our 20s or 30s to follow us as our “official” position ever after? Holmes changed his mind on this issue over 30 plus years. As I wrote on this blog, Holmes, in a 1955 Science of Mind magazine article, decried the amount of money spent on war which dwarfed spending to address poverty, which he then did believe could be eliminated through a shift in spending priorities. The reader noted that Holmes never repudiated “the textbook.” True, but why should he? He wrote many other books and gave countless talks. His perspectives expanded and deepened over time and the fundamentals of “the textbook” remain sound, even if not in every detail.
Empowering people
Third, the reader believes that those in poverty should use individual initiative to get out of poverty. Given that, he implies, any spending to aid those in poverty is equivalent to charity. That simply isn’t true. Micro-lending, which provides small loans for people in poverty to start businesses, is just one of many creative examples of empowering people as opposed to providing charity. In “Leading from the Emerging Future,” MIT’s Otto Scharmer and co-author Katrin Kaufer, cite cases showing that safety nets boost creativity and risk-taking rather than fostering dependency.
Americans can still blame individuals for falling on hard times. These judgments often result from unexamined, outdated assumptions from the Protestant work ethic. If New Thought advocates anything, it is examining and discarding outdated beliefs.
Clearly affirmative prayer, called Spiritual Mind Treatment in Religious Science, has a role in helping people change their life circumstances, but more is required.
Still, this reader suggests an even larger question. What precedent is there in the work of Holmes for New Thought’s mission to consider the collective good as well as the opportunity for individuals to improve their lives?
Holmes’ position on social issues is often more implicit than explicit. We can turn to the examples Holmes set in practice to support racial equality including a famous incident involving Science of Mind magazine of his time which I wrote about here, and his interracial rally during the segregated years of World War II discussed on this blog by Mitch Horowitz.
Next week we’ll take up this larger question in dialogue with leading edge New Thought figures including Gordon, Dr. Roger Teel, spiritual leader of the largest New Thought church in the world, Dr. David Alexander, Religious Science minister and social justice advocate, millennial ministerial student Masando “Mike” Hiraoka, and historian and author Mitch Horowitz.
North Carolina artist and educator Tim Botta’s work appears at http://timbotta.tumblr.com/ and Fine Art America . You can also visit him on Facebook at Tim Botta Visual Art.
A great discussion. Unfortunately, I doubt it will do anything to change the questioner’s mind. It reminds me of the wall plaque that says: “My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.” Nevertheless, I sometimes wonder if E. Holmes would recognize his “church” in present day development. One of my favorite lines from the text is: “Principle is not bound by precedent.” Even back in the day Hornaday and Ernest had differing opinions and Carlton Whitehead even more. Sometimes it’s difficult to realize that our teaching is in the evolutionary process just as we ourselves are.
Beautiful expression of the evolutionary spirit in SoM Frank. And a great reminder that even the pioneers we lionize can see things differently.
The split that we finally put back together in 2012 (as Ernest predicted we would one day) grew from a difference of opinion between Ernest and some of his very best friends, including Dr. Raymond Charles Barker.
YES! Thanks for writing this, Harv. In the forward to Holmes’ final work, “The Voice Celestial,” Dr. Christian Sorensen writes of a conversation he had with Rev. James Pettenger, who lived with Ernest Holmes when he was writing that book. In the forward he writes, “Rev. Pottenger reported how Ernest was concerned that “The Voice Celestial” would make his textbook, “The Science of Mind” obsolete, because it reveals to the reader that we evolve from the cause and effect of SOM to the acceptance of preexisting wholeness discovered in “Idealistic Monism” or Universal Mind.” To me, Social Justice within New Thought is rooted in this very discovery and impetus to act from that understanding.
You can even see Holmes’ own evolution between the first and second editions of the SOM textbook. On p. 36 of the 1926 edition, there is a section entitled, “Why are people poor?” that seems to blame the poor for their poverty. This section does not appear in the 1938 edition.
Thanks Masando. Most interesting background! I have an earlier edition of Voice Celestial so look forward to reading the Sorensen introduction. Also the contrast between the 26 and 38 editions of SoM seems very telling given historic circumstances.
Harv,
While I tend to agree that positions do change over time, I also tend to disagree over the focus on the methodology of change advocated for in your article. If we replace the concept of Government with one of community as the motivator of social justice, then we get to a more realistic way of creating a world that works for everyone. The basic tenet of New Thought is we all have access to the transformative power of Spirit… When we say all, that does mean all: the rich, the poor, the educated, the illiterate. To advocate for any system that tends to stifle this is, to me, outside the spirit of what we teach. As someone who has been on both sides of the issue (at one time really needing the aid of Snap benefits et al) I can attest to the demeaning nature of government handled assistance. I can also attest to the affirming power of community, when people care about you, you begin to care about your self and others. Our history (CSL formerly United Church of Religious Science and Religious Science International) has a long history of providing community based transformation, which we should embrace, to delegate this to a faceless and uncaring State is in my opinion a refutation of the principles we teach.
Hi Bruce,
I’m really not advocating for any particular approach to dealing with structural inequalities that lead to poverty. I am saying it is important to address those inequalities and not blame/shame the victim in the New Though context. I would say there is a place for both government and community involvement depending on the circumstances. Community resources could conceivably be overwhelmed in a situation like the Great Depression or even the last recession where SNAP benefits helped many. I don’t doubt that availing oneself of emergency help like SNAP can, at times, be a demeaning and impersonal experience which is endemic to large institutions be they government or private companies. Dealing with private health insurance carriers would be one example of the latter. Crowdfunding and micro-loans, also mentioned above, generally do not involve the government.
Bruce I too have been on both sides. I was on food stamps as a soldier ( says a lot about enlisted pay ) and am dreading the 15th as I write a check to cover additional taxes even after having payroll deductions all year. I found the article about feeling the Berne particularly offending as more government spending won’t solve poverty until the underlying culture changes. Liberals love to spend other people’s money. I remember thinking when I was younger take all those rich bastards money, now I understand the other side. I think millennials will change as they move from the 47% percent paying no taxes to the other side. My daughter supports Bernie hey free college sounds great until you realize it’s not free just somebody else paying for it. That somebody will be you someday. Micro loans and ideas like that I’m all for. However government solutions like the great society have had devastating consequences for those it intended to help.
“If we replace the concept of Government with one of community as the motivator of social justice, then we get to a more realistic way of creating a world that works for everyone.”
That sounds more in line with a libertarian/conservative vision of how to go about it than a liberal/progressive one. Individual, voluntary, private, and community action, through various private organizations, including churches, builds the kind of world we promote much better than bureaucratic government solutions do.
Great post, Harv.
There is a difference, I think, between those who have had access to New Thought teachings (and their kind) and those who have not. One could take an absolutist position regarding Holmes’ reference: “Holmes goes on to write that the poor are surrounded by opportunity and so ‘brought these conditions upon’ themselves” as an accurate description of the results of their consciousness in determining their relationship with their surroundings. Hence the main point that consciousness is the determining factor of conditions.
However, today, we are more aware of the fact that everyone does not have access to such awareness and the resulting need for the larger society to work to improve conditions is self-evident (maybe I’m being optimistic here). We are beginning to recognize that you must help lift people out of poverty, to the degree that society can do that, so that they are available mentally and emotionally to learn to take more responsibility for their lives. That availability does not mean that it is mandatory that they do so, but it is at least providing a greater opportunity to do so.
We also know that a poverty consciousness is not healed by money. Only a change in consciousness can heal a poverty consciousness. Really the only thing new that is happening is that many in New Thought are turning outward to minister to the larger community after focusing inward for 80+ years. That inward focus may have been necessary to generate a collective consciousness powerful and confident enough to make that turn outward effective. We shall see, but the desire for social justice is here, it is growing, and it is, I think, the result of the natural evolution of the creative imperative within New Thought in general and Religious Science in particular.
“Never forget that social justice is what love looks like in public” ~ Cornel West
Love and Light,
Jim Lockard
https://newthoughtevolutionary.wordpress.com/
Thank you Jim. I strongly agree that the key is providing opportunity. Recent brain studies shave shown that financially stressed peoples’ brains are overwhelmed which narrows focus and awareness of options.
Blessings,
Harv
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/07/14/330434597/this-is-your-stressed-out-brain-on-scarcity
http://www.amazon.com/Scarcity-Science-Having-Defines-Lives/dp/125005611X/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Jim, my question would who’s social justice? To Muslims Sharia law would provide this as this is the Justice of Allah.
Also as I asked Harv, if we are indeed speaking of America what laws need to be changed? Who can legally be discriminated against? The fight is won !!
Those Protestant views on work have build the greatest nation in earth’s history are we to abandon them?
The references to Holmes positions on segregation and calling people of all races beloved. Who disagree s with that? There are 3 thousand KKK members out of 316 million of us. The battle is won !!
Shouldn’t our movement be standing up to Islam. There is a ideology we can bring social justice to.
Just some thoughts sorry for the disjointed format.
Harv,
Those are interesting and from my days of being poor can agree that indeed there are very different things vying for mental focus in that state. I recall Wayne Dyer speaking on his work to end world hunger ” We can talk all positive thinking but when you stomach is empty it cannot be heard” or something to that effect.
Thanks for that reminder about the much missed Wayne Dyer, Paul. I think that is something both conservative and liberal New Thought folk can come to agreement on even if the solutions offered would differ.
It’s a bit ironic that the reader you mentioned seems to regard the “textbook” as something akin to Holy Scripture. Consider Holmes was (apparently) not interested in starting a church or a religion and would probably be aghast at the pedestal on which his book has been placed. That’s probably because he realized that our ability to accept any particular religious dogma is enhanced by how little we know about science and the way the world actually works. Our beliefs should be amended in the light of new discoveries and knowledge.
That’s particularly true when it comes to ideas such as that someone’s financial and social circumstances are solely a product of their own efforts. While clearly our thoughts and actions play a large role in our personal success, there are thousands of other factors and circumstances that shape our lives over which we have no knowledge, much less control. Where we’re born, the color of skin, our social standing, the quality of parenting, global economic forces and even our genetic heritage are beyond our control.
Research in evolutionary biology is changing the way we think about “free will” and some scientists now question whether we can even say it exists at all.
Even now we still hear people in New Thought circles say things like “he got cancer because he was thinking about it.” (The lunacy that gives New Thought a bad name.) And, then there’s that staple of New Thought class discussions – the outlier. Because one person is able to overcome poverty/recover from a dread disease, that’s proof that anyone can do so. No, in order to be among the 10 percent who survive the disease you have to manifest a very specific set of conditions which includes a particular genetic disposition.
Privilege plays a powerful role in our lives. Research shows that people who rise from poverty to economic success do so at a high cost. They are more prone to illness and die sooner than normal. The effort required to be a success literally saps the life out of them. The same phenaoma isn’t found among those born to wealth and privilege. They can reach heights of economic success without their health suffering. (Donald Trump is probably a good example here.)
Insightful comments Randy. Thank you. To your point I’ve read that college students’ earnings throughout their work life is influenced by the health of the economy when they graduate and go on the job market. Graduate in weak economy you earn less over your life even if the economy recovers.
I agree in part. Holmes did not write this with the idea of it being a religion. I think we do ourselves a disservice calling it such. I approach it as a philosophy. My concern is that we are taking the science of mind and turning it into something other than what he intended it is not our place to change it and still call it the science of mind if we want to start a new movement based on social justice it needs to be called something else and Holmes not used as its leader.
I have several thoughts on this, some of which have been touched on in the comments. But I may as well go through my list.
1) Ernest Holmes didn’t write a textbook. He wrote Science of Mind–I’m guessing– as a way to make available the metaphysical synthesis that resulted from his years of study. SOM has no footnotes or bibliography, but it isn’t hard to identify elements of Holmes’ thought that are drawn from Emma Curtis Hopkins, Thomas Troward, St. Teresa of Avila, the Upanishads, etc. It’s used as a textbook today because it’s a great synthesis.
2) What distinguishes New Thought from Christian Science, according to Horatio Dresser, is that New Thought “is a practical method and theory of healing based on the authority of experience, rather than the authority of a leader or book” (Dresser, Handbook of the New Thought, 1917). Holmes’ writing was intended as a guide book for the individual. He expected each person to test out SOM ideas for themself.
3) And here’s the big issue: the tension between the individualism underlying New Thought’s positive mental focus, and the embrace of Oneness as a spiritual principle or reality. This is not a new debate. It was a hot topic in NT circles just after World War I. Dresser wrote: “The war has made the races and nations intimately akin. We do not want mere ‘healing of the nations.’ We want cooperation and brotherhood. We want true service and social justice” (Dresser, A History of the New Thought Movement, 1919). While recognizing that much of NT teaching concerned using the law of attraction to consciously self-direct one’s life, that was not the ultimate goal. “Back of all this lies the impelling motive, and it is the motive rather than the method that characterizes the New Thought movement. Its essential conception is that of unity [today we say “Oneness”-m.o.], and it advocates the cultivation of Self and the attainment of desire from the point of view of the benefit of all” (Dresser, quoting a Mr. Del Mar in Now Magazine, San Francisco). Dresser concludes with a statement of purpose that could have been written today: “All our problems are inseparably connected. All activities making for social betterment must be seen as intimately one.”
Thanks so much for this fascinating historical perspective Maryjane! I began reading Dresser last year on Mitch Horowitz’s recommendation and have been so taken with his fine mind and willingness to both embrace and question New Thought. And in addition how applicable his writings are to the new (old) dilemmas we face in the movement today as you note..
Fascinating conversation! I cringe when I think of my own dogma days!! In his last talk at Asilomar in 1988, Dr. William Hornaday spoke generously about the various “acts of charity” that Ernest Holmes would do walking his walk. One that comes to mind was his taking a prostitute into his Sunday Lecture from the street, and afterwards talking to her about her situation. Upon discovering that the mob had been coercing her into prostitution, he bought her new clothes out of his own pocket, contacted her folks, and paid for a ticket so she could get home. Many in New Thought today might look at her, judge her, feel spiritually superior for a fleeting moment, walk briskly in the opposite direction while writing her situation off to “Well, that is what is in her consciousness.” Isn’t “consciousness” the greatest rationale ever to just not give a hoot.
At her memorial service, speaker after speaker came out and described how Rev Dr. Johnnie Colemon would step up silently and open her own wallet to help those in need around her. And not just a meal or two—payrolls, mortgages, college. Last spring, the Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary Colloquium featured many speakers on the topic of The Prosperity Gospel. Dr. Keith Magee, Boston University, spoke on his research of 200 megachurches in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, The Prosperity Gospel and the Poor. I also contributed the findings of a survey I did of 50 New Thought ministers on how the prosperity principles were playing out in their own lives. It is clearly time to regroup on this issue. The proceedings are available at http://www.jctseminary.org. A transcript of Hornaday’s talk is available at http://www.lulu.com/shop/margo-ruark/transcription-of-ernest-holmes-as-i-knew-him/paperback/product-12472029.html.
Thanks so much Margo. Those are wonderful stories of compassion in action. Love your line : “Isn’t “consciousness” the greatest rationale ever to just not give a hoot.”
Unfortunately, the way we as a society handle poverty is to spend on programs that enable it rather than helping people out of it. Private initiatives (such as the microlending cited in the article) have generally been much more effective in lifting people out of poverty.
Thanks for the message.
Yes, man can make mistakes. When I was working as an actress, we had a lovely thing called, “take two.”
A second chance to get it right. Ernest is known for saying that his teachings should be, “open at the top.” In this way he is telling us, “please don’t take my word for it! Use your brains people.” I think I read somewhere, that upon his death, Ernest said he wished he had focused on the love a bit more than the law. This could be an urban myth. Either way, all giving and receiving are one in the same. I think it is a “Yes and…” situation. It is the individual’s privilege to be a part of the solution. The world experiences poverty because we have a mass conscious agreement in scarcity. If we heal the stingy mind AND take the actions that stem from love, we will have the possibility of seeing things differently. Though Ernest was a great teacher, it is the content of his teaching that we need to pay attention to… he was teaching us how to expand the consciousness of love. What would love have us do? The question is easy, the answer is obvious. What would LOVE have us do?