When Ernest Holmes was Wrong

Spread the love

BY HARV BISHOP

Evolution was a constant in the spiritual life of Ernest Holmes.

To realize just how much the man changed, consider the prejudice and dated race and gender stereotypes that populate the early work of Holmes and other classic New Thought authors. Their pens also portrayed a utopian world where the only road blocks to success and riches were an individual’s beliefs.

Ernest Holmes portrait by Tim Botta

We can still celebrate the pioneering wisdom of these authors, says Rev. Dr. Edward Viljoen of Center for Spiritual Living Santa Rosa, but we would be well advised not to see their every word as the only way to view New Thought.

There is room for New Thought and its adherents to grow.

Viljoen points to two shocking examples from Holmes’s opus of the 1920s and 30s, “The Science of Mind,” sometimes called “the textbook” because it has been used in so many classes at Religious Science churches.

Edward Viljeon 1
Rev. Dr. Edward Viljoen

First, Vlljoen notes this quote from his rare copy of the original 1938 edition. “If a misshapen being from darkest Africa were to plant pink roses, the soil would produce just as lovely flowers for him as for the most beautiful [moving] picture star (96.3).” This wording was changed “years ago” says Viljoen and reads in the current edition “If a convicted felon in a prison garden were to plant pink roses, the soil would produce just as lovely flowers for him as for the most beautiful [moving] picture star.”

Second, Viljoen says “offensive wording” still appears in “the textbook.” “The Christian religion gives more value to the individual life than most of the others,” Holmes writes.  “That is why it has made such an appeal to the more vital races of the world.”

Ironically, this nugget of race judgment lands in the middle of a tribute to the essential “similarity” of religions all expressing the One God. So are some races are “vital” while others are lethargic? The likely translation for “vital races” is white Europeans who are seen as technically advanced and making extraordinary progress while other races are supposedly less industrious and technically backwards. From there it is a short hop to the infamous concept of the White Man’s burden to bring civilization and Christendom to the world’s “primitive” peoples. That “burden” led to the evils of colonialism and the conquest of Indigenous peoples.
Holmes would term such outdated views as “race consciousness” by which he means collective patterns of belief belonging to the human race, not a given race of people. Clearly, he wasn’t immune. And none of us are immune. Such glaring examples are easy to see in hindsight. If we could see some of our own assumptions 50 years hence we would likely cringe.

“These writers… use the flawed vernacular and inferences of their times,” historian Mitch Horowitz recently wrote on this blog. “You’ll occasionally find a softly bigoted reference. Pay attention to the universal message, not the attitudes of past.”

Viljoen takes a similar view, but adds that New Thought adherents shouldn’t mistake Holmes writings for a type of holy writ.

“Ernest Holmes was wrong on a number of things, as we all are,” he says. “And, as others have noted, he changed his position as his understanding grew, as should our position. His comment about Christianity appealing to the ‘more vital races’ is downright offensive as was his comment about Africa, thankfully removed from ‘the textbook.’

“He barely deals with addiction, compassion, or community and other important issues of this century. I sincerely doubt that he would want us to think of his’ textbook’ as a scripture or final revelation and I, for one, am very grateful to be talking about these shadowy aspects of our beloved Science of Mind. For us to remain relevant and contemporary we will have to slay some sacred cows.”

“I love Ernest Holmes, and even won the prestigious Ernest Holmes award,” he continues, “and I still don’t find it useful to adhere to every last word he wrote as if it were final revelation. Lord knows I have said some things in my career that I wish I could unsay.”

Others who oppose progressive New Thought’s social justice mission to “create a world that works for everyone” argue that Holmes doesn’t emphasize social justice in his writings.  Social justice is a liberal political agenda being forced on New Thought, they say.

It is true that Holmes’s social justice message is more implicit than explicit. Here too, Holmes reflects the spirit of his times say Horowitz and Masando “Mike” Hiraoka, who is completing his ministerial studies in Religious Science.

“Holmes and his closest acolytes realized that they were dealing with a congregation of people, and with a general American public, who wanted solutions to very practical work-a-day demands,” says Horowitz.  “Look, it was a strength and a weakness that Ernest and his contemporaries catered to those demands. Seen from one perspective, I feel that if you believe in something come right out and say it. I applaud Wallace Wattles for titling his book “The Science of Getting Rich.” I applaud Napoleon Hill for titling his book “Think and Grow Rich.” I know they were sincere. I admire their bravery. I always tell people look at the pioneers of self-help. Look what master communicators they were.

Mitch head shot
Mitch Horowitz

“Ernest Holmes was taking a leaf from such men when he titled one of his earliest books “Creative Mind and Success.” That’s what the public is yearning for and it’s not wrong. But when you are catering to those very legitimate needs it also makes it difficult, and I have experienced this difficulty myself, to probe the weaknesses, the limitations, the need for reform of the very ideas that you are working with.

“In one sense you are trying to provide the individual with concrete answers as Ernest did. In another sense, you are also trying to understand what the complexities, what the problems are within creative mind philosophy, and to deepen it so it doesn’t become shallow or doctrinal.

“And I think Ernest was trying to do that, but he was divided between both goals. That is also a persistent struggle within New Thought. I found that struggle myself when I was working on the book “One Simple Idea.” I would love to be able to conclude my book by sounding like Neville Godard saying ‘the world is plastic to you and you can create your way out of any problem,’ but I cannot in good conscience say that even though I think there is truth to that.  But that truth is informed by all kinds of complexities.

“I love the practicality of New Thought and I applaud that Ernest and his contemporaries addressed themselves to that practicality. They were brave in doing so. But that very practicality can also become a trap  because it then it makes it difficult to say, ‘I’m offering you a solution, but I am also questioning, probing, and reverse engineering my own solution so I can figure out where the problems are.’ You are trying to provide a practical philosophy, and at the same time, in the case of Ernest, trying to arrive at finer renderings of that philosophy which may make you question some of its applications. It’s a very, very hard job.”

“Holmes absolutely knew the Science of Mind philosophy would evolve,” says Hiraoka. “His later work was very much influenced by Eastern spiritual thought.  He constantly looks at this idea of empowerment throughout his career.  The ‘creating a world that works for everyone’ mission is in line with that. In other words, we want to create an environment where everyone can succeed. When we look through that lens, it’s everywhere in his writings.

Masando CSL
Masando Hiraoka

“I would love for our organization to draw on all of Holmes’ works.  You have to remember that he was in his early 30’s when he wrote the ‘The Science of Mind’ and that is a pretty driven point of life, focusing on your career. Plus his audience was coming out of the rugged individualism of the early part of the century. I think his radio shows and writings became more evolved [over time].”

Similar Posts

34 Comments

  1. Brilliant post, Harv.

    What Holmes did not have access to during his formative period included our current understanding of developmental psychology; nor did he have a grasp on Jung’s work. The developmental models were still decades away and Jung was only just emerging as a genius from under the shadow of Freud (pun intended). I think that these two bodies of knowledge speak to many of the issues that you bring forth.

    I have long felt that students of The Science of Mind should take a year of classes in Jungian psychology, its richness in symbolism, dreams, and the wealth of the unconscious are in harmony with both they psychological and mystical elements of SOM. Concepts like the shadow and individuation could be explored and understood before teaching the techniques for using the power of the mind that is learned in the early SOM classes. This, along with topics such as developmental psychology, emotional and spiritual intelligence, and some of the cultural evolutionary models would give the student a more rounded approach to spiritual realization within a consciousness of emotional and psychological maturity.

    Ernest was not perfect, which is a good thing – nothing new can come from perfection. His wisdom transcends his blind spots (which is also true of Jung), and fortunately, we can see evidence of his personal growth since he was so prolific a writer during his lifetime.

    Thank you for this post – I will be referring to it in a future post on my blog.

    Love and Light,
    Jim Lockard

  2. Like it or not Holmes was also a product of his time. We are right to notice these things and change them as we move forward. But the contribution far outweighs the errors in thinking. The founders of the American government were all white male land owners, some of whom also owned slaves. But the document they produced allowed for that all to be corrected over time. For me it’s the same with Science of Mind (or Power of Your Subconscious Mind or any other powerful writing on mind science). I notice the statements and beliefs about things they were perhaps as enlighten about as they could be at that time. I try to extract the wisdom underneath the thought and give thanks that. I also try and let those erroneous beliefs help me to see where my own thinking might still need some work. And, speaking only for myself, there is always work to be done in this area: thinking.

  3. One might retort “revisionist claptrap” with the exception that Ernest never stated he had the final word, or that his tenets were revealed to him from on high. To attribute the obvious racism and elitism to anything other than the societal norm of the day is to be disingenuous.

    The human tendency is to complexify things, we almost can not stand to leave something simple that way. The fact is that New Thought (Science of Mind in particular) is an elegantly simple and effective teaching, and it works! However because of its simplicity many think “can’t be so, got to be more to it than that” and wander down alternative rabbit holes.

    While “creating a world that works for everyone” is a wonderful slogan, the interpretation of how that actually happens must be left to the individual. Imposition of a standard view is simply another way of creating doctrine and dogma, which in the end defeats the purpose of a open and eclectic tradition.

    I suppose mine is not a popular opinion, but, I still believe the best way to transform society is to change the way I think about society. If I see naught but problems, then I will encounter naught but difficulties. I can not change the past, nor should I judge the norms of my predecessors, only learn from them. I must remember when mining for gold to trust the process.

    1. Very pleased to read your words. I agree wholeheartedly. I have been an active student of SOM since 1965 and was nurtured into it thru some other antecedent ideas and teachings. I am glad you emphasized that Holme’s offering of the textbook was a part of history. No one needs to seek reparations for damages done. You have already mentioned his oft spoken admonishments of not having all the answers. We need to remember also that he did not even want it to be a ‘church’. He finally acceded to the wishes of the many, many ‘followers’ whose lives were changed by this teaching who pressed him to officially start a church. As I was told by Dr. Elmer Gifford they asked him what were they to do after he died if they did not have an organization to keep them together.
      There are numerous other parts of your entry I would like to visit with someone about. I do agree about the slogan and how people may distort it. All slogans are incomplete in some way. Even many of our favorites from SOM actually require more explanation than is commonly given.
      Our ‘job’ is to learn, share and practice, practice. I also think the addition of reading Jean Gebser’s seminal work (c. 1943) “The Ever Present Origin”predating Wilber and Beck and other works on emergent consciousness can give us much more insight into the developmental aspects of our philosphies. Much more I would like to say, but maybe later. Thank you.

    2. I share your opinion. The introduction of doctrine and dogma/homogenization/marketing has created a church I never joined.

      1. I think the sum total of SOM “dogma” (a term I reject) is “Change your thinking, change your life.” It’s all One, we can use It to change our lives by our thoughts.

        Anything else you believe or do not believe is entirely your choice and your worldview, and not necessarily a part of SOM or New Thought. But some people, even in our movement, seem to think there is only one “acceptable” way of thinking about theology, politics, economics, social issues, and many other things. And there isn’t.

  4. Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings from one of my Psychology professors: “Having a high tolerance for ambiguity is a sign of mental health.” and another saying I read recently but don’t remember its author: “Be confident but never certain.” and Holmes expression in the text: “Principle is not bound by precedent.” and finally from Chaos theory: “Chaos is order without predictability.” They teach me that things change and it’s o.k. What I do with the information is up to me.

    1. Remember what Fred Alan Wolfe says in “What the Bleep”? “The real trick to life is not to be in the know, but to be in the mystery.”

  5. Hello,
    Thank you so much for really bringing this awareness out into the open in such a succinct way. I remember my first Science of Mind minister, Dr. Bill Taliaferro, saying similar things about the need for the ‘textbook’ to not be taken literally, and for caution about reifying the teaching. I have taken his many words of wisdom to heart ever since the early 1990’s.

    In terms of evolution, and in particular in terms of Integral Theory/Spiral Dynamics, the highest level of development that would have been available to Ernest Holmes and his contemporaries, would have been “Orange” The “Green Meme” had not even come on board yet, as it was an outgrowth of the “60’s” Revolutionary period. And now, of course, we are evolving our way out of that and making that ‘evolutionary jump’ into 2nd Tier, Love-based, developmental level of “Yellow”. So, looking back now, I would not necessarily say that Ernest Holmes ‘got it wrong’, but I would acknowledge that he was both right where he was supposed to be for that time, and that he was also ahead of his time in many ways. We can choose to, with discernment, lovingly ‘include and transcend’ all that has come before. With our ability now, to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously, as being ‘true and partial’, we can take the Essence of the Science of Mind Teaching, rescue it from any leftover need to fundamentalize it, and appreciate it for the Beauty and Wisdom that we will now carry forward into a new and transformed consciousness of the Co-Creative Conscious Evolutionary. All the while, realizing that what who and what we are, at the core, does not change….for we are,each of us in Essence, precious- jeweled individuations of the ONE.

    Blessed Be,
    Marjorie Shalita

    1. Thanks for your comments Majorie. SD and Integral are important lenses to consider here.

  6. Knowledge of the social construction of reality has grown enormously in the last half century. Language forms have changed, partly as a result of such understandings, partly due to social changes. When Holmes wrote about “race consciousness” and the “race mind” he wasn’t talking about the color line. He was talking about culture’s formative effects on an individual’s thought processes and social categorizations.

    Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life is better at this. Durkheim explains how culture and language shape cognition. He also accepts — in a Jungian way — that there are collective forms of consciousness (conscience collective) that exist apart from the individual, just as culture does.

    Needless to say, I made a lot of annotations and cross-outs in my copy of SOM!

  7. These interesting comments reflect a modern awareness unavailable to Holmes. Holmes’ Relgious Science concept was but on New Thought perspective. Modern Religious Science is evolving, and new offshoots emerging.

    It is easy to poke and prod the past and the ignorance that pervaded the times past. The greater challenge is in finding ways to apply the archaic concepts to modernity.

    Just as Holmes’ treatise is a bit outdated,meet reflective of its time and the Uthor’s experience, the same can be said for any doctrine or philosophy.

    Thank you for sharing your reflections on the Science of Mind text.

    1. Very true Ruth and thanks for your thoughtful comments.
      And certainly no one quoted in this piece would disagree with what you say here. The larger issue is the too human tendency to cling to the past and a corresponding lack of willingness to apply the concepts to modernity as you say.

  8. Others who oppose progressive New Thought’s social justice mission to “create a world that works for everyone” argue that Holmes doesn’t emphasize social justice in his writings. Social justice is a liberal political agenda being forced on New Thought, they say.

    Amen.

    1. Hi Kathy,
      Can you provide some specifics that lead you to believe this? Without specifics it is hard to have a conversation.

  9. “The Christian religion gives more value to the individual life than most of the others” carries no “offensive” content. It is simply Ernest’s opinion, coming as he did from a Congregationalist background. He does not say it’s the only valid religion, or even the most valid. He says it places a higher priority on individual life than others do. I think that is demonstrable — certainly in the case of religious groups and their adherents who kill to force everybody to agree with them.

    1. Thanks for your thoughtful comments today on many blog posts Tim. I think there is a misunderstanding here. What Dr. Viljeon referred to as “offensive” here was not about Christianity’s respect for individual life (though that view in itself is relative to what historical period is under discussion. The Inquisition fell short obviously). What was argued to be “offensive” was Christianity’s appeal to the so-called “vital races.”

  10. This is an excellent piece of scholarship. It was a pleasure reading, and it was most enlightening. Admittedly, I had not thought to contextualize Holmes’ writing within the periods written – with respect to both historical context AND personal development. Points WELL made!

  11. I was tempted to pencil in the word “person” for the frequent references to “a man” and maleness in the SOM text. That proved to be daunting, so knowing that female is as valuable as male I read on. I was always impressed that Holmes often said “I don’t know” in reference to what lies beyond or what the end point of evolution might be as well as other subjects. SOM text is not a bible, Holmes made sure all knew that. But it does speak Truth. It seems to me that realizing, absorbing and applying that truth is what can make a world that works for all, person by person. It doesn’t take much thought to realize that Holmes was a product of his times and of the Christian religion. Thinking about what the Christ consciousness might really be and feeling the love that is everywhere might be a good plan rather than picking out phrases that were obviously the product of current vocabulary and group thought. I have forgiven Holmes for using sexist language throughout his valuable text, and I appreciate the elements of harmony in my life. Love to all.

  12. Thank you Harv.

    I know Dr. Holmes himself spoke of his work not being the ‘be all and end all’. He knew his work and himself would evolve:
    “Whenever you find truth, it belongs to everybody. You can’t patent or copyright it. Truth isn’t a product of our thinking. It exists. You must have faith and confidence in your own interpretation of God, man and the universe.” ~Ernest Holmes

    One of Holmes’s most passionate beliefs was that our teaching should stay “open at the top” to new insights. Nothing in our teaching is cast in stone. If in 100 years, you are still depending on the Science of Mind book, you didn’t get it, he once proclaimed, though I paraphrase.

    In 1958 he ended a talk by saying, ” If I pass on tonight they can take everything I have ever written and toss it in the ashes. It’s going to be thrown there someday anyway. But two things will remain. There is a Presence and there is a Power in the universe, which constitute a dual unity of action and reaction and the polarity from which all things come. Learn to court the Presence by not only seeing God in everything and everybody but by feeling God all the time. Feel the Presence in the sacred place of your consciousness. Then use the Power. Your thoughts will change the conditions of your life.”

    Rethinking New Thought – it is what Ernest Holmes would have wanted. I am a Religious Scientist and I do it all the time.

    Peace and Blessings,
    Jay Willick

    1. Thanks so much Jay. I love the 1958 quote you provided by Holmes. Hadn’t seen it, but so much there!
      Best,
      Harv

  13. As all we humans push up against the wall of the 6th mass extinction with our runaway climate breakdown emergency, it’s somewhat comforting to see all these kind words, written about a man who saw the light in his own mind’s vision. It was for Holmes an expression of his time and culture, using words and phraseology that are off-putting to some. We often become stuck, fixated on verbal expression, because the language used by others seems jarring. Google translate is particularly unhelpful in deciphering nuance, mood, humour and emotion with respect to foreign tongues, but, it’s still more expressive than sign language. There will be argument or discussion on that too. 🙂

    The esteemed ET, our own Eckhart Tolle, states that he believes that the next stage of human evolution is to transcend the mind’s incessant thought producing mentality. Maybe so, but, the practicality of seeing beyond an environment we have created as separate from human existence may be a more pressing issue.

    My takeaway from this is the same as I currently use in the study of the Baha’i faith. There may well be or not, other prophets before a thousand years is up, but, one thing for certain, love is the only reality. I’m with John Lennon and his incredible ‘imaginary’ vision.

  14. Hi, Folks.
    I would ask if this article and its author are being rather judgemental in their critique of Ernest Holmes and whether the article ‘ackshully’ says more about the author than it does about Holmes..

    I would also suggest that Holmes was totally and absolutely RIGHT for his time and his understandings of himself and the world as he saw it, later scientific, social and religious discoveries and thinking NOT-withstanding.

    There are a LOTTTTT of other schools of thought on life, its purpose and how to live it. For my own self, any school of thought that shows any signs of dogma has lost me before we get started. As I see it, we are all here to learn and to grow spiritually, whatever and however each individual might see that as being.

    I don’t believe that it is for any of us to judge whether or not another’s words or deeds are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but rather to assess whether what we might see, hear, feel or think has any application in our own lives and act accordingly.

    Judge not lest YE be judged.

    Just my 0.02.

    You all have a wonderful day. Best wishes. Deas Plant.

    1. Hi, Deas,
      I think there is a difference between being absolutely RIGHT and operating within the confines of the beliefs of a given time period. To use an extreme example, slave owners weren’t absolutely right for their time. There were those that felt slavery was a moral wrong in those years. Not all people in the 20s and 30s held the same views on race as did Dr. Holmes. In responding to this article many people are put off by the headline and don’t get to the meat of the article. All of these people (myself included) respect Holmes and much of his teaching and all say exactly what you say: he had blinders due to some cultural views of his era. You aren’t saying anything different than we did other than adding a relativistic twist that people who were wrong historically were actually absolutely right and to say otherwise is judgmental. Lastly, for someone who critiques being judgmental is not your assertion that the article says more about us than Holmes in itself a judgement? Aren’t we absolutely right in light of later scientific, social and religious discoveries? Aren’t you contradicting your own dictum not to judge another’s words wrong?

      1. Thanks for starting this very interesting discussion thread. Ernest never discussed race as an issue; it’s clear he was a product of and accepted the social and racial norms of his time. We would have seen lots of articles addressing the dreadful conditions of non-whites among his very copious works, but he was silent. This is a bit of a mystery to me — for a man who spent so many hours in tune with the Divine, in deep meditation, so knowledgeable about our Oneness etc to appear to be so apathetic to the misfortunes of his spiritual brothers and sisters of different races….
        Notwithstanding, I’ve studied the spiritual works of Ernest Holmes since the late 1980s; glad I found them; I did notice some disturbing references re Black folks, but did not give much attention and thought to them — just highlighted them and treated them like bad footnotes in his great works.
        I am a very (positively) changed person for having read and internalized his many practical and uplifting messages of Love, Unity, Spiritual Law of Mind……..Change Your Thinking Change Your Life etc…….

        1. Thank you for these thoughts Aya. Holmes did reprimand the Science of Mind magazine of his day for not including an African-American Religious Science church in a directory and also held a desegregated event in an LA stadium during the early war years so he did do some positive things. That said I agree with you that he could have done much more and that he did not is somewhat a mystery.

  15. Yes! I love most of what Holmes said, but he and other “New Thought” teachers of the time seemed to hold up capitalism as the most wonderful of systems, in his day maybe people weren’t making the connection between unchecked growth of big business and harm to the environment??
    Also, I believe that the power of our minds is enormous in making positive changes in our daily lives, however, there seem to be significant examples of where one’s individual thinking did not cause or seem to affect circumstances; the Holocaust is a glaring example……

  16. To John Gabriel Otvos.
    Lennon’s song IMAGINE has been discarded by me.
    He treated his Wife Cynthia with abandonment and selfishness.
    His firstborn Son treated worse than a stranger who had to fight Yoko oh no for
    A meagre pittance.
    When the mind is infected with drugs, it has little place for love and compassion.
    I’ve totally outgrown HOLLYHOOD.
    SOM has helped me as an ANGLO-INDIAN woman living in AUSTRALIA for over 58 years
    Be FINANCIALLY free. I only take the invaluable help from these wonderful positive AMERICAN MEN of old values. Norman PEALE included

  17. Without meaning to be offensive, I find this article unnecessary. It doesn’t matter what material you read, no-one , and I mean no-one is going to get it all correct. A rule of thumb that is useful to go by says to take what you need, what works for you, and leave the rest. – People are wrought with imperfection, but they do they do the best they can at any particular point in time with what they’ve learned so far. When they know better, they do better…. or not…. human’s, eh!?

    All in all, the more I read, the more I learn; the more I realize that no-one has my answers. What we are looking for will never come from anything external. Looking for, or expecting perfection from anyone is a fools quest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *