I was forced to watch Al Gore documentaries at church!
BY HARV BISHOP
Conservative critics of the mission of creating a world that works for everyone fear that individual choice in New Thought churches will go the way of the dodo bird if helping others becomes the norm.
Some conservatives believe they will be forced to sit through sermons grounded in liberal politics, for them something akin to wearing rough, itchy wool underwear. They fear church-goers will be forced to give time to liberal causes in order to feel like they belong.
Where, I ask, is this mythical New Thought church where conservatives are being forced to do things they don’t want to do?*
Were they drugged and came to at a Bernie Sanders rally?
Were they forced to sit through Al Gore documentaries at church?
We’re they compelled to buy cakes at LGBTQ-owned bakeries?
Do they fear that the power for good in the universe is all bottled up by liberals and they can’t use it anymore?
And, more seriously, does working for a world that works for everyone in any way imply that the longstanding New Thought hallmark of individual growth and helping people heal their lives will go away? Can we focus on the inward and the outward at the same time?
Of course we can.
When did simple human decency and helping people become liberal or conservative?
One interesting model of a spiritual organization both healing individuals and helping in the world is the International Association for Human Values founded by the Indian teacher Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. The organization offers both programs for people to reduce stress and live happier lives and reaches out to affect the world at large.
“Since my childhood, I’ve never seen so much of water in the stream and in my farm” said an Indian farmer in an area plagued by drought. The grateful farmer and many other people benefited from the Al Jagruti Abiyaan project sponsored by the organization. The program stemmed erosion, recharged wells and supplied clean drinking water.
And here is another remarkable thing.
These International Association for Human Values programs are driven from the bottom up by volunteers rather than the top down. No one is forced to do anything and it’s the same in New Thought.
Shankar (who has spoken at Mile Hi Church of Religious Science, the largest New Thought center in the world) believes in setting a big vision, says Lata More, a meditation teacher for the organization. A big vision draws volunteers because people fundamentally want to be of service, she says. Volunteers create and design the projects, which are then supported by the organization. Other projects include empowerment programs for Iraqi women, disaster relief, and meditative stress reduction for veterans and prisoners that has been proven to help PTSD.
There you have it: No coercion, volunteer driven.
Creating a world that works for everyone certainly qualifies as a big inspiring vision.
To those who say a world that works for everyone is unattainable and Utopian, remember that representative democracy, ending slavery and child labor, voting rights for women and African-Americans and same-sex marriage were once also regarded as Utopian.
A world that works for everyone will always be a journey more than a destination, but heaven help us if we give up on that journey.
*This is not an idle challenge. If you know of a New Thought church that has crossed the line and not been politically inclusive, leave a comment.
“When did simple human decency and helping people become liberal or conservative?”
I fear it was when we decided that “capitalism” is, by definition, a me vs. the world object and that collaboration is a race to the bottom.
And when we decided to stop listening to others and insulate ourselves in our own micro-targeted social world in which the ads, friends and links we see are boutique-selected to agree with our world view.
And finally, when the national political rhetoric has come so far away from the body politic that it’s now a political stance on whether Donald Trump is “the right kind of billionaire” to lead this country.
We’re not lost, there’s still a lot of greatness under this crust of depravity. But it’s getting thicker. My biggest concern is that human decency and helping people will remain a political principle and be lost and forgotten as ethos evolve.
Sent you an email. I prefer the separation of church & politics. We can be welcoming to all by cresting a world that works through all by feeding the hungry, clothing the poor & teaching self empowerment. Member: Mile Hi.
I notice that all of your projected outcomes have one word associated with them: fear. Fear as we know is internally generated and not based in Truth. Our “work” is to dissolve fear. The very description “A World that Works for ALL” says that conservatives are included. The story of the Sarvodaya Canteen in Sharif Abdullah’s book “Creating a World that Works for All” p. 18, illustrates the idea of multiple cultures coming together without losing identity.
Also, the recommended talks have spent 5 months of going within. Only last Sunday, did the question, “What is Mine to Do? come up as a talk title. And, most of the talks are very inner oriented. Ernest Holmes, in his final Sermon by the Sea exhorts us to stop being “over read and under done” and take this teaching into practice in the world and transform the world. I see this year as a year we begin to do that. Al Gore movies may be offered (to use your example) but no one is ever “forced.” These are spiritual centers, not prisons or slave camps. (Or even est trainings.)
If there are truly people scared of this, it’s their own groundless fear. Be a Religious Scientist and deal with it. It has no validity. Truth (Freedom – the only agenda of the Universe) reigns supreme always.
Great post, Harvey.
Something to consider in this conversation is the shifting nature of what we call liberal and conservative in the US. Some of this is due to cultural evolution (see Spiral Dynamics) and some to the nature of our media and political discourse today. In the mid-20th Century and before, charitable acts were relatively bipartisan, especially when performed by religious groups and organizations. But a variety of factors, including governmental faith-based initiatives and the increasing partisanship in our politics has blurred the line regarding what is appropriate for non-governmental agents to do. A few bullet points:
1. When you say conservative members resist the concept of social activism in New Thought, do you mean politically conservative or theologically/philosophically conservative? That makes a difference. Most of the objections I have heard are based on interpretations of the Founders’ writings, speech, and actions as indicating that our role is to teach our philosophy and let each individual express it in his/her own life as they see fit. I have also seen a few cases of political conservatives objecting to activities that are closely related to issues in the larger political sphere, such as taking a stand for marriage equality.
2. You ask “When did simple human decency and helping people become liberal or conservative?” In the realm of politics, conservatives generally resist new government programs for two reasons – one is that they cost money and the other is that they tend to be liberal in nature (the non-military ones anyway). Some political conservatives seem to extend their negative feelings about social programs in government to socially conscious programs in New Thought communities. If the community takes up a cause that is supported by political liberals in other arenas, it is likely to be seen from a political perspective, just as anti-abortion campaigns in some Christian churches are seen as conservative political action.
3. While I support spiritually motivated social activism and working for social justice in our New Thought communities, those who do not are likely to feel excluded by programs championed by community leadership. If the senior minister is on-board, there is going to be a sense of social pressure to get involved. This can be true whether the idea originates at the top or from the grass roots.
In my opinion, much of the reaction that we are seeing on both sides of this issue in New Thought is driven by underlying psychological reactions to the larger political environment in the nation and beyond. Political discourse, driven by media and more and more by candidates, is training us all to be partisan, uncompromising, distrustful, and reactive. This is bleeding more and more into our spiritual community discourse in many cases. People are talking past each other, not listening to different ideas and opinions, and coming from the need to be right rather than a call to be compassionate.
It is up to spiritual leaders to set the example and create an atmosphere where compassionate action begins in the community and extends outward in whatever activities are engaged in. This is an increasingly tall order.
Love and Light,
Jim Lockard
Excellent once again Harvey!
This is actually a really fun topic to explore. The fear and perception that you are touching on here is more universal than it is specific to New Thought churches. At its root, its the fear to grow and change. New Thought’s embrace of this mission and vision is requiring change and evolution – something we are good at talking about and even better at resisting. There will always be resistance to change – because as human beings we love our comfort zones and at the same time – the evolution of human thought cannot be stopped. The recent rash of so called “religious freedom” laws point to this. The laws seek to “protect” ones religious views, which seems noble enough in a country of religious liberty. But closer examination reveals that it is actually discriminatory prejudices and bigoted beliefs that are being masked as “religious” – in other words – the resistance voice is saying “don’t point out how my views are discriminating and illegal, they are comfortable to me – and if you do point them out, I’ll invoke religious privliage so I don’t have to change them. Its my right to have my thoughts – even if they are bigoted and prejudicial. ” That is the voice of the fear of change.
New Thought is not immune to this – we are all human. Turns out, lots of people go to church as a place of refuge and comfort (not that there is anything wrong with that) – rather than change and growth. Which brings us back to the role of the church is the social sector. Is the church’s call to be a social club of like minded ideas and comfortable affirmation of our ideas (liberal or conservative)? Or is it to be a place of evolutionary growth and change, inspiration and transformation?
Now here is the real irony of this topic – the voices that seem to be in resistance to New Thoughts’ journey into the arena of social justice – tend to be politically conservative voices. A hallmark of conservative politics is “small government” – in which the role of social services return to the church (which is where they came from originally) rather than the government. Thus a true conservative voice would advocate for more involvement from the church in the social sector – as to take the burden off of the state. But the real reconciliation that needs to take place here – is the liberation of the notion that “individual choice” and “freedom” exist outside of the Oneness of all Life.
The main “danger” in jumping aboard activist causes is in substituting the objectives of others for our own divine purpose. It is through using our God-given talents to do what’s right in front of us that we can make our best contributions to creating a world that works for every one. One example from my own life: As a PR man I helped introduce the automotive seat belt retractor that led to seat belts becoming standard equipment. It wasn’t my aim to save lives, but look at what has happened.
Part of our mission is demonstrating through the way we live our lives that the world does indeed work for every one . . . according to the way we work it.
Harv,
Two thumbs up for pointing out that no one is forcing anyone to watch Al Gore documentaries at church – at least not within the New Thought community. (The fact that I would personally recommend his films is relatively immaterial to this discussion. And yet having said that, it unabashedly outs me as a champion of progressive issues). Nonetheless, as a licensed Science of Mind practitioner, I am always cheering for ways in which we can put forward our CSL denomination’s goal of creating a world that works for everyone.
As I read your blog post, fresh in my mind was a recent discussion thread on our CSL practitioner’s listserv. It centered around the announcement of a gender-neutral edition of one of Ernest Holmes’ books. Now as a gay man, I have always supported non-discrimination in any area of life. And that includes the use of gender-neutral, or inclusive language whenever possible. It especially holds true for writings from the past that are used in the study of enriching one’s world view and/or relationship to the Divine.
In that listserv thread I found it disturbing that the predominant sentiment toward gender-neutrality, when considering the writings of Holmes, came from a non-favorable viewpoint; that readers today should just accept that the male dominated language of his time was meant to include everyone; and that from a writer’s point of view, no one should tamper with what an author has written.
Only a few of the contributors (me included) wrote in favor of the new edition. I pointed out that in our society at large, and in the LGBT community specifically, we find many individuals who have suffered physical, emotional and spiritual abuse at the hands of father figures. And that as a result, male dominated language may present a roadblock to self-discovery, and healing. I also wrote that in my view, if people benefited from an inclusive language version, then I support it wholeheartedly.
As with Al Gore’s films, no one would be forcing those opposed to a gender-neutral edition of Holmes’ book to read it. I am a firm believer that if you don’t like what you see, change the channel – but don’t try to deprive others from watching if they choose to do so.
Change is often slow, because change requires a letting go of long held, and often unexamined beliefs and attitudes rooted in the past, and replacing them with new ones that move us closer to a world that works for everyone. And the results are so worth it!
Gary Takesian, RScP
Namaste CSL, Long Beach, CA