Don’t Look Behind the Curtain
New Thought offers an uplifting vision of social justice and “a world that works for everyone.” But that vision hasn’t created justice and compassion for all those who serve New Thought’s churches.
BY HARV BISHOP
“Christine’s” deepest desire was to know God.
She says the greatest gift she ever received was New Thought’s teaching that every person is a part of the Divine and she was passionate about sharing that realization with others.
She began four years of study to serve a New Thought church as a prayer counselor, called a practitioner, in the movement. This drive to serve doesn’t come cheaply. At one church it costs roughly $10,000 to certify as a practitioner once you add together all course work, required workshops, and licensing. Those who chose the path are serious and dedicated.
Now Christine is alienated from New Thought and no longer attends her church.
Her story is not unique. What happened?
People working in New Thought sometimes ironically use the line, “You don’t want to look behind the curtain.”
The Great Oz of New Thought is its pronouncements about justice and “creating a world that works for everyone.” If we pull back that curtain the movement cannot always create organizations and churches that work for volunteers and employees.
Do I think it can be fixed? Yes, and easily as it only involves questioning and changing existing beliefs, something New Thought does well.
What stands in the way?
How New Thought interprets winning and losing at the game of life.
“Winners” are defined as those who think positively and hold a consciousness of prosperity and health that then manifests in their lives. “Losers” need to learn to change their thinking to change their lives, including their financial picture and health.
In institutional New Thought nowhere is that view held more pervasively than in the rigorous training and testing of practitioners, also known prayer partners or spiritual counselors. These highly trained professionals pray for and help people change their thinking. They can be thought of as the special forces of the New Thought movement.
Practitioners serve as prayer volunteers within churches and do not receive a salary from their sponsoring churches. They can charge clients for their services if they start a private spiritual counseling practice. Becoming a practitioner is also a first step to ministerial studies.
What happens when these prayer professionals trained in holding “high consciousness” fall outside the winner’s circle through life’s inevitable ups and downs?
Like Christine, some Practitioners are receiving a cruel wake up call.
In the following examples, it was literally a phone call from a church to request a meeting to discuss why some practitioners required tithing to the church had fallen off.
They are given the choice to a) up their giving; b) attend a prosperity re-education group, or c) suspend their license to practice prayer.
Christine’s call from a staff minister came when she was grieving a family tragedy and a job layoff. She expected the call was to ask how the church could support her at this difficult time. Instead, she was admonished to up her tithing or join the prosperity support group. In better days, Christine had tithed well over the required amount.
In another case “Jerry” faced intrusive questioning about his personal finances. He felt he was being ask to choose between the church and helping his family, he said.
“Sarah” responded to her corporate layoff by attending the prosperity re-education group. She worked multiple jobs while assisting a child with college tuition. She also provided considerable and useful continued service to the church. Still after two years she too decided to suspend her practitioner license. She could not replicate her corporate salary and tithe at a level acceptable to the church.
Christine, Jerry and Sarah faced this dilemma after years of attending and paying for classes, exhaustive testing, licensing, continuing education, countless weekends in service to the church and more.
Why is this phone call and narrowly focused meeting to choose a, b, or c considered the only worthy solution to inevitable human difficulty and suffering? Because in this rigid institutional view your life circumstances begin and end with your consciousness and the quality of your thoughts.
These people were treated as misbehaving children needing a time out, not as the committed and complex human beings they are.
Such a simple black and white view ignores context.
The majority drawn to practitioner service are middle-aged women, or older. They are passionate believers in the best New Thought has to offer. They are also deeply compassionate people with a drive to help others. But it appears that call to serve only matters when they stay in life’s winner’s circle.
The 2008 financial crisis led to increased corporate layoffs, serious financial difficulties for many, and a harder road for older females trying to recover lost positions in the workforce.
Add to that their experiences of health issues and personal tragedies and there is far more to this picture than losing a consciousness of prosperity.
This church’s one-size-fits-all approach created a sense of betrayal that alienated all these caring individuals from continued practitioner service.
All this raises some questions.
First, what is the prosperity consciousness of a church when it depends on sticks rather than carrots to raise money from its most devoted adherents?
Second, how can the movement help create a world that works for everyone when the movement can’t always create institutions that work for those who serve it and employees?
Is there another more ethical way? Of course, there is.
For starters Mitch Horowitz’s book The Miracle Club points the way to a grown up New Thought where our thoughts and consciousness have influence, but aren’t the only things governing our lives.
That would open the way to recognizing our consciousness as part of a much larger tapestry of the physical, social, and spiritual influences that shape our lives. Simply put, individual consciousness doesn’t create collective recessions or social prejudices such as age and gender discrimination in the workplace.
When that wider perspective can move from the progressive edges of our movement concerned with social justice to its institutions I believe we can rediscover our hearts. Then we can expand our circle to embrace both “winners” and “losers.” From that will come ethical and compassionate choices that offer real assistance to these devotees rather than cruel indifference.
Thank you for providing a thoughtful, accurate and uncomfortable truth in this article, my brother; one which, when I voiced it ten years ago (after many years of discussing it with the late Dr. Ken Shultz, when I was a ministerial student myself) resulted in my essentially becoming persona non grata in “real world” and online New Thought/CSL communities.
Unfortunately, too many of the leading voices in the New Thought movement are a bit more concerned with the politics of advancement, recognition and prestige to speak such an important truth, let alone do so with the compassion you’ve just done.
Thank you for your kind words Gianmichael. May we continue to fight the good fight.
First, thank you for recognizing the training Practitioners receive and their dedication. Second, I think you paint with a very broad brush. You said, “Why is this phone call and narrowly focused meeting to choose a, b, or c considered the only worthy solution to inevitable human difficulty and suffering? ” I’ve been in Religious Science over 30 years, and attended many Centers. I’ve only seen this once. Many more of the Centers I’ve attended would first offer help and prayer assistance, and then financial assistance.. Please don’t make generalized statements that make us look greedy. We believe every circumstance is an out-picturing of that person’s consciousness and we do our work in consciousness first.
Thank you for your comments.
I don’t paint broadly. I add important qualifiers and note these are specific situations. I have to keep it somewhat general and not identify specific churches or denominations in order to protect the identity of those I spoke to. It’s also largely invisible to ministers, and fellow practitioners unless it happens to you or someone you know. I’ve seen it. You’ve seen it. Another practitioner who wasn’t cited in the story said they had heard similar from many of other practitioners. These accounts cover more than one geographical area. That suggests that it is more widespread than it should be. Of course there are churches who do a better job. I don’t deny that. But the fact some do it right doesn’t negate the responsibility to call out wrongs when they are present. There is absolutely NOTHING in this story to suggest that all Religious Science churches and ministers are greedy. (The words Religious Science don’t even appear in the article). It’s not about greed. It’s about a rigid belief in the Law of Attraction as the sole cause for the events in our lives. I respectfully disagree that every circumstance is an out-picturing of individual consciousness. In my perspective, it’s precisely that theology that allows people to justify the kind of cruel behavior I describe in this post. And no, I don’t mean to imply that everyone who believes that every circumstance is an out-picturing of conscious would behave in a cruel way.
Sadly, there is all too much truth to “don’t look behind the curtain.” I and other practitioner I know have also experienced the “you’re not tithing enough” so what’s wrong with your consciousness question?
Ironically I think the pressure to give ever more money is often a reflection of the community leadership’s own lack of prosperity consciousness. With membership (and contributions) in many centers declining, practitioners are the logical and easy choice for pressure. After all, they’ve already demonstrated their dedication and attachment to the organization.
Thank you Randy. You raise such an important point about declining membership and contributions and practitioners as the easy go-to to plug the dike. I heard of one situation where if minister x wasn’t enrolling enough congregants for a given workshop or seminar it would become required for practitioners with a few weeks notice.
“But the movement as a whole, generally accepts that every life circumstance is an out-picturing of an individual’s consciousness.”
Harv, I could not agree more with you that the above quote is an errant belief and theology.. I’ve long had a concern about this way of understanding. The abuse of practitioners you cited is yet one example of a larger tendency of thinking that I’ve seen with SOME in spiritual communities: an indifference to human suffering, injustice, and misery. The faulty belief that if a person or people are in a disadvantaged condition, it is 100% their fault and could have ONLY been caused by something in their consciousness.
Certainly individual consciousness has a significant impact on one’s life and circumstances. But it’s not the only influence. In my humble opinion, New Thought needs to evolve on this point, and to mu frustration, I don’t see it happening…..at least in my corner of the Universe.
Thanks again for a very insightful article.
Thank you Arthur. Well said. May this evolution eventually be so.
Unfortunately, it seems that some in New Thought seem more concerned with their vision of “social justice” and activism than with the principles that yes, consciousness creates reality, and our consciousness is part of the One Consciousness, that we can tap that to change conditions, but things do not always work in the time or the form we anticipate.
Our principles are supposed to be universal and inclusive, but they have become in practice more exclusionary, even as we step up the rhetoric about “diversity and inclusion.” If someone came to your center in a red MAGA hat, would that person be welcomed? In most centers, the answer is not only no, but hell no! We talk the talk but we don’t walk the walk.
The same is true with tithing. Now, I think spiritual leaders should be committed and regular givers, as an example for the congregation. But to demand tithing at some certain level and insist on prosperity classes when people aren’t there is simply another form of New Thought exclusionism. It’s the ecclesiastical form of “what was in your consciousness that caused you to get sick?”
Prayer and compassion first. Forcing people to take some prosperity class when they’re grieving or otherwise not in “shape” to do so is simply abusive. What changes consciousness? Prayer. Be compassionate. Support people. Pray with them. Do sessions. Then if a class will help them, gently encourage it. But let’s have compassion and prayer as our FIRST response.
Thanks for your comments Tim.
I’m not sure church is the place for a MAGA hat or whatever would be comparable on the other side of the political fence, but your overall point about not walking the walk is well taken. Force is abusive. Well said. Absolutely compassion first.
Wow that story is quite unfortunate. Being around certain churches and I will name them, Agape and many different Unity Churches… I would just throw out the sentiment of your stories don’t necessarily encompass the whole ideology of New Thought or all the people in the New Thought movement. Like anything else… to take stories and then categorize them that this is what new thought represents is also miss representation. unfortunately there is going to be goodness and Shadow in any type of organization on Earth most likely. It is good that you are shedding some light on some stories that happened,
but it does not mean that the whole movement is a shadow.
Yes, I agree there will be dark and light in all human organizations. I agree that it is important to throw light where there is darkness. I do respectfully disagree that these points aren’t relevant to the movement broadly speaking. True, not every church will treat people in the way described and some do a better job. But the movement as a whole, generally accepts that every life circumstance is an out-picturing of an individual’s consciousness. From there, unless people are cautious, it is a short step to victim blaming when a person is ill or has financial difficulties. That victim-blaming is the shadow New Thought shares (and just as clearly not everyone does it) and it manifests in different ways, one of which is the actions taken against these faithful church servants.
Thank you Harvey for posting this well written and thought provoking article.
In 1992 I thought I had found a “NEW HOME”for personal growth and interaction with like minds. It was a wonderful number years of interaction and the making of lasting friendships. I too was called up to donate a substantial amount of money for my economic situation.
I did notice that being involved in various associations within the church were financially based. The men’s group needed to disband because of change in the direction of the church. I found it a rewarding and fulfilling group of men from all backgrounds. I don’t know if the men’s group has reinvented itself today.
I have had the opportunity to talk with two of the individuals that Harvey has mentioned. They are each beautiful, spiritual souls. My initial reaction was being infuriated by what was told to me. How could a church do such?
It may come down to the bottom line of money and if one can not provide; it is better financially for the church to get rid of the burden of assisting the financially challenged, those with serious illness and emotionally hurting individuals.
I had to relieve my anger and I have made a new declaration that my life goal is to be KIND, JUST BE KIND and I will see rewards to myself and to others around me. I hope I can live up to that motto in almost all circumstances,
Thank you for this post! I recently licensed as a Practitioner and have had some similar experiences – one during mock panels (very recently) where a minister made a comment that s/he wished that s/he could figure out a way to tell if people were really tithing or not.
I understand that there is a requirement (right now, anyway) for Practitioners to be affiliated with a senior minister, and so I do provide financial support to a Center – but I get to decide how much and I will not abide anyone questioning me.
I give to a LOT of organizations that do good in the world and I was offended by the comment I shared above. I will give and give and give – if the organization aligns with the Good I want to see done in the world. I work hard for my (corporate salary) money, and no one gets to lay a claim on it just because they’re a minister and I’m a Practitioner.
In my group of more than 20 practitioner students, more than 10 of us had experienced what I call “ill-behaved minister syndrome” that caused many of us a lot of pain, and even to question our path to becoming a Practitioner. I should point out that we were all from across the country, so this wasn’t 1 bad actor and the people s/he offended – this was more than 10 individual ministers who had behaved in ways that made people question their ties to the community.
To be clear, there are many wonderful ministers and leaders in CSL, But for too long, too many have looked the other way as abusive behavior, megalomania, financial mismanagement and more have plagued individual CSL communities.
I look forward to the day that Practitioners can be independent – aligned with the national organization, but free from the requirement to find a Senior minister. It’s past time for this to happen.
Greater independence for practitioners from ministers is a wonderful idea. That you for your comments. As with the people I talked to hearing of these abuses from the people who experienced it directly is strong medicine for CSL (and hopefully a corrective for the future).
Thank you for such a thoughtful post. It seems to be the Achilles heel of human thought to yearn to reduce complex and dynamic experiences to formulae (whether via New Thought or medical science). Why not, as an experiment, consider both New Thought and medical science as tools that may help in many (but surely not all) situations,, and which grow toxic if turned into rigid dogma? I’ve been dealing for months with a situation that I no longer feel comfortable sharing with people who are (with loving intentions) tempted to respond with a bromide to pray harder or visualize or …..My situation, while difficult, is not as bad as the need to steer between the Scylla of isolation and the Charybdis of positive thinking advice.
Thank you Shelia. Good points about the dangers of any rigid dogma.