Why Isn’t New Thought Growing?
By Rev. Steve Walling
Why isn’t New Thought growing? Is it because we have gotten away from the basics of Dr. Ernest Holmes’ teachings or do we need to evolve and redefine New Thought and Religious Science for the 21st century?
Today there is a conversation taking place within most all religious organizations whether it be within the traditional organized teachings or within the organized New Thought teachings, such as Religious Science. People are leaving the religious organizations, though not necessarily leaving a spiritual path.
What I am sharing, to a large part, is based on my own personal belief, made up of my personal experience and study. I recognize that my view is not all encompassing or exhaustive. It is also my personal belief that there is no correct nor incorrect understanding of our philosophy. Various centers and churches may being growing using differing approaches. The New Thought community is united by common beliefs but also separated by many dissimilar practices. Conversation is necessary and ongoing.
I first want to address a question raised by Harv’s interview with Rev. Chris Terry last week.
Is saying “I want it to feel good all the time and I want to have what I want,” spiritually narrow?
That may be open to different interpretations. I don’t think most would argue with the first half of the sentence as a spiritually non-limiting idea. We each define what “wanting to feel good” means to us. To say that is spiritually narrow may be a personal judgment call. Within New Thought/Religious Science the second half of the sentence—“I want what I want”—is a common area for disagreement. Is that spiritually narrow? And again I wish to emphasize the answers are opinions based in individual and personal beliefs, neither correct nor incorrect.
Dr. Holmes wrote in the extension study course (lesson 10 supplement) “Naturally we all want what we want when we want it. One of the many criticisms made of the New Thought has been that it is materialistic since those interested are striving to better themselves materially. This criticism is based on a most materialistic foundation, since it divides Substance from supply. God from man, and Life from living.”
Holmes writes in The Science of Mind textbook ” Lessons on prosperity and mental control of conditions are sometimes dangerous because of the misunderstanding of this subject. Science of Mind is not a ‘get-rich-quick’ scheme, neither does it promise something for nothing. It does, however, promise the one who will comply with its teachings that he shall be able to bring greater possibilities and happier conditions into his experience. …. Consequently, this Science does not promise something for nothing. It does, however, tell us that if we comply with the Law, the Law complies with us. No man can demonstrate peace and cling to unhappiness. He can demonstrate resignation, and call it peace, but it will not be peace. No man can jump into the water and remain dry (page 256).”
I believe that underlying those statements is Dr. Holmes’ deeply spiritual understanding of the basics of the Science of Mind that he taught. We must remember that he taught it as a teaching to be lived not as a religion to be believed.
What he taught was simple, yes, but not simple in application. It requires time and dedication to practices such as meditation (including what he termed Affirmative Spiritual Mind Treatment), a spiritual practice, affirmations to change your thinking. Today, neuroscience is demonstrating these practices are a powerful way to rewire our brains and our thinking.
What he taught could be easily intellectualized but unless one makes a serious commitment to the spiritual and mental practices the promise of the philosophy may fall short of expectations. What was that promise? Healing in whatever way one defines it, be it personal health, relationship and yes, material things. What he taught was, and is, simply a way to make a connection with Spirit/God and that this can only be done by the individual and it must be done within. It is through the changes we make within our consciousness that we influence and change the world.
Over the years we in Religious Science have, in part, sidelined Holmes’ basic teaching in order to bring what is believed to be a more spiritual and meaningful experience into our churches and centers. In the days of Dr. Holmes, one went to hear a talk and not so much to experience a Sunday spiritual celebration. Now we include other spiritual practices. Deeksha Oneness blessings, Reiki healing, and Shamanic ceremonies may have value on one’s spiritual path, but they are not Religious Science. If affirmative healing prayer just becomes part of the mix instead of the core of what Religious Science churches do, what are we saying about practitioners (prayer counselors) and what they do? Religious Science, as Dr. Holmes taught it was not a feel-good spiritual experience, although it created a feeling of harmony and peace within the individual. It was pragmatic and formalized as a science of spirituality. We can focus on mastery of the basic principles, not try to upgrade what we do.
In looking at those who may have only found New Thought as a way to “get what they want,” have we forgotten that in that getting, at some level that which we call the Christ within that individual person expressed itself in their lives? Our judgment of that as being a correct or incorrect use of the teaching must be recognized for what it is: our judgment. A person’s manifestation is an inside experience. We cannot make that call about being spiritually narrow. We don’t live inside their being.
There is so much more and this conversation is much longer and larger than I have the space for here. I have only scratched the surface. Are there more complex spiritual and transcendent aspects that we need to add to a 21st Century New Thought to reach a greater understanding of Truth? Is there a greater understanding or complexity New Thought needs to add to its philosophy? Or is the wisdom of Occam’s Razer which states, “that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected” relevant?
There is much more that Rev. Terry spoke to than the bit I addressed here. Her thoughts and visions are important and not spoken in a vacuum. Her insights are shared by many.
May we continue this conversation. May we be open to the new, but wise enough to embrace the wisdom of those who have gone before. Is there something to be known as Absolute? Is what we in Religious Science call Principle unchangeable, as once thought? (Editor’s note: Principle is roughly equivalent to the Law of Attraction)
FindACenter.com’s worldwide New Thought Directory shows a 15 to 21% decrease in the number of New Thought centers and churches throughout the U.S. from 2011 to 2015. In California, my home state, approximately 51 centers have closed during that time. Although this may only be anecdotal there is still enough substance to it to make one sit up and take notice
Unity’s Rev. Gary Simmons and Religious Science’s Rev. Dr. Jim Lockard have been addressing some of the issues of declining membership through their blogs as have Harv Bishop and Mitch Horowitz in recent essays on HarvBishop.com.
We are challenged in the 21st century to redefine who and what we are as Religious Scientists. I believe we will do this through continued dialogue and Divine guidance. And I believe, paraphrasing Universal Foundation for Better Living’s late founder Rev. Johnnie Colemon “We have a bigger God!’” We shall demonstrate that understanding as we move forward.
Rev. Dr. Steve Walling is senior minister at the Spiritual Awareness Center in Madera, California, east of San Jose.
Wow! I love this. Thank you Steve, and Harv for featuring it. I find myself in agreement with just about everything Steve has put forth, I suspect because he evidences that he’s already taken the teachings beyond the superficial level of understanding that many folks teach and preach from.
I can clearly see that what appears to be a difference in perspective, when it is further explored, ends up dissolving into something more nuanced, more beautiful, more complex, and more conscious. The only two things I would comment on at this time: 1) Occam’s Razor says explanations should be as simple as possible, and Einstein added ‘but no simpler.’ 2) In my community, we teach SoM and although I have no problem with other things being introduced (e.g. Shamanic journeying), I believe they need to be theologically consistent with what we teach. Many are not (e.g. Oneness Blessing), so I can’t go for that.
Thank you Rev. Terry. I have appreciated your ideas and insight.
I really like the points made here. Although I carry a flame for New Thought’s radical pioneers and fellow travelers (e.g., Wallace Wattles, Marcus Garvey, Elizabeth Cady Stanton), Steve makes a hugely important point that we cannot judge another person’s sense of fulfillment. If all of life is One then we have to be careful not to divide experiences into inner/outer, material/spiritual, selfish/communal — we are at risk of slipping into this lingo in a very formulaic way in the New Age culture. No one needs to apologize for coming to New Thought for money or anything else. Our forebears were great communicators. They understood human needs. It wasn’t by accident that Wattles called his book “The Science of Getting Rich” — nor is that book’s endurance an accident. Although he had an unusual social-metaphysical message, he was unembarrassed about meeting people exactly where they were. And Wattles, like Russell Conwell, believed that resources are a vital and necessary part of life. I would never dispute that. Life is rocky. When people have a desire — money, health, love, a nice car — honor that. That desire may be just what they need; the most shallow thing I can do is to declare my higher understanding of what they need, or to scoff in some way. Most of us in America experience relative physical ease. Take away that ease — even for a day — and we change dramatically. The spectrum of life is filled with different demands at different moments. We should be there for all of those demands. I say: let’s return to the basics. And I challenge everyone reading this to take a look the bravery of the founders — the men and women who called their books “Creative Mind and Success,” “Think and Grow Rich”, “The Conquest of Poverty” — and see whether we possess their bravery today. Are we ready to stand by our metaphysics as they did? Is that, perhaps, the key to New Thought’s continued growth? -m
Mitch, I really appreciate your comments. I also find our New Thought pioneers to be an incredible source for personal understanding and insight..
great points, guys. one of the perspectives i teach when i facilitate classes is maslow’s hierarchy of needs. i think we have to realize that folks come to us at every ‘level’ and that we can and must meet them where they (and we) are.
For me, Chris, Steve and Mitch are all “right.” If a person gets stuck in only getting stuff for decades there is maybe an issue of limited perspective lower on Maslow’s hierarchy as per Chris. Per Steve in my home church, Mile Hi, getting stuff was considered training wheels that would provide a first taste of direct connection with Spirit that would grow towards the more mystical and inclusive. And per Mitch we all make choices every day in non-metaphysical ways for things that provide respite and pleasure. There are few people that devote 100 percent of their resources- time or money- to social causes. In the long run it would not be sustainable and burn out could follow. So someone could be socially active in whatever way, be at a more inclusive level on Maslow’s scale and still be working metaphysically on love or a car.
Unfortunately church closures are not openly discussed nor studied on an individual basis. It appears that some close due to differences between the minister and the “Board”. What were they? It also seems that some close because there is no longer enough money to keep it open. Why? Could there be some gain by merging nearby congregations? For those churches who seem to grow and remain in a consciousness of growth over the years why not share what they may be doing that makes it so? Rather than looking for philosophical studies that may work better as applied to Centers for Spiritual Living why not a study researching the why of closure and the why of growth.
Good point Frank. A comprehensive study would seem in order (Does any one know if such as study has been attempted or considered?) Administrative issues could well be a factor. Theology, teachings, generational issues, evolutionary views of consciousness, larger anti-organizational trends in society have all been considered as “usual suspects.” Rev. Gary Simmons believes it relates to an outdated view of church members as passive receivers rather than active co-leaders. You may be interested in this earlier post by Mitch Horowitz which looks at the issue of “graying out” and prompted a rich discussion on church growth generally in the comments. https://www.harvbishop.com/?p=202
Yet one wonders if Dr. Simmons’s approach is backwards. does one expand teh members by expanding the leaders or expand the leaders by expanding the members?
Ours is the best kept secret in the world, and one of the most empowering. Jesus reminds us, “do not hide your light under a bushel basket.” So how do we go about making the world more aware of who we are and what we have to offer?
This is a teacher, a congregational leader, whose meetings I would most definitely attend. And I, like all those who have commented thus far, agree entirely with everything expressed, and am eager for more. I am not at all sure, however, that ‘New Thought’ is not growing. Formal, organized ‘churches’ may be declining because the fundamental principles have infiltrated the mainstream to a considerable degree, albeit with distortions or biases that are not really the point, here. The causative role of consciousness – of thought, emotion and the relation of ones ‘higher self’ to that part of us focused in these bodies – is an idea that has become a best-seller item for many decades, by now. So rather than ‘not growing,’ perhaps New Thought is in fact growing in the way that a plant grows from its seed…
I agree with the writer on several points. As I’ve stated before, my entry into New Thought was not through Ernest Holmes but through Dr. Joseph Murphy. I was coming out of an orthodox Christianity and needed at that time Dr. Murphy’s strong views and learned understanding of the Christian bible to aid me in changing my beliefs. Soon I started reading other great New Thought thinkers like Neville Goddard (Neville actually disdained the New Thought label. “New Thought, indeed”, he would say, “There’s nothing new about this at all!”), Thomas Troward and Dr. Ervin Seale; these are among some of the most important teachers for me. When I finally started going to Religious Science services occasionally in the late 1980’s and then more frequently in the 1990’s, I didn’t hear very much that sounded at all like those powerful teachers of New Thought’s past. The alternative view of traditional Christian interpretations resonated deeply and made so much sense to me. I used to chuckle whenever I would hear Dr. Murphy say that literal interpretation of the bible is a form of insanity. Personally, I did not hear that kind of boldness coming from the pulpit in Science of Mind. So I drifted away from the Religious Science organization but I continue on this path.
I have spent 12 years immersed in Science of Mind and it has been a life saver, and emotional healing vehicle, and has deepened my consciousness into the One Truth of Love. At this point after 12 years I find myself stepping way back from the organized “Center” I am affiliated with. How can a spiritual organization/church/Center avoid the hypocrisy that rears its head and is pushing me away? How does the community transmute a cult of personalities and competing egos? There are no role models in my community that demonstrate how to use Love, and the principles we teach to resolve, heal, or transmute the human need for narcissitic satisfaction; who won’t glorify the ego or deny separation. The only way I am finding to transcend this mess of scapegoating, competition for leadership opportunities, and the need for attention in the spotlight is to withdraw from organized religious affiliation. I am in the throws of coming to terms with some major dysfuntion in the “organized” aspect of community practicing spiritually together. How are we to use the Spiritual Mind Treatment we practice without the ego, or small self attaching itself to outcome? Power tripping and control obsessions are the human element that has taken over here. Thought I would share the personal aspect as I contemplate the situation of this Religious Science group and my role in it…Blessings and Forgiveness in the Light of Love
You raise important questions Cherry and I have no easy answers. It is sad to see a church so dysfunctional it drives people away.
I reminded of visiting a mountain monastery of Catholic monks many years ago for a newspaper story. I expected to find a peaceful community free of petty ego concerns but one monk snapped at another because he wanted my full attention. That same monk told a story about an older monk who played the organ for late night chanting who had a medical tube and bag for relieving himself. This bag was so noisy at times it competed with the organ and the chanting making the other monks irritated.
“Deeksha Oneness blessings, Reiki healing, and Shamanic ceremonies may have value on one’s spiritual path, but they are not Religious Science. If affirmative healing prayer just becomes part of the mix instead of the core of what Religious Science churches do, what are we saying about practitioners (prayer counselors) and what they do?”
As a lifelong Religious Scientist and a practitioner for a number of years, I cannot help but say thank you for this. This is our core; it’s what we’re about; it’s what we do.
Unfortunately, too many people in our movement don’t understand what practitioners do and what the value is that we offer.