The Philosopher's Stone
For those of you who tuned in late, The Philosopher's Stone , Alan and Deb's newsletter, was first launched in Spring/Summer 1993. The masthead listed Deb as Editor and Alan as Publisher. Graphics included our smiling faces, vintage 1991, and a Debsketch of a stone with a lantern next to it. In later iterations, the stone appeared on a low, wheeled platform, as the Philosopher sought a new location down among the sheltering palms, which were pictured after he/it arrived there. The newsletter went into hiatus as Alan's and Deb's lives became complicated in other areas. It has now reappeared here regularly. If you are new to the Henry Wood (1834-1909) series, you may want to begin near the bottom of the file at August 2010 and work your way upwards to the most recent. The Henry Drummond (1851-1897) series begins in earnest on September 25, 2012, although he is mentioned in a couple of earlier posts. "Evolving New Thought Worldviews" begins on May 28, 2013 and runs through July 30, 2013. "Adventures in Adventures" begins on October 29, 2013 and ends on March 18, 2014. The Happiness series begins on April 8, 2014 and runs through June 24, 2014. The column series on David Ray Griffin's God and Religion in the Postmodern World (1989) runs from October 18, 2016 and ends on December 6, 2016. To subscribe, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org, and I will add your email address to the list of newsletter subscribers to be notified when the new issue is available.
April 25, 2017
Head or Heart?
Are you led by your head or your heart? Sooner or later, you will need to consult both, but where do you usually begin? Approximately half of us begin with the head; the other half begin with the heart. Typically, one group thinks the other is a bit strange.
Head and heart are metaphors for the intellect and the emotions. As long as we are in that particular metaphorical field, head and heart meet in the gut. That’s a bit strange anatomically, but there is more wisdom in it than you might imagine. Contemporary research tells us that the gut functions as an auxiliary brain, and there are direct connections between the gut and the brain in your head. This is one of the reasons for the emphasis on the importance of nurturing one’s microbiome (the world of assorted gut bacteria and other critters, good and bad; and even the “bad” ones are useful up to a point). Not only that, but each cell of our body— including gut cells—contains a bunch of mitochondria, ancient bacteria that morphed into little batteries for generating energy, and they can turn genes on and off, but only when they are well nourished and in tip-top shape.
We say we have a gut-level feeling, by which we mean an intuition, a hunch. Intuition kicks in after we have supplied all the intellectual support we can lay our metaphorical hands on and then turned the whole thing over to the other-than-conscious mind. A hunch is a sort of calm, quiet emotion coupled with a thought, an idea. Our internal computer has shuffled through all the data we have supplied it with, plus what it has received by prehension (the process term for nonsensory perception), and gently spit out an answer. Whether we do this before or after we have dealt with a raft of emotions connected with the issue at hand depends on our personality type. You may be a type that requires some sort of peace and quiet, perhaps a meditative state, to calm the emotions before using an intellectual approach. Or you may be a type that begins with reason and rides it as far as it will carry you, before you even notice what emotions come up for you. The ideal team for any purpose includes at least one of each type. By either route, it’s lovely when the cartoon light bulb appears over your head.
Since I’ve opened this particular can of worms, I might as well finish it. You may have heard of the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Inventory, created by a remarkable mother-daughter team and particularly popular with business people trying to build a team or just get an office full of people to get along with each other. This stuff goes back to the ancient Greeks and has gone through innumerable iterations over the millennia. Most scholars have ended up with four basic types, although there’s always somebody who has to go complicate things. One of the most recent scholars to devote his life’s work to additions and corrections to Myers-Briggs is David Keirsey, who made his transition in 2013. Keirsey corrected some terms inherited from Carl Jung that were unclear and imprecise. Then he mapped the whole thing across to people’s occupations, making it more observable and more directly useful. Here is a summary of his accomplishments, employing the Myers-Briggs letter codes that represent the four most important personality designations. If you aren’t familiar with those, you can read Keirsey’s Please Understand Me II and get caught up, should you find this intriguing and feel that it is important for you to have this information at your fingertips.
What separates man from the other primates are two things: use of words and use of tools. Words are either abstract or concrete. If a word is an abstraction, you can’t put it in a wheelbarrow, and it probably involves a lot of metaphors. If it’s concrete, it involves the five physical senses. Tools (and a tool can be anything from a screwdriver to a house or car) are either utilitarian (useful) or cooperative (What will the neighbors say if I do it this way?). Set this all up as a matrix, and you can see at a glance what type a person generally falls into. (There always are a few mavericks who have an X or two in their types, so you can’t pigeonhole them.) From this, Keirsey can tell you which occupations a person is likely to shine in. Examples: grades K-12 in school are loaded with SJ teachers, and a poor little NT can have hard going but comes into his/her own at the college and graduate school level. Many ministers are NFs, and SPs are outdoorsy and/or athletic. But that just scratches the surface!
According to Keirsey, I-E (Introversion/Extraversion) is the least important of the pairs, although it does make a difference in the way energy works for people. Extraverts gain energy from crowds: one party sets them up to go on to the next party. Introverts lose energy from groups: a party exhausts them so—even if they enjoy it—that they need to go home and perhaps have a quiet chat with just one or two other people to recover. That’s why you don’t see Is or Es in the four critical pairs of letters. Each of the four types has two Introvert versions and two Extravert versions.
So you can probably see how personality type affects whether one leads with intellect or with emotions, but how does God fit into this picture, or this picture fit into God? For ideas, let us look at an essay by Emmet Fox, “The Seven Main Aspects of God” (Alter Your Life). He goes over the difficulties we may have in picturing or contacting God, then lists his Seven Main Aspects (he never does say where he got them from). Aspects are “attributes of [God’s] nature, and the Seven are the most important. “These are seven fundamental truths about God, and all the others are built up of combinations of some of these seven. These truths never change.” Why do we care? “The quickest way to solve a particular problem is to meditate on whichever aspect is the most appropriate in that particular case. Thinking of any Aspect of God will solve a problem, but if you select the right Aspect you will get your result more quickly and more easily.” So what are they? Life, Truth, Love, Intelligence, Soul, Spirit, and Principle. Quick disclaimer: The Philosopher loved Emmet Fox, as we all do, but there were times when as a philosopher, he perceived certain things as out of whack. I am not going to attempt to straighten these out, but just plow ahead, realizing that trained philosophers in my audience may also be a bit bugged here and there. It wouldn’t be the first time!
What I want to emphasize here—and we don’t have to get involved with how many philosophers can dance on the end of a category error—is the Love Aspect of God and the Intelligence Aspect of God. In a burst of insight, I realized one day that these are both names for God, along with the 72 others from traditional Judaism. “There is no condition that enough Love will not heal”, says Fox. On the other hand, he also says: “When things in your life seem to be going wrong, treat yourself for Intelligence”. The fun is: “There are many attributes of God such as wisdom, beauty, joy, and so forth, but they are compounds, made up of two or more of the Seven Main Aspects. Wisdom, for example, is the perfect balance of Intelligence and Love.”
So we’re all fine!
April 18, 2017
Healing Power of Mind Q & A
Julia Anderson Root’s questions and answers are as fresh and interesting as the rest of her book. They have points of theology embedded in them, mostly the newer theology that cuts us free from some of the old Christian teachings that can feel like such a strait jacket. Yet she stays close to Scripture, especially the teachings of Jesus, although not the teachings about Jesus. Here are the questions:
What is God?
What is Truth?
What is Creation?
What is Mind?
What Is Matter?
What is Evil?
What is Time?
What is Religion?
What is Space?
What is Science?
These vary in length. I will give you the first one in its entirety:
God is the divine intelligence that creates, upholds and governs all things. He is self-existent—had no beginning and can have no ending. He is the great Fountain of Mind from which all other minds derive power and intelligence. He is not separated from His work, but “lives through all life and extends through all extent.” Neither is he [sic] separated from man, but will at all times hearken to the cry of those who seek him [sic] aright. The idea that God made this world as a mechanic makes a machine and sits apart to watch its operations, is a crude idea and worthy only of barbarous ages. [Gee, Julia, tell us how you really feel!] God is in His works. He is never idle, but is ever breathing the breath of life into and through all animate things. As a single lamp will light a million tapers without being in the least diminished, so countless billions of souls emanate from God without diminishing His power. (pages 191-192)
Notice that although Root refers to God as “divine intelligence” (impersonal), she retains the masculine pronoun with two exceptions that may have been editing errors. This supports the personalist philosophers in their belief that since personhood is the highest thing of which we humans have any knowledge, God must be at least that, which is a floor rather than a ceiling. “Lives through all life...” makes him everywhere present (today we don’t use so many capitals). She forcefully rejects deism (the Watchmaker notion). We also get the process notion that what God can do, God is already busy doing; we don’t have to beg or plead. At the end, she gives us the old Buddhist notion of one candle lighting another, which foreshadows a process version of the self/soul.
For Truth, she quotes Locke that it is “an affair of language” but explains it a bit differently from Alan’s “Truth is the property of a statement”: the idea that all statements are approximations of truth, and we seek ever closer approximations. Root seeks to distinguish truth from fact. We can rattle off facts as things done or events that happened, but “we cannot properly call these facts truths”. Rather, “Truth is the exact relating of these things as they exist and occur. But a truth may also be a principle, an inherent quality, a tendency—a something that has never taken place or been acted out.” Likewise, “mental and moral principles . . . . are all equally truths”. “Truth is an emanation from God”, and Root suggests that we “discover and act upon” the “rays of truth . . . streaming in every direction around us”. Alan never did like the term emanation, surely with good reason, but I never understood exactly what his reason was.
“[Creation] is the outward and visible manifestation of an inward creating intelligent power. It is the precipitation of the divine mind.” It had “no beginning”, “is a river that has flowed eternally . . . and will forever continue so to do”, and “is never finished”. [This points squarely toward process thought.] “Evolution is not opposed to creation, but rather adds strength and wonderment to it.” Yet “astronomy proves to us that worlds are still in process of formation. . . .”
Root’s definitions of Mind and Matter match Whitehead’s “Nature alive” and “Nature lifeless” to come. “When harmonious impressions are made upon the mind the results are health and happiness; when those impressions are discordant they produce pain and disease. How careful should we be then in subjecting ourselves to impressions.” Some consider matter to be “the only substantial and lasting thing in the universe, yet in truth, it is restless, fleeting, and unsubstantial. It is for ever and for ever undergoing change.” She adds, “The eye sees the chains of mountains, the firm rock that for thousands of years hath withstood the lashing of mighty waves, but these are ever changing.” Shades of Heraclitus! “As the clay is in the hands of the potter, so is visible matter in the power of invisible mind. And while this matter passes away, mind endureth forever.” She also emphasizes that she is absolutely not denying matter’s existence. Process, here we come!
“Evil”, says Root, “is an opposing force to that which is good, but it is not an equal force with goodness. Some persons call evil undeveloped good. If so, undeveloped good is evil. . . . But evil is not lasting; it passeth away. . . . Evil cannot destroy evil; this can only be done by truth.”
The Philosopher delighted in teaching his classes the example of one’s throwing a large block of wood at a drowning man, which hits him, so he drowns. But was the drowning man a friend whom one sought to help, or an enemy whose demise one sought to hasten? Intention, then, seems to play a role as well. The ill-fated attempt to help a friend would not be labeled evil. Good and evil, then, are value judgements, labels that we assign. Evil, Root continues, is out of harmony with God’s laws. “The aim of the mind-cure is to destroy evil by producing harmony and to bring every sinful man back to the laws of God.” Root objects to defining evil as being “nothing in itself—a mere negative of positive good, the same as cold is in itself nothing but a mere absence of heat”. I, too, have often objected to the “nothing but” reductionist approach to anything, as opposed to “something else”. Evil, like darkness and cold, has no substance; when you walk into a dark room and turn on the light, you don’t have to chase the shadows out of the doors and windows. Alan and Julia could probably have come to a meeting of the minds on this.
Root’s answer to the question of Time is long, and involves the idea that time is the condition in which forces [such as sun, rain, the laws of nature] operate but has no force of its own . . . .” Author Charles Hobbs, in a book on time management, defines time as “the succession of events one after the other” rather than something mysterious. You can’t manage time; you can only manage your mind. Alan and I used to teach a course, “Self Leadership Through Mind Management”.
The answer to the question of Religion holds that there are many answers given, but any definition “will be found more or less incomplete. The metaphysical healer, in dealing with the Bible, gives to it a spiritual significance, while many look at it entirely from a materialistic standpoint”. This is one of the shorter answers and is less satisfying that some of the others. Personalist philosopher Edgar Brightman defined religion as “a set of beliefs, attitudes, and actions concerning Ultimate Reality”. By this, science and atheism are both religions, and many who hold to them believe that there is no Ultimate Reality. We can copy someone else’s religion or construct our own, but either way, we need to give it a lot of thought as to where it will take us.
“Space”, says Root, “is boundless and eternal. It is a sea without limit, without shores. In it all things swim and float. Without space no real existence is possible.” She continues, “Wherever we go, whether in body or mind, eternal space and its twin brother time are our companions.” And she was writing when Einstein was still a young child!
Finally, Science: “It is a common thing for people to use the word Science without having any definite knowledge of what it means. In brief it is only another word for knowledge. When this knowledge is classified and directed to some particular end, then we give that science a name.”
Root then quotes “Professor Huxley” as saying:
True science and true religion are twin sisters, and the separation of either from the other is sure to prove the death of both. Science prospers exactly in proportion as it is religious, and religion flourishes in exact proportion to the scientific depth and firmness of its basis. The great deeds of philosophers have been less the fruit of their intellect than of the direction of that intellect by an eminently religious state of mind. Truth has yielded herself rather to their patience, their love, their single heartedness, and their self-denial, than to their logical acumen.” (page 206)
Root wants to consider “the science of metaphysical healing as also a religion, or . . . a branch of religion”. Nowadays, we would be more inclined to consider science as involving a systematized approach to the study of a subject. The Philosopher and I have long emphasized that science and religion meet on the lap of philosophy, and we used to demonstrate that in our seminars. What we now refer to as science was once a part of philosophy and only split off in modern times.
This concludes our dip into Root’s book. The lady was amazingly ahead of her times in her understanding and practice.
April 11, 2017
Healing Power of Mind (8)
Mrs. Root wraps up the book we have been discussing with three chapters: “Necessity of Conditions”, “Moral Effects”, and “The Mortal and the Immortal”. She then adds, as a sort of appendix, “Questions and Answers”, which consists of a collection of what amounts to definitions of key terms.
“Necessity of Conditions” begins with a look back:
All through the pages of this book we have sought to make the widest possible distinction between mind and matter. We have also aimed to show that the invisible is the only real and permanent thing in the Universe. All the mighty changes that are forever and forever going on around us are simply the results of invisible mind, which in one direction or another is stamping itself upon dead, dull, inert matter. Hold in your hand a watch, and with its springs, levers, wheels, brightly polished, finely adorned metals, it is a thing of beauty—a thing of life. What has produced it? Mind! That mechanism was once dull, shapeless, inactive matter. As a watch, it owes its existence to mind. So it is with our houses, ships, palaces, monuments, machines, temples, and all things that entitle us to the name of civilization. A man that we call a sculptor, comes along with the unseen image of the beautiful imprinted on his unseen mind—he finds a senseless, ill-shapen block of marble, and upon this he carves the image of his mind. Behold the statue! What made it? Mind! Turn in what direction you please—put your question in any form you desire, and the answer will come back to you—it is mind! mind! that produces these mighty results. What is it that animates, moves and controls these muscles of the body—that makes the eye to see, the ear to hear, and the tongue to speak? It is mind, mind, everywhere. Watch the silent stars at night; hear the rushing of the cataract; the booming of the ocean; see the mighty forests, the gladsome flowers, and the countless forms of life that everywhere prevail, and ask what produces all these? The answer again comes—it is the mind! (pages 175-176)
This is very much a description of the era in which the author lived; today we would see different illustrations. But even in a world in which the latest wrinkle was the telegraph as a means of “forwarding messages”, a very mechanical world, her point is irrefutable: People who discount or dismiss thought, “invisible mind”, are deliberately or inadvertently ignoring what is everywhere to be seen.
But that is not Root’s main emphasis in this chapter:
Now, although we thus attribute everything to mind, and give to it a creative, a remedial and curative power, let it not be supposed that we entirely ignore the necessity of complying with conditions in order to obtain and preserve our bodies and minds in a healthy state. . . . Undoubtedly there are conditions which we now, in our imperfect state, have to comply with that by-and-by we shall entirely ignore. . . . We had at one time to comply with the conditions, sails, winds and currents in order to cross the ocean. Today we have rendered these conditions unnecessary. . . . And Utopian as it may seem to many, we believe that the age will come when even the telegraph will be superseded as a condition of forwarding messages. . . . Thus, one by one, man is overcoming conditions, and putting them aside as useless or harmless. These views will apply to man and his conditions of health. (pages 176-177)
Root gives as an example “the habits of the inebriate”. Mind power may enable us to “win a man from his inordinate craving for strong drink”, but that is not to say that should he revert to his old habits, “the drink will have no effect upon him”, or even that he will never again crave liquor. But, she says, we can give him the knowledge to enable him to become “the master of his appetite, and he shall never again become its slave”. Sickness and disease may come about through “sheer ignorance”, but “the inebriate and some kindred cases” are people who “know better than they act—they sin against knowledge”, and such cases “require a different kind of treatment”. We don’t have to encourage the equivalent of snake-handling to prove the strength of our faith, but we do have to educate and reform:
We know that the sanitary condition of our cities and houses everywhere requires to be improved. Ventilation in sleeping apartments, especially, is in the worst possible condition. Food is eaten that never ought to be taken into the stomach. The results are disease, suffering and premature death. Against these things we wage an uncompromising war. Our weapons are not drugs, for this would be putting one devil into the system to drive another out. (page 179)
As the French say, “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (The more things change, the more they remain the same). The reformers of Root’s day did not have to contend with the damage done to bodies and environments by such “devils” as high-fructose corn syrup in the food, glyphosate in the fields and gardens that then gets into the food, fluoride in the drinking water, and the foxes in charge of the hen houses—but don’t get me started! As our elder Brother and Wayshower put it, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”. Root continues, remonstrating against “the habits of some medical men in telling their patients that their cases are serious, that such an organ is diseased, that the functions of another are disturbed, and another almost gone. This practice is as dangerous, if not more so, than the administration of drugs.” She encourages us all “to get out of bad conditions as speedily as possible—to expose ourselves to those conditions as little as possible; but when, through exposure, neglect or ignorance, disease is contracted, let them not add disease to disease by the use of poisonous drugs.” At the time she wrote, there was a cholera epidemic in France, and “skillful physicians cannot agree” about its cause. “It seems, however, to be conceded that fright kills more persons than the disease itself. Many have become insane through fear, while others have committed suicide. This is another proof of the effect of the mind upon the body.” She concludes the chapter, “[B]y far the greatest of all conditions in warding off disease of any kind, and in curing the same, is the condition of the mind itself.”
From here we move along to “Moral Effects”. Here, too, the more things change.... “When mind-cure study and practice have become universal . . . . it will change the face of society.”
There is need of change, look in what direction we will. The church, the school, the home and all institutions are afflicted with a great unrest. Disease, sickness of some kind, is in nearly every home of the land. This is lamentable and oftentimes heartrending. Look at war—that is an evil. Sometimes it is a necessity. But there are moments when the cannon has ceased its roar, the fierce charger is harnessed to the peaceful plow, and the proud sword sleeps in its scabbard; yet the black banner of disease is ever afloat—its victims are perpetually passing to untimely graves. (pages 183-184)
She could have been writing today. She goes on to state that mind-cure can help with people who are “peevish, stingy, and fretful.... These people are often disagreeable against their better nature”. New Thought principles and practices can often lead people to the solution for the cause of such frames of mind, whether dietary or otherwise environmental. But the person has to be open-minded and positive enough to be receptive to the solution when it appears. There’s an old New Thought adage, “God will reach you through whatever channel you can be reached”. Root adds: “We know of many instances where the habits and moral conduct of persons have been improved since they commenced the study of mind cure, and they have been made more charitable in their views of the moral deficiencies of other people.” She concludes:
[Mind-cure] has caused many persons to search the scriptures, with benefit to themselves, who had never read them before, or having read them had ceased their studies. We know that this science is the stern foe of atheism and materialism. There are instances where men and women have been led to a better and higher appreciation of the character and life of Christ from having seen the cures, heard the lectures and read the works of mind-cure scientists. (page 186)
This brings us to “The Mortal and the Immortal”: “We frequently speak of the mortal and the immortal part of a man. We also use the terms body, soul and spirit. In the Scriptures and also in common conversation we often use the words ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ synonymously.” Root seeks “to keep these terms distinct, and to give to each a separate and definite meaning.” She starts out well enough:
Spirit: “that which is made in the image and likeness of God, and cannot err.”
Body: “that portion of a man which . . . has neither life, sensation, nor intelligence.”
Soul: “occupies an intermediate position between the spirit and the body. It is capable of entertaining and reflecting the divine principles of the Creator. And in proportion as it does this, man is free and happy. But in its fallen, darkened condition, soul reflects only error, discord and disease.”
At this point, she states: “Sometimes we call the soul in its darkened condition the mortal or carnal mind, in contradistinction to the spirit or immortal mind.” She seems to fall into the old trap of presenting the Devil in a new guise. One’s ego is one’s executive function and is very necessary and positive. (Ego simply means “ich”, I in German.) Egos can become diseased, unhealthy. She does state that Spirit can “drive away these darkened images and bring light and peace”. But rather than treat the body, she wants to treat the “mortal mind”. I think the Philosopher might word this a bit differently. Matter is real; yes, it is congealed mind, and current reality must be dealt with. Often, ground must be cleared before a new structure can be erected. But perhaps it’s just a question of wording, and we all may be on the same wave length after all.
To be concluded next week with “Questions and Answers”.
April 4, 2017
Healing Power of Mind (7)
In today’s excerpts, Julia Anderson Root discusses “Antiquity of Mind-Cure” and “Insanity”. In “Antiquity of Mind-Cure”, she begins by pointing out that even though it is spoken of as if it were new:
The truth is, that the mind-cure is as old as the [human] race. Read the history of any nation, peruse the narratives of all travelers, and you will find that in some form or other a belief in the power of mind over matter, and a practice of mental healing, have always obtained. We are aware that its antiquity does not prove its truthfulness, but it relieves it of the charge of modern invention or discovery. (page 161)
Ironically, “it is the very simplicity of the method that brings it into disfavor with many persons, especially with those who have pored over books, passed through colleges, and spent much time and money in placing them just where they stand.” They huff at the idea that “ignorant people” can effect cures when they with all their “skill and knowledge” fail. She goes on to mock the newly minted pedant examining a sick child and describing its condition with a collection of Latin words: “And pray, most learned doctor, give us an English name for that terrific disease. ‘Oh, ah, yes; well, it is the measles.’ Thank you for the modern name; you can keep the terms of antiquity for use on some future occasion.” She adds, “There is, at least, about the mind-cure the merit of simplicity. And this . . . should be the merit of all systems.” Rather than concern ourselves with whether something is antiquated or modern, “Let the inquiry be, Is it true, is it effective? . . . . Men need to be taught to trust more and more to their intuitions. It is by these, more than by learning and philosophy, that the world has been carried forward.” She could still learn a thing or two from my household Philosopher, but that is a separate subject.
Root here shifts gears to turn attention to the modern  attention to mind-cure in the United States: “Its progress here of late years received its greatest impulse from Dr. P. P. Quimby, a native of Belfast, Maine”, and supplies a long quotation from “Dr. Dresser, of Massachusetts”, describing Quimby’s practice, his character, and his cures, as an eyewitness [I think she may have inadvertently conferred a doctorate on Julius Dresser, who was a journalist, as distinguished from his eldest son, Horatio, a Harvard Ph.D. in philosophy. But New Thought is infamous for sprinkling around unearned titles or titles earned at unaccredited institutions. Admittedly, some honorary degrees conferred by academia or by popular acclaim—as for Quimby—are deserved.] Julius Dresser includes a description of a closet full of “crutches and canes that had been left there by people who had come to the doctor in various crippled conditions, and had gone away without the need of these supports.”
Root continues, referring through indirect quotation to a Boston journal description:
In Boston there are four schools of this system, and all of these hold as their fundamental idea that disease does not come from God, and that He has nothing to do with its perpetuation, but that it is one of the errors of man, which can be cured by truth; the application of this truth is not by faith, but by an intelligent understanding. The schools, however, disagree in regard to later developments, some claiming to be farther advanced than the others. (page 166)
The heads of the four schools she describes as Dr. [Warren Felt] Evans, Mrs. Eddy, Dr. E. J. Arens, and Dr. J. A. Dresser, along with “about a dozen others who practice the mind-cure as a profession, and who teach to classes of young and old the methods of curing.” She next describes her own recollection of Quimby:
Of Dr. Quimby, we remember when a girl, of his going round the country effecting cures that were looked upon by many as being miracles. There was an anecdote told of him that we think has not before found its way to print:—When near Portland, Maine, he called at a house, to the inhabitants of which he was a stranger. He found a middle-aged man seated on the verandah, and asked if he could obtain a drink of water. The man replied that he could, but as his people were away, and he was lame from rheumatism, that he would have to help himself. Quimby replied that he did not think he was lame, and believed he could walk. The man said, “It is a long time since I have been able to walk, or even to move about, except by the aid of crutches.” Quimby replied, “I realize that you can walk; give me your hand.” He took the man by the hand and caused him to walk back and forth on the verandah; and before he left, the lame man had no use for his crutches, and could walk as well as he ever could. When his people returned, greatly to their astonishment, they found him walking in the garden. He asked Quimby for his name, but this he refused to give, for the reason that he hated notoriety. He would “do good by stealth, and blush to find it fame.” Of such stamp was this modern apostle of the mind-cure. (pages 167-168)
Root concludes the chapter: “India, China, Japan, Egypt, Syria, even our old Scandinavian mythology, are rich with accounts of cases that have yielded to this silent, unseen influence, when all other means have failed. Fortunately, we have both antiquity and modern times on our side.”
The chapter on insanity is brief. “No man has yet been enabled to draw the line of demarcation between sanity and insanity.” But just because there is not a clear line, “we must not contend that there are not two distinct conditions of mind. The use of one term to express a condition, necessarily implies the opposite. Otherwise, we are all either sane or insane.” She mentions several inventive geniuses who were initially labeled insane, as well as people “deemed insane on one point and some on another, while others are insane at one period of time and at other moments are deemed perfectly rational and intelligent. . . . It is purely a matter of opinion.” She lists some of the “many causes” of insanity, such as loss of money or friends or children, “the use of opiates and narcotics, fright, starvation”, and in at least some cases, it is inherited. Then, she lets us have it, both barrels:
Now, there must be something rotten about our boasted civilization, or else about our physical and mental doctors, when this scourge is a thousand times more distinguishable among civilized than among uncivilized nations. . . . Our asylums are but institutions for the preservation of insanity. (page 173)
She has not yet had an opportunity to try curing a case of insanity, but “we shall certainly try the experiment without fear of the result. We hope to see the time when the mind-cure will be given as fair a trial for treating the insane as is now given to a system of close confinement and drugs.” Today, there are far fewer cases of people shut up in insane asylums, but many roam the streets, restrained only by mental chains created by drugs. Since it is “an utter impossibility” that the spirit can become insane, and that insanity “can have its origin in matter, is, to us, simply an absurdity”. She believes that we should look for the cause “in the unconscious mind, or in the disarrangement of that condition of vitality and sensation that is brought about by the influence of mind upon matter”.
Even today, less attention is paid than should be to the effects of malnutrition on the mind as well as on the body. Doctors have long been aware of extreme deficiencies in—for example—certain B vitamins, which deficiencies can cause insanity. But why does one person succumb in, say, starvation conditions in a prison camp, while another comes through pretty much unscathed? The power of thought for better or worse is apparent.
To be continued.
March 28, 2017
Healing Power of Mind (6)
With today’s chapters, “Personal Experience” and “Instructions for Healing”, we’re getting to where the rubber meets the road. Mrs. Root begins with her own experience, described using the editorial we:
When we began to investigate the claims of this science, we did so with the determination of making our researches thorough. We had previously investigated a number of the isms of the day, but we could find no resting place, and were mentally starving for something to believe in and feed upon. The more we studied and thought, the more brightly the light dawned upon us, and we soon found that the mind-cure was capable of doing all that its most ardent advocates claimed for it. About the first practical truth that we had of its efficacy was when we were cured of diphtheria in about twenty minutes by a lady who had had some experience in the science. We then commenced studying the system. (page 131)
Well, yes; that would tend to get her attention. Root doesn’t say who diagnosed her or what her symptoms were, but let us give her the benefit of the doubt.
She then continues to describe her own first patient, a lady suffering from neuralgia and in a great deal of pain for days, unable to sleep:
On her chest and sides were numerous mustard plasters, which had afforded her no relief. We told her that if she would follow directions, and would remove her plasters, we would treat her for her complaint. This she did, saying she would do anything to get rid of her pain. We then gave her a treatment of about fifteen minutes, at the end of which time she felt almost free from pain, and expressed astonishment at the result. That evening she retired early, slept till nine o’clock the next morning, and rose refreshed and perfectly free from pain. When we called upon her she expressed great surprise at the cure. We then gave her instructions how to treat herself. (page 132)
Root adds, “[T]his act gave us more confidence in the mind-cure than all the reasoning in the world could have done.”
The chapter continues to describe a dozen or so cases ranging from nervous disorders to organic disease. “We have given the above testimonials, not for the purpose of parading our own skill, but as so many facts, proving beyond a doubt that the mind-cure proved effective where the skill of the best medical men, aided by the power of all the drugs in their pharmacopaea, had failed.” In the time since the first edition of this book came out, Root had healed large numbers of people and taught people to heal themselves and others. No method of healing bats 1,000, and even Jesus was unable to heal where there was insufficient faith. In Root’s own example as well, faith clearly means belief that healing is possible rather than belief in a particular theology or worldview. She points out, “He who teaches a new science must necessarily meet with the opposition, misrepresentation, and ofttimes with the persecution of the world.” Still, “we have cause to rejoice at the success we have met with and the treatment we have received. While we have frequently been misrepresented through the press, we have also, through the same channel, received many words of encouragement and praise.” She continues “to meet honest skepticism with arguments and facts.” The chapter ends with several examples of cases Root was able to cure with mind-cure after the medical profession had failed. One of the most striking was the case of a teenage girl who had mistakenly swallowed a few drops of lye. Her mother gave her cream to swallow, but she misunderstood and held it in her mouth, so that her esophagus was terribly damaged and months passed with suffering. A physician was able to stretch the esophagus daily, keeping it from closing completely, which would have been fatal. Such cases are apparently rare, and the girl’s mother thought that complete recovery was “unknown”. She states:
Mrs. Root gave her treatment for one week, when she was able to swallow without external pressure and without the disagreeable attendant noiselike croaking that was so annoying, and she has eaten and swallowed beefsteak this week for the first time in five years, and I feel that very shortly there will be a complete cure.” (page 142)
Root concludes the chapter: “These, we think, ought to be sufficient to satisfy the most skeptical of the efficacy of this science to entirely cure organic as well as functional diseases.”
So, after all these chapters to set us in the right frame of mind, what are the “Instructions for Healing”?
All that we have advanced in previous chapters has either a direct or indirect bearing upon the subject of the present chapter, and it is absolutely necessary that the positions we have taken should be thoroughly understood, otherwise the student is not likely to meet with success in curing disease, either in himself or others. The conviction must be thoroughly implanted in the mind, that mind and matter are two distinct things, whether matter is in an organized or unorganized state. Next, that it is mind only that can feel, think and act, and the only thing in creation that possesses force. (page 147)
I can about hear the Philosopher shouting from somewhere in the vicinity of the Great White Throne that the statement as written is dualism, but Root is nonetheless trying to make an important point, one that Quimby also struggled to make. Matter is mental in nature; I like to describe it as congealed mind, which Alan didn’t really like either, but he was willing to put up with it. Matter is mind that — as Whitehead would say—has concresced into a past occasion of experience and is hence a lot harder to change than an occasion that is still forming for an entire tenth of a second or whatever it is. The only time in which we can act is now; we can only change the past by piling up more moments of now on top of it. We can visualize what we want for the future from the vantage point of now, and influence the other-than-conscious mind, our success-seeking servomechanism, to go to work for us. But Julia Root didn’t have that understanding yet; let’s stay with what she did have, which is also vital here:
For the truth of this proposition we do not rely simply upon mathematical demonstration and visible facts, but also upon that which is equally convincing, namely innate consciousness. When a person says, “I have a headache;” “I have pain in the stomach;”, what is the ‘I’? Plainly, it is not the head nor the stomach that speaks. It is something outside and independent of these organs, for it speaks of them as being distinct from itself. . . . Here the ‘I’ speaks of ‘my’ things—that is, that the ‘I’ is not these organs, but that it owns them. They are not me, but mine—that is, I am something independent of them. This something is the soul.
The position we take is, that the body and its organs are but the correspondences of a spiritual body and organs. These spiritual organs are the real and lasting, while the material are but manifestations, and are not lasting. These material manifestations cannot control the spiritual, but the spiritual can and does control the material. (pages 147-148)
Root continues with a page-and-a half all-purpose treatment, which one can tailor to the patient and the circumstances. This is just a toe in the water; there is, as she says, so much that even experienced healers don’t understand yet:
Everything is possible that is not morally impossible. The impossibilities of one age become the possibilities of the next. The old practitioners in drugs have pronounced it impossible to cure certain cases, but the metaphysical healer [I wish she wouldn’t call them that] has cured many of them. (page 50)
Too much importance cannot be attached to the influence of the will in effecting cures. Not that the will itself is a curative agent, but it directs and concentrates forces which are healing agents. It also keeps off evils. A person, to be a successful healer, either of himself or others, must believe not only in the power but also in the freedom of the will. A believer in the necessitarian or fatalist doctrine need never hope to meet with success. . . . Necessity is a true doctrine with regard to some things, and so also is freedom of the will. Two opposites explain and limit each other. . . . Will is a first cause—it is self-originating, hence its power. (pages 152-153)
Root repeats the earlier warning that although someone is fully cured of something, it may return “if the patient is exposed to the old conditions and influences. Also, a condition sometimes appears at first to be growing worse” [this is sometimes referred to as chemicalization , as the body regroups and cleans house.] “It must always be remembered that we are not treating matter, but mind. We must try to lift up and cherish the spirit, so that it will rise above all discord and inharmony.” Now perhaps even worse than then, we so often push ourselves to keep going despite all kinds of stress, never giving ourselves time off, or recreational pleasures.
The true healer must have something of the missionary spirit in him if he would be successful. . . . and, like a true missionary, the healer must not fail to take into account the power of kind words and acts. The worst way to reform the world is to condemn it, and the worst way to heal diseases and cure persons of their errors, is to condemn the individual. . . . We do not find physical perfection anywhere. So in our moral nature we can find defects in every human being. This should teach us charity; and whether the disease be physical, mental or moral, treatment that is based on sympathy and kindness will prove effective when uncouth and censorious measures will fail. (pages 158-159)
Our heavenly Father, however conceived of, is always there ahead of us. Don’t ever try to leave him out of the equation; he supplies the possibilities: Past + Divine Offer + Choice = Co-Creation. Root gets a bit close to this in the next chapter.
To be continued.
March 21, 2017
Healing Power of Mind (5)
Today’s discussion of Julia Anderson Root’s Healing Power of Mind begins with a chapter on the efficacy of prayer: “What is prayer? ‘It is the heart’s sincere desire, uttered or unexpressed.’” She points out that humankind here (as in so many things) can be divided into two classes, “those who expect too much from praying, and those who flatly deny its utility.” She continues: “There are good prayers, and there are vain, foolish, and even malicious prayers. The time has come when it behooves our churches to look a little more closely than they have hitherto done at the uses and power of prayer.” Examples of not-so-good prayers would include those for blessings that the pray-er “is too indolent to labor for”, or those that do not take into account all the stakeholders, as with two monarchs going to war against each other, believing in the same God, and both praying for success in their armed ventures. Another such would be two adjacent farmers, one praying for rain, the other for dry weather. As Root points out, Jesus taught us to pray to the Father: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”.
Those who do not believe in the power of prayer, and possibly do not even believe in God might ask, “But will not God do His will without our praying to him?”
We answer that God and the Universe will do that which is right and proper for us when we supplicate aright. Prayer alone is a useless thing, but prayer with work in the right direction is a combination of power that nothing can resist. There is not a man on earth who does not, at some time or other, pray. An inspiration is a prayer; and there never yet was a man who aspired to, and prayed for, a good and needed thing that was not drawn nearer to that goodness, and its attainment thereby made more easy. . . . May not a true prayer be an appeal to a law, or to the invoking of a law? We know not. We find that our own intense desires are often communicated to other minds, even without our uttering a word. (pages 106-107)
We may have no idea how this process works, but there is abundant evidence of answered prayers. I am reminded of “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark 9:24), stated by the father of the child possessed by a “deaf and dumb spirit”. That father had still had sufficient faith to seek out the assistance of Jesus, and the child was healed. But Root also points out that a man suffering from extreme hunger does not need one’s prayer; he needs to be fed: “In these cases good deeds are the only effective prayers”. She elaborates:
Christianity makes one better by purifying the erring mind; it is the right thought which brings forth the right act. Not prayer of words, but of works; in other words, the understanding of God is the pure fountain wherewith to purify the streams and destroy error, sin, sickness and death. Praying God to forgive our sins would be like asking the principle of mathematics to work out a problem for us, or to forgive our mistakes. Principle neither forgives nor punishes; it is stationary and unchangeable. We must reach it with thoughts, not words; and through the understanding of it, destroy error or “cease to do evil and learn to do well.” (pages 109-110)
The Philosopher would want me to add quickly that it is a philosophical error to regard God as Principle, for Principle is an “it”, an abstraction, and God is concrete. But the analogy given here still holds true. “Asking God to do our work is asking amiss, and we receive not. ‘Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he reap also.’” [I recall that businessman Gardner Hunting wrote a book with the title, Working With God (Unity, 1934).] “Instead of asking God to forgive sin and heal the sick, we should seek the understanding of God, Truth, Life and Love, and this pure fountain will cleanse the mind and destroy all error. The incorrect views entertained of God hide the understanding.” Oh, my! Could this be where our Henry (Henry Wood, 1834-1909) got his cistern metaphor?
Having our thoughts in union with God on all that is right and good, and opposed to all that is wrong, our body, governed by this mind, could not be sick. . . . [W]e should place no faith in drugs, neither pray to Almighty God to heal us, and act against our prayer by taking medicine, denying in practice what we admit in statement, and showing that we hold drugs superior to God. Prayer of words will become obsolete, and thoughts and works more than words, as we understand God better. (page 111)
Root concludes the chapter by stating, as did Quimby, “The people are not correctly taught by the clergy or by the doctors. These teachers, as well as the people, are all in the material. They are not spiritual. . . . You cannot get into the new unless you can get out of the old.” If sickness begins in the mind, then its remedy must also begin there.
The next chapter, “Instructions to Mothers”, is briefer than most of the other chapters, possibly because it is of less universal application; however, each of us is acquainted with at least one mother! With no biographical information on Root, we do not know for sure whether she was herself a mother, and she gives no indication one way or the other in her writing. Her point is that children have “a right to sound and healthy constitutions”, yet in her day more so than now, she quotes Herbert Spencer: “Seriously, is it not an astonishing fact, that though on the treatment of offspring depend their lives or deaths and their moral welfare or ruin, yet not a word of instruction on the treatment of offspring is ever given to those who will hereafter be parents?” Today, much guidance is given, especially to mothers, about how to care for the physical needs of an infant or young child, but how much guidance is given concerning eating wholesome food instead of junk, living by the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments, and upholding the laws outlined in our U.S. Constitution, which is based squarely on Judeo-Christian principles? Other points: As well as belonging to its parents, a child belongs to its country and to God. “It is in the power of the mother, to a very large extent, to mold and make the character of her offspring.” Also: “Mothers should be taught to know the influence that mind has over matter, and then, for the sake of their children, they should use that knowledge.” There is nothing wrong with “taste in dress”, but there are “higher aims in life”.
The third chapter for today is “Declaration of Principles”. It recounts an invitation extended by the San Francisco Evening Bulletin to Root while she was there engaged in curing and in “teaching the science of metaphysical healing”, to “make a brief statement of our views and claims for publication in that paper. This we did . . . . “ She then reprints her communication and the editor’s answer, which appeared in the same issue. Root’s main points were: 1) All diseases are mental in nature and are “but effects, having their origin in the regions of mind and not of matter”. 2) Although drugs may temporarily cover up diseases, they eventually reappear. Many people, though admitting cures by mind-cure, claim that “the diseases so cured are always . . . of a nervous nature. This is not true.” 3) “The early Christians always practiced the gifts of healing—and declared that those gifts came from God”, even though many Christians “seem disposed to doubt whether these powers have descended to modern times” [as true today as in Root’s day. She then refers to the power of magnetism and of departed spirits, which she has discussed in an earlier chapter of this book.] 4) “Disease is a discord, an error, and we recognize no power beneath the Divine to remove it. When this is recognized and acted upon, the problem of disease or discord in God’s children will be solved, and harmony, health and happiness will reign upon the earth.” She signs herself, “Respectfully, Julia Anderson Root”.
The editor’s response states that Root “does not agree with the views expressed in this journal”. He continues, in a piece twice as long as Root’s that distorts what she said, to claim that only certain diseases can be treated in this way, but that “the last stages of consumption” cannot be cured in this way [and Quimby wholeheartedly agreed]. He goes on to describe illnesses “limited to the nervous system and the mind of the victim” that have “room for the play of all sorts of quackery”, and states that bread pills were “an old application of the faith cure”. He does seem aware that many mental illnesses are actually caused by nutritional deficiencies, but he clearly does not know that up to 90 percent of all illnesses are of this mental/nutritional nature. “But when one is run over by a locomotive and his legs are mashed to a jelly, the faith cure must be counted out.” He is not the first to confuse faith cure and mind cure.
Root, however, has the last word in her chapter. She states, referring to the reply: “[I]t so well illustrates the fallacies and errors into which so many fall, and the misunderstanding of the words ‘mind-cure’ [part of the reason for later changing the name to New Thought].” Disease may also originate “some time or other in the error, mistake, or discord of the mortal mind [the human race consciousness]. Man is mysteriously connected mentally with his fellows.” [You bet!] She continues:
Christ himself recognized the necessity of conditions in effecting cures. What does it mean when it is stated: “And he could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief”? Here was an admission that belief or faith was a necessary element to success in those particular cases. If a man should come to us with a disease and obstinately refuse to believe that we could cure him, or strongly doubted that we had any power whatever to do him any good, these fears and doubts would go a long way in keeping him in his diseased condition. But with the perfect knowledge in the mind of the operator and a perfect faith in the mind of the patient, we recognize no limit to the cure of any disease. (pages 129-130)
She concludes: “What [the editor] urges mainly against the mind-cure can be urged against cures by any method or process whatever.” Today we have far more support from research in psychology as well as other sciences to support New Thought principles and practices, and we have a process understanding of God and the operation of God’s laws, which God knows we aren’t familiar with most of.
To be continued.
March 14, 2017
Furthermore Healing Power of Mind
Julia Anderson Root seems to be delving into topics related to mental healing rather like petals of a flower. We begin today with “Death”, and she hopes “not to make this chapter either gloomy or in any way disagreeable”; and she supplies a quotation from Percy Bysshe Shelley describing death as “wonderful”, even though, as Root points out, “Death has been called the king of terrors”. She goes on to say that all the negative things we have been told about death are “not now speaking of mind, but of physical organization”. A plant that can no longer use earth, air, rain, and sun “is withered and rotted by the very things which before nourished it.” Death, she concludes, “means a dissolution of physical organism and a destruction of form. But the word death is often used . . . . to express a state of torpor or indifference, or a want of certain qualities and things. . . . By these expressions it is not meant to convey dissolution, much less total destruction.” She adds, “[I]f we live in constant dread of death there is something sadly wrong in our condition”, for in such state we cannot “enter into healthful diversions”.
Root also wants us to understand, “we do not enter eternity at death—we enter it at birth.”
If we would be well and happy—if we would see and learn the fleeting, the mortal and perishable, from the immortal, then we must shut our eyes on the outward and dying universe, and open them to the inward and living universe. This is what may be called the interior insight, and to this there can be no death. So that we may say that the true mind-cure scientist believes in living and not in dying. There is no death only to that which emanates from the carnal mind—in its own beliefs it creates its own images, and to itself these are real. We are told that the carnal mind is at enmity with God; consequently this condition of things can only be destroyed by an understanding and application of truth. (page 77)
Moving right along into “Scriptural Arguments”, our instructor tells us, “We have as yet taken no position for which we cannot find scriptural authority.” Reminding us of how freeing from the past this movement eventually appropriately titled New Thought is, she continues:
We are advancing no new doctrine, but only aiming to give force and vitality to an old one—a doctrine taught and practised by the Master. It appears to be assumed by large masses of church members, that Christianity consists in passing a life of praise and prayer, and preaching against the moral evils of the world. Christ taught both by precept and example that one of the chief duties of life was to cure suffering and banish bodily disease. The ancient temples were at once church and hospital. The early Christians were healers, conceiving it to be their imperative duty to follow in Christ’s footsteps, for they felt the truth of the saying, “Except ye have the spirit of Christ ye are none of his.” We feel that it is one of the most damaging omissions in the lives of modern Christians that sufficient prominence has not been given to the healing of disease. . . . [T]hough they speak of faith as a necessary thing to spiritual salvation, yet they have lost sight of it as a word full of meaning, and having direct reference to the curing of all bodily disease. Christ constantly spoke of faith as the great and requisite in everything, especially to the curing of disease. (pages 79-80)
Root goes on to state that Jesus did not use drugs. Even if one concedes that today’s science has made some advances, he did not recognize drugs as “useful or necessary agents”. She then quotes several descriptions of healings, calming the tempest, and the parable of the sower. She makes the points that Jesus in some cases refers to lack of faith or part-time (“little) faith, and in some cases counsels the former sick person, “Sin no more” (sin being the translation of a Greek archery term meaning to miss the mark). She mentions specifically the statement, “And he did not many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.” If even Jesus required that there be faith at least as much as a tiny mustard seed, what can the rest of us expect? Every case is different, and Jesus used different means of curing the same ailment at times. However, I would mention that at times a person is too sick to pray for him- or herself, and at such times “the effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much”.
Root concludes the chapter by reminding us, “we do not believe in miracles—that is, as the popular mind understands them”. As we have recently discussed in connection with early and late modern philosophy, so-called miracles do not set aside or contravene the laws of God. “They are the results of laws that are brought into play, of which the mass of people are ignorant. Christ never claimed to perform miracles. What he did was entirely in accordance with the laws of God”, and he even told his followers that they would do such works themselves, and greater. Sickness is not an affliction of God; it is a violation of God’s laws (see Lamentations III, 33). “Since the days of Asa, just how many have slept with their fathers because they ‘sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians’. . . . As many more have lived lives of suffering because their whole system has been poisoned with drugs.” Today, accurate figures would reveal that the second leading cause of death is iatrogenic (doctor-and drug-induced) illness.
But we do not dwell here; we turn to “Heredity and Longevity”. Today, we know that heredity does not account for nearly as much as it was once thought to do, although it can account for good things as well as bad. A couple of years after Root’s first edition of this book was published, Unity co-founder Myrtle Fillmore attended a lecture and came to her great realization: “I am a child of God, and therefore I do not inherit sickness.” Two years later, she was well of hereditary tuberculosis and remained so for the rest of her long life. Root concludes this chapter by stating, “Metaphysical science [sic] says, desire to live long, but also desire to live well. Good actions are of more importance than longevity, but if we live in accordance with God’s laws, both are attainable.”
Our final chapter for today is “Spiritualism”. Root nails her colors to the mast from the get-go: “The mind-cure is the most spiritual of all sciences and systems. We have no desire to enter into a controversy with that large body of citizens calling themselves Spiritualists.” She adds, “[W]e neither practice clairvoyance not consult the spirits of the departed when performing our cures.” Yes, Quimby was clairvoyant, but that is not an absolute requirement for mind-cure. “We do not deny that some of these things may afford temporary relief, but we doubt their efficacy in effecting permanent cures.” Since Root’s time, it has been pointed out that cures effected by mass healing services are often not permanent because the person caught up in the emotion of the service has not done the necessary work in consciousness to be permanently healed. “We take the position that for effectual cures of disease we must draw from the Divine Fountain of our being, and this we can only do by placing ourselves in harmony with God. . . . While on this earth we are as much spirits as those who have gone beyond the veil.”
Root continues, setting aside a couple of other possibilities:
We recognize no benefit from the mere contact of the hand, for this would be an admission that there was a curative property in matter. What magnetism is, we know not. . . . Certain it is that it is not mind itself. Neither do we pretend to know what mind is, and it may be we shall never know. (page 100)
Research since Root’s time has shown the usefulness of touch in healing, but not in the context in which she speaks. And magnetism was long since discredited, beginning at the time of Quimby, who himself helped to discredit it; however, magnets do have healing properties, again in a different context that was not known back then. Also, she mentions doctors from the spirit world recommending drugs, and comments: “Now, as we entirely ignore the use of drugs, of what use would it be to us to call upon these spiritual doctors? We have quite a sufficient number of M.D.’s of that stripe in this sphere of existence without seeking to call back those who have left their nostrums on earth.” Yes, doctors and drugs have helped many people, but they have also done a great deal of damage. I have said before that we should begin—as Root has indicated—with the laws of nature concerning wholesome food and drink, rest and exercise, turning to doctors and drugs only as a last resort.
Root winds up her chapter with a discussion of Swedenborg and Andrew Jackson Davis. Swedenborg at least claims to receive his information and instruction “directly from the Lord”, and Jackson himself denies being a medium. Root comments:
[I]f Swedenborg received information from the Lord, why should not other men, and all men according to their spiritual condition? Has God selected only a few men in thousands of years to make his desires and ways known to his children? He is unchangeable [in his loving dependable character, for process thinkers] and no respecter of persons. If A. J. Davis can drink from unfailing fountains of wisdom, are those fountains sealed to every one except Mr. Davis? Is it not right and reasonable to suppose that every one can drink thereat, receiving according to his own capacity of receptivity? . . . . [W]hy cannot the teacher and believer in mind-cure go to the Great Infinite Spirit or the Great Infinite Fountain for their supply of health or their power to banish disease? . . . . If God is the God of all knowledge, so is He the God of health. If ignorance is the enemy of God, so is disease; and for power and knowledge to banish them both, we should go direct to the Great Infinite Source. (page 103)
To be continued.
March 7, 2017
Still More Healing Power of Mind
We have been delving into the whole subject of the healing power of mind by perusing an early New Thought book with that title, by someone who as a little girl knew Quimby: Julia Anderson Root.
In her chapter, “Mission and Duty of Man”, Root is at some pains to point out to us that we humans sooner or later ask ourselves, Why am I here? “I cannot carry [pieces of gold] with me [when I die]. . . . of what use are they to me? ... to what end have I lived?” Her reply: “Man . . . . is but one of the products of the great intelligent force that lies behind and produces and moves the whole universe. . . . We, in common with all things, animate and inanimate, are alike products of the divine intelligence. Can the clay judge the potter?” Then why do we have a conscience? “Why are we, in spite of ourselves, compelled to condemn cruelty, untruth and injustice? Simply because we have something of the godlike within us. . . . There is no man so low down, there is no soul stained so foully with sin but is compelled to love the good, the beautiful and true, and hate that which is false.”
This immense “power behind nature” . . . has not made anything in vain . . . . [W]e are, in fact, workmen placed here to carry out the wise and beneficent plan of God.” She elaborates:
An architect plans a temple, and his specifications are only so many directions to workmen what they are to do for its erection. . . . And thus he places his workmen in the various positions where they can be useful. But any of these workmen might say, “Of what use is my work. I can see no good, no use in it. It is incomplete in itself, and must end in nothing.” But the architect who placed these men at their different tasks knew that if every man faithfully performed his own work all their labors would harmonize in the end, and the result would be a temple of beauty. . . . God can see that if we will faithfully perform those tasks they will harmonize in the end, and the results will be of benefit to ourselves, of use to others, and glory to Him. (pages 56-57)
She then ties this back to the subject of health:
Amongst the chief duties of man is that of obtaining and preserving health. A man may possess the wealth of a continent, but if he is the constant victim of disease and suffering, he is a poor man compared with the day laborer, whose pulse beats with health by day and whose nights are blessed with refreshing sleep. (page 57)
She concludes the chapter with a long quotation from Emerson extolling the advantages of wellness. From here, we launch into a chapter, “Power of Mind over Body”. Our Henry (Henry Wood, 1834-1909), laid much stress on the idea, “I rule the body” (see my new Sunny Apartments: The Thought of Henry Wood, available in softcover or Kindle editions from Amazon.)
Root begins by stating her disbelief “in what is usually styled an axiom in philosophy, namely, ‘that every effect must have its cause, and every cause must have its effect.’” She explains:
Both as a matter of reason and consciousness, we deny this. What, for instance, is volition? It is force in energy directed to some particular end. Whence comes this force? We answer, it originates in the invisible mind. Mind is in itself a first cause, so far as volition is concerned. And the same thing cannot be observed of matter. The materialist assumes that mind is not distinct from matter, or that mind is not an entity separate and apart from matter. If this assumption was true, then it would make man a mere machine to be acted upon and moved by physical causes. If matter has properties peculiar to itself, so has mind, and one of these properties is that it can originate causes. . . . [M]ind can gain such mastery over the material body. It can animate and move it. It can fill it with health when wrongly directed with disease and suffering. When rightly directed by faith and knowledge, it can purge the body from all pain and impurities. (pages 59-60)
Root then paraphrases a lengthy newspaper quotation from “a prominent London physician” on the importance of the patient’s making up is mind that he is going to get well”. She adds, “The very first condition of life is hope”. She summarizes, “[T]here is an invisible something that has an incalculable and wondrous power in curing disease, when the visible drug proves ineffectual.” Allopath, homeopath, or magnetic healer may wrangle, but no one form of cure is effective in all cases. French scholars tried to attribute the success of magnetism to “imagination” (suggestion), but Root points out, “This is another admission of the power of mind.” We are then treated to other healing examples and another long quotation from an English physician on the subject of the effect of mind on body, including remarks: “[A] man is just as well as he feels”, and “Disease kills more victims through the mind than by the body. . . . I believe that more persons are killed by ‘the fear of death’ than by disease.” Root comments, “Who can be blamed, after such opinions as these, for doubting the power of drugs to cure disease?”
The next chapter is “Disease and its Remedies”. Root begins, “What is disease? It is the result of a departure from the spiritual laws of God. Its true cause is not . . . the presence, absence, or decay of any part of parts of the human system.” These are effects. “To remedy this state of things we have not to seek to build up materiality, but to aim at once to call to our aid the power of spirit.” Then “with what agents should we approach these mental causes? Matter . . . does not control or move mind. It is mind that controls and moves matter.” Things do appear to become simpler as we learn more about them. “Now, the names [sic] of disease is legion, but we trace them to one cause, and for them we have but one cure.” She comments, “It is too often the case that people reverence what they do not understand”, and this certainly applies to medicine. She then nails her colors to the mast: “But whatever may be said of the other sciences, we deny that the science of medicine, as a curative or preventive system, has advanced one step—and this is because the agents it employs are false.” The study of medicine divides the human system into four parts: “With the first two, anatomy and physiology, we have no quarrel, but against pathology and therapeutics we proclaim a bold and open war. The practice of medical men . . . has been fraught with incalculable mischief to the health of the community.” Some have been honest enough to admit it.
Root concludes the chapter by describing how physicians accept the notion that certain diseases have certain symptoms and require certain drugs in certain quantities and with certain methods:
[I]f, through the vitality of the patient or by the power of mind, a cure is effected, he tries to convince his patient that his recovery is entirely due to his careful administration of the prescribed drugs. Thus a false over-arching faith has grown in the efficacy of these poisons. The Israelites of old are no more to be condemned for their worship of the golden calf set up in the wilderness, than are the masses for their idolatry of the medical drugs set up amidst humanity in these days of enlightenment. We are endeavoring to wean them from their false faith, and point them to the only true God. The magicians have thrown down their rods, and now we throw down our rod of mind-cure, and it will swallow up all the rest.” (page 72)
Your humble servant adds that from the vantage point of the 21st century, it has gotten even worse, despite great breakthroughs in sanitation and understanding of the need for fresh air, sunshine, and wholesome food along with appropriate rest and exercise. Any industry or discipline that sweeps its mistakes under the rug, conceals what it knew and when, and disseminates flat-out falsehoods cannot learn from those mistakes and thereby prosper us all. Some wag once observed that a doctor covers his mistakes with sod, an architect with ivy, and a bride with mayonnaise.
To be continued.
February 28, 2017
More Healing Power of Mind
The New Thought movement did not acquire that name until 1895, since it took a while for it to take shape as a movement. We will see it referred to as mind power, mind cure, mental healing, or even (horrors!) “metaphysical science” to differentiate it from classic Christian faith healing or from various forms of physical treatment. Julia Anderson Root published Healing Power of Mind in San Francisco in 1884, followed by a second edition from Peoria, IL in 1886. It is entirely possible that our Henry (Henry Wood 1834-1909) came across one edition or the other in his search for healing. Conflicting information as to dates make it difficult to pin anything down, but Henry’s first book, Natural Law in the Business World, appeared in 1887. His first book dealing with New Thought principles was a work of fiction, Edward Burton, published in 1890. Unity co-founder Myrtle Fillmore’s healing was completed by 1888. Henry himself writes in 1908 that at age 54 (1888) he was a physical wreck seeking healing. He may have retired from business in 1868 but lived in Chicago until 1882; in any event, there is no record of his business dealings after 1868, when his firm suffered a devastating fire, well before the Great Fire of Chicago. The death of his young daughter in 1888, recorded in Boston, almost certainly contributed to his challenges.
In any case, make no mistake that the taproot of New Thought was Christian. We will later be encountering an entire chapter, “Scriptural Arguments”, in Root’s book. Unity at one time was know as Practical Christianity. Quimby was equally rooted in Scripture, and the Universalist influences on New Thought are well known. Many people added New Thought to their traditional Christian denominations. Our Henry had a Christian upbringing at Barre Academy, and there are numerous references to Christ in the Ideal Suggestions (see my Sunny Apartments: The Thought of Henry Wood 1834-1909 (2016), available in softcover or Kindle editions from Amazon. These early New Thoughters may have been liberal in their Christianity, but Christian they were indeed.
Resuming our introductory study of Root, we find her stressing with all the science in her possession at the time, that the invisible is even more important than the visible:
[W]ith regard to the so-called material things, that it is the invisible mind that corrects and properly informs our sense; next, that of all things in the universe it is the unseen which has power, that moulds and fashions the things which are seen, and that it alone endures forever. (page 38)
She continues to discuss man’s relation to God and creation, stating that humans must throw aside intellectual pride and become, as Jesus taught, as little children, teachable:
Jesus taught this doctrine. He proclaimed that God acted through Him, that God spake through Him and that if we wanted to see God that we could do so in Him, and in ourselves when we thought and believed as He did. . . . He himself tells us, that His power was from God. He never spake of disease as difficult or dangerous. He never employed drugs of any description. In fact, He in all cases implied that the cure from these diseases was not to be found in visible matter, but in invisible mind. . . . Whenever Christ used the word faith, He evidently gave to it a meaning and power that were more potent for good than that possessed by all the other human powers combined. He spoke of faith as a law of God as real in its operation as the law of gravitation or any other law by which this universe is guided and governed. (page 44)
She goes on to discuss what Jesus meant by our being one with God, citing specifically John 10: 30, 17: 11, 17: 21, among many others. Then we are treated to a gem of a chapter on the laws of nature, responding to questioners:
[W]e work in accordance with the laws of God, and not in opposition to them. The only difference between us is, that we call to our aid the laws of invisible mind, not the laws that bind and govern material drugs. There are men calling themselves philosophers, who write very learnedly about the laws of nature—they use technical terms and reason after the most approved scholastic methods of logic—but though they turn their logic mills very artistically, yet they do not grind us out one kernel of nourishing corn. . . . After all the learned treatises that have been written about the laws of nature, what do we know of them, what can we say of them? The only complete definition that we can give of the laws of nature is, that they are the laws which produce the phenomena of nature. We cannot go behind them, and we cannot explain the why or the wherefore of either the laws or the phenomena. (page 48)
She explains nicely in the terms available to her:
We are accustomed to say that the laws of nature act with unerring uniformity. But what do we know of their uniformity? That uniformity may be cut off or abrogated by the intervention of some other law. . . . It is a law of nature that if water is subjected to a certain cold temperature that it will become solid ice, but that law will be rendered inoperative and overcome by the warm rays of the sun. They are both equally the laws of nature, though acting apparently in opposite directions. These examples will serve as illustrations of the fact that there is no such thing as constant uniformity in the operation of any law. Other laws are brought into play that render these laws inoperative. So that we can lay down no laws for nature and say that they are never contravened. All we can do is to observe the operations, record them, and learn wisdom and humility. (pages 49-50)
And it’s nearly another 20 years till heavier-than-air flight!
“Now what do we know of the laws of mind? We answer, almost nothing.” Well, today, we have the benefit of a lot of research in psychology, not to mention the work of Whitehead and his followers. But we still must be “sure that our minds are one with God, so in proportion to our understanding of the laws of mind, and faith in their power, we shall be enabled to overcome all other laws and effect cures. . . . for we hold that in the direction of our work all things are possible with God.”
To be continued.
February 21, 2017
Healing Power of Mind (Julia Anderson Root)
If you have been following this little odyssey for the past few months, you will recall some of the discussions—particularly David Ray Griffin—on the subject of modern metaphysics, concluding by noting that the only constructive postmodern metaphysics is process thought; the rest are all destructive. Oh, they promise to rebuild after they have wrecked things, but somehow they never do. Before postmodern, Griffin took us through early and late modernity, when first God was kicked upstairs to protect him from the sorcerers, and then, when people just couldn’t swallow such supernaturalism, they turned to atheistic materialism in the name of science. If you weren’t a materialistic atheist, you weren’t scientific.
Meanwhile, in a quiet corner of New England, far from the madding crowd, P.P. Quimby was healing people, sometimes in cooperation with the medical doctors; more commonly, just one on one with his patients, disputing with them the idea that they needed to be sick. Since his time, we have learned that the tendency of the subconscious is lifeward, which supports his whole approach. Remove the sick ideas and the body sets to work to heal itself as the Creator designed it to do. A positive mental attitude and a healthful environment (food, water, air, exercise, rest) are also vital. Quimby believed that he had rediscovered the lost healing methods of Jesus.
Quimby’s patients for many years assisted him in attempting to write a book on how he cured and what his underlying philosophy was. Warren Felt Evans, another Quimby patient, is credited with the first book about Quimby’s mind cure method. Evans did cure people, but he slid off into Swedenborgianism, and I don’t know whether he was trying to train others in his methods. In any event, what eventually came to be known as the New Thought movement had its origins with Quimby as a healing movement, healing by the power of thought as differentiated from faith healing (petitionary prayer to God to set his rules aside and intervene for the sick person). Later, people realized that the same principles could heal pocketbooks and relationships as well.
According to Horatio W. Dresser, son of two Quimby patients who met in his offices and later married, one of the earliest authors in the San Francisco area was Julia Anderson Root, whose book (mentioned here a couple of weeks ago) was first published there in 1884. The second edition was prefaced in Peoria, Ill., August 1, 1886. From the Introduction:
[M]ost people allow certain privileged classes to do their thinking for them, and as a consequence we are surrounded by an atmosphere of mental and moral slavery. More particularly is this true of diseases and their remedies. Now, we want the moral courage that will dare to cut aloof from these old medical traditions, and take this matter of health and disease into our own hands. . . .
All the blessings that we enjoy under the names of civil and religious liberty, all the improvements that have taken place in science, have sprung from the small minority of daring and advanced thinkers. It is sad to think how large a number of men do their thinking by proxy, which is the same as saying they do not think at all. . . . It is mind that is everything, and before its powers matter is as nothing. It is this great truth that we shall endeavor to set forth in the following pages. (2nd ed, pages 3-5)
Sadly, things do not appear to have changed much today.
Numerous attempts have been made to reduce principles of healing to psychological principles, leaving out God entirely and marketing the result as American success literature. Sometimes that seems to work—for a while, but then the minute it hits a speed bump, it all comes unglued. Root instead offers us a fresh perspective on God, beginning with Genesis 1: 26, 27:
We must put a reasonable and intelligent construction upon these sentences. Man cannot be made in the image and likeness of God in power and intelligence. The finite cannot be like the infinite. God is not limited in knowledge and goodness, but man is. But man may be like unto God in the essence of his being, because he is a spark of the celestial fire. . . . And though man is in one sense the image and likeness of God yet he is not like God in all things, for He has infinite and eternal powers not possessed by man. Nevertheless, this divine likeness, or, if we may so call it, this divine kinship, should awaken in the breast of every man a conscious grandeur of his divine origin and mission. (pages 18-19)
Root goes on to point out that eyes and ears do not see or hear, but are instruments that convey impressions to the mind:
Look at a human body when the life has departed from it. All the organs are there—the nerves are still in existence, but there is no sensation, and the body, whether you dissect it or burn it, can suffer no pain. And why? Because the invisible power that felt, that saw, heard and performed all the other powers, has departed. . . . [M]atter , in itself, has no intelligence nor feeling, and does not possess even the power of motion. . . . Brain is the organ of the mind. It does not produce mind, but is acted upon by it. The body does not produce life, but is acted upon and vivified by it. . . . [W]e know of no limit that the invisible mind, when used under the powers of science, has over matter. In one sense we may call it all-powerful. (pages 29-30)
Much later, Whitehead would explain that a dead body or a rock, though dead itself, is an aggregate of living experiences. Those experiences are mental in nature. Our Henry (Henry Wood, 1834-1909) makes a similar point to Root’s about dead bodies, which are unaffected by chemicals such as drugs. Root emphasizes the difference between organic and inorganic, which is fine as far as it goes, but we need the later elaboration of Whitehead and his followers, with God present in each occasion of experience as its initial aim and hence, everywhere present.
Root winds up her chapter by citing some of the old research that endeavored to demonstrate that there was no life in matter. She then concludes:
When man possesses spiritual understanding he will instantly perceive that he is distinct from his physical body and the material universe. Man does not derive his strength and glory from his body or brain. “As a plant upon the earth, so a man rests upon the bosom of God. He is nourished by unfailing fountains, and is fed according to his need by inexhaustible powers.” (page 34)
As our Henry later pointed out, “I RULE THE BODY”.
To be continued.
February 14, 2017
Healers and Metaphysics
Before we get started, happy Valentine’s Day! King Hildebrand poked his red-crowned royal head into the ladies’ dressing room on the day of the last performance of Princess Ida to supply us with a huge heart full of assorted delicious caramel and fruit chocolates accompanied by a note explaining that they were from all the gents in the cast. Although men have a take-it-or-leave-it attitude towards chocolate, research (can’t you just picture it?) shows that women invariably go nuts over it. A highly satisfied female contingent trod the boards that day.
With all the rancor in the world lately, it is lovely to be observing a day for celebrating love, to walk into the stores and be greeted by huge varieties of ways to say “I love you” to various special people in our lives.
Returning to the topic of healing, which we began investigating last week, it should be clear to anyone with an interest in philosophy that one’s underlying metaphysical system has a very great deal to do with healing. If you embrace a system of metaphysics that doesn’t allow for healing by one means or another, you are up a creek without a paddle. This would include any system that didn’t accept the existence of thought. To put a floor under this, let’s go back to chapter 2 of Alan’s and my little New Thought primer, to a section written almost entirely by the Philosopher:
Is There a Metaphysician in the House?
The endless rational search for the deepest level of truth is what philosophers call metaphysics. This is one of the most often misidentified or variously labeled birds in the linguistic woods. New Thoughters often refer to New Thought as metaphysics and to themselves as metaphysicians. This is disconcerting to anyone who is educated in philosophy. In that discipline, metaphysics is the branch that deals with the basic nature of all that is. The term goes back to Andronicus of Rhodes, who arranged the writings of Aristotle (382-322 B.C.) A few centuries after Aristotle’s death. Andronicus put the writings that Aristotle called First Philosophy or Theology AFTER the writings on physics, hence META physics : after physics. So the term had a very prosaic original meaning. In the traditional sense, to call someone a metaphysician says that the person is interested in the topic of metaphysics. It does not tell us which beliefs about reality the person selects.
Many people use the term metaphysics to suggest attention exclusively to a realm beyond the physical, but metaphysicians traditionally have sought to understand that realm and the more familiar one by explanations that may or may not go beyond physics. Metaphysicians seek that which could not be otherwise, irrespective of whatever appearances it may take.
If metaphysicians believe that everything in the universe is really matter, they are called materialists. If they believe that everything in the universe is really mind or ideas, they are called idealists. If they believe that mind and matter are equally real, they are called dualists (and a few less complimentary things). . . . [The parenthetical statement was added by the editor.] (New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality, rev. ed. 2003, pages 14-15)
So a study of metaphysics has to include the whole ball of wax: the physical world plus every thing “beyond” it. You should readily see that some sort of idealism is probably going to be the most useful in any sort of spiritual healing effort. Don’t forget to include the cleaned-up version of idealism that is found in process thought: panentheism. It dovetails nicely with the findings of quantum physics and other scientific sources. At the same time, if your metaphysics does not exclude such beings as angels (“God’s messengers”, “beautiful thoughts”), they can help keep your thoughts shepherded onto what you want and off of what you don’t want. They can also be very useful in areas where existing science falls short. Philosopher Mortimer Adler wrote an entire book titled The Angels and Us, in which he argues in great and glorious detail why it is perfectly philosophically sound to postulate the existence of such orders of being as angels, who have a long and extensive history in numerous religions. But then he ends up by saying that he just doesn’t happen to believe in them himself. Talk about beating your head against the wall! The fact that no angel was ever recorded as giving him some sort of richly deserved zap would seem to support the ideas that angels do not intervene unless asked and are totally supportive of human struggles, however short of the mark they may fall.
I don’t propose to get into any detailed discussion of the three main metaphysical positions listed above, because we have already done that over and over, but if you are interested, go back and read New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality again. What I do propose is to have a look at the head-led approaches of various New Thought and other healers, because if you do indeed “change your thinking”, you can change your life to a much healthier one, or help your fellow creatures along the path.
February 7, 2017
New Thought and Healing
The New Thought movement, which did not acquire that name until 1895, began as a system of healing variously referred to as mental healing, mind-cure, or metaphysical science, with a taproot running back to Jesus of Nazareth and even earlier. Julia Anderson Root, who as a little girl knew Quimby, observes:
In all ages of the world there have been persons who have cured diseases that learned medical practitioners have pronounced incurable. These cases have been effected by the power of mind, and we are confident, from our own experience, that the more this invisible agent is brought to bear upon the human system, the less sickness and suffering we shall have in the world. . . . It is sad to see the lives of so many of God’s children embittered by disease when the remedy lies in their own hands. (Healing Power of Mind, 2nd ed, 1886, pages v-vi).
Beyond question, the “father” of New Thought (for he was not a minister and did not seek to found a church), was Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802-1866), who only sought to heal as many people as possible by the method that he had stumbled onto through his own keen interest in such science as was available then, combined with his own discoveries. The practice of medicine at the time left a great deal to be desired; as the Philosopher and I noted:
In order to understand Quimby’s interest in mesmerism, we must note that this was the Age of Heroic Medicine, of leeches and lancing, of calomel and belladonna, of doctors who probably killed more than they cured. In desperation, people would turn anywhere in search of help. After he became involved in healing, Quimby remarked that people “send for me and the undertaker at the same time; and the one who gets there first gets the case.” Then too, this was an age extraordinarily interested in this relatively new and fascinating thing called science. (New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality, 2nd ed, pages 26-27).
Sadly, things aren’t a great deal better today. Yes, there have been some great strides made in science, leading to the prevention of many diseases through better sanitation, having doctors wash their hands between patients, greater knowledge about proper nutrition, and greater access to fresh air and sunshine. But as Oliver Wendell Holmes, M.D. observed, “If all the drugs were cast to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for mankind and all the worse for the fishes.” And French surgeon Ambroise Paré commented, “Je le pansai, Dieu le guérit” (I bandaged him and God healed him). All too often, medical arrogance instead of this sort of humility costs lives. Also, people stuff themselves with assorted very harmful junk foods, being reassured by vested interests in food and agriculture that they are fine. Individually, we are the experts on our own bodies and need to pay attention to what those bodies are telling us, as well as keeping up with the knowledge that comes from alternative medicine, coupled with conventional medicine where appropriate. But doctors and drugs should be a last resort, not a first. Andrew Weil, a Harvard-trained M.D., famously stated that subtle manifestations of illness precede gross ones, at a point when they can be nipped in the bud. All too often, we ignore these subtle warnings and press on in the face of assorted stresses. Wisdom, according to New Thought minister and author Emmet Fox, is a blend of love and intelligence. Information—raw data—only becomes wisdom when it is duly processed.
In the absence of the proper positive frame of mind, none of the above is of much use. New Thought is “the religion of healthy-mindedness”, according to William James. Mainly, healthy-mindedness involves the belief that healing can and will happen. Jesus said in several ways, “Thy faith hath made thee whole”. By faith, he obviously meant not believing that it couldn’t be done, rather than whether you believe in the Great Pumpkin or the Tooth Fairy. He spoke of little faith, which means part-time faith, rather like a lamp with a loose wire. New Thought teaching helps us listen for the still, small voice, opening a channel through which God can reach us. Alan liked to remind us, “What God can do, God is already doing.” Opening that channel might mean anything from encountering the person with the wisdom to help us, reading an article with useful information, meditation of some sort, and/or fresh air and sunshine, coupled with relaxation. New Thought (Science of Mind) founder Ernest Holmes liked to say, “Change your thinking, change your life.” The prayers of others, particularly when we are too sick in mind or body to pray for ourselves, “availeth much”. Prayers of thanksgiving for healing that we know is on the way, or affirmative prayers rather than petition (“Pleeeease”!), are helpful. Process thought teaches that God is the great exemplar rather than the great exception; he doesn’t only grant prayers when enough people plead hard enough, like the Parable of the Unjust Judge. There is a ton of New Thought literature available to help us get to the proper frame of mind, and among the earliest is the work of our Henry (Henry Wood, 1834-1909). In the next few weeks, I will be exploring some other authors; meanwhile, there is my new book about the thought of our Henry, Sunny Apartments, available in softcover and Kindle editions through Amazon by clicking on the links.
Next week: What metaphysics has to do with health and healing.
January 31, 2017
A Practical American Spirituality
When Mike Leach, the then-publisher of The Crossroad Publishing Company, asked the Philosopher and me to write a New Thought primer, we were thrilled! Mike, a staunch Roman Catholic, had had a New Thought grandmother and was hence far more familiar with New Thought than most. He was also familiar with Alan’s impeccable academic credentials in philosophy and religion. My function was to prevent the whole project from vanishing into the clouds, keeping it down to earth for the general public while maintaining respectable academic standards.
We immediately set to work, outlining the chapters to be included and dividing them between us, each of us drafting half of them, then trading off for editing. When the book first appeared, our friends amused themselves by trying to figure out who had written what. It took two cracks at it to come up with the “Something New in New Thought” chapter about process thought in a form that Mike could follow, but we did it!
The first (Crossroad) edition featured a blue-skies dust jacket with a lovely picture of a Roman Catholic church. The blue skies were to reassure New Thoughters that this was indeed a book about what philosopher/psychologist William James called “the religion of healthy-mindedness”; the church was to reassure Roman Catholics that their distinguished publisher had not lost his mind! There aren’t just hordes of New Thought Roman Catholics, but there are some out there, mostly keeping a low profile. I like to remind people that Unity minister Dell DeChant, who also happens to be a professor of philosophy and religion at USF, recommends the Catholic Personal Study Edition of the Fireside New American Bible for New Thoughters. I like to go back and forth between it and my battered old KJV. More ministers from traditional religions are influenced by New Thought than you might imagine, especially by such publications as Unity’s Daily Word when they are hard up for sermon topics! If you recall the definition of New Thought that I cobbled together: habitual God-aligned mental self-discipline, it starts to make sense that this could be “leaven for the loaf” of traditional Christianity.
Alan drafted the Preface, and I think he wrote it last. It is virtually unchanged in the revised edition except that we are in a new century/millennium. It continues to amaze me how many people attending New Thought churches have never heard of New Thought, which title the movement has had since 1895. Here are some excerpts:
This is a book about a distinctive, yet typically American, outlook—a practical yet spiritual way of life. It is written for people who know little or nothing about New Thought and for those who have been in New Thought for years without finding out much about what it is or its relationship to the larger spheres of religion and philosophy.
The book is intended to be both informative and inspirational, but inspirational in a way that is directly useful in the workaday world—useful with regard both to understanding and to application. Most New Thought books, largely self-help books, make no use of the term New Thought and ignore a comprehensive perspective in which New Thought is most fully understood. This book places New Thought and its applications in a philosophical and historical background.
Probably most Americans, if not most people in the world, accept large parts of New Thought teachings, although they may never have heard of New Thought by name. People may make such remarks as “It’s all in your mind” or “If you believe you can, you can” (or its negative form, “If you believe you can’t, you’re right”), or even sing a bit of an old song that advises, “You’ve got to ac-centuate the positive, e-liminate the negative,” without realizing that they are echoing teachings associated with New Thought. Many have heard of positive thinking or even have read the book The Power of Positive Thinking by the late Norman Vincent Peale, or listened to or read Robert Schuller on possibility thinking; all without knowing that they are absorbing New Thought a step or two away from the direct expressions.
New Thought is a do-it-yourself religion or spirituality, in the sense that you have to remake your own beliefs/attitudes/expectations, to take responsibility for where you are now if you are to be able to get to where you want to be in the future. But to say do-it-yourself is not to say do-it-by-yourself. The prime belief of New Thought is that God is here and is directly available for anyone who chooses to co-create constructively with him. So New Thought is really an allow-God-to-do-it-with-you spirituality. . . . New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality (rev. ed. 2003), pages xi-xii.
The taproot of New Thought is unquestionably Judeo-Christian. Its teachings are Biblically supported. All but one of the founders of its major denominations were Christians. Many people, especially in New Age, have attempted to secularize its principles and set them forth as some sort of secret success teachings. That may work temporarily here and there, but it omits the basis of good character; and without the vital co-creation of Ultimate Actuality, a. k. a. God, what is to keep one going during the inevitable rough patches?
If you are new to New Thought and puzzled by its origins, its twists and turns, I invite you to try our little primer, available from Amazon in softcover and Kindle editions. New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality
January 24, 2017
Is God Like Mathematics?
Two weeks ago, the Sunday Quimby quote was titled “Foundation of Religious Belief”, which begins on page 283 of your handy dandy Phineas Parkhurst Quimby: His Complete Writings and Beyond. What? You don’t have a handy dandy copy? You can get one from here, or sign up for the free daily dose of Quimby wisdom at http://www.ppquimby.com/contact/quotes.htm. Anyway, the excerpt for that day concerned beliefs, which of themselves cannot heal you no matter how strong or orthodox they may be. Quimby states:
Why does not your God cure you? Is it for want of faith on your part? If that is the case, then faith is the cure, so if you have the cure that is your faith. Faith is not wisdom but the substance or cure. Like water to the thirsty soul, it is his cure, but wisdom leads him to the fount of living water so that he will not thirst. Then his faith will be lost in sight for his wisdom prevents his thirst. Therefore to know God is to get wisdom, but to be separated from God is to be religious and believe that there is a fountain of water large enough to quench the thirst of everyone if they can find it. This is religion. But to the wise, it is to know this fountain is in yourself, a well of water springing up into everlasting wisdom. Then you will ask of this wisdom, and just as you understand, you will receive and your wisdom will teach you that you cannot ask of wisdom by your belief and have your prayers answered. God is like mathematics, for mathematics is wisdom put into practice or reduced to man’s comprehension. To receive an intelligent answer in mathematics, you must ask in wisdom, not in opinion, and just according to your wisdom, the answer comes. (page 284)
You may have to read this over several times before you really comprehend it; nobody ever said that Quimby was easy going! He himself said that his explanations would make sense only to the sick, for the well did not need a physician (words of Jesus, Mark 2:17, Luke 5:31, Matt 9:12). Quimby’s writings are larded with quotations from Scripture, almost never with citations (I looked these up for you; you’re welcome, but for now on you will have to spot them on your own and chase them down). In the passage just quoted above, you may recognize the scene between Jesus and the woman at the well recounted in the fourth chapter of John’s gospel. The woman at first doesn’t understand that Jesus is not speaking of literal water but of water that “shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life”. Quimby, like any other author, has the right to supply his own definitions, provided he is internally consistent in them; but it causes his readers to backtrack repeatedly until they understand what he is agreeing with or disagreeing with.
But he is telling us that beliefs aren’t worth a tinker’s curse! So why is he seeming to give us definitions, presumably to be installed as beliefs? He is trying to help us break free of nineteen (now twenty) centuries of old beliefs that are downright harmful so much of the time. So was Jesus, while at the same time trying to retain what was good in Judaism. We just went over a lot of that towards the end of last year in the series of columns on David Griffin’s book God and Religion in the Postmodern World (1989). Griffin was explaining about the two halves of modernity and how the extreme beliefs of the first half led to the even worse beliefs of the second half. Quimby liked to refer to God as Wisdom, an impersonal abstraction. He is not saying that we have to do likewise, just giving us a fresh perspective. To believe in a personal God used to automatically involve a bunch of anthropomorphic ideas that interfered with our spiritual growth. The Philosopher and I have repeatedly raised the notion that personal is a floor, not a ceiling, that personhood is the highest thing that we humans have any notion of, and so God as Creator must be at least that. But personal and impersonal are beliefs, which in and of themselves aren’t going to get us anywhere. If contemplating them leads us to be more open to understanding how to contact that living water, that is growth in wisdom. Emmet Fox liked to define wisdom as a blend of love and intelligence. Intelligence—raw data—won’t get you very far, except possibly into trouble. The point is that it doesn’t really matter whether you believe xyz or pqr, as long as you are open minded and don’t believe that what you desire can’t happen. Remember the healing of the centurion’s servant.
Process thought will give you a place to stand while contemplating the universe with religion and science united, for it insists on a God inside of us humans, not in outer space somewhere. That’s where we get the term pan-en-theism. We are en theos.
Later in this selection, Quimby states:
All wisdom is outside of man’s opinion and belief and that which does not come to his senses is to him a mystery. So the mystery is his God. To know the mystery is to know God, and when the mystery is understood, the religion vanishes. One great trouble comes from teaching us to believe in a overruling providence in the shape of a God who will answer our desires without our making any effort. It makes man indolent and superstitious and a burden on society. (page 285)
If you take religion to be the set of beliefs, attitudes, and actions concerning Ultimate Reality and remember that atheism is a religion that has no Ultimate Reality or worships the laws of physical science, this all starts to shake down. Meanwhile, God goes right on being God.
January 17, 2017
New Thought, New Shoots
January is named for the Roman god of the doorway, Janus, who is traditionally pictured with two faces: one facing forward, one backward. It well behooves us to honor this ancient god by looking back to our roots and forward to our shoots as the new year begins, which we have been doing for three weeks now. We look back to our roots to determine what we have been doing right, that has worked out well and that we should be continuing. We also look back at what has not worked, or not worked as well as we might have liked, so that we can jettison it and make a new start. Here is the appropriate time to carefully entertain new ideas, not in order to junk all and start over, but to sort out what to keep and what to lose, then freshen the keepers with new ideas. Reminder: all novelty comes from God, our Creator, who offers us perfect possibilities for the start of each new forming occasion of experience. It is up to us what from the past to keep and what to discard.
Religious Science churches—which may have assorted other names today, but owe their New Thought origin to Ernest Holmes—traditionally devoted the first few weeks of the new year to reviewing the Science of Mind textbook. Alan came from a Religious Science background and had a hand in founding one or two Religious Science churches, at one of which both he and I were frequently invited to speak, so I have had a crack at digging out roots and encouraging shoots. Unity and Divine Science, the other two historic divisions of New Thought, had their own ways of accomplishing the same end. Holmes was very outspoken about his respect for P. P. Quimby, and the Fillmores acknowledged that heritage as well, as clearly recounted by Neal Vahle in Appendix Two to his biography of Myrtle Fillmore, Torch-Bearer to Light the Way. The admirable Emma Curtis Hopkins can be looked to as the founder of New Thought as a sociological movement, but without P.P. Quimby, there would have been no Emma Curtis Hopkins, so don’t get the cart before the horse. Two New Thought scholars, brought together in what had been billed as a giant rumble, irenically agreed on this point: one was my household Philosopher; the other was religious studies scholar and Hopkins expert Gail Harley. However you may have gotten into New Thought, you need to investigate its roots (one simple primer is our New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality, rev. ed. 2003, available from Amazon in softcover or Kindle editions). Now, let’s look at some shoots.
The biggest single shoot is, of course, process philosophy, to replace and update previous metaphysical teachings. Atheistic materialism is passé; even though it still dominates our culture, stalking around like a zombie. Idealism needs an overhaul to correct it, which is what it gets in process philosophy. Pantheism, which has been widespread in New Thought, gets updated to panentheism by synergizing traditional theism with pantheism, the two being mutually corrective. Physics, “the king of sciences”, has turned into quantum physics, paving the way for Whitehead and his followers. People with their heads firmly screwed on figured out long ago that other views would have to change to accommodate these new understandings. We vary greatly in our ability to comprehend and pursue some of these ideas, but we need to go far enough to reassure ourselves that religion and science can indeed be united on solid ground: they meet on the lap of philosophy, specifically, process philosophy.
Another big bunch of new shoots comes from psychology, which always has a way of overlapping religion. I keep up with recent findings by reading Dr. Joseph Mercola’s daily column, available for free from his web site, www.mercola.com, the largest alternative wellness site. Research continues to pile up concerning the power of thought to affect the entire course of one’s life, from health to wealth to happiness. People who should get well don’t, and people who had been given up on recover, mostly because of the nature of their habitual thinking. Near-miracles happen in all areas of life when one continues to focus on one’s heart’s desire, always leaving God some wiggle room, of course. One’s metaphysical position, even if not identified as such, has a lot to do with this. If you believe you can, or if you believe you can’t, you’re right! If you can find a book or a teacher who keeps you optimistic and upbeat, stay with him/her/it. But your beliefs must lead to habitual actions, most probably different from the ones you have had in the past (well, yes; you have to persevere, too). New Thought has always worked to justify belief in a good God, an abundant universe, and a set of moral guidelines seen as coming from that good God. Half of us lead with our intellects in substantiating such beliefs; the other half lead with our emotions, our feelings. Sooner or later, we will need both.
The latest upbeat habit I have heard about came yesterday from Joel Osteen’s Sunday morning tv talk. He has a mechanical button on the desk at which he writes his weekly talks, which were very difficult for him to write when he first took over from his late father. He somewhere acquired this button, which when pressed, audibly states, “That was easy!” He pressed it after completing each talk, and somehow, it sank in. Slowly but surely, writing his talks became easier. You might want to precede it by asking the question I picked up from somewhere else: “How easy, how simple, how absolutely delightful could I make this task?” You don’t really need the button if you can just acquire the habit of saying, “That was easy!” for yourself. With this approach, you might actually keep some of your new year’s resolutions!
January 10, 2017
New Thought, Old Roots
Last week, we took a brief look at the immediate roots of New Thought in the life’s work of P.P. Quimby. Depending on where you are coming from, you can go back and take a look at Universalism, or the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Any way, you will be confronted with the healing miracles of Jesus. One of the rotten old roots attempts to say that “that was then and this is now”, but that is not what Jesus said. He said, “Greater works than these shall ye do.” On top of that, he not only healed the sick; he raised the dead, and then God raised him! And God does not renege on his promises. Religious-type people who like to jerk other people around hastened to find ways to sweep all this under the rug. Even if they considered themselves faithful Christians, they mumbled things about special dispensation or some such to explain why they couldn’t do what Jesus said they would be able to do. But even Jesus couldn’t do many miracles where there was no belief on the part of the recipients to support them (Mark 6: 4-6).
Another root is the developments of early and late modernity as traced by David Ray Griffin in the series last year from 10/18-12/6. Early modernity stressed supernaturalism: it kicked God upstairs to keep him safe from the intrusions of the magicians and occultists. This pushed things to such an extreme that it was no trick for late modernity to demolish the whole shebang as unnecessary in a world of science. Much as we abhor this, we seem to be stuck with it at the moment: supernaturalism did itself in, and atheistic materialism has infested our entire culture.
But not so fast: postmodern philosophy—what’s left of philosophy being mostly deconstructive and falling on its own sword—stubbornly has to include the one constructive postmodern philosophy: process thought. I like to compare New Thought principles to a magnificent old mansion resting on rotten foundation timbers (ok, underneath them is the rock). All that is necessary is to jack the old house up and substitute sound timbers in order to restore New Thought to the life-changing promise that it inherited from Jesus. Don’t be silly; of course you can’t turn Jesus into a process philosopher, but process thought is foreshadowed in all sorts of places, from Heraclitus (“You can’t step into the same river twice”) on down. God knows what he’s doing! And don’t forget that Jesus was a good Jew, and all Christians are first of all Jews, even though most of them don’t realize it. That is a very long and distinguished history, even though it is pockmarked with assorted ways of falling off the path, since it always involved human beings.
So one of our biggest present-day tasks is to go back, prune away the rotten roots of New Thought, and water the good roots that have been allowed to wither under the influence of the Zeitgeist. What good roots? The biggest of all is the example of our Wayshower: “Greater things than these shall ye do”. The second biggest is the character ethic. Chapter 7 of New Thought: A Practical American Spirituality (rev. ed. 2003) deals with it at length as part of a discussion of New Thought critics, particularly Richard Huber, who studied American success literature from Benjamin Franklin on down. In that chapter, Alan and I remarked, “Success literature after Franklin and his early nineteenth-century successors is almost entirely based on New Thought principles, whether or not they are identified as such. Huber’s criticism, therefore, is implicitly of New Thought . . . .” He pointed out the absence of the character ethic from the literature of the past fifty years or so. We commented:
Huber points out that writers such as Dale Carnegie (How to Win Friends and Influence People) concentrated on what he calls the personality ethic, making oneself pleasing and influential to others. Character, on the other hand, involves qualities such as integrity, fairness, loyalty, honesty, perseverance, and service to others. . . .
Despite Huber’s numerous cheap shots, his basic premise is valid: there is a noticeable lack of emphasis on developing good character, not just in much of our current success literature, but in our society as a whole. Public schools are forbidden to teach such character builders as the Ten Commandments, children are taught to esteem themselves complacently even when they are behaving irresponsibly and incompetently, and the discipline of spirituality is never discussed. (pages 167-168)
And it hasn’t gotten a bit better in the past 13 years! But, we continued: “Happily, another writer has made a study of the success literature and noted the absence of emphasis on the character ethic. Unlike Huber, he offers a simple remedy: Put it back.” He is Stephen Covey, author of the immortal best seller, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic. Our book—in softcover and Kindle editions—is available from Amazon, as is Covey’s. Covey, a business management professor for many years, stressed that you can’t divide your life into watertight compartments, separating your family life from your work life; sooner or later, difficulties in one spill over into the other. To get it all together on a good-character base allows you to grow spiritually and re-energizes you. In our book, we noted:
The founders of New Thought all postulated good character; they simply took it for granted. The 1903 Constitution of the New Thought Federation (a forerunner of the International New Thought Alliance) included the phrase “health, happiness, and character.” . . . . References to the importance of the character ethic are frequently found in New Thought literature. But the writers didn’t dwell on character or single it out for special attention. The emphasis in New Thought has been on the freedom that it offers those who have felt oppressed by some traditional religions and on undoing some of the damage that negative, limited thinking has done in people’s lives. In the process of showing pity to victims, it may at times have neglected to emphasize the importance of strong character as the principal means of taking control of one’s life and ending victimhood once and for all. The discipline required to make New Thought work is an aspect of character. Certainly, mystical alignment with God must constitute the supreme aspect of high character. (pages 168-169)
January 3, 2017
New Thought, New Start
Everybody loves the idea of a fresh start, the idea that the old slate can be wiped clean of errors and we can hit the reset button. At the same time, we rely heavily on past learnings and past successes; we really don’t want to have to reinvent the wheel. Can we have our cake and eat it too? Absolutely! We just have to be willing to go into an empty space where we can sort things out, deciding what to let go of and what to keep. Easier said than done, yes, but so well worth doing now and then.
“There’s nothing new in New Thought.” Yes, and no: New Thought is a new perspective on the millennia-old Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible captures the history of humankind’s struggle to understand God. God is this; no; he’s that; and all the time, God goes right on being God. Most of us are quite familiar with many of the atrocities perpetrated in the name of religion, many of them in direct opposition to what was supposedly being taught; in this case, love God with all your heart and soul and mind, and your neighbor as yourself. The background changes, especially once we reach modernity and then—God help us—postmodernity. Once technology gets going, everything speeds up except our ability to think it all through and sort it out. We are all too willing to follow the latest attractive fad or the latest attractive leader who seems to have all the answers, and forget all that we learned from our mistakes and the mistakes of other humans, which is why it is vital that we all study history. Or we just sweep it all under the rug and pretend that we don’t make mistakes, which is the biggest mistake of all.
The founders of the United States of America were either themselves—or the children of—people who were seeking first for religious freedom, freedom to worship as they pleased. They were mostly Christians of various stripes, with a sprinkling of Jews. But no matter what their individual beliefs, they all united under an approach to government derived from Judeo-Christian principles. They had enormous disagreements along the way, but they synergized it all into a set of checks and balances that protected the whole, never forgetting that the individual states’ rights must be preserved at the same time that there must be sufficient central government to accomplish the relatively few but important things that states could not do for themselves separately. Yes, things came up that the founders could not have foreseen, but the overall system for handling them was in place. And they left detailed accounts (the Federalist Papers) of what they meant by what was compiled into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments, which were necessary to answer certain concerns of the individual states before they were willing to ratify the Constitution). The Constitution in turn had been crafted out of the Declaration of Independence. It included the means of amending it as needed, but only with considerable difficulty, so that people would think long and hard before they altered it. The founders had pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to this new nation, and they made good on that pledge, if you read their histories. Has this nation made its share of mistakes? Unquestionably, and at the same time, it has arguably done more good for the planet and its people than any other nation in the history of the world.
Into this climate of freedom such as the world had never known before came New Thought, a philosophico-religious movement springing up in mid-nineteenth-century New England. Its father—for he did not seek to found a religion—was Phineas Parkhurst Quimby, a man of average education for the time, with a bright mind inclined toward science. He was a clockmaker and repairer by trade, who held several patents. He was a charter member of the local Universalist church. He became interested in healing, for himself and others, and quickly concluded that people were being harmed by the beliefs they picked up from those he labeled “priests and doctors”. Bottom line: people’s beliefs were making them sick, and “my explanation is the cure”. He constantly quoted the Bible and was very familiar with it. At this point in time, people were just beginning to learn about environmental things that were harmful and could be corrected; well and good. But the main difference we are seeing is that Quimby was an idealist: he believed that the basic building blocks of the universe are thoughts/ideas, and that “material stuff” was the result, denser and much harder to change than the original thought. We have traced the history of these developments in the past year in these columns. Quimby saw what later became known as New Thought as leaven for the loaf of existing churches much more than as a new denomination. Today we have both; take your pick.
A hundred years later came what is known as New Age, which is generally dated to the time people took their clothes off on stage in a performance known as Hair. New Age, according to its own experts, is a hodgepodge of ideas and activities, some of which overlap New Thought, most of which do not. At the turn of this century, many New Thoughters including yours truly expected New Thought to dominate as being based on a more solid and consistent set of values. Sadly, that has not happened, at least not yet. New Age cannot be said to be “bad”; for one thing, it is so convoluted that it is hard to identify one thing as good or bad. But it does not warrant your faith and allegiance, and it definitely should not be confused with New Thought! Youthful curiosity is a good thing, but youths must eventually grow up. Dilettantes we don’t need more of.
Backing up a bit, this country was founded on a burning desire for religious freedom, but there are many people who want to force others into their religious straitjackets. Religion by definition is “a set of beliefs, attitudes, and actions concerning Ultimate Reality”. Most of us would spell Ultimate Reality G-O-D, but atheism is also a religion, which holds that there is no Ultimate Reality. Scientism is a religion whose tenets are the laws of the physical universe. Many proponents of those two religions are trying to cram them down everybody else’s throats and in some cases to prevent others from the free expression of their religions. Whatever may be the truth about Islam as a religion, there are Islamofascists who seek to inflict their beliefs on everyone else and barbarically punish those who do not believe as they do. The founders could not have disagreed more: multifaith services were held in the Capitol in Washington, DC from Day One of its existence. Small towns frequently arranged multifaith services or rotating use of public space for different religious observances. Thomas Jefferson was particularly associated with such practices.
Moving forward again, New Thought quickly expanded from its beginnings as a practice for healing bodies to a means of healing pocketbooks and relationships as well. The principles are the same; it all begins in mind, as Jesus and his spiritual forefathers had taught. At the same time or shortly thereafter, advances in science brought us quantum physics and other breakthroughs. Pioneers in uniting those new findings with philosophy and with spiritual development were Alfred North Whitehead and his colleague, Charles Hartshorne. Summarized under the name of process-relational thought, this philosophy in harmony with science provides a far more adequate basis for building a religion than any heretofore. My household Philosopher, C. Alan Anderson, Ph.D., who was an ordained New Thought minister as well as a professor of philosophy and religion, spent most of his professional life endeavoring to illustrate the great synergy possible by uniting New Thought and process thought. If Process New Thought Philosophy seems like too much of a mouthful to you, perhaps you would prefer Alan and Deb’s Pretty Good Religion, with apologies to Garrison Keillor! If you are happy with your present religion, it can serve as leaven for the loaf. If you are looking for a new religion, be our guest: it is as close to a do-it-yourself religion as you are probably going to get.
So for a bright and promising 2017, let’s come up with an appropriate blend of roots and shoots, old and new, looking back to the past and forward to the future. The essence of process thought, the creativity formula, as Alan liked to say, is PAST + DIVINE OFFER + CHOICE = CO-CREATION. It is neither heedless nor hidebound. God offers perfect possibilities tailor-made for each moment; the choice is ours. All creation is co-creation between God and us. We don’t throw the baby out with the bath water, nor do we continue to soak in a dirty tub. A steady stream of clean water eventually purifies even a miry cistern.
For more information about early New Thought, see my new book, Sunny Apartments: The Thought of Henry Wood (1834-1909). Available in softcover and Kindle editions through Amazon by clicking on the links.