New Thought and the Will to Power

One of the first things I noticed when I began investigating New Thought spiritual communities was the connection with a full spectrum of philosophy and religion. One teacher expressed it as incorporating the common thread through the history of theology and philosophy across all major World Religions. I have encountered this connection time and time again as I consume ideas from different philosophers and theologians ranging from Plato to Buber. There always seems to be that common essence of truth no matter what the style or perspective of the writer.

Some recent study in Existentialism has given me more exposure to Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche. I did not expect to find a connection there, as I was just curious about Existentialism, but as usual profound ideas seem to connect back to some representation in New Thought.

Nietzsche's Will to Power is something I misunderstood until looking closer. I was a typical human in that I heard bits and snatches of the idea and formed a superficial opinion. I thought it had to do with a misguided theory about how the ultimate goal of humanity or at least the most laudable goal was to rule the world.

Actually it goes something like this. The Will to Power is really a Will to Self Esteem or Self Expression. It is a positive earlier expression of self actualization, which was developed more fully in the 20th century by psychologists such as Maslow. It corresponds to Nietzsche's concept of Master Morality vs. Slave Morality.

Master Morality is the positive expression of who we are that is expansive, confident, magnanimous and teleological. Slave Morality is a shrinking, limited, negative self concept that runs on reactions to "they" who are in power. Master Morality, or the Will to Power, is the spontaneous, natural expression of who we are meant to be as a self-actualizing individual human being.

This expression is a secular expression of similar New Thought concepts that encourage us to connect with the inner Christ (or Buddha, or Brahman, or pick your favorite language) to guide the true expression of individuality in a prosperous, altruistic and self-actualizing manner.

Existentialism and New Thought

Existentialism is similar to New Thought in a few ways. Both emphasize individual passion as a path to true existence, or being. Exercising passion by becoming the person you are creates self-realization, or self actualization. Becoming who you are is important to both.

Becoming the person you are refers to the reality that we have a general fate through our character. We are born with a proto-character that is the foundation for the self-realization that has occurred so far. Our basic genetic character along with decisions that have been made from within that perspective during our lives has produced our "fate" so far.

To some degree we cannot completely escape our fate, since, we cannot act radically different from our basic disposition or personality type. But we do have control over the "style" we create within our overall personality context.

Existentialism is a secular expression of this idea. New Thought is a theistic version. New Thought proposes a relative world beyond the physical, absolute world. We can connect with this presence in our consciousness through regular prayer, silence and meditation. Connecting with the Spirit ensures the expression of the Christ/Buddha/Atman/Brahman within depending on your language/conceptual/traditional preference.

Existentialism supports a virtue ethics that is consistent with Aristotle's ethical system. Nietzsche refers to a Master/Slave dichotomy of ethics, where the Master ethics a self-actualizing virtue system and the Slave system is more constricted, reactionary and limiting. New Thought is similar in that it moves away from limiting language and traditional scriptural interpretations toward a more self-realizing, positive and this-worldly responsibility as opposed to some historical theological perspectives.

Unitarian Universalism compared to New Thought

I've finally had some time to explore the Unitarian church. I was curious about the difference between Unitarian and New Thought churches such as Unity and Religious Science. Since about March of this year, I have been exploring these three denominations to see if I can find a church I can tolerate for more than a few visits. New Thought and Unitarian Universalist brands definitely have a chance. I believe I know enough now to characterize the differences from my perspective.

I'll try to be succinct, as there is plenty of information elsewhere that compares these two approaches. Here are some ways they are the similar:

1. Both accept all religions as valid paths to the truth
2. Both believe in the quest for individual spiritual truth
3. Both support free thought
4. Both are tolerant of all races and sexual orientations
5. Both are metaphysically robust
6. Both share some overlap of thinkers in the 19th century (e.g. Emerson)

Here are some ways they are different:

1. Unitarians encourage no particular form of theistic belief - New Thought has a somewhat specific theistic concept
2. Unitarians draw from all theological, philosophical and other sources equally - New Thought emphasizes Christianity and the New Thought tradition while accepting and drawing from other sources as well
3. In particular, Religious Science draws from the Gospels, Eastern Religion, Ernest Holmes and Emerson somewhat equally while Unity tends to give a metaphysical interpretation of Christianity more emphasis
4. Unitarians have a more traditional form of worship service, drawing from many traditional hymns and using lots of classical music during worship services - New Thought is more contemporary with music
5. New Thought emphasizes meditation and affirmative prayer more than Unitarians
6. Unitarians are more intellectual, where Unity is more emotional
7. Unitarians appear to be somewhat equally represented by both genders - Unity/Religious Science appears to skew toward females
8. Unitarians are more intellectually broad in their sources - New Thought writing seems to have a more specific conceptual mentality

That's just a few. I wanted to get these down while I was thinking about them. My experiences recently in some of the discussion groups at the First Unitarian Church of Dallas have been extremely intellectually stimulating and thought-provoking.

History of Unity

As I have mentioned before in this blog, I have been exploring New Thought quite a bit over the last several months in particular. Lately I have been focusing on the Unity part of that movement that also includes Religious Science (Science of Mind) and Divine Science. I was fortunate several evenings ago to hear a presentation of the history of the Unity movement in particular.

The roots of Unity extend most recently back into the New Thought movements of the 19th century. Unity was eventually created out of the life and writings of Charles and Myrtle Fillmore. One strand of that line of thought comes from the background of Christian Science through Emma Curtis Hopkins and Mary Baker Eddy. Another strand comes from the American Transcendentalist philosophers including Emerson and Thoreau. A third strand comes out of a more Gnostic or "secret" strand of thought.

Unity itself is enclosed in the larger New Thought container. New Thought includes Unity as well as Religious Science and Divine Science. Religious Science (originally Science of Mind) was founded and inspired primarily by the writings of Ernest Holmes, who was a very active metaphysical writer and teacher in the early 20th century. The metaphysical underpinnings of New Thought go back to Hinduism through Plato, Neo-Platonism and many other steps up through the 19th century philosophies mentioned above.

All New Thought supports all paths to spirituality and accepts all religious orientations. I don't know much about Divine Science, but I can compare Religious Science to Unity to some degree. Where Religious Science appears to be more focused on the metaphysical, Unity includes that focus but also includes a relatively strong component of spiritual and physical healing, perhaps due to the influence of Christian Science. Unity also provides a clear articulation of Five Principles in order to give some abstract support to a common body of belief. These are not dogmatic commandments, but instead have much more breathing room for incorporation into a variety of lifestyles and situations.

Church Comparisons

Over the last year or so, off and on, I have been considering getting involved in a church again. I spent many years being more and less active in a Methodist church while my children were growing up. During that time my theological and philosophical beliefs and understanding underwent massive changes.

At the start of that period that began in my late twenties and ended in my late forties, I had not done much introspective or external research into what I actually believed. My beliefs were a muddled mix of what I had "learned" growing up in a rural Baptist church and other random secular tidbits of ideas from social science classes in college.

By the end of that time, I had read widely in areas that included philosophy, psychology, theology, science as well as pursued a couple of graduate degrees in Computer Science and Philosophy. I had also undergone 20+ years of life experience that included a first marriage, a long career in software development and raising two daughters. Given that, if my spiritual maturity and philosophical concepts had not changed, something would not have been working in my mind.

After settling into a comfortable agnosticism for many years, a couple of years ago I became newly interested in a spiritual conception based on metaphysics. This led me to the study and light participation in Religious Science. The catalyst for spending serious introspective time going down this path was the book, I and Thou, by Martin Buber. Following this I became aware of Science of Mind magazine and began reading books about Religious Science, New Thought and the writing of Ernest Holmes.

While all this may be well and good, finding a church that supports this line of thought that also supports a non-corny church experience has been challenging. More on that in a minute.

Today I tried going back to a Methodist church because I missed some aspects of a more traditional church experience such as singing traditional hymns, a good choir etc. Unfortunately, after being separated from a traditional protestant church for a few years, the separatist and dualistic theology that is woven into the languaging is more off-putting than before. It will be almost impossible for me to return to a church that has deep traditional and historical roots, even though I do enjoy singing the traditional hymns and I found the people very nice as usual.

So, it should be easy to go back to one of the New Thought churches (or spiritual centers as some like to be called), right? The first problem is that the one I like the best, a Religious Science variant, is about 12 miles north of where I live. The music is great, the theology is rich and the sermons are good. The people are awesome as well and there are a plethora of classes and outreach programs in which to participate.

The other two are Unity churches, a somewhat minor variant from Religious Science, perhaps a bit more directly rooted in Christianity. One is a medium sized church where the music is good, sermons are thought provoking and also includes many classes and opportunities. Another is a very small church, very close to my home with more limited class offerings, but is a good place to be if I want to participate in helping to build the church.

The downside of the first is, again, location, probably 9 miles or so from where I live. The second is almost too friendly, where hugs seem to be the order of the day :(. Both suffer from a lack of tradition in that the songs sung by the congregation are very singy-songy and seem shallow compared to the depth of tradition hymns. At least they do not suffer from the dated theological language contained in some of the old hymns.

Decision will be forthcoming. I have eliminated Methodist or any other traditional Protestant church, so that is progress at least.