Tue, Jun 26th - 10:28AM
About Bill Thetford and the CIA
Last fall someone inquired of me about a
Web site which puts together a
few facts about Bill Thetford’s professional career and then comes up
with some preposterous claims regarding his relationship to Helen
Schucman and her channeling of A Course in Miracles. More
recently,
I’ve learned that the Web site in question has fostered some rumors
which are spreading among students of the Course as well as
non-students who have an affinity for conspiracy theories. Below is an
edited version of the letter I wrote in reply to the inquiry of last
fall.
____________________________________
To begin, I immediately discounted the Web site you asked me to look
at, because it contained what appeared to me to be some wildly
outlandish statements and suggestions, beginning with the headline:
"ACIM: Lie Down With Dogs, Get Up With Fleas! The MKULTRA Milieu
Surrounding the 'Scribing' of A Course In Miracles." That
statement in
itself immediately announces that the author of the site is out to
establish guilt by association -- a strategy that a trial lawyer or
tabloid journalist might use, but not a very credible approach to
serious consideration.
None of us who are familiar with the facts about Helen Schucman and
Bill Thetford could possibly take seriously the claims made on that Web
site, but I can see how people who are not familiar with those facts
could take them seriously; especially if they are already skeptical
about the phenomenon of channeling and even more so if they are not
familiar with material actually found in the Course itself.
Anyone who cares to have an informed perspective should at least become
acquainted with relevant portions of the following books: 1) The
Story
of Helen Schucman and Her Scribing of A Course in Miracles by
Kenneth
Wapnick; 2) The
Complete Story of the Course: The History, The People,
and The Controversies Behind A Course in Miracles by D.
Patrick Miller,
and; 3) Journey
Without Distance: the Story behind A Course in Miracles
by Robert Skutch.
On the Web, let me suggest the following site: The Scribing of
A Course
in Miracles
One notable statement, which was written by Helen and concludes the
first part of the Preface
to the Course, says: "The names of the
collaborators in the recording of the Course do not appear on the cover
because the Course can and should stand on its own. It is not intended
to become the basis for another cult. Its only purpose is to provide a
way in which some people will be able to find their own Internal
Teacher."
The Course can stand on its own. You don't have to believe it was
channeled from Jesus to make use of it, and you don't even have to
believe in Jesus. Neither do you have to believe in the phenomenon of
channeling.
It has always been clear to me that the Course was not intended to be
the basis for a religious organization of any kind. Neither does it
encourage proselytizing or setting up study groups. What it means by
"teaching," is not formal didactic teaching (or preaching), but
teaching love and forgiveness by example; something I think the CIA
would have little use for, especially back in the 1950's. That said, it
is true that for most of us the Course material is not easy to
understand, integrate and apply in spite of the fact that it
continually says it is a "simple course." So a teacher and a study
group can be helpful. But, the only teacher of the Course in whom I
have complete confidence is Kenneth Wapnick, who was intimately
associated with Bill and Helen, having first met them in 1972 and then
working closely with them to prepare the Course for publication in
1976. When one reads his autobiographical accounts (see links at: KenWapnick.html),
it is evident that
Ken's own spiritual journey had led him to a place of knowing the
message of the Course before he ever read it. He, too, had experienced
an inner presence that he recognized in the voice that speaks from the
pages of the Course itself. In effect, Ken became Helen's designated
teacher of ACIM, while she and Bill preferred to stay in the background
after the Course was published. And Ken, who knew Bill and Helen very,
very well, just laughed when I told him about the CIA conspiracy theory
regarding the Course. He thought Bill would be quite amused and no
doubt have some clever remark to make, since Bill had a very good sense
of humor. Helen, on the other hand, would probably not have been amused
at all. She was very intelligent and could be scathing in criticism
when she was so inclined.
Nevertheless, even a glass of water can be misused, let alone a
spiritual document. So, in spite of its intent, yes the Course has been
misrepresented and misappropriated, sometimes with very unfortunate
consequences. As you say, the Endeavor Academy is a case in point. The
Course, like the glass of water, can serve a constructive, helpful
purpose or a harmful one, depending upon who is making use of it.
Obviously the same is true of the Bible, the Koran, and countless other
spiritual writings. Likewise, psychology can be misused, which brings
me to the CIA and MKULTRA.
According to John Marks in his book The Search
for the Manchurian
Candidate,[1]
back in the Cold War era of the 1950's and 60's the CIA had an interest
in being able to make use of the scientific knowledge and professional
techniques of psychology. They sought to have rapport with a wide range
of psychologists to whom they could have access for information,
consultation and research. Consequently, a large number of research
projects of various kinds were funded by the CIA through MKULTRA, and a
very long list of some of the most distinguished names in psychology
benefited from this funding, most of them not having a clue about the
nefarious activities of people like Drs. Gottlieb and Cameron which
were discovered later. Remember, it was not until the Church committee
investigations beginning in 1975 that the unconscionable activities
sponsored by MKULTRA funding came to light. But, the mere fact that a
particular psychologist's research was funded by the CIA through
MKULTRA should not be used to incriminate that psychologist. Neither
should the fact that a psychologist was employed by the CIA be used to
vilify that person. Back in the fifties, there was a lot of concern
about Russia and communism, and there was a high level of public
confidence in the CIA. What we've learned since then should not serve
to discredit every one of the distinguished psychologists who received
funding through MKULTRA, or who was employed by the CIA. The practice
of guilt by association, which the Web site in question attempts, is
reminiscent of another phenomenon of the late 1940's - early 1950's:
McCarthyism.
Among the psychologists whose research was funded by the CIA through
MKULTRA was the widely known and beloved Dr. Carl Rogers,
who was
instrumental in the development of what has become known as "humanistic
psychology," and who founded the "Person-Centered Approach" to
psychotherapy. His goal was not to manipulate, brain wash and deceive
people, but to free them from their conflicts so that they could become
"fully functioning" persons -- "self-actualizing" human beings. Yet he
received funding for some of his research through the CIA's MKULTRA
program, just as did Bill Thetford and Helen Schucman.
In his book Marks discusses and quotes Rogers as follows:
Although he says he would have
nothing to do with secret Agency
activities today, he asks for understanding in light of the climate of
the 1950s. "We really did regard Russia as the enemy," declares
Rogers, "and we were trying to do various things to make sure the
Russians did not get the upper hand." Rogers received an important
professional reward for joining the Society [of Human Ecology] board.
Executive Director James Monroe had let him know that, once he agreed
to serve, he could expect to receive a Society grant. "That appealed to
me because I was having trouble getting funded," says Rogers. "Having
gotten that grant [about $30,000 over three years], it made it possible
to get other grants from Rockefeller and NIMH." Rogers still feels
grateful to the Society for helping him establish a funding "track
record," but he emphasizes that the Agency never had any effect on his
research.
It is common for psychologists to seek
government funding for their
research projects, and in the "publish or perish" climate of
prestigious universities like Columbia it is not surprising that some
of the work done by Bill Thetford and Helen Schucman received funding
through MKULTRA. But it is hardly accurate to characterize that
research as being directed toward "brain washing," any more than it
would be accurate to characterize Roger's work that way.
My principle point here is that it is important to understand the
historical context for the MKULTRA funding as well as to realize that
not all of the psychological research funded by the CIA was of the
dishonest and inhumane sort carried out by Gottlieb, et. al.
Another example of legitimate psychological research funded in part by
the CIA is Dr. John Gittinger's "Personality Assessment System," or
PAS. This system was of particular interest to Bill Thetford and Helen
Schucman for very sound professional reasons, and it utilized one of
the intelligence and personality assessment tests which has been a
standard in the psychology profession for decades: the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scales (WAIS) which were a refinement of the earlier
Wechsler-Bellview Intelligence Scales. Gittinger began his work on the
PAS in 1948-49 when he was a psychologist at Central State Hospital in
Norman, Oklahoma. To this day, the PAS is utilized by professional
psychologists who are responsible for psychological diagnosis in
connection with mental health treatment. Following are some excerpts
from the PAS Web site:
Psychologist Dr. John
Gittinger conceived the fundamental idea behind
the Personality Assessment System, or PAS, many years ago when he
observed that our personalities are shaped, to a large extent, by the
way we use the several components of our intellect. He realized that
each person learns to cope with life by using (or not using) the
intellectual strengths and overcoming (or not overcoming) the
intellectual weaknesses that she or he may have learned or acquired by
genetic endowment. He saw that, over the period of our maturation into
adulthood, this process produces what we call each person's
"personality." The result, in other words, for each of us, is a
coherent pattern for how to "do" life....
Even John Marks, in his
anti-CIA book, In Search of the Manchurian
Candidate, recognized and reported that the most positive development
during the 1950's and 1960's in the CIA was the Personality Assessment
System....
After Dr. Gittinger’s
retirement from government service in 1978, many
of the psychologists with whom he had worked developed university
affiliations. Students at such prestigious institutions as Cornell
University, The Ohio State University, The University of Missouri, and
American International College are among those who have been provided
with an opportunity to learn to analyze and interpret PAS profiles.
Further, the Gittinger Assessment Center, established at Hocking
College in 1984, serves as a site for training, resources, information,
data collection, and future development of the PAS.
It is quite understandable to me that Bill Thetford and Helen Schucman
would have an interest in the PAS and in conducting research with it.
Certainly any psychological test (like the glass of water I mentioned)
could be used for unethical purposes of manipulation and control.
However, Bill and Helen, like Carl Rogers, were psychologists
interested in helping people. Helen's particular interest was in
children, and particularly mentally retarded children.
So, some of the research Bill and Helen engaged in was funded through
MKULTRA, but it is not accurate to characterize their interest as
having to do with "mind control," nor is it accurate to characterize
the entire body of research funded through MKULTRA that way. Further,
much of what went on under the aegis of the Human Ecology Society was
of legitimate interest to professional psychologists and that Society
may even have helped the science of psychology to move in a broader,
more humanistic direction. To quote John Marks again:
By investing up to $400,000 a
year into the early, innovative work of
men like Carl Rogers, Charles Osgood, and Martin Orne, the CIA's Human
Ecology Society helped liberate the behavioral sciences from the world
of rats and cheese. With a push from the Agency as well as other
forces, the field opened up.
Now, to summarize Bill Thetford's professional career.
When he graduated from DePauw University in 1944, he was uncertain
about what he wanted to do. He had majored in psychology but also
enrolled in the pre-med program. Even though he was accepted at the
University of Chicago medical school, he still wasn't sure he wanted to
study medicine, so he decided to apply for a job at the University and
wait to make a decision about whether to enroll in their med school.
The job he got involved work as an administrator with the Manhattan
Project with responsibilities for supervising certain buildings and for
radiation decontamination. Robert Skutch[2] quotes Bill about this job:
The atmosphere in our
department at the time was an extremely exciting
one. There was a sense of utmost urgency and high sense of national
priority to the work being done...It was the belief of the scientific
community that the Nazis had already progressed very far in the
development of atomic energy, and that we were in a life or death race
with them.
Remember, this was before the end of World
War II and the
social/political climate in the U.S. was profoundly affected by that
war as well as the "Cold War" which followed.
Bill finally decided not to enter medical school, but when the atomic
bombs were dropped he was horrified at the devastation and quit his
job. Skutch quotes him regarding his next step:
A few weeks later Dr. Carl
Rogers arrived on campus. Although I knew
nothing about Rogers, who even then was one of the most eminent names
in the field of psychology, I signed up for his first course on Client
centered Psychotherapy, simply because some of the graduate students I
knew recommended that I do so.
Rogers immediately recognized a very
intelligent student with keen
insight into what Rogers was teaching and to Bill's dismay Rogers
appointed him as a teaching assistant and then invited him to become
Rogers' research assistant.
In 1949 Bill received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago after
completing research related to Rogers' theory. Again, Skutch quotes
Bill:
I was intrigued with the
possibility of measuring the autonomic nervous
system and its functions before and after Rogerian therapy...Rogers was
very impressed by this study, and I was actually stunned that I had
found any significant results at all.....In March 1949, somewhat to my
surprise, I received my Ph.D. However, I still had no real awareness of
the field of psychology...Although I had met many eminent people during
my studies...no one seemed to have any awareness of how these
specialized areas of knowledge could be synthesized.
Even though Bill lacked confidence in his
own qualifications it seems
evident that many others were quite impressed with him. This kind of
situation involving Bill's humility and the high regard of others
appears to have characterized much of his early professional career.
After Chicago, at the suggestion of a friend, he applied for and was
accepted into a position at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago where he
worked in research involving schizophrenic patients and patterns of
response to the Rorschach inkblot test. This was done under the
direction of Dr. Samuel Beck, a leading authority on the Rorschach,
about which Bill knew nothing. But, in what by now seems to be
characteristic fashion, Beck was quite impressed with Bill and even
regarded his lack of experience with the Rorschach as a positive factor
since it meant that he would not bring bias into his studies. Bill
stayed on in this program under Beck for 2 1/2 years, and it is during
this time that he was introduced to Freudian psychoanalytic theory,
which was contrary to Rogers' theories. Skutch quotes Bill about this
period as saying:
One thing I felt strongly
about, both during graduate studies and
afterwards at Michael Reese, was that I did not in any way wish to be a
university professor...I had already turned down several offers...I
felt I had nothing to profess. Also, I did not feel that university
life was something that I would happily adapt to.
Bill subsequently moved on to enroll in
the Washington School of
Psychiatry in Washington. D.C., because he was intrigued by the eminent
Dr. Harry Stack Sullivan's interpersonal theory of psychiatry which
focused upon interpersonal relations rather than the individual
psychodynamics of Freudian psychology. This was during the period
1951-54 when, in addition to being a post-graduate student at the
Washington School of Psychiatry, Bill was employed as a psychologist
for the U.S. government. This is when Bill’s association with the CIA
began. I could not find details of his government employment, although
one source states that during 1953 Bill served as a consultant to the
Foreign Service Institute in Beirut, Lebanon.
Skutch quotes Bill about the next phase of his career:
When I completed the study
program at the Washington School, I was
undecided about what to do next. Since I had long been attracted to New
York City, I decided to go there to look for a position. The head of
the Psychological Placement Service at the N.Y. State Employment
Service said he had absolutely the perfect job for me...What he had in
mind was the Directorship of the Psychology Department at the Institute
of Living in Hartford Connecticut.
The Institute for Living is a very well
known mental health treatment
center and hospital, which was founded in 1822, being one of the first
mental health facilities of its kind in the U.S. Bill stayed there as
Director of the Division of Psychology from 1954 to 1955 when he moved
to the Human Ecology Study Program at Cornell University Medical
College. About this, Skutch quotes Bill as saying:
After a year at Hartford I
received a call from Dr. Harold G. Wolff,
one of the founders of psychosomatic medicine, a leading authority on
stress disorders, and at the time Chairman of the Department of
Neurology at Cornell...Dr. Wolf offered me an appointment as Chief
Psychologist in the Human Ecology Study Program which he was directing.
My uneasiness about becoming involved in a university position had
mellowed somewhat by this time and I decided to consider an academic
appointment. As a result, I accepted Dr. Wolff's offer, and before I
knew it I became an instructor and a year later was promoted to
assistant professor.
The idea of taking an ecological approach
to the psychological study of
human beings intrigued Bill and fit in with his general tendency to be
attracted to unconventional approaches to psychology which emphasized
understanding people in the context of their family relationships as
well as their socio-cultural and natural environment. John Marks
characterizes Wolff as not only being brilliant, but also as arrogant
and quite interested in helping the CIA find ways to both manipulate
human beings as well as train them to resist such manipulation, but
there is nothing in Bill's history to suggest that he shared these
kinds of interests. There is nothing in Bill's story to indicate that
he himself had any interest in brain washing, hypnosis, drug-induced
states or the like. Whether he had any knowledge of these activities
being carried on with CIA sponsorship through MKULTRA is unclear to me,
but I think it is unlikely that he did. Anyway, he stayed on at the
Human Ecology Study Program from 1955-57, and then, upon the urging of
a friend, applied for and -- even though rather unsure of himself --
took a very challenging job at Columbia University where he began in
1958 as an Associate Professor of Medical Psychology and Director of
the Division of Clinical Psychology at Columbia-Presbyterian Hospital.
Apparently he was fascinated by his work under Wolf at Cornell, and the
job at Columbia had been subject to controversy because members of the
search committee could not agree upon a candidate. Faculty politics can
be quite conflicted and difficult. In fact, it was this very kind of
difficulty that later led Bill to make his famous speech to Helen where
he said that there must be a better way for them to relate to each
other as well as to their colleagues. They had been involved in some
bitter, acrimonious interpersonal conflicts by June of 1965 when he
made that speech, and when Helen -- surprisingly -- immediately agreed
with him and said she was willing to help. This event led to the
scribing of the Course following a series of unusual dreams and visions
on Helen's part during the summer of 1965.
The story of Bill's relationship to Helen began when he hired her as a
research assistant at Columbia in 1958. Shortly after assuming his
position at Columbia, he found that his new job was going to demand
much more from him than he had imagined, or been led to believe. As he
was getting himself oriented and setting some priorities, the Dean of
the College notified him that the University had received a large grant
from the National Institute of Neurological Diseases for conducting a
cooperative study of neurological and sensory deficits in infants and
young children. A research psychologist with special training and skill
in working with children and in psychological testing was needed. Helen
became that psychologist and seven years later she and Bill became
involved with the scribing of ACIM. From then on, their work with the
Course was kept a carefully guarded secret, because it would certainly
have jeopardized their professional status as well as their employment.
Helen herself had a very strong and assertive personality. As I
mentioned, she and
Bill had much difficulty in their relationship, which was one of the
factors leading up to Bill's earnest plea for "a better way." Anyone
who knew Helen would find it ludicrous that somehow Bill could have
used "mind control" techniques to influence her!
In conclusion, I'll quote a few passages from D. Patrick Miller's
book:[3]
Whether one views it as
happenstance of predestined preparation,
several major elements of Thetford's character made him suitable to
become Schucman's helper in the recording of the Course. Perhaps most
significant was his reluctance to "profess" a distinct philosophy of
his own. It's safe to assume that few academics of his status could
have resisted the temptation to revise, add to, or even co-opt a major
project on which they were assisting a junior colleague, regardless of
the project's nature or origin.
Second, Thetford's
intellectual curiosity and flexibility would
counterbalance Schucman's judgmental tendency, and help both of them
deal with a system of psycho-spiritual thought that substantially
challenged their psychoanalytic training. Thetford's brush with
humanistic psychology may have also prepared him for the transpersonal
dimensions of the Course material.
Finally, the younger
professor's passivity is probably what made it
possible for him to tolerate Helen Schucman's contrariness, albeit not
happily. It remains a sad irony that the tenuous balance of the
relationship between the two Course recorders never matured into a
healthy reciprocity. In 1977, the year following publication of the
Course, Schucman was forced to retire from Columbia-Presbyterian at age
sixty-eight...In 1978 Thetford took early retirement and moved to
California.
I'll just repeat that revelations about
unethical and illegal
activities sponsored by the CIA through MKULTRA only began to surface
as a result of the Church committee investigations in 1975. The last
date I see for a joint psychological publication by Thetford and
Schucman is 1972, though Bill continued his role in the
MKULTRA-sponsored personality research project 130 until he retired.
That project was professionally sound, utilized the PAS, and would only
have been of use to the CIA in the same indirect way that the research
of Carl Rogers and many other legitimate psychologists would have been.
I think that the reason for keeping that project classified is that the
CIA hoped to prevent the Russians and other foreign countries from
either knowing about or making use of psychological research sponsored
by the CIA in the United States.
Perhaps this summary about Bill and his relationship with Helen will
help you to understand why I regard the "mind control" allegations of
the Web site you have brought to my attention as preposterous. If you
want to know more about the history of the Course, you'll have to do
more reading, but you might also watch the video entitled, "The Story
of A Course in Miracles" which is available from the Course publisher,
the Foundation for Inner Peace. See their catalog at:
http://www.acim.org/Catalog/SectionFrame.htm
_______________________________________
Comment (3)
|
|
Sat, Jun 9th - 2:58PM
ACIM Basics #8 - Jesus
What is the relationship between
Jesus and the Course?
The Name of Jesus Christ as
such is but a symbol. But it stands for love that is not of this world.
It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names
of all the gods to which you pray. It becomes the shining symbol for
the Word of God, so close to what it stands for that the little space
between the two is lost, the moment that the Name is called to mind"
(M-23.4:1-4).
Almost the entire text of A Course in Miracles is written in
the first person, where the "I" is clearly identified throughout as
Jesus. Furthermore, there are many places where he specifically
discusses his crucifixion and resurrection. There are relatively few obvious first
person references in the Workbook and Manual for Teachers, but when
they do
occur, their impact is quite dramatic, as seen for example in Lesson
70, the introduction to the fifth Workbook review lesson, and in the
poem that
ends the Manual.
Interestingly, there is one section in the Manual proper -- "Does Jesus
Have a Special Place in Healing?" (M-23) -- and two in the Manual's
appendix, the Clarification of Terms -- "Jesus - Christ" (C-5) and "The
Holy Spirit" (C-6) -- where Jesus is spoken about in the third person.
Some students
have understood this shift to be a significant one that indicated that
the
scribe, Helen Schucman, was hearing another voice in those instances,
but this
was not the case since Helen was always very clear that there was only
one voice -- Jesus -- that was dictating to her. The three sections
with
third person references specifically deal with Jesus, and the shift in
the
person of the "voice" is for a stylistic purposes and have no other
significance. It is possible, however, that a reader could understand
these
third-person references as the Holy Spirit speaking about Jesus.
In the section of the Manual mentioned above, one finds the following
statement which specifically indicates that the source of A Course in Miracles is Jesus. Again, if a reader wishes to interpret it that
way, the voice that speaks here can be thought of as the Holy Spirit:
This course has come from him
because his words have reached you in a language you can love and
understand. Are other teachers possible, to lead the way to those who
speak in different tongues and appeal to different symbols? Certainly
there are. Would God leave anyone without a very present help in time
of trouble; a savior who can symbolize Himself? Yet do we need a
many-faceted curriculum, not because of content differences, but
because symbols must shift and change to suit the need. Jesus has come
to answer yours. In him you find God's Answer"
(M-23.7:1-7).
The reason no official author's name is given for A Course in Miracles
is simply that Jesus was quite explicit in his instructions to
Helen that
this be the case. Helen was also personally clear about not having her
own name appear, and was always very insistent that she was not the
author of the course.
However, the Course also makes it clear that belief in Jesus is not
necessary to benefit from the ACIM message:
Is he God's only Helper? No,
indeed. For Christ takes many forms with different names until their
oneness can be recognized. .
. . It is possible to read his words and benefit from them without
accepting him into your life. . . . Yet still it is his lesson most of
all that he would have you learn. . . ." (C-5.6:1-3, 6, 8; ellipses
mine).
With regard to the relationship between the Jesus of the Course and the
Jesus portrayed in the Bible, clearly the voice which speaks from the
pages of the Course is that of the same Jesus who is said to have
appeared in a body in
the world two thousand years ago, with the same message of loving
wisdom and truth. That does not mean that the historical and biblical
portrayals of Jesus present an accurate picture of who the man really
was or what he actually taught.
(For those who are interested, a helpful related publication on the Web by Kenneth Wapnick is: "Jesus: Manifestation of the Holy Spirit" )
Jesus makes it apparent that his message as found in the Course is the
same in content, not necessarily in form,
as what he intended to
teach 2000 years. With respect to differences in form, for one thing
Jesus did not speak English 2000 years ago, nor had the world yet been
exposed to
Shakespeare or twentieth century psychology to which one finds
references in the
Course.
However, it is obvious that the image of Jesus found in A Course in
Miracles is not the
same image found in the Bible, just as the result
of Bible scholarship over the years indicates that the biblical
portrayal of
Jesus does not resemble the historical person who actually lived, and
about whom the Bible stories
were written. The evidence studied by biblical scholars
strongly suggests that very few of the acts and words attributed to
Jesus in the Bible were actually words he spoke or actions he engaged
in. More and
more evidence to this effect is being presented by scholars as time
passes,
and is particularly available from contemporary European scholarship.
For my purposes here, it is sufficient to state that the portrayal of
Jesus and his teachings found in the four gospels, as well as the
teachings recorded in the other books of the New Testament, is largely
historical fiction. The message Jesus is represented as teaching in the
Bible is
often diametrically opposed to what one finds in the Course.
The Jesus of the Bible and of the Course are mutually exclusive
figures, with only the name linking them together. Rather than
attempting the contortions necessary to force the Jesus of the Course
to fit the image
of Jesus found in the Bible, it is less difficult and far more
intellectually honest for students of A Course in Miracles to
accept that the
biblical Jesus represents the interpretations, memories, and
distortions, of the various authors of the gospels and epistles, while
the voice and person
of Jesus in the Course represents the ego-free being who lived and
taught
two thousand years ago, but whose teachings have been reinterpreted and
distorted over the centuries, beginning with the first gospels which
were not written down until long after Jesus died.
To summarize some of the important differences between the biblical
Jesus and the ACIM Jesus:
1.) The Jesus of A Course in Miracles is a brother who is equal to
everyone else as a part of the "Sonship," and whose true nature is as
the one Son of God called "Christ," which is everyone's true nature.
The
Bible's Jesus is portrayed as unique, special, and fundamentally
different from everyone else, being God's "only begotten Son," the only
"Christ," and
the second person of the Biblical Trinity. A Course in Miracles does not
deny that Jesus is divine, but makes it clear that, in our true Identity as spirit and Christ, so is everyone else. There is no ontological difference between us.
However, it is also the case that in Christ there is no individuality. God's one
Son has but one Identity: Christ. In truth, there is no separate individual
named Jesus and there never was, except at the level of the dream where we
believe that we are separate individuals whose separate names mean something
important. (See Lesson 184, "The Name of God is my inheritance"). In
truth, God or Oneness has no name. As long as we believe in separation,
then Jesus is a brother and a presence in our mind that can help us
awaken
from the dream of separation by learning to practice forgiveness.
2.) The Jesus of A Course in Miracles is not sent by God to
suffer
and die on the cross in a sacrificial act of atonement for sin, but
teaches
that there is no sin by demonstrating that in truth nothing happened to
him because sin (the belief in separation) had no effect on Heaven, nor
upon the Love of God. The Jesus of the Bible agonizes, suffers, and
dies for the "sins of the world" in an act that supposedly brings
vicarious
salvation to humanity, thereby establishing sin (separation) and death
as real, and clearly indicating that God has been affected by Adam's
sin of separation, or acting apart from God and His Love. Thus, the
biblical God must respond to the supposedly real separation and to the
supposed actual presence of sin
in the world. In the Bible, God responds by sacrificing His beloved
Son. The Course simply points out that this is absurd; that the notions
of sin,
evil, sacrifice and the devil are absurd because separation from
Oneness is impossible.
3.) The figure of Jesus portrayed in the Bible is incompatible with
the Jesus who authored A Course in Miracles. In fact, referring to the historical images that were based on the Bible and presented in other Christian writings, Jesus states in the Course, "Some bitter idols have
been made of him who would be only brother to the world. Forgive him
your illusions, and behold how dear a brother he would be to you"
(C-5.5:7-8).
4.) With respect to his crucifixion, the Jesus of A Course in
Miracles
states that he was demonstrating the inherent falsity of the
unconscious ego thought that we have killed God and destroyed his Love,
therefore also killing His Son, which would be
the necessary outcome of separation and the meaning of sin, if it were
possible. By allowing the dreamers of the world's dream -- the
separated ones -- to
act out their unconscious belief in the murder of God, Jesus
demonstrated: a) the body is not our reality; b) God, His Son, and
Their Love cannot be destroyed; and c) the dream of death had no effect
on Jesus, since he was not asleep and
dreaming, therefore was and is invulnerable. Likewise, so are we in the
truth of spirit and our Identity as God's one Son, Christ. In the
Course, Jesus states that the message of the crucifixion is: "Teach
only love, for that is what you are"
(T-6.I.13:2).
5.) A Course in Miracles retains nothing of the original
framework
of Christianity with its portrayal of Jesus and his teachings. The
biblical account of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection, is a
body-focused
account which makes the body very real: miraculous physical birth; a
life of performing physical-body "miracles;" and a painful death
followed by a "miraculous" physical resurrection. Compare that to the
teachings of
ACIM Workbook Lesson 199: "I am not a body." A Course in Miracles
teaches that the body is an illusion in the mind, and the Course's
teachings are always
about the mind, which is our true identity, the only cause of anything,
and wherein lies the only hope of forgiveness and salvation. In the
Course, resurrection is of the mind and essentially involves giving up
the ego belief in separation with its beliefs in the reality of the
body and
death. (See the Manual for Teachers, section 28, "What Is The
Resurrection?")
6.) Regarding the Christian doctrine of the Eucharist, in the
Course Jesus specifically refutes the Church's teachings about sharing
his
body and blood with his followers, again emphasizing the reality of
mind which
is the only aspect of our existence wherein Jesus is present to us and
where
we can join with him who manifests the Holy Spirit and His memory of
God's
Love:
I do not want to share my body
in communion because this is to share nothing. Would I try to share an
illusion with the most holy children of a most holy Father? Yet I do
want to share my mind with you because we are of one Mind, and that
Mind is ours (T-7.V.10:7-9).
Following are some passages from the Course that have a bearing on the misrepresentations in the Bible.
I have made it perfectly clear
that I am like you and you are like
me, but our fundamental equality can be demonstrated only through joint
decision. You are free to perceive yourself as persecuted if you
choose. When you do choose to react that way, however, you might
remember that I was persecuted as the world judges, and did not share
this evaluation for myself. And because I did not share it, I
did not strengthen it. I therefore offered a different interpretation
of attack, and one which I want to share with you" (ACIM T-6.I.5:1-5).
The crucifixion cannot be shared because it is the symbol of projection, but the resurrection is the symbol of sharing because
the reawakening of every Son of God is necessary to enable the Sonship to know its wholeness. Only this is knowledge.
The message of the crucifixion is perfectly clear:
Teach only love, for that is what you are.
If you interpret the
crucifixion in any other way, you are using it as a weapon for assault
rather than as the call for peace for
which it was intended. The Apostles often misunderstood it, and for the
same reason that anyone misunderstands it. Their own imperfect love
made them vulnerable to projection, and out of their own fear they
spoke of the "wrath of God" as His retaliatory weapon. Nor could they
speak of the crucifixion entirely without anger, because their sense of
guilt had made them angry.
These are some of the examples of
upside-down thinking in the New Testament, although its gospel is
really only the message of
love. If the Apostles had not felt guilty, they never could have quoted
me as saying, "I come not to bring peace but a sword." This is clearly
the opposite of everything I taught. Nor could they have described my
reactions to Judas as they did, if they had really understood me. I
could not have said, "Betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?"
unless I believed in betrayal. The whole message of the crucifixion
was simply that I did not. The "punishment" I was said to have called
forth upon Judas was a similar mistake. Judas was my brother and a Son
of God, as much a part of the Sonship as myself. Was it likely that I
would condemn him when I was ready to demonstrate that condemnation is
impossible?
As you read the teachings of the
Apostles, remember that I told
them myself that there was much they would understand later, because
they were not wholly ready to follow me at the time. I do not want you
to allow any fear to enter into the thought system toward which I am
guiding you. I do not call for martyrs but for teachers. No one is
punished for sins, and the Sons of God are not sinners. Any concept of
punishment involves the projection of blame, and reinforces the idea
that blame is justified. The result is a lesson in blame, for
all behavior teaches the beliefs that motivate it. The crucifixion was
the result of clearly opposed thought systems; the perfect symbol of
the "conflict" between the ego and the Son of God. This conflict seems
just as real now, and its lessons must be learned now as well as
then" (T-6.I.12-16).
Learning and practicing the Course
is a way of life, and I think that
part of that way of living for most students involves discovering that
one will not rapidly grasp and implement the teaching of Jesus as found
in ACIM. The
Course is radically different from traditional teachings which have
infused our culture in the west. We have grown up and been conditioned
according to the ego thought system,
of which Christianity, by and large, is one example.
For a more thorough discussion, see, A Course in Miracles and
Christianity: A Dialogue. Excerpts from this book are found on the Web at: http://www.miraclestudies.net/Dialogue_Pref.html
Comment (6)
|
|
|
| June 2007 |
| |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
|
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9
|
|
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
|
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
|
24 |
25 |
26
|
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
prev
|
|
next
|
|
Invite
