Having read a report in the Union of an answer by...

Springfield (Mass.) Union

Having read a report in the Union of an answer by Rev. Dr. Adams to a question regarding the difference between Christian Science, New Thought, psychology, and hypnotism, I wish to submit a more definitive answer. I do not disagree with what he said, but doubt that it was sufficiently explanatory.

New Thought is defined by its most voluminous writer as "a practical method and theory of healing, based on the authority of experience, rather than the authority of any leader or book." As appears from the context of this quotation, a book, or the book thus alluded to, is the Bible. Speaking of New Thought in the same paragraph, the same writer said: "These teachings may be restated in the language of psychology, without reference to the interpretations of Scripture."

In short, an adherent of New Thought may be religious, but he does not need to be. He may profess no religion or any religion. The New Thought writer to whom I have referred is an instructor in a Swedenborgian theological school, but "Dr." P. P. Quimby, to whom he ascribes the first position in New Thought, was irreligious, if not antireligious. As "Dr." Quimby himself said: "I stand outside of all religious belief."

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.