ACIM Notebook

A Course in Deception
by: A. K. Zwart

Editor’s note: This selection is included because it is a well written outline of commony encountered objections to A Course in Miracles, namely a focus on the real or imagined faults of the two scribes, Bill Thetford and Helen Schucman and a comparison to Pauline Christianity.

-oOo-

When, many years ago, I was introduced to A Course in Miracles, I was awestruck. Here was a set of books, containing a new view of the world and religion, and it had been dictated by Jesus. It was incredible. I will return to the word "incredible" later.

First, let me tell you a little about my background. I grew up in the Netherlands in a Christian family. We went to church every Sunday, many of our aunts and uncles and friends did as well. The primary school I attended and the secondary school later on were linked to the church. The traditional Christian faith seemed somewhat predictable and boring to me.

In my early twenties I started reading about Eastern philosophies which seemed so much more interesting and relevant than the well-established traditions of Christianity. Finally, when I started to read the Course, I felt I had come home — here was a book which explained religion, Jesus and God, the world so well. Yet, the first 100 pages or so of the Text seemed the most accessible; after that, the Course became somewhat tedious in my view.

Over the years of being involved in the Course, it always bothered me that Helen Schucman felt great unease about the material which she claimed to have received. Fr. Groeschel who became a close friend of Helen, said that the last two years of her life were spent in profound despair and depression; she told him that writing the Course was the worst thing that had ever happened to her. Hardly what you would expect from a person who wrote down words dictated to her by Jesus. Was it brought on by the knowledge that she had with Bill orchestrated an enormous hoax — a made up religion which became successful beyond their wildest expectations?

Helen admitted that she "wanted to change everything" she had written but that Bill Thetford persuaded her not to. Why would she question the words spoken to her by Jesus — she could have rejected them by refusing to take the dictation, but surely she would not try to change them?

Meanwhile, Bill is described by Fr. Groeschel as the "most sinister person" he had ever met. Bill was an evangelical atheist, yet he took an active role in the scribing of the Course material. Curiously, Bill worked for the CIA on thought control projects during his time with Columbia University.

Helen was a Jew she could not accept that Jesus was the Messiah and certainly not that he was the Son of God. Furthermore, she could never believe in the Atonement being established by the Crucifixion. Conveniently, the Course reflects her Jewish upbringing and thoughts. At this point, it is worth pointing out that the main publicist of the Course, Ken Wapnick, is also a Jew and could accept Jesus as an older brother, but not the Messiah (in spite of his stint as a Catholic priest). I do not believe the Course is a Jewish conspiracy! But you need to pay attention to the preconceptions of the people involved and how these influenced the material.

Further, Helen was also influenced by a spiritual experience she had in Lourdes and by her mother who used to read Helen from the Christian Science books when she was a little girl. And, Helen was a psychologist — now the sources of the peculiar mixture of the Course become clear.

Now, recently I had a minor "Road to Damascus" experience which caused me to return to traditional Christianity. Rather than blindly accepting what the Bible says, I started reading books which investigated the historical truth of the life of Jesus, the teachings of the early Church, and the accuracy of the Gospels. This has been an eye-opening experience.

The conclusion I have reached, based on the work of many eminent scholars, is that the Jesus of the Bible is the same as the historical Jesus who is referred to in other writing of the early centuries. The earliest writings in the Bible — the letters from Paul — reflect very accurately the teachings of the church in the first couple of decades. Paul met with Peter and James in Jerusalem and from them obtained the essentials of the creed which is still recited in churches worldwide today.

The foundation of the Biblical Jesus lies in fact; it is supported by eyewitness accounts dating back to the first century. The Jesus of the Gospels is the Messiah, the Son of God. The early Church regarded Gnostics as heretics because their views contradicted the teachings of Jesus.

By contrast, the Course is a curious blend of Gnosticism, borrowings from Eastern religions with a good dose of New Age thinking and pop psychology thrown in; it contains no fresh ideas. Most importantly, it is not based on fact.

The Gnostics, a heretical branch of early Christianity, believed the world was not created by God. Does this sound familiar? They believed that Jesus revealed the true meaning of his teachings to certain disciples — and this message was different from what the Bible says. Does this sound similar to ACIM?

Hinduism teaches that the world is Maya, an illusion. It is not real. Hinduism is also one of the world’s most cruel religions since it teaches that we bring everything on ourselves — so if someone is born into a low caste and abject poverty, it is because of what they did in a previous life. If you help them, you interfere with their spiritual path.

The Course teaches that the world and sin are not real. Therefore, if you are raped it is your wrong perception which is to blame. You can’t blame the rapist, because he is a Son of God who can’t sin and can’t be punished. The rape was an illusion, an example of wrong thinking.

Is death an illusion? Have you ever had to say goodbye to a dying parent who you dearly loved? Have you ever had to bury a pet, with your crying child beside you? That must have seemed pretty real.

The conclusion that some writers have reached is that Helen and Bill embarked on an experiment to make up a religion fashioned from different traditions they were familiar with. They succeeded and created a tidal wave of confused thinking masquerading as truth.

I think that the following scenario is most likely: Helen started receiving inner dictation and Bill encouraged her to write down what it said. Helen knew it came from another part of her mind — that is why she wanted to “change everything.” Bill, for reasons of his own, urged her to carry on with the writing. Things then got out of hand when others read the material and the Foundation for Inner Peace was established. Some of the people involved were no doubt sincere, others misguided and some truly deceptive if not evil.

In itself, all this is bad enough if the Course were just some daft New Age manual. However, the Course places an immeasurable burden of guilt upon its followers. Everything is our fault because our perception is wrong, and only we can change that. This is the sad message delivered by the Course — which leads to despair rather than freedom.

Even if you don’t want to become a Christian, you should reject the Course:

• It is a made up religion, developed by Helen and Bill as a hoax which Helen always regretted;
• Even if it is not a deliberate hoax, it is an experiment which got out of hand; the Course does not contain any original, fresh ideas: it is an uncomfortable mixture of ideas floated through the centuries and derives directly from Helen’s background and experience;
• The thought system of the Course does not lead to happiness and freedom;
• If you still consider the ideas in the Course original and inspirational, then the final argument is this: the assertion that the Course originates from Jesus is totally unacceptable and is refuted by any study of early Christianity. Course proponent Ken Wapnick himself states that the Course and the Bible share no common ground.

In conclusion: the Course is a truly incredible book — meaning that it is beyond belief and understanding. It is a money-spinning, made up religion without any foundation in fact or in spirit and with little merit.

The Course leads people astray instead of leading them back to God.

AK Zwart
September 2008

www.radiance.org