Myrtle & God: Within you and Without you
Neal Vahle, in his biography of Myrtle Fillmore, notes that the "Transcendentalist ideas of Ralph Waldo Emerson had a major impact on the Fillmores." (p. 190) And in case anyone is thinking that Vahle is really only talking about Charles, he adds that "quotes from Emerson abound in the writings of both Charles and Myrtle."
It was Emerson who said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Myrtle starts off her book (How To Let God Help You) by coaxing the reader with a gentle "I just want to come in and have a visit with you." As she talks about the deepest matters of Spirit she insists, "But let us not go too far into the metaphysics of this wonderful thing." (p. 1)
It is as if Myrtle realizes that one could count how many brushstrokes are in a painting by Rembrandt and miss the entire experience created by Rembrandt's work. Please, I do not claim that within Myrtle's theological thoughts one will find the germ––the essence––of quantum mechanics and string theory. Myrtle's era was one where even some of the keenest minds in physics were still looking for a cosmic ether. But I do see in her writings a clear sense that theological truth-- and the connection with Ultimate Reality-- is in essence highly paradoxical.
Today I am writing this blog in the Washington DC area. I am not in Unity Village. After July 14th (as they say in Texas: "Lord willing and the creek don't rise") I will be in Unity Village and not in Washington DC. I have not mastered the art of being in two or more places at the same time. But I think that Myrtle had a deep sense that such so- called "realities" in the physical universe are transcended by the spiritual realm. For example, God is both in Washington DC and Unity Village at the same time. More importantly, I see in Myrtle the deep sense that God-- Spirit-- is very much both within us and outside of us at the very same time.
Let me make an analogy. Alfred Marshall was a very great economist who mostly lived in the Victorian era (He was the mentor of John Maynard Keynes, who was the father of modern macroeconomics.) Marshall said it was foolish to ask which side of the economy--the supply or demand sides of the economy-- created price and quantity conditions in real world markets. He said that this was like looking at scissors and asking witch blade it was which cut the paper. Marshall noted that it was the interaction of both blades-- the interactions of both supply and demand side forces-- that cut the paper and determined prices in markets. In the same way I see Myrtle pointing to the fact that God-- Spirit-- is both within us and without us. And it is the interactions caused by this paradox that leads to spiritual growth.
She says that, "Your spiritual awakening is the important thing. It will increase your consciousness with God Mind." (P. 16) We need to comprehend our true "oneness with God." (P. 17) "Claim your oneness with God," she assets. (p. 23) "God will establish order within and without," she says, and this order-- within and without-- is of the same essence.
At times Myrtle's language and images dealing with Spirit seem very personal. At other times her language and images dealing with Spirit seemed very impersonal (and almost like "May the Force be with you.") Well, Emerson was right: A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Why might it be harder for some folks living in the 21st-century to buy this "within and without" theological point of view then it was for Myrtle? Let me propose a hypothesis: Myrtle may have rejected the original sin--and hell and damnation-- part of her Methodist upbringing. But could it be that some of the lenses she looked through-- even as an adult-- came from her Methodist childhood? One of these lenses was the "three – in– one" Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost––each unique and yet one unity in the Godhead. Myrtle may have rejected the Methodist interpretation of this "different but the same" theology, but it seems that she reinterpreted it in light of her spiritual growth.
I'm grateful for the diverse backgrounds you bring to this exploration and just love the interdisciplinary nature of your share! Also, this paragraph that you wrote spoke to my own reaction to reading Ch 1-3 of HTLGHY: "Myrtle may have rejected the original sin--and hell and damnation-- part of her Methodist upbringing. But could it be that some of the lenses she looked through-- even as an adult-- came from her Methodist childhood? One of these lenses was the "three – in– one" Trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost––each unique and yet one unity in the Godhead. Myrtle may have rejected the Methodist interpretation of this "different but the same" theology, but it seems that she reinterpreted it in light of her spiritual growth." Indeed! I noticed this, in particular, on pp. 21-22, when she talks about Spirit (seemingly the "Holy Spirit"). Since, in Unity, we so often use the term as synonymous with God, I had to do a mental switcharoo when I saw how Myrtle seemed to distinguish "Spirit" in this context from "God," while noting that they both shared characteristics: "Spirit has no age; it is eternal, as God is eternal and unchanging." p 22
ReplyDeleteThanks Nhien for bringing up the terms God and Spirit and how they are often used in Unity. I had a Unity Minister who rold m that she did not like the word God, and used Spirit as much as possible. I too am grateful for our diverse backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant analogy. The Trinity as a metaphor might be the same movement in consciousness as God-within and God-out there. Let me offer another, perhaps compatible, paradigm. In the first centuries of the Christian church, one of the most interesting heresies to develop was Modalism. Quoting from my book, THE MANY FACES OF PRAYER: “Modalists said God was indivisible and unitary, but the Divine Unity could be perceived as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit depending on how the believer looked at the singular Godhead.” In other words, God becomes whatever model we bring to the observation process. This smacks of quantum physics, and it reflects Connie Fillmore's third principle: “We are co-creators with God, creating reality through thoughts held in mind.”
ReplyDeleteIs that how to square the circle and read Myrtle without contradiction or flagrant inconsistency? Perhaps. But methodologically, a Modalist paradigm literally means God can be anything we want Him, Her, It to be, which, some theologians might argue, places any model of God beyond critical analysis.
Your thoughts?
Dr Tom, Thanks for your comments. To put Myrtle in the Monist or Modalist camp would solve many of the "pesky" questions that you are asking us.
DeleteI remember my home church-- Unity of Fairfax-- had a film series at the church where they showed "spiritual movies"-- i.e., movies like Ground Hogs Day which might not seem religious, but could be seen as covering many religious issues. There was one movie-- and I do not remember the name- where everybody wound up in a different type of heaven. It would appear to the person just the way her, or she, needed it.
There is one "small" problem with placing Myrtle in this camp. I remember that Charles and Myrtle took Unity out of one of the early alliances of New Thought groups. They did this because they felt that this alliance did not place Jesus high enough in alliance's publications, statements, etc. I believe Unity only recently rejoined this alliance. I also remember, that it was Myrtle who felt very strongly about this decision.
This is not exactly the behavior one would expect from Monists and Modalists.
I also remember you pointing to the inside cover of an Unity book, and there was an artistic cross on the page-- a big cross. I believe you said something like, "In case one doubts Unity's Christian roots."
It would be interesting if after several more weeks of work, if we could go back to these difficult questions and see if we are any closer to good responses.
Was the movie “Defending Your Life?” One of my all time favorites… along with Ground Hog Day.
DeleteRichard- I think you point to something very significant affecting how we read Myrtle--she is steeped in the traditional religious practices and understandings of her time even if she begins to move beyond them, resonating with something different and alternative. How can we expect her to have come as far as us 21st century cultural iconoclasts? We live in an era of instant communication and diversity she could not have imagined. If we hope to make theological traction with Myrtle Fillmore, we need to back up, slow down and put ourselves in her place rather than expect her to be able to speak our language. We might want to meet her where she is before interpreting her language through OUR lenses.
ReplyDeleteIt may have been.
DeleteLesley, I love your statement about meeting Myrtle where she is. Instead of trying to fit her words into our time, what would it look like if we slowed down and put ourselves in her place.
ReplyDeleteCertainly food for thought, Rick. I agree, Myrtle does seem to be pointing to the fact that God-- Spirit-- is both within us and without us. And it is the interactions caused by this paradox that leads to spiritual growth. There appears to be a lot to discover and we have only just scratched the surface of what could prove to be rather surprising revelations.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by the comparisons we keep making to contemporary Unity theology (if there is such a thing). When we look back on Myrtle, we see a Methodist-Christian Scientist-Transcendental-Neo Platonist. Our contemporaries in Unity may be challenged by the within and without, but my Catholic Spiritual Director is very comfortable there. I think I am as well--can't tell you why. Maybe I figure it out before autumn.
ReplyDeleteI reread my blog, and I did not make any comparisons to contemporary Unity theology (even if there is-- or is not-- such a thing.)
ReplyDeleteI apologize for my confusion, Richard. I read your question, "Why might it be harder for some folks living in the 21st-century to buy this "within and without" theological point of view then it was for Myrtle?" as connecting us to current thinking.
ReplyDeleteRick this was a great post. I enjoyed your analogy of the paradoxes. The concept of a God within and without does not seem to fly with most Christians. When my aunt attempted to have a conversation about this with me she really took offense to this concept. Embedded theology sure runs deep. Perhaps for my personal analogy I have just adopted a God within to make it easier to explain. When will I face the reality that within and without is truth? And how the heck will I begin to intelligently explain that to people whose beliefs when I can't quite explain it myself.
ReplyDelete