“I’ll tell you my strategy, the power that emerges from fierce authentic truth articulated among us!”
Marianne Williamson is one among many in the Democratic field of presidential candidates. She is a popular writer and motivational speaker, a liberation theologian and spiritual teacher. She was raised Jewish, but as an adult she embraced A Course In Miracles (ACIM).* She was the leader and senior minister of the Renaissance Unity Church (formerly known as the Church of Today). Under her leadership, it grew to be the second largest Unity church in the country. She sought to make the church independent of the Association of Unity Churches, but it didn’t work out and so she left that position; she would later return to the same church as a guest minister.
She is already a fairly well known name — not as much for politics, although she previously ran as a congressional candidate. Consistently left (and often quite far left) on every major issue, she has been speaking out about social, economic, and political issues for decades, including her 1997 book The Healing of America, but public health has been a particular focus. For example, she started two organizations to support HIV and AIDS patients during the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s; and also that same decade she formed a nonprofit that continues to this day in bringing meals to the seriously ill. She has founded other kinds of organizations as well, such as one teaching peace-making skills. On the more radical side, she strongly advocates reparations for slavery.
She is a social justice warrior, but does so with a light touch without attacking others. She promotes moral patriotism in emphasizing that America, though imperfect, has stood for great things throughout its history. Americans have done the morally right thing many times before and we can do so in the future. It’s a message of making America great again, just without any hint of cynicism. It isn’t empty rhetoric to manipulate supporters and win votes. If nothing else, she is sincere. That isn’t what we’ve come to expect from presidential hopefuls. Then again, maybe it is exactly what we need, if only to change the public mood and shift public debate.
Along with her time in the Unity Church, the ACIM informs her vision for humanity and America. It has shaped me as well. My grandmother read the ACIM and, when I was in high school, I read my grandmother’s copy of it. It is particularly popular in the Unity Church**, the New Thought Christianity also introduced to my family by my grandmother. Williamson was the major force behind the ACIM’s rise into public awareness, along with Gerald Jampolsky as a guest on Robert Schuller’s Hour of Power tv program (Schuller being the all time most influential prosperity preacher; certainly, my mother’s favorite). The ACIM message reached a much larger audience by way of Oprah Winfrey promoting Williamson and her writings. Some people like to portray Williamson as Oprah’s spiritual guru, but that seems more like a way of dismissing the message, whatever one may think of New Age religion (I’m personally of mixed opinion, having been around it my entire life).
Williamson will be in the second Democratic debate hosted by NBC, along with Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. She is the only candidate, as far as I know, who is openly speaking about spirituality and religion. Interestingly, as a longtime Democrat, she will be the most religious candidate in either party. I guess New Age religion is moving up in the world. She represents the most potent antithesis of everything Donald Trump stands for. As he promotes hatred and division, she speaks of love and unity: “We have to shift from a sense that we are separate to a shift that we are one. That is the only way the 21st century will be survivable. Our technology has so outdistanced our wisdom that we are a threat to ourselves.”
Public religiosity has been dominated by the Republican Party since the Fundamentalists gained a foothold in the Reagan administration, although we have to blame Jimmy Carter for introducing Evangelicalism onto the national stage and making it respectable. For many decades now, the loudest voices and most powerful forces of religion have worshipped an authoritarian demiurge of fear, hatred, and judgment. Now here is a religious leader entering the political fray with a message that declares that the God inspires our worship is of love and nothing but love, a God who speaks truth instead of lies, a God known through personal transformation and radical vision, not from institutional authority and righteous dogma. That is quite different than the right-wing ‘god’ who creates his own pseudo-truths, as do his followers, and then forces them upon the world. Williamson is part of the reality-based community, but she elevates reality to a faith in Reality, that truth isn’t a mere convenience of opinion that we bend to our preferred biases and agendas. Truth remains, as always, and it will overcome what is false like shadows before the light of the sun — I might note, according to the earliest Pauline tradition, this is the original teaching of Jesus Christ.
Even if you’re not religious and are opposed to New Agey woo, even if you’re an atheist or simply not a Christian, still understand this represents an interesting turning point and a challenge to the status quo. The Republican Party has embraced Trump, a man raised in a different strain of positive thinking Christianity, that of Norman Vincent Peale who had more of a right-wing lean. But this conflict within religion is quite ancient. It goes back to the early Church. Williamson is defending a theology that once was at the heart of Christianity before being expelled by later heresiologists. Her message of love is the return of one of the earliest strains of radical thought, at a time when Christianity was challenging another abusive power of this world, the Roman Empire. The situation isn’t fundamentally different under the American Empire (“The Empire never ended!” PKD), even if not yet reaching the same height of brutality, not quite yet. The times change, along with the ruling powers of this world, but this ancient message of hope is continually resurrected.***
– – – –
* For those unfamiliar, ACIM is one of the most popular New Age texts that uses Christian language and, according to Kenneth Wapnick, Valentinian theology. Valentinus, one of the earliest Church Fathers and in the Pauline tradition, introduced the Trinity into Christianity. According to Clement of Alexandria, his followers said that he learned under Theodas or Theudas, a disciple of Paul the Apostle. Marcion, first collector of the Pauline Epistles (as argued by Robert M. Price) and originator of the earliest New Testament canon, was another famous student of Theudas. In following the radical Pauline vision, both Valentinus and Marcion preached about a God of love, forgiveness, and mercy.
This was part of a direct lineage of wisdom, maybe more similar to Eastern traditions of mysticism and meditation or else something along the lines of the Roman mystery schools. Supposedly taught to Paul’s inner circle, this was a personal vision of the risen Christ (Romans 16:25; 1 Corinthians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 12:2–4; Acts 9:9–10), and one might note that Paul never claimed historical literalism (and so this lends itself to a docetist interpretation) for the Christ he spoke of always was a spiritual figure that transformed the individual supplicant, akin to Enlightenment. Never once did Paul describe a physical Jesus, which is truly bizarre if such a Jesus existed for Paul converted to Christianity during the time when later Gospels claimed Jesus was still alive and yet Paul never bothered to seek out Jesus, as he apparently was fully content with the spiritual Christ. Considering no historical record of a Jesus Christ has ever been discovered, not even in the writings of the most famous Jewish historian of the era, one is forced to conclude that speculating about a historical Jesus is meaningless since it obviously held no meaning to the earliest faithful such as Paul.
It might be seen as similar to other traditions labeled as Gnostic, that is if one interprets this vision of Christ as secret knowledge of an elite or an elect. But one might argue it is more similar to the anti-elitist strain of some later Protestant or Anabaptist faiths in how Valentinianism upholds a personal relationship to God that depends on no institutional authority as mediator. His monism resonates with Eastern religion and philosophy. Evil, in this worldview, has no fundamental reality and, instead, is an illusion or error. In not understanding the monistic essence, some mistake this as dualism associated with Gnosticism. But if Valentinus and Marcion were Gnostics, then so was Paul and, with this in mind, we should acknowledge that Paul’s writings are the earliest known Christian texts. Many have argued that the Paul’s teachings were the prototype of both Christianity and Gnosticism, the two traditions maybe having originally been the same faith or else emerged from the same milieu.
Rather than the dualism of good and evil that has long plagued Christianity (as inherited from Judaicized Zoroastrianism and as incorporated from Augustine’s Manichaeanism), Valentinus’ monistic system of faith reconciled the Trinity within the one true divine source. Despite the denial of the Trinity, the closest modern equivalent to this monism would be Unitarianism, specifically in relation to Universalism as Valentinus also had a broad vision of salvation (besides the Unitarian-Universalists, the Unity Church also holds to these doctrines). Despite being called a Gnostic according to those who seized power within the Church, Valentinus was a leader in the early Church long before any heresiologists came along to slander anyone as not being a real Christian and centuries before the Nicene Council. His Christianity was original and, if anything, what came after was revisionism.
Gospel of Truth
(written by Valentinus or his followers)
“Therefore, if one has knowledge, his is from above. If he is called, he hears, he answers, and he turns to him who is calling him, and ascends to him. And he knows in what manner he is called. Having knowledge, he does the will of the one who called him, he wishes to be pleasing to him, he receives rest. Each one’s name comes to him. He who is to have knowledge in this manner knows where he comes from and where he is going. He knows as one who, having become drunk, has turned away from his drunkenness, (and) having returned to himself, has set right what are his own.
“He has brought many back from error. He has gone before them to their places, from which they had moved away, since it was on account of the depth that they received error, the depth of the one who encircles all spaces, while there is none that encircles him. It was a great wonder that they were in the Father, not knowing him, and (that) they were able to come forth by themselves, since they were unable to comprehend or to know the one in whom they were. For if his will had not thus emerged from him – for he revealed it in view of a knowledge in which all its emanations concur.”
– – – –
** Let me offer some historical context, but specifically about the United States. So-called New Age thinking began quite early. Of course, you find it rooted in the Axial Age. But you also see evidence of it in the various mystical and spiritual schools of thought that kept erupting throughout European history. Following the Protestant Reformation, the idealistic Anabaptists, Huguenots, Quakers, Shakers, etc brought a political edge to religiosity — all of which shaped England during the English Civil War and shaped the American colonies during the same period. Consider Roger Williams’ version of the Baptist faith, as radical as they came in that era and remains radical to this day.
The Enlightenment kicked this into high gear with such things as Mesmerism which would later influence not only psychology by way of hypnotism and hypnotheraphy but also positive thinking, new thought, and prosperity gospel. The American Founders were often quite radical in their views, such as many of them being Unitarians, Universalists, and Deists. Thomas Paine, like a number of others, challenged the historicity of Jesus Christ and other Biblical stories, not that he was making a docetist argument. The American Revolution might not have happened without this religious fervor and the theological challenge to the British Empire. In asserting natural law above human law, in declaring everyone was an equal before God, this moral righteousness struck directly at the heart of abusive power.
From the American Revolution to the decades following the American Civil War, there was an emerging sensibility about religion and spirituality. It was the the period of the second and third Great Awakenings, involving the spread of what was then radical Evangelicalism (giving voice to women and challenging slavery), along with Transcendentalism, Spiritualism, Theosophy, etc. This would come to shape 20th century progressivism and liberalism. The Unity Church formed in the late 19th century, having taken shape amidst the Evangelical unrest of the Populist Era. Besides offering a more positive message, they early on were advocates of vegetarianism; also, women were allowed greater participation and at least by the time I was a kid they were proponents of same sex marriage. The New Age is as American as apple pie.
– – – –
*** This isn’t limited to Christianity, of course. The same basic message was preached by all of the major Axial Age prophets. It has been the defining feature, the radical heart of all that has followed since, including the universal idealism that erupted during the Enlightenment.
This vision has been persistent in its challenge. It is unsurprising that Christians, as with the faithful of other religions, have so often failed to live up to it. But one wouldn’t mind all the failure so much if there were more believers who took the message seriously in the first place, serious enough to attempt to genuinely follow such high ideals. Instead, most failure of faith comes from a weakness or lack of faith. It is a rare Christian I’ve met in my life who has even bothered to try to live according to Jesus’ example and his simple teachings of love, as such extremes of self-sacrifice are inconvenient.
Marianne Williamson is making the humble suggestion that maybe, just maybe religion doesn’t have to be equated with heartless hypocrisy, doesn’t have to make a moral compromise with cynical realpolitik. Nor that spiritual transformation is inherently separate from political revolution, a truth that has been embodied by many visionary leaders before, from Gandhi to Martin Luther King Jr. This has been the challenge of Axial Age idealism for more than two millennia.
– – – –
Author, entrepreneur Marianne Williamson forms presidential exploratory committee, visits Iowa
Marianne Williamson, Tea Party Progressive?
How Marianne Williamson’s presidential bid is normalizing New Age spirituality
Into America’s Spiritual Void With Marianne Williamson
Marianne Williamson Wants Your Perception to Shift
Marianne Williamson Spreads Message Of Unity
Marianne Williamson for President! She’s a Liberation Theologian
The spiritual politics of presidential candidate Marianne Williamson
New Age Guru Marianne Williamson On Her Jewishness And 2020 Presidential Run
Marianne Williamson is Oprah’s spiritual adviser. She’s also running for president.
Marianne Williamson: Something Different
Marianne Williamson On Her Vision For Healing America And The World – Mindvalley Podcast
Integral friendly Marianne Williamson running for 2020 President: What do we know, think?
Access: Public 
Marmalade 
Nicole said
Did I tell you my mom has been a member of a Unity church for years?
To me, it has been a way to reinforce her vague optimism without seriously challenging any of her confused beliefs about the world or her life. She, like many in her generation, has not engaged her inner demons, not really heard of shadow work or considered doing it, not worked through the ways she has alienated her children and grandchildren.
It’s sad.
By contrast, you are much more thoughtful and flexible about this. You read widely and incorporate many other aspects of belief in your view of the universe. So it feels a lot healthier coming from you.
Have you read much of the Bible as an adult, or does it even interest you?
Marmalade said
No, you hadn’t mentioned that about your mom. I don’t know that it would be the majority, but I’d imagine there are many people in Unity like her. One thing my parents noticed about Unity was that it attracted many lost souls, people who didn’t fit anywhere else.
I’ve read more of the Bible in recent years, but I’ve never read the whole text. I was deeply researching Biblical studies a while back and learned a fair amount about the Bible. I would be more interested in the subject, but I found that the people who were most interested in the subject didn’t interest me. I joined some forums where there was discussion about the Bible. People tended to fall into extremes of fundamentalism or atheism, and every discussion was quickly polarized. And trying to research the subject, I came to realize that there is no lack of opinions but plenty of lack of facts. Biblical studies has to be the least scholarly of all the scholarly fields. Even the academic experts can’t agree on even the most basic details. However, reading the Bible without reading the scholarship is pointless because the translations are so far apart.
My Grandfather was a minister. He said that you could prove almost anything you wanted with the Bible. There are so many passages and so many translations, that you can find some wording that you can interpret as agreeing with whatever you already believe. And its so easy to misinterpret as it takes a life long of scholarly study to even be able guess at the meaning of a Bible passage. My Grandfather used the example of the “eye of the needle”. It wasn’t meaning that its impossible for a rich person to get into heaven. The eye of the needle was the name of a doorway into a city where camels had to walk on their knees to pass through. So, the difficulty of a rich man getting into heaven seems nothing more than a minor inconvenience. But I’m sure there are a thousand other interpretations.
Understanding the Bible is practically impossible, but I’ve never been one to let the impossible get in the way of my studies. I’m sure I’ll read more of the Bible. I have a translation of the Pre-Nicene Texts by Robert M. Price. I find his translation very fascinating and I’m in the middle of reading it. I’ll finish it sometime.
BTW what translation do you read?
Nicole said
ah, but take a closer look at that eye of the needle… the camels had to walk on their knees – challenging for a camel but much more so than many rich people who do not have the humility and courage to abase themselves to a higher power. think of his interaction with the rich young ruler.
i try to refer to the original Greek as much as possible when i’m doing serious study but for reading lightly, enjoy the NRSV – for different applications, I like different translations and paraphrases – they all have strengths and weaknesses. still hope to learn Hebrew well enough to read the OT in the original, translations are inadequate
Marmalade said
Yep, NIcole, you could interpret as such: the camels on their knees as representing humility and courage. It might be a correct interpretation. Then again, my Grandfather might’ve been wrong about his translation. I really don’t know. But I’m willing to bet you that, were you to research it, a plethora of disagreement could be found.
In looking at Biblical studies, I quickly realized that I would have to learn several ancient languages to even begin to grasp/guess what was being said. Actually, even many Biblical scholars don’t know all of the ancient languages involved. Even if you do know the ancient languages, the cultural context is mostly lost. For instance, an expert in Hebrew isn’t likely to be an expert in the various cultures that were borrowed from in creating the Jewish mythology.
Yes, modern versions are inaccurate translations of Hebrew, but the OT is an inaccurate translation of the stories its based upon. Inaccurate translation is how religions evolve. For instance, Christianity formed because it was able to re-interpret the OT, but obviously the Christians were essentially mistranslating in order to do so.
Lets say a single person could learn in detail all the factors (multiple languages, cultural contexts, and historical documents). What could such a person make of it all? There is no coherent whole. The Old Testament (like the New Testament) was written by many people. And the Old Testament is based on stories from different cultures told orally for thousands of years before being written down as we now know them. All these different stories and all these different writers aren’t in agreement. When we turn to the Bible, we don’t find a single coherent message. Just considering the New Testament, the depictions of Jesus Christ are widely divergent and this excludes the other even more divergent depictions found elsewhere.
In all of this, everyone can find what they’re looking for. The problem is there is no concensus on correct interpretation and there is a lack of evidence upon which to base a rational argument for the correctness of any particular interpretation. If we simply pick what we agree with and ignore the rest, then how is that helpful? We don’t need a text to tell us what we already believe.
I’m not trying to discourage you from studying the Bible. I find it all fascinating, but frustrating too. I think any Jew, Christian, or Muslim worth their salt, should study the origins of monotheism for themselves. In doing so, one can’t discover truth, but what one discovers is how complex “truth” is. I do think people can discover wisdom in studying the Bible, but not because the Bible revealed it precisely. We bring our own wisdom to the Bible and whatever we find there already existed within us.
The attempt to understand the Bible (if done with serious intent and an open heart-mind) is more humbling than even the eye of the needle is for camels. And to sludge through the field of Biblical studies takes no small amount of courage or at least stubborn persistence. People often just find what they were looking for, but its not unusual for people to find what they wished to not find.
Personally, I’d rather look at Biblical stories from an archetypal perspective rather than worry about what is said in a particular passage in a particular text in a particular language. I’m a person who wants to do something all the way or not at all. I realized the only way to do the Bible justice would be to devote my whole life to studying every aspect of it, but I’m just not inspired to do so. But this isn’t to say I don’t want to familiarize myself with the Bible some more. Its just not high on my priority list at the moment.
Nicole said
i have known a number of Biblical scholars and am quite aware of the lifework involved in having and using all the tools needed for more accurate interpretation of the Bible. I find it satisfying to work away bit by bit at what I can understand about the Bible among a lot of other ways to come to grips with God and God’s relationship with us… I’m glad you find archetypes satisfying. It’s important to find what works for us.
Marmalade said
I wasn’t implying that you weren’t aware of what I was speaking of. I know that you know. I was just expressing my own frustration at the whole field. Sorry, to sound like I was lecturing. I wasn’t intending to sound that way.
I think in general we human can know very little about the world… and God. Oddly though the limits of our knowledge are the most clear when we turn to a holy text. I don’t mean to dismiss the Bible, but I sometimes feel so frustrated with people’s opinions about God’s truth that I feel like the Bible may be the last place one should look for God. There is wisdom in the Bible no doubt… its just buried very very very deep.
As you know, I’ve spent time myself studying the Bible and Christianity overall, and so it would be silly of me to disparage someone else doing the same. I looked into Biblical studies because I’m a curious person, and its an utterly fascinating area. I believe studying the Bible is worthwhile because I believe studying anything is worthwhile. There aren’t enough people in the world who take learning seriously.
Also, its not as if we have to choose to learn only one thing and ignore all else. I may be focused more in one direction than another at any given moment, but I can study both the Bible and the archetypes. I’m of the opinion that learning one thing can help me learn another thing. Studying the Bible can help me understand archetypes and studying archetypes can help me to understand the Bible. You probably agree with this as you seem to also have wide interests.
However, I do put an emphasis on the archetypal side of things because I figure that if there is a truth in the Bible its probably an archetypal truth rather than the truth of an historical figure. Actually, what I should say is that both an archetypal and a historical truth may simultaneously exist, but its the archetypal truth that is the most easily accessible… and maybe the most easy to prove or disprove. And if the historical Jesus was real, then disentangling the archetypal elements from the historical facts will help to clarify the matter.
I guess why I feel reluctant towards Biblical studies is because of the people who tend to be involved in it. There are too many people with agendas who are seeking conclusive answers… whether to prove some belief or disprove some belief. I realize that you, Nicole, are a more open-minded seeker who isn’t just looking for simple answers. I wish I’d met more people like you when I was studying all of this deeply.
Nicole said
yes, i hear everything you say, dear Ben, sorry I sounded defensive in my comment, i do know and understand your views more and more and have great sympathy for your approach.
unfortunately or fortunately, as people keep telling me, there isn’t anyone else like me :):)
Marmalade said
Its no big deal. My frustrations have nothing to do with you. I just get frustrated at times with life in general. And I’m not good at hiding my frustrations.
You may not be average Nicole, but trust me that isn’t something that frustrates me. In fact, I like the non-average. 🙂
Nicole said
why hide your frustrations? especially since they have nothing to do with me, i like that 🙂
i know you like the non-average, and you know i do too! one of the many reasons i delight in our conversation, i delight in you