Attitudinal Healing-A Course in Miracles: The Background

By: Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon; ©2000

Continuing their discussion of A Course in Miracles, this month the authors describe the source and manner of transmission of the material that makes up the Course.

Background

A Course in Miracles was channeled through an atheistic psychologist named Helen Schucman. Dr. Schucman, who had an early background in New Thought metaphysics and the occult,^[1] would not permit public knowledge of her role as the medium and eight-year channel for the Course until after her death in 1981.

As it happens, dream work played a role in the formation of the Course material. Due to job-related stress and a crisis at work, Schucman began to write down and explore her “highly symbolic dreams.” This exploration went on for several months. Unexpectedly, one day she heard an inner voice say, “This is A Course in Miracles. Please take notes.” And from this ensued a form of inner dictation. Although it was not a form of automatic writing or trance, the otherworldly nature of the phenomenon made her “very uncomfortable”.^[2]

The method of transmission was a clear, distinct inner voice that promised “to direct [her] very specifically.” The “voice” did just that, and the same spiritistic direction is prom­ised to students of the Course.,ref>A Course in Miracles, Volume 2: Workbook for Students, Huntington Station, NY: Foundation for Inner Peace, 1977, pp. 417-78.</ref> Dr. Schucman described the process as the kind of inner dictation common to many other channeled works. She wrote, “It can’t be an hallucination, really, because the Voice does not come from outside. It’s all internal. There’s no actual sound, and the words come mentally but very clearly. It’s a kind of inner dictation you might say”.^[3]Schucman took shorthand dictation from the voice almost daily: “It always resumed dictation precisely where it had left off, no matter how much time had elapsed between sessions”.^[4]

Dr. Schucman was a most unlikely channel. She was a respected research psycholo­gist, a pragmatic materialist, and a committed atheist before receiving the revelations. Among her prestigious appointments, she had been associate professor at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, and associate research scientist and chief psychologist at the Neurological Institute of The Presbyterian Hospital. Her Jewish background and commitment to atheism made her uncomfortable with the “Christian” tone of the messages. Her co-scribe on the project was the late Dr. William Thetford, an agnos­tic, teacher, and research assistant to the famed psychologist Dr. Carl Rogers (whose humanistic psychology also finally catapulted him into spiritism.^[5] Thetford held appoint­ments at the Washington School of Psychiatry, Cornell University Medical College, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University. Before his death he was a civilian medical specialist in family medicine at the David Grant USAF Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base, California, and director of the Center for Attitudinal Healing in Tiburon, California.^[6] His prestigious appointments and wide influence gave him many opportunities to publicize the Course.

Robert Skutch, publisher of the Course, says that the power and tenacity of the “voice” became all the more impressive because of Dr. Schucman’s obvious reluctance:

She did know that the material was coming from an unusually authoritative source—one she did not intellectually believe in.

Thus began the actual transmission of the material which Helen would take down in more than 100 shorthand notebooks over a period of seven-and-a-half years. The situation proved to be tremendously paradoxical. On the one hand, she resented the Voice, objected to taking down the material, was extremely fearful of the content and had to overcome great personal resistance, especially in the beginning stages, in order to continue. On the other hand, it never seriously occurred to her not to do it, even though she frequently was tremendously resentful of the often infuriating interference….^[7]

The Course illustrates two characteristics of spiritistic inspiration: 1) when possible, seek a contact that will provide the most impact or credence for the revelation produced (Schucman’s scholarly standing provided this credibility), and 2) force production of the material, regardless of personal cost to the channeler.

Some might argue that Schucman simply wanted to discredit orthodox Christianity. But nothing in her life or personality suggests she would deliberately go to such lengths merely to undermine Christian belief. Furthermore, the “voice,” like the spirits in general, was merciless and unrelenting. This was clearly a force controlling Schucman, not a personally desired writing project to reinvent Christianity:

The Voice would dictate to Helen almost daily, and sometimes several times a day…. She could, and very often did, refuse to cooperate, at least initially. But she soon discovered she could have no peace until she relented and joined in once again. Despite being aware of this, she still sometimes refused to write for extended periods. When this occurred, it was usually at the urging of her husband that she did return to work, for he knew full well that she could only eliminate her distress by resuming her function as Course “scribe,” and he was able to convince her that to continue fighting the inevitable could only have a deleterious effect on their relationship….

The acute terror Helen felt at the beginning did gradually recede, but part of her mind simply never allowed her to get completely used to the idea of being a channel for the Voice…. For the most part she was bleakly unbelieving, suspicious and afraid.^[8]

Afraid, indeed. Mysterious powers that take control of one’s life are something to be feared. Robert Skutch also recorded Schucman’s own perception of the phenomenon:

Was the Voice that Helen heard dictating the material really that of Jesus? Both Helen and Bill believed the material must stand on its own, regardless of its alleged authorship. At her deepest level, Helen was certain that the Voice was that of Jesus, and yet she still had ambivalent feelings on the subject. In her own words:

Having no belief in God, I resented the material I was taking down, and was strongly impelled to attack it and prove it wrong….

But where did the writing come from? Certainly the subject matter itself was the last thing I would have expected to write about, since I knew nothing about the subject. Subsequent to the writing I learned that many of the concepts and even some of the actual terms in the writing are found in both Eastern and Western mystical thought, but I knew nothing of them at the time. Nor did I understand the calm but impressive authority with which the Voice dictated. It was largely because of the strangely compelling nature of this authority that I refer to the Voice with a capital “V”.^[9]

Dr. Schucman proceeded to admit her complete bafflement: “I do not understand the {control of] events that led up to the writing. I do not understand the process and I certainly do not understand the authorship. It would be pointless for me to attempt an explanation”.^[10] Her co-scribe, Dr. Thetford, recorded his own observations in an interview in New Realities:

… the material was something that transcended anything that either of us could possibly conceive of. And since the content was quite alien to our backgrounds, interests and training, it was obvious to me that it came from an inspired source. The quality of the material was very compelling, and its poetic beauty added to its impact.

I think that if it had not been for many of the extraordinary experiences that occurred during the summer of 1965, neither Helen nor I would have been willing to accept the material she scribed.^[11]

Notes

1. ↑ Gardner, “Marianne Williamson”.
2. ↑ Robert Basil, ed., Not Necessarily the New Age: Critical Essays, New York: Prometheus, 1977, p. 23.
3. ↑ James Bolen, “Interview: William N. Thetford,” New Realities, vol. 6, no. 2, September/ October 1984, Part 2, p. 20.
4. ↑ Rosemary Ellen Guiley, Harper’s Encyclopedia of Mystical and Paranormal Experi­ence, San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1991, p. 2.
5. ↑ Carl Rogers, A Way of Being, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1980, pp. 88-92.
6. ↑ Jampolsky, Goodbye, p. 214.
7. ↑ Adeny, Re-visioning, p. 20.
8. ↑ Bolen, “Interview: William N. Thetford,” New Realities, vol. 6, no. 1, July/August 1984 Part 1, pp. 20-23.
9. ↑ Bolen, “Interview” Part 2, p. 78.
10. ↑ Ibid.
11. ↑ Ibid, p. 18.