New Thought and Christian Science: Shared Origins and Key Differences

New Thought and Christian Science are two distinct yet historically intertwined religious movements that arose in the United States during the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Both emerged from a cultural milieu that combined idealistic philosophy, a search for alternative healing methods, and a rejection of mainstream Protestant orthodoxy. While they share roots in the metaphysical tradition and both assert the central role of Mind in spiritual and physical well-being, they developed into separate movements with significant theological, organizational, and practical differences. This article examines their common origins, the key figures who shaped them, and the divergences that led to a relationship often characterized by mutual denial and polemical separation.

Historical Background: Nineteenth-Century American Idealism and Healing

The mid-nineteenth century in the United States was a period of religious ferment and intellectual experimentation. Mainstream Protestantism faced challenges from new philosophical currents, including transcendentalism and German idealism, which emphasized the primacy of spirit or mind over matter. Simultaneously, the healing arts were still in a primitive state, with many people seeking alternatives to conventional medicine that often involved harsh treatments. This context gave rise to what scholars call the metaphysical tradition, which includes Christian Science, New Thought, Theosophy, and Spiritualism. Both Christian Science and New Thought emerged within a few years of each other, sharing historical roots in the idealistic philosophy of the nineteenth century and in the search for alternative means for healing. They found some agreement concerning the role of Mind as the agent in healing, but their interpretations and practices soon diverged.

Phineas Parkhurst Quimby and the Mind Cure Movement

Central to the prehistory of both movements is Phineas Parkhurst Quimby (1802–1866), a mental healer from Maine who is often regarded as the intellectual founder of New Thought. Quimby developed a system of healing based on the idea that illness is rooted in erroneous beliefs and that correcting these beliefs through mental means can restore health. He attracted a number of students and patients, including Mary Baker Eddy, who later founded Christian Science, and Warren Felt Evans, a key figure in the early New Thought movement. According to the dissertation What Makes a Founder? (2018), Quimby is credited with inspiring many important figures in metaphysical movements in America, and he is considered the intellectual founder of New Thought, though this view is a product of later developments that required a validating founder. The broader Mind Cure movement, of which Quimby was a part, emphasized the power of positive thinking and mental suggestion, laying groundwork for both Christian Science and New Thought.

Mary Baker Eddy and the Founding of Christian Science

Mary Baker Eddy (1821–1910) founded the Church of Christ, Scientist, in 1879, after a period of study with Quimby and subsequent development of her own theological system. Eddy’s teachings, articulated in her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, assert that God is divine Mind, that matter is an illusion, and that sickness, sin, and death are errors of human consciousness that can be corrected through spiritual understanding. Christian Science, as the name implies, claims to be a science—a systematic, demonstrable knowledge of divine law. Eddy established a centralized church organization with a strong authority structure, including a governing board and a hierarchy of practitioners and teachers. The movement quickly spread internationally and remains distinct in its emphasis on the absolute unreality of matter and the necessity of spiritual healing.

Emma Curtis Hopkins and the Founding of New Thought

New Thought, in contrast, is a diverse and loosely affiliated collection of religious communities that share an idealistic theology, an optimistic worldview, and an emphasis on rituals focused on personal well-being, health, and material success. Emma Curtis Hopkins (1849–1925) is properly cited as the founder of the movement, according to the New Thought Movement entry in Encyclopedia.com. Hopkins was a student of Mary Baker Eddy but broke away to develop her own teaching, which emphasized the immanence of God, the power of affirmative prayer, and the practical application of spiritual principles to daily life. Unlike Christian Science, New Thought never formed a single church or creed. Instead, it gave rise to numerous independent groups, including Divine Science, Religious Science, and the Unity School of Christianity. Hopkins’ organizational skills and her training of hundreds of ministers and practitioners were crucial in establishing New Thought as a distinct movement, though its intellectual roots are often traced to Quimby.

Theological Differences: Idealism with Distinct Emphases

Both movements are rooted in religious idealism, but they differ markedly in their theological formulations. Christian Science, following Eddy, teaches that God is the only reality and that matter, evil, and suffering are illusions. This radical monism leads to the conclusion that physical healing is a direct result of aligning human thought with divine Mind. Christian Science tends to be more exclusive in its claims, viewing itself as the definitive scientific revelation. New Thought, on the other hand, is more pluralistic. While it also affirms the primacy of Mind, it allows for a wider range of beliefs about the nature of God, the person of Jesus, and the relationship between mind and matter. Many New Thought groups emphasize the practical benefits of spiritual thinking—health, prosperity, and happiness—rather than metaphysical purity. This difference is reflected in the healing practices: Christian Science relies on specific, systematic prayer and the reading of Eddy’s texts, while New Thought employs a variety of techniques, including affirmations, visualization, and positive confession.

Healing Practices and the Use of Science

Both movements understood themselves to be premised on what they considered scientific understandings of the world and of the divine forces that they believed controlled the world, as noted in the chapter Christian Science, New Thought, and Scientific Discourse. Christian Science emphasizes healing through prayer and the realization of spiritual truth, often formalized in the work of Christian Science practitioners who engage in mental treatment. Testimonials of healing are a prominent feature of Christian Science publications and church services. New Thought groups also practice mental healing, but with a broader array of methods. The Unity School of Christianity, for example, uses affirmative prayer and meditation, while Religious Science (founded by Ernest Holmes) incorporates elements of psychology and metaphysics. The scientific discourse in both movements served to legitimize their practices in an age of scientific progress, but the actual techniques and theological justifications differ significantly.

Organizational Structures: Centralization vs. Loose Federation

One of the most visible differences is organizational. Christian Science is a highly centralized denomination with a single governing body, the Church of Christ, Scientist, headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. It has a fixed doctrine, a standard textbook, and a hierarchical structure that includes local churches, practitioners, teachers, and a board of directors. This centralization has helped maintain doctrinal purity and a unified identity. New Thought, by contrast, is a loosely affiliated movement with no central authority. It consists of independent churches, centers, and study groups that often affiliate with larger associations, such as the International New Thought Alliance, but retain local autonomy. This diversity allows for considerable variation in belief and practice, but it also leads to fragmentation and a lack of a single authoritative voice. The organizational difference reflects deeper theological stances: Christian Science’s exclusivity versus New Thought’s inclusivity.

Relationship and Mutual Denial

Despite their common roots, Christian Science and New Thought have historically been reluctant to acknowledge their connection. The Encyclopedia.com chapter notes that they are two movements that generally do not like to speak of each other, and that the intense polemics concerning their separation led in large part to the mutual denial of their common roots. Mary Baker Eddy herself was adamant that Christian Science was a unique revelation and not a form of mind cure or New Thought. Conversely, New Thought leaders often sought to distance themselves from Christian Science’s exclusivism, emphasizing their own movement’s broader, more inclusive approach. This mutual denial has been perpetuated in their respective histories and literature, making it difficult for outsiders to see the shared lineage. However, scholars have consistently pointed out that both movements emerged from the same cultural and intellectual soil, and that figures like Quimby and Hopkins served as bridges between them.

Influence on Later Movements and Modern Culture

New Thought, due to its decentralized nature, has had a profound influence on the broader American self-help and positive thinking movements. Its ideas have permeated popular psychology, motivational literature, and the prosperity gospel. The Unity School of Christianity, Religious Science, and Divine Science are direct offshoots that continue to thrive. Christian Science, though smaller and more insular, has also left a lasting mark through its emphasis on spiritual healing and its publications, including the Christian Science Monitor. Both movements have contributed to the ongoing dialogue between religion and science, and both have faced criticism from the medical establishment for their rejection of conventional medicine. In the twenty-first century, they remain active, though their membership has declined, and their influence is more visible in the broader culture of spirituality and wellness than in formal church attendance.

Scholarly Debates on Founding and Identity

The question of who founded New Thought has been a subject of academic debate. While Phineas Quimby is often cited as the intellectual founder, recent scholarship, such as Kevin Shopf’s dissertation, argues that Emma Curtis Hopkins is the organizational founder, as she provided the institutional framework and trained the leaders who spread the movement. This debate reflects the movement’s own struggle to define its identity in relation to Christian Science. Similarly, the relationship between Eddy and Quimby has been contested, with some accusing Eddy of plagiarizing Quimby’s ideas. These scholarly disputes underscore the complexity of tracing the origins of religious movements and the ways in which founding narratives are constructed for legitimacy. The sources emphasize that both movements emerged from a shared milieu, but their divergent paths were shaped by the personalities and theological choices of their leaders.

Conclusion

New Thought and Christian Science share a common origin in the metaphysical currents of nineteenth-century America, but they have evolved into distinct traditions with different theological emphases, organizational structures, and healing practices. While Christian Science maintains a centralized, doctrinaire approach and a strict idealism that denies the reality of matter, New Thought embraces diversity and practical application of spiritual principles. Their mutual denial of common roots is a testament to the intense rivalry and theological differences that separated them. Nevertheless, both have made lasting contributions to American religious life and the broader culture of mind-body-spirit healing. Understanding their shared origins and key differences provides valuable insight into the development of alternative spirituality in the modern world.