I have sought the help of New Thought (NT) authors and organizations numerous times. They have offered valuable principles to live by, especially to gain confidence in myself and to overcome some oppressive and narrow fundamentalist theology. NT advertises itself as "practical spirituality" and it continues to be a positive influence in my life. But I must confess that I have never found NT being able to completely satisfy my quest for divine inspiration or give me answers to ethereal quandaries. The NT God is an impersonal pantheistic God, a Force, a Law (like the law of gravity), as much present in a rock and in our pinkie as in the Ebola virus. "Well, God is as personal as you wish to make Him/It/Her," is the typical NT retort. We make Him up. OK, so I'll make my pet rock personal? Maybe we can have some good conversations?
"God is Absolute Good, everywhere present," is an NT mantra. "This principle seemed obvious to our animistic forbears, who perceived the action of Spirit in all forms of life," states Debenport (p 20). This is not true. All aboriginal religions had pantheons or hierarchies of gods which were both good and not so good. That is, the divine was multidimensional and communicated with mankind in myriad of ways--to guide and teach and to reward and punish. Eastern religions perceive the divine powers as creative, sustaining and destroying. Yes, biblically, we can rightly refer to God as loving, as good, as just, and merciful, but He is not a one-sidedly Absolute Good as NT would have it. The universe demands balance to be functional. Wherever there is imbalance (e.g. only an Absolute Good) opposite forces will rush in to keep a balanced tension. By free will we can choose which force we follow and hold as our ideal but we should always keep in mind that other forces are constantly in play. Our mantra should rather be that "harmonic balance will always win over chaotic imbalance" and that our consciousness will ultimately seek its home in harmony. We are capable of communing with a god, God (i.e. the inner Higher/Christ consciousness) or members of the divine hierarchy, such as Masters of wisdom (e.g. Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Brahman, etc) to seek harmony, but in order to grow in wisdom and develop experience we will encounter hardship. "Bad things" are part of existence in the school of life. Our karmic influences and legacies are given short shrift by most NT teachers which to me leave huge gaps in the credibility of their teachings.
NT pretty well teaches that everything is up to us. "You are the only one who creates in your experience--no one else. Everything that comes to you comes by the power of your thought," writes Abraham of Abraham-Hicks. Consequently, if our situation is dire we can thank--or rather blame--ourselves, and only we can change our predicament by our thought. That isn't much comfort to the starving, the destitute, the crippled, the dying. Yes, it is generally true that positive thinking and constructive attitudes are essential to living happy and productive lives. But there are other forces at play also, competing or complementary. Could our ecosystem survive if every day had sunshine? No. The contrasts, the nuances, the unpredictability, the sorrows as well as joys, the successes as well as failures, are what make life worth the experience. For me NT tries to make our experiences one-dimensional by constantly urging us to conjure up "great wonderfulness." This can take the form of mental magic. But the faith element referred to as "the will of God," encompassing the concepts of destiny and karma is swept aside. The will of God is taught by NT teachers to be our own will since "we are God." Debenport states: "A great many people believe that our duty as human beings is to discover and surrender to God's will for our lives. Implicit in this belief is the assumption that God demands something contrary to our own desires." (p 79) Logically it follows that God's desires are ours and our desires are God's, which, cynically, could make an excellent mantra for Jihadist assassins.
In NT theology Jesus is seen as a do-gooder who willed himself through thought to become saint-like. He died on the cross because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. "Redemption means to repair for the better, to restore. It is the alchemy of turning metal to gold, bad to good, lemons to lemonade.... The Easter metaphor of crucifixion, tomb and resurrection reflects our lives as they play out over and over." (p 54) His crucifixion and resurrection are metaphors. His so-called miracles are either myths or have only allegorical explanations. His references to sin, evil, judgment and Satan are considered purely symbolic.
In my later years I have come to the realization that NT tends to be a fair weather philosophy, cosmically unbalanced, self-presumptive and often fraught with practitioner's guilt of failure and eventual disillusionment. Yes, NT can assist with healing, it can give courage and it can provide hope. It justly calls the bluff on wrathful, fear-mongering, exclusivistic religions. Except for rampant elements of personal greed and pride among successful NTers (also found among evangelical Christians), NT is generally benign and well-intentioned.
There are many inspiring books on NT. I found this one largely uninspiring, including the cover art. Debenport seems to be writing defensively, expecting critics of NT to pounce on her ideas so she is frequently trying to justify her logic. In spite of what she says she comes across as uncomfortable, not totally convinced. The material presented in 120 pages could easily have been condensed into a pamphlet of a several pages. I still admire many aspects of NT but would not recommend this book.
For a broader insight into NT's worship of successful practical spirituality, see the Abraham-Hicks website.