A Brief Introduction to the Scribing of Mary Bruce Wallace
by
Doug Thompson
Contents
A Brief
Introduction to the Scribing of Mary Bruce Wallace
Who is Mary Bruce Wallace and when and where did
she scribe this material?
Parallels with A Course in Miracles
“Sacrifice and Suffering” … do we see
“contradictory teaching” here?
Introduction
There is very little
information currently[1] known (by me) about Mary
Bruce Wallace, other than the clues and hints provided in these three small
books. If anyone has any additional
information, references, or sources, please let me know at dthomp74@hotmail.com .
My own interest in her
scribed material grew intense as I realized how closely it parallels and
complements A Course in Miracles. Any material which claims to originate from
“heaven” and provide accurate and trustworthy information about the true nature
of our eternal being is, in my view, deserving of a careful look. Not all such claims are “legit” and many very
obviously aren’t, but there is little in this material which aroused any
suspicions of inauthenticity and a great deal that I found truly delightful and
uplifting.
The earliest internal dating
for this material is 1907[2] but in the Introduction to The Thinning of the Veil Mary Bruce
Wallace indicates that she first “heard a voice” which she only identified as
“The Teacher” in 1916.
Unlike the “Voice” Helen Schucman heard, this
voice does not identify himself as the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but only
as a “Teacher.” What has struck many
about these writings is the ethereal, loving, reassuring quality found in these
three small books. It is hard to read
this material without feeling like one is floating on a cloud of divine
love. If nothing else, this experience
persuades many that the material, whatever else it might be, is an authentic
reflection of heavenly love.
If this material is
authentic and genuine, as I suspect, it can give students of the Course an important
“interpretive perspective” on those Course ideas which are also found
here. If it’s not a ‘human
interpretation’ but rather that of a colleague of Jesus himself “on the other
side,” its authority and credibility can be considered somewhat comparable to
that of the Course itself.
On a few issues where human
interpreters of the Course have often disagreed, Wallace’s “Voice” is clear and
unequivocal and leaves little room for interpretive quibbling. Is “the divine” really ACTIVE in the world and
aware of what’s going on in the world?
Course students often have different views on that question. Wallace’s “Voice” often makes assertions
similar to those found in the Course which strongly argue in favour of that
interpretation. There is definitely a great
deal of concern with affairs on earth in heaven. Yet Wallace’s “Teacher” also describes more
elevated spiritual planes where denser thought forms would simply not be
possible.
Is the individual human a
distinct or unique personality eternally or do we ultimately “dissolve into
God?” There have been many debates about
this question among Course students. Quite interestingly, Wallace’s “Voice”
provides support for both views, suggesting that personality persists until it
is laid aside by a Soul who chooses “nothing but God” at which point the
personality is no longer needed.
Wallace’s description of this ultimate unification is far more
encouraging and uplifting than that of many Course interpreters I’ve read.
Who is Mary Bruce Wallace and when and where did she scribe this material?
I have been able to find no
biographical information about Mary Bruce Wallace so far. All I know is what any reader can discern
from the internal evidence of the three books.
The earliest appears to be Christ
in You which mentions in Lesson 25:1 “this is to you the seventh month in
the year 1907.” In the Introduction to The Thinning of the Veil, however,
in words which appear to have been written by Wallace herself, we read:
“This entirely
unexpected experience came to me in August, 1916, and since then the people and
the conditions of the other life have become more and more perceptible to me
without material apparatus of any kind.
If that is the case then it would seem that
the 1907 date given in Christ in You
might be a typo, with 1917 being the intended date. Spiritual Reconstruction is clearly written during WW I
(1914-18). There is a heavy emphasis in
that work on post-war reconstruction and a British victory which suggests it was
written toward the end of the war after the German spring offensive of 1918 had
failed and after the arrival of US troops in significant numbers left both
sides feeling that an allied victory was inevitable and imminent. Since it was not until late in 1918 that the
tide turned decisively in favour of the Allies and against the Germans, the
obvious anticipation of an imminent and victorious end to the war suggests the
second half of 1918 as the date of composition.
It also bears a publication date of 1918, indicating that the three
works were published more or less at the same time. The publication dates then give us no
indication of the chronological order in which these three documents were
scribed.
Given the publication dates
of 1918 and 1919 and various internal references we can at least be sure the
material was written some time between 1907 at the earliest with 1916 being a
more likely date and the latest having been penned no later than 1919.
The volume Christ in You, which mentions 1907
internally, does not bear Mary Bruce Wallace’s name but has the latest
publication date of the three: 1919. The publisher, Dodd, Mead and Company in
Due to the Foreword in The Thinning of the Veil we know that
Mary Bruce Wallace was married to one J. Bruce Wallace. I have managed to find some information about
a London-based minister by that name who was prominent in the British Utopian
movement of the era. There is some
indication he had a church on
On the left is the view in
1907, on the right the same spot in 2009.
The church is gone and a block of flats stands where it once did. View Larger Image of 1907 streetscape
Generally then we can say
that from the internal evidence alone, the material derives from the first
and/or second decades of the 20th century, somewhere in
While only about 100 years
removed from today (2010), Mary Wallace lived in a very different world from
the one we inhabit. Indeed in many
respects her world was closer to that of 1800 than that of 2000. Motor-vehicles were still a novelty, and were
outnumbered by horse-drawn vehicles.
Aircraft were rare,
primitive and dangerous. The first
harrowing non-stop trans-Atlantic flight was only made in 1919 and “safe”
scheduled transatlantic airlines were decades in the future. Intercontinental
travel was done in ships such as the Titanic (below) which was launched and
sank in 1912. 
In 
many still lived and worked
on the farm, where mechanization was still in its infancy and had yet to
replace most of the human labour force.
Wallace’s use of English
will strike the modern ear as unfamiliar and archaic at times. To an American it will also perhaps sound
very “English.” It is. Despite that, the material is mostly very
well-written and easy to read and understand.
The language and vocabulary is that of a highly educated person with an
extensive knowledge of Christianity and at least some knowledge of other world
religions as well.
The “Voice” of the “Teacher”
quotes the Bible even more than Jesus does in Schucman’s scribing. There is scarcely a paragraph without at
least one direct Biblical quote, and frequently there are several. Clearly, whoever composed these words was
intimately familiar with the Bible. If,
as I suspect, Mary Bruce Wallace was the wife of a minister, this familiarity
would not be surprising.
The Foreword to Thinning of the Veil is written by Wallace’s
husband, J. Bruce Wallace, and is dated October 1918, in Limavady,
Beyond these clues offered
in the material itself, I know nothing about Wallace.
It would appear that the
material did not attract a large audience after its initial publication in 1918
and went out of print fairly soon thereafter.
Some of this material has been republished in recent years and can be
found on Amazon. And of course, you can
find it here!
The “Scribing” process
Wallace offers us a
description of the mechanics of the scribing in the Introduction to The Thinning of the Veil. She writes:
“I felt from the very first perfectly normal, not losing consciousness in any way, but I could not guess what the next word would be until I had heard it. “We just give you one word at a time, and then wait to see if you have grasped it,” said my friend.
“The voice seemed to speak not to my outer ear but to my soul-ear, and I heard every intonation of it, suiting the nature of the thought, tender, grave, encouraging, hopeful, joyous: every human emotion that is true and beautiful seemed expressed in tones more musical than any outward voice can reach.”
Many will note the parallel with Helen
Schucman’s description of an “inner dictation” from a “Voice” she “heard” but
did not hear through her ears with any “vibration.” Similarly, Schucman’s “Voice” was aware if
she had “grasped” the words correctly, offering corrections when scribal errors
were made, and similarly Schucman’s “Voice” was very clear that every word was
specifically and carefully chosen. In
both cases it seems that while the vocabulary and language used was that of the
Scribe herself, the selection of which particular words of the Scribe’s
vocabulary to use was that of the “Author.”
In neither case does it seem that either woman “intuited some notion”
and then expressed it herself in her own words.
Quite the contrary, each word was specifically dictated, according to
the accounts of each.
While both Scribes were
native English speakers, Schucman was a professor of psychology and the
“language” used is often quite technical, scientific and very
psychological. Wallace appears to be
more of a theologian, and the language used thus is more theological and
sometimes even “churchy.” Again, if it is correct that she was a minister’s
wife, this would be a very natural language for her.
Parallels with A Course in Miracles
Students of A Course in Miracles are often struck by
the remarkable similarity in language and thought system, most particularly in
the book Christ in You which
represents the most organized “formal spiritual instruction” and is structured
in the format of “lessons.” Indeed, if I
had not known the material was written in 1907, I would be certain that whoever
authored these words was familiar with the Course. The significant veins of similarity strongly
suggest both the author of the Course and Mary Wallace’s “Teacher” were
reflecting the same “Thought System” and were quite self-consciously presenting
the same curriculum through different people at different times.
There are so many parallels,
and they are so striking, that no student of either work can fail to notice a
great many similarities in the other. I
will simply point a few that struck me immediately.
Reality of Worlds and Bodies
In both works we find a huge
emphasis on the idea of divine assistance to correct illusions, notably the
mistaken idea that the body is really who we are, toward the goal of realizing
the manifestation of heaven on earth which both “Voices” describe by use of the
same term: “The Real World.” Both also
make liberal use of the word “illusion” to characterize the normal mode of
physical sense perception.
Both stress God’s love for
“the world” or “earth” and the divine passion for its healing and
transformation into “the kingdom” and both stress the importance of the role of
incarnated beings, people on earth, in bringing this about through cooperation
with the divine, the “Christ Mind” or “Christ Guidance.”
Both stress that physical
life leaves many of us supposing “illusions” are real and “reality” is but an
illusion, and that correction of this misperception is crucial. And both stress that through divine
intervention and correction, the “illusions” can be corrected resulting in a
“real world” (both use the same term) which is “the kingdom of heaven on
earth.”
Contrasts with the Course
In addition to these striking
theological parallels between the scribings of Schucman and Wallace, there are
some distinct differences, notably in how the words “suffering” and “sacrifice”
are used and how the symbol of the cross is explained in the context of Jesus’
crucifixion. The differences in language
are immediately obvious and some conclude that the two bodies of work are
contradictory on these questions.
“Sacrifice and Suffering” … do we see “contradictory teaching” here?
I believe that if we examine
the most apparently “contradictory” elements closely and in the full context,
there is a good case to be made that most of the “apparent differences” result
from the fact that Wallace was a Victorian Englishwoman writing in the UK in
the decade of Queen Victoria’s passing, and Schucman was American academic
writing half a century later in New York City.
As most are aware, “American English” and “English English” are at once
“the same language” AND have a great many subtle differences in terminology and
definition. The words “sacrifice” and
“suffering” in modern American usage imply complete negativity, loss of
something and/or the experience of involuntary affliction and unpleasantness.
I’d also point out that if
we identify Wallace’s use of “the world of sense” and Schucman’s use of the
term “world of perception” as referring to the same concept, we not only
eliminate many “apparent differences” but find that in their place there are
striking parallels. Wallace once uses
the term “sense perception” but mostly just abbreviates this to “sense.” I believe she and Schucman would both
recognize they are naming the same thing.
In earlier English, we find
hymns being described as “a sacrifice of praise” and in the King James Bible we
find expressions such as “suffer the little children to come unto me.” In the first case “sacrifice” clearly means
“gift” or “offering” and “suffer” has no sense of pain, but rather means “to
permit” or “to allow.” That meaning was
still present in the early 20th century in the “Women’s Suffrage”
movement in which “suffrage” meant “permit women to vote!”
Generally in Wallace’s
writing we find the language is archaic and even anachronistic, most especially
when she is directly quoting the “Teacher” who identifies himself as someone
who has “passed over” at some unspecified time in the past. If that person were a native English speaker
from a century or more earlier, and if that person were using his native idiom
from a lifetime in that era, this is exactly what we should expect: a form of
English much more archaic than Wallace’s own, as far or possibly even further
removed in time from her era, as she is from ours.
With that in mind, and the
recognition that the words “suffer” and “sacrifice” have shifted in meaning
somewhat over time, I believe most of the “apparent contradiction” between the
ideas expressed by Wallace’s “Voice” and those expressed by Schucman’s “Voice”
diminish to the vanishing point.
The emphasis, however,
certainly IS different. Wallace’s
“Teacher” stresses the cosmic significance of Jesus “sacrifice” or “gift” on
the cross, through his “suffering” or allowing the event. Schucman’s “Voice” in ACIM identifies himself
“unambiguously” as Schucman put it, as the historical Jesus himself. His descriptions of the crucifixion downplay
the importance of the specific event. While acknowledging that it WAS of great
importance THEN, he emphasizes that “it is done” and need not concern us
greatly NOW. He stresses the resurrection as “the purpose” of it all and the
appropriate point of focus. He also
stresses that the idea that “God punished him because we were bad” is a total
misunderstanding of both God and the event.
Wallace’s “Teacher,” in contrast, describes the significance as a
“mystery” beyond the capacity of explanation. But he does that in conventional
Christian language which could leave one thinking that he is saying nothing
different from conventional “God punished His Son because we were bad”
teaching.
But look deeper. Both say directly that the human race has
basically misunderstood the cross.
Wallace herself, obviously
intimately familiar with the Bible and the Christian faith, was perhaps
unwilling or unready to hear the “full story” as later revealed in Schucman’s
scribing of ACIM. Perhaps Wallace’s
“Teacher” was attempting to “nudge” her conception of the concepts of suffering
and sacrifice just a bit, while summarizing the rest as a “mystery” beyond what
Wallace herself was perhaps ready to hear at the time.
In that context there is no
“radical contradiction” between what each says about the cross and the
crucifixion.
In the Course we are told
that “sacrifice” isn’t real and is never called for by God. Yet the Course also stresses the utter
centrality of “giving.” Clearly the word
“sacrifice” isn’t used as remotely similar to “giving” in the Course.
The Course is clear about
“Sacrifice” in the following quote:
T 3 C 15. Sacrifice
is a notion totally unknown to God. It arises solely from fear of the Records.
This is particularly unfortunate, because frightened people
are apt to be vicious. Sacrificing others in any way is a clear-cut violation
of God's own injunction that man should be merciful even as His Father in
Heaven is merciful.
T 3 C 16. It
has been harder for many Christians to realize that this commandment (or
assignment) also applies to THEMSELVES. Good teachers never
terrorize their students. To terrorize is to attack, and this results in
rejection of what the teacher offers. This results in learning failures.
T 3 C 17. I have been correctly referred to in the Bible as "The
Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world." Those who represent the lamb as blood-stained (an all too widespread
conceptual error) do NOT understand the meaning of the symbol.
T 3 C 18. Correctly understood, the symbol is a very
simple parable, or teaching device, which merely depicts my innocence. The lion
and the lamb lying down together refers to the fact that strength and innocence
are NOT in conflict, but naturally live in peace. "Blessed
are the pure in heart for they shall see God" is another way of saying the
same thing. Only the innocent CAN see God.
Wallace’s “Teacher” approaches
it differently, in these quotes from Christ
in You:
Lesson
6-5.
True[4] getting is always by way of sacrifice. This is a simple thing to know, but it is the
key to all true healing, of mind, body, or estate; for all you have truly given
you will receive double, but you do not render to the Lord that which costs you
nothing. In the sight of God, no gift has been blessed to
your own soul unless you have willingly given from your heart and blessed the
gift by your love.
Here we see a parallel with the idea in the Course “to have
all give all to all” and we also see that the word “sacrifice” is used as a
synonym for “gift.”
Lesson 11-4. Love is
pressing through the very atmosphere round about us and you. Love requires readiness and obedience, and we
are called to do its bidding. Are you
willing to obey even unto relinquishing
your worst fear? The cross is the
place for your sacrifice of
fear, for all men. All must go to this “
Here we see the terms
“relinquishment of fear” and “sacrifice of fear” used as synonyms. The stress on “readiness” and “obedience” is
strong in both works.
The next one however is the
most to the point.
Lesson 15-2. There are many theories, many explanations given about the cross of Jesus. Trust the inward and spiritual guide in all these matters, and not the mind of man. We know that the sacrifice on the cross has for your world the deepest meaning. In that sublime act Jesus the Christ symbolized God’s highest thought for you. You cannot now comprehend the greatness of it. Bonds were burst, and your earth was given its freedom. How much we have misunderstood its meaning! Let us keep reverent hearts and hushed voices before a mystery of such high import. It has a wide meaning, and only divine wisdom can interpret its greatness and its love. From our side we see something more of its results.
Here we see what I’d
describe as a bit of “diplomatic side-stepping” in the statement that there are
“many explanations” and one must trust the “inward and spiritual guide” and
should be careful of trusting “the mind of man.” I call that “diplomatic”
because while it raises doubts about ALL explanations, it also would unlikely
be offensive to the believers in any of them.
Wouldn’t all assert their belief came from their “inward and spiritual
guide?” And would not nearly all argue
that rival or divergent explanations arose instead from “the minds of men?”
In acknowledging that the
“sacrifice on the cross has for your world the deepest meaning” there is the implication of a misplaced or
misunderstood meaning, but only in the softest of terms which are least likely
to offend anyone’s doctrinal sensibilities.
That is stated more clearly in the sentence “How much we have
misunderstood its meaning!” Even that is
“diplomatic” because it would probably be more precise to say “you have
misunderstood.” Is the speaker telling
us that he also misunderstands? I think that is not his meaning.
I’d call this an “indirect”
way of saying “you guys on earth got it wrong and you CANNOT comprehend
it.” From one who himself sojourned on
earth and presumably also got it wrong, that’s credible.
This is a long long way from
an endorsement of conventional Christology which sees Jesus as being punished
by God because we were bad. If anything,
the “Teacher” here comes alongside conventional Christology and its emphasis on
suffering and sacrifice as holy, takes the language of punishment and sin, and
recasts it in a way that emphasises elimination of fear rather than imposition
of pain. That point is directly
paralleled in the Course when we’re told that the only thing we have to give up
(or sacrifice) is fear and pain.
In the Course, there is a
vastly more comprehensive explanation of the psychodynamics of fear and
sacrifice. My point in this brief essay
is to suggest that a careful analysis of Wallace’s “Voice” reveals no “real
contradictions” with the Course but rather a difference in stress, language and
thoroughness. Wallace’s “Voice” largely
side-steps the issue by saying “you CANNOT understand” this “mystery.” The Course tackles it head-on and attempts to
explain it so we can understand.
Conclusion
This introduction is of
necessity brief and leaves out far more than it includes. When I began to read this material I literally
could not put it down, I found it intriguing and riveting but more than that,
ultimately uplifting. It was truly a joy
for me to read and I could not help feel the “presence” of the divine emanating
from these pages just as is the case with the Course.
Doug Thompson
February 2010