A review of One Course, Two Visions that I just posted on Amazon:
I gave this book 3 stars to be fair, because the book does show evidence of remarkable scholarship on the part of the authors, Perry in particular, and I do feel this is all serving a perhaps unintended purpose in helping us all to get clearer about what the Course is actually teaching. Yet, I agree with the other critical comments here that not only do Perry et al not do Ken Wapnick’s views justice, but they are missing an even more essential point: The Course’s own warning (if I may) to seek first the experience, and let not theology delay you. Read in context, Ken W’s “bleak” picture of the Course not only is not really so bleak, but is also in line with the Course’s own pedagogical thrust of helping us to see the fix or “hell” that our identification with the ego has us in.
Another major point that the Course is making is that what we choose to see creates our perception. I feel this is really what is at work with those who are against Wapnick — they don’t like him or what he’s saying, for whatever reason, and then come up with justifications for why that is so. All I can say is read Ken’s stuff with an open mind and heart, and you will perhaps see what others have seen: A master at work. To my mind, Ken got it (and sure, he was human, too), and there was a reason why he was chosen to do the work he did. Read Ken’s “Absence from Felicity” and his response to the copyright issue, among other things, and then make your final decision.
I want to also add that my comments are also made from my own direct experience. The Course is largely metaphor and symbol — it’s poetry — and does work on different levels, it’s not generally meant to be taken literally, except in places. I wish the authors all the best, of course, yet feel this is misguided.