Furthermore, the language and structure of ACIM are often criticized to be excessively complex and esoteric. The course's thick and repeated prose could be tough to know and interpret, leading to frustration and misinterpretation among readers. This complexity can make a barrier to access, which makes it burdensome for people to totally engage with and take advantage of the course. Some authorities fight that the complicated language is really a purposeful method to hidden having less substantive material and to produce an dream of profundity. The issue in comprehending the product can also result in a dependence on external teachers and interpreters, further perpetuating the commercialization and possibility of exploitation within the ACIM community.

Also, the thought of forgiveness as shown in ACIM has been criticized to be overly simplified and possibly dismissive of actual harm and injustice. The class advocates for a form of forgiveness that requires realizing the illusory character of the perceived offense and letting move of grievances a course in miracles. While this process can be useful in promoting inner peace and reducing personal enduring, it may perhaps not sufficiently address the difficulties of certain circumstances, such as abuse or systemic injustice. Experts argue this kind of forgiveness is visible as minimizing the activities of victims and absolving perpetrators of accountability. This can result in an application of spiritual bypassing, wherever individuals use religious ideas to prevent coping with painful emotions and difficult realities.

The overall worldview presented by ACIM, which stresses the illusory character of the product earth and the ego, can also be problematic. This perspective may result in an application of spiritual escapism, where individuals disengage from the bodily world and its challenges and only an idealized religious reality. While this may offer short-term relief or a feeling of transcendence, additionally, it may result in a insufficient engagement with crucial areas of living, such as for example associations, responsibilities, and cultural issues. Critics disagree that disengagement could be detrimental to both the average person and society, because it advances a questionnaire of passivity and neglect of real-world problems.

The exclusivity of ACIM is another place of contention. The program frequently occurs as an exceptional religious way, implying that different religious or spiritual traditions are less legitimate or effective. This exclusivity can foster an expression of spiritual elitism among adherents and create division as opposed to unity. Additionally it limits the possibility of persons to bring on a diverse selection of religious sources and traditions inside their personal growth and healing. Authorities disagree a more inclusive and integrative method of spirituality will be more beneficial and less divisive.