Two Faces of Christian Science

It was gratifying to hear Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson described recently on a major tv network news report as "a devout Christian Scientist who doesn't smoke or drink". One hopes that that description of a Christian Scientist will be consciously or unconsciously filed away by those few "honest seekers" who might be led to investigate Christian Science.

Another, less recent face before the public is that of a soi-disant Christian Scientist, a fairly well-known actor. He was on the cover of a Sentinel, to which he has also made a written contribution or two. We were also informed he has been a Second Reader in his branch church. Boston's poster-boy has reportedly given quite a few million dollars to The Mother Church, which no doubt made any fluffy droplets from his pen uncommonly wonderful.

Yet an article quoted him as being proud of the fact that a couple of margaritas (or some other mixed drink) had been named after him. Now, what idea would the unknowing and probably uncaring and skeptical public form of Christian Science from these two men? An insignificant, have-it-any-way-you-want sect with no meaningful beliefs or standards? Even the "honest seeker" might have second thoughts.

Defending What Matters, Criticizing Error

"Anything Goes" is a wonderful Cole Porter song, and musical, but it is not a suitable Christian Science theme song. "The song of Christian Science is 'Work--work--work--watch and pray.'" (Mary Baker Eddy, '00 2: 7-8) Churches might be filled every Sunday and Wednesday if soothing, easy-listening music were played and lots of munchies were available in the lobby for attendees to nosh on during the service. But would a full church under these conditions mean anything so far as understanding Christian Science is concerned?

The writer of this blog may appear to many, even to most, as a nattering nabob of negativism, or worse. But just as with mathematics, one either gets Christian Science or he doesn't. There is one Way and it is strait uphill all the way. There is no Christian Science Lite, nor a wide and shady path to understanding and demonstration for beginners or the well-meaning but indolent.

An understanding of Christian Science will not without dedicated working, watching, and praying suddenly appear to a micawberish ditherer, nor by some magical, effort-saving deus ex machina no matter how good and well -intentioned we are. Mrs. Eddy tells us that "Seeking is not sufficient. It is striving that enables us to enter." (S&H 10: 14-15)

Mrs. Eddy also says that error left to itself is undenied and nurtured. What is criticized in these entries is not intentionally ad hominem, but against what is wrong, what is perceived as error at work. If the criticisms are unjust, God will take the matter up with the writer. But if one loves God and Christian Science as he was taught to the best of his understanding and as he understands them to be through the Bible and writings of Mary Baker Eddy, he cannot turn a blind eye to what he and many others see as animal magnetism, mortal mind, and error hard at work.

As a final thought, see Science and Health 36: 14-18.

More About Hymnals

Something is being done on the hymnal front after all (see the previous entry), but not what was hoped for. Supplements (plural) will apparently be issued periodically beginning in November, though it's unclear if each will have a few, several, or many hymns included.

They are looking for additional suggestions, but the appeal would seem to be aimed at the target audience, whoever that is, for the Journal and Sentinel, and probably even spirituality.com, so traditional Scientists (for lack of a better term) may once again be facing Boston's music, so to speak. Maybe we will soon be having cheery sing-alongs and karaoke solos, a chilling but frugal prospect. Or a hard-driving heavy metal setting of "Shepherd, show me how to go".

To summarize, the sober conclusion at the end of the last entry will almost certainly not be invalidated by this recent development. If something appears to be a good thing, as Martha would say, its intent may only be to separate Scientists from their shekels.

A New Hymnal

Wouldn't a new hymnal be a blessing to Christian Scientists and their branch churches? A reliable source told me years ago that the hymns for a new hymnal had been selected by a formal committee decades ago, but nothing further had ever been done.

The next steps are somewhat costly ones: setting the hymns into type, printing the hymnals (including those large, loose-leaf ones for organists and pianists), and working up a new hymnal concordance. This would undoubtedly take a few million dollars to accomplish, but wouldn't it be a natural and loving thing for The Mother Church to do for Christian Scientists? The cost would also be defrayed over time by purchases.

Many hundreds of millions were foolishly squandered on the DOA Monitor television fiasco and more recently tens of millions on a white elephant, a dismal memorial to a few Brobdingnagian egos. Yet something which might enrich all of us gets elbowed aside for the sake of a few million dollars, what one suspects is the small prospect of its conferring a high luster to the names of those responsible, and the wish, no doubt, to pursue more glamorous undertakings.

Unless something has changed fairly recently, the large loose-leaf, hymnals haven't been available for years, and need to be. The present hymnal dates from at least the late 1930's, and that is probably the Supplement. Why can't we have a fresh hymnal while there are still some churches left to use them? Or is the unspoken, sinister message here that Boston has secretly written off Christian Scientists and branch churches and is now only willing to engage in self-indulgent pastimes?

"Take Heed!"

As always, our Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, sees the needs of the hour most clearly and expresses them best. See her short article "Take Heed!" in Miscellaneous Writing, p. 368: 11-5.

MBE Biographies and Not Biograhies

The value of reading a good biography of Mary Baker Eddy, and especially the Robert Peel, has been discussed in at least two or three earlier entries. The We Knew Mary Baker Eddy series, originally in four volumes (Series), can also be highly recommended. These reminiscences almost put the reader in her presence, and many uplifting statements by her are recorded by the various authors. It is hard to avoid feeling these volumes are indispensable to Christian Scientists, and they should be visited from time to time.

On the other hand, the much ballyhooed inaugural volume in Boston's Mary Baker Eddy biography series, The Destiny of The Mother Church by Bliss Knapp, is not by the most attenuated stretch of the word a biography of her, and it doesn't claim to be. It is a reminiscence by Bliss Knapp of his parents, who were early pioneers in the Christian Science Movement. It is a fine book for what it is, but Mrs. Eddy is only mentioned in the last few chapters.

The publication of this book by Boston is a tale of lucre, as most readers of this blog doubtless already know. The Knapp will stated, more or less, that the estate would be awarded to The Mother Church if the Christian Science Publishing Society would publish the book and make it available in "essentially all" Reading Rooms. For decades the Church refused to publish the book, even for the very large bequest ($180+ million by the late 80's), probably because the book takes the position that Mrs. Eddy is the woman in Revelation and because it really isn't about her or Christian Science per se.

As the closing date in the terms of the will drew near, it was decided that the obvious bolus wasn't really all that large and could be disingenuously and remuneratively swallowed. It was all a bit hugger-mugger, but the folks in Boston convinced themselves this non-biography was a swell candidate to start a new Mary Baker Eddy biography series. Mind you, money had nothing to do with this decision. As it turned out Boston only got half of the estate and the "default" legatee, Stanford University (?), the other half.

Also, if memory serves, at least one teacher of Christian Science was defrocked for teaching the position on Mrs. Eddy that the Knapp book takes. How will the Christian Science church survive and prosper on the pitifully thin gruel of prevarication, money-grubbing, and mendacity?

"Not marble, nor the gilded monuments" (Part 2)

Christ Jesus and Mary Baker Eddy both demonstrated that an imposing venue is not necessary or even desirable for a sermon or a service. So far as we know, most of Christ Jesus' itinerant ministry was accomplished en plein air. Too much emphasis on the visually engaging might well be a deterrent to some who are uncomfortable in such surroundings.

The substance of a church is not what is material without, but what is spiritual within. It is Truth, Life, and Love expressed in the lives of members and the resulting Christly atmosphere emanating therefrom which will attract "honest seekers" to our churches. It is not possible to attract everyone.

Christian Science may have flouished best before there was the preoccupation with buildings, business meetings, committees, and grounds-keeping. "Our proper reason for church edifices is, that in them Christians may worship God,--not that Christians may worship church edifices!" (Mary Baker Eddy, Miscellany 162: 21-24)

"Not marble, nor the gilded monuments"

It may well be that one thing Christian Science needs is more church and fewer churches. Church as defined on page 583 of Science and Health.

Perhaps there has always been too much "Look at what our success and gratitude have built" and too little church. Not because of insincerity or lack of love for Christian Science, but because of an overly zealous pride and vanity in "our wonderful monument in stone" to Mrs. Eddy and her great Discovery.

If memory serves, Mrs. Eddy only attended a service in the extension to the original Mother Church once, but certainly not more than a very few times. She did not even attend the dedicatory service, but sent her message to be read. The grand I.M. Pei-designed Church Center in Boston, with its high rise building, colonnade building, and lovely reflecting pool, announced with self-confident joy and fanfare in the late 60's (or thereabouts), is now empty or rented out, so one hears.

Large, grand edifices all over the world, some probably built nearly a century ago, close almost monthly it seems, or cling to existence with a few pewsful of financially henpecked members. No sinful behavior or gross failing is being implied. Just the suggestion that in the zest of building "our" testimony in marble, in matter, the true purpose of church may have gotten mortared in with the cornerstone.

A handful of Christan Scientists, hearts glowing with the definition of church lived, meeting in a rented room or a tool shed, can be a church, and the kind of church that just might beckon "honest seekers" to inquire within.

Wise Study

One should be loath to have the weekly Bible Lesson be his only daily study of the Christian Science textbooks, no matter how much time is spent with it. Even if the Bible Lessons are studied faithfully over many years there is no guarantee one is being exposed to all relevant portions of the Bible and Science and Health (which is all of it).

The Bible Lessons have been jiggered with in the past, and there is no certainty they aren't being now or won't be in the future. As has been suggested in earlier entries, we must each of us savor these books individually by studying and pondering deeply all the inspired Word of the Bible and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy.

Secularism & Existentialism in C.S. Churches

The Church Manual requires that the periodicals be "kept abreast of the times" (and we'll leave that subject there), but Mrs. Eddy doesn't say The Mother Church and branch churches must also "get with the times".

For churches to live up to the definition of church in Science and Health, undeviating adherence to the Church Manual is required. Period. Neither the Church Manual nor churches need a 21st Century makeover.

For years secularism and existentialism have been slipping silently into Christian Science churches on their little cat feet. They have come inobtrusively as tempting suggestions, perhaps as enlightened "spirituality" or the need to jazz things up a bit for those young folks with microsecond attention spans.

It also appears in a benign attitude toward those who would like to glide unimpeded between medicine and Mind, sybaritism and Spirit, or self-indulgence and Soul. Christian Science churches seem desperate at times to keep up with the Joneses and have made us-too attempts to spice up services a tad.

"Why can't going to church be good for me and fun too?" If that question hovers insistently in someone's thought it may mean Christian Science isn't for him any more than muzzy "spirituality", secularism, existentialism, and hootenannies are for Christian Science churches.

The Good (the Bad) and the Ugly (Part II)

In the earlier entry, two biographies of Mary Baker Eddy were briefly discussed. At that time no "bad" biography came to mind to accompany the "good" (Robert Peel) and the really "ugly" (Gill). The early Dakin and Milmine "biographies" are, however, worthy candidates for the bad, but both of thse go way beyond plain bad to vicious and nasty.

Dakin and Milmine were motivated by hate, not a desire to tell anything truthful about Mrs. Eddy. The tiniest shreds of fact were fleshed out by disgusting gobs of vilification, innuendo, grotesque distortion, and misinformation. Both these books of sludge were listed, regrettably but not surprisingly, in the bibliography of the Gill book.

One of the worst by-products of the Gill book is that for those feckless Christian Scientists who had long yearned for a guilt-free pass to mix medicine, doctors, and Christian Science, this book was a disingenuous godsend from Boston. "If Mrs. Eddy could take drugs," as the Gill book "uncovered", "then, hooray, I can too!"

Mrs. Eddy flatly denied using drugs. See her article "Falsehood" in Miscellaneous Writings (P.248:16-7). So either one accepts Gill, and in effect calls Mrs. Eddy a lier and a hypocrite, or he wholly rejects Gill's misrepresentations. And how could anyone who feels Mrs. Eddy lied about the use of drugs muster any desire to accept her as his Leader and remain a true Christian Scientist? Well, maybe the answer to that question depends upon what the true definition of "true" is.

A Timely Opportunity

When Christian Science was new to the world, many in need came to it in extremis. The doctors of the day had done all they could and had given them up. This clean break from the clutches of medical practice gave many the incentive to try Christian Science and explore its promises with a receptive and humble thought. And unlike Lot's wife, they did not seem as tempted to look back wistfully to the physicians.

A similar opportunity may be presenting itself to Christian Scientists today. New drug and treatment resistant microbes are rapidly evolving. Some are extremely virulent and fatal. Even a few so-called controllable diseases have become runaway epidemics in some parts of the world. Add to that the thousands and tens of thousands that earthquakes (and sometimes the resulting tidal waves) and violent weather are killing each year. Much of this is beyond man's ability to control or even mitigate.

It could even be argued that the glowing claims trumpeted ubiquitously for modern medical miracles are but an unwitting Trojan horse ferrying into fear-filled and receptive human consciousness the 21st Century Greek soldiers of apocalyptic horrors.

God's omnipotence is all. As Mrs. Eddy states in S&H (249: 13-14): "Either there is no omnipotence, or omnipotence is the only power." Christian Scientists should now have a splendid opportunity to prove that Christian Science has the ability and power to accomplish what we claim for it and thereby demonstrate to suffering humanity pure, scientific, quick, and undeniable Christian healing.

Healing Essential

As a postscript to and reinforcement of the overriding theme of several previous entries, the following exerpt from an undated letter of Mrs Eddy is offered. Since the letter does not appear in her published writings one can accept or reject it as he wishes.

"Unless we have better healers, and more of this work than any other is done, our Cause will not stand and having done all stand. Demonstration is the whole of Christian Science, nothing else proves it, nothing else will save it and continue it with us. God has said this--and Christ Jesus has proved it."

Limited Horizons Dispelled

A frisky horse in a corral may dash exuberantly to and fro, gallop about wildly, and kick up its heels. By the end of a day it may have covered several miles, but it still ends the day where it started. Dedicated Christian Scientists who are working daily for a greater understanding of Christian Science and an ability to demonstrate it better and more decisively may well do so with the zest and vigor of the horse in the corral and yet find themselves with little more insight and inspiration at day's end than they had at day's beginning.

One reason for this could be that one is mentally gamboling about too willy-nilly, like the horse, withut a methodical, focussed approach to study. Another reason could be that one has unconsciously built over many years a sturdy, comforting, spiritual corral for himself, outside of which his thinking never ventures. It may be that the mental corral is the evidence of a need for more childlike trust in God, more obedience to the duties and obligations one accepts as a Christian Scientist, or more Christlike love for God and man. But whatever the mesmeric error or errors, unrelenting working, watching, and praying will remove the fence around the corral and open the way out of stagnation and darkness and into fresh pastures of light.

Unacceptable Compromises

To many life-long Christian Scientists it is unthinkable, but some churches are indeed permitting members who are having medical care or treatment to remain active members in good standing, even to hold elective or appointed offices or positions. To allow this or be one who indulges in this apostasy is a disrespectful repudiation of Christ Jesus, Mary Baker Eddy, and Christian Science.

Not so many decades ago a church member who decided to seek medical attention would voluntarily withdraw from active membership, i.e., he or she would not serve in any position or attend meetings and vote. This was done by the member out of respect for fellow church members and Christian Science. When such a person was again relying solely on Christian Science, he was restored to full membership.

Surely it is clear that to accept anything less is to befoul Christian Science and the very quality that has attracted so many people to it over the years: Christianly scientific healing. Without this quality, what does Christian Science offer that would unquestionably be an improvement on what a new-comer might already have? And a church without meaningful standards is little more than a social club.

The argument has been made that to take any action against those choosing medicine over Mind is unloving. That argument is arrant nonsense. To permit apostates the rights and privileges of loyal and true Christian Scientists is being unloving to the latter, not the former. The argument against taking an unloving action is quite probably being made because those who make it would like to keep this convenient fig leaf available to themselves should the need arise.

Christian Science and Homosexuality

Homosexuality is incompatible with with Christian Science and, for that matter, pure Christianity. There is no hazy or moot middle ground if one is clear about the demands of either.

This does not mean, of course, that homosexual men and women are not welcome in Christian Science churches, but to flaunt it or even be unabashedly open about it should disqualify such persons from elected or appointed offices or even from active membereship.

If a homosexual man or woman is willing to recognize the error of such a lifestyle and is prayerfully attempting overcome it, then he is making an effort to live the life of a Christian Scientist and should be treated as such. But homosexuals today tend to demand acceptance on their terms on any front of their choosing and to be treated as if they embodied some enviable, cutting-edge existence.

What makes this more than an intellectual discussion is that when churches are forced to confront the desire of an unapologetic homosexual to join and serve, it can cause serious and wholly unnecessary rifts in the membership. It is regrettable that many Scientists are not as absolute and clear on this issue as they should be. To stand firm against the acceptance of homosexuality is not unloving, but respectful of God, Christ Jesus, and our Leader, which is a Christian Scientist's duty. Those who would force the issue are the self-righteous, inconsiderate, unloving ones.

This also appears to be yet another instance of Boston's standardless standard-bearing exacerbating an issue.