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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The week the lesson had WINE from the Glossary of S&H, it cited only the second sentence, all the negatives. I made it a point to include in my Wednesday lesson the first sentence, and the positives. If you do not read from the books, you miss much that fills out the picture. I can see why the CSPS edits to the point of censoring: they don't want to include things that might embarrass a reader from the podium; they don't want to introduce controversies that can't be resolved within the scope of a lesson-sermon; they want to use the lesson-sermon as a subtle instrument of propaganda. There may be more, but if you don't study contexts you miss a lot. How is it that people devoted to Truth, Life, and Love are evidently so thin-skinned that our sermons "on which the propriety of CS depends" (Manual) must be strait-jacketed into a sort of lie?
((((((How is it that people devoted to Truth, Life, and Love are evidently so thin-skinned that our sermons "on which the propriety of CS depends" (Manual) must be strait-jacketed into a sort of lie?))))
correction: I believe MBE wrote that it is 'prosperity' not 'propriety' of CS that is dependent on the Bible Lessons.
Post a Comment