The brouhaha over l'affaire Trammell has deflected attention from a puzzle and what may be a serious, unspoken trouble. Ms Asher, as readers doubtless know by now, has nobly fallen on her sword and issued a statement/comment on the previous entry stating that now she does not even know Ms Trammell and that the whole matter is just a bit of tomfoolery gone awry. Is it remotely conceivable that the reporting of a meeting with Ms Trammell at a lesbian bar in NYC and some giddy enthusiasm by Ms Trammell over an eriscope by someone Ms Trammell doesn't even know would elicit no known denial or comment from Ms Trammell, even after two plus months? Instead she has apparently been as silent as a toadstool serenely preoccupied with the production of spores.
One simply doesn't josh like that or parody someone he doesn't know. A parody (the early denial) necessitates a fairly intimate knowledge of the subject. My sincere apologies to Ms Asher, by the way, for the careless and supercilious designation of Meow Mix as a sex club. According to her it is a lesbian bar. A little alarm went off as the former was being written, but it was inexcusably ignored. Nevertheless, where is Ms Trammell's indignation at being so misused? Or is there, rather, nothing to deny? Silence has by now become tacit acceptance of the whole story.
All this is just what The Mother Church didn't need. But if there is no something there, why not say so? My strong suspicion now is that the Asher article which spawned all of this accidentally, unthinkingly, or carelessly let a cat or two or three out of the bag and that as a kind of damage control and apology Ms Asher is hoping her denial that any of it ever occurred will swab the decks clean of any problems. But the time for a denial was two months ago, before we had a parody. Next she may be getting help from Mr. Tweedy's gnomes ("Chicken Run").
The Mother Church has admitted that membership is declining, that nothing they have done has had much effect on the decline, and that they need to return to basics, healing for example. But as Hamlet said "ay, there's the rub", for at the root of this may be a bugaboo which has stalked the Church for years and which should never have been permitted a legitimizing seat at the Christian Science table: homosexuality. When a deplorable compromise in standards is made it will eventually need to be confronted honestly and dealt with courageously in accordance with the standards Christ Jesus, Paul, and Mary Baker Eddy established. The displeasure of some, or even many, does not change what is right. Neither Christianity nor Christian Science is the plaything of secular convenience, self-righteous belligerence, or an arrogant majority. Until this issue is squarely faced and dealt with, it will continue to plague and hobble the Church. Unfortunately, it has now become a bellicose, card-carying dragon let loose in the pews and board rooms of our churches.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Outstanding! Good for you for using your brilliance on this vital issue which just won't go away. And it should not. To pick up a thought from the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, the muddy riverbed here has to be stirred and purified. (This is from page 540 of "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.")
Again, bravo!
Excellent. Excellent. This topic needs to be addressed as you have ably done here. As recommended in an earlier comment anyone who doubts the inroads of homosexuality into Christian Science--or where they got started--needs to Google the words, "Gay, Lesbian and Principia College" (all in one search line). For that matter, anyone who still harbors the illusion that Principia is a place where young Christian Scientists can get an education shielded from the vices of the world--or who is (or is thinking of) supporting Principia financially should know what is going on there. As far as Boston goes, it's nothing new. Even forty years ago there was talk of extensive homosexual activity at the Publishing Society.
On a more positive note, a friend once remarked that homsexuality is simply a case of having a wrong concept of man and is healed when one establishes in consciousness the right concept.
Yes, one can certainly see what it cost Roman Catholicism to allow this issue to fester in the Priesthood via the seminaries. I know most Christian Scientists don't have much use for Catholicism, but there's a lesson to be learned there. The Catholics don't have a real solution to the problem, but we do as mentioned in the previous comment.
Well, this is a cat that needed to be let out of the bag! You are to be commended (you are a lawyer with a flair for writing; I know it now) with standing up for the Holy Word of God and for our Christian Science. Cannot thank you enough for having the clear thinking and devotion to the Cause to write about this. There may be many comments pro, a lot con from disturbed "bellicose" gays. Or there may be stunned silence. After all, what can the officials say now, after being like "a toadstool serenely preoccupied with putting out spores"*, and just sitting on their hands for two months? I can see why letters from the field inquiring about l'afaire Trammell have not been answered. Can't all of you reading this? I've said to you before, dear blogger and will say it no doubt many times again: we need you!
*Tell me, that line didn't cause a guffaw!
"Pharisees! Hypocrites!" So said Jesus of the 'holier than thou' crowd. Who are any of you to say whom anybody else may love? A few decades ago it was against the law in many states to date, love, marry anyone of a differing race. Was this right, or wrong? It is not the place of the church or the state to make such a finding. (Scripture has no authority to enforce itself upon anyone, either. Scripture is a guide for ME, not for THEM.) I defend the right of anyone to love whom they love, marry whomever they would marry, and remain faithful to their mate – or divorce if they would divorce.
Homosexuality has been around the planet forever, even amongst animals. And yet some who practice it appear to be very loving and loyal; others promiscuous and unsettled, as is the case in heterosexual relationships, too. Honesty toward God and partner should be the standard. Condemnation by the church is unChristian and ignorant. And now Mr Christian Blogger places the failure of the entire Christian Science movement upon the shoulders of those who love members of their own sex. Why not simply put them into ovens as they did minorities during WW2? "Off with their heads! said the Queen."
I have been faithfully married to my bride of over 30 years, and love her dearly. I've never stepped out on her with anyone. But I detest those who pillory others over issues they refuse to consider through the eyes of Christ. The longest conversation Jesus had with anybody (in scripture) is with the Samaritan woman at the well, who was shacked up with somebody to whom she wasn't married. Yet she was the first person to whom he revealed his Messiah nature. To his disciples, he was way out-of-bounds even talking with such a person. Shame on all you on this blog for your prejudice! "Fix you eyes on Jesus..." (Heb 12:1).
By the way, dismissing the Trammel piece as not being a parody in spite of confession from its author is a refusal to recognize a very likely explanation. Claiming that the lack of a protest from Ms Trammel offers evidence of the veracity of the piece is simply lame. Do famous people, politicians, celebrities, respond to every swipe at their reputations? Of course not! They would never get anything done if they spent their days responding to such drivel.
~eric.
Eric Chaffee, Alden NY
NB: my initial mention on this topic was as a reference to the appearance at Christian Science Issues 2 (a yahoo group) -- where the explanation of the author's parody first surfaced. Somebody here quickly dismissed that item as not being significant. (Was that CoP not wanting readers of this blog to find their way to another blog on CS, where wide-ranging dialog on a lively array of issues and histories takes place?) Here's the link again, for those who didn't bother to look, after the first mention: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ChristianScienceIssues2/message/36991
If you knew how cheered I am by your willingness to lift up the banner for Christ Jesus and Christian Science! It could be that there are few of us out here who even care about the high standards Mary Baker Eddy set for our religion, but do you know what words of Jesus came to mind when I read your blog? His holy, comforting words from Matthew: "For where two or three are gathered togethere in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Oh do we yet realize the power that we have in standing up for Christ in our lives, honoring His holy child?! I do feel God will put wings on this blog, that He has done so already, and that it will continue reaching out and strengthening others to work to uphold the holy principles of Christian Science. Sorry this is so long, but you have inspired me!
I'm just a lowly CS, but let me tell you, had someone I didn't even know (who believes this now?) linked my name with a sex club--yes, a lesbian bar is there for sexual hook-ups in my book--and to an eriscope, for heaven's sake, don't you think I'd been all over that like Oprah on a ham? The denial would have been startling in its rapid delivery.
I have a suggestion for those who would try to defend sexual perversion: get your Bible, pull Cruden's Complete Concordance off your bookshelf, and review the many references under under "Sodom", "sodomites". Does anyone think that our dear Jesus, who referred back to the Old Testament over and over, came along and said, now anything goes? Get real, people. You know Christ would not have done this!
What a lovely description someone gave as to what is happening with respect to the growing readership of this blog -- God has given wings to it! I feel it, too.
Thanks to author and commenters who have their heads on straight! No pun intended.
Just read in Prose Works, "Miscellanous Writings", page 73 where Mrs. Eddy points out:
"Law is never material: it is always mental and moral, and a commandment to the wise. The foolish disobey moral, law, and are punished."
Can't add anything to this!
P.S. from Maine:
Please remove that comma after "moral".
To that commenter who inferred that our holy Master, Christ Jesus, would have countenanced sexual perversion, I say to you: take care...you are treading on dangerous ground here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
God bless the commenter who said this! Oh the blessed privilege of speaking up for our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. I second these words with big black lines underscored.
From what I've learned in my study of Christian Science, I would have to say that it is unChristian not to insist on healing from the slavery of the belief of homosexuality. It is a form of human gratification (nothing Christian there, just human personality insisting on "its rights" which it doesn't have). Having worked in a field that had a high proportion of people of that persuasion, I found it a lifestyle riddled with drugs, disease and death--unnecessarily. These were not generally happy people. There is certainly no continuation of the species with the practice of this belief (which is the basis for marriage from a human standpoint). And, Jesus would not have countenanced the continuation of that belief, he would have healed it. As a former commenter said, he didn't say: now anything goes!
By the way, I did look extensively at the blog Eric Chaffee mentioned, and I think there's much more substance in this blog.
No, Christ Jesus would not have thought homosexuality acceptable. (Who in his right mind could possibly think otherwise?!) And Christian Science was established to reinstate Jesus' words and works. Therefore, despite what some of its supposed adherents may think (and actually be doing), Christian Science rules out the practice of sexual perversion in any way, shape, or form.
Thank you for bringing up this too long covered over issue.
Our great and beloved Master said (John l4:30): "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." And extending this thought to the religion I cherish, Christian Science says, the practice of homosexuality hath nothing in the teachings Mary Baker Eddy gave to the world. Let me repeat, nothing/nada/zip/zero.
Couple of thoughts come to mind here: Also loved the "toadstool" reference! Very appropriate in view of the fact that toadstools are, I believe, parasites and exist by satisfying their own needs without actually contributing anything of value to the environment around them.
A look at what our Leader has to say regarding marriage is also revealing. She begins the second paragraph of the chapter on Marriage in the Textbook with this statement:
"Marriage is the legal and moral provision for generation among human kind." (S&H 56:7)
Note the use of the word "moral" in there!
And she follows up in the fourth paragraph with this:
"Chastity is the cement of civilization and progress." S&H 57:1
And in the very next paragraph she says:
"Union of the masculine and feminine qualities constitutes completeness." (S&H 57:4)
Note the strategic position of the word, "and" there.
I'd say these passages pretty clearly states her position.
Does anyone really think Mrs. Eddy would have tolerated homosexual activity between the members of her household? Or the directors of her church? So why should such behavior be tolerated today?
As far as self-righteously condemning someone else's activities go, it's well to remember that salvation is individual, so, no we need not indulge in condemning someone els's choice of lifestyle to the point of not letting them work out their own salvation. However a Teacher of Christian Science with such a poor concept of individual identity and deficient moral judgement is a VERY different matter. As is a person entrusted with the administration--and by such administration, the perpetuation--of the church our Leader founded. As she founded it.
So, no we shouldn't stop until we get to the bottom of this. And this blog is definitely serving a vital function to that end.
Bravo to whoever (whomever) said the preceding! A wonderful comment. I second wholeheartedly all this alert and dedicated Christian Scientist has shared with us.
God bless you, and the rest of us who care so much about our Cause.
As soldiers of Christ, let us go forward to the complete clearing up of this situation!
I agree that we must not rest until we get the answers we deserve. After all, is it not our Cause we're talking about here? It is not the exclusive property of a a few people in Boston. God gave Christian Science to our Leader and by jove, we need to do everything we can to uphold it. I am inspired to pray about this, I can tell you. Do we not owe Mary Baker Eddy more than we can ever repay?
I didn't really have to check this blog this morning to see how the Trammell issue is proceeding. I can feel the momentum on this, the intelligent assessment going on among us out here, the desire to uphold the standards of Christian Science by speaking out on this, the refusal to back down until we get to the bottom of all of this. If Jesus said, "There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known" (Luke l2:2) and I quote his words with reverence, we can count on this taking place. And things are unravelling as I write!
A wonderfully written blog you have here! The service to the Cause you are rendering! There are several things I could comment on, but let me say about your marvelous use of facetiousness about the sex club/lesbian bar business. While I have never visited such a place, does any one think one goes to a lesbian bar (if this is what the Planet Waves lady chooses to call it) to play tiddlywinks? And that a Christian Science teacher and Director of our church has been silent on being linked to this has been inexplicable to so many of us. Until now. What you bring out in your blog may well explain it. We owe you a debt of gratitude for your incisive thinking on this. The fact that there has been no rush to deny even since you sent "Time Again For St. George?" out into cyberspace speaks volumes, does it not?
No siree, we are not going to stop until decisive action is taken by Boston! The ball is in their court.
Ah yes, this train is picking up speed and it is going to reach its destination. Have further thoughts to share which I'll be putting on tomorrow, but just had to say a big thank-you before I blast off this morning, to the author of this blog. God bless and keep you. Your devotion to our Cause is a cause for rejoicing.
Right on with this! We owe Christian Science far too much to not do everything we can think of to clear this up, and get back to the religion our Leader established!
Unless Ms. Trammell left for Mars November l, 2008 and is still there, this is what she needs to do:
1) Issue a statement (from her own self) clearing this up, or
2) Leave town immediately after having resigned her posts.
Yes, the person at the center of this firestorm does need to step up and do something! But barring this, does she not have brethren on the Board who can communicate with the Field? Or has the cat got their collective tongues?
I'll tell you what doesn't cut it for me, what some poor misguided soul inferred in commenting that a Christian Science Teacher and Director should be on the same level as a Hollywood celebrity. They get made fun of on SNL and other programs, so what's all the fuss about, this person concludes? Plenty, mister! If we've fallen to the level where we have a CSB who has had her reputation badly tarnished, and nothing is done to correct this, things are worse than I thought.
I vote for a clearing up of this whole sordid episode.
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. She's probably there.
I just love this blog and the way so many Christian Scientists are rallying to the support of what Mary Baker Eddy has given us. With all the blessings her discovery has brought us, how can we do anything less!
I thank you...
A very worthwhile blog, it seems to me. Feel the readeris being dealt with on a basis of what's right and principled and best for the religion we owe so much to.
Good job!
Yes, God bless you for caring so much about Christian Science! We need many more like you out there.
Keep up the good work, will you?
Maybe they all lost their tongues at Meow Mix.
So uplifting this blog, and its wonderful comments. Such overwhelming support for doing the right thing in this situation, don't we find? Can't help thinking of something the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science brings out in her book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures", on page 448. Mary Baker Eddy states
in the margin, "Wicked evasions", then in the text: "...if evil is uncondemned, it is undenied and nurtured. When needed, tell the truth concerning the lie."
And further down on this page, "It is Christian Science to do right, and nothing short of right-doing has any claim to the name."
I thank God the author of this blog and the comments thereon are lifting up the standard of our wonderful religion!
I just love the well thought out, much needed, right up-to-the-minute things you are publishing!
Oh how we need this true, blue website!
I'm just getting caught up on the Trammell controversy, have read "The Banner"; the previous blog on this website, "Purr" with Ms. Asher's denial email on it; her biographical information on the Internet (which doesn't jibe with the email in my view); the many comments which have been made on this latest blog, and I have these questions:
How did Ms. Asher come to pick Trammell out of the clear blue sky, to lampoon?
Why was not Ms. Asher afraid of a lawsuit from said woman, if not from the Board she serves on, not to mention the Monitor for the ridicule she heaped on the paper as well?
Why has not Ms. Trammell defended herself?
Why have not the Directors come to the defense of one of their own?
Why has not COP jumped into the fray?
Where are the lawyers for TMC in all of this?
I have of course read what the author of "Time Again For St. George?" thinks is at the bottom of all of this. It may well be the author is on to something. But it is clear to me that there is much more that needs to come out about this whole business before we have the complete story. If no official explanations are forthcoming, God can clear it up in His own way, I feel sure.
I have met Mrs. Trammell and have high regard for her as a person and as a CS-tist. After reading many of the entries on this blog and the issue of The Banner in which a rather muddled account is given of his brouhaha, I would conclude the following:
--Ms Asher's article is the joke she said it was. She knows it and Mrs. T knows it, so why issue a firm denial of a joke?
--In her Sentinel and Journal articles over the years, Mrs. T. has always indicated that she places family values (sorry, I just couldn't think of a better term) very high, with forgiveness well at the top of the list. It is difficult to think that she would exhibit bias for or against any unfortunate caught up in the throes of practicing, "out" homosexuality.
--I don't think this pseudo-scandal has made the papers or otherwise become general knowledge, and those who do know about it, or any of it, might do well to apply the Golden Rule.
--Mrs. T. comes across as a person who has accepted the personal inconvenience (to put it mildly) of living apart from her husband in order to do the work of Chairman of the BoD and Editor-in-Chief, with grace and competence. She needs our support, not prurient speculation as to the verity of a rumor or of a joke.
I met Mrs. T. when the B of D came to Portland almost four years ago. We had a fine conversation about, inter alia, Renaissance literature. I think she was as glad as I was to find another CS who loves this and recognizes how implicitly it lies behind the "word" of CS. I didn't like it when a few months ago in a statement anent the use of other Bible "translations" (they should be called paraphrases, parodies, or travesties), that King James was after all a person of questionable morality. Anyone with even a nodding acquaintance of the Stuarts knows he had boyfriends as well as his wife and children. Might this be considered a roundabout censure of the practices our contemporary usage lumps together as "homosexual"?
Thanks again for this excellent blog. I would recommend that readers also join cslist and other CS discussion lists and keep an eye on csdirectory.com. We'll never get the straight skinny from official channels, so these are vital. Though I would also caution that right of free speech embraces the obligation of responsible speech, and that responsibility includes relaying the whole megillah.
I blog as LowlyWise, which comes from a line in Paradise Lost: Raphael answers Adam's speculations on the nature of the cosmos by saying focus on the homefront right here in Eden:
"Heaven is for thee too high
To know what passes there. Be lowly wise;
Think only what concerns thee and thy being;"
My own blog will have notes on the weekly lesson and on the Wednesday readings I do as First Reader. When I get it going, which cause is not forwarded by blogging elsewhere. But I do it anyhow!
Post a Comment