The recent reading of a selection of pamphlets and leaflets published roughly from 1939-1965 has led me to think about the thousands of articles published over many decades in the periodicals. A general observation, of one reader at least, is that the older the better--with noteworthy exceptions, of course. Many articles and editorials are, naturally, topical, but Mrs. Eddy never implies, to my knowledge, that writings in the periodicals are transitory or have an intrinsically limited shelf-life. Some of the fine articles written in response to WW's I and II, for example, are still helpful and surprisingly relevant today in our war on cataclysmic economic woes.
On the other hand, many of these thousands of articles from past years are real yawners and seem now, at least, like printed filler material. Those from the Journal, especially, often read like abstract exercises in metaphysics and word spinning. Reading them, the editor's proofreading abbreviation "mego" comes frequently to mind. For me, old Sentinel articles and editorials come more often nearer to the heart.
Two pamphlets illustrate, again for me, this contrast. "A Prophet with Honor" is a splendid collection of three addresses and one article, all unattributed and undated. That these articles uncompromisingly emphasize the necessity for a proper reverence for Christ Jesus and Mrs. Eddy gives them an added relevance, which highlights the shameful Church behavior of recent years. The other pamphlet, "The Pattern of the Mount", contains three articles from the Journal and one from the Sentinel. One of the Journal articles is probably a "classic", yet there is to me an almost dry, academic atmosphere about them. They don't seem to impart the uplifting, fresh inspiration of the writings in "A Prophet with Honor".
So get to the point, you say! Of course, it may all be a question of one's need and preference at the moment, but when one thinks of all those long unread articles from more than a century of writing, he may well wonder what Mrs. Eddy really expected. Even in her own day the writing in the Journal and the Sentinel was frequently found wanting. My conclusion is that we should never venture far from the mother lode of the Bible and writings of Mary Baker Eddy. In fact, we should stick to them like a tick. No matter how inspired and uplifting other writers may be, "nobody does it better" than the Bible and Mrs. Eddy, as a James Bond film theme song says.
Briefly, in response to some comments to the second entry prior to this one, the word "crack" was meant as in "crack army troops", i.e., first rate. The title was just a corny carney's cry to capture the busy reader's attention. A more dull equivalent would have been "the first rate and the third rate". My apologies if that was a little too cute. The idea was that the third rate creeping into our Church has done to it what the same compromises and corner-cutting have done to the world economy.
There was also no attempt in that entry to belittle any reader in any church. It is certain that there are many conscientious and dedicated readers, but it is still felt that the best reading is to an extent undercut by spiritual, ethical, and moral waywardness in a church. Churches are no stronger than the weakest links in their spiritual makeup.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Amen to all you say. Very well done. Found myself nodding in agreement at several spots in your blog post. Couldn't agree more with your premise, and I thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. And doing it so well!
Love that thought you express in your blog, stick to the Bible and our Leader's writings like a tick! We're on safe ground when we do this--although the early clear, uncompromising articles have been of enormous inspiration to me over the years.
Thanks for all you are sharing.
Really like this blog of yours! What stood out to me is saying right up front that the third rate has crept into our church organization. How true, how sad. But there are many of us, some reading your blog regularly, who care a lot about upholding the high standards not only the Word of God makes clear, but what our Leader stated for her Cause.
Keep thinking and sharing!
A very helpful entry, as well as the one before on leaning on God's infinite love and care. While I do agree nothing says it better than the Bible and Mrs. Eddy's writings, feel you may be a bit overly critical in your dismissal of more recent articles. I have found some quite strong and helpful. (Apparently the sometimes too harsh editing didn't touch these.) All in all though, go along with most of what you present in your excellent blog.
Really good, like the title very much. Ok, you've explained what you meant in earlier blog by "crack"; now tell us what "mego" means in this one. Either author or someone tuning in. Have never heard this term.
Fine entry. Yes, we must stay with The Mother Lode. Recall an experience I had years ago when I first began writing for the periodicals. Was so excited when my first article was accepted for publication, for the Monitor. Called a wonderful Christian Science practitioner to share the news, which she read. But then, she said: "Nice, but if I got anything new out of your article, I'd be in serious trouble." Didn't like the comment then, but understand now what she meant. She felt staying with the Bible and what our Leader has written was the important thing. I concur.
You've given us another splendid entry! So grateful for your love for Christian Science and your continuing efforts to bring out what is essential for students of CS. Why must we stay with the Bible and Mrs. Eddy's inspired writings? Because none of us has yet plumbed the depths of these timeless truths, and we need to pore over them continually. This keeps us on safe as nothing else can.
You are doing a lot of good for mankind!
Appreciate your fine blog for many reasons, but mostly because it helps me see I'm not alone out here in wanting CS to be held at a high standard, to be maintained the way its Discoverer and Founder left it.
Keep up your inspired blogging!
What a blessing your website is, and just want to say again that you have my continuing support for its success.
Really like this premise of yours, that we must stay with the Bible and what Mary Baker Eddy proved and wrote for mankind's benefit. Why? Because despite what some church organzation officials may do in their trafficking in anti-Christ things, viz. astrology, witchcraft, paganism, we have our books and no corrupt church leader can pollute these!
God bless you, blogger.
Love your choice of the word "lode" in your title. Bespeaks, to me, though I haven't looked up the word, a sense of abundance/riches/a bonanza. And this is what the Holy Bible and the writings of our Leader certainly are!
Someone mentioned I should check out your website and I can see what they meant. A very well written and informative blog. Well worth visiting again.
Thanks!
Another excellent post! Thank you blogger! Can't help thinking of what was made clear to me during Class Instruction: Mrs. Eddy specified Class Teaching was to be from Recapitulation in Science and Health, but that didn't mean we couldn't be given additional citations to study in relation to and amplification of the Recapitulation material. I've always treated the periodicals in this manner--in relation to and amplification of what Mrs. Eddy has written.
Certainly some of the material in the Periodicals is absolute gold and some is nothing but dross--especially the past few years. So we simply ignore the dross and treasure the gold. If we never looked at the periodicals we'd be missing much. Mrs. Eddy obviously gave them to us for a reason.
One other point that was made clear to me by a long-time worker many years ago was that, yes, the Journal was always intended to be a more serious statement of practical metaphysics for more serious students.
Thanks writer for another very fine entry. Having benefited so much years ago when I would take time off and spend it in a reading room going through some of those gems from early writers, I could never be grateful enough for all they shared. Too bad we don't have that these days (except for a strong metaphysical article the editors throw in now and then).
But of course, the most important, as you point out, is staying with the Bible and our Leader's writings.
Thanks.
As one who quit subscribing to the periodicals some time ago (just lacked something essential, not sure what, but not doing anything for me) an upside to my not having these has been deeper delving into the Bible and the writings of our Leader. I imagine more students of CS have been having my experience, and for this spiritual growth we can thank God.
God is so good to us!
Have been pondering what is missing in the current periodicals and I think it is this: the motivation behind them is not pure; they are trying to reach the masses, trying to appeal to a lower level of mortal thought. Whereas what the Bible writers gave us was straight from God, and what the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science says in the preface to her book, "Science and Health": "The author has not compromised conscience to suit the general drift of thought, but has bluntly and honestly given the text of Truth."
Amen to the previous commenter. The current periodicals reek of an agenda to attract mortal thought. The Directors have been "lulled by stupefying illusions" onto a slippery slope that leads ever downward. They've missed or forgotten that it is the Truth itself "bluntly and honestly" spoken/written that attracts receptive thought and heals.
One of my favorite blogs. You do such a wonderful job of reminding us out here we need to stay with pure, God-given divine truths. Love this entry!
I do not see what is so wrong with trying to reach out to those who are in need, but yet have not had the benefit of years of study of Christian Science. If it is just kept locked away only for a select few, it cannot be shared. People are so varied and different in their needs and levels of understanding. I think Mrs. Eddy would be apalled at how the church has ceased to grow to meet the needs of the changing age. Yes, some of the articles could use more work but that is only my opinion on an article. Who is to say that it did not strike a chord with someone else around the world on whatever level they happen to be spiritually? It is as if you require an infant to attend college before years of foundation have been laid. We need elementary readers for some, and higher level college textbooks for others. I think mix of interest and levels is more effective in sharing Truth.
A pleasure to read someone who writes as well as you. Have wondered about your profession--a professor of English, a high-school teacher who corrects papers, an attorney? Anyway, thanks for a fine blog!
As to that comment above, trying to justify the appalling watering down of Christian Science we have seen the past few years, I must speak up: this is wrong! Our Leader who gave the Word that God revealed to her "bluntly and honestly", who also states clearly that adultering CS makes it void. Can anything be clearer than these words of the Discoverer and Founder--and our forever Leader-- of Christian Science?
My own mother who was not a college-educated woman, nor what one would think of as an intellectual nonetheless was healed through reading and podnering the uncompromised divine truths that are in "Science and Health." Could this have happened had this wonderful book have been worked over and made palatable to the masses the way the periodicals have been? Absolutely not!
I second what has just been posted, but have to say, the periodicals have not been made palatable to the masses. People aren't knocking down the doors to subscribe, are they? Of course not. Lowering the standards to accomodate just about any one who happens to pick up a Journal or Sentinel is an abysmal failure. We all know this. And we out here who appreciate this blog know precisely why!
Thank God for you, blogger.
In hopes of helping the commenter who doesn’t see what’s wrong with reaching out…
There is nothing wrong in reaching out to those in need per se. However if the motive in reaching out is ANYTHING but to help and bless those needy AND receptive individuals, say to get them to come to church, or join a church thereby enriching a church’s membership rolls and coffers—and I think a pretty good case has been made on more than one occasion that that’s been Boston’s motive for quite some time now, then there is PLENTY wrong.
There is also plenty wrong with not letting Mrs. Eddy’s life work speak for itself, thinking it has to be “adapted” to a new age or “helped” along by someone who doesn’t really understand it themselves. The age has certainly changed but the truth has not. Truth touches those in need of and ready for it. Error does not. Few would argue that Mrs. Eddy’s was a divinely appointed and inspired mission. If any of us thinks we can “help” that mission by interjecting our own “interpretation” of her work between God and the receptive thought, there’s probably plenty wrong with that, too.
Finally, years of study are NOT required to be healed of even the most serious maladies. Look at the people touched by Mrs. Eddy’s works in the early years of Christian Science. And look at the number of those people who turned right around and took up the healing work themselves immediately. Receptive thought was touched by simple truths simply told. If one accepts the thought of infinite progress, certainly someone with years of study under their belts would understand far more profoundly those simple or even more complex truths, but would in no way detract from their basic application and acceptance by “newcomers.” And indeed it may require years of study for a student of this Science to reach the point they can get themselves out of the way of being of practical aid to the receptive thought by not feeling they have to “translate” it. But again that does not mean the newcomer won’t or can’t be touched by Mrs. Eddy’s works just as they are. I definitely agree with the “C.S. Practitioner” above who pointed out that Mrs. Eddy herself has said, “Adulterating Christian Science makes it void.”
I am so sick of people continuing to make ex-ante arguments for watering down Christian Science when we are living in the ex-post aftermath of it.
"I think Mrs. Eddy would be apalled at how the church has ceased to grow to meet the needs of the changing age. . . . Who is to say that it did not strike a chord with someone else around the world on whatever level they happen to be spiritually?"
It might have been reasonable to say this in 1984, but guess what, your side took over that year. Remember? We were all dragged into our curches, hooked up to a live video feed anf told by Harvey Wood that we've ceased to grow to meet the needs of the changing age. Actually I think his words were, "We are talking only to ourselves in a language that only we understand," and that we have to "live for all mankind." The periodicals have been in the grip of this myasma of pap since 1992 when the last real Christian Scientists to edit the periodicals resigned in protest over the publication of incorrect literature. Since then we've been publishing watered down drivel to "strike a chord with someone else around the world on whatever level they happen to be spiritually." Reason would seem to dictate that if it were going to work, and watering down our Leader's periodicals were going to reach people where they are at, then 17 years would have been enough time for it to work. "Who's to say it's not" you ask? I say it's not because if it was reaching new people, we would see these new people in church. Instead, we just see stalwarts getting disgusted and leaving church.
Your side keeps on making these ex-ante arguments about how this "new" approach could work. But it's way too late for that. We're living in an ex-post world, where this "new" approach has been being tried at one level or another for 25 years.
And to our side I say, stop arguing with them on the level of logic. There's no need to point out that we should reach out to others with genuine Christian Science. All we need to say is, we've tried it your way for 25 years and it has resulted in 40% of our branches closing and the ones that remain open have been reduced from hundreds of attendees to an average of 40. Lets stop arguing about theory and lets look at results. We tried it our way for 80 years and it more or less worked. We tried it their way for 25 years and it has been an unmitigated disaster. Which option seem like a better one to rely on for the next 25 years? The one that has proven that it can result in healing and growth, or the one that ends with us making Harvey Wood's lie true. Nowadays, we really are speaking only to ourselves. Unfortunately though, we're using a language that even we don't understand.
Post a Comment