A cheesy knockoff of the Batmobile puttered up to the casino entrance. "It's Vin Diesel." "No, it's Vic Knockwurst!" His sculpted visage emerged from the Batmobile after creasing his coiffure and skull on the gullwing door. "I'm here to put in a good word for Miriam Baker Eddy", he says. "It's MARY Baker Eddy", says a voice in the crowd. "Whatever", he replies.
"Let's head for the bar. I could use one of my signature martinis after that ride. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Second hand fumes don't bother me." "So what brings you here, Vic?" "I want to let everyone know that Christian Science is for the hoi polloi, the great unwashed, not just for a bunch of hysterical old fuddy-duddies who object to everything the board of directors in Boston tries to do to get a dying elephant back on its feet." "Like the Gill biography and eriscopes?" "If that's what it takes. No one ever went to hell from smearing MBE, reading an eriscope, or canoodling in a lesbian bar. I've got my full-text Bible lesson right here in my pocket, I think, and can do the lesson twice between drinks. It's the best of both worlds."
"What has Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science done for you?" "It brings me comfort that doesn't interfere with my high-powered lifestyle." "Aren't there standards of some kind?" "To paraphrase W.C. Fields in 'My Little Chickadee', not the way they play it in Boston. No. Joining the MC is easier than signing up for Weight Watchers." "But what's the point if it demands nothing of a member?" "Well, it quiets the little demon who constantly says 'You're sinning'. Being a member of a Christian Science church is a little like going to confession, and when it's done you can write for the Sentinel and appear on its cover, especially if you put a few million shekels in the game."
"Do you study the textbooks every day and try to practice what you read?" "Textbooks? Like I said, I have my trusty full-text lessons to hit for a nice thought or two between scenes or appearances. I can't be hauling a couple of doorstops around with me." "What about Mrs. Eddy's other writings?" "What about them? Don't let some fussy straight arrows spoil your soiree. You can have a cool wind at your back without frustrating yourself senseless trying to plow hardscrabble. I got to be a reader in my church, didn't I? The inspired directors in Boston will tell you everything you need to know." "But they really don't tell us anything but 'Shell out and shut up!'" "Well, then shell out, shut up, and enjoy the ride." "But there is no longer any ride to enjoy." "Whatever."
The gullwing door closed and the Batmobile departed to another appointment in Gotham.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
41 comments:
You're back! Absolutely a knee-slapper. I'm the one who commented on your last posting who was waiting for you to do another, and you haven't disappointed me. I will read this one over and over!
You are great...
Hysterical and oh so true. Sad,but true. I cannot thank you enough for using your great talent and wit to make such solid points about the state of the movement.
Terrific blog post!
Yes, sad but true. Church? What church? That isn't a church anymore! At least we can laugh with you while the Titanic goes down.
Simply wonderful the way you use your sense of humor to make solid points so many of us out here are well aware of. Underlying your marvelous wit is devotion to Christian Science, I can see, and I am grateful you are doing what you are doing for us.
Love to you, blogger.
Very well done. And we, at least I, know who you are talking about in your hilarious blog posting. (And you have a couple of zingers for someone else, who as yet has not answered the extremely damaging reports about her.)
Hope those at HQ read this, and I well imagine they will.
Thanks, blogger.
Yup, Boston is bankrupt alright--morally, spiritually, and it's only a matter of time, financially as well. I really enjoy the way you present serious issues.
Thanks much,
Love the way you think and write. On one hand, it's true the standards our Leader gave have been inexcusably lowered. But, I take comfort in realizing Who is in control of our beloved Cause, and of course, it is God almighty. A few individuals cannot destroy what God gave Mary Baker Eddy to give to the world.
I laughed right out loud on this one. Extremely well crafted. Enjoyed reading it, immensely.
Keep giving us such superior entries.
You are one delightful blogger, and I always come away from reading your blog with things to ponder. Thanks from a regular visitor to this site.
You are so good at what you do. Appreciate your serious blog postings, but almost think your real talent is making us CS's laugh. And I do mean laugh!
Your latest is really well done.
This has got to be the freshest, most alive blog on Christian Science out there. Will read this over and over to try to see how it is you do what you do. Terrific!
God bless you for caring about this Cause of ours enough to point out where some are falling short of what the Discoverer and Founder would expect of her followers.
Bravo on this one!
With spot-on criticisms such as this, TMC will eventually have to reform--or a substantial, permanent reform movement will have to become a substantial, permanent entity.
Even the gods are subject to necessity.
Like what Lowlywise has said. I just know those at HQ are aware of this excellent blog. Perhaps they are even learning something. We can hope.
Thanks.
Underlying your delicious sense of humor and talent in expressing it, is serious business: trying to uphold the high standards our beloved Leader established for her Cause, and for this, I thank you.
A blessing to the Field that you are blogging on such vital issues. Do keep up your inspired work.
Best Wishes,
This is delightful. Wonderful sense of humor you've got, and thank goodness you're using your talent in such a great direction--for this Cause we love so much.
Keep it up!
Does any one else have a problem with how the Lesson Sermon is now sometimes divided into 5 sections or 7? I find it disconcerting ... it seems to somehow wreck the Sermon's holy rhythm for me .... any one else?
Regarding the Lesson-Sermon divisions: it's a matter of organization. The lesson Substance fell neatly into seven parts, and I heartily endorse the evident literary sensibility of at least one of the Lesson Committee in taking this liberty. This week, I'm not so sure. While it really hits home to have the whole Bible story at one swoop, it's a long haul for a Second Reader--and maybe for the audience. On the other hand, there have been Wednesdays when I would have liked to alternate the books more than once during the reading.
The sad thing is that the Lesson committee must just be bored. Sometimes when I go to the opera the staging is just bizarre and minimalist, or the singers are forced to stand and hold giant cardboard cutouts for no apparent reason while mimes run about the stage and do peculiar things. I'm sure the producer will tell you that he has some artistic vision regarding the meaning of the opera that he is bringing out, but actually he is just bored and he has lost his inspiration and sense of what the opera is about, so he is trying to contort it to mean something else. Maybe some bored opera regulars who, for social reasons have not missed a production for 40 years, and are essentially bored of opera as well are entertained by what the producer has done, but newcomers are simply left wondering what is going on and convinced that they should not see another opera. Meanwhile affectionados decide that they will save their money and stay home.
That's not to say that a production cannot be really innovative and inspiring and new- that everything needs to be staged, directed, and costumed exactly the same way every time. I've seen wonderful novel productions before, but all of them were done by producers who were truely inspired by the score and the libretto, and taylored their productions to fit with or expound upon what the composer and the librettist were trying to say.
The great thing about forms is that if they are set and followed, then formal aspects are taken off the table. The only thing left to concentrate on is substance. Go to e-bay sometime and see if there any old Quarterlies for sale. I bought one from 1951. The lessons in it are just wonderful. Of course the formal aspects are off the table. The Lesson committee in 1951 knew that the lesson would have 6 sections of approximately equal length, the Golden Text would be 1 verse long, and the responsive reading would be taken from one chapted of one book. Whith the formal elements out of the way, it is real clear that what that committee did back then was say, "Hmmm, 'Are Sin, Disease, and Death Real?' Let's just go right through the theology of Christian Science as taught by our Leader and answer this question in as direct a way as possible. The point of each section is immediately clear on the first read, and directly (not tangentially) related to the subject. When marking my books to these lessons, I notice that there are long, unbroken passages from each book. In fact, the Bible and the Textbook are allowed to speak for themselves. They are not contorted by the committee into saying something that they are not, or emphasizing something that they do not, and the passages in the textbook where our Leader discusses the nothingness of matter are not excised out of the citations.
Today's committee wants to play around with the forms because they don't want to work with the substance of these two books, and because they are bored with truth. It's much more exciting to follow human agendas, but it's much harder to make the word of God speak in favor of such agendas if one has to stay within the form of the lesson as our Leader left it.
to LowlyWise ... your perspective as how the new divisions might challenge Readers is something I had wondered about even though my question related mostly to how the changes affect individual study ... I find if a section is too long or has too many ideas in it it the balance of the entire Lesson is thrown off. Not great metaphysical thinking perhaps, but I always loved the idea that 6 was a 'perfect' number of sections because it reflected the 6 days of creation ...( I hope this comment doesn't post twice as it didn't seem to 'take' the first time so I reposted it)
to Anonymous...
I think you are totally correct that a consistent structure is not confining but liberating to the presentation of substantive ideas. 'Boredom' was not a word that occured to me ... I have been seeing 'meddlesomeness' .. the constant playing around the edges going as far as it can go ... Your description of Lesson Sermons from 1951 makes me hope that even the societal structure of those days will one day return to this earth .. wonder if the two are connected ...
With regard to the lesson being six sections, when Mrs. Eddy first established it and up until her passing there were numerous instances of five or seven sections. Don't you suppose if Mrs. Eddy had felt it should only be six sections, she would have spoken up on the issue? I don't believe she ever did. What I would guess is somewhere along the line the rocket scientists in Boston decided it would be "easier" and induce more people to "do" the lesson daily if they formatted it with a section a day and come to church on Sunday. How many people do you know who say, "I don't have time to 'do' the whole lesson every day but I at least 'do' one section? An early example of putting convenience ahead of what really is right.
Anonymous...please provide a sample of one of the 5 and 7 section lessons of Mrs. Eddy's day ... I'd be very interested to read them.
My husband and I started reading the early lessons from which we got from The Bookmark in January of 2001. They started July 1898. We are now into October 1905. The last lesson I've seen that wasn't 6 sections was March 20, 1904 (Reality) which was 7 sections. Prior to that there was one lesson with 8 sections (the first), numerous with 5 or 7 sections and even one with 4 sections (8-21-1898). When we first started reading the old lessons, we were still reading the then current ones and what we found reading them side by side was that the old lessons were much more active and the "new" were very passive (i.e. put you to sleep mentally). Also they explained the subject much more clearly! Sometimes these lessons have more than 24 citations in the Bible and more than 30 in Science and Health. From 1903: Feb 8, March 22, April 5, all had 5 sections; March 15, August 30, and November 1 had 7 sections. The Bookmark conformed the S&H citations from those early lessons to the edition of Science and Health we now use. From July 1898 through December 1902 there were numerous lessons with 5 or 7 sections (too numerous to mention here).
Well, it’s no wonder Christian Science has gotten into the sorry state it has these days. We apparently have Readers in office spending their time expressing their personal opinion of the format of the Bible Lessons and where those Lesson citations come from. Folks, your term of Readership will be over all too soon—don’t squander it. Every minute you spend pontificating on whether the Lesson should be five, six or seven sections is one full minute you’re NOT engaged in humble prayer for increased spiritual enlightenment and understanding of those citations. Every minute you spend speculating on whether a section is too short or too long or whether the Bible Lesson Committee is bored (how could you think anyone could be bored delving into those inspiring topics Mrs. Eddy chose????) is one full minute you’re NOT yearning to articulate those citations in an enlightening and healing way for the congregation and the world!! GET OVER YOURSELVES FOLKS!!! Let the Word have free course!!! Whatever happened to the humble spirit of grateful acceptance of the sacred privilege of publicly speaking the inspired word of the Bible and revealed Truth for an hour each Sunday???
Well, it would be interesting to see if there were any lessons with more or fewer than 6 sections from 1906 onwards. That's the interesting thing about the past. You find precedent not by seeing if something was done, but if it was stopped. You could say that in the past Mrs. Eddy was a member of the Congregational Church, so we should all be members of the Congregational Church as well. but Mrs. Eddy STOPPED being a member of the Congregational Church. I'm not interested in how the lessons were structured in 1898, I care how they were structured in 1910. At one point the lessons were based in the International Bible Lesson seres, but no one would suggest that we should go back to that system.
No you need to WAKE UP and hold your church officers to account for their disobedience to our Leader. That's YOUR duty. If you haven't noticed, screwing around with the lessons hasn't been working. How many people are in your church on sunday? Are there more or fewer than there were 2 years ago? Are there a bunch of (or any) newcomers who have benn attracted by "fresh, new" lesson formats? Do you have an overall net gain or net loss. I used the word "bored" because I was trying to be nice. "Meddlesome" or worse, "allowing oneself to be handled by animal magnatism" would probably be a more accurate discription. Standing up and saying something is wrong is what God expect of us. If the lessons were still being faithfully put together and there were people blogging about how we SHOULD use new translations of the Bible, or have 10 sections of the lesson or insert personal sense into the presentation of the lesson on Sundays, YOU would not hesitate to tell them that they should stop because they are hurting the movement. But when these people are given a title, "Bible Lesson Committeemember" or "Director" you superstitiously say that we must be obedient to THEM. NO we Must be obedient to our Leader!
That's right we are to follow our Leader, who said: "Follow your Leader, only so far as she follows Christ." Message for 1902 p. 4 line 3-4.
I'll check on The Ark and find out how many sections were in the lessons in 1910 and get back to you. Since we've only gotten well into 1905, I haven't looked at 1910 yet.
Mrs. Eddy has told us twice, "Follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ." What a wonderful example of the humility with which that demonstration of leadership was made! As Christian Scientists we have come to realize that she followed Christ so completely that we can expect protection and frutage when we follow her. What a contrast between her leadership and the Board of Directors' claims of "leadership" from the Harvey Wood era until now. We have seen no humility no accountability, and no obedience. If only they could turn to their great predecessor in office, Adam H. Dickey and truly try to live his inspired example of followership when he writes, "We should not let our vanity compel us to adhere to a proposition simply because we have taken a stand thereon. We should be willing to relinquish our former views and change our thought on any subject as often as wisdom furnishes us enlightenment. . . . A too determined sense of carrying out a preconceived plan is more likely to be the enthronement of erring human will."
Also they should ask themselves when they desire change for change's sake if they are basing their decision on the Law of God. If they are trying to base their actions in Law, they should consider more of what Mr. Dickey has to say on this, "Law means or implies a rule that is established and maintained by power; that which possesses permanence and stability; that which is unchanging, unyielding, and continuous-'the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.'"
Lesson sermons for 1910 all are 6 sections. Some have 2 verses for the Golden Text and some have Responsive Reading from more than one chapter--one even is from both Genesis and Matthew (10-30-1910).
Interesting aside: the final form for Ancient and Modern Necromancy... wasn't seen until the fall of 1910.
This is all beside the point. We need to follow Mrs. Eddy and the Christ, and not some mis-directed or morally corrupt Board of Directors. It's all in the books, my friends (Bible and Science and Health--as Mrs. Eddy left it to us, not as someone has "translated" it for the 21st Century). There's an interesting book about the King James Version of the Bible and how it came to be: Wide as the Waters by Benson Bobrick. The scholars assembled to create this translation were more humble than most of the other "translators" had been in the past.
Yeah, one of Mrs. last acts was to change the subject from "Ancient and Modern Necromancy or Mesmerism and Hypnotism" to "Ancient and Modern Necromancy alias Mesmerism and Hypnotism Denounced." I had a conversation with a fellow Mother Church member in the same grad school as me who was talking about "using today's language" and "not using jargon like "Ancient and Modern Necromancy alias Mesmerism and Hypnotism Denounced." It's ironic that the one thing Mrs. Eddy really wanted to warn us about is the one thing that we as a movement ignored to our great detriment- the subtilty of animal magnetism.
I just did some quick research online and found a 1923 Journal article by Irving Tomlinson -- 'The Christian Science Bible Lesson' -- that talks about the 6 section Lesson sermons ...
"The Lesson-Sermon is not a human, material structure. Like “the tree of life,” it has its main trunk, or subject, which subdivides into six branches, upon which ripens “the fruit of the Spirit,” and where grow the leaves of the tree “for the healing of the nations.” Each of these six branches, or subtopics, has its own individuality; but they are all vitally connected with the trunk or main subject, as well as vitally connected one with the other. There is, of course, no established order for the make-up of a Lesson-Sermon. Its six sections, consequently, have endless variety. Different people, also, view the Lesson differently; and the footsteps, or leading thoughts, of the sections are unfolded to them in different ways. While it is a mistake to suppose that one word is always sufficient to describe the predominating thought in each section of the Lesson, yet sometimes this may be very nearly the case. The intelligent student will thus see no set outline on which the Lesson-Sermons are constructed, but he will find variety in unity, and unity in variety.
"
Having now read The Broken Net for several months, and printing out the 2008 entries to get the full picture, I find it quite challenging to offer commentary that is original.
Some brief background: I have been involved with Matters of Conscience and other reform efforts for over a dozen years. I find that most charitable way of viewing the ‘easier to join than Weight Watchers’ mentality is simply that they don’t know better.
My straight arrow teacher has weighed in eloquently in association addresses over many years on how to respond to the ‘new age’ efforts to resuscitate the dying elephant. While these insights have been valuable to individual class members and probably to numerous branch churches, it’s indeed sad to think how of little has changed in HQ over the last two decades.
It has been said by other blog commenters before, but I think it bears repeating that the ugly earthbound truth is that the follies in Boston are based on the desire for money and power. It’s as though they realize the elephant is dying, and they are grabbing whatever spoils there still may.
We are very fortunate to live in an area with a vibrant branch church and a desire to maintain the integrity of ‘traditional’ services. The branches with casual and undignified readers are truly an affront to Mrs. Eddy’s intent. I personally could not attend one of these ‘new age’ branch churches where the full text quarterly has replaced the trusty door stops.
I must add my sincere thanks to our dedicated blogger, whose perspicacious wit is enlivening the discussion of the future of Christian Science.
I'm grateful to hear that there is a vibrant, obedient branch church somewhere. I am in the Los Angeles area. Is there one here? Any recommendations? If I can have one but not the other, then I chose "obedient."
Why is there no name on this blog?
Why is there no name on your post asking why there is no name on this blog?
I don't know how to make a short link but there is an article about the Monitor here
http://www.minnpost.com/community_voices/2009/04/09/7926/a_sad_legacy_directors_let_daily_print_christian_science_monitor_fold#comments_section
okay I'll try that again...
http://tinyurl.com/c89bqn
A sad legacy: Directors let daily print Christian Science Monitor fold
By William A. Babcock | Thursday, April 9, 2009
How did we go from Batman to the Board of Directors? Ah, but it's all out of the same deplorable cloth, isn't it?
Thanks for a great blog!
Nice commentary on Val Kilmer and his twisted view of the world. Can't wait for his little project to hit the big screen.
Post a Comment