Even if the false claims of matter and mortal mind are daily becoming less real because of greater spiritual understanding and demonstration, one may still retain an inhibiting, Antaeus-like adherence to terra firma. Mrs. Eddy makes it clear one should emerge gently from matter into Spirit, but her "gently" doesn't mean ones indulgence sine die of a little more hair of the dog that bit him. Matter, the subjective state of mortal mind, is not like Longfellow's little girl "Who had a little curl/Right in the middle of her forehead;/And when she was good she was very, very good,/But when she was bad she was horrid." Whether pacific or truculent, matter and mortal mind have to go, to be resolved into their scientific nothingness.
Even Christian Scientists are undoubtedly going to be "in" the body for an indefinite time, but that doesn't condemn them to being "of" it as well. [I would like to use italics here and there, but the blog word processing won't cooperate] All Scientists should strive to entertain that "white-winged angel throng/of thoughts" to the exclusion of all other thoughts. The least concession to material thinking deprives them of the seal of God on their foreheads and invites the locusts of Revelation. Progress may be sometimes painful and sometimes painless, but it must be achieved, and delay only increases our indebtedness to God and prolongs the penalty for lollygagging.
Note: My concerns with the full-text Bible lessons were explained in some of the earliest entries to this blog, so there is no point in rehashing them. As a former Reader, I wish I had been able to read from a full-text lesson on Sundays. No more Sunday afternoons largely given over to erasing blue chalk markings, taking out markers, putting markers back in for the new lesson, and re-marking. Yes, there are still Scriptural Selections, Benedictions, and Wednesday readings, but not having the Sunday lesson to mark would have saved hundreds of hours over three years. In short, using the full-text lessons would be perhaps more of a boon to Readers than readers. And what real difference would it make if both Readers on Sunday read from the full-text? What if a husband and wife Reader team left home and drove 50 miles to church only to realize they had forgotten their books and had to read from the full-text lessons? Would that be some kind of blasphemy or an invalid service? Suppose one certain Reader always read with inspiration from the full-text lessons and another dully bumbled his way along Sunday after Sunday obediently using the books. Is the latter still more correct? Except, of course, as readers of this blog know, Mrs. Eddy states clearly that "Readers shall not read from copies or manuscripts, but from the books." (Manual, Article III, Sect. 4) Doesn't this really mean that it is just as necessary for students of the Bible lessons to use the books as it is for Readers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Really, really good. And your last # should put to rest those previous 2 comments on your blog post before this one.
Well done throughout!
Love your title. Would you believe I've been thinking about the same thing essentially, that is, waking up from this dream of life in matter apart from God! Excellent blog post.
Interesting that you have been a reader. A bit of bio info coming through. But the way you tied up the full-text issue, I do believe you're a lawyer.
A very helpful entry today. Where else but in Christian Science could we get the understanding that enables us to rise above, rather, wake out of the Adam dream?
Thanks much,
Well, if our Leader says we're to read from the books, that should settle it for everybody, shouldn't it?
Good job, blogger.
"Wholly aparat from this mortal dream, this illusion and delusion of sense, Christian Science comes to reveal man as God's image, His idea, coexistent with Him -- God giving all and man having all that God gives."
Eddy, Prose Works
Thanks, blogger. A friend recommended your website and I find what you are sharing quite above the average. Solid metaphysics and I'll be visiting your site again.
I'm going to sound like a broken record to you, but you are so good at what you do. There's no doubt in my mind God is behind this blog, and He is making it a blessing to many.
I can see why people like your blog. You give us worth-reading metaphysics written with considerable ability.
Keep blogging!
Like the way you express yourself in such fresh terms. Especially like the "invite the locusts of Revelation" bit. Who of us wants that?!
As a regular reader of your blog, almost always find something helpful and I thank you for sharing your inspiration with the Field.
Blogger wrote, "Mrs. Eddy states clearly that 'Readers shall not read from copies or manuscripts, but from the books.' (Manual, Article III, Sect. 4) Doesn't this really mean that it is just as necessary for students of the Bible lessons to use the books as it is for Readers?"
Anonymous then wrote, "that should settle it for everybody, shouldn't it?"
Ummmm, no sir, or no ma'am, as may be the case.
At a public service, it is good for the public to observe that the words are being read from the actual books, which, after all, are the pastor of the church.
This need not apply to private, personal study of the Bible lesson. (Of course it applies to research that is not the Bible lesson.)
Again, for private, personal study, the book erasing and marking, and the replacing of markers, was a colossal waste of time. As far as this respondent is concerned, it is good that reasonable (and legal) accommodations now exist.
Much change in the Christian Science community has shown itself to be less than principled, as Blogger has regularly documented in the past. But not all change is bad, and ofttimes it is useful to separate tares from wheat and embrace good change.
So you've been a reader somewhere? Where? Do let us know more about you as you have certainly gotten people's attention with your unusually wellwritten blog.
So enjoy seeing what you've been working on a la Christian Science. Helps me a lot to have your insights, and just wanted to let you know.
Best,
Love your blog. So refreshing to read something from someone so well educated and talented at putting thoughts to paper. (Or on a computer, that is.)
Thanks a lot,
Found this quite meaty and worth reading, though I do not know what "Antaeus-like" means. Guess I shall have to look it up. Will check google right now.
Thanks,blogger.
P.S.
Just got the definition and know what you mean. That's what it feels like at times for me. (Won't tell your readers what I learned; they can look it up for themselves.)
Thanks for maintaining a high-level blog. Sure has helped me think more deeply about CS issues, and I'm grateful to you.
You are such a blessing to your readers who appreciate deep metaphysics expressed in a creative, definitely not boring way.
Hope you keep right on blogging for a long time to come.
Thanks.
I found that marking my books each week for the lesson was the way that I learned where things were. Knowing the books of the Bible and the writings of Mrs. Eddy has been very helpful. I even marked books for readings my teacher asked that we read daily. Time spent looking aids in digestion of what I have read and leads from knowledge to understanding.
To anonymous above this: right on!
Good comment. Thanks for your two-cents'-worth. As a former reader myself, I agree with you.
Dear Blogger,
A website I like "For love of Jesus and Christian Science" mentioned your blog and I'm glad I found it. Like what you say about waking up from this mortal dream. I'll be back, I'm sure.
Dear Blogger,
You are definitely going to be on my blog must-read list. A lot of substance to your entries.
Thanks much,
Marking the books is a "waste of time" only if a person thinks it is a waste of time and is mentally thinking about his shopping list, to do list, or list of lists.
OTOH, another person might commit the hour or two spent marking to be a time of specific, careful watching. Self immolation and all that. "Could you not watch with me one hour?"
Prayer and watching are never a waste of time.
Another feature in favor of marking vs full text, is learning the surrounding context which is often key to understanding the citation.
A testimony:
I have tried studying the Lesson using the full text edition, and I have tried studying the Lesson from the original books, being diligent each week to mark the Lesson.
The first was like reaping in an already picked orchard. The latter was like being set loose in an orchard dripping with lush, ripe fruit.
In other words, the depth of garnered understanding between the two methods is not comparable.
Methinks the next time I call a practitioner, I will ask which is their preferred method of study ...
You are such a true, blue follower of what God expects vis-a-vis His Son and what He revealed to our Leader, and I love reading your blog posts.
Keep up the high-level work!
"Prayer and watching are never a waste of time."
I agree. But marking books was a waste of time. (Hint -- you are changing the subject.)
When I marked books, was I thinking about a shopping list, or a to-do list? Or was I paying close attention to placing markers and correctly marking passages?
The reply of that commenter presumes much -- too much.
---
"The first was like reaping in an already picked orchard. The latter was like being set loose in an orchard dripping with lush, ripe fruit. In other words, the depth of garnered understanding between the two methods is not comparable."
Matter of taste.
"Methinks the next time I call a practitioner, I will ask which is their preferred method of study ..."
Practitioners are learned elders (or sometimes, not-so-elders) in some respects, not in others, but a practitioner's word is hardly The Word (as I know from lo-o-ong experience).
---
"Another feature in favor of marking vs full text, is learning the surrounding context which is often key to understanding the citation."
In that case, having visitors listen to the Bible lesson in church is listening to citations out of context. This is one of many criticisms of the Bible lesson from other Christians, and one that I find has some validity -- having studied the lesson from marked books for many years, and then hearing it in church. Yes, I have found citations that in my judgment were yanked out of context, and I have mentally objected to that over the years.
After many years, I generally know the context of most citations. When I don't, I often look it up for context [but would marking the ^entire^ lesson be necessary?]. And what about the visitor to the church?? Perhaps we need clearer, self-contained lessons, for the sake of the newcomer.
So yes, the foregoing paragraphs do suggest that marking the books instead of reading full-text does have some validity. I am happy to concede a point when that point is valid.
((I agree. But marking books was a waste of time.))
Are you praying when you mark the books? How is that a waste of time? Are you watching when you mark the books? How is that a waste of time?
((The reply of that commenter presumes much -- too much.))
OK so maybe it is thinking about travel plans, politics, or finances. Whatever it is, only mortal mind could designate an activity that gives God priority over its own selfish desires as a "waste of time."
((Matter of taste.))
Too true, mortal mind has a definite preference for parched wastelands.
((Practitioners are learned elders (or sometimes, not-so-elders) in some respects, not in others, but a practitioner's word is hardly The Word (as I know from lo-o-ong experience). ))
That's why I proposed my test. I'd guess that the 'practitioners' whose 'word is hardly the Word' are not quite as consecrated as they could and should be. They might even complain from time to time that "marking the lesson is a waste of time.
((In that case, having visitors listen to the Bible lesson in church is listening to citations out of context. ))
Apples and oranges. People don't attend church to *study* the Word.
“Are you praying when you mark the books? How is that a waste of time? Are you watching when you mark the books? How is that a waste of time?”
I am paying attention to the markers and chalking when I mark the books. Possibly it’s just that I’m not as accomplished a multi-tasker as are many others.
“OK so maybe it is thinking about travel plans, politics, or finances. Whatever it is, only mortal mind could designate an activity that gives God priority over its own selfish desires as a "waste of time."”
Yes, you ^do^ presume much.
((Matter of taste.)) “Too true, mortal mind has a definite preference for parched wastelands.”
Mortal mind often has a way being haughty . . .
“I'd guess that the 'practitioners' whose 'word is hardly the Word' are not quite as consecrated as they could and should be. They might even complain from time to time that "marking the lesson is a waste of time.”
You’re entitled to your guess. But your conclusion presupposes your going-in assumption –- i.e., that in fact the more “consecrated” practitioners are those who mark their books weekly. But whether it is actually a fact, is not altogether clear.
“Apples and oranges. People don't attend church to *study* the Word.”
True enough. But they are nevertheless listening to citations too often yanked out of context, which was my point at that late point in the conversation.
You know, what’s interesting here is that I have happily conceded where your points have merit –- “the foregoing paragraphs do suggest that marking the books instead of reading full-text does have some validity. I am happy to concede a point when that point is valid” –- but you insist on haughtily plowing on. What was that about mortal mind’s preferences . . .?
Dear Blogger:
You seem to contradict yourself. You talk about how you wish you could have read from a full-text lesson, what a waste of time erasing and marking books was, etc., and then you quote Mrs. Eddy who insisted that Readers read from the books, not from copies thereof. That final item is the one most important. Perhaps, when Mrs. Eddy prescribed a duty or action or process she had a good reason for doing so. That should be the focus of our seeking to understand the why thereof rather than simply looking for the humanly easy way out.
I've been thinking about this for a time as a First Reader, and have decided to go back to marking a set of books for study purposes. Except I haven't found markers to fit the particular study books I want to use. But I will.
Some interesting comments from others: I find the greatest advantage to using marked books for study in the past was, as others have pointed out, seeing the context in which particular passages can be found. However, this context is of passing significance, because it is not necessarily of a spiritual nature, which the Lesson calls for.
For example, in the current Lesson on Soul, the first Bible citation begins in mid verse 6. If you read the previous 5-1/2 verses you find nothing contributing to the message of the Lesson-Sermon. To have included the full context of the verses thus chosen would probably have been to fully confuse the new or non-discriminating reader.
The purpose of the Lesson-Sermon is to give us a lesson in divine metaphysics, not a lesson in Bible reading or biblical history. Seeking out the spiritual context of each passage one finds that nothing is lost or omitted because the text conforms to the desired spiritual content, omitting what does not contribute to that message.
Thus the wisdom and beauty of the Bible-Lesson: in that Mrs. Eddy was led to provide a means for our receiving a sermon in the spiritual Word of divine Science, not in any human interpretation of the text given with full context.
Anyway, this one's, hopefully not fully human, opinion.
I like your blog. Your anonymity allows you to keep personality out of the way of the spiritual intent. Go for it!
Presently,--Anonymous
Post a Comment