Shucking More Mental Oysters For Pearls

Is the usage of the word "trial" essentially the same in Mrs. Eddy's familiar statement "Trials are proofs of God's care" (S&H 66: 10-11) and in the equally familiar trial in "Christian Science Practice" (p. 430 ff.)? It seems likely and if so would indicate the, or at least a, Scientific method of meeting the trials that beset us. Even if mortal mind isn't setting upon us like a raging Mike Tyson, it can still be afflicting silently and unseen in unconscious thought, like satanic termites. There is always plenty that needs doing, and not just faute de mieux. Many of us could probably forgo profitably another dismal episode of "Desperate Housewives" [No, I've never seen it.] or the evening's football game and do some good metaphysical work instead on whatever comes to us.

Trying to get around the trial is like trying to circumnavigate Oprah. There is always more there than you think. [just kidding] I noticed recently that the patient first felt ill, then ruminated. Off the cuff, I would probably have said the rumination produced the illness or at least validated it. I also noticed that the poor patient is not the defendant in the trial, but Mortal Man. As Arte Johnson used to say on "Laugh In" "Very interesting". To wade in further would be more temerity and half-baked surmise on my part than certainty, but it may be worth giving some thought to.

Finally, there is, or was in days of yore, an accepted offensive tactic in hockey of "headman the puck", get it to the player who is furthest advanced. I know I need to introduce to thought truths which advance me beyond my present position. If I fail to do so and lazily default to a familiar chestnut, however helpful it may have proved to be in the past, I may find myself instead "ragging the puck", killing time. Maybe a lot of mental activity, but no advance in thought and the chance for a shot on goal. This isn't a rule or certainty, of course, but to mindlessly rely on a kind of Hobson's choice may not serve us best or as well as some vigorous stretching, even if we rip an old seam or two in the process.

Zealous Zorros Zip Zip Zipping Senor Zero

Mortal mind is a will-o'-the wisp, but it is no blithe wish-away will-o'-the-wisp. It's sinister wisps must be found out and dispelled one by one, and the better equipped (spiritually) we are the easier the task will be. Many wisps will not be eradicated until they are brought to trial (in our consciousness) in the Court of Spirit and a verdict rendered against each of these gossamer lies of Personal Sense. Our court docket may need to be kept full while we emerge from sense to Soul.

With the Bible and Science and Health as the Clausewitzes in our spiritual warfare, we should vigorously pursue each error in our thinking to its inevitable destruction. One of history's most brilliant conversationalists and arguers was Dr. Samuel Johnson. He relished a spirited verbal engagement, the probem being that he often continued his assault after the hapless adversary had been vanquished. Oliver Goldsmith said of Johnson: "There is no arguing with Johnson: for if his pistol misses fire, he knocks you down with the butt end of it." False belief does need to be confronted with that degree of vigor, but we must not lose sight of the fact that it is Truth that does the work, not us, and that a too energetic attack might have the opposite effect of making more a reality of evil than it is--which is to say no reality at all, a mere will-o'-the-wisp.

". . . the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds" (II Cor 10: 4).

Note: In reference to the previous entry, of course God is no mere chef or even chief, and man is more than a scullion. It was a flawed analogy. I changed the title of the entry on the wing, as it were, but could not afterward verify anywhere that a "pearl diver" was an accepted droll moniker for a dishwasher, which I was once in my youth. A person who dived for pearls was one who, humorously, washed dishes. Maybe a D for effort on that one.

When The Pearl Diver Advises The Chef

It may be a cliche that all life's good stuff is either sinful or fattening. One more Twinkie or Goo-Goo Bar might not add to the ledger of things best left undone, but there are other seductive "Twinkies" and "Goo-Goo Bars" that will take a lot of sweating to pay for. For many of us the hour may be later than we would wish for getting God totally in charge of our lives. Mrs. Eddy tells us that we should attempt nothing without His help and that He should be permitted to guide our every thought and action. Maybe He could cut us a little slack and make it four or five out of seven?

Even our best intentions can find us driving from the back seat or conscientiously attempting to steady His uncertain hand on the steering wheel. The lives of many of us would be immeasurably more harmonious if we let Him do the directing and we do the following obediently, unhesitatingly, and humbly. He isn't just a co-pilot either. Either He is All and we are one with Him as His perfect reflection and idea or that is not the case. There is no Goldilocks "just right" middle ground, and fighting Him for the wheel will only lead to further misadventures.

If we decided to capture every thought we have during one day and present them to God for approval, what would the final tally be? If to avoid an overplus of embarrassment we whisked off the obvious clinkers to a closet, would we have a sobering rival to Fibber McGee's at day's end? We may know intellectually that the tiniest speck of error in thought or action can engender much to be repented of while we are at leisure, but still some of us order ourselves on like Admiral Farragut at Mobile Bay: "Damn the torpedoes! Captain Drayton, go ahead! Jouette, full speed!" He avoided them. We may not.

There is only room in our lives for one Chef, and His name is God, not Miss Piggy's immodest "moi". Getting totally and unequivocally right with God may take some doing, but it's got to be done if we are to put the lies of aggressive mental suggestion behind us forever.

Note: The possessive of one is obviously not ones, but one's. I'd go back and correct these goofs, but there are probably at least two or three hundred of them. "Fap!", as Major Hoople used to say.

The Boarding House Reach Goes For Seconds

I should probably leave well enough alone, but at least a couple of the comments to the second entry before this one compel a respose. We all should strive for and expect to attain a level of understanding and demonstration in which the Bible and writings of Mary Baker Eddy are all of the letter we need. If one has today the metaphysical chops to stick entirely to these works, by all means play on, play on, but to claim a higher position where ones reach has exceeded his grasp could inhibit growth rather than enhance it. That is why most of us, whether we admit it or not, still need to look for "All good, where'er it may be found" (hymn 224). To wrap oneself defiantly in the textbooks, like protean Balzac wrapped majestically in his cloak in Rodin's powerful sculpture, could well be to tempt disappointment and unnecessary trials.

To be stubbornly determined to blaze ones own trail out of the deep snows of false belief, mortal mind, when one could possibly make far more rapid progress following in the capacious steps of a King Wenceslas might be for many what Martha Stewart called "a good thing". One obviously can't expect to rely on others forever, but to deny oneself the helpful inspiration, guidance, and wisdom of those who have gone triumphantly before could result in unnecessary lingering in the Slough of Despond and on Hill Difficulty.

Someone may say: "I barely have time to read the lesson or the textbooks. I certainly don't have time to read anything else." Well, we usually find plenty of time to extricate ourselves from an assortment of pits, snares, and briar patches and the Gordian knots we tie ourselves into, so why not proactively take that time to get to know God better by any path He has provided? In the end we might even save time by a more efficient use of the truths we have learned in Christian Science. If we are humble and trustful, God will show us where we need to go, and it may well be the books and only the books, but at early and intermediate stages of our progress, we shouldn't shun or deny ourselves the wisdom and inspiration of the intrepid pioneers. They certainly didn't write for the dusty edification of the bookshelves in Reading Rooms.

My comments on Louise Knight Wheatley/Cook/Hovnanian were not intended to be flip, but obviously trod ungraciously on the toes of some. Were she unworthy, she would not have been chosen out of the thousands of writers who have written for the periodicals over the years. The comment that she may have been a professional writer of novels could shed light on my earlier remarks in another way--as a writer she was almost too facile. For some, at least, not all her articles justified the lavish attention she gave to the subjects. The overriding point is still that one should explore these and the many other early writers and make the invigorating acquaintance of some wise and uplifting practitioners of the art of Christian Science.

But enough, enough! If, however, as a result of that blog entry, just one person seeks out and finds one of these writers to be a blessing to him my time will not have been wasted nor, I hope, will your fleeting impatience with much too much on this subject go unreimbursed.

Riding Sidesaddle Won't Suffice Either

The allure of comic-book action heroes--Superman, Spiderman, Batman, Iron Man, et al.--largely eludes me. Perhaps their heroics (if that's the right word) add a necessary splash of color to otherwise nebbishy lives. The dreamy fantasizing of a Walter Mitty at least requires an active imagination, but no matter how charming it, too, leaves nothing meaningful in its wake. The only action hero that is going to get the real job of being a Christian in the highest sense done is Christian Science Soldier Man, allegiant solely to God, wholly dedicated to following Christ, and singlemindedly undeviating in purpose.

His marching orders are laid out clearly in the Bible, Science and Health, The Church Manual, and the other writings of Mary Baker Eddy, and he knows that a soldier who disobeys his orders is subject to discipline. The writings of Mrs. Eddy are not only replete with duties and "musts", but action verbs and phrases as well. Here are some of those actions from one chapter of S&H, "Atonement and Eucharist": demonstrate, strive, reform, believe, sacrifice, go and do likewise, understand, take up arms, grapple with, keep the faith, work out, obey, drink his cup, take his cross, heal the sick, cast out evils, preach Christ, emulate, abide in him, lay ones earthly all on the altar of divine Science.

No Christian Scientist should allow himself to be addled by muzzy sophistries which result in his tacit acceptance that a little light mental vacuuming, dusting, and superficial rearrangement of the furniture is evidence of a valid effort to practice genuine discipleship any more than the rakish spurring on of a hobby horse is a demonstration of real horsemanship. Every sincere Christian Scientist's duty, must, and action requires an unflagging commitment to following Christ. Unfair as it might seem, anything less is, at bottom, apostasy, and while apostates may seem to be galloping confidently on to a glittering somewhere, when they get there the hitching post won't be in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Crackerjacks

A comment (or two) to my recent reference to Emma Shipman has prompted me to repeat some recommendations of inspired and uplifting writers for the periodicals from, with a few exceptions, 1900 to about 1960. It is obvious from recurring comments that the writing in the periodicals these days is for many "a little lacking in sparkle" ("Kind Hearts and Coronets"--a guilty pleasure).

Many of the early standouts were editors: William P. McKenzie, Archibald McLellan, Annie M. Knott, Ella Hoag (a possible primus inter pares), and Violet Ker Seymer. Samuel Greenwood, Emma Shipman, Martha Wilcox, and Milton Simon are, for me, the creme de la creme, though there isn't much available from Emma Shipman and most of Martha Wilcox is her association papers. Ms Wilcox served in Mrs. Eddy's household for a couple of years, so her metaphysics obviously come directly from the source. Also top drawer are Dr. John Tutt, Paul Stark Seeley, and the more recent Geoffrey Barratt. Add to them L. Ivimy Gwalter, Arthur Wuth, and Alan Aylwin.

I've no doubt overlooked someone's favorite, but this isn't intended to be a definitive list. Many Scientists would doubtless recommend very highly Bicknell Young, but for some reason I have read very little of his, and much of what is available are his voluminous association papers, letters, etc. Until recently I would have placed Blanche Hersey Hogue very high on the list. She is one of only two or three writers Mrs. Eddy recommends in her published writings (Miscellany), but she wrote a lot over many decades and often for the Journal. The Journal articles especially seem intended for some official archive or a church cornerstone. They are often heavy, Victorian, overstuffed furniture--antimacassars everywhere--and have at times a stilted style. Still she has much to say, though trekking through her complete writings would be a major undertaking.

Ditto the equally prolific Louise Knight Wheatley/Cook/Hovnanian. She is the Elroy "Crazy Legs" Hirsch of writers for the periodicals. She needed, but didn't apparently always get, the best of the defensive backs (editors) put on her, because when she breaks into the secondary unimpeded it can be an exhausting chase. She had very "happy" feet. Still, she shouldn't be overlooked since her "Problem of the Hickory Tree" and "Teach Me To Love" (poem), for example, were frequently reprinted. And there are other articles worth perusing. Articles of Wheatley, Seeley, and Simon should be available from The Bookmark. Tutt had one collection there as well, but it may no longer be available.

Mary Baker Eddy is obviously sui generis, but these writers are indeed, with the noted exceptions, the quill. I got to know them while serving in a Reading Room with all those bound volumes of the periodicals, so here is a good, if slightly self-serving, reason to sign up for duty. All these writers will repay munificently the time one spends with them.