It is hard to feel anything but pity for the writer of a recent vitriolic, malicious, grossly biased, and almost entirely inaccurate and misleading article on Christian Science in the New York Times. One feels disgust that a once passable newspaper would lower itself to the level of a garbage-sniffing rag by publishing such effluvia. Unless the article satisfied a need to satisfy some pathologic hatred of Christian Science, the motive of the writer is puzzling.
The wishy-washy unguent Ms. Trammell applied to the inflammation did more, in my opinion, to support rather than assuage detractors. Yes, she was trying, feebly, to justify the need to cover Christian Science treatment under the new beatific health care bill--apparently it isn't--but what benefit accrues to Christian Science when she makes the muzzy statement that Christian Science is most effective when used alone? That's a statement that could really give one the fantods. So it's now two aspirins and a C.S. treatment and a call us both in the morning? Such mealy-mouthed backing and filling has become necessary because of semi-official compromises with the medical comunity which began formally with the revised "Standard of Christian Science Healing" in the December 1999 Journal. It came in two almost simultaneous and equally feckless versions. What part of S&H 167: 30-31 is so hard to understand? Perhaps the Church sahibs are indulging in a bedraggled Clintonian sophistry about what the meaning of "only" is. Maybe all those horoscopes, eriscopes, and coffee klatches with MD's have muddled their thinking.
Another issue raised by the article was that Christian Scientists are unloving, little more than inhumanly cruel Torquemadas who permit the torture and murder of their children with the same unconcern they would use in applying crab-grass killer to their lawns. The translation of this canard is that if you have any meaningful standards you exclude or offend somebody and are, ergo, unloving. Did not Christ Jesus speak of separating sheep and goats? Moral compromises have weakened the Church and individual Scientists and, until corrected, will continue to do so. Christian Science does not require human goodness and love, but an understanding and expression of spiritual goodness and love. Immorality and disobedience to God wish to be loved and coddled on their own human terms, but as the adage goes, when you lie down with dogs you had better be prepared to get up with fleas.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Really good, so strong and uncompromising. Thanks for posting!
Good for you, Christian, for taking on the NYT. And for being so plain-spoken by the Church response. You do think and write so clearly.
There's so much worth reading in this particular blog post, I shall have to go over it again. But for the nonce, thanks much. A pleasure to read you.
No one as good as you out here, that's for sure.
Thanks for all you are giving us, blogger...
God bless you for loving our Cause the way you do.
Just wonderful, that's all. What a pleasure to read your essays. I truly believe our Leader would be happy with what you are doing to advance Christian Science.
This one is going to be recommended to several of my friends, it's so good, Christian.
God bless your blogging. And He certainly seems to be. We need more faithful students of Science like you who aren't afraid to stand up and be counted.
You are so good! Not only do you show great love for your religion, you express what you feel in such vivid, fresh ways. A joy to read what you write.
(Did Trammell ever address that issue of about a year ago?)
I meant to get back with a comment on a couple of things I looked up that I didn't understand what you were talking about on a previous blog, perhaps the one before this one. That Haslo was an American comic strip writer in the 30's and 40's and the Welch lady was a British writer of fantasy stories.
Like your website a lot.
Some very good bits here: "wishy-washy unguent"; "give one the fantods" (made me laugh); "Church sahibs"; "Clintonian sophistry", and "horoscopes, eriscopes and coffee klatches"
I, too, was surprised that the Times would print something so one-sided and filled with what seemed to me real hatred of CS. Not to their credit, for sure.
Thanks for what you posted on this,
Another really fine offering. You do keep turning them out, and at a high level.
My favorite part of what you've written is the part about Jesus and his teaching on sheeps and goats.
Very well done, Christian blogger.
Still watering down CS in Boston, we see. What a shame they don't have more respect for its Leader and all she endured to give the world this great gift!
Yes, "Only through radical reliance on Truth can scientific, healing power be realized." Mary Baker Eddy, ("Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures", page 167)
A friend at the Church Center said I should look up your website, and actually I like what I'm seeing. Though some of the plain language you put in this does disturb some people. Between you and me, I think you are showing courage.
A late comment related to the mention of the December 1999 Journal that lowered the standard of CS treatment, the Journal website does not contain this article when you search for it. Listed in the issues table of contents is a link to this instead, which reads:
"From the Editor:
We regret that the original December issue of The Christian Science Journal included a statement that might have been taken by readers as policy. It was prepared by the Editors under the title "The standpoint of Christian Science Treatment." This was not intended as a policy statement to govern an individual's practice of Christian Science. The piece was not given the required normal review. Hence, it should not have appeared in print.
Because of the importance of the questions raised by that statement, it has been necessary to reissue this December Journal with a correction. In view of the wide range of human experience, a much fuller and all-embracing consideration of spiritual healing is needed.
William E. Moody, Editor"
This barely qualifies as a correction, when actually a retraction and renunciation were needed.
Post a Comment