It came to me vividly in the middle of the night that the previous entry was an embarrassing miscue. I was going to delete it and scurry off in shame, but decided to leave it as a stern and pointed rebuke to misplaced priorities. Had I been listening more closely to God I would not have written so carelessly and hastily on the wind.
Wisdom and duty now dictate that future entries become occasional, i.e., only when there is a compelling need to say something. I realize this change will greatly reduce or even eliminate readers, but increased attention to my duty to God, to my Leader, and to mankind is the thing that is most needful now and is an activity which should bless others as well.
37 comments:
A very interesting note to your readers, Christian. I think I agree with you.
You're back on already? But this blog posting was a bit unusual I must admit. However frequently or infrequently you post, Christian, I will be looking forward to reading what you have to say.
Anyone who writes as well and as judiciously as you, Christian, couldn't be posting a lot. I don't know how some people blog all the time. It shows!
Now that you mention it, I did think your previous essay was a bit heavy on the non-CS guy. You're on the right track now, it appears.
You won't lose me as a reader, Christian. And a faithful one, at that.
Well, good for you blogger.
Since you are turning a new page, how about considering this one:
The writing style here reminds me of what a friend and I would do in high school for fun and laughs. We would mimic intellectual, academic folk by stuffing our sentences with unusual words to say the same thing that could be said in simpler, plainer English. The honest CSist is humble, self-less, speaking plainly and simply. Now, God sees the heart, whether it be honest, humble, self-less, or no. But regardless, the writing style herein is apt to attract readers who are easily impressed by such a show of language, and repel other potential readers who see your writing as intentionally showy and wasteful of words. But, perhaps this is the intent, and if so, then the title of the blog is the right one, for it is a broken net indeed that can only catch the type of applause as revealed in the comments. You might mend your net and catch more fish, but there is another hole in it that needs mending as well, the personalizing of error.
The preceding comment is rather nasty, and strikes me as someone who has long been jealous of the attention this website gets. Perhaps the individual has a blog that attracts few viewers. But in any case, the motive behind the posting of this unnecessary comment as not Christlike.
I found Christian's explanation in his or her latest blog post to be quite humble and indicative of a deep love for God, for Christ Jesus and for Mrs. Eddy!
As to too much "applause" for The Broken Net, I say keep blogging, Christian. You've blessed many a reader in the Field, which no doubt some detractors cannot tolerate.
God bless you and keep you, which I know He will -
Naturally, some individuals, probably working at the Church Center, have long had their noses out of joint because Christian tells it like God says to tell it. The one who writes this blog, as the latest entry shows, cares most about being obedient to what Truth requires. In all the essays I've been privileged to read from this writer, love and respect for the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science shines clearly for all to see, hence the "applause" (an unfortunate choice I must say) this blogger gets.
Ooh, something crawled out of the woodwork and it ain't pretty. Looks to be a shade of green, to me.
Your blog has certainly helped me more than once, and I'm glad you intend to keep it going.
It's clear to me that God inspired you to begin blogging, Christian. And I feel certain He will continue giving you the ideas to share with the Field, thus blessing your readers all over the world.
"Among the manifold soft chimes that will fill the haunted chambers of memory, this is the sweetest: 'Thou hast been faithful'" (Mary Baker Eddy, article titled Fidelity, p. 343 of "Miscellanous Writings"
I think, sir, that you have been just this.
Yes, Christian does use big words, because he or she is obviously very well read. And pray tell, what's wrong with this?
Keep turning out high-calibre, much-needed essays, dear Christian.
I expect this new page you are turning to to continue showing fine essays, Christian. Keep up the good work you've been doing for many, many months now.
It's a sad day when a constructive, upbeat suggestion is made and immediately taken for the green-eyed monster. That and the disinclination to participate in any kind of give and take suggest that one's time may be better spent.
Dear Christian,
Will be checking your website to see your next offering.
All the best to you,
((It's a sad day when a constructive, upbeat suggestion is made and immediately taken for the green-eyed monster))
I usually agree with your posts but this time I don't at all. I thought the tone of that post was nasty and condemnatory, not a bit "upbeat" or "constructive". I thought it was kind of silly that the writer closed their personal attack with a condemnation of other's personalizing error.
"The writing style here reminds me of what a friend and I would do in high school for fun and laughs. We would mimic intellectual, academic folk by stuffing our sentences with unusual words to say the same thing that could be said in simpler, plainer English. . . ."
A few months ago, I suggested that Christian Blogger "leave the William F. Buckleying to William F. Buckley" -- in other words, essentially the same criticism as the commenter above.
Isn't it interesting how this commenter was met almost instantly with suggestions of jealousy ("green", and not the environmental kind -- "something crawled out of the woodwork and it ain't pretty")!
I think Christian Blogger's site has been most valuable, and his points very, very well-expressed. But I for one stand by my honest critique of his writing style.
Lighten up, good folks! There's ample room in God's universe for both honest appreciation and honest critique.
Christian Blogger, you go 4 it . . .
You don't have any moral right to condemn anyone's style. Taste is subjective not absolute.Obviously what you dislike, others enjoy.So all you are offering is, in effect, personal opinion aka hot air. The only thing that you have any moral right to condemn or criticize is whether or not the sentiments expressed are true or false, good or evil.
I am not particularly ^condemning^ anyone's style, I am critiquing it.
It is not a question of "moral" right.
I have my preferences, just as you have yours. Do you have no "moral" right to prefer vanilla over chocolate? The question itself is silly.
I have every right, "moral" or otherwise, to have tastes and preferences of my own. I also have a right, "moral" or otherwise, to voice or even publish those tastes and preferences. It's called freedom of speech and/or expression where I come from.
It's simply incredible how some individuals just can't seem to handle anyone saying anything less than adulatory about Christian Blogger, who is a very talented and constructive individual -- that is plain, and I appreciate him/her and his/her blog -- but who also just is not above critique or criticism.
I will determine what "moral" rights I retain, sir/ma'am. If you sense that my comment is "hot air", that is your determination, and you are welcome to it. That's *your* moral right.
((I have my preferences, just as you have yours.))
Exactly. And since what you 'prefer' is no more valid than what others prefer, it is rather conceited and willful of you to hold your personal taste in writing style as a standard by which to judge others.
((Do you have no "moral" right to prefer vanilla over chocolate? The question itself is silly.))
If you think that preferring chocolate over vanilla or a particular writing style over another has anything to do with morality, then we disagree from the outset as to what "morality" and moral rights are, and there is no use in continuing this discussion.
There is nothing whatsoever morally wrong with Christian's writing style. However there is a lot morally wrong with mean, gratuitous, low, unwise and unasked for comments about Christian's writing style.
And again I say unto you,
Verily, *verily* I say unto you,
"It's simply incredible how some individuals just can't seem to handle anyone saying anything less than adulatory about Christian Blogger, . . . ."
If one resolutely allows God to lead--as I have every confidence Christian does--one cannot possibly stray from the path.
As far as keeping up with infrequent posts I'd encourage everyone to set this blog up on their RSS feeds as I have on mine. That way it's easy to know when there is a new post by Christian.
Blog on Christain!
I've made several of middle of the night promises myself. This occurs about twice every decade when I'm in the grip of the worst flu like symptoms. I promise not to write whiny things about Boston's leadership and become more introverted and 'with increased attention to God', as you put it. And I always really mean it. It lasts for about two months, then back to the same 'ol pattern.
Here's hoping you are more successful. But may someone else take up your old cross, please!
Sorry NYC, your wrong. Also, don’t own a blog, and don’t work at Church Center.
Motive is Christlike because “it requires the spirit of our blessed Master to tell a man his faults, and so risk human displeasure for
the sake of doing right and benefiting our race. I found humility in his latest blog
as well, and also saw an opening for pointing out dangers in the way which might have a better chance of being heard at this time.
My apologies if I sounded like I was attacking his person. Rather, I meant to point out the dangers in the manner of writing, not
the person.
((My apologies if I sounded like I was attacking his person. Rather, I meant to point out the dangers in the manner of writing, not
the person.))
if you feel threatned by Christian's writing style, please do go elsewhere, or do some work on over sensivitity. I will now partake of the spirit of our blessed Master and say that your splitting hairs between a person and their writing style is dishonest self-justification for meritless criticism on your part. Taste is subjective. Just because Mark Twain ridiculed and hated Mrs. Eddy's writing style, didn't make it so.
threatened
over-senstivity
over sensitivity
To be forewarned is to be forearmed! And naming names is not necessarily personalizing error as much as it is forewarning the Field of the dangers and pitfalls of following self-appointed leaders as was the case of Emma Hopkins, Augusta Stetson, and others in Mrs. Eddy's day. Mary Baker Eddy was NEVER afraid of naming names! And neither should we be.
So for the record the Clerk of The Mother Church, Nate Talbot, did not once mention Christ Jesus or Mary Baker Eddy in his Church Alive! message to members of The Mother Church. It goes without saying that omitting or downplaying the role of God, supreme good, in church activities will deaden rather than enliven the human concept of church, which is supposed to be measuring up to the Church Universal and Triumphant, as stated by Mary Baker Eddy.
The efforts these days seem to be (human-centric) centered around the popular and false notions of church, and the lowering of the high standards (of loving one's neighbor [spiritually] as one's self) once in place, are dwindling. Those standards of perfection are the only thing that will keep church alive!
The 'Alerts' mentioned in previous entries can be obtained by going to a web site established by sheep in the Field. A site established by the sheep, for the sheep (www.sheepmailings.org).
There you can find alerts and mailings dating back to 1998, concerning current and past issues within The Movement that need to be rectified.
'To know the what, when, and how of error, destroys error. The error that is seen aright as error, has received its death-blow; but never until then" (Mis. 299:2)
Just found this accidentally while googling "Christian Science and Homosexuality" My Church (Presbyterian) Morning Men's fellowship got into a discussion on pornograhy and homosexuality, and objections that the PCUSA has changed the Book of Order to accept Homosexuals as Pastors, etc.
Having the rank and file membership at odds with the central office of whatever religious heirarchy is pretty common.
(I find it a little disconcerting that the latest entry in this Blog is October 25 2010, over a year ago.)
I stumbled onto this for the first time on almost four years and truly enjoyed Christian's vigorous style and courageous humility. Some may have thought him arrogant, but so what? Writing like a mature, well-read wit creates copy to be relished after the insipid twaddle that constitutes most of the Journal and Sentinel. Thank you, Christian, and may your pilgrimage continue fruitful.
Well, as someone at the receiving end of a CS 'treatment', I hope you are alive and have not succumbed to the 'designs' of the Boston mental assassins! These vampire put Scientologists to shame, preying & psychically raping members of the community so that they can make new members and are patted on the back by the illegitimate Boston POPES! If you want to see the abomination of desolation visit any UK church - they are totally infested by malpractitioners/black 'occultists' - their main aim is money, prestige and be seen in a good light by the Boston 'elite'/Vatican!! And should you still be alive, and as you claimed loved the truth, you should be ashamed of succumbing to the pressure to be silent and not exposed this EVIL!
One of the Journal listed practitioners in London actually lists Louise Hay (Unity) on her Facebook as her role model! Anything to get results and destroy genuine Christian Science, hmm? Results by hook or crook? This is all being silenced by UK 'scientists', as long as there are 'results' i.e. new recruits to take CS to its former glory. Next, there will be Satanists, and whoever else promising Boston to be the promised 'Christ'. So everyone is keeping quiet for fear of being mentally assassinated, and their reputations trashed! Bravo.
Post a Comment