Were You Ever Stung By a Dead Bee?

This blog is not a written record of restless mental peregrinations bubbling up from the murky depths of boredom, nor is it an attempt to prove the premise that to err is human and to kvetch is divine.

Real issues are involved here, despite the obvious feeling of some that they alone walk (sanctimoniously) in the true path. When a church member only wishes to have a matter discussed or to ask that a church executive board hear him out with an open mind on his honest reservations or disagreement about a course of action, he has every right to be listened to politely and respectfully and given an honest and forthright answer. Instead, the supplicant sometimes feels he is being treated like an uncouth buccaneer intent on rape, pillage, and the defiling of the church.

One might think from the hysterical reactions to some entries of this blog that anyone who shares even some of the thoughts expressed here is probably a desperado who just might show up squiffed at a church service or is some crazy constantly demanding that S&H Green Stamps be offered for purchases made at the Reading Room. Whatever happened to practicing the Golden Rule or humbly accepting the horrifying possibility that this member might have a valid argument or honest and well-founded basis for disagreement?

It seems where Boston is concerned that anything but fawning support and effusive encomiums is viewed as outrageous disloyalty and treachery. On two or three occasions when The Mother Church was written about some unpleasant developments (and no answers were asked for) the replies were little more than duplicitous, prevaricating, disingenuous blather, reading like some leftover lines from the screenplay for "Plan 9 From Outer Space". An honest question or disagreement from a loyal church member deserves better than that.

The secular drift of the Christian Science Church seems to many undeniable and troubling. The alert Scientist not only has a right, but a duty, to inform fellow members of his discovery of a weedy infestation on the church grounds which needs to be uprooted or treated. When a letter to the executive board of a church informing them that this barnyard grass is getting a foothold isn't even given the courtesy of a response, what recourse remains but to object to such treatment?

This blog has never advocated, or even contemplated, active dissent or the establishment of some counter-movement. Nothing has ever been asked for here but strict and loving adherence to the inspired Word of the Bible and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. We should be deeply suspicious of anyone who has a problem with that and still calls himself a Christian Scientist.

Note: The title is a line spoken by Eddy (Walter Brennan) in "To Have and Have Not". He may have said was instead of were, and the relation to the entry is admittedly tenuous.

Tripping the Light Fantastic

As one does his best before God to sweep gracefully about life's crowded dance floor, he is sorry to tread painfully, now and then, upon the tender toes of fellow dancers. It is not intentional, but he must, as Thoreau wrote: ". . . step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away."

Some comments on the previous entry have vindicated and validated one overriding theme of several recent, and even earlier, entries that extremely insidious and malignant aggressive mental suggestion or malicious animal magnetism has stealthily and subtly invaded, pervaded, stupefied, and stultified many Christian Scientists over the past few, if not many, decades.

It is surely no secret that some churches have been limping and slouching along dispiritedly for years. Could anyone reasonably contend that vibrancy and vitality characterize the present overall state of things? Dogged and dejected hanging on and resentful defensiveness are not Christian Science, nor is tacitly accepting a gloomy material picture any justification for doing one's duty poorly.

Mrs. Eddy states emphatically: "It is Christian Science to do right, and nothing short of right-doing has any claim to the name." (S&H 448: 28-30) She also alludes to the unacceptability of "work badly done or left undone" (S&H 6: 6-10), calling it an "offence". To point this out, as the previous entry attempted to do, is hardly malpractice.

Intead of trying to justify stumbling along blindly in old ruts and indulging numbing mediocrity, one might do well, instead, to strive to bring Christliness, freshness, inspiration, spontaneity, and love to his every thought and action. This is not only possible, but the duty of any genuine Christian Scientist. "The talents He gives we must improve." (S&H 6: 6-7) We should quit letting matter's dolorous and discouraging music mesmerize us into a catatonic acquiescence to mortal mind's claims.

If saying this is someone's idea of malpractice, so be it. To say what is needful is still needful.

Just Going Through the Motions

A piece of meat that has the look and consistency of a clinker; vegetables overcooked to a nauseating mush; a baked potato without salt, pepper, butter, sour cream, or chives; a slice of stale, dry pound cake for desert; and for a beveage tepid tap water tasting of chlorine. Not an appetizing meal, yet the host and hostess might argue that they meant well when they asked some friends over for such a dinner.

Are some of our church services any more appealing than this so-called meal? Let's look at the items on some church menus:
o Unrehearsed or inadequately rehearsed reading, especially by the First Reader.
o Hastily or carelessly prepared Wednesday Meeting readings.
o Mistake-ridden or badly played music, even familiar hymns. Mrs. Eddy expected quantity and quality.
o Karaoke-style solos using Broadway numbers or popular songs.
o Musicians rehearsing up to the time of the prelude, or beyond, or other hustle and bustle going on when the auditorium or meeting room should be silent and conducive to prayerful thought.
o First Readers who apparently don't know or care that the name of our Church is Church of Christ, Scientist, not Christscientist.

The point is, if these or other minor or major atrocities are being perpetrated in the name of Christian Science, why bother with church services at all, since they apparently don't much matter? Actions like these, and they do occur, make a mockery of our religion and show an indefensible lack of respect for our Leader. If a church doesn't at least get exactly right the little it does, what benefit is it to Christian Science, which should be the whole purpose of services? Plodding wearily week after week through sloppy resemblances to what the Church Manual requires is just so much make-work and bootless activity.

"'The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat."

Some readers may feel the conclusion suggested in the previous entry is a paranoid fantasy of some sort. Nevertheless, there have been for many years talk and reports, much of it reliable, of high level Mother Church canoodling with the Roman Catholic church and the medical profession. Former Board Director Virginia Harris was apparently proud of having many close friends who were obstetricians.

Those were the days when Harris and presumably the Board were giddy at the prospect of being an official participant in some Harvard University Medical School group which periodically met to discuss the effect of mind on health and healing or something like that. Harvard, at least, had the good sense to end this misguided and pathetic foray into the exciting and alluring world of medicine.

That malevolent influences have been at work in Boston for the past 20 years or so is to me supported by the systematic perversion of nearly every important activity of The Mother Church. Here is a short list: the Board of Directors, the Bible lessons, the periodicals, the Monitor, lectures, class teaching, committees on publication, healing standards, Journal listing standards, M.C. membership qualifications (so it is reported), and the squandering of many hundreds of millions of the Church's financial legacy.

It took a few 250 watt bulbs to get this job done as thoroughly and methodically as it was, and there are some of us who have not seen Church wattages much above 60 for many years. The insidious mental influence came from somewhere, and make no mistake, there are practiced hands at this sort of thing constantly at work.

Christian Scientists cannot be too alert to aggressive mental suggestion and subtle stupefying and stultifying mental influences. Powerless mental influences to be sure, but extremely harmful nonetheless if innocently, carelessly, or foolishly taken in.

Distressing as these actions have been to so many, what is even worse, they made possible the carefully disguised endgame: marginalizing, disheartening, discouraging, and driving out probably thousands of genuine Christian Scientists. Long written off by Boston as pesky impediments and nuisances these true Scientists have been superseded by a majority consisting of apathetic and servile sheep.

God will never, of course, place Christian Science in such hands, but much of what has been hard won since 1866 could be obscured or lost for a time. And if one is looking for who is doubtless rejoicing at this fait accompli, he should look no farther than the opening paragraph of this entry.

Christian Science might well borrow at this juncture the motto of the Order of the Garter: honi soit qui mal y pense.

The Boston Cat Delivers Another Dead Mouse

The "elect lady" who is making a rare appearance, if not a debut, in the Bible lesson this week seems to be bringing more confusion than clarity to the matter. Dummelow has a fairly lengthly discussion on who or what the lady is and comes to no conclusion, only deepest uncertainty. The Oxford Companion to the Bible appears confident in its assertion that 2 John is addressed "to a community".

It is true Mrs. Eddy refers to the elect lady in Retrospection and Introspection (90: 10), but this is only in passing. Why include in the Bible lesson a citation this puzzling, especially since there is no peg in Science and Health on which to hang it? What possible lesson lies in its inclusion? What is really going on here? It would be interesting to know who is on the lesson committee and their qualifications, if any, for the job.

An insidious possibility has been suggested in an earlier entry, i.e., that the AMDG boys have long had more than their camels' noses in the tent and wish to subtly adumbrate and promote their own elect lady.

Boo and Boo Hoo to a Bad Bad Boo!!!

Halloween may only come once a year, but a boogeyman scarier than any trick-or-treater haunts some Christian Science churches weekly and year-round as it has, regrettably, for decades. That anomalous specter is coldness and indifference shown to visitors and even fellow church members.

With torpidity, apathy, decline, and decay staring glumly at church members week after week, why would they add the cold shoulder to an already uninviting environment? And this isn't a problem which can be remedied by forced or artificial warmth or phony and insincere bonhomie, but only by letting "Love [be] reflected in love".

If Christian Scientists don't express spontaneous warmth and Christian love for those attending their churches (and everyone, for that matter), then all that's left is a really scary fellowship of zombies.

Our Most Valuable Key

A key is a tool, not an objet d'art or a talisman to be ritualistically thumbed in purse or pocket. If it isn't used to unlock or activate something a key serves no purpose. We often think of the textbook of Christian Science simply as Science and Health, but we know it is also with Key to the Scriptures. That key is not a metaphysical abstraction.

Mrs. Eddy obviously intended the Key to the Scriptures to be used to unlock the spiritual meaning, the inspired Word, of the Bible. The first tenet of Christian Science states: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life." (S&H 497: 3-4) Wouldn't we be wise to use this priceless key daily to unseal and open that wilderness in which we abide? Keys are to something, not ends in themselves.

Note: Readers of this blog might be interested in an excellent article which dovetails satisfyingly with several recent and earlier entries. Had this article been reread earlier, some of these lucubrations might not have seemed necessary. It is "Defending the Purity of Church", by Maurice W. Hastie, from the C. S. Journal, Volume 83, April 1965. It was reprinted, where it was recently found, in one of those tasty pocket pamphlets of yesteryear titled "Handling Animal Magnetism". The entire pamphlet is worth reading if one is fortunate enough to own or find a copy.