Tag Archives: religion

Christian Science: Lobbying It or Living It?

Posted on by
5

Regarding exemption from prosecution for child neglect: I don’t believe ANYone – regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or non-religion should be exempt from prosecution for willful neglect of a child.

Karen Molenaar Terrell's avatarAdventures of the Madcap Christian Scientist

The letter of Science plentifully reaches humanity to-day, but its spirit comes only in small degrees. The vital part, the heart and soul of Christian Science, is Love. Without this, the letter is but the dead body of Science, – pulseless, cold, inanimate. – Mary Baker Eddy.

***

In the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Mary Baker Eddy defines “Church” as the “structure of Truth and Love” and says the role of Church is to rouse “the dormant understanding… to the apprehension of spiritual ideas…”

Lately some individuals have been busy lobbying their politicians for exemptions for Christian Scientists from health insurance and laws regarding child neglect. And I’m sorry, but I have to ask – how is exempting Christian Scientists from health insurance laws and child neglect laws in any way going to help rouse anyone’s “dormant understanding” to the “apprehension…

View original post 1,015 more words

Health Insurance: One Christian Scientist’s Thoughts

Posted on by
6

As a Christian Scientist I feel the need to say this: I believe health care should be universal – a basic right of every man, woman, and child – and no one should ever be denied the care they need simply because they’re poor, or unemployed. Health care should not be dependent on employment or the whims of employers. And a bunch of politicians should not be the ones who decide what kind of treatment and care the residents of this nation can use. Okay. That’s all. Carry on then…

 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. – Matthew 22

The vital part, the heart and soul of Christian Science, is Love. Without this, the letter is but the dead body of Science, –  pulseless, cold, inanimate. – Mary Baker Eddy

Suggestions for talking with…

Posted on by
17

We should remember that the world is wide; that there are a thousand million different human wills, opinions, ambitions, tastes, and loves; that each person has a different history, constitution, culture, character, from all the rest; that human life is the work, the play, the ceaseless action and reaction upon each other of these different atoms. Then, we should go forth into life with the smallest expectations, but with the largest patience; with a keen relish for and appreciation of everything beautiful, great, and good, but with a temper so genial that the friction of the world shall not wear upon our sensibilities…
– Mary Baker Eddy (Miscellaneous Writings)

I wonder if I might make a few suggestions for conversing with others about religion on a discussion board?   I have had some experience with this, and I’d like to share some of what I’ve observed and learned.

The most important thing to know, I think, is that if you ever encounter me on a discussion forum I am always, always right. And if you disagree with me about this you are wrong.

Once we have established that basic and most fundamental of all facts, we can move on to other stuff:

  • Might I suggest that we never, ever, ever presume to know what other people think, feel, and believe just because they identify themselves as atheist, theist, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, pagan, Christian Scientist, or as a member of any other ideology.
  • Generalizations, stereotypes, and lumping whole groups of people together as one “type” are not helpful when trying to understand someone else’s perspective.
  • Don’t tell other people what they think. Let them tell you.
  • Although pomposity cracks me up, not everyone shares the same reaction as me to puffed-up know-it-allness. Humility is a beautiful thing. Let’s be willing to laugh at our own nonsense before we laugh at someone else’s.
  • Remember that we’re all human – we all have our own flaws and foibles – none of us is perfect here. Might I suggest that we correct our own flaws before we start trying to correct someone else’s?
  • Give each other grace.
  • Listen.

More specifically:

When Christians are talking with atheists –

  • Do not assume all atheists think, feel, and believe exactly alike – the only thing, really, that all atheists have in common is the conviction that there is no god.
  • Do not assume atheists are unfamiliar with religious texts. Some of them are very familiar with religious texts, and, in fact, that is the reason some of them want nothing to do with religion.
  • Think about using quotes from the Bible sparingly. Remember that not everyone believes the Bible in the same way that you do, and quoting from it to prove that you’re right probably isn’t going to have the effect you’re looking for.
  • Do not assume that atheists have no sense of ethics, no humanity, or no “moral code” simply because they do not believe in a god.  Belief in a god is not necessary to know right from wrong, or to be a kind and compassionate person.
  • Do not end disagreements with atheists by condescendingly telling them that you will “pray” for them.

When atheists are talking to theists –

  • Do not assume that all theists think, believe, and feel exactly the same about everything.
  • Do not assume all theists have the same definition for “God”.
  • Do not assume every theist is a Christian. There are, among others, theists who are Muslim, Jewish, pagan, and non-religious. (Contrariwise, not every religious person is theistic – some religions, such as Buddhism and Universalist-Unitarianism, do not include a belief in a god.)
  • Do not assume all theists are superstitious scaredy cats, hoping to God there is an after-life. For some theists a belief in God follows a logical thought process, and doesn’t necessarily lead to belief in an after-life.

When atheists are talking to Christians –

  • Do not assume all Christians think, feel, and believe exactly the same – the only thing, really, that all Christians have in common is the belief that Jesus was the Christ.
  • Do not assume all Christians have the same definition for “God”.
  • Do not assume all Christians interpret the Scriptures literally.
  • Do not assume all Christians belong to the same political party and hold the same political ideology.
  • Don’t assume that when you’re talking with a Christian, you’re talking to someone lacking in logic, intelligence, or education. This kind of prejudice tends to lead to a really speedy end of civil discourse.
  •  Try to quote only sparingly from The God Delusion and God is Not Great, and avoid the over-use of Latin and terms like “strawman” and “Nirvana fallacy”. (Writing over-much in Latin and over-using or mis-using terms like “strawman” does not so much make you look intelligent as kind of silly.) Just as some Christians are sometimes prone to over-quote from the Bible, some atheists are sometimes prone to over-quote Hitchens and Dawkins. I think we all value a nicely–stated original thought much more than a canned response, don’t you?

When non-Humoristians are talking to Humoristians –

  • Don’t assume all Humoristians think, feel, and believe exactly the same about everything. Pretty much the only thing Humoristians have in common is the ability to laugh at themselves and the absurdity of life.
  • The only effect pomposity, stodginess, self-righteous indignation, and sermonizing are going to have on a Humoristian is to get her laughing so hard she’ll have tears pouring down her face. Unless that is the effect you’re going for, don’t waste your time with it.

When non-Unitarian-Universalists are talking to Unitarian-Universalists –

  • Don’t assume all Unitarian-Universalists think, feel, and believe exactly the same about everything… because… I mean… these are Unitarian-Universalists, for crying out loud! Trying to herd U-U members into one ideology would be like trying to herd cats.
  • Don’t waste your time trying to get U-U folks to get defensive about their religious beliefs. It ain’t going to happen. Although you might see the U-U coming to the defense of social justice and freedom, you are not going to see them getting defensive about their religious beliefs because they don’t have any to defend, really. So you can give THAT whole plot up right now.

When non-Christian Scientists are talking to Christian Scientists –

  • Don’t assume all Christian Scientists think, feel, and believe exactly the same about everything.
  • Don’t assume that because you were raised in another Christian denomination you are an expert on Christian Science. There is a vast difference between fundamentalist Christianity, for instance, and Christian Science – as many fundamentalist Christians would be the first to point out.
  • Do not assume that because you are the child of Christian Scientists you are an expert on Christian Science. (I am the daughter of a geologist, but I would not consider myself an expert on geology.)
  • Don’t assume because you read a Wikipedia article on Christian Science, or because someone once told you that they’d heard from someone else something about Christian Science, you are an expert on Christian Science. (I have actually been told by non-Christian Scientists to refer to Wikipedia to better find out what I believe as a Christian Scientist. I have spent more than 50 years practicing this way of life, have led the services at my church, and written books about my experience with Christian Science. Do not tell me to go to Wikipedia to find out more about what I believe. Sheesh.)
  • The “Christian Scientists are neither Christian, nor scientists” thing has gotten pretty old and is neither original nor helpful in maintaining thoughtful discourse. Let it go.
  • Do not assume all Christian Scientists hold the same political or social beliefs. Christian Scientists are a pretty diverse group of people – there are Christian Scientists who are Democrats, Christian Scientists who are Republicans, Christian Scientists who are liberal-progressives and Christian Scientists who are conservatives. Unlike some other religious institutions there is nobody in the Christian Science church who tells Christian Scientists how to vote. That is left up to individual conscience.
  • Along the same lines, recognize that private Christian Science schools and institutions – and the people who are part of them – are not necessarily representative of the views and experience of every individual who is practicing Christian Science.
  • Do not assume that because you know one Christian Scientist you know them all.
  • Do not assume that Christian Scientists who go to doctors are not “real” Christian Scientists. For some Christian Scientists, Christian Science is neither a religion nor an alternative health care system, it is a way of life – a way of looking at the world that has brought them healing and a lot of good.

When Christian Scientists are talking to non-Christian Scientists

  • Avoid, if you can, using phrases like “working on a problem” or “the belief of” – most people are not going to understand what the heck you are talking about.
  • Avoid, if you can, using absolutes. None of us have ascended, yet. Christian Scientists are still dealing with the same challenges as every other human being. Recognizing the common human experience we share with the rest of mankind is not a bad thing.
  • It’s alright to show natural human feeling – to cry, laugh, grieve. These are the feelings that connect us to the rest of humankind. Embrace them. Don’t be afraid to bring human emotion into your conversations with others. Christian Scientists are not automatons.
  • Do not talk down to others. Being a Christian Scientist doesn’t make you any better, wiser, or more spiritually-minded than anyone else.
  • Don’t be afraid to laugh at yourself now and then, and don’t be afraid to let others laugh at you, too. Recognize that to people unfamiliar with Christian Science some of the teachings found in Christian Science might seem completely ludicrous. And that’s okay.

I guess that’s pretty much all I have to say about that.

(excerpt from The Madcap Christian Scientist: All Things New)

Christian Science: Lobbying It or Living It?

Posted on by
28

The letter of Science plentifully reaches humanity to-day, but its spirit comes only in small degrees. The vital part, the heart and soul of Christian Science, is Love. Without this, the letter is but the dead body of Science, – pulseless, cold, inanimate. – Mary Baker Eddy.

***

In the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Mary Baker Eddy defines “Church” as the “structure of Truth and Love” and says the role of Church is to rouse “the dormant understanding… to the apprehension of spiritual ideas…”

Lately some individuals have been busy lobbying their politicians for exemptions for Christian Scientists from health insurance and laws regarding child neglect. And I’m sorry, but I have to ask – how is exempting Christian Scientists from health insurance laws and child neglect laws in any way going to help rouse anyone’s “dormant understanding” to the “apprehension of spiritual ideas”? How are these efforts for exemptions in any way going to help the cause and purpose of Christian Science, or make the world a better place?

I am a Christian Scientist. I love what the study of Christian Science has brought to my life – the healings, the expectancy of good, the perception of creation as the expression of Love, Truth, and Life. I want to share the beauty of this way of life with the world. And so it seems to me a real tragedy that  the lobbying and politicking by some Christian Scientists might be distracting people from seeing the beauty and healing power found in the metaphysics of Christian Science as a way of life, as a way of SEEING life. The efforts to reduce Christian Science to some kind of alternative health care system/religion is incredibly belittling to what I believe Christian Science to actually be – to the amazing potential, power, and purpose found in this way of life.

Although I myself have not often needed to turn to traditional medical care for help – Christian Science has been very effective in bringing me the healing I need physically and emotionally – I do not have a problem at all with throwing my money into the public pot to help my fellow citizens get the medical help they think they need.  Jesus, after all, said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”.  (Edit: I need to add this – I don’t think health care access should be denied any of our citizens just because they’re too poor to pay for it. Nor do I think access to health care should be denied to anyone just because a bunch of politicians don’t happen to approve of it – whether it’s reproductive health care for women, or Christian Science treatment for Christian Scientists.)

And, as Christian Scientists, we know that nothing can affect our real identity as Love’s perfect, whole, complete reflection. Nothing – neither earthquake, wind, fire, pestilence, plague, weapons that fly by day or night, famine, germs, or VACCINATIONS can separate us from the love of God, and our identity as her expression. So why do we allow ourselves to get all worked-up and worried about this stuff?  As it says in Romans: “…all things work together for good to them that love God (Love, Truth, Life)…” and “I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God (Love, Truth, Life)…”

Regarding exemption from prosecution for child neglect: I don’t believe ANYone – regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or non-religion should be exempt from prosecution for willful neglect of a child. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone should be prosecuted for neglect simply BECAUSE of his or her race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion or non-religion. When my sons were youngsters I was always conscious of my responsibility to keep them safe and healthy – and I was also conscious of the fact that BECAUSE I was a Christian Scientist I might be treated differently by society should harm come to my sons. If someone else’s child died because the parents, in all innocence, didn’t know the child was seriously ill and didn’t take the child to a doctor – those parents might be seen as sympathetic characters by society. I knew that if my children died because I, in all innocence, didn’t recognize a serious problem, I might be seen in a different way. (Edit: After some research I realized that these laws were made in 1997, and are not the result of current lobbying, you can click on this URL to see my correction –   https://madcapchristianscientist.com/2014/03/19/well-dang-have-to-make-another-apology/  )

Our society has biases. One of the biases is that traditional medical science is always the best and only way to treat a disease – and the fact that medical science is, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, actually the third-leading cause of death in this country doesn’t seem to affect that bias at all. So I guess at some point I realized that what I needed to do was use my understanding of Christian Science to help ensure my sons never got sick to begin with, and to ensure that healings were quick if the sons did show signs of sickness. If a healing didn’t come quickly – and the healings usually did – then I brought the sons to the doctor. Common sense was my guide.

I don’t believe it’s in the best interests of Christian Scientists, or of Christian Science, to be lobbying for an exemption to prosecution for child neglect. It makes Christian Science a target. Christian Science – as a movement with the power to transform the world – is deserving of better.

Mary Baker Eddy, the discoverer of Christian Science, and the founder of the Christian Science religion, said that the “vital part, the heart and soul of Christian Science, is Love.” I’ve gotten to a place in my life where I find myself asking, “Is this coming from Love? Is this leading to Love?”  And if it’s not, I don’t want to waste my time on it.  Is asking for exemptions for Christian Scientists from contributing to health insurance, and from being prosecuted for child neglect, coming from a place of love? Or fear? Is it leading to love? Or fear?  Don’t Christian Scientists have better ways to spend their time than lobbying politicians? Don’t Christian Scientists have a bigger mission, and a more important job?

CHURCH. The structure of Truth and Love; whatever rests upon and proceeds from divine Principle. The Church is that institution, which affords proof of its utility and is found elevating the race, rousing the dormant understanding from material beliefs to the apprehension of spiritual ideas and the demonstration of divine Science, thereby casting out devils, or error, and healing the sick. – Mary Baker Eddy

Dry Bones or Lively Stones?

Posted on by
14

And when he was come nigh, even now at the descent of the mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen; saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest.  And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples.  And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. – Luke 19

 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:  if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.  To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,  ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. – I Peter 2

I just finished reading Stephen Gottschalk’s Rolling Away the Stone, which focuses on the last 20 years of Mary Baker Eddy’s life. It was not an easy read for me – it took several weeks to work my way through it – but I found it really thought-provoking. One of the themes that seemed to keep re-appearing was the idea of a “revival” – the idea of stirring up “the dry bones” and bringing new life to our Christian Science experience. Gottschalk quotes Mary Baker Eddy as instructing her student, Albert Farlow to, “…stir the dry bones all over the field, to more words, actions and demonstrations in Christian Science.”

Later Gottschalk writes: “As with other movements after the death of their founder, Christian Science became to a significant degree routinized, in the process losing much of the spiritual animus that accounted for its early growth. The pattern is observable, whether we are speaking of the early Christian church after Jesus, the Islamic movement in the decades after the death of Mohammad, or the Franciscan order after the death of St. Francis. Eddy appears to have anticipated with great apprehension that the Christian Science church, too, would settle down into a kind of bland predictability, when she was no longer on the scene. To her, being a Christian Scientist in any meaningful sense involved not only a strong commitment, but, in a sense, a spirit of adventure.”

Gottschalk writes: “What apparently concerned her the most was the prospect that the church would devolve into yet another ecclesiastic organization, ‘barren,’ to use her words in Science and Health, ‘of the vitality of spiritual power, by which material sense is made the servant of Science and religion becomes Christlike.’… This materialism could, she believed, take on ecclesiastical form. It did so when Christian Scientists, conditioned by their earlier adherence to orthodoxy, failed to break with outworn tradition, ritual, and other merely exterior forms of worship. ‘Long prayers, ecclesiasticism, and creeds,’ she stated, ‘have clipped the divine pinions of Love, and clad religion in human robes. They materialize worship, hinder the Spirit, and keep man from demonstrating his power over error.’”

Whoaaaah, right?

The Christ, Truth, is living, lively, dynamic –  it didn’t die with Jesus. And the Christian Science movement was not meant to stop and flash freeze at the moment of Mary Baker Eddy’s passing, either. I’m sure Eddy would not have wanted this for her movement. “I find the general atmosphere of my church as cold and still as the marble floors,” she wrote, after an appearance at The Mother Church,  “… I did feel a coldness a lack of inspiration all through the dear hearts… it was a stillness a lack of spiritual energy and zeal that I felt.” And, In Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the textbook for Christian Science, Eddy writes: “The letter of Science plentifully reaches humanity to-day, but its spirit comes only in small degrees. The vital part,  the heart and soul of Christian Science, is Love. Without this, the letter is but the dead body of Science, –  pulseless, cold, inanimate.”

Life! Joy! Love! Aren’t these the way-marks of the living Christ – the Truth that heals?

***

Jesus was alone

when he rolled away that stone

Pushing back matter –

throwing away the tatters

And we have our job, too

to see what is real

to do what we must do

to rise up and heal

to laugh, dance, and sing

praises to our King

to stir those dry bones

and be joyful, lively stones.

***

(I’m sure Seuss would have done better

at writing this poetry-letter

But he is not here

and you’re stuck with me, I fear.)

Humoristianity

Posted on by
10

In the summer of 2007, as a response to what I saw as an over-abundance of people who took themselves WAAAY too seriously,  I started a new “religion” on a discussion board about religion…

* I’ve decided to create a new religion. People belonging to this religion will call themselves “Humoristians.” Here are the 5 tenets: 
1) You must be able to laugh at yourself. 
2) You must be able to recognize how ludicrous your beliefs might appear to others. 
3) You must want nothing but good for everyone, everywhere in the universe. 
4) You must have a natural aversion to meetings, committees, and scheduled events (as we will be having none of those). 
5) You must enjoy the humor of Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Tom Lehrer, and Jerry Seinfeld (if you’re a Jerry Lewis kind of guy, you might want to think about starting your own religion – although we wish you nothing but good).

The “one true fallacious faith” (as our “Grand Inquisitor”  the Right Ribald Reverend JL soon dubbed it) immediately took off and had an almost instant following.  Our ragtag little congregation of hooligans covered the globe – including people as far away as Australia and Europe and an army base in Afghanistan – and was comprised of atheists, a couple Mormons, an hilarious evangelical preacher’s wife, a Methodist , a Buddhist, a Catholic-Methodist-Celtic language aficionado, a nuclear physicist Trinitarian, a couple of agnostics, a pagan, an atheist Jew, and at least one Christian Scientist (moi).  We seemed a kind of unlikely little fellowship, I guess.  But we all had one really important thing in common – we  knew how to laugh at ourselves.

And soon we came to identify our church’s purpose on the discussion board: We made it our mission to battle busybody bullying bigotry wherever we found it, to bring laughter to those athirst in a dry desert of stodginess and pomposity,  and to transform the humoristically-challenged with our good-natured joie de vivre.

It was fun. 🙂

I made some wonderful new friends on that discussion thread – people who entered my life at a time when I was dealing with some major challenges and changes in my life,  and showed genuine care and friendship towards me.   We talked about stuff with each other that you don’t usually talk about in off-line life – shared our beliefs about God, Nogod, heaven, hell, nature, dogma, karma, the after life, politics – stuff you don’t often talk about even with your closest friends – and, in some ways, came to know each other better than friends and family who had been in our lives for decades.  Maybe BECAUSE we were all new to each other – we actually saw each other, and listened to each other, and didn’t take each other for granted. We didn’t assume we knew what our fellow Humoristians thought, felt, and believed, or who they were. There’s a line in Waitress that sort of sums up what I was feeling about my new friends: “I was addicted to saying things and having them matter to someone.”

On the discussion board where we established our Humoristian temple, when a discussion thread reaches 10,000 posts it’s “locked” and no more posts can be added to it. Knowing this, we only posted on our thread sporadically – it held a lot of special memories for all of us and we wanted to stretch it out for as long as we could.  But last week we finally reached our 10,000th post and closed and locked the doors of the temple. On the one hand I felt a kind of relief, I guess – that thread had been going along  for six years, and I knew it was time to graduate now – but there was a kind of sadness about it, too – it marked the end of a really happy era for me.

The good news, though, is that my Humoristian friends are STILL my friends.  I’ve actually been able to meet, in the person, several of these hooligans in recent years.  My husband and sons traveled with me to Nova Scotia to meet  the Humoristian  “Grand Inquisitor” JL and his lovely wife, Kathi (who has become one of my bestest friends ever) back in 2009;  Sandy and her husband, Danny, from New York, met up with me at Seattle’s Pike Place Market in 2011; David”Runny Babbit”  and his wife, Sue, and their two daughters, traveling from their home in Michigan, spent a couple days with our family hiking and laughing, and listening to David play the Native American flute he’d made for me out of sassafras wood from his home state; and just this week Heather “DS Wallingsford” brought her lovely South Carolinian accent and met me for lunch in Olympia.  The really amazing and wonderful thing about meeting all these people is that there was no awkwardness. At all! It was like meeting up with old, dear friends. Hugs. Laughter. Conversation that just seemed to pick up where we’d left off on the Humoristian discussion thread. It was all kind of surreal. And very cool.

I do not know what I’d do without humor in my life. I do not know what I’d do if I was surrounded by people who couldn’t laugh at themselves.  I think I might go just a little insane.

I’m so grateful for my Humoristian friends, and I’m so grateful to God – the power of Love and Life – for never failing to bring me what I need to prosper and grow. “Divine Love always has met and always will meet every human need,” writes Mary Baker Eddy in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.  And, for me, that human need includes laughter.

*(the tenets for Humoristianity can be found in  http://www.amazon.com/Humoristian-Chronicles-James-Longmire/dp/1105093441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373805117&sr=8-1&keywords=humoristian+chronicles)

 

Second-Generation Geologist Here :)

Posted on by
7

Christianity as Jesus taught it was not a creed, nor a system of ceremonies, nor a special gift from a ritualistic Jehovah; but it was the demonstration  of divine Love casting out error and healing the sick,  not merely in the name of Christ, or Truth, but in demonstration of Truth, as must be the case in the cycles of divine light. – Mary Baker Eddy

        Our Master taught no mere theory, doctrine, or belief. It was the divine Principle of all real being which he taught and practised. His proof of Christianity was no form or system of religion and worship, but Christian  Science, working out the harmony of Life and Love. – Mary Baker Eddy

***

My dad’s a geologist. Does this make me an expert in geology? Did I somehow inherit his geological expertise? Was I born with the knowledge to discriminate the difference between igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary? Would it make sense for me to make the claim that I am a “second-generation geologist”?

Umm… nope.  A person can’t just inherit an expertise in geology – you have to do your own work, and put in your own study of it to be able to make the claim that you’re a geologist.

This holds true for any science, really –  including Christian Science.  Just because one’s grandparents or great-grandparents called themselves Christian Scientists doesn’t make one an expert in Christian Science, or the best practitioner of it.  I mean… well… calling yourself a “third generation Christian Scientist”  makes about as much sense, really, as calling yourself a “third generation geologist” –  right?

Lately I’ve found myself making a distinction between the religion of Christian Science and the science of Christian Science, and this has led me to some interesting musings about the nature of my way of life.

For instance, it’s led me to think about how and why we identify ourselves as we do. I’m guessing most people who call themselves Lutherans were raised Lutheran, and most people who call themselves Catholic were raised Catholic – and I’m guessing most people who call themselves Christian Scientists were raised in Christian Science.  And I suppose if you think of Christian Science as a religion – as a set of beliefs – then it would be natural for people who were raised in the religion of Christian Science to identify themselves as “Christian Scientists.”

But if you think of Christian Science as an actual science, rather than a religion, this opens up a whole ‘nother way of looking at Christian Science, doesn’t it? I know there are people who have found the Science of Christianity for themselves – who’ve never stepped foot in an actual Christian Science church, and are not particularly interested in the human organization of the Christian Science religion – but are practicing and proving the Science of Christianity daily in their lives.  And wouldn’t we call them “Christian Scientists”, too?

Is it possible to be a non-Scientific Christian Scientist? And – contrariwise – is it possible to be a non-religious Christian Scientist?  I’ve come to believe the answer to the first question is no. And I’ve come to believe the answer to the second question is yes.

I myself am not what you would call a very “religious” person, I guess.  I enjoy going to church for the like-minded fellowship I find there, and the inspiration and uplift I get from my fellow Christian Scientists – I’m  blest to be part of  a Christian Science branch church that’s very loving and compassionate in its support for its members and its loving outreach to the community.

But, to be honest, I’ve never felt comfortable surrounding myself  exclusively with other people who call themselves “Christian Scientists” or isolating myself from the rest of humanity to hang out with people who only speak Christian Science-ese. That just has never felt healthy to me. There’s a sort of group-think about it that makes me a little wary. And – as far as religion in general goes –  I’ve never been big into tradition or dogma, and the  “exclusivity” often found in  religion has never much appealed to me.

When Mary Baker Eddy first re-discovered the Science of Christ-healing that Jesus practiced more than 2000 years ago she hoped she could introduce it to humanity through the religious institutions that were already in place. She soon realized that the religious institutions of that time weren’t ready to open their doors to Christian Science. And so she established her own religion to spread the word of her discovery. But I don’t believe she ever meant for the religious institution to be the most important part of her legacy to us.  I believe she viewed the human organization as the necessary tool for sharing her discovery – but I don’t think she thought the religion of Christian Science was as important as the Science of Christian Science.

I know I don’t.

***

The time for thinkers has come. Truth, independent  of doctrines and time-honored systems, knocks at the  portal of humanity. – Mary Baker Eddy

        Divine metaphysics is now reduced to a system, to a form comprehensible by and adapted to the thought of  the age in which we live. This system enables the learner to demonstrate the divine Principle, upon which Jesus’ healing was based, and the sacred rules for its present application to the cure of disease. – Mary Baker Eddy

        It is essential to understand, instead of believe, what relates most nearly to the happiness of being. To seek  Truth through belief in a human doctrine is not to understand the infinite. We must not seek the immutable  and immortal through the finite, mutable, and mortal,  and so depend upon belief instead of demonstration, for  this is fatal to a knowledge of Science. – Mary Baker Eddy

 Question. – Are doctrines and creeds a benefit to man?        

 Answer. – The author subscribed to an orthodox creed in early youth, and tried to adhere to it until she  caught the first gleam of that which interprets God as above mortal sense. This  view rebuked human beliefs, and gave the spiritual import, expressed through Science, of all that proceeds  from the divine Mind. Since then her highest creed has been divine Science, which, reduced to human apprehension, she has named Christian Science. This Science teaches man that God is the only Life, and that this Life  is Truth and Love; that God is to be understood, adored, and demonstrated; that divine Truth casts out suppositional error and heals the sick.  – Mary Baker Eddy

The Bible: From “Baseline Data” to a Revelation

Posted on by
Reply

“Definition. Baseline data is basic information gathered before a program begins. It is used later to provide a comparison for assessing program impact.” – http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/literacy/referencematerials/glossaryofliteracyterms/whatisbaselinedata.htm

“…our sufficiency is of God… Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” – II Corinthians 3

“SCIENTIFIC interpretation of the Scriptures properly starts with the beginning of the Old Testament, chiefly because the spiritual import of the Word, in its earliest articulations, often seems so smothered by the immediate context as to require explication; whereas the New Testament narratives are clearer and come nearer the heart.” – Mary Baker Eddy (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures)

***

The Bible is really cool in that it’s a collection of writings from people who lived thousands of years ago and took the time to write down their thoughts and feelings about life – and their writing connects us to them – lets us see that people dealt with the same feelings that we deal with today. There’s joy in those pages, and hope, and great love. There’re stories of self-sacrifice and selflessness and courage – and there’re also stories of obsession and greed and jealousy. And it’s interesting, to me, to see how people dealt with all that stuff – as a society, and as individuals.

But there’s a distinction made in the Bible between the “spirit” and the “letter.” It says in II Corinthians 3 that “the letter killeth” – and I think when people interpret the Bible word-for-word literally they are killing the spirit, the essence, of its meaning. The Bible is chock full of symbolism. Interpreted literally, a lot of it just doesn’t make any sense – it’s full of contradictions and things that are just loopy. Interpreted literally, the story of Adam and Eve has any sane person scratching her head, trying to make heads and tails of talking serpents and a rib turned into a woman and a Creator sending his creation to hell for doing what he made it capable of doing. Interpreted literally, the book of Revelation is a complete nightmare.

And sometimes it might seem really tempting to just throw the whole thing in the trash and be done with it – there is a lot of insanity displayed in The Bible – narrow-mindedness, rigidity, misogyny, tribal warfare, chaos and mayhem and rape and murder and hypocrisy – and I can understand why I’ve sometimes heard people say they hate it.

But when I read The Bible what I see as a history major is the evolution and progress of society and mankind – gradually moving away from a god of war – a vengeful, angry, jealous anthropomorphic god – to God as, literally, Love. When I read the first chapter of Genesis I see the beauty of creation – I don’t get hung up on the whole seven days and seven nights thing – Christian Scientists don’t interpret that chapter literally – what I see is a creation made in God’s image and likeness – beautiful and good and perfect. When I read the story of Adam and Eve, it’s obvious to me that I’m reading an allegory. When I read the songs that David wrote I know I’m reading the words of a man who struggled with the same things I’ve struggled with in my life – I see his flaws and I see his mistakes and his victories, and I see him growing and maturing and I take comfort in that. Jesus’ healings are evidence, for me, of the power of our thoughts, the power of love and good overcoming the challenges we all face – and they give me hope. Revelations is totally symbolic – in my mind, at least – showing the ultimate triumph of the things of the Spirit over the illusions of matter.

I think it’s important to keep what we read in the Bible in context with the culture and times in which it was written – and to view the Bible as a work that’s not static, but dynamic – that shows us a progression from beginning to end.  When we read in Leviticus the ruling that adulterous women should be stoned, and “…eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again” – I don’t see this as an edict of how we should behave today – I see Leviticus as offering us the baseline data – as the “basic information gathered before a program begins… used later to show how far we’ve come…”   (http://www.sil.org). When we later see Jesus saving the woman accused of adultery from being stoned, and read his words, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5) – I see the progress mankind has made from the baseline given in Leviticus.

“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.” – Matthew 5

“There will be greater mental opposition to the spiritual, scientific meaning of the Scriptures than there has ever been since the Christian era began. The serpent, material sense, will bite the heel of  the woman, – will struggle to destroy the spiritual idea of Love...” – Mary Baker Eddy (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures)

“The Scriptures are very sacred. Our aim must be to have them understood spiritually, for only by this understanding can truth be gained. The true theory of the universe, including man, is not in material history but in spiritual development.” – from Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy