First off, let me say I love a good debate. A 'good debate' being one in which all participants act with maturity and do not overstep from the initial setting of the subject matter into personal attacks. Though none of my comments yesterday were intentioned as personal attacks on any who believe in Christian Science - though I guess any time you discuss something which comprises one's personal beliefs, the very nature of the discussion makes it personal. If I offended you, I'm sorry. But if my comments irritated you enough to make you think more - can't say that I am sorry, because one of my goals is to make people think. It is a fool who accepts anything without thinking it through and challenging it.
Yesterday I did use the term 'cult' to refer to Christian Science. Though derogatory, I didn't necessarily mean it as such. Ironically, the term 'cult' also applies to Christianity as well, for a cult is primarily a "particular system of religious worship" (to quote Dictionary.com).
I would like to note that my observations were based on one service I attended, and not based out of any personal study I have done. But I think all Christian Scientists should take note of my observations, because whether or not my observations were accurate, they were what I derived from the service I attended. In the same sense, if a non-Christian (or even a Christian Scientist) were to attend my church on Sunday morning and not walk away with the basic understanding that we believe that all have sinned and that the only way to reconcile ourselves to God is through Christ, then the service was a failure. I would put that challenge out to every church - if a visitor cannot walk away at least with that, then you have failed.
In the same sense, what I walked away with from the Christian Science service was partly my responsibility (how well I was paying attention), but also that of those who structured the service. I was attempting to pay attention as best I could and to also absorb as much as I could so I could later hash it all out. I'm not perfect, so I know I missed some. But one of the main overarching themes that I walked away with was that physical healing is a primary goal of Christian Science. You can also note my other other observations from yesterday, which are those things which stuck out most to me.
As far as my statement about Science and Health interpreting scripture, I stand by it. In the service which I was in, it was stated that the bible would be read with it's "correlative" passages from Science and Health, but all "correlative" means is "related to". And in the setting of reading scripture and then passages from S&H, the latter interprets the scripture reading or at leasts focuses the meaning derived for the listener.
This next statement may be offensive, but it isn't intended to be so. But if came about from only a 3 three year study, what separates it from many modern (or classical) biblical commentaries? Why is Mary Baker Eddie's work so special? I am working on a Masters in Advanced Biblical Studies, and one of the overarching themes of the bible that I see emerging more and more from the Old Testament through the new testament is God trying to reconcile man to himself. Mary Baker Eddie seems to have missed that entirely. Her emphasis of spirituality (if I am beginning to understand it correctly) which subjugates the physical realm to something lesser seems more Platonic than biblical. The Incarnation (God becoming man) itself seems to indicate that God places high value on the physical. Why would God choose to use physicality if it was so pointless or useless? For man? But then wouldn't that point to some desire on God's part for man? Isn't that indicative of a primacy of value on relationship for God?
I know my perspectives are biased (but aren't all perspectives biased?), but the logical inconsistencies flow to easily to be cast aside for me. I welcome your thoughts/responses, but please understand I am not trying to deride your beliefs, only work through them to try and understand them correctly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Sorry about a delay in responding, Zach. And thank you for laying out your thoughts so clearly.
Physical healing is very important in Christian Science because it was so key in the mission of Jesus and his disciples. It is not, however, an end in itself, but a means to evidence the love of God - as Jesus evidenced it in his time. As in your church, though, so in Christian Science it is the salvation from sin which is paramount. Mary Baker Eddy describes the healing of sickness in the following way: "Healing physical sickness is the smallest part of Christian Science. It is only the bugle-call to thought and action, in the higher range of infinite goodness. The emphatic purpose of Christian Science is the healing of sin; and this task, sometimes, may be harder than the cure of disease; because, while mortals love to sin, they do not love to be sick." (Rudimental Divine Science)
Also, yes - Science and Health does interpret the Bible. That's why I love it. Like a good preacher, it brings out the depth and breadth of the Bible's message. I was brought up to distrust the Bible for various reasons, and it was "Science and Health" that enabld me to wake up from that stupour and learn to love the Scriptures. Now the Bible characters are my best friends...! The important question about Mrs. Eddy's explanations of the Bible comapred to those of a preacher is "if Jesus were looking over her shoulder, and hearing what she has to say, would he approve?" I believe he would.
As to sunjugating the physical realm to something lesser, well yes and no. Metaphysically she describes the material world as "nothing" compared to the infinite universe of spiritual reality...but that explanation is often caricatured unfairly. Let me leave you with a last quote from another of Mrs. Eddy's works in answer to the question" Is it correct to say of material objects, that they are nothing and exist only in imagination?"
She wrote in reply "Nothing and something are words which need correct definition. They either mean formations of indefinite and vague human opinions, or scientific classifications of the unreal and the real. My sense of the beauty of the universe is, that beauty typifies holiness, and is something to be desired. Earth is more spiritually beautiful to my gaze now than when it was more earthly to the eyes of Eve. The pleasant sensations of human belief, of form and color, must be spiritualized, until we gain the glorified sense of substance as in the new heaven and earth, the harmony of body and Mind.
Even the human conception of beauty, grandeur, and utility is something that defies a sneer. It is more than imagination. It is next to divine beauty and the grandeur of Spirit. It lives with our earth-life, and is the subjective state of high thoughts. The atmosphere of mortal mind constitutes our mortal environment. What mortals hear, see, feel, taste, smell, constitutes their present earth and heaven: but we must grow out of even this pleasing thraldom, and find wings to reach the glory of supersensible Life; then we shall soar above, as the bird in the clear ether of the blue temporal sky.
To take all earth's beauty into one gulp of vacuity and label beauty nothing, is ignorantly to caricature God's creation, which is unjust to human sense and to the divine realism. In our immature sense of spiritual things, let us say of the beauties of the sensuous universe: "I love your promise; and shall know, some time, the spiritual reality and substance of form, light, and color, of what I now through you discern dimly; and knowing this, I shall be satisfied. Matter is a frail conception of mortal mind; and mortal mind is a poorer representative of the beauty, grandeur, and glory of the immortal Mind."
Blessings to you!
Post a Comment