See, Mary Baker Eddy grew up really sickly. Always fighting off on disease or malady. Then one day, she was reading her Bible and it was revealed to her the method (the science) by with Jesus did all his miraculous healings. And she was healed. So she wrote "Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures". She then went on to be the most prolific healer since Jesus. Supposedly.
See, (1) one of the things she figured out was that there is no sin, sickness or death. These don't exist. In fact, (2)there is no real physical world. What we exist in is just an illusion or a lower form of the spirit world. So, she discovered the science, or method, or way to overcome the illusion that binds us and makes us think we are sick, hurt, hungry like Jesus did.
While we are on the subject, she also realized that (3) God is impersonal, a mind/spirit that can be understood as the "All in All", encompassing everything. (4) Jesus was just a man who demonstrated the metaphysical truth. He was the 'Idea of Christ', not actual diety. So (5)we can be like Jesus, by discovering or realizing the higher self inside of us. So, since he isn't diety and we can be higher spiritual beings like him, we need to realize that (6)the events in his life need to be viewed as metaphor and spiritual and not taken literally.
Ultimately, all this means that (7) Christian Science possess a more complete and superior form of spiritual knowledge than traditional christianity.
If you're a loony. First of all... her husband died of a heart attack. She didn't agree, so she hired a doctor who agreed with her. But.... turns out he wasn't a doctor. So they arrested him and closed his 'medial school'.
Secondly, the idea that this world is an illusion or somehow a reflection or lower form of something spiritual has been around since Plato and Aristotle. Remember the Matrix? That's the kind of thing she's saying. "Do you think that's air you're breathing now?"
Thirdly, the idea that the scriptures have some kind of hidden meaning in them that you have to discover or have revealed to you goes back to the Gnostics. There is a lot in the New Testament about the truth being revealed and available to all, and Gnosticism was heresy that the early church combated even in the early days.
As we discussed in class, it doesn't make any sense. How can they deny the tangibility of this existence? This reality? Or evil? How can they see such evil take place and think "this isn't really happening." Not in the sense of "this is so horrible, I wish this isn't happening" but "yeah, that didn't happen. I just think it did, but it didn't."
These are the people that we tend to see in the news, the 'christians' who didn't take their kid to the doctor and then their kid died of a preventable disease. Why go to a doctor if you aren't really sick to begin with? Through a 'practioner' (healer) they can realize they don't exist physically and therefore, they can't really be sick or hurt. Update! They do have churches. I did a Google search and they have one in Dallas. They also have something like 9 reading rooms. So you see where the emphasis is. They don't have churches, because they don't need to worship, they have reading rooms because they need to realize this existence is just a figment of our imaginations. Once we do that, we can ascend (metaphorically) like Jesus to heaven (oneness with God).
One of the biggest dangers with Christian Science is the way that they market themselves. And while I'm guilty of that joke, it's not really a joke. If you look at the fundamental beliefs of Christianity they do not match up with anything they believe. Mary Baker Eddy even said, the material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon 'the accursed tree,' than when it was flowing in his veins. The only thing that Christian Science has in common with Christianity is that they are appropriating our language and terms. Is it too late to get God, Christ, Christianity, and Jesus trademarked? Some people shouldn't be allowed to use those terms.
2 comments:
As a Christian Scientist, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to several of the points you have raised in this post.
First of all, it’s inaccurate to refer to Christian Science as a cult. The founder of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, was a sincere lifelong student of the Bible. Based on my own lifelong study of her work, it is clear that she intended the members of her church to be thorough Bible scholars. Indeed, the Christian Science Reading Rooms (to which you refer) have substantial Bible study resources – most of which are not specific to Christian Science but are the same commentaries, etc. used by Christians of many denominations.
While Mrs. Eddy is recognized as the leader of the Christian Science movement, titles such as “Savior” and “Wayshower” are reserved for Jesus alone. The Christian Science textbook repeatedly refers to Jesus as "Messiah" and "Son of God," and Mrs. Eddy had a deep appreciation of his unique (singular) place in fulfilling biblical prophecy. In one of her published addresses, she advised her church members to “follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ.”
Secondly, I’m not sure where you got the impression that Christian Scientists “don't have churches, because they don't need to worship.” There are Christian Science churches in communities throughout the United States and in about 80 countries around the world. These congregations have weekly Sunday services and, in most cases, weekly testimony meetings (featuring Bible readings!) on Wednesdays. In addition, daily prayer and Bible study are central to the lives of most Christian Scientists.
Finally, I’d like to respond to the incorrect notion that Christian Scientists fail to make responsible health care choices. While Christian Scientists normally choose a path other than conventional medicine, this choice is not based on irrationality or blind faith. It instead reflects a systematic approach to prayer that has proven to be reliable and effective in the lives of those who practice it (in my own family’s case, for five generations). The track record of Christian Science healing (more than 80,000 verified and published cases of healing, many of medically diagnosed conditions) is compelling evidence that there’s more than one effective approach to health care.
Most Christian Scientists would agree that when praying about a health issue (especially for a child) RESULTS MATTER and that in the absence of timely, tangible results a parent has an obligation to consider other means of treatment. Christian Scientists don’t believe or teach that their religion somehow exempts them from the legal and moral obligations that every parent has to provide the best possible care for their children. Indeed, I believe that most feel a heightened sense of this responsibility and consistently practice their faith within that context.
I respect your dedication to your faith and realize there are some theological issues where we would differ. However, I believe if you read the chapter “Atonement and Eucharist” in the Christian Science textbook, you would get a sense of the deep reverence Christian Scientists have for Jesus and for his immense sacrifice for humanity’s salvation. I say this in all good faith, hoping we might find and appreciate some common ground. In this regard, you might find interesting a blog called “Christian Conversations” on our church’s website:
http://christianscience.com/questions/2010/jesus-our-savior/
Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts.
RADCS, Thank you for your comment! I was very surprised by it! I honestly never intended this site to be for anyone other than close friends and family, but I'm glad you stopped by.
To your second point: I got the impression about Christian Science Churches based on my own personal observation and the fact that the only information I had found about Christian Science mentioned Reading Rooms. I have seen reading rooms, but had never seen a church. I just did a quick google search for "Christian Science Church Dallas TX" and I did find one. I will redact that section of my post soon.
To touch briefly on the topic of healthcare: it was not my intent to say that Christian Scientists make poor choices, it was to illustrate the differences between Christian Science and Biblical Christianity using cultural events that my audience would be familiar with. I know many people who choose alternate forms of medicine, and that is their choice. My intent was to focus on the belief that prompts the behavior, not the behavior itself or it's justification.
While on the topic of belief, you are right when you say we have some theological differences. I think you would be more correct to say, we only have theological differences. I admit that I have only studied Christian Science for a brief period of time, so I don't know everything. But based on what I do know of it and of Christianity, the two are incompatible and their beliefs are so divergent as to be irreconcilable.
I will not deny that Mary Bake Eddy studied the Bible. But that doesn't make her Christian. Lot's of people study the Bible, even atheists. And I'm pretty sure they would object to being called Christian based solely on their reading habits.
I will even admit that some of the language that is used when talking about Jesus appears to be sincere. However, she also said, "Jesus is not God, as Jesus Himself declared, but the Son of God." (Science and Health 361 :12-13) Isn't she calling Jesus a liar?
And if you call Him savior, what did he save you from? Mary Baker Eddy said "Man is incapable of sin, sickness and death" (Science and Health 475:28) so why would he need to be saved?
And how did Jesus save when his shed blood on the cross was meaningless (“The material blood of Jesus was no more efficacious to cleanse from sin when it was shed upon ‘the accursed tree,’ than when it was flowing in His veins as He
went daily about His Father’s business”)?
Lastly, when I say 'cult' I am not trying to be offensive or derisive but instructional. As such, I clearly defined how I was using the word. Whether or not you choose to accept that label or not is up to you, but I would ask what definition you are using to define cult? Because even by the standard definition, it appears to be categorized as such.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult
Post a Comment