Is there support in Christian Science for homosexuality? [Archive]

Bruce Stores

April-20th-2008, 08:23 PM

To: For all mankind

First, let me thank all of the contributors of this thread for the intensity of their desire to view a potentially devisive subject that can be emotionally explosive from a strickly spiritual standpoint. As you know, from that perspective no one is either condemned or thought of as less than a child of God.
I hope that I am not mis-reading what you wrote (and please correct me if I do) but it seemed like gay sexual orientation rather than its expression was defined in your post as a synonym for sensuality.
It is very true that many lesbians and gays are leading a sensuous lifestyle as are many non-gay people. But it is equally true that many others, straight and gay alike, are in deeply committed, loving, monogamous relationships. I know many. So we come to see that it is not at all one's sexual orientation (gay or straight) that determines whether a relationship is sensual, but rather the way one decides to live within that context. It is also unfortunate that the label "promiscuous" seems to be associated in public thought with gay and lesbian sexuality.
If heterosexual marriage was not legal in the U.S. and abroad, imagine what effect that would have on many of those straight relationships! Even with the legal compact, marital infidelity is approaching dangerously high levels. It has been that way for a long time. Over a century ago, Mary Baker Eddy wrote, "Matrimony, which was once a fixed fact among us, must lose its present slippery footing, and man must find permanence and peace in a more spiritual adherence." (Science and Health, page 65) Perhaps it is not entirely in jest to suggest that a thread on the appropriateness of straight relationships might be in order.
Finally, as a resource to everyone, I'd like to recommend an excellent article from the Christian Science Sentinel (Dec. 15, 1997, page 24), titled, "Homosexuality-- how do I respond?" by Laura Mattrews.
Again, my appreciation to all for keeping this discourse on a high level.
Lovingly,
Bruce Stores

LaurieCSBug

April-20th-2008, 09:12 PM

There is love for everyone as God's child in Christian Science! But the flesh and its desires are not part of God's man. They are like tares and wheat within each individual. The tares are not our true nature. The wheat is our God-created identity.

The chapter on Marriage in Science and Health, reiterates the New Testament standard of marriage as the only moral place for sex. And it challenges humanity to go even higher away from recreational sex within marriage.

It is currently claimed that individuals are born homosexual, but even if this is so according to medical/physical science, Christ's Science can make any man free. "What cannot God do?":)

NYCtown

April-21st-2008, 12:24 AM

What I keep coming back to whenever this topic comes up (on this site and tmcyouth.com) is how important it is for me to focus on my spiritual identity and the spiritual identity of others, rather than get hung up on catagorizing people into different sexual orientations.... It just doesn't feel like I'll get too far by focusing on what other people (gay or straight) should do or how they should live their lives. And I know that in my own life, when I've gotten a better handle on my spiritual identity, my behavior conforms to some degree....

Susieee

April-21st-2008, 01:03 AM

I think it's worth unpacking a couple things in response to this question:

What is Christian Science? Well, that's a huge question, because it's more than just a religious denomination. It's about the laws of our infinite, eternal, Father-Mother God that is defined in the Bible as Spirit, and whose spiritual creation is His beloved and blessed image and likeness. Anyone and everyone is welcome to study Christian Science and will be uplifted and supported by it, without exception, because its laws are universal.

The First Church of Christ, Scientist is dedicated to the loving and healing study and practice of Christian Science. I would personally hope that anyone and everyone would be graciously welcome to attend the services at any church, providing they came, not with a personal agenda, but a true desire to learn more about God and His government of the universe.

But, that doesn't mean that anything goes for people who want to be members of the church. The requirements for membership in The Mother Church are laid out in the Church Manual - I would recommend reading it to everyone. Very refreshingly, no checklist of human behaviors are given with which to compare one member to another. Instead, the requirements encourage an exceptionally high standard of love for Christian Science, including its moral and spiritual demands.

The world is so full of people trying to say one thing or another about specific human identities, that I am grateful for how Christian Science and my church are so focused on our spiritual identity. I wouldn't want that to change at all, though I am also grateful for the compassionate it encourages as we each work out our individual salvation.

Starlight Rider

April-21st-2008, 05:37 AM

I'm glad to see this group is thus far non-judgmental about sexual orientation. I wish that attitude was universal among Christian Scientists, but in my experience it isn't. A close friend once equated all same-sex relationships with selfish self-gratification, a position I could not agree with.

But that's not what I want to discuss right now. The issue I see is over sensuality, regardless of sexual orientation. There is a general feeling expressed here that sensuality is automatically wrong by definition because it isn't "spiritual."

The problem is that sensuality isn't confined to sexuality. Everything we do on Earth has a sensual component. Have you ever enjoyed the colors of a flower garden or the smell of the roses? Enjoyed good meal, or a delightful candy confection? Squished sand between your toes, or felt a refreshing breeze on your face? Skied down a mountain or played a game of baseball? These are every bit as sensual as a romp in the hay, yet we think of the latter as nonspiritual while the rest are perfectly acceptable.

To me, spirituality vs materiality isn't a matter of two different realms, but rather different ways of looking at the same things. There isn't a spiritual world and a material one. The only difference, as I understand it, is that the material view looks to effect (things, feelings, sensations, etc.) as cause, while the spiritual view sees cause in Mind or consciousness, and the things we experience or feel, including physical intimacy, are the effects in our own consciousness.

For example, a rose is not beauty, it is an expression of beauty. A sculpture is not art, it is an expression of art. A good meal is not energy, it is the manifestation of divine energy provided to us. Money is not supply, it is the effect of God's perpetual provision for our needs. Likewise, sex is not intimacy, but is an expression of intimacy.

If you look for a rose you will not find beauty, but if you look for beauty you may find a rose. If you look to money or food you will not find supply, but if you seek God's supply you will have money, food, or something equally suitable to meet your need. If you look to sex you will not find intimacy, but if you look to love you may find intimacy expressed as a playful romp in the hay. I know many people would find the last of these propositions harder to accept than the first two, but there's no difference among them that I can see.

As for the sexual orientation issue, Christian Science teaches that gender is not a spiritual concept, and is therefore an illusion. If that is the case then one should not be upset when the illusory barrier is broken and two people who appear to be of the same gender are attracted to each other. On the other hand, if a Christian Scientist says same-sex relationships are wrong, then they must accept that gender is relevant, and not an illusion, after all.

Bruce Stores

April-21st-2008, 09:22 AM

Hi Laurie,

I appreciate your responding to my first message. Thank you so much. It's good to get an idea for how everyone feels on this subject. :)

You wrote, in part:

" The chapter on Marriage in Science and Health, reiterates the New Testament standard of marriage as the only moral place for sex."

That is why, of course, many are working to see there is no discrimination in marital laws when one chooses a marriage partner. Meanwhile, lesbians and gays who marry in the state of Massachusetts, all of Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and the Union of South Africa find themselves in the "moral place for sex." They can marry legally. I don't think there was such a thing as legal civil unions and legal domestic partnerships in Mary Baker Eddy's day. I wonder if she would approve of such a thing. If so, that would put several more U.S. states (and many more countries, including all of Scandenavia, I think) in the "moral place for sex."

Here in the Republic of Mexico where I live, the law does not recognize marriages preformed in churches. That seems odd, doesn't it? But it's true. So couples who want a church wedding also need a civil ceremony for their marriage to be recognized by law. What surprises me is how many couples are married only in the Church, not really caring what the government says (or doesn't say) about the legality of their relationship. I don't think Mrs. Eddy addressed that type of situation. In that context many churches in the U.S.A. (outside Massachusetts, of course) continue having a special service to bless gay relationships until the law gives them the power to actually wed gay couples. Many feel (as do the Mexicans) that puts them in a spiritually correct position because they have taken their vows before God and many witnesses, as happens in a legal marriage. Therefore, they too, feel they are in the "moral place."

Where you and I may agree the most, Laurie, is that all of us, gay, straight, or what have you, are not bound by labels. Instead we're all working out of materiality. That is the important thing, isn't it? But mortal mind does try to define us and classify us materially as to race, gender, economic class, old and young, and on and on. But the bottom line is we are all spiritual beings. Its nice to know that many feel gays have the capacity to overcome their materiality regarding sexual activity before straight people are able to do it. But the truth is, gays are neither better at it, nor worse at accomplishing that than are heterosexuals. So we gotta work at getting the legal protections. Did you know that from the time the women's movement began, it took 72 years for them to get the right to vote? Do you remember what the opponents of women's rights used to deny them the right of suffrage? It was the Holy Bible. That's right. And the New Testament at that. As you know, Mrs. Eddy was a strong supporter of women's rights. Perhaps that's why when our Leader was asked at the end of the 19th Century, "What are the greatest dangers confronting the 20th Century," she wrote:

"To my sense, the most imminent dangers confronting the coming century are: the robbing of people of life and liberty under the warrant of the Scriptures." First Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany p: 266:3-9
In other words, we need to keep church and state apart - FAR apart. They should never touch.

Thanks again for writing Laurie and for reading all this.

Onward and upward,

Bruce Stores

MikeDavis

April-22nd-2008, 07:30 PM

Jim (Starlight Rider),

Your post about sensuality and the senses was interesting, and I thought I might add a few of my own thoughts about this. This is kind of getting away from the topic of this thread, and I don't really want to get us off into another direction, but I'm not sure where else to share some of these thoughts, which were triggered by your post.

Mrs. Eddy in her writings speaks of material senses and spiritual senses. I like to think of the words sense and senses as literally meaning the ability to sense, or become aware of, the nature of things. The only real senses are spiritual senses, by which we are aware of the nature of God, man, and the one spiritual universe. Since what Mrs. Eddy calls mortal mind misperceives the one spiritual universe, this misperception of necessity also includes a misperception of the real spiritual senses. And since matter can be defined in Christian Science as whatever objectifies mortal mind's misperceptions, mortal mind conceives of senses as functioning to make us aware of the objective states of mortal mind's misconceptions of man and the universe (in other words, matter). Through spiritual growth we can gradually become more aware that the only senses we actually have right now and have ever had are completely spiritual, which alters our human perception so that how we are perceiving becomes more spiritually accurate. The result is that mortal mind's inversions of Truth (such as disease and the belief of mind in matter, etc.) are seen as nothing, and disappear, while a limited and distorted sense of the things that are good, beautiful, harmless, etc. can be gradually replaced by a more spritual perception that causes these things to appear to us humanly as closer approximations to what they actually spiritually are right now and always.

scott10

April-23rd-2008, 02:59 AM

Nice to see a thoughtful discussion on this topic. I'm sure I'm like you all in that I search Mrs. Eddy's books for guidance on any issue that doesn't already seem clear. It would be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts on this quote from page 61 of Science and Health.

"The formation of mortals must greatly improve to advance mankind. The scientific morale of marriage is spiritual unity. If the propagation of a higher human species is requisite to reach this goal, then its material conditions can only be permitted for the purpose of generating. The foetus must be kept mentally pure and the period of gestation have the sanctity of virginity."

A lot of challenging stuff in that quote, but it seems to me we must all admit that it represents a standard we should striving for, as Christian Scientists. My take on it, as I understand it today, is that Mrs. Eddy considered sex a suffer it to be so in its relation to "the propagation of a higher human species." In other words, recreational sex of any nature is below that standard. And since sex within a gay or lesbian relationship cannot lead to procreation, then it must by definition be wholly recreational. Of course, most heterosexual couples go to great lengths to keep things recreational as well. So it would seem the majority of us have some distance to travel to achieve that stepping-stone standard that has been set for us.

I feel Mrs. Eddy is challenging us to think beyond the illusion of a material, sensual man, split into two sexes, to that perfect man described on page 64 of S&H, "in which passion has no part," and where "white-robed purity will unite in one person masculine wisdom and feminine love, spiritual understanding and perpetual peace. " Afterall, are we not to work to know and increasingly demonstrate that each of us is this real man now? Instead of seeking acceptance of and offering justification for falling short of the standard Science and Health sets for us, shouldn't we be encouraging and inspiring each other to meet it?

That quote from page 61 also offers guidance on where Christian Science stands on the subject of abortion, which is another issue many church members seem to struggle with.

"The foetus must be kept mentally pure and the period of gestation have the sanctity of virginity."

If Mrs. Eddy considered sex during pregnancy harmful to the mental purity of the foetus, it would very hard to imagine that she would consider termination of a pregnancy not harmful to that mentality.

Starlight Rider

April-23rd-2008, 05:26 AM

Mike,
I made a related comment on senses in the dental care (http://www.christianscience.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96&page=2) thread, post #14. I suggested that what we call material senses are really mental filters which prevent us from seeing the full spiritual picture.

At this point I would suggest that any further discussion on senses might be continued under a new thread, leaving this one to resume its original course.

pam

April-23rd-2008, 02:19 PM

This is a fascinating subject, where the difference between Absolute and Relative in Science comes into stark focus.
Surely the objective here, in terms of all sensuous human experience is ''temperance''.
Whether it is the thoughtful breakfast of grilled fish which Jesus prepared for his disciples after the Resurrection, or intimate relations between consenting adults, we are subject to sensual experience at this stage, and it is up to every individual to be honest to themselves about what that means at any particular time. I suppose extreme intemperance in the consumption of food could be regarded as a worse physical indulgence than the tender relations between a loving couple. A "celibate" person might have an unhealthy desire for some extreme physical sensation in the form of excessive hygene, or athletic sports....whatever drives thought back to the self the body, or obsessive sense need is not helpful to us in the pursuit of Truth, or truth.
It is clear to us all in this forum that the bar is placed high for humans in many areas of our experience ....The ideal, the Absolute is our goal. We do what we can to adhere to certain obvious and generally accepted guidelines to practise Christian Science. There are also some grey areas. Of course there are! The whole shebang is grey most of the time!

Surely we all have enough to work on with the obvious day to day challenges of mortal existence, that affect us all, so that speculating about whether sex is OK in Science, or not, becomes a little obsessive in itself. I cannot think that a loving Christian, of any denomination, should condem or censure any loving couple who have stayed together, or even wish to stay together, especially in life partnership. Any combination. Are we male or female? Ar we young or old? Are we any race or colour? Spiritually?

Those who are pursuing spiritual understanding, meeting society's many challenges to anyone who tries to live a less material, more honest and tolerant life are not the sort of people we should be worried about! And they shouldn't have to worry about themselves!

I have heard some wierd stories in my time aboout sex vrs Science....!
I never thought it was such a big deal, but every once in a while I see that there are some views on this subject that I personally feel are un realistic, and would make it hard for many folks to honestly adhere to in a normal affectionate loving relationship. It seems an undue burden. We can clutter our thinking with extreme views on normal human experiences. Jesus was honest about this. We are setting ourselves up to strain at the gnats if we throw that cup of cold water in Christ's name all over good honest people expressing human romantic expression. Where does it stop? Is kissing OK?

In Miscellaneous Writings, pp 286,287,288 Mrs Eddy writing about wedlock, temperance and romantic affection says basically that temperance is the goal. We will eventually perceive ourselves as neither marrying or married, but as the angels (p 286:13), (without material accompaniments).
"Human procreation,birth,life,and death are subjective states of the human erring mind". Yes, ok, that covers the whole experience, including those activities we are obliged to engage in like eating, loving and driving cars.
Elsewhere in Science and Health, she comments about the natural world and its wonders(Mrs Eddy, we know well, loved and admired the natural world and its beauties!) saying that it is "sometimes beautiful, always erroneous"

These are high ideas, and serve to remind us of our strange existence in an illusion. However, we do not first look at the beauty of a child, a flower or a sunset as "erroneous", rather we smile and love and enjoy. We dont become intemperate or obsessive. We are ''normal''. We are natural. We should be honest, too.
I was taught as a child that the letters CS stand for Common Sense as well as Christian Science!
On p 288 MiscWritings, MrsEddy writes in regard to celibacy in wedlock:
"The selish role of the martyr is the shift of a dishonest mind, nothing short of self seeking; and real suffering would stop the farce."

Every individual has something he or she may be working on. For some it is love of food, for some: love of adventure, for some: love of sleep, for some: love of money, for some: love of sex....sometimes we know when its not really the right balance. Sometimes we can see lack of balance in other people. But the level is a personal one, and to set limits on normal human behaviors, like eating, or say, sex seems really a red herring, obtrusive and intolerant.
Pam

Island

May-2nd-2008, 02:21 AM

NYCtown

May-2nd-2008, 03:16 AM

It's fascinating that the original question was simple and could be answered by yes or no. After a number of posts, no one has done that. Rather, most posts have dealt with a multitude of aspects of the question. What's wrong with studying our religion, finding the answer, stating it, and then supporting that answer with reason, fact, opinion, or discussion?
Good point.

I guess what I was trying to say was that I get from my study of Christian Science that it's not in support of homosexuality *or* heterosexuality. It points us to something that isn't based on sexual identity at all, and that's spiritual identity.

How that plays out in my life is that I've got friends who are gay and I've got friends who are straight. I love them all the same.

scott10

May-2nd-2008, 11:27 AM

Island,
If you wanted a thinking persons answer, you would naturally want more than a "yes" or "no." But it is very clear to me that there is absolutely no support in CS for homosexuality. There is gentle support for heterosexuality in marriage, as stated in this passage from S&H -- "If the propagation of a higher human species is requisite to reach this goal, then its material conditions can only be permitted for the purpose of generating." But again, it is clear to me that Mrs. saw sex as a suffer it to be so for now kind of thing that the progressing Christian Scientist would grow out.

Mrs. Eddy is very clear and very consistent on this point. Does that mean she encouraged condemnation of homosexuals? Absolutely not. Christian Science is about healing, not condemnation. But she clearly saw any sexual identification as counter to the natural progression of man to an understanding of his spiritual identity, and recreational sex as a vice. For me, the fact that she did not use terms related to homosexuality in her writings does not imply that she was vague on the subject but actually speaks volumes about the assumed moral standard of her day which has deteriorated so much in the century since.

friendlyfire

May-4th-2008, 03:07 PM

I wonder how deeply you've really studied this question yourself. You question seems simple, but asking for yes/no would require a more specific question. I think Scott10 gave you a good, simple answer.
My question to your question is, what specifically do you mean by "support homosexuality?" When you get more specific with that, you can get a more direct, specific yes or no.
What exactly do you mean by "support?" What exactly do you mean by "homosexuality?" And, while we're at it, who, specifically are you referring to when you say "Christian Science"--individuals? the Mother Church? branch churches? Science and Health? the Manual? ... Can you see where the problems lie in your request for a simple answer?

adyer

May-5th-2008, 05:57 PM

Many religions seem to struggle with the issue of homosexuality. They are not sure how to approach it. More importantly, the members of those religions often have very strong views, pro and con, and not always in agreement with the church teachings. It seems to me that if a religion is accepting of homosexuality, there should be very clear evidence of support, not just acceptance. Thus my question.

It seems the question is less about homosexuality per se and more about an institutional view of homosexuality in The Mother Church. There is no church teaching on the subject, as far as I know.

3x9

May-5th-2008, 11:14 PM

Dear Island,

I would say, pure and simple, the answer is that there is no support for homosexuality. But that's really because Christian Science denies the entire claim of matter — so there is ultimately no support for heterosexuality either (but what Scott10 said earlier is very well put). The belief that man is a sexual being, who can create sexually, or who can find pleasure in matter is strictly denied — God did not create matter, nor did God, Spirit, create mortal and material beings who are governed by material senses or a force, atomic or otherwise, that could be outside of His/Her divine and infinitely spiritual government and omnipotent power.

But Christian Science naturally supports every individual who desires to find a greater understanding of God, and His/Her true concept of man as spiritual, good and harmonious. Christian Science, the law of Good, supports everyone no matter what path they are on! But Christian Science flatly denies and destroys all false human beliefs.

Christian Science also makes clear that all human and matter based concepts, such as sexuality, disease, death, sin, etc have nothing to do with the real man, the man Christ Jesus presented through his healing and teachings. Christ Jesus showed that man was spiritual, God/Spirit created and Spirit-governed through his healing of sin, disease and death. In all of his works, Jesus showed that all of the human concepts we entertain about man as being either fallen, sick, sinful like Adam and Eve, young, old, mortal, sexual, etc are entirely false and that all related material beliefs are one in the same: a lie.

But one things is clear, no one has to be perfect to practice Christian Science, or the divine Law of Good! Newton didn't have to be perfect to define the law of gravity, either. Someone can believe than anyone of the mortal concepts [listed above] is a real thing ... but generally anyone who sincerely desires to understand the Bible and put into practice what is written in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, while aiming to do similar works as Jesus did, will eventually heal disease, and old beliefs and labels, no matter what they are, fall away.

Erthwomn

July-5th-2008, 10:27 PM

levity

July-6th-2008, 12:54 PM

Mary Ann,

I'm sorry that was your experience. I think a lot of members of various Christian churches are struggling with this question. That's not an excuse for exclusion or unkind behavior; far from it! It's just to say that sometimes, when people are trying to figure something out, they may stumble about a bit in the process.

In the meantime, I hope you'll find a community here, both on the discussion forums and on the main portion of christianscience.com--which, to me at least, is a wonderful expression of the heart of Christian Science. Christian Scientists may not always practice it perfectly, but I think many would agree with me when I say that we do strive to put love at the center of everything. I hope that's your experience here on the site.

Additionally, I hope you'll delve into the Mary Baker Eddy section and the "About" section of the site as well. (You can use the menu across the top of the home page to navigate.) Interestingly enough, Christian Science is actually quite different than New Thought. I think you'll enjoy discovering more about it.

And please bring your questions back to the forums!

Lulu333

July-6th-2008, 03:58 PM

mhnlm

July-6th-2008, 05:32 PM

Whether it is so-called, "church AND state," a sense of "gender," "sexual," or "political" identity -- I think it is important to emphasize the veracity of the passage:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

The depiction of any aspect of Life as if it had an aspect of Identity separate and apart from the "Adorable One" -- is an unfortunate deviation from "the oneness and the allness of Divine Love;" that IS "Christian Science." (S&H 424:25-26)

"Life demonstrates Life." (S&H 306:7)

Its Infinite, Indivisible Nature does not leave It subject to "different kinds" of life.

With ALL Blessings
Michael
):->

Laughingwolf

July-7th-2008, 12:08 PM

I'm sorry that you got that reaction. Are there other Christian Science churches in your area? Not all of them would react that way. My closest friend at my branch is gay and everyone knows it and loves him -- and his partner. He's a member and a hard working one, too. :)

I'd like to "second" what Lulu said. I'm gay and attending and plan on joining a branch church in my area. My being gay is not an issue for this branch and they follow the Manual's guidelines on church membership requirements. The congregation is composed of wonderful, loving people. Lulu has good advice. Scope out other CS churches. Peace and blessings.

adyer

July-7th-2008, 01:13 PM

There should never be any bigotry or discrimination in loving our neighbor as ourselves. As a Christian Science I find this is not difficult at all. Frankly, I have no idea of the experience of my fellow members, and I don't care to nose into it.

At the same time, we must also take care not to confuse the Golden Rule with political activism. I occasionally see Christian Science used in the attempt to further either Conservative or Liberal social agendas, as if CS was somehow a validation of them. The same thing should be true of any homosexual political agenda. The minute the Christian Science Church is used as a platform to endorse ANY political agenda, I get turned off.

This is the same as accusing the Christian Science Church of requiring its members not to go to doctors and take medicine...looking for some kind of church "position" or "policy" on medicine. My church should never comment on the concept of a gay civil union, except to remind us it is a matter for the state. But neither should the Christian Science church recognize it as marriage...which Mrs. Eddy defines in the textbook, and which a gay union is not. There is no reason to believe this is not sufficiently clear in the textbook.

If one of my gay friends came to me wanting to join my branch church motivated by the desire to get my branch church to recognize gay marriage, I would refuse to sign the application. If, on the other hand, the motivation was to progress in the understanding and demonstration of CS as shown by Jesus and stated in S&H independent of any political agenda, I could endorse that application.

Andre Mincho

July-9th-2008, 05:44 PM

In Divine Science we become more acute in sensing disharmony of human nature. Are we supposed to put human before God, or creation before the Creator? In God's Image we are made, but should we change this Holy Image according to the image of ourselves?
Male and Female made He them to express Himself, we read in Genesis. Is homosexuality normal or abnormal in order to express God? What we perceive as union between sexes on the human level is a manifestation of Divine Love and Oneness of Spirit. This Onenes cannot be reduced to any form of "sensuality" or recreational activity. To be Divine, Love must meet certain standards. For human it is Holy matrimony by which both sexes are manifested and supported as expression of Universality in Spirit. We are the child born out of this Oneness. If love is not Divine, it is not Love. We see many distortions that human or animal nature can bring to Divine Love. There are attractions we call love from human perspective. There is love for food which harms the organism. There can be love between a man and a woman without Divine Love (such as the case of prostitution, mutual criminal interest, etc.). A pedophile also feels certain form of "love". There is uncontroled desire of a spoiled child toward sweets we call love, etc. In animal nature there is love and passionate affection of a hungry wolf for a sheep, or in a cow for fresh grass. The notion of love can be constantly manipulated and the consequences become very dangerous.

In homosexuality we should not confuse simbiotic union, which uses collective defense for mortal sense of self as an advantage before individual sexual identity. Mortal sense can mistake demand of self to be supported in its endangered material identity for compassion and love. To defend itself, our nature can go to any extreme, including social activity and change of religious principles. But it does not change the Truth, God or Spirit. Yes, we are all spiritual creatures, but this can be the project only, the idea. We all deserve love and are expressions of Love, but we must realize our nature and requirements for it. That is why on the road we have the traffic regulations and laws that enforce those regulations. In the state we have standards and requiremens for any citizen, which are protected by force. In the hospital we are supposed to obey the rules of medical facility. In religious life we fulfill demands for Reality of God, Oneness of Spirit and Immortality of Life.
We might always succumb to pressure of our material senses, but responsibility is always ours. Ultimately, it is our world, our society, our home. There is an inocent, defensless child facing results of our actions and attitudes. There are schools where norms and standards on human nature can be enforced or eliminated. There are different countries which deside either to follow our example, or condemn it. Finally, it is us when we become an innocent and unprotected child in a world we have created. It is our choice to be raised in a Holy family with religious standards, or to eliminate sexual beauty, boundaries and roles of both parents in homosexual union. Homosexull substitute can become your family forever, just because you have made a choice before God and His Spirit.
By the way, uncontroled by society and its standards, human nature can progress in its distortions. Crimes become more heinous, mild deviations become more pathological and devastating. There is a clear point of view in both Old and New Testament upon sodomy and homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorah is just one of examples.
My experience tells me that in the churches where homosexuals form dominance, Christianity eventually becomes expelled, not just because people are bad, but because protective self interest replaces Christ as Immortal Self of God, mortal mind replaces Immortal Divine Mind in human nature. Material union and symbiotic connections between humans replace Oneness of Spirit and Absolute of God.

royan

August-6th-2008, 06:14 AM

When I asked the woman who answered the phone what the policy was on homosexuality, she was at first very gracious and welcoming "we welcome everyone." But when I asked about membership, she sounded horrified -- "people with those leanings could not be members."

How sad.

Mary Ann

It's not sad at all. It's a blessing!
That church who denied you denied JC.
God spared you from being a member of that church.
Instead, be a member of a church called kingdom of heaven whose God is the leader and the apostles and believers are the members.
You don't need to phone or fill any form and salvation is guaranteed!

You know where! :D

adyer

August-7th-2008, 11:32 AM

My partner, actually my wife as we live in New Jersey and are joined in a legal civil union and by a minister, and I are very interested in New Thought Christianity and the work of Mary Baker Eddy. We had a private tour of one of the houses she lived in in New Hampshire when on our honeymoon and felt a peace and a special grace at that place.

We are both very much wanting to learn more about CS and New Thought.
Beware of what is called New Thought. Many so-called "new" ways of thinking are still based on the false supposition of real material substance. Wikipedia (surprisingly) states this difference well:
New Thought / Christian Science
Both New Thought and Christian Science do place an emphasis on direct healing of the body, but Christian Science developed in a different direction from New Thought and is not considered a New Thought organization. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, was a disciple and patient of New Thought pioneer Phineas Quimby, but she rejected his healing methods, citing her belief that healing came from the power of the Christian God, not the human mind.

Also, see page 62 in Miscellaneous Writings by Mrs. Eddy for her direct contradiction of what in her time was called "mind-cure" and today is called New Thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Thought

Christian Science as practiced by Jesus and discovered and taught by Mary Baker Eddy eschews any mingling of material and spiritual concepts. In S&H (319:5):
To calculate one's life-prospects from a material basis, would infringe upon spiritual law and misguide human hope. Having faith in the divine Principle of health and spiritually understanding God, sustains man under all circumstances; whereas the lower appeal to the general faith in material means (commonly called nature) must yield to the all-might of infinite Spirit.
This removes both heterosexuality and homosexuality as a component part of one's true being, as the real man is complete and expresses both masculine and feminine qualities. The concession to heterosexual relationships and specifically marriage between a man and a woman is "a legal and moral provision for generation among human kind."

My life work as a Christian Scientist includes an acknowledgment that human sexuality is a counterfeit of spiritual qualities that make up my true being. I recognize that I am moving away from existence as a sexual being and not further into it. Marriage as a moral protection for me and my wife is important to me, but marriage as a context for perpetuating a belief in myself as a sexual being is what I am growing out of.

My endorsement of a membership application is based on the individual's sincere desire to learn Christian Science and be open to the eventual sacrifice of all material belief. It is easy to welcome into church any individual who wants to grow out of homosexuality, just as others are growing out of heterosexuality. All contemporary moral issues aside, neither is a true statement of man's being.

To bring into my branch church any stance that seeks to perpetuate a focus on sexuality is something I cannot endorse. Likewise I could not endorse the application for an individual who believes in homosexuality and desires to join my branch church to perpetuate this belief in the church family. I do not know you and please do not consider this an assumption of your motives. But it is something I have encountered.

Anyone making an honest investigation of the teachings of Christian Science should be prepared for an early and radical departure from New Thought.

Aslan

August-7th-2008, 01:13 PM

When people tell me that they're going to visit a Christian Science church, I always tell them if they don't feel comfortable in that particular branch church to visit another one. Each branch church has its own personality, regardless of the fact that they are all of the same denomination.

A branch church's attitudes (if they actually are the attitudes of the majority of the membership and not just those of one outspoken member or officer) frequently reflect the attitudes of the community that branch church serves. I have known homosexuals who were members of a branch churchs, but I live in a major city where there are many homosexuals who do not hide their preference. In the case of those I know who were members in branch churches, I would say that, while most of the membership was aware of their preference, these dear ones never "came out" to the membership. I do not believe they were ashamed of their lifestyles; I believe that they simply didn't feel the need to express their sexual preference in the context of their church experience.

I know that there are homosexuals who condemn the Mother Church as homophobic for not openly endorsing the church membership of homosexuals, mostly because I stumbled across a website with statements to this effect. However, I would tell anyone who adopts this attitude toward the Mother Church, the law for hundreds of years has recognized that "silence gives consent". The only public statement I have ever heard from a representative of the Mother Church on the subject, and this was many years ago, was that their position was "judge not".

adyer

August-8th-2008, 09:29 AM

It's not sad at all. It's a blessing!
That church who denied you denied JC.
God spared you from being a member of that church.
Instead, be a member of a church called kingdom of heaven whose God is the leader and the apostles and believers are the members.
You don't need to phone or fill any form and salvation is guaranteed!

You know where! :D
Given this is a forum to discuss Christian Science, I think we would be better off not using it as a pulpit to pass judgment on branch churches.

Does no one find it the least bit ironic that those who take a stand for what they hold true are called sad while those who actually believe in homosexuality are cast in a more heroic light?

If we can be compassionate to homosexuals, why can we also not be compassionate to branch church members? Declaring a branch as denying Christ is far beneath the mission or tone of this forum and I'm disappointed the moderators have not taken note.

Aslan

August-8th-2008, 11:10 AM

Given this is a forum to discuss Christian Science, I think we would be better off not using it as a pulpit to pass judgment on branch churches.

Does no one find it the least bit ironic that those who take a stand for what they hold true are called sad while those who actually believe in homosexuality are cast in a more heroic light?

If we can be compassionate to homosexuals, why can we also not be compassionate to branch church members? Declaring a branch as denying Christ is far beneath the mission or tone of this forum and I'm disappointed the moderators have not taken note.

While I will admit that I didn't care particularly for the post to which you are responding, I think it's important to differentiate between taking a stand for what one believes and being callous and unkind. Would you have made these remarks if a person of a racial minority were told by an officer of a branch church (in horrified tones) that someone with that ancestry could not become a member?

This gets into the question of whether or not homosexuality is inherent in an individual's biology or a personal choice. I don't think it's worth a Christian Scientist's time debating this issue. It amounts to speculating about the origin of an aspect of the mortal dream. To a Christian Scientist, where all physical conditions are mental, everything is a "choice" after a fashion. So would you think it reasonable to say (in horrified tones) to someone suffering from the belief of cancer that "someone with those leanings could not become a member"?

It's important to take a stand. It is equally important to thoroughly consider the stand one is taking and the manner in which it is expressed.

Mentally and silently plead the case scientifically for Truth. (S&H 411 32-33)

Sincerely,
Aslan

adyer

August-8th-2008, 01:11 PM

Any branch church that does not grant membership to openly practicing homosexuals is taking a stand for what it holds to be true. If any individual considers such a rejection unkind, that is his or her prerogative. There should be no judgment of the individual or the branch.

The question of biology or choice is irrelevant. You may as well ask if man comes from lower life forms or the human species was original on the earth. That, too, is irrelevant, for man is spiritual image, and the notion of a real material life form is a lie about man.

Likewise, the concept of man as a sexual being with unfulfilled and/or conflicting sexual urges is also a counterfeit of the real man. To wrestle with whether homosexuality is biology or choice is to accept the reality of material man with unfulfilled needs and attempt to reconcile it with God.

Albert

August-8th-2008, 02:25 PM

I would like to start by saying that I am NOT homophobic or intolerant. I have had many gay friends over the years and I have family members that are gay. My first ballroom dance instructor is gay and I had to get used to dancing with him at times when I was learning to dance.

With that being said I have had occasion to ask them why they were gay and have received two standard answers. Some have said they were born this way and others say that they on some level they have chosen this lifestyle. I would like to start with those that say they were born this way.

I have been following studies in Science and Medicine for many years and have not seen any proof that can confirm or deny their claim. Therefore I must accept that this statement as true for them and for now I will leave it at that.

As for those who have made fornication a lifestyle choice (gay or straight) I think it is very important to understand that the Bible says that it is a sin. I have heard that studies have been done where some gay men have had as many as five separate encounters in a week. I believe that this is in large part due to men not generally having a strong emotional attachment to sex (it tends to be mostly physical) although I have met some women like this also.

The Bible says “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. The Bible also says clearly that homosexuality is a sin, not any different than any other sin but a sin none the less. When keep in mind that all sin drives a wedge between man and God we can understand why this sin like any other unresolved sin will result in judgment by God if the behavior is left unchanged. Each person must individually stand before God for their transgressions, I will be responsible for my sins and those who lash out against homosexuality in a manner that is clearly not Christian like will also be judged accordingly. It is also my belief that the “God Hates Homosexuals” pastor (that is not the word he uses but I wanted to keep my point clear) will be more harshly judged for two reasons, one he viciously attacks and hurts Gods own children who He loves and two because the pastor misleads others from a position of leadership while doing so.

The Bible talks about Christians being the salt of the earth but how can salt regain its saltiness if it looses it? Any church Baptist, Catholic or even Christian Science will have consequences for disregarding the clear teachings of the Bible and must therefore hold to those teachings or they will simply become a social club. It is the clear responsibility of the Christian to hold to Gods standards and not to those of popular culture.

This is one Baptists perspective.

May God Bless You

Al

Aslan

August-8th-2008, 02:32 PM

Aslan

August-8th-2008, 03:34 PM

Al;

I appreciate your thoughts as always. I had not wanted to get into this thread. In fact I watched with pleasure in my first days here as it dropped lower and lower in the stack. I would love to see it just go away. When it popped to the top again, I decided that it was time for me to stop playing ostrich and burying my head in the sand.

In your response you use the term "sin". I have heard more than one Bible Scholar say that the original meaning of the word "sin" was "miss the mark", as in the case of an archer whose arrow misses the target. Is sin deadly? I think any combat veteran will agree that if you miss the mark, the mark may not miss you.

But in Henry Drummond's wonderful sermon The Greatest Thing In The World (http://henrydrummond.wwwhubs.com/greatest.htm), he says that if we put faith before love we may "miss the mark". "Love suffereth long and is kind."

The issue I am responding to is this...

We wanted to attend a CS church near our home and called. When I asked the woman who answered the phone what the policy was on homosexuality. she was at first very gracious and welcoming "we welcome everyone." But when I asked about membership, she sounded horrified -- "people with those leanings could not be members."

If Mary Ann (Erthwomn) had been told that individuals were required to attend regularly for n months before they could apply (a common requirement where n may vary depending on the branch church), and that all applications for membership must be approved by the membership committee, that would make sense to me. If the person on the phone added that the membership committee might view an openly homosexual or lesbian lifestyle as not consistent with the teachings and practice of Christian Science, I would respect that this was a loving way of avoiding raising any false hopes in the potential applicant. This, however, was not the response. The response that Mary Ann got was, to my way of thinking, anything but loving.

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. (S&H 35 - 37)

Sincerely,
Aslan

adyer

August-8th-2008, 03:56 PM

The question to me has never been whether someone believes they enjoy smoking. The question is whether membership is contingent upon the branch accepting smoking as normal. It is not.

The heterosexual desire is seen as a natural stimulus to the propagation of human kind, hence the concession in Christian Science to this desire. Homosexual desire does not stand on this basis. But no material concession grants license to sensual gratification for its own sake. Concessions are temporary.

If someone smokes, that's their business. They are not condemned or judged. But that does not entitle him or her to branch church membership without a conviction that such a thing must be overcome.

No one I know ever said in a membership interview, "Look, you have to accept me as a sexual being." That is not the point of membership.

That may seem very unkind to dedicated smokers, too.

Aslan

August-8th-2008, 08:49 PM

adyer;

If you are responding to my post, I fail to see a correlation between your response and anything that I have said. If you are responding to someone else's post that may have compared homosexuality to smoking, I missed that one.

I am not arguing for or against homosexuals being given membership in branch churches. I am pointing out that the heart and soul of Christian Science is Love, and an unloving answer to any inquiry about this religion does nothing to further the cause of Christian Science, but perhaps may serve to undermine it.

Students of Christian Science, who start with its letter and think to succeed without the spirit, will either make shipwreck of their faith or be turned sadly awry. S&H 451:8-9

adyer

August-9th-2008, 11:41 AM

I admit I do not come off being very cuddly. My words may seem abrupt at first, but I do re-read before posting and I have said nothing against anyone personally, nor do I feel any lack of compassion for anyone on this board.

Tone and inflection cannot easily (if ever) be detected on an Internet forum. What I said may not appear to be "nice" but I think there are grounds for a strong stance against condemnation of branch churches. These are people who are not here and cannot face their accusers or respond to the charge of denying Christ.

Aslan

August-9th-2008, 02:46 PM

Albert

August-9th-2008, 03:33 PM

Adyer & Aslan,

I think you are both making very good points.

I think that what Adyer is saying is similar to what he had said another time when he said that if gay person is truly seeking God then he personally would be happy to support such a person in chruch membership but if they were promoting a polical agenda, he believes that the church is the wrong place for that. I think the idea of smoking is a less volital subject when suggesting that the behavior must change as spiritual growth occurs. The same may be true of any sin in ones lifestyle. Growth means change, putting off the old man and putting on the new spiritual man.

I think what Aslan is saying is that when a member of the church speaks to someone who is in a controversial lifestyle they should speak in loving kind ways that accurately represent Christ Jesus. I was not there to hear the exact nature of the conversation that occured but the lady at the church may very well have been less than loving to the caller. However, in conversation, what we hear is not always what someone says. Often when people don't hear what they want their feelings get hurt. And whatever the speaker has said can become amplified by the filter of the listener.

I hope that I have not "missed the mark" in my interpretation of either of your thoughts for fear that "the mark may not miss me".

May God Richly Bless You Both,

Al

adyer

August-9th-2008, 05:52 PM

I think that what Adyer is saying is similar to what he had said another time when he said that if gay person is truly seeking God then he personally would be happy to support such a person in chruch membership but if they were promoting a polical agenda, he believes that the church is the wrong place for that. I think the idea of smoking is a less volital subject when suggesting that the behavior must change as spiritual growth occurs. The same may be true of any sin in ones lifestyle. Growth means change, putting off the old man and putting on the new spiritual man.That is a fair way of putting it.

Thank you, Al.

Aslan

August-9th-2008, 06:48 PM

Al;

I'd say you're actually quite a marksman.

Gabriel

August-9th-2008, 07:37 PM

Thank you so much Starlight Rider, for these thoughts.
I often thought also about these coherences,
but the way you expressed it here brings it exactly to the point!

The problem is that sensuality isn't confined to sexuality. Everything we do on Earth has a sensual component. Have you ever enjoyed the colors of a flower garden or the smell of the roses? Enjoyed good meal, or a delightful candy confection? Squished sand between your toes, or felt a refreshing breeze on your face? Skied down a mountain or played a game of baseball? These are every bit as sensual as a romp in the hay, yet we think of the latter as nonspiritual while the rest are perfectly acceptable.

To me, spirituality vs materiality isn't a matter of two different realms, but rather different ways of looking at the same things. There isn't a spiritual world and a material one. The only difference, as I understand it, is that the material view looks to effect (things, feelings, sensations, etc.) as cause, while the spiritual view sees cause in Mind or consciousness, and the things we experience or feel, including physical intimacy, are the effects in our own consciousness.

For example, a rose is not beauty, it is an expression of beauty. A sculpture is not art, it is an expression of art. A good meal is not energy, it is the manifestation of divine energy provided to us. Money is not supply, it is the effect of God's perpetual provision for our needs. Likewise, sex is not intimacy, but is an expression of intimacy.

If you look for a rose you will not find beauty, but if you look for beauty you may find a rose. If you look to money or food you will not find supply, but if you seek God's supply you will have money, food, or something equally suitable to meet your need. If you look to sex you will not find intimacy, but if you look to love you may find intimacy expressed as a playful romp in the hay. I know many people would find the last of these propositions harder to accept than the first two, but there's no difference among them that I can see.

As for the sexual orientation issue, Christian Science teaches that gender is not a spiritual concept, and is therefore an illusion. If that is the case then one should not be upset when the illusory barrier is broken and two people who appear to be of the same gender are attracted to each other. On the other hand, if a Christian Scientist says same-sex relationships are wrong, then they must accept that gender is relevant, and not an illusion, after all.