Other Christian churches

[Sulizcham]

Mrs Eddy wrote that by the year 2000 the majority of Christian churches would approximate the truths of Christian Science. Do others think that this prediction has been realised? If so, is it important to which church one attaches oneself.:confused:

[UserX]

I looked up Mary Baker Eddy's full statement, and she does put a condition on the prediction:

"If the lives of Christian Scientists attest their fidelity to Truth, I predict that in the twentieth century every Christian church in our land, and a few in far-off lands, will approximate the understanding of Christian Science sufficiently to heal the sick in his name."

The full article in which it appeared was dealing with the question of unity with other Christian churches and there are quite a few statements of the role or responsibility of Christian Scientists in that unity.

I don't think this prediction has been realized, and it's making me think about how I am or am not attesting to fidelity to Truth in my life.

[Starlight Rider]

I don't know about organized religion, but one of the fundamental principles of CS, that a single, universal Mind or consciousness underlies all reality, is now well established in many modern spiritual teachings. Take a look at the spirituality or metaphysical sections in your local bookstore and you'll see what I mean. While many of these books differ in the details, the fundamental point is there.

[Sulizcham]

Thank you for the exact quote. I had lost track of that. Can you tell me exactly where you found it as I should like to read the article again? I believe that it sheds light on the subject. 'Attest their fidelity to Truth' is a very firm demand. The Truth is the Truth wherever it is found and, I believe, should be acknowledged as such. How then do we move this idea forward?

[adyer]

Pulpit and Press page 22, beginning line 9.

This was for some recent years treated as a prophecy for somewhat questionable purposes by some in the CS movement. I have always read it as a statement of how practical and infallible divine Science is...that in the degree we are faithful to Truth we will see this result. I think Mrs. Eddy is saying that the Twentieth Century was not too soon, but I do not think it was a prophecy in any form.

But to look at a widely accepted theory of a universal Mind as proof of the prediction misses the point. Mrs. Eddy makes it clear that practical healing work will be the proof, and I don't think that the reign of materia medica is included in that result.

[pattyp]

I, for one, believe that Mary Baker Eddy’s prediction did indeed come true – namely, that the lives of Christian Scientists (some of whom worshipped in Christian churches other than CS ones) did assuredly “attest their fidelity to Truth”, with the result that, by the end of the 20th century, every Christian church in our land DID “approximate the understanding of Christian Science” sufficient to heal in the manner of Christ in significant numbers and sincerity. "Approximate" is key to our understanding of Eddy's forecast.

So why didn’t CS church members realize that this was happening? Perhaps because we had a limited sense of how it would occur. Perhaps because we believed there was only a certain way Christian Science could be learned and practiced. Perhaps because the other Christian churches, in “approximating” an understanding of CS, used a different vocabulary in their work than the one with which CS church members are so familiar. Perhaps because other Christian churches healed in the name of Christ while also practicing an outward laying on of hands or physical fasting to augment their “approximate” understanding – practices which might be off-putting to some of us.

Most important, perhaps, is our failure to realize that a Christian Scientist is someone who studies and practices CS regardless of which church, mosque, temple or tent meeting they attend. In the recent past, it wasn’t unusual for CS church members to mistakenly believe that “Christian Scientist” referred only to CS church members. Not so did Mary Baker Eddy who addresses them in her book as "dear readers" and "Christian Scientists".

In the early 1990s, the CS Journal told of two women who had just taken Primary Class instruction in Christian Science. Both were members of a Baptist church in Texas and they planned to use what they had learned to help their fellow church members learn how to practice Christian Science healing.

I served as a CS chaplain at a huge correctional facility in the early 1990s, and among the inmates, I heard many remarkable reports of healing wrought solely through prayer, by people of all faiths, and often when all else had failed.

One inmate, for example, told how he had been severely wounded in a knife fight. There was much loss of blood, but in the confusion about priorities among caregivers, his case was being largely ignored. His mother, a Christian woman of deep faith, stood by him in prayer until the bleeding stopped and the wound began to heal.

The Christian Science magazines constantly report on developments which indicate an ever-broadening application of Christ power to sickness as well as to sin. If we are keeping “abreast of the times” we can hardly fail to notice this and applaud it.

The sheer volume of books on spirituality and healing which began flooding our bookstores in the last decade of the 20th century surely attests to this development, not to mention popular TV and radio speakers who address spirituality and attract large numbers (from many Christian churches and elsewhere) to their inspirational conferences, videos and what have you.

Is it any accident that the terminology of these speakers and ministries is but a slight shade of difference from the one thing that probably did more to advance humanity’s understanding of Christian Science in the past century than anything else -- namely, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy.

Anyone can buy that book, and it’s obvious that many do, and use it unabashedly as a basis for their own, somewhat more secular, approach to spiritual healing. If you hear a program that sounds “a lot like Christian Science”, it probably is – at least in terms of approximation. Perhaps because that presumably absolves the “borrower” from giving credit to the woman who worked tirelessly to put it into their hands.

I know of people who, unable to meet the sometimes rigorous requirements for membership in a CS branch church, have settled for “second best” (?) – continuing their study of CS while becoming active in a church of another denomination and sharing CS with that congregation in bible studies, etc.

And what of all the Christian Scientists whose lives in the 20th century attested their “fidelity to Truth”? Did you know of any of them? I certainly did. They were “lively stones” as the Bible puts it, and no sacrifice was too great for the advancement of good.

So if, as we look back over the past century, we feel we might have done more to attest our own fidelity to Truth, we can take heart. It’s not too late to do something about it!

[jocah]

CHET-NUN spells grace in Hebrew.

Sulizcham asked:
"... is it important to which church one attaches oneself?"

Yes, it is important which congregation you attend, and I speak both from experience and Scripture.

My explorations into other worship modes since becoming a student of scientific Christianity has been an expensive lesson in wisdom. I treasure the wealth of knowledge gained, and perhaps I can share it with some of you. But here I am led to offer only some words of caution.

Don't stay too long in the company of those who have rejected Science. A congregation may seem to offer pleasant friends on the outside, but the silent devaluation of Christian Science, both in its present and earlier demonstrations, will not fail to dampen the student's enthusiasm and desire to study, apply, and grow.

The Bible is full of warnings about avoiding the company of scorners. MB Eddy writes, "Never breathe an immoral atmosphere, unless in the attempt to purify it" (S. and H. 452-14). Those who reject or cover (Arabic: kaffir) scientific religion, and who persecute its students, exhale some of the worst sorts of crime.

And now a warning about sect. To think in terms of denomination is illogical in Science. It interests me how the CS church was established. As I read the reports from early workers in the Christian Science movement, I see that the same qualities of thought they struggled with are still with us today, even at levels of national governments. See 1889 CS Journal, Volume 7 online at:
http://www.aequus.org/register.htm

Christian Science Mind-healing is meant for all. We really are meant to have one faith, and not be divided up into warring splinter groups. We are a wonderfully diverse race, in complexion, tongue, and talent, but we truly are one, "a compound idea".

TIME for a joke.
NEW LEADER: You all are invited to join my new sect.
NEW FOLLOWERS (enthusiastically): Ok! where do we sign?
NEW LEADER (takes their membership forms): Thank you. Now your first duty is to quit! No illegal sectual activity is allowed in my faith!

pattyp wrote:
"Most important, ... realize that a Christian Scientist is someone who studies and practices CS regardless of which church, mosque, temple or tent meeting they attend."

Thanks for this. I attest that the time I have spent at mosques in recent years has been very beneficial to my understanding of divine Science. I was delighted to find that the statements in the textbook about unity and "the chain of scientific being" (S. and H. 271-2) are actually true. Some of the Muslims I meet can readily express the higher concepts of Spiritual Science, and I believe they have the edge in language arts. We might say something imperfectly in English with many words, what they can say in Arabic in a few short phrases, about a divine concept which opens the very heavens.

This is a fruitful field, for many ethnic Muslims do not realize that Christian Science has been rediscovered. Oh the eager joy when they hear! What a great boon to Christian Scientists to learn they have an older brother in the faith realm.

It is an act of mercy to society and the sick to share the healing truth; but to lie or ignore or modify Christian Science is cruel. To reject, cover, or modify a divine message to humanity is forbidden in the Book of Remembrance (Bible: Malachi 3'16, ie the Holy Koran). May the Lord forgive my errors in any way regarding this.

May the Spirit lead you always, and this:
Bible: Matthew 10'11-14)

Sabbath peace,
Jocah

[Merry1]

Pattyp, thank you so much for these ideas, as well as the other insightful perspectives you have shared on this site. What a wonderful outlook you bring to, well, everything! You are a true gem! :D

[adyer]

If you hear a program that sounds “a lot like Christian Science”, it probably is – at least in terms of approximation. Perhaps because that presumably absolves the “borrower” from giving credit to the woman who worked tirelessly to put it into their hands.

I do not agree that what sounds a lot like CS is a lot like CS. Mrs. Eddy spent some time and effort in her writings discussing the fallacy.

In Pulpit and Press MBE specifically mentions "every Christian church" and specifically refers to approximating the understanding. Mind-body medicine claims to be a form of spirituality. Mrs. Eddy emphatically denounces it as "like Christian Science" (see Misc. 62:14 - 63:10). The point of this Q&A is to distinguish what sounds like CS (mind-body or "mind cure") from genuine metaphysics.

In like manner, Mrs. Eddy discusses faith versus belief at length in S&H. Her point there is that human consciousness exchanges one belief for another, even when it involves a belief that a God of matter heals a material man. That is faith-healing and is also something MBE distinguishes from genuine metaphysics.

Let's remember that Mrs. Eddy did not say: If I'm correct, in the twentieth century every Christian church in our land will approximate the understanding of Christian Science. She specifically put the challenge to the spiritual understanding of her followers. We cannot borrow her passport (as she put it) of spiritual understanding and claim fulfillment of a prediction because of who she is and what she did. We can't even look to Science and Health for this. She was very pointed in looking to the spiritual understanding of Christian Scientists...our faithfulness to Truth.

[UserX]

Thank you for the exact quote. I had lost track of that. Can you tell me exactly where you found it as I should like to read the article again? I believe that it sheds light on the subject. 'Attest their fidelity to Truth' is a very firm demand. The Truth is the Truth wherever it is found and, I believe, should be acknowledged as such. How then do we move this idea forward?
The exact quote is on P. 22 of the smaller work "Pulpit and Press" which is included in the book "Prose Works."

[Sulizcham]

I have read many books on spirituality from a variety of different sources. I am in no doubt that world consciousness is rising in this respect. I also believe that Christian Science has been significantly instrumental in this. I like the term "student of Christian Science" and like some others believe that such students can exist in any faith community. However, it is very important that the integrity of Mrs Eddy's work is retained and that she is given the right and proper recognition for her works.

Are the terms Jewish Christian Scientist, Catholic Christian Scientist, Anglican Christian Scientist, Buddhist Christian Scientist, Muslim Christian Scientist etc.etc. too off the wall? Would this influence enable the major religions, not just the Christian churches, to approximate the truths of Christian Science? How would this leave the CS Church organisation? If Love leads all can follow!

[NancyJ]

As a Catholic who is interested in Christian Science, I can't see (right now anyway) how it can be combined because suffering, the role of Jesus, original sin,etc... is believed differently. Either the core of CS or the core of Catholic beliefs would have to conform. (although there are many aspects of CS that can be added to someone's growth of a different religion).
That's what I see at this point anyway! :)

[adyer]

As a Catholic who is interested in Christian Science, I can't see (right now anyway) how it can be combined because suffering, the role of Jesus, original sin,etc... is believed differently. Either the core of CS or the core of Catholic beliefs would have to conform. (although there are many aspects of CS that can be added to someone's growth of a different religion).
That's what I see at this point anyway! :)

I think you are correct, NancyJ. Once you blend CS with Catholicism (or any other religion) you then can blend in other things with it to create an amalgam that supposedly would please many.

But it helps to understand that emperor Constantine did just this when inventing what became Roman Catholicism. It was never intended to be pure, but was a hodge podge of various cultures and religions mixed together for the political unity of the empire.

[Sue]

This is very interesting and encouraging thread. Thank you for starting it Sulizcham.

I agree that the word “approximate” is significant. I agree that the world consciousness is rising in respect to true spirituality and that Christian Science, and in particular Science and Health has been instrumental in this.

S & H page 133 &132 states that “Throughout all generations …….the Christ, as the spiritual idea – the reflection of God, – has come with some measure ….. to all those prepared to receive it.”, and that “Christ is the true idea voicing good, ….. speaking to the human consciousness.” It is my understanding and experience that this Christ message comes to the individual consciousness in a way that can be understood and is the most appropriate for that particular individual.

At this stage, this influence and the new understanding that results may not be recognised as CS, thus the importance of preserving the integrity of Mrs Eddy's work so that she is inevitable given the right and proper recognition for her works.

I have also found in my association with an interfaith organisation that healing through prayer is happening. Many do not understand the why or how as explained in CS but they do acknowledge the power of prayer and give the credit to God.

For example a Catholic sister told of how a travel companion during a visit to the Vatican was united with a brother she had lost contact with many years earlier. The circumstances were humanly impossible but not impossible to God. My thought – “desire is prayer”. Another Muslim friend told of how during Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca, his group had encountered difficulties that made it seem financially impossible for them to continue. The difficulty had arisen due to the dishonesty of a third party. They prayed as a group for Gods guidance and the funds were found in the correct currency. They were able to continue and make up the time lost.

As to the terms Jewish Christian Scientist, Catholic Christian Scientist, Anglican Christian Scientist, Buddhist Christian Scientist, Muslim Christian Scientist etc.
Anyone can be a student of Christian Science but I have to agree with Nancy that there are still differences in doctrine and practice. However, I have found that the underlying principle shared in the interfaith group I participate in is love of God and love of our fellow man. I try to practice patience and not bake the bread before the leavening agent has had a change to have its full effect.

[Sulizcham]

Thankyou Sue for your reply. I have a different approach to the doctrines of individual faiths. I may be understating it but it seems to me that the core belief that man is spiritual and not material is what separates CScience from many other faiths. This is a transitional step in thinking. Once made this new understanding puts other doctrinal statements in a new light. I believe man is on a spiritual evolution. As he/she progresses so such doctrines evolve too. Much new age spirituality includes regarding the body as light, energy, a life force, electricity, quantum etc.. Many have left the idea of matter behind as does Christian Science. Thanks also to those from other faiths. We are all in this together!

[adyer]

Thankyou Sue for your reply. I have a different approach to the doctrines of individual faiths. I may be understating it but it seems to me that the core belief that man is spiritual and not material is what separates CScience from many other faiths. This is a transitional step in thinking. Once made this new understanding puts other doctrinal statements in a new light. I believe man is on a spiritual evolution. As he/she progresses so such doctrines evolve too. Much new age spirituality includes regarding the body as light, energy, a life force, electricity, quantum etc.. Many have left the idea of matter behind as does Christian Science. Thanks also to those from other faiths. We are all in this together!

To regard the body as the things you stated above is still material. Even energy in the space-time continuum is part of a material universe. These things deal with quantum physics, subatomic particles, laws of material physics, and thus not Spirit.

Unless "all is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation" you're not talking about Christian Science.

[NancyJ]

Only speaking for myself, but I've found more of an awareness of spiritual laws with CS, and for example, that brings my thoughts to loving my neighbor when otherwise I'd be annoyed with them. (they tend to be noisy).

I can't speak for others, and I don't know everything about different religions, but spirituality seems to be heightened in CS.

The other day on a walk I saw two deer and really felt God's presence in nature, His goodness.
I continued on, and desired to see deer again. (I think they are beautiful, and gentle).
The inspiration came to me to look further ahead, and to the right---I did so, didn't see any deer, and was disappointed (that what I thought was an inspiration probably wasn't.) THEN!!!! I looked again, and saw two beautiful deer, they were looking right at me, and for a few moments we observed each other. I was so thankful, because there were no other deer in sight, and the inspiration was very specific and present. I felt great joy!

I also felt God appreciated the fact (like in CS) God is seen as Good. That is lost in some religions, the simplicity of the fact.

[Sulizcham]

Adyer: I appreciate that seeing the body as, say, energy may not be the whole or even part of the story of spirit. However, it does indicate that the old boundaries of matter have been reassessed. As there is only spirit and matter does not exist then we cannot even talk of a material universe. My previous comments are designed to indicate the shift in world thinking. I would be interested to know what you think spirit is. :(

[Sue]

Hi Sulizcham,
Yes, I agree that in CS the core belief that man is spiritual and not material is what make it unique and it is a transitional step in thinking. I too feel that world thought is evolving to a more spiritual understanding.

What I have observed from my interfaith involvement is that those involved are not aiming just to find out about other beliefs and share their own, but are looking for an enlarged understanding of God and man’s relationship to him/her. I feel they relate well to the synonyms for God, particularly Love and Spirit but struggle with the absolute allness of God. They recognise that man has a spiritual identity but are still trying to reconcile this spiritual identity within the confines of a material existence.

Christian Science is an absolute science and even after many years studying and living this science to the best of my ability I still have some problems comprehending the absoluteness of it myself. When I do glimpse it I am transformed. As you said, we are all in this together. What a wonderful and exciting journey

[Sulizcham]

Thanks Sue and Nancy for your lovely comments. We will all sort this in the end. :)

[adyer]

Adyer: I appreciate that seeing the body as, say, energy may not be the whole or even part of the story of spirit. However, it does indicate that the old boundaries of matter have been reassessed. As there is only spirit and matter does not exist then we cannot even talk of a material universe. My previous comments are designed to indicate the shift in world thinking. I would be interested to know what you think spirit is. :(

That would be like asking what I think the number 1 is. As the scientific statement of being tells us (S&H page 468): Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error. Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal.

As this is a scientific statement of being, the nature of Spirit is for me to learn and understand and demonstrate. My opinion of it is irrelevant.

I'm a musician. If someone wanted to learn music, I don't ask them, what do you think the Sonata-Allegro form is? I give them the text that explains the thing, and direct them to examples. If the student wants to compose a Sonata-Allegro form, the student needs to understand it well enough to demonstrate it.

I don't practice Christian Science based on my opinion of what Spirit is. I begin with the scientific statement of being; with man as the image and likeness of God; and from there it is my life work to understand Spirit well enough to demonstrate it.

Elsewhere, Mrs. Eddy says (page 339 in S&H, I believe): We must recollect that Truth is demonstrable when understood...

That's the best answer I can give you.

[Starlight Rider]

Adyer: I appreciate that seeing the body as, say, energy may not be the whole or even part of the story of spirit. However, it does indicate that the old boundaries of matter have been reassessed. As there is only spirit and matter does not exist then we cannot even talk of a material universe. My previous comments are designed to indicate the shift in world thinking.... :(

I am inclined to agree with that. There are many quantum physicists who still cling to the matter based reality, but some are finding that things don't add up unless you place consciousness as the fundamental reality instead of matter. Then matter simply becomes a projection (for want of a better term) of consciousness. At that point they may still be using material terminology, but aren't they really starting to grasp the fundamentals of spirit?

Getting back to something more closely related to the subject of this thread, there was a strange commentary in the CS Monitor of May 5th entitled The old error of 'A New Earth.' (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0505/p09s01-coop.html) It was written by a Presbyterian minister named Peter Jones. He was arguing that a book on spirituality by Eckhart Tolle was "unbiblical."

I don't know anything about Eckhart Tolle or his books, so all I have to go on is this op-ed piece. But I was puzzled as to why the Monitor chose to run it. Mr. Jones seemed to be trying to defend traditional, mainstream American Christian theology in a newspaper owned by a church that doesn't exactly follow mainstream theology. In fact, as I read it, he seemed to be attacking points that are somewhat similar to Christian Science, particularly Tolle's assertion of man's oneness with God. Jones seems to argue that because man is God's creation, man is distinctly separate from God.

Tolle's position is clearly too "new agey" to be completely compatible with CS, but from Jones's description Tolle seems to be taking a more spiritual tack than the mainstream theology Jones is defending. Apparently Jones infers that Tolle is putting man ahead of God in the cause-effect relationship, but it is not clear from this piece that this was Tolle's intent. However, the Monitor has in the past made just that complaint about other new age teachings (a complaint which from where I sit seems to be splitting hairs). Given that Christian Science has received more than its share of criticism from those who adhere to mainstream thought, it troubles me that the Monitor would print something so critical of someone else's spiritual views.

[adyer]

I see what you mean, Starlight.

I guess the fact that Peter Jones is himself an orthodox minister on the one hand explains his dismissal of Tolle's work (though I have not read it). It also sounds familiar, since I grew up in the Baptist church and my study of Christian Science caused similar consternation in my family.

I can't speak for what Tolle teaches, but my knowledge of orthodoxy leads to the conclusion that it chooses what to believe, rather than seeking to understand absolute Truth at the expense of institutional doctrine and preconceived notions.

Thanks for the helpful link!