Politics, religion, and thinking for yourself.

[Starlight Rider]

Barack Obama is under fire for sermons given by his pastor. People questioned whether Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney would apply their religion to public policy if they were elected. In 2004 some said John Kerry was not a real Catholic because he was pro-choice.

I see a problem here. It is not limited to politics, but can affect every one of us regardless of our religious beliefs. I have felt the milder effects of it myself in some social situations. It can easily put anyone between a rock and a hard place.

The problem, as illustrated in the recent political campaigns, is that many people assume that if you are a member of a particular church, you automatically accept every facet of its teachings. Conversely, if you don't follow those teachings to the letter, then you must not be a true believer.

This is the problem Obama is now facing, and which Romney, Huckabee and Kerry experienced earlier. No matter how they try to explain their position, they can't free themselves from one accusation without falling into the other. It is a mental trap.

The way out of this trap is to define religion not as a set of rules or beliefs, but as a path towards spiritual education; a process of learning how to think, not what to think; how to pray, not what to pray for; how to discern right from wrong, not what is right and wrong.

Though rare, there have been times when my own religious convictions have been similarly attacked. Not as overtly as in the political campaigns, but in a more subtle form. Some have come from people who are not Christian Scientists. Other times I have felt out of place among Christian Scientists because there are some aspects of Mrs. Eddy's writings - very few actually, but some - which don't quite jibe with my experience and values, or because I have not drawn the same conclusions about certain matters as my fellow Christian Scientists have.

Thus I think it is important to be alert to these traps, to allow others to work out their own salvation in their own way with their own conscience, and not to make assumptions about others just because they belong to a particular church. For myself, I find Christian Science makes the most sense overall, and it is my foundation for spiritual exploration, but in areas where something doesn't quite make sense or contradicts my experience I reserve the right to think for myself. I believe everyone should have that freedom.

[Laurie]

I've been away for a while and this is a new thread and nobody's responded!

It is such an important issue!

I wonder if part of the problem is just society's general de-emphasizing of social groups. Churches - along with sewing clubs, scouting groups, hiking clubs, etc, - have a declining membership. So that means that 50 years ago, people went to church because everybody went to church and it didn't say really much about your belief system.

I also agree that "church" is a path to a more spiritual life. If somebody looked at **MY** life and said I was a typical Christian Scientist, it would be a bad example of Christian Science :D

Just like kids don't learn some of the knots in scouting groups and maybe don't progress to all the badges and levels that scouts offers, that doesn't mean that the scout organisation is bad! Similarly with church.

[adyer]

some aspects of Mrs. Eddy's writings - very few actually, but some - which don't quite jibe with my experience and values
Do you feel you can mention any of these in this forum? I would be interested to know.

[Starlight Rider]

Do you feel you can mention any of these in this forum?

Not at this time. I didn't intend for this thread to be a discussion of my personal growth, but more of a general discussion of the issues I outlined above.

[Laurie]

But back to the original idea of this thread.

I think that the majority of people (especially in the western world) who do not regularly attend religious services are wary of people who do. And their attacks on politicians because of their religous beliefs are just an example of fear of the unknown.

[adyer]

I find a mixed reaction about attending church from those who don't. Some really admire it and say that they just don't feel religious or haven't found a church where they can belong. Others just don't care. My best friend is Jewish/Agnostic/Atheist (mixed breed, if you will) -- a confirmed materialist. He knows full well that I am a Christian Scientist and we discuss these matters on frequent occasions. Neither is shy about it, and we genuinely love and respect each other. He may not understand or agree with Christian Science but he respects my intelligence and my honesty and my integrity and that if it's good enough for me there is something to it...even if he doesn't think there's something to it for him.

I think what has kept us so close is that neither of us is judgmental of the other. It takes true love...it really does. There are things about him I cannot condone but I cannot deny my genuine affection for him. And he feels likewise.

There is religious bigotry in the world, and some of it is highly selective, sometimes based on personal animosity. I've seen, for instance, plenty of bigotry from those who hate all religion but directed toward fundamentalist Christians for their doctrine, while reserving a sympathy toward Islam in general because of the attitudes of some fundamentalists toward Islam.

The bias against religion is ignorant, intentionally malicious, and in between.

As far as church attendance/membership goes:
I'm a member of The Mother Church (TMC). I do not always agree with the Board of Directors, nor do I think it's expected that I would. They are not clergy and we are not their parishioners. I do not agree with everything my branch church does, or with everything its Board of Trustees does (even if I'm on it!), or necessarily with all of our bylaws. I support them BECAUSE OF IT, not despite it. We all do some pretty dumb things and need each other's love and support to help us through (which is why I'm so grateful for my wife.)

That is policy and business. When it comes to the nuts and bolts of theology, Mrs. Eddy's prayer guided her to establish the Bible and Science and Health as the church's Pastor, so that our sermons are always "undivorced from truth." I may not understand it all -- just as I may not understand all of my old high school Calculus textbook -- but I am comfortable exercising faith that it tells me the truth and I can go forward to learn more. I accept it all. If I thought my Pastor was susceptible to meddling and tampering, I'd have a problem.

In general, I think people stay at churches despite disagreements with internal policies or the politics of fellow members. If you agree with the fundamental theology then you might believe that staying in the church can be part of the solution to other internal problems.

A pastor such as Rev. Wright is in a position of authority. People look up to him, trust him, and (some of them, at least) believe what he says. It is right to scrutinize him. Those who believe what he says are usually accountable only to themselves and their families. It is their right to believe what they will. A presidential candidate, on the other hand, cannot be so easily excused from scrutiny. And, no, it's never fair, but I should never go into public office with the belief that it is.

[Courtenay]

Great post, adyer... good on you! (that's my favourite Aussie-ism :D)

I've been there too with church politics, especially in my previous Christian Science branch church (when I lived in another part of Australia). It's not nice. But it did teach me to pray more and more deeply during business meetings to keep an open mind, to really listen to and appreciate what everyone offered even if I didn't agree with them, to not get emotionally wound up in it when things turned nasty - and to not cling too tightly to my own opinions on how things "should" or "shouldn't" be done, however justified I might feel. Essentially it was learning that God is the one who truly guides our church work (as with every aspect of our lives) - not warring human opinions. So I practised getting myself (and my concepts of other members) out of the way and trusting in that, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one who did. Over several months, a very contentious issue was finally worked out, and I hear tell that business meetings there are much nicer now! :) (Sadly, a couple of members who'd been aggravating a lot of the debates decided to spit the dummy and resign, but that was their choice.)

There was a booklet put out quite some years ago called "Democracy in Branch Churches", with a couple of articles in it that I've found really helpful. It's not in print any more, but if anyone's interested, it might be worth asking at a Reading Room (they often have a stash of older booklets and things). The articles were reprinted from the Sentinel or Journal - I can get the references if anyone wants.

Probably the best commentary on this issue I've ever read was the guest editorial in the April 2002 edition of The Christian Science Journal. I highly recommend that one to anyone who's ever been caught up (willingly or not) in debates over policy, practices, leadership etc., whether in The Mother Church, a branch church, or anywhere. It's a very thoughtful and honest article, and makes clear just how wise Mrs Eddy was in structuring her Church the way she did.

Love to all,
Courtenay ;)

[adyer]

OK, Courtenay, I had to look up "spit the dummy" and then I found I had to look up "dummy". Got it. Pretty funny image!

[Courtenay]

OK, Courtenay, I had to look up "spit the dummy" and then I found I had to look up "dummy". Got it. Pretty funny image!

Oh, sorry... I guess that's another Australian-ism!! A "dummy" here is what I think you call a "pacifier" in the US. Basically means being like a baby who's had enough of being pacified and spits it in order to scream. Hope that makes the expression clearer for anyone else who hadn't heard it. :p