Gordon
|
I have a close friend who’s not a Christian Scientist (she is actually a Baptist), but who I’ve had long discussions with about religion and Christian Science in general. Some of you know that I wrote an article for this site a little while ago, and I shared it with this friend. Today she was commenting to me that it was interesting that I included a couple of references to Science and Health, but no references to the Bible.
I kind of paused, and told her that the reason was two-fold: first of all, I was operating under the assumption that this is geared towards a certain audience to begin with, and secondly (and more importantly), the quotes from Science and Health that I included are supported by the Bible, and there were passages from the Bible that I could have quoted instead; however, the way these particular passages were phrased in Science and Health were a lot more direct and straightforward. (I could have included some lines from 1st John chapter 4, or from Exodus about the daughters of Zelophehad, and other passages as well.) But had I done that, it definitely would have ended up being a much more convoluted piece and could have easily doubled the size of the article, so I thought it was more effective to simply use the more direct quotes. And I think a lot of other CS authors approach articles writing in the same way.
My friend also told me that, in general, all the other articles I had shown her seemed to also have this tendency of focusing exclusively on what’s written in Science and Health without citing the Bible. She certainly wasn’t confrontational about this, but what I was hearing communicated beneath the surface was a questioning of whether any of this is truly Biblically-based. I’ve read enough that it’s not even a question in my own mind, but I am sensitive to the needs of general thought out there, so I wanted to bring up this complaint because it’s one we’ve probably all heard before, in one form or another.
So I’m curious how you have responded or thought about those sort of ideas, and what we can do to make the Biblical-connection more immediately apparent.
|
JD
|
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy is all about the Bible. It references the Bible throughout, speaks to the key characters, experiences, and teachings in the it, and gives an exegesis of the continuity of it by the elucidation of the “key” chapters Genesis and The Apocalypse.
Was it coincidence that more Bibles were sold per year after Science and Health was published than in all the years prior combined?
Also the fact that Christian Science can be demonstrated. It’s not theory. It attributes everything to God and the teaching of God through the Bible. And it gives students the impetus to practice healing and working with God to bring about results like Jesus and other God-loving persons in the Bible.
What more could anyone want?! :-)
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by JD.
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by JD.
|
Gordon
|
Oh I know that; you’re totally preaching to the choir. But the trouble I’ve run into, particularly with other Christians, is the concern that Science and Health almost becomes a replacement for the Bible with Christian Scientists.
|
JD
|
I guess I was actually aiming my comments at those who would question Science and Health/Christian Scientists’ relationship to the Bible. To bolster what you already know.
In the CS community we are on the same page and when it might appear that we’re not, it’s just splitting hairs. But outside of the CS community, there’s not always a knowledge of what CS is. And depending on a person’s own religious inclinations, they may or may not have an affinity for Christian Science. But I definitely think we can support each other in knowing that all these other Christian/religious institutions are not coming at religion from a more authoritative perspective than Christian Science just because they may have been around longer or have more adherents.
I had a great discussion with someone this past Thanksgiving, about the American pilgrims, the puritans, the Congregationalists, the Calvinists, etc. Christianity, as it has stretched out now over the course of time since Jesus, has seemed to flow through various channels, churches and religious bodies. And that is the way it is today. But Christian Science is definitely within that body of Christianity and has a lineage, humanly within the context of its discoverer’s own religious background prior to Christian Science and the historical context of Christianity in America and the world.
I don’t think we need to justify to others that we are Christians, thankfully many of us probably live in lands where we have freedom to practice the religion of our choice. But hopefully we are known for our goodness, and others feel our thoughts, which should be a good representation of Christian Science. :-)
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by JD.
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by JD.
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by JD.
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by JD.
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by JD.
|
MikeDavis
|
Hi Gordon,
I think this has been a problem over the years among some Christian Scientists, who may falsely tend to think of Christian Science as a metaphysical system only tenuously connected with the Bible and historic Christianity. Then when these folks talk with other Christians, it’s no surprise that the other Christians get the impression that Science and Health has replaced the Bible for Christian Scientists. This wasn’t the case with Mrs. Eddy. For her, the Bible was the most important book in her life, and she declared that she lived with it day in and day out. I think that if we really grasp what Christian Science is, it will be natural for us to relate it to the Bible, to the teachings and acts of the historical Jesus, and to the Christian theologies found in the New Testament.
A trend I’ve noticed among some Christian Scientists these days is that they are more consistently and deeply studying the Bible itself, going beyond studying only the passages that show up in our Lesson-Sermons (as important as that is). I also feel that it is crucial for us to study the Bible with an understanding of its historical context, as it is easy for Christians of any denomination to misinterpret things in the Bible when the historical context is not understood.
|
Abby
|
It’s worthwhile for Christian Scientists (especially those raised in CS families) to ask themselves honestly whether they are more familiar with Science and Health than they are with the Bible, and thus perhaps feel more comfortable quoting it or referring to it than to the Scriptures. At some point in my early adulthood I realized that this was the case for me, and I set out to really get to know my Bible very well. I began reading it through regularly, at first just getting familiar with the flow of it, then gradually really digging into the spiritual meaning of the Bible stories and passages I read. I also began looking up the Bible verses and stories that are referenced in Science and Health, so that I understood better the spiritual meaning S&H brings to the Bible. Now when I’m talking with anyone — CS or not — the first thing to pop into thought is likely to be a Bible reference, though sometimes in the same conversation I may reference S&H’s spiritual explanation of that Biblical idea.
|
Benjamin
|
We’re totally useless on our own, guys. If we enclose Christian Science within a crowd of people familiar with specialized dialect and jargon associated with our own reading material, we’d be limiting our abilities to reach out to those who are familiar with a greater dialogue: the Bible.
The Bible is the world’s saving standard. What I mean by that is it kinda stands as a Rosetta Stone for a spiritual language. Most people have some kind of association with one or two ideas from the Bible – no matter what translation. If we connect to people within the simple ideas, we might have a chance to reach to higher ideas. God is tender and loving and patient with people who don’t understand advanced ideas of Spirit. We should be the same way.
I think of the Christian Scientist reading a Science and Health in the same way I would see a Chemist reading an advance book on Chemistry. Have any of you picked up a Science journal lately? They’re difficult to jump into without much context. Even some Christian Scientists find the CS Journal a bit difficult to follow, and dive into easier CS literature.
A Chemist could be the most self-righteous, boring, intimidating and intellectually-minded person if they gawk their science without the ability to share it. If they singularly find fascination and truth in their craft, it is rendered mostly useless without looking outward. It’s the difference between selfish and selfless.
I think there’s a place to reference each the Bible and Science and Health. I think we’d be stronger in our craft if we associate ideas back to the Bible. I think we’d be helping anyone who eventually stumbles upon one of our articles. I think we’ll even help our own movement – there are some Christian Scientists out there that have little understanding of the Bible. They feel the facts are in the Science, and that Science is lifting up mankind. But only as we practice it, and make it real to those around us.
Personally, when I give the Bible my time, I find the Bible incredibly inspiring. I feel a deep power within the words that express something of Soul. Sometimes I get bogged down with how scientific and fact driven the Science and Health is, and I need that beautiful expression of centuries-old craft and art and practice. I once read the Bible from Genesis to Numbers and was overwhelmed with beautiful spiritual connections – mostly the slow, gradual, peaceful transition of men learning to rely on God more than any material means.
@soapergem, (Gordon) – I think of our discussion on Manhood – I jumped into it with some really advanced ideas, but I love what I learned: you gotta start with the basics, then slowly go forward. I’m always amazed at how incredibly simple some of the most advanced articles about Christian Science are: mainly the continued focus on two basic ideas: the spiritual creation story in Genesis, and the first commandment. Plain and simple: focus on God.
We recently read in the lesson that the central lesson of the Bible is the superiority of spiritual over physical power. Mrs. Eddy clearly states she used the Bible as her only authority. I think we’d learn a lot by giving these simple statements some foundational authority in our ability to share our understanding of the Bible with other Christians.
Ben
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by Benjamin.
-
This reply was modified 103 days ago by Benjamin.
|
Annette-D
|
I wanted to ask Mike, if someone wanted to understand the Bible more in its historical context, like you mentioned in your post, do you have some books you could recommend?
|
Gabriel
|
I think this is an interesting thread. A few thoughts that I have are:
1) I think being raised in CS and studying the Bible lesson leads to more familiarity with the Bible than what one gets from many “mainstream” Christian churches. Think about the CS Sunday service. Not only does half of the lesson consist of readings from the Bible, but also there is the Scriptural Selection. While the lesson sermon doesn’t cover every story in the Bible, it does cover a large portion of it, including what most other Christian churches cover.
I have occasionally attended a “non-denominational” Christian church that is near where I live. I’ve usually gone during their evening service because that is the one that one of my friends went to and there are lots of young people there. It is a typical “contemporary” Christian church with a band and a pastor who is very informal, etc. Anyway they rely heavily on the Bible for directing their doctrine, and they are an evangelical church. But from attending the services I felt like I have a much better grasp of the contents of the Bible than many of the people there. For instance I’ve attended some services where they were telling some story about Moses or Abraham, and the preacher had to give a bunch of background information in case people did not know anything about these Biblical characters. My point is that in terms of conveying the actual contents of the Bible I think that CS does as good a job as any church in giving a devotional teaching of the contents of the Bible.
2) I suspect that the disagreements others might have with CS comes not with how much CS uses the Bible, but rather with the fact that CS has a different interpretation of many theological points. For instance most “mainstream” Christian churches teach that Jesus is God. That’s just one example, but you could find many others where CS has a radically different interpretation of the Bible than mainstream American Christianity does today. In many ways CS has strong similarities to the Mormon church in that it has a second divine book that is rejected by mainstream Christianity. Of course the spirit of ecumenicism is much stronger today than in the past so denominational differences are often downplayed. For instance I’ve read many people who claim that Mormons are simply another Protestant denominational, usually within the context of Mitt Romney’s political ambitions and the questions of whether his religion is something people should consider when they vote or not. Also speaking of ecumenicism I think it’s interesting how Catholics are now widely accepted by evangelical Christianity since a hundred years ago this was not the case. Catholics are another denomination that relies on more than just the Bible (namely the Pope and other church doctrine) as a basis for forming their theology.
3) I think that CS encourages a type of reading of the Bible that is similar to that of mainstream evangelical churches in America today. That is to say the Bible is generally viewed as somehow divinely inspired, and the stories in it are usually taken at face value rather than viewed as myths. At the evangelical church I attend sometimes I distinctly remember one time when the preacher explained that Moses did literally part the Red Sea. In general it seems to me that CS and evangelicals do not put much weight on the contributions of academic scholarship for understanding the Bible or evaluating its historical accuracy.
|
MikeDavis
|
Hi Annette,
There are quite a few mainstream academic Bible scholars today who are striving to understand the Bible in its historical context. One scholar of the New Testament and early Christianity who has written books designed to introduce scholarship to a more popular audience is Bart Ehrman. Of course, there are others as well. One book you might enjoy reading by Ehrman is titled Lost Christianities. It sets forth the widely accepted view today that the New Testament contains multiple theologies, and multiple understandings of Jesus. Ehrman also discusses other gospels and forms of Christianity that didn’t in the end get into the New Testament canon at all.
I’ve often said that in my view, Christian Science enables us to appreciate and learn from the multiple perspectives on Jesus in the New Testament, but at the same time transcends what can sometimes appear to be contradictions among these perspectives. For example, scholars have pointed out that the theology and view of Jesus in the gospel of Matthew differs in some respects from Paul’s theology and view of Jesus. We don’t do either writer’s views justice if we try to interpret Paul’s theology in terms of Matthew’s or vice versa. However, Christian Science can enable us to learn from each perspective without distorting what each writer meant to say.
Some scholars focus on the issue of the “historical Jesus.” Since there are what appear to be contradictions among the gospels, these scholars attempt to penetrate beneath the various perspectives to try to come up with a plausible portrait of what Jesus as an historical figure probably said, did, and believed. One position held by a number of historical Jesus scholars is that Jewish/Christian apocalypticism is the bedrock theological outlook that permeates and underlies much of the New Testament. This includes the idea of the coming of the Kingdom of God and the ultimate absolute destruction of anything that would claim to oppose God’s reign “on earth as it is in heaven.”
In his book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Bart Ehrman points out that what were probably the original teachings of the historical Jesus can be seriously misinterpreted when wrested from their apocalyptic context. Scholars like Ehrman believe that the historical Jesus likely was not giving techniques that could be used to spruce up a mortal and corrupt sense of existence, but was warning that with the full coming of the Kingdom of God, the apparent reign of Satan would be completely wiped out. There would be much resistance, but in the end, sin, sickness, death, and corrupt living would be totally destroyed. Jesus urged his followers to live from the standpoint of the ethics of God’s Kingdom, and to radically disengage from ways of living that derive from what we would call mortal mind.
|
Annette-D
|
Thanks Mike! I went to the library this afternoon and they had the one you recommended, Lost Christianities. They also had one by Ehrman shelved w/ the new books called, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. I don’t know how new it is. Anyway, I hope I like them….
|
Amy
|
Have you ever played the Biblicious app game? The questions are kind of hard, and even so, the TMC Youth team nailed it when we played it in the office. I think that we may know the Bible pretty well, but we’re not good at referring to it. And that hurts us when we are talking with people about Christian Science.
|
lightup
|
The “key” to the Scriptures is found in this Biblical quote that precede the exegesis of Genesis and Revelation in Science and Health :-
These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it. —- Revelation.
It is the Christ that hold the “key” to the Scriptures since through the Christ come inspiration, spiritual understanding. If one is not able to reference the Bible in one communication of Christian Science teachings is because one is not relying on and also not sufficiently assimilate the spirit of Christ but instead one is primarily relying on reasoning. The Christ is the Immanuel or God with us, the divine presence or influence, which are characterized by the fruit OF the Spirit.
Gal 5:22 But the Spirit produces love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
Gal 5:23 humility, and self-control. There is no law against such things as these.
|
Gordon
|
Lots of really powerful and helpful ideas shared here. Thanks guys! JD, I love what you said about being known for our goodness. I’m reminded of an audio chat that TMC Youth did a little while ago where someone said this quote (I think maybe it was Nina deCordova): “Preach the gospel always. When necessary, use words.”
Mike, I’m grateful for that trend of going back to the Bible more! And you are, as usual, absolutely correct that the historical context is an important part! A little while ago I had a discussion with my Christian Science teacher about the passages in the Bible about how women should “keep silence in the churches.” Those passages bothered me, and since my CS teacher is a woman I wanted her perspective. She shared some interesting facts about the historical context and deeper, non-literal meaning behind those passages that were actually quite useful. Because the literal interpretation without any historical context is pretty useless.
Abby, I’ve begun reading the Bible myself just recently and am getting a lot out of it. I like how you said that the first thing that pops into thought is the Bible. Good to start with that basis first, before getting into the explanation!
This kind of mirrors what you said, Ben: start with the basics! What a great lesson. I think it’s a hallmark of a good teacher to know that once you’ve learned something, you can’t just assume that everyone else has. You have to be willing to turn right back around and help others with the same lesson, patiently. And I loved your comment that we’re “totally useless on our own.” You’re right! We have to share it!
Gabriel, I’ve noticed the same thing — that my own grasp of the Bible is often much stronger than my peers. Most people have barely touched it. Sometimes I’ve just kind of assumed that everyone already knew all the same things about the Bible stories that I did, but wow is that a false assumption.
And Amy, iHaven’t played that app because iDon’t have an iPhone or any other Apple product. But it sounds like fun! iWonder how well iWould do.
|
SpiritualWeaver
|
Hi Gordon,
The “young” thought knows instinctively that value is not IN form and this is why there is less attachment to the form. With attachment to form arises the need to protect, defend, preserve it. And from this basis arise conflict. It is LOVE,– divine LOVE that maintains and preserves ALL. When we remain here in this position, Love will do the rest. (as you said in your original question). “A knowledge of error and its operations must precede that understanding of Truth which destroys error.” It is important here to note the word “precede.” We have to stay aware of how mortal mind operates. Just one way mortal mind operates is through distraction, —- that which seems worried (“careful & troubled”) about many THINGS (forms). But only one thing is needed and that is the consciousness which sits at the feet of the CHrist and hears his word. (see Luke 10:41).
A word to the wise & young: This discussion about the Manual has been going on for generations and it will not be solved here for it is only distraction from the ONE THING that is needed. Love, forgiveness, compassion, inclusivity, kindness, beauty, joy!. (as you noted also in your original question)
Keep listening to your heart, — it is your GPS. No matter what, follow it & your heart will find its joyful expression in ways that you could not imagine. :-) (I Cor 2:9)
|
