Inge and Gordon,

Thank you for taking the time time read my comments and consider this important topic. And thank you for allowing me to respond to your additional comments. Please accept this in the spirit of fellowship. I have not been able to respond because I have been quite busy these days but there is much to say.

We agree that the the Bible, Science and Health, the Manual and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy are divinely authorized; that these are divinely inspired articles for our growth. Being divinely authorized we should regard them as final, as law, because declaring them divine we admit their origin is not human and therefore is a pure representation of Truth. Consequently, we should regard anything that opposes the Christ message within these articles as unholy; and that which is well disguised but in the end would lead us astray as the anti-Christ.

By grace through Christ we have been given the gift of Truth in the Bible, Science and Health and in the lives that demonstrate the truth. As Jesus said, “if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works” (John 10:38). The healing work is therefore needed to bear witness to the Truth that is active.

So, we have the Truth. Error is a lie about the Truth already established. And there are only (3) three ways a lie can be made about the Truth.
1. Add to the Truth
2. Take from the Truth
3. Change the Truth

Of course, this does not include the justifications or reasoning that would lead one to do one of the three, the arguments seem endless, but the action in the end is one of these three.

Unfortunately, all efforts that depart from the Manual by “refreshing it”, “creatively applying it”, etc. are all pretty ways of justifying adulteration. I stand that to adhere to Manual is to simply follow it; to do what it says and not do what it doesn’t say.

Inge you write that you don’t see how being open to ‘fresh inspiration and new approaches to … church service’ is not at odds with the Manual, that it is about motive. But by the very act of taking a ‘new approach’ you are not doing what is in the Manual. ‘New’ must either add, remove, or change some element of the Manual. And music is covered in the Manual, in the appendix starting on page 121 and under each page for each service it is explicitly written for both the Mother Church and Branch Churches that “The services should be preceded and followed by organ and piano music of an appropriate religious character in all cases where this is possible”. In other words, the only time we shouldn’t be using piano or organ music is when it is not possible. Please explain to me how being open to doing things differently will at the same time fulfill the instruction? That is not possible.

What is the motive in introducing person into the church services? Is that about getting closer to God or showing regard for person? If it is about getting closer to God, please explain how personalizing the service will at length get rid of personal sense, which is the objective of Christian Science?

I too love the Manual for its framework, and for it’s detail. To follow the Manual means to follow it completely, to the details. It is in following the specific instructions that it becomes a unifying framework. The Manual in its order of service is a one size fits all because the order of service is explicitly outlined. The Manual does provide flexibility in the branches form of government, not order of service.

A note about Church Alive. I regard the message valid from Church Alive so long as it does not suggest, educate, persuade, or influence the Church to add to, remove from, or change the what is in the Manual. If there is a change proposed then it is only valid if it consistent with the Manual. The moment it is at odds, or trying to re-define the Manual it is corrupting the purity that was established.

I agree with you Gordon, we are followers of Jesus and Mary Baker Eddy that realize through Christian Science the same capacity to heal. However, in regards to the service, by what authority are we changing the order of service? If it is not from the Manual, then it must be our own estimation. And, if we act on an idea to change what is in the Manual, then aren’t we saying that what has come to us is better than we have admitted is divinely complete? By what authority can we say we improve on perfection?

Healing will grow this church, not changing the service. Love and obedience to what is divine acknowledges the power and proves our faith, and that will increase the healing works.

I appreciate your comment that mortal mind would passively resist change by referencing the Manual. I am not passively resisting change. I am actively resisting change with my authority as the Manual. Because I see change from the Manual as an attack on the pure appearing of Christian Science. If the manual is true, then it is changeless. If it is true, then it’s principles are eternal. Would it also be mortal mind to reference the Bible or Science and Health and vehemently claim that Principle is changeless and Truth is eternal? It is mortal mind that changes, “Soul changeth not.” Does 2+2=4 change? If the Manual is divine, then its statement is just as perfect. Just because it worked 100 years ago, and doesn’t seem to be working now, should we change it?

We should be active in our steadfastness. Steadfast is not changing, but is rather obedience, it is the “sticking to the wreck” in faith and knowing that God will deliver. It is to remain loyal is the heat of battle which looks dismal and know that God is working for his sake.

I know this entry is getting quite long, so I will wrap it up here:
Mrs. Eddy asked her followers to “follow her so long as she follows Christ”
Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (not just when things look good) and “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE shall no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

It is mortal mind that says we need to change, that what God has given us is not enough.
My authority is the Bible, Science and Health, the Manual, not the Board of Directors, Church Alive, or any man unless the message is consistent with the Manual. The Mother Church is that institution which adheres to the Manual. If they are not adhering to it, it has become an institution with the name and not the nature of what is in the Manual and the real Mother Church is now hidden from human view. In that case, the idea still remains a remnant in a book called the Manual which I will live by, and which sadly need to be discovered again through great tribulation for its reappearance to mankind.

Change always starts small and implies you don’t have what you started with. I certainly don’t want to change from perfection.

Elizabeth,

Could you be more specific? This is rather vague, to say the least.

Brad

Stephen,

That’s fair enough, but my point is that I think that being overly concerned with traditional ways of doing things can make the church servie seem ritualistic. I don’t have any examples or thoughts about how churh service should be structured differently, I happen to be happy with it the way it is. But I seem to be in the minority in this respect, at least for people who are around the same age as me. I remember where I grew up there were a number of people in Sunday School in my class. But I was the only one from my Sunday School class who went to church regularly once I was too old for Sunday School. Likewise since that time I’ve moved around a few places and none of the churches I’ve attended have had people my age there.

At this point I don’t really care about that, but I suppose in the past it might have been nice as a way to make new friends when I moved to a different community. Instead I would usually get to know some of the older people there, but there is a different feel attending a church where almost everyone there is old enough to be your parents or grandparents. I’ve attended a evangelical church where I live now occasionally and it is interesting to see how the service differs particulary with the large number of young people there.

Anyway I don’t think that there shoud be too much emphasis on age. But I also think it’s a fact of human life that people want to connect with other people that they have things in common with. For whatever reasons the CS church seems to have mostly stopped appealing to people of my generation. There is of course a decline across the board, but I think it’s most pronounced among people in their 20s and 30s. Once people get too old for Sunday School they seem to stop attending CS church services. At least that has been my observation in a limited number of places.

So I think when people write about generational disconnect it is because many of the CS church services look like an AARP meeting. There is nothing wrong with being elderly of course, but it’s also not surprising that many people want to connect with others in their same generation. I think that is the main concern that people have in regads to this topic, and again for whatever reason it seems that people in my generation have less interest in the CS church service than people in my grandparents generation.

@BradCarling What I mean is that there’s a Manual framework for church services. But how you express all of those components doesn’t have to be stuck in the past. I’m not saying it wasn’t good then, but if it’s not appealing to people now, why continue with it? I don’t think God prefers organ music over guitar music. I don’t think one is more healing than another. And I don’t think having guitar music would make MBE upset.

Stephen, you are correct about the line you referenced on page 121 of the Manual. But it still doesn’t say a thing about the solo. And for that matter, it actually doesn’t say a thing about the hymns either! It refers specifically to the prelude and the postlude only — not the hymns or the solo. Obviously it would often make sense to just use organ since you’d be using it anyway for those, but as you can see that allows a natural freedom to change up a solo or a hymn if the membership so decides.

So again, I see nothing disobedient about using different instruments as the accompaniment to the solo or the hymns, and since The Mother Church has already confirmed that this is fine, I’m happy to be obedient to them in so doing. That doesn’t remove a single jot or tittle but is, in fact, a lot more flexible than your original post lets on.

@bearingup — Yes! Let’s see everyone in our church family the way we want to be seen.

If you’re young and you think older people don’t have anything to give, your future is in BIIIIIGGGG trouble. And if you’re old and you think young people don’t have anything to give, you’re not remembering how things were when you were young.

Families are strong because they draw on the gifts of EVERYONE involved. And the spiritual truth is that each of us includes all the wonderful qualities associated with youth, and all the wisdom and experience associated with age. I’m not willing to fight against that by accepting that we can’t get along, that we can’t learn from one another and that we can’t love one another.

Now, about this whole idea of “generational disconnects”. I was just thinking that when Paul wrote “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” (Gal. 3:28), he might as well have added “There is neither young nor old…” :) Seriously, though: many of the most open, flexible, innovative, vibrant church members I’ve known have been the “older” ones!

I’d like to share an example. I’ve just recently joined a small Christian Science Society. And yes, I’m still under 30, and everyone else there is over 50. (Some are possibly over 80, but I wouldn’t be so impolite as to ask!!) Once again, that is simply not a factor. No-one there thinks in terms of age, or any other label. Everyone is expected and encouraged to contribute in whatever ways they can – and clearly, everyone is there because they want to be there. We all love one another; we all support each other, and listen to each other, and readily try out new ideas to see if they work. There’s no sense of burden or rigidity, or of having to defer to generations of “tradition” – much though many of the other members have had decades of experience in much more conservative-minded branch churches. (Which is probably why they’re so keen to bring a fresh thought to church – because they’ve seen for themselves what truly works and what doesn’t.)

Now yes, at the moment, our numbers are small (though one more than they were a few weeks ago ;) ). But I often wonder – what is most useful to the world? A large number of people attending a church service because they find it entertaining, or because it’s what they’ve always done, or because their family and friends all do? Or a smaller number of people who are there because Christian Science has touched their hearts and turned their lives around, and they want nothing more than to give back, because they know how much the world needs this healing Truth?

I certainly know which kind of congregation I’d rather be part of, no matter how small it is in numbers, or how old or young they are. These are the ones, after all, who are going to stick with it and not drop away when the going gets tough – and who are most clearly showing forth the Christ to other hungering hearts that are reaching out for it. And again – however slowly or quickly it seems to be happening – I really do think that’s the only thing that is going to truly draw people (young or otherwise!) to our churches, and keep them there. How this comes about will probably be different for each individual branch church, too. But it really can and does happen when we’re putting the healing Christ first.