 Posted Sunday, July 13, 2008 12:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Moved from New to Forums -- Introductions and Personal... » Mark's story
Posted by Anonymous July 13, 2008 @ 3:04:16 PM:
I have just come upon the forum and am saddened and startled by the sincere suffering that seems to have come about as a result of too strict Christian Science upbringings. I can only pray that you honest respondents have not left Christianity, nor let the love of God leave your hearts.
You have addressed a problem that is real in your own direct way.
I am an author who has directly addressed the church from inside in a different way. I was not brought up as a Christian Scientist but became interested through marrying one. I was not interested in the bodily healing but found it worked well enough for me and my family (though if I had it to do over, I would have been much more quick to seek medical solutions for them that I was a couple of times.) I came, and stayed because it seemed and seems, without the healing which has come to be so all-fired important to everyone who calls himself/herself a Christian Scientist, a very deep way to practice Christianity, which I loved, every day.
i believe Mary Baker Eddy to be a brilliant Christian theologian who cut through the inhibited religious practice of her day to demand high levels of consecration to God and Christian practice. That's why I still stay with it.
Because I've been a historian of the American frontier for years, I began to closely study Mrs. Eddy's concept of her religion and its inception. I had come to feel strongly that today's Christian Science "practice" is only about bodily healing, that it often harms people, that it insists on enforcing through culture and group prohibitions a bunch of protocols which are clearly unchristain. My study showed that the early church, while emphasizing physical healing through prayer(a good enough alternative to the rudimentary and often failing medical practice of the 1880s) was really about healing mankind of all ills through the prayer of absolute faith in God as the spiritual reality in the cosmos. It is an exciting idea even today, one which can be imagined if one looks at such concepts as string theory, or at most Eastern religions. Early Christian Scientists were glad for the prayer healings, but they believed they were about delving into Christian reality--the meaning of the kingdom Jesus came from and taught about.
Anyway, I wanted to show CS got way off the track after MBE's death and got into this sad state of forcing people, literally, to die to show they were good Christians. My book is for Christian Scientists. Open the Doors of the Temple urges them to let people make choices, sincerely and clearly, about physical healing (they already are as one of you pointed out, for sure) and quite enforcing these cultural protocols. I called for my religious faith to quite forcing people to suffer; it is completely unChristian and against the earliest meaning of the church. My contention was that Mrs. Eddy would be horrified; that's provable by many letters she sent to people telling them to seek aid if they were unable to find physical help through prayer. And do it quickly; she saw that it was very detrimental to have people suffering and dying and completely inhumane.
Of course.
The book is in its second printing and I have had letters and calls from all over the country saying, "We feel this way too." A new feeling and saying is prevalent now among many churches and even officials "CS is a religion of choice." I insisted along with others in my church that we encourage people to feel well, seek their own physical healing, talk about it with all of us so we can help, and get on with being good Christians relying on God as our All the best we can. Which probably isn't very good but we're trying.
So dear correspondents here, don't throw us all out with the bathwater, though I can easily understand what you are saying and feel so sad you went through it. We're not all crazy and I for one will not stand for a moment for someone's suffering over a period of time when they can take a tylenol. The mysteries of Christian pefecting along our life journey are not about whether one sniffs up a nasal spray or not, whether one gets a heart stent. Lots of us are doing that now as a matter of fact and holding our heads up to those who think it's all about "sticking it out no matter what." Pooh, I say, on that. Move on, my fellow religionists. Love you all out there-- [Smile]
Nancy Niblack Baxter
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 14, 2008 9:13 AM
|
|
|
|
| Nancy, Welcome to the forums! Thanks for letting us know about your book -- I'm curious to read it now. I'm glad it seeks to bring some balance to the healing question and that you are getting positive response from a lot of Christian Scientists. I think Mrs. Eddy misses the greatest point about Jesus -- his identity as BOTH the Son of God and God the Son. That's the major reason that I'll never return to Christian Science (but that's a subject for a different thread). In any case, it's nice to hear from you.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Anyway, I wanted to show CS got way off the track after MBE's death and got into this sad state of forcing people, literally, to die to show they were good Christians. My book is for Christian Scientists. Open the Doors of the Temple urges them to let people make choices, sincerely and clearly, about physical healing (they already are as one of you pointed out, for sure) and quite enforcing these cultural protocols. I called for my religious faith to quite forcing people to suffer; it is completely unChristian and against the earliest meaning of the church. My contention was that Mrs. Eddy would be horrified; that's provable by many letters she sent to people telling them to seek aid if they were unable to find physical help through prayer. And do it quickly; she saw that it was very detrimental to have people suffering and dying and completely inhumane.
For the true believer in Christian Science, there is only black in white. Even if there is gray, it will never be admitted. Growing up in a true Christian Science household, I can attest, does not allow for making choices to go a medical route with out the consequence of negative judgement of others and indescribable inner guilt. It is a fact. It just does not work that way. Making wise choices weighs heavily on education. An adult Christian Scientist who has grown up in Christian Science all his/her life, does not have a good concept of how the human body functions from a medical perspective, because growing up, exemptions from health and science classes in school, are available legally through the Christian Science faith. Even if the Christian Scientist took these classes to better educate themselves of the "material" nature of their bodies, they would be actively denying the so-called "lies" and try to apply their "scientific" truths, hence not fully getting the real education that would be needed to make an educated and wise decision when a situation in the future arises needing medical attention. As children growing up in this faith, you really have not other way to explore anything else, because your CS parents are expecting to mold you into the "one and only belief system"
I agree with you that yes....MBE would be horrified by the way people are practicing Christian Science now, however, I believe that we need to look at MBE from a historical perspective. During the Mid 1800's there were only a handful of truly organized religions. Back then, the idea that a religion can bring complete healing with out the use of medication, was certainly one of a kind. Today there are several religions out there east and west that openly acknowledge that prayer is a potent drug that has complete healing results. Now back to the mid 1800's. MBE grew up in learning the Calvinist doctrine which believes in pre-destination. MBE was born, and it just so happens that the cards she was dealt, contained having illnesses. I believe her parents did what every other normal parent out there would do if their child was sick....take them to the doctor. Most people would be content with temporary relief and go on with their life, however, MBE was not satisfied with that. At such a young age, she had it in her mind that she was going to come up with a solution to temporary and make things permanent. Back in 1850, we have to keep in mind that the medical field is not what it is now. In the history of MBE, it never, NEVER, is revealed what "recurring bouts of sickness" her son had......for all we know it could have been the common cold or imagine it could have been something way more serious...like cancer, but back in 1850, it was still yet way to early to even diagnose something like that. True, cold and cancer are contemporary sicknesses compared to whatever was common back then, but you get my point. Are we beginning to see the parallel between the sicknesses that MBE had as a child and then the recurring illnesses her son had.....perhaps it was genetic?! Inbetween MBE childhood and Motherhood she had gotten married and divorced twice, by this time she was beginning to understand her health condition to be chronic. Basically once this was really understood, she began trying anything and everything to avoid 19th century medicine. Personally, I don't blame her, cause like I said before, medical field back then is definately not what it is today. So after trying homeopathy, placebo, therapy, and what not and closely reading and examining Jesus healings, the year 1866 was the magical turning point. In 1866, as the famous story goes, MBE slipped on the ice and had a severe fall. She turned to reading one of Jesus healings, and instantly, she was well. This is when she makes the call to claim the discovery of Christian Science. Let's see. In my opinion she had not yet had an immediate healing with her sickness, so therefore, I don't believe she had yet conquered what she had set out to do....find a permanent solution to heal sickness by prayer with out the use of medicine. As far as I'm concerned, her fall was a physical injury........completely unrelated to the bodily functioning of warding off diseases.....ie immune system. My other opinion on this is that the fact that she felt like she was completely healed instantaneously after reading a Jesus healing story, could also be considered a miracle, a once in a lifetime experience. Once in her mind she was totally convinced that this was a direct act of God, there was not turning back, and she started writing her beliefs, and thus begun the process of trying to convince others that her belief was real. Just like automobile advertising, if you can portray that the consumer is getting a good deal, and the consumer in his mind believes that they are getting a good deal on a car, comes to the dealership and buys it, the advertising has done it's job successfully. Back in the 1850's Advertising the idea that this could be a religion that heals problems permanently, without the use of drugs and medicine, was one of a kind, basically what we refer to today as "too good to be true". In MBE's convincing, she had to get people to look at things from a different perspective.....trying to get them to perceive the "mind over matter" concept. A concept already established in some of the homeopathy practices. What is also to say that right at the peak of her discovery that her drug usage from earlier wasn't having an effect on her current state of being in the later 1800's to come up with a lot of the elongated language written in her textbook Science & Health. Enough about the historical and getting back to what you stated about the direction Christian Science has taken in regards to cultural protocols. Had MBE lived today, and had exposure to the advanced medical field, and could compare it to the way it was back in the 1800's, she would not have executed a religious belief with such strict black and white doctrine. MBE states specifically that when working out a problem in through Christian Science, that it be the only method imployed, because you cannot mix spiritual healing with medicine. That is why there are so many christian science practitioners out there that will either not work with you or drop you if you decide to get some medical help. This is why it is not so easy to simply instill in the true Christian Science believer's mind, the option of CHOICE. It simply does not exist. You either choose one road or the other.
Here is a current example: My younger sister is a college student. The school she is going to is requiring a certain vaccination, and because it is in MA, the school even provides health insurance, meaning the vaccination is not going to cost anything, because it's mandatory. In the Christian Science Faith it is perfectly legal to get an exemption from the church, so that she can avoid it. The parents are pushing her to proceed with getting the exemption. After talking with my sister, she had been told by the church that these vaccinations are completely material and by applying for the exemption, she is demonstrating that she is overcoming the so-called "fear" and that she is demonstrating Christian Science to her fullest potential, and that she must either choose Christian Science 100% by not getting the vaccination, or choose the "other" path. Control overrides choice, and making the wrong choice, (getting the vaccination) will result in unfavorable judgments towards my sister, in the eyes of true Christian Scientists. So low and behold, my sister is left with a CHOICE....but a hefty one. I told her that she is an adult by age, and should be able to make her own decisions when it comes to her health, and not to be confined by what any legal christian science church official may say. I believe my sister WILL make the right decision.....but will have to be secretive about it, and that my friends, is a shame.....but is the common feeling many ex-CSers have gone through.
Frogs25
Fully Relying On God for Salvation
|
|
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 4:28 PM
|
|
|
|
I have to disagree with you on several points. First, I disagree that for CSists things are only black and white. It’s true that there is a black and white distinction between the human and the divine, but the fact is that we all have to navigate the human at this point, and the human experience is one big grey area! I grew up in a “true” Christian Science household with two CS parents who were pillars of the church (they were both at various times readers, board members, Sunday School teachers and superintendents, lecture chairmen, Reading Room librarians, church treasurers, etc., etc., etc.). My siblings and I went to CS schools and attended church twice a week, yet we always had the option to go the medical route if we had a problem and we thought that would make us more comfortable. On the occasions when we did (admittedly not very often but that was because CS worked for us!), there were no repercussions from our church or school communities. We went right back the next Sunday or Wednesday and were welcomed with open arms. When I went to graduate school, the school wanted me to sign a paper saying I had done everything possible to insure my immunity against the common contagious diseases, and even though I didn’t really want the immunization, when I talked to a practitioner/teacher about it, she encouraged me to go ahead and get it, and not to feel one little bit concerned about it (she is from Massachusetts, too, and a very highly regarded CSist at that). She said it was more loving to help the community feel safe. I did get it, and I did not feel the need to hide that fact from anyone.
I do agree that CS still holds a pretty hard and fast line that medicine and CS treatment don’t mix, but that’s because one undermines the other. If someone goes to get medical treatment and a practitioner is working to deny the reality of matter as an agent of change, then this could negate the effectiveness of the medication. Conversely, if the patient is believing that the medicine will help, then this could negate the effectiveness of the CS treatment which is based on a view that accords all power only to God. Getting both kinds of treatment, then, really leaves the patient with no real support at all. My point is that it always has to be a choice of one or the other when it comes to the treatment of disease, but that does not mean that there is no choice possible.
Even though I am most definitely a “true believer in Christian Science,” I have consulted physicians a few time for my children when they were in distress and a healing was not very quick (and, btw, I had no trouble speaking with the doctors because of a dearth of knowledge about how the body is supposed to operate), but in each case either the problem was healed before we got to see the doctor or the doctor’s treatment left us with lingering problems that were only resolved later through CS treatment. I’ve never really had a doctor HELP me, although all of them were certainly sincere in their efforts. However, CS has helped me and my family members I would guess hundreds (maybe even thousands) of times. But I don’t consider those times we consulted doctors bad or even a waste of time, because by going to the doctors we got rid of the fear that we were depriving ourselves of some easy solution and, even when we did go, we ended up learning more about the validity and efficacy of CS healing.
Bottom line: I hardly ever go to the doctor because I don’t have to. CS works better and faster for me. However, I would not hesitate to do so if I ever thought I needed or wanted to, and I would certainly NEVER judge someone else for choosing the medical route. The fact is that none of us have it all figured out yet (CS and non-CS alike) We all can only do the best we know how and follow our own highest sense of right, leaving others to do the same without judgment or condemnation. CS is not about judging – its about loving. Every other CS person I know feels the same about this, and I know a lot of them. So even though you know some who think differently, I don’t think it is fair to characterize all CSists the way you have here. The CSists I know are just earnestly seeking to be and do good, and frankly, they’re doing a great job of it.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 6:08 PM
|
|
|
|
I did get it, and I did not feel the need to hide that fact from anyone.
/quote]Did you put this is your book? Jill
|
|
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 6:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Nancy:
I take issue with a couple of statements in your book:
Pg. 22: "Although recent personally driven books, like Caroline Fraser's God's Perfect Child, appear to flow from personal wells of bitterness which reflect the apostate's view and are full of distortions, some of the objections raised need to be examined."
Ms. Fraser researched her book, mostly relying on Christian Science literature to show how destructive Christian Science is. On Pg.428-429, she writes about a CS practitioner who wrote a testimony for the Journal in 1984 saying she had raised all four of her children successfully through Christian Science. Well, no. One of the practitioner's children, a girl, died under CS care in 1963 at age 7.
On Pg. 87 of your book, Nancy, you write about a measles epidemic at a Christian Science school "that made several young people dangerously sick and resulted in the death of a student, focused public attention in the public press on a couple of problems connected with the refusal to immunize C.S. young people."
I was a freshman in 1985 at Principia College — why didn't you mention it by name? — during the crisis, and it was two students, Scott Shadrick and Charlotte Bertleson, and a child of a staff member who died from the measles. That's sloppy research, as was your claim that "Many at the school who did get measles did not die but instead experienced quick or gradual healings using prayer alone, but the implications of even one death viewed as preventable made the public at large critical." At one point at least 100 students were affected by the measles, including a friend of mine who wished to die. And the healings weren't quick, either. Some were quarantined for weeks. Many of us, myself included, got inoculated so we could get off campus for spring break. (I had been inoculated as a child before getting into CS in 1983.)
I'm surprised that with all the failures CS has had that you've lasted 50 years. I stopped practising in the early 1990s but officially left in 1999.
People who want to see how destructive should type "New York Times," "Christian Science" and "suicide" in Google and read those stories. The Times also has other articles free for viewing from the early part of the 20th century, including one from July 1904 questioning Mary Baker Eddy's claim that S&H was divinely authorized. (As an aside, how can something be "divinely authorized" when it's been plagiarized or when it's been revised hundreds of times, forcing churchgoers to spend hard-earned money to buy new editions?)
If memory serves, you wrote that CS is thriving today. Well, maybe in small pockets of Africa, but most churches today are barely surviving. The number of churches/societies stands at 1,719 in 2008 versus 1,970 in 2002, when I first started tracking closings.
I know of Principia students who died way too young of AIDS or suicide, or faculty members who died of a heart attack or untreated diseases. There's plenty of evidence to show Christian Science doesn't work, and anyone contemplating getting into CS should turn in around and run — fast. And for those of you who still practise this destructive religion, especially when there are so many warning signs around, that includes you, too.
Kind regards,
Garey G. Ris
Prin grad 1988
|
|
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:19 PM
|
|
|
|
| Sorry, Jill - it seems I caused some confusion by posting anonymously. I am not Nancy and have not read her book. I just wanted to add another perspective, because my experience leads me to view most of what is said about CS on this website as wrong (misguided as that perspective must seem to you all).
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:22 AM
|
|
|
|
| "including one from July 1904 questioning Mary Baker Eddy's claim that S&H was divinely authorized." I believe the link for this extensive article (including handwritten facsimiles) is here. Sybil Wilbur's Church authorized Eddy biography that tells of Eddy's involvement in seances. Also, a period query that is pertinent to the consistent question of exactly how much of a "great job" CSists are doing.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:30 AM
|
|
|
|
| Thanks for the links, Zoarean but they all lead to the sign-in page for the New York Times. Can you give us some key words to work with if we do the NYT sign-in?
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:44 AM
|
|
|
|
Linda:
The links at NYTimes.com work if you sign in first.
Garey
|
|
|
|