The Christian Way Forums / The Christian Way Forums / New to Forums -- Introductions and Personal Stories / Nancy's Introduction / Latest Posts

RE: Nancy's Introduction

nomorecs — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:45:49 GMT

I agree with you. My family did just fine as long as we were healing headaches, colds, fevers, and other miscellaneous undiagnosed diseases which went away on their own while we were reading the Lesson-Sermon. I suffered miserably from a urinary tract infection as a young adult, but it did go away. Eventually. However, I remember struggling for my entire childhood and adolescence to heal my nearsightedness, without the slightest success.

I find it surprising that some folks have posted that they went to the doctor and the church evidently had no problem with that. That was not my experience at all, nor was it the experience of my grandparents. Anyone I knew in CS who had medical treatment (aside from being taken unconscious to an ER, which was acknowledged to be not by your own decision) was at the very least disapproved of. I knew you could be put on probation as to your branch church membership. I didn't know of anyone who actually was put on probation, but you were expected to check yourself out of the hospital ASAP and heal yourself through Science. My grandmother was abandoned by the church when she was operated on for cancer. My father was shunned for being seen coming out of a liquor store (he wasn't a member of any CS church, he only attended.) It was made very clear to me by the church, the Sunday School, the A/U camps, and Principia, not to mention class instruction, that radical reliance was the only path.

But I guess if you attended CS churches within the last few years, the attitude has changed, or so I hear.

Ann

RE: Nancy's Introduction

zoarean — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:01:01 GMT

Do Go Be Man,

[quote][b]Do_Go_Be_Man (7/21/2008)[/b][hr] I think that even a notarized statement from Mrs. Eddy admitting she copied every bit of her work from Quimby would change little in the minds and arguments of some.<><[/quote]

True, & conversely, it would change little in my mind if even there were a thousand witnesses to a "Moroni" giving her the words in gold tablet form, for Paul teaches that there can be no "new" gospel even if it should come by way of an angel (Gal. 1:8). Neither new revelations nor "demonstrations" hold water if they lead one away from worshipping Jesus as God & Savior; these have come & gone for many millennia, while God's Word continues witnessing to those who desire real truth.

Too, we should not close the door to continued discussion because of hardened attitudes or even invective natures. Lots of "impossible" people have ended up giving their life to Christ- from Apostle Paul to the present day (my dad). Jesus responded to the disciple's question of "Who then can be saved?" with a clear declaration of God's sovereign ability to transform the most stubborn soul- " With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible." I get as frustrated as anyone with the tenaciousness of unbelief, but I must remember I was there as well for many years. We must continue to persevere with them for as long as God continues to grace us with an unspeakable love for their souls. I commend you for your patience with such persons at Christianscience.com. Pray; & press on as long as God leads & enables.

zoarean

RE: Nancy's Introduction

Do_Go_Be_Man — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:52:29 GMT

dawn comes,

[quote]Which was the culture?[/quote]
The problem with Neo Christian Science culture is that while professing Christian Science they openly accept and espouse practices and philosophies that directly contradict the documented teachings of Christian Science.

Discussions on christianscience.com and other Christian Science web sites are quite illuminating. Mary Baker Eddy claimed her teachings as Christian with a Biblical basis. She taught a certain moral code with clear expectations. While I disagree with many of her doctrinal conclusions, I usually tend to believe that Mrs. Eddy believed her work had a Biblical basis.

Christian Science appears to be rapidly abandoning its principles. From smoking, drinking, and drug abuse to acceptance of anti-Biblical and nonmarital sexual practices, Christian Scientists appear to be moving farther and faster from the Christian roots upon which the movement was founded. The culture is overtaking the teachings.

Of course, Christian Science is not the only church faced with that challenge. Don't get me started on how so many of the mainstream churches have also abandoned the Bible for the sake of improving their recruiting opportunities.

I was once recruited by a "church" I consider an even more dangerous and apostate cult than Christian Science. Perhaps thinking I had left Christian Science because of the ban on drinking, the recruiter said they had no such prohibitions and I would be "allowed" to drink. While I was in Christian Science, a group of Methodists tried to entice me to join them talking about the great time they had at a retreat with mixed gender skinny-dipping. That was very confusing. In two significant cases, Pastors suggested to me that the Bible had no relevancy to major decisions they and the church faced.

If Christian Science or any church wants to be free of the Bible, they should first formally adopt that as their doctrine as at least one major body has done. If Neo Christian Scientists believe the Bible and teachings of Christian Science are not relevant, they are free to abandon them, look elsewhere, or form their own organizations. They should not, however, pretend their practice of the prevailing culture represents practice of the actual teachings.

Do Go Be Man
<><

RE: Nancy's Introduction

dawn comes — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:34:36 GMT

"Adhering intellectually, rather than actually practicing, MBE's teachings seems to trump all else."

I think this is it in a nutshell! Sometimes I get lost in all the 'culture' talk. Which was the culture? Those well-intentioned folks who attempted to practice according to the instruction of Science and Health in the 1940's, 50's and 60's? Or is those who 'practice' today with healthy doses of new ageism and liberalism? Or was it those who followed her like a guru during her lifetime, who seemed to place enormous emphasis on healing and demonstration, presumably with her instruction and approval?

It seems like today the movement makes a great deal of allowances to smooth over the obvious inability of human beings to prove the nonexistence of matter.

RE: Nancy's Introduction

Do_Go_Be_Man — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:33:40 GMT

zoarean

The NYT article, "True Origin of Christian Science", is interesting. It certainly supports perceptions I have of the origin of Christian Science. Given my conservative nature, however, it presents quite a dilemma to trust the NYT of even 1904. I assume that the Monitor did not reprint it.

Without a generally agreed upon smoking gun perhaps with some legal standing regarding the Quimby origin of Mary Baker Eddy's work, however, much of the Quimby allegations tend to be a red herring enabling diversions from the real issues. I think that even a notarized statement from Mrs. Eddy admitting she copied every bit of her work from Quimby would change little in the minds and arguments of some.

Do Go Be Man
<><

RE: Nancy's Introduction

zoarean — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:13:59 GMT

Yet another example of the amazing ability of a Christian Scientist to detach themself from reality to the point of not even grieving the loss of their own child to a medically curable disease. This mother loses her seven year old daughter to diphtheria while under the "care" of a practitioner, & then goes on to defend CS by stating that both her daughters had the disease, but only one died!

Incredible!

RE: Nancy's Introduction

Linda — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:39:08 GMT

Thanks, Zoarean and Garey.

RE: Nancy's Introduction

zoarean — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 09:32:09 GMT

Forgive me, I think those were registered member specific links, but I fixed them they should work for anybody now; but if not, just register or search the archives for "True Origin of Christian Science".

RE: Nancy's Introduction

Linda — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:30:15 GMT

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?

RE: Nancy's Introduction

zoarean — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 06:22:35 GMT

"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.

RE: Nancy's Introduction

Jill in Michigan — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:08:47 GMT

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

RE: Nancy's Introduction

frogs25 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:14:17 GMT

[i]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.[/i]

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

RE: Nancy's Introduction

Linda — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:13:36 GMT

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.

Nancy's Introduction

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 12:27:50 GMT

Moved from [url=http://www.christianway.org/forums/FindPost14860.aspx]New to Forums -- Introductions and Personal... » Mark's story[/url]

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