 Posted Sunday, July 23, 2006 3:26 AM
|
|
|
|
Sometimes people here have mentioned Christian Science nursing facilities. They are not mentioned by Mrs. Eddy in the Church Manual, although she does have a by-law in the Manual providing for Christian Science nurses. I have sometimes heard people wonder about the basis for having Christian Science nursing facilities, since they are not mentioned in the Manual. Some time ago, I was interested in finding out more about this and went to the MBE Library to see what background I could find about these facitilites, and get copies of relevant documents.
I found that Mrs. Eddy had a desire to see these institutions established, but that the fulfillment of that desire did not come about during her lifetime. In January 1906 Mrs. Eddy wrote a couple of letters to a Christian Scientist in which she shared her vision for CS nursing facilities. Then in 1909, Mrs. Eddy asked the CS Board of Directors to put a by-law into the Manual establishing a CS nursing facility. The Board replied that they did not feel that The Mother Church was in a position at that time to undertake the project, so Mrs. Eddy said not to put the by-law in the Manual and that she was willing to "let this matter rest for the present."
I thought those here might be interested in Mrs. Eddy's statements as to what she envisioned for CS nursing facilities:
From letter of January 11, 1906:
"...hospitals, alias, homes for the sick where skillful surgeons, and good nurses, and Christian Science healers are ready to receive the needy."
From letter of January 15, 1906:
"...that it [the facility] be for teaching Surgery, training nurses, teaching cooking, and healing the sick. Also that it be a resort for invalids without homes or relatives available in time of need..."
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, July 23, 2006 10:19 AM
|
|
|
|
tmcl,
I swear if you had been my mother, I probably would still be with CS.
Sharon 
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, July 23, 2006 5:59 PM
|
|
|
|
| That's interesting, tmcl.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 24, 2006 12:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Thanks, TMCl, sounds more like hospitals than like what we know as CS nursing facilities.
Marion
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, July 25, 2006 8:20 AM
|
|
|
|
tmcl,
From what you have said throughout these forums, it appears that CS church officials, practitioners, and members have misinterpreted just about everything that MBE ever intended in relation to the practice of CS. To cite a few examples,
-- MBE would disagree with most people's "radical reliance" stand if the problem is not healed quickly. She would thoroughly disagree with people tolerating goiters, skin tumors, and other diseases that linger and only get worse while they work, long term, for healings. If she saw these people today (and I have known MANY of them), she would probably send them right to the doctor if they weren't getting their healings and would tell them not to feel bad about it.
-- MBE would not penalize church officials and teachers for getting medical care -- like expecting them to step down from their posts while they obtained care.
-- MBE's nursing CS facilities would have allowed for certain kinds of medical care like surgery and painkillers. (Current CS nursing facilities don't even allow backrubs. I know a CS nurse who got in trouble with TMC for giving someone the Heimlich manuever at a restaurant when she saw that the person was choking to death. A CSist reported the CS nurse's actions to TMC because a Heimlich manuever is considered to be medical care. This nurse was not even allowed to offer this life-saving "medical" care when she was not at work!).
In other words (and I am saying this sincerely, without sarcasm or judgment), 99% of MBE's followers and church officials have misunderstood her intentions and are misusing the healing techniques that she taught. The result has been the "CS culture" that almost everyone on this forum has lived and that you say is not the CS that MBE intended.
Mrs. Eddy made it clear that she considered The Manual to be divinely inspired, just as she considered S&H divinely inspired. If this the case, it appears from what you said above that the CS Board of Directors actually thwarted a divine inspiration by telling Mrs. Eddy to postpone the By Law regarding CS nursing facilities. She died before the issue was ever addressed again. The result of this is that the CS facilities created later are often places of unintended torture.
It seems to me that, if Mrs. Eddy's own circle of hand-picked CSists was not able to carry on her Movement correctly, that it will be VERY difficult for CS to ever be practiced as you say that she intended it. It also seems to me that Mrs. Eddy made a huge spiritual mistake by allowing her Board to put off her vision of CS nursing facilities.
My question to you is this: From what you have found in the MBE Library, what did Mrs. Eddy think about her students' obvious inability to practice CS as she intended? And how did she reconcile the "divine inspirition" of The Manual with the fact that her followers could influence what she put into it? I'm not asking these questions to "trip you up" -- I am truly interested in what you have to say based on what you have found while digging in the MBE Library.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, July 25, 2006 3:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Linda wrote:
My question to you is this: From what you have found in the MBE Library, what did Mrs. Eddy think about her students' obvious inability to practice CS as she intended? And how did she reconcile the "divine inspirition" of The Manual with the fact that her followers could influence what she put into it?
Linda,
From what I've seen, Mrs. Eddy did not hesitate to attempt to correct her students when she saw them getting off the track, and I do think she was concerned over how the movement would be carried on after her death. But I also feel that practicing CS as she intended is not as difficult as you feel it is. To me, it is a matter of questioning traditions that have built up, and also paying attention to what she actually says.
As for the Manual, from my conversations with those in the MBE Library who have studied the history of the Manual in depth, I would say that the development of the Manual was really a joint project among Mrs. Eddy, The CS Board of Directors, and other Christian Scientists. Sometimes Mrs. Eddy would propose a new by-law to the Directors and they would either accept it, or tell her that they didn't think it was a good idea, or suggest alterations. Other times the Directors would send a proposed by-law that they had written to Mrs. Eddy, telling her that they thought they needed a by-law on the topic at hand, and Mrs. Eddy would either accept it, reject it, or suggest changes. Other times she would submit proposed by-laws to other Christian Scientists and weigh their opinions on the by-laws, or even solicit wording for the by-laws from them. Many by-laws came about because of specific circumstances facing the Christian Science movement at the time. Now, i believe that Mrs. Eddy saw the hand of God working in the way the CS movement developed, but I also think it is clear that she did not theologically view the question of divine inspiration in the same way that a believer in the doctrince of Biblical inerrancy views the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
Regarding the nurse and the Heimlich manuever, I think it is disgusting that the nurse would get in trouble for that. I recall once seeing a letter written by one of Mrs. Eddy's secretaries while he was employed by her, saying that if someone is severely bleeding and is not spiritually healed instantly, you do what you need to do to stop the bleeding. You don't just stand there and watch the person bleed to death!
Also, regarding people being sent off to doctors if they aren't healed quickly and their condition is deteriorating, I will say once again that it is my impression that in Mrs. Eddy's time, it was more often a case of people deteriorating under medical treatment turning to Christian Science for effective relief. But I of course don't have statistics to back that up. It is just an impression.
tmcl
tmcl
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, July 25, 2006 6:51 PM
|
|
|
|
What do you do if someone has a heart attack?
That backrub part bugs me.
Also, to what kind of "surgery" was MBE referring?
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:01 PM
|
|
|
|
But I also feel that practicing CS as she intended is not as difficult as you feel it is. To me, it is a matter of questioning traditions that have built up, and also paying attention to what she actually says.
Actually, I think that practicing your brand of CS (and I assume that it's what you feel that MBE intended) would be a LOT easier and more humane than the brand of CS that almost everyone else has grown up with. (With that said, I still would not choose to practice CS because of the doctrinal problems I have with it -- but that's a different discussion.)
Now, i believe that Mrs. Eddy saw the hand of God working in the way the CS movement developed, but I also think it is clear that she did not theologically view the question of divine inspiration in the same way that a believer in the doctrince of Biblical inerrancy views the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.
That may be true. The process you describe for coming up with the By-Laws makes a lot of sense from a practical standpoint. But I am intrigued by the statement she made to John Lathrop, in the We Knew MBE series, in which he quotes her as saying, "Every By-Law of the Manual is inspired. I did not write them any more than I wrote Science and Health. I study Science and Health constantly." This implies something a lot more "direct from God" than the process you describe, and it also explains why so many CSists get upset when they see TMC deviating from the By-Laws even on minor issues.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:16 AM
|
|
|
|
<< I will say once again that it is my impression that in Mrs. Eddy's time, it was more often a case of people deteriorating under medical treatment turning to Christian Science for effective relief. >>
Without doubt, medical science has come a long way since MBE's times. End even today, there are problems where medical science is helpless. I believe that today as in MBE's times there are people who get healed from serious medical conditions through prayer, either as MBE taught it or through prayer as it is practiced in more traditional or modern Christian churches. In that, CS - as you say contrary to MBE's teachings - only differed to the effect that it gave the spiritualized logic of "error/dream" which does not exist in reality and can be removed by understanding it and that its members did not use medical science while praying for the healing. And while I would go for any medical treatment I might need right away, I would also immediately pray for healing through whatever means God provides me.
Marion
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:32 AM
|
|
|
| | |