 Posted Monday, March 02, 2009 5:31 PM
|
|
|
|
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 1975 or 1976 edition, even has Mary Baker Eddy's definitions in it, so she actually DID change the language to her liking. I was told to buy that edition in 1976 to use for class instruction. I checked and the current online version still has those definitions, shown as, for example, for "love", it has the English definitions, and then "Christian Science (capital L)" and then the definition from S&H.
I did not find it strange at the time, but now -- does anyone know how the church actually got the dictionary to publish Mrs. Eddy's definitions, and thus authorize them? Does that mean anyone who feels like it can just rewrite the dictionary to suit their definitions? Wonder just how big a church has to be to have their definitions included in the dictionary? Or is the CS church the only one that ever tried to so radically change language?
Weird.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:20 AM
|
|
|
|
Hey John,
I appreciate the time it took you to write this long response, and I think you deserve a response, although I find it hard to believe you will really appreciate what you get in return, even though you say you will, since I can’t really agree with anything you’ve had to say. I will do my best to tell you why, but I’m not sure I will be allowed enough space to answer all of your points, so let’s just see how it goes…
First, I do not “know,” as you say, that Mrs. Eddy changed the meanings of key words in the English dictionary. She has a glossary in her Key to the Scriptures because in it she gives what she believes to be the spiritual ideas the material things described in the Bible were meant to represent. That is not the same thing as rewriting the dictionary at all. That is attempting to explain her personal revelation to the world. You don’t have to accept that “river” when used in the Bible means “divine science” or that “death” means “an illusion, the lie of life in matter” etc. if you don’t want to. Mrs. Eddy says that “substitution of the spiritual for the material definition of a Scriptural word OFTEN elucidates the meaning of the inspired writer” (S&H 579). That is her belief and she certainly has a right to say what she thinks those spiritual definitions are. That doesn’t change the meaning of the words in the dictionary; it just adds another one to them, or, at least, gives another way to think about them in a metaphorical sense. And it isn’t like this kind of thing never happens outside of CS. Words take on new meanings all the time and texts take on new readings or interpretations all the time because people look at the words that are there and think, “Hey, what if when the author said _____, she really meant ______? That is how English scholars make their living, by thinking deeply about the meanings behind the words of literary texts and developing new interpretations or readings. As a graduate student in English, I am very familiar with the practice. Therefore, even though I am fairly sure you don’t intend to be, I find your contention, and not Mrs. Eddy’s actions, a bit preposterous, arbitrary, and tinged with intellectual dishonesty. From my perspective, Mrs. Eddy was completely upfront about what she was doing and why she was doing it. That is intellectual honesty in my book.
Your argument that if one can “arbitrarily” change the meanings of words, one can make a text mean anything one wants it to doesn’t hold water for me either. First of all, everyone does that all the time already. People make the Word in the Bible mean whatever they want it to by reading it with a particular ideology in mind. You make it mean what you think it should mean and I do the same. Second, word meanings are never fixed – this is something else I know as an English scholar. Definitions are, however, socially constructed, which means that an individual can never just go and change the definitions of words on his or her own. Words’ meanings change when one or more social groups agree to use them in a new way. Mrs. Eddy presented her view in her book of what these words meant to her as she was inspired to read her Bible, but it wasn’t until the hundreds of thousands of Christian Scientists agreed to think of them in this way in this context (or at least to consider this as a possible interpretation – remember, she said often, not always) that these words actually could be said to sometimes have these meanings. So, if she did literally change these definitions, it was only because she convinced very many people that thinking of these meanings as associated with these terms made sense.
If I had written a work about real people and utilized words whose definitions are commonly accepted to relate particular events or teachings (as the Apostles did in the New Testament), what right would you or anyone else have to change the meaning of those words to come up with an entirely different series of events or teachings?
My answer is that you have every right. And, again, I have two reasons for saying so. First of all, people do that all the time. How many times has a version of Romeo and Juliet been made into a book, a film, or a play? Yet very often those stories don’t end with the principles’ death and the message of the story is completely changed. It’s okay. If they change my story, then it is no longer my story – it is their story. And it is their story whether they attribute it to me or not. Second, even when someone reads Romeo and Juliet in the original text (well, we can’t read the original, hand-written versions, but we can read printed copies of them), they infuse slightly different meanings to the words because their working definitions of words are all influenced by different experiences in which they’ve encountered the words in prior texts or contexts. We all, in other words, have in some respects, our own definitions of words and when we read someone else’s words we never get the exact same meaning from them as the author intended them to have. The one possible exception to this that I can envision is God’s Word, which He can certainly communicate to us through the Bible without His ideas being twisted by personal verbal experiences. However, I still think it is possible for God to communicate His exact message to me and His exact message to you with a particular passage and for those two messages to be different! In other words, the Bible holds the Truth for you and the Truth for me – whatever we need to know is revealed to us through those precious pages. But what you need to know may be different from what I need to know, and only God knows what we need to know. So I am going to trust Him to reveal His meaning to me as I read and to reveal His meaning to you as you read, and I am not going to worry about whether you have the “right” reading or not.
See the next post for the rest...
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:21 AM
|
|
|
|
I totally disagree that Mrs. Eddy embraced a new religion (Metaphysics) and then tried to make it "fit" the Bible and Christianity, instead of the other way around. Mrs. Eddy studied her Bible her whole life. When she was healed (while reading her Bible) she wanted to understand how that happened. She then studied her Bible for several more years in order to clearly understand the connection between what she had been reading all this time and the healing. So what if she initially called her discovery "Moral Science"? It doesn’t change the fact that it was founded on the works of Jesus and the teachings of the Bible.
And this thing about Mrs. Eddy saying Jesus Christ was not needed to embrace her teachings is just wrong, John. I’ve read Miscellany plenty of times and if you read that passage in full (and the rest of her writings for that matter), it is abundantly clear that she is not saying this at all. This particular statement says plainly that she is responding to an agnostic who was visiting one of her classes and who became upset because she was attacking agnosticism (so, clearly, she did not find it appropriate for students in her classes to be agnostic!), and she was responding to his question, which was, “How do you know that there ever was such a man as Christ Jesus?” And she answered that his point was irrelevant because even if someone could prove that Christ Jesus had never existed (which, of course, they couldn’t since he did, but if they could), it still wouldn’t make her an unbeliever because she knew the truth of Jesus’ teachings from way down deep in the soul of her very being. So, even if a person such as Jesus had never existed (which, of course, he had, but even if he hadn’t) she would still be a follower of Jesus Christ. The fact is that Jesus, his teachings, and hi embodiment of the Christ Spirit are absolutely fundamental to Christian Science. There would be no Christian Science without Christ Jesus and Mrs. Eddy never for a second doubted that fact. There are 333 different paragraphs that mention Jesus by name in Science and Health, most of them several times. That’s because Jesus’ work and teachings are integral to an understanding of Christian Science.
Mrs. Eddy was not writing a book that would appeal to typical 19th century America. Typical 19th century Americans were inured in traditional Protestantism and not at all interested in any religious or philosophical views that differed from their own. Simply rewriting Science and Health and adding a glossary is not what convinced hundreds of thousands to pursue an understanding of her Christian Science. It was the fact the Christian Science filled a void that traditional Christianity would not and could not fill.
Mrs. Eddy was the ultimate Christian. You may believe what you choose, of course, but I have no doubt that if Mrs. Eddy lived today she would be the standard bearer of Christianity in this age. Honestly, if you carefully study Science and Health, you will find Mrs. Eddy points her students always back to the example of Christ Jesus. According to Mrs. Eddy, he is the wayshower. He is the anointed one, the divinely royal man. He is our Master. He is the cornerstone upon which Christian Science was built and upon which it continues to stand.
As far as your quote from Galatians goes, I don’t think Science and Health preaches another gospel at all. It preaches that the gospel IS the gospel and that it behooves us all to study and embrace it.
So, I’m guessing I’ve turned you off by now, but that was not my intention. This is just my honest response to your views.
Thanks for listening (if, indeed, you have!)
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:11 AM
|
|
|
|
If I had written a work about real people and utilized words whose definitions are commonly accepted to relate particular events or teachings (as the Apostles did in the New Testament), what right would you or anyone else have to change the meaning of those words to come up with an entirely different series of events or teachings?
My answer is that you have every right. And, again, I have two reasons for saying so. First of all, people do that all the time. How many times has a version of Romeo and Juliet been made into a book, a film, or a play? Yet very often those stories don’t end with the principles’ death and the message of the story is completely changed. It’s okay. If they change my story, then it is no longer my story – it is their story. And it is their story whether they attribute it to me or not. (emphasis added)So you think it's OK to revise history. I find that very disturbing. When I read a historical account I want to know what really happened -- not what someone decided to turn into his or her own version of what happened. Today's journalists are great at revising history as they report it, and I resent that. Christ Jesus. According to Mrs. Eddy, he is the wayshower. He is the anointed one, the divinely royal man. He is our Master. Yes, she's right about these things. But any teaching that denies the deity of Jesus is blasphemous.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 04, 2009 1:58 PM
|
|
|
|
| In each of the four New Testament Gospels, Jesus identifies himself differently, according to each writer and also each writer also differently identifies, in Jesus' words, His purpose here on earth. What does Christian Science identify as Jesus' purpose on earth and how does Christian Science define or describe Jesus?
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 04, 2009 2:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous:
I want to thank you for reading my post, and for taking the time to reflect and answer it. I appreciate this very much.
Rather than respond to your response on a point by point basis (although I certainly could), let me say that I'm sure much of what I shared probably seems outrageous. I think I can speak for others also who are active on this site in saying there was a time when I/we would have had a similar reaction and responded in the way you did.
In my own case, I was a third generation family member to attend a branch church of TMC. Mrs. Eddy's word was literally Gospel. There was simply no way she could be wrong. After all, we had our healings. Didn't that prove that Mrs. Eddy was right about everything? 'End of story.
But, just for a moment, consider the idea that she could have been wrong. For example, have you ever read the New Testament cover to cover, just as it was written? I'm not sure I ever met anyone in CS who had, and I didn't do this my self until the summer of 1977. What I discovered was that Mrs. Eddy did not provide a "Key" to the scriptures at all. She instead closed them by ignoring large parts in S&H, or rewriting (via her new word definitions) those parts which she couldn't ignore or agree with. The result was both a whole different historical account and message than the authors intended.
Was this hard to accept? Absolutely. Just look at the struggles-past and present of the folks who post here. Is is the truth? Yes, and it has set us free.
If you have not done so, please consider reading the New Testament page by page without a Science and Health handy. You will discover something wonderful which is much different.
May God Bless,
John
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks John. I can see that you are a very nice and sincere person. It's interesting, though, that our experiences are almost polar opposites. I actually have read the New Testament through, many times now, actually, but the first time I did it was because I had decided that CS couldn't possibly be right and I set out to prove that CS was not supported by the Bible. However, the more I read, the more I found that it was fully supported and that, in fact, Mrs. Eddy was the only one who tried to make sense of things like how a person could be the son of God and God himself at the same time and other ideas that traditional religions had no explanation for and said we just have to believe it without understanding it.
If you think you've found the truth, John, then I'm fine with that - be happy. But as for me, well, I've done my due diligence and I'm satisfied that I've found the Truth in CS.
All the best to you
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 08, 2009 5:42 AM
|
|
|
|
I was also in the same shoes as our Anonymous friend, for the better part of 28 years. I checked everything MBE said, against the Bible, and it all fit just fine. Then someone got through to me on the point of who Jesus was. The Christians weren't so wrong as I had been taught. I couldn't argue with it, or deny it, and I wouldn't dream of it. What convinced me? It was a little book, written by Josh McDowell, called "More than a Carpenter." It's simply put, and enough to get a person to reassess even a "well-proved" argument against Jesus' true position. I'd strongly recommend it. Even KJV translation backs it up completely. I know CS endeavors to wipe out anything that attests to Jesus' divinity. It isn't possible - and MBE couldn't quite do it. When you take a Bible verse about God, and substitute "Jesus" for "God" THAT's virtually the same thing as calling Jesus God, isn't it?
I could give you specifics, if you're interested. When MBE used the words from the Bible, whether or not she remembered to put the quotation marks, it's still quoting, and the original should be consulted. I'm not just talking about short phrases, or questionable situations, either. S & H 20:24-32 contains a quote from Hebrews 12:1 (1-2). MBE omitted the name Jesus, and substituted the name God (by use of her synonyms). She was using the thing to refer to God. It refers to Jesus originally. I could give you plenty more, since I found 98 such unintentional admissions in S&H.
Have fun researching these things, in the name of Truth. It's important to be loyal to God's reality. It isn't as important to stay tight to a person's interpretation. Never leave God!
With love, in Christ, Jen
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 08, 2009 6:22 AM
|
|
|
|
jennifer agnes,
When MBE used the words from the Bible, whether or not she remembered to put the quotation marks, it's still quoting, and the original should be consulted.
I've mentioned from time to time that one of the things I like about the confession of faith and catechism of my church is the use of Scriptural proof texts. The Bible is always the authoritative source for any doctrine, however, the confession and catechism serve as useful summaries. BTW, I study the Bible, not the confession or catechism.
Mary Baker Eddy claimed the Biblical foundation of Christian Science. Yet, as you noted she altered Biblical passages to suit her own needs. If I were merely a retired researcher or such, I would find it interesting to attempt to add Biblical proof texts to Science & Health. I doubt, however, if I would get very far before giving up in utter frustration. My hypothesis is that the most ardent, knowledgeable, academically-inclined Christian Science teacher would find the task nearly as frustrating (perhaps more).
With proof texts, we'd be able to compare conclusions and determine for ourselves the Biblical basis of any given teaching. It would also be interesting to collect Biblical comparisons such as what you cite regarding Hebrews:
Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. - Hebrews 12:1-2 (ESV)
Shortly after the passage of Science & Health you referenced comes the trip to California analogy marginally noted as "Inharmonious travellers":
"If my friends are going to Europe, while I am en route for California, we are not journeying together. We have separate time-tables to consult, different routes to pursue. Our paths have diverged at the very outset, and we have little opportunity to help each other. On the contrary, if my friends pursue my course, we have the same railroad guides, and our mutual interests are identical; or, if I take up their line of travel, they help me on, and our companionship may continue." - S&H 21:14-24
Christian Scientists going one way and Christians going another is perhaps one of Mary Baker Eddy's most insightful moments. Perhaps by them traveling East and Christians traveling West, we'd eventually meet again some place. Not always so sure though. I'd very much like them to take up the Christian line of travel that they may helped along their journey and that our companionship may continue.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 08, 2009 3:06 PM
|
|
|
|
| Hi Anonymous, You are right that Mrs. Eddy did not start with metaphysics and then tried to make Christianity fit. However, she still infused metaphysics into her Christianity, and in doing so ran afoul of the Gospel. You say that Mrs. Eddy is the ultimate Christian and that if she were alive she would be the standard bearer for this age. That statement in itself tells us quite alot about where you are at with CS. Jesus is the true ultimate Christian and his Apostles are still viewed to be the standard bearers throughout all ages. Check out Church history...Peter, Paul, John, James...they have been gone for roughly 2,000 years now, but they still have been universally recognized as the standard bearers of Christianity for these last 2,000 years. You are implying that death has caused Mrs. Eddy to lose that position after only a 100 year absence. Jesus' work has stood the test of time. Time will tell if Mrs. Eddy is either the ultimate Christian or the true standard bearer. You also said,"I actually have read the New Testament through, many times now, actually, but the first time I did it was because I had decided that CS couldn't possibly be right and I set out to prove that CS was not supported by the Bible. However, the more I read, the more I found that it was fully supported and that, in fact, Mrs. Eddy was the only one who tried to make sense of things like how a person could be the son of God and God himself at the same time and other ideas that traditional religions had no explanation for and said we just have to believe it without understanding it." Mrs. Eddy was not the only person in history to try to make sense out of the Bible, and she did not make sense out of that any better than those who went before her. For all her study she still came away saying Jesus was the closest thing to God without actually being God. You mentioned some of them...wayshower, anointed, divinely royal man, master. These are descriptions of Jesus, but they don't go the next step and call him God. The problem is the Bible says point blank that Jesus is in fact God Almighty...not just a close ray off the sun. Take 2 Peter 1:1, "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" and Titus 2:13 "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." In Greek, the terms God" and "Saviour" both refer to Jesus Christ. Jesus is God. If you want to look this up further the grammatical rule is known as the Granville Sharp rule. Think about this Anonymous...two Apostles who knew Jesus personally said that Jesus was in fact God. Mrs. Eddy who also claims to be one of God's anointed says he isn't. Who should we believe? Peter and Paul or Mrs. Eddy? CS is, for sake of argument say, 85% correct...but it's that other 15% that causes the trouble. If NASA was only 85% correct in their flight path calculations for the moon shots, our astronauts would be sailing outside the solar system by now because they would have missed the moon. Same thing with salvation, CS leaves people fairly wide of God's path to everlasting life. The Gospel the Bible speaks about is "Jesus is Almighty God." Mrs. Eddy never preached that. Therefore she is preaching another Jesus and another gospel. Jim
|
|
|
|