 Posted Sunday, March 29, 2009 12:14 PM
|
|
|
|
I'd like to say that there are many of us in our day and age who love Christian Science for the practical application of Jesus' teachings day by day. We are held to a very high standard in the practice of Jesus' way and that is why I chose it and because it asks us to put God absolutely first in thought, word and deed. I didn't come to it to have my body healed but because it insists on the allness of God as Love. I took him at his word when he said, "The flesh profits nothing" and urged us to be born of the Spirit.
I am one of thousands of Christian Scientists who love the concept of healing through prayer and have practiced it for many years but who do feel free to choose medical treatment if their prayers don't bring physical healing. If I wanted to, I'd go tomorrow to a doctor if I felt that physician could help my physical problem. In fact, at times I have done so and have not felt hypocritical. Many of us urge our fellow church members to get whatever help they need and concentrate on the concept of Christian community in our small congregations.
I do feel deep sadness about those who felt guilty, ignored in their needs, or pressured by practitioners to "stick with it" even if they were suffering. Their anecdotes are valid. Their comments need to be listened to by the church. Christian Science should be a religion with the gift of healing, not the compulsion of custom and narrow-minded religious practice. It should not harm. Christian Science is capable of bringing loving healing to a variety of human situations through letting God resolve them with his infinite love, and that's what it's about. That is why Mrs. Eddy said,"Physical healing is the smallest part of Christian Science." She wanted us to practice Jesus's teachings "scientifically," that is day by day with provable results, and to stay away from irresponsible behavior or "congregational coercion," which is what some of you are describing. She was quite specific about that; through the years many Christian Scientists haven't listened. Through the 100 years since she died, many in our religion have forgotten the freedom, love and dedication to the Gospel that brought our religion to the forefront originally, but things are changing.
I feel Christian Science helps me follow Jesus in the most detailed and definite way; Mary Baker Eddy was one of the most dedicated Christian teachers in religious history.
Healing is, after all, a broad concept, and my fifty years of student have shown me that Jesus' way can heal any and all problems in the world. But many of us active in the faith believe there are other good ways to physical healing too and what we need is a greater spirit of mutual tolerance and brotherly (sisterly!) love.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:08 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Anonymous #15826.
I am one of thousands of Christian Scientists who love the concept of healing through prayer and have practiced it for many years but who do feel free to choose medical treatment if their prayers don't bring physical healing.
I'm glad you have a balanced attitude about the healing issue.
I feel Christian Science helps me follow Jesus in the most detailed and definite way;
My problem with CS is that it shows people how to follow Jesus as the "Wayshower" but not as the "Way." He IS the Wayshower but he is ALSO the Way -- and the only way -- to salvation. The first three chapters of Romans makes it clear all men (and women) are without excuse, that all have sinned, that good works cannot pay the penalty for sin, and that Jesus physically died as a sacrifice to pay the penalty due for sin. I recommend reading the first 3 chapters to get the whole idea, but it's summed up in Romans 3:23-25a which states:
23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through faith in his blood.
Footnotes:
a.Romans 3:25 Or as the one who would turn aside his wrath, taking away sin (emphasis added)
Notice the footnote next to the word "atonement." Atonement involves turning aside God's wrath -- not the "at-one-ment" definition that Mrs. Eddy gave it.
CS (and a lot of other religions) deny Jesus his rightful place in the Trinity and miss the true purpose of his death and resurrection -- payment for sin on our behalf. To answer the question posed in the thread title (...does it really matter what religion you are as long as you love God & Jesus), yes it does matter. Any religion that misrepresents Jesus and his mission does not teach true love for him.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Anonymous,
I appreciate your loving thoughts and I totally know where you're coming from.
I was a devoted CSist for over 30 years.I loved it and I loved MBE even though
I never felt any sense of freedom or love and I studied and prayed all the time.
Our family has been torn apart.My mother who is very ill and still waiting for her healing cut off my sister who no longer believed in the teachings of CS.I,in turn could no longer be responsible for my mother's devotion to the faith and her declining health,year in and year out.
Part of the problem with CS is that it is a perfect band -aid for people who have emotional problems and then can sweep it all under the rug and declare perfect God and perfect man.This has been my mother's answer.
I also understand your devotion to MBE because I was the same.To me she was courageous and powerful and loving.
The dark side of her character has been hidden and glossed over by the church and it is amazing all that I did not know about her.
I only ask that you think for yourself and be willing to look at the not so lovely side of it all.
The time for thinkers has come and sadly it took my 30 years to do it and venture out past the confines of CS to do my thinking.
much love to you.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 29, 2009 5:29 PM
|
|
|
|
I appreciate the spirit of open discussion on this forum. I am Aunt B. Here's a thought: many people seem to think of Christian Science as a monolithic group all accepting (blindly?) the same doctrines without hesitation.
It's not that way. Think of the situation this way: I taught at a Catholic school for some years and we attended Mass. If you looked at that congregation today at that same Mass you would see on any one pew a whole bunch of adherents with varying acceptance of doctrines and varying practice. All are trying to be Christians. You could find some who practiced birth control, one or two who doubted original sin, one or two so outraged at priestly misconduct they would leave the church the next day, some who doubted the infallibility of the Pope. And one conservative soul on that pew would be wishing for the Mass in Latin. But they're all there. Not all Baptists support the main doctrinal line; my own great-grandfather in the 1930s, a leading Baptist minister in the Midwest, was an advocate for a much more open view of Christ's love in his own church. It did come about, but after his death.
So variety of doctrinal interpretations would be there in an average small congregation of a CS church. I love it because I find a group of Christian people trying to follow Jesus as best they can. Let's look at that typical pew. Some, like me, who have studied the history of the church carefully, realize Mrs. Eddy did believe that Jesus was a "Wayshower" but also reserved a residue of belief in his divinely appointed mission to save the world from sin. They adore him for this. Some on the same pew don't think that. One person sitting there practices Christian Science healing and will never try anything else; in this typical church for every one of the old-fashioned to-the-finish sort, there are 10 more people who will appreciate other ways of physical healing and if necessary do what it takes to get well. They have read MRs. Eddy carefully and know of the 20 or more statements she made, many strong, about finding your own healing if you need to, and not holding Christian Science up to criticism and our adherents up to suffering. More and more some of us are calling for open discussion in our churches of these issues, of sharing our problems and encouraging each other, of visiting our friends in hospitals as well as offering them spiritual support and taking over casseroles. Let's don't have people exist alone and in pain is the strong mantra of this sub-movement and it is prevailing I believe.
So why did it happen that these terrible and unfortunate things happened that caused so much pain that is truly legitimate and for which those of us who care can never apologize enough for? Was it inherent in the religion? As an historian of the movement I can say no, definitely not. But the strong focus on the healing of the body took over what was a very broad call for interpretation of the Bible as a divine story of the power of God as all powerful in life. And when the healing of the body became the only thing that counted and showed how spiritual you were, a misinterpretation, then these odd pressures began.
I believe we as Christian Scientists have much to offer if we transmit how much we love, how opposed we are to needless suffering, how much we can add to the stream of living the life of Christ. The Christian Science Monitor has shown how applying the principles of Christly truth, love, appreciation of human good and seeking progress in news reporting can bring to the practical world. This is what we would have you look at as well as our failures.
I'm not sure the headquarters of churches always have the same views as their people. Christian Scientists out in the hinterland, as in any other religion, are on the firing line. Our headquarters has recently been calling us "a church of choice." Our local churches are set up democratically anyway and branches must function on their own--and they do in this day and age.
So--we are good for something! And we should be, and are I think, getting better at listening to our fellow Christians and helping all of bring about the kingdom of God on this earth--as well as in heaven.
Thanks for listening, forum.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 30, 2009 9:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Hi Aunt B!
The reason I left CS is the danger of radical reliance.If Mrs Eddy didn't really mean what she said then it's too late because countless have died needlessly in their radical reliance.
Part of the problem is the idea that CS treatment and medicine don't mix and a patient can't do both.
Who says??Somehow I doubt that that idea was conveyed to her from God! Wouldn't He want us to use all avenues to health and well-being?
I know that the church wants to appeal to modern thinkers with a new-age health and healing slant but unfortunately CS will always be "those people who don't believe in doctors..."
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:28 AM
|
|
|
|
jennifer agnes (3/23/2009)
I hope all who have left CS have found themselves a Church home. There's nothing worse than walking through life without God... without morals... without ideals to work for.
Oh, for heaven's sake. You do not need to be a church member or even a Christian in order to have morals and ideals. That is one thing that irritates me about many Christians -- the assumption that people who are not members of any particular religion are somehow immoral and without goals. Personally, I have no interest in organized religion after the super-organized upbringing in CS. Non-Christians can still be good people, you know. I'm sorry if you find this offensive, but I found YOUR statement very offensive.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:20 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Offended,
You never said whether you've left Jesus or not. That's a major concern.
The thing about a current church for you and any others who've left CS, is that it's a group of people to help you heal from the wounding you may have experienced... It's also someone to encourage you and nurture you along the way as you grow. Maybe you don't believe there's all that much to heal up from or grow after leaving CS, but there is.
Maybe you don't feel you need that kind of caring, loving family that is often in a good church experience, but the fact that you're offended leads me to see otherwise. Personally, I love having all those brothers & sisters in Christ.
In the case of my dear friend in the south, she drifted away from her (Christian) church for a long time, citing her father's good life, as reason she didn't need to be part of a church to be a good person... And she was a pretty good person. One day I mentioned to her that if she didn't need them, surely someone there needed her. It's like returning a favor, or paying it forward, if you will. Well, she went back, and only after being there a while could she see exactly HOW MUCH she was needed, and by whom - and HOW MUCH she really needed them. Isolation isn't good for any of us. It was a humbling and uplifting experience. She's glad she tried.
There's a huge difference between the world's view of "good person" and the truly blessed version that the Bible calls us to be. All mankind needs the Master's hand in shaping and purifying it. Anyone who can do a lot alone, can do even more wonderful things with God. And for those of us with limits, God's help enables us to reach past those limits and do the unimaginable, with great love, and courage. Am I so wrong to want that for you and any who feel as you do?
I spoke from experience and from deep care. I hope I don't hear any more anger from you, since I haven't done anything to wrong you. When God gave us free will, he also gave us the choice of whether to walk with him or walk away from him. There's no third alternative; and there are lots of blessings or consequences, chosen by the path you pick. I'd rather see any disillusioned ex-CSers among the blessed. I'd hate to think they'd lost even what good they'd had.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 8:40 AM
|
|
|
|
As I posted, it was irritation, not anger, and my statement in my post that I am a non-Christian means I do not consider myself a follower of Jesus. Your answer makes it clear that you only accept Christians as truly good. Evidently you think it isn't wrong to assume that I am less than good because I'm not Christian. So we'll just have to agree to disagree, won't we.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, April 01, 2009 4:47 PM
|
|
|
|
My answer needn't be twisted like that. If you read it with a loving heart, the way it was written, and with an eye for what I'm saying, you could see that I hold Christianity to be the highest of blessings, and that I'd like that for as many people as possible.
If you knew me, you wouldn't be so quick to assign such inaccurate judgements against me. I haven't had a chance to tell of my God-sent Hindu and Buddhist friends. I haven't had a chance to tell you of the research I'd done into many religions, to find elements of "truth" and it's witnesses. There's no reason to jump to accusations or irritation (if you don't want to call it anger).
The reason I think it's particularly important for ex-CSers to find something that honors God in their lives, is really simple. Nature abhors a vacuum. If you've routed out a false doctrine, that obscures the true Gospel, you've created a vacuum. It will be filled by something. If you don't choose something better to fill it with, then you're taking the chance of something worse filling that space. My brother, who never took to CS, despite being raised in it, referred to it as "a huge God-shaped hole in his heart" and could tell you the kinds of things that he tried to fill it with. Nothing fits. Nothing answers the need, or heals the vacancy, except the one for whom that space is intended. Some will resort to dark things; others, idolatry of various sorts, including self-worship and arrogance; some will be unaware that anything has filled that void, until their lives look disturbing. Other people will fill that space with the teachings that guard and guide them to the eternal home. When Jesus cast out demons, some sat and listened to him.
One of the poisons of CS is the heavy indoctrination to have no respect for Christianity. MBE criticized it harshly, along with her scathing attacks on the clergy. Part of breaking free from CS includes evaluating the things like that, which she so staunchly opposed, and seeing for yourself what the reality about them is. After believing the lies so long, don't we owe it to the wronged parties to find out the truth?
When I first left CS, I wasn't ready to listen right away to what Christians said. However, I was able to compare teachings one by one, with the Bible. It took a while to "detox" from CS. There is a type of defensiveness that clings for a while, as long as we cling to the old teachings, even subconsciously. We're used to knowing the truth and the higher explanations better than everyone else, and it's hard to come off that pinnacle. It really does take time. It takes love, more love, and more love, with all the humility available, each and every time. It isn't instant, just because we've left. For some, as with my brother, it takes time before they're ready to even look at a Christian Church with fairness. I'm sorry it happens that way, but it does. That's part of the battle scars, I suspect. He didn't want anything else shoved down his throat, for decades, either. His wife, and I, and friends were gentle, and patient; and when he finally got around to being ready, his transformation was amazing. It's worth the wait, but I'm just glad he outlived his lifestyle to get there. Not everyone does. It isn't enough just to leave CS. One has to get out of the quicksand thinking that held them in it so long.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, April 02, 2009 12:51 PM
|
|
|
|
| Jennifer Agnes, I am truly happy for you that you have found the right path for escaping Christian Science and its evils. But your path is not everyone's path. This board should not be your pulpit where you can come and tell everyone, at great length, exactly how they are to recover from the wounds of their experience with Christian Science, and that they are wrong, immoral or whatever... if they do not believe exactly as you do. You are quick to chastize others for their objections to your inferences but you should closely examine your own words, they are extremely patronizing. Square Peg
|
|
|
|