 Posted Monday, June 02, 2008 9:25 PM
|
|
|
|
I just finished watching the archived webcast of today's Annual Meeting. It's late and I still have much to do tonight, but thought I'd share some notes:
The President of The Mother Church opened the meeting with readings from the Bible and writings of Mary Baker Eddy to introduce the theme of Simplicity:
Colossians 2:27 Christ
Colossians 1:3, 10
2 Corinthians 11:3, 58
Colossians 2:27 Christ
S&H 333:19-23
Ret 94:25-95:13
I plan to go back later to read the chunks of the Bible he skipped. Seemed too simple to me.
He then introduced the officers of the church:
Pastor Emeritus Mary Baker Eddy (the camera did not cut to her)
The Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ, Scientist
Treasurer of The Mother Church
First and Second Readers of The Mother Church
Outgoing President of The Mother Church
Following a video presentation by the Board taped in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the Treasurer presented his report:
Funds on hand: $496,000,000
Debt: $0
Expenditures in the last year: $113,000,000
General Fund: $165,000,000 (up $19,000,000 from last year due to increased emphasis by the Board on savings and cutting expenses)
No real comments other than it was the first Annual Meeting webcast I've listened to all the way through.
Could someone please explain to me again how I stayed in it for more than 30 years? I know I don't understand.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Do Go Be Man,
Thank you for posting the citations from Annual Meeting 2008 of the Mother Church.
While looking up the references I found that there is no verse 27 in Colossians 2,
and there is no verse 58 in 2 Cor. 11.
ElsieG
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:09 AM
|
|
|
|
ElsieG,
You're right. It was late, the verses jumped around (I was trying to record them as they were read), there was a hole in my mitt, the sun was in my eyes... I'm just plain sorry I messed up. Here are my corrections:
Colossians 1:27 Christ
Colossians 1:3, 10
2 Corinthians 11:3
1 Corinthians 15:58
Colossians 1:27 Christ
S&H 333:19-23
Ret 94:25-95:13
In a quick review, I've so far found the most interesting aspect of these passages, aside from their lack of sequence and context, to be the differences in translations of the theme verse: 2 Corinthians 11:3
The KJV refers to "the simplicity that is in Christ". Modern translations such as the ESV and NIV refer to "sincere and pure devotion to Christ".
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 03, 2008 5:39 PM
|
|
|
|
| Thanks for the references and links, Do Go. As is my practice, I read the text around the verses to see them in context. It's interesting, but not surprising, that the 2 Corinthians 11:3 reference doesn't extend to verse 4 which says, 4For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.(1 Cor 11:4, emphasis added) Could someone please explain to me again how I stayed in it for more than 30 years? I know I don't understand.
No I can't, since I didn't leave until I was 30 (maybe 30 is "the age of reason.") 
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 7:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Do go Be Man,
Many thanks for the corrected Bible references from the 2008 Annual Meeting.
I looked them up using the KJV and NIV Bibles, and as you pointed out
2 Cor. 11:3 certainly has a different emphasis in the NIV.
I have a question for those of you who are familiar with both Christian
Science and traditional Christian doctrines regarding the person/role/mission
of Jesus Christ. Do you agree with me that the role of Jesus is downplayed, and,
to my mind, diminished in C.S? If you agree, what do you think is the reason
for this? Mary Baker Eddy sometimes writes of Jesus with great reverence
and in other places in her writings she seems almost dismissive.
I have studied C.S. for many years but didn't have Class Instruction. My
consecutive reading and study of the New Testament pointed out the
marked differences in MBE's interpretation and that of traditional
Christian teachings regarding Jesus Christ.
Any light that you can shed would be apprectiated.
Elsie G.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Elsie G.,
Do you agree with me that the role of Jesus is downplayed, and, to my mind, diminished in C.S? If you agree, what do you think is the reason for this?
Yes, Christian Science downplays and diminishes the role of Jesus Christ even though the Bible is very clear regarding who Jesus is. To accept Jesus as the Bible represents Him requires acknowledging His divinity.
Christian Science teaches that Jesus was a scientist rather than divine (albeit "the most scientific man that ever trod the globe"). It would be difficult to acknowledge the actual unique role of Jesus while teaching His skills were merely lost science that could be learned and applied by anyone.
As a hypothesis, Christian Science is worth exploring though it ultimately fails. No one other than Jesus has ever demonstrated healing as consistently and reliably as He did. If Jesus' mission on Earth was one of science, I would have hoped He would have been more successful in sharing and teaching. That aspect of the record of His students doesn't establish Him as a "great Teacher". Otherwise, we should routinely experience people rising from the dead, the blind seeing, and the lame walking merely through unseeing the illusion and understanding reality. Some have claimed to "heal the sick, raise the dead, and cleanse the lepers", but I'm not aware of any Christian Scientist to claim the consistency and reliability of Jesus.
Jesus' real power, role, and mission are successful though not accurately represented by Christian Science that only provides "some glimpses of the underlying reality". I believe the Bible, one of the declared Pastors of The Mother Church, very accurately represents Jesus.
A true key to the Scriptures is understanding the Bible in context as God's word rather than rejecting those parts that are initially difficult to understand or inconvenient to a hypothesis pursued too far.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:20 AM
|
|
|
|
Do_Go_Be_Man (6/4/2008)
Elsie G.,
Yes, Christian Science downplays and diminishes the role of Jesus Christ even though the Bible is very clear regarding who Jesus is. To accept Jesus as the Bible represents Him requires acknowledging His divinity.
Christian Science teaches that Jesus was a scientist rather than divine (albeit "the most scientific man that ever trod the globe"). It would be difficult to acknowledge the actual unique role of Jesus while teaching His skills were merely lost science that could be learned and applied by anyone.
As a hypothesis, Christian Science is worth exploring though it ultimately fails. No one other than Jesus has ever demonstrated healing as consistently and reliably as He did. If Jesus' mission on Earth was one of science, I would have hoped He would have been more successful in sharing and teaching. That aspect of the record of His students doesn't establish Him as a "great Teacher". Otherwise, we should routinely experience people rising from the dead, the blind seeing, and the lame walking merely through unseeing the illusion and understanding reality. Some have claimed to "heal the sick, raise the dead, and cleanse the lepers", but I'm not aware of any Christian Scientist to claim the consistency and reliability of Jesus.
Jesus' real power, role, and mission are successful though not accurately represented by Christian Science that only provides "some glimpses of the underlying reality". I believe the Bible, one of the declared Pastors of The Mother Church, very accurately represents Jesus.
A true key to the Scriptures is understanding the Bible in context as God's word rather than rejecting those parts that are initially difficult to understand or inconvenient to a hypothesis pursued too far.
Do Go Be Man
<><
DGBM,
That's exactly what I liked about CS, though. It was more in line with the Book of Timothy view, that the light in Jesus was in all of us. I never thought that, because a bunch of old guys hundreds of years ago disagreed with Timothy, I should, too.
Also, in most of my Sunday School training, we dealt with those harder to fit into CS passages, and found ways to fit them in. There are passages in the Bible that are hard to fit into any Christian ideology, but people find ways.
G
|
|
|
Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 6:09 PM
|
|
|
|
Do Go Be Man,
Thank you for your comments regarding the mission of Jesus Christ. I have never understood
how someone who could raise the dead and, indeed, overcome death Himself, still be
just considered a great teacher who somehow expressed more of God's nature than others of His time.
Also, Mary Baker Eddy equates the Comforter or Counselor promised by Jesus with Christian Science. I suppose the Christ, as defined by MBE, is the divine aspect of Jesus' nature
that still endures. However, as I understand it, according to MBE, the Christ is an impersonal manifestation of God's nature. Jesus ascended and then in C.S. theology seems to disappear. And yet the personal Jesus appeared to both
Paul and John (Rev. l: 13-19).
As I read the New Testament in context, it confirmed my belief that Jesus Christ continues to be the personal, loving Savior of all who come to Him in faith.
ElsieG.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, June 06, 2008 8:50 PM
|
|
|
|
G,
It was more in line with the Book of Timothy view ... I never thought that, because a bunch of old guys hundreds of years ago disagreed with Timothy, I should, too.
ElsieG,
As I read the New Testament in context, it confirmed my belief that Jesus Christ continues to be the personal, loving Savior of all who come to Him in faith.
We are bound to agree on some things and disagree on others. The thing I would hope we would mutually agree upon is that the Bible is God's word. At least, that's the premise I came to believe through Christian Science class instruction. Mary Baker Eddy ordained two Pastors of The Mother Church - the Bible and Science and Health with the Bible alleged as the foundation of her writings.
From the Reform approach to Bible study, I've found the Bible to be consistent from Genesis to Revelation. Others have found the same thing from other perspectives. Some, however, have found inconsistencies and errors causing them to rely upon extra-Scriptural sources to correct their understanding.
There is evidence for which our natural human curiosity demands explanations. I studied many philosophies in between Christian Science and where I am now. At first, I could not abandon Jesus as my Great Teacher. As I came to understand what He taught and who He is, I cannot abandon Him as my Savior. Even though I constantly betray Him, He never leaves me and never will.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, June 07, 2008 10:59 AM
|
|
|
|
That's exactly what I liked about CS, though. It was more in line with the Book of Timothy view, that the light in Jesus was in all of us. G, Can you give some specific references for this? I looked through both 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy and don't see what you're referring to. EliseG, Also, Mary Baker Eddy equates the Comforter or Counselor promised by Jesus with Christian Science. I suppose the Christ, as defined by MBE, is the divine aspect of Jesus' nature
that still endures. However, as I understand it, according to MBE, the Christ is an impersonal manifestation of God's nature. Jesus ascended and then in C.S. theology seems to disappear. And yet the personal Jesus appeared to both
Paul and John (Rev. l: 13-19).
Good point. The operative word here is "defined." Mary Baker Eddy created her own definitions for all kinds of words, but her definitions don't change the real meanings of the words. Her definitions for Jesus, Christ, God, salvation, matter, substance, judgment, Holy Ghost, etc. are just that -- HER definitions. That doesn't make them right. Jesus Christ is who He is regardless of who Mrs. Eddy says He is.
|
|
|
|