 Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:47 AM
|
|
|
|
| I resigned my membership in a branch church several years. Nobody ever told me that anything bad would happen to me if I left. I have never heard anyone say this. Maybe that was the belief many many years ago but I think since so many people have dropped out of CS and they aren't getting that many newcomers, that superstition has died. But, I also must say CS is pretty clannish. Although there isn't the amount of socialization you find in other churches, the small numbers they have seem to be very tightly knit families. It is possible to study the bible and Science and Health, practice Christian Science successfully without the superstitions and impediments of the church establishment. Many people who have left the church are doing this today.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2003 5:55 AM
|
|
|
|
The previous post said, "the small numbers they have seem to be very tightly knit families."
I'm a pretty quiet and demure person, but when I read this, I about went ballistic. I would probably have stayed with the church if this were true. I often joked with my kids that I could get into and out of a CS church with out anyone saying a word to me! And that was even true for the churches where I was a member!!!!!
Tightly knit families???? Man, I must be hanging out with the wrong crowd. The CS churches I've visited do NOT meet that representation.
Dr. James Dobson said that when people go looking for church, it's not the sermon or the hymns or the comfy pews that they seek; church goers have ONE question ----> Do I feel loved and wanted here? The rest is details.
I'm sorry to say I did not feel loved within the CS church. I felt more love alone in my room studying the Bible than I ever felt in the church.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:50 PM
|
|
|
|
I agree with not feeling any "love" in a Christian Science church. It's funny to see the quotation "God is Love" in their churches. Every service wherever you go is the same. They talk about their services being " inspired". I've never felt any of that "inspiration".
It's the smaller churches (and there are plenty of them around) who have fewer than 50 members where you'll find the family clans. You won't see what's going on from the outside until you become an "active" member. I served as a member of the Board of one of these branch churches and as soon as I saw who was running the place, it was time for me to leave. It was not democraticly run at all.
I think everyone has a different experience in CS, especially for those who are newly coming into it and those who have recently left it. As the church changes, which is it, relaxing many of its policies, like being free of medical care for church membership eligibility, and many branch churches are no longer instituting this policy, you'll see fewer people like yourself who felt CS was a cult and finding it a more open place to come and go as they choose. In fact, what the Mother Church is doing now as its reaches out to newcomers is alienating its longtime members. Anyone can take the Primary Class Instruction! They feel CS is for everybody!
In general all of the CS churches I've visited all across the US (and even in Canada) have never asked me who I am on my first visit. After a Sunday or Wednesday service it's been rare to find someone who has said "hello" to me. It's only when I started showing up regularly that they started to get more friendly with me. I think it's because in CS they don't believe in proselytizing. I think the "new" Mother Church wants the branch churches to be more inviting. And so it's asking the branch churches to try on a new face.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, June 04, 2003 2:55 PM
|
|
|
|
This discussion is quite interesting and I would like to share my experience:
I found CS when I was 27, soon joined the Mother Church, had class instruction and then joined the local branch church. In 1999 I left the branch church (1. because it was dull and 2. because I needed more time to study the bible and S&H after a busy work day and resigned from my church jobs which met with open hostility as I should have put "God first") and only 3 weeks ago I canceled my Mother Church membership (because through the bible studies and attending a women's conference from a friend's church I found that Jesus is the Christ and our Saviour and gave him my life).
Regarding church: I've only been a member of one branch church. There you certainly had the "clans". I was very welcome to join, to take up posts etc. but that was it. General opinion was that we should look to the spiritiual cause and not to human ties. I always felt that my husband who was not a CS and never attended church was a reason that I was not so welcome in the CS circle. When I left the church I got a few phone calls, some nice and sympathetic, the others nice but suggesting that I better stay under the protective umbrella of the church and take time out for a few weeks ...
Concerning the initial question: was I afraid as I left the church? Not initially. But as there were some rough times I thought "maybe I should have stayed under the 'protective umbrella', maybe that lady was right? I dismissed these thoughts, and I was still a member of the mother church and attended the association days. Since I've recognized Jesus as my saviour I know He is the best protection I can ever find.
Cancelling the Mother church membership is a "formality". I see so many differences between S&H and the bible that I cannot honestly stay. But it has taken me a very long time to stop feeling guilty for being sick, for not healing it, etc. Since Monday I am having a flue with some temperature. And for the first time in years I take good care of my body, relax, while I am not feeling ok, take many breaks. I am so glad that I no longer wonder what I did to attract it, why I cannot heal it, pretend that I'm fine when I'm not, or study S&H to fine that glorious sentence that will bring the necessary understanding. I am sure I'll be fine in a few days, just as it took about a week when I was a CS, with or without practitioner!
Another thing that I am just now slowly detecting and getting rid of: I feel guilty when my husband's sick! Guilty that I may have added to his sickness with my thoughts and guilty that I didn't clear my thinking well enough for him to be healed.
That brings me to a point that was about the least understandable to me: we were always told not to pray for someone else unless we were asked. The bible is full of verses that tell us to pray for our brothers and sisters in need! Whilst in CS, I did not one single time pray for my husband. Because he never asked me. I am utterly ashamed of that now!
The last time I had employed a CS practitioner I attended a women's conference at my friend's church (reborn Christians). At that time I went through what I consider the worst problems and year of my life. I was amazed at the love and abundantly offered prayers from all sides. It suddenly clicked "he, this is how it should be. There is something wrong with the system of practitioners and with taking money for prayer". That was when I stopped working with the practitioner.
However, in general my need for prayer from a practitioner is just no longer there. Now that I've got to know God as seeing everything and as I can tell Him about the problem - I can pray much better. And while my prayers as a CS were usually without answers, since I have accepted Jesus as my Saviour I get answers constantly
Textwitte@mefadi.de
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2003 11:26 AM
|
|
|
|
I never once heard anyone use the the term "protective umbrella" of the church when I used to be a member. One woman who left the Boston church and became a member of the Plainfield Christian Science Church Independent at www.plainfieldhealingthoughts.com told me the Mother Church kept calling her asking her to reconsider her resignation. But she told them she was perfectly happy with the Plainfield church and would not consider reuniting with the Mother Church.
Many Christian Scientists are in doubt about who to pray about. The answer to your question is to do what makes the most sense to you. All Christian Scientists are told to pray for their communities, their church, and the world. Now, how many people in Iraq have told Christian Scientists to pray for them, yet Christian Scientists are praying for them. Therefore, if your spouse needs prayer, you pray. I've done this for people in hospitals, people I see when driving by who may be injured, and definitely for pets. I've never had a goldfish tell not to pray (or to pray for it) and even if I did pray for the little fellow, I was not violating the goldfish's right. I was just expressing my love for this dear creature. I'd do that for anyone.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:07 PM
|
|
|
|
| Yes, that's what I am doing now, pray for whoever I feel I should pray. But I would no longer call myself a Christian Scientist as I feel the need to follow the bible - and CS is not exactly in line with that.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, September 30, 2006 8:20 AM
|
|
|
|
This is a quick reply to some of the concerns expressed on this thread.
It's superstition to believe that one's protection lies in one's name being on some church's computer database. Mary Baker Eddy never taught such a thing and in fact she was reluctant to start a church in the first place. Our protection is from God who loves each one of us, and the need is to "watch" as Jesus taught, to allow only God's thoughts into our consciousness. All Christians should do this.
From a CS perspective our human experience is like a film on a video screen. The DVD in the video recorder determines what is on the screen. You wouldn't go up to the screen and try to change the image by sticking tape on the screen or something like that. You would change the disk in the video recorder, perhaps by taking out the horror film and putting in something more uplifting. The DVD could be compared to our thoughts. Our experience represents what we have allowed into thought, whether consciously or unconsciously. That is why it is vital to watch what we let into thought.
If God knew anything about pain or suffering, He would be lacking in compassion because it would mean He chose not to exercise His all-power to heal it. But God is almighty and wholly good, consequently pain and suffering are unreal. To the extent that we realize this, we will literally real-ize it in our experience. That is how God's healing power has been manifest, from Jesus on (and even before Jesus, if you look at the healings in the Old Testament).
To put Christian Science healing into practice, some level of familiarity with the essential teachings of *Science and Health* by Mary Baker Eddy is needed.
It is true that Christian Scientists do not normally pray in a focussed sense for a specific individual, unless they are requested to do so. They believe that prayer works through the spiritual alteration of thought, and consequently that it would be wrong to go in and re-arrange someone's mental furniture without being asked. (In the same way, it would be inappropriate to go into someone's house without an invitation and get rid of all their old furniture and move in new things.) On the other hand Christian Scientists do--of course--pray in a general sense for their church, their home, their family and the world. The difference is in the degree of focus and specificity involved.
Christian Science practitioners do charge for their work. Unfortunately it is virtually a full-time job keeping one's thinking clear enough to be able to heal on demand, particularly in these days of extreme mental pollution. Most practitioners are not independently wealthy, and mortgage providers, utilities and shops are in the habit of asking to be paid with money rather than prayer! Having said that, I have never come across a CS practitioner whom I would say was in it for the money.
The position of some people posting on this board is that Christian Science is some kind of cult; yet it is also criticised for coolness towards attenders. You can't have it both ways! Cults are notorious for "love-bombing" lonely people (making them feel wanted for perhaps the first time in their lives, and thereby making them emotionally dependant on the cult) and also for proselytising. Christian Science studiously avoids doing either of these things--and is then criticised for being "unloving" and stand-off-ish (as well as being a cult!) Do Christian Scientists sometimes get the balance wrong between the desiderata of human affection on the one hand, and avoiding "personal sense" or manipulation on the other? No doubt they do, and maybe the pendulum needs to swing back towards a more spontaneously affectionate, less uptight welcome for visitors.
A Christian Science service might be compared to a symphony. A person could go to a symphony concert and might perhaps be concerned at the coolness of the welcome by the usher, be taken aback at the bizarre gesticulations of the conductor and the actions of the orchestra, admire (or criticise) the clothes of the audience, admire (or criticise) the architecture, etc. All of these responses might, or might not, have some validity. But they would be essentially irrelevant, because the only really relevant thing going on was the music. Similarly, the only real point of a CS service is spiritualization of thought and healing. All the other things are secondary details.
The issue of the relationship between CS and the Bible is the focus of discussion elsewhere on this board.
I hope the above remarks are of help in clarifying some of the issues.
Erol
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, September 30, 2006 8:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Cults are notorious for "love-bombing" lonely people (making them feel wanted for perhaps the first time in their lives, and thereby making them emotionally dependant on the cult) and also for proselytising. Christian Science studiously avoids doing either of these things
That's true, Erol. But a few years ago I wrote a book examining CS in light of Robert J. Lifton's criteria for thought reform. (By the way, I dislike the in-your-face title imposed by my publisher.) My book shows that, while CS doesn't use the obvious external controls imposed by cults and other overly-controlling groups, it does gain control of people's minds through internal controls inherent in the teachings. It's pretty sophisticated.
It's a fact that many people who leave CS feel like they have "opened themselves up to mental suggestion" and, as a result, feel very vulnerable to danger.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 01, 2006 2:38 AM
|
|
|
|
Linda,
Actually, you'll be surprised but in a way I agree with you! I think there are elements in all organizational structures that tend to foster mind-control, personality and "group-think". I think Mary Baker Eddy tried to minimize such tendencies, but it appears she was not entirely successful, certainly from reading some of the messages on this discussion board.
It is possible for CS to have a detrimental effect on people who don't read anything else and don't question their own beliefs. But I think those two things are the basic problem, not CS itself. And in fact they apply to other groups as well, including fundamentalist Christian groups. The basic mistake is to start off from the premise "I am right" rather from the premise "I may be right".
However, I don't think that whatever mental pressure some Christian Scientists feel under to conform, is equal to that of those involved in other Christian groups. A person leaving CS might feel they were leaving themselves open to some health problems or whatever. A person leaving fundamentalism is on the road to hell (or so they believe). Which is the stronger pressure to conform? A no-brainer.
Erol
<< Cults are notorious for "love-bombing" lonely people (making them feel wanted for perhaps the first time in their lives, and thereby making them emotionally dependant on the cult) and also for proselytising. Christian Science studiously avoids doing either of these things
That's true, Erol. But a few years ago I wrote a book examining CS in light of Robert J. Lifton's criteria for thought reform. (By the way, I dislike the in-your-face title imposed by my publisher.) My book shows that, while CS doesn't use the obvious external controls imposed by cults and other overly-controlling groups, it does gain control of people's minds through internal controls inherent in the teachings. It's pretty sophisticated.
It's a fact that many people who leave CS feel like they have "opened themselves up to mental suggestion" and, as a result, feel very vulnerable to danger. >>
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 01, 2006 6:25 AM
|
|
|
|
Erol,
The basic mistake is to start off from the premise "I am right" rather from the premise "I may be right".
As I've mentioned recently a couple of other times, I start with the premise that God and His word are right. I abandoned the premise that MBE and her word are necessarily right. I look for truth, not error, in God's word. I test any truth I may find elsewhere against God's word. Rather than filter God's word through other works, I filter other works through God's word.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but God is where I put my exclusive faith. I pray that the Holy Spirit leads us along the hard path through the narrow gate.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
|