 Posted Saturday, August 15, 2009 4:25 PM
|
|
|
|
In The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany (pp. 318-319), Mary Baker Eddy described an exchange she had with one of the proofreaders of Science & Health:
I invited Mr. Wiggin to visit one of my classes in the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, and he consented on condition that I should not ask him any questions. I agreed not to question him just so long as he refrained from questioning me. He held himself well in check until I began my attack on agnosticism. As I proceeded, Mr. Wiggin manifested more and more agitation, until he could control himself no longer and, addressing me, burst out with:
" How do you know that there ever was such a man as Christ Jesus?"
He would have continued with a long argument, framed from his ample fund of historical knowledge, but I stopped him.
"Now, Mr. Wiggin," I said, "you have broken our agreement. I do not find my authority for Christian Science in history, but in revelation. If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me. I should still know that God's spiritual ideal is the only real man in His image and likeness." (emphasis added)
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:42 AM
|
|
|
|
| I've encountered the quote several times before, but it is interesting to know its contrext. Wiggins, we know, was a Unitarian minister. The critical biographers have Wiggins writing ("ghosting") significant portions of S&H. Loyalists, dismiss these charges, of course. Either way, it's known that Eddy needed lots of industrial editing. Interesting for the allegedly divinely-inspired SYH. Just this morning, at about 4:00 AM, I had cause to drive by the Original Edifice of TMC, and I took a moment to look at the stained glass windows (rare in CS churches). There, in the "Mother's Room," is the picture of Eddy in her garret, with that "beam of light" coming through the window to illuninate the desk upon witch (pun) she wrote. Was that light "Divine Mind"--or Wiggins? Considering the number of editions, re-writes, and changes major and minor I contend that it is an uncertain and/or erring "deity" which required more and more editorial alterations. I think the light was Wiggins. But let's remember, the subject is Eddy and the unique office (or not) of "the Galilean Prophet." (As opposed to Messiah.)
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 7:47 AM
|
|
|
|
YAY!!! You found the quote! OK, so you mentioned before that this quote is controversial in CS circles. Do they debate the accuracy of the quote, or the context? I don't know, but it is the most stark thing that I have seen so far that reveals what I feel are her true motives.
This discussion board for the organization is bringing me a lot of blessing, to know that I am not alone in the struggle that I am in as an Orthodox Christian who is in love with a woman who graduated from Prin. and lives with her CS family still. Phew!
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:35 AM
|
|
|
|
One of the key things to consider in comparing CS and the Bible is that MBE, consciously or unconsciously, founded or embraced a new religion (Metaphysics) then tried to make it "fit" the Bible and Christianity, instead of the other way around. Indeed, MBE initially called her new religion "Moral Science", not CS.
The quotation in question, Miscellany, 318:32-319:2 (“If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me.”) was a moment of candor on her part, where she admits that Jesus Christ is not necessary for a metaphysical view of man.
She had a problem, however. To advance her teachings, she had to find some way in 19th century America to persuade the world that they were Christian. People were not ready to accept the idea of leaving the Christian faith. She had to make metaphysics “fit” the Bible and Christianity somehow. Hence, the 100+ word rewrites in S&H, and “Christian Science” is born.”
I personally believe if MBE had been born 100 years later, she wouldn’t have bothered calling CS Christian. There would have been no need to, because all religions (or none at all) are quickly accepted socially in this day and age. She therefore would never have attempted to rewrite the Bible. If she had truly been intellectually honest, or courageous, she would have attempted this in her time. She was neither, however.
John
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:43 AM
|
|
|
|
Woody81,
The controversy is that by taking it out of context, the statement is inaccurate. Of course taking something out of context affects the accuracy. Problem is that I have yet to nail down the context that results in agreement on accuracy.
For me, I can imagine no context in which this statement could be accurate regarding the truthfulness of either Christian Science or Christianity. Had Jesus never existed, both would be based upon a lie. If the basis of our religion and our faith is false then our prayers are no more effective than those to Jupiter, Athena, or Horus (I hope that those who follow the ancient religions are not too offended, but it should be no surprise that I consider such gods as false).
I know that God is real as is His Son. His existence makes a difference to me regardless of context.
You mention that your fiancée is a Prin grad and living with her family of Christian Scientists. Where is she in her walk? Is she also a committed Christian Scientist or open to the Bible?
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Do_Go_Be_Man (8/18/2009)
Woody81,
The controversy is that by taking it out of context, the statement is inaccurate. Of course taking something out of context affects the accuracy. Problem is that I have yet to nail down the context that results in agreement on accuracy.
For me, I can imagine no context in which this statement could be accurate regarding the truthfulness of either Christian Science or Christianity. Had Jesus never existed, both would be based upon a lie. If the basis of our religion and our faith is false then our prayers are no more effective than those to Jupiter, Athena, or Horus (I hope that those who follow the ancient religions are not too offended, but it should be no surprise that I consider such gods as false).
Nope, not offended. You have the right to your beliefs, too.
But I find the quote very interesting, because in context, it seems to me to point to a rather pagan viewpoint on Mrs. Eddy's part. Obviously, to a Christian, accepting the existence and Christ-ship of Jesus is central to faith. To have a view of the universe that does not depend on the existence of Jesus (or Moses or Mohammed, depending on your religion) is more of a pagan viewpoint, more like the classical Greek pagan philosophers. I agree that she then tried to fit this into a Christian perspective, because it was unacceptable to most people to do otherwise -- perhaps unacceptable to her as well, since I doubt that she would ever admit or accept that she had a pagan outlook.
Very interesting.
I know that God is real as is His Son. His existence makes a difference to me regardless of context.
Of course it does, and her statement that this did NOT make a difference to her was very significant, in my opinion.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Ann and All:
This is not the first time we have had this discussion on this site. In the past, some folks still involved with CS have responded. They have said the quote has been taken out of context, but if you read the paragraphs just before and after,it in no way changes the meaning presented.On another occasion, as I recall, someone also claimed that Billy Graham had made a similar statement. I found this so unbelievable that I actually contacted the Billy Graham Association and they denied any knowledge of this via e-mail. Still others still in CS have tried to minimize this statement in Miscellany, or have just not responded (which I suppose is OK).
Anyway, I don't think there's anyway you can get around the fact that Mary Baker Eddy claimed you can have Christian Science, and therefore Christianity as she claimed to see it, without Jesus Christ. Who else who says they are Christian has ever done that?
John
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 18, 2009 5:23 PM
|
|
|
|
That statement (which I remember discussing when I was still CS, also) always meant to me that she was describing the Principle of God, the seven synonyms and all that, and that this Principle is how the universe works. God as Principle is not personal, but more like a law, like the law of gravity (which I remember being used as a simile frequently in talking about CS in Sunday School, etc.) From a standpoint like that , it could be said that if that is what God is, then God is still defined that way whether there ever was a Jesus or not. And that God was always that Principle, before Jesus and after. So it made sense to me then, it was more or less logically consistent iin that context. However, it certainly is not a Christian viewpoint (which I did not understand back then.) At least, none that I have heard of, outside CS or perhaps its offshoots.
And, far from being out of context, a statement like that actually does seem consistent with her contention that Jesus the man was separate from Christ, and Christ is the idea of sonship with God, instead of being specifically Jesus. All these statements I understand to mean that it truly did not matter to her whether Jesus existed or not, given the way she was defining God. And the way she was defining God was certainly not the traditional Christian definition. It is strange that she then defined CS as Christian (if she did it for any reason aside from, frankly, marketing), since by definition Christian religions center on Jesus Christ. From a pagan viewpoint, all gods are accepted as real, and if any of them were nonexistent it wouldn't really change anything. For example, when early 19th century missionaries explained Jesus Christ to the native Hawaiians, who were pagans, the Hawaiians liked the stories and simply added Jesus to their pantheon of 400,000 gods (to the despair of the missionaries, understandably). They didn't care whether Jesus actually existed or not, nor did they care whether any particular deity existed or not, unless that deity was specific to their family -- it wasn't central to their understanding of how the universe works. That's why I say Eddy's statements strike me as being far closer to paganism than Christianity. In fact, healing in CS seems closer to magical ritual than prayer for healing -- I remember practically chanting the Scientific Statement of Being or the hymn lyrics when I was trying to heal a problem, and chanting was frequently used in pagan healing rituals, such as Hawaiian -- they did distance healing and cursing (mental malpractice?) too. My great grandfather was native Hawaiian, so I have studied the culture and pre-European-contact beliefs.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2009 12:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Hello John, Ann, Do Go Be Man (great name...!)
I am increasingly blessed as I visit your forums. Above, you asked me:
"You mention that your fiancée is a Prin grad and living with her family of Christian Scientists. Where is she in her walk? Is she also a committed Christian Scientist or open to the Bible?"
She is a committed C. Scientist, yet willingly acknowledges with increasing frequency that she understands the claims that I have brought forth regarding the discrepancies between CS and historical Christianity. She loves Jesus. Her understanding of him is however formed by a lifelong indoctrination by her family's faith in MBE's work, and CS culture via Principia, etc. Please pray for us both, as I am at a crossroads myself in my faith and am challenged greatly at this time as I am having to carry a torch that I never thought that I would be so willingly carrying. It is a tremendous blessing in disguise for my own faith!
She noted recently that she has seen real life validation to a claim that I made that C. Scientists often quote MBE far more frequently than the Holy Bible, etc. At first, she was not open to the suggestion, but perhaps she has been seeing the situation through some new eyes for a period.
She is at a pivotal place in her walk, and in life. This all seems very exciting to be able to share with her the ability to critically examine something so dear to her and it is scary I am sure! I wish that I knew just what to say, but whatever is happening is a lot bigger than me. Our wedding has been postponed for some time, and I am sure that this is one of the big reasons that I need to take it slow.
I shared this quote with her (although she does not know about this site or that I am here...) and she is chewing hard on it. It was disturbing to her, I think. Thank you again for helping me!
God bless,
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, August 20, 2009 1:12 PM
|
|
|
|
Also, I want to add an interesting footnote.
We have been attending services at the Orthodox Church in town. The liturgy is from St. John of Chrysomtom, ca. 300AD, and Jesus (the Trinity...) is certainly the object of all worship and attention. Full of sacrament, and doctrinally sound, this tradition has been a blessing in my life. It is interesting to watch my fiancee, I will call her, open up to things which I would imagine to be the ultimate taboo for a C Scientist: ritual, iconography, the nicene creed, the communion of the body and blood of Christ (a particular point of discomfort for Scientists, and of course she does not take communion yet... she said that she is increasingly open though) and a homily (sermon) delivered by a caring and deeply loving priest who cares for us in the parish.
Perhaps the work is best left to the Holy Spirit from here on out! I honestly don't know if this is all a show by her to try and win me back and get a wedding on the books... I have my real suspicions that she might have a hard time getting over the training of her upbringing and move beyond it. Linda Kammerer's (sp?) story on this site is very touching, at some point perhaps it could be shared with my loved one. I am taking it very slow, and I find it a heavy responsibility as I witness to her that my own life and actions are to be kept in line so that I am not a hypocrite. This is how it should always be for a Christian though! Please pray for us, and thank you!
In Christ,
anonymous
|
|
|
|