 Posted Friday, October 02, 2009 10:23 AM
|
|
|
|
E100
Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 49
Announcement about Persuading others to reject medical care thread
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thread Persuading others to reject medical care has been removed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by E100 : Yesterday at 01:22 PM.
A man from England asked a question on the CS website about whether Christian Scientists persuade others to reject medical care. The responses that came back were very interesting and varied. What I found interesting however, was the E100, the Super Moderator, removed the discussion thread. What do you all make of this? And if you watched the discussion thread what were your take aways?
Happy and Healthy in the Midwest
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 02, 2009 10:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Happy and Healthy in the Midwest,
What I found interesting however, was the E100, the Super Moderator, removed the discussion thread. What do you all make of this?
Depends on the reason he removed the thread. E100 has sent me numerous warnings about my posts on their site. I have a bad habit of citing the Bible to support my contributions. The Bible appears to be pretty controversial and alien to them. That was the major reason I left Christian Science.
We've archived old threads on this site when the level of activity drops off to make room for fresher material. I also considered archiving threads such as some recent ones that strayed well off topic and ultimately contributed little to the discussions at hand (didn't do it though).
Could also be that they needed to cover some legal issue. That's between them and their attorneys. Web forums generally have no obligation to publish everything submitted.
As much as I'm tempted to do so, I do not archive or fail to approve posts simply because they represent a particular point of view. I heard some chortles out there, but we are clear regarding the expectations for content on this site. Lying, misrepresentation, and grievous disrespect for other posters largely represent the limits. We just happen to be more relaxed about them than sites such as christianscience.com.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 02, 2009 11:38 AM
|
|
|
|
| Part of the discussion (the first part) is still viewable as a cached document if you Google it. (you can't hide anything from the internet!!) It appears the poster who asked the question, named "seeker" was newly registered to the site (22 Sep 09) and has no other postings on their site yet. The user account itself has not been removed, and was active reading posts on the site today. I can't tell from the context available whether seeker was advocating this activity or just fishing for some anti-medical responses or was he just curious about the practice? I don't think CS formally and officially persuades others to reject medical care. (Officially, I think the current position, is that health care decisions are a personal choice.) But the common practice of denying CS treatment to anyone who chooses medical care tends to discourage church members from even trying the medical route. It is more of a "passive" persuasion than an active persuasion.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 02, 2009 12:00 PM
|
|
|
|
FAQs on christianscience.com address the question:
Is it true that Christian Scientists don’t take medicine?
Generally, a Christian Scientist’s first choice is to rely on prayer for healing, and in most cases, this means that a medical remedy is unnecessary.
There is no biblical or church mandate to forgo medical intervention, nor do Christian Scientists believe that it’s God’s will that anyone suffer or die. A Christian Scientist’s decision to rely on prayer comes from trust, not blind faith, in God, and from a conviction that God’s care continues under every circumstance.
As they claim, there is no documented mandate for Christian Scientists to forgo medical care. Of course, if you do, in most Christian Science communities with which I have experience, you will be shunned, talked about behind your back, and assumed to be someone who doesn't understand ("poor dear, not a very good Scientist, don't you know"). Doesn't matter, by the way, whether you are a new student or long term Christian Science teacher.
I'm reminded of a story told about Erwin Canham, former managing editor and editor of The Christian Science Monitor. He was to be interviewed in his office by a reporter with apparently little knowledge of the mores of Christian Science. As the interview began, the reporter asked, "Mind if I smoke in your office?" Canham reportedly responded, "No, not at all... of course, no one ever has."
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Friday, October 02, 2009 7:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Do Go Be Man wrote:
there is no documented mandate for Christian Scientists to forgo medical care. Of course, if you do, in most Christian Science communities with which I have experience, you will be shunned, talked about behind your back, and assumed to be someone who doesn't understand
I recently left CS this year. During the past 15 years that I was involved in CS no one acted in this way that I knew of. No one ever shunned anyone who sought medical care that I know of. And, you will NOT find this sort of behavior in the church today. What I found was a lot more use of medical treatment than CS prayer, especially among the younger participants. I won't call them "adherents". In many countries including Canada, France, and Germany you have limited, if any, rights to practice CS healing. In some states including West Virginia, your children have to get inoculated. Massachusetts and a few other states have Universal Health care which requires CSers to get health insurance whether they use it or not.
I do know that the shunning of people who sought medical care that you speak of happened to a great extent over 20 or more years ago. One woman I know today who volunteers in her Reading Room refuses to become a member of her local CS church because her mother was fired over 30 years ago from her job as a Reading Room Librarian when she got life and death surgery. This woman's mother depended on this job for her livelihood. She says the surgery extended her mother's life by 14 years. I never asked why she still affiliates with the church. Maybe she thinks she can change it. And, the CS church is "changing" with far less healing and much more reliance on medical treatment from what I have recently observed among older and younger adherents. I see this going on everywhere, across the country. I have also seen more compassion among the members for each other but I feel this is more to make themselves seem like everyday folk, which CSers are not. The CS churches and societies are forced to make these changes in order to keep younger people. The church for the past few years has put a great emphasis on retaining these young truth seekers with youth conferences, modern church rebranding techniques including updating their hymns, using storefronts as churches/societies, etc.
I always found it strange that CS has nursing homes. Even when a CSer uses a nursing home and isn't "cured" they are free to seek medical care. The patient is allowed only a limited stay in a CS nursing facility which is usually very costly. So, today it's not seen as a cop out to have medical treatment for a "failed" healing. CSers know they are losing their numbers and they are now retaining anyone who for one reason or another has sought medical treatment. The evidence of this is the Mother Churches web page where they are inviting back people who have left their movement. I'm sure this includes those who left or were dispelled on medical grounds, too.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 04, 2009 10:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Anonymous (above) for the good overview of where CS seems to be regarding the relationship of CS to materia medica. I was especially intrigued with your remarks about the how/why TMC and branch churches are accommodating medicine in an attempt to retain CS youth. Of course, it's a Catch-22: If they manage to retain these youth this way, then they water down CS to where its substance and identify are changed. LIke the old Vietnam joke, "We had to destroy CS in order to save it." *
Anonymous, I hope you'll register and identify yourself with a username. You imply you have had a large exposure to observe CS. I would appreciate it if you would expound on what experiences and observations you base your conclusions.
AS I see it, the child death/illness cases of the 80s may have had a profound affect, and we are now seeing the results. TMC had to keep a careful legal distance from these tragedies. First, they threw the parents under the bus, with the position that "Christian Scientists are free to choose medical or spiritual care, as they see fit." Then they came up with the contradictory position they were not responsible Practitioners' actions and care--even though they vet and effectively license Practitioners. Thus Practitioners were effectively thrown under the bus, too.
Having told their "clergy" and their membership that they can go any way they want on methodologies, it is not surprising that people are doing just that: using CS and medicine together, sequentially, alternatively, or what-have-you.
Welcome to the "New Christian Science" movement! The "radical reliance" wing? Well, they're all relying radically on CS as they die off.
*The dark political joke was, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
|
|
|
|