 Posted Thursday, August 15, 2002 9:13 AM
|
|
|
|
Louise,
My children were ages 16, 14, and 11 (twins) when I left CS. They had all attended CS sunday school, and so to one degree or another they have been influenced by CS teaching. It is not a topic we discuss, and so I don't really know where they are with respect to CS right now.
Thanks for your encouragement about the website. Possibly your husband would be receptive to a suggestion that he have a look at the website for the purpose of understanding the issues a little better, and to have some people with whom he could have a dialogue about the doctrinal differences between CS and evangelical Christianity. He might particularly enjoy a dialogue with John Andrews, who is from Colorado and is currently the State Senate Minority Leader there. He has a website of his own - www.AndrewsAmerica.com.
Blessings,
Carl
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Carl,
I will definitely check out Mr. Andrews site. Thank you for that
information.
I have had a very difficult time getting my husband to view other
materials that are not considered, "obnoxious or unauthorized
literature, " which is the dictate of the Christian Science church.
I am willing to give it the old college try. I have often asked him
to just take a peek at Christian Way; in reply I get an adamant
"NO!" I do think your suggestion is a marvellous one. Getting
him to see that other Christian Scientists have sucessfully left
the church and the joy they have found in other denominations
that are Bible based churches. Not to mention, their new found
joy with having a personal relationship with Jesus.
I am open to suggestions from you, Carl, and any others on the
board how I might acheive getting him to look. Once, I emailed
him some literature from my own faith, and he was very offended.
I never understood why, it was only simply explaining the proof
in Scriptures of the Holy Trinity. It didn't attack any denomination,
it was simply a thesis more or less on the sound proof of the Trinity.
Thanks again for the websites. Sorry I didn't respond earlier, I
had a beautiful full day of church activities.
In Christ,
Louise
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 16, 2002 8:06 AM
|
|
|
|
Louise,
I've been curious about what your husband thinks of your Christian Way activities. Not surprised that he won't even look at it.
Someone told me once upon a time about two theories of communication based in part on ideas going back to Aristotle. Theory of Sterilization says that so long as you prevent exposure of a population to other philosophies you can keep them thinking your way. The danger of that is any opposing exposure is more likely to infect them and turn them against you. Theory of Innoculation says giving them controlled exposure to other philosophies can reduce the opportunities for infection.
CS has effectively used Sterilization from the beginning and taken measures to prevent infection such as the avoidance of "noxious fiction" and unauthorized literature. One of the things that kept me in CS so long was I did have limited exposure to all kinds of non-CS stuff. The problem was that it inadvertently worked towards the Theory of Innoculation.
A rhetorical technique that CS also works to their benefit (probably not on purpose) is the order in which the Bible and S&H are read. Being last up in a debate or series of presentations is often the strong position because that provides the opportunity to address the previous points and leave your ideas freshest in the minds of the audience. Marc Anthony's speech to the Romans following Julius Ceasar's assasination is often given as an example. Shakespeare portrayed Marc Anthony as inciting the crowd to war with "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" though few remember Brutus' speech that came first ("Romans, Countrymen, and Lovers").
I suggested to someone recently that the CS membership would be best served by declaring a one year moratorium on MBE's writings to focus entirely on the Bible. The expected reaction was an immediate rejection of such a concept and that there would then be no point to having the church. Do you think suggesting one day, one week, or one month would have been accepted any more readily?
Do Go Be Man
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 16, 2002 8:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Louise,
The question you pose is a difficult one, and the discussion by Do Go Be Man is very thought-provoking. My friend John Andrews expressed to me his frustration at trying to pierce the "armor plate of Gnostic certainty". I have a question which I have used, and it produced a rather strong reaction. The question is "If what you believe is not true, would you want to know it?" It was a real question, and it produced a very real moment in the conversation, and was followed by strong anger. I think the anger was a good sign, because that means the question touched a nerve. I suspect the question has had quite a bit of staying power, because it never really goes away. The answer to that question, incidentally, was "no". I think that it takes a special measure of grace and wisdom to ask the question with love, and with honesty. In other words, if the answer is "no", then I need to be prepared to accept that answer, and not follow it up with comments which would come across as an attack. I especially think it takes wisdom to know if the moment is ripe to ask it.
To elaborate on the incident, which took place over 10 years ago with my wife, her response was "Do you have any idea how arrogant that question sounds?" My response was that it was an honest question, and not intended to be arrogant. I repeated the question, and she asked me the same question back. My answer was yes, I would want to know. Her response was no, she wouldn't, and anyway she "knew" the Truth. My response was what she "knew" wasn't the question; it whether she would want to know if what she "knew" was not true.
Where this discussion could possibly lead, and logically could lead, is into (hopefully) an agreement on what we could agree is a reliable source of truth. Both CS and Christians profess to believe the Bible is true. Staying away from the "that is" aspect of CS, the "what the bible really means" dimension of such a discussion, the goal would be first to understand what the Bible says, in plain language, and to agree on the plain meaning of the words, BEFORE making a decision as to whether you agree with that meaning. The CS process, as you know, is to look at a passage of Scripture and immediately do a "that is" interpretation and revision. The reading and analysis process needs to be slowed down dramatically. First, what does it say? What do other versions of the Bible say about that same verse? What is the plain meaning of this passage? In your own words, do a restatement of the text. THEN decide whether or not you agree with it, and ask the person to give you authority for the different interpretation.
One such example occurred when a friend told me Jesus was coming back. I asked for Biblical authority, and she pointed me to Acts 1:9-12. I looked at that passage in at least 5 different versions of the Bible, including the King James, and all five versions said the same thing: "this same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." The only restatement I could do of this passage was to say, 'The Bible says that Jesus is coming back the same way he left'. I then had to choose between this plain meaning of Scripture, and CS doctrine which says that CS is "the reappearing of the Christ idea". But the language of Scripture does not allow for that twist, because it doesn't say 'the Christ idea" will come back, it says "this SAME Jesus" will come back "in just the SAME WAY" he left!!
But if I had not first slowed down, and examined closely what it SAYS before moving on to what it could "MEAN", I never would have seen the clear conflict and contradiction between CS and Scripture with respect to that passage.
Sorry to go on so long...hope this helps.
Blessings,
Carl
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 16, 2002 10:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Hi Carl:
To be honest, my husband does not know about my Christian
Way activities. Christian Way has been around for awhile, I think
it was in April of this year that they switched to this excellent
format! I use to try and get him to look at the old Christian Way
website. The reason I decided to join is that I thought it would
help me reach a better understanding of other CS people that had
left the church, and I want to help others. This board has been
helpful to me to see all avenues of emotions, thoughts and what
triggered people to leave CS and why they stayed in. To reveal
to my husband that I am on Christian Way at this point in time
might cause serious marital issues. I love my husband very much
and don't want to lose him. I look at it this way, God will reveal
in all due time when and if that should be exposed. Right now,
this serves as a great support network and cause to help others.
I have tried that method you talked about with your wife. It only
serves to anger my husband. That's when I back off and decide
to wait for another time to present itself. Have you experienced
this with your spouse? There are days that I feel, gee, I have
made great progress here, then all of a sudden, the message
that I got through to him, is rejected and I feel that I have taken
two steps backwards!
One part of Scripture that really, really did back my husband against
the wall was in John 1:1 where he tells us, "In the beginning was
the Word, and the the Word was God." I coupled that with John 1:
14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." His
mouth fell open. He sat there so stunned that he didn't know how
to respond. I asked him to explain to me if John is telling us the
Word was God and the Word was made flesh, just who is Jesus
to him? He asked me to please drop it , he was uncomfortable,
didn't want to fight, etc. But, praise God, later that evening I
saw him reading St. John! Then, for the next three days he
read it again and again. He still rejects it, but who knows what
the Holy Spirit was working in him at that time. Sometimes progress
comes in small doses.
I have shown him Scripture after Scripture where Jesus himself is
saying it! The response I get is, "I don't believe that way. You do."
Sigh! It can get exasperating at times, but with love, patience
and understanding, great works can be done. I have noticed that
many people in CS will qoute the Bible by saying, "Mrs. Eddy tells
us that......" I try to counter that comment when my husband does
this by saying, "Well yes, but what does the Bible tell us? What
did Jesus Himself say?" After all, God's word is the final authority!
No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Thanks for all of your input, Carl. I really appreciate it. God bless!
In Christ,
Louise
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 16, 2002 10:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Do Go Be Man:
See my response to your question about my husband in the body of my last message to Carl. I meant to include your name in the last
post. Please forgive my oversight on this! My fingers were
flying on that keyboard faster than my brain!
Another thing I should mention to you that you bought up
in your post about incorporating the specific Bible days for
the CS. I really don't think they would accept even 1 day.
My reason for thinking on this is the way the church is structured is
so that Science and Health and Mrs. Eddy are the church's
pastor, right? But, that was very brave of you to suggest it
to them. I wish more people would do that. There was a Bible
study group going on with one church I knew about, and the
Practitioners in the church and the BOD reprimanded the members
for doing that. They said that this type of "study," may lead to
individual thought and trouble. They didn't impose that the
members should cease and desist, but the message came through
loud and clear. The Bible study group broke up.
In Christ,
Louise
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 16, 2002 2:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Louise,
I had no thought about you leaving my name out, but thanks for being concerned. Even though forum messages are sometimes addressed to specific people, I always assume that is just a shortcut to refer back to previous posts to help make the connection.
The fact that your husband is unaware of your Christian Way connection explains what I was curious about. Having witnessed the impact CS had on the relationship between my CS mother and agnostic/atheist step-father, I couldn't imagine what you might be experiencing. Bless you for your courage and love.
Interesting (though not surprising) story about the Bible study group and the BOD reprimand. "Individual thought" could indeed lead to such troublesome things as reformation and salvation. Seems like the Pharisees and Sadduces may have once believed they faced a similar challenge. I wonder if the reaction would have been the same regarding a Writings of MBE study group.
I was thinking the other day about the diversity of people represented in the Gospels with whom Jesus chose to have contact. He met people where they were and spoke to them individually. I can't think of how to make a scriptual argument for discouraging individual thought. Imagine what the Journal of CS might be like if it had the same editorial standards as true scientific journals - peer reviews, testable hypotheses, etc.
Do Go Be Man
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 16, 2002 7:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Lot’s of good stuff in today’s posts! 
Imagine what the Journal of CS might be like if it had the same editorial standards as true scientific journals - peer reviews, testable hypotheses, etc
They do…just remember who the peers are…Christian Scientists. And they do test and verify their hypotheses and verify the testimonies. But just because they can be verified doesn’t make CS necessarily true. I can say loose hose clamps will cause my car’s radiator to leak. There is antifreeze on my driveway. I’ve seen it, touched it, smelled it…it’s real verified antifreeze. Therefore I need to tighten my hose clamps. Well, in actuality while the antifreeze on the driveway is real. The hose clamps aren’t the reason, a hole in my radiator is! A verified CS healing doesn’t mean CS is the reason.
the church is structured is
so that Science and Health and Mrs. Eddy are the church's
pastor, right?
Actually the church manual says the Bible and Science and Health are the churches pastor. Mrs. Eddy is Pastor Emeritus, but that is not the same thing as the churches official pastor. In any event, under current manual rules, if either the Bible or S&H are removed, the church has no pastor.
They said that this type of "study," may lead to
individual thought and trouble. They didn't impose that the
members should cease and desist, but the message came through
loud and clear. The Bible study group broke up.
Pity! This is probably a hang up of the local church. I don’t know of any official policy prohibiting Bible studies. Principia has taught Bible courses without the overt linking to CS material. I have the textbook I will say on the one hand it is a pretty bland, shallow treatment of the Old and New Testament. On the other hand it is free of CS viewpoint (except when it says that CS was introduced in the 1800’s).
Both CS and Christians profess to believe the Bible is true. Staying away from the "that is" aspect of CS, the "what the bible really means" dimension of such a discussion, the goal would be first to understand what the Bible says, in plain language, and to agree on the plain meaning of the words, BEFORE making a decision as to whether you agree with that meaning. The CS process, as you know, is to look at a passage of Scripture and immediately do a "that is" interpretation and revision. The reading and analysis process needs to be slowed down dramatically. First, what does it say? What do other versions of the Bible say about that same verse? What is the plain meaning of this passage? In your own words, do a restatement of the text. THEN decide whether or not you agree with it, and ask the person to give you authority for the different interpretation.
From a Bible student aspect this is a bit oversimplified, which is one reason we sometimes run into trouble talking to CSers about “truth”. The idea of “just me and my Bible” is a myth. There is no approaching the Bible from a blank slate standpoint. Everyone from CS, to atheist, to Baptist brings some kind of personal interpretation baggage to the Bible. And of course each group honestly believes they have the true interpretation. What legitimate Bible interpretation involves is looking at the original language grammar, the historical settings, the culture of the original authors and audience, and figures of speech that the original authors and audiences would have used. And using those things to figure out what the authors intended their audiences to understand. Then after that is done, we look at how that applies to us today. This is when we get to “the plain meaning of Scripture”. This is also where CS fails to do good solid exegesis. For instance, the Greek grammar behind Titus 2:13 specifically calls Jesus God. Titus understood Greek grammar, so he would have understood that is what Paul was saying. Now, for Mrs. Eddy to say Jesus isn’t God contradicts Paul’s original message to Titus. So now for Mrs. Eddy to say CS follows the Bible, she has to say, “CS believes in the spiritual interpretation of the Bible.” But even with this explanation, she has still to face the fact that Paul originally told Titus Jesus is God. Now the next thing CS could argue is that Paul was having an “unspiritual moment”, so ignore it. Mrs. Eddy’s student Edward Kimball, among others, travels down this road. Well, Peter had the same unspiritual moment, because in 2 Peter 1:1, he uses the exact same Greek grammar to also call Jesus God. My question to CSers is at what point do these coincidental unspiritual moments cease to be coincidental and unspiritual and turn into honest-to-goodness Biblical truth? I could accept one apostle getting it wrong once, but four apostles getting the same wrong answer? That seems highly unlikely, although as I noted Kimball and others basically promoted that view. 
CS has effectively used Sterilization from the beginning and taken measures to prevent infection such as the avoidance of "noxious fiction" and unauthorized literature. One of the things that kept me in CS so long was I did have limited exposure to all kinds of non-CS stuff. The problem was that it inadvertently worked towards the Theory of Innoculation.
Not exactly. Remember many of the first CSers came from orthodox Christian backgrounds, so the isolation from other Christian viewpoints theory doesn’t hold. CSers can read all about different philosophies and religious viewpoints, and the well read Christian Scientists do just that. What CS is very good at is providing reasonable sounding answers.
Ugh! This got long. Sorry. 
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2002 4:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Louise, and Carl,
No matter how worrisome or frustrating please remember that ultimately your spouses belong to God. You can witness but ultimately the BIG responsibility lies with Him and their willingness to sincerely desire real truth.
I become concerned sometimes for others when I start to realize all I put the Christian people through. Deep down I had no intention of every leaving Science one way or another. Yet, God won and so did I!
Having done all you know to do, STAND. Rest in and upon His promises so that you don't get worn down.
The Adversary would have us chase round the unending circle of reason where there can sometimes be no end to it (especially when it comes to loved ones.). God uses the realm of faith, ultimately, where His Word wins out every time.
Rest assured, You have people praying for you everyday.
Take Care,
Peter
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:37 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Peter:
Truer words hath not been spoken! Thank you for that wonderful
truth. Yes, ultimately God does all the work and deserves all the
credit. We are merely vessels that He employs. All glory and honor
belongs to Him.
Have you ever heard that old saying, "God grant me patience,
but hurry up!" Sometimes, we people down here on earth don't
realize that sometimes God's perfect work doesn't fit in with our
schedules or desires. They fit in with His.
Don't worry too much about all the Christians that you feel you
hurt, I bet they would be rejoicing now if they knew you had
chosen this path, and they would forgive you! Having feelings
for them is a sign of true repentance and that's a great thing.
Thanks for the kind words and I had better get to bed so I will
make church tommorow. Keep being joyous!
In Christ,
Louise
|
|
|
|