cole@maverick.uswest.com (Cole Keirsey) (03/07/91)
Hello. I've been reading s.r.c for a couple of years (minus an 8-
month gap where I lost access). I read almost every article, and
learn something from most of them. I don't hold that "all beliefs
are OK as long as they are sincere." On the other hand, I don't think
any denomination holds a monopoly on Christ's gospel -- I do
think that most Christian churches teach something of unique
value to advance the faith and practices of all Christians. That's
why I read s.r.c.
I've written a couple of articles to post here, but they're still on my
disk. I guess I decided that their main value was in helping me put
my thoughts in order and that they didn't really have much new to
contribute to the dialog on s.r.c. This article is a little different. I
feel that it is important for me to respond to a recent posting.
Geoff Allen recently posted an article questioning the use of the
term "cult" in the context of Christianity. I agree with the general
content of his article and with his conclusion that the term is ill-
defined and usually not useful. Geoff goes on to cite Walter
Martin's definition of "cult" and offers as an example Mr. Martins
argument for considering Christian Science a cult. I have not read
Mr. Martins book, and Goeff was paraphrasing, but here's what his
article said:
"So for example, Martin said the Christian Science church is a cult
becuase they follow dogmatically one person's interpretation of the
Bible (Mary Baker Eddy's _Key_to_the_Scriptures_), they deny the
incarnation, the death and resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace,
the virgin birth, etc. Yet they claim to be Christian."
Well, you guessed it: I'm a Christian Scientist, and I take issue with
Mr. Martin's characterization of my church. The next paragraph is
the short form of my reply. For those readers who are interested,
the rest of the article offers more detail and documentation.
The teachings of Christian Science avoid dogma. It is a practice of
Christian Scientists to study the Bible (usually the KJV) every day.
Mrs. Eddy asked that we test her interpretation of the Bible for
ourselves. Christian Science teaches its followers to believe that
Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and that belief is central to our
faith. Christian Science teaches salvation by grace. Christian
Science teaches that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary. We consider
Jesus Christ to be our master, and we strive to follow his teachings
and example as recorded in the Bible. Mrs. Eddy's role is secondary:
Christian Scientists think of her as an inspired teacher and pastor.
Mr. Martin is right on one point: Christian Scientists do claim to be
Christians.
Christian Scientists don't proselytize, and it isn't my intention here
to try to convert anyone. Christian Science does have real and
significant differences from the teachings of most Christian
churches -- they simply aren't the differences imputed to us in
Geoff's article.
My motive and purpose here are in the spirit of God's
commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy
neighbor." You may criticize Christian Science, but I ask that you
understand enough about our beliefs that you will not condemn
them unjustly.
Christian Scientists consider the writings of Mary Baker Eddy as the
definitive statement of our denominations teachings. The
quotations that follow are all from Mrs. Eddy's published writings.
They show, point by point, how the statements attributed by Geoff
to Mr. Martin misrepresent our teachings.
1. That Christian Scientists dogmatically follow one interpretation
of the Bible put forth by Mary Baker Eddy:
"God is universal; confined to no spot, defined by no dogma,
appropriated by no sect."
-- "Miscellaneous Writings," page 150
". . .study the Bible and the textbook of our denomination; obey
strictly the laws that be, and follow your Leader only so far as she
follows Christ."
-- "Address to the Mother Church, 1901"
('the laws that be' in this context refers to the laws of state and
country. -cck)
2. That Christian Science denies Jesus' incarnation, death, and
resurrection:
" 'The Word was made flesh.' Divine Truth must be known by its
effects on the body as well as on the mind, before the Science of
being can be demonstrated. Hence its embodiment in the incarnate
Jesus,--that life-link forming the connection through which the real
reaches the unreal, Soul rebukes sense, and Truth destroys error."
-- "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," page 350
"The final demonstration of the truth which Jesus taught, and for
which he was crucified, opened a new era for the world. Those who
slew him to stay his influence perpetuated and extended it."
-- "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," page 43
"Our Lord and Master presented himself to his disciples after his
resurrection from the grave, as the self-same Jesus whom they had
loved before the tragedy on Calvary."
-- "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," page 317
3. That Christian Science denies the virgin birth:
"Jesus was the son of a virgin. He was appointed to speak God's
word and to appear to mortals in such a form of humanity as they
could understand as well as perceive. Mary's conception of him
was spiritual, for only purity could reflect Truth and Love, which
were plainly incarnate in the good and pure Christ Jesus."
-- "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," page 332
(Let me note that in Mrs. Eddy's writings 'Truth' and 'Love', when
capitalized, are explicitly used as synonyms for God. - cck)
4. That Christian Science denies salvation through grace:
"Theoretically and practically man's salvation comes through 'the
riches of His grace' in Christ Jesus."
-- "Address to the Mother Church, 1901"
The term 'cult' is frequently used to connote a closed group that
holds its membership by threat or manipulation. In contrast,
Christian Science churches scrupulously assure that members join
by their own free choice. Members of Christian Science churches
who withdraw their membership are free to rejoin the church later.
Since we teach universal salvation, there is no threat of damnation
for those who follow other teachings (or are non-religious). We
rely on Christian healing, but members of our church are in no way
judged or condemned if they choose medical treatment. Each local
church is governed democratically by its own members. None of
our teachings or practices are secret.
If Mr. Martin made the claims listed above in an attempt to label
Christian Science as a cult, what could he have been thinking? Let
me state clearly that I'm now expressing my personal opinion.
There are those who would set themselves up as modern-day
Pharisees -- as arbiters of the literal meaning of the scriptures. Such
people say "If you don't understand Jesus' incarnation and
resurrection the same way I do, then you don't really believe in
them at all." Under the guise of maintaining the divine authority
of scripture, they propagate their human authority to interpret
scripture. If anyone reading this news group knows how to contact
Mr. Martin (and if he truly published the ideas attributed to him),
tell him that I say such misrepresentations of Christian Science are
evidently terribly ill-informed, or deliberately misleading, or both;
and, in any case, that they are unjust and unworthy of a Christian
scholar.
As I noted earlier, the teachings of Christian Science are unorthodox
and even radical. Those who find that Christian Science is
inconsistent with a literal reading of the Bible or with the teachings
and traditions of their churches can certainly make a case for their
points of view. To make such a case, there is no need to
misrepresent Christian Science. In my church, there is latitude for
diversity of thought; and if anyone reading this has something to
teach me, I'll read their remarks with an open mind. For example,
I've found the writings of George MacDonald, Martin Luther King
and bishop Berekely (sp?) inspiring.
My parents, who are not Christian Scientists, left me free to choose a
church (or no church at all). I chose Christian Science at first
because it appealed to my reason as well my longing to be reconciled
to God. I've stayed with this church because it helps me understand
and follow Jesus' teachings and example. I don't want anyone to
think that I'm trying to whitewash the real differences between
Christian Science and more traditional Christian churches. The
following citation from Mrs. Eddy's book "Science and Health with
Key to the Scriptures" gives a fundamental statement of the
teachings of Christian Science:
" Question.--Have Christian Scientists any religious creed?
Answer.--They have not, if by that term is meant doctrinal beliefs.
The following is a brief exposition of the important points, or
religious tenets, of Christian Science:--
1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as
our sufficient guide to eternal Life.
2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We
acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine
Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.
3. We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of
sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal.
But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.
4. We acknowledge Jesus' atonement as the evidence of divine,
efficacious Love, unfolding man's unity with God through Christ
Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved
through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by
the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and
death.
5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his
resurrection served to uplift faith to understand eternal Life, even
the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.
6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be
in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would
have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure."
-- "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures", page 496
C. C. Keirseygeoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen) (03/09/91)
cole@maverick.uswest.com (Cole Keirsey) writes: >Geoff Allen recently posted an article questioning the use of the >term "cult" in the context of Christianity. I agree with the general >content of his article and with his conclusion that the term is ill- >defined and usually not useful. Geoff goes on to cite Walter >Martin's definition of "cult" and offers as an example Mr. Martins >argument for considering Christian Science a cult. I have not read >Mr. Martins book, and Goeff was paraphrasing, but here's what his >article said: ... >Well, you guessed it: I'm a Christian Scientist, and I take issue with >Mr. Martin's characterization of my church. Oops. It seems that I misrepresented both Martin and Christian Science in my previous post. As Mr. Keirsey points out, I was paraphrasing. Not only that, I was paraphrasing from a several-year-old memory. Sorry. Don't take my previous post as a definitive statement of what Walter Martin said about Chrsitian Science. I have brought his book to work, and will post more info when I get the chance. By the way, I do this only in the interest of correcting what I previously wrote, and clarifying things. I am not interested in another ``Group X'' flame war, but perhaps we can discuss any differences rationally. (Wishful thinking?) -- Geoff Allen \ Since we live by the Spirit, uunet!pmafire!geoff \ let us keep in step with the Spirit. geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \ -- Gal. 5:25 (NIV)