Christian Science: Letter to a Believer

*******

Dear Friend,

You write, in your email, "I am sorry to read such a smearing blog misrepresenting Christian Science in such a profound way - and demonstrating a gross mis-understanding about its teachings." It is obvious that you write as a defensive true believer, for it was not our purpose in any way to "attack" Christian Science. And I have read and studied its literature, including the works of Mary Eddy.

When the microreligion was founded, "mental healing" was all the rage in American society. Many much more famous people than Mary Eddy embraced it, and philosophies related to it, including Emerson, Whitman, Thoreau, and R.W. Trine, among many others.

You write, "Christian Science is not a cult." Of course, it is axiomatic among sociologists and students of religion that all members of all cults are programmed (or, educated) to believe that their faith is "not a cult." Not a single member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hare Krishna, Scientologists, Christadelphians, or any other minority faith would agree that it is a cult. The word "cult" has a very bad reputation, but this is largely the result of ignorance.

In sociology, this word is not a pejorative; it is a convenient social grouping. It describes (usually) minority groups that either follow the teachings of one person (such as Mary Eddy) or a small group. The leader(s) must be seen as possessing some special "revelation" or divine wisdom not possessed by any other person. Any honest, objective analysis must agree that Christian Science fits nicely within these parameters. Members insist on conformity, insisting that all relevant truths can be found within their group, and that anything or anyone who disagrees with the formal teaching is "wrong." Christian Science also conforms to this definition. In short, the claim to absolute truth is made-- a claim rejected by academic and other more humble groups, however intelligent or enlightened.

You write, "Mary Baker Eddy... is valued greatly by Christian Scientists as the revelator, the discoverer and founder of the science of Christianity - which might be defined as the practical nature of the divine law demonstrated by Jesus in his healings and works." I was under the impression that Jesus was the "revelator" of the "science of Christianity"!

I find it interesting that you are more interested in focusing your letter on Mary Eddy than on Jesus and His teachings. For you continue, "Mrs. Eddy herself asked her followers to follow her only as far as she follows Christ." Yes, and in these words, she uses precisely the very same language as the founders of every other minority religion. You call this "a humble sentiment"-- the very same words used in other cults to refer to their very own leaders. Many in the history of Christian Science wanted to write and even to publish books about the popular subject of mental healing, and Eddy prohibited their being published by the Christian Science publishing house, and she discouraged her followers from reading any of it-- not exactly an open-minded forum for free expression. And Eddy, to this very day, is treasured by true believers as, to use your word, the "revelator" of God Himself. Her works are, for that minority, on a par with the Bible itself.

You write, "Her revelatory textbook illumines the Biblical teachings..." This is exactly the same precise claim made by every other "Christian" cult; they all agree in approach and presentation. Thus, so far, your letter says absolutely nothing new.

You write next, "It shows the science behind the actions of Jesus, therefore revealing how ANYONE (not just a those attending its church) can learn to heal." But the official teaching of the group is that those who do attend the meetings of Christian Science, or who read its literature, do have a distinct advantage over unbelievers; they are "superior" in knowledge or education.

You write, "The author of the blog also seems to cast Christian Science in the same light as positive thinking or any of the other systems like it that rely upon the human mind as a healing agent." Mary Eddy herself taught that alterations in the "human mind" were absolutely necessary for her way of healing to have any effect whatsoever. She taught that if her system were not followed, pretty much to the letter, no healing could occur. With what instrument do people become true believers if not with their "human minds"?

You write, "On the contrary, Christian Science appeals to divine law, the divine Mind, or God - as opposed to the human mind." No, it does not simply rely on the divine Mind alone; if it did, then one would simply pray, as did Jesus, "Not my will, but thine." CS, to the contrary, depends fully upon the human will-- which it carelessly assumes to be the very same as the divine will. This is not, of course, always the case. In fact, it might be argued that human will is rarely confluent or resonant with the divine will, except when it is engaged in Love.

You write, "It is this same divine law that was taught and practiced by Christ Jesus to heal in his era." So, why has no Christian Scientist in the entire history of the cult been able to heal all, or most, of the sick even within the strictly limited population of the minority faith-- a small group, of all true believers?

You next, rather predictably, encourage all readers to read Mary Eddy's book. This is a technique practiced by the Mormons, who encourage the reading of the books of Joe Smith, and Jehovah's Witnesses, who encourage reading of the books of the Watchtower Society. Again, nothing new has been taught in your letter. Reading it is an exercise in review.

Peace and Joy,

Richard Francis,
Love Ministries USA

Healing, Faith, and ACIM

*******

Even more important than learning on the Way is unlearning, which precedes it and makes the "soil" fertile for the growth of new ideas. So, most must begin by unlearning.

This is because there are a plethora of false and illusory paths in spirituality-- systems of illusion made more complex by intellect.

Usually, upon discovering the Power of Mind, one labors under the misconception that she has made a "brand new" and very exciting discovery! She is often unaware that this path, which teaches that the conscious mind can do anything, has been suggested thousands of times, and deeply and thoroughly explored. It has been embraced and practiced, often to the very end, when people discovered-- always to their amazement and astonishment-- that it did not work; in the end, it is a "fairy-tale" of desperately "wishful thinking." These schools of metaphysics have been around since the time of ancient India.

Many of these systems rely on the claim to literal historicity of the Gospels. If Jesus performed those wonderful "tricks," it must have been because he had found some kind of "secret," as in a special affirmation. But if these are allegorical or symbolic tales, then the actions of Jesus, within them, were also symbolic.

This is the case with several "godmen" stories from ancient times. In fact, Christianity is unique in that, in its fundy forms, at least, it insists that the Gospels are literal histories. This is very popular, and is how the tales are presented, for example, in popular theater and popular literature. But today, many educated scholars agree with the famous Dr. Carl Jung (died 1961), who thought all the Gospel accounts to be allegorical. (This means that they represented events within every spiritual life, including yours.)

Historically, a number of cults have arisen based on the idea that the Gospels were literal history. These include, famously, the Christian Science cult and its "spinoffs," including the modern cult based upon A Course in Miracles. (Btw, this book is dramatically over-named, guilty of false advertising. It is NOT a "course in miracles," as that word is generally understood in popular usage.)

Happily, a "cult" is a fairly clearly defined nomenclature among sociologists. It is a cohesive social group, large or small, in which beliefs and actions of members are controlled strictly by a book, or a leader, or both. The right to independent thinking is taken away, and the dogma of the leader/book replaces it. The book/leader is regarded as infallible, unquestionable, and inerrant. No one who has followed the sociology of recent religion can possibly deny that some ACIM groups do
fall within this definition. People often balk at the word "cult," but it is not necessarily an "attack-word," but rather a convenient sociological term, no more.

Agreed that it is better to avoid cults or cultlike groups, and turn our attention to the "tried and true" megasystems that have proved themselves over millennia! We of the Love-tradition are deeply rooted in such venerable traditions as Taoism, Zen, Buddhism, Christianity, and others. You cannot go far wrong when studying and following the spiritual "giants" of history.

You are not alone in discovering that the cosmos will "force" all of us, however gently, into a position of absolute trust (faith). Faith is not a state that we are capable of generating ourselves. If a mad murderer said that he was going to shoot you in the head if you did not believe that the moon was made of green cheese, no matter how desperately you wanted to believe, you could not force "faith" in the ludicrous statement. Instead, faith must grow, gradually through knowledge, experience, and wisdom. People who "grunt and groan," trying to force faith to grow in themselves, through suggestion or autohypnosis, are destined to disappointment. In the end, faith is not something that we can "get" or "create," but is the gift of Love (grace, God).

There is a dangerous, and antispiritual, tendency for people to stop cold with intellectual development. They are often paralyzed or petrified at the stage of "right belief." They actually think that their conscious belief-pattern makes them "spiritual" or "enlightened."

But enlightenment is a matter of the Way that you behave, how you live, not just how you think or believe.

Love is a matter of "right action," not just "right" beliefs.

Earthlife passes rather quickly; and as we move even closer to our higher Selves, which are by nature timeless, the measurement of time becomes less and less relevant. For the higher Self (Soul) and highest Self (Spirit) operate outside of time altogether.

The only "plan" that can be discerned, in this or any other life, is education in Love. Each and every exam or challenge keeps bringing us back to the question, "Was maximum Love reflected in that interaction?" And when the answer is no, we get to take the exam again.

Please do not misunderstand these words. Your "defense" of ACIM implies that you felt that it was being "attacked." It was not; as noted honestly and clearly, the book contains some good and useful thought, although it likely contains nothing really "new." It is a book that collects some of the best ideas from twelve-step and other, related, programs of recovery. But it is galaxies away from being "a new revelation of God."

It is spiritually perilous to seek "new bibles" on our spiritual journey. For, as independent spiritual beings, we are not to look to books to somehow replace our interior growth into understanding. This invalid "short cut" is enormously popular, and has been for centuries. It is just so much easier: Let others make the interior voyage; I don't have to do it myself; I can just read about them." But it simply doesn't work that way; there can be no "vicarious enlightenment."

I have also carefully read ACIM, every word. But unlike others, I did not have the "golly, gee whiz!" response. I was not dazzled. It was not a breathless experience. It was not even exciting. I found the presentation and style rather ordinary. Fire-works did not explode in the Soul or heart. Of course, this is simply a matter of personal choice and response. The fact that the book is quite ordinary does NOT imply that it is "wrong," or "uninspired." (Your words imply that you might have made this "leap," which, I hasten to assure you, is unjustified!)

You rather seriously misunderstood another statement of my email: When discussing the joining of the sperm to the ovum, the implication was that our present conscious mind did not exercise any control over the process. Of course, we designed the process at the Soul-level of Mind. And of course, we participated in the dna-selection and design of our present physical form. Yes, "separation," as has been stated again and again, is the primal illusion that stands at the root of all others.

*******

The "Interior Demon" of Envy

*******

After having spent twenty years in the cult, and another twenty studying their interior and private psychology, I am fully convinced of one fact: The average cult-member of any cult is almost consumed with envy against those on the "outside." They envy our freedom to form Love-bonds-- reduced in their terrible minds to "sexual immorality"!:) They continually berate us because of this seething envy. It is the only way that they can tolerate their continual enslavement and our apparent and obvious freedom! They envy our own possession of our own time, and our ability to make important spiritual decisions. This is, it has been discovered, a profound and powerful motivator for the average cult-member. So, whatever they say about those on the "outside" of their cult has no credibility.
*******

"A Course in Miracles"

*******

I read acim several times, and have given it many years of concentrated thought and quality-time. So, ideas about the book are not superficial or knee-jerk responses.

The book is fine. It has much common sense. It reminds irresistibly of a Twelve Step meeting. In some psychological "pop" jargon, it gives good advice that is workable.

The book, not surprisingly, was written by a couple of psychologists. That in itself is neither a plus nor a minus! But most psychologists do have a fairly good grasp on the normal, healthy functions of the human mind; so, they can help others.

Still, as the absurdities of the Freudian era so convincingly demonstrate, psychology is never perfect. So, I do have several questions about the book:

First, it is clearly over-named. The book says nothing about "miracles" as that term is generally understood in religious history or spiritual psychology. It was given this captivating name to grab attention, and it did. But it definitely needs a title that promises less, for it does not deliver anything promised by this attention-grabbing title. It does not
"teach miracles."

Second, the good book has become the recent center of a cult. There are several "true believers" who see the book as the "new Bible." If acim says it, it must be true; if acim does not say it, it probably does not matter! This cuts true believers off from all future growth. For no one can live her life most effectively by "living by the book," following only one book-- even one as fine and eloquent as the Bible.

We always need to be open to other resources, other sources of truth.

True believers think themselves "enlightened" over all others. I went through this spiritual disease, called "superiorism," while in the cult. It is a very dangerous mindset, for it tells you that you are getting better as you become sicker.

Is the book good reading? Yes! But was it written by Jesus Christ, channeled? No, it was, like all other books, written by human beings. The book can be wise, but it is not infallible. It has good, but not great, ideas. It is well-written, but probably does not contain a single original thought.

Read it, enjoy it, take notes and learn from it. But please try to exercise common sense and avoid the cultism that has accreted aroundcertain groups.
*******

"A Course in Miracles" and the Dreamworld

*******

I like some of the content of the book A Course in Miracles, but the book is seriously over-named. It is clearly not a "course in miracles," for it does not tell how to do miracles, in the accepted definition of that word. So, the title is actually a bit absurd. Despite the "grabber" of a name, no doubt to sell more copies, it does contain some good and useful material. It is largely an adaptation or modification of much of the Twelve-Step program material.

Sadly, a cult is forming around the book. It is seen as the "new Bible." Believers are gathering, and dividing themselves spiritually and socially from "inferior" non-believers. I do not accept the dogma that the book was "written by Jesus Christ," as believers insist.

Nor do I see the book as infallible, as many believers are starting to claim. The book was written by a psychologist, not by Jesus. A realistic, practical assessment tells us that we can include this book in our libraries and sources, but we cannot reasonably join the cult that is forming around the book, without sacrificing our independence and other freedoms.

There is nothing particularly original, and certainly nothing "spectacular," about the book. The writing is clear but ordinary. It contains a few good ideas, but, again, has nothing to do with miracles in the usual definition of that word.

Re your inquiry about the "reality" of the everyday world. It is true that the great saintmystics, particularly of Indian tradition, point out that our world is a "virtual" one, or, a dream. No material object is real. They are all products of Mind. They are dreamimages, or "virtual" reality.

But Mind is real. Since this Mind indwells you, this means that you-- and all other thinking beings-- are real. That is why human and other sentient (self-aware) life is so sacred. All thinking and aware beings are real,and holy.

Life on earth is a great school. We do things, and accomplish tasks, not so that they will last forever (they do not), but so that we can learn from them. Every minute is valuable because we can learn from that moment, and enrich our minds and hearts.

The whole "show" is about Love. Earth is a Love-school. So, every event and situation is designed to help us learn to love ourselves and other creatures. Just as a little child can learn about real estate and real money by playing Monopoly, although it is "just a game," we can learn very much about ourselves, and about compassion, goodness, and kindness from the various environments to which earthly life exposes us.

Every person is of inestimable value. So, we are here to learn to "invest in people," not just bucks and unreal material things. (The reason that they can never satisfy is that, deep down, we know that money and "stuff" are unreal.)

Your friend has gone way too far, and has misunderstood everything important, if he says that human beings are illusions. Instead, they are a part or expression of Mind, or Reality. In an unreal world, human beings are certainly, and very, real indeed.

In spirituality, we are always talking about "sentient" beings. These are self-aware beings. This category includes most of the higher mammals, and certainly, includes all human beings. Any creature who can say, "I am," with meaning, distinguishing herself from other creatures, is a "sentient" being. (This category includes all developed brains of mammals, but does not include reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects, microrganisms, etc.)

Deliberately harming any of these sentient beings can create terrifying and disastrous karma. This is where the principle called ahimsa enters the life of the wise. For this principle is taking a vow never deliberately to harm any sentient being.

So, your grand-daughter, like yourself, is both real and sacred. She is to be treated with kindness that, in its fullness, blossoms as Love. Love is the most important principle in the enlightened life.
*******