A few weeks ago I was contacted by an author, spiritual healer and counselor in Australia who had come across kindism.org. She writes monthly inspirational news letters, and has recently posted some of them to her website/blog. I found her July message on “True Christian Science” (1) to be rather interesting.
She begins with a list of things that Christian Science is not – it is pretty much NOT everything I’ve talked about. Christian Science is not a deadly culture of radical reliance, it is not about dwindling church attendance, it is not about ostracizing people who choose to take medicine, it is not about prolonged human suffering, etc.
True Christian Science has apparently been “buried in layers of human ridiculousness.” Essentially everything that is going on with the way Christian Science is currently practiced is NOT really Christian Science.
The “NOT really Christian Science” line is hauled out time and time again, usually when a healing fails to occur, or someone dies. If they had really been practicing CS “properly” any number of miracles would have occurred. When in doubt, blame the victim’s lack of spiritual understanding. It is a rallying cry used time and time again by CS-apologists. The religion is not at fault: they did not pray properly, they should have sought medical treatment (unless of course they did, and then they’re still bad because they didn’t rely totally on God), something about them was some how lacking.
I find it interesting that the “NOT really Christian Science” line is also used by those trying to distance themselves from the archaic, judgmental, dieing out TMC movement. Apparently “True Christian Scientists, and metaphysicians of all disciplines, have a revolutionary way of seeing life.” Which is great and all, but I don’t think Christian Science has anything to do with it.
She concludes with the radical notion that:
God doesn’t mind what church we go to (if any), and who we read, and who we listen to. Does God even know? It is a complete human fabrication to have such requirements, stated or silent. We have our unconditional freedom to explore and go wherever is most helpful to us, whenever we feel so inspired, and to do whatever we consider to be in the highest interest of our growth and destiny. We follow our heart and the inner voice. It is always with us. The world is a wonderful place, full of opportunity. Our freedom is inherent and cannot be taken away. In this way, not only can we never be contained or destroyed but we, also, have complete freedom to stay, totally wholeheartedly, wherever we wish to stay and grow and help. There is no guilty, fearful, or resigned staying, only a sincere embracing of one’s right place and destiny, whatever that may be. (emphasis mine)
“God” might not mind, but Mary Baker Eddy the DISCOVERER AND FOUNDER OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE – was pretty clear about what Christian Scientists should read – her works, and Church-Authorized lit, who we listen to – she set up the lessons so that there would only be readings from the Bible and Science & Health, and what church we should attend – ones that are in line with The Mother Church. Everything is neatly laid out in the Church Manual.
Christian Science and the governing laws and requirements are a COMPLETE HUMAN FABRICATION.
I agree, “We have our unconditional freedom to explore and go wherever is most helpful to us, whenever we feel so inspired, and to do whatever we consider to be in the highest interest of our growth and destiny.” I also happen to feel that has NOTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.
I agree, any higher power worth paying attention to should not mind if we go to church (or not), the world is full of ouppertunity, and we should live free of guilt and fear, but I’m not going to call these ideas Christian Science, true or otherwise. Christian Science, as DISCOVERED and FOUNDED by Ms. Eddy, is not Christian, or scientific. It is full of FLAWED HUMAN FABRICATION.
Just a thought.
I also happen to think the writer in question is has some good insights, and I look forward to reading more of her work.
Other Reading of Interest
- http://leavingfundamentalism.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/you-were-never-a-true-christian/
- http://raisingkidswithoutreligion.net/
kind-ism 
YES! YES! YES! I couldn’t agree more with you! I want to just scream when CS apologists try to say “it isn’t Christian Science that failed…” well, if not CS then WHAT? Yeah, I know their answer to that question. Just makes my blood boil. CS failed my family, and I got a ringside seat to the ugly final act. Ok…rant over…
They all say it, but ,”It wasn’t true CS” is not a valid argument, it is a logical fallacy. It is utterly unprovable. In this case, the fallacy lies in the false conclusion that arises out of the faulty premise.
If failure is not true Christian Science, then nobody can learn from failure. So people keep dying because no one in CS can learn anything from blaming the dead for their own demises
I just thought of something else. Blaming the dead also stops people from looking at exactly where a dead person’s christian science went wrong, so they can teach it more accurately next time.. Scientists learn from mistakes, Christian Scientists cover them up like drug companies cover up bad reports on bad drugs, at least until they recoup their investment, and/or the law takes them off the market -but only after they killed a bunch of people. Their actuaries decide how many people a drug can kill before it is too expensive to settle the law suits.
Just think, the drug companies learned that ploy directly from Mary Baker Eddy’s example of covering up what doesn’t suit them..
Sorry, but a link from EG had this story right next to it: Perfect case of a drug still on the market after all this havoc it caused: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/opinion/crazy-pills.html