reblogged: Where’s Mary?

This is an excellent piece from Emerging Gently which puts forth a very important question, why are church-sanctioned (at least I assume they’re church sanctioned to some degree) CSPs and CS-bloggers leaving out Ms. Eddy?

I have lurked on the Christian Way forum for a number of years, and have now posted twice as a “Guest” commenter. I enjoy this forum and appreciate it as a gathering place and outlet for those of us I like to call “refugees from an obscure religion”, whether we be religious or not. A thread I recently posted my second ever comment on inspires today’s post (my comment is #22235–signed “Emerging Gently”). The topic of the thread touches on an interesting trend I’ve noticed recently with Christian Scientists’ interactions with media, specifically blogs, guest blogs, articles, etc.–most often from those who act as the spokespeople for Christian Scientists: Committees on Publication (I’ll call them COPs for short), but also other Christian Scientists as well.I’ve noticed an increasing trend with postings and articles in the media by Christian Scientists to not mention either Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, or even Jesus or the Bible. In the past, it was almost an inside joke, if you will, that any article published in the media about Christian Science had to have a reference to Eddy, and a quote or two from Eddy and/or the Bible. Now, I’ve noticed a trend for Christian Scientists, and COPs in particular to go into “stealth” mode; get out there and talk about spirituality and health care, introduce spiritual concepts in general, but make no mention of Christian Science, Mary Baker Eddy, or even Jesus or the Bible.

Read in Full: Where’s Mary?

Update Dec. 7, 2013:  Emerging Gently has posted a follow-up post: Uncomfortable Truths (a follow-up to “Where’s Mary?”)

My post “Where’s Mary?” from earlier this week has generated some interest from a fellow blogger and some of her/his followers, although I don’t think the Christian Science apologist really read my post. In this post, I ask the rhetorical questions, “What are Christian Scientists afraid of?” and “Why are Christian Scientists in stealth mode?”. While I do sort of answer them in the post, here’s an in-your-face answer to that: a video by Liz Heywood, a survivor of religious-based child neglect. I’ve talked about her case many times in the past, how her Christian Scientist parents chose prayer over conventional medical treatment to treat a bone infection that left her permanently crippled, eventually necessitating amputation of the affected leg. Had her parents sought treatment, she could have been successfully treated with antibiotics, and the whole thing would have been an anecdotal memory of childhood.

Read in Full: Uncomfortable Truths (a follow-up to “Where’s Mary?”


6 thoughts on “reblogged: Where’s Mary?

  1. Bill Sweet says:

    What you observe may be a plan to be more acceptable. Since I was introduced to Christian Science during high school, it seemed until recently, that there was a push to show “we are different.” Now there is an effort to show, I presume, “we have common ground.”

    Perhaps you are right about less referencing of Mary Baker Eddy. However, I do believe that there has been an effort to speak more often about Jesus Christ. The Christian outsider’s criticism that Christian Scientists don’t mention Jesus enough finally hit a nerve. So references to Jesus supposedly have been on the upswing.

    • emerginggently says:

      According to my sampling of Russ Gerber and Tony Lobl’s posts, there is less reference of Jesus too. Look at the breakdown I give in the post. I can’t speak for all CS bloggers and writers out there, as I haven’t read them extensively. I have a day job and other hobbies that keep me gainfully busy and hold much deeper interest for me, and no desire to read them extensively anyway. What are Christian Scientists hiding from? Why the stealth mode? I wonder…fear of scrutiny, and/or tough questions, is one theory I’m willing to go with for now.

  2. Vicomte de Chagny says:

    I definitely think it’s an attempt to be more acceptable, inoffensive, and/or unobtrusive. Referencing or quoting Mrs. Eddy no longer means CS gets points for being the only religion founded by a woman, or the only one that has mastered (sort of) healing without medicine, now it highlights how CS comes pretty close to worshiping the woman who founded it the same way the Mormons come pretty close to worshiping Joseph Smith. I think this trend might be as simple as these COPs are afraid CS will be laughed at, called a cult, or excoriated in the national or international media for referencing Mrs. Eddy or Science and Health or even the full name of CS. Between the Mormons, the Scientologists, and the violent fundamentalists of various faiths, standing up and expressing pride in one’s radical religious differences has gotten a pretty bad rep lately, especially since 9/11. If anything, CS wants to say “hey, we’re normal over here!” (even though it definitively isn’t) and fly under the religious radar while still appearing potentially cool to those people who like to include some measure of spirituality in their personal health care (and holding onto whatever political support it may still have).

    • Bill Sweet says:

      Maybe I’m a nut-case, but I don’t mind belonging to a cult. There are good and bad cults. The Baptist religion started as a cult for heaven’s sake.

      Yes, you are so right about 9/11; the bad things for religions in general, not just the odd ones, after 9/11. Those crazy Muslim terrorists did more to create atheists than anyone since the burning of Jews in concentration camps.

      Now here some good educational news. You are guaranteed that the contributions of Spindrift Research to consciousness findings and quantum prayer will not be part of the curriculum.

Comments are closed.