God is not in matter

Re-reading our short but revealing study for April, Christian Science versus Pantheism, I am impressed with the idea that God is not in matter. God, Spirit, is supreme, and is seen in the things of Spirit. Matter is without substance. Things of Spirit are divine, qualities such as joy, loving-kindness, hope, honesty - things which never exist in matter.

On page 8:6, Eddy refutes three widely held beliefs, namely that Jesus is God, that Mary was the mother of God, and that Mohammed is the only prophet of God. God is one only. God can never be divided. God is self-existent, and is divine Father-Mother. Christ Jesus is the one Master and Way-shower. We look only to his example, upon which Christian Science is based.

Eddy instructs Christian Scientists to "love all Christian churches for the gospel's sake" (13:13). This coincides with her instructions in "Choose Ye" (see The First Church of Christ, Scientist p.14) where she writes: "A genuine Christian Scientist loves Protestant and Catholic, D.D. and M.D., - loves all who love God, good; and he loves his enemies."

And so we "set our affections on things above" (14:4) - we cherish those things of Spirit which are truly substantial, lasting, pure, and wholly good, because "The demonstration of Christianity blesses all mankind" (9:20-21). 

Julie Swannell

Divinely True

“The Science of Christianity is strictly monotheism, - it has ONE GOD…..It is divinely true..." (Christian Science versus Pantheism 12: 21-22).  I love the phrase, “divinely true.”

And it was good to find an old friend – one of the daily duties of class taught students of Christian Science – on page 14:

“Once more I write, Set your affections on things above; love one another; commune at the table of our Lord in one spirit; worship in spirit and in truth; and if daily adoring, imploring, and living the divine Life, Truth, Love, thou shall partake of the bread that cometh down from heaven, drink of the cup of salvation, and be baptized in Spirit.”

Joyce Voysey

Personality and detachment

The section titled Man the True Image of God in our study this month (Mary Baker Eddy's 1898 Message to The Mother Church titled Christian Science versus Pantheism) sets the record straight about true personality.  See pages 9-12.

It makes me wonder just how a secular sense of personality works: does it relate to the belief that men include in their make-up both good and bad, or even, evil qualities?

Dictionary.com has: noun personality.

1. the visible aspect of one's character as it impresses others: He has a pleasing personality.

2. a person as an embodiment of a collection of qualities: He is a curious personality.

etc

Here are some synonyms from the same web site:  

charisma, charm, identity, makeup, nature, psyche, self, temper, temperament, complexion, disposition, dynamism, emotions, individuality, magnetism, singlularity, likeableness, serfdom

It would seem from the above, that the material definition of personality has to do with how one views one’s neighbour. I am reminded of Mrs. Eddy’s statement in Retrospection and Introspection (74:8): 

My corporeal personality afflicteth me not wittingly; for I desire never to think of it, and it cannot think of me.

It would also seem that "negative" qualities are as natural and as acceptable as "positive" ones; hence the necessity of following Paul's instruction to “put off the old man” (Col. 3:9, 10) both for oneself and for one’s fellow man. The Christ is here to help us do just that: “The Christ is here, all dreams of error breaking” (CS Hymnal 202 and 412). 

When we deny that "negative" qualities can attach themselves to friends, neighbours, or so-called enemies, we need also to deny that the "positive qualities" are in any way a personal possession. We learn in Christian Science that they are mankind’s God-given inheritance as His dear expression.

Joyce Voysey

Ed. Jurgen Kurt Stark's excellent article "Abiding Safely in Christ" in The Christian Science Journal April 2016 has more about not allowing evil to be personalized and may be of interest to readers of this blog. http://journal.christianscience.com/issues/2016/4/134-04/abiding-safely-in-christ

Help with high goals

In the section titled "God - Not Human Devices - the Preserver of Man" (Christian Science versus Pantheism p 4) Mrs. Eddy, for me, equates pantheism simply with matter.

Moving forward to the section titled "Scientific Christianity Means One God": how about the “four first rules” page 9! Here I quote from line 8 ((numbers added)–

Is there a religion under the sun that hath demonstrated one God and the four first rules pertaining thereto, namely --

1.      "Thou shalt have no other gods before me";

2.      "Love thy neighbor as thyself";

3.      "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect";

4.      "Whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John xi. 26.)

It would seem impossible for mortals to live up to those rules; and of course, mortals cannot. But this is our goal in working out our own salvation in Christian Science. Mrs. Eddy emphasizes the value of a high goal when she says, “The discoverer of Christian Science finds the path less difficult when she has the high goal always before her thoughts, than when she counts her footsteps in endeavoring to reach it” (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures  426:5-8).

I love this phrase from Science and Health “But mortals did need this help…”. It is always helpful to quote Mrs. Eddy in full. This passage is part of a remarkable paragraph with many lessons to attend to -page 494:5-9:

Is it not a species of infidelity to believe that so great a work as the Messiah’s was done for himself or for God, who needed no help from Jesus’ example to preserve the eternal harmony?  But mortals did need this help, and Jesus pointed the way for them.  Divine Love always has met and always will meet every human need.  It is not well to imagine that Jesus demonstrated the divine power to heal only for a select number or for a limited period of time, since to all mankind and in every hour, divine Love supplies all good.

In my recent nightly reading of S&H’s chapter Science of Being, I found a helpful reference to pantheism:

Pantheism, starting from a material sense of God, seeks cause in effect, Principle in its idea, and life and intelligence in matter. (279:30)

The evening I came to that I had a healing brought about mostly, I think, by paying attention to the first thought that came to mind, “You do not have to think of a cause for this.”  I say, “came to mind,” but in reality it “came from Mind.”  It sometimes takes a while for me to realize that I do not come up with such truths; they come from Mind to Mind’s idea, man.

Joyce Voysey

Mosaic, Christian, and Mohammedan theism

I have known for a long time that Mary Baker Eddy was no slouch, but her Message to The Mother Church for June 1898, titled, Christian Science versus Pantheism is colossal. Her depth of research and reasoning is astounding. And yet, she does not impress as academic; rather her words are infused with warm intelligence, exquisite love for God and man, and deep humility.

Every word is measured; every paragraph logical and coherent.  She leads the listener (or in our case the reader) step by step as she expounds on “Pan” (she refers us to two dictionaries and then to Greek and Roman mythology) and then “theism” (“In religion…belief in one God, or in many gods. It is opposed to atheism and monotheism, but agrees with certain forms of pantheism and polytheism” 3: 21–2).

Her logic is always centred on God’s divinity and oneness: it is the foundation from which all else emanates. So, in further discussing theism, Eddy posits that the theological theistic belief no doubt concurs with physics and anatomy where reason and will are said to be products of brain-thinking, while this is impossible because brain is matter and “God is Mind” (4:17).

What follows is an orderly exposition of God (“the preserver of man”) and then evil, as defined by Jesus and in relation to both monotheism and pantheism. She asks “Can a single quality of God, Spirit, be discovered in matter” (5:2)? She continues with her thesis as she examines “Mosaic theism” from the basis of the “higher criticism” (investigation of the origin of a text).*

Eddy speaks of three "theistic religions": “the Mosaic, the Christian, and the Mohammedan” and then startlingly asks “Does not each of these religions mystify the absolute oneness and infinity of God, Spirit” (7:15)?

The whole discussion prompts me to ask: Am I acknowledging just one God, Spirit?

Julie Swannell

* – see Jan 2015 blog: http://csreadingroomredcliffe.blogspot.my/2015/01/higher-criticism.html).

Mind and brain and the concept of pantheism

I have been remiss.  I did not read everything on the first page of our book "Christian Science versus Pantheism"!  There it is, “Subject: Not Pantheism, but Christian Science.  I didn’t look up the word “Pantheism”!

So, I will see what Noah Webster had to say back in Mrs. Eddy’s day –

   Pantheism, n. (Gr. word for “all”, and the Gr. word for God, whence theism.)

   The doctrine that the universe is God, or the system of theology in which it is
   maintained that the universe is the supreme God.

   Pantheistical, confounding God with the universe.

Dictionary.com says -

   Pantheism, the doctrine that God is the transcendent reality of which the material
   universe and human beings are only manifestations.  It involves a denial of God’s
   personality and expresses a tendency to identify God and nature.

I am doing this the hard way – I turn to page two and find Mrs. Eddy has defined “Pantheism” very thoroughly.

On page 4 we read of Mind and brain.  I have had an interesting experience about brain.  One night in bed I had message come which began, “Take possession”.  As students of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy will naturally complete the sentence with, “of your body, and govern its feeling and action” (393:11-12). However, my message said, “Take possession of your brain”! And …"and govern its feeling and action.”

In future nighttime prayers I have come to realize that Mind governs brain and tells it what to think.  Brain can be talked to and told what to think – by divine Mind.  When we work this way we can see that usually it is mortal mind which is informing brain.

I have yet to accomplish the study (that I promised myself I would undertake) all that Science and Health has to tell us about brain.  

Joyce Voysey

Nature's role

April Book Club, 2016 – Christian Science versus Panthiesm (Pan.) by Mary Baker Eddy

As she speaks of the seasons which had come and gone since the previous Communion season in 1897, Mrs. Eddy doesn’t speak only of the uncomfortable qualities of the weather of various month but also of the comfortable: the “winds of March” have hummed hymns as well as shrieked; April’s smile as well as its frown is noted; and, ever poetical in her utterances, she rejoices in the laugh of May and the roseate blush of joyous June. (See Pan. 1:5.)

Mrs. Eddy had an extraordinary love of nature.  Hear this from page 240 of Science and Health in praise of nature:

Nature voices natural, spiritual law and divine Love, but human belief misinterprets nature.  Arctic regions, sunny tropics, giant hills, winged winds, mighty billows, verdant vales, festive flowers, and glorious heavens, - all point to Mind, the spiritual intelligence they reflect.  The floral apostles are hieroglyphs of Deity.  Suns and planets teach grand lessons. The stars make night beautiful, and he leaflet turns naturally towards the light.

Her Miscellaneous Writings 86:9-14 is also helpful on this subject.

However, as we have noted in previous blogs, Mrs. Eddy was adamant that her students pray about excesses of weather such as snow- and thunder-storms. This paragraph on page 192 of Science and Health gives much to work on, and with, in this regard -

         Erring power is a material belief, a blind miscalled force, the offspring of will and not of wisdom, of the mortal mind and not of the immortal.  It is the headlong cataract, the devouring flame, the tempest’s breath.  It is lightning and hurricane, all that is selfish, wicked, dishonest, and impure.

My goodness: what does she mean by “the feast of our Passover” (Pan. 1: 2)?  It cannot be a ritual. 

No doubt one should start with a Bible Dictionary to find out the Biblical usage of the word Passover.  My edition provides about 2 full pages of information.  I will content myself with the opening sentence and definition – “The religious festival commemorating God’s deliverance of the Jews from bondage.”

Already, the student of Christian Science can see a connection with his or her own experience; however, we find two satisfying references in Mrs. Eddy’s Miscellaneous Writings, beginning page 90:

1.  In answer to a question about administration of communion in Christian Science, she writes:

Our great Master administered to his disciples the Passover, or last supper, without this prerogative being conferred by a visible organization and ordained priesthood.  His spiritually prepared breakfast, after his resurrection, and after his disciples had left their nets to follow him, is the spiritual communion which Christian Scientist celebrate in commemoration of the Christ.  This ordinance is significant as a type of the true worship, and it should be observed at present in our churches.

2.  In Message for 1900, she speaks again of the Passover:

To sit at this table of their Lord and partake of what Love hath prepared for them, Christian Scientists start forward with true ambition.  The Passover, spiritually discerned, is a wonderful passage over a tear-filled sea of repentance – which of all human experience is the most divine; and after this Passover cometh victory, faith, and good works.

In checking “Passover” in JSH-Online (http://jsh.christianscience.com/console), I found much of interest about the Communion Season of The Mother Church at Annual Meeting time in June.  Mrs. Eddy abolished this yearly gathering of Christian Scientists* in Boston in 1908. When the size of the audience far exceeded the size of The Mother Church’s seating capacity, it was a reasonable thing to do.  It seems these gatherings were, in the experiences of the members, something to really cherish: members apparently wished wish that they would never end, so inspiring were they.  Hence, the “feast.”

*     Ed. The Communion season was abolished, not Annual Meeting. See Church Manual: Man. 61:8-10 The The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist, shall observe no more Communion seasons.

The second paragraph (Pan 1: 11) starts out with a word I thought perhaps I didn’t quite know the definition of – “unctuous”. That turned out to be an understatement.  Here is the first definition which came up on Google:

1.      Excessively flattering or ingratiating; oily - “he seemed anxious to please
       but not in an unctuous way”
       http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unctuous

Synonyms: sycophantic, ingratiating, obsequious, fawning, servile, self-abasing, groveling subservient, wheedling, cajoling, crawling, cringing, Uriah Heepish, humble, toadying, hypocritical insincere, flattering adulatory, honey-tonged, silver-tonged, gushing effusive, suave, urbane, glib, smooth, smooth-tongue, smooth-spoken smooth-talking, slick, slippery, saccharine; (And it promised more!)

(How exact Charles Dickens was with his words and in choosing names.  Uriah Heep [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uriah_Heep] was just the character I thought of as I typed all those synonyms.)

2.      Webster is more modest:
         http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Unctuous

         Unctuous.  Fat; oily, greasy.  Having a resemblance to oil, as, the unctuous feel of a stone.

I am sorry to say that I am not getting a true sense of Mrs. Eddy’s meaning when she writes, “In unctuous unison with nature…”   I am going to send this off to the blog and contemplate further on this paragraph. 

Any input from others would be most welcome.

Joyce Voysey

II Peter 1: 5-8 a balm

The first chapter of II Peter came like a balm to me. A 'how to do it' for the student of the Christ Science.  Don't we love to hear, "...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.  For if these things be in you and abound, then make you that you shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1: 5-8)?

The second chapter seems to be the reverse.  I am reminded of Mary Baker Eddy's resistance to including the chapter Animal Magnetism Unmasked in her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.  Mrs. Eddy recounts her God-directed experience that led to its inclusion in her article "The Precious Volume". (See her book Retrospection and Introspection pp 37-39.)  It has me wondering if she was led to emulate what Peter had done in these two chapters of II Peter.

I and II Peter have not been an easy study for me, but on reading the Christian Science Lesson Sermon today (subject: Unreality), I am left with the conclusion that, in effect, we can have no opposite to good - no good and evil, no light and darkness.  We can have no "ands" in connection with God.  Likewise we can have no "buts."

The second chapter begins with a "but".  This is but one of the "buts" which error puts forward when we are tempted to think there can be any "ands" that can be added to God, or that man can be separated from Him and His total, infinite goodness.

Interestingly, in the Reading Room today I came across an article by Emma C Shipman entitled "A Lesson in Spiritual Addition".  This is all about the quoted II Peter I:5-8.  Beginning with faith she talks of "death-defying faith."   The article is very good*. 

Joyce Voysey

*See The Christian Science Journal March 1939 or click on the link here from jsh-online. http://journal.christianscience.com/issues/1939/3/56-12/a-lesson-in-spiritual-addition