Christian Science is Not Christian
We are very fortunate in our area to have a very high quality Christian radio station called Life 100.3. I enjoy the station but I was shocked this morning. At the end of their news broadcast they always have a good news segment.
This morning it was promoting a web-site that testified of people getting healed. So far that sounds good. The problem is that the web-site was www.christianscience.com. They assured the listeners that this was not Scientology.
That is true, the two groups are different, but both are just as much cults. Christian Science is a non-Christian sectarian group started by a woman named Mary Baker Eddy and it is based upon her writings, especially Science and Health with Key to Scriptures.
Yes, they believe in healing but not the way Christians believe in healing. Christians believe that God sometimes in His grace chooses to supernaturally bring an end to a sickness. Followers of Christian Science believe that we do not have bodies since there is no such thing as physical matter. Once we convince ourselves that our bodies do not exist, we soon understand that the sickness we feel does not exist either.
Richard Kyle in his book, The Religious Fringe, says this about Christian Science:
Theologically, Christian Science does not agree with the basic tenets of traditional Christianity. While it utilizes the theological terms of historic Christianity, it gives metaphysical meanings to these words. The pillars of authority for Christian Science are the Bible and Eddy’s writings, but Eddy’s writings are preeminent. Church members regard her writings as divine revelation. The Bible is seen largely as a book of allegories and is to be interpreted through her words. For the Church of Christ, Scientist, the most important authority is Science and Health, which Eddy said contained the perfect word of God and was therefore divine and infallible in its teachings. (p. 124)
The fact that a good quality radio station would mistakenly promote a cult is evidence of the need for apologetic education in the Church. Hopefully, this blog can be a part of that process.
Hello – you are mistaken about Christian Science.
Mary Baker Eddy was a devout Christian, who was healed of a potentially mortal injury through reading one of Jesus’ healings in the Bible.
she wanted to know how this healing occurred, so spent 3 full years doing nothing but studying the Bible and praying to understand it.
she wrote copious notes, and from those, evolved her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.
every idea and thought in this book comes from a corresponding biblical idea.
I recommend to the readers of this blog that you go to http://www.christianscience.com, discover the healing that is being done, and just what Christian Science is all about.
Numbers 6:24-26 to you,
Verndigger
Thank you, Verndigger. I would just add this:
My mother was healed of infertility through Christian Science treatment (a specific type of prayer that brings the patient to a greater awareness of the allness of God and the perfection of His creation, in keeping with Gen. 1) after doctors gave up on her and told her to consider adoption; thus, I consider my own existence indisputable proof of the efficacy of Christian Science and the truth of Mrs. Eddy’s statements.
I do not, however, expect others to blindly trust my assertions about Christian Science.
Rather, I would strongly encourage anyone with questions, doubts, or concerns about Christian Science to pick up a copy of our denominational textbook, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, and read it for himself. (You can borrow or purchase this book from any Reading Room, and it is also available in a searchable HTML format at spirituality.com or as a free downloadable PDF from christianscience.com.)
Maybe you’ll agree with it. Maybe you won’t. Either way, you’ll be better informed and better qualified to render a credible opinion about Christian Science if you’ve taken the time to find out for yourself just what it is that Christian Scientists believe.
I appreciate all your comments and I respect your opinions. However, I must disagree with the suggestion that Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science is a part of Christianity, unless you boil Christianity down to simple belief in a person named Jesus and the possibility of healing.
Here are some problems with Christian Science in terms of God and Jesus.
“Christian Science maintains a monistic view of God. God is Divine Principle, not the supreme being of Christianity. God is mind, and mind is all. Christian Science’s great truth is that God as spirit is all in all. Everything is mind or spirit – or, rather, there is no reality except mind or spirit. Mind or spirit is truth, love, power, life and goodness. Materiality is evil, sin, sickness, death and unreality.”
“Since Jesus of Nazareth is a physical man, he cannot be identified with God in Christian Science teaching. Only Christ, as the principle of mind, is identified with God. Christian Science rejects any notion of a physical incarnation of Christ, insisting that Mary conceived Christ only as a spiritual idea. Given that God is mind and spirit, and nothing exists that is not spirit, it follows that there can be no matter or flesh; these are only illusions. Therefore, Christ did not possess a body.” (Richard Kyle, The Religious Fringe, p. 124)
Christian Science is not Christianity, it is a more recent form of the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. Genesis 1 makes it clear that God is the Creator of matter and that what he created is good. In 1 John, the author is dealing with a proto-gnosticism similar to Christian Science and he writes:
1Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. (1 John 4:1-3)
By definition Christian Science denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and therefore it is not Christian.
I have no comment about any recovery from illness. People of all and no religious backgrounds have experienced such things. My point is only that Christian Science is not a part of Christianity.
I’m not sure who Richard Kyle is, but he seems terribly confused. Again, I would encourage you to go to Mrs. Eddy’s writings and get your information straight from the source rather than relying on what someone else told you about Christian Science.
I have regarded every challenge I’ve encountered — illness, injury, financial crisis, relationship problem, or other instance of inharmony — as an opportunity to “try the spirits.”
I’ve found that when I pray to God as I have been taught in Christian Science, I am healed. That has been true for me, and it has been true for my animals.
I have personally had instantaneous healings of broken bones, migraine headaches, infections, and longstanding symptoms of endometriosis. I have seen prayer heal injured pets. I have seen it end fights, dissolve storms, and repair damaged relationships. As a child, I personally watched my mother recreate the story of the loaves and fishes at the dinner table when we didn’t have enough food to go around (complete with an abundance of leftovers that exceeded the amount of food we had before the meal started), and I have pulled quarters from an empty purse when I needed to feed a parking meter (an instance that left me laughing and shaking my head in wonder at the completeness of God’s care for His children — imagine the Father caring so much for me that He is willing to intervene in even the most trivial of circumstances!)
These aren’t magic tricks. They are the natural result of cultivating my Christianity and applying it to everyday situations in a practical, meaningful way.
I appreciate your willingness to allow Christian Scientists to respond to your comments on our faith. Some bloggers prefer to toss grenades and then silence those who disagree with them. It’s refreshing to see someone who is willing to agree to disagree with those who would challenge his assertions.
My purpose for this blog is definitely to encourage dialogue. Everyone is welcome to post as long as it is done respectfully. I do have a copy of Science and Health, unfortunately I do not have time to read it in the near future. However, if Kyle is wrong I would love to find out. Do you mind answering a few questions to help me understand?
1) What is God like? (I know that is rather broad, but take a stab at it)
2) Did God create matter?
3) What and who is Jesus Christ?
I think that will do for now. I hope you will help me learn about your faith.
I can answer your questions to the best of my own understanding, but if you don’t mind, I’d like to ask someone with a little more experience to tackle them, as I think the explanation will be clearer. Not being cagey … just not terribly confident in my own ability to condense 700 pages of Victorian theology into a concise, understandable sound bite.
As for my own answers (and these are based on my own understanding of the Bible and Mrs. Eddy’s writings, so please don’t interpret them as some official church stance or whatever):
1. God is incorporeal, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent. You will hear Christian Scientists use several synonyms for God: Soul, Spirit, Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Principle. Each synonym is mentioned somewhere in the Bible (I can look up citations later if you want them), and each synonym emphasizes a different aspect of God’s nature. These are basically just different ways of thinking about the nature of God. I tend to think of God most often as divine Love — a constant presence that loves me, cares for me, and meets my needs at all times and in all circumstances — which for me is very reassuring and helfpul in dealing with everyday life.
2. God did not create matter. Matter is human illusion. (This is the part where CS starts to sound a little trippy to a lot of people, but bear with me.) God is Spirit, and his creation is entirely spiritual. Here’s an example of how I personally look at that: We know God created dogs. To material sense, a dog is a furry animal with four legs. But to spiritual sense, a dog is a spiritual creature consisting of spiritual qualities such as love, loyalty, energy, strength, beauty, joy, etc., etc., etc. — all those good things that make a dog lovable. I (and I think most Christian Scientists) regard those spiritual qualities as the reality or identity of God’s creation, with matter being a transient, illusory thing that bears no resemblance to the “very good” creation described in Gen. 1.
I’ll try to answer your third question when I get back from church, as I’m running a little late and need to dash out the door. 🙂
Fair enough. I will be looking forward to expanding my knowledge of Christian Science.
Thanks for your answers. The problem that I have is that Genesis 1 makes it pretty clear that it was matter that God created. It was real water and real land. This is where Christian Science differs from biblical Christianity. Jesus came in the flesh and even in his resurrection his body was physical.
“37 They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate in their presence.”
(Luke 24:37-43)
Have you looked at gnosticism? Christian Science is very close to their beliefs about matter and spirit.
Jesus was great about meeting people where they were, and I’ve always read the passage you’re citing as a great example of that: The disciples were still at a point of understanding where they were looking at things through the lens of material sense, so in order to understand that it was really Jesus, and not a ghost, they needed to see some material evidence. Out of his immense compassion and love for them, he showed them what they needed to see in order to believe in the resurrection. But the reality of the resurrection did not depend on the material body.
Here, I think Jesus is basically saying, “OK … when you guys look at a real, live person, you perceive that there’s a material body that you can see and touch. If I’m a real, live person — which of course I am — then you’ll perceive that there’s a material body here that you can see and touch. Take a look. See? It’s really me.” But when he makes a concession to materialism here, I don’t think he’s saying that matter is real; I think he’s simply meeting the disciples where they are in an effort to get them to take their thought a little higher.
It’s kind of like math: If Jesus is trying to teach the disciples math, he’s not going to drop Fermat’s Last Theorem on them while they’re still trying to learn their multiplication tables, y’know?
As for gnosticism … I’ve heard the term bandied about, but I haven’t read anything on it. I need to do some homework along those lines so I’m not standing around with a blank look on my face every time somebody mentions it.
P.S.: Which Bible translation are you using? Just curious. I’ve started looking things up in multiple translations lately, and I don’t find this particular wording in any of the translations I’ve got on hand.
I believe I was using the New International Version. I use a very hand online resource http://www.biblegateway.com that allows searches and has many different translations. I use it a lot and I highly recommend it for your own studies. For my regular studies I often use the New Revised Standard Version. What do you normally use?
For a long time, I focused almost exclusively on King James, probably because it was familiar and pretty and appealed to me as a former English teacher/Shakespeare fangirl, but in the past few months, I’ve really come to appreciate the clarity of the New English version, and I recently bought a copy of the Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible, which includes New King James, English Standard, New Living, and The Message. I haven’t had it long enough to say which of those translations I use the most, although I must say The Message takes some getting used to … it’s interesting, but almost jarring in its informality.
When I have time, I really like to sit down with KJV and Strong’s Concordance and see what the translators’ options were. It’s really interesting to watch stuff you’ve read a million times take on all these new meanings when you start plugging in the other words the translators could have chosen — not quite as good as reading the original texts in the original languages, but probably as good as it gets without learning ancient Greek and Hebrew.
That’s funny, I was going to recommend the Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible to you. I personally like the English Standard Version (which my wife had been encouraging me to check out). I find it has a nice balance of literalism and readibility. I also like the Message. I would not rely on it for academic study but sometimes we need to be shocked by God’s Word.
I think The Message would be really helpful for teaching Sunday school — more accessible/less intimidating for kids. I imagine it would be a useful evangelical tool, for the same reasons.
Something else you might enjoy, if you can put your hands on a copy: There’s a great recording out there of Johnny Cash reading the NKJV of the New Testament. I used to work an hour away from home and really enjoyed listening to that in the car on the way. (It’s hard to get too wound up about somebody cutting you off in traffic while you’ve got Johnny Cash reading to you from the Sermon on the Mount….)
Hello Stephen – I’m just a few miles south of you, in the big city on the shores of Lake Ontario… :-))
you seem to be so convinced of the reality of matter, and flesh.
In the Genesis 1 creation story I see no indication that God made the ‘real land’ and real water’ out of matter, or anything else for that matter (no pun intended).
You seem to be assuming that because you see land and water as matter, that that is how God created them.
IOW, limiting God to man’s understanding.
the simple fact is that Spirit and matter are *opposites*. as a Pastor, I would think you encourage your congregants to think more spiritually, and less materially. the Bible certainly does! see for example Philipians 4:8.
and as for your persistent claim of the reality of the flesh, goodness! the Bible is FULL of denial of flesh and fleshly lusts!
See for example John 3:6, Romans 8:1-13, Galations 5:17 and 6:8.
so if Spirit and matter are opposites, then you have to choose which one to accept as *real*.
the Bible says God is Spirit, and capitalized in both the Bible and Science and Health, refers only to God.
Have you seen what the physicists today are saying about the ‘reality’ of matter? many of them are attempting to redefine ‘reality’, based on what they are discovering.
I am really surprised that one of your obvious intelligence, and interest in discussing Christian Science with us, would be perfectly willing to quote Richard Kyle in detail, having obviously read his book, but refuse to take the time to sit down and read Science and Health, to really know what Christian Scientists believe.
much of what you have quoted of Kyle would make any student of Christian Science laugh out loud.
his statements are simply incorrect, to say the least.
He says for example, “everything is mind or spirit” not capitalizing those words, when Mind and Spirit are synonyms for God in Science and Health.
God created everything, right ? so everything created is God’s ‘idea’. so can there exist anything which is not God or his ‘idea’ ?
in Christian Science, God is All-in-all, and this is not pantheism, not the same as saying “God is everything”.
in your original quote from Kyle, he claims that Science and Health takes precedence over the Bible, and indicates we think of the Bible as a bunch of allegories.
Au contraire, Science and Health turns folks back to the Bible, quotes the Bible on most pages, and in fact points to the Bible as having the recipe for all healing. see p406:1
I do hope you will take the time to read Science and Health right through – this will give you a much better understanding of what we believe – you might even find you would be willing to accept us as Christians, although certainly not *orthodox* Christians.
I know I am a Christian – I follow Jesus’ 2 great commandments, to love God, and love my neighbour.
and I strive to live daily as divine Love’s reflection, being made in His image and likeness.
Numbers 6:24 to you,
Verndigger
I am convinced of the existence of matter and I see no reason to doubt it. I can’t imagine how someone could read Genesis 1 and conclude: “obviously matter does not exist.” If Mary Baker Eddy had not suggested the illusion of matter, I doubt you would question it. Speaking of reading Health and Science, I am not against it. I have read the Book of Mormon, Qur’an, parts of the Mishnah and I am cetainly not against reading outside my own tradition. However, I have four children, am the pastor of two churches plus I am in a leadership program that requires quite a bit of work. That does not put Health and Science at the top of my list. Perhaps sometime after my March seminar but we will see. As for Richard Kyle’s stuff, that was just a beginning for conversation and I am always open to correction.
Great discussion! I love the gentleness and open-mindedness being expressed.
Without a doubt, it’s a leap for most people to consider that matter might not be as real as it seems. While physicists have been discovering that it’s not quite as solid as we’ve believed, for most of us, matter seems pretty real much of the time!
Isaiah 55: 8-9 says (and I’m paraphrasing) that God’s thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Maybe, just maybe, our perceptions don’t give us the full picture. (For example, we hear only certain wavelengths of sound, but the spectrum is larger than our ability to perceive.) I feel that prayer is what opens our thoughts and experience to God’s care. Have you had the experience of knowing something that there was no way you could have known? For me, that has happened in prayer (or soon after!) when I’m being meek enough to let God supply new thoughts. So I think we can all be open to direct revelations of good.
Mary Baker Eddy didn’t expect people to just go along blindly with the ideas in her books. Learning Christian Science does require study, but revelation and demonstration are what give each individual convincing proof. The healing of physical ills without the use of physical remedies can be quite persuasive, and those healings happen even before we’ve fully grasped the unreality of matter, just as they did for those fortunate ones–multitudes!!–healed by Jesus himself.
Thanks for the discussion forum!
Thanks for your thoughts. While I disagree with the beliefs of Christian Science, I have appreciated people’s willingness to express their views in a respectful manner. Thanks again.