Talk:Church of Christ, Scientist

From Academic Kids

Cult or not

I think we have to make a clear difference between stating that some organization X is a "cult", and stating that some person or some organization Y considers X a cult (assuming that Y is important enough that its opinion matters). The former exhibits POV. The latter is merely stating the facts and properly attributing them to the relevant person or organization. Of course, one can then add other opinions from other people or organizations showing that the point of view of Y is not universal.

In shorter version: stating somebody's opinion is not endorsing it. David.Monniaux 16:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Christian Science a cult?

Some people think so, although the CS church is so well entrenched in most of the places it exists that it's thrown off the cult label, except among hardcore religious conservatives and hardcore left-wing secularists. People call Mormonism a cult, but few consider it one (at least in the U.S.).

Besides, it's one thing to say that some people consider CS a cult (which is true), and then back it up only with a French parliamentary report. If this is a claim that requires documentation, then I think a hell of a lot more than one parliamentary report would be needed.

Also, I think there could be better ways of incorporating the "cult" charge. Perhaps by tying it in with the objections that conservative Christians have with the religion (denies Jesus's divinity, denies the Trinity, etc.), as that's the main group of people that keeps the cult charge alive about CS.

Note that I'm not trying to impose my own opinion here; in fact, I'm going to remain silent on the cult question! But as someone brought up in CS, I can say confidently that because CS got itself widely accepted as a proper religion decades ago, only fringe elements on the left and right still cry "cult," so I think an emotionally charged POV word like "cult" should be treated carefully and in the proper context. --Dablaze 22:29, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hem. I really disagree with you that one should back up the accusation of Christian Science being a cult by the opinion that some conservative Christians have that Christian Science is not a really Christian religion, on points of theology.

To me, being a cult or not being a cult has nothing to do with theology, Jesus, the Trinity and what else; this is also the stand taken by the parliamentary report that I cited, which never discusses theology. Being a cult has to do with a variety of actions and attitudes that the religious group takes: for instance, inciting members to cut themselves out of their families and friends not belonging to the group; inciting members to secrecy about the group's proceedings; renouncing normal medical treatment; strongly inciting members to spend vast amounts of money on the religious group; etc.

On the other hand, one of the possible characteristics that this reports and others take for cults is insistence on faith healing at the expense of normal medical treatment. Because of this, I suspect that, in France and other countries, many would call Christian Science a cult. Because it incites its members to put themselves and their children in harm's way when effective solutions are available. David.Monniaux 08:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More on the cult thing

David, I think you're absolutely right when you say that:

I think we have to make a clear difference between stating that some organization X is a "cult", and stating that some person or some organization Y considers X a cult (assuming that Y is important enough that its opinion matters).

However, the only opinion you have presented is that of the French parliament in the form of the one report you cited. Not to detract from the parliament's opinion, but it's just one opinion. The U.S. Congress, on the other hand, considers it a full-fledged religion, and a viable medical option besides, since it allows for Medicare funding of Christian Science practitioners and nursing homes. Do they cancel each other out?

I'm not saying that some people don't consider it a cult for good reason; all I'm saying is that the church from the moment of its founding has worked very hard to gain mainstream acceptability, and, frankly, it has succeeded -- public opinion considers it a religion rather than a cult. Those who consider it a cult are definitely a minority, so to just say "Some say it's a cult" is a bit misleading.

To put this in perspective, most Muslims don't consider Christianity a monotheistic religion because of its belief in the Trinity, but I don't think it would be accurate to write "Some say Christianity is not a monotheistic religion." You have to take into account who's saying it and why, whether it's a widely accepted view or not. It's not widely accepted among anyone besides Muslims that Christianity is polytheistic, and it's not widely accepted, as far as I've seen, that Christian Science is a cult.

Again, does that make these minority views incorrect? Obviously not; they both have good reason for believing what they do. I'm just saying that if a certain view is not widely held, or held only by a narrow or homogenous segment of the population, then it would be POV to obscure that fact with a blanket "Some say" statement.

In fact, if you'd be into it, maybe you could write a section on the whole cult/religion issue in Christian Science, because it's still a source of concern for them despite the mainstream respectability they've achieved. --Dablaze 15:14, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

(I hope you don't think that I'm trying to whitewash the church at all -- in fact, I was the one who added church history and real-life descriptions of Christian Science practice, which someone else on this page called a "detractor's" point of view. I'm just very leery of putting a highly-charged term like "cult" on this page without context because it is simply not a neutral word. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used; I just think it and words like it should be used with care, because its use almost always leads a person to form an opinion based on emotion instead of the factual content of the article.)

As you probably know, many European countries, one the one hand, and the United States, on the other hand, have different ideas on what constitutes a cult or a religion. Generally speaking, in the United States, having a religious motivation, especially Christian, for some act or stance makes it somewhat respectable; this is not the case elsewhere.

We must here distinguish the legal status of religious organizations and their perceptions. France, by law, does not grant official recognition to any religion, thus discussing whether it's considered a full-fledged religion is a bit irrelevant in that context. As far as I know, the association(s) organizing Christian Science worship in France have the same legal status of "association of worship" than the diocesan associations organizing Catholic worship, etc. The notion of "cult" is not a legal notion.

The parliamentary report did not say Parliament considered Christian Science a cult. It cited documents that considered it a cult. Reports also listed a number of behaviors that were associated with cults; one of the serious ones was the pretense of providing health services without qualification, or ordering patients to abstrain from medical treatments. Therefore, Christian Science fits some of the characteristics of a cult. Certainly, if you were to describe such actions in the French general public, people would definitely consider this "cultish" behavior.

Note that nothing in this reasoning deals with theology, which French law and most of the French public are totally unconcerned with; as opposed to your quote about some Muslims considered Christianism not a monotheist religious. David.Monniaux 09:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oy.

OK. Let's try to clear this up.

First, the United States does not "grant official recognition" of any religion; indeed, the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits this. There are people on both sides of the issue who will sue at the drop of a hat to ensure that the government is observing a balance between religious freedom and freedom from religion. It's quite exhausting, but it keeps everyone honest, I suppose.

The only "recognition" that a religion gets in America is granted solely by public opinion, which is purely "unofficial." If any group is acknowledged by society at large as a religion, then it's a religion. That's it. It happened with the Mormons, it happened with the Christian Scientists -- hell, it even happened with the original Christians. What's a religion but a socially acceptable cult? :-)

Now, if Christian Science is considered "cultish" in France, that's one thing. The Belgian government considers the Hasidic Jews and Quakers as cults (Cult#Belgium), but I think most people would disagree with that. The religion/cult question is purely one of POV that obviously depends on the society asking the question.

Of course, the French and Belgian governments are free to call any group they want a "cult." But I think we have a culture class here: as an American, I have been brought up to believe that the government has no place in religion, whether promoting, recognizing, or classifying it. So I just have a hard time giving any credence to what the French government or any government thinks about Christian Science or any other religion. (CS eligibility for Medicare funds is admittedly a de facto recognition, but nothing "official." And even that legislation is constantly under fire.)

The whole point!

This is all academic -- the question of a group being a cult or religion is completely subjective.

You should know that the word cult is not a neutral word in English, which I'm assuming is not your native language. It carries very strong and very negative connotations, and is highly problematic to use in a neutral way.

I know it very well. The translation in French is secte and has the same very negative connotations. Note that culte simply means worship or religious practice, and is especially used in a legal context to qualify the activity of associations that support religious practice (thus, yes, the diocesan associations of the Catholic Church are associations cultuelles).

Given that a cult is in the eye of the beholder, all I'm saying is that to use the word "cult" without placing it in a very careful context would constitute POV, regardless of your intentions.

So if you're going to use it, I think the only responsible way to use it in the way you intend would be to say, "Some governments, such as France's, consider Christian Science a cult because of its rejection of medical science." Or, "Many evangelical Christians consider Christian Science a cult because it rejects the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus."

And if you're going to give a French parliamentary report in French as evidence, I think you should provide a translation of the relevant sections. I doubt that most readers of the English Wikipedia know French. --Dablaze 16:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is more complex than that. The French government, as I said, never considers religions per se, but only organizations. Legally, and constitutionally, it hardly ever officially deals with religion properly said, only with organizations.

Furthermore, official government classifications are given in legislation on the one hand, regulatory instruments and decisions issued by the executive on the other hand; parliamentaries reports are neither, so they do not constitute anything like "the opinion of the French government". Therefore, reporting that the French government has classified any group as a cult, or not classified it, would be extremely misleading.

I'll try to rephrase the matter. The point is, a significant proportion of the opinion in many countries would definitely consider a religion that orders its followers to be "cultish", even though it is respectable in the United States or in other exotic locales.

Furthermore, it's not only a question of classification. Parents refusing medical care for a child whose essential well being is in jeopardy would probably face criminal charges and/or removal of child custody. I suspect that a "religious group" advocating breaching the law would not be in good standing with respect to public order, which is one of the criteria for being considered a bona fide association of worship with respect to the eligibility for exemption of taxes from donations. I'll have to check whether Christian Science enjoys this status. David.Monniaux 17:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What Christian Science is

I'm actually not sure still what Christian Science is after reading that article. Is it the one where they won't use modern medicine etc or am i thinking of something else? oh, and is it a cult?

There is a similar movement called "Religious Science", I happened on one of their churches in New Jersey while looking for a phone. Seemed a lot like CS, except more ecumenical, not specifically Christian. Anyone know enough about them for an article?

I have done a Religious Science stub, and have included Religious Science in the differentiation at the bottom of this article. --Gary D 19:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should be considerably improved by now. "Cult" is a subjective and loaded POV term. Most CS consider ourselves much more boring than that. Religious Science is a sort of distant spinoff and may have its own entry by now; if not, follow Unity or New Age links and you might get something. Chris Rodgers 08:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look forward to technical corrections for blank spaces around comment tags; cause is not obvious to me, as coding is not my profession. Comment tags DO illustrate / discuss POV in revisions, necessitating the revert with partial incorporations. Chris Rodgers 08:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Wiki code is not my forte; may have to resort to discussion page if comment tags don't work.

proper: How can you not observe how POV that is? You can't assume a point at issue, no matter HOW right you believe yourself.

no easy definition: As one who's observed the process and results more closely than you, this is a highly apt descriptive.

answer...that CS has cured. This is PLAINLY stated AS its POV, and therefore IS NPOV. Documentation is abundant: see e.g. Peel, A Century of Christian Science Healing; Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age, and a study whose name I can't think of; I know of a terminal cancer healed in its last 24 hours and much more, plus medical reactions to them. Wouldn't matter if you disputed anyway, point is, the WORDING is NPOV.

is less empirical (comment). No, that's your POV again: assertion alone proves NOTHING.

controversial. Omit adverb, POV either way

normally: Many of these were UNtreatable cases, the individuals were pursued all the same. Stet.

criminal negligence: Your assertion very fails NPOV! One such case was even reversed as a witch hunt involving no such negligence. The judge’s very refusal to allow evidence on behalf of efficacy itself was outrageous and may even have been later censured, don't recall.

The above comments were moved out of the main article by Darrien 09:14, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

CS has healed. True. So has Catholicism. So has Islam. So has Judaism. So has independent prayer without religion attached. So has medicine. Healing can occur in many ways, and many miracles are documented. A family friend had a drunken husband and a deaf daughter. One night she woke to hear her daughter screaming. She went out of her bedroom and found her husband passed out on the floor and her daughter standing over him. She turned to CS. Her husband sobered up. Then someone suggested she take her daughter to a doctor in St. Paul who treated the deaf. The doctor found the daughter had 10% hearing in one ear, and outfitted her with a special hearing aid. This woman was so grateful she became a practitioner. Yet in complete reversal, CS members are told not to mix medicine and prayer. Huh? I am a former CS, leaving the church at age 12. Glad I did. In my POV, CS and members are typical religious right, showing intolerance to others. The sign on the door "ALL ARE WELCOME" is simply not true. Ask any gay or lesbian who has tried to enter. While I am not gay, I do believe that Jesus embraced all people.

"Because spiritual healing is not coerced"

This still implies that non spiritual healing is coerced, thus, it is not NPOV.

Had thought new wording avoided this. The intent is not a contrast with conventional medicine but instead to note that, while spiritual treatment is mostly the norm in CS, reliance on CS is not coerced but is a matter of choice, where individuals are free to resort to materia medica should they deem it appropriate. (It's sometimes argued there are social pressures, but this is the exception, not the norm, and I have not observed it in my own experience.)

How about "Because followers of Cristian science are free to seek traditional medical care if they choose, the courts have been hesitant in some cases to seek prosecution. Those times the courts have chosen to prosecute, have been in cases where the deceased, whether due to being under the age of majority and thus, still under the care of their parents, or incapacitated in some other way, have died due to the decisions of their parents or guardians."

"and generally regarded as a less empirical field than conventional medicine,"

The definition of the word "empirical" makes this statement absurd. It's a fact that spiritual healing is not as well documented and understood as modern medicine, hence, it is less empirical.

The fact that it is -- as I hold it to be -- validly documentable far beyond dismissal as anecdocality at all makes the quantity dimension effectively less relevant. If I could credibly establish a proton decay in a bubble chamber, most scientists mght well accept that even if, on account of statistical infrequency, I might not be able to repeat it. My point is that "generally regarded" allows the article to acceptably walk the line between both the CS and non-CS perspectives. This is sometimes simply a necessity of NPOV: a CS will read it and say, well that's at least technically true, and you will read it and add in your own mind, yes it's true though of course for good reason.

You missed the point. We aren't talking about validity, we're talking about evidence. You may very well have evidence that spiritual healing works, but there simply hasn't been as much time spent verifying spiritual healing as there has been spent verifying traditional medicine. As I said, the very definition of the word "empirical" holds this true.

"no easy definition of what constitutes negligence with regards to spiritual healing has been reached in law."

This seems wrong. By their very nature, laws are specific and exact.

I'm trying not to smile here; law is nowhere nearly so black and white. By that argument, courts might never reverse prior precedents, lawyers would not have to argue pro versus con, legal definitions would never be repeatedly rewritten, no verdicts would ever be reversed or progress on appeal, and OJ Simpson's trial might never have drawn out. Law is however a constantly evolving process instead, not a simple objectivity. With respect to the trials of adherents of CS, the fact is simply that courts have gone back and forth rather more than once. It might be better to substitute "conclusive" or "final" for easy, but the point is, the precedent they work from is not 100% consistent.

The OJ Simpson trial was not held up by interpretation of laws, it was held up trying to decide whether certain laws applied to the case. Laws are very exact and specific. One of the reasons lawyers argue in cases is to try to convince a judge or jury that certain laws do or do not apply to a particular case.

Are you people totally lost? Appeals courts routinely strike down laws deemed too general and not specific enough. i.e. Pornography laws!

"Christian Scientists answer that decease alone..."

This is unclear to me. I suggest that you rewrite it or reword it slighly.

Can try. In the medical realm, a patient's decease may result from negligence or it may not. This certainly raises the difficult question of how to ascertain negligence in this sphere, but it's really not that much easier in medicine either. The courts have simply tried to make their best assessments on a case by case basis. My CS-based contention is that properly applied, there is effectively no real question (here we anticipate the efficacy points below) that CS works, and therefore resort to it alone is not grounds to claim negligence. One prosecution revolved around the same "curable" disorder a famed child actor also had, under the best medical care, yet that did not prevent her from dying either, with no prosecution following.

Before I can respond to this I need to know if you really mean "decease", as in death, or if it's a typo and you mean "disease", as in sickness.

"and that spiritual healing has also cured numerous well-documented cases deemed incurable by the medical faculty."

You should find some links confirming this and include them in the article.

Darrien 09:14, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Think I know one or two, can try to rustle up. The books/ISBN's may however prove apter, as they're just more rigorous and scholarly. Tx for the comments, and incidentally feel free, if you care, to comment or suggest a link regarding comment tags, as I didn't manage to locate them on the How To. Chris Rodgers 08:59, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Darrien 17:05, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

Still coming back for other tweaks, but recent "statement is incorrect" edit by 161.225.1.12 is itself incorrect. While Eddy regarded absolute reality as purely spiritual, she described human experience itself as a blend of tares and wheat, of good and evil, of spiritual manifestation and material finity, of reality through a glass, darkly; the beauty of a blade of grass, and yet its mortal transience. Would be happy to provide citations on request. Chris Rodgers 08:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have beef with the idea that Mrs. Eddy would ever say that matter and spirit could ever mix in any way. The two are mutually exclusive in Christian Science teaching. I'd love to see those citations. I still believe that the statement, even in its reworked form, is incorrect.

It's not that she said they can, which she doesn't, it's that she candidly allows (tares and wheat again) that they seem to. See Mis 86:9, Rud. 6:3, S&H 300:18, 81:18, 190:14, 308:7, 263:32, and many more like them Chris Rodgers 19:51, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. But don't you think it's a little misleading to state that in a def. of CS? Assuming that the people that read this know little to nothing of the religion, I think that the sentence can give the wrong impression.

Just the reverse is true. She stated more than once, and maybe I'll remember where later, could have been the We Knew MBE series or something similar, that it's speaking in the absolute that confuses non-adherents, and she certainly employed the word seem many times herself in order not to confuse people. If you say for example that a club foot is not real, people might have every reason to think you a good candidate for a straitjacket. If you say it seems to be the real condition but that that is an appearance rather than the reality, they at least understand that you don't need glasses. They might think it a pleasant metaphysical speculation of no practical use, but they will not be take misimpression. Chris Rodgers 02:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is it too POV to state that whereas Mary B-E forbade conventional treatments for diseases, and instructed her followers that disease was a spiritual thing with a spiritual cure she wore spectacles? May be, or perhaps someone could explain this to me --(talk)BozMo 16:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

She never forbade conventional medicine, she just taught you couldn't combine it with CS treatment and expect the latter to work. The basic idea was that human experience being a subjective mental phenomenon, disease was also, therefore it was less preferable to treat symptom/belief with more belief rather than dealing directly with the underlying cause. Medicine was tolerable as a temporary course if a person was not equal to healing, but to combine prayer with medicine was to approach illness from two antithetical standpoints (the underlying reality or unreality of matter), pitting the one against the other. Am not familiar with the glasses account, you might want to get documentation. I know she did permit painkillers (to illustrate the preceding point) in extreme cases, including on a few occasions her own, in order to gain enough mental undistraction to then treat oneself mentally, but this she regarded as a temporal expedient only. She also provided for compliance with normal provisions of law in cases of diseases classified as communicable. (Incidentally, the name is not hyphenated; she adopted the name Eddy with her last marriage and went by it for the rest of her life.) Chris Rodgers 04:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

There is a photo of her wearing reading glasses in the collection here: [[1] (http://www.marybakereddylibrary.org/collections/collectiongalleries.jhtml)]. I have also seen a photo of her with reading glasses on the back of an edition of her book. No big deal maybe but ref pain killers and her ?liver trouble I read her explanation about the pain killers helping with the pain enough to allow prayer/faith: with reading glasses I never understood how she explained her inability to overcome this painless imperfection.:o) --BozMo 14:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the basic theory would be employment of a temporal step to facilitate the demonstration of power over that same temporality, or in the jargon, a "suffer it to be so now", which if a healing of the original issue followed, would be from the vantage of Christianity, consistent. If Apollo 13 returned unsuccessfully from the moon, that didn't disestablish the success of other missions besides it. Seems to just work that way in practice; one CS practitioner I've known of effected a remarkable healing while herself wracked at the time with the imposition of a malady. You'd think it would be otherwise, it just seems not to be always in practice. Based on the body of evidence still in place, I for my part have less problem with it. Chris Rodgers 04:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

As a relatively new CS, I feel there are "old school" and "new school" Christian Scientists. The old school CS's tend to do things "because that's the way we've always done it." The new school CS's are going back to Mrs. Eddy's writings to try and understand her original intent. I have never felt pressured by my fellow church members to not use medicine. Instead, I find that it is just usually not discussed. I don't have a personal interest as to whether they find the need to use medicine and I hope they are like-minded. We are each on our own spiritual journey. My practioner has never faulted me for giving medicine to my children and she has continued to pray for them when I have asked for her prayers. When I have questioned her on this point she has said that there are some people who feel that you cannot combine the two, but that she does not believe that is the case. She also cites the case where Mrs. Eddy took pain killers in order to be able to pray. You might note that the application for the Mother Church has never asked whether the individual is taking medication. However, it is not uncommon for branch churches to do this. I believe that there is a current trend to change this, but since the branch churches have a lot of autonomy, the Mother Church can not dictate what they put in their branch church applications. As with most groups, change comes slowly.

Church controversies/politics

What about recent internal fiascos, like the cable Monitor Channel, or the Mary Baker Eddy library that so many church members are opposed to for its arrogance and waste of millions?

What about the church's authoritarian response to any sort of dissent, sometimes using excommunication to punish mouthy malcontents?

What about the church's (presumably) declining membership? They still have their big churches, but very few people actually attend services.

These are just a few of the controversies I can think of. I'm not a church member, but I grew up in the church, and my mother is still a hardcore, yet disaffected, member, so I do have some idea what I'm talking about, but not enough to really write about it.

Dablaze 21:28, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

These are all serious issues; I've alluded to some of this in related articles but could give it some attention here in the near future, it's certainly relevant. Chris Rodgers 07:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Choice btwn medical & spiritual treatment

Every Christian Scientist will say that they are not forced to rely on prayer, but may freely choose between material and spiritual means any time they like.

Ignoring the social pressures inherent in this choice for a moment, there is also no clear doctrinal statement guaranteeing this choice. The only statement in the Manual says something like, "It shall be the privilege of every member of this church to consult with a medical doctor on ontology or the science of being."

Far from clear, IMHO, but the concept of freedom of choice is a big deal in the church, even if in practice church members who resort to medical treatment are seen, fairly or not, acknowledged or not, as having "fallen from grace," thus effectively tipping the scales in favor of choosing spiritual treatment.

Dablaze 21:36, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's a little related stuff in Science and Health, plus the absence of provision for censure too. It might be more describable as a fall from opportunity than grace, and the social pressure question is arguably external to the teaching itself. Was your thought that the topic needed expansion in the article? I could do so, although somebody once took issue with my merely treating the aspect, go figure. Chris Rodgers 07:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You know, it might be beneficial to have an overall "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section that combine the issues in this and the above heading: Administrative/political (including finances) and theological. I'm not a big fan of dirty laundry, but these issues exist and are the subject of widespread debate and disagreement among church members.

As for the "fall from grace" and social pressure, well, what can I say? Even though social pressure to choose spiritual healing isn't part of the teachings, it's still very much a part of being a real-life Christian Scientist. Also, I don't think that how church members think of it ("a fall from opportunity") is relevant here; I'm thinking more about the net effect. –Dablaze 03:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

POV on medical choices?

Steve Frederick 02:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)I apologize for the inadvertant vandalization of your copy. I'm just learning the Wiki rules, which appear at first glance to warn would-be authors in its disclaimer statement not to submit copy they don't want "edited mercilessly." My mistake, no offence intended. My POV vandalism follows:

Under your Spiritual Healing in the Material World heading, the assertion that one's separation from the Christian Science church organization implies a corresponding separation from God, and that the fear of such separation incents Scientists to remain under Christian Science treatment may be true in the minds of some individuals; but this opinion seems rather speculative. It's definitely not church doctrine. A fundamental teaching of Christian Science is the inseparability of man from his Maker. If God is Life itself, as Christian Science teaches (Science & Health p. 51 line 11), then, by this assumption, would not separation from God bring death? Clearly, separation from the church does not produce such a result.

I suggest that you also clarify your statement regarding Christian Science practitioners whom you say "will no longer pray for [persons]" who resort to medical treatment. The attempt to present a "neutral POV" falls a bit short here, and would be strengthened if it better explained the ethics behind the idea, even if they're not always practiced properly. That it is "blasphemous" (see my response above) sounds a bit over-the-top and leaves the reader with the misimpression that such patients are dumped (and maybe some were! Not all practitioners are as kind as they could be). But, what would be thought of a physician whose treatment of a patient interfered with, or even worked to neutralize completely, that of another physician? Bad practice and bad ethics, not to mention the harm such practice might cause a patient. Thus, it is out of respect for ethical medical practice and loving concern for the patient that a Christian Science practitioner will cease treating a patient who decides to turn to medical treatment. Ethical practitioners of Christian Science respect a patient's decision to choose the form of treatment the patient believes most effective. This rationale is sometimes lost on patients who do not understand why they cannot apply two opposite forms of treatment -- medicine and Christian Science. Under such circumstances, a practitioner can be instrumental in helping a patient pray for and treat himself, and thus see to it that patients who turn to medical treatment are not left feeling abandoned.

Your POV appears to imply that it is a cultural practice, if not a doctrinal platform, of Christian Scientists to fear or hate medical practioners and to punish church members who resort to medicine.

There may be individual church members who feel this way, or who have been mistreated this way, but your statements over-generalize. My own experience has been that church members who resort to materia medica -- which is merely a Latin phrase meaning "the branch of medical science that deals with the origin, preparation, dosage, and administration of drugs," and is not meant as a "pejorative" term against medical care -- usually step down voluntarily from any office they may hold (sometimes even against the pleas of their fellow church members) until their medical treatment has been ended and they feel better enough to resume their duties. How such decisions are made depends on the collective character of each congregation, not official church policy. The full text of the Manual bylaw quoted in part is, "If a member of this Church has a patient whom he does not heal, and whose case he cannot fully diagnose, he may consult with an M.D. on the anatomy involved. And it shall be the privilege of a Christian Scientist to confer with an M.D. on Ontology, or the Science of being." The purpose of this bylaw is not to grant or to restrict any "rights" of Christian Scientists to seek medical care. It is, instead, recognition of the privilege Christian Science practitioners already have to seek the opinions of medical doctors regarding the physical nature of a disease so that the Christian Scientist might understand better how to treat the patient through prayer. Such consultations are done in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation.

I agree, from my experience, they choose to step down voluntarily (against the pleas of others.) As a CSst I've taken medical care for a Vasectomy and don't feel conflicted over that choice.

Most of the so-called "notable exceptions" in which church members resort to medical expertise are merely decisions made on an individual basis, not official church policy or official doctrine. A truer exception, which you mention in the Discussion section, is clearly stated in the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy: "If from an injury or from any cause, a Christian Scientist were seized with pain so violent that he could not treat himself mentally, — and the Scientists had failed to relieve him, — the sufferer could call a surgeon, who would give him a hypodermic injection, then, when the belief of pain was lulled, he could handle his own case mentally. Thus it is that we 'prove all things; [and] hold fast that which is good'" (p. 464). The idea being that no patient is expected to suffer violent pain while undergoing Christian Science treatment.

I wonder if you might also provide the specific reference for your assertion that "the church's official biography of Eddy by the scholar and Christian Scientist Robert Peel reveals that two weeks after her fall, Eddy wrote to one of the late Dr. Quimby's students for treatment, which was refused." I can't find this in Peel anywhere.

Steve Frederick, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Thanks for responding so quickly, and, yes, I remember that passage in Peel now. I've been a student of Christian Science for 42 years and a member of The Mother Church for 35. I worked for The Christian Science Monitor for 8 years in Boston (knew almost everyone in the newsroom) before, during and after the advent and collapse of Monitor TV, the Monthly Monitor Magazine, the Advertising Syndicate, etc. I've been a member of five branch churches on the U.S. east and west coasts, and still am a member, and I wouldn't classify myself as a neophyte, nor as one who mixes medicine with Christian Science treatment. Good corresponding with you -- have fun with your page. P.S. Don't knock Sunday School! :)

Corroboration

I removed some sentence saying that Christian Science published "quite compelling" reports of faith healing. To me, it appears that all we can say without more information to back ourselves with is "which Christian Science claims to be compelling" – but it would sound a bit stupid to say it this way (hey, if they publish such information, it's surely because they think it somewhat compelling). If Wikipedia is to endorse the appreciation that these publications were "quite compelling", then we'd have to have the appreciation of doctors, balance it with criticism from other sources, discuss whether those faith healing cures appeared more frequently than natural remissions, compare with conventional medical treatment, etc. David.Monniaux 07:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have the impression David doesn't know his subject.--Frueh 23:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no cult

This discussion about cult etc. from David is very French. Unthinkable also in Germany. There Christian Science is a recognised Church with the rights as Roman-Catholics or Lutherans. These rights are refused to Jehova's Witnesses because they are seen as cult.--Frueh 23:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which rights? I note you haven't answered. Which rights are branches of the First Church of Christ, Scientist been refused? David.Monniaux 19:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust

I didn't know where else to metion this, but I just saw an article about Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust, and I remmebered, weren't the Christian Sceintists persecuted during this terrible purge as well? I clicked on the link that was to a site dedicated to non-Jewish victims, and no refrence to CS. The lack of any reffrence to CS persecution by Nazi Germany in any history sources is disgusting to a follower of CS such as myself, it seems to have been purged from history. Can anyone at least make a stub article for this?

CS was definitely on the wrong side of the Nazi's and became prohibited, though still not on the scale of what the JW's suffered. I've personally heard the story of at least one individual they did in, though I'm not sure it deserves a separate article unto itself. I think at least one von Moltke figured into an attempt on Hitler, though whether assassination is consistent with CS even there is another question. Was the location you were looking at a wiki page, was it perhaps a better location for the subject? Chris Rodgers 06:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is my understanding too, that at least some CSers were targeted by the Nazis.

Major expansions and some suggestions

CS and the Holocaust. 

There is at least one official book that deals with this subject. Published in 1947-48 I think. Perhaps an interested person could contact the mother church to find out more info about this.

CS was persecuted in Nazi Germany. Nazi theory is 100% incompatible with CS.

Initial impressions

First, my apologies if I'm violating Wikipedia practice in some way.

I have to say that while I appreciate an evident effort on the part of the authors to be objective, I believe it widely misses the mark.

For example take the sentence: "The Christian Science church and independent historians differ about the origins of Christian Science." To me, this suggestst that "independent" (and therefore, presumably accurate, unbiased, trustworthy) historians are on one side of the question and other (presumably Church-controlled puppets) take the other side. If that's the intent of the sentence, it's not accurate--of course, I may be reading too much into it. What is true from my reading, is that hostile biographies of Mrs Eddy almost always take the view that Christian Science is derived from Quimby. Other biographers take a more nuanced view.

If you look at all the biographies of Mrs Eddy there are some that are clearly hatchet jobs, some that are clearly friendly to a fault and some that make honest attempts at objectivity. Some of the biographers who attempted objectivity have been Chrisitan Scientists, some have not. For example, see Gillian Gill's work as an example of an honest, respected, and (I believe) generally successful, attempt at balance from a non-Christian Scientist. If you eliminate both the hatchet jobs and the overly friendly biographies, you'll find a range of opinion as to the degree and significance of Quimby's influence on Mrs Eddy. But I don't believe you'll find unbiased evidence to suggest that Quimby's influence was sufficiently important to conclude Christian Science grew out of Quimby's teaching. Robert Peel's discussion of this issue seems pretty reasonable (and well documented) to me or see Gill pp 119-120.

IMHO the rest of the article leans heavily towards the view of detractors of Christian Science, in similar ways... --chris michael 17:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Quimby's influence is overstated and the article in general leans towards the detractors in my opinion.

two articles

I Propose two articles:

Christian Science Metaphysics, Healing System, Theology

Church of Christ, Scientist Organisation, Church History, Manual, Buildings of the Mother Church

--Frueh 23:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jan. 13, 2005 revert

Do I really need to explain myself? I don't think so, but I'll try:

1. This, like all other Wikipedia articles, is for a general audience, so I am including various facts about the Christian Science religion that most people probably don't know and are probably curious about. In Christian Science terms, I am including information from a "human" standpoint, not a "spiritual" one.
2. I am not writing a press release, as the edits preceding mine seemed to do. There was some good info in there, but it should not supplant previous article text.
3. I am not bending over backwards to explain the intricacies of the theology, since it's not that intricate. If others want to include it, then I don't have a problem with that, but please add the information, don't replace existing information with it.

Also, if anyone's interested in expanding the article with info about Christian Science and the women's movement, I think that would be great. Eddy was the only woman to have ever founded a popular religion, as far as I know, and most of her students were women (as are most church members today). There was a kind of proto-feminist vibe going on with the theology ("Father-Mother God", "Mother Church", Eddy's title "Mother", etc.), and it seemed to be a very empowering thing 100 years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about it.

--dablaze 22:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Other Links"

I removed the "Other Links" from the article - the first one was just a short news item regarding the fountain in the church plaza. The second link had nothing to do with Christian Science but was about scientists that are Christian. The third link was to a highly biased and misleading propaganda website by All About GOD Ministries, Inc. If anyone feels that these three links added anything of real worth to the article, then please feel free to add them back. I, for one, don't think any of them have any place here. I mean, you don't see any anti-Catholic links on the pages for Catholicism. There isn't a link to Michael Moore's website in the George W. Bush article. I don't see why the Christian Science article has to have this kind of stuff.

--Brooks 06:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Christian Science

Christian Science advocates relying on faith healing in lieu of seeking medical treatment, including for minor children (though such requirements are now apparently lessened). For this reason, it is sometimes listed as having cult-like behavior.

At a Glance • Christian Science is fully explained in Eddy’s primary text on spirituality and healing, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. • Practiced by people of many different denominations and faith traditions, as well as those with no faith tradition. Membership in The First Church of Christ, Scientist, is not a prerequisite for the practice of Christian Science. • A means of spiritual care through which individuals have found better emotional and physical health, answers to life’s deepest issues and progress on their spiritual journeys. Healthcare decisions are always a matter of individual choice. • Basic ideas include: • God is divine Love, Father-Mother, supreme. • The true nature of each individual as a child of God is spiritual. • God’s infinite goodness, realized in prayer, heals.