What’s the role of Jesus Christ in the Church of Christ, Scientist*?
What makes the Church of Christ, Scientist, a Christian denomination (other than self-identification)?
Thanks!
*The Church of Christ, Scientist, also known as Christian Science, founded by Mary Baker Eddy. This not the same as Scientology.
WRS
Snippets that relate to Jesus specifically, from Christian Science Committee on Publication for Ontario:
In other words, Jesus and his teachings have a central role in the church’s theology. Although not mainstream, the church is absolutely Christian. For more, visit Religious Tolerance
P.S. A note to Googlers: A site that always turns up in searches for Christian Science is endtime.org. This is a fringe group that IS NOT related to true Christian Science as it is taught and practiced by the Church of Christ, Scientist. They’re about as related to regular Christian Science as those backcountry snake-handlers are to mainstream Christianity.
Well, I have some family that are Christian Scientists and spent some time there as a child, though it’s been a very long time.
My recollection was that Jesus was viewed just as he is in any other christian religion, namely part of god. I don’t recall his name being invoked as much as in say a catholic church, but he was still the christ in christian.
Other than their stupid idea that doctors are a bad idea (I actually had an aunt that died in her 50s because she refused to go to a doc), I remember the teachings being pretty reasonable. Some of the key messages I recall:
God is love. I.e. all the love your neighbor, take care of your fellow man stuff.
Your body is a shell, like the shell on a hermit crab. It’s not you, just your container.
Though I was never asked to or made to turn away from medicine, there was something positive about the message that you’re in control of yourself, and can will it to be better. If that makes any sense.
Oh, and as pointed out in the OP, this isn’t Scientology. One important point is that there was no prostelyzing. Which may explain the churches fall into hard times over the last many years.
Many Christian denominations believe that Jesus is the door, so to speak, to salvation, and that without Jesus there is no salvation. Thus, Jesus is considered to be more than just a part of God.
Do Christian Scientists believe this? What is salvation and how is it attained, according to Christian Scientists?
(Thanks for the above posts - they are enlightening.)
WRS
By the way, it’s always struck me as odd (and my wife noticed this as well without prompting), that all of my Christian Scientist family members are very smart people, in fact the smarter ones in my family. They are also pretty pacifist oriented. I don’t know if that speaks to all Christian Scientists of course.
Also, in my case, all of the Christian Scientists are two generations above me; for whatever reason none of their kids or grandkids took it up. I only have my own family to look to, but as I said in the last post, I suspect that the church’s pacifist and non-prostelyzing attitude has resulted in it’s dramatically declined membership.
I was wondering what’s the role of science in the Church of Christ, Scientist?
Do the congregation call each other scientists? Do they wear white lab coats and think they are highly intelligent? Perhaps just for the association with scientific rigor?
Do they come up with experiments to test a hypothesis and measure and document the results in the Christian Science Monitor?
Aren’t a lot of scientific theories, such as evolution, at odds with Christian dogma?
Well, all of my extended family are Christian Scientists, and have been since my great grandmother adopted the faith away back when-- this includes uncles, etc. who have married into the faith and became practicing members of the church, not just those of us who were raised in it. It’s not fair to say that I am a CS, but that’s more out of laziness and cynicism than any active break with the faith. Still, I identify more with it than any other religion.
That said, my understanding of how Christ is viewed in regards to salvation is that there is a fundamental difference in understanding about how his sacrifice and resurrection relate to man’s salvation. I think more mainstream Christian understandings hold that Jesus’s crucifiction was payment to God for the sins of mankind, and that we, as his followers, must accept not only his teachings but that his death was a payment for our sins. By accepting this, we become saved-- Jesus’s sacrifice counteracts our own sins and sets us right with God. The underlying thing taken for granted is that humans are imperfect sinners who must atone in order to be square with God.
By contrast, Christian Science teaches that Jesus’s crucifiction and subsequent resurrection as a whole demonstrate that, among other things, nothing destroys essential being. We are saved not because Jesus was sacrificed, but because we can now know that Life is not our mortal body but our true, immortal identity as children of God. The underlying thing taken for granted here is that we are already perfect children of God, but we let other things get in the way; “atonement” becomes “at one-ment”, where we become one with God-- the qualities and perceptions that keep us from being perfect drop away.
Existence is basically a giant learning curve, where we learn to accept and express God’s love without interruption. If you don’t get that down pat before death, well, you keep learning after you die. You don’t get shipped off to Heaven or Hell based on your time on Earth. Instead, in whatever way the afterlife presents itself, you keep learning until you understand your own place as God’s perfect, loved and loving child. Heaven and Hell are understood not as destinations of reward or punishment, but states of mind (or understanding) which are either togetherness with God or separateness from Him.
Jesus’s role in all this was to teach people how to be with God-- how to accept and express His love. Salvation is the ability to do so.
As I understand it- C.S. teaches that God is the ultimate reality & all that exists is a manifestation of the Mind of God. Anything deviating from Perfection- evil, hatred, sickness, death- is an illusion. In fact, the concept of matter is technically an illusion, as all is ultimately Spirit. Mind, God. Jesus came into our “reality” to bring us back into that realization, by healing others & raising Himself from the dead- thus showing that human mind in harmony with Divine Mind can overcome the illusory limitations of matter.
The problem traditional C’nity has with this is that traditional C’nity teaches that God did create matter; that matter is real; that as God created it, matter is good, though limited & later fallen. If “matter” is illusionary, then Jesus did not truly come in the flesh, and that, according to I John, is a main teaching of AntiChrist.
The term “science” is used to mean “knowledge”- not labs & experiments & such.
Normally, I’m not one to lean on the dictionary to explain anything, but the “Science” part of Christian Science is relying on the pure meaning of the word, not the way we usually use the word in conversation. To wit:
So Christian Science is the study and practice, etc., of the teachings of Christ.
Glad you know this. There appears to be nothing Christian Scientists hate more than being confused with Scientologists. I don’t blame 'em.
Great explanations, Beadalin and FriarTed. I’ve often found it difficult to explain this stuff to friends. 
I consider myself more or less a CSer, but ditto on the laziness part, Beadalin, plus college soul-searching. Some more thoughts, though:
RELATIONSHIP TO CHRISTIANITY:
The cool thing about Christian Science is that it gets back to the roots of Christianity–when healings actually occurred and Jesus said things like “Love thy neighbor,” not “Crusade against thy neighbor.” Healings died out in the church not long after the Disciples and their ilk did. They didn’t stay dead, though (the healings that is ;))–there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of documented Christian Science healings of everything from colds to broken limbs to multiple sclerosis to cancer, many of which have left doctors quite befuddled. People have also reported healings of relationship and money troubles, and many CSers I know who faithfully read the weekly lesson (with selected readings from The Bible and Science and Health–Mary Baker Eddy’s book that we use as a companion to The Bible) report that things just tend to go better for them in their daily lives when they read their lesson than when they don’t, because they’ve got that spiritual foundation set for themselves.
When Jesus healed, he didn’t say things like “Oh God, please make this person better.” Rather, he acknowledged God’s presence, had faith that his prayers were heard before he even spoke them, and saw man as an already-perfect spiritual child of God, not an ailing mortal with something wrong with him that needed to be fixed. Christian Science teaches that this acknowledgment of our spiritual selves, this seeking to better understand God, heals and enriches.
THE ROLE OF JESUS:
Beadalin explained this very well, but there are a few more things worthy of note. CSers focus more on Christ, or “the Christ idea,” than on Jesus the man. This is an important distinction. The Christ idea is basically man’s reconciliation to God, while Jesus was a man who was so in tune with God that he perfectly exemplified the Christ. The Christ idea was not limited to Jesus, however; he came to show us that we all can express the Christ. This is not to say that Christian Scientists believe that they are Jesus! Rather, every one of us can broaden our understanding to become in touch with God and our loving relationship to Him (or Her. CSers sometimes say “Father-Mother God,” since God has both “masculine” and “feminine” qualities, and a balance of these qualities breeds harmony.)
We believe that Jesus was the Way-shower–in a different and, I think, more uplifting fashion than traditional Christianity. What Jesus did was show us that there IS no death and that man’s true nature is spiritual–not material–and he (or she!) can therefore know and understand God. He didn’t redeem us of sins; he showed us that we weren’t sinners to begin with. Nor can we ever be, as long as we remember that we are God’s perfect children, made in His image and likeness!
ACCEPTANCE:
What all of this also entails is something that I find to be very important. Many traditional Christians piss me off to no end by going on about how people of all other faiths are going to hell because they do not accept Jesus Christ as their lord and saviour. CS as I understand it refutes this in several ways. One is that yes, Jesus is our example and showed us that we can be one with God (so he is the door to salvation in that sense), but you don’t have to be a Christian (or give lip-service to Jesus being your Saviour, for that matter) to understand the Christ idea. After all, one word translated into three different languages means the same thing. We are ALL on our own paths to understanding God (the “giant learning curve” that Beadalin spoke of), and it’s quite possible to reach the same truths through a different route. CSers just tend to feel that CS leads the way with particular clarity.
For another thing, since life is eternal, you’re not condemned to hell if you don’t do a good enough job of figuring God out in time. Heaven and hell are states of mind–you can make your own heaven or hell here on earth, as a matter of fact.
On top of that, here’s an interesting factoid: When Mary Baker Eddy wrote Science and Health, she didn’t intend to start her own religion. Far from it. What she wanted was to share this universal truth with every faith. Some accepted it and integrated it into their own sermons (as quite a few non-CS religious leaders still do today). Many didn’t, though, and so to keep the ideas alive, Mrs. Eddy started her church.
OTHER STUFF/MISCONCEPTIONS AND CONFUSIONS:
I’m sorry about your aunt, but that’s not really the typical outcome of Christian Science treatment. Most I know who are diligent about it (I’m not at the moment) get quite consistent results. It’s not always instant–sometimes you have to work through things in your thought–but when you’re healed, it’s complete. And if it’s too much for their current understanding or they’re just not confident enough in prayer, most CSers will take another route. Even Mrs. Eddy says you can set a broken bone. CS is not supposed to condemn you for seeking medical treatment, although the idea is that the more you seek spiritual solutions, the higher your understanding of God is, and so from there you grow more and can heal more, etc. If you seek material (i.e. medical) solutions, you are giving in more to the idea that man is material and not growing spiritually.
Well…kind of, but not really. It’s not a shell; it doesn’t even really exist spiritually. The whole matter not existing thing throws a lot of people off. It’s hard to get your mind around. It’s downright trippy. A helpful if simplistic analogy is the bit in The Matrix with the kid and the spoon. (I’ve read that that movie actually did use some CS philosophy, in addition to Buddhism and other stuff.) Another question that comes up is, “Well if matter doesn’t exist and we’re perfect, then why do we think it’s there in the first place?” That’s probably one of the toughest questions CSers have to answer, but this analogy might help: say you add 2 + 2 and you get 5. (And you’re not talking about the first song on Radiohead’s new album. ;)) You ask yourself over and over again, Why did I get 5? WHY did I get 5??? Well…in the end, it doesn’t really matter. Fact is, it’s wrong. You can’t really explain nothingness.
I agree with that. Although CS is really more about God being in control and you becoming closer to Him.
The “science” bit you inquired about has already been explained, but as far as evolution goes, I don’t think CS particularly cares. It’s a material explanation for existence, which is okee-fine if you go for that, but CS teaches that our spiritual existence is what really counts. (Matter doesn’t matter, see?)
Hehe…my boyfriend’s basis for that is that I personally hate nothing more than CS being mistaken for Scientology, although I’m sure most other CSers don’t like it either. The commercials I’ve seen for Scientology show similar ideas to Christian Science (man being more than a brain and all that), but CS sure as hell doesn’t hypnotize its members, make them pay exorbitant fees, and teach that we evolved from extraterrestrial clams.
By the way, if you want to learn more, here’s the official website: www.tfccs.com. Beware of Google searches indeed.
I’ve written a damned novel, but I guess I had a lot to say on the subject. Hope this proves enlightening or amusing or something. Cheers!
BornOfStardust wrote
I’ll appreciate if you don’t insult my dead aunt by implying she didn’t pray hard enough.
Her faith in your religion killed her. Just leave it at that. Don’t desecrate her any further.
Another quick thought on the medical treatment thing–very few people actually die from refusing to go to a doctor, especially when you compare it to the many thousands of people who die as a result of medical mistake or malpractice, not to speak of those whose illnesses or injuries medical care is simply insufficient to cure. Besides, many of those medical-care-refusers aren’t even true Christian Scientists. Most of the nutty people living in the woods who let their children die that you hear about on the news (or that one X-Files episode) are not true Christian Scientists. CSers aren’t passive about healing–they don’t say it’ll be “God’s will.” They do very active study and prayer work.
By the way, BornOfStardust, your explanations are a lot more hocus-pocus than I recall. I don’t remember nebulous science fiction types of references, just a lot of nice, subdued, loving people with this strange quirk against medicine.
Perhaps things have changed, perhaps our communities are different, or perhaps you’re at an extreme edge of the religion.
Just saw your post–I’m really sorry, Bill. I sure wasn’t implying she didn’t “pray hard enough”; it’s honestly not like that. Nor that she was a fringe wacko like I mentioned in my last post. Anyway, I’ll let it go. Sorry to offend you.
Now I’m starting to get pissed. If you were talking in generalities I wouldn’t really care, but as you’ve implied that someone I loved died because she didn’t take her religion seriously enough, when in fact it was her faith that took her life, I really have to object.
What sort of a ridiculous thought is that? The truly faithful aren’t passive; they pray very hard. Did you really say that?
Several simulposts. Apology accepted.
Thank you, Bill. Sorry for the misunderstanding, both from the message board itself and from my attempts to speak in generalities not coming out like I intended.
Have there been any scienfitic or objective analysis of claims of healing by Christian Scientists (or other people healed by faith/prayer/God alone), preferrably by a disinterested party?
WRS
Not to quash a question I’d love to hear answered, but I don’t think it can be proven that a healing was accomlished by faith/prayer/god alone. Just because there is prayer and then a healing occurs doesn’t mean one caused the other, post hoc being what it is.
Still worth asking if any such cases have been documented thoroughly. That way, we could see if there had been no response to conventional medical treatment, the details of whatever condition was purportedly healed, etc.