Spotlight on Christian Science II: Visit to the Mother Church

Last post I wrote that metaphysically and theologically, Christian Science, is at best on the fringes of Christianity.  I overemphasized the theological differences in my last post and this will be addressed in future posts. 


For now, let me simply state that there are significant theological differences, including: a reinterpretation of the Trinity, original sin, and reconciliation of God and man.


Before entering the Mother Church you are taken aback by the grandeur of the building. It is gorgeous and is located next to the building that houses the Boston Symphony. When you walk in, there is a reception desk and behind it tables with a variety of Christian Science literature. Many of the walls are adorned with Bible verses and quotes from Mary Baker Eddy.


Services are very rooted in American Protestant style Christianity. The largest difference is that Christian Scientists do not perform any sacrament. Catholics acknowledge seven and most Protestants acknowledge two: baptism and communion. 

Two Lecterns for Two Readers: Bible and Interpretation

At the beginning of the service, the two speakers (a man and a woman) informed us that this was a healing service. (Though, outside of references to theology and doctrine there was no explicit attempt to heal anyone in this service).



One of these readers were responsible for reading passages from the Bible chosen by the board of directors, sometimes a year in advance. The other reader was responsible for reading the spiritual meaning of the scripture found in Eddy's Science and Health, reviewed in the last post. (Science and Health and the Bible are the only recognized pastors in Christian Science).


Hymns were chosen from the Christian Science Hymnal. These hymns often referenced the oneness of God and sometimes referred to God as Father-Mother.



Towards the end there was a solo vocalist, accompanied by a keyboard. The song referenced the theological idea that we are reflections of God and that God is infinite. The exit music was played by an organist. 

Inside the main sanctuary of the First Church of Christ Scientist

Ritually, the biggest difference between Christian Science and most other forms of Christianity is the lack of sacraments. They do not celebrate communion or baptism sacramentally, but rather spiritually. 


After the service, I took a tour of the old edifice, which is currently used during Wednesday night meetings. 



This edifice invoked the sense of traditional Christianity even further. It featured stained glass windows of Jesus' various healing miracles, the art emphasized Jesus' power over death and disease. 

Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. 

Next door was the Mary Baker Eddy Library. This was also an immaculate building and I paid six dollars to see the Mapparium. 

The Mappariaum was like being inside a globe of the earth, but with countries present to about 1935. Thus, on this map Russia was the Soviet Union and parts of Africa were still ruled by colonial powers. 

It was accompanied by an audio-visual representation. Most of the content was non-religious; however, there were hints of philosophical idealism, that ideas shape the world, which is consistent with the theology of Christian Science. 

The rest of the exhibit was mostly an understandably idealized portrayal of Eddy's life (if you go to the Vatican, you are not going to see extended critiques of Catholicism). It also promoted the Christian Science Monitor, a secular newspaper started by Eddy.

Bottom Line:

As the second installment of my series on Christian Science, I am prepared to come to a conclusion. Christian Science is a type of Christianity. The lack of rituals and the theological differences give me some reservation. 

If I thought religion was about belief, I might come to a different conclusion. As Christian Science strays from most Christian theologies. (Though, again, I admit I over-emphasized the differences in my last post, I will touch on this in later posts). But seeing a Christian Science service in person I was struck more by the similarities rather than differences. 

Spotlight on Christian Science I: Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy

In 1866, Mary Baker Eddy 'discovered' Christian Science after a life threatening fall in Lynn, Massachusetts. 

The underlying assumption behind her discovery is that so-called miracles actually follow divine laws. 


Combining science and religion may seem taboo, but, in light of history, this combination is wholly unsurprising. 

Science and Health (first published in 1875) by Mary Baker Eddy is the textbook for Christian Science and thus the natural place to start for a series on Christian Science.



Below is an example of my new (and hopefully improved) book summaries, a list of five ideas presented in the book. 

Summary:

1) Matter and physical causation, including sickness is illusory.

2) Spirit or Mind composes all reality.

3) God is infinite Mind, Mother-Father, Love, Principle, and more. 

4) Humankind reflects God; and is the compound idea of infinite Spirit.

5) Sickness is unreal; teaching this is the primary healing method.

Extended Analysis and Critique

Metaphysics:

Metaphysically speaking, Christian Science has little in common with Christianity. The vast majority of Christians believe and have believed that matter exists. 


However, to Christian Scientists matter and anything physical is illusory; what is really real is Spirit or Mind. 


George Berkeley's idealism is perhaps the Christian metaphysical system that most resembles the metaphysics of Christian Science. Both believe that minds and their ideas are what is real; however, Berkeley was also an empiricist. 


He argued that everything, including matter, is an idea in the mind of a perceiver. From a Christian Science perspective, this mixes truth with error because the illusion of matter is mixed with the reality of mind.  

The metaphysics of Christian Science is more similar to Advaita Vendanta, a branch of Hindu theology. 


In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is the universal Principle, like God is the Principle in Science and Health. Matter is illusory and Brahman (which can also be considered the Infinite) is reality. 


Though the reality of  matter is comparatively more real than our imagination in Advaita Vedanta, perhaps also mixing truth with error from the Christian science view.

God/Trinity:

God is not typically viewed as a person in Christian Science, unlike most Christian theologies. Instead, God is more typically seen as Principle, Love, or even Mind. 

God is also unitary. In Christian Science, there is no traditional concept of Trinity. Eddy states that the trinity is closer to polytheism, rather than monotheism. Perhaps ironically, this is a criticism that Muslims often levy against Christians. 

Though there is still a Holy Ghost, but it is not a person. But rather it is: "Divine Science; the development of eternal Life, Truth, and Love."

Science:

Science, in the Christian Science sense, is a repeatable method based on the understanding of divine Principle (that is God). If one understands Principle properly, one can guide others to be healed or cured.


When Eddy was writing, the term 'science' was just starting to become professionalized and 'scientist' wasn't coined until 1834. 



As late as 1869, three years after the discovery of Christian Science, Antoinette Brown Blackwell wrote Studies in General Science that included metaphysics and epistemology as subjects alongside evolution and physics. Thus, the word 'science' was a much more general term. 


It seems odd to contemporary ears to call a religion 'science.'  However, with its allegedly repeatable methods and its emphasis on Principle, it was, at its origin, using 'science' according to its usage of the day.

Pharmacology:

Mary Baker Eddy was alive in the latter half of the 19th and the first decade of the 20th century. 

Pharmacology, then called materia medica, was primarily focused on treating the symptoms of disease, rather than the disease itself.  


In the late 1800s, antibiotics were not yet invented and inoculations were controversial. In Science and Health, pharmacology was given about the same amount of attention as mesmerism, also called animal magnetism, which was a loose collection of ideas that focused on an invisible natural force exerted by animals. 


Suffice it to say that the state of pharmacology was still in its infancy and perhaps it is just now reaching adolescence. Some treatments caused as much problems as the ailment it was supposed to be treating. 


Also no one denies that mind has some effect on the body. Thus, it is not all that surprising that something like Christian Science was developed. 

History of Religion in America

But why specifically America? In Without God without Creed, James Turner observes that 19th century American churches de-emphasized creeds.


Without strong creeds, American churches splintered into multiple denominations. Even creating three American styles of religion, Christian Science, Mormonism, and later Unitarian Universalist. 


Some historians think about American religion using a market analogy. 


America is one of the prime examples of a free religious market. Thus the 'startups' of Christian Science and Mormonism have a better shot than in other countries with a more dominantly established religion. 

Bottom line:

First, I want to emphasize that explaining a religion historically does not necessarily discredit a religion. Religion is steeped in humanity. 



Even if we have a sense of the divine inside of us or have experienced something wholly other, we interpret these experiences as humans. Thus, merely claiming that someone created a religious idea does not invalidate it. 


Second, I will delve more into Christian Science through this blog, but I doubt that my main critique of Christian Science will change. And that is that I think its dangerous from a public health perspective. 

Eddy advocates not taking any medicine and Christian Scientists typically follow this teaching. However, even if you are completely sure about your faith and ability to adhere to and believe that sickness is unreal, from many outside perspectives you are putting others in danger. 

Refusing to be vaccinated decreases herd immunity. Even if someone is immunocompromised or cannot get a vaccination due to allergies, they get some protection from diseases if enough healthy individuals receive vaccinations. 


Yes, this is very much an outside critique. But, one that I can't help making. To the Christian Scientist vaccines do nothing, but to most of the rest of the world it saves lives. So get vaccinated.

Spotlight on Confucianism IV: Reflections and Recap

Often I end a series with a critique. However, I already have several loose threads and adding another to the tapestry would be too much. 

Instead I am going to briefly answer three questions from my current perspective:

1) Is Confucianism a religion?
2) What are the similarities between Confucianism and Humanism?
3) Who might benefit by contemplating the beliefs and traditions of Confucianism?

1) Is Confucianism a religion?

Though I have discussed this question, I have yet to take a firm stance. My answer is that Confucianism is a religion, but there are a few caveats.  

Confucian ideas used for purely political ends, such as in the Han dynasty, are not religious. But the practice of divination, the belief in Heaven as guide for morality, and even the Confucian analysis of self should all be considered religious. 

Confucianism fits most academic theories of religion. It is about community (Emile Durkheim), though it does merge the sacred and the secular. Self, family, and community are ultimate concerns (Paul Tillich). And, some Confucians even report experiencing Heaven (William James).

But, if you believe that religion is defined by a belief in a personal God or gods (and would not substitute an impersonal metaphysical principle), then you would likely disagree with me. Though if this is the case, perhaps you would disqualify Christian Science as well. 

2) Should we compare Confucianism or other Eastern traditions/ideas to Western Humanism?

American Humanist Association advertising campaign.

First what is humanism? Humanism has two meanings, one general and one specific. The general definition is 'a system of thought that attaches prime importance to human needs'. Confucianism is a subset of this type of humanism. 

The more specific meaning of humanism focuses on rationality, empiricism, and materialism (the belief that all existence is comprised of matter and energy). Confucianism is typically not humanism according to this definition.

Here's why:

In Confucianism, T'ien is the source of morality, the metaphysical principle, and the first instance of the metaphysical principle. T'ien and materialism are incompatible, because a typical humanist would likely not accept the metaphysical underpinnings of Confucian divination. 

(Thanks to Greg Epstein for gently chastising me into thinking about humanism more globally)

3) Who might benefit by contemplating the beliefs and traditions of Confucianism?

An illustration of the perceived difference between Cofucianism (left) and Daoism (right)

Previously, I wrote a harsh review of Alaine de Botton's Religion for Atheists. My chief critique was that he only picked aspects of religion that he liked without a theoretical perspective or even specific practical considerations. 

I also thought that it was problematic to take specific festivals and rituals out of their original context without due care. 

I hope to avoid my own critiques by being specific who I think aspects of Confucianism might help. I have Asperger's, an autism spectrum 'disorder'. 

From a purely personal perspective, I never felt like belief in God or attending church helped me with social belonging.

When I read about the Confucian method of first cultivating myself and then expanding outwards, this made sense to me. Sure, there is prayer and other ways of self-cultivation in Christianity, but this is usually focused on an individual's relationship with God. 

I had immense difficulty understanding human people and I felt everyone wanted me to have a relationship with a God-person, whose intentions are admittedly outside of everyone's grasp.

Without an overall plan for self improvement, I studied humans academically: first psychology, then philosophy, then history, and finally religion. Currently, I think religion best encapsulates humanity. (But this is an argument I will write later).

As I understand it, this strategy is not unlike the Neo-Confucian concept of ko wu (the investigation of things). By practicing ko wu, you develop an understanding of Principle. 

Also, Confucianism focuses on guiding individuals as individuals, as opposed to one approach fits all (terrible for those who are demonstrably different). For instance, Confucius gives advice to his students based on what that person needs to work on, as opposed to a generalized set of rules. 

There is focus on definite moral rules as well (i.e. respect elders, fulfill your roles well, and etc...). Though, an emphasis on specific rules would help, it would be difficult to implement this in an American context beyond the family. And perhaps a failure of Confucianism is that it creates a misguided holism of the religious, ethical, and political. 

However, it seems like a good model to follow for those who are demonstrably different, as they can be formally taught ethical and moral theories that they could potentially put into practice in their own lives. 

Bottom line: 

Overall I have so far enjoyed Confucianism. Though, for my blog I am moving on to other religions. I am looking forward to further investigating Confucianism, particularly the philosophy of Chu Hsi.