Spotlight on Christian Science III: My remaining concerns & confusions

In this post I was able to call in a favor from a friend who is a practicing Christian Scientist to clarify his position on some of my remaining confusions. I want to emphasize that these responses are his alone and may not reflect the totality of Christian Science. (Also, no single individual reflects the totality of any religion)


I also want to emphasize is that reading a primary text, such as Science and Health, is different than reading a theology or philosophy book. Primary texts have a history of interpretation, something that must be taken into account for any serious attempt at understanding a tradition. This is one of the reasons you need to talk to people to understand particular religions more fully. 


(All quotes unless otherwise specified are from Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health, the textbook of Christian Science)

Confusion 1: Body

I am unsure whether the human body counts as physical or spiritual in Christian Science. 

I think of the body as material, perhaps that is a sticking point that I am just not able to get over, but as I type this my physical fingers are striking the physical keys. Yet it is an "erroneous postulate" that man has a material body (pg. 92). 

There does seem to be a body though: "Become conscious for a single moment that Life and intelligence are purely spiritual... and the body will then utter no complaints (pg. 14)."

Even Jesus has a "true flesh and blood" (pg. 25). 

When I wrote about there being no body in the first post of this series. I was attempting to contrast the idea that traditionally Christianity unites body with soul in their concept of a person (though this is swiftly changing based on the increasing popularity of cremation). 

My confusion: the word body implies a materiality or at least corporeality. If all we are is spirit why talk about the body; i.e. why does Jesus have "true flesh and blood?"

Response:

Remember the dream section in Science and Health, Eddy states that we have bodies in dreams, that's how we do things in the world. Healing is a side effect of realizing our spiritual nature, not the goal. But corporeal flesh and blood are not Truth; we are fundamentally spiritual. 

Addendum: This tweet from Christian Science probably best explains it.

Confusion 2: Death

In Christian Science death is an illusion:

"DEATH. An illusion, the lie of life in matter; the unreal and untrue; the opposite of Life....Matter has no life, hence it has no real existence. Mind is immortal. The flesh, warring against Spirit; that which frets itself free from one belief only to be fettered by another, until every belief of life where Life is not yields to eternal Life. Any material evidence of death is false, for it contradicts the spiritual facts of being. (pg. 584)"


Death may not even be necessary for immortality:



"Then being will be recognized as spiritual, and death will be obsolete, though now some insist that death is the necessary prelude to immortality (pg. 90)"


Yet the dead MAY be stuck on life and be part of the mortal plane:


"If the departed are in rapport with mortality, or matter, they are not spiritual, but must still be mortal, sinning, suffering, and dying. (pg.78)"


Eddy does believe that this is unlikely. And in the event that the departed do communicate with the living, they are too stuck on materiality and are not fully immortal or spiritual. 


My confusion about Death is dual. 



1) If death is ever not a necessary prelude to immortality, can we live for ever on this existence or do we get raptured, etc...? 



2) Why say death is completely illusory? If after someone's existence in this world ceases they are no longer able to communicate with the living is this not a significant event that needs a name? Thus, why not reinterpret death rather than calling it an illusion?

Response:

(After sometime talking about it). The exact possibilities of life after the dissolution of the material body are not important in Christian Science. Granted re-incarnation is not a possibility, but the fact that Eddy talks about ghosts and other possibilities is simply to say if there are ghosts then they are still mortal because they have not yet fully realized that their true nature is spiritual. 

Confusion 3: Atonement

There are various theories concerning how atonement works in Christianity. However, the vast majority of Christians today believe (in some form) that we are primarily saved through God's grace through Christ. (Though Catholics generally emphasize works more than Protestants).

In Christian Science, atonement comes slowly and Christ's crucifixion only seems important because we were shown Truth.

Christ's resurrection was primarily (perhaps only?) a demonstration of the power of Christian Science. Unsurprisingly, Christ is called the "way-shower" (pg. 30). 

This demonstration means, not that we are saved by grace, but that we have been shown a way to go. This way will be very difficult and requires much repentance.

For instance, a music teacher demonstrates technique in order to teach music, but the student must practice themselves (analogy adapted from pg. 26). Christ used his sacrifice to demonstrate (teach) the principles of Christian Science. 

My confusion: is Christ's crucifixion necessary for individual atonement and salvation, if it was used primarily as a demonstration? Could we teach ourselves Truth, like someone can study music on their own?

If so it would have more in common with the moral influence theory of atonement that was more popular in early Christianity.

Response:

Atonement in the traditional Christian sense is not an accurate word; but she does talk about at-one-ment. This means the responsibility is that people have to work to get closer to God, instead of vice versa. Christ was a person who understood the principles of Christian Science the best; perhaps the only one (so far) that got it right. But he also said that greater works will follow you, his resurrection was a demonstration. 

Final Word (for now):

I do not hesitate based on my own judgment to categorize religions. I do recognize that I am entering into a contested internal debate. However, outsiders have to make sense of the religious landscape as a whole and we cannot do that without forming judgments.

Delving deeper into Christian Science theology, I think its theology is definitely Christian. Though probably it's own branch. 

One good way to decide how a theology and religion should be classified is to look at its problems and solutions, similar to Stephen Prothero's approach in God is Not One.

The problem of Christianity is sin and salvation is the solution. 

Granted this is not quite as straightforward with Christian Science, because it increases the relevance of sickness as a problem. However, the solutions are the same, repentance and salvation. 

Intermission for Method and Theory I: Review of Film as Religion

In Film as Religion: Myths, Morals, and Rituals, John C. Lyden argues that film can be analyzed using the methods of religious studies. 

Through this blog, I have been attempting to argue that we should critique religion like any other aspect of culture, i.e. film. Though written in 2003, this book gives me ample opportunity to reflect on my methods and theory. 

Five Bullet Point Summary:

• To understand how films function for audiences we can view them as analogous to religions.

• Like Geertz, Lyden argues that we should describe rather than explain cultural phenomena. 

• Films, like myths, create an alternate world with observable tensions resolved in time through narrative.

• Liminality, disorientation of in-betweenness, and vicarious sacrifice are two concepts from ritual studies that can be used in film studies.

• Audiences are exposed to different worldviews, values, and ritual participation depending on the genre of the movie.

Extended Summary and Analysis:

Method

It should not be a surprise that I am in virtually complete agreement with his method of studying film and religion. It is welcome to hear scholars talk about how we should understand how non-scholars understand cultural phenomena, while maintaining a critical attitude towards it. 

Some sentences I wish I had written. For instance: "...this is not to suggest an uncritical approach that celebrates every aspect of popular culture, but a balanced approach that can assess the power of popular culture...and both appreciate and critique the way it functions. We should be able to examine any religion... in this way, seeking to understand it first but also reserving the right to make value judgments on it." (pg. 249)

This is an elegant way of saying that we should neither automatically defend nor attack religion, but rather assess religion for its strengths and weaknesses. Also these sentences capture the idea that we should not critique until we understand. All of these are ideas that I have said or written in various venues. 

Theory

There are larger differences between Lyden and I on theory. Lyden takes his primary theorist as Clifford Geertz, the famous anthropologist; whereas I am more partial to Durkheim.

Lyden rightly points out that Durkheim is a sociological reductionist, at least in that Durkheim argues that religion is primarily about community. In pointing this out, Lyden does accurately describe Durkheim's idea that myth is "common sense" and a strategy for social maintenance.  

However, it is odd that Lyden leaves Durkheim out of his chapter on ritual. Durkheim has at least as much, and I think more, to say about ritual. 

One Durkheimian concept he oddly avoided is "collective effervescence," moments where, while in a group, we participate in the same thought and action accompanied by excitement or delirium experienced by all, (i.e. prayer, chanting, and even rock concerts). 

In such an experience, one transcends individuality and identifies solely with the group at least while the experience lasts. Granted as a sociological reductionist, Durkheim points to how these collective (and transcendent) experiences enhance group unity. (Though the transcendent is ultimately rooted in society).

Though, Geertz's conception of religion likely adds more dimensions to a possible analysis of film than does Durkheim's. Geertz, like Durkheim, does view religion primarily as cultural. According to Geertz, religion is:

"1) A set of symbols which acts to 2) establish powerful, pervasive and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by 3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and 4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that 5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (pg. 42)

Lyden stresses that in Geertz's conception of religion the everyday is connected to the ideal, and that his conception can be easily applied to the analysis of films. 

However, there is at least one common theme in film and television that this theoretical perspective cannot adequately analyze: the loss of personal identity through the collective.  

For instance, the struggle between the Borg and the Federation in Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) and Star Trek: Voyager would benefit from a Durkheimian perspective in addition to, or perhaps even instead of, Geertz's view. 

The Federation is a group of planets that includes Earth, Vulcan, Andoria, Betazed, and many others. That is Star Trek aliens are almost always social and collective, at least enough to form governments and invent warp drive.

However, they are all afraid of the Borg. In TNG, before the movie First Contact, the Borg had no queen. They were originally imagined as a collective with no leader or even spokesperson. Regardless they placed no value on the lives of individual Borg. 

They are terrifying because of this, and one could reasonably interpret them as being in a constant state of collective effervescence.

Borg in their regeneration alcoves

  

So much so that individual Borg when first separated from the hive mind suffer severe confusion and loneliness without the community of voices they are used to having inside their head. 

Their goal is to assimilate life forms and technology that they deem useful. Thus, it is not that you die, when you become a Borg, but rather you are now part of their collective and have no individuality or will of your own; they are zombie-like.

Star Trek does have a few species that have a more nuanced collectivity. The Binars are a species who must have their partner to work and communicate with and they are all dependent on the computer on their home planet for their brain activity. 

The head of the Foundation in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine are shape shifters who can (but are not forced to) completely merge together and entirely share their emotions and thoughts virtually instantaneously. This experience is described as a joyful unity beyond words.

Bottom Line:

This book was an excellent introduction to the possibility of studying film using the methods of religious studies. And it does give some weight to my idea that we should critique religion as you would other aspects of culture. I agree with all of his statements in this regard. 

However, I think he limits himself by functionally only using Geertz as a theorist, both in analyzing film and religion. I prefer using multiple theorists, but my primary theorist is Durkheim. Though, he has convinced me that I need to take a longer look at Geertz.