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.
No comments:
Post a Comment