Something I thought was settled in my life has reared up again. It’s minor in the scheme of things but upsetting for its bad timing. Its regarding my son, a situation you may remember I’ve been praying about. So here is what I was happy to read today:
A spiritual idea has not a single element of error, and this truth removes property whatever is offensive.
The other thing I thought about was that MBE would enjoy writing a blog. She could continue on her spiritual journey but be more visible.
MBE says you must accept Christian Science by inductive reasoning which she explains as:
We admit the whole, because a part is proved and that part illustrates and proves the entire Principle.
Taken by itself, this statement is misleading. MBE has always started with God as all, so, to me this is the entire Principle and everything else comes from it. If you understand what she is saying, can you add a comment below with your thoughts?
MBE also lists for elements to demonstrate a healing:
Mary Baker Eddy discusses the idea of healing without any knowledge or training versus healing along the spiritual journey. She explains Christian Science:
Its pharmacy is moral, and its medicine is intellectual and spiritual, thought used for physical healing.
She explains her own journey:
As former beliefs were gradually expelled from her thought, the teaching became clearer, until finally the shadow of old errors was no longer cast upon divine Science.
My former beliefs are fading away but not nearly as fast as I would like.
On a side note: I’ve been thinking about time lately. I was glad to see the Sentinel cover this in its latest issue.
This reading is about dividing yourself between the material solution and the spiritual solution. Yesterday’s quote about guilt and self-condemnation come to mind in this light. Also the idea that my direction in spirituality must progress.
A couple of ideas I obviously need to work on:
It is anything but scientifically Christian to think of aiding the divine Principle of healing or of trying to sustain the human body until the divine Mind is ready to take the case. Divinity is always ready.
The Christianly scientific man reflects the divine law, thus becoming a law unto himself. He does violence to no man. Neither is he a false accuser. The Christian Scientist wisely shapes his course, and is honest and consistent in following the leadings of divine Mind. He must prove, through living as well as healing and teaching, that Christ’s way is the only one by which mortals are radically saved from sin and sickness.
In this section, Mary Baker Eddy uses the imagery of the fountain which can’t send both sweet and bitter water. Her point being you can’t develop a higher spiritual sense and still hold to the lower material thoughts. Another interpretation might be that you can be the empowered but bad Christian Scientist. You can’t have the ability to heal and still be wicked – therefore uses your healing power for evil.
For my own spiritual development, I think her first statement is one I need to work on:
A mental state of self-condemnation and guilt or a faltering and doubting trust in Truth are unsuitable conditions for healing the sick. Such mental states indicate weakness instead of strength. Hence the necessity of being right yourself in order to teach this Science of healing.
This reading has several disjointed ideas about teaching students, at first glance. I think MBE is trying to cover a lot of details at once. She covers sin, sickness, and moves on to the important, higher aspects of Christian Science.
The last few pages, perhaps even into the last chapter, mention honesty over and over. This reading discusses honesty with yourself – knowing yourself before you expect to know a patient. I think that is what I’ve been working on but I don’t think I’m done with it yet.
Her higher Christian Science aspects include:
That evil or matter has neither intelligence nor power, is the doctrine of absolute Christian Science, and this is the great truth which strips disguise from error.
Love for God and man is the true incentive.
Wait patiently for divine Love to move upon the waters of mortal mind, and form the perfect concept.
These two ideas are easy to understand and diffuse on their own but in this reading, somewhere, MBE, ties them together. At least that’s the thought that I came away with.
Every Christian Scientist, every conscientious teacher of the Science of Mind-healing, knows that human will is not Christian Science, and he must recognize this in order to defend himself from the influence of human will. He feels morally obligated to open the eyes of his students that they may perceive the nature and methods of error of every sort, especially any subtle degree of evil, deceived and deceiving. All mental malpractice arises from ignorance or malice aforethought. It is the injurious action of one mortal mind controlling another from wrong motives, and it is practised either with a mistaken or a wicked purpose.
This reading still deals with sin. MBE informs us that our porter at the door of thought is our sign post of Character:
The first impression, made on a mind which is attracted or repelled according to personal merit or demerit, is a good detective of individual character.
Her instruction is pointed:
Christian Scientists must live under the constant pressure of the apostolic command to come out from the material world and be separate. They must renounce [1] aggression, [2] oppression, and [3] the pride of power.
Her first statement sums up why:
The wrong done another reacts most heavily against one’s self.
This reading was about sin. MBE always said it was easier to heal sickness than sin. A distinction she makes in this reading is the difference between declaring the Truth versus knowing the Truth:
A sinner is afraid to case the first stone. He may say, as a subterfuge, that evil is unreal, but to know it, he must demonstrate his statement.
So there is the catch. A sick person is ignorant of the cause of sickness and the pain of the body is all the reason to reach for knowledge of the truth. The same isn’t true for what can sometimes seem like delicious sin. The motive to change isn’t immediate physical pain. The motive must be an interest in a long-term change in thought and deed:
Evil which obtains in the bodily senses, but which the heart condemns, has no foundation; but if evil is uncondemned, it is undenied and nurtured.
Christian Science rises above the evidence of the corporeal senses; but if you have not risen above sin yourself, do not congratulate yourself upon your blindness to evil or upon the good you know and do not.
Since most of this reading is about human will (or it was to me), I thought I would link up other days I thought included that topic.
Thoughts MBE has about Human Will:
Christian Science silences human will, quiets fear with Truth and Love, and illustrates the unlabored motion of the divine energy in healing the sick.
The human will which maketh and worketh a lie, hiding the divine Principle of harmony, is destructive to health, and is the cause of disease rather than its cure.
The exercise of will brings on a hypnotic state, detrimental to health and integrity of thought. This must therefore be watched and guarded against.
The heavenly law is broken by trespassing upon man’s individual right to self-government.
This is the first day of Teaching Christian Science. The two ideas that struck me were Mary Baker Eddy’s tone and her clear guidance. Some places in the book, she is very forceful but in these two pages, I didn’t read that. I read compassion and guidance, as if she were speaking to me in a class.
Right off the bat, she says:
under ordinary circumstances a resort to faith in corporeal means tends to deter those, who make such a compromise, from entire confidence in omnipotent Mind as really possessing all power.
There are other places in the book where she says this differently but you get her general attitude here.
There are so many rules listed in these two pages, I was thinking about making a list but I wouldn’t want anyone to stray into the argument of the letter versus the spirit of the rule.
She does discusses the ethics of Christian Science and mentions mental assassins then defines the term:
mental assassins: someone who attempts to kill morally and physically
