Paul Kautz
June 2011

Excerpts and Observations,
Correspondence between the Board of Directors
and Betty Ann Ridley
1987 - 2005

Notes

1. The correspondence, quotations and references below are from the Chronological Historical Record of Betty Ann Ridley, CSB, 1987-2006. Please bear in mind that these materials were not revealed to her pupils, and to others who might have a right to know, until after the Christian Science Board of Directors (Board) had unlawfully forbidden her to hold her scheduled association and class, and then subsequently and equally unlawfully, had placed her on probation and then removed her name from the membership roll of The Mother Church. The word 'unlawfully' is used because these Board actions were taken in disobedience (as will be made clear) to the applicable requirements of the Church Manual regarding discipline.

2. This commentary is an online component of my 2011 Letter to the Board, Part Four.

3. It may be useful to the reader, before continuing, to review here my analysis of Church Manual discipline Articles 11 and 12 on Complaints and Teachers. Before I conducted this careful examination of these By-Laws and how they interact with each other in a unity, protecting members, officers and church equally, I certainly had an incomplete and inadequate understanding of them.

Summary

Between April 1987 and June 1991, there were 11 letters from the Board of Directors to Mrs. Ridley, 4 meetings (2 with the full Board, 2 with 1 or 2 Board members), 2 letters and a meeting with or from the President of the Board of Education (at the direction of the Board of Directors), culminating with Mrs. Ridley being placed on probation.  Yet throughout these 13 letters and 5 meetings, over the space of 4 years, there is no evidence of any attention being given by the Board to Matt. 18:15-17, which our Leader in Article 11, Sections 2 and 4 says must precede any Church discipline (with only 3 rarely applying exceptions). Nor in all that time was Mrs. Ridley told of what she was complained or accused of, other than by innuendo or implication. This is neither honest nor is it obedient on the part of the Board to the guidance of the Christ, of our Leader, and of the Manual.

innuendo -- an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or derogatory nature

During the next almost 14 years up to April 2005, there were 4 more letters from the Board, and a letter and a call from the Board of Education, culminating with Mrs. Ridley's name being removed from membership. And in all this time, Mrs.Ridley was not told of what she was complained or accused of, other than by innuendo or implication, nor was the Board obedient to any of the requirements of the Church Manual regarding discipline. This is abomination. These assertions are abundantly borne out in the "specifics" below.

Specifics

4/16/1987 -- 1st letter from the Board -- (excerpts in quotes)

"Over the last several months, individual Christian Scientists have come to us, independent of each other, sharing a loving concern about some ideas you have expressed which, to them, seem unrepresentative of a Christian Science teacher. The consistency and frequency of these concerns..."

1. There is no mention of the Board asking the complainers to follow Matt. 18:15-17 before bringing their concerns to the Board. For the Board or the complainers to neglect doing this is to be disobedient to Article 11 Section 2 of our Church Manual: "A member who is found violating any of the By-Laws or Rules herein set forth, shall be admonished in consonance with the Scriptural demand in Matthew 18:15-17;..."

2. The purpose of Matt. 18:15-17 is to be loving, honest, forthright and healing. If the Board had obediently required the complainers to be obedient to Matt. 18:15-17, there would have been no occasion for Mrs. Ridley to have been unclear as to what she was being accused of, and she would have been able immediately to speak to "the validity of the charge" (see Manual 52:10), and the entire four year sucesssion of letters, meetings, calls, general miscommunication and injustice (culminating in the Board's disobediently attempting to impose probation on Mrs. Ridley) could have been obviated, or at the very least, very significantly shortened.

3. "...several months...." This indicates that there was not expeditious response as required by the procedural section, Article 11 Section 6: "...within ten days thereafter, the Clerk of the Church shall address a letter of inquiry to the member complained of as to the validity of the charge." Nor were there any charges identified, so that Mrs. Ridley could apeak to their validity. This was neither merciful, just, nor obedient on the part of the Board and its individual members..

This also reveals that it was not necessary to wait several months until there would be a sense of urgency regarding the already scheduled class and association.

4. "...a loving concern..." Would it not have been more loving for the complainers to be obedient to "the Scriptural demand in Matthew 18:15-17," and more loving for the Board to require them to be so (or else for them to be silent)?

5. "...some ideas you have expressed which, to them, seem unrepresentative of a Christian Science teacher." Why would not these "ideas" which had. after all, been secretly reported behind her back to the Board, be identified, so that there would be forthrightness rather than mere innuendo and implicit presumption of guilt of something unspecified?

6. These qualities of ambiguity, innuendo and implicit presumption of guilt also indicate deficiencies in the Board's concept of how it is appropriate to communicate with members of the church.

"In general, the feeling shared with us has been that you are at odds with The Mother Church over some metaphysical points as well as not in agreement with decisions about church operations."

1. "In general,..." There is no specificity which would enable the accused to speak to "the validity of the charge(s)." The questions which inevitably arise, "at odds with what particular metaphysical points?," and, "what aspects of what decisons?," are left completely unspoken to. There is no mother nurturing nor caring in this comunication from the transactors of The Mother Church business. This is another deficiency in the Board's posture on communication.

2. From subsequent communications it becomes apparent that in the words, "The Mother Church," the Board really means the Board of Directors. This is ambiguous, self-aggrandizing and dissimulating speech (more deficiencies in the Board's concept of acceptable communication), because nowhere in our Leader's writings do we find that the Board of Directors and The Mother Church are interchangeable terms.

3. Additional questions arise. Is Mrs. Ridley allegedly "at odds" with our Leader's statement of Christian Science, or with Board of Directors views or positions? Is it forbidden for teachers to conclude or communicate whether the laws of The Mother Church are being obeyed (see Manual 28:3)? Where has our Leader denied such a right to teachers, or to any other members? Has she not, contrariwise, made it a duty of every member to watch, and inform "of the failure of ...any... officer in this church to perform his official duties (Manual, p.28:25-4)?

"We hope you will agree on the importance of all these questions being cleared up before you teach your next class,. .."

This is a veiled threat that her right to teach may be taken from her if she does not satisfy the Board with regard to complaints which have not been specified. It conveys a presumption of guilt and is a beginning of discipline which has occurred before the "preliminary requirement" identified in Article 11 Section 4 has been met by the Board, and before any charge of wrong doing has been stated, or request as to validity has been made, as is required by Article 11 Section 6. This is inexcusable disregard on the part of the Board for the requirements of the Church Manual.

"...questions...under the general heading of "Church Operations," which in the light of your responses are in fact ethical questions."

1. Unmercifully, unjustly, and contrary to the Golden Rule (breaking three of the six promises of the 6th Tenet), and continuing their pattern of innuendo, inference and presumption of guilt, the Board does not specify which of the responses are being referred to, or in what way they become ethical.

2. The Board continues in flagrant disobedience to Matt 18:15-17 and Article 11 Section 6 in not allowing Mrs. Ridley to know the faults she is complained of, nor the nature of alleged "concerns" about her, thereby withholding from her the right to speak "to the validity of the charge" (Manual 52:10). Instead, the Board's pattern is to withhold information, interrogate and re-interrogate, presuming guilt, seeking to entrap. This is malevolent, and contrary to the spirit and letter of all our Leader's writings. Rather than describing a Mother Church, it describes a police church, a thought-controlling church, a harassing church .

3. The pervading impression from reading the correspondence is that the only alleged deficiency on Mrs. Ridley's part is in being insufficiently supportive of the Board and its positions, right or wrong. Her love for her Leader's church and her faithfulness to her Leader and to the Christ, appears to be not significant to the Board.

entrap -- to draw into contradiction or damaging admission.

"...some of the things you said did not seem to fit or coincide with statements made to us by others. ...we ... give you another opportunity to reply. The questions we raised are enclosed,..."

One gets the impression that the Board values informers who tell them what they want to hear, more than members faithful to our Leader. Moreover, it would appear (judging from the continuing, ongoing communications) that the Board desired to have a network of informers throughout the field, at all levels.

But the Board cannot have such a network and at the same time be obedient to Matt 18:15-17, because the informer that goes honestly to the brother with a fault, and only goes to the Board if the brother will not hear, is no longer an informer, but is a faithful and loving fellow member.

A further point that one begins to sense in the course of the correspondence is that Mrs. Ridley will choose to appear to lie if necessary to preserve the confidentiality of her practice and her students, and to avoid any possiblity of informing inadvertently on friends. This would appear to be integrity of a kind and quality that the Board cannot recognize, understand or value. Instead, they choose to interpret it as dishonest and inethical.

"The questions we raised are enclosed,..."

There are six sets of questions. Each question --

Implies assumption of guilt.
Appears to be seeking confession and repentance.
Implies that a positive answer will equal confession while a negative will prove lying.
In short, each question appears to be an entrapment question.

But none of this would have been possible if there had been obedience to Matt 18:15-17, on the part of the Board and of the complainers.

5/4/88 -- Telephone conversation, Bea Roegge with Mrs. Ridley

Bea -- "Somebody has just written in recently that after they got this last Smillie material that was mailed to everybody that it sounded just like what you had said."

Betty Ann -- "You see, I don't even know what he says because I don't read the stuff, so if he is saying what I'm saying I mean I don't know that."

If the Directors and their representatives follow neither the letter nor the spirit of Matthew 18:15-17. how can the communication be other than ambiguous and wrapped in dissimulation? (The 'somebody' above did not, and was not required to, follow Matthew 18.)

It appears (by inference) that the Board of Directors no longer wants the six point statement called "Mrs. Eddy's Place" to be used by teachers --

Bea -- "Was there a time when you taught more that she was the woman in the Apocalypse? And has there been a change in your thinking?

Betty Ann -- "Has the position of our Church changed on that subject?

Bea -- "...I don't think the position of the Church has ever changed but I think there have been things written that have been confusing."

Betty Ann-- "...like what?

Bea -- Like the pamphlet 'Mrs. Eddy's Place.'

Betty Ann --" Oh, was that the one put out by the Board of Directors ... And, by Boards of Directors for about 30 years?" [36 years -- 1943 to 1979]

Bea -- So see you really are not in aggreement with this current Board of Directors are you?"

After considerable further discussion Mrs. Ridley agreed to send in all her Day 1 references regarding Mrs. Eddy that she uses in class to teach from.

5/19/88 -- Telephone conversation, Bea with Mrs. Ridley

There were two significant points made by Bea in this conversation --

1. "Oh, I loved your letter. ... And your references."

2. "...about... 'Mrs. Eddy's Place'. Most teachers are not using that material. ... In 1978 the Board made a conscious decision not to have it reprinted because it had proven to be more of a source of confusion than of clarification. And then in looking back and researching on how it was written and when,... It was done very quickly and apparently without real agreement among those who were doing it. I haven't seen all the archival research because I wanted to get back to you before I saw it. ..."

Mrs. Ridley has added a full page note to the transcript, apparently based on subsequent investigation of the records, which very convincingly refutes Mrs. Roegge's feeling at the time of the call, that it "was done very quickly and apparently without real agreement."

The note reveals that the research took five years, 1938-1943, was done by six former and current periodicals editors of the time, resulted in a 57 page report to the Board, and included the statement, that their findings were based on "indisputable evidence of our Leader's own view of herself and of her mission," The note may be seen online here.

If the note is accurate, which it certainly appears to be, it stimulates the question, "Should her followers 70 to 100 years after her passing, be deprived of an awareness of her "own view of herself and of her mission?"

5/12/89 -- a year later -- Mrs. Ridley writes a letter to Board member John Selover, as she has been told he is a good person to contact for her purpose.

1. She reports much spiritual growth on her part.

2. She indicates "a rather unusual and meaningful inspirational talk ... has unfolded ... especially written for teenagers and has been received with enthusiasm by Sunday School students and their friends at a special meeting. ... Several people have encouraged me to cosider how it could reach a wider audience..." She enquires if it might have "potential for use within the broad scope of the Board of Lectureship or maybe making it available to branch church Sunday Schools or College Orgs."

Apparently neither John nor the Board deigned to respond.

A year and a half later it came up in an 11/30/90 meeting with Board member Richard Bergenheim, and Mrs. Ridley in her next letter to the Board (1/22/91) reports being puzzled about Richard having said the letter "would have worked better if it hadn't had the last sentence." She was puzzled because the closing sentence was: "With an ever-deeper dedication to serve this, the greatest Cause the world has ever known,"

In the Board's next letter (2/1/91), they say, "No doubt you have discovered as we did, it was the closing comment rather than the 'last sentence' of your letter in 1989 which seemed somewhat self-serving and therefore offputting to us." The offputting comment, the next to last sentence in the letter, would appear to be; "If you are interested, I would love to discuss the idea with you further." It is difficult to see serious ulterior intent in that sentence, or for that matter in the preceding sentence, which is substantially quoted in Point 2 above..

12/7/89, 7 months later -- Bea Roegge, on behalf of the Board of Directors, brusquely asks Mrs. Ridley to explain her activities with the (Oklahoma) 89er Centennial Joint Committee, and also with any connections with Aequus Institute, Gethsemane Foundation, and MTR, the last three of which the Board regards as inimical to Christian Science.

Mrs. Ridley promptly responds with a four page letter (in which she thoroughly answers all of the Board's questions, identifies the Committee's efforts as a consistently sincere effort to bless the Cause of Christian Science, and as having refused the offer of Aequus for 500 Science and Healths after consulting with Boston, and disclaims any involvement whatsoever on her part with any of the three named groups.

10/1/90 & 10/11/90 -- Board letters to all teachers announcing scheduled meetings of individual Board members with each teacher.

The 10/1 letter includes this statement: "Having an active Board of Education has on several occasions been a sufficient buffer to keep complaints about teachers at the informal talking level allowing room for genuine repentance and regeneration. This has precluded the need for formal Manual investigation and action by the Board."

This statement, in effect passing complaints to the Board of Education and giving it a role in the disciplinary process, appears disobedient to the Manual on three counts.

1. The Board of Education provisions in the Manual do not include a disciplinary function.

2. Article 11, Section 5 of the Manual states: "Only the members of this Board [of Directors] shall be present at meetings for the examination of complaints against Church members, and they alone shall vote [act?] on cases involving The Mother Church discipline.

3. The words "precluded the need for formal Manual investigation and action by the Board" has meant in practice the obviating or avoiding of a number of Manual protections for a complained of teacher, such as "tell him his fault" (Matthew 18:15), and stating the charge clearly so that the member can speak to "the validity of the charge" ( Manual 52:10).

The first five pages are about Richard trying to convince her to inform on her students and friends.

Richard -- "The fact that someone is your pupil is confidential?"

Betty Ann --"As far as I'm concerned, if he wants to tell it, he may. I don't tell it. Do you? I don't tell anyone who my pupils are."

Richard -- "You're probably the only teacher I know..."

Betty Ann -- "I don't find anything in [the Manual] that allows me the latitude to tell someone else's business when they're my pupils."

Betty Ann note: "There was a strong implication that a teacher should side with the Board against the pupils if they are doing anything the Board questioned. ... Then Richard said something to the effect that I did not indicate to the Board that if I could serve my Cause or be of help, I would volunteer whatever would be helpful. The problem is that the kind of help they appeared to want was for me to be an informant on my pupil. ... This conversation was focused on my reluctance to give information on my pupils to the Board."

Richard - "I find it hard to believe that you'd be unaware that your isolation from The Mother Church is unique."

Betty Ann found this hard to comprehend, but from the context it became apparent that when Richard referred this way to The Mother Church he was referring to the Board.

Betty Ann note: "When Richard discussed one of my friends speaking out about problems in the movement, I felt that his comments in this area -- naming the name of my friend and condemning her without having gone to her first in obedience to Matthew 18 -- amounted to malpractice of that friend. In the first place, I don't know how the Board of Directors knows who my friends are or what business it is of theirs. .... When I asked Richard to tell me the information on which he based his comments, he insisted on protecting the informants -- refusing to give their names."

In this meeting, Mrs. Ridley is very forthright in explaining that this refusal on her part to inform on her pupils, patients and friends, or even to acknowledge having communication with them, is a matter of conscience. At no point does the Board acknowledge this. Subsequently they interpret this refusal as indicating dishonesty on her part, and a moral lapse, but at no time do they indicate why, in their view, she is mistaken in her conviction that she is honor-bound to protect the confidentiality of her communications with students, patients and friends, even at the risk of herself being thereby construed as being dishonest, and thereby unethical.

Betty Ann note: "When I brought up the subject of writing for the periodicals and said that I would be happy to respond to the Board's request for articles to be written by teachers, but that I had had trouble getting submitted articles published,..."

Richard -- "I think that that has a lot that only you can do in letting the Church know if you wish to be a part of it."

This is a pretty strong inference that she had been blacklisted from the periodicals for not being sufficiently acknowledging of the Board's claimed supremacy in all things in the movement.

Betty Ann note: "It became clear that Richard identifies the administrators as The Mother Church. He makes no distinction between The Mother Church and the Directors ."

It becomes increasingly evident in the communication between the Board and Mrs. Ridley that when reference is made to The Mother Church, the Board is thinking of The Mother Church as the Board, and Mrs. Ridley is thinking of The Mother Church as Mrs. Eddy's church.

Betty Ann note: "It seemed to me that Richard was expressing the view that if one disagreed with policies of the Board of Directors, that meant that the individual did not love The Mother Church. In my view, nothing could be further from the truth. If a policy or action of the Directors is in violation of the Manual, then wouldn't vigorous disagreement with that policy express the highest and most meaningful love of our Leader's Mother Church?"

This statement has the ring of fundamental self-evident truth. It is supported by the following and other statements of our Leader.

'01 34:25-26
...follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ.

S&H 106:6
Like our nation, Christian Science has its Declaration of Independence. God has endowed man with inalienable rights, among which are self-government, reason, and conscience. Man is properly self-governed only when he is guided rightly and governed by his Maker, divine Truth and Love.

Man 42:4-5,7
It shall be the duty of every member of this Church to ...not be made to forget nor to neglect his duty to God, to his Leader, and to mankind. By his works he shall be judged,--and justified or condemned.

My 247:2-5
Essentially democratic, its government is administered by the common consent of the governed, wherein and whereby man governed by his creator is self-governed.

Man 40:11-12,14
The members of this Church should daily watch and pray to be delivered from ... being influenced erroneously.

Betty Ann note: "Throughout the 'interview,' there were statements made that amounted to warnings and threats that unless I capitulate to the Board's demands (whatever those might be) my pupils would not be listed as practitioners."

If Richard consciously and with intent communicated this on behalf of the Board, it is reprehensible. It can in no way be squared with Mrs. Eddy's concept of her church.

Apropos of this is the following exchange:

Betty Ann --"I guess I'm not conscious of that because I'm so busy here in the practice with the teaching and association that I have no ambition to do more than what I'm doing. I'm loving what I'm doing."

Richard --"But you do expect your students to continue what you're doing?"

Betty Ann--"Oh, yes. I do."

Richard --"Therefore do not ignore what I am saying."

Betty Ann note: "There were repeated hints that if I would just give up my conviction regarding Mrs. Eddy that I would be more useful to the Church."

The following words published in the Journal of May 1906, and found also at Miscellany vii:3, come to mind in support of Mrs. Ridley's convictions: "Strive it ever so hard, The Church of Christ, Scientist, can never do for its Leader what its Leader has done for this church; but its members can so protect their own thoughts that they are not unwittingly made to deprive their Leader of her rightful place as the revelator to this age of the immortal truths testified to by Jesus and the prophets. (My vii:3) .

The following relate to accusations against Mrs. Ridley of malpractice.

Richard -- "I find travelling around the Midwest teachers are afraid of you."

Betty Ann -- "Afraid of me?"

Richard -- "Uh-huh."

Betty Ann -- "Teachers are afraid of me? Do you want to tell me anymore about that?"

Richard -- "They're afraid of malpractice." ...

Betty Ann -- "That's a very serious charge to accuse someone of malpractice."

Richard -- "I know that is."

Betty Ann note: "After Richard left, and I recovered from the momentary shock of his accusation of malpractice, I realized that what he really said was that the teachers in the Midwest admitted that they were afraid of malpractice, which means that they do not know how to handle it. They are claiming it to be something rather than nothing, and therefore would not have any idea how to teach their students how to handle it."

All this, and it's three and a half years since the Board's first letter, and the Board still has not made any 'formal' charges against Mrs. Ridley, nor have they been obedient in a single instance to the Matthew 18 requirements, nor to any of the Church Manual protections of those complained against.

"From time to time you may have been asked about the leaflet "Mrs. Eddy's Place" and whether there are any plans to reprint it. While this statement prepared many years ago may have served a useful purpose at that time, it has not been reprinted for several decades, even though the subject has been thoughtfully weighed and considered by succeeding Boards of Directors. It has become increasingly clear that items such as this leaflet could be seen to represent an "official" statement, or dogma, or even tend to supplant our Leader's own writings as a guide to her place and position."

"may have served a useful purpose" -- The word 'may' casts doubt on whether, in the view of the then current Board, the statement embodied in the leaflet ever 'served a useful purpose.' And yet Boards of Directors for thirty-six years previous published and republished the statement in the periodicals, and in a leaflet, encouraged its use in class teaching, and stressed not just the usefulness but the importance of recognizing and understanding the role of our Leader in fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

Also, the issue is not so much usefulness or importance or even dogmatism, but simply whether or not the statements and conclusions are true. Consider these wordings from the leaflet:

"These conclusions are not new; they are confirmed by our Leader's writings..."

"Mrs. Eddy ... understood herself to be the one chosen of God..."

"Mrs. Eddy regarded portions of Revelation ...as pointing to her as the one who fulfilled prophecy..."

"Mrs. Eddy considered herself to be the 'God-appointed' and God-anointed' messenger to this age..."

"...this indisputable evidence of our Leader's own view of herself and of her mission..."

If these statements are true, why would recent Boards of Directors, or any others in the movement, be threatened by them or wish to remove them from sight or be reluctant to acknowledge them to the world? Are they ashamed of our Leader and of her views as to her place in prophecy?

In vivid contrast, see here a magnificent online compilation called "A SAMPLING OF STATEMENTS REGARDING MRS. EDDY'S PLACE IN BIBLE PROPHECY which have been published by The Christian Science Publishing Society including the writings of Mrs. Eddy." It includes 15 passages from the Bible, 70 from our Leader's writings, 48 excerpts from Christian Science periodicals, and 27 from books published by the Publishing Society. They cover a period from 1883 to 1969.

"for several decades" -- These words imply a period of at least thirty years, but the leaflet was apparently first printed in 1973, only eighteen years earlier, and the year 1979, when the decision not to reprint occurred, was only twelve years earlier, when supplies of the leaflet would have been getting low, thus raising the question of reprint. The 'several decades' statement is either disingenuous or careless.

The letter does not instruct teachers not to teach the six points included in 'Mrs. Eddy's Place.'

2/1/91-- 7th letter from the Board -- in response to Mrs. Ridley's 1/22/91

There is nothing new in this letter, except that it is more arrogant and contemptuous, and accuses her of avoidance and game playing, but by innuendo, without any specificity against which she could defend herself.

2/5/91 -- Mrs. Ridley's summary of a call from Bea Roegge, President of the Board of Education.

"... I received a call from Bea Roegge saying that she had just heard of the talks I was planning ot give in New York City [four days later] and ordering me to cancel them. When I asked why, she ... said that I should know that since my teaching was in question I shouldn't be out giving talks. I explained to her that both church memberships and I had worked very hard for nearly a year, preparing for these meetings, and both churches were expecting a large turnout. Would I just have to tell the churches that the Board demanded that I cancel the meetings? Bea said not to tell them that. She said just to tell them that I couldn't be there and to get someone else. I was appalled at the cold, uncaring attitude toward branch churches. As outrageous as it was for the Board to take such a hard line with me as a teacher, it was even more chilling to feel its disdain for the efforts being made by branch churches. ... I asked her what she would do if she were in this situation. She said she would do whatever the Board told her to do. She could not imagine questioning or delaying a moment what they told her to do. ... ...I knew that at this juncture, if I refused to cancel, the Directors would contact the ... churches and forbid them to have me talk at the meetings. This would cause almost more of a stir and confusion in those churches than my cancellation would cause. I seemed to be between the proverbial rock and the hard place. I called ... and, apologizing profusely, but giving no reason, said that I had to cancel my plans to speak at the meetings. ... ...it was a cruel decision which caused great consternation among the the workers in the churches who had laid the plans for the meetings -- leaving members bewildered and dissatisfied."

Three months later, when she had come to the point of no longer being able to act submissively when asked by the Board to act contrary to her conscience, she added:

"Dutifully, and acting from my THEN highest sense of right, I agreed to cancel the meetings. ... ...all of which [a summary of the ill-effects on the churches of the Board's demand] the Directors summarily dismissed as inconsequential. Such 'general official control' and 'interference,' though exercised indirectly, in the plans and activities of branch churches appear to be violations of Manual Article XXIII, Section 1, 'Local Self-government,' and Section 10, 'No Interference.' "

The Board's action in this matter was totally lacking in integrity, honesty, honor, motherly love, concern for the well-being or morale of the branches, or obedience to the guidance of the Christ and our Leader.

2/15/91 -- meeting of the Board with Mrs. Ridley

Based on Mrs. Ridley's notes on the meeting, I think of this meeting as a one hour entrapment interrogation.

"Harvey did almost all the talking. ... Harvey as soon as possible asked a question to this effect: 'When did you become aware of different schools of teaching within the movement?' As I recall, he said: 'Surely you are aware of your differences from everyone else's teaching within the movement?' How does one respond to such comments and questions? Different from what? The position I had grown to on the subject of Mary Baker Eddy has been arrived at through study of everything the Church has published."

"Many of the questions and accusations that pervaded the hour-long interrogation..."

"There were constant accusations that I have sought out other teachers and tried to persuade them to what Harvey implied is my personal interpretation."

Yet apparently none of these complaining teachers were requested by the Board to adhere to the requirements of the Matthew 18:15-17 verses.

"All of the Board's accusations were really only trumped up charges. Each time I would attempt to answer one, the answer was ignored and the subject was changed to another accusation."

This appears to be a characteristic of the Board's communication -- not to feel it necessary to answer Mrs. Ridley's questions, nor to acknowledge her answers or explain why they were unsatisfactory.

"Harvey threatened three times with a formal hearing if I could not satisfy him with answers."

Is not this apparent avoidance of 'a formal hearing'--see also here--in effect a hypocritical avoidance of the Church Manual requirements which protect church members (including teachers) who are complained of to the Board? These protective requirements include "tell[ing] him his fault between thee and him alone" (Matt 18:15), and stating the charge clearly and honestly so that the member can speak to "the validity of the charge" (Manual 52:10). They also include timely resolution. From the moment the Board began in 1987 ("informally?" ) to investigate complaints against Mrs. Ridley, euphemistically called "concerns," see here, and to threaten her right to teach, see here, the Board had begun a process of discipline against Mrs. Ridley, but was not being obedient to the requirements of the Manual which must accompany all discipline process. Both of these actions were begun in the Board's first letter to her, almost four years before. This is unconscionable, and the position of successive Boards that the Board has a right to act contrary to the Manual in ways such as this must be corrected.

"Harvey said it is not just different viewpoints, mine and the Board's -- it's much more than that. I asked what he meant by that. He said it was my relationship with others. I had alienated everyone. That was very difficult for me to understand, since I have a very full and consistent practice established over nearly twenty years. Because I lectured in much of the world, my contacts are worldwide, and my phone rings constantly, day and night."

"As the meeting came to a conclusion ... it was not left at all clear exactly what the charge against me was. I couldn't seem to satisfy them no matter what answers I gave to questions. They jumped around from subject to subject. At first, it appeared that the disagreement was about how to expresss correctly the relationship of the divine with the human, but then it took another turn and Harvey said it had become a moral charge regarding truth-telling. I did not know what he meant by that. Then at the end, Harvey said the charge really had to do with my relationship with others. This I could not understand at all,..."

3/5/91-- 8th letter from the Board -- followup to 2/15/91 meeting, and response to Mrs.Ridley's 2/16/91

"The question about your continued service as a teacher will need to be addressed further and mutually before your next scheduled association and class."

The Board has repeatedly conveyed that it is not engaged in a formal process, has neglected to clearly state any specific charges of wrongdoing on her part, and has refused to make known the specifics of complaints against her (scrupulously protecting accusers, i.e. informers, against her), and yet during a four year process they have treated her as a teacher in disfavor, whose motivations, honesty and ethics are in question, and have denied her the normal rights of teachers, all the while themelves being disobedient to the requirements specified in the Manual for discipline.

"We were in great hopes that our time together would provide the atmosphere of support which would enable you to begin to untangle self-evident inconsistencies and deliberate untruths in answer to earlier questions. ... However, your swift letter to us is utterly vacant on this point and the only conclusion we can reach is that the seriousness of the matter has not yet dawned on you."

"... questions." -- These are the multitudinous entrapment questions mentioned more than once above (see here. for example, and here).

In her meeting with Mr. Bergenheim, 11/30/90, a good part of that meeting was devoted to why she felt unable to discuss with the Board her confidential communications and knowledge of students, patients and friends (see here and especially here). I'll repeat the latter because of its pertinence:

"In this meeting, Mrs. Ridley is very forthright in explaining that this refusal on her part to inform on her pupils, patients and friends, or even to acknowledge having communication with them, is a matter of conscience. At no point does the Board acknowledge this. Subsequently they interpret this refusal as indicating dishonesty on her part, but at no time do they indicate why, in their view, she is mistaken in her conviction that she is honor-bound to protect the confidentiality of her communications with students, patients and friends, even at the risk of herself being thereby construed as being dishonest or inethical."

Is the Board incapable of understanding this kind of integrity? Or have they been too long intent on developing and rewarding a network of informers? Our Leader's giving prominence to a quotation of Shakespeare when speaking of perfidy, slander and gossip is relevant:

Mis 226:15
"To thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

"...awaken in you the thought that is receptive of correction and deep regeneration."

These words sound impressive, but the problem is that at no time in the four year period has the Board told her (other than by inference) what, in their view, she needs to correct, or what in her thinking requires regeneration.

Already in her notes on her first meeting with the Board (6/11/87), she stated this:

"I left Boston still totally unclear as to what the Directors had against me, and why they were so aggressively coming after me. To my knowledge, I had committed no sin. Some of the questions they asked me in this meeting and in letters would have required me to violate a confidence in order to answer, and my failing to give them direct answers in some cases was viewed by them as dishonest. ..."

And this apparently remains an accurate assessment of the situation four years later.

Nevertheless, in two responses to the Board's 3/5/91 (3/13 and 3/25/91), to show her good faith, she undertakes a thorough-going review of her thinking and the issues as inferenced in the Board's communications.

"At this time we feel that your stepping back from commitments to association and teaching are necesssary. ... The words of the Manual give guidance to all of us should action under its provisions become apppropriate."

These two sentences constitute self-professed "disobedience to the laws of The Mother Church" (Manual p.28). In other words, the Board is saying that all of the disciplinary restrictions they have been placing on Mrs. Ridley for four years have not been 'action under its (the Manual's) provisions'--all of the besmirching of her name and reputation, have been wilfully outside of the guidance of the Manual, and that all they have done regarding Mrs. Ridley during those years has not required the guidance of the Manual. These sentences also signify a gross ignorance and lack of understanding on the part of the Board of how our Leader intended the Manual provisions regarding discipline to operate. These mistaken views must be corrected.

3/29/91 --9th letter from the Board (signed by Mrs. Roegge) -- response to Mrs.Ridley's 3/13/91 (referred to here.)

"...please furnish the Board of Education with a copy of the letter you have sent to the members of your association notifying them of the postsponement or cancellation of their May meeting. Also would you send a sample of the letters you are using to let applicants know that your class is being deferred or cancelled this year."

To reiterate: in all the four years of communications preceding these demands, the Board has not made a single clear, unambiguous statement to Mrs. Ridley of anything she has done wrong.

Mrs. Ridley responds on 4/9 --

Hoping the Board will be reconsidering upon receipt of her letter of 3/25.

Being "sincerely desirous of being both obedient and principled," she encloses a proposed letter to the pupils of her scheduled class (identifying the postponement as required by the Board).

"But I am in a quandary as to how I am to carry out your intructions regarding the association in a principled way. [Because of causing pupils great financial and other distress.] This does not seem kind nor even Christian at this late date,... 'Wisdom, economy and brotherly love' would seem to dictate consideration for the pupils.
     I will plan not to teach until we have resolved whatever problems you feel need resolving."

Those words, "...whatever problems you feel need resolving" reveal that she has no clear comprehension of whatever it is that the Board feels is the problem. And is this surprising, since the Board has not clearly and honestly specified to her any wrong that she has supposedly done?

4/16/91 -- 10th letter from the Board (signed by Mrs. Roegge) -- response to Mrs.Ridley's 4/9/91

"...the request in our April 2 letter [3/29 letter?] about your proposed class and association meetings still stands."

Offers reimbursement funds only "if the funds of your association are not adequate."

"...your draft letter to pupils would not be appropriate. If the reason is not self-evident, Bea Roegge is available..."

To reiterate, what right has the Board to impose discipline, if they have not followed the Manual requirements for discipline?

5/11/91 -- Without further communication with the Board, Mrs. Ridley holds her association. She includes a private session for her pupils only, in which she presents a 36 page paper in which she reviews the previous four years of communication with the Board, explains why she decided not to abide by the postponement demands of the Board, and discusses the possible consequences therefrom. Excerpts follow.

p.1 -- "It is esssential if we are to fulfill God's purpose for this meeting that we respond to God rather than react through personal sense. ... It is imperative that you listen, not through personal sense, but with the mind of Christ--the Mind that equates with Principle."

p.2 -- "We need to approach our study of [the Manual] with some degree of the purity of heart that received its messsage from God in the first place. We need to listen for its pure, unadulterated Christly meaning.
     In order to draw upon the Manual's eternal laws for guidance and protection, we must understand that the Manual itself speaks directly to each of us. The By-Laws speak for themselves. No one needs to be confused by them; no one needs to ask anyone except God exactly what obedience to them means. Mrs. Eddy writes, 'the opinions of men cannot be substituted for God's revelation." Mis 92:25-26

p.4 -- "I went to Boston February 15 and met with the Board. At this meeting, false accusations were made--unjust charges--and threats of a formal hearing. Nothing was resolved. Actually the charges against me were never stated clearly nor put in writing."

" I knew in my heart I was not guilty of any sin against the church. I had devoted my entire life since finding Christian Science to concientiously serving God, my Leader, and my church with as sincere a desire and effort as I could. ... How is one's loyalty to this Cause judged...? I have finally concluded that loyalty is not a matter of my opinion or the Board's opinion, but is entirely dependent on whether one's life , motives, and actions measure up to what is written in the Bible, Science and Health, the Manual, and her other published works."

p.5 -- "...for the last 40 years, I have watched the church move slowly away from recognition of our Leader's place in Bible prophecy. ...Today even hinting that one believes Mary Baker Eddy is God's Biblically appointed messenger to this age appears to be equivalent to heresy in the eyes of the hierarchy...
     It is significant, I believe that the decline in the movement, both in numbers and acknowledgment in the world, has kept pace with the decline of our church's expressed appeciation for our Leader--a growing refusal to acknowledge Mary Baker Eddy's place in Bible prophecy."

"The Board explained at one session and in a letter (January 18, 1991) that at least four of my colleagues had reported me for trying to 'persuade' them to change their course and teach differently about Mary Baker Eddy. ... Though they were never specific on what I was accused of saying, nor would they explain the specific charge against me, I can assure you that my intent has never been to persuade anyone to think or teach contrary to his convictions.
     As you all know, I am very enthusiastic. I have strong convictions and love to discuss metaphysical subjects. But I am also very aware of the right of every individual to read our textbooks and listen for unfoldments from the Father on any subject. Individual inspiration, not priestcraft, is the foundation of our religion. ... You and I have reasoned many times on the dangers of  'telling' anyone what to think."

p.6 -- "...in every meeting I have had with the Board, and in each letter from them, they have insisted that I tell them whom I have spoken to and what I have said. Does this amount to a form of 'confession'--as though I were on trial for talking to people? And because I have not so 'confessed,' they say I am not being honest, refer to my 'conduct' as unethical, and therefore by inference accuse me of being unfit to teach."

p.7 -- "I regret to say the Board's lettters to me were masterpieces of double-talk... I made every effort to cooperate with the Board short of selling my soul by agreeing to concepts I believed contrary to the Bible and to our Leader's writings."

"...answering the Board's never-ending and ambiguous questions."

"Knowing my own innocence and trusting the Board would be reasonable, I assumed that this willingness on my part would put to rest their concerns and take the pressure off the association. My assumption was wrong."

p.8 -- "In my letters to the Board, I came very close to using falsehoods to regain my liberty. But I remembered our Leader likening this to committing one's moral sense to a dungeon [Mis269:4-5]. ... ...I see now I was not honest when in my letters to the Board I thanked them for their kindness and consideration. They were far from kind. They were dictatorial, dogmatic, uncaring, giving no consideration to me or to this association. The tone and mental atmosphere of the communications as well as the face-to-face meetings resemble what I have read of the Spanish Inquisition. It was hardly what one could call Christian, let alone Christian Science."

p.9 -- "My sin was not in talking to colleagues. That is not a sin. That is not disobedience to the Manual. My sin was in trying to placate the Board of Directors instead of standing up to and denouncing their unjust attacks at once."

"At that time [when asked to postpone association and class] I did not have what I now know to be a correct comprehension of the Manual, but was under the same delusion that almost all students of Christian Science have unthinkingly consented to for decades--the delusion that the Manual gives the Christian Science Board of Directors totalitarian powers.
     Every Christian Scientist should ask himself: 'Since Mrs. Eddy did not exercise totalitarian conrol over her church when she was here, why would one think that she would set up a church government where that possibility could exist after she was gone?'"

p.10 -- "I prayed as earnestly as I have ever prayed in my life that the Father would show me what to do. ... A name came to my thought--someone whom I ... had heard of for years as one of the clearest thinking legal minds in this country. ... I was advised by this individual who has made a thorough study of the Manual for many years from a legal point of view, that the Board of Directors has no legal authority to stop an association from meeting. ... An association... exists because the Manual provides for it... page 84, line 16. Note that it is the association of pupils. It is not the association of a teacher. The association belongs to you. Therefore , this association today has met under the authority and protection of the Manual."

p.11 -- "The legal counsel which I was led to seek made me aware that the Manual does not give the Directors the authority to question or condemn my teaching as long as it is in accord with the Bible and Mrs. Eddy's writings.
     Another important fact pointed out is that Mrs. Eddy never stated that the Directors are to be the interpreters of the Manual. Each individual member has the right to read and pray to understand those By-Laws."

p.13 -- "The decision to hold this meeting today is a decision for which I alone am responsible. ...it is a decision based on Principle. It is a refusal to be influenced by the Board's disobedience to our Manual. ... If one is not guilty, he should not confess guilt by the very act of consenting to the punishment, such as the cancellation of this association. The Directors do not control this association. Consenting to their control of it would be disobeying the Manual."

"The lengthy paper delivered to your pupils... states your position. Unfortunately, the paper neglects the main issue we have raised in our recent letters and meeting with you, namely, the ethical and moral failures in your conduct as a Teacher."

This is a very broad general charge, but the Board has not, and does not now, detail any specific things Mrs. Ridley has said or done which are ethically or morally wrong. As for Church Manual requirements for the Board to do so, see here and here in my analysis of Articles 11 and 12, for just two of those requirements. Consider also the following excerpt from my current letter to the Board --

:...nowhere in the Manual nor anywhere in her other writings does our Leader deny freedom of speech or thought or communication to the members. She does require us to avoid thinking or acting erroneously (Article 8, Section 1).  She requires all our proceedings to be characterized by "wisdom, economy, and brotherly love" (Article 24, Section 5).  And she indicates that by our works we "shall be judged,--and justified or condemned" (Article 8, Section 6).  And the sixth tenet enjoins six promises on each of us, while the first tenet places us in fundamental relationship to the Bible..  All of these things apply to all members.  And all officers, of course, are members and thus are also subject to these requirements in all they do.".

"...the paper neglects the main issue..."

Actually, the paper speaks to 'the main issue' in at least these three places: here and here and here, but the Board's letter does not acknowledge, or respond to, or rebut any of the points Mrs.Ridley makes.

Additionally, in her 11/30/90 meeting with Richard Bergenheim she explained her convictions regarding the confidentiality of her communications with students, patients and friends--which the Board never acknowledged or rebutted. See here and here.

"Our concern was for the welfare of your students in the light of Mrs. Eddy's statement that we had pointed out to you, 'Lust, dishonesty, sin, disable the student; they preclude the practice or efficient teaching of Christian Science, the truth of man's being' "

This is a vile, malevolent, hypocritical accusation by implication and innuendo that Mrs. Ridley is lustful, dishonest and sinful in general--or one or two of those three implications, there being no way of knowing which or in what way without guessing-- an accusation made without a shred of clarity or evidence adduced.

"The Christian Science Board of Directors has met and has taken action to place you on probation in accord with the above By-Law of our Church [Article 12, Section 1]."

How can it be legitimate for the Board to take this action if nowhere in the record can one find any clear statement by the Board of what Mrs.Ridley has done wrong, or what any of the "sufficient reasons" are which Article 12 Section 1 requires, or how those 'sufficient reasons' have been established as fact, and in view of the fact that the Board for the four years previous has been disobedient to the formal requirements and procedures specified in the Manual, and have merely been following informal procedures of their own devising? See here once again.

"This By-Law action dissolves the association of your pupils during the period of probation. They are now free to seek teaching from a loyal teacher."

If the Board's 'By-Law action' is fraudulent, then the attempted dissolution of the association is fraudulent.

Also, the members of the association have a fundamental right to decide if their teacher is loyal to our Leader, to the Christ and to divine Science.

6/30/91 -- Mrs. Ridley's reply to the Board's 6/14/91 letter, sent by certified mail.
I quote the first part of her response in full because of its clarity and cogency.

"Re refusal to consent to improper and illegal decision of probation declared in your June 14, 1991 letter

Dear Board members:

Your June 14, 1991 letter, replying to the paper I sent to you on May 13, 1991, has been received.

The 'Preliminary Requirement' (Article XI, Section 4 of the Church Manual) requiring obedience to the Masster's instructions in Matthew 18:15-17, has not been obeyed by you in this case. Therefore, your decision of three-year probation is null and void and of no effect.

Nevertheless, for the record, it should be known that I do not consent to your improper and illegal decision of probation for the following additional reasons:

1. I am innocent of all your charges against me, as vague. unspecified and inconsistent as they are. I am not guilty of 'ethical and moral failures,' 'spiritual and moral lapses,'--'lust, dishonesty, sin'--which you charge without specifics.

You did not state and have never stated anything specific--i.e., the what, when, where and how of your charges, nor presented any evidence to prove them..In this country, even a criminal is entitled to specific written charges and sufficient proofs.

2. I have always been and am now obedient to what Mary Baker Eddy instructs teachers to do, according to Manual by-Laws and according to her other published writings.

3. I am completely loyal to our Leader, Mary Baker Eddy, and to the revelation of Truth which she brought to mankind. I strive daily to live according to its precepts. This loyalty includes, of course, total loyalty to the Church which was established by Mrs. Eddy in the Church Manual and the Deeds of Trust.

4. The By-Law which you cite in your letter (Article XII, Section 1) requires that there be 'sufficient reasons' for assigning probationary discipline. There are no such reasons.

5. I have 'the necessary moral and spiritual qualifications to elucidate the Principle and rule of Christian Science, through the higher meaning of the Scriptures.'

6. I possess a certificate showing that I have 'taken a Normal Course...in the Board of Education.' I have been a 'continuously active and loyal Christian Scientist since receiving instruction.' (See Article XXVI, Section 9.)"

The balance of her four page letter is equally clear and cogent in examining all aspects and options flowing from the Board's letter, including those relating to her Journal listing and to the association and its members. Throughout there is a refusal to give consent to actions of the Board which are illegitimate, because disobedient to the Manual, the Bible, and our Leader's other writings.

The following paragraph is especially insightful:

"All involved make their own judgments as to whether the Board's charges and evidence are legitimate and sufficient or not and give or withhold their consent to the Board's finding accordingly. This is an example of the operation of 'the common consent of the governed ' which our Leader provided to administer the government of her 'essentially democratic' Church. (See Magna Charta of Christian Science, My 246 and 254.) "

Her husband, Fred Ridley, and the association of her pupils, sent letters of support of Mrs. Ridley's innocence on 6/30/91 and 11/1/91 respectively . The Board neither acknowledged nor responded to either of these letters, or to Mrs. Ridley's own letter.

It may be appropriate to review here what can be learned about the policy of the Board regarding communications to the field and members, as shown in its communications in this case.

Let's take another look at a paragraph in my analysis of Articles 11 and 12 (see here:)

"In addition, the following also apply to all discipline actions of the Board-- a) the 6th Tenet promises regarding the mind of Christ, the Golden Rule, and being merciful, just and pure, b) Article 8 Section 1 re not judging, condemning, counseling, influencing or being influenced erroneously,  c) Article 24 Section 5 requiring wisdom and brotherly love.  That is, The Board of Directors, in applying Article 11 and 12 By-Laws must be obedient to these three sets of requirements applicable to all actions of all members of The Mother Church, including the individual members of the Board of Directors, and therefore the Board of Directors itself.."

Can we not conclude it as self-evident that it was Mrs. Eddy's intent that these requirements characterize all the Board's communications, as well as all of their actions? Have they characterized the Board's communications with Mrs. Ridley? No. Do they characterize the Board's total non-acknowledgment of the above three letters? No.

8/14/92 -- a year plus later -- 12th letter from the Board

The Board inquires how it's going with the probation. There is a complete disconnect from any attempt to communicate with Mrs. Ridley where she is in her thinking.

Mrs. Ridley responds 9/30/92, by certified mail, saying, in part, "When answers to those three certified letters are received, it will then be appropriate for me to respond to your August 14, 1992 letter."

6/17/98 -- going on 6 years later -- Transcript of telephone call from Vic Westburg, President of the Board of Education to Mrs. Ridley.

A couple substantive points:

1. Vic asks, "...we just wanted to know if, at the present time, you would be able to accept the probation of the three years. Article 12, Section 1." It is apparent that he has been asked by the Board to make this inquiry, but that he knows nothing about what has gone before.

2. He indicates that he will make a review and then call back.

7/1/98 -- letter from Mr. Westburg

Essentially, he restates the question, more formally.

Mrs. Ridley responds on 7/13/98. From her 7 page letter:

"As you learn the facts of my case as they have occurred over the last decade, perhaps you will see what a special opportunity you have in your new position to uphold our Leader's declaration [S&H 381:28] and work toward annulling 'an unjust sentence.' "

In this context, she reviews the events of the past decade and outlines 5 steps needed to rectify the inustices of that decade.

Her letter was not answered.

2/16/05 -- Six and a half years later -- 13th letter from the Board

"Fourteen years ago, the Christian Science Board of Directors felt it was wise to ask you to acept probationary status as a teacher of Christian Science."

Notice that it's not about right and wrong, righteousness, or obedience to our Leader and the Church Manual, it's entirely about the feelings ("felt it was wise") of the Directors as to what is humanly wise from the point of view of the Board. In other words, it's hierarchical; it's about the supremacy of the Board, not about the well-being of the movement.

Notice also that every Board member has changed from the Board of fourteen years earlier. In effect, this Board is simply ratifying what a former Board has done, with no evidence of any substantive review.

"The Board has continued to see the wisdom of this request ,..."

In other words, the Board has not the least interest in what the complained of teacher has to say about "the validity of the charge" (Manual 52:10), which she went into in detail 14 years ago (6/30/91), but which the then Board didn't even acknowledge receiving, and this present Board by its present words doesn't acknowledge even exists.

"After reviewing all of your correspondence since 1991,..."

"...since 1991..." In other words, since probation was declared.

Why not since 1987, when the original neglect of Mathew 18, and the original avoidnce of all Manual requirements for discipline (including probation), occurred?

"...we want to ask if you feel prepared to live up to the provisions of your probation, which would enable us to come together."

In other words, the Board needs Mrs. Ridley to admit guilt, accept punishment, and have her pupils punished, whether she feels, or is, guilty or not.

Such a Board position is completely without principle or integrity, except for the imaginary principle of Board supremacy.

In a three page letter dated 3/13/2005, Mrs. Ridley very thoroughly summarizes her faithfulness to our Leader's church and movement for over 50 years, including the last fourteen, and calls upon the Board to "...resolve this situation in the most just and harmonious way."

3/22/05 -- 14th letter from the Board

The Board recites the many letters and meetings which have transpired as proof that "the charges have ... been clarified," and gives Mrs. Ridley seven days to accept the requirements of the probation.

While it is obvious there were many letters and meetings, the above commentary on all the letters and meetings makes it very clear there were never specific charges identified as charges other than by implication or innuendo, and that the Church Manual procedures and requirements were avoided, i.e. not obeyed, thereby voiding the legitimacy of any discipline applied, because contrary to the Manual.

This Board's reasoning seems to be--since there were many letters and meetings, the charges must have been made clear. The Manual, of course, requires that the charges be made clear by way of Matthew 18:15-17 and by requiring the charges be put in writing so that the member can speak to "the validity of the charge" (Article 11, Section 6). Neither of these two nor any of the other necessary requirements were ever met by any of the several Boards groundlessly persecuting Mrs. Ridley during this eighteen year period.

Mrs. Ridley responded on 4/4/05 including:

"Until I received your February 16, 2005 letter, I had heard nothing from the Board in seven years and assumed that the Board had come to realize that there were no legitimate charges against me. I had never received replies to my letters of [6/30/91, 9/30/92, and 7/13/98]. In light of the Board's lack of interest in staying in touch with me, why is there now an urgency to take such a radical step as to remove my name from Mother Church membership? Neither of your last two letters ([2/16/05and 3/22/05]) cites any law -- Biblical or Manual based -- that supports the proposed action against me."

"The issue is the Cause of Christian Science and whether it remains a viable influence on this planet."

"Your decision in regard to me will illustrate how the Christian Science Church expresses through its Board of Directors the justice of God's government."

4/7/05 -- 15th letter from the Board

"...according to the authority given to The Christian Science Board of Directors under Article XI, Section 5 in the Church Manual, we have removed your name from membership in The Mother Church."

This appears to be a willful misinterpretation of Article 11, Section 5 as being a stand-alone By-Law empowering the Board to apply discipline in any way it sees fit, without having to be obedient to other applicable By-Laws and requirements of the Manual, the Bible or our Leader's other writings.. See my Article 11 and 12 analysis here and here.

4/29/05 -- Letter from Mrs. Ridley to the Board of Directors.

A compelling seven page letter including thirteen bulleted sections communicating why the Board's action is illegitimate, and how she can never be separated from Mary Baker Eddy's Church. It is an important letter deserving review in its entirety. I will include but a few excerpts here.

"I submit the following comments for the permanent church records, as well as for the edification of my pupils, co-workers, and friends -- that they may come to know the facts of the case."

"I cannot and do not accept your unjust pronouncement. This nonacceptance is based on the fact that my heart and soul remain forever at one with Mary Baker Eddy's Church. It would never be my choice to separate myself from it, and no one can ever separate me from it."

"Because it is not based on divine law, the decision of this current Board to remove my name from membership will not change me nor my work for the Cause of Christian Science."

"Please know that my prayers for the welfare of our Leader's Church will continue unabated."

4/29/05 -- "Resolution passed at the business meeting of the Association of the Pupils of Betty Ann Ridley, C.S.B., April 29, 2005"

This is an important statement for its clarity, principled position, and its thoroughness coupled with brevity -- and I quote it almost in its entirety.

"As adherents of the Manual of The Mother Church, we the Christian Science Association of the Pupils of Betty Ann Ridley, C.S.B., cannot and do not accept the Christian Science Board of Directors' unjust pronouncements upon our loyal teacher.

We do not accept the illegal attempt to discipline Betty Ann Ridley, C.S.B., ... for the following reasons:

1. Because the 'Preliminary Requirement' (Art. XI, Sect. 4) provided in the Manual by Mary Baker Eddy was not obeyed.

2. Because no 'sufficient reasons' (Art. XII, Sect, 1) have ever been given to show Mrs. Ridley 'not to be fit for the work of...a teacher of Christian Science.'

3. Because Mrs. Ridley has faithfully obeyed the Manual and is innocent of any wrongdoing.

We have read the documentation of events leading up to these pronouncements...

Therefore, we recognize Betty Ann Ridley, C.S.B.as a member in good standing of The Mother Church. Further, we anticipate her name will be restored to the membership roll of The Mother Church and her Journal listing will be restored as a practitioner and teacher of Christian Science.

Our Association will continue to operate as provided for in the Manual..."

Board posture on communication with members

While this aspect of Board activity has not been the primary focus of the above observations, the comments and notes on the above letters, meetings and calls are replete with references to deficiencies in the Board's posture on communication, and are revealing on apparent attitudes governing successive Boards in that communication. I will first provide a simple list of eigthteen such deficiencies, and then repeat the same list, but with detailed references to where examples may be found in the letters, meetings, and calls discussed in the above commentary.

Categories of deficiencies in Board communications

1. Lack of obedience to Matt 18:15-17 results inevitably in hurtfulness, dishonesty, dissimulation, miscommunication, and injustice

2. Entrapment interrogation
3 Ambiguity, innuendo and implicit presumption of guilt
4. No mother nurturing nor caring
5. Self-aggrandizing and dissimulating speech
6. Veiled threat
7. Hypocrisy
8. Inappropriate and intrusive questions
9. Attempted intimidation
10 . Confusion, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, lack of respect and common compassion
11. The Board claim that they are The Mother Church
12. Board equating of love of The Mother Church with support of Board positions
13. Threat of penalty to pupils
14. Erroneous judgment of motivation, character assassination
15. Arrogant, contemptuous, accusatory
16. "Unconcern for well-being or morale of branches or association members, coupled with Board dishonesty and a demand that the teacher act dishonorably

17. Ignoring (not giving respect to) answers to Board questions
18. Disconnect from any attempt to communicate with Mrs. Ridley where she is in her thinking

List with references

In the following detailed list, dates refer to letters, meetings, calls -- brackets [] identify non-numbered paragraphs in the above commentary.

1. Lack of obedience to Matt 18:15-17 results inevitably in hurtfulness, dishonesty, dissimulation, miscommunication, and injustice 4/16/87 [1] 2, 5/4/88 [2 1], 2/15/91 [4 1]-- hypypocrisy and self-serving 5/6/87 [2 1] -- "the Board's pattern is to withhold information, interrogate and re-interrogate, presuming guilt, seeking to entrap. This is malevolent, and contrary to the spirit and letter of all our Leader's writings. Rather than describing a Mother Church, it describes a police church, a thought-controlling church, a harassing church" 5/27/87 [1] 2 -- avoiding the requirements of Matt 18 by calling the proceedings 'informal' 10/1/90 [1], 2/15/91 [6 1], 3/5/91 [1 1] -- Board acknowledgment that they have not been following the provisions of the Manual 3/5/91 [4 1]

2. Entrapment interrogation. "...the Board's pattern is to withhold information, interrogate and re-interrogate, presuming guilt, seeking to entrap. This is malevolent, and contrary to the spirit and letter of all our Leader's writings. Rather than describing a Mother Church, it describes a police church, a thought-controlling church, a harassing church." 5/27/87 [1] 2, 1/18/91 [1 1], 2/15/91 [1], 3/5/91 [2 1] --"the Board's never-ending and ambiguous questions." 5/11/91 p.7

3 Ambiguity, innuendo and implicit presumption of guilt 4/16/87 [1] 6, 5/27/87 [1] 1, "totally unclear as to what the Directors had against me" 6/17/87 [1 1 1], 2/15/91 [7 & 8], -- "in ... four years ... the Board has not made a single clear, unambiguous statement to Mrs. Ridley of anything she has done wrong." 3/29/91 [1 1 & 1 2 4] -- "Does this amount to a form of 'confession'--as though I were on trial for talking to people? And because I have not so 'confessed,' they say I am not being honest, refer to my 'conduct' as unethical, and therefore by inference accuse me of being unfit to teach." 5/11/91 p.6 -- "masterpieces of double-talk" 5/11/91 p.7 -- "This is a very broad general charge, but the Board has not, and does not now, detail any specific things Mrs. Ridley has said or done which are ethically or morally wrong. 6/14/91 [1 1]

4. No mother nurturing nor caring 4/16/87 [2] 1, 5/27/87 [1] 1 -- "They were far from kind. They were dictatorial, dogmatic, uncaring, giving no consideration to me or to this association. The tone and mental atmosphere of the communications as well as the face-to-face meetings resemble what I have read of the Spanish Inquisition. It was hardly what one could call Christian, let alone Christian Science." 5/11/91 p.8

5. Self-aggrandizing and dissimulating speech 5/27/87 [2] 2
6. Veiled threat 5/27/87 [3 1]
7. Hypocritical 5/6/87 [2 1] -- empty, hypocritical words 6/17/87 [2 1] -- more hypocrisy, completely wrong headed 6/17/87 [4 1] -- "This is a vile, malevolent, hypocritical accusation by implication and innuendo that Mrs. Ridley is lustful, dishonest and sinful in general--or one or two of those three implications, there being no way of knowing which or in what way without guessing-- an accusation made without a shred of clarity or evidence adduced." 6/14/91 [2 1]

8. "...I found some of the questions asked by the Directors to be inappropriate and intrusive." 5/28/87 [2 2]

9. Attempted intimidation 6/11/87 3 [1]
10 . "...the confusion, the arbitrariness, the unreasonableness -- the lack of respect and common compassion expressed toward someone devoting his life to Christian Science -- which characterized that three-and-a-half-hour meeting..." 6/11/87 [8]

11. The Board claim that they are The Mother Church 11/30/90 [3]
12. Board equating of love of The Mother Church with support of Board positions 11/30/90 [4]
13. Threat of penalty to pupils 11/30/90 [5]
14. Erroneous judgment of motivation, character assassination 1/18/91 [2 1]
15. Arrogant, contemptuous, accusatory 2/1/91 -- accusatory without providing any specifics regarding the accusation 3/5/91 [3 1], 5/11/91 p.4

16. "Unconcern for well-being or morale of branches or association members, coupled with Board dishonesty and a demand that the teacher act dishonorably so that the Board would not be made to look bad 2/5/91 [1-4] -- "... I am in a quandary as to how I am to carry out your intructions regarding the association in a principled way. [because of causing pupils great financial and other distress.] This does not seem kind nor even Christian at this late date,..." 3/29/91 [1 2 3]

17. Ignoring (not giving respect to) answers to Board questions 2/15/91 [5 1] -- "...the Board's letter does not acknowledge, or respond to, or rebut any of the points Mrs.Ridley makes." 6/14/91 [1 2 1&2]

18. "...a complete disconnect from any attempt to communicate with Mrs. Ridley where she is in her thinking." 8/14/92 [1]

Surely these deficiencies can be improved upon, and need to be.

Paul Kautz
paul@duncansbeemers.com