10/1992
Paul Kautz

THOUGHTS ON THE PURPOSE AND MISSION OF THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MOVEMENT

Consider the following references from MBE's writings (and one from the Bible) on the purpose and mission of our movement.
(See printout.)

S&H 474:29-31
Rud 2:23-27 (to :)
S&H 150:10 the
S&H 464:10
Man 19:1
Man 19:2 designed (only, to be),4-5 healing (to ;)
S&H 483:30-31 (to ,)
I Cor 14:8

Consider the cumulative impact of these brief excerpts from the above:

destroy the works of the devil
emphatic purpose the healing of sin
take away the sins of the world
praying, watching and working for the redemption of mankind
healing and saving the world from sin and death

Do these not carry a tremendous impact? They convey to me that this is what our church and movement need to be about; that this needs to be our primary and major emphasis.

However, I do not feel this has been our emphasis. Our emphasis (based on my observation over the years) has been twofold:

  1. promotion and extension of Christian Science
  2. healing
    1. primarily of sickness and discomfort of Christian Scientists
    2. secondarily, of sin

The phrase 'healing and saving the world from sin and death' epitomizes to me our Leader's ultimate concept of the mission of our church and movement. This is a grand and tremendous statement of purpose and mission, with far-reaching ramifications. It has great potential for motivation. It is both challenging and dangerous. Dangerous, because it would confront all the works of the anti-Christ, which it must be remembered works mostly by deception, and attempts to destroy whatever would oppose it.

This phrase is also, to me, one of many profound statements which our Leader placed in her writings in such a way that they could be passed over for years without notice or disturbance by the unready or unalerted thought, but would stand out as if in red letters when the time became right for their recognition by the thought ready for them.

Consider what would follow if we took as given that our Leader's highest concept of purpose and mission for her church and movement was that they heal and save the world from sin and death. Would we not then use this statement as a criterion with which to evaluate all of the activities and policies of the The Mother Church and its branches, including The Christian Science Monitor?

Consider the difference in thrust resulting from 'healing and saving the world from sin and death' as against 'promoting and extending Christian Science':

  1. Promoting and extending Christian Science keeps us preoccupied with ourselves; it is a form of self- aggrandizement. It is interesting that MBE did not use the phrase 'promote and extend' or 'promotion and extension' in her published writings. She did use it in her will with regard to the use of her residual estate, and in the opening paragraph of the 1898 Publishing Society Deed of Trust regarding her purpose in establishing the Trustees of the Publishing Society.

    Healing and saving the world, on the other hand, requires us to look out and away from ourselves or our parochial interests. The undue emphasis on promotion and extension over the years is, to me, all by itself, one of the major reasons why our movement has not prospered as we might have hoped.

    Were we to use 'healing and saving the world' as our criterion,

    1. we would measure our efforts not by whether they will prosper us, but by whether they will prosper the world.

    2. we would look at the efforts of others, not in terms of whether they will help us, but in terms of whether they will help the world.

    3. decisions regarding the Christian Science Monitor would be taken in terms of what will heal and save the world from sin and death, not in terms of what will advance the Monitor or movement. And speaking of the CSM, those words regarding the Monitor, 'bless all mankind' and 'spread undivided the Science which operates unspent', take on added meaning in the context of 'healing and saving the world from sin and death'.

  2. 'Healing and saving the world from sin and death' places emphasis on sin rather than on sickness and discomfort.

  3. The noun relating to the word 'saving' is salvation; therefore the concept of salvation comes into prominence.

MBE emphasizes in a number of places that there is a significant difference between the handling of sin and the handling of sickness. Consider the following references.
(See printout.)

Mis 4:12-13,29
Mis 198:1-5(to ;)
S&H 61:9-11
01 13:22-24(to ,)
S&H 542:9
Mis 67:19
01 13:27-3
Mis 66:23
Mis 352:28
S&H 461:16
My 210:19-11
S&H 102:18-23
      The following pssages added 11/2009.
Eph 6:11-20
pul 14:29-17
Mis 176:4-20 np
Amos 3:9-11 Assemble
I Pet 5:8
Mis 2;6-14
My 180:22

Sin, according to these references, has to be uncovered, exposed, identified, recognized and turned from in order to be healed and destroyed. Sickness, on the other hand, has to be covered with the veil of harmony. The inadequate exposure of sin as sin and of errors that are damning men and nations as errors is, I would submit, one of the critical failures of our movement and of our Christian Science Monitor in recent decades.

Over the years, there has been much idealism on the part of the changing staff of the Monitor. At the same time I think it can be fairly said (based on observation of the Monitor over the years) that one of the major goals of those controlling Monitor style and content has been acceptance by the intelligentsia. A dictionary definition of intelligentsia: intellectual or educated people collectively, especially those with a broad and informed point of view. The problem is that this confines the errors to be exposed to those that it is fashionable to expose.

Our church and movement have been in existence for more than a century, our Monitor for more than eighty years. If, as a movement, as individual churches, and as individuals, we had been doing our part adequately and properly, could we not expect that the world would be trending regularly and consistently, on balance, toward becoming a better place? But when we look around, mentally, assuming that we do not cover sin with the veil of harmony in our thoughts prior to its exposure and destruction, can we truly believe this is the case? Do we not rather see scenes out of the Apocalypse? Sin ascendant, in any number of forms, blatant, aggressive, subtle, deceptive, secret, amoral, cruel, unjust, power hungry, tyrannizing, apparently humanitarian while at the same time uncaring?

This is not to say that the scene is all black. Obviously and importantly, there is much of good report to be grateful for from day to day, and it can never be gainsaid that where any evil or error might seem to be, there spiritual reality is. Nevertheless, is it not essential that our movement do its proper part in assuring that sin becomes descendant, rather than ascendant? And at the earliest possible time? It is never too late to begin aright.

< >