July 25, 2007
Subject: the human mind
Dear Jim and editors:
Thank you for your good article in the August Journal, The Prayer That Heals , which gets better as it proceeds.
Because it was so fine, I was rather broken-hearted to come across a seven word parenthetical phrase (p.48, mid second column), which, in my view admittedly, does not fit in the article, and I believe is not in accord with our Leader's statement of Christian Science. Broken-hearted, also, because I believe a correct understanding of the nature of the human mind is important to the progress of any student of Christian Science, and the Journal cannot afford to disseminate falsity in this area.
The parenthetical phrase in its context is, "In fact, the so-called human mind (which is capable only of blind faith) ..."
Mrs. Eddy only uses the two phrases 'human mind' and 'blind faith' in the same sentence in one place in her published writings (S&H 12:2-8), and there 'blind faith' refers back, not to 'the human mind', but to "a mere request that God will heal the sick" (at line 2). And two sentences further on, she refers to "the human understanding of the divine healing Principle as manifested in Jesus." Surely, that human understanding occurs in the human mind, and is far beyond blind faith. Here is the context of these excerpts:
S&H 12:2-8 A,10
A mere request that God will heal the sick has no power to
gain more of the divine presence than is always at hand.
The beneficial effect of such prayer for the sick is on
the human mind, making it act more powerfully on the body
through a blind faith in God.It is neither Science nor Truth which acts through blind
belief, nor is it the human understanding of the divine
healing Principle as manifested in Jesus, whose humble
prayers were deep and conscientious protests of Truth,--
of man's likeness to God and of man's unity with Truth and
Love.
There are many places in our Leader's writings where she speaks about the capacity of the human mind to approach the divine, but here are my three favorites:
S&H 84:30
If this Science has been thoroughly learned and
properly digested, we can know the truth more
accurately than the astronomer can read the stars or
calculate an eclipse. This Mind-reading is the
opposite of clairvoyance. It is the illumination of the
spiritual understanding which demonstrates the
capacity of Soul, not of material sense. This Soul-
sense comes to the human mind when the latter yields to
the divine Mind.
And this yielding is the very point you are making in the sentence which does not need the false seven word parenthetical statement!
'02 10:12
When the human mind is advancing above itself towards
the Divine, it is subjugating the body, subduing
matter, taking steps outward and upwards. This upward
tendency of humanity will finally gain the scope of
Jacob's vision, and rise from sense to Soul, from earth
to heaven.S&H 531:8
It is well that the upper portions of the brain
represent the higher moral sentiments, as if hope were
ever prophesying thus: The human mind will sometime
rise above all material and physical sense, exchanging
it for spiritual perception, and exchanging human
concepts for the divine consciousness. Then man will
recognize his God-given dominion and being.
For your consideration.
Paul Kautz
Jim sent me a gracious and substantive response:
July 28,2007
Dear Paul,
Thanks for your comments on the article. I've just returned from some quiet time in Maine, so this is my first opportunity to respond.
Of course, I've given a good deal of thought to your comments and I'm always wanting to set things forward as clearly as possible. The parenthetic comment about the human mind and blind faith has validity in the specific context I was using it and in relation to some of Mrs. Eddy's usage. However, you are perfectly right in the broader context and in the much wider usage by her. It's unfortunate that it went through in that way as it could cause some confusion. I will request a correction in any reprinting of the article or if it used on Spirituality.com.
The article was to have been run by me once more before publication, and it might have been caught at that time. However, something happened and it fell through the cracks and never got back to me.
Thank you for writing about it.
Best regards,
Jim
Shouldn't the editors have been able to help Jim spot this glitch before publication?
Isn't that an important editors' function?