Paul Kautz
January 2014

Excerpts and Observations,
Correspondence between the Board of Directors
and Elaine Natale Davidson, CSB
2002 - 2009

Notes

1. The correspondence, quotations and references below are from An Open Letter to All Members of The Mother Church, April 2009, from Elaine Natale Davidson, CSB and its companion Documentation ... the complete correspondence relating to the Christian Science Board of Directors handling of 'Matters of Conscience', as well as the original Matters of Conscience complaint of January 2002, and her Correspondence relating to Matters of Conscience, November 2002 -- January 2003.

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.

Prefatory comment

It may be asked, "Why revisit the Matters of Conscience history, when so much time has passed?

1. Because a great injustice has been done Mrs. Davidson.
2. Because Matters of Conscience has never been dealt with honestly nor honorably.
3. Because even today, more than eleven years later, its content merits prayerful consideration. I have conducted an exploratory study of one way a current study of Matters of Conscience could be approached. It covers approximately 10% of the items of complaint, and can be reviewed here.

Excerpts and Observations

1/4/2002 -- Elaine Natale Davidson submits an extensive complaint to the Board of Directors (Board), entitled Matters of Conscience, consisting of approximately 156 pages of complaint, approximately 600 pages of supportive documentation, and including 76 distinct items of complaint.

Following are a number of excerpts from the accompanying letter to the Board.

"Over the last two decades subtle invasions of worldly thinking have entered, and the aggressive workings of those influences are not at all subtle today."

"The twenty-first century has left the nineteenth far behind, and The Church of Christ, Scientist, quite rightly must address current needs. But exactly how to share the healing Comforter with hungering humanity necessitates a crucial choice between human ways and means and God's ways and means. In an apparent zeal to be in the vanguard of the times, Church officers have increasingly adopted methods contrary to the very rules of the Church. The bound documents you are now receiving trace Church officials off-course pursuits spanning a period of about 1991 to the present."

",,,Article I, Section 9, outlines this duty... [to inform of errors]."

"Of all the issues facing our Church today, the most crucial one is the need to clarify Mrs. Eddy's preeminent and permanent position as the sole Leader of her own Church. What most needs to be settled is not whose personal opinion will hold sway. The future of the Cause depends upon adherence to Mrs. Eddy's teachings."

"Loyalty to Principle not person, is the only loyalty that can really prove that 'love is the fulfilling of the law.' Fidelity to The Mother Church has no other lasting basis."

"It is incumbent upon every Director, from the time he or she accepts the office, to enforce the By-Laws and to be committed to rectifying any former Board misconduct."

"This complaint brings to your attention a vast accumulation of violations. This complaint also asks that each Director weigh every one of them in his or her heart. Conscience gives each of us the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong. No one can be another's conscience. Yet we can -- in the name and spirit of Christ, Truth -- urge a profound search of heart."

Mrs. Davidson divided her complaint into 15 categories. To convey a sense of the scope of her complaint it may be useful to reiterate those 15 categories here.

1. Misrepresenting Christian Science by identifying it with mind/body, New Age, and medical trends

2. Altering and misrepresenting Science and Health.

3. Misrepresenting Mrs. Eddy and Science and Health in commercial promotional activities.

4. The continuing misrepresentation of Christian Science and Mrs. Eddy in The Destiny of the Mother Church.

5. Adulterating Christian Science religious literature.

6. Undermining the Pastor and the Bible-Lesson.

7. Promoting non-denominationalism--blurring the denominational distinctness of Christian Science.

8. Falsely influencing parents and young people in the name of Christian Science.

9. Displacing the Publishing Society's mandated activities.

10. Undermining Christian Science Reading Room activity.

11. Misrepresenting Christian Science in lecture activity.

12. Reinventing the Committee on Publication.

13. Perpetuating a political system of rewards and punishments.

14. Misrepresenting and redefining church government.

15. Rejecting Mrs. Eddy's leadership.

1/14/2002 -- Board acknowledges receipt and states, "Your complaint will receive appropriate review, and we will be in touch with you in due course."

2/14/2002 -- Mrs. Davidson, with a witnessing teacher, Joseph Eller, writes again, a two-page letter. It includes these words:

"The Church is in great difficulty ... There is an immediate need for corrective action. Since you haven't taken the steps the documented evidence demands, a next step is being taken today that is in accord with the Master's teaching in Matthew: "If thy brother will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more,,,

"We ask you to love this Church enough to replace yourselves with new officers who are prepared to make the needed changes that can enable the healing and rebuilding process to begin."

While Mrs. Davidson's complaint itself is heartfelt and to many is welcome and in large measure compelling, one feels the February 14  letter is premature in concluding the Board 'will not hear,' and too soon too adversarial. She might have first inquired when she might expect to hear from them.

If I had been on the Board at this point, I would likely have been feeling three things needed to be established before going forward:

1. You have no authority to dictate to us how and when we will respond.
2. You have no basis for stating, at this point in time, "We will not hear you."
3. Shouldn't we all be endeavoring to keep this non-adversarial?

Mr. Eller's enclosed statement as a witness is very forthright and clear in its unqualified support of the Matters of Conscience complaint.

2/25/2002 -- The Board acknowledges receipt of the 2/14 letter, and schedules a meeting for 3/7.

"Your earlier letter of January 4, 2002, asked. 'that each Director weigh every one of [your claims of violations of the Manual] in his or her heart.' Your most recent letter found us doing so, and we have just concluded our formal review."

3/7/2002 -- The Board meets with Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Eller.

3/15/2002 -- Letter from Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Eller to the Board confirming their understandings from the meeting on 3/7.

Before proceeding to the content of the letter, I would like to address the question, "If I had been on the Board at that time, what would I have felt to be appropriate response to the complaint (in broad terms) on the part of the Board?"

1. The three caveats mentioned above regarding the 2/14 letter should be stated.

2. I would wish to recognize Elaine's and Joe's sincerity and conscientiously held concerns in the complaint, and to establish a mutually caring atmosphere in the meeting, avoiding an adversarial tone, seeking to determine what mutual understandings could be reached.

After all, are not any conscientiously held concerns in the field, of necessity, matters for the Board to give caring attention?

3. I would feel that there could be no profit to the movement in stonewalling the complaint, or in the Board's acting dictatorial in the meeting, since I do not believe our Leader established the Board to be a dictator to her Church and movement.

4. I would feel that to say the complaint had no validity or value would not be a viable position for the Board, if for no other reason than that the Board at the time must have been aware there was considerable feeling in the movement at the time sympathetic to the views in the complaint.

5. Since both Christian Science practice and Christian Science governance must take account of both the spirit and the letter of Science, I would feel that taking a legalistic approach to the complaint would not really be an option.

6. I would feel some substantive response was merited, if for no other reason than to move in the direction of a communication posture of the Board which would be honest, forthright, caring and honorable, while at the same time, wise and judicious.

7. Since the complaint is huge, any substantive response would have to be preceded by development of a procedural method for dealing with the content. But consider: Would the procedural method need to be difficult or complex? No, it would merely have to go step by step, and integrity, not time, would be the essence. The procedure could have simply been to take the 76 items one at a time, as the Board's time and priorities permitted, and answer these questions:

Is this complaint item valid? If not, why not, in the Board's view?
      If yes, would correction of some kind be appropriate?
Would the Board view differ from a conscientious member's view?
      How could it differ since each Board member must first be a conscientious member?
      An exception might be in a case where the Board has information it must in honor keep confidential.
      And on occasions when conscientious members might reasonably differ, would not mutual respect and affection be in order?

The 3/15 letter is an important letter because it is the only report we have about the Board's initial responses to the Matters of Conscience complaint. The Board did not put in writing the positions it stated in the meeting, and it did not respond to the 3/15 letter. To quote the letter:

"At the beginning of the meeting it was emphatically declared that no notes were to be taken. We listened with especial care, however, to what the Board had to say. Without directly quoting any of you, your main points, as we understand them, are:

And then followed seven bulleted items (numbered 1 to 7 below). Some excerpts:

1. "...none of you could find even one instance where there was any actual violation of the Manual. ... When we asked if there was a single valid charge in the complaint, the Board's answer was that there was not."

Let us first consider the words , "even one instance where there was any actual violation of the Manual." This implies that only the Manual is to be considered in questions of Church governance, and would appear to exclude the Bible and our Leader's other writings from such consideration. Such an implication would (in my view, admittedly) be false. (See Part Two of my 2011 letter to the Board, paragraph 4.b., here, for a discussion including this implication.)

But the Board also appears to have communicated in this meeting that there was not a single statement in the complaint worthy of their consideration. And yet it must have been evident to them that there was at that time much sentiment in the movement sympathetic to what was said in the complaint. For them to be, in effect, contemptuous of this substantial feeling in the movement would appear to be greatly inappropriate for the Board of Directors of the entire Mother Church including all of its members and all of its branches.

2. "that the Board has officially concluded that the complaint is 'not valid.' This pronouncement was made with no specific refutation of the evidence and without any explanation other than the blanket statement. ... "

This Board position communicates that the Board feels it unnecessary to respond in any substantive way whatsoever to any Article I, Section 9, complaint against them, whether minor or extensive. This in turn conveys a sense of total unconcern with any sentiment in the movement that the Board may be going astray, which in turn conveys a sense of Board disinterest in unity in the movement, except according to their specification.

3. "that the Board has concluded that the entire complaint is comprised of Elaine's 'personal opinions'--that it is not a compilation of any real wrongdoing."

As so often in Board communication, this is ambiguous, therefore dissimulative speech. It could mean any of several things, none of them a credit to the Board. Examples:

It could mean Elaine is capable of nothing but personal opinions, which would be an ad hominem attack on her.
ad hominem -- attacking an opponent's character rather than his argument

It could mean that all of Christian Science and the Bible is personal opinion, but that the only opinions that count are the Board's.

It could mean that any views that differ from Board positions are personal opinion.

Et cetera.

But the fact of the matter is that Christian Science is based on self-evident truth, ultimately on God as Truth, and that every student and member of Christian Science is capable of discerning self-evident truth, and the Board has no monopoly on such.

4. "that if anything required correction or change during the years covered by the complaint, those corrections and changes had been taken care of and all officers are fulfilling their duties faithfully and well."

This reflects the Board's view that they are the judge of their own conduct. I refuted this Board position in my 2005 letter to the Board here, and in Part Three of my 2011 letter to the Board in my section on "The business of The Mother Church," here.

5. "that the Board's conclusion regarding 'Matters of Conscience' closes the complaint... ... Accordingly, no further step of the Matthew code can be taken under these kinds of circumstances. ... ...therefore we must understand and accept that the whole matter must now be put to rest... "

This manifests a fundamental Board misconception and misinterpretation of the role of Matthew 18:15-17 in our Leader's view of governance and discipline in her church and movement. See my Matthew 18 and Article 11 & 12 analysis here.

6. "that ... we are on notice that if any further steps are taken to share it with others, the Board will view this as disobedient, a serious Manual violation. We were told that ... we must keep confidential the fact that the complaint was made and that we must not disclose anything about the meeting."

This mistaken position of the Board would make the following of what our Leader calls, in the Manual, "the Scriptural demand" (in this case, the third step in the Matthew 18:15-17 code), a punishable offence. This is malfeasance on the part of the Board--wrongdoing in violation of a public trust.

This is also attempted ecclesiastical cover-up; rather than allowing issues of deep interest and concern in the movement to be freely discussed, it is an attempt to make truth within the Christian Science movement something to be established by hierarchical fiat, rather than by individual prayerful listening and study. It is an attempted ban on freedom of thought, speech and communication in the movement.

7. "that, furthermore, if 'Matters of Conscience' does not remain confidential, the Board is warning us that we, and any others who might participate in disseminating the complaint, will be facing disciplinary action. ..."

This Board pronouncement threatens disciplinary action if members are obedient to what our Leader calls the Scriptural demand (spoken by Christ Jesus)--this would be illegitimate disciplinary action, in other words, a penalizing of obedience to our Leader and to the Christ.

These comments on the seven bulleted items convey an attempted total Board stonewalling of the Matters of Conscience complaint--a stonewalling which has gone on to this day--and an attempt to keep it from being seen or considered by the membership. It would appear to be an avoidance, rather than an honest consideration of and response to the complaint.

Elaine and Joe (also in their 3/15 letter) fault the Board for allowing no "honest exchange of issues," for "not substantiating your judgment of 'not valid' with a single piece of evidence to disprove a single charge in the documented complaint of grave wrongdoings by the Board," and for threatening "disciplinary action to thwart the continuation" to the third step of the Matthew code.

They support the right and duty to fulfill the third step of the Scriptural requirement in Matthew 18:15-17, and include as part of their concluding statement, the words, "We will pursue no further correspondence with the present Board of Directors,..." (This statement was obviated by responses to subsequent Board communications.)

April 2002 -- "Copies of Matters of Conscience are mailed to all Christian Science teachers with a cover letter signed by Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Eller," and in subsequent months copies are sent in response to requests. In the May-June period, "copies are sent to all Journal listed members." It is worthy of notice that there are members caring enough to do the work of sending out copies, and members caring enough to make funds available to make it possible.

The April 2002 Christian Science Journal includes a guest editorial by Daniel Bort, then Legal Counsel of The Mother Church, severely questioning the legitimacy of group mailings among members. In my 2011 letter to the Board, Part Two, here, I deal with the fact that, as I state there, the editorial "is deeply flawed in its reasoning and assertions regarding Mrs. Eddy's intent."

September 2002 -"Over one hundred Journal-listed members [7 teachers, 9 nurses and 93 practitioners] sign a letter called 'working together' and the letter is mailed to all branch churches. It explains that a copy of the complaint Matters of Conscience is soon to be sent to their members. The letter does not tell the members what to do or conclude, but urges them to respect fellow members' rights to read the complaint prayerfully , and make their own determinations."

Excerpts from the three page letter follow, to show the tenor of the motivation.

"...we're writing to your membership because of our shared conviction that we have a responsibility to do all we can to support healing within our beloved Church."

"Many members are praying very deeply for Church these days--aware that extreme challenges have been testing our movement--conscious of the need to examine church activities very carefully to determine whether they truly line up with our Leader's original intentions, as she spells them out in her teachings."

"...we're sure you'll want to familiarize yourselves with the crucial issues facing our movement and ask God for guidance in these matters."

"This letter has no other purpose than to help the great Cause of Christian Science demonstrate unity under the sheltering protection of Principle. But doing this requires trusting the spiritual sense of each member."

"We agree that our Church's spiritual restoration can only come about through the deepest commitment on the part of all Christian Scientists to work together respectfully in love--proving that holiness can outshine all error and distrust."

"Your name has been distributed as part of a mail campaign intended to dismiss Church officers, to alter the government of The Mother Church and its Church Manual, and to interfere with the affairs of branch churches, college organizations, and Christian Science associations."

1. This alleged motivation bears no resemblance whatsoever to the true motivation described in the "working together" letter itself -- see the excerpts quoted above (9/2002.), here.

2. The Board has thus concocted a completely false and therefore dishonorable alleged motivation, thereby being disobedient to the Article 8, Section 1 admonition against "judging [or] condemning...erroneously."

3. The Board is acting as if our Leader never included Matthew 18:15-17 as a required part of all disciplinary action. It completely ignores the legitimate correlation of the "working together" letter to the Matthew 18:15-17 verses:

1. Each signer, by endorsing the Matters of Conscience complaint, is in effect making an individual Article 1, Section 9 complaint against the Board.

2. Since the Board, in effect, "neglected to hear" the complaint, the "working together" letter, in effect, is telling it to the church with 107 witnesses, and in accordance with step three of the Matthew code.

"Our Leader sets forth in the Church Manual, Article XI, Section 5, the authority for discipline: 'The Christian Science Board of Directors has power to discipline, place on probation, remove from membership, or to excommunicate members of The Mother Church.' "

While this makes it sound as though there are no constraints on the power of the Board to discipline, and hence the tone is very threatening, the truth of the matter is that there are constraints. I quote my analysis of Article 11 and 12 (see here):

" Obviously, the provisions of any other Article 11 or 12 sections, as well as any other guidance from the writings of our Leader, that apply, must be met.  In other words, this [Section 5] is not a stand alone empowerment for the Board to discipline in any way or circumstances it sees fit."

Actually, the Board has no legitimate power to discipline in this situation, because it has no legitimate power to declare that only part of the Matthew code can be followed.

Note by Mrs. Davidson relating to this Board letter (page iv and v of her 2009 Open Letter Documentation):

"Soon thereafter, teams of 'Board representatives' began making sudden personal visits to these members in an attempt to influence them to retract their signatures from the 'Working together' letter. ... Many of the ... signers write heartfelt letters to the Board..., some asking for answers as to why they have been accused of disobedience. Others urge the Board to consider the unfairness of its actions. These letters are respectful in tone and express loyalty to The Mother Church. The Board gives them no answer."

12/11/2002 -- Mr. Eller's response to the Board's 11/18/2002 letter declaring probation.

He reviews his many decades of faithful service, declares his innocence of wrongdoing, and asserts his standing as a witness for the Matters of Conscience complaint as the reason for the Board's action.

The following are eloquent excerpts.

"Probation is a sacred means reserved to correct serious missteps, for example, or for teaching Christian Science incorrectly and persisting in this practice, or for unrepented of personal attacks on another member. If probation is to be used against certain members who are, with good motives, following what The Church Manual clearly lays out, What then is to be the meaning of The Manual at all?"

"The spirit of Christianity and of Christian Science includes on its most fundamental level our God-bestowed freedom of thought and action."

12/19/2002 -- Mrs. Davidson's response to the Board's 11/18/2002 letter declaring probation.

She also (as Joe did) recounts her history of loyalty to Christian Science. She rejects the legitimacy of the Board's action:

"Your letter reads as if the Rules and By-Laws of the Manual of the Mother Church did not exist. Out of the blue, with no attention whatsoever to the Matthew requirement of Article XI, Section 4, and without providing 'sufficient reasons' as specifically required by Article XII, Section 1, your Board has simply leapt over our Leader's directives. By this very action of refusing her Manual requirements, your pronouncement is without any real or enforceable authority."

"What does justice mean if punishment is doled out without specific charges, without heeding the Manual's 'Preliminary Requirement,' without a fair hearing or opportunity to appeal? Such 'discipline' has no meaning. Therefore for conscience' sake I must decline to conform to the Board's notion that I'm on probation and that my association is dissolved. ... Each pupil is free to decide for himself or herself whether the teaching received is correct and consistent with Mrs. Eddy's writings. ... Certainly what your Board has attempted to do is completely devoid of the nurturing Mother love of the real The Mother Church."

She speaks of the visits to the signers of the 'Working together' letter:

"...you then sent teams of 'Board representatives' out into the field to phone, e-mail, and press hard to schedule individual visits. For some who elected to meet with these examiners, the visits felt like inquisitions--in some cases, even nightmare experiences. Still other people refused to meet because the initial phone calls felt so aggressive and because in several cases an independent witness was not allowed.. ... Basically, these devoted workers were told that if they wanted to stop disciplinary action against themselves they'd have to indicate repentance for having signed the 'working together' letter and withdraw support for Matters of Conscience."

As I've said earlier, this kind of behavior and activity is descriptive of a police church, rather than a Mother Church.

A little farther on in her letter she says:

"I never tear down The Mother Church in the eyes of pupils or patients. No matter how upset they may be with what they see Headquarters doing, I always urge them to ever more faithfully pray for The Mother Church, understand its true government, love it, and work for its resurrection."

In her 2009 Open Letter, she notes that "The Board of Directors returns no response to Mrs. Davidson's and Mr. Eller's letters."

January 2003 -- A compilation entitled Correspondence relating to Matters of Conscience, November 2002 -- January 2003 is made available to members in the field. Mrs. Davidson has this to say about it in her 2009 Open Letter:

"Because there is discussion and confusion in the Field about what happened to the "working together" signers, and because the signers themselves desire their names and reputations to be cleared of any suggestion that they are disloyal to The Mother church, copies of the compilation of their letters are made available to the Field."

The compilation includes sixty letters from signers to the Board. The letters are heartfelt and poignant, and convey a significant cumulative impact regarding the devotion of the signers to our Leader's church, and their disappointment with the unChristly actions of the Board.

"None [of these writers] receives an individual response to letters written to the Board of Directors during this episode."

3/4/2003 -- Board of Education phone calls to Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Eller. Note from the 2009 Open Letter:

"The Board of Education (Victor Westberg, President, and Elizabeth Jenks, Teacher) make telephone calls to Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Eller telling them that they must comply with Board requirements. Mrs. Davidson asks the two members of the Board of Education several questions which they say they cannot answer because the Board of Directors speaks for itself. Mrs. Davidson asks why, then, the Directors don't respond directly to her and speak for themselves, seeing that serious discipline has been imposed but no Manual-based reasons have been supplied by the Directors, who are refusing to answer any questions or allow any discussion. The Board of Education suggests that the Board of Directors doesn't need to give explanations for its actions. The Board of Education also states that its own job is to enforce the Board of Directors disciplinary orders, not to answer questions. Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Eller each reply that what is being demanded of them has no Manual basis, and they continue on with their practice and teaching activities."

It is of interest that no reference to a disciplinary role for the Board of Education can be found in our Leader's writings. The sentence in Article 11, Section 5 in the Manual: "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 on cases involving The Mother Church discipline."--would appear to mean that our Leader did not envision the Board of Education as having a disciplinary role.

3/12/2003 -- The signers of the "working together" letter receive letters from the Clerk of The Mother church scolding them for their actions but ending the threat of removal from the Journal.

4/26/2003 -- "Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Eller send a joint five and a half page letter to the Board of Education reconstructing what was said to them in the March 4 phone calls." Some significant content/excerpts:

There were six bulleted items summarizing what the BOE had said to them. The sixth item reads: "that we are to cease using the initials 'CSB ' and must return our teaching certificates because we signed a statement on the normal Class application that supposedly gives The Christian Board of Directors power to revoke teaching privileges with no further procedures."

"The statement referred to was a clause added to the Normal class application for the first time in the early 1980's. From the start it has deeply troubled many applicants who signed it because it attributes a power to the Directors that overrides the authority of the Manual, which requires the Board of Directors to follow strictly the Matthew Code (Article XI, Sections 2 & 4) and to have 'sufficient reasons' before taking action against a teacher (Article XII, Section 1). The inserted clause in the Normal Class application in effect short circuits the Manual process by permitting the Board to exercise a power our Leader never instituted--the power to discipline without due process."

Why would members of the Board of Directors even desire such an unChristly power or prerogative?

"The two of us have arrived at our individual decisions not to meet your stated demands after much soul-searching prayer. Knowing the love and fidelity for Truth that we feel in our hearts, we cannot in good conscience meet official demands which are predicated on the false judgment that we are 'disloyal.' "

"...we sent our pupils a copy of the Board of Directors' November 18, 2002, letter to us. So they are well-informed of the Board's views."

Their letter berates the Board of Education for deficiencies in maintaining adequate standards for teaching in the movement:

"Much confusion and harm have been occasioned by the Board of Education's support of policies that muddle the metaphysics of Christian Science and adulterate our Leader's teachings. For example: moral and spiritual clarity are not promoted by supporting the change in Mother Church membership standards."

"Another example: ...There are teachers who ... combine Christian Science readings with writings by New Age theosophists. Yet they are not corrected or disciplined. According to Mrs. Eddy, false teachings always threaten the all-important purity of Christian Science,... In some cases, teachers who have supported loosely combining disparate methods have been applauded for their 'openness,' while those of us who call for the defense of the purity of Mrs.Eddy's God-revealed teachings are branded 'rigid,' 'close-minded,' and even 'disloyal.' This is a travesty of ethics and a betrayal of our Leader's purpose for the Board of Education."

"The milk has been adulterated and continues to be... ... Furthermore, since that [Matters of Conscience] documentation was compiled, the violations have become even more extensive.

"You both claim, as do the Directors, that in Mrs. Eddy's view the Board is 'the church,' in terms of the Matthew teaching. Yet Mrs. Eddy gave no indication that she disagreed with the rendering of Bible interpretations of Matthew 18:15-17. Bible commentaries and translations offer overwhelming evidence that the phrase 'the church' refers to the full congregation, the church community, the entire body of the church."

11/24/2003 (seven months later) -- Mrs. Davidson and Mr. Eller send a four page letter to the Board of Directors seeking communication with the Board and saying in part, "Throughout this entire year we have been seeking an answer from you, the Directors, as to the Manual basis for these disciplinary actions."

1/30/2004 -- Board response to 11/24 letter. -- A few excerpts --

"...You have continued to publish your views, even after our in-person meeting with you, at which time we explained that your complaint had been found invalid."

It may be noted once again that this was a fiat declaration, unsupported by any substantiating detail, applied to a 156 page complaint accompanied by some 600 pages of documentation. This has the effect of the Board taking the position that they can be questioned by the field only to the extent that they allow themselves to be questioned. This carries the further inference that the Board considers themselves to be not the servant of the field, but the boss of the field.

"Whether or not you agreed with this finding, that was the moment for you to step back and trust 'God's disposal for events' (...My. p.281).

Here the Board is, in effect, distinctly taking the position that teachers who bring a complaint against the Board in accordance with Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the Manual, as Elaine and Joe did, do not have the right to follow all three steps of the Matthew 18:15-17 Christly code, if the Board forbids them to do so. This, in spite of the fact that in two places in the Manual (51:2 & 15 ), our Leader identifies these verses as "the Scriptural demand," and "the requirements according to the Scriptures."

"Instead, your actions brought Article XII, Section 1, of the Church Manual into consideration."

Here the Board speaks by implication rather than forthrightly, the implication being that in the Board's view, disobedience to a Board prohibition, even if the prohibited action is for the purpose of obeying the Christ and our Leader, is "sufficient reason" for deciding "that a teacher has so strayed as not to be fit for the work of a ... teacher..."

In other words, in the view of the Board, obedience to the Board takes precedence over obedience to the Christ or to our Leader. This is abomination. It is also malfeasance, an illegitimate misuse of Article XII, Section 1.

"At this time, we support your right to humbly ponder the question of repentance. As you contemplate the implications of Article XII, it is important to realize that your probationary three years will begin at the point of repentance."

This is hypocritical on the part of the Board. They know that these teachers cannot repent of being faithful to the Christ and to their Leader. In effect they are saying, "Your conscience, your integrity, your fidelity to the Christ and to the Leader of Christian Science mean nothing, unless you first acknowledge that the Board of Directors is supreme in the movement."

The extended significance of this, is that anyone who silently, tacitly accepts this mistaken rationale of the Board is being disloyal to that extent to the Christ and to our Leader.

10/26/2005 ( 9 months later) -- a letter, Mrs. Davidson to the Board -- this is 3 years from the time of the Board's letter placing them on probation.

Responding to repeated Board comments at field meetings that "the door is open" to communication with her and Joe, she offers the possibility of a meeting together.

11/29/2005 -- Meeting of the Board, the two members of the Board of Education, Elaine and Joe. Some excerpts from Elaine's notes follow.

"Everyone put forth an effort to be cordial... "

"There was a lengthy exchange on what can bring unity within the Church. Mr. Black insisted that permanent unity can only be established as the membership understands that it should follow Board decisions 'right or wrong.' He said that when members feel that they can arrive at their own interpretations, this promotes anarchy."

This would appear to be the very root of the differences between the Board and these two teachers.

If what this Board member says is true, then it would appear impossible for members to be obedient to our Leader's injunction to "follow her only so far as she follows Christ," or to be "self-governed under God."

Regarding the word 'anarchy' in the quote above, I deal with the issue of conscience vs. anarchy in my 2011 letter to the Board here.

"Other Board members gave their support to the argument that the Board must be recognized as the sole interpreter of the meaning and the application of Christ Jesus and Mrs. Eddy's teachings, and that whether or not members in the field agree with these interpretations, obedient acceptance is required to promote church unity. ... The Directors were visibly displeased by my response that this didn't sound at all like Mrs. Eddy's church but felt uncomfortably like the methodology of the Roman Catholic church."

"I asked how following Board directives 'right or wrong' could fit with the By-Law 'No incorrect literature' (Article XIII, Section 11) where judgments of right or wrong metaphysics are critical on everyone's part. Mrs. Eddy warns, in that By-Law, that incorrect literature causes schisms in the church and can even result in 'the possible loss, for a time, of Christian Science.' ... Mr. Black continued to insist that it is the sole responsibility of the Board to determine right or wrong, not the membership's responsibility, and that to think otherwise is what creates schisms. the others appeared to concur with him."

"When leaving each Director and member of the Board of Education was given a copy of a fifteen-page document outlining a proposal that Joseph and I (and in the background, officers of the Matters of Conscience Fund) were offering. We felt that the ideas shared in this proposal could significantly help in unifying the Church"

While of significant interest and potential value, I will not go into it here, because the Board did not acknowledge or respond to it in any way.

3/27/2006 -- In preparation for a meeting with the Board of Directors and Board of Education scheduled by the Board of Education with Elaine for 4/3/2006, Elaine submits a letter to the Board of Education for forwarding to the Board of Directors. It covers three main items of content :

1. The question: "What specific Manual By-Law (or By-Laws) am I supposed to have violated?

She includes the statement, "I sincerely believe that my actions have been taken in full accord with both the spirit and letter of the directives of our Master and our Leader."

2. The question: "How could my actions be considered a Manual violation when similar actions of the past have not been?

She quotes our Leader, "This church is impartial. Its rules apply not to one member only, but to one and all equally" (My p.230).

However, it becomes increasingly apparent that the Board of Directors considers that it can do anything that it chooses, because it considers it is the only arbiter of its actions.

3. In 13 bulleted items she speaks eloquently to the heading: "Throughout this period [since the submittal of the Matters of Conscience complaint] I have conducted myself in a way that I believe has honored and respected the practice, the office of teacher, and also the offices of the Church."

4/3/2006 -- meeting of the Board of Directors and Board of Education with Mrs. Davidson. Excerpts from Elaine's notes:

"The atmosphere ... was very formal, stern, and demanding in tone. ... The Directors wanted me to know that they were unanimous in their agreement that the 2002 Board had acted appropriately when they declared the complaint invalid and that the disciplinary actions taken at that time were entirely deserved and required by the Manual. When I asked what By-Law I was supposed to have violated, I was told that the Board of Directors has the authority to discipline and I was being disciplined for not obeying Board directives. When I asked again what By-Law I had disobeyed, the same answer was given."

Once again the Board makes clear that obedience to the Board takes precedence, in their view, over obedience to the Christ and to our Leader. It is also of interest that there is no By-Law specifying "not obeying Board directives" as a basis for discipline.

Their statement that the Board "has the authority to discipline" would appear to be referring to Manual Article 11, Section 5 as if it is a stand alone section. In that regard, see my analysis of Articles 11 and 12 here).

"Another theme was that the Board doesn't have to answer to the members--that 'the Board is only accountable to the Manual itself.' "

If true, this would render Article 1, Section 9, of no effect, and would also mean that the Board has to adhere to the Manual only to the extent that it chooses, since they are the sole interpreters of Manual requirements. This would also mean that the Church is not governed by law, but by the five persons who are supposedly the sole interpreters of the laws of the Church.

At the very least, it is very difficult to envision this as the concept of governance our Leader had for her church. But it would also set at naught our Leader's twice stated admonition to her followers--to "follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ"--in which she implicitly recognizes the ability of each member of her Church to properly understand and act on the meaning and intent of her writings, including the Manual.

"As the Directors have insisted many times before, they repeated once again that Mrs. Eddy's only provision for membership participation is 'the democracy of prayer.' I was told that my main problem was that I stubbornly refused to accept this 'fact.' ... Questions I tried to raise or statements I tried to make were quickly overruled and characterized as wearisome, stubborn, self-righteous, or lacking in humility."

5/12/2006 -- Karl Sandberg, President of the Board of Education, sends a letter to Mrs. Davidson regarding steps to be taken to restore her to the role of authorized teacher. This letter is replete with inaccuracies and specious statements regarding our Leader's intent in the Manual. (It should be borne in mind that Karl is, in effect, retailing the Board's views in this letter, and we have no way of knowing what his own most deeply honest views would be if he were allowed to express them.)

"...it would be helpful for you to acknowledge being told in the Board's November 18, 2002 letter the specific Manual By-Law under which you were placed on probation. Your March 27. 2006 letter incorrectly states you never were told."

This is subtly inaccurate and specious. Elaine does not deny that the Board has cited Article 12, Section 1, as authority for their illegitimate action--what she avers, truly, is that the Board has never stated adeqeuately how she is supposed to have violated that By-Law or any other By-Law. They have not done so and cannot, because she has not violated any By-Law, in fact or in spirit. This, because being disobedient to the Board in order to be obedient to our Leader and the Christ, is nowhere in our Leader's writings stated or implied as a cause for discipline.

See here for my analysis of the three categories of fact which must be established in order for Article 12, Section 1, to be invoked legitimately.

Much of the rest of the letter sets forth specious, incorrect assertions to the effect that our Leader limited the use of the Matthew 18:15-17 Christly code to the use of the Board of Directors, should they choose to use or follow it.

"Mary Baker Eddy's reference to [the Matthew Code] in the Manual relates solely to its use in Church discipline by the Christian Science Board of Directors." Not so.

1. Article 11, Section 2, consists of a single sentence. It is self-evident upon close examination that the portion of the sentence up to the semi-colon applies both to any member of the Church as well as to the Board of Directors -- "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;..." (Manual 50:22).

2. In the two places in the Manual where our Leader refers directly to the Matthew 18 verses (both on p.51), she identifies them as "the Scriptural demand" and as "the requirements according to the Scriptures." It is self-evident that she would not use such universal identifiers if she intended their use to be confined to the Board of Directors, or to be optional at the Board's discretion.

"We fully understand that every member, including every Church officer, is subject to discipline by the Board." Not true.

No member or officer is subject to discipline unless he or she has broken a specified By-Law, rule or law of The Mother Church, and, until or unless the Matthew Christly code has first been conscientiously followed -- "No Church discipline shall ensue until the requirements according to the Scriptures, in Matthew 18:15-17, have been strictly obeyed,..." (Article 11, Section 4)

Note: The balance of this quoted sentence (beyond the word 'obeyed,'), which includes the word immediate, is commented on below here.

Sadly, the Board has not been honoring this requirement in any of its ramifications.

And clearly, this Section 4 requirement, far from confining the Christly code to the Board, means that persons bringing complaints against other members to the Board, must first have begun the steps of the Matthew code prior to bringing the complaint to the Board.

"The Manual gives no individual member either authority or a process through which to discipline another member of The Mother Church, including Church officers."

As written, this is a true statement, the key word being "discipline." Its mischief lies in what is not stated directly but is implied. Let's look at two such implications.

1. It implies that Elaine has not understood this, and that by bringing an Article 1, Section 9, complaint against the Board, and then when the Board would not hear (they declared the complaint invalid), her taking her Matters of Conscience complaint to the field, was attempting to discipline the Board . Actually, she was informing the field of identified transgressions they had a right to be aware of, and thus be in a position to give, or not give, their consent to, in harmony with the Magna Charta of Christian Science.

2. It implies that the Matthew Christly code is a process that if followed by anyone other than the Board would infringe on the Board's sole right to formally discipline. Actually, this code is not discipline, but is a Christ and Manual mandated process which must precede any formal discipline, if we are to be obedient to the Manual and to our Master.

"...after lodging your complaint, the need then was to step back, trust Mrs. Eddy's demonstration of the rules of Church discipline, and allow prayer and God's disposal of events to resolve the issue."

This was certainly one of Elaine's options. But just as certainly it was incumbent on her to use spiritual judgment as to whether obedience to the Matthew 18 Christly code required her to take it to the church in accordance with verse 17. Jesus did not say, in that verse, "you may take it to the church, so long as the scribes and Pharisees do not tell you not to."

'Mrs. Eddy's articulation of the rules of Church discipline' require that all 3 verses of Matthew 18:15-17 be '"strictly obeyed" before any "Church discipline shall ensue" (Manual 51:14). (Verse 17, which includes the third step, is in no way excepted.)

"Your attempt as an individual member to use the Matthew Code to impose your sense of right was based on a misreading of the Church Manual. Mrs. Eddy's demonstration of Church provides that the Board is the final adjudicator of complaints, including complaints against the Board as a whole or any of its members."

'Your attempt ...to impose your sense of right ...' These words constitute a deliberate allegation of dishonorable, unethical motivation on Elaine's part, based entirely on speculation as to that motivation, and constituting also a deliberate disbelief in the honesty of Elaine's own many clear statements of her motivation. This allegation is disobedient to the Article 8, Section 1, admonition against "...judging, condemning... erroneously," as well as to the 6th Tenet promise to be "just."

"...as an individual member..." These words imply that Christian Scientists are denied any right as individual members to be obedient to Christ Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18:15-17. That is a great wrongness.

'...final adjudicator...' No, in our leader's church, the Christ is the final adjudicator. The Board cannot take the place either of the Christ, or of our Leader.

'...final adjudicator of complaints,...' The legitimate authority of the Board in this regard depends on its faithful adherence to the letter and spirit of the By-Laws, rules, and laws of The Mother Church. Our Leader has structured the laws, rules and By-Laws so that if there is question as to 'faithful adherence,' final authority comes to the members. Consider:

The structuring of Article 1, Section 9. See analysis here.

Consider the sentence in the Magna Charta of Christian Science -- "Essentially democratic, its government is administered by the common consent of the governed, wherein and whereby man governed by his creator is self-governed."

At two consecutive Annual Meetings, our Leader directed her followers: "Follow your Leader, only so far as she follows Christ."

In Article 8, Section 6, she stated, "By his works, he [every Member] shall be judged,--and justified or condemned."

Our Leader identifies the Matthew 18:15-17 verses as "the Scriptural demand," declares they must precede all discipline, and verse 17 provides for "tell[ing] it unto the church" if the fault is not otherwise resolved.

Article 24, Section 6, entitled, "Provision for the future," provides for dismissal of Directors by the Committee on Finance in the case of unresolved "possible future deviation from duty."

Our Leader's setting of the annual per capita tax at a minimal required amount enables members to use that minimum amount as a vote of no confidence in the Board, if that should be deemed appropriate by the individual member.

"When Matthew admonitions are given under Article XI, Section 2, they are to be given only by the Board of Directors, because within the context of the Manual, they alone have authority to impose discipline specified in this By-Law." -- This is confused and inaccurate on more than one count.

1. Matthew admonitions are not discipline, and they are not confined to the Board's use; they are necessary precursors to discipline. They are a form of "rebuking sin" which in Article 8, Section 1, our Leader calls a "sweet amenit[y] of Love." These admonitions are a requirement for all members to use whenever they may feel another has trespassed against them, or against the laws of the church.

2. A careful reading of Article 11, Section 2 up to the semi-colon reveals that there is no indication there that this part of the Section is confined to the Board. Further support for this conclusion can be seen in the manner in which Section 2, in effect, refers back to Section 1. Section 1 provides a basis for members bringing a complaint to the Board; Section 2, up to the semi-colon then requires that Matthew admonitions be given, either before the complaint is brought to the Board (preferable), or after, but in any case, before "discipline shall ensue" (Manual p.51:15).

"For the same reason--that the power and responsibility to discipline resides solely with the [Board]--the provision in Article XI, Section 4 that 'No church discipline shall ensue until the requirements according to the Scriptures, in Matthew 18:15-17, have been strictly obeyed,' also applies only to the Board of Directors."

Once again Karl is mistakenly assuming that Matthew admonitions are discipline, whereas in fact, they are a required precursor to discipline.

Karl is also willfully and wrongly denying to church members the right to follow our Master's injunction to all his followers in Matthew 18:15-17, as well as falsely ascribing this intent to our Leader.

"The Manual ... does give the Board discretionary authority to discipline without the use of the Matthew Code."

It is difficult to see how Karl can assert this, right after quoting the words, "No church discipline shall ensue until... Matthew 18:15-17, have been strictly obeyed," unless he is misinterpreting the final clause of Article XI, Section 4--"unless a By-Law governing the case provides for immediate action"--to mean that the Board can set aside the Matthew requirements any time the Board feels immediate action is needed. But that is not what the clause says--a By-Law governing the case is required, which 'provides for immediate action.' But there are only three such By-Laws in the Manual, and they are rarely applicable. See here and here.

"Though you may disagree with the reasons and even the process that were followed in your case, it still is clear that the Manual gives the Board full authority to place you on probation."

This appears to say that the Manual gives the Board full authority not to comply with the requirements of the Manual regarding discipline. That is obviously not true.

5/30/2006 -- Elaine's 12 page heart-felt response to Karl's 5/12 letter. It is in two parts: 1. Results of a deep background study of our church's government, and 2. Responses to the Board's statements and questions. I will quote selected passages.

"The God-inspired constitutional form of government that gradually developed to our Leader's thought established a design for a unique, balanced working relationship between a central Mother Church and the branches throughout the field. ... Our constitutional government establishes the rule of law, not of persons. Although the Manual provides for a strong central administration, hierarchy is entirely ruled out. Absolute authority isn't vested in officers, but in the By-Laws themselves. ... Nothing like this church government existed in Mrs. Eddy's time, and it still doesn't."

"The Matthew Code, 'A Rule for Motives and Acts,' Article I, Section 9, and other provisions are saying 'You have a responsibility to pray for guidance as to what needs to be done that is in a direct line with Christianity's teachings.' "

"Most scholars agree that the core elements of democracy owe their inspiration to Christianity's premise that all are equal in the sight of God. ... ...I believe that this concept of members' equal status is absolutely fundamental to the church institution as our Leader founded it. ... Office holders are bound to the very same rules that govern all, without exception. ...including the privilege and responsibility to think for oneself."

"...I believe that it is appropriate for all church members--including teachers--to confront important church issues honestly and discuss them openly for the purpose of healing. ... What Mrs. Eddy emphasizes about ethics convinces me ... [t]eachers must think things through for themselves and not defer to groupthink or to a hierarchical mentality if they are going to be certain that they aren't misled or misleading others. The moral responsibility of a teacher to uphold and defend the original teachings is directly connected, I feel, with Mrs. Eddy's reminder that a Christian Scientist is 'an unfaithful steward' if he or she sees a danger and yet gives no warning. (S&H 570:30-14).
   And yet how such warnings are to be given is part of the issue we face in seeking to resolve the question of my being placed on probation for following the Matthew Code."

"The Manual is a seamless garment, and to gain the spirit and full meaning of the By-Laws, they must be read contextually, in reference to one another."

"I believe that Article XI, Section 2, emphasizes every member's duty to act, if necessary, to admonish another member 'in consonance with the scriptural demand in Matthew 18:15-17.' After the semicolon, that By-Law spells out actions the Board can take if the steps of the Matthew Code have not brought resolution. ... The theory of Board exclusivity would nullify the main premise of Christ Jesus' teaching: that as long as members of the church are obedient to the church's God-revealed rules, they have equal status in the church family. ... Addressing the Directors through the steps of the Matthew Code isn't taking discipline into one's own hands in a self-appointed way, as the Board of Directors seems to suggest, but rather is taking the Master's teaching seriously."

Late October 2007 -- (Almost a year and a half later) -- At the Board's invitation, Elaine meets with two members of the Board. Nothing is resolved.

12/7/2007 -- Board letter to Elaine.

This letter is conspicuously hypocritical.

"...Trinka and Walter ... mentioned how you went into a very different mental mode when discussion [previously about Church needs and activity] arose about your probation...
     One thing that has become crystal clear to all of us, as we've prayed about this visit, is that Mrs. Eddy's provision for discipline in the Church Manual is brimming with love."

"While we know that you feel that probation in your case is not appropriate, please try to understand ... the validity of using it for a spiritual purpose."

'Brimming with love' and 'spiritual purpose' -- how can these words appropriately describe the act of penalizing a teacher as well as the pupils in her association for her being obedient to Christ Jesus and to her Leader, instead of being obedient to mistaken and illegitimate demands of the Board?

While professing only love, seven paragraphs are given to subtle character assassination.

She is threatened with loss of membership if she does not repent of her words and actions -- which she has taken in heart-felt obedience to the Christ and to her Leader. In effect, the Board is demanding that she deny Christ Jesus and her Leader if she is to retain her Board-certified membership in the church.

12/29/2007 -- Four page letter from Elaine to the Board .

The entire letter is eloquent. I'll quote only a couple of essential  statements.

"A decree that claims Manual authority, giving lip-service to Mrs.Eddy's leadership yet not abiding in it, lacks a demonstration of true moral and spiritual authority. ... If I should obey your Board's requirement to recant and conform to your false theories, I would be disobeying and betraying both the teachings of Christ Jesus and the leadership of Mrs. Eddy. Therefore, my answer to your letter can be summed up in the words of Luther,... 'Here I stand. I can do no otherwise; so help me God! Amen!' "

2/12/2008 -- Board letter to Elaine asking her to reconsider.

It may be that the Directors simply do not understand that for a person of integrity to repent of obedience to the Christ and her Leader would be impossible.

4/23/2008 -- Board to Elaine.

Board offers a year of membership probation to her; asks for a response by 5/5/2008

5/1/2008 -- Elaine's response to the Board.

She quotes Mrs. Eddy -- "Whatever weighs in the eternal scale of equity and mercy tips the beam on the right side, where the immortal words and deeds of men alone can settle all questions amicably and satisfactorily." (My 277:18-21)

5/23/2008 -- Board to Elaine.

Asks for further reconsideration, and a response by 6/15/2008.

6/10/2008 -- Elaine's two page response to the Board -- Her concluding statement --

"If the Board has a new approach that could lead to a just resolution I would welcome hearing from you and would gladly respond."

6/25/2008 -- Board letter to Elaine with a new proposal and a request for response by July 10.

The Board offers to return Elaine's listing as a practitioner to the Journal, but Elaine "would need to return your teaching certificate and refrain from all teaching activities until a resolution of your probationary status is found that all of us feel is just."

7/14/08 -- Elaine's seven page response to the Board letter.

She acknowledges "the obvious effort the Board is making."

"We all care immensely for the prosperity of this church, giving our lives to its service."

"In responding to the question of what further discipline I would agree to, the fact is that the Board has already disciplined me for nearly six full years by removing my name and credentials from the Journal as well as making it impossible for my pupils to be Journal listed. How this exclusion was supposed to have aided and contributed to the healing mission of the church, I cannot hope to understand."

"In effect, the Board's proposal is asking me to say, 'I will agree to give up teaching activities because I know this is a fair price to pay for sharing the complaint.' But it isn't. Following the Matthew Code as Jesus taught it and as Mrs.Eddy required isn't wrong, it's right. It's a moral duty. ... If I agreed to the Board's proposal... I'd actually be denying and betraying an important aspect of Christian ethics. ... The Master's teachings just aren't negotiable.
     The Board's proposal puts me in an untenable position by urging me to plead guilty in order to gain some possibility of a lighter sentence. The fact is that I didn't break any By-Law. I admittedly disobeyed a Board order because it directly conflicted with a rule taught by the Master. But the plain fact is that by sharing the complaint I was acting entirely within the teaching and rules of Christian Science."

"I hope we can continue to pray together to find steps toward a resolution that will truly honor our church and its teachings."

8/28/08 -- Board letter to Elaine.

"Unless you can commit to these steps by September 15, ... we will need to add membership probation to your present status of teacher probation. Then, unless you can fulfill these requirements by January 15, your membership will be removed."

Elaine did not reply to this letter.

1/20/2009 -- Board letter to Elaine.

"Since you didn't accept the offer, as outlined in our August 28 letter, we have removed your name from membership in the Mother Church. This is in accord with Article XI, Sections 2 and 5, of the Church Manual. We continue to feel our correspondence with you is confidential."

The following points are worthy of note.

1. The Board's offer required Elaine to admit guilt when she was not guilty, and had not been legitimately charged with any transgression against the By-Laws of the church. Thus the Board was demanding that she be dishonest with herself and with the church, and in doing so were themselves breaking a number of rules and laws of the church, This betokens a fundamental lack of integrity on the part of the Board and its individual members.

2. Simply naming Sections 2 and 5 does not carry authority since the Board has not met the requirements necessary for them to legitimately apply.

3. The Board has waived the right of confidentiality by not being obedient to the requirements of the Manual By-Laws relating to the legitimate administering of discipline.

April 2009 -- Elaine sends out An Open Letter to All Members of The Mother Church (30 pages) and its companion Documentation ... the complete correspondence relating to the Christian Science Board of Directors handling of 'Matters of Conscience' (125 pages). It is the source of the correspondence I have specified and excerpted from above.

The letter is eloquent and heart-felt, and in my view, worthy of prayerful consideration, and reconsideration, by every member, regardless of the amount of time which has transpired since it was written. It is timeless in its truths, and in it's continuing significance to our movement.

The heart of the letter, to me, lies in seven "Questions to be resolved," which I consider to be profoundly and fundamentally important to the health of our movement. Each one is in four parts: 1. The question stated, 2. The Board of Directors claim, 3. Several paragraphs of discussion, and 4. A section entitled, " Implications to consider." I will list the seven questions below --

Did Mrs. Eddy exempt the Board of Directors from being approached through the steps of the Matthew Code?

Is the Board of Directors correct in claiming that the Board is the Church?

Is the Board of Directors the sole judge of its own actions?

Should members go along with Board policies for the sake of unity--even when they feel that a Board policy is wrong?

Does the Board have authority to impose discipline on a member without supplying a Manual-based rationale, without evidence of a By-Law violation?

Is dissent an expression of disloyalty to The Mother Church?

Is Mrs.Eddy's pattern for Church government essentially hierarchical?

The letter and its companion documentation can be obtained here:

Matters of Conscience Fund
P.O, Box 180239
Boston, MA 02118

May 2013 -- Elaine shares with fellow Christian Scientists a spiritually arresting 368 page book entitled The Future of our Church and the Ministry of Reconciliation. This is an important contribution to understanding the state of our movement and its future. It can be read online or in spiral bound hard copy by going to
www.thefutureofourchurch.org
or writing to

The Future of our Church
747 Boughton Road #324
Bolingbrook, IL 60440