Paul Kautz
June 2014

Board letter '... the inspired Word of the Bible ...'
appearing at p.48 of the June 2014 CS Journal

This three page letter to the field, purporting to contain a convincing exposition as to why the field should stop resisting the use of other versions than the King James in the Golden Texts and Responsive Readings of the English language Bible Lesson Sermons, is filled with specious, sophistical reasoning, rather than spiritually scientific, valid reasoning. The letter is unworthy of the Christian Science Board of Directors, and does not reflect spiritual integrity on their part. This is a grave statement. I shall back it up by taking up each of the fourteen paragraphs of the letter in turn. The numbers 1 to 14 below will refer to those paragraphs.

specious--apparently fair, just, or correct; appearing well at first view; plausible
sophistry--deceptively subtle reasoning or argumentation; plausible but fallacious argumentation

1.
A terse, cursory summary, which is not really satisfactory, of the views of those who oppose and those who support the use of other versions. Two issues immediately arise. 1) The summaries are presented as feelings ("some of you feel... others feel..."), rather than as views which may be shown to be valid or invalid, principled or unprincipled. It is obvious that Christian Science is not based on feeling and opinion. 2) The summaries, and indeed the balance of the letter, leave untouched a number of questions that need to be considered. Here are a few.

Question--How did the disagreement begin?

In 2008 the Board itself created the disturbance, disagreement and disunity by contravening a century of repeated Board statements in the periodicals. As recently as the September 1980 Journal, in an eight paragraph evaluation, the then Board reiterated its position (and that of previous Boards since the time of Mrs. Eddy) on the King James Version. Some excerpts:

"The King James Version was adopted for use in the Christian Science Lesson-Sermons in 1891, with Mrs. Eddy's full knowledge and approval. It continued to be so used throughout her lifetime,... ...the close correlation between the King James Version and Science and Health enhances the unity of the Bible and the Christian Science textbook. Mrs Eddy drew from the King James Version over five hundred different verses for Science and Health. ... Because of these facts, the King James Version should be the exclusive translation that English-speaking branches use in services... ...above all, [our Leader] encouraged Christian Scientists to look for the spiritual meaning of the Bible--the inspired healing message--as brought out in the Christian Science textbook. The King James Version has a unique helpfulness in shepherding them into practical Christian Science healing."

Question--Was this contravening action necessary?

No. Up to this point, Christian Scientists felt perfectly free (and still do) to possess other versions and to use them for reference, for clarification, and for enriching one's understanding. Nothing stands in the way of Christian Scientists investigating as many other versions as they choose, to determine if they would be helpful.

Question--Is there any good reason for this practice of using other versions for the Golden Text and Responsive Reading?

No. No necessary or truly useful purpose is served by the practice.

Question--What has been the effect of the contravening action?

While some have apparently found the practice pleasant and interesting, and perhaps, 'with it,' and in accordance with their presuppositions, to occasionally use other versions for the Golden Text and Responsive Reading, the actual effect has been, and continues to be, spiritually costly. Especially because it continues to happen. It is a constant irritant to many.

1. It has been significantly disturbing and disunifying in the movement, and has significantly decreased members' respect for the Board.

2. It has constituted an adulterating of the integrity of the Church's dual pastor and of the lesson-sermons, a disturbing and extraneous element in the Lesson-Sermon itself, and a 'forgetting and neglecting' of our duty to our Leader.

3. It has caused a significant number of First Readers to refuse to use the other versions in Sunday services in obedience to, and respect for, our Leader's intent.

4. Every time another translation is used, is a vote of no confidence in the King James. The Board of Directors and the Bible Lesson Committee are in effect undermining (perhaps unwittingly) our Leader's choice of Bible version for the dual pastor in the English speaking field.

2.
(Second paragraph of the Board letter)

a) "...these viewpoints seem opposite and even irreconcilable..." -- but the latter would be so only if one side or the other were willful. Which side is so?

b) The statement quoted just above is then linked with our Leader's prophecy --

"There will be greater resistance to the spiritual scientific meaning of the Scriptures than there has ever been since the Christian era began."

The Board should be applying this prophecy to the undermining of the field's love for the King James. But what the Board is communicating here is ambiguous. It would seem to be implying that resistance to the innovation of multiple versions in the Lesson-Sermons is resistance to the spiritual scientific meaning of the Scriptures. But if that is the case, there would be a further implication -- that when other versions are used in the Lesson Sermons, they are more spiritual and scientific than the King James. And that would lead to the implication that the Board may be preparing to abandon the King James version. The Board should communicate not with innuendo, but with forthrightness.

3.
"... Or is it [the disagreement] a new-old attempt to oppose the strength of unity we have in Christ,..." Here the Board overlooks the fact that the Board itself initiated the disagreement with its unChristly contravening action, thereby disrupting our unity in Christ. It has only to cease its willful and disruptive encouragement and permission for the use of other versions in the lesson-sermons in order to correct the situation.

4.
Quotes Ephesians 2:14 --

"For he [Christ Jesus] is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;..."

-- and hopes "to break down the partition by clarifying the motives of using other translations."

5.
Disclaims as motives 1. as "a way to attract more people to church, or 2. "any sense that truth needs to be watered down, or [be] artificially 'with it' in order to reach today's seeker." That much is good.

6.
Gives two "motives for using other translations." In their essence -- 1. "to choose texts that most clearly express the inspired meaning of the Scriptures," and 2. "to choose language ... that is more readily understood by and inclusive of all those attending, especially newcomers and visitors." Here we have a number of problems --

1. Regarding both of these ascribed motivations, what can realistically or significantly hope to be accomplished by an occasional verse or a few, other than confusion and disturbance?

2. Since in the English speaking field, the King James version of the Bible and the Christian Science textbook constitute our dual Pastor, other versions have no legitimate place in our lesson-sermons, and therefore these stated motivations have no real traction.

3. The Board and the Committee may have come to feel the King James has become inadequate or unsatisfactory or outmoded, but to those who love and esteem it as our Leader did, the offerings by the Commitee from other versions seem by comparison to be pedestrian, less spiritual, less inspired, less beautiful, less lyrical, the language seldom more understandable, and the differences seldom consequential in a positive way.

4. If the Board and the Committee fear that the English language will change so drastically in the foreseeable future that the King James will become ununderstandable to the general reader, they should carefully consider Rushworth Kidder's exposition entitled "The King James Bible and the future of Christian Science, " available online here -- https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ChristianScienceIssues2/conversations/topics/33780 .
The two following quotes ably state two points highly relevant to our discussion --

...English, [is] already the most widespread language on earth... That very breadth of usage militates against further change. ... As English is practiced not only conversationally but in written and computerized forms by billions of users around the world, it resists change.

It seems clear that two additional brakes are already in place on the cultural rather than the technical side: the King James Version of the Bible, and the works of Shakespeare. So resonant and powerful are these early-17th-century writings, with such strong influences on the literature that succeeded them, that any significant innovations in English would risk depriving English-speakers of the stories and traditions that form their very heritage. When such prominent writings are so universally known, echoed, quoted, and alluded to in the fabric of daily language around the world, the culture may have even more reason to resist linguistic evolution.

7.
" The question of whether the King James Version of the Bible should be the only one used for the English Lessons is one which the Bible Lesson Committee and both the Board of Directors and the Board of Trustees have prayed over for years."

But the Board gives no reasons why. Without reasons why, the statement is empty of value.

They go on to say. "Looking to Mrs. Eddy's published writings, as well as all other communications from her about the Lessons..."

That would appear to cover all the bases, wouldn't it? But it leaves out an important category of evidence --

"Early workers close to her, including several whom she appointed to the Bible Lesson Committee herself, verified that she adopted and continued to approve the King James or 'Authorized Version' for use in Christian Science Bible Lessons and church services in English-language fields. Appendix C of this book provides conclusive evidence that no vagueness exists as to Mrs. Eddy's desire and requirement that no other English translation should be used." This is a quote from The Future of our Church and the Ministry or Reconciliation by Elaine Natale Davidson, p. 92.

In her Appendix C, pp. 320-323, she gives excerpts from five articles by or participated in by those early workers, in the Sentinel or the Journal, ranging in time from 1913 to 1938.

No mention of the King James. This is like saying that evidence found in the religious periodicals of the Church does not provide legitimate guidance. It is picking and choosing amongst the historical evidence. It is sophistical.

8.
The Board recognizes our Leader's love of the King James "and that its language permeates Science and Health." But, it goes on to say, "It's also true that she didn't leave any instructions that the King James Version should be exclusively used in the Lessons, ..."

There are problems with this statement.

1. It willfully ignores the evidence described above regarding Paragraph 7.

2. If the Board 'appreciates' that the language of the King James "permeates Science and Health," it should be able to see, as previous Boards did for a century, that only the King James, and no other version, can be the Bible part of our dual pastor, together with Science and Health, in the English speaking field.

"...and that she appreciated and cited other translations in her writings when they brought out a more inspired meaning."

Of course, this is a rare occurrence in her writings. In any event it is specious as well as ludicrous to suggest that this would authorize the Board to approve having more than one Bible translation constituting the Bible part of our dual pastor in the same Lesson and hence in the same church service, whether occasionally or frequently. As a practice, it is confusing, disturbing, irreverent, disobedient, disunifying, and profane.

9.
This paragraph indicates "...some Bible translations include passages that have especially improved..."

But this is all irrelevant --

1. Because nothing stands in the way of members finding and valuing such passages in their individual study.

2. Because it is not the function of the Lesson Committee to seek out ostensible deficiencies in our dual pastor, and supposedly improve on them, but to use that Pastor to develop Lessons to nurture the field.

3. Because no other translation will ever be able replace the King James as the one that permeates the Christian Science textbook.

10.
Speaks to the deep sincerity of the Committee and the two Boards. This does not relieve them of the obligation to preserve the integrity of our dual pastor.

11.
Acknowledges the unwisdom of using a version (on two occasions) that capitalized pronouns for Jesus (thereby implying that Jesus is God).

12.
Indicates that it is sometimes necessary to experiment to determine whether a proposed practice is valid and beneficial. In the present case, the experiment has been doggedly persisted in for six years against a mountain of remonstrance and analysis from the field showing it to be a failed and wrongful practice.

13.
An indubitably true quote from our Leader. And it is not contradicted by her statement in Article 8 Section 6, "By his works he shall be judged,--and justified or condemned."

14.
"... we earnestly request that all branch churches read the Lesson-Sermons as they are printed in the ... Quarterly."

The implication is that this should be done regardless of whether it is felt to be right or wrong, a matter of conscience or not, a matter of obedience to our Leader or not, that is, regardless of principle or integrity. The further implication is that none of these categories have anything to do with being obedient to the Christ.

The final sentence speaks of "...demonstat[ing] the unity that is in Christ..." but appears to convey a belief that that unity can be accomplished without doing right, adhering to Principle, or being obedient to our Leader's intent.