Paul Kautz
January 2014

Commentary
on
Matters of Conscience
authored by Elaine Natale Davidson
submitted to the Board, 1/4/2002,
submitted to the field, 4/2002 and on

When Matters of Conscience came to my attention in 2002, I reviewed and analyzed it in detail and found it to be predominantly valid, and very much worthy of earnest consideration by every conscientious church member and branch, including the individual members of the Board of Directors. (Note: hereinafter, in most cases, I will refer to the Board of Directors, simply as the Board.)

However, there is one aspect of the presentation which I feel is counter-productive, to some degree. By count, there are 76 items of complaint in the complaint as a whole, and at the end of each such item (or in some cases, group of items) is a concluding feature: "This [or these, in some cases] Church law has been disregarded," and in every case the laws referred to are By-Laws in the Church Manual. My reservations with this feature are:

1. The wording of this feature conveys the impression that the only place we find 'Church law' is in Church Manual By-Laws, which in my view is not true. (See paragraph 4.b. of Part Two of my 2011 letter to the Board, for a discussion of this implication.)

2. In each case, there is no explanation of how the By-Law is applicable to the foregoing discussion , which in many cases would be helpful.

3. The feature may lead one to infer that unless the By-Law cited can be clearly shown to have been 'disregarded,' the complaint item in question will fail of validity, whereas in point of fact, most of the complaint items are based on self-evident truth as found in the whole of our Leader's writings, including the Manual, as well as in the Bible.

In spite of its predominant truth, the Board has not given Matters of Conscience respect, and has communicated, over the years, that it is illegitimate for members to see it, consider it, or share it. How can it be, that the Board treats something that is predominantly true as contraband in the Christian Science movement? Truth is contraband? Has the Board lost sight of the First Tenet? Seven years after its author took it to the Board as a complaint in accordance with Article 1, Section 9 of the Church Manual, the Board excommunicated her for sharing it with the field, i.e. taking it to the church in fulfillment of the third step of Matthew 18:15-17, sometimes known as the Matthew code, but which I like to think of as the Christly code. She took the complaint to the field, because the Board had stonewalled it, i.e., would not hear, and had commanded her not to share it, or even mention it to anyone else. Is this the style of governance our Leader envisioned for her church? Obviously not.

Stated in different words, the Board has never publicly given Matters of Conscience a substantive hearing. Because I believe it deserves a substantive hearing, even after eleven years, I began giving it some measure of substantive analysis for Board and field consideration--far from exhaustive, but sufficient, perhaps, to give an inkling of what might be done.

Since the Board has not dealt substantively with any of the76 items of complaint, they each represent unfinished business in the movement. If a position or practice has changed, a simple description of the change might suffice to remove an item from the unfinished category.

Some or all of the following questions can serve as a rough guide in addressing the various items of complaint.

Is the item still pertinent? How?
Where does the Church stand on the item today? Is this clear to the field?
Has a correct position on the item ever been clearly stated by the Church administration? Is one needed today?
Have past mistakes, if significant, been corrected?
Are these things clear to the field?
Can these items be viewed in terms of our two criteria of self-evident truth and our Leader's clear intent, or do they lie in the realm of opinion?

In the following review of individual complaint items, I may use MoC as an abbreviation for Matters of Conscience, and MoC Doc for Matters of Conscience Documentation. Bracketed number items (example: [1.A.]) refer to the numbering system in both MoC and MoC Doc. My numbering of MoC complaint items from 1 to 76 is my own numbering.

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

Item
1. [1A.] "Mrs. Eddy [identified in Church materials] as a 'pioneer in mind/body medicine' "

In six pages of documentation MoC makes it abundantly clear that this identification is false, unjust and injurious to a true view of our Leader, and thus is disobedient to the spirit and letter of the two By-Laws cited. The Directors must take responsibility for the content of Church materials

In addition to the MoC documentation, it is self-evident that the mind/body in the above tag refers to human mind and human body, neither of which are accorded any curative power in Christian Science practice or theology. It is also self-evident that Mrs.Eddy had little significant impact on world thought prior to her 1866 discovery, and that after her 1866 discovery she left her human mind/human body explorations behind her, and unlike any other human system of thought, placed preeminent stress on the divine Mind and divine idea as the only legitimate basis for Christ-healing of mind or body.

It would be honest as well as honorable for the Board to make it clear that the above mind/body identifications in relation to either Christian Science or Mrs. Eddy were and are inappropriate and will no longer be found in Church materials, if this has not already occurred.

2. [1B.] "The Church's involvement with the Mind/Body Institute"

"For several years, the Chairman of the Christian Science Board of Directors has been a faculty member of the Mind/Body Institute sponsored by the Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center--giving talks at its conferences. ... The Institute teaches mental methods Mrs. Eddy declares to be dangerous, antithetical to Christian Science and not promotive of healing. No Church office has the authority to forge this prominent link."

This issue has perhaps faded from prominence, but perhaps questions remain.

What is the Board's present position on this kind of activity?
Are other practitioners/teachers engaging in this kind of activity?
Has this kind of activity been disavowed as a precedent, or should it be?

3. [1C.] "Dr. Benson's influence"

"His most highly promoted method, which he terms 'the relaxation response,' is a mental exercise easily recognizable as a form of self-hypnosis--a technique for producing a self- induced trance-like 'relaxed' state.' "

"...the Christian Science periodicals have featured him on various occasions. The fact that he has been mentioned isn't in itself wrong. The problem lies in the manner in which he is mentioned, giving him a platform that strongly suggests an endorsement of his ideas."

The phrase "blurring of distinctions" is used, and this is perhaps the important point -- that it is deeply and fundamentally important that the distinctions between Christian Science and all other mental or so-called spiritual methods be kept clear and distinct.

And so the questions become --

Does the Board recognize and acknowledge this importance?
Do they watch to assure that this importance is reflected in all the channels of The Mother Church?

Does not the field deserve to know the answers to questions such as these?

4. [1D.] "Periodicals are supporting proponents of hypnotism, theosophy, spiritualism"

Once again this is a question of "blurring of distinctions."

Surely the field has a right to know if the Board acknowledges :

That it is fundamentally important that the distinctions between Christian Science and all other modes of human thought be kept clear and unambiguous.

That this falls within "the duty of the Directors to see that these periodicals are ably edited" (Manual p.44:20).

And that the policies of the Board and of the editing of the periodicals (as well as of other content propagated by The Mother Church) have been established in such manner as to assure these things.

5. [1E.] "Participation in New Age events"

" 'Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.'
    These were Paul's admonitions to the early Christians, urging them to avoid association with occult and spiritualist practitioners. Ancient practices are resurfacing... and their practitioners are certainly optimizing the lucrative marketing power of the catchall term 'spirituality.' ... Paul's warnings go unheeded by The Mother Church, which advocates exhibiting Science and Health and holding lectures at such events [Expos]."

"The direct and indirect damage inflicted on the public's perception of Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science may not be immediately apparent, but how can Christian Scientists readily convince their communities that their religion is Christian--and not some kind of spiritualist cult...? Do Christian Scientists want publicity that links us with non-Christian, neo-pagan groups,... ... ...could there be any serious question as to whether we want to patronize this kind of commercial enterprise that hawks witchcraft, spirit-channeling, and astrology?"

"The Reading Room newsletter ... has recommended participating in these venues. Some local Committees on Publication have offered direct encouragement, too And at times Mother Church Reps have pushed participation...."

Does not the field deserve a response to this complaint item, and to these additional questions:

Has the Board stance on this issue changed in the intervening years?

Has the Board ever acknowledged the validity of this complaint item? Or responded to the charge?

6. [1F.] "The trend toward mixing Christian Science with medical treatment"

This complaint item has a number of component parts . I'll excerpt from and comment on 3 of them.

1. [1F.1] "In December 1999, a statement titled 'The standpoint of Christian Science Treatment' was published in the Journal. Many were very glad to see this clear, well-balanced statement. ... On the heels of this, however, the Editor declared that a mistake had occurred and a new statement, signed by the Directors, and entitled, "Compassion and healing in the twenty-first Century", was being put forth. ... This new 'clearer' statement marked a definite break with Mrs. Eddy's standard and with the entire history of official published statements on the standard of Christian Science healing."

MoC Doc includes both of the statements in their entirety and then comments on highlighted parts of the new statement. Excerpts --

New statement [1F.3] -- "We may not always know in advance what course we might choose in an urgent moment."

Comment [1F.4]--"This surprisingly tentative attitude pretty much jettisons all confidence in our Leader's insistence that '...man's divine Principle is equal to every emergency.' ... This really undercuts the confidence of the reader. Instead of being encouraging, it is very discouraging, almost as if the Board of Directors doesn't expect much these days in terms of healing."

New statement -- "In the path of human progress, we might well pose the question, Did Mrs. Eddy see a relationship between other forms of treatment, as well as a place for both?"

Comment --"To pose this question in such a leading way strongly implies that Mrs. Eddy foresaw that as the world progressed, Christian Science and other forms and methods would combine. This couldn't be further from her own conclusions. There is and will continue to be 'a place for both' in terms of people in free lands having free choices, but there will never be a place for medical practice within the practice of genuine Christian Science..."

Questions for today --

Does not the movement deserve to have the Board communicate with the field regarding these issues?

Has the new statement been updated or adjusted or replaced in the subsequent years?

What is the Board's present posture regarding these issues?

It would appear there is need for a clear standard, while at the same time there can be an adequate expression and posture of non-judgmental  compassion.

2. [1F.5&6 ] These involve two cases published in the Journal where Christian Science treatment was given and medical treatment was also involved. Elaine states, "In publicizing these ambiguous and questionable situations, official Church publications create a de facto sanction for the mixing of CS treatment with medical treatment.,", and in her next sentence she calls them malpractice.

I differ with Elaine on these two examples.  I am mindful that the necessity for not mixing is important to both patient and practitioner, that the objective of practice is both healing and the expression of tangible, practical love, as well as winning the patient to a  full affection for the highest way.  I have also long loved our Leader's  counsel in her Miscellaneous Writings, p. 288, "Positive and imperative thoughts should be dropped into the balances of God and be weighed by spiritual Love,  and not be found wanting, before being put into action. ... Wisdom in human action begins with what is nearest right under the circumstances, and thence achieves the absolute."

The first example was of a woman taking four medications for four separate ailments.  She desired CS treatment, but was fearful of doing without the medications.  She asked if she gave up one medication, could she be treated for just that one ailment. The practitioner consented and the ailment was healed.  And then this pattern was followed for the other three medications, and in each case the ailment was healed.  And the patient was able to clearly see that the medications did not heal her, but that Christian Science treatment did--when the medications were given up.  Was this not win-win for both Principle and Love?  Our textbook on p.367 speaks of "pitiful patience with [her] fears and the removal of them."

The second example was of an expectant mother where "during my last trimester it looked as if the birth might be early, and the doctor who was on the case prescribed ... a particular medication" which "my husband wanted me to follow... I came to the conclusion... that it [the medication] couldn't help me or hurt me, and God would be the One who would determine when the child would arrive..." The practitioner told me that, because it was my desire to rely on God, she would see me through."  It seems to me this was not a case of mixing, but of a loving willingness to respect the wishes of the husband, while knowing that the power was with God. We are told, in Romans 13, "...love is the fulfilling of the law."

3. [1F.11-17] These items regarding featuring non-Christian Science writers on spirituality .com are perhaps no longer pertinent since attempting to go to spirituality.com now takes one to the Journal Sentinel Herald online site.

2. "Altering and misrepresenting Science and Health"

7. [2A.] "Alterations to Science and Health"

"Retaining the textbook's divinely inspired final form is a mandatory moral obligation.. ... ...no record exists of [Mrs. Eddy] having given  anyone the liberty to change the book or to add to it..." (MOC p.16)

This item has two subheads.

1. The addition of an interpretive 'Publisher's Note'

"Mrs. Eddy wrote her own preface... In 1994 two pages of comments preceded this message.", in at least two statements characterizing her life and her book, in ways she would not have done.  "The interpretive Publisher's Note interferes with the reader being able to open the book and simply allow it to speak for itself."

2. The addition of a 'word index'

"The 1994 trade edition also included a 'word index' which has not been dropped but continues to be included in a revised form in the most recently published editions. ... From 1886 to 1901 the textbook included an index ... that Mrs. Edd specifically authorized. Yet anticipating the first publication of the Concordance in 1903, she had the index removed from the textbook in 1902. She actually wrote a Preface to the Concordance which is still there, stating that neither the earliest nor 'subsequent indices fully met the requirements of students of our textbook. ... Both the Publisher's Note and the word index interject clumsy elements that detract from the textbook's inspired purity and grace, interfering with the natural and direct unfolding of the texbook's ideas."

3. An additional paragraph adds: "In the new edition of Science  and Health, there are also extra pages in the back of the books describing Mary Baker Eddy and her writings, including a three paragraph introduction under the heading 'Mary Baker Eddy--Thinker, Healer, Author' (not Discoverer, Founder, Leader). No reference is made to the Bible, Christ, or Christianity. ... No longer is it possible to purchase from the Christian Science Publishing Society a new copy of Science and Health in  the form our Leader left it to the world."

It could be appropriate for the Board to comment on the concerns expressed above regarding this item 7.

8. [2B.] Minimizing and hiding the textbook's Christian character

This item deals with  the 1994 trade edition and the 125th anniversary editions de-emphasizing the size and placement, and therefore readability and noticeability, of the "with Key to the Scriptures" part of the title, and of the wording of the cross and crown emblem.

It could be appropriate for the Board to comment on the concerns expressed regarding this item 8.

This study has touched on approximately 10% of the 76 items. It has become clear that I cannot be assured of completion anytime soon, therefore I will stop here for the present. However, I think this much is suggestive, and therefore possibly useful, as to how the balance of the items could be approached.