A response from the Church survey

Sorry you haven't heard from me in awhile. I've been on vacation and working on a new Church project that takes up most of my time so this week I'm going to post a response I got on one of my surveys that really says a lot. Thanks to the church member who sent it in.

CS is very personality driven. Mrs. Eddy wanted it to be impersonal, but the way it is set up, especially with only being allowed to have one teacher for your whole life, makes people dwell on questions such as who-was-taught-by-who, who is your practitioner, are they a good practitioner, etc. Members seem to focus on people being the healers instead of it being an impersonal principle. Also, I don't understand why Mrs. Eddy made the CS Board of Directors a lifetime appointment by a board which selects its own members. This has been a problem because the board become insulated in Boston and does not hear or visit the field enough. Some of the flaky decisions have been made in the past which have driven a wedge in the Movement. Expecting small churches (most have under 25 members) buy new Hymnal Supplements or fully stock Reading Rooms, hold expensive lectures, etc. puts a burden on small elderly memberships. Having the church rely on lay people and not having a fully-trained minister and a paid church staff to support the flock puts a lot of pressure on the few who have enough free time to become readers and actually do the church work. It also makes members judgmental toward those who feel they don't have the time or the inclination to do church committee work. Also many churches have too many committees. Committee work takes away from healing work. Many churches are told to get away from the social (and I understand that) yet there is no true fellowship among the members. Having a soloist who can sing from within the membership can be troublesome, yet having to pay an outsider when a membership is small and struggling to keep the lights on is a burden. Sunday School teachers need more training. My kids have been really turned off by wacky teachers with ridiculous ideas. Or they have been bored to death just going over the lesson each week or constantly reviewing the commandments, beatitudes, etc. If you can't get teachers to commit to teaching each week and get people who can somehow draw out a comprehensive lesson plan then instruction is really spotty. Also kids are placed in classes according to age and not knowledge. Children who have been in SS since infancy are asked to sit through very elementary lessons if a visitor or newcomer enters the class. Regular school is not held this way. Kids learning French are put in beginner or advanced classes based on knowledge or experience. And having no Sunday School option for people who enter the religion after age 20 is a real problem. The religion depends entirely too much on self study and there is very little structured support of the new student.

Chat with BOD

So I had a chance to talk to the BOD at the TMC Youth Midwest Summit the other day. They said there is no way they will ever publish a translation Bible Lesson while they're the Board. They have no interest in interfering with what the Branch Churches are doing. There's no Manual provision for them to get involved. It sounded like they were saying it's completely up to us to do whatever we want. They said they don't want to hold adult Summits because they don't think we should be talking so much, and we have associations for that kind of meeting. They aren't planning on publishing much literature or music that's current because there aren't enough members to make it worth it. (that's why all the music coming out is so lame - there are more older members who don't like good music.) The Journal costs 4x as much to make as they receive in subscriptions. The new Monitor kept the same subscription rate as the old one (that's quite rare). The impression I got was that they think Mrs. Eddy designed the Mother Church as a bunch of individuals doing their study at home, not as a church community. So that's how they're focusing their attention

From a Post on TMC Youth

I am Christian Science, but I joined a Congregational Church so that I can have a normal, happy , joyous, praise filled worship experience with my neighbors, like other Christians. I can study and practice CS, and still go to another church where you can feel people are joyously praising the Living God, and fellowshipping with passion and excitement!To people walking in the door to our churches, Christian Science worships feel stiff, frozen, artifical, FORMAL, intellectual, unnatural, unhuman and blocking the heart. When is change needed? When churches are folding-up across the nation and only few young people are left. When the denomination is almost extinct. It's time to put the truth in a better "package". Currently, it's in a coffin headed for the cemetary. One of our large churches recently sold because there were very few "Scientists" left. An evangelical denomination bought the building and the parking lot is filled with cars all week long."Scientists" hesitatingly ask if they might explore tip-toeingly into warming things up step by step. The answer is a resounding "YES! Make big changes and fast!"Why? Because the planet will not be left inhabitable in a few decades unless mankind spiritualizes it's thought. God needs us to make CS worship "people-friendly". We must make our worships satisfying and relevant to the average person, not just to the group who is happy engaging only the intellectual processing part of their "left brains". People have both social and emotional needs. We are supposed to be "meeting the human need" if we are worshipping the right God. Are we? If we were doing that, people would be coming to our worships. They aren't. We got off-track somewhere along the line. Maybe in making an "idol" out of the order of worship and elininating the Holy Spirit. The "letter of the law" should never extinguish the "spirit of the law".

SOME HAVE COME ALIVE AGAIN!!! I visited the SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO SOCIETY while I was traveling. YES!!! YES!!! And a hundred times "YES!" Check out their videos! It was warm, wonderful and above all "normal". They did everything that all CS churches have traditionally done, but they did things in the friendly ways that other Christian churches do. It felt natural and normal. I hope that other churches will follow their example, of letting the Spirit back in, each in their own way. And I am glad that the Mother Church is allowing everyone to peek into their experience on this site.If you are a Christian Scientists who is happy with how our sparsely attended worship services are conducted, then you need to visit a few evangelical churches and see where your neighbors are going and why. Or visit a progressive CS church. But for the average citizen to walk into one of our Sunday worships, what we do looks just plain wierd to them. Stiff memorized statements preceed our rigid skeleton of order of services, and there is no human heart. It appears as if "Scientists" fear some great heirarchy of demons will befall them if they speak as humans or neighbors with any feelings.

CS has to stop being strange and impersonal. Mankind needs what we have.Do not tell me that "the church has done it's job" and that truth has been assimilated across the culture. It has not! New churches are springing-up with hand clapping gospel music (that part is good! ), and rapidly changing New Age theology. This "new metaphysics" is a mutation of Christianity and CS. They use our language, but there is rarely a place for Jesus in it. They often worship "divine self" instead of God the Source. CS birthed the metaphysical movement into being, and it has to recover it's role in shaping society's spiritual growth. We must learn to be relevant to society once again. We have dropped out of the game. We do not know what our neighbors think. We need to jump back in. I'm glad that some churches and societies are doing that.Dave C., Montana

New Q&A segment

I'm thinking about making a weekly Q&A discussing the difference between the "culture" of Christian Science vs the truth of it. I would love to have people dialog with me on the issues that bother them the most about the CS church. I will research the issue and share the results with all of you. Let me know what you think of this idea. Especially send me your issues so I can get started.

This says it all...

From a Forum post on TMC Youth:

"I'm new to CS, so I have some thoughts on this topic.

I didn't know anything about CS & had heard that it was a cult, etc. I was reading a book by a New Age author who was raised CS & the things she described resonated with what I believe. So, I decided to look into it further. It has been 1 year & I feel frustrated at how hard it is to learn. S&H is difficult to read and church doesn't help me understand anything more nor does the bible lesson. Yet, with all of this difficulty, I continue to try b/c of what people talk about CS being for them. Plus, it's one of the few Christian religions where the people seem genuinely happy - that says a lot!

1. What I would like is to be able to go to Sunday School and learn the basics there. It seems like everything that I want to learn people say they learned in SS. But, I'm waaaaay over the age limit.

2. It would be nice to have some kind of introductory/study guide to help. For example, I am lost when it comes to Prayer and how to pray and what to say, etc. I know there isn't a set formula, but there are steps people go through. Maybe first looking in the bible for a great quote or something... How long do you pray? If nothing is happening, do you find another quote? What do you say? And the list goes on...

3. A lot of people seem to have been raised as CS & don't realize how difficult it is to understand much less utilize the information in S&H. I'm sure many people found healing just reading it, but for me, I haven't found healing nor understanding. And there isn't a resource available to aid me. I've read The Sentinel, MBE Biographies, etc.

So, there are my difficulties at 1 year in. Take it for what it's worth - 1 person's opinion."

http://www.tmcyouth.com/forums/showthread.php?p=18126#post18126 

be careful what you ask for

Well it's been a few days since I sent out my survey. I've heard from so many people it's been great. It was a little overwhelming to hear the disappointment of people who grew up in this church, whether they still attend or wouldn't set foot in a CS church ever again. Some responses were really vile, particularly the ones from people who converted to mainstream Christianity. The interesting thing is that they were the only people who were unhappy with the actual teachings of Christian Science. The rest of the responders were upset about one cultural thing or another. The dangerous avoidence of Doctors was huge, the judgemental nature of our members, the worship of MBE or teachers/practitioners, boring church services, etc...

So my conclusion so far is it's not resistance to the Christ, or not enough healing, or MBE's discovery, it's the closed minded, limited, judgemental, fearful CS culture that's draining our church membership. We could bring people back in if we start over from scratch - read S&H, understand it's teachings, know the Manual, and create the most loving, embracing, helpful church community we can.

I know there's more to be said here...
see you soon, I'm going to read my S&H

Please send my survey to people you know....

I published a survey, It's no longer available

Amazing input from a newcomer to a CS service

Monday, March 16, 2009

Church #11: Christian Scientists

In 2000, I became a Christian at the age of 23. Two years later, I was working at one of the largest churches in the country. After two more years, I left that job to help start a brand new church. Four years later, I stopped attending church. So...no church, to attending church, to working in a church, to starting a church, to leaving the church - all in less than eight years. Now, I am visiting 52 churches in 52 weeks in order to redefine my faith. This is reflection 11 of 52.


Much like last week (the Jehovah's Witnesses), I knew very little about Christian Scientists. They certainly have no connection to the Church of Scientology, and they are definitely a branch of Christianity (believe in Jesus, use the Christian Bible, etcetera).

From what I could tell, the Christian Scientists have nothing to do with science. I couldn't find a Periodic Table of Elements anywhere. Contrary to what my friend, Jason, suggested, communion was not taken from a beaker. Nary a Bunsen burner was involved in the whole operation.

This was a journey of confusion - one that left me with more questions than answers.

But first, some details: The main room was actually pretty nice - very Catholic looking. Traditional pews sat about 400 people, and there were exactly 24 people in attendance. That's right...24 people.

Let's stop here and chat.

Twenty-four people? I believe small churches can be wonderful and spiritual and meaningful, but shouldn't it be a sign when you open your doors to the masses and twenty-four people show up? And, to be honest, I am being gracious with that number. Three of the twenty-four were up front speaking. And I was there. One guy was the greeter. And at least three people stood up to pass the collection bag around. So, sixteen is a more accurate number.

And it's not like this is a brand new church plant. They have been around for years - at least the past fourteen years that I have been hanging around Clifton. That's about one new person per year. Not good.

The service itself could not have been more boring. They could have tried, but they would have failed. And no one spoke to me - not once. Now, I may have had a, "If you speak to me, I will bite off your ear" facial expression, but still, a friendly hello would have been appreciated.

It began with a hymn, then a scripture reading, then a silent prayer, then the Lord's Prayer...but let's stop again to chat.

Here is the key to the Christian Scientists:

They use the Christian Bible. From what I could tell, it was the King James version. But they have a second book called Science & Health with Key to the Scriptures. This book was written by their founder, Mary Baker Eddy, in 1875ish. Eddy founded the religion when she was healed around that time and realized the Christian faith should be more focused on healings.

Christian Scientists don't really use doctors or medicine. In their booklet, they said people were permitted to use doctors if they made that personal choice, but one Frequently Asked Question was, "What would you do if you broke your leg?" Their answer: "Some may have a doctor set the bone, but many others have seen bones set and mended by prayer alone."

False. That is stupid. So, so dumb. No one has ever seen that. Especially not a Christian Scientist. I wanted to break someone's leg on the spot and ask them to start praying. If I sound a little irritable, it's because I am. People who refuse to see a doctor to treat a broken leg because they prefer to pray about it should be shot. Then they can pray about being healed from the bullet wound and we can see how that works out for them.

Deep breath. Moving on...

Back to the Lord's Prayer. So, in her book, Eddy gives (direct quote), "What I understand to be the spiritual sense of the Lord's Prayer." So the pastor would read a verse of the prayer, and then read the corresponding line from Eddy's interpretation.

"Our Father which art in heaven" = "Our Father-Mother God, all-harmonious." And so on.

The "Mother" addition was interesting. As was the fact that all three people leading the service were women. But, the Christian Scientists don't really put much value in pastors or leaders. In fact, a quote from their "explanatory note" informs the congregation that, "The Bible and the Christian Science textbook are our only preachers." And they were.

The sermon consisted of one woman standing to read a handful of Bible verses, then another woman standing to read the corresponding passages from Eddy's book. They used about sixty verses of scripture and thirty textbook readings. And that was the entire message.

Riveting.

For example, they read Acts 3:1-10, which is one of my favorite stories from the Bible. And then Eddy's passage was gibberish. Something about God's mind and people being spiritual, and nothing is material, and blah blah blah. They believe the Science & Health book is divinely inspired, but man, it was boring and hard to follow.

They also mentioned something about Adam (from Adam & Eve fame) actually dreaming when he imagined the Garden of Eden. Or maybe we dreamt up his story. I am almost positive they regard most of the Old Testament stories as myth, so it might have had something to do with that.

Overall, the Christian Science faith just felt so dead to me. There was no joy, no humor, no smiles, no life, no anything. Most of the congregation was old - half were over sixty-years-old. I just can't imagine people being drawn to a faith that makes you feel like you're sitting through a funeral.

Visiting the Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Scientists in consecutive weeks was a mistake. These past two weeks made me grumpy - seeing my faith twisted into some freak show has that effect on me, I suppose.

These past two weeks haven't been good for my soul. Visiting churches outside of mainstream Christianity has been interesting, and I have learned a lot about other religions and about myself, but I am not finding God in those places. And a big part of this journey is reconnecting with God in a meaningful way. I'll continue visiting a variety of churches, but I need a few weeks off from the insanity.

http://churchexperiment.blogspot.com/

It doesn't take much to start a new church

I think the biggest problem people who want change are coming up against is speaking rationally to emotional people. They don't have an argument to lean on for keeping things the same, but it won't stop them from clinging to the traditions. Why bother trying to convince them. We should be starting our own churches like they did in Mrs. Eddy's day. All you need to start a church is to be "A member of this Church who obeys its By-Laws and is a loyal exemplary Christian Scientist working in the Field,"  Man 72:4-12  Organizing Churches. SECT. 6. 

 We could all go out today and find 4 members of the Mother Church, 12 other people including 1 practitioner and be branch churches with any kind of service we want. Why are we wasting our time on the old churches. Do we want to have to train people to be loving and non-judgmental? Do we want to have to go to committee every time we want to make minor changes? 

 I come across so many people that say they want change and they mean announcing the name of the solo before it's sung, or getting rid of the usher that stands in front of the church doing nothing. In that sense most people would say they want change, someone probably hates the color of the carpet, or thinks the organ needs to be completely overhauled. This isn't the kind of change that's going to bring one person into a church and keep them there. We must go out today and speak with the 98% of the people who left the church and find out why they left and listen and pray about how to make church relevant to them. 

 I don't want to make people into proper Christian Scientists, I want Christian Science to be perfect for people. And it is, there must be a way to help people see it. I will do whatever I can to make it relevant for them and make a home for them.

 

How radical are we willing to go?

I just read the history of the Appendix and the Present order of Services from the MBE Library. They make a statement, "We have located no documentation that would suggest that Mrs. Eddy viewed the Appendix as less significant than the preceding pages of the Manual", But that means there was also no documentation to suggest that Mrs. Eddy thought of the appendix as anything other than, by definition, a "less essential addition". They also said, "We have found no statements by Mrs. Eddy that shed light on how the word “present” should be interpreted in “Present Order of Services.”” What would be the reason to interpret the word present? We really have to take it at its face value- meaning in process; not from the past or in the future

Mrs. Eddy changed her mind about the church consistently over the years. Apparently she was making changes to the Manual right up to the day of her passing. I doubt that if she’d lived another 100 years she would have stopped making changes. I like to think that’s why she left the Manual so open and unrestrictive for us. We get into trouble when we try to second guess what Mrs. Eddy wanted us to do 100 years after she lost the ability to make all our decisions for us. 

The church in Mrs. Eddy’s day was organic and changing constantly. It’s unlikely that she would have let the church stay stagnant the way it has for 100 years. I don't know if Mrs. Eddy wanted us to look at undated, inaccurate and out of context quotes in Misc. Writings to figure out what to do today. I think we need to look at Mrs. Eddy's essence and intentions, and like in the 1st tenant, take her inspired word as our sufficient guide to running our churches.

Are we willing to loosen our hold on the "present* order of services"to see change in the Church Service? If we want something radically different do we need to hold a completely different kind of service on Saturday? The Manual by-laws only require that any/all Sunday Services include 2 Readers reading the weekly Bible lesson. Do we wrap a different service around the Bible Lesson? Would that make a difference?

In talking to people who don't go to church but want to, I find they're looking for more human interaction -small group discussion, Q&A, lectures, as part of the church service. They say they want to go to church at a normal church time so offering these things during the week doesn't solve the "service" issue. Do we need to call ourselves "groups" rather than churches to give them what they want?

*Present: Now existing, or in process; begun but not ended; now in view, or under consideration; being at this time; not past or future. -Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913

Stop making up by-laws - a rant

I was at two meetings this week discussing options we might consider in changing the church services. On both occasions people referenced Mrs. Eddy preferences for elements of the service by pointing out quotes in Misc. Writings. I can't help feeling that the only research anyone needs to do to know what Mrs. Eddy wanted for church is to pick up the Manual. That's the only official set of rules for church. If you’re holding on to some element of church that isn’t explicit in the Manual by insisting that Mrs. Eddy meant for us to do it, you’re really saying she just forgot to add  it to one of the 88 versions she published in her lifetime. Even though she makes it clear that she prayed long and hard about every by-law, the one thing that you don’t want to change was the one thing God didn’t remind her to put in. It’s offensive to me to treat her with such disrespect. The Manual is the only set of rules for the Church, and we are doing this movement a huge disservice in making up “by-laws” that don’t exist.

Some great quotes I read today...

"Judge not the future advancement of Christian Science by the steps already taken, lest you yourself be condemned for failing to take the first step." -- Mary Baker Eddy (S&H 458)

********

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."  Lewis Caroll - Alice in Wonderland.

How I Experience Church Services - expanded

When I walk into a CS service I come prepared to be healed, maybe to heal others, or maybe just to learn more about healing. I love seeing all the people because I know each one is here to learn and become better healers. I appreciate the effort it took for them to get there. I also like to see the church alive and active. I enjoy this time before the service to pray and love others.
1. When the service starts the first thing that happens is two people walk stiffly out onto the podium. One of them stands up stiffly and reads a welcome to me. At this point it would be nice to know who this person is, what they're doing there. It's a wonderful time to show real love to the congregation. Look at the people, give them a moment to see that you love them. The relationship between the reader and the congregation is extremely important. The only thing impersonal in the service should be the absolute Truth of Christian Science. And that’s already done. The people must not be impersonal. That’s gross. People are an efficient means for God to communicate his love for his children. The reader has the perfect opportunity to show us that love. When someone loves you they don’t show it by reading to you, unless it’s a mother reading to her child at bed time. So think of the reader as God’s way of reading his story to His children. They can express this by looking in your eyes, listening to you, touching you gently, being your friend. A reader must not be more obedient to following the traditional service structure than to touching the hearts and minds of the congregation.
2. Before any introduction this “leader” reads a 100 year old poem (assume it's Mrs. Eddy's hymn). I like to read the hymns at home on my own time, but in the church service something clearer and not so complex might help get my thought on the right spiritual track. Then we sing the same thing that was read. This seems silly, and all this reading is turning my ears off. Why is this done, and only one verse, no one does that. Don’t read the hymns. The Mother Church eliminated this. We can read the hymns on our own time.
While I love to sing, I don't understand the symbolism or the flowery language of many of the hymns. Sometimes it can be nice to sing an older song, but that’s all there is, nothing new. It’s like being in a time warp. I don't mind the old fashioned music too much, but I’d love to sing to some modern music too.
The sound of the organ grates on my nerves. I feel that instrument is sucking all the joy and spirit right out of the songs. Why such an irritating instrument? An organ can’t do justice to most music. It’s intended for religious music and has strict rules about how music should be played. I don’t personally know anyone who would choose to listen to an organ over any other instrument. An organ once in a while might be a fun change of pace, but there are no other options. The music is definitely turning people away, for me it doesn’t help.
NOTE: Mrs. Eddy’s hymns can be sung at least once a month, but every week is overkill. It’s based on a letter she wrote over 100 years ago and it’s in Misc. not the manual.
3. Then “I shall now read scriptural selections”. No one talks that way. I don't even know what the topic of the lesson is. The leader of the service hasn't addressed the congregation in any way. Who is this person, they care a lot about making sure they communicate the reverence for the formality of the Bible. The readings are often confusing, and done in a stiff, long winded and pious way. So, right off the bat, I'm feeling uncared for and left out.
Let the scriptural selection be one or two passages that give an introduction to the service. It should set tone for the sermon. We’ve got the lesson coming up and that’s a lot of reading. Less reading will help keep people’s attention. It must also be very clear, from a modern translation, and done with Joy and in the spirit of love and communication. The Bible is a gift from God that should always touch our hearts and minds, not put a wall up between the reader and the congregation.
4. The Lord’s prayer. It’s familiar to everyone. It’s a gift from Jesus to us. However think about how this must look to a newcomer. She starts saying the prayer and all of a sudden everyone stops and the leader reads something they call the spiritual interpretation. She didn’t even know it was coming. She might even find herself embarrassed to continue praying when everyone else pauses. Why do Christian Scientists chop it up? Again a notice from Mrs. Eddy in Misc., not in the Manual.  It could be made clearer and simpler by just reading Mrs. Eddy’s Spiritual sense after we all finish the Lord’s prayer. It makes so much more sense. And is much less confusing. That way the Lord’s prayer is intact and Mrs. Eddy’s interpretation can be heard as a complete prayer.
5. So when they get to the "announcements" section I think finally someone is talking to me and will show me some love. But no, the leader reads how glad they are that I'm there, they inform me of the time of the Wednesday service, let me know that children are in the Sunday School right now, and the address of the store where I can buy literature. Some weeks they let me know when a lecture is coming up, and it's such a relief, because I know they're reading something fresh and relevant.
Announcements should be a time for the reader to show they are a loving member of the community, like a facilitator or conductor. They should look up at the congregation and speak to them. They may reference some of the activity that’s gone on during the week. It’s not necessary to tell people every week that there are no children in the church service. Announcements are new information that everyone in the service, newcomer or other, should hear about. All other information about other church offerings can be referenced in the brochure. If they’re a newcomer they should be told in person about the Wed. meetings, the reading room, and the Sunday school after the church service. There might even be an invitation from the desk to join someone after the service for a newcomer lunch. We might hear about some of the amazing testimonies from Wed. night. Or a service project that some of the Sunday school students participated in. Welcome new members by name, let them stand up and be greeted. Or if there’s nothing new, don’t say anything, just sit down. The weekly repetition of irrelevant information is tedious and thoughtless. It seems unintelligent to me.
6. Then the soloist sings songs that I usually don’t particularly enjoy. But I really don’t enjoy them when accompanied by the irritating organ music. And I think what a waste. This would be the time to introduce some wonderful inspiring music, something that leads my thought to God. Music can do that. What a lost opportunity. There is so much great, inspiring music out there there’s no excuse for the music to be what it is in our churches in the 21st century. Why sing such antiquated poetry and music?
NOTE: At this point I don't understand why we did any of that, It doesn't uplift me, it sort of annoys me or bores me. Why so much reading? I came to the service to take home a healing idea, maybe even get an aha moment that heals. I just can't get past the lack of connection, the readers and the soloist have a wall up, they may smile, but they aren't smiling at me. I'm not fond of poetry or organs or ancient language and that's all that's happened so far in the first 20 minutes of the service. Nothing that I can relate to. It seems very religious and formal. I think that if they were thinking of my needs, it never would have occurred to them to do any of that the way that they did.
7. The next thing that happens is they say “friends” then make a long speech with lots of big words that are very foreboding and harsh…something about how these impersonal books are the divine authority of God. That’s not how I talk to my friends. I didn’t understand half the words, and it’s read every week. I just don’t get it and it turns me off. I don’t need a lecture about what I’m about to hear every week. It doesn’t make me feel the pastor is loving, it makes me feel like I’m in trouble. Canonical, corroborating, spiritual import and application... I don’t know what they’re talking about. This isn't in the Manual outside the "present order of service" in the appendix. Don’t read this. Maybe reference it, and invite everyone to read it in the front of the quarterly, or paraphrase it in modern language.
8. The readers finally introduce the subject, and then suddenly, without warning, everyone around me is reading every other passage. These passages aren't a conversation between the reader and the congregation, it's just that the people are sharing the reading responsibility. I focus so much on reading properly, I don't bother trying to figure out what's being read. It's distracting and strange and illogical and religious. I really don’t understand this activity. I would have the readers read the whole thing or have the congregation read the whole thing, but I don’t see the purpose of both switching on and off. This is done in other Christian churches and is a traditional religious activity.
9. The lesson is the part where we finally we hear Mrs. Eddy's explanation of Christian Science. No more ritual, but the juicy stuff. I don't read the King James Bible at home, I didn't major in English Lit in college, I don't follow the language at all. I have a hard time understanding why they don't read in the translation I use at home. It can make the message so clear, why put up the road block of difficult language. It comes across as thoughtless or selfish or closed minded. At home I read from a translation that makes the message so clear. Here, many of the passages don't make sense. I have to struggle to remember what the section was about so I can follow along. Why don't they want the message clear in the church service? Why be so stubborn and old fashioned. It seems like a fundamentalist thing to shun modern translations. Anyway I struggle to listen, but it's hard to focus because I don't want to work that hard. To be honest I'm always relieved when it's over, it's just too hard.
Obviously I’m saying the lesson should be read from the best translation to get the message across clearly. People are not accustomed to listening to reading for long periods of time, so it should be simple and clear, not poetic and flowery. This generally requires the use of more than one translation. So reading from a print-out or a computer screen would work here. Mrs. Eddy didn’t want her book read from a transcript (Manual by-law), but I think it would be ok to do this with the Bible. The Publishing Society doesn't even sell a Readers edition of the Bible and more.
10. I also think the first reader must stop interrupting the sermon (after the first section of the Bible) to announce again that they’re reading from Mrs. Eddy’s book. We get it. It’s distracting and unnecessary. It's another aspect of the present order of services in the Appendix.
11. The collection is fine, but I would like to introduce the idea of Tithing time. 10% of the service is 6 minutes. What about having 6 minutes of communion prayer for the world here, and take up collection as people leave the service. Or have the members pay dues, or get the money to keep the church going some other creative way.
12. I love the Scientific Statement of Being. I think every Christian Scientist should know it. I like the idea of everyone praying aloud together.
13. The correlative scripture had never made any sense to me until I heard it in the JB Phillips translation. The KJV really isn’t clear.
14. I enjoy the benediction. Some weeks it seems like it's one of the only times when there's an element of honest good will in the whole service.
Now this is just how I experience the service. I expect it's completely different for other people. But how many people are experiencing the service like me? Why can't there be an option so our needs are being met by the CS community? I want to love going to church every week. And trying to heal me of these opinions by making me feel bad about them isn’t going to change my mind. These things I want to change aren’t in the manual by-laws. These are tradition and religiouosity and they can be changed if someone were willing.

If it's not a bylaw is it "in the Manual"

I’ve been thinking about “the present  order of services” in the Appendix of the Manual. I was  trying to figure out if it’s strictly “in the Manual” if it isn’t a bylaw. So I looked up the definition of  Appendix: Any literary matter added to a book, but not necessarily essential to its completeness, and thus distinguished from supplement, which is intended to supply deficiencies and correct inaccuracies. …Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1913. 

It seems the addition of the "present order of services" is meant to be a helpful informational resource rather than a rule to be followed strictly. While I may not want to change the order, I do like the idea that this is one more aspect of church that can be opened up to meet the needs of the community. I like the idea of using it as a guideline for our order rather than an order for our guidelines.

Why the church grew 100 years ago...

Pulpit and Press 29:8-8 np
Last Sunday I gave myself the pleasure of attending the service held in Copley Hall. The spacious apartment was thronged with a congregation whose remarkable earnestness impressed the observer. There was no straggling of late-comers. Before the appointed hour every seat in the hall was filled and a large number of chairs pressed into service for the overflowing throng. The music was spirited, and the selections from the Bible and from Science and Health were finely read by Judge Hanna. Then came his sermon, which dealt directly with the command of Christ to "heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons." In his admirable discourse Judge Hanna said that while all these injunctions could, under certain conditions, be interpreted and fulfilled literally, the special lesson was to be taken spiritually — to cleanse the leprosy of sin, to cast out the demons of evil thought. The discourse was able, and helpful in its suggestive interpretation.
THE CHURCH MEMBERS
Later I was told that almost the entire congregation was composed of persons who had either been themselves, or had seen members of their own families, healed by Christian Science treatment; and I was further told that once when a Boston clergyman remonstrated with Judge Hanna for enticing a separate congregation rather than offering their strength to unite with churches already established — I was told he replied that the Christian Science Church did not recruit itself from other churches, but from the graveyards!

Proof of Its Utility

Church: “The Church is that institution, which affords proof of its utility and is found elevating the race, rousing the dormant understanding from material beliefs to the apprehension of spiritual ideas and the demonstration of divine Science, thereby casting out devils, or error, and healing the sick.” Manual by MBE

Afford means to produce results. Proof means conclusive evidence and demonstration. Utility is usefulness and value. So in order to be called a church we need to be producing conclusive evidence that Christian Science is useful and has value. How on earth can we do this? Luckily we have the obvious profitableness of healing the sick, and we can measure that by testimonies. So one way to check whether we’re affording proof of our utility is to have continuous healings and testimonies.

But is it enough for a few to be healed? What about elevating the human race? We need to somehow measure how much we have we helped the human race by looking at the fruits of our efforts. Does our community, through interaction with our church, have a better apprehension of spiritual ideas, and have they seen the demonstration of divine Science? Are they living lives freer from error than before? I think we all must look at our own church work and ask ourselves if we’ve done this for anyone outside of our church membership.

If we’ve handed someone a Science and Health or had a wonderful sharing conversation in our work in the Reading Room or at a lecture is that the proof of our utility? How can we measure the impact that conversation had on the human race? Jesus had some conversations that we know about. We know the impact of those conversations because 2000 years later we’re still learning from them. Jesus’ church grew because people craved what he had to offer. They showed up to learn more about the Christ message. If the people he transformed in one conversation just went on with their lives we would never have heard about it. It was because these people gathered together in the early churches and shared with each other that we know what happened to them.

I can’t help thinking that some of the proof of its utility must be seen in the health of the church. If the church had been producing value then it wouldn’t be declining in membership over the past 50 years. Its Sunday school students wouldn’t be leaving in droves. And the world wouldn’t be so unfamiliar with us that they confuse us with Scientology on a regular basis.

So, bottom line, we have not been a church by Mrs. Eddy’s definition for decades. How then can we claim that we can’t make changes to our church because Mrs. Eddy wouldn’t have wanted it? She didn’t define church as a group of people who follow a strict set of rules to the detriment of all else. She focused on results not method in her definition of church, and now it’s time for us to do the same.

Communion

... a group of persons having a common religious faith; association; fellowship; interchange or sharing of thoughts or emotions; intimate communication; the act of sharing, or holding in common; participation

How might this be the core purpose of our church? Instead of outreach as our purpose, what about intimacy, sharing and interchange. How might that service look? And how might it draw newcomers to us?

King James Only
As a second reader in my branch church I took very seriously the manual requirement to read understandingly, and be well educated. I am well educated. But the imperative to read understandingly, I found challenging. In discussing this with other people and I’ve discovered something and I’d like to share it with you. I’m surprised to have discovered that Christian Scientists don’t seem to understand how difficult the King James is to understand by people who aren’t familiar with it. Think about how hard you think the King James is to understand. Now I want to share with you my personal experience with this.
For the past ten years I’ve been studying my lesson from translations other than the King James. For the past three years, from the English Standard Version published in 2001, and available in our Reading Room. I love to study my lesson this way. I find that I understand the ideas behind the lesson sermon quickly and simply this way. I rarely have to look up a passage in other resources to understand its meaning. Often I will do research to delve deeper into the background, but I generally I’m getting the spiritual ideas promptly and easily.
When I was elected second reader I began reading from the King James to prepare for Sundays. I found this to be challenging. I needed to research every passage to be sure I understood what the words were saying because the language is so difficult to follow. So before I could even begin to understand the meaning I had to get through the language. Studying the lesson became much less pleasant and more time consuming.
After all the work I would be able to understand the lesson, but then as reader I needed to read it understandingly. That’s where the trouble kicked in. I know how hard I had to work to figure out the language, much less the meaning. As a reader my job was to convey meaning through language. As a dedicated student and healer in Christian Science I’ve spent years learning to understand the meaning. The newcomer my find the meaning to be the most amazing thing they’ve ever experienced. But if the language isn’t clear how they get to the meaning? Again I need to stress that the language isn’t clear. It may be to you who’ve been studying it for years, but I have not been, and it’s not clear to me.
I’ve started listening more intently in church and on the Mother Church bible lesson broadcasts to hear how others read understandingly. What I’ve found is that I rely heavily on the study that I’ve done during the week to piece together the sermon on Sunday. When the Scriptural selection isn’t a passage I’m familiar with, I’m usually left clueless. I honestly can’t follow its message. And this is true on Wednesdays too.
For a long time now I’ve been wondering why I continue to come to a service I can’t understand. I think it’s because of my commitment to the Truth and the church and the healing movement of the church. But I shouldn’t expect a newcomer to have that commitment. And why should they? There are plenty of studies to show that Americans are generally unchurched and therefore unfamiliar with any Bible, but particularly the King James. In a Gallup poll 61% felt that the Bible should be easier to read than it is.
What about the fact that we’ve always read the King James only and that all English speaking churches use the King James exclusively? Let’s go to our leader on this. In a letter in Miscellaneous Writings she says that “ The Rules and By-laws in the Manual... were not arbitrary opinions nor dictatorial demands, such as one person might impose on another. … They sprang from necessity, the logic of events, — from the immediate demand for them as a help that must be supplied to maintain the dignity and defense of our Cause…” Mis 148:8 In the manual Mrs. Eddy ordained the pastor as follows, “ Ordination. SECTION 1. I, Mary Baker Eddy, ordain the BIBLE, and SCIENCE AND HEALTH WITH KEY TO THE SCRIPTURES, Pastor over The Mother Church,” Man 58:4-7 What an opportunity to state that the King James should be the only authorized version in our English speaking churches. But she didn’t.
Another opportunity to make her preference known was when a letter was sent into the sentinel in 1910, when she was the editor, asking what the order of services was in the Mother Church. She may have seen from the “logic of events” that this would be the time to state once and for all that all Bible passages are read from the King James. But she didn’t. And this order of services is now in the appendix of the manual.
I’ve gone to the Mary Baker Eddy library and looked up every use of the words “King James”. There’s only one, it’s just a letter to the printer who appeared to be changing some quotes before publishing and she wrote that they should be kept as she wrote them. All quotes in Science and Health are from the same translation, the King James. This was to ensure that anyone following along in the Bible wouldn’t have to have a whole library of translations to keep up.

In summary here are some ideas I’d like you to take with you to think about:
1. Don’t underestimate how trained you’ve become in understanding the language of the King James because you’ve been studying it for many years. Newcomers to the church services are likely to be unfamiliar with the King James. So we can assume it’s difficult to get past the language to get a clear understanding of the message of the sermon. If you argue that a receptive mind can get past the language to get the message, then by that argument we should really be reading it in Greek and Hebrew. But why should anyone have to struggle to get the meaning when easily understandable translations are readily available?
2. Remember the manual is the only authority for our church, and Mrs. Eddy prayed long and hard about everything in it. She didn’t make the King James a requirement. So by making it a strong priority in our churches, do we think she just overlooked it, assuming she meant to do it but forgot? There’s strong evidence that she didn’t. Are we comfortable making up pseudo-rules that Mrs. Eddy didn’t intend?
3. It is difficult for children and those without advanced educations to follow this archaic language so they may be less inclined to study their lesson. Also, it may seem unpleasant for young people graduating from the fluid interactions and discussions in Sunday school to be presented with such and old fashioned, lofty, and unfamiliar sounding church service.
4. Until the 1950’s the King James was the most read Bible in society. After that it became the least read. That’s also when the decline of the Christian Science membership began.
5. Christian Scientists say, “you can read from translations all week so why should it matter on Sunday?” That’s counterintuitive, because a newcomer isn’t going to be studying their lesson all week, they’re going to come to a Sunday service. Wouldn’t it make sense to read from the King James during the week if you like then have a clear translation on Sunday?
6. Some say the King James is the most pleasant to hear read aloud and many of you would choose the King James because you consider it to be the best of all English Bibles because of its use of poetic devices. Can you concede that the pleasantness of the King James is a matter of opinion rather than fact, and that it’s possible that pleasantness and literary excellence aren’t more important that readability and clarity in our services.
7. “As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.” Man 15:3 If we accept this then can we claim that there’s one particular literal word of the Bible that’s more sufficient than another? What would have us cling so passionately to one set of words? Words don’t heal, ideas do.
8. The publishing Society sells many different translations in the Reading Room that could be used in our church services without breaking anything but tradition. Have you ever considered this? If you have, is it important to you? Why?

I want you to know that I love the word of God. I hope you read these ideas with the love and respect that I’ve presented them.

Endrun around the Manual

The BOD is amazing. I love their honesty and their openness. They really need our support and they need us to do it. They are very restricted by the Manual and its requirements because it's the Manual of the "Mother Church". But is there a possibility that the Manual doesn't have to restrict my God given mission to express my concept of church differently than they did 100 years ago? Can I do whatever I want to share CS as long as I don't attempt to be a branch church? There are no restrictions on activities of members, that's why there are nursing schools and camps and Prin. So what if there aren't any branches in 50 years, if there are wonderful "groups" healing and changing lives. It doesn't have to be called a branch church to make a difference. All of us who want something different can just do it (just not in our branch churches). Who’s with me? How shall we start?

We need to replace ourselves

When the Board of Directors came to speak in Seattle a couple of years ago they told us, in response to a complaint, that the young people have said they will leave if we don't stop the bickering. 2 questions later the same complaint came up and they repeated it again. Obviously these people cared more about their politics than retaining the young.

The math is this. Every member must replace themselves with 1.5 new members or there will be no members in 50 years. I have two parents they raised 6 kids, one is a member. My husband's parents had 2 kids they raised 1 member, so between our parents this generation is behind by 4 members. So Jim and I have to come up with 7 just to catch up for our parents. We only have 3 kids... we're taking this job very seriously.

something positive

So I think my comments have been quite negative lately and I think I’ve been reacting to the defensive nature of those who don’t believe in radical change. So I need to share my positive perspective.

I’ve been healed of some intense conditions in my life, a paralyzed face, a severe sinus infection, bipolar disorder, the symptoms of meningitis, and an inflamed gall bladder are just a few. Each time the healing took place I was transformed spiritually. In no case was I studying or reading to get a healing. I do that when I’m well so I’m prepared for the trials to come. When I need a healing I work to let go of whatever I’m identifying with that’s not true and learn what is true about me and then I mentally jump off a cliff with the knowledge that God’s Love is there to catch me. Sometimes it takes me days to get to this place, but when I get there, the free fall into the Christ is the most amazing experience.

The thing is I want everyone who desires it to have a chance to have this. I feel lonely and useless keeping it to myself. And while I do share one-on-one without restraint, I can only do so much. I want to offer a place where people can delve into this practice. I imagine a church that performs more like a wellness center where there are resources to help people along in their spiritual journey. I want to be part of this place, something bigger than myself.

Stop making people feel bad

I was thinking today about how Christian Science Nursing changed about 20 years ago. The old nursing structure was rigid and kind of the medical model with specific procedures and very little creativity. When the Mother Church let go of the training it opened nursing up to inspiration and creativity in people’s nursing expression. These new ideas led to new opportunities for nursing. Well some of the older institutions like the old way of doing things and believe nurses should be following the old model. And the old model has maintained a presence in the community.
But here’s the point I want to make: When I work at a nursing facility where I’m valued and appreciated for my inspiration and qualities that I bring to the work, I go home feeling on top of the world, like God has blessed me with this calling. When I work with a supervisor who’s looking over my shoulder and questioning and criticizing my unique methods, and not valuing my contribution, I go home feeling like I have no right to be thinking I should be a nurse. I’m a failure and I should quit now. I’m heartbroken.

When I think about someone growing up in our church or thinking about becoming part of our church, I can’t imagine how they would feel if we were treating them like the second kind of nurse treats me. Meaning we look to their procedures and behaviors more than their beautiful soul expression. I know people are leaving the church because we have made them feel like the most important thing is for them to obey the following policies: first and most important they don’t drink or smoke, second and nearly as important they read the bible lesson every day, third and slightly less important they don’t take any medicine for any reason. Each church may have other priorities, but we all know this is how you determine if someone is one of us.

If we would focus more on our own ability to love and embrace each person’s contribution as a child of God and less on their lifestyle choices we might be able to retain more of our young adults.

I was reading the news items at CS Directory yesterday and after the articles there were places for people to comment. Not surprisingly the comments were negative about CS. It’s so hard to believe that after all these years people are still so in the dark about CS. However the only Christian Scientist responding to all the negativity didn’t communicate to them very well. She was talking about prophecy and the Bible. Well other religions have that, but they don’t “put their children at risk” for them. The world should know how healthy our children are, and how our members live long lives without the assistance of medicine.

People who question Christian Science as health care don’t have a clue about our practice. We look like religious fundamentalist, faith healers from the outside. And is that surprising? We are the only church that isn’t strictly, radically fundamentalist that uses King James exclusively. We go on and on about the divine revelation of our Leader. Much like the Mormons do. We continue to publish new recordings of old hymns, much like the most fundamentalist radicals do. Our church services are exclusive, boring, antiquated, hard to understand, and many times rather cold.

If someone found themselves in a Christian Science church on a Sunday, there’s no way for them to understand what we’re really doing. Christian Science is so much more than the Bible Lesson, but that’s all we put out there on Sunday.

We generally only communicate with our own members. We don’t do really do community outreach. Since most people understand church as a Sunday activity and not a storefront or magazine, our “community outreach” has no context for people. There’s no reason for anyone to go out of their way to expose themselves to our ideas. They’ve never even heard of us.

From a post on TMC Youth Forum: Manual Revisited

133providence:
I think my general point is that the manual is an inspiration and guiding tool, but I cringe when its viewed as the end all be all word of God. I want to add that I think it would be beneficial to think, pray, and explore this while keeping the big picture in mind. Do we as a movement really think God "cares" if a particular format, order, service structure, etc occurs? I vote no. Do I even think God cares about us following a particular manual? No. Sure for organizational sake it helps to have some sort of structure in order to keep us from descending into chaos and keeps the movement from being side-tracked. But I think sometimes the manual is talked about it like it is the 10 Commandments part II and it some how magically appeared and is indisputable. Rather it appears to be a historical document that arrived on the scene inspired by God, but also a reflection of the growing needs around the church as it grew. I think God cares about our hearts. And when we are following the letter of the law for the sake of "being loyal to MBE" rather than "being loyal to God" I think we should really pray about our motives.

...maybe you could help with the following questions, and it will help us understand why exactly portions of the manual developed in particular ways.

- Do you know why exactly "preaching," "pastors," or "leaders" were not developed within the CS church? I think it was allowed for some time then discontinued. Many denominations have programs that are used to raise up people in their giftings, but don't see that within CS. I understand the theory is that we are all "leaders" in our own fashion, but don't know the history. I had seen some amazing CS practioners talk and have thought, "wow this would amazing to have them talk on sundays, I would love to invite friends to that." Obviously lectures are a place for that, but I have always thought it would be great to have lectures sundays during a normal service sometimes too. Many CS camps have daily speakers everyday before the cabins go back to study the lesson. Ask any young person (or old who works at the camps), and these talks are fantastic. In reality they are really "sermons." Sometimes straight lectures, sometimes videos, sometimes mini-plays to act out themes. But they combine timeless truth with present relevency. Ask any young person too and they will say they get 100 times more things from these inspiring/ lively talks than they do from sitting in a normal sunday service. It seems like the baby was dumped out with bathwater in regards to banning preaching.

- Were there ever local or regional "sermons" or "lessons" rather than institutionalized studies?

- Do you know why youth ministries were historically avoided? Why no youth groups, vacation bible schools, etc.

- Was there ever a focus on mid-week bible study, fellowship, prayer time, dinner, etc? I have a feeling that is what Wednesday night started out as then was insitutionalized into a sort of observational "service" rather than interactive fellowship.

- Why no organized missionary work?

- Why no organized service ministries?

- Why the cultural ban on weddings, funerals, etc?

- Why no room for "new" audible prayers within church? I understand this is in effort to stay away from Jewish tradition of long-winded prayers, again it seems like the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.