Independent Christian Science articles

Prove All Things; Hold Fast That Which Is Good

by

The enclosed articles were written over a period of several years and are an attempt to understand and depict the present state of the Christian Science Movement.

I was brought up in a C.S. Sunday School, have had class instruction, and am currently a member of the Mother Church and a Branch Church. I have served as first reader, second reader, board member, and Sunday School teacher in my local branch.

I was privileged to know an old-time practitioner who knew, among others, Emma Shipman, Daisette McKenzie, and Irving Tomlinson. The stories and insights which this practitioner gained and imparted gave me a rare glimpse into the atmosphere of the early days of our Movement and a deeper appreciation for Mrs. Eddy and her great labor of love for mankind.

Interest in Christian Science by my family started with my great grandmother, the wife of a Civil War veteran. It was my great grandfather who, by his own stores and experiences, inspired MacKinley Kantor to be a writer. He is mentioned in Kantor’s Civil War epic, Andersonville.

I repeat this brief family sketch to assure the reader that my involvement in Christian Science is longstanding and that my motives are to help save Christian Science. It is with this spirit that I hope the reader will turn to the pages which follow.

The Christian Science Monitor — Past, Present, Future

by

For whom does The Christian Science Monitor speak? A Christian Scientist would answer that it speaks the truth without bias or influence from any special interest. The familiar words of its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, sum it up best, “The object of the Monitor is to injure no man, but to bless all mankind.” (My. 353)

It is well known among Christian Scientists that the transition in the Movement after Mrs. Eddy’s passing was not smooth. In fact, it was turbulent and full of controversy. The Great Litigation concerning the Publishing Society, the “Report of the Committee for the General Welfare”, the Paul Revere letters of the late 1940s and early 1950s, the continuing Kerry letters, the litigation against the Mother Church to overturn the questionable copyright extension on Science and Health, the legal action by the Mother Church to destroy the independent Christian Science church in Plainfield, New Jersey, all point to unresolved, fundamental questions in the Christian Science Movement.

The last ten or fifteen years have been turbulent ones for the Monitor. Circulation has remained low, the Mother Church began subsidizing the paper (a thing which Erwin Canham said was unthinkable), a parade of format changes came and went, and the membership of the trustees of the Publishing Society turned over with alarming frequency. Expensive promotional kits were mailed to church members and reorganized support groups were formed in branches throughout the land. New editors and staff were brought in, and a teleconference for church members figured Monitor correspondents in a prominent role. Yet the more things change, the more they stay the same. Inspite of it all, the efforts to re-energize the newspaper have had mixed results at best.

Under Mrs. Eddy’s steady direction, there was never any question about the Monitor’s fulfilment of its purpose. However, the Monitor, like every other aspect of the Movement, changed course after Mrs. Eddy was no longer personally present to direct it.

Hard questions emerge. Why has there been a decline in the newspaper? Why have all the human footsteps and metaphysical support failed to yield a scientific result?

What follows is an overview of events concerning the Monitor since the beginning.

One name which figures prominently in the early years of the Monitor is Frederick Dixon of England. He was brought to the Monitor staff by Mrs. Eddy on December 11, 1908. By April of the next year, she requested that he return to England. No public reason was given for this. Mrs. Eddy has written a letter to Mr. Dixon on April 11, 1909, explaining why she wanted him to return to his native land. She spoke of the loss of his “presence and pen” in his native England and the need to defend that nation from the influx of animal magnetism “pouring into her borders.” However, this letter was never delivered to Mr. Dixon. Across the top of the letter in a different handwriting are the words, “ordered withheld Apl 11/09.” It is not clear if this was at Mrs. Eddy’s own direction or someone else’s. It is clear from this letter that Mrs. Eddy had confidence in Mr. Dixon and was giving him a more momentous assignment.

By 1914 Mr. Dixon was back in Boston as editor of the Monitor. Archibald McLellan and Alexander Dobbs, editor and managing editor respectively, strongly protested Mr. Dixon’s appointment though their reasons for this are not clear. Mr. Dixon remained editor of the Monitor from 1914 until the end of the Great Litigation in 1921. Unlike the editors of the other periodicals, he did not resign his post when urged to do so by the Board of Directors. When the Massachusetts Supreme Court failed to rule decisively in the matter, he joined the other officers and employees of the Publishing Society and resigned. The Publishing Society was bankrupt after Mother Church members had cancelled subscriptions at the urging of the Board of Directors, four of whose members were fined $50. each for disobeying a court order against such urgings.

According to Erwin Canham, Mr. Dixon was acquainted with important world leaders. “He was on intimate terms with Colonel Edward M. House, President Wilson’s confidential assistant. Mr. Dixon appears in Colonel House’s papers and letters as a kind of unofficial intermediary between the British and American governments,” (Canham, pp 139, 140) Colonel House was also the author of a novel, Philip Dru: Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow, 1920-1935, which was published in 1912. In the story, the hero speaks of establishing in the United States “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.” (p. 45) This book has repeated references to God, Christ, spiritual leavening, etc., but the final goal is socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx. This must have been the original version of liberation theology which is now plaguing other religions in a more modern form. In addition, Colonel House was the unseen kingmaker in presidential politics. Every Democratic candidate for the presidency from Wilson to Roosevelt had to receive his personal blessing. Colonel House was also revealed to be the “father of the Council on Foreign Relations” (CFR) in a rare article which appeared in Harpers magazine in July, 1958.

The following are excerpts from Tragedy and Hope — A History of the World in our Time by Dr. Carroll Quigley, past professor at Harvard and Princeton Universities and also the Foreign Service School at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The reader will note several references to the Monitor and other individuals with close associations to Christian Science.

“There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied or even federated with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known …

“The Round Table Groups were semi-secret discussion and lobbying groups organized by Lionel Curtis, Phillip H. Kerr (Lord Lothian), and (Sir) William S. Marris in 1908 – 1911. This was done on behalf of Lord Milner, the dominant Trustee of the Rhodes Trust in the two decades 1905 – 1925. The original purpose of these groups was to seek to federate the English-speaking world along lines laid down by Cecil Rhodes (1853 – 1902) and William T. Stead (1849 – 1912), and the money from the organizational work came originally from the Rhodes Trust. By 1915 Round Table groups existed in seven countries, including England, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and a rather loosely organized group in the United States (George Louis Beer, Walter Lippmann, Frank D. Greene, Erwin D. Canham of the Christian Science Monitor, and others). The attitudes of the various groups were coordinated by frequent visits and discussions and by a well informed and totally anonymous quarterly magazine, The Round Table, whose first issue, largely written by Phillip Kerr, appeared in November 1910.

“At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system had to be greatly extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group. This front organization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.

“The American Branch of this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript). In fact, the editor of the Christian Science Monitor was the chief American correspondent (anonymously) of The Round Table, and Lord Lothian, the original editor of The Round Table and later secretary of the Rhodes Trust (1925 – 1939) and ambassador to Washington, was a frequent writer in the Monitor. It might be mentioned that the existence of this Wall Street, Anglo-American axis is quite obvious once it is pointed out. It is reflected in the fact that such Wall Street luminaries as John W. Davis, Lewis Douglas, Jock Whitney, and Douglas Dillon were appointed to be American ambassadors in London.” (Tragedy and Hope pp. 165, 950, 951, 952)

A quotation from Mrs. Eddy seems especially prophetic. “To my sense, the most imminent dangers confronting the coming century are: the robbing of people of life and liberty under warrant of the Scriptures; the claims of politics and of human power, industrial slavery, and insufficient freedom of honest competition; and ritual, creed, and trusts in place of the Golden Rule, ‘Whatever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.’” (My 266)

It should be noted that Lord Lothian was a longtime confidant of Lord and Lady Astor, both Christian Scientists, who held radical political views of their own. Erwin Canham and Joseph C. Harsch both received special attention when they were in England and were frequent guests of the Astors.

At this point, a remarkable editorial written by Frederick Dixon which appeared in the Monitor on June 19, 1920, should be closely examined. It shows his complete awareness of the history of organized, hidden, political conspiracies, and his extreme distaste for them. It is doubtful that an article like this has ever appeared anywhere else in the mainstream American press. It should be noted that Mr. Dixon discounts the belief that there is a Jewish conspiracy. Of the thirteen names mentioned in the article, not one is Jewish. The notion of a Jewish plot is a red herring used by the real conspirators to embroil their opponents in so much controversy that they are effectively neutralized. (See the “Jewish Peril”)

The names John Hughes, Joseph C. Harsch, Roscoe Drummond have all appeared on the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) of which Colonel House, as already noted, was the father. Erwin Canham’s name was not among them because the CFR was a front for the more exclusive Round Table Group which he belonged to. Other prominent names on the CFR roster and also found in the pages of the Monitor include Charles W. Yost and Robert R. Bowie. Yost remained a CFR member until his death, and Bowie is still a high level CFR theoretician. There is more to be said about the CFR later.

In the 1930s and 1940s, the Monitor’s China correspondent was Gunther Stein who was later exposed as a Soviet spy by General MacArthur’s intelligence headquarters. In fact, he was called an “Indispensable and important member” of the now famous Sorge spy ring which reported to Joseph Stalin. It was a critical factor in the fall of China to the Communists. (McCarran Committee Hearings, Aug. 23, 1951, pp 635, and Aug. 8, 1951, p 383) Mr. Canham says in his book that the Monitor did not know this. (Canham p. 341-343). Another similar story emerged about another Monitor correspondent, Wilfred G. Burchett, who also was exposed as a Soviet agent. After his dismissal from the paper, he helped report the Korean war from the Communist side and even helped interrogate American prisoners of war. It should be remembered that the Round Table Groups have “no aversion to cooperating with the Communists… and frequently do.”

In 1973 it was revealed that Richard Lee Strout was the long time writer of the anonymous TRB column in the New Republic which, according to Tragedy and Hope (pp. 938, 939), was an integral part of the Council on Foreign Relations’ plans for propagandizing the American public, and it continues to be the highbrow advocate of socialism in the United States. It was Mr. Strout who recently (March 9, 1984) suggested that the U.S. Constitution be scrapped in favor of a parliamentary form of government.

It was Mr. Yost (CFR) whose opinion and commentary column included, “The prolongation of the life and death struggles in Cambodia and South Vietnam is not in the interests of Cambodian and Vietnamese peoples but only in the interests of the Lon Nol and Thieu governments and those associated with them.” (March 6, 1975) This quote was picked up by the Soviet Union’s Tass News Service and used for propaganda. Subsequently one-third of the population of Cambodia was exterminated once Lon Nol was out of the way, and in one prominent incident, 30,000 South Vietnamese were slaughtered on China Beach near Da Nang once Thieu was eliminated.

In an editorial of November 5, 1974, the following was blandly printed: “The time has long since passed when Washington could justify an antagonistic stand on Cuba… Moreover, the government of Prime Minister Fidel Castro no longer exports its revolutionary aims as it once did.” It is hard to believe that statements such as these are honest errors.

The following paragraphs show how the policies of the CFR find their way into the columns of the Monitor.

In 1944, in the midst of the World War, the CFR prepared the following report, “…The Sovereignty fetish is still so strong in the public mind, that there would appear to be little chance of winning popular assent to American membership in anything approaching a super-state organization.”

In 1959, the CFR put out the following: “The U.S. must strive to (A) Build a new international order (which) must be responsive to world aspirations for peace, (and) for social and economic change… To accomplish this the U.S. must: (1) Search for an international order in which the freedom of nations is recognized as interdependent and in which many policies are jointly undertaken by free-world states with differing political, economic and social systems, including states labeling themselves as ‘socialist’” i.e. Communist.

In the House of Representatives on April 28, 1972, Congressman John R. Rarick declared: “The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below to justify the high-level decisions for converting the United States from a sovereign, constitutional Republic into a servile member-state of a one-world dictatorship.” (Congressional Record)

On December 31, 1974, a Monitor editorial said: “Can mankind put together a new order in the world in the wake of the bewildering changes that have swept the globe this past year?… The world has no choice but to live together and we, its citizens, will have to change our habits, our attitudes and perhaps our institutions.”

Colonel House once wrote: “Do your work gently and with moderation, so that some at least may listen. If we would convince and convert, we must veil our thoughts and curb our enthusiasm, so that those we would influence will think us reasonable.” (The Intimate Papers of Colonel House by Charles Seymour, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1926)

When Daniel Ellsberg stole the Pentagon Papers, the Monitor followed the lead of the New York Times and the Washington Post and published extensive selections from these classified documents. Court injunctions followed in the wake of the Times’ and Post’s publications of the papers, but the Monitor went ahead anyway.

Article VIII, Section 26 of the Church Manual by Mary Baker Eddy states: “A member of this Church shall not publish, nor cause to be published, an article that is uncharitable or impertinent towards religion, medicine, the courts, or the laws of our land.”

The Pentagon Papers included dated transcripts of secret, coded messages which compromised the diplomatic code of the United States government and was a welcome gift for the Soviet Union. Daniel Ellsberg, by the way, is a member in good standing of the CFR.

A book which exposes the Trilateral Commission (Trilaterals over Washington by Antony C. Sutton and Patrick M. Wood) names the Monitor as the “unofficial Trilateral mouthpiece.” (page 176) The Trilateral Commission is dedicated to consolidating corporate and banking power in the world into “competent” hands, i.e. David Rockefeller and friends. One might view the CFR as the political arm and the Trilateral Commission as the economic arm of the same conspiracy. David Rockefeller figures prominently in both. David Rockefeller has even appeared in the opinion and commentary pages of the Monitor. An interesting editorial defending the Trilateral Commission appeared in the Monitor during the 1980 presidential primaries when it briefly became an issue in the campaign.

Joseph C. Harsch wrote on December 31, 1974 in the Monitor regarding Nelson Rockefeller’s selection as vice president as follows: “Americans of goodwill, whatever their individual political inclination, can and should come together at this season in gratitude that there are in their midst men of education, wealth, and prominence who regard public service as a privilege… It is a good and desirable thing that persons with the background of the Rockefellers and Kennedys regard public office as a fit channel for their ambition.”

Mrs. Eddy wrote: “I believe strictly in the Monroe doctrine, in our Constitution, and the laws of God.” (My. 282) Yet the Monitor has run editorials and commentaries which advocate scrapping the Constitution, eliminating private ownership of firearms which is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to discourage would-be domestic tyrants, and has effectively called the Monroe doctrine obsolete by urging normalization of relations with Soviet-backed dictatorships in Cuba and Nicaragua and by expressing reservations over the liberation of Grenada.

Who is controlling The Christian Science Monitor? This is a question which every Christian Scientist should earnestly consider. Mrs. Eddy’s views and purposes have been swept aside by an alien philosophy dedicated to secret influence, lust for political power, industrial and economic monopoly, and the subjugation of all peoples to depraved human will.

Mrs. Eddy asks, “Who is telling mankind of the foe in ambush?” (S&H 571: 10, 11) One sadly must answer that it is not The Christian Science Monitor. She goes on to say, “Escape from evil, and designate those as unfaithful stewards who have seen the danger and yet have given no warning.”

It is high time that Christian Scientists awake and do their duty to God, to their Leader, and to mankind. (See Man. 42:4-10)

Mrs. Eddy And Her Place

by

The Revelation of Christian Science cannot be separated from its Revelator, Mary Baker Eddy. In her own writings and in the memoirs of her students, it is made clear that we understand this Science in proportion as we gain a true sense of its Founder. Any effort to discredit her draws a heavy veil over the discovery.

Over the years, there has been subtle questioning of Mrs. Eddy’s veracity and competence. What follows are examples which should be given serious thought.

On page 19 of the Church Manual, appears a footnote added after 1910 contradicting Mrs. Eddy’s statement that her Church charter was obtained in June 1879. Her tenets were the spiritual charter obtained in June while the author of the footnote could only conceive of the human, legal charter of August. The footnote says that Mrs. Eddy was mistaken.

The addition of the words “and Branch Churches” to the headings on pages 120 and 127 after Mrs. Eddy left us suggest that she must have lacked organizational skill and, therefore, was mistaken. The footnote on page 127, which did not appear in Mrs. Eddy’s day, suggests lack of thoroughness by Mrs. Eddy.

The “Editor’s Note” on page 130 added in 1971 implies that Mrs. Eddy failed to eliminate an unnecessary restriction on the directors and had to be corrected.

Mrs. Eddy’s statement on page xii of Science and Health that she taught “over 4000 students” is contradicted in the Peel biography where he says it was more like 1000 students, if even that many.

The removal of Mrs. Eddy’s name and the office of Pastor Emeritus from the list of church officers on page 21 and its subsequent reinstatement has been discussed elsewhere, but the implication is clear.

The annulling of sections of by-laws in the Manual requiring Mrs. Eddy’s signature, consent, or approval was done, we are told, because Mrs. Eddy made a “loving mistake”.

The inclusion of “Ways that are Vain” on page 210, “Take Notice” on pages 242 and 358, “A Letter by Mrs. Eddy” on page 360, and everything appearing from line 19 on page 364 to the end of the book were not intended to be in The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany. Mrs. Eddy selected the items and articles she wanted and put them in a sealed packet. None of the above was included by her. “Ways that are Vain” was originally published in the May 1887 Journal, ten years before Miscellaneous Writings was even published. It clearly has no place in this later volume. One’s conclusion must be that if it was right to include these articles in Miscellany, it was wrong of Mrs. Eddy to exclude them.

Mrs. Eddy’s photograph was removed from the Science and Health appearing in 1911. We have proof that she wrote her signature as late as November 28, 1910, but the archives cannot produce any letter signed by her ordering her picture removed from the textbook. She was extremely particular about Science and Health and did not delegate authority to change it to anyone.

About ten years ago, a Mother Church representative toured reading rooms in the larger cities suggesting that Mrs. Eddy’s picture be replaced with a photograph of the Church Center. This was mentioned along with other suggested “improvements”.

The Wilbur, Powell, and Tomlinson biographies of Mrs. Eddy have all been discontinued in the past few years, and almost all copies of the Adam Dickey memoirs were confiscated in 1927. Today, we are essentially left with the Peel books which are, for the most part, an academic dissection of her life.

The construction in the 1970s of the portico on The Extension (Mrs. Eddy’s demonstration) suggested that the Church was incomplete and unfinished. It was tantamount to adding a line to someone else’s poem. Most photographs of the Church highlight the portico while Mrs. Eddy’s room at the apex of the triangle of land is almost out of sight.

The statements already discussed about mental murder and the “combination of sinners that was fast” are confirmed as genuine even by Robert Peel. But the directors suggest that her statement to Adam Dickey was made while she was suffering from “a physical claim” and Peel brushes off the latter statement as an indication of Mrs. Eddy’s flair for the dramatic. Both of these explanations imply that Mrs. Eddy was not consistently reliable. The fact that she had both of these statements committed to writing indicates thoughtful consideration of their messages and shows that they were not casual statements.

All the evidence shows that Mrs. Eddy was very careful of what she signed and that meticulous care was taken concerning everything she wrote, especially Science and Health and the Manual. That she made errors of statement or omission in her two most important works is inconceivable. As she said on page 3 of the Manual, “They were impelled by a power not one’s own…”

All of the above examples suggest the old belief that one cannot be both a discoverer of something and founder of a system promoting it. But Mrs. Eddy says, “When God called the author to proclaim His Gospel to this age, there came also the charge to plant and water His vineyard.” (S&H p xi)

There is the suggestion that she may have proclaimed His Gospel all right, but that the planting and watering of the vineyard was not done so well. Individually the above alterations and demeaning statements seem small, but taken together, they form a disturbing pattern which should be seriously considered by every Christian Scientist.

One must ask what is Mrs. Eddy’s place today in the Christian Science Movement? Has she been pushed out of her place as Pastor Emeritus? Is she acknowledged as Discoverer and Founder only in the sense of dutiful lip service?

We should remember that she was declared fully competent to manage her affairs as a result of the “Next Friends Suit” of 1907. As one of the participants said on the way out of Mrs. Eddy’s house, “That woman is smarter than a steel trap.” (Powell p. 207)

If such is the case, do these alterations, annullings, and condescending statements have any place in Christian Science?

As Mrs. Eddy stated in an earlier edition of Science and Health (1902 p. 68), “A true man respects the character of a woman; but a mouse will gnaw in the dark at a spotless garment.”

Christian Science and the Branch

by

The Christian Church established by the followers of Jesus lasted, in its pure form, for about 300 years. The mass conversions to Christianity decreed by Roman Emperor Constantine probably did as much to drown the spiritual church as the organization of bishops and their attending hierarchies. The simple teachings of Jesus became frozen in ritual and mysticism, and, to a great degree, it has come down to the present century in that form. To be sure there were brilliant bursts of light in the Reformation and the unfettered freedom to worship in the New World, but the spiritual significance and the accompanying power of the Word remained more or less hidden until the last half of the Nineteenth Century when Mary Baker Eddy discovered the Science of the Christ in 1866.

Through great trials she labored to establish this Science practiced by Jesus and the infant Church, and to all accounts, friendly and hostile, she established an astounding Movement which many, including Mark Twain, predicted would sweep the civilized world.

All such talk has ceased since her passing in 1910, and we have arrived at a situation which would have confounded her friends and enemies alike. Most people today have not even heard of Christian Science, and many of those who have regard it with hostility or derision. It is clear that mass conversions will not be one of our problems for the foreseeable future. An entrenched hierarchy is, however, a continuing problem.

By now many Christian Scientists are aware of the clauses in Mrs. Eddy’s Church Manual which were intended to prevent the Boston Board of Directors from governing the entire Movement once her consent, approval, or signature could no longer be obtained. The Directors’ decision to ignore these requirements and to proceed with their regulation of the Christian Science Movement has been discussed elsewhere.

Likewise, the Great Litigation from 1919 to 1921, which resulted in the complete subjugation of the Publishing Society to the Board of Directors even though the 1898 Deed of Trust signed by Mrs. Eddy stated that the trustees of the Publishing Society were to manage it “upon their own responsibility”, has been treated in detail in other writings.

However, some of the consequences of the 1910 Directors’ circumventing of Mrs. Eddy’s design have not been widely considered. The centralization of power and authority has resulted not only in damage by well-meaning Scientists, but has also, perhaps, enabled hostile elements to infiltrate the headquarters and thereby damage the Movement which would have been almost impossible to do in the decentralized Movement which Mrs. Eddy intended.

For example, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union targeted the Boston headquarters for infiltration in the Manual of Instructions of Psychopolitical Warfare published in the early 1930s for use by Communist operatives. In Chapter XIV entitled “The Smashing of Religious Groups” the following appears: “In the field of pure healing the Church of Christ Science of Boston, Massachusetts excels in commanding the public favor and operates many sanitariums. All must be swept aside. They must be ridiculed and defamed and every cure they advertise must be asserted as a hoax… You must recruit every agency of the nation marked for slaughter into a foaming hatred of religious healing. You must suborn district attorneys and judges into an intense belief as fervent as an ancient faith in God that Christian Science or any other religious practice which might devote itself to mental healing is vicious, bad, insanity-causing, publicly hated and intolerable… We must be like the vine upon the tree. We use the tree to climb and then, strangling it, grow into power on the nourishment of its flesh.” So much for détente!

To what extent the Communists have succeeded in their quest would be difficult to determine without an actual investigation. But the purpose of reproducing these poisonous thoughts is to alert the reader and also to suggest a lesson. We should all resolve to be more watchful in handling such aggressive designs, but we should also consider that such infiltration could not be done in a decentralized Christian Science Movement while a centralized organization is an alluring target. If one branch church were somehow infiltrated, it would wither and vanish and serve as an object lesson to all other branches. To meet a broadbased attack, Mrs. Eddy provides in the Church Manual for the churches in any state to appoint a committee on publication answerable to them as well as to hold conferences to confer on a state statute or “to confer harmoniously on individual unity and action of the churches in said State.” (Man 7:15-20) Mrs. Eddy, guided by the one Mind, wisely provided for any contingency even in a decentralized Movement which could successfully meet even the wicked designs of Soviet-style Communism.

It is interesting to note in the report of the annual meeting of the Mother Church for 1985, that all the substantive action planned at Boston was centered in the report of the Publishing Society while all the reports from other departments were mainly metaphysical calls for alertness and steadfastness which, of course, are very important. But these are functions which should be addressed in every branch church all the time, not just once a year at annual meeting.

The simple point is that the areas of real activity in the Christian Science Movement are in the branches and the Publishing Society. All the other activities done in Boston are redundant or even detrimental if they give branches the false feeling that someone else is doing their work for them.

Just as the Department of Transportation in Washington cannot know about, or effectively deal with, potholes in your city streets, the Mother Church cannot know and effectively deal with the challenges and opportunities which arise in branch churches. Conversely, branch churches which look to Boston to offer guidance and solve problems on the local level become paralyzed and rigid, unimaginative and atrophied, and utterly fail to adapt to needs or reach out for opportunities which arise. In fact this failure of local initiative leads to isolation from the community, fear of the community, and finally results in near empty churches with the few survivors going through the motions twice a week and wondering to themselves what they are accomplishing and how much longer they can keep the doors open. All thoughts of reaching out are met with the insecurity which a child feels with his first bicycle. You are here but the only one who can help you learn how to ride is in Boston!

Much has been said and written about the Christian Science Board of Directors, but perhaps a few additional thoughts are in order. It took only three of the five directors to annul the estoppel clauses in the Manual after Mrs. Eddy’s passing. By now, 75 years later, the current members had nothing to with that action nor do they have any personal memory of it. In fact, since the passing of George Wendell Adams in the 1950s, no board has had a member who had personal knowledge of those events. So the current board has, in every sense, inherited what was done more than three-quarters of a century ago. It is hard to evaluate a storm if one is sitting in the eye of that storm, but someone sitting on its fringes can clearly see and accurately describe the overall situation. The current directors bear a heavy burden and responsibility. It would be difficult for them to break fixed traditions and policies. There would doubtless be a wave of despair in many quarters of the field if they were to disband the Mother Church organization, set the Publishing Society free, dismiss one of their own members, and operate solely within the provisions of the Deed of Trust signed, sealed, and delivered by Mary Baker Eddy in 1892.

For that reason alone it might be wiser for only those alert branches which are really ready to forge ahead to do so at this time. Anyone who has visited the independent church in Plainfield, New Jersey, can tell you of their success, the genuine, overflowing love, and the influx of young people, many of whom are new in Christian Science. On the Wednesday evening that this writer visited the Plainfield church, there were about 100 people in attendance and forty-one testimonies. All of this in a town of 46,500 people. Warmth, kindness, enthusiasm, and good humor abounded; and one could not help but think that this is what Mrs. Eddy intended.

But just as the child with his new bicycle hesitates to trust his own abilities, so many branches may need to see and be encouraged by the success of churches and societies which confidently try their wheels and prove to all lookers-on that they have made it. Then the timidity will disappear, and for the first time since 1910, the grand possibilities of Christian Science could be opened to a waiting world.

This is a process which must begin if Christian Science is to survive in this Age. Christian Scientists everywhere must fervently seek divine guidance and move forward when the time is right. The time to save the Cause of Christian Science is now. Branches which are ready must declare and affirm their independence which is clearly stated in the Church Manual: “In Christian Science each branch church shall be distinctly democratic in its government, and no individual, and no other church shall interfere with its affairs.” (Man. 74:5-9) “The Mother Church of Christ, Scientist, shall assume no general official control of other churches, and it shall be controlled by none other.” (Man. 70:10-13)

Thought And Action

by

This article and — the one that follows it (Belief and Understanding) — were originally published by Andrew Hartsook, the editor of The Banner, in 1986. These, along with four others were sent to the Christian Science field. They were all so well received that they led to the publication of The Banner newsletter which began in 1987.

Mr. Hartsook’s newsletter, The Banner, which gives the latest developments regarding the Church headquarters in Boston and in the Field. It is published four times a year. For a free copy, write Andrew Hartsook, 2040 Hazel Avenue, Zanesville, Ohio 43701

Christian Science today is a Science without inquiries. It has become static and moribund from seeming lack of interest. Although it answers the most fundamental questions ever asked from remotest antiquity, it receives little mention or earnest consideration today. Why has the once robust inquiry faded into silence?

When Mrs. Eddy was personally present to lead the Christian Science Movement, she was in a unique position as Discoverer and Founder to confirm or summarily dismiss the statements of students and other inquirers into this Science. She was the unquestioned authority on all issues, and sincere students accepted this without contradiction. After Mrs. Eddy’s passing, it would have been natural for free inquiry, free writing, and free rebuttal to flourish. All issues would be resolved by scientific proof or lack thereof rather than authoritative statements from the Leader. While this process would take longer than Mrs. Eddy’s quick, definitive “piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, (and) the thoughts and intents of the heart,” (Heb. 4:12) it would take place because Christian Science is a science — the ultimate science — and, therefore, it is subject to scientific proof and demonstration.

Examples of fascinating trends and discourses would include names like John W. Doorly, Alice Orgain, and Herbert W. Eustace. Whether correct or incorrect in their writing is not the issue. Rather these writers provoked thought, discussion, and investigation which would inevitably disclose the rightness or wrongness of what they wrote. This is the time-honored, scientific process which results in clearer views and deeper understanding when all is said and done.

This, however, did not happen after Mrs. Eddy’s passing. The Christian Science Board of Directors tried to fill her unique position and presumed to endorse or condemn, as they saw fit, the lively discourse and trends of inquiry resulting from the widespread study of Christian Science.

Through reprimand and excommunication, they silenced anyone who sought to write independent of their prior approval and blessing. The greatest thinkers were either expelled from the Movement or fell silent to avoid the displeasure of the Directors.

In time, the scientific nature of Christian Science was subdued and the Movement assumed the static posture of a doctrinal religion, but without the traditional spectacles and trappings which would maintain crowd appeal. As a result, interest declined to such an extent that Christian Science is now in danger of disappearing altogether from the human scene. At a time when the human mind is in a fit frame of mind to accept the radical Truth and is diligently searching for it in all the wrong places, this decline in the Christian Science Movement is the deepest of tragedies.

A science is not a doctrine which can be tampered with, revised, or superseded. It is unchanging law which remains law no matter what mistaken notions humans may have, whether honest or self-serving. Christian Science was discovered, not contrived or formulated. Mrs. Eddy wrote down in human terms what this Science is. In the process of so doing, others sought to appropriate the discovery for themselves and to misrepresent and misstate it for their own selfish gain. But Mrs. Eddy successfully presented Science and Health to the world and has long since been acknowledged legally as its author.

There are many Christian Scientists today who regard Science as a fragile doctrine rather than as a demonstrable Science. They fear that just anyone talking or writing without the review of some authority will adulterate Christian Science and cause its destruction. They view Christian Scientists as naive children who cannot think critically, who are easily led astray, and who must be protected from the influence of “unauthorized” writings. Christian Scientists and Christian Science, itself, have suffered from this policy and attitude. The periodicals have become bland rehashes upon rehashes. There is a dismal pall over the articles resulting from this policy of sanitizing all reading matter.

The point and counterpoint which stimulate thought and exercise the calculus and numerals of infinity in the minds of students is lacking. The insights which send the thinker back to the textbook with renewed inspiration are absent.

One can only imagine the pleasant challenge the editors of the periodicals would have analyzing, highlighting, or even rebutting the multitude of ideas which would cross their desks. Journal and Sentinel articles and editorials would overflow with active thoughts instead of rehearsing in stagnant, predetermined format, the well-meaning, but uninspired, recital of the letter of Science. The possibilities of Christian Science unfettered by unnatural restrictions and proscriptions point to hope, development, and fruition in this Science.

How many Christian Scientists today immediately think when presented with an article, “Is it authorized?” “Has it been reviewed and approved by the Directors?” “Does the C.O.P. know about this?” Many people in this situation react with fear, panic, and consternation.

Christian Scientists must wake up to see that this is not thinking, it is a mesmeric reaction, an educated belief. Either Christian Scientists are thinkers, (S&H vii:13) able to evaluate and understand, being a law unto themselves, (S&H 442:30) or they are imbeciles waiting to be told what to think, what to do, what to read, what to say.

Mrs. Eddy wrote in the July, 1891 Journal, “I consider my students as capable, individually, of selecting their own reading matter and circulating it as a committee would be which is chosen for this purpose.” This was part of a last minute notice added to the Journal by Mrs. Eddy to stop an effort to “authorize” literature in her day. This notice was removed by the directors in the bound volumes offered to reading rooms. It is preserved in an original Journal in the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.

The evidence is accumulating on every side that Christian Science will disappear in the next few years if it is not liberated from the dead hand of ecclesiasticism. Christian Scientists must wake up or the labor of centuries; the work of patriarchs, prophets, and apostles; the missions of Christ Jesus and Mary Baker Eddy will be buried in the rubble of time.

The responsibility for this is in the hands of every Christian Scientist. They and the world will pay dearly if they fail to return Christian Science to the realm of real thought and real action.

The Vision And The Law

by

Roscoe Drummond once said that the state of the world depends upon the state of the Christian Science Movement, not the other way around. In the book of Proverbs, we find a related thought, “Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” (Prov. 29:18).

Christian Scientists understand the discovery made by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866 to be the vision of the Modern Age. Truly one may say that without this vision of the new-old Science civilization, itself, would perish. Science represents the vanguard of thought pushing back the frontiers of mortal mind, and in its wake humanity follows until, one by one, each of its members seeks the source of that which has benefited him.

This represents the Christian Scientists’ view of human progress out of itself and into spiritual identity. Even secular historians recognize that there is a spark which accompanies a rising civilization and cooling embers which point to a declining one.

Today an observer must look at the world since Mrs. Eddy’s passing in 1910 and wonder where the vision went. On every side we see the advance of atheistic materialism under the name of communism. It has already engulfed most of Asia and Eastern Europe and has made inroads into Africa and even the Western Hemisphere. It has become a tide which is approaching our own southern border. Its progress has become a relentless surge sweeping through admittedly stagnant countries which formerly caught their light and inspiration from the West which has now gone limp. All efforts to stem this tide have been strangely confused and ineffectual. Changes in national leadership which promise decisive action result only in more of the same. Somehow good is paralyzed and evil runs rampant.

In Western society the breaking up of the ancient states of Europe in the First World War was followed by the now famous “lost generation”, the degeneration of music into aimless atonality and discord. Philosophy took refuge in existentialism, and later everyone was trying to get in touch with his feelings.

The great Depression of the 1930s was mental as well as economic, and its solution was sought in charismatic leaders — Hitler, Mussolini, Roosevelt — who excited the passions and promised a way out.

Finally, today, there is a renewed spiritual hunger among people evidenced by the growth of fundamentalism worldwide. In the bewildering maze of human beliefs, people are striving to find the simplicity of Truth. Yet Christian Science is all but passed over in this desperate search for God. Why?

The second half of the Bible proverb on vision already quoted above seems to hold the key to what has happened since 1910, “…but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” To Christian Scientists the Church Manual by Mary Baker Eddy is the law which governs the Christian Science Movement. It insures that the vision will not be infringed, distorted, or hampered by the well-meaning or malicious zeal of humans. Obedience to the by-laws should protect this Science which Mrs. Eddy labored to present to the world, but this seemingly has not been the case.

In the author’s own early experience in Christian Science, he can remember stumbling over phrases in the Manual such as, “…subject to the approval of the Pastor Emeritus”, “…the consent of the Pastor Emeritus given in her own handwriting”, “…after the candidate is approved by the Pastor Emeritus.” (Man. pp. 25, 26) The Manual and the continuing Boston organization were clearly in direct conflict with each other. It was then that the pamphlet, “Permanency of the Mother Church and Its Manual” was given to the author to explain away these troublesome contradictions, and for a time the issue was put aside. But then books and articles by Alice Orgain, Myrtle Stewart, and Helen Wright reopened the question with irrefutable evidence that Mrs. Eddy knew perfectly well and intended that compliance with all the by-laws in the Manual would dissolve the Mother Church organization, but not the Christian Science Movement or the Publishing Society. Churches would continue to function as before, societies would continue to form, each state would have its own committee on publication answerable to the churches therein, and individual Christian Scientists would be compelled to think, grow, and work.

At the same time, it also seems clear that Mrs. Eddy recognized that her followers were not ready to take this step just as the Israelites rejected their God and said, “Nay, but set a king over us.” (I Sam. 10:19) Mrs. Eddy wrote, “When God speaks to you through one of His little ones, and you obey the mandate but retain a desire to follow your own inclinations, that is not obedience. I sometimes advise students not to do certain things which I know it were best not to do, and they comply with my counsel: but watching them, I discern that this obedience is contrary to their inclination. Then I sometimes withdraw that advice and say: ‘You may do it if you desire.’ But I say this not because it is the best thing to do, but because the student is not willing – therefore, not ready — to obey.” (’00 8: 27-7)

May not this be why Mrs. Eddy constructed her Church Manual as she did? After her passing, the Board of Directors, rather than obey the by-laws as written, obtained legal opinions saying the Boston organization could continue even if the Manual by-laws could not be complied with, namely the obtaining of Mrs. Eddy’s consent, approval, or signature. They published these opinions in their “Permanency of the Mother Church and Its Manual”, and the field has accepted this. On the subject of lawyers’ opinions, Mrs. Eddy wrote, “Lawyers may know too much of human law to have a clear perception of divine justice,…” (My.149:18, 19)

A careful reading of the Manual reveals that Mrs. Eddy did provide for the continuity of her Movement when all by-laws are complied with, even though they made the Mother Church organization inoperative. These fingerposts are there to guide everyone who is willing and ready to obey, but they are invisible to those who blindly follow the traditions of the elders (the Board) rather than their Leader.

Two statements made by Mrs. Eddy have always retained a startling impact. On August 25, 1908, she instructed Adam Dickey to write a history which would include, “that I was mentally murdered.” On November 28, 1910, she dictated and signed, “It took a combination of sinners that was fast to harm me.”

It is now known that the Directors tried many times to get Mrs. Edy to make a provision in the Manual for them to assume power after her passing. This she steadfastly refused to do on more than one occasion. However, it now appears that the Directors continued to anticipate and prepare for her death and had contingency plans ready and waiting to seize power once she was out of the picture. Might not it be said that they had buried Mrs. Eddy already and were just biding their time? Would not this, in some sense, constitute mental murder however unintentional it might have been?

It now appears that the Directors had already altered the Manual’s printing plates without gaining Mrs. Eddy’s consent even though they did not actually print anything with them just yet. On these plates they removed her name and the office of Pastor Emeritus from the list of Church Officers on page 21 and added the words “and Branch Churches” to the headings on pages 120 and 127. They printed and issued these changes in a new Manual in January 1911 and called it the 89th Edition. They have never offered one shred of proof that Mrs. Eddy initiated and approved these changes with her signature. In their haste and stealth they forgot to alter the wording of these changes in the Table of Contents on page 14 until the year 1916. Mrs. Eddy’s name was restored to the list of Church Officers in 1924 after considerable protest from the field, but the other changes apparently escaped much notice. In another bold move in 1971, the Directors, themselves, approached the legislature of Massachusetts to change section one, Chapter 39 of the Public Statutes to read “resident” in place of “citizen” in the footnote on page 130 of the Manual. Today they say that the requirement that a Director be a citizen was never Mrs. Eddy’s “limitation”. But she could have approached the legislature, herself, if she thought it were important to have this change, and this she did not do.

Might not these changes by people who were her own students constitute the “combination of sinners that was fast” which harmed her and therefore her revelation?

Isn’t this a clear case of disobedience to the law (the Manual) and doesn’t it explain the waning of the vision (Christian Science) which the author of the Bible proverb has linked to the law? Doesn’t the loss of either one of these indicate the impending loss of the other? Isn’t it probable that the deteriorating state of the world is the result of the waning of Christian Science, the world’s highest vision?

These are questions of great import to all Christian Scientists. They are questions which require immediate answers if Christian Scientists and our civilization are to continue.

It is clear that thinking Christian Scientists must act soon to restore obedience to the Church Manual. Because it was Mrs. Eddy’s clear intent that the branches should continue, it is interesting to note a verse from Isaiah, “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots,” (Isa. 11:1) It is noteworthy that the branch grows directly out of the roots rather than from a stem or trunk. It seems clear from this that the branch is not an adjunct of the Boston organization but is meant to grow and flourish in its own soil. It should not control or be controlled by any other branch or organization. It should grow and adapt to the needs of the area in which it is rooted, all within the wise provisions of the Church Manual.

It is clear by now that the Boston Board of Directors will not see this light any time soon. Therefore it is incumbent upon alert Christian Scientists to make these changes at the local level so that each branch can work freely within the oneness of Mind, Love, embracing the community and a desperate world. Now is the time to declare independence from a union which was never intended to continue once Mrs. Eddy’s direct supervision of the Mother Church ended in 1910. The Manual must be actively, widely, understandingly obeyed. Christian Scientists must leave the 75 year cradle of infancy and become real and consecrated warriors — fearless, free, mature Scientists intelligently going forth to do battle with sin, disease, and death.

Belief and Understanding

by

Who owns Christian Science? Most readers would react with surprise or disbelief at such a question. But it is one which should be considered no matter what one’s initial reaction to it might be.

If one views Christian Science as primarily a religion, one might well conclude that constituted church authorities could control all the outlets of its teachings and just who may take part in its activity and propagation. In such circumstances, people in authority could give or take away according to their best judgment in any situation.

If, however, one views Christian Science as a science, or rather the primal Science, then it is clear that only those who study and gain a working understanding and demonstration can have any claim to it, no matter who might hold a position in a temporal organization.

If the law of gravity were the possession of the Isaac Newton Society with excusive legal rights to the name and sole power to designate authorized writings and qualified scientists, one can imagine how difficult it would be to gain permission to utilize gravity or its related effects. The paperwork, the interviews, and the backlog would put a severe strain on all human activity. Fortunate for everyone, no science is subject to such constraints, not even Christian Science.

The problem arises, however, because Christian Science is not readily observable as law in the human realm except through its effects, i.e. healing. It cannot be learned through the material human senses, and, for this reason, it has been falsely categorized as just another belief system such as the philosophy of Hegel or Goethe. It is even considered as such by many Christian Scientists, albeit unconsciously. It is this unconscious regarding of Christian Science as a belief that Mrs. Eddy sharply condemns in her article “Principle and Practice” which first appeared in the Christian Science Sentinel of September 1, 1917.

The current battles raging over Christian Science today center on this misapprehension. The lawsuits over the health care of children all assume that Christian Science is the practice of a strange belief testing the limits of religious tolerance.

The lawsuit by the Christian Science Board of Directors in Boston against the independent Christian Science church in Plainfield, New Jersey, assumes that the words “Christian Science” are the Directors’ personal and exclusive property which might not be used without their permission.

The continuing efforts by the same Directors to hold on to the expired copyright of Science and Health as well as Mrs. Eddy’s other writings indicate their belief that this Science can be possessed and consequently denied to those who do not receive their personal blessing.

Mrs. Eddy wrote, “Christian Science is not copyrighted; nor would protection by copyright be requisite, if mortals obeyed God’s law of manright.” (Ret. 76:2-4) In the early days when this Science was being introduced to human thought, there were many attempts to steal it and adulterate it, and, therefore, copyright laws were essential to protect the book in order to prevent the Revelation from being separated from the Revelator. Once the authorship of Science and Health was established and the Christian Science Movement was well underway, Mrs. Eddy intended for Science and Health eventually to enter the public domain. The last edition of her textbook which she copyrighted was the 1906 edition, not her 1910 edition. She made several hundred changes in her textbook after 1906, but these were not copyrighted. Two significant changes after 1906 included the change in the number of synonyms for God from eight to seven and her statement on page 442 about malpractice. If the copyright had been permitted to expire in accordance with the laws of the United States as Mrs. Eddy intended, there would doubtless be Penguin and Bantam editions of Science and Health in bookstores all over the world right now. Those who deliberately misrepresent the textbook by quoting it out of context have been doing so all along with the copyright in place. A check of commercial bookstores reveals the sad absence of the book Mrs. Eddy labored to present to the world. It remains all but inaccessible at the time of greatest need. Those who adamantly maintain their control believe that they are preserving Christian Science, but the disastrous decline in the Movement should speak loudly to any intelligent observer.

The responsibility for correcting this confusion over Christian Science as a belief system or a Science lies squarely on the Board of Directors who doggedly hold on to their expired authority and on the individuals who comprise the Christian Science field. The latter group bears special responsibility for blindly following the traditions of the elders (the Board) and ignoring Mrs. Eddy’s Church Manual by-laws which precluded any centralized control once she was no longer personally present to correct and adjust the otherwise veering course of five student-directors. The burden is heavier still when one considers the efforts made over the last ten years to present the facts before church members, and their subsequent determination to follow the familiar path rather than the right one. If familiarity is the field’s test for determining what is right or wrong, one may well wonder on which basis they are practicing Christian Science, — belief or understanding. One cannot practice any science known to man by basing one’s thinking on the familiar at the expense of provable facts.

As the world picture darkens over the next few years, Christian Scientists may have to demonstrate God’s promise to Abraham not to destroy the city if ten good men remain within it. (Gen. 18:22-33)

If only a handful of clear thinkers remain who yield not to the darkness and hold to the Revelation and the law contained in the Manual, there may yet be a chance to hold forth Christian Science in this Age and with it what Mrs. Eddy calls “free moral agency.” (Mis. 113:7, 119:19)

The current situation demands the attention of all thinking Christian Scientists. They must maintain their position knowing that darkness cannot engulf light without the latter’s capitulation. In the words of Saint Paul, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (I Thes. 5:21)

Excerpt from the Spring 2018 edition of The Banner

by (Aside from the first paragraph, all quotations are from his book Christian Science After 1910)

A bulletin from Plainfield Christian Science Church, Independent dated January 18, 2018, stated: “Our web site had 63,272 users, who viewed over 424,000 pages. We have 2,756 videos on YouTube that were viewed 250,729 times, for a total of almost 3 million minutes watched! And we have a total of 815 YouTube subscribers, having about 503 subscribers during 2017. SoundCloud has 22,634 plays from over 50 different countries. The German version of our web site had 233 users, the Dutch version had 565 users, the French version had 10,130 users, and the Spanish version had 10,933 users.”

The Plainfield church came to prominence in 1975 when pupils of Arthur P. Wuth (member of the C.S. Board of Directors 1964-1975) and C. Earle Armstrong (New Jersey C.O.P.) tried to gain control of the branch church. The effort failed, but they began a campaign to have two Plainfield Journal-listed practitioners delisted. In fact, their names were taken out of the Journal. “When it was discovered that one of the individuals who initiated this campaign was on the local board of trustees, the other members of the board voted to remove him from his position in May of 1975. The expelled member, a pupil of Arthur P. Wuth, stated that the church ‘would be taken care of by Boston.’ In 1977, the C.S. Board of Directors demanded the Plainfield members pledge their loyalty to the board and remove their trustees. The members voted 67 to zero, to keep the current trustees.

“In a letter dated June 16, 1977, the Christian Science Board of Directors announced their decision to withdraw recognition of First Church of Christ, Scientist, Plainfield, New Jersey, and to remove their card from the Journal. No doubt remembering their success in shutting down Third Church in Akron, Ohio, in 1955, they also warned that they could no longer refer to themselves as a ‘Christian Science church.’ The Internal Revenue Service, the tax departments of the State of New Jersey, and the City of Plainfield were advised by The Mother Church legal department that they should consider withdrawing Plainfield’s tax exempt status.” (p. 141)

“The year 1980 was notable for court action initiated by The Mother Church on July 21st against First Church in Plainfield, New Jersey. When this branch did not wither away and disband after it was delisted in 1977, the Directors decided to prevent it from using the words ‘Christian Science’ to identify itself. The action was thought to have a secondary purpose of destroying the financial base of the church through costly legal expenses. On July 24th, over two hundred registered letters (return receipt requested) were sent out to Mother Church members whom Boston suspected might also be members of the Plainfield church. The letters demanded that these individuals decide by September 15th to which church they wished to belong. Many recipients of the notice were not Plainfield members at all and were disturbed by the implications of the letter. The court proceedings were to drag on for several years.” (p. 149)

“On March 1, 1985, the 1983 decision of the Superior Court in Elizabeth, New Jersey, forbidding the delisted Plainfield church from using the words ‘Christian Science’ was overturned in the Appellate Division. The Mother Church immediately appealed the reversal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Appellate Division stated that The Mother Church has ‘no right to a monopoly in the name of a religion.’ (p.159)

“On February 23, 1987, the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the right of the Plainfield church to use the words, ‘Christian Science’, by declaring that these words constituted a generic term and could not be copyrighted.” (p. 163)

“After losing in the New Jersey Supreme Court in its effort to stop the Plainfield church from using the term, ‘Christian Science’, The Mother Church lost again in a New Jersey appeals court on April 28, 1988. Boston declined to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. This left individuals and churches free to identify themselves as Christian Scientists without gaining permission from the Board of Directors.” (p. 166)

Love is the liberator.