"Affection craves legend and relics."

The first biographical treatment

A series of job requirements of late have kept me from devoting as much time to this blog as I would like, and this blog post is largely extempore, but I have had time to consider the issue of the future of Christian Science, and the fact that that question begins by understanding its past. Those who wish to promote Christian Science today must do so in a different world than that of the Mrs. Eddy and the early workers. Is that an excuse for any failings today? No, but understanding the past can provide a clearer look at what needs to be done a century later.

I recently obtained a copy of Albert Moll’s 1902 pamphlet, Christian Science, Medicine, and Occultism. Moll was a noted German researcher in hypnotism and related issues, and in his translated pamphlet, he wrote, p. [7]:

“When I was traveling in 1898 for some months in the United States of North America for the purpose of making a general survey of the country and its civilization. The principal question besides the hackneyed phrase, ‘What do you think of America?’ put to me was, ‘What is your opinion of Christian Science?’ In the New York, in San Francisco, in Boston, in Denver, in Chicago, in New Orleans—everywhere the same query.”

By 1898 Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science were a major topic in society, and I would argue that it was in part because society was ready for the concept of religious teachings as being a science, something that could be practical and reliable when it came to following the injunction in James 5:14-15 (KJV):

“Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.”

Society was also ready for a God that was loving and did not, even could not, send disease and death. Of course, since then we all know that in the last 100+ years the world of medicine has not only made important strides forward, but the mass communication we have today has allied with medicine to promote the conviction that material medicine is the only avenue for healing, and that religion might have value in its own way but it cannot be relied upon to change material conditions.

Since Mrs. Eddy was the founder of the Christian Science religion, the focal point of the history of Christian Science begins with her life. As such I thought it would be helpful to review the historiographical aspects of her life story, how was it told, who told it and why. In the book that I am working on concerning the Mary Baker Eddy—P. P. Quimby debate, that will be covered in detail, but until then I thought it might be helpful to look at the very first biographical treatment of Mrs. Eddy, this little-known and rare pamphlet:

Essay. Writings and Genius of the Founder of Christian Science. . . by a Student [Hanover P. Smith]. Boston: Published by Hanover P. Smith, [1887].

This was first mentioned in the January 1887 Christian Science Journal as follows:

"Our wide-awake brother, H. P. Smith, has published a pamphlet on “The Writings and Genius of the Founder of Christian Science.”  It is written with much fervor and animation, with which Mrs. Eddy’s disciples will be well pleased, and among whom we bespeak for it a large sale.  3 Park St.  Price 25 cents; six for $1.00."

This was followed by the message below in the February 1887 Journal:

"THE attention of JOURNAL readers is again called to the pamphlet published by H. P. Smith, 3 Park street, Boston.  The title is: “Writings and Genius of the Founder of Christian Science.”  Five hundred copies were taken in ten days last month.  This little work evidences the spiritual teachings in Science and Health, and of its author, Rev. M. Baker G. Eddy.  It increases the desire to know more of Christian Science.  It was written by one who has long been in the ranks, and intimately acquainted with our Teacher.  Everybody should possess a copy."

In my collection are the following editions and issues. The first edition, first issue, with 51 pages, as noted in the advertisement in the March 1887 Journal. Also there is a second issue with 52 pages and a perfect page number “12” on that page as well as a perfect “l” in “life” on page 20. A possible third issue has more worn type, the “12” on that page is imperfect, as is the “l” in “life” on page 20. Finally, there is a later (fourth?) issue with an advertisement opposite page 52. In addition, this last issue has horizontal lines in the laid paper used for the cover; earlier issues used paper stock with vertical lines. This last issue is likely the one mentioned in the May 1890 Journal as follows:

"THE exceeding excellent and ably written pamphlet "Writings and Genius of the Founder of Christian Science" has been  printed in an edition of five thousand copies It is written in  admirable  literary style with the added grace of a learned insight  in Science."

This would prove to be the first of many biographical treatments of Mrs. Eddy, in fact it is quite possible that no American woman would ever have so many biographies (both pro and con) as she had.

On Christian Science and sin: an open forum

An issue has been raised about the question of how sin in Christian Science is defined and handled. Over the years religion’s merits in a collective sense have been weighed against its alleged negatives. We hear statements that most of mankind’s problems can be blamed on religion, such as religious wars, persecutions, bigotry against those that have differing views, etc. John Lennon famously sang about imagining a world made better with no religion. While the focal point of this blog is not on such broader questions outside of Christian Science, the question of how Mrs. Eddy’s strictures against sin might fit into these world issues and questions is of interest.

In the news recently have been a number of accounts of gay suicides. As I understand the news reports, the suicides are largely due to the pressure or activities of bullies and taunters. However, the claim has been made that some Christian groups have stood in the way of reducing such events. Whether or not that is true is outside the scope of this blog, but the ultimate question is whether a Christian focus on sin leads to judgmentalism, bias, even bigotry—the very opposite of the example set by Jesus when confronted with the adulteress and her legalistic accusers. More specifically for this blog, when Mrs. Eddy’s talks about the prayer that reforms the sinner, was she talking primarily about an inner struggle to rid one’s self (or others) of negative, spiritually damaging traits? Or, instead, is it just another example of the kind of 19^th century (and before) focus on sin that has allegedly morphed today (in some circles) into bigotry and small-minded hate?

It is sometimes asked how Mrs. Eddy would have weighed in on some of the social and moral issues of the day, such as abortion, gay marriage, legalized drugs, wars, etc. I try to avoid making declarative statements for Mrs. Eddy on such questions, for the same reason that I do not like the bumper stickers that state unequivocally that Jesus would have driven a specific kind of car or taken a specific stand on a political question. When religion is extended to controversial social issues, I believe the person’s preconceived views on those issues tend to define the religion to match those preconceived views, and not the other say around. For that reason I do not try to say how Mrs. Eddy would have felt on certain issues unless she is unequivocal in her writings.

Thus this is an open forum on the issue of Christian Science and sin. What is “sin” in the Christian Science sense? Is it mainly targeted at the normal mortal sins (or the Seven Deadly Sins) that we hear and read about, or does Christian Science have its own definition of sin? It is true that over the centuries many bad things have been done in the name of religion. Does Mrs. Eddy’s “A Rule for Motive and Acts” absolve her and Christian Science from the claim that a focus on sin leads to the small-minded legalism that Jesus decried when he spoke of Sadducees and Pharisees, or is it more complicated than that? If the main focus of Christian Science is the healing of sin, what does that even mean?

This time around, I am playing moderator, so I hope that others will delve into this subject, because as I said at the start, a lot of people view religion negatively, so it is up to the religious to make the case for religion.

 

From the future back to the past

The last post was a question of the future, but part of looking into the future is understanding the past. In that regard, I thought it might be interesting to look at some bits of Christian Science ephemera from the 1880s to give a feel for how the Christian Science movement actually emerged from obscurity into a regional movement, then a national movement and finally an international movement.

One item in my collection that I particularly like is a single pink sheet that went out in 1883 soliciting subscriptions to the brand new Journal of Christian Science (later The Christian Science Journal). The flyer is from the Christian Scientists’ Publishing Co., and it describes the Journal in the following manner:

“As the organ of the Christian Scientists, it will devote itself to the dissemination of the highest spiritualized Christianity, in opposition to the prevailing materialistic thought, and to spiritualism and mesmerism.

The practical work of the Christian Scientist,—namely, the Healing of the Sick and the Reforming of the Sinner,—will be reflected in the columns of this Journal, and will form a most interesting feature of the Paper.”

While the message did include “the Healing of the Sick,” I believe the focus was on  “the dissemination of the highest spiritualized Christianity, in opposition to the prevailing materialistic thought, and to spiritualism and mesmerism.” Today we might not focus on the words “spiritualism and mesmerism” but the “prevailing materialistic thought” is all around us, stronger than ever. Now this might sound like it goes against the call in my last post for healing, but I believe rather that Mrs. Eddy did not see “spiritualized Christianity” as separate from healing. One led to and supported the other. I also find it interesting that the “practical work of the Christian Scientist” included reforming the sinner. How many of us wake up in the morning thinking that is our job for the day?!!

If one lived in the 1880s and wanted to attend a class given by Mrs. Eddy, various prospectuses were printed to let one know of the opportunities. Below are two such examples. The first was probably printed in 1886, and the note on the verso in Calvin Frye’s handwriting to an unknown recipient reads:

"Mrs. Eddy's next Primary class will commence Monday Jan. 10th [1887] at 10 A.M. home.

As this notice is sent out early you will please not name it to others.

Yours truly

[s]       C.A. Frye

          For Mrs Eddy"

 (According to Bates-Dittemore (p.467), 22 pupils were in that class, including Edward Bates and Stephen Chase.)

The second prospectus is from 1888. As you can see there were more courses then that are offered today. (Mrs. Eddy dropped the Metaphysical Obstetrics class years later, for example.) The prices given would be many thousands of dollars today, so only the really interested would pay that amount (although discounts were given to the indigent, the clergy, etc.)

The goal of this blog is to inform and perhaps even entertain, also because better understanding the past can, I hope, lead to better decisions made for the future. As Mrs. Eddy once said in 1888: "Christian Science and Christian Scientists, will, must, have a history."

 

 

 

 

The future of the Christian Science movement

 

I was asked recently what my thoughts are regarding the future of the Christian Science movement, based on its declining membership. Now the same question might be asked of many Protestant organized religions, because many of them too have their own problems, but this will focus on Christian Science. This question has been asked many times over the years, and some have said that the decline in membership is due to the Board of Directors and their decision in 1910 not to disband the church organization (i.e., the so-called “estoppel clause” myth—and it is a myth), while some others have focused on the content and style of the church periodicals today compared to decades ago. Again others have focused on the Church’s failed attempt to transform the Monitor into a news media giant back in the 1980s or efforts by the Board to allegedly water down Christian Science to make it more attractive to those in the New Age movement. Another group blames the cumulative effect of the publicity from the child cases juxtaposed against the pressure on Christian Scientists from Western society’s overwhelming focus on physical comfort and well-being, tied to an almost religious devotion to (or even obsession with) modern science and medicine. Of course, further divisions in the Christian Science movement have also included the historical battle over the book, Destiny of The Mother Church, the debate over use in English speaking countries of Bible selections other than from the King James Bible, whether the Lesson Sermons should always have exactly six sections, etc. The Christian Science movement in recent decades has not been without its almost internecine internal battles. 

Perhaps the first place to start might be to see which organized Christian religions are growing, and why. As a very broad-brush statement, it seems to me the growing ones are largely evangelical. They are ones that are perhaps less ideologically fixed but are more emotional and religiously fervent. In comparison, Christian Science is highly ideological in the sense that it has a very distinctive set of beliefs, and all too often Christian Scientists seem less emotional about their faith and far less fervent than their evangelical neighbors. Mrs. Eddy wrote the Christian Science textbook to be a key to unlocking the true meaning of the Bible, and she would routinely open up the Bible at random at critical times expecting that God would lead her to see a passage that would have direct meaning to her situation at hand. How many Christian Scientists have that sense of the Bible today? Mrs. Eddy was a theist in that she believed God worked in our lives in very real way, even daily basis; yet it appears to me that today many Christian Scientists are closer to deists and believe that God is more like an impersonal Principle that somehow controls a far-off perfect spiritual universe but that spiritual universe is very distant from our seeming human personal existence and needs. (I think this is more true today than it was of Christian Scientists in Mrs. Eddy’s day, but even then it existed as well to some extent.)

We live in a world where atheism is heavily proselytized, not just from the writers like Dawkins and Hitchens, but from a Western public educational establishment that is deathly afraid of teaching anything that smacks of orthodox religion in the classroom, so it defaults to teaching a universe solely controlled by physical laws that have no need for a spiritual component. In fact, if a public school system set out to teach atheism as the universal truth, I am not sure exactly what it would have to do differently from what it does everyday. That is not to suggest in any way that a majority of school teachers and educators are in fact atheists, but rather to reiterate that public education has defaulted to a curriculum that has no need of religion to teach or explain anything. This, combined with a modern Western world obsessed with body, physical beauty, celebrity status, sexual allurements, makes teaching Christian Science one hour per week to that Sunday School pupil pretty tough indeed.

I have shared this with some before, but I remember many years ago talking to a high school senior who made a comment about the evil tobacco companies enticing young people to smoke with their Joe Camel advertisements. Now I have no desire to take up the cudgels for the tobacco companies in any way, but I asked him if he knew a lot of smokers at school. He said yes. I said what percentage of those people did he think became smokers because of Joe Camel ads. He said none of them, because he knew that young people generally start smoking because they think it will make them look cool, will make them look grown up, or even because it is a nonconformist stance compared to what so many people want for them. Joe Camel ads have nothing to do with the real reasons people became smokers, but nonetheless large numbers of people were conditioned to pretend to believe it because it was politically correct to do so. (Did you ever notice that because so many people like to drink there is no equivalent demonizing of the alcohol industry, despite the many thousands who suffer alcohol-related deaths each year? There is no equivalent demonizing of Coors or Anheuser-Busch.) I mention all of this for one reason. I think that in like fashion, some Christian Scientists have become conditioned to blame the decline in the movement conveniently on someone else—it is the Board’s fault because of Knapp book or the move to attract New Agers—it is the fault of the Publishing Society because the Journal and Sentinel articles are not as good as the good old days or because the periodicals today have too much color or too many photos—it is the fault of the Peel-Gill wing of the church history writers because they demeaned our Leader—it is the fault of the “Chicago School” of Christian Science because they were not as theologically pure as the “Boston School”—it is the fault of the Board for stamping “Authorized Literature” on Mrs. Eddy’s books several years after her passing or for using the 89^th edition of the Church Manual and not the 88^th edition. Take your pick, the various and sundry reasons given over the years go on and on. I am not saying the above issues and debates are not important, but I just don’t believe the above “reasons” are a cause for even a small percentage of the movement’s decline, and if we continue to settle for believing false reasons, we will not be prepared for the real reasons. Does a 20 year old, graduating from the Sunday School really stop going because he doesn’t like the latest Sentinel articles or because seeing “Authorized Literature” stamped on a book is a turn off?

Can it be that the fault is instead ours individually and collectively? Mrs. Eddy in an early class with Ira Knapp and others told them after only a few days to go heal someone that night and report back the next day. Would we do that or would we today instead tell the sufferer to consult the back pages of the Journal to find an official practitioner? When Joseph Mann was shot near the heart at point blank range and given up to die by the local doctors, a local Christian Scientist came to scene and offered his healing services, and Mann recovered very quickly. Would we do that same today, or would we leave Mann to the doctors because we would not want to get involved? To some extent, to quote the old Pogo line, we have met the enemy and the enemy is us. Does this mean that the Board is right on everything it does? Of course not, and people are free to believe the Board is right or wrong; I just don’t believe the problems we face are ultimately a result of five people in Boston, nor do I believe that they alone can fix the problems.

In a way, I think we already know the solution to growing the movement. Healing remains the key to the health of the movement, and if that is not happening enough, the movement will suffer. (Yes, I know what Mrs. Eddy said about healing being the smallest part of Christian Science but it certainly is the bugle-call that attracts the attention of the newcomer.) Try as some of us might to come up with other reasons and other scapegoats, we know that with enough healing—the kind of healing that make every witness praise God because only He could have caused it—the world would beat a path to our doorstep.

This post is designed as an open forum, so if anyone wants to chime in, feel free (and please note that my goal is not to criticize others since I include myself in all of this).

In the meantime, I will give a little peek behind the curtain, so to speak. One of the reasons for this blog is to provide an interesting venue for individuals to learn about the history of Christian Science in a way they have never seen before. The Internet allows the ability to transmit around the world, and perhaps there will be those who will see that there is a lot more to Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science than just what they learned in Sunday School. Outside of perhaps Boston, Principia, and some summer camps, there are few places where Christian Scientists gather, and perhaps this blog will help create an online community open to all that exists nowhere else. If some young person at Principia were to become interested in the history because of this blog, nothing would give me greater pleasure, for that describes me some 35 years ago.

 

 

An even rarer first edition

Before we move away from an in-depth look at some of Mrs. Eddy’s rarest first editions (and I know that not all of you are book collectors and bibliophiles), here is detailed information on one of Mrs. Eddy’s most bibliographically complex and interesting publications, the work now called No and Yes:

Christian Science: No and Yes, by Mary Baker G. Eddy. Boston: Published by the Author, 1887.

Of absolute rarity. This is the virtually unknown copyright edition, of which only two copies are known. This is the only edition with just 48 pages. (On the one copy seen is the stamp of the Library of Congress, dated June 6, 1887, with a later stamp that said the copy was exchanged on April 27, 1931. In my collection is a typed note by Gilbert C. Carpenter, Jr., which told how he traded a copy of the later withdrawn first published edition of this pamphlet for this copyright edition after the Library of Congress found their second copy.) On the inside back wrapper is an advertisement for the Massachusetts Metaphysical College; on the verso of the back wrapper is an advertisement for Science and Health. This issue has a veiled reference to Edward Arens, but it does not mention Emma Hopkins or Mrs. Plunkett. It includes the section on “mind-quacks.”

The first edition, second issue (which has historically been considered the first edition, first issue by collectors and dealers and is the first published edition), has the same title-page. The copyright page and half-title page are also the same. The pagination is as follows: [5] – 58. The ads on the back wrapper are the same as the first issue. In this issue the reference to “mind-quacks” is changed to “mind-quack,” and strictures against Emma Hopkins and “Mrs. M.H. Plunket” [sic] are added, but the reference to Arens is removed.

In The Christian Science Journal of May, 1889, Mrs. Eddy wrote of this first edition, second issue: "An edition of one thousand pamphlets I ordered to be laid away, and not one of them circulated, because I had been personal in condemnation. Afterwards, by a blunder of the gentleman who fills orders for my books, some of these pamphlets were mistaken for the corrected edition, and sold, much to my regret."

Hermann Zadek, the original owner of the Rare Book Company, reportedly paid $710 for a copy of this second isse in the 1930s.

The first edition, third issue, has the same title-page as the second issue except that the rule is replace by “SECOND EDITION.” The copyright and half-title pages are the same as the second issue. The pagination is as follows: [5] – 50. The ads on the back wrapper are the same as the first issue. In this issue Hopkins and Plunkett are not mentioned by name, but there remains a reference to “mind-quack.”

The first edition, fourth issue, has the same title-page as the third issue except that it is labeled “THIRD EDITION.” The copyright and half-title pages are the same as the third issue. A Preface is added on page [5] and a Table of Contents is added on page [7]. The pagination is as follows: [5] – 56. The ads on the back wrapper are the same as the first issue.

 

This is the first issue where there is no reference to “mind-quacks” or “mind-quack.”

In the August, 1887, Christian Science Journal appeared the following note regarding Mrs. Eddy’s pamphlet Defence of Christian Science: "This pamphlet is now out of print. Its place is more than supplied, however, by the new work, entitled Christian Science: No and Yes, by M.B.G. Eddy."

Mrs. Eddy was “personal in condemnation” in the early issues (such as referring to Emma Hopkins and Mrs. Plunkett as a “mind quacks”), so the first two issues were suppressed.

An example of the rarity of the first published edition can be seen in a letter in this collection from Abbot Edes Smith to Allan Beauchamp, October 28, 1907:

“In connection with this inquiry [from Mr. R. H. Putnam] for the first edition of ‘No and Yes’ I will say to you, that I consider this one of the most valuable items in christian science literature. Only a few copies of this edition were ever issued, the rest being suppressed and superceded by the present pamphlet bearing that name. Money would not buy the copy I have. I give you this information, as I wish to do everything in my power to assist you in your collection.

 

I have no special need to purchase letters written by Mrs. Eddy, as I have a large number of personal letters written to me with her own hand as well as signed by herself. I took class instruction from her in 1887.”