Talk:Christian Science/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

to reintroduce to Christian Science Theology page

To add again

"However, in more recent times main stream Christian churches have adjusted their views, allowing the Christian Science church to be a part of the National Council of Churches, their General Secretary theologian Dr. Michael Kinnamon stating "The Christian Science church is indead a part of the one universal church of Jesus Christ." [1] Quotes from Dr. Micheal Kinnamon, General Secretary and Theologian showing NCC inclusion of Christian Science and that Christian Science is Christian. Ecumenical Trends Vol 41 number 10, Micheal Kinnamon, “Ecumenical Christianity and its implications for Christian Science” Novemebr 2012

Below is a list of quotes from the Ecumenical Trends article. they don't need to be included, but the are additional forms of verification.

"Through her (Shirley Paulson, Christian Science representative) participation over the last four years, in assemblies, board meetings and commissions of the National Council of Churches, she has enabled others to know you better." He goes on to say in "it is the presence of the Holy Spirit, not canonical or even doctrinal restrictions that determines the contours of the church"

"With that in mind I want my own position to be clear. While General Secretary at the NCC, I invited Christian Scientists to send representatives as FULL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS of the council's commissions because I am convinced that your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ. A value that has been echoed by others including the National Council of the reformed Church of France"--Simplywater (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

My proposed additions

Further information: Talk:Christian Science/Archive 8

Since the discussion of my proposed cited additions (that had been reverted) was removed and no one ever commented on the merit of my proposed additions, does that mean I can now make my proposed changes or does it mean there will be no discussion and my edits are not allowed? WilliamKF (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you propose your changes here, please, William, with sources? The only change I recall you making was to question Fraser as a source, and to add something about attested healings. [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Here they are again:

Some additions

I propose the following additions to the page which should not be controversial, however, they have been reverted. I do not have a cite at present, although I know their veracity:

• When a practitioner makes a house call, they typically charge more than their standard $25-50 rate:

House calls typically costing more.

• Normal class is additionally based upon the platform:

... based on both Recapitulation and the 32 point Christian Science Platform found on pages 330-340 of Science & Health.

• This one I cited, but it was reverted anyway, not sure why:

and have 3 attested healings,

• The following claim, while true of some students, is not true of all, wording should reflect such:

Students begin each day with Bible study and a study of the "scientific statement of being."

The manual states the daily duty, no mention of Bible study or scientific statement of being, a student may use those, but it is not absolutely applicable to all:

Daily Prayer. SECT. 4. It shall be the duty of every member of this Church to pray each day: “Thy kingdom come;” let the reign of divine Truth, Life, and Love be established in me, and rule out of me all sin; and may Thy Word enrich the affections of all mankind, and govern them!

• The following claim outlines one type of christian science treatment, but it is not the only kind, wording should reflect that:

A Christian Science treatment consists of the practitioner silently arguing about the nature of reality.

Here is a video that states treatment is not formulaic.

Science and Health p 365 describes another form of healing:

If the Scientist reaches his patient through divine Love, the healing work will be accomplished at one visit, and the disease will vanish into its native nothingness like dew before the morning sunshine.

• While a practitioner may give the patient something to study in the textbooks, this is not always the case, the wording should reflect that:

This process, which is known as "absent treatment," is often performed from the practitioner's home or office, although the practitioner also contacts the patient with advice about studying Science and Health or the Bible.

This is a harder one to cite because it is hard to prove a negative, while the above may be true, it is not necessarily true, not sure how to find a cite to state that.

Notes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamKF (talk • contribs)

If you can find reliable sources for these points, they might be better in Christian Science practitioner, as they seem a bit detailed for this article. Also, if you want to say that they actually engage in healing, you'll need a medical source (see our medical sourcing guideline at WP:MEDRS). Without that, you would have to express it differently (e.g. "what the practitioners call 'attested healings'").

The points you say are uncited are (as I recall from when this was last discussed) sourced to Fraser's book. Those cites should be in the footnote after the point (whether at the end of that sentence or the paragraph). Is there anything that in your view is completely unsourced? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

For application, they are attested by the person treated as well as third-parties. For medical sources, the Peel book is great, there are a ton of healings in that book where a medical practitioner has seen the patient before and after healing where C.S. treatment was provided. WilliamKF (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I have the Fraser book and did not locate the cites of those exact details and I personally know they are incorrect (to bad I can't cite myself), so even if Fraser does state them as fact (which I'm not certain Fraser does), that does not make them true in the way stated in the article. If you can refer me to a page number in Fraser I can get the exact quote and try to dissect it further. WilliamKF (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If there's anything in that section that's unsourced we can remove it, so if you could say exactly which points are cited to Fraser's book but that you can't find that would be helpful. (I don't have Fraser's book here so I'll take your word for it.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

William, we can use this video that you posted as a source for that section, but we would need to know who is speaking. Do you happen to know his name? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The video is of Bob Clark, C.S., and he was being interviewed in the capacity of being a Journal-listed Christian Science practitioner. WilliamKF (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, William. I looked him up using that information and added his name and position within the church. See Prayer, treatment section, third paragraph. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ecumenical trends Article,

Since the Ecumenical Trends article is only available in print, I have asked and been given permission to share it with you all

Dear Shelly, Fr. Loughran has given you permission to share the Ecumenical Trends article by Rev. Kinnamon with your group.

Sincerely, Christine

Still, as there may be objections, I will only share small potions of a much larger article Ecumenical Christianity and its implications for Christian Science by Dr. Michael Kinnoman, Ecumenical Trends, Vol 41/10 pages 1,2,3 and 16

For the first 58 years of my life, I had little exposure to the Christian Science church and numerous stereotypes and suspicions about it. But then I led a group from St. Louis on a study trip to the Middle East, a group that included Maryl Walters, and through her met this wonderful friend named Shirley, who introduced me to more leaders in Christian Science - and in all of them, I see the Holy Spirit at work. What is there to do but rejoice? And try to learn more.

I want to clear up one possible misunderstanding before it occurs. Whereever and whenever we see movement toward the unity of the church, it is not our achievement we celebrate but God's gift for which we give thanks. Think again of Ephesians: "maintain the unity of the Spirit.. one Lord, one Faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.." The ecumenical 'task" is to address divisions of our making in order the God's gift of reconciled community may be visible to the world"

"Prayer not politics, must be the heart of the effort at renewal. This may have been one concern that has kept the Church of Christ, Scientist from participating in the NCC and other ecumenical initiative. When you have been treated, at least by some, as a cult, it is hard to trust that your gifts will be taken seriously by others."

One obvious gift that you have to offer the wider church is an emphasis on God's power to heal and on the importance of the church's participation in that healing ministry because, generaly speaking, the church in this county has abdicated its responsibility for healing to the medical professions.

"A second gift that I value is your insistence that Christian faith must be lived and practiced, not just believed and proclaimed. You are, if I'm not mistaken, a practical people for whom 'faith' is a verb, not just a noun."

And a third gift is, quite simply, the witness of your God centered living. I am sure there must be a member of Christian Science who is a jerk, but I have yet to meet him! You have an infectious hospititality and care for one another. The challenge I am offering is to maintain the intensity of your affection while expanding the circle of it. "With that in mind, I want my own position to be clear: While General Secretary at the NCC, I invited Christian Science to send representatives as full participating memebrs of the Council's commissions because I am convinced that your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ= a position that has recently been echoed by others, including the National Council of the Reformed Chruch if France"--Simplywater (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I went to the Philadelphia Library to talk to the resource person as to weather this was a legitimate source. She said it was a perfectly fine source because

• it was a review article
• Dr. Kinnoman reviewing Mary Baker Eddy's works. making an assessment "is her theology Christian?"
• there didn't need to be a review of someone reviewing him on reviewing her
• Dr. Kinnoman has very sound credentials, she told me to give links.
• links http://divinity.uchicago.edu/michael-kinnamon, http://www.ncccusa.org/news/BIOMichaelK.htm, http://www.seattleu.edu/stm/about/faculty/kinnamon/, http://www.christiancentury.org/contributor/michael-kinnamon

http://keywiki.org/index.php/Michael_A._Kinnamon http://www.c-spanvideo.org/michaelkinnamon

Just to make sure though, (I don't want to steer anyone wrong) I'm taking the article to the University of Pennsylvania religion department on Monday. bit by bit. I trust we all want the same thing.--Simplywater (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Error

Hey all, my interpretation of the article text suggests that "error" might be a terminology that is not used often in religious parlance, so maybe it warrants a layman explanation? Maybe something along the lines of "In the religion, sickness, sin, and disease is considered an 'error', or a mistake in thought that, according to XYZ, (maybe a quote goes here) 'distorts man's view of self and distances him from God'." Whatever the case may be. I've seen the word a few times, and context seems to suggest it might be interchangeable with other religions' ideas of "devil", "evil" or "sin". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

understood!! I've been reading all of these articles from the turn of the century and see how common the word was used then. I agree whole heartedly.--Simplywater (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Contribution from Simplywater

Very sorry, I'm not sure how to add footnotes..... How can I add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 02:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Add that Introduce Christian Science as a Christian denomination. How many sources? 1. http://time4thinkers.com/t4t-events/christianity-beyond-borders/ Rev Doctor Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of National Council of Churches. Perfect reference!!! Very lovely discussion about how Christian Science is Christian. Start 22 min... "I regard you and all of them as brothers and sisters in Christ. And that the Christian Science church s in deed part of the universal church of Christ." Is that a good enough source? The Chrisian Science church has members on the commission of the National Council of Chruches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Simplywater – I'm afraid the time4thinkers.com web site is not a reliable source of the kind Wikipedia wants. The way in which CS is categorized needs to be sourced to high-quality published secondary sources. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not the 'time for thinkers' website, it is the interview with the General Secretary. It's his ideas that are being quoted in his own voice. He is a internationally known scholar. You are going to have to tell me why 'his' analysis is not enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

---

• Copying the following from User talk:Simplywater with his permission:

Hi Simplywater, please start a discussion about the denomination edit on Talk:Christian Science, and we can discuss what the sources say. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, I'm here to ask again that you not add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Christian Science. The article has good-article status, and we want to maintain it at a certain level. I've added material about the denomination issue to the lead, based on an academic source. If you want to change it you need an equally good source, preferably an academic one (not a Christian Science source). So please go to Talk:Christian Science to make your proposal there so that others can join the discussion. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is a quote from the General Secretary of the National Council of churches a weak source? So sorry. He has a PHD. He is not a Christian Scientist. Here are his credentials. Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon

The Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, an internationally-recognized scholar and leader in the ecumenical movement, is the Spehar-Halligan Visiting Professor of Ecumenical Collaboration in Interreligious Dialogue at Seattle University's School of Theology and Ministry. He is the immediate-past General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA and has also served as General Secretary of the Consultation on Church Union and as Executive Secretary of the World Council of Churches' Commission on Faith and Order.

We couldn't be a part of the National Council of Churches if they didn't recognize us as Christian :) And it seems that they are one of the ultimate authorities on what groups are Christian. Doesn't get much better.

Click here for registration packet.

He is an academic. I guess I don't really undersomstand the problem. If the National Council of Churches recognized Christian Science as 1. trinitarian and Christian, why wouldn't you recognize it? These are his own words. I guess I don't understand what you consider a source? So sorry. Perhaps you could explain. Also, I am saying this so sincerely. we don't have hardly any churches in the Netherlands. Never have. No concept where she got that. And we have 5 times more churches in Africa than Canada. Our biggest churches are in Africa. Go figure?? You can view them online. 10 churches and societies in Kinsacha alone..... I just know that the information is not correct. It's printed on line. Why would a directory of churches be considered a weak source. It seems that it's normal to want right information. Are you sure the quote from Fraser isn't refering to some other group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'm not following your argument. You've added unsourced material to the first sentence. [2] Even sourced it's not appropriate for the first sentence (why would what the National Council of Churches thinks be the most important thing in the article?). If you have an academic source for the material you want to add about the denomination, then we can talk about it, but that's what you need, or something very close to it. In the meantime please open a discussion about this on Talk:Christian Science. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point, Thank you so much for taking time with me. I think it is important that the National Council of Churches recognizes Christian Science as a Christian religion because is shows that it's theology meets very specific criteria. It's not just an opinion that it is Christian. It's theology is held to a standard. And it meets that standard. I really didn't want to go into what the standard is and why specifically Christian Science is Christian. It seemed easier to just put it in one sentence. Or do you think there should be a part that specifically shows (I have sources from the National Council) why it is Christian? There are also places where wikipedia excepts dictionary definitions as sources i.e. "holly rollars

It is fair to identify Christian Science as a Christian denomination first, because that is what it is. It is not just what Christian Scientists think. It is Bible based. (merriam webster) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian%20scientist, trinitarian (you have to be Trinitarian to be a part of the Council of Chruches.

Here is a source from Concise. I'm assuming if a dictionary definition can be used for "holly rollers' it should stand here also. Christian Science "Religious denomination founded in the U.S. in 1879 by Mary Baker Eddy. Like other Christian churches, Christian Science subscribes to an omnipotent God and the authority (but not inerrancy) of the Bible and takes the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus as essential to human redemption." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christian%20scientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs)

Do you mind if I copy this discussion to Talk:Christian Science so that others can join in? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes!! Thank you. Not sure how to make the live discussion a footnote. Are taped conversations considered sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs)

Hello, I've put in both a definition from Merrium Webster's dictionary and a quote from Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, He is a professor at Seattle University of Theology. He is not a Christian Scientist. He is a leader in his field.

You need to tell me why he is not qualified. I looked at several different wiki pages and interviews from lots of different sources are used. It's a strawman argument that the 'time for thinkers' site isn't an appropriate source because it is associated with Christian Science. It's a live interview with the General Secretary of the National Council of Chruches. Since there are many other pages that use 'interviews' from a wild variety of sources, you need to give me a reason that this source is not appropriate. the quote is misleading, it's a biased source, ect ect ect...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs)

Hi Simplywater, would you mind signing your posts? You type four tildes (~~~~ top left on your keyboard), which gives us a date and timestamp. It makes discussions easier to follow. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the sources, we don't use dictionaries or websites as sources in this article (with a few exceptions). The article is mostly based on books or papers by academic sources or equally high-quality sources, or newspapers for current-affairs aspects. Christian Science sources can be used for certain points. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm moving Simplywater's recent addition here:

" However, in more recent times main stream Christian churches have adjusted their views, allowing the Christian Science church to be a part of the National Council of Churches, their General Secretary theologian Dr. Michael Kinnamon stating "The Christian Science church is indead a part of the one universal church of Jesus Christ."

The source is poor and says that CS is part of the National Council of Churches, which seems not to be the case. The latter's membership is here. Looking around, I can see discussions about CS wanting to join, but it seems they haven't done so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source that proves their participation from the article from Ecumenical Trends, "Ecumenical Christianity and it's implications for Christian Science" by Kinnoman. - "Through her (Shirley Paulson, Christian Science representative) participation over the last four years, in assemblies, board meetings and commissions of the National Council of Churches, she has enabled others to know you better." It's important to note that this article is a 'request from the NCC that the Christian Science church join them. He goes on to say in "it is the presence of the Holy Spirit, not canonical or even doctrinal restrictions that determines the contours of the church" --Simplywater (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And he goes on "With that in mind I want my own position to be clear. While General Secretary at the NCC, I invited Christian Scientists to send representatives as FULL PARTICIPATING MEMBERS of the council's commissions because I am convinced that your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ. A value that has been echoed by others including the National Council of the reformed Church of France" --Simplywater (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow so greatful the high standard you all hold!!! Really has forced me to do my work.

http://www.ncccusa.org/about/comcomfaithgroups.html This website includes the first church of Christ, scientist as a member. I don't the Christian science church is able to officially join any organization.--Simplywater (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That says it's the NCC Communication Commission and that it includes non-member bodies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

NCC The Christian Science church was invited to join, but asked to only be a participating member. Ecumenical Trends, 3/147 November 2012 "Ecumenical Christianity and its Implications for Christian Scientists" M. Kinnamon "This may have been one concern that has kept the Church of Christ, Scientist from participating in the NCC and other ecumenical initiatives. A bigger reason I suspect is a desire to preserve the distinctive gifts God has intrusted to you. When you have been treated by some as a cult, it is hard to trust that your gifts will be taken seriously be others... Let me suggest that this has not only cut you off from the gifts of the gospels of others, it has deprived us of the perspectives and practices that God has given you"

Later he says in the same article. "One obvious gift that you (Church of Christ, Scientist) have to offer the wider church is an emphasis on God's power to heal and on the importance of the Churches participation in that healing ministry. Because generally speaking the church in this country has abdicated its responsibility for healing to the medical professions"--76.98.253.210 (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

And lastly "A second gift that I value is your insistence that Christian faith must be lived and practiced" Updating the question on dictionary def. On the pages for Catholisim and Pope, Oxford Dictionary is allowed. Who made the decision that it cannot be used on this page? Is that a Wiki rule? It seems arbitrary that is isn't allowed here. I'm sure there was a discussion. Could you point me to it?--Simplywater (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Break 1

Back to the opening sentence... The first defining sentence of what Christian Science is. Appreciate all the work here. However, all of the major dictionaries and Ency. define Christian Science starting with two similar ideas... 1. Spiritual Healing and 2. Bible based or Christian Religion. That includes oxford and Cambridge dictionaries and MW dictionaries. Scholars may disagree and that is a very worthy argument on why disagree with the definition of Christian Science. However, I don't think we are in the business of changing definitions. Are we?

a system of religious teaching, founded in 1866 by Mary Baker Eddy and based on the Scriptures, the most notable application of which is the practice of spiritual healing. Dictionary.com

a religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866 that was organized under the official name of the Church of Christ, Scientist, that derives its teachings from the Scriptures as understood by its adherents, and that includes a practice of spiritual healing m-w.com

American Heritage Dictionary of English Language = The church and the religious system founded by Mary Baker Eddy, emphasizing healing through spiritual means as an important element of Christianity and teaching pure divine goodness as underlying the scientific reality of existence. Also called Church of Christ, Scientist.

"A Christian religion whose members believe illness can be cured by belief and a true understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ, and by following those teachings." -- Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary

"The beliefs and practices of the Church of Christ Scientist, a Christian sect founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1879. Members hold that only God and the mind have ultimate reality, and that sin and illness are illusions that can be overcome by prayer and faith." -- Cambridge Dictionary

"A religion started in America in 1866, which includes the belief that illnesses can be cured by faith Longman Dictionary of Contem. English Simplywater (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Simplywater, as Alex said, we don't use dictionaries as sources. If you want to say that CS is a recognized Christian denomination, or is accepted as Christian by mainstream Christian churches, or however you want to express it, you need to find a scholarly source – a book written by a theologian, for example, or something very close to that in terms of quality. Not a website, interview, casual comment, dictionary definition, but a book by an academic, or an article in a scholarly journal, or something equivalent in terms of quality. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Got it!! Well, Cambridge and Oxford are getting their information from somewhere. I'll see what I can find from their sources.

Dictionary Def. Is that just for the page on Christian Science? I've looked at a lot of other pages on Wiki like "holy rollers" and the first definition is from a dictionary. Could you explain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry..... For many of the religious pages, Oxford Dictionary is excepted. It is odd that every major dictionary and ency. def would define Christian Science as 1 Bible based or Christian, Oxford, Cambridge included and you all are choosing to ignore it. What I don't understand is why no one is asking "what are we missing that they are seeing?" Not that you all aren't pretty good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.253.210 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

NCC involvement - I never said that Christian Science was a member of NCC. That are however recognized by them as a Christian Denomination and have been invited to join. All we need to prove here is that 1.the NCC recognized them as Christian. @.2. they are a part of NCC (which they are)

In Kinnomen's article in Ecumenical Trends he says

"I want to begin by giving thanks to what God has done through Christian Science over the past 130 plus years, as you know the credit is never ours to proclaim, but through you Christ has been proclaimed and peopled healed to the glory of God"

Not sure what more you want that the NCC recognized Christian Science as Christian????? It is not just that the site is unwilling to recognize the amazing shift in thought on behalf of the Christian faith to recognize Christian Science as part of the Christian family. This is an article in a scholarly journal by a leading authority. Should I send you the whole copy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs)

There really is a larger context for this dispute that needs to be clarified. Are you trying to provide evidence that Christian Science is Christian or are you trying to differentiate it as a Christian denomination from a Christian sect or Christian cult? (Curiously the Wikipedia page Category:Christian Science describes it as a denomination.) I'm not entirely sure the former needs to be documented but I am sure the latter might be an important point for this article. Opinions? Digitalican (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response!! Very thoughtful.... I feel the article needs three changes

1.It does seem that Wikipedia is asking that documentation be provided that Christian Science is considered a Christian denomination. At most, this article says "Christian Scientists think they are Christian".......

2.The opening sentence should reflect in some way how most sources identify Christian Science. And some bells should be sounding if it doesn't look anything like any other source. Most sources identify Christian Science in the first sentence as one or two of the following:

1. Christian,

2. Bible based OR

3. related to spiritual healing or promoters of spiritual healing - Rennie Schoepflin, Oxford Encyclopedia of American Culture and Intellectual History pg 197

4. founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

I appreciate the work very very much, but the opening sentence for Christian Science page reads more like a page for New Thought identifying it in a category which is debatable, even by followers of New Thought. Christian Science is not mentioned on the New Thought page, because it doesn't belong there. It's fair to debate the issue, but not have it's inclusion in that category put forth as a fact in the first sentence. At a minimum the first sentence should refer to Mary Baker Eddy and it's reputation for spiritual healing. Oxford Encyclopedia of American Culture. That is not contestable.

3. Many of the sources given are reporting the thoughts of the Christian community at the turn of the century. 125 years have passed and "the Christian Church" has changed in its views. It is fair to note that change. Participation with the NCC is only one example. I was satisfied with this change... I would love for it to be put back

"However, in more recent times main stream Christian churches have adjusted their views, allowing the Christian Science church to be a part of the National Council of Churches, their General Secretary theologian Dr. Michael Kinnamon stating "The Christian Science church is indead a part of the one universal church of Jesus Christ." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC) --Simplywater (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Simplywater, One thing at a time. First, please familiarize yourself with the wiki markup language. It applies to -- and is to be used on -- talk pages as well as "regular" pages. The editor here is not WYSIWYG. There's a very nice "Show preview" button at the bottom of the editing page that will show you how what you've written renders. If you're not inclined to take that kind of care with your contributions and comments it's hard to take you seriously.

The reality is, whether you or I like it, that some Christian denominations or sects do not consider Christian Science to be truly Christian because it is not trinity-based nor does it believe in substitutional atonement. Kinnamon's statement (adequately referenced or not) doesn't change that. Some consider it a 'cult' or 'sect,' which is why that issue needs to be addressed.

I agree that the first sentence is odd. "A set of beliefs and practices" does not differentiate it from yoga, capitalism or formal science. I would think, before any of your other qualifications, that it is a religion. It enjoys that status with to the U.S. government. Still, we have to come to that definition through cooperation and consensus (hard as that sometimes is.)

It is probably true that Christian Science predates New Thought, but it would not be the first time that something has been classified after the fact. There is no monolithic New Thought Organization that includes or excludes Christian Science but the classification is documented and appears accurate from the description. (I've also seen representatives of Christian Science at New Thought Expositions...)

Tertiary sources, such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, tend to be regarded here as hearsay evidence. (Joe said that Sue said that..) Secondary sources are taken much more seriously. It's useful to learn the culture here (and even then you can get into a world of hurt.) Digitalican (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much... bit by bit. Dictionaries and encyclopedias. I understand that it is regarded as hearsay, but it is also allowed on many pages.i.e

Oxford Encyclopedia gives it's sources and even gives the author of the entry, which for 'Christian Science' is Rennie Schoepflin which is the chair of history at Cal State. Is that then considered a source? Much of it comes from her book "Christian Science on Trial".

OK one thing at a time..... The first sentence should not be debatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 20:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

*Laugh* Nothing is undebatable, especially on Wikipedia. Seriously. Digitalican (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In case it helps, the issue of whether it was regarded as a Christian sect or cult is mentioned in the section, "View of the Christian clergy, Mark Twain". Also see one of that section's sources, an article by John K. Simmons, which asks: "Is the Christian Science movement a sect, a cult or a denomination?" SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SlimVirgin, though the question was mostly rhetorical in an effort to get this war/discussion on a more fruitful track. I would tend to think that Twain is inappropriate in this context as it is an opinion about what was rather than what is and that he had a vested interest in being controversial. Simmons is more to the point, though he does not differentiate 'cult' from 'sect' along established guidelines. (A Christian Science cult would literally worship MBE -- which I suppose some would argue is the case -- but not from a position of knowledge.) Digitalican (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It does seem to be an attitude of worship, at least of her words. (And just to clarify: Mark Twain isn't used as a source for that issue; his name is in the section header only because there is other criticism from him in the same section.) There's a discussion of the church-denomination-sect-cult divide here (John A. Saliba, Understanding New Religious Movements, 2004, p. 10ff). He identifies Christian Science as part of New Thought (p. 26). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Saliba also says in his book ""Whatever critiques of new religions must be rendered by scholars of various disciplines, dialogue is a more useful response than diatribe".--Simplywater (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[5

Is there something that prohibits a set of ideas from being in both catagories. New Thought and Christianity?--Simplywater (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I don't think anyone is denying that it sees itself as Christian and that lots of others see it as Christian. The issue is whether it's a denomination, sect or cult, I suppose, and we can't go into a lot of detail here about those arguments (article at Sociological classifications of religious movements that might interest you). This page is only to discuss e.g. issues that should be added that can be appropriately sourced, preferably to high-quality secondary sources. If you have suggestions along those lines, we would have something to discuss, but as it stands it isn't all that clear to me what we're talking about. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, Simplywater has improved hir sources and quotes Kinnamon and others directly from Ecumenical Trends Volume 41, #10. (see below...) Admittedly, because s/he tends to marshal hir data to the point of exasperation and not necessarily carefully, some of that substance might be lost. Does this admit Christian Science to the status of denomination? I don't know, but it has to be taken into consideration. Digitalican (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that article is a reliable source (I haven't seen it and have my doubts about that), Kinnamon says "your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ." I don't know what that means. If Simplywater wants to add that it's a Christian denomination, we need a considered source that says this (preferably an academic source, rather than someone close to the issue). But we would then need to define that, and if we list people who see it as a denomination, we then ought to list those who see it as a cult. I don't see the point of doing either of those things. We explain in the theology section some of the ways in which CS differs from mainstream Christian theology. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then take a look at it. You're an editor and administrator and I think you're supposed to assume some good faith. Simplywater's biggest fault here is that s/he's not acculturated into Wikipedia. That can be corrected if editors are willing to work with hir rather than blow hir off. Holding the bar of "high quality" source at an unknown height is not useful. (The article on New Thought, itself uses an encyclopedia as a source and ofttimes the best we can do is look around at what others have done. Not that the article is correct, but that you need to be more clear about what you mean.)

Does every statement have to be documented? I don't think so. If the lede is changed to describe Christian Science as a religion or religious tradition, that should not need referencing (see Mormonism.) My take on Simplywater's complaint is not that s/he disagrees with the substance of the entire article but believes the lede to be misleading and possibly denigrating. We've been here before and it didn't end prettily. Digitalican (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with this---However, in more recent times main stream Christian churches have adjusted their views, allowing the Christian Science church to be a part of the National Council of Churches, their General Secretary theologian Dr. Michael Kinnamon stating "The Christian Science church is indeed a part of the one universal church of Jesus Christ." We just have to undo the edit.--Simplywater (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way I can send you a copy of the article? I have it. You can also listen to the live interview here. Amazing really. He apologizes on behalf of NCC for excluding Christian Science. He met 5 times with the Christian Science Board of Directors. It really is something historic. Here is the live interview. The best part starts around the 20 minute mark. http://time4thinkers.com/t4t-events/christianity-beyond-borders/--Simplywater (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You can email me the article if you like by using this link. But what we need is someone who reported on that issue, a secondary source (written by someone uninvolved) that explains what happened and why it was important. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

the Journal is a protected pdf so I can't copy and paste. I have to upload it. Wow!! Thank you for staying on top of this.--Simplywater (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

wiki rules say "Whenever possible, give preference to secondary sources (such as reviews or book chapters) that survey the relevant primary research over research articles themselves." It doesn't need to be a secondary source. According to Wiki rules, they are given preference.--Simplywater (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources are pretty much required for this article, because it's easy to misuse primary sources inadvertently. We do have primary sources in the article, but they're not used to advance positions or do anything else that would end up being a problem. For the issue that you want to add, we need a secondary source so that we know that the issue is notable enough to mention, and that we have understood it correctly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Break 2

Still need a way to sent the article. You won't find anything inadvertent about this. It's a whole address given by the General Secretary from the NCC, a well know theologian, stating that even he was mistaken about Christian Science and that after learning more about it, found it very much to be 'Christian' and that the NCC needs Christian Science to participate

The Journal,where many of the quotes are from is Ecumenical Trends Ecumenical Trends is a monthly (except August) journal that publishes articles on the ecumenical and interreligious movements. Ecumenical Trends reports on current trends and progress in these movements around the world. It covers theological consultations, conversations, dialogues and cooperation, and it notes the availability of documents and resources. Ecumenical Trends occasionally publishes the text of dialogue documents. It is published by the Greymoore Ecumenical and Interreligious institure, a Franciscan Group. How do I upload it to you. I don't want to buy a subscription to send a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.253.210 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking for secondary sources that might support your point but haven't found any; on the contrary the academic sources that address this point argue that CS differs greatly from mainstream Christian denominations and is regarded for that reason as a cult or sect, not a denomination (insofar as these distinctions make sense).

I think there's no need to send the Ecumenical Trends article, but thank you for trying. I didn't realize it was written by Kinnoman. I googled some of the words in the article, and I'm finding them in other articles by him about other religions. What we need is a secondary source (an uninvolved third party) who wrote about this dialogue between Kinnamon and the woman from Christian Science to explain whether, and if so why, it matters, and how to interpret it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the pedigree matters. Dr Kennoman' pedigree is hard to beat. Tell me the authors and let me look them up. The journal article is not a conversation between Kennoman and a woman. it is an article written by Kennoman. I'm sure you have a lot to do, but a theologian doesn't need another theologian to explain what he is writing. So sorry to keep bringing this up. I will repost the article so you can see it. I tried to send it but the email address you gave me wouldn't let me.--Simplywater (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

whew!!! typed it up so you can see it below!! wow, one really has to work hard to get make edits. Its ok as long as everyone has to do the same work. Showed it to the librarian at the Philadelphia Library and a curator at another library and they both said it is a very usable source. It is an article, published in a known ecumenical journal, the author has incredible credentials. If you want to look at it online, it exists. you just have to pay. or I can upload the pdf...

As for the time4thinkers interview..... the librarian said that kinnoman has enough credentials that a live interview with him should count escpecially since the whole interview can be listened to and verified... HE is not a member of the Christian Science church, HE is impartial.. And that is who we are quoting We are not quoting a Christian Scientist.. So the source (KINNOMAN) is IMPARTIAL yeah!!!!! you must have such a difficult job..

It would be better if it were on NPR, but it is still a live interview with him on a substancial web site. (put out by the same organization that puts out the Christian Science Monitor) --Simplywater (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't an article published in a Journal by Dr. Michael Kinnamon, Univercity of Chicago Alumi of the year allowed??? Wiki Rules say that Jounals are allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.253.210 (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wiki rules say that a page cannot be A and Not A at the same time. Christian Science is not mentioned as part of the New Thought page. and the New thought page says "Although New Thought is neither monolithic nor doctrinaire, in general, modern-day adherents of New Thought........" It seems that this page is trying to make it doctrinaire.

It seems that the burden of proof on writers is to prove that Christian Science is and 'adherent' of new thought. including practicing someone who supports a particular party, person, or set of ideas." "he was a strong adherent of monetarism" synonyms: follower, supporter, upholder, defender, advocate, disciple, votary, devotee, partisan, member,

Have you found any books that say that Christian Science is an adherent of New Thought?-- It seems that the New Thought page says that those who "call" themselves "new thought" are new thought. Which is very respectful. May all of us be as respectful.--Simplywater (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we say that the "Church of Christ, Scientist is a participating member of the National Council of Chruches? , footnoting the Ecumenical Trends article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs)

I've found a secondary source and added it to the article. [3] It's not ideal because it was a paper given to a conference, and the only online version is an early draft that the author asks not be copied or quoted. I'm going to write to her to ask if there's a final version we can link to. But in the meantime at least we have something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Just noting a correction to the above: I've just noticed that the source works for the Christian Science church, so ideally we are still looking for a secondary source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What am I missing here? Simplywater wants to state the Christian Science is a Christian denomination and introduced Kinnamon as a secondary source talking about Christian Science as such from the standpoint of the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches.

I agree that the original source was not up to Wikipedia standards, but then Simplywater found what I would think was an acceptable reliable source in the Ecumenical Journal. Now he's required to find yet another secondary source that states the Kinnamon and his work are important and relevant, as if his Kinnamon's position as General Secretary of the National Council of Churches wasn't sufficient bona fides.

No other secondary source author here is held up to such scrutiny. Kinnamon is not a Christian Scientist, thus not too close to the subject, but is a Christian, thus knows something about the subject. What forest are we missing for the trees here? The citation is simply to document Christian Science as a Christian Denomination. Digitalican (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we can keep this simple. Thank you so much for your patience. Kindness. But what you've written is not the point I am making. I'll get the hang of this. Only published sources. I'm good with that. That way everyone is playing with the same rules. Christian Science has been around along time and there are plenty of published materials.

I simply want to include a quote from Kinnamon's Published address. It only proves that The Church of Christ Scientist is a participating member of the National Council of Churches and that a leading world theologian is 'convinced' that Christian Science is a part of the universal church of Jesus Christ.

I want my own position to be clear: While General Secretary at the NCC, I invited Christian Science to send representatives as full participating members of the Council's commissions because I am convinced that your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ, a position that has recently been echoed by others, including the National Council of the Reformed Church in France. Today marks the fifth time that I have met with leaders of Christian Science, not because I agree with you and Mrs. Eddy on all things, but because in you I see the grace of God

Perhaps in the text it can read

However Dr. Michael Kinnoman, past General Secretary at the National Council of Chruches and 2013 alumni theologian of the year for the University of Chicago is convinced that Christian Scientists are a valued part of the one body of Christ, inviting them to be full participating members of the NCC.

wow... this marking stuff is tricky...... Is there another place I am supposed to put my suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 17:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Publications that define Christian Science as a denomination. We must be looking to two totally different places. Religious Bodies, 1936: pt. 1. Denominations, A to J : statistics, history ...

By Timothy Francis Murphy, United States. Bureau of the Census

http://books.google.com/books?id=iCUAb9RO0y8C&pg=PA399&dq=christian+science+denomination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8zjpUqKwObDksAT514GIBQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=christian%20science%20denomination&f=false

Americas Alternative Religion pg 66 http://books.google.com/books?id=og_u0Re1uwUC&pg=PA66&dq=christian+science+denomination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=njrpUozMOJSssQSI4YCABQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=christian%20science%20denomination&f=false says one of the few denominations founded by women

Handbook of denominations in the United States 13th Addition http://books.google.com/books?id=og_u0Re1uwUC&pg=PA66&dq=christian+science+denomination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=njrpUozMOJSssQSI4YCABQ&ved=0CFUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=christian%20science%20denomination&f=false

Layman's Guide to why there are so many Christian denominations http://books.google.com/books?id=K4lEy7A8fnYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=christian+science+denomination&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kzzpUvHfFeipsAT00oDYBA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=christian%20science%20denomination&f=false--Simplywater (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Love your edits, greatful for your integrity. however there isn't any reason to exclude Kinnoman's quote. He is a leading theologian, It is in a published magazine. It can go right after the quote about how Christian Scientits' say they don't fit under the umbrella of protestent thinkers.

However Dr. Michael Kinnoman, past General Secretary at the National Council of Chruches and 2013 alumni theologian of the year for the University of Chicago said in an published address to the Christian Science Community that he is convinced that Christian Scientists are a valued part of the one body of Christ, inviting them to be full participating members of the NCC.

Love it!!! It fits so well together! What do you think? Here is the exact quote in case you need it

I want my own position to be clear: While General Secretary at the NCC, I invited Christian Science to send representatives as full participating members of the Council's commissions because I am convinced that your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ, a position that has recently been echoed by others, including the National Council of the Reformed Church in France. Today marks the fifth time that I have met with leaders of Christian Science, not because I agree with you and Mrs. Eddy on all things, but because in you I see the grace of God

--Simplywater (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, as I said before, it would be inappropriate to add that to the theology section. There's no indication (and I have looked) that Kinnamon's views on this are notable (see WP:UNDUE), and the language ("valued part of the one body of Christ") is essentially meaningless. The issue of Christian Science's relationship with the mainstream Christian community is complex. You're proposing to promote one person's view by means of an ambiguous soundbite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much... wiki rules say.... "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority then it should be easy to name prominent adherers"

JUst to help me know what I am looking for.

• An event happened. The National Council of Chruches invited the Christian Science church to join as a full member. The Christian Science church is a participaing member of the National Council of Chruches. How many sourses do I need to prove the event happened? ,

The Christian Science Church is in an “active ecumenical dialogue” with the National Council of Churches, said Shirley Paulson, who serves as the church’s head of ecumenical affairs. According to its website, the NCC represents 40 million Americans from 37 different faith traditions in 100,000 local congregations in the United States. Eddy was “a reformer of Christianity” who is “bringing us to Jesus, to be disciples of Jesus,” Ms. Paulson said. Christian Scientists now serve on four NCC commissions. The Christian Science Church is not a member of the NCC, but a dialogue about possible membership is under way, she said.

,

• How many prominent adherents do I need that refer to Christian Science as part of the "Christian" family? Kinnoman is one. Tell me how many others? This is a minority view point. Two prominent theologians should be good don't you think? Tell me the number and I will find it.
• In reference to you not know knowing what the Body of Christ is. Body of Christ has a wiki page. Sorry you think the term as meaningless. You can just refer people to that page where the body of Christ includes the definition " the Christian Church as a group of believers, as used in the Pauline epistles." I do appreciate you attention to detail.

For a minority viewpoint, how many prominent adherents do I need to find?

So greatful for your insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Another source. Printed discussion Michael Kinnamon stating Christian Science is Christian and that prejudice is one of the reasons Christian Science has not been included in the Christian circle. Really interesting. http://journal.christianscience.com/issues/2012/4/130-04/christian-churches-furthering-the-dialogue--Simplywater (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just want to be clear here.... What are you saying is an "insignificant view point"? the point has already been brought up? Some people argue that Christian Science isn't Christian. Are you saying

• It is insignificant that there are top scholars who think Christian Science is Christian? OR
• It is insignificant that Christian Scientists are a part of NCC, which is a Christian Organization? If I can better understand specifically what you are objecting to, I can work with you. I'm assuming we all want the same thing. Honesty and integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs)

What I'm saying is that the Paulson–Kinnamon discussion is in the article (last paragraph of this section), and that there's no need to add a quote about the body of Christ. The CS church has not joined the NCC (so far as I can tell), and even if they had it's not clear how significant that would be. Dialogue continues. No one other than Kinnamon or the Christian Science church has mentioned it, which is why it's hard to judge whether the issue is significant, or, more accurately, on Wikipedia we judge significance by whether informed, independent sources write about something. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much SlimVirgin. I enjoy this dialogue even if we disagree. I am greatful you are forcing me to be very clear in my thinking. As I know you are. After all in a discussion about what is Christian.... the bottom line is 'either you are loving your neighbor as your self or you are not"

• Because the focus of the article on Christian Science Theology is whether or not Christian Science is Christian
• Because wiki rules state that minority voices should be represented
• because there is mention of theologians who say Christian Science is not Christian in the discussion of Christian Science Theology
• it is important to add the voice of a prominent theologian who says it is Christian in that section.

I want to add Kinnoman's voice, a prominent Christian Theologian who published an article in an Ecumenical Journal to that section.

"However, prominent modern theologians like Dr. Michael Kinnaman, past General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, have defended Christian Science as a 'gift' to Christianity because of it's "emphasis on God's power to heal and on the importance of the Church's participation in that healing ministry" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC) --Simplywater (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Simplywater, but please note that, unlike you, I'm not enjoying it. In fact I'm finding it quite distressing, because you're not taking in what people say, so it's incredibly time-consuming.

One point: the theology section is NOT about whether or not Christian Science is Christian. It's about what academics have said about CS theology, and what Eddy herself said about it. By academics I mean people who hold academic positions in mainstream universities and who have written books and papers about CS. It's NOT based on people making political speeches that express their personal views. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

So very very sorry this is distressing you. It's Sunday and I'm happy to pause. --Simplywater (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I hope this helps. I think this has all the sources you need. And it captures the spirit of the reality of the situation. Proposed Addition to Christian Science Theology

According to Raymond Cunningham, the theosophy question was just part of a complex issue. "Clerical reaction spanned a broad spectrum of opinions, from utter rejection to cautious approval." Those opposed were "primarily of a conservative theological bent". While more interested clergy “emphaised the validity of a diversity of religious insights.”.

As it was the first real example of Jews converting to Christianity in modern day Judaism, Jewish opponants warned adherents that converting to Christian Science was converting to Christianity labeling it as "Judaism veneered with Christology"

I have a bunch of other stuff. The arrival of Christian Science on the Christian scene is very complex. Femminism, jealousy, ect ect. But this is fair.

Sources Appel, John, Christian Science and Jews; Jewish Social Studies, Vol 31, No2, (Apr 1969)

Raymond Cunningham Ass. Professor at Fordham University The Impact of Christian Science on American Churches, 1880-1910, Raymond Cunningham, The American Historical Review, Oxford University Press, 1967, pages 885

^{Clerical reaction spanned a broad spectrum of opinion, from utter rejection to cautious approval. By far the more numerous were the hostile observers-churchmen for the most part, of a conservative theological bent that was reinforced by the belief that Christian Science posed a genuine threat to society and public health. Ministers, on the other hand, who expressed a degree of favorable interest were invariably more adventurous spirits, whose open-ended theologies emphasized the validity of a diversity of religious insights. Whatever their attitudes, however, the clergy soon came to realize that, despite the hopes of many and the prophecies of some, Mrs. Eddy and her faith were not passing fads that might be safely ignored. p 885 Invaritably Jewish critics proclaimed the incompatibility of Christian Science and Judaism. While ministers and priests decried the cult for its radical departure from traditional Christianity, Jewish leaders refected it for precisely the opposite reason: that it was essentially a Christian creed p 896. In September 1893 an impressive delegation of Scientists participated in the World's Parliament of Religions, held in conjunction with the Chicago Columbian Exposition. "No more striking manifestation of the interposition of divine Providence in human affairs has come in recent years," declared Charles C. Bonney, president of the World's Congress Auxiliary, than that showing the raising up of the body of people which you represent.... Catholic and Protestant Baptist and Presbyterian Methodist and Friends, Unitarians and Congregationalists, all thank God for the new energy and life contributed to the world, and specifically to Christendom, by you and those whom you represent. pg. 893}

What do you all think. I think this captures the spirit.--Simplywater (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)--Simplywater (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

ps.... the Kinnoman article is considered a secondary source.It's Kinnoman reviewing Mary Baker Eddy's work, Science and Health, answering the question "is it Christian" A review article they said by a Christian Academic who is well known in his field. they thought you all might not be familiar with his credentials. But the paper from Oxford Press give the same spirit don't you think? and it shouldn't cause problems.

Reverting

Be-nice, please stop reverting. With every respect to the author, that book isn't appropriate as a source for this article. The author has no background in philosophy or theology, or in Christian Science or the study of it, or the study of anything similar. See his bio. His comment looks like a casual aside in a book of popular ideas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a book, it is a live interview with a well regarded Christian theologian. I don't really understand the resistance here? There has been a great shift in the way the Christian churches view Christian Science now and the way it was viewed 125 years ago. Why isn't this live interview recognized. I looked at several different pages and live interviews were allowed as sources. I see no discussion here. How can you say that Michael Kinnamon has no backround in theology???? This was not a causual aside. It was a public apology on the part of the National Council of churches for excluding Christian Science. You didn't even take a look or you would have know it was a live interview. hmmmm what is that about??? I assume your have a desire for honesty here.--Simplywater (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Simplywater, you're confusing two different discussions. This section of the talk page isn't about your edits. See the section above, Talk:Christian_Science#Contribution_from_Simplywater, for a discussion of your material. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are being extremely unfair here. The author has a background in Classics at Oxford. You can't study Classics (certainly not at Oxford) without studying philosophy. The book cited was the UK's bestselling philosophy book in 2008, according to the source you cite yourself. If I thought about it I could probably cite a number of world-class philosophers who didn't study philosophy (or in some cases anything else) at university. So--am I now justified in going through the article and removing anything that wasn't written by a specialist in the subject?Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me that there's a certain amount of wanting to have it both ways here. For some citations references are disallowed because the authors or authors are "too close to the subject." For others references are disallowed because the author or authors, as Be-nice:-) suggests, aren't close enough. Despite policy statements, I tend to think acceptability of references in a given context is a subjective call that has to be made through consensus and collaboration -- not something a single editor can define or something that remains the same in all contexts. Digitalican (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Be-nice, you certainly can do an undergraduate degree in classics at Oxford without studying modern philosophy, and the ancient philosophy can be minimal. But my point was that this is a casual aside in a casual book. It's not a question of choosing specialist sources for each point, but appropriate sources. 50 Philosophy Ideas You Really Need to Know isn't an appropriate source for any aspect of this article, and I'd be surprised if its author disagreed with me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Now you've shifted the terms of the debate to "modern" philosophy. The issue of academic background is a red herring in any case. Neither Rousseau, Mill nor Wittgenstein studied philosophy in any formal way as it might be understood today. BTW, have you read the Dupre book? If not, how can you say anything authoritative about it? The articles are philosophically sound, while clear and accessible. It's a popular book, but not a casual one. The remark about Christian Science is in the context of an article on the problem of evil, a key issue (perhaps the key issue) in the philosophy of religion. You may believe that it's not an appropriate source, but that's just your belief, which appears to be based on no more than a hunch or gut feeling. We need more than that in this forum.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If theologians and philosophers believe that Mary Baker Eddy solved the problem of evil – as you say, a key issue in the philosophy of religion – then academics will have written about it. If you find an academic source to support what you say, we can add it. All the sources in the theology section are specialist or academic sources (or Eddy herself): Melton, Stein, Jenkins, DeChant, Schoepflin, Gottschalk, Rescher and Simmons. The section ends with a quote from Mark Twain, not an academic obviously, but he did write a lot about CS, and it's a very nice, descriptive quote that I think really captured the appeal of CS at the time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I had a look through the section on theology and came across this: "There is no original sin in Christian Science, no Trinity, virgin birth, miracles, resurrection or atonement ... no death, heaven or hell, or final judgment." Five of the statements are simply wrong. Mary Baker Eddy was an emphatic and orthodox believer in the virgin birth. She certainly believed in the resurrection and the atonement (there is a chapter on "Atonement and Eucharist" in Science and Health). Heaven and hell are defined in the Glossary of the textbook, though they are understood differently in Christian Science than in mainstream Christianity. (It is true that CS does not adhere to the concept of miracles, seeing healing as a result of laws of nature that are not widely understood.) This section is so wrong that it really needs to be corrected in the interest of the accuracy of the article, whatever one might think of CS per se. I don't have time to root out academic sources on this so I suggest that it simply be removed. The over-riding concern is, surely to give an accurate picture of the topic. It's the equivalent of an article on Nietzsche saying he was a devout Christian, or an article on Marx calling him an opponent of socialism.Be-nice:-) (talk) 06:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that a great deal of this is just language. "Trinity," "resurrection," "atonement," "heaven," and "hell" are used in entirely different ways by Christian Scientists than other Christian protestant denominations. ("Atonement" is particularly problematic since it pairs with "Original Sin" which Christian Scientists do not believe in.)

Poorly stated is probably a better description than simply wrong. These differences probably should be elucidated rather than being painted with a broad brush -- leaving a wrong impression. The history of religions, particularly the Abrahamic religions, is full of schisms resulting from different interpretations of central concepts which are then forgotten. Certainly neutral academic sources are going to be difficult to find about this. To understand the issue you need to understand the lingo, and most of the people who actually understand the lingo are or were themselves Christian Scientists. Digitalican (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I take the point Digitalican. However, the statement about the virgin birth is, simply, wrong. Not only did MBE believe in it, but she was completely orthodox in that belief. Others of her views were less orthodox, but the kind of sweeping generalisations referred to distort rather than elucidates her teachings. In the interest of the accuracy of the article if nothing else, this needs to be corrected.Be-nice:-) (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW atonement doesn't necessarily pair with original sin. It literally means at-one-ment.Be-nice:-) (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I know what it means in Christian Science. I was pointing out to you than in traditional Christian parlance it pairs with original sin and that the difference between the two is particularly hard to explain. Digitalican (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

At-one-ment is the original meaning of atonement. It's not just the CS interpretation: https://www.google.ie/?gws_rd=cr&ei=xUbxUvyTLYjwhQfhhYDQDA#q=atonement+etymologyBe-nice:-) (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Panpsychism

Where is the source for this? We are the opposite of Panpsychism. lol Healing happens in that moment when the healer becomes conscious that God is All, the only Mind - the consciousness of Christ. For Christ, there was one "thinker"....... anything else is hypnotism. one mind acting on another mind.. This is absolutely against Christian Science. W S@H page 496

We lose the high signification of omnipotence, when after admitting that God, or good, is omnipresent and

has all-power, we still believe there is another

power, named evil. This belief that there is more than one mind is as pernicious to divine theology as are ancient mythology and pagan idolatry. With one Father, even God, the whole family of man would be brethren; and with one Mind and that God, or good, the brotherhood of man would consist of Love and Truth, and have unity of Principle and spiritual power which constitute divine Science. The supposed existence of more than one mind was the basic error of idolatry. This error assumed the loss of spiritual power, the loss of the spiritual presence of Life as infinite Truth without an unlikeness, and the loss of Love as ever present and universal.

Divine] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 01:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC) --Simplywater (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Pantheism

lol..... What is the source for this?

I can see how people make this mistake, but again we are the opposite this. there are those people, who look around at the world and say "hay, this is all God". "Matter is also God"....

We are not that... hahahahahaha. Again we are just the opposite. When Christian Scientist say "God is All". That means "God is everything real (only spiritual) and anything that isn't spiritual isn't real... One can't heal if one believes that God is "the broken foot". And if God is the 'disease' for example, then why fix it. Pantheism would say "Disease is God"...... that is not us. --Simplywater (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Metaphysical religion

Hi Digitalican, I'm going to change back to the previous version of the first sentence, because it now makes less sense. The sentence says it's a new religious movement, so there's no need to repeat that it's a religion. It's not clear what function the words "religion or religious tradition" have in the sentence, or the word "includes."

The reason for "set of beliefs and practices" is that CS is a religion that has to be practised; in contrast a person could be a member of (say) a mainstream Protestant church, and a firm believer, and never do a single thing. It's not that the beliefs and practices all necessarily belong to the metaphysical family; I don't even know what it would mean to say that. It's that Christian Science as a whole does; that is, the sentence could also simply read: "Christian Science belongs to the metaphysical family of new religious movements".

As for it being part of the metaphysical family (or metaphysical-New Thought/metaphysical-Christian Science family; there are various ways of expressing it), to the best of my knowledge no academic who specializes in this area questions that. Suggested reading: Catherine Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion, Yale University Press, 2006.

For comparison:

1. Previous lead: "Christian Science is a set of beliefs and practices belonging to the metaphysical family of new religious movements."
2. Current lead: "Christian Science is a religion or religious tradition which includes set of beliefs and practices belonging to the metaphysical family of new religious movements.

I'm suggesting that we return to the first version. Also, given that the sentence is so well-sourced, I'd like to ask that we gain consensus before changing it over an objection. How to have a fruitful discussion with the current talk-page situation is another matter! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this analysis; have reverted to the long-standing version while consensus (if any) for new text is formed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a big dog in this fight -- or at least won't try to unleash one. My only thought was that the first and most salient point about Christian Science is that it is a religion as opposed to yoga or Tai-Chi which can also be described as a set of beliefs and practices. I took my cue on this from the Mormonism article which describes it as a religious tradition without needing to source that fact. The Mormon church is roughly contemporaneous with the Christian Science church.

Is it more than that (justifying the word 'includes')? It also has a structure, rules, edifices, programs and institutions which exist apart from the beliefs and practices. That's a logical argument rather than a sourced one which I'll happily give up.

I am not convinced that "New Thought" is any more than an appellation which classifies a set of metaphysical beliefs. (These beliefs aren't necessarily "new" nor is Christian Science any "newer" than Mormonism.) It does, however, describe that general set of beliefs and practices that are part of Christian Science and therefore should be kept in the lead. I'm not disputing that -- nor would I -- I just am adding that Christian Science is first and foremost a religion with all the attendant trappings thereof.

I just threw my two cents in to see how it would fly since the previous version needed to be edited/reverted anyway. I have no desire to add to the chaos of this talk page. :)

--Digitalican (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Scientology offers another point of comparison ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Beliefs and practices --- Christian Science practices Christian Science treatment, which you state below, which is unique. So it would not be correct to say "beliefs and practices"Simplywater (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

New Thought/First Line

I propose that the first sentence of the page be removed because it is highly debatable.--Simplywater (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

1. George Saliba is not a specialist in American Religious movements but a Palestinian Christian Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science. There is no source for "as known in literature" He's making it up. I have not come across that in what I've read.
2. Lewis Quote does not put Christian Science under the umbrella of New Thought but rather puts Christian Science and New Thought under the umbrella of "metaphysical Communities" The metaphysical group is not synonymous with New Thought
3. Sources that affirm that Christian Science is distinct, (New Thought
   1. Kelefa Sanneh, Power Lines: What's behind Rhonda Byrne's Spiritual Empire? (New Yorker September 2010)[4]

      "(she) insisted on the central importance of Biblical Scripture, as well as her own writings. In this, she separated herself from her New Thought rivals, who viewed the existence of religious institutions as a hindrance"

   2. Dell de Chant, World Religions in American [5] Like Lewis he makes the classification of "metaphysical Communities." He says on the topic of religious authority and dogma, in contrast to Christian Science's singular focus on the teachings of Mrs. Eddy, New thought looks like a religious convenience store offering one stop shopping for the religious customer. He also puts New Thought and Christian Science (and others) under the umbrella of "metaphysical communities."
   3. America's Alternative Religions (Gail Harley, State University of NY Press 1995)

      "While the New Thought and Christian Science movements have been historically related, today they operate along widely divergent avenues."

      
      Each of these sources gives "pages" of differences, not one or two. They are specifically making the point that they are not the same.
4. Melton describes New Thought as "schism from Christian Science" (1992 P.16
5. All of Melton's quotes are from an encyclopedia.... Why are they allowed?
6. Carolyn Fraser - Not sure she is a neutral source to define Christian Science.

We are not here to promote one groups thoughts about where Christian Science lies or another groups thoughts in the first sentence. That is the first thing the public will read. We are just here to state facts. And the fact is-- it is very debatable whether Christian Science is in the set of beliefs known as "New Thought".-- --Simplywater (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)--Simplywater (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The first line really needs to be stated in a way that express FACT, not opinion. After all the reading I have done over the last few days, there are reliable sources that put Christian Science in the 'Christian' category. Most reputable and unbiased encyclopidias have addressed the issue by calling it a "religious movement"

Books that put Christian Science in the Christian category.

1.Dr. Jeffrey Webb is historian and professor at Huntington College, active Bible liason to the Wabast Presbyrtery's Committee on the Preparation of the Ministry. co-editor of the newsletter of the Conference on Faith and History. has written work on topics in Christianity and Christian history.

The Complete Idiots Guide to Christianity

Divine healing in the Christian tradition goes all the way back to Jesus, Christ, who went around healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind,and raising the dead. In our own time, many Christians belive that healing is one of the signs of the Holy Spirit... Nowhere can you find a group operating under the umbrella of Christianity that's more committed exploring the relationship between spirituality and health

:If you understand the relationship between mind and body, Eddy's science of Christianity is pretty straightforward

2.Raymond Cunningham Ass. Professor at Fordham University The Impact of Christian Science on American Churches, 1880-1910, Raymond Cunningham, The American Historical Review, Oxford University Press, 1967, pages 885

Clerical reaction spanned a broad spectrum of opinion,

from utter rejection to cautious approval. By far the more numerous were

the hostile observers-churchmen for the most part, of a conservative theological

bent that was reinforced by the belief that Christian Science posed

a genuine threat to society and public health. Ministers, on the other hand,

who expressed a degree of favorable interest were invariably more adventurous

spirits, whose open-ended theologies emphasized the validity of

a diversity of religious insights. Whatever their attitudes, however, the

clergy soon came to realize that, despite the hopes of many and the prophecies

of some, Mrs. Eddy and her faith were not passing fads that might be

safely ignored.

3Michael Kinnoman,http://divinity.uchicago.edu/michael-kinnamon, http://www.seattleu.edu/stm/about/faculty/kinnamon/

Ecumenical Trends, Vol  I am convinced that your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ, a position that has recently been echoed by others, including the National Council of the Reformed Church in France. HIs article is a secondary source because it is a peer review.  All peer reviews are secondary sources.  And it isn't uncovering any new historical insights.  

Library said, if you're not taking this as a secondary source, it's because you don't like what he's saying"

4Geoffey Blainey Geoffrey_Blainey

Geoffey Blainey, Short History of Christianity. (speaking about Christian Science)

For the first time women were leading several vibrant -some critics preferred to say 'eccentric' - branches of Christianity."

5.Todd Ruetenik - Associate Professor and Department Chair. St Ambrose University http://www.sau.edu/Academic_Programs/Philosophy/Faculty/Ruetenik_Tadd.html

A perennial critisism is found in the quip that Christian Science is neither Christian nor science. To understand why the first part is misguided, one needs to understand the reason Eddy considers herself Christian... It is obviously a very biased eye that would see it as a wako cult"

6. Shailer Mather -Shailer_Mathews Mather, Shailer, "Protestantism, Democracy, and Unity", Chicago Journals, Journal of Religion, V99/2,1912 pages 171

The problem of disunion and union must, therefore, be regared as springing from something other than exclusively theological differences. They arise from social psychology and institutional history. their continuance will depend less upon belief and heresies than upon the social significance of divisive histories and policies. That this differentiation of the Christian movement has be no means ceased will be seen by recalling the Christian Science movement... Even if the Christian movement be considered as a whole, it has always even in New Testament times, included diverging groups.

7. Russell Re Mannin - Affliated Lectuer at the Faculty of Divinity and a Fellow of St Edmund's College at the University of Cambridge. His books include The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology and the Cambridge Campoinion to Paul Tillich.

• Under the heading "World's Christianities"

Christian Scientists regard Jesus Christ as the "wayshower" and condsider his healing 'miracles' as exemplars of his spiritual understanding: an understanding that is available to all humanity.ww.chris-Century America, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol 48, No2 (Jun. 1980) p221

I propose that the first line says

"Christian Science is a religious movement founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Some academics believe it to be part of the metaphysical family and others as part of the Christian tradition."<ref>Webb, Dr.Jeffrey, The complete Idiots Guide to Christianity, Penguin Group, Page 239 to 243</ref>Simplywater (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

another option: Christian Science has been treated traditionally within the rubric of 'Christianity" (got this from a religion professor at U of Penn)

Do I need to List every History of Christianity book that includes Christian Science as a Christian religion? There are really too many. But I can list them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 19:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Another option" Christian Science is a set of thought and practices derived from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy and the Bible. Simplywater (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I Really feel the first sentence needs to be nuetral. Here is my latest thought..... ANY CONSENSUS?

"Christian Science is considered to be set of beliefs belonging to the metaphysical family of new religious movements.[4]and falls within the rubric of 'Christianity.

This is consistent with what the New Religious Movements think about Christian Science "it is a Christian denomination along with Latter Day Saints, ect ect that has been studied as a New Religious Movement. If I don't hear anything, I'll think it is a go :) Give you all a few days to ponder this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a newbie to editing wiki pages, just signed in. Can I join this discussion?Syllabub2 (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, without waiting for a reply to my question, I think the introductory sentence to the article should certainly be a factual point, not a debatable one. Although I'm not sure I have read everything here yet, the proposed sentence - "Christian Science is a religious movement founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Some academics believe it to be part of the metaphysical family and others as part of the Christian tradition" not only is factual, but captures the essence of the debate on this page, so Id' like to make that change. Syllabub2 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No consensus here. While I dislike the term New Thought as much as anyone, it is absolutely descriptive of the general belief set of Christian Science, though it may differ in the particulars. I prefer the lede deal with the most salient facts of Christian Science in the briefest possible way, i.e.

1. It is a religion or religious tradition
2. That religion is most completely described by the term New Thought however pejorative that may seem.
3. It was developed by Mary Baker Eddy.

--Digitalican (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not descriptive of the general belief set of Christian Science. Take a class on the history of Christianity. Guess what is included. Christian Science, even though there are those who disagree. I think we need to have the first sentence Christian Science was a religious movement developed by Mary Baker Eddy in 1875. The first sentence should either explain the debate, or not put it into any box. Why the push to define it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 19:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kinnoman article. Ecumenical Trends Wow somehow this was erased

Dear Shelly,

Fr. Loughran has given you permission to share the Ecumenical Trends article by Rev. Kinnamon with your group. Sincerely, Christine

Kinnoman, Michael, Ecumenical Christianity and its Implications for Christian Science, Ecumenical Trends, Vol 41/10 pp 1-3,16

For the first 58 years of my life I had little exposure to the Christian Science church and numerous stereotypes and suspicions about it. But then I led a group from St. Louis on a study trip to the Middle East. And in all of them I see the Holy Spirit at work. What is there to do but rejoice and try to learn more!

I want to clear up on possible misunderstanding before it occurs. Whereever and whenever we see movement toward the unity of the church, it is not our achievement we celebrate but God's gift for which we give thanks. Think again on Ephesians. Maintain the unity of the spirit in the bonds of peace.

When you have been treated, at least by some, as a cult, it is hard to trust that your gifts will be taken seriously by others. So I understand the reticence to get Ecumenically involved. Let me suggest that this has not only cut you off from perspectives on the Gospel that God has given to others, it has deprived the rest of us of perspectives and practices that God has given to you.

ONe obvious gift you have to offer the wider church is God's power to heal and the importance of the Church's participation in that healing ministry. Because generally speaking the Church in this country has abdicated its responsibility for healing to the medical professions.

With that in mind, I want my own position to be clear. While General Secretary at the NCC, I invited Christian Science as full participating members of the council's commissions because I am convinced that your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ - a postion that has recently been echoed by others, including the National Council of the Reformed Church in France.Simplywater (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Simplywater (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

acting on behalf/ can you explain this?

So sorry to be persistent about this, but I was told that it was ok for me to edit even if I believe in Christian Science. How so we work better for neutrality? Because from my perspective, this article is not perfectly neutral. Maybe a mediator would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 16:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It's OK for you to edit no matter what you believe in. However, the article should reflect the academic/intellectual consensus. It should be based (mainly) on secondary sources. It should also be accurate about its subject. Getting all those right can be a tall order, but it's worth persevering. Getting your head around all the Wikipedia rules/policies/guidelines is virtually a full-time job, and even then there's no guarantee that you will satisfy everyone. The thing to remember is that this is an encyclopaedia intended to inform people on what Christian Science actually teaches. It's neither a forum for proselytising (sp?), nor an execution yard for heretics ;-) BTW, there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral article.Be-nice:-) (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Good! There are 3 academic sources, as you define them, that state that the tenets are the beliefs of Christian Science. I would feel much more trusting if you all would let them stand along side the part on Christian Science theology. I wouldn't feel as great a need to edit, what I consider to be very biased sources. I have the quotes by both Melton in 2 different books and Renne' stating that these are the beliefs of Christian Science. 3 sources versus 1. Seems that 3 should win. I see your effort and I'm greatful. But imagine if a group of atheist were editing the chapter on Christianity. Sure, there is a lot they could say. murders, killings, ect.... A lot of weird stuff has happened in the name of Christianity. But at the heart, you want people to know what Christianity is not what atheist this Christianity is. See the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Totally. I completely see where you're coming from. But unfortunately much of the secondary material on CS is either biased against it, or factually wrong, or both. On the other hand material written by Christian Scientists (even established authors like Robert Peel) is viewed negatively by Wikipedia editors, apparently because such authors are coming from the standpoint of belief in the teaching. I think the CS church itself may be partly to blame for this situation, since for a long time they discouraged people from writing about CS except within the CS literature, which is regarded as a no-go area by Wikipedia editors ("in-house" in the jargon).Be-nice:-) (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, if I use the very same sources that the other editors are using, by Gill, Kinnoman. ext. However I use them, they are not allowed. There should be some consensus between those who really know what Christian Science is, those who practice it, and those who want the world to believe something different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Literature review: RS on CS

Hello, everyone. Since there’s been contention around sourcing, here is an annotated list of books on CS that are considered useful in the field best known for its study, American religious history. The list isn’t intended to be comprehensive but instead representative. It’s basically a “top ten” list of books on CS published by academic presses, the type of source Wikipedia ranks the “most reliable” [WP:SOURCE]. Most below fall into the top tier of academic presses (e.g. California, Yale) and/or presses with a focus on American religions (e.g. Indiana, Johns Hopkins).

Perhaps taking some of the issues on the Talk page to sources such as this will help advance the conversation and reorient it from personal perspectives to published research.

A note about how scholarly sources on any religion are evaluated: Current norms assess a work’s academic professionalism and standing rather than an author’s often complex, multiform, sometimes shifting (and often professionally invisible) religious position, affiliation, or non-affiliation. As in Wikipedia, it's not the relative viewpoint of the author that matters, but whether the work has been vetted and peer-reviewed according to academic standards. Accordingly, current norms also sideline work written in primarily apologetic or exposé formats and those that have received little or no academic attention, have been critically panned, or have been either self-published or contracted by an in-house religious press, as both processes lack proficient peer review and tend to operate apologetically.

In alphabetical order:

• Catherine L. Albanese, America: Religions and Religion (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1999). The most widely used textbook on American religions for undergraduates in the U.S. [link], now in its fifth edition. Contains an extensive section on Christian Science.
• Catherine L. Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007). Sees all American religions, including Christian Science, as having “metaphysical” components.
• Mary Farrell Bednarowski, The Religious Imagination of American Women (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999). Contains several references to Christian Science.
• Heather D. Curtis, Faith in the Great Physician: Suffering and Divine Healing in American Culture, 1860-1900 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007). Contains several references to Christian Science. Won the prestigious Elizabeth D. Brewer prize from the American Society of Church history.
• Pamela Klassen, Spirits of Protestantism: Medicine, Healing, and Liberal Christianity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011). Contains several references to Christian Science.
• Stephen Gottschalk, The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life (Berkeley: University of California, 1973). Cited by nearly every academic work on CS since its publication.
• Stephen Gottschalk, Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy’s Challenge to Materialism (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 2005). Not as influential as his 1973 book, but cited along with other biographies.
• Paul Eli Ivey, Prayers in Stone: Christian Science Architecture in the United States, 1894-1930 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999). Covers a narrow topic but had a number of reviews in competitive academic journals.
• Ann Taves, Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience From Wesley to James (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999). Contains several references to Christian Science.
• Rennie B. Schoepflin, Christian Science on Trial: Religious Healing in America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). Considered a singular exploration of valuable source materials.

Biographies not published by academic presses but regularly cited in the literature:

• Robert Peel, Mary Baker Eddy: The Years of Discovery, Trial, and Authority (New York: Holt, Rinehardt, and Winston, 1966-1977). Old, but still considered the most comprehensively sourced biography. Later published by the Christian Science Publishing Society. Cited with other biographies.
• Gillian Gill, Mary Baker Eddy (Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1998). Received an unusual amount of reviews in scholarly journals. Cited with other biographies.
• Robert David Thomas, “With Bleeding Footsteps”: Mary Baker Eddy’s Path to Religious Leadership (New York: Knopf/Random House, 1994). A psychobiography. Not cited as much as other biographies, but considered a viable source.Ath271 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Whose "top ten" is this? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 11:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. A useful and concise question. Give or take a few books, this lit represents the core set of materials most scholars of American religious history would point you to if you were to ask them for the most authoritative sources on the topic.

The literature on this tradition is really quite small. It’s somewhat on par with Jehovah’s Witnesses in that area. Not a lot of new work is being produced (unlike Mormons, American Catholics, etc., who have what could be called historical industrial complexes with significant infrastructure and production). Comparatively speaking, material on CS is slight. Many of the excerpts found in monographs and college textbooks are derivative of the same group of books, sometimes a few articles.

But don’t take my word for it. I’d encourage you (and anyone here who is so inclined) to contact a few well-known scholars of American religions who are active with current scholarship and ask for their own top five or ten. You could even ask them to vet the list I’ve provided. If they have just a bit of familiarity with the topic, at the very least they’d point you to Albanese and Gottschalk. If they have a lot of familiarity, my guess is there would be about a 70% overlap. The universities best known for training scholars in American religions right now are Harvard, Princeton, UNC-Chapel Hill, Florida State University, UT-Austin, Chicago, UC-Santa Barbara, and Indiana-Bloomington. Yes, faculty members are short on time, but most profiles are easily accessible online, and anyone who explains they’re doing a public research project on Christian Science and asks for a short list of references is likely to be well received.Ath271 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this list. But it seems that Wikipedia wants..... Neutrality.... Neutrality, Neutrality. Who gets to decide which books are used? Maybe we should talk to a mediator about the first sentence. I think that would help. The first sentence is an opinion. Do you think a mediator would help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Simplywater (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a few Questions

Do you mean we are only going to use sources as you have defined them above? Does Fraser's book meet this criteria? Here is another list. Could you tell me what is the matter with these sources? I talked to a Harvard Professor, and he said these sources together would easily prove to anyone interested in neutrality, that Christian Science is studied under the rubric of Christianity.

Dr. Jeffrey Webb is historian and professor at Huntington College, active Bible liason to the Wabast Presbyrtery's Committee on the Preparation of the Ministry. co-editor of the newsletter of the Conference on Faith and History. has written work on topics in Christianity and Christian history.

The Complete Idiots Guide to Christianity Jeffrey Webb

Divine healing in the Christian tradition goes all the way back to Jesus, Christ, who went around healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind,and raising the dead. In our own time, many Christians belive that healing is one of the signs of the Holy Spirit... Nowhere can you find a group operating under the umbrella of Christianity that's more committed exploring the relationship between spirituality and health

If you understand the relationship between mind and body, Eddy's science of Christianity is pretty straightforward

2.Raymond Cunningham Ass. Professor at Fordham University The Impact of Christian Science on American Churches, 1880-1910, Raymond Cunningham, The American Historical Review, Oxford University Press, 1967, pages 885

Clerical reaction spanned a broad spectrum of opinion,from utter rejection to cautious approval. By far the more numerous werethe hostile observers-churchmen for the most part, of a conservative theologicalbent that was reinforced by the belief that Christian Science poseda genuine threat to society and public health. Ministers, on the other hand,who expressed a degree of favorable interest were invariably more adventurousspirits, whose open-ended theologies emphasized the validity ofa diversity of religious insights. Whatever their attitudes, however, theclergy soon came to realize that, despite the hopes of many and the propheciesof some, Mrs. Eddy and her faith were not passing fads that might besafely ignored.

3. Michael Kinnoman,http://divinity.uchicago.edu/michael-kinnamon, http://www.seattleu.edu/stm/about/faculty/kinnamon/ Ecumenical Christianity and its impact on Christian Science Ecumenical Trends, Vol 41/10 pp 1-3, 16

I am convinced that your community is a valued part of the one body of Christ, a position that has recently been echoed by others, including the National Council of the Reformed Church in France. HIs article is a secondary source because it is a peer review. All peer reviews are secondary sources. And it isn't uncovering any new historical insights.

4Geoffey Blainey Geoffrey_Blainey

[1] Geoffey Blainey, Short History of Christianity. (speaking about Christian Science)

For the first time women were leading several vibrant -some critics preferred to say 'eccentric' - branches of Christianity."

5.Todd Ruetenik - Associate Professor and Department Chair. St Ambrose University http://www.sau.edu/Academic_Programs/Philosophy/Faculty/Ruetenik_Tadd.html, The First Church, Christ, Pragmatist, Journal of Religion and Health Vol 51/4 December 2012 pp 1397-1405

A perennial critisism is found in the quip that Christian Science is neither Christian nor science. To understand why the first part is misguided, one needs to understand the reason Eddy considers herself Christian... It is obviously a very biased eye that would see it as a wako cult" [2]

6. Shailer Mather -, served as dean of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago (from 1908-1933).

"Protestantism, Democracy, and Unity", Chicago Journals, Journal of Religion, V99/2,1912 pages 171

The problem of disunion and union must, therefore, be regared as springing from something other than exclusively theological differences. They arise from social psychology and institutional history. their continuance will depend less upon belief and heresies than upon the social significance of divisive histories and policies. That this differentiation of the Christian movement has be no means ceased will be seen by recalling the Christian Science movement... Even if the Christian movement be considered as a whole, it has always even in New Testament times, included diverging groups. [3]

7. Russell Re Mannin - Affliated Lectuer at the Faculty of Divinity and a Fellow of St Edmund's College at the University of Cambridge. His books include The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology and the Cambridge Campoinion to Paul Tillich.

30 Second Religion, Metro Books, New York Under the title ) World Christianities [4]

Christian Scientists regard Jesus Christ as the "wayshower" and condsider his healing 'miracles' as exemplars of his spiritual understanding: an understanding that is available to all humanity.

Not sure why you all are so opposed to including that Christian Science is studied under the rubric of Christianity. If you are going to call it metaphysical, it is fair to include it is also considered, not just by Christian Scientists, that it is viewed as a Christian religion. Can you explain? if not, I want to add it to the first paragraph. Consensus.... is consensus... I love all the work you have put into the article. But wiki is supposed to be neutral. When in doubt neutrality wins. I love Wikipedia.....Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Loved what you said about checking out underlining beliefs. Does that mean that academics that have a 'conservative' Christian bent, should be eliminated? I think we just try to write the article with a generous heart. As unbiased as possible, making sure that important viewpoints are expressed. Simplywater (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Simplywater, thank you for the questions. I'm assimilating the scope of your input here and will respond within a day.Ath271 (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

edits to include pages and sources.Simplywater (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, when I say it is an opinion, what I mean is "calling it Metaphysical" is just one way to 'couch' what Christian Science it. Simplywater (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

One last question that would help. Isn't Science and Health a 'primary source'?. Someone (Mary Baker Eddy) who feels she is an authority on the subject of Christian Healing. And someone talking about Science and Health or it's ideas, would be a secondary source. Am I mistaken? Simplywater (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Simplywater, to answer your questions:

Do you mean we are only going to use sources as you have defined them above?

No. As noted, the list "is not intended to be comprehensive but instead representative." Please see Literature review (though this is a list, not an article, the rationale is the same).

Does Fraser's book meet this criteria?

It’s not published by an academic press and has not been peer-reviewed, so it wouldn’t be as good a source as materials that meet these criteria. Please see WP:SCHOLARSHIP for this guideline. I haven't looked at where it might be used in this article so far. I wouldn't suggest removing it unless there were clearly a better source to replace it.

Here is another list. Could you tell me what is the matter with these sources?

Thanks so much for posting this. I see two main issues with this list. One is formatting or presentation. The sources are incompletely and inconsistently cited (some have dates, others don’t; some have full publication info, others don’t; the author’s name isn’t entirely clear in at least one). It’s not always clear when you are quoting from the source vs. summarizing it in your own words. These issues make it difficult to make sense of the post. Wikipedia has a “sandbox” where you can practice consistency with formatting skills, which you might enjoy using. Many Wikipedians have used it. Please see WP:SB.

Second, the sources you present do not all appear to conform to Wikipedia’s definition of a reliable source. For example, a source from 1912 (Shailer Matthews) is a primary source at this point, because it is too old to be a secondary source. A source from 1967 (Raymond Cunningham) has probably been superseded by more current literature. The journal “Ecumenical Trends” has a religious rationale; it’s not clear whether it’s juried, or what that might mean in a religious environment. These are just a few examples. You might want to study WP:RS for a better sense of this.

I talked to a Harvard Professor, and he said these sources together would easily prove to anyone interested in neutrality, that Christian Science is studied under the rubric of Christianity.

It is indeed (as well as being studied as a “metaphysical movement”). The page’s sidebar link to Christianity seems to acknowledge this. If you seek to make or suggest a textual change about this point, however, the sources would need to conform to WP:RS to make the point convincingly.

I’ll finally add that making just one main point per post would be useful. I found it difficult to separate and prioritize the points in your final paragraphs. If you can carefully do this work for the reader, that's always very appreciated!

I do hope this is a help to you.Ath271 (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much!!Simplywater (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Mary Baker Eddy/Gill's thoughts Non sequitur

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&diff=594305930&oldid=594008825 Love this! Let's talk about your edit that you called non sequitor. What are you trying to prove about Mary Baker Eddy in these paragraphs that evidence showing her to be a prayerful Christian woman is non sequitur?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a non-sequitur in the sense that the statement is not meaningful in the context of that point in her biography. The paragraph talks about her personal characteristics in her dealings with other people not her degree of religiosity. Digitalican (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, Thank you!! then where in that section can we add this "mary Baker Eddy was above all a believing Christian and a daily reader of the Godpels." Gill page 366. There must be somewhere in the section on Mary Baker Eddy that an academic, who is not a Christian Scientist can comment on her religiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 06:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Simplywater (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I would say there is no place in that section where such a statement should be made -- but then the real answer to that question is more complicated. For may taste there is way too much biographical material on Mary Baker Eddy that is unrelated to the genesis and development of Christian Science.

While it is certainly true that the history Christian Science is difficult (if not impossible) to separate from the life of Mary Baker Eddy, I think we can do a better job of it than is done here. If the biographical information is not germane to the actual development of the church, then I think it should go into the biography of Mary Baker Eddy rather than here.

On a more general note I think there is way too much "forest for the trees" here. If I come to this article as an uninformed reader trying to find out about Christian Science and how it (theoretically) works, that is very hard to find. What material is written here about it, while more than adequately sourced, is not entirely correct. Without Wikilawyering, which I refuse to do as I too have been beaten by the cudgels of the various Wikipedia policy interpretations, there is far too much weight given to Quimby, to Eddy's various neuroses and to the extremes of the role of Christian Science in society for the article to be genuinely informative. This has actually been expanded from earlier versions of the article in an effort to maintain NPOV.

In my (not necessarily so) humble opinion, NPOV is not accomplished by yielding a soapbox for every point of view. It is achieved by focusing on information rather than argumentation. The argument you've been engaging in, attempting to put Christian Science in a better -- or at least different -- light fails dismally that. In fact, it gets in the way of more constructive and informative work. I'm loathe to make any suggestions against a background of so much noise. This has become chaos rather than collaboration. --Digitalican (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Digitalican that there is too much biography of MBE (and too much of the other material Digitalican mentions.) The rightful place for much of the biographical material is in the article on MBE, not here. On the other hand, there is a minimum of material on the actual theology/philosophy/basic teachings of Christian Science. This is unsatisfactory not just for an adherent of CS, but also for anyone trying to find out what CS actually teaches. (Whether one believes it or not is another matter, but the article as it stands is singularly uninformative on the essential issue of what the teaching of CS actually is.) While I'm at it, I just discovered that there are 99 references to Fraser in the article. Fraser is the most prominent and best-known opponent of Christian Science. Ninet-nine references are surely excessive.Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

We've been through this before. There are roughly equal numbers of references to Gill's book and to Fraser's book and articles (when I last checked it was around 60 references to Fraser in footnotes and 50 to Gill). Both women published around the same time in the late 1990s; Fraser was critical, Gill was positive. In addition, much of Gill's book was pre-approved by the Christian Science church – she had to agree to this to gain access to the archives – so that has weakened the book as a source. Wikipedia has to reflect the view of the preponderance of sources. Fraser does that; Gill doesn't.

As for material about Eddy, sources agree that her personality was central to the development of the religion, so to reduce the biographical material would be a mistake.

Re: theology and practice, there's a great deal of material about this. Can you give examples of anything that's missing? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious about the claim that "Gill's book was pre-approved by the Christian Science church." My recollection of the research note in her book is that the church asked her to agree to this and she refused. I think that Gill claimed to have retained full editorial control over her book, but I could be mistaken.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Gill devotes a section of her book (pp. 557–562, particularly pp. 559–562) to describing her relationship with the church. (She also describes how the church seemed, in effect, to have spied on her in the early stages of the book. She had been invited to talk to a members-only club in Boston in 1994; the talk was advertised only in a private members' newsletter. At the end of the meeting two members of the church's legal department were discovered to be in the room, uninvited, unannounced and against club rules.)

When Gill first approached the church for access to their research archives, the church asked her to sign a document agreeing not to quote, paraphrase or comment on anything they showed her, without their permission. The restrictions applied to anything the church called "unpublished material," but their definition of unpublished appears to have included anything they claimed copyright on, even if it had been published by others or was in the possession of other research institutions. If she saw a document as a result of this arrangement, and the document had already been published or quoted elsewhere, she would still not be allowed to quote, paraphrase or comment on it without the church's consent.

There were protracted negotiations over this, which ended with Gill agreeing to show the church any page of her unpublished manuscript that quoted from documents they had shown her, plus two pages on either side of each quotation. They would make any necessary "corrections" and hand it back to her. The church represented this as a copyright issue. Gill's requests for documents were referred to a researcher the church made available, then to the researcher's supervisor, and sometimes to the head of department or the church's board of directors.

In 1997 she showed the church 145 pages of her manuscript, plus two pages on each side of every quotation they wanted to check. (She doesn't say how many pages this was altogether, but it must have been a significant percentage of the book.) The church approved the material. The board of directors then suggested that their researcher fact check the whole manuscript. Gill agreed and said she was grateful for the offer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

the book is 700 pages. plus an index. 145 doesn't seem like that much to show. I'm not sure that fact checking and agreeing are the same. There wasn't any editing done on the part of the church. But that is not the same as saying the church approved it. What is sad though is that she was a defender of Mary Baker Eddy, and her quotes here do not reflect the conclusions that Gill came to. 1. Mary Baker Eddy did not steal from Quimby - did I miss it? Or did you add that Gill came to that conclusion 2. Mary Baker Eddy was not a hysteric. 3. Mary Baker Eddy was above all a very Christian woman who followed the Bible.Simplywater (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Simplywater (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The pattern I see in the article looks like this

Academics say A Christian Scientists say not A

What is missing is Some Academics say A Some Academics say not A

It is a consistent pattern of omission.

For example, in her book Gill said there is no proof that Mary Baker Eddy was a hysteric, but that was omitted. Instead you did use a Gill quote to say that Jean Mcdonald, who challenged the "mary baker Eddy is a hysteric" was a Christian Scientist (so we can't quite believe her.) YET Gill came to the same conclusion.

Gill quotes are not used to give creditbility to Mary Baker Eddy, even though there are plenty of them in her book. I respect your views. Sincerely. But the article needs to be neutralSimplywater (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Christian Science Beliefs/ how do we come to consensus about this?

I propose that we change the box called beliefs to the following tenets. Sources

Religion in America, edited by Harold Rabinowitz page 148 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.253.210 (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Melton, Gordon, The Encyclopedia of American Religions and Religious Creeds, pg 681, 1988

Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures pg. 497

Mary Baker Eddy, Manual of The Mother Church, pg 15

Melton, Gordon, Encyclopedic Handbook of Cults in American, pg 31

Van Voorst, Rober, Anthology of World Scriptures pg 352

Schoepflin, Rennie, Christian Science on Trail: Religious Healing in America pg 11

http://christianscience.com/what-is-christian-science/basic-teachings

1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.

2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.

3. We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.

4. We acknowledge Jesus' atonement as the evi‐ dence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man's unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and death.

5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to under‐ stand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.

6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do --Simplywater (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 00:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC) --Simplywater (talk) 00:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)--Simplywater (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)--Simplywater (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)--Simplywater (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your question in the Recent Changes feed. I would agree that something more specific than what's already there would be better. The "scientific statement of being" doesn't seem too accessible for the casual reader. I'm confused because the infobox appears to be a custom job. It doesn't seem based on Template:infobox religion, and I'm curious what the precedence is for the inclusion of "Beliefs" in the infobox. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't know? But I have come across now 4 different source books other than those associated with the Christian Science Publihing Society, that list these tenets. So it seem like a good idea to list them.--76.98.253.210 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Did a little peeking around at other pages. The Islam pages included the 5 pillars of islam, and they have a custom made beliefs box. that is not something I can do. I can barely do indentations on the talk page. Buddism has concepts, Mormonism has basic beliefs. Yep, most of the pages have some sort of official "this is what they believe". I can't say if it is accessible for the casual reader. I just googled "Christian Science beliefs" at the library, and although there were lots and lots of different opinions. These sources agreed.--Simplywater (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• As an ex-Christian Scientist I tend to agree with Simplywater and the IP that the Tenets of the Christian Science Church are a better description of what Christian Scientists believe, along side the Scientific Statement of Being, but neither are really accessible to the average reader. Christian Science language tends to be highly particular. An infobox that contains these would not really be informative or helpful. It's not our job (nor allowed under WP:OR guidlines) to explicate them.
• Sit back for a bit and let SlimVirgin do her job (or the job she has taken on.) This page is orders of magnitude better than it has ever been in its history. I've also noticed that many suggestions made on the talk page have worked their way effectively into the article. She's a experienced writer/editor who has managed to pull a number of divergent viewpoints into a coherent article. Is it perfectly accurate and unbiased? Certainly not, but that's an evolutionary process that we should help with. (As an working collaboratively with suggestions rather than editing 'collaboratively' seems to produce a better result, particularly for complex or controversial subjects.) Digitalican (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Digitalican. Found one more source. You are so wise. If the Tenents of Christian Science are accessible or not, I'm not sure. I simply know that they are what they are and there are reliable sources that point to them. In order to join the church, these are the only ideas one must agree to. Just trying to understand the difference between terms. Is what I've done "editing"?--Simplywater (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind the Scientific Statement of Being, but it is always read along side I John 3:2 (Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.) The two are a pair. And I couldn't find any references for this.--Simplywater (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, what's hanging me up here is that while I understand the scientific statement of being to be something that comes up a lot, it doesn't describe explicitly what the faith believes, which would seem to be the intuitive usage of a "Beliefs" parameter. Further, the infobox is meant to be a super-condensed version of the article so that casual readers can get the gist. I would propose, then, that the infobox Beliefs parameter should contain bite-sized nuggets. "There is only one God." "Matter is an illusion." "Unity with God results in healing." "Man is a reflection of God, not a problem child in need of constant repair or punishment," (too wordy!) etc. The specifics can be detailed further down in the article's prose, and could include the tenets. I would further suggest that by condensing some of the core beliefs, you might wind up with more than are expressly mentioned in the tenets, which might present a more complete picture of the religion, for example "man is not material, he is spiritual" could be considered an important part of belief, and comes from the SSoB, but isn't as clearly stated in the tenets. Anyhow, it's not my intention to interfere with the decisions you all make, I'm just pitching other ideas. Regards! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

New Thought page has a little "belief" thing, right at the top you can click on. I don't feel comfortable putting forth some little quip on a religion that, as you can see by this page, is greatly inverted by those who disagree with Christian Science. You can fit alot in those clicks, as you can see with their different 'clicks' ...... That way it is verified with sources. Nothing to argue about.

three short quotes that are on the walls of many churches

• Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ, Jesus
• Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free, Christ, Jesus
• Heal the sick, cleanse the lepord, cast out demons, freely ye have receive, freely give, Christ Jesus

--Simplywater (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)--Simplywater (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Either way, Key beliefs doesn't have a verifyable soure. It should be removed especially since the Scienctific Statement of being is down below also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.253.210 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi all, is it ok that I change what is under the "beliefs" box, idealism, bla bla bla. I talked to the 'help' people, and they said Wikipedia couldn't be used as a reference? And there wasn't any references given. The on-line help desk said "not even wikipedians trust wiki" "no it's not a reference" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Christian Science is a form of monistic idealism in a philosophical sense, with a practical aspect to it that is lacking in other philosophical systems. The closest analogy in philosophy is Plato, and it's interesting that Platonism or Neo-Platonism was a dominant element of Christian theology until it was supplanted by Aristotelianism in the Middle Ages. However, philosophically CS doesn't map completely on to the teachings of Plato or indeed any other philosopher that I'm aware of. It differs from Berkeley's subjective idealism in that it doesn't believe in the reality of the world of appearances, any more than it believes there is something called "matter" behind the world of appearances. There are some analogies with Kant and Hegel, and particularly with Schopenhauer who regarded the will as the root of all evil, a belief with which CS agrees, but which Schopenhauer himself got from oriental teachings. There are parallels with CS philosophy in the ideas of nineteenth century philosophers like Bradley and McTaggart, and contemporary popular accounts of quantum mechanics seem to support the CS teaching of the one Mind, the illusory (thought-created) nature of the world of appearances, etc. There are also parallels with anti-realism both in Anglo-American philosophy (eg Nelson Goodman) and in Continental philosophy (eg Derrida). However I'm not aware of any literature that draws these parallels/contrasts. If anyone is, it would be a useful addition to the article. BTW, can I join in the plaudits of the editorial work of Slimvirgin? I don't particularly like the critical tone of the article vis a vis CS, but in terms of comprehensiveness and detail it has come on by leaps and bounds.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is a little edgy. Thank you for being willing to join in. When I first saw your name I thought you were slimvirgin saying "be nice". It took me a while to figure out you were a person.

The Fraser quote about cults, breaking into cults is not very nice. I wouldn't want to see it on the New Thought page. Mather talks about the same "breaking up" in a very empowering way. Not a derogatory way. Simplywater (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)Simplywater (talk) 04:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

"It took me a while to figure out you were a person." I'm still trying to figure that one out myself ;-)Be-nice:-) (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, It's a bit strange that the editors are not allowing Christian Science beliefs to be posted on the page next to Christian Science Theology..... Here are 4 very sound sources that say these are the beliefs of Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy saying these are the Tenets of Christian Science.

1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.

2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.

3. We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.

4. We acknowledge Jesus' atonement as the evi‐ dence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man's unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and death.

5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to under‐ stand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.

6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. And to be merciful, just and pure. Sources

Schoepflin, Rennie, Christian Science on Trail: Religious Healing in America pg 11: The official tenets of orthodox Christian Science

Melton, Gordon, The Encyclopedia of American Religions and Religious Creeds, pg 681, 1988: Christian Science beliefs

Van Voorst, Robert, Anthology of World Scriptures. pp 352-353: The Essence of Christian Science teaching... Notice how the main doctrines of mainstream Protestant Christianity at the end of the 19th century are recast in Christian Science,Simplywater (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Any objection if I add this???? It is going to replace the box that has the Scientific Statement of Being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Simplywater (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll object, but not for the expected reasons. Ad nauseum, my take on what this page ought to be (or at least in the greatest part ought to be) is an explication of what Christian Science believes (and thus what its adherents believe) and its practices in ways that are comprehensible to non-Christian Scientists. (For the record I have no objection to criticisms of Christian Science so long as its clear what is being criticized beyond the simple existence of the religion.) The Church tenets are in Christian Science lingo and thus not entirely understandable to outsiders. What you/we need to find is an explication of those tenets in something other than 19th century American English from an "unbiased" secondary source outside the Christian Science community. (I say this in the friendliest possible way, knowing full well how difficult a task it is given the Wikipedia restrictions on citation.) --Digitalican (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I love your imput. In order to join a Christian Science church, one must agree to the tenets as written. It's fair those beliefs are somewhere. It is not a philosophy. One needs to be fully centered in Christian Theology, even if the theology is not traditional. one heals by understanding the nothingness of matter, but that is not a requirement to call yourself a Christian Scientist. A Christian Scientist must accept the inspired word of the Bible as the sufficient guide to eternal life. Adore God, Understand the significance of the crucifixion. The last, is probably the most important. To promise to have that mind which was also in Christ Jesus, follow the golden rule After reading this article, it's easy to think "now why are they Christian?" Simplywater (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Digitalican, the Scientific Statement of Being can stay. It is there two times. I just feel comfortable that the tenets are there so the public can read them and make their own decisions about our relationship to Christianity. It really breaks my heart that that piece is missing. Would you reconsider???? No one can edit her statements. If I try to reword it, it can be edited Digitalican. And may end up being something the complete opposite of what we believe and labled gnostic, theosophy, spiritualism, new thought, pantheism, platpusism. lol. Hinduism, buddism ect ect. It must be Truth if it seems to be everything. I just feel more comfortable have her words that cannot be edited. Would you reconsider?Simplywater (talk) 02:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Trust me, I know what is required to join a Christian Science church. I was raised in the church, the grandson of two Christian Science Practitioners and one Christian Science Lecturer. My bone fides are entirely intact. Still, I don't think it is necessary, or even desirable, to have either the Scientific Statement of Being or the Tenets of the Church in an encyclopedic article about Christian Science. Yes, they are what adherents believe, but they are still not meaningful to the outside reader. It is always important to write for your audience (he says ad nauseum.) I object to those as much as I object to the undue emphasis on the popular criticisms of the church. (Fraser grabs the low-hanging fruit and misses the boat of the serious problems with Christian Science so far as to have run aground.)

It is not my job to tell you what you can and should do, or not. I certainly won't stop you if you decide to post the tenets. I wouldn't put money on their lifetime, however -- and it would not be me who reverts them. I'm just giving you my considered opinion about what is comprehensible to people who might come here for information. Christian Science, has has been noted many times on this page, does a poor job of explaining itself to outsiders.

Don't let anything here break your heart. As I've said elsewhere this is only Wikipedia. Serious seekers will go elsewhere for information, particularly on seeing the nature of this article. The "higher power" card has already been played once in this farrago and I was told things would improve, which they have -- and we've at least lost the pseudoscience appellation. As Be Nice:-) has pointed out -- be patient and perseverant, mostly patient. Also spend some time becoming adept at wiki markup and reference style while you are being patient. Those increase your credibility considerably though they are indeed a pain to learn. --Digitalican (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have a 'free space' to say what Christian Science is without every philosopher, theologian, or academic jumping in to say "what we really believe" hahahahaha. But, the tenets are sourced in many books as our beliefs. I feel that we are marginalized from being considered Christian. The tenets show our direct relationship to Jesus' teaching. First and formost "we daily strive to have that "Mind" which was also in Christ Jesus." Even as I was writing this I wondered "If I can't love these editors, "who am I?"

Just wondering why you said MR. D "I wouldn't put money on their lifetime" in reference to the tenets. Why wouldn't someone want "Christian Science beliefs" to be posted on the Christian Science page? Hahah The only thing that Mary Baker Eddy, the Church, those who think we are a cult (Melton) and leading Theologians,(R.Scholfin) practicing Christian Scientists.. they all agree on that those tenets are the beliefs of Christian Science. And Wikipedia doesn't want them on the Christian Science page? I need a little help understanding this. The Scientific Statement of Being is there twice?? What is that about? and it has a poor and out dated source. Cunningham??Simplywater (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Missing any mention of Peel's Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age

I notice that the article fails to include any mention or cite to Robert Peel's book Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age (1989) ISBN 0060664843, but looking at the further reading section, I saw no place it would naturally fit. The reason I think this book would be a useful addition to support this article is that it contains many healings in which a medical physician inspected and diagnosed the patient, sometimes providing treatment that was not successful, and then the patient turning to C.S. treatment, being healed, and then again being evaluated by a medical physician that confirms the healing. These attestations are in the form of notarized affidavits. Therefore, I feel the healings in the book offer a more objective view on the efficacy of C.S. treatment in at least the cases written about in the book.

Where might we tie this resource into the article? WilliamKF (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I did a search for "rheumatic" in the snippet preview offered by Google and found these snippet quotes from page 142, 143, and 144:

...ingly ill during the day. The doctor at the infirmary took blood tests and diagnosed the condition as acute rheumatic fever. He had to leave town the next morning, so another doctor was assigned the case. After reviewing the tests, the second physician also informed me that I had contracted rheumatic fever.

... to see Dr. ___________ again a week or so after the first visit, he stated that no one could recover from rheumatic fever in such a short period and urged that I remain home longer. However, I was by then back to normal strength and experiencing no symptoms of the condition whatever. After waiting a few more days ...

... Dr. ________, a local physician, examined Vance a few days after he arrived home. The blood tests he took at that time confirmed the diagnosis of rheumatic fever. Dr. _______ advised us that Vance's "sed" rate would measure his recovery ...

I wish I had the book so I could see the missing lines. WilliamKF (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Any biomedical content we include needs to be sourced to a WP:MEDRS-aligned source. To save time, N.B. that there won't be anything supporting CS Healing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You've read all of them, right?Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The search engines have - not that they needed to in this case. When some mechanism lacks basic scientific plausibility, there won't be any positive scientific evidence arising. The good evidence in RS we *do* have about CS healing is negative: it is harmful, often to the unsuspecting children of CS parents. The article properly reflects that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Check this out: 225,000 deaths in the US per year have iatrogenic causes (parag. 2): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IatrogenesisBe-nice:-) (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Look over there! (I don't think you'll find reliable sources excusing CS's harmful effects on account of other harmful effects). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a perfectly logical point to point out that the negative effects of orthodox medicine vastly exceed those of Christian Science. And that's to say nothing about the suffering of animals in laboratory experiments, or the huge expense involved in shoring up the medical system, particularly in the US. CS may have its failures, but it hasn't had the equivalent of (e.g.) Dr Harold Shipman or Dr Josef Mengele, by any stretch of the imagination.Be-nice:-) (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever scholarly debate there may be about "orthodox medicine" might have a place somewhere on Wikipedia, but probably not in an article about Christian Science. Wikiuser1239 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)