Comments on: New Thought and its relationship with Christian Science http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/new-thought-and-its-relationship-with-christian-science Interfaith Conversations Thu, 05 Jan 2012 17:37:22 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Courtenay Rule http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/new-thought-and-its-relationship-with-christian-science/comment-page-1#comment-334 Courtenay Rule Wed, 29 Sep 2010 03:44:27 +0000 http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/?p=200#comment-334 Re #3 above: As I understand it, one of the key differences between Christian Science and New Thought is that Christian Science *does* have a solid belief system and direction. Specifically, it recognises the Bible as its Scripture and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy as the authoritative source of its teachings. Here are two quotes from the Manual of The Mother Church by Mary Baker Eddy, which contains all the by-laws governing the Christian Science Church: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life." (1st Tenet of The Mother Church, p. 15) "THE BIBLE, together with SCIENCE AND HEALTH and other works by Mrs. Eddy, shall be [a member's] only textbooks for self-instruction in Christian Science..." (Qualifications for Membership, p. 34) Christian Science's teachings are set out clearly and completely in Eddy's works, particularly Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. As an adherent of Christian Science myself, I find these give a great sense of focus and direction to my life and to my church work, a deepening understanding of the God revealed by Christ Jesus, and the desire to follow Jesus' words and works in my own life. It's true that New Thought does not have any one authoritative Scripture, leader, or teaching. This is one of the factors that separates it from Christian Science. Many early figures in New Thought started out in Christian Science, then broke away from it, specifically because they did not accept Eddy's leadership or her firmly Christian and Bible-based focus. Although Christian Science's teachings differ somewhat from mainstream Christian denominations, they are still thoroughly Christian in their basis and direction. Eddy's theology is drawn entirely from the Bible, and from the life and works of Christ Jesus in particular. For example, it gives a vital and indispensable place to these essential elements of Christianity: - one supreme and infinite God, one Christ, and the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter - man (all men and women collectively) in God's image and likeness - see Gen. 1:27 - Christ Jesus' atonement for sin and the salvation of man through Christ - Jesus' crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension - the demand for his followers to have the "Mind [within them]... which was also in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 2:5) and to live by the Golden Rule that Jesus gave ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Matt. 7:12). These are all included in the basic tenets of Christian Science, which can be read online here: http://christianscience.com/church/the-mother-church/membership/applications/tenets/ Other foundational elements of Christian Science, as with all Christian churches, are the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17), the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13), and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount (Matt. chapters 5-7). While Mary Baker Eddy does at times refer to Christian Science healing as "mental healing", her writings make clear that this refers solely to the divine Mind, or God - the same "Mind that was in Christ Jesus", spoken of in the Bible - as the one true healing power, in contrast to what we might call the limited human mind. As far as I'm aware, New Thought does not make this distinction, which is another vital difference between it and Christian Science. Christian Science healing works through yielding to this one divine "Mind of Christ", not through any human mental power. Regarding creeds, it's worth bearing in mind that Christianity itself predates any attempt to rigidify it into doctrine and dogma. Christ Jesus himself never gave any creeds for his followers to merely "believe", but he did make very clear how he expected them to live and act - in particular, loving God supremely and our neighbour as ourselves - and the healing and saving effects that would flow from this. That, to me, is the essence of all Christianity, including Christian Science. Re #3 above:
As I understand it, one of the key differences between Christian Science and New Thought is that Christian Science *does* have a solid belief system and direction. Specifically, it recognises the Bible as its Scripture and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy as the authoritative source of its teachings.

Here are two quotes from the Manual of The Mother Church by Mary Baker Eddy, which contains all the by-laws governing the Christian Science Church:

“As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.”
(1st Tenet of The Mother Church, p. 15)

“THE BIBLE, together with SCIENCE AND HEALTH and other works by Mrs. Eddy, shall be [a member's] only textbooks for self-instruction in Christian Science…”
(Qualifications for Membership, p. 34)

Christian Science’s teachings are set out clearly and completely in Eddy’s works, particularly Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. As an adherent of Christian Science myself, I find these give a great sense of focus and direction to my life and to my church work, a deepening understanding of the God revealed by Christ Jesus, and the desire to follow Jesus’ words and works in my own life.

It’s true that New Thought does not have any one authoritative Scripture, leader, or teaching. This is one of the factors that separates it from Christian Science. Many early figures in New Thought started out in Christian Science, then broke away from it, specifically because they did not accept Eddy’s leadership or her firmly Christian and Bible-based focus.

Although Christian Science’s teachings differ somewhat from mainstream Christian denominations, they are still thoroughly Christian in their basis and direction. Eddy’s theology is drawn entirely from the Bible, and from the life and works of Christ Jesus in particular. For example, it gives a vital and indispensable place to these essential elements of Christianity:

- one supreme and infinite God, one Christ, and the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter
- man (all men and women collectively) in God’s image and likeness – see Gen. 1:27
- Christ Jesus’ atonement for sin and the salvation of man through Christ
- Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension
- the demand for his followers to have the “Mind [within them]… which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5) and to live by the Golden Rule that Jesus gave (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” – Matt. 7:12).

These are all included in the basic tenets of Christian Science, which can be read online here:
http://christianscience.com/church/the-mother-church/membership/applications/tenets/

Other foundational elements of Christian Science, as with all Christian churches, are the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17), the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13), and Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matt. chapters 5-7).

While Mary Baker Eddy does at times refer to Christian Science healing as “mental healing”, her writings make clear that this refers solely to the divine Mind, or God – the same “Mind that was in Christ Jesus”, spoken of in the Bible – as the one true healing power, in contrast to what we might call the limited human mind. As far as I’m aware, New Thought does not make this distinction, which is another vital difference between it and Christian Science. Christian Science healing works through yielding to this one divine “Mind of Christ”, not through any human mental power.

Regarding creeds, it’s worth bearing in mind that Christianity itself predates any attempt to rigidify it into doctrine and dogma. Christ Jesus himself never gave any creeds for his followers to merely “believe”, but he did make very clear how he expected them to live and act – in particular, loving God supremely and our neighbour as ourselves – and the healing and saving effects that would flow from this. That, to me, is the essence of all Christianity, including Christian Science.

]]> By: Roger http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/new-thought-and-its-relationship-with-christian-science/comment-page-1#comment-323 Roger Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:01:05 +0000 http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/?p=200#comment-323 What I have found in experience is that the New Thought Movement really needs a solid belief system and direction. It seems to be floating around trying to accept everyone and not going in a specific direction. I do not think many of its leaders even know what to believe currently. The teachings of Filmore compared to Holmes are totally different in their direction. I always think it is funny Filmore's movement was renamed Unity School Of Christianity... Filmore was a self confessed spiritualist. Its like a fly calling itself a spider and the spiders believing it... its stupid. That is as close to being someone that follows Christian doctrine to a bird suggesting it swims like a fish. They do not follow Christian Creed... that is what the Nicean Creed was all about. Thats why a creed a treaty was formed. It would be like myself saying I was a new country that is now part of the United Nations but never bothered to agree on signing the treaty of the UN and joining its belief system. Yes there is one underlying principle for the non dual reality of thought and reality. But this movement has to choose a direction of thought to be taken remotely seriously. Currently it is rather blindly trying to fit into other beliefs systems and thinks it is mending bridges with another NT religion which is a joke. It has no direction. Many of the founders who had a vision are now dead... buried. Replaced by Organizational leaders that as a movement is going no where specifically. A movement moves somewhere. New Thought is going nowhere... backward... it is an old thought. Its doors closing at the moment. Many religions are going specific directions... they believe what they believe. That is why it is called a belief system. Holmes had a vision of creating something that come into line with Christianity and was accepted but had certain freedoms... he writes of this. Holmes failed... Emma Curtis had some success. Christian Science is not Christian either. It may be called Christian... but it is chiefly a mental science religion - what these founders tried to accomplish was the freedom from the oppression of the church at the time - but they all threw the baby out with the bath water... now years later... New Thought as a movement will die or actually come to a point where it becomes serious in what it actually believes and grow. Instead of wondering what everybody else believes. NT at the moment really does not know what it believes as it tries to fit in between east and west but has no strong foothold. I think it will die out if it does not get serious. Ask anyone within that movement the direction it is heading in and they will not know. I also think that it is an embarrassment to a religion that has been going for over 100 years to just be recently recognised as a religion at PWR. It really shows that it is not taken seriously and the movement has no direction at present. The founders were friends with each other... they just created different movements and they are all dead and buried now with many not really knowing what to believe anymore. So they try to fit in with Budhist teachings, preach some parts of christianity, a little of this and that but are neither. New Thought is still trying to find its identity and with founders who are dead that is difficult... as I know of nobody walking in previous New Founders footsteps.. If there are no leaders the movement will die. People without a vision perish. Plain and simple. Unity and Mental Science may come together as a force of numbers but they are clearly not working together as there is no Organisation that joins the movement together so that it moves in a direction. Its like saying Mcdonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken are a combined team because they come together every couple of years or have an association as retailers of fast food - but as Organizations that are seperate and going two totally different directions... religious tolerance is quite different from a religious movement... as a movement goes somewhere... it builds bridges if it wants to... it does not just talk about the building of a bridge. Islam for example builds bridges with religious leaders but it is going somewhere it has its plans and beliefs. There are no bridges to be built between Christian Science and any other NT organisation. They are one. Its like me giving you a carrot and telling you it is a tomato and there are two other carrots next to it so you call one a tomato and the other two carrots... Good luck with it anyways. What I have found in experience is that the New Thought Movement really needs a solid belief system and direction. It seems to be floating around trying to accept everyone and not going in a specific direction. I do not think many of its leaders even know what to believe currently. The teachings of Filmore compared to Holmes are totally different in their direction. I always think it is funny Filmore’s movement was renamed Unity School Of Christianity… Filmore was a self confessed spiritualist. Its like a fly calling itself a spider and the spiders believing it… its stupid. That is as close to being someone that follows Christian doctrine to a bird suggesting it swims like a fish. They do not follow Christian Creed… that is what the Nicean Creed was all about. Thats why a creed a treaty was formed. It would be like myself saying I was a new country that is now part of the United Nations but never bothered to agree on signing the treaty of the UN and joining its belief system. Yes there is one underlying principle for the non dual reality of thought and reality. But this movement has to choose a direction of thought to be taken remotely seriously. Currently it is rather blindly trying to fit into other beliefs systems and thinks it is mending bridges with another NT religion which is a joke. It has no direction. Many of the founders who had a vision are now dead… buried. Replaced by Organizational leaders that as a movement is going no where specifically. A movement moves somewhere. New Thought is going nowhere… backward… it is an old thought. Its doors closing at the moment. Many religions are going specific directions… they believe what they believe. That is why it is called a belief system. Holmes had a vision of creating something that come into line with Christianity and was accepted but had certain freedoms… he writes of this. Holmes failed… Emma Curtis had some success. Christian Science is not Christian either. It may be called Christian… but it is chiefly a mental science religion – what these founders tried to accomplish was the freedom from the oppression of the church at the time – but they all threw the baby out with the bath water… now years later… New Thought as a movement will die or actually come to a point where it becomes serious in what it actually believes and grow. Instead of wondering what everybody else believes. NT at the moment really does not know what it believes as it tries to fit in between east and west but has no strong foothold. I think it will die out if it does not get serious. Ask anyone within that movement the direction it is heading in and they will not know. I also think that it is an embarrassment to a religion that has been going for over 100 years to just be recently recognised as a religion at PWR. It really shows that it is not taken seriously and the movement has no direction at present. The founders were friends with each other… they just created different movements and they are all dead and buried now with many not really knowing what to believe anymore. So they try to fit in with Budhist teachings, preach some parts of christianity, a little of this and that but are neither. New Thought is still trying to find its identity and with founders who are dead that is difficult… as I know of nobody walking in previous New Founders footsteps.. If there are no leaders the movement will die. People without a vision perish. Plain and simple. Unity and Mental Science may come together as a force of numbers but they are clearly not working together as there is no Organisation that joins the movement together so that it moves in a direction. Its like saying Mcdonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken are a combined team because they come together every couple of years or have an association as retailers of fast food – but as Organizations that are seperate and going two totally different directions… religious tolerance is quite different from a religious movement… as a movement goes somewhere… it builds bridges if it wants to… it does not just talk about the building of a bridge. Islam for example builds bridges with religious leaders but it is going somewhere it has its plans and beliefs.

There are no bridges to be built between Christian Science and any other NT organisation. They are one. Its like me giving you a carrot and telling you it is a tomato and there are two other carrots next to it so you call one a tomato and the other two carrots…

Good luck with it anyways.

]]> By: Bob Schwaller http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/new-thought-and-its-relationship-with-christian-science/comment-page-1#comment-262 Bob Schwaller Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:19:27 +0000 http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/?p=200#comment-262 Shirley, thanks for this posting. As a practitioner at the Dallas Center for Spiritual Living, a Science of Mind community (Ernest Holmes) I've found that the similarities between New Thought and Christian Science are no coincidence. Holmes studied in Boston with Christian Scientists, and with Emma Curtis Hopkins. Most New Thought founders and early teachers studied and/or were healed by Christian Science treatment, then went on to start their own movements. Today, I'm learning that there are differences, but there aren't any hurdles, in doctrine or current practice that can't prevent a healthy productive dialogue. Thanks for all you are doing building bridges! Shirley, thanks for this posting. As a practitioner at the Dallas Center for Spiritual Living, a Science of Mind community (Ernest Holmes) I’ve found that the similarities between New Thought and Christian Science are no coincidence. Holmes studied in Boston with Christian Scientists, and with Emma Curtis Hopkins. Most New Thought founders and early teachers studied and/or were healed by Christian Science treatment, then went on to start their own movements.

Today, I’m learning that there are differences, but there aren’t any hurdles, in doctrine or current practice that can’t prevent a healthy productive dialogue.

Thanks for all you are doing building bridges!

]]> By: don http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/new-thought-and-its-relationship-with-christian-science/comment-page-1#comment-244 don Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:06:25 +0000 http://spiritualityandchristianity.com/?p=200#comment-244 I think semantics is so over done. New Thought is just a newer "word" for the non changing non dual reality of thought. don editor spiritnewsdaily.com I think semantics is so over done. New Thought is just a newer “word” for the non changing non dual reality of thought.

don
editor
spiritnewsdaily.com

]]>