How should the Orthodox relate to Christian Scientists?

[Olympiada]

Recently I had the good, or not so good fortune, to meet a former Christian Scientist. I was unable to convince this person that the Church of Christian Science, (Religious Science, whatever), was indeed Protestant. So I finally had to ask for help to do so, before I came here. I'm not satisfied with the arduous process I went through to get help for that person. Has anyone else been put in this position where they were compelled to show someone inquiring about Orthodoxy where the Church of Religious Science, or whatever it is, fits in on the Church family tree?
Thanks,
Olympiada

[Paul Cowan]

Not that Wiki is authoratative, but it does hit the essentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science). Knowing who they are is the first step. They are left wing liberal Arians from what I read. Not to be flippant, but you might show them the timeline of church history (http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html)and say, " we are here, and you guys are, well, not even on the map."

Of course no one will be impressed if he chooses not to be. So watch your pearls and don't throw them on the ground. From what I read, their position is really not to take a position on much of anything. So if you don't stand for anything, you will fall for everything.

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

Recently I had the good, or not so good fortune, to meet a former Christian Scientist. I was unable to convince this person that the Church of Christian Science, (Religious Science, whatever), was indeed Protestant. So I finally had to ask for help to do so, before I came here. I'm not satisfied with the arduous process I went through to get help for that person. Has anyone else been put in this position where they were compelled to show someone inquiring about Orthodoxy where the Church of Religious Science, or whatever it is, fits in on the Church family tree?
Thanks,
Olympiada

As far as I can tell, they are merely a reinterpretation of the Nestorian heresy, mixed with some gnosticism.

[Ryan]

Recently I had the good, or not so good fortune, to meet a former Christian Scientist. I was unable to convince this person that the Church of Christian Science, (Religious Science, whatever), was indeed Protestant. So I finally had to ask for help to do so, before I came here. I'm not satisfied with the arduous process I went through to get help for that person. Has anyone else been put in this position where they were compelled to show someone inquiring about Orthodoxy where the Church of Religious Science, or whatever it is, fits in on the Church family tree?


Is this really a major issue? If they don't want to be considered Protestant, that's fine- it doesn't make them any less wrong. In fact, I think Christian Science does have a number of doctrines that would make the average Protestant shudder. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, one could consider Christian Science to be a product of the Protestant mindset, but which has gone so far over the deep end that Protestants don't recognize it. Rather than worrying about how they fit in historically, I would just focus on examining where their errors are and building on the little they have right.

[Olympiada]

Not that Wiki is authoratative, but it does hit the essentials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science). Knowing who they are is the first step. They are left wing liberal Arians from what I read. Not to be flippant, but you might show them the timeline of church history (http://www.saintignatiuschurch.org/timeline.html)and say, " we are here, and you guys are, well, not even on the map."

Of course no one will be impressed if he chooses not to be. So watch your pearls and don't throw them on the ground. From what I read, their position is really not to take a position on much of anything. So if you don't stand for anything, you will fall for everything.

Paul

Paul, that is precisely what happened. I've been a real sucker on the internet for a real long time and I'm getting sick and tired of it. Its laughable. Olympiada

[Olympiada]

Is this really a major issue? If they don't want to be considered Protestant, that's fine- it doesn't make them any less wrong. In fact, I think Christian Science does have a number of doctrines that would make the average Protestant shudder. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons, one could consider Christian Science to be a product of the Protestant mindset, but which has gone so far over the deep end that Protestants don't recognize it. Rather than worrying about how they fit in historically, I would just focus on examining where their errors are and building on the little they have right.
It does matter. By denying the connection to their Protestant church, they are making it even worse. Olympiada

[Theophrastus]

Christian Science is neither Protestant, nor Arian, nor Nestorian, nor Gnostic. It really has no precedence in Christian history.

[Alexander N.]

Christian Science is neither Protestant, nor Arian, nor Nestorian, nor Gnostic. It really has no precedence in Christian history.

This is my understanding also; although, if one posits there are only 3 subsets of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) then I would categorize Christian Science as Protestant.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Christian Science is neither Protestant, nor Arian, nor Nestorian, nor Gnostic. It really has no precedence in Christian history.

I beg to differ, I feel this is rather an oversimplification. It certainly contains elements of most of the above. You may be confusing it with Scientology, founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, basically created on a dare in a bar. THAT certainly has no real precedence.

[Ryan]

It does matter. By denying the connection to their Protestant church, they are making it even worse.

Making what worse? The distinctive doctrines of Christian Science cannot be traced to the Protestant Reformation. We could say they have a Protestant attitude, perhaps, but this doesn't make them Protestants. It's like trying to label Calvinists as Roman Catholics because they inherited some medieval scholastic theology. You may have a valid historical point to some extent, but there are far more serious problems inherent to Christian Science than their historical placement.

[Michael Woods]

Thank you for not linking Christian Science to Protestant Reformation. And I think many other Protestants would thank you as well.

As far as a Protestant's attitude. I think I can say there are as many attitudes as there are people. So if that be true. Then it will be difficult to say whether the Christian Science person will be receptive or not.


Making what worse? The distinctive doctrines of Christian Science cannot be traced to the Protestant Reformation. We could say they have a Protestant attitude, perhaps, but this doesn't make them Protestants. It's like trying to label Calvinists as Roman Catholics because they inherited some medieval scholastic theology. You may have a valid historical point to some extent, but there are far more serious problems inherent to Christian Science than their historical placement.

[L. Allen]

It does matter. By denying the connection to their Protestant church, they are making it even worse. Olympiada


I too am curious about your statement here. But, also, you say this person is a former Christian Scientist - are they thinking of converting to Orthodoxy? Because, if so, surely it would be easier to look in detail at what they, personally, believe (which presumably, given the 'former', is no longer the same as what the Christian Scientists teach), and then to explain what the Orthodox Church believes?

I've got a slight feeling that, from my perspective, the balance between 'I want this person to know they're wrong' and 'I want this person to know I'm right' is out of whack.

[Nicolaj]

Found out that they are vanishing.

In Christ, Nicolaj

[Theophrastus]

I beg to differ, I feel this is rather an oversimplification. It certainly contains elements of most of the above. You may be confusing it with Scientology, founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, basically created on a dare in a bar. THAT certainly has no real precedence.

Well, actually, Scientology doesn't claim to be Christian, so it's a slightly different animal altogether.

But Scientology, I would suggest, does have precedents, not so much in Christianity, but in the Sankhya school of Vedanta.

[Kosta]

The name of that organization is simply a word stolen from the Orthodox and then copyrighted into english as "Christ scientist". They know nothing about the Fathers forumlation of the dogmas of the 7 Ecumenical Councils so i have no clue why they call their organization as "Christology".

[Olympiada]

I too am curious about your statement here. But, also, you say this person is a former Christian Scientist - are they thinking of converting to Orthodoxy? Because, if so, surely it would be easier to look in detail at what they, personally, believe (which presumably, given the 'former', is no longer the same as what the Christian Scientists teach), and then to explain what the Orthodox Church believes?

I've got a slight feeling that, from my perspective, the balance between 'I want this person to know they're wrong' and 'I want this person to know I'm right' is out of whack.

L. Allen, this person wants to twist the church to their own liking and I want nothing to do with them. Ok? I came to realize that after the helpful feedback I got on this thread. Thank you!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

I've been travelling over the past three days, and have only been able to glance at this thread as it develops. I did, however, want to reply, now that I've returned.

The thread started with the following observation and request:


I was unable to convince this person that the Church of Christian Science, (Religious Science, whatever), was indeed Protestant. [...] Has anyone else been put in this position where they were compelled to show someone inquiring about Orthodoxy where the Church of Religious Science, or whatever it is, fits in on the Church family tree?

As a brief response, simply for the sake of accuracy, I think it is really rather indefensible to refer to Christian Science as a 'Protestant' group. The only conceivable way that one could possibly do so is if one were to posit a radically over-simplified 'tree' of the origins of Christian groups, as Alexander mentioned in his post:


This is my understanding also; although, if one posits there are only 3 subsets of Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant) then I would categorize Christian Science as Protestant.

But (and as Alexander seems to imply by the way he introduces it), this is such a radical over-simplification that it is largely unhelpful; and it certainly doesn't apply in the present case. The Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant 'trichotomy' really only has any bearing when discussing groups that in some way relate to traditional groups and forebears; thus the 'Protestant' category applies to those groups who protested against the Catholicism of the day, and those groups which have emerged out of that response and the mentality / approach it engendered.

But when one comes to consider groups that have no precedent in earlier history, this simple little trichotomy becomes nonsensical. This has been pointed out by Theophrastus, from his post:


Christian Science is neither Protestant, nor Arian, nor Nestorian, nor Gnostic. It really has no precedence in Christian history.

This is quite correct; or nearly. I question the 'nor Gnostic' at the end of your listing, Theophrastus; and this is because I think Christian Science has a strong (very strong) forebear in Valentinianism -- a second-century 'Gnostic' movement that received the brunt of the heresiological attention of patristic-era figures such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, etc. Though I certainly agree with you that there is little way to connect Christian Science to Arianism or Nestorianism - and certainly not Protestantism.

Christian Science is essentially a movement forged in response to the classical 'problem of evil/suffering'; and its response is to follow the (quite old, predictable) trend of spiritualising reality and claiming materiality (the root of suffering) to be the fruit of ignorance/defect/illusion. It rejects materiality is a 'thing' (it is an illusion); and so it cannot (and insists it cannot) be described as 'dualistic' in the normal sense; yet by acknowledging the embodiment of this illusion experienced as reality, it is (despite its claims) actually dualistic in the nuanced sense found in many early groups. Materiality, physical suffering, etc., may 'truly' be illusions; but they are still illusive-realities that must be addressed, dealt with, etc. (and much Christian Science practice is built precisely on addressing them through 'prayer', healing, etc.).

When on looks at the various points of belief in Christian Science more specifically, a good historian cannot help but see the incredibly close commonalities to Valentinianism (though I haven't the faintest idea whether Eddy herself would have known of that very ancient movement). But amongst Christian Scientist teachings that are essentially exactly paralleled in Valentinianism (as found in the Apocryphon of John and Gospel of Truth at Nag Hammadi, as well as any number of patristic heresiological texts), we find:


The belief that God is Father-Mother, not anthropomorphised, but defined as the spiritual characteristics embodying each.
The true universality of this God is spiritual good; there is no authentically-existing opposing force or reality to this Good; rather illusion, experienced (in ignorance) as reality, as materiality.
The human person is created in the 'image' of God, namely as reflecting the spiritual/Good when discovered to be free of the illusion of materiality, etc.
'Jesus' is the material Son of God, to be held distinct from 'the Christ', who is God's eternal divine manifestation, who comes to earth and is manifested in 'Jesus' so as to denounce and destroy error. While 'Jesus' can be described as 'Christ' since he perfectly embodied this separate being/reality, he is nonetheless distinct (NB: this is not Nestorianism!).
If there is a 'Trinity', it is this: 'God the Father-Mother; Christ the spiritual idea of sonship; divine Science or the Holy Comforter' -- in other words, a type of pleroma (or 'fullness') of characteristics of the divine.

All the above have fairly exact precursors in Valentinianism as far back at the second century.

(I note only that Valentinus would likely have modified the second slightly; he seemed to feel the 'defect' of error did take on a real materiality, not simply an illusion; but the existence of this error-materiality was ultimately defect and delusion, and it would, in due course, be done away with. Despite the denial of a true dualism by Christian Science, in their practice this same system is nonetheless manifest.)

The same listing of characteristics makes clear that Christian Science is definitively not Protestant.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[L. Allen]

L. Allen, this person wants to twist the church to their own liking and I want nothing to do with them. Ok? I came to realize that after the helpful feedback I got on this thread. Thank you!


Fair enough. I misunderstood: I thought you were describing someone who had given up on 'Christian' Science and wanted to convert. Sorry for my mistake.