Talk:Christian Science/Archive 10

why are we using Fraser' book? It is not RS
Still trying to understand the rules here? This book is not RS.Simplywater (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)think we should look at what she says about people feeling ostrasized for using medical treatment and not

I don't mind Fraser's book so much, although her experience is nothing like what I had growing up. But I do perpetuate the thought that Christian Scientists who use medical treatment are somehow hypocrites. I can honestly say that I had more "shaming" from non Christian Scientists than from Christian Scientists when the topic of medical use was brought up. "oh, I thought you were a Christian Scientist" (I've never used medical care, but just so you know, non Christian Scientists can be much harder on Christian Scientists. You can see that in this article.

In a few places, this article tries to place "shame" on Mary Baker Eddy on her private health care choices. Refering to her husband, As if she were a hypocrite. I feel this article should not in anyway promote the thought that if a Christian Scientist, even if it is Mary Baker Eddy, chooses a particular medical route, that it is hypocritical. Each of us practice it in the way that we are able. Neither the Christian Science community nor wikipedia should point fingers at personal health choices or hold those choices up for others to make judgement. Perhaps we could reword a few of those parts to make them a bit more neutral.Simplywater (talk) 20:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This section is a bit one sided. And I didn't see any references that give insight on the Christian Science perspective.  I would like to add this quote/
 * .... members of this denomination take community concerns about the well being of children with deep seriousness. They have a strong record of cooperation with public officials over the years.   (When Parents Say 'no')http://books.google.com/books?id=b-1RxqQM65QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=when+parents+say+no&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BOQxU_CzBNL9oATy34GICw&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=christian%20science&f=false

or I guess we should just get rid of the Fraser book which is not RS.Simplywater (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The health claims of CS are subject to WP:FRINGE guidance and should be placed firmly in the context of the mainstream view (that they are harmful nonsense). That is the neutral way. Alexbrn talk 21:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * So sorry you misunderstood the quote. This quote does not make any reference to 'health claims'. Perhaps you didn't read it. The quote is from a medical book. It talks about CS cooperating with health officials.
 * ...members of this denomination take community concerns about the well being of children with deep seriousness. They have a strong record of copperation with public health officialsSimplywater (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Any health material needs to be better-sourced than this. You've cherry picked something from a quoted 1983 position paper from the CS church and put it in Wikipedia's voice - that's about as unreliable/undue/non-neutral as it's possible to get! Something like could be better, but I'm not sure it's saying anything the article lacks. Alexbrn talk 06:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC) No Problem, Here are a few other RS sources that say the same thing.


 * Transcultural Concepts in Nursing Care, Wolters Kluver Health Page 382
 * Where medical treatment is required by law, Christian Scientists strictly adhere to the requirments


 * When Parents Say No, Sigma Theta Tau Publishing (http://www.nursingsociety.org/Publications/Pages/default.aspx
 * members of this denomination take community concerns about the well being of children with deep seriousness. They have a strong record of cooperation with public health officials over the years. (quote from Nate Talbot. but the book is RS and very respected in the nursing field.)


 * Many faces of Faith, A Guide to World Religions, page 191
 * Christian Scientists also teach full adherence to the law


 * This particular section is a bit loaded and needs something to add balance and neutrality. I feel it I important that the message about obeying the law comes from a Christian Scientist and from an RS source. When Parents Say 'No' is RS.  That communicates a clear message to any Christian Scientist and to the public who reads this article. We obey the law. We cooperate with public health officials.Simplywater (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I've found several different places where Fraser's information is simply incorrect. ie where there is an established CS movement in the world. We have never had a big following in Scandanavia. Wow.

I don't mind her work being used if there is an RS source to back up what she is saying. Other than that. It needs to come out. She is not an academic teacher, there is a reason her book is not peer reviewed. It is not factual and is only based on 'her feel' of things. Which is not academic. We are all playing by the same rules.Simplywater (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Thoughts of the parents can harm the children" -  This is misquoted.  Mary Baker Eddy is referring here to heredity specifically.  She doesn't use the word 'harm'.  She is just acknowledging that in this world, there is a strong belief that the 'genes' of the parents can influence the health of a child.  Christian Science translates that into 'thoughts'  You can imagine a doctor saying 'well you had XX and through your gene have given it to your child"  So in Christian Science, before one can prayerfully address the problem of a young child, the parent must first handle it for themselves. Simplywater (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Protestant Theology
I've changed this to be more in accord with the sources given: "Christian Scientists see their religion as consistent with Christian theology, despite key differences from traditional Protestant teaching.[7]"Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted it, as it unduly picked out part of the cited text. You could equally have picked out that it "radically reinterprets" or "conflicts with" mainstream Christianity, which would be bad in the other direction. The consensus text is a good neutral summary of the text cited as source. Alexbrn talk 15:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind "radically reinterprets".Simplywater (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nor do I. In fact I don't see a problem with saying that CS conflicts with mainstream Christianity (but that may be just me so let's ignore that)...How about this: "Christian Scientists see their religion as consistent with traditional Christian theology, despite the fact that it radically reinterprets the latter." (Or leave out "traditional" if you like.) Consensus?Be-nice:-) (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can't see what's wrong with the current wording, namely "key differences." If it radically reinterprets, it means there are key differences, not least of which is that CS says the world does not exist. That's a fairly major difference right there! :) (Just from a writing perspective, fewer words are always good for the lead, so "despite key differences" is better than "despite the fact that it radically reinterprets the latter.") SlimVirgin (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I would leave out the 'traditional'.Simplywater (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, first of all I am amazed that you can make such a basic error as stating that CS believes that "the world does not exist." CS certainly does teach that the world exists, as evidenced by the following quote from Science and Health (definition of "Earth" on p. 585 of S&H): "To material sense, earth is matter; to spiritual sense, it is a compound idea." CS teaches that the world is real and that it exists, but that it exists as spiritual reality rather than as materiality - the spiritual world is the only world there is, but it is misperceived as being material. The closest parallel I know of in philosophy is Platonism, though Platonic philosophy is not exactly the same as the philosophy of CS. (Indeed, Platonic ontology/metaphysics is sometimes defined as "realism" since, like CS, it teaches the reality of a world of forms or ideas beyond our current experience.) More recently, Berkeley argued that there is no reason to use the term "matter" to describe what we perceive as the world around us. In contemporary philosophy, materialism and realism have been fighting a losing battle with anti-realism and perspectivism for decades. Quantum physicists debates whether we are just one of a multitude of parallel worlds, or alternatively whether we are creating the world as we go along via the process of observation. All we know about a material world comes to us through photons, vibrations and molecules and corresponding electrical signals which are interpreted by mental expectations and remembrances etc that we bring to bear on them. (We might as well be brains in a vat for all we know, or victims of mechanical energy-vampires living in an illusory consensus reality a la The Matrix.) Anyway, apart from all that, the problem with the current wording is that (a) it doesn't accurately reflect the sources; and (b) it states (erroneously) that there are key difference between CS and Christian theology per se, rather than between CS and mainstream (or traditional) Christian theology. By the way, if we had been having this discussion a thousand years ago, mainstream Christian theology (under the influence of Plato rather than Aristotle who later came to dominate it) would have been much more in accord with CS teaching than is the case today.Be-nice:-) (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I meant the material world. :) As for that sentence in the lead, it used to say "traditional," but Simplywater removed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK...anyway I enjoyed the philosophical riff...speaking of which, I just ordered the book "CS and Philosophy" and hope to make some use of it if I get the time (which doesn't exist according to CS...) And Simplywater, could you have another look at what SV says above? I think we're both trying to say the same thing, but let's keep it as simple as possible! ThanksBe-nice:-) (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I worry in general that the secondary sources impose a coherence on Eddy that isn't really there. For a lot of the sentences in which people say she argues X, I'm pretty sure I could find something where she seems to argue not-X. But maybe I need to sit down and read Science and Health from start to finish, rather than dipping in and out as I have; I think I've read it all, but I've done it by bobbing around. Interesting that you ordered that book; I look forward to hearing more about it if you have time. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't sentence my worst enemy to read Science and Health from beginning to end. I suspect most Christian Scientists have not.  It is more than occasionally a flavour of 19th century expository prose that makes Henry James look transparent.  By that token (and this may be part of the problem here) it almost requires interpretation by secondary sources to be accessible to modern readers, including students of Christian Science, not familiar with CS language.  How to make sense of (always my favorite) "Ancient and Modern Necromancy, alias Mesmerism and Hypnotism, Denounced" to a 21st century reader?  --Digitalican (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I find I need to press the "reverence" button in my consciousness to read S&H with some understanding. (Even then, the mind has a tendency to wander into the byways of materiality and relativity.) There is a dialectical relationship between understanding the whole and the parts - a familiar issue in exegesis. BTW in regard to issues of interpretation, Nietzsche - perhaps the dialectical opposite of Eddy in ideological terms - suffers from the same syndrome of apparent lack of straightforwardness. (Though in his case there seems to be almost a wilful delight in making contradictory statements.)Be-nice:-) (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, Eddy often shifts between an "absolute" and a "relative" mode of description. One needs to bear in mind the absolute/relative dichotomy in her thought in order to understand what she is saying at any particular point.Be-nice:-) (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is how I have come to understand it. I may look at a tree and see a material form.  That's because I can't conceive of the spiritually perfect Good, as Jesus Christ could. My physical senses, my finite conception of life have reduced the tree to a material form.  For us, Jesus, as his Son,  saw as God sees.  With his spiritual senses he could see a person's spiritual nature.  Which is really qualities, and not matter.  Intelligence, integrity, honesty, beauty.  For us, there aren't two worlds.  Matter is 'viewing through that glass darkly'. The spiritual reality is right in front of our noses. Our finite understanding of God, The Kingdom of Heaven, All Good, perceives individual natures in a finite form that we call solid matter.

This biblical verse always accompanies the Scientific Statement of Being


 * 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. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.Simplywater (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We all (implicitly) value truth above all else in our disputations. (Even people who claim that there is no such thing as truth, put that forward as a true statement.) We value beauty and sublimity above other qualities, when it comes to the appreciation of nature. We implicitly value goodness and love in our moral systems (whatever they may be). These are intangible ("spiritual" if you like) qualities which all, or most, people believe should be cherished and striven towards. Even if people don't believe that such qualities (ideas) actually exist in some way (as eg Plato and Mary Baker Eddy did), they almost always behave as if the qualities in question might exist more tangibly in the future. These qualities or values are, in a sense, what make the world go around. Christian Scientists claim that such qualities actually have substantial existence; most other people behave as if they ought to have such existence, at least. In the realm of spiritual reality there is a reconciliation of "is" with "ought", because that which is (spiritually speaking) is what ought to be, and vice versa. I can't conceive of that as anything else but total dematerialization and the abolition of dualism and fragmentation. In reality, we are all hanging in there together in love, as we (unsuccessfully) strive to do in our poor human symbolic world, and some day we will find in Spirit that union that we seek futilely in matter. There is only one "I" or "Us" as MBE writes in the textbook. Personally, I see very little difference between CS and Buddhism when it comes to such ultimate issues, though there are no doubt Christian Scientists who would disagree with me on that.Be-nice:-) (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * [be-nice:] I have thought about the difference between CS and Buddhism. However, I am not an expert on Buddhism and can only speak from my perception of what it is. What I find is Mary Baker Eddy embraces the individual.  The uniqueness of the individual and makes room for the infinite ways that God can express Herself/Himself uniquely.  The Biblical concept of 'reflection' (Genesis 1) explains how there can be One God, and infinite expressions.  MBE says We are not absorbed into Deity.  We reflect Deity. As laid out in Genesis. "Man is made in the image and likeness of God".  For Eddy, this is a law.  This is the revelation. This is truth Now, not sometime in the future or in the past.  She takes the Bible very seriously and does not let the material senses sway her from Biblical Revelation. Not sure if this exists in Buddism.  I would like to believe that I will forever exist as a unique expression.  The same quality of God, but not in quantity.Simplywater (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have read S&H through several times. I love her ideas. And the more I read here the more I like to go back understanding how she kept revising to help make her position clearer. She had no idea what she was up against when she started. lol She edited it 400 times. I love this part in Science and Health. I wonder if any of you can recognize the reference [On the eye's retina, sky and tree-tops apparently join hands, clouds and ocean meet and mingle. The woman was so well readSimplywater (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ps. the difference between Eddy and the philosophers is that Eddy made the ideas practical.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplywater (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fraser misguided on population statistics.
Here is a website that shows where churches are. I have no idea where Frasher is getting her information. Probably from her perception of the religion. I haven't read her book, I"m only just now seeing some of her quotes here on the wikipage. She definitly had a very different experience than me.  Does she give a source for her information?

South AFrica http://directory.christianscience.com/search?query=africa&manual_location=&distance_select=any&types[]=&language=all&searchType=Quick Nigeria http://directory.christianscience.com/search?query=nigeria&language=all&distance_select=any&manual_location=&location= Congo http://directory.christianscience.com/search?query=republic+of+congo&language=all&distance_select=any&manual_location=&location= Ghana http://directory.christianscience.com/search?query=Ghana&language=all&distance_select=any&manual_location=&location=

Compare to Finland for example http://directory.christianscience.com/search?query=Finland&language=all&distance_select=any&manual_location=&location=

Denmark http://directory.christianscience.com/search?query=Denmark&language=all&distance_select=any&manual_location=&location=

Brazil http://directory.christianscience.com/search?query=Brazil&language=all&distance_select=any&manual_location=&location=Simplywater (talk) 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Please ...
Simplywater, please stop making edits like this. There are so many issues that it's hard to know where to begin. First, many of those points are already in the article, expressed differently. Second it violates WP:UNDUE, and the writing, language and sourcing are problematic. But the main thing (for me) is that it has nothing to do with what precedes or follows it. The writing has to flow from one sentence and paragraph (and if possible section) to the next, so that there's a narrative that makes sense for the reader. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin, with all due respect, the article is starting to look like a tabloid instead of good scholarship. There are 2 different sections on Quimby.  plus redundant ties to quimby throughout the article.


 * The respected scholars really minimize the Quimby Eddy tie.
 * The more I read, the more I find that Eddy can't be seen without looking at the roots of Christian healing in the 19th Century,
 * Gooden, Stillson, Taves, Curtis, Wesinger, and even Melton all say, one needs to understand the Holiness movement to understand Eddy
 * The Tremont Temple event is the result of the Holiness Movement
 * All of these sources minimize the Eddy/Quimby ties and report that in the end Eddy steered away from Quimby and chose strove a more traditional Chritian path.

The real question SV is. Simplywater (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Is this good scholarship?
 * 2) Does it make the article of higher quality.
 * 3) Is it good for Wiki?You need to ask which direction you want to take?
 * 4) Tabloid or Integrity.

Rosemary Gooden - allowing a different voice
Really surprized SV that we can't find a place for Gooden's theological analysis. Looking at wiki, black theologians are simply missing. Faith Cures and Answered Prayers is RS, and a part of the Women and Gender in North American Religions... edited by Amanda Porterfield and Mary Farrell Bednarowski. Wiki needs to make a greater effort at encouraging a presence of african american theologians.

She devotes a great deal of thought to Christian Science in her introduction and I am sad that her ideas are not being allowed. I have tried 4 different ways to include her ideas. Each have been reversed by you.Simplywater (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sex, ethnicity, beliefs, sexual preferences, etc. of authors do not in general count towards how their sources are evaluated for Wikipedia's purposes. Alexbrn talk 06:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Gooden's work is RS. Her views are are supported by others theologians. She offers a unique perspective on the discussion of CS beliefs.  Why isn't she included? And yes, I feel Wikipedia should make the effort to include academic RS scholarship  by minorities, including woman.

All RS. Anything I have tried to include by them has been deleted. They are greatly under represented in this article. Sorry Wiki doesn't feel that way. Although I appreciate Gill for her history, she is not a theologian. Simplywater (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) * Gooden,
 * 2) Bednarowski,
 * 3) Taves,
 * 4) Curtis,
 * 5) Porterfield,
 * 6) Umansky,
 * 7) Braude

Status
Returning here to clarify my status, with reference to SV's helpful post about the participation here of those associated in various ways with the CS church. Quotes from that post are bulleted; responses follow.


 * “At the beginning of February Bridge bendek and Ath271 said that they were here on behalf of the church.[8][9]”

If I might clarify and offer a correction: I introduced myself as funded by the church organization but not speaking on its behalf.

In the academic study of religion, scholars are often paid by religious institutions. I’ve cited Jenkins, Stark, Braden, and Gooden as examples. Ann Taves was employed by a seminary for several years, and her current chair is funded by Catholic sources. Margaret Bendroth is scholar at a denominational archive, which pays her to produce that denomination’s history. Richard Bushman holds a Mormon professorship at Claremont funded by LDS sources. Acharya Lama Tenpa Gyaltsen holds a professorship at Naropa, a religious institution that pays him to do scholarship on Tibetan Buddhism. Robert Thurman’s multi-faceted work is formally linked to the American Institute of Buddhist Studies, founded at the behest of the Dalai Lama. And so on. Religious archives (like all archives) are not unusual when they fund scholarly work without project oversight or reference to the scholar’s religious beliefs. This works because scholars of religion speak about religion, not for or against it. Conversely, apologetics and polemics speak for and against.

My participation is on this professional basis. I’m funded by a religious source but do not speak for or against that source. I speak about it. Scholars neither advocate nor denigrate, but describe. I'm here quite PT in lieu of more traditional professional development, in addition to a secular university appointment and activities, yet in line with other types of funding in my field.


 * “Ath has mostly supported Simplywater in her efforts.”

I hope I’ve been respectful and supportive of everyone’s efforts within the Talk page community. But if this implies that I’ve mostly agreed with SW, this would need correction. On the few occasions I’ve gradually acknowledged RS that SW has presented, I haven’t agreed with her rationale for including it.

My MO has been to support any RS and let the rest go, no matter who has introduced it. That is, when I have the time. The concerns I’ve voiced about SW’s participation continue.


 * “There has been a lot of activity recently aimed at having the article minimize the differences between Christian Science and mainstream Christianity…It's reasonable to suppose this might be connected to ecumenical workshops started in January by the Christian Science church's Committee on Publication. Entitled "Yes, we’re Christian. No, we’re not a cult!...”

How interesting. I hadn’t heard of this workshop til now, yet it doesn’t concern me when weighing RS. The measure of RS is not whether they align or don’t with a stated religious position or activity; the measure of RS is whether or not they are RS. My interest is not in whether sources describe CS as a church or a type of marmalade sandwich. Or in what adherents think sources should say. Rather, with what the full range of sources actually do say.

Difficulties arise when multiple poor edits and comments are OT, not based on RS, and require too much attention and correction from others. The speculative origin of such edits aside, these are measurable and actionable problems.


 * “the problem we have now is twofold. First, most Wikipedians are volunteers and don't have time to respond to a high volume of (often long) posts. Second, because I've tried to accommodate requests, the article is being slowly slanted in favour of CS in violation of the neutrality policy.”

Volunteers aren’t the only ones who don’t have the time to wade through long, wide-ranging posts. I can barely keep up, and often don’t.

Re: the article favoring or disfavoring its topic: the range of views within the literature does the job of balancing viewpoints in itself. Others have noted this better than I do. Scholars disagree on nearly every point about CS; they’ve already done all the arguing for us. Ideally this fact relieves “pro” and “con” tensions here.


 * “That doesn't mean the church's views are excluded, but it has to be kept at arm's length, and not allowed to become one of the authors or backseat drivers. (I'm pinging the church's media rep, Bridge bendek.)”

Bridge is called out here, not myself, which is appropriate; I've amply stated (here and elsewhere) that I'm not a spokesperson and don't (can't, in fact) represent church views. Yet I see above that my status is still a concern, and in considering why, I see some things that should have been better clarified early on.

In response to initial concern about my status, WP:NOPAY was cited generally and also with reference to a minor edit I'd made before contracting with the church. I responded that WP:NOPAY wasn't an issue when I made that edit. I clarified that out of respect to the page's controversial nature, I wasn't planning to jump in and make edits now. (I’m still not; it still seems better to me to be careful and respectful of efforts already made, understand groundwork already laid, etc.) I clarified that I’m here on a warts-and-all-basis, linking to WP:PAY and then directly referencing it. Wikipedians specializing in COI, in addition to visits to the teahouse, had already confirmed that WP:PAY is really the only category my contract allows me to fit into.

In retrospect, I should have made all of this more clear on my User profile. It’s not the job of others to pull together clues about my status, but mine to present them as a cohesive whole. Consider this that overdue presentation. I'll prioritize integratating these threads into my User page and adding more information about how I came to this work, which I feel would also be clarifying. (Its genesis was a response to a paper I gave at an academic conference.) I’ll do my best to prioritize this, though an upcoming conference in another country is taking much of my time right now.Ath271 (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ath271, so very greatful for this clarification.Simplywater (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC) ps. with regard to the article from the CS periodicals about being Christian and not a cult, I have to say I hadn't read it either. But I don't keep up on it as I could.Simplywater (talk) 20:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Errors
Marrante, you said above that there were errors in the article. It would be helpful if you (or anyone else) would list the errors you've found. Something like the following would help us keep track. SlimVirgin (talk)

List of errors/proposals
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.253.210 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC) ✅ (worded differently and with a different source}
 * 1) "Normal school" needs link ✅
 * 2) No such thing as malping ✅ (footnote removed)
 * 3) Wiktionary link to "at-one-ment" ❌ (not an RS for a dictionary definition, and not appropriate within a quotation)
 * 4) Add etymology of atonement ✅ (added OED ref)
 * 5) Normal class instruction not 6 weeks, it is 1 week (See Manual, Article XXX) ✅
 * 6) Stephen Gottschalk was not a "member" of the Committee on Publications – it is ONE person, as per first definition ✅ (changed to "worked for")
 * 7) Dickey ref (cited in Gardner) is inaccurate - no names are mentioned on this page (I have the book) ✅ (This is about footnote 91: Dickey 1927, p. 45, cited in Gardner 1993, pp. 116–117. I don't have the book in front of me, but Dickey is named on pp. 113, 114 and 116, according to Google snippet view "According to Dickey" removed for now, added quote from Cather and Milmine to footnote. )
 * 8) State time frame (1878 / witchcraft trial) - footnote makes time frame clear, but article creates false impression of watches (see discussion) ✅
 * (Added "In preparation for the trial, Eddy organized 24-hour "watches" in her home, during which her students (known as "mental workers") were asked to use their minds to block MAM from Kennedy or Spofford. She continued to organize watches for the rest of her life. In her home at Pleasant View in Concord, New Hampshire, where she lived from 1889, she required the watchers to attend two hour-long daily meetings to address specific issues that might be manifestations of MAM, such as bad weather or a negative newspaper article. Gill writes that Eddy took the term watch from the New Testament story about Jesus's night in Gethsemane with his disciples.")
 * 1) McClure's not identified as prominent muckraking magazine ❌ ("muckraking" just means watchdog/investigative journalism; readers can click on the link if they want to read more about McClure's)
 * 2) "Mary is dying" story is inaccurate (is in MBE section, end of par. 2) - see discussion ❌ (we would need independent sources arguing that it was wrong)
 * 3) Add physicians who have become Christian Scientists ❌ (violation of UNDUE and lack of secondary sources)
 * 4) Add Helmuth James Graf von Moltke to list of people who grew up in CS, but left it (in his case at the age of confirmation in Germany) - not an "error" per se, but would broaden the list to include non-Americans ✅
 * 5) "given no formal education" – should be "little formal education" (she attended Sanbornton Academy and possibly Holmes Academy - see discussion) ✅
 * 6) Helmuth James Graf von Moltke should either not be piped or pipe it to be "Helmuth James von Moltke". His father was Helmuth von Moltke. That family tree is a nightmare to follow. I frankly would leave it unpiped, long as it is. ✅
 * 7) Remove Hemingway ✅
 * 8) Normal class - when I wikilinked this, I only did "normal" because I thought "normal class" would make it look like the link was to an article about CS normal class, when it was just the word "normal" that needed clarification ("normal" had been in quotes because not understood as referring to the training of teachers) - I tend to think it should remain that way, even though your change seems intuitive ❌ (linking "normal" alone would look odd)
 * 9) "Raised by Christian Scientists" (notable members) should be changed to "raised in Christian Science" – "by Christian Scientists" makes it sound like the parents were adoptive – would you write "raised by Jews"? ✅
 * 10) "Scientific statement of being" is not "repeated during services", it is read to the congregation at the end; footnote to branch church website with photos should be removed – it does not contain what the footnote says, no photo shows it being read, nor does text say so ✅ (changed "repeated" to "read out")
 * 11) Tommy Davis ("Notable members") does not seem to be wikilinked to the right article ✅
 * 12) "The president for 2012–2013 is Chet Manchester.[217] The organization is presided over by a five-person executive" – the "president" presides, not the Board of Directors, who are executive administrators and stay in office indefinitely, unlike the president who serves 1 year. Manchester, btw, is no longer president. ✅
 * 13) Cult references (par. 2 of View of the Christian clergy, Mark Twain) highly misleading – the word is not a pejorative. The NYT reference should be removed as per WP:RNPOV and the definition of the word explained in the article (see discussion) ✅ (added quote to footnote, which explains the usage of cult at the turn of the century)
 * 14) Christian Scientists do believe that Jesus died ❌ (sentence made invisible for now; update: unable to find CS or academic sources confirming that CS holds Jesus died, so restored some of prior text with in-text attribution)
 * 15) Christian Science is not part of New Thought - see section: New Thought/Christianity ✅ (the article follows the academic sources; added "J. Gordon Melton writes that Christian Science leaders see their religion as part of mainstream Christianity, and resent being identified with the New Thought movement; he argues that there are nevertheless strong differences between Christian Science and traditional Christianity, including views about the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the creation and atonement for sin.")
 * 16) Change "contributions called testimonies" – remove "contributions called" (see discussion) ❌ ("testimony" implies that it is more than a claim)
 * 17) Theology misstated – story of creation is not "a set of allegorical narratives", the allegory begins with the second chapter of Genesis ✅ (not clear what is being proposed; update: this now simply says: "Eddy saw ... the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis (c. 950–500 BCE) as spiritually authoritative, but not a literal account.")
 * 18) Payment of annual tax (Governance section, current par. 4) should state that the tax is a minimum of $1 – is highly misleading w/o this detail (amount is stipulated in Manual) ❌ (the article says: "Requirements include ... payment of an annual tax to the church ..." We would need a source to show that this is misleading as written, and/or that significant numbers pay only $1.)
 * 19) Eddy's second marriage description is highly misleading (see discussion) ❌ (the article says "Her second husband, who left her after 13 years of marriage ..." then discusses the guardianship; anything else is too detailed for this article, especially as the sources disagree)
 * 20) Gottschalk misconstrued in par. 1 of "Christian Science prayer and treatment" (see discussion) ❌ (not clear what is being proposed)

The references to mind as the healing agent ...
... completely mis-characterizes the Christ-based healings illustrated in the Bible by Christ Jesus. The term,"Mind" is a mortal word, inadequate as it must sound to describe our Omniscient, Omnipotent God.

The references to mind as the healing agent completely mis-characterizes the Christ-based healings illustrated in the Bible by Christ Jesus. One MUST capitalize the "m" The term,"Mind" is a mortal word, inadequate as it must sound to describe our Omniscient, Omnipotent God. The truth is that Christ heals!....as taught by the underlying premise of Christian Science, that God is All-in-All...therefore how can "evil" be defended as an entity in the allness? When one comes to this reality, wonderful things begin to happen, healings occur, relationships are harmonized, supply is manifested. and on and on and on! Read all about it in thousands of verified accounts in any local Christian Science Reading Room.


 * Bulleted list item
 * 1) Numbered list item  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.158.249 (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A few comments
I'm posting a few comments here (all mostly to do with structure) after SV asked me to give this a read through. It's a great read, btw! I learned a lot.

"Metaphysical–Christian Science–New Thought family" "Christian Science theology" "Birth" "Writing and teaching" "Moral Science practice in Lynn" "Science and Health" "Decline and reasons for the rise" "Children's rights" "Christian Science Church" "References" etc. That's all. I'll keep this on watch and might dip in occasionally but I think it's really well done. Thanks for asking me to have a look. Victoria (tk) 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe try a slight re-org in the 3rd paragraph so as to keep a general-to-specific flow. Might work to begin with Quimby, move to James' definition/description of mind-cure and then end with the bit about Eddy, Quimby, and the manuscripts, which would then transition to the next para which is more specifically about CS.
 * Probably need to link Eddy somewhere in this section even if linked again at the beginning of the "Birth" section. The article is long enough to support duplicate links, imo.
 * Probably should explain in the first para that Eddy wrote Science and Health b/c it's not yet been mentioned and link again.
 * The Twain blockquote isn't formatting as a blockquote - which seems to happen when there's an image on the left of the quote. I have a vague memory of markup that might prevent that, otherwise suggest maybe adding quotes (even if against MoS) or something, to make it obvious it's a long quote.
 * Was she still living in New Hampshire when she met Quimby? She seems to have moved around a bit, and it's unclear when she ended up in the Boston area, so might be worth mentioning
 * Per the above, in "Fall in Lynn" section, presumably she moved to Lynn with her second husband?
 * Again to do with her movements: she fell in Lynn in 1866, went through a period of poverty, separated from her husband, and was it in Lynn that she first began to teach Quimbyism - before moving to Stoughton? I'm not sure whether this is important, but I got slightly confused in this section.
 * Again - this might not be important - but do the sources tell us where she was (Lynn or Stoughton) when she first met Richard Kennedy?
 * Lynn was a factory town - do any of the sources refer to the shoe workers as factory workers? Vaguely important because during the industrial revolution workers in Massachusetts mill towns (where the factories were located) were overworked and underpaid (for one thing) and so as to differentiate from artisans cobblers (if that makes any sense?)
 * The manuscripts are introduced in this section but I think it might not be a bad idea to explain here who authored Science of Man although it's explained in depth later.
 * Perhaps tie in Bronson Alcott's own ties to the health movement, or as a transcendentalist, because he's important and appears again later.
 * Big jump from Eddy's 1910 death in the previous section all the way to the 1990s in this section. I can see the logic of having this here, because it follows the explanation of the explosive growth, but am wondering whether it might be worth playing around to see whether the section might fit better elsewhere in the article. I'd maybe try putting it at the end, but there's no way of knowing without shoving around some text.
 * For some reason when I read through it seemed to me that the "Avoidance of vaccination" section might work better if it came earlier in the section. Not a big deal, though.
 * Move "Notable members" to the end of the section? I'm not sure, because it has a gallery, and so the layout might be too cramped,  but it would make sense (I think) to have "Publishing society" come after "Governance".
 * Maybe put the gallery in a separate section? I tried this (separated out the pics) but it looked terrible so I reverted. But probably the gallery should be separated from the list of Eddy's writings that comes just before.
 * If needed don't forget to trim out the "See also" section, and the "Further reading" section


 * Hi Victoria, thanks for these comments; they're very helpful. I'll take a look around the sources and apply some fixes.
 * The sources do specify where she was at various points, so I'll make that clearer throughout.
 * I'll look at the first section re: general-to-specific flow in the third paragraph. I see what you mean and it's a good idea.
 * Re: Twain blockquote. I may move the image to the right again. It looks more like a blockquote on Monobook because the font is still quite a bit smaller, but in Vector it's bigger (and with the new font no difference at all that I can see), so the image probably can't stay on the left.
 * The workers were indeed factory workers; good point to spot. I'll make it clear. Ditto with Alcott's background.
 * Gallery: I was thinking of maybe removing it. I'll also trim See also and FR.
 * Decline and reasons for rise: another good point. Not sure how to handle it. I would like to keep the source's points together (Stark 1998) because it's a good, coherent piece, but it does involve the big jump. Also, we're missing material about CS during the wars, which might be interesting, but as always length is an issue.
 * I'll look again at making clearer in the earlier section who wrote Science and Man. I have struggled with that whole Quimby issue: where to introduce it, how to explain it. It has to be addressed, because the allegations were so central to her reception, during her lifetime and still. But it's complicated and doesn't make easy reading or writing.


 * Thanks again for reading through it, and for this input. It helps a lot to have an uninvolved view. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Metaphysical Christian Science New Thought family
If I may after the fact of editing, explain some of the changes I made to the first subsection of the overview section.


 * Section title "Metaphysical–Christian Science–New Thought family" used dashes to join words to act as a unit modifier of "family". Removing spaces for clarity, I got Metaphysical-CS-NT family.
 * Changed to "The metaphysical family", which flows: "Overview"->"Family"->"Theology".
 * As a first time reader, before I read the section, I'd not yet heard of New Thought. So I took NT out of the section title for that reason as well.


 * "(though Christian Science distinguished itself from the latter)"
 * added undefined to the idea "CS says its not NT"
 * took it out of parenthetical-mode, because it seemed more significant than that
 * If true, then why say "CS-NT family" in the section title?


 * "mind-cure, mental-cure, or mental-healing movement"
 * changed to "mind-cure" (mental-cure, or mental-healing) because "mind-cure" is reused in the text a lot. "Mind-cure" is a quote in reference [15].


 * Ref [15] moved to directly after "traced its roots... to Quimby" before telling his background (from the end of the the same sentence). Those roots could give good reason for CS to deny being part of NT, since the roots go Quimby->CS-> NT, per the quote.


 * Ref [4] moved with its statement that "the metaphysical family" includes CS.  Theosophists, and others in a metaphysical family that includes Christian Science.[13][4]
 * It was not clear how "the metaphysical family" included both NT and CS, while CS could deny being with NT. Who is right, the Christian clergy, scholars, or CS themselves?  So I made sure it was clear that "the metaphysical family" is a sort of "an out" of the potential argument, because it is such a nebulous term (and good).
 * CS is not said here to deny the fact of Quimby, who is "an eclectic mix", and therefore a sort of metaphysical family unto himself, one that stretches back in time to "Hinduism". CS does deny the NT side, so perhaps it denies the Jehovas Witnesses and Adventists connection.
 * I fixed that by making clear that "family" serves both the accusations of clergy and categorizations of the scholars. "Family" is nebulous. It is nebulous, and still a good read after my clarification that 1) Scholars say CS is in a sort of metaphysical-is-king family, while 2) Christian clergy consider them wayward, prodigal. If CS denies NT, they don't deny "the family" of the philosophy scholar, the necessary and true judgement by the clergy, and yet CS and they can each smile while making their claims.


 * "The metaphysical family" used to look like something... official and scholastic, but was just a repeated phrase in disguise. I mellowed that out, and took it back down to the mere words they are, good words.


 * "several metaphysical healers talked about an invisible life force that the mind could harness.[4]"
 * moved ref [4] which is huge, yet did not seem to support its context there (there is no need to support that statement; it is common knowledge), up to the first paragraph, where it did supported that CS was part of a "metaphysical family".


 * "There was keen interest in alternatives to medicine, in large measure because medical practice was crude and frightening, but also in reaction to the idea that suffering was something to be endured as a test or punishment from God.[14]"
 * I'm confused by "but also in reaction to the idea that suffering...", so I make it say "and there was also the idea that suffering is something to be endured".
 * "in reaction to" refers to a reaction against suffering; but the CSists suffer voluntarily, as a reaction to medicinal practices, not as a reaction to suffering
 * "and there was also" refers to a reaction for suffering, which is true, and it is also read as being "also" against medicinal practices, which is also true.


 * I had some problems with the tenses. CS is alive and well.  So are all those other groups and all the ideas.  I know that the context started with waves of religion that once were, but to speak of religions is almost as sensitive a topic as the biography of a living person.  So I changed the tenses here and there.
 * "In there heyday" was added to make true the statement "CS and NT adherents believed...", for they still believe today, but we are reminded that way of the historical context.

&mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  09:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "disease is the mind's mistake and mind cannot cure what it has caused"
 * Can be read: Disease is the mind's mistake because mind cannot cure the existence of disease.
 * Changed to: "Mortal mind" cannot cure disease, because "disease" is the mortal mind's mistake in the first place.
 * I believe my change better syncs with what is covered in the theology section. Disease is in quotes because it is not there, it is an illusion. The cure is therefor an illusion. "Cannot cure" is therefor confusing the real issues: disease and the mortal mind.
 * there is nothing to cure but the "mortal mind" belief in so called "disease" (in scare quotes). There certainly is a possible (confusing) interpretation that either the mortal mind caused or that Mind caused disease.
 * "Mortal mind" is specified because Mind can cure mortal mind, i.e. Eddy's "Divine Mind" can cure (enlighten) a "mortal mind", also said "Divine Mind can cure disease". That works because the two are synonymous "mortal mind" and "disease", synonymous that is, if that mortal mind is in ignorance with a dark and deluded belief that it is itself a mind in a diseased place.


 * Hi Cpiral, I've reverted these changes because they introduced errors or problematic writing. For example, "mortal mind" is a phrase of Eddy's, so that has to be explained on first reference, and it's not "the mortal mind." There's no need to place "disease" in scare quotes. No need for "during the history of" the United States. The list of groups at the top of the first section are not all metaphysical religions, etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Always good to hear from you SlimVirgin. I think I understand the process, and am OK with the revert and ignoring the talk bullets.  I'm glad you are on things. Perhaps I'll become helpful here. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cpiral, welcome. I'm also wondering about the "Metaphys-CS-NT" section title. CS and NT are often grouped together as two examples of "metaphysical religion," but they aren't generally included in this interesting and evolving umbrella category itself (by scholars, that is). I'll have to double check, but I think it's only Saliba that does this.
 * One scholar is enough. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The general thought here seems to be that although CS distinguished itself from NT, that's an indigenous/emic view, whereas the external/scholarly view is that they are the same. Setting aside what CS might think of itself for now (not my particular interest and seems more or less captured here), the second part of this formula raises issues. For one thing, it's not only CS that has distinguished itself from NT; NT groups have spilled plenty of ink distinguishing themselves from CS. More importantly, the arc of scholarship makes this distinction as well.


 * This is sort of a "biography of a living personage". Out of respect for them, and for the neutrality of the section topic, we need the citation and to present equal emphasis on the descriptions by scholars, clergy, and CSists.  That will also bring the clarification I tried to make via a nebulous "family" that morphs from scholarly category and into various clerical flocks.
 * NT is a talking point made by religious scholars, and you say you have new information from scholars who will use the term NT. But I note that NT does not speak for itself, but rather is a loose group. It is evoked by clerics and by scholars to make their points. It should not be in the section title for that reason. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

William James lumped CS and NT together. But Catherine Albanese writes that “William James…missed the Calvinist-leaning exclusionism of Mary Baker Eddy’s church and linked it, generically, with New Thought as a species of mind-cure" (A Republic of Mind and Spirit, 417-418). She brings out several theological and polity-based differences between CS and NT, describing them as two different historical expressions of American religion that are also linked in important ways. Several other scholars do this, too. Both parts are important (and taken together, not how CS adherents seem to describe their faith): different, yet linked under the "metaphysical" category.


 * NT is a way of saying what's unique in bodies of metaphysical statements concerning physical healing. CS does indeed have it perfectly right in the written contexts they have created, right metaphorically and metaphysically speaking, but they are easily attacked for their seeming attempt to apply metaphysics to practicing physicians.  (The real intent is being missed, but WP just describes that scenario. The attacks serve to heal the attacker not physically of course, but metaphysically.) "Metaphysical" perhaps should not be in the section title because all religion, philosophy, and related scholarship is understood to make metaphysical talking points.  (Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject, per WP:HEAD.) &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  19:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to post more from various scholars on this in a few days; I'm unwinding from an intensive period of conference work (and perhaps look more closely at Victoria's helpful comments above, too, though all appear well under wraps).Ath271 (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Cpiral, I've changed the header to "Metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) family," following James R. Lewis, Legitimating New Religions, Rutgers University Press, 2003, p. 94. He calls it the "metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) tradition." There are lots of ways of expressing the relationship. John A. Saliba, Understanding New Religious Movements, Rowman Altamira, 2003, p. 26 calls it "The Christian Science-Metaphysical Family," and categorizes it as New Thought: "This family, known also as "New Thought" in academic literature ..." The point is that there is a very close, family, relationship. The first section is only a brief overview, which makes clear that there are similarities and differences. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Now that's a heading a first time reader can make out. And its also an authoritatively written heading and phrase.  But 1) "New Thought" is a phrase of scholars that might better be explained on first reference for the average reader, (or else it tempts to read "Christian Science is new metaphysical thought family", while CS says it is neither from new thought or about New Thought), and  2) Thus the now-more-clear heading seems to try to foreshadow a CS-scholar/clergy controversy.  But then indicate "controversy" in the ToC/header, because this is about CS, despite the no-info (well, hidden info in Related topics) NT template astride it for some reason. Thank you. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  07:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure what you mean. The distinction between Christian Science and New Thought was more fluid than you're indicating (and more fluid than our article suggests, which is one of the areas that could use some work), and to some extent still is. We do explain it on first reference, and I've now added that the liberal wing of the mental healing movement came to be known as New Thought. It's not a phrase invented by scholars, and I don't know what the CS-scholar/clergy controversy would refer to. Perhaps looking at some of the New Thought literature would help, such as Charles S. Braden's Spirits in Rebellion. Again, the first section is meant only to be a brief overview. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The rule for heading titles is "shorter and clearer". Our article is huge, but there is room:
 * Overview -> The genealogy (philosophy) of CS (NT oriented), which is currently a vacant area on the page.
 * Metaphysical family -> CS-oriented stuff (in the usual style 'clergy and scholars' V 'Christian Science') This means we try to find a source describing how CS distinguishes itself, and make it flow. Until then because Christian Science distinguishes itself from New Thought, that assertion should be made first or last, not in the middle, and not in parenthesis.
 * Theology -> CS-oriented stuff
 * History
 * Thus please consider taking NT out of the outline/heading, and leverage the NT article where possible.
 * This article swims in a style I love: "controversy against CS that ends up teaching CS", but we must cover both sides of each issue to achieve that excellence in enjoyment of the discovery. But its huge. So leverage NT, but keep its overview brief, and put it in the Overview section. Take out that NT sidebar? Or expand its "Related ideas" so we can see "Christian Science" in it? Or put it at bottom with the rest of them? (BTW, about those templates at the bottom: news from yesterday  "CS is not a core topic in Christiantity", and our collapsed Christianity no longer says .)


 * "The New Thought movement is a spiritually-focused or philosophical interpretation of New Thought beliefs" which are a "loosely allied group", so I'll maintain that NT is a scholarly term for a category.


 * I distinguish between an occurrence and a mention. First NT is in the outline/TOC. I ignore it. As I read "Metaphysical (Christian Science-New Thought) Family" in the heading, (prime content real-estate), my confusion is palpable. I read the next paragraph, nothing. Then comes two more waves of confusion: 1) an authoritative-category sounding phrase "the metaphysical family", and 2) my search for CS finds them distinguishing themselves NT. To me (2) is significant. So I try to understand the categorization, but the explanation is buried in a description of NT that fails to put CS in a clear perspective, partly because when I read the references they come late in the text although there vast coverage reaches back up to the the beginning of the section.  So I re-read and start editing it. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  06:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No known as
The article says "what came to be known as the metaphysical family". It links to four pages in a Google book search result. But the phrase "the metaphysical family" is not found there.

It the meaning a metaphysical family eventually called New Thought? &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  20:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There's a ref in place now. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand the question. The overview section is just a broad brushstroke to set the stage. We can't get into detail about the distinctions between all these groups. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Variations in sources re: CS, NT, and metaphysics
'''NB: My responses in bold simply for readability. Apologies if that's not a common strategy, not meant to suggest priority!'''Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Albanese has probably come closest to defining “metaphysical” religion in the American context. She defines “metaphysics” in terms of magic, healing, salvation, and energetic correspondence and uses these terms synonymously (Yale, 2007, 15). She considers “metaphysics” to appear in every phase and instance of American religiosity, rather than being tied to a particular tradition. She sees New Thought as a particularly clear embodiment of her “metaphysical” trend, but does not conflate the two. She treats Christian Science as distinct from New Thought, though historically in close conversation with it.
 * So to Albanese "metaphysics" has its usual meaning across all religions (philosophies, and more?), while still being used by scholars as a category of new religious movement, where the phrase with "metaphysical" in it does have a special meaning: "the grouping", and not just "the group", but "the group". The metaphysical family of ours (sounds like Melton's phrase, which is 35 yrs old) is characterized by New Thought and Christian Science.  (Both have very similar descriptions.)  Albanese needs to delete in our article where it says parenthetically that "metaphysics" has a special meaning. "The metaphysical family" has a special meaning, and that is not explained very well in our article, esp. since it is in the lead sentence.
 * Yes, Albanese uses the term in both senses (general and specific). This is part of what makes her definition provisional. SV has done work to enumerate instances of "metaphysical family," which is helpful.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Albanese does not limit "metaphysical" (you say) to one class of religions, yet our lead sentence cites Albanese tying CS to a limited group ("the metaphysical family") of religions. So the lead sentence has an unsupported cite?
 * Looks like this has been removed, which is helpful.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * By "does not conflate" NT and "metaphysical family", I take it to mean she does not make a (Meltonian) category error (like Saliba seems to make, see below). CS is obviously in the NT line of conversing, but that is as far as it goes. According to my research CS and NT are both in "the metaphysical family" (explained below).  Our article is not about NT, but it is in very small part about the metaphysical family when that term is explained properly (rigorously), like Melton's 35 yr old definition.
 * It appears we're making progress in shifting from "CS=NT" to "CS and NT as two instances of metaphysics." Yet I wouldn't say CS and NT are both "in the metaphys family" - but that "several scholars, following Melton, place CS and NT in a metaphys family." Several of the other scholars cited in this article take a different approach.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouter Hanegraaff (Albany, 1996) is the most influential historian of esotericism in the continental context. He argues that the “metaphysical” tradition is a modern expression of esotericism that is linked to but not synonymous with New Thought. He places both within a broader or sensu lato countercultural New Age tradition (the sensu stricto expression of New Age religion, he argues, is characterized more by European Theosophy and Anthroposophy) (17, 97). Hanegraaff leaves Christian Science entirely out of his treatment of American metaphysics. Apparently it doesn’t fit enough of his stated parameters. Conversely, he treats New Thought as a particularly exemplary bounded expression of “metaphysics” as he describes it, and a direct forerunner of New Age religiosity.
 * This is a topic for the New thought or New Religious Movement articles. But in the current state of Christian Science (which needs cleanup as I pointed out), it is temporarily our topic, thank you. Per http://www.cesnur.org/testi/bryn/br_melton.htm [^] and http://books.google.com/books?id=EPfTWgerZN0C&pg=PA26#v=onepage&q&f=true [s]
 * Sure.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Melton invented the metaphysical family and numerous others, for the scholarly research of new religions, based on the beliefs and practices (including recruitment) of its adherents.[s] Melton has Hanegraaff's New Age tradition in the "New Age" family, and what Saliba calls "CS-Metaphysical Family", Melton calls "Metaphysical" family [^].
 * Yes, there's some variety (quite a bit) in how authors use this classification, what they include in and don't, etc. I think Melton's 1992 encycl. used the term "Metaphys Family," then he changed it in the current edition to Western Esotericism > Christian Science-Metaphysical Family. Am I right on this? SV, if you know can you weigh in - is this a version difference? I'm seeing conflicting evidence online.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Melton's metaphysical family does not have a set of beliefs and practices, as our lead sentence says it does, none of his families do. They are defined by what they are not. (THey're not dominant religions). [^] This makes our lead sentence a confusing, overly generalized, off-topic misstatement. The lead sentence is poorly cited, there being no book title to go with the pages cited. The topic "the metaphysical family" is a topic for New Religious Movements.  The phrase is being used somewhat correctly, when it is first explained, but the sentence is not.
 * Agreed that Melton assigns his families no common beliefs and practices. He invented the term but he's an encyclopedia guy, not a theorist or primary-source historian; it's not really his goal (or his job by training) to fully expound on it. Your complaint that metaphys groups are defined by what they are not is common to NRM studies generally, and is one issue that makes NRM work a contested subfield within religious studies generally. SV has provided more clear citations for the sentence; SV, do you feel this addresses Cpiral's helpful criticism here?Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The confusion with "metaphysics" in its various guises and "NT" in its various guises is this: Metaphysics can vary between any two philosophies or religions. It has been said that every choice has behind it a philosophy, conscious or not, consistent or not. If so, every choice has a metaphysics behind it. So religious institutions have a metaphysics they teach (ancient and eternal), and another metaphysics they practice (to survive in the world of politics, money, war). For example, Religious Science is the organization and "Science of Mind" is the teaching. But with NT? NT is the organization, and NT is the teaching. And metaphysics? Metaphysics applies to any behavioral choice, category of behavioral choices, and so on.  And with CS? We have a theology section and a govThe teachings are not about academics and modernity
 * Yes, it's broadly defined, but also has special meaning within NRM studies. That special meaning is not uniformly defined or universally accepted. This fact needs to be taken into account in the article.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * CS is not NT for many reasons (explained next), hence the phrase CS/NT or CS-NT (or "The Quimby group"). I used to think we needed a citation to support that fact, that there was some notable statement on behalf of Christian Science. But now I understand that NT and CS are apples and oranges, two types of key players on the new religions field. Melton does not mention NT probably for the same reason that Hanegraaff does not mention Christian Science, there is a discipline to readability that leaves unimportant topics out.  There is no consensus among the notable statements concerning the categorization of CS.  However it is important, the way the article is currently structured, for us to pick one, and cite it well.
 * SV, please take note: this is very important for the clarity and development of this article. "There is no consensus among the notable statements concerning the categorization of CS." Many statements refer to it as "metaphysical"; many use other terms, words, groupings. The variety of conflicting categorizations needs to be brought out here - not to push aside "metaphys" but to properly contextualize and qualify it. Agreed?
 * Cpiral, you note that we need to pick one category and cite it well, as the article is now structured. Why? How can we do that when there’s no consensus—and why do we need to? Why not pick the few most prominent ways in which CS is categorized over the entire sweep of literature about it (of which metaphys is one part but not the total), noting this disagreement (per our rule about citing disagreements among sources in the text)? Then balance that against CS’s own description of itself?Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The metaphysical family" are composed of NRMs.[^] CS/NT (Melton's term[^]) means the four NRMs: CS, RS, UC, and CDS (per Melton's definition of NRM and per New Thought).
 * “NRM” is also variously defined to include a host of new traditions, from pentecostalism to UFO religions. It’s a very squirrely term, as WP:NRM suggests. This is a contested term/grouping in religious studies because it’s so variable and amorphous. That doesn’t mean don’t use it; it just means Melton isn’t the only one who defines NRM, and his definition isn’t authoritative. If used in this article (which it probably should be), it should be linked to WP:NRM (which lists plenty of NRM scholars) rather than to just Melton.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The section title we use in the article "Christian Science-Metaphysical Family" is a confusion derived from two meanings of NT and from a category error as follows:
 * CS-NT is true, truly an oft necessary phrase (because CS is not NT, see elsewhere here)
 * "CS-MF = NT" (Saliba makes that statement, hence our section title). Saliba also says "metaphysics/NT" [s]. These phrases with the dashes and slashes are used while writing about his meaning for "the metaphysical family", not Melton's meaning. Thus despite Saliba's narrative structure being built around Melton's families categories [s], and despite the title of the book (that I keep citing [s]) being called "Understanding New Religious Movements", Saliba is not teaching Melton's terminology for New Religious Movements (NRM), but conflating it with "academic literature". He freely goes beyond Melton's definition that a "family" is a group of NRMs (because NT is not an NRM, and CS is in the MF, so why say CS-MF?).  In defense of his freedom and his book (which I have not read) CS looks like NT, and NT's metaphysical profile looks like a metaphysical family of religions.  But we're an encyclopedia, and need far more strict a terminology than Saliba provides. The dashes and slashes do not have clear syntactic meanings, and our MoS has a few things to say about that too.
 * Yes, good eye - I noticed this too about Saliba, that he conflates Melton (his only cite) with "academic lit." He has the right to do it, but it's sloppy. This larger discussion though should move here.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * substituting for NT in (1) CS-(CS-MF) or CS-(metaphysics/NT) we get the undesired (because debatable) results "CS-MF" and "CS-metaphysics". That logic is problematic because Saliba's NT is a religious movement, while our WP article by that name has NT as a cultural one as well. So for us (at CS) NT has two meanings, one for the new religious movements, and the other for the new cultural metaphysical movements. (Similarly the poplularization of the metaphysical techniques of practicing scientists in the New Biology, New Physics, New Historicity, etc. have cultural influences. Astrophysics does when it newly defines the universe, but the cultural news about the metaphysics that drive the New Sciences are not the same in practice at work as they are at home.) Similarly "Religious Science" the organization uses "Science of Mind" for its teachings, and both have a different metaphysics. As for CS we cover a "theology" and a "church" organization.
 * As far as religions go, for Melton NT is a "tertiary religious group" for its three NRMs.[^] NT is not itself an NRM, because an NRM is a "primary religious group/movement".[^]  CS is an NRM, NT is not.  Melton might say that comparing them is a category mistake, like comparing apples to oranges.
 * The so-called "metaphysical family/group/tradition" is composed of NRMs. [^] CS is an NRM of the so called metaphysical tradition. (Italics does the trick. In an act of terminological abstraction, italics makes a word-concept become a phrase that refers a label or title.)
 * Agreed on the italics. Yet to judiciously use them, we need to be willing to accept evidence that "metaphys" is an indeterminate, flexible category as applied to NRMs; that it is NRM-specific; that it is a created label rather than a clear historical phenomenon.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The New Age movement is an NRM composed of NRMs, and this is the normal situation, being as new religious movements are made, ironically, from the old.[^]
 * Who are we to decide which meaning of "metaphysical tradition/family/group" is most reliable? I'm just here trying to clean up the article so that it reads well.  As it is, the read is confusing and off topic. Section titles like "Christian Science theology" and "Christian Science Church" sort of proves that much of the content is on New Thought (including an infobox), which is the topic we are off on here, and on other off-topic issues like the over-reliance on the many anecdotes embarrassing to CS that seem to be 90% of the focus. Until the confusion is cleared and NT content removed, I don't think that section title can be changed.
 * Agreed that the theology section of CS is confusing and OT because it seeks to reconcile CS theology to NT theology rather than reconciling it to itself, or even to a scholarly understanding of CS theology broadly and comprehensively conceived. This is a serious criticism that needs addressing.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure we are disinterested, distant and objective as editors (as seriously recommended by the rules here), and so the article properly attains that look and feel, the scholarly look and feel, that puts "Theology" in last place behind "New Thought", "Member bashing" to "Criticism". The article is so critical, we couldn't even have a section called "Criticism" unless it was entirely rethought and restructured.  I think we've gone to far in the article, that we're too distant, objective, scholarly.
 * Cpiral, thank you for this comment. We’ve had several members of the CS church on this forum in the past year (or perhaps they are adherents but not members), including a handful in the 3-4 months I’ve been active here, who have consistently voiced concerns that this article doesn't describe the religion they practice. Most have articulated a feeling of being pushed off or unheeded. We need to mature as a community in order to find ways to address this important concern. Yet beyond the concerns of members, we have serious sourcing problems that create an unduly critical narrative. We wouldn’t publish an article on LGBTQ experience that unproblematically cites psychological verdicts from 1975 regarding “aberrational behavior” or “abnormal sexuality.” We might cite that past literature but would seek to balance it with current psychological understandings and with LGBTQ self-representations. We wouldn't use Fawn Brodie's decades-old expose of Joseph Smith as a key source to describe Mormonism; we would cite it and contextualize it within recent work. Yet we use exposes and century-old sources in abundance here without proper contextualization. We don't repeatedly feature Catholic sexual abuse problems throughout the article on Catholicism, but rather note controversies and point to a later discrete section. Yet here we have major criticisms in every section. There is heavy reliance on controversial sources or media cites, which goes against our rule that article content should be driven by top-tier RS and not what media or editors emphasize. Requests to reconceptualize sections or discuss literature have been repeatedly ignored. Part of the problem has been that some of those speaking as adherents here have not effectively grasped WP norms and have repeatedly introduced poor edits, which has taken time from effective conversation and article development. Yet perhaps now we have space and willingness to discuss these difficult issues. The article suffers in structure and reliability from not doing so.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Then we have Lewis already cited in the article, who refers to CS and NT as part of a “metaphys family.”

So, three points here. A) There’s no single universally accepted definition of “metaphysical religion” here (or anywhere). B) Definitions of “metaphysical religion” have evolved separately from New Thought, though they tend to include New Thought as an illustration of the “metaphysical religion” category. C) The relationship of Christian Science to both “metaphysics” and New Thought remains contested and variable. The two leading scholars in this area see Christian Science and New Thought as discrete movements.
 * Others like Saliba and Lewis are citing Melton, whose been at New Religious Studies for 35 years. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Given all this, I’ll second the view that the NT sidebar adds confusion to the page. Also softening the entry would help a lot - ie, "There is significant disagreement re: how scholars and religious practitioners categorize CS." Then go on to list/cite.

NB re: weighting sources and WP:UNDUE: Albanese has 141 citations on google scholar; Lewis has 62. That’s why our article should prioritize Albanese. Braden’s Spirits in Rebellion is a good source on NT but not topically about CS, and despite a 40+ year lead time on more recent sources, he’s got 72 cites. Albanese engages, reworks, and challenges both Braden and Wllm James, and our article is out of date if it doesn’t cite her on this. I’ve already included her disagreement with James above. Yet our article gives the impression that James’s century-old views are universally accepted and “factual.” This is major and per WP:RS these differing views should be called out in the text.Ath271 (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * And J. Gordon Melton had 24,000 hits on Google Scholar. I cite his 1999 article.
 * Sorry, can you link to what you're seeing? The most I see is 462 for his encycl. article.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean William James' "moonstruck" remark or his "evil" remark? New religious movements were alive and well by James time, and he was categorizing in a primitive way.
 * I mean the way James's categorization is cited as evidence for the "fact" that CS is a type of mind-cure, rather than cited alongside recent sources that contest his categorization. I've already provided (twice) a source, Albanese, that complicates James in the context of CS; Gottschalk 2006 also contains a sophisticated and extensive treatment. To engage such sources, additional conversation seems to be needed re: meta-issues controlling the article's content.Ath271 (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * A consensus of two, and we've made our remarks open for debate. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  07:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Section titled :((:
Thank you for changing the section title, but it's still a sore spot for me.

You said: "I've changed the header to "Metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) family," following James R. Lewis... [who]... calls it the "metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) tradition." There are lots of ways of expressing the relationship. John A. Saliba calls it "The Christian Science-Metaphysical Family,"..."

The Lewis outline (the current one) is:
 * Overview
 * Metaphysical (Christian Science-New Thought) Family
 * Christian Science theology
 * History

The Saliba outline would become:
 * Overview
 * The Christian Science-Metaphysical Family
 * Christian Science theology
 * History

Applying some standard rules for naming section titles (don't use "The", keep section headings "shorter and clearer", don't use the subject name in the section title, don't make statements) to the Saliba version, my proposal is:
 * Overview
 * Metaphysical family
 * Theology
 * History

The reasons for "following Lewis" to title a section "Metaphysical (Christian Science–New Thought) family" may be good ones, but my proposal is also well reasoned.


 * The subject outline (as seen in the TOC) is clearer and shorter.


 * Removing NT from the section title removes the complexity that forces the reader to wait for a description of NT. Using NT in the section title puts it in the outline where it's prominent, yet where it's impossible to either describe properly or explain referentially.


 * Also, it respects that Christian Science says its not NT. A remarkable amount of the content is necessarily contentious, but for CS sake, let's not have a verdict in the outline.

If no one objects, I should like to make those changes within a reasonable time. Thanks. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  22:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm delaying the changes while I resolve my understanding of "metaphysical family". Please be aware that so far I still have issues with it, esp. in the lead sentence and in the parenthetical claim that metaphysical has an unusual meaning here. Thanks. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  18:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Melton says "the metaphysical family" is one of "metaphysical, communal, New Age, magical, mystical, millennial, and Eastern" families. Our article starts off in the lead sentence saying that CS is of "the metaphysical family" of the new religious movements. Since the terminology in the the material I link to here says of "New Religious Movements" that "NRMs" are what "New Religious/Religion Studies" are about, then if what these scholars say is put in the article in their terms, then there terms needs explanation. Either we ditch their term "the metaphysical family" as used in our section 1.1 in several places, or we explain it, or we link to an article that explains it. The best alternative though is to use the terms "metaphysical" and "family" as usual, and not put them the term "the metaphysical family". Unfortunately New Religious Movement does not explain "the metaphysical family" or the spectrum to which it belongs, which I quoted above. It doesn't even use the words "metaphysical" or "family". The general complaint I'm making of these minor points of the occurrences and meaning of "the metaphysical family" will eventually turn out to relate to the section title.

This complaint about "the metaphysical family" terminology is technically similar to my "New Thought" complaint. I believe the two are tied together, and are solved together. By "solved" I mean a consensus on a defensible meaning of the terms I'm putting to question, that then result in section titles and lead sentences and content that reads and reviews well.

Not to add to the confusion I might me causing (sorry), but I don't think the term "the metaphysical family" is used anywhere. The term is treated in our article as that hypothetical three word phrase. It reads that way. Furthermore it explains itself that way where it says parenthetically that the term in it, "metaphysical", is a special kind. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  21:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Great point. Sorry I've been gone for awhile while working on another project. I don't think there was ever consensus to having the word "new thought"  Usually when the terms Christian Science and New Thought are used in scholarship, it is denoting that they are two different catagories, not one category.
 * New Thought is called a "scism" of Christian Science by Gordon Melton.
 * In that case Melton presents the following difficulty. His (partial) definition of an NRM is "a primary religious organization", like CS. But NT is tertiary, and not an NRM. Unsuprisingly, an NRM can "schism" into what is not an NRM.  But CS should not have to bother very much defining and discussing this CS/NT thing or the "the metaphysical family" thing. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  21:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * New Thought does not include Christian Science as an adherent.
 * I'd reserve "adherent" for NRMs. Our confusions abound because the state of religious studies is very primitive (per Melton's article). Terms like "membership" verses "adherent" and many others I've struggled with ( "group", "set", "tradition", "family", etc.) are sometimes a category error of abstraction levels; at others times a poor, inconsistent, or incomplete "system of correspondences" (between the disciplines of science and metaphysical religions, mathematics and the humanities, and religion and religious studies). I think CS has a way to go to be a good article terminologically. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  21:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems disrespectful to both New Thought and Christian Science to make them appear as the same.Simplywater (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * To a CSist or a Swedenborgist (The_New_Church) yes, but not to NT or the scholars of religious studies; NT would like to grow membership ("membership" as in set, not sect), and scholars are "disinterested". They are the same because they are both in a "metaphysical family", which is both poorly defined and widely used in the literature. But I like how Lewis says science (its episteme, or body of knowledge) created a family of NRMs.  I don't think he names it, but I'm beginning to think the science-originated religions  are "the metaphysical family". &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  21:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll have more to share soon. Happy editing! &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  21:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Page size comment
I've kept this on my watchlist after unofficially reviewing per SV's request last month and just want to make a small comment. As it is, the page is pushing 13,000 words. I can't see where to trim, but per WP:Size broad brushstrokes are necessary - particularly in the first section, which simply functions to set the stage for CS. As a lay-reader the article makes sense and is a well-written and interesting read, fwiw. I won't comment again because I'm honestly unable follow the commentary above, but just wanted to mention that size, broad brushstrokes, and summary style all need to be taken into consideration. Victoria (tk) 22:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Victoria, I appreciate your comment. I thoroughly agree re: page size and layout and don't mean to suggest the page should be lengthened or its style move away from summarizing. Rather, that summaries should be revised (within the same general word count) to concisely show the few notable perspectives within the sources the community is able to collectively identify. The need isn't for extension, just clarity. Ath271 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Notable statements re: the categorization of CS
We have several statements re: CS as “metaphysical.” These are key within the literature overall, and it’s helpful that SV has expanded and consolidated them (thank you, SV). Two other main groupings also exist in RS. These are CS = an emergent, new, unorthodox, revisionary, or Protestant Christianity (often noted to have a "revelatory" focus or rationale) and CS = a healing or health-oriented religious movement.

These three categorizations are used sometimes discretely, sometimes two at a time, sometimes all at once. Several of the sources already cited in our article include a variety of definitions of CS, but only the “metaphysical” portion is so far represented. The following list is not meant to replace those excerpts but to augment and contextualize them. Our article should reflect the overwhelming amount of RS that shows this overlapping, tripartite grouping.

In alphabetical order:

Catherine Albanese, America: Religions and Religion (Wadsworth, 1999): “To sum up, Christian Science taught a broad interpretation of Christian revelation, expounded a metaphysical system to help modern people understand it, and practiced healing as the logical outcome of its beliefs about Christ and the world” (235). NB: This textbook is widely circulated as the “standard introduction” to American religions among undergraduates in the United States. As a textbook it can’t go in a WP section but should stay in a summary.

Catherine L. Albanese, A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007): Eddy’s book “was the culmination of a decade of metaphysical reflection and writing by a woman in her mid-fifties who counted herself thoroughly Christian. Indeed, she wrote it after she claimed a spiritual discovery that would radically reorient religion and spiritual practice for the Christian churches” (283).

“The Eddy who rejected the predestinarian views of her childhood church still exalted the supreme majesty of God in ways that proclaimed the underlying Calvinism of her past” (290).

Mary Farrell Bednarowski, New Religions and the Theological Imagination in America (Indiana University Press, 1989): “Eddy not only recovered from the injuries of a fall, she gained essential insight into the nature of God, the true meaning of the Bible, and the role of Jesus Christ in Christianity” (30)

It is one of the “’metaphysical’ religious movements,” a term Bednarowski also uses to define New Thought and Theosophy (81).

Mary Farrell Bednarowski, The Religious Imagination of American Women (Indiana University Press, 1999): “It was [Eddy’s] hope to convince the churches that Christianity was essentially a healing religion” (156).

It is one of the ‘“metaphysical’ religious movements” [“metaphysical” here in quotes] that gave rise to “a long-standing arena of women’s theological creativity and emphasis on immanence” (81).

“At the same time she put forth a new understanding of God, [Eddy] saw herself grounded in the Calvinist insistence on the sovereignty of God, and she insisted on the biblical integrity of her new healing religion” (157).

Jon Butler, Grant Wacker, and Randall Balmer, Religion in American Life (Oxford, 2000): “A third health-focused movement [after Protestant divine healing and Seventh-day Adventism], commonly called Christian Science, emerged from the genius of Mary Baker Eddy.” “She [Eddy] argued that a truly modern or scientific understanding of Jesus Christ” was needed (314). NB: This is a widely-used college textbook on American religions.

Heather D. Curtis, Faith in the Great Physician: Suffering and Divine Healing in American Culture, 1860-1900 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007): “Historians of American religion and culture have long been attuned to the revisionist efforts of health reform and healing movements like Adventism, Spiritualism, Christian Science, and New Thought” (28). “I argue that advocates of [Protestant] faith cure also contested inherited ideas about the role of sanctified suffering in the Christian life” (28). “All of these movements, in fact, indicated that healing involved rejecting a materialistic view of the body, challenging a chastening understanding of God’s providence, and resisting the devotional ethic of passive resignation” (29).

In the 1870s: “During this decade, Mary Baker Eddy added her voice to the growing chorus of Protestant reformers” (58). “From the 1870s on, many Protestants followed in Eddy’s footsteps” (58).

“Drawing on the primitivist impulse that characterized so much of nineteenth-century Protestantism, numerous reform movements, including Mormonism, Adventism, Spiritualism, and Christian Science claimed experiences of physical restoration as part of their repertoire” (75).

Stephen Gottschalk, The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life (Berkeley: University of California, 1973): “Christian Science is best understand as a pragmatic grasp on Christianity” (284).

“Mrs. Eddy’s most metaphysical statements are intended to be understood as pointing to demonstrable conditions of experience. Actually, she never intended to construct a metaphysical system as such. Rather, metaphysics for her was a mode of communication by which the practical significance of Christian revelation could be pointed out.” (p. 281)

Stephen Gottschalk, Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy’s Challenge to Materialism (Indiana, 2006): “ The metaphysics and theology of Christian Science were therefore far from being merely a statement of her personal religious views. But they were, for her, a making explicit of permanent spiritual truth that had been implicit in the Scriptures all along—a rediscovery, as she saw it, of the continuing truth and undiminished power of biblical revelation that traditional Christianity had largely failed to discern and act upon.” (Kindle location 182, Page 3)

“She used metaphysical and theological concepts to communicate the spiritual meaning she believed she had discovered in the Bible.” (Kindle location 3531, p. 169) Samuel S. Hill, “Religion and the Results of the Civil War,” in Religion and the American Civil War, ed. Randall M. Miller, Harry S. Stout, and Charles Reagon Wilson (Oxford University Press, 1998): “One can hardly imagine two Christian expressions more different than Christian Science, on the one hand, and Holiness and Pentecostal denominations on the other. But they share the deep level of conviction that God is very near, His power so manifest and accessible. What others regarded as supernatural or miraculous seemed to Mary Baker Eddy and her followers just the way a loving, all-powerful God is and how naturally He incorporates divine power into human frailty to overcome it” (373-374).

Pamela Klassen, Spirits of Protestantism: Medicine, Healing, and Liberal Christianity (University of California Press, 2011): “The gospel of health grew more fractious when new Christian healing movements such as Christian Science and divine healing (later pentecostalism) competed with considerable success against the biomedically-friendly Protestant anthropology of the spiritual body” (60).

Anglo-Catholic divine healer Dorothy Kerin is “in the lineage of Christian healers such as Mary Baker Eddy and Aimee Semple McPherson” (123).

Martin Marty, Modern American Religion Vol. 1, The Irony of It All, 1893 – 1919 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986): Christian Science is “a new healing movement” (254).

J. Gordon Melton, Encyclopedia of Protestantism (InfoBase, 2005): Christian Science is a type of “Christian Reconstructionism.” It is a “metaphysical religion” based on Eddy’s views of the Bible and having “parallels in the healing experiences so central to Jesus’ ministry” (146). (Of course, Melton’s more widely circulated encyclopedia refers to Christian Science as part of an esoteric “Christian Science-Metaphysical Family,” which we’ve already emphasized and established. This entry just shows more of the picture.)

Mark Noll, “The Bible, Minority Faiths, and the Protestant Mainstream,” in Minority Faiths and the American Protestant Mainstream, ed. Jonathan D. Sarna (University of Illinois Press, 1998): “Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Mennonites, many Lutherans, some Baptists, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and members of other minority faiths faced a situation where the [mainstream Protestant] American-Bible synthesis threatened their civil, religious, political, or social rights, and also one in which the effort to employ Scripture for their own purposes was imperiled” (198).]

Ronald L. Numbers and Rennie B. Schoepflin, “Ministries of Healing: Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen G. White, and the Religion of Health,” in Women and Health in America: A History, ed. Judith Walzer Leavitt (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984), 376-389) situate Eddy’s “social niche at the intersection of medical and religious reform” (581).

Robert Peel, Health and Medicine in the Christian Science Tradition: Principle, Practice, and Challenge (Crossroad, 1988): “The late nineteenth century saw a revival of spiritual healing by the Pentecostals and the remarkable healing work of Pastor Johann Christoph Blumhardt in Germany, not to mention the much-disputed miracles at Lourdes. But in none of these did the healing activity play such a central role as in Christian Science—or offer such a direct challenge to both the religious and medical orthodoxy of the day” (2).

Amanda Porterfield, Healing in the History of Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005): groups Christian Science and New Thought together as “emphasizing the mind’s power over illness,” while still maintaining the Christian identity of Christian Science: “With regard to the disclosure of divine truth,” Porterfield writes, “Eddy interpreted the rediscovery of Christian Science in ‘the present age’ as ‘the opening of the sixth seal’ described in the Book of Revelation” (179). Rennie B. Schoepflin’s Christian Science on Trial: Religious Healing in America (The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003): Scholars “more often have understood Christian Science healing as a variety of religious or spiritual healing than as a branch of mind or mental healing” (38).

Stephen J. Stein, Communities of Dissent: A History of Alternative Religions in America (Oxford, 2000): Christian Science is a “community of dissent” (6) and a “new religious movement that empowered women in important ways” (93). Eddy’s book Science and Health “represented a reformulation of Christian thought and a radical departure from conventional religious ideas. Mary Baker Eddy based Christian Science on her reinterpretation of the Bible” (95).

Stephen J. Stein, “American Bibles: Canon, Commentary, and Community” in Church History 64:2 (1995), Stein writes that in her book Science and Health, “Eddy set out to write her reflection on Scripture” and that “she never deviated from a central concern with the Bible, a position she articulated as the first ‘Tenet’ of [T]he Mother Church in Boston which reads, ‘As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the [B]ible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life’” (175). He calls Eddy’s book “metaphysical and quasi-philosophical in tone, yet explicitly biblical” (175-176).

Ann Taves, Fits, Trances, and Visions: Experiencing Religion and Explaining Experience From Wesley to James. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999: New Thought assimilated the term “animal magnetism” as a positive force “in the mesmeric tradition,” while Eddy “followed an Edwardsian strategy in identifying it as an “error or counterfeit” (219). Similarly, the traditions of New Thought and Spiritualism rejected special revelation, which remained central to Eddy’s theology; this “aligned Christian Science strategically with evangelical Protestantism as represented by Edwards and Wesley and with Seventh-Day Adventism” (219).

Amy B. Voorhees, “Understanding the Religious Gulf between Mary Baker Eddy, Ursula Gestefeld, and Their Churches,” Church History 80:4 (2011): “Returning to the teachings at the core of our two organizations: the Church of Christ, Scientist affirmed itself as the “true evangelical” church in which Eddy completed biblical prophecy by bringing Jesus’ promised Comforter, Christian Science, into the world, restoring “primitive” Christianity and operating at the vanguard of Christendom; like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, they said, others might fail to comprehend this.” (830).

David Weddle, “The Christian Science Textbook: An Analysis of the Religious Authority of Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy,” The Harvard Theological Review 84, no. 3 (1991), 273-297: Regarding Eddy’s work, “What she finally constructed is an original synthesis of biblical piety and metaphysical speculation, expressed in amazingly plastic vocabulary molded by the consistent application of a few general principles” (276).

Further, “the usual claims for the authority of Science and Health based on the coherence of its metaphysics and the efficacy of its healing practice are fully intelligible only when placed in the wider context of the mythic vision of Christian history, shared by Eddy and her students in a community of interpretation” (275).

“I conclude that Mary Baker Eddy intended Christian Science to be the movement that would both restore primitive Christianity and also advance Christian understanding into the promised age of redemption. To accomplish this epochal task she wrote her ‘textbook,’ laboring over its birth and development for three decades, and she authorized a polity for the Mother Church designed to preserve the integrity of her ‘miraculous vision.’ In fulfilling both tasks she followed models from the story of the early Christian church. These biblical archetypes provide the context of mythic drama in which her ‘textbook’ can be seen as the reenactment of the advent of Christ, and her church as the new Pentecost opening the age of the kingdom of heaven. Only in this light does the religious authority of Science and Health as a holy book become clear” (297).

'''Wessinger, Catherine, ed. Women’s Leadership in Marginal Religions:''' Explorations outside the Mainstream (University of Illinois Press, 1993): “Mary Baker Eddy founded the Church of Christ, Scientist based on her healing experience entailing her immediate perception of the truth contained in the gospels” (1).

Christian Science is a “marginal religion” and a “sectarian” one (4, 5). It is one of the “metaphysical movements” (8) whose “worldview is monistic, with God seen as immanent, universal principle” (8).Ath271 (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ath, this is a really helpful resource, though I don't have time to make much use of it at the moment for editorial purposes. Perhaps others will :-/ Be-nice:-) (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, BN. Note that if our article described CS entirely as a new (if indeterminate) type of American Christianity or a religion with a healing focus/theology, we’d be compelled to bring out RS that describes it as “metaphysical” and/or groups it with other religions so described. But instead we have the opposite case, hence this list. I'm less concerned with content details here than with whatever sources allow our article to represent the broadest/fullest picture possible of existing viewpoints. (Also please note the neutral phrase "religion with a healing focus," which I use to avoid judgment re: whether or not religious healing claims are "true." Perhaps it's not the best phrase but I use it in place of the more common phrase "healing religion," which appears to endorse the truth of religious healing claims, whereas this isn't a forum for either supporting or opposing truth claims.) Ath271 (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Revising this: the sources above do call this a "healing movement" or "healing religion." So I guess I'm being overly sensitive here. And obvs better to go with terms/phrases in the sources rather than introducing one.


 * BN, if you don't have time to work with this material but are interested in doing something with it, I can start the process by suggesting a few ideas to consider. Would that be a help?Ath271 (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

SV, is this material you're interested in working with at all? Would repackaging it in any way be useful? Please let me know if there's a more helpful way I can present this, if it's of interest. Thanks!Ath271 (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ath, I would have to see a concrete suggestion for an edit. As things stand it seems the article already covers these points, namely that CS emerged from Protestantism, that it was a healing religion within the metaphysical movement, and that the direction it took was influenced by Eddy's Congregationalist background. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your response. Let’s look at this a little more. In these statements above, which do you see characterizing Christianity as integral to the religious rationale, identity, and development of CS?Ath271 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Ath, the best way for COI editors to effect change is to propose an edit. Please post the words you'd like to see added, along with sources, and say where it should be placed. That would give us something concrete to look at. Try to make sure the material doesn't repeat what's already in the article or go off on a tangent, because article length is a bit of an issue. If you like, you can use this template – COI editnotice – by clicking where it says "click here," and that will bring up a blank page with a section title. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts, SV. I appreciate your new interpretation and preferences regarding COI contributions. It’s also typical for volunteer editors to take material COI editors supply, work with and discuss it, and propose or simply make edits themselves, as you’ve done previously. (In fact, some editors object to COI editors supplying wording! Go figure.) Anyone who wishes to continue working this way should feel free to.


 * I'm happy to make a suggestion. It will be difficult for anyone to fairly evaluate one without first arriving at an accurate summary of the material. To that end, please note:


 * The article currently reflects that “CS emerged from Protestantism.” In contrast, the statements above argue that it was also a type of Christianity itself, after it emerged. The article does not yet reflect this.
 * Specifics: Three statements (Bednarowski 175, Curtis 75, possibly Stein 95) focus partly on how CS emerged. None of the rest discusses the context CS emerged from (Protestant or otherwise). All present CS as a new or refigured type of Christianity, though they don’t seem to agree on what type of Christianity that is.


 * The article already presents the view that CS “was a healing religion within the metaphysical movement.” In contrast, most statements above argue that it was also, or only, a healing religion within Christianity. The article does not yet reflect this.
 * Specifics: Four statements (Albanese, Bednarowski, Porterfield, and Wessinger) argue that CS is a type of healing Christianity that is also a (not necessarily “within a”) metaphysical movement. Eight statements (Butler et al., Curtis, Klassen, Marty, Numbers/Schoepflin, Peel, Schoepflin, Weddle) call CS a type of Christian healing or healing movement only, most without mentioning “metaphysics.”


 * The article already notes that CS was “influenced by Eddy’s Congregationalist background,” but it could be more clear re: “the direction it took” in consequence. The statements above call this direction Christian in some way (though again, without really agreeing on what that way is). The article does not yet reflect this.
 * Specifics: All these sources argue that Christianity constitutes the religious rationale, identity, and ongoing development of CS in some way, not a background or environmental factor.


 * If anyone disagrees with this summary clarification, please say so, referring specifically and concisely to sources. I'll move ahead with a specific edit suggestion, taking any further comments here into account. Ath271 (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Observations from research
Hello, SV, some thoughts/critiques/ideas/further resources re: this helpful collection of NRM citations.

I see what you mean that there’s this “metaphysical” name that scholars often apply to both CS and New Thought. But the term “metaphysical family” is rooted in one source (Melton) and adopted here by two sociologists working in his NRM subfield. No one term is consistently adopted across all sources.

In the sources we have here, Braden introduces a metaphysical “complex of religions” or “general movement”; Lewis references a “metaphys (CS-NT) tradition”; Neusner, an “American Metaphysical Movement” (capped, proper named); Mead et al. and Hanegraaff don’t use the term “metaphysical” to describe CS but instead link it in differing ways (both in passing) to New Thought; Harley calls CS a “metaphysical religion” focused on healing; Melton is the only one to call it a “metaphysical family,” which Saliba and Simmons cite him on and adopt; Jenkins, a “metaphysical healing sect”; Taves and McGuire echo Braden’s “metaphys movement” term.

Judah and Albanese are foundational in this lit though not discussed here. Judah uses “metaphysical movements” (plural). Albanese theorizes an “ethnicity” in which all American religionists (including evangelical Protestant Horace Bushnell) are “metaphysical” in some way.


 * Complex, movement, tradition, family, sect: no one term prevails.

Then we have a mainstream religious historian (ie not a historian of new religious movements) like Martin Marty pointing to an “impulse” like those described above but not naming it (Marty, Modern American Religion. Vol. 1, The Irony of It All, 1893 – 1919 (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1986), 255). And some widely used introductions to American religion by generalists and several other works by religious historians group Christian Science differently: with other emergent religions, new Christianities, religious healing movements, and occasionally Protestant denominations, without emphasizing or even referencing the term “metaphysical."


 * The “metaphysical” terminology appears to be subfield-specific, accepted and used among NRM scholars (a relatively small bunch) but not among generalists.

We also have the issue of critiques. To take the most recent influential work on this topic: in The Journal of American History (Vol. 94 No. 2, sorry my download has no page numbers), Richard Kyle notes that Albanese defines “metaphysical religion” broadly but still finds her work to be “the definitive summary,” showing how metaphysical movements “combined and recurred” yet were also distinct. Other reviews by NRM folks (Robert C. Fuller in Church History, Jun2007, Vol. 76 Issue 2, p461 and another in Nova Religio) are similarly grateful to see such movements delineated and defined. But in American Historical Review (Oct 2008, 1106-1108), David D. Hall writes that “counter-tendencies” to the proposed “metaphysical” category are often overlooked in order to sustain a grouping that may not historically exist: “Christian Science, which fits awkwardly within her paradigm, is a leading example of counter-tendencies that are largely ignored in favor of an emphasis on Mary Baker Eddy’s connections with Phineas P. Quimby.” Hall notes that “Themes and ideas that to other historians of religion in America may, for good reason, have seemed marginal or elusive suddenly take center stage.” He finds this stimulating, creative, “unexpected,” and also diffuse, fanciful, and sometimes unsupported. “The large claims this book makes seem borne out by the lives of certain virtuosi of metaphysical religion. But a skeptic may point to the evanescence of so much of what Albanese describes.” Conservative commentator Richard John Neuhaus writes that in Albanese’s work, “The inevitable arbitrariness of definition tends to diffuse the subject at hand into everything or nothing.” Andrew Hamilton finds an “underlying intellectual confusion” that prevents her terminology and thesis from becoming clear.


 * So here we have responses to the most recent benchmark work on this type of religious “metaphysics” showing the scholarly community divided about whether it exists as a historical phenomenon and viable theoretical construct.

There is also the very real problem of generality and overlap with “metaphysics” and “metaphys religion” very broadly defined. This is a self-conscious problem within the lit; both Braden and Albanese invoke it, and neither says they’ve solved it. Albanese uses metaphysics in her new “ethnicity” sense and also in its traditional meaning relating to the study of ontology (11), and like Braden, she also uses it in its broadest sense as that which is “preoccupied in some sense with what lies beyond the physical plane” (12). So in their use of the term, they shift between the broadly traditional and the specifically provisional. The term is, like New Thought itself, loosely characterized and diffuse. Jeffrey Kripal gets at this when he writes that “The adjective ‘metaphysical’ means “beyond the physical,” and in Albanese’s work “the term acts as an umbrella for those alternative currents of American history that are normally marginalized or neglected by historians.” That casts the net so broadly it’s hard to say what qualifies under the name. (Kripal himself describes this category inhabited mainly by Transcendalists, Spiritualists, a diffuse, anti-dogmatic “spirituality,” and Theosophists; he doesn’t even name CS or NT. So you have Braden and Melton naming CS and NT as the main inhabitants of their “metaphys” categories, Albanese naming everyone as part of hers, and Kripal excluding CS and NT. He’s arguably staking out a minority position here, but the variation is worth noting.)


 * This “metaphysics” is theorized as distinct from other “metaphysics,” but its main theorists use the term both specifically and generally without delineating. And they include different sets of religions within it.

Drilling down from “metaphysics” to “CS-NT,” we have sources noting that some characteristics of CS theology seem to harmonize with descriptions of “metaphysical” religion here while others directly conflict. But that's maybe better discussed on the main CS page.


 * We can just note here that these sources call out sectarian and theological issues between CS and NT that create dissonance between the two within this shared/proposed “metaphysical” category.

Finally, we have indigenous uses of the term “metaphysics.” Peel and Gottschalk go into some depth about how MBE uses the term uniquely; again this material should probably be part of the main CS page. New Thought religionists and Quimby advocates reject Braden's formulation that Quimby built his practice on mesmerism. It looks like American Theosophists initially used the term “metaphysics” to align with ontological and teleological questions, and they still appear to adhere to the broad definition of the term as meaning “the philosophy of that which is beyond thought.”


 * So indigenous uses of the term “metaphysics” differ from what Braden et al. describe.

All of this makes me wonder if what we have here is OR. I totally get the rationale behind it. Now we know that we can’t call CS a type of New Thought (a few NRM sources do this, but most describe them as parallel). Yet CS and NT are related somehow. How do we describe that relationship? And how to we categorize CS at the top level? As frustrating as it is, it doesn’t appear that we have a clear answer for either in published sources yet. Hopefully one day we will.

This is a solid collection of a bunch of NRM sources, and based on them we can def say that in these sources Christian Science (as well as New Thought) is described as “metaphysical.” We can (and should) use inline cites to show the variety of how different scholars define what that means (including the few that use "metaphys family"). But we can’t exceed the state of the literature and present a "metaphys family" grouping those sources don’t uniformly define and name.

Can we say that we’re using the term “family” in a generic sense? Well, that’s hard to claim because one corner of the lit actually uses that term—so if we’re going to borrow that term here, we need to clearly show that we’re not elevating one small corner of the literature to all-encompassing status it doesn’t have. And if we’re going to borrow the very specific phrase “metaphysical (CS-NT) family,” we have to show we’re not elevating Melton’s proprietary, lightly replicated term to represent all the lit. But that’s really hard to do, because it’s “his” term, which he pretty much coined. Using it here inevitably invokes him. It also invokes a solid core of NRM lit but might tempt us to lose sight of how, broadening out to lit on religions generally, it becomes further contested and dissipates. It’s used in a corner of a corner of that larger literature.

I suppose this page could be reconceived to state that this is a provisional, theoretical category that is debated/contested within NRM studies, with some showing in religious studies generally. But a term would have to be found that represents all of the literature without becoming so general as to become meaningless. As the lit itself contends, it’s not clear that’s possible. If it is, criticisms/problems would have to be clearly represented.

SV, do you find this helpful? What are your thoughts? How do you think this material impacts your thought process here? I’m really interested—you have a great start at some key materials here, and hopefully this helps expand, contextualize, and problematize them.Ath271 (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I hope Ath271 proposes a reworked Theology with subsections around 1) the NRM depiction, with support (now lacking) from the NRM article. (The New Religious Movement article makes the "value judgement" problem and accuracy and authoritative-consensus problems CS has look minor by comparison.) 2) "the metaphysical family", tied by Lewis (and Eddy herself) to the word "science" in all its meanings.  CS is an NRM for sure; and a "metaphysical family" of NRMs is quaint, so why not use it?  Re-use it with an intellectual honesty, more tentative and humble in approach rather than bold and leading so confidently and authoritatively, because the shaky grounds have been revealed by all parties involved in the NRM subject at large. And I see such a section offering a CS connection to NT via an easily sourced reference somewhere to the "disenchantment of modernity"; CS and NT both take the proliferation of scientific influences (cosmology, medical pathology) and "re-enchant" the same info. Thus NT is less a distinct relative of CS, and more of a fellow phenomena in a single phase of "metaphysical" history, making NT irrelevant to CS, but both relevant to a meme machine whose only function is to produce a mysterious proliferation of religious restatements acting like songs to accompany scientific dance steps. 3) more thematic analysis of the theology's healing aspect. NRMs like CS and movements like NT heal those who suffer materially and yet voluntarily carry the modern metaphysics of (scientific) materialism, (whereas an atheistic scientist would reject any "disease-causing" metaphysical burden like an NRM or NT, for the healthy reasons of efficiency and simplicity.) &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  00:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ath271 for searching out these three categories. Yes the concerns about WP:NOR are esp. salient for proposals to remove or add content instead of just reword. I have a contention about the terminology; I want it reworded, consistent and well-defined. Ath271 seems to have more ideas about the theological content. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  00:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm sincerely trying to help improve this article by supplying relevant, recent research in scholarly RS! I'll think about your comments, Cpiral. Please feel free to work with this material and make your own suggestions, if that's what you'd like to do. Actually, you do have a suggestion in your comments here, so I'll work off that. Thank you! Ath271 (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request -- change "disease is a spiritual... disorder" to "disease is a mental... disorder"
Please Replace

This includes the view that disease is a spiritual rather than physical disorder, that there is no death, and that the sick should be treated, not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health.

with

This includes the view that disease is a mental rather than physical disorder, that there is no death, and that the sick should be treated, not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health.

Why?

In Christian Science disease is not described as spiritual. Mary Baker Eddy calls disease "mental" in Science and Health, which should be a sufficient replacement.

For example:

SH 169:18-20 Science not only reveals the origin of all disease as mental, but it also declares that all disease is cured by divine Mind.

And see the Marginal Heading on the top of p. 151 of S&H ("Disease Mental")

The problem with calling disease "spiritual" is that Mary Baker Eddy taught that what is "spiritual" is also "real". Christian Science does not call disease "spiritual".

Solidmuldoon (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Solidmuldoon, thanks, this does appear to increase the accuracy of the page. I just looked this up, too, and can't find a place where disease is described as "spiritual" but several where it is called "mental." (The fix or cure is described as "spiritual," but not the problem.) Ath271 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Change to Metaphysics section
Hello,

I would like to change this paragraph:

New Thought and Christian Science adherents saw themselves as representatives of progress and modernity.[21] They differed in that, where New Thought was inclusive, Eddy's philosophy was dogmatic and sectarian; Eddy saw her views as a final revelation.[16] She also differed with her idea of malicious animal magnetism (that people can be harmed by the bad thoughts of others), introducing an element of fear that was absent from the New Thought literature.[22] Most significantly, unlike New Thought, Eddy dismissed the material world as an illusion, rather than as merely subordinate to Mind, leading her to reject the use of medicine, or materia medica, and making Christian Science the most controversial of the metaphysical groups. Reality for Eddy was purely spiritual.[23]

Reasons:

- to clarify "dogmatic" and "sectarian", which are often derogatory. To elaborate on what made New Thought "inclusive" (and, by implication, Christian Science exclusive) = inclusion of multiple religious practices versus a concentration on Christianity.

- to delete "element of fear" which appears unnecessary and elaborates beyond what cited source states.

- to tighten and focus the sentence about material world as illusion. Is the rejection of medicine really relevant here?

Note: Voorhees' article, for which I add a citation, is an independent source. It is published in Church History, a journal published by the Cambridge University Press.

Proposed change:

New Thought and Christian Science adherents saw themselves as representatives of progress and modernity. One of their key differences lay in the fact that while New Thought was inclusive of various mental healing methods and non-Christian religious practices, Eddy insisted on Christianity as the core to Christian Science. Moreover, Eddy saw her views as a final revelation. She also differed with her idea of malicious animal magnetism (that people can be harmed by the bad thoughts of others), which was absent from the New Thought literature. Most significantly, whereas New Thought still believed in the existence of the material world but saw it as subordinate to Mind, Eddy dismissed the material world as an illusion, leading her to reject the use of medicine, or materia medica, making Christian Science the most controversial of the metaphysical groups. Reality for Eddy was purely spiritual.

Playdoh_Poetry


 * Playdoh, the "element of fear" issue with MAM is one of the key differences between NT and CS (and is one of the issues the church has wanted to change). What makes you say that it goes beyond the sources?


 * Eddy and Christianity are discussed in the next section, so it's best not to repeat it in the overview section. You're welcome to move some text into the next section if you can do it in a way that's not repetitive. It's better wherever possible to use independent sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, will get back to "element of fear" issue soon. How do you define independent sources? Playdoh poetry (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article already relies on Christian Scientist sources a lot. Others have criticized that over-reliance, so I want to make sure we don't add to them. It's appropriate in parts of the theology section to use Christian Science sources, particularly Eddy, because we want to hear directly what she said. But for any analysis or overview, we need independent sources. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

While we are at it, I suggest simplifying this to
 * New Thought and Christian Science adherents each saw themselves as seeking progress and modernity.[21] While New Though had no specific religious orientation, Eddy invoked the Christian religion.  She also proposed malicious animal magnetism (harm done by thoughts of others), absent from the New Thought literature.[22] Unlike most New Thought adherents, Eddy viewed the material world as an illusion, not just subordinate to Mind.  This led her to reject medicine which implicitly denies the world being an illusion.  Reality for Eddy was spiritual.  (readability now up to 42, original is 32 and proposed change is 37)

Which is 1. actually readable and 2. appears to fully conform with the sources given and 3. reduces the use of internal argumentation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd need to study this paragraph and the sources more but some initial thoughts are these: first, I'd suggested that the section be reorganized so as move from general to specific - from the general genesis of the new religions to more specific points about CS. As a lay reader I think the paragraph is important to set a general overview and background for readers who might not read the article from top to bottom. This source, pages 126 and 127, and this source, page 112, support the current version as written in regards to malicious animal magnetism, so I wouldn't support changing. This sentence is part of the proposed change: "One of their key differences lay in the fact that while New Thought was inclusive of various mental healing methods and non-Christian religious practices, Eddy insisted on Christianity as the core to Christian Science." I see that it's sourced to Amy Voorhees' Understanding the Religious Gulf between Mary Baker Eddy, Ursula N. Gestefeld, and Their  Churches, which seems to focus on the 1888 rift and not as much on the early genesis. But the source is behind a paywall so it's hard to tell. The current version of the article does begin the next section with this sentence: "Christian Science leaders see their religion as Christian, and reject any identification with the New Thought movement." As a lay reader that makes sense to me. The reader is guided through the 19th century background to the next section, clearly about CS, with a topic sentence that makes a definite statement. I might pop back in here, but this is an off-the-cuff response to the change without having taken the time to read through history and diffs and such.  Victoria (tk) 15:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's exactly right. I tried to follow the structure you suggested, so we move from the general to the specific in that section (all the sources are independent, because the section is all analysis). Then we move into the next section (again general to specific) to discuss Christian Science theology in more detail. At that point we start to use the Christian Science sources. I keep hoping someone will start Christian Science theology, where an even more specific examination can take place. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Re: scholarly sources being behind firewalls, that's such a problem not just re: this source but generally. One way around this is to cut and paste on the talk page a larger than usual chunk of the material (larger than would usually go in a footnote) related to the point being made. Ath271 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Re: scholarly sources being behind firewalls, that's such a problem not just re: this source but generally. One way around this is to cut and paste on the talk page a larger than usual chunk of the material (larger than would usually go in a footnote) related to the point being made. Ath271 (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's only poses a problem in that it's harder to find and so takes longer to review. Frequently editors are happy to swap sources. I have found Voorhees but have only had time to skim quickly but when I have time I'll read it thoroughly. A quick skim shows that the requested edit above cites a statement Eddy wrote in a letter, which might be problematic for a couple of reasons. First, obviously, because Voorhees didn't write the statement but Eddy did it has to be attributed to author. Usually in academic writing (depending on the style used) that's done with a "quoted by" or some type of statement in the inline cite. Next, because the statement originated with Eddy, I'd consider it a Primary source. One the most significant differences between encyclopedic writing and academic writing is that here we have an obligation to avoid primary sources as much as possible, whereas scholars seek them out. It's a point often misunderstood across WP and bears explaining here. My main area of expertise is literature, and so, for example, for the most part I avoid the use of authors' letters, instead leaning on secondary and tertiary sources. If this were to be presented as a source to use in an article about an author, I'd want to see it more clearly stated in secondary sources. Note the use of plural: best practice is always to consult secondary sources, review them, and then lean on them. We don't make interpretations here.
 * Also just to comment on a couple of points made in the sections above. First per WP:TPNO "Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures". Interspersing posts within posts makes the conversation really hard to follow so it's avoided on talk pages. Next, I hadn't fully realized  had a COI. Having been asked to read and review this article, which I spent a considerable time doing without pay (every single edit I've made to WP has been without pay!), it's a situation that I think calls for more eyes to the page. Finally, this will sound harsh, but unfortunately credentials are meaningless on WP.  WP is based on the pillars - nothing less, nothing more. It's sometimes a frustrating situation, but in truth encyclopedic writing by its nature is difficult on lots of levels - and I'll stop here before I launch into an overly long explanation. This is already long enough for a talk page post.  Victoria (tk) 16:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Paywall crack: WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  18:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
Another new account,, has arrived to stress the Christianity again (based on a church source), and revert. I assume this is connected to the previous church accounts, and to the rewrite that (who works for the church) and  have been planning on subpages.

The plans include the removal of criticism, and that articles about religion "should be largely about the goodness of that religion. ... That the topic of a religion article is largely about its goodness should be as sacred an expectation as WP has for WP:BOLP [BLP]." 

I'd appreciate it if normal service could resume, and issues be discussed on this talk page first, so that consensus can be formed where there are objections. Also, Ath, it's inappropriate for the church to try to rewrite the article. Readers come here expecting to find something written by independent editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that this new account removed some text that Ath271 complained about a few days ago, on User:Ath271/Cpiral#Remove certain material. Regarding this section:




 * Ath wrote:




 * (Note: it's not correct that it's uncited.)


 * Yesterday Playdoh's first edit was to remove much of it from the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, SlimVirgin, I'm sorry - I'm new to editing Wikipedia though I've used it for a long time and sometimes edited without an account. I did not know of the discussions by Cpiral and Ath271 around this issue. I was simply reading the page and it struck me that the scholarly and well researched tone of the article changed and seemed to become a bit biased against Christian Science. You'll note that even the link to the "Sect" / sectarian page indicates that "Sect" is usually used in a derogatory way. I did some research on a scholarly database about New Thought versus Christian Science to understand the differences better and corrected according to that, as I cited. I didn't realize it had been a contention already. I'm kind of just learning on the go here, but I hope that I can be of help in improving this page and others. Playdoh poetry (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome. Good work! Its in the version history. And you've just learned to gauge an article before editing it. Glance at the history page and talk page first. You can search the archived talk pages using the prefix: parameter. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @SV, you say "their plans are to...". But my "plans" for evolving a decent representation of a Christian Science cannot be ascertained yet, as I'm wallowing in data and esp. its mechanization on our collaboration there. The dust hasn't even settled yet. But yes, I want to see a little more readability and a lot more usability of Christian Science.


 * We were just working on one or two proposals that were requested from here, remember? I participate there only partly in reaction to the article, but also partly in response to a call for assistance from a new editor, partly for learning about collaborating with paid editors, and partly to save this talk page from complexities requiring devotions of time and space not normally serviceable here. (It's true, that our original "focus" has spread into a larger number of loose proposals, and has spread to a critique of sections, and tries to spread to new and related articles.) I'm keeping an open mind as I see we're all trying to achieve a "propriety" in the article. Happy editing! 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)&mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral


 * Cpiral, please don't post inside other people's posts, unless they've said it's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not know who Playdoh is. What "previous church accounts"? SV, please kindly refrain from conspiracy theories. This is the second time you've offered one when more than one poster wishes to see changes on this page that align, however imperfectly, with something I've posted. I'm sorry to have to point this out. I've offered several times here to openly discuss anything relating to my account and what I understand to be the church's position vis-a-vis my participation. As you have declined, please refrain from insinuation.


 * Re: stressing Xty in CS, several independent sources do this. Eddy's own theology does this; it contains extensive teachings on atonement, trinity, sacraments, baptism, and so on, none of which are represented here. The problem is not that people stress this. It's a) that they sometimes stress it without citing independent sources, and b) when do cite independent sources, however copiously, you have chosen to ignore these. Why do you do this? Ath271 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, but you've excluded my response, which is that criticisms must be fairly accounted for. Ath271 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly appropriate for an editor to ask a scholar/SME for resources and feedback and to critically engage with it. It's appropriate for an editor to critically engage with a COI editor around content. That's what has happened here. Please do not try to make it into what it isn't.Ath271 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The church can't be involved in an attempt to rewrite this article, for obvious reasons. In addition, the proposals are non-starters: e.g. that the article has to focus on the "goodness" of CS, that "children's rights" is POV, that the article should use more CS sources, etc.

The article has GA status, so please gain consensus for any proposals on this talk page, and base your edits on independent sources. The clearest sources are the sociologists and political scientists, because they're uninvolved and their writing is rigorous and clear.

It might be worth reading WP:FRINGE: "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources." SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, an editor can ask a COI editor who is a scholar/SME for expert input re: sourcing and content the editor then works with/critiques. It's my understanding that this is one ideal way for scholars to function on Wikipedia. I will not explain again how my funding aligns with norms in my field, as that has been covered elsewhere and here. I will emphasize, though, that I have a standard and impeccable academic cv. I have juried the Harvard Theological Review, peer reviewed several other publications, spoken by invitation at every major conference in my field and several outside it, published rigorously peer-reviewed work on American religions, held appointments at secular universities, and so forth. If we're going to talk about "church involvement," we'll have to acknowledge that the CS church is sponsoring these secular credentials without editing or owning what gets produced. Sponsorship? Yes. Ownership? No. Complex? All COI editing is. But there's a place for it on Wikipedia.


 * Re: proposals, none are on the table here, so it's impossible to know what they are or discuss them. Who knows what form they might take - certainly not me.Ath271 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, the clearest sources are any RS as Wikipedia defines them. This standard does not favor or disfavor one group of RS authors over another. The entire scope of scholarly lit needs to be considered here, however inconvenient that it for me to point out and for an invested POV to accept. That includes critical sources, of course, appropriately used. Ath271 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See above re: all scholarly lit (ie independent reliable sources) on CS. Ath271 (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, Ath, please don't post inside, or change, other people's posts. Everything between the top of the post and the signature should be left intact.


 * You've compared yourself to mainstream academics you've named on your user page, whose positions are funded by outside bodies. But none of those people are seeking anonymously to rewrite a major, independent public information resource, in favour of their own religion, after being paid to do so by that religious body.


 * Wikipedia's readers come here expecting to find something written independently of the Christian Science church.


 * I'm going to post below some policy and guideline advice. I'm also going to add the COI tag to the top of the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There was a suggestion to involve other editors in this discussion, so I'm pinging, who has specialized in COI issues. Core, is an SPA who has acknowledged being paid to edit by the Christian Science church. Ath's position is that WP:NOPAY does not apply to subject-matter experts. Ath has agreed not to edit the article (a GA), but is engaged in a proposed rewrite, on various subpages, with. It is the same situation as with the oil industry.

They aim to remove much of what they see as criticism, create a separate criticism section, confine unsympathetic sources to that section, increase sympathetic sources, stress that CS is scientific, remove headings such as "children's rights," etc.

I've avoided taking this to the boards because of the horrible time sink. I'm hoping that having another experienced editor explain how this proposed rewrite is likely to be viewed will help. Confirmation that WP:NOPAY applies regardless of expertise might also help. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello SlimVirgin, I saw your ping. The "paid editing" ToU rule and NOPAY would apply if a person is paid to advance the interests of his/her employer. In this case (as I understand it) a person is employed by this church to edit to advance the interests of the church. So I think that the paid editing rule in the ToU would apply. Look, churches, religious organizations, congregations are all organizations, employers, and sum are a very big business. I don't think we distinguish between religious groups and profit-making ones. As for the issue of subject matter expertise" by definition, a paid editor is an expert. All paid editors are experts. So what? I think that he/she would have to disclose. But as we all know, there is nothing to prevent them from editing. Hope this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 03:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just to go on a little more: we all know how inflammatory religion is nowadays. We can't have religious experts, employed by the religion, taking a dominant role in articles about their religion. I say this without having any knowledge of this religion or article or even reading it. Now, as in an article about a commercial organization, if it's straight noncontroversial factual stuff ("the religion was founded in Year X") or defamation ("the religion advocates burning babies") it's fine for paid editors to intervene strongly. But if there are controversial aspects of the religion, we have to tread carefully. In the Jewish religion, for instance, there is controversy concerning certain forms of circumcision among the ultra-orthodox. We do not want to have ultra-orthodox Jewish sects dominating such articles. Coretheapple (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, that's very helpful. I agree that input from COI editors (or anyone else) is welcome to correct straightforward errors. The problem, as you say, is when it comes to handling anything contentious, or I would say anything that requires interpretation. It can't be left to COI editors to determine the article's direction, or to ghostwrite it. The problem with writing about CS for WP is that it's not just a religious topic. It intersects with how we handle fringe topics in science and medicine, because the religion's core claim (the issue for which it is notable) is that there is no such thing as sickness, and that Christian Science prayer is the only thing that can heal. So WP:FRINGE kicks in, as well as WP:NOPAY. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That's absolutely correct. Coretheapple (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In the circuncision controversy that I mentioned, it is practice of some of the very ultra-orthodox "mohels to put their mouths on the infant's penises. There is concern that this can spread diseases. We want articles on this practice to be written by uninterested parties. I haven't even read those articles but I would wager that they are contentious. Can I make a small bet? Even if no paid editors are involved. Coretheapple (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, pleasure to meet you. It might be helpful to take a look at my profile.
 * I’m paid by the CS church to contribute scholarly, not religious, expertise. I’m not a “religious expert” like a mohel, imam, etc. (or a CS “teacher”) and specifically not a spokesperson, advoate, or official rep of the church. The church has no editorial say or ownership in what I produce. This is in my contract.
 * The sources I cite here are not religious. Many of them are sources Christian Scientists generally would not want to read and would never recommend. My religious beliefs are private; I don’t post or discuss religiously-based views. I cite only scholarly RS and the on-topic perspectives within them.
 * I disclosed before participating (in my profile) and voluntarily follow brightline guidelines
 * Editors here solicit and work with my expertise; I'm happy to respond though I don't expect or ask more
 * Less importantly but still on topic, I’m pretty much SPA but that’s less by design/desire and more bc this page is such a time-sucker. I’ve started 2 other projects that are on hold bc of the demands here (intentions don’t count much, I know, but seems worth noting). Ironically, those of us who are paid often have far less time to devote to WP than those who are not. That’s fine, we all have different situations.

The scholars I list on my profile don’t have time or incentive to contribute here, but they should. They are just the type of scholars Wikipedia would be pleased to welcome. Their work is the type of RS readers coming to WP expect to engage with. Brightline guidelines don’t yet represent barriers and incentives bearing on their participation, but that's just a matter of evolution. Scholars like this regularly contribute to encyclopedias such as Britannica (back in the day) and Encyl. of Religion, which remains the standard reference work in the field of religious studies and is far more widely circulated than any tertiary source mentioned in this article. (It isn't yet mentioned here, but should be.)

I understand the complexities here and have been circumspect in my participation. I’m not better than or above others here, but neither am I worse or below. Just different. My MO is to moderately suggest RS and offer on-topic scholarly views and respond when asked. (NB: The “editors should not be subjected” quote above is from an essay representing one legitimate but not fully accepted WP view; it’s not a guideline. I respect the range of views, but it is a wide range.) I don't see how I could be other than WP:PAY given the terms of my contract. And this is a public space that I can and should be in.

Yes, religions are a hot topic on WP (and everywhere). My concern here is that we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t think that’s what WP intends for COI SMEs. I’m interested in what that means here and open to engaging around it. More on Fringe and Sourcing below, if it's of interest. This seems like a helpful discussion not just for this page but as a kind of case study for how SMEs interact on WP religion pages generally. Ath271 (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Financial COI
It seems there have been misunderstandings about policy, so I hope this will clarify how WP handles paid-advocacy editing and fringe topics. I apologize for the length.


 * 1. Much of the community, and the Wikimedia Foundation, opposes paid-advocacy editing. Editors with a financial conflict of interest should not edit articles directly, and should use talk pages judiciously. See WP:NOPAY:


 * See WP:PAY:


 * 2. The Foundation recently rewrote its terms of use to require that COI editors identify themselves clearly:

Fringe topics
Wikipedia has developed policies and guidelines to prevent fringe views from being presented as mainstream. The neutrality policy says:

FRINGE says:

There are many Wikipedians who would have written this article without using any Christian Science sources. I have used them because I prefer to present their views directly. I've tried to use CS sources only for description (not analysis), to use only notable ones (mostly Eddy, Peel, Gottschalk, and the occasional video from the church or other CS people speaking about it). But it's important that the article be based largely on sources that are entirely independent, and we shouldn't do anything to increase the proportion of CS sources.

I've just glanced through the Scientology references section, and I can't find any Scientology sources there. Looking ahead, I'll go through this article to make sure any CS source is supported by independent sources; perhaps they can be removed in some cases, though I would like to keep Peel. It might also be worth creating an FAQ page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this, SV. It doesn't seem there's confusion around these issues so much as varied views about what they mean. That's always worth discussing.


 * Fringe: Some CS practices are minority/distinctive practices that set it over against mainstream society, but reducing the entire religion to these practices (not to mention extremes within those practices) is a problem. Why is the “weirdness” of CS its defining factor here when all religions have their own anti-mainstream weirdnesses? Scholars have argued this very “weirdness” actually makes CS “mainstream”—aren’t the outsiders always emblems of the insiders in American history? (That’s not my argument, it’s an argument/theme that pops up repeatedly in work on minority American religions.) Other scholars have argued that CS overlaps with other religions that are mainstream and/or who maintain similar practices, e.g. healing theologies and practices. So there is much to be discussed in regard to this view, which is contentious at best.


 * Re: CS sources: Any source that is published by an academic press and vetted by the peer-review process is straight RS according to WP guidelines. The religion of the author is not a factor in determining RS.


 * This is a WP standard, so we need not get much into it, but a few practical points:
 * Religious identity is often not disclosed among authors, so if this were to be a policy, we would frequently be left conjecture.
 * Religious identity is fluid and multiple; what about the ex-adherent, the sometimes-adherent, the excommunicated adherent who professes to be faithful?
 * Scholar-practitioners (professed or not) make up the largest core group of those producing RS on religious topics. Looking at the Mormon page, Richard Bushman has the first several paragraphs locked up tight--with no reference to his faith--and according to WP standards, this is at it should be. Same with the Catholic page (cites tons of Jesuit and OFM scholars) and indeed, most others. Ath271 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Single-purpose accounts
SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Useful - though I've started to make good on my initial intentions to contribute more broadly, it's also worth noting that all my posts on this page have reflected not my personal views but views within RS (never religious publications). And only when those views and/or sources are not yet represented in the article. Their common purpose is to help better conform the article to RS and other WP standards. A review of their content would illustrate this. Ath271 (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving settings
I've changed the archiving to wait six months. That should make it a bit easier on anyone who wants to improve the article to follow, contribute, and understand spirit of the discussions. Perhaps someone will extract the last six months out the archives so that anyone can work scanning with a straight text search, rather than with a results page listing numerous archives. There could be as little as one conversation in an archive, per the miszabot settings.

Minimum days was changed from 30 to 180.

Minimum threads left was changed from 1 to 20. &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  17:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Unorthodox Xty proposal
In the lead we have the sentence, “Christian Scientists see their religion as consistent with mainstream Christian theology, despite key differences.” This reflects the work cited (Melton 1992) but other work argues/illustrates that
 * CSists self-define as Christian, but not nec. mainstream. Gottschalk 1973 interprets MBE to mean that “Christian Science, while Christian, is definitely not Protestant” (286, italics his). Bednarowski 1999 agrees that it’s “neither Catholic nor Protestant” (71).
 * More importantly, it’s not only CSists who view themselves as Xtns (of whatever type), but many scholars as well. Partial list of that RS here. There’s little agreement on what kind. Some of this RS contradicts Gottschalk and Bednarowski and calls it Protestant. But no one calls it orthodox. Add to that list Wilson 1961 who writes, “CS differs considerably in various theological issues from more orthodox branches of Christianity” (124). So to him it’s a branch of Christianity, but again, not orthodox.

So how about something like this:

“Christian Scientists and several scholars see the religion as an expression of Christianity, though with significant differences from orthodoxy.”

OR

“Christian Scientists and several scholars see the religion as Christian but not orthodox.” Ath271 (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since there can be no doubt that Christian Scientists are, in their view, Christian, how about:

'''
 * '''"Scholars see Christian Science as a valid Biblical interpretation, but point out important doctrinal differences from orthodox and protestant interpretations."


 * CSists are healers that indeed apply just words in a mentally healing way. (Compare Christian terrorists interpreting the Bible in their way to support there actions.) In fact describing the misalignment of CS interpretations of the Bible with any other interpretation is a potentially spacious series of (indirect) teachable moments, a sadly lacking but powerful and known teaching method that avoids the complexity of starting (directly) from the doctrine itself.


 * Ath's familiarity with (reliable and objective) sources on the matter gives her proposal credence. OTOH the consistently spiteful nature of the current version of the article gives the numerous judgments against its word choice credence.  In this particular case the proposal is to remove insidious implications and replace them with the truth. The truth is that the way it is currently stated is that CS itself has a policy of being deceptive because it says CS says that it is consistent with the mainstream despite (known) differences.  The (alleged) truth is that Melton says it, not some alleged (uncited) official CS apologetic. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  22:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Cpiral, so sorry to not reply right away. I put this page on watch a few weeks ago and promptly stopped checking it - I thought I'd get email notifications. I haven't, so I'll have to investigate why. I'm not sure if I'd use the word "spiteful" here; perhaps cherry-picked. I say that in a spirit of (eternal) good faith and temperance.


 * In any event, your change to the proposal does appear sound and in line with the sources, and I would support it. I would remove/replace the word "valid," though. I don't think scholars are in the business of judging whether various biblical interpretations are valid, just that they exist and can be compared to others. And cap the P in Protestant. So we have:

'''
 * '''"Scholars see Christian Science as a unique Biblical interpretation, but point out important doctrinal differences from orthodox and Protestant interpretations."

There's also the matter that scholars who see CS this way might not summarize the entire religion as a Biblical interpretation, esp. if focusing in on the specific exegetical portions of its "textbook" Science and Health, which are collectively titled a "Key to the Scriptures." So perhaps a little more tweaking is needed. Such as "Scholars see CS as uniquely interpreting the Bible" - ? Ath271 (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think I see how it's more accurate that way. If you're saying that the content of "key to the scriptures" is partly about explaining Science and Health itself, and not directly "exegesis of the Bible", then that sounds like a good paragraph for the theology section in area about the place of CS doctrine in the "orthodoxy spectrum" of sacred Christian literature. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  21:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting thought. I meant to question whether the word "interpretation" is too narrow for the whole theology, since only the book's "key to the scriptures" consists of direct biblical exegesis, or interpretation. But perhaps the rest could be seen as indirect interpretation, and perhaps it's not an important distinction. At any rate, noted re: the orthodox-unorthodox spectrum. Ath271 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Now we have in the lead:

"Christian Scientists see their religion as a return to "primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing," in the words of Eddy's Manual of the Mother Church (1895). There are several key differences between Christian Science and orthodox Christian theology."

A fine few sentences, yet the basic problem remains: Not only adherents but a significant amount of scholars see CS as a type of Xty, including the scholar cited here (Wilson 1961). The article doesn't acknowledge this, but rather cherry picks to present only one scholarly angle on CS. Fixing this may well involve attention to larger issues, however. Ath271 (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "A type of Xty" Christianity, a type of Science. As for the Christian aspect of Christian Science, if the Theology section must describe the "type of Christianity" CS is, shouldn't we try to make sure every source in the theology section touches S&H from the sources own context?


 * (A secondary source at MBEinstitute.org: "In his seminal book the masterful writer and metaphysician W. Gordon Brown ushers us through the entire breath and scope of world history and Christian Bible history...". Brown's "narrations" of S&H with explanation and interpretation covering each chapter of S&H, almost line by line, are there.)


 * As for the "orthodox science" of Christian Science we need a good philosopher in the theology section. Rorty's sentiments on the compatibility of science and religion aren't partisan, they're bipartisan. He explains the psychological difficulty very well, clarifying thus evolving the conceptions of William James (we use only the original William James, I think) on the matter of the compatibility of science and religion. (His description of the nexus could be paraphrased and cited.) John Polkinghorne is a British, Quantum Physicist turned Anglican Christian priest, turned University President, who discusses "Christianity" and "Science" in his  An Afternoon with John Polkinghorne. He too makes a key point about the nexus that is neutral about the combination of such words as science and Christian we might cite.  The list of neutral, balanced, bipartisan, "disinterested" ways is endless.


 * The orthodoxy-heresy spectrum might be an easy and clean way to explain CS theology. CS is a type of Christianity whose distance from a set of tenets (to be determined) is roughly quantifiable. CS is a type of Science, and where the CS theology claims a scientific method, it too is quantifiable, and from a much smaller and easier to identify set of scientific methodology. (See the philosophy of science for differences in the set).


 * For "science" there is also a much richer and rewarding realm of discourse that explains CS: that place where the explanation of scientific results meets the realm of religion, which is a hot topic in the world of science today. (Who'da thunk Quimby's choice of the word "science" would have had such "prescience"?) In 1899 Princeton University published Eddyism; or, Christian Science Neither Christian Nor Scientific, but
 * in 1890 we got modern physics, and
 * in 2004 What the Bleep Do We Know!?, and
 * in 2006 The Secret (see also The Science Behind The Secret), then there is
 * in 2014 New Thought the Movie
 * So the proper portrayal of the position of CS, just how scientific (in both senses of the term) it is, can be done with many more fine secondary sources. We could start by just comparing Quimby's science to CS's science.


 * Heresy carries a similar naming scheme and terminology, and that means, as our article notes, "redefining the vocabulary". But that is extreme.  More accurately it also extends the definition, or it is straight up, storied, revelation of some hidden symbolic meaning. The glossary of S&H uses all three ways of describing terms. (The symbolic definitions in Glossary should certainly tie in with Christianity in a new artistic revelation, in a non-orthodox way, just as wonderfully and beautifully as many scientific advances were guided by non-orthodox scientific methods (dreams, intuitions, or because the math looked good (Dirac's math equation)).


 * Ath271, you've said we, in places, portray a single scholar's singular interest; and you seem to be the go to person for the identification of scholarly personalities writing about CS. Perhaps you are not allowed to edit the article because of COI, but you only want to reduce existing one-sidedness. How ironic. &mdash;  Cp i r al  Cpiral  10:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

My preference when reading articles like CS is to hear the tone of a scientist's disinterest as it describes a practiced metaphysics; I feel safely informed. I don't like the way our article reads today, using an historical-event approach to structure its topic. Although the facts are valid, the choice of facts seems too often biased, particularly when it comes to attributing to Eddy alone or her organization alone, the uglier facts of life. It's a fun read if you like drama, or have little empathy, but as far as representing the spirit of an exemplary practitioner, it is too full of irrelevant distractions. So I appeal to other methods, like prone to drama and ugliness.

I wish I could say how exactly we might restructure and rewrite and have someone else do it :-). In any case, although I do criticize, I'm trying, however vainly, to be constructive here, and I really do appreciate the work SV has done and the continual improvements she keeps making to our article. I have started yet another criticism Not a cult, and until the many criticisms about style, tone, content, wording, etc. are addressed, I have stopped the premature archiving (again), which makes reading "recent" and still current criticisms more difficult.

&mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  10:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for all this, Cpiral. Let me think on it a bit, pull apart some of what you suggest and introduce, and post at the next available window, hopefully later today. And thanks for the attention to archiving. I'm not in the know on that front but appreciate anything that helps conversational continuity. Ath271 (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A few responses: Ath271 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * MBEInstitute.org is a heterodox organization within the pantheon of people calling themselves CS, notable by the list of authors and lessons on their website. There's no way a casual observer would necessarily know this; you'd have to be familiar with the historiography and polity, recognize author names, etc.. So I note this to point out that if used here, it should be with the understanding that this resource represents a one-off or minority interpretation about the religion. (Not that I entirely understand what the interpretation is - just that it's a minority within a minority.)
 * Science and religion: this is such a vast discipline, and positioning CS within it is a huge task. I wonder if the Wiki page on religion and science might be expanded to include more of the philosophical perspectives you're looking to parse. Or if a new page might be created on Xty and Science (very needed!) or Theology and Science (as a topic, not referencing the academic journal of the same name). The philosophers you cite are all good sources, but they provide only a handful of touchstones within a much larger, ungainly literature. (Important touchstones, yes - but still just a handful.) Perhaps we could start by simply noting how CS represents itself as a "science," which I don't see here yet and which would require research into the theology; and include just a sentence or so noting how its position resonates (or not) with a much larger cultural preoccupation/conversation about religion, theology, Xty, and science. (Ideally that sentence would then link to a good standalone WP article on the science/religion cultural conversation, though such an article doesn't yet exist.)
 * The orthodoxy-heresy spectrum: that's an interesting take, and we've discussed it before. Comparisons can be illuminating.
 * My participation, and yours: Right, I'm open to talking about restructuring the article if someone else suggests it. I can serve as a resource. But overall yes, your summary of the purpose of my posts here is correct. Thank you for restating your own purpose on and feelings about the page; always helpful
 * Circling back to the proposal above: where do you feel this leaves us re: this rather small proposal?


 * Thanks. Yes I stray from your valiant attempts to directly address issues with the article to get something done, because I'm still in draft-a-new CS Theology article mode, as I was at user talk:Ath271 subpages. OK, about the proposal.


 * The introductory sentence in question here, that used to say "Christian Scientists see their religion as consistent with mainstream Christian theology, despite key differences", as you know, was changed 10:16, 9 September 2014 (some fixes, ce) . I dont't think that the uninformative edit summary style that SV uses indicates that SV is either inconsiderate of this discussion, or feels unwelcomed, but maybe SV want us to reread the article frequently. The original sentence was definitely disrespectful of the living persons who are CSists today, saying in effect "CSists think they're mainstream, but they are not."  This is still a common pattern in the article where we find the word "despite" being used in contexts of ill repute, esp. as reguards the honorable MBE.  I think you wanted to address both the tone and the content, so I will.


 * Despite "despite" being gone now, and thus the spiteful tone, there still remains the problem of factual misrepresentation in the current third paragraph. The stated facts could be misinterpretations of the chosen sources. The chosen sources could be Orwellian (intentional misrepresentations).  The complexity of the "facts" of mind-body connections or of CS today, of particular cases or CSists today, or of S&H MBE's original intentions conscious or not, are all up to debate on the talk page by cherry picking sources.  But becasue there are so many interpretations due to complexity, both the article and the talk page must cherry pick sources.  In my opinion, it has not a bad tone anymore, but misrepresents CS.  The sentence in the lead was, and its paragraph is, I think intended to reflect the spirit of the article.  "Christian Scientists see their religion as a return to "primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing," in the words of Eddy's Manual of the Mother Church (1895).[8] There are several key differences between Christian Science and orthodox Christian theology.[9] In particular adherents subscribe to a radical form of philosophical idealism, believing that reality is purely spiritual and the material world an illusion.[10] This includes the view that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated, not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health.[11]"


 * (In general a proposal to change a sentence that there intro should be an uncontroversial, because in theory the lead only summarizes the content in the body. But in practice it is controversial for CS, since it is probably all that is read by most first-time readers curious about CS: per Richard Dawkins "In the US there are 535 in congress of which 534 claim to be devout religious believers.")


 * Our proposal was to say in that paragraph something like "Scholars see Christian Science as a unique Biblical interpretation, but point out important doctrinal differences from orthodox and Protestant interpretations."


 * We don't need to say "scholars see" because in the context of WP, we simply make authoritative statements that move the audience (and then cite the source). In WP policy we do the same thing and don't cite.) It's a powerful abstraction. Religious critics (e.g. Melton) are, like music critics, scholarly, respected for having lots of knowledge in there field. Notice how often our article omits the scholar's name? That's good narrative. As narrative writers we pick sources (and interpret them) as secondary and tertiary sources, but we also pick our own statements from S&H, and then we more probably do say who says.


 * Caveat lector: By "scholar" we mean "religious", by "we should" do this or that we also imply "find a source", which means to cherry pick if necessary; hence the current state of the article could be as innocent as the many changes proposed. For example, by your "I meant to question", I know you meant to get reassurance to, then find a source to, back up the answer we can agree upon.


 * "uniqueness" is not stressed in the article, and to me for now, it is too obvious.


 * "Interpretation" is good question. I say bury it in an implication. If the CS founder's interpretation was fairly termed a revelation and a lesser reader's interpretation was fairly termed an inspiration, then we can just say "revelation". "Interpretation" is too narrow, since S&H is a "revelation" from MBE built for reader "inspiration".  In the story of her revelation, it is just her Bible and her fall, no Quimby, just scientific and logical coherence, per se, and Jesus.  Critics will detect particular aspects from other religions; of course Quimby and Eddy were probably both far more widely influenced than just the Bible. (I don't know.) Quimby and Eddy say the same thing "I only go by the Bible", and even deny one another as authorities, so that Jesus is their only authority. Since Eddy said her only authority was the Bible and Jesus, S&H (CS doctrine, CS theology) is revelation, not mere interpretation, for interpretation is of parts, but per se CS is a unified metaphysics, whole, testable and verified, a worldview from biblical inspiration. 1)Keys to the Scriptures is a sort of indirect proof of revelation (indirect because it is going from earlier authority which were also the same source of revelations — God — already written down). 2)The rest of S&H, per se, is direct (progressive) revelation, as it emerged a whole worldview that was testable (and thus scientific). It was indirectly Biblical because of course, Revelation is by definition directly from God, and at best indirectly from any sacred scripture.


 * There's no need to say "point out" that CS is unorthodox. All the religious denominations have "several important doctrinal differences" that should be the focus in the critical analysis of their respective Theology sections.


 * The current (third) paragraph says "in particular ..." and parades a few chosen "facts" as if it is addressing the doctrinal differences to be fully presented in the body, but it is just cherry picking where it says "in particular...". In the actual body of the article, (the supposed target reference in the intro) we do have, in the Theology section, "Eddy redefined the Christian vocabulary, leading to the reinterpretation of several Christian concepts, including the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, atonement and resurrection". So the list of theological differences are a clause in one sentence of a two sentence paragraph where it says "including...". That list that should be the focus of the theology section.  The section "Christian Science Theology" (aptly titled in a style that reflects the off-topic spirit of the article) is not about theology, but more on parading CS practices in an absurd light.


 * (The entire article seems structured and titled, and filled with content that is negative criticism, or warnings. Even where there is a way to interpret neutrally the description of CS theology and practice (and thus evoke a curious smile) there are peppered throughout the (unstructured thematically) article, rudeness and disrespect. For example, where it currently uses "redefine" and "reinterpret"? The reality of the situation it purports to explain is that the glossary and much else of S&H is really intended to be more of an extension to mainstream and orthodox definitions and interpretations than they are "replacements" as suggested.  The way it it with "replacements" resonating in the words, is suggestive of brain-washing.  The whole article projects its own spirit. Per the Reddit subgroup Wikipedia, much of what WP offers on Christianity is the same way, for example, the article on "the historicity of Jesus" is alleged to be hotly guarded ("owned"), off-topic, Christian apologetic, and having little to do with its title "history", which a science much like religion.  See our History article.)


 * That's all it says about the theological differences before going on to go on picking out particular statements in a parody parade. There is no one place in the article where major doctrinal differences are presented in a structured, coherent, informative and neutral way. Why bother to say in the lead that there are differences, but never specifically carry out the presentation? Logically the differences are, if CS today does indeed adhere in some fashion to both the canon in part and S&H in its entirety, that S&H (and modern CS Sentinel and modern CS Journal) theology 1) has biblical, Christian content but also (a list of) non-biblical content, and 2) content that ignores some of the canon, or conflicts with it, or has general, widespread practices that ignore or conflict with it.

'''
 * I would propose, as a statement in the intro, something like
 * '''"Christian Science is a representative of the metaphysical interpretation of the Bible. Its coherent doctrine[a][b][c] gives it mass appeal[a][b][c], and the founder's revelatory take on the biblical canon[a][b][c], delivers biblical inspiration to many looking to the mind-body connection[a][b][c], even if it contains elements outside of mainstream literal interpretations."
 * and then in the body have a Theology section about its mainstream aspects, and a criticism section that presents both sides of key theological differences current in today's world.


 * Let us take a moment to reflect on the fact of the WP:NOR plus the narrative imperatives of Wikipedia to conclude that what we have in our article is a bunch of CS critics' stories, rolled into a narrative that is a good read, if not just for just the drama, you know, where people get hurt and stuff. If the drama seems to protect itself by way of overall structure, headings, each sentence and every word, then we have a good read with a policy problem: neutrality is equally as important as citing sources and NPOV has far more priority than prohibiting COI editing (the spam problem). I'm only trying to heal the spirit of the article from highly questionable (I could list the slights) to a neutral POV. (I'm not affiliated.) A new reader of CS is born to the intro whole and sees things wholly until they learns sides. We shouldn't drum sides that way, we should drum sides in a way that takes the sides that already exist in the religious world and neutralize them.  Again WP:POV is as important as sourcing. Our article reads like a hijacked one, because in every section someone takes Wikipedia's flight and beats, more on one drum than the other, current proposals to the punches that are selected sources.


 * So is S&H itself really Christian? Biblical? Revelatory?  Out of respect for the supportive history that there is and for MBE, yes, that's the story we should be narrating.  Then we have the Criticisms, and of course it is large section. But still we should try to artistically convey the spirit of CS for reading periods sections long that leave out critical distinctions as to just how "indirect" and "off" and imperfect all of the productions of living things really are. (I know, its "unAmerican" not to have good (deceptively perfect) advertising and marketing presentations of any kind.) Imaging a History section presenting CS history, furthermore a history as an honest, nothing-to-lose MBE would write it, or as some imagined Minister of Religion and Religious History would present it to their constituency, CS the way CS is unto itself, and how it developed from what it was historically to itself, its own story of its own goodness, to what it is today, and how its adherents stuck with it even though the world transformed the original reasons. The Criticisms section would talk about her "debt to Quimby", her distance from mainstream, finer points from the marketing ploys, necessary politics, MBE's human imperfections, etc.


 * &mdash; Cp i r al  Cpiral  00:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Cpiral, I note your repeated articulations re: the need for rethinking the article (and have sought to participate as intelligently as I am able). I, too, hope that SV feels welcome to respond.


 * With your new proposal above, we have two issues.


 * 1. The para you cite in full begins, “Christian Scientists see their religion as a return to "primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing," in the words of Eddy's Manual of the Mother Church (1895). There are several key differences between Christian Science and orthodox Christian theology.” I agree it's an improvement toward NPOV that "despite" is gone (thank you, SV, or whomever is responsible).


 * My initial proposal was to modify the second sentence here to account for how scholars, not adherents alone, describe CS as Christian in some form. According to WP:RS, the article does need to respond to this hearty list of sources in some way. (Sorry for the relink - just a refresher after a few lengthy, though understandable, interludes.) Balancing this lit with what we've already got in the article, the emphasis overall is on a mixture of continuities and differences, not only with Christian orthodoxy, but with many forms of Christianity.


 * How about modifying this paragraph to read:


 * “Christian Scientists see their religion as a return to "primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing," in the words of Eddy's Manual of the Mother Church (1895). There are both continuities and differences between Christian Science and other forms of Christianity. It is a Protestant-oriented [Curtis and Klassen], pragmatic [Gottschalk], revelatory [Albanese, Weddle], “branch” [Wilson] of biblical interpretation with a healing theology or metaphysics [Bednarowski, Schoepflin, Albanese, others]. It refigures the orthodox Trinity (Gottschalk, Wilson), replaces traditional clergy with pastoral books, uses a distinctive lexicon, and recognizes inspiration but not authority in church councils (all in Wilson). Its interpretation of God’s Allness [Bednarowski, Peel] is expressed in a radical idealism…” and then go on with the rest of the paragraph.


 * The goal here is to state the relationship of CS to various Xtn expressions according to a wide variety of sources (as wide as we can make it) without commenting on/insinuating whether or not it is "right."


 * 2. Your new paragraph (“CS is a rep of the metaphys interp of the Bible…) seems to be a proposal to replace the lead sentence. Or another para "somewhere in the intro," as you say - but targeting larger descriptive issues, rather than the narrower issue of sims/diffs with other types of Xty my proposal addresses. You introduce new topics in it, such as public reception, "mass appeal," and the mind-body connection that seem outside the scope of our current proposal. Can we move it to a new Proposal section and discuss it there? Or does what I provide above incorporate enough of what you're after, though in a different form (biblical, revelatory, inspirational, etc)? Ath271 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)