|
|
|
Mrs.
Eddy's Action Invalidates Peel Theory
The theory
advanced by Robert Peel in The Years of
Authority (see pp. 249-252), that it is all
right to have variant or divergent interpretations
entrenched in the Church's teaching system, since
Science and Health is "the ultimate
authority," is not valid.
Mrs. Eddy's
actions, when she discovered a variant teaching in
her Church's teaching system, disprove Peel's
statement. She discontinued Mr. Kimball's teaching
of Normal classes after the one held in 1902, and
in 1903 she established a General Association of
Teachers to meet annually. Its purpose was stated
in the By-Laws: "Uniformity in Teaching and
Practice Required." This Association met annually
for three years and then the By-Law was quietly
rescinded.
|
An
insight into Mr. Kimball's
attitude
|
Arthur
Corey, an adherent of the
variant teaching, explained
the use of prayer formulas
(though not advocating them)
involving the "...linking up
of various errors — like
cancer-vindictiveness,
eczema-vanity,
glasses-criticism . . .
workers have been known to
assemble long tables of
supposedly correlative errors.
Mrs. Eddy at one time told Mr.
Kimball that she would have to
put a prohibition in the
Manual to cover this if it was
not stopped in New York, and
he laughingly said he would be
lost without his list!"
(Christian Science Class
Instruction, p.
171)
|
|
Mrs. Eddy tried to
correct Mr. Kimball, as he indicates in a letter he
wrote to Judge Hanna immediately before Hanna was
to teach some of his (Kimball's) pupils in a 1907
Normal class, and, to some, the letter indicates
that Kimball did not understand Mrs. Eddy's
explanations.
On page 251 of
The Years of Authority, Peel
writes:
But while
Kimball continued to feel the termination of his
position with the Board of Education and his
return to full-time lecturing as in some measure
a rejection by her — and to suffer from it
accordingly — Mrs. Eddy saw it as a larger
necessity for the future of the movement. 'You
should see the wisdom of rotation in Teaching as
well as reading in Church," she wrote
him.
Peel is saying here
that Mr. Kimball felt a rejection by Mrs. Eddy
since his position with the Board of Education was
terminated and he was given no other position,
other than to return to his former activity of
lecturing; that in fact it was merely an
establishing of the policy of rotation in office
for teachers in the Board of Education.
The fact is that
Mr. Kimball was not mistaken. It was a rejection,
and it was done in the most loving and tactful
manner. She could have easily promoted him to the
vice presidency of the College, replacing Judge
Hanna. Also, from 1903 to the time of his passing
there were three directorships vacated or created,
but were filled by other men.
Twice Mr. Peel
mentions this point of Mr. Kimball's awareness of
his rejection, the other reference being on page
252: "What had seemed to Kimball for a time to be a
waning of her full confidence in him was, on these
terms, a dawning recognition of the overriding
value of rotation in office." So twice Mr. Peel
mentions the rotation in office, as though to
emphasize and cover up the fact that Mrs. Eddy did
relieve him for cause.
Mr. Peel does admit
by implication, however, that there were other
reasons, since in the notes he quotes Mr. Kimball
writing to a friend in May, 1904, these words:
"'Your sweet letter falls into my daily life as the
gentle shower falls on the ground which is
accustomed to the fierce blast of heat.' The heat
continued for some time." This "heat" was generated
by something other than Mrs. Eddy's instituting
rotation in office for teachers, and supports the
evidence that his rejection by Mrs. Eddy was for
other reasons, — something that generated a
blast of heat that continued for some time, as Mr.
Peel says.
On page 251, Peel
writes:
The
successor (as teacher in the Board of Education)
was Eugene H. Greene of Providence, Rhode
Island, who had studied with Mrs. Eddy twenty
years earlier. A man who seems to have had
considerable grace of spirit though less
teaching ability than Kimball, Greene served
acceptably for three years. Meanwhile, Mrs. Eddy
took the further drastic step of reducing Normal
instruction to a single term held once every
three years, with a different teacher each time
and a class restricted to thirty pupils.
Interestingly
enough, her choice for teacher in 1907 was Hanna
and for the next class Kimball. By these two
choices she showed her continued and impartial
support of each of the two men and struck a blow
at the tendency in some quarters to speak of two
variant 'schools' of Christian Science teaching
(sometimes known as the Boston school and the
Chicago school) of which Hanna and Kimball were
presumed to be the chief
representatives.
What Mr. Peel is
saying here in the first paragraph is that Mr.
Greene was inferior to Mr. Kimball, but acceptable.
Mr. Greene taught in Mrs. Eddy's method of
presentation. He is also saying by extension that
Mrs. Eddy's method not only did not improve on Mr.
Kimball's, but did not even achieve
parity.
Mrs. Eddy required
Mr. Greene to teach a primary class in 1904 and
again in 1905. Not until December, 1906, did Mr.
Greene teach the Normal class. Does this not
indicate that she gave herself and others plenty of
time in which to observe his work before entrusting
him with the Normal class?
The following year,
in June 1907, Judge Hanna received appointment to
teach a Normal class that December. Judge Hanna,
although Vice President of the College, had never
taught a class in Christian Science. Mr. Peel does
not comment on his ability or results. His absolute
silence on this point could give an impression of
an effort to be charitable.
In the second
paragraph, Mr. Peel is making his most subtle claim
of all. In order to impute to Mrs. Eddy the
responsibility and authority for the adoption of
the Kimball teaching as the official doctrine of
the Church, the role of chief representative of her
own teaching method must first be removed from her.
So this was shifted to Judge Hanna, Vice President
of the College, whom Mrs. Eddy appointed to teach
the 1907 Normal class.
Next, it must be
claimed that Mrs. Eddy selected Mr. Kimball to
teach the Normal class the following term. Article
XXVIII, Sect. 2, of the Manual provides that
"the teacher shall be selected every third year by
said Board (of Directors)." The teacher could not
be elected before 1910. Judge Hanna was notified in
June, 1907 for the December, 1907 Normal class. But
Mr. Kimball passed away sixteen months before the
December, 1910 Normal class was scheduled to
convene!
If the above two
points, however, can be established, it can be said
that Mrs. Eddy placed the two teachings side by
side and approved them both. But the facts in the
case do not support Mr. Peel's
conclusions.
Mr. Horatio H.
Wait, grandson of Mr. Kimball, writes in a brief
biography of his grandfather whom he never knew,
the following:
On arrival
from an European lecture tour in 1909 the
Kimball family was met in New York by two of the
Christian Science Board of Directors, delegated
by Mrs. Eddy to ask Mr. Kimball to teach the
Normal class of the Massachusetts Metaphysical
College in December, 1910. Mr. Kimball accepted
this appointment, but he passed on before
reaching his Chicago home.
Such an
"appointment" in July, 1909, is contrary to the
Manual, and therefore the accuracy of the
account is subject to question. This incident of
the reputed delegation of two Directors appointed
by Mrs. Eddy traveling to New York to ask Mr.
Kimball to teach the Normal class almost a year and
a half later would have been a very unusual
procedure.
On page 345 of
The Years of Authority, Mr. Peel relates
that in May, 1909, when the Directors were filling
a vacancy on their Board and came up with the name
of John V. Dittemore:
she (Mrs.
Eddy) told the Directors they would have to
appoint him on their own responsibility.
Reminded that the Manual required her
approval of the appointment, she reluctantly
gave the needed signature but again emphasized
that they must take responsibility for their
choice.
Mr. Dittemore was
later expelled from the Board of
Directors.
Is it not
reasonable to conclude that if in May, 1909, Mrs.
Eddy regarded so important an appointment as a
directorship to be solely the responsibility of the
Directors, that she would not likely two
months later, in July 1909, take out of the hands
of the Directors a responsibility placed on them by
the Manual and in their stead appoint a
teacher for the Normal class, and then name as "her
choice" one whose teachings she regarded as neither
clear nor correct? Also, would she further set
aside her Manual By-Law which reads: "the
teacher shall be elected every third year by said
Board, and the candidate shall be subject to the
approval of the Pastor Emeritus," and make the
appointment in the second year, and in
addition delegate two Directors to go to New York
in fanfare trappings to give an oral notice? This
is an unusually irregular and aggressive procedure,
and if it occurred as narrated it would seem to
indicate a concerted effort by certain other
persons than Mrs. Eddy. The whole incident is
suspect to say the least.
There are, of
course, not two variant schools of Christian
Science teaching. By definition, variant requires
an original standard from which another statement
or doctrine can vary. The original standard is
Christian Science as taught by Mrs.
Eddy.
On page 252, Peel
writes:
So far as
Mrs. Eddy was concerned, the ultimate teacher of
Christian Science was Science and Health.
The educational system of her church was bigger
than any one teacher appointed to conduct a
Normal class for the Board of Education. She
herself would not always be present personally
to make even-handed choice of competent
Christian Scientists for that office and to keep
any particular emphasis or interpretation of
Christian Science from entrenching itself in the
church's teaching system.
Mr. Peel is saying
he believes Mrs. Eddy felt that, since she would
not always be here to choose competent teachers for
the Board of Education, it therefore did not matter
to her if incompetent teachers were chosen, or what
"particular emphasis or interpretation by a teacher
of a Normal class" might be put forth and become
entrenched in the church's teaching system, just so
long as Science and Health continued to be
published as she had issued it in its final
revision.
According to this
logic we could say that it would make no difference
what interpretations and emphases are made by the
professors in the various educational institutions
in regard to the Christian teachings of Jesus,
because the Bible is the ultimate teacher! There
are many different denominations and sects today
because of varying interpretations and emphases as
to what Jesus meant in his teachings.
Also, would not a
teacher whose false teaching became entrenched in
the church's teaching system claim Science and
Health as the authority for his false
teaching?
It is difficult to
understand how Science and Health can be the
"ultimate teacher" when a Normal class teacher can
present false interpretations which become
entrenched in the teaching system. If they become
entrenched, then Science and Health is a
failure as an "ultimate teacher." How often and
where in history are we shown that entrenched
divergences have been eradicated by a book as an
"ultimate teacher." Rather has it required a
"reformation."
The work of an
educational institution is to correct false
interpretations through teaching, rather than
allowing the individual student to misunderstand
Science and Health.
In her
"Reminiscences" Mrs. Knott has written of an
experience that occurred in a class on metaphysical
obstetrics conducted by Mrs. Eddy. The members of
this class were experienced Christian Scientists.
Most, if not all, had received the Normal course
and were teachers. Mrs. Knott writes:
At one of
these lessons a member of the class said that in
treating a patient she always tried to hold the
perfect body in thought. Mrs. Eddy expressed
surprise at her statement and asked where she
got that impression, and the lady replied
cheerfully that of course she had got it from
Science and Health. Mrs. Eddy said that
she was mistaken in saying so, but the lady
offered to read the passage and proceeded to do
so. The statement is to be found on page 407 of
Science and Health, lines 24-26, and
reads: 'Let the perfect model be present in your
thoughts instead of its demoralized opposite.'
Mrs. Eddy asked the student if she thought that
meant the body, and the lady replied that she
certainly did, and others in the class said that
they also had accepted it in that way. Mrs. Eddy
however went on to explain that the perfect
model was never the body but man as God's
spiritual idea, which is incorporeal, and she
reminded us of the statement on page 313 of
Science and Health, where the word
'character' is used in connection with the
phrase 'express image.'
Here is an instance
of a false interpretation by several of Mrs. Eddy's
students for which they claimed Science and
Health ("the ultimate teacher") as the
authority. Science and Health was not the
ultimate teacher for them.
Mrs. Eddy remained
vigilant to guard the classroom teaching of
Christian Science and the teachers' interpretations
and explanations of Science and Health. The
ultimate teacher of Christian Science, according to
her Deed of Trust, was and is Mary Baker
Eddy.
Mrs. Eddy was well
aware that "she herself would not always be present
personally to" choose "competent Christian
Scientists for that office and to keep any
particular emphasis or interpretation of Christian
Science from entrenching itself in the Church's
teaching system," and this fact was her sole aim
and reason for appointing the Christian Science
Board of Directors. There is no other reason —
in the 1921 findings of the Supreme Court of
Massachusetts — for the existence of the
Church and its Directors than that single purpose.
Otherwise there was no reason why the Trustees of
the Publishing Society could not operate
independently.
On pages 251-252,
Peel writes:
Deeply
concerned though Mrs. Eddy was with the proper
teaching of Christian Science, her work as
founder necessarily embraced considerations of
far greater complexity than the classroom
presentation of its metaphysics. In this respect
it resembled Paul's work as a founder of the
Christian Church, which had involved much more
than the apostolic task of preaching the gospel.
"For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another,
I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" he had
asked, then went on to point out to the divided
Corinthians that he had planted, Apollos
watered, but God gave the increase —
indeed, that Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and all
things present and to come "are yours; and ye
are Christ's; and Christ is God's." At which
point of spiritual democracy, doctrine and
polity merged.
Peel is saying here
that while Mrs. Eddy was deeply concerned with the
proper teaching of Christian Science, her work in
improving and perfecting the organization
was to her of more concern than the doctrine; that
Paul was required to spend a great deal of time in
the organizational end of the Church, and because
of this he enjoined his followers to merge the
variant doctrines of Apollos and Peter with his own
without concern as to what interpretations or
emphases or false teaching became entrenched in the
teaching system of the early Church!
This is an utterly
fallacious interpretation and specious reasoning.
The Bible record shows that Paul withstood Peter to
the face on false doctrine, and his epistles give a
great amount of space to the correcting of false
interpretations and teachings.
"Spiritual
democracy" here means that any interpretation is
all right; just merge them all together! Is it not
logical to conclude that only that doctrine which
is free from any divergence is Christian
Science?
Scripture informs
us that not only did Paul withstand Peter over
doctrinal issues but he also withstood the
authorities of the Mother Church in Jerusalem who
shared Peter's divergent views and would have
confined Christianity to a mere sect of the Jewish
religion.
The fact is, Mrs.
Eddy's greatest concern was for the
classroom teaching. The other "complexities" were
to achieve her purpose for the teaching.
On pages 248-249,
Peel writes:
By 1904
Edward Kimball had been teaching the Normal
classes of the Board of Education for several
years [Note: Actually, Mr. Kimball taught
four Normal classes in the Board of Education:
— 1899, 1900, 1901, and 1902—after
which Mrs. Eddy discontinued the Normal classes
for four and a half years] and had turned
out some hundred-and-fifty new teachers....
Rumors had been stirring as to the nature of
Kimball's teaching, together with suggestions
that he considered it to be metaphysically in
advance of Mrs. Eddy's own — a suggestion
which he repudiated with the full force of a
notably straightforward character. Two months
later (i.e., July, 1903) he wrote Mrs. Eddy of
the opposition of some older teachers to the new
ones who had come out from his classes.
The wording here
tends to make the reader sympathize with Mr.
Kimball and his students; it sounds as though the
pupils of Mrs. Eddy might be a little jealous of
the pupils of Mr. Kimball — thereby tending to
suggest that Mr. Kimball's pupils were
metaphysically in advance of Mrs. Eddy's. This was
not, however, the reason for the "opposition," as
Mr. Peel calls it. The real reason for the
so-called opposition is explained by William Lyman
Johnson (the son of the first Clerk of the Mother
Church, William B. Johnson, a student of Mary Baker
Eddy) in his History of the Christian Science
Movement (Brookline: Zion Research Foundation.
1926). He writes:
With the
birth of the conception that the old and veteran
students and workers who had been with Mrs. Eddy
were antiquated in their ideas; that the young
Scientist was working in what he called a modern
method which gave speed and efficiency, the past
with all its glorious achievements, was
forgotten by many, and there came about that
insidious and tempting argument which would bury
the efforts of the past beneath the surface
achievements of the present. This, though Mrs.
Eddy carefully guarded her students against it,
was the cause of the many offshoots from her
teaching. The desire of an easier method of
obtaining results by a short cut; to reach by a
cold and mathematical process the point she
urged her students to attain through humility
and love of the character of Jesus, brought
about the reign of personality. And this it must
necessarily do since there can be no attraction
in the teaching of mental healing, except
through the overpowering influence of a
teacher’s personality. The more the spirit
of Jesus is left out of the teaching of
Christian Science, the greater becomes the field
for a dominating will. Teaching will still go
on, but healing alas, will decline until there
comes the realization of the necessity of
making
‘My prayer some daily good to do
To Thine for Thee,
An offering pure of Love whereto
God leadeth me.’
In about 1901
statements were put forth that the students of
Mrs. Eddy were not up-to-date in the latest
methods of teaching, lecturing and carrying on
the Cause, and that active blood was needed
which would bring into the work the most modern
type of business methods, and these believed
that they should be placed upon the Board of
Directors, and into other positions of
importance. It was found, however, that the man
who was most efficient in a large business way,
was not a successful person in the important
positions of the Mother Church and near Mrs.
Eddy. To be so it was necessary for him to give
his attention to but one thing, viz.: Christian
Science. To learn to live and demonstrate it in
every-day work, requires constant study and
practice, and the fledgling in Science, astute
business man though he may be, has and will find
pitfalls and troubles. As in every other
undertaking, the preserved veteran, with
caution, and prayerful consecration to the
duties before him, will prove to be a person of
the best type for membership of the important
Boards of the Cause. (Volume II, pp.
85-86)
As evidenced by
this specimen, the opposition was on the part of
the Kimball students against Mrs. Eddy's, not on
the part of Mrs. Eddy's. Mr. Peel had the situation
turned around. Mr. Kimball's teaching was
distinctly different from that of Mrs. Eddy's and
the Kimball students were more aggressive in their
opposition.
On page 249, Peel
writes:
Reports
that Kimball's pupils considered themselves
superior to hers continued to come from some of
her old students, but she seems not to have
taken them very seriously. However, the
situation did point to the danger of having
different interpretations of Christian Science
develop and of allowing arguments over the
letter of Science to impair the demonstration of
its spirit.
What Mr. Peel is
saying here is that there is nothing wrong with
having different "interpretations" of Christian
Science develop in the church's teaching system so
long as you do not allow arguments over the letter
of Science to impair the demonstration of its
spirit. That is, do not analyze any of the church's
doctrine to see if it is true Science or if it is
divergent, for the church's teaching system has
"merged" all "interpretations."
This conception is
obviously fallacious. It was not merely an
"interpretation," but a divergence from Christian
Science. To say that Mrs. Eddy "seems not to have
taken ... very seriously" the reports "from some of
her old students" could give the impression that
probably she thought her pupils were a little
jealous of the new students. This was, of course,
not the case. She took the matter in the most
serious manner possible under the
circumstances.
1st. Since Mrs.
Eddy had a five year contract with Mr. Kimball to
teach in the Board of Education, she did not
terminate the contract, but discontinued the
teaching of the Normal classes for the duration of
his contract, — in fact, for four and a half
years.
2nd. She
established in 1903 and continuing until 1908 the
General Association of Teachers.
3rd. She selected
another teacher (Mr. Eugene H. Greene, CSD) to
succeed Mr. Kimball after his contract
terminated.
These are only a
few of the corrective measures taken by Mrs.
Eddy.
|
