The general ineffectiveness of the Christian Science healing that is being experienced in today's world, is of course, not a failure of Christian Science itself. I had personally experienced that after a long period of failure in finding a healing, the healing was suddenly accomplished in a most profound manner, without any extraordinary effort - See example. The ineffectiveness that I had experienced had resulted from a denial of Christian Science. This is still a wide-spread phenomenon, to the point of it being an almost universal denial when it comes to any aspect in Christian Science that is linked to Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structure.
In her pedagogical structure, Mary Baker Eddy identified four essential development streams. She labeled the fourth of these, divine Science. The development stream so named, is dedicated to the development of divine Science. I is interesting to note that the related visual metaphors for this development stream all happen to be directly related to the development of her pedagogical structure itself, that is representing divine Science.
It is further interesting to note how Mary Baker Eddy has defined, divine Science. One won't find this definition paraded in big letters with neon signs glowing. Instead, one finds it integrated into last lines of the Glossary definition for the term, Veil.
On these two words, immortality and Love, rest (by definition) the entirety of Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structures, and its superstructure of Christian Science healing. The superstructure will obviously remain dysfunctional for as long as its foundation continues to be denied. Mary Baker Eddy's own work was evidently solidly placed on that foundation, since she was the creator of it in the first place. Virtually everything that she has created has been integrated into it, by its very design, and become a part of it, including the entire Christian Science textbook, chapter by chapter. Consequently, since all of her work was devoted to the development of divine Science in human consciousness, the total outcome of her life can be summarized in those two simple words, immortality and Love, the two words with which she defined her pedagogical work under the name, divine Science.
These two aspects, immortality and Love, are no longer apparent in the field today in any large measure, especially not the concept of immortality.
The general perception of immortality is, that if one dies, the spirit still lives on. However, one encounters a great void when it comes to manifesting the divine element of immortality in the here and now, reflected in present day human affairs where immortality and Love should unfold as one.
That higher sense of immortality is, ironically, not found in the field of Christian Science, but is found in the political field. The American statesman and economist, Lyndon LaRouche, projects a high sense of immortality that I do not find manifested in the Christian Science field, where, one rather find its opposite there; a staunch denial of it.
That higher sense of immortality that Lyndon LaRouche projects, is indeed also an element of universal love, or divine Love. He speaks of our present reflection of immortality in terms of a life lived in such a way that ones having lived means something to humanity as a whole, in such enduring terms as are found in accomplishments that uplift civilization.
God is reflected in the, now. Immortality cannot be reflected in any other way than in the here and now. It must be reflected now and in conjunction with universal love. This is what is being denied today in the Christian Science field, and Mary Baker Eddy is being denied with it in the same breath.
Is it any wonder then, that Mary Baker Eddy is routinely referred to as just, Mrs. Eddy, the woman of Mr, Eddy. This represents a denial of who she was. Mary Baker Eddy herself had dropped the names of her former husbands as being insignificant in identifying herself. Both of her former husbands were related to very narrow concepts of marriage that she had distanced herself from. On the other hand, her third husband, Mr. Eddy, was apparently working with her on that higher level of immortality and Love. So, his name remains to be associated with her own name, the name of Mary Baker, with which she grew up. She really cannot be identified by any other name that Mary Baker Eddy, because any other name is too narrow to define her. That name has become synonymous with immortality and Love.
In real terms it is also a misnomer to talk about a Christian Science field, as I often do. This concept exists essentially only by name. Why am I saying this? Am I facetious? No, I am saying this sadly, because the evidence supports no other conclusion. During Mary Baker Eddy's time the world had remained largely at peace. No serious damage was done to society during this time. But after her death, all hell broke loose. In 1913, two years after her death, the U.S. nation was robbed of its sovereignty over its currency. From this day on its economic collapse began that hasn't stopped to the present day, which was only interrupted during the F. D. Roosevelt years. In the same year, 1913, the income tax was also cast into concrete as a permanent feature. Then, just a year later, World War I was set in motion, followed by World War II, and so on. In fact, the entire century after her death has been a century of war on a scale that has never before been seen in the entire history of humanity.
What brought on this sudden shift from peace to war?
The fact needs to be considered that there was no one left in the world who operated on a platform of "immortality and Love." The Christian Science scene wasn't functioning anymore. The evidence suggests that the Christian Science field has never seen itself in the role of "immortality and Love." The open mindedness simply didn't exist for the pedagogical foundation for Christian Science, in divine Science, to be discovered, and when it was discovered, for it to be acknowledged.
Mary Baker Eddy alerted society of this shortcoming. She writes in the Preface of her textbook on Christian Science that future ages MUST declare what the pioneer has accomplished (vii). Did she mean with this a future civilization, a few hundred-thousand years from now? Or did she simply expect a new age of thinkers to dawn in the light of her vast accomplishments. She states on the opening page of her textbook. The time for thinkers HAS come (vii). Thus, like Christ Jesus before her, she didn't aim to 'carry' humanity, but to show the way. In other words she expected Christian Scientists to open their eyes and their consciousness to what she has provided for the expected ages of thinkers that should logically be known as the ages of profound discoveries.
Since this didn't unfold, war did unfold, and self-destruction of society began. In real terms, the death of the hundreds of million people who perished in, and as the result of, the countless wars of the last century of wars, including the economic wars, must all be placed into the court of the field of Christian Science where the tools had been provided to prevent everyone of these wars, but which had not been seen, and when discovered, had been denied to exist, and continue to be so denied. That is where the blame really belongs, for a great human tragedy. Whenever much is given, much will be required. Christ Jesus illustrated this principle with his parable about the talents (Matt. 25).
Shakespeare understood this requirement well, and this a long time before the present situation even arose that has engulfed the world in darkness. He illustrated our own, present day's tragic failure, and he did it most profoundly in Hamlet. LaRouche points out that Hamlet is not portrayed as a coward. He had proven his worth in battle. But he is a fool who is afraid of his immortality. He is afraid of accepting his immortality and take the required responsibility for his actions. He knows precisely what is required of him in order to assure the well-being of his country, but he refuses to take those actions that assure that his having lived on this planet amounts to something for his own and future generations. He fails to take those actions, and so the nation falls.
The same can be said about the Christian Science field in modern times, that has walked away from its opportunity into the land of denial, which tragically involves the secondary denial of the life of humanity. Indeed, I have been asked, "Why do you bother?" "Just leave the work to future generations." But this is not possible, is it? We are that future generation.
But why are we failing?
Indeed, let's get back to the question why Christian Science is failing in so many cases. Let's be honest. Would one really expect a great deal of healing work to come from a 'movement' (so-called) that cannot even move itself, which has become a movement of self-denial? Hardly!
My personal experience reflects the same sad fact that many people write to me about. When I found myself in a severe health crisis, no healing was forthcoming from the work of any practitioner, not even from that of a teacher. The healing came when an alert Christian Scientists, Howard Meredith, made the first breakthrough discoveries of Mary Baker Eddy's pedagogical structure, the structure that Mary Baker Eddy had subjected all of her major works to. My healing unfolded own, without effort, in its own time and way, during the early stages of pursuing the needed research work into the vast structure that Mary Baker Eddy has laid before us, which she has defined as divine Science, - immortality and Love.
I am not saying that no useful healing work is being done anymore, in Christian Science, by individuals and practitioners working all over the world. I am merely suggesting that the work that is being achieved, is minute in comparison with the existing potential. That has been my experience. I have discovered to some degree that the still latent potential can be realized. Yes, it appears that the statement is correct that Christian Science has never failed, but one needs to get there.