//I hope to mix in the occasional author bio, or perhaps an author’s
personal motivation/inspiration for writing a book. Authors, if I’ve
reviewed your book (or if I have it for review) feel free to contribute a
short post, if you’d like further exposure. To kick off this idea,
here’s a short note from the author of 21st Century Science and Health. The Dubious Disciple review can be found at here. http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/07/book-review-21st-century-science-health.html
When
Cheryl sent a review copy of her book, I bluntly asked about her
authority to basically rewrite the founding document of her religion.
It’s a pointed question, to be sure, but Cheryl replied quite gracefully
as follows:
Hi Lee,
The authority behind a revision was a tough tough question for me because I had nothing to go on except a persistent resilient internal demand that an update is sensible, practical, legitimate, and necessary.
The authority behind a revision was a tough tough question for me because I had nothing to go on except a persistent resilient internal demand that an update is sensible, practical, legitimate, and necessary.
I
avoided revising for years, justifying my neglect with the fact that
I’d risen in the church ranks and was heavily involved in what church
authorities approved of. I was a Journal listed Christian Science
practitioner, taught by a respected Teacher in the movement who also was
on the Board of Directors. But, I could see and more importantly,
admit, that my actions appeared futile and hypocritical. Why could I
speak and write in contemporary words but insist readers read an
outdated book?
To put it bluntly, I finally admitted I was following church authorities before I was following Christian Science.
In a roundabout way, it was the public that gave me permission to revise Science and Health. The
public wanted a book they could read and understand, referring as
nearly as possible to what Eddy dubbed Christian Science. It is all
ironic now, because the public was basically telling me they didn’t want
to come to me anymore for insight and healing, they wanted to read
about Christian Science and get to know God on their own, with God.
Honest,
moral, spiritually minded, scholarly, and courageous people in the
public actually worked with me for years, until the revision had enough
momentum that I was left to continue the project.
When it came time to copyright, my name was affixed to 21st Century Science and Health, because I have done the greater majority of the work.
There
are some church members who feel adamantly that a revision is wrong,
they absolutely can’t envision reading anything but Eddy’s last version
of Science and Health. A very few people believe the Christian
Science Board of Directors should be the only outlet for a revision
however, I’ve had extensive communication with the Board and their
mentality is excruciatingly afraid to admit to a revision. In fact, the
fear and confusion was so predominant that I withdrew my church
membership in order to break contact with that mentality.
I have studied extensively Bible revisions and history, however I firmly believe the Science and Health is not a Bible, nor is it part of the Bible. Therefore, my technique for revising is different.
I apologize for the length of my answer. Your question was excellent.
Sincerely,
Cheryl
I unforgettably remember the anguish of breaking away from traditions of men to better follow the commandments of God. (Mark 7) In my younger years, I’d been a Bible thumper (in a different religion than Petersen) until I realized God doesn’t judge. It was decades ago, but to leave my outgrown opinion about God and the Bible was scary to me. It’s difficult enough to follow God but I realized that following the traditions of men is divisive and backward. I hope people in Cheryl’s former church aren’t neglecting or ignoring her vision and hard work like they’ve neglected caring for Science and Health. I’ve read some of 21st Century Science and Health. I like it fine mainly because I can relate to the God of life, joy, and healing, but to be honest, the book needs more revising.
ReplyDelete