You are on page 1of 10

Copyright 2010 Carolyn Gage

Notes on the Adaptation

In 1874, a disabled, New England widow and divorcée living in a boarding


house wrote a book that tens of thousands of people, over the next century
and a half, would credit with miraculous healings. Their testimonies are
impressive—instantaneous healings of broken bones, cancerous tumors,
congenital conditions. And the healings are not all physical. People have
claimed that reading the book healed them of resentment, anger, despair,
depression. They claim that it has saved their relationships, turned around
their financial situations, enabled them to pursue their dreams.

The book was Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, the author
was Mary Baker Eddy, and the system of religious belief she founded was
Christian Science.

Why should anyone undertake an adaptation of a book that has such an


obviously efficacious track record? It is because of its success that I am
adapting it. I am adapting it for my own use, with the hope that there may
be others who are seeking a metaphysical system of healing with an
emphasis on right relation and connection with the natural world, where a
higher power is metaphorically referenced as female.

My journey with Science and Health and Christian Science has been a
bumpy ride, and this adaptation is, in part, my attempt to resolve the
contradictions raised by my experience with this remarkable teaching and
the human institution perpetuating it.

My journey

My first encounter with Christian Science was in a microbiology laboratory


at a chiropractic college, where I was in my third year as a student. This
was during the late 1970’s, on the West Coast, and the multiplicity of New
Age, alternative healing techniques to which I was being exposed had
raised questions in my mind about the psycho-spiritual aspects of healing.

I had been discussing anecdotal accounts of spiritual healing, when one of


my lab partners commented that I sounded like a Christian Scientist. I

  1 
asked what that was, and he began to describe the philosophy to me.
Another student, who had been raised in Christian Science, joined the
conversation. Finally, I asked, “Well, is there a book or something? At this
point both of them burst out laughing. At the time, I couldn’t understand
what I had said that was so hilarious. Eventually, I would read “the book”
fourteen times.

Mary Baker Eddy’s book changed my life. Within a few months, I left
chiropractic college in order to devote myself to the study and practice of
Eddy’s teachings. I would join the Mother Church in Boston, serve on the
board of directors of my local branch church, teach Sunday school, take
class with a Christian Science teacher, and, briefly, open a practice as a
Christian Science practitioner.

In 1986, I came out as a lesbian. This was a tumultuous time for me, as I
was in a heterosexual marriage, and I lost not only my husband, but also
my church. At that time, the Mother Church in Boston had adopted openly
homophobic policies, and these had become very public in 1981 with their
firing of a lesbian journalist from the Boston office of The Christian Science
Monitor. This firing generated national publicity when the journalist filed a
lawsuit, and an unofficial organization of lesbian and gay Christian
Scientists began to engage in protest actions against the Church.

At the time of my leaving the Church, I put away Science and Health, as I
put away so many other artifacts from my former, heterosexual life. It was a
period of grief and anger, and also tremendous excitement as I found my
voice and my tribe, and began my lifework as a lesbian playwright.

In 1987, I became severely disabled with a disease of the autoimmune


system, and, in spite of my struggles with the illness, I remained unwilling
to turn to metaphysical healing. My rupture with the Church had been so
painful, I had needed to separate myself from everything associated with it.
Seven years later, when I finally reopened my dog-eared copy of Science
and Health, I found the experience familiar and, at the same time, alien. By
this time, I had moved very far from Christianity of any stripe, and I
experienced Eddy’s references to the Bible and her use of traditional
patriarchal tropes to be impediments, obstructing access to a system of
pure metaphysics of which I was in desperate need.

  2 
One afternoon, I took out a pen and began editing the text, replacing all the
false generics (“man,” “mankind,” etc.) and all the masculine pronouns
associated with deity. I found myself making more and more changes,
engaging in an overdue dialogue with the book that had changed my life.
Ironically, the courage and integrity I had gained from reading Science and
Health were the very qualities that led to my claiming an identity that the
Church deemed unacceptable.

I continued to read my hand-edited copy of Science and Health over the


years, and the teachings continued to inform my thinking and my work. In
2010, one of my oldest friends, a lesbian activist, began to date another
lesbian who had been raised in Christian Science. Curious about her
partner’s background, she began to look into the religion—and, of course,
she read “the book.”
We began to have long conversations about both the teaching and the
Church, and these talks were deeply healing for me, as I was able to begin
sorting through so many of the frozen memories—both traumatic and
ecstatic—and to integrate the woman I had been with the woman I am now.
At the time when I left the Church, the homophobia of the movement had
been so intense, I had seen no way for me to have a productive dialogue
with anyone in the Church, and the abruptness of that final rupture had
forced a split in myself, which, I am convinced, was a factor in my disability.

These talks with my friend sparked my curiosity about the Church’s current
position regarding sexual orientation, and I began to visit sites on the
Internet. In the process, I discovered a downloadable version of Science
and Health in an accessible word-processing format. I realized that the text
must now be in public domain, and there was nothing to prevent me from
adapting the book and uploading it to a self-publishing, print-on-demand
website.

Why would I bother to do that? In order to answer this question, I need to


go back to 1979 and what it was about Science and Health that impressed
me enough to abandon a career in chiropractic medicine.

Mary Baker Eddy’s revelation

Mary Baker Eddy was a spiritual seeker, and an invalid. Life had not been
kind to her. Widowed young and then remarried to an abusive man, she
had been manipulated into relinquishing her son to a foster family who,

  3 
apparently without her knowledge, moved out West, taking the boy with
them. She would not reunite with him until he was an adult.

Pursuing healing for herself, she began to study and experiment with the
alternative medicine of her day: homeopathy, the water cure, dietary
regimes, hypnotism, and what might today be called “therapeutic touch.”
Deeply religious, she also wrestled with the perennial conundrum of why
bad things happen to good people in a world supposedly run by a
benevolent deity.

It was her answer to that question that had captured my imagination and
changed the course of my life.

Most religions that entail worship of a deity respond to that question one of
two ways: Either cruelty and injustice are part of some unknowable divine
plan, or else they must be outside of God’s jurisdiction. In other words, the
deity must be sadistic, negligent, or impotent.

It is at this point that many seekers turn to atheism or agnosticism. What


was unusual about Eddy was, given a choice of “A” or “B,” she chose a “C:
None of the above.” This willingness to explore options outside the social
norm, and especially radical ones, had appealed to me as an activist and
as a latent lesbian.

Her solution to the problem of evil was breathtaking: She questioned the
reliability of the testimony of the five senses. A century before the discovery
of quantum physics, she challenged the legitimacy of the material world.

Starting from the premise that the spiritual power of the universe is
benevolent, omnipotent and omnipresent, she deduced that what we
consider “reality” must, in fact, constitute a form of delusion. Furthermore,
she would insist that the understanding of this could effect instantaneous
cures, regardless of the so-called facts of the disease or the condition. She
backed up her theories with a remarkable history of just such instantaneous
healing, and it was on the foundation of these healings that she built her
church.

Christian Science healings have been documented since the beginning of


the movement, and they were and remain impressive. The healings are
integral to all aspects of the religion. One of the two weekly services is

  4 
devoted to sharing stories of personal healing, and the publications,
including Science and Health, always contain sections for first-person
testimonies. Healing is available to anyone with an understanding of the
teaching and a willingness to apply it. Christian Scientists who have taken
class from an authorized Christian Science teacher are qualified to call
themselves “practitioners,” and charge their patients for metaphysical
treatments.

I experienced a dramatic healing early in my studies, and the practitioner I


had called became a close friend. I cherish the many hours she spent
teaching, exploring, and arguing with me.

About the adaptation

Eddy claimed the Bible to be the source for her authority. She asserted that
she was only elucidating the principles that underlay the so-called miracles
and healings performed by Jesus. It was her contention that these were not
miraculous dispensations, but “demonstrations” of a higher spiritual law
that, when understood and applied, overruled material, so-called law. Her
contention was that Jesus was not a deity, but a human being whose
understanding of divine Science enabled him to express the idea of Spirit,
and this “divine manifestation” she called “the Christ.” Her “Key to the
Scriptures,” which constitutes the latter portion of the textbook, contains an
exegesis of the first and last chapters of the Bible, Genesis and
Revelations. Her glossary also contains her metaphoric definitions of
names and places from the Bible.

Separating Christianity from Eddy’s theory and removing all references to


the Bible in Science and Health were the easiest aspects of the adaptation.
For the most part, I simply deleted the passages.

Where the adaptation became challenging was in finding a replacement for


the word “God.” One of the most significant aspects of Christian Science is
Eddy’s insistence that God be conceived of as both “Father” and “Mother.”
In fact, she hyphenates those terms and uses them frequently as a
qualifier: “Father-Mother God.” She even writes, “In divine Science, we
have not as much authority for considering God masculine, as we have for
considering Him feminine, for Love imparts the clearest idea of Deity.”

  5 
In spite of this, she employed the traditional male pronouns when
referencing this dual-gendered deity. In addition, she followed the practice
of using “man” or “men” to refer to all people. As a result, Science and
Health appears, from a contemporary grammatical standpoint, to be a book
for and about men and their filial relationship to a male deity, albeit one with
mitigating female qualities.

Replacing “God” with “Goddess” would have been an obvious choice, but,
as feminist theologians have pointed out, putting God in a skirt does not
necessarily reflect a radical paradigm shift. In separating the metaphysics
from Christian theology, I wanted to be careful to avoid some of the
limitations of that deity.

One of the most dated aspects of Science and Health for 21st century
readers is Eddy’s reference, based on Scripture, to divinely-sanctioned
human entitlement to “dominion” over the earth and all its forms of life.
Since the founding of Christian Science, this ravaged and polluted earth
has seen a century and a half of the results of unchecked human
arrogance, greed, and shortsightedness. Eddy appropriated animals as
metaphors for human qualities and also pejoratively applied words like
“beast” and “bestial.”

I chose to use the word “Gaia” as a replacement for “God,” because


environmental scientists are using the word today to refer to the earth in a
sacred context. In Greek mythology, “Gaia” was the name of the goddess
who personified the earth. During the 1970’s, the era that birthed the
environmental movement, “Gaia” was used for the first time to refer to the
earth as a vast, self-regulating organism.

By using “Gaia” for “God,” I am attempting to fuse the concept of a higher


spiritual power with life on earth. This is intended as a corrective to the
Christian convention of separating God from creation and characterizing
the relationship as that of a “Lord” or “Master” ruling over his dominion. This
becomes the model for “man’s” right to exploit the resources of the planet
and to enslave, colonize, and exploit other forms of life.

The use of “Gaia,” however, is problematic. If the word is used in the same
sense as environmentalists are using it, this suggests a higher power that
is synonymous with nature—either that, or else a higher power that
expresses itself through nature. In either case, the spiritual seeker is again

  6 
brought up short by the arbitrary cruelties and inconsistencies of the
material world. Such a reading of “Gaia” in this instance would contradict
the fundamental tenets of Eddy’s theory.

The difficulty in settling on a name for an omnipotent and omnipresent


spiritual source reflects Eddy’s own struggle in her day to find a language
rooted in sensory experience to explain purely metaphysical concepts.

“Gaia,” as I am using it in the adaptation, refers to a higher power with


qualities traditionally associated with the concept of motherhood: nurturing,
loving, fiercely protective, impartial and egalitarian in relation to her
offspring, and so on. She does not create anything physical, including the
earth, but the earth represents our closest, flawed approximation to Her
spiritual creation. As one of my Christian Science mentors used to say, “We
must work our way out of the metaphors in which we find ourselves.” In
spiritualizing our concept of creation, we must reflect the qualities of an
understanding of this creation as a symbiotic, cooperative whole, free of
hierarchy or dominance. I have substituted “realm of Gaia” for the
“kingdom of heaven” and “creator” for “Maker.” I have also altered
references to dominance and dominion to reflect woman’s symbiotic and
interdependent relation to the earth.

Eddy was intentionally shocking in her use of the word “science” to refer to
what the world might consider the antithesis, a religious philosophy.
Christian Science was founded on her insistence that spiritual law underlay
her theory, and could, in fact, be proven by demonstration to trump the
supposed laws of the material world. My use of “Gaia” is intended to be a
“scientifically” spiritual definition.

In addition to editing out the references to humanity’s right to dominate the


natural world, I also edited out passages that reflected 19th century colonial
racism, the legacy of a slave-owning country. I also removed anti-Semitic
references to Judaism, where Eddy contrasted the Jewish religion with
Christianity.

In an attempt to emphasize the pernicious effect of increasingly “civilized”


thought on health and morals, Eddy made extravagant, unsupported claims
about the longevity and absence of disease among our forebears, as well
as among animals. I have deleted these, along with dietary advice, which
may have been more justified in an era before prepared foods,

  7 
preservatives, pesticides, and genetic modification. Many substances never
intended by nature for ingestion are now marketed, purely for enhanced
corporate profit, as “food.” If our bodies are metaphoric, then surely the
food we eat is also a metaphor, and choosing to eat simply, naturally, and
in a way that does not deplete resources or pollute the body reflects the
more spiritual idea of divine sustenance.

Some of Eddy’s references about the treatment of children read as callous


and potentially negligent, and I have deleted them.

“Sin” is a constant theme in Christianity, and Science and Health makes


frequent reference to it, especially linking it with disease and death. The
concept of “sin” is dependent upon how one defines morality, and is
regarded as a transgression against divine law. As a lesbian, I have seen
the devastation caused to my community by a society that has traditionally
defined us as sinners, and I wanted to distance the text from notions of
Christian morality.

In the adaptation I substitute “s.i.n.” for “sin.” This is an acronym for


“synaptically inadequate networking.” The belief that a harmful, selfish,
unethical, or criminal action can be of benefit is obviously a function of
flawed, or materialistic thinking—in other words, inadequate connecting up
with spiritual reality. Eddy uses the word “error” to refer to human thinking,
and, in using this acronym, I wanted to shift the focus from moral judgment
to a model of mistaken judgment. I wanted to demystify the concept of sin,
and also of evil.

Evil is another favorite Christian concept, conjuring up superstitious images


of Satan, demons, and hell. In the 21st century, psychology has revealed
that “evil” perpetrators have damaged thinking from drugs, organic
conditions, brain injury, or traumatic experiences. I have used “ignorance”
as a substitute, again referencing the idea of inadequate understanding
rather than demonic possession. In the sentences where “evil” is paired
with “good,” I have retained the original.

Two other words in Eddy’s text have historic connections with Christian
morality: “purity” and “righteousness.” In the first instance, I have
substituted “integrity,” and in the second, “right-doing.”

  8 
Since 1874

Since 1874, physics and psychology have made discoveries that offer
interesting perspectives on Eddy’s work. Psychology has identified and
named Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), a syndrome associated with
trauma. A survivor with DID may inhabit a variety of personas, each of
which relate to the world very differently. Eddy did not have the language of
“dissociation,” but the phenomenon she describes as “mortal mind” could
be framed as a collective dissociative disorder.

Eddy defined electricity as a “sharp surplus of materiality which counterfeits


the true essence of spirituality or truth,” an interesting definition in light of
how it has been used to generate mass media that intentionally creates
anxiety about illness, insecurity about physical appearance, compulsion
about sex, and terror from threats of violence. Consensus for a collective
dissociated state has become exponentially facilitated by this bombardment
from the media.

Quantum physics has made astounding discoveries about the nature of the
atom, and specifically the electron. The atom has been considered the
building block of matter—the foundation of the “real world.” Physicists now
tell us that the electron exists as a probability. If located in time, it cannot
be located in space. If located in space, it cannot be located in time. What
does it mean that the building block of matter exists as a probability?

Eddy’s system of metaphysics alters probability. In fact, that is the intention


of the teaching and the modus operandi of the practice. Where the medical
doctor might examine a tumor and predict a likely course of events based
on her years of experience with similar tumors, the metaphysician who is
applying Eddy’s principles to the treatment of the patient comes to an
entirely different conclusion. Based on an understanding that the higher
power of the universe, omnipotent and omnipresent, is Love, this
practitioner concludes that, not only is the existence of the fatal growth
improbable, but it is, according to Science, impossible. And, in case after
case, the practitioner has been proven to be correct.

Testimonies

I have not attempted any revision of the final chapter of the book, which
contains the personal testimonies of healing. These testimonies reflect the

  9 
Christian beliefs of the majority of the patients, frequently citing the
Christian references in Science and Health. My first thought was to omit
them from the book, but to do that would be to separate the healing from
the teachings, and Eddy’s insistence on demonstrating faith through works
was and is the touchstone of her radicalism. It would be my hope that this
iteration of Eddy’s system of metaphysical healing will result in a future
section of testimonies, reflecting women’s understanding of Gaia and Her
creation.

  10 

You might also like