"Christ Jesus the Ensample. He who dated the Christian era is the Ensample in Christian Science. Careless comparison or irreverent reference to Christ Jesus is abnormal in a Christian Scientist, and is prohibited. When it is necessary to show the great gulf between Christian Science and theosophy, hypnotism, or spiritualism, do it, but without hard words. The wise man saith, “A soft answer turneth away wrath.” However despitefully used and misrepresented by the churches or the press, in return employ no violent invective, and do good unto your enemies when the opportunity occurs. A departure from this rule disqualifies a member for office in the Church or on the Board of Lectureship, and renders this member liable to discipline and, possibly, dismissal from The Mother Church."
     — Mary Baker Eddy, Manual of The Mother Church, Article VIII, Section 3

How should we compare and contrast Christian Science with differing faiths or philosophies that others cherish?

How should we react to critics of Christian Science?

These questions are addressed in the Manual of The Mother Church, in the By-Law “Christ Jesus the Ensample” (p. 41). First, this By-Law ensures Christian Scientists don’t alienate fellow Christians by losing sight of the Savior’s uniqueness. Second, it pinpoints nuances needed in making distinctions between the healing spirituality of Christian Science and other philosophical and theological beliefs, including those mistakenly confused with this Science. Third, it demands of adherents a Christian response to critics. It begins:

"He who dated the Christian era is the Ensample in Christian Science. Careless comparison or irreverent reference to Christ Jesus is abnormal in a Christian Scientist, and is prohibited."

Prohibited—that’s a strong word and this is the only Manual By-Law using it. It indicates that Christian Scientists wishing to follow Mary Baker Eddy’s example will not “carelessly” compare themselves or her with Jesus.

Mary Baker Eddy was serious about this demand. She was not asking for a mere public expression of modesty, in order to make a good impression on others. In private conversation she was even more blunt about her meaning: “When I hear people speak of me or any other mortal as an equal with Jesus it makes me shiver, for I realize more and more as I apprehend his true character and work his infinite distance above us” (Calvin Frye diaries, March 5, 1900, The Mary Baker Eddy Collection, The Mary Baker Eddy Library).

Nevertheless, it is clear from Mary Baker Eddy’s writings that she felt extraordinarily close to Jesus’ mission. Through her own life practice as a Christian healer, she came to deeply understand and identify with his joy and sacrifice. So much so that she stated: “At this period my demonstration of Christian Science cannot be fully understood, theoretically; therefore it is best explained by its fruits, and by the life of our Lord as depicted in the chapter Atonement and Eucharist, in ‘Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures’ ” (The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany, p. 136).

Yet she was careful and thoughtful to make plain that she saw the Messiah’s place as completely unique. She did not use any careless comparison, a phrase that implies comparing negligently, with a lack of forethought, thoroughness, or consideration. Or it suggests being unconcerned, indifferent, or heedless of consequences. Careless comparison to Jesus would give credence to that scholastic Christian thought which misguidedly looks for reasons to classify Christian Science as non-Christian. More unfortunate still, it can turn away seekers who might think Christian Scientists show a lack of reverence for “he who dated the Christian era.”

It’s easy for many to muddle Christian Science with philosophies tending more toward material self-serving than living the kind of unselfed healing love and spiritual self-sacrifice that Jesus practiced. This depth of humility is what Mrs. Eddy calls “the genius of Christian Science” (Miscellaneous Writings 1883–1896, p. 356), and she practiced it to extraordinary levels. She once said, “All I have ever accomplished has been done by getting Mary out of the way, and letting God be reflected,” and added, “When I would reach this tone, the sick would be healed without a word” (Christian Science Sentinel, July 8, 1939, p. 902). In this way she could—as, in some degree, we all can— become a better transparency for the kind of Christly thinking Jesus epitomized and evidenced in his uniquely powerful healing record. That didn’t, though, make the founder of Christian Science the Christ.

Spiritually understood, Christ is the name for how God communicates His divine nature and love to man, with powerful and practical results. Humanly understood, it is the title of Jesus, the one “anointed,” whose healing love the sincere heart fervently seeks to emulate. Clarifying our recognition of this unique role of Jesus and the Christ—as distinct from Mrs. Eddy—can bind us more closely to Christian neighbors.

For example, I was once the colleague of an evangelical Christian who asked me with interest about the healing practice of Christian Science, but she seemed to remain suspicious about its Christian authenticity. Finally one day she burst out, “But why Mary Baker Eddy?” My answer was to echo back the questions: “Why Paul? Why Peter? Why John?” It was only afterward that I realized she had probably assumed I would place Mrs. Eddy on a pedestal alongside the Messiah. So, upon hearing my answer, she looked at me with a great sense of warmth and fellowship, and just said, “Thank you, Tony!”

It should be added that Mary Baker Eddy’s place is totally unique, too. Her extraordinary spirituality and self-sacrifice are exemplary. She is not, however, the same as Jesus, the Exemplar for all Christianity. That’s even truer for the rest of us—no sincere Christian Scientist would confuse his or her humble healing efforts with the Messiah’s majestic mission. Those endeavoring to faithfully follow Mrs. Eddy’s leadership and the Savior’s way-showing would probably wholeheartedly echo the sentiments of John the Baptist, who felt unworthy even to loosen the latchet on the sandals Jesus wore (see Mark 1:7).

Nevertheless, we need to guard against confusing our neighbors with our choice of language. The teachings of Christian Science use the term Christ in a number of different meanings—from its definition in the Glossary of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures as “the divine manifestation of God, which comes to the flesh to destroy incarnate error” (p. 583), to the title of the man Jesus.

Furthermore, in Science and Health Mrs. Eddy elaborates on the individual’s relationship to the Christ. We can follow Christ, bow before Christ, learn through Christ, and believe on Christ. We can even leave all for Christ. Science and Health does not, however, mention the existence of an individual having a “Christ consciousness” (see Michael Davis, “What is ‘Christ Consciousness’ ?” The Christian Science Journal, November 2010). By guarding against using phrases that might sound like sacrilege to the conventional Christian thought, the Christianity of Christian Science is made clearer to others through its adherents’ lives and words.

At other times it is what Christian Science isn’t related to that has to be made plain. To do this, the By-Law provides a three-step guide.

"When it is necessary to show the great gulf between Christian Science and theosophy, hypnotism, or spiritualism, do it, but without hard words. The wise man saith, 'A soft answer turneth away wrath.'”

Part 1: Pinpoint differences when there is a necessity to do so, as opposed to an impulse to do so. This requires prayer-based intuition and reason.

Part 2: Do it! Don’t neglect an appropriate opportunity to “show the great gulf” between Christian Science and other unchristian beliefs.

Part 3: Do it without harsh words. This is crucial. Mrs. Eddy illustrates this balance in Science and Health, in the chapter “Christian Science versus Spiritualism.” She writes: “Those individuals, who adopt theosophy, spiritualism, or hypnotism, may possess natures above some others who eschew their false beliefs. Therefore my contest is not with the individual, but with the false system. I love mankind, and shall continue to labor and to endure” (p. 99). Today, the same deeply Christian approach of contesting the system—rather than the adherent—applies to interacting with more recent groups such as Scientologists, whom many mistakenly confuse with Christian Scientists.

Like all Manual guidance, this instruction is about entertaining and expressing spiritual love. Individuals of whatever persuasion, when addressed about whatever “gulf” exists between their chosen outlook and Christian Science, should feel targeted only by the sincerest, most unconditional love. No conversion tactics, no intellectual persuasiveness, no opinionated or judgmental coercion is called for or needed.

Individuals of all faiths and philosophies, and of none, deserve but one label to be associated with them: “cherished and beloved fellow children of God.”

In my role as a Christian Science Committee on Publication, I was invited to appear on a TV discussion on “angels” with authors who had a New Age approach to the subject (see “Angels? Are You There?” Journal, March 2008). While waiting to go on air, I met my fellow panelists and felt a tender affection and deep respect for them. That didn’t change once the cameras were rolling. As they talked, I valued and honored the experiences they shared, which were honest and genuine. As we spoke together during the live broadcast, though, I endeavored to lovingly rebuke what I saw as the materializing of the spiritual idea of angels. I did not directly criticize what my fellow panelists were saying, but instead offered my sincere view based on the practice of Christian Science. The hour-long show was harmonious, and we parted good friends. Two of them even took gift copies of Science and Health. But I felt the “necessary” work had been done of distinguishing, for the audience, between the Science of the Christ and dualistic systems of thought, which are based on beliefs that both matter and Spirit are real and good, rather than Spirit alone.

Sincerely respecting the views of others doesn’t mean we shouldn’t endeavor, when appropriate, to highlight concepts they might hold that obscure mankind’s view of its completely spiritual nature. Nor, on the other hand, should we rush in uninvited in an effort to “correct” the cherished convictions of our fellow men and women. “Christ Jesus the Ensample” guides us in a balanced approach.

But what if critics rush in with their own effort to “correct” us? The By-Law gives guidance for that, too.

"However despitefully used and misrepresented by the churches or the press, in return employ no violent invective, and do good unto your enemies when the opportunity occurs."

This is Christianity 101. As Jesus explained: “You’re familiar with the old written law, ‘Love your friend,’ and its unwritten companion, ‘Hate your enemy.’ I’m challenging that. I’m telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that” (Matthew 5:43–47, Eugene Peterson, The Message). Jesus lived and practiced this saying, through his ministry and even through the crucifixion. He meant what he taught.

In that same spirit, Mrs. Eddy didn’t stop at stating what we shouldn’t do to anyone who “despitefully” uses and misrepresents the Science of the Christ. She pinpoints what we should do—proactively “do good” whenever the opportunity arises. She meant what she taught, too. As the By-Law concludes:

"A departure from this rule disqualifies a member for office in the Church or on the Board of Lectureship, and renders this member liable to discipline and, possibly, dismissal from The Mother Church."

That’s pretty tough disciplinary language! But it’s aimed at those using denunciatory or abusive words, which, as she explains, is a violent reaction rather than a healing response. This discipline applies to all members of the Church of Christ, Scientist, but especially to officials representing the Church.

With Christ Jesus as our ensample, our instructions are clear: When dealing with differing opinions, whether forged from diverse life practices or severe criticisms of Christian Science, respond if necessary, and always with love!