Sincerely,

Tim Dixon

Sincerely,

Ubba Kodero

It has been so fun working to prayerfully support Principia while in the Middle East this past winter! One of my favorite ways to do so is through drawing inspiration from Education at the Principia. Each day here, I’ve read one article and have been so inspired by the fresh ideas on both education and Principle. On many occasions, the articles I’ve read have directly correlated with what I’ve been praying about. For example, one morning I read, “[Peace] is the result of overcoming selfishness, impatience, anger, envy, hatred, covetousness, and pride, and replacing them by love to God and all mankind. If we would help to end war among nations, we must learn to subdue a warlike spirit in our own consciousness. We must learn to love our fellowman and to see in him our brother. Are we not all children of one heavenly Father?…” (p. 58). This quote fit so perfectly because our group had been talking about peace both within and without.

We all received a copy of E.A.P. during prefall, which is such a great gift – so many phenomenal articles by Principia’s founder Mary Kimball Morgan. Not only is it important to be doing our individual daily work, but also supporting Principia as well. What a unique opportunity we have to be blessed with 30 minutes set aside each day to do so – together with the entire community! As the quarter is drawing to a close, I love working with the article “Spiritually Lighthearted.” I especially like the quote: “God would not give you something to do and fail to give you the wisdom, strength, and grace necessary to accomplish it. He does not demand of us what He does not equip us to do. Then we should go about our work confidently and joyously, grateful for every opportunity to serve God and mankind” (p. 222).

E.A.P. is such a powerful tool, which only helps to enrich our experience, whether at Prin or abroad. Have a wonderfully inspired end of the quarter!

Sincerely,
Heather Libbe

I was delighted to have stumbled upon your article on my first visit to the Pilot online. I had no idea that current students raised these kinds of issues and were at least tolerated by the administration when they did. I graduated in the sixties, and any discussion of racism, sexism or homophobia was taboo except by the “powers that were” behind closed doors. Even raising one of those issues in my time would have been seen as subversive to both Principia and Christian Science, itself.

I was a “lifelong” Principian, having started at age three in preschool and graduated from college 20 years later. My mother worked in the Patrons’ Office, which was then Principia’s PR and fundraising arm aimed at non-alumni.

I remember in 1956 I was in seventh grade and in the basement of the old Lower/Middle School building on the Page and Belt campus. I heard my mom mention that the Admissions office was in a quandary because an African-American had applied for admission. Of course she didn’t say African-American, and I can’t remember for sure whether she said Negro or colored person, the two terms usually used back then. My mother did not make a big issue over the application, but I do remember that she said the administration was worried about what to do because admitting the “colored” student would probably lead to the withdrawal of Southern white students and loss of contributions from the Southerners. She never mentioned Principle, and I’m sure she would have if anyone in the school administration had been concerned about it. It was obvious their concerns were enrollment and money. I do not know what excuse was used to deny the application, but no African-American had been admitted more than 10 years later, and no one ever brought up the subject in public in those years.

I joined the NAACP and ACLU in the early sixties. One of my student jobs on campus was in the receiving office where I sorted mail. No one else got mail from either group, so I know I was the only Elsah campus member of either group. Principia as an institution and community was never a leader or supporter of civil rights or liberties. While the administration might have said they encouraged independent thinking, the only independent thinking they recognized was thinking that led to the accepted conclusions they had already arrived at. Arriving at different conclusions would have been dismissed out of hand as either subversive or heretical, and instead of any open discussion, all such “problems” were hushed up and swept under the rug.

It’s good to know you can openly raise these issues today. As far as I know, Principia has never dealt with its racist and sexist past, if those issues are indeed in the past. I always found it ironic that a school founded by a woman to support a religion founded by a woman paid the women who worked there so much less than the men who were often mere figureheads in offices where the women did almost all the work. I wish Principia would look at its past, both good and bad, and admit its mistakes as well as glory in its right moves.

Sincerely,

David Winsby

College Class 1965

Letter to the editor in response to “Chronicle of a gay rights activist”

While there is an aspect of the social life for students at Principia that is not living up to the standards set forth and agreed to by the members of our community, there is also an aspect of the educational environment that is lacking in meeting the standards needed for this institution to fulfill its purpose. Mrs. Morgan made it very clear that her expectation was that the level of standards within this community would be far higher than those of any other college or university. Without those high standards set, maintained, and executed, this institution would not be able to produce the healers that the world so badly needs.

I feel there is a lack of standards within the classroom. The fact that students show up late, text in class, are on Facebook in class, fall asleep in class, and are not intellectually engaged in their studies is unacceptable. While it may seem that these are actions that would put the blame on the student, there is an evident role that the teacher must play in setting, maintaining, and enforcing standards that create an educational environment that will be productive for everyone. As Mrs. Morgan says in Education at The Principia, “When the pursuit of knowledge becomes a joy because the desire has been awakened to know more, to broaden the outlook; when the classroom is found to be the place where ignorance may be healed, children will be eager to uncover what they do not know, that knowledge may take the place of ignorance.” This is a status that we need to strive harder to achieve within our academic community.  Although the steps that it would take to make the educational environment in the classroom more productive are uncomfortable, Mrs. Morgan illustrated that “Education is that which means the unfolding of individual capabilities along all right lines, physical, mental, moral, and spiritual.” This unfolding of character, which Principia stands strongly upon, comes from the dissolving of impurities within our habits.

We shouldn’t be afraid to face the problems that we have at hand. A common argument I hear is that facing the issue will decline our numbers. I’m confident that, while addressing the issue may in fact decline the numbers of Principia, it will strengthen the quality of our community. I feel that we have allowed the quality of our community to reach a point, both socially and academically, where those students of good character and quality are leaving because they don’t feel motivated and intellectually challenged by the educational environment and are displeased with the social environment.

I’m the first to admit that I’m not perfect and I have fallen victim to the trap of the animal magnetism that has swallowed our ability to live up to our high standards, but I’m exhausted by the lack of humility to stand up and be honest. A man that identifies a problem and discusses it in his daily conversation in a complaining manner, but doesn’t have the courage to stand up to make an effective change, has made no difference in reaching the solution. Rather, he has only compounded the problem. I desire a change that requires an equal effort of both the faculty to set and enforce expectations and of the student body to rise to the occasion and meet those standards. An open conversation about the problems we have can only open the door to a brighter tomorrow. As Mrs. Eddy says on page 10 of Science and Health, “Seeking is not sufficient.  It is striving that enables us to enter. Spiritual attainments open the door to a higher understanding of the divine Life.”

Sincerely,

Eric Pagett

Junior

The May 1, 2010 Principia Pilot contained several letters responding to the recent article regarding the use of medicine by Christian Scientists. I appreciate the ideas shared in all of the letters as well as the original article and the efforts of the authors to share their inspiration. I thought it would be helpful to our community’s consideration of this important issue to note that some of the letters made statements about Christian Science and medicine that are, upon closer examination, not as clear-cut as the writers present them to be.

The letter from Jervis DiCicco stated that, “To believe that God¬ – whom we know to be omnipotent – would direct us to another power does not stand up to logic.” Although this statement is logically true (since there is no other power that God could know or direct us to), it is incorrect to conclude from this statement that the sincere prayers of a student of Christian Scientist could never lead them to temporarily use medical means to relieve a physical problem. Mary Baker Eddy leaves the door open for this possibility when she writes in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures: “If Christian Scientists ever fail to receive aid from other Scientists, – their brethren upon whom they may call, – God will still guide them into the right use of temporary and eternal means” (444:10). Eddy does not elaborate on what she means by “temporary and eternal means,” but nowhere in her writings does she categorically rule out medical means.

DiCicco also asks the rhetorical question, “Would Mrs. Eddy prescribe medical treatment?”, implying that she would not. In fact, Eddy does prescribe medical treatment on page 464 of Science and Health, where she describes a general situation where a Christian Scientist could call for an injection to temporarily relieve pain.

Another letter, from Louise Kingsbery, asks the rhetorical question: “Does God ever turn us to matter?” One only need point to the stories of the Children of Israel in the wilderness getting water from the rock and relying on the appearance of manna every morning for food to conclude that yes, in this human experience our prayers do turn us to solutions involving matter. Even Jesus, when confronted with the need to feed the multitude, did not exclude matter from the solution. While demonstrating his dominion over matter with his ingenious menu of five loaves and two fishes, he also met the human need of those in the multitude that believed they required something tangible to assuage their hunger.

Kingsbery also asks “Are we being obedient to deviate from pure metaphysics?” Eddy reassures her readers that in this human experience there are occasions where deviations from pure metaphysics are wise. Regarding the wisdom of a person exposing himself to situations that could result in physical harm, she writes, “Until one is able to prevent bad results, he should avoid their occasion” (S&H 329:16).

My point is that the human footsteps in the practice of Christian Science are not as prescribed and rigid as some might believe, and that each individual should be free to follow whatever course their inspiration leads without others labeling or judging the purity of their practice of Christian Science.

Colin Treworgy, Principia alumnus

Creve Coeur, MO

As a Principian I cherish my experiences with healing through prayer, without medical means, as sacred to my spiritual growth. My Christian Science practice has included raising four children, all of whom have attended Principia, and a public practice as a military chaplain representing The Mother Church where instances of healing through prayer alone were very much under the scrutiny of the military medical establishment. As Dean of Students at the College I saw numerous Principia individuals and families wrestle with the issues most recently discussed in The Pilot as to whether or not God could be felt at work through a range of healthcare choices. For me, I have found great clarity on page 444 of Science and Health.

If Christian Scientists ever fail to receive aid from other Scientists…God will still guide them into the right use of temporary and eternal means.

It would appear that Mrs. Eddy expected God to be involved in the right use of temporary means. That might include the selection of a good physician. How could a Principian who strives to feel God’s direction in every area of his or her life leave that relationship with God out of such an important decision? Would we call prayer involving a medical decision a Christian Science treatment? No. Nor would we “mix” medicine and Christian Science treatment in the healing of the same specific “claim”. But while Christian Science treatment is powerful, for the Principian it is just one particular form of prayer. Mrs. Eddy’s hymns hint at the variety of her own prayer life – prayers of petition, thanksgiving, praise, even intercession are all there in the hymnal.

We may also want to check that our sense of prayer hasn’t become parochial, as if healings were only happening in our denominational practices. To speak as if the operation of the Comforter is limited to one form of prayer (Christian Science treatment) is to curtail the working of the Holy Spirit as well as to diminish the spiritual life of our non-CS  Principia workers and neighbors…and more of our fellow Principians than we may be aware of. It is not that God knows of doctors – or practitioners for that matter — but that through the office of the Christ God effectively touches the need of individuals right where they are and with what their heart, family and life situation, and spiritual readiness may require. God is so generous in Her means and methods and, as evidenced through the example of Jesus, beautifully able to meet people in a tangible expression that they can presently grasp and feel…we call that grace.

In John’s gospel Jesus’ last discussion with Peter tries to get Peter to reflect on a higher form of love for him. Jesus asks him twice if he loves him this way and Peter responds (in New Testament Greek) with a lesser form of love. The third time Jesus asks him he uses the form of love Peter can presently embrace. As the story of Acts reveals, God doesn’t quit working with Peter on how to love. But on the beach that resurrection morning God, through Christ, reaches Peter where he is.

Mary Baker Eddy called a doctor to administer pain-reducing injections at various times. Reducing the symptom of pain so that she could mentally treat the illness would seem to be both distinct from but also practically related to her ability to practice Christian Science in those circumstances. Who would we be to judge otherwise? Mrs. Eddy’s use of that medicine would bar her from being accepted into membership at the majority of Christian Science branch churches today. Were she here today, given that she didn’t attend church and wasn’t a church member in her day, and used pain-reducing medicine on occasion, would Mary Baker Eddy be able to work at or even attend Principia?

I love Principia, but we could be more rigorous in distinguishing patterns of our accumulated culture and tradition from the authority of Mary Baker Eddy’s teachings. She twice said to the same audience within 12 months that we should only follow her as far as she followed Christ (Message to The Mother Church 1901 and1902). Rooted in her teachings and her life example is Christ’s compassion that would never wish any Principian to feel him or her self without God when making what are often the most difficult decisions of one’s life. God’s healing power has been widely experienced in all manner of circumstances, including those that many Principians might tend to see as quite different from their own practice, perhaps even spiritually diluted if not polluted.

The Jewish culture of early Christianity also struggled with this idea of whether living faithful to Christ could only occur within traditional parameters deemed as sacred and pure. By the end of the first century the leading definition of Jesus’ mission and teachings was no longer in the hands of this culture. The Holy Spirit had given the interpretation and promulgation of Christ’s Christianity to others (Gentiles in the Greek world). These people were no less flawed, but they were considerably more open to the varied ways in which individuals and communities might grow spiritually in following Christ.  Are there lessons in this for us as we search to define, for ourselves and for the world, what it means to be a Christian Scientist…or a Principian? I recommend Matt 25:31-46 and Miscellaneous Writings 107 as starting points. Blessings to all my Principia family!

Dick Davenport C’76

Dean of Students 1996-2002

This letter appeared in abridged form in the print edition of this issue of the Pilot. 

There is a tendency for human beings to establish pre-determined human rules for dealing with a situation so that they don’t have to go through the perhaps time-consuming and agonizing process of praying to God, listening for God’s answer, and then being obedient to God, no matter what their human will is. It is so much easier to leave God out of one’s decision-making process and just follow the “traditions of our fathers” in the C.S. movement, traditions which did not come to us from Mary Baker Eddy or God, but which we humans came up with in the approximately 100 years since the passing of Mrs. Eddy.

Jon Larson

Adult Summer Sessioner for 13 years

I want to express my appreciation for Michael Booth’s article in the last issue of the Pilot. I feel that the issues addressed in this article reflect the feelings of many individuals of the community. For me, the greatest learning occurs when I encounter different thoughts.

I feel that a forced homogenization of thought is created through limiting our community. Personally, I feel that this school can potentially produce copious amounts of healing. By claiming that our personal beliefs are the only accurate ones, we are restricting the natural progression of thought. This barricade makes us feel safe, but it is holding us back. I am not suggesting that we allow non-Christian Scientists into our community, but merely think twice before barring fellow Christian Scientists from it.

Thank you,

Rigel Valentine