The Christian Science


“In this age the earth will help the woman; the spiritual idea will be understood.”

(Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, p. 570)


Volume 14, Number 2                                                                  March 2006

Christian Science Endtime Center                                                          P. O. Box 27539, Denver, CO 80227







                 Part II                            


   The purity of Christian Science as given to the world by Mary Baker Eddy must be maintained.


                — Annie M. Knott, CSD


   “Diverse opinions in Science are stultifying. All must have one Principle and the same rule; and all who follow the Principle and rule have but one opinion of it.”

                       — Mary Baker Eddy

                      Miscellaneous Writings p. 265:8-11















The Christian Science Standard, Volume 6, Number 1, January 1995

Authored and Edited by Stanley C. Larkin



Part II of II




          In a twelve-page state-of-the-church circular letter, dated November 28, 1921, John Dittemore, a former Director of The Mother Church appointed during Mary Baker Eddy’s lifetime, gives evidence that the Directors were aware that they were supposed to point out variations in the teaching of Christian Science and to expose the difference. Dittemore stated in part:


Mrs. Eddy’s human experience encountered new phases of the counterfeit all along the way. And it is not surprising that toward the end of her personal ministry there should appear a phase of evil more subtle than any which preceded it or that after her personal departure it should develop into one of the most menacing deceptions of the hour. I refer, of course, to that teaching called “spiritual organs” which attempts to confer upon the fading forms and outlines of mortal belief and its counterfeit physical mechanisms the reality belonging to spiritual ideas of divine Love.


Although there is a tendency among some Christian Scientists who recognize this evil to treat the subject in lighter vein, it really constitutes an overshadowing menace to the preservation and extension of Christian Science in its purity. Mrs. Eddy covered this subject conclusively and finally many years ago in a correspondence with a well-known teacher [Edward A. Kimball]. The Trustees under her will own one of the most valuable of documents definitely and specifically settling the matter so far as Mrs. Eddy’s views on the subject are concerned. This “spiritual organs” teaching is a phase of Theosophy which operates more subtly, but not with essential differences from the operation of so-called Mental Science, New Thought, and other systems of suggestion and belief.


More than three years ago this subject became one of the most acute issues in the Christian Science organization. Some of the present and former Directors and the then Editors were greatly aroused and denounced the use of the periodicals for anything savoring of such teaching. Unfortunately many of those who a few months ago were clear and outspoken on this vital subject are now quiescent and willing to let the matter go in the fatally mistaken belief that to not raise this question will aid in establishing “peace”!


There is much more that needs to be said on this subject and which must and will be said at no far distant day.

          This statement by an early Director shows that Mrs. Eddy regarded the Kimball teaching to be a variant. She expected it to be corrected, as she always felt about variations from her teaching. (See insert — Mrs. Eddy’s correction.) It would seem that after the finding of the Supreme Court which excludes all variations to Mrs. Eddy’s teaching that the Directors would have had ample opportunity and support for the correction. The last two paragraphs of Mr. Dittemore’s quotation suggest, however, that despite the Supreme Court ruling there were some Board members who favored the Kimball teaching and no doubt had hopes for its future official return. This proved to be the case and came about in the 1930s as will be explained.




          The effect of Annie M. Knott’s appointment in 1919 to the Board of Directors as its first woman member, and added to this the Supreme Court decision of 1921, was that during the 1920s the Directors appointed only personal students of Mrs. Eddy to teach the Normal classes. This was in keeping with the “regnant design” and demand of Mrs. Eddy. That no teacher with Kimball background taught Normal classes following the Supreme Court ruling shows that the Directors at that time understood that the Kimball school did not qualify under those terms. The purpose of Mrs. Eddy’s trust deeds now prevailed and the line on the graph — on the front page — continues to rise without change.





          Here the upward thrust on the graph makes an abrupt halt. In the 1930s Mrs. Eddy’s two trust deeds, containing the purpose for her organizations, were breached.


          From 1917 and during the twenties and thirties, there was one director on the Board who had Primary class under Mr. Kimball in the Board of Education, and in 1907, Normal class under Judge Hanna. This Board member, William R. Rathvon, CSB, favored Kimball’s teaching over that of Mrs. Eddy’s taught by Judge Hanna. The following note was made from a conversation between this writer (the editor) and Mrs. Ursula Pim, Secretary to the Hanna Association, at Laguna Beach, California, on July 22, 1962:


In 1922 Mr. Gale told a Hanna pupil in San Francisco (Mr. Hanson) that he (Gale) was teaching the Normal class that year and for him to apply to the Board of Education. He applied, but was not accepted. To find out why, he took the train to Boston and called on the Directors. Mr. Rathvon told him: “As long as I am on the Board no pupil of Judge Hanna’s will ever be in the Normal class.”


          In 1931, Duncan Sinclair, an associate editor of the periodicals, was appointed to teach the Normal class. He was an adherent of the Kimball school, but not a personal student of Mr. Kimball.





          When Mrs. Knott retired from the Board in January 1934, the chief personal guardian — or monitor — of Mrs. Eddy’s teaching was gone. With this Board change, the Directors who favored the Kimball teaching over Mrs. Eddy’s, of which at that time there were three, took this opportunity to re-entrench their favored teaching into the church’s teaching system, and thereby shift the momentum of the 1920s away from Mrs. Eddy’s school as quickly as possible.




          The Kimball teaching in the 1930s reached a crescendo, starting with Duncan Sinclair, proceeding to the stronger presentation of George Shaw Cook, and peaking with Bicknell Young, the ultimate Kimball teacher. It was Young’s 1937 class that carried the Kimball school into the future. Together with the two preceding classes, this class in 1937 had the effect of annulling the work of Mrs. Knott, as well as breaching the trust. Mrs. Eddy’s school had been so well established during the 1920s that it was impossible to inject the Kimball teaching except in this calculated way, overcoming the influence of Mrs. Eddy’s teaching.


          To illustrate the degree to which the Kimball teaching was elevated, Prof. Hermann S. Hering, CSB, who had taken two Normal classes with Mr. Kimball, wrote in 1939, to the members of his students’ association:


Attention was also given to the fact that your class teaching, which your human teacher received from the Massachusetts Metaphysical College, was obtained under the instruction of Edward A. Kimball. (See Miscellany 297:18-24) We need to realize that this teaching was in reality our Leader’s last gift to the teaching branch of our movement and was given through her chosen student, Edward A. Kimball, because she could not leave her other pressing duties and give the instruction herself. She specially taught Mr. Kimball to present Christian Science more exactly, scientifically, spiritually [than she herself had previously done]. 1


          This was not true, of course, that the Kimball teaching was Mrs. Eddy’s gift; nor that she specially taught him to present Christian Science “more exactly, scientifically, spiritually” than she had taught. Mrs. Eddy alone is the revelator of Truth to this age. There is no teaching that improves on what she taught in her classes. By saying it was a gift from Mrs. Eddy, etc., the purpose of the deeds of trust was evaded.




          Dr. Charles S. Braden, in his book, Christian Science Today, found it “surprising that he [Young] was chosen for this important task,” 2 because Young was the most ardent of Kimball students and was the one who best identified and presented the teaching. He had taken Primary class with Kimball in 1895, and Normal class with Kimball in 1901. Dr. Braden refers to him as “the most outstanding of Kimball students.” Mr. Young brought a copy of the book, Lectures and Articles on Christian Science by Edward A. Kimball, into the classroom and held it up for the class to see, recommending it for self-instruction. Dr. Braden refers to some of the events and pupil-reaction in this class as disruptive:


Several members of the 1937 Normal class report that there was quite a stir among them when, at the opening session, it was discovered that Young was to be the teacher. One of them told me that two men, seated in front of her, voiced great disapproval of the appointment of a teacher bearing the Kimball [stamp], and even some horror that Kimball’s daughter, Edna, was present as a fellow-student. Others have confirmed this report, and they add that in the field generally there was an adverse reaction. Rumors were circulated that the Normal class would have to be retaught, breaking all precedent. So insistent was the gossip that the Board was obliged to send out a letter to prevent further disruption. 3


          The ensuing disruption and outcry from the pupils wanting Mrs. Eddy’s teaching was a last gasp for the adherents of Mrs. Eddy’s school, who now saw the Kimball school being entrenched again.


          This disruption proved that there was a distinct and major difference between the two schools. The fact that there was disruption also indicates that calculated force had been used to re-entrench the teaching into the church’s system. It was becoming more and more apparent to the field that there was a radical turning from Mrs. Eddy’s teaching to that of Mr. Kimball’s.




          After Mrs. Knott retired from the Board she continued to follow the developments in the movement. She wrote her reminiscences, taught her annual classes, conducted her association meetings, carried on her correspondence with her students, and witnessed the return of the Kimball school into the church system. Her students who were in contact with her at this period report that she was experiencing growing concern over this reversal and the possible loss of Mrs. Eddy’s teaching, and seeking God’s means to protect it and carry it into the future.




          On a trip to Boston in August 1936, I had the privilege of a visit with Mrs. Knott at her home on Beacon Street. In September 1937, I was employed by Mr. and Mrs. John Larkin (later, my adoptive parents as of April 1939) with the object of working my way through college at the local university.


          In April 1938, I took class instruction with Mrs. Marie K. Larkin, CSB, and in June accompanied Mr. and Mrs. Larkin on a trip to Boston where Mr. Larkin attended the meeting of Mrs. Knott’s Christian Science Students’ Association. (Even though both Mr. and Mrs. Larkin were class pupils of Mrs. Knott, Mrs. Larkin could no longer attend because she was now a teacher.)




          Beginning in September 1915, Mrs. Larkin became a close friend of Mrs. Knott during her college years in Boston, throughout which time she regularly attended Mrs. Knott’s Sunday School class. Mrs. Larkin’s dormitory was near Mrs. Knott’s residence and they became such close friends that Mrs. Knott’s son and daughter-in-law came to regard her as a family member. Mrs. Knott and Mrs. Larkin had taken trips together in the past, and Mrs. Knott was a house guest in the Larkin home in Miami in January 1929. In June 1938, Mrs. Larkin invited Mrs. Knott to go on a weekend trip to Plymouth on Cape Cod, and Mrs. Knott accepted.


          Mrs. Larkin had class instruction with Mrs. Knott in 1923 (John Larkin, in 1925), and became a listed practitioner in July 1926. In 1931 Mrs. Larkin attended the Normal class and became a teacher. While attending the six-day Normal class Mrs. Larkin went each evening to Mrs. Knott’s home, at which time Mrs. Knott recounted how Mrs. Eddy gave those lessons at the Massachusetts Metaphysical College.


          After she returned to Miami and began preparing her class lessons, her mother’s teacher sent her more than two hundred full-size, handwritten pages of notes taken from her Normal class under Judge Hanna in 1907. With this wealth of class material from the school of Mrs. Eddy, Mrs. Larkin, with much inspiration and joy, prepared for her first class and to carry forward the original standard of Mrs. Eddy’s teaching.




          While in Boston that summer of 1938, Mrs. Larkin had a number of visits with Mrs. Knott. I was present at many of these conferences and heard her comments and disclosures concerning the state of the movement, and took notes. Mrs. Knott disclosed that the main concern of her life was that there were “two types of Christian Science teaching within the movement, — Mrs. Eddy’s and Mr. Kimball’s.”


          Aware of Mr. Young’s Normal class, six months before, together with the preceding classes by Cook and Sinclair, she was concerned that the Kimball teaching was superseding the teaching of Mrs. Eddy. She indicated that there had been very strong dissension over the issue of the two teachings within the movement, and that it would require a reformation, with its forays and battles, to restore and advance Mrs. Eddy’s teaching in its purity.


          She spoke of the Protestant Reformation and of the warfare in which her ancestors had fought and died. She said that there was no difference between those times and our times, and that we should be as willing to die for the purity of Christian Science as the reformers had died for their doctrine. She spoke of Queen Mary of England — Bloody Mary — who was succeeded by Queen Elizabeth. Then she spoke of the Kimball teaching and repeated that the times now are no different, no better, or greater, than the time of the Reformation. “Those dear people back in those times,” she said, “were willing to give their lives for what was right. Are we today willing to do this? Christian Scientists should be willing, if necessary, to give their lives to keep Christian Science clear and pure. Pray for the purity of Christian Science and the clearness of it.”


          Mrs. Knott spoke of the poet, Tennyson, whom she regarded as the greatest poet in literature. She mentioned his “Idylls of the King” and its demand for purity against the dragon of impurity. The purity of Christian Science as given to the world by Mrs. Eddy must be maintained.


          Mrs. Knott’s family descendants were not closely interested in her work and station in Christian Science. She had students who were practitioners, and she had had some that were teachers, but Mrs. Larkin was the only one to whom she could confide her concerns for the future of Mrs. Eddy’s school, being her only student who was a teacher at that time.


          Mrs. Knott knew that her labors for forty years as guardian of Mrs. Eddy’s teaching would be carried on because they were ordained of God. Experience had shown the fight to be fierce, but through these conferences and experiences Mrs. Larkin came to understand that she had received the torch from Mrs. Knott. An extract from Mrs. Larkin’s notes for 1938 read:


During one visit at Mrs. Knott’s she was reclining on the davenport quietly. She asked me to bring my chair over close to her. She asked: “Marie, do you know who you are?” I hesitated because I did not understand the question. Then she said, “Marie, you are a world worker,” emphasizing the words “world worker.” In a little while she asked me if I knew what it meant.


          While the Board was securing the future of the church’s teaching system through three consecutive Normal classes of Kimball adherents, Mrs. Knott’s only apparent link to the future was her only remaining student who was a Primary class teacher, Mrs. Larkin. From this visit Mrs. Larkin understood that Mrs. Knott wished to pass her torch to her.




          After her class with Mrs. Knott in 1923, people began calling on Mrs. Larkin for metaphysical help, and she had many remarkable healings. Moving to Miami in 1925, she devoted more and more time to helping others. By nature a spiritually-minded and spontaneously joyous person, she was also very compassionate and approachable. She soon went into the full-time practice of Christian Science and established her office in her home. She was a quick healer and there were many healings which were regarded as miraculous. People in other locations heard of her quick, effective healings and she received calls and cables from many places outside of Miami. Not only were the sick healed, but the dead were raised, and business, domestic and personal problems were solved. So well-known was her work in the local field that it seemed to arouse feelings of deep resentment among some of the other listed practitioners. In the late 1920s and early 1930s there were over thirty Journal-listed practitioners who attended First Church, Miami. In a number of instances patients who were not healed by other practitioners came to Mrs. Larkin and were healed. After 1931 when Mrs. Larkin became a teacher there appeared to be mounting resentment and opposition.




          Bearing in mind that the Kimball school and the school of Mrs. Eddy seem to repel each other, it is logical that as the Kimball school was being speedily forced back into the teaching system of The Mother Church during the 1930s, there would be a reaction — a backlash — against Mrs. Knott and Mrs. Larkin, her only student who was a teacher at that time.


          The action of reversing Mrs. Eddy’s school in the 1930s was of such magnitude as to cause a complete stoppage in the direction of progress — as shown by the graph on page 1 — followed by a dramatic plunge.




          In early 1937 an organizer emerged in the Miami church, — a very clever, listed practitioner who aggressively fomented a campaign against Mrs. Larkin with the stated purpose to “clean out the church” and “run Mrs. Larkin out of town.”


          This organizer and those of her new circle (some of whom were pupils, or friends, of the Directors in Boston) made the acquaintance of some of the receptive Boston Board members. In November 1938, one of the Directors, Mr. Rathvon, came to Miami for a brief visit. Although he had known Mrs. Larkin since her college years in Boston, and greeted her cordially at church on November 6, he had no time to see her otherwise. It was reported, however, that he did have visits with some of the organizer’s circle. It was evident that something serious was going on behind the scenes.


          Within a month, Mrs. Larkin received a letter dated December 5, from the Christian Science Board of Directors, stating that she was being charged 4 with dominating the local branch church and teaching incorrectly, along with other false accusations. She was asked to present her defense in writing. She sent in a voluminous reply giving evidence of her innocence, together with abundant material from church members who were her pupils, as well as others who were not. Although the charges simply were not true, the Directors’ reply in January imposed a penalty in these words: “we are requesting that you will not teach a class in 1939 nor until you receive the permission of this Board to resume teaching.”

          Each year after 1939 (1940, 1941 and 1942) Mrs. Larkin asked permission to resume teaching, but was denied. In response to her request in 1943, the Directors not only refused to grant her permission to teach, but placed her on probation and required her to dissolve her association of pupils, allowing them to apply to other teachers for class teaching. The By-Law in the Manual provides for a three-year period of probation. The three years were up December 31, 1945.


          In March 1946, she applied for reinstatement as a teacher. The Board replied with new charges against her, this time as a listed practitioner, and threatened to cancel her Journal card altogether. These charges were also proved to be completely false. Even so, they wrote they were deferring action until January 1947.


          In the second and third year following the probation period (1947, 1948) Mrs. Larkin applied again, but to no avail.


          In 1948 the two Directors who were of the original three in 1934 who favored the Kimball teaching, passed away within five months of each other.





          In July 1949, Mrs. Larkin received notification from the Board of Directors of the termination of her probation. However, two weeks prior to this, on June 17, 1949, she wrote me (the editor) the following in a letter:


One of Mrs. McKenzie’s [a Director’s wife] pupils is a close friend of Florence D [Draper] and has been visiting her. She, [Florence], asked her to ask Mrs. McK about me and why I was not allowed to teach, etc., and Mrs. McK said it was because of “a feud between [a Director] and Mrs. Knott.” So no doubt Mr. McK told his wife that at the time. Helen [Helen France] has always said that was it. 5


          This message answered the question why the two Directors opposed Mrs. Larkin, — opposition to Mrs. Knott and her effective work with Mrs. Eddy’s school. It shows that Mrs. Larkin was not punished for the alleged charges made against her, but was punished and stigmatized to prevent the attainments and influence of Mrs. Knott from continuing in Mrs. Knott’s promising pupil.


          Both Mr. and Mrs. McKenzie, who were mentioned in the letter, were personal students of Mary Baker Eddy. He was a member of the Board of Directors for ten years. They were supporters of Mrs. Knott, and also of Mrs. Larkin.


          Helen France was Mrs. Knott’s secretary for fourteen years before Mrs. Knott retired from the Board in 1934. She was employed in The Mother Church administration offices in the late 1930s and 1940s. The “feud” against Mrs. Knott by some of the Directors and workers, was known both on and off the Board of Directors.


          During this ten-year period Mrs. Larkin suffered loss of respect from many in her church and community, because it was circulated that she was being officially disciplined for teaching incorrectly. A number of her pupils deserted her. However, even after the probation period was lifted, Mrs. Larkin’s classes were always full, as they had been prior to the Board’s actions. Mrs. Larkin, like Mrs. Knott before, had been wrongfully persecuted for holding firmly to Mrs. Eddy’s school of Christian Science.





          In a two-part newspaper article by Joseph Clarke of The New York Herald, Mrs. Eddy predicted a future “monitor”: 6


[Mrs. Eddy] “The continuity of the Church of Christ, Scientist . . . is assured. It is growing wonderfully. It will embrace all the churches, one by one, because in it alone is the simplicity of the oneness of God; the oneness of Christ and the perfecting of man stated scientifically.”


[Clarke] “How will it be governed after all now concerned in its government shall have passed on?”


[Mrs. Eddy] “It will evolve scientifically. Its essence is evangelical. Its government will develop as it progresses.”


[Clarke] “Will there be a hierarchy, or will it be directed by a single earthly ruler?”


[Mrs. Eddy] “In time its present rules of service and present rulership will advance nearer perfection. . . . No present change is contemplated in the rulership. You would ask, perhaps, whether my successor will be a woman or a man. I can answer that. It will be a man.”


[Clarke] “Can you name the man?”


[Mrs. Eddy] “I cannot answer that now.” 7




          In Part 2 of Joseph Clarke’s report of the interview, Mrs. Eddy says her successor will not be a power figure but will be (perhaps with responsibilities similar to those she gave Mrs. Knott) a monitor of doctrine:


On the more real question of expanding the government of the Church to suit its growth she had this to say: — “The problem is not so much as to the form of the government as providing an authority that will ever keep its spirit true to the Christian Science doctrine. A monitor more than a master.” 8


          Mrs. Eddy attributed the “wonderful growth” of the Church of Christ, Scientist, to the keeping of “the spirit true to the Christian Science doctrine,” in accord with the sole purpose of the two deeds of trust. The line on the graph was climbing at a phenomenal angle of growth. To keep it on course required a “monitor more than a master.” In 1901 Mrs. Eddy monitored the doctrine. In 1903 she called Mrs. Knott to Boston with the expectation that she could monitor the doctrine in the periodicals and let Mrs. Eddy “step aside.” At the conference in 1905 (see page 12 in Part I), Mrs. Eddy made Mrs. Knott, in effect, a monitor-without-title. Mrs. Knott remained faithful to her trust and in 1938 she laid the foundation for a future reformation.






          In Joseph Clarke’s report in The New York Herald, quoted above, he indicated that Mrs. Eddy’s “successor” would follow upon her departure. Mrs. Eddy corrected this a few days later, in another interview:


I did say that a man would be my future successor. By this I did not mean Mr. Farlow nor any other man to-day on earth. 9


By using the words “future successor,” Mrs. Eddy was indicating that after her lifetime, material organization — hierarchy — would continue for a time, but eventually be laid off, followed by a monitor.




          In a statement dictated to Calvin Frye in her last years when there were “on-coming questions” regarding the operation of the Church after her departure, Mrs. Eddy said:


In answer to on-coming Questions, will say: I calculate that about one half century more will bring to the front the man that God has equipped to lift aloft His standard of Christian Science. 10


          The apparent aim of Mrs. Eddy’s life was for “His standard of Christian Science” to be held aloft, as provided in the two trust deeds. “Standard” is defined as:


. . . 3. Something established by authority; . . . criterion. 4. Something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure, quantity, extent, value, or quality. (Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary)


Christian Science as taught by her is the doctrine that must be monitored (maintained and protected) within the Church of Christ, Scientist, for it to grow and embrace all the churches “one by one.”





          Mrs. Eddy’s prophecies of events to take place after her departure relate to a condition without hierarchy. Her prediction in Pulpit and Press 22:9 that, “Christ will give to Christianity his new name, and Christendom will be classified as Christian Scientists,” will come to pass as the “new name” is given to Christianity. This new name is brought out in our past issues where we quote Mrs. Eddy as writing: “Mother is Christ-Mary.” 11 This is the new name for which Christianity is waiting, the second coming of Christ. (See picture insert.)


          Mrs. Eddy also envisioned the conditions which will precede this attainment in our present day. Adam H. Dickey, who joined Mrs. Eddy’s household in February 1908, and who for a time became her chief secretary to whom she often gave voice to her thoughts, writes:


    She told me that every government, every organization, every institution of whatever kind or nature, to be successful, must have one responsible head.


    This is why she placed herself at the head of her own Church, because mortal mind could not be trusted to conduct it. This is why she did away with First Members, and later Executive Members, for to place enactments of holy inspiration in the hands of groups of individuals was to incur the possibility of the Divine idea being lost sight of, and human wisdom taking its place. This is also why she reduced the authority of the conduct of The Mother Church into the narrowest possible compass. Indeed, she told me, with pathos and earnestness, that if she could find one individual, who was spiritually equipped, she would immediately place him at the head of her government. Asking me to take a pencil she slowly dictated the following, as I wrote it down: “I prayed God day and night to show me how to form my Church, and how to go on with it. I understand that He showed me, just as I understand He showed me Christian Science, and no human being ever showed me Christian Science. Then I have no right or desire to change what God has directed me to do, and it remains for the Church to obey it. What has prospered this Church for thirty years [i.e., 1879-1909] will continue to keep it.”


    It was her child, her offspring; and her constant concern, day and night, was what was to become of this Cause. Those of her followers who were present in her home can testify to her anxious thought in this direction. On several occasions, when she was trying to get her followers to see the import of this and what it meant, she would say, with a gesture of despair, “What is to become of this Cause?” And again, when troubled about the future of the Cause she would say, “If error can do this to me, what is it going to do to you?” She saw the possibility of future attacks of mortal mind upon her beloved Church and her constant anxiety was for its preservation and future unfoldment. 12




          The word “loyal” appears twenty-one times in the Church Manual by Mary Baker Eddy. In Miscellaneous Writings it appears fifteen times. Loyalty with its unswerving allegiance and faithfulness is essential in Christian Science, but to what or to whom are Christian Scientists to be loyal? It should be remembered that Mrs. Eddy placed the cross and crown seal on all of her writings and on the periodicals. But she never placed it on the Manual. It was placed there six years after Mrs. Eddy’s departure by the Directors, strengthening the allegiance of the members to their authority.


          In her latter years officials of the church tried “to get Mrs. Eddy to remove her name from [the] Manual in places where her consent was demanded,” (see page14, Part I) but she refused. Had she done so she would have in effect made the Directors her successors.


          To what, then, are Christian Scientists today supposed to be loyal? To Mr. Kimball — or to Mrs. Eddy? Is the loyal Christian Scientist one who sticks to a church government that has breached its trust for sixty years and cannot reverse its direction? Is the loyal Christian Scientist one who refuses to lay off organization even though Mrs. Eddy says that not to do so — even after it has served all of its useful purposes — retards spiritual growth? 13




          Adherence to the purpose and mission of Mrs. Eddy’s two trust deeds and promoting Christ’s new name is the mission of the Christian Science Endtime Center.


          We are committed to the reversal of the direction of the graph shown on page 1, by promoting and advancing Mrs. Eddy’s school of Christian Science teaching and of advancing the recognition of her place in Scriptural prophecy.


          Our Center and supporters, carrying on the work of Mrs. Knott and Judge Hanna, must be recognized as the agent for this restoration of the sole mission of the trust deeds. Before Christendom can be classified as Christian Scientists in the United States, Christian Scientists will have to return to Mrs. Eddy’s teaching. We cannot be by-passed in the corrective process, for our Center is the only agency which fulfills Mrs. Eddy’s predictions for the future “monitor” and rallying point which was to occur after her lifetime.


          The first definition of “standard” reads as follows:


1. A conspicuous object (as a banner) formerly carried at the top of a pole and used to mark a rallying point, especially in battle, or to serve as an emblem. (Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary)


The Standard which our Center has lifted aloft is that rallying point. Once rallied, the plunge on the graph will necessarily stop and reverse direction.




          The Christian Science Endtime Center has been dedicated to upholding Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy as the woman “God-crowned” of Revelation 12, — the second appearing of Christ in the flesh. And we have been devoted to maintaining, preserving and promoting Christian Science “as taught by her.” 14


          We are not merely an information group; we are a reformation and restoration group. Christendom has entered a new era in which a higher concept of Christ as revealed to St. John in Revelation as the woman “God-crowned,” — the Lamb’s wife, “two individual natures in one,” — can be understood and accepted. We see no other possible way for Christendom to be classified as Christian Scientists unless there is an awakening and a reformation among the ranks of Christian Scientists. To this end, we are urging Christian Scientists to rally “to lift aloft His standard of Christian Science,” 15 that is, to restore the recognition and acceptance of Mrs. Eddy’s place in Bible prophecy as the second appearing of Christ, and to restore her teachings, — Christian Science as taught by her in the Massachusetts Metaphysical College in the 1880s.


1 From a report of the Association Meeting held September 2, 1939, and personally signed by the teacher, Hermann S. Hering, CSB. Prof. Hering was an effective and much-loved teacher of Christian Science, and was appointed by Mrs. Eddy in 1902 to be First Reader of The Mother Church. He had been a Professor of Electrical Engineering at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.


2 Braden, Christian Science Today, p. 328.


3 Ibid., p. 328.


4 Under the Church Manual provision for "Church Discipline," (Article XI, Sect. 4; Article XII; Article XXV, Section 9).


5 The original letter is on file at the Endtime Center.


6 Only Part 1 of the interview was reprinted in the Christian Science Sentinel and in Miscellany.


7 Miscellany, p. 342:19-10.


8 Part 2 of Joseph Clarke’s report of the interview was published five days later in The New York Herald, May 5, 1901, p. 8.


9 Christian Science Sentinel, Vol. 3, No. 38, May 23, 1901, p. 604.


10 Gilbert C. Carpenter, ed., Divinity Course and General Collectanea, ("Blue Book"), p. 97. First published by John V. Dittemore in The Christian Science Watchman, January 1928. Later published in Since Mrs. Eddy by Altman K. Swihart (New York: Henry Holt & Co.,1931), p. 305.


11 Watches, Prayers, Arguments (Given to Students by Mary Baker Eddy) (Providence: The Carpenter Foundation, privately printed, 1950); reissued by The Bookmark, P O Box 801143, Santa Clarita, CA 91380, p. 54.


12 Adam Dickey, Memoirs of Mary Baker Eddy (Brookline: Published by Lillian S. Dickey, 1927), pp. 115-117.


13 Mary Baker Eddy, Miscellaneous Writings, pp. 358:30-14; 91:4; 144:32-5; 274:1-4; Retrospection and Introspection, p. 47:1-11.


14 Proceeding in Equity (Boston: The Christian Science Publishing Society, 1921), p. 1171.


15 See page 13 of this Standard.