by Shirley Paulson
Don’t worry if you don’t know what docetism means. Most people don’t. But it would help Christian Scientists to know about it, because it expresses the most common distrust and disdain that many Christians feel toward Christian Scientists. It’s at the heart of the theological argument that started back in primitive Christianity and still functions today, even if the word isn’t commonly known among Christian Scientists or Christians in general.
As I suggested in my first blog on conversations with Christians, I thought it would be helpful to discuss some basic Christian concepts and history in order to know why we run into certain reactions when Christians start listening to Christian Scientists. I learned about the problem of docetism in seminary, and I’ve come to see why it colors so many of our efforts to communicate with Christians.
Let me explain a little bit about it.
Docetism (pronounced doe’-se-tizm) is a concept that came from the earliest Christian debates over the relationship between the human and divine. It means “to seem,” and it refers to the way some people thought of Jesus. That is, a Docetist would say Jesus wasn’t a real human. He just seemed to be there, but he wasn’t really there in the flesh.
We might be tempted to think that would be a crazy idea, but in fact, it came from the people who thought matter was unreal. They said matter just seemed to be real. So, for the mainstream Christians, who think God created the material world, this is an aggravating concept.
If we claim matter isn’t real, we must be saying that Jesus wasn’t real, either. Of course this would make any “good” Christian angry, because it would belittle Jesus’ sufferings and make him useless to us; he couldn’t really save us from anything on earth. It sounds like a denial of matter is a denial of Jesus.
This idea-docetism-is still here. There have been people ever since the first century after Jesus, who have believed that matter isn’t real. And every time someone tries to explain the unreality of matter, many mainstream Christians get upset. The reason? They’ve heard this argument from the beginning, and it was considered a terrible heresy.
That’s why many parents or clergy warn their children to stay away from Christian Science, when they hear that we deny matter. Those who have been warned of docetism will recognize it when they hear Christian Scientists claim the unreality of matter.
I’ve found one helpful remedy is for Christian Scientists to talk more directly about the meaning of Jesus in our lives. For example, one of our tenets concerns his crucifixion (Science and Health, p. 497).
I’m interested in hearing how other Christian Scientists express what Jesus means to them. Why is Jesus important? How does he help us? What difference does it make that “the corporeal man Jesus was human” (Science and Health, p. 332)? These ideas may help all of us deal with the accusation of docetism in our conversations with Christians who are not Christian Scientists.
Share This
I was wondering if there is a way I could subscribe to Shirley Paulson’s blog so that when she has new blogs I am alerted. I don’t necessarily want to be alerted every time there is a response to her blog; what I’m looking for is to be notified of her new blogs. Is this possible?
Thanks,
Alexis
You can subscribe to the blog RSS, which alerts you to every newly uploaded blog, but there is no way to subscribe to a specific person’s blog only. If you’d like to subscribe for notification of the new blogs, use this link:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/TmcyouthChristianScienceRssFeed
this is such a timely blog.
I had the most interesting experience this weekend on the plane. I was sitting next to the window and pulled out the Bible to read. Yhe woman next to me said “oh you’re a Christian, well I’m a Christian and the man next to me is a Christian. I looked over and the man next to here was reading a book called “The spiritual brain”. He said he was a baptist theologian flying to preach to a congregation.
In a very wise manner he said “The atheist thinks that all is matter, but the Christian believes that the world is spiritual and material.”
A bit naively I said, “Well there are some Christians that believe that life is spiritual.” With a not very warm look, he said “oh, you mean Christian Scientists” Let’s just say that our conversation didn’t go that great after that moment. No matter how I tried to engage him, I got scowls. As he left he told the woman next to me “God bless you”. And he turned his head to me with no remarks.
The woman next to me were able to talk a bit. she said she had a husband who was home bound with illness. I told her about spirituality.com.
But, I have to say I prayed often about that situation during the weekend. I could tell this man was very sincere, wise, and thoughtful. He was not a dogmatic thinker. My question was, how could I have better met him.
So during the weekend I prayed to understand how I could have been more humble. Because I believed that despite our differences, Christians recognize humility and meekness.
Well, guess what. He was on my plane on the way back. And with all humility and meekness ( I was practising all weekend long) I went up to him and said hello. Asking how his talk went. My heart went out to him because I could tell he was a bit afraid to have a conversation with a Christian Scientist. He was kind, and did his best to ask how my weekend went.
When we went to pick up our bags, again we were next to each other. I was holding a recent biography about Einstien. ( the minister was romanian). That book was nutral enough to have a plesant dialogue. and for the first time he asked about healing. From the deepest place in my heart I could tell him that for me, healing starts from the prayer that acknowledges that God is the only power, and that God is all good. Therefore, illness is illigitimate, unsactioned by God. For a moment our hearts met and I could humbly assure him that there are no limits as to what God can heal.
He then told me that he has a keen interest in where science and Christianity meets. there was a pause, and I wondered if a small light was going on that God was answering his prayer.
Shelly —
I love your experience. It sure shows even when we realize that we could do some things better, there is always the opportunity for healing and redemption.
I think it may be a bit of a stretch to suggest that mainstream Christianity’s problems with CS can be traced back to distrust of a similar first century philosophy. But if there is a continuous thread it is that people don’t like to have their concept of reality challenged because that’s what they base their lives on. If you tell them their reality is wrong, then you’re really telling them that everything they’ve lived for is wrong.
Thus I feel it is important to be patient with other’s views. As Shelly’s experience suggests, one should be gentle in approaching others with ideas they may have trouble grasping.
It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about the nature of matter itself or just the world of physical experience. Physical scientists Copernicus and Galileo and Darwin all met the same type of opposition as Jesus did because they all openly challenged the concept of reality in vogue at the time. And it goes on today. I think a lot of the turmoil in the middle east right now can be attributed to this unwillingness to grow out of old concepts of reality.
Changes in humanity’s understanding comes slowly, one step at a time. It is never something obvious that changes people’s minds. It is always some subtle anomalies that the accepted model cannot explain. When these inconstancies are investigated and explained by a new model it takes a long time to be accepted. Those who cling to the old model will do everything they can to explain away the anomalies.
For example, the subtle inconsistency that changed our view of the motions of the solar system was the occasional retrograde motion of the planets. At times they appear to move in the opposite direction from everything else in the sky. The old model of the earth being at the center of things couldn’t explain the phenomenon. Copernicus stated that the sun was at the center and that the planets merely appeared to move backwards when we passed them in our relative orbits, To explain this away, other scientists tried to suggest that they moved in circles while moving around the earth. This explanation, wrong as it was, seemed perfectly plausible and didn’t require a new concept of reality.
Today’s model of matter as the fundamental reality, or of matter and spirit as two separate things, suffers from such anomalies as the placebo effect, reported near death experiences, documented premonitions, and of course, spiritual healing. Critics try to explain them away by saying the brain merely plays tricks on one’s perceptions making it appear as if these things are really happening. Again, these explanations seem perfectly plausible and don’t require a new model of reality.
But the truth has an annoyingly (to old school thought) persistent way of making itself known in good time.
I agree with Jim. I don’t think that most other Christians even know that Christian Scientists don’t believe in matter…they just think we don’t believe in doctors (which I always think is so funny!). Maybe those in the Seminaries get this fine poiint, but do you really think this is the issue with most mainstream Christians?
In regard to docetism, I think it isn’t so much a conscious knowing on the part of those we may be speaking with, (perhaps they don’t know what docetism is at all) but it could be more just an ingrained belief. Similarly, I think some of the negative reactions to Mrs. Eddy, stem from misconceptions dating back to the yellow journalism of her day, even though a person might not have been around during that time. Just kind of a bad feeling that’s been passed down over the years, rather than something specific people think. I don’t know if I’m explaining that right. Anyway, I remember reading a comment that Alfred Farlow–the first committee on publication made. He said that he never found anyone who was opposed to Christian Science once they found out what it really was. Something like that. So, the idea of finding common ground and opening the door to clearing up ignorance about CS seems really important, doesn’t it?
I guess my experience has been really differnent. I haven’t encountered the resistance that Shelly did or had uncomfortable religious conversations. I’ve found most people–even atheists–to be open and interested in what Christian Science is. They may start off with something like the doctor thing, but we get past that quickly. I’ve never had anyone get upset with me because I’m a Christian Scientsts.
70,000 hits for “docetism” in Google — somebody out there knows this concept. And while I doubt every person skeptical of CS has this specific label in the front of his/her mind, it seems like it could be in the back. After all, CS denial of the “good parts” of matter affronts typical Christian belief, too.
Thank you Shirley P for giving shape (and name) to this barrier to understanding other viewpoints. As Robert Burns wrote, “O wad some Powr the giftie gie us, to see oursels as others see us!”
I don’t have these experiences very often either. But the one this weekend was very interesting.
I’ve been thinking about Lissa’s question, “do you really think this (docetism) is the issue with most mainstream Christians?”
While it’s true that most of them probably don’t know the word “docetism,” I find it helpful to understand what keeps perpetuating the general Christian distancing from Christian Science. Remember that most people believe and trust their teachers, parents, and clergy. And these are the people who have learned the long, centuries-old traditions of their religion.
It’s interesting to me that most mainstream Christians can’t explain why Jesus is God, or how the Holy Spirit has the same relation to the Father as does Jesus (Trinity concepts), but they believe, usually passionately, that it’s true. This is the same basis for why they recoil against any teaching that says God did not create the material world.
My reason for bringing up the issue of docetism was to give a little explanation as to why there is such historical resistance against the teaching that God’s creation is entirely spiritual. It’s more than a “logical argument.” I’ll share more in another blog the power that other Christians place in Christian history and Church doctrine.
Whether we all encounter the kind of reaction that Shelly experienced or not, we should be aware that the gentleman on the plane was expressing what “well-taught Christians” think. And the best news is that Shelly’s humility and grace is the best way to break that misinformation. Even though it might have helped to understand a little of where his disdain was coming from, the important thing is that healing comes from prayer.
There’s one more person who had a chance to confront his own misinformed fear of Christian Science. Thank you for that beautiful example, Shelly!
I think that people get scared about Christian Science, not because it bothers them that we don’t believe in matter (physical scientists don’t believe in it), but because of the whole medical care issue. My friends have been bothered by the fact that they think Christian Scientists are mandated to withhold medical care. That’s not true, but that’s what some people think.
This is interesting. I never knew any of this. Thank you for sharing what you know.
There’s a lot in the early church that resembles what we see in church today and among all Christians. The idea of docetism isn’t really new - just not particularly in the vocabulary of the Christian Scientist. Doceticism actually had a following with the Gnostics who believed evil and good to be equally real and potent. They believed the human to be evil and wanted to separate it from the good - so they considered Jesus docetic - only seemingly present in the flesh. In other words, it considers that Jesus was not fully man. To most, this takes away a crucial element of Christ Jesus. And it affectively denies the resurrection and hence promoted dualism - good and evil being equal. Yet, this is not what Christian Science does. Christian Science teaches the distinct difference between Jesus the man, and Christ - Jesus’ divine nature - or man, in God’s image and likeness. Theological issues came to a head after the last Apostle was persecuted. Then, Christians felt they should “define” their theology. Yet, here’s something interesting Mrs. Eddy writes on page 139 of Science and Health: “The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and should not be considered Holy Writ; the manifest mistakes in the ancient versons; the thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New, - these facts show how a mortal and material sense stole into the divine record, with its own hue darkening to some extent the inspired pages. But mistakes could never wholly obscure the divine Science of the Scriptures seen from Genesis to Revelation, mar the demonstration of Jesus, nor annual the healing by the prophets, who foresaw that ‘the stone which the builders rejected’ would become ‘the head of the corner’”.
In response to #12, Anonymous, I agree that more people are cautious about Christian Science because of their perceived concern about medical carelessness, than because of their philosophical views on matter. But all the more reason it might be helpful to humanity if Christian Scientists were to focus their emphasis on true Christianity. Others might ultimately conceive of health as a Christian phenomenon, rather than a medical measurement.
Christian Scientists who are aware of the issues in Christianity are able to communicate the safety and spiritual joy of Christian healing in a whole different context. For instance, if Christians knew that Christian Scientists love Jesus and seek to follow him, then it would be easier to explain why a Christian Scientist seeks “first the kingdom of God.” Better questions would surface in our conversations, because they would relate to a practical and spiritual understanding of Jesus’ directions to his disciples.