"In the theological structure of the Christian Science religion, ... Gnosticism was revived and Mrs. [Mary Baker-] Eddy became it's twentieth century exponent" (Martin, 1985:378). This quote from The Kingdom of the Cults encapsulates the thesis of this paper, with the addition that whereas the central tenet of Gnosticism was in obtaining secret knowledge resulting in salvation, Christian Science focuses primarily on Healing and the Mind. Within these systems Jesus is denied both Humanity and Deity, He is reduced to a mere less than divine figure.

In one sense the question is a restatement of the Preachers' words from Ecclesiastes 1:9,10,

"That which has been is what will be, that which is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it may be said, 'See, this is new'? It has already been in ancient times before us."

There seems to be biblical precedent for accepting that many of the beliefs present within this contemporary era were already present "... in ancient times before us." This is clearly seen in the relationship between Gnosticism and the relatively recent cult movement - Christian Science. An important factor in this relationship is the "cult" dimension, for as will be discussed the distinguishing difference between orthodoxy and "cult" doctrine (as understood by orthodoxy) ultimately comes down to a perception of the Works, Words and Person of Jesus Christ. This is what Paul calls, "another Jesus ... a different gospel .." (2 Corinthians 11:4), and as such, this issue needs addressing in light of the question. Martin (1985:379) asserts that this other Jesus of Christian Science is the Gnostic Jesus, who is merely a principle.

The emergence of the Christian Science phenomenon highlights in certain ways just how paltry people in essence have changed in light of the Gnostic attempt to satisfy answers to pressing "need to know" questions back in the second century. Mary Ann Morse Baker sought medical assistance for a spinal illness in 1862, she went to a "spiritual healer" who's name was Phineas Parkhurst Quimby who practiced a mind-over-matter technique to overcome sickness which he called Christian Science (Larson, 1982:131). As a result of her "healing" Baker, in 1875, published her work Science and Health. Research scholars have convincingly showed that her publication was mostly plagiarised from Quimby's own perception and understanding of evil, sickness, sin and God. It was not surprising to discover that many of his ideas were extremely Gnostic in their content. In spite of this in 1879 the Church of Christ Scientist was officially incorporated (Ibid:132). Both Quimby and Baker were liberally syncretistic in developing their systems - which in itself is quite characteristic of Gnosticism -, as Laffins' (1993:51) character Wade is quick to point out,

'Gnosticism was a syncretistic, eclectic phenomenon which combined aspects of philosophy with elements of various Eastern religions, including Judaism and Christianity'.

Such has been the resultant Christian Science system with the dominant ideas being drawn from Gnosticism, Christianity, and Eastern religious thought.

There is a great deal to do with the origin of evil in much Gnostic thought (Ferguson, 1993:290), and this too is given substantial attention in Baker's writings. This point is important when observing the popularity of such beliefs as Gnosticism and Christian Science. Dowley (1990:97) says of Gnosticism, "it offered explanations of the evil and confusion of the world and the human race, and a way of escape which led back to humanity's spiritual home". This is the one dominant similarity between these two systems, that is, they appealed to the deepest need within man - alleviate my suffering. As it is an appeal to the emotions the actual doctrines are "not overtly evident to the casual observer" (Larson,1982:132).

In comparing the similarities of the two system what becomes most evident is the emphasis of spirit and matter, along with the concept of good and evil. How the two systems interpret their understanding of these issues will be discussed in the next section, yet that they are foremost in each schema is certain.

It is clear that both have a preoccupation with the problem of evil (Ferguson,1993:291), yet whereas Gnosticism lays the responsibility of this on "lower" deities, Christian Science is underpinned "with the Hindu concept of an evil, illusory, material world" (Larson,1982:133). More so for Christian Science it is through these "glasses" that their worldview is formulated. This ultimately led to a predominantly "negative evaluation of the material world" (Ferguson,1993:290) observable in both schema's. The Gnostic is quite firm on the understanding that the present world is without meaning for him and demanded that he separate himself far from it (Lohse,1976:259), Christian Science ultimately attempted to completely ignore it's presence . The premise of both schema's digress through to certain corollaries. If the world is not important to the Gnostic and a mere illusion to the Christian Scientist then there will be a strong sense of being alienated totally from it (Ferguson,1993:291). This in turn led to a form of extremism which manifested itself mostly in asceticism (Ibid). Some Gnostics believed that this would "effectively deny the reality of their bodily human existence" (Drane,1986:22). This held true also for the Scientist who would not seek medical assistance at even the cost of their own lives choosing rather to believe that their pain, and even the pain of someone they loved, was in no way real.

The tenets expressed above could best be interpreted as tenets of praxis (ultimately) for they affected the way these people lived their lives. Yet there are also tenets of belief specifically concerning theology proper and christology which are similar to both schema's. Concerning God, Mary Baker says,

The Jewish tribal Jehovah was a man-projected God, liable to wrath, repentance, and human changeableness (Martin,1985:139).

The distinction between the God of the OT not being the same God in the NT was propounded in the early Gnostic writings of Marcion. He believe that Yahweh was an evil god (later Gnostic writers identified him with the Demiurge), and that the Father whom Jesus came to reveal was a good and all-loving God . Marcion didn't believe that Jesus was actually born, but simply appeared at the beginning of His ministry at Capernaum, he couldn't accept that Christ's experiences and sufferings as a man were real, he believed they were only apparent. The body was some temporary home to him and the only aspect of person to remain was the soul and the spirit, he therefore rejected the bodily resurrection of Christ (Dowley, 1990:104-105). In light of this Baker has some interesting statements, she tells us that,

... the so-called pains and pleasures of matter were alike unreal to Jesus; for He regarded matter as only a vagary of mortal belief, and subdued it with this understanding (Martin,1985:139).

To this is added her belief that, "...; Christ did not die; His resurrection was spiritual and not physical; ..." (Larson,1982:133). This point is further compounded by the Nag Hammadi tractates and codices, particularly "The Letter of Rheginos", possibly by Valentinus, which claims that the resurrection was not an actual physical event (Dowley, 1990:97).

Because of this separation between spirit and matter Baker states concerning the incarnation that,

A portion of God could not enter man; neither could God's fullness be reflected by a single man, else God would be manifestly finite, lose the deific character, and become less than God (Martin,1985:139).

She further asserts that no-one - Christ included - has a real body of flesh and bones, which is a direct contradiction to Scripture (Ibid:379). This is known as the Gnostic heresy Docetism (to seem or appear to be) which couldn't accept that a human could reveal the essential character of God, therefore they asserted that Jesus only seemed to be human but was not a real human (Drane,1986:458).

Although the two schema's are very similar, on closer examination it can be shown that in certain ways they are also somewhat distinct. The most dominant difference being the main emphasis of each. Ferguson (1993:291) explains that within Gnosticism there is great attention given to the desire for special knowledge and secrets. This is further defined by The Gospel of Truth which is more of a "mediation on the truth of redemption" (Ibid:283) than it is a gospel. The content focuses on the ignorant state of man and his salvation, which is obtained through special knowledge imparted by Jesus. This is in stark contrast to the Christian Science concern which is in the area of healing, it is the focus and core of all their major doctrines (Larson,1982:133).

The concept of spirit and matter is overtly evident, yet there is a different interpretation for what that exactly means in each schema. Gnosticism accepted the reality of matter and evil, seeing them primarily as deific mistakes, they were synonymous to the Gnostic, and their goal was to escape from it's grip. Christian Science has dealt with the matter of matter by merely asserting it's non-existence, and the a priori for this is a philosophical one. In Baker's publication No and Yes , she contends that her metaphysical system "rests on God as One and all, and denies the actual existence of both matter and evil ... There was never a moment in which evil was real" (Martin,1985:140). The a priori being; God is good and therefore good is God. And as Larson (1982:134) concludes, "in such a system evil cannot exist ..". The argument is wraithlike, and the perception of God pantheistic. It is tantamount to contending that as all women are human therefore all humans are women. This would not convince the male population of the world that they were in fact women, neither would it impress them. Yet the apparent logic has been accepted by millions and has given ground to confidently deny the existence and reality of matter and, consequently, evil. The pantheistic concepts sporadically interspersed throughout Bakers teaching tend to contradict her acceptance of the monotheistic God as revealed in the Bible. She states,

The Christian who believes in the First Commandment is a monotheist. Thus he virtually unites with the Jews Belief in one God, and recognises that Jesus Christ is not God, as Jesus himself declared, but is the son of God (Martin,1985:139).

The final major difference has just been alluded to in the previous section concerning the theistical perspective's. Gnosticism is clearly dualistic in its outlook on the world (Ferguson,1993:291), whereas Christian Science is somewhat more shrouded in the sense that it can give the impression that its system is purely monotheistic yet it would be more accurate to suggest that it is pantheistic. This is made evident in Baker's definition of God as ": Divine Principle, life, truth, love, soul, spirit, mind " (Martin, 1985:139). This was not so within the Gnostic system, for them "the world is ultimately divided between two cosmic forces, good and evil" (Shelley,1982:66). Their whole cosmology was based on the premise that there has been a deific digression from the perfect transcendent first Principle through myriads of Aeons through to the evil Demiurge (Ferguson,1993:291). This cosmological outlook is the basis of their dualism. It may be pertinent to suggest that Baker's system was dualistic in the sense that she divided everything into the categories of substance and illusion, where all that is incorporeal is substance and all that is sensory is illusory.

Christian Science is conceptually Gnostic in its construction. Each schema has ultimately been an attempted theodicy of some description addressing the pressing concern - alleviate my suffering. The Gnostic system focused on special knowledge as salvation to meet this need, and Christian Science focused on healing. Due to the syncretistic nature of each, Christianity has been weaved into the two schema's which has ultimately led to false teaching concerning God and Jesus Christ. There is an unequivocal denial of Christ's deity and humanity, and triunity of the Godhead (Martin,1985:145). As Shelley (1982:68) asserts,

The first major test to faith in the [Christ] Event was not denial of Jesus Christ's deity, it was rejection of His humanity.

On this most crucial point of doctrine which is a major tenet of the Christian faith, both Gnosticism and Christian Science have failed the test, for as Martin (1985:85) concludes, "the person and work of Christ is indeed the very foundation of Christian faith".

Dowley,Briggs,Linder,Wright(Ed's),A Lion Handbook: The History Of Christianity, ( Lion , 1990 ).

Drane,J., Introducing the New Testament , ( Lion , 1986 ).

Ferguson,E., Backgrounds of Early Christianity , ( Eerdmans , 1993 ).

Laffin,J., True Confessions , ( OpenBook , 1993 ).

Larson,B., Larson's Book of Cults , ( Tyndale , 1982 ).

Lohse,E., The New Testament Environment , ( Abingdon , 1976 ).

Martin,W., The Kingdom of the Cults , ( Bethany House , 1965,77,85 ).

Shelley,B.L., Church History in Plain Language , ( Word , 1982 ).

More Essays

Back to Home