Christian Science Monitor: a socially acceptable source among conservative Christians?

Monitor Ownership One cannot turn a blind eye to the ownership of any media output. This newspaper is an offshoot of the Christian Science religion. And one cannot escape the thought that some of its beliefs creep into its printing.

I.M. Haldeman wrote a book,Christian Science in the Light of Holy Scripture (Fleming H. Revell Co. 1909, 441 pp.). He compared the Christian Science beliefs with the Bible in all its major doctrines. And came to the definitive conclusion that the organization was neither Christian nor Science.

Modern medical science has left their doctrines in the dust, and the modern pharmaceutical industry would belie most of their assertions! Pain and suffering (and matter) are not illusionary after all.

Massive amounts of political, economic, international news reporting, etc. all rest on their faulty foundation of truth. Their editorials are one perspective, but should be read cautiously, and compared with other reliable media. A conservative Christian should not consider it something to promote since its fundamental teachings are glaringly anti-Christian! Paying for a subscription would be better spent elsewhere.

Frame challenge: Using your criteria,you almost cannot find a source.

The reality is that Wikipedia's list of Reliable Sources skews very left/secular, and self-perpetuates its bias. "Our reliable sources said x, your source says y, therefore not reliable". It's a flawed design which allows self perpetuating groupthink. Memes showing how articles on topics change overnight as soon as they become germane to a political controversy are popular among conservative audiences (and rightly so).

Any right leaning news source quickly contradicts CNN or MSNBC at some point and is eliminated. Last time I looked, several years ago, they had eliminated Fox News for any current politics and were openly discussing how all papers belonging to Richard Murdoch should be delisted.

On matters of religion, you have only to read most (not all) articles on any intersection of Christianity and social issues or Bible interpretation and you'll find emotive language,snarl words, weasel words, as well as fringe secular academics. Look at any prominent conservative Christian person's page and the 'Controversies' section will dominate the article (but never for a progressive).

On many biblical topic where Jews and Christians disagree about a bible verse, the Jewish view is presented as fact.

I suggest that you find primary sources and argue from there. The CSM is owned by a heretical denomination, as seen by any of the traditional tests of orthodoxy.

Let's back up and look at your stated goal (at least what prompted you to ask the question)

The issue is that she believes we are in the end times and her need to inform herself about anything and everything which could herald the end times has become insatiable.

There's a theological component here. Your mother is absorbed with eschatology, and you want to have (at least ostensibly) a leg to stand on in talking to her about other issues, but without besmirching Christianity. I'm not sure the Christian Science Monitor gets you there.

The news portion is quite good. And it definitely is not heavily dogmatic like, say, The Christian Science Sentinel is. That doesn't mean it's dogma free, however. It still publishes pieces espousing Christian Science. Granted, that is an opinion piece, but the larger issue for you is that Christian Science says some things that mainstream Christians would find anathema to their own beliefs. Mary Baker Eddy wrote a book that says some rather interesting things about The Bible

The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and should not be considered Holy Writ; the Science obscured manifest mistakes in the ancient versions; 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.

The voting part is a reference to the Council of Nicea, but the latter part seems to indicate Eddy believed there were mistakes in Scripture. There's some other theological differences as well with this being a pretty big one (quote from Eddy herself)

Jesus is the human man, and Christ is the divine idea; hence the duality of Jesus the Christ

So... Christ wasn't actually God incarnate? That's a pretty important Christian tenet.

The problem you're going to face is that people are going to have a hard time believing that CSM isn't trying to smuggle bad theology in somewhere. A similar concern happened recently when The Chosen TV series (produced by two Mormons) was thought to be smuggling in Mormon theology. A quote from an unsourced Twitter user said

Another said, “It would be disingenuous to assume that Mormon theology has no impact” on the series. 

I'm not saying The Chosen is actually smuggling in Mormon theology (the case they make is pretty weak for that), but the fact that they are Mormon and said something not strictly in line with the Bible has given the story some legs. It's not unreasonable to assume that many mainstream Christians would view CSM the same way.

Everyone lies on somewhere of the political psychological spectrum of being left wing or right wing. Some are too devoted to the government, and some are too rebellious, supporting individualism and freedom. The recent couple of years have proven to be the fulfilment of all global conspiracy theories in front of our eyes. The agenda of WEF Schwab, Bill Gates is not a matter of conspiracy or speculation any more, but an open transparent, honest agenda in which the global control keeps growing rapidly and suddenly. I encourage you to watch related documentaries on Rumble, and join Twitter to gain some controversial knowledge, keep yourself updated with the best reliable sources on either sides.

End times, secret rapture are the typical beliefs of American Christians. Their religion revolves more around the "end times" headlines paranoia, than spiritual relation with God. I suggest you to discuss with her on specific issues based on reason. The notion of global end times has been believed throughout generations, and it shouldn't be taken in an absolute sense. You should just make sure that she doesn't take some radical step out of superficial paranoia and anxiety.

Regarding CSmonitor site. There is no monopoly on truth, there is no standard global fact checker. You cannot limit your knowledge on one tiny website. It could be biased in any direction. No man is right on every single view. So, trusting on any fact-checker is useless. Focus on reason, logic and faith in God's teachings to be confident in the troublesome times ahead.

[Matt 6:25-34 NHEB] Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? See the birds of the sky, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of much more value than they? "And which of you, by being anxious, can add one cubit to his height? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow. They do not toil, neither do they spin, yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his glory was not dressed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today exists, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, won't he much more clothe you, you of little faith? "Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What will we eat?', 'What will we drink?' or, 'With what will we be clothed?' For the unbelievers seek after all these things, for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Christian Science Monitor: a socially acceptable source among conservative Christians?

There is no reason (other than unreasonable fears caused by their own prejudices) why anyone would object to this publication.
(Do you refuse to donate items to the Thrift Shop because it is run by a religious organization (The Salvation Army)?)

The Christian Science Monitor happens to be published by a religious organization for the purpose of providing suitable world news to their members (and the rest of the world), but that doesn't mean that it is used by that organization to bias that reporting or that its articles are intended to change the religious views of other readers.

Their staff seem quite reputable, and have received seven Pulitzer Prizes while writing for the Monitor, a strong indication of their reliability.

Reporting

Despite its name, the Monitor is not a religious-themed paper, and does not promote the doctrine of its patron, the Church of Christ, Scientist. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a religious article has appeared near the end of every issue of the Monitor.

The paper has been known for avoiding sensationalism, producing a "distinctive brand of nonhysterical journalism". In 1997, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a publication critical of United States policy in the Middle East, praised the Monitor for its objective and informative coverage of Islam and the Middle East.

During the 27 years while Nelson Mandela was in prison in South Africa after having been convicted of sabotage, among other charges, The Christian Science Monitor was one of the newspapers he was allowed to read. Five months after his release, Mandela visited Boston and stopped by the Monitor offices, telling the staff "The Monitor continues to give me hope and confidence for the world's future" and thanking them for their "unwavering coverage of apartheid". He called the Monitor "one of the more important voices covering events in South Africa".

During the era of "McCarthyism", a term first coined by the Monitor, the paper was one of the earliest and most consistent critics of US Senator Joseph McCarthy.

In 2006, Jill Carroll, a freelance reporter for the Monitor, was kidnapped in Baghdad, and released safely after 82 days. Although Carroll was initially a freelancer, the paper worked tirelessly for her release, even hiring her as a staff writer shortly after her abduction to ensure that she had financial benefits. Beginning in August 2006, the Monitor published an account of Carroll's kidnapping and subsequent release, with first-person reporting from Carroll and others involved.

— The Christian Science Monitor - Wikipedia

Compare the reliability and bias of the CSM with some other popular media sources, as shown in Ad Fontes Media's Media Bias Chart:

Its political bias is small, and its reliability is second only to PBS News (which is more than twice as far to the left).

This news organization should be praised for its value, not undeservedly slammed by someone that disagrees with the religion of its owners.

(And for the record, I don't hold, and never have held, the beliefs of that parent organization.)

Christian Science Monitor: a socially acceptable source among conservative Christians?

The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the Christian Science church.

Many Christians would not consider The Christian Science Monitor (CSM), an acceptable source for Christian information.

It was founded by Mary Baker Eddy who was in fact a Unitarian, a Spiritualist (who received "spirit communications" from her deceased brother Albert and took part in séances).

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, neither Unitarians, the Church of Divine Science, the Apostolic Church or the Church of Christ, Scientist (“Christian Scientists”) are recognized as Christian denominations because either their baptisms are invalid or they do not have baptisms at all. See: Valid-Invalid Baptisms

The vast majority of Christian denominations and Christians are trinitarian and as such would not agree with what The Christian Science Monitor professes.

What do Christian Science believe?

Here are nine things you should know about Christian Science.

1. The ‘science’ of Christian Science is spiritual healing.

2. Christian Scientists claim to have no doctrines—though they do have six tenets.

1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.

2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God’s image and likeness.

3. We acknowledge God’s forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.

4. We acknowledge Jesus’ atonement as the evidence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man’s unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and death.

5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to understand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.

6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.

3. Their ‘pastor’ is not a human, but a pair of books.

For Christian Scientists, the ultimate textual authority is not the Bible but Eddy’s Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.

4. Christian Scientists distinguish between Jesus and Christ.

For Christian Scientists, Jesus was a man who lived in first-century Palestine and Christ is the name for a certain divine idea: “Jesus is the human man, and Christ is the divine idea; hence the duality of Jesus the Christ.” The invisible Christ (“the ideal Truth, that comes to heal sickness and sin through Christian Science”) became perceptible in the visible Jesus, who was a mere man and demonstrated the divine idea. Eddy once said, “If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me.”

5. Christian Scientists deny the Trinity and replace the person of the Holy Spirit with ‘divine Science.’

In Science and Health, Eddy denies the historic doctrine of the Trinity: “The theory of three persons in one God (that is, a personal Trinity or Tri-unity) suggests polytheism, rather than the one ever-present I AM.” In place of this concept, Eddy outlines her version of the triune God:

Life, Truth, and Love constitute the triune Person called God,—that is, the triply divine Principle, Love. Divine trinity They represent a trinity in unity, three in one,—the same in essence, though multiform in office: God the Father-Mother; Christ the spiritual idea of sonship; divine Science or the Holy Comforter. These three express in divine Science the threefold, essential nature of the infinite.

6. Christian Scientists believe that matter—and sin—are illusions.

7. Most people only know of Christian Scientists because of their Reading Rooms and their newspaper.

Two institutions most associated with Christian Science are Reading Rooms and The Christian Science Monitor. The Manual of The Mother Church directs that “each church of the Christian Science denomination shall have a Reading Room” and that “literature sold or exhibited in the reading rooms of Christian Science Churches shall consist only of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy, and other writings by this author; also the literature published or sold by The Christian Science Publishing Society.” The sect describes a Reading Room as “a place to read, pray, and get inspired” and “a space where many have been healed by studying the lessons of the Bible and nurturing a connection with God.”

8. Christian Scientists helped create religious exemptions for medical-neglect laws.

9. Christian Scientists can take medicine, visit doctors, and don’t necessarily oppose state-mandated vaccinations.

Spiritual healing is a core teaching of Christian Science. Yet while Christian Scientists are discouraged from using medicine or seeking health care from a doctor, it is not necessarily forbidden by the religion. The official position of the sect is that it is a matter of individual conscience. On the issue of vaccine mandates, the official position of the sect is it has “appreciated vaccination exemptions and sought to use them conscientiously and responsibly, when they have been granted.”

Hendersonville Presbyterian Church does not mix their words either. Christian cults have been around since ancient times. The Early Church saw Gnosticism in the 2nd century, then Docetism, Marcionism and Ebionites. Nowadays we have Christian Science!

Christian Science officially known as “The First Church of Christ, Scientist.”

The principles of Christian Science are not admitted by the Christian Churches and sects” because of its teachings on the unreality of matter, sin, and suffering.

Key points

• “Sin, illness, and disease are all illusions of the mind to be corrected by right thinking.” Their doctrine emphasizes healing of the mind and body.

• Suffering and death are the effects of false thinking.

• Jesus (who is not the Christ but was a very good man) revealed to people of his day their illusion of illness and thus cured them. Only God is real; all else is an illusion.

• Jesus didn’t suffer on the cross, was not physically resurrected, and will not return.

• Heaven and hell are simply states of one’s mind.

• Jesus was not God because God is perfect. All humans are less than perfect, therefore God could never have come to us as simply a man.

• “Genesis 2 is a lie; the virgin birth was a spiritual idea; the Trinity is pagan;...prayer to forgive sin is pointless.”

Christian Cults Then and Now

The vast majority of conservative Christians would not put any stalk into what the Christian Science Monitor has to say. It does not always pass the smell test for journalism on religious topics.

“Christian Science" is an oxymoron in the sense that "Christian" implies some form of dogma and set of beliefs to be adhered to, while "Science" is a method that does not and cannot have a strict dogma. Unfortunately, it's an oxymoron that has attracted a sizable following (which isn't entirely surprising, since the "Science" part of the name was tacked on to gain credibility). Contrary to the name, followers of "Christian Science" do not actually believe in science — or even, it would seem, their own senses, since they specifically deny any evidence which contradicts their interpretation of the Bible. There are also some who would doubt that their religion is particularly Christian, but that is beyond our scope.

The following may also be of some interest:

• Monitoring the Christian Science Monitor