Morality and the Tenth Commandment
This is the second in my series of Last Crusade articles examining the question: Are there areas in our lives where matters of morality might have been clear 150 years ago they are no longer clear today?
The purpose of this inquiry is not to point fingers or assign blame but to examine our own conscience with an end to discovering whether there might be moral laws that we are unknowingly breaking—that a moral person would have viewed differently in Mary Baker Eddy’s day—which could interfere with our ability to heal through prayer.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I am going to examine the Ten Commandments in reverse order.
The Tenth Commandment:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. (Exodus 20:17)
When I first began considering this topic, I actually dismissed the Tenth Commandment. “Everyone knows envy and coveting is bad,” I thought. “That hasn’t changed in a hundred and fifty years.”
Then, I prayed, asking God if I were overlooking something that I should be aware of, and I thought about what people believed 150 years ago. Two things came to mind. After I considered those two things, and several others, I realized that there was so much to say on this topic that I will have to address it in two parts.
Here is part one:
The first thing that came to mind as I prayed on this topic was a scene from the movie Cinderella Man, which is based on a true story about a boxer in the first half of the Twentieth Century. During the depression, he could not find work to support his family. Eventually, he was forced to accept government help.
Later, when his fortune changed, and he began winning bouts, he paid back the money he had been given by the government.
This scene really struck me because, today, no one would do that–pay back their "entitlements". Most people wouldn’t even hesitate to take government handouts. In fact, they demand them.
But, back in the 1800s, most people believed that accepting charity—government or otherwise—was something that you should eschew unless absolutely necessary.
The second thing that came to mind was an incident that happened last summer. A dear family member, who is known far and wide for kindness and gentleness, was discussing economics with my husband and sons. When she began speaking about the rich—and why it is justified for the government to take their money to give to others—such a look of hatred and disdain came over her face that, to this day, my husband speaks about the incident with wonder. He had never seen her, before or since, have such a nasty expression on her face.
Thinking of this incident, I recalled many others I know, including my youthful self, who are kind and loving people, but whom display antagonism toward the rich, anger at them for not sharing their weath, and I realized something that shocked me:
Coveting someone else’s things because you want to give them to another is still coveting.
If we want to take our neighbor’s donkey, we are coveting.
If our neighbor has fifty thousand donkeys, and we want to take one for ourselves, we are still coveting. We are looking to our neighbor for good instead of to God, Love, the source of all supply.
If we want to take one of those fifty thousand donkeys and give it to our other neighbor, who lives in a mud pit with only insects for companionship ( or, perhaps, food) that is still coveting.
Not only that, but here we are making two moral errors:
First, we are coveting good from our donkey-rich neighbor instead of from God
Second, we are seeing our mud-pit-dwelling neighbor as a needy mortal instead of as the image and likeness of the One Altogether Lovely—a child and heir who can expect all he needs met by Our Father.
What is more important for our particular inquiry: No normal Christian—Christian Science or otherwise—living in the 1800s would have held our modern opinion on such matters. They might have envied the rich, but they would have been aware that this was breaking the Tenth Commandment, as it would not have been couched in pleasant "help the poor" verbage.
They believed in charity and in good works, but Communism and Socialism were fringe ideas that were looked down upon. They did not believe it was right to take a rich man’s things to give to your poor neighbor.
Not only did they not generaly believe in it—it could not be easily done. There was no income tax at that time. It was still specifically outlawed by the Constitution. (This was before the Sixteenth Amendment, which altered the Constitution to allow for individuals to be taxed. There were, of course, property taxes and tariffs and such. )
Does this mean that everyone in that day and age was against the government doing good works or that we, as Christians, can never vote for such things?
No, it does not.
But, if we wish to be virtuous and just, we must examine our motives:
Are we voting for a given measure because we feel that it is okay to gouge the rich, “they can afford it,” to support the poor “who cannot fend for themselves”?
Or are we acting from a cheerful sense that we must “all chip in together” to accomplish some good?
If the first…then we are definitely breaking the Tenth Commandment.
If the second—or if we are acting under any other motive that is neither self-serving nor resentful—then we are not violating the Commandment.
Our motives are good.
(What policies we should vote for—and all other questions of what is best in politics and economics—is beyond the scope of this inquiry, which is merely an examination of personal morality.)
So, in regard to the quote I mentioned in my first post: To cure a bodily ailment, every broken moral law should be taken into account and the error be rebuked. (, pg. 392:4-5 ) One error that we must look out for, when we examine our conscience for broken moral laws, is:
Have we fallen into the error of thinking that it is okay to covet, so long as we do not want our neighbors belongings for ourselves?
Or worse, have we forgotten that wanting to take a rich man’s things—no matter how rich he is, no matter how big the company—for ourselves?
If so, this error must be addressed before we can expect the kind of quick demonstrations of healing through prayer that were common in the early days of the Christian Science movement.
Here ends part one. Next time, a brief look at a second, quite different, aspect of coveting present in modern society.
(For those who are not familiar with the general subject, here is an examples of the early healing power of Christian Science:
From Christian Science In Germany by Frances Thurber Seal
A young American lady who was studying singing in Dresden and who took her meals at this pension, had a copy of Science and Health, and was most interested to meet someone who could tell her more about Christian Science. On Sunday morning after my arrival I went to her room and we read the Lesson together.
When we had finished, we sat talking, and presently there was a rap at the door and another American lady entered, saying that she was looking 12 13 for a Christian Scientist. She stated that she was a cousin of Mark Twain, and had witnessed the healing of his daughter from tuberculosis through the ministrations of Christian Science many years before. A young Russian girl who was living in the pension with her was in great trouble because of some serious illness which had come upon her. The girl was studying for the Royal Opera in Moscow, and the physicians had just informed her that she could not sing again for three-quarters of a year, and probably never. She was in despair, and this kindly American lady asked the hostess the cause of her sorrow. When told that there was no human help for the girl, this lady remembered the healing that Christian Science had brought out in her family so long before, and she went to the American church to inquire of the rector if there was a Christian Science healer in the city. He said he knew of no one, but that a young music student had told him she was interested in Christian Science, and he thought she would know if there were any Christian Scientists in the city. He gave her the address of the young woman, and she came in at the close of this, our first Sunday service. She announced that she was looking for someone to heal this sick girl, and my hostess said at once, “Here is a lady whom God has sent to heal the people.”
Arrangements were made, and early Monday morning the Russian girl came to my pension. As she spoke only Russian and I knew only English, I Christian Science in Germany called for my hostess, who talked with the girl at considerable length. Then, turning to me with a surprised look, she related just about what the American lady had told me the day before. I asked her to tell the girl to be seated, and I sat down to give my first treatment in Germany. My hostess then retired. I knew nothing of the method of a Christian Science treatment, but turned to God for wisdom, and as I saw the omnipotence of God, the error quickly vanished from my thought. I arose and said goodbye to the young girl. She came every morning for five days. On the fifth day she talked quite volubly, and I again called for my hostess to ascertain what she was saying. The young girl said she was perfectly well, and had been so since the first treatment, and had been singing as she usually did. When asked why she had not said so, she said she did not realize that she should tell me and it made her happy to come.
She then asked if she could come again at Easter. When I asked why, she said she would have her examinations at that time, and if she should pass, her father would permit her to finish her studies and prepare for her opera engagement, but if she were to fail, she must go home and give up her career. I thought I understood what she meant, but wanted her to express it, and said to our interpreter, “Ask her what I have to do with that.” With a radiant face the young girl replied: “Nothing but fear could make me fail to pass my examinations, and I have 14 Christian Science in Germany 15 had no fear since the lady first spoke to God about me; I cannot know fear if she will pray for me.” She had been told nothing of Christian Science; all that had been said to her, aside from asking her to be seated, was that she might come each day until she was entirely healed. Certainly, this was a demonstration of what our Leader means when she says that Christian Scientists should teach “by healing” (Misc. Wr. 358:4), for this girl learned that it was God who had healed her, and that “perfect love casteth out fear.”
A remarkable thing in connection with this incident was that my hostess, Miss Cotton, was born in Russia and lived there the first twenty-five years of her life. She was the only English lady I met in Europe who knew the Russian tongue. It was her native tongue, although she was an English citizen. That I should be a guest in her house when this girl came to me was positive evidence of divine guidance. The girl’s name was Felicita, which means “joy.” This was a happy augury
