In the progressive steps from the old to the new, from the apparent force of might to the persuasion of right, from autocracy to democracy, from materia medica to spiritual healing, from sense to Soul, humanity moves both individually and collectively. The advancement is mental, in conformity with God's law, the outward manifestation bearing witness.
Humanity is rightfully dissatisfied with its present achievements; and many individuals, having glimpses of possibilities beyond the vision of others, have found it wise and practical to work gently with others in advocating new means and methods. "Be ye therefore perfect" is the demand of the Christ; and it is ever causing righteous desire and pure motive to be rewarded with clearer vision of the ideal man and the ideal government.
When the individual sees a new and better way of doing, the question how soon he may put it into practice naturally follows. It seems clear that if he alone be concerned in any proposed step, he is free to move according to his highest understanding of what is right. But how often is this the case? Are we not all in some degree members of society, brothers in a family, citizens of the world, members of an executive committee of workers?
The individual, whatever his station, his business, his association, or his responsibility, is called upon, at intervals, to consider and decide what the next move shall be. Often, where two or more courses are open, the one that conforms most nearly to his ideal of right is so apparent that the one for him to choose is perfectly plain. Thus, where obedience to the moral law is involved,—such as honesty, justice, order, and so on,—his choice can easily be made. But, many times, the issue is not so apparent; and he has to choose what he believes to be nearest right. Let it be remembered, however, that his freedom to carry out even his most honest conviction may be limited by the honest convictions of others concerned. Can he know, except through the process of deliberation with the others, what would be the best for all to do? The beloved and successful Leader of the Christian Science movement has spoken in no uncertain tone along this line in many places in her writings. In her book "Miscellaneous Writings" (p. 288) we read, "Wisdom in human action begins with what is nearest right under the circumstances, and thence achieves the absolute." On the following page we find, "All partnerships are formed on agreements to certain compacts: each party voluntarily surrenders independent action to act as a whole and per agreement." So, if the individual be a member of any organization, there may be rules or regulations which govern such membership, and upon obedience to which such membership depends. If he be one of the members of an executive committee, he has the duty and privilege of considering and deciding with the others, but not for them. If he be married there are certain covenants and agreements to mutual cooperation which cannot be disregarded. These are some of the ways in which humanity moves collectively; and under such conditions the individual has a great opportunity of proving his loyalty, unselfishness, and respect for the honest opinions of others.
There is recorded in the Manual of The Mother Church, in the Historical Sketch (p. 17), a statement which throws helpful light on this matter of joint progressive action. There we read: "In the spring of 1879, a little band of earnest seekers after Truth went into deliberations over forming a church without creeds, to be called the 'Church of Christ, Scientist.'"This was thirteen years after Mrs. Eddy's discovery of the truths of Christian Science. We know from her writings that the intervening years had been filled with continuous study and practice of these truths, and the consequent unfoldment of her own understanding. There can be no doubt that, as the Leader of the "little band of earnest seekers," her vision was far clearer than any of the others. What was the attitude at that meeting? They "went into deliberations." According to the dictionary, to deliberate means to weigh arguments for and against a measure. Evidently, there must have been the disposition to consider the various points of view, and act accordingly; otherwise, where was the necessity for deliberation? That a clearer unfoldment of the best means of establishing the church came later, and was expressed in joint action, is seen farther on in the same sketch, where a reorganization is spoken of. So each advancing step was taken according to the conditions and enlightenment of the time.
There are often many points of view from which to approach a subject under consideration; and the purpose of deliberation by elective and appointive bodies, as well as voluntary organizations, is to get the opinions and arguments from the different points of view together, and thus arrive at a decision for action which will be most representative of all those concerned. Where there is the disposition to give and take,—to let go, as it were, for the purpose of broadening the vision, and to consider from the others' viewpoint,— the ultimate decision is often such a blending of the proposals that each feels he has been given recognition and is satisfied with the result.
There are times, however, when the views of members are so divergent as to make them almost opposites; as, for example, when the question under consideration is whether a thing is to be done or not to be done, with no intermediate course possible. Assuming that the committee or body has been vested with authority to act, that each member has been given proper opportunity to express his views, and that the meeting has been carried on according to the prescribed regulations or rules of procedure, then the result of the vote should be considered the nearest right course for that time and under those circumstances. Then comes the test for those who have cast the minority vote. Shall they abide by the decision of the majority, and thus fulfill a fundamental of democracy? Or shall they hold that their opinions should have more weight than the majority of their equals? Will they be willing to meet their friends or constituents and say, "The committee decided to do so and so," or will pride, self-justification, self-will, and the like, cause them to say, "The others decided to do so and so, but we did not agree with them; and we are sure they have made a mistake." The latter course not only hampers collective progress by counter currents of thought and action, but shuts out the individual who follows it from the joy and helpfulness of cooperation and fellowship. If he can learn to say to himself, "All right; if such is the chosen way of the majority, I will go ahead and cooperate with them," he will have the confidence and friendship of his coworkers; and should it prove, as time goes on, that a better way becomes more apparent, he will have sacrificed nothing by working along with the majority, but will have given them the opportunity of learning of the better way, through trying out the one of their choice. Is it not frequently as progressive to learn the fruitlessness of a wrong or a less perfect way, as it is to prove the fruitfulness of the right or better way?
Should the occasion arise where one finds himself associated with others, and the majority favors action which he believes to be wrong, and should he find it impossible to continue actively to cooperate with them, is not his best course quietly to strive to realize the activity and might of Truth and Love? This will leave him free to labor in a Christianly scientific manner so that others may learn to see from his viewpoint, if it be the right one. But always he must have respect for the mental rights of his fellow-men.
There is hardly any phase of human endeavor in which men and women may not give diligent thought to this matter of harmonious joint action. It is probably true that Christian Scientists, more than any other people, welcome such opportunities, because they have learned, in some degree at least, that the divine Mind supplies the right thought,—gives the right ideas at the right time to the upright and pure in heart. They have learned that in the meeting where the false beliefs of self-importance and self-will, and the thoughts of prearrangement, have been subdued or silenced, the right ideas find freest expression, and often through those individuals—God's little ones—least thought to have been capable of their expression.
With thought quickened by the contemplation of divine Principle, Love, Christian Scientists have come to have strong convictions about the availability of good; but they have also learned that a right thing forced upon others whose spiritual understanding is less clear, may be, virtually, an unsuitable thing for that time. They know that "one on God's side is a majority;" but they also recognize the mistake of attempting to force the demonstration by any "one" assuming the prerogative of the majority.
"The government shall be upon his shoulder." This must be remembered. And may it also be remembered that between the extremes of radical and conservative thought there often lies the happy medium. The men and the women who find this way of peace on earth, and join hands in walking in it, really become the most useful and progressive members of society, and are those who are hastening the day when all men shall be of "one accord in one place,"—when all shall have yielded to the perfect government of God, shall have learned to walk in perfect obedience to divine Principle.
