Article October 3, 1903 Issue

Surface Criticism

CLARENCE A. BUSKIRK

South Bend (Ind.) Times

Will you kindly give me space to reply to Dr. Kilmer's criticism of Judge Hanna's recent lecture on Christian Science in your city?

Dr. Kilmer first argues against Judge Hanna's statement that sickness is the result of sin; and the doctor seeks to make his objections more acceptable by applying them to the case of "children too young to know right from wrong." It is clear that the critic has wholly misunderstood Judge Hanna's meaning. He has forgotten the necessity for always keeping to clear and strict definitions in all abstract reasoning, and has wholly misunderstood the true definition of sin and sickness as stated by Judge Hanna from the Christian Science standpoint. He has, instead, suffered himself to fall into a want of clear thinking, and has been led by his outraged sense of justice to devote to Christian Science some pretty harsh language, whereas what he is berating is not Christian Science at all, but an odious theological dogma which has somehow got mixed up in his beliefs. As briefly as I can, I shall try to make these distinctions clear.

The theological dogma teaches that God created sin and sickness. Christian Science denies this; recognizes God as the supreme source of all good, and that it is unthinkable that God's omnipotent rule of law and order is broken by His own creations of discords such as sin and sickness. Christian Science teaches that atheism is the only logical outcome unless we accept the scriptural statement, "And God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Surface Criticism

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access