Article February 12, 1903 Issue

Clerical Misapprehension

T. R. Hinsdale

Butte (Mont.) Miner

Mr. Editor.

We note the comments in your columns of the reverend critic who says that "if Christian Science was simply a method of healing the sick, ministers would probably consistently ignore it. But it claims to be a religion." Certainly he is aware what religion is. Webster defines religion as follows: "The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of a God. ... It means the conscious relation between man and God, and the expression of that relation in human conduct." Can our friend expect the word to be restricted to his finite concept of what he thinks religion to be, and then, not satisfied with that, go on and declare all outside of that opinion to be outside the pale of religion because they claim the privilege of worshiping God according to the dictates of their own conscience?

The statement of our reverend critic that food, enjoyment, music are naught, is erroneous, for Christian Scientists have common sense of the most practical kind, and get more solid enjoyment out of life than the generality of mankind. They eat three meals a day, sleep, and wear clothes like other human beings. Again, I would quote from Science and Health, page 461: "I do not maintain that you or I can exist in the flesh without breath, food, and raiment, but I do believe that man is immortal, and that he lives in Spirit, and forever." Also page 254: "To stop eating, drinking, or being clothed materially, before the spiritual facts of existence are gained step by step, is not legitimate."

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

The Saviour from all Ills