A Reply in Explanation

Clarence A. Buskirk

Goshen (Ind.) Democrat

Mr. Editor.

In the News-Times of the 10th inst., a Christian clergyman of your city is reported to have declared from the pulpit that Christian Science is "from the evil one," and that "it will ultimately cause the loss of the soul." When it is considered that in the last quarter of a century nearly seven hundred Christian Science church organizations have been established in this country alone, and that several hundreds of thousands of people are now worshiping God according to the religious tenets of Christian Science, the public accusation made by the reverend gentleman must be regarded as a very grave one. It is but fair that its position should be briefly defended.

What personage stands forth in history as the great exemplar in the healing of the sick by spiritual methods without the aid of drugs or other material agencies? Jesus of Nazareth. Did he teach that he healed the sick because of special powers belonging to his own personality? No. He expressly taught that his works were of God the Father, not of himself. Did he teach, like the reverend gentleman in your city, that for others to imitate his example in the healing of sickness by spiritual methods would "Ultimately cause the loss of the soul"? No. He commanded, "Preach the Gospel," "Heal the sick." And this command was not limited to any country, or race, or generation. And he gave the inspiring promise to all: "He that believeth on me [the Christ or Christ-truth], the works that I do shall he do also."

Is it not fair to say that it seems passing strange that a Christian clergyman, in defiance of the Scripture, should declare as being "from the evil one" a practice which emanated from Jesus? Indeed, is it not fair and perfectly just for Christian Scientists to answer that such an utterance as the News-Times' columns attribute to the reverend gentleman, not only seems to be wholly devoid of the spirit of Christian kindness and tolerance, but even partakes altogether too largely of blasphemy? The most charitable way in which Christian Scientists can deal with such an utterance is to treat it as having been given forth without any thoughtful consideration, and as belonging to that chaotic oratory which proves nothing and teaches nothing. It is the reproach of such oratory that it uses assertions instead of facts, and denunciation instead of logic.

The News-Times also reports the reverend gentleman to have employed in his sermon the phrase, "spiritism, falsely called Christian Science." Spiritism is defined in the Encyclopedic Dictionary to be Spiritualism. Can it be possible that the reverend gentleman does not know that the tenets of Spiritualism and of Christian Science are wholly unlike?

If so, he is respectfully advised to read a chapter devoted to a discussion of the errors of Spiritualism in "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" by the Leader of Christian Science. Rev. Mary Baker G. Eddy. He will surely never make such an untrue statement again after reading that chapter.

Clarence A. Buskirk.
In Goshen (Ind.) Democrat.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit