Article March 24, 1906 Issue

After All, Why Not?

SAMUEL GREENWOOD.

In view of the continued suffering of the race, and of the undoubted evidence which Jesus gave of the power of Christianity to destroy both sin and disease, one might well ask why Christian Science should not be admitted to be true and capable of fulfilling its promises, notwithstanding the incredulity it has encountered and the discredit which some have sought to place upon its healing and redemptive work. What is there about the teaching of Christian Science that ought not to be true, or that is inimical to the well-being of humanity, or that brings dishonor upon Christianity? What part of its exalted morality, its sublime optimism, or its practical reliance upon God, good, would sound out of place from the pulpit of any church consecrated to the redemption of mankind from evil?

Those under the control of prejudice, or influenced by beliefs that others have formulated for them, may be ready to condemn Christian Science, and to feel that they are thus doing God service; but before continuing this course, they might better, in a humanitarian spirit, inquire into the nature, tendency, and Scriptural foundation of this Science, and see whether for the good of men it ought or ought not to be true. Let them grant the case and assume Christian Science to be true, and say what result other than good could ensue from its practice. Feeling the tremendous pressure of human misery, the awful agony that darkens every day of earth, what God-fearing, humanity-loving man can lightly dismiss or decry that which holds out such hope and promise as does Christian Science, and which has done so much towards their fulfilment?

The teaching of Christian Science begins and ends with God, good, as absolute, infinite, Supreme Being, the only creator, power, or intelligence, whose ever-presence includes His entire creation, and whose law alone governs it. What Christian denomination does not stand upon this same platform as man's only hope and refuge from evil? Yet standing upon this platform, declaring with solemn lip their belief in these truths, what possible reason can they find for judging that Christian Scientists are in error because they abide literally in this Divine refuge when the storms of earthly woe would mercilessly batter and bruise and shipwreck their frail bark? These fundamental truths of Christianity are as a mariner's compass to those on the sea of mortality, for they always point Godward and guide the pilgrim into a safe haven. Why not use this compass and rely upon it, no matter from what direction the storms come, whether from sin, passion, and appetite, or from sorrow and disease, poverty and disaster? After all, brethren, why should not these things be so? Why should not that be the safest trust which always points Godward? Why should not every Christian do as Christian Scientists are doing, according to their ability and understanding,—that is, take God literally for what He is, and take nothing else? Why not?

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

Christian Science and the Higher Criticism