Our reverend critic objects to the Christian Science teaching...

Burt LeRoy Knowles

Worcester (Mass.) Telegram

Our reverend critic objects to the Christian Science teaching regarding the unreality of matter, and states that it is not a new philosophy. We are pleased to agree with him here. The teaching that matter is not an eternal reality, is as old as the Scriptures, for we find it repeatedly set forth in them that the things which are real and eternal are spiritual, not material. Mrs. Eddy is thoroughly aware that ideas akin to this phase of Christian Science teaching have been held by some of the greatest thinkers of the ages, and she alludes to and quotes them often in her writings. But until she wrote "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," no one had been able to frame these ideas so that they could be demonstrably understood. During the past decade, however, this theory of matter has been widely accepted among the foremost natural scientists.

The gentleman adds, "Will some one tell us what a state of mind that does not exist might perhaps be." This is most easily answered by illustration. The wildly impossible ideas of a sleeper's fancy have no foundation in fact, for they immediately vanish upon his awaking. And what is the state of one's mind but the aggregate of thoughts which one is entertaining? It is one of the tenets of the Christian Science Church to strive to have in one's self the Mind "which was also in Christ Jesus"—that is, to lay hold on the ideas which he taught and demonstrated regarding the healing of sin and disease; to gain an understanding, "a systematized knowledge" of God and man's relation to him, as set forth in I John, 3:1-3.

Our critic denies us the right to apply the word "science" to our teaching about God, because it does not harmonize with the testimony of physical sense. There is not one of the sciences that does not continually oppose sense-testimony. What an inaccurate idea we would have of the phenomenon of the setting of the sun, if we relied upon what our eyes tell us! The critic seems to convey the idea that Christian Science sweeps out of the universe all materiality, supplying nothing to take its place. In this he is not clear as to the mission of this great truth. As long as we appear in the flesh, we may expect to find other forms of matter here with us also, but Christian Science teaches us how to keep matter in subjection; how not to make a god of it in any form; how to exercise our divinely given dominion over it. We affirm that all that is good and true in science and in nature, and all that tends toward the ultimate salvation of mankind, is of God and will endure forever.

The gentleman admits that cures are wrought by Christian Science, but states that other methods are just as effective. It is not consistent with the Christian Scientist's understanding of Christ's gospel of love and good will to laud his religious belief at the expense of another's. Suffice it to say, however, that the spiritual regeneration which attends the physical healing of Christian Science is ample proof of its divine nature. It is as impossible to understand, not to say explain, the exact way in which these results are obtained, without a demonstrable understanding of the truths of this Science, as it would be to teach successfully the fundamental rules of calculus without ever having solved a problem thereby.

If anybody thinks that Christian Science is pantheistic, or has any other idea of what it is, let him apply his idea to the healing of a case of any of the numberless ills that are being cured daily through Christian Science treatment. If his results are good, then he may be authorized to say that he has a correct understanding of this Science. Again, it is stated that "the most outstanding religious feature of Christian Science is the teaching that God is All." Correctly and logically understood, that is true. Indeed, the writer makes bold to assume that the reverend gentleman himself has often declared for the all-power, all-wisdom, and all-presence of God. Why does he object to the Christian Scientist's doing likewise and trying to live as if he really believed it?

He states that Christian Science fully accepted is fatal, but in the same sentence affirms that it "has been accepted by many to a degree that has brought a sense of divine harmony and heavenly calm." What are we to understand from this reasoning? Are we in danger of being overdosed with divine harmony or surfeited with heavenly calm if we accept fully that teaching, a partial understanding of which has brought the good results our critic admits?

Our brother further states that "Christian Science impresses one as being an attempt to move in opposite directions at one and the same time." It is not strange that any thus impressed are not able to arrive anywhere in investigating it. But there are several hundred thousand intelligent people who have not received this strange impression. Instead, they have experienced in large measure that peace "which passeth all understanding," and in view of the fact that the world needs more of this peace, it is certain that Christian Science will not soon be remanded to the "rubbish heap."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit