Article September 28, 1907 Issue

Our reverend critic says that good thoughts are beneficial...

Willard S. Mattox

Albuquerque (N. Mex.) Journal

Our reverend critic says that good thoughts are beneficial up to a certain point, but that they have their limitations,—that no amount of thought will set a broken leg or restore the crushed hand. It would be interesting to know how he would account for Jesus' healing. If Jesus did not heal by virtue of his good thought, how did he accomplish his cures? He did not manipulate his patients, he did not prescribe drugs nor did he perform surgical operations, and yet he restored the withered hand, healed paralysis and palsy, and raised the dead, How does our critic suppose this was accomplished? Christian Science teaches that it was the Mind of Christ which healed, and he himself said, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." The critic also says he does not believe that "attenuation of thought" would ever save a child from diphtheria or scarlet fever. I suppose he means that he does not believe spiritual remedies are adequate to protect children from the ravages of these diseases. The fact is that Christian Science has healed many such cases. Again, he says there is no Scriptural authority for believing that spiritual power is an efficacious remedy or preventive. How does he account for the story of the Hebrew children who were cast into the fiery furnace? If he believes this story and teaches it, he must account for it in some way. What preventive did Daniel use when he was cast into the lions' den? There is ample Scriptural authority for believing that faith in God and absolute reliance upon Him at all times will save men from every human vicissitude.

Christian Science does not deny the atonement, nor the need of atonement for sin, nor does it teach that sin as a human experience is a mere figment. Christian Science recognizes that in man's earthly experience sin is a sad fact which needs to be adequately dealt with. It values the atonement not as a vicarious means of rescue from sinful tendencies, but, as Paul taught, because "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." Christian Scientists believe that sin will be abolished in the individual when he no longer loves it or fears it. But if he holds it to be a reality, from the standpoint of a perfect creator, he will inevitably either love it or fear it. The basis of Christian Science teaching with regard to sin is found in the text, "Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil." If Deity, who is the sole creator, does not know or participate in sin, then this phenomenon cannot be found in His universe. This is the teaching of the Scriptures and is emphasized by Christian Science.

I may be pardoned if I suggest that a rebuke to Christian Scientists for not raising the dead does not come with good grace from any avowed disciple of our Master, who left the universal promise that all who believed on him should do the works that he did. It is true that the exponents of Christian Science do not always heal instantaneously, and that their practice is far short of the perfect standard of our Lord, but should they be reproached for their failures when they are endeavoring earnestly and honestly to imitate the Master and obey his commands? Our critic would have difficulty in substantiating his expressed belief that every one who had been healed in Christian Science could have been helped without it. If that is true, why were they not helped? The majority of those who come to Christian Science do so reluctantly, without faith in it, and after they have exhausted every possible means of relief known to the curative science.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Our reverend critic says that good thoughts are beneficial...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access