Article April 25, 1908 Issue

In proof of our statement that Christian Science is...

Rosemary O. Anderson

Torrington (Conn.) Register

In proof of our statement that Christian Science is Christianity pure and unadulterated, it is necessary to consider two points,—first, what constitutes Christianity; second, does Christian Science embody Christianity? In consideration of the first point, it is universally admitted that Christianity, to express it in the abstract, consists of the application, in the lives of his followers, of the basic truth laid down by Christ Jesus and demonstrated by him. Therefore he is most Christian who most closely obeys the commands of Christ Jesus, not only to preach the gospel but to heal the sick, and there is no Scriptural authority for divorcing these two injunctions.

In this respect Christian Scientists follow Jesus' commands more closely than the adherents of any other Christian denomination, inasmuch as they depend upon God absolutely in sickness as well as in other adversity. As Jesus employed no material means in healing sickness, nor depended upon a physical diagnosis of disease in order to cure it, so Christian Scientists are following their divine Exemplar in this respect, and even as he promised they are healing, through the realization of the truth of being, all manner of disease, whether it be mental or moral, acute or chronic, functional or organic. Like Christ Jesus, they accept the undivided garment of Truth, which does not separate the divine intervention of God in healing sickness as well as in destroying sin. Hence Christian Science embodies Christianity....

Our critic attempts to account for the great healing work of St. Paul, set forth in the Acts of the Apostles, as resulting from his close companionship with Luke the physician,—not as the beloved disciple of Jesus, who had left all to follow him, but as a doctor of medicine. That our critic did not account likewise for the wonderful works of Christ Jesus, by providing some possibility for material aid in the accomplishment of his great healing work, indicates the weakness and absurdity of his argument, since the Scriptures are filled with accounts of healing not only by Jesus and Paul, but by Peter and John and by many others. Throughout the entire gospel of Luke, in which are recounted the great works of our Master, there appears not one word to suggest that Luke believed that these wonderful demonstrations were wrought by any other power than absolute reliance upon God. Moreover, the record of the Acts of the Apostles gives no justification for the assumption of our critic that St. Paul was dependent upon Luke as a doctor of medicine, or upon any other material means, either for his own health or for the healing of others. Nor did his work consist alone in the healing of the sick, for it is recorded that he raised Eutychus from the dead; and he rebuked the materialism of King Agrippa when he said to him, "Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?"

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

In proof of our statement that Christian Science is...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access