Article November 6, 1909 Issue

GOD REFLECTED IN HIS CREATION

HERBERT T. PROUDFIT.

A MAJORITY of the greatest thinkers this world has produced—astronomers, scientists, and philosophers, whose utterances are regarded as authoritative—have acknowledged the necessity for a creative and governing principle in the universe. Observing the immutability of law, they have concluded that this principle must be at least mechanically intelligent. Christians call this Principle God, and ascribe additional attributes to Him. Resting their belief on the statements concerning God which have been made by the Founder of Christianity, they believe that the Principle called Love, or the highest essence of absolute good of which it is possible to conceive. Further, the Christian, still relying on the words of Jesus,—words expressing far more than mere theories, as was proved by accompanying "works,"—understands the relationship that exists between the creative Principle and its creatures to be that of parent-hood, with all that this implies of tender solicitude and affection.

In the main, these views are shared alike by both so-called orthodox Christians and Christian Scientists. It is true that the application of the word Principle to Deity is an offense to some, but schooled by the results of scientific research and philosophic analysis to realize that the "infinite and eternal energy from which all things proceed," to quote Herbert Spencer, can only be Principle, all advanced religionists must admit the correctness of the term. Beyond this point, however, the Christian Scientist proceeds alone, with the accompaniment of misunderstanding (and too often abuse) which is the invariable lot of the pioneer He believes the creator to be eternally reflected in His creation. Other Christians either do not believe this, or else they are obliged to attribute qualities to God which violate every sense of the loving and pure relationship of parenthood. To defend his position the theologian quotes passages from the Scriptures, and, it must be confessed with seeming reason, points to things as they are, or at least as they seem to be, to the material senses. To defend his position the Christian Scientist also quotes from the same authority, and then calls attention to the fact that the highest intelligences of the world have reached the conclusion that the testimony of the material senses is unreliable, in that they do not and cannot afford us any glimpse whatever of the reality lying back of the things we seem to see.

Here, then, we have two points of view,—one, supported entirely by testimony, impeached at the very outset by those who understand it best; the other, resting on logical deductions from the concept of God's nature and essence which Jesus imparted, and which is held to be correct by practically all Christian religionists. Were the case to rest here, it would not be unreasonable for the agnostic to refuse to accept either of these views. It does not, however, for, like the original promulgators of Christianity, the Christian Scientist supports his words by his works; in other words, he proves the truth of his theories by bringing forward concrete, tangible facts in the way of thousands of cures of so-called incurable diseases. It requires little thought to see which of these two opposing views honors God, that of the Christian Scientist, who believes God to be all that our fondest hopes might wish Him to be, and also believes that the creator is an ever active agent in His own creation; or that of the orthodox Christian, who believes that God either exerts little or no influence in the universe, or else is obliged to admit that He who is "of too pure eyes to behold evil," uses evil as an implement in exercising His rule.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

GOD REFLECTED IN HIS CREATION

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access