Our critic's assumption that the Christian Scientist in the...

Oak Leaves

Our critic's assumption that the Christian Scientist in the treatment of the sick is entirely without discrimination as to differing types of disease, and, as he puts it, sees no "difference between smallpox and pimples," is hardly warranted by the facts. However, it may be truly said that Christian Scientists do not carry the question of discrimination to the extent of saying that one class of disease may be healed by divine power, while another class may not be so cured. They find no warrant in the Scriptures for concluding that fundamental and nervous disorders may be cured by the power of God, but that organic diseases must be left to the skill of man, thereby putting human skill above the divine power. The psalmist declares that God "healeth all thy diseases," and it is not recorded that Jesus differentiated between the classes of disease in his treatment of the sick.

The success of Christian Science in the healing of physical disease seems to be the feature which is very frequently emphasized in discussions of the subject, probably for the reason that this is the phase Christian Science which at first most strongly appeals to the average investigator. However, while this successful healing of "all manner of disease" is a matter of intense interest to those who have heretofore been engaged in a desperate and unsuccessful warfare with sickness, nevertheless it is a fact that one cannot be long acquainted with Christian Science without discovering that its chief work is that of moral regeneration. Indeed, one could not possibly be healed in Christian Science without becoming, in some degree at least, less sinful. In this connection it is interesting to note that the critic often makes the mistake of supposing that Christian Science teaches that sin is "best conquered as it is ignored."

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit