Article April 24, 1909 Issue

The gentleman who is discussing Christian Science in...

Willard S. Mattox

Toronto (Ont.) World

The gentleman who is discussing Christian Science in your columns begins his article by venturing the prophecy that Christian Science "will never become popular—never become the religion of the common people." Unfortunately for his argument, the fact is that Christian Science has already become popular, and a glance at the composition of its churches will prove that it is distinctively the religion of the common people. All classes are represented in its ranks, and the reason for its popularity it that it gives results, it satisfies those who are seeking a whole salvation,—not only a surcease from sin, but a panacea for physical suffering.

Christian Science does not repudiate the Scriptures, as some of our critics would have the public believe. We simply differ in our interpretation of the Scriptures, just as Martin Luther differed from the orthodox church of his day, just as John Wesley differed from the established church of his day and just as dozens of other religious thinkers have dissented from some form or other of popular religious dogma. In attempting to understand the Scriptural exegesis of the Christian Scientists, its fundamental premises must be kept in mind. The whole teaching of Christian Science is based upon the primary statement that God is Spirit, and since God is declared in the Scriptures to be the only creator, we have in Christian Science the corollary proposition that all causation is spiritual. We have the Scriptural warrant for believing also that Spirit is not matter, nor like matter, but rather that it is the very opposite of matter. Paul said, "The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other." Holding such views, sustained, as we believe they are, by the Scriptures, it will be understood that the Christian Scientist's interpratation of the Bible is not material or physical but rather spiritual or supersensible. Now we believe most emphatically in the resurrection, and we also believe that it is "the immediate effect of our Lord's coming," but we hold that the statements as to the resurrection of the dead are to be construed not literally, nor materially, but metaphysically.

Jesus said, "The flesh profiteth nothing;" and at another time he said, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage." These statements do not, in the opinion of Christian Scientists, warrant them in believing that matter is to be perpetuated eternally; consequently they do not think of heaven as a locality peopled with material bodies. We cannot do better than to quote Mrs. Eddy's spiritual definition of resurrection, which she gives on page 593 of Science and Health as "spiritualization of thought; a new and higher idea of immortality, or spiritual existence; material belief yielding to spiritual understanding." It will be seen that the resurrection thus defined is "the immediate effect of our Lord's coming," that when the Christ or the spiritual idea appears to man, there takes place that awakening from a sordid material outlook on life to a wider and higher spiritual understanding, which is really the resurrection. It will be remembered that Jesus said to Martha, "I am the resurrection, and the life," and this he declared before his crucifixion and resurrection from the tomb; consequently we feel justified in believing Jesus meant to convey not a literal but a metaphysical sense of the resurrection, else why would he have described himself at that period of his personal existence as "the resurrection."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

The gentleman who is discussing Christian Science in...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access