Article November 12, 1910 Issue

PRECISION OF LANGUAGE AND CANT

HON. CLARENCE A. BUSKIRK

The Christian Scientist needs quite frequently to remember that the English language has been too largely fashioned under the potter's wheel of erroneous philosophical and theological notions, else he may find himself using many words, terms, and phrases which represent erroneous ways and habits of thinking. When thus confronted, what shall he do? Shall he try to reject erroneous terminology altogether, or shall he compromise somewhat? In the writer's opinion, occasional compromises are wiser and better than attempts to preserve at all times a strictly scientific precision of language.

In order to illustrate the point under consideration, let us take the words, "patient" and "patients." Let us suppose that a Christian Science practitioner is asked, "Will you take me as a patient?" Shall he answer, No, that he never takes patients? Or, if he is willing to take the case, shall he compromise somewhat, for the time being at least, and so answer, Yes? Is it not plain that his wiser and better answer is, Yes? Mrs. Eddy is a purist in her language whenever practicable; yet we find that she has employed the words, "patient" and "patients" frequently in her writings. There were no practical substitutes for her to use. She has explained carefully in the Christian Science text-book that she has found herself forced to use objectionable words and terms, at times, because there were no better ones to be found. May we not opine that in such instances she deemed it unwise to "distinguish and divide a hair 'twixt north and northwest side"?

The most of us dislike cant, and heartily endorse the words of Carlyle: "Clear your mind of cant! Have no trade with cant." Yet we must not forget that it is often the little foxes which are caught spoiling the vines. In his choice of words the Christian Scientist needs to use his most painstaking wisdom. He must carefully steer his course between Seylla and Charybdis—between carelessness and cant, semper fidelis. According to a supposed code of laws which humanity has been taught and accustomed to accept as true, a patient is, "one who suffers from a disease or indisposition; one who is under medical treatment; a sick person." According to this false code all human beings are condemned to endure sickness, erroneous habits, vicious tendencies, etc., because of some falsely asserted law; or, theologically expressed, because God has put His afflicting hand upon them, and therefore it is their duty to be as "patient" as possible until the time shall arrive, if ever, for their deliverance. Is not this belief Christianly unscientific? Is it not crassly illogical, especially when God is postulated? Is it not an obstacle to instantaneous healing? Can instantaneous healing be attained so long as such a line of thinking has not been overcome?

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

PRECISION OF LANGUAGE AND CANT

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access