Article February 26, 1910 Issue

It is absolutely incorrect to say, as our critic does, that...

Charles M. Shaw

Blackpool (Eng.) Times

It is absolutely incorrect to say, as our critic does, that "the therapeutic side of Christian Science dominated everything else." Christian Science healing is based upon the knowledge of God as divine Principle, Love; attained by the spiritual faculties and applied to every problem. It asserts that this was the Principle by which Jesus did his mighty works. His works of healing were not manifestations of supernatural power, but were "signs" of his spiritual understanding, for when explaining to his disciples their failure to heal the lad afflicted with epilepsy he said, "This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting," clearly intimating that their power to heal was not a supernatural gift but a spiritual acquirement. Consequently it is a fundamental article of the Christian Science faith that true healing power is dependent upon spirituality, and the text-book, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," is full of such injunctions as these: "Man's moral mercury, rising or falling, registers his healing ability and fitness to teach" (p. 449); "Love for God and man is the true incentive in both healing and teaching" (p. 454); "The Christian Scientist . . . must prove, through living as well as healing and teaching, that Christ's way is the only one by which mortals are radically saved from sin and sickness" (p. 458). If, as is freely admitted, the healing works seem more prominent, that is not to say they are regarded in Christian Science as more important. It is to be remembered also that men are far more sensible of pain and disease than of sin, and therefore rather disposed to seek help on physical grounds than on spiritual.

But of supreme public interest is the question: Is this claim of Christian Science valid? Does it really heal? Our critic has no doubts; he implies that Christian Science is "all quackery," yet with strange inconsistency he admits that "in a certain rather restricted class of cases benefit might be derived from Christian Science treatment." In support of his case he tries to impeach the evidence of Christian Science healing. First of all, he implies that the persons who give testimony are not to be relied on, for various reasons. It is quite amusing to picture to one's self the sort of person our critic imagines Christian Scientists to be. If he were to meet them, I am sure he would find them to be fairly sensible and estimable people. Indeed, if he is anxious to be fair-minded in his investigations, I should be willing to introduce him to a few people who have been healed of serious diseases, diagnosed not by practitioners, but by medical men of good standing. And afterward I am sure he would smile at himself for having entertained the thought that they had not the necessary knowledge to say whether the improvement was real.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

It is absolutely incorrect to say, as our critic does, that...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access