Article May 7, 1910 Issue

Christian Scientists do not say that there is no pain; in...

Henry Deutsch

St. Paul (Minn.) Pioneer Press

Christian Scientists do not say that there is no pain; in fact, we admit that to the man who is suffering pain it is extremely real; but, unlike our critic, we are unwilling to attribute that pain to God or to hold Him responsible for the sins of the world which are daily committed, and we do say that when man reaches the correct understanding of God and when he reaches out to Him and trusts in Him for the alleviation of pain, that he does obtain the relief from pain and rises to the consciousness of its absence, and therefore its nothingness. I presume the bishop would say that darkness is a reality and that God created it. Nevertheless, he knows, as well as every scientific man, that darkness is not a reality of itself, but merely the absence of light, and that when the light comes then the unreality or darkness disappears and its nothingness is apparent. A man may honestly believe that two times two is five, but that does not make it so; and the falsity disappears, becomes unreal, when he comes to understand that two times two is four.

If God suffers pain, then He must also suffer sin—both are discordant conditions. Will the critic explain how infinity and omnipotence can suffer pain? If pain is a reality, where is the pain when a person is under the influence of an anesthetic or an opiate? If God is infinite and all powerful, for what reason should He suffer pain? Has any one ever doubted God's power to alleviate pain and suffering? Does the critic desire us to believe that God has to inflict pain upon Himself in order that He may not lose sight of His necessary perfection—that He needs to suffer so that He shall not sin? On the other hand, if pain is created by God and inflicted by Him, what right have we to take opiates and anesthetics or use any remedies to alleviate pain? Have we either the right or power to nullify God's decrees? I might continue this discussion indefinitely, but refrain, because of the inutility of such a course.

The man who is suffering from pain, sickness, or sorrow; who is a slave to the drug or drink habit; who has lost his God, and is in the slough of agnosticism and atheism, such a man is not much concerned with academic discussion; what he wants is relief and surcease. Which can give it to him—the critic's view and practice, or that of the Christian Scientist? The answer to this question is the ultimate of the argument. The critic's views are theoretical—those of Christian Scientists are practical. In other words, he says he thinks that certain things are so, and therefore believes. Christian Scientists say, "We prove that certain things are so, and therefore we know." The critic says to the sick and the suffering, the heartsick and the sorrowing, "God sent this to you. He is responsible for it. He is inflicting His wrath upon you. Therefore you must turn to the doctors or medicine to seek to annul God's will; and if they fail, you must accept it with resignation." Christian Science says, "God is Love; therefore He cannot be a God of wrath."

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

Send a comment to the editors
NEXT IN THIS ISSUE
Article
With regard to the lecturer's explanation that the rapid...
May 7, 1910
Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit