Article September 3, 1910 Issue

In the address on Christian Science, given by Dr.—,...

Frederick Dixon

Norwood (Eng.) Review

In the address on Christian Science, given by Dr. -—, which you reported, he made three definite statements, which he labeled the claims put forward by Christian Science, each of which he declared had been disproved. First, he said Christian Science claimed to abolish pain and disease. Argal, as the clown says, because pain and disease have not been abolished, the claim of Christian Science is disproved. Now, Christianity, if we put it in the doctor's way, claims to abolish sin, but sin still exists, therefore Christianity is disproved. This sort of post hoc propter hoc reasoning might be applied to all the religions and sciences in the world, with precisely the same result the doctor deduces from its application to Christian Science. What Christian Science says is that exactly in proportion as men attain the Mind which was in Christ Jesus, they will, as Jesus said, obtain the mastery over disease and pain, and these will be overcome. What Christian Science does is to attempt to show the world how it may bring to bear on sickness and sin the same understanding of Truth which it has always been admitted in Christian countries would, if brought to bear on sin, destroy sin. In this way, and in this way only, is it possible to fulfil the whole of the command of Jesus of Nazareth, not only to preach the gospel, but to heal the sick.

Secondly, our critic maintained that Christian Science claimed to be Christianly up-to-date, and this claim also had been disproved. It must be admitted that this particular statement is a trifle vague. If he means by Christianly up-to-date that Christian Science demands that Christian thinkers and workers should admit the plain significance of the words of Christ Jesus, and acknowledge that, in order to claim the name of Christian, they must acknowledge the demands he coupled with it, then Christian Science is certainly Christianity up-to-date. Jesus said that those who believed in him would be able to do the works he did, and in so doing, made the ability to perform those works the test of his followers' Christianity. Now, the works he did were, to a large extent, works aimed at the destruction of that pain and disease to which our critic himself alludes. Therefore, in order to be a Christian, as Jesus defined Christianity, it is necessary to begin at least to attempt these works. It was the Mind which was in Christ Jesus which accomplished the works of healing in the first century, and Christian Science certainly teaches that to be what our critic presumably describes as up-to-date, men should strive for that Mind, so as to be able to imitate them now. Exactly in proportion as the Christian Scientist today attains the Mind of Christ, so does he succeed in destroying pain and disease. That he has not so overcome sin in himself as to be able to heal like Jesus, who "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," scarcely proves that the commands of Jesus are not as much a part of Christianity today as of the Christianity of the first century, or that Christian Science is not, in our critic's rather unfortunate phrase, which no Christian Scientist has ever yet made use of, up-to-date.

Lastly, our critic says that Christian Science claims to be a profound philosophy, and that it has been proved not to be. Christian Science claims to be the profoundest philosophy in the world, and the profoundest Science, inasmuch as its teaching is based on that profound saying of Jesus the Christ, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." How philosophic is its philosophy, how scientific its science, the world will learn when, instead of carping at its postulates, it learns to accept them as a basis for demonstration. Now, its postulates may be summed up in this, that God is infinite Spirit and omnipotent good, and, con sequently, that all which truly exists is spiritual and is good. It was precisely the impossibility of reconciling this with the reality of matter and evil, which the orthodox churches teach, that led to Gnosticism, and seeing that Christian Science expressly denies the reality of evil and matter, it is not, and never has been, compelled to attempt to escape from its own postulates by teaching Gnosticism.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

In the address on Christian Science, given by Dr.—,...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access