Article September 23, 1911 Issue

In his continued discussion of Christian Science our critic...

Alfred Farlow

in New Orleans (La.) Picayune

In his continued discussion of Christian Science our critic declares that "Christian Science practitioners claim to be able to heal all kinds of diseases." As a matter of fact, Christian Scientists make no special pretensions as to what they are able to do, although they note with gratitude what has been already accomplished. They claim that with God all things are possible, and that perfect application of Christian Science will bring forth perfect results, but they hold that Christian Science is indeed a science, and must be so treated. One cannot be regarded as a mathematician simply because he believes in mathematics and its basic laws. He is a mathematician who understands and can apply mathematics in a manner to obtain the results which mathematics promises. So he is a Christian Scientist who understands and can apply Christian Science sufficiently to bring results. One could not reasonably affirm that a mathematical rule is not true simply because some one who believes in the rule is not able to demonstrate a proposition according to its instructions.

The gentleman declares that Christian Science is not the Christ-method, adding: "There was no limit to Christ's power, but Christian Science has very distinct limitations to its curative power." He declares that our Lord "spoke and it was done in a moment." It is certainly unreasonable to expect mortals in this material age to accomplish what the Master did in the perfection of his spiritual growth. Nevertheless, the demand is upon us, and it is our duty to comply as far as possible and as rapidly as possible. The important question is this: Does our critic believe that healing the sick as well as the sinner is an essential of Christianity? Does he believe the Master's promise: "He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father"? Does he believe the declaration which he has quoted, namely: "They shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover"? If so, is he able to demonstrate or recommend a better way than that which is presented in Christian Science? If he cannot present a more effectual method of producing results by a reliance upon divine power than that which is practised by Christian Scientists, he is surely not in a position to discourage the practice of Christian Science.

The command to heal the sick appears in the same connection as the command to preach the gospel, and is just as imperative. Moreover, if the gentleman will read the Scriptures once more on the subject of Christian healing, he will find therein recorded an incident when the disciples failed to heal, and brought the case to the Master to know why they had not been able to "cast him out," and the Master replied: "This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting," thus teaching that a great sacrifice of materiality and a high degree of spirituality must accompany an earnest effort as requisite to the healing of such a case. But in this connection he did not excuse the disciples. He rebuked them for their want of faith. We trust that our critic will not overlook the fact that it is quite as incumbent upon him as a professing Christian minister, as a professing advocate of the Christ-teaching, to heal the sick instantaneously and raise the dead, as it is upon Christian Scientists. It is barely possible that some of our Christian clergymen are not able to convert sinners as effectually and rapidly as the Master did. It is barely possible that Jesus may have converted sinners in one sermon in excess of what some of our preachers are able to do in many sermons. Shall we apply our critic's logic to such a case and affirm that, because a clergyman does not convert sinners as effectually and rapidly as the Master did, he is not preaching the same gospel? The Christian Scientist is aware of his shortcomings, but he is thankful that, through the added understanding of truth which Christian Science has afforded him, he is able to do better than he did formerly, and he believes that all other Christians could reap the same degree of improvement with Christian Science. The Christian Scientist does not claim that he is better than other folks who have tried harder and longer to do right. He only claims that he is better than he used to be, and that he is getting better results than he formerly did without Christian Science, and he believes that the best persons in the world could be even better with Christian Science than without it.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

In his continued discussion of Christian Science our critic...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access