Editorial November 1, 1913 Issue

"No monopoly"

Archibald McLellan

Very closely related to the belief that some particular person is "the practitioner" for a certain locality, is the mistaken sense that a person who has once been the patient of Mr. A or Mrs. B is forever bound to this practitioner and under a very solemn obligation to apply to Mr. A or Mrs. B, as the case may be, when in need of help in Christian Science. And very much akin to both of these beliefs is still another, namely, that as Mr. C or Mrs. D is "the teacher" in a certain city or town, no person residing in that place who wishes to be taught in a class, should presume to apply to a teacher elsewhere for such instruction. A little reflection, however, will show that these beliefs are simply beliefs of proprietorship which are the outgrowths of a false sense of man that would make him responsible to some individual instead of to his creator.

That these false concepts of man's relationship to his fellows should have gained a footing in many places is to be regretted, for it is largely upon this cause that the personal friction which hinders the growth of churches and individuals is based; and when this sense of egregious personality finds expression in such statements as, "Mr. E will not be healed until he comes back to me," or "Mrs. F will have to suffer until she acknowledges me as 'the teacher' or 'the practitioner' of this field," it is time for serious thought and a speedy getting back to the fundamentals of Christian Science teaching. There is nothing in the Church Manual or in Mrs. Eddy's writings which can possibly be construed as affording a foundation for any of these erroneous conditions of thought, in fact Section 30 of Article VIII of the Church by-laws distinctly forbids such mistaken practises in its specific declaration that there shall be "no monopoly." Again, in Section 7 of Article XXX, Mrs. Eddy places on each member of the church the responsibility for the proof to the public "that Christian Science heals the sick quickly and wholly."

Every person who knows sufficiently the basis of Christian Science to heal the sick, should have the opportunity of doing so, unmolested and unafraid, certainly so far as other Christian Scientists are concerned, as long as the "signs following" testify to the genuineness of his understanding. In fact, Mrs. Eddy declares that "it is possible,—yea, it is the duty and privilege of every child, man, and woman,—to follow in some degree the example of the Master by the demonstration of Truth and Life, of health and holiness" (Science and Health, p. 37); and there are few communities where a willing and really capable worker will not sooner or later find himself fairly forced into the work by some case of pressing need. The sooner Christian Scientists awaken to their personal and individual responsibility for the propagation of this healing gospel among their fellows, the better it will be for them in the resultant growth in understanding which is the natural outcome of demonstration, and which must in turn redound to the benefit of those who come to them for help to throw off the bondage of sin and disease.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Editorial

True Neighborliness