Article February 8, 1913 Issue

Referring to the work of the Salvation Army in a book...

Jesse Pickard

New York Sun

Referring to the work of the Salvation Army in a book review on Dec. 29, one of your contributors has taken occasion to cast a slur upon the religion of Christian Science, which he terms "commercialized," and to impugn the motives and character of Mrs. Eddy, the revered Leader of Christian Science. This disparagement of what has brought into the lives of thousands of intelligent people that which has uplifted and healed them, and of one through whose unselfish labors they have been made happier and more helpful citizens and neighbors, is surely uncalled for, and I hope you will see fit to publish this protest against such contumely.

The work of Mrs. Eddy needs no champion, although a short time ago thousands of newspapers throughout the world united in a pæan of praise to her memory as one who had loved and served mankind. Those who bought her published works or paid for her instructions and treatment were not found objecting to the charge therefor, but, contrariwise, declared the benefit they received was beyond price. If there is a more legitimate or more praiseworthy manner of supporting oneself, or one that helps a larger proportion of people than this dissemination of pure enlightening ideas, it has been little heard of. Literary men should be the last to criticize it. Because Mrs. Eddy, furthermore, lived a life of self-sacrifice and earnest labor for humanity, and finally left the fortune she so well earned to a cause which she was convinced would continue to uplift and bless mankind till all were healed and redeemed, surely there should be no opprobrium cast upon her purpose.

The Christian Science church is probably no richer than other large religious bodies, nor should its motives be condemned because it sees the present-day necessity of supporting its readers and officers in the way that other religious bodies pay their clergymen. Those who devote their lives to serving others are very generally paid for their services. The patients of Christian Science practitioners declare they are benefited, and do not object to the price which enables those who assist them to continue in this work. It is not in order for others to object or to question this, so long as the procedure is lawful and free from deceit, as Christian Science practise is. The influence of Christian Science is seen in happier faces, purer lives, more just and kindly activities in business and in social relations. It is seen in better health, moral and physical. Should this be held up to ridicule and scorn because it is orderly in its method, and neither solicits nor demands state support nor general contributions from those who may not understand in the least or sympathize with it?

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Editorial

OFFICE OF THE READING-ROOM