Article June 21, 1913 ISSUE

The Bishop of Calgary, some time ago, condemned Christian Science...

William Clarence Ferguson

Calgary (Alberta) Herald

The Bishop of Calgary, some time ago, condemned Christian Science as unchristian. It is quite apparent from his statement that the bishop has been misinformed on this subject, for the authorized teachings of Christian Science are not unchristian. On page 497 of "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" by Mrs. Eddy, which book is the authority on this subject, we find this statement: "We solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure." Is there anything in this promise to which any one can take exception as being contrary to the teachings of the Scriptures? Is it unchristian to "pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus," to observe the golden rule, or "to be merciful, just, and pure"? To this declaration every person who is joining the Christian Science church is asked to subscribe, and it is the rule by which he strives to govern the actions of his daily life. Now, in all honesty, is any person, regardless of his religious belief, and regardless of the form his religious observances may take, who abides by, or who even makes a sincere attempt to abide by, the lofty declarations of purpose found in that short paragraph, deserving of the condemnation of any other Christian?

The bishop is quoted as follows: "I cannot understand how any one who is in this church today, joining in this beautiful service of praise and thanksgiving, can become allied with a so-called religion that robs the Saviour we worship of his divinity." Now, Christian Science does not rob the Saviour of his divinity. A most emphatic declaration on this very subject is made in the text-book previously referred to, on page 497, which reads: "We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness." Does that statement deny the divinity of the Christ? Rather, does it not, in the most forcible and unexceptionable language, affirm his divinity? Hence, since this is not the opinion of some one concerning Christian Science, but is an unqualified statement of its teachings, taken from the one authority on that subject, would it not appear that the bishop had been grossly misinformed about it?

Send a comment to the editors
NEXT IN THIS ISSUE
Article
In a recent issue the editor seems to be laboring under...
June 21, 1913
Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit