Article September 12, 1914 Issue

In a recent issue, speaking of the report of the medical...

Frederick Dixon—Burton-on-Trent, England

Burton Daily Mail

In a recent issue, speaking of the report of the medical and clerical committee on healing, you say that Christian Scientists will naturally claim the report as an acknowledgment of the great part which may be played in the world by faith-healing, but that it may be necessary to utter a word of warning as to the danger of postponing medical treatment in serious ailments.

First, then, may I point out that the committee has so far excepted Christian Science from the scope of its inquiry, and, therefore, that the present report in no way applies to Christian Science healing. Then, may I explain that Christian Science is not faith-healing. Faith-healing, at all events as commonly understood, is the belief that disease is sent, or permitted, by an omnipotent and omniscient Deity, who is requested in prayer to do something in accordance with the desires of the finite intelligence of mortals. Christian Scientists would regard ordinary medical treatment as faith-healing, inasmuch as they would claim that any action seeming to be produced by a drug is not produced by the drug at all, but by the faith of the human mind in the efficacy of the drug. Consequently, in accordance with the old proverb of that "familiarity breeds contempt," drugs, as everybody knows, constantly lose their apparent efficacy.

Of course, the report of the committee is a distinct admission of the efficacy of mind in healing, but inasmuch as the committee declare that they place no limit on the ability of God to heal, it seems a little illogical, on their part, to warn patients against being careful to call in doctors in time. If divine Mind is capable of healing the sick, it is surely as capable of healing a serious case as a simple case. If it is necessary to call in a doctor in a serious case, why not call in a doctor in a less serious case? I know the report states that doctors may be regarded as the instruments of healing, but why should a doctor be regarded as an instrument of healing in a serious case, and divine Mind be trusted to effect a cure only in a simple case? We arrive at the extraordinary position of one critic, that Jesus touched only noninfectious cases of leprosy, which, seeing that Jesus raised the dead and walked on the water, is a logical absurdity.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

In a recent issue, speaking of the report of the medical...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access