Article September 26, 1914 Issue

It would be well for self-appointed critics of Christian Science...

John L. Rendall

Fort Dodge (Iowa) Messenger

It would be well for self-appointed critics of Christian Science to heed carefully Jesus' teaching concerning "the mote" and "the beam" and to "judge righteous judgment." In his sermon the Rev. Mr.—has perhaps unwittingly, but nevertheless positively, misrepresented Christian Science and its followers, and he certainly fails to grasp the fundamental fact that Christian Science is itself pure and unadulterated Christianity. He states: "The devotees of Mrs. Eddy are certain that Christian Science can work wonders." The question naturally occurs, "Why are they certain, and of what are they certain?" They are conscious that only through the power of God are the seeming "wonders" worked, and they certainly have a good and sufficient reason for the hope that is within them, because of daily proofs of God's healing power. In other words, Christian Science is a demonstrable religion.

Our critic also stated: "Mrs. Eddy classes herself with the virgin and Christ himself." In answer to this, let me quote Mrs. Eddy in an article published in the New York Herald, Feb. 1, 1895. "'Am I the second Christ?' Even the question shocks me. What I am is for God to declare in His infinite mercy. ... My books and teachings maintain but one conclusion and statement of the Christ and the deification of mortals. Christ is individual, and one with God, in the sense of divine Love and its compound divine ideal. There was, is, and never can be but one God, one Christ, one Jesus of Nazareth" (Pulpit and Press,p. 74). We beg to differ with our critic where he states, "Christian Science uses the words atonement, justification, mercy, heaven, and hell, and all other terms of Christian theology, but by them means something entirely different from what the Bible does." In this he arrogates to himself the sole right to determine just what the Bible means. May it not be within the range of possibilities that the Christian Science definitions are the more reasonable, logical, satisfactory, and scientifically exact? He states that Mrs. Eddy says: "The Comforter is Divine Science." What Mrs. Eddy really says is, "This Comforter I understand to be Divine Science" (Science and Health, p. 55), and her statement is daily being proved to be a correct one.

When our critic raises the point of heaven as a "place," he disputes Jesus' statement, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." This agrees with Mrs. Eddy's statement on page 291 of Science and Health, to which our critic refers, "Heaven is not a locality, but a divine state of Mind in which all the manifestations of Mind are harmonious and immortal."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

It would be well for self-appointed critics of Christian Science...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access