Article June 12, 1915 Issue

A recent issue contained a report of a sermon on "Christian Science:...

G. W. Allan

Ingersoll (Ontario) Chronicle

A recent issue contained a report of a sermon on "Christian Science: a Substitute for Christianity," to which I should be pleased to offer reply. Early in his address the speaker names several things which have operated to "drive" people out of the church "into the fold of Christian Science," and the greatest of these, he states, is "the pain-throb of disease and suffering." Here, if he but realized it, is one of the most complete indictments of modern Christianity, — that the institution which is intended to commemorate the life and work of the first Christian, drives away those whom the Master drew unto him.

"Anciently," Mrs. Eddy says, "the followers of Christ, or Truth, measured Christianity by its power over sickness, sin, and death; but modern religions generally omit all but one of these powers,—the power over sin." Then she adds: "We must seek the undivided garment, the whole Christ, as our first proof of Christianity" (Science and Health, p. 142). This acceptance of the neglected part of Jesus' command, and healing the sick in obedience thereto, constitutes the offense of Christian Science, and it is a strange fact that the most intense denunciation of this religion comes from those who have been specially ordained by the churches to be emulators of him who not only healed the sick, but stated that his followers would be recognized through their doing the same.

Our Master, knowing the ease with which a profession of Christianity might be made, defined it for all time on the basis of "works" rather than "words"—"He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also." This definition and test of discipleship never having been abrogated, still remains the standard by which "ye shall know them."

It is exceedingly strange that a person accustomed to study could read the Christian Science text-book, with its almost three hundred references uncovering and denouncing sin, and still proclaim that Christian Science teaches "there is no sin." Of course there is sin in human experience, else where would be the purpose of Christian Science. Let me refer you to Mrs. Eddy's writings. In "Rudimental Divine Science" (p. 2) we find, "The emphatic purpose of Christian Science is the healing of sin." In Science and Health (p. 29) we are told, "Christians . . . must grapple with sin in themselves . . . and continue this warfare until they have finished their course." Again (p. 203), "Sin kills the sinner and will continue to kill him so long as he sins." Also (p. 327): "The way to escape the misery of sin is to cease sinning. There is no other way." Still again (p. 569): "Alas for those who . . . fail to strangle the serpent of sin . . . They must eventually expiate their sin through suffering."

While Christian Science teaches that the sin in human experience must be overcome, it also teaches that sin and sickness are not of God, are not God-created or God-sent; but that God, omnipotent good, is available to men, even to the complete destruction of all such.

Send a comment to the editors
NEXT IN THIS ISSUE
Article
The Rev. Mr.—tells us that Christian Science is...
June 12, 1915
Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit