Article August 28, 1915 Issue

There was recently printed in the columns of the Review...

Paul Stark Seeley

Rainier (Ore.) Review

There was recently printed in the columns of the Review an article relative to Christian Science which originally appeared in Puck. The statements made therein are so manifestly unfair and inaccurate that I beg your leave to correct them. The gist of Puck's comment was that a law pending in New York would legalize Christian Science practice, regarded by this publication as "a dangerous retrogression;" that the orthodox physician spends several thousand dollars in preparing himself for practice, and the Christian Science practitioner much less; hence the law should protect the former from competition with the latter. Misstatements were also made regarding the attitude of Christian Scientists toward quarantine and contagious disease, and relative to Mrs. Eddy. The article was noticeably lacking in any statement concerning the comparative results of the two systems of healing referred to, a side of the question in which it is fair to suppose that the outsider would be most interested.

First, what is the nature of Christian Science practice, and is there any good reason for legislative enactment to restrain it? Christian Science is a religion founded on the teachings of the Bible, and its practice is the use of prayer as it was used by Christ Jesus and the early Christians to heal from sickness as well as sin. "The prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up," were the words of the disciple James. Christian Scientists believe these words express as true a statement of spiritual law today as when they were written; hence their practice is prayer, the prayer of faith that comes from understanding God aright. That such prayer "availeth much," as the Bible promises, they have abundant proof, for the success of the Christian Science movement has been based on its efficacy. That legislators should be asked by the medical fraternity to make laws restraining man's right to pray for his brother in need, is one indication of how far a part of the world has drifted from the teachings of Christianity. That such requests have with but few exceptions been disregarded by our legislators, is evidence of their sense of justice and their recognition of man's right to pray to God without interference from manmade law.

It must be plain that the reason for requiring the medical practitioner to secure a license from the state is that by the very nature of his profession he holds himself out as being qualified in certain of the physical sciences, competent to administer dangerous drugs and use dangerous instruments and remedies. The Christian Science practitioner makes no such representations. His method is wholly spiritual, and every one seeking his help knows that it is prayer alone which is employed. He uses no drugs, employs no instruments, and gives no advice on physiology or medicine. The wholly different viewpoint of the two schools of healing makes clear the reason for state regulation in one instance and not in the other. The worship of God can hardly be regarded as a subject to be regulated by the laws of man.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

There was recently printed in the columns of the Review...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access