Article July 22, 1916 Issue

No Compromise

Archibald McLellan

Christian Science practitioners sometimes find themselves in a quandary as to what their course of action should be in cases where persons have asked for Christian Science treatment, and then, after this treatment is commenced, display an unwillingness to abandon the medical treatment or the material remedies which they had heretofore relied upon to relieve them of their ills. It must be clearly understood in such cases, however, that there can be no compromise—the patient must choose between Spirit and matter, between the power of Truth and the supposititious ability of an inert drug to heal "a mind diseased."

Unquestionably, if the case is not being met, the appeal to the practitioner's sympathy is quite strong, and no doubt the temptation to accede to what the patient believes to be the best course for him to take is very great; but cool judgment, based upon an understanding of the Principle of Christian Science, should come to the rescue, and indicate the course which is best for both patient and practitioner. On page 443 of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy has stated in clear and unmistakable terms the duty of Christian Scientists under such circumstances. "If patients fail to experience the healing power of Christian Science," she writes, "and think they can be benefited by certain ordinary physical methods of medical treatment, then the Mind-physician should give up such cases, and leave invalids free to resort to whatever other systems they fancy will afford relief." Throughout her writings, indeed, Mrs. Eddy makes clear the reason for such a stand as she here advises. This reason is entirely at-one with the teachings of our Master, who "did not many mighty works" in certain places "because of their unbelief," and who said that "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand."

On pages 51 and 53 of "Miscellaneous Writings" Mrs. Eddy touches again upon this same subject, but from a somewhat different angle. Here she answers two questions which ask in effect whether in some cases the practitioner shall initiate an effort to combine the use of drugs and Christian Science in the treatment of disease. The first of these questions is, "Are both prayer and drugs necessary to heal?" and the second is very closely allied to it, namely, "Do you sometimes find it advisable to use medicine to assist in producing a cure, when it is difficult to start the patient's recovery?"

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

No Compromise

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access