Article August 12, 1916 Issue

Two correspondents have ventured to set forth personal...

Albert W. Le Messurier—Guernsey, Channel Islands

The Star

Two correspondents have ventured to set forth personal criticisms of Christian Science. The first seems to think, judging from the tone of the letter, that the fires of Smithfield and the methods of the Inquisition are still active, but he may rest assured that the world is advancing in kindlier thought. Surely in these days, when Christian Scientists are fighting in the trenches and using their protective spiritual understanding side by side with members of other denominations, it is no time for newspaper controversy, especially as Christian Scientists scrupulously refrain from attacking other religions and are not in the habit of urging any one to adopt their views, being satisfied with extending courteous invitations to lectures and services. They are, however, always ready to give a reason for the hope that is within them, and it is evident from the spread of Christian Science that its students are amply satisfied with the benefits received.

It will be useful to point out that there is exactly the same need for a sick man to be in the right attitude to be healed as there was in the case of the man at the pool of Siloam. Out of all the sick people there, he was the only man whom Jesus healed; the rest were apparently too contented with their own opinions to detect the truth when it came near them. If the God in whom your correspondent believes is not capable of healing him or of keeping him well, it would be advisable for him to find out wherein he errs in his concept of God.

Your second correspondent ventures to warn your readers against his mistaken notions of Christian Science. He advances three astonishing statements which he gives as the "fundamentals of our Christian faith." Not one of these "fundamentals" so much as mentions the name of God. It would appear as though "God is not in all his thoughts." The first and third statements are pleas for the reality of sin and of a personal devil. The second statement is an untrue assertion, because Christian Science does not deny the atonement; on the contrary, it lifts it out of the mystery and quarrels due to the conflicting views of the present day. Your correspondent knows, or ought to know, that the members of his church are in a state of unrest over these very "fundamentals" he so superficially sets forth. Under the circumstances, I shall briefly state the position of Christian Science and leave the matter to the sane judgment of your readers, who may safely be left to think for themselves.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Two correspondents have ventured to set forth personal...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access