Article July 17, 1920 Issue

Our critic approaches the entire question of Christian Science...

John M. Dean

The Knoxville (Tenn.) Sentinel

Our critic approaches the entire question of Christian Science from a purely material standpoint, an attitude which is impossible in considering metaphysics; for it should be remembered that Christian Science interprets the Bible spiritually. Christian Scientists can in conscience acknowledge but one God. When Jesus said, "God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth," he sounded the death knell of materialism in religion. True, materialism dies hard, but nevertheless it dies. Christian Scientists frankly accept as true the spiritual account of creation as given in the first chapter of Genesis and the opening verses of the second chapter. The second or material account of creation, which follows, must be considered as allegorical in its nature, unless one chooses to accept this account instead of the first. Both we cannot have, for it must be evident that God, Spirit, never created man and the universe spiritually and then immediately remade them materially. Our critic can accept as his either of the two accounts named, but he cannot have both. The second account is obviously intended to portray the earthy nature of false belief in contradistinction to infinite truth. Spirit cannot create or coalesce with matter. Grapes are not gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles, any more to-day than they were when Jesus emphasized the incongruity of such thinking nineteen hundred years ago. Jesus also said, "Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand," therefore God's creation cannot be composed of such opposite qualities as Spirit and matter.

In the second place, our critic quotes from both the Bible and Science and Health isolated statements, stripped from their context. The futility and unfairness of such a method must be at once apparent. That the world is filled with sin will not be disputed by any Christian Scientist, for nothing but wrongdoing could have brought the world to its present condition. We do deny, however, that sin is God-created and an indestructible reality. If God is the author of sin, it is futile to attempt to destroy it, for "whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever," says the preacher. Is it not readily seen that realities are not subject to destruction? Destroy anything, and in doing so you establish its nothingness as an entity.

Jesus proved the unreal nature of sin and disease by destroying them, and in this way he fulfilled his mission. He came to "destroy the works of the devil [evil]," and certainly he could not even wish to destroy the works of God. A human personality, being the counterfeit of God's man, may permit himself to lay aside his sense of good for a sense of evil, but good itself can never degenerate. It is, like Christ, "the same yesterday, and to day and for ever." To deny this is to deny the permanency of salvation. That perfection could become imperfect is an unthinkable contradiction. The wise man sums up the whole matter in a few words: "God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Christian Scientists have no time to waste in advocating the might and permanency of these inventions, and for any Christian to do so presents a solecism. The eighth chapter of Romans makes exceedingly interesting reading in this connection.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

Our critic approaches the entire question of Christian Science...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access