Article June 9, 1923 Issue

Consistency

E. OLIVE DAVIS

"Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was," wrote the Apostle James. Evidently mortal mind's ways of nineteen hundred years ago were much the same as its ways of to-day. Not many of us like to be accused of inconsistency; and yet, are we not guilty of it much of the time? We who have named the name of Christ have looked "into the perfect law of liberty," as James called it; in other words, we have become students of exact Science — the Science of being. We all admit the necessity for consistency in adhering even to the rules of so-called material science in working out an experiment. How much more should we deem it a necessity to solve our life-problems according to the rules of Christian Science! We all agree to this theoretically. But do we do it? Are we always consistent?

When we begin to learn something about Christian Science, when we learn what manner of men we are, we are filled with an exalted enthusiasm as we catch a glimpse of the infinite possibilities of man as God's image. Perhaps this glimpse brings us physical healing, or freedom from financial worry, or happy activity. Then, instead of going forward to a further demonstration of man's God-given do minion, not often go our way satisfied with our material well-being, and content to read about man's glorious selfhood, or to contemplate it intellectually as a future possibility? In other words, have we not forgotten to be a continual doer of the Word? Have we not failed to see that "the Divine Being must be reflected by man, — else man is not the image and likeness of the patient, tender, and true, the One 'altogether lovely,'" as Mrs. Eddy has so beautifully expressed it in "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" (p. 3)? Then, if so, are we not inconsistent?

Truly, we must admit it; yet we generally fail to recognize the fact until some definite problem, often in the form of physical discomfort, presents itself to us for solution. Then, indeed, are we quick to turn to Christian Science for relief and healing; and sometimes we are full of self-pity and impatience because our declarations about the perfectibility of man do not bring immediate results. And yet, how much of the perfection of man have we been demonstrating? How much do we really know about divine Love and its nature through our own experience? Perhaps, through earnest study, we perceive our inconsistency, or possibly a helpful friend or practitioner points it out to us. Fortunately, in a time of physical need we are usually read to admit our failure to heed the rules of the Science of being, and humbly learn the lesson. There are other times, however, when it is not so easy to detect this error in thought. Suppose we find ourselves sick or unhappy, or discontented because of the injustice, or envy, or hatred, or malice of some one else. In other words, suppose our problem seems to involve another as well as ourself. Are we always consistent then in adhering to our rules for scientific thinking? Too often, under such circumstances, we are ready to declare all good things for ourselves as children of God, while leaving in consciousness an ugly belief of a neighbor who is hateful, or unkind, or unjust. Yet our Leader writes in "Miscellaneous Writings" (p. 8), "Simply count your enemy to be that which defiles, defaces, and dethrones the Christ-image that you should reflect." After all, our problem does not involve some one else, but it does demand that we shall be consistent in our thinking about man, about the real man, the man who in our neighbor.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

The Immortality of Truth