Article September 25, 1926 Issue

Conversation

MINNIE SUCKOW

OUR attention is called to the sermon on the Mount many times in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. One such instance is on page 12 of "Miscellaneous Writings," where she says, "Every man and woman should be to-day a law to himself, herself,—a law of loyalty to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount." And turning to this sermon, we find the verse, "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." Were this carried out to the letter, there would be little, if any, conversation. But does it not, rather, imply that only good should be voiced, and not evil?

The work of Christian Science goes to the root of all things. It deals constantly with thinking. It reveals the truth and points out the error. It gives us an absolute standard by which we can measure every thought; and it exposes the falsities of so-called mortal mind. This process of analyzing thought may go on constantly under the guidance and control of the teaching of Christian Science; and while wonders may have already been accomplished in each individual consciousness, there is still room for improvement. That it would be well to watch our conversation more closely, there can be no question; for it ever portrays our thinking. Whatever we say expresses our thought, be it good or bad; and greater care can always be exercised that only constructive good shall constitute our speech.

The world at large seems to be very much occupied with talking error, and Christian Science early in the student's experience exposes this wrong practice. The Christian Scientist soon begins to avoid taking part in this talk, by ceasing either to voice or credit or listen to false statements. This is a great step in the right direction; but there is something further to be guarded against. Mrs. Eddy found it necessary to speak of error in its many forms, and used certain terms in doing so. But never does she make a reality of error, although employing terms to designate it. How often do we find the words "so-called," "supposititious," "illusive," "false," and like qualifying terms in referring to error in her writings! Thus in plain but positive language we are taught to realize the nothingness of error, and so to destroy it. In studying our Leader's writings, the Christian Scientist naturally adopts their nomenclature. But if he uses these terms to rehearse error as something, has he advanced very far from the general practice of the world? Were one in ordinary conversation to describe erroneous conditions, qualifying the statements by saying that to sense it was so and so; or, that this one has such and such a belief; or, that one is laboring under such and such a claim, has much advancement been made in the elimination of error? Even though different terms are used, may not this be still spreading abroad the seeds of discord instead of lessening them by refusing to think or speak of them? Has objectionable gossip lost its advocates under this method? A careful study of page 54 of "Unity of Good" by Mary Baker Eddy plainly indicates that we have done little for ourselves or others if we attach to any one, by thought or word, a claim of error of any kind. A great deal of unnecessary distress and labour will be spared if every suggestion of error is treated with sudden dismissal, and not allowed to take root in our own or another's consciousness. Whatever is removed from thought can never find expression in word or deed; and vice versa, what we entertain in our thinking is apt to take outward form in some manner and at some time. Should, then, anything but what is good and true receive our attention?

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

Our Church, the Storehouse