Article January 15, 1927 Issue

It would almost seem from his column, "Everyday Questions,"...

Francis Lyster Jandron, Committee on Publication for the State of Michigan,—Detroit

News

It would almost seem from his column, "Everyday Questions," in your recent issue, that a certain reverend gentleman does not like Christian Science. Doubtless he is satisfied with his position, but that does not entitle him to misrepresent either the teachings or the exponents of Christian Science, since the facts are readily ascertainable by all. He assumes that the question which he undertakes to answer is sincere, yet we may be pardoned for wondering whether an inquiry about the founder of his own denomination would escape his waste-paper basket if couched in equally offensive terms. It is quite generally conceded to-day by the opponents of Christian Science, that Mary Baker Eddy's earthly career was pure and unselfish to a remarkable degree. Her fortune, accumulated mainly from the sale of her writings, she bequeathed for the most part to her church, The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts; and this alone should disarm criticism of her motives. Mrs. Eddy did not derive the teachings of Christian Science from P. P. Quimby, as your correspondent erroneously avers. Such a contention goes beyond even the claims asserted on his father's behalf by George A. Quimby, who stated in 1904: "No one, least of all myself, disputes Mrs. Eddy's claims that she is the originator of Christian Science, so far as the religious aim goes. It is all hers." The mental methods used by Quimby, and others for centuries before him, in treating patients, have noth ing in common with the methods of Christian Science, for they are based on suggestion, or will-power; while Christian Science, which Mrs. Eddy discovered, is based wholly upon the perfection of God and of His spiritual creation.

Doubtless your correspondent has often exhorted his hearers to free themselves from the materialism of the age, and to adopt more spiritually-minded views of life. In doing so, he has certainly not believed that this would "separate them from the actualities of life." The Biblical account of the creation says, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Jesus said, "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing;" and, "Take no thought ... for your body." Can it be said that the conscientious endeavors of Christian Scientists to demonstrate the unreality of sin and sickness are inconsistent with the teachings of Christ Jesus? In "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" (p. 357) Mrs. Eddy writes: "If mankind would relinquish the belief that God makes sickness, sin, and death, or makes man capable of suffering on account of this malevolent triad, the foundations of error would be sapped and error's destruction ensured; but if we theoretically endow mortals with the creativeness and authority of Deity, how dare we attempt to destroy what He hath made, or even to deny that God made man evil and made evil good?"

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

It would almost seem from his column, "Everyday Questions,"...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access