According to a recent issue of your paper, a speaker at a...

News

According to a recent issue of your paper, a speaker at a meeting of the Burnley Rotary Club made an "outspoken" attack, among other things, on Christian Science. As most of his conclusions were based upon incorrect or imperfectly understood premises, I wish to be allowed to correct them. It was implied that Christian Science regarded health as an end in itself. Taking its stand upon the truth that the spiritual alone is real and divine, the end and aim of Christian Science is the spiritualization of human consciousness by acceptance of, and reliance upon, divine truth—the truth revealed by Christ Jesus, and rediscovered and interpreted to this age in the writings and demonstrations of Mrs. Eddy. One of the first results of this spiritualization of thought is the improvement of the body by the removal of erroneous beliefs, wrong desires and practices, together with their effects in the form of disease. The healing work seems more prominent to the superficial observer because the need of health is the most elementary, and the commonest, of human needs; certainly the desire for health actuates the majority of those who turn to Christian Science. No apology is offered for this. Men have a right to health. It is not God's will that they should be sick and incapable, but that they should have health and life. The healing work was the most prominent outward feature of the activity of the Founder of Christianity, Christ Jesus, and was repeatedly enjoined by him upon his followers. It is not, therefore, true that health is considered an end in itself by Christian Scientists.

In the next place, our critic makes a great deal of the assumption that "by far the greater number of people who are attracted by Christian Science are generally people who have plenty of leisure," among whom imaginary ailments flourish, and who provide rich ground for the use of new cults. This also is incorrect. A more discerning, or better informed, observer than our critic, the Bishop of Bradford, said, in a recent diocesan letter that Christian Science was "spreading with startling rapidity, especially in the large towns here in England;" and he went on to say, "It is unquestionable that many have found relief from following its precepts." It is but fair to add that the bishop proceeded to denounce Christian Science. Now the large towns are not exactly the chosen pastures of people of leisure desirous of browsing upon imaginary ailments. But it is quite true that Christian Science, both here and in America, flourishes in the vigorous life of the large towns, and among the workers of every class. Then our critic pointed out that Christian Scientists claim to heal sickness and sin, and he declared, "In the name of all sanity, how can you cure a disease that has no reality; or how can you be relieved of a pain which isn't there?" This kind of reasoning, with the same conclusion, has been hurled at Christian Science for over fifty years, and yet Christian Science has gone on steadily growing and extending its influence through the healing of sin and sickness all over the world. So that quite palpably there is some serious flaw in our critic's logic. It is in his wrong use of the word "real." He regards as real that which is perceived by the five sense and the human reason. Christian Science declares that that only is real which is spiritual. God did not create matter. God is Spirit, and matter is the supposititious opposite of Spirit. Neither did He create sin, evil, or disease; hence they are not real. But because of these things in human experience, the outcome of material beliefs, Christian Science claims to overcome them through the understanding and demonstration of the divinely real.

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit