Article March 24, 1928 Issue

In your recent issue a critic implies that a Christian Scientist,...

Edgar McLeod, Committee on Publication for Northern California,—San Francisco

Argonaut

In your recent issue a critic implies that a Christian Scientist, to be consistent, should accept invitations to have disease germs injected into his body. Jesus did not cast himself from the pinnacle of the temple when-he was challenged to do so, although in his ministry he did many things which were equally contrary to material sense; for example, he walked on the water, but he did so only when the need arose. The critic states that it is criminal for Christian Scientists to withhold medical or surgical aid from children, the aged, or the mentally incompetent. This is an unfair and a misleading statement. The aged and all the other members of a Christian Science household, if at all capable of deciding for themselves, always are furnished the remedial aid of their choice. In the case of young children and the mentally incompetent, Christian Science parents would naturally employ the remedial aid they had found in their own experience to be the most dependable and efficacious. To do otherwise would be contrary to common sense and to every normal instinct. My letter in a previous issue of the Argonaut made no pretense of quoting the complete text of Dr. Cabot's remarks, but in the passage quoted nothing was omitted which would have altered the meaning or intention of his statement that Christian Science "cures disease, organic as well as functional." Neither has the critic shown that Dr. Cabot in his subsequent remarks has retracted his statement that Christian Science "does good" and "cures disease, organic as well as functional."

In referring to the use of clay and spittle in restoring sight to one born blind, the critic apparently argues that even Christ Jesus himself found it necessary upon one occasion to support his prayer with a material remedy. While granting everyone the right to draw his own conclusions from the Scriptures, still, it seems inconceivable that the great Master, who through the application of spiritual law fed the multitude, stilled the tempest, and raised the dead, should in a particular instance be driven to the use of clay and spittle to aid the operation of divine law. In spitting on the clay Jesus obviously employed a Jewish sign of contempt, thus indicating the vast and irreconcilable difference between the superstitious cures then common and the spiritual power through which he performed his mighty works. Surely no one to-day believes that the use of clay and spittle can restore sight to one born blind. The critic states that the claims by Christian Scientists relating to the treatment of the sick cannot be substantiated or proved, and he challenges them to produce cases of certain diseases they have healed. Those who are interested in finding evidence of Christian Science healing are afforded ample opportunity to satisfy themselves through the authenticated testimonies of healing which have been appearing in the Christian Science periodicals for more than a quarter of a century, and also through the oral testimonies given at the Wednesday evening meetings in Christian Science churches throughout the world. These testimonies, voluntarily given by persons from all sections of society, represent the very widest range of thought and experience, including clergymen, doctors, professors, jurists, actors, and authors. In fact, persons from every station and condition of life have borne testimony to the healing efficacy of Christian Science.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

In your recent issue a critic implies that a Christian Scientist,...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access