A criticism of two theological books in your last issue...

Cambridge Review

A criticism of two theological books in your last issue is of particular interest to students of Christian Science, for the writer makes it clear that the point of divergence which separates his view of Christianity from the teaching of Christian Science is precisely the point which prevents him from accepting the full historicity of the gospel narratives. This divergence is a differing attitude towards matter. Accepting "the knowledge won through the study of physics, chemistry, and medicine" as no less a divine gift than the "spirit of Jesus," he feels that certain acts attributed to our Lord, involving the control of external nature, would imply "crude views of matter," and he therefore regards them as legendary.

The writer is surely right in assuming that these incidents point to a view of matter at variance with what has been commonly accepted. But does any student of physics to-day claim to have arrived at a complete and satisfying explanation of the nature and origin of matter? We have all had to relinquish our old beliefs in matter as solid substance, and have been taught the inaccuracy of our material senses.

October 26, 1929

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.