Article July 4, 1931 Issue

In the course of an address on "Spiritualism," as reported...

Cyril R. Hewson, Committee on Publication for Derbyshire, England,—Buxton

Advertiser

In the course of an address on "Spiritualism," as reported in your columns, a clergyman makes an attack on Christian Science, and I should be glad to be allowed space to reply. In the first place, let me say that there is no relationship between Christian Science and spiritualism, or occultism, with which the speaker classifies it. They are as opposite as the poles; neither is there anything in the nature of mysticism in its teaching and practice.

It is suggested that, because Christian Science denies the existence of matter, evil, and disease, its followers therefore close their eyes to these phases of human experience, thus tending to perpetuate them. This is entirely contrary to the facts. The whole purpose and mission of Christian Science is a direct challenge to evil and materiality in all their forms, particularly that of sin. Basing its conclusions on the allness of God, Spirit, it denies the existence of these as realities, or as forming any part of God's creation. It does not, however, deny humanity's need of salvation and redemption from these things in relative human experience. It teaches that God made man perfect, in His image and likeness, but that mortals are in bondage to sin and disease because of their ignorance of, or blindness to, this spiritual reality. When we come to realize that these evils are no part of true being, nor concomitants of it, they begin to lose their seeming power, and we are freed to that extent from their bondage. So long as we hold evil to be an integral part of existence there can be no hope of salvation from it, since that which is real is eternal, indestructible. The mission of Christ Jesus was to save mankind from materiality and its resultant, sin and disease; yet he said, "I came ... not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me," thus virtually declaring that the things which he lived to destroy have no divine authority.

The effect of Christian Science is not to lull mortals or give them comfort in disease and sin. The only comfort that one can derive from the statement of evil's unreality lies in the fact that it offers a way of salvation from evil. To deny the existence of sin, however, and yet to indulge it; to say there is no evil or disease, and yet make no attempt to challenge its claim to existence in human experience, is a form of hypocrisy which Christian Science unequivocally condemns. The records of the practice of Christian Science point to many thousands of lives redeemed from the misery of sin, disease, and poverty by demonstrating the falsity of their claim to power and reality. Many cases, some of which are personally known to the writer, of sin and degradation in their worst forms, have been healed, and governors of prisons have gladly testified to the fact that it has been directly instrumental in transforming erstwhile criminals into honorable citizens of true Christian character. Is there anything of a weak, anaemic, or emasculatory nature in such work as this? Can there be anything negative about that which is daily redeeming men and women from all kinds of evil, even as Christ Jesus did? Would not the speaker himself be only too glad to acknowledge such work were it accomplished in his own church? Our Master propounded the only logical test of the legitimacy of any religious teaching when he said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." With regard to the statement of our critic that he fears that "we could never look for any virile action against evil by Christian Scientists," it seems only necessary to cite such "fruits" as those referred to above to refute any grounds for such fears.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

In the course of an address on "Spiritualism," as reported...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access