Are you offended when you see graffiti defacing public or private property? It's easy to wonder at the lack of concern for others it denotes. But before you or I get too disturbed about the defacing of buildings or landmarks, how do we feel about the defacing of our concept of man, through the mental graffiti that would defile what the Bible describes as God's image and likeness?

The Bible portrays God as infinite, creative Mind, or Spirit. Man is God's offspring, the natural outcome and expression of God's own flawless selfhood. He is, therefore, Godlike, perfect.

Christ Jesus demonstrated this ideal, spiritual man for the enlightenment of mankind. He proved man's inherent dominion over the temptations and ills of a fleshly, or animal, nature. Christian Science helps one see that Jesus was also showing us the unreality of the mortal view of man as born into matter, living in a constant state of change, and finally dying. This simply is not man. We must look beyond what the physical senses would identify and discover the spiritual—the original—man.

And yet, not-so-beautiful, ungodlike views of friends or family members appear to be confirmed both by one's own experience and media descriptions of man as weak, wicked, and suffering. Accepting these as valid evidence can cause the Bible truth of man as God's likeness to seem otherworldly. This is when we need to recognize the connection between our acceptance of false beliefs—limited, material views—about man and the shape our own experience assumes.

Some years ago, a Christian Scientist found, after her husband had been retired from business for several years, that her view of him as a considerate, caring companion was becoming altered, and unpleasantly so. Their relationship had become increasingly strained, almost to the breaking point. In quiet, prayerful moments she felt that underneath all the friction were the same love and appreciation that had drawn them together many years earlier. But constant dissension between them made it hard for her to recognize this view of him now.

After some months it was clear that something had to be done to relieve the antagonism both were feeling. The turning point came in a conversation she had with a close friend, who she knew had faced a similar problem. The friend responded that it was only after she had agreed within herself to turn completely away from her faultfinding view of her husband to declare and accept his total innocence as a child of God, that the situation was healed.

This struck a deep chord within the listener. She desperately wanted to be free of the habit of destructively ruminating about her husband's perceived failings—many of them connected with negative stereotyping of retired husbands. These words from the chapter titled "Marriage" in Science and Health were instructive: "The good in human affections must have ascendency over the evil and the spiritual over the animal, or happiness will never be won" (p. 61). The wife saw that her own acceptance of her husband's innocence as God's perfect expression would arm her to combat destructive labeling.

She was further awakened by reading an article in this magazine. Its author told of returning home one day, after having put up with years of having her property defaced with graffiti, to find a group of young people again defacing her property. She told of her initial outrage and of the stony, defiant faces of the young people. Yet, her desire to free herself and those young people from the stigma that mortal mind's lies would place on them separated her from the rage she was feeling. She was able to turn to God and acknowledge Him as the Father of all, including those who were threatening her. She began to see their innocence as His loved and loving children. They, as she, reflected only divine Love and Love's goodwill. In the face of her unwavering devotion to this fact, the teenagers, without a word from her, reversed their course of action on the spot!

What a needed and valuable rebuke this account was to the wife. She saw that agreeing with the view the physical senses were presenting of her husband—and of mankind in general—was a type of defacing. Its effect was to desecrate in consciousness the very tablet of man's true being as the reflection of his Maker—and, in effect, to defame the very character, or nature, of God Himself.

The woman wanted no part of this lawless, mental futility. As she cherished deeply the fact of her husband's spiritual innocence, she found herself regaining a more lovable view of him and a greater sense of peace. Compassion began to replace the angry emotions that had held sway in her thought. And when circumstances arose that previously would have drawn her into great mental turmoil, she discovered within herself a reservoir of quiet patience and strength to resist. Debilitating confrontation receded into small, more amicably resolved differences, and their home once again evidenced a cooperative and conciliatory atmosphere.

A few years later, when she was giving nursing care to her husband, the woman was profoundly grateful to have earlier gained the inner strength and peace that enabled her to do this with love and equanimity. This spiritual poise continued after her husband's passing.

Whatever presents man as other than the pure likeness of God deserves to be challenged in our own thought. As we are willing to take up this challenge, God, who is Truth, reveals to us the unsullied view of ourselves and our fellowman—one that bespeaks His own unalterable and forever beautiful selfhood.