The criticism that "Christian Science is neither Christian nor scientific" is as old as the Christian Science movement, which nevertheless survives the scathing impeachment and indeed thrives vigorously.
In
all departments of human activity the need of careful and thorough training is evident, and such training usually involves considerable self-denial and mental discipline.
There
are some who know that they have a demonstrable understanding of Truth, that they can clothe it in appropriate language, and can then write or voice it in such a manner that every reader or hearer may be thereby benefited.
Practical
views of life and the ideal have long been considered irreconcilable, and the dreamer and idealist often has faith in humanity sadly shaken; but to spend time bemoaning one's disappointments is a narrow and selfish course of action.
Christian Science
practitioners sometimes find themselves in a quandary as to what their course of action should be in cases where persons have asked for Christian Science treatment, and then, after this treatment is commenced, display an unwillingness to abandon the medical treatment or the material remedies which they had heretofore relied upon to relieve them of their ills.
Had our clerical critic attended any of the recent lectures on Christian Science he would doubtless have been impressed by one significant fact, that no other church, denomination, or sect received a word of criticism or abuse throughout these lectures; the charity that "suffereth long, and is kind," and that "envieth not," prevailed.
Many of your readers will doubtless wonder why a clergyman should apply the adjective "Christless" to Christian Science, a religion which is not only teaching the necessity of returning to primitive Christian healing, but is actually exhibiting the "signs" which Jesus declared should "follow them that believe.
