Answers Rev. Galeener

Archibald M'Lellan

Press

To the Editor:—In a recent issue of your paper is a report of a sermon preached by Rev. Chris Galeener upon the subject of Christian Science, and I hope that you will allow me space to call attention to a number of misconceptions voiced by him.

In the first place, let me say that Christian Science comes to humanity as a demonstrable religion—founded upon the Bible, and applicable to the needs of humanity in the every-day affairs of life. It is the Christianity of Jesus, and it heals the sick and reforms the sinner just as it did in his day. In fact, it is the fulfilment of his promise: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." That Christian Science is doing this work is abundantly proved by the testimony of many grateful people who publicly acknowledge its healing and regenerating efficacy. Such testimony is given at the Wednesday evening meetings held by the more than four hundred churches of the denomination, and through the official denominational publications—The Christian Science Journal and the Christian Science Sentinel.

Mr. Galeener says that Christian Science appeals to people "along the line of their physical needs." In that respect it follows in the footsteps of Jesus, who did not scorn to appeal to the people of his day "along the line of their physical needs." His miracles, which were performed "along the lines of the physical needs" of humanity, are mentioned in thirty-nine of the eighty-nine chapters of the four gospels. May we not conclude that these signs are inseparable from Christianity, and that any criticism of Christian Science upon that basis is a criticism of Christianity?

He disputes the philosophy of Christian Science because a fundamental statement is "God is All-in-all." Does he mean that God is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? I hardly think so, although that is the logical conclusion of his objection. He says that "Christian Science declares in unmistakable terms that there are no facts," but in that he is mistaken. Christian Science has but one text-book in addition to the Bible—"Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" by Mary Baker G. Eddy, and he will not find such a declaration therein. He will find, however, that it declares that God is the only Creator; that He is not the creator of sin, sickness, and death, and that in that sense they are unreal and nothing more than the illusion of mortal mind. Can we conceive of God as the creator of sin? or as the creator of the creator of sin? If God is not the author or creator of sin, then He is not omnipotent if sin is real, because it cannot be real without a creator. Is it not dishonoring God to charge Him with being the creator of sin, sickness, and death; and is it not dishonoring Him, and is it not unscriptural to say that He is not the only creator?

Mr. Galeener attempts to explain the healing done through Christian Science upon some other basis than that set forth in its text-book, but the explanation is useless. Who is competent to explain the healing except he who has sufficient understanding to heal? Because Jesus healed in defiance of mortal laws "Some of them said, He casteth out devils through Beelzebub the chief of devils."

Mr. Galeener says, "We may laugh at its philosophy and either discount its cures or accept them as we please, but when we come to look into its theology, we are horrified at its blasphemy. It denies the personality of Jesus Christ and substitutes its inane ravings for the Holy Ghost." To find whether this statement is true or false, we must refer to the text-book of Christian Science, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures."

He asks, "What shall we say of its moral tendencies?" If he speaks the truth, he will be compelled to say that a religion which impresses upon humanity the necessity of following in the footsteps of Jesus, and which iterates and reiterates that in no other way can we be saved from the miseries of mortal existence, is a safe guide, and this is precisely what Christian Science does. He asks: "What will be the effect upon a rising generation to be told that there is no evil or sin in the world; it matters not what you do, you cannot sin?" If Christian Science taught anything of the kind, it would be worthy of all denunciation, but it teaches nothing but the highest morality and the destruction of sin.

Mr. Galeener's statement that it (Christian Science) has "a tendency to dehumanize the world" and "laughs to scorn the world's woe" is not borne out by facts, and he practically admits that such is the case. His argument that Christian Scientists are not "inhuman," but will become so, is a theory only, and seems to be a contradiction of Jesus' saying, "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

Archibald M'Lellan.

In the Press, Danville, Ill.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

Substantial Improvements

June 28, 1900

Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit