Article October 5, 1912 Issue

A recent issue reviews an attack on Christian Science by...

Alfred Farlow

Sandusky (Ohio) Register

A recent issue reviews an attack on Christian Science by Henry Dwight Chapin which contains the suggestion that "an adult may elect to be treated by a Christian Scientist but in the case of a child the question is altogether different." First, it should be stated that an adult chooses Christian Science, and having demonstrated by actual experience that his health is more safe under the guardianship of Christian Science than otherwise, why should he be less concerned about the welfare of his child than he is as to his own safety? Why should he be less concerned about the welfare of his child than he is as to his own safety? Why should he deprive the child of the newly tested remedy and leave it to suffer in the "good old-fashioned way"?

A short time ago great ado was made in the city of New York concerning one child which died under Christian Science treatment during a period when 1,714 other children died of the same disease under medical treatment. Not good judgment but force of habit prompts such comment. It has been demonstrated in thousands of cases, to the entire satisfaction of parents who have placed their children under Christian Science treatment, that Christian Science is as safe a remedy for the children as it is for adults. We will grant that to those who have not had experience with Christian Science a dependence thereupon to the exclusion of drugs may seem to be neglect rather than help, but it does not so appear to those who have had experience first with drugs and then with Christian Science. Perfection is demanded of a new remedy, while the older remedies have won a license to fail. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the times to condemn a thing simply because it is new and because it happens to be untried to the critic. The skeptic should weigh all new things carefully and should be in possession of real evidence before he passes judgment.

Regarding the question whether Christian Science heals organic disease, any practitioner of experience will testify that he has succeeded quite as well in the treatment of such disease as in the treatment of what have been called purely functional disorders. The overwhelming majority of such cases which have turned to Christian Science had already been treated for organic troubles by acceptable medical practitioners. Indeed, the line of demarcation between "organic" and "functional" diseases seems to be very indistinct, not only to the layman but to competent medical men as well. One eminent physician has stated that "all diseases are mental at bottom," and it is safe to say that the consensus of opinion even among drug practitioners is such as to justify a universal experimentation with Christian Science, while Christian Scientists have demonstrated beyond the shadow of doubt on their part that all disease is mental and that the proper remedy is an understanding of God as Mind, Spirit.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit

A recent issue reviews an attack on Christian Science by...

We'd love to hear from you!

Sign up for unlimited access