It would have been difficult for our clerical critic to have...

Norman E. John—Wilmington, Del.

The Evening Journal

It would have been difficult for our clerical critic to have selected a more appropriate text than the fifteenth verse of the seventeenth psalm as an introduction to his discussion on the subject of Christian Science. The Scriptures inform us that "God is a Spirit;" therefore the text, "As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness," would logically emphasize the verity of the teaching of Christian Science that man shall be satisfied when he awakes in God's likeness—that is, the likeness of Spirit—and finds himself to be spiritual. The reported extracts of the sermon, as found in a recent issue, state that "the doctor gave a short history of the development of Christian Science, and briefly reviewed its principles as laid down in the text-book, 'Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures.'" As this was not given in your report, we are not at all sure what the reverend critic considers the basic teaching of Christian Science, but we certainly take exception to the deductions which he has drawn, as given in the evening paper.

The good doctor says that "the philosophy, the theology, and the theory of Mind-healing in Christian Science was advanced ages ago." In the brief wording of the statement we quite agree with him. The philosophy, theology, theory, and even the practice of Christian Science, were fully expounded and emphasized by Christ Jesus centuries ago, and we make the broad and unqualified statement that the teaching of Christian Science today does not depart one iota from Jesus' teaching. Christian Scientists are very well satisfied that the philosophy and religion of Jesus the Christ were epitomized in the Sermon on the Mount, and the teaching of Christian Science and its application coincide with the spiritual teaching therein enunciated. That the theory and practice of spiritual healing was advanced centuries ago may be verified by the recorded statements of Christ Jesus to his followers, and by his practice and theirs in accord with them. Christian Scientists today are endeavoring, up to their highest light and understanding, to obey these commands and to follow the example of the Master.

If, as one would infer from the printed report, the good doctor insinuates that by Mrs. Eddy's advice Christian Scientists are to shift the responsibility in contagious diseases, and that in cases not quickly healed a regular physician should be called, we must conclude, either that he does not understand the advice and the practice of Christian Scientists, or that he is presenting an incorrect interpretation thereof. It is true that Mrs. Eddy has advised the submission to vaccination and the reporting of contagious diseases when required by law, and Christian Scientists are adhering to this custom; not that they wist to shift the responsibility, but that they sincerely respect the rights of their fellow citizens in regard to those requirements. It is to be further stated, that in obeying these requirements the Christian Scientist by no means turns his cases over to materia medica for healing, for as a general rule the Christian Scientists is allowed to continue his work, with the proper isolation of his patient as required by quarantine laws, until the work is finished.

Mrs. Eddy does not advise that a regular physician be called in cases which have not yielded quickly to the treatment of Christian Science. She does advise, however, that the patient shall always and at all times be free to exercise his choice as to what method of treatment he shall receive; and likewise that he be left entirely free to decide when one form of treatment shall be given up in preference to another. From the report it would be inferred that our critic attempted to disprove the teaching of Christian Science because its adherents have not fully demonstrated in all cases the results which might be expected from its teaching. This inference, it would seem to the writer, is wholly illogical and a very poor way to bolster an argument. It would be just as logical to state that preaching the gospel and conducting revivals are failures because all who are converted do not demonstrate the fulness of Christian faith; or to say that the teaching of mathematics could not be proven because a large percentage who profess to be mathematicians do not prove all that could be expected of them.

It is not strange that five thousand persons should have had the desire to crowd the Metropolitan opera house in Philadelphia recently (and two thousand more outside attempting to gain entrance), to hear a simple lecture on Christian Science, if its philosophy were "crude, incomplete, and a jumble of confused and contradictory statements," as the doctor as reported claimed it to be?

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit