In the articles entitled "Twentieth Century Religion" and...

Samuel Greenwood—Vancouver, British Columbia

The Citizen

In the articles entitled "Twentieth Century Religion" and "Guarding the Water Supply," both of which appeared in The Citizen, are some misleading references to Christian Science. A student of Christian Science would never think of associating it with the various isms named in the first article, for those who understand its teachings know that it stands entirely apart from all human doctrines and beliefs. Let me say that I heartily agree with the author that a religion composed of such discordant elements would indeed be a "humbug," but we can rejoice that such a compound is impossible so far as Christian Science is concerned.

The gentleman's quotation from Mrs. Eddy is incorrectly given, as is also his implied connection between Christian Science and what he terms higher criticism. What Mrs. Eddy says is this: "The different renderings or translations of Scripture in no wise affect Christian Science. Christianity and Science, being contingent on nothing written and based on the divine Principle of being, must be, are, irrefutable and eternal" (The First Church of Christ, Scientist, and Miscellany, p. 179); and on page 240 of the same work she refers to higher criticism thus: "Christian Science is the higher criticism because it criticizes evil, disease, and death—all that is unlike God, good—on a Scriptural basis, and approves or disapproves according to the word of God."

It should be obvious that truth naturally precedes whatever has been written about it. The inspired statements of Scripture are not true simply because they are in the Bible, but are recorded in the Bible because they are true. The truth declared by Christianity coexists with God, and therefore antedates the Scriptures; and this truth is the only basis of Christian Science.

The writer of the second article falls into the too common mistake of assuming that nothing can be true which does not accord with one's particular doctrine. It is this intolerant attitude toward others' views that in all ages has withstood human progress. The only convincing argument is demonstration; therefore the only effective weapon an opponent could use against Christian Science would be to give practical evidence that his own religion can more successfully heal the sick and the sinning.

That those who accept Christian Science do so to "their souls' eternal destruction" is certainly a formidable statement, but one rather difficult to substantiate. The simpler and better way is to stick to the present and decide the question here. If the influence of Christian Science is the dreadful poison which this critic declares, its effects would surely be apparent this side of eternity. No better test can be found of any religion than that set by the Master when he said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." He also said that "a corrupt tree" cannot "bring forth good fruit."

Over against this writer's statement is the well-known and well-attested fact that Christian Science is liberating men from all forms of bad habits and evil passions, from sin and disease, is promoting faith in God, a deeper love of the Bible, and a higher standard of living. Thousands have testified and are testifying to its beneficent influence. Who then has authority to pronounce the influence of Christian Science to be evil, when those most nearly concerned are conscious only of an increased sense of good and a more practical knowledge of the power of God?

A disappointing feature of the scholastic theology is that it persistently relegates a realization of its promised blessings to the hereafter, while mankind are asking for the truth that will bless them here. We are taught that God will not be any different throughout eternity from what He is right now, and it is right now that men are seeking that which will do them good. Since God is the same today that He will be tomorrow or in a thousand years from now, it must be possible to receive His help today. That religion is logically nearest right which does most for men where they are and in present needs. It is always fitting that we accept the Master's rule of judgment, lest we be found to condemn what God has chosen to bless. "How shall I curse, whom God hath not cursed?" asked Balaam, and the question is pertinent today.

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit