After a lecture in any community by a member of the...
Watertown (Mass.) Tribune-Enterprise
After a lecture in any community by a member of the board of lectureship of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, it is not uncommon for some of the ministers of other churches to compare their respective religions with Christian Science, and conclude that the latter has no benefits to offer which cannot be gained through the former. These comparisons and conclusions are usually offered from pulpits, but wider audiences are sometimes sought by means of letters in public print. Christian Scientists have no objection to either of these expedients. It is to be presumed that ministers who continue in other churches continue to prefer the religions thereof, and their right to preach their own views is not questioned by Christian Scientists. Sometimes, however, the sermons and letters delivered in these circumstances seem to ignore the equal right of Christian Scientists to preach the gospel as they understand it, and are preached or written in a censorious manner.
The letter from a Congregational minister which appeared in the Tribune-Enterprise last week after a lecture by a Christian Scientist had been reported the week before, purported to be a public correction "in the interest of truth," of the "many erroneous statements or inferences" said to have been contained in the lecture to which it referred. It is to be observed, however, that the alleged errors of the lecturer consisted only in speaking the truth as understood in Christian Science as distinguished from the views entertained by our censorious friend. I am glad to say, however, that the letter in question was written with an evident intent to be fair and courteous. When the writer of it said that Christian Science "claims to be very different in its methods from that of Jesus," he may possibly have said more than he intended, for no statement could have been farther from the actual fact. Christian Science aims to be, in teaching and in practice, identical with the religion of Jesus the Christ, and there is no basis in Mrs. Eddy's writings for any other conclusion.
Christian Scientists are disposed to agree with the writer of the letter in question that important changes have recently occurred in the popular views of God. Indeed, we would agree with a recent author, not a Christian Scientist, who has said that the changes in religion during the last fifty years "are more marked than those, we may almost say, of all the time preceding." More of these changes have been wrought by Christian Science than have come to pass through the avowed acceptance of its teachings. It is a fact, which can be easily verified, that the most important changes in the people's views of God during the last fifty years have followed the course taken by Mrs. Eddy. This does not mean that all Christendom has accepted Christian Science, or that no important difference remains between it and other interpretations of the Christian religion. It can be said, however, that Christendom is reading the gospels anew in the light of Christian Science, and is getting a clearer, more definite concept of God. Incidentally, certain other churches besides the Church of Christ, Scientist, are beginning to speak of spiritual power over disease.
The main contention of the letter in question was a reproof of the Christian Science lecturer for applying the Master's words, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," to freedom from disease. Our authoritative friend would limit the application of this promise; would confine it to freedom from sin. His statement was that "there is nothing in the whole eighth chapter of John about disease;" and he contended that there is no warrant for the broad application which Christian Science makes of this utterance. Such a contention illustrates the fact that all people do not find the same thing in the same Bible.
As I read the eighth chapter of John, not only are the words, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," unlimited by anything in the context, but the context includes particular references to "life," a term which Jesus used with infinite meaning, and to "death," a term which he used in such a manner as to cover all that might be the cause of death. Thus we read, "He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life;" also, "If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death." That death is the opposite of life, and that immunity from death would include freedom from disease, are self-evident propositions. It is to be observed, moreover, that Jesus specifically spoke of disease as part of the bondage of evil. (See Luke xiii. 11-17.)
Christian Scientists would say, therefore, that the context of the words in question furnishes no warrant for limiting their meaning, but does authorize the conclusion that "the light of life" is the truth of being, and is applicable to all and aught that might produce death or reduce the full abundance of perfect life. In other words, borrowed in part from St. Paul, sick people are "alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them," and the appropriate remedy for this darkened understanding will restore them to "the glorious liberty of the children of God."
Concerning the true remedy for sin and disease, Mrs. Eddy has said, "The prayer that reforms the sinner and heals the sick is an absolute faith that all things are possible to God,—a spiritual understanding of Him, an unselfed love" (Science and Health, p. 1). These words are plainly based on the teaching and practice of original Christianity, and their truth is again being confirmed by the results of Christian Science.
