The Power Of Prayer

Christian Science Is Not Mere Blind Faith

Christian Scientist parents' right to practice their religious beliefs was called into question recently in Missouri. ...

Conflict between allegiance to the authority of the state and allegiance to religion in an individual's life dates back to biblical times. Christian Scientists, who are students of the Bible, recall the example of the young boy Daniel, an Israelite, who was brought into the king of Babylon's house as a child for training and special care.

For three years, Daniel and a group of chosen children were to partake of a "daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king" (Dan. 1:5).

Though this would certainly have been seen as a great opportunity for Daniel, it in fact went against his religious beliefs. He asked that he not have to participate and be given other provisions. His guardian, though at first fearful, was willing to "test" Daniel's faith, and at Daniel's request, the caretaker gave him and his fellow Israelites nothing but pulse [edible seeds] to eat and water to drink for 10 days, at the end of which Daniel and his friends were seen to be "fairer and fatter in flesh" than all the others. So Daniel won his right to freedom of religion—not as an organized religion, and not on any statistical basis, but as a human being endowed with the right to demonstrate what proved to be a successful and respected belief system.

Although written more than 2,000 years ago, this story can stand as a parallel example to the conflict in society today between medical treatment and a reliable religious method of healing. The king's meat and drink compares to advanced medical care, and the king's decree is a requirement of parents to rely strictly on medicine for the health of their children.

The rights guaranteed by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights—freedom of religion, of speech, of the press—are among the most beloved and basic of all natural rights expected in a free society. However, the "free-exercise" clause and the "no-establishment" clause in the First Amendment, which pertain to religion, appear to be paradoxical in practice. At the same time that people clamor for a wall between the two—demanding prayer be kept out of schools, and nativity scenes and crosses kept off public property—people also look to government to protect their right to practice their beliefs. Yet, in the case of Christian Science, some people even look to government to pass child-care laws that may prohibit or restrict the practice of religion.

In our time, a particular challenge to our exercise of freedom of religion has been the question of medical versus spiritual treatment for our children. As citizens, like Daniel thousands of years ago, Christian Scientists are asking that they not be forced to "eat of the king's meat" but be allowed to "prove" themselves.

Christian Scientists love their children. Our hearts cry out at the loss of even one child. But like all well-meaning parents, we want the best for our offspring. We raise our families in Christian Science because we have seen how a growing understanding of humanity's true relationship to God heals every type of situation and does not require further assistance. Where else but from his home, from his parents, would the young boy Daniel have received the faith and conviction to take the stand he did and prove the power of his religion?

Christian Scientist parents do not have a blind faith. Our religion is not based on ritualistic creeds and rote practices. Quite the contrary. Should a person try to make it so, the ability to practice Christian Science would be lost.

The identification of a reliable religious method of healing is not subjective. Christian Science is based on the teachings of Christ Jesus and was established more than 125 years ago by a New England woman, Mary Baker Eddy. Thousands of documented healings have occurred as a result of complete reliance on prayer through Christian Science. Today, many insurance companies recognize it by offering coverage in their policies for Christian Science treatment. Need one mention that insurance companies don't take chances with unproven claims?

Both religion and government should promote the progress of mankind. Even if a person chooses not to believe in God or follow a specified religion, this choice must be protected by government, and there are inherent rights that he or she be allowed as a human being.

Religion and government should not be at odds or try to dominate one another, but each should complement the ideals of the other—religion by teaching man's inalienable rights as a child of God, and government by instituting ways to protect these rights.

The right of Christian Scientist parents to rely completely on spiritual means alone in the treatment of their children should not be prohibited in any way.

Victor Westberg

Victor Westberg, Boston, is a Christian Science practitioner and Manager of the Church's worldwide Committees on Publication.