|
|
Opposite
Views
|
In
Christian Science, substance is
understood to be Spirit, while
the opponents of Christian
Science believe substance to be
matter. They think of matter as
something and almost the only
thing, and of the things which
pertain to Spirit as next to
nothing, or as very far removed
from daily experience. Christian
Science takes exactly the
opposite view.
Mary Baker Eddy
|
|
|
CS
Hampered
|
[Christian]
Science is hampered by immature
demonstrations, by the infancy of
its discovery, by incorrect
teaching; and especially by
unprincipled claimants. . .
Mary Baker Eddy
|
|
|
|
ANSWERS TO
CRITICS
. . . Sensible
people will not go to a blacksmith for lessons in
watchmaking, to a watchmaker for lessons on
horseshoeing, nor to an uneducated person for
instruction in mathematics. By the same token they
will not go to a prejudiced preacher of another
denomination for a correct statement of Christian
Science. . . .
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, November 8,
1919
. . . A Colorado
clergyman recently said: "I have learned that the
idea most people have of Christian Science is an
erroneous one and that the thing so often attacked
as Christian Science is not Christian Science at
all. I am not a Christian Scientist. There are some
things upon which we differ; there are more things
upon which we agree; and the few things upon which
we differ should not prevent us from loving each
other and living and working together for the glory
of God and of men." Is not this attitude of
constructive helpfulness among Christians better
than wholesale condemnation and criticism?
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, October 25,
1919
. . . Christian
Science must be judged, not by what its critics say
against it, but by what it really is and what it is
accomplishing. It must be judged, not by whether it
conforms to certain accepted standards or beliefs
of ecclesiasts, but solely by the vital questions:
Does it conform to the teachings of Christ Jesus?
Is it fulfilling the essential mission of the
religion he taught, which unmistakably is the
healing of the sick and the reformation of the
sinner? Christian Scientists emphatically declare,
as a result of their experience, that it does so
conform, and they prove this declaration in their
daily lives. . . .
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, November 8,
1919
. . . The claim
that "to fail in one case would be to unseat the
claim of scientific demonstration," is met by the
incident where the disciples of Jesus failed to
heal the lunatic boy. This did not "unseat" the
demonstration of the power of Truth taught by
Christ Jesus, but was simply due to the fact that
the students, disciples, of his teachings had not
yet reached a full understanding of what he taught.
It was a self-evident and fully proved fact then,
as it is now, that the truth he taught healed all
manner of diseases without resort to material
methods, and it was and is within the power of man
to demonstrate it. . . .
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, October 11,
1919
During this week
[second week of July] a religious
organization is holding a conference in Los
Angeles, and among other things it is intended to
take a few whacks at the Christian Science
organization, according to published
announcement.
One thing the
churches which are attacking or attempting to
attack the Christian Scientists ought to remember,
and that is that the people of that church used to
belong to other churches and they feel that they
have found something better on which to pin their
faith. Nagging and criticizing them is not going to
return them to the old fold, nor is it going to
accomplish anything for the naggers.
While the Free
Press is not taking up the fight of the
Christian Scientists, it abhors the action of the
other church organizations in trying to break down
the foundations of a faith. It smacks very much of
church politics. . . . Every person has a right to
his or her own belief in religion, and the average
person yields to the organization that best suits
his or her ideas of morality. If the ministers of
the gospel who oppose Christian Science would show
the people something better, perhaps the membership
roll of that church would not grow ...
The Christian
Science church is not trying to force its articles
of faith on the world, but is accepting those who
accept its faith. It is said that Christian Science
is in truth a science, and people who give it
merely superficial thought are in no position to
decide upon its merits. People of average and more
than average intelligence seem to find that faith
worthy of their support and deep interest. Let
those who oppose [Christian Science] hide
their opposition behind a sincere effort to find a
better way to reach the kingdom all men desire.
Ventura
Free Press Editorial, quoted in
"Signs
of the Times"
Christian
Science Sentinel, October 18,
1919
. . . [A]
critic finds fruitless fault with Mrs. Eddy's
teaching to the effect that the real man of God's
creating cannot depart from holiness and is
incapable of sin, sickness, or death. But we need
only turn to the first epistle of John to confirm
her position: "Whosoever is born of God doth not
commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he
cannot sin, because he is born of God." Being
without sin he is, therefore, not subject to
sickness or death, as Jesus proved. Before
criticizing Mrs. Eddy one should at least make a
reasonable attempt to understand her. "Anybody,"
she writes on page 345 of Science and Health, "who
is able to perceive the incongruity between God's
idea and poor humanity, ought to be able to discern
the distinction (made by Christian Science) between
God's man, made in His image, and the sinning race
of Adam."
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, September 6,
1919
The tirade of
abuse directed against a noble and spiritual-minded
woman, as Mrs. Eddy was known to be by many
thousands of grateful followers in this and other
lands, is to be deeply regretted. Like all great
religious and moral reformers, Mrs. Eddy has been
the target for misrepresentation and sometimes
malicious attack by those who fail to understand
her. The animus of these attacks, however, is so
apparent that they have fallen harmless in the past
and can have no better success in the present
instance.
Christian
Scientists welcome and invite a thorough
investigation into their teaching and practice, and
those who wish to be correctly informed will
scarcely be content with the interpretations and
denunciations of its avowed opponents. In regard to
contagious diseases Christian Scientists obey the
laws and strictly observe sanitary and quarantine
regulations. As to the "money making" of which our
adversary discourses so glibly, there are few who
do so much work for others gratuitously as the
Christian Science practitioner is constantly doing.
It is not to be supposed that anyone would expect
to call a physician who might, or might not, cure
him, without paying him his bill, small or large.
The Christian Scientist asks for a modest fee,
which will compare quite favorably with that of any
medical practitioner or surgeon.
Christian
Scientists believe in God, in the divinity of the
Christ, in the inspiration of the Scriptures, in
unceasing prayer, in the highest morality of
thought and conduct, and in the practical
possibility of a present overcoming of sin and all
its effects through spiritual apprehension of the
Christ, "the Comforter," "the Spirit of truth."
Excerpt
from "Selected Articles"
Christian Science Sentinel, November 29,
1919
. . . Now because
Christian Science reminds us that God, Spirit, made
man in His image and likeness, Christian Scientists
do not believe that God is material. On the
contrary, they are persistently seeking for the man
of God's creation, namely, the reflection of
Himself, Spirit; and in proportion to the
faithfulness of their seeking this reflection, are
they witnessing the healing works which Jesus
promised should be performed by all those who
believe. . . .
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, October 4,
1919
When Mrs. Eddy
first gave to the world her remarkable definition
of God, found on page 587 of Science
and Health, she little suspected probably that
one word contained therein would arouse such a
storm of protest from the old school theologians,
and all because that one word, "Principle," as she
used it, is so little understood by them. The
definition referred to reads (p. 587):
"GOD. The great I
AM; the all-knowing,
all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and
eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life;
Truth; Love; all substance; intelligence."
Now even the most
strictly orthodox people find themselves in
agreement with the first part of this definition,
for being familiar with the Bible they see that the
definition is strictly Scriptural; but the
theologue always stops at the word "Principle." It
sounds new; it is Mrs. Eddy's teaching; therefore,
says he, it is wrong.
A bishop in an
address before the Fourteenth Annual Convention of
Inland Empire Sunday Schools, held in Spokane, as
reported said, "I cannot think of one of these
social cults in which people have thought seriously
of God. The God they thought of was only principle.
I don't see what the use is of praying to a
principle." The bishop is right from his
standpoint. No one could see the use of praying to
a principle, or a mind, or a spirit, as these words
are commonly used, for it is generally believed
that there are divers principles, minds, souls, and
spirits —
good, bad, and indifferent. Mrs. Eddy has
used these words, however, as synonyms of God; and
when Christian Scientists speak of God as
Principle, Mind, Soul, Spirit, and so forth, they
speak with the clear understanding that comes with
the casting out of the mortal belief in innumerable
other principles, minds, souls, and spirits all
outside of or opposed to God. . . .
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, October 4,
1919
. . . Out of the
[strictly] literal interpretation of the
Bible come all the contradictions and
inconsistencies in which critics find satisfaction.
The two accounts of the conquest of Canaan, taken
literally, differ in important details, yet the
spiritual significance, the truth intended to be
conveyed, is identical in both cases. It is
immaterial whether all the tribes acted together
under a unified command as described in Joshua, or
whether they operated separately or in groups as
narrated in Judges. The essential thing, and the
fact at the heart of each narrative is, that the
experience in the wilderness, followed by the
occupation of the promised land, is typical or
allegorical of the steps taken by every human being
in his journey out of the material sense of
existence into the spiritual, wherein obedience
speeds his progress, while disobedience leads to
suffering and ends in downfall. "Take away the
spiritual signification of Scripture," Mrs. Eddy
has well said on page 241 of "Science and Health
with Key to the Scriptures," "and that compilation
can do no more for mortals than can moonbeams to
melt a river of ice."
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, November 15,
1919
. . . The Bible
opens with the record of the spiritual creation,
wherein man is described as made in the image and
after the likeness of God, which creation was
declared by Him to be "very good." Then follows the
record of another creation, which is an account of
the mortal or Adam man, and our critic evidently
has failed to discern this distinction; yet without
perceiving this distinction the Bible must
necessarily lose most of its meaning. On page 320
of Science and Health Mrs. Eddy writes: "The most
distinguished theologians in Europe and America
agree that the Scriptures have both a spiritual and
literal meaning. . . . The one important
interpretation of Scripture is the spiritual."
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, December 27,
1919
Mr. Justice Wilbur
well says, in his Sunday school reference to the
healing which Jesus brought to Peter's
mother-in-law, that "the great fact that stands out
before us is that Jesus ministered to the sick and
the suffering." So far and so successfully did
Jesus carry this ministration, it may be added,
that he asked no aid of medicine or physicians, but
simply applied the spiritual truths which he
taught, to the healing of supposedly incurable
diseases and even to the raising of the
dead.
Thus he was quite
willing to test the soundness of his teachings,
which have since become known as Christianity. He
did not ask his hearers to accept his doctrine
merely on his say-so; he was ready to prove its
validity by actual demonstration. To him sickness
was an opportunity for presenting an object lesson
in the science which he practiced and which of
course has not the remotest relation to medical
practice.
That Jesus regarded
the cure of disease as a vital part of Christianity
is evidenced by his command to his disciples to
heal the sick, and his promise to all who believed
in him that they should do what he did and even
greater things. . . .
It is surprising that
Justice Wilbur, being a lawyer, has not cited
authority for his assertion that "Christianity has
furnished the background and impulse for modern
medicine." Certainly the New Testament holds no
brief and furnishes no precedents for modern
medicine. Animal experimentation is the background
of modern medicine. Imagine the seventy disciples,
after they had "returned again with joy, saying,
Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through
thy name" —
imagine them
inoculating guinea pigs or vivisecting their
neighbors' four-footed pets.
There is no record of
Jesus using or recommending drugs, nor of Luke,
"the beloved physician," following his profession
after being converted to Christianity. Luke is
supposed to have been with Paul at the time of the
shipwreck at Melita, but there is no account of his
lending first aid when the viper fastened itself on
Paul, nor of standing at attention with his
medicine chest while Paul, by prayer, healed the
father of Publius of a fever and "others also,
which had diseases in the island."
The first great
Christian missionary thus set an example of
practical religion which modern missionaries might
well emulate. The healing of the sick by Christians
in those days was so obviously by spiritual, not
material means, that modern Bible students are
wondering why that fact has been so long
overlooked.
. .
.
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, January 10,
1920
A more careful
reading of the letter to which exception is taken
by the self-appointed critic of Christian Science
writing in a recent issue would have satisfied him
that no great difference exists between his
contention that sin comes from wrong choice of a
free moral agent, and the Christian Science
teaching that sin, as the term is generally
understood, is solely the product of mortal mind,
alias mortal man. Unfortunately for our critic,
however, he is laboring under the delusion,
perpetuated by popular theology, that this free
moral agent — this mortal, material man, the
dust man of the second chapter of Genesis — is
the man created by God, in God's own image and
likeness.
Charging God with
the creation of a material, mortal, free moral
agent capable of a sinful choice not only dishonors
God but repudiates the plain teachings of the
Bible. According to Scripture, God is Spirit,
infinite good. The man made in God's image and
likeness, therefore, must be spiritual and must be
wholly good. He cannot be the author of sin, since
it is unthinkable that an infinitely good God could
create anything capable of sinning. Sin, then, is
illusion, originating in the false belief of a
mortal, material mind, setting itself up as a power
opposed to God. It is material falsehood, and like
any other lie, is destroyed by knowing the truth.
This is the process by which Jesus cast out sin and
evil, and it is the same method successfully
exemplified in Christian Science today in the
destruction of sin and the healing of sickness.
In his attempt to
prove the theory of a God-created free moral agent
capable of sin, by comparing it with a carpenter
doing a good thing by erecting a store building
which might later be used for an evil purpose
without subjecting the builder to the charge of
creating an evil, our critic violates the
admonition of Paul in his first epistle to the
Corinthians. Paul tells us that we must compare
spiritual things with spiritual, whereas our
critic's illustration attempts to unite the
spiritual and material, or good and evil.
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, February 7,
1920
Because Christian
Science is Christian it does not countenance
vitriolic attacks upon any people and their
religion, as indulged in by "V. N. S." in a recent
issue. And because Christian Science is scientific
in its teaching and practice it necessarily makes
the same discrimination between Spirit and matter
that Christ Jesus made. "God is a Spirit," said
Jesus. He also said, "The flesh profiteth nothing,"
and, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see
me have."
Thus Christian
Science rejects only what Christ Jesus rejected and
accepts all that he accepted, even the divine
nature which animated him and made him immortal.
That Mind, which Paul said was in Christ Jesus, is
divine and omnipresent. His flesh disappeared, as
all temporal things will disappear when the
all-inclusive substance of Spirit becomes
apparent.
Now there is
nothing at all in what I have said here or
heretofore that warrants the statement made by the
critic that Christian Science rejects Christ Jesus.
There is not a word of truth in that statement. But
I do insist that an acceptance of Jesus means also
obedience to his commandments, — or it means
nothing.
When the critic
speaks of Christian Science as a delusion of the
devil, he does not seem to be aware that he is
lowering Christianity to a plane of confusion and
making it subject to chance and change. "If
Christianity is not scientific," writes Mrs. Eddy
on page 342 of Science and Health, "and Science is
not of God, then there is no invariable law, and
truth becomes an accident." No one has ever refuted
the truth of her statement and no one ever will.
The only answer it receives from unfriendly critics
appears in some form of abuse, and abuse is an
admission that no other form of answer can be
given.
The irrefutable
answer to all kinds of abuse is this fact, that the
truth of Christian Science has its proof in healing
all kinds of sickness and disease and in reforming
the sinful. These proofs Jesus demanded as a test
of true disciples. But the history of almost two
thousand years shows that proof is not obtained by
a personal worship of Christ Jesus, or a mere lip
service, but is made available only by implicit
obedience to his teaching and commandments. Hence
in his great mission for the salvation of all
mankind Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my
commandments."
Excerpt
from "Selected
Articles"
Christian
Science Sentinel, February 7,
1920
|