# Valid Objections to So-called Christian Science/Chapter 5

I have already treated of the subject of Christian Science in its intrinsic aspect, as a religion and philosophy, endeavoring to show that it is neither Christian nor Scientific, and that its axioms, postulates, and propositions are false. My attempt has been to get at the essence of it, and to explain and illustrate how utterly absurd and unworthy of serious thought are its contentions. Let me now call attention to the modes of its outward manifestation; compare with them the facts of our religion and modern science, which are opposed to it; and indicate the disasters and unhappiness it would cause, if it should become generally current and allowed to prevail.
And the first fact to understand about it is that it is a serious, determined and fanatical thing—open to no argument, and resolved at all hazards upon having its way, in the face of every ob​stacle that civilization or the law may present.
Within the past few years it has increased more rapidly than any other organization which pretends to teach religion or advocate any particular method of healing. And unlike Spiritualism or. Theosophy, which for a time had a certain vogue, yet established themselves in no particular local habitations, it has been rapidly acquiring property, and erecting temples of brick and stone—the permanent symbols of its determination to stay. On account of this particular manifestation, it will be more difficult to check or destroy; since its votaries have succeeded in establishing its corporate life as something definite and tangible, and the value of its pecuniary holdings gives it the potent influence of wealth.
In the year 1898, it had 221 churches; in 1899, 415; in 1900, 497; in the year 1901, 600, besides many societies where no church had been built or occupied, with 12,000 ministers and healers, and 100,000 adherents. The latter figures are from the World's Almanac, and probably understate the case. There has been an increase of 81 churches and societies during the past year; and, according to one reliable authority, a gain ​of 13,000 adherents. It may be seen from these facts how serious a threat it is becoming.
Broadly speaking, Christian Science has manifested itself in two principal aspects: As an organized religion, and as a practice of the art of healing. But the one thing is bound up in the other; the one is as much opposed to the whole trend of modern thought and progress as the other. Its manifestation as a religion alone is, perhaps, not so serious in its probability of harm; for, divorced from the belief in the universal healing power of mind, it has but small foundation to stand upon, or from which to appeal to its votaries. The fact remains, that a large proportion of its adherents have become so by reason of their belief that they have been cured of some bodily ill. Yet it is accomplishing a good deal of evil in the moral and spiritual sphere.
In the first place, while claiming to be the religion of Jesus, it has asserted, and is asserting, that its principles were discovered and revealed by a woman, but thirty-five years ago. By doing this, it has practically denied to the apostles, the chosen messengers of the Lord himself, the right interpretation of the Gospel of Jesus to the world; and it assails ​the historical continuity of the Church; subverts the creeds, does away with the sacraments, and undermines the whole value and authority of the scriptural narrative, which rests upon the testimony of the apostles and the Church. Again, by teaching individuals, "that man cannot depart from holiness," and "when he sins he must assert that there is no such thing as sin"—these words are quoted from "Science and Health"—it is barring the way of all moral progress; for it is only by recognizing present shortcomings, defects and needs that a better state of morals is obtained in the future. The recognition of evil in the world, or in the individual, is the spur that stimulates to the overcoming of it. Jesus Christ said: "Repent first, then follow me." "Recognize your sin and strive to be rid of it."
For the man who is entirely satisfied with himself and his condition, there is absolutely no hope of moral improvement. The effect of Christian Science on morals in general is, therefore, pernicious. But one of its most marked stimuli for evil, in particular, is in its influence upon children and the young, by teaching them as early as possible to deny and doubt the evidence of the ​physical senses, which were given by God to convey impressions to the mind, and which would not be present in the human organism unless intended for use.
It is alone through the physical senses that we know what we do know. To deny the office of these senses, and their suggestions, is to deny the fundamental possibility of truth. If your child tells you he hasn't felt what he has felt, that he hasn't seen what he has seen, that he hasn't touched what you know he has touched, you are positive that he is lying, and you think it is high time to correct or to punish him. But Christian Science does the very opposite. It distinctly and authoritatively approves of this habit of mind; and, therefore, it is fostering a rising generation, trained from the beginning in the fundamentals of hypocrisy and deceit. After several generations, what moral degeneration and turpitude must result from such perverted discipline!
Again, while the Christian Scientist appears to be dwelling here in a state of serene contentment and happiness, and many of his co-believers are pointed out as examples of what a beneficent effect the teachings of this religion may produce, it may be well to ask by what ​means such a state is actually brought about—simply by the refusal to be burdened with things troublesome—by the deification of selfishness, by the banishment of sympathy, by the refusal of the principle which bids us to bear one another's burdens—the principle upon which all society and civilization are based.
Happiness born of such fundamentals as this cannot but be transient—is of the very essence of evil, and is absolutely impossible, even for a short while; except in the case where the individual, by reason of his wealth, has all the material wants—of his nature supplied, and can afford to be independent of the sympathy of his fellow men. Christian Science, therefore, has been, and is, a religion only for the well-to-do; it has no message for the poor and afflicted, no care for the sick, except to tell them that they do not suffer; it has founded no charitable institutions; it maintains no free hospitals, but demands, and wrests payment of the "Almighty Dollar" for all the boons its priests and priestesses and divine healers may confer—shamelessly opposed to Christian Altruism, flying in the face of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and striking down the divine principles of pity, mercy and unselfishness!
​Christian Science and Christianity do not coalesce. If the former be true, then Christian ethics is false. Therefore, the triumph of Christian Science would mean the overthrow of the religion of the Master, and of the splendid morality and altruism which are the growth and offspring of it. Who can measure the catastrophe this would prove to the world? The hope swept away, which has been the stay of twenty centuries and millions of souls, where should we turn to get the courage to bear the burdens that weigh us down? And what strength greater than the power of our weakened personalities might we be able to appropriate?
The charity and love which have softened and made smooth the hard places in life would give way to a sort of deified self-complacency, ignoring the ills of others in dreaming away its own; and the personality of the divine Lord of Life, the Son of God, with all its marvelous subtlety, gentleness and majesty, would be overshadowed by the image of a sick woman whose own infirmities are a physical refutation of the doctrine which she teaches. Pray God that such disaster may never come! Can the world afford to permit it? Shall we Christians believe that it is possible?