The Washington herald., 1909-01-03
OPEN LETTER TO CHRISTIAN
SCIENTISTS.

This communication Is suggested not
only by the recent contribution OF Al
fred Farlow 70 The Washington Herald,
entitled Emmanuel Movement and
Christian Science" but by the interest
Christian Science has held for me for
number Of years. know comparatively
little Of the Emmanuel movement, and,
therefore, what I have to say here, in so
far as il relates to a particular creed or
doctrine. will make principal reference to
Christian Science.
certainly must believe in the goodness
OF God. I understand little or nothing Of
the wonderful energy that manipulates
the spheres. yet numbers the hairs OF my
head; I know not what he is ike. or
what His thoughts are But Il 1 think
about Him AZ AL, 1 must think ofsHim as
good. I must have sense Of the general
all-rightness Of the universe, II I think
about it at all: II things are against me
instead Of for me, II the great Plan, In
GLIDING all plans. is destined 70 fail at
last, then all hope and effort are useless
and vain And though We cannot see the
end and prove that the right viii
triumph. faith must step in as the evil
dence OF things not seen" OF else an
eternity Of death were better than mo-
ment Of life
But does the belief that God IS good
imply the belief that there IS no wrong,
suffering. or death In the world2 Chris
uan Scientists seem 10 teach Just that,
cOnceding, however that such evils exist
in mortal thought" II they did not
yield this much. there would be no field
for their own endeavOrs. But when they
are asked how mortal thought" or
error" got into Gods perfect universe,
they reply that the question Is not practi-
cal, and that We should concern ourselves
only with getting nd Of error. and not
waste time trying TO account for its
origin.
They are right. then. at last. though
tardily so; the problem OF evil IS never
a practical one. But If they are going 10
tamper with the question at ali, it is IL
logical FOR them 20 deny that IL looms
up as large and battling after their con-
clUsion as before. il hurts just as badly
10 suffer in thought as IN actually.
since suffering must exist in conscious
ness. If anywhere. We are bound 70 ad-
nit that there IS such a thing as pain
the world OF thought and feeling from
the universe OF an all-powerfUI and all
knowing God. we have gained nothing
whatever. Il seems 70 me. In the demon
stration Of His goodness by repudiating
the testimony Of the physical senses and
making the question entirely q mental
one
Mr.. Farlow very plausibly emphasizes
the fact that a practitioner OF the En-
manuel system cannot assure his patient
Of recovery, at the same time himself
thoroughly believing such 20 be the pros
pect and therefore speaking in entire sin
CcTiJy. and he calls attention 10 the So
peTiOr merits Of Christian Science IN this
direction. based, as Il Is claimed, upon a
principle which enables its exponent 20
speak with the assurance born Of con-
viCtion. But I would respectfully ask
Can Christian Scientists sincerely promise
that any given physical result viii follow
their ehorts2 once admitting. as they do.
that their grasp OF divine power is so
limited that they cannot overcome evil in
this age. how can they say with conf
dence on any particular occasion how
much can be accomplished? II God is so
beuedceut that sickness or death cannot
exist IN H. dominion. do not see why
he should show special favor 70 the
man whO has been fortunate enough 10
secure the services OF a Christian Science
healer.
The philosophical muddIe into which
Christian Scientists seem 20 have fallen.
or AZ least which 7 have narrowly es-
capped IN the endeavOr 20 follow them,
appears 70 have arisen from a popular
misconception OF the meaning Of such