The evening herald. [volume] (Albuquerque, New Mexico) 1914-1922, 1920-12-13
j. M. Hervey Discusses Report
OF the Lambeth Conference as
HReIateS to Christian Science
THE LAMBETH CONFERENCES

o W. =
~appearod In the Southwest Church.
man the official organ IN New Mexicc
OF the Episcopal church. for tht
month OF October, 1920, should be d
matter OF great Interest 10 all person,
Interested IN our spiritual welfare
ana development. The conference,
dealt with many OF the complcs
problems confronting the world To.
dpy as a result 81 the great war.
and sets forth many sound and subj
stantial truths helpful, not only ia
the members OF hat great ~urganira-
ton, but to all persons having an
interest In such matters.
IN dealing villa the subject of
christian Science. however. the con
ference showed u surprising lack OF
knowledge OF that subject This Is
somewhat extraordinary IN view on
the fact that the conference must
have known that the membcrship OF
the church would depend upon this
report largely for information upon
inc SUBJECTS therein treated, and we
cannot help but feel that more care
should have been taken In the in
Nestigauon OF Christian Science than
was taken by tie conference. For
Instance, In the beginning Of its treat
ment OF this subject, Christian Sci
once is classified with Pantheism.
Spiritualism and Theosophy. The dis
covcrer and founder of Christian
Science Is Mary Baker Eddy. there
totc her writings are the highest au-
thority on what Christian Science Is
and It's similarity to other teachings.
Christian Scientists cherish no cnmity
against those who believe in the
doctrines OF rheosophy and Spirituai-
ism, but there Is II wide difference
between these doctrines and Christian
Science. in fact. they have nothing
IN common. Many times m the writ
4ngs of Mary Baker Eddy In the dis
JUNCTION st forth between Christian
Science and Spiritunlism and Theos-
ophy. She states on page 10 OF her
essay known as no and yes mo
greater opposites can be conceived OF.
physically, morally, and spiritually,
man Christian Science, S%piritualism,
ana Theosophy." BY an examination
Of the Writings OF the discoyercr and
OF Christian Science, the con-
ference could have ascertaincd tnat
IL IL no similar to these doctrines.
and could have found the reasons
why and a nll explanation OF these
differences.
The report further states that
Christian Science, in common with
me above mentioned doctrines.
either Ignores, explains away. or
~ lNAAhN HAANlDnN Dull
on tho contrary explains and
calculates that most dinicuit problem
IN theology, ana the world In sorely
In need OF a lucid explanation there
OF. The incarnation and It's practical
Significance and utility, and IL an
pllcabaility to present day problems.
IS one OF the central principles OF
Christian SCIENCE. II must be re-
membered In this connection. and Il
Is apparent to any one who will study
b teachings of the saviour thar
there is "a distinction between Jesus.
as commonly understood and known
amongst the people OF his time, and
the Christ. We are augnt In CHRIS
tan Science that Jesus is "A mime
which belonged to the saviour i'm
common with other Hebrew bows OF
that day, but that the Christ ex-
presses Gods spiritual, eternal ma
ture, n Is synonymous with Mes
slah' indicating the spirituality which
~ taught and demonstrated in the
me OF Christ Jesus. ana We are told
IN Science and Health, with key to
the scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy.
at page 1888, The divine image, Idea.
or Christ was, H., and ever will be
i~nsoparable from the divine principle, !
God"
DevOting itself directly Ia a brief
paragraph, to the teachings Of Chris
tlan Science, the conference declared
mat II had n tendency 10 pantheistic
doctrine, ana that on ccpun OF this,
and other matters In the report TO
he presently mentioned. II Is contrary
to the fundamental truths OF the
Christian mlth and the teaching of
the scripture, To those who have
Christian Science in good
faith, this statement IL most surpris-
IL manifests an entire unfamil-
iafity with the subject with which
conference II undertaking tn deal.
lf u Is solemnly determined that
Science is contrary 10 the
OF the Christian faith and the
teaching OF the scripture because IL
Is pantheistic. II should reverse its
conclusion, Because Christian Science
Is not pantheistic. In nothing has
d%iscOvorcr and founder OF Chris
Ian Science been more emphatic
than her denial OF any similarity or
between Christian Sci
ehce and pantheism. In fact, Mrs.
Eddy mas devoted al entire essay to
this difference. known as
Christian Science versus Panthelsm,"
published In a volume OF her work
known as Christian Healing and
Other Writings; n at a dozen diff
places in the text book, Sci
and Health, with key to the
ii this difference explain
I'd. For Instance, she states at page
1919 OF the text book. "Fanthcism
may no defined ns a belief IN the
intelligence OF matter, "a heller which
oyerthrows."
The report further states that there
n ID tendency in Christian Science to
& false antithesiH between spirit and
nattor, and 10 tho DENIAL OF tho real
NJ OF sin. and OF disease and suffer-
lnB, and that, therefore, II annot be
iecQnciitd with the fundamental
OF Christian faith and the
teaching. OF scripture.
Christian Science does each that
ipirit and matter arc a~nuIgoniatic,
and ue submit that such antiuesis
= not faiae. but IN the contrary. IL
lnita realand tlat such touching u
nut uontrary tv( the Christian faith
y he tcaching OF scripture.
One OF the "lundamcntai truths"
n acriptnrc ia that God treated man
h his own image. IN the image Of
God created he him." (Gen, 1'g7Jf