Unchristian Science by Editor

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 30, 1906

Unchristian Science

By Editor

With many science is now exalted above revelation, and the god of scientific theology has taken the place of the God of the Bible. In the creed of “the theology born of modern science” the idea of a personal God, in any proper sense of the term, has been eliminated, and with it the belief in special creation “by the word of the Lord.” In the place of the former we have an all-pervading Presence, the immanent God; and in the place of the latter we have gradual development and the survival of the fittest—evolution.

These fundamental ideas appear in many forms and disguised by many beautiful phrases. They color the utterances of many pulpits, and find expression more or less openly in the columns of many publications. They are often clothed in a mystic beauty which suggests more than it actually states, and thus they fascinate those who are not grounded and settled in a Scriptural faith.

Not only does this scientific theology repudiate the Biblical conception of a personal God, but it also refuses to acknowledge any personal devil, and, as a natural consequence, it relegates to the realm of myth the Biblical record of the fall of man, the entrance of sin into the world, and the atonement for sin through the sacrifice of Christ. According to this view there is no such thing as sin in the sense of a settled enmity against God and a determined rebellion against his government, an experience which transforms the very being, whose wages is death, and which required the life of the Son of God in order to purge it from the universe. On the contrary, evil (the word “sin” seems to be avoided) is simply an imperfection, an undeveloped condition, introduced by man himself by putting good things to wrong uses. The only punishment known in this system of theology is that which comes as the consequence of the disregard of the inherent law of things rather than the law of God, and this, according to modern interpretation, is the complete fulfilment of the divine pronouncement, “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

Our attention has again been called to this modern philosophy by an article in one of our exchanges which purports to expose the errors of Christian Science, but which in reality simply substitutes unchristian science for the so-called Christian Science. It is a plain case of darkening counsel by words without knowledge. To indicate the character of this teaching we quote two or three paragraphs from the article:—

It is the wrong use or application of good things that creates evil. God did not do this. Man creates evil, God does not. God made all things, but left to man to create good or bad relations in the right or wrong use of good things if he chooses so to do. This is where evil came in. Evil relations of good things finally lead to such deterioration of things originally good that they lose their good qualities in whole or in part, and become evil. This is the origin of evil things. . . .

When a man is sick, no new force is acting upon him or within him. Disease is not a thing which fastens itself upon a man or enters into him. The expressions which embody such notions of disease are relics of those dark days in the history of the race when men lived under the shadow of that terrible belief that the forces of nature, the gigantic powers which play in the thunder-storm, the tidal wave, the earthquake, the cyclone, as well as the mysterious agents which stealthily invade our homes in the pestilence, consumption, slowly destroying disease—that these powers and forces are but the operations of malign and furious agencies, demons or devils, which employ these means to vex and torture the world and its inhabitants. . . .

The forces of nature are friendly. They are the agents of our existence, essential to our lives. Disease is not a malignant entity. The forces acting in disease are the same as those which act in health. They are beneficent; they are kind; they are directed not toward destruction, but toward the saving of the body, although they are embarrassed by evil conditions for which, in most cases, the patient is himself responsible. . . .

Disease does not exist as a thing. It exists only as a wrong relation. The attitude of the Creator is always the same toward his creatures. In him there “is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” The wrong relation is man’s fault. God is always healing, never destroying.

“Evil shall slay the wicked.”

There is a great healing power abroad in the universe always at work, limited only by the divine law of consistency, which permits healing only in harmony with that eternal principle, “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

There is a mixture of truth in this teaching which makes it the most dangerous kind of error. It is true that “the attitude of the Creator is always the same toward his creatures,” and that “in him there ‘is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,’” but it is the prerogative of the Creator, rather than the creature, to define his relation to the works of his hands. In attempting to establish a so-called scientific basis for faith the advocates of the evolutionary scheme of the universe substitute for the God of the Bible a god which they have discovered by their researches, and then attempt to adapt the language of the Scriptures to this false god. The result is a system of human philosophy, into which a few texts of Scripture are woven in a plausible way, which is foisted upon the people as the highest interpretation of Christianity; but which in fact is not Christianity at all. It is false philosophy wearing the mask of Christianity. It is the most dangerous form of infidelity.

The fundamental difficulty with this scientific philosophy is that it ignores the tremendous fact that through the sin of our first parents Satan usurped the dominion which had been given to man, and became “the god of this world,” and that in working out the purpose of God he is permitted to exercise a limited power for a limited time. In solving the problem of sin in the presence of the universe, the originator of sin, for reasons which only the divine mind can fully comprehend, is granted the privilege of developing the principles of his kingdom within certain limits, and of showing himself as the destroyer. This is plainly set forth in the following quotation:—

Satan works through the elements also to garner his harvest of unprepared souls. He has studied the secrets of the laboratories of nature, and he uses all his power to control the elements as far as God allows. . . . While appearing to the children of men as a great physician who can heal all their maladies, he will bring disease and disaster, until populous cities are reduced to ruin and desolation. Even now he is at work. In accidents and calamities by sea and by land, in great conflagrations, in fierce tornadoes and terrific hail-storms, in tempests, floods, cyclones, tidal waves, and earthquakes, in every place and in a thousand forms, Satan is exercising his power.—“Great Controversy,” pages 589, 590.

It thus appears that “that terrible belief that the forces of nature, the gigantic powers which play in the thunder-storm, the tidal wave, the earthquake, the cyclone . . . are but the operations of malign and furious agencies, demons or devils,” even though it be a relic “of those dark days in the history of the race,” is plainly taught through the spirit of prophecy; and this is in harmony with the teaching of the Scriptures. This is certainly a more satisfactory basis upon which to rest a belief than the mere assertions of human philosophy.

Furthermore, it is also true that during this time of dealing with sin God does by special judgments show his displeasure against evil, and as a last resort uses destruction as an agency to turn men unto himself. This does not indicate any change of attitude toward his creatures, and in the final destruction of the impenitent wicked that justice which is an essential element in the divine love will be revealed.

There is another phase of this false teaching which ought to be noticed here. It is evident that the immediate raising up of the sick in answer to the prayer of faith, in harmony with James 5:14, 15, can have no place in the system which declares that the “great healing power abroad in the universe” is limited in its working by a law “which permits healing only in harmony with that eternal principle, ‘whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.’” Not according to this philosophy did Jesus deal with the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda. John 5:8, 9, 14. The law of divine consistency can not be invoked to forbid the miracle of healing according to the divine promise.

Sin is responsible for disease and destruction of every kind, and in attempting to explain these experiences we must take into account the present abnormal condition of things in this world, and must remember that Satan, a being who stood high in the counsel of the Creator, is leading a rebellion against the divine government, and is, in every possible way permitted to him, perverting the power of God to evil uses. This is clearly recognized by Rev. Hugh Macmillan, who has given much study to the spiritual interpretation of the phenomena of nature. He says: “Our Saviour, too, in rebuking the fever, and the winds and waves, did not use a mere oratorical personification, but traced the disorders of nature up to their source in a person—brought them back to Satan and to fallen man as their ultimate cause.” To say, therefore, without limitation or exception, that “the forces of nature are friendly” is to ignore Satan, sin, and the consequent perversion of the forces of nature. There would be no such thing as a blighting heat, an overflowing flood, a destructive cyclone, an earthquake or a tidal wave, apart from the existence of sin and its originator.

All this false philosophy is the fruit of an effort to harmonize the principles of evolution with the teaching of the Scriptures. It recognizes evil, but accounts for it by a gradual deterioration. It makes creation a continual process. It does not acknowledge a God who can destroy as well as create, but virtually, if not in so many words, recognizes the god of evolution who has been defined to be “a creator or purposer whose plans have never been thwarted, and whose creatures have never successfully defied him, and whose will is being to-day, and in all time, superbly accomplished in the lifting of man to higher and higher spheres of thought and love.”

We regard this teaching as a subtle perversion of the truth, and are uncompromisingly opposed to it. We can not change our attitude toward it simply because it is put out from a place where it is claimed that the third angel’s message is taught just as it has been in former years. We warn our people against this unchristian science, no matter from what source it emanates. The genuine message for this generation is a protest against all this human philosophy.