Christian Science and Its Private Interpretation of the Word
By R.
(Concluded from last week.) CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS say, when they make changes in the Word, that thus they give the spiritual meaning. It is true that Scripture has a spiritual meaning. But the spirit is in accord with the form. The spiritual and the literal agree, and the real spiritual meaning can never deny the literal meaning. Otherwise, speech may mean whatever we choose to make it, even changing language to the opposite of what is really said. Christian Scientists are writing letters to one another; they are writing to other people who are not Christian Scientists; and they do not expect anybody to read their letters and then misconstrue sentences throughout such letters into meaning exactly opposite what their written hand declares. To state that a sentence means inwardly, or spiritually, exactly opposite to what it says in speech, is an arbitrary interpretation, and makes the interpreter more than the language, and in fact puts the message entirely at the mercy of the interpreter. No one knows what a line may mean, what a sentence expresses, until such an interpreter tells us. But this is all as consistent as the policy that Christian Scientists pursue in the matter of a material creation. They teach that if our senses deny the teachings of Christian Science, we are to discredit the evidence, by calling it an illusion. And if the Word denies the teachings of Christian Science, we are similarly to discredit the real meaning of the language, by calling it metaphor, a figure of speech. According to their belief, Christian Science is the one unchangeable truth; and if the Bible says something, or many things, that utterly deny the foundations of Christian Science9then the Bible must be privately interpreted, and in this way made to harmonize with Christian Science. And this they call getting the spiritual idea of the Bible; and similarly they get the spiritual idea of nature. But when we find anything that seems to favor Christian Science, we are to accept that as infallible truth; and always and forever we are to take the assertions of Mrs. Eddy, without reference to any evidences, just the same as if she were infallibly true always. It is very easy to talk of a spiritual meaning of the creation; but not one human being, Mrs. Eddy or the rest, could know anything about creation at all, were it not for the knowledge that comes from the material manifestation of nature, through the avenues of the bodily senses. Paul says, “Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.” 1 Cor. 15: 46. This is the order in which knowledge comes to us; and he shows, in the same connection, that the spiritual creation, or renewing of the creation, will not occur until the resurrection. Then, and then only, will our bodies be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. And now the whole creation groans and travails, subject to bondage, waiting for that adoption. Of course Christian Science claims to be the resurrection; and this is another case of spiritualizing the Scriptures, and that, too, with a vengeance. While we are speaking of this question of natural and spiritual, let us not forget that the definition Mrs. Eddy gives to the spiritual is not by any means the true one. Whatever she may say, there is a spirituality not of God, for we are admonished to “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits, whether they are of God,” and we are given a test by which to try them. It is this: “Every spirit that confesseth not that Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of anti-Christ.” 1 John 4:1-3. Tried by this confession, where must we place Christian Science? Not only does it deny that Christ came in the flesh, but it denies that there is any flesh in which Christ could come. According to the doctrines of Mrs. Eddy, to come in the flesh is to come in the illusion of mortal mind. What says the Word?—“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same.” Heb. 2:14. Are the children partakers of flesh and blood? This scripture affirms it, Mrs. Eddy denies it. Did Christ partake of flesh and blood? This scripture says that He partook of it just as humanity partakes of it, but Mrs. Eddy denies it. The verse says “He . . . Himself;” it says that He partook “also . . . likewise,” and it was the “same” flesh and blood of which the children are partakers. How could language more strongly fortify the statement? Inspiration evidently knew that its truth would be challenged and denied. And herein lies the test. “Every spirit that confesseth not that Christ is come in the flesh is not of God.” Solemn statement! It needs no comment. Something besides matter is the matter with this world. Flesh and blood is not man’s only or real enemy. We are to stand against the wiles of the devil. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high (heavenly) places.” Eph. 6:12. Here is a spirituality that is not of God. It is a spirituality we are to avoid. Back of man and his evil tendencies is the mighty and real source of sin, namely, spiritual wickedness. It is spiritual rebellion. R.