Christian Science and Pantheism
Again, in tracing the likeness between pantheism and Christian Science, we see that both reject the Christian idea of the personality of God. Pantheists reject the doctrine of God's personality on the ground that it makes God finite. Fichte says, “You make the divine Being a limited being like yourselves by ascribing to Him that attribute” [personality].—Fichte's Works, page 157. Similarly says Christian Science, as might be quoted in many forms from “Science and Health,” but this from the chapter on “Science of Being” is sufficient: “A personal sense of God . . . necessarily limits faith and hinders spiritual understanding.” And in the paragraph preceding this the author shows what she thinks the Christian belief in the personality of God really is in contrast with Christian Science: “Mortals believe in a FINITE personal God, while God is infinite love, which must be unlimited.” And thus again Christian Science can not rid itself of the charge of being pantheistic. It teaches the personality of God exactly as pantheism teaches it. By both pantheism and Christian Science, man's intellectual love of God is simply God's love of Himself; and as God loves Himself only in man, it is on man's part simply the enjoyment of his own existence as a rational being. This last is plainly involved in the first, that real man is part of God. And so just to the extent that man ceases, God ceases. That is to say God has no existence save in man. This is pantheism, but, too, it is Christian Science. Taking two sentences from the chapter “Science of Being” in the reverse order we get this idea a trifle more clearly yet, and it is easily seen by any one as the sentences stand: “Spiritual man is the image or idea of God.” “God without the image or likeness of Himself would be a non-entity, or mind unexpressed. He would be without a witness or proof of His own nature.” That is to say, putting the two together, “God without spiritual man as the image or likeness of Himself would be a non-entity, or mind unexpressed. He would be without a witness or proof of His own nature.” Now, the person who can not see that this is pantheism, does not know what pantheism is; for the statement of God's representation as here given is purely pantheism. All the personality God has is the personality of spiritual man. All the existence God has is His existence in spiritual man. Without spiritual man God is a nonentity. Without spiritual man God is mind unexpressed. Without spiritual man God would be without a witness of His own nature. Without spiritual man God would be without a proof of His own nature. All these statements are included in the one made above by Mrs. Eddy. Then when Christian Scientists talk about the personality of God, we know they mean only the personality of spiritual man without which God would be a nonentity. And when we are admonished by them to love God, we will know that at heart it is merely man's love of his own existence without which God would be a mind unexpressed, and a nonentity. Thus by Christian Science is God drowned in the manifestation of Himself, merged into the existence of spiritual man, and dependent upon him for existence, for expression, for witness and proof of His own nature. And now see how clearly this is all in accord with the definition of pantheism as given in the Standard Dictionary: “The form of monism that identifies mind and matter, the finite and the infinite, making them manifestations of one universal or absolute being.” And under “idealistic pantheism” we have this definition, which is exactly to the point: “Idealistic pantheism, which ascribes to it [the universal being] only the attributes of mind.” “The last . . . may be regarded as sinking all . . . in man.” “Thus God is all, and all is God.” This is enough to prove the pantheistic nature of Christian Science. It is not by any means all that might be said, but the point is clearly apparent, and that is all that we designed. Christian Science is pantheistic.