XV. CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES VERSUS CHRISTIAN SCIENCE.
By J. A. L. Derby
HAVING followed to its logical consequences the first fundamental assumption of Christian Science, that God is all in all, we shall now test it Scripturally.
Anything less than such an affirmation of God's plenitude appeals superficially to most people as a dishonoring limitation thereof. But it is not ours to be wise above what is written; and if the Bible itself makes a different statement, it behooves us to heed the first law of true Scriptural interpretation, “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding” (2 Tim. 2:7), instead of shuffling about in our mortal minds for some man-made metaphysical theory more acceptable to our finite reason.
The truth is, Holy writ does not declare that God is “all in all.” Let us notice the texts where this phrase is used. The first is in 1 Cor. 12:6. Beginning with verse four, we read:—
“Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.”
It needs neither commentary nor metaphysician to explain that the first “all” in verse six means simply “all” the “diversities of operations” of the gifts of the Spirit in the church. The second “all” refers clearly and exclusively to members of the church, through whom the gifts are manifested. The application of the phrase is here evidently a very limited one, in no sense whatever discussing or deciding a question of the spirituality or the materiality of what we call the physical universe.
This would be sufficient on this text, but an equally strong point in it may be noticed: it reads not that God is all in all, but that He “worketh all in all.” Nothing but common sense is necessary to distinguish between working and being. To work and to be are not the same. A musician may work all the pedals and keys in a piano, and yet be neither the one nor the other. So God worketh in His people all the manifestations of the gifts.
The second text is Eph. 1:22, 23. The church “is His [Christ’s] body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.”
1. This speaks concerning Christ—not God.
2. The church is Christ’s body.
3. Christ fills all—not is all. To fill a vessel or the universe, is very different from to be a vessel or the universe. The Christian Scientist, in order to make this text teach his theory must cut two Gordian knots at one slash; first, assume that Christ was very God in every respect,—a doctrinal problem that ages of theology have not settled, and which it is certain no one but a theologian or a schismatic would ever imagine from a careful study of the scriptures; secondly, assume that to fill and to be are identical in meaning. But that is too glaringly gratuitous to need comment.
The third text is Col. 3:11. Beginning with verse nine we get the connection:—
“Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him; where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free; but Christ is all, and in all.”
2. To this new man there is neither race prejudice, difference in social conditions, nor caste.
3. To him Christ is all and in all, the only One who saves and guides to perfection and life.
And this question of character and Christ-likeness of disposition, is, forsooth, dependent upon your ability to persuade yourself that the “old man” is a deception. Does this text say that the “old man” is any less a substantial reality than the new man? Were the people drowned by the Noachian Flood mere chimeras of the imagination? Was the Deluge a nightmare of somebody suffering from imaginary water on the brain? For “mortal body and material man are delusions” according to Christian Science. The destruction of the Sodomites by fire was a wonderful demonstration of the power of Science to annihilate delusions. Does this Scripture contain the slightest intimation that Christ is the spiritual substance of the universe? Indeed the Bible seems to indicate that the “new man” is and always has been sadly in the minority in this present evil world; and we remember a text that says, “Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse.” The Scriptures certainly seem to regard evil about as real as good—at least until they are improved on by Christian Science. But this wonderful science interprets Christ the perfect “expressed” image of the divine Mind—the spiritual idea of God.
If this text teaches that Christ is the all in all of the Christian Scientists’ notion, then the “image,” the “reflection” takes precedence of the Being reflected. This would destroy their favorite assumption. But if anything were wanting to accomplish this entirely, it is found in our fourth and final text, 1 Cor. 15:28.
“And when all things shall be subdued unto Him [Christ], then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him [God] that put all things under Him [Christ], that God may be all in all.”
Verse 23 shows that this is something to be accomplished at the coming of Christ. For the sake of being all things to all men, that we may win all, we shall for the present adopt the Christian Scientist interpretation of this phrase. No informed adherent to their views will deny that the work of Christian Science is regarded by them as the second coming of Christ. Those curious about the matter may consult “Science and Health,” pp. 12, 43, 126. This being so, we ask:—
Has Science completed the renovation of the world?—Not yet.
Then, according to this text and their own interpretation, God is not yet all in all; for the “end” (verse 24) of the whole thing is, that then God is to be all in all—whatever this phrase may mean.
Therefore, the first fundamental proposition of Christian Science is not true. It is neither Christianity nor science.
All in All.
But what is the real meaning of this phrase as used in Holy Writ? In only one place in the Bible, the last text discussed, is God referred to as ever to be all in all. We have already shown the time of that great event to be after the second coming of Christ. If Christ has not yet so come, God is not all in all. Students of prophecy know perfectly that stupendous event has not yet taken place. If, then, God is not yet all in all, nothing is plainer than that these words have no reference to the elemental principle, the essence or substance, the composition, of so-called matter; nor is it discussing or stating the essential nature of the reality behind, or in, or making up, universal phenomena. The universe is; God is; but since the sacred Word itself shows that God is not yet all in all, either this phrase does not bear in Scripture the metaphysical meaning attached to it by Christian Science, which affirms that God is now all in all, or else Christian Science contradicts the Bible and is false. If false, it should be abandoned forthwith; if Christian Science gives it a meaning not attached to it in Scripture, then any philosophy built on that basis is a mere human fabrication, which it is an exceedingly wicked thing to teach as the very life and gist of Christ’s Gospel.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Col. 2:8. “Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” 1 Tim. 6:20, 21.
God All in All.
But there is an exalted truth in this phrase so grievously misapplied by Christian Science. God all in all! At the very repetition of it by a heart filled with divine love, a warmer glow, a sweeter joy, a grander symphony of love itself, floods in upon the soul. Its definition will never be complete, tho every lamb that skips the mead, and every bird that warbles notes of praise, and every blade of grass that springs to meet the fond caresses of the sun,5and every fleecy cloud upon its mission, and “every creature which is in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them,” that offer praise and say, “Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever,”—tho each and all speak somewhat of its infinite import, yet shall eternity not exhaust its fulness. What is it?—Power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing gladly ascribed to God. What is it?—It is the joy unspeakable and full of glory, the martyr’s sacrifice, the missionary’s zeal; it is service, and worship, and thanksgiving, and praise; it is the sense of God and the utter loss of self in Him. It is what Paul meant when he said, “For me to live is Christ.” In vain he sought to tell it: “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me.” It is not at all a question of philosophy or metaphysics; it is a thing of affection. A song of the heart shall teach us more than the science of the wise:—
“I entered once a home of care,
For age and penury were there,
Yet peace and joy withal;
I asked the lonely mother whence
Her helpless widowhood’s defense;
She told me Christ was all.
Chorus:—
“Christ is all, all in all;
Yes, Christ is all in all.
Christ is all, all in all;
Yes, Christ is all in all.
“I stood beside a dying bed,
Where lay a child with aching head,
Waiting the final call;
I marked his smile, ’twas sweet as May,
And as his spirit passed away,
He whispered, ‘Christ is all.’
“I saw the martyr at the stake;
The flames could not his courage shake,
Nor death his soul appal;
I asked him whence his strength was giv’n,
He looked triumphantly to heav’n,
And answered, ‘Christ is all.’
“I saw the Gospel herald go
To Afric’s sand and Greenland’s snow,
To save from Satan’s thrall;
Nor home nor life he counted dear,
’Midst want and perils owned no fear;
He felt that Christ is all.”
The allness of God is the sum of the heart’s affection; it is the absolute love of God. This is as much greater than a mere speculative question of the relation of matter and spirit as fulness of joy in God’s presence forevermore is greater than a mere abstraction.
No, brother scientist, we can not accept your first “fundamental proposition” with any such construction as you give it. We would God it were true of the universe, in its proper sense. We can agree with you when you say that God’s allness has nothing to do with matter, for it is of the mind and affections. But when you say this allness leaves no place for matter, we have only to remark that you go beyond that which is written, or what philosophy or science has determined.