THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE CHURCH

Introduction

The term "Christian Science" initially came from a Dr. Phineas Parkhurst Quimby in the late 1850s.

Phineas was a self-taught and unqualified doctor. He would only ever attend school for a period of six weeks throughout his childhood, and subsequently did not achieve any academic qualifications. He was however, a qualified watchmaker. His father was a poor blacksmith (The History of the Quimby Family, The New England Quarterly, New England Magazine of March 1888.)  

Mary Baker Eddy

(1821-1910)

In 1879, she founded the Church of Christ; later named the Christian Science Church or Mother Church.

She was raised in an ultra-religious Congregational family. She was a very bright girl and received the best type of education someone of her era could wish for. However, in Martin & Klanns book The Christian Science Myth, he writes the following:

"Her childhood was marked by a strange illness which seemed to grow in severity with Mary's increasing years. Young Mary, history tells us, was quieted during these fits by rocking in a specially built cradle made of an old sofa where she remained until she fell asleep. As a small child she had often been subject to frequent fits evidenced by a peculiar physical lethargy erupting into violent spasms of pronounced hysteria and ending eventually in unconsciousness. Mary Baker was also plagued with a neurotic temper which exhibited itself whenever her wishes were denied and her anger aroused" (pg. 18,19.) 

The wife

She would be married no less than three times. The first to a local businessman by the name of George W. Glover. Tragically, however, he fell ill seven months into her pregnancy and died of yellow fever in July 1844. She would later be forced to give up custody of her only child, George - unable to support him financially. After this unfulfilled period in her life, she became involved with mesmerism hypnosis and the occult practices of spiritualism and clairvoyance (Ruth Tucker, Another Gospel, pg. 152.)

On 21 June 1853, some 10 years after the death of her first husband George, she married a dentist by the name of Dr. Daniel M. Patterson. This wedding almost nearly didn't go ahead, for Mary's father, Robert, tried to dissuade Daniel from marrying his emotional and unstable daughter. Her father's advice may have been somewhat prophetic; for the dentist would later be accused of abandoning his wife and subsequently she later divorced him. Her third and final marriage was to occur in 1877 to one Asa G. Eddy. This marriage would once again make Mary a widow for Asa died of coronary thrombosis. Although Mary was convinced that mesmeric poison was to blame (Dakin, Mrs Eddy, pgs.166-168.)

Upon his death, she would contradict her own writings, requesting an autopsy - Key to the Scriptures. She would condemn others for plagiarism (Mary Baker Eddy, Retrospection and Introspection.) And then go on and commit this fraudulent act herself (For detailed proof of her blatant plagiarism, please refer to The New York Times, 10 July 1904 non-microfilm.) Please also refer to her book, Miscellaneous Writings, pg. 147, 48, 1895.)

The plagiarist

Became a patient and student of Quimby in 1862, while suffering from spinal inflammation.

She would easily master his controversial technique of allegedly healing his patients by mental suggestion, (placebo??) or as it is now called therapeutic touch.

Believed that Jesus was somehow involved in Quimby's non-biblical work, which involved hypnosis and suggestive behaviour.

Praised Quimby for healing her: would later call him an unlearned man.

After Quimby's death, she published her book, Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures. Quimby's work had been tilted, Science and Heath.

Amazingly, however, not only would she plagiarise his ideas, but would also correct and ferret out what she disagreed with him on, i.e. the existence of matter, the role of religion, and the perception of God. If further evidence is needed to prove this claim, please refer to Walter Martin's book, The Christian Science Myth, and to a pamphlet written by a Unitarian minister, Reverend J.H Wiggin titled, How Reverend Wiggin Rewrote Mrs. Eddy's Book.

Copied large segments from Lindley Murray's book, The English Reader, pg. 98. For a detailed analysis of this, see Walter Martin's book, The Kingdom of the Cults, pg. 154.

She would also plagiarise work by a German scholar, Francis Lieber, Metaphysical Religion of Hegel. Again, evidence of this can be found in her book, Key to the Scriptures.

On 15 February 1866, she would write a letter to Julius Dresser, (a former student of Dr. Quimby), concerning her near death accident, miraculous recovery, and this launched the birth of the Christian Science movement:  

"Two weeks ago I fell on the sidewalk and struck my back on the ice, and was taken for dead, came to consciousness amid a storm of vapour from cologne, chloroform, ether, camphor, etc., but to find myself the helpless cripple I was before I saw Dr. Quimby. The physician attending said I have taken the last step I ever should, but in two days I got out my bed alone and will walk; but yet I confess I am frightened? Now can't you help me? I think I could help another in my condition, that yet I am slowly failing" (F. W. Peabody, The Religion-Medical Masquerad, pg. 80, 81.)

Under oath, the physician in question, Dr. Alan. M. Cushing, said the following:

"I have never believed or said that she (Mary) was in a precarious physical condition. He would also go on to say how Mary had always enjoyed robust health and that he attended her in August of that same year on four separate occasions, and administered medicine to her for bodily ailments" (Georgine Milmine, The Life of Mary Baker G. Eddy and the History of Christian Science, pg. 84-86).

Such irrefutable evidence totally destroys any credibility of Mrs Baker. For the whole movement that spawned Christian Science would rest upon her written declaration to Julius Dresser. Unfortunately the physician in question could not confirm her statement, and therefore, one cannot possibly give her the benefit of a doubt. That she was ill is not doubted, but the severity, is questionable!

In her book, Science & Heath, with key to the Scriptures, she writes the following: 

"One should never hold in mind the thought of disease, but should efface from thought all forms and types of disease, both for ones own sake and for that of the patient" (pg. 396.)

This may all sound very nice, but it is non-biblical, and it not helpful to any student of theology. If a person becomes ill, a doctor's advice is sought, for he is a medical expert. If a person has a sin related illness, repentance is called for. Once again, Mary was prescribing placebo to her clients, and not repentance.

There is nothing spiritual or divine in this positive mental attitude: it is a secular way of making one feel good about oneself. Jesus would, however, teach all His faithful followers to mourn over their sin (Matt. 5:4.)

Sadly Mary in her teachings seemed to reject this. 

The morphine recipient

Mary, throughout her adult life, would heavily depend on this drug. Her biographer Robert Peel noted in his book, Mary Eddy Baker, The Years of Discovery: 

"In order to lessen the pain of the move the doctor gave her one-eighth of a grain of morphine."  

Further irrefutable evidence that affirms this addiction comes from James Dittemore (former director of Mother Church), Calvin Frye (Eddy's personal assistant) and unpublished handwritten material of Eddy's own (Ernest Sutherland Bates and John V. Dittemore, Mary Baker Eddy: The Truth and the Tradition, 1932.) 

The teacher

Was accused by Horace T. Wentworth, whose mother lived with Mary in Stoughton, while she taught from the Quimby Manuscripts:

"As I have seen the amazing spread of this delusion and the way in which men and women are offering up money and the lives of their children to it, I have felt that it is a duty I owe to the public to make known. I have no hard feelings against Mrs. Eddy, no axe to grind, no interest to serve, I simply feel that it is due the thousands of good people who have made Christian Science the anchorage of their souls and the infallible guide of their daily life, to keep this no longer to myself. I desire only that people who take themselves and their helpless children into Christian Science shall do so with full knowledge that this is not divine revelation but simply the idea of an old-time Maine healer" (F.W. Peabody, The religion-Medical Masquerade.)

If ever there existed a public statement of commendation about Mary, then one might expect her own Church - Christian Science Journal, would hold such a document - they don't!

Charged her students $300 per person to enrol in an eight year course (if they ever finished it with all fees being non-returnable.)

Had no pastoral training, no knowledge of biblical history, never studied theology or philosophy, and never had any linguistic knowledge. Research has affirmed that Mary did not have any qualifications whatsoever for this task. Rev. J. H. Wiggin, her literary advisor, said of Mary, 'She was grossly ignorant of the subjects in question' (Ernest S. Bates and John Dittemore.)

Was very much like the late "mother" Teresa: great promoter of herself and her own writings. For Teresa would insist that all her Calcutta nuns read her books daily, and she would most often or not, read to them, like an old styled Jewish rabbi sitting down, while they sat at her feet. Mary, it seems, also performed such a teaching task.

Would order her followers to pay a few dollars for a piece of paper with only two lines on it. If they refused, they would be excommunicated from the Science movement.

Upon her death, left a personal fortune of $3 million - nothing was left to any charity.

Interestingly, this was at a time when women were denied the vote!

And in 1995, she was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame for, "making an indelible mark on society, religion, and journalism." 

The healer

On 19 December 1898, she wrote to the New York Sun:

"I challenge the world to disprove what I hereby declare. After my discovery of the Christian Science, I healed consumption in the last stages that the MD's verdict of a stethoscope and the schools declared incurable, the lungs being mostly consumed. I healed malignant tubercular diphtheria and carious bones that could be dented by the finger, saving them when the surgeon's instruments were lying on the table ready for their amputation. I have healed at one visit a cancer that had so eaten the flesh of the neck as to expose the jugular vein so that it stood out like a cord" (Doctor Charles A. L. Reed, New York Sun 1 January 1899.) 

This incredibly defiant and bold statement, would if true, give great glory and worship to the Lord God of the Bible. Mary was throwing down her gauntlet. She was claiming apostolic power, something not seen in over eighteen hundred centuries. Interestingly, a Cincinnati physician took up her invitation, but Mary, wisely shunned this very reasonable offer to display her powers. If Mary did indeed, have these remarkable healing powers that she claimed to have, then one needs to know if they are or have ever been bible based.  For this analysis, lets refer to Anthony Hoekemas book, The Four Major Cults: 

Beliefs

Red = Scientists

Black = Traditional Christianity

The Bible: Christian Scientists accept the Bible only as interpreted by Mrs Eddy, whose book, Science and Health is really their ultimate source of authority, and is thus placed above the Bible (pg. 183-186.)

"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." (Ps. 119:89.) 

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled ulfilled" (Matt. 5:18.)

God's word was settled in Heaven before the world was formed. His word is to be cherished, meditated, and studied above all other books, or ancient manuscripts.

Mrs Bakers arrogant feminine boast that only she and she alone was able to interpret or try to understand the bible, is totally ridicules, and banal. 

God: Christian Science repudiates the orthodox Trinity (pg. 189-190.)

There are over twenty passages in the Holy Bible that list the Trinity (Gen. 1:2; Prov. 30:4 & John 1:1.)

Man: Christian Science, in all its anthropology, denies the reality of the body, of sin and the fall, and repudiates mans temporality and fitness (pg. 200.)

After Adam fell, and subsequently all of mankind, Rom. 5:12, we read how God responded to this in Gen. 3:17:  

"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

For further proof of mans sinful nature, look at past dictators such as Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-tung, and Pol Pot and all Darwinists.

Jesus Christ: Christian Science denies the unity of the person of Jesus Christ, Jesus' present existence, the absolute necessity for Jesus' earthly mission, the incarnation of Christ, the virgin birth of Jesus, the sinlessness of Jesus, the full deity of Jesus, and Jesus' genuine humanity. In addition, they reject Jesus' suffering, death, physical resurrection, and ascension into heaven (pg. 207.)

To believe all of the above is essential if sinners ever wish to enter heaven. However, to deny such cardinal doctrines, will result in no hope whatsoever for mankind, for only God Himself can redeem a sinful world, and this He did through His Son (John 3:16.)

Salvation: For Christian Science salvation from sin is accomplished when one ceases to sin, or when one stops believing that there is such a thing as sin. In either event, the death of Christ has nothing to do with salvation; if Christ had never existed, it would have made no real difference (pg. 212.)

The word sin is mentioned 389 times in the Bible. On each of these occasions, Scripture teaches that mankind is universally evil and wicked (Gen. 6:6; Matt. 7:11; 19:16, 17 & Rom. 3:9-18.) Yet, God loves His creation, therefore a Redeemer was promised (Gen 3:15), and He would give all to save His chosen elect (Is. 53:4-12), and never lose them (John 10:28 & Rom. 8:31-39.)

Charge for their spiritual healings and services (The Christian Science Sentinel, 30 August 2004.)

I must ask the question: what happens to poor people? Is this religion for poor people? I somehow doubt it. I hear people say in their defence, might they give free treatment to those who may not be able to pay for it? I would then have to say this: if one has this wonderful gift of healing people from things that never really happened (pg. 20), then it should be free for everybody. 

For we read in sacred Scripture the following words from the apostle Peter: 

"Silver and gold have I none [nor would I charge if I wanted to] but such as I have give I thee" [for free] (Acts 3:6.) 

Then we read a little further on how the apostle reacted when a certain Simon wanted to capitalise on this gift and make money from it:   

"But Peter said unto him, 'Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money' (8:20.) 

So in only two verses in Scripture we see that the gift of healing is a free gift and that no money should pass hands from the healer to the recipient. 

Man is good through and through (The Christian Science Sentinel, 30 August 2004 (pg. 21.)

While God loves all of His creation, He also has made it very clear that man is inheritably sinful and without the new birth he will be forever in his sinful and conscious state. 

They also teach that one can become a son of God without the new birth, and can be perfect in His sight. Again, without the new birth and Jesus' divine righteousness to cover us sinners, we are nothing more than filthy rages in the presence of God (Is. 64:6), or as Abraham and Job said of themselves, they were just, Dust and ashes (Gen. 18:27; Job 30:19.) 

God's sons and daughters express only the qualities of divine love (The Christian Science Sentinel, 30 August 2004, pg. 20.)

I wish such people who believe this would read Foxes book of Martyrs, for this book is all about men and women who were murdered for their firm and obedient love towards the word of God and Jesus Christ.

If one wishes to check and see how a true child of God is treated, please see 2 Cor. 11: 22-29.

That man is not mortal, but is a reflection of God (The Christian Science Sentinel, 30 August 2004, pg. 22.)

That man is mortal and not an actual replica of God is clear from Scripture (Rom. 6:12; 1 Cor. 15:53; 2 Cor. 4:11.)

Yet while the Bible does teach that man is made in the image of God, this should probably be understood when one reads 1 Thess. 5:23.

So, as we can see from above, they are not only opposed to the traditional orthodoxy of biblical Christianity, but have created themselves a totally new gospel for the world (Gal. 1:6-9.)

They are not biblically based, so they cannot possibly claim apostolic power. Therefore, we are left with one of two options. Either their power comes from Satan or from the imagination of man placebo? The decision is yours. 

Membership statistics

Headquarters are located in Boston, Massachusetts.

2,200 branch churches in over 60 countries around the globe in 1997.

Membership of this cult is vigorously guarded, but conservative estimates believe it to be no more than 400,000 and no less than 150,000.

Of this figure, 80% are American, with 75% being women (Edmond C. Gruss, Cults and the Occult, pg. 26.) It should also be noted that the primary reason these figures are dismally lower than that of the Jehovah Witness and the Mormons, is because for some reason, known only to them, they refuse to proselytise with frequent regularity.

It is also interesting to learn that they do not have a presence in Africa, Eastern Europe, or Asia. They remain predominantly strong in North America and Western Europe. 

Recent history

George Galloway, outside the London High Court, said the following: 

"This newspaper [Christian Science] alleged that I received $10million. Today they have had to come before the High Court and in the humblest possible terms apologise in front of the British people and pay me substantial damages," he said. 

Such expensive libel cases will no doubt cause the Scientists even more financial problems: The Christian Science Monitor, with its comprehensive broadsheet appeal - available worldwide - has a global circulation of just 73,000 and has struggled financially for many years - not a single profit has been made since 1961, and to date has lost over $250 million (Forbes Magazine, 17 September 1990.)

Spent $50 million to build The Mary Baker Eddy Library.

In the 1980s, the Scientists decided to venture into television. This would result in failing to recuperate lost finances. However, by 1992, the cult had lost over $235 million as a result of poor business management, and advice. As their finances began to liquidate, they would disastrously emulate the late tycoon Robert Maxwell, and attempt to obtain, and borrow $40 million from their employees pension funds (Television Retreat, 23 March 1992.)

Several high profile court hearings have gone disastrously wrong against the Scientists. Every time the subject was raised on how they maintained the health of Scientists children, within the Scientists community, this would bring them nothing but further damnation from the media.

One such court case in 1994 ruled that the church was negligent in this matter, and they were fined $7,368,000,00. Although upon appeal this was reduced to $5,473,000.00 (Thomas Johnson, Healing and Conscience in Christian Science, The Christian Century, 29 June-6 July 1994.)

Interestingly, the Scientists have been legally forced, by court orders, not to prevent members from seeking medical treatment for their families (The Christian Century, 28 February 1996.)

There have also been certain charges made of financial, moral, and spiritual corruption levied against the leadership of this cult, back in 1976. 

Personal thoughts

I cannot help but think, if only these cultists would accept the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as the complete and finished Word of God, then such religions (and others) would never have blossomed. The apostle Paul wrote: "Let a women learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman [Eve] being deceived, fell into transgression. Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control" (1 Tim. 2:11-15.)

This imperative command, God breathed, should be more than enough to guide all peoples, (regardless of gender) of all ages as to God's teachings for His Church, which is not only valid, but also essential during the whole of the Church age.

Women were never designed to lead men but were to be submissive and obedient to them Gen. (3:16). However, Galatians 3:28 does make it clear that there is no partiality with God (Eph 6:9.) Therefore, when the Church assembles to worship God, roles and responsibilities change. Some men will take up leadership roles, while other won't. Some women will lead other women and children during Sunday school, while others won't.

I believe when Christians appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ (not the Great White Throne Judgement), women who have obeyed the Word of God, will be elated that they were never given nor created to carry the burden and responsibilities as their male brothers were. The same, as above, can also refer to certain men, for not all will be as accountable as others (Heb. 13:17.) 

Conclusion

The Scientists, very much like the Adventists would claim and want to be categorised as a denominational Church. One can see the day coming when they might accept an invitation from the World Council of Churches to join this ecumenical giant. 

Sources 

Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults

Edmond C. Gruss, Cults and the Occult

Barry R. Smith, Second Warning 

James G. Battell, 2004

(All Rights Reserved)