The Christian Science View of Sin

To the Editors of The Outlook:

I desire to review some points in an article on Christian Science which appeared in The Outlook of July 6.

This essay seems to have been kindly intended, but true to the thought expressed in its first sentence, "It is difficult for any one, not a votary of Christian Science, to understand what it is," it manifests only a superficial view of this science. This is indeed a science, and should have been so treated by our worthy editor; then would he have waited until he had become a practical Christian Scientist, and had healed successfully through its teaching, to prove, even to himself, that he understood it, before attempting its explanation to others.

Complaint is made that Mrs. Eddy does not give a clear definition of God, yet hundreds of thousands of people have been able to destroy troubles for themselves and others through the clear understanding of God which they have gained from Mrs. Eddy's book, "Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures." It is too bad that our critic did not give his own definition of the personality of God. I have read a number of criticisms in this same strain within the past few weeks wherein the authors have complained of the Christian Science definition of God, and yet have failed to give their own. Those who are dissatisfied with Christian Science should give us a better way of producing the same results.

Our critic seems to understand Mrs. Eddy's definition of evil as a nonentity; that it bears the same relation to God which darkness bears to light; but in his criticism thereof does not continue to reason consistently therewith. He fails to apply the same remedy to evil which he would apply to darkness, and therefore fails utterly to define the Christian Scientists' method of destroying evil. He admits that darkness is nothing more than the want of light; that it is a nonentity. Does he attempt to be rid of darkness by simply saying that it is nothing? He recognizes that the only way to be rid of darkness is to bring in the light. Now, consistent with his own

proposition and his own interpretation of Christian Science, he should recognize that evil can only be overcome with good. This is the method which our great Master advocated, and just what Christian Scientists practice. When God has the ascendency in human consciousness and in the life of the individual, evil of necessity, finds no place. If God be to us infinitely great, evil must become to us infinitesimal. Herein is the superiority of the Christian Science method of overcoming evil-the sinner has strength and courage to master his evil because of his understanding of the omnipotence of good and the consequent impotency of evil. No class of people know better than Christian Scientists that evil must be grappled with and mastered, and that the sinner will never be rid of his wickedness nor its just penalties until he ceases sinning. To say that sin is an illusion and continue sinning is not consistent, for the evil-doer is making it real by his indulgence. Christian Science does not incorporate sin under the name of good and allow it place and power, but draws the line emphatically between right and wrong, and declares that wrong must cease and right must prevail to the utmost; while he is aided in his struggle to overcome by his clear sense of the omnipotence of good and the powerlessness of evil.

The Christian Scientist does believe there is an enormous amount of sin in the world, and why? Because he has not through spiritual growth unbelieved this.

When Paul said, "So fight I not as one who beateth the air," he meant that his fighting was done intelligently, not by striking out in an indefinite, ineffectual manner. This same Paul referred to evil as the power of darkness. Darkness has no power except to hide the truth and is always destroyed when the light appears.

I like the definition of sin which our critic quotes from the Westminster Catechism: "Any violation or want of conformity of the law of God." In the light of this definition all mistakes as well as willful wrongs should be included under the name, sin. John said, “ All unright

eousness is sin." All unriht-wis-ness (all unright-wise ness) is sin. All wisdom or knowledge which is not right is sin, and all conduct which is allowed or indulged by reason of this wrong or false knowledge is sin. It is error, or unriht-wis-ness, to believe that sin, which is not of God, is ar entity. Hence the truth of Mrs. Eddy's statement, "To believe sin is real is itself sin." Indeed, this is the original sin, and the proof that we believe it to be real is our indulgence in it. When we are ready to admit that there is nothing in it, having lost all pleasure therein, we are ready to let go of it and cease sinning. No harm can come to the sinner nor any perpetuity of his sin from his knowledge of its unreality. It is because he believes there is something in it that he uses it. It is said that Jesus did not teach the unreality of sin. Will our critic kindly explain what Jesus meant when he said of the devil, "He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it"? It is the vocation of a liar to express lies, and a liar in the strict sense of that word produces nothing else but lies. A lie is utterly devoid of truth, hence altogether untrue and unreal-a mere negation. Here we have the plain declaration that the devil's "own," or offspring, sin and disease, are lies.

We are taught that all evil is the work of the devil; in other words, the work of deception. Believing and acting that which is false constitute the sum total of sin, and this definition is in perfect accord with the one which we have quoted from John, "All unrighteousness is sin."

The Christian Scientist does not wink at sin, does not simply ignore it, but, filled with the understanding of the omnipotence of God and the utter powerlessness of sin, he grapples with it and crushes it out of existence. If all Christians knew and practised what Christian Science teaches concerning sin the world would rapidly be regenerated and evil would be speedily annihilated. If evil is as real as good, will our critic explain how the power of God destroys evil in the human heart? Is it not true that the wrongs which are mountains to their victims weigh nothing in the sight of God? And is this

not why the divine power so easily annihilates sin? ALFRED FARLOW.

Office of the Publication Committee of the First Church

of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Mass.

[We print this letter, selecting it from many received on the same subject, because its authorship makes it really an authoritative statement of the position of Christian Scientists on the point involved. -THE Editors.]

Union Meetings: A Good Example To the Editors of The Outlook:

The union services held during the present month in this town (Napa, Cal.) are not exactly an experiment in cooperation, but they are an example of Christian fellowship, and as such, a step in the right direction. The town as a whole has displayed a lively interest in the new departure, and the one week-day prayer service and the one Sunday-evening preaching service already held have been well attended.

The principal churches in Napa, aside from the Episcopal and Roman Catholic, are Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Christian, and Christian Adventist. A few weeks ago the pastor of the Methodist Church had an idea about union services for the month of July; this notion he communicated to the pastors of the four other churches; they suggested a few modifications of his plan, which went into effect with these changes:

A small and modest handbill was distributed about the town announcing that the services each Sunday evening throughout July would be union services, the subject to be "The Denominational Why." On Sunday evening, July 7, the pastor of the Christian Church explained to a large audience in the Methodist Church the faith of his particular denomination. The Wednesday evening preceding he led a union prayer-meeting in the Methodist Church. And so it was to go throughout the month-every Wednesday evening a union prayer-meeting led by some pastor in a church other than his own; every Sunday evening the explanation of the creed of some one of the churches represented. The various societies of young people, not to be outdone by their elders, have decided that their meetings also shall be union meetings.

The result of the first week's services

To the Editors of The Outlook :

I have read with interest your editorial entitled "The Highest Service of Love." The recoil that has taken place from the doctrine of God's arbitrary and irresponsible sovereignty to that of his Fatherhood has resulted in an error no less mischievous in the other extreme. The very attractive phrase " indulgent Father" is often employed to express his attitude toward us, than which nothing can be more misleading. God is the farthest possible from being an indulgent Father. Every requirement of his, being based upon an unerring estimate of the best and only means of securing the greatest good of his creatures, is imperative and unalterable.

The severest exaction of obedience is the truest, purest love.

This mischievous error has arisen from a misunderstanding of the true signification of ethical love. Some of the greatest perplexities, both of doctrinal and practical Christianity, are due to the fact that we employ the word love to express two concepts that, although not antagonistic, are radically different, at the same time failing to observe the discrepancy. fault lies in always attaching to the word love the idea of affection, whereas, as a Christian virtue and duty, it has a very different meaning.

The

This can be made plain by referring to the Greek. For the emotional love that exists among kindred, and the attachment we feel for others not akin that we call friendship, the Greek uses the noun philos and the verb philco. When translated from these words, or used in the same sense, its meaning is purely social. In the New Testament philco is never used in an ethical sense. It is never found in the imperative. On the other hand, to express the attitude of the will that is called benevolence-wishing well-the

Greek has the noun agape and the verb agapao. These words are always employed in the New Testament in speaking of love as a virtue or enjoining it as a duty, and our word love, when translated from these Greek words, and in all ethical relations, must be understood in the same sense. As a command it enjoins a volitional, not an affectional, attitude of the soul toward others, regardless of social relations, and in defiance of the attitude of others toward us. It must be exercised and maintained as really, sincerely, and fully toward enemies that hate us as toward our most lovable and loving friends.

This is the point on which misunderstanding and confusion arise. Christians suppose that the command "Love your enemies" means that they must feel the same affection for their enemies that they feel for their wives, husbands, children, and intimate, confidential friends; and often mourn over their inability to do it. The world should surely be disabused of this error.

In the New Testament, the true meaning of the word love can be ascertained with certainty only by referring to the Greek word from which it is translated. For instance, note John xi., 37, “Behold how he loved him," and John iii., 16, "God so loved the world." Our word loved leaves the meaning of both these texts in uncertainty; while the Greek ephilei in the first, and egapesen in the second, make it positive that the first means that Jesus had social affection for Lazarus, and the second that God was moved by such benevolent desire for the welfare of the sinful world, though it was disloyal to him and unlovely in his sight, that he gave his only begotten Son."

The passages in which the love one has for himself is made the measure of the love he owes his neighbor are, when correctly interpreted, especially interesting and instructive. What is the nature of the love one has for himself? Analyze it carefully. Do you find any affection in it? Not a particle. What, then, is this mysterious love, and what is the meaning of the command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself"? A little careful introspection will make the answer plain. That which is dearest to every man, as pertaining to himself, is life. Next to life come reputation and rights. Manifesta

tions of kind regard and interest in his welfare are also sources of great pleasure and joy to every human heart. These, then, may be considered as the inventory of man's love for himself and the catalogue of his duties to others. The man, the woman, who regards the life, reputation, and rights of others as sacredly as he would have others regard his life, reputation, and rights, and manifests a neighborly, brotherly spirit toward others, and endeavors to promote the welfare of

others, in short, who does to others as he would have others do to himself, w. fulfill the royal law, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Chelsea, Mich. THOMAS HOLMES.

Through a slip of the pen or an error in type, in our issue of July 13, we incorrectly gave the address of the treasurer of the Working Girls' Vacation Society. The correct address is: Miss Edith Bryce, 20 West Fifty-fourth Street, New York.

What is meant to the practical mind when we, in praying, ask God to bless us, or bless this or bless that? It is not clear to me; in fact it is about meaningless to me. I fear to most of us it is a term we use hardly knowing what we do mean. E. W. A. Good feeling often fails into a mere formal expression, as in the current phrase, "How do you do?" "Very well, I thank you," in which really the inquirer neither seeks explicit information about health nor receives it from the answer. Religious feeling drops thus sometimes also into expressions which though not without also real sentiment are largely formal. Such is the phrase, “God bless us. "" It is a real expression of man's recognition of his need of a divine helper and of his desire for divine companionship. It is vague in expression because it expresses a vague feeling, and sometimes it must be confessed that it really expresses no feeling at all. The obligation pressed upon us in recognizing this tendency to formalism is endeavor to vitalize devout forms with all the feeling that we can.

Please give a list of books on Scandinavia for a history club.

I. M. M. See the volumes on Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, in the Story of the Nations" series (Putnams), Thomas's "Sweden and the Swedes" (Rand, McNally & Co.), Sturluson's "Stories of the Kings of Norway" (Scrib ners), Hare's "Sketches in Holland and Scandinavia " (Macmillan), Nelson's "History of Scandinavia and Successful Scandinavians in the United States (O. N. Nelson, Minneapolis), Neukomm's "Rulers of the Sea, Norsemen in America from the Tenth to the Fifteenth Century" (Estes & Lauriat), Anderson's "Viking Tales of the North" (Griggs & Co.).

Kindly give me the name and price of a good book of Bible stories, suitable for children from three to six years of age. D. A. H. The Charles Foster Publishing Company, Philadelphia, has, we believe, volumes of stories from both Testaments, costing perhaps 75 cents each; The Pilgrim Press, Boston, has Weed's" Life of Christ for the Young "-a book of the primary grade, 50 cents.

Can I learn how to rid my farm of poison ivy? It grows in great quantity along the stone walls under the apple trees, and keeps me away from some of the sweetest places on my property. A.

The only effective way is to tear it up by the roots. This is the way in which a certain golf-links was cleared of it. “Rounding Out a Business." On this subject an article by Mr. Thomas Neal, of the Acme White Lead

and Color Works at Detroit, is published by the Detroit Chamber of Commerce and Convention League in the "Detroit Business Review," volume II., No. 15. It is well worth the attention of all employers in large or small organizations both of a commercial and an industrial kind. The suggestions made by Mr. Neal are in his view the lines on which "the labor problem will be solved."

To Several Correspondents.-There are two conceptions respecting the future life: The first is that God has endowed all men with immortality in creation, that they must in the nature of the case live eternally, and that either all will eventually be brought to the knowledge and the love of God, and to consequent holiness (Universalism), or that some will not, and will conse quently live in endless sin and misery (Calvinism). The other theory is that God alone has immortality in himself, that man is immortal only as he is in vital connection with God, his immortality being derivative or conditioned upon his character. For an able presentation of this view, see Dr. McConnell's "Evolution of Immortality." This view seems to us more consonant with both the teaching of Scripture and philosophy than the first, though we do not think it safe to be dogmatic on the subject.

Inquirers to whom we have commended the booklets for the religious instruction of children, published by Dr. W. J. Mutch. of New Haven, Conn., viz., "Christian Teachings" and "History of the Bible," will be interested in his latest issue, "Junior Bible Lessons" (25 cents). Its topics are drawn from the history of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. Dr. Mutch is to begin, September 1, a small quarterly, "Christian Nurture," presenting the best modern ideas bearing on nurture in home, church, and school, (15 cents single copy; 50 cents yearly).

J. H. A. is informed by several correspondents that he will find the lines he speaks of in The Outlook of June 29,

The still, small voice in autumn's hush,
Yon maple tree the burning bush,

in Whittier's "Chapel of the Hermits," stanza sixteen. If "L. M. R.," whose request for an article on "The Freedom of the Press " appeared in the e columns, issue of June 8, will send his address to us we will be glad to forward to him a brief on the subject which has been kindly sent to him by a Philadelphia lawyer.

Vol. 68

The Steel Strike

The history of the steel strike last week is chiefly a record of unsubstantiated rumors. In the first place, the prediction of the week before that several of the closed plants would be reopened with non-union help remains unfulfilled. No important works have yet been started up again. In the next place, the report that a Federal Judge was about to issue a number of blanket injunctions against the strikers has not as yet been followed by any such action. In the third place, the announcement that pressure was to be brought upon the Republican National Committee, through Senator Hanna, to intervene on the part of the strikers, as it did last year in the coal strike, is, to say the least, unverified. In the fourth place, the sensational despatches stating that the Mayor of Wellsville, O., had forbidden union men from accosting non-union men on the streets, and that the Mayor of McKeesport, Pa., had prohibited the importation of non-union men and refused to protect the property of the trusts, proves to have so little basis of fact as to be unworthy of serious attention. The only case reported during the week in which non-union men failed to secure the protection of the public was that of the three hundred negroes imported from Alabama to work for the Latrobe Steel and Copper Company at Melrose Park, Ill.

this case the remonstrance of the whole town against the importation and the fear inspired among the negroes led the company to abandon its project and send the negroes back. In this incident the company might justly complain that its legal rights had not been protected, but the strike at Melrose Park is not, we believe, connected with the struggle between the Amalgamated Association and the Steel Trust. That conflict, if we may believe present reports, may be ended

No. 14

before this paper reaches our readers. The one piece of news of real importance is that on Saturday last President Shaffer and Secretary Williams of the Amalgamated Association had a conference with President Schwab and Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, of the Steel Trust, and that after this conference President Shaffer sent telegrams to the executive officers of the Amalgamated Association asking them to meet in Pittsburg on Monday of this week. As to the suggested basis of settlement the rumors now current have apparently as little basis as most of those which darkened the situation last week. We have only to add that since a labor war of such proportions as was threatened is not only an immediate disaster to the entire community but threatens increased peril for the future, the entire community will hope that some pacific and honorable method of adjustment may be found.

The 3chley Inquiry

The extremely unhistorical third volume of Maclay's history of the Navy, with its bitter personal attack on Admiral Schley, has served one useful purpose; it has led the Admiral to call for a Court of Inquiry. Such an inquiry into the conduct of Admiral Schley before, during, and after the naval battle of Santiago should, in our judgment, have taken place long since. The charges made are specific; those who reiterate them from time to time in the public press are able to quote a characterization of Admiral Schley as guilty of " reprehensible conduct " made by his immediate superior officer and a letter from the Secretary of the Navy to the Senate Naval Committee describing Admiral Schley's conduct as marked by "unsteadiness in purpose and in push and failure to obey orders." It is not our intention to examine in detail the charges made against Admiral Schley,