(Note: With minor changes, this paper was originally published in the Spring 2001 edition of The Journal, a quarterly publication of Midwest Christian Outreach.)
Suzanne
Buckingham was eaten alive. It began over twenty years ago when a
tiny spot appeared on her face. As a Christian Scientist, Suzanne
knew that she could heal the spot by understanding her
“true” nature as the perfect, spiritual idea of God.
She faithfully held to this idea as the spot grew into a lump and
finally developed into a huge, cancerous tumor that engulfed her
left eye and part of her mouth. The cancer spread throughout her
body, eating her from within as well as consuming much of her
face. She spent the last months of her life in bed, clinging to
her Christian Science faith as a series of practitioners
(professional Christian Science healers) “treated”
her with Christian Science prayers and told her that nothing was
wrong with her.
Variations on Suzanne’s story have played out over and over
in Christian Science homes, although usually with less obvious
drama since most disease remains hidden within the body.
Nevertheless, quiet carnage is a part of the Christian Science
culture and has undoubtedly contributed to the mass exodus
experienced by the Church over the past fifty years. While Church
membership stood at over a quarter million during the
1930’s, estimates suggest that it has fallen to well under
100,000 at the present time.[1]
Why should Christians be concerned about Christian Science if its
membership is in decline? There are two compelling answers to
this question. First, the Church of Christ, Scientist is trying
very hard not to expire. Under the leadership of Board of
Directors Chairman Virginia Harris, the Church has embarked on an
aggressive, multi-faceted marketing program designed to
mainstream itself and to attract new members. One result of the
marketing program is that, in 1999, approximately 200,000 copies
of Science and Health (the Christian Science
“textbook”) were sold or distributed – a
startling increase over the usual 50,000 to 70,000 copies sold
per year.[2]
A second reason not to ignore Christian Science is that tens of
thousands of people have been, or are still being, affected by
this religion. An alarming number of former members remain
emotionally and spiritually wounded, even as people newly
attracted to this religion are being shown only its beautiful
side and are usually unaware of its dangers. As Christians, it is
important to understand Christian Science so we can minister to
the wounded. It is also important to understand both the
attractions and pitfalls of the religion so we can guide seekers
away from Christian Science and toward a healthier, biblical set
of beliefs.
What Christian Scientists Believe
Christian Scientists identify closely with two verses from the
first chapter of Genesis:
“So God created man in his own image. . . . And God saw
every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very
good.” (Genesis 1: 27a, 31a, KJV)
Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of Christian Science) interpreted
these verses to mean that man is the perfect, spiritual
reflection of God. Matter, sin, disease, and death do not exist.
Mrs. Eddy’s “Scientific Statement of Being,”
read every week from every Christian Science pulpit, begins
with,
“There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in
matter,”
and ends with, “Therefore, man is not material; he is
spiritual.”[3]
A Christian Scientist’s goal is to fully understand both
his spiritual nature and the unreality of matter. As he
comprehends these “truths,” his experience reflects
this understanding in the form of healings and in the overcoming
of life’s challenges. Christian Science never really
explains where the belief in matter came from or why it seems to
exist – it just does (“seemingly”), and it must
be challenged at every turn as it constantly tries to convince us
that what we feel, hear, taste, see, and touch are real.
Mrs. Eddy presented Christian Science as a scientific system of
healing based upon spiritual laws that God had (allegedly)
revealed to her. She taught that these laws must be followed
– without deviation – if a believer wished to
practice Christian Science with consistent success. She taught
that Christian Science cannot be mixed with any other doctrine or
spiritual healing system, and that it is incompatible with
medicine.
To the Christian Scientist, the vast misconception that matter
exists is summed up by the term “mortal mind.”[4] We
live, receive pleasure, and suffer from the illusory laws of
mortal mind as long as we believe that they are true. Sooner or
later we must all learn that mortal mind is an illusion, but we
suffer from its apparent effects until we learn the lesson. Death
does not excuse us from learning the lesson, but simply
represents a phase through which we pass as we continue to
believe in our mortality. We will suffer on the next
“plane[s] of existence”[5] (i.e., state(s) of
consciousness) until we learn that we are sinless, spiritual
ideas of God (this is not considered to be reincarnation, since
reincarnation involves a physical body and returning to the same
plane of existence). We will all be “saved”[6] as we
gradually leave our material beliefs behind and realize our true
spirituality. In Christian Science, our salvation is not from
eternal damnation, but from our belief in materiality.
Christian Scientists call themselves Christians, but their
beliefs deviate from biblical Christianity on nearly every
central doctrine. To the Christian Scientist, Jesus Christ is a
“duality”[7] consisting of Jesus “the human
man”[8] and Christ the “divine idea.”[9] Heaven
and hell are states of mind rather than real places.[10] The Holy
Spirit is Christian Science and not a member of the Godhead.[11]
Jesus’ “seeming”[12] death on the cross was not
intended to pay for our sins, but to prove the unreality of sin,
disease, and death. The Bible is full of mistakes. Jesus’
words were recorded by “dull disciples…in a decaying
language,”[13] and must be spiritually interpreted through
Christian Science.
The Attraction
Christian Science offers some real enticements – a
“spiritually scientific”[14] method for healing,
victory over life’s circumstances, and guaranteed
salvation. All one has to do to receive these blessings is to
study Mrs. Eddy’s writings and obey them to the letter. She
is “the chosen messenger of God”[15] and her writings
are infallible. Just obey her teaching and learn to think as she
thought, and you will be victorious.
The Trap
Achieving Eddy’s Utopian promises is not as easy as it
sounds. Aside from its spiritual perils, Christian Science
subjects its adherents to a host of emotional and physical
dangers. From an emotional standpoint, Christian Scientists face
a disparity between what their physical senses tell them and what
they “know” to be true. Consciously or unconsciously,
they go through life denying the reality of their bodies and
reinterpreting both their emotions and circumstances to fit this
false view of life. This mental juggling act can be especially
harmful to children, who have an instinctive need for their hurts
and feelings to be validated. Many of them suffer emotional
neglect as their parents lovingly tell them that their pain is
not real.
The physical dangers of Christian Science are obvious. Since they
are taught that learning about their bodies is spiritually
harmful, Christian Scientists are ill equipped to understand the
symptoms of illness. They often suffer needlessly from treatable
diseases and neglect life-threatening conditions that could be
cured if treated in their early stages.
Do Christian Scientists recognize the trap in which they live?
Most of them do not. Convinced that their religion represents
God’s perfect and complete Truth, they assume that anything
that disagrees with Christian Science must be incorrect. Failed
healings, skepticism over Christian Science doctrine, and claims
that Christian Science contradicts the Bible – these are
all blamed on a poor understanding of Christian Science and not
on any fault with the religion itself. Christian Science is
always right, even if you don’t quite understand it and
even if people are dying around you.
Mainstreaming the Church
The Christian Science Church is finding new ways to promote
itself in light of our society’s current interest in
self-awareness, spirituality, mind/body connections, alternative
medicine, and women’s issues. The Church’s weekly
magazine has been redesigned to include quotes from unlikely
figures like New Age proponent Oprah Winfrey. [16] Church
representatives are also turning up at medical conferences and
other astonishing places. Consider a few activities that the
Church has recently sponsored or in which it has
participated:
· In December of 1999, Virginia Harris spoke at a symposium
entitled “Spirituality and Healing in Medicine”
sponsored by Harvard Medical School and the Mind/Body Medical
Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. At the
symposium, Harris discussed “The Future of Medicine –
and the Medicine of the Future.”[17]
· The Church recently participated in at least two
conferences regarding child-abuse prevention. Maryland churches
co-sponsored and provided two moderators for a conference
entitled, “Faith Community Response to Child Abuse.”
At a California conference, Church representative Brian Talcott
sat on a panel discussing the subject, “Building Bridges
with Religious Communities in Child Abuse Prevention,
Intervention, and Treatment.”[18]
The Church recently announced plans to build the Mary Baker Eddy
Library for the Betterment of Humanity. Scheduled to open in
2002, the library will house over 500,000 unpublished documents
and artifacts related to Mrs. Eddy.[19] According to the Church
Directors, the library’s purpose is “to further the
universal quest for spirituality and the science of being –
and their effect on health and human progress.”[20] (It
will also allow the Church to secure another 45 years of
copyright protection for the writings under new U.S. copyright
laws that take effect at the end of 2002.) The library will be
located at the Church headquarters in Boston and will be modeled
after presidential libraries, with exhibits and meeting
facilities for academic and public discussion of subjects like
“women’s issues, spirituality, religion and
wellness.” The Church has gathered an impressive group of
advisors for the project, including Dr. Ann Braude, Director of
Women’s Studies in Religion Program, Harvard Divinity
School; Dr. Herbert A. Benson, Associate Professor, Harvard
Medical School and Founder and Director of the Mind/Body
Institute; and Dr. David Hufford, Director, The Doctors Kienle
Center for Humanistic Medicine, Pennsylvania State University
College of Medicine.[21] As part of the $50 million project, a
satellite library is planned for Seneca Falls, New York –
site of the first Woman’s Rights Convention.
· In the fall of 1999, Larry King interviewed Virginia
Harris on his prime time television show, Larry King Live. King
is sympathetic to Christian Science; what resulted was an
hour-long commercial for the religion that presented its Utopian
side while blatantly misrepresenting its drawbacks. (For example,
when King asked about children who have died under Christian
Science care, Harris responded, “the few cases that have
been publicized are the only ones.” Having talked with some
former Christian Scientists who lost siblings in this religion, I
know that Harris’ statement was either patently false or
hopelessly naïve.)
The activities listed above suggest that the Christian Science
Church is trying to project a new image by portraying itself as
actively involved in the important issues of our day –
women’s issues, child-abuse prevention, alternative
healthcare, and spirituality, to name a few. But, with the
exception of women’s issues, this new image is deceptive.
As stated on the Church’s official web site,
“The fundamental teachings and practice of Christian
Science do not change, nor will they change.”[22]
This means that, no matter how much the Church identifies itself
with the alternative healthcare movement, its basic tenants will
always prevent mixing Christian Science with any form of
alternative healthcare. And even as the Church speaks out against
child abuse, its basic doctrines still result in emotional and
physical neglect as parents tell their children that their hurts
and pains are not real.
Along with its new image, the Church is avoiding the appearance
of having “policies” (most notably a written policy
on mixing Christian Science and medicine). This is a profound
deception, since the very foundations of Christian Science
preclude this combination. Mrs. Eddy’s writings repeatedly
warn against trying to combine medicine with Christian Science,
as does the Church’s official web site:
Question on web site: “Why not mix Christian Science
with medical treatment?”
Answer: “Christian Science treatment and medical
treatment proceed from opposite standpoints…To try to heal
from opposite systems may be unfair to the patient and could be
counterproductive to healing.” (http://www.tfccs.com
2-5-01)
While the answer attempts to appear non-dogmatic with its use of
words like “may” and
“could,” the Church’s policy of not
mixing Christian Science with medicine is clearly revealed by the
question itself and is consistent with how the Church has
operated throughout its history.
Two examples illustrate how the Christian Science Church is
attempting veil its policy regarding medicine. The first example
involves Virginia Harris’ interview on Larry King
Live.
To King’s question, “Why couldn’t you have
prayer and aspirins?”
Harris replies, “Well, people can do whatever they want
to.”
To his later question, “…why not prayer and the
antibiotic?”
She responds, “…people do that, Larry. People are
free to do whatever they want to.”[23]
What Harris neglects to say is that, if a person chooses the
aspirin or the antibiotic, they are not free to use Christian
Science treatment at the same time. If they are under the care of
a Christian Science practitioner and choose to take the medicine,
the practitioner is supposed to drop their case. What Harris
should have said is, “You can do whatever you want, as long
as you don’t mix Christian Science with medical
treatment.”
The second example involves an editorial statement that
originally appeared in the December 1999 issue of The Christian
Science Journal. In the article “The Standpoint of
Christian Science Treatment,” the editors wrote,
“It has not proved helpful to combine Christian Science
treatment with material methods of cure.” (This
statement is entirely consistent with historical Church
practice).
Then, in an unprecedented move, the editors recalled the December
Christian Science Journal and reissued it with the comment,
“[The editors] regret that the original December issue
of The Christian Science Journal included a statement that might
have been taken by readers as policy…This was not intended
as a policy statement to govern an individual’s practice of
Christian Science.”[24]
(The Church avoids written policies, presumably because several
of its members have been taken to court when children died under
the care of Christian Science practitioners.)[25]
The editors then presented a “correction”
saying that no one needs to feel guilty for receiving
“temporary [medical] help.” The correction
emphasizes that The Christian Science Journal includes
testimonies of healing regarding people who turned to Christian
Science after initially using medicine (which they later
abandoned in favor of Christian Science treatment) – and
felt no guilt.
While the editors’ “correction” is attempting
to reinforce the Church’s
“people-are-free-to-do-whatever-they-want”
façade, it does nothing to help the sincere Christian
Scientist. The “facts” remain: Medical care is
inferior to Christian Science; relying on medical care is
spiritually damaging; you must choose between your religion and
medicine as they are at odds with each other; if you are under
the care of a practitioner, you will lose that support if you
consult a doctor. Ironically, three pages after its
“correction,” the December 1999 Journal carried an
article that states,
“to try to mix spiritual and material means has the
effect of weakening trust in the all-power and all-presence of
God.”[26]
The Church’s “do as you wish” façade
appears to be attracting new followers. I am in contact with
several people who are intrigued by the Utopian promises offered
by Christian Science, but who think they can combine them with
their current religious beliefs and/or with medicine. They are
accustomed to the “pick-and-choose” attitudes of our
day and apparently have not seen or comprehended such statements
by Mrs. Eddy’s as,
“If the student goes away to practice [Christian
Science] only in part, dividing his interests between God and
mammon and substituting his own views for Truth, he will
inevitably reap the error he sows. Whoever would demonstrate the
healing of Christian Science must abide strictly by its rules,
heed every statement, and advance from the rudiments laid
down.”[27]
Suzanne Buckingham “could” have sought medical
treatment. But as a mature and dedicated believer, could she
really choose the medical option? She was sure that Christian
Science could heal her if only she understood it well enough. She
believed that her practitioner could help her achieve the
required level of understanding. She knew that going to a doctor
would damage her spiritual life and deprive her of any Christian
Science care. And she had been taught to deny the physical
evidence in front of her and to emotionally minimize her physical
situation. No, Suzanne could not go to a doctor; she was trapped
in an emotional and spiritual box that prevented her from
considering any care other than Christian Science
treatment.
What did the Christian Science Church do to help Suzanne?
Essentially…nothing. In August of 2000, Suzanne’s
daughter, Bryn Calderon, wrote a letter to Church officials at
the Boston headquarters and in her home state of California.[28]
The letter described Suzanne’s condition and referred to
the “horrendous situation”[29] in which the illness
had placed her family. Bryn told the Church that, if her mother
died, she would aggressively publicize the death and its link to
Christian Science. To prevent Bryn’s action, all the Church
officials had to do was to have Suzanne’s practitioner
convince her to see a doctor.
The Church’s response was predictable. Suzanne’s
practitioner simply told her,
“We just want you to know that you’re free to do
whatever you think is best.”[30]
And with that, the issue was apparently over in the eyes of the
Church. The practitioner (who is also a Christian Science
“Teacher,” placing him among the religion’s
most elite class of healers) continued to “treat”
Suzanne until, at his urging, she switched to a practitioner
closer to her home (the Teacher lives over an hour from her house
– an irrelevant point since, as in Suzanne’s case,
practitioners usually treat their patients over the phone).
Suzanne’s new practitioner then took up the project,
speaking with her up to fifty times per month, in one-to-two
minute segments, as Suzanne repeatedly sought relief and healing.
With each conversation, the practitioner told Suzanne that she
was the spiritual idea of God and that nothing was wrong with
her. Suzanne died in April 2001, eight months after her
daughter’s letter to Church officials and still under the
“care” of her practitioner.
Responsible healthcare providers recommend alternative treatment
when their own efforts are unsuccessful. But Suzanne’s
situation suggests that Christian Science does not allow its
practitioners to be responsible healthcare providers, even when
the Church’s reputation is at stake. Advising Suzanne to go
to a doctor was something that her practitioners and her church
were not willing to do.
Christian Scientists seem like happy, healthy, spiritually minded
people. They are actively offering their religion to a world that
is searching for answers. As seekers inquire about this beautiful
sounding religion, let us be ready to guide them away from a path
that will lead them into spiritual, physical, and emotional
danger.
Sharing your faith with Christian Scientists;
When discussing Christianity with Christian Scientists, remember
the following:
Devout Christian Scientists have a deep love for God, Jesus, and
the Bible (as they understand them). Address them with
sensitivity and respect, and with an appreciation for their
devotion.
Christian Scientists often sound quite knowledgeable about the
Bible. Remember that much of their Bible knowledge consists of
partial verses taken out of context and assigned new,
“spiritualized” meanings. Ask them to define their
terms when they quote the Bible. (“What do you mean by the
word ‘atonement’?”) When they quote verses out
of context, challenge them to look at those verses along with the
verses before and after them.
Most Christian Scientists hold Mary Baker Eddy in very high
esteem. They have been taught to dismiss negative information
about her as lies and ignorance. Avoid joking about her or making
accusations that you cannot clearly support. If you don’t
appreciate wisecracks about Jesus, don’t make them about
Mary Baker Eddy.
Suggestions for discussing Christianity with Christian
Scientists:
Ask sincere, respectful questions designed to help the Christian
Scientist evaluate his or her beliefs and loyalties. For
example:
* Ask the question, “Which book do you hold in higher
esteem – Science and Health, or the Bible?” The
answer will probably be, “both books,” or “the
Bible.” Then say, “Mrs. Eddy wrote that the Bible
contains ‘manifest mistakes in the ancient versions . . .
thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and . .
. three hundred thousand in the New [Testament] . . .’[31]
She also stated that the disciples were ‘dull.’[32]
On the other hand, she states that her own writings –
including Science and Health and even the Manual (the By-Laws of
The Mother Church) – are ‘[God]-inspired’[33]
and infallible. How, then, can you esteem the Bible as much as
you do Mrs. Eddy’s writings?”
* Christian Scientists are taught that Mrs. Eddy discovered
Christian Science after being healed from a serious fall on the
ice in February of 1866. She was expected to die, but rose from
her bed on the third day, healed and free.[34] Ask, “If she
was really healed, then why did she try to sue the city for
damages? Court records show that, during the summer of 1866
(several months after the accident), she requested money from the
city on the grounds that she was ‘still
suffering.’” (In a Church-authorized biography,
Richard Nenneman records a portion of Mrs. Eddy’s petition
to the mayor of Lynn as preserved in the court records of Essex
County, Massachusetts. Mrs. Eddy’s petition states,
“Having suffered much, and still suffering from the
effects of that fall, she earnestly petitions your Honor for the
recompense of justice in a pecuniary point, so far as that may
atone for her injuries and loss.”[35]
* People who become disenchanted with Christian Science are
sometimes reluctant to leave their religion because it still has
many good points (“its people have such a positive attitude
and are so friendly…”). Point out that the good parts
of Christian Science are also in biblical Christianity. Find out
what virtues they don’t want to leave, and give them
examples of how these “good things” can also be found
in a Christian church.
* Christian Science is supposedly validated by its healings.
Believers will undoubtedly tell you about a healing they or a
loved one have experienced and may point to over 50,000
“authenticated”[36] healings published in Christian
Science literature. Several responses may be helpful:
- Agree with them that God does heal, but point out that healings
occur even in non-Christian Science churches – including
those that do not emphasize “faith healing.” Healings
do not prove that one religion is the truth because healings
occur in many religions.
- Point out that the apostle Paul did not consider healing to be
a sign of his spirituality. “Three times” he asked
God to heal his “thorn in the flesh,” (2 Cor.12:8-9),
and he then was content to trust God’s sovereignty when God
denied his request. Paul also suggested that Timothy “use a
little wine” (1 Tim. 5:23) for medicinal purposes. If
insufficient “spiritual understanding”[37] had caused
Timothy’s ailment, Paul would have encouraged him to pray
more about the situation instead of prescribing some wine.
- Don’t be intimidated by the “more than 50,000
authenticated testimonies of healing.”[38] When compared to
estimated membership numbers, this figure represents roughly one
documented healing per ten Christian Scientists per
lifetime!
* Listen to what the Christian Scientist has to say, but be ready
to give calm, clearly stated challenges to biblical errors.
Nothing is quite as disarming as a calm, assured, response.
Linda Kramer spent thirty years in Christian Science before
leaving for doctrinal reasons and then fighting a long battle for
emotional freedom. She now ministers to the spiritual and
emotional needs of others touched by this religion both through
private correspondence and through her work with Christian Way,
an evangelical outreach to Christian Scientists. Dr. Kramer
authored the book, The Religion That Kills, which uses Christian
Science writings and secular mind control criteria to examine how
Christian Science attracts, controls, and harms its
followers.
Endnotes;
[1]Rodney Stark, “The Rise and Fall of Christian
Science,” Journal of Contemporary Religion 13(2) (1998):
189-214. Although membership figures are confidential, their
continuing downward trend can be assumed from the declining
number of churches and practitioners listed monthly in The
Christian Science Journal.
[2] “Christian Scientists Expand Presence In
Cyberspace,” The Christian Science Monitor electronic
edition http://www.csmonitor.com (6 June 2000).
[3] Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the
Scriptures (Boston, MA: Published by the Trustees under the Will
of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 1934), 468:8-15. Throughout this
bibliography, this work will be cited as
“S&H.”
[4] Ibid., 591:25-592:10.
[5] Ibid., 77:9-11.
[6] Ibid., 593:20-22.
[7] Ibid., 473:10-17.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid., 587:25-588:4, 266:20-21.
[11] Ibid., 55:27-29. This reference is best understood by noting
that the Bible refers to the Holy Spirit as the comforter (John
14:16-17) and that Christian Science uses the terms Christian
Science and Divine Science interchangeably (S&H
127:9-12).
[12] Ibid., 44:28-45:13.
[13] Mary Baker Eddy, Miscellaneous Writings 1883-1896 (Boston,
MA: Published by the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G.
Eddy, 1924), 100:1-6
[14] Mary Baker Eddy, S&H, 138:9-11. For a concise statement
of this spiritual “science,” see the
“scientific statement of being” (S&H
468:8-15).
[15] Richard A. Nenneman, Persistent Pilgrim: The Life of Mary
Baker Eddy (NH: Nebbadoon Press, 1997), 152-3.
[16] For example, see The Christian Science Sentinel (20 November
2000), 4.
[17] Report on talk given by Virginia S. Harris, C.S.B.,
“The Future of Medicine – and the Medicine of the
Future,” The Christian Science Sentinel (March 2000).
[18] “Faith Community Response to Child Abuse”
Conference, Columbia, MD, 12 October 2000. “San Diego
Conference on Responding to Child Maltreatment,” San Diego,
CA, 22-26 January 2001.
[19]Michael Paulson, “A Mary Baker Eddy Showcase,”
The Boston Globe, Metro Region Section (6 June 2000).
[20] Press release by The Christian Science Board of Directors,
PRNewswire, Yahoo! (6 June 2000).
[21] Ibid.
[22] Partial answer to the question, “Is your religion
changing with the times?” on the official web site of The
First Church of Christ, Scientist, http://www.tfccs.com (5
February 2001).
[23] Virginia Harris interview on CNN’s Larry King Live (30
September 1999).
[24] The Christian Science Board of Directors, “Compassion
and Healing in the Twenty-First Century,” The Christian
Science Journal (December 1999), 16.
[25] See web site for CHILD, Inc. (Children’s Healthcare is
a Legal Duty, Inc.), www.childrenshealthcare.org
[26] Jean Stark Hebenstreit, “The Uniqueness of Christian
Science Healing,” The Christian Science Journal (December
1999), 19-21.
[27] Mary Baker Eddy, S&H, 426:9-15.
[28] The letter was sent to Gary A. Jones, Manager of the
Committees on Publication for the Christian Science Church and to
Robert Coe Gilbert, Committees on Publication for Southern
California.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Linda Kramer private conversation with Bryn.
[31] Mary Baker Eddy, S&H, 139:16-19.
[32] Mary Baker Eddy, Miscellaneous Writings 1883-1896 (Boston,
MA: Published by the Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G.
Eddy, 1924),100:1-6.
[33] Quote of Mary Baker Eddy in John Lathrop, “Reflections
of Mary Baker Eddy,” We Knew Mary Baker Eddy, 1st series,
(Boston, MA: The Christian Science Publishing Society, 1943)
22.
[34] Yvonne Cache von Fettweis and Robert Townsend Warneck, Mary
Baker Eddy: Christian Healer (Boston, MA: The Christian Science
Publishing Society, 1998) xiii, 33-35.
[35] Richard A. Nenneman, Persistent Pilgrim: The Life of Mary
Baker Eddy (NH: Nebbadoon Press, 1997), 88.
[36] Answer to “What is your record of success with
Christian Science healing?” in Questions and Answers
section of “The official home page of The Church of Christ,
Scientist,” http://www.tfccs.com (15 May 2001).
[37] Mary Baker Eddy, S&H, 14:25-30, 442:19-22.
[38] Op. cit. (endnote 35).
UK APOLOGETICS SITE MENU AND RETURN LINKS