The Christian Science Church
Phineas Parkhurst Quimby
The term ‘Christian Science’ initially came from a 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, March 1888).
Mary Baker Eddy
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 and Klann’s 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 quiet 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” (p. 18-19).
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, she 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, J.H Wiggin How Reverend Wiggin Rewrote Mrs Eddy’s Book.
Copied large segments from Lindley Murray’s book, The English Reader, p. 98. For a detailed analysis of this, see Walter Martin’s book, The Kingdom of the Cults, p. 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 Quimby’s), 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 Masquerade, pg. 80, 81.)
Under oath, the physician in question, a 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, p. 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 and Heath, 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 on one’s own sake and for that of the patient” (p. 396).
This may all sound very nice, but it is non-biblical and it’s not helpful to the true child of God. 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 a 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
Throughout her adult life, she 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).
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 or the Christian Science Journal, to have this and above all, print it. 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).
Research has affirmed that Mary did not have any qualifications whatsoever for this task. 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: a 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 mirrored this pattern.
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 her movement.
Upon her death, she left a personal fortune of $3 million, nothing was left to 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.”
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 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 years. Interestingly, a Cincinnati physician took up her invitation, but Mary wisely shunned this very reasonable offer to display her powers.
Red = Scientists
Black = Biblical 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 (p. 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” (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 Baker’s arrogant feminist boast that only she and she alone was able to interpret or try to understand the bible, is totally ridiculous and banal.
God: Christian Science repudiates the orthodox Trinity (pg. 189-190).
The resurrection of Jesus Christ clearly shows and proves how the Trinity worked in harmony with one another while working independently:
1) John 2:20, 21 – Jesus says He will raise up His own body after three days (God the Son)
2) Romans 8:11- the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (God the Holy Spirit)
3) Galatians 1:1 – God the Father raised Him up (God the Father)
Man: Christian Science, in all its anthropology, denies the reality of the body of sin and the fall and repudiates man’s temporality and fitness (p. 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 man’s sinful nature, look at past dictators such as Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, etc, etc.
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 (p. 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:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (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 (p. 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 so much, that He sent His only Son to come to earth, live among His creation and go on to die for their sins (Is. 53:4-12).
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’ (Acts 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 (p. 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 rags 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, p. 20).
I wish such people who believe this would read Foxe’s 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, p. 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.
Headquarters are located in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
In 1997 they had 2,200 branch churches in over 60 countries around the world.
Membership of this science religion 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 (Gruss, pg. 26.) It should also be noted that the primary reason these figures are dismally lower than that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, is because, for some reason, they simply don’t proselytise.
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.
They have been sued in recent years for libel, due to inaccurate reporting in the Christian Science Monitor. This worldwide publication has a circulation of just 73,000 and has struggled financially for many years.
They haven’t made a single profit since 1961, and to date, they have lost over $250 million (Forbes Magazine, 17 September 1990).
They 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, they 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.
The apostle Paul wrote: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression” (1 Tim. 2:11-15).
This imperative and timeless command is very clear that God doesn’t allow or bless women in roles of leadership in His Church!
Women were never designed to lead men but were to be submissive and obedient to them (Gen. 3:16). Yet Galatians 3:28 does make it clear that there is no partiality with God, to those that are saved. However, when a local church assembles to worship God, roles and responsibilities change. Some men will take up teaching roles, while others won’t. Some women will lead other women and children during Sunday school, while others won’t.
Therefore when the Judgment Seat of Christ occurs, those godly women that obeyed the word of God, will not only be blessed by the Saviour but they will be elated that He won’t examine their ‘teaching role’s in light of Scripture. Such a judgment is only for men that He called and equipped to do so (Heb. 13:17).
Walter Martin, Kingdom of the Cults
Edmond C. Gruss, Cults and the Occult
Barry R. Smith, Second Warning
(All Rights Reserved)