Sometimes the statement is made: I belong to a Christian church, and have prayed repeatedly and earnestly to God to be relieved of physical distresses, and my prayers have remained unanswered how can you Christian Scientists rely on the efficacy of prayer to overcome physical sicknesses? At other times the question is put thus: Why are not the prayers of the members of other Christian denominations as effectual for the healing of the sick as are the prayers of Christian Scientists? If God does not answer our prayers in such cases, when we pray to Him fervently and sincerely as Christians, what right have you to expect us to have any faith in your prayers as Christian Scientists?
We may ask if those who put such questions pray to the true and only God, or do they pray to a supposititious deity who has no existence? If they pray to a non-existing God, whom they "ignorantly worship" because of false teachings, their questions need no further answer than the pointing out of this fact. If they pray to a man-like God, and no such God exist; if they pray to a God who is man-like in His notions of justice, truth, love, punishment, and so forth, and God be infinite Love, Spirit, Truth, Life, then is it not clear that they pray amiss?
For argument's sake, let us put the case strongly. Suppose that one prays to a piece of wood, say in the form of a totem-pole or a cross, is he praying to God? Suppose that he believes in the power of evil being greater than the power of good (as some benighted peoples do believe to this day), and seeks to propitiate an imaginary Satan by prayer. Surely we would not expect God to answer such a prayer. It may be said that no Christian so prays, and that therefore the instance is not pertinent. Very well; then we will substitute this instance: Suppose that one names God with his lips in prayer, but does not name Him in his thoughts, inasmuch as he believes that the One to whom he prays possesses attributes and ways which could properly be ascribed to a personal Satan if he existed is that person praying to the true and only God, or is he praying to a non-existent being? Upon what basis can you claim that such a prayer can be efficacious any more than the prayer of the pagan who, with equal sincerity and fervor, prays to a totem-pole?
Does the mother who bends in agonized suspense over her sick child believe that God has decreed her child to be sick, that its sickness is "a visitation of divine Providence"? If the Christian Science doctrine be true that God is not the author of sickness, and the mother has been taught that He is, and directs her prayer for the recovery of her child to a God who does not exist, is not her prayer misdirected; and does she not weaken in her faith and trust when she so prays, because of her consciousness that she is praying both foolishly and ineffectually when she asks an unchanging and unchangeable God to accept her views of what is wise and best instead of His own views? If the Christian Science teaching be true that God is not the author of sickness is it any wonder that the prayers of the members of denominations which teach that God is the author of sickness are found to be ineffectual when they pray for the recovery of the sick? And does not the mother of the sick child justly feel in her innermost consciousness that if God visited its sickness upon the poor little sufferer over whom she bends in anguish, then there must be some mistake or limitation in the Scriptural statement that God is Love? Furthermore, what right has a Christian to pray to God for the recovery of the sick, if he believes that God creates sickness, and that, therefore, sickness is a part of the divine economy?
If James taught truly that "the prayer of faith shall save the sick," what is the attitude of the religious denomination which proves and confesses that the prayers of its members for the recovery of the sick are ineffectual? Is not the deduction unavoidable that its teachings in respect to prayer are lamentably erroneous? And must not the reason for the inadequacy of such prayers be found in the fact that they are offered to something' else than the true and only God Is it any wonder that the members of such a denomination lose their faith in the efficacy of prayer? Is it any wonder that they put such questions as are asked in the beginning ginning of this article What else could be expected
The remedy for them is to reform whatever creed, dogma, or doctrine they may have which teaches that God is the author of any evil, such as sickness for when Christian Science prayers are directed to the God who is too pure to behold iniquity, who is Love, and who is not the author of evil, and are found to be effectual prayers, the inference becomes inevitable that the opposite concept of God must be erroneous.
In this connection it is worthy of note that, under the rapidly increasing prestige of Christian Science in overcoming physical sicknesses, several of the older Christian denominations are now anxiously considering the advisability of attempting to revive the Christ-method of healing the sick as an active part of their doctrine and practice. The word of warning needs to be given them that they cannot be truly healed so long as they adhere to any creedal or doctrinal tenets that God is the author of evil, and that aught save Spirit and the infinite manifestation of Spirit is reality. The Christian Science teachings on these two points are fundamental, and must be unreservedly accepted and acted upon, or else the Christ-method of overcoming sickness cannot be successfully demonstrated. Christianity must be recognized as Science. The scientific definitions and classifications taught in Christian Science must be unreservedly accepted. And the wheels of Christian thinking are beginning to "grind exceeding small" in this direction.
The non-Christian sometimes asks for an explanations of the modus operandi of prayer in the recovery of the sick. This is not exactly germane to the purpose of this article; but a few thought in this connection may not prove amiss. The office of prayer is to change and benefit man, not God. Prayer is communion with God. We are influenced by the company we keep. Good associations purify and strengthen us. Who can draw the boundary where these influences cease to operate? These purifying and strengthening influences affect us through the same law of our being under which courage and cheerfulness are found to benefit the sick, while despondency and fear are observed to bring opposite results. Who possesses the knowledge which can measure the circumference of these influences, and especially so when they emanate from our communion with God? It is impossible either to measure or to describe the limitless influences of prayer upon him who prays to the true God. When we pray our thoughts hold converse with God as we understand Him to be. We therefore need to understand God aright to our very utmost. We are always assimilating. God is Truth. The more we understand God, the more we practically realize the promise of Jesus, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." We can overcome the falsehoods of sin, sickness, suffering, death, according to the measure of our understanding of divine Truth, just as our Wayshower overcame. Were our understanding of God equal to his, we, like Jesus, could also overcome "the last enemy."
The non-Christian says he does not comprehend how the result is attained that it is a mystery to him that he can comprehend how one physical object can affect another physical object; but that he cannot comprehend how the spiritual influences of prayer can affect a sick man. Waiving the very important question whether or not he does comprehend, after all, how one physical object affects another other physical object, we ask him to explain how and why cheerfulness and fear affect the sick man before he denies that prayer can affect him. Let him explain how a single blade of grass grows, pushing his explanation to the ultimate question. Under everything there is the mystery of the infinite. Fully to comprehend the manifestation of an intelligence needs an equal and a like intelligence. The practical and provable questions are the important questions to us; and these questions relate to the inquiry, What is the fact, and not to the question of deific intention, Why is it so. The practical and provable fact in agriculture is that the grass grows, and that it grows best under certain conditions however insolvable the question, Why. And so throughout the whole domain. A man can now talk into a telephone, and his voice, with all the peculiarities of its utterance, can be reproduced from the wondrous instrument A few decades ago, who would have been able to comprehend it? And now, while we comprehend the fact of the process, who is able to explain, to their last analysis, the How and the Why of the process? No one. When we talk to God in our prayers, do you dispute the fact that God can talk back to our consciousness? All human history secular as well as sacred, confirms that He can. Your questions as to the How and the Why are neither practical nor profitable questions. The only practical and important questions relate to the fact itself. Whenever we attempt to explore those realms in metaphysics which are beyond our powers, we become more or less discouraged, and sometimes even completely lost, among the fogbanks into which we have fruitlessly wandered. Is it to be wondered at that there are regions in abstract, speculative inquiry which are beyond our powers, and where, therefore, our experiences must resemble those of the general in history who is recorded as having marched his army up a hill merely to march it down again?
We need always to beware lest a sense of evil be masquerading as good in our thoughts when we pray; else, we may be unwittingly communing with our sense of evil. Though we think we are communing with God by means of prayer, yet if our beliefs are clothing God with evil qualities, we are to that extent bringing into our consciousness corrupting and weakening influences. The theist declares that God is an eternal fact, whatever men may believe concerning Him, and the atheist declares that men worship the God of their own beliefs. These declarations do not contradict each other, after all. And supremely profitable is the inquiry, To whom do we pray? Are we in our concepts of God investing Him with our very highest ideals? Their highest and best cannot attain the divine reality; but we are thus brought into a communion of priceless value to us in all ways. As we lower the standard of these ideals we lessen the efficacy and benefit of prayer. The good of our race needs that every religious tenet which lowers the standard of these ideals be reformed.
I oppose, as I would every useless fear in men, the lamentation that the feelings grow old with lapse of years. It is the narrow heart alone which does not grow, the wide one becomes larger.—
