ALL men recognize the contrast between the efficiency of Christ Jesus and that of even his most spiritual and exalted followers today. How shall this contrast be explained in our concept and scheme of things? Shall we link his strength to our weakness, his doing to our non-doing, by a contracting process, by insisting that his power was unique, possessed and to be possessed by none save the selected few upon whom he conferred a special endowment, so that our inefficiency may not seem to be out of keeping and ignoble? Or shall we think of his order as our standard, of his life as our pattern, of his work as ours, and thus be brought face to face with the grievousness of our delinquency?
The first mental attitude is practically universal outside of Christian Science, and the direct and incidental effects of its assumption are momentous. It does not trespass upon the domain of habit or demand the sacrifice of pleasures. It precipitates no great issue or decision. We can continue to live along as in the past without any troubling compunctions or discomfort, by reminding ourselves that it is certainly not to our discredit if we do not possess a spiritual equipment and capacity which heaven has not designed us to have. Self condemnation is thus uncalled for and we can jog on and be happy. The laissez-faire state of thought thus encouraged explains the fact that the great body of religious people have never expected large results from their living, and never, perchance, even thought of the healing of the sick as a normal sequence of Christian faith.
Christian Science reveals the illogic and ill results of this unfaith. It rebukes this order of thought and the incapacity which attends it. It declares that sickness is out of keeping as well as uncomfortable, and that Christians are not at liberty to live barren fig-tree lives, but that it is both the privilege and business of every disciple to do the Master's works. This is all as it should be, and the glory of such an ideal of overcoming has appealed to many,— but how about the asserted proofs of its practicability? What is our explanation of the very noticeable contrast between Christ Jesus' healing work, the instantaneous cures he and his immediate disciples wrought, together with the not infrequent raising of the dead, and the long delayed recovery or the passing of some who have been under Christian Science treatment? This is the leading question, and you and I are called upon to answer it. As Christian Scientists the content of our asserted belief renders any consent to inefficiency and any apologetic attitude simply impossible. We must frankly recognize the fact that we are not Christian Scientists in any worthy sense, or we must be true to the fundamental teaching of our faith. There is no other alternative.
