Christian Science

Christian Science is a teaching regarding the efficacy of spiritual healing according to the interpretation of the Bible by Mary Baker Eddy, in her book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1934). Students of Christian Science are usually, though not always or necessarily, members of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

Overview

Christian Science is a teaching that does not rely on conventional medicine but holds that the ills of the flesh, including death itself, can be healed through prayer and faith in God. This belief extends to the possibility of healing any kind of wrong-doing, not just illness. Christian Scientists see sin, disease, and death as derived from a 'false sense' of separation from God. Healing is accomplished when one realizes one's perfection and unity with God.

At the core of Christian Science is the teaching that God and God's creation are wholly good, and totally spiritual, and that God has made all things in His image and likeness (i.e. spiritually perfect). Thus, the reality of our being and of all existence is spiritual, not material. Christian Scientists see this spiritual reality as the only reality and all else as illusion or 'error'. Christian Science acknowledges that we all seem to be experiencing a material existence, but holds that this experience ultimately gives way to a true spiritual understanding of God and creation. This is how healing through prayer is possible. (Eddy, 1934 [1906]: pp. 1-17.)

Prayer, from the Christian Science perspective, does not ask God to intervene, but is rather a process of learning more of God's spiritual reality. This process "awakens mortal thought", by degrees, to spiritual truth. Christian Scientists claim the effect of this spiritualizing of thought is healing, -- physical, emotional, and otherwise. Consequently, healing (and health care) is not attempted through drugs, surgery, or other physical manipulation, but through "Christian Science treatment", a specific form of prayer intended to spiritualize thought. (Eddy, 1934 [1906], pp. 1-17).

While there is no formal compulsion on Christian Scientists either to use Christian Science healing or to eschew medical means (Eddy, pp.443:1--444:30) Christian Scientists avoid using the two systems simultaneously in the belief that they tend to counteract or contradict each other. Medicine and Christian Science treatment proceed from opposite assumptions. Medicine asserts that something is physically broken and needs to be fixed. Christian Science treatment asserts that the spiritual reality is already harmonious and perfect and that any false belief to the contrary needs to be corrected.

The claims of healing through Christian Science are documented in issues of the Christian Science Journal and the Christian Science Sentinel. These are sometimes supported by the observations of medical practitioners involved prior to the application of Christian Science healing.

Mary Baker Eddy claimed to have discovered this method of healing when she was healed of an injury in 1866 after rereading a passage of one of Jesus' healings. She felt that the method of healing must have been that used by Jesus Christ to heal all the cases documented in the New Testament. The Bible does not explicitly state the exact method Jesus used (though there is a strong hint in Mark 11: 23). Mary Baker Eddy's study of the Bible over many years along with her application of what she had learned to actual and varied cases of illness in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, brought her to the point where she felt compelled to document her findings and teach her discovery to those who were interested. The resulting textbook, and the primary source for learning Christian Science is Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy.

Mary Baker Eddy defined Christian Science as follows: "...divine Science, which, reduced to human apprehension, she has named Christian Science." (Eddy, 1934 [1906], p.471.)

Christian Science Tenets

1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.

2. We acknowledge and adore one supreme and infinite God. We acknowledge His Son, one Christ; the Holy Ghost or divine Comforter; and man in God's image and likeness.

3. We acknowledge God's forgiveness of sin in the destruction of sin and the spiritual understanding that casts out evil as unreal. But the belief in sin is punished so long as the belief lasts.

4. We acknowledge Jesus' atonement as the evidence of divine, efficacious Love, unfolding man's unity with God through Christ Jesus the Way-shower; and we acknowledge that man is saved through Christ, through Truth, Life, and Love as demonstrated by the Galilean Prophet in healing the sick and overcoming sin and death.

5. We acknowledge that the crucifixion of Jesus and his resurrection served to uplift faith to understand eternal Life, even the allness of Soul, Spirit, and the nothingness of matter.

6. And we solemnly promise to watch, and pray for that Mind to be in us which was also in Christ Jesus; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us; and to be merciful, just, and pure.

(Eddy, 1934 [1906]: p.496).

Healing

The basis of Christian Science healing is the view that "man" (i.e. the male/female spiritual being who appears as individual human beings) is the reflection or expression of a wholly good and perfect God, and therefore is perfect him/herself. Christian Scientists believe that God loves each and every individual, because God is the Creator of all.

Another important point in Christian Science is that sickness is the result of either fear, ignorance, or sin. Therefore, when the erroneous cause is corrected, the false sense of discord will disappear. The basis by which to eliminate the false cause is to fill thought with its opposite (true causation, or God). So, replacing fear with trust in an all-good God; replacing ignorance with the understanding of man's real relation to God as the perfect and loved child of God; and ceasing to sin or cherish a sinful sense in one's thought, will bring about healing. Suffering can occur only whilst one believes in the supposed reality of a problem; if one changes one's understanding, then a different phenomenon is observed. The (conscious or unconscious) belief that sickness is real or has power is what seems to make one sick, but to understand that sickness is not real, and that it cannot have any power because God is the only power, eliminates the seeming sickness.

Christian Scientists regard the material world as a kind of consensual illusion which is due to a misperception of the true, spiritual world. Such a misperception can, they believe, be re-adjusted by the re-orientation of thought, or prayer in Christian Science terms, whereby the illusion can be, at least partially, dispelled. The result is healing. Eventually, the spiritual realm will appear in its true glory as indicated in Chapter 21 of the Book of Revelation.

Prayer

Christian Science teaches that prayer is a spiritualization of thought or an understanding of God and of the nature of the underlying spiritual creation. Adherents believe that this can result in healing, by bringing spiritual reality (the "Kingdom of Heaven" in Biblical terms) into clearer focus in the human scene. The world as it appears to the senses is regarded as a distorted version of the world of spiritual ideas: the latter is the only true reality. Prayer can heal the distortion. The analogy might be made with tuning a musical instrument that is out of key, cleaning a window that has become clouded over, or bringing a lens into focus. Christian Scientists believe that prayer does not change the spiritual creation but gives a clearer view of it, and the result appears in the human scene as healing: the human picture adjusts to coincide more nearly with the divine reality.

Prayer works through love: the recognition of God's creation as spiritual, intact and inherently lovable. Christian Scientists consider that this is the way Christ Jesus healed. Their aim is to reinstate the element of healing which, they believe, was lost with early Christianity. They cite such Bible texts as Mark 11: 22-24 and Mark 16: 17-18 in support of their contention that Christian faith demands demonstration in healing. (According to Christian Science there are not two creations, a spiritual and a material, but only one spiritual creation which is incorrectly perceived as material--in biblical terms we "see through a glass darkly".) The more faith a person has in God, the less faith they will have in any other supposed power and the more likely they are to be able to heal, according to this teaching.

An important point in Christian Science is that the healing of sin is more important than the healing of physical disease, and that prayer and the moral regeneration of one's life go hand-in-hand. (Christian Science teaches that while disease may be a result of sin or wrong-doing it is not necessarily so--it may equally be the result of fear, or ignorance of God's power and goodness.) The chapter on "Prayer" in the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, gives a full account of healing through prayer, while the testimonies at the end of the book are written by people who believe they have been healed through spiritual understanding. Christian Scientists claim no monopoly on the application of God's healing power through prayer, and welcome it wherever it occurs.

Evil

There are two major kinds of phenomena described as "evil": natural evil (e.g. disease etc.) and moral evil (murder etc.)

The Christian Science position on the nature of evil can be elaborated as follows.

A person who deliberately or negligently inflicted disease on another would be condemned by human opinion. Since God must be at least as good as we are, it follows that He neither creates disease nor allows it to exist.

A person who chooses to do evil does it out of a false sense of good. Even the worst criminal perpetrates his/her acts in the (false) belief that some good might thereby accrue to the perpetrator: e.g. security, fulfillment, happiness etc. These are good qualities, not evil ones. Moral evil, even at its worst, is a false sense of good: it is a mistake.

If there is an evil power in the universe, and that power has (say) 40% of all the power there is, then God can have only 60%. Consequently God would not be omnipotent. The same problem would arise if evil were said to have any power at all, no matter how minute. If God is omnipotent, evil does not exist.

Christianity is incompatible with a belief in the reality of evil.

Does God punish evildoers? The illusion of evil punishes itself. As long as a person continues to act in an evil way, cherishes any propensity to do so, or fails to forgive others or themselves, suffering will be the result.

Philosophy

Christian Science might be considered as a form of theistic monistic idealism: there is but one substance which is God and in Whom we are all embraced in love. Philosophically speaking Christian Science seems closer to the Platonic and neo-Platonic elements that influenced Christian theology in previous eras than to the Aristotelianism that prevailed in mainstream Christian thought. In comparison with other systems Christian Science is probably closest to Neoplatonism. (However, Mary Baker Eddy specifically distanced herself from the Neoplatonic philosophy.) Christian Science does not teach a doctrine of emanation, and it crucially teaches that the spiritualization of consciousness can (and should) have a practical effect in physical healing, as well as in moral regeneration. Christian Science may also have some resonance with the thought of Parmenides insofar as the latter can be interpreted in the contemporary world.

Christian Science shares with George Berkeley a belief in the unreality of matter, but it rejects matter not just as a superfluous term or concept--for Christian Science, what we call the material world is an imperfect, unreal and temporal distortion of the underlying spiritual reality. This distortion is an illusion that can be dispelled through prayer. Christian Science, like e.g. Buddhism believes in the illusory nature of the world of the senses, but unlike Buddhism it does not believe that aging and death are inevitable: they can be overcome through the overcoming of sin. Consequently immortality--in the literal sense--is possible, and indeed in the longer term it is inevitable. (Other key distinctions from Buddhism include the fact that Christian Science affirms the existence of God as the sole cause and creator; the central role of Christ Jesus as the highest earthly manifestation of God; and spiritual individuality.)

Christian Science was elaborated by a female thinker--Mary Baker Eddy--who rejected the "coldness" of traditional philosophy and emphasized the importance of love (in the sense of agape) as well as abstract thought, and indeed the desirability of the integration of the two. ("Have a cell less in the brain and a fibre more in the heart" in her words.) It is not enough to think true thoughts: our consciousness must be imbued with love. Furthermore, that love must be lived as well as felt.

The Christian Science viewpoint goes something as follows. The question might be asked as to what we love about those closest to us (e.g. a parent, child etc.) It is presumably nothing physical or material, since--presumably--we would love those individuals just as much if their physical attributes were different, or they lost them through age or accident. What we value about those close to us are intangible (Christian Science would say spiritual) qualities such as love, faithfulness, innocence, protection etc. In Christian Science terms these are the “real”, timeless, transcendent qualities that constitute our spiritual being. They cannot be perceived materially but only through an inward feeling or response. In an ultimate sense terms like “love”, “holiness” “harmony” etc. suggest the being of God, in Whom the spiritual creation is embraced.

Scientific stance

Christian Scientists differ from biblical literalists: they regard the Bible as having, in part, symbolic rather than literal meaning. Consequently they do not believe that the Theory of Evolution is necessarily false from a human perspective, nor do they raise issues regarding its being taught in schools. They regard the Theory of Evolution, even if true, as referring to the illusory, mortal realm rather than to the realm of spiritual perfection. For similar reasons, Christian Science does not clash with contemporary geology, cosmology, or biology and indeed Christian Scientists argue that their teachings--specifically in regard to the role of consciousness in the creation of material "reality"--may throw some light on the perplexing paradoxes of quantum mechanics, with particular reference to the Copenhagen Interpretation. (See also Consciousness causes collapse). Also, the Christian Science teaching regarding the fundamentally mental nature of the human world may help to explain some phenomena of parapsychology--telepathy, precognition, synchronicity, morphic resonance, etc.

However, even if a change of thought seems to have the desired result in healing, there is no obvious means of connecting the result with the supposed cause: Christian Science healings are sometimes dismissed as anecdotal. According to the influential teachings of Karl Popper a scientific theory should be falsifiable. There is no obvious way to set up an experiment whereby the claims of Christian Science could be falsified, and consequently their claim to scientificity is open to question. (From the much looser perspective of the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, Christian Science might have a claim to scientificity.)

Furthermore, if Christian Science is true and the material world is the manifestation of human thought, the issue of scientific objectivity becomes clouded: the thoughts and expectations of the scientific observers would--if they are unbelievers--presumably have a potentially negative effect on the experiment.

These problems display the difficulty of scientifically assessing the claims of Christian Science. Consequently, the claim of Christian Science to the title "Science" (as used in the English-speaking world) is problematic, except in the much looser sense of "science" as "knowing" (Latin "scio".)

The claim of Christian Science to be a persuasive metaphysical system or overall world-view seems more sustainable than its claim to be a science--the requirements for a persuasive metaphysical system are those of coherence, succinctness, non-contradiction, comprehensiveness, intuitive appeal, explanatory power etc. rather than susceptibility to experimental testing.

Theology

In terms of Christian theology, Christian Science bears some similarity to the teachings of e.g. Meister Eckhart. However, it rejects the attribute of mysticism to its teachings, and should not be confused with pantheism.

Christian Science avoids the theological problem of evil by its teaching of the unreality or nothingness of evil. However, it does not address the problem of where the illusion of evil came from--beyond the position that, since it is nothing, it came from nowhere. (Asking the question, for Christian Scientists, is like a mathematician spending his/her time trying to work out where the illusion that 2+2=5 came from--a waste of time that gets one nowhere and indeed postpones the solution of the problem.) If one changes the basis of thought from a belief in evil to an understanding of the universality of good, Christian Scientists believe, one's experience will adjust accordingly. Eventually the question "where does evil come from" will simply disappear with the negative phenomena that occasioned it.

Christian Science differs from conventional theology since it regards God as both Father and Mother. This does not refer to any anthropomorphic, quasi-physical characteristics, but simply to the teaching that God is characterized by qualities traditionally considered feminine (gentleness, compassion, nurturing etc.) as well as by those traditionally considered masculine (strength, principle, protection etc.) Each one of us, as God's image or reflection, embodies those qualities as well, in our essential being.

Christian Science distinguishes between Jesus the man and the Christ or divine manifestation. In considering the question of the relationship between divinity and humanity in reference to Christ Jesus, it is important to consider the Christian Science definition of God as "The great I AM."

While some Christian Science teachings are unorthodox from the point of view of conventional theology (e.g. the rejection of substitutionary atonement and of Hell as a place of eternal punishment), others are orthodox (e.g. the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection of Jesus).

While Christian Scientists revere Mary Baker Eddy as the discoverer and founder of Christian Science, they do not regard her as having added anything to essential Christianity but simply as having elaborated its essence and consequences. (A comparison might be made of the status of Thomas Aquinas for Catholics, Martin Luther for Lutherans, or John Calvin for Calvinists.)

Another way to illustrate the foundations of the theology of Christian Science is to consider the problems involved in the philosophy of dualism. Many belief systems posit a "god versus something else" or "spirit versus matter". Mary Baker Eddy in a sense followed the reductionism of her time. But, instead of reducing all things to matter as did many followers of Charles Darwin, she "reduced" all things to the spiritual.

Medicine

The Christian Science Church does not forbid the use of medical means by its members, nor does it exert informal pressure on them to eschew material medicine. Though Christian Scientists respect the work of medical practitioners, most prefer to use prayer and reliance on God as an alternative. Others resist the use of traditional medicine in the belief that it would be evidence of a failure to "demonstrate" Christian Science healing. Those Christian Scientists who choose to rely on medical treatment for a specific problem normally give up Christian Science treatment for the period of treatment.

Mary Baker Eddy, herself, on occasion had recourse to pain-killers for pain that was not being healed through Christian Science. Her views on this subject are as follows: "If Christian Scientists ever fail to receive aid from other Scientists--their brethren upon whom they may call,--God will still guide them into the right use of temporary and eternal means." (Eddy, 1934, p. 444.)

Sects

Throughout the history of Christian Science there have been a small number of dissenting sects, and branches, unacknowledged by the Boston organization. Such dissenters often point to certain "estoppel" clauses of the last Church Manual issued by Mary Baker Eddy before her death which, had they been interpreted literally, would have led to a radical decentralization of the Christian Science Church. The issue involved the Church in repeated litigation brought by dissenters, most prominently in 1921. ^{[citation needed]}

Criticism of Christian Science

Christian Science has been criticized by skeptics from the very beginning. Mark Twain devoted an entire book to the topic, in which he scathingly attacked not only the belief itself, but also its practitioners. (However, there was some ambivalence in his approach to Christian Science healing.) Christian Science is considered to be a religion, rather than a medical science, by most medical practitioners. Critics point to cases of people who died following their choice of Christian Science care rather than medical treatment. Defenders counter that there is no similar burden placed on medical science to justify the hundreds of thousands who die each year under medical care.

Christian Science and law

In the United States, the constitutional guarantee of protection of religious practice from intrusion by government has been used by Christian Scientists and other religious groups to seek exemption from legislative or regulatory requirements regarding child abuse and neglect, including medical neglect in more than three quarters of the states. There are now statutes in 44 states which contain a provision stating that a child is not to be deemed abused or neglected merely because he or she is receiving treatment by spiritual means, through prayer according to the tenets of a recognized religion. Although these exemptions take different forms and interpretations in different state jurisdictions, the overall effect has been to limit the ability of the state to prosecute parents for suspected or alleged abuse or medical neglect of children when such occurrences may be the result of religious practice. Severe (even fatal) physical discipline, failure to seek medical care, or refusal of a proven efficacious treatment of a critically ill child may be protected from prosecution because of the religious exemption clauses now found in a majority of state codes.

Two important sets of interests are in apparent opposition - those of children in the perceived benefits of medical and health care and those of parents in making a decision about their children's well-being. Some parents believe that the constitutionally protected freedom of religion allows them to choose the method of healing (spiritual vs. medical) they feel will best benefit their children. However, this interpretation of the US constitution is in contradiction to important court rulings to the effect that parents may not martyr their children based on parental beliefs and that children cannot be denied essential health care. See Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158 (1944) and Jehovah's Witnesses v. Washington King County Hospital, 278 F Supp 488 (Washington DC 1967), affirmed per curiam 390 US 598 (1968). However, a Christian Scientist would deem spiritual treatment as being "essential health care" that would most expediently lead to their child's health and well being.

Christian Science and theology

Christian Science is criticized by some mainstream Christians for its theological unorthodoxies (Mostly due to its assertion of the illusory nature of the material world, and the unreality of evil).

Christian Science is unclear as to whether or not Jesus actually died. ^{[dubious – discuss]} (As Christian Science teaches that death is an illusion, this may help explain apparently contradictory statements on the question in Mary Baker Eddy's writings). There is also some question as to whether the story of the Fall (from Genesis 2: 4 onwards) is to be regarded as an illusory record, a record of an illusion, or both.^{[citation needed]}

Christian Science does not explain why the phenomena designated (by some) by the term evil, even though they are claimed to be unreal, seem to be real.^{[dubious – discuss]} Mary Baker Eddy touches upon this subject in her book Unity of Good in response to the question: "Does God know or behold sin, sickness, and death?" She writes: "The nature and character of God is so little apprehended and demonstrated by mortals, that I counsel my students to defer this infinite inquiry, in their discussions of Christian Science. In fact, they had better leave the subject untouched, until they draw nearer to the divine character, and are practically able to testify, by their lives, that as they come closer to the true understanding of God they lose all sense of error."

There has been internal controversy in the Christian Science movement regarding the status of Mary Baker Eddy herself. Some Christian Scientists claim (and others deny) that her appearance on the world stage was specifically prophesied in the Bible. ^{[dubious – discuss]}

Christian Science and medicine

The Journal of the American Medical Association (22 September 1989) reported on a study of more than 5.5 thousand Christian Scientists as compared to a lay group of almost 30 thousand, though it is unclear why there is a disparity between the numbers in each case. The death rate among "Christian Scientists" from cancer was double the national average, and 6 percent of them died from causes considered preventable by doctors. The "non-Christian Scientists" on the average lived four years longer if they were women and two longer if they were men (it was speculated that the reason for this was that male Christian Scientists are more likely to seek medical help than female believers--though if that is so the characterisation of the first group as "Christian Scientists" for the purpose of evaluating the healing system of Christian Science, must be misleading, since it is conceded that some of them may have been using medicine). Furthermore, the "lay group" were presumably using conventional medicine or some alternative healing means rather than nothing at all--consequently the study only evaluates the comparative efficacy of Christian Science vis a vis some other system/s, rather than its healing efficacy per se. Defenders point out that many people turn to Christian Science after medical techniques have failed: consequently the two groups may not be comparable.

Christian Scientists display more resistance to the use of drugs than to surgery. Why this is so is not entirely clear, and may involve one or more reasons: the poisonous elements of some drugs; their side-effects; the relative difficulty of "mental surgery", etc.

Since Christian Science practitioners do not diagnose disease, it is unclear how Christian Scientists are to know when they should avoid being in contact with others, in order to avoid infection or contagion. Similarly, it is unclear how they would know when to decide about having surgery before a condition--e.g. cancer--reaches the stage where it is considered inoperable.

In the past, Christian Scientists have been criticized for intolerance towards homosexuals, though there is nothing in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy on the subject. Christian Science publications, including The Christian Science Sentinel, in the past have published testimonies of supposed "healing" of homosexuality.

Apparent ambiguities in the writings of Mary Baker Eddy can often be resolved by considering whether the passage in question had, for the writer, a relative ("mortal" or "material" ) or an absolute ("immortal" or "spiritual") reference.

Response to criticism

In response to such criticisms, Christian Scientists argue that their beliefs are philosophically consistent and theologically coherent (e.g. they avoid the theological problem of evil), as well as being practically applicable in healing. They acknowledge that Christian Science healing has not been universally successful, but point out that the same is the case in regard to medical healing.

Christian Science may be compared positively as well as negatively with conventional medicine: for example the fact that Christian Science healing is not reliant on the controversial practice of animal testing; that it does not involve massive state expenditure on health care; that persons relying on Christian Science healing are not at risk of "iatrogenic" (physician- or hospital-induced) ailments.

Christian Scientists argue that a study of the life of Mary Baker Eddy, taken as a whole, would reveal a sincere and selfless individual--the kind of person whom it would be difficult to imagine falsifying the origin of her teachings.

Christian Scientists, like Mary Baker Eddy herself, generally defend the separation of church and state as affording a protection for civil freedom and religion. However, Mary Baker Eddy insisted on obedience by Christian Scientists to state laws in regard to health care. Progressively for her time, she was in favour of women's rights, and rejected the "corporeal punishment" of children. (While she generally steered clear of politics per se, she also stated her opposition to imperialism and economic monopoly--The Christian Science Monitor, which she founded, has traditionally been a staunch defender of civil liberties and individual freedom, though it did support the prohibition of alcohol.)

Adherents of Christian Science cite the Bible (Mark 16: 17-18) as an indication that belief in God should be demonstrated in healing. Mary Baker Eddy, however, was no biblical fundamentalist. She wrote: "The decisions by vote of Church Councils as to what should and should not be considered Holy Writ; the manifest mistakes in the ancient versions; the thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and the three hundred thousand in the New,--these facts show how a mortal and material sense stole into the divine record, with its own hue darkening to some extent the inspired pages." (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, p. 139.)

Homophobic attitudes which may once have existed in the Christian Science movement have largely disappeared, at least at the level of the main (Boston) organization.

Prominent Christian Scientists

Prominent Christian Scientists, past and present, include comedian Joyce Grenfell, UK ambassador to the US Lord Lothian, politician Lady Astor ("one reason why I don't drink is because I wish to know when I am having a good time"), Nixon aides H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, painter Winifred Nicholson, Surrealist artist Joseph Cornell, first American in space Alan Shepard, Academy Award-winning actresses Joan Crawford and Ginger Rogers, SETI astrophysicist Dr. Laurance Doyle, actress Carol Channing, Olympic gymnast Shannon Miller, film star Val Kilmer (The Doors etc.), former CIA director Admiral Stansfield Turner, former FBI director William Webster, US Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr., Allegra Kent of the New York City Ballet, and Andrew Clements.

Organizations

DiscoveryBound is a Christian Science non-profit organization based in Denver, Colorado. Its purpose is to provide inspirational and educational activities and forums for Christian Scientists, especially children and youth.

External links

Advocacy or Neutral

Criticism

Religion and Medicine: The Christian Science Holocaust - by Gerald Bergman, Ph. D.
Christian Way: Former Christian Scientists for Jesus Christ

Other

DiscoveryBound

Citations

Eddy, Mary Baker, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Boston: Trustees Under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 1934. (This book has gone through numerous editions.)