church vs. state and life vs. death: traditional christian

Undergraduate Review Undergraduate Review

Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 9

1991

Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Science Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Science

Healing in the Modern Context Healing in the Modern Context

R. J. Moore '92 Illinois Wesleyan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev

Recommended Citation Moore '92, R. J. (1991) "Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Science Healing in the Modern Context," Undergraduate Review: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 9. Available at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9

This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Commons @ IWU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this material in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This material has been accepted for inclusion by faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.

http://www.iwu.edu/

http://www.iwu.edu/

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev?utm_source=digitalcommons.iwu.edu%2Frev%2Fvol4%2Fiss1%2F9&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9?utm_source=digitalcommons.iwu.edu%2Frev%2Fvol4%2Fiss1%2F9&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]

Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Science

Healing in the

Modern Context

~ Jonatlian Moore

69 1

Moore '92: Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Scien

Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1991

"Every man thinks God is on his side. The rich and powerful know He is."

- Jean .9lnoui.£n

Each person posse

employ

a physician,

to live

own

rational conscience

ar

Mary

Baker Eddy, foundel

Science church (Miscellanj

tion, the issue becomes

mL

ailing child. Should Chris

solely upon spiritual heali

the young to receive the b

unfairly denied? The Firs.

guarantee the separation 1:

cases have demonstrated I

fortable with allowing reli

children. The current COIl

rooted in an historical unc

and

its moral intensity

wi

conceptions of the church

Mary Baker EddY'

the late nineteenth centur

just why she created a reI:

Reared in New England 1:

chronically afflicted with

complete collapse of her I

practical invalid for man)

illness continued to frust!

of these relentless health· 2

Undergraduate Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [1991], Art. 9


.nks God is on his side. The lOW

He is." - Jean .9lnoui[fi

Each person possesses the "right to adopt a religion, to

employ a physician, to live or to die according to the dictates of his

own

rational conscience and enlightened understanding."

So writes

Mary Baker Eddy, founder and spiritualleader of the Christian

Science church (Miscellany 222). While many agree with this posi

tion, the issue becomes muddled when the person in question is an

ailing child. Should Christian Science parents be allowed to rely

solely upon spiritual healing for their children, or are the rights of

the young to receive the best possible medital treatment being

unfairly denied? The First Amendment to the U.s. Constitution does

guarantee the separation between church and state, but recent court

cases have demonstrated that modem society is not altogether com

fortable with allowing religious parents to make martyrs of their sick

children. The current controversy over Christian Science healing is

rooted in an historical understanding of church tenets and practices,

and

its moral intensity will have a resounding impact on traditional

conceptions of the church-state relationship.

Mary Baker Eddy founded the Church of Christ, Scientist, in

the late nineteenth century, and an examination

of her life reveals

just why she created a religion concerned with spiritual healing.

Reared in New England by devoutly religious parents, Eddy was

chronically afflicted with periodic seizures, usually followed by a

complete collapse of her nervous system. This condition made her a

practical invalid for many years. During Eddy's first two marriages,

illness continued to frustrate her already fragile constitution. In light

of

these relentless health problems, one historian reasonably asserts 71 3



that it is "therefore not surprising that she became preoccupied with

the question of health" (Hoekema 172).

Contemporary medicinal practices proved ineffective for

Eddy, so in 1862 she traveled northward in search of something to

ease her painful, omnipresent afflictions. In Maine she linked up

with Phineas P. Quimby, a man who was known for bringing about

cures without the use of medicine. Eddy accepted Quimby's claim

that he had rediscovered the ancient healing techniques of Jesus, and

she enthusiastically began to try out his methods for herself. Eddy

later denied that any of her ideas concerning spiritual healing came

from Quimby, but parallels between his practices and her writings

are too similar to ignore; regardless, Eddy's contact with Quimby's

nonmedicinal healing style had a great impact on the ailing woman,

and

she was soon ready

to mold his teachings into her own brand of

"scientific" spirituality (Hoekema 173).

The religious turning point for Mary Baker Eddy came in

February of 1866, when a nasty fall left her severely injured. The

doctor's bleak prognosis offered little hope for her survival, but she

soon turned to the Bible in Matthew 9:28, which relates an incident

of Jesus' healing. Miraculously, Eddy was cured, and she claimed

she was in better shape than ever before. Based on this curative

experience, Eddy developed a unique spiritual healing craft. Not

only did she begin practicing this new method around the New

England area, but she also charged people $300 for a set of twelve

lessons for those interested in learning her healing system (Hoekema

174).

In 1875, Eddy completed work on what has continued to be

the central text for the Christian Science church,

Science and Health

with Key to the Scriptures. After experiencing a life of pain and

72

suffering, it is perhaps not:

synonym for "Hell"

in the ~

illness is not a tangible real

induced by the senses.

She

any "evidence of the sense!

sickness" (386). Thus for tl

be perceived as a conditior

"the cause of all so-called c

belief or conviction of the I

True to the metaphysical n

states that "Man is never s:

be" (393). Church membel

supersede all others, inclw

Eddy

received her

insight~

4).

Since she perceive

Eddy developed a unique

Christian Science follower

illusion forced upon the bl

traditional medicine coule

"Christianity requires neil

both mind and body; or, Ii

(Eddy, Healing 3). Instead

ing" lie within the "Mind~

outerrorandthushe~s~

are not consulted; healing

tailored program of ment.

actually what accomplish.

Science practitioners exist 4



ing that she became preoccupied with

'IDa 172).

nal practices proved ineffective for

wrthward in search of something to

afflictions. In Maine she linked up

n who was known for bringing about

:ine.

Eddy accepted Quimby's claim

ncient healing techniques of Jesus, and ry

out his methods for herself. Eddy ~as

concerning spiritual healing came

tween his practices and her writings

dless, Eddy's contact with Quimby's

d a great impact on the ailing woman,

ld

his teachings into her

own brand of

~ma 173).

point

for Mary Baker Eddy came in

~ fall

left her severely injured. The ~d

little hope for

her survival, but she

tthew 9:28, which relates an incident

y,

Eddy was cured,

and she claimed

V'er

before. Based on this curative

unique spiritual healing craft. Not

his new method

around the New

rged people $300 for a set of twelve

learning her healing system (Hoekema

ed work on what has continued to be

n Science church, Science and Health

experiencing a life of pain and

suffering, it is perhaps not surprising that Eddy lists "sickness" as a

synonym for "Hell" in the Science glossary (588). She concluded that

illness is not a tangible reality, but instead is simply an illusion

induced by the senses. She is quite firm on this point, asserting that

any

"evidence of the senses is not to be accepted in the case of

sickness" (386). Thus for the Christian Scientist, sickness should not

be perceived as a condition of

human reality; according to Eddy,

"the cause of all so-called disease is mental, a mortal fear, a mistaken

belief or conviction of the necessity and power of ill-health" (377).

True to the metaphysical nature of Christian Science, Eddy further

states that "Man is never sick, for Mind is not sick and matter cannot

be" (393). Church members still allow Eddy's text and its ideas to

supersede all others, including the Bible, since they believe that

Eddy received her insights through divine revelation (Hoekema 183

4).

Since she perceived sickness as a purely mental condition,

Eddy developed a unique form of therapy for herself and her

Christian Science followers. If, as Eddy asserts, disease is only an

illusion forced upon the body by an inadequate mental state, then

traditional medicine could hardly offer a legitimate cure. Thus

"Christianity requires neither hygiene nor drugs wherewith to heal

both mind and body; or, lacking these, to show its helplessness"

(Eddy, Healing 3). Instead, the "foundations of metaphysical heal

ing" lie within the "Mind, divine Science, the truth of being that casts

out

error

and thus heals the sick" (Eddy, Healing 13). Doctors, then,

are not consulted; healing is achieved through an individually

tailored program of mental realization and prayer. Divine Love is

actually what accomplishes the restoration health, and Christian

Science practitioners exist to facilitate the process by which the

73 5



patient comes to realize his false beliefs-the cause of his sickness

and

the curative

power of ultimate Truth. So metaphysical is the

process, in fact, that a great deal of healing can occur through 'long

distance' prayer-a sort of telepathic mental concentration, without

the actual physical presence of the practitioner with the patient

(Gottschalk 248-9).

Such firm beliefs about the efficacy of spiritual healing

radically differs from the Protestant mainstream, and Eddy's system

generated controversy even in the initial years of the Church of

Christ, Scientist. Following the institution's official incorporation in

August

of 1879, Mary Baker Eddy had to make occasional court

appearances to "defend her interests" against Christian Science

critics (Hoekema

177). One Boston newspaper ridiculed the church's

method by describing it as "a simple one and likely to try the faith of

the patient to the utmost. It consists in sitting quiet and doing noth

ing" (qtd. in Gottschalk 226). Some critics remained so unconvinced

by

Christian Science healing claims that they

put practitioners on

trial. In 1887, an Iowa healer went to court three times before he was

finally acquitted of negligence in a patient's death. Similar legal

incidents occurred in California and Boston, and a few practitioners

were even tried in court following an apparent healing success. The

Christian Science church characteristically responded to such

conflicts by relying on the First Amendment guarantee of religious

freedom (Gottschalk 247-8). Even from the outset, the Christian

Science church and the state clashed over the legitimacy of the

spiritual healing craft.

While occasional legal difficulties concerning Christian

Science healing marked the first century of Mary Baker Eddy's

religion, the last decade has shown a noteworthy increase in the

74

number

of state challenges

to

celebrated challenge to Chris.

1990 in Boston, headquarters

Parents David and Ginger Tv.

and

neglect in the death of

th.

died of

a curable bowel obstn

alleged that the parents delibt

symptoms, including vomitin

concerns that warranted med

ney, while acknowledging

th,

that the state must act in orde

such cases. In defense, the T"

tion really was not that bad, a

only near the end. The Chris'

Nathan

Talbot, summed up

tJ

from Eddy's defense of a cent

the right to neglect children.

spiritual healing. That for us

all about" (qtd. in "Trial" 15).

convicted of manslaughter, ye

verdict was read ("Boston" 12

This mixed message f

the eventual sentence. Thoug

in jail and a $1000 fine, the prt

a sentence of ten years probat

take their remaining three chi

examinations ("Christian" 8).

three other recent cases. One

resulted in probation with 60(

"

6



- -

lse beliefs-the cause of his sickness

mate Truth. So metaphysical is the

~al

of healing can occur

through 'long

epathic mental concentration, without

,f the practitioner with the patient

It the efficacy of spiritual healing

estant mainstream, and Eddy's system

1 the initial years of the Church of

\e

institution's official incorporation in

iddy

had to make occasional court

\terests" against Christian Science

oston newspaper ridiculed the church's

simple one and likely to try the faith of

onsists in sitting quiet and doing noth

Some critics remained so unconvinced

:laims that they put practitioners on

went to court three times before he was

~

in a patient's death. Similar legal lia

and Boston,

and a few practitioners

wing

an apparent healing success. The

acteristically

responded to such

it Amendment guarantee of religious

~ven

from the outset, the Christian

lashed over the legitimacy of the

I difficulties concerning Christian

'st

century of Mary Baker

Eddy's

lown a noteworthy increase in the

.._----------number

of state challenges to the spiritual faith. Perhaps the most

celebrated challenge to Christian Science came

during the summer of

1990 in Boston, headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

Parents David and Ginger Twitchell were accused of manslaughter

and

neglect in the

death of their two-month-old son Robyn, who

died of a curable bowel obstruction in April of 1986. the prosecution

alleged that the parents deliberately ignored Robyn's noticeable

symptoms, including vomiting, high fever, and extreme pain,

concerns that warranted medical attention. The state's chief attor

ney, while acknowledging the importance of religious freedom, said

that the state must act in order to protect the safety of children in

such cases. In defense, the Twitchells asserted that Robyn's condi

tion really was not that bad, and that his symptoms became serious

only near the end. The Christian Science spokesman at the trial,

Nathan

Talbot,

summed up the church's position that differs little

from Eddy's defense of a century earlier: "We have never asked for

the right to neglect children. We have asked for the right to practice

spiritual healing. That for us is what the free exercise of religion is

all about" (qtd. in "Trial" 15). Two days later the Twitchells were

convicted of manslaughter, yet some of the jurors were in tears as the

verdict was read ("Boston" 12).

This mixed message flowing from the jurors' eyes hinted at

the eventual sentence. Though the Twitchells taced up to ten years

in jail and a $1000 fine, the prosecution recommended and obtained

a sentence of ten years probation.. Additionally, the parents must

take their remaining three children to a pediatrician for regular

examinations ("Christian" 8). This verdict was similar to those in

three other recent cases. One instance in Sacramento, California,

resulted in probation with 600 hours of community service for a

75 7



Christian Science mother, following her involuntary manslaughter

conviction in the death of her four-year-old daughter ("Trial" 15). In

each case, Christian Scientists were convicted of neglect or man

slaughter, but all were spared time in jail.

Such a compromise clearly indicates what journalist David

Margolick identifies as a "clash of absolutes: of religious liberty and

parental autonomy on the one hand and the right of the states to

protect children-and the rights of the children themselves--on the

other" (1). The notion of children's rights is key, since parents are

the ones who choose when to submit to a doctor's care, while

children are at the mercy of their parent's fallible judgment. Some

critics say that the spiritual healing practice encourages parents to

make their kids' suffering a testimony to their faith. This recent

upsurge

in concern about children's rights has been due partially to

the efforts of Rita Swan, a former Christian Science church member who

left the sect following the

1976 death of her child. Convinced

that spiritual healing is a farce, Swan formed Children's Healthcare

Is

a Legal Duty (CHILD), an organization dedicated to advancing

child heaIthcare over religious freedom. However, despite

the

efforts of CHILD, the American Pediatric Association, the American

Medical Association and other groups, Christian Science cases

continue to couple a conviction with a lenient sentence, leaving the

issue open for more intense debate.

While perhaps representative of the court's sympathy to

religious freedom, the lenient sentencing in these cases is also a

testimony to the pervasive social power of the modem Christian

Science church. While members of other sects such as the True

Followers of Christ, the Faith Assembly, and the Church of the First

Born have all gone to jail for the same reliance on spiritual healing,

76

Christian Scientists have yet

to s

sect claims over 500,000 membet

church critics say is greatly exag

immense influence it wields. Ct

upper class, and they are extrem

citizens. Christian Scientists nUl

man, a federal appeals court jud

Agency director Stansfield Tum

Webster. With such a prominen

quite unlike the lower class com

is hardly surprising that the ChI

well-financed. It has ample mOl

freedom, often with costly, full-]

(Margolick 1). Additionally, thE

lawyers to defend Scientist intet

churches like the Faith Assembl

why

Christian Scientists receive

similar negligence convictions;

I

church's unique composition m

debate between religious freedc

The debate shows few!:

The courts have consistently ru:

allow parents to withhold life-50

yet recent legislation in Louisia

provide Christian Science heaIi:

medicine. The Internal Revenu

to deduct the costs of spiritual I

income taxes, and Blue Crossll

insurance companies also covel 8



N'ing her involuntary manslaughter

>Ur-year-old

daughter ("Trial"

15). In

~ere

convicted of neglect

or man

ime

in

jail.

arly

indicates

what journalist David

of absolutes: of religious liberty and

land and the right of the states to

s of the children themselves--on the

en's rights is key, since parents are

ubmit to a doctor's care, while

ir parent's fallible judgment. Some

ling practice encourages parents to

~mony to

their faith. This recent

ren's rights has been

due partially to

er

Christian Science church member 1976

death of her child. Convinced

Swan formed Children's Healthcare

ganization dedicated to advancing freedom.

However, despite the l Pediatric Association, the American

groups, Christian Science cases

with a lenient sentence, leaving the

late.

ltative of the court's sympathy to ~ntencing

in these cases is also a 11

power of the

modem Christian

s of other sects such as the True

ssembly, and the Church of the First

~

same reliance on spiritual healing,

Christian Scientists have yet to see life behind bars. Although the

sect claims over 500,000 members in the United States

(a claim which

church critics say is greatly exaggerated), its actual power lies in the

immense influence it wields. Church members are mostly middle or

upper

class,

and they are extremely active and successful American

citizens. Christian Scientists number among their group a Congress

man, a federal appeals court judge, former U.S. Central Intelligence

Agency director Stansfield Turner, and current CIA chief William

Webster. With such a prominent and wealthy membership-one

quite unlike the lower class composition of other Christian sects-it

is hardly surprising that the Christian Science church is extremely

well-financed. It has ample money to advance its cause for religious

freedom, often with costly, full-page newspaper advertisements

(Margolick 1). Additionally, the church can afford skilled, high-price

lawyers to defend Scientist interests in court, an option not open to

churches like the Faith Assembly. These factors may help explain

why

Christian Scientists receive lighter sentences than others for

similar negligence convictions; certainly, the Christian Science

church's unique composition makes it a more powerful voice in the

debate between religious freedom

and child care standards.

The debate shows few signs of resolution in the near future.

The courts have consistently ruled that religious freedom does not

allow parents to withhold life-saving medicine from their children,

yet recent legislation in Louisiana, Texas, and Colorado seem to

provide Christian Science healing with status equivalent to modem

medicine. The Internal Revenue Service allows Christian Scientists

to deduct the costs of spiritual healing as medical expenses on their

income taxes, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Medicare, and various

insurance companies also cover the cost of prayer therapy. In some

77 9



states Christian Science practitioners are allowed to sign sick leave

and

disability authorizations (Skolnick, "Religious"

1227). Thus,

society seems to validate Christian Science healing, at least through

these tacit institutional recognitions, as a legitimate alternative to

modern medicine. However, a hypocritical duality exists that has

yet to be addressed. Though wielding some of the same authority as

regular doctors, spiritual healers are not required by law to have a

license. More importantly, the efficacy of Christian Science methods

is dubious at best. The church claims to have ample documentation

of healing successes, but it refuses outside requests to examine the

data. One Scientist 'researcher' claims that the child death rate (up

to

age

14) is only 23 in 100,000 within the church, a rate far lower

than that of the national population as a whole. But the church

admits that it cannot pinpoint just how many Christian Science

children there are in the United States, nor does it have records of

total child deaths. This 'evidence' becomes further questionable in

the face of two genuinely scientific studies, which concluded that the

death

rate for Christian Science church members is significantly

higher than that of the entire population (Skolnick, "Efficacy" 1380).

With respect

to the statistical facts, Christian Scientists appear to be

hiding something, and they are becoming less and less able to do so.

With ever-increasing scrutiny because of child care concerns and the

church-state debate, the Christian Science veil is slowly being lifted.

As long as the welfare of this nation's children is at stake, this

emotional debate will not disappear. Entangled with this concern

for American youngsters is the traditional notion of separation

between church and state. How free are the Christian Scientists to

practice the central tenet of their faith? When-and should-the

state intervene? Though the support of the medical community and

78

"

judicial opinion is clearly

in

all children, regardless of thE

monied lobbying force of thE

succeeded in maintaining its

strict preservation of religiOl

becoming more uncertain w:

death.

10



mers are allowed to sign sick leave

<olnick,

''Religious'' 1227). Thus, ian

Science healing, at least through ions,

as a legitimate alternative

to

ilypocritical duality exists that has

elding some of the same authority as

)are not required by la w to have a

~fficacy

of Christian Science methods

laims to have ample documentation

es

outside requests to examine the

:laims that the child death rate

(up

ithin the church, a rate far lower

jon as a whole. But the church

st

how many Christian Science

,tates, nor does it have records of f! becomes further questionable in

fic

studies, which concluded that the

:hurch members is significantly

mlation (Skolnick, "Efficacy" 1380). ts,

Christian Scientists

appear to be

lecoming less and less able to do so.

cause of child care concerns and the

rl Science veil is slowly being lifted.

ion's children is at stake, this

lear.

Entangled with this concern

aditional notion of separation free

are the Christian Scientists to

faith?

When-and should-the

port

of the medical community

and

judicial opinion is clearly in favor of requiring modern medicine for

all children, regardless of their parents' religion, the powerful,

monied lobbying force of the Christian Science church has generally

succeeded in maintaining its healing autonomy. Whether or not a

strict preservation of religious freedom is beneficial for society is

becoming more uncertain with each new Christian Science child's

death.

79 11



WORKS CITED

"Boston Jury Convicts 2 Christian Scientists in Death of Son." New York Times

S July 1990: A12.

"Christian Scientists Are Given Probation for Death of Child." New York Times

7 July 1990: LB.

"Couple is Acquitted in Death of Son in Religious Healing." New York Times 18

Feb. 1990: A.14.

Eddy, Mary Baker. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Boston: Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 1934.

-. The First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany. Boston: The Christian Science Publishing Society, 1913.

-. Christian Healing: A Sermon Delivered at Boston. Boston: Trustees under the Will of Mary Baker G. Eddy, 1936.

Gottschalk, Stephen. The Emergence of Christian Science in American Religious Life. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973.

Hoekema, Anthony A The Four Major Cults. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963.

Margolick, David. "In Child Deaths, a Test for Christian Science." New York Times

6 Aug. 1990: Al

Skolnick, Andrew. "Christian Scientists Claim Healing Efficacy Equal If Not Superior to That of Medicine." Journal of the American

Medical Association 264:11 (Sept. 19,1990): 1379-83.

-.

"Religious Exemptions

to Child Neglect Laws Still Being Passed Despite Conviction of Parents." Journal of the American Medical

Association 264:10 (Sept. 12, 1990): 1226-33.

"Trial of Christian Scientists In Son's Death Goes to Jury." New York Times

3 July 1990: A1S.

80 12



church vs. state and life vs. death: traditional christian

Documents