Undergraduate Review
Volume 4 | Issue 1
Article 9
1991
Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional
Christian Science Healing in the Modern Context
R. J. Moore '92
Illinois Wesleyan University
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: http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Ames Library, the Andrew W. Mellon Center for Curricular and Faculty
Development, the Office of the Provost and the Office of the President. It has been accepted for inclusion in Digital Commons @ IWU by
the faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected].
©Copyright is owned by the author of this document.
Moore '92: Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Scien
Church vs. State and Life vs. Death:
Traditional Christian Science
Healing in the Modern Context
~
Jonatlian Moore
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1991
69 1
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [1991], Art. 9
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
"Every man thinks God is on his side. The
rich and powerful know He is."
the young to receive the b­
unfairly denied? The Firs.
- Jean .9lnoui.£n
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!
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9
2
of these relentless health·
Moore '92: Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Scien
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
.nks God is on his side. The
lOW He is."
-
Jean .9lnoui[fi
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
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1991
3
71
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [1991], Art. 9
that it is "therefore not surprising that she became preoccupied with
suffering, it is perhaps not:
the question of health" (Hoekema 172).
synonym for "Hell" in the ~
illness is not a tangible real
Contemporary medicinal practices proved ineffective for
Eddy, so in 1862 she traveled northward in search of something to
induced by the senses. She
ease her painful, omnipresent afflictions. In Maine she linked up
any "evidence of the sense!
with Phineas P. Quimby, a man who was known for bringing about
sickness" (386). Thus for tl
cures without the use of medicine. Eddy accepted Quimby's claim
be perceived as a conditior
that he had rediscovered the ancient healing techniques of Jesus, and
"the cause of all so-called c
she enthusiastically began to try out his methods for herself. Eddy
belief or conviction of the I
later denied that any of her ideas concerning spiritual healing came
True to the metaphysical n
from Quimby, but parallels between his practices and her writings
states that "Man is never s:
are too similar to ignore; regardless, Eddy's contact with Quimby's
be" (393). Church membel
nonmedicinal healing style had a great impact on the ailing woman,
supersede all others, inclw
and she was soon ready to mold his teachings into her own brand of
Eddy received her insight~
"scientific" spirituality (Hoekema 173).
4).
The religious turning point for Mary Baker Eddy came in
Since she perceive
February of 1866, when a nasty fall left her severely injured. The
Eddy developed a unique
doctor's bleak prognosis offered little hope for her survival, but she
Christian Science follower
soon turned to the Bible in Matthew 9:28, which relates an incident
illusion forced upon the bl
of Jesus' healing. Miraculously, Eddy was cured, and she claimed
traditional medicine coule
she was in better shape than ever before. Based on this curative
"Christianity requires neil
experience, Eddy developed a unique spiritual healing craft. Not
both mind and body; or, Ii
only did she begin practicing this new method around the New
(Eddy, Healing 3). Instead
England area, but she also charged people $300 for a set of twelve
ing" lie within the "Mind~
lessons for those interested in learning her healing system (Hoekema
outerrorandthushe~s~
174).
are not consulted; healing
tailored program of ment.
In 1875, Eddy completed work on what has continued to be
actually what accomplish.
the central text for the Christian Science church, Science and Health
with Key to the Scriptures. After experiencing a life of pain and
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9
72
4
Science practitioners exist
ing that she became preoccupied with
'IDa
Moore '92: Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Scien
suffering, it is perhaps not surprising that Eddy lists "sickness" as a
synonym for "Hell" in the Science glossary (588). She concluded that
172).
nal practices proved ineffective for
illness is not a tangible reality, but instead is simply an illusion
wrthward in search of something to
induced by the senses. She is quite firm on this point, asserting that
afflictions. In Maine she linked up
any "evidence of the senses is not to be accepted in the case of
n who was known for bringing about
sickness" (386). Thus for the Christian Scientist, sickness should not
:ine. Eddy accepted Quimby's claim
be perceived as a condition of human reality; according to Eddy,
ncient healing techniques of Jesus, and
"the cause of all so-called disease is mental, a mortal fear, a mistaken
ry out his methods for herself. Eddy
belief or conviction of the necessity and power of ill-health" (377).
~as concerning
True to the metaphysical nature of Christian Science, Eddy further
spiritual healing came
tween his practices and her writings
states that "Man is never sick, for Mind is not sick and matter cannot
dless, Eddy's contact with Quimby's
be" (393). Church members still allow Eddy's text and its ideas to
d a great impact on the ailing woman,
supersede all others, including the Bible, since they believe that
ld his teachings into her own brand of
Eddy received her insights through divine revelation (Hoekema 183­
~ma
173).
point for Mary Baker Eddy came in
~
fall left her severely injured. The
~d
4).
Since she perceived sickness as a purely mental condition,
Eddy developed a unique form of therapy for herself and her
little hope for her survival, but she
Christian Science followers. If, as Eddy asserts, disease is only an
tthew 9:28, which relates an incident
illusion forced upon the body by an inadequate mental state, then
y, Eddy was cured, and she claimed
traditional medicine could hardly offer a legitimate cure. Thus
V'er before. Based on this curative
"Christianity requires neither hygiene nor drugs wherewith to heal
unique spiritual healing craft. Not
both mind and body; or, lacking these, to show its helplessness"
his new method around the New
(Eddy, Healing 3). Instead, the "foundations of metaphysical heal­
rged people $300 for a set of twelve
ing" lie within the "Mind, divine Science, the truth of being that casts
learning her healing system (Hoekema
out error and thus heals the sick" (Eddy, Healing 13). Doctors, then,
are not consulted; healing is achieved through an individually
ed work on what has continued to be
tailored program of mental realization and prayer. Divine Love is
n Science church, Science and Health
actually what accomplishes the restoration health, and Christian
experiencing a life of pain and
Science practitioners exist to facilitate the process by which the
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1991
73
5
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [1991], Art. 9
patient comes to realize his false beliefs-the cause of his sickness­
number of state challenges to
and the curative power of ultimate Truth. So metaphysical is the
celebrated challenge to Chris.
process, in fact, that a great deal of healing can occur through 'long
1990 in Boston, headquarters
distance' prayer-a sort of telepathic mental concentration, without
Parents David and Ginger Tv.
the actual physical presence of the practitioner with the patient
and neglect in the death of th.
(Gottschalk 248-9).
died of a curable bowel obstn
alleged that the parents delibt
Such firm beliefs about the efficacy of spiritual healing
radically differs from the Protestant mainstream, and Eddy's system
symptoms, including vomitin
generated controversy even in the initial years of the Church of
concerns that warranted med
Christ, Scientist. Following the institution's official incorporation in
ney, while acknowledging th,
August of 1879, Mary Baker Eddy had to make occasional court
that the state must act in orde
appearances to "defend her interests" against Christian Science
such cases. In defense, the T"
critics (Hoekema 177). One Boston newspaper ridiculed the church's
tion really was not that bad, a
method by describing it as "a simple one and likely to try the faith of
only near the end. The Chris'
the patient to the utmost. It consists in sitting quiet and doing noth­
Nathan Talbot, summed up tJ
ing" (qtd. in Gottschalk 226). Some critics remained so unconvinced
from Eddy's defense of a cent
by Christian Science healing claims that they put practitioners on
the right to neglect children. ­
trial. In 1887, an Iowa healer went to court three times before he was
spiritual healing. That for us
finally acquitted of negligence in a patient's death. Similar legal
all about" (qtd. in "Trial" 15).
incidents occurred in California and Boston, and a few practitioners
convicted of manslaughter, ye
were even tried in court following an apparent healing success. The
verdict was read ("Boston" 12
This mixed message f
Christian Science church characteristically responded to such
conflicts by relying on the First Amendment guarantee of religious
the eventual sentence. Thoug
freedom (Gottschalk 247-8). Even from the outset, the Christian
in jail and a $1000 fine, the prt
Science church and the state clashed over the legitimacy of the
a sentence of ten years probat
spiritual healing craft.
take their remaining three chi
While occasional legal difficulties concerning Christian
examinations ("Christian" 8).
Science healing marked the first century of Mary Baker Eddy's
three other recent cases. One
religion, the last decade has shown a noteworthy increase in the
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9
74
"
6
resulted in probation with 60(
.._----------­
-
-
lse beliefs-the cause of his sickness­
Moore '92: Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Scien
number of state challenges to the spiritual faith. Perhaps the most
mate Truth. So metaphysical is the
celebrated challenge to Christian Science came during the summer of
~al of healing can occur through 'long
1990 in Boston, headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.
epathic mental concentration, without
Parents David and Ginger Twitchell were accused of manslaughter
,f the
and neglect in the death of their two-month-old son Robyn, who
practitioner with the patient
died of a curable bowel obstruction in April of 1986. the prosecution
It the efficacy of spiritual healing
alleged that the parents deliberately ignored Robyn's noticeable
estant mainstream, and Eddy's system
symptoms, including vomiting, high fever, and extreme pain,
1 the
concerns that warranted medical attention. The state's chief attor­
initial years of the Church of
\e institution's official incorporation in
ney, while acknowledging the importance of religious freedom, said
iddy had to make occasional court
that the state must act in order to protect the safety of children in
\terests" against Christian Science
such cases. In defense, the Twitchells asserted that Robyn's condi­
oston newspaper ridiculed the church's
tion really was not that bad, and that his symptoms became serious
simple one and likely to try the faith of
only near the end. The Christian Science spokesman at the trial,
onsists in sitting quiet and doing noth­
Nathan Talbot, summed up the church's position that differs little
Some critics remained so unconvinced
from Eddy's defense of a century earlier: "We have never asked for
:laims that they put practitioners on
the right to neglect children. We have asked for the right to practice
went to court three times before he was
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
in a patient's death. Similar legal
lia and Boston, and a few practitioners
convicted of manslaughter, yet some of the jurors were in tears as the
wing an apparent healing success. The
verdict was read ("Boston" 12).
acteristically responded to such
This mixed message flowing from the jurors' eyes hinted at
it Amendment guarantee of religious
the eventual sentence. Though the Twitchells taced up to ten years
~ven
in jail and a $1000 fine, the prosecution recommended and obtained
from the outset, the Christian
lashed over the legitimacy of the
a sentence of ten years probation.. Additionally, the parents must
take their remaining three children to a pediatrician for regular
I difficulties concerning Christian
examinations ("Christian" 8). This verdict was similar to those in
'st century of Mary Baker Eddy's
three other recent cases. One instance in Sacramento, California,
lown a noteworthy increase in the
resulted in probation with 600 hours of community service for a
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1991
7
75
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [1991], Art. 9
Christian Science mother, following her involuntary manslaughter
Christian Scientists have yet to s
conviction in the death of her four-year-old daughter ("Trial" 15). In
sect claims over 500,000 membet
each case, Christian Scientists were convicted of neglect or man­
church critics say is greatly exag
slaughter, but all were spared time in jail.
immense influence it wields. Ct
upper class, and they are extrem
Such a compromise clearly indicates what journalist David
Margolick identifies as a "clash of absolutes: of religious liberty and
citizens. Christian Scientists nUl
parental autonomy on the one hand and the right of the states to
man, a federal appeals court jud
protect children-and the rights of the children themselves--on the
Agency director Stansfield Tum
other" (1). The notion of children's rights is key, since parents are
Webster. With such a prominen
the ones who choose when to submit to a doctor's care, while
quite unlike the lower class com
children are at the mercy of their parent's fallible judgment. Some
is hardly surprising that the ChI
critics say that the spiritual healing practice encourages parents to
well-financed. It has ample mOl
make their kids' suffering a testimony to their faith. This recent
freedom, often with costly, full-]
upsurge in concern about children's rights has been due partially to
(Margolick 1). Additionally, thE
the efforts of Rita Swan, a former Christian Science church member
lawyers to defend Scientist intet
who left the sect following the 1976 death of her child. Convinced
churches like the Faith Assembl
that spiritual healing is a farce, Swan formed Children's Healthcare
why Christian Scientists receive
Is a Legal Duty (CHILD), an organization dedicated to advancing
similar negligence convictions; I
child heaIthcare over religious freedom. However, despite the
church's unique composition m
efforts of CHILD, the American Pediatric Association, the American
debate between religious freedc
The debate shows few!:
Medical Association and other groups, Christian Science cases
continue to couple a conviction with a lenient sentence, leaving the
The courts have consistently ru:
issue open for more intense debate.
allow parents to withhold life-50
yet recent legislation in Louisia­
While perhaps representative of the court's sympathy to
religious freedom, the lenient sentencing in these cases is also a
provide Christian Science heaIi:
testimony to the pervasive social power of the modem Christian
medicine. The Internal Revenu
Science church. While members of other sects such as the True
to deduct the costs of spiritual I
Followers of Christ, the Faith Assembly, and the Church of the First
income taxes, and Blue Crossll
Born have all gone to jail for the same reliance on spiritual healing,
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9
76
8
insurance companies also covel
N'ing her involuntary manslaughter
Moore '92: Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Scien
Christian Scientists have yet to see life behind bars. Although the
>Ur-year-old daughter ("Trial" 15). In
sect claims over 500,000 members in the United States (a claim which
~ere convicted
church critics say is greatly exaggerated), its actual power lies in the
of neglect or man­
ime in jail.
immense influence it wields. Church members are mostly middle or
arly indicates what journalist David
upper class, and they are extremely active and successful American
of absolutes: of religious liberty and
citizens. Christian Scientists number among their group a Congress­
land and the right of the states to
man, a federal appeals court judge, former U.S. Central Intelligence
s of the children themselves--on the
Agency director Stansfield Turner, and current CIA chief William
en's rights is key, since parents are
Webster. With such a prominent and wealthy membership-one
ubmit to a doctor's care, while
quite unlike the lower class composition of other Christian sects-it
ir parent's fallible judgment. Some
is hardly surprising that the Christian Science church is extremely
ling practice encourages parents to
well-financed. It has ample money to advance its cause for religious
~mony
freedom, often with costly, full-page newspaper advertisements
to their faith. This recent
ren's rights has been due partially to
(Margolick 1). Additionally, the church can afford skilled, high-price
er Christian Science church member
lawyers to defend Scientist interests in court, an option not open to
1976 death of her child. Convinced
churches like the Faith Assembly. These factors may help explain
Swan formed Children's Healthcare
why Christian Scientists receive lighter sentences than others for
ganization dedicated to advancing
similar negligence convictions; certainly, the Christian Science
freedom. However, despite the
church's unique composition makes it a more powerful voice in the
Pediatric Association, the American
l
groups, Christian Science cases
debate between religious freedom and child care standards.
The debate shows few signs of resolution in the near future.
with a lenient sentence, leaving the
The courts have consistently ruled that religious freedom does not
late.
allow parents to withhold life-saving medicine from their children,
ltative of the court's sympathy to
yet recent legislation in Louisiana, Texas, and Colorado seem to
~ntencing
provide Christian Science healing with status equivalent to modem
in these cases is also a
11 power of the modem Christian
medicine. The Internal Revenue Service allows Christian Scientists
s of other sects such as the True
to deduct the costs of spiritual healing as medical expenses on their
ssembly, and the Church of the First
income taxes, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Medicare, and various
~
same reliance on spiritual healing,
insurance companies also cover the cost of prayer therapy. In some
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1991
77
9
"­
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [1991], Art. 9
states Christian Science practitioners are allowed to sign sick leave
judicial opinion is clearly in
and disability authorizations (Skolnick, "Religious" 1227). Thus,
all children, regardless of thE
society seems to validate Christian Science healing, at least through
monied lobbying force of thE
these tacit institutional recognitions, as a legitimate alternative to
succeeded in maintaining its
modern medicine. However, a hypocritical duality exists that has
strict preservation of religiOl
yet to be addressed. Though wielding some of the same authority as
becoming more uncertain w:
regular doctors, spiritual healers are not required by law to have a
death.
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
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9
78
10
mers are allowed to sign sick leave
Moore '92: Church vs. State and Life vs. Death: Traditional Christian Scien
judicial opinion is clearly in favor of requiring modern medicine for
<olnick, ''Religious'' 1227). Thus,
all children, regardless of their parents' religion, the powerful,
ian Science healing, at least through
monied lobbying force of the Christian Science church has generally
ions, as a legitimate alternative to
succeeded in maintaining its healing autonomy. Whether or not a
ilypocritical duality exists that has
strict preservation of religious freedom is beneficial for society is
elding some of the same authority as
becoming more uncertain with each new Christian Science child's
)are not required by law to have a
death.
~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
Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 1991
79
11
Undergraduate Review, Vol. 4, Iss. 1 [1991], Art. 9
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: Trus­
tees 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, Michi­
gan: 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.
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/rev/vol4/iss1/9
80
12