One possible answer to the question posed in the title of this blog is that “sometimes it can seem to be!”
A case in point is a Sarah Sands column published in the London Evening Standard this week. The article describes artists and others who are willing to see the Tate Modern art gallery lose vital funds rather than accept BP sponsorship. Such artists are described as being “as suicidal as Christian Scientists refusing life-saving medical treatment”.
This is arguably a witty comparison, but it seems like a poor metaphor to those whose lives have been saved through their own or another’s application of Christian Science teachings, because to them this phrase would translate to “NOT at all suicidal”. And so it should be understood by the public at large, since Christian Science has consistently healed for 140 years and still does so today. The inherent assumption, though, is that modern medicine does this and Christian Science does not.
True, the record of Christian Scientists practising their spiritual approach to healing is not flawless. But what approach to healthcare has a 100% record? Modern medicine rightly doesn’t claim that for itself. Yet in off-the-cuff remarks like the above, the projected presumption is that there is clear blue water between medicine and other methods of healthcare. People like me – who have had a medical diagnosis of “no cure” for a distressing physical condition, only to see it reversed by Christian Science – would beg to differ.
Diverse systems offer different approaches to strive for health and healing. Every adult should be free to choose for themselves the type of healthcare that meets their needs. There is, however, an added joy to the approach to healthcare outlined in Mary Baker Eddy’s Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. It offers the beneficial “side effect” (most people who experience it would describe this as “the main effect”!) of a very real sense of God’s presence in our lives as divine Love itself, found caring without prejudice for one and all.