Better Late Than Never

I was first made aware of your magazine when I was a member of the Montana House of Representatives due to your habit of keeping legislators informed of your views. I want you to know that during my eight years in Montana government, I did not receive a publication that I valued more highly than yours. I found the articles informative without being demeaning of others' views, and the information presented in a balanced way. On numerous occasions I worked quotes from your articles into debate. Always, I felt, they elevated the quality of the exchange. So, thanks for giving me the free ride.

The Bill of Rights is not a partisan political document, no matter how much one political party or another tries to make it so. My cousin, who is an important figure in the South Carolina Republican Party, and I, a Montana Democrat, do not disagree on the beneficence of the Establishment Clause for this country, and we have both worked to keep religion out of government. Your magazine has made it easier to do, and hence, this long overdue letter of appreciation.

JIM ELLIOTT

Trout Creek, Montana

"When Faith Kills": Christian Scientists Respond

Religious freedom advocates appreciate and benefit from thoughtful, informed discussion about the legal and societal issues arising out of reliance on prayer for healing, especially as it relates to children. Unfortunately, the recent article in your magazine, "When Faith Kills," by Steven G. Gey, presents a highly distorted impression of the theology, healing practice, and efficacy of Christian Science.

First, details about the Twitchell case presented at the outset of the article give a very faulty impression of what actually occurred. During their child's illness-and during the trial-the Twitchells reported seeing ups and downs in their son's condition (not the unrelieved suffering implied in the article). Even during the day on which he died, he appeared to be improving.

Robyn Twitchell died of an undiagnosed bowel obstruction, as the article states, but Mr. Gey implies that had the parents sought conventional medical care, the condition would have been readily diagnosed and could then have been corrected through surgery. Such an assumption was called into question by expert medical testimony at the trial. And, in fact, the same year of the Twitchell tragedy (1986), Heather O'Rourke, the 12-year-old movie star of Poltergeist fame, died of an undiagnosed bowel obstruction, even though she had the best medical care available. Worth considering is how differently parents in these two cases were treated: parents relying on spiritual healing were prosecuted while those who relied on conventional medicine were not (and I do not mean to imply that they should have been). This situation is mirrored in the larger observation that parents who rely on spiritual healing are generally held to a higher standard.

The "Faith" article also presented a very distorted picture of Mary Baker Eddy, founder of the Christian Science Church, repeating unfounded accusations and rumors about her character, physical health, and authorship of Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures-all of which have either been debunked or reasonably explained in several biographies by authors outside of as well as in Christian Science. Her recent induction into the National Women's Hall of Fame as well as the recognition of Science and Health by the Women's National Book Association as one of 75 books by "women whose words have changed the world" reveal widespread, sustained recognition of her accomplishments.

Another point may have confused your readers. The boxed story that followed Mr. Gey's article-in which Mark Twain spins a yarn about an experience he had-is entirely fictional, fabricated solely to make light of Christian Science. There would have been more balance to the presentation, too, had it been coupled with noting that Twain also wrote in praise of Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science, as several contemporary biographers have commented.

While a letter to the editor could never set forth fully the theological views of any religion, it's important to at least clarify that, contrary to Mr. Gey's statement that Mrs. Eddy "developed a systematic theory of the supremacy of mind over body," neither a "mind over body" philosophy, nor "faith healing," has anything to do with Christian Science. The foundation of healing in Christian Science is an understanding and systematic application of the laws, not of the human mind, but of God, found in the Bible, and which were the basis of the healing works performed by Jesus Christ during His ministry. "Faith healing," if by that term is meant a blind trust in God, or a willingness to allow disease or suffering as God's will, is completely inconsistent with Christian Science.

Regarding the claim that 1974 federal law regulations were the reason that states passed religious accommodation laws, Mr. Gey has the cart before the horse. By 1974 many states were already in the process of adding a medical neglect category to their child abuse and neglect state statutes. At the same time, these states were adding language which would ensure children would not be labeled neglected simply because of the parents' religious practice. Rather than forcing states to change their statutes, the federal regulation was simply the result of a national trend in this direction. The fact is that most state law accommodations respecting spiritual healing exist because legislators became informed about the efficacy of Christian Science, and reached an understanding that this is a responsible religious practice.

And that leads to the most troubling aspect of the article, which is its premise that spiritual healing as practiced in Christian Science is ineffective to bring about healing. This premise sets the stage for the constitutional discussion which assumes that the interests of religious freedom and of protecting children are inherently in conflict. This assumption does not square with the facts. No letter to the editor could begin to describe the countless instances throughout the world when relying on Christian Science prayer alone resulted in healing, nor come to grips with the extensive healing record Christian Science has established over the last 125 years. A significant percentage of these healings have been of medically diagnosed diseases. Any dismissal of this healing record as "merely anecdotal," therefore, simply flies in the face of reality.

The article also focuses on the recent litigation about the federal Medicare and Medicaid statutes, arguing that many religious accommodations will be successfully challenged as violations of the Constitution's Establishment Clause. The constitutional problem found by the Court, however, was that the provisions accommodated only Christian Science and no other religion, and not that accommodating religion is an Establishment Clause problem. In fact, the Court's concern was whether similarly situated religions would also receive accommodation in the law, not that Congress could not accommodate any religion. A new provision now in the law addresses this problem by making the religious accommodation "sect-neutral." The other prong of the constitutional provisions on religion, the Free Exercise Clause, should mean at least that the healing record in Christian Science must be known before any decision as to whether its healing method is a responsible approach to health care can be made.

Children do have the right to effective health care. Parents who choose Christian Science for healing do so because, based on their experience, it is just that.

DEBORA A. GEORGATOS,

Legal Counsel

Christian Science Committee on Publication

Washington, D.C.

——————————————————————————–

I appreciated the spirit of tolerance for other faiths shown in several articles in your January/ February issue. That's why I was surprised to read in "When Faith Kills," the implication that Christian Science parents would choose to martyr their children rather than resort to medical treatment. Neither church policy nor the practice of individual Christian Science parents supports that implication.

In my 1993 annual report distributed to all Christian Scientists in Arkansas, describing meetings with every Christian Science congregation, I wrote, "In children's cases, we accepted the responsibility to place the child's welfare above all else." In a public talk in 1996 I stated, "The child's welfare is top priority, above the parents' religious rights."

Our parents know to turn immediately to an understanding of God's all-power for effective healing. Parents in Arkansas have reported a solid record of children's healings, including polio, diphtheria, tuberculosis, scarlet fever, whooping cough, scoliosis, and several newborns not expected to live. They have resorted occasionally to medical care when serious cases did not yield to prayer, but due to their overall past successes, their natural first choice is spiritual treatment.

The child's welfare is paramount. Is it any wonder that Christian Science parents turn to what they have found to be the best care, God's healing love?

ROBERT D. WRIGHT

Christian Science Committee on Publication

Maumelle, Arkansas