Educational Aspects of Christian Science?A Reply and a Rejoinder
NEWS AND COMMENT. Boston, May 15, 1911. Editor of The Psychological Clinic, Philadelphia, Pa. Dear Sir:
In your issue of the 15th [of April], there appeared an article by Charles Iveen Taylor, in which the author makes certain allegations regarding the practice of Christian Science and describes the alleged conduct of a certain boys’ school as an example, although he prepares us against accepting any adverse criticism by assuring us that the school was equipped “superior to that of other schools.” lie says “the dormitories were comfortable and excellent in every way, the table was beyond reproach, and the school building including class rooms entirely adequate.” “The teaching no better anywhere.” “The school had a fine gymnasium and gave quite a little time to athletics.” He further declares “the faculty seemed to be an exceptionally able group of men.” “They were all fond of their work and obviously fond of boys, taking great personal interest in their charges.” He then assures us by implication that it was within the power of the non-Christian Science portion of the faculty to dictate the policy of the school, since there were “only three” Christian Scientists in the number and the rest “represented a variety of religious beliefs” and “any point concerning the boys could be discussed and settled by faculty vote, which the head master “never” vetoed, with the result that “everything was admirably managed and the actual work of the teachers was most effective.”
After the foregoing description, which is unusually complimentary, Mr. Taylor contradicts himself and discredits the faculty whose voting and ruling majority he informs us did not believe in Christian Science by insinuating that in the school “physical deficiencies” were ignored. He declares there was “little care of the physical life of the boys except as regards the elemental needs of sleep, food, warmth, and to some degree at least, bodily cleanliness.” The gentleman does not say here what “degree” of “bodily cleanliness” was maintained, but he has informed us that the dormitories were “excellent in every way,” a condition which could not exist except when “bodily cleanliness” was observed in a high “degree.” Most people would think that with “sleep, food, warmth, cleanliness” and “athletics” the boys had about all the “material attention” they needed, and that they could well afford to devote the rest of their time to the mental and spiritual. It may be noted that the im plications and insinuations of our critic as to what constitutes t e logical outcome of Christian Science impressions are not proved by is example. Moreover after a careful examination of the facts, I fin t at the school referred to has met with unusual success in every line w ic makes for the advancement of the boy. Those who have patronize it speak in glowing terms of the excellent faculty connected therewith, of the increased interest in educational matters inculcated in the boys, and especially of the physical and moral advancement of the pupils. I find that, as in all boys’ schools, there have been unfortunate occurrences and more or less necessity for discipline, but nothing at all unusual. I find that the school has been conducted with extreme care as to the bodily as well as the mental cleanliness of its inmates, and this is in keeping with Christian Science, since those who have become morally elevated naturally seek to improve their physical condition and environment, in accordance with the old adage, “Cleanliness is next to godliness.” In many years’ experience as a Christian Scientist, I have never known any individual, however good he may have been at the outset, who has not advanced both as to his moral and physical cleanliness through the influence of Christian Science. I have known families who have been lifted out of filth and degradation by the high ideals which have been instilled into them through the teaching of Christian Science. If Mr. Taylor knows anything whatever about Christian Scientists, he knows that they are quite as clean physically and morally as any other class.
Mr. Taylor declares that “moral perverts” were admitted to tho school, owing to the fact that the applicants were not required to undergo physical examinations. Surely he is sufficiently well informed to know that physical examinations are utterly inadequate to the discovery of moral degeneracy, if not unnecessary thereto. It is a fundamental necessity of Christain Science practice that the lives and habits of children as well as adults shall be in strict keeping with the absolutely puro and good and true. Although Christian Scientists may have an understanding differing from some others as to the primary cause of physical disorders, they none the less recognized that it must be discovered, grappled with and overcome. Every Christian Science practitioner of wide experience has probably helped many a boy out of sin and imbecility after other available means had failed.
Mr. Taylor declares that his first acquaintance in the school was with a boy quite fifteen years old, from whom ho learned confidentially that he was a victim of wrong doing, “probably owing to the fact that he had received no hint or warning concerning his body.” He declares that he found other boys in the school in the same condition. Notwithstanding that he had commenced with the school year and his discoveries were made early in the season, according to his story, ho made no report to the master of the school until after tho Christmas holidays, and he declares that a “speedy examination followed,” that “the entire faculty got together, the boys were called in one at a time and put through a grilling examination,” and as soon as the bad conditions wero known to the faculty measures were immediately taken to overcome them, and “the remedies were successful.” lie admits that he knew of the conditions and knew that the faculty courted criticism, but, like the boys, he kept his knowledge of existing vice a secret. It therefore appears that Mr. Taylor was the most blame-worthy person in the school, for he was older and “educated” in “physical deficiencies.”
Here it should be noted that every school, however careful, has been caught with unworthy pupils, some of whom have required discipline, others of whom have required expulsion. The so-called “perverts” in this institution had been taken in under recommendation. Some of the boys were of parents who had only just learned of Christian Science, and whose boys had been reared, not according to the ideals of Christian Science, but without Christian Science. Hence their condition was not chargeable to Christian Scientists, and since such conditions are entirely beneath the practice of Christian Science they were due, not to Chistian Science, but to a want of it.
Mr. Taylor exonerates the school by informing us that one boy from the school was led astray by a college freshman. Perhaps a more careful examination would disclose the fact that others of the “perverts” had been led astray by boys outside the school. In any event, it is proper to state /here that Christian Science recommends the uncovering of evil in the life and practice of the individual and a speedy elimination thereof. It is not contrary to the teaching of Christian Science that parents should investigate and inform themselves as to the moral and physical status of their children and give them whatever attention is required to lift them above that which is unlike God. Carelessness among Christian Scientists is no more duo to Christian Science than is carelessness among other classes essentially due to their particular beliefs. It is just simply carelessness. If “Tommy,” who is mentioned in our critic’s story, had been a good consistent Christian Scientist, he would not have been a greedy boy. His unreasonable, intemperate indulgence of the “whole eocoanut” was not due to the fact that he made too little, but because ho made too much of “the physical.” A consistent Christian Scientist would be temperate and Godlike in all things.
In describing the purpose of the school under discussion, its head master writes that, “It is to develop the power to think accurately, quickly and deeply; to concentrate the attention, and to work faithfully and conscientiously without mental fatigue. To do this requires the development of the whole boy, the training of his moral sense, the bringing out of sound bodily vigor, and the exercise of his mental faculties. Control of the moral impulse, control of the body, control of the attention ?these are the three desiderata that express the one purpose of education at this institution.” It is but just to state that after an investigation we find that this school has fulfilled this mission in satisfactory measure. When I consulted the master of this school as to what became of the boys who were in the school at the time of Mr. Taylors sojourn t ere four years ago, lie replied: “Regarding the first boy, who was lone y an melancholy,’ it was his first year at the school and the second ^e0’ 0 ? year, so it is not strange if the school had not yet discoere tie oy ? habits. Mr. Taylor speaks of his work with this boy. The following are the facts: As Mr. Taylor declared, the boy was of a ‘melancholy temperament,’ he was easily discouraged and presumably morbid. Accordingly, Mr. Taylor proceeds to play upon the fears of this boy until he has him thoroughly scared. The boy sees before him the asylum, and pulmonary consumption. Under the influence of sheer terror, he improves his habits, takes regular physical exercises and increases his chest expansion an inch or so. But under Mr. Taylor’s influence, he had become so morbid that the boy’s father had to come East to find out the source of trouble. It was readily located, and the boy was taken from Mr. Taylor’s influence. Morbid fear, however, continued to dominate him, and in a few months there had developed in him all the symptoms of serious lung trouble. At this point, Christian Science came to the rescue, a practitioner was called, and in three weeks the boy’s fears had been overcome, and in five weeks a complete recovery had been effected, a recovery that is said to have proved permanent.”
“Of the forty-one boys who were in the school during that year when Mr. Taylor was in the school, two were expelled as was related and a third was later sent away?not for any moral perversion, but for insubordination. One has proved to be in a measure mentally deficient. One, a fine, manly fellow, has passed away. This leaves thirty-six. Of these thirty-six, eight are now in other schools, three are still at school, five are successful business men. The ‘big boy of seventeen’, whom Mr. Taylor declares to have been ‘the worst of the lot,’ and concerning whom he says ‘there could not be any hope outside of an institution, and not a great deal of hope even there,’ and whose mentality ‘was of such a grade that he was classed with the eleven year old boys, and was not their equal and was little more than an imbecile, to-day occupies a position requiring sound judgment and mental alertness with the largest automobile concern in the country. Another of these ‘perverts’ is a successful business man, superintendent of a large manufacturing concern. The third is a successful real estate agent, and the other two are doing well. Twenty of the boys who were in the school at that time passed successful examinations and were admitted to leading colleges of the land. Harvard received seven, Massachusetts Institute of Technology two, Princeton one, Dartmouth one, University of Wisconsin one, Leland Stanford one, Amherst one, University of Missouri one, University of Virginia one, Case School of Applied Science one, L’nited States Naval Academy one, Valparaiso one, and last, but not of least consequence here, the University of Pennsylvania one. Puzzle: Find the ‘moral perverts and imbeciles’.” It is certain that if they ever existed they vanished in after years. I find upon investigation that this school has in its employ a very able field secretary whose duty is to interview the parents of boys who seek admission to the school, to ascertain their character, and that he has oftentimes refused admission to boys because their standard of morals and mentality was out of keeping with the character of the school. I find that not a single case of contagious disease of any serious nature has ever occurred in this school, that the school has never been closed a single day because of contagion or illness of any sort, and this speaks for the effectiveness of the particular measures adopted to safeguard the physical well-being of the pupils. As a matter of course, if a sick boy was treated by Christian Science, nothing was being done for the boy, from Mr. Taylor’s point of view, since no regular physician was sent for, but the fact that the boy in every case speedily recovered should have some weight with him.
Mr. Taylor’s story would give the impression that the assistant head master was indifferent to the moral well-being of the boys and ignorant of the conditions existing among them. But we are informed that the investigation which was made at the time showed that the senior master was much more closely in touch with the boy8 than any or all of his accusers, and that the conditions were not at all as had been represented. So conclusively was this shown, that the three accusers offered a written apology and retraction in the following words: “We are glad to retract the charges, which were shown io be unfounded, and heartily to apologize for having made them.” I .am told that this apology is now on file at the school. The head master declared to me: “It is but fair to say that as a result of this episode, more system was introduced in the method of ethical and moral instruction.”
In conclusion, it may be well to call attention to the fact that Mr. Taylor did not need to enter a Christian Science school in order to discover trouble of the kind which he mentions. The Ladies’ Home Journal of February 1, 1911, published the following statement: “Forty-one families?’nice -families,’ as we call them?were last May thrown into consternation and humilation by being privately notified by the head master of a boys’ school that their boys could not be re-entered for another term at his school. ‘A fearful condition of immorality,’ wrote the head master, ‘has been unearthed at the school, and in order to set an example to the rest of the boys, every boy concerned will be denied re-entrance to this school.’ The ‘fearful condition of immorality, discovered in this school was, as the head master privately explained traceable, as it generally is, ‘to one boy,’ the son of a ‘careful’ family of unquestioned standing in its community, and he had involved the other boys.” The school concerned in the foregoing statement was not a Christian Science school and none of the boys connected therewith were Christian Scientists. We call attention to the matter simply for the purpose of showing that Mr. Taylor’s especial attack on the school which was conducted by a Christian Scientist is partial and unjust, wholly apart from his erroneous presumptions.
Yours truly, (Signed) Alfred Farlow. (Note.?Mr. Fnrlow is chairman of Committee on Publication, The First Church of Christ Scientist, Boston, Mass.) 134 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. Philadelphia, May 20, 1911. Editor of The Psychological Clinic. Dear Sir:?
Mr. Farlow’s letter is interesting, but not as illuminating as I should wish. It is interesting because it attempts to disprove the criticism that the following-out of Christian Science precepts results in a lack of practical moral training for children, and it is unilluminating because it carefully avoids the point at issue, spending its space instead in a rather unsuccessful effort to discredit the writer of the article. However, any criticism from so high an authority as Mr. Farlow deserves careful consideration, so that I will take up the points in his letter as they appear. Mr. Farlow says of me “He then assures us by implication that it was within the power of the non-Christian Science portion of the faculty to dictate the policy of the school” since the head master “never” vetoed a faculty vote. What was actually said was that I never knew the head master to use his veto power, though there is no doubt he would have done so in case of any action contrary to Christian Science principle, or against his own ideas of what was vitally necessary or right. Mr. Farlow says “Mr. Taylor contradicts himself and discredits the faculty whose voting and ruling majority he informs us did not believe in Christian Science by insinuating that in the school ‘physical deficiencies’ were ignored.” I would dislike very much to discredit any member of that faculty, and would be happy to have it pointed out to me wherein I did so, but that “physical deficiencies” were ignored is made rather stronger than an insinuation, for there were no physical examinations in the school. If a boy had some physical infirmity, he was not likely to mention it to anyone, because of the Christian Science opinion as to all physical infirmities. Besides this, the faculty was largely composed of new members, who were unacquainted with the boys and with Christian Science ideas, and so did not come to know of the real conditions among the boys for quite a while. Afterwards they did everything in their power to aid in creating a new order of things.
Because the bodies of the boys were never examined, as they arc in most private schools, I stated that only to ‘some degree’ bodily cleanliness was looked after. The ‘some degree’ refers to such parts of the anatomy as are easily visible. Here Mr. Farlow seems to discover another ‘contradiction,’ for he argues that if the dormitories were “excellent in every way” then there must have been a high degree of bodily cleanliness among the boys. This logic is too elusive for the present writer, who unfortunately fails to see the connection. But in all this paragraph Mr. Farlow does not disprove the statement that physical defects among the boys were not noted, nor does he say anywhere that there was corrective work of any kind, nor does he deny the statement that there were no physical examinations whatsoever. This is the logical result of Christian Science teaching, which directs that as little be said as possible conNEWS AND COMMENT. 135 ceming the body or its defects. That this idea has many good points there is no doubt; the danger comes in carrying it to an extreme. Mr. Farlow speaks of the commendations he has heard of the faculty of the school, and of the educational, physical and moral advancement of the boys sent there. This, of course, simply emphasizes what I said in the first article?I had nothing but the highest praise, not only for the faculty, but for the work accomplished by them, and indeed, after a practical system of moral training had been instituted, the training given in this school became one of the best in my experience. It may be that this practical method of training was quite contrary to Christian Science precepts, and its success among the boys is only another support of my contention?that the strict following out of these precepts does not make for practical moral training.
I should dislike very much to accuse Mr. Farlow of inaccuracy, but the following statement unfortunately points that way. He says “Mr. Taylor declares that ‘moral perverts’ were admitted to the school, owing to the fact that the applicants were not required to undergo physical examinations.” What I actually said is this: that the admission of perverts and imbeciles was in keeping with the other fact mentioned a while ago, ?the fact of there being no physical examinations.” As, for the last three years, I have been an observer in a clinic to which have been brought great numbers of mentally defective children, I am only too well aware how often physical defects accompany mental or moral defects, but I would never say anything so ridiculous as what Mr. Farlow attributes to me?that is, that moral degeneracy could be discovered by means of physical examinations!
Mr. Farlow says “It is a fundamental necessity of Christian Science practice that the lives and habits of children as well as adults shall be in strict keeping with the absolutely pure and good and true.” This idea, to be sure, is not original with Christian Science, but is the basis of all Christian religions, and of some not Christian. But again the great question is?what do the ‘Scientists’ do in order to train the children to acquire habits of the character mentioned? Do they, for instance, give the children any intelligible warnings concerning physical dangers? If so, I saw no evidence of it. When the reform came in the school, a large group of boys was assigned to the writer to receive practical instructmn along such lines, and every boy told the same story?ignorance of the right kind of defensive knowledge that every child should have, and some of these fellows were over eighteen years old.
At times I find Mr. Farlow difficult to follow. In his all too evident anxiety to disparage me Mr. Farlow has again allowed himself to draw erroneous conclusions from the original text. lie says that the writer made his ‘discoveries’ ‘early in the season,’ and that until after the Christmas holidays he ‘kept his knowledge of existing vice a secret and that ‘it therefore appears that Mr. Taylor was the most blame-worthy person in the school’ etc., etc. If Mr. Farlow had read my article ?ore attentively he would see that there were no particularly important dis136 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. coveries” made until after Christmas, and up to that time, ‘several’ boys only had come for help. These boys, of course, came in confidence, and as long as I thought them merely sporadic cases, exceptions and not rules, I saw no reason for breaking these confidences. It was only when I saw that these unfortunate conditions were generally present, and that matters affecting the whole school needed immediate adjusting that I co-operated with other members of the faculty in making known the state of affairs to those in authority.
Space does not admit, unfortunately, of the continued study, statement by statement, of Mr. Farlow’s letter, but at least one absolute and complete misstatement requires the most point-blank denial. The unreliability of the letter as a whole, cannot be better illustrated than by showing the unreliability of this, its strongest attack upon the writer. Mr. Farlow says, in brief, concerning the first boy mentioned, that Mr. Taylor first frightened the boy with threats of an asylum and pulmonary consumption, that the boy, through sheer terror, improved his habits, and incidentally his physique, that under Mr. Taylor’s influence, however, the boy became so morbid that his father came East to discover the trouble, that the boy was then taken from Mr. Taylor’s ‘influence,’ that serious lung trouble developed, and that in five weeks a Christian Science practitioner cured the boy of his serious lung trouble, and all was then serene. This would be very deplorable, if it were true. First of all, I did not attempt to frighten the boy. Any student of boys knows how futile such a procedure would have been! I gave the boy all possible encouragement, and the boy did improve his habits, not only of body, but also of mind, and what morbidness he had in the beginning, disappeared very quickly. It is true that the father came East, but it was for the express purpose of thanking me for my work in improving his son. The lung trouble story is a new one to me. In my records of the boy I find that his chest expansion, in the first of October, for instance, was % of an inch, that by December it had become 2% inches; by February, 3% inches; and by the end of May 5 inches. This record shows two things, that the boy’s lungs, at first dangerously under-developed, improved steadily under the work I gave him, and secondly that the boy was not removed from my influence, as the records show that he was given his physical measurements regularly through the whole scholastic year. No, there was no lung trouble, but there was one physical trouble out of my power to remedy. The boy, in January, developed a painful ingrowing nail. This became worse and worse. From that time to the closing of school he was in more or less constant pain, sometimes in actual agony, and compelled to go slowly about with a soft moccasin on his foot. In July I received a letter from the boy saying that, being unable to stand it longer, he went to an expert who cured him by means of very un-‘Scientific’ methods. It is odd that tuberculosis could so easily be cured, but that the boy had to endure agony for mouths over a simple ingrowing nail!
The following quotations from two of the letters received from this boy’s father, tend to corroborate my statements.
In a letter written on November 30th, he says, “I indeed feel grateful to you for the interest you have evinced and assure you that I fully appreciate your efforts to show him the right way.” And again:?”I wish to thank you again for your kind and loving interest in our boy.” From a letter written 011 December 20th:?”?It is such a source of satisfaction to know that he [the boy] is so situated and to feel perfectly at ease as regards his everyday life and surrounding influences.” No mention here of ‘morbidness,’ lung trouble, or undesirable ‘influence.’ If it were sufficiently important, or even interesting, I could go on and prove that long after these letters were written, and long after that scholastic year was over, the big improvement was attributed to my efforts on his behalf though it is only fair to say that the boy’s extraordinary development was in a very great measure due to his own remarkable will-power and energy. I most sincerely hope that what is said about the progress of the mentally deficient boys is more accurate than what was said about this boy.
Mr. Farlow also mentions three ‘accusers.’ There were no ‘accusers,’ but there were five men in the faculty of seven who combined their knowledge of conditions and set this combination, written out, before the head-master. The writer retained a carbon copy of this paper. It is also fair to mention that in the original article I neglected to say that one of the five was also one of the three ‘Scientist’ members of the faculty for he joined with the non-scientific members when he saw what was in progress, and some of the facts brought out were offered by him. In fact, he it was who presented the paper, as spokesman of the five. It is odd, if the charges “were shown to be unfounded,” that, “as a result of this episode, more system was introduced in the method of ethical and moral instruction.” (Note Mr. Farlow’s letter.)
Last of all, I know only too well that I do not need to enter a Christian Science school in order to discover such conditions. If Mr. Farlow will purchase a copy of “Education” for April of this year, he may read an article in which I describe similar conditions in no less than eight types of schools.
What I did attempt to show in my original article was: that because of the neglect of the physical, with all that the word “physical involves, boys of Christian Science training are likely to average lower in moral standard than boys brought up under more practical systems. It is true, most unfortunately true, that the average parent, as as the average school, is woefully negligent in the practical moral training of children, but it is my experience that Christian Scientists are t worst offenders in this respect.
(Signed) Charles K. Taylor. 138 TEE PSYCHOLOGICAL CLINIC. Fatigue and School Work.
In the Zeitschrift fur Experimentelle Padagogilc, Band X, Ilefte, 1-4, 1910, Mr. Max Oker-Blom reports his investigations conducted in the Volksschulen (public schools) of Ilelsingfors, upon fatigue during a school day. They consisted of the addition of twelve separate columns each containing ten single figures. Each column was to be added and the sum placed at the bottom. At the end of three minutes each pupil, upon the command “Halt,” placed a line under the figure he was just adding. The experiment was carried on simultaneously in several classes, six times during each day’s session. The results were as follows:
1. A time schedule which utilizes the hours from 8 to 11 and from 4 to 6 o’clock produces better results than a continuous schedule that utilizes the time from 11 until 4 o’clock.
2. During the early morning hours (8 to 11) the mental ability is less than later in the day (from 11 to 2). Even the late afternoon hours (4 to 6) are better for mental work than the early morning hours, provided a sufficiently long recreation period (five hours) intervenes. 3. There is a gradual rise in mental alertness during the morning, the second hour shows better results than the first, as also do the third and the fourth hours. The last (fifth) hour of an uninterrupted session shows a decreased ability in young children (10 to 11 years). This decrease is not shown during the fifth hour of an interrupted school day. 4. Studies demanding great mental effort should not, therefore, bo placed in the first or in the last hour.
Investigating the effects upon mental alertness of a long walk to school the results were as follows:
5. A walk of 4/5 to 1 1/5 miles showed beneficial results. Children living in the immediate neighborhood of the school, and who did not, therefore, get this daily form of exercise, were easily fatigued by any extra exertion. It appears that a daily walk of one mile to and from school is of benefit to all pupils. Older pupils may walk one and a half miles without its affecting their mental alertness. Such pupils show a slight degree of fatigue during the first school hour, and with some this extends into the second hour. The symptoms of fatigue wear off, however, and then these pupils show an increased power of resisting mental as well as physical fatigue (brought about, undoubtedly, by their increased endurance and bodily vigor).
G. Marches of 1 4/5 to 2 1/5 miles to school are too severe for pupils. The fatigue caused by such marches shows its effect during all hours of the day.
The experiments did not offer an opportunity for rating the fatigue caused by different studies. The effect of a stimulating presentation of school subjects could, however, be seen; also the depressing effect of poorly taught subjects. The effects of over stimulation in any particular subject were clearly revealed by a slight fatigue during the next hour. The results show clearly the necessity for teaching in a manner demanded by the mental attitude (Gcist und Gcmut) of the child, and for regulating not only tho quantity of work, but also the hours for recreation, in order to secure a steadily increasing mental alertness combined with a maximum mental efficiency.?William A. Stecher.
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.