W. John Murray
Excerpt from:
The Gleaner
Vol. 17, No. 2
Divine Science Publishing Assoc.,
New York, November 1925.

[Introductory comments as published in the above referenced issue.]

TIME is invariable. The variations belong to those who live in time. Dr. Murray's Statement of Facts, published in 1909, is a timely article as it sets forth his attitude towards leaders of organizations which make a distinction between that which is preached, and that which is practiced, when a question arises between the right of an individual and the might of a corporation - and rights are set aside by might.

It was Dr. Murray's realization of this which caused him to abandon the might of organization that he might defend the right of the individual.

He had no quarrel with Christian Science. His loyalty to the principles taught by Mrs. Eddy was unswerved. His contention was that corporations purporting to represent principles should be guided by those principles. His decision as set forth in this Statement of Facts has established a practice worthy of the emulation of such as understood his inspired teaching sufficiently to make it the basis of daily living.

The following statement of facts is written for no other purpose than to save time and trouble on the part of the writer and if it serves to correct a few erroneous impressions it will compensate for the use of valuable time spent in this way. I am an economist, and the numerous demands that have been made upon my time during the past year and a half to explain why I am no longer a member of the Christian Science organization, have taken up so much time and caused me to dwell so often on a subject that is distasteful, that, in the very nature of my work it has become necessary to set forth the facts once and for all, "and after this the judgment."

I have no fear of the judgment of those who desire to "know the truth," and there is nothing that I can say that will convince that man of the truth, who prefers to remain in error and delights in communicating it. When I resigned from the Christian Science organization, I did so in order that I might be freed from the despotism and tyranny of the most inhuman by-laws that mortal mind has ever conceived. I say "mortal mind" because Divine Mind, or infinite Love, could never put it into the heart of man or woman to formulate and force the observance of such by-laws, as would make it impossible for a Christian Science practitioner to treat a person because of that person's connection with a certain church. For years I stubbornly refused to comply with this and other by-laws, because I believe what has been preached, but seldom practiced, that "Love is impartial and universal in its adaptations and bestowals. It cries 'Ho, every one that thirsteth' (except the Catholic) 'come ye to the waters.'" - S. and H.*

[* Denotes the Christian Science textbook, Science & Health.]

For refusing to comply with this inhuman edict I was termed disloyal, and only a faithful scientist knows what this means. While my disloyalty (?) however, was most freely discussed among the faithful to personality, no attempt was made to dismiss me from the church on this account. Perhaps there was a subtle reason for this failure to at least reprimand. I also cherished a few views that were not in line with the secret teachings of the cult, on the questions of marriage and children, etc. For some strange reason I was not charged with heresy on these counts. Can it be that a pitiful but "unspiritual public" might be persuaded of my innocence and the consequent guilt of the church? Suffice it to say, I was never "handled" (this is a word used by scientists when a fellow member is being grilled, mentally or otherwise), and it is doubtful if I ever would have been "handled," except at the teachers' association which meets at different places at different times, if I had consented to remain with the organization until this day. I did not consent to remain with the organization - and herein lies the necessity for this statement of fact.

The general public does not know that I resigned; the majority of my clients did not know that I resigned, but many of them were informed on reliable authority (?) that, while I was no longer identified with the church, I did not resign. By insinuation and innuendo, it was made to appear that my disconnection with the church was for reasons of such a nature that it were better for spiritually minded (?) persons to refrain from discussing the matter.

This is a favorite method of explaining the unexplainable, and answering the unanswerable, which has been adopted by those who love Cause (church) more than Christ (Truth). When I have asked those who have come (from one motive or another, to inquire why I was put out of the church and my name removed from the Journal), what reason their informant had given, it has been to receive this kind of answer: "It is not what they say quite so much as what they do not say that conveys the awful imputation."

One may suggest a man's lack of honor, or a woman's lack of virtue, by a knowing wink of the eye or a significant shrug of the shoulder. All reputations are not blasted by verbal utterances; all slander is not audible, else there might be more lawsuits among those who believe in such means of redress. I seek no redress, I have no resentment, and my only reasons for submitting the following documentary evidence are:

First, to save time, and second, to place before my friends a justification for their confidence which at times must have been sorely tested. The charge that I applied for membership to the First Church of Christ Scientist of New York City, and was refused admission to that church, may be answered by the following papers now in my possession:

This certifies that Mr. Wm. Jno. Murray, a member of this church, is at his own request hereby dismissed and recommended to the guiding and protecting care of Truth and Love.

By order of First Church of Christ Scientist, Oakland, Cal.

Charlotte A. Wheaton, Clerk.

This letter would not indicate that I was "put out" of this church.

After deciding to remain in New York I presented this letter with Mrs. Murray's to First Church of New York City, as the following documents will prove.

John W. Murray, Esq.,

Dear Sir: In reply to your letter of the 28th ult., which arrived during my absence in the West, I would say that your several applications have been suspended as per your own request.

With kind regards to yourself and Mrs. Murray I remain,

Yours very truly,
Richard P. Verrall.

The reader will notice that the applications were suspended "as per your own request." The reason why I requested this suspension was due to the fact that a prominent C.S.D., one "who was very close to the leader," warned me against conditions in the First Church. I was a stranger in New York, I believed then and I believe now, that this very prominent scientist desired to protect me, and acting upon information supplied, I requested that our letters be held over until the following communion Sunday, at which time members are received into the church. For three months following the receipt of this letter from Mr. Verrall, I attended First Church regularly, and at the end of this time I again wrote asking for the return of my letters, as I was now fully persuaded of the truth of the assertion of said prominent C.S.D. In answer to my request I received the following:

Mr. W. John Murray
648 West 158th Street, City.

Dear Brother: In response to your letter of Saturday, I am enclosing the two letters that you refer to.

With very kind regards to you and Mrs. Murray, I remain,

Yours very truly,
Richard P. Verrall.

After these experiences I attended other churches of Christ Scientist but made no effort to unite with any. I had seen and heard too much. Many wondered, some criticized and condemned, I alone knew the reason. The suspicion aroused by my friend had been more than confirmed by personal observation. That friend is still in the church, but the information which was supplied and my own subsequent conviction of the truth of it, made it impossible for me to continue to be identified with the organization in its local form. To have remained in the Church, would have been to compromise my conscience to suit my pocketbook, or to prevent the possibility of mental malpractice, maliciously directed. [Webmaster note: the term 'mental malpractice, maliciously directed' refers to using prayer for sinister purposes; to harm others or negatively influence events.] Sufficient evidence has been presented to prove that I was neither "refused admittance" to the local churches nor "put out" of them.

Now, we shall submit the facts in the case of my resignation from the Mother Church in Boston, Mass. In the early summer or late spring of 1907, my attention was called to the trial which was going on in the New York courts, of a man whose child had died under Christian Science treatment. His answers to the coroner and others who questioned him were such as any true scientist would have to make, unless he wished to take refuge in the "absolute," which, in a court of justice, might be considered equivocal. In answer to the question: "Did you call a physician?" he said, "No." "Did you administer medicines?" "No," was the reply. He was remanded for trial by jury, after which he went back to work, his salary averaging $40 per month. But the loss of his time, which was spent in a cell in the Tombs prison, as well as other expenses incidental to the burying of a dead child, had brought about a shortage of cash. He acquainted some scientists with this fact, and in one letter which he received from one of the most prominent officials in the church was the following scientific (?) statement:

"Dear Sir: Your letter of yesterday was received this morning. Christian Scientists do not go from one to another soliciting money as you are doing."

More followed to the effect that he should confine himself to a certain locality. When men have dead children to bury, and living children to feed, they are not apt to confine their efforts to any person nor to any place. At such times one may be pardoned for failing to consider the etiquette of medicancy. In due time this man was summoned to appear for his second trial, which resulted in his commitment to Blackwell's Island.

On learning of this, I asked my wife to call at the address given in the newspaper as his place of residence, to inquire concerning the welfare of his other children, and there was no welfare. The man had left his work to go to court, and when sentenced was passed, instead of going home, he went over the Bridge of Sighs. The crime for which he was sentenced, was permitting his child to die without medical assistance, or rather, trusting to a system of therapeutics, the advocates of which neglected to defend that system at a time when it most needed defense.

The man had a few dollars in his pocket, which he had been saving for the rent of his simple rooms, and these he sent, with a pathetic note, to his two motherless children. A stranger, a Samaritan, carried the note. A priest (the Publication Committee) and the Levite (the practitioner) passed by on the other side. The prisoner's stupidity in being arrested and convicted, had caused the Scientists no end of trouble, and in excusing themselves for their seeming neglect they declared "he was not a Scientist, anyway."

I could not see at that time why a man whose child had died under Christian Science treatment could not be ably defended - even if he were not a Christian Scientist. I denounced what seemed to me to be an avoidance of responsibility on the part of the church, and was told that I would not defend the man so stoutly if I knew him. I did not know him. I had never seen him; but there was a principle involved in which personality was not to be considered. When I was told I did not know the man I asked what they knew about him, and was told that they did not care to discuss it over the telephone. I might have inferred anything from this characteristic answer. All of this only made me more determined to get at the exact truth of the whole matter. The man was visited in prison, and there declared that he was a member of a Church of Christ Scientist of Kansas City, Mo., and that he had been interested in Christian Science for twelve years. He promised to produce the documentary evidence of this on his release from prison, which he did. The proofs of his connection with the Christian Science Church were so unmistakable that I at once sent my resignation to the Mother Church of which I had been a member for many years. I also requested that my card be removed from the Journal, hoping by this means to sever all connection with the Church.

This done, I resolved to let the dead bury its dead, and would have chosen never to have referred to it again, were it not for the fact that, from that time to this, certain persons, claiming to speak with authority, have disgorged upon me the foul contents of their own enmity and consequent injustice. I had no idea that it would be so much harder to get out of the Church than it was to get in, but it proved so, in my case at least.

After waiting for several weeks for an answer of some kind to my resignation I received a letter from the far west, of which the following is part:

Riverside, Calif., August 24th, 1907.

Dear Friends and Students: I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. W. B. Johnson, of Boston, saying that you and Mrs. Murray had asked for your resignations from the Mother Church. As I am your teacher, I am expected to write and ask for an explanation. Mr. Johnson said: "Please write them at your earliest convenience, and if possible find the difficulty for the step, and do all you can to guide them back."

The word "difficulty" in this quotation from Mr. Johnson's letter is meaningless to me from any point of view, grammatical or otherwise. The difficulty would have been to remain with an organization which countenanced such things as caused me to resign. To this day I cannot understand why they should wish to retain a man whom they wished to discharge. Perhaps I was less harmful in the Church than out of it, as has since been proved, though this is not my intention.

In answer to the foregoing letter I append my reply:

320 Broadway, N. Y., Sept. 3, 1907.

My dear Teacher and Friend: I had hoped that Mr. Johnson might not find it necessary to acquaint you with my unavoidable determination to resign from the Mother Church, as I should have written you at length at a later date. It may seem to you to be the act of an impulsive man, but I can assure you that it is the result of years of patient tolerance of conditions which seem to me to be wholly unscriptural.

No one knows quite so well as I what it meant to leave the Roman Catholic Church, and no one knows any better than I what it means to have prominent Scientists associating me with the "Catholic Thought." My patients have been warned against continuing as my patients, because I was at one time identified with the Roman Church and ex-Catholics could not be trusted. "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic." The most absurd stories are afloat about priests and nuns, and their combined mental efforts (hypnotically applied) to hamper the movements of Christian Science, if not utterly to destroy it as an organization. Otherwise intelligent Christian Scientists have been made to believe that an extra bead has been added to the Rosary as a reminder to the faithful of the necessity of praying daily against Christian Science, and, as if to contend against this malign influence, some teachers are instructing their students to work against the "Catholic Thought" daily.

Having been out of touch with the Catholic Church and its teaching for so long, I thought it best to make a few inquiries from those whom I have been leading into a fuller sense of God's presence and power. I have examined the beads, and I find no change whatsoever in their construction, nor in the method of devotion which they symbolize. I have acquainted some of my people with these facts, and where they are sufficiently free from this new devil in the shape of the "Catholic Thought," they can see the folly of such teaching. The more superstitious, however, hug their tatters of delusion about them, and warn every one with whom they come in contact against this recent aid to his Satanic majesty.

Now, if it stopped with superstition, one could laugh at the whole situation, but unfortunately, it has assumed such gigantic proportions as to cause practitioners and teachers alike to avoid Catholics, as they would a pestilence. Faithful servants have been discharged, relatives have been shunned, and, worse and more unchristian than all, the dying man and woman have been refused the Christ-healing, and for no better reason than that he or she was a Catholic. A cloud of witnesses can tesify to these facts. Some of them were subsequently healed through me, and are now planted on the soil of scientific Christianity, but they cannot be taught the Truth. To say that a Catholic must present a letter from his priest, is tantamount to saying he cannot be taught at all, for what consistent priest or parson could recommend a member of his flock to receive instruction in Christian Science? To declare that I have gathered about me a number of ex-Catholics as patients and investigators would not be stating the case as it is. Other Christian Science practitioners and teachers have forced them to come to me through their refusal to do anything for them. Now, in every way, I have endeavored to learn the cause of this "class distinction," but it is impossible to get anything like a reasonable excuse for it. The excuses which have been given indicate a stronger faith in worldly wisdom than in divine protection. He would be a cunning Jesuit, indeed, who could invent more clever "mental reservations" than have been invented by some of those to whom I have talked on this, to me, burning question.

I feel to-day in regard to the Christian Science Church and its by-laws just as I felt years ago with regard to the material rites and ceremonies of the Church of my fathers. They limit, they bind, they hinder true spiritual development. They make a man an "involuntary hypocrite," doing what he would not do, and refraining from doing what Universal Love bids him to do. The dictates of Love are silenced by the doctrines of men, and that which ought to be "universal in its adaptations and bestowals" becomes limited in its applications through the "traditions of the elders" and "old wives' fables," believed in. When a man tells me that he knows that God would not forbid him to treat a Catholic, but that a mere human opinion in the shape of a by-law makes it impossible for him to do so without being considered disloyal, then I say: "Follow me in so far as I follow Christ."

You must know, my dear Friend, that I have long protested against the heretical beliefs of those "higher up" regarding the marriage question. I have no sympathy with race suicide on the part of the general public, and I consider race suicide positively beastly on the part of the Christian Scientist. His contention, or her contention, that the foetus is only matter does not in any wise lessen the crime of destruction; on the contrary, it merely adds insult to injury. I shall not dwell on this disgusting feature of the teachings of those who occupy high places. It is sufficient to say that, since I cannot coincide with such views, and since not to coincide with them is to be regarded as "unscientific," I prefer to be unscientific. I cannot compromise conscience even to suit the powers that be, and I do not expect them to change their mental positions to suit my strange notions. Therefore, the only thing left open for me to do is to step down and out as I did from the other and more powerful organization. I shall not be missed, but I shall be free to preach and teach what I believe to be Apostolic Christianity. My Catholic relatives are not yet reconciled to my apostacy, as they call it. They think they have suffered terribly through it. My dear old spiritual director suffered keenly, but this did not deter me from doing what was right for me to do at the time.

I can never go back to Catholicism and so gladden their hearts by the return of a prodigal son. Gladly, indeed, would I spare them continued pain and anxiety for the safety of my soul, but you know how impossible it is to return to a "condition out-grown," even for the purpose of "wiping away tears." My action at the present time is not intended to cause pain, but if growth depends on change, why linger in the chrysalis? If I had been mindful of the country from which I came out, I might have returned unto it, but I was seeking a "better country," and like the Israelites of old, I must "go forward." Mortal sense would say, "Rest a little while longer; this is not such a bad place," but progress demands that we "go up thither." Divine Science, shorn of all human hypothesis, must be my guide and stay in the new country. Like that other ex-Catholic, Martin Luther, "Here I stand, I can do not otherwise; so help me God."

Sincerely yours in Truth,

W. John Murray

I was now more than ever determined to have my letters at any costs, and in answer to my urgent demand the following letters were sent to me:

Dear Sir: I hereby notify you that by your own request you have been dismissed from membership with The First Church of Christ Scientist, in Boston, Mass.

Yours sincerely,

William B. Johnson, Clerk.

Mrs. S. Van Alen Murray,
320 Broadway
New York, N. Y.

Dear Madam: I hereby notify you that by your own request you have been dismissed from membership in The First Church of Christ Scientist, in Boston, Mass.

Yours sincerely,

William B. Johnson, Clerk.

Mr. W. John Murray,
320 Broadway
New York, N. Y.

Dear Sir: In accordance with the request of the Trustees, we have removed your card from the Journal, and the notice will appear in the December, 1907, issue. As this card was paid until May, 1908, we return herewith $2.50, the amount due for unexpired term.

Yours fraternally,

Christian Science Publishing Society.

A long wait from June to November, especially when one considers that my refusal to obey a certain by-law had been a matter for some discussion at the last Teacher's Association meeting. The removal of my card from the Journal had been privately discussed, but the charge was not sufficiently grave to warrant any action. The charitable might not consider the treating of a Catholic such a heinous offence, and so it was decided not to do anything about it "at present."

How do I know all this? I know a great many things, and I shall continue to know them for some time to come, but is it not strange that they did not immediately permit me to resign under the circumstances? I know why.

Now, my dear reader, did I resign? If you are a friend you will say, "Of course you did." If you are an impartial juror, you will say "Of course you did." But if you are a loyal Christian Scientist, faithful to Church, if not to Christ, you will say, even if you have read all the evidence in the case, "Of course you did not," because Mrs. So and So says so. However, I am not writing this for you. I am writing it as I said before, to save time and trouble in the first place, and in the second place to prevent those from being deceived who desire to know both sides of this question. I have broken my silence once and for all, and hereafter, this "Statement of Facts" must do its own work.

Thanking you for your time and patience, I am,
Very respectfully yours,

W. JOHN MURRAY