Andrew Weil, M.D., in “Why Our Health Matters” (page 43) writes, “Many doctors have told me about cases of spontaneous healing that they have witnessed in patients, some correlated with mental or emotional changes“.
So, how can we account for experiences like that? Or how can we explain healing accomplished in Christian Science through spiritual means alone?
Let’s consider some other questions first. Can you hold honesty in your hands? Can you store kindness in a jar? How does one see honesty or wisdom or love? We can see these qualities being expressed, but how do you see these qualities themselves? The five physical senses do not perceive spiritual things. Aren’t they seen in their expression?
Jesus tried to enlighten a Jewish ruler named Nicodemus, “The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or wither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.” (RSV John 3 :8).
In Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (page 284) Mary Baker Eddy asks, “Can the material senses, which receive no direct evidence of Spirit, give correct testimony as to spiritual life, truth, and love?” (She answers, “no”.)
So, if the five physical senses cannot take in evidence of spiritual things, what can?
Eddy explains, “Faith is higher and more spiritual than belief. It is a chrysalis state of human thought, in which spiritual evidence, contradicting the testimony of material sense, begins to appear, and Truth, the ever-present, is becoming understood.” (ibid, page 297).
Thought, rendered responsive by feeling God’s love, and enlightened with faith, takes in spiritual evidence of the goodness and wholeness of man (men and women) as God has created them. This is not blind-faith, but spiritual understanding, at work. Another spiritual quality – in this case, health – is then expressed and thereby seen and experienced.
Isn’t this the kind of mental change that results in spontaneous healing, even though the five physical senses are unable to perceive, measure and validate all aspects of the process?
Weil continued (still page 43), “These doctors did not need data from randomized, controlled trials to convince them of the reality of their own experiences. What they needed was assurance that it was acceptable to talk about such experiences with colleagues and allow them to influence their philosophy and style of medical practice.”
Dialogue is good. Aren’t we all learning?