It was reliably reported a number of years ago that a certain oh-so cutting edge--and fatuous--commissar of the Mother Church stated that Christian Science healing is just one of many, presumably equally valid, healing systems. This fetid pronouncement bubbled up like swamp gas from the miasma of those dark years from which the Church has yet to emerge, years when the Board was giddily infatuated with the mind/body goings-on at the Harvard Medical School and had enraptured visions, apparently, of being BMOC in that tangled scrum. It doesn't take a vivid imagination to envisage the dank metaphysical backwaters that lie along that muzzy metaphysical bayou. One scary creature lurking in those black lagoons is personality with a "big, big P", as G&S might put it.
I recently encountered a fine article by Helen Wood Bauman in the March 1941 Journal, "Faith As A Factor In Healing", in which she cautions Scientists to be alert to the very important distinction between Christian Science healing and faith healing. Ms. Bauman gives a good summary of the dangers and limitations of faith healing, as does Mary Baker Eddy in "Retrospection and Introspection", "Faith-Cure" (pp. 54-55). The difference is, in the words of Mark Twain [I thought, but am unable to verify], as great as the difference between the lightning bug and lightning.
Any seasoned and sincere Scientist should know the difference and unceremoniously reject any flavor of faith healing. It is the tyro in Christian Science who is most in danger and who might mistake the slather of comforting words and "tea and sympathy" for the genuine article. Indulged in, faith healing will of necessity have a stultifying effect on the metaphysical progress of any student or patient, as well as that of the wayward mental physician. It is perhaps possible that I have conjured up once again a grin without a cat, though Mrs.. Eddy and Ms. Bauman obviously saw more than an insignificant grin. The hasty and unwise elevation of some Ethelreds the Unready may have put at risk naive or unwary students of Christian Science. Toadyism, a faithless willingness to give C.S. treatment for those who continue to receive medical care, and unquestioning adherence to the Big-endianism of the day should not be the litmus tests for one's fitness for the practice or, a fortiori, for teaching.