THE EMMANUEL MOVEMENT 3 6 9 



In sympathy with this feeling the best medical opinion is already 

 alienated, and it is apparent that the movement must get along without 

 the very cooperation upom which its originators laid such emphasis; 

 yet it is doubtful if they will recognize this, for they seem disposed 

 to show the same lack of discrimination in the selection of their medical 

 authorities that is manifested by the opponents of vivisection. 



It ill becomes a medical man to undertake to say what the effect 

 of this movement may be on the church itself. It is entering a field 

 that has always been occupied by medical men in an empirical way; 

 and with the advancing knowledge of psychology and psychotherapy, 

 they have demonstrated their ability and willingness successfully to 

 cultivate it, wholly independent of church and religion. It is cer- 

 tainly not desirable that this independence should be too complete; but 

 neither is it at all desirable, for the reasons above given, that the 

 medical and scientific part of the work should be incidental and sec- 

 ondary to the religious. 



The point which Dr. Worcester seems to me to miss is this: That 

 these disorders, though not accompanied by any structural lesion, are, 

 nevertheless, deviations from the normal brain function, and, as such, 

 are to be studied and treated by those who have a thorough knowledge 

 of the normal anatomy and physiology, and the pathological anatomy 

 and physiology of the brain; and that the assistance of religion in 

 this work, great and invaluable as that often is, should be strictly 

 subordinate, just as it is subordinate, though very helpful and often 

 necessary, in the conduct of the tuberculosis clinic, in his own church. 



It is difficult to see where the church has any material advantage 

 in the competition, and as the movement spreads into the hands of 

 those with few qualifications and with greater independence of sound 

 medical counsel, it seems not unreasonable to predict its ultimate 

 failure and general discredit. 



However, the Emmanuel movement has done good, just as the 

 popular interest in hypnotism and christian science has done good. 

 They emphasize and make clear the value of mental therapeutics, and 

 spur the doctor and psychologist to renewed study of its nature, 

 limitations and practical application. It will also serve, perhaps, to 

 recall the practising physician from too cold a materialism; and to 

 prevent a dehumanized scientist from taking the place of the doctor 

 of the old school. 



It is undoubtedly true that there has been a strong tendency to 

 give undue attention and attribute undue importance to the interesting 

 pathological problem presented in each case, and too little attention 

 to its humanitarian aspect. We must not let the scientist push to one 

 side the Samaritan. Such is the lesson to be learned — more real human 

 sympathy and help from the doctor, but not a " medicalized clergy." 



