Newspaper Page Text
April 24, 1912] THE
it was my privilege to listen, to and try to answer
in the North Carolina Synod twenty odd years ago.
That movement has been an unspeakable blessing
to that Synod, but it was bitterly fought by good
and able men on the double ground that it was unscriptural
and unconstitutional.
Spiritual life, expanding under the quickening
power of the Holy Ghost In prayerful and devoted
souls, will often shape for itself new channels and
methods of expression. "Where such movements are
undenominational, like the Young Men's Christian
Association, they are attacked as unscriptural. Where
they are within a denomination, like the Synodical
Mission movement, they are attacked as unscriptural
and also unconstitutional.
Such attacks are not to be regretted. What is
new, however pure its origin and saintly its sponsors,
should be sharply scrutinized. Says the apostle,
"Prove all things."
But, on the other hand, such attacks need not
alarm us, or stampede us into a childish surrender
of independent judgment, or worse still, blind us to
the leadings of the Holy Spirit.
Let us recall this simple but vastly significant
historical fact, that almost every new expression of
quickened vitality In the Church, however divinely
prompted and pregnant with blessing it later proved
itself to be, was at first bitterly fought by eminently
good and able men. It was so with the Methodist
movement under Whitefleld and Wesley. It was so
with the Foreign MiSBion movement under Carey.
It was so with the mighty development of lay activity
under Moody. It was so with the Salvation Army
under William Booth.
Blind would he be who could doubt that the Spirit
of God was leading in all these movements. Yet
every one of them was most bitterly opposed by able
and consecrated Church leaders, who denounced
them as utterly without warrant in reason or Scripture.
To a sensitive soul it is not only sobering but
terrifying to reflect how custom and precedent, or
the achievement of a closed system of thought, can
blind even the best of men to the manifest leadership
of the Spirit of Christ.
Though our blessed Lord was himself a field
preacher; though the poor people of England were
like sheep without a shepherd; yet when George
Whitefleld broke the bands of Church precedent and
preached out on the moors to the coal miners, down
whoBe grimy faces, as they listened, the tears made
wkite furrows, even John Wesley was so ecclesiastically
narrow and straight-laced as to be offended
and scandalized. Later be saw his miBtake, addressed
open-air audiences himself, and field preaching
became a mighty agency for reaching the neglected
masses of eighteenth century England.
History is so crammed with instances of opposition
on the part of good men to the forward march
of God's guiding Spirit, that it should make us cautious
in dogmatic condemnation.
Let us keenly scrutinize all new movements. Let
us question, them to the quick. But when intelligent
and prayerful Christian workers have caught a
vision of great efficiency and larger fruitfulness in
Christ's service and are pressing forward; and when
able and orthodox men cry, "Halt!" and solemnly,
publicly, and authoritatively pronounce the new move
to be unscriptural, unconstitutional, unprecedented,
unnecessary, unreasonable, and inexpedient, let us
not be surprised or alarmed. Let us calmly judge
thP (*aan. ~ ? III n.n.llr. ? .?!.? t- 1. _ i i, ? 11..
?uu ico iiici iiO| i diieiii UCI1U& lUill prttCblUttllJ
all the new movements that have bleseed the Church
and the world have had precisely this kind of origin,
and have met precisely this kind of opposition.
When the devoted women of a Presbytery feel
the need of better organization that they may do
Christ's work more efficiently, and therefore ask
Permission of Presbytery to organize their local
societies into a Presbyterial Union, what is It they
are petitioning for? They are simply asking of the
Church, what It has been giving throughout its entire
existence, the privilege of doing with Its sanction
something that needs to be done and that will further
the interests of the kingdom of God. As the
'ocal society does its work for Christ under sanction
?f the session, so the Union does its work for Christ
?.uer sanction of the Presbytery. The Unfon Is as
scriptural and constitutional as the local society.
Is there any local society that questions the authority
or would disobey the injunctions of its session?
I know of none. Is there any Presbyterial
' nion that questions the authority or would dis?hey
the Injunctions of its Presbytery? I have
never heard of any. Is there any Synodical Union
C onference that questions the authority or would
''isobey the Injunctions of Its Synod? Not that we
' ver heard of. Is there any warrant in the Scriptures,
the Constitution, or the facts of the case,
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE S
for such expressions as "aspiring to a division of
rule," "advisers of the Lord," "usurping the prerogatives
of the courts," "making ready for a larger
usurpation," and the like? Absolutely none that we
know of.
The article we are discussing confounds control
with Christian work, government with ministry, the
function of rule with the function of service. The
latter our women desire to exercise, under sanction
of the Church courts, with the highest efficiency
that complete organization can secure. The former
they do not possess and most Btrenuously deny that
they are seeking.
It is easy to belittle "organization," to contrast
it unfavorably with "intense spirituality" and "burning
piety," to point out to our good women the superiority
of the latter as "a suggestion worthy of
their taking." Of course no Christian in his senses
would hesitate if forced to choose between the two.
But intelligent and experienced Christian workers,
like the women qf our Church, rightly desire both.
And the General Assembly of 1909 rightly declared:
"The Assembly looks confidently to the women of
our Church for greater perfection of organization
in their work." Surely it ought not to be necessary
in this second decade of the 20th century to argue
the importance of organization and of keeping accurate
records and statistics.
As to the proposed Woman Secretary of Woman's
Work (though a better term than Secretary might
be found), I propose no argument for that as yet
imaginary sister. She has able sponsors of her own
sex, and the General Assembly will decide about
ber as it pleases.
But I do insist that she be given a square deal.
That is all that I am just now appealing for.
It is expressly declared in the Missouri Overture
that the propos'ed new agent is to work "under
whatever efficient supervision the General Assmbly
may direct." As she would be related by her work
to all the four Executive Committees, it has been
suggested that she be supervised by a committee
composed of one member or two from each of the
fcur Committees. Four able-bodied men, and certainly
eight, possessed of full authority, ought to
be able to keep her in bounds and prevent her becoming
"a sort of limited pope." It is a mistake to
suppose ttat she would bear any relation to the
Foreign Mission Committee different from that she
would bear to the other three.
Would It be constitutional for the General Assembly
to elect such an agent if it wished to?
If the General Assembly can elect a man to do,
under efficient supervision, evangelistic work among
the churches, can it not elect a woman to do, under
efficient supervision, organizing work among the
women of the churches? lis the first an atom more
constitutional than the second? Neither one, of
course, could "invade a congregation" except with
the sanction of its session.
As to "grants of power," do not all the Church
courts habitually grant power to appointed agents
to do needed work? The Bession appoints and empowers
a man to superintend a Sunday school, or
a woman to serve as principal of a department.
The General Assembly appoints and empowers a
Committee to manage its Foreign Mission Work, another
its Home 'Mission werk, and so on. If the
Assembly can elect and empower a man to do a prescribed
work as General Superintendent of Sabbath
Schools, can it not elect and empower a woman, if
it sees fit, to do prescribed service as General Secretary
of Woman's Work?
But the proposed "large grant of power," we are
told, includes "power of co-ordinating, of introducing
modern methods, of organizing societies."
What is there alarming about that? Did not the
Louisville Assembly expressly "urge" the women to
further organization "for the co-ordination of the
work?" And do not both the Home and Foreign
i 'Mission Executive Committees, as well as the Presbyterial
Unions, send out lady visitors to introduce
new and better methods into societies already formed
and to organize societies in churches where none
exist, always, of course, with consent and under
i control of session? Has not the General Assembly
the constitutional rlaht to do what- its own rrpnturan
i under its sanction, are habitually and most fruitfully
doing?
But have we scriptural warrants for the proposed
new agency or for our Presbyterial Unions?
Well, what scriptural warrant do we lack for them
that we have for a Secretary of Publication, or a
Stated1 Clerk of the Assembly, or an Executive Comi
ncittee of Christian Education, or a Standing ComI
mittee on Theological Seminaries, or for Committees
i on Audits, and Mileage, and Leave of Absence? I
do not recall a 'Thus saith the Lord." There Is no
example or mention of these things in the New Tes
OUTH (471) ii
tament. This legalistic handling of Scripture would
rule out a countless multitude of needed men and
things. It would rule out our Synods, for I find no
Scripture command or precedent for just such a
court. And the typewriters and mimeograph in our
Foreign Mission office would surely have to go. As
for the "good and necessary inference," it would
lose its mind trying to discriminate.
As a matter of fa?.t, all the above, and all other
needed Church instrumentalities, have abundant
scriptuial wairant in those hundreds of texts that
require us to win this world for Christ. The mighty
end includes the needed means. The command,
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
mind," summons our total mental force to the discovery
or devising of the best possible instruments,
methods, agencies, and modes of organization for
the universal establishment of the kingdom of God
upon earth.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PARAGRAPH
235.
Kev. A. B. Curry, D. I>.
The principle underlying this paragraph is a sound
vuc, a. ijciouu, nuu, siicr juiuiug uie coureu,
finds that he is not a Christian, and therefore in a
false position, who cannot be persuaded to become
a Christian, and to whom the simplest church duties
are distasteful, ought to cease to remain among communicating
members of the church. Common honesty
and the good of his soul require it. The paragraph
was designed to provide for such cases without
the formal process of a judicial trial, yet in a constitutional
way. But it has largely failed of its purpose
in the life of the ( hurch for two reasons: First,
it seems to require the individual to take the initiative
in a voluntary confession of unregeneracy,
a difficult and rare thing for one to do. Second, it
excludes all chargeable with the offence of "wilfully
absenting themselves ftom the I-orcPs table." A
consciously unregenerate person, however, is almost
sure to absent himseif from the Lord's table and
ought to do so; so that the paragraph practically excludes
the very class of persons It was designed to
reach; consequently it has been almost a dead letter
ana must continue eo.
T. e amendment Eeeks to remedy these defects by
making the paragraph apply even in eaees of habitual
absence from the Lord's table, end by making it possible
for the church court to tfeke the Initiative, based
upon the "wilful and habitual neglect of the worship
and ordinances of the church." It is simply an efTort
to make the paragraph practically operative in the
life of the chuich.
In many of our. churches there are members who
do not wish to be members; sometimes they ask for
their names to be taken off the roll, which, under our
present law, we cannot do, because in every BUch
case they are absenting themselves from the Lord's
table, which under the law as it now stands, "is always
an offence" and must he dealt with by formal
process. If the proposed change is made, the session
vuii cw win o piv/vc.v;u lit ouuu a uaoc.
In other instances these persons do not request to
be removed from the roll, but simply ignore the
church, neglect all Its ordinances, and are indifferent
to all appeals. And yet their lives are outwardly
respectable and they are of good report among their
fellow-xen. L nder our present law the only way to
reach such a case is by formal, Judicial process,
which in such cases is not for the edification of the
offender nor of the church, as it appears to be too
severe for such a case. If the amendment shall be
made, the court can take the initiative and offer to
these persons who give evidence of having tired of
their church membership the opportunity of being
transferred to the non-communicating list. It is believed
that many of them would either accept It or
repent and return to their allegiance to Christ. In
either case the church would be relieved of dead
material and the liveB of the Individuals would be
made to square with their profession, a most desirable
end.
The writer is disposed to think that the amendment
retains one mistake of the present paragraph,
viz., requiring a public "statement of the case to be
made to the Church." The paragraph is in the chaper:
"Of cases without projcess." Not being in any
sense a Judicial case, it ought not to be publicly pro
claimed, hut simnlv rnnrfo a matter nf mcnrH the
minutes of the court, like the dismission of a member
This requirement helps to make the present law inoperative,
and it is to be feared that it will cripple
the effectiveness of the new law, should it he adopted.
One will not eastly consent to have his unregeneracy
publicly proclaimed; indeed, is it not a rather severe
penalty for a state or an act which has been removed
from the realm of offences requiring process?