Newspaper Page Text
May 8, 1912 ] THE;
THE SCRIPTURAL RELATION OF WOMAN TO THE
WORK OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
(Continued from Page 1.)
can justly claim the inspiration contemplated in the
instances in question. But a much simpler explanation
seems to be that adopted by Dr. Hodge and Dr.
'.Marcus Dods. "It is Paul'B manner to attend to one
thing at a time. He is here speaking of the propriety
of woman's speaking in public unveiled, and
therefore he says nothing about the propriety of
their speaking in public in itself. When that subject
tomes up (I Cor. 14:34), he expresses his judgment
in the clearest terms. In here disapproving of the
rvnn cn VB PqKmTi V? r? - a' *4-1 ? "
" ! 44? uvco uui nypiute LUC uoiur.
Some reader with her eye on U Tinfothy 2:8-15
asks: If we lire to take what Paul here says just as
it stands would we not be bound to quit braidJng our
hair and weurlug gold and pearls or costly array,
for does not the apostle forbid these in the same
breath with the prohibition of women's teaching!
This sort of rejoinder really does not bear on the
point. Suppose we had to answer yes to this question.
Suppose that Paul did forbid jewelry to Christian
women the duty of all loyal disciples of Jesus
would be to give up their ornaments precisely as it
is their duty to give up public speaking. But the
interpretation of this particular passage and the
kindred one in 1 Peter 3:3 is just a matter of understanding
a form of expression very common in the
Bible?the putting of a . thing for the sake of emphasis
in absolute terms which are to be understood
as relative. For example: "When thou makest a dinner
or a supper call not thy friends, nor thy brethren,
noiMior rvf +V% v Ir^nomor ?- * A
..v..^v. w mj uvi iu; uvu .luiguuuin, uui
call the poor, the maimed," etc. "This is stated
as an absolute prohibition of inviting friends, kindred
and rich neighbors, and a command to invite
exclusively the other class. We know very well that
our Herd did not mean to be thus understood, nor
does any one ever thus interpret. Naturally, and as
a matter of course, men will invite kindred, the rich
and others, and for this, which is done because of
mere natural affection or social reciprocity, they will
get no religious reward. But It Is relatively so much
more important, on religious grounds and In hope
of a divine reward, to invite the poor and suffering
that our I^ord speaks as if, compared with this, the
former must not be done at all. In Prov. 8:10 we
have first the absolute form of statement and then
in the parallel clause the relative form: "Receive my
instruction and not silver, and knowledge rather than
choice gold." Here the former clause was not meant
to be understood as really making an absolute prohibition
of receiving silver; It is merely a highly
emphatic way of urging the same thought that Is presented
in the latter clause." So with our passage In
I Timothy. "The apostle does not mean to be understood
as really prohibiting all outward adornment
any more than the other passages prohibit inviting
kindred or receiving silver; he means to say that the
most beautiful outward adorning, such as women so
highly prize, Is as nothing in comparison with that
imperishable adorning of the spirit, which in the
sight of God is of great price. It is an absolute statement,
designed to be understood relatively, but also
intended by its absolute form to be very emphatic
and impressive. So far as the meaning of this passage
goes, therefore, women may accept Paul's command
net to teach without being bound in consistency
to give up their ornaments.
Similarly it is asked: Doesn't obedience to l'anl
in I Corinthians 14 bind women to wear the veil at
church to the end of time, because he there commands
the Corinthian Christian women to be veiled in public
worship) No, because we distinguish between -the
letteT and the snlrit. the nvmhnl ?inv?
symbolized. In 'Moses' day reverence was shewn by
removing the sandals. So when Jehovah would
command Moses to bear himself with becoming reverence
In the divine presence at the burning bush
he said, "Take thy shoes from off thy feet." We do
not Infer that when we come into God's presence
today we must show our reverence by uncovering our
feet.. We have anoither way of doing it. We uncover
our heads?we men. But because the form by whioh
we show reverence Is totally changed no one Infers
that the obligation to feel and show In every proper
way this reverence towards God has passed away.
So the veil which in Paul's time was "the recognized
had,7e setting forth the private and subordinate position
of woman," has passed out of fastvion in that
sense, but the thing Paul meant when he oomrianded
thn "T axUIVJ ? ?- * -*
v uiiiiiniau w men 10 wear tnelr veils at public
worship remains In force.
"But that Is just my polnfc," says one of my readers.
Was this provision for all time! Was Paul not providing
for what was seemly and womanly in his
?wn age and among such women as he came In contact
with. With changed conditions?with the great:
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE S<
elevation in woman's' intelligence and capability,
hasn't the ground of Paul's prohibition passed away
and would he utter or enforce it now?" When we
come to examine the passage in which Paul gives
reasons for his enjoining subordination on woman
we find that these reasons look just the other way.
In 1 Corinthians 11:2-15 Paul does not build his
prohibition on some temporary or passing feature of
the situation. 'He goes back to the creation of the
first pair and infers his doctrine from the relation
iGod there established between man as man and
woman as woman. This he follows up by claiming
mat nis teaching is grounded in nature itself. So
alio in 1 Timothy 2:13 he argues against woman assuming
to teach or to rule over the man in the
church from the fact of the order in which the two
sexes were originally created and the way in which
the fall of the race came about. In this last argument
he sems to suggest that it was the leaving of
her proper sphere of subordination and essaying to
guide the man which brought on all the trouble. If
it was so disastrous for woman even in her unfallen
state to assume such an attitude and attempt such
functions had she not better beware how she attempts
the same thing now? This looks like an argument
built on the eternal nature of things not grounded
in some passing phase of things.
We know of only one other argument which is
sometimes urged against Paul's teaching. Women
who do these things which he forbblds, it is claimed,
bare by doing them accomplished so much good.
Vvould you cut off a bright, intelligent, magnetic
woman from public speaking before a great audience
when she can sway so many souls by the truth she
teaches and the eloquence with which she wields?
Yes, we calmly answer, we would, and for this
reason, God's \vord and not God's Providence is
given us as the rule of our faith and our practice.
\\a know that God, in his infinite mercy has a way ~f
ovir-ruiing evil so as to bring good out of even that;
uLt we know also that he holds the doers of the
evil responsible for contravening his will. The fact
tnut ne permits good to come out of the evil does not
mean tmat he thereby approves the evil. We have
110 doubt, lor example, that souls have been saved
oy tae ministrations of the Romish priesthood. But
ve ao not infer that God condones the errors and
iniquities of that priesthood. So we do not deny
tnat God may have permitted good to attend in some
instances the unscriptural work of women; but that
does not obscure the clear declarations of God's Word
and that Word is the lamp by which our feet are to
be guided. Moreover those who assert the large
amount of good done in this way should remember
that short-sighted man is not competent to weigh
Lh? evil agiainBt the good. We are not authoritative
readers or appraisers of God's Providence. We are
very grateful that he has given us a surer guide than
our own estimates based on imperfect and fragmentary
observation of the course of events. "To the law
and to the testimony!"
DK. SMITH'S ADVOCACY.
(Continued from Page 5.)
stand around tne enjoined work of the churcn tnat
that work cannot be done, or cannot be done with
decency and order without such regulations, the
regulations being in harmony with the divinely
given principles of church government. Thus, an
Assembly must provide for the carrying on the
work of the church until the next Assembly, but,
In doing this, it may do nothing to contravene divinely
revealed principles of church government.
Dr. Smith has not shown that the work planned for
the woman's secretary cannot be done without her,
nor that It cannot be done with decency and order
without her. To call her into being, therefore,
does not belong to the discretionary power allowed
the church. Moreover, the "service" desired for
her is a service of governing. Our standards make
these functions governing functions as has appeared.
An advocate of the woman's secretary
not long ago, in a conversation with me, said that,
if the sessions would only do their duty, there
would be "little need" of such women workers.
She implied that the work was proper to the
courts of the church. But we know of no Scrip
tures that give to women functions of rule. Show
ub the Scriptural warrant. Here is a case?not a
"necessary circumstance"?where a Scriptural
warrant Is properly called for. Moreover, all the
Scriptures bearing on woman's place and work in
the church, so far as we can find, seem hostile to
the institution of tl^e new secretary.
Dr. Smith does not appear to feel the need of a
Scriptural warrant, there being other sources of
authority apparently in his view. His seeming
justification of historic movements, whole-cloth?
though some of them warred in part with the
)UTH (519) 11
Word of God; his magnifications of "the leadings
of the Spirit of God," and, particularly, his closing
words: "The command 'Thou shalt love the
uord, thy God, with all ihy 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 on earth."
Now, we do not believe that God has called Dr.
?3uiiiu iu *uevising" tne.best possible "modes of
organization" for the establishing the Kingdom of
God on earth. We have been believing that God
Himself organized, through inspired Apostles, the
church in its New Testament form. The majority
in the Westminster Assembly came, in the course
of its long and arduous and able study, to believe
in the jure divlno character of Presbyterian
church government. Our church, according to its
sianuatas, holds the same view, To us tne Scriptures
seeui to teach it. We should regard the
Church of God as much poorer than we have
thought her, if it should turn out that God did
not give to the church the principles which underlie
the organization ef our church and determine
its loiui, but ten it even to the greatest of His uninspired
servants. The command to love G?d
with all the mind, does not impose a duty, of devising
other principles, to take the place of Godgiven
principles.
vve trust mat Dr. Smith really does not hold
what his words seem to imply, in his splendid
little book, "The Creed of Presbyterians" (see pp.
205 fT) he praises the Presbyterian polity with passionate
eloquence as "Scriptural"?the Scriptural
lorw. but in the paper under review. Dr. Smith
seems to hold that the Scriptural polity needs improvement
and a new principle or two. If this be
true, then the issue may be put thus: We put as
the rule of the church the Scriptures of the Old
and New Testament, illuminated, indeed, by the
Spirit. He puts, as the rule of the church, the
Lcriptures plus somewhat else.
because we love the Scplnturoo
? >|/vukvay UVl/ttUOC WO
love our standards, because we love all good Christian
wouiuu una the little girls in our home, who,
we hope, will grow up tlhristian, we would save
our women from unwomanly church work and set
them at work pioper to them. We wish that this
matter could be maturely studied before Assembly
action.
When organization is developed further, all care
should be taken to have it along Scriptural lines.
We still trust the teaching of the Apostles. We
still lean on their Lord. He is still King in Zion
of right. To His word for the perfected organization.
? ... J
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OF F0RE1UN MISSIONS OF THE PRESBYTERIAN
CHURCH, U. S* FOR 1912.
(Continued from last issue.)
Korea.
The problems growing out of the Japanese annexation
of Korea are of the gravest character. It is
reported that a large number of Christians in Northern
Korea have been arrested on the charge of conspiracy
against the eovernment. Th? wladnm nnd
discretion with which the missionaries have conducted
themselves in the difficult position in which they
are inevitably placed in a situation of this kind, is
worthy of all praise. In this situation they need and
earnestly ask the prayers of the church at home, both
for themselves and for the native church.
Mexico.
The political situaton in Mexico has given us much
anxiety lest our work in that field might suffer from
anti-American sentiment developed by the enforced
application of the Monroe doctrine, or by the fear of
it, which would have practically the same effect, In
the relations of our government to that of Mexico.
The general condition of political excitement has been
unfavorable to religious work of all kinds, but as yet
no occasion has arisen for the work to. be stopped at
any one of our stations.
Three graduates from the Seminary at Mexico City
have settled in our field and have greatly strengthened
some of the weak places in our line of battle. It
is the plan of our missionaries to withdraw from
membership in the native Presbytery and establish a
completly self-governing church just as soon as a
sufficient number of properly trained native ministers
can be secured to conduct the work of the Presbytery
in n sausiaciory way.
(Continued in next issue.)
1 i
Bear your own burdens first; after that try
to help carry those of other people.?George
Washington.