Newspaper Page Text
May 8, 1912 ] THE]
OK. EGBERT W. SMITH'S ADVOCACY OF THE
WOMAN'S SECRETARY AND THE USE
OF ECCLESIASTICAL POWER
BY WOMEN.
I. There appear to us to be personal implications
in Dr. Smith's article, which he is not warranted
in making.
He seemB to imply that, he who objects to the
use of ecclesiastical power by unions, stands in the
cast-off shoes once worn by the blind opponents of
synodical evangelism, or by the blind opponents
of the revival led by the Whitfield and the Wesleys,
or by the blind opponents of Mr. Moody. He
seems to imply that we are "narrow and straightlaced,"
meaning, perhaps, that we are not open
and accessible to the truth. He seems to imply
that we were attempting "authoritatively to pronounce"
concerning this movement, when really
we were attempting only to give a reasoned view.
He seems to imply a good many other things with
a personal bearing. We think that we are ready
tr? atlDrove thf> crnnrl In nil thooo mn?omon?o in
eluding the woman's movement In our church, and
to disapprove in them that which is not Scriptural"
and not constitutional. If the woman's secretary
and the use of ecclesiastical power by women's
unions are Scriptural and constitutional, we challenge
him to show it He has not done this yet, as
will subsequently appear.
II. There seem to be want of discrimination, accuracy
and balance on his part, about certain great
historic movements of the past to which he refers.
This reflects on the value of his approval of the
movement under discussion.
He appears to ascribe these movements wholly
to the leadership of the "Spirit of God." He represents
them as not properly crltioizable. He
knows, of course, that they are not to be so ascribed.
That there were grave evils attending
most of them, and that they were open to more or
less just criticism. Great a blessing as Mr. Whitefield's
evangelistic work was to the world, that
great evangelist was, in his earlier years, deserving
Of nr? little criticism. He hart ?rrave fnnltn an
a Christian worker. He was afterwards Doble
enough to confess these faults. Some of his critics
were neither blind nor unfriendly to him as an
evangelist. Some of his critics loved him. And,
conceivably, some of those who criticize features
of the woman's movement in our church to-day
are neither blind, nor unfriendly; yes, are their
best friends, admiring them and loving them for
all their Christian goodness not one whtt less than
Dr. Smith. Again, Dr. Smith knows that not
all of Whitefleld's and all of Wesley's and all of
Moody's and all of Booth's work was of "the leading
of the Spirit of God;" that Wesley's Arminlanism
and Whitefleld's Calvinism; that Wesley's
church polity, which was born of exigency, and
Whitfield's Indifference to polity; that Moody's
Congregationalism and Booth's army organization
and Calvin's polity were not all equally and wholly
of the Spirit. Dr. Smith does not make the Spirit
of God contradict Himself? He does not conceive
<<i mm as a source or contusion? There were
things in these movements to criticize; things to
condemn by men who had eyes to see. Every man
who accepts our standards as containing the
Scriptural system of faith, government and worship
(and who has magnified "The Creed of Presbyterians"
more than Dr. Smith?) doubts not that
Wesley and Moody and Booth were justly crltlcizable
for certain of their bellefB and principles of
action?doubts not that their work might have
been improved? We believe with Dr. Smith, that
Mr. Moody's work was of vast good to the world;
but we cannot down the thought that a certain
waywardness of his In doing that work may also
have set influences "going, or given fresh impetus
to influences already at work that shall do much
to counteract his good work. The best way to
test his work is, after all, by the application of
OrvH J .. .. ? ...
o wuru 10 u. Kivery teacning and every movement
In the church is to be tested by God's word.
So taught Moses, Isaiah, Paul. Such is the tenor
of the whole Bible. God punished Israel for the
use of the golden calf in -worshipping Him. dt may
well be that one reason why God does not more
richly bless His church of to-day' is its waywardness
in its endeavor to serve Him. But this by
the way. We must test all movements by the
word. We should bring this woman's secretary
and these uses of ecclesiastical power along-side
the word. Dr. Rice is setting forth, in a series of
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SO
articles just now coming out in the "Presbyterian
ot the South," woman's Scriptural place and work
in the church, from his point of view. Now let
Dr. Smith set out his Scriptures. We are distrustful
of his interpretations of the leadings of
the Spirit?of common providence?distrustful of
any man's interpretation of a movement in the
church, unless it is clear that he is forming his
judgment in accord with an appropriate principle
of the Word of God. Dr. Smith does not appear to
have formed his judgments about these movements
(if he has adequately expressed them in his
article) in accord with Biblical principles. They
make him appear so broad as to be a centre of
confusion. We do not believe they do him justice;
but if they do, they reflect on the value of his
approval of the woman's secretary.
III. I>r. Smith seems to us to fail of comprehending
the Missouri overture?to fail of understanding
what is asked for in that overture?and
what the unions are doing.
The advocates of the Missouri overture tell us,
indeed, that they are not asking for power of
rule. They do, in the overture ask, nevertheless,
for such power for this woman's secretary. 1 must
conclude that they do not understand what is in
volved in the overture. Dr. Smith thinks that we
do not understand it. He Bays: "The article we
are discussing confounds control with Christian
work, government with ministry, the function of
rule with the function of service." This is very
fluently said. But what of its didactic force? The
exercise of control in the church, government,
rule, is service. The only power any church officer
has is the power of a servant to execute the
will of Christ. Dr. Smith asserts, then, that the
women desire not the service of governing, but
some other sort of service. But what do they ask
for In the overture? What kind of service do they
ask for? For that of "co-ordinating women's
work, young people's societies, etc., power of in
troducing modern methods, and of organizing societies."
Now, say what you will, all this is proper
to church courts (see paragraphs 67, 77, 84 and
90 of the Book of Church Order). To this unbiased
men agree. Theedltor of the Earnest Worker
and Dr. Phillips teach that co-ordinating service
is that of "the bringing together and causing
to work together in harmoby, with definite and
united 'purpose," the several forces co-ordinated
(see Earnest Worker, May, 1911, p. 236-ff). Coordinating
involves governing power, therefore.
Introduction of new methods is of the essence of
government. Organizing is a function of government.
The overture asks for governing "serrvice,"
then. If the women's secretary does such work
under the supervision of the session, or Presbytery,
or Synod, she is still doing work proper to
the court, a most important part of its work. She
is doing the oourt's work. If she do not the work herself,
but tell the court what to do and see that it
does it, she is really a sort of bishop of bishops,
and taking the place, in our system, of the next
higher court in the series. Dr. Smith does not appear
to see this. Nor does he appear to under,
stand what the unions are doing. Certain things
are going on in the church, wherefore we wrote in
the paper, criticized by Dr. Smith, of a conscious,
or unconscious "aspiring to a division of rule;"
A# ? 4k 1 * *
ui a tuiuiue ui lueumcivcB luio me connaenuai
advisers of the Most High;" of a "usurpation of
the prerogatives of the courts." Now this Is not
empty assertion. Dr. Smith can, by reading the
minutes of the unions, see that they, now and again,
consciously, or, more generally, unconsciously pass
resolutions that sound much like orders. He can
talk to more than one woman, who will tell him
that she does not like to receive church orders
from women; that she prefers the rules of men
to women: "that Bhe thinks It's more Biblical."
Dr. Smith knows that men have usurped power
In the church of the past; that men have turned
themselves into confidential advisers of the Most
High. He knows that the doctrine of transubstantlation,
the doctrine of the Papacy, the paganizatlon
of the Roman Catholic Church, was brought
about, In part, In these ways. Men have done
these things. Men are doing these things. Worn
en are in Hanger or aoing tnese tntngs. My sisters,
Dr. Smith piled these "blunt expressions ef ours
up together and flung them out after a series of questions,
which Implied that we charged you with
open and conscious rebellion against the expressed
injunctions of courts that are over you In the
Lord?an implication whose justice has not yet appeared
to us. At fiTSt we were grieved at his do
DTH (513) 5
ing bo; but now we feel like thanking God that
He has presented us with the occasion of telling
you anew that you may do such things, and, all
the while, be applauding yourselves as superior
servants of God. If God has put the rule of the
church into the hands of courts, composed of Presbyters,
and you forsake this rule with reference
to the aggressive work of the church, it is putting
the matter mildly to say that you are practically
advising the Lord of a better way in which the
work of the church may be done. Dr. Smith does
not seem to understand either the Missouri overture,
or woman's unions as they are.
IV. Dr Smith seems to us to settle entirely too
easily the constitutional right of the Assembly to
appoint a woman's secretary.
In answer to the question: "Would it be constitutional
for the General Assembly to elect such
an agent if it wished to?" he answers: "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? Is the first an atom
more constitutional than the second?"
Yes; Dr. Smith, you must see that the flrBt is
more constitutional than the other. The constitution
(see Book of Church Order, paragraphs 35, 40
and 123) knows of the evangelist. He is known
to it as a Presbyter, set apart to special service,
and not necessarily confined to a single Presbyfprv
If "hl? Ifthnro qpo ??? ~ ? -a
he be granted permission to labor there; but even
he is not to do acts of rule, save in his own Presbytery,
according to the constitution. On the
other hand, the constitution does not recognize a
woman, whatever her gifts, as a person out of
whom a ruler, or official teacher may be made. If
it does, show us the paragraphs. There is no constitutional
barrier to the Assembly's appointment
of a man?a Presbyter of suitable gifts?to do the
work of an evangelist within the bounds of the
lower courts on their consent. Under certain circumstances
there might be a propriety in the Assembly's
doing such a thing. The Imaginary parallelism
between the woman's secretary and the
evangelist does not obtain.
So, also, the Assembly knows of "commissions"
(see paragraph, of the Book of Church Order, 95).
Such are our executive committees. There is no
difficulty about the Assembly's appointing them.
When Dr. Smith gets clean away from the constitution
and feels around for precedents to Justify
the Assembly in the appointment of the worn
an'B secretary, he seems to get wind of a parallel
measurably to his hand. He talks about what
"lady visitors of the unions" are already doing,
and what other ladies are doing under the Home
and Foreign Mission Committees. There is not a
bit of news in this to us. But it is unwarranted
by anything in our standards, and we deplore the
further entrenchment of the custom by the Assembly's
adoption of this overture. We long to see
the men in our church doing the men's work and
the women doing women's work.
Dr. Smith has utterly failed to show the constitutional
right of the Assembly to appoint a
woman's secretary. He has referred to two or
three well-known lines of trampling on the constitution,
as if that trampling would make further
trampling on the constitution constitutional.
XT T\- a iAU ? - -
v. it. miiiiii Hwma 10 us 10 get up ror our
church a new source of authority in religion.
Heretofore we have looked on the sacred Scriptures
of the Old and New Testaments as the one
ultimate source of authority this side of God. He
seems to teach that the Scriptures, plus "the leadings
of the Spirit of God," "The vision of greater
efficiency," Interpretation of providence, are to be
the sources of authority. It is not the Scriptures
Illuminated by the Spirit, but the Scriptures, plus
the leadings of the Spirit?providence apparently
he means. In reply to the question: "Have we
Scriptural warrants for the proposed new agen
cyT' he, first, puts this secretary Into a group of
secretaries, committees, type-writers, etc., into a
group of Instruments, whose employment by the
courts Is, with one single exception, perhaps, in
perfect harmony with the principles of church government
revealed In the Word of God. It is a
common place with Calvlnistlc students of church
polltv that power has been given the church to
make regulations touching circumstances which so
(Continued on Plage 11.)