Newspaper Page Text
May 22, 1912] THE
I)It. SMITH'S FURTHER ADVOCACY OF THE
WOMAN SECRETARY.
(Entitled Dr. Johnson's Rejoinder.)
This paper by Dr. Smith has occasioned us some
pleasure, a sense of some injustice, and huge amazement.
1. A little pleusure comes of his explanation of h>B
position on the Bible as the source of authority in
religion. His representations in his former paper
seemed to others, as well as to us, to indicate that
he was lax in that position, if he had correctly expressed
it. We are glad, that having "sat down astonished,"
and, not having "plucked off the hair" of
his head, he made, at least, a less unsatisfactory
statement of his position in the paper under review.
I lis use of the word "devise" needed explanation,
llis devising needs specific and clearly defined limits.
All his devising of ecclesiastical arrangements should
be "according to the general rules of the word, which
are always to be obeyed" (Confession of Faith, Chap.
I, Sec. 6). We are persuaded that he will find it
very difficult to harmonize arrangements for the
functions of governing by women with the general
rules of the word. He might have given us vastly
more pleasure on this subject of the Bible as the
source of authority in religion. There are several
statements in his present paper as well as in the
former that he would do well to clear up, that the
Church may know where he really stands; e. g., the
relation of the Church to the kingdom of God, the
relation of the Church to the modern Sunday school,
etc. But on the principle that half a loaf is better
than no bread, we are glad that he seems to think
that he is a good Presbyterian?so good that nobody
should doubt his Presbyterian character, nntwith
standing his representations in his former paper.
We were pleased also at Dr. Smith's evident
powerlessness to present a scriptural warrant for
the Woman's Secretary, or to put her under the
head of necessary circumstances to the Church's
doing her work. Not one text did he adduce. The
reason is evident. He can not do it. We were pleased
too, that he could bring forth no better sort of argument
for the constitutionality of the Woman's
Secretary. He devoted himself specially to this
point. At any rate, he gyrated around it and poured
out streams of contempt on what he alleges to be
our "ecclesiasticism run mad." If that argument
be his best, we are glad. We sball take it up later.
If our ecclesiasticism be Biblical we shall not be
ashamed of it.
II. We have suffered a sense of injustice at his
hand8 beCailSA nf his ntntomonl otlll..!.
N/t VUI UbUtUUC tVT"
ward Women's Unions. He speaks of us as having
made an "attack on the Woman's Unions." This
may bo only an instance of the looseness of expression
that has characterized so generally, apparently,
his writing in these papers. He may not mean to
teach that we have attacked Women's Unions as
such. As a matter of fact, some of our friends think
that we have been entirely too favorable to them.
Mrs. Johnson is president of a Presbyterial Union.
She became so with our full consent and approval.
We are not going to "quote Scripture" to justify our
attack on Women's Unions as Or. Smith suggests
we should have done. 'For we have not made the
attack. We have attacked a use of ecclesiastical
governing power, and that in a way to wound as
little as possible. Does Dr. .Smith think that Scripture
can not be quoted to justify an attack on the
use of ecclesiastical power by "Unions?" The idea
of his doing so titillates one. He ranks amongst
men supposed to hold with the Reformed position
that the Scriptures are a positive rule of faith and
Practice. Now, the Scriptures so plainly put all
governing functions into the hands of courts of elders,
that we 1llRt hnnit him the Moor Tnolomoni
and ask him to open and read of the ordering cf
rule by chosen representatives. God's ordering of
r?le by one class, is, ipso facto, prohibition of rule
by the other class, or classes.
Br. Smith strikes us as unjust also in persisting
'n the implication that because we criticize a phase
of the Woman's movement we are likely to be blind
and unbiblical critics of it. He should remember
bat there were blind protagonists of the Methodist
revival, as well as blind opponents of it; and that
bore were some who looked at it largely in the
'iRbt of holy writ, approved and aided it so far as
'' was good, but condemned the evil of it. In the
P'cvious article we endeavored to show that a man
wa8 not to be written down (as Dr. Smith's first
,lrticle seemed to Imply) as blind simply because
be opposed particulars of the present movement as
"nwarranted by the standards of the Church and
tl:? word of God. Dr. Smith, though advocating
K?n)ethlng that seems to,us to be carrying us away
from a Bible Church, reminds one of Eck's behavior
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE S <
in the debate at LeipBic, according to Luther. Luther
Bald of Dr. Eck: "I am sorry that the learned
doctor only dips into the Scripture as the water
. u.o ^aier?nay, th-t ac seems to Mee from
it as the devil from the cross."
ill. We are amazed at Dr. Smith's superficial and
illogical handling of the constitutionality of the
i.aiaeus Secietary. Doeo ue retar to any section,
paragraph, or line of the constitution as giving a
warrant'/ INo. He makes the assertion that we
have confounded Christian work with government,
the function of service with the function of rule."
in proof, apparently, of thiB assertion he quotes a
few sentences from a paragraph of ours in which
we do not confound but correctly represent the functions
of the new secretary as properly belonging
to Church courts, referring to paragraphs in the
Book of Church Order, which enumerate amongst
the prerogatives of the court's functions that include
those asked for the Woman' s Secretary (see paragraphs
67, 77, 84 and 90. it ought to be plain to
Dr. Smith that if we "confound Christian work with
government" the Standards also "counfound" them.
He "confounds" or is confused in his thought on
this subject.). Then, apparently, in order to. show
that such representation of these functions can not
be just, he presents what he thinks would be the
results of the application of such a theory. Now
we grant that if his "molasses jug," ".Miss Sallie,"
rnu ais "progressive young superintendent" were
suddenly dispossessed of their present amount of
slack rope and estopped from doing the work which
ought to be done by the session, and no substitutes
lor them as good or betteer were found, there would
be a degree of paralysis in his Sunday school. But
this paralysis would not be owing to the applica
tion of the theory of our standards. That theory
iB a positive theory. Dr. Smith should see that the
session of his sweet Miss Sallie is aroused and at
work, learning what it can from all sides, testing
all "Miss Sallie's" and the "-progressive young superintendent's"
ideas, bv tho aivnliontlnn nf tho oinrH
and taking its full part in the Sunday school work.
His church's Sunday school will probably become
vastly more efficient and the church itself be wonderfully
helped. If "Miss Sallie" and the "progressive
young superintendent" are thoroughgoing Christians,
and not faddists, they will rejoice in the session's
superintendence and work of every sort. Dr.
Smith's case of hypothetical paralysis is not damaging
in the least to our contention. There are living
churches today, Dr. iSmith, where the session keeps
a living hold?an immediate hold?of the organizing
work.
V e suppose Dr. Smith io s'.ill saying: "But the
functions of this secretary are those of service."
That does not keep them from being functions of
governing service, we answer. Ecclesiastical governing
is a form of service; and the overture asks
for the service of bringing together in harmony and
with definite and united purpose woman's missionary
work as now conducted in Synodical and Presbyterial
Unions, Woman's Societies, Young People's Societies,
Junior Missionary Bands and missions in
the Sunday school. They ask also the service of
bringing in modern methods tested by use. They
ask tn nr<ynni7A - J "
? ?0 nuuicn in lu, a. grauanon 01
societies, etc. They ask that this secretary work
under efficient supervision, but they ask that she
do these things?which duties are included by the
duties expressly assigned to the ruling bodies?the
courts?in our Book of Church Order. lit is the
session's business "to concert the best measures for
promoting the spiritual interests of the church and
congregation." Are all these women not a part of
the Church? But there are those who think that
a Bister on the job could swing the women into line
and get better work out of them than the courts of
the Church. There seems to us to be apparent distrust
of our Biblical system, and a desire to Improve
upon it. Some wish to see a woman helping to direct
and develop the energies of the Church and by the
AVAI?A.OA /x* * '
nMiv.n vi luuiiiiuuD mm are more tnan semi-public,
and altogether such as the courts should do.
Dr. Smith represents the Church as pretty far
gone today In regard to this sort of work, and that
work as therefore constitutional. The distance between
his premises and conclusions is measureless.
It has been suggested from another quarter that
the Woman's Secretary would be constitutional because
she would be a deaconess. But the honored
brother who makes 14, is strangely silent about the
passages in our standards In which any such functions
as are to ?e assigned to the Women's Secretary
are described as belonging to the deacon. This
woman is to give governing service and to teach
sessions how to handle their job, presumably, for
enough to be able formally to ratify her work.
0 U T H (567) 11
The Church should not be plunged quickly into,
this new departure. One thing leads to another.
A burden of responsibility rests on this Assembly.
God give it such respect for his word that it may
iirst make itself certain of the teachings of the word
and then be guided by those teachings! God keep
us from a new reign of the traditions of men! God
deliver us from walking in the light of our own
eyes and leaning unto our own understandings!
T. C. Johnson.
MR. BRYAN'S LATEST TESTIMONY.
That staunch Presbyterian, William J. Bryan,
is never ashamed to give his testimony to the
truth of religion and the power of the Gospel ol
Christ. His latest public utterance was in connection
with the Men and Religion Movement, in
New York. He sets forth the sense of personal
responsibility to God, the belief in the Bible as
toe inspired word of God, and the acceptance of
the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ as the threecardinal
principles of religion. t
"I need not say I am interested in politics, and
that I have no intention of reducing my interest
in matters of government," said he. "But I believe
that the influence of government on life is
small compared to the influence of religion. Had
I been successful in my attempts to obtain high
office I would have done what I could to improve
the people's condition. But whatever I could
have done is insignificant to what each man can
do for himself through religion. Much more depends
on the ideal which guides a life than the
government which directs it. A man's ideals are
not a dream. They are the one eminently practical
feature of his life.
"Without a definite conception of existence,
shaping and molding his life, no one can get very
j iir. x\.iia now can any man conceive a plan of
existence without seeing back of creation u
Creator. Our first duty is to understand God's
plau and to live up to it. The sense of personal
responsibility to God is the greatest force entering
a man's life. Take that sense of responsibility
to God away from a man and there is nothing
left, except the fear of punishment to keep
him from committing wrongdoing. Thus our re- '
ligion begins with God as a foundation. And
the second step in religion is a belief in the
Bible as the inspired word of God.
"People say that they don't understand how
Christ could have been divine. But if God required
you to understand everything before you
enjoyed it, how miserable you would be. You
couldn't eat. You couldn't sleep. You couldn't
live. Are veil crnincr In rofn&o li"a Knnonon
^ 0 0 WW A WA VOJV wvr UTW UUV/OUOC JUU
don't understand what life is? You married men
out in the crowd there; you may understand why
you love your wives. But can any of you explain
why your wives love you? You can't understand
love. But you know that there is such
a thing as love. You believe in it and enjoy it.
Can any one of you explain why the radish seed
which you plant in a garden becomes red? Can
any of you explain, "Whose hand caught up the
rays of the setting sun and gave the radish its
color? You can't. I can't. But I like the radishes
and eat them.
"There is at least one thing which makes me
sure that the Christian religion is the most perfect
religion, and that is that it is essentially a
religion which you can teach to children, and religion
not worth teaching to a man is not worth
teaching to a child. You can't get a child to believe
merely in a Man Christ. The only Christ
which a child wants to believe in is a Son of God.
A child's God muSt be infinite in intelligence,
power and love. And that is the kind of God for
me, too."
The times that make us weakest, and that
force our weakness most upon us, and make
us know how weak we are, those are our coronation
days.?Selected.