The admission of women to the General conference

Front matter

K

THE ADMISSION OF WOMEN

TO THE

Preface

The following pages are the result of years of patient thought and careful study of the Word of God. For many years the author has been convinced that the old interpretation of I. Cor. 14: 34 and 38, and I. Tim. 2: 11-15, which closes the mouth of woman in the church, and remands her to all the rigors of heathenish subjection to her husband, is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel of Christ — to the general teaching of the Word of God, both of the Old and New Testament, and at variance with the known practice of the Apostolic Church, and of the Apostle Paul himself. I have sought earnestly to find an interpretation of these passages, that will relieve the Apostle of the charge of contradicting himself, both in word and practice, and that will harmonize with the general teaching of the Word of God. I believe that the following pages contain the solution of this question. I have no sympathy whatever with any interpretation of these passages that would cast a reflection on their inspiration, or that would disparage the Apostle. Such an attempt is indefensible and not to be thought of for a moment by any devout and thoughtful mind. But we must not forget, that an interpretation of the Word of God, by men never so learned, is ?wt inspiration, and however old that interpretation may be, its age can not give it the character of inspiration. Any interpretation of the Word of God, which is not in harmony with the spirit of Christ and the general teaching of the Holy Scriptures, carries the evidence of its falsehood on its face. The interpre-

6 Preface.

tation of these passages against which we contend, is certainly contrary to the spirit of the Gospel, and against the general teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and therefore it must be false and unscriptural. The responsibility of correcting or perpetuating the wrong that has been imposed on the women of the Methodist Episcopal Church, through the false interpretation of these passages, now rests with the members of the Annual Conferences. The question has been submitted to the vote of the Church, and by an overwhelming majority the Church has voted to restore to woman her scriptural rights. Will the ministers, after this vote of the Church, vote against the enfranchisement of the women, or will they ratify the voice of the Church, and bring back the administration of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the New Testament basis ? Let us divest ourselves of all prejudice, and not suffer ourselves to be influenced by false issues, but discharge our duty as men, in the fear of God.

G. W. Hughky.

Springfield, Mo., Dec. 26, 1890.

ADMISSION OF WOMEN TO THE GENERAL CONFERENCE.

CHAPTER I. Rights of Womkn

In his editorial on ' ' The Rights of Women and Others," Dr. Buckley says:

1 ' Some of the advocates of woman in the General Conference are talking much about abstract and fundamental rights, and demanding their admission on that ground." A little further on he says : ' ' Abstract rights must be, and are given up in every organization, civil or religious. One man on a desert island is ' monarch of all he surveys,' because his ' right ' there is none to dispute. If another comes, there must be a compromise or war to the death."

This is true, and much that he has to say on - ' abstract rights," we do not call in question. But the use he makes of the fact that in the social compact, "abstract rights ' ' must often be given up by the individual, utterly fails to meet the case in point, for :

i. Before "abstract rights," can be given up they must be possessed. But Dr. Buckley flatly denies that women have any ' ' abstract rights "of government, either in the Family, the Church, or the State. With him, man by divine appointment has the governing power in the Family, the Church, and the State, and for women to assume a share of this power, is to make • • void the

Law of God. ' ' With him, women have but one right, and that is the right to obey. To talk about a compromise of abstract rights, where no such rights exist, is an insult to our intelligence.

2. In the social compact, when the individual gives up his ''abstract rights," he always receives a larger benefit than his ( ' abstract rights ' ' could have secured him, and on this ground alone he makes the compromise by yielding up his "abstract rights." In a state of nature, man has the ' ' abstract right' ' to defend himself, his family, and his property. But in a settled community he can not enforce this right, hence he compromises with the community by giving up his ' ' abstract right, ' ' and the community, in return, pledges itself to protect him, his family, and his property, by the strong arm of the law- In every such compromise the individual is the gainer, for he receives much more than he gives up.

But in the case of women, there has been no giving up of "abstract rights," in order to secure a larger benefit ; but their rights have been taken away from them, and then they are gravely told that they ' ' never possessed any right to any share in the government of the Family, Church, or State." This, indeed, would be a queer sort of compromise. It is absurd to talk about the compromise of ■ ' abstract rights, ' ' for the sake of organic government, where no abstract rights exist. All the Doctor's talk of the necessity of compromising " abstract and natural rights, ' ' from his standpoint, is wholly irrelevant to the question, and can have no bearing on it whatever. Again he says : "The current talk about women having the right to be represented by women in the General Conference will not bear inspection."

We are not contending for "the right of women to be

Admission of Women to the General Conference. g

represented by women in the General Conference/' We are contending for the right of women as members of the Church of Christ, and belonging to the great body of Laymen, to be elected by Laymen as Lay Delegates, to represent the Laity, without reference to sex. We do not make sex a barrier, nor the ground of a privilege or right. Sex does not enter into the question on our side. It is the other side that has brought sex into this controversy, and made it a barrier to membership in the General Conference. On this question, with us, ' ' There is neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus." But, he continues :

' ' She has a right to an influence equal to that of man. " I was not prepared for such an admission as this. It is certainly a giving up of the whole question. Women, then, do have " rights " in the Church of Christ, and these rights must be either " abstract," "natural, " or divine. But what is the right Dr. Buckley here accords to woman ? It is " a right to an influence equal to that of man. " But, we ask, How is that right to be made effective if she is not permitted ' ' to teach, " nor to have a voice in shaping the policy and administration of the Church ? Will our learned brother tell us ? Here, Dr. Buckley admits that woman has ' ; a right to an equal influence to that of man, " in the Church of Christ, and then turns around and denies her the privilege of exercising that right ! But, unfortunately, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, woman has no such " equal influence with man, " and Dr. Buckley's whole argument is an effort to prove that she has no such right ! Will some one please reconcile the Doctor's argument with his admission of woman's right to "an Equal influence with man ' ' in the Church ? If she io Admission of Women to the General Conference.

has this " right," then grant her the privilege to exercise it by putting her on an equality with man in the seat of influence and power in the Church. But he continues : ' ' But whether it should take the form of representation by delegates of her own sex and membership in the General Conference, and of ordination to the ministry, either or both, depends on many things." But we ask : If this right is not ' ' to take the form of representation in the General Conference, ' ' what form is it to take ? Is there any other method of recognizing this ''right to an equal influence with man " in the Methodist Episcopal Church?

The question of the right of women to be admitted to the ministry, and to orders, does not enter into this question at all. The question is, "Shall women be recognized as Laymen, and be admitted as Lay Delegates to the General Conference?" It is not: "Shall women be recognized as Ministers, and admitted as Ministerial Delegates to the General Conference ? ' ' This attempt to ' ' tack on ' ' the question of the admission of women to the ministry, to the question now before the Church, can only be an attempt to raise a prejudice against the movement. Whether women ought to be admitted to the ministry on an equality with men, is another question entirely, and should be settled on its own merits, and not be brought in as a side issue in this contest, for it is a totally different question. The only question now before us is, " Are women Laymen, entitled to the rights and privileges of Laymen ? ' ' Again Dr. Buckley says :

" The whole system of Methodism, like every other Church government, is a compromise of natural rights for co-operation. Church government does not derive its just powers primarily from the consent of the governed, but from the Word and the providence of God. It can never consistently work direct injustice and oppression ; but can and does require the surrender of all abstract 'rights,' the surrender of which is necessary to its existence, authority, and greatest efficiency." The question, then, arises, Is it ' ' necessary to the existence, authority, and greatest efficiency " of Methodism, that the women of Methodism shall surrender their ' 'right to an influence equal to that of the men ' ' of Methodism ? They have the "right," for Dr. Buckley himself says they have. Does ' ' the existence, authority and greatest efficiency of Methodism ' ' demand that they shall surrender this right, and get nothing in return for it ? From the argument of the Doctor we would certainly conclude that not only the existence of Methodism, but the integrity of the law of God itself, depended, not upon the women surrendering this right, but upon the men of Methodism refusing to restore the right which they have taken away from them ! !

But finally he says :

' 'The only determining questions to be asked concerning the admission of women to the General Conference are : Do the Scriptures allow it ? And if they allow it, is there reason to believe that it will contribute to the true prosperity of the Church ? "

After all the Doctor's discussion of ' rights abstract ' 1 natural, ' and ' fundamental, ' he admits that the question must be settled by an appeal to the Word of God! If the Word of God gives woman 'a right to an influence equal to that of man,' in the Church of Christ, and Dr. Buckley says she has that right, and if she has, God's Word has given it to her, no power on earth has the right to take it away from her, or to deprive her of the privilege of exercising it ; and to do so, is an act of ecclesiastical tyranny of the very worst character. We accept his appeal to the Word of God, and by its decisions we are willing to abide.

CHAPTER II. " Making Void the Law of God."

The above is the title of Dr. Buckley's second editorial which constitutes the second chapter of his pamphlet. The first part of this remarkable document is an account of ''a State Convention of the advocates of female suffrage in San Francisco," which he attended nineteen years ago ! ! He gives an epitome (I presume from memory ) of two infidel speeches which were delivered in that Convention — one delivered by a female physician, a Mrs. Dr. White, in which she delivered a tirade against the Bible, and denounced the Apostle Paul, as " Old Paul," etc. , etc. After protests from two Christian members of the Convention to Mrs. Dr. White's infidel tirade against the Bible and Paul, an elderly man arose and said, while he agreed with Mrs. Dr. White in regard to the Bible and "Old Paul," that was not the way to succeed. The only way to succeed was to get Christians interested in the movement, and they would dig the sense right out of 1 1 Old Paul ' ' and the Bible, and put new interpretations on it, just as the Universalists have done, etc., etc. Then he goes on to say :

' ' This man was a prophet. The early female suffragists were nearly all infidels, or half-way infidels. They made little progress for a long while, but within a few years, female suffrage has been 'tacked on' to another cause, to the great detriment of that cause (we do not refer to the sympathy, help and words of women, but to the connection of female suffrage with the temperance cause), and lo! many Christians are found who are ready to dig the plain sense out of the words, and make void the law of God, using the very principles of interpretation to do it by which the Unitarians, Universalists, and other unevangelical Christians have gotten rid of the incarnation, the fall of man, the atonement of Jesus Christ, and eternal punishment and retribution. "

We ask what connection had that convention of woman suffragists in San Francisco, Cal., and the infidel speeches delivered in it nineteen years ago, with the question of the admission of women as lay delegates to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church ? Simply this, and nothing more — it is an appeal to prejudice, an attempt to ' ' tack on ' ' the movement to restore to woman her original right to sit in the Councils of the Church, to the movement in favor of woman suffrage, and thus cast odium upon those who advocate it by associating them with "the infidels, and half-way infidels," whom «he declares constituted ' ' nearly all the early advocates of female suffrage." To cast still further odium upon us, he classes us, as interpreters of the Word of God, with " Unitarians, Universalists, and other unevangelical Christians," and affirms that we adopt their principles of interpretation ! !

Now, we ask, Is this the proper way for a Christian minister to conduct a controversy with his brethren, many of whom are equally as learned as he, and all of whom are equally as honest and conscientious, and have as deep a reverence for the Word of God as he has ? A cause that requires such a line of defense by as able an advocate as Dr. Buckley, must be inherently weak, and he must feel its weakness, and his inability to defend it by legitimate methods or sensible arguments. In telling us

' ' HOW IT IS DONE, ' '

he says :

"In making void that part of God's law which they consider obnoxious, they begin by saying that ' • the letter killeth."

To this we reply that this is certainly true when an interpretation is given to ' ' the letter' ' of a passage which contradicts the Spirit of the Gospel and this is precisely what Paul means. Many interpretations of the letter of particular passages, without regard to the Spirit of the Gospel, have killed multitudes of souls. No class of interpreters have ever been more learned, or more pious than those of the Calvinistic School, who have found in " the letter" of many passages in Paul's epistles vastly stronger authority for the doctrine of election and reprobation, than Dr. Buckley can find in Paul's writings to exclude women from the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Yet he does not accept their interpretation of ' ' the letter' ' of those passages. How does he get out of it ? Does he adopt the principles of interpretation adopted "by Unitarians, Universalists, and other unevangelical Christians ? " I doubt not but many of our earnest Calvinistic brethren would charge him with doing that very thing. But would the charge be true ? It would certainly be as true as his charge against us. In illustrating his charge against us of making "void the Law of God " by our interpretations, he says :

"Then before beginning to examine the passages, they endeavor to raise a prejudice against their plain sense. Here is a passage from a tract, called " The Bible and Women, ' ' written by a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

"After giving the verses of the Bible the writer says : ' The doctrine commonly drawn from these passages contradicts our sense of justice.' "

To this he replies :

" To set up human judgment and feeling against the natural interpretation and plain sense of the words before ascertaining the meaning is the common method of rejecting the sense of God's Word."

Now, let Dr. Buckley get into a controversy with a Calvinist, and the very first thing he will do will be to say "that the doctrine drawn from these passages by Calvinists contradicts our sense of justice." The fact that the Calvinistic interpretation, though in perfect harmony with ' ' the letter ' ' of the passages, contradicts his sense of justice, compels him to appeal from that interpretation of "the letter" to " the Spirit" of the Gospel, and the general teaching of the Word of God on the subject. Could he be justly charged with adopting the principles of interpretation adopted by "Unitarians, Universalists, and other unevangelical Christians' ' ? Most certainly not. Yet this is precisely what we do, when we appeal from his interpretation of the passages in Paul's epistles, and for this, he charges us with making ' ' void the I^aw of God, ' ' by adopting " the principles of interpretation adopted by Unitarians, Universalists, and other unevangelical Christians " ! ! This is the only safe and correct method of interpretation, and it is the one adopted by the very best interpreters of all schools of theology. It does not set aside the plain sense of the Word of God, but it enables us to ascertain its true sense.

He continues :

' ' The next method is to say that ' no Greek scholar now believes that the New Testament injunctions concerning women were intended to be of permanent and general application.'

" It is a curious fact that the person who uttered that with the greatest emphasis had no knowledge whatever of Greek, but it has been repeated until its original source is forgotten. The fact is, that for one scholar worthy the name who says that the New Testament does not restrict the authority of woman in the family and in the Church, giving man in both a leadership not allowed to her, a hundred maintain that it does."

To this we reply :

1. It does not require a knowledge of the Greek to know that the passages referred to, ' ' were not intended to be of permanent and general application. ' ' A careful study of the English Bible will settle that question without an appeal to the Greek, as we shall see in the course of this discussion.

2. This question can not be settled by the number of scholars for or against it. If Bible questions could be settled by this method, then unquestionably the doctrine of necessity, as opened to the freedom of the will, is scriptural, for from the days of Augustine to Jonathan Edwards, for one scholar who contended for the heedom of the will, there were a hundred who denied it ; and nearly all those who contended for it, were heretics, ' ' infidels or half-way infidels. ' ' Then also is the Romish doctrine of the Primacy of St. Peter true, for from the days of Gregory the Great to Martin Luther, for one scholar who opposed it, there were a hundred who advocated it, and cited as proof positive, Matt. 16: 18, 19.

But Dr. Buckley will not stand by this rule when he comes to the claims of Calvinists and Papists, and we will not recognize it in this controversy on the rights of women in the Church. This question can not be settled by an appeal to human authority, however learned ; it can only be settled by an appeal to the Word of God, fairly interpreted in the light of the Spirit of the Gospel, and the general teaching of the Holy Scriptures.

This is the only rational and safe method of interpretation, and by it we propose to stand or fall. We shall not be governed by the assumption of Dr. Buckley, that such and such is the plain and natural meaning of such and such passages of Scripture. This is the method of the Romanist to prove the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He quotes the words of Jesus, " This is my body," and says, the plain, obvious and natural meaning of these words is, that the sacramental bread is the very body of the Iyord Jesus ; and to confirm it, quotes further from the words of Jesus : " Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have no life in you." The plai?i, obviates and natural meaning of ' ' the letter ' ' of these passages proves the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation more clearly than the passages from Paul prove that woman is and must be excluded from all voice in the government of the family, the Church, and the State. Will Dr. Buckley stick to his rule of interpretation here, or will he adopt ours, or will he adopt the method of the ' ' Unitarians, Universalists and other evangelical Christians ' ' ?

DISPARAGING THK APOSTl<KS.

On this charge which he brings against us, he says : "The second chapter of a work entitled ( Woman in the Pulpit ' says, ' Christ, not Paul, is the source of all

Churchly authority and power. ' The Christian Advocate in 1888., at the request of the author, Miss Wiilard, stated that it would be changed so as to read: The Christ of the gospels, not the pseudo Paul of theology, is the source of all Churchly authority and power. ' We give both statements, confessing an inability to see why the change was made or what it means." Certainly this passage, as explained by the writer, can not be given as an example of "disparaging the apostles," notwithstanding Dr. Buckley's " inability to see why the change was made or what it means." An ordinary mind can find no difficulty in understanding what "the pseudo Paul of theology " means, whether Dr. Buckley can or not. It can only mean : "Paul as falsely interpreted by theologians," and most certainly such a pseudo Paul is not authority. The writer unquestionably meant that Paul must be interpreted in the light of the teaching of Christ in the Gospels, and not by putting a false construction on his words, by theologians, which would make him contradict the teaching of Christ. Certainly this is not disparaging the apostles !

But he continues :

* ' Others go much further, flatly denying the authority of Pauk We have heard him held up to ridicule in a Methodist pulpit, called the supreme egotist, a woman hater, either an old bachelor or a widower who had lived unhappily with his wife."

This is a very grave charge to bring against a Methodist minister, and if Dr. Buckley heard such utterances by a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, it was his plain duty to bring charges against him for denying the inspiration of the Apostle Paul, and he ought to have been expelled from the Church and ministry.

He then gives us quite a lengthy quotation from the Pacific Christian Advocate, under a former administration, in which the writer uses very unwarranted, irreverent and foolish expressions, and then adds :

' ' By such means, from pulpit and press, the minds of many have become so perplexed and distorted as not to know what the New Testament does teach."

In reply to this wholesale charge of disparaging the apostles, and making light of the Word of God, we remark, that we have never read a more unfair and unjust accusation made against any class of Christian men and women, than Dr. Buckley here makes against those who conscientiously differ with him on this question. There may be here and there an irresponsible one, foolish and irreverent enough to use such language as he here charges; but to charge this upon the advocates of the admission of women into the General Conference in general, is unjust.

How Dr. Buckley, in his mad zeal against the women, could be led into such a course passes our comprehension. All of our church papers have been filled with articles on this subject for two or three months past, and every phase of it has been discussed by able, honest, representative men and women of the Church, and not a single sentence of this character has been written, by a single intelligent, representative man or woman in the Methodist Episcopal Church. He has not pretended to find a single sentence or line of such l ' disparaging of the apostles ' ' in all the articles published in all of our Advocates from any responsible party, during the entire controversy. Yet he parades the foolish sayings of irresponsible parties, whom nobody knows, and then charges this foolish and irreverent twaddle on the advocates of the admission of women to the General Conference, and affirms that it is by such methods that we have ' ' perplexed and distorted ' ' the minds of the people, until they do not know what the New Testament does teach ! ! Does the cause of truth and God require such a mode of defense ! ! !

"TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY."

Under this head he says, " We present the words :

" 1 Cor. 11:3. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ ; and the head of the woman is the man ; and the head of Christ is God.

" 4. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.

"5. But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head : for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

He leaves out verse six, which reads :

" 6. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn ; but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered."

"7. For a man, indeed, ought not to cover his head, for as much as he is the image and glory of God : but the woman is the glory of the man.

"8. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

' ' 9. Neither was the man created for the woman ; but woman for the man."

He leaves out verse ten, which reads : —

"10. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

"11. Nevertheless, neither is the man without the

22 Admissio7i of Women to the General Conference.

woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord."

He stops with this verse, but Paul goes on, and says,

" 12. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman ; but all things of God.

"13. Judge in yourselves ; is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

" 14. Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him.

"15. But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her : for her hair is given her for a covering."

On this passage the Doctor says: "What does it mean? It certainly means a distinction between men and women." Of course it does. We all admit that there is a distinction between men and women. But the question is: Does this distinction give man the supreme power of government in the family, the Church and the State, and assign to woman the position of a servant, whose only business is to obey ? It does not follow that because there is a distinction between man and woman, that therefore man is lord and woman subject. This Dr. Buckley assumes, but this is the very point in controversy. He then gives a lengthy quotation from Dr. Whedon's commentary on this passage and then adds: "Rules of etiquette may change in the course of the ages, but whatever they are, the apostolic teaching is that woman should respect the divine order. To prevent this passage from reflecting upon the true dignity of woman the eleventh and twelfth verses were undoubtedly written."