OCR Interpretation


The Presbyterian of the South : [combining the] Southwestern Presbyterian, Central Presbyterian, Southern Presbyterian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1909-1931, October 06, 1915, Image 6

Image and text provided by Library of Virginia; Richmond, VA

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/10021978/1915-10-06/ed-1/seq-6/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for 4 (670)

4 (670) T H E
trusteeships, and in the determination in tlie
civil courts of titles to property, the use and
transfer of property, and administration of
trusts. Everything that pertains to this seeidar
side surely should he attended to on some one
of the six days which God has given us for our
own use, and not on the day which he has exnrcsslv
reserved fur liimsolf
The election of pastor or other officers, the
response to citations of the higher courts on
spiritual m'atters or officering, the passage of
resolutions or adoption of measures directl.v
designed to advance the spiritual interests of
the church, seem to be proper matters for Sunday
action. Such matters as those named first
however, and of any administrative nature
whatever connected with t lie physical side and
secular aspects of the church, such as the passing
upon the reports of trustees, the election of
trustees, authorizing trustees to buy or sell,
auditing of accounts of financial officers, should
surely be left for a week day. No Presbytery
will attend to matters of this nature on God's
day. The session that would allow itself to do
it would be apt to be censured by the higher
courts. It would seem that the congregation,
which is the church met together in its organic
CanaeitV. should bo prmnllv bound to fncnnnt
the one day which God lias challenged for himself.
Contributed
THT GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE APPORTIONMENTS.
By Rev. D. K. Walthall, Ph. D.
It was with real regret that the writer read
an article on the above subject by A. A. L. in
the Presbyterian of the South of date September
1. The writer had hoped that the long
debate preceding the meeting of the Assembly
and occupied with the discussion on the floor of
that body had sufficiently demonstrated the
fact that there were diametrically opposite
views on this subject which no amount of discussion
could bring together and that therefore
further debate in the religious press
would only serve to intensify the divergence
of opinion already existing and result in ultimate
injury to the benevolences of our church
which it is the desire of all to foster and promote.
Nor would the writer himself been led to
say anytning iurtner on tiie subject if it bad
not been for the statement of A. A. L. that to
fail to accept as final the decision of the Assembly
011 this point was to squint at disloyalty
to our church. Ilis words are: "No one
would accuse any one of disloyalty, but to
criticise and denounce J,he act of an assembly
in a matter of church procedure not affecting
doctrine, squints that way. It has an unfortunate
look, at any rate."
To this statement the writer must enter a
most emphatic protest. The word "denounce"
is unfortunately chosen. No one would ever
think of denouncing the Assembly for making
what might be regarded as an excessive apportionment
to its benevolent causes, but surely
we have a right to criticise such an act, and
to say that we deem it unwise to attempt to
raise sueh amounts. The fact is that if we regard
a decision of the Assembly on a question
of method, as unwise wc would be disloyal to
our church if we did not oppose to the end a
policy, which we were fully pursuaded, would
result in harm to its benevolent activities. The
opposition at the last Assembly, to the heavy
apportionments to two of the causes centered
in the five Presbyterial chairmen of Systemat
PRESBYTERIAN OF THE SC
ic Beneficence who were present from the
Synods of Virginia and North Carolina. These
chairmen who come from synods that give
one-third of our church's offerings to benevolence,
were unanimous in the opinion that
better results could he secured by making
smaller apportionments to the churches. It
certainly seems a strange thing to say that
the action of these men "squinted at disloyalty"
because they were open enough to say
that thev were not. tmitlc* ponninmanfl
vv/ ?vw...mviiV4 fW
their Synods and Presbyteries to adopt a policy
which every one of these chairman felt
would be little short of disastcrous, in their
localities, to the causes above alluded to.
The whole difficulty arises from the different
view poipivof the Assembly and its committees
on the or,e side, and the Systematic
Beneficence chairmen in the Synods and Presbyteries
on the other. The first look chiefly to
the needs of the causes. From this view point
their position is unassailable. The causes certainly
need all and even more than the Aa.
scmbly apportioned for them. On the other
liaml the Svnodical and Presbvtcrinl chairmen
of Systematic Beneficence must look at the
problem from the viewpoint of what the
churches can he induced by diligent effort to
give.
It is therefore manifest that these two view
points can never he brought into perfect har- '
monv. Therefore the best thing to do is to say
just as little as possible about our differences
and to remember that we are brethren who
are all animated hv the one desire of doing all
we can for the extension of our Master's kingdom
on earth. Much more could he added in
defence of the writer's position, and in opposition
to the view advocated by A. A. L., hut
^1, i.1 C i l l c "
in a? mum us me one 01 ine cmei purposes ot
this article is to beg the brethren to cease, as
far as possible, what must be only a fruitless
discussion, whose only result will be to injure
the benevolent causes that we all love, the
writer will stop here.
Waynesljoro, Va.
THE PRESENT DIVORCE QUESTIONFIRST
THE TESTIMONY OF MOSES.
Rev. Thomas Mowbray.
Law of Divorce, Deu 24:1-5.
We fully assent to the teaching of Moses
on the question of divorce because of his long,
arduous training in law in a university of '
Egypt, and furthermore his legal training under
God, the Divine Lawgiver. The .lews had
solely degenerated by their long sojourn in
the idolatrous land of Egypt?moreover each
man had this kind of heart witnessed to in
hi icr uciHiirit's oy .jesus <.JM.au. lO-iyj.
Again Moses the Lawgiver, tolerated divorce.
lie did not enjoin it upon the Church
as a command. Moreover, Moses in his teaching
in the hook of Deuteronomy would restrict
divorce as much as possible. In Mark's
Gospel, 10th chapter, the Pharisees must have
been notorious for their laxity concerning the
law of divorce. I suspect that Pharisees in
j.1. ni i i? n i J i
i ne liren 01 uoa touay are twin nrotiiers to
these Pharisees of old. Our Saviour and king
allows in the Sermon on the Mount only one
exception, permitting divorce "saving for
cause of fornication"?unchastity on either
or both sides.
Ilere we see diverse rulings. The State
rules that for cruelty or apprehensions of severe
bodily harm the woman can sue out a
divorce. The King and head of the church
says "saving for the cause of rornlcation."
The writer would express his humble opinion
that the whipping post and not divorce is one
) U T H. t October 6, 1915
remedy against cruelty. And if the liusbaud
is infuriated by excess in drinking and on that
account is cruel to bis wife, let us as citizens
whip out by our ballots this national curse.
Tf divorce must be, let it be if possible, partial,
not total divorce. Cannot an erring husband
repent? cannot an erring wife repentT
Certainly on the ground not of a total but
a partial divorce. Again "sentence of either
party to the penitentiary." But as offset to
that ruling "saying for the cause of fornication"?Was
not Jesus Christ a party to the
institution of lnarrijitrcs in - >
? C -W ? V..V VlUtUUIl U[
Eden. Did it not refer to Ilim as The Word?
"What Cod hath joined together let not man
put asunder." Did not Christ himself on
Mount Sinai speak with his own mouth the
Ten Commandments and teach concerning the
fourth "Tliou shall not commit adultery"?
From whom shall the Church of God take its
rulings, from a fallible state, or from an infallible
god? And so with indictment of either
party for felony, when such party is a fugitive
from justice and has been absent for two years.
Again we offset our Saviour's teaching "Saving
for the cause of fornication."
Again the state's interpretation, "Wilful
abandonment or desertion for three years."
Again we appeal to Christ's teaching "saving
for the cause of fornication." Will the state
constrain me, a minister of the Gospel, by its
writ of divorcement to unite in marriage
bonds a woman whom God hath not divorced,
and make the man who marries this divorced
woman an adulterer?
Either Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the
King and Head of the Church, is wrong here
or the rulings of the state are wrong. Both
cannot be right.
THE EASTMINSTEK TITHER'S LEAGUE.
By Rev. C. Groshon Gunn.
Bv the independent thinking and dependent
trusting of four Christian men?two business
men and two professional men?there has been
organized in the Eastminster Presbyterian
church of Kansas City, Mo., a Tither's League.
This movement was not patterned after the
action of some other church with her many
organizations. It was just the conviction of
four manly men, with their faces turned toward
Christ, their hearts filled with a deep
yearning to get back to the Scriptural way of
giving, and their minds firmly convinced that
tlie Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is suffering
today for adequate support. Why? Because
her members are robbing God?robbing
ITim in tithes and offerings, "cursed with a
curse"?the curse of unfilled obligation, ungraspod
opportunity and thus scriptural atrophy
and a disease that accompanies these
curses, the unscriptural methods of money
getting for the needy causes.
Un July 11, iai5, in an "upper room" at
the church this organization was perfected
with twenty-three signers to the Declaration
of the League. A new member now hears the
declaration read by the president, and a prayer
is offered for the signer as he or she takes the
pledge and signs the roll in open session.
There are only two officers, the president
and secretary, and there are no committees.
The time of the meeting is set by the presitl
Allt nr?rl n ftlan namno lb a m nol i r? r# Til HPP.
* w Uinv 11U1UV n tiiu iiu vtin^ ]' "
The minutes of the meeting are the by-laws
and t]ie constitution. There are no dues, no
fees. Literature relative to tithing is kept in
a convenient place in the church that the members,
may successfully interest new members.
Tn order to insure a proper realization of the
seriousness of the obligation the age limit is
\

xml | txt