THE FEMALE DEACON AND THE SENTIMENTAL OVERFLOW OF SYNOD

BY REV. D. S. FARIS

(Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter Vol 26 1888, page 357-359)

I do not, at present, ask leave to have a hearing in the Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter on the question of female deacons because the decision of Synod was certainly wrong. I grant that the matter is problematical. There were arguments on both sides that deserve deliberate and scholarly examination. A decent respect on the part of Synod for long-established practice, and for the arguments of the ministry, should have delayed the decision till next Synod. This was the ground of my dissent at the time. Reflection convinces me that a second reason should have been added, viz., that the Synod has made an addition to the constitutional law of the church, without overture, and thus the rights of the sessions and the people have been invaded.

After I see what Synod's committee on reasons for the decision has to say, I may ask leave to reply on the merits of the question. Meanwhile, I wish to state those facts which, to my mind, prove that Synod reached its conclusions not by means of deliberate and sober examination of the whole subject in all its bearings, but by "sentimental overflow." This word "overflow" was used by Dr. Kennedy himself to designate Synod's method of dealing with the subject. The Synod was borne along by the wave of popular sentiment and did not act like a deliberative and judicial body. The only scholarly and effective argument in the case was that of Dr. Stevenson. The argument consisted, first, of a construction of certain passages of the New Testament, and second, of an argument based on allusions to the matter in the early fathers. No one was prepared to answer the patristic argument on the spur of the moment; yet, as Dr. Kennedy admitted, this line of argument is worthless unless a foundation can be found for it in the Word of God. The Doctor went about establishing the Scriptural foundation, evidently not with the deliberation and research of a scholar and theologian, but as one borne along by the tide of sentimentalism. His first statement was that the direct Scriptural proof was wanting; but there are important things that are and must be taken for granted. He said that there is no direct proof that women were baptized or admitted to the Lord's table. This has always been taken for granted, and women's rights to these privileges have never been questioned. So, he said, women have been found doing work belonging to the deacon's office, and therefore we ought to presume that they were ordained. The Doctor, in the rush of the overwhelming tide, forgot the account of the baptism of Lydia and her household, recorded in Acts 16:15. He would not have made such a mistake if he had been following the matter in a cool, deliberate desire to obtain the truth. He knew better as soon as he had time to think, but he made his argument under the influence of what he himself called an "overflow," and not as a person searching and expounding the Word of God deliberately.

I heard no serious attempt to answer the argument from the seventh chapter of Acts, where the record shows that seven men were ordained to the deacon's office because widow women were neglected in the daily ministration. If it was the mind of the Spirit that there should be official female deacons in the church, why was there no reference to the fact here? Nor was there anything more than a criticism to answer a parallel argument taken from 1 Tim. 3rd chapter, where we find the qualification of the standing officers of the church. The passage in the old version reads, "Even so must their wives," etc. In the new version, it reads, "Women in like manner must be grave." This, without searching examination, was held to be an express recognition of female deacons. We claim that, at most, it only casts a doubt; the old version cannot be laid aside as having no authority.

Prof. Willson gave us no argument, but intimated that from a thorough examination of the matter as a theologian, he had views that corresponded to the sentiment of Synod. He was surprised at the unanimous report of the committee, and equally surprised at the mind of the large part of Synod. The Professor should have given us the benefit of his theological researches but contented himself by saying that he had heard no argument on the other side. Thus, he brushed away what had been brought from the Word of God, which seemed to demand some answer; and under the influence of the overflow, the Synod was willing to take for granted that the Professor was right, without hearing his reasons or exercising their own private judgment in the case. A few of us were not ready to vote for a measure which, to Presbyterians generally, will seem to be an innovation, at least without time to make up our minds prayerfully and carefully.

Another evidence of the overflow of enthusiasm was the form in which the committee presented the matter at first, substantially as follows: "That we find nothing in nature nor in the word of God to prevent a woman from holding the deacon's office." The second member of the committee was Dr. Kennedy, a well-known scholar and theologian, and would have known better than to have agreed to such a report if at all sober and in his right mind. But, being carried away by the enthusiasm in the committee, he agreed to it, and after the prelatical form of it had been objected to by myself, he tardily found objection to the negative form of the report of his own committee. The Synod then changed it into the positive form, substantially as follows: "That we find it agreeable to nature and the Word of God that a woman should be ordained to the office of deacon."

Another fact showing the undeliberate character of the proceeding was the statement by some of the advocates of the measure, in reply to the ground taken by Dr. George, that no authority is conferred in ordination to the office of deacon, but there would be in ordination to that of elder or preacher, and that authority on the part of women is usurpation, that they were willing for women to have her equal place with men in all offices, both in church and state. Thus no provision was made against the pressing of the matter further in the future, and the tide rushed onward, overflowing the more cautious ground occupied by a few. Doubtless, this flood tide, if it be not checked, will carry women into all places of authority in church and state. Again, I would mention an argument by someone on the majority side, that it was necessary for us to take this step now, so as to continue to lead the churches in reform as heretofore. Reflection ought to convince such enthusiasts that leadership is not desirable unless in a Scriptural progress, and this ought to be first determined in a deliberate and constitutional manner. Before closing, I must confess my own fault in answering foolishly the palaver of Dr. Kennedy, blandly persuading the dissenters to withdraw their reasons, that the matter might go before the church in a more favorable light.

Now, I do not affirm that the Synod is certainly wrong, but I do charge the majority with undue haste in rushing to a decision which is an innovation upon our customs and constitution as received from the Church of Scotland; and, upon mature reflection, feel bound to add the additional reason of dissent, that the Synod, by not overturing the matter, has violated the rights of the sessions and of the people.