The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-01-09
CHURCH GOVERNMENT.
DR.. STOKES GIVES HIS VIEWS ON THE
SUBJECT.
He Think. the Preachers Have too Much
Power in the Methodist Church and the
Iaylncn too Little.
ORANGEBUG. S. c.. Nov. 9. "a.

t.:tNlncG 100
ORANGEBUG. S. c.. Nov. 9, "a.
To THE EDITOR: Kindly publish
the inclosed article which was refused
by the Editor of the Southern Chris
tan Advocate, though it relates to
matters involving the truth of history
of the church. which matters he had
presented in a misleading light. This
adds another instance to the many
where the organ of the church has de-
MED to the membership who support
it the most ordinary fairness and JUS
ticc. Very truly yours,
J. WM. STOKES.
Here is the article to which refer
ence is made and which explains itself.
''PREACHERS AND LAYMEN.
Under this caption the editor of The
Southern Christian Advocate. in the
issue of July 10, attacks a statement
which. he says, recently appeared in
one of our county exchanges. AS |
am the author of the statement, and as
the statement was made advisedly, |
take it | will be permitted to give the
reasons which justify the statement.
Since accuracy of statement is the
gage of discussion laid down by the
editor. it may as well be recalled that
the statement which he says recently
appeared. appeared in one of his
county exchanges something like slN
months ago. Why the editor of the
church organ, who is usually quick to
resent ANYTHING that can be construed
into an attack on the Church. should
have allowed so gave misstatement,
as he evidently thinks this is, to go
unchallenged so long: and why, hav-
inc taken up the cudgels SO tardily. he
should have wrested this one parag graph
from its context in the body of a dis
cussion which he had arbitrarily shut
out Of the.Advocate, are questions that
will arise in every thoughtful mind.
Here is the full paragraph which the
editor garbled and then criticized:
Finally. he insinuates that l am ar
raying the laymen against the clergy
On the contrary ! am standing for
truth ard the right of laymen in the
church. Sixty-nine thousand lay Meth
odists in South Carolina paid SIT, ,357. :
56 to the support of the ministry and
the institutions of the church, and
vet they are allowed only 40 lay dele
GATES on the floor of the annual Con-
ference which disburses this large
c,,,n while $50 local and travelling
preachers are represented by 200 dele
gates. Even this small representation
was grudgingly granted only after a
stubborn fight. As it IS, such repre-
sentation as is given lay members IS
almost entirely under the control OF
the preachers in the last analysis. II
there were no conflicts between preach
ers and laymen until came into this
discussion, why have the clergy fought
every effort to give lay members pro-
portional representation in the coun-
cils of the Church! Does any one
suppose for a moment that the Advo-
cate could have been used to outrage
and abuse lavmen, and they denied the
right to defend themselves, if the lay
membership had had representation IN
Conference proportionate to their num-
bers and their donations!
The issues raised by the editor fall
under two neads-frst, the logical re-
lations of lay representation in our
church polity; second, the historical
evolution of lay representation in our
ecclesiastical system. These two top
les cover the whole ground of contro-
verSy.
In the first place, then, what is the
logical relation Of lay representation
to the other features of our system:
The specific point at issue, raised by
the editor, is upon my statement that
':69. 900 lay Methodists in South Caro-.
lima paid $177,357.56 to the support OF
the ministry and the institutions of
the church, and yet they allowed only
40 lay delegates upon the floor OF the
Annual Conference which dlsburses
this large sum, while $50 local and
travelling preachers ale represented by
200 delegates. This proposition he
disposes Of thus: Every Methodist in
South Carolina with even ordinary in
telligence knows that the amounts
paid for the support of our preachers
IS estimated by laymen, collected by
lavmen, and disbursed by laymen,
and that the Annual Conference does
not handle or disburse single cent of
it," In rigid, literal sense, possibly
it would not be proper to say that the
Annual Conference handles or dis
burses any fund: but will the editor
resort to such palpable sophistry, IN
face of the fact that it appoints its
agents to attend to these matters of de-
tail in face Of the fact that the fund
for superannuated preachers, bishops
fund. educational fund, and many 9th
ers. are unquestionably disbursed by
the agents of the Conference either at
Conference or during the year,
and the results passed in review
at Conference? To hold that
the Annual Conference does not
handle or disbusre any funds. because.
forsooth. the funds are handled and
QlSDufSeu DH ltS dSeitS' "ottlV oe
pUerile playing with words. And this
is Just as true of the funds collected
and paid out for travelling preachers
as it is in the case of superannuated
preachers or bishops or any other
fund. While the amounts paid for
the support of our preachersis estimat-
cd by lavmen, as the editor says, they
are ususually estimated in the presence
OF tie preacher and under his urgent
appeals. too often regardless of flood
or drought or the poverty of the
people. While it is collected by lay
men and disbursed by laymen. truly
enough. it5is estimated. collected and
disbmsed by laymen who are practi-
callv the appointees of the preacher,
the agent of the Conference. True,
they are elected by the Quarterly Con-
ference: but they can be elected only
upon nomination by the preacher, by
a body. the majority of whom were
elected upon the nomination of the
preacher in previous years. What is
L 4, =,