The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-10-01

fort, two years ago. But one conferences
with two episcopal administrations under
two subbishops. the presiding elders af-
fcrded no relief whateve- hence year ago
they hoped to be placed all IN one
district so as to unity their church
interests under one episcopal admin
istration. But shey We're over
ruled by episcopal authority. As
DIR. Dashiel was personally popular as a
presiding elder, and as his time was to
expire with the late conference year there
quasi acquiescence in his remain-
ing the year Not TO seem 10 be indffer-
ent to the matter thtre was an almost
unanimous petition OF official Members
sent TO the bishop at the late conference,
asking that the city be put in one district,
so that they might realize the benefit ct
their fifty years protest against a divided
city. But their petition ignored ia the
interest of one or two preachers. as they
contend. and the city is again In two dis
tricts. with two distinct administrations.
This is likely to produce more friction in
the machinery of Methodism in the city
than has ever been known heretofore. Just
what shape it will take remains TO be
seen. Some leading laymen are reminding
their preachers that in Justification of the
claim of the preachers to the exclusive
right TO govern the church in all things.
preachers have always contended that the
laity had the reserved rfght to withhold
their financial support in case OF dissatis-
faction. This has sometimes, in extreme
cases like this been resorted TO enectuaiiy.
These laymen now propose TO fall back on
this recognized reserved right. and either
contribute nothing toward the support or
the second presiding elder or at the most
only what would be expected of them If
| I,,..t tod NJ Ton
have yet been taken. but something will
be proposed and carried out That which
is most feared by conservative laymen IS
the least discussed publicly. 1t is well
known in Methodist circles that several
Methodist families, who have neen con-
| spicuous in church work for many years,
| and who believe that the wishes OF tho
| laity ought 10 be somewhat consulted in
such matters as these, holding their
| allegiance TO the church of their fathers
| very loosely: and it would surprise none
| of their intimate acquaintance If this per-
sistent refusal to grant representation IN
| the councils of tht church, and such eXer-
| else of arbitrary power as that in the
| Broadway case and now in this presiding
| elder case would result in their seeking
| other church homes. rather tran TO con-
| tinue so unequal a contention Tor what
| tbev think is their rights in the case
/ They maintain that since the doctrines or
/ all evangelical churches as preached are
| row substantially the same it Is at once
| the privilege and the duty of a CHRISTIAN
| to bestow his labors and his contributions
where they can accomplish the most LOT
| the Master. and believing that Whatever
| may have been the justification OIL the
| government of the church exclusively oy
| preachers a hundred or even htty years
| ago there is such justification now
| they prefer to quietly retire from the con-
1ct, as thousands already nave otheis'
| however. prefer to remain and TO continue
| to seek reform even against fearful odds.
| The Journal expresses no opinion on the
| questions involved in The controversy. put
| as a newspaper gives what is going on
and seems to be in prospect in ths' the
largest body of Christians in the country.