Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-01-03
DIR. STARR'SREMOvAL
now n WAS pnoucmr ABOUT.
details rs 10 What Occurred In s"e
sessions of the CabiDes-s''""~-
,pon which bishop galloway De-
c,sued 10 Alter his Decision.

cIa0cO w 1iNNE ~"
The statement recently adopted oy 'ne
.o,oes..,,on ~ Washington-Street Metno-
a,st church. Petersburg. sottns io''" '"o
,.c,s IN connection with their p'otes'
,.,n,, Tho removal OF their pastor. Rev.
pr w. G. Starr. who Was appointed 70
xsr,,a.s,rcet church. in this CITY, ID
,.,,,,ed In this weeks issue Of the Chris
,,sn Advocate. The statement makes SIX
i co,nmns OF very interesting reading ana
.,ne.rs under the official signature OF
AIR II A. Harrison, secretary OF the
Board Of Stewards OF Washinston-Strcet
church.
Tho napcr was adopted by the church
o, ,he evening OF December ed. as has
hoon reported in the Dispatch. and was
the elimination of the determined opposi-
,ion raised by the church to the action
Of Bishop IIsygood in transferring ur.
Starr 10 a new field 1t says that the
protest of the church. which has been the
subject of 80 much criticism, was made
with n full knowledge Of Its import, and
with the specific design 10 bring forcibly
10 the attention OF the Bishop and OF
the Church at large the injustice done
The church by which It feels itself
greatly aggrieyed and injured. The thing
was not done in corner. and the full
purpose OF the action of the church Will
not be accomplished until the questions
Of the true policy OF the Metho-
dist itncrancy, on which the whoie
contention turns. are submitted lot me
thoughtful consideration of the Church
"a Acpg1p6 DrODer 10
publish a statement of the facts Of tne
case that I'm the opinion OF the cnurch
here justified it's action. Protest Us no
new thing In Mcthodism. Our Church was
born I'm opposition. and is itself stanoins
protest against all that Is wrong IN prin-
clrIe or pernicious In practice. III ac-
cords 10 the individual church the largest
freedom consistent with the general good.
and proposes 10 attain that general good
by the open canvass OF the neeos ana
wishes of each church ana the 'nteiigent
distribution of the work upon iuii
knowledge of all the facts.
NOT OPPOSED TO DIR. EDWARDS.
After declaring that the church does not
A question "the motives of any one with
reference TO the removal" the paper con-
tinues:
at is proper however, to state dis
tinctly IN the outset that the action
4 of the church was not suggested nor
in the least degree occasioned py any
opposition to DIR. Edwards personally, nor
by any opposition to his appointment 70
the pastoratc OF the church. On the con-
trary, DR.. Edwards was Justly held III
the highest esteem by the whole conEre-
ration. and there Is no one that they
would have preferred as successor TO Dr;
TO name such successor, they would. III
all probability. have selected DR.. Ed
wards. They complained because they
knew that. In the circumstances tnen
existing. great injury would inevitably
result from any change: and they pro-
tested against the action Of the Bishop
In compelling the change. because they
the Church. the right to retain the ser
vices of DIR. Starr for the ordinary term.
and ought not to have been deprived oil
his services at that time without being
allowed to state the peculiar circum-
stances IN which they were placed"
POWER OF THE BISHOP.
The power Of the Bishop, under the
written law. to make such removal Is
not denied but tho church claims that,
usage, which from long observance had
gained the force OF common law. they
had the right 10 retain his services for
the full period Of four years. and the
under the existing circumstances. Is chal-
lenged. mo one" the paper says. ever
questioned the power OF the officer who
ordered the Inflated charge OF ne m nsa ny
10 vindicate either the wisdom or the JUS
tice Of the order"
The paper discusses this question OF
the Bishops power. and how II should
be exercised. at some length; draws the
distinction between the letter OF the
aw. which Is arbitrary. and unlimited.
and Its spirit, that the trust vested In
he Bishop should be administered for
tha rood NJ the whole Church and con-
tnues:
"Certainly, where 1t is brought to the
attention of the Bishop that the unex-
pected removal OF pastor Is likely 10
produce great and unexpected Injury 10
the congregation, as was the case here.
he can hardly be said TO have wisely and
fairly exercised the power of appoint
ment in removing the pastor, unless ne
had first examined fully into the facts
Of the case and given to the church az
fected the opportunity of being heard IN
lis own behalf. This, and more, is what
aid happen in the removal OF Or. Starr,
and induced the action of the church that
has been criticised
HIS WORK IN PETERSBURG.
The paper next takes up the good work
that DR.. Starr was doing at Washing
ton-Street. He had added a large number
10 the roll of church members: had stir
red up the church TO the desire Of doing
ID larger work than IL had yet attempted.
and had enlisted the interest OF the gene
idl pubic III the NOfh ne WIS QOlnB "
an extent rarely, If ever. known before.
so that the congregations ordinarily at
tending upon the Sunday services OF the
church ranged from 200 to 100 persons,
members of any church, but were at.
tracted by the personal influence and
pulpit efforts OF the pastor He had also
2 plan ARRANGED for raising ell the col col;
been laid Out under the assumption that
there would be no change in the pasto-
rate.
that no intimatlon of change was made
until the day before adjournment OF con-
ference. when such hint was dropped
70 lay delegate. who was q steward IN
Washington-Sfeet church. The steward,
though ne believed there was little or no
foundation for the rumor, yet sought an
Interview with the Bishop. and had a
conversation with him about the wishes
and needs OF the church. and ne came
from the interview so we'll satisfied that
no change was seriously contemplated
that he thought II useless TO say any
thing further TO the Bishop. or to inform
the church Of the rumor that had reach
I'd him. DIT. Starr. upon solicitation, went
TO the Bishop and assured him that he
desired to return. and thought he ought
TO be returned. and also retired from the
Interview impressed with the belief that
ne would be permitted to remain.
HOW 1T WAS DONE.
The paper continues:
Later In the day Tuesday the regular
meeting OF the cabinet was held. and each
member was put under solemn promise
not TO reveal anything that happened
there Until after the appointments were
read out. Then. for the FIRST time. thu
removal Of DIR. Starr was openly pro
posed In the cabinet meeting: and The
presiding elder of the Petersburg Dis
irict protested against the change as Wig
Drously as he could, and gave reasons
rom facts within his knowledge why
The change shouid not be made, assuring
The Bishop that the removal of DIR. Starr,
IN .he circumstances then existing would