The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-28
THAT LAYMEN'S CONVENTION.
A Claim that There Is Now No Repre-
sentatiOn-A Protest.
itor of the Indianapolis Journa

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:
There seems to be a popular misunder-
standing as to the object of the convention
of Methodist Iaymen to be held in Indian
apolis Sept. 10 next. The impression has
somehow gone out that it has been sug-
gested by the fact that only three-sevenths
of the preachers are willing to have as
many laymen in the General Conference as
ministers instead of three-fourths, as the
law requires, or because the preachers have
denied equal representation. That is a
mistake although that shameful fact has
much to do in intensifying the feeling
which lies back of the real purpose of the
meeting. The truth is, the laymen have
no representative at all in the General Con-
ference or any place else They have asked
Tor lay representation for many years but
have been put off with what the preachers
can lay delegation" which means that
the preachers themselves, through the
quarterly conferences, which they make
and unmake at pleasure, elect half as
many laymep to the General Conference as
they have ministerial delegates. Laymen
as such have not a word to say in the
matter from first to last, the refusal to al
low an equal number meaning only that
the preachers nave no use for laymen eX-
cept to furnish money for church enter
pr1ses.
Only a few years ago a controversy arose
between minister and his quarterly con-
terence in this city. In order to carry his
point the preacher packed the quarterly
conference as he had authority to do and
carried his point, and that identical quar-
terly conference participated in the election
OF the preachers lay delegate to the late
General Conference, no layman al any
stage of the proceeding having a word to
say For many decades the laymen of this
city have protested against being divided
by two or more administrations. Thirty
years ago a large mass meeting petitioned
the General Conference to put the city into
one conference that they might have but
one presiding elder. and thus have but one
fusal, though the districts were reduced
from four to two. Not deSpalring, they
began at once to renew their petition by
asking that the city be put all in one con-
plish the wish. They did not ask a union
of the conferences, only united city adj
miniStration. After twenty-seVen years
the two conferences were made one only
to show that the divine could be just as
powerful in one conference as IN two by re-
tanning two presiding elders districts. The
bishops know. and every presiding elder
knows, that there is not a single layman
in the city who does not believe that being
in one district would be promOtiVe of the
best interests of the church, but In order
to make a place for a favored preacher the
two districts are kept up and are likely to
be unless the laymen determine they will
only pay for one.
1t is such facts as these existing every
where in one form or another that give
significance to the proposed convention,
which is to be only the beginning of a
movement that is to test the unsettled
question whether laymen have any rights
the preachers are bound to respect. 1t is
likely to be a large and earnest convention.
The late vote of the annual conference has
nothing TO do with it except as ii shows a
fixed purpose of the preachers to not part
with any portion of the power they have.
ANOTHER LAYMAN.