The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-07-06
NJ. e. PoIity without a Defender.

To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:
1t is a notable fact that no one appears
as the open and jealous defender of the
present polity of the Methodist Church.
Some have entered the lists in the columns
of the Journal, no doubt, with that intent,
but their courage failed them. They con-
Guided that it was unsafe to go further
than to admonsh the laymen that they
must not be overZealous and that they
ought to be careful to use proper language
in presenting their plea But when it comes
to upholding the present system and de-
Tending the rule of an autocracy they
shrink back, regarding discretion as better
than valor. And yet the opposition has
many very able men in its ranks-so able
and strong that they have been able in all
the past to prevent the overthrow of this
incongruous and un-American pOlitv- There
are the bishops. They are supposed to be
men of not only great natural gifts but
of extensive and varied requirements. They
had ability enough TO secure a lifetime
position in the church. They not only have
abundance of learning, but are possessed
of vast amount of leisure. Their salary
is sufficiently ample that they have no con-
Germ as to What shall we eat? What shall
we drink? Wherewithal shall We be
clothed?' Why do not they come to the
front and show good, substantial and con-
should be governed by all autocracy,
rather than by the people who belong to
and sustain it? Let them also show why
taxation in the church should be divorced
from representation. If they know any
reasons for the continuance of the present
incongruity in government, and would be
induced to communicate them 1t might
have a tendency to calm the waves of agi-
tation that are rising higher and higher
and will continue TO do so until equal voice
is given the laymen in government.
And there are the editors of our church
papers, the Advocates, going weekly to
the homes of the laymen well as to the
preachers. These brilliant WrtterS-selected
because of their ability and devotion to
for themes to interest their readers. Why
do they not come to the defense of the
present plan of church government if they
believe in it? They are skilled in all the
arts of discussion, and could give good
defense, if anybody could Why are they
silent? This is not new question that
has to be studied. Equal rights is not a
novelty in the United States. Besides, this
very question of equal lay representation
has been Endorsed by two general confer
ences of the church and sent down to the
smaller bodies to be defeated by minority.
1t is coming again with force and de-
termination greater than ever before. What
editor of any Advocate in our church has
the courage to tell his readers that he
stands opposed TO giving equal voice to
the laymen in the church congress?
And there are the preachers who vote
against the laymen at the annual confer
ences. Vacation time has come. and some
of them have gone To Petoskey or Chautau-
revivify their wasted energy AS 1t is
not safe to stop work too suddenly. they
might grasp their pens while thus passing
from labor to refreshment and tell US why
they vote against the layman who has TO
stay at home, hot as 1t is, and earn some
thing to pay his preachers salary. If the
present polity of the church is ndefensible
be honest and candid enough to say so,
and let US join hands and adopt a polty
that can be defended.
WILL CUMBACK.
reanshitrp Ind Julv \