Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1910-05-27
CHURCH NAME NOT CHANGED,
NOR LIKELY TO BE CHANGED
Bishop w. A. Gambler

Bishop W. A. Gambler returned to his
home from Asheville, N. e., where he has
been attending the general conference
during the last three weeks.
A representative of The Journal called
on him for an expression of his views
concerning the change of name of the
Meth odist Episcopal Church, South" to
that of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in America" ana to MIN the Bishop said
he Methodist people in the South
and their thousands of friends need not
be disturbed about this effort to change
the name, which is SO dear TO our peo-
pie. The effort has been made twice
before and failed.
-'Fhe action taken at Asheville was
at first to change the mar by mere
majority vote of the General Conference,
which was unconstitutional, and was.
therefore, vetoed by the Bishops In a
message framed by Bishop Wilson in
these brief but cegent sentences: We
the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, reluctantly and very re-
spectfully interpose our veto upon the
actien by which IT was proposed to
change the name of the Church, upon
the ground that the name is part OF
the organic law of the Church, An eff
fort was made to change the name OF
the Church in 1866 and again in 1885.
and on botn occasions the necessity for
the constitutional process was recog-
nized by the General Conference, and by
that Conference was referred to the An
nual Conferences for final determination,
We do not, therefore, feel at liberty to
allow a matter of such grave import, IN
volving titles to property, opening the
way for extended litigation, to take
effect without the sanction CT the Annual
Conferences,
MANY WE'RE ABSENT.
At should not be overlooked" con-
tinued Bishop Gambler, that the action
of the Conference which was thus vetoed
was taken when fully one-third OF the
Conference had gone home, and 1T may
we'll be doubted that it could have passed
at all but for this fact. The small Con-
ferences in the Northwest, which have
votes in the General Conference out of
proportian to their strength in member
s..p, brought forward this proposition
and championed ii. Their delegates be-
ing far from home, remained TO the last
moment of the session, wnile many OF
tue more conservative members from the
great Conferences of the Central, South,
iving near by, had gone home, thinking
that the work of the Conference was
about over. Had they remained 10 the
end, the proposition would have failed
doubtless. Moreover, OF. rev VINO
voted for it will not vote in favour or
the proposition when 1T is submitted ID
the Annual Conferences, where 1t must
receive a three-fourJhs vote in order to
carry. 1t is also noteworthy that no at
tempt was made to override the veto or
the Bishops; the friends OF the measure.
perhaps felt that such motion would
have failed After the veto was trans
mitted to the Conference, a simple mo-
ton to submit the matter, or rather re-
ouesting the Bishops to submit 1T, to
the Annual Conferences was adopted.
Let no one be alarmed; tor there has
been no change in the name or the
Church. nor is it very probable there will
be any change made"
OPPOSES ANY CHANGE.
But what are your own views concern
ing the matter, Bishop? Do you favor
the changer" said the representative OF
The Journal.
With an amused expression upon his
face he replied, Did you ever know a
man to change his name without being
laughed at by the community? Now, l
like fun, but not at the expense of my
church When men change their names.
Il generally means that they are trying
to get away from their history for some
reason or other. Our history is too good
to be ashamed of; If pride were allow
able, we would rather be proud of it.
Our name holds our history, and we
are likely to hold our name"
But does not the name limit the
church geographicallyT it was asked.
by no means" replied the Bishop.