INDEPENDENT METHODIST CONFERENCE FOR N.Z.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14698, 4 December 1909, Page 14

INDEPENDENT METHODIST CONFERENCE FOR N.Z.

AN INTERESTING DEBATE,

By far tho most important, matter dealt with by the Synod at Gore this wool; was the question as to whether the New Zealand Conference should be granted the power of self government or continue as heretofore her connection with the Australasian Church. In view of the faot that in May, 1910, the triennial meeting of tho General Conference will bo held, special attention las been focus**! on tho question, and the opinions of local and district church courts lias been most eagerly sought. In past years the Otago Synod has repeatedly occupied a prominent place in tho demand for separation, and this year is again to tho fro l '• The interest evoked was evident in the full Syncd and the prcseneo of quite a ntunbor of outsiders, Tho leaders in the debate -were each allowed a quarter of oil hour, and oilier speakers wore limited to 10 minute* cach.

Sir E. Rosevear, of Trinity Church, Dunedin, moved—"That this' Synod is of opinion that an Tiidepcwlan-t Conference should lx> constituted for New Zealand." J, lie speaker said that 011 three occasions the Aew Zealand Conference had honoured him in oloetiiif; him as a representative lo tho General Conference. He had alwavs taken a deep interest in the i|uestion, and had given it the fullust consideration. He ga\e othe-rs credit for their opinions, awl east 110 reflections 011 any speaker. Now /salami was simply asking what Australia ahd herself aslwd for many years ago. In tho year 1850 Itov. K. Ycung was in Australia aa a deputation from tho Mother l-lmrch 111 (.treat Britain. An address WJ9 presented to lum by the Sydney peoplo selling forth their desire for separation from the Clmrc.li in the Old Land, expressed in tlio following terms:—"We trust, as the result of the now arnin moments by the Wrslcyan Conference and Missionary Committee, w.hieh you are specially deputed to lay beforo the Australian churches, an Australian Connexion will bo formed;** wh-ioh, while enjoying greater freedom cf action from the possession of its unn Conlucnec, wilt >el-, in all matters of doctrine and discipline, remain, as heretofore, 0110 with the Connexion at Home. Though separated by a vast distance from our friends at tin: Antipodes, we are, and mean to continue one m heart with thorn. The Methodist, churchc of Great Britain and Ireland are our mother cJntrches; \yc are proud of our lr 1 aJid therefore the Methodists of Great Britain and Irelandand Australia must ever bo ono people, holding thp same doctrine, maintaining the same g «||y discipline, and cltrrviiig out the same onc_ object-tliat is to say, the Spreading of vital godliness throughout t.h<> word tho basis of Australia's dc-mand in 1853 was the basis of New Zcafoml's (loniand to-day. The annual oonferc.n<y> for Australia was instituted in the year 1355. At that time I here v. ero only six circuits m Nciv Zealand—four m Uk North Island \ ] "l 7° i m i A !' th ; s - irfce thcn tho New Zealand Church had grown almost vond lecogriition. For instance, in 1874 w h zm C . LrcUlts 98 °burchos, with 2202 members. Now there were is d 7? ClrCUlra -i an<l 524 cllUTo l><» with 1j.4/2 members. In ism ch™,representations wero made for sopf In 1887 thSTfS Sy « o<l the ™yn mi tho Otago Synod, with 27 present liT 189' V®? Ut i on f f our of reparation! isfcwl fIJ ?f n >n j® l, ? nca he,d in Wellington teked! the Alothodist j>eople to decide. Six<cn quarterly moehng.i voled, 14 of which "ere in favour of tho change. Tho recent plcbiseito was most emphatieallv favourable O autonomy Was the will of the lwonlo lo be baulked? Were they asking for anvWM "w !?i d tc , ncl (0 1 1U »' the Church II 1 tlle change mean that they would bo different. Methodists? Those who e,nd so did not. mean it. The opponents of separation claimed that our connection with Australia had dono us good. lie admitted tha was true, but what did New 7/saland Methodists know about. Australian Methodism Our people went to English panera for church news. He (the speaker) 'believed t lint, ho had a wider knowledge of the world-wide Methodism than the average Methodist. Would that interest lessen if separation were granted? Assuredly not. At the General Conference in Adelaide in 1870 three Now Zealand ministers wore present. Tho report of the procpodingft numbered 25 pages. Our last New Zealand Conforonoo minutes contained 136 pages. Tho men who did the work recorded in those minutes wero capable men. Wisdom was not limited to tlwsc 20 who tricnnially wont .to Australia, When they returned from the General Conference how many got tlie benefit of their experience? Ifc should not bo thought for one moment that New Zealand men were incapable of legislating for themselves. Referring to intercolonial exchanges, ho would like to point out that sinoe 1875 t.herc ihad been 91 ministerial transfers. Only seven of these were arranged by New Zealand, and it had cost £560. Only tlio chief ministers went to the General Conference, and, as it followed closely after tho appointments to new circuits, it caused much derangement and inconvenience. Again, there was no community of interest with Australia. The men of Australia worked out their own destinies apart from New Zealand. Indeed, many Australians wondered why year after year the Dominion's representatives visited Australia. As to the effcct. of separation on foreign missions, ho was inclined to the opinion that with a field of her own New Zealand interest would materially increase. Thero need be no alarm as to tho expense of working a separate supernumerary fund. Tho Presbyterian Church had £115,000 in its fund, the investment of which was managed by four laymen, lie was quite certain that New Zealand's share of- tho supernumeravv fund could bfl invested for one-tenth of tho cost which their opponents mentioned. Separation, too, would give larger opportunities to our laymen. Ho would say advisedly that our laymen were «e"kiii" for such opportunities. Tliev wished W take part in their legislation of the Church, and by granting them tins power would retain for the Church laymen of conspicuous abilities. Now Zealand Methodism had left its swaddling clothes and grown into manhood. Once granted the power of self-government, the Church would enjoy increased vitality. Mr J C. Stephens (Diuiedin) seconded tlio niotoiis and reserved his speech. The Rev. T. N. Griffin (Oamarn) led tho negative siilo of the proposal. He said that after listening to Mr Rosevear and weighing his points well, he _ was not one iota more convinced of the wisdom of separation than before. 110 ivould ask what did tho Australasian connection consist of.' It nmnborcd 137,003 members and 44,000 adherents. The advocate of separation had omitted to mention one reason why they were seeding a chaiijo—namely, union with tho Primitive Methodists might to consummated. He would remind them that, even if separated from Australia, they would still belong to it. They were separating from lralf 'a. million that they might unite with 15.C00. It would involvo what. Mr Kosevc.ar had said was not likely to happen. The issuo would be that they would have two different Methodisms in Australasia. The effect of separation on foreign missions would be disastrous. If New Zealand had a separate minion field, say Fiji, then there would be a different Methodism in Satnoa from that in Fiji, with different laws a.nd constitution. That would bo a serious and lamentable mistake. Tho onesided and violent controversy in the Outlook (of which somo leading Methodists did not read a line! might cause people to think that tho New Zealand Church was a martyred church hoaped wth contumely. Hut in (heir work as pasters and ministew they wittered no disability whatever. They h.iJ power to ex'ept such methods as wore thought ncecesary. They feleeted and trained their own ministers and deaconesses. The New Zealand- Church had a free hand in tho work of the (.Well. Ho felt it an honour to belong tc, tho laj'gor church in I Australasia, especially us Ncv Zetland had «dminist:a'.:vo powers. He 'oelkrod in the

spirit of union, cspccially of Methodist union. Wo were not to be compared with the Congregationalism or Salvation Army. The Salvation Army was not independent: it was chained by General Jiooth. The power they have wo have. In Australia greater numbers than hc-re were pillars of the Church, possessing wisdom and the true spirit of counoxionalisin that, would lift our Church. Did it follow that because we had equal knowledge we should separate? What would happen suppose separation were granted? J» a few years they would want two island conferences, then a ehango of the itinerary method. They ought not Jo occupy the position of political agitators. Their work would Ik. more effectively done if they continued an administrative conferonce merely. It was not a matter of £s. d. At t ho same time he could not see how the work of the Supernumerary Fund and the Foreign -Mission Funds could bo done as cheaply in two ofiioes as in ono. Why not lei. well alone?

Mr J. 0. Stephens said ho hoped ho had not yet reached that stage when argument wcu.d not alter his mind, but ho had not yet been .persuaded bj; the arguments of tho other side. He did not question their sincerity, but when an overwhelming majority demanded separation, then the onus rented with the minority to show why it should not lako place. They had been lold that this discussion should be elevated to the piano of What is good for our Church. lie accepted that. In all coinmunition and nations it was iuCYitoblo that a dceiro should arise for local govermnent. It was a political parallel, but it mas not. degrading Politically Now Zealand had dc-cidod to go alone. Other churelws in the Dominion had also decided to govern themselves. Tho Church would lxs just as loyal if mitomony wore granted. In Empire affairs the fact that Now Zealand was self-g-overniiiff did not decrease her loyaity to the Empire as a whole. Six times this had been l»fors our ClHtrch, and the interest was growing. There was no community of interest with tho Australians. Now Zealanders were forming a different race with different idoaw, with which. Australians did not sympathise. In law matters the Privy Council was the final cc-urt of appoaf. Many were questioning the wisdom of this, as those at Homo could not always interpret flu> purport of !No\v Zealand 1 law corrcolly. He felt that underlying the exposition to autonomy was a distrust, of" reform. Their opponents wero afraid to trust New Zealand, Every reform advocated in New Zealand had been opposed in Australia. There t would bo more interest in foreign, missions if a definite aval were allotted. He instanced the loss of men, ironoy, and time through sending to Australia, and the-lack of control Now ZcaJanders wielded over conijcsbml funds. Many toymen had no onance t.o (alco part in tho legislation of the Church because of tire distance to AusAs to the supermimary fund, a commission basis for investment would bo cheaper than tho present method. Mr Kollow (Otautau) opposed the separation movement.

Rev. W. Slado (Central Mission) said that until the General Conference of 1907 ho thought that. New Zealand would bo belter associated with Australia. At that Conference he -was half converted. At a great reunion in the citv rthere. the Conference was hold the New Zealand president was omitted from the list of speakers. The excuse given was : " Oh, wo New Zealand." At another large of young people at that Conference New Zealand was omittea. Ho came back wondering what use tho General Conference ivas to New Zealand. If this Conferenco by a large majority asked for separation ho thought they should have it. Ho was quite certain that New Zealand could manege its own affa.irs. Rev. M. A. R. Pralt (Roxburgh) said he did iio'. wish logive a silent vote. By birth a New Zeala.nder. and of Australian training, |ic had hitherto opposed independence. The voting of the quarterly meetings, however, clearly showed that (separation was inevitable. That, being so, he felt that tho longer it was delayed the gl'ottor would be the jolt, at the transition period. The speaker's life was devoted to Mcih<xL>m in the Dominion, whether united lo or severed from the Commonwealth. Ho would, therefore, cast a reluctant vote for independence. Rev. G. T. Marshall (Otautau) thought that tho fact of a majoritv in tho quarterly meetings voting in favour of indepen donee did not show a strong feeling among our ]>eoplc for separation. The Methodist was not tho only church in New Zealand with outside legislation. In the Anglican uhurch leoently some sort of separation was sought in order that a change might, be mado in the Prayer Book. What was there that, wo could not get as at present constituted? Our students' cirriculuni was tby Australia. Ho thought that, generally speaking they wero truer to Methodism in Australia than here, and connect! jn would help to keep us truer. Rev. D. J. Murray (Mornington) remarked that nothing yet said or written had convinced him that separation would benefit us. If it. came we would bo kopt in a etatc of unrest as to wlmt might happen. Ho wanted this to bo guarded against. It was a weak argument to say that because a thing was bound to come one would vole for it. He would like to 1)0 assured that thjre would bo no tampering with fundamental Methodist principles.

.Rev. J. \V(iT(I (Port Chalmers) strongly favou.-ed separation, though arlmitting- that some goo:I in the past had accrued through bcin? linked to Australia. At tho present time moro courage was needed. Ila had forved under the Primitive Methodist Church, and his father was the first Primitive Methodist to cross tho Equator. Roforcnoe had been made to possible union with the Primitive Methodists following autonomy !rom Australia. Wei], why not? Rolf-government would not prevent them from still belonging to the larger Methocist Church. It did not in tho ot Australia, nor would it in the ease of New Zealand. He confidently believed better work would bo done if New Zealand were granted her requst.

_ Mr E. Bosvear, 'in replying, drew attention to the fact that the Primitive Methodists in Australia, had joined the larger church. Ho would inform Mr Marshall that tho Anglicans in New Zealand were not ablo to print their own hymn-books, and that this explained the recent difficulty. As to tho students' curriculum, one of tho Now Zealand examiners had informed him (hat one result of separation would bo to raiso the status of the curriculum to a higher plane. He would again ask what benefit did New Zealand receive through connection with Australia? He was certain that tho disturbing element would not die until separation was an accomplished ,faet.

The motion was then put, 27 voting in its favour, 7 against, and one remaining neutral.