UNION OF METHODIST CHURCHES.

Otago Witness, Issue 2809, 15 January 1908, Page 34

UNION OF METHODIST CHURCHES.

afterwaids. The union, of the evangelical! , churches was a high ideal, but io "was at different thing when it come to the unions of a" democratic church with one .What wa3> extremely conservative. He favoured the» keeping of the union door opeff until the» Methodist Church of the Dominion ,wasr severed from - the Australasian Chutcß .. When that l occurred, the question, of uniont could be better approached from the New Zealand standpoint.- ' Mr -D. Goldie (Auckland) ' seconded th* amendment, and spok-o .strongly against union on the basi« submitted . by thei Mothbdist Church. The Primitive JMethodists had increased in the Dominion: during^ 10 years at a rate four times" faster' than any of the _ other bodies, whereas Wesleyam Methodists had decreased, and some o£ - their' largest churches in New Zealand werej now practically empty. The Christiani Brethren were the only Church that had! increased faster than the Vrimitiva Methodists. — (A Voice: Their number ' ia very small ! Mr Bobbie : Probably soTj He contended that the Primitive; Methodist body would ■ not ' saint spiritually by unity with the ■ Jvesleyan Church, and referred • in- " condemnatory terms to the agblogetie manner in which the Rev.~ Mr Morl«y"(of the 'Aus-* tralasian* Church) had dealt with the sub* ject of dancing, attending theatres, cordV playing, etc., on the past of church members. ' He quoted from an Australian ,nerw£1 paper .which that ; a .conference"- that" '1 had not .the - moral courage to condemn 'card-playing, ■ dancing-,, aad ( attendance tit"balk on the part' of ,its. members, should?" vote itself out of' existence. It- was" only ' right, - however, to cay that Ms 'JNforley/a views on .these matteis were aofupher^bsi-..' the triennial Methodist Conference."'' There; . -was a danger. under union that they, mighfi „ not liberalise the Methodists, but 'arrive ati" - a contrary /esuli. '*' ~ -" " The Rev. J. Ofccker (Wellington) moved) at this stage that the' question be now putA . The Rev. *J. Ward objected to inter? ference with the. freedom op debate. Her thought the fullest dfeouesion should- ba allovrod without the closure beinp applied; He refuted the statement that had been* - made, not -In Conference, that ministers of their, chusch opposed union for eelfisb purposes, that they were afraid they would} not get a position in the united chuxchw Such>~a statement as that he characterised as an untvuth. The Rev. J. Dawson (Wellington) also! objected to the 'question, being . burked in the manner proposed. The motion thai the vote be taken 1 watf then put, 45 votihff -for and 19 against. '■ , Mr Froggatt asked if-'ne nad not th» right of reply, and the president decided in the negative. The, Rev. J. Dawson f F am, ashamed o£ the action of ouy^ChuTcK- in this- matter. Mr ' Bling said "he was not eurprised "atj the result, as he was aware that memibexat ' had . expressed -their lhtention of throttling the question of union when it came up, andf they had succeeded in doing so-. .The Rev. ' Mr Goofcer denied that th» , propoeal to take the-;' vote- was mode witli * the intention of, thrbttlihjr discussion. He '■ 'as' w.ell as. sthe3», desirect to sveak on! - theomatter. , The motion-was moved to say* , the x time 'of the" Conference", so that they \ 'might gefe'on with other business. ' ' A' vote was then- takenv the result beintjj ; \that 59 : . voted* for. Sir Bellrihfler'fl amende ■ meat, &ni&. 13 ;ios' Mr. Eroggatt's. motion. -*. ■•; The Pre#i«knfc expiQSfied reKr-et that the - closure bad been applied to the discussion* . and the Bsev. Mr Dawson- explained that* he had voted neither v for nor against th«" motion or ameodment, as t^pe were some| things in the latter with which, he did noff ajavje. .- < # The Conference then proceeded to iha '"next business. ,

DISCUSSED BY PRIMITIVE METHODIST CONFERENCE.

OPEN-DOOR RESOLUTION REAFFIRMED.

At Friday afternoon's meeting' of the Primitive Methodist Conference, held in theDundas Street Church Hall, the question i of union with the Australasian Methodist; Churchy was reropened. The matter wa3 introduced on the mot-ion of Mr Froggatt, who moved — "_That the Conference take the necessary steps, .to have the question of Methodist union submitted x to members, of the Church of ''over six months' standing for approval or otherwise." This was seconded by Mr W. Kins (Dunedin). The question also- came before tha Con-ference-in a communication from, the Qtago-' and Southland" District Synod in the following form=: — '! That the Otago.and Sputh'land District Synod is' of- the opinion ".that ,the ' time is now opportune for reconsidering the- question . of - jMethodist Union v in New, Zealand,' .and „ we: respectfully 'and unanimously, request the Conference "pO9OB to make' necessary arrangements for hiring the -question' submitted to the members of our Church of not less than six months' standing for their approval or otherwise." The motiop to exclude -the press and fl?* 011 * , not u *= go ° a ataJ &2*-Jfc f^?n? n ***? put '. w ?f l ost ' only four ,*»*** %B% B1 ™ held up in i* f^? ur " v- „ .M * C ~ Jroggatt (Invercargdl), apeakmg -J» his motion, said the question should be fac ?. d ln • * alr T^ way ;- Th 1 motion simply asked that the question of ™«» stould be referred to the people*P the members of their democratic church —for settlement. Twenty-seven or 30 years a S» the Primitive MetnodSsts expressed a. desire for union with the WeSleyan Mefehpdis* Ohuroh; and the whole of thevr people except a small section in New -Plymouth and elsewhere favoured the proposals. That movement was- defeated by some of their people coming from Australia and vetoeuig H, and now they had the experience that their brethren m Australia had done tnamselves what they would not allow New Zealand to do. It # had been shown, he thought, that union of the Methodist churches in Australia had been a success, They had also the example . before them of three Methodist churches -in the Old Land uniting. The, question of union of the churches was a growing one, and the growth of the movement was rapid, and no believed the union of the. whole of, ehe' Christian evangelical churches -was not tar distant. The sooner it _ came the betterMr" "W. King (ponedin)' /seconded' the motion, and in doing so said it would bein keeping' with their church -.as -* demo--oratio body if - the- people concerned were' allowed & voice in it. He specially desired thai in this vital matter the «o°i' should be kept open, ,and that it should not be* closed for ever, The Rev. J. Cocker (Wellington) suggested tha* as two laymen had proposed and seconded -the , motion, two laymen should reply -from the other side, and that then the vote should be taken, Mr O. Bellringer said he agreed that tbe union door should be- kept ac wide open as possible. But he was not satisfied that^ the adoption of the motion . would do that* or that it would assist a union on- a satisfactory basis. He therefore moved, as an amendment — " That we reaffirm our d'esirß for uaion with the Methodist Churdh in New Zealand 'on sueh v a basis as may_ be maide by reasonable mutual concessions an-d compromise; at the same time we are of opinion that to endeavour at the present to formulate a' basis that would meet with acceptance and consummate a full and happy union would be futile until the clay arrives when it shall be possible.for the two . Churches t* discuss the matter untrammelled" by Australian influences and to unite in forming a Methodist Church for the Dominion, - enjoying' complete selrgovernment, and thus, prepare the way for the union of the evangelical churches in a national "church; and, further, that in yiewof the circumstances, and "more especially the centenary efforts now being made, it would be unwhe to disturb our people by submitting the question of union to. them !at the present juncture. -— (Applause.) lie believed union waa -desirable, but that an unsatisfactory union was not desirable, antf he was not prepared to risk % unwn on the same basis as that made in Australia. It was not union in Australia, it was absorption, and he was not prepared to toe absorbed. He deprecated a policy ol union first and the. settlement of oomHtions