THE METHODIST CHURCH

Otago Witness, Issue 2934, 8 June 1910, Page 19

THE METHODIST CHURCH

AUSTRALASIAN CONFERENCE. THE SEPARATION QUESTION. NEW ZEALAND'S WISHES GRANTED. ADELAIDE, May 31. At „th© Methodist Conference the Rev. Mr Lawry moved a motion to confer independent and self-governing powers on the Church in New Zealand. He said that the movement was not a new one, as it had been discussed for at least 40 years. The reasons advanced for it we're the distance of New Zealand from Australia, the excessive time and money involved, and the need of having a supreme court of Methodism in the Dominion. If their desire were not granted now it would be brought forward again and again until it was granted. In asking.for independence they did not do so because of any quarrel, amd there was no question of pique. The necessity of attending a conference in Australia involved them in a heavy expenditure, for which they were never able to discover any adequate return. Mr J. A. Flesher (Christchurch) seconded the motion. Dr Fitchett moved an amendment—- " That in. view of the community of interests and in view of the responsibilities of the Church's great missionary enterprise in the South Seas and India, which New Zealand and Australia had accepted in common, this conference decline the request, believing that separation would destroy the unity of Australasian Methodism and -gravely affect its power to carry out its missionary work." He made a caustic criticism of the procedure adopted by the New Zealand delegates. He said they had to speak and vote under orders from the Dominion Conference. It was 'the Labour party's policy over again—viz., " Dominion by caucus." There were representatives from New Zealand who did not believe in this thing, but who were going to vote foT it. —(A Voice: "No.") The New Zealanders had not advanced any good reason for separating. He would have been inclined to vote for the motion, but all they said was that the conference cost them £l7O per year. If they set up a supernumerary office of their own it would cost them more than that. These surprising gentlemen said that partnership in a big enterprise was nothing, but they had not been told what would be accomplished if they got separation.—(A Voice: "Methodist Union.") They had not even heard that they would secure Methodist Union. He would regard separation as a disaster. The vote for separation last year was greatly. less than- that given in 1887. His own impression was that a little fictitious agitation had been got up.. The debate was adjourned. The Mr Rowe (Queensland) said the question of separation was a national rather than an ecclesiastical question. He supported the motion because he believed that it would be in vain to go against the national spirit of any country. The Rev. J. J Lewis (New Zealand) strongly advocated separation. He said the movement was a democratic one. He did not say that the voice of democracy was always right, but he believed that in this instance the popular voice was a voice for good, because it would make for the advancement of God's kingdom. The Rev. Mr BaumbeT (New Zealand) said he was sorry to vote against his colleagues, but there was a minority of 30 per cent, in the Dominion against separation. The first objection of the minority was that they did not wish to break off the historic connection. Mr J. C. Stephens (New Zealand) said there were growing up in Australia and ! New Zealand two different national senti- j mehts, and, without decrying Australian j sentiment, he said it was indifferent to . New Zealand interests, and the Dominion i therefore desired national independence, j There might be fears that with indepen- j deuce New Zealand might introduce \ radical changes of policy, but such fears ; were groundless. ; The Methodist Conference carried a . motion in favour of New Zealand's j separation by 106 votes to 13. June 1. The Rev. C. H. Laws, president of the New Zealand Conference, said that since

his boyhood he had been an ardent separationist. New Zealanders did not take up their present attitude in any light-hearted fashion. It was the settled judgment of the Church in New Zealand. The Rev. Mr Garland (New Zealand) said he had thought that organic union with Australia was best for New Zealand, but had finally decided to sink his personal views in deference to the unanimous wish of the Church in New Zealand. Dr Morley (formerly of New Zealand) said he thought that the case for the ! Dominion lacked vital argument, j The Rev. W. J. Williams (New Zealand) : remarked that Dr Morley had for 20 years when in New Zealand advocated separation. It was a painful experience to find one who had instructed and inspired New Zealanders on the question now opposed to them. ■; Mr Laws, in an interview after the vote was taken, said that the Dominion delegates were highly satisfied with the result, and with the impartial hearing given to their speakers. The result would give the liveliest satisfaction to New Zealand Methodists. The Conference decided on a forward movement in regard to missionary policy, necessitating an increased income of I £10,500 annually. A total income of £40,000 is necessary to meet the existent expenditure of £30,000 and to defray the deficit of £7900, of which £4OOO was caused by the Fiji hurricane, the balance, being for progressive work in Papua, New Britain, the Solomons, and India. June 3. At a meeting of lay members of the Wesleyan Conference who belong to the legal profession, for the purpose of considering the formalities that are necessary to secure the complete separation of the New Zealand connexion from Australia, the opinion was expressed that it will be necessary to pass a separate act in each 'State of the Commonwealth, and that there must be a separate endorsement of the legislative enactment at the annual Methodist Conference of each State. Such an elaborate process will not only be costly but take uuch time to encompass. The Methodist Conference has discussed the report of the committee which. was appointed at the last Conference to deal with the question of union of churches. The report stated that delay had been caused through having to await answers to questions which -were submitted to the Lambeth Conference, and recommended that the committee be reappointed on lines similar to those of 1907, with a view to the preparation of a more complete basis of union and to foster generally a spirit of unionism. The committee expressed gratification at the progress made towards securing an agreement both as regards doctrine and polity. In the course of a general discussion the Rev. Mr Beale (New South Wales) declared that a union to embrace the Anglican Church was not worth praying for and not worth seeking or having. Let Anglicanism first unite itself and become evangelical. They could not think of union with a church including on the one hand a Romanistic section and on the other hand a Rationalistic section. The committee's report was adopted. June 4. The MetHotlist Conference will make further efforts to induce the Governor of Tasmania to suppress Tattersall's consultations at riobart, and will also urge the Federal Government to make it penal to send consultation literature through the Commonwealth Post Office. June 6. The Methodist Conference adopted the recommendations of the committee appointed to draft a scheme for New Zealand. Under this scheme the Dominion continues to support the forei°n mission of the Australian Church, but will have a separate .supernumerary fund, which will be credited with its share of the Australasian fund. I