"That they may be one" : in behalf of the organic union of American Methodism

Front matter

THAT THEY MAY BE ONE"

IN BEHALF OF THE ORGANIC UNION OF AMERICAN METHODISM

CLAUDIUS B.SPENCER

Introduction

The hour has passed when the branches of the Methodist family in America (if they really desire organic union) will confine themselves to expressions of fraternal feeling merely or a desire for unification. The history of the present quadrennium makes such a display, if the deliverance confines itself to that, quite belated if not tiresome, because there is now before the Methodism of this country a concrete plan for achieving organic union between at least two of its branches, and those, in numbers, property, and influence, preeminent. Discussion may, indeed, take the form of an argument for organic union and an appeal for its consummation, but all that goes only part way in what is demanded from henceforth of such as take in hand any real or satisfying contribution to the subject. Such expressions were in place w T hen the Cape May Commission met in 1876; more 7

8 INTRODUCTION or less unhappily they were in place for several subsequent decades. But forty years have passed since 1876. A new generation, ignorant, or at least innocent, of the past and its scars, is on the scene ; and this new generation demands not only an argument against the waste, the sectionalism, that builds altar against altar, or in any way indulges in unbrotherly rivalry and competition; the new generation demands also a way out.

Already in foreign lands the dream of cooperation is realized. The issue is clear-cut whether Methodism cannot exhibit in this land, the home and motherland of these foreign achievements, a unification even more real, concrete, compact, and final.

Such an endeavor in this country is now, as we have seen, no longer optional. These pages trace the story of a practical, deliberate, and, in a sense, official, endeavor to provide a Plan for the union of Methodism ; which Plan has been adopted by one of the high contracting parties and now is transmitted to another of the contracting parties for definite action. The

INTRODUCTION

Methodist Episcopal Church must return to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, a definitive answer to this Plan; an answer no longer composed of aspirations and sentiments merely, but composed of a Plan that can be taken hold of and inspected, a Plan no less concrete and substantial, as to the structure of reorganization, than that which is now placed in our hands.

This little treatise, if, indeed, it is more than a tract, gives itself definitely to an inspection of the Plan sent to us by the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, its content and implications : then it suggests certain modifications necessary to make the Plan practicable and unanimous.

Were it proper to do so, I should count it a high pleasure to dedicate this little book individually to the members of the Joint Commission on Federation which drafted the Plan, so many of whom are personal friends, and for all of w r hom I have high esteem.

May I be permitted to add that I will welcome from any source opinions and discussions of the positions taken in this

10 INTRODUCTION book; they will be given due attention; and it is within the compass of possibility that, in essence at least, these opinions and discussions will be placed under the eye of the Churches concerned. Particularly welcome will be such observations as point out defects either in the analysis of the proposed Plan and its implications, or in the amended Plan which is herein submitted to the entire Methodism of this land.

C. B. S.

Chapter I "that They May Be One"

I

First fraternity, then federation; first unity, then union. Not in a moment, not forced, rather a growth from seed to harvest. Thus is illustrated that orderly and normal evolution which holds good in the psychical as well as physical world — "first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear."

The desire is not new to see the prayer of the Saviour fulfilled as regards the members of the Methodist family in this hemisphere: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us ; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." As early as April, 1869, while the shadows of the Civil War still hung upon the nation, the Board of Bishops of the 11

Methodist Episcopal Church appointed the two senior bishops, Morris and Janes, to bear a fraternal communication to the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at their meeting in Saint Louis in the ensuing month of May. It must have been with a feeling of the most solemn joy that each of these men received his commission. Morris was Virginia born; he was bishop when the Church was bisected in 1844 ; he alone of the bishops then in office was still alive; as bishop he had taken the vote by which several Annual Conferences had given their adherence to the Church South; he had been bishop through the awful years from 1844 till 1865; and now, bent beneath the weight of well-nigh four score years, and within a span of his release from this life, he was commissioned to bear the olive branch to the men he had known when the Church was one. Janes, though New England born, was, as we still hear it said by them, the gift of the South to the Methodist Episcopal Church, since, on the eve of the adjournment of the fateful General Conference which bisected the Church, it was their vote that placed him in the episcopacy. He was but thirty-seven then, and now, at sixty-two, having made full proof of his episcopal ministry, he would meet representatives of a body he had reason to regard with feelings deeper than mere esteem. As it was doubtful if the senior bishop could fulfill his commission, Bishop Simpson was added to the deputation ; the gratification such an errand would bring to him would be known of all.

May 8, 1869, at ten o'clock, Bishops Janes and Simpson, having been announced, were introduced to the College of Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in Saint Louis. Several communications of an official nature were read. The first declared:

"Reverend and Dear Brethren: At a meeting of the Board of Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held in Erie, Pennsylvania, in June, 1865, we made and published the following declaration:

" 'That the great cause which led to the separation from us of both the Wesleyan

Methodists of this country and of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has passed away, and we trust the day is not far distant when there shall be but one organization, which shall embrace the whole Methodist family of the United States.'

"This declaration was made in good faith, and shows what were then our sentiments and feelings, and was deemed by us as the utmost we were authorized to say or do on the subject at that time. . . .

"Believing as we do that, if they were one in both spirit and organization, much more could be accomplished for the interests of humanity and for the glory of God, we are desirous of doing all we consistently can to promote a reunion on terms alike honorable to both Churches, and in the spirit of our divine Lord.

"We, therefore, ask your attention to the Commission above referred to, and we express to you the opinion that should your approaching General Conference see proper to appoint a similar Commission, they will be promptly met by our Commission, who, we doubt not, will be happy to treat with them, and to report the result to our next General Conference."

After a few remarks by Bishops Janes and Simpson, and a brief reply by Bishop Paine, Bishop Janes proposed prayer. This was favorably responded to by Bishop Paine, who invited Bishops Wightman and Janes to lead in such devotions, after which the interview closed.

The following response to the above was received by Bishop Morris, May 14 :

"To the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

"Reverend and Dear Brethren: It has afforded us pleasure to receive in person your respected colleagues, Bishops Janes and Simpson, deputed by you to confer with us, and we cannot forbear to express our regret that one of the delegation appointed by you to us — the venerable Bishop Morris — was not able to be present. We desired to see him again face to face, to enjoy his society, and to renew to him the assurances of our affection and regard. Our own senior superintendent, Bishop Andrew, though in the city, was hindered by the feebleness and infirmities incident to age from being present at the reception of your colleagues and enjoying with us the interview.

"Your communication, together with that laid before us by your Commission, has been considered, and we entirely agree in your estimate of the responsibility in the premises resting on the chief pastors of the separated bodies of Methodism.

"We would approach, dear brethren, the matter of your communication with the utmost candor and love, and so meet the advanced steps on your part that nothing shall be wanting on ours to bring about a better state of things, becoming and beneficial to us both. We deplore the unfortunate controversies and tempers that have prevailed, and still prevail, | and our earnest desire and prayer to God is, that they may give place, and that speedily, to peace. In evidence of this we are ready not only to respond to, but to go further than your communication, and from our point of view to suggest what may help to remove the difficulties and obstacles that are in the way." This "response" then continued : "Permit us, then to say, in regard to 'reunion/ that, in our opinion, there is another subject to be considered before that can be entertained, and necessarily in order to it — we mean the establishment of fraternal feelings and relations between the two Churches. They must be one in spirit before they can be one in organization. Concord must be achieved before any real union. Heart divisions must be cured before corporate divisions can be healed."

The response noted the fact that the Church South had years before sent the beloved Lovick Pierce to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church on a message of "fraternal relations and intercourse" — a mission which the heat of the times rendered abortive, so it was not received. In the nature of the case it would thereafter be necessary that the Methodist Episcopal Church should take the initiative if fraternity were to become possible.

In 1870 Bishop Janes and Dr. William L. Harris (afterward bishop) were appointed a deputation to pay a fraternal visit to the General Conference of the Methodist Church, South, in Memphis, Tennessee. The deputation being invited to address the Conference, Bishop Janes having noted that he and his colleague did "not understand that power was delegated to the deputation to negotiate, or that it was appointed to take any definite action in any matter," said: "I suppose that it was intended that the deputation should ascertain what was the state of public sentiment [among members of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South], to learn what embarrassments existed to prevent a union, and suggest in what manner a union might be effected."

He continued: "I do not think any of us anticipate that a perfect organic union can be effected at once. It cannot be done without prayer and without magnanimity and concession on both sides. . . . But I do believe that the prayer of Christ will be heard and that the time will come when his people will be one. Anything to hasten that end should be done." He concluded: "I would do great injustice to my own feelings did I not express the fact that it affords me great pleasure to look upon the countenances of so many whom I knew many years ago."

From that day to this, veering somewhat as winds might blow, both of the Churches have been steadily coming nearer together. It is beyond the scope of this little treatise to trace the course they have sailed ; suffice it to say that to-day the Churches seem within sight of the common haven.

II

In the autumn of 1910 the Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church who were members of the Joint Commission on Federation invited the other members of the Joint Commission from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and from the Methodist Protestant Church to meet them in the city of Baltimore, for the purpose of considering definitely the matter of the organic union of American Methodism. The members of the Joint Commission issuing the call were Bishop Earl Cranston, Bishop John M. Walden, and Bishop Luther B. Wilson; the Rev. John Franklin Goucher, LL.D., the Rev. W. W. Evans, D.D., and President G. A. Reeder, D.D., and Messrs. Robert T. Miller, LL.D., Hanford Crawford, Esq. (whose father, M. D'C. Crawford, D.D., LL.D., had been chairman of the Methodist Episcopal Section of the Cape May Federation of 1876), and Hon. John Alanson Patten, LL.D.

The meeting was held in Baltimore, November 30-December 2, 1910. A communication from the Commissioners calling the meeting was read by Bishop Cranston, which, after reviewing at length the weighty reasons which had moved them to call this meeting, said, "We hereby tender a brotherly invitation to the Commissioners of the respective Churches to consider with us at this time the desirability and practicability of organic union."

Much time was spent in prayer. Nor can there be any question of the depth of feeling and of concord that pervaded every session of the meeting.

After declaring, "We are mutually agreed that the Churches represented by us are equally apostolic in faith and purpose and have a common origin (the Methodist Episcopal Church organized 1784), that they are joint heirs of the traditions and standards of the fathers," and "that our fathers settled the issues of the past conscientiously for themselves respectively and separated regretfully," the Commission appointed a Joint Committee of Nine, three from each Commission, to present, if found practicable, a plan which should provide "for such unification through reorganization of the Methodist Churches concerned, as shall insure unity of purpose, administration, evangelistic effort, and all other functions for which our Methodism has stood from the beginning."

The Committee of Nine met in Cincinnati in January, 1911, and, by the end of three days given to a prayerful study of the subject, had worked out "A Plan of Unification Through Reorganization."

The Joint Commission met in Chattanooga May 10-12, 1911, to hear and consider the report of a Committee of Nine. The report was adopted without a substantial alteration, except that by Bishop Cranston, providing for the uniting of all the colored Methodists into one of the "Quadrennial Conferences."

The General Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church in May, 1912, approved the work of its Commission in agreeing to the tentative Plan of Unification of the Methodist Bodies in the United States by reorganization, but took no definite action on the suggestions looking to reorganization. The report to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in its meeting in 1914, summarizes the record whereby we learn that the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church received the report of their Commissioners, but because of the resolution which was adopted by the Commission to the effect "that at the close of our deliberations we emphasize the statement that the suggestions here outlined are only tentative, that in no sense are these suggestions a plan, but merely the result of our explorations in search of a basis of union/' they seemed to have felt that they were not at liberty to take any action on the tentative plan of unification which the Joint Commission had adopted ; but the General Conference declared, "We heartily approve the action of our Commission on Federation in proposing the question of organic union to the Commissioners in joint session at Baltimore, believing that the membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church would welcome a corporate reunion of the Methodisms of America." A Commission on Federation was appointed "with full power and authority to continue negotiations and to meet with similar Commissions from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, the Methodist Protestant Church, and any and all other duly appointed Commissions from other Churches and branches of Methodism, or with each separately, concerning the commendable purposes of advancing organic union, or closer federation, said Commission to report to the next General

Conference." The Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at the meeting in Washington, D. C, April 8, 1913, declared, "We cannot under the circumstances interpret the action of the General Conference as unfavorable either to the method followed by the Joint Commission or to any of the results obtained."

The General Conference of the Church South met in 1914, in Oklahoma City. On the fourteenth day, Bishop E. E. Hoss in the chair, Report No. Eight, of the Committee on Church Relations, was taken up as the order of the day. After reciting briefly the incidents which w r e have summarized, the report gave the plan for organic union as unanimously formulated by the Joint Commission. But one speech was made, by Dr. F. M. Thomas, the fraternal messenger from the Church South to our General Conference at Minneapolis, and a member of the Joint Commission on Federation. He said: "We are approaching an age of unity; nations may resist, churches may resist ; but the tide will be too strong for them. Two of the spirits which signed this document are looking down from the other world. A great array of heroes wiio have gone to their reward are looking down upon us to-day." He quoted from the venerable Bishop Alpheus W. Wilson : "Great as have been the achievements of the twentieth century, the greatest achievement of modern times will be the unification of Methodism." Also he quoted from James M. Buckley : "To see Methodism in this great nation substantially united would be worth living for and sacrificing for through long years." Dr. Thomas then moved that the Chairbe invited to make remarks upon this subject.

The chairman, Bishop Hoss, arose and with deep feeling gave a vivid interpretation of the significance of the hour. He then called for the General Conference to vote. It was a most impressive moment. The Chair said, "If you will adopt this report, please rise and stand until you are counted."

The entire body arose.

Bishop Hoss: "I do not wish to have any mistake about this. If there is anybody here that is opposed to it, I want him to rise and stand until he is counted."

There was a pause and silence.

Bishop Hoss: "It gives me very great pleasure to say to our brethren that there is no dissenting vote."

The Plan was adopted. The Plan is now squarely before the Methodist Episcopal Church for definitive action.

Chapter II The Plan I

The Joint Commission meeting May 10, 19 11 ? in Chattanooga, adopted the following

Plan of Reorganization of American Methodism

1. We suggest, as a plan of reorganization, the merging of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Protestant Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, into one Church, to be known as the Methodist Episcopal Church in America or the Methodist Church of America.

2. We suggest that this Church shall have throughout common Articles of Faith, common conditions of membership, a common hymnal, a common catechism, and a common ritual.

3. We suggest that the governing power of the reorganized Church shall be vested in one General Conference and three or four Quadrennial Conferences, both General and Quadrennial Conferences to exercise their powers under constitutional provisions and restrictions, the General Conference to have full legislative power over all matters distinctly connectional, and the Quadrennial Conferences to have full legislative power over distinctively local affairs. We suggest that the colored membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church* the Methodist Protestant Church, and such organizations of colored Methodists as may enter into agreement with them, may be constituted and reorganized as one of the Quadrennial or Jurisdictional Conferences of the proposed reorganization.

4. We suggest that the General Conference shall consist of two houses, each house to be composed of equal numbers of ministerial and lay delegates. The delegates in the first house shall be apportioned equally among the Quadrennial Conferences and elected under equitable rules to be provided therefor. The ministerial delegates in the second house shall be elected by the ministerial members in the Annual Conferences, and the lay delegates by the laity within the Annual Conferences, under equitable rules to be provided therefor. Each Annual Conference shall have at least one ministerial and one lay delegate. The larger Conferences shall have one additional ministerial and one additional

lay delegate for every ministerial members of

the Conference; also an additional ministerial and lay delegate where there is an excess of two thirds of the fixed rate of representation. All legislation of the General Conference shall require the concurrent action of the two houses.

5. We suggest that the Quadrennial Conferences shall be composed of an equal number of ministerial and lay delegates, to be chosen by the Annual Conferences within their several jurisdictions, according to an equitable plan to be provided for.

6. We suggest that the Quadrennial Conferences shall fix the boundaries of the Annual Con-

THE PLAN ferences within their respective jurisdictions, and that the Annual Conferences shall be composed of all traveling preachers in full connection therewith and one lay representative from each pastoral charge.

7. We suggest that the Quadrennial Conference shall name the bishops from their several jurisdictions, the same to be confirmed by the first house of the General Conference.

8. We suggest that neither the General Conference nor any of the Quadrennial Conferences be invested with final authority to interpret the constitutionality of its own actions.

II

The Committee on Church Relations, in its report to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, made this recommendation :

1. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, considers the plan outlined in the suggestions that were adopted by the Joint Commission representing the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Protestant Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and reported to the General Conferences of their respective Churches as tentative, but nevertheless as containing the basic principles of a genuine unification of the Methodist bodies in the United States, and especially of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by the method of reorganization.

2. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, regards the unification of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Protestant Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, by the method of reorganization as feasible and desirable, and hereby declares itself in favor of the unification of the Methodist Episcopal Church and the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in accordance with this general plan of reorganization, and in favor of the unification of all or any Methodist bodies who accept this proposed plan after it has been accepted by the Methodist Episcopal Church. However, we recommend that the colored membership of the various Methodist bodies be formed into an independent organization holding fraternal relations with the reorganized and united Church.

3. The representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in the Federal Council of Methodism are hereby instructed and empowered to act as Commissioners with like Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, or with Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Protestant Church, and other Methodist bodies in the United States in elaborating and perfecting the tentative plan that has been proposed, and in carrying forward such negotiations as have for their purpose, and may result in, the consummation of the proposed unification in accordance with the basic principles enunciated in the suggestions which were adopted by the Joint Commission and reported to the General Conferences. Should the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1916 declare itself in favor of unification through the proposed plan of reorganization and should it appoint a Commission on Unification separate from the Federal Council of Methodism, the

THE PLAN representatives of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, are hereby instructed and empowered to appoint a similar Commission that shall serve until the meeting of the next General Conference. The representatives of this Church in the Federal Council of Methodism or such Commission on Unification as may be appointed shall report to the next General Conference the full details of the plan of unification which may be agreed upon by the Federal Council of Methodism or the Joint Commission on Unification for its consideration and final determination. The representatives of this Church are hereby instructed to say to the Joint Commission on Unification that the name preferred for the reorganization and united Church is the Methodist Church in America.

It is this latter Plan that is before the Methodist Episcopal Church for prayerful and definite action.

Chapter III The Freedom And Necessity Of Discussion

I

It is of the highest importance that at this point the question be settled as to whether it is proper to discuss this Plan in a book like this. Particularly is it seemly to ask the question, for one thing because of the quite thrilling manner in which the Plan was adopted by the General Conference of our great sister communion. Some among us doubt the propriety of any discussion. Rather, the document should be referred to the General Conference of 1916, and by it to a committee or commission to carefully work out before it becomes a matter of public scrutiny. This doubt will be removed if attention is given to a few considerations as to the binding character of 32

FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION 33 the proposed Plan. In the first place, we must inquire whether the members of the Joint Commission, though voting unanimously in favor, are committed to it, so that it must not only have their official support as it comes to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and as it now comes to us.

Bishop Cranston has settled this point. In an article written for the Central Christian Advocate and other Church papers, among other things he says :

The Commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Protestant Methodist Church met in joint session at Chattanooga, May 10-12, 1911, to receive the report of a subcommittee of nine, which had been appointed at Baltimore in early December, 1910. This subcommittee had been created to consider the whole subject of union, and to report at a subsequent meeting of the Joint Commission whether a plan of union can be devised, and if so to suggest such a plan.

Before the report was taken up the following preliminary statement signed by Bishop Hoss, Dr. T. H. Lewis, and myself, was offered, and adopted by the Joint Commission — the specific purpose of this preliminary action is at once apparent:

"Deeming it of the utmost importance that no misconception of the significance to be attached to the conclusions that may be reached through the discussion of the report now before us shall be entertained by our people or by the public, and regarding it as scarcely less important to the objects of our deliberations that every commissioner be entirely free in the discussion of the points of said report, we propose the following record as preliminary to the consideration of the same:

"1. This report, which deals only in outline with but a part of the principal questions involved in the matter of reunion of our Churches, is to be regarded simply as illustrative of the present status of our deliberations — which have been steadily directed to the one end of discovering first what is practicable, not what might be regarded as ideal.

"2. This report being the first ever formulated for its purpose, and dealing with conditions complicated and delicate, is to be taken as suggestive of possible lines of procedure, and our conclusions thereon as the judgment of the Joint Commission concerning the question, 'What is at the present juncture apparently practicable as a basis of reunion or reorganization?' "

To save repetition I call attention to the words italicized (by this writer) as containing the intention of all who shared in the action that ensued. Then, again, at the conclusion of the discussion thus introduced, the following declaration (signed by Denny, Hoss, Cranston, Cooke, and Waterhouse) was adopted:

After reiterating in substance the above preliminary statement, these words followed (referring to the "suggestions," which had been agreed upon, and which are now spoken of as "the plan," etc.) : "That we emphasize the statement that the sugges-

FREEDOM OP DISCUSSION 35 tions here outlined are only tentative; that in no sense are these suggestions a plan, but merely the result of our exploration in search of a basis of union. It has not been possible to think through even the questions that have come before us. Other questions not yet touched will need to be weighed, analyzed, and carefully stated."

Finally, if any "finally" be needed after the above, I call attention to the last relevant clause in the address authorized by the Joint Commission to be sent out "To the Methodists of the United States" concerning the results thus far attained. These are the words: "We wish it to be distinctly understood that what we have done is not and does not pretend to be of the nature of a definite plan of union, but it is cast in the form of a series of suggestions to the General Conferences such as may be helpful to them in reaching final conclusions."

II

As to the nature of the case, whether the Plan should be looked upon as final, and therefore beyond the courtesy and pertinency of discussion, the Church South has herself officially spoken. In his remarks before the General Conference at Oklahoma City and just previous to putting to vote the adoption of this proposed Plan, Bishop Hoss declared: "This is not final; nobody dreams it is final ; no one man is wise enough to frame a final plan of union of all Methodism. We should go on and after a time Almighty God will put his hand in and this thing will come to pass."