REPORT ON THE STUDY
OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
SEVERAL CONFERENCE
RESOLUTIONS
CONCERNING TELEVISION
By Roy S. Nicholson
Wesleyan Methodism
is beset by the controversy over television. This has been accentuated by the nature
of resolutions passed by certain Annual Conferences and local churches. Some of
these resolutions, examples of which are cited below, have occasioned
inquiries, appeals and notices of intention to appeal (if no acceptable
amendments are made) on the ground that they contravene the provisions of our
Book of Discipline.
One Annual
Conference's resolution declares: "No pastor, conference preacher, or
evangelist on the roll...shall be permitted to own a television set, or allow
one to be brought into a church parsonage, and the Conference shall refuse any
type appointment to one owning a television set."
Another Annual
Conference's resolution provides: "No pastor, Conference Preacher, or
Evangelist on the Roll...shall be permitted to own a television set, or allow
one to be brought into a Conference owned parsonage. Beginning with the
Conference of 1958 we instruct the Pastoral Relations Committee to refuse any
type of appointment to one owning a television set."
A third Annual
Conference resolved that television is a Satanic
miracle to wreck
the Christian Faith, and "that no minister or delegate be elected to
office who has a television set or who is in favor of it...
It is reported by
its president that a fourth Annual Conference, on the basis of what these
Conferences did, assuming their actions to be valid, amended a former
resolution on television so as "not...to station ministers who own or have
a television set in their possession. "
Repeated efforts
have been made to guide Wesleyan Methodists toward the adoption of suitable
principles by which each might ascertain God's will as to whether or not he
should own a television set; and if he did own one, to formulate principles to
govern the types of programs he would permit to be seen on his set, as well as
the time and manner of its use. Apparently such efforts have been unavailing in
certain areas of the Church.
In the hop of reaching a clearer understanding of the scope
and magnitude of the problems involved,
and of finding an acceptable way of reconciling the divergent interests as
represented in the controversy over television and the reactions to these
resolutions, long study and very careful attention has been given to this
matter. Certainly one should hop for a solution short of an official
appeal and a review thereof by the General Conference.
This statement
contains the conclusions which have been reached as a result of the careful
review of the Wesleyan Methodist Disciplines since 1843, the General Conference
Minutes available, and the official histories through Dr. I. F. McLeister's excellent History of the Church. For obvious
reasons, no reference is made to the revised edition of that work.
This is not! ruling on the questions at issue. It is offered as an
explanation of the reasons why the President of the General Conference feels
that such type resolutions are unconstitutional.
This statement is
offered for the careful and prayerful study of those charged with the
administration of the principles and polity of Wesleyan Methodism. The principles
involved are vital. A wrong decision could prove fatal. The foundation of
Wesleyan Methodism is at stake. May God guide each one to a correct decision in
this hour of crisis.
Wesleyan Methodism
is irrevocably committed to the glorious principles that it will be a constant
rebuke to sin in all its forms, and a zealous and active advocate of holiness
of heart and life. One of the greatest hindrances to holiness is the spirit of
controversy. The unwholesome effects of the present
controversy over the television question is to be regretted. All may
never see alike, but each should deal with the other according to the spirit of
Jesus and the law of love.
We are in a crisis
of transition which is always fraught with pain and peril. The birth of
anything new is accompanied by pain. The passing of the old is cause for grief.
Today it is impossible to be static. We are bombarded with false fears and
false hop s. Some would play the one against the other. It is imperative that
we avoid involvement with ideas or forces which deprive of "freedom of
action." There are conditions which can be corrected only by our being
realistic. Evasion and derision are ineffective.
Today one hears
much about "rights" and "privileges", but too often the
corresponding idea of obligation and responsibility is overlooked. If the
essential balance between privilege and responsibility, a concept which has
governed Wesleyan Methodism for well over a century, is neglected it may prove
to have been a fatal turn in our history. The relationship that exists between
Conferences, churches and ministers is a voluntary and mutual association by
which each party binds itself to promote and protect the other's interests.
In
his endeavor to reconcile differences of opinions over controversial matters} such
as the question of television} one must deal with principles. That which is
right and just must be consciously and resolutely followed} however difficult
it may be to arrive at a decision. The effort to reach a prop r decision may be
an agonizing process because of the conflicting appeals and pressures from
provincial interests as represented by the majority and minority groups. At
such a time understanding and tolerance must be manifested by all concerned.
Without that no reasonable reconciliation can be effected.
The designated
administrator of the Church's law has a solemn responsibility to all the
members of the Church. In our Church there have always been individuals and
groups with divergent views on matters which the Church has left to the individual
conscience. At some times the differences have been more apparent and presented
with greater vehemence than at other times. The more
unsettled world conditions are} in general} the greater is the agitation within
the Church.
The duty of a
Church administrator under our form of government is to strive for unity}
despite the wide range of diversities. That has been the pattern since the
Utica Convention of 1843. Then, according to our reliable Church historians,
certain strong individuals and groups with diverse views on Church government
and the conditions of church membership almost prevented the organization of
the Church. Nevertheless, devotion to their high cause of abolishing slavery
and organizing a Church without an episcopal form of
government led them to compose their differences. Allowing divergence of opinion,
within prescribed limits, has strengthened rather than weakened Wesleyan
Methodism. Our form of government has prevented the sudden and violent
usurpation of power, as well as the silent and gradual encroachment upon
individual rights.
The aim of
Wesleyan Methodism is to develop members who are strong morally and
spiritually, and who reconcile their differences in order to contribute to the
general good. To achieve ideal standards for the character and conduct of its
members, our Church has provided Articles of Faith for the guidance of one's
beliefs, and Elementary Principles and General Rules to guide one's attitudes
and actions. It is in the blending of beliefs, attitudes and conduct that
character is exhibited. Granting each one private judgment, within the
prescribed limits, does not encourage unrestricted license. Nor is there such
rigidity that no adjustments would be possible when changing conditions require
a change in controversial constitutional matters. As occasion required,
decisive and definitive legislation on such matters has been enacted in
accordance with due processes. Until desired changes are approved in the
prescribed manner, the leader's task is to seek for a course as nearly that
which is desired as 1s possible under the existing circumstances without
violating the rights of those who may have a different opinion. The methods
employed to achieve what is desired must be consistent with the ideal of the
group. Some may be tempted to use a devious method to attain a desired end; but
an improp r method can stain a good motive. And to
fight fire with fire can mean that both sides may be burned in the process.
Our democratic
form of Church government involves a prop r attitude on the part of those who
govern, as well as those who are governed. Our polity is founded on the
principle that those who govern do so with the consent of the governed, to whom
they are responsible, and those who govern must do so prudently, with due regard
for the rights of all. According to our polity, the will of the majority is
decisive, nevertheless, there are previously agreed upon restrictions which
govern both the majority and the minority groups. They prevent the oppression
of the minority in the administration of the will of the majority. Respect for
the rights of the individual is a binding obligation on those who would govern
with justice. The individual is the basic unit in any group, be it the majority
or the minority. Each individual is created in the image of God, and has a soul
which is destined for eternity. His destiny is determined by his free choices
which reveal his true character. His right to think and choose for himself is
inalienable. And to deprive any man of that right is to violate a vital
principle of democratic government.
The present
situation presents a real problem in achieving a workable balance between
conflicting attitudes and philosophies as they concern the individual rights of
our members and the authority of the Annual Conference. There must be no
divided allegiance among our members, and no considering those members with
whom we may disagree as inferior to
those with whom we may agree. There must be no cultivation of a system of
control which exists by an arbitrary use of power. There must be no distrust of
the motives of those who may disagree with us. There must be no restriction of
the rights of those who may question a course which may be proposed. To follow
the constitutional method of securing concurrence before the proposed changes
in our system are effective may take some time, but it is less perilous to
those principles we hold dear.
The workable
balance in Church administration requires both "character" and
"law". The individual must develop a trustworthy character. There is
also need for regulation, lest human weakness may cause one to feel entitled to
unrestricted personal liberty while overlooking the equality of his brothers
and their right to personal liberty. To possess rights for one's self requires
that he accept the responsibilities those rights entail. Our success or defeat
as a Church will depend more upon the attitudes which control our people as a
whole than upon the actions of specific people. Our Church seems to be at the
point where it must decide whether its main concern is to be with the periphery
of things or with the soul of man. Our dilemma is accentuated by the "hop lessly inconsistent demands and endlessly unsatisfied
grievances" of groups whose interests vary greatly. They seem to feel that
they cannot make any concessions on their interests without compromising their
ideals and principles. The truth is that progress is possible only when
provincial issues and personal interests are made secondary to the best
interests of the whole Church.
The maintenance of
our constitutional liberty obligates those charged with the burden of
administration to be the guardians ot
each individual's rights, and to avoid becoming the instrument by which any
group advances its interests through the forfeiture of others' rights. Devotion
to Wesleyan Methodist polity must be more than a philosophy; it must be a
steady practice. When any law intended for the good of all 1s
"interpreted" and “applied" so as to exclude the rights of any
group or of any individual, it signals the end of freedom and justice.
The extraordinary
implications for ministers and churches in the Conferences'
"interpretation" and "application" of these resolutions
require that they be carefully evaluated. Such an appraisal should be made in
the light of the Holy Scriptures, Church History, American History, Wesleyan
Methodist History, and the Law of the
In the light of
such records, the following are deemed sufficient reasons to challenge the
constitutionality of these resolutions:
I. They Violate ~ of the Plain Principles
Stated in Scriptures. The New Testament gives no particular form of Church
government, but it does enunciate principles which govern all believers in
Christ. It teaches the privilege and responsibility of thinking for one's self.
In Romans 14:5 Paul refers to a difference of personal opinions concerning the
alleged superiority of one day to another, and concludes with this counsel:
"Let every man be fully persuaded (margin, fully assured) in his ~ mind."
In Romans
II. They Violate One of the Fundamental
Principles of Protestantism. The ministry of the Holy Spirit in revealing
the will of
God to the
individual heart is clearly taught in John, chapters 14 and 16; and in the Book
of Acts and elsewhere in the Bible. The Christian has direct personal access to
God, through Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit
applies God's truth directly to the believer's heart, so that there is no need
for the mediation or intervention of a human or earthly priest, or minister
(however pious or sincere he may be) in order to know God's will for the
individual's creed, character or conduct. ~~ether it was so intended or not,
these resolutions could establish dominion over the consciences of men, which
is lithe most absurd of human pretensions" (Bascom).
This same author (Bascom) says: "Whenever the members of a church
resign...the right of discussing freely and fearlessly the conduct of their leaders...
whether it be done by direct concession...or indirectly...
they renounce to a fearful extent one of the first principles of the Protestant
religion..." (This quotation is taken from Bascom's
Declaration of Rights which was included as a part or several editions of the
Wesleyan Methodist Discipline by order of the General Conference. It appeared
first in an abridged form in the
1845
Discipline, pages 125-128, following the first General Conference. It
appeared again in an unabridged form in the 1856 and 1858 Disciplines, pages
99-119. In the Discipline of 1867 this unabridged section was moved to the
front of the book, pages vii through xxvi. The unabridged material also
appeared in the 1872 Discipline, pages vii through xxvi, and in the 1876
Discipline, pages vii through xxvi. Subsequent references to Bascom's Declaration ~ Rights will be to these sources.)
III. They Violate
the Principle Which Governed the Founders of Wesleyan Methodism. At the Utica
Convention (May 31, 1843) The Pastoral Address, quoted by Joel Martin in The
Wesleyan Manual (1889), page 25, said: "We are now of lawful age and have
entered upon the responsibilities of a distinct community to be governed upon
principles more in accordance with our views of primitive Christianity, and we
believe better adapted to the security of individual rights, and to the general
development of Christian zeal and enterprise throughout the ministry and
membership...11
At the Andover,
Massachusetts Convention (February 1, 1843), which prepared the way for
organizing the group at Utica, New York a few months later, the founders of
Wesleyan Methodism reported that they had felt the power of a system of
government which encroached upon "not only...true Christian liberty, but
frequently...the sacred rights of conscience. II Such a trend created alarm for
the safety of the people's rights under such a system whenever a question
arises between the governed and the power that governs" (Martin, op. cit.,
pages 52-53). The purpose of the Utica Convention was to form a Church with
"a system of itinerancy, under prop r limitations and restrictions, with
such disciplinary regulations as are necessary to preserve and promote
experimental and practical godliness" (Martin, op cit., page 55). Martin's comment on the organization perfected at
the Utica Convention was that it was not on the "lowest form of democracy
but "an ecclesiastical republicanism (Page 105).
If
one asks why this deep concern for the individual's rights, both Martin and
The emphatic fact
in this whole history is that... power in the Church was employed to suppress
freedom to speak and write upon a subject which
thousands regarded as a moral evil" (
Jennings' history
shows how men in desperation to protect their cause may misinterpret the power
given them so as to oppress "the most noble principles ever advocated by
mortal man, that of liberty of conscience, liberty of thought, liberty of
speech, and liberty of persons", which are "the rights of individuals
which the gospel of Jesus everywhere respects, and which it is pusillanimous to
yield simply because it costs something to maintain" (American Wesleyan
Methodism, pages 33-35).
Another of the
Founding Fathers of Wesleyan Methodism, who was pastor of the Utica, New York
Wesleyan church, which entertained the Utica Convention until it outgrew its
facilities, wrote: "On the side of the oppressor there is power"
which was used "with tremendous force, in order to crush the rising spirit
of liberty and independent thought" (~~ Times of George Pegler (1875),
page 365). In order to
prevent the "subversion of the rights.. both of
ministers and laymen".. and to avoid the
oppression which led to the dissolution of the ties with episcopal
Methodism.. which had exercised what the founders of
Wesleyan Methodism felt; to be arbitrary and irresponsible power" which
damaged the reputation and sheared the prestige and influence of those who
disagreed with the position of those in authority.. they
espoused the principle of private judgment in matters of religion.
(cf. Martin.. op cit., pages 43,
57.. 59 and 88.) In order to avoid abuse, this privilege was limited by the
laws of God and the rights of his fellowmen. Nothing is right which contravenes
God's law or violates another's God-given rights. Anything which does that is
both inexpedient and unjust.
III. They Violate One of the Elementary
Principles of Wesleyan Methodism. Before the Wesleyan Methodist Connection
was organized, one of the staunchest defenders of the rights of individuals and
minority groups in Methodism was Dr. Bascom. He wrote
the Report for the Minority at the famous 1840 General Conference of the
Methodist Episcopal Church. That his Declaration of Rights, previously cited.. exerted a tremendous influence upon the founders of
Wesleyan Methodism is evidenced by its appearance in one form or another in at
least most of the editions of the Wesleyan Disciplines during the Church's
first 35 years. Its insertion in the very front of the Discipline (often ahead
of the Elementary Principles and Articles of Religion) shows the value set upon
it.
In the first
paragraph of his "Declaration" Dr. Bascom
said: "Man has...the indefeasible right of thinking and acting for
himself, when thought and acted do not infringe the rights of another.. as they never will when truth
and justice are made the basis of human intercourse..." In view of
previous experiences under an authoritarian form of government, the founders of
Wesleyan Methodism acted to guarantee individual liberty. Their first step was
to set forth ten Elementary Principles as a guide for all subsequent
activities. The first defined a Christian Church. The second declared Christ to
be the Head of the Church and the Bible to be "the only rule of faith and
conduct." The third stated the qualifications Łor church membership. The
fourth assured private judgment in matters of religion, in these words:
"Every man has an inalienable right to private judgment in matters of
religion, and an equal right to express his opinion in any way which will not
violate the laws of God or the rights of his fellowmen." The fifth through
tenth principles dealt with the rights, duties and responsibilities of the
organization and its members, whether ministerial or lay.
It is highly
significant that emphasis on individual rights immediately followed the
statements concerning the Church, Jesus Christ and the Word of God, and
preceded that of the right of the Church to "form and enforce...rules and
regulations" which is stated in number seven. These Elementary Principles
appeared as Section I of the first Discipline. They were continued as Section I
for over 70 years. In 1915 the General Conference adopted the present
definitions of Constitutional and Statutory Law which were based on these
Elementary Principles. In editing the next Discipline the Articles of Religion
were placed as Section I, the Elementary Principles were placed as Section II,
and the new legislation on Constitutional ~ statutory ~ appeared as Section
III. That order continues through the 1955 Discipline.
Removing the
Elementary Principles from Section I may have caused some to consider them to
have lost their original significance.
Such an attitude
will undermine the Constitution of the Church. Careful study of the Report of
the (G. C. 1915) Committee on Constitutional Law shows their regard for these
Principles. They have never been repealed. They are of vital significance. If
~his generation of Wesleyan Methodists should ignore these landmarks which the
fathers set, the future could be chaotic.
Occasionally
controversy arises as to whether or not the Elementary Principles apply to a
specific case. For instance, during the first twenty years some contended that
the third Principle (present q 33 of the Discipline) granted local church
membership to members of secret societies. That point was settled in 1860 by
constitutional process. The same is true of the much later controversy over the
use, manufacture, sale, etc., of tobacco.
It can be said
with confidence that the Elementary Principles of Wesleyan Methodism are
intended to prevent prescriptive interpretation concerning the mind and will of
God in matters of faith and discipline. The right of judging what is God's will
belongs to no man or body of men exclusively; it
belongs to all equally and inalienably. It involves the principle of voluntary
concurrence.
V. They Violate A Specific Provision of The
Wesleyan Methodist Discipline. This brings us to the question of the
"rights and powers" of the local churches, the Annual Conference, the
General Conference.
It is vitally
related to the Constitutional Law of the Church. The most careful attention
must be given to the genius (peculiar character) of original Wesleyan
Methodism. It will be found that the strictly literal and extreme constructions
of the independent powers of the local churches and Annual Conferences
underwent certain modifications as a result of practical experiences in church
administration.
Although Wesleyan
Methodism does not have a formal, written constitution, it has a great body of
definite, plainly enunciated principles, the observance of which guarantees the
individual's rights and insures justice to all. There was to be no
"cramping rigidity" in this new organization of free men with equal
rights. Their aim was to have a republican form of government in which the bulk
of the people govern through their duly chosen representatives. Laws to
regulate the governed involved the voluntary consent of the governed in order
to be "rightly enforceable." The government they formed was amenable
to the people and guaranteed not only liberty but also "order, security,
and efficient government."
The organization
of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America was subsequent to the national
controversy between the Federal Government and the several states over their
respective powers. It was subsequent to the controversy in the Methodist
Episcopal Church over the powers of the Bishops, the Annual Conferences and the
Presiding Elders. One school of political thought had contended that the Constitution
was merely a pact between the Federal Government and the states; and that
either one could, at will, nullify any act which it deemed unfavorable to its
own special interests. In order for that which was nullified to be effective
again, it was necessary for the State to call a Constitutional Convention and
amend its Constitution accordingly.
The founders of Wesleyan Methodism
realized that they could not anticipate solutions for all the unforeseen
problems the new Church would face. They also considered some things to be so
vital that they should not be subject to easy change. They must have the
careful thought and the voluntary consent of the greatest possible number of those
whose interests were involved. Such changes would then be in keeping with the
principles of the Church. They would not be capricious or ill-advised. Their
making them effective only after approval in the prescribed manner would insure
their general acceptance. The tragic chapter of American history covering the
1860-1865 period shows the fallacy of the theories of "nullification"
and
"indivisible
sovereignty. To avoid this in the new
Church its founders provided a check against the pressure which would come
should any section press for the enforcement of its interests and opinions on
others with different interests and opinions. Since differences among men are
barriers to uniformity in all things, the new Church aimed to protect the right
to differ without forfeiting fellowship.
It aimed to find
solutions to conflicts of interests without destroying the organization. There
is no easy way to reconcile divergent views, but following the principle of
"prior concurrence" avoids violating the inalienable rights of
others, a danger which could destroy freedom and justice.
Before tracing the
development of our Discipline concerning the powers of the General and the
Annual Conferences, consider the comment of one of the Church's later
historians, Dr. I. F. McLeister in the History of ~
On the power of
the General Conference, the Utica Convention (May 31, 1843) agreed: "The
General Conference shall have full powers to make rules and regulations for our
churches; but, they shall not contravene any principle essential to Wesleyan
Methodism as expressed in our Articles of Faith, General Rules, the maintenance
of an Itinerant Ministry, and the rights of our members and ministers as set
forth in our Elementary Principles; nor shall they make any distinctions, in
the rights and privileges of our ministers and members, on account of ancestry
or color; nor shall they constitute any courts for the trial of members, or
ministers, except the particular churches or conferences to which they may
belong.
"Provided,
nevertheless, that upon the concurrent recommendation of two-thirds of all the
members of the several annual conferences who shall be present and vote on such
recommendation, then the General Conference next succeeding may alter any of
the above restrictions; and also whenever such alteration or alterations shall
have been first recommended by the General Conference, so soon as two-thirds of
the members of all the annual conferences shall have concurred as afore said,
such alteration or alterations shall take effect. "The ministers and laymen
shall deliberate in one body; but if, upon the final passage of any question it
be required by one-fourth of the members present, then ministers and laymen
shall vote separately, and the concurrence of a majority of both classes of
representatives shall be necessary to constitute a vote of the Conference. A
similar regulation shall be observed by the Annual Conferences."-Wesleyan
Methodist Discipline, 1843, pages 25-27.
On the authority
of the Annual Conferences, the 1843 Discipline provides: "The annual
conferences shall have authority to adopt such rules and regulations as they
may deem expedient for their interests, which do not
conflict with the elementary principles, articles of religion, or general rules
of the Connection" (page 30).
The necessity for
such latitude seemed necessary since, at the time this Discipline was framed,
less than 600 words were devoted to the Section on The Annual Conferences,
including statistical data.
One should
remember that since 1843 the Discipline has in some form provided for the
General Conference to review the Annual Conference Minutes. In 1843 it
provided: "the proceedings of each Annual Conference (to be) kept by a
secretary, chosen for that purpose, and shall be signed by the president and
the secretary; and let a copy of the said record be sent to the General
Conference" (page 29). Occasionally it was discovered that some Conference
actions had violated their authority. On this policy of reviewing the Annual
Conference records, the venerable Dr. McLeister
observed: "The review of the Annual Conference records by the General
Conference was made the occasion of exercising its judgment as to the legality
of the proceedings of the several Annual Conferences" (OP. cit., page 53).
These quotations
clearly show that distinct limitations always have been imposed upon the
"power" and "authority" of both the General Conference and
the Annual Conferences. The first General Conference (1844), taking cognizance
of "opposite opinions on the power of the General Conference",
"Resolved, That the restrictive rule shall be amended
by adding 'nor shall they adopt any rule which establishes a new test of membership.'
Nevertheless, the final adoption of this amendment shall be submitted to all
the yearly conferences, and become a law when approved by two-thirds of the
whole number of voters given in all the yearly conferences.
"Resolved,
That all the yearly conferences be required to act at their next session upon
every amendment to the restrictive rule whether it emanate from the General or
a yearly conference" (Discipline, 1845, pages 106-107).
The above
proposals must have failed to pass the required test for adoption. They do not
appear in the proper place in the Discipline following the 1848 General
Conference. That (second) General Conference amended the article on the power
of the General Conference, by changing the words "full powers to make
rules and regulations for our churches; but" to read: "power to make
rules for the whole Connection; provided that" - and continued as
previously approved. Also that part of the paragraph which states ~ proposed
alterations are effective, was amended to read: "then the next General
Conference shall have power to make such alterations as have been thus
specifically recommended." This admits of no change without specific
directions by the designated groups.
In 1848 the
General Conference also amended the paragraph on the authority of "the
annual conferences" to read: "The Yearly Conferences shall have power
to adopt such rules as they shall judge necessary to promote their own
interests and prosperity, provided they shall not contravene any disciplinary
regulation previously established by the General Conference" (Discipline,
1849, page 35).
This provision has
been continued ever since.
It should be
noted, however, that this change in terminology instead of increasing the
authority of the Yearly (or Annual) Conference, actually restricted it.
Hitherto it had authority to pass "rules and regulations which did not
conflict with the elementary principles, articles of religion, or general rules
of the Connection." Henceforth, its authority was reduced to "not contravene
any disciplinary regulation established by the General Conference."
Whereas the Annual Conference formerly had the broad authority to do whatever
it judged expedient, so long as it did not conflict with the three points
specified, it henceforth must avoid contravening any "disciplinary
regulation established by the General Conference," although such
regulations might involve statutory, as well as Constitutional Law.
Five years'
experience revealed how greatly Lee had "stumbled on one fundamental
feature of Church government, as Dr. McLeister
observed (Op cit.,
page 35). He started the denomination on its way "with a lack of cohesion
and effective organization." That weakness was not corrected until much
later when the vision of Orange Scott, one of the Church's founders to have a
"Church" instead of a "Connection, began to bear fruit.
The (l867) edition
of the Discipline shows an amendment to the "power" of the Yearly
Conference, which would insure regard for the rights of those who question a
Conference's action: "If any three members of such Yearly Conference shall
take exception to its action on the ground that it violates this restriction,
it shall be entered on the Journals, and it, or a true copy of the action
complained of, shall be sent up to the General Conference for review (pages
67-68). Evidently there was need for closer review of the Conference records.
The Discipline, 1876 and 1883, contains amendments concerning getting
"records of the proceedings and statistics" to the quadrennial
sessions of the General Conference.
The General
Conference of 1879 further safeguarded the interests of all the people by
adding the requirement of a two-thirds vote "of all the members of the
local churches who shall vote on the question" to the process of amending
the Church's Constitutional Law. Since 1843 that process had required the
two-thirds vote of the members of the General Conference and the several Annual
Conferences in order to effect any alteration. This additional provision
received better than a 7 to 1 vote in the local churches. (McLeister,
Op cit., page
98).
On the power of
the Annual Conference, the General Conference of 1895 added this provision:
"all rules and regulations adopted by the Annual Conference shall continue
in force until the Conference shall amend or rescind such rules or
resolutions", but it retained the provision for an appeal to the General
Conference. (Discipline, 1896, pages 57-58.) These
steps scrupulously respected the principles of the founders. Concerning those
principles, the Rev. A. T. Jennings, long-time editor of THE WESLEYAN METHODIST
and author of American Wesleyan Methodism, wrote: "It will be seen that
this (first) Discipline rejected the supremacy of the ministry, and...recognized by constitutional provisions which could not be
repealed without the united action of the ministry and laity, the parity of the
ministry, the equal authority of the laymen, and the independence of the
individual churches in the choice of their pastors, and in the administration
of many of the laws of the Connection" (page 58).
VI. They Violate Policy Which Has Guided
Wesleyan Methodism [for] Seventy Years. This policy is demonstrated in
This does not mean
unlimited license to legislate as the Conference desires. Paragraph 138 of the
Discipline (1955) prohibits any Conference rule which shall "contravene
any Disciplinary regulation established by the General Conference." It is
indisputable that from the organization of the Denomination to the present the
General Conference has established and maintained the Elementary Principles,
one of which gives every man - minister or layman - the "right to private
judgment in matters of religion, and an equal right. To express his opinion in
any way which will not violate the laws of God or the rights of his fellow
men" (~~ 34, Discipline" 1955)..
VII. They Jeopardize Constitutional Rights
of The Minister and The
The constitutional rights of a Wesleyan Methodist
elder are:
(1) Freedom of
private judgment in matters of religion; (2) Liberty to express his opinions
within the limits prescribed in the Elementary Principles; (3) To enter into
engagement to serve any Wesleyan Methodist church for the next year, subject to
certain limitations, and to receive appointment to exercise the pastoral and
ministerial office to which God has called him; (4) To be considered equal with
all other elders in the Church of God; (5) To hold any office to which elders
are eligible; (6) To receive a righteous compensation for his labors; and (7)
To be tried according to the provisions of the Discipline, with the right of
making an appeal to a higher court in the prescribed manner.
The obligations
and duties of Wesleyan Methodist ministers are: (1) To fulfill all the duties
enjoined by the Word of God; (2) To maintain personal godliness and to oppose
all moral evil; (3) To respect the rights of others; (4) To avoid being lords
over God's heritage; (5) To avoid usurping dominion over the faith of the
saints; (6) To be faithful in the discharge of the pastoral and ministerial
duties as set forth in the Discipline; and (7) To observe all the rules and
regulations of his Annual Conference which do not "contravene any
Disciplinary regulation established by the General Conference."
The conscientious
performance of these duties entitles the minister to have his character passed
and to receive an appointment by the Conference, subject to the provisions of
the Discipline. Should an Annual Conference adopt and enforce a regulation
which deprives any minister of any constitutional right, such a regulation
would contravene the provisions of the Discipline as established by the General
Conference.
According to the
Wesleyan Methodist Ritual of Ordination~ which has obtained since 1843, one
ordained to the office and work of an elder is declared to be "an elder in
the
Regarding these
resolutions' jeopardizing the constitutional rights of the local churches, one
must realize that the lack of ~ formal, written constitution has permitted the
obscuring of some of the constitutional rights. It has been discovered that on
more than one occasion amendments have been made in some material previous declared
to be constitutional.
The first General
Conference (1844) provided for a stationing committee to "station the
preachers, confirming, as far as practicable, all arrangements made between
preachers and people...11 It limited the term of
pastoral service to three years successively on the same station or circuit. It
also provided that the stationing committee should not appoint any preacher to
any station or circuit, contrary to the expressed wishes of the circuit or
station, communicated to the committee. The representations of the preachers
and lay delegates were to be received and the appointments reported at as early
a part of the conference as practicable." It also provided for the preachers
and lay delegates to appeal to the conference from the report of the stationing
committee (Discipline, 1845, pages 48, 49).
The second General
Conference (1848) clarified the matter of pastoral appointments. The Discipline (1845) provided for the general supervision" of
the Yearly Conferences over the pastoral relations within specific limits.
The right of preachers and churches to arrange for pastoral service was
continued, with the express provision that "no...appointment
shall be made contrary to the expressed wishes of the minister or licentiate to
be appointed, and of the pastoral charge, or its representative..."
Recognizing the desire to remove the limitation on appointments after three
successive years on the same charge, the General Conference specifically
granted Yearly Conferences the "power to suspend" that one item if
they desired to do so. Nevertheless, it retained specific provisions that
"The Conference shall not interfere with such (pastoral) engagements,
except for justifiable cause, growing out of the fault of one or both of the
parties" (pages 33, 34). The first limitation, in 1844, was that no
pastoral appointment was to be made contrary to the wishes of the local church.
The next limitation (1848) required attention to the wishes of the minister, as
well as the local church. In 1856 provision was made for a Conference Committee
on Pastoral Relations to which lithe whole subject of the arrangements entered
into between ministers and Churches" were to be referred. They were to
examine into the arrangements and "appoint the unemployed ministers to the
vacant charges, and report the list entire to the Conference, according to
their best judgment; and the Conference shall have power to adopt it as
reported, or to amend it, provided that arrangements previously entered into
shall not be disturbed, except for justifiable cause as provided for
above" that is, "fault of one or both of the parties" church
and/or pastor.. (Discipline, 1856, pages 36, 37.)
The General
Conference of 1875, in modifying the paragraph on pastoral appointments,
omitted the requirement to respect the wishes of the ministers and the churches
in the appointments "to the unoccupied churches." This part was left
to the "Judgment" of the Conference. That, it must be remembered,
referred to the "unoccupied churches," those which had not
"arranged" the pastoral relationship for the ensuing year. The
Discipline, 1876, page 66, retained the specific prohibition that for those who
had so arranged: "The Conference shall not interfere with such
engagements, except tor justifiable cause, growing out of the fault of one or
both of the parties."
By 1911 agitation concerning what
part of the law of the Church was constitutional and what was statutory cause~
the General Conference to appoint a committee to study the question for a
quadrennium and report to the next General Conference. It was composed of three
elders, the Rev. Messrs. Eber Teter,
P. B. Campbell and A. T. Jennings; and two laymen, Messrs. E. G. Dietrich and
J. S. Luckey. The committee's report, except two
items which were referred to it for further study, was adopted. The Rev.
Charles Sicard was chosen to fill the vacancy caused
by the death of the Rev. A. T. Jennings. (General Conference minutes,
1915, pages 13, 14, 32-34.) The report as adopted appears in the 1915
Discipline as paragraphs 39 and 40.
It is distressing
that some subsequent editions 01' the Discipline did not preserve the exact
terminology which the General Conference 01'
1915 adopted as
"constitutional." A detailed recital of these items is not
appropriate here, but a pertinent item concerns the authority of the Annual
Conference to alter arrangements between ministers and local churches. The
General Conference (Discipline, 1915, Paragraph 39, sub paragraph 2, page 23)
declared: "the rights of the churches and ministry, as is set forth under
said paragraph 102, subsections numbers 1, 2 and 3, are constitutional."
That paragraph dealt with the Annual Conferences' supervision of the ministers
and churches within their bounds. Subsection 1 gave ministers and churches the
liberty to contract the pastoral relation during the year subject to the
concurrence of the President. Subsection 2 gave ministers the liberty to enter
into engagements to serve a church following the next session of the
Conference, subject to specified provisions. Subsection 3 declared: "The
Annual Conference shall not interfere with such engagements except for
justifiable cause, growing out of the fault of one or both of the parties"
(Discipline, 1915, page 102).
That, as
constitutional law, could be amended only by the concurrence of two-thirds of
the members of the General Conference, two-thirds of the members of the Annual
Conferences, and two-thirds of the members of the local churches.
The complete file
of Disciplines is not available since the fire of January 15, 1957, but between
1915 and 1943 subsection 3 (previously declared to be constitutional) was
amended solely by General Conference authority by a definitive sentence:
"The justifiable causes are defined as follows: If the Conference Judges
that the agreement entered into is not for the best interest of the work of the
Lord on said charge" (Discipline, 1943, 2nd Edition, page 72).
No one questions
the motive back of the amendment, but it plainly violated an essential and
vital principle of the Discipline. It unlocked the door for a later, and
complete, departure from the original genius of Wesleyan Methodism. The later
step plainly abrogated the constitutional rights of ministers and local churches
which had been honored for almost a century. The constitutional obligation to
respect arrangements between ministers and churches had been weakened by a
"definition". It was completely nullified by this change:
"The Annual
Conference may alter the agreement entered into by any pastor and charge when
it deems it would be for the best interest of the charge or pastor involved or
when the general interest of the conference work would be better served by such
a change" (paragraph 131, Discipline, 1947, pages 77-78).
That action was manifestly a breach
of constitutional law, It took from the people,
without their consent through constitutional channels, the sovereign power they
had reserved unto themselves. It reverted to a policy which the founders of
Wesleyan Methodism had repudiated a hundred years before. It seemed to favor a
rule by which expediency might supersede right when certain controlling
interests desired to have it so. It provided a plan by which, under a change of
circumstances, that which may once have been useful and effective could become
oppressive and intolerable. It could be used to repress free communication of
thought and feeling among the people, and quell honest convictions and free
inquiry, lest the exercise of such rights expose some to the disapprobation of
those in authority who disagreed with them~ and it could result in their being
denied appointment to serve the churches which might desire their pastoral
service the ensuing year.
After extensive
research and intensive consideration of all the factors involved in this
controversy, and after a prolonged and agonizing quest for divine guidance in
this decision, if the parties involved do not make an amicable adjustment and
the appeal to the General Conference President for a ruling is completed, he
feels compelled to give it as his conviction that the resolutions under consideration
are unconstitutional.