|
 “We
are now to see the influence of the American evangelists with
regard to the annual conference.... At this third conference,
held 13th. April, 1868,... When there was a discussion on the
“Hymn book,” an important question was raised, namely: How
far do the resolutions or recommendations passed at the annual
meeting affect representatives and churches? (B.M.H. , Vol.
21,p.255). The greater portion of the day was given to the
discussion of this question. The majority decided that the
decisions of conference should not be binding, but that the
delegates should convey any decision to their respective
churches for their acceptance or otherwise. This view was
supported, it seems, by those influenced by the American trained
evangelists
The
older (British, rft) brethren were not easily moved. They held
to their view and defended it “stoutly.” These men sought to
make conference resolutions binding upon individual churches.
Although out-numbered, they so held to their view that the
subject was deferred to a special meeting to be held on 9th.
November, for further discussion. At this special meeting the
problem was again debated for several hours but without any
finality being reached; each side, apparently, was determined to
hold out, so it was moved that “the meeting adjourn sine die”
(B. M. H., Vol. 22, p. 140). A. Thomson, who was in close
fellowship with G.L. Surber, may be considered as setting out
the American viewpoint, when he stated, “Some brethren are
very wary of even the appearance of establishing a body of
brethren — call it what you may — vested with power to
control the action of the churches, or to legislate for them
|
|
in matters of expediency,
believing such to be wrong in principle and injurious and evil
in its results: hence its action has been watched.” (B.M.H.)
For
three years no conference was held, but a compromise seems to
have been reached in which the American viewpoint, to a great
degree, prevailed. The next conference was called in 1872, and
this time was held at Prahran. From this date conferences have
been held annually, and the decisions of the representatives
have been considered advisory and not binding upon churches. The
question was raised again in 1888, but once more the
authoritative element of a conference was rejected, and so
conferences have remained more or less advisory.”
(Later,
in summation, the writer says:) “We may also venture to state
that the ultimate nature of church government and the
relationship of a conference of churches to an individual
church, prevailing in Australia, was largely determined by the
lead given by the American outlook. When the need for a
conference was eventually realized in 1872, the conference was
then so constituted that it was to be merely advisory and not
authoritative. In spite of this, the move in recent years
throughout Australia has been toward a strengthening of the bond
between churches, and conference decisions are becoming,
mutually, more binding upon individual churches.” (PIONEERING
FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY, by A.W. Stephenson, pub. 1940)
[Previous
Article] [Next
Article]
|
