WHAT WILL THE HARVEST BE?
After the examination we have made, and trying to scan the future, we
see what has been gained by the colored members who remained in the
Methodist Episcopal Church. They have been admitted to full membership,
to communion at her altars, official relation as laymen, given work in
the pastorate, presiding elderate, and given to understand that “color
is no bar to an election to the episcopacy.”
“But these attained, we tremble to survey
The growing labors of the lengthened way;
The increasing prospect tires our wandering eyes;
Hills peep o’er hills, and Alps on Alps arise.”
Will a time ever come in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church
when she will tire of the race question, and abandon forever her work
among and for the colored man? It is hardly conceivable that this will
ever occur. The discussion of the race question becomes beautifully less
at each General Conference. It is true that new phases develop now and
then, and there follows a clash at arms; but it never, nowadays, amounts
to more than a passage at arms, for the reason that the average agitator
receives but comparatively little encouragement from those Churches in
this country which have turned their backs upon the colored man. They
tremblingly hope the Methodist Episcopal Church _will_ make some awkward
step that will eventually drive the colored man out; but they have seen
her stand by him in the hottest contests unflinchingly, and in the face
of a gainsaying prejudice that is as old as the venerated Constitution
and as deep rooted as sin, and they fear to say yea or nay touching what
it will or will not do. The Methodist Episcopal Church can never forsake
the colored man, and be consistent. It declared in 1816, 1844, 1861, and
1872, by its actions, that the duty of the Christian Church was to stand
by the colored man, by making him feel at home within it as much as
possible. Now to go back, would be to say that the Church South in 1844
was right in defending slavery, and right in ridding itself of the
colored man in 1870, and that that which the Methodist Episcopal Church
did at those periods was wrong. This it can never do, and be consistent.
One other question at this juncture arises. It is one fraught with much
interest, as it is one that would involve the entire eight millions of
colored people in this country, that would naturally widen the chasm
between the white and colored races in this country, and would sustain
the same relation to a war of races in this country that the separation
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, sustained in 1844 to the war
of the Rebellion. It is, Will the colored members within the Methodist
Episcopal Church eventually be separated from it? If the existing
relations between the Church and her colored members remain as they are
now, No. There could be no reason for a separation, since “there is no
word white” known within the letter of the law of the Church to indorse
invidious distinctions “on account of race, color, or previous condition
of servitude;” there are no privileges accorded to any man of one race
in the Church, that another of any other race within the Church is not
entitled to _by law_. There is no church-building with the name of the
Methodist Episcopal Church inscribed upon it, into which any person
“having a desire to flee the wrath to come” may not go as a worshiper,
or become a member. This is also true of any university, college, or
school under the auspices of the Church. There is no annual conference
of the Church to which the colored man has not a perfect right to
belong; no position within the gift of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
from janitor to bishop, to which any member, white or colored, may not
aspire, be elected or appointed to, and discharge the functions
pertaining thereto, without hindrance. In a word, the white and colored
membership within the Church is, according to the enactments of the
General Conference, equal in all that pertains to Church membership and
privileges. Hence there is now no cause for the colored membership
seeking separation from the Church. “We know not what a day may bring
forth;” but, judging the future by the past, there will never come a
time when it will be _absolutely necessary_ for the Church to put away
its colored membership, nor _an absolute necessity_ for the colored
membership to withdraw from the Church. The question of the inferiority
of the colored man within the Church to the average white member within
the Church, is fast disappearing, whether we speak of this in reference
to General or annual conferences. The Methodist Episcopal Church is
turning out enough young colored men from her universities, colleges,
and schools, from Boston to Austin, Texas, each year, _to form an annual
conference_. The graduates from her schools are everywhere joining the
Church and conferences, and, to a certain extent, coping with those
whose chances have been more favorable. No absolute necessity for
separation exists, and, for that matter, may never exist. May it not be
found more profitable, after a short time, for all the colored
Methodists in this country to unite and form _one grand united body of
colored Methodists_? This question has been urged by many different
parties, with as many different motives at the bottom. Let us notice a
few. In “Our Brother in Black” (by Dr. A. G. Haygood, of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, South,) at page 226, we find the following touching
the point at issue:
“The most remarkable tendency that has so far shown itself in
the development of their ecclesiastical life is the strong and,
as I think, resistless disposition in those of like faith to
come together in their religious organizations. The centripetal
is stronger than the centrifugal force. We have already a number
of African Churches. Indeed, the great majority of them belong
to Churches not only of their own ‘faith and order,’ but of
their own ‘race and color.’... This disposition has become very
pronounced, and has expressed itself on a very large scale since
they were set free.”
At page 236 the good Doctor reaches his point when he says:
“If every colored Methodist in the United States were to-day in
one organization, this would not change the grounds or nature of
our obligations to them in any respect, so far as fraternal
love, fraternal aid, and co-operation are concerned. It would
then, as now, be our duty to help them in all possible ways; and
considering their history in this country, and the providential
indications of their relation to the salvation of Africa, just
as much our duty then as now. If there were not one Negro in the
Methodist Episcopal Church the Freedmen’s Aid Society would be
as much needed as it is now. ‘The colored Methodist Episcopal
Church of America’ that was ‘set up’—I hope not ‘set off’—needs
the help of its mother, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
every whit as much as if they were still with us. Nay, all the
more, because they are not with us. And we ought, before God, to
help them.” We simply add, _it is about time_.
In a book written by a layman of our Church, John A. Wright, of
Philadelphia, with the title, “People and Preachers in the Methodist
Episcopal Church,” at pages 262–6, touching the question of separation,
he says:
“A conclusive argument in favor of separation would be made if
it could be satisfactorily proven that the connection as it now
exists is injurious and demoralizing to both parties; if it
could be shown that their presence is a danger, and has a
corrupting influence on the main body of the Church; and that
such separation could be made without injury to the colored man.
There has been an unwillingness, a hesitation on the part of the
Church to discuss this question, but the undoubted use that was
made of the colored votes in the last General Conference (1884)
to secure places was so patent to every careful observer that it
can not be kept down. The ease with which the influence and
votes of these innocent and generally very ignorant
representatives were secured by those nearest to them, shows how
great a danger there would be in the abuse of the confidence
placed by them in their avowed friends.
“There are important movements among the colored people that
should be noted. All will remember the enthusiastic patriotism,
civil and religious, which was to abolish all color-lines and
all laws that recognized black and white, or their intermediate
shades. Yet a law of nature, of race, and of common sense is
asserting itself among the colored people, in that they want to
be separated from such close connection with the white man. They
feel that there is an incongruity, an unfitness, a something
that causes them to desire to be free from his presence and
government. They have but little respect for the whites who
remain among them. It is a growing belief among the more
intelligent colored people that their religious growth would be
increased by their independence of the white Church. So strong
is this feeling in certain places, that a secession from the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and the formation of independent
Methodist Churches, is seriously discussed. In obedience to this
growing sentiment, the General Conference, in 1884, recognized
the policy of basing membership of annual conferences on a
color-line. An argument in favor of caution in treating this
question may be drawn from the relation of the colored people to
the interests of the country. The colored vote in the United
States is accepted as a source of danger in the future to this
country. The present colored vote, as it has or has not had the
privilege of free expression, has determined who should be
President of the United States.... It may or may not be an idle
fear, but wise men are looking at the question in sober
earnestness.... The Church, then, should be carefully guarded
against danger arising from the presence of so large a colored
membership through the use of its power in the General
Conference. The idea of separation for better work is not new
among us. We have the German and colored conferences, and would
have Scandinavian if there were enough Scandinavians. There is a
law of association that is the best regulator of such questions.
That a separation into conferences on the color-line will become
general is inevitable. The questions will come up before the
General Conference to decide, whether the colored ministers can
be so educated as to continue in the Methodist Episcopal Church
without any serious danger to its interests; if not, the lesser
must suffer, if suffering it would be, for the sake of the
greater; or whether, when they are prepared, they will not do
more good by being transferred to some branch of the African
Methodist Episcopal Church.
“There are the African, the Zion, and the Colored Methodist
Episcopal Churches, which last was wisely set apart by the
Southern Methodist Episcopal Church at the end of the war. They
are all strong, aggressive, and independent Churches. If the
members of these Churches could be united with the colored
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church they would make a
membership of nearly one million of people. What an opportunity
for usefulness to their race would be thus placed before them!
It must be admitted that their continued connection with the
Methodist Episcopal Church does not tend to promote their
dependence upon themselves. Government aid makes a restless
pauper class; Church support has the same tendency. That the two
races do not work well together, or rather that the colored
Churches do not prosper when intimately connected with white
Churches, is pretty well exemplified in the city of
Philadelphia, where the only two colored Churches, living side
by side with the large white Church membership of that city, had
so dwindled in numbers and financial ability in 1884 that the
Church Extension Society had, practically, to purchase two
churches for their use, so that the colored brethren from the
South might have a Church home when they came to the General
Conference. During the same time the African and the Zion
Methodist Episcopal Churches have been very successful in that
city, have done much good, have able bishops, leaders, and a
respectable membership. On the one side there was dependency,
and on the other independency. It is risking but little to
assert that the number, character, and self reliance of the
members of the colored Methodist Episcopal Church, South, are
far greater and better than they would have been if their
connection had continued with the old Church.
“A further thought deserves consideration at this point. If the
colored members are to be continued in the Church, or as long as
such connection may last, would it not be to the interests of
all parties to dissolve the annual conferences in which they are
in a large majority, and form them into mission conferences, as
they were prior to the General Conference of 1868, without a
voting representation in the General Conference? By doing this
the Church would be saved from the low average grade of
intelligence of the General Conference of 1884, caused by the
presence of nearly forty of such representatives, and from the
corrupting influences that were so palpable. The colored people
would then understand that their connection was not permanent,
but was in the line of educating them to take care of
themselves. In the meantime the Church could continue its good
work in giving them the advantages of education, training in
trades, and to the most promising a fitting education for the
ministry and learned professions. The suggestions made
hereinbefore as to the proper basis of representation in the
General Conference, connected with that of the last paragraph,
would reduce the number of delegates to the General Conference
from the colored conferences, and thereby lessen the danger. It
is important that this or some other protective plan should be
adopted before the separation that is inevitable between the
white and colored work takes place. No mere pride of numbers or
prestige should have any influence to prevent the Church from
saying to the colored brethren, ‘Go in peace, and may the God of
heaven protect and guide you;’ and with this benediction handing
over to them all the churches, colleges, and property that have
been accumulated for their use.”
The sequel will show that the writer of that book knows but little
concerning the colored people. Let us for a moment stop and look more
closely at the above chapter from Brother Wright’s facile pen. There is
no mistake, Brother Wright has in some way had his plans _upset_. That
he intended to “get even” with some one is also apparent. This general
attacks first one and then the other division of the grand army of
Methodism. First he attacks the army at large for neglecting to bring
more laymen to the van. He then charges upon the clerical regiment,
declaring it is in the way of his “consummation devoutly to be wished.”
Being somewhat repulsed, he falls back in disorder, only to find the
colored regiment supporting, in some sort, the former. At once his guns
are leveled, and he makes a Fort Pillow charge upon “the black brigade.”
Of this brigade, within the Methodist army, he declares: “A conclusive
argument for separation would be made if it were proven that the
connection existing [between the white and colored people] within the
Church is injurious to both classes.” He attempts to prove the
proposition, by declaring that, by the presence of colored
representatives from Southern and mixed conferences, “but few are fitted
for their places and are still grossly immoral,” in the General
Conference “grades down the intelligence and wisdom of the whole body,
to a level too low for safety; that the ease with which the influence
and votes of these innocent, and generally very ignorant,
representatives were secured by those nearest to them, shows how great a
danger there would be in the abuse of the confidence placed by them in
their avowed friends.” The gentleman should not have stayed so far away
from those “innocent and generally very ignorant representatives.”
Knowing, as he must, that the man whose intelligence gives him
advantage, even in a Methodist General Conference, over “the innocent
and generally very ignorant” is the greater sinner, he strikes at “the
avowed friends” of the colored man. But in a great many instances some
of the “avowed friends” of the colored man in the General Conference of
1884 were those whom Methodism, within and without this country,
“_delights_ to honor.” But aside from this, it were well for the good
brother had the revisers of the Old Testament elided the “thou shalt not
bear false witness.”
We question very much whether a single _proper_ delegate to that General
Conference was “innocent and generally very ignorant” enough to miss the
truth as far as he seems to have missed it, and for the same purpose. He
also says: “The colored men feel that there is an incongruity, an
unfitness, a something that causes them to desire to be freed from his
presence and government. They have but little respect for the whites who
remain among them.” If that is so, it is _too bad_. If it is not so,
then—? When a witness testifies to one thing, and then contradicts
himself, if he is adjudged sane, the court will throw out his testimony,
declaring him either ignorant of the truth of the facts he would relate,
or else a perjurer. If the former, he should be reprimanded for meddling
with matters he knew nothing about; if the latter, the law would punish
him. If the colored men within the Methodist Episcopal Church feel “that
there is an incongruity, a something that causes them to desire to be
freed from his presence [the white man] and government,” it could arise
from no better source than that such men persist in remaining within the
Church who abuse them.
“They have but little respect for the whites that remain among them.” We
think no man who understands our work in the South will deny that Drs.
J. C. Hartzell, J. Braden, and A. Webster, “remain among them.” But Dr.
Hartzell was for five years or more the secretary of the Louisiana
Conference, where the colored men are in the majority. He has repeatedly
been elected to the General Conference by his brethren, and usually on
the _first ballot_. Rev. John Braden, D.D., president of the Central
Tennessee College, at Nashville, Tennessee, has been there for nearly
twenty years, and as a member of the Tennessee Conference has been
treated by his conference brethren like Dr. Hartzell, of Louisiana
Conference. Dr. Alonzo Webster, of the South Carolina Conference, being,
we believe, _the only white man_ in it, has been treated by his
conference brethren just as the brethren of the Tennessee Conference
treated Dr. Braden. Without multiplying illustrations, we ask, what
becomes of Brother Wright’s argument? It follows, that his darts fall
futile at the door of a Church that by law knows “no word white.”
Again: “The General Conference must yet decide whether colored ministers
can be educated so as to continue in the Church. If not, the lesser [the
colored man, of course] must suffer; or whether, when they are prepared,
they will not do more good by being transferred to some branch of the
African Church.” When did our bishops receive authority to “transfer”
ministers into another Church? When the time for that transferring
comes, would not the members of the General and annual conferences be
privileged to vote upon it?
In speaking of the three colored organizations, the African, African
Zion, and Colored Methodist Episcopal Churches, he says: “They are all
strong, aggressive, and independent. The last was wisely set apart by
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, at the end of the war.” The
_African Methodist Recorder_, of July, 1887, contained an article signed
by Rev. J. H. Welch, of that Church on “Union of Colored Methodists in
this Country.” The facts there stated have not been called into
question, not even by the editor. So that the facts stated stand
unquestioned. In speaking of the African Methodist Episcopal, the
African Zion Methodist Episcopal, and the Colored Methodist Episcopal
Churches of America, the very ones spoken of by Brother Wright, he says:
“But as we stand to-day separated, all of us are weak and
inefficient. In almost every city, town, and village, each
branch of the Methodist family has planted a Church, and in many
places neither of the Churches can give the pastor a comfortable
support. Neither of the branches above referred to has a
first-class institution of learning nor an efficient corps of
professors and teachers; and those we have are just existing,
and that is all. Neither of these organizations has a missionary
system operating as it should. Neither branch of these Methodist
bodies has a first-class book concern.”
Now, the above comes from an African Methodist of the African
Methodists—a man conversant with the inner and outer workings of the
machinery of the three “strong, progressive, and independent” colored
Churches. Who is right, Brother Wright? As to the wisdom displayed by
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in setting apart its colored
daughter, we leave Dr. A. G. Haygood to say, as he has at page 236 in
“Our Brother in Black.” However, the aforesaid brother missed it a few
years, when he says “set apart at the end of the war,” for it was not
“set apart” until 1870. But then, you know, a few years—say seven—don’t
amount to much when we have an object in view. At last he feels as if a
solution of his troublesome problem has been reached. When speaking
further of the three “strong, aggressive, and independent Churches,” he
says: “If the members of these Churches could be united with the colored
members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, they would make a million of
people. What an opportunity for usefulness to their race would be thus
placed before them!” It’s wonderful, is it not? At this point the good
brother reaches his _climax_. By all means, let it be done! Let us begin
now! Come, let us go up to the next General Conference of our Church,
and pass a law that all the colored Methodists in America and Canada
_must come into our Church_—bishops, elders, exhorters, and laymen—and
thus accept the magnanimous “opportunity for usefulness to our race.”
What would the good brother _then_ think of General Conference
representation? Would he have it reduced? But fearing that some others
may not see the plan as he sees it, he says: “If they [the colored
members] are to remain in the Church, would it not be to the interest of
all parties to dissolve the annual conferences in which colored members
are in the majority, into mission conferences? If not, then reduce the
number of colored delegates.” Now, any one can judge from what we have
cited from the book, just about how much credence should be had _in
anything_ the book, “Preachers and People in the Methodist Episcopal
Church,” has presented. And yet it does show that the question of a
separation from the Methodist Episcopal Church is being discussed; for
even the author of that book has a backing within and without the
Methodist Episcopal Church, for he is one of the leading officials in
the Arch Street Methodist Episcopal Church, Philadelphia.
Caste prejudice has not been, but will yet be, driven to the owls and
bats, before the onrolling tidal wave of intelligence and sober common
sense that is even now breaking upon the shores of this country. And yet
it does seem as if there is but one of two ways in which it can be done,
or by a combination (suiting the case) of the two,—the hump of caste
prejudice now resting so adroitly upon the back of our American
Protestant ecclesiasticism must be amputated by the impartial but keen
blade of the great Physician; or Protestantism must bow so low in the
dust and ashes of humiliation, that this unsightly protuberance shall be
visible no more forever. Then, and not till then, can we hope to see
this camel go unscathed through the eye of the gospel needle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------