Canine Detection Evidence

Canine Detection Evidence

By Ken Strutin, Published on September 25, 2010

Reference link = http://www.llrx.com/features/caninedetectionevidence.htm

Ladybird likes this post, RH

For nearly 15,000 years ¹dogs have lived with and served humankind as companions, hunters, shepherds and most recently detectives. ²The average canine possesses hundreds of millions of receptors for odors, compared with a few million for humans. ³Their outstanding sensory endowment, olfaction, makes dogs sought after by law enforcement. And in the last century, the cultivation and harnessing of this ultrasensitive faculty has become a part of many facets of criminal investigation.

Detection or sniffer dogs are used to ferret out illicit and dangerous substances, such as accelerants, explosives, illegal drugs, ⁴environmental hazards ⁵and other contraband. ⁶While these service dogs' abilities are highly touted, the use of an animal's olfactory sense in ascertaining the cause of a fire ⁷or locating drugs raises Fourth Amendment ⁸, evidentiary and due process issues.

This article surveys select studies, standards and resources about canine scent detection evidence.

FORENSIC STUDIES

Canine Detection Capabilities: Operational Implications of Recent R & D Findings(Institute for Biological Detection Systems, Auburn University 1999)
"Dogs have been successfully used for many years by military and law enforcement agencies to detect varied substances. However, the science underlying their olfactory detection capabilities has been slow to accumulate and even slower to impact operational training and deployment protocols. Since 1989, the Institute for Biological Detection systems (IBDS) at Auburn University has worked to ameliorate this problem. A number of recent laboratory and field studies have begun to reveal the dog's olfactory sensitivity, how it recognizes substances, and how it performs in the field. This paper summarizes selected findings and their possible operational consequences."

Dog Scent Lineup as Scientific Evidence(International Academy of Forensic Sciences, August 1999, Los Angeles, CA)
"Ten years ago Taslitz (1990), in his comprehensive study on dog scent lineups, expressed a view that the uniqueness and stability of human odour had not been established yet and experimental research in the area of dog scent identification still was in its infancy, therefore scent lineups should be excluded from evidence in court. A decade in forensic science is more than a century in law, however, so it seems worthwhile to look at the possibilities of canine human scent identification again."

Scents and Sense-Ability, Forensic Magazine, April/May 2006
"Europeans have used scent-discriminating dogs to aid criminal investigations for over a century. Reputed to have a sense of smell 1,000 to 10,000 times more superior than that of humans, a dog's nose does offer a sensitive forensic instrument. Traditionally, dogs contributed to police work by stalking a suspect's track. During the latter part of the twentieth century, investigators found a new way to employ the canine's olfactory skills: perform a scent lineup to connect a person with a crime via scent evidence. Dogs trained for scent identification are 'specialist, biological devices,' according to Tomasz Bednarek, the Head of the Warsaw Metropolitan Forensic Laboratory and an expert on osomology – a system of human scent identification."

Specialized Use of Human Scent in Criminal Investigations, Forensic Science Communications, July 2004
"Using scent-discriminating dogs in criminal investigations should be limited to establishing a scent relationship between people and crime scene evidence. Because human scent is easily transferred from one person or object to another, it should not be used as primary evidence. However, when used in corroboration with other evidence, it has become a proven tool that can establish a connection to the crime."

RESOURCE LIBRARIES

Canines(NLADA Forensics Library)
The National Legal Aid and Defender Association maintains a collection of pleadings, expert testimony, research articles and opinions concerning the reliability of dog detection evidence.

Canine Detection Research Institute(Auburn University, College of Veterinary Medicine)
"TheAuburnUniversityprogram is the largest dedicated canine detection research program in the United Statesand its associated Canine Detection Training Center (CDTC) is one of the largest canine detection training programs outside of the federal government."

Canine Database(Florida Gulf Coast University)
"The Florida Gulf Coast University Canine Database is a clearinghouse of published research on police and work dogs. This database publishes research, technical reports, and data collected in other canine-related projects." See Articles by Topicand Research Links.

Canine Sniffs & Scent Detection(NCSTL)
This Hot Top section of the National Clearinghouse for Science, Technology & Law (NCSTL) contains a bibliography of materials from legal and forensic publication sources on dog scent evidence.

Service Dogs(UC Davis, Veterinary Medicine)
"This web site contains useful links to web sites, journal articles, and books that discuss service dogs. Service dogs are trained in very specific ways to help their human counterparts. Service dogs include police dogs, accelerant detection dogs, agriculture inspection dogs, war dogs, and psychiatric dogs."

STANDARDS

Certification(USPCA)
"The United States Police Canine Association (USPCA) became the largest and oldest active organization of its kind-'Ever Striving for the Betterment of all Police K-9' - in August, 1971 when two existing Associations, the Police K-9 Association and the United States K-9 Association, merged." See Canine Training Articles.

IFRI/NFSTC Detector Dog Team Certification Program(International Forensic Research Institute)
"The program is intended to provide recommended scientific standards of practice for trainers and organizations and to make available an additional layer of credentials for detection teams. The ongoing goal of this program is to continue to advance scientifically sound detection K-9 validation programs which are internationally recognized and which improve contraband interdiction from local enforcement to courtroom defensibility."

National Detector Dog Manual(USDA 2003)
"The National Detector Dog Manual covers background information, procedures, health care, and training related to detector dog activities. The procedures have a national focus to guide detector dog activities, and they are supplemental to general operational procedures in the Airport and Maritime Operations Manual (AMOM)."

Scientific Working Group on Dog and Orthogonal Detector Guidelines(SWGDOG)
"SWGDOG is a partnership of local, state, federal and international agencies including private vendors, law enforcement and first responders. We anticipate that establishing consensus based best practices for the use of detection teams will provide many benefits to local law enforcement and homeland security. Improving the consistency and performance of deployed teams and optimizing their combination with electronic detection devices will improve interdiction efforts as well as courtroom acceptance." See Approved Guidelines; Documents for Public Comment; Appendices; and Bylaws.

Training and Certification Standards(National Narcotics Detector Dog Association)
"The National Narcotic Detector Dog Association (NNDDA) is a professional, nonprofit organization dedicated to the utilization and proficiency of scent detector dogs for the benefit of Law Enforcement and Private Industry. The purpose of the NNDDA is to provide training pertaining to the laws of search and seizure, utilizing scent detector dogs and a method of certification for court purposes." 

LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP

Canine Tracking and Scent Identification: Factoring Science into the Threshold for Admissibility(SSRN 2010)
"The forensic value of dogs is enhanced by introducing the scientific aspects of their police work. The traditional tracking foundation is an adequate basis for delving into the various events that can occur while a dog is attempting to follow a perpetrator, but both prosecution and defense should recognize that many of the situations that can arise will implicate scientific issues that can help the trier of fact better understand the significance of the dog's behavior. Defense counsel should not merely accept the testimony of police handlers, and should be prepared to obtain equally reliable testimony of experts on the crucial issues presented in the facts. Courts should not accept harmless error arguments to shield defense lawyers who inadequately investigate the results obtained by the police and introduced into evidence by the prosecution."

Detector Dogs and Probable Cause, 14 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1 (2006)
"This article argues that an alert, even by a well-trained dog with an excellent track record in the field, cannot by itself constitute probable cause to search."

Dog Law Reporter
"This blog is about the functions of and the laws that apply to dogs, particularly skilled dogs. We will discuss service dogs, therapy dogs, search and rescue dogs, police dogs and other working dogs. We will look at current research on dogs, such as that on dogs that detect cancers or alert to new types of explosives. We will ask how these changes are being accepted and understood and how these developments are translating into laws and regulations." 

Drug Dogs---Reliability Issues and Case Law How Good Is That Doggie's Nose?(2007 Fall Public Defender Seminar, NC Office of Indigent Defense Services)
In this defender training piece, the following topics are addressed: I. Drug dog sniff is not a search under Illinois v. Caballes and North Carolina Law; II. Case Law Appears to Support a Requirement of a "Well trained" or "Properly Trained" Narcotic Dog for Probable Cause to be Found; III. Franks Hearing Regarding Drug Dog Alert; IV. What Do You Need to Ask for in Discovery to Attack the Dog's Nose?; V. Potential Areas and Ideas for Cross-Examination of Dog Handler.

Scent Identification in Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions: New Protocol Designs Improve Forensic Reliability(SSRN 2010)
"Scent lineups are a powerful tool in the investigation of crimes. With proper procedures, both forensic and judicial, scent lineups can be valuable evidence for a jury to consider. Unfortunately, many courts have been willing to admit poorly conducted procedures, even if giving lip service to the fact that the scent lineup was deficient by saying that its admission was harmless error. The tendency of some courts to view scent lineups as an extension of scent tracking has resulted in admission of scent lineup evidence under inappropriate standards."

State v. Carter: The Minnesota Constitution Protects Against Random and Suspicionless Dog Sniffs of Storage Units, 32 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1287 (2006)
"This Article argues that Carter is an important decision for six primary reasons. First, Carter recognized that the protections against governmental intrusions are greater under the Minnesota Constitution than the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Second, the court in Carter held that a dog sniff of a storage unit is not a search under the Fourth Amendment—an issue not yet decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Third, Carter concluded that a dog sniff of a storage unit is a search under article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, declining to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's analysis that focuses almost exclusively on the nature of the item sought. Fourth, the court refused to extend Kyllo v. United States, which concerned the use of a thermal-imaging device on a home, to dog sniffs. Fifth, the court decided that the 'plain smell' doctrine does not apply to odors detected by dogs. Sixth, the court signaled that the potential for 'false alerts' from drug-detection dogs is a consideration in determining the constitutionality of this type of investigation. The decision in Carter sets clear limits on government intrusions—not only on the unrestrained and suspicionless use of drug-detecting dogs, but also on other emerging law enforcement investigative techniques as well." (footnotes omitted)

Those Doggone Sniffs Are Often Wrong: The Fourth Amendment Has Gone To the Dogs, Champion, April 2006, at 12
"This article will explore various ways in which, through litigating motions to suppress the fruits of searches conducted as the result of a positive dog 'alert,' defense counsel can educate courts, which are all too apt to reflexively credit the accuracy of canine alerts, regarding the serious flaws in much of the existing jurisprudence regarding canine sniffs and regarding modes of inquiry which more accurately reflect the reality of the interaction between dog, handler, and target."

---

1See Christine McGourty, Origin of Dogs Traced, BBC News (World Ed.), Nov. 22, 2002.

2See, e.g., Andrea Todd, It's a Police Dog's Life, Sacramento Magazine, Oct. 2006.

3See Dog, Wikipedia ("The olfactory bulb in dogs is roughly forty times bigger than the olfactory bulb in humans, relative to total brain size, with 125 to 220 million smell-sensitive receptors. The bloodhound exceeds this standard with nearly 300 million receptors. Dogs can discriminate odors at concentrations nearly 100 million times lower than humans can." (footnotes omitted)); The Dog's Sense of Smell, UNP-66, July 2005, at 1 ("In fact, a dog has more than 220 million olfactory receptors in its nose, while humans have only 5 million.")detection

4See Christy Bowles, What Can Drug Dogs Smell?, eHow, June 10, 2010.

5See Using Canines in Source Detection of Indoor Air Pollutants(EPA).

6See Detection Dog, Wikipedia.

7See, e.g., T.R. Jonas & Ernest Bueker, Accelerant Detection Canines Uses and Misuses(1999); see generally Accelerant Detection Dogs(UC Davis, Veterinary Medicine).

8See generally Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) ("A dog sniff conducted during a concededly lawful traffic stop that reveals no information other than the location of a substance that no individual has any right to possess does not violate the Fourth Amendment."); Use of Trained Dog to Detect Narcotics or Drugs as Unreasonable Search in Violation of Fourth Amendment, 150 A.L.R. Fed. 399; Use of Trained Dog to Detect Narcotics or Drugs as Unreasonable Search in Violation of State Constitutions, 117 A.L.R.5th 407.

Copyright © 1996-2012 LLRX, LLC.

From the Catholic Church's New Advent , Roger








A religious movement which was originated in 1739 by John Wesley in the Anglican Church, and subsequently gave rise to numerous separate denominations.


Doctrinal position and peculiarities

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10237b.htmThe fact that John Wesley and Methodism considered religion primarily as practical, not dogmatic, probably accounts for the absence of any formal Methodist creed. The "General Rules", issued by John and Charles Wesley on 1 May, 1743, stated the conditions of admission into the societies organized by them and known as the "United Societies". They bear an almost exclusively practical character, and require no doctrinal test of the candidates. Methodism, however, developed its own theological system as expressed in two principal standards of orthodoxy.

The first is the "Twenty-five Articles" of religion. They are an abridgment and adaptation of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church, and form the only doctrinal standard strictly binding on American Methodists. Twenty-four of these articles were prepared by John Wesley for the Church in America and adopted at the Conference of Baltimore in 1784. The article which recognizes the political independence of the United States (Article XXIII) was added in 1804. The second standard is the first fifty-three of Wesley's published sermons and his "Notes on the New Testament". These writings were imposed by him on the British Methodists in his "Deed of Declaration" and accepted by the "Legal Hundred". The American Church, while not strictly bound to them, highly esteemed and extensively uses them.

More fundamental for all Methodists than these standards are the inspired Scriptures, which are declared by them to be the sole and sufficient rule of belief and practice. The dogmas of the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ are upheld. The universality of original sin and the consequent partial deterioration of human nature find their efficacious remedy in the universal distribution of grace. Man's free co-operation with this Divine gift is necessary for eternal salvation, which is offered to all, but may be freely rejected. There is no room in Methodism for the rigorous doctrine of predestination as understood by Calvinism. While the doctrine of justification by faith alone is taught, the performance of good works enjoined by God is commended, but the doctrine of works of supererogation is condemned.

Only two sacraments are admitted: Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Baptism does not produce sanctifying grace in the soul, but strengthens its faith, and is the sign of a regeneration which has already taken place in the recipient. Its administration to infants is commanded because they are already members of the Kingdom of God. The Eucharist is a memorial of the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ, who is not really present under the species of bread and wine, but is received in a spiritual manner by believers. The sacrament is administered under both kinds to the laity. The "witness of the Spirit" to the soul of the individual believer and the consequent assurance of salvation are distinctive doctrines of Methodism. This assurance is a certainty of present pardon, not of final perseverance. It is experienced independently of the sacraments through the immediate testimony of the Holy Spirit, and does not preclude the possibility of future transgressions. Transgressions of an involuntary character are also compatible with another characteristic doctrine of Methodism, that of perfection or complete sanctification. The Christian, it is maintained, may in this life reach a state of holiness which excludes all voluntary offence against God, but still admits of growth in grace. It is therefore a state of perfectibility rather than of stationary perfection. The invocation of saints and the veneration of relics and images are rejected. While the existence of purgatory is denied in the Twenty-five Articles (Article XIV), an intermediate state of purification, for persons who never heard of Christ, is admitted today by some Methodists. In its work of conversion Methodism is aggressive and largely appeals to religious sentiment; camp-meetings and revivals are important forms of evangelization, at least in America. Among the practices which Wesley imposed upon his followers were the strict observance of the Lord's Day, the use of few words in buying and selling, and abstinence from all intoxicating drinks, from all purely worldly amusements and from costly apparel. The church service, which he prepared for them, was an abridgment and modification of the Book of Common Prayer, but it never came into universal use, sentiment among Methodists being rather unfavorable to any set form of liturgy. In America the ministry is divided into two orders; the deacons and the elders or presbyters; in Great Britain and her colonies only one order exists, the elders. The name of bishop used in the episcopal bodies is a title of office, not of order; it expresses superiority to elders not in ordination, but in the exercise of administrative functions. No Methodist denomination recognizes a difference of degree between episcopal andpresbyterial ordination. A characteristic institution of Methodism are the love-feasts which recall the agape of Christian antiquity. In these gatherings of believers bread and water are handed round in token of brotherly union, and the time is devoted to singing and the relating of religious experiences.

Organization

Admission to full membership in the Methodist bodies was until recently usually granted only after the successful termination of a six months' probationary period. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, has completely done away with this system. Both probationers and full members are divided into small bands known as "classes". These hold weekly meetings under the direction of the "class-leader". They secure for each member individual spiritual care and facilitate the collection of church funds. The financial contributions taken up by the class-leader are remitted to the "stewards" of the society, which is the next administrative unit. The "society" corresponds to the parish or local church in other denominations. The appropriateness of the term will readily appear, if it be remembered that Methodism was originally a revival movement, and not a distinct denomination. Several societies (or at times only one) form a "circuit". Among the officially recognized officers of this twofold division are: (1) the "exhorters", who are commissioned to hold meetings for exhortation and prayer; (2) the "local preachers",laymen who, without renouncing their secular avocation, are licensed to preach; (3) the "itinerant preachers", who devote themselves exclusively to the ministry. At the head of the circuit is the superintendent. In some American Methodist branches the "circuit", in the sense described, does not exist. But they maintain the division into "districts", and the authority over each of these is vested in a "presiding elder", or "district superintendent". In the Methodist Episcopal Church his appointment is limited to a period not exceeding six years, and is in the hands of the bishop. The latter is the only church official who is named for life. The permanent character of his position is the more remarkable from the fact that "itinerancy" has from the very beginning been a distinctive feature of Methodism. This peculiarity denotes the missionary character of the Wesleyan movement, and calls for the frequent transfer of the ministers from one charge to another by the bishop or the stationing committee. In the English Wesleyan Church ministers cannot be continued for more than three years in the same charge. In the Methodist Episcopal Church the pastoral term, originally for one year in the same place, was successively extended to two years (1804), three years (1864), and five years (1888). In 1900 all limit was removed.

The administrative authority is mainly exercised by a system of assemblies, called meetings or conferences. Among English Methodists they are: (1) "the quarterly meeting of the circuit", composed of all the ministers, local preachers, class-leaders, steward, Sunday-school superintendents of the circuit; (2) "the district meeting", consisting of all the ministers of the subordinate circuits, some lay delegates, and, for financial matters, the stewards and such officials; (3) the "Annual Conference", which in 1874 legally succeeded John Wesley in the direction of the Methodist movement and was originally composed of one hundred itinerant preachers (the Legal Hundred") At present it includes lay delegates and meets in two sections: (a) the "pastoral session", which settles pastoral and disciplinary questions, and from which laymen are excluded; (b) the "representative session" in which clergy and laity discuss financial affairs and external administrative questions. In the American Methodist Episcopal bodies the administrative system is organized as follows: (1) the "Quarterly Conference" similar in composition to the circuit-meeting. It controls the affairs of every individual church, and holds its deliberations under the direction of the "district superintendent" or his representative; (2) the "Annual Conference", at which several "districts" are represented by their itinerant preachers under the presidency of the bishop. It elects preachers, pronounces upon candidates foreordination, and enjoys disciplinary power; (3) the "Quadrennial General Conference", endowed with the highest legislative and judicial authority and the right of episcopal elections. In recent years the holding of Ecumenical Methodist conferences has been inaugurated. They are representative assemblies of the various Methodist denominations, but have no legislative authority. The first conference of this type convened in London in 1881, the second met in Washington in 1891, and the third again in London in 1901. Toronto, Canada, was to be the meeting place of the fourth conference in 1911.

History

In the British Isles

The names of three ordained clergymen of the Anglican Church stand out prominently in the early history of the Methodist movement: John Wesley, its author and organizer, Charles Wesley, his brother, the hymn-writer, and George Whitefield, the eloquent preacher and revivalist. John and Charles Wesley were born at Epworth, Lincolnshire, the former on 17 June, 1703, and the latter on 18 December, 1707 (O.S.). In 1714 John entered the Charterhouse School in London, and in 1720 went to Oxford to continue his studies. He was ordained to the diaconate in 1725, and chosen fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford, in the following year. His ordination on 22 September, 1728, was both preceded and followed by a period of ministerial activity in his father’s parish at Epworth. On his return to Oxford (22 November 1729) he joined the little band of students organized by his brother Charles for the purpose of studying the Scriptures, and practicing their religious duties with greater fidelity. John became the leader of this group called in derision by fellow-students "the holy club", "the Methodists". It is to this that Methodism owes its name, but not its existence. When in 1735 the association disbanded, John and Charles Wesley proceeded to London where they received a call to repair as missionaries to the Colony of Georgia. They sailed from Gravesend on 21 October, 1735, and on 5 February, 1736, landed at Savannah. The deep religious impression made upon John by some Moravian fellow-voyagers and a meeting with their bishop (Spangenberg) in Georgia were not without influence on Methodism. Returning to England in 1738, whither his brother had preceded him, he openly declared that he who had tried to covert others was himself not yet converted. In London he met another Moravian, Peter Boehler, attended the meetings of the Moravian Fetter Lance Society, and was converted (i.e., obtained and experienced saving faith) on 24 May, 1738. He then proceeded to Herrnhut in Saxony to make a study of the chief settlement of the Moravians.

In 1739 Wesley organized the first Methodist Society, laid the foundation of the first separate place of worship at Bristol, and also opened a chapel (The Foundry) in London. As the pulpits of the Established Church were closed against the Wesleys and Whitefield, the latter took the decisive step of preaching in the open air in the colliery district of Kingswood near Bristol. His success was enormous, and the Wesleys almost immediately followed his example. At the very inception of the Methodist movement an important doctrinal difference arose between Whitefield and John Wesley regarding predestination. The former held Calvinistic views, believing in limited election and salvation, while the latter emphasized the doctrine of universal redemption. The difference in opinion placed a permanent characteristic doctrinal difference between Arminian Methodism and the Calvinistic Lady Huntingdon Connection. Whitefield gave his support to the latter movement which owed it name to the protection and liberal financial assistance of the Countess of Huntingdon (1707-91). Although Wesley always intended to remain within the Church of England, circumstances gradually led him to give his evangelistic movement a separate organization. The exclusion of his followers from the sacraments by the Anglican clergy in 1740 overcame his hesitation to administer them in his own meeting-rooms. The increase in the number of Societies led the following year to the institution of the lay preachers, who became an important factor in the success of the Methodist propaganda. The year 1742 saw the creation of the "class" system, and two years later the first annual conference was held. Desirous of ensuring the perpetuation of his work, he legally constituted it his successor in 1784. By a deed of declaration filed in the High Court of Chancery, he vested the right of appointing ministers and preachers in the conference composed of one hundred itinerant preachers. This "Legal Hundred" enjoyed, in respect to the conference, the power of filling vacancies and of expelling unworthy members. On the refusal of the Bishop of London to ordain two ministers and a superintendent for America, Wesley, convinced that bishop and presbyter enjoyed equal rights in the matter, performed the ordination himself (1784).

Important problems calling for solution arose immediately after Wesley's death. In the first place the want of his personal direction had to be supplied. This was effected in 1791 by the division of the country into districts and the institution of the district committees with full disciplinary and administrative power under the jurisdiction of the conference. As the administration of the sacraments by Methodist clergymen had not yet become the universal rule, the churches that did not enjoy this privilege insisted upon its concession. The question was permanently settled by the "Plan of Pacification" in 1795. It granted the right of administering the sacraments to all churches in which the majority of the trustees, stewards, and leaders pronounced in favour of such practice. The insistent demand of Alexander Kilham (1762-98) and his followers for more extensive rights for the laity received a temporary and partly favourable answer at the important conference of Leeds in 1797. Lay representation in the conference was, however, emphatically refused and Kilham seceded. Since 1878 they have been admitted as delegates.

The spread of liberal opinions was also at the bottom of several controversies, which were intensified by the dissatisfaction of some members with the preponderating influence of Dr. Jabez Bunting (1779-1858) in the denomination. The introduction of an organ in Brunswick Chapel at Leeds (1828) and the foundation of a theological school for the formation of young preachers (1834) were merely occasions which brought to a head the growing discontent with Bunting and the central authority. The controversies which resulted in these two cases were of but minor importance, when compared with the agitation of the years 1849-56. This period of strife witnessed the circulation of the so-called "Fly-Sheets", directed against Bunting's personal rule, the expulsion of the persons responsible for their publication, and the loss of at least 100,000 members to the Wesleyan Methodist Connection. Some of these affiliated with minor branches, but the majority was lost to Methodism. These controversies were followed by a period of more peaceful evolution extending to our own day. The increase in the number of theological seminaries among British Methodists has emphasized the distinction between clergy and laity and points to more complete internal organization. A fact which reveals a similar tendency is the institution of deaconesses. They were introduced in the Wesleyan Methodist Church in 1890.

Methodism in the United States

The history of Methodism in the United States does not date back to the visit of John and Charles Wesley to Georgia, but begins only in 1766. In that year Philip Embury, a local preacher, at the request of Mrs. Barbara Heck, delivered his first sermon in his own house at New York. They had both come to America in 1760 from Ireland, whither their Palatine ancestors had fled from the devastating wars of Louis XIV. Only four persons were present at the first sermon, but the number soon increased, especially after the arrival of Captain Thomas Webb, another local preacher. The latter displayed a stirring zeal, and in 1768 the first Methodist chapel in America was dedicated. Almost simultaneous with this introduction of Methodism into New York was its planting in Maryland. Webb introduced it in Philadelphia, and it spread to New Jersey and Virginia. In 1769 Wesley, in response to repeated appeals for helpers, sent over two preachers, Joseph Pilmoor and Richard Boardman; others followed, among them Francis Asbury (1771) and Thomas Rankin (1772). The first conference convened at Philadelphia in 1773, recognized the authority of John Wesley, and prohibited the administration of the sacraments by Methodist preachers. The total membership reported was 1160. An increase was recorded in the two succeeding conferences, also held at Philadelphia, in 1774 and 1775 respectively. But the Revolution impeded the progress of Methodism. Owing to the nationality of most of its preachers and to the publication of Wesley's pamphlet against the independence of the colonies, it was looked upon as an English product and treated accordingly. When peace was restored, the need of a separate church organization made itself felt. Wesley now heeded Asbury's appeal for an independent ecclesiastical government and the administration of the sacraments by Methodist ministers. In 1784 he ordained the preachers What coat and Vasey as elders, and Dr. Thomas Coke as superintendent for America.

Coke arrived in New York on 3 November, 1784, and that same year what has become known as the Christmas conference was convened at Baltimore. From it dates the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Wesley's plans and instructions were laid before this assembly, and his articles of faith and his liturgy adopted. As Asbury refused to be ordained without previous election he was unanimously chosen superintendent, a title for which, against Wesley's will, that of bishop was substituted in 1788. The rapid increase of the denomination about this time is indicated by the membership of 66,000 reported to the conference of 1792. The growth of the Church continued with the increase in population; but questions of expediency, race, and government caused secessions. The slavery agitation especially resulted in momentous consequences for the denomination. It began at a very early date, but reached a crisis only towards the middle of the nineteenth century. At the general conference held in New York in 1844, Bishop J. O. Andrew was suspended from the exercise of his office owing to his ownership of slaves. This decision met with the uncompromising opposition of the Southern delegates, but was just as staunchly upheld by its supporters. The withdrawal of the slave-holding states from the general body now appeared unavoidable, and a "Plan of Separation" was elaborated and accepted. The Southern delegates held a convention at Louisville, Kentucky, in 1845, at which the "Methodist Episcopal Church, South" was formed. The new organization, after a period of progress, suffered heavily during the Civil War. Since then the relations between the Northern and Southern branches of Episcopal Methodism have assumed a very friendly character. There is a large measure of co-operation particularly in the foreign mission field. A joint commission on federation is in existence and in May, 1910, it recommended the creation of a federal council (i.e., a joint court of last resort) to the general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

In the United States, besides the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Primitive Methodists, which have been spoken of above, the following denominations exist:

· The Methodist Protestant Church was founded on 2 November, 1830, at Baltimore by members of the Methodist Episcopal Church who had been expelled or had freely withdrawn from that body. The separation was due to the refusal to extend the governmental rights of laymen. The Methodist Protestant Church has no bishops. It divided in 1858 on the slavery question, but the two branches reunited in 1877 (number of communicants, 188,122). This figure is given by Dr. Carroll(Christian Advocate, 27 January, New York, 1910), whose statistics we shall quote for all the Methodist bodies of the United.

· The Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America was organized in 1843 at Utica, New York, by advocates of a more radical attitude against slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church. It has neither episcopate nor itinerancy, and debars members of secret societies (communicants, 19,485).

· The Congregational Methodist Church dates back to 1852; it sprang from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and is Methodist in doctrine and congregational in polity (membership, 15,529).

· The Free Methodist Church was organized in 1860 at Pekin, New York, as a protest against the alleged abandonment of the ideals of ancient Methodism by the Methodist Episcopal Church. There are no bishops; members of societies are excluded; the use of tobacco and the wearing of rich apparel are prohibited (membership 32,166).

· The New Congregational Methodists originated in Georgia in 1881 and in doctrine and organization closely resemble the Congregational Methodist Church (membership, 1782).

· The Independent Methodists maintain no central government. Each congregation among them enjoys supreme control over its affairs (communicants, 1161).

Educational and social activities

The founders of Methodism had enjoyed the advantages of a university training, and must have realized the priceless value of education. The fact, however, that John Wesley laid almost exclusive stress on the practical element in religion tended to make a deep and extensive knowledge of doctrinal principles seem superfluous. The extraordinary success of his preaching which urgently demanded ministers for the ever-increasing number of his followers, led to the appointment, in the early history of Methodism, of preachers more commendable for their religious zeal than remarkable for their theological learning. Indeed, for a comparatively long period, the opposition of Methodists to schools of theology was pronounced. The establishment of the first institution of the kind in 1834 at Haxton, England, caused a split in the denomination. At the present day, however, the need of theological training is universally recognized and supplied by numerous schools. In England the chief institutions are located at Richmond, Didsbury, Hedingley, and Handsworth. American Methodists founded their first theological school in 1841 at Newbury, Vermont. It was removed to Concord, New Hampshire, in 1847, and has formed since 1867 part of Boston University. Numerous other foundations were subsequently added, among them Garrett Biblical Institute (1854) at Evanston, Illinois, and Drew Theological Seminary (1867) at Madison, New Jersey. While Methodism has no parochial school system, its first denominational institution of learning dates back to 1740, when John Wesley took over a school at Kingswood. It was not until the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, that a vigorous educational movement set in to continue up to the present day. An idea of the efforts made in this direction by Methodists may be gained by a reference to the statistics published in the "Methodist Year-Book" (1910), pp. 108-13. According to the reports there given, the Methodist Episcopal Church alone (the other branches also support their schools) maintains 197 educational institutions, including 50 colleges and universities, 47 classical seminaries, 8 institutions exclusively for women, 23 theological institutions (some of them forming part of the universities already mentioned), 63 foreign mission schools, and 4 missionary institutes and Bible training schools. An educational project which appeals for support and sympathy to all branches of American Methodism, is the exclusively post-graduate "American University". A site of ninety-two acres was purchased in 1890 in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and the university was organized the following year. It was not to be opened in any of its departments until its endowment "be not less than $5,000,000 over and above its present real estate" (which happened in 1893, World Almanac, 1997). The dissemination of religious literature is obtained by the foundation of "Book Concerns" (located at New York and Cincinnati for the Methodist Episcopal Church; at Nashville, Tennessee, for the Methodist Episcopal Church South) and a periodical press, for the publications of which the titles of "Advocates" is particularly popular. The young people are banded together for the promotion of personal piety and charitable work in the prosperous Epworth League founded in 1889 at Cleveland, Ohio, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, and organized in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1891. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the denomination extended its social work considerably by the foundation of orphanages and homes for the aged. Hospitals were introduced in 1881 with the incorporation of the Methodist Episcopal Hospital at Brooklyn.

About this page

APA citation. Weber, N. (1911). Methodism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved March 29, 2012 from New Advent:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10237b.htm

MLA citation. Weber, Nicholas. "Methodism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 29 Mar. 2012.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Donald J. Boon. Dedicated to the Rev. Julius Byrd Payton (1875-1960).

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732 at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

a website I found to include here

The Place Where Early Christianity Continues

The Rapture




by Aristobulus (Roger) Allen

---

The Rapture doctrine, which was the invention of the Plymouth Brethren led by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), has today been adopted by most Baptist, Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, and a variety of other fundamentalist sects. The idea that Jesus Christ will return for His true Church just before the beginning of the Great Tribulation in a secret gathering or "catching away" was an important part of Darby's teaching. The movement in which this teaching began originated in small groups in England and Ireland about 1828 and by 1831 was part of the official teaching of the Plymouth Brethren. By 1860 the "rapture" had made its way to the United States.

In the late 1800's, America was fertile ground for a wide variety of religious extremists, most notably the Adventist movements. These movements, which produced new denominations, sects, and cults, almost always had as one of their chief tenets the belief that Christ was going to return to earth "very soon" and that they could tell you when. As the eschatological and apocalyptic teachings of the Plymouth Brethren entered this mix of religious fervor, some of their teachings became a permanent fixture within the newly formed sects. Among the many heresies of the "brethren" the Rapture was the most successful. It even went on to affect millions of people in denominations which had not yet been formed. Two examples of this are the Assemblies of God and the United Pentecostal Church which were not founded until early in the 20th century. At about this same time the Rapture made its way into the theology of the Southern Baptist Church, which had not previously known of the teaching.

Today, prophecy pundits and "end-time" revivalists preach the Rapture as if it were established dogma from the time of Christ until the present. The truth is that the first historical reference to the Rapture doctrine comes from the Plymouth Brethren. Not only is the Rapture not found in the teachings of the Church, but even "end-time" heretics throughout the centuries never dreamed of proposing such a novel idea. For example, the 4th century Montanists, who preached both pre-millenialism and that they knew when Christ would return, never ventured so far as to create another 2nd coming of the Lord in a secret rapture.

In all the writings of the Scriptures, the Early Fathers, and the Ecumenical Councils, there is no mention of two 2nd comings of Christ. In fact, the 2nd Ecumenical Council definitively states and places in the Nicene Creed these words: "He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His Kingdom shall have no end." This council of the Church, held in A.D. 381 in Constantinople, pronounced for all time what we as Christianis believe about the 2nd coming of Christ. The Fathers of the Church wanted it to be crystal clear that when our Lord returns (a time which only God the Father knows- Mark 13:32). He will establish His rule on earth forever, not merely 1000 years. The council did not condemn the Rapture heresy because the teaching did not yet exist. Moreover, there is no mention of the teaching in either the early Medieval period or the Scholastic era.

One might think that the Rapture is the product of the Reformation, since almost all of its adherents are Protestants, but not so. The student searches in vain to find the Rapture doctrine among the writings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Knox. John and Charles Wesley know nothing of the theory. Even the Puritans (some of the most radical of the radical Protestants) never heard of or wrote about the Rapture. As a matter of fact, not only do the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Anglicans deny such a teaching but all "mainstream" Protestants do as well. The Rapture is not to be found in the doctrinal statements of Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Methodists (at least not in the main bodies of each of these groups). If any of their individual members embrace the Rapture theory, it is because they have been influenced by rapturist TV preachers or have read one of the hundreds of books written on the subject in the last 35 years. It is not in the teachings of their respective churches.

It seems strange to me that the Lord would not reveal, by the Holy Spirit, a teaching which the end-time prophets of today preach as a foundational dogma and a forgone conclusion. Not until 1831 was this "new truth" revealed and not until the 20th century was it popularized. How is it that the Apostles and the Early Fathers overlooked such an important eschatological event? Why is it not clearly spelled out in the Scriptures? The obvious answer is this: THE DOCTRINE KNOWN AS THE PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH DOES NOT EXIST! Like all other heresies it was and is the invention of men, not the teaching of the Church. Rather than listen to the doctrines of men, let us pay extremely close attention to our Lord's own words in the Gospels.

When Jesus taught His Apostles about His glorious 2nd coming, these are the words He used: "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be (Matthew 24:27)". In the book of Acts, St. Luke tells us that when Jesus ascended into heaven, and the Apostles were gazing upward as the Lord rose among the clouds, two men in white apparel (presumed to be angels) said these words: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven (Acts 1:11)". We are told here in Holy Scripture that exactly in the same way Jesus ascended into heaven He will return to earth. In other words, He will return in the clouds in the sky. That description doesn't sound like a "secret catching away" but rather a dynamic 2nd coming!

To be sure, there will be a catching away of the saints on earth but this happens at the last trumpet sound (Revelation 11:15). Writing to the Christians in Thessalonica, St. Paul tells us what the 2nd coming (Greek- parousia) is like. "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore, comfort one another with these words (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18)". The same words are used here to describe the catching up of Christians as is used to describe the 2nd coming of the Lord. Both occur in the clouds, in the air, and everyone on earth sees it happen. In other words, the so-called Rapture and the 2nd coming of Christ will happen at the same time.

Perhaps the most vivid picture of our Lord's 2nd coming to earth is found in the words of St. John the Apostle. In the book of Revelation he writes: "Behold, He cometh with clouds and every eye shall see Him, and they also which pierced Him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him. Even so, amen (Revelation 1:7)". Far from believing that the Lord will return "secretly" to rapture the Church 7 years before His 2nd coming, St. John says that every human being on earth will see the Lord descend from the clouds. Once again, here are the words of the Nicene Creed, the symbol and statement of faith for all Christians: "He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kindgom shall have no end." The 2nd coming of our Lord Jesus Christ shall be in glory, not in secret. Then the Prince of Peace shall establish true peace, joy, and righteousness on the earth; "For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Habakkuk 2:14)".

Finally, the Rapture doctrine is dangerous because it teaches Christians that they will be spared all tribulation, wrath, and danger in the last days. The need for urgent preparation of one's heart and soul is diminished because Christians will be secretly taken away from all that pain. No need to worry, we'll just fly away. Unlike the Early Christians, most of whom were murdered by this world's authorities, the end-time Christians have a get-out-of-tribulation free card called the Rapture. Remember the words of St. Paul, "All those who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution (2 Timothy 2:12)." And lastly, the words of the Lord in John 16:33, "These things I have spoken unto you, that in Me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."

Why Doctors Die Differently

Careers in medicine have taught them the limits of treatment and the need to plan for the end

By KEN MURRAY

Years ago, Charlie, a highly respected orthopedist and a mentor of mine, found a lump in his stomach. It was diagnosed as pancreatic cancer by one of the best surgeons in the country, who had developed a procedure that could triple a patient's five-year-survival odds—from 5% to 15%—albeit with a poor quality of life.

Arthur Giron

What's unusual about doctors is not how much treatment they get compared with most Americans, but how little.

Charlie, 68 years old, was uninterested. He went home the next day, closed his practice and never set foot in a hospital again. He focused on spending time with his family. Several months later, he died at home. He got no chemotherapy, radiation or surgical treatment. Medicare didn't spend much on him.

It's not something that we like to talk about, but doctors die, too. What's unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared with most Americans, but how little. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care that they could want. But they tend to go serenely and gently.

Doctors don't want to die any more than anyone else does. But they usually have talked about the limits of modern medicine with their families. They want to make sure that, when the time comes, no heroic measures are taken. During their last moments, they know, for instance, that they don't want someone breaking their ribs by performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (which is what happens when CPR is done right).

Click Here to View More Health and Wellness Content

In a 2003 article, Joseph J. Gallo and others looked at what physicians want when it comes to end-of-life decisions. In a survey of 765 doctors, they found that 64% had created an advanced directive—specifying what steps should and should not be taken to save their lives should they become incapacitated. That compares to only about 20% for the general public. (As one might expect, older doctors are more likely than younger doctors to have made "arrangements," as shown in a study by Paula Lester and others.)

Why such a large gap between the decisions of doctors and patients? The case of CPR is instructive. A study by Susan Diem and others of how CPR is portrayed on TV found that it was successful in 75% of the cases and that 67% of the TV patients went home. In reality, a 2010 study of more than 95,000 cases of CPR found that only 8% of patients survived for more than one month. Of these, only about 3% could lead a mostly normal life.

Unlike previous eras, when doctors simply did what they thought was best, our system is now based on what patients choose. Physicians really try to honor their patients' wishes, but when patients ask "What would you do?," we often avoid answering. We don't want to impose our views on the vulnerable.

The result is that more people receive futile "lifesaving" care, and fewer people die at home than did, say, 60 years ago. Nursing professor Karen Kehl, in an article called "Moving Toward Peace: An Analysis of the Concept of a Good Death," ranked the attributes of a graceful death, among them: being comfortable and in control, having a sense of closure, making the most of relationships and having family involved in care. Hospitals today provide few of these qualities.

Written directives can give patients far more control over how their lives end. But while most of us accept that taxes are inescapable, death is a much harder pill to swallow, which keeps the vast majority of Americans from making proper arrangements.

It doesn't have to be that way. Several years ago, at age 60, my older cousin Torch (born at home by the light of a flashlight, or torch) had a seizure. It turned out to be the result of lung cancer that had gone to his brain. We learned that with aggressive treatment, including three to five hospital visits a week for chemotherapy, he would live perhaps four months.

Torch was no doctor, but he knew that he wanted a life of quality, not just quantity. Ultimately, he decided against any treatment and simply took pills for brain swelling. He moved in with me.

We spent the next eight months having fun together like we hadn't had in decades. We went to Disneyland, his first time, and we hung out at home. Torch was a sports nut, and he was very happy to watch sports and eat my cooking. He had no serious pain, and he remained high-spirited.

One day, he didn't wake up. He spent the next three days in a coma-like sleep and then died. The cost of his medical care for those eight months, for the one drug he was taking, was about $20.

As for me, my doctor has my choices on record. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like so many of my fellow doctors.

—Dr. Murray is retired clinical assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Southern California. Adapted from an article originally published on Zocalo Public Square.

A version of this article appeared Feb. 25, 2012, on page C2 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why Doctors Die Differently.