TROUBLE IN CHURCH.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 285, 1 December 1932, Page 10

TROUBLE IN CHURCH.

WHAT FORM OF GOVERNMENT? PROBLEM IX NEW SOUTH WALES. ' (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, November 25. Some time ago I explained the difficulty that has arisen in the Church of St. Barnabas, Chatswood, regarding the appointment of Canon Rook as rector. This appointment had been made against the wisli of the majority bf the parishioner, and the parish council had expressed its disapproval by voting Canon Rook a merely nominal salary. The Archbishop insists that the Synod must have a paramount voice in such appointments, and he put through a resolution appointing a commission to administer the affaire of the church if it still refused to accept Canon Rook. A final effort at conciliation was made by Mr. Justice Harvey, but he could only report that he had failed. The Archbishop then authorised the commission to take over the management of the church. But the opponents of Canon Rook, or rather of the policy that his appointment represents, remain undaunted. They challenge the Archbishop to point to any particular in which they have infringed the ordinances of the Church, and they maintain that they are only fighting in defence of the lights of the parishes to a voice in the choosing of their own clergy. Under the system which the Archbishop desires to enforce it seems that "parochial nominators are to be allowed a voice only if they express the same opinions as the Synod nominators." Mr. Pantey, 6peaking for the refractory section of the parishioners, declares that "such a drastic step in diefranchising a parish is unheard of in the annals of the Church of England," and he is helping to organise a Diocesan Reform Association to defend the rights and liberties of the parishioners. The Archbishop, however, is not at all inclined to give way, and there has even been a hint dropped that proceedings for the excoinnmnication of the rebels might be initiated. But Mr. Pantey and his friends are standing fast, and they have just raised a question which the Synod may find it difficult to answer —arc the members of the palish council who have guaranteed the church debt to be indemnified, now that the control of the church has been taken from them ? It is a most unfortunate quarrel, but its public intercut is undeniable, for it involves the whole principle of parochial self-government.