CHANGING PASTORS.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12480, 17 April 1906, Page 6

CHANGING PASTORS.

If New Zealand Prcsbytorianism were to accept, en masse, the proposal latelyplaced before the Dunedin Synod, a great advance would be made towards Church union. One of the main differences in Church government between th? Methodist and Presbyterian Churches w that in tho former Confer-

ence allots a pastor to a congregation for a term of three ye3re. after which, in most cnees, he is succeeded by another; in tho latter the congregation choose* its own pastor, and having got him cannot, so long as he is of good behaviour, get rid of him, even if it wishes to do so, except by the slowprocess of starving him out. There are advantages and disadvantages in both systcnx,, but it i« rather curious, in face of a steadily growing feeling in the Methodist Church

in favour of a more permanent pastorate, that thee should

l>e a movement in the Presbyterian Church in favour of a limited tenure of ministerial office. The spokesman of the deputation declared that the change would bo to the advantage alike of pastors and people. Better work, he paid, would lie done by their ministers if they had an opportunity of getting a change without a stigma being cast on their capabilities, while congregations would be able to got a change of minister if they desired it, without casting reflections on the present occupants of their pulpits. Tho opinion was expressed that a majority of tho ministers in New Zealand would approve of the change, which would also be largely welcomed by tho people. The speaker thought the tenure . should be a definite ono _ seven, ten, or fourteen years—and that the change would be a financial benefit to ministers and a spiritual advantage to the Church. As one of tho deputation remarked, and as most people who know anything about Church matters will agree,

there liave been instances, not conlined to tho Presbyterian Church, of great trouble through the impossibility of severing the pastoral tie between minister and congregation. But it is one thing to prescribe a remedy nnd another thing to administer it, and in this cafcc the difficulties of carrying out the proposed reform are admittedly very great. The Rev. Dr. Nisbet, who had a good deal to do with investigating the matter while in Victoria,

said that when his committee presented their report the Moderator remarked that it had killed tho scheme for thirty year.". Tlie chief difficulties were that to bring about tho change they must either decree that all future settlements must be tor a limited torni, or that at the end of, say, seven years, all ministers should be released from their charges. In the one oaso they would institute two classes in the ministry, the men of permanent and those of limited pastorate, and this would be most undesirable. In the eecond case, they would have to get the unanimous and hearty consent of every individual minister in New Zealand, and of every congregation. Another drawback would be that at tho end of every term a number of men would be thrown on the Church, who would not receive a "call" from any congregation. Tlie mere fact that this is so, while showing that the reform might be desirable, supplies a very good reason why the unanimous consent of all the

ministry would not lie accorded to it. The change may come about in time, but it involves such an important alteration in the constitution of the Church, and such a breaking away from all the traditions of Presbyterian ism, that the present generation is hardly likely to see it accomplished, except, . perhaps, under one condition —the presmre of a tremendous growth in the movement towards a union of the Free Churches.