UNITED CHURCH SERVICES.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16520, 12 May 1919, Page 5

UNITED CHURCH SERVICES.

DISCUSSION AT ANGLICAN

SYNOD

An interesting discussion took at the Anglican General Synod at >a'pier last week on the subject o j conformist ministers being to participate in services iu -ng 1 churches. .irhaf Canon P. T. "Williams moved: ina* as there appears to be a growiiio P tice of ministers ot denominauo in communion with the Church ot . Province of New Zealand being " vited to assist in united services consecrated buildings, tiie bishops respectfully requested to issutf ms - tions with a view to obtainmS. s uniformity of practice in this im P * ant and difficult matter." 1 h ere A . he said, no hostility 011 his part. . •« Nonconformist ministers were his friends, and he had worked in close coperation with them ut the front. 1 was a matter of principle. Consecra ■ buildings were the property, not 01 tne minister, but of the Church, and tne clergy had no right to compromise tne Church by innovations in this matter. The clergyman did things which wer inconsistent with the. rule of tne Church and was commended oy tne public, with the result that he was held up as a monument of virtue and broad-mindedness, while others, more loyal, were blamed for not doing the same thing. If these services became common it was impossible to teacn our people and our theological students the teaching contained in the ordinal if we acted inconsistently in practice with that teaching. Nonconformist ministers, however good and Christian men, were not in communion with them. The great object was re-union, and if re-union was to take place it would come through the Church of England, which was both catholic and evangelical. The motion was seconded by Archdeacon Richards. . Dean Mayne asked for consistency by the bishops. Only one, tho Bishop of Waiapu, had consistently maintained the attitude agreed upon at the last General Synod by the bishops. Archdeacon Richards claimed _ that there was a difference between citizens services in theatres and services _in consecrated buildings. _ He had, himself, taken opportunities of joining such citizens' services in halls on national occasions. The Bishop of Christchurch said he had been referred to as "a monument of virtue." Referring to tho combined service at Christchurch Cathedral, he was charged with being inconsistent. He denied this. He had always discouraged open-air undenominational services, as they were objectionable from every point of view. At tho same time he felt he had a duty to fulfil, and he fulfilled it. He held an all-day intercession, but nobody preached. Christian men assembled in the Cathedral and carried on a service of intercession through the whole day. These men were baptised Christians. He called them to pray, and he would pray with anybody. This was not giving away pi principle. The Bishop of Auckland said the bishops had acted consistently with their answer to the past Synod as far as possible. The clergy apparently merely asked for' direction, and such direction might be quite useful. He did not wish to do anything to hinder re-union, but they must first get to know one another and "cultivate brotherhood. Neither bishops nor the clergy desired to surrender any essentials. Where they could meet as Christian citizens without compromising principles they should do so. Peo- t pie might put a false construction on their actions, but they should be consistent with their principles, and act together. They must have unity amongst themselves, and if the bishops gave a combined judgment it would promote unity of action. He never refused to take part in meetings of Christian citizens. This was not a question of change of pulpits, and the services in question were merely citizen services.

The Dean of Christchtxrch said they had no right to introduce any outsider whatever. . Canon P. T. Williams, in Iris reply, disclaimed any odium theologicum. Having evoked a debate, he wished to withdraw his motion. Leave was granted.