THE CHURCH IN NEW ZEALAND.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20619, 8 August 1932, Page 10

THE CHURCH IN NEW ZEALAND.

CRITICISM ANSWERED. BISHOP WEST-WATSON'S LETTER. .Stating that criticism of the Church in New Zealand, expressed by the Rev. Father Tribe, who recently visited the Dominion, should not bo taken too seriously, the Bishop of Christchurch (the Very Rev. Dr. Campbell West-Watson), writing in the latest issue of the "Church News," says that, before criticising a Church in another country, one needs time to appreciate the atmosphere in which that Church works and grows. He concludes by saying that there is a real danger to our spiritual life in watching and copying England, that what we need is more individuality, more courage to experiment and adventure for the good of our own people. "I notice that the leader of our Ottawa delegation haa felt it necessary to controvert'a suggestion of the Canadian Press that New Zealand's chief industries are unemployment, riots, and financial extravagance," writes the Bishop. "Wo are Borry, of course, that such an impression should have got abroad, it is not very helpful criticism, but we are not seriously perturbed by it. In the same way generalisations about our Church life made by a passing visitor after a very brief tour in the Dominion ought not to encourage or discourage us too much. I received lately a letter from a Now Zealand clergyman who is visiting England, in which ha gives his if rank opinion of the preaching in London churches, but I should be sorry to accept it as more than the personal expression of an unfortunate experience. None the less, criticism does us good, for it stirs us up to a dissatisfaction with things as they are, and a determination, God helping us, that they shall be better. "Complacent Sleepiness" Incorrect

"I am inclined to think that Father Tribe expected to find English conditions reproduced here and was disappointed. But that does not quite account /for his verdict of 'complacent sleepiness,' which seems to me an incorrect diagnosis. I suggest that, so far as the clergy are concerned 'insufficiently fruitful activity' would be nearer the truth, and so far as the laity are concerned, 'inadequate appreciation of the Opportunities and responsibilities of Churchmanship.' If I may refer in passing to the suggestion that the accentuation of our" extremes would foster spiritual life, I would remark that we obtain our extravagant variations ia England by segregating many of our ordinands into 'party' theological colleges, where they are apt to be permanently distorted into the delusion that the.ir party, Catholic, evangelical, fundamentalist, or modernist, is the only real purveyor of the truth. The result is- reflected in our so-called religions Press. We excuse these deplorable results as being a sign of life, but it is rather a barefaced apology. The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, and so forth. I can only say that the *brotherly love' of the NewZealand clergy seems to me a gracious and holy gift of God, and much more vital than the controversial spirit. Atmosphere Must be Appreciated. "But, before criticising -a Church in another country, one needs time to appreciate the atmosphere in which that Church grows and works. In England the Church draws upon the cultural wealth of the great Universities; it draws on the material wealth of very largo endowments; it draws on the spiritual wealth of generations of holy men and women, and, more than that, of men and women often whose circumstances have enabled them to devote their lives to Church life and work. In New Zealand wa have little, if any, of these things. We are far away from the great centres of learning, the outstanding teachers and leaders of the Church hardly ever visit us; we have to scratch for nearly every penny needed for our fcupport; we have hardly any leisured class, we work for our Jiving, and the material side of things is very much in evidence. Further, many of our citizens have grown up in 'backblocks,' where- Church and Sunday have made very little impression on their lives. We have hot even, as in England, the excellent syllabus of religious teaching which is there given iu nearly all schools, church, or council. "English people visiting or coming to live in New Zealand are sometimes strangely inelastic in mind. They cannot appreciate, what- has been done in the face of very great difficulties; they expect all they had at home. And New Zealand is not, and never will be, England. It is a eountry where all sections of the population are much nearer to one another: there are not the extremes of poverty and wealth, of culture and ignorance, of aristocracy and democracy, which mark English life. And the nature of the country is reflected in the general outlook of the Church, which is more homogeneous than- at Home. Is it presumptuous to suggest that we shall do our beat work, not by trying to reproduce exactly the English Church, but by trying to give expression to the highest and noblest aspirations of New Zealand people, through the historic Church, but in a way natural to a new land and people? There seems to me a real danger to our spiritual life in watching and copying England: we need more individuality; more courage to experiment and adventure for the good of our own people."