ASSEMBLY CLEARS PROF. GEERING

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31520, 7 November 1967, Page 1

ASSEMBLY CLEARS PROF. GEERING

Charges Dismissed After Two-Hour Debate

The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand this afternoon dismissed the charges of heresy and doctrinal error against Professor L. G. Geering, principal of Knox Theological Hall.

After almost two hours of debate on the wording of its decision, the assembly decided: “That the assembly judges no doctrinal error has been established, dismisses the charges, and declares the case closed.”

This decision, carried firmly on the voices, with few raised against, was greeted by loud, sustained applause, and was heard by a public gallery which was full, although not packed as when Professor Geering spoke in the morning session.

Interest in proceedings was at a high point yesterday—the public were pouring into the gallery of St Paul’s Presbyterian church at 8.30 a.m., and by 9 a.m., an hour before Professor Geering was to answer the heresy charges, it was full. Several hundred who were unable to gain admission heard his address, relayed, in the rear hall.

Forty speakers took part in yesterday afternoon's debate —which turned not on whether Professor Geering was guilty or not, but on whether the charges should be dismissed in a short, “legal” pronouncement, or as the climax to a longer sevenpoint “pastoral message.” Only one speaker—a layman—complained at the assembly’s failure to take time in “examining the charges.” The assembly’s decision, as passed, was framed late in the debate, after a motion to adjourn it had been defeated heavily on the voices. The Very Rev. J. M. Bates (Dunedin), at the outset, moved: “That the General Assembly dismiss the charges against Professor Geering, principal of Knox Theological Hall, and declare that it is persuaded of his Christian integrity and conviction, is impressed by the urgency with which he feels that the gospel must be interpreted to people today, and is convinced of Ids fitness for the responsibility of the office to which he has been called.” “So Beautifully” Mr Bates said he did not need to emphasise, or expand, on what Professor Geering had said “so simply and so beautifully” that morning “The great point I would like to make is this: that this Church, which is merged together not by statements of faith but the action of the Holy Spirit in Christ, is surely big enough to allow for a broad spectrum of theological interpretation.” The Rev. W. R. M. Hay

seconded, agreeing that it would be wrong for a man of Professor Geering’s capacity to be placed in a theological straitjacket. “He has stirred the Church out of its lethargy,” Mr Hay said. Referring to Professor Geering’s address at the University of Canterbury, he said: “How long is it since 500 young people would go along to a lecture on theology?” Mr Hay reminded the Assembly that 1900 years ago another man was attacked, and crucified, who had dared question teachings of the Old Testament.

The Very Rev. J. S. Murray (Auckland) proposed “a pastoral answer” by the Assembly, rather than a brief, legal dismissal of the charges against Professor Geering. Mr Murray moved, and the Rev. O. T. Baragwanath (Auckland) seconded, as an amendment to Mr Bates’s motion, a seven-point “pastoral message” (a page of typescript), the seventh point of which said: “That the Assembly judges no doctrinal error has been established, that no disciplinary action is called for in this whole matter, and declares the case closed.” “Wishy-Washy” The Very Rev. M. W. Wilson (Sefton) led an attack on this amendment, calling it “wishy-washy,” and calling for “the plain, straightforward terms of the original motion.” Mr Wilson was supported by nine other speakers, including the Rev. Dr G. R. Ferguson (Wellington) and the Rev. R. M. Rogers (Christchurch), with four others supporting the amendment, before a motion “to put the amendment” was put, and lost, so that discussion on the “pastoral message” amendment continued. After seven other speakers had been heard, the Very Rev. H. D. Horwell told the assembly it was wasting time, and moved the adjournment of the debate, for reference to a small drafting committee, Mr Horwell described the amendment as too woolly, and with great emphasis, said: “It is not a truly Presbyterian statement.” The motion to adjourn was lost. “Among Pigeons” In subsequent discussion, Mr P. D. Dunbar (Christchurch), although predicting that “the cat would be set among the pigeons” with the publication in New Zealand, and overseas, of Professor Geering’s views that morning, said that Mr Wardlaw’s charges of heresy must fail, and would best be pronounced against by the original motion. The “pastoral message” amendment was soon after put, and declared lost, after a show of hands had been called for—no count was announced — after which debate proceeded with the Rev. W. J. Baker (Waikato) proposing a further amendment, which was carried, on the voices, as the substantive motion reached by the Assembly. Professor Geering’s Address, P.lO.