Synod commends union plan

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 32958, 3 July 1972, Page 9

Synod commends union plan

The Plan for Union,i 1971, has been warmly ‘ commended by the, Special Synod of the I ( Diocese of Christchurch 1 on Church Union, and its ; adoption is looked for- ' ward to as a basis for i union. i I 1 This decision was made on s Friday after a two-day de-1 bate on a motion put by the ' Ven. R. O. Williams, which;' commends the plan. it

The alternative motion,! “that this synod receives the Plan for Union, 1971, commends it to our people for continued prayer and study, and urges all church people to take part in making a decision on church union by exercising their vote in the referendum,” was lost by a margin of only one vote out of a total of 149 votes after a strong debate. Throughout the debate on the Plan for Union on Friday, many speakers declared themselves in favour of union but against the 1971

plan on mainly structural grounds. “So often with a union scheme, mission flies out the window,” the Ven. K. O. Bathurst said. “I would like to see a delay of some years in adopting the plan to see how structures in the church —such as the new look Communion, the new curriculum for Sunday school and youth groups, and the union parishes—are working before we attempt union with other churches.”

Despondency Archdeacon Bathurst said he had noticed a feeling of despondency and a lack of enthusiasm for the plan at synod. The Rev. R. F. M. Thompson (St John’s) said he would like to see an interim stage before the plan was adopted. “In order to present a positive approach, I suggest a Federal union idea, with inter-communion, the social services working together, and union parishes encouraged to come together where possible,” Mr Thompson said. “Parishioners don’t give a raspberry about points of theology which we have spent so much time debating here,” the Rev. P. D. Bean (North Brighton) said. Pussy-footing

“If we are going to carry on with pussy-footing round much longer, people will get sick of our attempts at union and we will be in danger of losing our authority

among our people who are more interested in Christianity and the job of mission, rather than machinery, government, buildings, and property.”

Mr K. W. Parker (St Albans) said that he could find in the plan for union no fixed or permanent beliefs for a new faith and an uncertainty about the future of the heirarchy of the church. Mr A. F. Stott (Spreydon) said that not only was it wrong to go into this plan for union wanting to change the unsatisfactory structure of the plan, but it was also dishonest.

“By the time we arrive at the united church, Christians will be more apathetic than ever,” the Rev. S. T. Ballantyne (Ross and South Westland) said. “But a united church will be able to speak with an even stronger voice about South Africa and the French nuclear tests and could act in industry and politics.” Youth’s fear "We must come to terms with the fear of youth in a world of nuclear power,” the Rev. M. M. Warren (Hornby) said. “In such a world, where the ration of nuclear power exceeds that of every man on earth by so great a margin, how can we cling to such a trifling irrelevancy as the divisions of the church. If we throw out this plan for union, we can’t face up to the world.”