THE OXFORD GROUP

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 17, 14 October 1933, Page 9

THE OXFORD GROUP

Movement Criticised by Bishop

“REAL DANGER LURKING”

Dominion Special Service.

Napier, October 13.

Criticism of the religious movement known as the Oxford Group Movement was made by Bishop H. Williams in his opening address at Synod in Napier yesterday. He thought that there was a real danger lurking In the movement, because its adherents were drawn from all communions and from those who owed no spiritual allegiance.

In referring to the origin of the Oxford Group Movement, Bishop Williams said: “An American revivalist, Mr. Frank Buckmann, came to England a year or two ago, and continued his work there. As his activity centred first at Oxford, it became known as the Oxford Group Movement. Unfortunately we in New Zealand can only obtain second-hand information on the subject. The official publications are few, and, as is natural, the opinions expressed by observers are very divergent. Mr. Buchmann is, I understand, not a member of the Anglican Communion, and his methods 'are not of a conventional pattern. But God is not limited by rules, and is pleased to work through many channels, and by a variety of means.” Many People Roused. Continuing, the bishop stated: “There can be no doubt that a large and increasing number of people have been roused from spiritual indifference by the meetings held under the Group Movement, and are now making God’s will the guiding principle of their lives. For this we must thank God. “But there is another side to the medallion. We are living in a time of serious unrest, and one symptom of that restlessness is a distrust of and dissatisfaction., with the existing order of government, of society and religion. I think we must ask . ourselves whether this movement has anything to give us which the Church does not offer us. The two outstanding features in the practice of the movement are sharing and guidance, both of which are provided for in our Church system.

“It is unnecessary to labour the point; I will merely remind you of the advice given in the exhortation in the communion service: ‘lf there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet his own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or counsel, let him come to me, or to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God’s holy word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advice, to the quieting of his conscience and avoiding all scruple and doubtfulness.’ The Lasting Effect. “I know that it is fashionable nowadays to speak disparaging of institutional religion; that is, as I have said, one of the symptoms of our present unrest; but have we any valid grounds for the assumption that the methods of a house party under the auspices of the group will give more lasting rest and refreshment to the troubled soul than can be obtained through the channels offered by the Church? Is there .any guarantee that the group leader, of whose preparation you know nothing, will be able to deal more efficiently with spiritual matters than the priest who has had a careful training for his ministry?

“The tendency is to rebel against rules; but the group is already developing rules which will soon become irksome in their turn. There is, further, a real danger lurking in the movement. Its adherents are drawn from all communions and from those who owed no spiritual allegiance. It is inevitable that most of the latter will look to the group meetings for the satisfaction of all their spiritual aspirations, and that in this they will be joined by many whose Church membership has not been very active; and so the movement will develop into another sect. Some Good in Movement. “I am not for a moment suggesting that the Group Movement has not done much good and brought peace to many troubled souls. But perhaps the greatest good that we can draw from it is that it may lead us to look to our own methods, and make our religious exercises more spiritual, less formal, more human, less rigid. The'Church is one body, with room and need for members of infinite variety, but the fact that each has his peculiar contribution to make should not be allowed to obscure the greater fact that we are one body, and that the preservation of the oneness should demand all our diligence.”