WELLINGTON PRESBYTERY

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 91, 14 October 1922, Page 11

WELLINGTON PRESBYTERY

A SHAM FIGHT ABOUT WAR

TO THE EDirOS,

Sir,—With amazing generqsity you have given enormous spaca in reporting the Wellington Presbytery's wrangle about war, on Tuesday evening. It is by no means very edifying reading and means another blow to Wellington Presbyterianisni so badly' wounded "in the house of its friends." The debate, while inflicting a deadly wound on Presbyterianism, was in itself nothing less and nothing more than a sham fight. Dr. Gibb moved a motion made up.of a few platitudes about peace which needed no supporting speech, and the Presbytery might have adopted it at once. But Dr. Gibb's text was only a pretext. His speech was a plea for the crackbrained doctrine of peace accepted by extreme Labour but quite inconsistent with the Presbyterian standards. Dr. Gibb'fl seconder was ashamed of ths speech. The Eev. J. H. Mackenzie'e amendment was mad ( e up of a few platitudes- about peace, piety, and patriotism, and might have been passed without a word of debate. But Mr. Mackenzie's text was also a pretext. His speech was a real or pretended attack on Dr. Gibb for saying and doing things outside the Presbytery, and he ought to have known that he had no right to make such attack until he had brought Dr. Gibb's offences before the Presbytery in a formal and legal way. Why the Moderator did not squash Mr. Mackenzie for his irrelevant speech I do not know. Under the guidance of the Rev. W. J. Comrie a majority of the Presbytery kicked out both motions and amendment and came to no decision about anything! This sham fight acted as a smoko screen with regard to the extraordinary speeches made by Dr. Gibb and Mr. Inglis, and the scandal thereby created. By this sham fight the Presbytery got away from an unpleasant duty of taking to task two men, who have been wandering in the borderland of error as regards the ninth commandment. "The duties required in the ninth commandment" says Presbyterian standard, the larger Catechism, "are the preserving and the promoting of truth between man and man, and the ,good name of our neighbour as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth and only the truth in matters of judgment and justice." Mr. Massey, it seems, said there was a "possibility of war," and because of this Mr. Inglis charges him with looking upon war as lightly as "a football match or community sing." Mr. Massey said "Yes" to Lloyd George's appeal in a recent crisis, and Dr. Gibb denounces him for leading us "helter skelter" into war. Why does Dr. Gibb slang Mr. Massey and not Lloyd George?

There are church officials in the Wellington Presbytery who might have found an occasion in the recent' outbreaks for giving to a bewildered community a definite statement of the Presbyterian doctrine about war. But they have not done so and perhaps you might allow me to do so. The "Confession of Faith" whose system of doctrine every minister of the Presbyterian Church has accepted with tho solemnity of an oath, says :—"God the Supreme Lord and King of all the world hath ordained civil Magistrates to be under Him over the people for His own glory and the public good; and to this end hath armed them with the power of the swoTd, for the defence and encouragement of them that are good, and for the punishment of evil doers. . . . So for that end, they may now under tha, New Testament, wage war upon just and necessary occasions." The Church of England agrees with the Presbyterian doctrine. In the "Thirty-nine Articles" we read : —"lt is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons and to serve in ivars." These statements are, I admit, 300 years old, but the march of time has not altered the meaning of Bible truth. In the article "War" in Hastings, "Bible Dictionary"—a book of our time—l read: —"The general teaching of the New Testament on war can hardly be better given than in the following words :'War. is sanctioned by the la.w of Nature, the constitution of man, and the constitution of society; and by the teaching and practice of Christ and of His immediate disciples.' " lam not in a position, to set forth the ethics of war held by the Red Federation. If they be based on Darwinism then Mr. Benjamin Kidd reminds .me that the superstructure is the "Ethics of the Jungle" that accepted as a whole by Germany made them makers of war; and their criminality is apt out fully by -Dr. Gibb in church blue books. Dr. Gibb, a reputed leader in the Presbyterian Church, has taken a side in this crisis and has pelted our Premier with abuse. Armenia, Cilicia, Smyrna are the Golgothas of Asia to-day.. Thrace may be the Golgotha of Europe tomorrow; The Turk may return to power dripping with the Christian blood he has shed, and Mr. Lloyd George may be driven into the obscurity of private life. ■It may be so, for history is full of tragedy. But when the whole story of the murdering Turk is told, Dr. Gibb and others may live to regret that they were not on the side of Lloyd George and Mr. Massey when peace with dishonour was forced upon divided, distracted Christian Jim-ope by the Ottoman Turk.—l ROBERT WOOD. Karori, 11th October.