CHURCH UNION

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 117, 13 November 1929, Page 13

CHURCH UNION

A METHODIST VIEW

ILLUSORY CAUSES OF

DIVISION

Addressing 'the Wellington District Synod of the Methodist Church, at its annual meeting-to-day, the Rev. E. D. Patehett, as chairman, dealt with the subject of Church Union.

Beneath the surface of church life today there is a strong undercurrent of conviction in favour of a closer bond of union between the churches (said Mr. Patchett). This conviction is particularly strong amongst the younger generation. Those who have come into the Church since the war are more alive to the folly and futility of a divided Church than their fathers were. They grow impatient with the idea that as tilings have been so they must remain. Why should the differences of past generations be visited upon the children ad inh'nitum ? Especially when the original causes of disunion have ceased to-day to have any meaning. Nor is the desire for union born out of motives of expediency and self-interest. ■ It is born rather from a religious consciousness that for Christian men and women to fail in a common fellowship and witness to the faith savours of disloyalty. to Christ's central law of love and to "His prayer, "That they may be one as we are one." We believe that the time has come when' this rising tide of desire for church union in this Dominion should find adequate expression. For many yews a number of the churches in'this land have been marching along converging lines. They have been gradually drawing nearer to one another in both spirit and practice. So that corporate union may be regarded as sooner or later both natural and inevitable. The vital question is what should be the response of Church' leaders to this pressure from within?. Should they be content to leave so important an issue in the Jap of the future, or should they rise up to greet it, and seek to guide it into wise channels? We beliove that it is a Christian duty to foster and develop the idea and ideal of unity. On every side there are indications that the time for a timorous policy is past. The religious journals o£ Great Britain are full of a frank and fearless discussion of this question in all its bearings. A WIDESPREAD MOVEMENT. The road, to a larger unity has been solidly paved by the unions which have already been effected- This year over a thousand pilgrims set forth on the s.s. Doric at the invitation of the United Church of Canada to judge for themselves the success of the union of the Presbyterian, Congregational, and Methodist Churches in that country- That great Church feels that it has a message of encouragement -. to the divided churches of the world. This year has also seen the final step taken in the.union of the United Free Church of Scotland. Following close on this great consummation is the completion of the negotiations for a union of all the Methdist Churches of Great Britain, while the uniou of .• the Missionary Churches of Southern India is well on the way. We cannot doubt that the spirit of Christ has inspired these movements. Nor can we resist the challenge which that conclusion carries with it. It inspires in our hearts a vision and a hope that Christian men and women everywhere will rise superior to their' old and obsolete divisions and work for the divine oneness of the Church. Denoniiuationalisni of the old intolerant type is dead, and it is time its legacy to the world was decently buried. The approach of another Lambeth Conference, which will meet in the clearer light which the previous discussions have shed upon this subject, leads us to hope that some definite policy of approach from the Anglican side may be evolved. As far as this Dominion is concerned it does not seem an idle dream that a far larger church union than has yet been accomplished should be within the compass of Christian statesmanship.. We do not look for a dramatic overthrow of the walls of divisions, but we do believe that those walls are capable of beins breached at many points. Inter-communion between clergy of the ADglican Church and the ministers of. other churches is a common practice in some centres, both here and in the Old Country. An. interchange of pulpits has also been occasionally arranged. Surely it is along the lines of an official sanction to sufh practical demonstration of oneness that real progress towards union can best be made. Ignorance of one another lias been one of the chief causes of continued separation. The broadcasting^^ church services is therefore an importSHf factor in breaking down old prejudices. Ta this young country where the churches are not so bound by hampering traditions as they are in the Old Land, it ought to be possible to move a little faster than is wise or practicable there. My own conviction is that the time has arrived when a combined committee of the Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Methodist Churches should be set up to frankly face the present impediments to union, and explore the road by which a cultivated communion and co-operation may lead in the direction of ultimate unity. What a saving church union would effect. in men and money! How efficient a united church could be in overtaking such pressing • problems as the religious education of the young, the carrying of the ministrations of the. Church to sparsely settled districts, and the development of a more worthy and comprehensive missionary programme, which the open door in many lands demands. What, noble witness for Christ such a union would present to this modern world!

In what better fashion could the forces of Christianity march out to face the enemies of the faith! "United we stand, divided we fall." The vision we have is of a Church that in the best sense could be counted a National Church. A church capable of speaking with one voice for the nation on great moral and spiritual issues. A Church at the same time so generously and spiritually free that within its fold of membership there would be room for all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. A Church into which might freely flow all that is best in the genius and gifts of the ministries and denominations joining in the contract of union. After all the things which divide the churches to-day, are largely illusory. Take one instance. For long centuries! the churches have been divided upon .the question o£ the Apostolic sanction for their special form of church order. Was the Apostolic Church of an Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Independent form? A POSSIBLE SOLUTION. A possible solution of this age-long controversy has 'just been advanced by no less a churchman than Canon B. H. Streeter. .In: .his .recent book, "The Primitive Church," he says: "For four hundred years theologians .of rival churches have armed themselves to battle on the question of the Primitive Church. However-great their reverence for historic fact they, have at'least hoped that the result of their, investigations ' would be to vindicate Apostolic authority for the type of church order to which they were themselves attached. The Episcopalian has sought, to find episcopacy, 'the Presbyterian presbyterianism, arid the Independent a system of independency,, to be. theTform of church government in. New Testament times. But while each party to the" dispute has been able to make out a ease for his own- view, he has never succeeded m demolishing the case of his opponent. The explanation of this deadlock, I have come to believe, is quite f simple. It is the imcrifcieised assumption, made, by all parties. to the controversy that in the first century there existed a single type of .church order.. The : most natural interpretation of the evidence is that at the end of the first century there existed in different- provinces- of the Roman Empire different systems' of church government." If Canon 'Streeter's theory be true then the stumbling block of a one and only Divine order of church government need no longer stand in the way of those preparing for reunion. At least for those'who put the larger interests of the Rlory T Of Christ and the enlargement of n\ls kingdom' in the forefront <of the Uiurch s programme, there can be no sufhcient grounds for the perpetuation of those unhappy divisions which are a heritage of less tolerant and broad-based religious views than those we hold to-day