CHURCH UNION

Evening Star, Issue 17922, 18 March 1922, Page 2

CHURCH UNION

coKe-'aEGjmojTziiisTS eeksb

atticst.

Tiro Congregation! Union, mooting at Christchurch yesterday, practically gave the “ bmck-out ” blow to tho question of union with tho Presbyterian Church, though tho principle of union wan almost unanimously affirmed. Tho Rov, W. Saunders, to meet tho difficulties of some asked permission to add to the motion for the adoption of the Control Committee's repoi t ro union the following clause “ That such adoption shall not imply the acceptance of union on tho basis sot out in tho interim report attached thereto.” The Hon. G. Powlds, in seconding the motion, said it would ho a calamity if they decided_ to turn down union on a purely negative vote oil tho adoption of the report.

Tho Revs. 0. Carr and H. J. Huffadino objected to this addition to the motion, and wanted to know what was behind tho proposal. Mr W. R. Sinclair (Dunedin) expressed surprise at the air of suspicion with which some delegates appeared to regard the Central Union Committee. That committee was comprised of clergymen and business men, whose record of service in the best interests of Congregationalism was both long and honorable, mid it was beyond belief that fellow-delegates could credit them with questionable motives.

Mr P. Barr (Dunedin), as a member of the Central Committee on Union, said tho committee had been thrice appointed to carry out tho instructions of tho Union, and in view of the unjust criticism and suspicion, he would decline to act on the committee if it were re-eicctod. Amongst both clergy and laymen the men who wore supporting union were those who had been longest in Congregational Church work in New Zealand. Those prominent in opposing the union wore men with but a short experience in New Zealand Congregational history. If tho Congregational Union declined to accept this offer of union they would regret it for all time.—(Applause.) Tho Rev. 11. P. Johnson expressed the opinion that there bad been undesirable lecturing on both sides. Ho was in favor of union if a basis acceptable to Congregationalists could bo arrived at. But "it had to bo admitted that the differences between flic two denominations were acute. Ho thought it might be said that Otago was in favor of union, Canterbury and lington were divided, and Auckland was absolutely opposed to it._ Was union possible when Congregationalists wore so divided? They wore in danger of a split amongst tho Congregational churches if they pressed for union when they wore not prepared for it. They must stand or fall together, and not break up into sections, part joining tho Presbyterians and part remaining out; but they must never let it g<i cut to the world that the Congregational Church turned down tho principle of union. Mr Mitchell disputed tho statement that Auckland was opposed to union. Ho know of many besides himself in Auckland who were favorable to union, but bo was not agreeable to union on tho basis proposed. Ho dissociated himself with tho criticism of tho Central Committee.

At tho after session an amendment', moved by the i.tev. 0. Carr, ana seconded ’by Mr Graff, that discussion, of tho proposed basis of union ho proceeded with, wa-s lost on. tho voices, Tho Hen. G. Fowlds again stressed iho point that tho effect of carrring tho original motion for the adoption of tho Central Committee’s report was to reaffirm approval of tho principle of union. A motion to this effect was put and carried on tho voices, only one voting against it. Discussion of tho proposed _ basis of union was being proceeded with when Dr Warner rose, and said it seemed to him tlmt tho only basis of union they would agree to would bo a Congregational olio, unacceptable to tho Presbyterian. Church. They should, therefore, bo honest with the Presbyterians, and not proceed to propound a basis with the idea that that body would throw out tho basis, and tho matter would thus end in tho moantime. Tho Congregational cause was suffering seriously. All progressive work: was at a standstill, while the union question was still unsettled. It might seam drastic, but ho would move:—

That in view of tho widespread diversity of opinion regarding a suitable basis of union with the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, this council defers further consideration of a basis sine die.

Mr T. E, Reynolds (Wellington) seconded tho Ho agreed that the' unsettled question or union was retarding progress. It had I°®t his church its minister, owing to delay m reaching a decision. On tiro suggestion of Mr H. M, Smoeton tho amendment was altered, the words sine die being deleted, and tho following added: “Until union is proposed between tho three churchesPresbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational.” ~ The Hon. Mr Fowlds agreed that the basis' presented to tho Presbyterian. Church' should bo bona fide. Tho basis of polity suggested by Auckland was quite impossible of acceptance by the Presbyterian Church, and those who could not vote for a basis that would be reasonably likely of acceptance by the Presbyterians should vote for Dr Warner’s 'motion. They should .not deceive themselves. Tho Rev. M. 15.- Pinch did not consider Mr Fowlds could presumo .to interpret tho mind of tho Presbyterian Church. Ho thought a basis acceptable to both bodies was possible, and he emphatically opposed tho motion. The Rev. W." Saunders said tho effect of Dr Warren’s motion was to wreck ail .possibility for union for many years, and the council would stultify itself'by carrying such a. motion. Tho Rev. 11. J. Huffsdino felt sure that any basis tho Congregational Union would resolve upon cm the matter of polity and creed would bo unacceptable to the Presbyterian Church, and that it would he bat honest to adont Mr Warner’s motion.

ffiie vote was taken by ballot, and Dr Warner’s motion was declared earned by 37 votes to 28 votes.