CHARGE AGAINST DEACON

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20538, 12 April 1930, Page 14

CHARGE AGAINST DEACON

PENTECOSTAL CHURCH.

(ATTITUDE TOWARD DIVORCE

COMPLAINT BY MEMBERS

PASSAGES FROM SCRIPTURE.

A complaint that a deacon of tho Pentecostal Church, now known as tho Assemblies of God, New Zealand, had alleged expressly, or by implication, that a man and wife who wero members of the Church until recently, wero not properly and sufficiently married resulted in tho hearing of a prosecution in tho Polico Court yesterday beforo Mr. F. K. Hunt, S.M. Tho couplo, who had been married after each had been previously divorced, had recently been expelled from tho Church.

Tho chargo was brought by Jesse Charles Hawkins, an enginedriver, who contended that Louis Alfred Silson, the deacon, had alleged expressly, or by implication, that complainant and his wife, Alice Mary Hawkins, being persons lawfully married, wero not truly and sufficiently married. It was alleged that Silson had committed a breach of subjection 1, section 7, of tho Marriage Amendment Act, 1920. Mr. Sullivan appeared for complainant and Mr. Stevens for defendant.

The magistrate reserved his decision and said the matter was one of great importance.

Hand-shake Refused

Mr. Sullivan said that Hawkins anrl his wife wero members of the Pentecostal Church of New Zealand, which was now known as the Assemblies of God, New Zealand. They were married on January 7, 1925, and had been members of the Church sineo their marriage. Seven or eight months ago Silson refused to shako hands with Hawkins, saying that complainant and his wife were living an improper life. Hand-shaking was regaidcd os an important sign of good-fellowship in tho Church. Silson was later made a deacon and on one occasion, while preaching, ho had said, "There are people here that are of the devil. \ou know ■what I mean," staring hard at Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins the while. On January 12, continued counsel, during Bible class Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins were called into the prayer-room, where there were four men, Silson, I'hey, Pengelly and Mansfield. Silson then read from the Scripture, laying emphasis on certain words which appeared to be directed at Hawkins and his wife. Mr. Sullivan said he had been consulted by Mrs. Hawkins and had written to Silson demanding an apology on behalf of his client. On February 16 Mrs. Hawkins had received a letter from two elders of tho Church returning their membership cards. On March 6 Silson sent, them a registered letter stating that in view of the Scriptural teaching they had no further fellowship for the Hawkins in their present condition. "I am here on a question of law and am not concerned with tho theological side," Mr. Sullivan said. "Neither am I," said the magistrate. Church and Divorced Persons.

Jesse Charles Hawkins said that on January 12 Mansfield asked him if his divorced wife was still living and he replied in tho affirmative. He had not learned the attitude of the Church toward divorced persons who remarried until after he had joined the Church. The attitude was then made apparent by the behaviour of members of tho Church toward himself and his wife. Mrs. Hawkins corroborated her husband's evidenco and Mr. Sullivan s statement. On January 12 she and her husband were called into a room, whero Silson, Mansfield, Pengelly and Phey were, and wero told it was necessary to keep the Church clean. Silson then read from the Bible and placed stress on a. certain term Mrs. Hawkins said she did riot know about the attitude of the Church to divorced persons who remarried. Cross-examined by Mr. Stevens, witness said she had continued to attend tho Church on the advice of her counsel, even though her membership card had been returned to her. Joseph Alexander Mansfield, a railway employee, who had been a member of tho Church sineo its inception, said that Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins ceased to be members of the Church when their cards were returned to them by the elders. Personally, be considered that Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins were legally married, but tho constitution of the Church considered that divorced peoplo who remarried, were living in adultery. The constitution of the Church discouraged divorces. He was at tho church on January 12, but Mr. ifnd Mrs. Hawkins were not brought beforo the officers to his knowledge. On a previous occasion they had been before the

ciders Witness tried to show Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins as charitably as possible tho position of the elders, who had to rulo nccofding to tho Scriptures. In face of a request to the contrary, the Hawkins' had continued to attend the church when their membership cards had been returned. Marriage ITot Disputed. Mr. Stevens submitted that there was no offence, as defendant had merefy read the Bible and said he believed in it. "We do not dispute the marriage," he sairi. Tho Magistrate: Well, you say that they are living in sin, so what do you call that ? . Mr. Stevens: If Your Worship is going to hold that defendant has committed an offence, next week you will have half the church peoplo up here with similar complaints. The Magistrate: The Act was passed to Btop people saying that sort of thing. Mr ; Stevens submitted that the real trouble of which Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins complained was that they had been expelled from the Church. Mr Sullivan: There was no such suggestion Louis Alfred Silson said that there were about 500 members and 1500 adherents of the Church in New Zealand. It was a world-wide movement. He was honorary secretary and a deacon to the Auckland branch and believed in the constitution of the ('hutch, but. would not say that Mr. and Mrs. Ilav.kins were not properly married. The Magistrate: What did you read that, particular piece of Script urn for? Any sensible man would see the allusion. Silson: I am not responsible for the W"ml of Cod. The Magistrate: No, I know. There are a lot of words there that you must bo careful in using. Passages From Scripture. Defendant then repeated several passages from the Scripture ho had quoted to tho Hawkins'. lie said the presence of Mr. and Mrs- Ilawkins. who were felt to bo not. in accord with the meeting, was a serious matter. " I do not suggest that these people are not truly and sulliciently married," he said. Mr. Sullivan: When you read that piece, to whom were you referring? Defendant: To them, I suppose. Mr. Sullivan: In the eyes of your Church ure they sufficiently married ? Defendant: Yes. The Magistrate: Then why did you nso a certain term in connection with t hem '! Defendant: Because in the Word of God they are. John Phey, an elder of the Church, said he remembered defendant reading several passages from the Scripture in tho presence of Mr. and Mrs. Hawkins. " H is a matter of tho greatest importance," said the magistrate, who roflewed his decision.