ANGLICAN SYNOD

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18544, 3 May 1922, Page 6

ANGLICAN SYNOD

CHURCH UNION QUESTION. (Pam United Pbess Association.! - AUCKLAND, May 1. At the session of the Anglican Synod the debate on Canon James’s motion with reference to the Bible in schools was resumed, and progress was reported with leave to sit again. The Synod resumed next the debate on Bishop Sedgwick’s motion regarding church unity. An amendment by way of addition was" proposed by Bishop Averill, who moved : —“That copies of the Lambeth appeal and resolutions on re-union be sent to the leaders of tho Christian churches in New Zealand; that those churches be invited to co-operate with the Anglican Church in prayers, study, ' and conference, with a view to the ultimate realisation of the Lambeth vision.” Another amendment was moved by Canon Wilford (of Christchurch) substituting for the second half of the motion a clause .urging the clergy and laity of the provinces to use every opportunity to get resolutions passed at conferences, and this great question discussed with member of other Christian bodies This amendment Was seconded by Archdeacon Taylor, who urged caution in associating themselves with resolutions which might chain them to uncertain commitments. He particularly warned the Synod" against any action which would pledge them to promiscuous interchange of preacners. At a later stage, at Canon Wilford’s request, his amendment was withdrawn, on the ground that it was the subject of misunderstanding. Bishop Richards, who supported the motion, said that 99 per cent, of the people did not grasp the fact that jhe differences between the churches were fundamental. They did not want to combine all churches into one big Anglican Church, but wished that the conception of one Catholic Church should be understood. Bishop Sedgwick believed that the great obstacle to unity was failure to grasp what was meant by the Church of Christ, which was one visible Church of God. After further debate the motion, with the addition laid down in the amendment, was carried unanimously. Bishop Sedgwick’s motion was—‘‘That the Synod express its thankfulness to God for the great movement made towards unity by* the Lambeth Conference of 1920, and associate itself with the resolutions passed by the conference on this great question.” MARRIAGE PROBLEMS DISCUSSED. AUCKLAND, May 2. The Anglican Synod discussed the resolution of the Lambeth Conference dealing with problems of marriage and sexual morality. Bishop Averill moved that the synod associate itself with resolution 67 of the Lambeth Conference of 1920 as follows: “The conference affirms as our Lord’s principle, arid the standard of marriage a life-long and indissoluble union, for better or for worse, of one man with one woman, to tho exclusion of ell others on either side, and calls on all Christian, people to maintain and bear witness to this standard. The conference, while fully recognising the extreme difficulty of Governments in framing the marriage laws for citizens, many of whom do not accept the. Christian standard, expresses the .firm .belief that in every country the Church should be free to bear witness to that standard through its powers of administration and discipline / exercised in relation to its own members.” At Bishop Averill’s request the following clause was added to the rriotion — “In view of the fact that the conference admits the right of the national or regional Church within our dominion to deal with cases which fall within the exception mentioned in the record of our Lord’s words m St. Matthew’s Gospel, under the provisions which ■' such Church may lay down, the Primate be respectfully requested to appoint a Recess Committee to consider the matter fully and to report to the next session of the synod.” Bishop Averill said he moved for reference to a committee because he thought that in two or three years scholars would come to conclusions more definite than at present. The controversy revolved round the difficult position of the so-called innocent party, and the Church’s attitude depended on the interpretation placed on the. passage in. the Gospel of St. Matthew where fornication was mentioned as an exception to the Lord’s definition of adultery. The Lambeth Conference gave rio advice as to the interpretation which should be placed on this important exception. Thus wo fccmld so amend our custom as to allow remarriage in our Church if, that is to say, we thought fit. He re- ■ viewed the theories of Christ’s teaching on divorce. Archdeacon Charles had maintained that it was the act of adultery itself, and not the Divorce Court, which broke the bond of matrimony. “I am not ashamed to confess,” concluded Bishop Averill, “that it would give me the greatest joy . and comfort if we had permission to remarry the innocent party in our churches. This would not be done, however, until the truth was established that the act of adultery itself destroyed the bond. If this was nroved it would be possible for the Church to issue a decree of annulment.” The debate was adjourned, and the synod resumed the debate on Canon James’s motion regarding, the Bible in State Schools Committee. After half an hour’s discussion progress was reoorted, and the following recommendation, on the motion of Bishop Averill, was adopted:— “That the debate be adjourned until Monday to enable the holding of the conference between the mover and the seconder of the motion, the mover and seconder of th© amendment, and the members of tho synod who have intimated their intention to move amendments, together with the Primate and the mover." . Permission was . given to tho house to ait again in committee if so desired.