PRESBYTERIANISM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18676, 4 October 1922, Page 3

PRESBYTERIANISM

HISTORIC STANDARDS UNDER CRITICISM. A NEW “CONFESSION” DEMANDED. An important discussion took place in the Dunedin Presbytery yesterday touching on the historic doctrinal standards of tho church and their relation to present-day thought and life. The matter was raised oy thq Kirk Session of St. Andrew’s conSregation, wliich petitioned tho Presbytery to overture to General Assembly meeting in Auckland next month in the following terms; —‘‘Whereas the Westminster Confession is tho expression of the thought of a. generation far removed from our own in many mailers of religious significance and was framed to meet the special needs of that general ion, tho General Assembly be asked, without departing from the Westminster Confession as ' a standard of the church, to state tho faith of the church in a simple form acceptable to the mind and conscience of its present membership.” 'lho Rev. H. Maclean, who introduced tho overture, said he recognised that the motion raised grave matters. Ho pointed out that it came from laymen and not from the professional side of tho church, anti tho reason was that the elders felt there was a growing need of a simple statement of the church’s faith such as could he put into the hands of Bible class members and those seeking to unite with the church. Tho session felt that the Westminster Confession was quite unsuited for that purpose. They objected to it on tho ground that it was archaic both in construction and in conception and that it was no longer held as it stood by the church, they had departed from the Westminster Confession, and tho matter was complicated by the existence of the Declaratory Act, which modified the confession. They were in an impossible position, for the church had departed from its standards. They always felt that they had to apologise for tho Westminster Confession. A third ground of objection was that as far as tho membership of the church was concerned fhe Westminster Confession was a dead letter. Very few of their members had ever seen it. Another of their standards, the Larger Catechism, was more dead than the Westminster Confession, and the Shorter Catechism was fast becoming dead. A fourth objection to the Westminster Confession was that it was theological and not religious—so theological that it had not anything to say about the Kingdom of God in the world. Tno motion left tho Westminster Confession w’here it was, and there was no question of altering or removing it. Their attitude was well expressed in a statement Dr Waddell had once made to him to the effect that they should look on the Confession as regiments looked on their old flags under which they Iliad lived and fought and to which they gave an honoured place. The Westminster Confession was in tho heart of tho constitution of the Presbyterian Church and ho did not think it could ever be taken out of it. Nevertheless he believed the step proposed would be of,great value in preparing the church as a whole to understand and restate its faith. The Rev. A. M. Dalrymple seconded tho motion, and referred to the fact that the United Free Church of Scotland had adopted just such a statement of the faith In modern terms as Mr Maclean had described. The Rev. A. M. Finlayson said lie did not wish to oppose the motion, but he thought some of Mr Maclean’s statements were rather alarming. The Rev. J. Kilpatrick drew attention fo the form of the motion, and said that the whole object of tho overture was to “depart from the Westminster Confession.” He favoured the making of such a statement as that asked, but said that the question of the Westminster Confession should be dealt with quite separately. Ho moved the setting up of a committee to prepare an overture simplv asking for a simple statement of the doctrine and polity of the church. The Rev. W. Scorgie seconded the amendment, and said that if Mr Maclean made the speech in Assembly that ho had made there ho would simply ruin his own case. They should leavo*the Confession of Faith out of the controversy. The Rev. A. W. Kinmont said that as one of the standards of the church the Confession of Faith could not be set aside without special legislation. From that point of view it must bo conserved. The Rev. W. Trotter said ho agreed it was the duly of the church to express the mind of Christ to the men of its own generation. If there was a loud call for that they would have to respond to it and take all the legal or other risks (hat might be’ involved. He favoured the clerk’s amendment. The Rev, T. Tuille said he felt quite sure that Mr Maclean would find the great body of the church, especially tho vounger men, were with him. Ho would bo well advised to accept the clerk’s amendment, and not institute a comparison between tho new and old statements until the new one had been drawn up. Mr W. Gow said St. Andrew's Church Session had no idea whatever of attacking the Westminster Confession of Faith, hut it felt, what he believed all sessions felt, that the great mass of their people had uo confession of faith. Was that not sufficient reason for asking for a simpler and briefer confession to be put into the hands of their people? The Rev. A. M. Finlayson said he was thoroughly in agreement with the amendment. The Moderator said they were all of one mind in regard to the desire for a statement. Mr Maclean, in replying, said that the statement referred to by Mr Dalrymple had been defeated in the United Free Church Assembly by 86 to 84, but every one of the speakers had admitted that the Westminster Confession had to bo dealt with sooner or later. They had as a matter of fact departed from the Westminster Confession, and they ought to bo quite frank about if. The amendment was carried by about 30 votes to six or seven. A committee was then set, up consisting of the Revs. Maclean. Tipler, Trotter, Yuille, Scorgie, and Kilpatrick (convener) to submit an overture to next presbytery meeting.