HOW- DID YOU ENJOY YOUR HOLIDAY, SIR?

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19349, 9 December 1924, Page 12

HOW- DID YOU ENJOY YOUR HOLIDAY, SIR?

lII. —WITH HUMBLE PRESBYTERIANS. Written for the Otago Daily Times. By W. H. On one occasion when Joseph Parker, of the City Temple heard a man describe himself as a humble Presbyterian, ho said, “I -will turn aside and see this great sight.” What Parker would have said if ho had been with me for a week at Palmerston North, where there were hundreds of humble Presbyterians gathered in Assembly and Conference, I cannot imagine. Only once did I hear the expression “our great Church,” and that was from a man who had been pointing out very plainly that “our great Church” does not do as well as it did 30 years ago.' Neasiy all the speakers, if not all, seemed much impressed not with what the Church does, but with what she leaves undone. She does not produce enough ministers, does not adequately help them when they are students, maintain them when they are ministers, and provide for them when they are past work. As a missionary church the Presbyterian is inferior to the Anglican, the Methodist, and the Baptist. During a period of years five churches have received Government permits to conduct a lottery. “Fiye too many,” said a laconic speaker. When one brother, not so humble, suggested that it should be mentioned that no permit had been granted for over a year, the suggestion was dismissed. “When ye have done all, say we are but unprofitable servants.” All these and many more things I learned from the speeches 1 heiard. Uriah Heep was a proud Pharisee compared with the humble Presbyterians assembled in Palmerston North, and so was Joseph Parker himself. I remember once seeing a cartoon illustrative ■- of the peculiarities of prominent preachers in Britain, in which Parker was represented with his massive head stickout put of the folds of a tent, which was too .small to contain the whole of him. Against his name were two texts, “1 am Joseph!” “There is none in this house greater than I.” I don’t wonder that Joseph Parker turned aside to see a humble Presbyterian as a great sight.

Notwithstanding the humility of the fathers and brethren, the reports submitted to the Assembly disclosed a wonderful volume of work done during the year. 1 thought I had never read better records of ij'ork done, nor better plans for the future than those contained in some of the reports submitted In some cases the report# were very well written. During the year® I have known the Assembly, I have nevA’ seen it examine a big task with whicii it was confronted with more thoroughness, and undertake it with more resoluteness than these humble Presbyterians did in Palmerston North. I think their low estimate of their performances must be produced by their high ideals. When John Ruskin once praised an art student very generously for his work, the student listened with some show of impatience, and then said eagerly, “But, sir, shall 1 ever paint like Tbrner?” The humjble Presbyterians at Palmerston North evidently have Turner as their standard. To fell the whole truth I am not sure that.' the humility of Presbyterians is not Oiiehtal in character. When 1 was in Chifja I W as much interested in tracing parallels between the Chinese and the Scotch. One is constantly reminded that •villfge government in China is Presbyterian ; it is government by elders. There is in the Chinese thrift, industry, regard for education, a certain inscrutability, and a pow#r to consume their own smoke—qualiwhich they have not a monopoly. I wias told by an American, who had been nearly 30 years in China, that the Chinese have a Mod conceit of themselves. “Even a Chinese coolie,” said my friend, “looks down upon me as a western foreigner.” Yet if Chinese were inviting that Westerner to a function, the correct fornf would he to request humbly that he •would 0 bestow the light of his honourable countenance upon their miserable and unworthy feast. 1 think that the suggested parallel’-between the Scotch and the Chinese is worth working out, and that it would be found that in Presbyterians, side by side with their humble expressions begotten of their high ideals, there is a hidden thought of “our great Church.” The Presbyterian is an idealist and an oriental.

There were 120 women at the Women’s Conference, and more elders and still more ministers at the Assembly, so that the total} number of Presbyterian visitors in Palmerston North must have been nearly 400. I wonder what the Assembly and Conference cost in fares, accommodation, hospitality, and new clothes, to say nothing of the expenses of buildings for meetjngs, printing proceedings, and such like '.things. Well over £3OOO, I should say. ; I include new clothes in my list of expenses for I am sure that though the Moderator thought his hat would do very Swell, his wife didn’t, and I am equally sure that the president of the Women’s Conference knew she required a hat without a suggestion from any body.- These high dignitaries have been so warmly commended for the way in which they discharged their duties that their ne>v hats will now be several sizes too small, and there will be further expense.

Spurgeon’s ideal committee consisted of "two, - one to stop at home. It certainly is an economical and expeditious way of doing business, but I am afraid it would not commend itself to the fathers and brethren. It does seenf incumbent, therefore on every representative, by what he does at Assembly and what he does afterwards, by passing on information and transmitting inspiration, to justify his part in tHo three thousand pounds. Women are not yet members of the Assembly; 1 say “not yet.” They are appointed, however, as full members on three of the Assembly Committees and several of them by request addressed the Assembly and illustrated the fact that, wheiij a woman talks well, she talks, very well. The Women’s Confereijbe represented a membership of 6425 womjb. ''They raised £8,362 during the year, for the schemes in which they are morel particuarly interested. The Girl’s is credited with £427 for the yearj* ‘ The Busy Bees,” an organisation of little children throughout the Church, raised no less a sum than £1569. The Assembly appointed a committee to explore thoroughly the subject of the spheres 0 f women’s work. Among the most; devoted and useful servants of the Church are women, but there are some persems wjw> think that there is much more that jimight be done by women in cities and in rural districts if work were better organised and developed. There are (spheres of work for women that have been opened in other churches and in other landi that are not occupied bv the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand. The Y.W.G-.A'. in larger lands, perhaps also in -New Zealand, offers spheres of work to able;‘ educated women that the Presbyterian Church docs not olfer. In some of the older Presbyterian Churches of the world 'there is a movement to open the courts of congregations to women, and maybe; we shall yet see them members of Prfisbytery and of Assembly. When they jjre 'members of the House of Commons,||pf. the Cabinet, and governors of Amerjcan States, a feminine presbyter and a Madame-Moderator do not seem an impossibility. I wonder if their presence on Church Courts would make for . peace. There are those who think that wfieri St. Paul Syntyihe that they may be of the same mind,’;, he is politely reminding the good womep. that they had had a tiff. As far as I f£n hear the Women’s Conferences have -nothing to learn from the men’s Assemblies about the ameuitie/ of debate, -|nit- perhaps women by temperament are mt>re apt to put an edge on things than men -are. I write tins with fear and trembling, because I believe that the Womeli’s Club in Dunedin is one of the largest;- best-managed and organised, and most -peaceable club of any kind in ihe dominion. Thos- chairmanship of Presbyterian Church- courts has been confined until lately%o the ministry. A few years asm elders'were made eligible for the office in the Assembly, and late Hon, J. O. W. Aitkef was elected Moderator. Ah effort

was made this year to select another elder as Moderator, but although the elder nominated was a man much esteemed for his personal worth and his long and valuable services to the Church, and although he was nominated by a larger number of presbyteries than the ministerial nominee, the proposal failed to carry. The voting, so far as I could judge, was not on class lines, but a great many elders of standing voted for a ministerial moderator, and, conversely, many ministers voted for the elder. It seems as if custom and feeling in this matter differ in the Presbyterian Church from those that prevail in the Congregational and Baptist Churches, m which laymen are eligible for, and often elected, chairmen. This difference is not the only one, nor is it the most important one that obtains between Presbyterian and Independent Church government. In the latter the supreme court is the congregation; in the former the Assembly. Presbyterians send questions up to the Assembly for determination; the Independents send them down to the people. I am not sure about the use of my “up ” and “ down,’’ and whether I should not write up to the people and down to the Assembly. The supreme power of the Presbyterian Assembly is very explicitly stated in its laws. It may consult the people assembled in congregations as an act of grace, hut it is under no obligation to do so even on matters of vital moment. The Assembly must consult Presbyteries upon some questions, but it is not bound by the decisions of Presbyteries; it may go its own way. When I was much younger and delivered my opinions with an air of much greater finality than I do now, I once said, after listening to a paper on the democracy of Presbyterianism, that Presybterianism was government by oligarchy. The remark raised such a hubbub among the True Blues that the din has not died out of my ears after more than 30 years. In the recent British elections the disparity between the numbers of electors belonging to the several parties and the members returned for those parties, shows that the British electoral system is not truly representative of the people. The ideal of government of the people for the people by the people is far from being realised. In church government the place of the people ik much greater under the Congregational system than under the Presbyterian. At the Assembly one of the members referred to the superintendents of John Knox’s time, and I suspect that he would like to see the office revived. As he is a courageous, not to say a rash, young man, he may raise the question some day. In the distant past I once proposed that the Moderator of Presybtery should be elected for his personal fitness for the office, and not because of his place on the roll; that he should hold office for several years and not for six months, and that his duties and powers should be increased. It entertains me still to think of the way my proposal was received. Some saw in it lust of power, a bishop with apron, breeches, gaiters and all—-a lord over God's heritage. “My lord!” they said, “No! never!” My proposal and I were thrown out ignominously, and I was told that the Presbyterian Church was not the Church of the big man. but the church in which all ministers and elders are equal. It seems to me that a long tenure of office gives a man experience and expertness, that the of the Assembly are better managed because the chairman is not changed every year, but holds his office for five, ten, or even 20 years, and that the same would be true of a chairman of the Presbytery. When I was not much interested in the speeches (f the fathers and brethren at the Assembly I liked to look at the Moderator. He became his office, and 1 could be quite happy under his gracious, kindly rule for the next five years. The same is true of the Moderator-elect.

Several years ago I had a visit from some sisters of the Roman Catholic Church and the head of their order. I forget the title of her office, but presumably it was the Rev. Mother or the Mother Superior. I thought she held the office for life, and was interested to learn that ■she was elected for a period of years, that she might be re-elected for another period, but after that there must be a change. 1 said “You are nearly good enough to be Presbyterians; we change our head every year.” She remarked. “I think our way is better,” to which I replied, “I think so too.” ] I am one of those Presbyterians who think that we have not a monopoly of wisdom and all other good things. Our system of creed and polity was not made like the tabernacle according to the pattern shown in the mount down to every cord and tassel and tent pin. There are some things that we might-adopt and adapt with advantage from the Congregational and Episcopal Churches, and from the Church of Rome also. If Joseph Parker were here 1 am sure he, would say of me. “A very humble Presbyterian! I will turn aside and see this great sight.”