CHURCH UNION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26774, 18 May 1948, Page 6

CHURCH UNION

Sir, —It seems plain that the Rev. C. L. Gosling, in his letter concerning the “ open letter ” of the Presbyterian Church League, has unintentionally misrepresented the situation by having misread the assembly records. He writes as if the assembly adopted the motion as first submitted .by representatives of the league, and has failed to notice that as actually adopted by the assembly, the motion was amended at two vital points. The motion of the assembly reads as follows:—“In view of the fact that for the first time in the history of our Presbyterian Church in New Zealand a pamphlet setting forth the proposals for an organic union with the Methodist and Congregational Churches is being distributed to our entire membership, and in view of the fact that in the same interest the convener and other members of the Union Committee have toured practically the whole church, and because it is the inalienable right of the people to hear both sides of this momentous issue, the assembly therefore acknowledge the right of all presbyteries, and sejsions to assist through' the normal channels of the Church either in distributing. a printed statement pr by visitation to congregations setting forth the reasons for our remaining a Presbyterian Church, while at the samp time working in co-operation with our sister churches.”

It will be seen that it is quite incorrect to say, as Mr Gosling does, that the assembly requested the issue of this document It simply acknowledged the right of a minority of the assembly to carry on its own propaganda. The motion originally presented asked the assembly to ” direct ” presbyteries and sessions to assist, but the amendment, accepted by the representatives of the league, was virtually a refusal to give official recognition to the document now issued. Further, the request to appoint a committee to issue this “ open letter ” was also in the motion originally presented, but was deleted with the agreement of the representatives of the league. Thus the committee of which Mr Gosling is a member has no official sanction or authority from the assembly (this was virtually refused), and its publication can in no way be regarded l as official. Mr Gosling has evidently based his letter on the text of the motion as originally presented, which appears on page 77 ol the assembly proceedings, 1947, and has unfortunately not turned over the page to the amendment subject to which it was actually carried.—We are, etc., John A. Allan. John M. McKenzie.