CHURCH UNION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26779, 24 May 1948, Page 6

CHURCH UNION

Sir,—Both the motion passed by the Wellington Presbytery (as reported in your columns on Saturday), and the letter this morning under the names of Professor John A. Allan and the Rev. John M. McKenzie, are somewhat puzzling. The letter acknowledges that the assembly passed a resolution which states, " it is the inalienable right of the people to hear both sides of this momentous issue, the assembly, therefore, acknowledges the right of all Presbyteries and sessions to assist ’’ in stating the case against union. But both the Wellington Presbytery and the two Dunedin ministers say that the statement published and circulated by the Presbyterian Church League “ can in no way be regarded as official.” What exactly does it mean? Is it that the assembly sees its duty clearly but refuses to do it? It acknowledges' the inalienable right of the people and says the honest and fair thing would be to state both the pros and the cons of the question of union, but we are not going to do it. We have stated and will continue to state the pros but anyone who has the temerity to state the cons does it unofficially. W.e want union on the proposed basis and a statement against union might prejudice or jeopardise our chances; therefore, any word said against it, even by a bona fide minister or elder of the Church is entirely unofficial. I, for one, refuse to believe that that was the mind of the assembly, more especially in face of the fact that (if I am rightly informed) some 45 or 50 of the ministers of the Presbyterian Church say that they cannot honestly or conscientiously enter union on the proposed basis, and ‘are pledged to stand out. Also, there are many more, both ministers and laymen, who say that they would welcome union only if It is the unanimous wish of the people.—l am. etc., Non-member of P.C.L.

Sir, —It seems plain that the Rev. Professor Allan and the Rev. Mr McKenzie are only evading the issue. Had they published the full text of the amendment, as well as the motion, we should have . been better able to judge what their “ virtually ” means. I cannot believe that the Presbyterian Assembly denied the inalienable right of church members to hear both sides of a question before voting on it. Only so can members come to a really enlightened decision. If the Assembly did deny that right, I am positive that it would not be supported in this by the great majority of Protestant church members in New Zealand. And if Assembly admitted that right, why did it not give equal facility for the distribution of printed matter on both sides of the question? I notice that one of your correspondents quotes Dr Baillie as b p ini.‘ in favour of our proposed organic union. I do not think his quotation proves this at all. It does prove, however, that he would desire greatly to see all Protestant churches co-operating in a unity of spirit with such a body as the National Council of Churches. And Dr Baillie definitely states that he considers the Presbyterian form of worship best. I expect other denominations think similarly about their church rules and forms of worship. Why. then, should we try to alter them? The proposed union would embody only a part of the present Presbyterian. Methodist, and Congregational Churches. Of course, we could not possibly have an organic union with such misguided people as the 'Anglicans, the Baptists, members of the Church of Christ, or th~ Salvation Army! They have such weird ideas, and are not a bit like us Presbyterians! And yet, in a few minor details such as feeding God’s starving children in Europe, fighting drunkenness and gambling and divorce in our midst—yes, in a few such trivial matters as these—they might have given, us their full cooperation. But though “ the fields are white unto harvest,” we argue away and discuss what forms our church courts and committees shall take, and how we shall appoint our ministers in th ; s “ United Church.” embodying a fraction of three denominations. They tell us it will take four or five years of this haggling before the new church can be formed. Church members, do you think it is worth the time involved? Instead we could be co-operating fu'lv with all Protestant churches and the National Council of Churches in causes that desperately need our united aid What could we do as a union of three, that we could not do, and far more efficiently, with the full co-operation of seven or eight? And the team could take the field within a few weeks instead of in four or five years.—l am, etc., C. P. R. [Slightly abridged.—Ed. 0.D.T.)

Sir, —I have to thank the Rev. J. M. McKenzie and the Rev. Dr J. A. Allan for their courteous correction of my mistake in the letter on church union. It is only right that I should acknowledge that I was mistaken as to the final form of amendment. I would have made this acknowledgment earlier, but I have been out of town for a few days. I still maintain, however, that the motion of the Wellington Presbytery was misleading. It implies that because the “ open letter ” was not an official document we had no right to send it out. The amendment as published by Messrs McKenzie and Allan makes clear two

things, namely, that such a statement was called for, and that we were entitled to send it. Opinions are bound to differ as to the course of the debate, but the letter of Messrs McKenzie and Allan reads as though negotiations went on between the assembly and the Presbyterian Church League, and that the request of the league to have its statement recognised was virtually refused. The debate was between members of the assembly who took opposite views on the question. We had reason to beiieve that the weight was on our side. The amendment was not moved against us, but offered to us. We accepted it because it appeared to meet the position, while at the same time it meant that the debate ended on a happy note. I was placed in the difficult position of having a job to do at the press table as well as take part in the debate, with the result that X missed the fact that the naming of the committee was also left out.—l am, etc., St. Stephen's Manse. C. L. Gosling.

Sir, —As a regular reader of your valued paper, I have had frequent occasion to appreciate greatly your editorial columns. But in your leading article on the above subject on May 14 I admire neither your statement of facts nor their interpretation. As this question is of the utmost importance in view of the vote to be taken next month, X wish to make some reply. 1. In the first place, you are mistaken on a minor point of fact, for the Canadian Union took place not 13, but 23 years, ago, i.e., in 1925.

2. As to the “ series of successful unions in other lands ” to which you refer, you first of all mention Canada. I may say that our recent assembly resolved by an overwhelming majority that our opposition should have “ the right to use the ordinary channels of the church.” But prior to the union in Canada all opposition correspondence was debarred from the official Presbyterian journal. For a parallel outrage on all justice and fair play one would need to live behind the non curtain of Russia. The fact that, in spite of this, out of 400.000 members, 180,000, or nearly one-half, refused to enter the union, is sufficient proof that the movement was one of disunion rather than of union. We also know that the necessary legislation was carried through the Canadian House of Commons only by means of shameless lobbying. It is of interest to know that_ when Lord Tweedsmuir (John Buchan) became GovernorGeneral the United Church prepared an inscribed pew for him, which he never occupied. He joined the Presbyterian Church, and Mr Mackenzie King, for so long the Prime Minister, also remained an elder of the same church. 3. The -recent union in Southern India was in reality a case of absorption by the Anglican Church, as Dr R. Morton Ryburn has stated in this city. The union in China is such that the China Inland Mission, by far the largest in that popuous land, has had nothing to do with it. The so-called Church Union in Japan, Korea and Manchukuo was organised wholly by the pre-war Japanese Government, to make it, as Hitler did in Germany. an obedient weapon in its hand. Only the Presbyterian Church, in its schools and hospitals, refused to do obeisance, i.e., to worship the Emperor. The position was similar to that of the ttrst three centuries under the pagan emperors of Rome, when many thousands of Christians were put to torture and to death.

4. As to the prospects of the present union proposals, some facts may show how the tide is flowing. For the first time in thei r history the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches have a numerous and resolute opposition comprising both ministers and people. One Presbytery has voted against the union by 16 to 1; while in another, 11 out of 21 ministers have published in the Outlook and signed a weighty statement giving their reasoned opposition. These are the only returns so far published. Further, out of six Congregational Churches in the Wellington district five have turned the union proposals down, one of these by a majority of 4 to 1, another unanimously except for one man. The sixth church has not yet voted, I am, etc., Thomas Millar. [We are anxious to permit expression on this subject, but correspondents must have consideration for our restricted space. Otherwise, their letters will not be accepted.—Ed. O.D.T.],

Sir,—As the question of church union is now being discussed publicly, and is indeed a matter of public interest, it seems desirable that an endeavour should be made to dispel an unfortunate misapprehension. A four-page leaflet headed

“ Methodist Church of New Zealand,” stating the case against the “ Basis of Union," and issued under the auspices of a conference committee, has recently been circulated to Methodist Church members. The committee comprises, amongst others, the president, vice-president and secretary of conference. On the face of it these church dignataries and others associated with them would appear to be the leaders of the opposition. It is most unfortunate that the leaflet omits the vitally important information that, to quote the conference secretary in a recent issue of the New Zealand Methodist Times, “ the conference was requested to allow a statement to go out expressing the views of those who felt that they could not accept the present basis. In the interests of free speech that request was granted.” The secretary goes on to say that conference officials were associated with the committee to act in a judicial capacity with regard to the permitted statement. He goes on: “ It is perfectly obvious that the president of conference, which has approved the basis of union, could not be responsible for the statement against the basis.” Unfortunately, thousands of Methodists do not see the connexional paper, and it is to be feared that many, seeing the names of those holding the highest offices in the church attached to an opposing statement, will be influenced against their ■own better judgment. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the Methodist Conference, by an overwhelming majority, voted in favour of the basis of union. It would appear that the Methodist opponents think there is too much Presbyterianism in the basis and that • the Presbyterians think there is too much Methodism, which appears to show that these was been a reasonable compromise. Both churches have sacrifices to make, and compared with the spiritual and material benefits to be derived from union, the objections advanced seem to fade into insignificance. Thank you, Sir. for your statesmanlike leader in support of union. Long before the time of the secular daily newspaper it was said by One of old, “ the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.”—l am, etc.. Unity.