CHURCH AND STATE

Southland Times, Issue 21002, 7 February 1930, Page 7

CHURCH AND STATE

PRESENT RELATIONS REVIEWED BY ARCHBISHOP OF YORK A FRANK CRITICISM (United Press Assn.—By Telegraph—Copyright.) « London, February 5. Frank criticism of the relations between the church and State were made by the Archbishop of York at the Church Assembly at Westminster when he moved directing the appointment of a commission to inquire into' the present relations with a view to securing the church the right to formulate her faith. He declared the sense of responsibility was heightened by the fact that the terms of the resolution were accepted for presentation to the Assembly by the House of Bishops without dissent. "There is now tension between what is recognized by .the Convocation and what is sanctioned by the State,” he said. “The position is most unwholesome. The church administration is being conducted perpetually on the edge of a precipice. There are many anomalies and the divergence btween the marriage laws of the church and State are liable at any moment to assume alarming proportions. Every time I administer the declaration assent to the ordination of ministers, my conscience is most gravely troubled. The dilemma immediately arises, what is the lawful authority, and this is not answered in the present circumstances.” The Archbishop of ’York declared that the next election would be fought on the issue of church and State, and there would be a raging controversy from now until polling day. The Bishop of Winchester in seconding the Archbishop of York’s motion said they were face to face with the gravest conflict between spiritual and secular since the Reformation. The problem was not to hasten the day of dis establishment, but to ask how they could wisely and reasonably preserve the age long connection between the church and state without injury or indignity to either. The terms of the resolution moved by the Archbishop of York were that it was desirable to appoint a commission to inquire into the present relations between church and state to determine what lega[ constitutional changes are necessary’ to secure effective application of the fundamental principle that the church must retain the inalienable right to formulate the faith and arrange the expression thereof in the form of worship. The Archbishop of Canterbury winding up a long debate said the motion had not meant movement towards disestablishment. “I share what is believd to be the feeling of the bulk of the assembly and church people. We do not desire disestablishment. What could be so futile as to bury our heads like an ostrich. I am not prepared to defend the present, situation. Disestablishment cannot animate the church. The situation is precarious. We are traversing a road beneath which are volcanic forces. At any moment a crack may appear and those forces burst through. The bishop’s extra legal actions may be brought into open conflict with the public law.” The resolution was carried by 382 votes to 105.