THE CHURCH AND WAR

Taranaki Daily News, 18 October 1934, Page 11

THE CHURCH AND WAR

DISCUSSION DISALLOWED. AUCKLAND SYNOD MOTION. Auckland, Oct. 14. A discussion on the necessity of the church taking a definite stand against war was refused at a meeting of the synod of the Diocese of Auckland. The Rev. W. W. Averill, vicar of All Saints’, Ponsonby, moved a motion which stated that to take part in war was unChristian. At times during his speech there was a buzz of comment among members of synod, and subsequently the contentious nature of the motion was raised as a point of order. On a motion to suspend standing orders to allow the debate to proceed, there was a single adverse vote by Archdeacon H. A. Hawkins, and Mr. Averill’s motion lapsed. Mr. Averill had given notice to move that synod should remind all Christian people of the resolution of the Lambeth Conference of 1930 that “war as a method of settling international disputes is contrary to the example and teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ”; and that synod was of the opinion that the time had come for the church to withdraw its moral support from militaristic propaganda and to state definitely that to take part in military operations which had for their purpose the taking of human life was inconsistent with the profession of Christianity. “The obvious intention of the nations of the world to rearm creates a crisis on which the church should speak,” Mr. Averill said. “All the pacts for peace made since 1918 are likely to to be just scraps of paper.” A CONTENTIOUS SUBJECT. “If the church does not act, and if another war breaks out, she will merit the accusation of the Communists and others that she is—unconsciously, ,at any rate —the tool of the rich for the exploitation of human lives for money,” said Mr. Averill. “I cannot see the church. in its present form surviving another war.” Was the church going to perish through its failure to codemn such a ghastly travesty of Christ’s teaching as war, or was it going to be true to its Master and remain to lead and counsel the new world order which must arise? Canon C. A. B. Watso.i rose to a point of order. The subject was contentious, he said, and under the regulations ten days’ notice of its introduction should have been given. Mr. Averill: That objection should have been raised when notice of motion was given. Archbishop Averill, who presided, said the subject was certainly contentious, but so were most subjects that came before synod. After consulting with the chancellor of the diocese, Mr. C. J. Tunks, the archbishop read the clause of the regulations quoted by Canon Watson. “I am bound to rule that, according to its wording, the motion is of a contentious nature,” said, the archbishop. “I do not want to obstruct the debate,” Canon Watson said. “I would move that standing orders be suspended in order that the debate may proceed.” . . LACK OF COURAGE ALLEGED.

The archbishop, after explaining that the vote would have to be unanimous, put the motion to synod. “There was one ‘No’,” he said. The debate cannot proceed.” Canon Watson said he was sorry at the turn of events. Perhaps the motion could be put again and the objector might reconsider his position. “I am afraid I cannot do that,” the archbishop said. “I would express my deep regret. It was a splendid and courageous thing to bring this Christian subject before synod, and I regret very much that we have not got the courage to face it.”

As the archbishop sat down, Archdeacon H. A. Hawkins came forward to the front of the platform.-. “I said ‘No’ not because I am against the motion,” he said, “but on a matter of principle. I would have repeated my vote if that had been necessary. When such contentious subjects come before us it is essential that we should have some adequate notice.” Archdeacon Hawkins was applauded as he resumed his seat.