MADE ENEMIES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20310, 21 May 1934, Page 5

MADE ENEMIES.

Book by Dr Angus Causes Change of View. CONTROVERSY IN SYDNEY. (Special to the "Star.”) SYDNEY, May 12. Whatever happens to Dr. Angus ultimately he has at least had the satisfaction of producing the “best seller” of the current season. Two editions of “Truth and Tradition”—a fairly substantial book —have already been exhausted, and a third is now on sale. But Dr. Angus has succeeded not only in interesting the general public in his views, which I have already attempted briefly to discuss or describe; be lias extended the scope of the controversy beyond the limits of his own Church and its theology. Whatever one may think about Dr. Angus ajid his beliefs, it cannot be denied that his book is a clear challenge to all who hold orthodox views not only about Presbyterianism, but about Christianity; and as such it has been received here. The book appeared when the Presbytery had adjourned just after the strong appeal made by Dr. Angus, which seemed to have carried the majority of that body over to his side. But when the Presbytery reassembled, there was a complete change of tone. Dr. Maclntyre, who has been largely responsible for this inquiry, but had expressed the belief that Dr. Angus had done much by his speech to clear the air. now agreed with the special committee that “the issues raised bv Dr. Angus in bis book are so serious and far reaching that they should not be determined by a lower court of the Church.” And so the Presbytery decided that the whole matter must go before the State Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which meets here during the Jast weeks of Max.

Dogmatic and Imperious. In tlie meantime, Dr. Macintyre addressed a letter to the “Sun” setting forth his objections to Dr. Angus’ view of Christianity, and he followed this with a pamphlet on “The Theology of Dr. Angus,” in which he declares that “Truth and Tradition” has revealed a state of things which was never apparent and which has come as a shock to the whole Church. Dr. Macintyre contends that Dr. Angus has never expressed himself in this way before; and, if Dr. Angus is right in declaring that he has held these views for 20 years, how can he reconcile them with the doctrines which he professed to uphold when he entered the Church? Dr. Macintyre regards the “new theology” as an attempt to reconstruct Christianity and Presbyterianism on lines laid down by Dr. Angus and solely on his authority. He protests strongly against the dogmatic and imperious manner that Dr. Angus assumes and the overbearing attitude that he has adopted toward his critics. “He would claim for himself and those who agree with him,” says Dr. Macintyre, “the prophetic office, while the rest of us are compared to ‘the priest usually securing the vote? and the emoluments.’ ”

There is no doubt that Dr. Angus has alienated a great deal of sympathy by his extreme self-confidence and his air of oracular certainty; but he has antagonised many more by the bitter and resentful tone of his replies to those who have ventured to differ from him. The Rev. Hugh Paton, who is one of the most popular and influential of the Presbyterian clergy, has come into the conflict, and in a short letter to the “Sun” he has expressed the view that if the doctrines announced by Dr. Angus are accepted then “those opposed to them must change their opinions or leave the Church.” On the other hand, if Dr, Angus’ theology is rejected, then “he and his followers as honest and sincere men must get out”; for they are forbidden by “sincerity, honesty and common decency” to teach what they d* not believe. Reply to Mr. Paton. This terse but just statement of the dilemma which the Church and Dr. Angus are nojv facing seems, to have

exasperted the doctor; for his answer to Mr. Paton was both offensive and acrimonious. “You surely don’t expect tne,” he told a “Sun” interviewer, “to take seriously the views of a man who for months attacked me from the safety of a pulpit and then ran away.” “If I knew as much about theology and tho history of heresy as Mr. Paton, I might possibly speak as he does.” “I am no Unitarian, as Mr. Paton might learn if he took the trouble to acquaint himself with the Christian philosophy of tho last 35 years.” Now, it happens that Mr. Paton, having preached the Gospel for over 30 years, has now surrendered his post at St. Stephen’s, where he had the largest Presbyterian congregation in Australia, and a salary of about £ISOO a year, and at the age of 64, lias started out “on the road” again, as a missionary to carry the faith far and wide through the Commonwealth. Remembering this, people here will neither forget nor forgive the supercilious arrogance of Dr. Angus’ reply—more especially when they remember also that Dr. Angus—as Dr. Macintyre has reminded him—receives “the highest emolument of any Presbyterian minister in New South Wales” paid him for teaching the Christian faith. Comment in Other Churchee. But the struggle on behalf of orthodox Christianity has not been left to the Presbyterians. An article in this week's issue of the “Church Standard” records “emphatic dissent” on behalf of the Anglican Church from many of the doctrines set forth in “Truth and Tradition”; and the Rev. Dr. Rumble, one of the leading Roman Catholic theological teachers here, declares that any Catholic priest professing such “antiChristian” doctrines would at once be expelled from the Church. Why, he asks, should we be expected to accept the assurance that “it has been reserved for Dr. Angus to discover in our own day what Christianity really means?” The question is very much to the point, but it is likely to remain unanswered.