CLERGY APPOINTMENTS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXI, Issue 19056, 8 July 1924, Page 2

CLERGY APPOINTMENTS

CONSIDERED AT ANGLICAN SYNOD. REVISED METHOD ADOPTED. At the Diocesan Synod of the Church of England in Wellington last week, some criticism was offered in connection with the present method of making appointments of the clergy. The Rev. H. W. Monaghan (Hawera) moved: “That the sole right to make all appointments of clergy to parochial districts of the diocese be delegated to the Bishop,” but on the suggestion of the Bishop he withdrew this motion, and moved: “That the Board of Nomination shall consist of the Bishop, together with two representatives of the clergy and two representatives of the laity, and that the additional representatives be elected at the present session of Synod.” He expressed the opinion that confidence had been lost in the present system. In the ease of parochial districts the board consists of the Bishop, one clergyman, and one layman elected by the Synod. For parishes the board collaborates with the vestry concerned. The mover of tho resolution proposed that a board of five be elected—two representatives of the laity, and the Bishop. The speaker said that the position of the board members was onerous, and lay members should be well acquainted with the clergy of th, diocese and the conditions of their work, which was almost impossible. Air. Wilbcrfoss commented on the present system, and alluded to its defects. He said he rather favoured the old method. The Rev. W. Fancourt expressed the opinion that the Board of Noiination had lost the confidence of the clergy. He alluded to some recent preferments of those who had been only a short timo in the diocese, while senior clergy,, with long and faithful service, had apparently been overlooked. This naturally resulted in a feeling of discontent. Bishop Sprott said that there appeared to be a feeling that the board had come to some decisions in which the claims of some members of the clergy had not been adequately recognised. As a member of the board, he accepted his full share of the responsibility of its actions, but he had yet to learn of any cases of injustice. The motion was adopted. Mr. G. Shirtcliffe and Archdeacon Johnson asked leave to retire from the board. Considerable discussion ensued, during which it was emphasised that It was not the personnel of the board but the system which was -criticised.