PRESBYTERIANS APPROVE BASIS OF UNITY WITH TWO OTHER CHURCHES

Wanganui Chronicle, 1 November 1946, Page 4

PRESBYTERIANS APPROVE BASIS OF UNITY WITH TWO OTHER CHURCHES

The basis of a union between he. Presbyterian. .Methodist and Congregational Churches in New Zealand was formally approved by Ihe General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church after an extended sitting last-night in Wanganui, but there was a division >f opinion as to when a vote should be taken among congregations. By adopting a clause in its ■'liurch Union Committee’s report the Assembly agreed to instruct Presbyteries to vote themselves and to arrange for a vote of members to be taken in all congregations before August, 1947, but a notice of motion was given to the effect that this period be extended by one year, and the issue will be lebated by the present Assembly. An amendment, asking that a committee of 50 be appointed to go into certain questions and draw up an Act of Union for presentation to a subsequent Assembly, vas also before the session, but ,vas defeated on a show of hands. The following clauses from the committee’s report were adopted: “Formally approve the basis of union as a sufficient indication of the faith and form of the united Church for the purpose of a vote on the intention to unite, on the understanding that though minor adjustments of‘detail may be agreed upon subsequently the general principles and outline of the basis stand as they are. VOTING ARRANGEMENTS “Instruct presbyteries to vote themselves and to arrange for a vote members to be taken in all congregations on the following resolution and report to the committee by August 31, 1947: That this congregation is in favour of the Assembly declaring its intention to proceed when the time is ripe to organic union with the Methodist and Congregational Churches of New Zealand on the basis approved by the Assembly.” The following amendment, moved by the Rev. F. H. Robertson (Havelock North) was defeated:—“Appoint a committee of 50, representative of the best experience and leadership of the Church and representative of the committees of the Assembly most immediately concerned by the proposals for union, to draw up an Act of Union for presentation to a subsequent Assembly with a view to submission to the inferior courts. Such an act would set out all the necessary steps and changes which union with the Methodist and Congregational Churches would involve for the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand and in certain matters the Synod of Otago and Southland.” “The time has come for us to take a step further forward in our Church union affairs,” the report of the Church Union Committee stated. “The negotiations with the Methodist and Congregational Churches were carried on through the war years on the assumption (among Presbyterians) that the Church should not be distracted by having to decide such a serious question during the dark years of the conflict. While the war was on the unspectacular work of committees could be carried on and preparations made for ultimately submitting the issue to the Churches. This committee work has been taken about as far as it can go at present. But now the pins and needles of returning peace are upon us and we owe it to the other Churches to make an advance. INVITATION ISSUED “To the Methodist Church in particular we owe it. It was she who first issued the invitation to the Congregationalists and ourselves to dis-, cuss the possibility of union. From the outset the Methodists have declared that in principle they are in favour of union with the Congregational and Presbyterian Churches. We have made no such declaration. The late Rev. M. A. Rugby Pratt, Methodist Connexional Secretary, more than cnee pressed us to make such a declaration so that everyone would know that the negotiations would not turn out to have been a lot of work for an impossible goal. But we always refused, and begged to be trusted for our good intentions while we did our business our own way. “Our argument was that it was no use asking Presbyterians whether they would agree to unite with others until they could see what it would mean in practice. This in turn meant that the main problems posed by a union had to be solved in principle and the solution set out in some brief statement before the people were asked to vote. In other words, we argued that the Presbyterians would need a sketch plan of the united Church to look at before they could say whether they were in favour of it or not.

“To this procedure we have adhered right from the beginning, and now we have the sketch —the basis of union. This has been given general approval by the Assembly after being before presbyteries, and therefore we know now that the basis indicates the main contours the united Church would display to the world. This Assembly will be asked to give formal

approval to the basis as revised, on the definite understanding that minordetails may still need adjustment, but the general principles stand,” the report added. If the Assembly decided to proceed, congregations would have the basis explained to them next year and would be shown what union would mean in practice. At their own convenience they would vote for or against the Assembly declaring its intention to unite at a suitable time. If all agreed the Assembly would make a formal declaration of its intention to unite with the other two Churches when the time was ripe. NO IMMEDIATE UNION The commit lee emphasised, however, that if the Church decided to embark on this course, it would not mean that the union was going to take place immediately. Five to seven years may elapse. “It will mean primarily that co-operation can proceed in good faith and with a definite end in view. Nor will it mean that individual congregations must proceed to join up with their Methodist and Congregational neighbours. They can remain as they are if they wish. Very like'y in many places there will be no need for amalgamations al any time,” the report, slated. Dissenting views on the committee's recommendations were presented

to the Assembly in an addendum to the report, submitted by Mr. Robertson. “I remain convinced that, union with the Methodist and Congregational Churches is not only desirable and possible, but that in these negotiations we are confronted by God with a unique opportunity of advancing the Kingdom of Christ,” Mr. Robertson stated. “It is therefore very necessary that any proposals placed before the Church at this critical stage of the negotiations should be easily understood, and framed in such a way that, there is a clear issue upon which to vote. “The course proposed by the report raises so many questions to which there is no clear answer that it can only result in widespread misunderstanding, which may not only jeopardise the success of the union negotiations. but. indeed, cause the Church to embark upon a course which threatens its own unity and may well prove disastrous to its life and influence,” Mr. Robertson added. QUESTION FOR ASSEMBLY Speaking to the report, the Rev. J. M. Bates (Wellington), convener of the Church Union Committee, said the Assembly was asked to declare whether it was in favour of a vote being taken on this important question of union between the three Churches. If there were any objections among members of the Assembly, however, now was the time to raise them.

While seiwing as a chaplain overseas he had seen conditions under which it was impossible for denominational barriers, said the Rev. H. A. Mitchell (Dunedin), who seconded the motion to receive the report. He believed unity among the Churches must come. It was not differences of doctrine or policy that kept the Churches apart—it was just pride. “The first thing to do is get rid of the defect in ourselves,” Mr. Mitchell added.

Speaking to his objection, Mr. Robertson said that he could be regarded as an enthusiast for Church union, but he was not prepared to see the Presbyterian Church led into a course which may prove disastrous. There was a possibility of vagueness and misunderstanding in the committee’s report against which the Assembly should be warned. No indication was given as to when the Churches concerned should unite.

“If the Church declares its intention to unite ‘when the time is ripe,’ the Church Union Committee will begin at once to scramble the eggs,” Mr. Robertson added. “If we are going to be a party to this we must make an irrevocable decision, and I would ask you not to be parties to the scrambling of eggs until an irrevocable decision is made.”

Mr. Robertson said he did not want to see any misunderstanding. Every step taken must be a sure and safe step which would not lead to any future difficulty. One Assembly could not bind another. Seconding Mr. Robertson’s addendum, Dr. J. D. Salmond said it would be a grave mistake to have a vote taken next year. A greater period for educating the people was needed before any Anal decision was reached on so important a subject. DIVISION IN CANADA The Rev. J. T. V. Steele (Duntroon, Canterbury) said the Church in Canada had become divided because it had taken the same steps which Mr. Robertson was advocating. The Church must prepare for the union. The Rev. F. W. Winton ' (Christchurch) said that in a matter such as this they must be perfectly sure that the two congregations liked each other. He believed that suggestions should be made to presbyteries and congregations to find out how best they could work together. Mr. Bates, in reply, said there was nothing vague about the recommendations in the committee’s report. Already the worst bridges had been crossed by the combined committee, in that it had agreed on a basis for Union There was no likelihood of a deadlock being reached. After a motion that the report bo received had been carried by the Assembly, Mr. Robertson moved his amendment, which was defeate’d after much discussion.

After the committee's report had been adopted, however, a notice of motion was given seeking an extension of the period during which the vote of congregations will be taken. The notice of motion was accepted and the question of union between the three Churches will again be discussed during the present Assembly.