THE CHURCHES

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160812, 20 November 1920, Page 7

THE CHURCHES

~ QUESTION OF UNION

(Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Noy. 19. The Presbyterian Assembly received' a deputation from the Congregational Church regarding union of the two churches. Rev. W. Saunders (Dunedin) eaid they did not pretend that the Congregational Church was perfectly unanimous in the matter, but such questioning as existed was as to the manner in which the proposals made would be received by the Assembly. In the Congregational Church of New Zealand they would be uniting with a small body, but they were representative in New Zealand of a great church. They accepted the creed and policy of the 'Presbyterian Church, which whs going very far, but in drawing 'up the document of union they did not want the word ‘‘absorption” used. What they proposed was union, between the two churches. They, therefore, suggested the union of both names, and one of their objects in doing this was to avoid the whole question being brought up again a few years hence. It was desirable that they should be able to tell Congregational immigrants arriving in New Zealand that they could find a Congregational Church in the heart of the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand. He trusted that within, a year’s time the two churches would be one, to the glory of their mastqr. Rev. J. Reed Glasson (Wellington) emphasised that, they as Congregationalists might stiffen the Presbyterian Church up in regard to its policy. The Presbyterian Church to-day was practically Congregational organised. He regretted the inclusion of the following words in the report of the committee; “From one point of view this will be but a small instalment of union. Practically it is the merging of the Congregational Church in the Presbyterian Church rather than union in the ordinary connotation of the term. Congregatibnal Churches in New Zealand are but few in number, but from another point of view the transaction will be deeply significant. It will be the first definite achievement in the cause of union between two bodies of widely divergent polities, and will encourage the hearts of the friends of union everywhere.” They in the Congregational Church did not desire the matter to be approached from that point of view. It was true they were a small body as compared with the Presbyterian Church, out they would not be absorbed. There were some churches that would stand out if that attitude was adopted, and their ministers would stand by them.. The Assembly, in reconsidering the report, as had been suggested by the Rev. Glasson, unanimously resolved to delete’ itlie reference, complained of by striking-out the words from “practically” down to “deeply significant.” , , ~ „ , Dr Gibb then moved the first proposal by the Congregational Union Committee, Rev. W. J. Comrie complained that matters were being unduly rushed: members of the Assembly only received copies of the report the previous night. The Clerk warned the Assembly to proceed .carefully, as the title ( to church property of, both churches would be affected by the proposed change of name, and they had to proceed in a legal manner. The first proposal, as moved, was then put and carried with only a few dissentient voices. Rev, T. Miller (Feilding) moved the adjournment of the debate in order to enable members of the Assembly to fully consider the proposals. The motion was carried.