Waiapu Church Gazette WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1. 1928. CHURCH AND PARLIAMENT

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume XVIII, Issue 8, 1 February 1928, Page 3

Waiapu Church Gazette WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1. 1928. CHURCH AND PARLIAMENT

The refusal of the , House of.v Commons to pass, the. Prayer Book measure (raises to unavoidable notice tone, of those illogical and ■ impossible arrangements m English life, which the- English.'are content to acquience m, and, ignore till circumstances compel them, to do something. Dear conservative old England loves to keep old things as they were, to have the Yeomen of the Guardl still armed with pikes, to see the King drive, to open Parliament ibehindl ponies ridden by postilions instead of m a Rolls-Royce, to keep m being ancient and senseless charities, for the truth is that the Englishman, for all his reputation as one of the most practical people on earth, is an almjost incurable sentimentalist. Almost hut not quite, for the,re is a point at , which he brushes sentiment aside and becomes - severely and ... usefully .practical; but he hates,; coming ;to that i.poiftty jaiid!) it; is, ;an unwritten law that •he shall play,, the. game quite solemnly and stop his sense of ; practical affairs endangering his sentiment. This is the unwritten law which the House of Commons has broken. The sentiment m this case is the Establishment of the Church. English people • put a high ; sentimental value on it, they like to feel that the State is avowedly Christian. An incidental • but ridiculous result of the Establishment Is that pur Prayer Book is part of an Act of Pai'liament, and therefore cannot he altered except by Act of Parliament. We cannot have our New Prayer Book legally unless Parliament says

"All right you can have: it." Three hundred years ago our forefathers regarded this as normal and practical Now it has become sentimental, and the relationship between Church and State can continue . only so long as Parliament will play the good old Enalish game and say "Of course we have no competence to decide this question. The responsible and trustworthy experts recommend this andl so we will pass it" — whereupon an ancient institution, sentimentally venerated, would! have continued its illogical existence, and the English would have committed one more of those acts which make them an unintelligible puzzle to the logical nations of the world. But the House of Commons broke the rules and the dreaded "point" has been reached. Bishops make careful and politic statements, being English they are reluctant to acknowledge that the bubble has burst, but the ordinary man finds hie practical mind asserting itself andl saying with no uncertain voice: "What are they playing at? The House of Commons lias no real voice m this and they know it. "We are quite capable of managing our own business thank you andl we intend to do it." Twenty j'ears of devoted and highly skilled! work, years of the most open and democratic discussion, more democratic discussion and more democratic voting than any Parliamentary measure ever gets, every objection heard, every point elucidated 1 , and then the New Book voted on. Result— of every eighteen who vote on it one extreme High Churchman at one end and one extreme Low Churchman at the other end, having nothing m common, link arms to vote against the Book, the remaining sixteen votes for it. Eight to one m favour, ?,nd Parliament m New Zealand is prepared! to introduce Prohibition on a majority of 50£ to 49|! The Prayer Book is passed by B—l8 — 1 m the huge representative Cjhurch Assembly and that same proportion of approval is given to it m every Diocesan Assembly that has discussed and l voted on the measure. "Was there ever such approval? Opinion has been tested wherever possible and everywhere it is found that at least 8 out of 9 are m favour of the New Book. Then it came before Parliament. First it was examined by a Committee which Parliament appointed! to go into it thoroughly. The Committee approved it by a majority, as far as recollection servesj of s—l.5 — 1. It was at all events substantial. The Book was passed by a large majority m the House of Lords, then came to the Commons. A layman of the Church,

Sir W. ■ Joynston-Hicks, is Home Secretary and is one of the one-in-nine who object to the New Book. He actively organised!' opposition. A crowded house mostly with open mind's, open as minds must be where they have small interest and less knowledge, listened to impassioned speeches, decided that the opponents of the Book spoke best, so gave them the prize. In such casual, slovenly and superficial way was the Church refused its Book. Of course the matter cannot 'rest there and sooner or later we shall have our Book with or without Parliament's consent, but meanwhile it is silly and unjust andi troublesome. It is interesting to note why Sir W. Joynston-Hicks opposed! it. Our present position is that we have a law 300 years old, so old that no one can keep it, it does not fit. Where everyone breaks the law it is ' invidious to distinguish and say "These break the law rightly and! those. wrongly." Therefore the Church has made new law which 8 out of 9 wisli to keep. T' proportion of Clergy m favour is. greater still. This new law m force will create a new situation, the obedience of the huge majority will 'be a tremendous lever of influence on the small minority. The Home Secretary and his supporters used this situation exactly the wrong way round. Surely if a Society revises its rules and by a : majority of B—l decides the laws it wants to live by 3 it is strange for the "1" to say "This is encouraging people to break the rules." The whole object all along has been to find agreement on what rules we desire to have and ot> : serve. • The Home Secretary however refuses to recognise this or. to give his approval unless the Bishops will enact and publish penalties for those who disobey. This alone reveals sufficiently his incompetence, for nothing would be of less service or make more trouble. Threats andl punishments do not correct spiritual errors, they ' only make martyrs. No persecution m history has aided religious,..: truth, it is the wrong instrument. The Archbishops have promised to deal with disobedience as necessity demand's to the best of their ability and no one with any exeprience of religious life could ask more. In a .sentence, one layman, one of a small minority m the Chui'ch, has used his secular power .to nullify the Church's work because he cannot persuade the Bishops to do what they know to be absurd. . . K.E.M