CHURCH UNION

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 219, 5 June 1918, Page 6

CHURCH UNION

OR FRIENDLY RIVALRY?

DISCUSSION IN PRESBYTERY

DR. GIBB'S PROPOSAL CARRIED

Ihe question of union cf the Evangelical Churches has been beforo the Presbjtery of Wellington at its; last two meetings. If; was raised by a motion by Dr. Gibb, submitting a proposed overture to the Supreme Court of the Presbyterian Church, tlio General .Assembly, that congregations, be asked to veto on the question of whether an effort should be made to nchieve such a union. At the meeting of the Presbytery yesterday the discussion oil Dr. Gibb's motion was continued. The Rev. J. Paterson moved the following amendment:—"lnasmuch Us. the subject of the proposed overture occu- ■ pied the minds of assemblies, presbyteries, and sessions from 1902 till 1904, and a difference of opinion of so strong a character was disclosed that the promoters of union ashed tho Assembly to proceed no further, and inasmuch as this subject was again raised in this Presbytery so_ late as 1916 (when all the other presbyteries wero silent), and an overture on union which was sont to the Assembly evoked such opposition that, after a long discussion tlio Assembly agreed to dismiss the subiect by passing on to tho next business; and 1 inasmuch as we are living in a time of war and of much public anxiety, wlion many' of I our ministers and people are abroad, and when all' unnecessiuj controversy should bo shiimned, this Presbytery therefore declines to transmit the overture to the Assembly. At the same time, while doing so, the Presbytery rejoices in, and is thankful for, the harmony and line brotherly spirit which exist in this Church, and towards the ether Evangelical Churches and in our hearty co-opera-tion with one another in all good work bearing on,the welfare of the Church of Christ." r Mr. Paterson said that he (egreited very much that the matter had ! een brought/ up again. It had very [ fully discussed on two previous oww t sions, and he did not know of anything n.aking it an'urgent question at present. It must result in the agitation of the minds of the church pcoplo at a time when they already wero full of other concerns and anxieties. "Unless there were special circumstances urging the question forward, it was a pity to bring it forward now. He disagreed with the suggestion, in Dr. Gibb's motiyn. thai there was any weakening of the church on account of t!ie existence, of different denominations in the commu lity. 'i if there were opposition and bitterness of feeling as among tho churches there might bo something in tho -oint, but. the fact was that all the churches which it was now proposed should be united were working together in,harmony.- .It was a fact, nevertheless, tlml. there ivere real differences as a-nong the ministers ; ud people of different churches, for they had all their lives breathed the atmosphere of their own churches. Nor did lie admit that there was waste of nun, or of effort, or of money in the iaainte:i : ance of so many churches, oven in sparsely-settled districts. Rather. lie ' was of thfe bpinion that the v, ork of nil was necessary to overcome the evil and dead apathy in the world to-dav. Complete agreement among churihes mcht not make for activitv, So lonir as tjie-e was activity and the ixeroiso of ' independent thougiit there would be . differences and divisions among branches of tho Christian" Church, but under these circumstances divisions were for good rather tuan for | evil. It might be that sometimes divi-1 sions led to bitterness and heart-burn- ! ing, but there was no evidence that i such was the condition here. lie frankly 1 admitted that he had grown up in the Church, and he loved the Presbyterian Church. It would almost break his heart to see the Presbyterian Church, with its principles and its traditions, virtually extinguished as a church, because' he believed that this merging as proposed would have this effect. He believed that if the .Presbyterian Church were morjred in this way, there would aeain be established a Presbyterian Church. He hoped and believed that he would never live to see such a union, consummated. ine One Big Church Idea. Xbe Rev. B. jiutson said tnat 111. ti.DD. m mauing nis proposal, staled tum owing to tuu war tiieie snouiu wo economy w men ana effort lor ciiurcn worK. Hut iiow lung was tne war goiiig to last? it wouiu bo at least three or lour years betore there couid be any effective union.. He aid not support the nemaud ior a big liiecnaniciU union ot we cnurcnes—merely a big organisation, bucli a union would not be tor the welfare of the Christian 1 Church. He also would oppose - the transmission of the motion to this Assembly lor the reason that the matter was one that could well be postponed until the men returned < from the war, and for tho additional reason that the Assembly had already rejected the proposal. Dr. J. Kennedy lilliott said he believed that if there were any great outpouring of the Spirit in the churches causing the people to cry out for union, it mignt i ibe wise to havo linion. But this was not so. He had been disappointed with ono result of tho war. Ho had hoped that in times of stress i the places of worship, would bo filled, but this was not the experience in ■ New Zealand. He had even grave doubts as to whether our young men, when they came back, would retain their religious i principles. There was no evidence that i any of the other churches were asking 1 for union. Was the Baptist Church ask- f ing for it, prepared to drop its views i on baptism? Were the Methodists ask- i ing, for it? What request had come from t the Anglican Church? The Presbyterian Church, it seemed to him, was doing a\l ] the wooing. He hoped that the Presbytery would refrain from agreeing to Dr. ( Gibb's proposal, chiefly for the reason t that the present time was unseasonable. '

The Wish of the People. The ltev. J. Gumming said th!it lie would support.Dr. Gibb's proposal, which he regarded as first of all a;i endeavour to test tho feeling iu the Presbyterian -churches. Ho himself was a Presbyterian, and also a Calvinist, and he would personally' feel any great change made in the cluirch of his ancestors, but still he would support union. He would support union becauso he believed that it was tho will of the Lord. There was so much real friendliness among the ministers and people of the different churches that there was jio reason to delay union ally longer. He thought Dr. Gibl) had done wisely in moving to sound the feeling of the churches. The Rev. W. J. Comrie said that he had no very strong feelings on tho question of union, but he hoped that the Presbytery would carry Dr. Gibb's overture. It was quite truo that oil ono occasion tho Assembly had shelved the question; there was yet a very strong consensus of opinion in tile Assembly and in tho Church in favour of union. It was true that it was impossible " to carry union at tho Assembly in the face of a determined, though small, minority, and he admitted the possibility of this overture meeting with such opposition as would delay tho matter for yet another year. Much good would bo done, however, by ventilation of tho matter again. lie entirely dissented from tho view that division of effort or coiupotiI tio.T among churches was a good thing. It was the plain wish of tho Lord, as shown by all His teachings, that His Charcl/ should be one. Furthermore, he insisted that thero was/ overlapping, especially in little communities, and it existed to a lamentable degree Dr. Gibb: Scandalous, I called it! Mr. Comrie said that it would be much better if tho churches were united in these places, and men of different citui'dhos wevo treading ono on flic heels of another. The Rev. Ttobert AVood said that ho would support the amendment because the present time was not a proper on* for the springing of such a controversy on the church people of 'the. country. Furthermore, he expressed strongly his agreement witli tho opinion of eminent theologians that the idea of a single church with one form of worship, one form of government, and one doctrino had no foundation in Scripture. Strength in Union. Tho ftov. J. M'Caw said that be bad

consistently voted for union 011 every occasion on which the question had been raised. Ho would support the overture submitted by Dr. Gibb, with tho hope that negotiations for union would be opeiled, and that they would be carried to a successful conclusion. He did not support the statement made that there was no bickering and ill-feeling as be- . tween different denominations at present. The Hon. J. G. W. Aitken said that personally lio was ail out-and-out Presbyterian, with all the prejudices and all the likes on this matter that a man could have, but lie could not say that Jie should bo guided by his likes and prei- judices -011 a question which affected the ■>- Kingdom of God. Union would mako 0 for strength in tho fight against sm. J The union would havo to come just' as 1 6urely—as union had been forced upon 0 the Allies in tho war against the united >■ enemy. There was lack of unity in the 0 churches now. It would be wise, now, t instead of emphasising the differences be- • tween the churches, to emphasise the - common purposo of all churches. ]f that were done there would be fewer obstacles to union. Ho maintained that there ■ were communities in which too many clergymen worked, when there were other " districts in which there were' 110 serT vices at all. He had been surprised at somo of tho opinions expressed about tho teachings of tho New Testament on ] the question of unity of the church. In the whole of the New Testament nothing hut OII P church was ever contemplated. All". William Hopkirk spoke in fa- _ vour of union, saying that he would j always vote for union. t Mr. W. Hanntiy said that ho had an , open mind on tho question of union, but , he would support the amendment be- | causo he did not believo the question 1 could be discussed in tho courts of the ; church without strong and bitter feelt ing, and ho thought the present was not , a time for such discussions.' Waste of Men and Effort. , The Rev. Dr. Gibb, in reply, said that 1 much of the discussion had been irrele- . vant. Nearly all the doctrinal discusi sion had been irrelevant. No ono sug- . gested that there should be union of • churches' having sharp and sc-nous differences. ' That the New Testament did not enjoin. But who would say that the New Testament did not enjoin that churches with the same beliefs and practically tho same form of government should not unite? It was idle i to say that the present denominational divisions did not spell out waste of 111N and effort. The Presbyterian Church had to sacrifice strategic noiius, had to refuso men to districts without minis lure, because it was necessa/y for the church to keep a man "holding his ov.n" in a larger community already over-churched. Separata denominations were the cause of much irritation. There were once certain strong reasons for separate denominations, but that day had passed. In their own Presbyterian Church there had been great opposition to : lie umon of the' northern and southern ic -tions of it, but siiice that union had been consummated the Church had made wonderful progress.. It was his sincere belief that if this gi'eatcr union -jould be achieved there would bo a new passim and zeal for righteousness. Tie was of course, in agreement with other speakers who had said that union must spr ng from the people. He believe:!, 1 owever, that the voice of the people wiuld be 6trongly in favour of union. The motion to send the overture pro- .» posed by Dr. Gibb up to toe Generftl Assembly was carried by ten vows to I've.