THE CASE OF THE EXCOMMUNICATED PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 60, 4 December 1920, Page 11

THE CASE OF THE EXCOMMUNICATED PRESBYTERIAN MINISTER

Sir,—At tho General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, a'n Auckland min- :• Jster who has boon preaching to 900 . - V people, and whoso prayer meeting was the ■ " -most largely attended in tho Presbyterian Church of this Dominion, was, on tho motioAof Dr. Gibb, made the subject, of ' the lesJer-excommunication has carried from the iuinistiy and the severanco of ' tKe pastoral tie. But this punishment of the lesser-excommunication has yarned with it no form of terror; to the minis- ■' ter*s congregation. They have rallied round him, and by defying the Assembly s judgment, have themselves incurred the "lesser-exoommunication," and as though this counted' for nothing they are cheer- • fully prepared to set -up o new congrega- ■ tion outside the jurisdiction of the Pres- " byterian Church. This "lesser"' form of "excommunication" has not solved - the problem that needed solution, hit it has raised a good many difficulties that may trouble the Presbyterian Church for many a ! doy. It is possible that in-the tna£: •irid condemnation of' Mr. Murray '-thej Mnstitution of tlie "Presbyterian; Chufcli, >as violated, and if so the civil, courts hjay see to it that this alleged violation '6f its constitution should be put right. A number of the Aasoinbly, who deplored the majority judgment On Mr. Murray, told me that Mr. Murrav had been- Advised that he had ground for action at law, but in view of the vital' spiritual question at issue it would be a mistake for Mr. Murray thus to seek redress. Mr. Murray was-condemned by a majority •vote for holding that infant baptism was simply a Church rite resting on no Scrip- , tural authority, and his error n tlio most ■ lis one of-mistaken loyalty to tho Bible. Mr. Murray's offence is one that, in a jnore aggravated form, is :in the Presbyterian Church. There are 'Ministers and people who treat-ij baptism is though it was simply a •worldly custom devoid of evangelical Wnin?. One mffn has been condemned for this offence while others guilty of a Similar offence are allowed to go sc; free When all-Tound judgment is .meted out the lesser form; of excommunication will be common in the rresbvterian Church. ' 'Mr. Murray, in the early stages ol ms case, followed .the evil of example «i one or two', men who in the past made trouble in the Presbytoiau, Church by publicly assailing . the creed of the Church thev had pledged themselves to 'defend. ■ He like they had changed Jjis views, on a matter, of faith, and stead of reporting his change of mi|J •to- his brethren and finding out if he Had liberty to hold such' views he allowed it to be blazed. abroad that lie was in antagonism to the creed of the Cluir -Bs regards infant baptism. pi- • sure of evil example extenuates to some ! extent Mr., Murray's action. ' fore him hail blazed abroad their antagonism to their churches' creed -wlthoM ' first consulting their brethren to find out Jf they had liberty to do so under thar ordination vowsO A cyood many'years tgo one man •in tho South Island unclaimed that his soul "revolted" from the rtf fhft Shnrfor and. in later years another man prnclnimed that' his soul "revelled" from the Church's interpretation of the Crow, nnd in .both .these cases tho ends of Ju sjtie'e was brotherly adinoniticn ari3 censure, and there was no excomznunication. Mr. Murrav's offence w.»s venial compared to the offence of others, and the ends of justice in the Chiircn mipht have been, met by brotherly Admonition and censuTe, and an occasion found for petting up a comrrTfesfon to inquire into the actual faitfi and practice in the Presbyterian Church of ministers, office-bearers, and people trith regard to infant baptism. • "When the •Presbyterian Church met 1n

Wellington in 1917 a prominent, minister palled the attention of the "Assembly tn .the fact that In the Hands of some Ministers infant baptism was simply a burlne of rtlipfion. He ipid: "1 don't know how soma, men roke in their baptisms. What is the good of a man' going into n. ltr;iU nnH Imntlsing a child and then lenvinir it to be brought up as a.Hottentot." The conrseiiess of the illustration shows had tast". and in quoting it T may say I do Spprove of it. But here was a d"i>r implicit charge made in open Assembly, and reported in the public Pre?? that ministers were denying the doctrine or the Church by a scandalous abuse ot the ordinance. If th ; s ftnte of tiling obtains, and I have proof that it obtains, then there nro ministers more Rinltr than <Mr. Murray—for a corrmy u'so of a religious rito Is worse than its non-use. The lesser evil of the nonose of this .ordinance is not confined to Mr Mnrrnv. Here is a congregation with, sav. 1500 people under the care o th« minister of a large church, and tho baptisms for the year may only number ten ; Has tho birth-rate In this' congregation vanished almost to nothing n.: oil? No, but the belief and practi?o of infant baptism is dvincr out in the' con?i""»!i(-;n-!. and tlie minister In cfmree V-n f 0 hn*-n it sn. These evils Bnd anomalies are known and deplored b'- earnest spirits in the Church. Mr. Murray's congregation are well aware of them, and they rally round him because they know he has beon made a rl'ctim of injustice I represented these matters to the . leading prosecutor of Mr. Murray in writing tosie time ago with the hopa tfvat the larger iefues at tfcia question JwuMotf tho Chtiroh, aaa i

did 60 in vain. I do not ngi'eo with Mr. Hurray's views, but still less do I agree with the praotico of those who corrupt this ordinance. In 1917 the Presbyterian Church celebrated the quarter'centenary of the Reformation, and rejoiced at the heroic stand made by Luther against .Tolin Tetzel and the "crime of false pardons." In 1917 a prominent minister called attention to the evil of "sham sacraments" •in the Presbyterian Church, and nothing has been ilono to stamp out this evil. In tho Presbyterian Church in the past, infant baptism rightly administered mado the Christian home co-extensive with tho Church. It IVBS tlio saorament of parental responsibility, and it ensured, family roligion, church attendance, and a parental type of character that made it easy.for the children to do right. Now this ordinance has become the evil thing denounced in the 1917 Assembly. 1 There is a crying need for reform. But that reform will not be helped by excommunicating an honest, earnest, evangelical minister (whom I believe to be mistaken), whoso Church attendance and praj'er mooting attendance on the basis of membership gave him the premier place in the Presbyterian Church —I am, etc., ROBERT WOOD.

Glendaruel, Karori. November 29, 1920.