BAPTIST DISSENSION

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 193, 13 May 1944, Page 8

BAPTIST DISSENSION

Statements On Auckland Situation UNION AND MINISTER (By Telegraph. — Press Asnei-iaiiou.> AUCKLAND. May 12. A statement covering the events leading to the severance of the Auckland Baptist Tabernacle from the Baptist Union was issued by the executive of the union last night following a meeting. The statement executive of the Baptist Union of New Zealand has watched for some time with the deepest concern the state of unrest and disunity which has prevailed in the Auckland Baptist Tabernacle. It has felt that it would be failing in its responsibility to the Baptist denomination throughout New Zealand, and to the Tabernacle in particular, if it did not sbek in some way to assist that ebureh in its difficulties. Various efforts were made in this direction over a period of two and a half years. These culminated. in the recent appointment of a commission of inquiry representative, of the whole denomination. The commission s findings were of such a nature that the executive members travelled to Auckland from all parts of the Dominion and devoted several days to, the hearing of charges against Dr. Hodge. . . , “As a result of this hearing, and in the light of a considerable amount of evidence adduced as to the causes of the unrest in the church, the executive has been reluctantly compelled to suspend Dr, Hodge from ministerial membership in the Bhptist Union of New Zealand. M hether such suspension will result in the permanent removal of Dr. Hodge s name from the list of accredited ministers of the Union is a matter for the next annual aS The b ex'ecutive also made a further statemetn in view of what it termed the misleading nature of the resolution passed at a meeting of the Tabernacle, and said: “The commission of inquiry was set up solely as the result of the.disastrous state of discord prevailing, in the Church, a condition of things which created a widespread scandal in the community. The commission offered its ser* vices impartially to all parties. The executive’s subsequent hearing of charges against the minister was carried out with the utmost regard to the demands of justice and fair play. Dr. Hodge s counsel paid a particular tribute to the manner in which the cross-examination was carried out. Every attempt by the union executive to mediate in the Tabernacle troubles has been met by an absolute refusal of co-operation on the nart of the minister and his executive officers, and despite this continuing and increasing state of bitter dissension in the church the minister has preferred to a ttempt, to withdraw the church from the union rather than exercise his right to appeal to the annual assembly. The constitutional rights of the executive to take such steps as have been taken regarding the minister is beyond challenge. Reply by Dr. Hodge.

Replying to the Baptist Union’s statement, Dr. Hodge declared this morning that it was misleading in several important respect. The commission referred to was arbitrarily sent to Auckland, he said, in defiance of resolutions of officers ana members. Accordingly no friend of his appeared before it. The witnesses who appeared were. promised the closest secrecy. In attempting to force the commission on a church which repudiated it, in circularizing the membership, and in calling meetings of members, the Baptist Union had acted improperly, and it bad violated the historic independence and autocracy of a Baptist church. His counsel had protested strongly to the executive against references made by them to a tribute he was alleged to have paid to the justice of the proceedings. The contrarv was the truth. His counsel was deepiy impressed with the injustice of the procedure, and Raid so- _F u F t v e „ r i nl e statement that lie (Dr. Hodge) had attempted to withdraw the church from the union, rather than appeal to the annual assembly in October, was absolutely untrue. He had no responsibility for the church’s spontaneous and solemn secession in protest against his suspension. It also appeared that the executives statement should have made it clear, that the socalled charges against him involved matters mainly of administration., and .that there were no allegations against either morals or doctrine.