CHURCH DISCIPLINE

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 195, 16 May 1944, Page 4

CHURCH DISCIPLINE

Suspension Of Baptist Minister OFFICIAL STATEMENT BY UNION Dominion Special Service. AUCKLAND, May 15. “In view of the continued publicity given to a matter domestic to the Baptist Church, the executive of the Baptist Uuion of New Zealaud feels that the public of Auckland is entitled to precise information,” states an official statement issued yesterday on its behalf. “The Bap tist Union acts as local representative of the 12,000,000 Baptist members of the world. ‘•The union is in charge ot the credentials of the ministers serving it, and in the case of change of residence must be prepared to vouch for tlie fitness of ministers on its accredited list to serve in that holy office elsewhere. Ministers are recommended to the New Zealand Union

by sister unions, or by the recommendation of the college committee, as to fitness for office, and these are placed on the ‘accredited fist.’ “Ministers proved guilty, of actions contrary to their office are liable to suspension' and finally to dismissal from the ranks of the ministry,” the statement continues. “It is recognised that most careful scrutiny must be taken, in the interests of even-handed justice, before any such action can be taken against a minister. The union adopts absolutely the British maxim of ‘innocent till proved guilty.’ When sufficient reason's for th? scrutiny of any minister’s credentials are submitted to the union it is bound, in the interests of the church here and overseas- to proceed to judicial inquiry. “In this case reasons were submitted by very responsible people, and, without pre-judging the issue, the union proceeded by way of a commission to an investigation. The commissioners appointed enjoy the confidence of tjie whole church arid represented the whole Dominion. It is' clear that a minister who loses the confidence of a long series of executive officers of the ehurch. all of'whom desired at first to co-operate loyally with him, has something to answer for to those, in charge of his credentials. The union has no rights of interference in the domestic affairs of any of its chqrches. Each church is independent, but the union has both a right and obligation to examjne a situation such as lias arisen in the Tabernacle, in its bearing on the status of the minister. ”Dr. Hodge onposed the opening or proceedings. The commission invited members, entirely irrespective of their opinions, to state frankly their views and to submit to close cross-examination. Dr. Hodge instructed Tabernacle members to ‘shun the commission.’ Against that dictatorial attitude members rebelled and views pro and con in considerable bulk were submitted. Had D r - Hodge welcomed tjie commission it would have been great wisdom. “The findings of the commission were unanimous and Dr. Hodge was summoned to answer a series of charges. He duly appeared before the larger court of tjie union executive, supported by two lawyers. Tfie hearing lasted 23 hours and his leading counsel was Heard in his defence at considerable length. What Dr. Hodge,' his witnesses, and his counsel sai.l was carefully recorded. By unanimous decision the executive, with much sorrow, concluded that the charges were proven and that they rendered' impossible the continuance of Dr. Hodge as an accredited minister of the Baptist Union of New Zealand. Their conclusion that he ba suspended awaits final ratification by the annual assembly of the church, to which Dr. Hodge has the right of appeal.” UNION’S CHARGES AGAINST MINISTER (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, May 15. "The main and most setious objection I have to the last statement of the executive of the Baptist Church of New Zealand is that it again refers with, ambiguous vagueness to certain charges against me,” said Pr. Alexander Hodge, minister of the Baptist Tabernacle, in a further statement today. He added that the references to these charges left a good deal to the imagination of the public. The eight charges were quoted by Dr. Hodge and they were later confirmed by a member of the executive of the Baptist Union. They were: (1) Determination by the minister to dominate the life of the church at all costs; (2) intolerance by the. minister of criticisms and differences of opinion and requiring 100 per cent, loyalty to himself; (3) policy of eliminating from church work and office those who differ from him; (4) grossly unfair chairmanship and control of church business meetings; (5) repeated misrepresentations of facts by the minister; (6) vindictiveness toward those who oppose him ; (7) sectional discrimination between members in pastoral relationships; and (8) attempting to remove from the church roll members of Jong and honourable standing in. the cliurch and calloils indifference to the spiritual wounds and suffering inflicted thereby.