CHURCH AND STATE

Hokitika Guardian, 7 February 1930, Page 4

CHURCH AND STATE

A BURNING CONTROVERSY.

(United Press Association—By EJeutri^

Telegraph—Copyright;

LONDON, Feb. 5.

Frank criticism of the relations between Church and Slate were made by tlie Archbishop of York at the Church Assembly at Westminster, when he moved directing the appointment’of ! a Commission to inquire into cue present relations with a view to securing the Church’s right to formulate her faith. He declared the sense of responsibility was heightened Jj y the fact that the terms of the resolution were accepted for presentation to the Assembly by the House of Bishops without dissent.

"There is now tension between what is recognised by convocation and what he sanctioned by the State,” he said. “The position is most unwholesW>e. Onurch administration is being conducted perpetually on the edge of’a precipice. There are many anomalies and divergencies between the marriage laws of the Church and the State, and they are liable at any moment to assume alarming proportions. Every time I administer the declaratiqn assent and ordination of ministers, my conscience is. most gravely troubled. The dilemma immediately answers, what is a lawful, authority, and this. Js not answered in the present circumstances.” , " ’

The • Archbishop ' of. York declared that the next election would be fought on the issue of Church and State, and there would be a- raging controversy from now until polling day. The Bishop of Winchester, in seconding the Bishop of York’s, motion, said they were face to face witty the gravest conflict between spiritual l and secular since the Reformation. ‘-The problem was not to hasten the day W disestablishment, but to ask how they could wisely and reasonably preserve the age long connection between Church and State, without injury or indignity to either. . , The debate has not been finished., i

FEAR OF DISRUPTION.

LONDON, Feb. 5.

The terms of the resolution moved at the Church Assembly by the Arqhbishop of York, declaring;: .‘.‘That it is desirable to appoint a Commission to inquire into the present relations of the Church and the State; to determine what legal and . constitutional changes are necessary to secure . the effective application of the fundamental princinle that the Church .must retain its inalienable right to formulate its faith and arrange the expression thereof in a form.of worship.”, The Archbishop of Canterbury, in winding up a long debate, said that the motion did not, mean a movement towards disestablishment. He said: “I share, what is believed to be the feeling of the bulk ,of the Assembly and the Church people. • We do now * desire disestablishment.! Who, .‘however, could be so futile as to bury their heads like the ostrich? Establishment has not made, and so disestablishment cannot animate the Church. The situation is precarious. We are traversing a, road beneath which there are volcanic forces. At any moment a. crack may appear. Those forces may burst through at any moment. The Bishop’s extra legal actions , may be brought into open conflict with the public law.” ! : LONDON, Feb'. 6. The Bishop of York's resolution was carried by 382 votes to 105.