REJECTION OF PEACE PLEA

Southland Times, Issue 24886, 28 October 1942, Page 6

REJECTION OF PEACE PLEA

ANGLICAN SYNOD’S DECISION The Anglican Synod in Christchurch rejected a motion by Archdeacon F. N. Taylor, of St. Michael’s, advocating an appeal to the New Zealand Government to use its influence with the Imperial Government to find some way by which peace might be restored to the world. Instead, it adopted an amendment by the Rev. L. A. Barnes, of Timaru, to the effect that the synod, having in mind the cruel persecution of Christians and other men, women, and children of goodwill under the Nazi tyranny, and realizing that until such tyranny was overthrown it would be impossible to build a true Christian order, called upon all church people to give whole-hearted support to the nation’s war effort, and at the same time not to neglect their special duty of commencing to build that Christian order here and now.

This was seconded by Mr L. V. Talbot, of Temuka, and was carried by 69 votes to 8. Archdeacon Taylor said he wished to correct a statement wherein he was alleged to have stated that he was not a pacifist. “The point I wished to make,” he said, “was that my motion was not a pacifist motion.” The speaker contended that the synod would be within its constitutional rights in approaching the Government to endeavour to secure peace. “Why should we not do something?” he demanded. “We all want peace. We all pray'for peace.” He reminded the house that the Pope had also made an appeal for a peace based on justice and moderation. ARCHBISHOP’S VIEWS The president (Archbishop WestWatson) said it would be a matter for regret if either of the motions went out from synod as its message to the world. “I don’t feel that this is our job,” he said. “I have gravely regretted the action of Archdeacon Taylor in putting his motion on the order paper,” the Archbishop continued. “This, was done knowingly to promote a division among Christian men. It is most unfortunate and regrettable. We should not do anything un-Christian and uncharitable.” At the same time, he said, there was no desire on the part of the synod to muzzle discussion, and he paid tribute to the sincerity of the motives of Archdeacon Taylor and his supporters. Nevertheless, the mover had strained the patience of members very considerably. Either motion would indicate a lack of unity on the part of the synod, and it would be most unfortunate if that impression should get out to the world. “We will do no good by dividing among ourselves,” he added. PROPOSAL CRITICIZED Canon H. O. T. Hanby characterized Archdeacon Taylor’s motion as “one of the most regrettable mistakes in this synod for many a long day.” He also alluded to the danger of its being taken up by German or Japanese propagandists, if carried, used on the radio, and so given a false emphasis. As for the possibility of negotiating with Hitler, he asked: “Do you want the pale ghost of Munich to trail its shroud through this synod hall?” Mr K. M. Gresson: You cannot negotiate with a cancer. You can only eradicate it.

It would be as useless trying to propitiate Hitler, said the Rev. T. M. Curnow as to attempt to propitiate a hungry wolf with a hard-boiled egg. (Laughter.) Mr Barnes (the mover of the amendment eventually carried) said that an end to suffering and persecution could only be brought about by showing a strong front to the enemy. This is not the time to show any weakness in the face of the enemy,” he added. “It would only encourage him to further atrocities.” His seconder, Mr Talbot, said the house should have an opportunity of showing its loyalty and its appreciation of the gallant men who had laid down their lives for civilization. In reply, Archdeacon Taylor said he believed it would be nothing less than “a great disaster” if the synod passed Mr Barnes’s amendment.