The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET. AUCKLAND THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1929. STRIFE AMONG CHURCHMEN

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 612, 14 March 1929, Page 8

The Sun 42 WYNDHAM STREET. AUCKLAND THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 1929. STRIFE AMONG CHURCHMEN

EVEN those observers who have nothing more than a sympathetic interest in, the welfare of the Anglican Church, as well as many others who may be seoffingly glacl these days that they are outside its good influences, will deplore the strife among churchmen in the Waikato Diocese. Heated trouble persists there like a peat-bog fire, occasionally dull, always smouldering, and sometimes flaring- up with all the lurid force of a menace to a serene countryside. Whatever else may be said or wisely left unsaid about the mischief that already has been wrought on church Avork, it is long past time for the argumentative wranglers at the, centre of the spiritual disturbance to compose a quarrel which, after some two years’ nursing in unrest, now threatens to become an open reproach to the district. In ordinary circumstances a religious dispute usually is best left for ultimate settlement by the disputants themselves, either in a spirit of sorrow or in the humbler mood of feeling honestly ashamed at having begun a quarrel at all. But this unhappy wrangle has become an extraordinary difficulty, for the plain reason that there appears to be no prospect of an end to it, and no simple way of transforming the strength of the strife into the vigour of vital work and service for the church and diocese. Some months ago it looked as though a gracious close of the long quarrel had been accomplished, and everywhere at the time there was sincere joy over the announcement that the Waikato Diocesan Synod had overcome a delicate situation by means of conciliatory wisdom and compromise as between the participants in disunity. It was said tlien that the worst causes of the unrest had been eliminated, and that “the result was a victory for no one, while no one had been defeated.” That apparently was merely an occasion when no breeze of temper fanned the smouldering embers of discontent. In any case peace in the Waikato fold seems as far away as ever, if not, unhappily, actually a little farther. Anyone who has taken a dispassionate view of the protracted trouble must have found it difficult all the time to discover a major reason for so much wrangling. Doubtless, an ecclesiastical lawyer could find ample ground for controversy, but the less a church has to do with that sort of perception and argument the better it is for its people and service. It lias been quite apparent, of course, that a multiplicity of dislikes and differences of opinion throughout the whole diocese has assumed the magnitude of a mountain. Many things remain obscure or appear as trivialities when observed, but it is at least clear that discontent is rampant and demands freedom from irritating conditions and influences.

No one beyond the boundaries of the mischievous quarrel would wish to take either side in it, but impartial observers cannot fail to see very plainly that the Bishop of Waikato is nearest to the centre and causes of the strife. And it is clear, too, that he is a strong, resolute churchman, fortified by his belief that, if anybody else may be in the wrong, he at least is always right. Of course, some people might be tempted to characterise the bishop’s courage as obduracy, but whatever it may be termed the strength of it will compel some admiration. If the main source of discontent among Anglicans in the Waikato should be nothing more aggravating than the unpopularity of the spiritual leader of the diocese it is difficult to see how that unfortunate circumstance, if it really exists, could be made a valid reason for “trial by his peers.” Lack of popularity is in itself no offence, although it might well be a, hopeless hindrance to success and beneficial service. Then Bishop Clierrington declares bluntly, perhaps with too much of the sort of bluntness that creates discontent, that he does not care two straws for popularity. If there were one person he despised (he said, yesterday), it was tlie popular parson. He is content to base liis service and jiis worth on the performance of spiritual duty, and intends to go on in that way, not bothering at all about whether he has the people’s confidence or not. This may be the highest spiritual ground even a bishop could take, but if the people, discontented and aloof, refuse to climb as high, the lack of popularity may be a serious thing for the church. All the disputants appear to overlook the stark fact that the times call for perfect unity in all the churches.