INTOLERANCE DISCLAIMED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 705, 3 July 1929, Page 7

INTOLERANCE DISCLAIMED

PRESBYTERY DISCUSSES EVOLUTION OBJECTIONS TO REPORT After a discussion on tlie science and religion controversy yesterday afternoon, the Auckland Presbytery disclaimed intolerant or persecuting principles. Its decision means that there is room for divergent views. The report drawn up by a special committee was' adopted. It was presented by the Rev. L. H. Hunt, but the report was not unanimous, as one committeeman disagreed with several clauses. The statement said: The Declaratory Act ot the Presbyterian Church of Hew Zealand expressly states “that this Church disclaims intolerant or persecuting principles anu does not consider her office bearers in subscribing the Confession committed to any principles inconsistent with liberty ot conscience and the right ot private judgment.'’ It is clear, tiieretore, that there is room in our Church for divergent views on scientific questions. Bvoiution is sometimes stated as though it provided a naturalistic explanation of the universe without reference to the creative activity of Jod. With such an attitude Christianity can have no truce. On the other hand evolution may be regarded as a method of God's creative activity. Interpreted in this way it does not conflict with the essentials of the evangelical faith. The Presbytery rejoices tliat among modern scientists a spiritual interpretation of the universe is gaining ground. So long as Jesus Christ, the Divine Redeemer of men, holds the central place In our faith we can keep an open mind toward the results of scientific investigation, confident that in the future, as in the Past, truth will never be found incompatible with the substance of Christianity. The Rev. D. C. Herron seconded the adoption, but the moderator, the Rev. E. R. Harries, vacated the chair to take part in the discussion, stating that his own feeling was to move the rejection of the finding. The question was whether acceptance of evolution affected the essentials of evangelical faith. The whole thinking of modern times had been changed by evolutionary ideas and the tendency was to question the doctrines of their faith. He did not have the assurance contained in the report that evolution did not conflict with evangelical belief. “IN GENERAL TERMS” His objection was because the finding was opposed to the opinion of a large number of members and adherents. It was in general terms which were likely to be misunderstood outside. Mr. Harries moved the rejection of the finding. Mr. F. James seconded, saying that they had no exact definition of what evolution was. The Rev. B. Hutson feared that the finding attacked the standards of the Church. The Rev. J. Thomson remarked that, on Mr. Harries’s contentions, any conscientious minister holding any theory of evolution would have no option but to resign. An amendment that the question should go to the Public Questions Committee of the Presbyterian Assembly in the hope that a manifesto would be issued was lost. Only three voted for another amendment by Mr. Harries, including the words “provided that the authority and trustworthiness of Holy Scripture are fully maintained,” and that the New Testament faith was believed on to salvation, and repudiating “the modern tendency to think that the discovery of evolution has destroyed the whole theological scheme,” and the modern denials of doctrines characteristic of the Christian faith. Saying that it was “a most unworthy crowing over a fallen adversary,” Mr. Harries opposed a request that the voting be recorded. The request was withdrawn.