Wanganui Presbytery Holds Meeting

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7280, 6 October 1933, Page 4

Wanganui Presbytery Holds Meeting

SEVERAL MATTERS REGARDING P.N. ST. ANDREW’S CHURCH.

Tho bi-monthly meeting of the Wanganui Presbytery was principally occupied with several matters that had been referred to it from St. Andrew’s, Palmerston North. The first matter considered was a dissent and complaint entered by Mr. H. D. Me.Sully against a decision of the Session to hold a congregational meeting. Mr. McCully spoke in support of his complaint, advancing six definite reasons why' he felt it was not wise or proper that the meeting proposed for tho purposes suggested should be held at that time. Rev. G. T. Brown, who had concurred in the complaint, seconded. Mr. W. B. Tennent, who had been appointed to answer the complaint, spoke at length on the general position, defending the action of tho session in seeking a congregational meeting.

Aftor deliberation, the Presbytery supported Mr. McCully’s complaint for three out of the six reasons put forth, viz.,

“(1) This matter has at no timo been before the congregation as such. The matter was referred to tho Session to the Presbytery and was investigated by the Presbytery and the reply sent back to the Session. If the Session is not prepared to accept the finding, it should bo referred to tho Presbytery, not to tho congregation. "(2) One of the expressed objects of tho proposed meeting has reference to a petition which tho Commission of the Prcsby'tery has already stigmatised as improper and illegal. We feel therefore that a meeting of the congregation to real with .such a petition should not bo held.

“(3) Another expressed object of the proposed meeting is to review Rev. G. T. Brown’s ministry'. Wo believe that neither the congregation, the Deacons’ Court, nor tho Session, has any

right, especially in open meeting, to review critically the work of the minister. To do that is to usurp the prerogative of tho Presbytery.”

Tho second matter was a dissent and complaint against the action of the Session in refusing to accept a motion moved by Mr. D. W. Low, calling the attention of the Presbytery to the serious state of things at present in St. Andrew’s, Palmerston North, indicating the causes of the unrest, and | praying the Presbytery to do what was in its power to settle tho disturbance. Mr. Low spoke in support of his complaint, and was seconded by Mr. McCully, who had concurred in if. Mr. Wylie replied, questioning the validity of the complaint. Tho Presbytery ruled that Lie complaint was quite in order. After deliberation, the Presbytery decided that tho complaint should bo fallen from, but it was decided to appoint a visitation of St, Andrew’s by the whole Presbytery on October IS. Mr. James Wallace, who was not ablo to bo present, sent on behalf of tho Session a communication calling the attention of the Presbytery to the

notion of Rev. G. T. Brown in refusing to call a special meeting of the Session, although requisitioned to do so by' four members. Mr. Brown in reply stated that when ho discovered the reasons for tho proposed special meeting ho found that one of them was concerning Mr. McCully's complaint, but that the regulations distinctly laid it down that such a complaint stopped all further proceedings in the Session. Concerning tho other reasons there was no urgency - , and it. was only in a matter of urgency that a special meeting could be called. The action of Mr. Brown in this matter was confirmed by' the Presbytery. Tho attention of the Presbytery' was drawn by St. Andrew’s Session to tho press reports of the last two meetings of tho Presbytery. Their authority and authenticity were questioned. Mr. Wylie spoke on this matter, raising two objections; first, that the report of “the finding” had been misleading and, second, that tho report of Rev. L. G. B. Whitehead’s remarks, in the last meeting, was an incorrect report. Rev.. G. T. Brown mentioned that, 'although he was the authorised Press reporter of tho Presbytery for the Palmerston North papers, he, in fairness to all, refused to report personally the “finding of the Presbytery.” It was no secret that that report had been furnished by Rev. L. G. B. Mhitchcn! but as to its accuracy, there could be no question. After Mr. Tennent’s letter to the paper denying the authority of that, report and impugning its accuracy, it had been submitted to tho Presbytery clerk who wrote as follows: “I have seen in a Palmerston North daily' paper a report headed ‘Finding of the Commission,’ referring to the special meeting of the Presbytery on July 17, and also a report of the ordinary Presbytery meeting on August 1. As usual these reports are necessarily brief. Yet on essential matters they

supply an accurate summary of what took place on each occasion. ” “ This, ”

said Mr. Brown, “should be enough to vindicate Mr. Whitehead’s fairness.”

With regard to the report of Mr. Whitehead’s words in the August meeting of Presbytery', Mr. Brown took full responsibility'.. He 'knew that the accuracy of his report was to be questioned, so he had communicated with Mr. Whitehead for confirmation of the retort. He had received a night-letter telegram from Mr. Whitehead which ho read, stating that the Press repqrr, complained of was a “faithful representation of my explicit statement in the Presbytery'.”—Mr. Wylie was asked by Mr. Brown to withdraw ’ is statement that* this report was incorrect. Mr. Wylie, however, refused. With regard to these complaints against the Press reports the Presbytery' decided that no action was called for.