Five Years Under the Southern Cross: Experiences and Impressions

by Frederic C. Spurr

* * * * *

The Anglican Church in Australia is seriously considering its relation to the mother Church at home.

A significant discussion took place two or three years back at the Anglican Provincial Synod held in Melbourne. A resolution was moved by an arch-deacon:

“That this Provincial Synod of Victoria respectfully requests the General Synod of Australia and Tasmania to consider the advisability and practicability of taking such steps as may be necessary to obtain authority from the Church of England to enable the Church in Australia to adapt the liturgy and discipline of the Church of England to the varied needs of Australia, provided that no step be taken that will destroy the nexus between the Church in England and the Church in Australia.”

An amendment was moved by the then Dean Stephen—one of the finest Anglicans in Australia—that the last clause of the resolution be omitted; and the amendment was lost. But only for a time. Young Churchmen possessing vision are impatient with the yoke imposed upon them by Canterbury and York. They say, quite frankly, that it is ridiculous for the Anglican Church in Australia to be under the dominion of the two English provinces which legislate for conditions so entirely different from those obtaining in the new country. The view of Australian-born Anglicans is that they ought to think Imperially, and that their connection should be with the whole Episcopal communion rather than with the two English provinces. In fine, the Episcopal Church in Australia needs autonomy. It was noticed that the Australians almost to a man stood with Dean Stephen, while those on the Conservative side were “imported” clergymen, such as the Archbishop, good Dean MacCullagh, and others. There is no doubt about it that, sooner or later, the question of separation will have to be faced. As Australia develops its own clergy, the “imports” will be reduced, and finally they will cease, and then autonomy will be granted. The “Episcopal Church of Australia” in communion with the Episcopal Churches elsewhere will better represent the genius of the Australian people than a “Church of England” in Australia.... And sympathetic lookers-on clearly perceive that the change would be to the immense gain of the Church in Australia. The development is worth watching.

Meanwhile another movement has been started, tending in the direction of Church union. At the beginning of 1913 a leading layman belonging to the Congregational Church invited to dinner at the Grand Hotel a company of eighty leaders of the Protestant Churches, to whom he unfolded his plans. At this gathering it was decided to hold in Melbourne an unofficial Congress of the Churches in the month of September, 1913. Membership in the Congress was to be entirely personal, in order that the fullest and frankest discussion of the problems involved might be discussed, without reference to official decisions. The idea was to create an atmosphere which, in its turn, might be expected to permeate the Church Synods and other official bodies.

To be quite frank, many of those who approved of the idea were not at all sanguine as to the ultimate result of the Congress; they thought that the scheme would end in talk, yet they were willing to go forward, if only in the interests of a finer fraternal feeling. But it soon became evident that a deeply serious spirit was at work. Men who were regarded as hors concours rallied to the cause. The Anglicans, who at first had been tacitly left out of the reckoning, expressed a hearty desire to join in the movement. And at once I have to say, as one who sat on two of the Commissions, that, if the movement accomplished nothing further than the bringing together in friendly and frank conference men of the most diverse minds, it more than justified itself. The hours we spent together in trying to understand each other’s positions, and in seeking a synthesis of our opposing views and practices, were amongst the most sacred of our lives. In fact, we were all amazed at the discovery we made of each other’s real and essential Christianity. Men who passed each other in the streets for years without a sign of recognition, and with mutual suspicion, at last supped together, prayed together, communed together, and learned to love each other. Members of eight Churches formed the Congress, i.e. Anglican, Brethren, Baptist, Church of Christ, Congregationalist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and the Society of Friends. Three Commissions were formed: The first to consider “The Standardisation of College Curricula, and the possibility of Combined Theological Education”; the second to consider “The Union Control of Home Missions,” and the third to consider “The Difficulties and Possibilities of Organic Union.” These bodies sat during the space of four months to collect evidence, to reduce differences to the minimum, and to prepare a report for discussion at the Congress itself.

The daily Press rendered great service from the very first. It allowed representative men to write special (and lengthy) articles on Church union, and expressions of opinion were freely invited. The religious Press, it need hardly be said, was equally sympathetic. And so, long before the Congress was opened, a kindly atmosphere was created.

The personnel of the Congress was remarkable. At the opening reception the Lord Mayor (a Roman Catholic) offered the most cordial greetings to the guests, which included several Anglican Bishops, Presidents of Conference, Moderators of Assemblies, and Chairmen of Unions.

The temper of the Congress was admirable—yea, perfect. It was understood from the beginning that nothing should be suppressed; that no man should, for reasons of courtesy or delicacy, conceal his convictions; that every difficulty should, as far as possible, be openly faced. A few extreme things were said—things that might well have produced irritation. But whatever was felt, no sign of hostility was displayed. Speakers were applauded for their frankness, even when the frankness stung. It would be fatiguing to follow the course of the sessions; all that I aim at is to set forth the results which were arrived at.