great australian presbyterians
Malcolm D. Prentis
What were the positive contributions made by the Presbyterian Church to this nation?
I could, I suppose, refer you to my book The Scottish in Australia (AE Press, 1987) for a fairly comprehensive answer to this question, since there was a close correlation between "Scottish (+Ulster)" and "Presbyterian" and since Presbyterians have always regarded the people as the church, not a hierarchy or a building. (Examples of this latter point are the Ulster and US practice of referring to a church building as a "meeting house" and the practice of locking church buildings when not in use since they only become "church" when the people are there worshipping. However, I digress.)
If pressed, I should want to highlight a few overall themes. Presbyterians' most significant contributions to Australian life were made in ways that related directly or indirectly to their Presbyterian faith. None of these was unique to Presbyterians, but they tended to be found in combination and with an intensity not so common amongst others. One of these concerns education: not education simply per se, but in a philosophy of education which stressed equality of opportunity and breadth of curriculum (practical, mathematical and literary studies), geared towards understanding of God's Word and God's world. A regard for, and a commitment to, learning permeated most Presbyterian households, not just those involved in schooling.
Presbyterians commonly had a strong sense of vocation. In whatever occupation, they were there because God had called them to serve in that capacity. Confidence in the sovereignty of God, a bedrock of Biblical and Calvinist certainty, undergirded the proverbial integrity of Presbyterian bankers, merchants, brokers, tradesmen, civil servants, postal clerks, accountants, actuaries, police detectives etc. In farming and grazing activities, Presbyterians have been especially prominent, but not only on the farm. They have often taken the lead in the cooperatives, organisations and agricultural education and science that have thus bolstered primary industry and promoted rural and national development. Seriousness of purpose had its "down-side". Responsible and dependable could sometimes mean stodgy, dour or even self-righteous.
The over-representation of Presbyterians amongst local government councillors and aldermen and amongst MPs underlines a common commitment to community service. (Oddly, however, they were under-represented among the Fathers of Federation.) It is a commitment expressed across the political spectrum, from conservatives like Robert Menzies, Free Trade liberals like George Reid to Labor people like Andrew Fisher and the Fraser brothers. The most recent historian of NSW Presbyterianism found Presbyterian cabinet ministers most often in portfolios relating to land and education.
And yet, what does it profit a man …? Secularisation has apparently eroded the faith that undergirded the qualities of which I have spoken; but the qualities often remained, detached from but parasitic on that faith. At its best, Presbyterianism has pointed its adherents to the faith and to the God without whom their strivings are vain. Without the covenant between God and humanity, what is humanity?
What were the highs and lows of Presbyterianism in Australia? Which decades in particular?
It would be tempting to nominate the 1950s as a high and he 1970s as a low. I was there and that's how it felt. Attendance rates, Sunday School numbers and youth groups were strong in the 1950s, especially in middle-class Australia. In retrospect, this prosperity was fragile, as the catastrophic decline of the 1970s shows. The 1970s witnessed Church Union, potentially a high, but Presbyterians also experienced the pain of a split. Perhaps one should look to a period before one's birth and take a longer view. The late 1830s was a bad patch and the mid- to late-1850s a lot better.
On reflection, I've gone elsewhere. The period from 1880s to 1915, I should say, was a high and, although it was not clear at the time, 1915-1930s was a low. In the former period, ministerial education was finally adequately provided; the Church federated; missions, Sabbath Schools and youth fellowships and women's groups were all flourishing and the social and political influence of Presbyterians was high. The confidence of a church dominated by a confident middle class was high, although severely dented by the 1890s depression. The latter period was destructive of both human and theological resources; something I could sum up in rather crude shorthand in three words: war, depression and Angus. There was much disillusionment with orthodox verities and traditional authority in both state and church.
What have been the positive contributions of the Presbyterian Church to the Uniting Church? How does the Presbyterian influence most manifest itself in the Uniting Church?
The rapid and enthusiastic adoption of the call system, the embracing of the eldership and the role of the Presbytery seem to me to be the three most obvious positive influences. Other aspects of Presbyterianism have generally reinforced similar legacies of Congregationalism and/or Methodism, both on the conservative/evangelical side or the liberal side, whether they are matters of education, social services, mission or preaching. Liturgical and doctrinal drift away from Reformed norms was evident before union in all three denominations. The Presbyterian influence is not very manifest in the Uniting Church; it tends to be shy and retiring, part of the "wood-work". It is very important that UC members remain aware of, develop and celebrate their constituent traditions, but section 10 of the Basis of Union is badly neglected. The sort of tradition that is too often now emphasised in many quarters of the UC, certainly liturgically, is pre-Reformation. If the UC is committed to Reformation principles and diversity, then blending everything together in a mediaeval stew is not the way to demonstrate it.
Are there negative aspects of Presbyterianism that detract from the original "union" vision?
Good things when overdone often become negative. In this case: stodginess and formalism, dry tradition without a proper understanding of its foundation and rationale. Caution and a suspicion of "emotion", which has tended to stifle evangelism and spontaneity in worship. And a very Presbyterian assumption that "union" necessarily means giving something up, rather than gaining something or giving something. Mind you, being greatly outnumbered by Methodists gives ex-Presbyterians a good way of avoiding blame. (But whose fault is it that they are outnumbered, eh?)
Who were the most notable male and female Presbyterian pioneers in Australia and what was significant about their work?
John Dunmore Lang is compulsory but annoying. (At least Republicans can admire him.) I have a soft spot for the second Governor, John Hunter, who kept his faith and virtue in the face of grim circumstances. Georgiana Molloy in WA is worth a guernsey as a naturalist, pioneer and witness for Reformed Christianity in the wilderness. After Fr Ed Campion published 100 Great Australian Catholics, I made a list of great Australian Presbyterians. What would your list be like?
How much do you regret that the whole Presbyterian Church did not "unite"? Or is the continuing Presbyterian presence in this country a good thing?
I regretted it very
much, being separated from many friends and like-minded Christians. However,
this was fortunately not very much the case at parish level. And as good
old "Uncle Ernie" McIlveen said, "I'd rather be a conservative
in a liberal church than a liberal in a conservative church". Unnecessary
wounds were inflicted by both "sides". The fact that most of
the biblicist and reformed wing of the church did not unite left both
the PCA the UCA, in my opinion, rather unbalanced.
As for the latter question, would its absence be a good thing?
What do you make of the continuing Presbyterian ambivalence regarding women's ordination?
If this means ministerial (not elders?) ordination, I suspect that the stance will eventually be reversed. But this is only a hunch. While I personally approve of women ministers (especially now I enjoy the ministry of one), it is not for me to tell my "continuing" brethren [sic] what to do. However, the whole debate in all churches needs to get things into perspective: ordination itself seems to me actually to be harder to justify biblically than the role of women.
Is there any hope for full union between the Uniting and Presbyterian churches in Australia?
Don't hold your breath. If it ever did happen, there would still be a dissenting minority; there always is.
Are there things that Uniting Church people with Presbyterian heritage miss post union (in worship, the structure of ministry, teaching, rallies etc)?
Rallies? What rallies? Some miss singing psalms. Some miss ministers in Geneva gowns. Most things that have changed would have changed anyway. And don't forget that the "continuing" PCA has changed significantly since union as well. Ex-Presbyterian congregations in the UC have often managed to maintain their ethos and peculiar traditions, such as psalm-singing and that invented tradition, the "Kirkin' o' the Tartan". The really important things are not denominational, anyway.
What, after 100 years, do Presbyterians most have or want to celebrate?
Surviving, unfortunately. There are plenty of important things to celebrate, but they are not about us, either UCA or PCA. And we celebrate them every Sunday.
What is actually being commemorated on 24 July is a piece of useful ecclesiastical joinery which, even at the time, was celebrated as a means of "greater Christian efficiency" and a sign of federated or unified ministry rather than as a mighty spiritual triumph.
What is the future for the Presbyterian Church?
This is not really for me to say. However, the future for all churches is problematic. The traditional Christian, let alone Presbyterian, ethos is comprehensively out of step with an increasingly selfish, materialistic, hedonistic, gullible and cruel society. Such an ethos, such a faith, was never more needed. The question is how to overcome the barriers to Christ's mission in such a society. This issue is much bigger than just one or two denominations. I do know one thing: the church which focuses on its own survival (rather than on Christ's mission) will not survive and does not deserve to survive.