New Guinea like many another tropic isle has been the scene of much of the best as well as of the worst side of human nature. In recent years the latter was revealed when a ruthless foe invaded the Gona area and pressed onward towards Port Moresby, leaving a trail of defaced landscape, moral and physical injury, and cruel death. When the enemy was defeated and expelled clear evidence revealed that throughout the period of devastation the human spirit of the Native people had held to a high course of faithful courage, hope, expectation and certainly of deliverance. This indicates the better side, and the words of the Bishop of New Guinea in the following pages interpret the evidence offered by those moral virtues which won for Papuans warm appreciation of the men of the Allied Forces.
The Bishop was not only a spectator of the events recorded, but was himself involved in many enemy attacks. He is reticent of his own part in such event, but those of us who know him are proud of the man "Who never turned his back but marched breast forward" when duty led him into dangerous situations. We know also that the words which follow this forward have a message for all who are in search of the truth.
My Reverend Brethren of the Clergy, My Brethren of the Laity, all of you Missionaries of Christ and my fellow workers with Him in the life of His Holy Church in this land. I welcome you warmly to our Conference and pray that God will guide with His Holy Spirit our deliberations together and that He will make them profitable for the strengthening and growth of His Church and for the spread of the Everlasting Gospel, and further, that He will bless your time of fellowship here at Dogura, the Home of the Mission and the Centre of the Diocese.
This Conference has been looked forward to by us all for a long time. We had hoped to have been able to have held it long before this but we have been prevented hitherto through our difficulties of transport. I believe it will be a Conference of great import to the life of the Church in this Diocese and to the work to which we are all of us by solemn vocation committed.
It is the first Conference we have been able to hold since 1941, our Jubilee Year. I shall make no apology for the length of my Presidential Address and Charge and for claiming the whole of your time for this today. It is usual for me to review our life as a Diocese since we last met, more particularly as it affects the white staff and to record changes that may have taken place in the intervening time. It is usual also for me to try to assess the value of our work in the present and to indicate the lines along which we must develop in the [5/6] future. The period that I have to cover today is not only the longest period there has been in our history without a conference; not only has it been a most momentous and catastrophic period in the history of the world (probably as great as any that has preceded it) but a period also in our own life as a Diocese brimful of changes, sorrows and tragedies, sufferings and martyrdoms, and yet withal of victories and triumphs, brought about by a ruling, guiding hand of Love and Power which has kept control over events and circumstances which seemed at one time likely to overwhelm us and the life of this young Church.
And then, when we think of the present and of the future there has surely been no time when those who represent the Church in this land have been so confronted with burning problems that call for settlement now, nor can there have been a time when the future has seemed so fraught both with danger and opportunities. It is obvious that we cannot deal with these things in a few words and it is obvious that they cannot be evaded but that we must face them all fully and squarely in the light of the guidance which we know will be given to us.
And then, again, it is unusual for me on the occasion of our Conference to direct your thoughts not only to our local changes and problems but to those also in the wider sphere of the Church's life as it covers the world. It is well at the time of our Conference that our thoughts should be so directed. Our life and work here, important as it undoubtedly is, is in a limited sphere. The nature and the circumstances of it causes us to be for most of the year isolated and cut off from the rest of the world and even from our own brethren. We become absorbed in our own work and rightly so. If we did not become so absorbed then the strain might for some become intolerable. Because we do become so absorbed we are able to do great things for God and for His Church, things which though hidden from the world are known to Him. "Whose we are and Whom we serve and from whom no secrets are hid." For most of the year we tend to become parochially minded. That is not a [6/7] bad thing in itself, so long as it receives from time to time a corrective such as can be given at our meeting together at Conference through the obtaining of a wider vision of the whole life and work of church. This corrective, whilst it take us out of ourselves for the time being, puts us back again into ourselves with a fuller realisation of the responsibilities which are ours, of the sacredness of the trust which has been imposed in us by our Lord, and an appreciation of the vital place that our own life and work has, however isolated and obscure it may be, in the great wide and timeless plan of the Eternal Architect.
Let us then turn our thoughts now to the wider Church. We shall review some of the changes that have taken place in the momentous and catastrophic days that have passed. We shall take a glimpse at some of the problems that face the whole Church in these days and from these problems we shall come to those that peculiarly affect us and the missionary strategy of the Church in this part of the Pacific, and from that we shall come back again into the bounds of our own Diocese to review our life and work during the war years and the present time, and to face our difficulties and our problems.
First I would refer to some of the outstanding changes that have taken place in the Leadership of the wider Church. There have been many changes in the hierarchy of our Anglican Communion. That perhaps is not surprising over a period of six years but even so, the changes have been more than one would expect to find in a period of that length. In that period we have known three Archbishops of Canterbury. There has been a change in the Primacy of our Australian Church, a change also in the occupancy of the Metropolitical throne of this Province as well as in the holders of eight other Australian Sees.
When we last met Archbishop Cosmo Gordon Lang was the Primate of All England. I was privileged to be consecrated by him and shall never forget the night before my Consecration, the Eve of St. Simon and St. Jude 1936 when, after a private talk with him in his study at Lambeth Palace he bade me kneel at the faldstool in the alcove set apart for his devotions that he might give me his blessing. Above it was hanging a big and beautiful crucifix and as I got up from my knees he pointed to it and said with some fervour and perhaps a humility not always accredited to him. "You can be thankful that there will be more of that in your life than there is in mine." Somewhat taken aback I replied falteringly, "Perhaps there is plenty of it in your Grace's Life but of a different kind." To which he said, "Perhaps so." He was at the time, though I did not know it, in addition to all the other burdens which fell to him in the natural course of his high office in the Anglican Communion, carrying the anxiety and the burden that was to culminate in what became known as the "Abdication Crisis." It was only a few years later that he was to share acutely in the sufferings of the people of London and to have Lambeth Palace itself and its historic Chapel and Library shattered by bombs and high explosives whilst he was himself within it. Early in 1942 he resigned that he might give place to a younger man who could lead the Church in its great responsibilities and opportunities of Reconstruction which, even when the war was still unfinished, were being prepared for, showing thereby the faith that animated our brethren in the Homeland, that the cause of right must ultimately triumph.
Archbishop William Temple, who succeeded him at York then took his place at Lambeth and was enthroned on the seat of St. Augustine on St. George's Day, 1941, at a time when the continued existence of Canterbury Cathedral hung as it were in the balance and when it was in constant jeopardy. The courage of the Church at home was seen by the broadcasting of that service of Enthronement from Canterbury Cathedral and the defying thereby of the [8/9] enemy. Never before had the Enthronement of a successor of St. Augustine been broadcast to the world, and the fanfare of trumpets as he took his seat on the historic throne was like a challenge to the powers of evil as well as an assurance of victory. It called to one's mind the words of our Blessed Lord on the eve of his Crucifixion, when it seemed that that powers of evil were triumphant, "Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world."
Little could the retiring primate have then foreseen that in 2 1/2 years time he would be himself officiating once again at Canterbury Cathedral and on his eightieth birthday but at the funeral of the younger man in favour of whose more vigorous leadership he had stepped down and gone into retirement.
Archbishop William Temple was himself the son of a former Archbishop of Canterbury, by whom incidentally our own Bishop Newton was ordained priest 56 years ago this year. It was unique for father and son to fill the highest office in the Anglican Communion. The son's reign at Canterbury was to be one of the shortest of any of the successors of St. Augustine, yet, he will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the greatest of all the Archbishops of Canterbury.
A few pictures of Dr. Temple rise to my mind. I first heard him speak when he was Canon Temple of Westminster and I a Cambridge Undergraduate, and one amongst a great crowd that filled a hall in Cambridge to hear him set forth the principles of the Life and Liberty Movement in the Church of England of which he was then the moving spirit. It had as its object the loosening of some of the legal bonds which up to that time had tied the Church of England in England to Parliament. The result was the creation of a Church Legislative Body known as the National Assembly of the Church of England of which I had the honour to be elected as a humble member by the Diocese of Durham in the year 1935.
Dr. Temple in those days was already known to the whole Church as a man of great vision.
 Another picture which comes before me is of the days when he was Bishop of Manchester, of his clear, forceful and inspiring presentation in York Minster, of one of the World Call Reports drawn up by the Missionary Council of the Church of England after the last war but which alas, failed to arouse the Church as fully as was hoped to its responsibilities in those years between the two wars.
I recollect sitting under him, a few years later, in meetings of the Convocation of York, when as Archbishop of York and Metropolitan he gave at the opening of Convocation his Presidential Addresses to the Upper and Lower Houses combined; addresses which were always marked with great brilliance, bright sparks of wit and humour, and yet so much to the point and able to interpret profound truths so simply and to reach the heart of problems so directly.
I had the honour of meeting him for the first time in 1944 during my brief visit to England. The first of three or four occasions of such personal contact was when I was invited to lunch at Lambeth Palace. The nervousness I felt in anticipation of this personal contact with a personality so world renowned immediately faded away in the quiet and homely atmosphere of that simple lunch in a small room of the basement of the much bombed and war scarred palace which I had last seen on the day of my Consecration on October 28th. 1936, when it stood in all its historic grandeur. It seemed almost incredible to be able to sit and talk quite freely about all kinds of things with one whose prophetic insight and powers of personality had captivated the imagination of peoples all over the world. It seemed even more incredible that a man carrying such a burden as he carried, doing such a work as he had done and was doing could bear such a young and boyish face largely unmarked with lines and care of age. A few weeks later I was staying with a friend of mine, Vicar of a poor and much bombed parish in Kensington. It was the night of Ascension Day and the Archbishop of Canterbury was to preach. He gave a wonderfully simple and clear instruction on the Ascension and on its commission of our Lord to His disciples to "Go into all the world" and that [10/11] the only true way in which this can be obeyed [is] by every Christian following Him and being a missionary and leading others to Him. Afterwards we had refreshments in the Vicarage. My friend then took the Archbishop out to his car. He was a long time returning and as he was an ardent Christian Socialist, and as the Archbishop's interest in social questions was well known, we concluded that the two had become involved in a lengthy discussion in the hall or on the door step and my friend was twitted on his return with this. That, however, was not the explanation. The reason for the delay was that on his arrival at the car an army of school boys with autograph books and bits of paper were awaiting the primate of all England. Tired though he must have been, and perhaps suffering pain from the disease which only five months later was to take him from us, he would not disappoint one of these young aspirants and refused to return to Lambeth Palace until all had been satisfied with the receipt of the well know signature "William Cantuar."
In the month of August I was staying for a week end with Dr. Wand then Bishop of Bath and Wells. On the Sunday morning the Bishop had to pay his first episcopal visit to a country Church some 40 miles away and suggested that I might like to accompany Mrs. Ward and himself. We had a lovely drive through some of the most beautiful country of Somerset and arrived at a little country church well before the time for the service to begin. It was a small church--a vicar and sexton--no choir--a congregation of country people who gradually slipped into their seats, eventually filling the whole church. In due course the humble procession came out which consisted of the Vicar, the Diocesan Bishop and his Chaplain. I was sitting as a member of the congregation in the middle of the church with Mrs. Wand. A little ahead of us we noticed the Primate of All England in non-episcopal clothes with Mrs. Temple worshipping with the rest of the congregation at that service of Morning Prayer. He was on holiday, living in a country cottage, walking in the daytime in the country and on the hills, probably thinking out new messages to give to the world in its days of tribulation. After the service it was seen that he was well known [11/12] as he and Mrs. Temple mingled with the village congregation in happy fellowship in the church yard. It was remarked to me afterwards that there was a miniature representation of the whole Anglican Communion present that morning in the church, for the gathering included the local priest, the Diocesan Bishop, the Metropolitan of the Province and the Primate of all England in one, and a Bishop from a far corner of the Church Overseas. The food situation was such in England at that time that it seemed hardly fair to strain the hospitality resources of the local vicarage by imposing upon them more than the Diocesan who it was naturally desired to have chosen his chaplain, so the Diocesan Bishop's wife and the visiting Bishop had a picnic lunch under a haystack, and afterward we all repaired to the simple cottage where the Primate of all England and his wife were resting. Once again one was enchanted by the simple naturalness and friendship which would have made anyone feel at home immediately. I was privileged to have a few minutes private talk on problems of missionary strategy in this part of the world with which I was then concerned. Dr. Temple's grasp of all that it involved and the advice that he gave was, I feel, helpful not only to myself but to the leaders of missionary enterprise in the Australian Church. That was the last time that I saw him. There was certainly no thought in my mind at that time of death, hence the greatness of the shock little more than eight weeks later on the day after I had landed on the shores of Australia to learn as I went to celebrate the Holy Communion at the Altar of Christ Church Brunswick of the death of Archbishop William Temple. It seemed at the time a stunning blow. The greatness of the loss to the whole Anglican Communion--indeed to the whole Christian world seemed absolutely immeasurable. It was generally acknowledged that in him our generation had been given one of the greatest leaders of all times, and great hopes were felt in all parts of the world of his Christian leaderhip in the critical days that were known to lie ahead. My own impression from my limited personal contact with him in that year of his death was of a man who combined rich, unadulterated greatness with a wonderful natural [12/13] simplicity and a genuine humility. It was not only an impression of a really great man but it was of one who was in real living touch with our Lord and in love with Him and it was this more than any thing else which enhanced the greatness, for greatness without it is not real greatness. He, more than anyone in our age had shown in a way that even the uneducated could understand how the Christian Gospel and faith should permeate all of life--that if we are to build the Kingdom of God on earth there must be no department from which its principles are excluded or not acknowledged as paramount. He had not confined himself to theoretical and abstract principles but had shown directly and simply that the life of grace through prayer and sacraments is the road to fulfilment and practical application provided by God and within the reach of all. A great prophet had been raised up in our midst; had delivered his message; passed on to his generation the vision that had been given to him, and then just when all were looking to him for further leadership he was taken from us. Perhaps it was that we might learn that the things that he stood for should no longer depend so much on the leadership of one man but that all Christians should make them part of their lives, and stand for them in the circle in which they live and move and have their being. Whether that be so or not, "The Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord" and "Thanks be to God" for William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury and Primate of all England, prophet and teacher, and may his soul forever rest in peace.
It seemed verily that the Church had suffered an irreparable loss and that no one would be able to be found of the same calibre to carry on the leadership of the Anglican Communion in these momentous days, but God ever provides for the needs of His Church and in Geoffrey Francis Fisher, the present occupant of the Throne of St. Augustine, it seem more and more that we have been given once again the leader that we needed for this present time; different indeed from his predecessor but bringing to his high office administrative and practical gifts that are perhaps more needed in these post-war days than the prophetic gifts of Dr. Temple, whose [13/14] message given must still abide, and gifts which will enable that message to be more fully applied in the life and work of the Church. He it is who will be called upon to preside next year at the Lambeth Conference when it is likely there will be a larger gathering of Bishops of the Anglican Communion than ever before and when burning problems of Church government, Organization, Missionary Enterprise, Re-Union, the Relationship of Church and state, the Witness of the Church in these revolutionary days, together with the perplexing moral problems will come up for consideration and decision.
I must not now enter into these problems important and interesting as they are, nor must I spend more than a passing word upon our thankfulness for the witness of the Church in the home land in these crucial days of war, for the wonderful way in which the life of the Church was maintained in those sad and difficult days. I myself was immensely struck by the amazing way in which our great Cathedrals had been preserved when at one time it seemed certain that most of them would be laid waste. Coventry Cathedral was the only one to be completely demolished, and Exeter the only one of the ancient Cathedrals to be severely damaged. The survival of St. Paul's Cathedral, standing on the top of Ludgate Hill with all other buildings round it which had tended to hide its witness, demolished, seemed to give a witness to the eternal values of life that could not be missed. Even more wonderful was it when one learnt of the apparently deliberate attempts to destroy it. Canterbury Cathedral, also assaulted day after day by dive bombers, remained standing in its glory, even though buildings all around it were demolished. Such we can only attribute to the Providence of God Who has not left us without witness to the greatness of His power and truth.
If that struck me forcibly in my short visit to England in 1944 I [14/15] was further struck by the faithfulness of parish priests in London and other bombed cities who in hourly and momentary danger of their own lives, continued to minister to their peoples, going in and out amongst them in the midst of the bombs to minister their faith and courage as well as to their deeper spiritual needs. If the preservation of Cathedrals was a witness to the triumph of God's Providence, the faithfulness of the Parish Priests was a witness to the triumph of Grace.
The situation and outlook today in England is both spiritually and materially one that give us much heart-burning. Materially the people of England would seem to be worse off than they were in the days of war in the matter of food and the supply of ordinary needs, and they have, as we heard with great sympathy been confronted in the early months of this year with new trials brought to them through an unusually severe and prolonged Winter with Arctic conditions, causing a break-down in fuel supply and in the wheels of industry, thus imposing a great economic strain upon an economic system already stretched almost to breaking point. These trials followed one of the worst harvests last year on record and were themselves followed by unprecedented floods in the vital time of sowing this present year's harvests.
It seems hard that people who bore such strain in the years of war, and bore it so valiantly and so determinedly should, when a natural reaction and feeling of exhaustion had come over them, be faced with these new trials, calling for almost as much endurance as the years of war. We can only feel thankful that some at least of the present strain is due to an unselfish willingness to go without so that others less fortunate in famine stricken Europe might have a little more. Such a spirit and such a self sacrifice must in the end redound to the honour of those who have made it and increase their moral influence upon the world as a whole.
 In the sphere of International Politics England has had in these post-war years to suffer many rebuffs. From being the richest nation in the world she has become, through her readiness to give herself unsparingly in the cause of freedom, almost the poorest nation and her role as a creditor nation has now become that of a debtor nation. Materially it would seem that her sun has sunk far down on the western sky, but with all her faults and all her past errors, led as she has been in these critical years by a beloved Sovereign and his gracious Lady, who have been examples to the world of unselfish devotion to duty and whole-hearted dedication to the service of their people, and who have never failed to give witness to their own firm faith in God, a deeply spiritual belief in prayer and in a Christian home as bulwark of civilization and to urge their people to a true realization of spiritual values in life, she has in all matters of policy seemed in these critical years to have stood for right principles. One cannot therefor but believe that the sun that seems setting will rise again with the beauty of a new dawn and that England is yet destined to lead the world, if not longer in natural wealth, perhaps in the future in moral and spiritual righteousness.
Alas however there come to us reports of a falling off in religion, of an apathy about spiritual things, not peculiar to England but to be found in Australia and in other lands also and the revival of religion which was anticipated to follow the war has shown no signs yet of appearing. Distressing and alarming as it is to hear things in a day when it would have been thought that people had learnt their lesson and seen in the naked tragedies of war the need for God. Yet history shows that Religious Revivals that follow wars are often unstable and that sometimes such have been revivals of the baser elements in religion and not of truth--a fanning of sentiment and superstition and not a building up of faith. The world would seem to need a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit, or a revival in our midst of His life-giving power or perhaps it would be more correct to say a revival in the hearts of men of their willingness to respond to His presence and life-giving power which is already in the world in and through His Church. A period of waiting for the signs of such a revival [16/17] may be necessary so that when it comes it may be able to take permanent root in the hearts of men and of nations and to be a growth that is stable an sound and one that is in accordance with His Divine Will.
Since our last Conference the church in Japan "has been lost and found again." It seemed in the days immediately preceding the Japanese war that native leaders of the Nippon Sei Ko Kwai (that is of the Japanese Holy Catholic Church), were yielding to the pressure of the State and thereby compromising the true nature of the life of the Church when they all with one consent dissociated themselves from the European influence even to the extent of asking their European Bishops to resign, and when some at least were prepared to identify themselves with the State Church that was to embrace all non-Roman Denominations. When the war came in the Pacific the curtain fell on the scene and it was feared that the Church in Japan had gone out into darkness. The lifting again of the curtain however, has shown that the picture was not as black was had been feared. I have not the facts before me but it seems that whilst some of the Japanese bishops yielded to the State, others remained firm even though they suffered persecution and imprisonment, thereby witnessing to the true nature of the Church. And those who had so yielded have since repented and the Church as a whole has renewed its fellowship with the Anglican Communion in the rest of the world. We can only lift up our hearts with thankfulness that we have been given this new strength to our faith in that the light was not allowed to be extinguished, even when the powers of darkness must have seemed everywhere triumphant.
The Church in China has suffered grievously but from all accounts the cause of Christ has been greatly commended to the millions of China by the sufferings and faithful witness of Christians. China, however, is still a torn and suffering country.
 India stands on the threshold of a new chapter in its history. It would seem that England can only in honour do what she is doing after the pledges that have been given, though it does seem like committing India to civil war, anarchy, and chaos. It may be, and please God it will be, a different story and a rising up on the foundation that has been laid during the long years of British rule of a new nation which will make its contribution to the life of the world. But what this change is going to mean to the Church of India none at present can foresee. It can hardly, however, be anything than a severe testing time for those who represent the cause of Christ and His Church. It may even be that a time of persecution and obstruction lies ahead, but as it was in Japan, so it is in India, the light is burning and it cannot be extinguished, for the Church of Christ is that which is built upon a foundation "against which the gates of hell cannot prevail."
My short time in England in 1944 was almost wholly spent in the service of the New Guinea Mission, with constant traveling in most difficult circumstances, preaching and addressing meetings. I found everywhere a wonderful eagerness to hear the story of the Papuan Church; of what Christ has done in this land and of the witness that has been given to Him both by missionary martyrs and by Papuan Christians in the fires of war. The response was wonderful and in that brief campaign a sum of£2,000 was given for the Mission.
Fr. Bodger also during that year was engaged in extensive deputation work in the United States of America and in England.
One reason which made my journey to England at that time advisable and urgent was the need for the reorganization of our English Association. Miss Stocqueler who for so many years had acted as Secretary felt that she had become too old to carry on [18/19] the work any longer. She had been a devoted friend and worker for the New Guinea Mission for many years. We cannot feel too grateful to her for all she had done for the Cause. The time seemed to have come for us to have a full time Secretary at work in England who could seize the opportunities of the new interest in New Guinea created by the war and increase the measure of the support which is given to us, and so it came about that I asked Mr. A. J. Batchelor if he would go to England for three years to act as our Secretary. It was to Fr. Thomas that I owed the inspiration of that suggestion. The Victorian Committee of the Australian Board of Missions unselfishly consented to give Mr. Batchelor leave of absence. To them we owe a debt of gratitude as well as to him. Mr. Batchelor arrived in England early in 1945, worked unsparingly for the New Guinea Mission, doing great things for us and meeting with a great response. Unfortunately his health broke down and the doctors would not allow him to remain in England so that he was only able to fulfill half the period of three years. What he accomplished in that short time was truly amazing. Not only did he extend widely the sphere of interest and support but he put our Association on a sound basis and was able to leave behind him an efficient organization. The Doctor's ultimatum seemed a terrible blow to our hopes but God was good to us in leading us to find a first class successor to Mr. Batchelor in the Rev. Arthur Bell. Fr. Bell was Assistant Chaplain General to the Australian forces in New Guinea during the war. I myself was brought into close contact with him during that time and appreciated deeply the loyal and faithful service that he rendered to the Church at a time when misunderstanding between Mission and the Military Authorities so easily arose and when those committed to the missionary cause were in singularly helpless position if the powers that be should be against them. Fr. Bell accompanied me on my first journey to the war-stricken area after the Japanese had been driven out and you will remember that he was the author of the pamphlet "Amongst the Ruins" which described that journey. He also visited Dogura. I can bear testimony to the fact that Fr. Bell was deeply stirred in [19/20] his own heart by the witness of the Church in New Guinea through suffering and by the work that had been done, the fruits of which he saw over and over again in Papuan Christians. He felt that my invitation to him to go to England as our Secretary was a call to further the missionary cause and he regards his present work as a vocation. I have had many testimonies to the value of his work in England and we cannot feel too thankful that our need has been so wonderfully provided and I hope that all of us will give Fr. Bell a regular place in our prayers as a fellow worker with us, and that we will also remember in our prayers Mr. Batchelor who has now returned to his work for the A. B. M. in Victoria to do as much as his health with [will] permit. His keenness to help New Guinea is unflagging. The contributions that have come to us from England have been greatly increased. That is partly due to the accumulation during the war years when it was impossible to send money out of England but it is also due to the work of our two Secretaries Mr. Batchelor and Fr. Bell. It has been a great blessing to us to have had these increased contributions at a time such as this of financial stress. Whether the economic situation in England will enable the contributions to continue at their increased level is something which only time can tell.
And so we come to the Church in Australia. We have already mentioned that there have been many changes in its leadership. The Archbishop of Sydney is the only one left of the Metropolitans who was reigning in 1941. It was at the end of that year that Archbishop Frederick Head of Melbourne was so suddenly called to his rest in the midst of his work. He was a man greatly beloved, a wise leader, a true Father in God, a humble and devout follower of our Lord and a Christian gentleman. He was succeeded by his own Suffragan, Bishop Booth of Geelong.
When in 1943 the then Archbishop of Brisbane, Dr. Wand was translated to England to the See of Bath and Wells the [20/21] Australian Church lost perhaps one of the greatest men it has yet numbered in its ranks. Not only a great scholar and intellectual leader, not only a man of great and outstanding ability but a spiritual leader and a real pastor. I personally felt the departure of Archbishop Wand most acutely. He had been a wonderful friend to me from the day of my arrival in Brisbane in January of 1937, and I profited greatly from his wisdom, his wise understanding of our problems, his sympathy and understanding. Not only did I deeply value my relationship with him as my Metropolitan but I felt that the New Guinea Mission and the Diocese of New Guinea had in him on the Board of Missions a firm friend and an unfailing supporter. He had a great love for the missionary work of his province in New Guinea even before he paid his memorable visit to us at the time of the Consecration of our Cathedral. That visit was a wonderful joy to me and to all, to white and brown alike and it greatly enhanced his own love and understanding of the New Guinea Church. It seemed that in the beautiful setting of Wells he would be able to give to the Church as a whole further written contributions of learning but he was not long permitted to stay there. Within a very short time he was called to succeed Dr. Fisher in the arduous and important office of Bishop of London and it is with perhaps legitimate pride that we today remember that the consecrator of our Cathedral is now the successor of St. Mellitus.
It is with great satisfaction that we have been able to have in his place as Metropolitan, Archbishop Halse who some yeas ago when Bishop of Riverina visited this diocese, and who has always been a keen friend of the New Guinea Mission. At the time of his election and Enthronement I offered to him on behalf of the Church in New Guinea our affectionate greetings and felicitations as well as our respect and our loyalty to him as our new Metropolitan.
You will be glad to know that the Archbishop of Canterbury has recently conferred upon our Metropolitan the Honorary degree of a Lambeth D.D. It is interesting to note in this connection the history of a D.D. gown. Bishop Newton will not I am sure mind me divulging that at the time of his own receiving of this honour the [21/22] D.D. gown that had belonged to Archbishop Webber was given to him. On his own retirement as Diocesan Bishop, feeling that he would not need it again he generously give it to Archbishop Le Fanu, who had recently received that honour at the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury. On Archbishop Le Fanu's death last year Archbishop Webber's gown was returned to the Brisbane Diocese and after being without a wearer for a few months it is now once again to adorn the shoulders and back of the Metropolitan of Queensland.
Last year there passed from us at a ripe old age the Most Reverend Henry Le Fanu, Archbishop of Perth, Metropolitan of Western Australia and Primate of the Australian Church. The greater part of his life had been devoted to the service of the Australian Church and he had held the high office of Primate for 11 years and although but five years off from the four score years which the Psalmist says "Bring but labour and sorrow" he was able with some vigour to lead the Australian Church to the end. His wise, courageous and trenchant leadership will be greatly missed. There were many who had hoped that he might have continued longer yet for he seemed to have brought about during his tenure of the Primacy a new and closer relationship and fellowship between the Bishops. Those who knew him best testify to his being a real man of God, a loyal and understanding friend and a wise and loving director of souls. And with it all his own life was marked with devotion and humility. I remember my first meeting with him was at Fremantle on December 29th 1936 when the "Mongolia" in which I was travelling from England put in at its first Australian port. Knowing that the Primate of Australia was coming on board to greet me I naturally donned my episcopal clothes. When he arrived he was himself clothed in a tropical suit and I received a firm and kindly order from my Ecclesiastical Superior to divest myself of what I was wearing and to put on something more in keeping with his own garb. In all my dealings with him I found him a kindly and sympathetic friend [22/23] and a wise councillor. His sharp wit and sometimes abrupt manner only thinly covered a really very gentle and tender heart. Apart from his leadership as Primate perhaps one of the great contributions he made to the life of the Australian church was his fostering of Religious Communities. The Society of the Sacred Advent owed much to him at its inception and to his guidance in the years that followed and other communities were also greatly helped by him. He understood the ideal of the Religious life and what it should mean to the life of the Australian Church. The news of his death reached me last year when I was visiting Eroro and as at that particular time the funeral service was to be broadcast and Fr. Newman had a wireless set and it was working, I shall not forget the moving experience of being able to take part in Eroro Church together with a congregation of Eroro Christians in the funeral service in Perth of the leader of the Australian Church. He has been succeeded in the see by the Most Reverend R. H. Moline who was consecrated in Westminster Abbey on St. Mark's Day. Soon after his Enthronement has taken place at Perth the Bishops of the Australian Church will be summoned to elect a Primate and in the doing of this they will need to have behind them the prayers of the whole Australian Church.
Other Sees that have changed their occupants since our last Conference are those of Tasmania where the Right Reverend Geoffrey Cranswick has taken the place of our old and beloved friend Bishop Hay, now at rest.
Wangaratta where Bishop Hart has been succeeded by Bishop Armour who, as Brother Tom of the Brotherhood of the Good Shepherd, visited this Diocese some years ago. Gippsland where Bishop Cranswick has been succeeded by Bishop Blackwood; Riverina where Bishop Murray has taken the place of our present Metropolitan; Grafton where Bishop Storrs has succeeded Bishop [23/24] Stephenson who died in 1945, and who as a former principal of St. Francis' College Nundah had had a hand in the training of some of the present clergy on our staff; Rockhampton where Bishop Ash recently resigned his See to become Commissioner of the A. B. M. Centenary War Memorial Appeal, and for which See there is yet no successor. Last year there was consecrated John McKie as Bishop of Geelong and Coadjutor Bishop of Melbourne. He for a time was in New Guinea during the war as Assistant Chaplain General and helped us not a little by his sympathy and interest in the Claims of the Mission and of the Church of the Diocese in which he was serving for the time being.
There have been changes also in the missionary leadership of the church. At our last conference Canon Needham was drawing to the close of his long period as Chairman of the Australian Board of Missions. His resignation followed shortly afterwards and there were many tributes paid to his long and devoted service to the missionary cause. His death followed soon after he had laid down his office. He was succeeded by Dr. G. H. Cranswick who resigned his See of Gippsland to lead the Australian Church in its Missionary endeavour. Bishop Cranswick came to his office in the middle of 1942, when we here in New Guinea were passing through the dark hours of trial; in those early months of his Chairmanship I was much comforted by the assurance of his sympathy and by his representation of our needs in Australia. Last year he was able to visit us here in New Guinea and to see all our main mission stations and one or two of our out stations. Unfortunately the latter part of his visit was marred by a serous illness but we were thankful that he was able to make a good recovery and to have as we hope no permanent ill effects from it.
There have also been changes in the State Representatives of the Australian Board of Missions. The Office of Home Secretary held by Archdeacon North Ash has been created during Bishop [24/25] Cranwick's Chairmanship. The Rev. Arthur Flint, after many years of devoted service in Queensland has been succeeded by the Rev. Ian Shevill. Miss Hausmann after many years of devoted work in the Brisbane Office for which our missionaries have had many causes for gratitude is now entering upon a well earned rest and retirement. The Rev. Franklin Cooper has succeeded our dear friend the Rev. W. G. Thomas who we are so delighted to have amongst us at this gathering. And we cannot pass on without remembering the passing of the Rev. Maurice Jones who was Victorian Secretary of the A.B.M. for so many years, and who after he resigned to become Vicar of Christ Church Brunswick, was Chairman of the Victorian Committee, and who visited us here in 1937, and was one who rendered great service to the missionary cause in Australia. It was he who brought me the news as I was about to celebrate the Holy Communion of the death of Archbishop Temple. Little did I think that in less than six weeks time my kindly host would himself have passed into the Church at rest.
We cannot pass without recording a debt of gratitude to the aged Canon Best who valiantly held the fort in South Australia throughout the years of the war and refused to surrender to Anno Domini. It may interest you to know that that very kindly and devoted servant of God in all sincerity offered himself to me in 1943 to be used up here in any way I thought he could be useful for the few years only that in the nature of things remain to him.
Time prevents me mentioning other changes that have taken place amongst the workers of A. B. M. but to all of them we would express our gratitude for their devoted labours, our sense of fellowship with them and our assurance of our prayers for God's blessing upon their endeavours.
The missionary cause has recently suffered a further loss in the resignation of the Bishop of Melanesia and his departure to England as Suffragan Bishop of Whitby. Bishop Baddeley's vigorous leadership in the Pacific and his ardent advocacy of the missionary cause has been an inspiration to the whole Church in this [25/26] part of the world and he will be greatly missed. You will remember that everything had been arranged for him to visit us here in the "Southern Cross" together with some of his clergy and members of the Brotherhood at the time of the Consecration of our Cathedral and it was a great disappointment when I received a radio saying "Shortage of fuel and Hitler prevent visit." We must pray that the Diocese of Melanesia may not long be left without a leader and that those responsible for choosing a new Bishop may be rightly guided by God's Holy Spirit.
In the last few years I have been called upon to attend quite a number of important Conferences. Amongst them have been the Conference that was held in Sydney in May of 1945 of Pacific Bishops with members of the Australian Board of Missions and of the New Zealand Anglican Board of Missions. That Conference was memorable amongst other things for the fact that it was the first time that the then holders of the three missionary sees of Polynesia, Melanesia, and New Guinea had been able all three to meet together at one time. At the Conference also was the Primate of New Zealand, the Archbishop of Sydney, The Chairman of the Australian Board of Missions and other representatives from Australia.
There was a meeting of the General Synod of the Australian Church in September of 1945. Provincial Synod of Queensland in October of last year and the Honolulu Conference of Pacific Bishops in January of this year. Besides these conferences there have been various meetings of the Australian Bishops that I have attended and meetings of the Board of Missions. There have also been two Conferences held at Port Moresby between representatives of the Government and different Missionary bodies at work in the Territory, one in October of last year and one in May of this year. The subjects dealt with at these Conferences and meetings have been matters of great importance to the life and work of the Church in the Pacific [26/27] and I think you would be interested to know about them and you have a right to be informed.
The main subjects dealt with at the Conferences may be perhaps classified under the following headings. Missionary Strategy, Extension, Education, Medicine and problems of Government. Time will not permit me to say much on these subjects but some of the aspects dealt with are matters that I would wish to set before you. First, however, I desire to speak about the meeting of the General Synod of the Australian Chruch held in September 1945. General Synod is supposed to meet every five years. Its last meeting had been in 1937. The meeting which should have taken place in 1942 was postponed on account of the war situation. Besides myself as the representative in the House of Bishops, our two Clerical representatives were Archdeacon Thompson and Bishop Cranswick to whom I had given a License with permission to officiate which enabled him to sit as our representative in the House of Clergy. Our lay representatives who need not be resident in the Diocese were Mr. Henry Eckhoff of Lae and Captain Pike of Brisbane.
It cannot be said that attendance at General Synod was an exhilarating experience. The Synod meetings revealed more then ever the deep divisions that exist in the Australian Church, and the deep rooted suspicious of one school of thought for another, as well as the existence of a spirit of intolerance and persecuting zeal. The bitterness and blind prejudice that was revealed in the early part of Synod could only be regarded as tragic. Fortunately it was kept in check by the skilled handling of the Primate, and before Synod closed not only had there been some positive achievements but a better and more friendly spirit seemed to be covering the festering sores and the Te Deum which closed General Synod was not therefore as wholly incongruous as it might otherwise have been.
The hopes of finalising the question of a Constitution for the Australian Church were once again frustrated through this lack of unity and spirit of suspicion and the question has been again postponed for further consideration by the Dioceses. Thus the Australian [27/28] Church, unlike most of the other main branches of the Anglican Communion still remains without a Constitution. The position is as our Metropolitan, Archbishop Halse put it in his address last year to the Provincial Synod when he said, "At the present moment it is almost true to say that the Church of England in Australia and Tasmania has no separate Constitution, but is made up of 25 legally constituted dioceses which have no freedom to legislate on any fundamental matter and only sparingly allow General Synod as an Advisory Body to make proposals on practical matters for their acceptance or rejection. Up to a point this may be said to have met our needs but we are in the ignominious position of finding ourselves (to quote a deceased Primate) not only tied to the apron strings of our Mother Church of England but of realising that she has very largely discarded the apron to which we are bound."
The question of a Constitution will come up on our Agenda and so I do not propose to say much about it now. It is complicated and a controversial question and the various stages in connection with it are very involved for those who have not been able to give it a prolonged study. In my Conference Address in 1939 I gave a survey of the position up to that time of the reasons which had prompted this Diocese originally to express its unwillingness to accept the Constitution, and of the reasons which prompted it at a later stage to express its willingness to accept it as then amended and of how in the end the amended Constitution presented to the General Synod of 1937 failed to gain general acceptance largely because it was rejected by the Metropolitical Diocese of Sydney and the terms of the Constitution require that the consent of the four Metropolitical Sees is essential.
The General Synod of 1937 appointed another Constitution Committee to try to redraft the proposed Constitution in such a way that it would meet with general approval. The main cause of [28/29] dissension had been the composition and terms of authority of the Appellate Tribunal appointed to hear and try disciplinary cases, some of which might be concerned with matters of faith and doctrine. The proposed Tribunal in the 1932 Draft Constitution would have been predominantly lay in its constitution thus taking out of the hands of the bishops who from the first have been regarded both by virtue of their consecration and authority as the natural guardians and interpreters of the faith and doctrine of the Church the decision as to what is or is not a true interpretation of the faith with all its many implications. This obviously would be unacceptable to Dioceses such as this and the 1932 proposed Constitution was rejected by Brisbane one of the four Metropolitical Dioceses. The 1937 amended draft provided that in the event of disagreement between the House of Bishops and the Tribunal in matters as brought before the Tribunal affecting faith and doctrine, the Tribunal should then be restrained from pronouncing judgement and the matter be allowed to drop. Though this amendment could not have been said to be wholly satisfactory it did at lest protect the Church from a decision made by predominantly lay Tribunal which might undermine the true faith. Consequently the Dioceses that had previously objected were now able to consent but unfortunately the amendment alienated the Diocese of Sydney which then not merely desired to return to the 1932 Constitution but to go beyond it in a protestant direction on the lines of eight Resolutions which I outlined in my 1939 address. The Committee appointed in 1937 to redraft the Constitution proposed an ingenious compromise that the whole of the sections relating to the Appellate Tribunal should be left out and that Dioceses should form their own Appellate Tribunals and the question of an Appellate Tribunal of the Australian Church would be evolved at a later stage. There seemed to be good hope that [that] might well have brought about unity and general acceptance of the Constitution. However, before the General Synod of 1945 had met it had been rejected by the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney and was thus doomed to failure. It seemed that a deadlock had been reached and that no way out of the difficulty now remained [29/30] of a united Constitution for the whole Australian Church. The alternative would have been separate action by Provinces. That it itself would not be a bad thing, but it would destroy the hope of one great united Australian Church, and the ideal of a National Church which has been realised in England, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand. It would not even be certain that unity in Provinces would be possible. In the case of one Province there would be a danger of division which might even lead down the slippery road of schism. However any such possibility was averted at the General Synod for the time being by the acceptance of a compromise proposal that there should be a return to the 1932 Draft and that the Dioceses should be asked to consider accepting that.
The Constitution as proposed is far from satisfying, and it has in it much that is disquieting, and the return to the 1932 Draft is even more disquieting to those who formerly rejected it, but on the other hand the need for unity for the Australian Church today is very great. I think that the general feeling is that at this stage every effort should be made to reach unanimity on the question of the Constitution and to believe that through the power of the Holy Spirit much within it which would seem to be hard and rigid to the extent of fettering the movements of the Spirit and that also which would seem to be contrary to Catholic principles will in time be rectified.
The Church owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to Dr. de Witt Batty, the Bishop of Newcastle, for all his efforts to bring the Australian Church to realise itself as a united and corporate body. I caused to be circulated amongst you the series of Open Letters by the Bishop of Newcastle that were published in the "Church Standard" on this question and printed afterwards in pamphlet form, which in simple and attractive form, gave the case for acceptance of the proposed Constitution at this time.
There were three Determinations before General Synod bearing directly on the missionary work of the Church.
One was a Determination to form a Missionary Council of the Church in Australia with equal representation of C.M.S. and [30/31] A.B.M. to deal with matters of missionary strategy and policy and the allocation of fields of missionary service. It was not intended that this Missionary Council should have any executive authority over existing work being done either by the Australian Board of Missions of by the Church Missionary Society, but that it should be more in the nature of a consultative or reference committee. There was good deal of searching of heart over the proposal, for it might be said that the Australian Board of Missions had been the Authoritative Body of the church on its missionary side and that the Missionary Council would supplant it in that and that the Board of Missions would become more in the nature of a Society. Those who have striven for this step and advocate it deny that this would be so and maintain that the Australian Board of Missions would continue to be what it has always been and that the new position would also bring to an end a certain amount of unreality that had existed through the participation of C.M.S representatives in the meetings and proceedings of the Board of Missions. However the matter may work out, the passing of this Determination was looked upon as a step towards unity.
It involved also another Determination amending the Constitution of the Australian Board of Missions. This was necessary on account of the former Determination because the relationship of the Board to the Council needed to be defined and also the Board would no longer have upon it C.M.S. representatives. These Determinations having been passed by General Synod now have to receive the assent of the Dioceses before they can have constitutional effect.
In this Province all Determinations except matters relating to the Constitution of the Church are accepted or rejected on behalf of the Dioceses of the Province by the Provincial Synod, and these particular Determinations were accepted by the Provincial Synod which met in Brisbane last October.
The Determination before General Synod which most closely affected the life of the Church in this Diocese was a Determination [31/32] to provide for changing the name of the Diocese of British New Guinea, for extending the boundaries of such Diocese and of the Province of Queensland and for other purposes.
This Determination brought to a climax the matter of the transfer of the Mainland portions of the Mandated Territory of New Guinea to this Diocese. The Determination was passed without question by the General Synod and there seems no reason to think that it will not receive the consent of the different Diocesan Synod[s]. It has already been assented to by the Provincial Synod for all the Dioceses of this Province.
The protracted stages in connection with this transfer were dealt with in my Conference Address of 1938 and 1939. As some of you were not present then and as the matter has now reached a finality, and as a new development recently may open up the question again, I propose to give you a summary of the steps that have led to this extension of the bounds of the Diocese.
The question as to what ecclesiastical jurisdiction the Mandated Territory of New Guinea should be brought under arose of course after the first world war when the former German Territory of New Guinea comprising not only a part of the Island of New Guinea but the islands also of the Bismark [sic] Archipelago were handed over to Australia by the League of Nations to be governed by her under the Mandate. Under German rule the main missionary work had been undertaken by Lutherans and Roman Catholics but they had not by any means covered the whole ground. There were known to be large untouched areas with considerable populations but apart from these the Australian Church then obviously had a responsibility for a country which as a nation she had to govern especially as under Australian rule there was an influx of a certain number of Anglicans into the Territory. The Alternatives before [32/33] the Church in Australia at that time were:--(1) to leave the Mandated Territory without any ministrations, or as an isolated part of the Church in no particular Diocese, or (2) To create a new Diocese of the Australian Church or (3) To attach it to the nearest, the Diocese of New Guinea, or failing that to the next nearest Diocese, the Diocese of Melanesia. The Church could not contemplate the first of the three options without shame. The second at that time proved impossible because of the need of endowment and lack of funds, though for a short time the then Bishop of New Guinea Dr. Sharpe accepted some responsibility for ministrations in the Mandated Territory, but his successor did not feel that the Diocese, which at that time was in stringent financial circumstances, could add to its responsibilities or attempt any permanent charge. So it came about that the last course had to be adopted and the Mandated Territory became part of the Diocese of Melanesia already one of the largest Diocese in the world, and incidentally not part of the Australian Church, but within the Province of New Zealand. An Assistant Bishop of Melanesia was appointed to assist in the supervision of the extended and enlarged Diocese. A Chaplain was appointed for Europeans in Rabaul and also at Wau on the mainland for the gold fields of Morobe. Native work was initiated at two or three centres on the Island of New Britain. The arrangement however did not prove satisfactory from several points of view and it was apparently only regarded by the Diocese of Melanesia as a temporary expedient. The Bishop of Melanesia made various representations to the Primate of Australia and the New Zealand Church to have it altered, as he found, not unnaturally that the Diocese of Melanesia was unwieldy and that it was impossible for him to administer it adequately. This he felt even with an Assistant Bishop and soon he was left without an Assistant Bishop when he felt it much more acutely. He claimed that it would have been too large even with one or two assistant bishops and in that claim he was supported by the Church Authorities in England, and Australia and New Zealand. The problem was presented to me immediately after my consecration in 1936 and [33/34] before I reached New Guinea both by authorities in England and Australia and it was one that called for consideration and solution. To most people it was obvious that it would be far more natural for this Territory to be part of the Diocese of New Guinea than of Melanesia. There was a revival of the proposal for a new Diocese but at that time the Bishop of Melanesia opposed it because he did not feel that the Mandated Territory with its two distinct areas of the Islands and the Mainland, which at that time were very much separated and without the quicker means of communication that air transport has brought, was sufficiently a unit to form a Diocese. The proposal then was made that the Mandated Territory should be split up and that this Diocese should take over responsibility for the mainland portion of it and leave New Britain with Rabaul and the Islands of the Bismark Archipelago, by far the larger part of the Mandated Territory in the Diocese of Melanesia. The General Synod of the Church in New Zealand passed a resolution requesting the Australian Church to assume responsibility for the mainland portion of the Mandated Territory. The Bishop of Melanesia found it quite impossible to visit there more than very very occasionally and the Chaplaincy at Wau therefore received little or no episcopal oversight. The proposal seemed a reasonable one and a right solution to the problem and it was felt to be so by all the authorities concerned. Though I was willing to accept it I did not feel I could do so unconditionally. The only work which was being done by the Anglican Church at that time on the mainland of the Mandated Territory was at Wau, in the nature of a European Chaplaincy[.] I felt that it was right that I should take over the oversight of this work, but made it clear that I could not embark upon native work unless I felt that we were first of all adequately covering the ground in Papua and that we had a guarantee of sufficient income to do that work in the Mandated Territory without drawing upon existing funds for our work in Papua. At the same time I felt that if the Church decided to add this Territory to the Diocese of New Guinea it must be looked upon as a trust from God and it would be our responsibility to do whatever was within our power to extend [34/35] God's Kingdom in that land, and it would be the Church's responsibility in the Homeland to try to provide necessary resources for this. The proposed transfer came before the Provincial Synod of Queensland in 1938. The Provincial Synod was in favour of the extension of the bounds of the Diocese of New Guinea and Province of Queensland to embrace the mainland portion of the Territory of New Guinea but as this would also mean extending the bounds of the Australian Church it felt that before constitutional effect could be given it would be necessary for a Determination to be passed by General Synod. This resolution that the Provincial Synod passed giving approval to the transfer and to the carrying on of the working arrangement entered into between the Bishop of Melanesia and New Guinea and the resolve to present such a Determination to General Synod in due course was given in my Conference address of 1939. The matter came up for further review under the heading of Missionary Strategy and Diocesan boundaries at the conference of Pacific Bishops in Sydney in 1945, and was approved by that body. Finally it came before General Synod and was passed, as I, have already mentioned.
You will have noticed that the title of the Determination mentioned also the changing of the name of the Diocese of British New Guinea. We had discovered that legally this Diocese was the Diocese of British New Guinea. Such it was called when it was founded for at that time the Territory was known of course as British New Guinea. This title became an anomaly when Australia became a Commonwealth, with a Federal Government of its own, and when as such took over from Great Britain the responsibility for the administration of this Territory. When it did so, it changed the name of the Territory from British New Guinea to Papua, though the whole island still remained known geographically as New Guinea or Papua. No change was made in the designation of the Diocese and in all printed Determinations of General Synod when the Diocese was spoken of as such it was called the "Diocese of British New Guinea" though by a strange anomaly when the Bishop or See was referred to it was as "The Bishop or See of New Guinea." [35/36] The position became even more complicated after the last war when Australia took over the responsibility for the government also of the Mandated Territory, and followed this up by calling the Mandated Territory, "New Guinea," and this Territory "Papua." The confusion became even more confounded when the part called "New Guinea" became ecclesiastically part of the Diocese of Melanesia. The position then at that time was that the diocese was the Diocese of British New Guinea; British New Guinea had ceased to exist, and the Territory comprising the Diocese was outside New Guinea in a country called Papua. I was the Bishop of New Guinea but I had no jurisdiction in New Guinea--my jurisdiction lay in Papua. We were the New Guinea Anglican Mission but we were not working in New Guinea but in Papua. We could defend the title by saying that the whole island was called geographically New Guinea, but in answer to that it could have been said that the Diocese did not cover the whole island. It only covered one third of it, which unlike the other two portions had officially dissociated itself from the title of New Guinea.
The proposal was at one time made that we should be called the Diocese of Papua, but there were legal and other objections to this. New developments occurred in this interesting and rather absurd situation when the war came to the country and the Military Authorities with one swoop of the pen decide to amalgamate the two territories, to drop the title Papua, and to call the whole of the two territories Australian New Guinea. That, though somewhat clumsy did at least seem to be a reasonable solution. However, when Military Administration ceased and Provisional Civil Administration took over, the title "Australian New Guinea" was changed and the official title of the combined territory became "Papua-New Guinea." One result, though admittedly only a very unimportant one of the passing of the Determination of the General Synod for the extension of the boundaries of this Diocese has now given us an undisputed right to the title "New Guinea" whatever designation may be put before it, and it has also swept away the legal archaic misnomer [36/37] of "British New Guinea." Though, in passing, I would note that misnomers die hard and I still receive documents from some Church Authorities under the title of the Diocese of British New Guinea, but in due course I have no doubt though it dies hard, it will have a decent burial, even though a slow one.
The passing of this Determination really doubles the size of this diocese territorially and it throws a twofold responsibility upon the Church. One, for the supplying of spiritual ministration to members of our own communion residing within the bounds of this new part of the diocese, and also the proclaiming of the Gospel to the heathen. Hitherto we have only been able to fulfill the first obligation and that in only one particular area. Before the war Padre Sherwin was the priest in charge of Wau and he provided ministrations in the neighbouring townships of Bulolo, Salamaua, and Lae and Edie Creek, as well as to isolated gold mining communities. Unfortunately our Church and Parsonage at Wau were totally destroyed. Padre Sherwin's health after his exhausting war experiences made it impossible for him to return to us and he has been granted a prolonged and indefinite leave of absence. He is now working in the Adelaide Diocese. In my judgement the right centre for the establishment of a priest and church for that district in the future would now seem to be at Lae.
At the moment we have no priest at all in the Mandated Territory and members of our Church at Lae and in other parts are only able to receive the sacraments when I or one of the members of our staff are able to visit there. Our efforts to obtain a priest from Australia for this work have so far failed.
Then there is the second obligation about which up to the present we have been totally unable to do anything. It is a reflection on the Church that this should have been so. When this territory was technically under the Bishop of Melanesia he made an appeal for a large sum of money to enable pioneer missionary work to be done amongst the new tribes as they were then called of the Mount Hagen area. Unfortunately the response to his appeal was so small that he was unable to go forward. Meanwhile the Seventh Day [37/38] Adventists stepped into the area where he had been planning that the cross should be set up and the true faith proclaimed. Those highland areas of New Guinea have come very much to the fore in the war and in the time that has elapsed since its end. There are vast populations in those highland areas and great opportunities for missionary enterprise. As a Diocese we can do nothing until we have the staff and resources specially provided for this work. The responsibility would seem to lie upon the home Church go meet this challenge. Alas, it would seem as it has so often been in the past, that the Anglican Church is likely to lag behind in this as she has so often done in other things, and other Bodies and not all of them Christian Bodies, will step in and it will be too late. The responsibility upon the Church would seem to be a solemn one in the sight of God and it will be a serious thing if the Church fails to rise to it.
The recent Conference at Port Moresby revealed to us that the Administration has been hard at work in those highland areas and has done much in the way of opening them out and organising the natives, and that it is also keen for the various tribes to have the uplift which missionaries can bring to them, and I know that the Administration would be glad to see the Anglican Church enter into the sphere. The Administrator last year expressed to me the earnest hope that we would do so at the earliest possible moment and at once there came to my mind the thought of Sir William McGregor's approach to the Anglican Church nearly sixty years ago and his urgent request that the Church of England in Australia would open out missionary work on this north eastern coast, and also of the slowness of the Church to respond to that request and how Sir William McGregor nearly turned from the Church of England to some other missionary body. On that occasion the Church only just managed to avoid forfeiting its opportunity. It would be tragic if it should forfeit it altogether in the new opportunity that is opening out to this generation.
With the realization of the difficulties that the Australian Church is finding in regard to manpower and finance to meet all the [38/39] opportunities that are confronting it today I made a suggestion at the recent Conference of Pacific Bishops at Honolulu that perhaps the American Episcopal Church might feel able to undertake this missionary work in the highlands area of New Guinea as a memorial to the men of the United States who laid down their lives in New Guinea during the war. The representative of the Presiding Bishop at the Conference promised to pass on to him my request and it was followed by a letter from myself and from the Chairman of the Australian Board of Missions. The Administrator of this Territory had already intimated how greatly he would welcome the establishment of a mission of the American Episcopal Church in the Mount Hagen area. We have eagerly awaited the reply, but alas, the Presiding Bishop has now intimated that they do not feel that they can at present add to their existing responsibilities, and so the responsibility is now thrown back again on the Australian Church.
In regard to this a new development has recently taken place over the question of missionary work in New Britain. Bishop Baddeley, shortly before he laid down his charge as Bishop of Melanesia challenged the Board of Missions to make New Britain the sole responsibility of the Australian Church and to begin by creating there a new Diocese. It will be remembered that formerly the Bishop of Melanesia had been against the idea of a new diocese and had felt that New Britain and the Bismark Archipelago was a natural extension of the work of the Diocese of Melanesia. It seems that in the light of experience latterly he changed his view and found that it was impossible for him to administer adequately so large an area, and that in the light of political developments by which New Britain and the other neighbouring islands are to depend more and more in the future upon Australia and to be [so] closely associated with the Solomon Islands he has felt that the Australian Church should become wholly responsible. Whether the Board will feel able to accept his challenge or not is not for me to say. My own view now that the matter is thrown open once again for review is that if a new diocese is to be formed it should be a Diocese which comprises the whole of the Mandated Territory, not only the islands but the [39/40] mainland portion also. These today are much more closely linked by communications than they were at the time when the Bishop of Melanesia felt that they were not sufficiently a unit to form a Diocese. I do not think it is likely that the creation of a diocese can come about immediately. My own view is that preliminary steps are for the Provincial Synod of the Church in New Zealand to cede to the Church in Australia the island portion of the Mandated Territory--for this to become part of the Diocese of New Guinea, the Province of Queensland and the Australian Church. For an Assistant Bishop to be appointed whose chief responsibility will be the provision of ministrations for Europeans, the supervision of existing missionary work in New Britain and any other centres and the development of missionary work in new areas such as in Mount Hagen and the highland of New Guinea, with a view to the establishment at an early date of a separate diocese of Northern New Guinea.
The question of missionary work in Dutch New Guinea came to the fore in 1943 when the Church Missionary Society proposed a mission of Spiritual and Material succour to the Missions of the Lutheran Reformed Church working therein. It was also intimated that out of this emergency effort there might spring a more permanent effort on the part of the Church Missionary Society within the bounds of Dutch New Guinea. Many considerations sprang out of this possibility. Among them was that of the jurisdiction under which any missionary work undertaken in Dutch New Guinea would come. Dutch New Guinea, comprising as it does, about half the whole island of New Guinea, was territorially outside the bounds of the Diocese of New Guinea and it formed a kind of no mans land ecclesiastically as far as the Anglican Church was concerned, but it seems a sound church principle that any pioneer missionary work done in the name of the Anglican church should be brought under an episcopal jurisdiction. The matter was not only discussed with the Australian Board of [40/41] Missions but was discussed also by me with the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1944 and he was of the opinion that if any missionary work undertaken in any part of the world which was not under an episcopal jurisdiction would be technically at any rate under the jurisdiction of Canterbury. This obviously would present difficulties in missionary work undertaken in the name of the Australian Church Missionary Society and such jurisdiction would have to be delegated. The Archbishop of Canterbury agreed that the natural thing would be for the Jurisdiction to be proclaimed by the nearest bishop and diocese. Consequently at the United Conference of Pacific Bishops and representatives of the Australian Board of Missions and the New Zealand Board of Missions in May 1945, I expressed the view that Dutch New Guinea in accordance with the accepted practice of the Church should be include in an existing Jurisdiction, which in this instance, I consider should be the Diocese of New Guinea to be administered later if necessary by a separate ecclesiastical authority.
There is of course a difference between an extension of the bounds of a diocese territorially and the exercise of a jurisdiction. A jurisdiction if so arranged can be exercised beyond the territorial bounds of a diocese. The Diocese of Singapore for instance comprises territorially the States of the Malay Peninsular, but it includes a jurisdiction over all the Anglican Communion in Sumatra, Java and other adjacent islands. The difference may be said to be this, that within the territorial bounds of the Diocese the Bishop must take responsibility for all the work of the Church both pastoral and evangelistic, but in the case of an extended jurisdiction he is responsible only for necessary episcopal ministrations to Anglicans in that area and any oversight necessary in the name of the Anglican Church.
The question was raised as to whether the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Singapore over Anglican Communions "in some of the islands of the Netherlands East Indies Empire" did not extend to Dutch New Guinea, and a Resolution was therefore passed that I [41/42] should take up the question with the Bishop of Singapore, Labuan and Sarawak. This was done and the Bishop of Singapore did not feel that his Jurisdiction extended to Dutch New Guinea and he desired that any Jurisdiction that needed to be exercised therein should be exercised by me rather than by him. Whether or not work in the name of the Anglican Church will be established in Dutch New Guinea is I think still uncertain, but it seemed right that the question of Jurisdiction should be settled beforehand.
It may seem strange to you that I should be prepared to consider questions of enlargement of the Diocese territorially or extension of the episcopal jurisdiction when we are not adequately covering the ground in the original territorial bounds of the Diocese, and when my own responsibilities are already more than I can efficiently fulfil. But as I see it it is a matter of missionary strategy and principle in which the objective is concerned with the enlargement of Christ's Kingdom and the extension and strengthening of the influence of His Church, and the carrying out of this on right lines. In arriving at the view I now hold I have not consulted my personal feelings. If I did so they would go clean contrary to the conclusion I have arrived at. I do not desire to see the Diocese of New Guinea enlarged. It is already too big. I do not desire to add to my personal responsibilities. Indeed I shrink very much from doing so for I know I cannot do justice to my existing ones. I would so far as my personal feelings are concerned gladly cast the responsibility elsewhere, but I cannot conscientiously feel that it would be right to do so. I feel that we must have a far reaching policy and take a long distance view of the church's development this land and in this part of the Pacific. God in His mercy has planted the Church here and He means it to grow and extend its influence throughout the land. I therefore visualize as a long distance view not one diocese in New Guinea but eventually two, three or even more, but I believe that before this can come about the existing Diocese must for a time and I hope only for a short time, be considerably enlarged. I believe that sound building and true growth for the future lies along these lines and these alone, even as the Church [42/43] in Australia began by being one Diocese--the Diocese of Australia--out of which grew step by step all the many dioceses existing today.
At the Conference of Pacific Bishops in Sydney in May 1945 the Bishop in Polynesia urged the formation of a Pacific Province consisting of the Diocese of New Guinea, Melanesia, Polynesia and Honolulu. Such a Province he felt would facilitate greatly the efficient working of the vast area and the solution of common problems. Actually the thought of a Pacific Province was not a new one. It had been in mind for a number of years and was considered by a meeting of bishops at least as long ago as the Lambeth Conference of 1930. I remember that amongst the many things which were told me when I became Bishop of New Guinea was that this would be a matter which would come up for consideration in due course.
I must confess that I had not been enamoured by the proposal and did not feel warmly in favour of it when the Bishop in Polynesia renewed it at the time of the conference in Sydney. I felt that our association with the Church in Australia and as a member Diocese of the Province of Queensland was something of very great value to us and that it would be both impolite and undesirable to take any step which would mean the severing of such a connection. Since then, however, I have completely changed my mind on this question. The changed view that I now have is not due to any lessening of the sense of value of our connection with the Church in Australia or of the Province of Queensland. For myself that association is a very dear one and a very valued one. It is rather because I feel that we have got again to take a long distance view of the growth of the Church and in particular of the growth of the Church in New Guinea, and the objective that we are aiming at ultimately. I date my changed view to the last meeting of General Synod. The Church in New Guinea today is still in the early stages of its growth. Ultimately it must become self-supporting and self-governing in the sense that a fully developed Diocese normally is. That translated [43/44] into practical terms means that the far distant object is a truely New Guinea Church with a fully developed Diocese under a native Bishop, in which both Bishop Clergy and laity are taking their full share in the life of the Church, not only in their own Diocese but in the life of the wider church. This objective admittedly is at present far away, and well beyond the sphere of our lifetime or of this generation and probably the next two or three generations but no one can gainsay that it is the ultimate object of our work here, and in the light of this long distance view I visualised at that meeting of General Synod how utterly incongruous it would be to expect the representatives of such a truly New Guinea Church to take their place in such a meeting as General Synod. Admittedly it might be very good for General Synod to have them but it would hardly be good for them, and even the European Bishop and other Europeans who now represent the Diocese in General Synod find that perhaps 90% of the questions dealt with are questions that are of no interest and have no relationship to the life of the Church in the Diocese, and if that is so with European representatives it would be even more so with native representatives. Moreover, it hardly seems right that we should bring a new and young branch of the Church into the midst of the fires of controversy which are grounded in traditional prejudices and suspicions which do the Church in Australia no good; and the guilt of the Australian Church would be increased tenfold, if it was responsible for sowing the same seeds in the Church in New Guinea. If therefore we are to look forward to the day ultimately when our native clergy and people will be able to take a part in the life of the wider Church not only in the own Diocese but beyond the sphere of the Diocese in a Province, it would seem that they would be better able to do so if the Province of which they were members consisted of Dioceses of a similar nature to their own with similar and kindred problems and so for the ultimate fulfilment of that idea it seems that we should look not towards Australia but towards the Pacific where there are already growing up native Churches formed in other dioceses not unlike our own though most of then in a far more advance stage of growth.
 It is therefore because I believe it right that we should have this long distance view for the New Guinea Church and for its ultimate development that I have changed my view about the question of a Pacific Province. It is not because of any desire of my own to be dissociated with the church in Australia. For myself I should regret that step most keenly and would not desire to hasten its coming and would only consent to do so if it seemed good for the church in the Pacific as a whole.
There are some who feel that if such a step was taken it would be resented by the Church in Australia but the answer to that of course would be that we should expect to carry with us the goodwill of the Bishops in Australia. But there is also the view that it would be detrimental to the missionary support that is given to the Church in New Guinea. That that support is given because the Diocese is looked upon as a missionary Diocese of the Australian Church. I cannot myself see that there is really very much real substance in that objection, for I think that the Diocese of New Guinea, even if belonging to a Pacific Province, could still be regarded as a missionary diocese of the Australian Church until the day came that it could be self supporting. The Australian Church would remain as it is today its Mother Church. It would continue to be a missionary diocese that was dependent upon the Australian church even as the dioceses of Melanesia and Polynesia are dependent upon the Church in New Zealand and the Church in England. The organization of the Church in provinces is an historical and catholic development of Church order and has been encouraged by successive Lambeth Conferences. The general principle is one that is coming up for further consideration at the Lambeth Conference next year.
Side by side with the growth of an Oceanic Province in this part of the Pacific there has been mooted for probably as long a period and perhaps longer the idea of a Province in the Northern part of the Pacific which would include the Dioceses of Singapore, Labuan and Sarawak, Rangoon and the American Episcopal Diocese of the Philippines. It is even possible that these two proposed Provinces [45/46] might merge into one big one. If that should be so what we would then have would be a great Missionary Province of the Anglican Communion covering the vast expanse of the Pacific bounded we might say by four great mother Churches pledging their support and their backing to the Missionary Province. The Diocese of New Guinea looking to the Mother Church of Australia; the Diocese of Melanesia and that of Polynesia looking to the Mother Church of New Zealand; the Dioceses of Honolulu and the Philippines looking to the Mother Church of America and the Dioceses of Singapore, Labuan and Sarawak looking to the Mother Church of England. To me that seems a fine idea and one worth striving for.
At the Conference in Sydney when the Bishop in Polynesia brought forward this proposal afresh, it was felt that much preliminary enquiry would be needed before anything of the kind could be decided upon, but altogether apart from the ultimate decision as to whether an Oceanic Province of this kind would be desirable or not it was felt that it would be most desirable that the Bishops of the missionary dioceses in the Pacific should meet at regular intervals to discuss the special problems of their work. Even if it was decided to proceed with the formation of an Oceanic Province it would be some years probably before it could be fully working. Meanwhile, it was certainly desirable that there should be as close cooperation as possible between these different diocese[s]. The meeting of the missionary Bishops in Sydney had shown how similar were the problems that face each of us and it would be so also with most of the other dioceses mentioned. It was then as a direct result of this proposal at the Conference in Sydney that a Conference of missionary Bishops of the Pacific was arranged to be held in Honolulu last January by the invitation of Bishop Kennedy of Honolulu, who had expressed the greatest interest in the proposal of Bishop Kempthorne. I felt it a matter of duty to attend in spite of the expense and time [46/47] that it would involve on account of the long distance. Colonel Murray, the Administrator of this Territory was very helpful to me in the matter, having shown a keen interest in the meeting of the Bishops and he arranged air transport for me from Lae to Manus where the Americans still had a base and from there I proceeded on by American Naval Air Transport to Guam and from Guam to Honolulu by Pan American Clipper. I was able to utilise the journey up to Lae for a visitation of our stations and to do so also on the journey down, and actually I was only away from the Diocese for a month, leaving Lae on January 20th. and arriving back there on February 20th. and the visits to Lae enabled me to give ministrations there where up to that time none had been given since the departure of the Army with its Chaplains.
All the Bishops involved had expressed a hope of attending. In the end however the attendance was very disappointing. We were deprived of the presence of Bishop Baddeley on account of his forthcoming resignation. Bishop Binsted of the Philippines and Bishop Wilson of Singapore sent messages of apology and regret at being unable to be present as they had hoped originally to be. The Archbishop of New Zealand had also been invited and sent a cordial message of greeting and regret at his inability to attend. The Bishop of Polynesia and myself were there together with the Bishop of Honolulu and also Bishop Stephen Keeler, the Bishop of Minnesota, who came as the direct representative of the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church. A message of greeting was also received from the Archbishop of Canterbury and an assurance of his keen interest.
Although apart from the question of Province, the Conference proved to be one of great value. At the outset of the Conference a survey of the fields of work in the Pacific was made with a description of the interference of the War, and the work being done, and the opportunities open for the work of the Church. The spheres of the Dioceses not represented were also surveyed. Examination was also made of possible further fields for occupation by our missionary forces. [47/48] We tried to understand the various differences and problems presented by the native populations with the impact of outside influences brought to bear upon them. It was obvious that Honolulu was the most advanced in development, whilst New Guinea was most primitive and presented the field where the largest pioneer opportunity still offered itself. We felt roughly that Polynesia was about fifty years ahead of New Guinea in development and Honolulu about fifty years ahead of Polynesia.
We found that there was much that we had to learn from each other about the background from which we came, as to the Constitution of our various Churches, but it was outstanding to find with what sympathy and understanding we could each speak. Complete agreement was reached on the question of the recruitment of personnel for the missionary work of the Church and the need for the presentation of the vocation to serve the Church not only overseas but in the Home Churches. We all felt that a real increase in numbers and missionary responsibility in our existing religious Communities would be a great help to the advancement of Christ's Kingdom at this time and that in this connection the clergy of the home Churches should be urged and encouraged to hold up constantly before the people the possibility of a call to absolute surrender, whether it would be lived out in a religious community or in some other field of service at home or abroad. This alone we felt would be an answer to some of our questions.
We were able to describe the varying effects of relations with the state under a number of different systems of Government and so ventilate the reactions and developments likely to take place. We noted with interest how the diocese, longest in touch with a stable Government evidence greatest progress in the development and growth of its people, as is illustrated, for instance, by the Hawaiian Islands in contrast with New Guinea. There was great interest in the development at St. Augustine's College Canterbury, of a central college of the Anglican Communion, where senior ordained students from all provinces might find headquarters and centres of [48/49] study and fellowship in England. The development it was felt should be brought to the notice of the College of Preachers in Washington, with the suggestion that some of their sessions should be devoted to a similar purpose. We considered that the training in both places should not be merely academic but should serve to train men to be practical and vital in missionary leadership.
We were convinced that in view of the growing strength and influence in the Islands of the Pacific of rampant quasi-Christian organizations, such as Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists etc. those responsible for the training of missionary candidates should be urged to equip them with knowledge and ability to counteract those devastating forces that are deceiving the hearts of many and leading to confusion in faith and practice. Further, it was felt that the aggressive strategy of the Church of Rome in the Islands of the Pacific needed to be carefully studied and a leadership qualified and trained to meet it with a view to counteracting what is evidently her ambition, namely to achieve political supremacy by influencing the governments through such institutions as her rapidly developing parochial school system, her Catholic Youth organisations and other Roman Catholic societies.
We reviewed the matter of leadership in our native Churches and we were prepared to accept variation of requirements as to the training of native workers with the proviso that the standard should be above the average intelligence of the people to be led. It seemed that while the staffs required could be partly trained on the field within each diocese, still men with wider training and vision were also needed. New Guinea and Polynesia felt that the day had perhaps not come yet in their spheres for this wider training for they were able to state the unfortunate effects produced by training of other kinds undertaken in a completely different environment to that in which people were born and bred, before they were really fit for it.
In the same matter of indigenous customs it did not seem that any particular effort had been made to develop these in our worship or in the architecture of buildings. It was felt that this would probably [49/50] have to wait until the local people had absorbed and digested the new outlook on life, which would quite naturally produce such a result.
On the question of a possible Provincial Organisation it soon became evident that any definite suggestions at that stage would be premature though it clearly became evident that our meeting together had been of quite outstanding value. The difficulties that were felt in regard to a Provincial Organization at the moment were firstly that if it was to include Honolulu such a proposal might not be popular in the Hawaiian Church itself, which though it is not technically a diocese but a missionary district of the American Church is highly developed and is looking very much towards America for its further development. The membership of Europeans of American citizenship is strong in numbers and powerful in influence as they are looking towards Washington to give them freedom in their own rights as a State, so the members of the Church are looking towards the day in the near future when they can cease to be a missionary district and become a self supporting diocese of the Episcopal Church. The other difficulty is that of course of distance, difficulties of travel and expense, which would prevent a gathering for instance of a Provincial Synod except at very rare intervals. These, however, are difficulties that time may modify and the proposal was by no means abandoned but it was felt that a good deal of further consideration would be necessary before any definite step could be taken.
It was resolved that a meeting of all the Bishops in the Pacific area should be held immediately before Lambeth Conference in London next year and it was also recommended that whether or not a Provincial Organisation is evolved, meetings of the bishops concerned should be held at intervals of five years for Conference and mutual exchange of problems.
It was of course a great experience to me to see something of the enchanting beauty of the Hawaiian Islands. Our time was, for the most part fully occupied and there was not much available for sight seeing but every possible facility was given us and we were most generously and lavishly entertained by the Church people of Honolulu. [50/51] Perhaps the most interesting expedition was that in which we were taken round Pearl Harbour on the Admiral's launch and shown how the American fleet on the fatal December 7th. 1941 had been deployed within that huge harbour and how it hade been fallen upon by the sudden and treacherous Japanese attack from the blows that were dealt and the losses that were suffered by the American Navy were crippling indeed, to a much greater extent than was able to be made known to the world at the time. It makes the wonder of the ultimate victory, won in less than four years after what must have seemed at the time a knock-out blow, all the more amazing. We were shown the spots where some of the premier battleships of the American Pacific fleet were sunk. Today only one wreckage can be seen and that but a small one. Before the war had ended everyone of the sunken warships had been retrieved, and as is well known, the United States had meanwhile in an incredibly short space of time built a new fleet.
In the lunch that we had with Admiral Hall after our expedition I learnt that he had been in command of the American Naval Forces at the landing in North Africa, as well also as in the landing at Normandy, and that he was present at the famous Casablanca Conference sitting with President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill. I ventured to ask him what he thought of Mr. Churchill and instantly he replied, "I consider him the greatest Englishman since Pitt." I was immensely struck by the high estimate all that I met during my time in Honolulu had of the great British War Prime Minister and on the other hand the poor estimate they seemed to have of their own wartime President, who is held in such high esteem by the people of other nations. It will be interesting to see if we live so long the ultimate verdict of history on these two great men.
It was a strange experience to be even for a fortnight somewhere where, even if things are very expensive, there is an ample supply not only of the necessities of life but of its luxuries also and where there are no shortages and where economy hardly has to be taken into consideration except by poor cousins visiting there.
 Our Conference was followed by the Annual Convention of the Hawaiian Church, a gathering similar to that of a Diocesan Synod when clergy and lay representatives come from not only the different parishes in the large Island in which Honolulu is situated but from the other islands in the Group. It was a great inspiration to be present at this Diocesan Gathering, headed by Bishop Kennedy a most inspiring and greatly loved leader who has evoked a wonderful unity from his cosmopolitan and diverse flock. The Hawaiian Church is made up of many racial elements. Besides European groups there are also of course the Hawaiian and with them Japanese, Chinese, Philippino, Samoan and many others as well as mixtures of these different races. In the ranks of the clergy are to be found men of all these different racial origins, and these different racial groups have often their own church and congregation, but there is also a wonderful fellowship realised between them all. Though normally they may worship separately they do not do so exclusively and at such a gathering as the Diocesan Convention it was a wonderful experience to see all these different racial elements joining together not only in worship and at the Altar but in the gatherings of social fellowship arranged during the week as one family under one leader, and one could not fail to be conscious that it was the spirit of Christ that had so wrapped them together. It should, of course, be realised that nearly all these people of different racial origins are enjoying full American citizenship and there is no language difficulty, for English is the normal language spoken, even though they may speak their own native tongues among themselves.
The large Japanese Community in Hawaii was loyal to the American cause throughout the war. The only doubt that was felt was as to what their attitude might have been if there had been a Japanese landing on the Islands, which seemed more than a likely possibility after Pearl Harbour, whether in such a case the call of Race would have proved stronger than the call of Citizenship. The Japanese Community desired to take their part in the war on the American side but the United [States] Government with great wisdom did not strain their loyalty by pitting them against the enemy of their [52/53] own race but sent them to Europe where they took part in the war against Italy, much to the surprise of the Italians when they found themselves with Japanese prisoners of war.
I felt that the Church in Hawaii was giving a witness that the world needs to have today, of the fellowship, unity and peace that is possible when men recognize the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ by whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, "The one God, and Father, who is above all, through all, and in all."