Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 17, No. 11. June 24, 1953

Did You Baptise Yourself This Morning?

Did You Baptise Yourself This Morning?

The present relationship between the Church and the people was a debate topic which should have brought forward an analysis of modem social conditions. But, instead, we were treated to, in the words of the adjudicator. Rev. G. Scott (S.C.M. Chaplain), "much loose thinking and dogmatism tempered with occasional sound thought."

The standard of speaking was fairly high. Bruce Brown, the leader of the affirmative, who was placed first, was clearly far superior to the other speakers. He, gave an excellent historical survey of the place the church has occupied in society. The churches' attitude of attempting to reform the individual in preference to the institution was the main fact which he attacked. The lack of any definition of Church from the affirmative side in their opening addresses was a bad fault. If Bruce hod defined the Church in his opening speech instead of in his reply the debate could have been conducted on a more narrow and Informative plane.

Meida O'Reilly, who gained second place, was the lender of the negative side. She Improved on a weak opening. She was extremely fluent but logic was occasionally lost in the flow.

The third place went to J. Catanach, a maiden speaker, He brought sincerity without dogmatism, but his youthful optimism did not go down with some of the more hardened cynics in the audience. His delivery was slightly jerky but this was countered by the fact that he was one of the few who had given some thought and preparation to their speech.

The second speaker for the affirmative. P. Williams, who was placed next, was very impressive. He had "all the attributes of the street corner apple-box orotor." A lively sense of humour and a powerful and commanding manner of speaking and a seemingly limitless repertoire of aphorisms. His main fault was that he had few supporting facta. He based what case ho had on the premise that a scientific age such as ours does not need religion.

The other speaker placed was G. Hubbard, who seconded the case for the negative. He had logical order but was often in danger of losing himself amidst a ream of notes.

Other speakers included H. Whitta who brought a touch of humour, Marjorie Munro, who gave you the impression of not being very serious; N. Gallatc (a new speaker), who continually repealed his main fact—that if the people were divorced from the Church then the Church must be divorced from the people (I can still remember it). Ellwood—be suffered from a continuous stream of interjections which he did not handle very well.

The main argument used by the affirmative was one based on a comparison of this age with previous times—the fall of the Church from the political, moral and social importance it possessed in the Middle Ages. This was supplemented by statements from various Church leaders of the decline in church attendances and the general turning away from the Church as the guiding body in moral matters.

The negative did little to counter the affirmative's case but were content in the main with countering it with an opposing argument—that if there was a divorce then it was not the fault of the Church but of the people. This was mainly an argument as to whose responsibility the separation was. It was allowable because of the rather indefinite wording of the subject and the lack of definition by the affirmative.

The debate developed into a slinging match between speaker and audience. The subject was often for-[unclear: gotten] in the [unclear: hurly] burly of continuous and irrelevant interjections. The audience was more intent with enjoying itself in the play of words rather than in the conflict of Ideas.

—B.V.G.