THE AUTHOR AND THE BOOK
For 56 years the author has been a minister of the Methodist Church of New Zealand. For nearly 20 years he served all the main Protestant Churches as Dominion Secretary of the N.Z. Bible in State Schools League.
He was largely instrumental in introducing into New Zealand in 1911 the observance of Mothers’ Day.
Well-known as a cricketer, he represented New Zealand, the Provinces of Wellington, Otago, Waikato, Taranaki and Wairarapa, and captained Otago when the Province was first successful in winning the Plunket Shield.
As Secretary of the Conference of Protestant Churches dealing with religion in State schools, he was one of four representatives chosen to confer with four bishops of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. This book gives the inside story of the negotiations of 1930.
It covers a wide field of education from a Christian standpoint.
It supports State aid in moderation for Church schools and other institutions that provide education for sound moral character.
It appeals for teachers’ freedom of choice with respect to the teaching of religion.
It corrects certain widespread misapprehensions regarding present methods of using the Bible in schools.
It discusses points of interest in developments between 1877 and 1960.
It examines the supposition of the separation of Church and State in New Zealand.
It relates experiences of school life in close on 60 years of this century.
Price 8/6
This eBook is a reproduction produced by the National Library of New Zealand from source material that we believe has no known copyright. Additional physical and digital editions are available from the National Library of New Zealand.
EPUB ISBN: 978-0-908327-50-8
PDF ISBN: 978-0-908330-46-1
The original publication details are as follows:
Title: A Christian core for N.Z. education
Author: Blamires, E. O. (Ernest Oswald)
Published: Whitcombe & Tombs, Auckland, N.Z., 1960
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N. Z. EDUCATION
A Christian Core For N.Z. Education
By REV. E. O. BLAMIRES TAKAPUNA
AUCKLAND
1960
Extract of an article by Eugene Carson Blake, entitled:
“WANTED: CHRISTIAN SCHOLARS”
In the Student World Chronicle published in No. 3 issue of “The Student World”—the Quarterly Review published by the World’s Student Christian Federation.
“I have always liked the description of a good education that was given by my old teacher of philosophy, Theodore Greene, then at Princeton, more recently at Yale, and now at Scripps in California.
He said a liberal education should enable a man or woman to distinguish a stone, a statue, a dog, a man, and God and to know the proper or requisite response to each. A man who used a fine bit of sculpture for a doorstep (instead of a stone) is not well educated, A woman who treats her dog better than her neighbour down the street is uneducated. But most important of all, an education which does not teach men how to know God and properly to respond to Him is no education. The Christian scholar that we need in Church and State if either are to flourish in the second half of the twentieth century is the man, who, trained and disciplined in his field, is yet a leader of men because he has received his inspiration from God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
CONTENTS
Page
Contents v
Introductory vii
Chapter
1 Definitive 1
2 Historical Sketch of Religious Training in Public Schools of New Zealand from 1877 to 1944 14
3 The Church and Her Denominations 20
4 The Roman Catholic Attitude 23
5 The State Aid Question 40
6 A Professor's Evidence Examined 47
7 Church and State in Co-operation 59
8 The Teaching Staff 68
9 Towards an Adequate System in N.Z. Education 75
Addenda 78
v
INTRODUCTORY
In the course of nearly 60 years’ residence and activity in New Zealand, following upon about 20 years spent in scholastic and business life in Victoria, Australia, I have had opportunity to mingle with my fellow men in many walks of life. Entering the ministry of the Methodist Church of N.Z. in 1904, I made a study of the relationship of the Church and public education, especially as it applies to primary schools. With a conviction that Christianity applies to the whole of life, both with regard to the individual and to society, I was early impressed with the incompleteness of the N.Z. system of primary education, and the great gap between the Church and the School.
Whereas the ideal is for both to work together in complete harmony and in co-operation with the home for the all-round development of the pupils, I found that the system encouraged a tendency for the school to treat the Church and religion in general as outside its programme. “Let the Churches do their work, but leave the schools free to do theirs without any encroachment by the Church” was the cry of many in the educational field. It would be possible to exaggerate the effect of this tendency. We speak of the system in itself, but recognize that the system was considerably affected by opposing or deflecting tendencies. Christianity works like leaven in a community, and the many Christian teachers made for alleviation. Then at no time since the secular clause was enacted in 1877, limiting the hours of compulsory attendance to the teaching of an entirely secular curriculum, has there been withheld from Education Boards and local School Committees the right to arrange for voluntary religious observances and instruction outside the statutory four hours required for secular teaching.
This right was in harmony with the intention of the original designer of the Bill that inaugurated the National system, the Hon. C. C. Bowen, and has increasingly brought about a closer relationship between Church and School. But, despite these and other influences that have helped to ameliorate the situation, the general effect of the system has been to lead to indifference to religion, as though child nature could be adequately developed apart from Christianity, and the teacher in his official capacity could occupy a neutral position. “He that is not with Me is against Me” a principle laid down by
vii
INTRODUCTORY
the Founder of Christianity, condemns this attitude of neutrality, yet it has been that of the official organization of the primary school teachers, the N.Z. Educational Institute, (though never with anything approaching unanimity), and its influence has discouraged its members from participating even in voluntary religious activities in school.
When all has been said in defence of this attempted neutrality and I have read much of it in the last fifty years the fact remains that it leaves the teacher with an incomplete opportunity to develop aright the character of I the pupil, it does an injustice to the religious nature of the child, and thereby fails in co-operation with the Christian home. It is my conviction that it results in a deep-seated impression in the community that Christianity can be similarly treated in Society as a whole, if not as an excresence, yet as something that can be omitted from Life’s curriculum without harm. With this no Christian would agree.
Much thought has been given recently to the matter of child delinquency, and the question raised “In view of the trend of modern education are the children of today better or worse than those of yesteryear?” A variety of answers can be expected, according largely with the ethical standards of those who answer. Has the matter of these ethical standards been given sufficient prominence in the schools? Do the inspectors, for example, ask such questions as the following:—
Has the class discipline been easy to maintain?
Do you find your pupils strictly truthful?
How about cheating?
Is there any evidence of bullying, or of colour or clas; discrimination?
Has there been any class project in helping the underprivileged in any way?
If so, how have the pupils responded?
Could you say that the sense of awe and wonderment is evident?
Is there any respect for things sacred?
Has there been any outstanding case to report of honesty kindness, thoughtfulness for others?
Is the language clean in the playground?
Such are vital questions, satisfactory answers being of greater importance than in the case of grammar, history or arithmetic.
In assessing the standard of character in a community' two important factors should not be overlooked; the fact that two world wars have been waged this century, and the fact of parental control, or lack of it, in the home.
viii
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
My own assessment concerning the character of the young people of New Zealand today compared with those of two generations ago, is that a considerable minority is more advanced, and finer in every way, a small minority is much worse, while in the majority of cases the standards do not reach the height of pre-war days.
This assessment, that a large minority shows improvement while the great majority reveals a sagging in moral fibre, will be queried by some. Admittedly it is an individual assessment. But there will be little difference of opinion if the forward look into the future be taken, as to the wisdom of the closest co-operation between Church and State, between Home and School, if New Zealand is to be raised in moral standard, and the young people not only saved from delinquency, but trained to take their true place as citizens in God’s Own Country.
This book is written with that object in view. It seeks to bring completion to what is at present incomplete in the general set-up of New Zealand primary education, having especially the character of young New Zealand in mind. Its aim is to secure harmonious relationship between the Home, the School and the Church, so that the best use can be made of parents, teachers and ministers and lay agents of the Church in co-operation, that the most salutary influences may be exerted in the schools of the Dominion for the full harmonious development of child nature.
Certain principles are accepted as axiomatic;—
1. The centrality of the child in education;
2. His nature to be treated as a unit.
3. His training to accord with his unified nature.
4. The ideal teacher necessarily one who can deal with the whole child.
5. The frank recognition of deficiencies found among pupils, parents, teachers and religious agents.
6. Hence the need for attempts by the home, the school and the Church to reinforce one another in order to atone for these deficiencies. This spells closest co-operation between the three.
ix
CHAPTER 1
DEFINITIVE
(a) RELIGION
It was a Socratic injunction to “clear up your concepts”. In any discussion on Religion and Education in New Zealand the attempt should be made to define such terms as Religion, Education and Secular. What is religion? What is education? What is a secular education? What do you exactly mean by “secular”? In years of argument on these subjects there has been noticed a confusion of thought and frequently the futility arising from differing conceptions of these terms.
There have been many definitions of religion. Let us serve our present purpose by viewing it as THE MODE OF EXPRESSING ONE’S RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD OR ONE’S ATTITUDE TO THE CONCEPTION OF GOD.
Such a definition centres the thought on God, with Whom we all have to do. The highest conception will view Him as most intimately concerned with every detail of our life, the One in whom we “live and move and have our being”, “closer to us than breathing and nearer than hands and feet”. At the other extreme is the conception of the atheist, pinpointed in the Book of Psalms as “the fool that saith in his heart, ‘there is no God’ ”. Having an attitude of a negative type to the conception of God, his atheism can be included in the above definition, and if he is sincere his parental responsibility will include the teaching of his views to his children. (Maybe it would be a test of his sincerity!) Between the two extremes would be found all other religions, including that of the agnostic and those who on the census returns appear under the heading, “Object to state”.
Man is a religious being. Everywhere, even if it be in rudimentary forms, there is a religion. And it is generally recognised as a parental responsibility that the practices and precepts of the acknowledged religion be taught to the children. It need not be inferred that it is the sole responsibility of the parents to do the teaching; the parents may be and often are unqualified; as is the case with general education they need the help of those specially trained for the purpose in the
2
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
community. The responsibility of parents, though a shared responsibility, is to assure that the training is provided. Those who give the teaching are for the time being in loco parentis, whether provided by the Church, the State or a community organisation.
It could be taken for granted that pagan peoples have their recognised methods of instilling their pagan religion into the minds and practices of their children, that also in a Mohammedan country the day schools are among the chief institutions for teaching the Koran. It can be justly claimed that the dominant religion in New Zealand, despite certain pagan and atavistic trends here and there, and the presence of a few representatives of Moslem and non-Christian religions, is that of Christianity. Surely, when the claims of religion to be taught to children in New Zealand are considered, Christianity should be the first choice.
As the great majority of the population is returned on the census papers as Christian, and in a general way as the Christian ethic is viewed as the standard in law and society, a Christian education must be viewed as the norm in the schools. This being so, Christianity should receive primary consideration, while minorities not accepting the Christian faith must be provided for in such a way (as, e.g. in England) as can assure that no real injustice is done to them. They must receive consideration that will protect their rights in a general scheme of education. Let us not, however, fall into the absurd position that in considering the rights of the minority, the rights of the large majority are surrendered. That is the danger in a professedly Christian country where a secular system obtains. In order to provide common ground whereon all may meet without religious distinctions—in reality a concession to the secularist minority—the most vital element in education as the majority would view it is omitted from the curriculum, and thus instead of the dog wagging the tail the tail wags the dog. If a minority must be safeguarded in the right of choice when the choice is opposed to Christian teaching surely the majority right must be safeguarded when the choice favours the inclusion of Christian teaching. The majority has a conscience equally at least with that of the minority. Because some difficulties may arise in providing a curriculum which includes religious instruction in a mixed community is no sound argument for dispensing with it, just to avoid the difficulties. Because some suffer occasionally from indigestion is no adequate reason for dispensing with good wholesome food. Difficulties are a challenge to overcome them, and in the present instance under discussion they can be surmounted in New Zealand as they have been elsewhere.
16
DEFINITIVE
We are not to be unmindful of minorities. Atheism is espoused by a few; Rationalism, however irrational it may appear at times to the Christian intelligence, has a small following, but the overwhelming number of parents in the land would wish their children to be trained in the way of Christianity. Yet it is significant that in the primary schools of this Christian country the Education Act requires that in the statutory hours of school attendance “the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character”. (Educ. Act 1914 Sec. 565, sub-sec. 4.) This suits Rationalists, Agnostics, Secularists, etc., much better than Christians. Fortunately for the latter, there are alleviating circumstances that ameliorate the position somewhat; these will be referred to later. But since 1877, when the enactment was made, dissatisfaction has never ceased to be expressed with it; frequently the constant simmering rises to boiling point, overflows into the press, the school committees, the Church courts and the community in general, and is never likely to cease until a government arises with sufficient courage to grasp the situation, and follow the example set by other governments, such as that of the United Kingdom, where, faced by a more difficult situation than is found in New Zealand, a settlement was reached acceptable to the chief political parties and to the main body of the Churches. Needless to say, parents approved, as also did the National Union of Teachers, a body corresponding in large part to the N.Z. Educational Institute. It is not easy to explain why a system of religious education in State schools, that works smoothly and with general acceptance in British schools, should not be equally a solution of the problem in New Zealand, acclaimed at times as being more British than the Briton.
(b) EDUCATION
There have been and still are many definitions of Education. They have to do chiefly with the aim of Education. What is a child’s education supposed to do? An obvious answer is, “to develop the child”. But, we need to ask, in what way is the child to be developed?
EDUCATION has had many definitions, diSering, perhaps, more on the placing of emphasis rather than on anything essential. Some tend to centre thought on preparation for life in the community with adults as well as children in mind. To make good useful citizens with satisfactory social relationships is the goal. In others the aim is more individualistic. The harmonious development of human personality
“the elements so mixed in him that Nature might stand up and say to all the world ‘This was a man!’ ”
4
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
is in view. A truly informed man, a well-balanced personality of good character is to be the product of a sound system of education.
There is no contradiction between the more social and the more individualistic concepts. They are complementary to each other. Good citizens are to take their place as trained individuals in the social relationships of the community.
But for the purposes of a complete education, there is need to take account of the religious nature, particularly of the child. It is not sufficient to have in mind merely the purely secular concerns of community life, and train the individual to play a worthy part in such.
There is an old saying, “Send the whole child to school!” Is it not logical to say that the only adequate system of education is one that is suited to the nature of the whole child? The child should not be made to conform to a system of a limited education, as though it were possible to compartmentalise him, sending part of him to the day-school for training in secular subjects, and keeping the more important part at home for home training, or to be sent once a week for an hour or so to Chuurch or Sunday School. To attempt it is an offence against child nature, and were it deliberately done would lay one open to the condemnation of the world’s Greatest Teacher and Champion of the child. “Take heed that ye offend not one of these little ones!”
Too much in the past when education has been discussed, consideration has been given to groups other than the pupils. How will methods of education affect the interests of the State? How will the curriculum be viewed by the teachers? Will the Church be agreeable? Is it not time that the place of paramount importance should be recognised as belonging to the children; no longer should they be relegated to a secondary position, and deprived of rights inherent in their very natures.
“He took a little child and put him in the midst.” was a very significant action of Christ.
A syllabus confined to secular subjects therefore can never measure up to requirements. It is not big enough. In such a case the child is bigger than the system that is being used. To say this is not to condemn the system used in the primary schools of New Zealand as far as it goes, nor need it withhold admiration of all good work by the teachers and in the Training Colleges. Many of the teachers feel the cabined and confined scope of their syllabus as much as any. It has been truly said that New Zealand cannot experience the full impact of a secular system of education because so many of the teachers are Christian in their whole outlook. As a minister who has
5
DEFINITIVE
spent a good portion of his active life in the larger towns of the Dominion, I have been impressed by the number of dayschool teachers who are also lay preachers, lay readers with full qualifications, and Sunday School teachers, and I have sometimes drawn attention to the fact that if some epidemic suddenly struck down all the ministers of the town, in the emergency thus created all the pulpits could be acceptably filled by local teachers. Does anyone think for a moment that such teachers would have a purely secular approach to their classes on the weekday? Such teachers are disappointed with the serious inadequacy of their syllabus when concerned about the moral and religious training of their pupils.
Assertions about the inadequacy of the syllabus are not to blind us to the obstacles in the way of a full provision due to the denominational differences of the Church. These will be dealt with in a later chapter. They played a very large part in the seventies of last century in bringing about the enactments of Parliament confining compulsory education to secular subjects. Two things may be noticed here, however, in passing; firstly, the Church, in all branches, is constant in opposition to confining education to secular subjects, and has done a tremendous lot to make up for the deficiencies of the State system; and secondly, the position in New Zealand does not present the same obstacles, or not in so potent a form, as have ! already been overcome in other countries. New Zealand is lagging behind practically all the white nations of the British Commonwealth in this respect. This shows that the obstacles in New Zealand can be overcome. Given the will, there is clearly a way.
A word about the influence of the home in education is important. Though education in school is primarily the subject of discussion, it will be readily conceded that of the three chief institutions concerned, the Church, the School, and the Home, the last is first in influence. Happy are the children where the three act in full co-operation. So potent is home influence that at times there is found a tendency on the part of teachers and others to view the home in co-operation with the Church as relieving the day-school of all responsibility for the religious elements in education. At a conference with teachers I was faced with the need to answer a contention that the school was not the place for religious teaching. That should be done at the mother’s knee, or at Church, it was declared. In the reply, attention was focused on the need of the children. “In a very general classification, in relation to home influence, children could be viewed as in two classes; those with no religious training, and those with it. Admittedly the classification is a rough and ready one. In the first class
6
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
are those whose parents have no interest in religion; they do not attend Church nor are the children sent to Sunday School, unless, maybe to get them out of the way for an hour or two. To talk of such children receiving their religious training at their mother’s knee is out of all consideration. Their parents are quite unqualified. But the second class receives religious training at home and Church. What are they taught? If the teaching is along right lines they are taught that religion enters everyday life. People do not appreciate religion that is confined to home and Church. To be sincere one must express it everywhere. If you train a child to think otherwise, in adult life he will possibly still attend church, etc., but his business transactions will be shady, and he will be written down as a hypocrite. True religion is the salt of life; it is its great preservative, and it must permeate the whole of life. Home training on these sound lines requires opportunity for a child to express his religion in school. There should be no lack of cooperation between the good home and the good school. They are meant to reinforce each other.” Such was my reply. I think the teachers must have agreed; at any rate the news reached me soon afterwards that the school committee had made provision for each school day to be opened with religious worship and to continue the half hour of religious instruction weekly, thus using the full amount of time permitted by the Education Board to be deducted from school hours for voluntary religious observance.
A school devoid of religion can give only a restricted outlook on life. Where in the syllabus at present in use in our primary schools will there be found any adequate reference to the place of Jesus Christ in History? No one has been so potent in uplifting mankind, in raising womanhood to the place occupied in free Christian countries, in winning men from savagery and slavery, in inspiring what is decent, beautiful and of good report in modem civilisation, but what do the pupils know about Him from their school lessons? When asked what was the meaning of Easter, a class of Fifth Standard (Form I) pupils knew no more than that Easter time was the time for eating Easter eggs. A bright intelligent laddie of ten was asked whether he had ever heard anything about a man called Jesus. He thought a moment, and then replied, “I think I’ve heard something about Him somewhere”. Maybe he’d heard his father swear.
In his book on the principles of education, Nunn refers to the day-school as “the idealised epitome of community life”. The child is to receive there some practical demonstration of the kind of life he will enter later when he steps out into the community. School is intended to prepare him and give some
7
DEFINITIVE
foretaste of complex social life in all its varied activities. It will present factory and industrial activity, commercial pursuits, Parliament and elections, farming, transport, and prepare him for vocational guidance. He is to receive some foretaste of community life as a social being. School is to be an ideal little world for him. This ideal picture is rather deficient under a secular system. The picture shows warehouses, shops and offices, farms, factories, ships, trains, Parliament House, a multitude of presentations, but in the very centre of the picture there is a blank. There is no Church. One wonders why. Is not a Church part of a community? Is not the Church active in the community? Must it be treated as an excrescence?
Speaking to a man knapping stones at the side of the road, I said “Do you ever go to church?” “No!” he replied. I suppose you don’t believe in Church!” I added. He resented the suggestion. “Oh, yes I do,” he hastened to reply. I know if it weren’t for the Church things would be anyhow. That picture of the “idealised epitome” seems a bit anyhow”.
To sum up with that definition we were seeking: TRUE EDUCATION IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE TRI-PARTITE PERSONALITY IN A PROCESS HARMONISING WITH HIS UNIFIED NATURE, PREPARING HIM FOR HIGHEST SOCIAL ACTIVITY IN HOME, CHURCH AND COMMUNITY LIFE IN GENERAL.
SOME PERTINENT STATEMENTS RY AUTHORITIES ON EDUCATION
“EDUCATION is any effort to assist the developmental an immature human being toward the proper goal of life.
—Professor G. A. Coe
Paul Tillich describes Education from “Where from?” to “Where to?” with the greater emphasis on the latter. “Secular culture suffers because it has lost an ultimate and unconditional concern.”
“It is a social enterprise. Its goal is to enable every individual to rise to a full stature as a human being, bringing into play all the gifts of body and mind with which Nature has
21
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
endowed him. It seeks to do this by cultivating physical fitness which makes his body beautifully responsive to all the needs of his mind; and then by cultivating his creative energies, his various skills, his sense of beauty, his sense of truth, his social sense, his capacity for helping others and his religious sense.”
—Professor Walter Murdoch.
“The question to be asked at the end of an educational stage is not ‘What has the child Learned’, but ‘What has the child BECOME?’ ”
—J. P. Monroe
“Education is not a matter of information as much as of character formation. The most important task of the teacher is the development of ideals. Because religion is vital in such education, to prohibit its use by the teacher is to deny him his CHIEF AID IN HIS MOST ESSENTIAL WORK.”
—From True Education, N.Z.
“Religion in schools is much more than one subject among many subjects. It may be said in a sense to be the only subject, for it enters into all, and without interference acts as a coordinating force, giving them their significance in the scheme of things.”
—M. L. Jacks, Head of Dept, of Education, Oxford
“That all education should be religious we have often been told. It is equally true that all religion should be educational—a point that is sometimes overlooked.”
—L. P. Jacks.
SIR WALTER MORERLY pulls no punches when he states, “A Christian Outlook includes a profound sense of the ubiquity and the humanly ineradicable character of SIN — hence education is a much less simple matter than the secularist supposes, for it involves the re-making rather than the making of men.”
men. to which should be added the words of Prof. John Dewey, I Columbia University New York i as follows;
“If human nature is unchangeable, then there is no such thing as education and all our efforts to educate are doomed to failure. For the very meaning of education is MODIFICATION OF NATIVE HUMAN NATURE IN FORMATION OF THOSE NEW WAYS OF THINKING, OF FEELING, OF DESIRING AND OF RELIEVING THAT ARE FOREIGN TO RAW HUMAN NATURE. If the latter were unalterable, we might have training, but not education.”
22
DEFINITIVE
400 B.C. “The aim of Socrates in training the young was not to make them efficient, but to inspire in them reverence and restraint, for to make them efficient, said Socrates without reverence and restraint was simply to equip them with ampler means for harm.” ~
-Professor Babbitt (Harvard).
1943 A.D. “Religion has been a rock in the life and character of the British people . . . This fundamental element must never be taken from our schools, and I am pleased to learn of the progress being made among all religious bodies in freeing themselves from sectarian jealousies.’ _ __
—Winston Churchill.
(See also Addenda No. 1.)
(c) SECULAR
When we come to the term, “secular” as applied to the socalled secular system of education in New Zealand, immediately difficulty appears in finding a precise definition. In many years of discussion and search I am unable to say that such has been found. What is this secular system exactly. One contends that it simply means a “non-religious system . But frequently there is heard in school the singing of the National Anthem, “God Save Our Gracious Queen . It is in reality a prayer to God. When the Queen s coronation cook place, the pupils were given, very rightly, a full explanation of the ceremony, which is full of religious symbolism, and this was described in detail. The many religious references in English literature, the use of the calendar divisions of B.C. and A D salient points in N.Z. history, such as Marsden’s arrival, and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, and the influence of the early Christian missionaries, all these and many more examples that could be quoted, show that in actual practice the system is not "non-religious . That definition does riot fitA large number of the teachers are Christians by conviction. Many teach in Sunday Schools or conduct religious services under the auspices of the churches to which they belong. Is anyone so utterly ignorant of what this involves in daily life and in one’s avocation as to believe that the effect of these teachers on their pupils is “non-religious”? At the other extreme is the case of a certain atheistic teacher, who, coming across the word “God” in a lesson said to his pupils: Take no notice of that! God is just a myth . It is evident that religion leavens the thinking of both teachers and pupils in N.Z. It is not possible to run a secular system, in the sense of nonreligious, because in that sense the teachers are not secular.
23
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
Every teacher has a mode of expressing his relationship with God, or his attitude to the conception of God. And, furthermore, the same applies to their pupils.
Another definition is “pertaining to the present world, or to things not spiritual”. But this definition leaks as much as the other, if applied similarly to the N.Z. system of education. Very much of religion pertains of necessity to the present world, but it is certain that those originally responsible for the enactment that made our primary school education secular never expected that religion, as it applied to everyday life, should be in the curriculum. Then is there any education that I does not involve spiritual energy? The Education Department, in its syllabus, regards character training as the principal func- | tion that the State calls on the teacher to perform. What j chance is there of attaining this chief goal of education, if spiritual qualities are not involved and evoked? Wonder, awe or reverence are essentials in the process, a developed conscience is basic, and these are of “the things of the spirit”. In an official statement issued by the Dominion Executive of the N.Z. Educational Institute some time ago the statement is made, “Nearly every teacher perhaps every teacher cherishes in his own way the things of the spirit”. Education cannot proceed in a spiritual vacuum. That definition leaks badly. The N.Z. Parliament has never provided a definition of “secular”. Has the attempt ever been made? It was made many years ago in New South Wales, and later in Western Australia where a broad interpretation of “secular” is given. In the Public Instruction Act of N.S.W. it is stated that “the words ‘secular instruction’ shall be held to include general religious teaching as distinguished from dogmatic and polemical theology”. Secular instruction is therefore understood as non-sectarian. In passing, it is of interest to note the term “secular clergy”. Had the definition given in the New South Welsh Act of 1880 been given in the N.Z. Act of 1877 it is probable the continuing dissatisfaction in this Dominion would have been considerably lessened, but it is pretty certain the temper of the Legislative Assembly at the time would have refused it a place. The Legislative Council differed from the Assembly in its demand for no religious teaching in primary State schools, and the clash of conviction between the two Houses on this matter threatened the passing of the Bill, whose chief object was to nationalise the system of education. In the end a compromise was made that provided for religious teaching being permissible outside the statutory four hours of compulsory secular instruction. Further reference to this will be made in a later chapter.
It will not be out of place here, in view of the difficulty of
24
DEFINITIVE
obtaining precise definition of the word “secular” as it applies to primary education in N.Z. to quote a legal opinion.
Legal Opinion
The system of education in the Public Schools of New Zealand is commonly described as “secular”. This description rests on the statutory provision that “the teaching (at a public school) shall be entirely of a secular character”. The question presents itself as to what is excluded from the ambit of “secular” teaching. Is “secular” opposed to all religious teaching? Is general religious instruction excluded? The Act itself gives little or no guidance. There is no definition clause and the only section that mentions religious instruction is Section 49 (7). It is pointed out that the Education Acts of New South Wales and of Western Australia define “secular instruction” as including general religious teaching as distinguished from dogmatic or polemical theology. The dictionary or popular meaning is generally taken to apply and in the popular sense secular is distinguished from religious teaching. That this would lead to an absurdity cannot be doubted. The teaching and the use of the Lord’s Prayer are religious in the broadest sense, but I can see no distinction between the recitation or the singing of this Prayer and the recitation or singing of the British National Anthem, or of the N.Z. National Anthem “God Defend New Zealand”. If the one is forbidden or allowed by the Statute then equally are the others.
Without expressing a concluded opinion I assume for the purpose of this opinion, although a contrary view may well prevail, that this provision prevents religious exercises and instructions of a general religious nature in the regular school hours.
The Act, however, does not rule out non-secular or religious or even dogmatic teaching in the public schools. Such teaching cannot be included in the compulsory curriculum. But there is nothing to prevent the school buildings being used for such teaching on a voluntary basis, i.e. by either voluntary teachers or others to voluntary pupils. Section 49 (7) points the way in which this can be done, i.e. by appropriate action of the School Committee, subject only to the by-laws of the Board, which by-laws may not be framed as to prevent the Committee from granting as it deems fit, the use of the school buildings, outside of the fixed hours for compulsory secular instruction, for the purpose of moral and religious instruction.
As to the opportunity afforded by Section 49 (7) for religious instruction the Education Board has the clear right to decide exactly the time when compulsory secular teaching
25
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
commences in its schools. The only statutory condition is that four hours daily are reserved for such instruction. Outside of those four hours or such longer time as the Board may prescribe the matter of moral and religious instruction is in the hands of the Committee. The Committee is responsible for the management of the school and if it does permit the use of the school buildings for such purpose it must make all necessary arrangements. These it may make with the headmaster or indeed for that matter any other master, if he be willing so to act out of the regular hours.
Any teacher can undertake non-secular teaching only by arrangement with the Committee under Section 49 (7). No teacher is required to undertake such teaching and equally no teacher may object to any arrangement, not involving him personally, which the Committee may make.
There is nothing in the Act to prevent or hinder any teacher, the Committee agreeing thereto, from participating in any voluntary non-secular teaching or religious exercises outside of the hours prescribed for secular teaching.
The above opinion confirms the view, previously expressed, concerning the difficulty of precise definition of the term “secular” as it applies to primary education in New Zealand. The popular view, it is shown, “leads to an absurdity”, and the meaning later expressed that the secular provision “prevents religious exercises and instructions of a general religious na'ture in the regular school hours”, is hesitatingly given, with the admission that “a contrary view may well prevail”.
Can we discover what the legislators of 1877 had in mind? This involves a search into the files of Hansard, and requires a full chapter of itself. In this chapter I draw largely on type script written in 1944 with the object of countering some erroneous views prevalent at the time. Among these views, still sometimes advanced, were the notions that five-minute devotional observances carried on in primary schools several hundreds of them prior to the time set by the Board for compulsory secular instruction, and participation therein by staff teachers as well as pupils, were contrary to the spirit of the secular Act of 1877. This was the view held at the time by the late Hon. Peter Fraser.
The Hon. Mr. Fraser’s view was that the daily exercises did not contravene the letter of the law, but its spirit. He announced his definite intention to enact that the law should be so altered that the daily worship in primary schools should cease, and that two half-hours could be used instead of one for religious instruction. (This has always been within the power 1 of the Education Board to arrange.) At the time the
26
DEFINITIVE
daily observance was in use in hundreds of primary schools. When his Bill was before the Education Committee of Parliament early in 1938, the legality of the daily worship was thoroughly explored. Evidence was heard, a real deluge from many quarters favouring the continuance of the worship. Education Boards, School Committees, representative school teachers some were prepared to come from as far away as Auckland Church organisations and many Women’s organisations rallied against the proposals of Mr. Fraser, and when eventually great public meetings filled the Town Halls of Wellington and Auckland in protest, and Churches in many parts had petitions for signature at the Church doors, Mr. Fraser could see how the whole country was aroused, and wisely he decided to abide by the status quo. There is no doubt that the Executive of the N.Z. Educational Institute was the moving spirit behind Mr. Fraser’s proposals, but proved to be out of touch with the community as a whole. One of the Institute members who gave evidence testified “Having given the system (of daily worship) a fair trial for a year, I have come to the conclusion that these opening exercises tend to build up school tone and school spirit, and that if they are abolished the children will be losing something which has tended to uplift them. If the Executive of the Institute says that officially all the teachers in New Zealand are opposed to these exercises, an entirely wrong impression is apt to be created”.
See also Addenda Note 2.
It was out of the controversy of that and following years that the following historical statement was born, and I make no apology for republishing it. I have found that historical references to the beginnings of what has become known as the Nelson System, given by prominent N.Z. writers on education in N.Z., are so wide of the mark, that the following chapter may serve more than one useful purpose. The Hansard references quoted may be verified by anyone caring to turn up the Hansard volumes in the Parliamentary Library.
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS OF NEW ZEALAND FROM 1877 to 1944
In 1877 the Education Act was passed which nationalised the education system of the public schools of New Zealand. Education has previously been under the control of provincial authorities with varying provisions for religious and secular teaching.
A close perusal of Hansard records of 1877 shows that
(1) It was the Government’s first intention to open school with devotional exercises (Lord’s Prayer and Bible reading).
(2) Opposition led to this intention being given up, and the secular clause was carried in the Lower House.
(3) The Legislative Council restored to the Bill by amendment to Clause 83 the daily opening with the Lord’s Prayer, and sought to provide an opportunity outside school hours for representatives of the various Churches to give religious instruction (see Vol. XXVII p. 381).
(4) Something resembling a deadlock occurred when the Lower House refused to accept the Upper House amendment.
(Here it may be said in parenthesis that there are many references to various proposals for religious teaching given in the discussions.
Mr. Curtis (Nelson) objected to the Bible reading being compulsory but said there was a medium, and proposed what was in operation in the Province of Nelson. He gave notice of a clause to be proposed in Committee so that the reading of the Bible should be left entirely to the discretion of each School Committee. Vol. XXV p. 176.
Mr. E. Wakefield, who strongly opposed the Government’s proposal for compulsory religious exercises, said “The proper way would be to have a school opened at a fixed hour for all children attending, but to allow those whose parents wish to have the Bible and the Lord’s Praver read to attend a
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING
28
quarter of an hour earlier and have them read. That would be what I consider to be a proper system of secular education.” Vol. XXV p. 183.
A significant statement from one who voted with the majority in establishing the Secular Clause! In the Legislative Council debate, Hon. Mr. Buckley said:—
“I would like to see some provision which would allow the Committee to grant the use of the schoolrooms for at least half a day, or two half days (sic) in the week to allow of an arrangement being made by which ministers and others might give religious teaching to children whose parents were willing. Such a provision has been made in Canterbury for some years and although I know it is said by some that it is not taken advantage of at every school, still in a great number of schools it has been.” Vol. XXVI p. 125.
Such references by opponents of compulsory Bible reading reveal the historical background before 1877 when legislators were familiar with the provision of facilities under provincial legislation for Bible reading and religious instruction. There can be no doubt of the idea being present that voluntary preschool devotions and religious instruction in released time could co-exist with compulsory instruction of an entirely secular character.)
It was known that the aim of the Bill was chiefly in the direction of a national system, and while the Hon. C. C. Bowen, Minister in charge, was known to favour the Upper House amendment, he did not wish to block the way towards nationalization. Conferences were held, and apparently some compromise was the result. Eventually the Lower House reported to the Upper House their reasons for rejecting the compulsory opening of schools with prayer in the following words:—
“That the general policy of the Bill is to leave religious education to the several denominations; and that provisions existed in the act for allowing the use of the school buildings out of school hours for any purposes, including that of religious teaching, which the (School) Committee might aoDrove.”
V T V/ > Vol. XXVII, p. 452.
Other provisions allowed for Education Boards fixing the hours for compulsory secular instruction, and a minimum of four hours per school-day was made statutory. Mr. Ross, a close friend of the Hon. C. C. Bowen once informed me that
29
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
this statutory minimum was fixed so as to allow Boards to make provision for voluntary religious teaching outside the four hours.
At the same time the School Committee was empowered to grant the use of the buildings for approved religious teaching when not being used “for public school purposes”. (See 1877 Act. Sec. 84 (3).)
It is not without significance that the famous clause “the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character” appears in the section dealing with the time school is open. It reads as follows;
“The school shall be kept open five days in each week for at least four hours each day, two of which in the forenoon and two in the afternoon shall be consecutive, and the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character.”
There is thus clear evidence of provision being made for compulsory secular instruction for at least four hours daily, but also for voluntary religious teaching as approved by the School Committee outside the hours fixed by the Board for secular instruction. The discussion in Parliament in 1877 shows that the thought of legislators was concerned, not so much with provision for Church services in the school on a Sunday, but for the religious training of children whose parents desired them to have such at school, but who could not obtain it for them in the hours compulsorily devoted to entirely secular subjects. The Committee’s power to make such provision is specified as a reason why there should be no departure on the part of the Lower House from its original decision, despite the amendment in the Upper House.
Evidence is not wanting in later volumes of Hansard that such indeed were the powers of the School Committees. Already in 1878 the operation of the secular Act is being discussed and in Vol. XXVIII p. 546 Mr. Moss mentions the opposition of Archdeacon Maunsell to his Anglican brethren. He had been changed to actual advocacy of the secular system, and a reason for his approval is given:— “Archdeacon Maunsell said the fullest opportunities had been given to impart religious instruction; that he had himself given instruction.”
This is clearly an immediate association of religion with the school in the first year of the operation of the secular Clause, but more pertinent evidence still is given in the year 1881, when in a Bible in Schools debate aiming at Bible reading in school hours, and discussing a Bill with this object which had been carried in the Legislative Council, Mr. Montgomery is reported as follows:
“He would point out what had taken place in Canter-
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING
17
bury. There were schools where religious instruction was given for half an hour every morning. The clergyman of the district and others came there and gave religious instruction not merely reading the Bible without interfering with the four consecutive hours for secular teaching. There was no difficulty in Committees and parents carrying out that, and therefore there was no necessity for this Bill.” Vol. XL. p. 83.
Occasionally I have come across old Canterbury and Otago residents who have said to me “We used to have the Bible read every morning and the Lord’s Prayer repeated” and I judged their age would not be sufficient to carry them back to the pre-secular period. The Fendalton school in Christchurch opened with religious devotions every morning over forty years ago. This was conducted sometimes by Ministers of religion, and sometimes by the Headmaster. The late Mr. Bullock, when Headmaster, used this practice himself, and it has been continued to the present day. Rev. J. H. Haslam, of Studholme Junction, has written to me as follows: “I have verified from my diary the fact that opening religious exercises were held in at least one school in Invercargill as far back as 1899-1900. At the beginning of 1900 I was sent to Invercargill to relieve the Rev. J. A. Luxford, who had suffered a nervous breakdown. Before leaving for a tour abroad he explained to me that certain Ministers had made themselves responsible for conducting five minutes opening exercises in this particular North school, and he desired me to take his place during his absence. The exercises consisted in the reading of a passage of Scripture and repeating the Lord’s Prayer in which the school joined. My diary states that I conducted these exercises during the month of February, 1900, from the day the school resumed.”
Such evidence confirms Mr. Montgomery’s, but his evidence, all the more significant because he was upholding the secular provisions against Bible in Schools, goes back to a daily provision in Canterbury, outside the four hours of compulsory secular instruction, in 1881.
The provisions referred to giving the School Committee full authority read thus:—
Education Act 1877 Part V Sect. 84 (3).
“The school buildings may be used on days and at hours other than those used for public school purposes upon such terms as the Committee may from time to time prescribe.
The fact that some public schools used the time immediately prior to the opening hour for a devotional opening and instruction and that the practice can be traced back to the ’seventies must be interpreted in the light of the Legislative
31
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
Council’s amendment of 1877 seeking for such an opening, the provisions made by which the School Committees had authority to permit it, and the statement of the Assembly’s “reasons”. (Recorded on p. 15.)
In 1914 the Education Act re-enacted the previous Clause, incorporating in effect the 1877 Assembly’s explanation more definitely. The Education Committee of the House had brought in the following recommendation:
“The Committee was fully alive to the value of the Biblical and religious instruction, and was of opinion that full opportunity should be given for the adoption of a voluntary system, such as that known as the Nelson system, in which the teaching was imparted outside the statutory school hours, under which the State exercised no authority in religious matters, and under which there was no compulsion or violation of rights of conscience.”
The Act o£ 1914 (Sect. 49) indicates the right of the School Committee to grant “as it deems fit the use of the school buildings” “for the purpose of moral and religious instruction”. This applies (sub-section 7) “at times other than those fixed for purposes of primary, secondary, or technical instruction, or for continuation classes, upon such terms as the Committee may from time to time prescribe.” Mr. (later Sir) T. K. Sidey is on record as expressing a belief that this Section would add interest in School Committee elections. This would appear to have no point if the Section referred merely to Church Services; at any rate such services do not appear to have created much interest in School Committee elections. But there are other references:—
Hansard Vol. 171 pp. 578, 579 gives evidence of a large majority which carried section 49 and reasons for its enactment. Hon. Mr. Aitken clearly described the Nelson system on p. 578 and Hon. Mr. Paul refers to its previous use in Dunedin schools. The Nelson system, it was explained, operates by the Board which has power to fix the hours of school time reducing the time from the usual 25 to 24% and the half hour is used for religious purposes as the Committee may determine. (The Lord’s Prayer has almost invariably been used.)
In 1922, the earliest year in the Board’s by-laws that I could trace, we still find the Canterbury Board provides for a reduction of half an hour a day to 22% hours, and thus the Wanganui Board in 1933 by specifying that 5 minutes on four days and twenty minutes on one day in the week (later increased to thirty), could be reduced from school time was in line with an arrangement made by the Canterbury Board back in the ’seventies whereby School Committees could
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF RELIGIOUS TRAINING
9
grant the buildings for religious purposes daily “as they deemed fit.”
May I submit that it is thus definitely established that the religious teaching and exercises that have been questioned by some during the last year or two are in harmony with the parliamentary intentions of 1877 and 1914, that they are perfectly legal, and transgress neither the letter nor the spirit of the Education Act. They were in operation in New Zealand schools long before the Bible in Schools League was in existence. They arose by means of the educational authorities acting witbin the powers conferred on them by law and within the scope of parliamentary intention expressed from the beginning of the so-called Secular Act.
All the Education Boards approve, and have passed the necessary by-laws whereby both religious teaching and cor- 1 porate daily worship may be carried on in school. In each case legal advisers have assisted the Board, and in no case has legal opinion advised against the provisions being made. In all, over a thousand School Committees have agreed to religious instruction being given regularly, and in approximately 500 cases similar approval has opened the way for an act of corporate worship daily.
This is the position in the public schools in 1944. The scope of this historical survey does not cover the secondary schools and the native schools. No legislative enactment has ever prevented secondary schools from opening with school prayers, and incorporating religious lessons in the curriculum. Almost without exception a corporate act of worship opens each school-day. In this respect intermediate schools have tended to follow the secondary schools practice. The clause “the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character” has never applied to native schools.
“I have always been strongly in favour of Secular Education in the sense of education without theology, but I must confess I have been no less seriously perplexed to know by what practical measures the religious feeling, which is the essential basic of conduct, was to be kept up in the present utterly chaotic state of opinion without the use of the Bible. Take the Bible as a whole, make the severest deductions which fair criticism can dictate . . . and there still remains in this old literature a vest residuum of moral beauty and grandeur. And then consider the historical fact that for three centuries this book has been woven into the life of all that is best and noblest in English history ... By the study of what other book could children be so much humanised?”
—Professor Thomas Huxley.
CHAPTER 3
THE CHURCH AND HER DENOMINATIONS
* Perhaps the chief obstacle in the way of providing an ade- [ quate curriculum, which includes religious training, in the I primary schools of New Zealand has been the divisions within the Church. It has been a laudable desire on the part of the State and Educational authorities to keep the national schools free from the petty squabbles that have marked the activities of the sects too frequently. The opponents of religion have not been slow to seize on these as so much explosive ammunition with which to defeat the proponents of religion, and while there is reason to regret the stupidities at times of those who allow their enthusiasm for their own way of religion to carry them too far, one usually finds that the people who condemn them are just as bad, if not worse, in their unreasoning emotionalism. The pot is tempted to call the kettle black even when the kettle is sound while the pot leaks badly.
The question may be asked “Is it religion that is the cause of the trouble, or the lack of it?” We have the religion of Jesus in mind in a Christian country. He was One who rebuked His disciples for intolerant attitudes, while He was stem in His denunciation of hypocrisy. While He was the Strong, while He could “steadfastly set His face” while He unflinchingly made the most amazing claims of His relationship with God and man, He was also gentle, humble, meek, the Friend of the outcasts, the Champion of Children.
Would not the State system of Education gain great advantages if every pupil became familiar with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ? Would not the character aim of New Zealand education be brought nearer its goal by it? Too frequently the divisions of the Church are made to appear when this important matter is discussed. Let the State and educational authorities still set themselves to give as little place as possible to these divisive elements, but not at the expense of robbing Jesus Christ of His rightful approach to His children.
To upholders of a purely secular system — whatever is meant by the term—may I ask: “Is it not too big a price to pay for it if it involves allowing so many of the future citizens of this country to grow up ignorant of the historical Jesus?”
34
THE CHURCH AND HER DENOMINATIONS
That is a question that should be answered by you. But perhaps this very ambiguous term “secular” would not so be understood by you. You may prefer Professor Thomas Huxley’s definition as “Education without theology” or that of the N.S.W. Education Act, “without dogmatic or polemical theology?” If so I see no reason why you should not yield to Jesus His place in the school system. The Professor of History in the University of Cambridge has been lecturing to students on “the historical Jesus”. It must have been an advantage to the students that they had become familiar with the subject in their school life. Would you deny them that benefit at school?
The principal cleavage to be dealt with is that between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Fortunately in this country now, as expressed in the National Council of Churches, there is a spirit of unity among Protestants, and the preparation of an agreed syllabus of religious instruction is an augury of smooth sailing ahead. There is a readiness to bar distinctive denominational teaching from the schools, and also to maintain the class system as normally arranged in the school rather than segregate the pupils in denominational groups. This practice was followed by the N.Z. Bible in Schools League under the guidance of its President, the late Archbishop A. W. Averill, when Primate of N.Z., who held that in the day-school with its mixed Church adherence the Bible lessons should be kept on ground common to all the denominations, thus avoiding the disruption that would be caused in the classes by denominational segregation, a method the class teacher has always detested. The various Churches have then the opportunity in their denominational Sunday Schools, Bible Classes, Confirmation Classes, etc., to build on the common ground of the school lesson whatever addition they desire. All the main Protestant Churches were in the League, and this statesmanlike policy was endorsed by all the governing bodies of the Churches, the Anglican General Synod, the Presbyterian General Assembly, the Methodist Conference, and so on, and is largely responsible for the smooth working of religious instruction under the “Nelson System”. The Roman Catholics have not adopted the principle, but when they have taken part under the Nelson system, their own pupils have been segregated. This arrangement is entirely a matter for the local School Committee to decide. In a few instances an Anglican vicar has sought to have the Anglican pupils segregated, though in opposition to the gentleman’s agreement entered into by his General Synod, but in general such action is viewed as among the “things that are not done” amongst gentlemen. In Waihi it led to the stopping of the whole of the work under the Nelson system for a time, the Committee’s way of giving a salutory lesson, until a new
35
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
Committee was elected by the parents and householders to restore the status quo with no denominational grouping. Such cases are rare, and the Protestant Churches are wise to consider the general antipathy of the teachers against denominational rivalries in the schools.
The practical experience gained in the operation of the ! Nelson system in the primary schools argues for a similar ; smoothness of working when a more integrated place is given j in the school to the religious elements of an adequate curricu- ' lum. By and large educational authorities have commended the way the Nelson system works. Stating the viewpoint of the Primary teachers in a pamphlet issued by the N.Z. Educational Institute the writer says: “The Nelson system has already been in existence for over two generations. It works without friction and is fair to all parties”. The same methods that have produced these results in a system excluded from the curriculum would still be applied if the lessons were part of the curriculum. As a matter of fact there would be even better results in a more ordered regulated way.
Let us now consider the position of the Roman Catholics
CHAPTER 4
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
One of the chief problems associated in New Zealand with the national system of education is the attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. In some countries, where Protestantism has little influence, that Church has the schools largely under her control, and she is not always concerned about encouraging popular or general education. Illiteracy is widespread. Examples could be quoted from Latin America where the Roman Church holds sway, and Spain, before the revolution, was lamentably educated as far as the general populace was concerned.
It is a different story where Protestantism is dominant. Here the Roman Church finds a pacemaker, and to keep up in the race, has perforce to concentrate her energies on the general education she finds in evidence. Let credit be given where credit is due, and with respect to the type of education she provides in refusing to be satisfied with a curriculum entirely secular she has given Protestants in New Zealand a valuable lesson. In her schools religion occupies its rightful position as the basis, and there is a recognition of the place Jesus Christ, the world’s most influential Teacher, should occupy in school life. By contrast. His place in the national schools is too largely that of an absentee. “Tis true, ’tis pity, and pity ’tis, ’tis true.”
There has been a consistent opposition on the part of Rome to any system that would treat religion as something to be ignored in the school life of young children. Yet, for some reason difficult to justify, whenever the attempt has been made by the Protestant majority to remedy matters in the primary schools, the Roman Catholics have been to the forefront in opposition. Could it be that those who are loudest in the claim to the term “Catholic” are in fact not as catholic as they would claim to be?
On one occasion in the early thirties of this century it appeared that their opposition would be withdrawn in fact it was so for a short time and before all the representatives of the Churches concerned in the negotiations pass to their reward, it is well that the history of these events should be recorded. It may serve a useful purpose in future approaches. The preliminaries start with a paragraph from the pen of
37
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
the late Bishop Cleary, which appeared in the R.C. journal, The Month, which he published in Auckland. He wrote as follows:
Time and again, the Catholic Hierarchy of this Dominion has (through the present writer) expressed its desire to see the State school system made ‘religious on fair conditions all round, for those desiring it religious’. Time and again, our Hierarchy has (through the present writer) offered to meet all other interested parties in conference upon this subject, with only one proviso the recognition of the proper and equal rights of all before the law. Time and again, we have publicly declared that we are prepared to give fair and friendly consideration to any proposal whatsoever for religion in the State schools, so long as this principle of proper equality and rights before the law is conceded . . . When religion comes into the State schools, it should come in God’s good way, of justice, and charity, and high honour.”
On October 18th, 1929, the Hon. Mr. Carrington, M.L.C., addressing the Legislative Council on the Bible-in-Schools question, concluded his speech with the words, virtually an invitation to other Churches:
“This seemingly difficult question of religious instruction in the schools can be solved, and I venture to say, will be solved when the Christian Churches all of them, including my Church meet in friendly conference.”
He clearly indicated opposition to the present secular system of education by stating:
“We Catholics are in agreement with the Hon. Mr. Isitt and his friends to this extent: We cannot support the principle of secular education. We hold, and I think rightly, that religion is the first essential part of true education, and it must retain its rightful place, or be restored to its rightful place, in any real system of education, in order fully to prepare children for their duties and responsibilities in life.”
The late Bishop Cleary was the spokesman for the Catholic Hierarchy in dealing with the Bible-in-Schools question, and in the course of his evidence, before the Petitions Committee, 1926, he was questioned by the Hon. Mr. Cow. On page 11 of the report, having reference to a conference of Churches, the record runs:
Bishop Cleary:
“At such a conference we would leave our friends of other faiths the freest hand in our power. We only want two things protection of the consciences of our children and the protection of the consciences of our teachers. Apart from that we give them full freedom to bring as much religion as they like into the schools. The more there is the better
38
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
we shall like it. That is what I have stated many a time on my own behalf and as representing the views of the Catholic Archbishop and Bishops of New Zealand. We shall not venture to dictate to the people of other faiths what particular form of religious instruction or worship they should impart, so long as they let our teachers and children alone.”
Hon. Mr. Cow
“I gather from that that the attitude of your Church would be that, provided they only taught their own children anything they liked, you would have no objection?”
Bishop Cleary
“We would give them our most cordial blessing.”
These words were quoted by Hon. Mr. Carrington.
A Conference of Churches.
When in the month of March, 1930, a conference was held in Wellington, attended by representatives officially appointed by the chief courts or the heads of the following Churches: Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, the Church of Christ, and the Salvation Army, the matters above referred to were discussed at the opening of the Conference, and, as the chief business was to deal with Bible in Schools, a letter was forwarded by this Conference of Churches to Archbishops Bedwood and O’Shea, quoting from these extracts, and asking if the position was as stated by Hon. Mr. Carrington. The outcome was a conversation between Archbishop O’Shea and the four representatives of the Churches appointed at the Conference, Bevs. E. D. Patchett and E. O. Blamires, Hon. Sir Jas. Allen, and Lieut-Colonel John Studholme, and the arranging of a conference between the four and the Catholic Hierarchy. At this latter conference, which was held on April 29th, 1930, definite proposals, conveyed by letter from the Bible-in-Schools League, were considered. covering the two main points;
(1) The protection of conscience.
(2) The freedom of non-participants from bearing any additional expense, should such be incurred by the introduction of the Bible into the State schools.
The decision of the Catholic Hierarchy was to reply to these proposals in writing, and accordingly, on May 12th, 1930, Archbishop O’Shea wrote accepting the proposals, on condition that in any Bill the League might introduce into Parliament the proposed clauses outlined, or clauses achieving the same objects, were included. Legal advice was to be obtained to assure that the clauses met the desired objects, when the Bill was drafted.
At the Conference with the four R.C. Bishops on April 29th more than one complained at the uncharitable statements that
39
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
appeared from time to time from Protestant sources, mentioning especially one particular firebrand who had stumped the country in quasi-political interests. They were assured that the Bible-in-Schools League was in no way responsible, and in fact had been treated by the same person in the same scurrilous fashion.
The League, which had been authorised by the Protestant Conference to act on its behalf in the negotiations, had this in mind when submitting to Archbishop O’Shea at the time the following statement on points of agreement:
It is much to be desired that the great problem of religious education should be approached in a spirit of mutual conciliation, with a due recognition of the many points of agreement, among which are the following:
1. The secular view of life is incomplete, and no nation can achieve true and enduring greatness without basing its life on a religious foundation.
2. An entirely secular system of education does an injustice to child life, being unscientific as well as irreligious, treating as non-existent the most vital part of childnature.
3. The spiritual life needs to be nurtured in association with all other elements of child nature to develop harmoniously a full personality. Hence education in secular life alone, or by the separation of the processes of religious development from the processes of secular instruction, is education of the child by a totally unsound principle.
4. There is inevitable interaction between home life and school life, which cannot be reciprocal to the best advantage without a religious atmosphere in both.
5. In the teaching of our Saviour, He sets the little child in the place of paramount importance, in which He is so identified with the child, that an injustice to “the little one” is an offence against Him.
6. The spirit of the Religion of our Lord Jesus Christ is that of equity and mercy, brotherhood and tolerance.
V/l UiiU 1I1V1 j UilU lV/iVlUllW( On these basic principles of Religion and Education the Hierarchy and the League are agreed.
This statement, which was prepared by the League’s Executive for submission to the Archbishop, drew from him this reply in a personal letter to mvself:
“Now for your letter of May 7th indicating your intended line of action regarding the public pronouncement: I have not had time to submit it to the Bishops outside of Wellington, but have shown it to His Grace Archbishop Redwood and to a few of our people here. We think it splendid, es-
40
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
pecially the statement of the points on which we agree on the subject of Religious Education, This part is finely put, and the wording could not be better.”
The above statement of agreed principles, intended to form part of a joint public pronouncement may yet serve a useful purpose in the endeavour to win adequate recognition from the Government of New Zealand for the rights of the children for religious education in the national schools.
Later, Archbishop O’Shea expressed the desire to make the intended public pronouncement of the agreement one issued by arrangement at the same time, but as two statements independently made, one by His Grace, Archbishop Redwood as Metropolitan Archbishop in New Zealand, and the other by the Bible-in-Schools Executive. Accordingly this was done, and both statements were published in the Wellington “Evening Post” on July 25th, 1930. The full report is as follows:
THE PROTESTANT STATEMENT
For many years the New Zealand Bible in Schools League has endeavoured to introduce Bible reading and simple religious exercises into the State schools of New Zealand. Any opposition there has been has come mainly from the Roman Catholics. Their opposition has been inspired chiefly by the fear that the consciences of their children and teachers would not be protected. Inasmuch, then, as the League insists upon the protection of consciences, and inasmuch, also, as the Hon. Mr. Carrington stated last year in the Legislative Council that if the Roman Catholics were assured of such protection, others would be given full freedom to bring as much religion as they liked into the schools (quoting the words of the late Bishop Cleary), it was felt by the League that the chief reason for Roman Catholic opposition could be removed.
At a conference of representatives of the Protestant Churches, held in Wellington last March, to consider matters relating to the Bible in Schools question, this statement was discussed and a letter forwarded to Their Graces Archbishops Redwood and O’Shea, quoting Bishop Cleary’s words: “We only want two things protection of the consciences of our children and the protection of the consciences of our teachers”, and enquiring if this represented the Roman Catholic position. The outcome was the opening of negotiations with the object of meeting the difficulties that had previously prevented the opposition of the Roman Catholics from being withdrawn. Protestant and Roman Catholic alike approve the close association of religious
41
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
teaching with general instruction, and agree in viewing the present system of secular instruction as based on an inadequate conception of child nature.
The difficulties were frankly faced in conference and correspondence, with the result that the proposals made by the League Executive (empowered by the Conference of Churches to continue negotiations) have now been accepted by the Roman Catholic leaders.
These proposals are as follow:
1. That an interpretation of the League’s earlier conscience clause exempts, ipso facto, all Roman Catholic teachers and pupils from participation in the Bible lessons.
2. That Roman Catholic taxpayers be freed from paying any portion of the additional expense that may be involved in the introduction of the Bible into the schools.
3. That during the time set apart for religious instruction, exempted pupils be given lessons in secular subjects.
They were embodied in the following clauses
1. Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Act, all Roman Catholic teachers, and all the children of members of the Roman Catholic Church, shall be exempt, ipso facto, from participation in the religious observances and religious instruction provided for in this Act.
In addition, no child shall be required to attend the religious observances at the opening of the school or the religious instruction given, as herein provided, if the P a^ er| f or guardian of such child notifies the teacher in writing that he has conscientious objections thereto.
3. Should any teacher, other than those exempted under the provisions of the foregoing sections, inform his school committee that he desires to be exempted from participation in the aforesaid religious observances or instruction, or in both, exemption shall be given, and should there be, as the result of exemptions given under this section, an insufficient number of teachers to conduct such religious observances or instruction, then in all such cases the school committee, after consultation with the head teacher, may authorise and appoint for the purpose one or more persons as required from outside the school staff.
4. During the time given to religious instruction any children who may be exempted shall receive separate instruction in the secular subjects, except that the Board shall be empowered to make other arrangements whenever the parent or guardian of any child thus receiving
42
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
such secular instruction objects to the conditions under which such instruction must be given.
The principle was also affirmed in the conference of representatives of the Protestant Churches, and approved by the executive of the League, as follows:
If the introduction of religious observances or instruction involves any additional cost, the Roman Catholics shall be exempt from paying any share of this additional cost.
These clauses, etc., represent the proposals made by the League Executive and accepted by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, which will be forwarded to the governing bodies of the Churches comprising the League. They are embodied in a new Bill called “The Religious Instruction in State Primary Schools Enabling Act”, which will be considered by these Churches, with strong recommendation for acceptance by them. The report of these Churches will be received before the Bill takes final shape, and, it is understood that the Bill cannot, therefore, be placed before Parliament until 1931.
Regarding the question of State aid, the League throughout has been quite definite in the decision that negotiations must be carried on without committing it in any way to the Roman Catholic claims. The negotiations have been conducted from the beginning without involving any surrender of principle on either side. The following statement in the League’s official letter to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy makes this clear:
“We understand that though the present taxation involved under the secular system is and will continue to be viewed by your Church as unfair in its incidence as related to Roman Catholic taxpayers, yet this view of present taxation will not affect your consideration of such religious instruction in State schools as we may suggest, coming as it does within the scope of the meaning conveyed by Bishop Cleary’s words, ‘Catholics would be satisfied with even a partial settlement irrespective altogether of the question of grants’.”
This position the Roman Catholic Hierarchy has approved.
In the negotiations, opposition has been manifested on both sides to all unjust discrimination or intolerant spirit involving suffering for conscience sake. Equality in citizenship with respect to conscientious conviction is mutually approved and supported.
These negotiations have happily resulted in complete agreement between the League and the Roman Catholics on the above proposals.
43
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
ARCHBISHOP REDWOOD’S STATEMENT
The following statement was issued by Archbishop Red wood:
“Catholics, I need not say, are strongly opposed to a purely secular system of education, because we consider it incomplete and inadequate. Therefore have we set up in New Zealand our own system of religious schools. If in the past we have felt it our duty to combat the proposals of the Bible-in-Schools League, this was not because we were opposed to the principle of religion in the school, but only because of the methods adopted by the League on former occasions.
“The Catholic Bishops, while always insisting that any complete and fair solution of the education question in this country should include State aid to Catholic schools for the secular results achieved, and while in no way surrendering the claim to receive from the Government for this purpose an equitable share of the money contributed by the Catholic taxpayer toward the cost of public education, have many times during the last twenty years or so expressed their willingness to meet the Bible-in-Schools League and consider whether even a partial solution of the question of religious instruction in the State schools could not be arrived at. We have stated publicly over and over again, not only in joint statements made by the Bishops of New Zealand, but frequently through the late Bishop Cleary, who was the official representative of the hierarchy whenever this question came up, that altogether apart from the question of State aid to our schools, we were willing and anxious that some religion should be taught to Protestant children in the schools. It was provided only that the rights of conscience of Catholic teachers and pupils and of all others concerned were adequately protected, and that Catholics were not obliged to contribute anything towards the cost of such Protestant teaching.”
“God Speed The Proposals.”
“Recently representatives of the Bible-in-Schools League have approached us with the desire to come to some kind of agreement on the matter. The proposals are the outcome of our conversations. If a Bill containing the exemptions and safeguards for the consciences of Catholics and of others already mentioned is introduced into Parliament it will not be opposed by us.
“Of course, I repeat that, in adopting this attitude, we do
44
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
not for a moment mean to give up our just claim that Catholic schools are entitled to receive for the secular instruction criven in them a fair share of the money contributed by the Catholic taxpayer toward the cost of educating the children of the Dominion. This claim we cannot in conscience surrender. i■ - * *u,, .. ~i,,, t-li 11 fulfil
“But any proposals for religion in the schools mar iuuu the conditions we have so often insisted on for the protection of the consciences of Catholic teachers and pupils as well as of all others who cannot accept the proposed religious teaching, and which will exempt Catholics likewise from contributini toward the cost of such teaching, will not be opposed to us. To use the words of the late Bishop Cleary ‘the more (religion in the schools) there is, the better we shall like it’, and ‘we will wish our non-Cathohc friends Cod speed in carrying out their proposals .
After this public pronouncement almost a year was spent in securing from the various Church courts their endorsement ot the proposals, and in drafting the Bill for presentation to Parliament. Little difficulty was met with as far as the Protestant Churches were concerned. A united Conference of their officially appointed representatives had initiated negotiations and the resultant agreement had their support. .
It was found necessary to make alterations in the wording ot some of the clauses when they were embodied m the Bill, in order to harmonise with parliamentary practice, but nothing vital was affected and throughout Archbishop O Shea as the recognised official who acted on behalf of the hierarchy, was kept fully informed and consulted when necessary.
Then, after almost a year in which the agreement had been before the public, and during which there had been no question raised to its authenticity, like a bolt from the blue, Bishop Brodie R.C. Bishop of Christchurch, one of the four who had been at the conference, made a public denial that any agreement had been made. In doing so he denied the clear statements of affirmation made by both of his Archbishops, published throughout the Dominion in the secular press When the proposals were being considered at the said conference, he had been pronounced in his criticisms of past intolerance, as it appeared to him, from Protestant sources, but after three hours of frank and friendly discussion, it was his own proposal before we closed that they would reply in writing to the proposals made by the Protestant Churches That official reply was sent within a fortnight. It was heralded by a personal letter from Archbishop O’Shea in which he stated:
45
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
May 2nd, 1930
“Dear Mr. Blamires,
This is not an official letter but just to say hurriedly that the other bishops intimated to me today that they are willing to agree to the Bible-in-Schools proposals on the lines of your letters to me and of our discussion of last Tuesday . .
and he concludes
“of course I am more than delighted at the happy turn of events, and you may rely on us to loyally co-operate with you henceforth in your efforts to bring Religion back into the schools.
With every good wish,
Yours sincerely.
*T. O’Shea
Coadjutor Archbishop
The official acceptance followed ten days later.
As it was Bishop Brodie’s proposal that the Hierarchy should send a written reply and no reply, other than the one from Archbishop O’Shea, was received, the official acceptance announced by him was clearly that of the Hierarchy, and the wide publicity almost immediately given and not denied by Bishop Brodie at the time, left him without any real basis of reason for his action in waiting for twelve months, approximately, before his public denial.
In view of the official acceptance of the Protestant proposals having been expressed by Archbishop O’Shea in his letter of May 12th, 1930, it is significant that on June 9th, within a month of the acceptance, Bishop Brodie had written to me acknowledging the receipt of a copy of the N. Z. Outlook I had posted to him, having reference to a papal encyclical on religious education. It was accompanied by a letter and circular. In his reply Bishop Brodie wrote: “As I understand His Grace, Archbishop O’Shea will reply on behalf of the hierarchy it will not be necessary to comment on the circular of which you sent me a copy”.
It is thus perfectly established that Archbishop O’Shea’s reply of May 12th was the official reply of the Hierarchy, and pledged a withdrawal of opposition, provided only that the R.C. legal advisor (Mr. O’Regan) was satisfied that the contemplated Bill, when presented to Parliament, was in harmony with the agreement made.
Immediately Bishop Brodie had publicly denied after nearly a year had elapsed that any agreement had been made. Archbishop O’Shea, with equal publicity, completely refuted Bishop
46
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
Brodie. There was no hesitation on his part. He wrote to me on July Ist, 1931:
“Like yourself, I regret more than I can say, the turn events have taken through Bishop Brodies denial of our agreement. But, as you say, it will clear the air. Your messages in the Press were, in my opinion, a correct statement of the position. You were quite right in believing that the Hierarchy had come to an agreement (subject to legal approval of the Bill to be brought before Parliament) as I myself believed when I wrote to you. Unfortunately Bishop Brodie has never written a word to me on the matter and I had no idea that he was going to publish his denial of any agreement.”
It made one open one’s eyes in amazement that a Bishop of the Church, knowing for nearly a year that his Hierarchy had been publicly committed by his superior Archbishop to an agreement that had been known throughout New Zealand, knowing that he himself had been present at the original conference with the equal number of Protestant representatives, and having admitted at the time that his Archbishop wrote for the Hierarchy, should without even consulting with his superior on the matter, let a year go by, and then flatly deny the published and reiterated pronouncements of his two Archbishops.
What had brought about this rift within the Hierarchy it is not within my province to say, but I know how deeply the Archbishop felt the disloyalty to which he had been subjected. I was in constant touch with him at the time. I may be wrong in my view, but looking back after a quarter of a century, it seems to me there was some personal animus existing that marred the unity between the three bishops and Archbishop O’Shea, whose clear friendship with his fellow-bishop, the late Bishop Cleary, in my opinion, led him to support without any hesitancy, the tolerant stand that he had taken earlier. There was a frank openmindedness about Archbishop O’Shea that was not so evident with the others with whom we met at our conference with them. They seemed to be more concerned with what they could extract from the Protestants by way of a bargain to assist them with their own work in their own schools than of following the lead of their Archbishop who in a true Catholic spirit rejoiced in the opportunity to bring some religion into the national primary schools. His view was that it was better policy from a Catholic standpoint for their children to mingle with Protestants who had been given a religious atmosphere in the national schools than to be forced to breathe an atmosphere of secularity. To open a school each morning with the Lord’s Prayer with all the pupils participat-
34
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
ing was better than having no distinctively Christian reverence whatever in the nation’s schools. The other bishops were more on the defensive to protect their own. After the question of State aid had been mentioned and it was explained that we were meeting on the understanding that this was not before us Bishop Cleary’s words “Catholics would be satisfied with even a partial settlement irrespective altogether of the question of grants” being in mind yet Bishop Liston (Auckland) made the comment, “It could hardly be expected that we should meet your requirements without your helping us”. Such a comment might possibly have had reference only to the desire they had previously expressed that an atmosphere free from bitterness and intolerance on the part of some of the Protestant extremists should be changed, but the context of the conversation at the time pointed also to the claims they had so constantly made for State financial aid. Help in obtaining treatment in dental clinics and rides in school buses were mentioned as desired for R.C. pupils, and while I daresay such concessions would not have been viewed unsympathetically by the four Protestant representatives personally, they made it clear to the Bishops that we were bound by the limits of discussion set from the first by Bishop Cleary’s words, “irrespective of the question of grants”.
On the question of State aid to Church and private schools the League as a League, maintained strict neutrality, leaving individual members and Churches perfect freedom to determine their own attitude. The League held it was not a matter within its province to determine, but was one between the Government and the school authorities.
There is no doubt the Hierarchy, as a whole, was committed by Archbishop O’Shea’s acceptance, on their behalf, in his official letter of May 12th, 1930, accepting the League’s proposals, but, after Bishop Brodie had so amazingly denied any agreement had been made, further reference made by the Archbishop to the concordat was as between the two Archbishops and the Protestant League.
Presumably the Bishops of Auckland and Dunedin sided with Bishop Brodie and if so, must be viewed as equally to be condemned for their volte face. It was a case of three Bishops versus two Archbishops in a controversy which the whole population viewed as most unusual, and which those closest to the arena interpreted as a contest between broad tolerance and narrow suspicion.
The three Bishops at the conference, in contrast with their Archbishop, were manifestly suspicious. It was clear they were not enamoured of the challenge of Bishop Cleary, and now that the Protestant Churches had readily responded, they ap-
48
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
peared hesitant about accepting the proposals. Had the four Protestant representatives been prepared to say, “Give us your support, and we shall back you up in your demands for grants”, their hesitancy, I have no douubt, would have disappeared. If this is a true picture, then they were on the horns of a dilemma. They had either to agree to something to which they found their Church had been committed by Bishop Cleary, and supported by their Archbishop, or, by dissenting, reveal to the public, including extremists of which they complained among the Protestants, that the word of their Church could not be trusted. They chose the former for the time being, and their Archbishop officially announced their acceptance. Then, within a year, the three of them reversed their decision, and so placed themselves in the unenviable position of having to bear the discredit of having broken their word, confirmed the charges of the extremists among the Protestants, and having been publicly, by inference, condemned by their Superior, for Archbishop O’Shea said at the time, “We are bound in honour to stand by our dead colleagues and our oft-repeated promises”.
Bill Finally Endorsed.
When the Bill had been completed, it was submitted to Mr. P. J. O’Began, the legal adviser for the Roman Catholics, and Mr. H. E. Evans acted in a similar capacity for the League.
Mr. Evans wrote on June 21st, 1931
“Dear Mr. Blamires,
You will be pleased to hear that Colonel Studholme and I met Mr. O’Regan at 9 p.m. on Saturday, and that Mr. O’Regan, who had interviewed Archbishop O’Shea at 8 p.m. told us there is no objection from the Roman Catholic point of view to the draft Rill submitted by you to the Archbishop. Mr. O’Regan went with us through the clauses which were not included in the fair copy made by you of the principal clauses, and expressed himself as quite satisfied that they do not affect the Roman Catholic position . . .
With the Roman Catholic opposition removed, the prospects must be as bright as they have ever been since the movement started.
Yours sincerely,
Herbert E. Evans.”
The final sentence was evidently written without knowledge of Bishop Brodie’s denial, about to burst like a thunderbolt. However, the Archbishop, who had publicly contradicted Bishop Brodie, lost little time in confirming the concordat, and incidentally calling on him, by plain inference, to “play the game” and act in a more honourable fashion, for on Friday, July 10th, he made a statement in the Press.
49
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
He first of all stated that with the exception of Archbishop Redwood (at the time absent from New Zealand) he himself was the only survivor of the Bishops who had formulated the Catholic conditions on this question, consequently he should know better than anyone living what these conditions were, and the interpretation to be placed on them. They were, briefly, that Catholic teachers and Catholic children should be exempt from the Bible-in-schools scheme, and that Catholics should not be called on to pay anything towards the cost of carrying it out.
League Proposals Approved
“When the League’s proposals were submitted,” he said, “both Archbishop Redwood and myself agreed that they complied with the conditions which had been published over and over again by the Catholic bishops. When the Bill now being brought before Parliament was drafted, it was submitted for perusal to our legal adviser (Mr. P. J. O’Regan), who has reported that as it stands the Bill does not violate any of the conditions that had been laid down by the Catholic leaders and accepted last year by the Bible-in-Schools Executive. Consequently, as repeatedly promised. Catholics will withdraw their opposition to the present Bill.
Appeal to Catholics
“I am speaking not only for myself, but for the Metropolitan (Archbishop Redwood), who has already made a pronouncement to this effect, and I am sure that the Catholics of the Dominion, following the lead of their venerable Archbishop, will not approve of unreasonable opposition to the enactment of the proposals in the present measure, to provide for the non-Catholic children in our public schools some knowledge of God and religion.
“It will be in our own best interests to fight the spread of irreligion by every legitimate means, for irreligion does not make for charity, nor for the welfare of any country.
The State-Aid Question
“The question of State-aid is left by our agreement exactly as if no agreement had been made. While Catholics are content for the present that this partial settlement of what has been for years a vexed question, we do not mean to surrender one iota of our just claim on the State for a subsidy to our own religious schools for the secular results achieved in them. This, however, is a matter between the Government and ourselves. It is understood by us that the Bible-in-Schools League, as a league, is neutral on this question, leaving to its individual
50
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
members entire freedom to act in whatever way their convictions direct; the attitude to State-aid is in no way affected on either side, therefore, by our agreement, which was concluded altogether irrespective of this question.
“In Honour Bound.”
“Now that the Bill is before us, and the best legal advice confirms our view that the proposals it contains fulfil the Catholic conditions, we are bound in honour to stand by our dead colleagues and our oft-repeated promises, and withdraw our former opposition to its enactment.
“Indeed, it would be a strange thing if we, who have so consistently denounced secular education as an evil thing and a danger to the country, did not welcome what I believe to be an honest attempt to counteract some of the harm it is doing.”
The Bill was introduced into the House by Mr. Henry Holland, father of the ex-Prime Minister, and sent to the Select Committee on Education to take evidence and report. The opposition expressed by Bishop Brodie was supported by his fellow bishops, and in consequence the Hierarchy sent in a letter over the head of Archbishop O’Shea an exceedingly weak production, but expressive of the same sentiments that had always previously marked the Roman Catholic opposition and thus brought the Roman Catholic opposition to bear against what the Archbishop had described as an honest attempt to counteract some of the harm the secular system was doing. (See Addenda Note 5.)
By a narrow majority the Bill failed to pass its second reading, thus once more the Roman Catholic hierarchy had assisted in maintaining the very system of secular education in the primary schools they continually denounce in their efforts to extract State financial aid for their own schools. They had a unique opportunity to side with religion against secularism. The Protestant Churches met them on ground of their own choosing, accepted the challenge of Bishop Cleary, negotiated with them, satisfied their Archbishop, obtained their pledge through him to withdraw all opposition, and finally, in spite of their own Archbishop’s denunciation of their action they broke their word.
It was such a glaring breach of faith, that one Protestant Editor wrote in his journal, “had it been committed in any other than the Roman group every editor in the country
51
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
would have engaged in the process known as ‘scalding the cat’.”
Against the black background of such betrayal of faith, the honest dealing and straightforwardness of Archbishop O’Shea stands out in its clarity. Would there were more like him in the leadership of his Church! Like his Divine Master in a somewhat similar experience, he was cut to the heart but bore his cross, and humiliated by those who “forsook him and fled” yet gave a shining example of that broader mind and more tolerant spirit that points the way to Christian unity and ever higher achievement. His example stands as a guide to all who would help to answer our Saviour’s prayer for His Disciples;
“That they all may be one: as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me.”
So, although for a time it looked as though, through the influence of Archbishop O’Shea and Bishop Cleary, the Roman influence would not oppose the Protestant endeavour to end the injustice done to the nation’s children by the secular system, in the end it was not found to be sufficiently broadminded and truly Catholic in spirit, and the old narrow outlook prevailed. Bishop Cleary’s offer was proved unreliable. The extremist firebrands on the Protestant side were not slow to say: “We told you so; what faith can you have in the word of a Catholic?”
Yet the many, the majority of true Protestants will continue to recognise the many valuable self-sacrificing qualities found among true Roman Catholics. We can learn from one another. And, maybe the negotiations of 1930-31, even though resulting in an impasse, may yet serve to point the way to better things for the nation’s children and their education according to the teaching of Christ.
One difficulty always experienced in negotiating with Roman Catholics lies in the fixed assumption they hold that they constitute the one holy, apostolic. Catholic Church in the world, and following the lead of their conviction as to the (infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and doctrine, they, *of necessity, conclude that those who differ from them, such as Protestants, are wrong. The claim made by them is not soundly based historically. It has never been universally acknowledged. Such ancient churches as the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic that have as early a record as theirs are witnesses against the supremacy of Rome. Furthermore, the teaching of Christ and His apostles, as recorded in Scripture gives little confirmation to much of the doctrine tenaciously held by Rome where it is in conflict with the convictions as tenaciously held by Protestants. See Appended Note 3.
52
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC ATTITUDE
There is a great body of truth held in common by all Christians. The use of the Lord’s Prayer in all the churches is significant. Despite one or two variant interpretations, such as refer, e.g. to Christ’s words to Peter where the Roman Catholic views Peter as the foundation of the Church, while Protestants view Peter’s confession of Christ’s divinity as the Rock on which the Church is built, the teaching of our Saviour is approved by all. It is this great body of truth which in a Christian country should be freely given in the nation’s schools to the children, especially those of parents who wish the teaching to be given.
The charge has been made against Rome that she encourages the closed mind, that in this respect she resembles small modern sects, as, e.g. the Close Brethren and the Jehovah Witnesses. The track is made in the mind, and there is little chance of departure from it, with the inevitable result that much of truth is not discovered. Yet this is not to affirm that the teaching of Christ, accepted alike by Rome and Protestantism, cannot be used in the schools.
There is a general acknowledgment that the Christian ethic is at the foundation of the national schools of New Zealand. It is helpful to get away from the realm of dogma at times to the more practical region of Christian conduct. I am reminded of a conversation I once held with a soldier returned from the front during wartime. I asked him what was the state of religion in the front trenches. He replied, “There isn’t any”. “What!” I said, “do you mean to tell me that if a soldier was wounded, no-one would go to his assistance?” He looked at me blankly for a moment or two, trying to fathom my meaning. Then he said, “Oh, I thought you meant the isms”. When Christian conduct is considered, the “isms” do not loom so largely, and Christian charity expressed in practice will unite where dogma divides. Still the question must be put to those who afiirm that the Christian ethic is at the base of the national schools why then should the textbook of the Christian ethic be excluded from the curriculum of the State schools? As has already been shown, the R.C. Hierarchy is in some considerable measure responsible for the exclusion, but in the interests of child life in the Dominion is the time not overripe for those responsible for arranging the curricula of the public schools to put first things first, to recognise the supreme importance of moral and religious training, and no longer exclude Christ and His teaching from the pre-eminent place? When He first, came into His world, there was no room for Him in the inn,!/j and He was born in a stable. In the Schools of New Zealand j in the twentieth century He should surely receive better treat-|l| ment than a makeshift arrangement.
CHAPTER 5
THE STATE AID QUESTION
Following from the views expressed in the preceding chapters as an introduction to the present one, it would be well to consider some views on the general subject of religious education that will find harmony of thought among Roman Catholics and Protestants alike.
First, from a Roman Catholic statement may be quoted:
“Religion should not be merely one of the subjects taught. The whole process of education should be animated by religious conviction; the whole atmosphere charged with Christian inspiration. ‘A man must have truth to live by’. It was not sufficient to fill his mind with a vast array of facts about the world in which he lives without an appreciation of the fundamental truths that preside over them. And when the voice of reason can speak no further then the Word of God takes up the lesson.
From where can we draw the moral principles with which to solve the insecurity of the modem groping mind? How can we cultivate a sense of moral responsibility a sense of duty without which no democracy can survive?
There was no foundation for these primary demands for good citizenship except in the truth of the freedom of the human will and its responsibility before the law of God.”
—Father G. Head, Rector of St. Patrick’s College, Wellington.
Secondly, from the Norwood Report on the English Educa tion Bill;
“We begin by drawing a distinction between Scripture Knowledge and Religious Education. The first is definitely a subject of the curriculum, but the second is not, and we believe it to be very much the more important . . . The development of the religious consciousness is not, and cannot be, the subject of a syllabus; it grows from the environment, favourably and naturally if the environment be favourable and natural, atrophied and distorted if the environment is materialist in its values, and purely competitive in spirit. It is a growth from a life that is lived. There can be, and there
54
THE STATE AID QUESTION
are, schools in which you are effectively taught that you find happiness by unselfishness and by helping neighbour and the ideal forms itself naturally from the life that is lived in them. There can be and there are, schools in which truth and knowledge are sought for their own sakes and there exists a jealously safeguarded tradition of sound learning in which again the ideal of goodness lives in the standards of the school so that its members strive not to fall short of them, and beauty is felt to be relative to everything that is studied or made or done. If none attain perfection and few approach it, yet the strength of our Secondary Education is that on the whole, when measured by these standards, the schools incline more to the better than to the worse. There is a tradition that there can be inspiration in the dwelling together of the teachers and the taught, t a e head and the staff, the sixth form and the mam body of the pupils, can and often do find a common life which has a spiritual basis, a fertile seed-ground from which naturally spring the love of God and the love of ones neighbour.
To these may there be added the statement of an educational principle uttered in 1955 by the President of the N.Z. Educational Institute of Teachers as recorded in the Dominion” of May sth:
“The child has no say in being bom. Since he is bom into our civilisation he has a right to inherit the culture and ideals which are ours. He must be educated . . Our children must have the education which is their right.
Probably the N.Z.E.I. President was not thinking at the time of the implication as it applied to religion but it is a principle of general application, very palpably, and must be so applied.
Consideration of these three preceding statements from widely different sources should show clearly what is behind the dissatisfaction constantly revealed with the clause in the Education Act that limits teaching in the primary schools to subjects of a secular character when the curriculum is arranged. Roman Catholics and Protestants agree in condemning the inadequacy of the educational provision made. All see that the right of the child is denied him. By the statute of the land he is to adapt himself to an artificial system out of harmony with his God-given nature, instead of his educators providing a system that is in harmony with his nature. , .
The truth of this should not be hidden behind what the Churches have done and are doing to atone for the inadequacy. Naturally they have been forced to remedy matters as tar as
55
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
they have opportunity for so doing. So much have they done in day-schools and Sunday schools, and in the weekly halfhour under the Nelson system, as it is called, that the enormity of the wrong done to the nation’s children has been hidden behind it like something lost in a fog. The fact is still there even if visibility is poor; the secularity of the primary curriculum is an injustice to the child. It is the responsibility of the educational authority that undertakes the important task of education to see that provision is made for educating the “whole child”, within the scope of the curriculum.
i Let credit be given where credit is due, and the only Church that has rightly judged the State system is the Roman Catholic Church. She has in all good conscience refused to allow her children, except under special circumstances, to attend schools where religion is not given its rightful place. In consequence, I believe it can be said with real sincerity that what may be viewed as Roman Catholic esprit de corps is greatly inspired in New Zealand by the Church schools. The very sacrifice involved in maintaining these schools has helped to sustain that spirit. The Marist and similar Football Clubs are a simple illustration of the way the influence of Church schools continues into adult life the spirit engendered in school.
Hence, whether there is support for State aid for Church and private schools or not, the claim for it by Roman Catholics (can at least be understood and it cannot lightly be dismissed as unworthy of consideration. Personally, as a Protestant who cannot in all conscience accept many of the dogmas of Rome, especially as they have, in my view, unsound historical bases, I would go further and say their claim for State aid is worthy of sympathetic consideration. It would be vastly different if the State system provided a curriculum they could accept, but ■ at present they cannot conscientiously do so.
The Protestant reaction to the secular enactment has differed from that of Rome. Ever since 1877, the year of that enactment, Protestants have opposed it on principle. They opposed the original enactment, and it has been opposed ever since. As they have numbered nearly 80 per cent of the population, according to the census returns, they have always been affected in their attitude by the belief that the system could be altered by the pressure of public opinion. An early attempt was made to obtain a referendum, but it failed, despite the organising ability of Canon Garland, who had been a successful leader in gaining it in Queensland. The Roman Catholic opposition, ably led by Rishop Cleary, was largely instrumental then, as later, in blocking the way.
Other attempts made under the aegis of the Bible-in-State-Schools League aimed at amending the Act by means of a
56
THE STATE AID QUESTION
private member’s Bill, and on more than one occasion came very close to success, a casting vote by the Chairman of Committees causing defeat on the third reading on one occasion. Against the wish of the organisations responsible for these Bills, Parliament would tend to view them through Party spectacles, and one Party always deciding its attitude in caucus, a free vote was never recorded. Otherwise these Bills would probably have been carried. On one occasion a Government Education Bill was withdrawn rather than risk a free vote on the secular clause. Such prospects as were envisaged in these campaigns have been influential in causing Protestants to put up temporarily with a defective system, instead of taking the course followed by Borne. That the view is unchanged, however, is evident from various pronouncements from Protestant sources, of which one of the latest is the following resolution passed, I believe, unanimously, by the Methodist Conference of 1956;
‘The Methodist Church believes that the present national system of education cannot be regarded as fully adequate until legal and practical provision is made within the system to impart knowledge concerning the nation’s total cultural heritage, which includes the Rible, the Christian Faith, and Christian ethical standards. Such knowledge can best be imparted through a single national system of education which recognizes the rightful place of the Christian heritage of the nation.”
This is largely representative of Protestant views. While Rome has drawn away, quite conscientiously, all her children, as far as possible, from the national schools, given them in fact the cold shoulder, and steadily refused to aid in improving them from the standpoint of the Christian religion, Protestants have recognised that they are the national schools of what is in the main a Protestant nation. On them rests a responsibility to support them, and try to remedy the defects that are so palpable from the Christian standpoint.
The State authorities are to be commended for the freedom given in organising Church and private schools. Proportionately, this has been of greater use to Roman Catholics than Protestants. The latter have developed Sunday schools rather than day-schools, and the contention has been made, I think with reason, that the expenditure incurred in building and maintaining the Sunday schools has cost proportionatelv quite as much as that incurred by Roman Catholics for their dayschools, without taking into account the number of Protestant day-schools. This concern of Protestants for the relic ions education of their children, and the expenditure involved should not be overlooked when the matter of State aid for schools is
57
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
considered. It has not received the notice due to it. Every Sunday thousands of teachers meet their scholars in the Sunday schools of the Dominion to give them definite Biblical instruction. The whole work is done voluntarily. Practically all the expense incurred is for the buildings and maintenance, and for the literature used, teachers and pupils’ aids, etc. Organising Secretaries’ salaries and expenses have, however, to be met. The Secretary of the Auckland Sunday School Union provided me in 1955 with statistical information for New Zealand as follows:
Buildings used for S.S. work 2,765
Teachers (all voluntary) . . 15,604
Scholars (up to 14 or 15 years) 161,265
Pupils by correspondence 8,932
It is possible these figures are an approximation, but are sufficiently dependable for the purpose of revealing the extent of the voluntary teaching in Sunday schools. Magistrates and Social Workers are on record indicating how few of those who appear in Children’s Courts have been Sunday School scholars.
It is worthy of notice that the great majority of the Protestant clergy, in addition to many qualified laymen and women, visit the day-schools to give the half-hour weekly of Bible teaching under the Nelson system. Some visit several schools in a week.
A RECENT ROMAN CATHOLIC APPEAL TO THE GOVERNMENT
In 1955 the Education Committee of Parliament received a well-organised approach from the Holy Name Society of the Roman Catholic Church, strongly backed by the Hierarchy. Mr. W. S. Otto was their spokesman. The case was presented at great length, and created possibly a wider interest than on any previous occasion. There were few religious or educational organisations whose considered opinions were not publicly expressed, and Press reports were ample, so that the public was well-informed on the question. The Roman Catholics were strongly averse to their appeal being interpreted as one for “State Aid”, especially if religious instruction is in mind. A statement issued by the R.C. Bishops is clearly put, as follows:
“At no time have Catholic parents claimed assistance from the State for the teaching of religion in their schools. The claim is simply for the teaching of what would otherwise have to be given in State schools at the State’s expense.”
58
THE STATE AID QUESTION
Put in a slightly different way, it is claimed that as Roman Catholics—and others—cannot conscientiously use the schools the State provides, they should have refunded to them an amount the State authorities have collected from them as taxpayers for providing the means for establishing and maintaining the educational system. In fairness and justice much can be said in support of a claim thus stated. It could not be as reasonably put forward if the State school curricula were such as could be conscientiously accepted as adequate for a sound education. But, at present, that is not the case. Neither Protestants nor Roman Catholics approve the secularity of the primary schools. In the case of the Roman Catholics the Church has been forced by the State to provide their own independent system. As a result, the State gains at the expense of the conscientious taxpayer who cannot use the system the State has provided without offending his conscience and quarrelling with his Church.
It could be reasonably contended that the ground for the Roman Catholic claim would be undermined if the national system were adequate in providing for an education in religious as well as secular subjects in the curriculum, but, so adamant is Rome in requiring her own particular system, so that she can teach what she likes, that any general system based on a syllabus approved by the great majority of the Churches is unlikely to be acceptable to her.
I recall showing the late Archbishop O’Shea a service-book of hymns, prayers, etc., prepared for use in the opening of devotional periods in the day-schools, and asking him if there was anything included that he could object to on grounds of doctrine. He frankly admitted there was nothing, but he added, “Of course we would not use it as it is not provided by us”.
Before the Education Committee nearly all those who gave evidence were opposed to the R.C. claim. This was the case with both the Churches and the educational authorities. The line of argument taken stressed the advantages of a State system, providing a general education for all the children of the land. They could meet on common ground, regardless of class, creed or colour. The right for the establishment of Church and other private schools was acknowledged, but in such cases the costs involved should be carried by those who establish these schools and avail themselves of the provisions thus created. Those who spoke for the various Protestant Churches were prepared to accept this responsibility as it applied to themselves and their own Church schools, and it has already been pointed out that if the Sunday schools be included in the whole purview of religious and secular education, Protestants are bearing a financial burden quite equal, proportionately,
59
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
to that borne by the Roman Catholics. This argues for the sincerity of their opposition.
The Loyal Orange Lodge, in opposing grants in aid, drew attention to the position obtaining in such predominantly Roman Catholic countries as Spain, Portugal, Italy and Mexico, where it was claimed, the opening of any school but her own was forbidden by Rome, and contrasted this with the freedom given to Romanists in New Zealand where, in a predominantly Protestant country, they are free to build their own schools.
Various educational bodies unanimously opposed the R.C. petition, among them the Executive of the Dominion Federation of School Committees’ Associations, largely representative of the parents of the pupils. It accused the R.C. Hierarchy of denying to R.C. parents what the Hierarchy itself describes as the God-given right of parents to choose what type of education their children shall receive. By their Church law R.C. parents must send their children to a Roman Catholic school on pain of not being permitted to attend the Sacraments. Permission in exceptional cases can only be granted by the Bishop. An interesting contention made by the Federation is thus expressed;
“As Roman Catholic schools are established in order that the dogma of the Church can be imparted to the pupils in a Catholic environment it is not possible to separate religious from secular education in such schools. Therefore the claim that at no time have Catholic parents claimed assistance from the State for the teaching of religion in their schools is fallacious.”
Such a contention is strengthened by the recognition that true education whether religious or secular is a unity It has no separating division.
CHAPTER 6
A PROFESSOR’S EVIDENCE EXAMINED
One of the chief witnesses before the Education Committee was Professor C. L. Bailey, who occupies the Chair of Education at Victoria University College, Wellington. He could be taken as a representative of a large number of primary school teachers who uphold a secular, as opposed to a definitely religious system of education in New Zealand. He strongly opposed the granting of financial aid to Church schools.
His philosophy of education is so completely at variance with that propounded in these pages that it is necessary to examine it critically, especially as it comes from the higher strata of educational thought and could too easily be taken as authoritative.
Before doing so, it would be well to pay due respect to the general excellence that marks the processes of both higher and primary education in N.Z. within the restricted lines made necessary by the secular philosophy. As far as it can go in this cabined space, the secular teaching has been on the whole well performed. Without suggesting anything approaching perfection, it can with reason be claimed that the standard is high, and credit for this can be given to those responsible, including such leaders as Professor Bailey. The child to be trained has a nature far more expansive than their system allows them to reach, an “insight and a stretch” well beyond secular consideration, but, to give credit where credit is due, as far as they could go, the teaching has been effective.
Let us now examine the evidence. First, it is that of a secularist. The professor may not call himself such, but it is such as a secularist would present. He claims that in the long processes of history there has come the emergence of the secular State as a neutral institution of society, and that in N.Z. “the complete separation of Church and State has long been accomplished”. With reference to religious teaching he holds therefore that the State should take up a neutral position. As he says, “The State should neither hinder, nor promote the teaching of religion or financially aid it”. Presumably he takes for granted that it is the State’s responsibility to provide education for the nation’s children. According to this assumption religious education is ruled out as far as the State is concerned. What does this imply? It implies that, within the State system,
61
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
the teaching of Jesus Christ cannot be given to the children within the curriculum. Now Jesus is recognized by the huge proportion of New Zealand’s population, as the greatest Teacher of mankind, that He understands human nature perfectly, that His teaching is universal and timeless, and that He stands supreme as the champion of childhood, and the influence of His teaching has done more to regenerate mankind, and uplift society, than any other factor in the last twenty centuries. Yet, under a purely secular system, His teaching is viewed, as from a neutral position, “neither for nor against”,® in other words, it would be banned from any adequate recognition or use. Furthermore, the teaching of Jesus leads us to , believe that the child is something more than a secular body- ! mind. His personality is sacred. He has an intimate conneci tion with his Creator which it is his responsibility to seek to ; develop, and which has a most important bearing upon his character, and understanding of life. Now, these things are viewed as the aim of true education, but how can they be given any adequate recognition within the confines of a curriculum limited to secular subjects, though it is understood that character development is the principal aim of New Zealand education? It is held that the Christian ethic is acknowledged as the moral basis of the Primary schools. If this be correct, then and personally I believe that the majority of the teachers acknowledge it how is it logical to acknowledge this, and at the same time be prevented from using the Book, which gives the best training in the Christian Ethic. Fortunately, the teacher is better than the system, just as the child is more expansive than it, but should not be debarred from using the I best method of character development in teaching the pupil, as is at present the case.
Secondly, the claim is made by Professor Bailey, that
“New Zealand was the only Colony of settlement in which the Church was deliberately given no political connection with the State. That foundation philosophy had been endorsed and written into our statutes in 1877 with the enactment for the national Education System, built on the principle of separation. The decision was no irresponsible act by a Parliament out of touch with the sentiment of the country. The Education Act merely translated into a national system the almost universal trend in the various provincial systems that were replaced by the single national system.”
* Archbishop Wm. Temple "We have supposed that it is possible to provide education which is religiously neutral, to whicn religion can be added in greater or less measure. But in fact an education which is not religious is atheistic; there is no middle way. If you give to children an account of the world from which God is left out you are teaching them to understand the world without reference to God. If He is introduced. He is an excrescence. He becomes an appendix to His own creation.”
62
A PROFESSOR S EVIDENCE EXAMINED
Here I consider that the Professor has vastly misread the intention of the Education Act of 1877. I have not been able to discover any such deliberate decision as the Professor stated was made. If such a decision were made it seems strange that the only clause in the Act dealing with the limitation of the teaching to secular subjects is the one which specifies the time permitted for such subjects to be taught. Surely, such an important principle would have received a more adequate statement, if the Professor is correct. In another part of this book the history leading to the passing of the Act is given in detail. It shows that the Minister in charge of the Bill, the Hon. C. C. Bowen, intended that religion should have a place in the school system, and originally provided that the schools should be opened with religious devotions, including the reading of the Bible. He stated in one of his speeches dealing with the Bill of 1877 in Parliament, “I feel certain that it is the desire of nineteen-twentieths of the people of this country that the Bible should not be absolutely excluded from our public schools”. Eventually, he had to modify his scheme, as the outcome of a disagreement between the Lower and the Upper Houses, with the result that indirect provision was made whereby the Education Boards should have the power of determining for how many hours in each school day, including the four hours specifically required by Statute for the secular subjects, the school should be open. The local school committee was then given the power to grant the use of the school building, outside the statutory four hours (and any added time required by the Board) for any purpose whatsoever, including that of religion. In this way, from the very first, provision was made for voluntary religious teaching, and, under what is known today as the Nelson System, this purposive method has continued in most of the schools of the land.
The late Lieut.-Col. Studholme was treasurer of the Bible-in-Schools League, of which I was secretary, for close on 20 years, and I had the closest connection with him. He married the daughter of the Hon. C. C. Bowen, and it was my privilege, frequently, to converse with her. I can state unhesitatingly, that the provisions made whereby such voluntary religious teaching could be given under the provisions of the Act, were a deliberate arrangement in harmony with the intention of the Minister in charge of the Bill. How does this square with Professor Bailey’s contention? Actually the main purpose of the Government was to unify New Zealand’s system of education, to nationalise it instead of continuing a separate system in each province. No such definite decision regarding the Church and State relationship was made.
It is not contended that in his evidence the Professor is
63
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
astray from the facts in stating; “In one regard the history of Western Europe has been the history of the progressive emergence of the State as a neutral institution of society”. This can be approved as quite historical, but when he goes on to claim that by 1877 in New Zealand, “the achievement of a complete separation of Church and State had long been accomplished,” he appears to be well astray from sober fact. The secularisation of education which is a movement accompanying this trend to separate Church and State, had more influence in the United States than in England and Scotland, and New Zealanders have much closer ties with their Homelands than with Western Europe. Agnosticism, Atheism and Secularism in general found a fruitful seed-ground in Europe where the trend has been in the direction of an all-controlling Church on the one hand, and its natural reaction, a more and more powerful State on the other. In Germany, Italy and Russia, there have appeared during the present century in greater or less degree the dominant State setting itself up against the would-be dominance of the Church. This trend has come to fullest fruition in Soviet Russia, with its anti-God philosophy.
Was H. M. Tomlinson a prophet when in 1930 he wrote in All Our Yesterdays:
“My Church is down I hear him saying, “My God has been deposed again. There is another God now, the State, the State Almighty. I tell you that God will be worse than Moloch. You had better keep that in mind. It has no vision; it has only expediency. It has no morality, only power. And it will have no arts, for it will punish die free spirit with death. It will allow no freedom, only uniformity. Its altar will be a ballot-box, and that will be a lie. Right before us will be its pillar of fire. It has a heart of gunmetal and its belly is full of wheels. You will have to face the brute, you will have to face it. It is nothing but your worst, nothing but the worst of us, lifted up. The children are being fed to it.”
Great Britain has been the leader in opposition to this trend. She has freed herself largely from an all-dominant Church, and religion is now nurtured where the State Church of England and the Church of Scotland happily unite with the Free Churches in maintaining the essentials of practical religion. In education every school in the land opens with religious worship daily, and provision is made for Christian teaching. Approved syllabuses are in use for the purpose. Should any parent have conscientious objection arrangements can be made for giving the children of such a separate course in harmony with the parents’ convictions. There is parlia-
a professor’s evidence examined
64
mentary support by Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties. The Education Bill which set this in operation was passed by both Houses of Parliament with little opposition, and Church schools receive financial aid. Where schools in England are desirous of complete independence from public control, this aid is considerably lessened. The principle is applied that where public funds are used, some public supervision should be given. After a full year spent recently in England, I can testify to the general satisfaction with the principles of the system. There are improvements that could be made in the impartation of religious knowledge, improvements that will doubtless appear as attention is drawn to the need; there are also alterations being introduced, and also looming ahead, in changing Church schools that find it difficult to arrange the finance needed in meeting the requirements of modern education so that they are brought completely under the control of the local Education authority. In any case, however, the essential principle is upheld as religious worship continues daily, and religious instruction is given. If the denominational flavour of a Church school is weakened by the change to a State school, that could be an advantage or otherwise, according to one’s point of view.
Now, notwithstanding the Education Act in N.Z. of 1877, whose secular clause is rather an exception than the statement of an accepted principle, education in our Dominion has had exceedingly close ties with the Homeland. School Prayers, as in Great Britain, open practically every secondary school daily. Why? Because the Boards of Governors were more in harmony with the custom of the Homeland than with the discordant note struck by our legislators in 1877. And verily we may believe that they represented the parents of the nation’s children, and public opinion in general, far more truly than the secularists of last century.
I would question, very definitely, the statement of the Professor, that what he claims is “a conviction of the great majority of New Zealanders”. Here, I believe, is a case of wishful thinking. Upon what does he base his conviction? Again and again the Bible-in-Schools League endeavoured to secure from Parliament the holding of a referendum which would determine what the great majority of the people wanted on the question of religious teaching in school. In this, the League was unsuccessful. The reply given by one group of Parliamentarians, averse, on principle, to the holding of a referendum, was that members of Parliament were responsible for the making of the laws, without submitting various problems to the people as a whole. Another party, who had a referendum as a plank for their platform, when approached, replied per
65
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
their president, that this did not apply where conscience was involved, quite oblivious, aparently, of the fact that the system visualised, was of a voluntary nature, and the choice did not involve any pressure on a parent, child, or teacher’s conscience. In view of the unwillingness of Parliament to submit the question to a referendum of the people, the said League arranged its own plebiscite among the parents of the pupils in the Primary schools. As secretary at the time of the League in the Otago Education area, I was successful in obtaining a list of the parents and their addresses from every school committee in the area, without exception, and a postal ballot was arranged. This showed that over 80 per cent favoured religious teaching. A similar method was adopted in every Education Board district, though not as completely as in Otago. It was amply sufficient to show that the feeling was much the same in every district. Frequently when the Nelson system, so-called, has been proposed for introduction to a school, the local school committee has similarly submitted the proposal to the parents, and the crowds of instances known have revealed much the same proportion, over 80 per cent in favour. I would submit that these are far more reliable indications of N.Z. sentiment than what I have termed the wishful thinking of the Professor.
Thirdly, let this principle of the separation of Church and State on which Professor Bailey bases so great a part of his argument for the secular school be examined. Is there in N.Z. today, or has there ever been, a definite line of demarcation between the fields of action covered by the two? There is not. There is an area where the State is in control. There is an area where the Church is supreme, but there is perhaps as great an area where both work together in co-operation, and fortunately for the country as a whole the give and take required, and the process of adjustment of duties and claims between the two is a happy and sensible arrangement in a free, democratic country. It removes the dangers of dictatorship, by a totalitarian State on the one hand, and of a dogmatic and tyrannical Church on the other. The safe course lies between the Scylla of Stalinism and the Charybdis of Makariosity. The need of N.Z. education is a eood nilot.
When Christ said, in answer to a question on finance, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”, He made no suggestion that an area of life was not to be recognised where both God and Caesar were involved. As a matter of simple fact it is a large area. In it will be found, for example, the care of the sick in hospitals. At one time in the past this was largely undertaken by the Church, but there has been a steady increase in the
66
A PROFESSOR S EVIDENCE EXAMINED
State’s activity in this respect. Today in N.Z., as elsewhere, the hospitals are largely State institutions, though there are others under Church control. When I visited U.S.A. in 1920-21 there were 48 public hospitals under Methodist control. There are several Church hospitals in N.Z. Lewisham in Wellington, and Mater Misericordiae in Auckland and Palmerston North, are samples under R.C. control. State aid is given to the Church hospitals, and Church aid is given to the State hospitals; in the latter case not of a direct financial kind, but in the appointment of chaplains and by the visitation by priests, clergy and deaconesses to an innumerable degree. As the expense involved in travel, stipends, time occupied, etc., is the Church’s responsibility, indirectly there is a considerable financial contribution, but probably the chief way in which the Church assists the public hospitals is in the provision of so many excellent members of the nursing staff, whose inspiration and spiritual training have been received under the aegis of the Church. I am sure Professor Bailey would not attempt to apply his principle of the separation of Church and State to the hospitals as he has tried to do in the case of the schools. I believe he is broad enough to see how fallacious it would be.
There are other examples of Church-State intermingled cooperation that could be quoted, but only one other need be cited. The care of the aged is occupying much thought at present in the councils of both Church and State. The Church is opening Eventide and similar homes in many parts of the country. As one responsible Minister of State said to a Church representative, “You people can do this kind of work far better than we can,” and so every £-1 raised by the Church for such charity is subsidised by the Government by a mutual and happy co-operation. Professor Bailey’s principle of separation is discarded, if it was ever approved in this Dominion.
Does it not follow logically that if the best results in the care of those who are weak and dependent in body accrue from a happy co-operation between Church and State, then the same procedure should be planned when those who are mentally and spiritually immature are concerned? The education of the nation’s children is equally the concern of both Church and State. The cases run parallel, and the same principles leading to co-operation should apply. There is a contention by some Churchmen that education is the sole business of the Church, and they look to the State to provide the finance. At the other extreme are those I wonder if Professor Bailey is in this group who want the State to have complete control. Is there a middle course? Surely there is, and in some part it has marked the educational processes in New Zealand. We must not allow the objectionable phrase in the Act of
54
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
1877, “the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character” to blind us to the amount of practical co-operation that now is found. The secular clause has never applied to secondary schools, nor to the native primary schools, only to the “pakeha” primary schools. In the latter the compromise provision arranged by Hon. C. C. Bowen, in 1877, has applied throughout, and increasingly used. Hundreds of schools open the day with religious observances, by consent of the Education Board and the arrangement of the local school committee. This is usually under the voluntary supervision of the head or the class teacher, though there are- cases where ministers have attended for the purpose, and the pupils themselves frequently carry the devotions through as arranged by the teacher. This is perhaps the ideal way, provided the supervision of the teacher has included prior preparation of the scholar or scholars chosen. One teacher, a specialist in verse-speaking, trained his class in class-reciting of some of the great passages of Scripture that everyone should know, and the class led the whole school in the morning observance with notable effect. Another specialist in music in Auckland used his training of the school in singing with similar results, making morning assembly a feature of the school activity. In this instance the whole of the observance was carried on by the pupils, but prior training was evident. And how the children enjoyed it! These instances are from primary schools under Mr. Bowen’s system. “School Prayers” are a regular feature in practically all secondary schools. The vast majority of the city and town primary schools are visited regularly (and many country schools also) by ministers of religion and qualified laymen under the same Bowen (Nelson) System for the purpose of giving half an hour’s Bible lesson weekly. In some secondary schools Scripture lessons are part of the curriculum. Whether within school hours as in secondary schools, or in time excluded from compulsory hours of attendance by the Bowen arrangement, as in primary schools, there is a great amount of co-operation between Church and State, not enough from the Church standpoint until the secular clause is repealed, but at least sufficient to show that the Professor’s principle of the separation of Church and State in New Zealand is like the separation of a man’s nose from his face. They can be separated, certainly, but only at the cost of disfigurement. They are made to be united, though they may vary in function.
It will be clear from the foregoing that my interpretation of the historical background behind the 1877 Act differs considerably from that quoted from Professor Bailey’s evidence. It is reasonable to ask what is my own view. The period was one of criticism of the very bases of the Christian faith. In
A PROFESSOR S EVIDENCE EXAMINED
68
science men like Thomas Huxley and Charles Darwin were about to probe into age-old beliefs of both science and religion, and within the Church the Higher Criticism was giving a similar jolt to many traditional beliefs. The rank and file of the people were confused. My own early experiences were developed in such an atmosphere. In New Zealand men such as the late Sir Robert Stout were leading secularists in Parliament at a time when there was quite an upsurge of dogmatic secularism. I was living in Melbourne at the time Sir Robert came over to deliver a series of free-thought lectures. One of his hearers who heard him through was a young man who was unsettled in his mind as to the Christian way of life, and wanted to hear both sides in his search for truth. The outcome was not what the free-thought lecturer would have expected, for the youth said afterwards, “If that is the worst that can be said against Christianity, I’m going to be a Christian,” and he thereupon entered the Church, and later became Bishop of Nelson, New Zealand. The influence of the secularists was strong, how- I ever, in Parliament, and the secular clause was carried against I the intention of the Government and the opposition of thej Upper House. (The Victorian Parliament had a somewhat similar development in a secular system, since, however, much modified.) There was much opposition to the secular amendment. It was by no means popular, but the Government, whose aim was a national system, agreed to the compromise rather j than jeopardise the passing of the Bill, and so it went through, i The seventies of last century with their confused thought needing some adjustment of traditional belief are well past. The Church is no longer perturbed over Huxley and Darwin, and their modem representatives. The battle has really been won not by science nor by traditional religion, but by a synthesis of the two. (See Addenda Note 4.) No scientist need eschew religion, and no Christian need fear science. Where they express truth, they unite. The methods adopted by science are largely those of observation and experiment. By these means truth is revealed as definite and dependable. The method of religion is very similar. It is a search for truth, involving, not so much the physical and material world, but that of human personality especially in its relationship with divine personality. In psychology it could be said that science and religion overlap or intermingle. And observation and experiment are quite as important in the search of religion. An Old Testament recommendation to the human seeker is: “O! taste and see that the Lord is good; blessed is the man that trusteth in Him”, to which the New Testament adds the advice to experiment, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good”.
Faith, a term often used by religion, is just as often em-
69
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z, EDUCATION
ployed by science. “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen as yet.” (Epistle to the Hebrews, XI : 1.)
When the scientific research student has a vision of what he is out to discover, a mental picture and anticipation of success in his search, he has this faith, the substance of things hoped for. When his continued experiments proceed through many failures towards success, so that he feels sure that what he seeks is nearer, just around the corner, it is the evidence of things not seen as yet. So faith is no flimsy thing; it has substance; it is evidential.
In such a way, religion uses observation and experiment, and they lead to experience. The truth revealed is definite and dependable. Such matters are commonplaces in religion today. They were understood in high religious circles during the time in last century we are considering, but they were not so understood by the secularists and rationalists of ninety years ago with the consequences we have been considering. But to interpret this, as Professor Bailey has done, as a popular movement flooding New Zealand so as to lead to the separation of Church and State as a definite and decisive principle in matters of education is to read into the Act of 1877 something which is not there. Nor is it a principle rigidly applied today.
TO SUM UP
Both Church and State have particular spheres of action without a clear line of demarcation between them; they are two circles that intersect, and the amount of the overlap is a matter for reasonable negotiation. In the care of the sick and aged there has been a satisfactory sharing of responsibility in the Dominion, but in the matter of education this sweet reasonableness has too often been absent. The Church has a right to access to her children, where parents approve, without any feeling such as is engendered by the secular clause in the Act, Religious parents should not be forced to accept for their children a kind of education that leaves on their young minds the impression that religion is alright at home or in church, but counts for little or nothing in everyday life. Where that impression hardens into conviction a poor type of citizenship is the result.
The Church as a whole has never been satisfied with the place given to religion in the day-school. The well-being of the child should be first considered, and a dualistic system cannot be adequate to the unified nature of the child.
FOOTNOTE
A footnote should be added to this chapter lest it should be thought that religion is dependent, like physical science, en-
70
A PROFESSOR S EVIDENCE EXAMINED
tirely on observation and experiment in its search for truth. The heart of religion is a matter of a personal relationship between divine and human personalities. It is reciprocal in a way that is not involved in a scientist’s search in the realm of merely material elements. It is not a one-sided search but rather one in which the seeking proceeds from both the Divine and the human sides. On the one hand the human seeker may cry with Kepler:
“My highest wish is to find within the God whom I find everywhere without”.
On the other hand the great Teacher of Mankind has revealed how the Divine Person has carried on the search from His side. However the person of Christ may be viewed, and whatever meaning may be taken from His life and teaching, there is an obligation resting on everyone to try and grasp the import of His revelation of God. He made astounding claims, that He was one with the Father, that He was the Truth, that through Him God was to be found. These unique claims were either true, or, as some have held, He was the greatest imposter in history. To give even a moment’s credence to this latter alternative would appear to be the height of unscientific credulity; it would be most irrational to think that His influence for uplifting humanity through the centuries could be so great and yet proceed from a source of deception of the deepest dye. With more reason could Browning be followed, when he writes:
“I say the acknowledgment of God in Christ.
Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee
All mysteries in the earth and out of it.
And hath so far advanced thee to be wise
Wouldest thou unprove this to re-prove the proved
In Life’s mere minute, with power to use that proof?
Leave knowledge, and revert to how it sprung!
Thou hast it; use it, and forthwith, or die.”
Now, Christ, the great Revealer, in three of His simple, yet profound, parables, shows that God is the chief Seeker. The parables of the lost coin, the lost sheep, and the lost (the prodigal) son show to us the reality of the Divine Seeker. As the Good Shepherd, Who giveth His life for the sheep. He portrays in Himself the Seeking God, Who stops at nothing in service, suffering and sacrifice, in finding the wandering human lives that have lost their way in the maze of things.
The fact that down through the centuries there have always been those, numbered in thousands and millions, who have found Him and been found by Him (for it is a reciprocal search and discovery) must be taken into full account as a scientific truth, not to be explained other than by the way He
71
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
Himself has made clear, and this in itself is a continual witness to the truth revealed in Him. Thus religion, while going beyond physical science, is always truly scientific. Christianity, in reality, is the Highest Rationalism. Concerning any discovered truth, a scientist can say, “We know”. Similarly the Christian says from observation and experiment, resulting in experience, “I know”. The Apostle John, after a lifetime of fellowship first with the Teacher in His lifetime on earth, and then with his Risen Lord, strikes this note of certainty in his first Epistle, written well on in the Ist century A.D. He had weathered the storms of that first great contest between the pagan philosophies of Greece and Rome and Christianity, he had suffered persecution for his loyalty to Christ, and his summing up at the close of his life is that of a complete assurance, “We know”. “We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.” (Ist Epistle of John, Chapter 5, Verse 20.)
CHAPTER 7
CHURCH AND STATE IN CO-OPERATION
What, then, are the reasons for giving sympathetic consideration to the appeal for State assistance to Church schools? In answering the question, it must be emphasised that a definitely Christian viewpoint is taken. The reply will not appeal to the Agnostic, the Atheist, or the secularist. Their desire is for a secular system. It, for them, is made to order. It may not appeal to many who, while they are quite willing to fly the flag of Christianity at the masthead, are not ready to yield the helm to Christ. The reply aims to be, quite deliberately, a Christian one.
First, then, let us note the Unity of education; the sharp distinction often made between secular and religious is an artificial one. How often have I heard the statement, “A school is not the place to teach religion”. “That should be taught at the mother’s knee.” To say the least, that gives the child of Godless parents no chance at all. And what of the child who knows what is meant by the “mother’s knee”. Has he no right to expect his school to carry on what his mother has taught him? Because the child is a unity his educators should recognise it, and not expect him to be religious with his mother and secular with his teacher. He is not made for these distinctions. They are unnatural. The unity of his nature will best be preserved when the three great institutions that so largely form his character are in perfect harmony. Religion is the leaven of life, and there is something wrong if the leaven fails to penetrat every part of it.
As the Roman Catholic finds the State system deficient, he is forced by this lack to organise a Church system, in which secular subjects are taught. It is a matter of conscience to have religion permeating the whole life of the school. He does not admit that the present State system can supply his child with what is required. Hence the claim for financial aid, or as he would prefer to define it —a refund of the taxes paid by him to provide secular teaching in the schools he cannot conscientiously use. It has been pointed out that the Protestant method of atoning for the State schools’ deficiency with respect to religion differs from the Roman Catholic, and in building and maintaining Sunday schools he carries on a work that involves
60
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
quite as much expenditure as in the case of the Romanist, and is entitled to equal consideration by the Government. The objection might be raised that financial aid for Sunday school work would be an aid to religion. The rejoinder can be made that because education is a unity, it is an aid to the education of the child in such a practical way that good character is nurtured, good citizenship is the result, and magistrates and social workers are on record showing that few Sunday school children ever appear in the children’s courts or cause any great concern in the matter of juvenile delinquency. It would pay the State handsomely to support financially all organisations such as Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, Youth Clubs of various kinds that are educating our young people in character and good citizenship. The whole community benefits enormously from the voluntary service rendered by thousands of unselfish men and women who give their unstinted service to the welfare of the young in this truly educational field. I recall how difficult it was in the early days of Plunket work, to procure for it Government assistance, but it is readily acknowledged today as a most suitable claimant for financial aid. The work of Sir Truby King has brought New Zealand into praiseworthy prominence all over the world. And there is no essential difference between aid to a Plunket institution, and any other voluntary organisation that produces citizens, healthy in body, mind and soul. The educational field is much wider than a day-school. We should try to be up to date. In an adequate system of education where provision is made for pupils to receive the full benefits of their cultural heritage, which, of course, includes their religious heritage, provision would be made for full-time teachers with special qualifications along this line. At least to begin with the State would depend on the Church to provide these, and in addition, specialists in religious knowledge for employment in the training *. colleges. I can imagine some demur on the part of some — shall I say? — unscientific rationalist, so-called, at what is visualised in providing for the requirements of an adequate system that would do justice to child-nature, so a reminder is given that the viewpoint is frankly that of a Christian, with the ideal in mind that if religion is to be included it should receive its due as the chief consideration in the curriculum. We want nothing slipshod. And, in parenthesis, let it be noted that a guiding principle in the choice of teachers who would do the work should be a willingness to impart, and qualifications equal to doing so. If a teacher has no appreciation of music, no ear for it, no knowledge of it, would it not be foolery to expect him to take the music class? In an emergency, perhaps, he could supervise and maintain order, while using the pupils them-
CHURCH AND STATE IN CO-OPERATION
74
selves for the definitely musical exercise, but a musical teacher should normally be in charge. The same principle should apply in religious teaching, though, with approved textbooks and lesson helps, there would be few staff-teachers of sincerity who could not be of valued help in a class. No force should be used, however, in pressing a teacher to undertake work for which he feels himself unqualified.
Returning to the question of financial aid under the system at present operating in New Zealand could not a case be made for assisting those Ministers and laymen who give religious teaching under the Nelson System? Some of them visit four or five schools in a week and in country districts it involves several score of miles driving in the motor car. It would be logical to put their out-of-pocket expenses in the same category as R.C. expenditure for their schools, as it represents largely the Protestant method of meeting the deficiency of the State school, though by no means limited to Protestant action. I am not averse to aid to Roman Catholic schools. It can be given in the United Kingdom and in Ireland, and I am not convinced to the contrary by the arguments against that were presented to the Parliamentary Committee in 1955, but an equally strong case can be presented for aiding what can be termed in general the Protestant methods adopted to meet the same deficiency which has called the Roman Catholic schools into being.
When considering this question insufficient notice has been taken of the amount of State assistance that is already given to Church and private day-schools. In reply to a letter of inquiry, I received an answer from the Acting-Director of Education, which included the following information:
“Private primary schools are supplied with School Journals on the same basis as State schools. “Janet and John” readers for infant classes and Arithmetic and English textbooks at all Standards up to and including Form II are also supplied free of charge to all private primary schools, as, too, are copies of the primary school “Bulletin”, which is published about eight or more times each year.
Milk is of course issued free to all school pupils in New Zealand whether they are attending State or private schools.
Teachers in private primary schools are assisted too by being supplied with various types of handbooks and syllabus of instruction. Instances of this are the recently issued handbooks on Nature Study and Physical Education.
You will know, of course, that children in private schools receive free dental treatment at the Department of Health Dental Clinics and are periodically examined by School Medical Officers.
75
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
All children, both State and Private, who live outside the larger Metropolitan areas where substantial concession fares are available, are entitled to State assistance towards the cost of their transport to and from school provided their homes are located beyond two miles from the nearest school if the children are under 10 years of age, and beyond three miles from school for older children. Also available are boarding allowances, and subject to certain specified conditions, Secondary School and Technical Bursaries.”
Yours faithfully
D. G. Ball
Acting Director of Education
Nov. 15th, 1954.
I understand that an additional assistance is to be given so that from April Ist, 1958, private primary schools were to be given the same subsidies on teaching aids as those available to all State primary schools. One may reasonably ask, “Should not a similar concession apply to Sunday schools?”
It would appear that the principle of State aid to Church and private schools has been established already. Actually what is in view now is an extension of the application of the principle long recognised and accepted with comparatively no demur. What has applied to the Church-State relationship with respect to hospitals can therefore be applied to dayschools without departing from any principle that has guided our legislators in the past. It may be news to some that in the early days of New Zealand’s history, the secular authorities were so convinced of the value of churches in a community' for the upholding of law and order, and the production of good citizenship, that State subsidies were granted in any community where a Church building was to be erected. All denominations were on an equal footing in this respect.
It should be freely admitted that from a Christian standpoint in the primary school system in New Zealand there is much to be desired. While the clause in the Education Act remains, “the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character”, the Christian parent, who views his child’s education as so vitally important, has the conviction that, despite what is done under the “Nelson System”, the curriculum is inadequate to fill the child’s moral and spiritual capacity. A quart jug is not filled by a pint measure, even with an egg-cup-full of Nelson system added. The Christian teacher must feel that he is prevented by the same restricted opportunity from using to the full his powers of moulding his pupils’ characters. A teaching vocation is so important and provides such a golden opportunity that he must feel at times like a boxer compelled to fight with only one arm. The nation suffers as a consequence
76
CHURCH AND STATE IN CO-OPERATION
of the deficiency, and all the Commissions on Child Delinquency in the world will not remedy the state of moral disease while the chief antidote is absent. The Church is unhappy about it, and aggrieved at the attitude towards her so often taken up. Worst of all Jesus Christ is still saying in the words of nineteen centuries ago.
“Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not!”
The remedy is such an alteration in the basic principle of primary education as is propounded in this book, and failing this or some adequate system akin, while the present system continues Parliament should listen with every sympathy to appeals made for financial assistance from Churches and other voluntary institutions which, by their work among young people, are doing so much to atone for the spiritual and moral incompleteness of the State school system.
An argument often advanced against the granting of aid to Church schools is that it would lead to an increase of such schools so that the National system would be endangered. This argument has never appealed to me as very convincing. Given a reasonable deal with respect to religious teaching in the State schools, the cause of Church schools being started would to a great extent disappear - at least as far as Protestants are concerned. It is because the religious side of education is so neglected in the State schools that many Protestant parents send their children, at considerable cost to themselves, to Church schools. This would not be done if they were satisfied with the provision made for Christian education in the public schools. In England it is noticeable that the public schools increase at the expense of the Church schools, not the other way round, and that the public schools under the local Education authorities make provision for Christian worship and instruction is not without significance. Once New Zealand follows suit, many parents who now send their children to Church schools, would be more satisfied to send them to the National schools.
If the tendency to increase Church schools in New Zealand differed from the trend in England it is most unlikely that it would create any real problem. In fact the Education Department would be relieved in some respects. It has difficulty at present arising from having more pupils to cater for than can be provided with schools and teachers. Any slight draining-off to Church schools as might occur would relieve the situation and be like a dose of aspirin for the Departmental headache. If teachers could have smaller classes than at present there would be no great objection on their part, but any such hope as the result of an increase in Church schools is hardly likely
77
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOB N.Z. EDUCATION
to eventuate. In any case the Department and the Government behind it would have the remedy in their own hands. No specified method or amount of payment with respect to financial aid to Church schools and other institutions has been put forward in this book. That is better left to the authorities concerned. Only the principle of aid has been approved here, with an appeal for sympathetic understanding. The National system is well established and it has the support of the great majority in this Dominion. It can be criticized for its defects without being blind to its value and its many excellencies. In the unlikely event of Church schools being a menace to its continuance, the authorities have the financial power to adjust the balance and swing the pendulum the other way, as is the case in England at the moment. Any real fear for the National system is groundless.
“Our fears are traitors; and make us miss
The good we oft might do, by fearing to attempt.”
The Parliamentary Committee which dealt with the Petition of the Holy Name Society was unanimous in rejecting it. This finding was in accordance with the volume of the evidence presented, which was almost entirely opposed. Mr. D. M. Rae, the Chairman, in mentioning the reasons for opposition referred to the traditional principle of the separation of Church and State, and the threat of the disintegration of the public school system if substantial aid were granted. Both these points have been dealt with in preceding discussion. Mr. Rae’s mention of “substantial aid” leads one to wonder what amount of aid was in the minds of the petitioners and of the Parliamentary Committee. The Minister of Education (Mr. R. M. Algie) stated that what was sought was 50 per cent of the capital cost of all school buildings (construction and maintenance) and the full salaries of all certificated teachers. Assuming this to be a correct estimate of what was claimed, it is not surprising that the appeal was rejected. A more modest claim, more along the line of the aid to Church schools already given, might have received support instead of opposition from at least a section of Protestant opinion, and had a more favourable result. New Zealand is never likely to copy the example of the Scottish Education Act, where the public administration provides the buildings and pays the salaries of teachers in the Church schools, but the English system would meet with a better reception in this country, once its value was understood and appreciated. It is wise to learn from others, for others often have a wider experience than New Zealanders. As an example, let there be quoted in full the following letter culled from “The Dominion” during the time when public correspondence was much to the fore on this matter;
78
CHURCH AND STATE IN CO-OPERATION
(I was interested to find that the writer’s argument about private hospitals and private schools coincided with my own.)
“Sir,
I am not a Roman Catholic. I am not a New Zealander. I have only been here for between six and seven years, but I have been a schoolmaster for well over 40 years, both in England and in this country, both in primary and post-prim-ary schools, both in State-aided and independent schools, both as assistant master and head master, so I may claim to have had fairly comprehensive educational experience.
I frankly cannot understand the attitude of the Wellington school committeeman who labelled all private school education as snobbish and unnecessary. I cannot understand the Rev. J. Somerville, speaking on behalf of Presbyterian schools, who so strongly deprecates the idea of State aid. I cannot understand Archbishop McKeefry who utters such bitter threats if State aid is not given to Roman Catholic schools.
In England there are primary and post-primary schools of all denominations, some taking State aid, others preferring to remain completely independent, but there is none of the bitterness that I find in this country. There all schoolmasters may join the various National organisations, here private schoolmasters are barred both from the Educational Institute and the Secondary Schools’ Association.
Surely it is a wrong idea to think that all education should be directly controlled and enforced by the State Hitler and the Soviet Union are rather glaring examples for, to my mind, it is rather arrogant and dangerous to assert that the State system of education is so perfect that no other form should exist. That seems to be the point of view of the Wellington school committeeman.
If we look at the matter impartially we must admit that the private schools relieve the State education authority of very many school places. What is the cost of a school place in New Zealand? Yet the parents of pupils at private schools contribute in full to the cost of State education. Nor, I think, can it be asserted that the scholar at the private school is not educated as well as the State school scholar.
If it is fair and right for the Government to make grants and these have recently been increased to private hospitals, in spite of the very efficient and elaborate system of State hospitals, then it is only logical to think that some form of grant should be available to private schools. Schools and hospitals are generally conceded to be analogous cases, one preponderantly dealing with mental health and development, the other with physical health. If one should be finan-
79
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
cially assisted by the State, surely the other should be, if such assistance were sought. There would, of course, be proper safeguards. No doubt the State keeps a careful eye on private hospitals, and doubtless the State school inspectorate would see that such private schools as wished to receive financial assistance were efficiently managed and not run for private profit.
Hastings.
P. H. G. SOUTHWELL”
(From The Dominion)
This letter is inserted because the writer has had such a wide and varied experience in educational circles, a useful safeguard against narrow insular views. There is, perhaps, rather an overstatement concerning the bitterness engendered in New Zealand. The parliamentary committee was impressed with the generally tolerant spirit shown by the various witnesses who gave evidence before it. Whatever the views expressed, they were uttered from conviction, and with full sincerity, but there was little intolerance shown. And if such as the school committee member to whom Mr. Southwell refers in his letter is evidently very limited in his outlook, yet his sincerity gives him a right to express his views, and they need not be a sign of bitter intolerance. This whole question of religious education in State schools is one that finds a multitude of convictions, very diversified, put forward. It has not yet been settled in New Zealand, and only a spirit of tolerant understanding of the varying views can pave the way to a true settlement. The Parliamentary debate that followed the presentation of the Committee’s Report showed that though the question of State aid was settled for the time, it is most unlikely that it will not come up again, and the same applies to the whole question of Christian education. It will not be settled until it is settled effectively, and this will entail much more tolerant understanding between the many involved than has yet been given. No more vital need can occupy the attention of Church and State, of Politics and Education than this. The character of the New Zealand of the future depends on it. The future lies with the children of today. What they learn about Jesus Christ, the extent to which they come under His spell, is the chief factor in determining the New Zealand of tomorrow: whether it has been built on a rock or on sand:
“Whosoever heareth these sayings of Mine, AND DOETH THEM, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
CHURCH AND STATE IN CO-OPERATION
80
And everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, AND DOETH THEM NOT, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: and the rain descended and the floods came and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”
(The closing words of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.)
CHAPTER 8
THE TEACHING STAFF
In a system of religious education, it would be ideal if all teachers on the staff were confessedly Christian in faith and practice. That ideal, or an approximation to it might be possible of attainment in a Church school. It is not so likely in a State school, although there are probably some where this happy provision obtains. As a cross-section of the community, teachers rank very high from the Christian standpoint, and outside ecclesiastical circles could probably produce a higher percentage than would be found in any other profession. So large a number, like so many nurses, have been brought up under the aegis of the Church, that the work of imparting religious knowledge to their pupils would come to them without undue difficulty. There are others, however, who would refuse to have anything to do with religious teaching. They may even claim to be atheistic, or more probably agnostic in belief. Between the two extremes would be found a large proportion who, while in no way antagonistic to Christian practice, quite sincerely would hesitate before committing themselves to any positive role in the scheme of religious instruction.
A sound system of education would take these varying views into full consideration. In the first case, the Christian teacher would be happiest in the task. He would realise that he could bring to bear on his pupils the most inspiring and potent influence in the development of character in the Scripture lesson, he would make his class familiar with the wisdom of the ages, above all the teaching of the Supreme Teacher of men. I recall one teacher writing to me after her school committee had agreed to the opening of each school day with hymn, the Lord’s Prayer and Bible reading, “It’s made such a difference! I can get so close to my children now; it’s like a little bit of heaven on earth.” The school was a sole-teacher country one, in Taranaki. Another sole-charge teacher in South Otago was up against a worrying problem. On arrival at her new post she was horrified at the lack of discipline and by the language used on the playground. She requested the school committee to grant her permission in harmony with the Education Board’s by-laws to open the day at 9 o’clock with a
82
THE TEACHING STAFF
daily period of worship. Consent was granted, and in the five minutes used the school joined in the prayer:
“O Lord Jesus, help us throughout this day to be true to Thee, to be clean in thought and word and deed. Help us to speak the truth, to be kind and helpful to others, and to be a joy and a help at home. For Thy Name’s sake. Amen.”
It was a prayer few teachers could disapprove. For some days there was no apparent difference in conditions, but the pupils learned it off by heart. However, the discipline was little, if any, better, and it was similar with the bad language. The real factor, though, was that there was a practical teacher in the case. She had a lever for raising the standard of the school. She used it. One day she got the worst of the boys together. She said, “What was that prayer we said together this morning?” They started to repeat it. When they got to “clean in word and thought and deed” she stopped them, and said, “Well, have you carried that out today?” They hung their heads and said nothing. Then she explained quietly to them that prayer was talking to God, and they should put their minds to their prayer, mean what they say, and not say it parrot fashion. And with a smiling “Now remember that tomorrow!” she dismissed them. The lever she used was effective. She had no more trouble over discipline, and the language of the playground cleaned up. Discipline from within is the most satisfactory. This teacher knew how to gain it.
From another type of school, one of the main schools in Southland, with hundreds of scholars, comes an experience of a headmaster which in some ways is very similar to the above.
As President of the N.Z. Educational Instutite, who opposed the system of daily worship, he had used his influence OFFICIALLY against the practice, but when his Board had recommended it be tried, he agreed to the Board’s behest, and followed the practice common in the secondary schools of Invercargill and elsewhere. When I was next in Southland, knowing of his former opposition, I was both surprised and pleased with his action and took the opportunity to interview him. In a conversation which lasted two hours, he told me of his experience. To begin with, he found the “school prayers” had little noticeable effect, but then, following a line somewhat similar to the teacher in South Otago, he explained prayer to the school assembly, to use his own words, he “jolted them out of the rut” so that the worship became vital and meaningful, and his parting words to me were; ‘You can tell any teacher or group of teachers you meet that the daily worship has done more in raising the whole tone of my school than anything else I have tried”. A testimony like this, coming
83
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
from a previous opponent, was indeed satisfactory, and places me under an obligation to use these pages in passing it on. These instances serve to show the value of the Christian teacher in developing the character of the pupils.
Coming now to the type of teacher who has neither desire nor qualifications for the purpose in view, should not the matter be treated as in the other fields of education where special ability is required? Music and other forms of art, science, woodwork and similar subjects are specialists’ fields, and there is no question requiring the unqualified to participate. No pressure should be laid on teachers whose hearts would not be in the task in hand. They should be subjected to no constraint as far as religious teaching is concerned. Let there be complete freedom of choice.
And because what is “sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander” this freedom of choice must equally apply to the Christian teacher with a special avocation to teach religion. One finds in New Zealand a distinct tendency in some educational circles to place a barrier in the way of Christian teachers participating in what they would choose of their own freewill. A headmaster in Wanganui who found, when appointed to his school, that the day was regularly opened with religious observances, to which he had not previously been accustomed, continued the practice with such satisfaction that he said to me, “I have always been a loyal member of the N.Z.E.1., but in this one respect I shall in future do what is, in my view, best for the school”.
The Atmore Recess Committee, of which Messrs. Atmore, Peter Fraser and Clyde Carr, were members, dealt with this matter of the freedom of the teacher, and passed the following as a guiding principle:
“That no system of religious instruction in State schools should be authorised such as will compulsorily require any State teacher to disclose his or her religious beliefs or his or her adherence to any particular denomination, or to take part in religious exercises other than of his or her own freewill, but that, on the other hand, the fullest liberty should be given to those teachers who desire of their own accord to assist in the Nelson or any similar system of religious instruction that may be authorised bv law.”
That principle is sound, and any endeavour to force participation on the one hand or to hinder it on the other, savours too much of the methods of totalitarian states, I believe, to find acceptance in a free country, which we hope New Zealand will remain.
The customary conscience clause should apply both to participants and non-participants equally, both to teachers and
84
THE TEACHING STAFF
parents on behalf of their children with equal non-dis-crimination.
In England and Scotland, as well as in New South Wales, the general body of teachers participate in the religious elements of the curriculum as a matter of course. There are comparatively few objections. A team of teachers visited New Zealand from N.S.W. some time ago to tour N.Z. as cricketers. In conversation they referred to objections raised by some N.Z. teachers against religion in the curriculum, and were quite surprised to find there was difficulty here. It was taken for granted by them and freed from dogmatic and polemical theology, as their regulations require, all was well. Both Protestant and Roman Catholic teachers conducted the lessons.
Another instance from N.S.W. may be mentioned. The Rev. George S. Cook, a Methodist minister in N.Z., was educated in N.S.W. and became for a time a State school teacher. He received religious instruction in school from three teachers at different schools. One was a Protestant, another a Roman Catholic, and the third an Agnostic. Of the three he considered the Agnostic put across the best lesson. One might wonder at this until it is remembered how much of the Bible a sincere and honest Agnostic would be able to accept and use when not expected or permitted to deal with “dogmatic and polemical theology”. If he could handle any of Aesop’s Fables he should find no difficulty with the Book of Proverbs, for example.
It will be conceded that as the State teachers in New Zealand have carried on so long with a secular background in their work, the position here is somewhat different from that in England, Scotland and N.S.W. It would be unwise to use any coercion if participation is not desired by any individual teacher. At the same time equal freedom of choice must apply to the many who desire to join in what they consider to be the better plan for the benefit of their scholars.
Some teachers would gladly join in religious lessons; some would not; there is a considerable number who, to begin with, would be “betwixt and between”. They would probably include a great number in general sympathy with the aims of religious education, recognising that the Christian ethic is viewed as basic in true character development but themselves in need of some special preparatory training for the full work as religious instructors. Training College preparation could considerably lessen the number of such, and a voluntary course would need to be arranged in the Training Colleges, with the co-operation of the Churches. I recall how a few years ago the trainees of the Auckland Training College urged the authorities to provide for religious instruction being an
85
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
optional subject in their examinations. That was a step in the right direction. The high avocation of a teacher entrusted with the duty of character training is a strong influence with any sincere teacher. Mr. Duncan Kae, M.P., Chairman of a recent Education Committee of Parliament, and an ex-Principal of the Auckland Training College, stated during the Committee’s sittings that the majority of teachers would be distressed if it was thought they were not teaching according to Christian ethics. Incidentally, he referred to the introduction of the teachers’ grading system as having lessened an earlier reluctance on the part of teachers to take part in religious teaching.
This being so, and with the knowledge of the widespread help given by staff teachers in the religious elements of school life in other countries previously mentioned, it can be asserted with reason and expectation that this third class of teachers would be won to active sympathy and help as they saw the benefits accruing to the pupils. It would be largely a matter of overcoming inertia and getting a start in the case of teachers accustomed to the idea that their only obligation in teaching has to do with secular subjects. As a beginning, participation in opening observances as are customary in secondary schools would entail little difficulty in primary schools. It could be taken for granted if such a primary school teacher transferred to a post in a secondary school, he would participate as a matter of course. Discussing this one day in a railway train with a young primary school teacher, I was told frankly that she would have nothing to do with anything religious. “But,” I replied, “do you know what exactly you would be asked to do? The opening would consist of the singing of a hymn, the repetition of the Lord’s Prayer and the reading of a brief Scripture selection without comment. This would be normal, but you need not include every part. If, for example, you cannot sing, you could omit the hymn. Further the ideal would be to train the pupils to do it all under your supervision.” I could have told her of an instance when the teacher was called out of the class, and when he returned to start as usual he found the class had carried out the observance in his absence. After my explanation she immediately said, ‘Oh! I would be quite prepared to do that.” Previously she hadn’t understood.
Practice of such a system, familiarity with it, seem to be in part a cause of its continuance. Teachers like it; pupils like it; the Headmistress of a girls’ secondary school in a town, told me in answer to a question, “What the girls notice and like best of all when transferred from the primary school is the different opening of the school day. They have not been accustomed to “School Prayers” in the local primary schools, and they think the change so much more pleasing and dignified”.
86
THE TEACHING STAFF
It is under the Otago Education Board that the system of opening observances in the primary schools has made most headway. Over 300 teachers in the Board’s employ voluntarily take part. Possibly with the knowledge that they knew most about it after giving it a trial, the N.Z. Educational Institute Executive asked their Otago Branch to act as a Committee and report on its working. The branch meeting which met next was held on a Public Holiday, and hundreds of teachers met in the largest gathering on record. The whole matter was fully discussed, and my informant, a head teacher, told me the opening observances were favoured by an overwhelming vote, he considered in a proportion of 9 to 1. One of the headmasters of Otago whose influence contributed to this support was the late Mr. John B. Grant, of Musselburgh. The fragrance of his memory is as ointment poured forth.
With such examples in mind, and they could be multiplied greatly, one realises the injury that could be done, not only by the stricture placed on the teachers, but to the detriment of the school as a whole, by limiting the teacher’s sphere of action to the teaching of secular subjects, or, as is the case in Victoria, the exception in the Australian States, providing only the role for the teacher of assembling and dismissing the class for religious instruction, given by an outside helper usually not as well trained in the specialised art of teaching as the teachers on the staff. The highest interests of the children would surely be met where the staff teachers who have both the desire and ability to conduct the lesson found the way open for them without let or hindrance to do so.
As a body, as has been expressed earlier, the teachers in the schools of the Dominion, rank very high in religious and community life. To limit their official duties to the teaching of purely secular subjects is like damming up a river that is naturally placed to be a source of supply for a vital irrigation scheme. Given full freedom from the damming barriers, the waters would flood the land with blessing. For the full benefit of religious education to reach the children of New Zealand, the three streams of supply the home, the Church and the school will be needed to make an unrestricted contribution. Were such happy conditions to prevail there would be no longer any need to set up Commissions to deal with juvenile delinquency. My first charge as a minister in New Zealand was at Port Chalmers. For many years the pupils of the primary school were assembled daily a few minutes before the school opened for a very brief period of school worship. There was the finest co-operation between the parents, the ministers of the town, and the school staff. Now a seaport is not usually viewed as exemplary from a law-abiding standpoint, yet dur-
74
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
ing the whole time to which reference has been made not one pupil from Port Chalmers appeared in the Children’s Court. “Remarkable!” you say. Not at all! Quite natural!
The Bible lesson at the George Street School, Dunedin, was on the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The minister told the story, how the prodigal went into the far country, and there “spent all his substance in riotous living” and began to be in want. When the story had ended, the minister said to the class: “Now I want you to tell me the story in your own way.” With the help of some questioning the class got the prodigal into the far country. Then came the question, “When he was so badly off, having spent all his money, he had to do something for a living. Do you know what he did?” Up went a hand. “Please, sir, he wrote books” came a confident answer from a girl. There was such assurance in the reply that he wondered where the idea came from, and began to probe to find out. After a while the mystery was solved. He spent all his substance in riotous (understood as writer’s) living. So evidently he wrote books.
Another pupil at a different school had a more modern solution for the prodigal’s predicament. When told that feeding pigs would be the last thing a Jew would want to do, a boy asked the teacher, “Why didn’t he go on the unemployed?”
CHAPTER 9
TOWARD AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM IN N.Z. EDUCATION
The following changes in the conduct of the State Primary School System in harmony with the suggestions of this book are commended to the authorities for their favourable consideration. They would go far in removing dissatisfaction on the part of the majority of parents and Churches that has been prevalent for too many decades despite all that can be advanced in approval of the schools and the teachers.
1. The word ‘secular’ in the Education Act shall be defined in the words of the Education Act of New South Wales, viz. “In all schools under this Act the teaching shall be strictly nonsectarian, but the words ‘secular instruction’ shall be held to include general religious teaching as distinguished from dogmatic and polemical theology.”
2. The curriculum shall be brought into harmony with the nature of the child, and therefore provide moral and religious instruction. A knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus shall be a first essential.
3. Full freedom shall be granted to parents of other than the Christian faith, or of any non-co-operating section of Christians, to withdraw their children from the religious sessions. Provision may be made, if desired, for them to arrange classes of instruction in their own faith at the same time as the school’s religious sessions. Failing such provision being made, these children shall be retained in school for other general instruction.
4. The present arrangement of the ‘Nelson System’, with the daily worship, where provided, shall be incorporated within school hours, dispensing with the requirement for two hours’ consecutive ‘secular instruction’ at each school session, and using the class, without denominational grouping, as the instruction unit. The headmaster, in consultation with the school committee, shall control the appointment of the teachers to the religious classes from a panel of visiting ministers or authorized laymen, and teachers on the staff who voluntarily associate with them either for teaching or for the maintenance of class discipline.
5. An opening period of school daily worship shall be the norm in all schools. The local School Committee, in consul-
89
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
tation with the headmaster, shall retain its present power to arrange for the initiation or continuation of the daily worship. Where practicable the pupils themselves shall be trained to conduct it. The School Committee shall retain its present right to grant the use of the school premises outside school hours, as e.g. when a clergyman or priest wishes to hold a class for the children of his own denomination.
6. Those not participating in any religious session, both teachers and pupils, shall engage in other school duties.
7. The present rights of Church and private schools shall continue, and where the Minister of Education is assured that they are of the required academic standard he shall be empowered to continue, and if necessary, extend further, existing types of government aid to such schools. Also, where voluntary Youth organizations such as Sunday schools. Youth Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, etc. conduce to the promotion of sound moral character and good citizenship, they shall proportionately receive such aid in their work.
NOTES AND COMMENTS
1. The provision whereby Roman Catholics may provide their own religious instruction for their pupils co-incident with the general religious instruction in the school removes in large part the reason for the establishment of their own schools. Where there would remain any reason for their continuance it would be due to segregation by their own free choice, the outcome of their conviction that in religious teaching they alone can convey the full truth, and others are wrong where there is a difference of view. The State could not support this claim. In a country predominantly Protestant, and open to truth from whatever source it comes, it is questionable if the Roman Catholic claim merits any special consideration beyond what is given already. By all means the right to continue private and Church schools, including the Roman Catholic, should be continued. Such financial aid as is at present given could well be continued and even extended within reason, but it should never be so extensive and expensive as to lend credence to the idea that the private and Church schools can be placed on an equal financial footing in the State’s treatment with the public or State schools.
There is a great value to be placed on an educational system which encourages unity amid variety, that is broad and comprehensive so as to take all classes, creeds and colours within its sweep.
What is proposed in giving religion its proper place in the national system will strengthen it by removing its chief
77
TOWARD AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM
educational defect since 1877, and will lessen rather than increase the threat to it that might come from any overdevelopment of the private or Church school.
2. Paragraph 7 recognizes the important place that voluntary educational agencies occupy in community life. Some of these have a religious basis and admittedly are most influential in character development. To limit an educational survey among the youth of the Dominion to primary, intermediate and secondary schools is too restrictive altogether. Education covers a much wider field and further recognition and encouragement by the State of these excellent voluntary organizations is called for.
Inevitably deficiencies are found among parents in the home circle, among teachers in the schools, and among the clergy and lay assistants in the Church. What the children may fail to receive at home, at school and at Church will often be imparted through the foster-agents in these voluntary organizations. They help to build character and should receive full encouragement from all sides. If any educational system is to achieve adequacy it will be done by harmonious co-operation between home, school, Church and these voluntary organizations that in no small degree contain elements vital and essential to the first three. Has New Zealand become aware in any real sense of the tremendous debt of appreciation owing to the many thousands of unpaid workers, inspired by Christian and humanitarian impulses, who spend time, money, thought and sacrificial effort, in serving youth in the voluntary institutions of the Dominion? Theirs are dedicated lives of utmost value.
THE END
91
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
ADDENDA
1. Quotations from the Hampton Lecture on Christian Edu cation, by Spencer Leeson, formerly Headmaster of Win Chester College, England.
2. A sample testimony concerning devotional exercises
3. The Roman Catholic Church and History
4. The Harmony of Science and Religion.
5. The official statement of the Protestant Churches following the negotiations with the R.C. Hierarchy.
6. Extracts from official documents.
Addenda No. 1
From the BAMPTON LECTURE on the subject Christian Education, by Spencer Leeson, formerly Headmaster of Winchester:
“It may with confidence be asserted that under a philosophy that is purely humanist there is no true and effective protection for conscience and justice. Right reason, the enthusiasm of humanity, even education have been invoked as alternative guarantees; but their champions assume that man is fundamentally and by instinct reasonable and good, whereas the truth is that he is neither fundamentally good nor fundamentally bad, but mixed and variable, now one instinct prevailing in him and now another. Appeals to right reason and the enthusiasm of humanity are well enough until we are in the grip of temptation, and then they may be powerless; and a secular spirit in education cannot avail to make men better, because it rests upon an appeal no higher than human. Our citizenship must be in Heaven, therefore, if it is to be a true citizenship of earth.
Critics sometimes speak of the Church imposing a rigid dogma on the helpless receptivity of the child . . . These critics sometimes forget that the absence of Christian teaching from the school would in itself imply a dogma, or an interpretation of life and that dogma is that Christianity is untrue, or that religion is unnecessary.”
THE EDUCATED CHRISTIAN PATRIOT: “He will work and pray for the moral life of his country. He will fight, if necessary to the point of martyrdom, against the idolatry of the State. He knows that without the powerful defences against the barbarism that is in us all, created by the Gospel throughout the centuries, the ideal of international and social justice could never have been born, still less have survived; and he knows too that the noblest achievements of political
92
ADDENDA
and social reform, whatever the party of their origin may be, draw their inspiration from what Christ taught about God and man, though its source may not always be acknowledged. Knowing that, he will consider carefully how and where he can best serve; and, the way clear before him, will give his life to it.”
The N.Z. Educational Institute has claimed that ‘our system of education was founded on a secular, i.e. neutral basis’. This contention, in the light of statements elsewhere — see pages 10-19, 52-54 — can be considerably modified and challenged, but even if accepted would incur the opposition of Spencer Leeson, who states categorically:
“No teacher who is in any real sense a teacher, can be impartial or neutral on the highest issues.”
“No teacher should ever be asked, still less required, to take part in this (i.e. religious) instruction, unless he is convinced of the importance and dignity of it, and prepared to handle it in that spirit. I would not myself go so far as to say he must be a believer himself, though I hope he would be; this may seem at first sight paradoxical —yet I have known teachers in religious knowledge, who were not sure of their faith, but deeply interested in this side of their work and unwilling to give it up, because they said it gave them so clear an insight into the minds of their pupils, clearer than that afforded by other subjects. Others I have known who have taught themselves back into the faith and I can hardly imagine a conversion more acceptable to the Master of our schools than that. There can be no doubt of the living concern now abroad among teachers in every type of school for the proper teaching of religion.” (England is in mind.)
Addenda No. 2.
Sample Testimony concerning DEVOTIONAL EXERCISES, from Mr. P. T. Keane, Principal, Kowhai Intermediate School, Kingsland, Auckland, to Rev. E. O. Blamires, 11 Beerehaven Road, Seatoun, Wellington, dated 29th November, 1954.
“In reply to your enquiry of 24th inst., I am pleased to snnnlv the information vou desire.
Some seven years ago a new plan of devotional exercises was introduced into this school and has functioned smoothly and continuously ever since. It should be noted that Kowhai School has changed in status and is partly post-primary and partly intermediate.
Many overseas visitors and others have seen our Assembly and expressed admiration, commenting on the simplicity, dig-
93
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
nity of the ceremony and the reverence of the pupils. The present Minister of Education has on several occasions been present, expressed his pleasure and, I am informed, has made reference to the Assembly in the House of Representatives. Another noted educationist and religious leader, Dr. Hambrook, Director of Education, Ethiopia, stated to me that he considered our Assembly to be the finest he had seen in any school in any part of the world. Representatives of the N.Z. Bible in Schools League too were so much impressed that they kindly presented to the school a handsome lectern and large Bible which have been used regularly four days a week over the last seven years.
The ceremony is based on a Dewey principle, “Learn by Doing”, expressed in the main by pupil participation in conducting the devotional exercises in the presence of the Principal and staff. The following brief outline will suffice to indicate the scope of this activity.
The pupils assemble and dismiss on the relaying to form rooms of carefully selected classical music. On the sound of music a hush comes over the school and pupils proceed to hall as if they were going to church. In the course of the year a wide selection of beautiful records, many of them wellknown organ voluntaries are played, pupils becoming familiar with the best of music. This helps to counter the influence of modem jazz music.
Time of Assembly: 8.45 to 8.55 a.m. Official school hours 8.55 a.m. to 3.10 p.m.
Scripture Readings: Monday to Wednesday. Selected readers of outstanding ability from the post-primary section are trained for reading on these days from a passage appropriate to the season and with a continuity in matter. On Fridays the lesson is read by the Principal.
Conductors, Accompanists: Chosen pupils are trained to lead this important phase of the Assembly, Monday to Wednesday. A music specialist on the staff conducts on a Friday morning when special features in singing are performed under the leadership of the school choir, e.g. “O Come All Ye Faithful” with descant.
Friday Assembly: In addition to points mentioned above, the following features are included (a) prefects are assembled on stage in a semicircle with the lectern as the focal point.
(b) At rear of stage side drum and kettle drum are placed.
(c) At the opposite end of hall is situated the school choir with the school assembled in Houses in the bodv of the hall.
(d) In addition to reading the lesson the Principal recites a prayer for the Queen’s Majesty, and the whole school joins in the Lord’s Prayer, as is also done on Monday to Wednesday.
94
ADDENDA
(e) The ceremony concludes with the singing (Friday only) of “God Defend New Zealand” and the National Anthem. Flag salute to the roll of drums is also included and the pupils dismiss as on other days to their daily school work to the sound of music previously described.
The Assembly here is looked upon as “the soul of the school”, a simple and dignified activity wherein both pupil and teacher can share in an experience, simple in nature, of things spiritual.”
N.B. Many testimonies in line with above, have been printed in pamphlet form, dealing with both primary and intermediate schools. A copy will be sent to any applicant enclosing a 2d. stamp in a letter to the author, 15 Blomfield Spa, Takapuna, Auckland, N.2.
Addenda No. 3.
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND HISTORY
The historical basis, as claimed by the Roman Catholic Church, has recently been exposed as out of harmony with fact by one of their own scholars, Amand de Mendieta, who for 31 years was a Renedictine monk, attached to a monastery in Relgium.
As a Doctor of Philosophy and letters, he took up a special study and research into Church history, and gained a wide reputation among religious scholars as the result. In his particular study he travelled widely, in Greece, Italy, America and other countries.
After years of research he was forced firstly, to doubt much that was claimed by his own Church, and secondly, to come to the conviction that a study of early Church history refutes these claims. He found that he could not accept such dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church as the following:
1. The universal and absolute supremacy of the Pope over the bishops, priests, churches and Roman Catholics of the world.
2. The personal infallibility of the Pope, as understood by Rome.
3. The adulation of the Pope.
4. The insidious increase of the cult of the Virgin Mary on which the Church of Rome is gradually becoming based, rather than on the fact of Christ.
He has stated
“My objections are not emotional. They are scientific. In my opinion these things are dogmas that have absolutely no foundation in the history of the Church.” His writings began to be subjected to what he believed to
95
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
an unjustifiable censorship, and his intellectual freedom was limited, so that he felt he was in a spiritual cage and had to break out. He has joined the Church of England.
Of course, like others before him, he was excommunicated by the Pope. All that is true and worthy in the Roman Catholic Church demands full recognition and it will gladly be given by all Christians who honour the truth. It is pleasing to find that Dr. de Mendieta, despite the Pope’s excommunication of him, has, as he puts it, “happy memories of the Roman Catholic Church, for you cannot erase a lifetime”. Such a kindly spirit on his part absent from all bitterness of feeling, makes all the more dependable the findings of his scientific research.
“Mighty is the truth and will prevail.”
Addenda No. 4.
THE HARMONY OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION
An article in a recent issue of the Cornhill Magazine (Spring 1948) includes the following excerpt, dealing with the effect of the evolutionary theory on the interpretation of modem forms of Christianity:
“Christianity has benefited far more than it has suffered from the development of evolutionary theory. It was Darwin who introduced the notion of gradual change and dynamic unfolding with advances painfully made step by step towards a better state. Admittedly he introduced the idea in connection with cuckoos and tortoises and mistletoe and animal parasites, but the concept of evolution soon spread far beyond the realm of biology. Today it is an integral part of our thinking. Visitors to an art gallery will find that the guide points out to them the development of perspective, of impressionism, of form and design through one school of painting to the next. Historians treat of the evolution of parliamentary government or constitutional monarchy. Even the motor-car exhibits evolution and adaptation from one year’s Motor Show to the next, and the derivation from the horse-carriage is still implicit in the usual siting of the engine at the front where the horse used to be, while the box of oats retains its original position even if it is now filled with high-octane fuel.
The Church, too, has benefited greatly from the universal acceptance of evolutionary philosophy. The idea that the Christians of the days of the Acts were organised in the one and only true form of churchmanship, to which it was our duty at all costs to return, has come to be replaced by one which is not only more realistic but infinitely more productive of power. The first churches of Asia Minor are now seen only
96
ADDENDA
as a beginning, and from them the Church of today has evolved. It still has its shortcomings, different perhaps from those of their times, but in the sweep of its history each great new step is now seen as the acquisition of something fresh and progressive. The monasteries kept the vital truths alive during the dark ages, and contributed to the depth of worship and mysticism. The split into Greek Orthodox and Roman and Protestant developed increasing insights into the responsibility of the individual towards God.
The rise of a score of denominations resulted in increased study of the role of the Church itself and in experimentation in new forms of liturgy often more directly related to the needs of man, and it prepared the scene for ecumenical movements. Today we have the World Council of Churches uniting the most unlikely sects, and in the Church of South India we now can see the emergence of a new revolutionary form which derives great power and insight from the practices of sectarian churches which not long ago might have considered that they each had a monopoly of revelation. It is very unlikely that either the World Council of Churches or the Church of South India could possibly have arisen if the universal theory of evolution had not pervaded Christian thought as deeply as it has influenced politics and economics and every department of human activity.
Equally important is the change in missionary outlook. Before Darwin it was quite natural for Christians to look on others simply as “heathens”. The Christians had the divine revelation, the rest were idolaters. “The heathen in his blindness bows down to wood and stone” wrote Heber, and we still sing it today. But few missionaries of our own time stay awake under the tropical sky pondering as did their forerunners at the beginning of the nineteenth century the apparent injustice of God who condemned millions of Polynesians to damnation for no other reason than that their remote islands had remained undiscovered because they lay far to the side of the shipping routes. The modern pastor faced with animism in Madagascar or the African bush, looks upon the people differently when they bow down in front of his eyes and worship a tree or a rock. He no longer sees them as just plain damned, but is thankful that at least they are conscious of something supernatural in the powers of nature, and if their revelation is crippled by the confines of fear he sees it as his duty to help them in their striving and lead them through to a higher revelation of which love is the core, but which has been evolved by God and man together (and not, incidentally, by Natural Selection) from a more primitive awareness of “presence”. Hindus and Buddhists and Moslems and Shintoists
97
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
are no longer dismissed in missionary reports merely as benighted pagans worshipping illusions, but are seen as people to whom some revelation of God has already been given. Occasionally, in some respects, this revelation may even be a high one, but it is just the duty of the Mission or the local young Church to bring them to know that which Christians assert to be the highest insight of all into the nature of God. Some would even say “the highest insight YET GIVEN TO MAN”, for the study of comparative religion may make them wonder whether the evolution of man’s understanding of God has yet reached utter finality. Throughout modern churchmanship evolution, though often unrecognised, is the central theme and even Christ Himself now fits into an evolutionary scheme of thought a thing which would have been inconceivable to Bishop Wilberforce and to the Church before Darwin.”
Another extract from the same article is of interest as it illustrates the use of scientific method in matters of religious faith. It is as follows:
“The discovery of God in individual experience rather than in doctrinal authority has brought great spiritual power to the churches and has resulted in a new emphasis on works. Certainly Darwin’s teaching of the influence of environment in picking out favourable adaptations is reflected in the modem concern for “a good Christian home background” as well as in the earlier concentration upon social reforms and the exuberant desire of Christians to lead the way in attacking economic ills which oppressed others and so cut them off from achieving the same religious experience. This actual experience which Protestants call the “power of the Holy Spirit in action” led the Christian churches to pour out energy, not just in obedience to historical teaching, but because of a rediscovery, founded on trial and experiment, of the power of their own faith. Driven by scientific criticism to examine very closely the causes of their own convictions, religious thinkers came to a greater appreciation of the realities of their faith than before.”
Addenda No. 5.
PROTESTANT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE R.C HIERARCHY
Lest it should be thought that I have drawn on my imagination in giving the preceding account so largely from a personal standpoint, I now append the official Statement issued at the time by the N.Z. Bible in State Schools League Executive. This Executive represented officially all the main Protestant Churches.
98
ADDENDA
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC POSITION
Roman Catholic Rishops have publicly stated again and again that they were ready to meet the other Churches in friendly conference on the question of religious education. In 1926 the late Rishop Cleary, speaking before a Parliamentary Committee, said:
“We only want two things — the protection of the consciences of our children and the protection of the consciences of our teachers. Apart from that, we give them (i.e. the other churches) full freedom to bring as much religion as they like into the schools. The more there is the better we shall like it. That is what I have stated many a time on my own behalf and as representing the views of the Catholic Archbishop and Bishops of New Zealand. We shall not venture to dictate to the people of other faiths what particular form of religious instruction or worship they would impart, so long as they let our children and teachers alone.”
On October 18th, 1929, the Hon. Mr. Carrington (who it was known represented the Roman Catholic Church’s position as set out by Bishop Cleary) repeated these oilers in the Legislative Council.
In March 1930, when a conference of representatives of Protestant Churches was held, the first of its kind after 1926, it was decided to test these representations. Would the Roman Catholics be true to their word? If so, there was no reason why their opposition should not be ended, for nothing in such a clear-cut statement by Bishop Cleary was difficult to concede, especially as he announced that an agreement could be made “irrespective altogether of the question of grants” (vide Parliamentary evidence on October 26th, 1914).
Consequently the Conference reminded Archbishops Redwood and O’Shea of these assertions, and asked if they were a true statement of the position. The answer was confirmatory.
Clauses were then drafted by the Conference and the Bible in Schools League Executive for inclusion in their new Bill and were submitted to Archbishop O’Shea in a letter dated April 14th by the secretary of the League for the consideration of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. They were forwarded in order to see if they adequately complied with the stated requirements of the Roman Catholic Church.
These covered two main points:
(a) The protection of conscience.
(b) The freedom of non-participants from bearing any additional expense, should such be incurred by the introduction of the Bible into the State Schools.
The outcome of the above letter was a round table confer
99
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
ence between four Bishops of the R.C. Church and four representatives of the Protestant Churches Conference and the Bible in Schools League, held at the house of Archbishop Redwood on April 29th, 1930. Archbishop O’Shea was in the Chair. Testimony is borne to the amicable nature of the Conference in the official letter sent by Archbishop O’Shea soon afterwards, for he stated:
“May I here put on record the splendid impression made on our Bishops by the four gentlemen who acted as the League’s representatives at our Conference.”
The Conference, amicable in spirit, ended without any final decision, except that, at Bishop Brodie’s suggestion, it was decided to send a written reply to the League’s official proposals.
Archbishop O’Shea has all along been the channel of communication from the Hierarchy to the League, and accordingly, a letter was forwarded by him in harmony with the decision of the Hierarchy to reply in writing, and no other letter was forthcoming tbat in any way could be viewed as the Hierarchy’s reply. Archbishop O’Shea’s letter, dated May 12th, 1930, accepted the proposals of the League. The letter opens:
“After having given careful consideration to the proposals contained in your letter of April 14th and to what took place at our Conference with yourself and the other representatives of the Bible in Schools League on the 29th ult., the Catholic Hierarchy hereby affirm their approval of the proposals and clauses set out in the above letter and discussed at our meeting.”
The correspondence clearly indicates that if the Bill fulfilled the two conditions, automatically exempting Roman Catholics, and freeing non-participants from additional payments, then it would not be opposed. Legal advice was to be taken.
That portion of the League’s letter of April 14th which contains the statement of the two conditions is expressed in the following words:
Provided only that the consciences of your teachers and children are protected, and that such provision of religious teaching is not permitted to involve your Church or the members of your Church in any additional taxation ”
The financial proposal thus expressed was the outcome of the following resolution, passed at the Conference of Protestant Churches and forwarded in the same letter to the Hierarchy as the basic principle regarding finance:
“This meeting accepts the general principle that if the introduction of religious observances or instruction involves any additional cost, the Roman Catholics shall be exempted from paying any share of this additional cost.”
100
ADDENDA
This was accepted by the Hierarchy in Archbisnop O’Shea’s letter of May 12th.
The position of Archbishop O’Shea, as representing the Hierarchy in the correspondence with the League, is recognised by Bishop Brodie in a letter to the League Secretary written on June 9th, in acknowledging a circular received.
He states, inter alia: “As I understand His Grace, Archbishop O’Shea will reply on behalf of the Hierarchy it will not be necessary to comment on the circular of which you sent me a copy. With every good wish, Yours sincerely ,
Matthew J. Brodie.”
It is therefore quite clear that Archbishop O’Shea’s letter of May 12th was the official acceptance by the Hierarchy of the League’s proposals.
On July 25th the League Executive published in the Press a full statement of the negotiations, and on the same day a parallel statement was issued by Archbishop Redwood for the R.C. Church. Taken together, they convey a correct report. Without giving the detailed information obtainable from the official corespondence, these statements supplied the public of New Zealand with the information that a definite agreement had been made, and the lines of the agreement. This was freely commented on by editors throughout New Zealand, discussed in Church assemblies, and taken for granted as a settlement by both parties until eleven months afterwards, when without previous notification to the League officials, who surely should have had an opportunity to consider any point in dispute, Bishop Brodie published a denial that any agreement had been made. He was immediately contradicted in the Press both by his own Archbishop and by the League Secretary, the two officials through whom all correspondence had, by general consent, been carried on.
Bishop Brodie omitted all reference to the official letters concluding the agreement on May 12th, 1930, and confused the agreement thus finalised with a conjoint statement of it suggested for the Press, which did not meet with general approval, and was discarded by mutual consent in favour of the two independent statements already referred to as being published in the Press on July 25th.
It is significant that eleven months elapsed before any questioning of the manifestos of July 25th was made known. When, simultaneously with the publication in the Press of Bishop Brodie’s denial, a letter was sent to the Secretary of the League, he replied to the effect that all correspondence had passed through Archbishop O’Shea, as the official whom Bishop Brodie himself had recognised as acting for the Hier-
101
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
archy. That attitude was maintained by the League, which was now fully aware that difference of opinion had arisen within the Hierarchy, but no suggestion was received that correspondence was to be directed to anyone but Archbishop O’Shea.
Accordingly, on July 9th, 1931, the Bill, having been endorsed by the principal Protestant Churches in their chief official courts, was presented to Archbishop O’Shea, in accord with precedent, and because in the absence of Archbishop Redwood, he was head of the Roman Catholic Church in New Zealand. He had been consulted by the League Executive at all points. He was acknowledged by Archbishop Redwood and Bishop Brodie as the representative with whom the League should deal. Archbishop O’Shea consulted with his solicitor, who, together with the solicitor acting for the League, agreed without question that the Bill as presented fulfilled the conditions of the agreement. Consequently, Archbishop O’Shea published in the Press his statement of approval, which included the following:
“When the League’s proposals were submitted, both Archbishop Redwood and myself agreed that they complied with the conditions which had been published over and over again by the Catholic Bishops. When the Bill now being brought before Parliament was drafted, it was submitted for perusal to our legal adviser (Mr. P. J. O’Regan), who has reported that as it stands, the Bill does not violate any of the conditions that had been laid down by the Catholic leaders and accepted last year by the Bible in Schools Executive. Consequently, as repeatedly promised, Catholics will withdraw their opposition to the present Bill. I am speaking not only for myself but for the Metropolitan (Archbishop Redwood), who has already made a pronouncement to this effect . . . Now that the Bill is before us, and the best legal advise confirms our view that the proposals it contains fulfil the Catholic conditions, we are bound in honour to stand by our dead colleagues and our oft-repeated promises, and withdraw our former opposition to the enactment.”
Thus the official sanction was publicly and officially placed on the Bill, as far as the Roman Catholic Church was concerned.
It is worthy of notice that more than once in the official correspondence the League Secretary, on behalf of the League Executive, had promised full consideration of any point of difficulty, or of any suggested alteration that might be proposed from the Roman Catholic side. Any difficulty arising, therefore, could readily be dealt with, if mentioned to the
102
ADDENDA
League Secretary, Surely, without any question, the Hierarchy should view as its first honourable act, in case of any departure from its previous position, or divergence on any point in dispute, the further consultation with the other party to the agreement, with a view to possible adjustment.
Yet, on Tuesday, October 14th, without even the courtesy that honour would dictate, of informing the League of their contemplated action, Archbishop O’Shea appears to have been superseded, Archbishop Redwood to have committed a volte face, condemning the Bill that had been officially and publicly approved. The Bill was unaltered. It was deemed by their legal adviser in every way in harmony with the conditions agreed upon mutually, conditions often expressed by the late Bishop Cleary, further announced by Hon. Mr. Carrington, viewed by Archbishop O’Shea as a matter of honour to uphold, and complied with to the satisfaction of those conducting negotiations on behalf of the Roman Catholics. Yet, without indicating to the League in any way where it was considered the Bill was defective, without seeking to bring it into line with requirements, the Hierarchy made the announcement that it would oppose the Bill, and sent to Parliament a statement to that effect. Was this not definitely breaking their agreement and aggravating the offence by failure to notify the other party to the contract? The Bill bad been framed with its clauses constantly referred to their official representative. Now, without notice, they flout their own representative, disagree with their legal adviser, and treat a compact as non-existent which both Archbishops had officially and publicly announced. This riding roughshod over an agreement, though, as Archbishop O’Shea declares, “in honour bound” by promises so often repeated, this violation of good faith without reference to the other party concerned, will be condemned in every selfrespecting community in New Zealand, and do irreparable injury to the prestige of the Church concerned. It leads to the question; What dependence can be placed on the word of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy?
Knowing that this latest action of the Hierarchy will be strongly resented by many Roman Catholics, both priest and laity, who will follow Archbishop O’Shea in a true sense of fair-play, the League will not deviate from the honourable position it has maintained, nor allow any feeling of righteous indignation to affect its calm judgment. The basic conditions of the agreement, expressed by Bishop Cleary and confirmed by the R.C. Hierarchy in its official letter of May 12th, 1930, are eminently reasonable and just. They appeal to all fair-minded citizens, including Roman Catholics. The League will therefore continue its considered policy of protecting the consci-
103
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
ences of all teachers and pupils, and of freeing non-partici-pants from bearing any additional expense, should such be incurred by the introduction of the Bible into the schools. These were the main points of the agreement, which, by mutual consent, left the question of State aid without prejudice. These points are matters of honour with the League. Roman Catholics, therefore, and others who prefer an entirely secular system, may rest assured that their rights of conscientious choice will be respected. At the same time the League will continue to prosecute its campaign on behalf of the many thousands of parents, whose rights of conscientious choice are at present treated with contempt by upholders of the secular system, until an alternative system replaces the present coercive secular system. No unreasonable minority, whether secularists or religionists, must be allowed to dictate any longer to the great majority of the citizens of New Zealand in matters of conscience. Those parents who demand the opportunity for religious instruction to be imparted in school hours are conscientiously concerned over the elimination of the chief essential of a child’s sound education from the curriculum. While they uphold the principle that believers in an entirely secular system should not be compelled to receive religious instruction, equally they affirm that parents whose religious convictions demand the inclusion of religion as the chief essential of a day-school curriculum, should not be compelled by law to send their children where definite religious elements are prohibited. This wrong has been suffered for over fifty years, and the dissatisfaction caused is never likely to lessen. Parliament will always be facing this question until it is answered in harmony with Christian principles, British justice, and a love of fair-play.
Addenda No. 6.
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN PUBLIC (PRIMARY AND INTERMEDIATE) SCHOOLS
Extracts from Official Documents, etc
RELEVANT REGULATIONS
(1) From the Education Act 1914 Sect. 56. Sub-section 3.
The programme of primary instruction shall include, in the manner and to the extent prescribed by regulations, English. Arithmetic, etc. . . . and such lessons on the chief laws of health, on the duties of citizens, and on other subjects of moral instruction as may be prescribed:
104
ADDENDA
Provided that no child shall be compelled to be present at the teaching of history whose parents or guardians object thereto.
Sub-section (4)
The school shall be kept open five days in each week for at least four hours each day, two of which in the fore-noon and two in the afternoon shall be consecutive, and the teaching shall be entirely of a secular character.
Section 36 (1) Bowers and Duties of Boards Among the duties mentioned in this Section dealing with the Board’s powers in establishing, maintaining and controlling public schools appears these words;
Boards “may define the hours of opening and closing public schools.”
(2) The Board may make such by-laws in accordance with this Act and regulations thereunder as in its opinion are necessary or desirable to enable it to exercise the
duties and functions imposed by this Act, and to direct and control its officers and the Schools in the district.
Section 49. Powers and Duties of School Committees.
(1) Subject to the general supervision and control of the Board as herein provided, the Committee shall have the management of the school or schools within the school district.
(7) Subject to the by-laws of the Board, the school buildings may be used at times other than those fixed for primary, secondary or technical instruction, or for continuation classes upon such terms as the Committee may from time to time prescribe;
Provided that nothing in this Section or in any bylaws of the Board shall prevent the Committee from granting as it deems fit the use of the school buildings as aforesaid for the purpose of moral and religious instruction.
(2) From the By-laws of Boards.
Otago (a typical case).
(b) For the purpose of allowing time for Bible teaching the Committee may, in the case of any one or more classes, determine that on one day of each week the hours of instruction shall be reduced by 30 minutes, and in such cases it may determine further, for the purpose of allowing time for devotional exercises, that on any or all of the remaining four days of the week, the hours of instruction for the same classes shall be reduced by five minutes by fixing the time for
105
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
opening school five minutes later than the usual opening hour.
(c) Alternatively to (b) and for the purpose of allowing time for devotional exercises only, the Committee may, in the case of any one or more classes determine that on any or all of the five days of each week the hours of instruction shall be reduced by five minutes by fixing the time for opening school five minutes later than the usual opening hour.
Note: The Crown Law Opinion given on the Otago by-law states: ‘The by-law gives power to fix different numbers of hours for different Standards, and I am asked to advise whether this is legal. I am of the opinion that the by-law is valid and effective. It does not conflict with the provision of Section 56 (4) of the Education Act 1914, and I can find nothing elsewhere in the Act requiring that the hours of instruction shall be uniform for all Standards or Classes.
Nelson.
(18) Except as hereafter provided in sub-clauses (a) and (b) and on holidays teachers shall give instruction for five hours daily during five days in each week but in Infants’ schools and Infants’ classes the hours for instruction by teachers may be reduced to four hours and five minutes daily.
(a) Where the School Committee has approved of the introduction of the Nelson System of Bible Instruction on any one day of each week the above-mentioned hours for instruction by teachers may be reduced on that one day in each week by not more than 30 minutes.
(b) In schools where members of the teaching staff have signified their willingness to conduct devotional exercises and the School Committee has expressed approval of the above-mentioned hours for instruction by teachers in any one or more classes time may be reduced by not more than five minutes on all or any of the remaining four days in each week, except that in schools where the Nelson System of Bible Instruction is not in force this concession shall apply to all five school days of each week.
Note: There are slight variations among the Boards’ by-laws in different areas. ALL Boards permit at least five minutes daily; the Wellington Board alone limits use of the daily provision to schools not using the half hour weekly, yet at the same time urges the use of the Lord’s Prayer at the opening of the day in ALL schools.
106
ADDENDA
Canterbury makes provision for half-an-hour daily. The remaining seven Boards provide for half-an-hour once a week and five minutes on the remaining days. The Nelson Board makes the use of the five minutes subject to action by the staff teachers.
(3) Resolutions of School Committees are legion, are not always carefully drafted, but where they desire to provide for religious worship and instruction, they aim in general at the implementation of the Board’s regulations.
(4) From the Report of the Recess Education Committee (the Atmore Report) 1930;
The Committee (which included the names of Messrs.
Peter Fraser and Clyde Carr) recommended (p. 134):
“That no system of religious instruction in State Schools should be authorised such as will compulsorily require any State teacher to disclose his or her religious beliefs or take part in religious exercises other than of his or her own free will; but that, on the other hand, the fullest liberty should be given to those teachers who desire of their own accord to assist in the Nelson or any similar system of religious instruction that may be authorised by law.”
EXPLANATORY STATEMENTST
From the Minister of Education (1932)
The Minister of Education replied to questions asked by the Secretary of the N.Z. Bible in Schools League in a letter dated September 22nd, 1932, as follows:
Question: Is there a limitation of time to half an hour per week, or may there be further periods arranged with the consent of the Board and School Committee?
The Ministers Reply: The Board may allow more than half an hour a week for religious instruction provided it complies with the requirements of the Act in respect of school hours for secular instruction.®
Question: May the teachers on the staff equally with visiting ministers, etc., participate, and voluntarily conduct the lesson?
The Minister’s Reply: The teachers may participate in the religious instruction as they are not required to be on school
* See earlier p. 91, Sect. 56, Sub-sect. 4, Sect. 36 (1)
107
A CHRISTIAN CORE FOR N.Z. EDUCATION
duty during the time such instruction is being given. Their participation in the religious instruction is, of course, voluntary.
Question: Is the secular use of the Bible permissible for geographical, historical, literary or general moral instruction in the hours devoted to secular instruction?
The Ministers Reply: There is nothing in the Act or the Regulations to prevent teachers from illustrating their lessons with extracts from the Bible provided that the extracts are used only for secular instruction.
From the Minister of Education (1944)
“Legally the position is that the Act demands only that the school-day shall be of at least four hours, two of which in the forenoon and two in the afternoon must be consecutive. Each Education Board, may, within these limits, determine the hours of opening and closing schools, in its district, and they are in general so arranged as to make a working day of the accepted five hours. A Board may, however, rule that on one or more days of the week the official opening of the school may be postponed. It is then left to each School Committee to decide whether or not clergymen or other persons will be permitted to use the school premises for religious instruction during this time. Attendance at such instruction cannot be made compulsory for either children or teachers.”
“Education Today and Tomorrow”
PRINTED BY WHITCOMBE ft TOMBS LIMITED
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/books/ALMA1960-9917502433502836-A-Christian-core-for-N-Z--educat
Bibliographic details
APA: Blamires, E. O. (Ernest Oswald). (1960). A Christian core for N.Z. education. Whitcombe & Tombs.
Chicago: Blamires, E. O. (Ernest Oswald). A Christian core for N.Z. education. Auckland, N.Z.: Whitcombe & Tombs, 1960.
MLA: Blamires, E. O. (Ernest Oswald). A Christian core for N.Z. education. Whitcombe & Tombs, 1960.
Word Count
40,656
A Christian core for N.Z. education Blamires, E. O. (Ernest Oswald), Whitcombe & Tombs, Auckland, N.Z., 1960
Using This Item
Out of copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, copyright in this book has expired.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.