BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 70, 20 September 1927, Page 8

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS

CANON WILFORD'S VIEWS

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Mr. Burton's letfc* in your pape* of 12th September has reached me, and there are two things in it you will perhaps of your goodness let me comment' on. The first comes at the beginning of his letter. As far as lam concerned, there is n5 "radical misunderstanding of the scope and purpose" of the Religious Exercises Bill. Mr Burton would have been nearer the truth if he had said that many who had signed the papers asking for the religious exercises had done so because of this very misunderstanding. I know of^ cases where supporters have changed their ' mind^when the "scope and purpose" of the Bill have been pointed out to them ijet me give your readers the considered opinion of the executive of an Anglicaa education society:— . •~"is'"-au

,We believe," their resolution ran, the propaganda of the Bible-in-Schoola .League to be a quest Jor a vain objective, a delusion to earnest but undiscernuig minds, derogatory to real religion, a renunciation of full faith "'in Jesus Christ our Most Hoiy Redeemer, the Saviour of mankind, Lord and God a repudiation of the Church's commission to teach that faith, unfair io the teaching profession, and opposed to the" true principles of justice, equality and freedom in a democracy." :

The second comes at the end of Mr Burtons letter. The General Synod to which he reiers did not carry "a resoluturn in favour of religious exercises on the ■i?n » ? dOWn m the Exercises iJili. A motion on these lines was actually proposed and seconded by Mr. Burtoa himself. But the opposition to it was so strong that Synod relerred the whole question to a select committee. In committee I proposed the motion "that this synod, regarding the lack of provision of religious education in the State schools as a grievous loss to the children and to the community, and being fully persuaded that immediate action should be taiec to respectfully request the bishops in conference with the heads of other Christian bodies to lose no time in trying to find some method which, while conserving the right of entry, will make it possible for those State school teachers who will undertake it to give religious instruction to the children in school hours." In it I aimed at three things: (1) That the Church, should do her own work; (2) that religious liberty should be guarded'by giving every, religious body exactly the same privilege;' (3) that State school teachers should be given the opportunity of voluntarily helping as members of religious bodies in tb« religious instruction of the children. My wording was altered by the committee, but I was able to vote 1 for the motion because it asked the Bishop: (a) to makearrangements which would be "acceptable to all parties"—a phrase which, as I pointed out at the time, included the great: mass of church folk who wanted the right of entry; and (b) to confer with the State school teachers—a.course which, had they taken, might have prevented the framing, of the hapless Bill which has been rejected so decidedly by the Teachers' Institute and which can only be accepted by our; legislators at a risk of religious upheaval^ Notwithstanding everything that has been said to the contrary, I believe thai' the weight of Church 'opinion is with the position I take up, and you will perhaps let me end with a quotation from a signed letter by a brother priest in a Christchurch paper at a time when the Religious Eser«\ cises Bill was being taken more seriously, here than it is at the present moment: "It is advisable," he wrote, "that it should be clearly understood that the great majority) of the Anglican clergy is with Canon Wilford in his contention that, as the Church' has often officially declared, no eatisfac-, tory solution of the educational problem will be found which closes the schools to the clergy or their accredited represent tatives.'.' —I am, etc.,

J. RUSSELL WILFORD, Principal of Christ's College Collegiate Department. Christchurch, 17th September.