Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 11890, 19 May 1903, Page 4

I’m Council of (some t,f) the Christian Churches are hardly fultllnible In ling the promise of thetr Schools. parly days. They have

come to be almost exclusively identified with the discussion of two or three special projects rather one-sided discussion, for the roost part—and no one will pretend that the fulness of the Christian opinion and sentiment of Dunedin is adequately represented at the meetings. By the way, the Anglican element, both clerical and lay, appears to have gradually and quietly ‘ disappeared; and the disappearance has not had a moderating effect on the deliberations of the Council. At the quarterly meeting last night the question of Bible in schools and temperance, as usual, practically monopolised the proceedings. The treatment of the latter subject does not call for particular comment—though the doomed publicans of the Chalmers district will perhaps smile sardonically at Mr Adams's reference to “the question of the vote of the people against the technicalities of the law.’’ It may plausibly be contended that the Prohibitionists, by their choice of tactics in the Chalmers casp, have deprived themselves of the right of harping upon “ technicalities.” We hope that Parliament will promptly rob both parties of their “technical” advantagfes. The Bible-in-schools discussion was interesting and suggestive. Alas for the vaunted unanimity of the Protestant denominations! It now transpires that there was a serious difference of opinion even at the Wellington Conference, and that Dr Gibb, the protagonist of the movement, was in a minority as regards the chief point at issue. The Conference, it will be remembered, decided to ask for “ ethical ” teaching, and we were certainly under the impression that Dt Gibb endorsed this insidious proposition. But no; be now tells us that he vainly tried to induce the Conference to refrain from demanding “ ethical ” teaching. “Undoubtedly there was an ad- “ vanoe on ®the plebiscite platform previ"ously adopted by the Council of Churches, “and *he Conference in Wellington had “practically made an addition to the scheme “ which had hitherto met with favor in this “ region On the whole, he personally pre- “ ferred She nlatfnein nf tl;.. •”

“woald have liked better that the Goft- “ ftfottw mm net halted this m* “ lotion, and when it was before the Con* “ferenca he expressed the sentiment which “he believed was refy geiMSally cherifehed “to this part of tjje eotdny, and pointed out “that the adoption of a rtrijltttidn Of this “ kind might create antagonism in the “South.” ms is totewsttog news, and we demre ti> efephotiSe the fad, how patent, that there was a hen of harindfiy at the Conferanas ftneefpißf this vital qufefetton of ethical teaching, and that the leader ttf the Piblo-in-schools tooVßUent had to give Way to the “ ethical ” majority. And yet, to his anxiety to make a show of pftuft where there is no peace, Df Gibb last night told the Council of the Churches that “ they “would do wisely in faliihg in With the “Conference.” He disapproves the demand for ethical teaching—recognising that it Contravenes “ the sentiment very generally cherished in this part of the, colony”— but anything lor a manifestation of apparent unanimity! Less flexible minds ate to be found, however. Dr Gibb was quite right when he told tho Wellington Conference that the adoption of the *' ethical * platform might ‘ create antagonism in the South”: witness the letter written by the Ker. W. Saunders and read at last night’s meeting Mr Saunders’s view of the Bible-in-schoals question is not the some as ours, and we have no wish to clann him Is an ally in any unfair fashion; still it Would be difficult to exaggerate the significant.! 0 f bis latest prontmhcetoetU. Being unable to attend the meeting of the Council, Mr Saunders wrote as follows:—“As you know, t “ intended to move an amendment when the “ report Of Dr Gibb re Bible in schools was “submitted, in the direction of affirming “the -old platform of the Council on this “thorny question. I feel that a mistake is “is being made in asking for ‘ethical “teaching with a religious sanction.’ As “ this is my conviction, 1 hope you will hold “mo excused ip, after this, I am in ac“■nvp opposmoK.” Will Dr Gibb class Mr Saunders among “the handful of secularists or faddists ’ whom he is arrogantly pleased to regard as constituting the opposition to the Bible-in-schools platform (including “ ethical ” teaching) ? It may lie conjectured that the agitators have not yet got into the thick of their troubles. There is reason to believe that a large majority of the Congregationalisms of New Zealand are opposed to (he policy of the Wellington Conference., and Mr Saunders's unequivocal action may be the prelude of an elucidation of the position.