BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.—DR WADDELL SPEAKS OUT.

Evening Star, Issue 12603, 7 September 1905, Page 7

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.—DR WADDELL SPEAKS OUT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—According to a paragraph in your issue'of the sth inst., the Bev. Dr Waddell, at the annu;d meeting of his congregation, touched upon the burning question of the Bible in schools. I am very glad that he 1-aa spoken. I greatly desire' that others of cur religious leaders and teachers would publicly avow their opinions, because it has hitherto looked as if the Biblo-in-schools question was being forced upon the people “blindly.” W© snail be the better pre pared lor a decisive vote when we have had a good deal moie discuss.cn. The doctor says; “ If the State takes up a monopoly of education it must teach its own ethics to its future citizens.” May I b© permitted most respectfully to challenge this statement, and ask a few questions? 1. What arc the “ ethics of the State ” in New Zealand? Will Dr Waddell kindly explain his idea of wliat “ ethics ” are? 'I hero is reason for this request, for during the discussions of the last few years we have hud several different answers. We have had “ Natural Religion,” “ Morality, “Morality with Scriptural Sanctions,’ “Teaching that is not itself Religious, but the Basis of all Religion.” And lately it has be.n reported from Wellington that tie Bible-in-sohools League has given up altogether the demand (or “ ethical" instruction m the public schools, and fallen back upon “ Bible-reading with literary, historical, and geographical explanations ” onlv. So that as yet the air is by no means clear. Thenare two questions here, and Di Waddell will bo doing a public service if he will discuss them: (1) What are “ethics”? (2) What are the “ethics of the State”? 2. The doctor speaks of the State taking up a “monopoly of educaton.” Here, also, there is surely need of some clarifying explanation In anything hut a very narrow and partial seme the statement is 'not correct. For “education” is a largo word,

and a still larger thing. The “State” undertakes only one portion of it, roosl clearly defined end limited. And there is no ‘‘■rUonopdly’' even in its limited sphere. The Bonum Catholic Church competes with the State The Anglican Church has commcuoed jcanpetition, and threatens to do more. The Pesbyteriam Church (see the Rev. I. K M‘lntyrc*a aarnon) oontCTnpbteß the possibility of the, perversion of ha “endowments " 'into this oompetitian. These is no “ monopoly.'' 3. Theta the doctor's statement about the Church and its duty is a most surprising one. Ho■ says: “The Church could not be called upon to undertake the ethical train-ing-of the children a a a whole. It was sufficient to give their money for the purpose of training the children of their own Church.” And this in- the very face of al. the efforts no# being made to find out how it has happened that the Church has lost' its hold of the masses of the people, and the various attempts to regain it! It is’ a deliberate attempt to narrow all responsibility to “the children of, their own Church.” Has the Church, then, no responsibility towards ■ those who are outside? Surely it has grievously missed its vocation. The “ Church ” has a sphere of •influence, separate, indeed, from the “State,” hut it should clearly embrace the whole community in its efforts to save men. This must have been a slip of the tongue or the pm. It is pot a fair description of the attitude of the Presbyterian or any

other Church- towards> the people of Gsa country. If any Chanh should adopt it, it would'be its bitterest reproach, and a. sentence of death and dishonor.—l am, ate , T. Homs. September 6. '