ADDRESS BY DR. GIBB.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXV, Issue LXV, 2 August 1913, Page 5

ADDRESS BY DR. GIBB.

There was a very large attendanceat the Opera House on Friday 'evening,, when Dr Gibb, of Wellington, delivered an address upon the objects of the Bible in Schools League. His Worship the Mayor, Mr A. W. Gillies, was chair- * man and after a prayer had been offered, briefly introduced the speaker. In his opening remarks, Dr Gibb referred to the subject of his address as being, one of immense importance to the well-being „of this country, and said it was hardly possible to over-emphasise the importance of the present agitation which the League trusted, would result in the restoration of the W rord ot God to the public schools of New Zealand. The League knew it was ui> against a stiff proposition, hut, the speaker said, he could not but be amused at the grouping of its antagonist, under Bishop Cleary, who was aF the present time mothering a strange brood of J_w_, secularists, Catholic-s----and other opponents of the League. All this antagonism was really testimony tothe vitality of the movement and its. enemies knew it. Hence their activity. A previous movement in favor of theBible in schools ended in 1906 and itsopponents thought it was dead, but to-day the League was alive again andwas going to sweep on to ultimate victory, (Applause.) Answering his own question: "What is it the League wants?" Dr Gibb went on to say that it wanted lessonsfrom the Scriptures read by the children in State schools, in the ordinary school hours, under the supervision of teachers, with a Conscience clause permitting any parent with conscientiousobjections to withhold his children from, school during the time of those lessons. The lecturer's idea of what a teacher should do, when, for instance, the child had been through a lesson, on , the Sermon on the Mount, would bo to ask wlio went up into the mountain. The" reply should be, "Jesus." The children would then be asked, "Whatdid Jesus do and say?" The teacherwould endeavor to ascertain' that thechild had a dictionary understandings of what the text meant, and) remembered the words of the Scriptures. This, surely, was not elaborate, butwas all that the League expected that teacher to do. The League also wanted the right of entry,,and authority for ministers representing the various churches, or duly appointed by them, to teach the children for a certain portion of the school hours according to the faith of their fathers, and to have ordinary powers of school discipline, so that listening to the instruction of ministers of religion should be as much a part of the child's school work as any other school task. Tfie; minister's task would be to take the-1 same lesson, that the child had been over with the teacher, go over it again in a different way, and explain and open-up the passage from a religions point of view, to quicken the child's love for God and God's word. The League did not want the teachers to teach religion. Some might have been told that the League wanted the New Sonth Wales system, under which the teacher was empowered to give religious teaching of a general character. The New Zealand League had not reached exact details, but when the time came to do so the speaker would urge that what was wanted was what he had indicated. It had been asked: "What if a child asks the teacher, 'Who is .God or Jesus?' " Was there sucha terrible difficulty in that, and, unless all reference to God or Divine matters was removed from the school books, was not the teacher open to be asked •uch a question under the-present system? Would they be prepared to purge the nanie, of Gr°d out of the school books to relieve the teacher of this danger? The wprks of Scott, Thackeray, Dickens and others contained references to regilious subjects, so how was a child to be given any knowledge of the best in,literature without a liability of encountering such reference. The League did not desire that teachers should be compelled to answer such questions, or to give religious instruction, but that the Word of God should make its own impression on the mind of the child. Nor did the League, wish to prepare the lesson books; it -was willing that the Government and educational authorities should do it, as the range was wide and error in making a selection could not be made. The League would be content with what Bishop Cleary called a mutilated Bible, though he must know that no clergyman would wish to make use of the whole of the Bible, many passages in which were not suitable for public reading. The League, continued Dr Gibb, did not wish to break up the national education system, and on the whole the speaker * approved of the syllabus, though it was a little overcrowded and more interest appeared to be devoted to the entrails of a frog than to the soul of an archangel. , (Laughter.) From the bottom of their hearts the League stood for nationalism, and it would be a great gjief to it if the national system, were impaired—but it could not be. The great opponents of the national system were the Roman Catholics, though just now Bishop Cleary, with the prickly brood under him, was not anxious to obtrude the fact that he and his church did not love this national system. The Leaguewas said to be assailing the national system, but some of those who said so hated the national system with a. great and bitter hatred. Without desiring to threaten, the speaker continued, he might say that the League would not tolerate the barring out of A Scripture, and if i% did-not get ltf rights would have to take a leaf ouv of the Roman Catholic Church's b^ok and start schools of its own. >-. What : :. would become of the national'system if all the strong churches went in for. a denominational primary school system? God forbid that such a time should come, as the League desired to regain the national system. The League wanted the Bible and ministers in schools in the interests of religion, and, in common with a multitude of the wisest people, the speaker said, he held that there could oe no education worthy of the name -without religion. (Applause.) God was the greatest and deepest fact of the universe and man's life, and any system which left God out was the merest mockery of education. The League wanted the Bible in schools in the interests of morality. Morality of a sort was taught in the schooks, but what lay behind it? Was it hot the cane or the policeman? The Bible was wanted in the schools for the welfare of the country, in order that the children— the country's future citizens—mightgrow up clean-minded, pure and wholesome. Much in the present' civilisation was admirable, but there was too much clink of coin and ihunder of guns. The speaker was not opposed to, nor yet enamored of, the present military* system, but it was not the guns but the men behind the guns that would tell, and what if tho man behind the gnn was rotten? It was righteousness that exalted a nation and there-" f")re the League demanded the rp-torj'-iion of the Bibje Jn the ipterosts of .the' future citizens'of the country. * ajkThe J interests of the ,Churq?i, I>r .mbb_,ivent on,- nW dson ncWK +h<"> re___________________________________________________^M4^

■and the dry, arid secularism thus engendered was an atmosphere making | against the Church. The Bible was wanted in schools so that the children might learn of Jesus Christ—the. greatest personality in art, literature, and history—-to whom all modern civilisation looked back. Would they dare to call a system which left out all mention of Jesus Christ education? It was the merest parody. (Applause.) Dr Gibb next traversed a number of arguments used by opponents of the League, some of which arguments, he said, were not worth a snap of tiie fingers. Referring to the statement that sectarian strife might result, he said this appolaed chiefly" to persons who had recently arrived from England, hut because there was trouble in England in regard to education it did not follow that there would be trouble in New Zealand. In support of his contention he asked why had there not been sectarian strife in Australia, where the essential features of the scheme the League wanted had long "boon in operation? The League had testimony from all quarters that the scheme made for unity and discord Mas not heard of. Had there been any evidence against it, the League's opponents would surely have made the most of it, but he had not heard of any. Was there any microbe in New Zealand, he asked, that should cause a scheme which suited so well on the other side of the Tasman Sea to suit us so ill over here? In regard to the lines of cleavage between Church and State, the speaker contended that, though correct in "theory, Church and State could not be separated altogether, in witness where- \ of he quoted the provision of chaplains for military forces, the opening of the -House of Representatives with prayer, and the provision of Bibles to prisoners in the goals. Yet the Bible was denied to the bairns in school. There was, he admitted, something in the objection urged by teachers that, whereas in Australia teachers were appointed to schools by a central authority, in Now Zealand they were chosen by the local committees, and therefore this might affect appointments by reason of preponderance of any particular denomination among members of a committee-. This, however, could be got over, and the League might, he thought, join with the teachers in endeavoring to secure that appointments should be made by a central authority. No teacher, be he agnostic, sceptic, Jew or other, would be asked to teach aga'hi.t his conscience, but if any man on the teaching staff of New Zealand was not willing to listen to a child read-, ing, say, the Sermon on the Mount, that man was not fit to teach children i anything. i In regard to Roman Catholic objec-! tions, Dr. Gibb said that he admired the Roman Catholic Church for many things, but its zeal for liberty was a new, thing—and more power to it along those lines. The Roman Catholics said that* the League's scheme would outrage their consciences, but what about the Protestant consciences that were outraged by bringing up children in secularism? If Roman Catholic children were compelled to be present, then it would be a wrong, but the League said Roman Catholic parents could please themselves as to whether or not their children were present, and the League would please themselves. But the Roman Catholics wished the scheme .'forgone to piease them, which meant that 14 per cent, of the population was to dictate tc 75 per cent, what the latter should do in regard to the education of their children. : In conclusion, Dr. Gibb said that supporters of the League were a majority, and insisted on the right to educate their children as they wished. They demanded a referendum of the people on the" question, and he urged his , hearers to do their best for. the movement, which he felt was a work of God and would sweep on to ultimate victory.—(Applause.)