BIBLE TEACHING IN STATE SCHOOLS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XLVI, Issue XLVI, 4 July 1911, Page 2

BIBLE TEACHING IN STATE SCHOOLS

AN UP-TO-DATE REVIEW AND APPEAL. (By the Ven. Arch. Willie, Cambridge.) 11. THE NECESSITY FOR THE SCHOOL FUNCTION. In the first article of this series I dealt with the importance of Bible knowledge. I have now to show the necessity for the school function. The late Anglican Primate of New Zealand, Bishop Cowie, who was Bishop of Auckland f° l thirty years, saw this necessity very rlearjy. He wrote to his people the day before he died : "It is a primary duty of all Christian parents to teach their children the leading facts of Holy Scripture, especially those of the New Testament. But THE INDIFFERENCE OF MANY PARENTS is such that without the help of the day schools we cannot expect much teaching to be given." It seems only too probable that in more than half the homes in the Dominion there is no Bible-teaching worthy of the "name. THE SHORTCOMINGS OF SUNDAY SCHOOLS. Neither do Sunday Schools meet- the want: Even if it can be show.u that a goodly .number of the children of the Dominion attend Sunday schools how little can Sunday Schools do! At best they afford' but an hour's, teaching weekIv. But owing to want of trained teachers for the work , owing to irregular and late attendances of both teachers and scholars ,owing to .poor systems of teaching and want of systems — how little can be done in teaching even the bare historical facts .to 1 say nothing of the application and edification which should follow ! The only assured way to provide that all children shall have an opportunity of being taught the Bible is by having the Bible taught in the only places' where the State compels all children to assemble daily.

THE SCHOOLS AND THE CHURCH

It is a common saying that- "to teach religion is the duty of the Church." It is a true saying, yet withal a misleading one, because it contains at- best only 'half a truth. The foundations of religion should be laid in the home and iu the school. The knowledge of the Bible, as far at least a« its literature and -history are concerned, should be there learned day by day as part of the -regular teach ing. The late Rev. Dr. Norman Macleod early saw the part which the schools might be asked to do in laying these foundations, without the fear of -giving offence to any. When the Education Act for Scotland was under discussion, DR. NORMAN MACLEOD wrote as follows : "There is a- great talk about Education. But why not religious instruction if religious education is too glorious a thing to aspire after ? Surely the facts of the Bible, what it records and says (whatever value individuals may attach to them) should -be given to our children. ■ Give me the alleged facts. I shall then have the skeletons which I can through the Spirit quicken into a great army."

ROMAN CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES "A Christian people," wrote Cardinal Manning," can be perpetuated 'only by Christian education. Schools' without Christianity will rear a "people without Christianity. A people reared Without Christianity will soon become anti-Christ-ian." At the Roman Catholic Conference on education held' in Sydney this year the leading resolution adopted (as given in the newspaper telegrams) was this: "That intellectual education must not be separated from moral -and Teligious instruction.." PROFESSOR HUXLEY bore the following remarkable testimony to' the! 'importance of having the Bible taught in the 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 anxiously perplexed to know by what practical measures ' the religious feeling which is the essential basis of conduct, is to be kept -up, in the utterly chaotic state of opinion, in these matters,'without the use of the Bible." This view is set Out' still more clearly by an undoubted authority, the late Mr. Matthew Arnold, for' so many years a leading' educationalist and inspector of schools. I-n the preface to his little book entitled "A- Bible-Reading for Schools," , ME. MATTHEW ARNOLD says: "There is a substratum of history and literature in the Bible which belongs to science and schools. There is an. application of the- Bible and ail edification by the Bible which belongs to religion and churches. Some people say the Bible, belongs altogether to t ; he Church, not to the school. This is an error. The -Bible application and edification belong to the Church, its literary and historical substance to the school. Other people say that the Bible does indeed belong to the school as well as to the Church, but -that its application and its edification are inseparable from its literature and history—this iu an error. They are separable; and though its application and edification are what matter to a man far most- (we say so in all sincerity):—are what ' 'he mainly lives by. Yet it so happens that it is just in this application and edification that religious differences arise.'

MR. CECIL RHODES, who proved himself one of the most cosmopolitan friends of education the world has seen) in an address at Buluwa-yo in 1901, spoke at follows: "In England a- Board School is not bound to have any religion—l think it is a mistake just as I think it is a mistake in Australia that they have excluded history and religion from their schools. There is no doubt but that it is during the 'period of youth hat you -get thosse impressions which afterwards dominate your whole life. I am quite clear that a child 'brought up with religious thoughts imakes a 'better human being. I am quite sure 1 to couple the ordinary school teaching with some thoughts of religion is better than

dismissing religion from within the walls af the schools." For obvious, reasons I have taken as my authorities men of very diverse views, BOTH ORTHODOX AND UNORTHODOX, and I could of course multiply the number infinitely did space permit. Surely the importance of the school function ought to be beyond dispute. Yet the State ignored the school function as far as Bible teaching is concerned when she passed the present Education Law and gave the Bible no place in it. She did much more, for she practically annihilated the machinery hitherto existing for Bible-teaching and did nothing to supply its place. . In my next article I shall deal with the uselessness of the facilities afforded at present by the Education Law for encouraging voluntary Bible-teaching by the Churches.