BIBLE LESSONS IN SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 19149, 15 October 1925, Page 9

BIBLE LESSONS IN SCHOOLS.

Sir, —-Mr, James Mackenzie's contribution to the Bible-in-schools discussion is helpfu! and illuminating. He can speak as an expert. I can see no material difference between his position and my own. But his views are in direct conflict with those expressed by Mr. de ia Mare. Norman E. Boston. Sir, —In 3. letter in your columns Mr. Giles expresses his high appreciation of certain passages in the Bible. This being so I fail to see his reason for objection to Bible teaching in schools. It is just because a large portion of the clergy of all Protestant denominations hold this wider view of inspiration that they are now making a widely extended agitation for Bible teaching. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the Bible was prohibited in schools by agnostics and secularists who were in a minority. It was the sects themselves, and especially the Roman Catholic sect, that did this. It has been repeatedly stated that ■.n giving Bible instruction teachers would introduce and emphasise their particular favourite dogmas. .There are, no doubt, some who would do this, but in a lifelong experience of public school teaching I have met only one such bigot, and those who would do so have the opportunity, and use it, when explaining such literature as Longfellow, Milton and Bunvau. As a head teacher I have heard Roman Catholic teachers enforce the simple teachings of Christ in a way that even the P.P.A. could not object to. On the other hand I have heard of a teacher inculcating Roman Catholic practices when explainingextracts from Longfellow's "Evangeline." In such n case a word from the head teacher or school committee would be quite sufficient to prevent its recurrence. The whole of our literature is saturated with Bible teaching and the one cannot be explained without the other. I have taught in the Old Country in a Church of England, a Wesleyan. and a board school, and never heard any Bible instruction given that would give offence to a reasonable person of any denomination. As to the State teaching religion, is it not incongruous that the State should require (with conscience clause) all oaths to be made on the Bible, and yet not to prepare people for this by teaching the Bible? Now lam one of those who "accepts the Bible as the Word of God," arid I strongly object to Mr. Giles' insinuation "that the notion that it can be commented on with as much freedom as such works as Mil ton is ,a flimsy fallacy." As a matter of fact I believe that were he to study the question a little more deeply he would find that much dogmatic teaching has its origin in such works as Milton and Bunyan, rather than in the Bible. The Word of God and its message to mankind is protected by its own construction. The whole of its literal sense bears out the saying "Seeing they shall see and not perceive, and hearing they shall hear but not understand." This of course applies to hearers only. It is only to the doers that the promise is given "to know of the doctrine," The foundation of His teaching is the Golden Rule, and unless a church, or sect, or individual adopts this and lives in accordance with it, there is little hope of knowing His doctrine, or of perceiving the inner meaning of His words which are "spirit and truth." As the leaders of Christian thought are acting more in tins direction, I believe there is no serious risk of Bible teaching in schools causing sectarian strife. H.R.H.