THE PRESBYTERIAN ASSEMBLY AND THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15955, 24 December 1913, Page 8

THE PRESBYTERIAN ASSEMBLY AND THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

TC TIIE EDITOR.

Sin,—llic mover of the anii-Bible-iii-Schools amendment in tho General Assembly gives in your issue of to-day ii very inadequate historical. statement of Ins personal relation to the movement in the assembly which led to the alliance of the churches ' in tho Bible-in-State-Schools League—an alliance winch he sought, without success, to destroy in the assembly last week. The story of the movement is shortly as follows:— 1. In 1910, alter tho New South Wales system had been considered by one or more presbyteries the General Assembly unanimously appointed a committee to prepare a report and to send down such report to presbyteries . and sessions, and presbyteries were instructed to report to next 'assembly. The Rev. Andrew Cameron was a member of this committee.

2. In 1911 this committee presented its report, which was not a mere report of " inquiry," as Mr Cameron de-scribed it, for the'committee recommended the principles, which to-day form the platform of the league, for the consideration and approval of presbyteries'and sessions. There is no indication of discord in the committee's report, and not the slightest indication of Mr Cameron beiiif a dissenting member of committee. 3. In this same 1911 assembly two further things were done., (a) Geneial approval was expressed by tho General Assembly of liible -lessons, right of entry, and conscience clause, and the committee was empowered to enter into negotiations with representatives of other denominations with a. view of bringing the matter definitely before the citizens of the dominion, lb) A committee was again appointed by the assembly, and the Rev. A. Cameron was again ono of tho % committee. Tho Blue Book states that Mr Cameron seconded the motion tor the 6etting up of this Campaign Committee, and Mr Cameron denies the accuracy oi th,; minutes in this respect I was present _at this particular sederunt and am satisfied that the record is accurate, and that Mr Cameron's memory is at fault, . though I recognise the perfect sincerity of Mr Cameron's denial. I wish your readers to notice that these epoch-making resolutions—resolutions that have called into existence the most colossal educational fight in the history of New * Zealand—now passed unanimouslv in the assembly. 4. In 1912 tho committee, of which Mr Cameron' was still a member, reported that, as the result of negotiations with other denominations, the Bible-in-State-Schools League had been brought into existence, and that the Moderator of the' Presbyterian Church would be a vice-president of the league, The assembly approved of these negotiations by adopting the committee's report, and it further requested ministers and sessions to form local committees and to further the cause.of the Bible-in-State-Schools League. All these momentous things were done unanimously by the assembly, and not'ono note of discord was struck. It was further agreed, with the samo unanimity, that on a given Sunday ministers should bring the subject of Bible-in-Schools before their congregations. It was still further agreed, with the same unanimity, that the executive of the Bible-in-State-Schools League bo requested to approach Government and ask for a referendum on the Bible in schools.

Such is the relation of the Presbyterian Church to the movement before the public of New Zealand to-day. In the most deliberate way tho Presbyterian Church entered into a solemn league and covenant with other religious bodies in a movement in accord with the world-wide policy ot the Presbyterian Church in education. After three* years' silenco Mr Cameron now seeks to smash up this alliance, undo what he actively and passively has done in tho assembly during the last two years, and fires without niercy at his own Biblo-in-schools views as set forth in his article in the Outlook of April 26, 1902. The Rev. Andrew Cameron, is worthy of all praise for his many services to the community and to the church, but his recent appearance in the assembly makes him guilty of inconsistency, monumental and colossal. Mr Cameron claims a liberty of opposition and' obstruction at this stage that he has no right to claim. He lets us understand that in all the half of score or 60 of findings and resolutions in the assembly he was really a protesting party, although he did not open his mouth in protest. Mr Cameron at every stage had the right of dissent, and I would remind him of a. fundamental principle of procedure in the Presbyterian Church as set forth in the "Practice" of the United Free Church of Scotland that a man wiio keeps silent, as Mr Cameron did, must be held as "submitting to and acquiescing in the decision as regards both the merits of the cause and the regularity of the procedure" '(p. 104). The aspects of Mr Cameron's obstruction as a breach of a solemn covenant made is not fitted to help the church in the eyes of the world.—l am, etc., Robert Wood. Duncdin, December 19.