DEGREES IN DIVINITY

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22957, 12 August 1936, Page 5

DEGREES IN DIVINITY

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—May I be permitted to enlighten “J. C.” and others who may be interested regarding what it is that the responsible representatives of the churches really wish the University to do in respect to degrees in divinity? 1. They have never asked that a chair of divinity be set up in- any of the constituent colleges, nor has it been suggested to the University. 2. They have asked that examinations be held in certain subjects that would qualify for a bachelor's and doctor’s degree, these subjects being such as are set by London University or other universities of standing like the old English or Scottish universities, and the Melbourne College of Divinity. 3. Academic qualification alone is to be required, there being no religious tests.

4. The University would be put to no extra expense in this matter. The fees for the degrees would meet all expenses. This could be worked as Sydney University is to work its new degrees. A board could be set up to draw up and set in operation regulations governing the degrees, ana the various theological colleges could be recognised for the keeping of terms. The matter is much simpler than the controversial clouding has made it appear.—X am, etc., S. F. Hunter, Secretary; Theological Hall Senatus. Knox College. TO THE EDITOR. Sir,— In the letter in your columns of the 11th inst. there are two misprints. At the end of the second paragraph the words should be “the examinees—nr examined—may be,” etc. In the last sentence the words should be “the far-famed Rabbi Duncan,” etc. —I am, etc., J. C. TO THE EDITOR. Sir—Because my last arguments againslt “ Profanum Vulgus” were warrper and keener-edged than previous ones, I find he now suggests the appearance in me of peevishness and loss of temper. When a coritrqversialist has a good case, however, he can afford to leave all such matters to the judgment of readers. I suggested in my last that no person is qualified to discuss a subject like this one unless he has had some academic experience. “Profanum Vulgus” now admits what I have suspected all along, that he possesses no such qualification. It is all very well saying the subject must be argued on “ purely logical and scientific lines,” but logic and science must know something about , the matters with , which' they deal, and to gain that knowledge gome, experience is surely needed. Academic experience is not necessary for the discussion of every subject: true, but it certainly is for this. Your correspondent has long ago finished all he has to say on this topic, but he still keeps up conversation. Some rare tit-bits are contained in our friend’s last letter. Here is one: “The very fact that even Euclid’s axioms have been questioned and rejected shows that science does not take even them for granted.” Would “Profanum Vulgus ” kindly tell us who the people

are who question the truth of Euclid’s axioms? Would he kindly name some great mathematicians who reject the truth of Euclid’s axioms? In the old days when I studied mathematics 1 can remember learning up a proof of the axiom that all right angles are equal, but I have never heard of any crank who challenged the truth of that axiom. To say it can be proved is surely tantamount to admitting its truth. Your correspondent asks, “Would Mr Jordan be ready to place the assumption of God in divinity on a level equal to the assumption of an axiom, of Euclid in geometry?” No. I would not in the strictest sense; for an axiom in Euclid is supposed to be “a self-evident truth, which neither requires nor is capable of proof.” On the other hand, the fact of God is capable of proof. It serves “as a foundation of future reasoning” only after it has been proved, however eloquent human intuition may sometimes be regarding the Divine existence. Your correspondent’s remarks regarding these proofs show that he has no idea what they are, or he would not make such extraordinary statements concerning them. Here is another tit-bit: “The question whether one was theistic or atheistic should not enter into the matter, the only consideration being . , , whether or not it” (the teaching) “was scientific.” In other words, whether the professor teaches that there is a God or that there is none does not enter t into the matter, provided the teaching is scientific. Allow me to parody that as follows: “ Whether the surgical professor teaches his students that man has a backbone or that he has none does not enter into the matter, provided his teaching is scientific.” The only way for your correspondent to get out of this hole is to say that a man need not teach his own opinions; but that is unmitigated nonsense! It is but natural for him to do so, and you cannot stop him. “Profanum Vulgus” says that what he objects to is the acceptance of certain assumptions as “ tests ” for a teacher or student “in the sense that those assumptions must not be questioned or rejected.” He means, among other things, that a university religious teacher should be able to question or reject belief in God if he takes it into his . head to do so. Now, let us be frank! The object of those who demand a Divinity faculty in the university is the teaching of Christianity, especially to divinity students and young ministers. I hold, as thousands in this country hold, that Christianity is the most previous thing in the universe; that it is far more useful even than surgery or medicine; that it does something far more important than even the mending of broken bodies and broken limbs. It mends, or rather remakes, broken lives. It can regenerate, not only the individual, but human society in every department of its life. True Christian teaching is like a healthy, well-cultivated fruit tree. It produces fruit, its fruit being moral righteousness, the bad being made good and the good belter. Atheism cannot grow this fruit, the non-Chris-tian religions cannot, even philosophic ethics cannot. Nothing can except personal faith in the saving power of Christ. My contention is that the learning that corresponds to such saving power, being far more important than even medical or surgical science, ought not to be ignored or neglected by any self-respecting university. Can this religion be taught by any man who does not personally believe it? Surely an answer is unnecessary. It appears that your correspondent ad- j mils that a religious person’s teaching i can be scientific. 1 thank him for that admission. Very well then. If a religious man can teach divinity scientifically, what need is there for an Atheist to teach it?

Now for Mr Langley’s challenge. I am not surprised, for I know Mr Langley is itching to get me on to the platform. But is there any need? This discussion all along has been with "Profanum Vulgus.” Neither he nor I need Mr Langley’s help. The mention of Mr Langley's name was merely incidental; therefore I cannot consent to let Mr Langley come into this discussion at all. If “Profanum Vulgus” has had enough and wants to throw up the sponge, let him say so. Why bring Mr Langley into it? Anyhow, whatever challenges Mr Langley chooses to issue iu the future, let him know from this that I refuse to meet him on the platform on any subject or in any circumstances. Last lime I refused I gave a reason for my refusal, but it was misinterpreted and misjudged. This time, therefore, 1 give no reason. I

will, however, go so far as to assure my Rationalist friends that it is not because there are no arguments to be put up on my side of the fence.—l am, etc., C. B. Jordan. Parsonage, Roxburgh.