Bible in Schools.

Otago Witness, Issue 2623, 22 June 1904, Page 30

Bible in Schools.

TO THE EBITOE. j Sib, — It will be generally admitted by unbiassed critics that too much daylight Cannot be thrown xipon this very important question, and judging by the letter ol "Back Blocks" in your last issue, Mr MacGregor's letter on_ the question has let in such a flood of light that '•Ba-ck Blocks" has been unable to see any- ; thing very clearly since, for it is impossible to learn what this writer means from his letter. ■ All one can gather is that he wants Bible-in- • schools at any cost — at even the sacrifice of the i principles of Protestantism. Having taken con- ! siderable interest in education matters for \ many yesrs, I have naturally formed strong ' opinions on questions such as this, a-nd I make I no apology for taking a hand in the discussion — a discussion that has been going on ever since the present splendid system of education was introduced by the far-seeing men who • framed it, wisely, on purely secular lines. What Dr Gibb and party desire is to graft on a, ' State system of education, a milk-and-watery substitute for Protestant teaching— a ihing neither "flesh, fish, nor good red herring," but •' something that will, as Mr MacGregor has ably ; shown, enable them to cover up their failure j as clergymen to show .that interest in the reli- j gious welfare of the Protestant children that j Eoman Catholic clergymen ahow in that of the j children of their people. But how any self- ! respecting Protestant can accept this miserable device as a solution of the problem puzzles me. " Back Blocks,"' to my thinking, shows a j very hazy knowledge of the subject when he [ refers to Mt MacGregor' s letter as an evidence j of "personal dislike to the Bible. 1 ' That is the ' argument of a man who is evidently stumped. Would it not be much more opplicable to j Bible-in-schools ministers who are prepared ! to stoop to the miserable subterfuge of doctor- ! ing the very vitals of the Christian faith in | order to evolve a colourless non-reli°;ious, ethi- J cal text book from which everything of a j Divine character is eliminated, and throw it on ' the table "of the secular schoolroom to be iised . by every teacher as he or she may think right J and suitable, and all to ease themselves of a ' lesponsibiliiy the most sacred in a minister's calling ? There is no section of the community '• to whom the Bible-in-schools question is of more vital importance than the country people. ■' By cur present State system education is : pushed into baok blocks and remote, corners, i aud mads free and possible to almost every , child in the colony. Let the people just con- j sider what this question really is. Stripped of j all its theological trappings, the bald proposi- ; tion is, Shall the State undertake religious teaching? I hold that religious teaching is ; purely the dnly of parents and ministers, and | no part of a State's duty at all, and I believe , the majority of people agfee with me. B\it if it is granted that the State should teach reli- '' gion, it equally follows that tho State must either set up a State religion, or else teach all religions ; and it is one of these things that Dr Gibb is esking New Zealand to do. He wishes ■ New Zealand to adopt a Gibb-devised system ', of Protestantism, as the Stat9 religion of our \ schools, and he has no scruple in saying that it is quite right to exact taxation from Catholics and o + her dissenters for the purpose of teaching Dr Gibb's catechism, whilst we refuse [ anybody else a, similar privilege. Yet Dr Gibb • would be horrified if he were called intolerant. ; for is he not the New Zealand high priest of , Protestantism, and does not Protestantism i stand for religious equality for all? "Back j Blocks" had better take this little pill. But > assuming that this "peculiar system of unsec- i tarian ethical" Protes'antisin was grpfted on a i secular system of Stste education, would it • satisfy anybody e;;cept the ministers who were ' bhereby relieved of the most important of their ; obligations? Would il satisfy a "converted" j Px-otestant who believes in salvation l>y faith? j Would it cause one to respect the orthodox minister who on Sunday stands up in an j evangelical pulpit and with ail the eainestness j 3.t his command informs his congregation that Lhe Bible can only be understoodif prayerfully , meditated upon and read with guidance from ; 3,n High, and as soou as hia clerical vestments ' ire laid aside assures you, with similar earnest- i ness, that the children of New Zealand need ' no spiritupl help at all, and that, in fact, it is } juite safe to banish Ihe Bib's itself ancl sub- j iiitute 0 mongrel texl book in iis place? Small ' wonder that the young educated men of JNTev/ , Zealand have little failb. in old-time doctrines, ' md that the Rev. Mr Tsmieson (who. has j pluckily faced the position) finds them striking , Dut on their own, and looking askance at the j aid notions, and suspicious of the sincerity of Dhristian leaders who are prepared to advocate ' Aie mere teaching of foroiulas as a means of j iiioral training for children. On'y the other , Sunday X beaid a minister quote *roi»> # Isuins's ' 'amous "Cotlir's Saturday Night" those lines ' le«?cribing Scotland's greatness as due to the j Influence of Scottish Home life, and it struck ne as peculiar that ministers of religion, and ' especially Scotch ministers, should so seldom ! refer to this aspect of the question. Is it be- , :nuse this aspect is clossly allied to' another— j nz., the duty of clergymen themselves? In the j sarly goldfield days I can remember that in the ] ibaence of our minislrr— an old-time, genuine ' iVeslpyau— his wife gathered us as children nto the little old church and t;mj;lit us the ; Deautiful story of Christ's life, and to sing tho ) ittle old hymns and folos that appeal so ; strongly to childron : but r.^wadays it looks ps j f everybody tried to shunt the responsibility J >n to some one else, and the climax, in my ( ) pinion, is reached when the head and front j )f Presbyterianis'ii. aided, I am sorry to say, , jy followers of John Wesley, advocate auto- . vatic State-taught morality by machinery, as , infit for the purpose as a barber's clippers for ' ■ n aiii ig a harvest field. Ons is reßuiuleil of ;he story of the lazy man who, in order to ' (scape the loutine of devotion, had the Lord's ' Prayer printed on a large card beside his bed, ' md who, before retiring, M-as in the habit of ooking upwards with shut eyes, piously pointng to the card, and unctuously saying, "Lord, hose are my sentiinents>." Is not our Bible-in-ichools party in a, similar position, and might lot their piayer well be as follows, with shut ;

eyes, too' — "Lord, we know thai Ihou hasft commanded us to feed Thy lambs, but the work •is haul, and we feel that it can be much, better performed by State niji-chmery ; we have therefore prepared an unsectarian ethical food which will be automaHcally administered in dobos carefully prepared by the Council of Churches, and he that is not with us is not to be considered." If this plain, outspoken exposition of the Bibie-in-sehools programme does not please its advocates, the fault is theirs, not mine, and I sincerely hope the many country, '■ young men and women who have cause to bless | the present splendid education system, will j ra.lly round the standard and allow no party of j clerical political agitators to pull down New 1 Zealand's finest bulwark— a free, secular, and < compulsory system of national education. — I j am, etc., J. J. Eahsay. Mosgiel, June 20.