The Bible-in-Schools’ Text Book

Southland Times, Issue 19553, 6 May 1905, Page 1

The Bible-in-Schools’ Text Book

MANIFESTO OF THE STATE SCHOOLS’ DEFENCE EEAGUE.

The following- is a summary of the manifesto issued this week (and reference to\.which is made in our leading columns this morning) by the Executive of the Wellington State Schools' Defence

League : — The reason why the Bible has been excluded from the curriculum of our public schools is not that the people believe the Bible to be a bad bdok, but because, while revering it as the best of books, a majority consider that religion is a matter of which the State cannot undertake the teaching without violating the rights of conscience, of many of its members, and that to attmnpt to teach the Bible, or any portion of it, in the Statewould rend our education system with sectarian strife, from which its disintegration in the form of denominationalisinl would be the only escape. The opponents of' the secular schemfc insist that a selection could be made which would not open tho flood-gates of theological strife, and they cifaim. that the specimen lessons and list of contents sho»w that “ no attempt is made to inculcate any theological or dogmatic belief, that they are of a purely explanatory nature, in fact, that the object of the reform is the. introduction not of religious teaching but of that basis upon which all religious and all ethical teaching may be raised.” This claim is fully borne out by the samples submitted. Meagre, dry and utterly inadequate, they certainly are, but they err by omission only. On the other hand, the suggestion that the lessons selected have not a specifically religious character, but merely embody the necessary basis of ” all religious and all ethical teaching,” is absolutely unwarranted and shows an ignorance of the doubts, difficulties an,d differences with which th.e minds of good citizens and good Christians have long been agitated. A took wjhich is brought forward to disarm the prejudices of a generation habituated to the secular system might naturally have been expected to present the appearance of a compromise ; t J make some concessions to the critical spirit of the day, to sacrifice much that is infinitely precious to the devout in order that what was left might excite no antagonism and serve as a common ground for all. Except for the narrow range to which thci notes are confined there is not the slightest trace of any such disposition on the part of the compilers of tho book. Not the least astounding feature in the text book is that lesson after lesson belies by its heading the profession that the bo;ok| is not intended to be an instrument of religious teaching.. Six headings of the Junior Supplementary Lessons are : ” Religion the first thing ; hot by the way,” “ The Immortal Hope of the Kingdom of God,” “ We are not Dust and Ashes,” “ The Kingdom of God can come only through Sacrifice : a Divine Law of Life,” “ Religion is Joy not Gloom,” ” Treachery and Cowardice in the Kingdom of Giod.” The marginal analysis of almost every lesson tells the same story. ” Narrative,” ” Duty,” and ” Devotion,” are the three parts into which the lessons are nominally divided, and under the hist the most intimate and sacred outpouring, of the Psalmist, Prophet and Apostle are included, and unsophisticated minds will certainly not rccpiire us to argue whether such sublime passages can be anything" better'than gibberish to children who are not made to know and feel their religious meaning, nor whether those who have aptly prefixed tho word “devotion” to hundreds

r these passages can be heard to say iat they are not devotional. 'Pho manifesto goes on to> deal with the iflicultics of the teaching as to the •cation of the world convoyed by the inior lessons on Genesis 1, to 111., and ion discusses the effect upon the teach ■s of such lessons and on the curricu ini

A conscientious teacher who, liko ic Dean of Westminster, is unable to ccept the story of the creation of the taking of woman from the rib of man, nd of her deception by the serpent, acfrding to their literal meaning, will reuse to teach as a truth what he beeves to be false, a;nd he must make ay for a successor who is less critical,

or perhaps less scrupulous in expressing the results of 1 his criticism. A conscientious clause is proposed to give a teacher a theoretical protection in such ‘a case, but though this would give him a sufficient excuse for declining to give the lesson, there would be nothing to prevent the Board, the School Committee, and the parents from securing the removal of any teacher availing himself of the privilege. The practical operation of the clause would therefore be as a n ligious test ; nothing else. Are we going to add the interpretation of Scripture to the duties of School Committees and Education Boards ? Unless the local element in our education administration is to be superseded’ and the Minister of Education installed as the supreme administrative and exegitical authority, the standard of interpretation will necessarily vary wjith the denominational or critical bias of each district. As to miracles, many of those included in thci text book are rejected by many devout and learned men who remain, nevertheless, within the Church. The astounding and almost incredible demand is made of this free democracy that it shall prescribe a more rigid standard of orthodoxy for its school teachers than many branches of the Christian Church enforce upon’ their own members. Doubts, which find expression in the pulpits and Church congresses of the Old’ Country, are id be held by a* State which has no religion of its own to qualify school teachers for the black list, and to expose them at the hands of unskilled and perhaps bigoted tribunals to harassment, persecution and dismissal. In ten years the party have never yet found time to devote independent thought to the compilation of the text book. In 1896 they borrowed from New South Wales the barbarous and antiquated “ Irish Scripture Text Bodk,” which, after a brief struggle, the indignant public opinion of this cdlony consigned to the dust heap, and the book which they have now’ accepted almost as blindly from Victoria must go in the same way. Each is a hopelessly impracticable. attempt to solve an absolutely insolvable problem-