BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume III, Issue 698, 6 May 1916, Page 3

BIBLE IN SCHOOLS.

DISCUSSED BY GENERAL SYNOD. LEAGUE'S PRINCIPLES REAFFIRMED. There \*(as some little discussion, last evening, in the General Synod of the English Church in New Zealand, on the question of the Bible in State schools. Dean Fitchett (Dunedin) moved: —"That this Synod reaffirms its adherence to the principles and aims of the Bible in State Schools League." The mover pointed out that since the Education Act came into force the policy of the Synod and of the Church, and their intentions and aims in connection with Bible teaching in the State schools, had been made clear. He spoke with admiration of the work done by Canon Garland. Strenuous efforts should be made to ensure religious instruction being given in the State schools. .The people had the right to have the question put before them either in the form of a plebiscite or by consideration by Parliament. In the present war time it was more necessary than ever that the question of religious instruction should receive proper consideration. No candidate for Parliament who denied the right of the people to decide this j question should himself have the 1 right to have a vote from the people. Mr A. S. Holmes (Auckland) seconded the motion. Mr J. B. Fielder (Waiapif) remarked that the league should be renamed the Bible Lessons in State Schools League. He appealed for conj sideratiort for those people in the I backblocks who are not in a position to impart religious knowledge to their children. Mr W. J. Speight (Auckland) said that they had been listening to "a voice crying in the wilderness." It was the duty of parents of the Church to give religious instruction to the children. The Synod was wasting its breath in discussing the motion. A large majority of the laity were opposed to the league. The activities of the league, he said, had resulted in good men having been rejected for Parliament because of the Bible-in-Schools Party joining with the liquor party. Mr Holmes: The liquor people "sold" the Bible-in-Schools people. Mr Speight: They did not "sell" me. He argued that the Church had neglected its duty in the matter for the past 25 years. The Bishop of Christchurch said he was afraid that Mr Speight had lived so long in the wilderness that he was not abreast of the times. In Australia others had argued like Mr Speight, but in several States there was religious instruction in the State schools. They should continue to agitate for it in New Zealand and the Church should by all means undertake the training of teachers. But these teachers must i have the right to go into the schools. I Mr F. W. Williams said that if | portion of the Bible formed part of the daily reading of the school-chil-dren, they would get the facts, and then the teaching guilds or others could go into the schools and have a foundation for the lessons. Further, clergymen should have a right to go into the schools, without having to ask permission of committees. The Primate drew attention to the fact that the Synod was not discussing the mode in which the teaching was to be given. After further discussion. the Bishop of Nelson, said that under Standing Order 5 he asked the President to call upon strangers to withdraw. The Standing Order referred to provides that the proceedings of the General Synod shall be open to the public, but when any member of the Synod requests him so to do, the President shall call upon strangers to withdraw. The President said he hoped that the Bishop of Nelson had a strong reason for his request. In his (the Primate's) experience, strangers had not been called upon to withdraw from previous sittings of the Synod, but already the request had been made twice in this session. Several members expressed the hope that the request would not be proceeded with, as it was likely to give a wrong and bad impression. However, the Bishop of Nelson gave no indication of withdrawing the request, and it looked as if the Primate would have to make the order for strangers to withdraw, under the Standing Orders. Before the order could be made, the Bishop of Christchurch moved that the Synod proceed to the next business on the order paper. This was promptly seconded. A division was called for on this motion. The voting was as follows: —Bishops, for 1, against 6; clergy, for 9, against 10; laity, for 14, against 8. As there was not a majority of each order in favour of it, the motion was lost. Archdeacon Mac Murray earnestly, and as the outcome of a long experience of General Synods, appealed to the Bishop of Nelson to withdraw his request.—(Hear, hear). The Bishop of Nelson: I withdraw, Mr President.—(Applause). Mr E. B. Brown pointed out that the Synod had discussed the matI ter time and again and affirmed it, land it surely was unnecessary to keep on debating a motion which had been affirmed so often before. In the course of a lengthy reply, Dean Fitchett said that the whole 1 demand of the movement was that the clergy, who were trained teach- ; ers, should simply have an opportunity to do the work of the Bibleteaching in the State schools. The motion was carried.