RELIGIOUS TEACHING.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4761, 29 September 1893, Page 3

RELIGIOUS TEACHING.

MEETING OF CLERGY. j In response to the invitation of the Bishop of Christchurch, Dr Julius, a number of the clergy of the various churches attended, at the rooms of the Young Men's Christian Association yesterday afternoon, for the purpose of discussing religious teaching in schools. There were preeent :— The Eight Boy Dr Julius (in the chair), E.sv Dr Elmslie, Archdeacon Harper, Eev Gordon Webster,. Eev W. Morley, Eev S. Baker, Eev H, E. Dewsbury, Eev F. W. Isitt, Eev J. Dawson, Eev J. Hosking, and Messrs Craig, Prudhoe, Britfcan, Hargreaves, Hammill, Smith and Williamß, and Colonel Bailey and Captain Osborne of the Salvation Army. Apologies for absence were received from tholtevs J.. Orchard and W. Birch. The Eev Dr Elmslie opened the meeting with prayer. The Bishop of Christchurch, Dv Julius, in opening the business of the meeting, said that unbelief was rampant and increasing. Many were most dissatisfied with simple moral teaching, soI called. Moral teaching mußt have a , foundation on which to rest, which must be in the spiritual life. Some would be j agreed upon the point that the secular j schools were practically secularist schools. If religion were put out of the schools it was practically telling the children that . religion was not worthy of being taught. It was not taught in many homes, and it would not do to wait until such a desideratum was attained. The churchmen had only Sundays on which to work for the religious instruction of the young, and the time was very short. 1 It was because such dissatisfaction was felt at the etate oi secular education in State schools that he had ventured to call the present meeting for the purpose of considering whether anything could be 1 done to alter it. He then read the following letter from the Rev William Birch, Minister of the Central Mission:— "My Lord, — In reply to your kind reminder of. the conference to-morrow, I regret to say that I shall be unable to be present. lam in full sympathy with any attempt to unite the various churches in good works ; but so long-as our fellow- Christians cannot agree to worship God in the same building, and continue to partition the cemeteries in order that our dead may not mingle, I fear we shall not unite to carry a Parliamentary Bill for religious education in our weekday schools. But cannot we unite in teaching the highest morality? I suggest a conference of representative men and women, Christian and non-Christian, to consider the matter. Such as the following might be included in the Catechism. Why is ifc wrong to steal ? Nofc because of the prison, but became ifc would injure my neighbour. Why Bhould I not throw orange or banana peel on the flags ? Because ifc might cause someone to slip and hurl; himself. Why Bhould I not use bad language or spit on the path ? Because it might pain tne ears or disgust the sight of other persons. Wby should I do as I would be done* by ? Because my fell .w---creatures, equally with myself, have 'the right to be so treated." Continuing, his Lordship said there were a gooi many who wore not afc all satisfied with moral i teaching even of this kind. Something j higher wss wanted ; something deeper and i J better, for if children were brought up on ; j purely moral teaching they would nofc be i a great deal better. He had had some i esperienoe of tho Londoa School Board s j system, and on tho wholo his expeiis j enco had distinctly been in favour jof it. He waa not fully satisfied with ; | snch. elementary Christian education, but s ! at all events ifc would inculcate into tho i I children the firat principles of truth. Tho t . parts oc Scripturo to be read could be | su<sh &<_ oil could agree upon. Why

should there be any opposition to such a scheme? First, because it was said that it would destioy the Education Act. That would never beoome a fact. Secondly, because the Christian ministera wonld never agree upon any principles of truth. This could certainly be denied, too. A basiß of religious teaching could be reBolved on in which all could agree. It had been done in London, and could be done here. Did not all the ministera hold together in the great principles of Christian truth ? The Church of England, he considered, would ask no more than was taugrht in the State schools of England. He himself wanted more, but he wbb sure that the body of churchmen would not be with him in that, and would not follow where he would be inclined to lead. He believed that the Eoman Catholics had a right to receive help in their schools while they conscientiously could not send their children to the secular schools. Theee were his views with regard to that question. He believed in grants to schools of various denominations, although he knew that his views would nofc be accented by many of those who were present. He would moat heartily and strongly support some elementary system of religious teaching, and be content to sink his opinions on grants until the time should come when all men should see as he did on the matter, because if mention were made of such grants, opposition would be had from very strong quarters. But he would not forego his right to advance his views when he saw an opportunity for so doing. In the meantime it was possible to get elementary religious teaching in the schools, and it was not possible to get grants in aid of denominations. If an agreement were come to at the present meeting, it would be possible to carry through the State schools of the Colony a system similar to that in vogue in the London School Board. Ten years ago he had had charge of the whole working of the Board schools of a large district, and tho plan laid down waß this : A syllabus was prepared by the School Board requiring a knowledge on the part of the pupils of oae Gospel or a certain portion of one Gospel, and a knowledge by heart of a portion of Scripture. The j schools were opened with prayer and sacred j eongp, and altogether the teaching was I thoroughly well done. A conscience clause | was in vogue that permitted the parents of i any child to withdraw it during the halfj hour devoted to religious instruction, but as a rule was very rarely ÜBed. Oub of a school of 2200 children only twenty were withdrawn under that clause during a j year, and in many schools none at all. | The Eev Dr Elm.lie expressed great pleasure at the opportunity the Bishop had given members of the clergy for gathering together and discussing such an important matter as religious teaching in schools. The exclusion of the Bible from the schools had been a very great evil, almost a calamity, the effect of which might not be fully seen in the present generation. Certainly some | method should be agreed to by which j Bible instruction books might be placed in all schools. He waß very pleased to see that there was a likelihood of the churohes agreeing upon the matter. He wa3 very much against any denominational grants, and would oppose them. His idea of religious teaching in schools was the introduction of wisely-compiled Bible readings. j Certain portions of the Scriptures could be chosen, and if chosen wisely would serve the best of purposes. If all the churches I represented at the meeting would agree ' I about tbe form of teachiag they could I insist uponit ; their influence would be so j great that it could not be resisted. j The Eev W. Morley said he would oppose i any grants for denominational school?, but I would support heart and soul the reading I of the Scriptures in every educational in- [ Btitution. Perhaps a text-book would be better, bub in that case the teachers should be men who could teach by word of mouth the principles of Christianity. He believed that every church in New Zealand would be strongly opposed to any. grant to denominational schools. [ The Eev Sydney Baker said they ! were there discussing changes of a I more revolutionary- naturo tKom appeared on the surface, and which de- : manded a good deal of thought. The . attitude of the clergy in the matter \ would not only be opposed in certain : qaar .era, but misconstrued. He waß very : thankful to the Bishop for his kind- ■ ne.s in calling the clergy together to discuss the question. He would like to be certain on the matter of denominationalism, but believed that no further move would ever be made in that direction. He would like to feel sure, though, that this con- J cession would be as far as they would be ; asked to go, and that it would be the final concession. He would not be the one to advocate the explanation to children of the Bible by the teachers, because the value of the book depended so mnch upon its interpretation. Givon bad interpretation, its usefulness was gone. He would have selected portions of the Scriptures brought within the reach of the children— portions calculated to increase their wisdom and understanding. Mr Brittan, Mr Prudhoe and others spoke in favour of the introduction of religious teaching into schools, and made various suggestions as to the best methods of so doing. The Eev H. E. Dewsbury was of opinion that religious text-books should be nsed in schools, containing certain selected portions of the Scriptures. He was very pleased at what had been said. He believed that less opposition would be manifested' to a text-book than to Bible reading. The Eev Gordon, Webster was in favour of a system similar to that in vogue in New South Wales, and wanted the religious system to concur with the national Bystem. He greatly admired the candour of the Bishop on his position with regard to denominational grants, although it placed tho rest in a very difficult position. How far could the clergy of the churcbes^work together, and what was to be the attitude on the question of grants ? - The Eev F. W. Isitt agreed with the introduction of text-books rather than Bible reading. Denominationalism wonld be as far off as ever then, and a permanent system of Bible teaching wouldibe induced the more readily. He did not' think, either, that any sort of conflict could come- about with regard to denominational grants Dr Julius considered that the Eev F. W. Isitt had advanced a. most able view of the question, and he was quite in accord with him. Far before any grants in aid. came Bible teaching, not. reading, and while he would never go back, on his opinions with regard to grants, he would only now advance the claim of religious instruction. Did not the Bible element, make its appearance in the. State schools,, some of the churches would be driven to go with the Eoman Catholics and endeavour to get grants as the only way in which to secure religious training for the- ohild ren. The Eev J. Hosking was strongly in favour of the Bible in schools purely and simply. In reply to. the Eev Sydney- Baker, Dr Julius said, it would be. possible to confer with tho Eoman Catholics,, bat tbeir attitude would simply be this:— They would givq_ their support if the Protestants agreed to back up, tnoir claims for grants-in-aid, but otherwise they would give opposition. After some further discussion the following resolution was moved by the Bey H. E. Dewsbury and seconded by the Ber Gordon Webster:— "That in the opinion of tb's meeting it is desirable that a text-book, consisting of selected portions of scriy_iire, should be introdnoed into the curr.fi-t_.lum of the State schools of the Colony,.'*' This was oarried unanimously A Committee, consistine: of Da? Julius, convener, Eeva Gordon Webaier. Presbyterian j H. E. Dewsbury x Wesleyan; Sydney Baker, Congregational • John Hosking, Free M&thodi6__ J. Dawson, Primitive Methodist; Mr H. Olney, Baptist ; Colonel Bailey, Salvation Army ; and each to appoint a layman, waa selected for the purpose of reporting on tha moßt suitable _or_ji of text-book, aad considering matt? 1 ,.} in connection with the i proposed introduction of such a book to the i schools. Ihe Committee was also recom* i rounded to consider the beßt means oi . influencing public opinion on the matter. r T/jie meeting then terminated