Those State Divinity Degrees

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 12, 23 March 1905, Page 3

Those State Divinity Degrees

' Ci\ is, ' of the, ' Otago Daily Times,' having once more fa-ilfd — for reasons that, are sufficiently ob\ious — to make any attempt whatever to sustain his plea for the conferring of divinity degrees by the State at the public expense, the ' Tablet ' editor sent the following further communication to our local morning contemporary .—. — Sir, — I have once more to remind your contributor, 'Cr is,' that the i^sue between us is tiue proposed conferring of degrees in the science of divinity by the State University of New Zealand, an 3 that Hebrew, Creek, Church history, and tne thing ambiguously called Bible ' literature ' axe not at all, or not necessarily divinity. They therefore cannot be the ' essentials ' of a degree in that ' queen of tne sciences.' Your contributor has asserted that his little scheme of Stlate divinity degrees is the only workable one. The whole burden of detailing, explaining, and justifying it falls uporn him. Thus far his ' only workable ' scheme has been a proposal to confer divinity degrees without divinity. Does he propose to follow the same principle in conferring degrees in medical or physical science ? And if not, why not ? I once more invite him to * first catch his hare '—in other words, to first secure a scheme of divinity. When he has done this, I request him, for the third time, to ansiwer the following pertineot and rather ' awkward questions ' :—: — 1. On what principle of statecraft could the New Zealand Government claim tfhe iiejht of dragging theology within its domain ? Incidentally, he will help' to show that such a proceeding would be the arrogant assumption of a right which no Civil Government possesses 2. Who is to determine what brand of divinity or theology h and how mluch and how little thereof, are to be required for the proposed State divinity degrees ? 3. If the New Zealand Government has (as ' Civis ' maintains) the right to tea'h divinity indirectly, on what principle may it not also directly teach that ' science of divine things ' ? 4. If the Cfwernment may exercise this alleged right in our highest schools, on what grounds does 'Civis' oppose (a 9 I understand he opposes) the extension of the same ipjrinciple to the State primaiy schools oif the Colony ? 5. At what numerical percentage do minorities begin to ■eniov, in New Zealand, this elementary right of conscience— immunity from r om*>.ul«-orv contributions towards the propaganda of the theology of faiths in which they <1o not believe '' The an,vv«er to each of these 'awkward question^' will in'ohe your contributor in other and st"ll lmo-re awkward ones. I shall continue to press these matters upon ' Ci<i^ ' until he I'as overcome his mirkert reluctance to face them squarely, or until the editorial extinguisher is clapped upon this controversy. In the meantime, I nave to thank him for leaving contributed in siucrr a signal wav to show that his patent ami ' only workable' scheme of State di' inity degrees is, if possible, even more ' fatuous ' and ' preposterous ' in its way than Ih^ pan-denominational absurdity of Sir Maurice O'Rorke. Yours, etc., EDITOR ' N.Z. TABLET.' March 11.

The following further letter on the subject was also sent for publication :— Sir,— Your contiibutor, ' Civis, 1 started this controversy in your columns. He was perfectly entitled to do so. But his contentions, evasions, and self-con-tradictions are becoming (as Alice said in Wonderland) ' curioser and curioser ' every week. He began by opening fire on an editorial article in the ' Tablet ' Ln which I adversely criticised (1) a proposal carried by a small majority o f the Senate of the New Zealand State University in favor of conferring degrees in divinity ; and (2) a preposterous scheme by Sir Maurice O'Rorke' (the mover of the resolution) to secure the needful ' theological cour?e of divinity ' by boiling down a salmagundi of some odd scores of contradictory creeds to a jellified re i'luum. From the first ' Civis ' threw Sir Maurice's wild scheme on the scran-heap as unworkable. He has all along signified his hi<rh approval of the scheme embodied in the resolution of the University Senate. Rut from the verY outset he has been, nevertheless, in open opposition to every one of its ' essential ' features. And yet he has been all along epiacking anerilv at me for oprosing it .also ! The Senate's resolution was to seek from Parliament the ' rower of conferring decrees in divinity '— rlac-ine: * the faculty of divinity on th" same standing for obtaining degrees as law and mddicine.' -^11

Now to qualify for a ddgree in law or medicine, the New Zealand University requires students (1) to follow a set and unifanm course in these scieneds, and (2) to display, on examiLnatioin, at least a stipulated minimum of Knowledge therein. But your contributor's ' only workable plan ' excludes any set and uniform course in the science of di i inity. Worse still, it sets forth that no knowledge of divinity, and no examination in divinity, are necessary for a degree in divinity, but merely some Hebrew and Greek and Church history and something winch lie designates by the studiously vague title of Bible ' liJteratlure.' Such is ' Civis's ' great scheme -of Wooden-nutmeg ' Divinity ' and diplomaed theological quackery. And he declares that ' no other will succeed ' ! In his latrist paragraph on the subject, ' Civis,' while still professedly agreeing with the University Senate's proposal, breaks out against it in a fresh place. One of my series of ' awkward questions ' has driven him into making the following suggestion, namely, that the ' graduates ' in his pinchbeck ' di\ inity ' should pay dut of their own pockets all the expenses of their sham examinations and quack ' clegrees.' But (1) this is not the scheme of the University Senate. (2) It is rather a novel way of placing ' the faculty of divinity on the same standing for obtaining degrees as law and medicine.' And (3) In any case, it would obviously leave ' Civis's ' ' only workable scheme ' as absurd as ever, and the University Senate's plan as objectionable on other grounds. ' Civis's ' mutually destructive contentions remind one of the famous Kilkenny cats, that ate each other up, even to the last vertebrae of their tails. I am completely at a loss to understand what giourtd of comfort your contributor can find, in this connection, in the recent Methodist Conference. He states that the Conference approves of the scheme of the Senate of the New Zealand University and favors introducing ' a divinity course into the curriculum.. 3 But (1)1 have already sihown that ' Civis's ' ' only workable scheme ' is the very negation of all this. The good man is running amok among those who favor as well as those who oppose the Senate's foolish idea And all the time he is under the delusion that he is doing valiant battle for the Senate ! Again_, (2) the Methodist Conference is at least consistent to this extent : it apparently maintains (though very erroneously) that the New Zealand Government has as much right and competency to teach religion as it has to sell postage stamps or to grade Ayles-bury ducks. But your contributor is consistent only in his inconsistency. He protests against) 'an official brand of divinity ' ; yet, in the same breath he advocates for State approval, a Thing whi h he calls ' divinity ' and wants to have it made the siubject of official tests, of official rewards, and (negatively) of official nunishments. Moreo\er, he is in deadly opposition to the Government teaching religion directly in the State primary schools ; yet he professes to approve of the indirect teaching of religion in our highest State schools. On what principles of logic or statecraft does ' Civis ' adopt those irreconcileable views? Heaven only Knows ; for he himjself absolutely declines to answer my repeated and ' awkward questions ' on these points. His subterfuges, his significant reticenoes, and his self-contradictions snow what may happen to a man when he starts a controversy about divinity before he knows the meaning of the word — Yours, etc., EDITOR, ' N.Z. TABLET.' March 20.