BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS PLEBISCITE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 31, 3 August 1905, Page 4

BIBLE-IN-SCHOOLS PLEBISCITE

A PROTESTANT CLERGYMAN SPEAKS OUT

Some of the ablest and most outspoken criticisms of the Bible-in-schoc Is scheme that have appeared in the New Zealand newspapei pie-^s have come from the pen of the Rev. P B Fia l(r,l (r, Presbyterian clergyman, of Lovell's Flat, Otai'O In last Monday's issue i,l the ' Otago Daily Times ' the following fuither letter appeared over the Rev. Mr. Fraser's signature .— Sir,— The protean 'movement ' beaung the general title of Bible-in-schools was before Pailixment on the 1 8th inst., when Mr. Sidey moved his Bible-in-sehools Plebiscite Bill. At once there was revealed a compete change of front on the pait of the Bible-in-schools -' party '—i.e., Dr. Gibb and his associates. I said at the beginning of tins correspondence, that 1 I should never think of inquiring what Dr. Gibb is absolutely committed to , 1 was comerneU only with what the Christian public, and especially M.H.R 's, are being absolutely committed to ' The Duneddn president stated what he believed M.11.R 's and the public were being committed to in supporting the league's platform : ' The demand is for a referendum. .Should that be granted, the league desires that the question submitted should •be clear and unambiguous— 'namely, whether this hook of selected portions of the Bible should be taught in our schools without attempting to inculcate any theological or (dogmatic belief.' Two things are here : (1) ' this bo oik of selected portions ' ; (2) the referendum ot ple'biscitei'by which, on a majority vote of the adult population, including Maoris 4 this text book would be read in our schools.' On that programme, we were told by the league, the ' churches ' were united as the product of the historic Wellington Conference, which more than two years ago adoipted unanimously this text book, and which indeed waited on the Premier in the name of the ' churches 'to have this book submitted to the people The criticism to which I have subjected both the text book and the plebiscite in your columns has not been without effect. What Is now apparently the position, as revealed by the proposals before Parliament ? What has become of tne plebiscite that was to pitchfork the ' Bible" over the head of Pailiament into the schools 7 Gone ' ' The Bible-in-schools party,' said Mr. Sidey, moving his Bill, ' has given up its agitation for

the direct introduction of the Bible into the schools ' ! Thanks to the ' party ' for that late acknowledgment. The present referendum is not to make law, but is ostensibly only to gather information, and, if possible, to forge a weapon for the Bible-in-schools party's future operations. Before I deal with the new referendum, let me ask how it stands with The Precious Text-Book, the procure of me great Wellington Conference. What has become of the text-book ? Has it gone, too ? This is the crux of the situation at present, and clear information and a distinct agreement ought to be arrived at before the Bill is allowed to proceed another step. Before Parliament advances a step in legislation it must know exactly what it is legislating about, and what, if one step is taken, the next must be. Now, that text-book represents the ' Bible lessons ' of Dr. Gibb's executive or it does not, and it represents an agreement of the churches or it does not., If the executive has 1 dropped the text-book, as it has dropped the first plebiscite, then its whole appearance before Parliament with a BibSe-in-schools Plebiscite Bill is an imposture and a farce : for the taecutivej and the Bible-in-schools movement are still marching, where they ha\e marched for 30- years, in the wilderness whence there is no way. And at this stage Parliament has no call to go on a listiing expedition at the bidding of an ecclesiastical coterie which, having now neither programme nor mandate, seeks a vantage ground from which the more effectually to accomplish its ends. As to "the text-book having the approval of tho Christian Churches of this Colony, that can be proved to be a downright imposition Not a single line of the book was ever submitted for approval, though Dr. Gibb had it by him for over two years, to the Presbyterian General Assembly or any other Assembly. If the Assembly has been made to appear to indorse the book, or has in any way indorsed it, th« Assembly, under Dr. Gibb's leadership, stands stultified. It has never examined so much as the titlepage of the book. If the Christian community is trusting to Church courts in these days to examine carefully what is done with the Bible, tbe action of the church assemblies and conferences in this matter may lead some to open their eyes. In these days, whenev c\r the Bible or Bible Revelation is attacked, church courts too otten begin the battle by abandoning the assailed breastwork in order to entrench themsches cowardly in a ravelin behind it. They get 1 i-eace ' there. Now, as to tho allegation that tho Bible ' lessons ' of Dr. (Jibb are not theological teaching. Mr Sidey said to Pailiameut : ' Tho i e who were asking for this legislation knew Aery well what " lesson " meant, and they wcie not asking for theological teaching' To bec;iii with, at is not enough for Dr. Gibb and his associates to ' know \eiy well wha*. lesson means ' ; the public and Parliament want to know as well. As the Hon. Mr i McGowan ' said, and as I have contended so strenuously in your columns, 1 the public -was not acquainted wHh the Bible las sons that were proposed to be gi\en, and therefore would not be competent to vote at the suggested referendum.' I rejoice in this declaration of thi-s Minister of Justice. We have been treated to the cant about ' Trusting the People. ' It is not a question of trusting the people, but of distrusting religious agitators, who are prone to puti false issues before the people, who themselves are noi, competent to decide because tney have not the data to enable them intelligently to do so The appeal is 1 . not to representatives chosen of the people and intelligently informed with the data before them, but it is to the igpvorar.ee and religious prejudices, not t<>. say passions, of the people that the appeal by referendum is made. The allegation made by the league, and repeated by Mr. Sidev, that they are not introducing relig ions or theological teaching into the schools, is su glaringly contrary to what is the plain fact- that one must look for some reason to find how men can justify to themselves so manifest a perversion of thr* truth. The only justification I can find is a quibble about what the teachers are permitted to toaeh orally and wihat the text-book itself teaches. As tho mouth of the teacher is closed, so that he darenjot, whether he bo a Ch'nistian or not, open his mouth to teach the lesson of the Bible lesson, in this sense H will be true that relicious teaching is not introduced by the teachers into the schools. In the same way t'hc Church of England Catechism, and the Presbyterian Shorter Catechism, or any other formulary, couM

be made telxt-books of instruction, and it coaild bn alleged that religious instruction was not being given in school by the teachers. This, however, is a quibble, for the question is, What is the instruction being conveyed in the name of the State to the mind; of the children entrusted to its care ? The primary question is, .not -what the teachers believe, but whafc the children are taught or mistaught to believe ; anil what they are taught to 'believe will be found in tbn text-book in their hands, whether it be, as I have always contended for, " the Bible, the whole Bible, anil nothing but the Bible' ('the -religion of Protestants '), or Bible ' selections ' or calechism. To say that the Victorian text-book foisted without examination on the church is not a religious and theological text-book, is to contradict every line of it; contents. I have it before me, and it is- the product, as it says, of a Royal Commission on ' Religious Instruction in Schools.' The compilers say that they have prepared a manual designed to give an ' elementary knowledge of the religious truth.' Now the question is, what precisely is the ' Religious Truth ' to be conveyed to the minds of the children by thi< manual ? Has the Presbyterian Assembly inquired, anil ha\e the Bible-in-schools advocates, who wax eloquent on Bible-in-schools in your columns ? The comipilers declare that they have not attempted to introduce any theological system, and controversial doctrine ha; been carefully avoided. But, ob\iously, if Scylla is on one side, Charybdis is one the other. And while l i', is true that the compilers ha\ c extruded from the Bible everything that has made it a power in the world, and every system of truth for which the churches clamoring for the introduction of this text-book profess to stand, it is not true that they ha\e not inserted a system of their own. Their text-book is as theological as any other formulary of religion ; but H could not well be otherwise. And it is constructed on the lines of the most advanced evolutionary higher criticism ; and I defy any competent theologian to sliom> that, as a net result, its teaching is not practicalli' identical with Uiiitarianism. It has neither distinc tively Christian doctrine nor distinctively Christian 1 morals ' in it. While it would be difficult to say what it really is intended to teach, it certainly de nies both the fall of man and the redemption of man. And yet you ha\e Bible-in-schools advocates attacking me in your columns and elsewhere because I have been almost the solitary % oice raised to protest against this shameful betrayal of the Christian religion, and this attempt, by an ecclesiastical conspiracy, to capture the schools for a religious textbook which, whatever the personal opinions or intentions of the conipileis may be, betrays the Divine Saviour of men once more with a kiss —l am, etc., P. B. FRASER. Lovell's Flat, July 25. P. S.— Tiie referendum questions :— 1. Are you In favor of preserving the existing system of education ? 2. Are you in favor of departing from the existing system by introducing into the schools religious instruction by a compilation of Bible lessons ? 3. A previous 'question for Parliament: Who shall make that compilation, on what lines, and when will it be ready ?