LETTERS TO. TILE EDITOR. •
FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANITY AND THE • EDUCATION QUESTION.
[To TER EDITOR or TR. "8racreroa.1 have just read with the deepest interest the article on " Fundamental Christianity and the Education Question" in your issue of December 30th, 1905. With your main contention I am most heartily in accord. ft will indeed be a calamity if, " because of the quarrels of the clergy, [you] slide into a system of secular education which nobody wants."
This is exactly what has taken place in the State of Victoria in which I now reside. In the year 1872 an Act was passed making primary education absolutely secularpwith no mitigation whatever. When, some years after it was passed, it was contended that by the terms of the Act it was illogical to have, even in the ordinary reading-books, any reference to the sacred name, the Minister of the day, who had to administer the Act, admitted the position, and new books were prepared which were entirely free from any religious contamination (!), and, as a text-book on morals was necessary, " Hackwood's Moral Education Book" was introduced. And nobody can say that this pure secularism represented the general wish of the people. It was merely the result of the inability on the part of the State to satisfy contending religionists. The State could not know all religions ; if education were to be com- pulsory and free, it would know none. True it is that in later years, in deference to the religious sentiment of the people, these, atheistical reading-books have been abolished, and in the School Paper which takes their place are found religious, and even Christian, articles ; but the letter of the Act (now the consolidated Act of 1890) remains the same, and the "brutal muzzle," to use Bishpp Moorhouse's term, of secularism is upon the mouths of all the State school teachers. The Christian religion is not only absent, it is excluded.
But I lived for many years in the neighbouring State of New Soutia Wales, and there a different method prevails. A solution of the religio& difficulty has been found, mainly through the direct influence of denomihationalists, which commends itself to most minds as reasonable and fair, and affording to all alike as• much opportunity for religious teaching as can be expected in a State system of education. 'One part of this method is nearly identical with what you appear to view with disfavour on account. of two practical objections, which I think' are easily remove4. The other part is, in the main, identical with what ybu advocate.' In Now South Wales the two co-exist, and in a later part of your article you come to this position. As one who had for many years daily experience of the working of the New South Wales system, I venture, with all the humility which becomes a Colonial Bishop, but with all the force of the love which, as an English clergyman, I have for the old land, to bring it definitely under: your notice. What the State in New South Wales has said is briefly this (1) There must be moral teaching ; it must be based uptin the Bible ; education must not be godless ; but the State can supply no teaching which is distinctive of any Church ; and (2) the various' Churches shall all have full opportunity, by their own accredited agents, to instruct their children in their particular tenets, during the ordinary school hours, in the school buildings, and under- school discipline. Hence we have the 7th Section of the Public Instruction Act of New South Wales, which, giving an arbitrary meaning to the word "secular," says : "In all Schools under this. Act the teaching shall be strictly non-sectarian, but the words secular instruction' shall be held to include general religious teaching as distinguished from dogmatical or polemical theology" ; and we have the 17th Section, which gives power to all clergy and other duly authorised religious teachers to give denominational teaching in the schools during school hours and under school. discipline. There is also Section 18, which enacts that. "no pupil in a Public School shall be required to receive any general or special religious instruction if the parents or guardians of such pupil object to such religious instruction being given." Now, how does this work out ? A statement compiled by the Department of Public Instruction of New South Wales will be beyond suspicion, so I will enclose it for your perusal, and I will , quote one sentence : " There are no sectarian difficulties in working the clauses providing for general or special religious instruction, because the system has always formed a part of the School. routine of the Colony (State), and probably only a very small percentage of parents would like a change made, unless it were in the direction of giving more and not less religious teaching." My own view is that under the 7th Section there might be used improved text-books—e.g., the syllabus of religious instruction approved by the London School Board—and there might be forms of devotion used at the opening and closing of school. But, in any case, that section redeems the system from the charge of secularism, or godlessness. Scholars are examined in the teaching given under it, and marks are awarded. But the work done under Section 17 in the diocese of Sydney , • for twenty-six years has been considerable, and more valuable than the other. A Committee of the Synod has had it in hand (r- send you under separate cover the last Report), and I venture to assert that universal approval has been accorded. It is well organised, and only needs more money to make it adequate. It has been recognised that for many reasons the clergy could not - be expected to do it all, though they do a great deal; and that voluntary help, though always used when available, cannot be had in sufficient measure. So a staff of salaried teachers has been and is employed, and now clergy and voluntary and salaried teachers together are teaching in the diocese of Sydney eighty per cent. of the Church of England children, excluding infants, who are in the schools. The State-paid teachers, the parents, and the children all value this special religious instruction, given, as it is, by qualified and sympathetic teachers. I endeavoured to give some account of it at a sectional meeting of the London Church Congress in 1899 ; but I scarcely thought then that matters educational would advance so rapidly in England that it would be worth while seriously to consider what New South Wales has done in the solution of the problem. But now I honestly think that it is. Will auybody in England inquire fully and impartially into it ? How gladly would I give my personal testimony, if it were possible, to the value of the New South Wales system. You will pardon my enthusiasm, but it would be the delight of my heart to go up and down the country advocating its adoption as a proved satisfactory system under conditions even less favourable to its working than those which exist in England.
Of course, a very considerable sum would be required to provide and maintain an adequate staff of trained religious instructors throughout England (for again I echo your remarks about the clergy and voluntary helpers); but surely if the Church can re- tain—and justice demands no less—all endowments, emoluments, and school property, a large revenue would be secured which would be lawfully employed for this purpose. If such a change is made in the law as has been threatened, many existing Church school buildings will have to be rented by the State, for it will be impossible for the State to erect new ones everywhere. The rents thus derived would make a magnificent fund which could be solely used for providing for the training of teachers, for their salaries, and for periodical examinations and certificates and prizes.
Will the dear old Mother learn from one of her distant and very loyal children,—the State of New South Wales P
Bishopscourt, Sale, Gippslancl, Victoria.
Previous page
