THE DUTY OF THE NATIONAL CHURCH.
• [To THE EDITOR. OF THE "SPZOTATOB.."] SIR,—In common, no doubt, with thousands of my fellow- clergy, I have seriously pondered the advice you gave us on the above subject in the Spectator of April 14th with regard to the Education Bill now before the country. You advise us to accept—in the main—the proposed settlement in the interest of national religion, lest in our zeal for the Creed we should lose the Bible.
Such an appeal, Sir, must command attention. Sacrifice is of the essence of the Christian religion, and it is a humbling, and even a terrifying, thought to the members of all Established Churches that it was the Church in His day which brought about the death of our Lord. The question, therefore, must be faced and answered with calm and earnest deliberateness : Is the sacrifice demanded our duty?
My case is probably a typical one. The Act of 1902 has not conferred any benefit upon us. I have no complaint to make against the West Riding County Council, though the Sheffield Telegraph said recently that a toad under the harrow is better off than a parson under the West Riding authority. Since 1902 we have had also to spend a considerable sum on our school buildings which was badly needed for other parochial purposes. The element of sacrifice has therefore not been wanting among our people. Two-thirds of the parents are in favour of the Church Catechism being taught, and no Nonconformist parent has with- drawn his child during all this time of platform and Press strife. In what is probably about the centre of the "storm area" the religious difficulty does not exist inside the school ; and we are on excellent terms with our local Education Committee, who are mainly Nonconformists. I claim, therefore, to regard this question dispassionately.
Is this sacrifice which we are asked to make a real sacrifice due from us as Christians ? We are asked to allow our trust-deeds to be torn up, and our buildings to be used for purposes never contemplated by the donors. We are asked to allow teachers to instruct our children in the Bible without any examination or inquiry as to whether they are Bible students. The religious lesson—such as it is—is to be optional. And what reasonable man who remembers his own childhood can doubt that the play- ground will prove more attractive than the classroom? I am free to admit that the County Council syllabus is admirable on paper; but what guarantee is there that it will not soon be waste- paper? And where is the justice (to say nothing of the right of conscience) of allowing one-fifth of the people to dictate the religion of the other four-fifths under the "facilities" clause ?
All this might possibly be endured if we felt that thereby we were saving the nation from secularisation. But, in 'spite of Mr. Birrelrs optimism, we are not yet at the bottom of the hill. This Bill also is a "compromise," and the position once occupied, with the help of Nonconformity, will be used by the secularist party to shell the whole religious belief of the nation. A typical utter- ance in praise of the Bill came to my notice on Saturday week, where a correspondent in a local paper wrote: "My attitude to this Education Bill shall be one of friendliness; always keeping on the alert to applaud any new point leaning in the direction of secularisation."
Would it not, therefore, be better for all Churchmen, whether Liberal or Conservative, to make a stand now in the interests of national religion—whatever the political sacrifice involved— rather than have secularisation by instalments?
Holmfirth Vicarage, Yorks.
Previous page
