[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SIR, — I have been
much interested in the correspondence in your columns about " Public School Religion." It would seem that it is hopeless to expect teachers to teach their pupils what they do not believe in themselves con amore. At the same time it is no less hopeless to devise any agreed syllabus of Christian ideals independent of Christian dogma. Christian- ity is based upon a belief in the historicity of the Gospels, as a record of facts about the founder of the Christian religion. The Church is a society of believers in those facts. It would seem that believing parents have a right to demand that their children be taught the Christian religion by those who accept its dogmatic basis as substantially true. Those who are indifferent might have their children taught by the Idealists, who would teach Bible stories as vehicles of ethical ideals merely. I have known a Hindu headmaster recommend this course at a conference of Educationists. There would be some difficulty no doubt in organising such a dualistic scheme of religious instruction ; but I would like strongly to endorse Mr. Donald Upton's letter in regard to " adequate instruction." With all due respect to his own intellectual attainments, I hope both he and Mr. Veagh are mistaken in their assumption that " the majority of intelligent people do not accept the Gospel." My own acquaintance during the last half-century has numbered among it many highly intelligent persons, including two senior classics, who have all been convinced believers in Christian doctrine.—Yours faithfully,
E. H. WHITLEY.
Previous page
