FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIANITY AND THE EDUCATION QUESTION.
WE publish to-day two important letters dealing with possible solutions of the education problem: One of these, written by Canon Beeching, suggests the ques- tion whether it may not be possible for the various parties to the controversy to agree upon a system of religious teaching which, while doing no violence to the religious principles of the Established Church or of the Free Churches, will at the same time have the right to be regarded as embodying fundamental Christianity,—the simple and elementary foundation upon which the various creeds are based. The other letter, that from a distinguished scholar and member of the Society of Friends, Dr. Hodgkin, proposes an administra- tive scheme under which some of the chief difficulties connected with the present Act might be overcome. To both these proposals we desire to draw the attention of our readers. They may not seem desirable or practicable to all, but assuredly they are worth careful examination. On the present occasion we wish to deal specially with Canon Beechiug's letter. Before doing so, however, it will be well to state certain general considerations.
Our chief desire—and it is one which, we are convinced, is shared by an immense number of laymen—is that our elementary schools should be preserved from the curse of secularisation. That is the essential thing to avoid, and against secularisation we mean to fight with all our power. We do not, on the one hand, share the feeling entertained by those who think that no religious teaching is worth having unless it is strongly dogmatic in character ; nor, on the other hand, can we sympathise with those extremists who regard the present Act as an infringe- ment of the rights of conscience. As practical politicians, we realise, of course, that the Act cannot now be main- tained in its entirety, and will have to be amended ; but though we realise this, we do not think that the violent denunciation of its provisions as oppressive beyond all endurance can be justified. It is, however, useless now to attempt to argue that the question can be left where it is. Amendment has become an absolute necessity, and what we now desire to avoid is the danger of complete secularisation and the banishment of religious instruction from State-aided schools. Remember what a secular system means. It means, if it is logically applied, the banishing of the word "God," and of all religious phrases and expressions even, from the literary works used in the schools. Let those who are doubtful consult Mr. T. C. Horsfall's pamphlet, "The Amendment of the Education Act of 1902" (Sherratt and Hughes, Manchester and London, price 2d.) There they will find set forth the results of secularisation in America, and, in addition, some most suggestive proposals for meeting the present diffi- culties and discontents. That there is a real danger of such secularisation here we cannot conceal from ourselves. What we are afraid of is that the clergy on both sides will show themselves so uncompromising, and so incapable of appre- ciating each other's views, that at last the politicians will in despair declare that the only thing for the State to do is to give a purely secular education, and to leave the clergy of the various denominations to provide religious instruction in Sunday schools or in some other way so long as it is out- side the day schools. They will adopt the secularist atti- tude, and argue that the business of the State is to teach children reading, writifig, and arithmetic, and not to teach higher things at all. Such a conclusion is only too likely to come if the controversy proceeds on the present heated " A. plague on all your churches !" is a spirit which is obviously growing among those who are indifferent to religion. The 'secularist attitude is in the last resort based upon the notion that religion and religious instruction are matters which concern only the clergy, and that if they cannot agree about them, it is useless for laymen to bother about the subject. Against such a view we most strongly protest. Religious education is not merely an affair of the clergy, Established or Nonconforming. It is essentially a layman's affair, and as laymen we appeal to laymen. Anglican and Nonconformist, not to allow the subject to slip out of their hands. However difficult, and however tiresome, and however inflamed the question may be, the laity must attend to it, and must assert their right to say the final word. We believe with the utmost earnestness of conviction that the establishment of Godless schools would be a national calamity of the first order, and that a sound nation cannot be built up if we are publicly to proclaim the idea that the State is indifferent whether the children of the people have or have not any religious teaching. We are convinced that the mass of the laity are with us here ; and yet, as we have said, we realise that there is considerable danger, because of the quarrels of the clergy, of our sliding into a system of secular education which nobody wants.
The most obvious solution of the problem—a solution which in the abstract has a great deal to recommend it—. is that of denominational religious teaching. Why not, say its advocates, let the parents of each child state what Church or creed they favour, and then allow the repre- sentatives of the various Churches to have access to the schools in order to give religious teaching in accordance with the convictions of the parents ? The State would give the secular education itself, but open its schools to the teaching of all the creeds by their own representatives. Two practical objections at once arise to this as the sole solution of the problem. In the first place, there are un- happily a great number of parents who care nothing about religious, or, indeed, about any form of education, and who would not take the trouble to declare what type of religious education was to be given to their children. Are these children, owing to the neglect of their parents, to be allowed to grow up without any religious education what- ever ? There is yet another and even more serious practical objection. No doubt if the access of representa- tives of the various denominations were allowed, the first year or two during which the system was in operation would witness in most schools the carrying out of a fairly efficient scheme of denominational instruction. We fear, however, that when the first enthusiasm had died out the difficulties of getting such voluntary assistance would be found to be very great, and that sooner or later denomina- tional religious instruction would become in many oases either perfunctory or else non-existent,—in other words, the denominational system would break down, and, with- out intending it, we should reach a result not very dissimilar from that of actual secularisation. It is all very well to say that the clergy of the various Churches would be able to enter the schools and take the classes; but this assumes not only that the clergy are efficient teachers and able to handle large classes of boys and girls, but also that they have the time for the work. In all, towns, and in most villages, the clergy are over- worked men, and we feel convinced that a daily class, or possibly two classes, in religious instruction would very often impose a burden more heavy than could be borne. No doubt voluntary subscriptions might sometimes be raised to provide teachers, but in many parishes the raising of such funds would, we fear, be extremely difficult. The habit of subscribing to Church schools has died out, and it would, we imagine, be by no means easy to revive it on a permanent basis. But if the nation is determined—as we trust and believe that it is—not to drift into any form of secularisation, and if denominational teaching will not permanently fill the gap, there remains nothing but for the State to make it its business to establish the teaching— the Conscience Clause must, of course, remain in opera- tion—of some system of fundamental Christianity. Cannot such a system be adopted by the State, except as regards the Roman Catholics, the Jews, and the extreme High Churchman? We know that we shall be told that we are proposing to create a State religion which is in truth no man's religion ; but is not this a piece of the conventional polemics of the education controversy ? We agree with Cauon Beeching that if the spirit of - peace and goodwill is invoked it should be possible to set forth the fundamental part of Christianity, and that the teaching based thereon may be truly Christian and truly religious, and, further, in no sense a dead, cold, or unawakening thing. The Nonconformists in the Free Church Cate- chism have combined to produce a Catechism to which such strong and loyal Churchmen as Canon Becching find no essential objection. Would it not be possible to take either that Catechism, or the Jamaica Catechism to which he alludes, and, by combining it with such portions of Cranmer's Catechism as are not open to objection from Nonconformist points of view, to draw up a Catechism which could be used by the lay teachers in all State-supported schools ? At any rate, it seems to us worth while to make an effort to lay down some statement of fundamental Christianity which might be used for the instruction of children. Could not, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Dr. Gore meet two or three of the leading Nonconformists, including, say, Dr. Clifford and some layman like Dr. Hodgkin, and draw up a Catechism on the lines of the Jamaica Catechism ? Were such a Conference to be crowned with success, we are sure we are not exaggerating when we say that religious-minded laymen throughout the nation would view the result with intense relief, and feel that at last a firm bulwark had been raised against the secularisation of the schools.
If such an agreement could be arrived at in regard to fundamental Christianity, and if its fruits could be adopted throughout our schools, there is no reason whatever why it should not be further supplemented by denominational teaching. That is, access might also be given in all schools to representatives of the various denominations, either every clay in the week or on special days. In cases where such denominational education was given with intelligence and thoroughness the children would undoubtedly greatly benefit, but where it failed or was not satisfactory we should still have the assurance that the children were not left without religious instruction. No doubt in opposition to this contention we shall have brought before us the appalling spectacle of the atheist schoolmaster who finds in the religious lessons a delightful opportunity for expressing his scorn and detestation of all sacred things. Frankly, we do not believe in this Voltairean bogey ; and if he should ever come into existence, we feel quite sure that he may be safely left to the good sense of the school managers or the Education Committee. Persons of that kind are not likely to meet with much sympathy from any body of Englishmen, whatever their special creed or political party. In truth, the question of religious education as a whole is far more easy to handle when you get into the school and are face to face with the children than it seems outside and in the abstract. In the abstract it is possible to raise all sorts of doctrinal and controversial difficulties, and to imagine wonderful cases where no solution appears possible that will not do a deadly injury to somebody's conscience. Yet, as a matter of fact, these difficulties as often as not disappear in the school- room. To begin with, the amount of doctrinal matter which can be imparted to small children in half-an-hour or so is by no means large, and in most cases the simple teaching of the great and essential truths of Christianity is all that is possible. We are fully aware that an expert contro- versialist will find no difficulty in making mincemeat of such a statement as this ; but in spite of that, it will be recognised as true by many clergymen and most laymen. Further, we believe that the teaching by the State of funda- mental Christianity, such as Canon Be,eching describes, will not in the least interfere with the further and more elaborate teaching of Christian truths through voluntary effort. Boys or girls who have learned their duty to God in class as a part of their regular work will not be less, but better, prepared to learn the special tenets of the Anglican, the Wesleyan, or the Baptist Church as regards ceremonies or doctrines. No doubt, as we have said, some- thing would still have to be done to meet the cases of the Roman Catholics, the extreme Anglicans, and the Jews. Possibly the best plan in these instances would be to give entire independence plus a grant under conditions like those which prevailed before the last Act.
It will be noted that we have said nothing as to the more immediate matter of the position of the Voluntary schools. We have not, that is, attempted to discuss what will be their position if the new Bill declares that no aid from public money is to be given to any school in which the majority of the managers are not elected. But though we cannot deal with such matters to-day, we must put on record our strong opinion that nothing must be done which, will in any sense involve the confiscation of the Voluntary schools contrary to their trust-deeds or against the will of their legal owners. Full justice must be meted out to the Voluntary schools. Our present object, however, is to look forward and to deal with the danger of secularisation, which, we fear, is only too likely to arise unless the friends of religious education bestir themselves and do their best to prevent the war between the Churches dealing a fatal wound to the cause they have at heart.
Previous page
