DR. MARTINEAU ON SCHOOL-BOARD RELIGIOUS EDUCATION.
SINCE the time of Balaam, there has been no more striking case of a curse turned into a blessing than the part which Dr. Martineau has played in the contro- versy about religious instruction in the London School Board. The history of that controversy is shortly this. Most people, we think, were under the impression until lately that the religion taught in the London Board Schools might be roughly defined as so much of the doctrine of the Church of England as is accepted by Orthodox Dissenters. The Cowper-Temple clause forbids the use of any Denominational formulary, but this pro- hibition has not been understood to apply to Denomi- national teaching as distinct from Denominational formularies. Compromises of this kind commonly work well as long as they are not examined with a too curious eye. But the London School Board has in Mr. Athelstan Riley a member who is not content to take things for granted, and a chance remark by another member of the Board. led him to examine for himself • what the religious teaching in the London Board Schools actually is. It did not take him long to discover that in many schools religious teaching, such as has been popularly supposed to be given under the direction of the Board, is unknown. Some teachers are not them- selves believers in Christianity, and they cannot be ex- pected to teach what they have not learned, or, having learned, have rejected. Others are wholly indifferent, and cut the religious lesson as short as they can. Others would like to teach Orthodox Christianity, but are deterred from doing so by fear of the Board, or of the Divisional Members, or of the School Managers. The result is that the religious instruction has in most cases become colour- less, except where it is what, for want of a better name, we may call Unitarian. When Mr. Riley had satisfied himself on this bead, he a. sked the Board to define the religion taught in its schools in a Christian sense. It is not enough, he maintained, to say that. you teach religion, or even, as the Board was ultimately to do, that you teach the Christian religion. "Reli- gion" has many meanings, and. the " Christian religion" has many meanings, and Mr. Riley wants the Board to say which meaning they propose to make their own. It was at this point that Dr. Martineau made his first appearance. A memorial signed by him, among others, and popularly —though, as we suspect, wrongly—supposed to be of his framing, was presented to the Board asking them in effect to reject Mr. Riley's proposal, and to adhere to the existing system under' which the teachers are at liberty either to use the Scripture selections provided by the Board without making any doctrinal comment or supplement, or to interweave with them any doctrinal additions suggested itself pretty own convictions. The prayer of this memorial is in pretty good evidence of the truth of Mr. Riley's a. llegations If the teachers employed by the Board were in the habit of interweaving Christian doctrines with the Scriptural selections, we do not think that those who signed the memorial would be content to know that these doctrines had been suggested by the teachers' own convictions. The ground of their satisfaction is probably to be looked for in the belief that what these convictions suggest is pretty much what they themselves hold. The upshot of the controversy is consequently this :—The so-called " Com- promise of 1871," which was supposed to protect Christian consciences, proves on examination to be chiefly efficient in protecting Unitarian consciences. Instead of Christianity in the Orthodox sense being taught in the schools, with full liberty to Unitarians to withdraw their children from the re- ligious lesson, it turns out that what is taught in the schools is Christianity in the Unitarian sense, and that it is the Orthodox believer who is left to the protection of the con- science-clause. It is plain that, under the present system, somebody must be left in this last-named. condition, and the question raised is whether this somebody shall be the Ortho- dox Christian or the Unitarian Christian. Mr. Riley argues that Orthodox Christians constitute a majority alike of the parents and of the ratepayers, and consequently that they ought to have the best of the bargain. Dr. Martineau pleads, in the memorial, that it is the Unitarians, as we call them for short, who form the majority, and that it is their wishes that ought to be consulted in determining what Board-school religion shall be like. To be left to the pro- tection of the conscience-clause is the inferior position ; and each party naturally wishes to allot it to the children of the other. Our only quarrel with Dr. Martineau's memorial is that it does not frankly admit that its contention is precisely the same as Mr. Riley's. It says that if the School Board adopt Mr. Riley's pro- posal, "it will be forcing upon the children of many a religious parent a religion which he disapproves, as the alternative of none at all ;" but it does not see, or at all events does not say, that if the Board rejects Mr. Riley's proposal, exactly the same result will follow. In either case, the Board must force upon the children of many a religious parent a religion which he disapproves as the alternative of none at all. The difference between the cases lies not in what the Board does, but in the persons to whom it is done. Shall the parents who are left out in the cold shade of a conscience-clause be those who profess Christianity in the Orthodox sense, or those who profess Christianity in the Unitarian sense ?
The reason why the memorialists fail to see this is their belief in a "common Christianity." They seem to suppose, for example, that Unitarians and Orthodox Christians can agree in teaching children that Christ was Man ; and then when this has been learnt, those who believe him to be God as well as man, can go on and teach this to their children as a kind of ornamental addition to the larger truth which they hold in common with Uni- tarians. But to the parent who really believes that Christ is God, this is a simple impossibility. The truth of his Divinity is a truth that must be taught to a child. from the first moment that he is taught anything about Christ. It is here that Mr. Riley finds an unexpected ally in Dr.. Martineau. In his two letters to the Times, on the Tues- day and Thursday of this week, he altogether throws over the notion of a common Christianity. It is a "fascinating theory," but it "will not work." The " spiritual sympathy underlying great doctrinal differences is affectional, not logical, and will baffle all attempts to lift it into expres- sion." Hence, Dr. Martineau goes on, "Mr. Riley cannot reasonably be expected to abide by the Compromise of 1871." He has a right to teach his own religion "to and through those who are of his own mind. Only let him not for this purpose displace the teaching, hitherto approved, which defines no more than the common elements of Christian faith and duty. Hold. fast the protection for the undogmatic conscience ; add an equal provision for the undogmatic." In his second letter, Dr. Martineau is still more precise. He argues, with excellent reason, that to parents who value religious teaching, the conscience- clause is "a mere negative protection." What they want is not merely that their children shall not be taught a religion which their parents do not believe, but that they shall be taught the religion which their parents believe. The simple remedy is to recognise the different requirements of their consciences, and make distinct provision for each. This is already done by the School Board in the case of schools mainly attended by Jewish children ; and Dr. Martineau would meet Mr. Riley by providing for more than one kind of Christian instruction in the Board Schools generally. He would, in fact, denominationalise the religious teaching of the School Board, and provide a staff of teachers competent "to conduct with intelligence, sympathy, and sincerity both the dogmatic and the undog- matic instruction." Dr. Martineau has thus parted com- pany with the memorialists, who simply protest against the transfer of the existing religious disability from the dog- matic to the undogmatic party, and declared himself on the side of those who wish to see all children properly taught the religion to which they nominally belong. Whether the particular road by which he proposes to reach this end is the best, is another question. We are inclined, for our Own part, to think that it is not, and that Dr. Martineau's Object would be more surely attained if School Boards made arrangements with recognised ministers or teachers of the several religious bodies to which the children belong, to give religious instruction at fixed hours, using the rooms and the plant of the Board. But this is a mere matter of detail. The important thing is the conversion of Dr. Martineau to the Denominationalist side, and his full and frank admission that Mr. Riley is asking no more than he has a right to claim, provided that he is equally willing to grant it to others.
Previous page
