Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, JULY 22, 1905. PARSONICAL PESSIMISTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 3550, 22 July 1905, Page 2

Manawatu Herald. SATURDAY, JULY 22, 1905. PARSONICAL PESSIMISTS.

A writer once defined pessimism as that which arises from virtue and goodness having been disappoi ed and soured. But, it may be asked, surely there is no living optimist (optimus< the best) who believes the preset)t world to belhe best possible; surely there is no pessimist (pessimus, the worst) so lost in hopelessness as to think it the worst possible? Rather should we term them meliorists, faintly trusting in the larger hope i and pejorists, or those v/ho incline to the worse construction ot possibilities; though to the former may be added optimists in this modified sense—they believe the world to be not the best possible of worlds, but le meilleur monde possible—the best under the circumstances —which is a very different thing. Said a Lord-Bishop in the days of Henry VIII., “ Doubtless God Almighty might have mdde better berries [he was speaking ot strawberries], but doubtless God never did.” So in one sense this world is the best that man’s weakness and the tempter’s power permit us. It is a fallen world ; the trail ol the serpent is over it; the wisest agnostic comes to the same conclusion as the deepest Christian, As there is something that undoubtedly over-rules evil and makes for good, so there is an active spirit of evil which makes perpetually for evil and opposes God. The better the man the more bitterly he is opposed ; the nobler the object the more ridiculous and yet forcible the opposition. An instance of this is brought to mind in the agitation now' going on throughout this colony to secure the introduction of Scriptural readings in the State schools. In the House of Representatives a bill has been read whose object is to provide for the submission to a referendum of the people of the question of Bible reading in schools. Bishop Wallis bluntly states this to be the fiist step towards a fight between Christianity and secularism ; and in these circumstances it is desirable that the people should possess some knowledge of the object of those who are forcing the fight on. The Rev. C. C. Harper, speaking at the Diocesan Synod in Wellington, plainly stated tiiat object. “ The supporters of the movement,” he said, “ desired that the schoob should „be opened with the Lord's Prayer, and lessons be given by the teachers on selected passages. . . .

They had refused the system of reading without comment. , . . They intended to teach the Christian religion. They would put miracles before the children because they intended them to believe them.” “ But,” a contemporary remarks, “much turns upon what is the defini tion of Christianity.” If all could agree upon this point; if a text-book could be provided which would meet the views of every sect and offend the su-ceptibilities of none ; then it might be possible that such a book could be safely adopted and brought into general use. We doubt this possibility, and ' therefore we must be classed as pejorists on this point. True, if “partial evil ” be “ universal good,” as Pope attempted to show, then it follows, of course, that whatever is is best, which is untrue. And every reader knows there are many things which are not right, and never will be right. But, applying this to the alleged (by the parsons) lack of religion among the young people of this country to day, are we, to say that this condition ef affairs is due to the non-inclusion of direct Scriptural lessons in the State schools curriculum ? Undoubted}’ that contention is untenable. Are not the principles of the public school teaching of the day—the inculcation of honesty of purpose and uprightness of character—already based on the fundamental principles of the Christian religion ? Just as the youth who would be an engineer or a carpenter must first serve his apprenticeship in the machine shop or a t the joiner’s bench, so, even before this, to prepare him for the heavier work of life, must the child receive a general grounding in knowledge of his daily surroundings. That is the main object of our present-day educational system; if it is beiHg distorted in some directions it is unfortunate, but that is beside the question here just now. We do not hear any suggestions of religious instruction in the machine shop or at the joiner’s bench ; and yet logically iollowed up, if we have one the other should follow. We must go deeper to find the source of the disease which it is alleged is sapping the strength from the character of the rising generation. If such a lamentable, condition of things is becoming apparent, which we will not totally deny’, we must look to the daily home life of our children and see therein the canker that is, our pessimistic clerics tell us, surely eating away the national heart. It is in the home that the in. fant character is moulded; if that moulding is for good—from the

religious point of view—“thou wo can sately say that licHhing in the public school teaching will riiai it bhe jot. That there is too often a decadence in the standard of home life may be admitted, sad to say ; but here again we pause and ask if it is, not largely due to the absence of that influence which, properly directed, the clergy should exert. The many phase? of the composition of modern life form a truly complex wllc'ldi and if our clergy find themselve confronted by difficulties so great as to almost appal them we cannot wonder much thereat. And none will doubt their honesty of purnose ; but they have become just a little soured by llm seeming hopelessness of sdnie Of their surfoiindirigs and disappointed that worli iii fhe churches does not show better results. They have, in fact, become pessimists without knowing it. In their extremity, recognising the deficiency in the sociospiritual element, but failing to acknowledge their own culpableness i for it, theytufit W tlid public school teachers to help them. But the latter are already doing a good work ; they are doing a noble portion of labour in the vineyard, and the divine injunction was that each should do his portion, faithfully and well. Would it not be better that the movers in this present agitation should look carefully into their own work and seek there some flaw that may be contributing to the recognised failure before trying to impose additional burdens on others ? And, further, so long as_ sectarian differences exist it will be impossible to get a text-book agreed upon that will please all, and it is an axiom of our Constitution' that we possess freedom of religious thought and no man or community may be coerced. In support of our contention we shall quote words used last week by a minister of the Gospel at the Anglican Synod already referred to. He said : “ The real friends of Christian education could not make common cause with Dissenters.” Thus we see at once a division of opinion as to what constitutes Christian education, and this diversity of thought is apparent even among the Anglican (for instance) clergy themselves. A layman at the Synod made a very plain statement that the promoters ot the movement did not intend that the church should attempt to delegate the instruction to unqualified teachers, and he made what must be admitted to be a startling and utterly unfounded (in the majority of cases) accusation of irrelegion when he asked ' 11 What qualifications had the mothers of New Zealand to teach religion ? ” Evidently the pessimistic feeling is not confined to the clergy, and the sample just indicated is pessimism indeed. We are forced to inquire, from this outburst, if we are to infe. that the object aimed at is to have teachers qualified to expound the tenets of a particular sect. The “Taranaki Herald,” discussing this point, says thqt “tew mothers could do that, though most can teach their children to be truthful and honest, and that best of all religions, ‘to do as they would be done by.”’ Our secular school teachers can do all this, too; but that will not satisfy the Bible-in-School Referendum League promoters. Though there are many religions there is only one Christianity and till all the Christian sects can come to a coffunon definition of their mam belief and the form of Scriptural lesson to be taught, any innovation of this sort will lead to the destruction of the present system of “ free, secular, and compulsory education ” as provided by the State and generally, in spite of certain flaws, conceded to be an excellent one. Bitterness, hatred, and persecution will be. the corollaries of the introduction of the proposed religious element. Appointments of teachers will be the raison d’etre of fighting between the sects, unless it be that a precedent struggle has resulted in the election ot a committee of one particular religious colour. Our daily life will be subject to jarring controversy upon religious matters, and the last state of things will be worst than the fit st. The fact is that this philosophy, or disease, or state of mind, pessimism, from which our clerical friends are suffering, is a result of society’s infraction of laws, or of the individual's temper, health, or conscience. It is as old as the bills, or at least as very many hills, and they not the latest upheavals. Democritus and Heraclitus were the classic chiets who respectively laughed and wept at life, but Greek and Latin are not so fashionable now—we must have something new. The present age is.always finding out something just done by a modern, generally, a German, and not so long ago there was expounded as an ideal Schopenhauer’s “ Pessimism.” He was the prophet of the “ miserable,” and reduced pessimism to a system by refu'sing to look upon the brighter side of things. This, we fear, is what too many of our clergy are inclined to do, and it must be admitted that there is a sufficiency of trouble around us to account in part for the tendency; but again the noble purpose •f their calling should be remembered, they should buckle on their armour of faith (the pessimistic inclination evidences something ot lack in this direction) and enter into their task with a new determination to triumph over all difficulties. Interference with the systems and work of others will not aid them in overcoming the effects ot their own neglect of duty.