THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1905. THAT 'MARVELLOUS UNANIMITY'

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 29, 20 July 1905, Page 17

THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1905. THAT 'MARVELLOUS UNANIMITY'

'^^^1/ NE fine day last year the Bible-in-schools /MIJnIII Conference waited on the Premier, capJuh^/W tamed by a precipitate friend of ours who, j^^^g» i in activity as in cubic dimensions, is ' like Wf^£^V * wo gentlemen rolled into one.' Their demands were urged on two chief grounds 1 One was the ' overwhelming majorities ' that "were 'discovered o-r created by open\ote, amateur, sham T ' plebiscites ' conducted here and there by the agents of the Bible-in-school« League. The, other gossamer legend spun before the eyes of the Premier was the ' marvellous unanimity ' of the Protestant Churches of New Zealand in support of the scheme for turning the public schools into sectarian institutions. And, specififcally, it was made to appear that the souls of Uie Reformed denominations had but a single, thought

and their hearts beat as one in praise of the text-book of ' religious instruction ' which was imported from abroad and lopped and docked and lugged and pulled this way and that to suit the supposed requirements of the ' young idea ' in New Zealand. « Now it has all along been a matter of notorious fact that the ' marvellous unanimity ' claimed by thaj deputation never existed. The ftne enthusiasts who waited on the Premier were merely practising, the art which moves scores of species in animated nature to swell their apparent bulk in order to strike terror into their enemies, and leads heraldic artists to make cheir lions and leopards and baa-lambs appear more ferocious tfian they are in nature. But the increased bulk is mostly wind or (as in the case of the Jew lizard) frill— usually only that and nothing more. The numerically largest Reformed denomination in New Zealand has not, as a Chu.rch, committed itself to the scheme for having selections from the Protestant version of the Bible taught and explained by State officials, 'at the State's expense, in our public schools. And at the present moment we are not aware that the Bible-in-sohoola leaders have have been able to secure the allegiance of even the whole of the clergy of any one Christian creed in the Colony. The most instructive feature of the Protestant opposition to the schomc is, perhaps, this : that it comes, as a rule, from the clergy who are the most faithful in the discharge of the sacred duty of the religious instruction of youth, and who rightly hold that the Christian Church can never abdicate this elementary obligation of the ministry and throw it upon the shDulders of the Civil Government. The subject was instructively discussed at the sessions of the Antglioan Diocesan Synod in Wellington last week. One of the speakers (Rev. J« Walker) strongly emphasised the point to which reference has been made in the preceding paragraph. He said in part in speaking of a motion in favor of the Bible-in-sohools scheme :— ' It was one of the fundamental duties of the Qhurch to teach the Christian faith to her children, and this motion sought to shift the responsibility from the Church to the State. The Church would be positively failing in her mission if she was content to hand thac duty to men who, in many oases, were distinctly unqualified to fulfil it. His objection was .that he believed the League's proposal was absolutely baid.' Another speaker (Rev. G. Y. Woodward) said :— ' The Church gave the Bible to the world, and it was her duty to give the Bible to all her members. She must leach all her members the real Christianity and prove what she taught. 1 Among the other opponents of the sectarianising scheme were the Yen. Archdeacon Pancourt, who intimated the possibility of a counter-association among Churchmen ; the Rev, E. W, J. McConnell ; the Rev. C. W. I. Macla- ; and the Rev. S. Handover, who roundly aeclared thajt the so-called ' on denominational ' teaching proposed by the Bible-in-sohools League would prove a ' curse ' to the country. The motion was, however, carried by a considerable majority. The Anglican Bishop of Wellington (the Right Rev. Dr. Wallis) was orre of the strong supporters of the scheme for creating a State religion and Protestantising the public schools. He is now one of the plumed field-marshals of this movement. But it was not always thus. He has fallen sadly from grace since the days when, with his hand on his heart, he declared to his clergy and laity in Synod assembled in 1898 : ' Men will never believe we are in earnest if we are not making the mosit of the opportunities, which are rarely refused, of teaching the children in tlve school-houses.' The all-sufficiency of these opportunities for the meagre doseis of religious' instruction demanded by the Bible-in-

tirittoht LeSgto Was erfiphtfticslly asserted fa a repjort— often qttotetf by us— which was : officially aftdpted, circufattjfl/ and -recommended Jor action : by the Presbyterian Synod in Diinettln on Novemfber 1, 1899. If the Bible-in-scbiools clargy were ev«nla lit'tle'in earnest, they would drop political agitation and set to work to fulfil the foHqWftxg weighty counsel contained In the Pastoral Letter 'addressed two months ago 'to the Memtrers of the Methodist Church of Australasia in New Zealand ' : ' Let there be a revival of Bible-reading in the home, and let the spirit and act of worship beebme habitual, and be' looked upon as an essential part ql the daily programme. With the home life clean and helpful ahtHnspirTng, the at'nipsipliere spiritual, and the ex-ample always that which pecometh the followers 'of Christ, you will nave the consciousness of doing your part towaras ma' ing this country what God would have it be.' No part of this excellent programme is to be effected by political agitation, but by earnest effort and zealous discharge of their duties by the Christian ministry. Like pastor, like pecrple. And if the people's home life has degenerated, the blame must primarily fall upon the clergy. Those of the Bible-in-schools movement have lazed and do?ed and dawdled through the precious years of a generation, and wasted upon sleepy synodal resolutions and sordid political scheming the time and thought that ought t:> have been devoted to that primary duty of the Christian ministry— the religious instruction of the children of their several faiths. And now they wake up, after eight-and-twenty years, and plead and agitate and bully to get one of their most vital ecclesiastical duties thrown upon the unwilling shoulders of the officers of a State Department !