The New Zealand TABLET THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1907. STATE DIVINITY DEGREES AGAIN

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXV, Issue 6, 7 February 1907, Page 21

The New Zealand TABLET THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7 , 1907. STATE DIVINITY DEGREES AGAIN

ROUOfHT up. in the atmosphere of an Irish " religious ascendancy, it is perhaps scarcely - "to fie wondered y al~ that Sir Maurice O'Rorke should pine to have ' a State or official brand of divinity drawn up in New -Zealand, and made the object' of State rewards and (negar tively) of State punishments. Two years ago his earnest and persuasive advocacy induced the Senate of the New Zealand University to pass the- following^ curious resolution :—: —

' (1)' That, in the opinion of the. Senate, the University of New Zealand should have the power of conferring; degfreesi in divinity as • we'll., as in the numerous other subjects recently comprised' in the Act of Parliament of last session; (2) that no assent to -the peculiarities) of any denomination of Christians '• shall be required, either of-* instructors or students; in 'for degrees in divinfty ; (3) that immediate steps 15c taken for amending the New . Zealand University Act and charter of the University so as to place the faculty of . divinity on .the same standing' for obtaining degrees as •law and medicine V - '

The grave and reverend seigiAors who then constituted the University Senate approved of this strange project by twelve ' votes -to nine. Last- week the buoyantly hopeful "Sir Maurice moved as follows meeting of the" University Sen^tc^in Christchurch:-—.

' That the .Senate of the New - Zealand University respectfully requests the Hon. Mnister of ".Education 1o bring in a -Bill to give effect to the resolution passed by this Senate- in 1905 for establishing divinity degrees in the University ~pl New Zealand '. . . This resolution got through with a squeeze, by a bare majority of one. And there, for the "moment, the project 'of a State " brand' of ' theology stands. %

The full inwardness of the proposal Is revealed in part by the wording of the resolution of 1905; and more fully "by the discussion that eddied around it and around ' last week|s .motion to bring it within the sphfere of parliamentary* debate and' action. Sir Maurice proposes ihat the -University~*be empowered by Parliament to - •' lay down a theological course "of- divinity that would

be acceptable to~s.ll Christian denominations ' ! In other words : -(1) -he proposes .to exclude by Act of Parliament Jews, agnostics, non-Christian's generally, and all Christian" "dissidents from "the State creed, from ~ jyiy benefit' under his April- cTay scheme— affording them ho

opportunity jof taking out State degrees in the sort of 1 theology that suits their tastes or convictions. (2) At' the same time (as -we naturally assume) he would compel them to pay their share of the cost of his State theology, scheme— thereby affirming the undemocratic

principle of* taxation without benefit or representation. (3) He proposes that the New Zealand Government em- * power the University, by itself or in conjunction with others, to draw .up a pandenominational course of theology—to pick and sift and pare 'and stew till they reduce a hundred contradictory creeds to a jellified residuum that shall be ' acceptable tb all Christian denominations ' ! Sir Maurice 'and hiis friends forget (1) that Jews and other non-Christians have sfctne rights .in this matter'; (2) that dissident Christians have some rights ; (3) that '.all Christian denominations •' would _not % unite in a scheme for clapping into V one common* melting-pot the truths of divine Revelation and the more' or - less fantastic things that man-made ' creeds havelspun around the faith that, was once delivered I "to the saints*

* Moreover, (4) half-a-dogcn ' "Christian denominations' have signally- failed to agree even upon the most elementary scheme of biblical instruction in^ the public schools. Does the bare majority of the Senate imagine that ' all Christian denominations ' in the country will agree when it comes to the vastly more difficult and complicated task of drawing up a scheme of theology- that shall be acceptable all around ? Let it' be borne in mind that it is here a question of. theology or divinity, which is a science. That is to say, it deals"with divine "things on a co-ordinated, systematised, . and scientific method. Some of the speakers, - with hazy notions upon the subject, seem to fancy -that ' Bible literature ' is ' cAvinity '. * ' Bible literature ' is an ambiguous term. And no matter which 1 of its possible meanings' you put upon it, it does not necessarily* include divinity. The Bible is, of course, a noble ' fount ' or- ' source 'of divinity. But it is by no means the only one. And it does not follow, nor does it profess to follow, the systematised form and scientific method that is requisite in a treatise on theology. Sir Maurice O'Rorke professes to ' place "the faculty of divinity on the same standing for obtaining degrees as law and medicine '. Yet^ the University demands that law" and medicine shall be taught and studied oh scientific methods, and not in the form of rudimentary compromises. And in.- its final resort, Sir Maurice's proposal is (as we showed in 1905) nothing more or less than a scheme for conferring divinity degrees -without the divinity r

In 1905, in the columns of a daily paper, we repeat- . edly pressed the following awkward questions' on those of the supporters of the scheme of wooden-nutmeg . divinity who stand for secularism in. public instruction : 1. On what principle of statecraft could the New Zealand Government claim the right of drawing up, by * itself or by others appointed by it for the purpose,' a State brand of theology ? . 2. Who is to determine what brand of and how, much and how little thereof, are to be required for the proposed State divinity degrees ? - 3. If the New Zealand' Government has the right to teach divinity indirectly (by drawing up schemata " of . . divinity for 'degrees examinations), j on' what principle may it not also directly teach that J ' science of divine things ' ? 4. If the Government may 'exercise this alleged right in our highest schools, on what ground do Sir Maurice ami his supporters oppose the extension of the^ same N ' principle to the State primary schools? . 5. At what numerical percentage— at, 5 per cent.' or 7 per cent, or 10 per cent, -or 20 per ccnt.-rOf the pbpu- ' lation are minorities in New Zealand to begin to enjoy "bliis elementary right of, conscience— immunity from "compulsory contributions towards the^ propaganda of -.the theology of faiths., in Which' they "'do not 'believe ? •» '- '- " These pertinent questions are still awaiting an answer. .^ The whole burden of detailing, explaining, and justifying * the scheme of State divinity degrees -falls upon' its framers and supporters. They., have not taken up the task. If they ever do, they will find it, we ween, like 'time-killing, 'labor dire -and heavy woe. "* They must first catch . their hare — that is,' secure their ' divinity' 1 . Ah, there's the rub ! For the rest, our co-religionists

received, during the course of last weeks discussion in Chiristohurch,,a sufficient indication of the," trend of feeling among some of the supporters of Sir Maurice's scheme. -" A Calvinist (said the Rev. Mr. Cameron 1 ) would, 'certainly ' and as a matter of course be welcomed/ on the examining, board ; but a Catholic— ah !- ' that would depend. 'On Church history', said he, "I suppose such an appointment would not commend itself.' Church history ,' need not necessarily be taught.' s "But if at is to be; Catholics must be 'boycotted ofK the ' examining board that deals -with- the subject. And if they a"re"'-uh?-^ welcome in Church history, how much more so in phil-' osoiphy and theology ! It is well that the words were spoken. • Now, better titan ever, we can realise, with the Chancellor of- the University that , the proposed State theology would lead to ' perpetual wrangling' and. ' plunge the country into a fresh ' sea of troubles'. ~