Religious Education.

There are two divisions of this subject upon which I desire to speak: Elementary and Secondary.

(1.) Elementary. It has been a little alarming to page 45 read in the Press and to have said to one that one is expected to be able to offer a solution to the vexed problem of Religious Instruction in the State Schools. It does so happen—and probably this fact is the basis of the expectation—that one does know a good deal about teaching in general and about Religious Instruction in Elementan' Schools in particular. For the past twenty years circumstances have been such that, more or less continuously, I have had to teach boys and girls of different ages and of various sections of the community. Except for a comparatively short interval, from the date of my Ordination, I have been regularly teaching children attending Elementary Schools. Having had this priceless privilege for so many years one has, at any rate, had some experience that ought to be useful, and perhaps one may not unduly lay claim to the possession of practical knowledge on the subject of Religious Education beyond the lot of some who are prepared, out of inexperience of teaching, to confidently affirm either the impossibility or the inutility of giving children definite instruction in the essentials of the Christian Faith. One has read some strange arguments both here and at Home against Religious Education. One has sometimes wondered if the advocates of those arguments ever had practical experience of the subject upon which they wrote or spoke.

When the time comes, I am perfectly prepared to place at the disposal of the Colony anything that practical experience has taught me. But the time at present is certainly not one favourable for any course of procedure except that of bringing consistent pressure to bear upon the State so that a definite "Yea" or "Nay" may be ascertained upon the proposals put forward by what is known as "The Bible in Schools Movement."

I find that General Synod in 1901 definitely adopted a motion favouring that movement, appointed a Committee to carry out its intentions under the guidance of that accomplished scholar the Bishop of Wellington, which Committee definitely decided on a certain course of action with which you are all quite familiar. Whether that decision was wise or unwise, whether the policy proposed is possible or impossible, is not a matter for us to-discuss now. It is recorded of the late Cecil Rhodes page 46 that he once said that the Church of England did not interest him because she seldom seemed to know her own mind. I, for one, will in no way assist in the formation of a cleavage in the deliberately expressed mind of the Church of this Province. If the "Bible in Schools Movement" fails, then the Church will be in the position of reconsidering the matter. One hopes that by January, 1904, when General Synod will be welcomed by us to Auckland, the success or the failure of the movement will have been proved. The sooner the thing is decided the better. In a matter of such immeasurable importance to the welfare of this Empire—for that is a true description of the present need for Religious Instruction—it is quite certain that "delays are dangerous."

The Premier of the Colony has quite plainly said that:.... The matter was one of the greatest importance. They all agreed that no child was equipped for this world, and could not be prepared for the next, without a knowledge of the Bible and religious teaching, and it seemed to him a question as to how that could best be accomplished ...... He (the Premier) was a servant of the people, and he had no right whatever to keep back anything that might be for the good of the people or to be the means of preventing them giving expression to their opinion. To request him to give that opportunity was to request him to do what it was his bounden duty to do.........

If this report is accurate, we know three things: (a) The Premier declares that he has no right, nor we believe has he any inclination, to keep back anything that might he for the good of the people. (b) He assures the people of this Colony that he regards Religious Instruction as a matter of the greatest importance, (c) Being, as he says, the servant of the people, he will carry out the people's will in this matter of the greatest importance, and without which no child is equipped for this world and cannot be prepared for the next.

The course then is quite clear:—Granted, the present movement is right, then the people of this Colony can speedily give effect to their belief in it; granted, that the present movement is wrong, then the sooner we know it the better. Anyhow, let us force the present attempt at solution of this matter of the greatest import- page 47 ance to a definite issue one way or other Let us, sinking all minor differences, know where we are by the time General Synod meets. Personally, for the present, I hold myself bound by the decision and policy adopted by General Synod in 1901: a Churchman has to remember he is a member of a Society. That may often mean that, while holding firmly to his convictions, he may have to subordinate his opinions to the judgment of his fellow-members.

It will be worthwhile, however, and I think in accordance with what you have a right to expect, if I make a few remarks upon the general question.

A Churchwarden told me a few weeks ago that, in country district, he heard a boy of ten years of age, who had hurt himself, use the sacred Name of our Redeemer as an exclamation. He quietly asked the child if he knew who Jesus was. The child answered that he had "heard about giants but had never heard about Jesus." Now, I do not, for one moment, build upon this particular instance any argument of the existence of general heathenism among white children. I know London and other big cities too well not to know that—God forgive us!—you might hear similar expressions of ignorance therein. But the argument I build is this:—New Zealand has been called "God's own country"; it is a fair and pleasant land to dwell in; its people are of the same good stock that made the Empire in the past; its population is very small; it is in the splendid position of being able to begin at the beginning, to avoid the evils of big cities, to touch the individual. These facts being so, in the Name of the God Who has called us to be an Empire, let us see to it that no single child throughout the length and breadth of this fair land can ever be placed under such awful conditions as to be ignorant of the fact that Jesus was and is the Son of God and gave commandment: "Suffer the little children to come unto Me and forbid them not."

Education without Religion fails in completeness: man is a tripartite being. Education means "drawing forth." Real education must draw forth all, and not only portions, of a man's being.

In order that the spiritual part of a child may be drawn forth and developed, it is absolutely essential that the religious teaching shall be quite as normal as the page 48 physical or the mental. The inculcation of Scriptural facts in a child's mind is important; but Religious Education means more than the inculcation of bare facts: it means education given in a Religious way, i.e., allowing for the normal orderly development of the child, bodily, mentally, and spiritually. Because these are facts, known and recognised by every true educationalist, it follows that to leave Religious Instruction to Sunday Schools alone is not an intelligent proceeding. Why? Because, whether you will or will not, the result of such a proceeding must inevitably produce in a child's mind a wrong idea of the reality of spirit. It only needs a moment's thought to convince one that, if for four or five hours for five days every week you are teaching a child things to do with its bodily and mental powers, and that the State regards those powers of such importance that it compels the child to attend school; but you allow the child to go, or not to go, to a Sunday School, where the teaching is given by amateurs, just for one hour on one day in the week, and apart from any compulsion by the State, the child almost cannot help growing up with a dwarfed spiritual development. Such a scheme may produce fully developed materialists—in fact is bound to do so; but it will never produce a race of men who count service a bigger thing than success. It was by men who believed that service was worth more than success that this Empire was built, It can only remain stable on the same principle. That principle is only truly learned at the feet of the Incarnate Son Who lived among men "as Him that serveth."

We must always remember that the State here is not opposed to Christianity. No good cause is ever advanced by wild and extravagant statements. The State here is not niggardly in allowing the school buildings to be used for Public Worship on Sundays. There are not a few settlements where the State School is the only place where the "two or three" can be "gathered together" in the Name of our Heavenly Father.

But can the State, qua State, undertake to teach Religion? Undoubtedly it cannot. What can it do then? It can and ought to provide that Religious Instruction is given in the State Schools quite as normally as any other form of instruction. The State is a Christian State, and therefore has a Christian responsibility to- page 49 wards the child of every Christian citizen. Under existing circumstances is that responsibility adequately discharged? Unless I am very widely misinformed, the answer is in the negative. But, let us be quite fair all round: the State in 1877—when the present system of schools was introduced—desired and was anxious that Religious Instruction should be daily given to the children attending the State Schools. [See "Hansard," Vols. xxiv.—xxvi.] I am quite certain of my facts: rightly or wrongly the Minister in charge of the Bill of 1877 thought that he could secure regular Religious Instruction for the children by making Government time begin at 9.30 a.m., whereas the Colony was accustomed to school opening at 9 a.m. He and his supporters, as I understand the facts, thought that the Church and all Christian Bodies would say: The State offers the chance of using half-an-hour every day, at a time when the children are used to coming to school, for Religious Instruction; let us take advantage of this opportunity, and, in twenty-five years, it will be recognised throughout the Colony that school begins, as usual, at 9 a.m., and that the first half hour is devoted to Religious Instruction.

Now, looking back over the history, one sees a few things fairly clear:—the Church was not sufficiently on the alert to take advantage of its opportunities, and the Church schools were not altogether what the State, reasonably or unreasonably, expected they should be; the Nonconformist Bodies were not as alive then as they are now to the appalling dangers of schools without Religion; the men who passed the Bill did not understand that, no matter how you bring it to pass, the moment you make Religious Instruction abnormal instead of normal, that moment you produce a disproportion, in ordinary minds, between the relative importance of the functions of body, soul, and spirit. It is produced insensibly. Plenty of people do not recognise the unerring logic of the facts. But there they are, and there is no getting away from them. Religious Instruction, to be of any value in the formation of character, must be quite as normal to a child as physical drill or the multiplication table.

All honour to the Roman Catholics in this country for the brave struggle they are making to maintain their page 50 schools. They are doing the State's work with little or no recognition from the State. They are saving the State a certain sum of money every year. Much as I. personally, disagree with the system of the Roman Church, I honour the members of that Church very truly for believing so much in their Religion that they make big sacrifices in order that their children may be taught it daily. Would to God the Anglicans had their Schools and the Presbyterians theirs! But we and they have not, and we must do the best we can under the conditions as they exist.

Again, the present condition is one of religious intolerance. The State may not be, if my reading of the history is correct, alone to blame. But the result is: religions intolerance. We say we live in a free country. Well, is this freedom? A man is bound by the law of the land to send his child to school. He can only afford to send his child to the State School. He is a Christian man. Anglican, Roman, Nonconformist, it does not matter which. He believes in the Christian Faith, and also that his child should receive Religious Education. But, to-day, the State says "No" to that reasonable demand of a free man living in a free country. It is no answer to reply concerning "facilities out of school hours"; for the very fact that the facilities are "out of school hours" proves conclusively to any man who understands education in the true meaning of the term, that the thing is an impossibility: "out of school hours" connotes that Religion is abnormal. To an educationist that is quite enough: the reply is worth nothing as a practical answer to a matter of the greatest importance.

One more remark on the general question: the State says, if you do wrong we, the State, will punish you. If you steal, are fraudulent, criminal and so forth, we, the State, will cause you to suffer. But we, the State, though prepared to punish you for wrongdoing, as we conceive wrongdoing, are not prepared to provide you with the educational opportunities whereby you may learn that there is a spiritual part of your being which, properly I developed, will enable you to "withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil." Our concern with you, as a child, is negative, not positive, deterrent, through fear of prison, rather than uplifting through knowledge of your own spiritual powers.

page 51

Let me repeat: the State alone is not to blame for the condition of affairs to-day, so far as I can understand history. The Church and the Christian Bodies must all alike bear their fair share of the blame. May God gram that Churchmen, Romans, Nonconformists, and State will "with one mouth and heart confess": we have made a pretty big mistake: but we are honest Christian Imperialists, let us try to rectify the mistake.

I have put before you general principles because (i.) you have a right to know my convictions, (ii.) If the "Bible in Schools Movement" can meet these principles, let us do all we can to support it; anyhow, let us get the thing affirmed or negatived on the basis of that movement as speedily as may be. (iii.) I want to secure your support for a scheme of Secondary Education, with its foundations laid on these broad principles of Religious Education.

(2.) Secondary. Can we do anything ourselves in this direction? It is futile to go on bemoaning any condition of affairs without endeavouring to remedy them. It is a sign of ineptitude to sit down, sigh, and say "no use." If, as is true, we cannot hope to tackle the question of Anglican Elementary Schools, let "as see if we can tackle the question of an Anglican Secondary School.

When you so generously gave me a Public Reception on May 23rd, I asked for a certain sum of money on the ground that, if it were provided, I was prepared to start a scheme of real lasting benefit to our country. That scheme is Educational—a Diocesan High School for Girls. On May 23rd, naturally, I did not understand New Zealand conditions. Since that date I have tried honestly to understand them, and I have sought advice from men familiar with the Colony and competent to give advice. I asked some of our leading citizens to meet me privately. We discussed the subject of a High School for Girls. We considered the facts to be faced and the prospects of the future. The result of those discussions I now lay before you. The starting or not starting of a Diocesan High School for Girls rests with you. I can find the woman for your first Head, trained, scholarly, accomplished, fit for the work. Is there a need? You, the Synod of this Diocese, are the men to answer the question one way or other.

page 52

Before answering you will want to know certain things, I expect, and they will be mainly these.

(a) The Bishop's whole idea. Well, it is a big one. I want you, as a Diocese, to offer, on sound clear simple Anglican lines, in a Diocesan High School for Girls, the very best Religious Education and the very best scholarship that can be found throughout the length and breadth of the Colony.

(b) Our School shall be both for Boarders and Day Pupils.

(c) Our School, while being quite definitely Anglican, shall have a "Conscience Clause." Compulsion and normal growth are contradictory terms.

(d) Our School shall aim more at the formation of the character, on a religious basis, of our girls attending it than at anything else; although there will be no examination in this country for which we shall not be capable of instructing girls.

(e) We must be prepared to face the possibility of having to expend £5,000, within the next three years, if we are going to make this school what we ought to make of it.

(f) The initial expense, capital outlay, is the thing that has to be faced. God is a God of Intelligence and Order. It is not His work to engage in a task, however good, without bringing intelligence to bear upon it.

(g) If the Synod accepts the scheme, honestly, I believe the money will be forthcoming: no really sound scheme in this country will ever fail through lack of financial support. Of that I am convinced. It is for you to ascertain if my proposals are sound or unsound. To some of our leading citizens they commend themselves as sound. I await, with prayerful hope, your decision.

(h) Would not such a School, started under such auspices, hurt the Schools for Girls now being conducted by private people with, on the whole, good results to the community? No, it would not; unless the community in our country is quite unlike what it is at Home. There the private schools benefit, ultimately, through the public schools. I am fairly confident that a similar result would ensue here. We are, numerically, small in population in this country; but we are, numerically, large enough to accomplish what similar populations do page 53 in the Old Country. I am confident that you may eliminate from your minds the perfectly natural thought of hurting other schools, kept by private persons. If you adopt my scheme, you will, in the long run, benefit every Private School for Girls in this Diocese that ought to be benefited.

(i) I hold already about £300 worth of guarantees if the School be started. I have purposely abstained from widely asking for guarantees. I want my own Synod to have the honour of starting the School. If Synod accepts it, I can go, as your representative, to the men and women who care for Religious Education, to the men and women who care for the very best skilled teaching that can be given to their girls, and ask them to help in giving their girls all these things. Once the School is well started, you need have no fear of the future. Only, please do not start it unless you are prepared to start the best thing that can be offered in the way both of Religions and of Scholarly Education. We must not be mixed up with originating anything that is second-rate. We can, if we like, originate quite a first-rate School, from every point of view. I beg you, as Churchmen, refuse the scheme altogether or make it such a scheme that we may be proud of and that this country may be glad to possess. I can find you the lady to superintend the scheme. She has, I believe, the requisite gifts, and would be of real value to this country in this connection. Can you, as the Diocesan Synod, undertake the responsibility of launching the scheme, backing it up, finding some of the necessary initial capital, interesting others who really care about our girls having the best possible education, in all the fulness of the term, in the initial outlay?

God guide us all right. It is a big opportunity.