CORRESPONDENCE.
BISHOP GORE ON THE ART OF TEACHING RELIGION.
110 THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."'
SIR,—The Bishop of Birmingham thinks that the public, when it puts on cap and gown, ought to understand some- thing of the schoolmaster's business. The first part of his articles on the Education Bill is a short and determined treatise on the art of teaching religion. He settles both its
method and its subject-matter. In elach case he considers that the State and its teachers are incompetent. Those alone satisfy his requirements who have been trained by a denomina- tion. Clearly such a sweeping pronouncement on the "way to teach" and the "what to teach" needs discussion, not as a mere matter of pedagogy, but as having a serious bearing on the present controversy. Some means must be found by which the State may be satisfied that it is educationally right in allowing religion to be taught by its teachers, and the Church be assured that such teaching will be on the lines of sound learning. I submit that these ends will be attained when it is realised that teaching can be in spirit and form neither dogmatic nor undenominational, but scientific, and that in this direction there is peace.
In two sentences Dr. Gore deals with what for clearness' sake it is better to keep distinct,—the method of teaching, and the choice of subjects. His method is dogmatic, and he defines it thus :—" You can teach children the Bible or religion simply, only by teaching positive religious opinions in an uncontroversial manner without giving the reasons pro or con, which justify, or are supposed to justify, these opinions." That is his canon of method. Then, with a breathless leap into another branch of a teacher's work, he gives his rule for the choice of subjects by adding:—" Dogma is the established religious truth which is taken for granted in any religious society." It is safe, then, to say that on this theory the one efficient teacher is the man who teaches dogma dogmatically.
Let us examine these two rules. With regard to the first canon of efficient teaching—viz., that it be an uncontroversial statement —there will be general consent. It is a scientific rule. If we are dealing with young children who have their own notions of several important matters in religion, it may be better for a teacher to state much in a positive manner. He does not want to set the child arguing before its mind has some idea of what it is arguing about. Yet for all that, when the Bishop implies, as I understand him to do, that the application of this rule tells all in favour of catechism and creed, his argument is unconvincing. If it is desirable to teach religion positively, does not the Bible do so ? Both the Testaments are extremely positive books : they contain many statements of simple truth already methodised and defined for young and immature minds. The passages which Dr. Gore cites, a sentence in the Lord's Prayer and the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, are instances to the point. Further, this definite teaching is given in a manner which appeals not so much to memory as to inquiry and thought. It does this by clothing truth in concrete forms,—biographies, parables, history. It attains, in fact, what the dogmatic teacher wants, and we have only to use the Bible Biblically, with a sympathy for its own wonderful teaching power, to satisfy the Bishop's requirements.
When, however, we come to his second rule, it is extremely difficult to see that it is scientific or sound. He says that "the New Testament is quite inseparable from the Creed and organisa- tion of the Church, and that to detach the Bible from the Creed and Sacrament is to treat it as it never was meant to be treated." Now is the New Testament inseparable from these? Cannot that which is subordinate be separated from the main purposes of a literature? In teaching the life-history of an organism, cannot its parts be distinguished, and emphasis be laid on the principal organs P Cannot that which is rudimentary and obscure be left so, and the demands of scientific truth still be satisfied? The vitality of the New Testament is in the personal revelation of Jesus Christ. His manifestation is the principal factor. In comparison with this, as Dr. Hort proved in his "Christian Ecclesia," organisation is subordinate. That which is sub- ordinate is separable, and so far as the New Testament is concerned little emphasis need be placed on dimly formulated creed or rudimentary Church organisation. But that, after all, is not the important point. This comes into view when it is implied, as it is so often in this controversy,' that creed and organisation as it is held to-day cannot be separated from the Bible. Why not ? Why cannot a scientific student separate things which bear the marks of a long growth from the bed
out of which they grow? It is quite possible ; many scholars would say it is not only possible, but necessary in the interests of truth. What, then, is left ? The New Testament and the Old in their own force and beauty; not a meagre and attenuated body of doctrine, but rich, varied, impressive ; as gigantic a monument of spiritual life as the Alps are of geological fact. Interpret the Bible Biblically, in sympathy with its own genius, and it will regain the position which Dr. Gore sees that it has lost. It will become an independent and valuable authority in religion and morals.
There are, then, notable advantages in placing the Bible on the basis of Biblical science, such as the dogmatic and undenomi- national methods do not possess. On this ground a convincing appeal can be made to the teachers of the State. There is a sense of strength in the scientific attitude, in its detachment from modern controversy, its patient examination of fact, which will come home to them as they realise what is expected. Criticism has opened to them an honourable path, in which they can teach the young the groundwork of faith and conduct. Further, the continuity of English sentiment in regard to the Bible is main- tained. Since the Reformation, and perhaps before it, our way has been to make the Bible "understanded of the people" and the people's children. That great aim need not be abandoned now in the schools of the country if all parties are willing to believe that devout criticism has liberated the Bible from extraneous matter and has set it forth as a record of unique religious experience. At present the average man hardly knows what has been done : he thinks that the Bible has become as confused as the voices on a locked telephone-wire. Shall not his children know better ? tastly, it is on the basis of Biblical science alone that religious people can ask the State to undertake the grounding of her children in faith and morals. The Bible scientifically interpreted is the link that makes for union between Church and State in this matter. It is a common platform for all Churches who admit the Reformation, and it is not unacceptable, I am certain, to the large . body of educated men and women whom you. Sir, represent so ably, whose voices, as teachers or parents, must ou a matter of this kind carry great weight, in and out of Parliament.
St. Augustine's Vicarage, Sheffield.
Previous page
