*The above criticism refers to the English Education Bill. It is here reprinted to prepare our people for the Scottish Education Bill which will probably be generally on the same lines.—Editor.
THAT Education Reform has been given priority in post war reconstruction receives general satisfaction. The Bill now before Parliament is comprehensive in scope and character, and bids to achieve the greatest advance for more than forty years in the unification, consolidation and extension of the educational system, yet there is something lacking. Its ambitiousness inevitably invites a full measure of criticism. Considerable publicity has already been given to separate issues as they affect particular interests, notably in the provisions for controlled, aided, and special agreement schools, the main criticism, however, being of a monetary nature. The financial implications are so colossal as apparently to forbid the giving of any concessions, however pressing the demands may be urged. In this connection, the persistent claim of the Roman Catholic minority to favoured treatment in respect of their schools is an undisguised attempt to gain advantage at the expense of the rest of the community, and offends against the traditional British sense of justice.
The school-leaving age, the establishment of Youth Colleges, and other admirable projects, have rightly attracted deserved attention, but an undue focussing of consideration upon these sectional issues may tend to distort a view of the essential basis of the educational system, the underlying principle of which will determine its ultimate value.
What is the Essential Background of Education?
The Youth Advisory Council in its report on Youth Service after the war emphatically states: “Our view is that religion must form the background of home, school, work, and leisure alike.” This fundamental principle is no doubt readily accepted, and the present Bill purports to provide for religious instruction as an integral part of education, but many parents to-day cannot help contrasting apprehensively current religious teaching with the simple beliefs they were taught in their own youth. There was a time in our national history, not wholly beyond living memory, when the Bible was reverently read and implicitly accepted as the unerring and authoritative Word of God, when it was the national custom to hallow the Sabbath and worship God. The intense sectarian controversies during the passage of the 1902/3 Education Acts, now apparently so vehemently deplored, did, at any rate, demonstrate the existence of a definite religious background, and no doubt served to strengthen it.
Attendance at Sabbath schools was encouraged in those days, and children were not enticed by the allurements of Sunday cinemas, early or late! To be “religious” was not narrow-minded, and no apology was needed to read or to quote from the Bible. It was a national Book. Queen Victoria had unhesitatingly pronounced it “the secret of England’s greatness.” Gladstone (since quoted with approval by our present esteemed Prime Minister, vide Thoughts and Adventures, Winston Churchill, 1932) spoke of the Bible as “the impregnable rock of Holy Scripture.”
The “Scripture lesson” in State schools in those days may have been voluntary and subject to a restricted syllabus, but selected passages from the Bible were read, often without comment, and their content became familiar to the child. Many a parent has, in later life, thanked God for a text of Scripture committed to memory at school, and a simple trust thereby encouraged in the sure words of the Bible has proved an inestimable blessing.
This is the kind of religious background so many parents want for their children’s education to-day, and they are convinced that a knowledge of the Bible itself is “the beginning of wisdom,” and will promote strength of character and moral stability now so evidently lacking amongst youth.
Does the Education Bill provide this necessary background?
(i) The Christian religion is not once mentioned in the Bill. No definition of “religious instruction” is given. The actual subject matter to be taught in schools in the name of religion is apparently of so little interest to the Central Authority that it is relegated to Local Authorities to adopt what they will, and Parliament will, presumably, be powerless to intervene. Is this really the intention?
It should be remembered that we owe our civil and religious liberties to our martyred forefathers, the noble Reformers, who, by their blood and toil and living faith gave us the Bible in our mother tongue. Protestantism brought us educational enlightenment and advancement. This is a national heritage which we should be jealous to maintain, and which we should pass on to coming generations unimpaired. Parliament has a vital responsibility in the maintenance of the Christian religion.
(ii) The Bible is unrecognised in the Bill. The basis of religious instruction is to be “agreed syllabus”—not a national syllabus, but each local Authority adopting its own choice, and woe be to any authority failing to agree upon a syllabus, it will have one arbitrarily imposed upon it! (Schedule VII). Religious instruction will thus conceivably vary from district to district throughout the country, and a state of confusion will ensue both to parents and to the Authorities.
Yet it must be remembered the Bible is still Britain’s best seller. We translate it into every known tongue. Our missionaries take it to the ends of the earth to bring light and knowledge in dark lands; it is their sole text book, and it has proved itself overwhelmingly sufficient. Our children are entitled for their own religious instruction to the same universal text book, the Bible.
(iii) Parents have not been consulted about the use of Agreed Syllabus. Agreed Syllabuses now in use are the product of clergy and ministers who do not necessarily represent public opinion. Many of these “leaders” deny the essential doctrines of their own Church formularies, and have imbibed the pernicious higher critical attitude towards the Bible. Their heterodox teaching has already permeated many of our colleges and universities, and has been imported into some of the Agreed Syllabuses. As an example, the Cambridgeshire Syllabus (1939), adopted by more than 100 Education Authorities, contains a section entitled “Legend and Myth” in the Bible, and teaches that “the stories of Adam and Eve (Genesis ii.-iii), of the sons of God and daughters of men (Gen. vi. 1-4), of the Flood, and of the Tower of Babel, are shown to be mythical” (p. 123); “in addition to myth and legend, there are deliberately fictitious narratives” (p. 124); “it is not necessary, in order to be a Christian, to believe that every word in the Bible is true” (p. 137). At a recent Divinity Course for school teachers and others at Oxford University, recognised by the Board of Education as a means of further qualifying teachers to take their part in the new “Religion in Schools” campaign, typical teaching was to the effect that modern scholarship has entirely altered traditional Christianity, and none of the recorded words of Jesus in the Gospel of S. John can be taken as authentic!
The result of such teaching is a nullification of the Christian faith, and its ultimate effects may be seen, in the land of its birth, in the ruinous Nazi regime.
Church dignitaries in the past have shown themselves to be wholly out of touch with the wishes of the public (notably in connection with Prayer Book revision), and the importation of deadly theories in direct contradiction of the Bible are decidedly unwelcome to the individual public or to the State. It is the parents themselves who have the most direct and vital interest in the instruction of their children, and they certainly do not want them nurtured in an atmosphere of unbelief.
A very large number of Churches and Chapels, and numerous Societies, representing a considerable body of opinion throughout the country, have, during the past twelve months, protested to the President of the Board of Education against the use of these offensive syllabuses, and have petitioned for their withdrawal. Parliament has an urgent responsibility towards the claims of parents in reviewing this vital subject.
(iv) “Conscience” claims are admitted by the Bill, and saving clauses have been introduced to permit the withdrawal of both teachers and children under certain conditions from taking part in any act of worship or of religious instruction. But no adequate provision is made for parents who earnestly desire religious instruction for their children, yet conscientiously object to syllabus teaching which denies the authority, authenticity, and accuracy of God’s Holy Word. Wholesale withdrawals from classes are obviously not anticipated, and should not be necessary if the faith of our fathers were conscientiously adhered to, and taught in our schools.
Competence to teach is an accepted pre-requisite to efficiency of instruction, yet teachers best qualified for religious education, having the testimony of the Holy Spirit in their own lives that they are “born from above,” and who are zealous to lead others into the Christian way, could not conscientiously use a syllabus which is a denial of their faith. To be subject to inspection on the basis of such syllabus would be, for them, inquisitorial. It is surely not expected that these teachers should withdraw themselves, and leave religious instruction to others who have no living interest in what they teach!
Modernistic syllabuses offend against the consciences of Christian teachers and parents, and are not wanted by either.
What is the remedy for these serious defects in the Bill?
Religious instruction is an integral part, nay, it is the primary function of education. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the efficient text-book for instruction in the Christian faith. Books about the Bible cannot be substituted for the actual Bible narrative itself. Books and syllabuses which deny, or cast doubt upon God and His Word are worse than useless; they will only serve to undermine the faith and morals of individuals, and ultimately wreck the ship of State. God has said: “If any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book” (Revelation xxii. 19).
Our children have an inalienable right to be taught the pure words and content of Scripture, and God Himself will see to it that, without added comment, those words will be effectively applied when, where, and how He pleases. This, and this alone, is the most consistent remedy for this important problem. Our Lord said: “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of Me” (John v. 39).
These are vital issues which deserve the earnest consideration of every Member of Parliament; they cannot be ignored as mere sectarian disputes; what is decided now—and the responsibility is to God as well as to the country—will influence the national well-being for good or ill, for years to come. The Bill has received its second Reading, and the Committee Stage will offer the opportunity to raise these issues. Christian citizens throughout the country will follow your deliberations with prayerful attention. Let the opening words of the famous Long Parliament of three hundred years ago be the guiding principle in reaching your decisions—”Mr. Speaker, we are here to do God’s business, and the king’s!”
The Vigilance Committee of THE SOVEREIGN GRACE UNION.