p. 5 | Religious Teaching in Secular Schools

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jan 1888

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 3, No. 1.

Religious Teaching in Secular Schools.

By Rev. Geo. S. Mott, D. D.

THAT children should be taught religion, which with us means the essential doctrines of Christianity, is a proposition advocated as strenuously by all classes of Protestants as it can be by the Romanists. The real question is, How can this best be done? Our minds should not be diverted from this main point. Rome claims that this religious education should be not only co-ordinate with the secular, but intermingled with it in the instruction of each day, and should form a part of the school curriculum, and must be under the supervision and control of her priests. In other words, that the State must provide for instruction in the tenets of each denomination. She must do what she never has done—recognize denominational distinctions in her public policy.

Certainly, when so radical a change is demanded, very substantial and convincing reasons should be presented. It is not enough to appeal to denominational preferences or prejudices. It should be shown most clearly that such a method of combining the secular and religious in the same school, is the completest way of imparting religious truth. And to persuade of this, we require more than philosophical argument. Facts should be adduced. We should inquire whether such a system has been tried, and what have been the results. I propose to show that the experiment has been made under circumstances more favorable to success than we can inaugurate in this country, and that the result is such as by no means to encourage us. The idea which Rome advances has been worked out in Prussia on a Protestant basis. And the statements I make are culled from a paper read before the Western College Association at Grinnell, Iowa, December 27, 1882, by Prof. Hugh M. Scott, of the Chicago Theological Seminary. This is a paper which has not attracted the attention its importance deserves.

1. Let me present the principle. The fundamental idea, as in every German school system, is that the nation is Christian in instincts, history, and aims, and therefore no plan of instruction is complete which does not include the thorough teaching of Christian doctrine and morals. Von Muhler, the Minister of Public Instruction, said in 1870: “An attempt to dissolve the intimate union between culture and religion, between school and church—a union of more than a thousand years’ growth—would be an impossibility.” This was proposed in 1848, but dropped because of opposition throughout the country. The Constitution, he says, “determines that religious instruction shall not be given apart from the schools, but in the schools; and that the churches and religious societies shall have a leading influence in giving such instruction. It desires to have confessional (denominational) distinctions regarded as far as possible

in the schools. . . . We regard religious instruction as an integral part of the sum total of school instruction. . . . The training of teachers is not to be separated from connection with the church and religious culture.”

A Government circular announces: “It is the aim of the religious instruction in schools, in connection with the catechumen and confirmation teaching, to help lead the youth to a living knowledge of their belonging to the kingdom of God on earth, and to evangelical church fellowship in it.” This is their theory of public schools, and this defines accurately the position of the Romish church in our country.

2. Let me now sketch the plan by which this principle is carried into operation. Prussian educational institutions are divided into three classes—the common school, the high school, and the university. In the first, elementary religious instruction is given by the ordinary teachers, preparatory to and in harmony with the more advanced curriculum of the high school. In the high schools, the Prussian system of teaching religion finds its most important field, and to those we shall restrict ourselves. Omitting much that would be very interesting as to the general methods of these schools, of which there are four grades, space requires that we be restricted to the plan of religious instruction. Religion is regarded as one of the regular studies of the course, and occupies the place of honor at the top of the list. All teachers must pass an examination in religious knowledge. Teachers in the highest classes must stand an examination in the contents of the Bible, the fundamental doctrines of faith and morals, church history, New Testament Greek, and Hebrew. But these qualifications are acquired less seldom than formerly, so that in many cases the local clergy must undertake the religious instruction by single hours in school.

In the lowest class, Bible narratives from the Old Testament to the times of the kings are taught from a book of Bible stories. The first part of the catechism, with Luther’s explanations, is learned by heart, the second and third parts being committed to memory without the explanation. A certain selection of texts and hymns is given to be memorized.

In the next class the New Testament narrative is to be learned in the same way, and the general division and order of the books of Scripture, catechism, and hymns are reviewed.

In the next higher class prominent portions of the Old and New Testaments are read and studied in their connection, also the geography of Palestine. Catechism is reviewed, and the third part learned with Luther’s explanations, and proof-texts. The fourth and fifth parts are committed to memory. Hymns are reviewed and new ones learned. As occasion offers, the meaning of church usages is to be taught.

In the yet higher class a more advanced course in biblical instruction is imparted. In addition to a review of hymns and texts already acquired, apostolic and church history is begun. In the next class higher these studies are continued, and the history of dogma is entered upon.

The highest class takes up the exegetical study of the Gospel of John, and the epistles to Romans, Galatians, Hebrews, and parts of 1 Corinthians. The fundamental doctrines of faith and morals in their connection are taught, also an outline of creeds.

The teaching in all these classes is accompanied by proper devotional exercises, at least in form. These consist of singing, reading the Scriptures, and prayer. This is held every morning with the whole school. Each hour’s work in the forenoon is to be begun with prayer. The school closes on Saturday at noon, usually with devotional exercises, including a short address by the principal. Teachers are directed to induce their pupils to attend public worship in church; also at the proper time to turn their thoughts toward the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. A similar course is followed in the Roman Catholic religious teaching, with such modifications as their doctrines would require.

We have now an outline of the religious instruction in the Prussian school system. Thus the State maintains the compulsory religious, as well as secular, education of every child. It must be admitted that this scheme is well-nigh perfect. One more comprehensive and thorough cannot easily be devised. It seems to meet every requirement of a complete religious education. It should lead into the fellowship of the church, as it is designed to do. Fully complied with, it would fit the apt scholar almost to enter the ministry. And now we may well inquire—

3. What has been the result? This system has been in operation nearly one hundred years, and during all this period religion has declined, so that the skepticism and rationalism of Germany have become proverbial. In 1838, students of theology left the gymnasia so ignorant of the Scriptures that they could be put to shame by children. Teachers came in who regarded religion as only a moral department of the State; in whose tuition, as Christlieb declares, “Heathen classics and natural science are exalted, the Christian belief constantly pulled down, or even ridiculed in the eyes of the pupils.” “In most of our high schools the religious instruction is given so badly that this is one of the chief causes of our common rationalism, and the infidelity and religious indifference amongst our educated classes.” So writes the same high authority.

This system, so admirably arranged, has failed to keep Prussia Christian except in name. It produced a formalism which made everyone a member of the church, but at the expense of vital piety. This system superseded the necessity of Sabbath-schools, because the children were supposed to be taught the same religious truths which are inculcated in the Sabbath-school system. Yet, as a fact, this end was not secured, so that the evangelical portion of Germany feel the need of the Sabbath-school, and are establishing them in all parts of the empire. The wisest and most devout clearly understand that their elaborate course of religious instruction in the public schools cannot be relied upon to make the children truly Christian.

England and America, on the other hand, have maintained and perfected the Sabbath-school system during the same period. And what have we to show as results? A most marked improvement in public morals, and a great advance in all forms of religious activity. Space will not permit me to present the proofs of this. They can be abundantly furnished. Let those who doubt this read the chapter on the “Social Condition of Great Britain,” in Mackenzie’s “Nineteenth Century,” or Dorchester’s “Problem of Religious Progress.” In our own land churches have kept pace with the marvelous growth of population, and untiring efforts are made to elevate the masses. The multiplicity of denominations presents an insuperable obstacle to the State in any endeavor to teach that amount of religion which each denomination desires for its own children. Those specific doctrines must be left to the family and the Sabbath-school. If they are not inculcated there, they cannot be imparted satisfactorily in any other mode. This plan has been so successful in our own land that we have no reason to venture on some other scheme. Much less can we adopt the method advocated by Rome, which has produced such undesirable results in Germany.—Rev. Geo. S. Mott, D. D., in New York Observer.