Page images
PDF
EPUB

stimulus, but also on the momentary condition of the centers thru which And the same is doubtless the case for the whole range of

it must pass.
organic processes down to the reflex discharge.

We cannot, of course, enumerate-much less foresee the impressions received thru the senses during, let us say, a single day. Similarly, it is impossible to predict the motives that will spring up in consciousness as the result of deliberate thought, association, impulse, passion, or emotional state. But we can say for a certainty that the selection of any one motive in preference to all the rest will be determined by the habits developed in will and intellect thru the whole course of experience. No system of religion or of education or of religious education can guarantee us against the appearance in consciousness of unworthy motives. The saints have all been tempted. The calmest of the philosophers has his internal storms. And the majority of us, who are neither sages nor saints, know that the best actions, objectively considered, may issue from the meanest motive.

Any sort of education, therefore, that pretends to impart moral strength must concern itself not so much with laying down precept on precept as with developing in the mind a habit of appreciating, judging, and willing in conformity with the rules of upright conduct. "Automatic righteousness" is not an acceptable expression; and yet, without the least concession to our determinist friends, I think we would prefer what it means to the disposition of those who "always err in their hearts."

Now, it is plain that this moral center, as I will call it, may be organized in many different ways. Its cells may all have the idea of duty for their nuclei; its fibers may have the sense of honor for their axes; its ganglia expand with the love of humanity; its whole structure be under the tension of a categorical imperative, strong with the sanction of all the moralists from Aristotle to Kant. Be it so. Let us by every possible means inculcate these principles, and all other principles that make for better conduct. There can be no question as to the necessity of making men dutiful, honorable, philanthropic. The function of religion is not to dispense with such motives, but to consecrate them; not to inhibit, but to reinforce, the feelings and promptings that open up paths of goodness. The impulses that flow down from the cortex are not destructive, but regulative with respect to subordinate centers. The brain itself must atrophy and perish if it fail to quicken and control the organs of nutrition; and religion likewise would tear away its firmest support, were it to deaden the fine growths of volitional power which raise us above the level of self.

What we call lower impulses or instincts or tendencies are selfishness gone to excess. All attempts, consequently, to educate us out of these less worthy motives are attempts to educate us away from self, or to educate that very self to a better sense of its own interests. Unselfishness, as we

understand it, is rational precisely because it is founded upon a clear perception and a vivid realization of the exact value of self. So long as I take a view of myself which makes me the center of the world, neither I nor my universe can be of much use except at moments of total eclipse. But when the center begins to displace itself somewhat, then is the beginning of hope for me; and when my conceptual system, by further displacement and reduction, is brought to coincide with reality, hope gives way to the substance of well-ordered action.

Religious education, properly understood, aims at a just estimate of the self in view of all that is. It locates man in the universe. It gives him his setting in the order of things. If it reminds him that in one respect he is but dust, it also tells him that in another respect he is but a little below the angels. By teaching him to look upon himself and all things else in the presence of a Supreme Being, it opens up to him a perspective in which all values are definitely fixed. It shows him that the starry heavens and the moral law derive their grandeur from the same. It lays upon him the imperative: So act that thy action may fit harmoniously into the universal order of which God is the center and

cause.

source.

The several precepts of morality are simply the more or less detailed working out of this supreme ordinance. The complex system of hierarchy, government, dogma, and ritual in the Catholic church represents so many different attempts to arouse and preserve in men's minds the consciousness of membership in this universal order. The "calmer piety" which enables us to take this comprehensive view is not inborn. To a few gifted minds it may come as the fruit of earnest philosophical thought. But mankind in the average needs a methodical training to lift them above the appearances of sense, to differentiate inclination and duty, to purify the imagination, and to strengthen the will.

It is not to be expected that religious education will enable a man at any and every moment to place himself ideally in the universal order and regard each of his actions sub specie aeternitatis. It is not even necessary that a man should ever unravel the metaphysics bound up with such concepts. But the habitual attitude of his mind and his habitual way of selecting motives should be such that it could be analyzed and, if necessary, restated in terms of the order imperative.

Briefly, therefore, the view which has been taken may be recapitulated as follows:

1. Where various motives of conduct are suggested, that motive is adopted which best accords with the mental and moral habits of the individual.

2. The aim of all education, on the ethical side, is the formation of such habits as will insure the selection of good motives and the rejection of evil motives.

3. The aim of religious education is to secure for this selective habit the greatest possible breadth on the highest possible plane by bringing the mind to choose its ends conformably to the divine order.

4. All other criteria and imperatives that have real worth should be regarded as more or less specialized forms which may become clearer and stronger under the influence of religious training, and which may in turn facilitate the application of the religious standard to particular motives of conduct.

I need not remind you that we have been dealing all along with a priori judgments; in other words, that we have been studying out the influence which religious education ought to exert and would exert in ideal conditions. Nor again would it be the part of wisdom to propose religious education as the one infallible remedy for all our ills. But, considering the amount of work that is done in the interests of religion. by persons of all denominations, we seem justified in asking ourselves one question more: How can religious education be made to yield the results, or at any rate a larger proportion of the results, which might reasonably be expected?

So far as I can see, the simplest answer is: By giving the religious element its due share in education. The child comes very quickly to look on the school as the place in which everything is taught that is worth knowing. The absence of religious instruction has for one of its effects ignorance of certain important truths. But its more serious effect is the detachment, in the child's appreciation, of religion from practical life. Once we give the impression that religious ideas and duties are extras for which the ministers alone are responsible, we make the work of the church in the pulpit and in the Sunday school exceedingly difficult. And the difficulty increases as we go on adding every other sort of practical teaching to our curricula. Physical training is not turned over to the professional athlete nor manual training to the expert mechanic. We have brought these and other things into the school, and by so doing we have recognized their value. Whether we intend it or not, we are surely making it quite clear to the people, both young and old, that the school provides or means to provide all the essentials of knowledge. The obvious inference as to the value of religion is not likely to overcrowd the churches.

It must, of course, be admitted that religious education, from the pedagogical view-point, leaves much to be desired. In content, method, and organization, but above all in the proper training of teachers, there is ample room for improvement. Now that these needs are realized, it is to be hoped that the experience gained in building up our school system will prove valuable in solving the problems of religious education. In the movements recently initiated there is a promise of success which must be gratifying to all friends of education. The fulfillment must bring about that unity of intellectual, moral, and religious development which is the basis of right conduct. A mind in which all good motives and all habitually determinant principles of action are thoroly co-ordinated, so that duty to self, duty to the fellow-man, to society, and to God

It is

are merged in one clear imperative, is an ideal worth striving for. the ideal of citizenship in each particular order of our human relations, and in that universal order which is none other than the City of God.

THE SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE SCHOOL SUPPORTED BY PUBLIC TAXES

W. T. HARRIS, UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. The question of religious education in the schools supported by public taxes is not the question of the importance of religion, but the question of the most fitting occasion for efficient instruction in religion, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the question of guarding the rights of private conscience and the separation of church and state. There is a general feeling on the part of American citizens that the rights of private conscience must be respected, the cause of religion sacredly guarded, and the church and state kept separate. Are all these things compatible one with another?

It seems to be an historic tendency, in our time, to separate church and state. We speak of it as a principle of our government; it is found in our national constitution. Other nations seem to be moving toward this as a goal, and most of them have arrived at the stage of universal toleration of dissenting faiths, altho retaining an established church. But it may be held that this toleration, which amounts to indifference almost, is only an incidental stage in the growth of civilization, and that it is not a permanent settlement of the matter. It may be possible that it is necessary only while the church is divided by schism, and that it will disappear when the higher degrees of enlightenment arrive and men come to see alike on religious questions. At all events it is well to glance at the grounds on which is based a claim that the church and the state are each more efficient when completely separate in their functions; that religion without an established church is more spiritual, more devoted to the highest interests of the soul; that the state which does not permit itself to interfere in religious matters administers justice in a more efficient manner; and that the school supported by the state teaches the secular branches of instruction with greater success.

The state is the highest of secular institutions, and its function is to secure justice in such a manner that the citizen reaps the fruits of his deeds. Any attack that he makes upon the welfare of his fellow-men should be returned upon him by the state; and, on the other hand, he should reap the fruits of his righteous deeds. The deed that injures society is a crime, and the state sees to it that crimes are punished. As nearly as possible the state returns upon the criminal the symbolical

equivalent of his deed. If he takes life, he shall forfeit his own life; if he takes property by violence or stealth, he shall be deprived of his liberty. Whatever attacks the bond that unites men into society shall be requited by deprivation of life or liberty, or loss of property by fines.

On the other hand, religion does not consider the external act so much. as the inward state of the soul, the heart. While the state calls the overt act which attacks the bond of society a crime, the church looks behind the overt act to the disposition of the soul and defines what is opposed to an ideal state of holiness as sin. Sin and crime must not be confounded. The crime, being an overt act, may be measured and a just penalty awarded; an equivalent of the evil deed may be returned upon the doer; but sin, which may exist all the same without an overt act, cannot be measured. Only sincere repentance on the part of the sinner, and utter renunciation of the sin and its consequences, will be forgiven. Repentance does not and ought not to save one from punishment of crime; and, on the other hand, a finite punishment a penance, in other words- does not and ought not to suffice to wash away a sin and make the soul clean again. We see that the categories of sin and crime indicate a very important difference in the attitude of the soul toward them. It is true that most crimes are to be regarded also as sins, but the state cannot take a deed into consideration for punishinent except in so far as it is a crime. In the case of sin in the heart without overt act the department of justice cannot inflict punishment. It would be improper for a court to punish a disposition which had not yet become a volition.

We may see this more clearly if we consider what would happen if the church administered the affairs of the state. If it held firmly its standard. of religion and looked to the disposition of the heart, it would forgive overt acts in all cases where repentance is supposed to be sincere; and, on the other hand, it would punish malignant intention even when there was no attempt on the part of the will to make it an overt act. This would destroy justice and undermine the state; no citizen would know what to expect; there would be no sure protection of person and property.

If, on the other hand, the church adopted the standard of justice, borrowing it from the state, it would destroy religion. For if the church. were to look only to the overt act, it would neglect the disposition of the heart, and give to its penances a meaning entirely unorthodox. It would make its penance condone for sin, just as the penalty of the law condones. for crime. Corruption would come into the church, and its members would be led to believe that they could make up for sin by good acts; they would lose the sense of the infinitude of sin, thinking that it is only a temporary affair which may be made up by future good conduct. If the state undertook to regulate religious matters, the same confusion would occur, and the interests of justice as well as those of religion would suffer.

« PreviousContinue »