RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Church and School Church and State
which it has been accomplished in Holland, France, England and the United States, has aroused opposition in' the ranlcs of the teachers. Conscious of their high calling as educators, rather than as mere instructors, they are unwilling to see religion banished from the schools, however much they may be opposed to the domination of the schools by the
Church. .
Through modern emigration the various religious sects have been mixed together, especially in the cities. Practical considerations make it necessary that the children of a community where 8. Denomi- a number of confessions are reprenational sented shall all attend one school; and and Unde- thus originated the undenominational nomina- school. This arrangement gives chiltional dren of a confession that is in the Schools, minority the advantage of a larger and better equipped school than they could attend otherwise. Further, such schools are favored by the spirit of tolerance and liberalism now prevaiUng in rehgious matters, and by the non-religious character of the modern State. Against undenominationalism it is urged that the public school, as an educational institution, can least of all dispense with religious instruction, which forms the basis of all instruction; that religion, which carries with it the literary and historical studies, can not be separated from all other subjects and made an independent study; that the personality of the teacher will of necessity make such schools either Protestant or Catholic; and that spies of the opposite confession will then undermine the confidence between the children and the teacher. The force of these objections can not be denied. It is clear that a school that educates must have harmony among its pupils; but in this view denominationalism in the school becomes a postulate of pedagogy, not of the Church. There is no question as to the importance of the Church for education. The question is whether practical theology or pedagogy is the better qualified to dictate the method to be employed in using the educative material contributed by the Church. It is plain that theology needs pedagogy as badly as pedagogy needs theology.
Among the reasons that have decided teachers against the denominational school one remains to be mentioned: the usual [in Germany], but not necessary, supervision by the clergy, g. Clerical Reasons alleged in favor of clerical Control control are: the splendid pedagogical of services rendered by the Church Schools, through such men as Comenius, Francke, Niemeyer, and Schleiermacher; the fine background of reUgious life which the clergy bring to the school, and their unselfishness in the work; the confidence expressed in the clergy by the State in turning over to them the public schools after the Reformation; and, not least, the high culture of the clergy. Against such control it is argued that the public school is only following the higher institutions of learning in emancipating itself from clerical guardianship; that the uneducated teachers of the clerical regime have been replaced with teachers trained scien-
tifically in the theory and practise of pedagogy; that the clergy have not kept abreast of the growing science of education, and are, therefore, unprepared for the work; that this work is prejudicial to their high calling as ministers of the Gospel; and, finally, that clerical control benefits chiefly the ultramontanes. The clergy themselves are becoming less prejudiced in the matter and are beginning to admit the force of these arguments; and, on the other hand, their more prudent opponents recognize that it is the duty of the Church, not of the State, to keep a lookout over the religious and moral welfare of the public schools.
C. Geyer.
Bibliography: On the theory of education in relation to Church and State consult: C. Diekmann, Der biblische Geschichtsunterricht in der Volksschule, Leipsic, 1878; G. A. L. Baur, GrundzUge der Erziehungslehre, Giessen, 1887; R. H. Quick, Remarks About Moral and Religious Education, in his Essays, London, 1887; G. A. Coe, Education in Religion and Morals, New York, 1884.
On the history of education consult: K. Schmidt, Geschichte der Pddagogik, Kcithen, 1889; W. C. Grasby, Teaching in Three Continents, London, 1891; J. Payne, History of Education, ib. 1892; J. Bolim, Geschichte der Pddagogik, Nuremberg, 1893; S. G. Williams, History oi Modern Education . from the Revival of Learning to the Present, Syracuse, 1896; T. Davidson, History of Education, New York, 1900; E. G. Dexter, History of Education in the U. S., New York, 1904.
On the question of religious instruction in various countries consult in Germany: E. Sachsse, Die Lehre von der kirchlichen Erziehung, Berlin, 1897; J. Beyhl, Die Befreiung der Volksschullehrer aus der geistlichen Herrschaft, Berlin, 1903; F. Naumann, Der Streit der Konfessionen um die Schule, Berlin, 1904. In France: L. Duchesne, Autonomies ecclesiastiques . Eglises separees, Paris, 1905. In England: Of the Education Acts, 1870-91, there are discussions by A. E. Steinthal, London, 1891; C. W. A. Brooke, ib. 1897. Of those from 1870 to 1902, by Sir H. Owen, and by W. A. Casson and G. C. Whiteley, both London, 1903. On the Act of 1902 consult: C. E. Benham, H. H. Hanson, H. Mothersole, E. C. Rawlings, all London, 1903; also: W H. Carnegie, Church and the Schools; Churchman's View of the Education Controversy, ib. 1905. In the U. S.: S. T. Spear, Religion and the State, New York, 1876; J. Conway, Respective Rights and Duties of Family, State and Church in Regard to Education, ib. 1890; J. H. Crooker, Religious Freedom in American Education, Boston, 1903.