1Sunday School Reform from the Modern Educational Standpoint.

This “new enthusiasm” may be said to date back to the Swiss educational reformer, Heinrich Pestalozzi, who finished his labor of love and devotion to the cause of human progress in 1827, though the germ of what is called the modern educational ideal, or the new developing education is found in the teaching of Socrates.

Pestalozzi’s formula for the education of man is summed up in one word — development. “All individual development,” he declares, “manifests itself as activity — self-activity. Self-activity has two phases; one from without, inward, or receptive; the other from within outward, expressive, productive, creative. The receptive phase must always precede the expressive.” Regarding the senses as the instruments of the mind in the receptive phase of self-activity, he laid down this great principle: “All instruction must be intuitional — anschaulich — must reach the mind through the senses.”

The principle of continuity is thus explained:

“Development is produced by exercise which must arise from and be sustained by the thing’s own activity. Exercise to produce development must be given at the right time, must always be in harmony with the nature of the thing developed, and proportionate to the strength of the thing. As that which is exercised grows constantly capable of higher and more varied activity, so must the exercise given grow continually higher and more varied in character, keeping pace with the development, never out-running it too eagerly, nor lagging lazily behind, every stage growing naturally out of that which precedes.”

The interconnection of all the parts of education and of all the parts of knowledge used in education is called by Froebel connectedness.

“Knowledge grows when new facts are rightly connected with facts already arranged and organized, and when the connections perceived are made clearer and clearer, and widened and deepened and multiplied. The task of the educator must thus largely consist in bringing out and making clear and maintaining the connections of facts and things.”

Side by side with the rapid spread of kindergarten principles and practice, we note the rise and progress in this country during the past twenty years, of another educational movement known as Scientific Child-Study.

To sum up, we find as a marked characteristic of modern educational progress outside the church, a growing determination and effort to “find out what the child is, to take him as he is, and then to proceed to develop him according to the necessities and laws of his being.”

THE NEED FOR SUNDAY SCHOOL REFORM IF WE ACCEPT THE CHILD AS THE NEW POINT OF VIEW IN OUR EDUCATIONAL WORK.

(a.) IN THE ARRANGEMENT OF COURSES OF SUNDAY SCHOOL INSTRUCTION

(b.) IN THE CHARACTER OF SUNDAY SCHOOL TEXT BOOKS.

The educational problem of to-day has been shown to be not learning, but the learner; while the “new” in educational practice tends more and more to direct the work of education from the standpoint of the child, as opposed to a point of view in matters educational which subordinates the individual to be taught, to the matter and method of instruction.

In any attempt to reform the work of the Sunday School it will be the part of wisdom to move slowly; but, having faced the necessity, the important thing is to begin to move, and to begin at once.

A safe, as well as a rational beginning, would be to accept the child as a new point of view in our wok, and then, after endeavoring in every way possible to learn all that is known as to his nature and needs, to make an effort to so adapt the materials and method of instruction that they shall work in harmony with the laws of growth. With this for our point of departure, we may then plan our courses of instruction so as to reach that high standard of educational insight, which declares that the school exists for the child, not, as our present system would seem to indicate, the child for the school.

To illustrate: The right presentation of our Lord’s life has to do, it seems to me, with three distinct periods of growth in the young human life, which it is wise to consider in the work of Christian instruction. Such presentation includes (1) Our Lord’s Personality as revealed in His humanity; (2) His divinity, and atoning work as the Saviour of men, the One Great Sacrifice offered for the sins of the world; (3) The historic Christ, and the relation of the Church which he founded to the progress of civilization.

In arranging our Courses of Instruction, we have yet to learn that we must be brave enough, and true enough, and skillful enough at times to hold back instruction as well as to give it. We shall then understand as never before the value of the Church’s ideal of keeping close to the young, growing life, until full development is reached. While this is the Church’s theory, the practice which attempts to give everything at once, whether the child is able to receive it or not, lessens the feeling of responsibility beyond the day and the stated lesson. This element of time brought into our Sunday School work in actual practice, will do much to re-create a feeling of responsibility for the religious training of the young.

If the work of religious culture is to be carried forward on the basis of growth or development, how wisely to make choice of lesson material, guided, it may be, in the selection by a happy intuition, experience, theory, or the results of scientific investigation as to the nature and needs of the learner at a given period of development, is the problem which awaits solution in the future planning of courses of Sunday School instruction. On this new basis it will no longer be possible to prepare at a single sitting, a scheme of instruction extending from the infant department to the Bible Class.

The graded Sunday School will necessarily follow — the school that has a department for every distinct period of the pupil’s growth; that is graded in the subject-matter of instruction as well as in the method of its impartation; and that keeps its teachers in their departments.

In bringing about needed reforms in our Sunday School work, the problem of providing suitable text-books of religious instruction can only be solved by the combined efforts of the theologian and the educator whose point of view has changed “from dogmatic assumption as to what a child is theoretically, to a teachable attitude of inquiry as to what a child is in fact.”

THE NEED FOR SUNDAY SCHOOL REFORM IF WE ACCEPT THE CHILD AS THE NEW POINT OF VIEW IN OUR EDUCATIONAL WORK.

(a) IN MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHING FORCE.

(b) IN THE MATTER OF SUNDAY SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT.

Probably by far the most marked indication that the Sunday School has not been taken seriously enough from an educational standpoint, is shown by the way in which the work of the Sunday School teacher is generally regarded. The conditions which call for reform in this connection present further proof in support of the statement previously made, that the change in educational ideals which indicates the line of educational progress outside the Church, has made, as yet, little impression on our Sunday School work.

Whenever in the work of religious training, men and women come seriously to inquire what the nature and needs of a child are, and what the relation of childhood is to youth, and youth to manhood and womanhood, in an effort to carry forward the work of religious instruction from the standpoint of the learner, the trained teacher will be in demand in the Sunday School as well as in the day-school. Then, bungling and ill-directed effort will no more be tolerated here than in other lines of educational activity.

That there are laws of spiritual, as well as of mental growth, which must be known and applied in the work of Christian education, is a fact that needs to be recognized and acted upon by all Sunday School workers, if Sunday School instruction is ever to be more effective than it is at present.

It has been said that “the Sunday School teacher is like one who paints on an unseen canvas. He has, therefore, great need to have clearly developed in his mind the ideal figure he would reproduce with his brush. The best products of his work do not present themselves plainly to the eye. Especially, then, ought the Sunday School teacher to form distinct conceptions of the task he undertakes.” Having a firm grasp upon that which is fundamental, all else will naturally shape itself to the desired end.

When a true educational spirit animates our Sunday School work, trained teachers and skilled supervision will be recognized as important factors in insuring the success of the Sunday School.

It is one of the hopeful signs of the times that already the matter of teacher training is receiving marked attention in connection with organized Sunday School work as represented by the International Sunday School Association; while the increasing demand for trained teachers capable of applying right principles of teaching in the development of children, indicates that in Sunday School work, not of the Church, a forward movement in line with modern educational progress has already begun.

Some one has said that the greatest obstacle to progress is satisfaction with the “average good.” Let us of the Church not rest content with what is now being accomplished in our Sunday Schools, unless such satisfaction is based on conviction, justified by a careful study of the whole subject, that our Sunday School work cannot be bettered.

This view of the importance of religious environment leads to the conclusion that the Sunday School can never and ought never to take the place of the services of the Church in the work of religious training. That it does so, largely, at the present time, is due, no doubt, to the belief that the chief factor in religious training is religious instruction.

By directing attention to a right educational process based on the great law of development, attendance upon the services of the Church especially during the early, impressionable years of a child’s life, will come to be recognized as a most important factor in the work of religious culture.

The present neglect of childhood in the Church is the outcome, without doubt, of the preponderating influence in this country of those religious bodies in whose public services preaching, with its appeal to the understanding, has been substituted for Divine worship, which is the outward expression of the soul’s attitude toward God, and provides for the growth of the soul’s powers through exercise.

Children, as well as adults, must live the religious life in order to truly know it.

THE CHURCH’S SYSTEM OF RELIGIOUS CULTURE; IS IT OPPOSED TO OR IN HARMONY WITH THE “NEW” IN EDUCATIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE.

Having attempted briefly to indicate certain lines along which reform is necessary in our Sunday-School work if we adopt as ours the educational maxim, “truth for the learner from the standpoint of the learner” — an important question remains to be answered; namely, “Is the Church in her system of religious culture opposed to or in harmony with the modern ideal of development and all that it implies in the matter of imparting religious truth?”

In endeavouring to answer this question it may be of interest, first of all, to note how the Church’s educational work, as represented by her Sunday Schools, impressed one who recently viewed it for the chief purpose of discovering any distinctive mark that would server to indicate its educational trend.

Not long ago in advocating a system of graded instruction for the Sunday School, a clergyman, whose words would carry weight in influencing the thought of the Church in the matter of Educational practice, said in a public address, “The first grade should teach the catechism. The children will not understand it at first, but it is the alphabet of Christian morals,” etc.

If this method of procedure advocated from within the Church, and in complete harmony with the conclusions drawn by those who view the Church’s educational work from afar, may rightly be claimed as truly representing the Church’s mind and educational spirit, our question is answered, and the Church is found in her educational system far from being in accord with modern educational progress.

But what appears to be, I am not willing to concede to be a true interpretation of her mind and educational spirit.

Pulsating through this Visible Body which we call the Church is a Divine Life-Current; this, as the central fact in our belief, is that which justifies the Church’s claim to be the one, true Spiritual Mother of us all. A right understanding of her educational system requires, it seems to me, that we shall recognize as of first importance the question, “How may we from the beginning to the end of our training, bring this Life into close touch with the young, growing, developing life for which as parents, pastors and teachers we are responsible?” How shall we, in other words, place the child in such relation to the outer form through which this Life expresses itself, as to bring Life and give life to growing life?

Again, in the same charge to sponsors previously referred to, the phrase, “as soon as he shall be able,” introduces into her system of education the element of time, and provides that the child shall be given truth only as he is prepared to receive it; while the meaning of the word “learn,” used in the same connection, as disclosed from a study of its derivation, implies that the true presented shall at the time of its presentation be understood.

The trouble is that we are too prone to proceed as if the Church’s instructions in regard to the religious training of her children read thus — “read, mark, and learn to repeat this or that doctrinal or scriptural truth. This is a very different process, it will be readily seen, from that which is implied by “learning and digesting.”

Further it may be shown, I believe, that the Church is not only not out of harmony in her educational ideal with the principles underlying modern educational practice, but that she has from the beginning set her stamp of approval on the means and methods now advocated as best in carrying forward the work of education, secular and religious.

Once, in discussing this subject with a well-known kindergartner, not a Churchwoman, I remarked that, because of her method of imparting religious truth, the Church might claim to have a “kindergarten” service — since there was provided in each a central theme with related parts; hymn and anthem also combining to impress on vital, religious truth. This called for the reply, “This may be so, but though I have attended the Episcopal Church many times, I failed to discover any such unity in the service which I heard.” There was no disposition on my part to question the truth of this statement. It had been my own misfortune to be present in Church no long before (during the Epiphany Season), when, the harmony of the service having remained undisturbed up to and including a most helpful sermon, the choir, a paid quartette, arose and sang for the offertory anthem, an elaborate setting of one of the Penitential Psalms. As I reflected at its close upon the possible psychological state of the various members of the congregation, the regretful thought

uppermost in mind was, that probably a very few, if any, were at all conscious of having sustained a spiritual loss.

A more extended examination of the educational ideal inherent in the Church’s system would disclose, I believe, further evidence in support of the view presented; but it is hoped that enough has already been said to show that the Church’s position is clearly not one of opposition to this “new” method of presenting truth.

If this be so then like a wise Mother she has only to seek to understand and to direct this abounding activity in the cause of education to be able to assert anew her claim to be, for all me, the God-given Spiritual Guide and Teacher.

THE CHURCH’S RESPONSIBILITY AS AN EDUCATOR IN VIEW OF THE ADVANCE MADE IN EDUCATIONAL SCIENCE

The view that man is an organism and education the process of ministering to his growth; supplemented by the belief that the unity of man’s nature requires that all his powers shall be trained in harmony, so that the development of one shall not hinder the growth of another, is destined more and more to bring the matter of religious training prominently forward as one of the educational problems of the day. In this connection the views of man and education as set forth by Pestalozzi and Froebel are now studied with greater interest than ever before; while the treatment of the problem from the scientific standpoint which is the most recently adopted method of solution, is growing in educational favor and promises to be a field of study of absorbing interest to the scientific investigator.

In the future of all this effort to determine the place of religion in the development of the child, it will readily be seen that not only the welfare of the child, but the whole realm of religious thought and belief is most vitally concerned. Before giving place to something there must be first of all clear and definite conviction as to what that something is or is not.

It is to be noted that the reference here is to the church as represented by the various denominations, of some of whom the modern educational ideal demands a complete reversal of their long-cherished notions regarding the religious training of children.

In addition to what has already been said, there is yet another reason why the Church should seek to meet her obligations as a leader in modern educational progress. Not only the best welfare of the child, but the future life of the Church is more or less involved in the solution of this educational problem.

“I am more and more convinced as every year goes by,” said an English Bishop several years ago, “that upon our dealing with the young depends the future of the Church.”

A right understanding of the advance already made in educational theory and practice tends greatly to emphasize the truth of the statement. As in the individual life, so in Church life, “Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.” Therefore what we would have come out in the life of the Church of the future, we must put into the life of the children of the Church to-day. The laws of growth and development make it forever impossible that one should gather “grapes of thorns or figs of thistles.” Failure to recognize and apply this truth has made it

possible in the Church of to-day for the Sunday school, to quote the words of another, “to be carried on too much as a children’s Church, out of which the children graduate at fifteen years of age — not to enter the ranks of faithful Churchmen without tremendous efforts to convert them from Sunday school Churchmen to Catholic Churchmen.”

Such educational work as the modern ideal requires of the Church will never be taken up by those who are willing to labor only for the present, and who look to the world for applause and approval in Church effort, Rather will it be forwarded by those, who, forgetful of self, are content to plant and to water that others may reap the harvest.

INITIAL STEPS THAT MAY BE TAKEN TOWARD PLACING THE CHURCH WHERE SHE RIGHTLY BELONGS AS A LEADER IN MODERN EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS.

If assent has been given to the position taken in the preceding paper as to the Church’s rightful claim to leadership in an effort which seeks to make education solve the problem of human development toward an ideal end, it will be readily conceded that, hereafter, the History and Philosophy of Education; Educational Psychology; Child-Study; and Pedagogy, should be given a place in the preparation of the clergy for their office as teachers. To this end a department for such preparation should be added to the work of our Theological Seminaries. Such a step taken would enable the Church through her representatives to reach out and mold public opinion in all matters of educational import; while it would also make it possible for those upon whom the Church sets the seal of responsibility for all effort of whatever kind within her borders, so to administer that most important part of Church and Parish work, the religious training of the young, as to meet the growing demand for the introduction and use of truly educational methods.

As tending to confirm this opinion, the following extract taken from a letter received no long ago from a mother, a Churchwoman, is of interest. After expressing her thorough appreciation of the kindergarten system, and her belief that the time had come for the application of its underlying principles to the work of the Sunday School, she adds: “This would necessitate the training of teacher of Sunday School classes which is very much needed. Many of the sectarian Sunday Schools now have trained women for their primary classes, and we certainly should have the same. I for one am not willing to have my children taught anything, anyhow, by anybody who can be coaxed into taking a class for a little time.”