Critical Religious Education.

It seems to me that the issue of religious education rather than religious instruction has never been resolved. Ninian Smart's team in Scool Council Working Paper 36 talked of critical study of religion alongside phenomenology and I think he paired these correctly. We have developed phenomenological awareness of believers' points of view, trying to see the religion through the eyes of the worshipper; but we have not cracked the issue of criticality. Examples of religious education syllabuses remind me of Sunday School. They take for granted that Jesus was/is God (I don't), that the Gospels are accurate biography (I don't), that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven (I don't), that we go to heaven on death (I don't) and that belief is more positive than disbelief/scepticism (again, I don't). I am not a Christian, but Christians vary considerably on their understanding of this particular list. RE should not oversimplify, or claim certainties that have to be overturned later.

Criticality suggests that religious education asks about what Christians mean when they call Jesus divine, whether this is rational and coherent, and what its implications are for personal understanding and social practice. Why do people believe what they believe? Why do they find argument difficult? We should make no assumptions that this is a right belief, just that it is a belief. Over history, Christian practices/beliefs have had good consequences and bad. Oxfam and the inquisition. Religious exclusivity/inclusivity is a pertinent topic for school. Diversity is important. Topic study could include population control and birth control. Christians have views on the environment, some of which campaign against sustainability, a world created for humans to use as the dominant species. Where religious be;ief is irrational or non-rational, it should be discussed. Children and young people need to understand the nature of religious belief in all its diversity, whether it is a belief they are inside of, or exterior to. They need to see the positive as well as the negative, and conversely the negative as well as the positive. RE has mainly stressed the positive, whilst the media emphasise negatives. Atheism is a strident point of view (pov) at the moment, and pupils need to know where this is coming from.

John Dewey emphasised the importance of experience and multiple perspective, building up knowledge from personal experiences. If we add up personal experiences of suffering, bullying, fear, family, affection etc, it adds up to a balanced view of life and of moral responsibilities, but not particularly of religion or Christianity. What extra does the myths and rituals of religion add? And why the need to accept them literally?

Non-literal interpretation of metaphorical language is a step forward - is there something in Paul Tillich's theology of depth which language is struggling to illustrate facets of? Or is doctrine a socially repressive instrument to prevent thinking? I argued this in some detail in Creating the Old Testament. If we look for figurative meaning, we escape from naivity.

From this you will see that my vision of what RE ought to be doing is not what it is doing. Nor do I have any confidence that current staffing/training could provide a workforce to could teach this curriculum. A movement stressing thinking skills in RE could be a way forward.