A little ruling noted in The Times yesterday offered an interesting insight into not just education, but discussions that circulate around religious education. The salient facts are that religious education in Northern Ireland has been found not to be sufficiently objective or critical. It has been deemed to amount to religious instruction and was said to be so because the core syllabus was devised by the Catholic, Presbyterian, Church of Ireland and Methodist churches and ‘was not delivered in an “objective, critical and pluralistic manner”. The ruling said the syllabus ‘amounted to evangelism and proselytising.’
This piques my interest for a number of reasons. For one, I am a former religious education teacher and so I am often interested not only by goings on in RE but by outside perspectives on what the subject is for and what people think it is supposed to accomplish. I am similarly interested as a currently serving pastor who has occasion to go into schools and speak about the Christian religion and what we believe as a church. I am also interested in this from a socio-politico-theological perspective. You can go and take a look at the about page of this blog to get a more specific sense as to why this all interests me.
What I find interesting about this specific ruling is that it neatly encapsulates what certain different groups appear to think religious education is for. On the one hand, you appear to have a set of churches of the view that religious education is significantly about favouring the Christian religion more broadly and instructing people in it. This is the Christian Instruction view of old in which the subject really does operate principally as a mean of actively encouraging Christian thinking and values. On the other hand, “campaigners” – which evidently include Humanists UK – are clearly pushing a view that would prefer to expunge all mention of religion from educational establishments and see this as a step on the road to doing so. In between those views (I think) sat the judges who were clear that religious education should neither be Christian Instruction nor the word that dare not be uttered, but ought to be specifically and sufficiently ‘objective, critical and pluralistic’.
Speaking as a former RE teacher turned pastor what encourages his people into evangelism and engages in lots of active Christian Instruction among willing (rather than captive) participants, I think it is a mistake to confuse these things. Religious Education does not, and should not, exist to promote any particular religion. Religious Education is that branch of humanities that does for the study of various religious beliefs and movements what history is supposed to do for the study of past events and people. Almost everybody reckons – though we all have our biases – history is supposed to attempt to reconstruct the past as objectively as possible and then analyse it critically so that we might understand why things unfolded as they did so that we might learn from it. Religious Education, by the same token, is supposed to be teaching about major world religions so that they can be analysed critically so that we might better understand those who believe in them and why they might act as they do so that we can learn from them and better engage with them. Certainly this was what I was aiming to do as an RE and a history teacher (it helps when you studied and taught both and you can see just how the same effective skills and aims are at play in two different areas of study!)
By contrast, when I go out as a pastor of a church to tell people about what we believe, I am absolutely aiming to evangelise and convert. There’s lots we might say about ways and means, what I actually mean by those terms and all the rest. But however you cut it, when I go out as a pastor of the church I am actively seeking to promote Christianity, affirm its virtues and point people to belief in Jesus. Not only that, those who come to the church will get unadulterated Christian instruction. I am specifically aiming to teach the bible, instruct people in what it says and encourage them to prefer it above any other philosophy or religion. I make no bones about that being the case and those who engage with the church, frankly, fully expect it. It is why you come to a church.
But these are clearly two very different tasks. When I taught RE, I was never seeking to promote Christianity. I was simply teaching about it, just as I was teaching about other world religions. I was trying to help pupils engage critically with the core beliefs of the different religions, seeking to help them understanding what other people believe, why they believe it so that they might better understand how and why they act as they do. I was not there to promote any one view, but to teach about all of them. I wasn’t there to evangelise or proselytise, I was there to introduce pupils to a variety of views they may not have fully engaged before and to help them as they engage with those with different philosophical and religious commitments to themselves.
As a Christian parent and as a pastor, however, I am not looking to my school to give my children religious instruction. That is what I take them to church for. Just as, I imagine, most Muslim parents are not outsourcing their Islam to the school either. I am more than happy for my children to learn about other world religions and philosophies, it will only stand them in good stead to understand how to better engage with people who think differently to them. It will also helpfully introduce them to other ideas that they can begin to engage with critically. But the idea that I would expect their school to promote the Christian religion and to teach them anything adequately about the gospel strikes me as simultaneously expecting too much from a school and not a little foolish. I’ll be honest, I wouldn’t even trust an avowedly Christian school with a Christian ethos to do it. It just isn’t why I send my children to school; I take them to church for that.
Where there is a legitimate discussion to be had around RE is if and when views are promoted and affirmed that undermine your Christian faith. I think there is some legitimacy to a concern where that is the case. However, we have to recognise in this particular situation in Northern Ireland, that is precisely the concern of the pupil at the centre of the case. They were concerned that Christian faith and belief was being promoted in a way that undermined their personal beliefs. Just as Christians would have every right to be concerned if Atheism (or any other religion) was being promoted as religious instruction, taught uncritically, in a way that forced faith subscribers to affirm what they considered to be fundamentally untrue or have to withdraw altogether, so it is altogether reasonable for those who don’t subscribe to Christianity to feel peeved at the thought of being forced to affirm Christian beliefs they find fundamentally untrue.
The arguments and discussions that have floated around concerning Religious Education for many years are now being extended to much broader discussion around thing like Christian Nationalism. Many of the arguments and positions affirmed by Christians over the years have largely pushed an Anglican view of church and state in such a way that Christianity is often assumed should be privileged and actively promoted in the public square. The same arguments that were typically used in battles over RE classrooms in the past are now being put to use in broader discussions about the public square, the privileging of Christianity and arguments favourable to Christian Nationalism. These are discussions that have been had by Baptists for 400 years and who have concluded strongly that if we wish to be free of Anglican preaching licenses, Anglican instruction and Anglican privilege, it necessitates a secular public square into which all may bring their religious assumptions and philosophies to bear.
Over recent decades, the secular humanists in the ascendancy sought to do just what the Anglicans did before them. The Anglicans insisted on Anglican public square privilege to the exclusion of non-Anglican beliefs and assumptions, whilst the secular humanists argued for the privileging to secular humanist assumptions to the exclusion of anything tinged with what they perceived to be religious bias. It turns out just as Atheists didn’t very much like Anglicans telling them that their philosophical assumptions must be hung up at the door if they are to play in the public square, Christians didn’t much like it when secular humanists returned the favour. Baptists, long aware of this, have argued that neither Christianity nor Atheism should be privileged, but the public square ought to be secular pluralistic, with all allowed to bring their religious and non-religious biases that inform their beliefs and engage in public life on the same terms.
I suspect many Christians would affirm their desire for something like the Baptist conceptions of a pluralistic secular public square. But if that is what they want, they must accept that other religions and beliefs that are evidently non-Christian altogether will get air time and will make assumptions and push views that we may not welcome. It also means that thing like Religious Education will have to be pluralistic, objective and critical not only so one position is not elevated above the others, but so that those who live and operate in such a pluralistic society can meaningfully engage with one another and tolerate the criticism their assumptions must bear in a world that will necessarily critique them.
I suspect those who support the idea of a Christian nation will see this as a setback and harp back to the requirement for worship in school of a mainly Christian nature. However, exposes the problem. I suspect that there would be a ton of things delivered from a Catholic/Presbyterian/Methodist background that you and I wouldn’t agree with and a lot unsaid that we might consider significant. And religious instruction from people who don’t believe it is unhelpful too. Personally I’d not bother with RE in school much if at all (with apologies to your former profession).
I agree with everything except your dismissal of RE altogether. RE (should be) fundamentally religious sociology. It is supposed to aim at critical engagement with religious beliefs and movements, encouraging pupils to engage better with people who don’t think like them. In a pluralistic society where you want civic harmony, I think it’s really important if it’s delivered well. It does people a lot of good to learn how to engage with people they will inevitably encounter and ought to help with critical thinking skills as well as interpersonal ones.
Most negative reactions to RE tend to stem from bad delivery of it based on faulty assumptions about it’s aims. All my academic work has largely been a combination of sociology, theology, history and politics which is, in short, essentially RE. I am convinced it is more valuable to most people than the majority of maths and sciences schools force pupils to learn.
Yes, I expected you to disagree on that bit. I think it partly reflects that it is rarely well invested in and rarely hits what you aspire for it. I guess if you teach sociology, history, anthropology, critical thinking well then you will get those outcomes
I heartily agree with your vision of RE, and the potential benefits of this when it’s done well. Sadly, I don’t think it’s generally given so much thought and taken anything like seriously enough.
I share my own experience, not to contradict you, but simply to recount it.
I didn’t grow up in a Christian home so my early knowledge of Jesus and the Bible came from the CofE primary school I attended.
At High School my RE teacher was a Christian. I don’t recall learning anything about other religions. But I do recall looking forward to his lessons. He would organise a debate about a huge topic. E.g. abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, even economics. One pupil would be tasked with presenting the case ‘for’ a particular motion and another the case ‘against.’
The cases would be presented. The class would then have opportunity to ask questions of the presenters, and eventually a vote would be taken to decide which case ‘won.’ After this, Mr Young would analyse our thinking and the arguments presented, and conclude by giving and defending his Christian viewpoint… sometimes giving pastoral examples of real life events.
I couldn’t help admiring this man and his Christian convictions. I think in God’s Providence he sowed the seed which eventually led to my conversion.
Years later, I tracked him down and wrote to him to tell him I’d become a Christian. I received a lovely reply, informing me that I was not the only one! A number of his pupils, at least one who’d been in my class, had become Christians also.
So though I do agree with the view you’ve expressed, the anomaly is that I’m grateful for the instruction I received.
Hi Dave, your story caught my attention and I just wondered whether the Mr Young you referred to is my dad (Martin). He was an RE teacher in the late 60s to early 80s in Amersham, High Wycombe, and Grays (maybe other places too); his lessons were like you described and he said that a number of his pupils had come to faith. He’s 80 now, and living an active Christian life in his home town of Clevedon, Somerset.
Delighted to hear about your Dad, but the Mr Young I was referring to was Brian Young who taught at West Derby High school in Liverpool. I was in his class from 1967 – 1969. The last I heard, he was living and attending church in Waverton, near Chester.
A well-argued post with a conclusion that I agree with.
Incidentally, with my sub-editor hat on, in the context “This peaks my interest…” I think that most readers would expect the second word to be spelled ‘piques’ for ease of comprehension.
You are quite right! Sometimes one’s brain hears the word you want and spells it how it wills.
Interesting stuff Steve. I have considerable sympathy with your article but it leaves me with a few questions. What do you make of the argument that says that it is impossible to be neutral when addressing religious themes in schools? Is it true that taking a pluralistic approach or avoiding religious education altogether also convey religious instruction to the pupils through what it refuses to say (which may be against the wishes of ‘religious’ parents). I understand the obection to preaching to a captive audience but perhaps each school should set out its policy in such matters and parents can then consider that as part of their choice of school for their child. I also noticed that the parent/child bringing this case to court were prompted to do so because the child started to say ‘grace’ before a meal at home, following the example of school meal times. So it may not have been the content of the RE lessons that is under scrutiny so much as the practice of the school at other times. I couldn’t read the original article in the Times as it was behind a paywall so I may have misunderstood. Lastly, and most importantly, what do you make of the biblical argument that ‘The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Prov 1:7 – see also Prov 9:10) – so that any education that ignores the fear of the Lord doesnt even make it off the starting blocks! In fact Proverbs seems to describe it as foolish.
Thanks for your thoughtful comments Robin.
I agree it is impossible to be completely neutral in anything (not just RE). There are plenty of scientists with biases towards particular theories. History has the same issue; it is what you think about in History 101. But few seem to have any trouble thinking that history teachers can be both personally committed to views and opinions whilst remaining critical and having a degree of objectivity, at least over events as they happened if not in their interpretations of those events. Similarly so with the sciences.
When we talk about a level of objectivity, being critical and pluralistic this is not claiming utter neutrality. Rather, it is encouraging critical thinking about various religious views with a degree of objectivity when teaching. Fundamentally, that means fairly presenting the beliefs of respective religions, encouraging critical engagement with all of them as presented and not only focusing on one particular religion to the exclusion of all others. Generally speaking, whilst nobody can be utterly neutral, the way we tend to deal with that is to be upfront about our particular views that might colour our objectivity and help others, as they critically engage, to factor in what our own biases might be. But even so, one can fairly represent views you do not hold and then present legitimate critical questions to help others engage with those views in a broadly objective way.
The ruling in the particular case concerned specifically the teaching of RE and the imposition of views and beliefs as instruction. In all honesty, I am sympathetic to the complainant. I would object if my child was presented with Islam uncritically and encouraged to just accept it. Likewise, I would object to their being forced into participating in Muslim prayers and acts of worship. As such, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable for agnostic/atheist parents to similarly be concerned about uncritical teaching actively promoting a worldview – and even worse if it is acts of worship – that they do not subscribe to. However, I think this is altogether different to learning about and critically engaging with views that are not your own and, by the same token, having your own beliefs, philosophies and religious views critically engaged with too. I similarly see a difference between how a teacher might present these things and how a guest – be it a pastor, imam, rabbi or anyone else – ought to be expected to present. These others are a good way to learning about what actual faith subscribers believe, which would serve the aims of the subject altogether.
I wonder if you apply Prov 1:7 and 9:10 to say the study of maths? And if not, why not? It seems to me lots of Muslims and Atheists manage to make very good scientific, mathematical and philosophical (and other) insights about the world without having a fear of the Lord. But I recognise common grace and I factor these things into my understanding of what the proverbs are saying. I’d be interested to hear how you read them in light of these things.
Thanks Steve – this is a fascinating topic. I am really not sure I have any answers – just lots of questions! I spent a few years in a Secondary School as a Christian youth worker. I had wonderful opportunities to lead assemblies and to contribute to class discussions but I also listened to lots of RE lessons delivered by non-Christians. I am sure that many Christian RE teachers do a wonderful job of representing Christ and the truth of the Gospel whilst not taking inappropriate advantage of the captive audience. I wish their were more teachers like yourself and like the others noted here in the comments. But it seems to me that it would be impossible for them to be neutral about things that they know (in their heads and in their hearts) are true and things that they know are false. Their whole worldview is bound up with the ‘fear of the Lord’. I can see that one solution is to reduce RE to the various propositions made by the different religions. My experience is that non-Christian teachers do this very badly regarding the Christian faith. Because they do not fear God or know Christ they are left (in the early years of Secondary school) with presenting dry facts about church architecture, christening, confirmation, Christingle services, the Golden Rule and such like. Later in Secondary School the teachers taught ethics and philosophy – in fact they renamed the subject ‘Personal Ethics’ across the whole school. I do not think that I ever heard any RE teacher explain the Gospel message, which after all is at the centre of the Christian faith. But then why would I expect that, if it is spiritually discerned? Perhaps all schools should be asked to take a public position on the nature of their religious education? I support the concept that a school might have a religious ethos and that RE in those schools is taught by believers and that assemblies are also led by believers. If I chose for my child to attend a Christian ethos school then I would anticipate that it would involve prayers, Christian worship etc. I would be happy for my child to be taught about Islam, but not to participate in Islamic worship. I guess that Muslims would have a similar attitude. Perhaps this is better than a lowest common denominator approach?+
Regarding maths – yes I would say that God is implicitly right at the heart of that subject. God is a God of order. He is predicatable and faithful. A perfect unity. Infinite yet knowable. A God of absolute truth. Of perfect logic. Reasonable and rational. I agree that all people can benefit from the joys, beauty and usefulness of the subject but its very existence reflects some aspects of the nature of our infinite, predictable, faithful God.
Maths without God might be useful but it is spiritually useless (foolish). Perhaps we could say the same about religious education without the fear of the Lord?
Thanks Robin.
I agree with your view of maths. It works because it is God’s language in which he built the universe. But I also recognise maths without reference to God can still be discerned and useful (but as you say, not spiritually useful). The same goes for RE. Learning about what others believe and why is useful and can be discerned without reference to God, but it isn’t spiritually useful. Likewise the same is true for Christian Instruction (even in a church!) You can glean some things and it may be useful on some level, but it won’t do much for you spiritually apart from genuine faith in Jesus and receipt of his spirit.
I think it would be good for RE teachers to be able to explain basic gospel concepts to pupils and tell them (not uncritically) this is what Christians believe. I think they should do the same for the core beliefs of other world religions too. It is, incidentally, why I think outside visits from pastors, imams and yogis are good things – you hear what they actually believe rather than a teacher’s best interpretation of what they think they believe. It is much more useful in my opinion.
I, like you, have no problem with schools having a religious ethos that can be chosen by parents (of whatever religion) and then expectations being that religion will be fundamental to the way the school operates. I think this is a freedom of choice matter, but nothing really to do with how RE should be taught.
As a Christian (Baptist) in NI it is interesting to read this perspective from outside. While I largely agree with your position I’m not sure that you fully understand the context that this is coming from. I find myself fine with the ruling but still concerned for the impact this will have on schools and society for us here.
The issue in NI is not merely about RS classes, while the ruling was mainly about that, the ramifications may be far wider. Many schools in NI have a Christian ethos, many teachers are Christians and there are many groups that give Christian support and teaching on all sorts of issues. This doesn’t mean that they force the gospel onto children, I’m sure there are examples of that but in my experience most Christian teachers know how to thread the needle of being neutral when it comes to the curriculum but also being an appropriate gospel witness in other ways that the children can opt in or out of. In sum, we are blessed with a lot of Christian influence in schools, beyond the RS class. This has arisen, not out of a concerted Christian Nationalism campaign, but through there being many Christians who love to teach children and often it is Christian groups who are most interested and most passionate about having an input into children’s lives.
What really matters about this ruling is how this affects the teachers, the CUs and the outside groups. It may be achievable, even desirable, to teach RS in a reasonably objective manner, but to have a school that has an objective ethos is impossible and the attempt to enforce it will be disastrous.
Mostly this isn’t a separation of church and state issue, it will more impact ordinary Christians wanting to be salt and light and now finding it a bit harder. So yes the ruling may be in theory OK, in practice there is much to pray for.
Hi Aaron,
Thanks for your comments.
I don’t presume to understand the cultural context as well as you, but I am not unacquainted with the NI context.
I’m not entirely sure how the issue (as you perceive it) presents any differently as to how it does in England or Wales when it comes to our church schools? Even in the case of our Independent Christian Schools (essentially private schools free of state control), I’m unclear how the case I make in the post for what RE should be and how that appears to have worked out in this ruling is an issue?
As I understand it, the ruling is about the RE syllabus specifically. It really shouldn’t have an impact on CUs which are nothing to do with the RE syllabus. Nor does it stop Christian schools having a Christian ethos. It simply stops RE being taught in such a way that is uncritical and non-pluralistic (which all RE ought to be aiming to do – it is fundamentally sociology of religion).
Perhaps you can expand on where you see it as a problem? I am assuming you are on board with the principle of teaching about world religions (inc. Christianity) critically and reasonably objectively?
In an ideal world these would be two separate issues but I suspect, and maybe this is doom mongering, that this will be used to increase pressure on board of governors and principals to err on the side of caution when it comes to allowing Christian influence into schools more widely. I am very happy for the RS to become more rounded and include other religions, we’ve nothing to fear in that regard, it happens at secondary school level here anyway. My issue is not that the ruling is a bad one, maybe it is even a good one, but I am almost certain that in some schools principals will see this as an excuse to pull up the draw bridge to Christian influence and can think of concrete examples where this may happen.
In one school there has been resistance to the existence of an after school CU group led by a teacher, in another outside Christian groups get very little foothold. These are down to the principals call. If you want to argue that this ruling won’t affect how the principals continue to assess these situations then I hope you are right but I find that hard to believe.
The same goes for pastors taking assemblies, a rare gift that presents wonderful opportunities for churches. In many schools church leaders are regularly invited to take assemblies and have a lot of liberty in doing so. It isn’t RS but, again, I find it hard to believe this won’t have some impact on how schools approach this. Most will probably not throw the net out wider to more religions and groups, the better option, but many will just do the assemblies in house which I think will be a sad loss.
I am not disagreeing with your article, I agree with it in isolation, I am just adding that thre is an extra dimension to the possible impact it will have on the ground here that is not covered in the piece.
Good laws/rulings sometimes have bad effects, this might be one of them. I hope I am wrong.
Thanks for your reply Aaron, it’s helpful to see where you are coming from.
For what it’s worth, pastors (and others) continue to be invited into schools here to present quite openly on what we believe. It is in assemblies and in RE lessons. Clearly England focuses very much on the objective, critical and pluralistic in RE and it doesn’t seem to have done anything to dampen the ability or will of schools to invite outside speakers to present on their particular views. As a general rule (speaking as a former RE teacher) it was generally viewed as welcome to hear from an actual faith subscriber/practitioner rather than for me to present sub-optimally on what Hindus or Sikhs probably believe. Inevitably there is a bit of the latter – it is what teaching involves in any subject to some degree – but it was and is always viewed positively to hear straight from the horse’s mouth (whatever breed of horse it may be!)
Similarly, it has always been the case that some schools are more open to outside speakers than others. Often this is nothing to do with fear of their views or anything like that, but much more mundane concerns about practicalities and some safeguarding type issues. Inevitably there will be heads or particular teachers who are less open to these things, this has always been the case and without an invite nothing is doing. But as far as I can see, most remain happy to welcome outside voices to share their faith and beliefs. Our church is frequently asked for schools visits and I still get invited in.
It seems to me that concerns over RE being objective, plural and critical do nothing to stop these things. If a head or a teacher doesn’t want to invite somebody in then they won’t, but that is the case regardless of whether RE is taught in the way it is supposed to be or not.
Thank you, and I appreciate the engagement. I hope you are right and this is just us coming to a more neutral position on RS and it doesn’t have wider effects, if we end up as you describe then that I’ve nothing to fear. It will likely be very localised, some schools will over react, some won’t react at all. It just seems there is a tailwind here against Christianity anywhere outside of churches, maybe just in my context, that this could be used to further. Time will tell and organisations like SU here in NI will help us think it through.
I’m delighted you still have opportunities in schools, as we say here ‘keep her lit!’