A response to John Hull
My first article was an attempt to open up
debate on the interpretation of the clauses to do with religious education that
passed into law as part of the 1988 ERA. Professor Hull’s reply does not engage
with any of my arguments. Does he
agree that the law has been systematically misinterpreted or not? I imagine he
might argue that it was right to re-interpret the law since the law was likely
to bring about chaos in the classrooms and widespread refusal on the part of
teachers to obey it. The Bishop of
London consulted widely and gained agreement on the wording on the
understanding that teaching would be based on Christianity except where there
were significant numbers of children from other faiths. Did some agree to the wording because they
could see that it was ambiguous and could be made to bear a different
interpretation? I would be grateful if
Hull could enlighten me on this.
I do not think that it is inappropriate for
someone who is not a Christian to teach RE.
I do think however that a teacher needs a degree of empathy with
Christianity and sense of its value to teach it well but I imagine Hull would
agree with me on this. I am unclear why
it is unscholarly to take the view that one of a series of religions is true
any more than it might be unscholarly to take the view that one of a series of
theories about the causes of the Second World War is true. It depends on the strength of the arguments
advanced. Professor Hull is right to say that I do not believe in the value of
religion but this is because I do not believe that there is such a thing; there
is no essence or common core to ‘religion’ that may be isolated and taught as
Professor Ninian Smart himself recognised. This does not mean however that I do
not see truth and value in individual religions other than Christianity but
where religions conflict one cannot believe them all. Christians cannot agree for example with the Hindu belief in reincarnation
or the incorrigibility of the Koran.
Hull contrasts professional, educational
religious education with Christian confessionalism as if the two were
incompatible. I believe that it is
entirely professional to teach religious education on the basis that a) certain
things are true and b) there are sufficient reasons to believe that Christian
faith is true. To the extent that
education (in any subject) must proceed upon the basis that what is taught is
believed to be true and may be shown to be so, there is therefore every reason
to teach the Christian traditions as true. This can be done in entirely open
and critical fashion and does not require authoritarian methodology. Nor is it
required that children are conventional religious believers any more than it is
assumed that children are all practising musicians when they attend music
lessons.
In one sense I am making use of the commonsense
argument that education must be clear about what it is that is being taught,
its methods and field of enquiry. Hull does not advance a definition of religion. Instead we have talk of what is ‘possibly
true, possibly false and mostly worthwhile’ and ‘educational selections from
the principal religions represented in Great Britain’. But what is to count as educational? On what
basis are such selections to be made?
One would expect, in an educational environment, that selections will be
made because they are held to be true or particularly worthwhile while
acknowledging that, as in all matters of human importance, it cannot be put
beyond reasonable doubt. If so Hull
might have in mind that the teacher determines in advance what is true and what
is false in the matter of religion and the religions. It would follow that Hull believes that there are criteria for
settling what is true and worthwhile and would be able to set them out and
defend them. It would be helpful if he would tell us what they are. To claim that certain aspects of religions
are true and worthwhile is a form of confessionalism and is not to be rejected
on this ground alone since all education is inescapably confessional. But we need to know which aspects of which
religions and why and what this says about the status of individual
religions. Are religions relatively
true with the implication that it does not matter which one is followed? Or is it that pupils are to be invited to
create a new ‘designer’ religion out of the treasures of the old as they delve
through them gingerly and carefully?
It may be however that Hull thinks that the
teacher is to present religion and the religions on the basis that no-one
really knows how to distinguish true and false and pupils must just do the best
they can. If so he is effectively recommending initiation into agnosticism. One
would then have to ask on what authority is the RE lesson being used to teach
something which questions the credibility of all religious believers? To teach on the basis of agnosticism
undermines faith in all religions and would seem to privilege secularist ways
of thinking. It contains its own confessionalism and it is unfair to chide me
with making use of my own form that is arguably more in tune with the subject
matter.
Would the policy I am advocating lead to large
numbers of withdrawals? The law allows
for religious education of a denominational kind to be provided on school
premises at no cost to the school and there is no reason why this should of
itself be viewed negatively. It shows
that RE is taken seriously. It allows for a genuine pluralism and respects the
rights of parents to hand on their religion to their children. What would be
unacceptable would be a situation where large numbers of pupils were withdrawn
with no form of alternative provision and I imagine it is this situation that
Hull is thinking of. In some situations
pupils from the principal faiths will have the opportunity for concentrating on
their traditions and large-scale withdrawal will to that extent be unlikely.
Where there are small numbers then needs may be met via withdrawal. Some religious (but non Christian)
families may prefer a type of RE that acknowledges the truth of one faith,
preferring this to what they see as a relativising of them all. I have spoken to Muslims who say they expect
Christianity to be taught as true and prefer this as long as no attempt is made
to convert their children. What I
believe is needed is for governors, parents and teachers to work out together
what is appropriate in accordance with the law. I believe that if this is done and everyone is happy to proceed
with the sort of religious education that I have described then there will not
be large-scale withdrawals. I am
concerned to free up debate and discussion; not to impose on all schools a
monological form of Religious Education as tends to happen at present.
What of the charge that I do not say what form
of Christianity is to be taught as true?
To require me to declare on this is to ask me to break the law. Ever
since 1870 the law has forbidden teaching by means of particular denominational
formularies or catechisms (the Cowper Temple clause). For over a hundred years agreed syllabus conferences have found
it possible to agree on aspects of Christian faith and practice that they have
proceeded to write into syllabuses. I
would not want to depart from this tradition.
Aspects of Christian faith agreed in this way may be taught on the basis
that they offer true insight into reality.
What of the charge that I neglect Christian
plurality? The ERA in 1988 allowed for ‘study of’ those aspects on which
Christians are not in agreement and this means that Christian plurality may be
fully addressed. I have no problems
with this clause (brought in at the suggestion of Lord Renton).
The position I am advocating has academic
backing as well as legal standing.
Interested readers might like to consult a chapter on RE in a book by
Professor Basil Mitchell called Faith and Criticism, (Clarendon,
1994). My research has revealed
considerable support in academia. The
position I am arguing resonates with articles and books written in recent years
by Professor Edward Hulmes, Professor John Haldane, Professor David Martin, Dr. David Carr and Dr. Marius
Felderhof. Perhaps the tide will
turn. 1446 words.
