John M. Hull
University of Birmingham

As the manner and extent to which religious education is included in state education varies from country to country, it is difficult to formulate a global perspective. Nonetheless, this essay will attempt to provide some general frameworks and to chart potential ways forward. In reviewing some general models, we can say that the approach to religious education in different countries varies in accordance with several factors:
1. The religious affiliation of the society, whether mono-religious or multi-religious;
2. The relation between the religious and the secular within each country;
3. The historical tradition of each country; and,
4. Conceptions about the nature and purpose of state school religious education.

Religious Affiliations:

The religious affiliations of a country are a primary consideration in determining how a religious education program might look. Countries such as Greece are considered mono-religious in that the country is predominately Greek Orthodox and the state religious education is the same. On the other side of the spectrum, however, are countries like England where there has been a pluralistic Christian tradition since 1689 and a significant multi-religious presence since WWII. While religious education was initially non-denominational Christian in England, a multi-faith approach gradually developed and, according to the 1994 Religious Education Model Syllabuses, six major world religions are now taught.

Religious and Secular Relationships:

The relationship between the religious and the secular elements in a society also determines how religious education might develop. For example, we can compare the United States of America with France and Turkey. The secularity of the U.S. Constitution is not historically hostile to religion, but it represents a separation of church and state in the interests of securing the freedom of religion from state control. On the other hand, the secularity of the modern French education system is influenced by the 1789 revolution, which was hostile to the church. The result is that religion is not taught in state schools in France. This anti-religious secularity is also apparent in Turkey following the founding of the modern Turkish State by Ataturk in 1923. Although Islamic religious education is still taught in this predominantly Muslim country, it has become the focus of the struggle between those who wish to maintain the secular character of the Turkish state and those who wish to restore an Islamic one.

Historical Traditions:

The historical experiences of each country are also likely to modify the factors noted above. Because Roman Catholicism and Protestantism were more or less equally present in most of the German provinces, for example, religious education in the state schools took either a Protestant or Catholic form. The appearance of large numbers of foreign nationals in Germany has challenged this system. Additionally, the incorporation of the former provinces of East Germany, where church traditions were weakened under the communist government, led to the emergence of various patterns of multi-faith religious education combined with education in ethics and values, e.g. the Brandenburg Syllabus. Another example of the impact of history upon religious education may be found in several countries of post-colonial Africa. The 19th century Christian missions saw no value in the primal religious traditions and religious education in many sub-Saharan African states after independence was firmly Christian. However, the recent and more positive evaluation of primal religion is leading to the introduction of these traditions into religious education, often accompanied by an expansion of the Christian curriculum to include other world religions, e.g. Botswana.

Defining Religious Education:

Finally, we need to look at how a country defines the nature and purpose of religious education. These perspectives have been influenced by modern philosophies of education from Rousseau to Dewey, by new interpretations of human rights including the rights of children, and by progressive re-interpretations of religion on the part of theologians and religion scholars. In addition, the huge impact of modernity upon contemporary social and intellectual life cannot be overestimated. New conceptions of human maturity have also undoubtedly influenced religious education. These include the value of critical thought, the ethical significance of freedom of choice, and the impact of scientific rationality. At present, the negative impact of financial globalisation is encouraging a new interest in the character of spirituality as a necessary feature of the lives of individuals and societies.

It is against this enormous variety, and in the light of the complex ways these many strands inter-weave to form distinctive national patterns, that we must ask, "What is the contribution of religious education to religious freedom?" From what we have said it is clear that there can be no simple answer to this question. Immediately one is faced with several additional questions: "What kind of religion? What kind of religious education? And, what kind of freedom?" Answering these difficult questions requires a more detailed examination of how religious education is conceptualised. My colleague Michael Grimmitt has usefully distinguished between 'learning religion,' 'learning about religion,' and 'learning from religion.'1 We may use these distinctions to describe the main types of religious education which exist in our worldwide survey.

Learning Religion:

'Learning religion' describes the situation where a single religious tradition is taught as the religious education curriculum and is taught from the inside, so to speak. The teachers are expected to be believers in the religion themselves and the object of the instruction is to enable pupils to come to believe in the religion or to strengthen their commitment to it. This type of religious education may also be described as proceeding from faith to faith. Typically, a specific religious group controls the curriculum and the methods of teaching rather than these being controlled by the education system itself, which is often perceived as being dominated by humanist norms and values. In situations where there has been a strong anti-religious secular movement, one can understand the desire and the need on the part of a religion to retain control over its own instruction rather than falling into the hands of an unsympathetic secularity.

This type of religious education tends to be challenged, however, when religious pluralism appears in the society. This may be due to immigration of people belonging to another religious tradition, or it may be that people in a certain society begin to drift away from their traditional religion. It may also be, on some occasions, that a more or less unified and monolithic society begins to respect the hopes and ideals of its minority faiths.

When plurality in such formerly monolithic societies does appear, two possible reactions may be observed. First, religious education may be abandoned altogether and the state education system may become completely secular. When this takes place, it is expected that nurture into religious faith will be confined to the homes of the children or to the religious communities themselves. The second possible reaction may be described as a pluralization of learning religion in which students are offered a system of parallel instruction. In other words, children from each faith are educated in separate classrooms and receive instruction from a representative of that faith. For example, the Muslim children are educated by the Muslim teachers, the Orthodox children by the Orthodox teachers, and so on.

The freedom that this kind of religious education offers is too restricted. It offers freedom to the religion which is being taught and a freedom of non-competitive transmission, but it does not enhance the freedom of the student. Why? Because it does not expand the cognitive horizons of the student, who is left with a single freedom - whether to respond to the transmitted religion or not. A variation of the 'learning religion approach' is 'faith-based' religious education, which seeks to present various religions, but still from the point of view of one religion. It is upon faith in that one religion that this approach is based, although it attempts to be plural on this basis.

Learning About Religion:

There is, however, another possible reaction to the onset of pluralism (and this corresponds to Michael Grimmitt's second distinction) which we may describe as 'learning about religion.' Instead of religion being taught from the inside, in the situation that I described as being from faith to faith, religion is now taught, as it were, from the outside. There are courses in some American high schools, for example, on the Bible as literature. The essential point is that the Bible is not taught as a religious book or as a sacred book of a certain community of faith, but as literature. That is, from a different, non-religious perspective. Sometimes this kind of religious education may be called 'education in comparative religion' and may be based upon anthropology. Sometimes, indeed, the subject is called 'religious studies,' and often it follows one or more of the various disciplines evolved by the study of religion such as the history of religions or (more frequently) the phenomenology of religions,2 or (more recently) the ethnography of religions.3

This approach may be called 'learning about religion' because of its descriptive and historical approach. It tends to appear as a reaction against the mono-religious 'learning religion' situation and is often motivated by the desire to create a purely educational form of religious education, one which will not be open to the charge of indoctrinating or giving an unfair advantage to any particular religion. A disadvantage of this 'learning about religion' approach is that it tends to focus upon the content of religions and, therefore, the pupils are often not motivated to study it. Moreover, religious education of this type tends not to grapple with the life-world of the pupil, and often makes little or no explicit contribution to the pupils' search for moral and spiritual values.4

However, this kind of religious education, 'learning about religion,' has a significant role to play in the prevention of religious intolerance. Because it empowers the student with critical skills for interpreting religious phenomena, it tends to release students from unexamined beliefs and helps them to break down the stereotypes of other religious traditions. Unfortunately, some religious traditions have negative images or beliefs of other religions built into their own self-understanding. Progressive religious traditions are looking for ways to emancipate themselves from these features of negativity towards others. While that process of reform is essentially the responsibility of the spiritual leadership of each religion, there is no doubt that learning about religion in the state school curriculum can make an invaluable contribution.

Providing the example of England and Wales, all school children, regardless of their faith or lack of it, are taught about religion in the same classroom by the normal classroom teacher in both the primary school and by specialist teachers in the secondary school. Syllabuses are developed at the local level and consist of studies in the major world faiths, or of themes arising from them. The philosophy or rationale of the subject may vary from school to school depending to some extent on the training of the teacher and the characteristics of the local syllabus. However, in most parts of England and Wales, some form of 'learning about religion' is a common element.

Learning From Religion:
Because the approach above does present certain limitations, a third kind of religious
education has also emerged. This may be called 'learning from religion.' The difference between 'learning from religion' and the first option of 'learning religion' is that in the latter case pupils are expected to participate in the beliefs and practices of the religion being taught. Alternatively, in the 'learning from religion' approach, the distance between the pupils and the religious content, which is typical of 'learning about religion,' is strictly maintained. Yet, at the same time, the life-world of the pupil, rather than the internal structure of the of the religion, and the second kind ('learning about religion') is controlled by the scientific study of religion, the third kind of religious education ('learning from religion') becomes a discipline within educational studies. It is for this reason that 'learning from religion' is receiving increasing attention and support from professional religious educators throughout religion, tends to inform the curriculum.5 The question at stake is to what extent, and in what ways, children and young people can gain educational benefit from the study of religion. This becomes the kind of religious education that has as its principal objective the humanisation of the pupil, that is, making a contribution to the pupils' moral and spiritual development.

In the first two kinds of religious education, 'learning religion' and 'learning about religion,' religion is taught for its own sake, whether as an object of faith to which the children are summoned, or as an object worthy of critical study. However, in the third kind, 'learning from religion,' the central focus switches to the children as learners.6 Whereas the first kind of religious education ('learning religion') continues to be controlled by the self-understanding the world.

A recent example of 'learning from religion' may be found in the Gift to the Child project carried out at the University of Birmingham. Teachers select units of material from various world religions for study by children, aged 4-11 years. These units might consist of a statue, a picture, or a passage of Holy Scripture. Of each item, the question is asked, "What gifts might it offer the children?" For example, Ganesha, the elephant-headed deity celebrated in southern Asia, might offer a stimulation to the curiosity of the children, challenge their values, deepen their distinctive sense of identity, and impart empathy for others. When this happens, the children may be said to have learned from religion.7

The Role of Religious Education Today:

The distinctions between various approaches to religious education that we have been discussing are certainly of great importance in understanding the nature and purposes of modern religious education. However, they remain somewhat domestic in their outlook. In other words, they are the kind of issues that are discussed by the religious education professionals. They are concerned with the self-understanding of the subject as this relates to the self-understanding of religion. They are concerned with the relationships between religion and education and relationships between the pupils and the content of religious education. Important as these issues are, they are not, in themselves, sufficient to justify the inclusion of religious education within a publicly funded state education system.

If we take the first of the three types of religious education which we discussed, 'learning religion,' then we might well claim that it is the business of each religion to ensure its own transmission to the next generation. If the community at large is going to pay for religious education of this kind through government revenues, then the public might well ask why such religious education couldn't take place under the direct sponsorship of the religious communities themselves. Why should the school do the work of the mosque or the church? And what about those children who do not come from a religious family background at all? Is it right and proper that they should be affiliated to a religion, possibly without their parents' approval? In any case, we have seen that the contribution that this kind of religious education makes to the struggle against religious intolerance is strictly limited.

As for the second approach 'learning about religion' we could imagine that, from the point of view of the state, such an approach would be preferable in that it places religious education on the same footing as the other subjects of the curriculum -- making it available to the same norms of critical inquiry and pedagogical skill as everything else which the school teaches. Such religious education at least aims to contribute to the general knowledge of the pupil and, insofar as religions remain important in the modern world, it could be considered part of the general education of all young people. Moreover, we have seen that this kind of religious education makes a significant, but not a comprehensive, contribution to the struggle against negative religious stereotypes.

However, this 'learning about religion' approach still leaves much to be desired from the point of view of the state. The curriculum is under pressure and, although there is no doubt that religion is an extremely important aspect of modern living, it might be argued that education in mathematics and science is more significant from the point of view of the modern state. Of course, we have the question of mutual understanding and toleration between different religions. Religions play a central part in these inquiries and on the whole question of community and race relationships. However, as we start to talk about the contribution of religion to these life-areas, we are already moving away from religious education as 'learning about religion' toward our third understanding of the subject, 'learning from religion.' For young people to become more tolerant of others through the study of religion is to learn from religion.

Indeed, the great strength of the third approach is that, in speaking of the benefits which young people and society may derive from the study of religion, one is moving away from the domestic concerns of the religious communities, and the internal questions about the best way to study religion, into the wider issues with which government and the community at large are rightly concerned.

A Case Study:

How would the 'learning from religion' approach apply to an issue of contemporary concern? Let us take the example of the pressures of financial competition, which influences every aspect of government policy. Such competition has an immediate impact upon the workplace and on individuals and tends to create social and community values that are not those of the moral and spiritual dimensions of our species. Globally, the inexorable pressures of financial competition are eroding the human values of freedom and love, of inter-personal solidarity, and the living of an ethical life. Perhaps, then, it is not an exaggeration to say that money and materialism have become the idolatrous deities of our culture.8

These financial forces are, however, being challenged and it is in this context that we must interpret the worldwide interest in spirituality and in an education which will encourage the genuine humanity of our young people. The dilemma is that we need to have an education that promotes their spiritual and moral welfare. But, if we are successful in this attempt, then we may not be successful in the education of young people for ultimate advantage in a competitive financial world. The values can often be incompatible.

But how can education promote moral and spiritual ideals? It is at this point that the world religions must be recognised as the principal foci of disciplined and coherent human moral and spiritual life. This does not mean that the religions are necessary to ethical life, or that you cannot be good without religion. Nor does it mean that the religions are themselves always good. We know that religion today is extremely ambiguous and that religion can become a promoter and a facilitator of unjust systems. Nevertheless, the world religions contain the seeds of human protest. They remain, along with a humanised art, literature and science, the main resources that we have for the rehabilitation of human life.

If the religions are to cooperate in such an endeavour, they must rise above the competition into which they themselves have been drawn in recent centuries. The religions must no longer be supremely concerned with their own progress and with their own advantage vis-à-vis other religions. Religious competition itself must also be pacified and this can only be done by the religions themselves as they renew their inner life and rediscover their true missions.

We see, then, that the contribution of religious education to religious freedom is highlydiverse. On the one hand, a narrow, traditional approach may lead to a kind of mental closure and a failure to make contact with the contemporary world. At its best, however, 'learning from religion' is a unique resource for the advancement of human freedom.

END NOTES
1 For his most recent discussion, see M. H. Grimmitt "Contemporary Pedagogies of Religious Education: What are They?" in his edited volume Pedagogies of Religious Education; McCrimmons Publishing, Great Wakering, England, 2000, pp.24-52.
2 The most influential person in this development was Ninian Smart. See his The Phenomenon of Religion: Macmillan, London, 1973. For the application of this approach to religious education see his Secular Education and the Logic of Religion; Faber and Faber, London, 1968.
3 Robert Jackson, Religious Education: an Interpretative Approach; Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1997.
4 In case I should convey a misleading impression of his work, I should emphasize the fact that, in his interpretative approach, Robert Jackson fully recognises the contribution to be made by the study of religion to the lives of children. He describes this as the edification aspect of religious education.
5 Michael Grimmitt Religious Education and Human Development; McCrimmon Publishing, Great Wakering, England, 1987.
6 Edwin Cox "Educational Religious Education" in John M. Hull (ed.) New Directions in Religious Education; Falmer Press, Lewes, England, 1982, pp.53-57. This article first appeared in 1971.
7 John M. Hull "Religion in the Service of the Child Project: The Gift Approach to Religious Education," in Michael Grimmitt (ed) Pedagogies of Religious Education; McCrimmons Publishing, Great Wakering, England, 2000, pp. 112-129.
8 John M. Hull, "Christian Education in a Capitalist Society: Money and God" in David F. Ford and Dennis L. Stamps Essentials of Christian Community; T & T Clark, Edinburgh, 1996, pp.241-252. A number of my articles on the spirituality of money are translated into German in Gott und Geld; KIK Verlag, Zurich, 2000.

Back to Religious Education - Table of Contents