What is wrong with religious education? A response to Philip Barnes

Abstract

This article reviews Philip Barnes’ account of problems with religious eEducation (RE), and explores the practical implications of his position. Acknowledging his compelling logic – that RE is premised on an acceptance of all religions as equally theologically true – this article argues for optimism: with controversy and ambiguity moving to centre stage, a re‐orientation of RE’s attainment targets could focus RE curricula and provide a measure of direction for future progress. Equally, a focus on developing individual values for life in a plural democracy – where personal destinies often conflict both culturally and existentially – would likewise give RE a more potent purpose and the foundations for a normative agenda. Inspired by J.S. Mill, this article concludes that such RE may have to move beyond the classroom to achieve its potential as a critical, inclusive, relevant and progressive subject with coherent social and educational aims.

Keywords:

• phenomenology
• post‐liberal paradigm
• inclusive
• exclusive
• syncretism
• attainment targets
• religious difference
• normative values

Notes

1. It is pertinent to note here the manifest objection of those believers who do not subscribe to the ‘essential unity’ thesis, for Sacks was pressurised by those in the orthodox wing to revise and re‐issue The Dignity of Difference: in the second edition ‘instead of the original sentence “God has spoken to mankind in many languages: through Judaism to Jews, Christianity to Christians, Islam to Muslims”, he now writes, “As Jews we believe that God has made a covenant with a singular people, but that does not exclude the possibility of other peoples, cultures and faith finding their own relationship with God within the shared framework of the Noahide laws”’ (Harries 2004).