Thinking theologically in RE? Part 1

The issue of the place of ‘theological enquiry’ in RE is one of growing importance and will become more significant with the launch of the CofE/REToday resource on Christianity later this term.

A new paper Rethinking RE: Religious Literacy, Theological Literacy and Theological Enquiry https://www.reonline.org.uk/blog/rethinking-re-religious-literacy-theological-literacy-and-theological-enquiry/ produced by four key Diocesan RE Advisers makes a positive contribution to addressing the recommendations of the 2014 Church of England report ‘Making a difference?’ about the need to:

“promote the development of pupils’ ability to think theologically”.

My reading of the paper suggests there are areas that need further discussion but before turning to those I want, in this first of two blogs, to offer some broader reflections.

The 2014 Church of England report ‘Making a difference?’ argued:

“….. A balanced RE curriculum would place the goal of ‘thinking theologically’ within the context of a repertoire of other approaches towards the promotion of religious literacy drawn from, for example, social sciences and philosophy.”

In Transforming Religious Education (Ofsted 2010) Ofsted highlighted widespread confusion about the purpose of RE; in particular, concerns that Christianity, perhaps more than other religions, suffered from that confusion of purpose. The report recommended that more thought be given to the confusion about Christianity as a sub-set of the wider issue about clarifying the purpose of RE.

One of my concerns having written those reports was the danger that energy and resources would be poured into developing thinking around the teaching of Christianity WITHOUT giving attention to the wider issues about the overall shape, purpose and quality of RE.

By focusing solely on the ‘problem of Christianity’ there is a danger that the overall ecology of RE will be distorted. This takes on a more worrying dimension when put in the context of the decline in LA/SACRE support for community schools, the extension of academisation and the rise in influence of the faith school sector in RE. All of these threaten that balanced ecology of our subject.

When the ‘Making a Difference report was written it was clear that the concept of theological enquiry was not well-defined. It was a portmanteau term detached from any technical use of the notion of ‘theology’. We were searching to define a dimension of RE that was missing in too many classrooms and that would play well in the Church School context of the report.

I now realise that there was a danger that this would be taken out of context and used inappropriately. The report was trying to capture a series of different issues: why RE in Church primary schools wasn’t better; weaknesses in curriculum design; and, the role of RE in relation to the so-called Christian distinctiveness of Church schools. I wonder; did we try to be too clever in trying to link these together through “a focus on developing pupils’ ability to think theologically and engage in theological enquiry”?

In practice we were searching for a way to incorporate more opportunity for pupils to recognise that ‘theologising’ is an important part of religious behaviour. If you are to make sense of religion, the core purpose of RE, it is important not to neglect the intellectual debates that go on inside religions about the meaning of the faith.

The first recommendation of the report suggested that schools needed to provide “a more coherent, progressive and challenging approach to the teaching of Christianity within the context of the wider exploration of the diversity of religion and belief in the modern world”. The danger was that attention would be paid to the first half of this recommendation without reference to the second half.

Studying theology is something that goes on inside a religious community. Students of RE should be interested in this process as observers but cannot directly participate in it.

To take an example: the resurrection. It is interesting to find out how Christians talk about the resurrection. It raises a number of questions: How did the idea originate? How do Christians link the idea of the resurrection to other beliefs? Do all Christians understand the idea in the same way? How has the idea been re-interpreted by different Christians? What debates go on inside Christianity about it? But is there any point asking pupils to draw conclusions about the truth or meaning of the resurrection for themselves? Only the insider can do that.

Crucially what we are studying is the behaviour of Christians – we are not actually engaging in theology itself.

Stephen Prothero in his tantalisingly titled 2007 book ‘Religious Literacy – What Every American Needs to Know and Doesn’t’ makes this observation:

‘Theology and religious studies….are two very different things – as different as art and art history. While theologians do religion, religious studies scholars study religion.”

It would be a major concern if attempts were made to distort learning in RE by structuring the whole study of Christianity around a series of theological concepts and processes. That is in danger of privileging ‘theological’ faith above the lived reality of religious life. This of course might be the goal of the religious establishment who want RE to ‘teach’ the faith the way they want it taught. BUT it runs the risk of distorting the core purpose of RE – to engage pupils in an impartial, objective study of religion and belief.