Thinking theologically in RE? Part 2

Following from my first blog on the theme of ‘thinking theologically in RE’ I want to turn to the new paper Rethinking RE: Religious Literacy, Theological Literacy and Theological Enquiry http://reonline.org.uk/blog/rethinking-re-religious-literacy-theological-literacy-and-theological-enquiry/

It is a stimulating paper which makes a major contribution to the debates around the meaning of ‘religious literacy’ but I wonder if there are a number of questions which need to be unpacked.

1. The writers suggest ‘theological literacy focuses on the big concepts upon which religions are founded, such as God’. This attempt to universalise theology to apply to all religions (and non-religious world-views?) is problematic. Can we really talk about Buddhist or humanist theology?
2. Later they quote Gilson in suggesting that theological enquiry helps pupils understand religion ‘as a synthesis of ideas capable of undergirding every aspect of life’. There is a suggestion that theological literacy will bring ‘life’ to the dry bones of religious enquiry. Their cathedral image has overtones of this ‘infusing life’ analogy. However, impartial religious enquiry would also have to embrace the very commonly held view that those theological concepts are highly contested and quite legitimately seen by some as meaningless.
3. What is not quite clear is whether ‘theological enquiry’ is being understood as:

• a particular pedagogical approach which “in the context of Church of England schools …..enables pupils to hold a theologically informed and thoughtful conversation about at least Christianity as a living and varied faith”

OR

• whether it is part of the general study of religion and belief – that aspect of study which focuses on what Smart would call the doctrinal’ dimension of religion. Is theology part of the subject matter rather than the pedagogy of RE?

The paper’s thinking is extended in the Tree/Roots analogy and it is here that I have the gravest concerns. The implication is that theological enquiry is about ‘deep learning’ and contrasts with the surface learning of religious literacy. To quote: “working below the soil requires tools that can dig deep, whereas different kinds of tools are required to tend the branches and leaves”. This analogy is extended later in the paper where it suggests “in the same way that Jacob wrestled with God… ‘digging deeper’ into religion or ‘thinking theologically’ is about wrestling with the deeper meaning and impact of key concepts.”

The danger is privileging theological enquiry as the way into deepening learning in RE. There is an unresolved hint that this would be a way of affirming the distinctiveness of RE in Church schools. BUT at the heart of this lies a hidden attempt to market a particular understanding of Christianity which undermines a core ideal of religious literacy i.e. the impartial study of religion and belief. There are a number of different ways to deepen learning in RE. These need to kept in tension and no one discipline should dominate. A diversity of disciplines (history, philosophy, sociology, phenomenology etc.) can each bring a depth (the roots) to the study of religion and belief. I have serious doubts whether ‘theology’ is one of those disciplines.

I return to the quote from Prothero’s book ‘Religious Literacy – What Every American Needs to Know and Doesn’t’ when he 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.”

Theology is an academic discipline which primarily has its place within the ‘community of faith’? It is the process of reflecting on, and thinking about, faith. Students of RE can watch theologians practice their subject but cannot participate themselves. We can ask questions about how doctrines came into existence; how they developed; how theologians argue over their meaning; and, how they come to be reinterpreted in different historical and cultural contexts. But as impartial students of religion, can/should we participate directly in the theological process itself?

Does placing heavy emphasis on theology and theological concepts run the risk of over-playing what Smart would call the ‘doctrinal’ dimension of religion; the dimension beloved of the religious establishment; those who want to tell others what they ‘should believe’? This lies in tension with the goal of religious literacy which should resist this attempt and focus instead on the lived reality of a religion in all its diversity, dynamism, complexity and confusion!

Is the reality of many people’s religious identity that it is lived without reference to theological concepts? Privileging those concepts as the ‘core’ of the religion is in danger of imposing a particular view of orthodoxy on the way we study religious life.

As far as the RE curriculum is concerned – we need to remember that for many (most?) people, including many who would self-identify as Christians, theological concepts and processes probably play little or no part in their lives.