The Opt-Out Clause and the Demon of Confessionalism

Be assured the opt-out involved has nothing to do with Europe!

Over the last week we saw a lively and positive discussion on social media about whether we need to remove the RE conscience clause. We all know the issues and the landscape of the debate. We also know the challenges of expecting any changes to the law.

Most were in favour of an abolition of the parental right to withdraw their child from RE. If RE is as legitimate, impartial, open and investigative as we want it to be – then no need for withdrawal. If RE is such an important part of understanding life in the modern world – it is important that no pupils miss out.

But there was an interesting slant on the debate last week. A number of folk, including myself, highlighted the responsibility that flows from any campaign to remove the legal right.

One contributor pointed out that he agreed “with most others that the right to withdraw should be removed, however, elements of confessionalism are still evident”. My contribution was to suggest that: “If we want a legal change we need to ensure all RE is squeaky clean in relation to confessionalism. Any rise in this demon would argue that we need to protect the right to withdraw”.

It was good to see a National Society spokesperson confirm that: “It is important that the whole RE community is united in this one if we want to see this change”. Positive to see this agreement over the need to eliminate the demon of confessionalism to secure the future of RE.

The reason this issue has urgency is that confessionalism is still alive and well in the world of RE. Indeed, we may be seeing a re-emergence of pressure to reassert its legitimacy.

It is a concern that not only is confessionalism commonplace but it is being given legitimacy. We see examples of children’s work quoted in official RE publications in which they are responding to the study of biblical material by using phrases like ‘God shows us the right way’; ‘God will always be in my life’; ‘God is with us’.

If the learning is structured so that pupils use the important distancing devices of ‘Christians believe/most Christians think/for some Christians’ all would be well. The problem is obvious the moment you imagine the next unit on Islam. If the children write ‘Allah shows us the right way’; Allah will always be in my life’; Allah is with us’ – you can imagine the response. Parental letters would be flowing. It is easy to understand the slip. The problem is the legitimising and celebrating of the practice in official RE publications.

The process of reflecting on scripture to explore any relevance of its text for modern life is a common religious practice amongst believers. It is present in the process of creating spaces for reflection on those texts. It underpins the notion that believers see their religious texts as authoritative sources of wisdom.

These ideas and practices have their place within the life of religious communities. Within RE it is right and proper to examine these ideas and practices within the context of an impartial study of religion and belief. However, is it appropriate for teachers to replicate this process of ‘reflecting on religious material in order to explore relevance’ within their own teaching and the pupils’ learning?

The problem is twofold.

First, this notion of ‘reflecting to explore relevance’ is so ingrained in religious practice that it seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the classroom.

Second, the desire to contribute to the pupils’ own search for meaning and purpose quickly leads the teacher to seek out opportunities to explore ways in which religious material might help stimulate that search.

So – if the demon of confessionalism still wanders the corridors of RE we will lose the argument for the abolition of the conscience opt-out clause.

The fact that so few exercise the right does not legitimate the confessionalism. Few parents want to expose their child to the indignity of withdrawal. They will tolerate confessionalism – but that does not justify it.