Religious Education and the ‘theology issue’

There is no doubt that RE in the past was in danger of neglecting the core foundational beliefs of any religion or worldview – I think most people in the world of RE agree on that. Focus on the so-called externals of religion and the rush to explore social and ethical issues to provide ‘relevance’ are well documented. Ofsted remarked on this on more than one occasion. It was one of the consequences of the poor application of phenomenology to the study of worldviews.

So, we needed to pay more attention to core beliefs.

In the case of theistic religions, this inevitably means looking at their theology as part of the content of those faiths. It means examining those core foundational theological concepts; it means examining the way they were constructed and interpreted; it means looking at the way they have changed and evolved in response to wider historical, cultural and social changes; and it means examining the impact that beliefs have on the lives of the believers and in wider culture. It means all these things.

There are some obvious but important checks and balances needed in any discussion of the place of theology in RE:

1.In the words of an RE colleague: ‘it is .. important that students learn that theology is a rather rarefied activity within a religion. In other words, it is not usually the concern of ordinary believers. So teaching theological concepts can give a misleading reflection of how the majority of believers practice their religion.’ For many, possibly most, being religious has little to do with what they believe – it is much more to do with their practice, values, and sense of identity and belonging. These are shaped to some extent by the formal beliefs but many will have little sense of what that might mean.

2. It is important that students learn that religions and worldviews involve a tension between the orthodoxy of the establishment and the heterodoxy and syncretism of the people. Many people’s ‘theology’ is very heterodox: “at variance with an official or orthodox position” and syncretistic: “a union or attempted fusion of different religions, cultures, or philosophies”.

3.It is important that students learn that the term theology only really applies to theistic Abrahamic religions. To assume it has universal application to non-theistic, dharmic and non-religious worldviews is unhelpful. Humanists may have a view about theism as part of their ‘core foundational beliefs’ but they do not have a theology.

4.And, much more problematically, we need to remember that there are those who question the validity of theology as an academic process. As the American science fiction writer Robert A Heinlein said in his 1984 book Job: A Comedy of Justice, “Theology … is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn’t there.” This position is divisive and uncomfortable for RE and probably best parked for the duration!

So – with these important caveats – I think there is widespread agreement that understanding the nature, content, function, history, impact of theology within theistic religions is one important part of any RE provision. It is also clear that a range of disciplines is necessary to study that theology – history, social science, phenomenology, philosophy, textual study etc.

The challenge is to answer the question: Should and can RE incorporate theology as one of its core disciplines as well as part of the core content of its curriculum? When in RE you study the theology of Christianity, are you ‘doing’ theology or are you ‘doing’ something else such as phenomenology or philosophy?

Given the diversity of our teaching force and pupil population our starting point has to be that religions (and beliefs generally) are natural phenomena that deserve to be studied with the same seriousness as all other natural phenomena. Whether they are more than natural phenomena is something we have to leave to one side in terms of our methodology. We study religion and belief as one fascinating aspect of being human. In order to be truly inclusive and reflect the plural nature of our society, RE has to be epistemologically agnostic.

Is it the case that ‘theology’ as an activity only really takes place inside a theistic faith community? Outsiders can examine that activity as an object of study – and should do so respectfully and seriously – but they cannot really participate in that activity itself.

My conclusion, and others may want to offer other ideas, is that theology is best seen as part of the important content of any study of a theistic religion. Whether you define study of that theology as ‘theology’ may in the end be a matter of semantics. But in reality I think the disciplines in play will not be theology as such but a rich combination of history, social science, phenomenology, philosophy, textual study etc.

Alan Brine

Alan is a member of the Commission on Religious Education but is writing here in a personal capacity.