Strangers No Longer
EDUCATING FOR A RELIGIOUSLY GLOBALISED WORLD
Paul FallerCatholic Institute of Education, Johannesburg, South Africa
Religious educators should strive to educate “in such a way that the religious „stranger‟ becomes „neighbour‟” (Boys 2002, p.14)
Strangers and Neighbours
In our fast globalizing world, the neighbour is no longer necessarily the one who lives alongside us, a source of companionship and a support in difficult times. On the other hand, the stranger is in our midst. In former times we could romanticize the stranger at a safe distance, visiting him as a tourist attraction if we liked, but now we are called to enter into real communion with him as he takes up residence next door. Migration, for one reason or another, has brought the religious „other‟ into previously homogenous neighbourhoods, and both minarets and church steeples now share a common landscape.
This realisation may have partly been behind the telling statement of Thomas Groome at a conference in Durban, South Africa in 2008 that “the future of the world depends on good religious education.” Religion is a thing of power and we need to direct this power to the flourishing of the Kingdom of God which, in other words, means the realisation of the human community as a single family.
The school today is a microcosm of the multi-religious society and affords a concrete opportunity for realizing, at least partially, the ideal expressed above. The project is not without its challenges, but, at least in the Catholic school, which shares in the evangelizing mission of the Church, there is commitment to creating community based on the values of the gospel.
Mary Boys reminds us of Dwayne Heubner‟s perception of education itself as a meeting of the self with “the new, the strange, the stranger” (Boys & Lee, 2006, p. 93). How, in the practice of religious education, might we make a significant contribution to the realisation of a religious community of difference? We shall consider three models of inter-religious learning, drawing on the writings of Chris Hermans, Mary Boys and others, with a view to proposing how this type of learning may be applied to the religious education classroom in the South African Catholic School. Before that, however, we need to review the aims of religious education briefly.
Reviewing the Aims of Religious Education
Over the past century religious education has sought to resolve the tension implicit in its name: is it a religious activity or an educational one? The closer it has been identified with the religious community, the more the former perception has held sway, and a mono-religious model, with the aim of appropriating a particular religion
(Hermans, 2003, p. 338), has been the norm. In contrast to this, when religious education has been practised in the context of a secular society, the educational aim has come to the fore and a multi-religious model has prevailed. Here, the main aim has been to cultivate a respectful attitude to people of other religions (Hermans, 2003, p. 342).
In more recent years, theorists have sought to hold the tension creatively by suggesting approaches that bring together the personal and social development aspects together in a fruitful relationship. Terence Lovat (2002, p. 29), quoting from the religion and belief strand of a newly-designed social science subject, describes its aims as providing students with “a better understanding of the part played by religion and belief in their own lives and those of others.” He speaks of “a merger of simultaneous self-understanding and understanding of other, such that one comes to see oneself in the other” (p. 30), and holds the conviction firmly that “the finest and most comprehensive form of religious education occurs when these two goals (religious literacy and enfaithment) are conjoined in an integrated model (p. 34).
In a similar vein, Mary Boys articulates what she calls “the most compelling and complex question in religious education today” (2002, p.12). “How,” she asks, “might those with educational responsibilities in the churches, mosques and synagogues educate in ways that stimulate a deep and learned commitment to their own tradition while simultaneously impelling their adherents to participate in building a religiously pluralistic society?” The answer, she believes, lies in holding particularism and pluralism in fruitful tension (p. 13), and the way to achieve this is through an “education to a religious self-understanding that is textured” which means that “members learn to define themselves in the context of other religious traditions” (p. 13). They come to “a deeper understanding of their own tradition” by exploring it in the light of the teachings of other traditions (p. 10). This is the essence of interreligious learning which we shall explore in more detail later on.
But there is also another fruit of this “textured particularism”. Out of a recognition of its limitations flows a commitment to religious pluralism which “deepens appreciation for mystery, for the ungraspable nature of truth, for the “more than” of religious experience” (p. 13). It helps one to acknowledge that “it is necessary to move beyond the particulars of one‟s traditions because God alone is infinite and absolute” (p. 14).
Boys allays the fears of many who think that such an approach will lead to indifferentism, relativism or syncretism. On the contrary, she says, “it requires cultivating “holy envy,” Krister Stendahl‟s term for the experience of something so profound in the beliefs, rituals, polity or practices of another tradition that one wishes her or his own community of faith also had (or practised) it, yet refrains from it out of respect for the other (p. 13).
Inter-religious Learning
Mary Boy‟s concept of a textured particularism leads us to a consideration of interreligious learning. Chris Hermans (2003) describes three models, which we shall outline briefly, paying more attention to the last.
Mono-religious Education
Mono-religious education, as mentioned above has as its aim the appropriation of a particular religion. Hermans distinguishes between a „hard‟ and a „soft‟ version (2003, p. 338). The „hard‟ version takes an exclusivist theological line that takes no notice of other religions – except to talk at them – firm in the belief that there is no salvation outside the institutional Church. The „soft‟ version takes an inclusivist stance, being open to the thought that salvation is also attainable outside Christianity. Other religions are discussed in this version but only in terms of how Christians perceive them, and not in terms of their own understanding.
There is some merit in mono-religious education and its wisdom is illustrated in the following story which Jonathan Sacks relates as told by “one of the great religious leaders of the Jewish world” whom Sacks queried, as the way of life he advocated seemed exclusive (2003, p. 208-9).
“Imagine, he said, two people who spend their lives transporting stones. One carries bags of diamonds. The other hauls sacks of rocks. Each is now asked to take a consignment of rubies. Which of the two understands what he is now to carry? The man who is used to diamonds knows that stones can be precious, even those that are not diamonds. But the man who has carried only rocks thinks of stones as a mere burden. They have weight but not worth. Rubies are beyond his comprehension. So it is, he said, with faith. If we cherish our own, then we will understand the value of others.”
However, since the aims of mono-religious education apply to all pupils, Hermans reminds us (p. 338), regardless of their religious background, we cannot advocate it as a suitable model, even though it is, in its „soft‟ version‟, much the norm in South African Catholic schools today, despite the schools having a multi-religious composition.
Multi-religious Education
In multi-religious education (Hermans, p. 341-2), all religions represented in a society are presented in terms of their own self-understanding. While this model is equitable and respects freedom of religion, it does not allow for the personal formative dimension we discussed above. “Education without formation,” says John D‟Arcy May (2006, p. 13), “is an abdication of responsibility.” We cannot “confine ourselves to informing students about the various religious options, without attempting in any way to form them towards religious commitment.” Multi-religious education, according to Hermans (p. 336) does not meet the aim of religious education which is the “development of a religious self, which occurs by way of participation in religious practices.”
Inter-religious Education
Inter-religious education, says Hermans (p. 344-5), calls for a dialogue between adherents of different religions from their own particular point of departure. Hermans distinguishes between a simple dialogue model and a parallel dialogue model. The former is based on a particular religion and aims at developing a particular religious identity. It serves to broaden the vision that one has developed within one‟s own tradition through dialogue that seeks to understand other religions in terms of their own self-understanding. Through dialogue previously obscure elements of one‟s own
tradition are highlighted. The difference between this model and the „soft‟ version of mono-religious education is that an understanding of other religions is sought from their own perspective and not from the perspective of the learner‟s own religion.
In a multi-religious classroom, the simple dialogue model cannot be an equitable approach. Hermans (p. 345) gives two solutions to this problem. In the first instance one might attempt several synchronized simple dialogues, or one can implement a parallel dialogue model.
In the parallel dialogue model adherents of different religions take each other‟s point of view as their point of departure and destination (Hermans, p. 349). Participants alternately adopt the perspective of each of the various religious traditions, e.g. engaging Christianity from a Muslim or Hindu perspective and Islam or Hinduism from a Christian perspective (Hermans, p. 345). Hermans (p. 346) provides an example to show how a parallel dialogue functions.
In the Christian conception of the relation of' humans to nature the notion of good stewardship plays a prominent role. People have nature on loan from the creator and as stewards they have to account for their use of this „borrowed property‟ . People may rule over nature provided they do so with due regard to the habitats of' plants and animals. In Hinduism a nonviolent relationship (ahimsa), between people and nature is a key tenet, in terms of which people arc encouraged to interfere with the natural environment as little as possible, and not to tamper with the genetic structure of plants and animals. In a parallel dialogue one might examine the Christian notion of good stewardship from the angle of the Hindu concept of ahimsa. In that case ahimsa would be the allo-perspective for examining good stewardship, the auto-perspective. From this perspective one could, for instance, consider whether the Christian notion of good stewardship is sufficiently critical of certain forms of human domination over the environment (e.g. genetic manipulation). Conversely the Christian notion of good stewardship can serve as an allo-perspective from which to scrutinize the Hindu concept of ahimsa (auto-perspective). From the perspective of good stewardship one may critically question the Hindu notion that all living beings' interests are equal. Are certain forms of human intervention in nature (e.g. genetic manipulation) not justified if it is done in the interest of the quality of human lives? To sum up: complex inter-religious dialogue is characterized by alternation between auto- and allo-perspectives. The auto-perspective of religion A is examined critically from the allo-perspective of religion B, and vice versa.
Despite the logistic complexities of both of Hermans‟ solutions, it is clear that the solution to Mary Boy‟s question posed above lies in the area of inter-religious learning. She also advocates such a teaching and learning model for religious education, and she enumerates four key principles (Boys & Lee, 2006, p. 95):
1. Study in the presence of the other is fundamental to inter-religious learning.
2. Process is the key element in all inter-religious learning. Content and process must be inextricably connected.
3. The leader must provide the environment, experiences, and resources to enable participants to risk crossing religious borders and integrate their learning into their own religious identity.
4. Inter-religious learning necessitates helping participants “get inside” the religious tradition of the other.
Judith Berling (2004, p. 104), commenting on the work of Boys and Lee, presents a point-form summary of their approach. With respect to the first principle above she adds the requirement that groups engaged in this form of learning should be of equal size. She advises that it “requires team teaching with an other whom one trusts”, “affects many aspects of an individual‟s religious self-understanding in ways not readily anticipated”, and “provides a way of deepening one‟s religious commitment while providing a ground for pluralism.” We might add, following John D‟Arcy May (2006, p. 14), that “the process is greatly facilitated… if the teacher has a personal faith commitment but is also committed to exploring the truth of other religious ways; and if the whole enterprise is related to the students‟ experience in their own lifeworlds.”
Mary Boys provides some practical recommendations – things we might do – in order to educate in such a way that the religious “stranger” becomes “neighbour” (2002, p. 14). In short, she encourages us to:
Engage in interreligious learning, honoring the principles of openness to others and faithfulness to one‟s tradition.
Draw upon the variety and resources our diverse nations make possible.
Befriend the other.
Test the validity of descriptions we make about another religious tradition by asking whether persons within that tradition would recognise themselves.
Seek deeper analyses of the sources of religious conflict.
Search one‟s home tradition for images and stories that move us out of our parochial worlds.
Religious Education in the South African Catholic School
In conclusion, how might we draw on the fruits of the work of Hermans and Boys in particular, to develop religious education in South African Catholic schools so that we share in a practical way Dermot Lane‟s conviction that inter-religious dialogue is something integral to Catholic Religious Education? (Lane, 2008, p. 88).
We do not have space here to interrogate this question thoroughly: a few remarks will have to suffice. Because of the history and present context of the schools in question, inter-religious education as envisaged by Hermans and Boys is an ideal to be realised, and the journey to its realisation needs to take the following factors into consideration.
(1) Religious education classes typically incorporate a majority of learners from various Christian backgrounds with a small number of Hindus, Muslims, African Traditionalists and others, depending on region. An adaptation of Boys and Lee‟s dynamics will clearly be necessary.
(2) Both Dermot Lane (2008, p. 94) and Mary Boys (Boys & Lee, 2006, p. 87) point out that a sine qua non for interreligious leadership is “a maturity of faith” or “knowledgeable commitment to one‟s own religious tradition”. Teachers in South Africa generally have very little theological training and this will need to be fostered if inter-religious learning is to be viable.
(3) On the other hand, following Otto who held that all particular religions contain genuine expressions of the holy, and “the understanding that all humans have the innate capacity, however underdeveloped in some, for religious experience” (Minney, 1992, p. 216, 220), teachers will need to move from exclusivist or inclusivist positions to a point of reference which is beyond any particular religion (Minney, p. 216). Without this shift, it is difficult to see how the deep respect for the traditions of others necessary for inter-religious learning will be played out in practice. “This approach,” says Minney (p. 216), “recognises the worth of all religions and is the very opposite of trying to judge other world religions by the standard of one of them.” Dermot Lane (2008, p. 92) reminds us of “the various dispositions required for participants in inter-religious dialogue” as outlined in Dialogue and Proclamation (1991). These include openness, receptivity, and a readiness to allow oneself to be transformed by the encounter.
(4) Inter-religious learning seems more possible with adult learners than with younger ones who do not have the required mature knowledge of or commitment to a faith tradition. And it may not be appropriate to attempt in the earlier years of schooling. Cornelia Roux and Dorette Steenkamp‟s research shows that junior primary children from all cultural groups were more concerned about understanding their own belief and value systems (1997, p. 54). Furthermore, they found that “children with a strong background of religious nurturing enjoyed the multi-religious content because their own religious experiences helped them to cope with the belief and value systems of the other religions” (p. 56) Interreligious learning, therefore, especially of the parallel dialogue variety, should first be implemented among secondary students at the earliest. However, taking this into consideration, curriculum development in religious education should concentrate on preparing learners for this in the earlier phases.
(5) In the meantime, teacher could focus on creating an environment which invites interaction with various religious realities where appropriate. The „gift to the child‟ approach described by John Hull (2000, p. 115-123) could be considered in primary years.
(6) The religious other is both a person outside of us and a person within. The „indigenous archetype‟ within the modern soul, says David Tacey (1995, p. 137) is in serious need of acknowledgment. Thus inter-religious learning in South Africa also needs a knowledge and appreciation of African Traditional Religion which is still the deeper reality for many overt Christians. We can learn from the experience of Holy Rosary/Red Cloud High school described by John Roselle, where the indigenous Lakota religion, in response to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, “was no longer tossed aside, but rather incorporated into the educational process” (2009, p. 45). The call of the council, says Fr Peter Klink, current president of the school, “resulted in our openness to the ways in which traditional Lakota culture and spirituality enrich both our faith journey and the ways in which we imagine religious education” (Roselle, 2009, p. 46).
There may well be other important considerations to take into account, but those I have elaborated at least give us a starting point for the enterprise
References
Berling, Judith A. (2004). Understanding Other Religious Worlds: AGuide for Interreligious Education. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Boys, Mary C. (2002). Educating Christians in order that strangers become neighbours. Journal ofReligious Education, Vol 50 No. 2, pp. 10-15
Boys, M. C., & Lee, S. L. (2006). Toward a theory of inter-religious teaching and learning. In M. C. Boys & S. L. Lee (Eds.), Christian and Jews in dialogue: Learning in the presence ofthe other (pp. 87-113). Woodstock: StarLight Paths Publishing.
Hermans, C. A. M. (2003). Inter-religious learning. In C. A. M. Hermans (Ed.), Participatorylearning: Religious education in a globalizing society (pp. 334-379). Leiden: Brill.
Hull, John M. (2000). Religion in the Service of the Child Project: The Gift Approach to Religious Education. In Grimmitt, Michael (Ed.), Pedagogies ofReligious Education (pp. 112-129). Great Wakering, Essex: McCrimmon
Lane, Dermot A. (2008). Nostra Aetate and Religious Education. In Kieran, Patricia & Hession, Anne (Eds.), Exploring Religious Education (pp. 83-96). Dublin: Veritas.
Lovat, Terence. (2002). Religious education: robust and bold for a multifaith era. Journal ofReligious Education, Vol 50 No. 3, pp. 29-34
May, John D‟Arcy. (2006). Can tolerance be taught? Steps towards inter-religious education. Journal ofReligious Education, Vol 54 No. 4, pp. 11-15
Minney, Robin. (1992). Otto‟s Contribution to Religious Education. In Astley, Jeff & Day, David (Eds.), The Contours of Christian Education (pp. 216-229). Great Wakering, Essex: McCrimmon
Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue & Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples. (1991). Dialogue and Proclamation
Roselle III, John. (2009). The path to inter-religious dialogue at Red Cloud Indian School. Journal ofCatholic School Studies, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 43-50
Roux, Cornelia & Steenkamp, Dorette. (1997). The Christian Teacher and Multireligious Education. Hatfield, Pretoria: Via Afrika.
Sacks, Jonathan. (2003). The DignityofDifference: Howto Avoid the Clash of Civilisations. London: Conyinuum.
Tacey, David. (1995). Black and white Australia. In D. Tacey (Ed.), Edge of the sacred: Transformation in Australia (pp. 129-147). Sydney: HarperCollins.