RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN A RELIGIOUSLY PLURALIST SOCIETY

AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION

ANNUAL CONFERENCE 1998, ADELAIDE

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION IN A RELIGIOUSLY PLURALIST SOCIETY

Robert Crotty and Shirley Wurst

University of South Australia

One neglected area of research in education is undoubtedly the religious education curriculum. While multiculturalism's implications for education generally has been perceived as worthy of extensive research, the associated issue of religious pluralism and its implications for religious education has seldom been addressed. This paper is a report on such research carried out within Australia, which we would maintain is religiously pluralist.

Religious education, particularly of young people, cannot be extrapolated from its everyday cultural context. Designing a religious education curriculum for young people in a culturally homogenous situation such as Riyadh or Bangkok would be relatively easy compared to the analogous task in Australia. The reason is simply that with the deliberate development of a polyethnic society, we are simultaneously faced with a multifaith society. It is this social fact that should force educators to rethink religious curriculum design. We Australians have been educated, with mixed success, in the past few decades to be accepting of ethnic difference. Theories of multiculturalism have been subtly embedded into curriculum design. However, we are only beginning vaguely and uncomfortably to come to terms with religious difference and we have hardly thought of its implications for religious educational design.

The fact is that the Australian migration program has not only brought new cultural groups to this land, but new religious groups. Religion can be understood as a unique cultural system; a religion, with its interwoven system of beliefs, practices and symbols looks very much like a cultural system. Like any cultural system, religion is a meaning-seeking activity. It offers to its adherents a system of significant symbols by which life can be interpreted, although that can be said of any cultural system.

What differentiates religion from secular culture? Humans are less genetically determined than other animal species; unlike other animals too, they seek not just everyday order, a need catered for by secular culture, but ultimate order. Other animals seek everyday order; humans seek both everyday and ultimate order. Only humans, as far as we know, ask the ultimate questions of life: who are we? is life worth living? what happens after death? why do innocents suffer? Religious culture allows humans to seek ultimate order, to interpret the cosmos and life itself ultimately.

The religiously enculturated person interprets life and the universe in terms of ultimacy. In this sense, all human beings who have attained a certain level of discretion are 'religious', in a broad use of the term 'religion'. Whence have they derived the religious symbol system whereby they can ultimately interpret the cosmos and life? For many people the world or primal religions have supplied a ready-made system, either in a conventional or in a syncretistic form. For others there are philosophical systems which function in much the same way as the conventional religions, systems such as Humanism, Existentialism, Marxism, even though these -isms would not normally be covered by the definition of 'religion' and presumably would not themselves seek to be included in that definition.

A religion, taken in this broad sense, will provide for its adherents an ultimate focus whereby the individual can discover ultimate order. The focus can take on such symbolic forms as God the Father, Allah, the ancient Greek pantheon, Nirvana, Brahman, the 'classless society', Existence, Humanity. This ultimate focus may present itself as personal or impersonal. The world's diverse religions can thereby be considered as different ways of experiencing and achieving ultimate order. But are all the ways valid?

Just as there are a variety of possible attitudes to secular culture, stretching along a continuum from ethnocentrism to multiculturalism, so there is an analogous continuum of attitudes towards religious culture. Three major points along the continuum can be isolated. The first is exclusivism, the attitude that one religious cultural system is valid and all others are invalid, even if they might be right minded and sincere. Midway is inclusivism, the view that one religious system is certainly valid while certain other, but not all, systems share partially and imperfectly in that valid system.

Thirdly, there is religious pluralism. It holds that all existing religious cultures are valid. They differ simply because they employ variant symbolisations of ultimate order, providing alternative foci, and so relate the individual to ultimate order by a different route. If then the one transcendent reality is differentially conceived, experienced and consequently achieved from within the many religious systems by a number of foci then choice between one of these systems and another is simply a matter of prior enculturation, of later choice, even of serendipity.

It would seem that we are presently living in an Australian society that is suspicious of religious exclusivism. Ecumenical activity among Christians and dialogue between world religions have disrupted some of the more entrenched exclusivisms. Vatican II caused shock waves among the higher echelons of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in 1965 with its Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions and the related Declaration on Religious Freedom. In these two documents, the official Catholic Church moved from gross exclusivism to inclusivism. It has taken some decades for the new official attitude to filter down. Certainly, amongst the majority of those religiously committed to Roman Catholicism in Australia, the attitude to other religions would stop well short of religious pluralism, even if exclusivism is becoming a museum piece.

It needs to be said at this point that religious pluralism, taken as an acceptance of the validity of viable religions rather than as the de facto recognition of a plurality of religions, is a difficult attitude to sustain. It requires considerable emotional and philosophical manipulation to argue its position.

But let us look to the future. What if society were to decide that religious pluralism, in the stricter sense as defined above, was the better attitude? What if a society accepted that not only Christianity, but Islam and Hinduism and Aboriginal Australian religions and Existentialism embodied valid symbolisations of ultimacy, providing variant but valid systems of relating to the ultimate order. Each system would be considered not only valid, but incommensurable. No value judgement on other systems could be made from the vantage point of any one of them. A Christian could only critique Hinduism by entering into the religio-cultural world of Hinduism and discussing it from within. Each could be critiqued only within its own cultural parameters.

Given a situation in Australia where society had moved on from exclusivism and even from inclusivism, and was somewhere on the continuum scale towards religious pluralism, what form of religious education would best correspond to this complex cultural orientation? The complex cultural orientation would need to be examined more closely.

In the first place, given widespread acceptance of something approaching religious pluralism, religious identity, using 'religion' in the broad sense justified above, would not be seen as an optional addendum to societal living. It would be acknowledged as of the essence. All people who had achieved a minimum level of rationality would be considered 'religious', just as they would be considered to have the ability to be literate. If this was accepted by a societal majority, then religious identity would be looked upon as important and something to be cultivated within the society by the educational process.

In this context, the religious pluralist would not need to put aside any specific, personal religious attachment, just as the multiculturalist does not need to reject an esteemed ethnic culture. In Australia, a Greek can be multicultural but still preserve Greek culture. So, too, in the scenario we are discussing the Muslim might be an avowed religious pluralist while still maintaining Islamic conviction, or the Marxist pluralist might maintain a Marxist commitment. While superficially paradoxical, in practice this becomes understandable if it is compared to the situation of the bilingual person who speaks the dominant language used in mainstream society as well as an ethnic language. By analogy, it should be possible for one to be religiously literate, aware and accepting of religion in general, in a hypothetically religious pluralist atmosphere of Australian society, without giving up a particular religious commitment.

What is required as the educational substratum in this cultural situation, therefore, can be termed religious literacy. The attainment of religious literacy would entail the study of religion, not in cold objectivity but in warm breadth. The developing youth would need to know the structure of religion, the interrelationship of its parts and need to appreciate the direction and purpose that religion could give. Certainly there would also need to be an introduction to a variety of religious traditions in order to make the theory concrete and understandable and, importantly, to be able to see a religious system as an organic totality. Just as we teach students in secular education how to read (the practical skills), how to understand and critique what they read (critical analysis), how to apply these skills to different forms of literature (for example, how to read a science book as against reading poetry or reading biography), to different literatures (for example, French Literature, Latin Literature), so we need to teach religious literacy.

What would be the content of such a course? The answer requires some statement on the commonality within the many religious traditions. It may be best to take a living tradition and extricate its functional elements. Let us take the example of Islam and its founder, Muhammad. Muhammad did not come from a neutral, non-religious background. The religious cultural discourse to which he had access included elements of tribal religion, Judaism and Christianity, exactly in what proportion is a matter of conjecture. At a certain moment he underwent a profound religious experience. From the infinite, possible permutations of religious discourse he made an individual and new choice. He fashioned a new, ultimate focus by which he might achieve a personal ultimate order and ultimate direction. Thereby, he at once experienced the resolution of his own alienation and found 'salvation'. While his personal situation was stabilised the question was open as to whether that experience could be replicated. If not, then this individual religious culture would be aborted.

The most vital element in the establishment of a religion has to be this ability to replicate. Can the founding experience have a successor? Can the original mediation established between the founder and ultimacy be experienced by others? Founders are somewhat akin to artists. Many people have profound experiences of life, nature, human relationships. These experiences are usually incommensurable and incommunicable. The artist is that gifted individual who is able to use a medium-whether it be words, paint, musical sound-to communicate a personal, original experience. The religious 'founder' is the person (or group) who has undergone mediation and, most importantly, is able to establish a mediatorial system which can convey the original religious experience. Sometimes the person or group disappear, and the experience is thereafter conveyed by a myth and ritual comlex or a text. At other times the individual or individuals remain personally identified with the system, as is the case with Muhammad. This is the prime reason why a Muhammad is revered in Islam, why a Jesus is revered in Christianity.

The mediatorial system, the hub of the religious culture, is the organising framework of the religion's phenomena. Its mechanism produces a religious experience, considered to be comparable to the original mediation experience. In the case of Islam the religious system generates the experience of islam, submissiveness. The same mechanism also establishes a social structure, a group of like-minded people who share the experience and are stratified accordingly, the muslims or 'submitted ones'. The format of the mechanism is structured by a myth and ritual process. The entire system and the concomitant group are safeguarded by a code of ethical practice, a catalogue of ordered beliefs and, in literate societies, a text.

From what has been said of Islam it seems that we can describe any particular religious tradition by analysing its phenomena. We can identify the key phenomena as:

RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE: all religions affirm the importance of a specific inner experience. In some way the experience is the outcome of the adherents making contact with what is considered to be of ultimate importance by means of a specific focus. It is primarily the religious experience that differentiates the religious tradition.

BELIEFS: beliefs are religious teachings about God (or gods), about the ultimate focus that is central to the religious tradition, about sacred people from the past, particularly the founder, about the human person and the nature of the world, about how humans can find salvation and achieve what they most want to achieve. Beliefs are the rational outcome of the religious experience which instinctively bestows a knowledge that is revelatory.

SACRED STORIES: these include stories about the world and human beings 'in the beginning', about the original act of religious mediation, before things were as they now are. Stories about the 'beginning' are sometimes called myths. Legends are stories about influential sacred people in the religion's tradition. Parables are fictional stories, usually about everyday topics, which carry an important message for the followers of a religious tradition.

RELIGIOUS RITUAL: religious people not only think about religion or speak about their religion but they act it out, and the sacred action tends to become fixed and stabilised. This action or ritual is considered sacred and it is capable of recreating the founding experience amid the believers. Within the context of ritual, important social activity takes place, such as are connected with life-crises, are situated.

SOCIAL STRUCTURES: all religions organise the people that follow them into social groups and we can perceive certain features of the structure of those groups such as sacred space (certain buildings and even parts of the landscape used by the group take on a special religious importance), sacred times (religions remember the dates of sacred moments in their history and relive them), sacred persons (religions organise people and give special roles to some men and women).

SACRED TEXTS: in those societies that are literate, religious writing plays an important role. Traditions associated with the foundation of the mediation, key points of development and change are recorded in writing and become themselves part of the religious structure.

RELIGIOUS ETHICS: every religion has a code of approved conduct for its social group, although what is considered to be good or evil will not be the same in all religions.

SACRED SYMBOLS: all religions have symbols. The more important symbols act as visual summaries of the whole religion and are capable of activating the founding experience.

What is meant, therefore, by religion can be described as a system that weaves together experience, beliefs, stories, rituals, social structure, texts, ethics and symbols. Within this woven web of components, this religious 'world' as it were, believers can live a life which achieves ultimate purpose, direction and meaning. This template of a religious world, analysed by the components, is precisely the realm of knowledge into which the student needs to be inducted. The student needs to understand it in itself, to respect it as separate from the world of science or the world of secular literature or the world of aesthetics. It is specifically a religious world.

The educational outcome of a religious education curriculum, geared to this task, should be a 'fluency' in dealing with such realities as 'myth', 'ritual', 'religious experience', 'religious ethic', together with the ability to give concrete examples from living religion. By secondary level, the student should be able to pick up either the Bhagavad Gita or the Gospel of John and appreciate its religious form and religious rhetoric. The same student should be able to appreciate that Jews, in their ritual, are given the context in which they can achieve the experience of liberation from slavery.

This form of religious education should be provided by all educational institutions within Australian society, state or private. It would be regarded as essential as literacy or numeracy in secular education, and indeed it could be compared analogously to the teaching of English literacy as one of the overarching values that holds the secular society together. For a mentality approaching pluralism, 'religion', in the broad sense, would be seen to bind society together in an even more profound sense. Ignorance of its mechanism and inability to manipulate it would be an admission of educational failure.

At the same time the youth should not be left in a religious vacuum, but would require instruction in one or other 'religious' tradition. This would not be the primary concern of the state system, although it could provide the venue. The analogue here would be the teaching of community languages and their attendant cultures, such as some Australian Greeks do in their Saturday schools. Primarily, this religious instruction would be the prerogative of family or religious institutions (such as private religious schools) and could include, under the rubric of 'religion', not only the teaching of conventional religions but also the teaching of philosophical systems such as Humanism. The best curriculum and the best pedagogy should be employed to bring the youth to an understanding and practice of the 'religious' tradition. There should always be the acknowledgment of the youth's prerogative to choose another system, perhaps one to which there has been exposure in the religious literacy course. The analogue would be the Greek student who decides to drop Greek language and take up Vietnamese. Whatever of parental reaction in this case, only pluralist or inclusivist parents would be at ease with the decision to change religious orientation.

What should this complementary curriculum in religious instruction contain? It should include, in the first instance, exposure to the founding religious experience. The Muslim student should be inducted into the experience of submissiveness by taking part in Friday services in the mosque; the Christian student should be involved in eucharistic liturgies in which it was patent that as the believing group ate the bread and drank the wine, it was identifying with the self-giving of Jesus for others.

The root experience, which will include a revelatory knowledge, should be subsequently expounded and explained by reference to the sacred text and its ongoing and explicative tradition. Christian students should be able to name the experience of Christian love and self-giving by reference to the gospels before all else. This will require sensitive treatment of texts by skilled teachers who are aware that they are not teaching history but religious awareness through literature. From the gospels the student should be enabled to study the other writings of the Christian Scriptures and the background, but vital, writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Christian experience is a variant of the Jewish experience and easily distorted when disjoined.

The curriculum, with its admixture of the experiential and cerebral, must be culture specific. Australian Christians of the late second millennium cannot be educated in a cultural vacuum. There is no culture-free religious experience and no culture-free understanding of the Scriptures. The young must be inducted into a Christian world which is embedded in the cultural world of their present place and time.

The present religious educational setup in Australia, with State educational authorities tentatively introducing religious educational elements into the curriculum and private schools offering high quality religious instruction, could be adapted to this futuristic program. However, there are some obvious pitfalls that need to be avoided. The extant religious literacy courses are too often taught by religious exclusivists, or inclusivists who are close on the continuum to exclusivism. Or what is achieved in the classroom could be offset by what is heard in an exclusivist home. In such a case, the curriculum would simply not achieve its objectives. It would become specific religious instruction under another guise.

On the other hand, religious instruction which is intended to enculturate the young within a religious tradition, is too often taught by those who are not themselves deeply and personally enculturated. The result is similar to a language curriculum taught by a non-native: unidiomatic and uninspired. When many young people emerge from a number of years of religious instruction in a private religious school without any commitment, then serious questions need to be asked about the curriculum.

The total program is achievable. There needs to be movement from two directions. There needs to be pressure on public education to accept that 'religion' is not an optional extra and is not confined to the conventional denominations. The broad religious literacy courses need to be introduced in the same way as Australian Studies curricula were recently introduced and with the same careful curriculum planning. The specific religious instruction courses need to be thoughtfully constructed to include both experiential elements and astutely planned textual studies. What is happening in many private schools needs to be radically revamped. New curricula need to be designed to cater for variety of choice. It will mean a new mindset.

Our research was intended to map out where we had arrived in Australia as far as this religiously pluralist ideal is concerned. We took a select number of religious education curricula, covering both government and church-aligned schools, and attempted to analyse each syllabus' 'multicultural/multifaith/ plural' credentials. We began with the following schematic representation of the field of the debate.

Table 1: Relationships between key terms in the multiculturalism/multifaith debate

ethnocentrism explicitly unequal	exclusivism implicitly/explicitly unequal	separate development/apartheid implicitly unequal





assimilation	inclusivism/ecumenism	separate and equal





multiculturalism anti-racism?	multifaith/pluralism [dialogue] religious literacy fundamentalism?

This table seeks to demonstrate the relationship between key terms in the multicultural/multifaith debate. It is useful to note the following relevant aspects of these relationships.

Both exclusivism and separate development/apartheid

are exclusive systems;

can potentially develop into pluralism and religious literacy

perceive each group in dialectical relationship to the others ie the boundary drawn between them is based on their differences.

In separate development/apartheid

there is more explicit recognition of the other: alternative religions are recognised as having an existence and a right to develop in their own way;

there is no attempt to proselytise; implicitly, the 'home' group-the one that sees itself as the natural superior/leader-is at the top of the hierarchy which may/may not be explicit;

each group is perceived to be essentially independent of the others; there is no mixing and no attempt at dialogue;

each group sees itself as substantially different from the other-hence there is no point in trying to persuade others to join.

In exclusivism,

the other is also 'othered'; little attention is paid to the 'other' other than to ensure the faithful are not persuaded by alternative ideas by preventing access by strictly maintaining the boundaries ie through demonisation or vilification, and bans on inter-mixing;

there is more likelihood to be explicit superiority/inferiority, with each group literally seeing the others as not worthy of consideration;

there is no blending or mixing, and no dialogue; there is no sense of others having the right to develop-the rights and existence of the others are not considered;

there may be attempts to proselytise, especially if there is some kudos to be gained from increasing numbers at the expense of others.

Because both exclusivism and apartheid/separate development operate with implicit and explicit notions of superiority, they are ultimately antagonistic to the healthy development of the toleration that underlies religious literacy.

Because pluralism prides itself on accepting every system as equally valid, fundamentalisms can thrive in such a system.

Potentially, religious literacy should reduce fundamentalisms: those who are religiously literate are able to see that there are many ways to be religious, and ways that operate exclusively with a hierarchical and dogmatic models are discredited as misguided/illiterate because they cannot accept the other as being as valid as themselves.

To refine our analysis, we developed the following table, focusing on key characteristics of each of three perspectives: exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. The table aims to underline key understandings within each perspective, relating to border, the 'other', and sensibility, and seeks to draw attention to both the similarities and differences between these three perspectives on pluralism in relation to these central aspects of any group's relationship with those outside the group.

Table 2: Key characteristics of three perspectives on religion

EXCLUSIVISM	INCLUSIVISM	PLURALISM
attitude to border
one-way;	two-way;	no-way through-integrity of each is vigorously asserted
semi-permeable	permeable	impermeable;
separate & exclusive;	separable & mixable-ultimately inseparable; universal	separate & exclusive
clear boundary visible at all times; own is vigorously defended-boundary of other is not respected	boundary becomes blurred; ultimately ceases to operate; no respect for any boundaries	clear boundary, respected and maintained; defends all boundaries
attitude to other
apartheid/assimilation	syncretistic or ecumenical	respects difference
didactic communication;	sharing; reciprocal & mutual dialogue;	respectful mutual dialogue
no compromise; total capitulation of other demanded	compromise-all give up something to be part of new unity	no compromise; nothing to give up
explicitly colonial	subtly/implicitly colonial	anti-colonial
single view & better	single & multiple view = same	multi-faceted-can see own and others' views without needing to change/ challenge own/other
fiercely different; other is inferior	we're all the same	different but equal
us V them	us & them	us-them, many
hierarchical & superior	hierarchical & useful	no hierarchy
attitude to sensibility
only one	many-we can mix bits to make a new unity	many-each with integrity
my integrity	no integrity	multiple integrities

Using the insights from the table, we were able to come up with the following characteristics of each perspective.

Multiculturalism/pluralism/religious literacy requires

a notion of difference;
respect for every other and difference;
a both/and rather than either/or orientation;
reciprocity, characterised by mutuality and respect;
an ability to be open and receptive to new ideas without needing to integrate, cannibalise or reject them; a tolerance that allows the paradox that more than one idea is 'right/true';
a paradigm shift;
no fear of difference;
no fear of contagion.

Exclusivism requires

a notion of difference;
an either/or orientation;
an hierarchical notion of truth;
a fear of contagion;
a fear of difference;
no reciprocity or mutuality;
respect driven by fear;
an implicit notion that some ideas-eg ours-are better than others.

Apartheid requires

a notion of difference that separates groups;
an either/or orientation;
a hierarchical notion of truth;
a fear of contagion;
a fear of difference;
no reciprocity or mutuality;
respect driven by fear;
an implicit notion that some ideas-eg ours-are better than others;
the view that others can develop on their own-separate development is valued as the norm.

Assimilation requires

a notion of difference;
an either/or orientation;
a hierarchical notion of truth;
a notion of superiority/survival of the fittest;
a contempt for difference;
no reciprocity or mutuality;
no respect for the other;
an explicit notion that some ideas, eg my ideas, are better than all others.

When these insights were applied to curriculum documents, we came up with the following characteristic elements.

In a curriculum demonstrating pluralism/multiculturalism, the following were apparent:

knowledge of concept 'religion', and understanding of key aspects ie displays religious literacy;

ability to make connections between religious traditions without value judgments;

each religion is valued and respected on its own terms, as a specific and unique entity, sharing characteristics with other religions;

each religion is acknowledged as a 'woven web of components', a 'template of a religious world';

understands and values a personal religious tradition; may display loyalty to personal tradition;

able to discern both the similarities and differences between religious traditions;

interest in each religious tradition for its own sake, from within its own parameters and respecting its religious integrity.

In a curriculum demonstrating exclusivism, the following were apparent:

knowledge of own religious system;

does not recognise any other religion as a 'true' religion;

sees other religions as different and inferior;

sees no value in looking at other religions unless to understand own more clearly;

sees world in the light of its own religious tradition;

extreme loyalty: personal religious conviction vehemently protected against all outside influence;

strong conversion mentality.

In a curriculum demonstrating apartheid, the following were apparent:

knowledge of own religious system;

does not recognise any other religion as a 'true' religion, but allows their existence;

sees other religions as different, and usually inferior;

no value in looking at other religions-each is different and separate;

sees world in the light of its own religious tradition;

extreme loyalty: personal religious conviction vehemently protected against all outside influence

no conversion mentality

In a curriculum demonstrating assimilation, the following were apparent:

knowledge of religion as a concept and understands the basics of religious literacy;

does not recognise other religions as 'true' religions; they are misguided or partial versions of the true religion-as expounded by the assimilating religious tradition;

sees other religions as different and inferior;

sees world, and sees and values other religions, in the light of its own religious tradition;

practices infiltration in order to convert others;

justified in making others the same as self-conversion mentality;

loyalty: resists outside influence.

In a curriculum demonstrating syncretism/universalism, the following were apparent:

knowledge of religion as a concept; some basic understanding of religious literacy;

sees all religions as basically the same; willing to mine/cannibalise all religions for their best ideas, and blend all chosen elements into a new 'universal' religious sensibility;

no respect for the integrity of any religious tradition of symbol system;

convenient and fashionable; contingent-changes when a better idea comes along;

little loyalty except to the concept of religion.

Conclusion

Our intention was to develop an instrument that would give us leverage for analysis. We did not intend to discuss the quality of curriculum design. Nor were we able to enter into classrooms and evaluate the quality of teaching. We limited ourselves to the religious cultural perspective. That was the sole aim of this piece of research, the results of which will need to await a future presentation.