Teaching Religion in a multicultural European Society Bert Roebben Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies Tilburg University The Netherlands .

Teaching Religionin a multicultural European Society

Bert RoebbenFaculty of Theology and Religious Studies

Tilburg UniversityThe Netherlands

www.seekingsense.be

TRES Launching ConferenceUppsala

March 31, 2006

Aim of the first TRES-action

“The focus is on the general question of how to teach religion in a multicultural Europe and how to prepare young people to think in a responsible way about their professional contribution to a

well integrated, respectful and tolerant Europe. Fundamental to this action will be how to raise awareness of interpretation and

understanding of religion in different national and

international contexts.”

Aim and outline of this presentation

Examination of the presuppositions behind the concepts of the project: Teaching – Religion – Multicultural – European – Society

In two movements:

1. Multicultural European perspectives on teaching religion – what is the context in which and for which we prepare young people for future leadership?

2. Religious educational perspectives on a multicultural Europe – what kind of religious educational competences are needed to face the hermeneutical challenges of this context?

1. Multicultural European perspectives on TR

1. The soul of Europe: a permanent battlefield

2. Religion in Europe today: post-secularism and religious extremism

3. The commitment of the Council of Europe in 2004: the religious dimension of intercultural education

4. Organisational diversity in the field of RE in Europe

1.1. The soul of Europe – a permanent battlefield

• Europe is not a harmonious project, but a complex historical patchwork of different ways of dealing with great “epistemological crises” (Alasdair MacIntyre)

• The modern phenomenon of the so called “clash of cultures” is not apt to describe the complex ways in which (Eastern and Western) Christianity, Judaism and Islam have coped with these crises differently (Timothy Garton Ash)

• However, these crises have eventuated in open wars, in its utmost brutality in the 20th century (Geert Mak, In Europa. Reizen door de 20ste eeuw, 2004)

• In the ashes of World War II the modern Europe was born (1951, European Community of Coal and Steal)

• There is no encounter without difference, no common project without conflict. The price to be paid however, was high…

These mist covered mountains, are a home now for me. But my home is the lowlands and always will be. Some day you’ll return to your valleys and your farms, and you’ll no longer burn to be brothers in arms.

Through these fields of destruction, baptisms of fire. I’ve watched all your suffering as the battles raged higher. And though they did hurt me so bad in the fear and alarm. You did not desert me, my brothers in arms.

There’s so many different worlds, so many different suns. And we have just one world, but we live in different ones.

Now the sun’s gone to hell and the moon’s riding high. Let me bid you farewell, every man has to die. But it’s written in the starlight and every line in your palm: we’re fools to make war on our brothers in arms.[Dire Straits, Brothers in Arms, 1986]

1.2. Religion in a post-secular Europe

• Religious individualisation and differentiation [“personal spiritual quest”, “new-religious longing” (Anton van Harskamp), “off road religion” (Heinz Streib)] – churchification and religious extremism at the other side of the same spectrum?

• Churches and religions present themselves as part of the market anthropology; they are suppliers of spirituality (Rodney Stark): this is the way in which modern people perceive them and “use” them irreverently – can churches remain authentic?

• Churches and religions are challenged to reframe their spiritual resources in an open and constructive mode regarding the contemporary quest for meaning – they are challenged to remove the poisonous sting of exclusivism and inherent fundamentalism from their communities – can they re-create their impact from lethal dynamite to vital dynamism for society, from dehumanizing submission to humanizing faith in society?

1.3. The commitment of the CoE in 2004• “The Religious Dimension of Intercultural Education” (Oslo, 6-8 June

2004) – in the aftermath of 9/11• Every form of intercultural education is undeniably rooted in the moral

and philosophical presuppositions and worldviews of the participants. This “dimension of conviction” needs to be elucidated in education and implies appropriate concepts of knowledge, learning attitudes and skills. Curricula, textbooks and teacher training are the direct access to this work of “cultural literacy”

• Need for a “program on the phenomenon and problem of religion supporting the cultural difference of all the pupils within the framework of their common citizenship” (Flavio Pajer 2001, consistent with Jacques Delors, The Treasure Within, 1996)

• Perception and interpretation of differences and interpellation through encounter – interreligious learning (IRL) as part of the larger “hermeneutic awareness” in (post)modern education

Students in the NL prefer a multi-religious approach to RE. They argue that every religion has the right to exist and to express its own way of salvation.This tolerance is the basis for solving contradictions and stopping conflicts. However, “one should not only be acquainted with the different religions, but also allow oneself to be affected by their messages. This approach is inherent in religion as religion” (Hans-Georg Ziebertz 2005)

Concept Score(1=no, 5=yes)

Multi-religious 3.10

Inter-religious 2.68

Mono-religious 2.45

Confessional-religious

2.29

(Roebben & Van der Tuin 2004)The Netherlands in RALP, n = 816

1.4. Organisational diversity of RE in Europe

• “Synchrony of insynchronies”• “A multi-layered subject” (Peter Schreiner): different religious

landscapes, cultural politics, strategies of nation states towards minority groups, etc.

• Important shifts, e.g. from RE as a confessional (state church) to a non-confessional school subject [Norway], recent shift from public to private schools [UK], from confessional RE to ‘teaching world religions’ in other subjects such as history or culture [South Eastern Europe, Russian Federation], continuous discussions within French “laicité”, Dutch proposal (of Roman-Catholic and Protestant authorities!) to make RE compulsory in final examination of every school, etc.

• Contextual approach (Friedrich Schweitzer 2004) – scientific modesty!

• Overview (Ger Skeie 2001)

“Synchrony of insynchronies” 

Denominational RE system for all

RE as non-denominational school subject for all

No RE in school

Italy, Spain, Malta, Turkey, Greece

Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark

France, Slovenia, Albania

Pluriform or mixed solutions (with weak state intervention) 

Mixed system with mostly denominational schools and RE

Mixed system with large number of denominational schools and RE

Secular system with denominational contributionsin RE

Ireland, Northern Ireland, Belgium, Netherlands

England, Wales, Schotland

Germany, Finland, Austria, Romania, Poland, Hungary

 (Ger Skeie 2001)

Uniform solutions (with strong state intervention) 

2. Religious educational perspectives on Europe

1. The modern Europe as a learning zone

2. RE in secondary school in Western Europe

3. Multi-religious and inter-religious learning

4. Otherness of the other in the classroom

5. Learning by encounter: intra-religious learning

6. Elements for theological education and teacher training

2.1. The modern Europe as learning zone

• Premodern Europe was the age of religious wars, modern Europe was the age of ideological conflicts, the postmodern age should be “the age of the free meeting of minds, prepared to contribute to a common historical project, on the basis of a cosmopolitan ethos” (E. Balducci, quoted by Pajer 2001).

• This “hermeneutical” project of the construction of a “European house through education” implies the permanent encounter with the other and the re-sourcing of the self in that encounter

2.2. RE in secondary school in Western Europe

• RE influenced by the contemporary boost of reflexivity or accelerated hermeneutic awareness: ‘das Recht auf Denken über religiöses Denken’ (Friedrich Schweitzer 2003)

• Young people as self-reliant learners, dealing with processes of interactive meaning giving (no more linear-chronological interpretation of moral and religious development)

• ‘Hermeneutic-communicative’ approaches in RE: learning to perceive religions/religiosity, to communicate about this perpectibility with others and to clarify one’s own point of view

• Dialogue with other belief systems in the depth of time (intergenerational), in the breadth of space (intercultural) and against the horizon of the future (global)

• Modern schools experience an appeal to their ‘response-abilty’ to the quest of young people, by offering them valid ‘mental detours’ (Paul Ricoeur)

2.3. Multi- and inter-religious learning

Making into a theme and document

Communicate

Knowing the other Respecting the other

Learning about religion

Learning from religion

Multi-religious learning

Inter-religious learning

2.4. Otherness of the other in the classroom

Resistance within the learning process, “hermeneutic junctions and interpretation differences” (Herman Lombaerts): “That’s the way religious people give answers to issues of meaning giving, but how about you, sir/madam? Do not harmonise the learning process!”

• (multi) “How far can I walk in the moccasins of the other?” (Heinz Streib 2001) – particular elements in the classroom can remain non-accessible and radically foreign to the learner

• (inter) Can I handle the communication? – the classroom may be not safe for diversity or students could run aground in testing the trustworthiness of the other

• (intra) Can I deal with this myself? – students can run into internal fallibilities (Hanan Alexander) or “holy envy” (Mary Boys)

2.5. Learning by encounter:intra-religious learning

“What do I have to learn from you, if we do not differ? Why should I learn anything at all, if it doesn’t make a difference where you come from, who you are and what you believe in? Defining moments in education occur when differences in interpretation come to the surface: you are different from me, you appeal to my imagination, your thoughts trigger mine, your ways are unknown to me, but yet I want to know you, you intrigue me. This is me, how about you?”

– Learning by encounter– Learning ‘in the presence of the other’ (Mary Boys)– Learning in difference

(Halsall & Roebben 2006)

Learning about religion Learning from religion Learning in religion

Multi-religious learning Inter-religious learning Intra-religious learning

Knowing the other Respecting the other Knowing/respecting myself

Documentation Communication Integration

Heuristic competence Social competence Existential competence

Intra-religious learning is, in this respect, a method of intensified teaching of religion. It constitutively deepens the hermeneutic dynamic of learning about religion through a communicative exchange between students in the classroom. The ‘other’ is then no longer the generalised other (the master narrative, the classical text or the great tradition), but the actual other, sitting next to me in the classroom (the small narrative, the ‘text’ of my fellow student, the tradition in her/his own mind). Intra-religious learning takes place, in the first instance, not between representatives of ideological groups from an outsider perspective, but rather in the inner dynamics of the quest for meaning of young people, in communication with other young people.

“This critical encounter reinforces the ability to look deeper into my own meaning-giving system and to explore further the existential resilience it offers. Through the intercultural and interfaith encounter I am challenged to redefine and re-dignify myself; to know myself better and respect myself more, as a human person with dignity, who makes a difference in encounter with others. In this model ‘learning in difference’ and ‘learning on common ground’ – particularity and universality – come together” (Halsall & Roebben 2006)

2.6. Elements for theological educationand teacher training

• Training in classroom management: learning to perceive the (social, cultural, moral and religious) complexity and diversity of the local class groups (e.g. family and church background)

• Training in particular (moral and religious) contents: acquiring knowledge and heuristic strategies (to find knowledge) on TWR preferably focused on those religions who are actually present in the classroom and/or can be introduced through local representatives (= learning about religion)

• Training in hermeneutical and communicative strategies for classroom discussion: adapting and interpreting the TWR materials to particular life issues such as love, death, suffering, etc.; training oneself and students in perspective change (= learning from religion)

• Training in the appropriation of moral and religious convictions in one’s own biography as TWR teacher: coming to terms with a personal spiritual synthesis and narrative identity (= learning in religion).

By way of conclusion

“One of the purposes of education is that individuals and communities should flourish, should grow strong and be fruitful, should be creatively at home in a beautiful and restored environment, in which human life and nature can together be renewed. When we ask about the contribution of Christian faith to education in modern Europe, we must ask what stops our children and our young people from flourishing. It is poverty, ethnic and racial tension and hostility, lack of community, and above all, the ethos created by the money-mad society. Those who live for money will live stunted and selfish lives, but those who live for others in human solidarity will flourish like the tree that is planted beside the living waters. The role of the Christian churches in Europe is not to control education, not to domesticate it or to turn it into something it cannot and should not be, but to enable it to flourish” (John Hull 2004).

Comments?

[email protected]