WHAT PENNY THOMPSON REALLY SAYS ABOUT RE

 

by John M Hull

 

Penny Thompson wants to teach Christianity as true.  She agrees with those who think that RE should be “an instruction in some kind of theism” and that this could only be taught by those who believe in God.  The kind of theism in which children should be instructed is, according to Penny Thompson Christian theism and she therefore believes that it would not be appropriate for someone who is not a Christian to teach RE.  She believes that children from other religious traditions should be taught their own faith, and that this will normally only take place in selected local areas.  In all other cases,  and as  the national norm, Christian children will receive Christian teaching.  Penny Thompson appears to believe that children normally belong to religious families and that most of these are Christian.  Penny believes that there is a direct relationship between the religious affiliations of delegates onto the local agreed syllabus Conference and the content of the syllabus which they are to agree.  She believes that the agreed syllabuses should express the centrality of Christianity (I take it that she means that the syllabuses will teach Christianity as true). Only in areas where there is a vast majority of pupils from another faith will the syllabus teach that faith, and it will take the form of a separate and parallel syllabus instructing in that particular faith.  She does not believe that the principle religions should be taught.  Penny Thompson believes that children should be inspired and formed by the religion that is nearest to them.  Children cannot be compelled to receive such instruction.  Penny Thompson believes that if religious education is not presented in this way, it is hard to understand why we have it at all.  Nevertheless (Penny Thompson uses the expression “of course”) elements from other religions may be taught, particularly when they are in agreement with Christianity, but always it will be Christianity that is taught as true and as being of great worth. 

 

What I believe about religious education

 

I believe that religion and religions should be taught to children faithfully, descriptively, critically, as possibly being true, as possibly being false, and  as mostly being worthwhile. 

 

I believe that religious education is a basic entitlement in the education of all children regardless of their faith or lack of it, because it  contributes to their educational advancement and their spiritual and moral welfare. 

 

I believe that such religious education is wholly educational in its character and should be wholly professional in its presentation.  It can be taught by any well-informed and well trained teacher of goodwill regardless of the personal faith or lack of faith of the teacher. 

 

I believe that the way in which in England and Wales religion and religions are taught to all children together in a single classroom and not divided along religious lines is one of the finest achievements of our educational system.  It makes a significant contribution to mutual understanding, is a model of social justice and equal opportunities,  and has received international recognition for these qualities.

 

I believe that most children in England and Wales are not close to any religious tradition, that the values of the money-culture are dominant amongst our young people, and that religious education is for all children not just for religious children.

 

I believe that the geographical area relevant to the content of the agreed syllabuses is Great Britain not the local community, and that the local agreed syllabus Conference should not conceive of its task as the projection of the  faith of its members  into the classroom but as making educational selections from the principal religions represented in Great Britain.

 

I believe that the religious education policies in which I believe are fully consistent with the Christian faith (and may also be fully consistent with other faiths and with Humanism, for all I know) and that they represent a mature and socially responsible Christian approach to religious education.

 

What I believe about what Penny Thompson believes

 

Penny Thompson does not believe in professional and educational religious education but is recommending policies of Christian confessionalism.  If her policies were implemented, the rationale which undergirds the provision of religious education for all in the state schools of a plural democracy would be undercut.  If religious children were to be taught their own religion by adherence of their own faith, the public would soon want to know why this was not being done in the mosques, churches and synagogues rather than taking place at the public expense. 

 

I believe that whereas we should be doing our utmost to minimise the use by parents of the right to withdraw their children, the policies of Penny Thompson would lead to a considerable increase in such withdrawals.  Penny Thompson realises this but appears to be complacent about it. 

 

Penny Thompsons approach is flawed because although she claims to believe in teaching Christianity as true, she does not confront Christian plurality.  She does not tell us which version of Christianity is true, and if her policy were pursued she would arouse from Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Pentecostalists or whatever the same kind of objections which she now proposes about the teaching of world religions.

 

Penny Thompson does not appear to believe that there may be truth and value in religions other than Christianity.  She does not believe that Christian children have anything to learn from studying other religions, nor that children from other religions have anything to learn from the study of Christianity.  Her approach is wholly monological and she  rejects dialogical approaches to the teaching of religion.

 

Although Penny Thompson refers to religion, it is clear from her statements that she does not really believe in the value of religion but only in the value of the Christian religion.  In her approach religion consists entirely of a series of religions, and of that series, there is but one that is true.  From a scholarly point of view, this is an untenable position.

 

Instead of putting forward her own views simply and openly in her own name, Penny Thompson seeks to revive controversies which were settled more than ten years ago and which have been fully debated in a wide range of religious education literature with which most  professional religious education teachers  are  familiar. 

 

 

6.2.01