Religious education in a post-secular and post-Christian context

Abstract

In 1999, a new curriculum for Roman-Catholic religious education was introduced in Flemish primary and secondary schools, taking into account both the growing de-Christianisation and religious pluralisation of pupils in the classroom. Recently, this new curriculum has been subjected to diverging criticisms: first it is considered still too Christian, and therefore not able to appropriately deal with religious plurality, and, second, quite contrary to the first criticism, because it deals too much with religious plurality the curriculum is criticised for being no longer sufficiently Christian. In view of this double criticism, in this contribution I first shed some light on the analysis of the current post-Christian and post-secular religious situation, upon which the Religious Education (RE) curriculum is based -i.e. an analysis in terms of detraditionalisation and pluralisation (rather than secularisation). Afterwards I evaluate whether the fundamental goals, which were set 10 years ago, are still adequate to this analysis. In order to do so, I enquire how these goals relate to the double critique: on the one hand, that Roman Catholic RE is no longer an adequate way to prepare pupils for the post-Christian and post-secular society, because they are still too Christian, and, on the other, that they are not Christian enough. In doing so I will accentuate the integral nature of these goals, taking the present religious plurality as a dynamic given which opens up new opportunities for a more reflexive identity construction, while at the same time providing new space to bear witness to the Christian offer of meaning. I conclude with a short reference to the preconditions which need to be fulfilled in order to facilitate the implementation of such RE programme.

The contested place of religion in the Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum: exploring the secular in a multi-faith society

“…Bouma's claim here further asserts the continued, if changing, relevance of religion in people's lives (see also, Boeve, 2012). A number of commentators have also cited the importance of increased religious diversity brought about by recent trends in immigration (Stevenson, et al, 2010;Byrne, 2014), whilst others have pointed also to the growth of particular forms of Christian faiths including Pentecostalism and Evangelicalism (Maddox, 2014;Byrne, 2014).…”

The secularisation of religious education: humanism, religion and worldview education in the Netherlands in the 1960s

“…Research underlines this (Boeve 2012;Schluss 2009;Jackson and O'Grady 2007;Ter Avest et al 2007, 208-215;Knauth 2007;Kumar 2006;Leach 1930). However, although scholars write that secularisation influenced RE, they rarely elaborate on how this was the case.…”

Theology in the Public Square of Australian Higher Education

“…These statistics reflect a broader trend globally which has led some to define the times in which we live as "post-secular", a context within which secularism itself is seen as only one option among many and in which religion continues to have an influence, albeit in a less institutionalized but arguably more powerful way than it has in the past (e.g. Boeve, 2012;Agamben, 2011;Habermas, 2008). Additional features of this religiously contentious era include, at one end, the rise of an aggressive "new atheist" movement (Beattie, 2007) and, at the other end, militant, sometimes violence-prone religious fundamentalisms, in the major religious traditions (Armstrong, 2001).…”

“…Additional features of this religiously contentious era include, at one end, the rise of an aggressive "new atheist" movement (Beattie, 2007) and, at the other end, militant, sometimes violence-prone religious fundamentalisms, in the major religious traditions (Armstrong, 2001). All of the above is influenced by, and influences, the three features of the current era that Boeve (2012) identifies in the following way:…”

“…In view of these features, Boeve (2012) argues that a situation requiring dialogue arises, and not simply dialogue between individuals situated on a spectrum between the two extremes of religiousness and secularity. What emerges, instead, is "a plural field of multiple positions, which are related to each other, which possibly influence each other, learn from each other, question each other, conflict, even repudiate and fight" (p. 145).…”