Last year I commented in this magazine on the unacceptable nature of the syllabus which had then been produced for the new Standard Grade Examination in Religious Studies. There has now appeared, in draft form, a syllabus for a Revised Higher Grade Examination in Religious Studies, which follows on immediately from Standard Grade. There is no doubt that this new syllabus is rather less unsatisfactory. For one thing there is no obligation to study a false religion, such as Islam or Hinduism, though those who wish to do so may study any one of four such religions, in addition to Christianity. Again there is considerably more use of the actual text of Scripture. And it is possible that a reasonably satisfactory presentation of Christian doctrine could be given on the basis of the passages which are to be studied. Whether that could in fact happen in practice is largely dependent on the way the course is actually taught. The religious climate in this country generally, and in education in particular, has drifted so far from a position that gives any authority to the Bible as God’s revelation to mankind — the position which treats it as the only accurate source of religious knowledge. So far is this syllabus from taking God’s revelation as its foundation that one of its principles is “the human condition as the starting point of religion”. Thus the sad fact is that one cannot often be at all hopeful of our children profiting religiously within the education system.
As organised religion has moved away from a serious concern about spiritual matters — the salvation of the soul most importantly of all — so it has tended to concentrate on social issues. It is therefore not surprising to find a large section in the syllabus which considers “Christian ethics in a secular context”. Here pupils choose to study one of the following: “Rich and Poor”, “Gender roles and Relationships”, “Ecology (ie, the environment) and Stewardship”. Our point is not that such issues are unimportant in themselves, or that Christianity is not to form our attitudes in these areas. Indeed we are always to be governed by the Scriptural principle, “Whether therefore ye eat or drink or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God”. Our point rather is that it is so symptomatic of modern religion to concentrate attention on man’s relationship to man and to forget the absolute priority of man’s relationship to God, and one feels that in what have certainly become fashionable areas of concern there is almost bound to be a much greater input from secular and humanistic thought than from the Bible. A further major section considers “Christianity: Critiques and Challenges”. Here pupils are to study the challenge of one of Humanism, Science and Marxism to Religion. It is only necessary to say here that there seems to be more scope given for the challenge than for the response.
At almost the same time syllabuses for a collection of Moral, Social and Religious Education Short Courses have been issued, to be studied either in schools or in Further Education. They are thoroughly unsatisfactory. Here one is even more conscious than in the Higher syllabus of the need to emphasise that Christianity is not just one religion among many and that we are altogether dependent on revelation from God for true knowledge in the sphere of religion, and in its sub-sphere of morals. There is no need to comment on the units in detail. It is, however, specially alarming in the light of what has just been said to note a unit on non-Christian religions entitled “Choosing a Religion”, and more especially because it does not include Christianity, on the basis that it may be studied in other units. Again the unit “Living in a Plural Society” seems to put religious and cultural differences on a level, suggesting that the first are no more important than the latter, and can actually enhance our quality of life.
One should be able to welcome any means of instructing school children in religion, but this particular set of Short Courses is so lacking in Scriptural content and a Scriptural mentality that it cannot be expected to make any positive contribution to children’s religious development.
— K.D.M.