This is a blog to support a network of RE teachers interested in better reading of and interpretation of sacred texts, in particular the Bible, in religious education. If you would like to follow the blog and sign up with an email address and press the ‘Follow’ button. My name is Dr Bob Bowie and I work at Canterbury Christ Church University. I also publish textbooks for RE and you can find out about them here.
It’s a great video but if your busy just watch from 33 mins to 43 mins, this is a great example of a ‘disrupting-rationality’ kind of answer. Bell refers to bible text Ninja and the Predestination vs Free Will debate. When asked whether a Christian should believe in Predestination or Free Will, Bell answers “yes”. He kind of suggests its a two dimensional question that needs a third dimensional answer, and 2 dimensional rationality needs extra-dimensional insight. He uses a great example of a cylinder, a three dimensional object which in a 2 dimensional world is either a rectangle or a circle, but cannot be both (in a 2 dimensional world). To say so is irrational (in a 2 dimensional world). Maybe too many of our debates about theology and philosophy in RE classrooms are simply not extra-dimensional enough?
When you next see one of those ‘this or that’ GCSE question burgers, add some extra-dimensional insight sauce and break loose from those for/against 2 dimensional rationality answers.
How should learners be taught to find sense in biblical text? Should we prepare them to be able to find a justification for anything by learning a bank of quotes for deployment against any answer? When evaluating different ways of reading Biblical texts, do we encourage students to learn how Christians have explored those texts in the past?
I was exploring that question when a colleague from another university encouraged me to look at St Cassian’s four sense of text, which is said to have guided the way Christians made sense of the Bible for a thousand years.
Here are some interesting links:
There are lots of reasons I like this video and one of them is that it offers a positive way of thinking about RE. It is lively and dramatic and somehow manages to create a sense of a provocation that demands a response, without determining exactly the kind of response that should be. It invites a serious engagement, one that takes seriously the subject matter, recognises its significance and it controversially. It invites open, charitable engagement, open to the possibility of something enriching, without any attempt to smooth over the rough edges. It’s absolutely ‘in your face’ but not in a way that bashes your head. It asks an open question, and invites the viewer to approach with an open and enquiring mind. It dos not shy away from the reality that those approaching will see differences depending on their belief, nor that there is a political dimension to the impact of the Bible. It does not place limits on the destination of the learner. I think it captures part of the essence of religious education.
A question can create the hermeneutical approach that defines the study. Should a lesson begin with the question: “How can a good God exist in a world of such suffering” or should it begin, “How and why do so many people, despite such suffering in the world, maintain a faith.”
The first invites an investigation into the theodicy and philosophical arguments about evil and the idea of a good and loving God. The second invites you to step into the lives of people who, when confronted with suffering, walk with faith. See this video comment by Justin Welby, ArchBishop of Canterbury. His answer fails in a test of the Philosophy of Religion, at least as it is commonly understood, but it is an answer given in the ancient texts that are a source of faith for those in the Judeo-Christian traditions. It is emotional and uncomprehending. In a sense it is a submission to the moment of incomprehensible cruelty of life, and an act of despairing hope. Paradox is in the heart of good RE, I think, and we should explore paradoxes with children. Maybe the exploration of paradox and the human condition is more real than the construction of reasons.
Doing RE Hermeneutically – Learning to become interpreters of religion
Dr Robert A. Bowie
(Published in REToday, Autumn 2016, Vol. 34. No 1,Birmingham: RE Today, pp.60-62)
All we read and see around us is interpreted through a lens made up of many filters: previous experiences of similar situations, traditions, ways of thinking we have adopted, loves and hates. To be bitten by a dog one days leaves one wary of them the next. It is difficult and maybe impossible to access the outside world, except from behind our interpretative lenses. How we make sense of things does not stand neutrally apart from a particular story and this is particularly true for religion as. Maajid Nawaz in a dialogue with Sam Harries discussing difficult texts says:
“Religious doesn’t inherently speak for itself; no scripture, no book, no piece of writing has its own voice. I subscribe to this view whether I’m interpreting Shakespeare or interpretation religious scripture.” ((Islam and the future of Tolerance: A dialogue, 2015, USA, p.5)