The secular spirituality of youth: Implications for Religious Education

(M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1996, The Secular Spirituality of Youth: Implications for Religious Education, British Journal of Religious Education, 18, 3, 133-143.)

The secular patterns to young people's spirituality are often so different from what those responsible for religion curricula seem to presume about youth spirituality, that what is done to promote its development may miss the mark. The article explores implications for religious education in state and church-related schools, suggesting the need for a more issues-based approach with less emphasis on the description of religious systems.

Today's young people in most Western countries are secularised. They form values and meaning in life in ways that are different from those of previous generations -- at least different enough to have significant implications for religious education in schools, both state and religiously affiliated.

Even where they live in religious households and local communities that try to shield them from a secular environment, youth in industrialised, urbanised societies see people negotiating life and forming values more from their own initiative, with less dependence on traditional religious guidance. For them, religion no longer speaks with relevance or authority; if they have concerns about the environment, human rights, personal relationships and sexuality, they are more likely to refer to organisations in society which are unaffiliated with religion. In their self understanding and self expression many youth are eclectic, drawing on elements in trans-cultural, trans-ethnic and trans-religious ways -- the mass media, especially television, film and music are significant sources.

All of this influences the way young people respond to the efforts of educators in a religious setting who are trying to hand on a religious tradition, identity and spirituality¹; and it influences young people's perceptions of the value of studying religion in the non-religious setting of the state school.

If religious education acknowledges the ways youth perceive religion and find meaning, then it will be more likely to make constructive connections with the spiritual processes that are most prominent for them at that stage of their lives. This is just as important for those who will not have any association with organised religion as it is for those who will.

A preliminary note: When considering implications for school religious education, we draw attention to a tendency to polarise the debate somewhat artificially according to context -- as if the more specifically religious and Christian purposes are appropriate in religiously affiliated schools while the more general purposes are relevant to the state (public) schools. The history of religious education in the U.K. and Australia gives the impression that the study of religion in the two contexts is like two different species -- because of different purposes and content². We consider that this distinction is exaggerated; it overemphasises differences and obscures similarities. While there is not scope here for appraising this question, it remains significant when implications are being considered.³

If the teaching of religion in state or church schools does not make some connections with what young people see spirituality to be about, there is a greater likelihood that they will look at the material in a type of clinical anthropological way -- interesting, because it exists and has some pattern to it, but the overall impression is that it has no compelling links with what they themselves experience as important issues for life.

We are not so naive as to think that an attempted focus on spiritual issues or life themes will always magnetise young people's interest in the study of religion. But at least it should have content that has a higher probability of occasioning interest than something that is too descriptive. The latter has a higher probability of being treated with the clinical anthropological detachment we referred to above.

Consider the following example: One state Religious Studies course for senior students in Australia includes units (what some teachers call 'kitchen sink' units) on each of the major world religions, covering categories such as: origins, founder, early vision, sacred texts, history, beliefs, rituals, periods of change, moral teaching, missionary activity, contemporary expressions etc.⁴ Everything is there; authorities in each religion were consulted to confirm this. While teachers found it difficult to cover the content in the time available, of more significance is the question: Is this the sort of religious content that 17 and 18 year old students should be studying? For instance, when examining Judaism, do they need to go over (again?) the details of beliefs, rituals and festivals? We would argue no. (This would be similar to confining senior school Biology to the study of comparative morphology and taxonomy.)

We suggest that at this senior level students can learn much more about that religion and would see more value in the study if the content focused on what are the big issues for Judaism as a religion today: Eg. On some of the issues that Jews (and non-Jews) regard as important for Judaism today as a living religion; on the matters that Jews are excited about and on the questions they are anxious about. From this we derive topics like:- how Jews interpret the Holocaust, the political and religious significance of the state of Israel, attitudes to out marriage (marriage between Jews and non-Jews), homosexuality. Similarly, issue-oriented topics could be found for Christianity (and particular denominations), Islam, Buddhism etc. This could be complemented at junior secondary and primary levels with a more descriptive emphasis, while some reference to issues should not be lacking.

We are not proposing that religion curricula be determined exclusively according to issues that relate to the spirituality and interests of adolescents. But we argue that it should have greater prominence than it does in contemporary courses.

One might ask why is there such a stress on relevance for religious education? Should this principle apply equally to other subject areas? While the question of relevance is pertinent in a general way to all subjects, it is more critical for subjects where the content itself is personal and value laden. If studies in philosophy, ethics, religion, personal development, politics and the like do not have at least some perceived relevance for the students, then they appear to be a contradiction in terms.

The very subjects like religious education that one might expect to have personal relevance for students may have their personalism subverted by what we call the "psychology of the learning environment".⁵ If for various reasons religion classes are regarded by students as of little or no academic/educational consequence, and are not important by comparison with the 'real' subjects that count, then they will not be disposed to take them seriously no matter how much teachers protest their importance.

If school structures and community opinion are not supportive of the purposes and value of religious education, then they will subvert its personal value in the curriculum. It requires well defined and visible support structures to help show its value to students and parents.

An issue-oriented approach is one aspect of a critical, evaluative religious education. It looks at a problem, principle or situation and it involves seeking pertinent information from religious and other sources to help students understand the issue. It also includes analysis of information, interpretation of meaning and some preliminary judgment of conclusions and implications. It serves as a point of focus to give some cohesion and purpose to the study, so that information is not gathered just for the sake of information.

An issue-oriented religious education has premises that need justification. It presumes that by nature religion is often controversial and that controversial content is appropriate in the school curriculum, within the limits set by ethical teaching procedures and sensitivity to public views. It also presumes congruence with the currently dominant view of school education as a process that should be critical and evaluative -- even if the limits to such a critical process are not always clearly defined. It is not an easy task to construct a religion curriculum that gives due attention to issues; yet it is possible to do so and to do so with diplomacy and accountability.

Issue-oriented units are not entirely lacking in current curricula. While supported for some 25 years by theory and writings proposing an informative, critical, inquiring study of religion, there remain difficulties in translating this evaluative element of religious education into practice. Much, but not all, of the content in current student texts on world religions is descriptive.

It is interesting that as far back as the 1960s in the United Kingdom, Harold Loukes was proposing an issue-oriented religious education⁶ -- even if his aims are regarded as more denominational than might now be acceptable. Perhaps this movement did not develop and endure because the methods used then were not substantive enough; they were too discussion-oriented, according to the prevailing mood of Rogerian non-directive group psychology. Not enough use was made of up-to-date information and critical study methods. Some educators would argue that this same problem still occurs in the discussion group approach to Personal and Social Education classes in the U.K.

The research of Nipkow in Germany supports an issue-oriented religious education. For youth who are secularised and are not interested in acquiring any formal religious identity, he suggests that their school religious education (in state and church schools) should follow what he calls a principle of 'elementarisation'; that is, the study of religion needs to focus on 'elementary' or fundamental spiritual issues that youth see as relevant to their life and world, so that whatever their formal religious affiliation or lack of it, the study of religion will be valuable for their spiritual life.⁷ On the contrary, if religious education is perceived as almost exclusively committed to the maintenance of traditional church structures and teachings, it will have little credibility.

Inevitably, a critical, evaluative religious education conflicts with the views of those who do not want religion (their religion in particular) studied in such a fashion in the classroom. They feel that such an approach invites unwanted criticism, endorses relativism and encourages youth to call religion into question.

Community negotiation, including an explanation of what an evaluative study entails and why an issue-oriented approach is valuable for young people is an important part of the curriculum development process in religious education. In the last analysis, choice of the subject as an option, choice of school, and right of parental withdrawal from compulsory religious education may become important if there remain apparently irreconcilable differences on this score.

If critical inquiring education has become well established across the curriculum and is well justified, then it is inappropriate to try to remove this element from religious education. Hence, a key role of the religion teacher is to propose and moderate for students the process of informed critique (not just criticism) with ethical regard for the integrity of the beliefs and commitments of students and teacher, and for the integrity of the subject matter. Of great importance is the ethical ways in which teachers themselves model critical analysis and questioning, refer to their own beliefs and commitments when this is appropriate, and eschew any psychological pressure on students to give personal views if they do not wish to do so.

In times when conservative elements are increasingly influencing expectations of education, as evident in government prescription of curriculum, there is a need for a public relations exercise in favour of an evaluative, issue-oriented religious education. It warrants more justification and explanation in authoritative syllabuses and guidelines. Its cause is likely to be fostered if syllabuses are proposed at two levels. Firstly, there is the need for the structural syllabus that will satisfy interested authorities and the public who want to see formally included the important content and traditional categories for their religion (and other religions). Then there could be the implementation syllabus that looks at how the content can be covered in a generally more issues-oriented fashion that takes cognisance of the ways contemporary young people form their spirituality. It could propose a varying issues-mix for different age groups. This type of dual syllabus would also be helpful for church schools: The structural syllabus could specify the religious content that church authorities want to see covered; the categories would be mainly theological. The implementation syllabus would try to translate the content into topics and sequence that are more relevant for school students.

One practical evaluative teaching strategy is to make moral/spiritual issues (particularly those which engage youth interest) into topics for student study and research. This would give them an opportunity to think about the shaping influences on their own personal development (secularisation, relativism, privatisation of beliefs etc.). In this context, they could probably understand better the concerns that adults have for their spirituality and religious identity.

* How does the culture of contemporary music contribute to the personal development of youth; can it influence life expectations and moral decision making.

* Do film and television influence moral decision-making and value formation, and how might this influence operate. In particular, does the portrayal of violence and sex have an influence on young people's views.⁸

* Why do people join new spiritual movements (sects and cults); what personal and spiritual needs are met by these groups; is there emotional manipulation; are there implications for mainline churches and religions.

* What role can religious education play in fostering spiritual and moral development. To what extent should it be critical and evaluative.

This type of study can help young people stand back and look critically at what is happening in their culture and at the elements that are having a spiritual influence. Evaluative study encourages them to consider the interpretations offered by psychologists, sociologists, educators and religious authorities etc. Also, a good question for their evaluation is the appropriateness of a critical, evaluative religious education!

Given this case for the significant presence of a more issue-oriented, evaluative approach in religious education (especially for senior classes), we conclude with observations about the religion curriculum in church-related and state schools. For different reasons this approach is often deficient in each context.

Problems with the Orientation of the Religion Curriculum in Church-related Schools

A common problem with the religion curriculum in church-related schools is an overly devotional or artificially pious orientation. Its presumed religious framework, content and language are not sufficiently congruent with the perspective that young people take on spirituality. Elsewhere we have suggested that presumptive and devotional titles for topics have been used to try to make the religion curriculum and student texts more personal; this move seems to have been counterproductive⁹.

We are not questioning the commitment to a thorough study of the tradition that sponsors the school. However, we do question the relevance and the effectiveness of curricula that are too strongly influenced by frameworks that may be appropriate for committed adult believers who have a familiarity with Theology and Church practice, but which do not pay enough attention to the distinctive needs of youth. Their developing spirituality is different in important respects from that of churchgoing adults.

The religion curriculum in the church school can give students access to, and some familiarity with, their religious tradition, but at the same time, it can try to make connections with the ways in which they search for personal meaning. In short, this would help it address what the young people themselves see as the real personal, spiritual and moral issues of the day. The denominational aim of the religion curriculum to develop students' personal faith is more of a hope than an aim; it is influenced by many factors, only one of which is classroom religious education.

Many young people are now more unwilling to accept religious/moral teachings as valuable simply because they come from religious authorities. They may be prejudiced to some extent by anti-institutional feelings. They would like to explore and evaluate the meaning and relevance of teachings for themselves. While educators and others in the community may be concerned about the dangers in a spiritual eclecticism and relativism, it is inevitable that to some extent young people will build a spirituality in this fashion. If they believe that their students can learn wisdom from their collective religious traditions, then these are best studied in a fashion that shows how they have given meaning, purpose and value to the lives of believers over many generations.

In church schools, the objectivity that we consider should always characterise classroom presentations of religious teachings is essential if students are to see clearly that there is no hidden agenda to engineer their unquestioning acceptance. This does not mean apologising for, or watering down, church traditions and absolute claims to truth; neither does it compromise the school's religious commitment. But it is recognition that the classroom, with compulsory attendance, remains a public forum where respect for the individual's freedom and privacy is paramount; the faith presumptions that typify a voluntary religious commitment group do not apply. The overall faith-commending stance of a church school is contextual; but this does not imply any attempted imposition of faith or religious teachings. Most theological understandings of Christian faith presume that by nature it cannot be imposed.

As far as the classroom component of the church school's religious education is concerned, the acquisition of knowledge and access to traditions, as well as skill in evaluation are the naturally limited basis to its faith-commending platform. This thinking also calls into question the appropriateness of the term "inculcation" -- which seems to imply that by intention and educational interventions it is possible to 'inject' faith or values into students.

Similarly, we question the orientation of some state school general religious education courses. They make different presumptions about the most appropriate content and method without sufficient appraisal of their relevance to the spiritual development of youth.

For some time now, the use of Ninian Smart's dimensions of religion and other similar systems have provided the dominant organising principles for content in many multi-faith RE courses. For university scholars and students, these categories and the analysis of abstract patterns in religious phenomena are appropriate and interesting. But this cannot be presumed to have unqualified application to a school religion curriculum. The analytical categories in themselves may have little relevance for the average teenager -- often because they lead to an almost exclusive emphasis on descriptive details, while neglecting issues.

There is no doubt that phenomenological methods have been valuable in religious education. However, the political significance of this approach as recognisably different from what might be perceived as nurturing faith seems to have inhibited educators from questioning its personal relevance for students. Some time back, Grimmitt, who has given considerable attention to the ways in which religious education can contribute to student personal development, alerted educators to the problems stemming from a phenomenological approach that was overly descriptive and not sufficiently evaluative.

... with the adoption of what is sometimes mistakenly and misleadingly called 'an objective approach' to the study of religion, religious education has become [too] content-centred. The heavy concentration of Biblical content characteristic of Agreed Syllabuses in pre-Goldman times have often been replaced by equally heavy concentrations of content drawn from the world's religions.¹⁰

A religion curriculum dominated by descriptive and classificatory content is commonly perceived by students as boring and irrelevant. We concur. It also domesticates religions by minimising or relativising religious truth claims. The students, most of whom are secularised, have little time for religion if it does not seem to them related to the big issues in life. From a political point of view, descriptive content may seem educationally safe; but too much of it is educationally sterile for the spirituality of students. Our interpretation of sociological research on youth spirituality proposes that descriptive content, unrelated to issues or questions of meaning, is almost inevitably perceived by many youth as useless paraphernalia.¹¹ This reinforces their already strong sense of the irrelevance of most organised religion.

Objectivity and impartiality are essential elements in any critical, evaluative education -- and for religious education in both state and religious schools. But if courses are perceived by students as too neutral, impersonal, descriptive, non-evaluative and dispassionate, they will tend to see them as uninteresting and of little use; additionally, this is out of phase with the curriculum theory that gives an increasing emphasis to a critical, personally relevant education that looks at contemporary issues and stresses the development of skills for informed decision-making. As for all subjects, religious education needs to articulate how it contributes to young people's moral and spiritual development.

Many church school religion programs do not neglect a study of world religions, and do not treat them in a patronising way; but the approach tends to be too descriptive as in the state school multi-faith courses.

What we have offered here are reflections on classroom religious education in the light of the secular spirituality of many youth; they may help inform content selection and methods that will not neglect the varied avenues that today's young people take in negotiating a spiritual dimension to life. Given the current increasing emphasis on the role of the whole school curriculum in promoting personal, spiritual and moral development, the ideas might also be transposed for their pertinence to the wider question of a school education that fosters student spirituality.

1. M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1993, The Spirituality of Today's Young People: Implications for Religious Education in Church-related Schools, Religious Education Journal of Australia, 9, 2, 1-8.

2. M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1993, The Nature of Religious Education in Public Schools: The Quest for an Educational Identity, Panorama: International Journal of Comparative Religious Education and Values, 5, 1, 77-94.

3. We claim that the overlap between a general religious education and a specifically denominational one should be significant where there is a basic similarity between church and state schools as regards the open, inquiring education that students experience across the curriculum. (This may not be the case in a minority of religious schools that are selfconsciously authoritarian in method and where student questioning is not encouraged.) Preliminary ideas on this question have been discussed in:- G. M. Rossiter, 1981, Religious Education in Australian Schools, Canberra, Curriculum Development Centre, chapters 1-4; G.M. Rossiter, 1987, Studying Religion in Australian Schools, in R.B. Crotty, (Ed.), The Charles Strong Lectures: 1972-1984, Leiden, E.J. Brill. M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1992, Some Key Issues for Australian Research in School Religious Education, Religious Education Journal of Australia, 8, 2, 8-12.

4. NSW Board of Studies, 1991, Studies of Religion, NSW Board of Studies, Sydney.

5. M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1992, Teaching Wisdom: Religious Education and the Spiritual and Moral Development of Young People, Journal of Christian Education, 1992, Papers 101, 47-62.

7. K.E. Nipkow, 1991, Pre-conditions for Ecumenical and Interreligious Learning: Observations and Reflections from a German Perspective, Australian Catholic University Moral and Religious Education Project, Sydney.

8. This sort of question proposes to help students learn how to 'read' the media more critically and become more resistant to being naively shaped by the presumed values and life-expectations embedded in the narratives of film and television. An example of the background to such a study of culture is evident in M. Warren, 1992, Communications and Cultural Analysis: A Religious View, Bergin and Garvey, Westport CT. He stresses Raymond Williams' ideas about the way in which culture is constructed and communicated, making it a process that can and should be analysed and critiqued; and not unthinkingly accepted as a given with social influences that are inevitable.

9. M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1988, Curriculum Difficulties: Devotional and Emotional Titles, Presumptive Language and the Spiral Curriculum (chapter 10) in Missionaries to a Teenage Culture: Religious Education in a Time of Rapid Change, Christian Brothers Province Resource Group, Sydney.

10. M. H. Grimmitt, 1983, World Religions and Personal Development, in G.M. Castles and G.M. Rossiter (Eds) Curriculum Theory and Religious Education, Australian Association for Religious Education, Sydney, p. 26. For a more detailed evaluation of the phenomenological approach see M.H. Grimmitt, 1987, Religious Education and Human Development: The Relationship Between Studying Religions and Personal Social and Moral Education, McCrimmons, Great Wakering.

1 [1] . K.E. Nipkow, 1991, Pre-conditions for Ecumenical and Interreligious Learning: Observations and Reflections from a German Perspective, Australian Catholic University Moral and Religious Education Project, Sydney.

G. Malizia and Z. Trenti, 1991, Una Disciplina in Cammino: Rapporto sull'Insegnamento della Religione Cattolica nell'Italia Degli Anni 1990. Societa Editrice Internazionale, Torino. (English translation An Evolving Enterprise: Report on the Teaching of Religion in Catholic Schools in Italy in 1990).

G.M. Rossiter, 1992, The Religious Education Needs of Catholic Children in Government Schools, Part B: The Research Background, Australian Catholic University Moral and Religious Education Project, Sydney.

	Cardinal Clancy Centre for Research in the Spiritual, Moral, Religious and Pastoral Dimensions of Education.
Spiritual, Moral and Religious Education is a Flagship area for Research in Australian Catholic University

The Secular Spirituality of Youth: Implications for Religious Education

By Marisa Crawford and Graham Rossiter