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

Religious Education and Sponsoring Faith in Adolescents

By Marisa Crawford and Graham Rossiter

(M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1993,  Religious Education and Sponsoring Faith in Adolescents, Australasian Catholic Record, 70, 4, 489-501.)

Introduction

Last year the Institute for Religious Studies published Sponsoring Faith in Adolescence which reported research by Sr Carmel Leavey and associates on the views of young women from three Catholic high schools.¹   It was well received even though its findings were not all that rosy.   The response of the Australian Catholic educational community was interesting.   It was like a replay of what happened in 1976.   Looking back at this can be instructive for us today in working out how to plan the most effective responses to the valuable contribution made by Leavey's research team.

Perspective from Past Experience

In 1976, Dove Communications published a book written by the Episcopalian priest, John H. Westerhoff III, titled Will Our Children Have Faith?²   As expected, the principal group within the Australian Catholic Church which responded with most interest were those involved in religious education in Catholic schools.   'Faith' and 'faith development' were becoming central concepts in the aims for Catholic school religious education.   Westerhoff's book became the first major vehicle for publicising James Fowler's theory of faith development.   This caused some chagrin for Fowler because Westerhoff got in early and presented a brief rundown on Fowler's stage theory (with some simplified names for the stages) before Fowler himself had the opportunity to publish a book on it.³

     From then on Fowler's theory of faith development has had a profound influence on the thinking and language of Catholic religious education.   It has, without doubt, refined and extended our understanding of the spiritual development of adults -- and by implication, the spiritual development of children, even though the principal relevance and applications for the theory are for adults.⁴   We consider that the complex relationships between religious education and the development of faith require further clarification.

     In his book, Westerhoff questioned the relevance of what he called a 'schooling/instructional paradigm' for Protestant Church Sunday Schools in the United States.   He considered that it was the local Christian community in its celebrative ritual which was principally responsible for developing the personal faith of children when they were voluntarily attending Sunday school.   He believed that in that context, community experience, especially liturgy, was much more influential on the development of personal faith than formal instruction.   He thought that religious socialisation rather than religious instruction or religious education was the most relevant process.

     Catholic religious educators in Australia and elsewhere sought to apply Westerhoff's ideas to religious education in Catholic schools.   The idea that the metaphors and processes of 'community/inculturation' were more relevant for the teaching of religion than those of schooling/instruction further motivated the contemporary experimentation to make classroom religious education more informal, more personal and more discussion orientated.   This was similar to what was experienced on retreats;  and besides, retreats were at that stage the one component of the school's total religious education that was obviously successful.   In addition, this thinking was reinforced by research findings that highlighted the importance of school climate and sense of community.⁵   An emphasis on community and interpersonal relationships was being opposed to instruction and education.

     Westerhoff considered that improvement of the Sunday school required a 'de-schooling' of its structures.   Following this lead, Catholic religion teachers thought that de-schooling classroom religious education might also be productive;  this meant movement away from a more formal, instructional, academic study towards something more low key and informal (not that what they were moving away from was all that academic!).   It has taken a long time for religious educators to understand this confusion of contexts, purposes and processes, and it is still not yet adequately resolved in the minds of all religion teachers and administrators.   This has been partly responsible for the long, and still lingering, opposition to a more challenging academic study of religion in Catholic schools;⁶   religion teachers were not likely to move in a direction that appeared to be in opposition to the dominant motif of faith development.   This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere;⁷  but it is relevant to note that there should never have been that artificial dichotomy that some like to think exists between the academic and the personal dimensions of religious education -- this faulty thinking is evident where academic study is linked just with 'knowledge', while more personal activities (even though hard to gauge) are said to promote 'faith development'.⁸

     The responses of Catholic religious educators, as far as the school implications in Westerhoff's ideas were concerned (and to the theory of faith development in general), were not as discriminating as they should have been.   What Westerhoff said was correct;  he was dealing with voluntary activities in the local church.   But the context of compulsory classroom religious education in Catholic schools is quite different, where other complex factors came into play.   So the efforts to make Catholic school religion classrooms less 'school like' and the lessons less 'education like' did not in the long term prove relevant or successful.

     The problem in the response of Catholic school religious educators to the theory of faith development was lack of an adequate differentiation between religious socialisation and religious education;  and consequently, between community/personal and classroom contexts.   As a result, there was ambiguity about the ways in which instruction, counselling, personal interaction and other such processes contribute to both education and the development of a personal faith.   Too often a simplistic 'either/or' solution predominated without detailed exploration of the complex relationships and overlap between socialising and educational processes.

     These same problems are likely to hamper the Catholic school response to the Leavey research.⁹

     The work of Carmel Leavey's research team is thorough and discriminating.  Educational responses need to be equally discriminating.   The book itself suggests implications which are valuable as far as they go, but which show traces of the same sort of ambiguities that limited the effectiveness of Westerhoff's and Fowler's earlier contributions -- as far as classroom religious education is concerned.

     The Leavey group chose the concept of 'faith sponsoring' or 'faith mentoring' as the principal theme in their suggested implications.   We agree with this choice as far as its applications to the home and local parish are concerned.   However, the concept is not explored sufficiently to show its complex relationships with religious education;   this limits its relevance and usefulness when the specific context of classroom religion teaching is considered.

     We will endeavour to signpost some of the issues that need clarification.   The first of these compares and contrasts religious socialisation and religious education.   This will serve as background to a discussion of two topics:  faith sponsoring and the development of Catholic religious identity.

Comparing and Contrasting Religious Socialisation and Religious Education

Socialisation is different from education.   It refers to the way in which people absorb attitudes, values, beliefs, patterns of behaviour and ways of looking at life from their immediate social groups -- the family and various other groups in which they participate.   Socialisation is not primarily formal instruction, but learning by 'osmosis' from the personal and social environment.   The family is the prime location for socialisation.   But increasingly it is being recognised that television may be subsuming this role to the extent that for some children, families become modifiers of the primary socialisation being mediated through film and television.

     By contrast, education in schools is concerned primarily with helping young people learn how to think;  with helping them become familiar with the intellectual culture, and learning certain academic, technical and interpersonal skills that will be valuable not only for their own lives but for future employment.

     The table on the next page summarises some of the similarities and differences.

     Education and socialisation are different, but they overlap and it is important to have complementarity between them.   A young person's school religious education makes some contribution to his or her overall religious socialisation.   Similarly, aspects of religious socialisation will make a contribution to their religious education.   It is important to note the difference in emphases, otherwise the responsible adults may be trying to achieve the wrong things in the wrong context.   Classroom education cannot produce the sort of socialisation that can be delivered by a family or intimate group of peers.   Similarly, classroom study of religion can make contributions to young people's overall education and development that are not possible within a family or local parish.

     Confusion of the two processes was evident in the Westerhoff instance discussed earlier.   The problem also surfaces in the Leavey book in the section on implications.   Its language shows occasional, but not clearly identified, jumps between socialisation and religious education and between interpersonal and classroom contexts, that can give the impression that the processes are presumed to be identical and that the implications do not seem to depend on the context.

     One of the reasons why efforts to improve the effectiveness of classroom religious education have not been so successful has been a blurring of the distinctions between religious socialisation and education, and a blurring of the boundaries between different contexts.   Although it is changing, Catholic school religious education is still labouring with the difficulties that came from thinking that faith development occurred almost exclusively through interpersonal processes.

     Different contexts for ministry and religious education require different configurations of processes and activities to be relevant and effective.   Each has a distinctive 'channel' or style of contribution to the development of faith.   For classroom religious education, too great a store was placed on the faith developing potential of interpersonal processes;   more attention should be given to educational interactions.   These processes are not exclusive but complementary;  but the mix needs to be right.

Contrasts Between Religious Socialisation and Religious Education

The Faith 'Sponsoring' or 'Mentoring' Process

The sponsoring of faith development envisaged by James Fowler and the writers of Sponsoring Faith in Adolescence is, in the main, a very personal one-to-one process.   A classic example is the situation where a parent who has a close relationship with the young person is able to talk through with him or her what are the telling issues in life for them at that stage.   This is a very different process from classroom teaching.   Another example would be the teacher, priest or youth minister who has a one-to-one personal relationship with a young individual where there is the possibility of talking over the issues that Leavey refers to as "master stories", "centres of power", etc.

     The value of these sponsoring or mentoring activities is great and is not in question.   We simply make the point that they are not the sort of things usually associated with the classroom teaching of religion.   This is not to say that such teaching is less important than faith sponsoring -- it is different, and it makes a different contribution to the young person's overall religious development.   It would seem more appropriate to develop the metaphor of religious education rather than faith sponsoring to describe what is being done in religion lessons in schools (Catholic or Government).   No doubt in addition to what is happening in religious education, the concept of faith sponsoring has application to other situations like counselling, youth ministry, one-to-one personal relationships with students, etc. in which teachers may be involved.

     The emphasis in faith sponsoring is on personal relationships because the process of sponsorship is related to:- listening;  advising;  counselling;  mentoring;  learning by example, emulation and identification -- all of which are most appropriate in a one-to-one personal relationship (or intimate group).   Just how significant the Leavey team's suggestions about sponsoring are for classroom religious education will then hinge on the issue of how relevant mentoring, counselling and interpersonal processes are to education in the classroom.   We will suggest later that the Leavey study has confirmed a number of important points of significance for religious education, but that these are better considered under categories other than personal sponsoring or mentoring.

     Our own study of the personal sponsoring or mentoring process and our discussions of spirituality with teenagers would incline us to give whole hearted support to the Leavey study's recommendations about individual faith sponsoring.   Our major concern is that too few people -- parents and others who minister to the needs of youth -- develop the sort of personal relationships needed for this sponsoring;  and too few put the necessary time into it.   If youth ministry in parishes and other contexts is to make a significant contribution to faith sponsorship then it must commence with adults who are prepared to give over time simply to being with and listening to young people.

     Also a concern of ours is how to understand the reality that even the best sponsoring activities will not guarantee automatic success in bringing about a development of faith competencies.   We have in mind instances where one or both parents provide the sort of relationships and personal discussions that are at the heart of sponsoring spiritual and moral development in young people.   Yet, in some of these, one or more young persons in the family responds favourably while another -- given the same, and often more, opportunities and consideration -- responds not at all.   Alternatively, the response can be uneven -- the young person may develop a sensitive social conscience, but this can co-exist with extreme selfishness and intolerance in the way that individual treats other members of the family.

     Those who minister to youth need to do their best in sponsoring their spiritual and personal development.   But they also need to keep in mind that the process of personal and spiritual development is very complex and not always predictable -- it does not always fit neatly to the structural stages of various developmental theories, even though these theories are helpful.   The Leavey research is important because in examples close to home, it enables us to look at spiritual development through a particular prism.   The 'prism' -- Fowler's theory -- highlights personal competencies that relate to the believing process.

Classroom Religious Education and the Sponsoring of Faith in Adolescents

Relating classroom religious education to the needs and interests of young people has meant that religion teachers should take into account their students' spiritual starting points;   their apparent disinterest in taking religious education seriously while yet being interested in spiritual and moral issues are crucial points in question.   Some years back, in a chapter entitled "Just Who are we teaching Religion to?" we offered a typology of students in a typical class as regards their varying receptivity and responsiveness to religious education.¹⁰   This typology drew attention to students who had a committed and supportive religious background, who were interested in religious education, as well as to those who were antagonistic and those who were apathetic.   Sponsoring Faith in Adolescence confirms this typology and the thinking behind it.   In addition, it showed that a proportion of students who are antagonistic do so partly as a reaction to the strong religious background in their homes.

     The research suggested that the sample of young people were theologically illiterate because, among other things, they could not talk coherently about 'Kingdom of God theology'.   This is perhaps a fair comment but it does not give the complete picture.   If theological literacy is defined in such terms, then most young people will certainly come out with illiterate scores.   Other research shows that young people often have a well developed social conscience -- much more sensitive to and active about world social issues than was the generation conducting the research when they were at school.   However, today's young people are very secularised;  they do not look to organised religion nor to its theological language for leadership in relation to personal and social issues.   In fact, many are convinced that organised religion not only has little to offer in relation to social issues, but is only marginally relevant to the decisions and issues that are part of their everyday living -- for them, religion is concerned with the larger background concerns about evil, death and afterlife where it offers security;  so for most of their lives they can get by without it.   We refer to this matter not to play down the importance of trying to develop theological literacy in young people because we regard this as one of the core aims of religious education.¹¹   But those who are trying to teach theology and the process of theologising to young people in religious education should not be disheartened;  they should keep trying.   The results are long term;  and teachers need to understand that the younger generation are often forging a spirituality that draws on formal Catholic theology in different ways from those of older generations.

     The issue raised by the Leavey research that we wish to give special attention to is the development of religious identity.   It is related to faith development theory because it asks the questions:   What sort of faith is developing in young people?  -- really, what sorts of faith?  How does the developing spirituality of young people draw on or neglect the Church's traditions?   What should be the strategies in classroom religious education if special attention is given to the needs and interests of the students who will remain only nominally Catholic?

Religious Education and the Development of a Sense of Catholic Religious Identity

The question of religious identity has recently been a prominent one for Catholic religious educators.   Rapid social change in the latter part of this century, particularly in western countries, has resulted in a breakdown in the traditional ways of handing on a religious heritage and sense of religious identity.   Many young people have lost a sense of what it means to be Catholic or even Christian.   Furthermore, they are not conscious that they are missing anything;  they are not very interested in what the Church might contribute to their lives.

     A crucial factor is the feeling of belonging.   Young people are not always made to feel 'at home' in the Church.   Those who do identify themselves as Church members may be angry that little scope is given to them to have a say in the conduct of church life.   It is the one organisation in their lives that does not seem to treat them with a sense of valued participation.

     Nevertheless, teachers of religion have the important task of giving their students basic contact with their cultural religious heritage.

     Even though many young people say they are not interested in acquiring a Catholic identity, the adult Christian community has a responsibility to at least give them some systematic access to its cultural religious heritage.   While they may not at the moment be interested in being active members of their Church, they should still be given enough information, history and experience of their tradition to have at least some minimal sense that this is the religious dimension of their cultural heritage.   This gives them 'raw materials' for building a religious identity even if they are not yet interested in any construction.

     The concept of access is an important one.¹²   Young people tend to resent attempts to impose a particular identity or moral code.   However, they are more open to the idea of being given access to the tradition which may be of value to them at some future stage.   This appeals to their sense of freedom and lessens the likelihood of a negative reaction to any perceived pressure to conform.

Review of German Research on the Development of Religious Identity

Research conducted by Professor Karl Ernst Nipkow from the University of Tübingen in Germany has interesting ideas on the formation of religious identity and on implications for Religious Education.¹³

     Nipkow set out to test some traditional assumptions made about religious identity.   Developing 'ecumenical' and 'inter-religious' dialogue are aims proposed for Religious Education, particularly for general religion studies courses that examine world religions.   These aims tend to presume that individuals begin with an already established denominational religious identity before they can develop a more general ecumenical Christian identity;  then with some sense of Christian identity, they may be able to learn from dialogue with other religions in ways that enhance their spirituality.

     His research showed that many German youth had little sense of either a denominational or an ecumenical identity.   Traditional religious identities were eroded.   Furthermore, the youth were not interested in acquiring either of these identities;   neither were they interested in ecumenism;   they felt that the churches and religions in general had little to offer them in the living out of their lives.   They tended to have a very relativistic outlook on religion.   One religion seemed as good as another;   all religions appeared to have similar concerns and the differences and conflict seemed to be just a matter of opinion anyway.

     These findings raised questions about the relevance of the talk amongst religious educators about promoting ecumenical and inter-faith learning.   Nipkow considered that it could be 'wishful' educational and theological thinking, because it does not take into account the radically changed world situation in which these young people live.   The ways in which they construct meaning and values for life are also different from those of earlier generations.

     Three key issues raised by Nipkow's research are:- 

*   the need for a useful account of the factors and processes that influence the development of a relativistic religious identity in young people;

*   the need for religious education to give appropriate attention to the beliefs and practices of the faith to give young people access to 'identity building' materials;

*   the need to have wherever possible an issue-oriented religious education because there is then more scope for today's young people to see that their study of religion can contribute to the development of their spirituality, however traditional or untraditional it may be.

Religious Identity and the Development of Faith

The research of Nipkow raises questions not about the data in the Leavey study, but about the perspective from which it is interpreted.   A crucial question about the faith of adolescents that had not been adequately answered is:  "What sort of faith is developing in these young people?"   While his research refers to German youth from different Christian denominations, the findings are relevant to the Catholic situation in Australia.

     While the aims of the sponsoring Catholic Church are not equivocal, the way that today's generation of young people forge meaning and purpose in life may be so different from that of past generations that it is important to consider that their type of faith may also be different in some important respects from what has gone before.   This is not questioning the unchanging nature of Christian faith, but it is asking whether there still might be significant differences in the scope and expression of that faith.

     Our interpretation of Nipkow's research confirms the view that while a minority of young people assume a definite denominational religious identity (Eg. as Catholic), there is a greater proportion drawing on spiritual values and wide-ranging religious beliefs in a relativistic way to form their own personal, spiritual interpretation of life.   This is part of a privatisation of religion.   Whether or not this is a desirable trend needs to be considered, but not at this point.

     One of the key issues is the distinction in Fowler's theory between the process and content of faith.   Nipkow suggests that progress through Fowler's structural stages may be interpreted from one point of view as development into a Catholic faith with an accompanying sense of Catholic religious identity.    However, there is evidence to suggest that many young people may well be developing through Fowler's stages of the believing process, but not into a recognisably Catholic faith;   it may be a faith that is more diffuse, relativistic and eclectic in its style of believing.    Depending on how one interprets what is happening, the changes might be seen as a loss of a specific religious identity;  or alternatively, one could suggest that a different form of Catholic religious identity is emerging.   This question is not only difficult to analyse it is painful because it seems to threaten the cherished aims of so many religious educators.

     Another interpretation proposes that many young people's faith is evolving in a 'secularised direction'.   They are still spiritual and are still believers, and they may retain a Catholic identification but they are drawing on organised religion and traditional religious beliefs in different ways.

     There are still Catholic youth who will be socialised into a traditional religious faith through the traditional beliefs and practices of their religion, particularly where there is a strong climate of religious socialisation in the home carried through into participation in the life of a local community of faith.   However, this group is becoming a minority.

     A greater number of young people are more cynical and selective as regards the teachings of their religious tradition.   They tend to see religions and denominations as relative.   They are more ready to think of religions as being similar in nature, as if they had a common psychic origin.   They are more aware of the psychological functions of giving meaning and purpose that religions serve.    Consequently, the exclusive truth claims of particular religions are not taken so seriously.   Differences and conflict between traditions, as well as the demarcations between traditions, are much less significant for this generation than for older ones.    Where they do take an interest in their religious tradition and its teachings, it tends to be where they focus on important spiritual or moral issues like life after death, morality, social justice, and on questions of lifestyle.

Conclusion:   An Agenda for Further Study of the Formation of Spirituality and Religious Identity in Young People

The research of Carmel Leavey's team (both the recent book and the earlier study of the Beliefs of Catholics¹⁴) should be a valuable stimulus to the Catholic community in Australia (and elsewhere) and to other denominations in reviewing their ministry to youth.   The research proposed implications for Religious Education.   However, it would be more accurate to describe them as implications for religious socialisation and the personal sponsoring process.   Follow up to their valuable findings and suggestions is likely to be more effective where it gives precision to what the research implies for religious socialisation, religious education and interactive personal sponsoring in different contexts.

     Our concerns in this paper have been limited mainly to one aspect -- the formal teaching of religion in Catholic schools.   We considered the theme of religious identity as one we find useful in tying together a variety of issues in contemporary religious education.   Various parts of this jigsaw puzzle-like topic need further research.   We are exploring in other writings a number of factors that influence religious identity and young people's spirituality:-

*   The process of Secularisation.   How young people develop a spirituality without much reference to formal religion:  Implications for religious education.

*   The prevalence of background social factors like Relativism and Indifferentism which affect religions and morality, as well as other aspects of human life and culture.

*   The Increased Capacity to Compare the teachings of their own faith with those of other religions, and even with non-religious alternatives.

*   Young people's view that they have a Real Option to be Part of an Organised Religion or Not;   they also know they have a Choice as to what Elements of Religion they will Believe and Include in their Spirituality -- and consequently in their sense of religious identity.   They know they are more selective than were previous generations which tended to accept the traditional religious identity in packaged form with little personal modification.

*   The background influence of Education through which young people are encouraged to be more Critical and Autonomous in their thinking.

*   The formative influence of Mass Media, particularly Television and Film, which can insinuate expectations for life and influence the formation of values and beliefs.

     What we have discussed in this article can be disheartening for religious educators because it highlights the difficulties we have to face and it can give the impression that some of our best efforts have been ineffectual.   However, this should not be the case;   it is much better to be aware of the issues, particularly the way in which many youth form their spirituality.   To continue with an unrealistic view of the way the students in our classes perceive religion and religious education is not likely to improve our effectiveness.   The idea of being missionaries to youth, giving them access to their religious traditions in a way that will help them forge meaning and purpose whether or not they are going to become 'card carrying Catholics', is not at all an irrelevant or unrealistic understanding of the important task of religion teachers.

Endnotes

1.  C. Leavey, M. Hetherton, M. Britt and R. O'Neill, 1992, Sponsoring Faith in Adolescence:  Perspectives on Young Catholic Women, E.J. Dwyer, Sydney.

2.  J.H. Westerhoff III, 1976,  Will Our Children Have Faith?, Dove Communications, Melbourne.

3.  J.E. Fowler, 1980,  Stages of Faith:  The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning, Dove Communications, Melbourne.

4.  J.E. Fowler, 1986,  Becoming Adult, Becoming Christian, Harper and Row, New York;

     Faith and the Structure of Meaning, in C. Dykstra and S. Parks (Eds.), 1986, Faith Development and Fowler, Religious Education Press, Birmingham, Alabama.

5.  M. Flynn, 1975,  Some Catholic Schools in Action, Catholic Education Office, Sydney.

6.  G.M. Rossiter, 1984,  A Review of Australian Research Related to Religious Education in Schools, National Catholic Research Council, Sydney, pp. 19-24.

7.  M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1988,  Missionaries to a Teenage Culture:  Religious Education in a Time of Rapid Change, Christian Brothers Province Resource Group, Sydney, chapters 2, 4-6;   M.L. Crawford and G.M. Rossiter, 1985,  Teaching Religion in Catholic Schools:  Theory and Practice, Christian Brothers Province Resource Group, Sydney, chapters 1-3.

8.  Examples of this thinking, together with a clarification of the problem can be found in G.M. Rossiter, 1986,  The Place of Faith in Classroom Religious Education, Catholic School Studies, 59, 2, 49-55.

9.  These problems are already evident in some responses to Sponsoring Faith in Adolescence.  See for example the extended reviews of the research in CEO Religious Education Newsletter, Sydney Catholic Education Office, August 1992, pp. 5-11.

10.  Crawford and Rossiter, 1988, chapter 3.

11.  Crawford and Rossiter, 1988, chapter 1.

12.  This theme is strongly developed in the writing of Mary Boys in the United States.   See:  M. Boys,  1989,  Educating in Faith, Harper and Row, San Francisco.

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

14.  C. Leavey and M. Hetherton (Eds.), 1988,  Catholic Beliefs and Practices, Collins Dove, Melbourne.

Click image here to return to Research staff page