This article was downloaded by: [Seton Hall University]

On: 30 November 2014, At: 04:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

British Journal of Religious Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbre20

The academic study of religions and

integrative religious education in
Europe
a
Wanda Alberts
a
Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and
Religion , University of Bergen , PO Box 7805, 5020 Bergen,
Norway
Published online: 27 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Wanda Alberts (2010) The academic study of religions and integrative
religious education in Europe, British Journal of Religious Education, 32:3, 275-290, DOI:
10.1080/01416200.2010.498621

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2010.498621

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 British Journal of Religious Education
Vol. 32, No. 3, September 2010, 275–290

The academic study of religions and integrative religious education

in Europe
Wanda Alberts*

Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, University of

Bergen, PO Box 7805, 5020 Bergen, Norway
(Received 6 July 2009; final version received 8 December 2009)
Taylor and Francis
CBRE_A_498621.sgm
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

British
10.1080/01416200.2010.498621
0141-6200
Original
Taylor
302010
32
wanda.alberts@ahkr.uib.no
WandaAlberts
000002010
&
Journal
Article
Francis
(print)/1740-7931
of Religious Education
(online)

The article provides an overview of the book Integrative religious

education in Europe: A study-of-religions approach (2007). It introduces
the notion of ‘integrative religious education (RE)’, relating to education
about different religions in religiously mixed classrooms, as opposed to
separative confessional approaches. The article presents some results of
my analysis of recent approaches to integrative RE, mainly from England
and Sweden. The analysis focuses on aims of integrative RE, the notion of
religion and the representation of religions, teaching methods, and the
notion of education. Building on recent theory and methodology in the
study of religions (Religionswissenschaft) and education, I propose a
European framework for integrative RE. The article concludes with a
description of recent school-related initiatives in the study of religions at
an international level.
Keywords: integrative religious education; the study of religions; Europe;
England; Sweden; religious studies

Introduction: integrative religious education in Europe

It is well known that the landscape of religious education (RE) in Europe is
diverse and that it has been transformed in many countries in recent years. A
number of publications have mapped the situation of RE in individual Euro-
pean countries (e.g. Kuyk et al. 2007; Jackson et al. 2007) and there have
been initiatives to find common guidelines for RE at international levels
(e.g. OSCE 2007). In Integrative religious education in Europe. A study-of-
religions approach (Alberts 2007), I take a slightly different approach to
education about religions in Europe. Rather than following traditional
models of distinguishing between confessional and non-confessional RE
(e.g. Jensen 2002), or between education into religion, education about
religion and education from religion (e.g. Schreiner 2005, 3), I have

*Email: wanda.alberts@ahkr.uib.no
ISSN 0141-6200 print/ISSN 1740-7931 online
© 2010 Christian Education
DOI: 10.1080/01416200.2010.498621
http://www.informaworld.com
 276 W. Alberts

distinguished between integrative RE and separative RE. This distinction

takes the classroom situation as its starting point. It regards the decision
whether RE is designed for heterogeneous groups of pupils with various
religious or non-religious backgrounds, or whether it addresses a particular
group of pupils selected according to their particular religious backgrounds
as an important distinctive feature for different models of RE. In the first
case, children with different religious and non-religious backgrounds are
integrated in one classroom and learn together about different religions (inte-
grative RE). In the second case, they are separated according to the religious
tradition they belong to and learn about ‘their own’ and often also about
‘other’ religions in separate groups, usually from a teacher who is authorised
by the religious community which is, often in cooperation with state institu-
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

tions, responsible for this particular version of RE (separative RE). RE as

taught in most German federal states is a good example of the separative
approach.1 Children (or, up to a certain age, their parents) can traditionally
choose between Protestant and Catholic confessional RE, which is taught in
separate classrooms. For children who do not wish to participate in confes-
sional RE, most states have introduced so-called ‘alternative subjects’, such
as Ethik (ethics) in Bavaria and Hessen or Werte und Normen (values and
norms) in Lower Saxony, which present a non-confessional perspective on
ethics and religions. In some federal states, there is also Jewish RE and, very
recently, several attempts have been made to establish Muslim RE (see
Schreiner 2007, 85).
Integrative RE as a compulsory subject can be found in some northern
European countries, dating as far back, for example, as the 1960s/1970s in
Sweden and England. Particularly with respect to recent debates about oppor-
tunities and limitations of integrative RE, it is useful to look at the develop-
ment of these subjects in England and Sweden, which have been quite
different from one another. While in Sweden the character of RE changed with
various national curriculum reforms from the 1960s to the 1990s, in England,
it was more a development from the bottom upwards, with more and more
locally agreed syllabuses including the study of different religions, an
approach which was not formally legalised before the Education Reform Act
of 1988. In Sweden, the different names that integrative RE received in the
second half of the twentieth century reflect different approaches to the subject.
The name changed from kristendom (Christianity) to kristendomskunskap
(knowledge about Christianity) in 1962, to religionskunskap (knowledge
about religion) in 1965/1969, 2 to människans frågor inför livet og tillvaron
and religionskunskap (human questions in the face of life and existence and
knowledge about religion) in 1980, and back to religionskunskap in 1994.3
The different names highlight different foci, first in the direction of a more
detached approach to Christianity, and later in the inclusion of various reli-
gions. The focus on existential questions, which was very prominent in the
1980 syllabus, was integrated in a more general concept of education about
 British Journal of Religious Education 277

religion in 1994, when the subject was made fully compulsory, without any
possibility of opting out. Whereas in Sweden, where the National Agency of
Education (Skolverket) is responsible for the syllabuses, the responsibility for
the syllabuses in England has been with local education authorities, resulting
in a greater variety of concepts and more gradual changes up to the reform of
1988 (Education Reform Act, see UK Parliament 1988), the model syllabuses
of 1994 (SCAA 1994a, 1994b) and the non-statutory national framework for
RE of 2004 (QCA 2004). In the English context, co-operation between reli-
gious and educational institutions is institutionalised, be it at the level of the
agreed syllabus conferences or the Standing Advisory Councils for Religious
Education (SACREs), or at the national level, where representatives of various
religious communities were consulted during the processes in which the
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

national documents for RE were produced. 4

The present variety of approaches to integrative RE in England, Sweden,
Norway and other countries shows that the integrative model is far from
uniform. A closer analysis of the individual approaches reveals that there are
significant differences with respect to, for example, the aims and contents of
the subject, the underlying notions of religion and education, and the represen-
tation of religions. In the following sections, I would like to demonstrate these
differences with examples from England and Sweden, evaluating the different
approaches from a study-of-religions perspective. After that, I will sketch my
suggestion for a European framework for integrative RE, based on the
comparative analysis of the examples and drawing on theory and methodology
in the academic study of religions and education. Furthermore, I will argue
that the academic study of religions, which has until now not been in the fore-
front in discussions about RE, is an indispensible discipline of reference for
integrative RE, together with general educational science. I will describe
recent European initiatives in the academic study of religions to find an
approach to the field of education and to develop subject-related didactics.
Apart from the update on European initiatives in the academic study of reli-
gions, the article is based on my book (Alberts 2007), in which I have analysed
material published up to 2006.

Analysis of recent approaches to integrative religious education

My analysis of recent approaches to integrative RE in England and Sweden is
based on written sources of different kinds, for example, official documents
(such as laws and syllabuses), academic literature, and teachers’ manuals and
textbooks for RE. In the English context, I have analysed the following
academic approaches to RE in depth (Alberts 2007, 111–210): the Westhill
project (e.g. Read, Rudge and Teece 1992; Rudge 2000), the Religion in the
Service of the Child project, the A Gift to the Child approach (e.g. Grimmitt
et al. 1991; Hull 2000), the experiential approach (e.g. Hammond et al. 1990;
Hay 2000), the interpretive approach (e.g. Jackson 1997; Nesbitt 2002), the
 278 W. Alberts

critical approach (e.g. Wright 2000), the constructivist approach (Grimmitt

2000a), the narrative approach (e.g. Erricker and Erricker 2000), the
Chichester project (e.g. Erricker 1995; Brown 2000) and the Stapleford
project (Cooling 1994, 2000). In addition, I have looked at the history of inte-
grative RE in England, for example, the influence of Ninian Smart and the
Shap Working Party for World Religions in Education, and at its present
organisation, including the legal framework, syllabuses and guidelines
(Alberts 2007, 86–110). In the Swedish context, I have structured the material
according to three different types of sources: official documents, academic
literature and teaching material. My analysis of these English and Swedish
approaches to integrative RE focuses on the following aspects: (1) aims of
integrative RE; (2) the notion of religion and the representation of religions;
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

and (3) teaching methods and the notion of education.

Aims of integrative RE
In England and Sweden, the integrative approach to teaching about religions,
in contrast to the separative approach, is regarded as an important element of
education, because it provides a common arena where children with different
cultural and religious backgrounds learn together and thereby also learn to live
with each other, despite the different worldviews they may have. In Sweden,
knowledge about different religions and worldviews is regarded as a prerequi-
site for forming one’s own worldview, be it religious or non-religious. School
education in general is regarded as a means of assisting children in becoming
well-informed and responsible individuals, respecting their own and others’
rights as citizens in a plural democracy. In line with this, the approach to RE
is emancipatory, encouraging pupils to form their own views about religions
and worldviews. The general plural framework makes room for the study of
different religious and non-religious interpretations of life, with a focus on
ethical questions.
In England, the aims of integrative RE have always been contested. Three
major approaches can be identified: (1) knowledge and understanding of
different religious traditions; (2) mutual respect and harmony in a multicul-
tural society; and (3) personal, moral and spiritual development of the pupils
(Everington 2000). In different approaches to RE, each of these aims is given
different emphasis. In contrast to the Swedish model, the emphasis on ‘spiri-
tual development’ in a number of English approaches is interesting. It may be
asked whether the concepts of religion and spirituality can be separated so
that this aim does not prioritise religious worldviews over secular ones,
ascribing to spirituality an inherent value that the secular world lacks (see
Alberts 2007, 294).
Even though there is some broad consensus that the approach to
integrative RE cannot be the approach of any particular religion, not all
English approaches assert that the aims of RE cannot be religious aims. Most
 British Journal of Religious Education 279

visibly, the experiential approach pursues a religious project, attempting to

guide the pupils on their way to the experience of the sacred. This is clearly
problematic in a plural classroom where the existence of the sacred and the
positive value of experiencing it cannot be regarded as given (see Hammond
et al. 1990, 20–22; for my criticism see Alberts 2007, 137–141).
However, we can also observe in the national model syllabuses that the
limitations of a secular approach to religions are easily transgressed. The skills
and processes suggested for RE include ‘synthesis’, which is further explained
as ‘linking significant features of religion together in a coherent pattern’ and
‘connecting different aspects of life into a meaningful whole’ (SCAA 1994a,
5). The former quotation is reminiscent of the attempt by phenomenologists of
religion to construe ‘religion as such’ behind the visible phenomena in empir-
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

ical religion, an approach which may be called theologically universalist. The

latter quotation sounds even more clearly like the classical work of theolo-
gians, especially as it is presented in the context of the two overall attainment
targets ‘learning about religions’ and ‘learning from religion’ (SCAA 1994a).
Most academic approaches to RE in England, however, pay attention to the
generally secular character of the subject, which is needed if RE is designed
for children with various religious and non-religious backgrounds. 5

The notion of religion and the representation of religions

There is a close connection between the notion of religion on which an
approach to RE is based and the way religions are represented in that
approach. In Swedish RE contexts, ‘religion’ is understood in a wide sense,
including different religions, worldviews and views of life (livsåskådningar),
in contrast to the traditional focus on ‘principal religions’ in much of English
RE, particularly in the model syllabuses and the national framework for RE
(SCAA 1994a, 1994b, 1994c; QCA 2004). Some English approaches to RE
are based on the classical phenomenological notion of religion, used, for
example, by its prominent exponents Rudolf Otto (1917) and Mircea Eliade
(1957), referring to religion as related to the experience of ‘the holy’. This is
problematic in an integrative context, because the recent study of religions has
shown that these approaches are based on religious presuppositions (as, for
example, the existence of ‘the holy’) and can therefore not be the basis for the
representation of religions in a secular framework. 6
The A Gift to the Child approach, for example, refers directly to Otto’s
terminology regarding the religious items to be presented in the classroom as
numina (Hull 2000, 115; cf. Otto 1917). The classical phenomenological
notion of religion lies also at the heart of the experiential approach. Essen-
tialist understandings of religion that aim at affirming the ultimate value of
‘real’ religion, however, conflict with the empirical ambivalence of religion.
Religions are just not always nice, beautiful and harmonious. The attempt to
separate the more unpleasant aspects of religions from an idealised ‘essence’
 280 W. Alberts

of religion is a theological construct that ignores the intrinsic interrelatedness

of the various aspects of empirical religion. If RE is based on such a non-
empirical construct of religion, the representation of religions in RE might be
far remote from how children encounter religion in the media or in their
daily lives.
The ‘liberal consensus’ about the experiential-expressive model for RE,
referring to a ‘generic religious experience’, which is widespread in the
English context, has been criticised by Andrew Wright. He has demonstrated
convincingly that RE based on this model is a patronising neo-confessional
framework depriving children of opportunities for authentic understanding
beyond this particular religious philosophy (Wright 1996, 2000). Traditional
explicitly or implicitly theological concepts of religions are challenged also in
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

some other recent approaches to RE. In the interpretive approach, the three
layer model individual, membership group and wider religious tradition is
used (Jackson 1997, 65f) in order to find a more flexible approach to religion
and RE, taking account of religion in different social contexts. In the narrative
approach, post-modern criticism is used for a radical reassessment of the
‘subject matter’ of RE and its now often implicitly religious overall frame-
work. Clive Erricker criticises the notion of ‘tradition’ as a prominent feature
of English RE, asking why RE ought to reproduce the grand narratives of reli-
gions, thereby also reproducing existent power relations and orthodoxy,
silencing the small narratives of the children (Erricker 2000; see also Erricker
and Erricker 2000).
In Sweden, the concept livsåskådning (view of life) has helped to find a
broad secular concept of religion for RE. It widens the horizon so that tradi-
tions that are not commonly regarded as ‘religion’ are included in the subject
religionskunskap, for example, the scientific worldview, socialism and exis-
tentialism (see, e.g., Thulin and Elm 1995, 132–3). At the same time,
livsåskådning serves as a hermeneutical key for the study of different religious
or non-religious phenomena (cf. Almén 2000, 67–71). For integrative RE, it
seems to be impossible to define the subject matter on the base of a distinction
between religious and secular views of life (where the former would be
included and the latter excluded), without falling back into essentialist notions
of religion. If livsåskådning is regarded as a superordinate concept which
includes religious and secular views of life, it can provide a valuable starting
point for integrative RE.
The notion of religion on which concepts for integrative RE are based, is
directly related to the representation of religion. In Sweden, the focus shifted
from livsfrågor (questions of life) as a starting point for the study and repre-
sentation of religions to livsåskådning (view of life).7 This somewhat broader
concept made possible an approach to religions focusing especially on
concepts, ethics and contemporary religion. Important debates about the repre-
sentation of religion in Swedish RE relate, for example, to the question of
whether the focus should be on elite religion or local empirical religion, for
 British Journal of Religious Education 281

example, in a Hindu context (cf. Almén 2000, 80). Another important issue is
the representation of religions in textbooks for RE (cf., e.g., Härenstam 1993,
which was the Swedish contribution to the European project on Islam in text-
books; see also Falaturi 1990). Kjell Härenstam, for example, bases the devel-
opment of his own concept for teaching Buddhism in RE on a close analysis
of the representation of Tibetan Buddhism in Swedish textbooks for RE in the
second half of the twentieth century (Härenstam 2000).
The question of whether religions should be studied ‘thematically’
(comparatively) or ‘systematically’ (separatively, one after another) gained
some popularity in the English debate about RE. In this debate, a generic
concept of religion, which regards religions as essentially similar, was
frequently linked to the thematic approach, which in the tradition of the
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

phenomenology of religions includes the study of various phenomena in

different religious traditions. The debate about the ‘thematic approach’ has
often focused, on the one hand, on the usefulness of such comparisons and on
the question of whether there is enough attention to the meaning of the
phenomena in their original contexts (Rudge 2000, 102). On the other hand, a
concept of different religions as discrete, incompatible (and incomparable)
entities was linked to the ‘systematic’ approach, which does not include direct
comparisons. These links, which imply that thematic and systematic represen-
tations of religions are mutually exclusive alternatives, however, unnecessar-
ily narrow the perspective on the representation of religions in RE. If
reflection on different concepts of religion is included in integrative RE – not
only on the academic meta-level but also as a subject matter for RE – the prac-
tical issue of whether religions ought to be presented thematically or system-
atically loses its ideological character and the advantages and disadvantages of
both approaches can be discussed. Awareness of the presuppositions and
implications of either approach also allows a useful combination of the two.
The English context is also an interesting case for the representation of
Christianity in a changed educational environment. In Europe, many models
of integrative RE have been developed out of formerly broadly Christian
models and a majority of Christian theologians have responsibility also for
integrative models, which are explicitly non-religious. The new perspectives
on and methodologies for teaching about Christianity are a particularly deli-
cate issue. The Chichester project focuses on diversity and dynamics within
Christianity, aspects that have regularly been neglected in rather monoreli-
gious RE contexts. Dealing with political, implicit and civil dimensions of
Christianity and its role in world affairs (Erricker 1995), the Chichester
approach successfully grounds teaching about Christianity in an integrative
framework, based on a concept of religion that is not confined to Christianity
but is applicable to a variety of religions. The Stapleford approach (e.g. Cool-
ing 1994, 2000) with its ‘concept cracking’ method, however, rests on a
concept of religion that focuses on Christianity only and cannot easily be
transferred to other religions. Therefore, it is of limited value for integrative
 282 W. Alberts

RE, failing to place teaching Christianity in an integrative subject with a non-

theological profile. If the ‘concept cracking’ method were to be used in an
integrative RE environment, some aspects of it, as is presented in the publica-
tions of the Stapleford project, would have to be modified in order to avoid an
implicitly confessional perspective (cf. Alberts 2007, 207–10).
The unreflective use of terms and concepts from one religious tradition for
the study of other traditions is a recurrent problem in integrative RE, putting
the impartial treatment of different religious and secular traditions at risk.
Given that familiar concepts frequently form the natural starting points for
comparisons, this may hardly be avoided completely. However, reflection
about this problem needs to be included at the classroom level so that pupils
are given opportunities to develop an awareness of the subtle challenges of
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

representing religions and worldviews, including the discussion of alternative

ways of representation.

Teaching methods and the notion of education

The general challenge for integrative RE is to find a non-religious educational
approach to a subject matter that has usually been approached from a religious
point of view. A number of interesting methods for the study of religions in
school have been suggested in England and Sweden, including visits, partici-
pant observation, interviews, dialogue, text study, interpretive methods and so
on, referring to general educational theory. In the textbooks based on the inter-
pretive approach (e.g. Wayne et al. 1996), different activities are suggested in
order to provide starting points for the pupils to interpret the material they are
studying. The learning process that is to be facilitated with interpretive meth-
ods may, as Jackson puts it, result in ‘edification’, a more reflexive perspective
on one’s own way of life in the light of the study of other worldviews (Jackson
1997, 111f). Michael Grimmitt’s constructivist approach (Grimmitt 2000a)
builds on constructivist theories of learning, starting with an encouragement of
the pupils’ own interpretations and experiences of an object (he uses a statue
of Shiva as an example). These are then related to alternative contextualised
interpretations, accompanied by more general reflection about different inter-
ests in processes of interpretation. The narrative approach rejects the notion of
‘subject matter’ and favours the transformation of RE into something broader,
a subject which introduces to the complex processes in which meaning, values
and community are constructed rather than starting from a fixed given content
– the religious traditions – for RE (Erricker and Erricker 2000, 203f).
In the design of teaching methods, the individual academic approaches to
integrative RE consider child development in different ways. This reflection
may relate to aims that are particularly relevant for children of a certain age
(Westhill project, cf. Rudge 2000, 100), or to the development of teaching
methods for younger children, for example, with respect to teaching about
selected religious items or complex concepts (the A Gift to the Child and
 British Journal of Religious Education 283

Stapleford approaches). Child development is also considered when the

‘horizon of the pupils’ (critical approach) is given attention, information
about children of the same age is made the starting point of textbooks (inter-
pretive approach), or the children’s own stories (narrative approach) or own
constructions of meaning (constructivist approach) form the starting point for
reflection.
Education is unavoidably normative; it always has an ideological and polit-
ical dimension. Even if integrative RE attempts to take an impartial perspec-
tive on different religions and views of life, it is based on ideological positions
about, for example, education, democracy and human rights. Therefore, it is
necessary that the ideological framework for the subject is made explicit, just
as the presuppositions of any approach to RE. An example for this in the
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

Swedish context is the attempt to formulate fundamental values (värdegrund,

see Zackari and Modigh 2003) for all school activity.

Proposal for a European framework for integrative RE

My analysis of models of education about religions in Europe includes further
examples (Alberts 2007, 312–52): Norway as another country with an integra-
tive model, which was introduced in 1997; the Netherlands as an example for
the ‘learning dimension’ model, integrating learning about religions in differ-
ent school subjects; and Germany as an example for the separative model,
though with exceptions in individual federal states. On the basis of the
comparative analysis of these different models and against the background of
recent theory and methodology in the study of religions (Alberts 2007, 8–54)
and education (55–85), I have suggested a framework for integrative RE in
Europe (353–87). This framework for integrative RE builds on common chal-
lenges in European countries, despite different education systems and ways of
dealing with religion in school. It does not suggest a uniform model for all
European countries, but outlines some important issues that – as the compari-
son of RE in England, Sweden, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands has
shown – any integrative model raises.
My starting point is that once the decision has been made that RE is to be
integrative, that is, designed as an obligatory subject which is attended by all
children of a class together, there need to be certain standards to ensure its
impartiality so that it really serves the general educational task of the school
and is not instrumentalised by any religious or anti-religious group. The case
of the Norwegian KRL (kristendomskunnskap med religions- og livssynsori-
entering) subject and the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights
against it (ECHR 2007) is a good example for the problems that are likely to
arise if integrative RE is compulsory but not impartial, privileging individual
religious traditions. My suggestion for a framework for integrative RE in
Europe outlines the general cornerstones of an impartial approach to RE,
specifying some key issues, such as the concept of religion, the representation
 284 W. Alberts

of religions and the concept of education, in more detail. However, I hope that
my proposal will not be misunderstood as contributing to the recent rhetoric
about standardisation and comparability in European education systems.
Rather than prescribing certain topics and expected levels of attainment for
children of different age groups, my intention is to outline some general
features of a framework for integrative RE, leaving the responsibility for the
selection of topics and individual approaches to educators in the different
contexts. This approach to a framework presupposes that educators themselves
have a sound professional background in the study of religions and education,
enabling them to take the relevant decisions about the actual content and
methods themselves.
There is no ‘middle way’ between a secular and a religious approach to RE.
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

If RE is to be integrative and obligatory, the aim of the subject cannot be to

provide children with faith or spirituality, as this would necessarily promote
particular religious traditions, prioritising them over other religious or secular
views. The framework for integrative RE needs to be secular, keeping in mind
the difference between a secular (non-religious) and a secularist (anti-
religious) approach.8 The study of different approaches has shown that the
descriptive dimension of the subject (communicating knowledge and under-
standing of religions) is more uncontroversial than what is often called the
existential or fostering dimension, even though a closer look at how knowl-
edge and understanding of religions is actually interpreted in the different
approaches shows that this may represent agreement on a quite superficial
level.
Individual religious (and non-religious) positions form the subject matter
but not the overall framework for the subject. This needs to be kept in mind
when the question of co-operation with ‘insiders’ is considered. The most
obvious danger is that some ‘insiders’ dominate the discourse about the
subject to such an extent that the whole subject is organised around their
particular religious interpretation of religion and religious plurality. The
attempt to grant equal rights to ‘representatives’ 9 of different religious
communities is often foiled by the privileges that well-established religious
communities have had with respect to self-representation in society and
educational institutions. Examples of this are the right of the committee
representing the Church of England to veto in English agreed syllabus
conferences for RE and the dominance of particular theological milieu in the
establishment of the obligatory integrative subject KRL in Norway (cf.
Thomassen 2006; Andreassen 2009). It is crucial for the credibility of inte-
grative RE (and a necessary condition for its obligatory status) that no indi-
vidual religious group – be it in the shape of theologians or ‘RE specialists’ in
a particular religious tradition – is responsible for the general framework of
the subject. A clear distinction needs to be made between self-representations
of religions (as an important part of the subject matter of RE) and the secular
educational framework of the subject, which is different from a religious
 British Journal of Religious Education 285

interpretation of religious plurality. This also means that no universal theol-

ogy can provide the framework for the subject, as this would necessarily
imply a religious framework, violating the rights of the children to freedom
of and from religion. The value basis for integrative RE needs to be just the
same as for any other school subject. The impartial approach, particularly to
the field of religions and worldviews, is, however, a challenge to established
structures in schools and elsewhere in society, relating to the critical and
emancipatory impetus of the subject itself.
The educational presuppositions for integrative RE make it necessary that
it provides the pupils with broad and balanced information as well as with crit-
ical reflection about the approach that the school subject is built on, including
the methodological inventory for the study of religions and worldviews. The
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

preliminary decisions on which this particular approach to representing

religions and other views of life is based need to be made explicit in order to
enable the pupils to make up their own minds about these phenomena, rather
than tacitly presenting them with one particular interpretation of diversity.
This is a main feature of academic concepts of education aiming at enabling
the development of critical consciousness (e.g. Klafki 2007) in contrast to
concepts of education produced by certain lobbies that have their own agendas
for what the young generation should be educated into. 10

The academic study of religions and integrative RE

The academic discipline of the study of religions (Religionswissenschaft),
despite its importance for integrative RE, has only very recently taken up
school-related issues in research and teaching contexts. The field of RE,
traditionally interpreted as instruction in a particular religious tradition, did
not seem to be a concern of the secular discipline of the study of religions at
all. However, recent changes in RE politics, above all, the establishment of
more and more integrative models of RE, have shown more clearly that the
knowledge and competences that this discipline produces are also needed in
school contexts. The involvement of the study of religions in integrative
approaches to RE varies in individual European countries. In Denmark, for
example, the study of religions is the responsible academic discipline for the
subject ‘religion’ in the upper secondary school (cf. Jensen 2007, 329). In
other countries, for example, in Norway, the involvement of the academic
study of religions in integrative RE is not as yet very institutionalised (cf.
Andreassen 2009).
Apart from the involvement of individual scholars in school-related
issues, there have been some recent initiatives to establish co-operation
within the study of religions on educational issues at the European and
international levels. In 2008, a Working Group on Religion in Public
Education was established in the European Association for the Study of
Religions (EASR) following an initiative at the EASR 2007 conference in
 286 W. Alberts

Bremen, which had education as one of its main conference areas (confer-
ence theme: ‘Plurality and representation: Religion in education, culture and
society’). This working group intends to encourage research cooperation in
the field of RE from a study-of-religions perspective, while keeping a
broader perspective on issues related to religion, education and society. It
held its first workshop on the education of teachers in departments for the
study of religions at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense in
March 2009. Furthermore, the EASR Working Group on Religion in Public
Education has regular panel sessions at the annual conferences of the EASR
(cf. EASR 2008).
At the international level, two recent conferences with a focus on RE may
be mentioned in this context. In 2004, the International Association for the
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

History of Religions (IAHR) held a regional conference on ‘Religious

harmony: Problems, practice and education’ in Indonesia, hosted by the State
Institutes of Islamic Studies in Yogyakarta and Semarang, which brought
together Indonesian and European scholars (see Pye et al. 2006). Further-
more, a special conference of the IAHR ‘Religion on the borders: New chal-
lenges in the academic study of religion’, hosted by the Swedish Association
for Research in Comparative Religion (SSRF) in Stockholm in 2007,
included many sessions on school-related issues (see Roos and Berglund
2009). The relationship between ‘the history of religions’ and ‘religious
education’ is also the theme of a special issue of NUMEN, International
Review for the History of Religion (see Alberts 2008), the official journal of
the IAHR. This special issue of NUMEN contains contributions from differ-
ent geographical areas, relating to a variety of social and political contexts for
education about religions, mapping some of the challenges for the develop-
ment of didactics of the study of religions.
These developments in the study of religions give reason to hope that this
academic discipline will apply the methodology that it has developed for the
comparative study of religions and worldviews in secular educational environ-
ments to school contexts also and may thereby help to improve the quality of
integrative RE.

Notes
1. Exceptions being Brandenburg, Bremen and Hamburg, which have to some extent
integrative models (see Alberts 2007, 332–43), and Berlin, where confessional RE
is purely optional and can be offered by various religious communities. Berlin has,
in addition, an obligatory subject ‘ethics’ in the 7th to the 10th class, which also
includes some study of religions (see Berlin 2006).
2. In 1965, the name of the subject for the gymnasieskola (upper secondary school)
was changed to religionskunskap; in 1969, the subject in the grundskola
(primary and lower secondary school) received the same name (cf. Hartmann
2000, 220).
3. Cf. Alberts (2007), 219–25. For a comprehensive account of the history of
Swedish RE (in Swedish), see Hartmann (2000).
 British Journal of Religious Education 287

4. For organisational issues in RE in England, see Jackson (2000). For the groups
consulted in the processes when the syllabuses and guidelines for RE were written,
see the respective documents (e.g. QCA 2004).
5. If education about religion is a compulsory subject in state schools, it needs to be
in line with the general pedagogical principles of school education. In some coun-
tries, the value base for school education in general has been made explicit (see,
e.g., Zackari and Modigh 2003 for the Swedish school system). The European
Court of Human Rights has in its judgements also defined standards for compul-
sory education in different subjects relating to the European Convention of Human
Rights. It finds, for example, that the subject matter should be presented in an
‘objective, critical and pluralistic’ manner (ECHR 1976, § 53). This is directly
related to compulsory education about religions in two recent judgements against
Norway and Turkey (ECHR 2007a, 2007b). In the recent case against Turkey, the
European Court of Human Rights finds that ‘in a democratic society, only plural-
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

ism in education can enable pupils to develop a critical mind with regard to reli-
gious matters in the context of freedom of thought, conscience and religion’, and
emphasises that ‘(…) it should be noted that, as the Court has held on numerous
occasions, this freedom, in its religious dimension, is one of the most vital
elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life,
but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned
(…)’ (ECHR 2007b, §69).
6. See, for example, my account of implications of the history of the academic
study of religions (Alberts 2007, 14–20). With respect to the English RE
context, see also Jackson’s account of the phenomenology of religion (Jackson
1997, 7–29).
7. For problems with the livsfråga approach, see Hartmann (2000, 222).
8. The secular approach is often related to the notion of ‘methodological agnosti-
cism’ (see, e.g., Cush 1999, 384).
9. A concept, which is not unproblematic in itself, as it implies the reproduction of
internal power structures of the groups represented as well as a focus on elite
religion rather than actual empirical religion.
10. For a problematisation of these conflicting concepts of education with respect to
integrative RE, see Alberts (2007, 360–6, 388–9).

Notes on contributor
Wanda Alberts is associate professor for the Study of Religions at the University of
Bergen in Norway. She is responsible for the teacher training programme for the
school subjects Religion, livssyn og etikk (lower secondary school) and Religion og
etikk (upper secondary school) at the University of Bergen.

References
Alberts, Wanda. 1997. Integrative religious education in Europe: A study-of-religions
approach. Religion and Reason Vol. 45. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Alberts, Wanda, ed. 2008. The history of religions and religious education (Special
issue). Numen. International Review for the History of Religions 55: 2–3.
Almén, Edgar. 2000. Religious education in Sweden. In Religious education in Great
Britain, Sweden and Russia: Presentations, problem inventories and commentar-
ies, ed. Edgar Almén and Hans Christian Øster, 60–91. Linköping: Linköping
University Electronic Press.
 288 W. Alberts

Andreassen, Bengt-Ove. 2009. Seige strukturer – perspektiver på endring og

diskursivt arbeid i norsk religionsdidaktikk. Din. Tidsskift for religion og kultur
1: 5–29.
Berlin (Senatsverwaltung für Bildung, Jugend und Sport Berlin). 2006. Berliner
Rahmenlehrplan für die Sekundarstufe I: Ethik. http://www.berlin.de/imperia/
md/content/sen-bildung/schulorganisation/lehrplaene/sek1_ethik.pdf (accessed
November 29, 2009).
Brown, Alan. 2000. The Chichester project: Teaching Christianity: A world religions
approach. In Pedagogies of religious education: Case studies in the research and
development of good pedagogic practice in RE, ed. M. Grimmitt, 53–69. Great
Wakering: McCrimmons.
Cooling, Trevor. 1994. Concept cracking: Exploring Christian beliefs in school.
Nottingham: Stapleford.
Cooling, Trevor. 2000. The Stapleford project: Theology as the basis for religious
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

education. In Pedagogies of religious education: Case studies in the research and

development of good pedagogic practice in RE, ed. M. Grimmitt, 153–69. Great
Wakering: McCrimmons.
Cush, Denise. 1999. Models of religious education in a plural society: Looking to the
future. In Church-state relations in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Irena
Borowik, 377–87. Krakow: Nomos.
EASR (European Association for the Study of Religions). 2008. Report of the
General Secretary. Presented at the general assembly, 9 September 2008,
Masaryk University, Brno. http://www.easr.eu/brno_report.html (accessed July 1,
2009).
ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). 1976. Case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and
Pedersen v. Denmark, no. 5095/71; 5920/72; 5926/72, Judgement of 7 December
1976 (Chamber).
ECHR. 2007a. Case of Folgerø and Others v. Norway, no. 15472/02, Judgement of
29 June 2007 (Grand Chamber).
ECHR. 2007b. Case of Hasan and Eylem Zengin v. Turkey, no. 1448/04, Judgement
of 9 October 2007 (Former Second Section).
Eliade, Mircea. 1957. Das Heilige und das Profane. Vom Wesen des Religiösen.
Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Erricker, Clive, ed. 1995 [1987]. Teaching Christianity: A world religions approach
(Foreword by Ninian Smart). Cambridge: Lutterworth.
Erricker, Clive. 2000. A critical review of religious education. In Reconstructing
religious, spiritual and moral education, ed. Clive Erricker and Jane Erricker,
15–35. London/New York: Routledge Falmer.
Erricker, Clive, and Jane Erricker. 2000. The children and worldviews project: A
narrative pedagogy of religious education. In Pedagogies of religious education:
Case studies in the research and development of good pedagogic practice in RE,
ed. M. Grimmitt, 188–206. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.
Everington, Judith. 2000. Mission impossible? Religious education in the 1990s. In
Spiritual and religious education, ed. Mal Leicester, Celia Modgil and Sohan
Modgil, 183–96. London/New York: Falmer.
Falaturi, Abdoldjavad. 1990. Islam in religious education textbooks in Europe. Köln:
Islamische Wissenschaftliche Akademie.
Grimmitt, Michael H. 2000a. Constructivist pedagogies of religious education
project: Re-thinking knowledge, teaching and learning in religious education. In
Pedagogies of religious education: Case studies in the research and development
of good pedagogic practice in RE, ed. M. Grimmitt, 207–26. Great Wakering:
McCrimmons.
 British Journal of Religious Education 289

Grimmitt, Michael H. ed. 2000b. Pedagogies of religious education: Case studies in

the research and development of good pedagogic practice in RE. Great Waker-
ing: McCrimmons.
Grimmitt, Michael H., Julie Grove, John Hull, and Louise Spencer. 1991. A gift to
the child: Religious education in the primary school (teachers’ source book).
London: Simon & Schuster.
Hammond, John, David Hay, Jo Moxon, Brian Netto, Kathy Robson, and Ginny
Straughier. 1990. New methods in RE teaching: An experiential approach.
Harlow: Oliver & Boyd.
Härenstam, Kjell. 1993. Skolboks-islam: Analys av bilden av islam i läroböcker i
religionskunskap. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences Vol. 93. Göteborg:
Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Härenstam, Kjell. 2000. Kan du höra vindhästen? Religionsdidaktik – om konsten att
välja kunskap. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

Hartmann, Sven G. 2000. Hur religionsämnet formades. In Livstolkning och värdegr-

und: att undervisa om religion, livsfrågor och etik, ed. Edgar Almén, Ragnar
Furenhed, Sven Hartman, and Björn Skogar, 212–51. Linköping: Linköpings
Universitet.
Hay, David. 2000. The religious experience and education project: Experiential
learning in religious education. In Pedagogies of religious education: Case
studies in the research and development of good pedagogic practice in RE, ed.
M. Grimmitt, 70–87. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.
Hull, John M. 2000. Religion in the service of the child project: The gift approach to
religious education. In Pedagogies of religious education: Case studies in the
research and development of good pedagogic practice in RE, ed. M. Grimmitt,
112–29. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.
Jackson, Robert. 1997. Religious education: An interpretive approach. London:
Hodder & Stoughton.
Jackson, Robert. 2000. Law, politics and religious education in England and Wales:
Some history, some stories and some observations. In Spiritual and religious
education, ed. Mal Leicester, Celia Modgil and Sohan Modgil, 86–99. London/
New York: Falmer.
Jackson, Robert, Siebren Miedema, Wolfram Weisse, and Jean-Paul Willaime, eds.
2007. Religion and education in Europe: Developments, contexts, and debates.
Münster/New York: Waxmann.
Jensen, Tim. 2002. Religious education in public schools – a must for a secular state:
A Danish perspective. Bulletin of the Council of Societies for the Study of
Religion 31, no. 4: 83–9.
Jensen, Tim. 2007. The study of religions and Religion in Denmark. Nederlands
Theologisch Tijdschrift 61, no. 4: 329–42.
Klafki, Wolfgang. 2007. Neue Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik: Zeitgemäße
Allgmeinbildung und kritisch-konstruktive Didaktik. Weinheim: Beltz.
Kuyk, Elza, Roger Jensen, David Lankshear, Eliabeth Löh Manna, and Peter
Schreiner. 2007. Religious education in Europe: Situation and current trends in
schools. Oslo: IKO.
Nesbitt, Eleanor. 2002. Ethnography and religious education. In Issues in religious
education, ed. Lynne Broadbent and Alan Brown, 111–22. London/New York:
Routledge Falmer.
OSCE. 2007. The Toledo guiding principles on teaching about religion or belief.
http://www.osce.org/item/28314.html (accessed July 1, 2009).
Otto, Rudolf. 1917. Das Heilige: Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und
sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen. Breslau: Trewendt & Granier.
 290 W. Alberts

Pye, Michael, Edith Franke, Alef Theria Wasim, and Abdurrahman Mas’ud, eds.
2006. Religious harmony: Problems, practice and education. Proceedings of the
Regional Conference of the International Association for the History of Religions
Yogyakarta and Semarang, Indonesia, September 27–October 3, 2004, Religion
and Reason Vol. 45. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
QCA. 2004. Religious education. The non-statutory national framework. London:
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Read, Garth, John Rudge, and Geoff Teece. 1992. How do I teach RE? The Westhill
Project: RE 5-16. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.
Roos, Lena, and Jenny Berglund, eds. 2009. Your heritage and mine: Teaching in a
multi-religious classroom. Studies on inter-religious relations 43. Uppsala:
Swedish Science Press.
Rudge, John. 2000. The Westhill project: Religious education as maturing pupils’
patterns of belief and behaviour. In Pedagogies of religious education: Case
Downloaded by [Seton Hall University] at 04:21 30 November 2014

studies in the research and development of good pedagogic practice in RE, ed.
M. Grimmitt, 88–111. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.
SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority). 1994a. Model syllabuses for
religious education – model 1: Living faiths today. London: SCAA.
SCAA. 1994b. Model syllabuses for religious education – model 2: Questions and
teachings. London: SCAA.
SCAA. 1994c. Model syllabuses for religious education – Faith Communities’ Work-
ing Group reports. London: SCAA.
Schreiner, Peter. 2005. Religious education in Europe. http://www.cimuenster.de/
pdfs/themen/europa2.pdf (accessed November 30, 2009).
Schreiner, Peter. 2007. Germany. In Religious education in Europe: Situation and
current trends in schools, ed. Elza Kuyk, Roger Jensen, David Lankshear,
Eliabeth Löh Manna, and Peter Schreiner, 81–7. Oslo: IKO.
Thomassen, Einar. 2006. Religious education in a pluralistic society: Experiences from
Norway. In Proceedings of the Regional Conference of the International Associa-
tion for the History of Religions Yogyakarta and Semarang, Indonesia, September
27 – October 3, 2004, Religion and Reason Vol. 45, ed. M. Pye, E. Franke, A. T.
Wasim, and A. Mas’ud, 257–66. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Thulin, Birgitta, and Sten Elm. 1995. Religion. Malmö: Interskol.
UK Parliament. 1988. Education Reform Act. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.
Wayne, Elizabeth, Judith Everington, Dilip Kadodwala, and Eleanor Nesbitt. 1996.
Hindus. Interpreting religions, ed. Judith Everington and Robert Jackson. Oxford:
Heinemann.
Wright, Andrew. 1996. Language and experience in the hermeneutics of religious
understanding. British Journal of Religious Education 18, no. 3: 166–80.
Wright, Andrew. 2000. The spiritual education project: Cultivating spiritual and reli-
gious literacy through a critical pedagogy of religious education. In Pedagogies of
religious education: Case studies in the research and development of good peda-
gogic practice in RE, ed. M. Grimmitt, 170–87. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.
Zackari, Gunilla, and Frederik Modigh. 2003. Värdegrundsboken. Om samtal för
demokrati i skolan. Stockholm: Skolverket.