Debate in Cambridge U

In St John’s College people gathered on a Wednesday night to attend a public debate on the theme of “Faith and Education: An Uneasy Partnership”. The panellists were representing various aspects of English public life, but all with a keen interest in discussing what needs should be met in the field of teaching about religions in English schools. There seemed to be a consensus that the present void needed to be filled.

St. John's College, Cambridge

            As I listened, I also noticed a consensus of an old Platonic philosophy which states that what is good for society is a higher goal than what is good for the individual or the smaller units, building blocks like the family unit. I could see the understanding for the family and parental rights in this matter, but I could not miss the call for a ‘national standard’, a basic core curriculum which should decide what anyone should know about religion.

            A question was initially raised: should the state decide what children should know about faith?

            One of the panellists, a well spoken, well meaning man, identified himself with the 51% of the British population which said they had no religious affiliation. He was an agnostic humanist by the way he addressed the issue of faith: with no personal conviction, and intending to be neutral, he suggested that children ought to be presented with a variety of religious beliefs. This, he thought, might give them the option of freely choosing their religion. In my mind I wondered if he realized his own values, his own unstated conviction that religion is a thing, something to pick at a smorgasbord, taste, to like or not like.

            I happen to be of the conviction that children benefit greatly from being brought up in a religious tradition, which gives them identity. It gives them something to struggle with, to come to grips with. It is much better than a void. It gives the young person a sense of direction, purpose, and meaning to know that he or she belongs to something greater than him or herself. I do not mean that they should simply carry on the traditions mindlessly, of course. You need to come to grips with whom you believe in on a personal level.

The panellists presented some questions to be debated rather than some options for solutions. What is the role of the state and what of the church, and what of the families, and…? According to one statistic, the percentage of people who identified with the Church of England was 16%. If the statistics are representative of reality, they question of which role this church organization should play in the religious education in state schools came into question. There is a growing Catholic population, which in some years may overtake the 16%. In addition there are a number of other evangelical churches, which were unspecified in percentage.

            All around us in Cambridge there are great, old stone churches with daily services, Evensong, preserving an ideology of Christianity. I suppose you may offer people food, reach out with a gift – but if they do not eat, or will not receive your gift, then they remain hungry and poor.

Rowan Williams

Since the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, was in the panel, there were some aggressive atheistic charges against the notion of God. Why should there even be an issue of teaching religion when there is no such thing as God? He responded with a firm belief that there IS a God; His conviction was just as valid and believable as the one who denied God’s existence. I thought to myself: You may deny the existence of a chair, but you still sit on it.

Rowan Williams also pointed out that the need for knowledge about faiths and religious beliefs are more important than ever in our present age.  I agree. I do hope the discussion will bring the issue to the forefront of the public debate. I hope many of the Christian churches will see the need for spreading the good news about Jesus Christ.

Does this make me unsympathetically selective?  Well, to some, perhaps it does. But remember: ‘Tolerance’ is not necessarily a Christian virtue; Love is.