Didactics of the Study of Religions

Author(s): Wanda Alberts

Source: Numen , 2008, Vol. 55, No. 2/3, The History of Religions and Religious
Education (2008), pp. 300-334
Published by: Brill

Stable URL: [Link]

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@[Link].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
[Link]

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Numen

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 NVMEN
BRILL Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 [Link]/nu

Didactics of the Study of Religions

Wanda Alberts
Department for the Study of Religions and Religious Education, University of Bremen,
P.O. Box330440, 28334Bremen, Germany
albertsw@uni-bremen. de

Abstract
In contrast to well-established didactics of theologies, the study of religions, even
though its field is becoming more and more important in schools and elsewhere in
society, has not yet developed a didactic branch. This article outlines and exemplifies
three tasks for didactics of the study of religions: (1) analysis of models of education
about religion/s, (2) development of concepts for education about religion/s, (3)
engagement in practical issues related to education about religion/s, including partici
pation in political and public debates about religion, religious plurality, education, and
religious education. Tasks 1 and 2, which may be called "inner-academic," are
exemplified with research results from my study about integrative religious education
in Europe. Task 3, relating to the communication of academic insights beyond aca
demia, is regarded as a necessary complement to "inner-academic" work. In conclu
sion, it is argued that in order to develop didactics of the study of religions it is
necessary to combine the subject knowledge and methodologies of the study of reli
gions with insights from education. Rather than leaving this educational task to edu
cationalists with little knowledge of our subject, the study of religions needs to establish
its own didactics with respect to various educational contexts.

Keywords
integrative religious education, the study of religions, religious education, Europe,
didactics of the study of religions, plurality, education

Introduction: The Discipline of the Study of Religions and

Religious Education

The importance of learning about different religions in school contexts

has been acknowledged recently in different parts of the world (e.g.
? Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 DOI: 10.1163/156852708X283087

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 301

Chidester 2003; Jackson 2004; Jensen 2007).x The academic discipline

of the study of religions, however, has shown little interest in the repre
sentation of religions in schools and has left this field primarily to theo
logians or other people with an interest in school RE, who do not have
a professional background in the study of religions (cf. Jensen 2002;
Alberts 2007:2?5). The absence of didactics of the study of religions, in
combination with the general lack of recognition of the study of reli
gions in the public sphere (Rudolph 2000:241 ; McCutcheon 2000:168),
has resulted in the fact that the discipline of the study of religions, until
very recently, has often not been considered an adequate partner for
teaching about religion in schools.2 However, education about religion
and religions,3 in schools and elsewhere, is related to the very subject
matter of the study of religions. Other than religious education (RE)
organised by religious communities, education about religions in secu
lar frameworks is a direct field of application for the discipline of the
study of religions. Ideally, the study of religions can offer an impartial
framework for the study of different religions also in schools, or at least
attempt to apply an impartial approach and discuss openly the prob
lems related to this task. Furthermore, the analytical and discursive
competence of the study of religions with respect to fields like religion,
religious plurality, worldviews and values is needed also outside univer
sities. It can serve to make basic distinctions, for example, between reli
gious and secular approaches to religious diversity,4 and help to deal
sensitively with questions of representation as well as presuppositions
and agendas behind different approaches to religion.

!) For this topic, see also the article by Robert Jackson in this issue.
2) It should be added, however, that there are prominent exceptions. A well-known
example is Ninian Smart's influence on religious education in England.
3) In this context, "religion" (in the singular) is not to be misunderstood as an essen
tialised notion of religion, but serves as a generic term denoting a diversity of phenom
ena. "Religions" (in the plural) may be used in order to emphasise that this subject
matter is characterised by plurality. The plural, however, may not be mistaken for a
narrow conception of the subject matter as institutionalised "religions" only, disregard
ing other phenomena.
4) In my use of the distinction between "religious" and "secular" I follow Jensen
and Rothstein 2000:7-8, referring to Geertz (2000a:21) in the same volume, who
argues for a "non-sectarian, non-religious study of religion" based upon "methods,

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
302 W. Alberts I Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

In order to enter the relevant educational debates and fields related

to school education about religions, the study of religions needs to
develop didactics. There is a difference between starting to think from
a particular model of RE, asking what the study of religions may con
tribute to it, and starting to think from the discipline of the study of
religions, asking what it has to offer for school education about reli
gions, in general as well as in specific contexts. This article is an attempt
to do the latter. For this purpose, three tasks for didactics of the study
of religions are outlined: (1) analysis of existing models of education
about religion, (2) development of concepts for education about reli
gion, and (3) engagement in practical issues related to education about
religions. It is argued that we need to deal with these tasks within the
academic study of religions, rather than delegating them to education
alists from other academic backgrounds.

1. Analysis of Existing Models of Education about Religion

Education about religion and religious plurality takes place in various
contexts. Recently, the study of different religions has become an ele
ment of school education in more and more countries (Jackson 2004).
An important presupposition for the study of religions to find its own
position among the variety of approaches to teaching and learning
about religion in schools is an analysis and critique of existent models
from a study-of-religions point of view. In which contexts does learning
about different religions take place? What are the epistemological
frameworks in which religion and religious plurality are discussed?
Starting from the general character of the academic discipline of the
study of religions, a distinction between religious and secular educa
tional contexts is crucial. If the study of religions is understood as
a secular discipline which does not support any religious position
over another, it cannot ? neither at school nor at university levels ?

theories and models developed in the human and social sciences." Even though it may
ultimately be arguable, this distinction is important for a first orientation in the field
of religious education, where a distinction between religious and secular approaches to
education about religions is crucial. For an account of the general problems concerning
the concept "secular," see Brittain's (2005) discussion of Talal Asad's rejection of it.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 303

advocate any religious approach to religion. Therefore, while RE offered

by religious communities is an interesting field of study, the study of
religions as a discipline cannot actively support it, as this would mean
to support the particular religious community which offers it. How
ever, if education about religions is offered in secular educational frame
works (for example, universities, schools, or museums), independently
from education within religious communities, the study of religions
comes into focus as the academic discipline to which this kind of RE is
most closely related. This latter kind of RE can be regarded as a direct
field of application for didactics of the study of religions.

Models of Education about Religion and Religious Plurality in Europe:

Integrative vs. Separative

Much has been written about the landscape of religious education in

Europe (e.g. Schreiner 2000, 2005; Jensen 1999, 2005; Willaime
2007a). Generally, "religious education" is regarded as a generic term,
which includes all kinds of education into, about and from religion ?
from confessional instruction within religious traditions to secular edu
cation programmes about different religions at public educational
institutions. In this wide field, keeping in mind our interest in didactics
of the study of religions, is it helpful to concentrate on the question of
how teaching and learning about different religions takes place in schools
in Europe. This allows a more focused study of the different frame
works for our particular field of interest: the representation of religious
plurality in school education about religion.
If we approach the broad field of RE with the question how teaching
and learning about different religions takes place, the common distinc
tion between "confessional" and "non-confessional" RE may be sup
plemented with another distinction. From an educational point of
view, it is useful to distinguish between integrative and separative
approaches to education about religion (Alberts 2006:267, 2007:324).
Integrative approaches to education about religion are designed for
groups of pupils with various religious or non-religious backgrounds.
Independently from their or their parents' religious or non-religious
orientation, pupils learn together about religion, religions and religious
diversity. In separative approaches, by contrast, pupils are separated
according to their or their parents' religious orientation. Pupils who do

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
304 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

not belong to any of the religious groups that offer religious education
at their school, may normally either choose an alternative secular sub
ject, like "ethics" (e.g. in some federal states of Germany) or "philoso
phies of life" (e.g. in Norway before integrative RE was introduced), or
they may take part in religious education of a religious community to
which they do not belong. Thus, in separative approaches, teaching and
learning about different religions takes place in separate groups. It is
organised by religious communities in cooperation with schools and
educational institutions (i.e. "confessional RE") or, for the children
who do not wish to participate in confessional RE, in an additional
alternative subject.
In Europe,5 integrative religious education is sometimes included in
school curricula as an individual school subject, for example, religion
skunskap (literally: knowledge about religion) in Sweden, religious edu
cation in England, kristendoms- religions- och livssynskunnskap (KRL,
literally: knowledge about Christianity, religions and views of life) in
Norway, Religion und Kultur (religion and culture) in the Canton of
Zurich in Switzerland, or religion in the Danish upper secondary
school.6 In some other countries, integrative religious education appears
as a learning dimension of other school subjects like history or geogra
phy. This is, for example, the case in France, where the responsibility of
the school for the communication of knowledge about religions has
been acknowledged quite recently (Debray 2002; Willaime 2007b), or
in many schools in the Netherlands, where the compulsory learning
area geestelike stromingen (spiritual traditions) is often realised as an
aspect of other school subjects rather than in a subject of its own (West
ermann 1996; Avest, Bakker et al. 2007). Separative religious education
can be found, for example, in schools in Belgium, Finland and Ger
many. In the separative approach, teaching about different religions
and worldviews is regarded as a part of confessional religious education
or the above-mentioned secular alternative subjects.
Educational justifications for integrative vs. separative models of
education about religion differ considerably. Arguments for integrative

5) For an evaluation of approaches to education about religion in Australia and South

Africa, see the articles of Goldburg and Chidester in this issue.
6) See the articles by Jensen, Revell and Frank and Bochinger in this issue for more
information on integrative RE in Denmark, England and Switzerland.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 305

approaches emphasise the importance of learning together to deal with

differences and religious diversity, often from primary or even preschool
levels,7 and frequently regard integrative RE as a cornerstone of educa
tion in secular democracies (Hull 2002; Hartmann 2000:230). Argu
ments for separative religious education, including separative education
about different religions, tend to start from a religious perspective on
education. Religions, and in particular the established Christian churches,
are regarded as indispensable sources of value also in so-called "secular"
societies. Therefore, religious instruction or "confessional RE" has its
place in state schools (see e.g. Deutsche Bischofskonferenz 1996; Evan
gelische Kirche in Deutschland 1994).
However, as religious freedom includes the right not to participate in
religious activities, alternative subjects for those children who do not
belong to an established religion which organises RE in schools have
been introduced. The original idea behind these subjects is to commu
nicate values also to non-religious children who do not attend confes
sional RE. Therefore, these alternative subjects normally do not have
the word "religion" in their title,8 and the idea is that they deal with
values, philosophy and related topics minus everything that has to do
with religion.9
When it comes to the study of different religions as part of the school
curriculum, the inconsistencies of the separative approach, which
reduces school religious education to a kind of religious and moral
instruction, within secular educational systems becomes apparent. If
the study of different religions is integrated in the separative approach
to RE, representatives of the religious communities responsible for RE
are given authority not only to teach their own religion, but also to
teach about other religions from their religious point of view, even if
they have only little or no academic knowledge about other religions
than their own. If there is no additional non-confessional integrative
RE, children will only learn about other religions from the perspective
of the religious community whose RE they attend. Furthermore, when

7) For a study of integrative religious education at preschool levels, see Dommel

2007.
8) For example, "Werte und Normen" (values and norms) in Lower Saxony, Germany.
9) For an analysis of the position of the secular alternative subjects to confessional RE
in Germany, see Lott 1998:46-53.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 306 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

it comes to communicating knowledge about different religions, even

alternative subjects can no longer leave out "religion" and deal only
with philosophies and secular ideologies, which the separative approach
has allocated to them. Therefore, the study of different religions has
been given teaching time in most alternatives to RE and a study of
different religions has recently been integrated in teacher training pro
grammes for these alternative subjects, so that these now provide some
space for teaching and learning about different religions. However, in
confessional RE, which is still regarded as the norm in separative
approaches, learning about religious diversity from teachers who have
actually studied different religions in depth and have acquired theoreti
cal and methodological knowledge about dealing with religious diver
sity is not possible (cf. Alberts 2007:347-352; Jensen 2002).

Integrative Religious Education

In contrast to separative-confessional education about religion, which,

as part of the activities of a religious community, is an object of study
but not a field of application for the academic study of religions, inte
grative religious education can be regarded as a direct field of applica
tion.10 In secular state schools, if freedom of and from religion is
respected, integrative RE involves a study of different religions from a
non-religious point of view. It is designed for pupils with various reli
gious and non-religious backgrounds. Therefore, like in the academic
study of religions, the general framework for integrative RE cannot be
religious, but needs to start from a secular (though, of course, not secu
larist) educational approach to religious diversity, which does not privi
lege any religious perspective.
An analysis of existing models of integrative religious education may
serve to identify important factors for the development of didactics of
the study of religions. Apart from the key content-related issues, the
organisational frameworks for integrative RE need to be considered.
What kind of external factors shape the subject? In order to answer this

10) "Alternative subjects," as micro-integrative models within a generally separative

approach, may be included in the study of integrative RE, even though it has to be
kept in mind that these are not truly integrative (i.e. for all children of a class), but are
designed for the non-religious "rest."

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 307

question it is necessary to study the general legal and organisational

frameworks, including international conventions, constitutions, school
laws and regulations. With respect to the general character and the con
tents of the subject, the following issues seem particularly important:
aims of integrative RE, the notion of religion, the representation of
religions, and the notion of education. A study of these issues involves
research referring to different methodologies and sources. The study of
written and material sources includes, for example, legal documents,
syllabuses, course outlines for teacher training, academic concepts for
integrative RE, and teaching material. Furthermore, the non-academic
discourse about integrative RE, including statements by politicians and
representatives of religious communities in various media, is an impor
tant field of analysis, as it tends to be more influential in public
discourse than scholarly contributions. Empirical research about inte
grative RE involves, for example, observations in fields like teacher
training, classroom research, and interviews with various agents related
to the subject, including teachers and pupils.
In my own research, I have analysed written sources (including regu
lations, syllabuses, academic literature and textbooks) related to inte
grative RE in Europe, with a particular emphasis on England and
Sweden, which both have a long tradition of integrative RE as an ordi
nary school subject from primary (and partly even preschool) to sec
ondary school levels (see Alberts 2006, 2007).
The organisational frameworks for integrative RE in England and
Sweden differ considerably. In England, despite recent tendencies
towards centralisation and standardisation in the educational system
and RE (UK Parliament 1988; SCAA 1994; QCA 2004), RE remains
to a great extent a matter of local responsibility. The syllabuses are nego
tiated between representatives of religions and educational institutions.
Thus, religious communities are regarded as important partners for
integrative RE. The Church of England has a special position among
the religious communities which are invited to contribute to the sylla
bus for a particular local area. It forms a group of its own in the agreed
syllabus committee, while all other religious communities together are
included in a second group. The third and fourth group are representa
tives of teachers and the local education authority. Since all four groups
of the committee need to approve of an agreed syllabus for the local

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
308 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

area, the religious communities forming one of the groups, and the
Church of England with its own group in particular, are given great
responsibility for RE. In fact, they have the right of veto in curriculum
development. The final decision about the syllabuses, and thus about
the contents of RE, lies not with educationalists, but is negotiated
between representatives of religions and educational institutions. There
fore, religious interpretations of religion and religious plurality (as
opposed to secular educational positions) are frequently reflected in
agreed syllabuses, despite the attempt to provide a framework for RE
which is acceptable to pupils with various religious and non-religious
backgrounds.11
In Sweden, by contrast, syllabuses for RE are a national matter. They
are made by Skolverket, the National Agency of Education, just as the
syllabuses for other school subjects. The individual religious communi
ties are not part of the process of creating the syllabuses. The school
subject religionskunskap is an ordinary obligatory secular school subject.
Therefore, it has no special status in the general school curriculum.
However, in Sweden and elsewhere, if religious communities are not
formally taking part in the creation of syllabuses, this does not neces
sarily have to mean that they do not have any influence at all. Like in
other matters, religious communities influence political and educa
tional decisions in different ways, be it by lobbying or simply by the
fact that important positions in the political or educational system are
held by their members.12

Examples of the Notion of Religion and the Representation of Religions

in Approaches to Integrative Religious Education

At the level of academic concepts for integrative RE, there is great

diversity in England. There is no standard approach to RE, but different
approaches influence RE in England in various ways, despite the rather
uniform national framework and model syllabuses, which have also had
an impact on the locally agreed syllabuses. Therefore, if we intend to
analyse the notion of religion and representation of religions in English
RE, we cannot speak of "the English model" in general, but need to

n) For this problem, see the article by Revell in this issue.

12) For this issue in Norway, see Thomassen 2006:260.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 309

study more closely the individual approaches. In the following, I would

like to highlight the differences between three approaches to RE in
England,13 before I compare these to an influential Swedish model.
In the experiential approach, which is presented in a handbook for
teachers (Hammond, Hay et al. 1990), religion is, like in the tradi
tional phenomenology of religion, regarded as an expression of the
experience of the sacred (ibid. 10). Like in Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the
Holy (1969 [1917]) an acknowledgement of one's own religious experi
ence is regarded as a prerequisite for understanding other religions. The
exercises suggested for RE aim at empathising with the "realm of reli
gious experience" (Hammond, Hay et al. 1990:13). The study of indi
vidual empirical religions is not part of the learning model suggested in
this approach. Rather, the experiential approach is seen as a compensa
tion for the neglect of religious experience in the "world religions
school," which is "unable to convey the fascination of a faith" and in
which the affective dimension "is wholly ignored as the passion of belief
is dispassionately presented" (ibid. 21). While the authors see a place
for the "world religions school" in RE, which "ought to offer both the
variety and openness of the descriptive approach and also some real
sense of the spiritual experience which lies behind the wide spectrum of
belief and practice," they regard their own approach as a contribution
to that second, more "confessional" part of RE, as "it is this sense of
experience which is essential if the real nature of religion is to be
grasped" (ibid. 21). However, as the experience with similar positions
by Rudolf Otto, Friedrich Heiler and others has shown, this approach
to religion, which presupposes the universality of the holy behind all
religious phenomena, is religious itself and, as a particular religious
view on the plurality of religions, contradicts many other religious posi
tions on that issue, let alone secular ones (Waardenburg 1992; McCutch
eon 2000). Therefore, it can neither be the framework for the secular
academic study of religions, nor for integrative RE as an ordinary sub
ject for pupils with different religious and non-religious backgrounds,
if religious freedom (in particular, the right to education from a non
religious point of view) is respected. In an integrative RE context, the

13) These three models are just a selection from influential approaches to RE in Eng
land. For an introduction to more approaches see Grimmitt 2000; Jackson 2004; and
Alberts 2007.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 310 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

project team's programme of "de-indoctrination" from the dominant

secular paradigm in a society where "a kind of cultural brainwashing"
tends to make people whose religious experience appears to contradict
"official" reality suppress it (Hammond, Hay et al. 1990:15), in fact
turns into a programme of re-indoctrination into another unquestioned
paradigm, i.e. the religious position that the experience of "the sacred"
lies at the heart of all religion.14
A number of other approaches to integrative RE, which do not fall
back into confessional positions, have been developed in the English
context. They take into account the requirements of a mixed classroom,
in which a religious position cannot be the framework for integrative
RE. From a study-of-religions point of view, these approaches are not
only interesting as an object of research, but also as models for the
development of didactics of the study of religions. The interpretive
approach, for example, developed at the University of Warwick by Rob
ert Jackson and his team (e.g., Jackson 1997), shows impressively that
education about religions from a non-religious point of view does by
no means need to be "clinical or sterile," as the experiential approach
implies (Hammond, Hay et al. 1990:21). The notion of religion and
representation of religions in the interpretive approach build on a cri
tique of the traditional phenomenology of religion (favouring Jacques
Waardenburg's "new-style phenomenology"), a critical evaluation of
Wilfred Cantwell Smith's distinction between "faith" and "tradition,"
and methods developed in recent social and cultural anthropology.
Religion is studied on three interrelated levels: the individual, groups to
which the individual belongs, and the wider religious tradition (Jack
son 1997). A special focus of the interpretive approach is religion
among children in Great Britain. Fieldwork among children of different
religious backgrounds in Great Britain (for example, Nesbitt 2002) is
used as a basis for textbooks for RE. In these textbooks, interpretive
strategies are suggested by which the pupils may engage with the mate
rial, referring to individual children from a particular religious tradition
in relation to the groups they belong to and the wider religious tradi
tion. In this approach, the lives and ideas of children are given particu

14) For a criticism of the experiential approach see also Mott-Thornton 1996; Wright
1996.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 311

lar attention. Furthermore, in RE, the pupils are asked to relate what
they have studied to their own lives. However, they are not asked to
approach religious plurality from a religious point of view, but the
framework for the representation of religions remains secular.
The interpretive approach offers interesting strategies of overcoming
stereotypical representations of religions in RE. However, despite Rob
ert Jackson's reflective use of the concept "world religion," the approach
in general can be said to operate within a framework which still regards
the constructs of "religious traditions" as the focus of reference, even if
their internal diversity is acknowledged in the empirical study of indi
viduals and membership groups (cf. Erricker 2000:30).15 Children from
particular "traditions" are selected for the textbooks about "Hindus,"
"Christians" or "Muslims." Replying to this criticism and recent debates
about the notion of religion in the academic study of religions, Jackson,
in his approach for RE, prefers a revised phenomenology, trying to
portray religions in their own terms, connected by family resemblance
and transcendental reference (Waardenburg 1978; Flood 1999), to
postmodern deconstructions of "religion" or approaches which regard
the study of religions as reducible to cultural studies (Fitzgerald
2000).16
Postmodern criticism of the notion of religion is taken up in another
approach to RE in England, the narrative approach developed by Clive
and Jane Erricker. Referring to Lyotard's pragmatics of narrative knowl
edge, Clive and Jane Erricker criticise the notion of "tradition" in RE
contexts and regard the representation of religions in RE as the repro
duction of the grand narratives that religious communities have pro
duced about themselves. They identify the following as the principle
question with regard to integrative RE: is "learning measured according
to our knowledge and understanding of grand narratives; in the case of
religious education these would be the belief systems Christianity,
Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.," or do we "understand them as con
structions with political purposes, in the context of which they make
truth claims" (Erricker and Erricker 2000a: 194)? In his analysis of

15) For a recent critique of the notion of "world religions," see Masuzawa 2005.
16) This position was presented by Robert Jackson in his keynote lecture at the confer
ence of the European Association for the Study of Religions (EASR) in Bremen in
September 2007. See also Jackson's contribution in this issue.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 312 W Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

common practice of RE, Clive Erricker concludes that the way reli
gions are represented in RE serves the interests of the ideological ortho
dox, conservative traditions. What is studied is what religious authorities
wish to be acknowledged as representations of themselves. Thus, reli
gious systems are often represented as intrinsically valuable. The metan
arrative underpinning any such representation itself is, however, never
contested (Erricker 2000:30?31). Erricker argues from an educational
perspective that rather than continuing to reproduce maps of religions
which act in the self-interest of orthodoxies and their truth claims, try
ing to gain hegemony over both deviance (heterodoxy) and secularity,
it would be adequate to study from a meta-level what purposes the
concepts "tradition" and "orthodoxy" serve (ibid. 32). This transforma
tion of religious education into something broader would place it in a
more appropriate educational perspective, which is concerned with
human narratives rather than doxic truths or the teaching of "world
religions," and thus make the subject inclusive rather than exclusive, and
performative rather than reactive (Erricker and Erricker 2000b: 131).
Contrary to England, where the general character of school religious
education and its relation to moral and spiritual education, which is
regarded as an aim of the school in general,17 remains contested, the
secular character of integrative RE is openly embraced in Sweden. In
Sweden, the concepts livs?sk?dning (view of life) and livstolkning (inter
pretation of life) serve as a map of the subject matter for RE (Alm?n
2000; Hartmann 2000). Other than the term "world religions," which
is rather prominent in English discourse about RE, the livs?sk?dnings
approach enables a more open concept of the field, including, for
example, indigenous and new or smaller religions, religion beyond
institutionalised religious systems and non-religious worldviews. Avoid
ing to put much emphasis on the religious vs. secular distinction
(though not avoiding a study of the discussions about this distinction)
helps to avoid a (religious) representation of religions as institutions of
moral values which secular worldviews lack. Instead, religious and secu
lar worldviews alike are studied with respect to ethical questions, which

17) Section 1.2 of the Education Reform Act states that the school in general should
promote the "spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils"
(UK Parliament 1988).

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 313

play a central role in Swedish RE, with a particular focus on contempo

rary issues and challenges (Skolverket 2000).
The above examples of concepts for integrative RE are concerned
with the same kind of question: where to start from when we study
religion/s in an educational framework? The examples show that, in
school RE and elsewhere, inevitably we have to start to look at religions
from one particular perspective. However, the first important distinc
tion is between a religious starting point (like religious experience in
the experiential approach), which is unacceptable for integrative RE
within a secular educational framework, and a secular starting point
(like the livsdskddnings-approacti), which is needed for integrative RE.
Even though the Swedish livsdskddnings-appr oach has its roots in liberal
Protestant concepts of religion,18 it is not itself a religious starting point
for RE. Views of life can be studied empirically, contrary to the presup
posed universality of the experience of the holy as main characteristic of
"religion" in the experiential approach.19 The concept livsdskddning
helps to map a field of study for RE, but does not provide a distinction
between religion and not-religion. On the contrary, it applies a func
tional approach to religion, without claiming to provide the essential char
acteristic of "religion." It can be supplemented with other approaches
to religion or religions, which have emerged in different cultural con
texts or in the study of other religions than Christianity. Furthermore,
the concept livsdskddning can integrate the levels of different agents,
including individuals, groups and institutions. Moreover, as a frame
work for RE, it may be flexible enough to integrate postmodern criti
cism of traditional notions of religion, and leave room for a critical
study of the (meta-) narratives that religious institutions have produced
about their "traditions."

18) For example, it resembles Paul Tillich's theory of religion which claims that reli
gions provide answers to existential questions (Tillich 1956).
19) Here the same kind of criticism applies which has been put forward against, for
example, Rudolf Otto's, Friedrich Heiler's or Mircea Eliade's ideas about the universal
ity of the holy as a basis of any religious experience. See e.g. McCutcheon 2000;
Waardenburg 1992.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
314 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

2. Development of Concepts for Education about Religion

The situation in Europe and elsewhere shows that various concepts for
education about religion and religions exist. Traditionally, these con
cepts have been developed within religious traditions and present
approaches to religious plurality from the perspective of a particular
religious tradition. Recently, in countries where such a school subject
exists, concepts for integrative religious education have been developed
also outside religious communities, for example, in institutes of educa
tion. Frequently, concepts for integrative RE are some kind of compro
mise between religious perspectives on religious plurality and secular
educational approaches. This is due to the fact that, normally, educa
tionalists have little professional knowledge about religions and
approach religious communities and their educational institutions in
order to develop contents for integrative RE.20
The crucial question is, however, whether religious communities are
the right partners for the development of concepts for secular integra
tive RE. From an educational perspective, it is important for the pupils
to get to know the groups and worldviews that they are supposed to
learn about. However, given the diversity of points of view on religion
and religious diversity and the secular character of the subject, no reli
gious position may determine the general character of integrative RE.
Religious positions are the object of integrative RE, but cannot provide
the framework for the representation of any religion, let alone religious
diversity, in this school subject. Nevertheless, insider-accounts of their
own tradition do have a place in integrative RE. They are part of the
subject matter and need to be studied by the pupils. However, they may
differ from other accounts of this tradition and, in particular, from
non-religious approaches to that tradition. These tensions between
different accounts of religion and religious diversity need to be studied
in RE, if the subject is to serve the general emancipatory task of educa
tional institutions which intend to educate responsible citizens. There
fore, a secular educational framework, with neither a religious nor an
anti-religious agenda, is needed for integrative RE.

20) This is, for example, institutionalised in the procedure for the creation of syllabuses
for RE in England. It is also the case in Germany when theologies are regarded as
partners for the study of religions in the secular alternative subjects which are compul
sory for pupils who do not take part in RE (cf. Lott 1998:48).

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 315

It took the institutionalised academic study of religions more than

one-hundred years to distinguish between (explicitly or implicitly) reli
gious and non-religious accounts of religion and this matter remains
contested to this date (McCutcheon 2003; Jensen and Rothstein 2000;
Fitzgerald 2000). It seems unlikely that educationalists designing con
cepts for integrative RE, without the help of the study of religions, will
be able to find answers to the questions about an adequate notion of
religion and representation of religions in only a few years. Due to the
virtual absence of the study of religions in many debates about RE in
secular societies, its knowledge about theory and methodology in the
study and representation of different religions has only rarely been
transferred to school contexts. Therefore, many approaches to religion
in schools still build on a notion of religion which was popular in the
academic study of religions in the first half of the 20th century, but has
been found inappropriate in secular educational contexts.21 Expertise in
the study of religions is needed for education about religion also in
schools. Therefore, the study of religions needs to develop concepts for
school education about religion as a part of general didactics of the
study of religions.
In the development of concepts for education about religion from a
study-of-religions point of view, we may distinguish between two
different kinds of concepts:

(a) Starting from an understanding of the study of religions as an aca

demic discipline, independent from particular institutional contexts
and restrictions, we need to develop concepts for education about reli
gion/s independently from external factors: didactics of the study of reli
gions as it should be from an academic point of view, based on research in
the study of religions and education. We need to find a position towards
didactics within our discipline. This is necessary also in order to help
to further develop existing approaches so that they may approximate
this ideal.

21) For example, a Swedish textbook for RE presents the universality of the holy, as
proposed by Otto or S?derblom, as a starting point for the study of religions in school
RE, see Rodhe and Nylund 1998:23-26.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
316 W Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

(b) Since education about religions does not take place in the "ideal"
surroundings which scholars of religion may imagine, it is, furthermore,
necessary to develop concepts for education about religion/s in particu
lar contexts, taking account of external factors like national or interna
tional regulations, constitutions, school laws etc.: didactics of the study
of religions as it can be in particular social and political contexts. However,
we need to keep in mind that these external factors are not universal
natural laws. Constitutions, regulations, school laws etc. have been
made by somebody, most likely without consultation with scholars
of religion. It is another task for scholars in the study of religions
to participate in the consultation processes that precede decisions shap
ing the external factors on which education about religion/s de facto
depends.

(a) Didactics of the Study of Religions as it Should be from an Academic

Point of View
Concepts for integrative RE which build on didactics of the study of
religions are designed for secular educational contexts with mixed
classes of pupils with various religious and non-religious backgrounds.
The impartial approach to religions should be reflected in the name of
the school subject, which means that this name should refer to religion
or religions in general, without naming a particular religion and thereby
emphasising it on the cost of others. Examples of adequate names are
the Swedish religionskunskap or German Religionskunde (knowledge
about religion). The English term "religious education" is slightly
ambiguous, as it may be taken to imply a religious character of the sub
ject. Similarly, the connotation of simply "religion" may be ambiguous
in some contexts where "religion" used to be the name for confessional
religious instruction. If integrative RE is regarded as part of a broader
subject, this may be reflected in names like Religion und Kultur (in the
Canton of Zurich in Switzerland) or Lebensgestaltung-Ethik-Religion
skunde ("Shaping life, ethics, knowledge about religion" in the federal
state of Brandenburg in Germany).
There are a number of other organisational issues in which didactics
of the study of religion needs to find its own position(s). However, in
the following, I would like to address what I think are key issues for any
concept of integrative RE: the notion of religion, the representation of

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W Alberts /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 317

religions and the notion of education.22 As we have seen earlier, the

notion of religion is contested in approaches to religious education.
Didactics of the study of religions needs to position itself in this debate.
In relation to debates about theory and methodology in the study of
religions, we may ask where on the scale between classical phenomeno
logical approaches to RE at one end and a complete deconstruction of
"religion" at the other end didactics of the study of religions may find
its place. Without any doubt, classical phenomenological approaches
with their implicit or explicit universalist theological presuppositions,
cannot serve as a framework for the study of religions in integrative RE,
as this would mean an abuse of educational authority for a particular
religious end, introducing pupils into an unquestioned religious para
digm, which contradicts the views of many religious and non-religious
people.
If the well-known problems of the classical phenomenology of reli
gion are addressed and avoided, a comparative study of religions in
schools can, in fact, be a valuable contribution to the general educa
tional task of the school. However, care needs to be taken in order not
to introduce pupils to another unquestioned paradigm. Therefore, the
debates about theory and methodology in the study of religions are
very relevant for didactics. The general framework for integrative RE
needs to be critical and broad enough in order to leave room for ques
tioning one's own presuppositions about the notion of religion and the
representation of religions. Without any doubt, teachers need to take a
number of decisions concerning the epistemological framework in
which they represent religions. However, communicating these proc
esses and the implications of these decisions to the pupils are impor
tant tasks for the teachers if they do not want to abuse their educational
authority. With respect to the notion of religion, in didactics we do not
have to solve the general problems the academic study is confronted
with, for example, the fact that there is no universally accepted concept
of religion. However, the implications of recent research in the study of
religions need to be considered in concepts for integrative RE. This
means, for example, that postcolonial critique, feminist criticism, and
the postmodern deconstruction of religion (see, for example, Joy 2001;

22) For a detailed outline of my position on these issues, see Alberts 2007:353-87.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 318 W Alberts I Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

Warne 2000; Geertz 2000b) need to be acknowledged. The latter, for

example, does not mean that there is no place any more for the subject
integrative RE, because its subject matter has been deconstructed. On
the contrary, these processes and criticisms of traditional notions of
religion which used to serve as frameworks for the representation of
religions, need to be taken up in education about religions. After all, all
these discourses which have been criticised and deconstructed, are still
very influential in society and, therefore, still need to be studied. In the
long run, this may very well result in a revision of curricula, particu
larly with respect to the selection of phenomena to be studied in RE.
Here, a critical revision of the world-religions paradigm as framework
for RE, for example, may help to broaden the scope of the subject and
include phenomena such as non-institutionalised spirituality, civil reli
gion, new, smaller or indigenous religions or other worldviews, which
have often been excluded in frameworks based on world-religions
typologies. Furthermore, postmodern criticism may serve as a critical
corrective for the representation of religions in RE, addressing prob
lems concerning the conscious or unconscious reproduction of grand
narratives.
The issues concerning the search for a concept of religion which may
serve as the basis for an adequate representation of religions in RE are
closely related to the general question of what kind of concept of edu
cation didactics of the study of religions may be based upon. There is a
great discrepancy between academic concepts of education, referring,
for example, to individual self-determination of life and meaning, par
ticipation in decision-making about cultural, economic, social and
political issues, and solidarity in order to grant self-determination and
participation also to all other people (Klaflki 2001), and concepts of
education put forward by particular lobbies (be they driven by political,
religious or economic interests), which reduce education to the acquisi
tion of skills needed for their particular aims. The study of religions, as
an academic discipline, needs to develop an approach to teaching about
religions which builds on academic concepts of education. If education
is not reduced to an acquisition of standardised knowledge, but is
related to the development of consciousness and the ability to critically
assess one's previous understanding, for example, of religion, in relation
to new information, the importance of a generally open and critical
framework for the representation of religions in RE becomes obvious.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 319

The contested methodological issues need to be communicated to the

pupils in RE so that they can take part in these debates. Therefore,
integrative RE cannot be reduced to an acquisition of standardised
knowledge about "world religions." An introduction to the debates
about religion and religions in contemporary societies is much more
important. This enables the pupils to make up their own minds about
the grand narratives that are produced about religious "traditions." The
critical and emancipatory impetus lying at the heart of critical educa
tional theory (Adorno 1970; Heydorn 1995; Klafki 2001), which is
based on critical social theory (e.g. Horkheimer and Adorno 1998),
needs to be acknowledged as an integral part of the subject. Therefore, in
order not to introduce the pupils to unquestioned paradigms, the crucial
theoretical and methodological questions need to be addressed in RE.
Another contested issue where didactics of the study of religions
needs to find its own position is the debate about the aims of integrative
RE. Frequently, two aspects of aims of integrative RE are distinguished:
learning about religions and learningfrom religion.25 While learning about
religions is uncontroversial from a study-of-religions point of view,
learningfrom religion is a more delicate issue. What does it mean? It is
related to the general educational task of the subject and of the school
in general. In the national model syllabuses in England, for example,
learning from religion is specified somewhat vaguely as "including the
ability to: give an informed and considered response to religious and
moral issues; reflect on what might be learnt from religions in the light
of one's own beliefs and experience; identify and respond to questions
of meaning within religions" (SCAA 1994:5). In the national syllabus
for the Swedish grundskola (elementary school), the aim of RE is intro
duced as follows:

The subject of Religion contributes to developing the ability to understand and

reflect over oneself, one's life and surroundings and develop a preparedness
for acting with responsibility. Working through existential and religious issues
and considering existence from an ethical perspective, is part of a personal devel
opment process. Every individual reflects over such issues and needs to acquire

23) See, for example, the national model syllabuses or the non-statutory national
framework for RE in England: SCAA 1994:5; QCA 2004:11. For the Swedish debate
about aims of integrative RE see H?renstam 2000:145?164.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
320 W Alberts I Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

concepts from traditions, language and symbols to find meaning in those issues
they face in life. (Skolverket 2000)

The formulation learning from religion emphasises the educational value

of its counterpart learning about religions. In an integrative RE context,
however, it may be asked whether or not the concept learning from
religion privileges religious worldviews over secular ones, presupposing
an inherent value of religious traditions which secular worldviews lack,
for example with respect to moral questions. Moreover, one may doubt
that learning from religion has its place in a generally secular frame
work, as it may imply a religious character of the learning process, ask
ing the pupils to accept religious frameworks when they articulate their
own positions. The problems is that the formulation learning from reli
gions is so vague that it may be interpreted as secular as well as religious.
For example, Robert Jackson's idea o? edification, a different view on the
familiar after having been challenged by the unfamiliar, which identifies
reflexivity as an integral part of interpretive processes in RE, can be
regarded as a secular interpretation of learning from religion, acknowl
edging that studying other ways of life and reflecting about what has been
studied cannot been separated from each other (Jackson 1997:130-134).
Some formulations in the English national model syllabuses, however,
imply a religious character of learning from religions, for example, when
"synthesis," including "linking significant features of religion together in
a coherent pattern; connecting different aspects of life into a meaningful
whole," is regarded as a central skill of RE (SCAA 1994:5).
Considering this ambiguity of the formulation learning from religion,
for didactics of the study of religions I would like to suggest to replace
it with the formulation learning from the study of religions, in order to
exclude a religious interpretation of this aim of integrative RE, but to
emphasise, at the same time, the general analytical skills which the
study of religions fosters and to refer to the reflexive aspect of the
subject. The latter may be necessary in order to defend the subject
against the popular argument that a study of different religions within
a secular framework was unrelated to the lives and own experiences of
the pupils.24 Learning from the study of religions does not imply that

24) This is, for example, presupposed in Hammond, Hay et al. 1990, e.g. 21. For an
analysis of this argument in the German context, see e.g. Lott 1998.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 321

religions are institutions of moral superiority, but leaves room for an

acknowledgement of the ambivalence of "religion." Furthermore, it
expresses more clearly the emancipatory approach to education, which
involves a critical study of various phenomena and discourses, challeng
ing previously unquestioned presuppositions.

(b) Didactics of the Study of Religions within the Constraints of

External Factors

There are a number of external factors and constraints which influence

the contexts in which didactics of the study of religion can actually be
applied. Generally, like other educational issues, the character of inte
grative RE is negotiated between different stakeholders, resulting in
different frameworks for learning about religion/s. These frameworks
may contradict the principles of the study of religions, for example,
with respect to the impartial treatment of different religions.
First, also apart from regulations concerning integrative RE, frame
works for school education in general may not really be secular. In Eng
land, for example, "spiritual development" is regarded as a task of school
education in general (UK Parliament 1988). In other countries, par
ticular religious traditions are named in school laws or other regulations
as frameworks for education. This may be more implicit like in the
Swedish national curriculum which mentions "ethics borne by Chris
tian tradition and Western humanism" as a reference for the values that
the school should represent and impart (Skolverket 2006:3). In other
countries, school laws interpret education in general as education
within a particular religious tradition. In Norway, for example, the edu
cation act states:

The object of primary and lower secondary education shall be, in agreement and
cooperation with the home, to help to give pupils a Christian and moral upbring
ing, to develop their mental and physical abilities, and to give them good general
knowledge so that they may become useful and independent human beings at
home and in society. (Kunnskapsdepartementet 2007a:?l?2)

Similarly, the school laws of several German federal states interpret

school education in general as Christian education. Furthermore, on
these grounds, Christian symbols and clothes are privileged while other
religious items, most explicitly the Muslim headscarf, are banned from

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
322 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

classrooms (for example, Land Baden-W?rttemberg 2006 ?38.2; Fre

istaat Bayern 2007: art. 59.2). Considering these school laws and regu
lations, the challenge for didactics of the study of religions and
integrative RE is to establish a framework which is impartial with
respect to religions in a context which is not impartial.
Second, teaching and learning about different religions may be
organised within frameworks in which the study of religions appears
merely as an aspect of other school subjects, for example in France or in
many schools in the Netherlands. In these models it may be difficult to
communicate basic distinctions in the study of religions (for example,
between religious and non-religious views of "religion") to teachers and
pupils who will teach and learn about religions merely as a part of, for
example, history or geography. How can didactics of the study of reli
gions be integrated in these approaches? A minimum requirement
would be the inclusion of modules in the study of religions in the
teacher training programmes for teachers of those subjects which com
prise some study of religions. It may be doubted, however, that it is
possible to communicate the complex theoretical and methodological
issues as well as sufficient knowledge about religions in a by-programme
and not an individual subject, at university as well as school levels.
Third, if there is integrative RE as an individual school subject, the
regulations for this subject may privilege particular traditions, or draw
a map of integrative RE which is quite different from what would be
favourable from a study-of-religions point of view. For example, the
English Education Reform Act states with respect to religious educa
tion that any newly agreed syllabus

shall reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main
Christian, whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other princi
pal religions represented in Great Britain. (UK Parliament 1988, section 8.3)

Similarly, the syllabus for the obligatory subject Kristendoms-, religions

og livssynskunnskap (KRL) in Norway prescribes that 55% of teaching
time should be dedicated to Christianity, 25% to Judaism, Hinduism,
Buddhism and Islam together, and the remaining 20% to philosophy
and ethics (Utdanningsdirektoratet 2005:11). The privileged position
of Christianity in the name Kristendoms-, religions- og livssynskunnskap

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts I Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 323

(KRL) is indicative of the generally privileged position of Christianity

in this school subject.25
This is also the case in the subject Unterricht in biblischer Geschichte
auf allgemeinchristlicher Grundlage (BGU, education in biblical history
on a generally Christian basis), a non-confessional school subject taught
in Bremen in Germany. This name goes back to a compromise in the
year 1947, when the city of Bremen decided not to include confessional
instruction in the normal school curriculum. The Department for the
Study of Religions and Religious Education of the University of Bremen,
which educates prospective teachers for BGU, interprets BGU as a
study of different religions from a non-confessional point of view.
Therefore, students with various religious or non-religious backgrounds
may study at this department in order to become BGU teachers later.26
However, the Christian churches, which are consulted by the secular
authority of education for the creation of syllabuses for BGU and help
to organise the post-graduate school practice phases, interpret BGU as
inter-confessional Christian education (e.g. Bremische Evangelische
Kirche 2007). Therefore, there is disagreement about the question if,
for example, Jewish or Muslim graduates from the teacher training pro
gramme may actually teach BGU, since the Christian churches regard
being Christian as a prerequisite for that. The outcome of these debates
between the university, the city of Bremen and the religious communi
ties is still open and it may be possible that the courts will have to
decide about the general character of BGU.
For didactics of the study of religions, these debates raise the ques
tion where there is a limit to accommodating imperfect conditions and
legal frameworks of integrative RE. Certainly, if we want to get involved
in teaching about religions in schools, some kind of compromise will be

25) Its bias in favour of Christianity was found incompatible with its compulsory status
by the European Court of Human Rights (European Court of Human Rights 2007).
In response to this decision, the Norwegian government has recently announced its
intention to adapt the subject so that its compulsory status does not contradict human
rights conventions of religious freedom any more (Kunnskapsdepartementet 2007b).
26) Cf. the Bachelor course, which forms the first part of the teacher training pro
gramme, Freie Hansestadt Bremen 2006.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
324 W. Alberts I Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

unavoidable. If we supported integrative RE only in ideal surround

ings, it would hardly be possible for us to support any model at all and,
perhaps, prove that a study-of-religions approach is helpful in school
contexts. If the study of religions does not claim its responsibility for
integrative RE at all, other interest groups will be ready to take its place.
Furthermore, in order to change the educational contexts towards more
favourable conditions for teaching and learning about religions in
schools, the study of religions needs to engage in these debates and
make available its expertise in this field. However, I think we need a
discussion about the limits beyond which we cannot support a model
any more, because its bias fundamentally contradicts the principles of
didactics of the study of religions. Clearly, the study of religions cannot
support confessional models of teaching about religion, even though
knowledge provided by the study of religions may be used in confes
sional RE. Therefore, with respect to integrative RE, an important
question is whether the general framework excludes people on religious
grounds. This is the case, for example, in the Hamburg model of inte
grative RE ("Religionsunterricht f?r Alle," see Wei?e 1996), which is
designed for pupils of various religious and non-religious backgrounds,
but may be taught independently only by teachers who belong to a
Christian church (Link 2002:222). The same issue may become crucial
in Bremen, should courts decide that teachers for BGU need to be
Christians. This would probably result in a termination of the partici
pation of the Department for the Study of Religions and Religious
Education of the University of Bremen in teacher training for BGU, as
this would fundamentally contradict the department's approach to
integrative RE and its interpretation of the school subject BGU.
Regarding cooperation under imperfect conditions, the question if the
general framework allows for a non-religious impartial approach at all is
decisive. In many national or regional contexts, there may be a variety of
interpretations of integrative RE. If the general framework allows for it,
didactics of the study of religions can contribute a secular approach which
acknowledges the diversity of religious and non-religious backgrounds of
the pupils and respects the rights to freedom of and from religion.

Didactics of the Study of Religions Beyond School Contexts

The focus of didactics of the study of religions is not limited to school

contexts. There are other fields where it is needed. In fact, it relates to any

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 325

field where teaching and learning about religion takes place in secular
environments. In higher education, it relates, for example, to pro
grammes for the study of religion at universities. Furthermore, it is
relevant for modules in the study of religion which are part of other
programmes, for example, teacher training for history in countries
where integrative religious education is included in the school subject
history. In Europe, the restructuring of the university systems (e.g. the
"Bologna process") can be regarded as a particular challenge for didac
tics of the study of religions at this level. How are academic courses in
the study of religions adapted to this changed environment? By what
kind of programmes are our traditional courses replaced? On which
notion of university education are these programmes based? This is
another area where the comparative study and development of concepts
for teaching and learning about religion falls within the realm of didac
tics of the study of religions. Furthermore, other institutions which are
often regarded as cultural or political rather than educational, also serve
the task of communicating knowledge about religions in secular envi
ronments. This is the case in museums which deal with religion, for
example, the Religionskundliche Sammlung in Marburg in Germany. In
this museum, knowledge about religions is communicated to the pub
lic with objects from different regions of the world. Furthermore, it is
visited regularly by groups of teachers and pupils (Br?unlein 2004). In
addition to this obvious field for didactics of the study of religions, it is
also needed in museums which deal with religion or religions only
among a number of other topics, but are not mainly museums of reli
gions. Furthermore, monuments which communicate information
about or interpretations of religions and religious diversity can be
regarded as another field, just as other media which serve this function.
In this respect, didactics of the study of religions can be regarded as one
aspect of an applied study of religions, relating to the "expanding class
room" (see the article by David Chidester in this issue).

3. Engagement in Practical Issues Related to Education about

Religion
Didactics of the study of religions is not limited to the study of models
of education about religion and the development of concepts for this
purpose at an academic level. Its field requires practical engagement in

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
326 W. Alberts I Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

various contexts relating to teaching and learning about religion/s in

secular environments. In the following, I will briefly describe five areas
which I think need to be particular foci of this engagement: teacher
training, the development of teaching material, cooperation with vari
ous agents representing religion in society, cooperation with educa
tional authorities, and participation in public and political debates
about religion, education, and RE.
There are a number of tasks for teacher training in the study of reli
gions. First, the study of religions needs to claim its place in teacher
training for integrative RE as well as for the secular alternative subjects
to confessional RE in separative contexts. Frequently, for these subjects,
theologies rather than the study of religions are regarded as partners for
teacher training, since they have much more experience with school
didactics. These are fields where the study of religions still needs to
communicate the relevance of its approach. In some contexts, however,
for example for the subject religion in the Danish upper secondary
school, this has been done quite successfully already (Jensen 2007). It is
important that the study of religions develops teacher training pro
grammes for integrative RE and "alternative" subjects to confessional
RE from a clear study-of-religions point of view. Currently, these
teacher training programmes are often not really based on didactics of
the study of religions, but rather compromises with various interest
groups. In face of the unsatisfactory situation of teaching and learning
about different religions in many countries, the young field of didactics
of the study of religions will profit immensely from international coop
eration. A transfer of knowledge is necessary in order not to repeat the
same debates again and again in each country and to counter the reli
giously motivated propaganda against integrative RE.27 In addition to
teacher training programmes at universities, the study of religions needs
to get involved in institutions which are responsible for more school
related training courses. So far, the responsibility of the study of reli
gions often terminates once students get their university degrees and
well-established religious communities take over. This is, for example,
the case in Bremen where the study of religions is not involved in the
second phase of teacher training for integrative RE. Supervision and

27) An overview of the latter in Germany can be found in Lott 1998:9-17.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 327

support from the study of religions is needed also in postgraduate school

practice phases. Furthermore, taking into account the large number of
teachers of integrative RE who have no background in the study of
religions, education courses for teachers are also needed in order to
communicate the character of the subject and recent research insights
to them and discuss together its applicability in schools. Concepts for
teacher education and in-service training need to acknowledge the vari
ety of school contexts, including preschool, primary school, secondary
school, vocational school, evening school, and special schools.
The lack of adequate teaching material for integrative RE has often
been noted (for example, H?renstam 1993;28 Westerman 1996; van der
Velde 2007). However, there are impressive exceptions. For example,
the textbooks produced by the Warwick team, based on the interpretive
approach (e.g. Wayne, Everington et al. 1996), or the series Danske
Verdensreligioner (Danish World Religions, cf. Jensen 2007:341?42),
transfer expertise in the study of religions and its didactics to teaching
material. Generally, the study of religions needs to contribute to the
textbook market and train students to be able to write textbooks. For
this task, students require knowledge in the study of religions and in
didactics of the study of religions. However, teaching material is by no
means restricted to textbooks, but includes a number of other media,
not least films and virtual resources.
Another task for didactics of the study of religions is cooperation
with various agents representing "religion" in societies. These include
religious communities, but are not restricted to these. Among religious
communities it may be important to establish trust for integrative RE
based on the study of religions, for example regarding the communica
tion of its methodological presuppositions, which are neither religious
nor anti-religious. Furthermore, cooperation with religious communi
ties is a basis for visits, which may be included in teacher training as
well as integrative RE itself in order to enable encounters and direct
contact with insiders of different traditions. However, for didactics of
the study of religions it is crucial that it treats the different religious
groups equally. This means, for example, that it cannot support the

28) This study is part of the European research project on Islam in textbooks, cf.
Falaturi 1990.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
328 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

privileges that well-established religions often have, particularly in RE

contexts. Apart from religious communities, there are also other insti
tutions, groups and individuals who represent religion. An open
approach to religion requires openness for various areas where religion
is represented in society in order not to limit "religion" to a selection of
"world religions" or locally influential religious communities. We need
to embark upon new fields where what we call "religion" matters in
societies, for example, with respect to worldviews of people today and
the beliefs and values which determine or guide their actions.
A fourth practical task for didactics of the study of religions is coop
eration with educational authorities. The character of the rather young
subject integrative RE needs to be explained to heads of schools, local
and national education authorities, ministries of education etc. The
study of religions needs to supply the kind of knowledge which is
important for decisions in educational institutions. Just as the character
of the academic study of religions is often misunderstood, so is the
character of integrative RE. Scholars in the study of religions need to
participate in consultation processes leading to the creation of laws,
guidelines, syllabuses etc. on local, national and international levels.
This has been done by most of the authors in this volume. Their work
is, however, an exception rather than the rule in the academic study of
religions.
My final point in this section is about the recognition of the social
and political responsibility of the study of religions and its didactics to
make the knowledge it produces available to society. Scholars of reli
gion need to participate in political and public debates about religion,
education and RE. Otherwise we support the notion that, above all,
representatives of religious communities are to be regarded as specialists
not only for their own religion (which is arguable in itself, considering
the reproduction of religious authority this implies), but also for "reli
gion" in general.

Conclusion
As shown above, teaching and learning about religion take place in a
number of contexts, inside and outside educational institutions. The
academic discipline of the study of religions cannot wait until ideal

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 329

fields of application in terms of surroundings for education about reli

gion and religions exist in schools or elsewhere, before it develops a
didactic branch. This would mean leaving education about religion/s
beyond academia to people with other, possibly religious or anti-reli
gious agendas, who do not have an academic background in the com
parative study of religions.
In fact, even the university contexts in which our subject is based do
very often not correspond to our self-understanding.29 Likewise, the
study of religions cannot refrain from getting involved in the educa
tional debates around teaching and learning about religions, trying to
leave everything which has to do with education to educationalists and
interpreting its own contribution merely as the provision of knowledge
about details in the history of religions. Educationalists without any
background in the study of religions are unlikely to understand the
important distinctions which the study of religions has introduced.
Therefore, rather than trying to assign the professional responsibility
for education about religion/s to other stakeholders, the study of reli
gions needs to develop its own didactics. We need scholars in the study
of religions who, at the same time, have expertise in the fields of educa
tion and didactics and combine this expertise for didactics of the study
of religions.
This does certainly not reflect the study of religions in its narrowest
interpretation, regarding the production of knowledge solely as an end
in itself and trying to be immune against any other normative interpre
tation. Delimitations from normative (e.g., religious or colonial) posi
tions are important, but this does not mean that the study of religions
has nothing to do with school contexts, which are, of course, norma
tive, as they intend to educate the young generation into specific socie
ties. Just as the university system, which incorporates the academic
discipline of the study of religions, serves particular interests, the inter
ests behind school education do not make an integration of the kind of
knowledge that the study of religions produces into schools impossible.
However, this knowledge is not just readily available detailed informa
tion about a selection of religions in which educators may be interested.

29) For example, when the integration of Departments for the Study of Religions in
Faculties of Theology seems to imply that the general religious framework of the Fac
ulty applies to the Study of Religions, too.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
330 [Link] /Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

On the contrary, it cannot be separated from theoretical and methodo

logical considerations about religion and religions. This applies to uni
versity as well as other educational contexts. Therefore, just as we do
not leave the design of university programmes in the study of religions
to external educationalists and just contribute information about reli
gions, we need to get actively involved in the analysis and design of
concepts for school education about religion/s, which includes partici
pating in a number of practical issues, despite all delicate issues involved
in the field of religion and education.

References
Adorno, Theodor W 1970. Erziehung zur M?ndigkeit: Vortr?ge und Gespr?che mit
Hellmut Becker. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Alberts, Wanda. 2006. "European Models of Integrative Religious Education." In Pye
et al. 2006:267-278.
-. 2007. Integrative Religious Education: A Study-of Religions Approach. (Reli
gion and Reason 45.) Berlin New York: de Gruyter.
Alm?n, Edgar. 2000. "Religious Education in Sweden." In: Edgar Alm?n and Hans
Christian 0ster (eds.), Religious Education in Great Britain, Sweden and Russia:
Presentations, Problem Inventories and Commentaries, Link?ping: Link?ping
University Electronic Press, 60-91.
Avest, Ina ter, Cok Bakker et al. 2007. "Religion and Education in the Dutch Pillar
ized and Post-pillarized Educational System: Historical Background and Current
Debates." In: Jackson, Miedema et al. 2007:203-219.
Br?unlein, Peter. 2004. "Shiva und der Teufel: Museale Vermittlung von Religion als
religionswissenschaftliche Herausforderung." In Peter Br?unlein (ed.), Religion &
Museum: Zur visuellen Repr?sentation von Religion/en im ?ffentlichen Raum, Biele
feld: transcript, 55-76.
Bremische Evangelische Kirche. 2007. Biblische Geschichte 5: Gutachten und Ausein
andersetzungen. [Link]
[Link], 2.1.2008.
Brittain, Christopher Craig. 2005. "The 'Secular' as a Tragic Category: OnTalal Asad,
Religion and Representation." Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 17:
149-165.
Chidester, David. 2003. "Religion Education in South Africa: Teaching and Learning
about Religion, Religions, and Religious Diversity." British Journal of Religious
Education 25:261-27'8.
Debray, R?gis. 2002. L'Enseignement du fait religieux dans l'?cole la?que. Paris: Odile Jacob.
Deutsche Bischofskonferenz. 1996. Die bildende Kraft des Religionsunterrichts. Zur
Konfessionalit?t des katholischen Religionsunterrichts, [Link]
deutsche_bischoefe/hirtenschreiben/[Link], 2.1.2008.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 331

Dommel, Christa. 2007. Religions-Bildung im Kindergarten in Deutschland und Eng

land: Vergleichende Bildungsforschung und fr?hkindliche P?dagogik aus religionswis
senschaftlicher Perspektive. Frankfurt: IKO.
Erricker, Clive. 2000. "A Critical Review of Religious Education." In Clive Erricker
and Jane Erricker (eds.), Reconstructing Religious, Spiritual and Moral Education,
London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 15-35.
Erricker, Clive, and Jane Erricker. 2000a. "The Children and Worldviews Project:
A Narrative Pedagogy of Religious Education." In Michael Grimmitt (ed.), Peda
gogies of Religious Education: Case Studies in the Research and Development of Good
Pedagogic Practice in RE, Great Wakering: McCrimmons, 188-206.
-. 2000b. "Narrative Constructions Towards Community." In Clive Erricker
and Jane Erricker (eds.), Reconstructing Religious, Spiritual and Moral Education,
London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer, 107-131.
European Court of Human Rights. 2007. Case ofFolgero and Others v. Norway, http://
[Link]/tkpl97/[Link]?action=html&documentId=819532&port
al=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1
166DEA398649, 3.1.2008.
Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland. 1994. Identit?t und Verst?ndigung: Standort
und Perspektiven des Religionsunterrichts. Eine Denkschrift, im Auftrag des Rates der
Ev. Kirche in Deutschland, G?tersloh: Kirchenamt der EKD.
Falaturi, Abdoldjavad. 1990. Islam in Religious Education Textbooks in Europe. K?ln:
Islamische Wissenschaftliche Akademie.
Fitzgerald, Timothy. 2000. Ihe Ideology of Religious Studies. Oxford / New York:
Oxford University Press.
Flood, Gavin. 1999. Beyond Phenomenology: Rethinking the Study of Religion. London:
Cassell.
Freie Hansestadt Bremen. 2006. Amtsblatt Nr.90, ausgegeben am 22. August 2006.
[Link]
Pr_fungsordnung_Religionsw_-Religionsp_2006.pdf, 3.1.2008.
Freistaat Bayern. 2007. (2000) Bayerisches Gesetz ?ber das Erziehungs- und Unterrichts
wesen (BayEUG). [Link]
html?[Link]
men, 3.1.2008.
Geertz, Armin W. 2000a. "Analytical Theorizing in the Secular Study of Religion." In
Jensen and Rothstein 2000:21-31.
-. 2000b. "Global Perspectives on Methodology in the Study of Religion." In
Armin W. Geertz and Russell T. McCutcheon (eds.), Perspectives on Method and
Theory in the Study of Religion. Adjunct Proceedings of the XVIIth Congress of the
International Association for the History of Religions Mexico City, 1995, Leiden/
Boston/K?ln: Brill, 49-73.
Grimmitt, Michael H. (ed.). 2000. Pedagogies of Religious Education: Case Studies in the
Research and Development of Good Pedagogic Practice in RE. Great Wakering:
McCrimmon.
Hammond, John, David Hay et al. 1990. New Methods in RE Teaching: An Experien
tial Approach. Harlow, Essex: Oliver&Boyd.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 332 W. Alberts I Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

H?renstam, Kjell. 1993. Skolboks-islam: Analys av bilden av islam i l?rob?cker i religions

kunskap. G?teborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
-. 2000. Kan du h?ra vindh?sten? Religionsdidaktik ? om konsten att v?lja kun
skap. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Hartmann, Sven G. 2000. "Hur religions?mnet formades." In Edgar Alm?n, Ragnar
Furenhed et al. (eds.), Livstolkning och v?rdegrund: Att undervisa om religion, livs
fr?gor och etik, Link?ping: Link?pings Universitet, 212?251.
Heydorn, Heinz-Joachim. 1995. Werke. Vol. 2: Bildungstheoretische und p?dagogische
Schriften 1967?1970. Vaduz: Topos.
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. 1998. Dialektik der Aufkl?rung. Frankfurt:
S. Fischer.
Hull, John M. 2002. "Der Segen der S?kularit?t: Religionsp?dagogik in England und
Wales." In Wei?e 2002:167-179.
Jackson, Robert. 1997. Religious Education: An Interpretive Approach\ London: Hodder
& Stoughton.
-. 2004. Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality. Issues in Diversity and
Pedagogy. London/New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Jackson, Robert, Siebren Miedema, Wolfram Weisse, and Jean-Paul Willaime (eds.).
2007. Religion and Education in Europe: Developments, Contexts and Debates.
M?nster: Waxmann.
Jensen, Tim. 1999. "Religion and Religious Education in a Europe of Conflicting
Trends." In Nils-Ake Tidman (ed.), Into the ThirdMillenium: EFTRE Conference
August 1998 in Copenhagen, Lomma: FLR, 142-159.
-. 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
31:83-89.
-. 2005. "European and Danish Religious Education: Human Rights, the Sec
ular State, and 'Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality.'" Religion and
Education 32:60-78.
-. 2007. "The Study of Religions and Religion in Denmark." Nederlands The
ologisch Tijdschrift 61:329-342.
Jensen, Tim, and Mikael Rothstein (eds.). 2000. Secular Theories of Religion: Current
Perspectives. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
Joy, Morny. 2001. "Postcolonial Reflections: Challenges for Religious Studies." Method
and Theory in the Study of Religion 13:177?195.
Klafki, Wolfgang. 2001. "Zur Frage eines zeitgem??en Bildungsbegriffs." In: Eberhard
Harbsmeier, Friedrich Schweitzer et al. (eds.), Elementarisering, Logumkloster:
Folkekirkens Paedagogiske Institut, 24-27.
Kunnskapsdepartementet. 2007a. LOV 1998-07-17 nr 61: Lov om grunnskolen og
den vidareg?ande oppl ringa (oppl ringslova) ?1?2. [Link]
[Link], 14.12.2007). English translation by the Faculty of Law
Library, University of Oslo: [Link]
[Link]., 14.12.2007.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 W. Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334 333

-. 2007b. "Pressemelding (7.12.2007): Foresl?r endring av KRL-faget." http://

[Link]/nb/dep/kd/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2007/Foreslar
[Link]?id=493540, 2.1.2008.
Land Baden W?rttemberg. 2005. (1983) Schulgesetz f?r Baden-W?rttemberg (SchG).
[Link] 14.1.2008.
Link, Christoph. 2002. "Rechtsgutachten ?ber die Vereinbarkeit des Hamburger
Modells eines 'Religionsunterrichts f?r alle in evangelischer Verantwortung' mit
Artikel 7 Abs. 3 GG." In Wei?e 2002:201-230.
Lott, J?rgen. 1998. Wie hast Dus mit der Religion?: Das neue Schulfach 'Lebensgestal
tung ? Ethik ? Religionskunde' (1ER) und die Werteerziehung in der Schule. G?t
ersloh: G?tersloher Verlagshaus.
Masuzawa, Tomoko. 2005. The Invention of World Religions: Or, How European Uni
versalism was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chi
cago Press.
McCutcheon, Russell T. 2000. "Critics not Caretakers: The Scholar of Religion as
Public Intellectual." In Jensen and Rothstein 2000:167-181.
-. 2003. The Discipline of Religion: Structure, Meaning, Rhetoric. London / New
York: Routledge.
Mott-Thornton, Kevin. 1996. "Language, Dualism and Experiential Religious Educa
tion: A Critical Appraisal of the Debate between Adrian Thatcher and the
Authors of New Methods in RE. Teaching." British Journal of Religious Education
18:155-165.
Nesbitt, Eleanor. 2002. "Ethnography and Religious Education." In Lynne Broadbent
and Alan Brown (eds.), Issues in Religious Education, London/New York: Rout
ledgeFalmer, 111-122.
Otto, Rudolf. 1969. The Idea of the Holy. Oxford etc.: Oxford University Press. (Orig.
Das Heilige, 1917.)
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 27th?October 3rd, 2004.
(Religion and Reason 45.) Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). 2004. Religious Education: The Non
Statutory National Framework, London: QCA.
Rodhe, Sten, and Bo Nylund. 1998. Religionskunskap. Stockholm: Almqvist&Wiksell.
Rudolph, Kurt. 2000. "Some Reflections on Approaches and Methodologies in the
Study of Religions." In Jensen and Rothstein 2000:231-247.
SCAA (School Curriculum and Assessment Authority). 1994. Model Syllabuses for
Religious Education: Model 1: Living Faiths Today. London: SCAA.
Schreiner, Peter. 2000. Religious Education in Europe: A Collection of Basic Information
about RE in European Countries. M?nster: Comenius-Inst.
-. 2005. Religious Education in Europe, [Link]
[Link], 2.1.2008.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]
 334 W Alberts / Numen 55 (2008) 300-334

Skolverket. 2000. Religion (Syllabus for the Compulsory School). [Link]

[Link]/ki03/[Link]?infotyp=24&skolform= 11 &sprak=en&id=3886&a
r=0405&extraid=2087&valtyp=&sel=&txt=, 3.1.2008.
-. 2006. Curriculum for the Compulsory School System, the Pre-School Class and
the Leisure-time Centre. Lpo 94. [Link]
3.1.2008.
Thomassen, Einar. 2006. "Religious Education in a Pluralistic Society: Experiences
from Norway." In Pye et al. 2006:257-266.
Tillich, Paul. 1956. Systematische Theologie. Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk.
UK Parliament. 1988. Education Reform Act. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Utdanningsdirektoratet. 2005. KRL-boka 2005: Kristendoms-, religions- og livssyn
skunnskap, l replan for 1.-10. ?rstrinn, lareplanveiledning og informasjon. Oslo:
Utdanningsdirektoratet. [Link]/innhold/krkbok/[Link], 2.1.2008.
Velde, Paul J.C.L. van der. 2007. "'Niet alle boeddhisten mediteren, niet alle hindoes
zijn vredelievend.' Het beeld van hindoe?sme en boeddhisme in schoolboeken
voor het voortgezet onderwijs in Nederland." Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift
61:291-307.
Waardenburg, Jacques. 1978. Reflections on the Study of Religion. The Hague: Mouton.
-. 1992. "Friedrich Heiler und die Religionsph?nomenologie ? eine kritische
W?rdigung." In Emmanuel Jungclaussen (ed.), ?kumene ? Ende oder Anfang?:
Zur Aktualit?t Friedrich Heilers, Marburg: Pressestelle der Philipps-Universit?t,
22-51.
Warne, Randi R. 2000. "Making the Gender-critical Turn." In Jensen and Rothstein
2000:249-260.
Wayne, Elizabeth, Judith Everington et al. 1996. Hindus. (Interpreting Religions.)
Oxford: Heinemann.
Wei?e, Wolfram. 1996. "Religionsunterricht f?r alle. Reform- und Lehrplanarbeit f?r
einen interkulturell ge?ffneten, dialogischen Religionsunterricht in Hamburg
(Anhang: Lehrplanentwurf Religion Primarstufe vom Sept. 1995)." In Wolfram
Wei?e (ed.), Vom Monolog zum Dialog: Ans?tze einer interkulturellen dialogischen
Religionsp?dagogik, M?nster: Waxmann, 163-177.
-(ed.). 2006. Wahrheit und Dialog: Theologische Grundlagen und Impulse gegen
w?rtiger Religionsp?dagogik. M?nster: Waxmann.
Westerman, Wim. 1996. "'Geestelijke Stromingen': A Distinctive Feature of Religious
Education in the Netherlands." In Brian Gates (ed.), Freedom and Authority in
Religions and Religious Education, London/New York: Cassell, 179?182.
Willaime, Jean-Paul. 2007a. "Different Models for Religion and Education in Europe."
In Robert Jackson, Siebren Miedema et al. (eds.), Religion and Education in Europe.
Developments, Contexts, and Debates, M?nster/New York: Waxmann, 57-66.
-. 2007b. "Teaching Religious Issues in French Public Schools: From Absten
tionist la?cit? to a Return of Religion in Public Education." In Jackson, Miedema
et al. 2007:87-101.
Wright, Andrew. 1996. "Language and Experience in the Hermeneutics of Religious
Understanding." British Journal of Religious Education 18:166-180.

This content downloaded from

[Link] on Sat, 25 Jul 2020 [Link] UTC
All use subject to [Link]