July 1928
405
T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
Menacing Theories of Religious Education B y W alter A lbion S quires Board, of Christian Education o f Presbyterian Church in U. S. A.
f HRISTIAN people hold widely different opinions as to the place of religious education in the pro gram of the church. There are many who be liev e that religious teaching is our most depend able instrument for the evangelization of the world. There are others who look with suspicion religion. These opposing opinions grow in part out of the fact that the term “religious education” is a general term. It stands for a process so large that its limitations are not clearly defined; a process which has many phases and which may have many different ends in view; a pro cess which is always dominated by some theory when it is efficiently directed, but in which the guiding theory may assume any one of many different and sometimes antag onistic forms. It follows that the term “religious educa tion” does not stand, in itself, for anything to be accepted without reservation, or rejected without consideration. We must make inquiry as to the particular type of reli gious education. We must ask concerning the ends if has in view and the theories which dominate its methods. If we fail to make such inquiry, we make but a blind choice, no matter what our decision as- to religious education may be. Two classes of church-schopl leaders are blundering badly today because they have overlooked the facts which have just been stated. It is tragic to hear an earnest Christian minister deride religious education in a whole sale way; to hear him set over against one another educa tion and regeneration as though they were antagonistic, and mutually exclusive. It is equally tragic to see direc tors of religious education catching up enthusiastically every educational fad, even those which rest on philosoph ical theories which are the implacable foes of the Christian religion. T h e M ena c ing T h ' eories It is with this latter class that this article attempts to deal. There are several theories dominant in religious education today which are a menace to the Christian re ligion. It is a consciousness of this fact that causes many evangelical Christians to look with suspicion on anything bearing the name ‘-of religious education. It is uncon sciousness of this fact that causes many directors of reli gious education to fall into the trap set by forces which would undermine the faith of the church. Both classes must develop ;the ' power of discrimination. The con servative must learn not to discard the good along with the evil. The progressive must learn not to accept the evil along with the good. Some of these theories which are leading church-school leaders astray are not erroneous when properly balanced by a consideration of their limitations. The danger lurk ing in them lies in their over-emphasis, or their exclusive emphasis. Other theories are irreconcilably antagonistic to the basic beliefs of the Christian religion, and these usually get into religious education in some disguised form. People responsible for the noble task of guiding
the young into the religious way of life should make a careful study of the theories which are to be considered in the following paragraphs. They must know about these theories, or they will be little more than blind leaders of childhood and youth. T h e S ocial T heory The religion of a few decades ago was over-individ ualistic. It was individualistic all toe often in ,its goals as well as in its theories as to how religion has its origin. There came a reaction and the thought of the social ele ments in the Christian religion surged to the forefront. This reaction, as is often the case, over-reached itself. It went to absurd extremes. Religion was conceived of in terms of social relationships. God was reduced to social ideals projected and personified. This over-emphasis on the social elements in the Chris tian religion had its influence on religious education. The church-school program was to consist primarily in social contacts and group activities. The error is a very subtle- one. It takes one of the noblest fruits of the Christian religion and makes this fruit a source. But there is really only one source for the Christian life. That lies in the individual’s acceptance of Jesus Christ :as -Saviour, Lord, and Ideal. Social contacts may be an immense help in leading the individual to such a choice, but they can never be a substitute for it. T h e “J ob -A nalysis T heory ” This theory developed in classes for vocational train ing. If a pupil was preparing to be a druggist, what would be more sensible than that the knowledge and the skill and the character traits necessary for the successful apothecary should become the chosen outcomes and objec tives of the classroom work? Some one jumped to the conclusion that here was the key to efficient religious edu cation. Just make a list of the character traits necessary to a successful carrying on of the job of being a Christian, put on a program which will secure these educational out comes, and the thing is done! Well, the first-century Christians were not made that way. Paul did not make a list of character traits for the Philippian jailer. He came near doing something of the kind in some of his epistles, but he was writing these mes sages to guide professed Christians in their development, and he tied these desired character traits up to the high ideal in Jesus. There is some good in this detailed “job analysis” of Christian character, but it easily falls into the error point ed out in the case of the social theory of religious educa tion. If the individual’s relationships to Jesus Christ are overlooked, the desired outcomes will never be established in any large way. T h e S itu a tion ist T heory There are those who believe that education takes place only when an individual is face to face with a situation demanding a choice and actually makes some decision.
upon the educational method of propagating the Christian
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker