I was fascinated to read the BBC's article on school assemblies being in decline. Much water has flowed out of beakers since I attended St Agnes' school for the mildly disruptive, but I do remember that, back in those allegedly more God-fearing days we had assembly as a year group once a week rather than daily as is now required. Whether this was of a "broadly Christian nature" I really don't remember. I know that our class were only allowed to prepare our own assembly once, but it was unexpectedly cancelled at the last moment. Again, if this was because our theme, based on the words of a Sham 69 song, was regarded as not even broadly of a Christian nature, the teacher did not share with us.
But it does seem anomalous that teachers, a group better known for reading the Guardian than the Bible (the Bible having fewer job vacancies) should be entrusted with providing our children with any kind of spiritual instruction. Again, harking back to my own childhood, the teachers' knowledge of hymns seemed to consist of "All things bright and beautiful" and "L*** of t** D****. And some rubbish about where all the flowers had gone. How could we ever learn?
And I know that some school assemblies are led by dedicated, Christian teachers (or teachers of other faiths) who can give high-grade instruction and inspiration based on their beliefs. But I likewise question whether that is what we should be sending children to school for either? In my opinion it may be time to scrap the whole misguided state-inculcated religion campaign in non-faith schools. It's unfair to teachers, who could gain an extra fifteen minutes scanning the Guardian job ads and eating biscuits. It merely innoculates children, who come to see low-grade drivel of a broadly deistic nature as what "religion" is all about. And I'm not sure what God gets out of it either.
Hear, hear!
ReplyDeleteOn the contrary, the Bible has lots of job vacancies (Matthew 9:37-38), just not many for teachers (James 3:1). And the wages on offer, while generous, are paid only in heaven (John 4:36, Matthew 6:19-21).
ReplyDeleteI agree that they should not have to be daily and they shouldn't have to be the whole school together (most secondary schools ignore this anyway). And I don't think you can make people of any age, let alone children, worship.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think there is value in having a slot in the day on a regular basis where children can experience being still and thoughtful, and are made aware of the great religious traditions and what worship feels like.
This is quite different from being taught about religions, which takes place in RE, which should be retained as an essential part of the curriculum. You can't understand our culture if you don't know anything about the Bible and the Christian faith; and you won't operate very well in today's world if you know nothing about other faiths.
AE, we must stop agreeing like this! ;)
ReplyDeleteReligious education absolutely belongs in schools, religious instruction absolutely not.
I totally agree.... when has forcing anyone to do anything, made them love or appreciate it? I think removing the need to do religious assemblies would help people's appreciation of Christianity, rather than ram it down their throats. Great post!
ReplyDeleteSteve we agree so much these days I suspect you secretly light tea lights and read the Little Book of Calm!
ReplyDeleteVicky, so right. I read Dickens at school and can't face it since. But Hardy, Austen, the Brontes were a delight and surprise because I chose to read them. Maybe we should make all schooling optional and then people would like it?
Pastor - thank you of course. Between you, Vicky and Steve I probably couldn't have had people of three more varied beliefs agree with me. Very odd!
Anne - the Beaker way is to let people have nice spiritual thoughts, without any actual doctrinal content. So maybe the law should be changed to encourage worship of a broadly Beaker character?
And Peter - the hereafter looks pretty ropey all round for teachers on that basis!