|
1:1 Oh No, Po Mo!? |
|
|
|
Written by Adrian Brown
|
|
Extended reviews of four new books that tackle postmodernism. The first pair focus on the interaction of postmodernism and Christian thought. The second pair concentrate on education and postmodernity. |
|
|
1:1 Response to Brian Hill |
|
|
|
Written by David Smith
|
|
Response to Brian Hill |
|
|
1:1 Towards Accord: A Rejoinder to David Smith |
|
|
|
Written by Brian V. Hill
|
|
Towards Accord: A Rejoinder to David Smith |
|
|
1:1 Beyond Accord: Can 'Spiritual Development' Move Us Forward? |
|
|
|
Written by David Smith
|
|
Making the idea of spiritual development practically workable in a pluralised context faces the formidable challenge of avoiding both watered-down apathy and acrimonious dispute between rival faiths. This is the claim of Brian Hill in a recent article on the subject. The present article critiques Hills proposed solution and suggests a broader alternative framework based on the idea of multi-faceted human response to universal basic questions, outlining ways in which this framework might more fundamentally challenge existing curricula while retaining room for spiritual diversity. |
|
|
1:1 Is Faith the Purpose of Christian Education? |
|
|
|
Written by Signe Sandsmark
|
|
Faith is the overall purpose of everything we do as Christians, but education has a purpose in itself. Luthers model of the two governments is useful in thinking about the purpose of education. According to this, God governs his world through both his spiritual and his secular government, and its ultimate aim is the service of God by doing good to other people. Christian education, unlike liberal education, claims that there is basically only one good life, namely the service of God. It teachers pupils about God and his salvation, but it cannot create or maintain life. |
|
|
1:1 Religion, Religionism and Religious Education: Fostering Tolerance and Truth in Schools |
|
|
|
Written by L. Philip Barnes
|
|
This article is a response to John Hulls analysis of religionism and of its significance for religious education. The article takes issue with both Hulls understanding of the nature of the problem of religious prejudice and his suggested solution. It is argued that Hulls direct linking of religious intolerance with religious claims to uniqueness and superiority is unwarranted. Empirical evidence does not support a casual link and a deductive link runs into logical problems. In addition, Hulls particular educational and theological strategy for overcoming religious intolerance is ill-advised and may run counter to his best intentions. |
|
|
Volume 1 (1997) 