Once More about Religious Education
Sometimes it seems as though our traditional Christian churches of the same or different confessions are divided not by insignificant differences of rite but by an abyss. Otherwise, how can one explain the enmity that exists between some Christian churches in Ukraine, considering that they all worship our Lord Jesus Christ, His mercy and forgiveness, and teach His Word, including the New Testament?
There is, however, one problem that is common to all Ukrainian Orthodox and Greek Catholic believers: religious education in schools. For many years these churches have been urging the government to introduce this subject into the curriculum, which was known as the Law of the Lord before the October revolution. These churches believe that religion should be part of the educational program and that it must be taught by clergymen.
The state is in no hurry to grant this request, even when Ukraine’s largest churches stand behind it. There are many serious reasons. The biggest obstacle, of course, is the existence of many confessions. Thus, introducing the fundamentals of Christian ethics in Ukrainian schools is very different from the situation in Greece, where 96% of the population are Orthodox, or in Spain, where Catholicism is the predominant religion. Here this strategy would be regarded by the faithful of other religions or confessions as an insult and an infringement of their rights. Also, this would complicate class schedules, make some students feel like outcasts, and so on. Another objection is that churches today are not prepared to furnish all Ukrainian schools with an army of instructors with sufficient pedagogical training and on an adequate intellectual level. Other vague concerns are who will prepare such religious programs, grading criteria, and textbooks that would meet modern educational standards. It goes without saying that textbooks that were used before the revolution are unacceptable.
Another crucial argument is that teaching subjects directly involving religion at school is very dangerous. Long ago Russian historians formulated (some seriously, others jokingly) the reason why the Russian Orthodox “icon-bearing” nation so easily parted company with its religion after the 1917 revolution and offered no resistance when churches began to be demolished or desecrated, and then just as easily adopted another, godless, “religion.” They allege that it happened because the Law of the Lord was taught in schools and gymnasiums (high schools) just like any other subject, like math or chemistry: students had to write exams and, if necessary, retake them; they were expected to have good grades on their diplomas and had to explain every F. In addition, the reverend instructors often failed to measure up to their lofty mission and even found themselves the butt of jokes in the classroom. Of course, this argument cannot be taken seriously, but neither should it be shrugged off. After all, the Law of the Lord doesn’t look right in a class schedule next to gym class or chemistry.
Why are clergymen so eager to become part of the existing school system? Why not set up parish schools? The answer is very simple: because this is much simpler and cheaper than establishing schools attached to churches to teach the Law of the Lord. Grade schools are a different story, with classrooms and teaching staff that supervise attendance and maintain discipline.
I think that the state wouldn’t mind helping the churches if they seriously set about this noble undertaking. Some churches already do this. For example, there are several Jewish schools in Kyiv where Judaism is taught; there are Muslim and Protestant educational establishments on different academic levels. Incidentally, systematic religious education and culture as practiced by the faithful of several confessions are yielding positive results, including interchurch relations. Here is a persuasive example: for centuries Catholic elementary schools have operated in many countries and their reputations attract students other than Catholics.
Last week Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusewicz, head of the Russian Catholics, referring to the Lithuanian, Polish, Italian, and Spanish experience, publicly warned Russian society against rash solutions to the problems of religious education. Interestingly, he proposes to strictly distinguish between “knowledge and religion,” “the teaching of the history of religion and catechism,” which are equated by many in Ukraine, most likely insincerely. During a meeting of the Russian president’s Council for Cooperation with Religious Associations, Archbishop Kondrusewicz said in part: “Catholic bishops in Lithuania, proceeding from the experience of the past decade, arrived at the conclusion that children cannot be adequately prepared for sacraments and imbued with the truth of the faith in elementary schools.” He proposed to separate the history of religion from classes teaching the rudiments of Christianity: “The history of religion must be taught in school. This discipline can be taught by properly trained laymen. The teaching of catechism must be left to the church.”
Meanwhile, the Russian Orthodox Church consistently supports the fundamentals of religion (i.e., Orthodoxy) as a compulsory school subject in Russia. At the above-mentioned meeting Metropolitan Kliment of Kaluga and Borov, the administrator of the Moscow Patriarchate, declared: “Providing children with rudimentary knowledge about the culture and ethical traditions of their people, teaching them their native language, history of religion, doing so in harmony with their families’ religious beliefs or persuasions — this is the task our schools must carry out.” (I would like to see the curriculum and teaching methods for teaching these subjects). We, Ukrainians, must not forget that the percentage of Orthodox believers in Russia is somewhat higher than in Ukraine. Therefore, the systems of religious educations in both countries must be different.
