Next steps…

Working with a few people to look at how to properly define RE – if that is possible… Starting from the point of view that RE might learn something by going through the same process history did during the 1960s, but is able to jump a few steps ahead by taking on board modern ideas as well as the key ideas of defining the subject in order to go forward.

A lot stands in ML’s definition of RE being split into 3 strands: theological, philosophical and ethical.

Are they the meta-conceptual approach through which to access 2nd order concepts and substantive concepts? Access to actual RE is through a process of acknowledged/self-reflective refinement which brings the content into specific focus.

Meta-Concept : 2nd Order Concept : Religion : Lens : Content.

By lens I am referring to Erricker’s (2010) idea that you can view RE content through a range of lenses, each with their own specific tint. I.e. you can look at Christian theology through a Marxist lens or through a Feminist lens, historical lens etc….

i.e.

Philosophy : Interpretation : Hindu : Social Sciences : Sin/Karma?

Theology : Change and Continuity : Christian : Historical : Salvation

Ethical : Self-Awareness : Islam : Feminist : Women

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: