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….
Philosophy : Interpretation : Hindu : Social Sciences : Sin/Karma?
Theology : Change and Continuity : Christian : Historical : Salvation
Ethical : Self-Awareness : Islam : Feminist : Women