As (maybe) Einstein said “if you can’t explain it to a six-year-old, you don’t understand it yourself”. As a Primary teacher, I spend a lot of time trying to explain complex concepts to young minds – which means the definitions and the stories we tell about them need to be clear and distinct. As a subject lead at Primary I am also competing for head space with the 13 other subjects Primary teachers deliver as non-specialists.

There have been wonderful research and comment published on Religion & Worldviews over the last few months from ReformingRE writers; speakers at REXChange and from Theos. These have, understandably, focused upon end results – but Primary teachers need a clear idea of where we are beginning. With a clear idea of what the end goal is, I have put thought as to how we would begin the journey of learning in Religion & Worldviews.

This first step was promptly through the lid of Pandora’s Box.

Names are important: it is how we define what something is and is not. Which is why the name is always Religion & Worldviews – with ampersand and Worldviews being the only plural. Why? Because the subject name is what we study. In Religion & Worldviews we study a Religion and the Worldviews it informs. An important distinction as children, adults (and yours truly here when I first heard the name) will assume that the subject is dual focussed, studying religions as well as the separate subject matter of worldviews.

So what is a Worldview? A worldview is “way of seeing, making sense of and giving … meaning to the world”[1]. When studying a Worldview we mean an “organised worldview shared among particular groups and sometimes embedded in institutions These include what we describe as religions as well as non-religious worldviews such as Humanism.”[2]

As Mark Chater explained, Religions & Worldviews is a misnomer as the very concept of Worldviews encapsulates religions within them. One is part of a whole, “like calling a subject ‘Jazz and Music’ or ‘Physics and the Sciences’.”.[3] Some have argued we should (rightly) just call the subject Worldviews and be done with it. However, the majority of people have never heard the word Worldviews but will have some idea of what a religion is (even if their personal definition is a misconception). We need to start somewhere, so a name that gives the uninformed some clue is a good place to start.

Which route?

Within the National Entitlement there is a confusion for the uninitiated: the discussion of institutional as well as personal worldviews. Which gets even more confusing when writers use Worldviews (proper noun) and worldviews (noun) interchangeably.

For the purpose of my writing Worldviews (with the capital) is an Institutional Worldview that is studied whilst worldview (no capital) refers to a person’s individual worldview.

What are your thoughts dear reader on this codification of the words?

There are a multitude of Institutional Worldviews, some codified and others more ethereal. To younger children a religion is a religion, regardless of if they mean a religion or a Worldview or a worldview. At my school, many children would identify as “Christian” (if they identify as any religion at all). However, when they say “Christian” what they mean is Church of England. Some may have heard of Catholic but view this as a different religion.

Which is why a starting point for introducing the concept of Worldviews at Primary will be to ensure that reference to denominations are intrinsic to the planning of learning and its delivery. You will already see issues with this, but as Mark Chater explained[4], there is no harm in a contested term.

For example, how Christians celebrate the birth of a child and welcome them into the religion differs with Christian traditions and in turn shows us how religion fits within these differing worldviews. Anglicans christen whilst Catholics baptise, with both taking place at the beginning of the child’s life and signifies their joining of the religion by parental choice. In Baptist traditions however a person will not be baptised, and show their joining of the religion, until they are old enough to make a conscious choice to do so. However, the Baptist approach to baptism is mirrored in the Anglican and Catholic practice of conformation. Nuanced differences that reflect the practice of welcoming a person into the Christian religion using a ceremony of blessings and water but their timings and significance reflect the differences in these Christian worldviews around choice. Practical differences that children can identify and discuss their meanings of and ramifications.

Another example from Christianity is the using of crosses and crucifixes within places of worship or worn as a sign of faith. For some Christians there is no difference between the two, for others there is a marked difference. As a Baptist friend explained to me “A crucifix is nonsensical in our tradition, Jesus died and rose again and now walks with us. Showing his moment of death is only half the story.” Whereas a Catholic friend explained that the crucifix was important to their tradition as it showed the suffering of Jesus and the importance of gratitude and penance. So from one small difference we can see two different worldviews: one based upon hope and friendship, another that is based upon self-reflection and gratitude. A small difference reflecting a bigger difference in worldview.

These are two of many examples of denominations aiding the teaching of worldviews. Using denominations helps to show the complexity of religions and in turn the myriad of different worldviews that these can inform.

These notes accompanied a presentation I made to staff when explaining the change of subject name from RE to Religion & Worldviews. You can download a copy of the presentation below. I will be describing our full curriculum change journey from RE to R&W in a later post.

[1] (2018). Final Report: RELIGION AND WORLDVIEWS: THE WAY FORWARD A national plan for RE. [online] RE Council of England and Wales, p.24. Available at: https://www.religiouseducationcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-Report-of-the-Commission-on-RE.pdf [Accessed 18 Oct. 2020].

[2] Ibid

[3] Chater M (2020). Reforming RE John Catt pp.125

[4] ‘But it’s contested!’ ‘So what?’ 2020 [online] Avalibale at: https://reformingre.wordpress.com/2020/10/27/but-its-contested-so-what/ [Accessed 01 Nov. 2020]