Sub Ratione Dei

Yoder on Yoder

In the conclusion to a much longer piece on the US Supreme Court's decision in 1972 Wisconsin vs Yoder I wrote

In overturning previous precedent Yoder correctly recognised that compulsory school attendance can in fact be a religious issue. However, where Yoder errs is in concentrating on the religious rights of the parents to the complete detriment of the right of the children, and the duty of the Government to facilitate this right, to not believe in the Amish religion. In short, public education gives the student the capacity for self-determination and autonomy in a way that the closely controlled and closed Amish system of education will not allow (p. 32).

The Yoder case concerned the the right of Amish parents of presumably Amish children to withdraw said children from the State mandated post-secondary education. In effect, it argued that the Amish should be exempt from what was mandated for all other students of the same age. I do not think Yoder came to the right conclusion but as I argued in the attached irrespective of the legal reasons I suggested that there are reasons that the Amish themselves should have chosen to pursue education.

In the essay I made a conscious point of avoiding a theological analysis as, for one, the piece was already far too long. In any case, a couple of days ago I stumbled upon a quote of John Howard Yoder's from a still forthcoming book on Christian Education that makes the same argument in theological term in suggesting that the abstentionist line of thinking

fears that if the young person, especially in adolescence, is permitted to become acquainted with the world and its lures, he is sure to be lost. This prediction is, in all its intended realism, a lack of faith and a surrender to determinism. If the Gospel cannot call people out of the world, it is no Gospel. If what we preach to our young people cannot call them out of the world, then we must ask ourselves if what we are preaching is the Gospel. If placing people in a context of choice where it is possible to choose the wrong is unwise, then God himself made the first mistake when he created Adam and the worst mistake when he let people kill his Son. At the bottom of it all, this pessimism means placing oneself fully on the level of the world. It means agreeing with the world that all human development is determined by physical and psychological necessities; agreeing with the world that Christian faith is a matter of behavior patterns and of truths to be passed on; agreeing with the world that there is no miracle of resurrection, no miracle of faith, no Holy Spirit.

Although Yoder is not to my knowledge directly discussing the Yoder case he is absolutely right (in the comments to Halden's post there's a much longer excerpt of the same essay that's worth checking out).

The right not to be challenged to believe

Ekklesia yesterday reported on the British Humanist Association's call for the right of (some) children (irrespective of parent's wishes) to have the right not to take part in acts of collective worship. Ekklesia write

The British Humanist Association (BHA) has called on the government to support the new report from Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights which calls for children to be given the right to withdraw from worship in schools. The report says that any child of ‘sufficient maturity, intelligence and understanding’ to be given the right to withdraw from compulsory religious worship. Currently, only sixth form students have the right to withdraw themselves, and other children can only be withdrawn at the request of their parents, but the Human Rights Committee have said that this violates children’s rights to freedom of belief and conscience ... Andrew Copson, British Humanist Association Director of Education and Public Affairs, commented: "The best situation would be the replacement of the law requiring religious worship with a law requiring inclusive assemblies that would be suitable for all children." He added: "As long as the current law remains, however, children must be allowed to decide for themselves whether they wish to participate. To compel them to pray, or worship in other ways, is a clear interference with their right to freedom of belief – one of the most important rights that we enjoy."

I will confess to being somewhat ambivalent regarding the argument - I am sympathetic but still disagree. First, compulsion (to be distinguished from traditioning) has no place in an education system. The BHA are right to challenge the "Christian" hegemony of these acts of worship (as the article notes, the 1944 Education Act mandates that these acts should be "mainly Christian in Character"). It does Christianity (as a belief system as opposed to an institution) no favours to be so patronised by the State. Christian Churches should be in the vanguard campaigning against this exclusivity. However, let's not kid ourselves what passes for Christian worship is nothing of the sort. Simon Barrow commenting in the piece writes:

Mandating common worship is inappropriate for public institutions made up of people from different world views and faith backgrounds. It is also a misrepresentation of what worship actually is. Worship is a freely offered act of faith arising from a believing community. It is not something that can be imposed or required of everybody.

Yes and no. Yes, this is not worship and if it were then this would be harmful in that it is an act of compulsion. But is it really harmful to be made to face the prospect that there are other ways in which people face life's great questions (and Humanism would be one of these) and for children to come face to face with alternatives to that which they encounter in their specific religious and cultural contexts? I suggest not; in fact, it is I think an entirely appropriate pedagogical aim that educates in ways some set texts in an RE class simply cannot do. Were this to be passed it is I suspect the Christian Conservatives that would be complaining a la Mozert. Rant over.

1. Com