A Response to Wolfart’s “Religious Literacy”: Some Considerations and Reservations
This text addresses three related aspects of Wolfart’s article on religious literacy: the critique of assumptions on the outcome of increased religious literacy, questions about the purpose of religious education, and the suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological. Although the predictabil...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Brill
2022
|
| In: |
Method & theory in the study of religion
Year: 2022, Volume: 34, Issue: 5, Pages: 453-464 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Religion
/ Knowledge
/ Religious pedagogy
/ Science of Religion
/ Theology
/ Educational philosophy
|
| IxTheo Classification: | AA Study of religion AH Religious education |
| Further subjects: | B
Commentary
B Religious Education B Educational Philosophy B ex-theology B Gert J.J. Biesta B Religious Literacy |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Summary: | This text addresses three related aspects of Wolfart’s article on religious literacy: the critique of assumptions on the outcome of increased religious literacy, questions about the purpose of religious education, and the suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological. Although the predictability of the results of certain classroom activities presents a fundamental problem, I argue that the tentative and generic abilities highlighted in the religious literacy discourse may function as a starting point to elaborate on a better definition of religious literacy in religious studies. Moreover, based on Biesta’s educational philosophy, I argue that the religious literacy discourse is about learnification in rhetorical disguise as value-based education. Instead, I suggest that the purpose of religious education should be (re)considered from Biesta’s three dimensions of qualification, socialization, and subjectification. Finally, I problematize Wolfart’s suggestion that religious studies are ex-theological and conclude that, although there are a theological dimension and a genealogy to be observed in the religious literacy discourse, other kinds of scholarly aspects are also worth exploring further. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1570-0682 |
| Reference: | Kommentar zu "‘Religious Literacy’: Some Considerations and Reservations (2022)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Method & theory in the study of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15700682-bja10079 |