Textbook Redefining Religious Education Spirituality For Human Flourishing 1St Edition Scherto Gill Ebook All Chapter PDF

Redefining Religious Education
Spirituality for Human Flourishing 1st

Edition Scherto Gill
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/redefining-religious-education-spirituality-for-human-fl
ourishing-1st-edition-scherto-gill/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Ethical Education Towards An Ecology Of Human

Development Scherto Gill
https://textbookfull.com/product/ethical-education-towards-an-
ecology-of-human-development-scherto-gill/
Morphogenesis and Human Flourishing 1st Edition

Margaret S. Archer (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/morphogenesis-and-human-
flourishing-1st-edition-margaret-s-archer-eds/
Positive Psychology in Practice Promoting Human

Flourishing in Work Health Education and Everyday Life
2nd Edition Stephen Joseph
https://textbookfull.com/product/positive-psychology-in-practice-
promoting-human-flourishing-in-work-health-education-and-
everyday-life-2nd-edition-stephen-joseph/
Practical Spirituality and Human Development: Creative

Experiments for Alternative Futures Ananta Kumar Giri
https://textbookfull.com/product/practical-spirituality-and-
human-development-creative-experiments-for-alternative-futures-
ananta-kumar-giri/
Happiness Explained: What human flourishing is and what
we can do to promote it 1st Edition Paul Anand
https://textbookfull.com/product/happiness-explained-what-human-
flourishing-is-and-what-we-can-do-to-promote-it-1st-edition-paul-
anand/
Contexts for young child flourishing: evolution,

family, and society 1st Edition Braungart-Rieker
https://textbookfull.com/product/contexts-for-young-child-
flourishing-evolution-family-and-society-1st-edition-braungart-
rieker/
Redefining Retirement for Nurses: Finding Meaning in

Retirement 1st Edition Joanne Evans
https://textbookfull.com/product/redefining-retirement-for-
nurses-finding-meaning-in-retirement-1st-edition-joanne-evans/
Assessment in Ethics Education A Case of National Tests

in Religious Education 1st Edition Olof Franck (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/assessment-in-ethics-education-
a-case-of-national-tests-in-religious-education-1st-edition-olof-
franck-eds/
Personal finance Gill
https://textbookfull.com/product/personal-finance-gill/
Spirituality for Human Flourishing
Edited by Scherto Gill and Garrett Thomson

redefining religious education
Copyright © Scherto Gill and Garrett Thomson, 2014.
All rights reserved.
First published in 2014 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United

States—a division of St. Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10010.
Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of
the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan
Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of
Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above

companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United

States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
ISBN 978-1-137-37814-9 ISBN 978-1-137-37389-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137373892
Redefining religious education : spirituality for human flourishing /
edited by Scherto R. Gill and Garrett Thomson.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Education—Religious aspects. 2. Religious education. 3.

Spirituality—Study and teaching. 4. Education, Humanistic. I. Gill,
Scherto. II. Thomson, Garrett.
LB1027.2.R45 2014
379.2'8—dc23 2013049373
A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.
Design by Scribe Inc.
First edition: June 2014
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
List of Figures and Tables vii

Acknowledgments ix
Foreword xi
General Introduction 1
Part I: Theoretical Framework
Introduction 13
1 Is Religious Education Possible? 17
Richard Pring
2 Educating Persons: The Role of Religious Education 29
Marius C. Felderhof
3 Human Flourishing and a “Right to Education” 43
Katherine Marshall
4 Spirituality, Education, and Religion for a
Human World 59
Sharif István Horthy
5 A Framework for a Religious Life 71
Garrett Thomson
Part II: Spiritual Education in Different Traditions
Introduction 87
6 Seven Indigenous Spiritual Principles for
Guiding All Students toward Survival, Peace,
Health, and Happiness 91
Four Arrows (a.k.a. Don Trent Jacobs)
vi O Contents
7 Religion, Spirituality, and Education for Human

Flourishing: A Brahma Kumaris Perspective 103
Maureen Goodman
8 Religious Education, Spirituality, and Human Flourishing:
Perspectives from the Sikh Dharam 117
Bhai Sahib Mohinder Singh
9 Religious Education, Spirituality, and Flourishing:
A Seon Practitioner’s Perspective 131
Jinwol Y. H. Lee
10 An Interreligious Approach to Religious Education 145
Scherto Gill
Part III: Pedagogical Case Studies
Introduction 159
11 Spirituality and Education about Religion:
A New Topic for Public High Schools in
New Zealand 163
Jocelyn Armstrong
12 Fathoming, Engaging, Abiding: The Story
of the Wisdom Project 177
John Breadon
13 Learning to Live Together 193
Agneta Ucko
14 The Purpose Project: Fostering Adolescent
Spiritual Growth and Flourishing 207
David Streight
15 Taking Life into Consideration: Challenges for
Religious Education and Spirituality as Human
Flourishing in the European School Context 221
Bert Roebben
Conclusion 233
About the Contributors 239
Index 245
Figures and Tables
Figure 13.1 The learning process 197

Table 14.1 Factors in well-being by author 209
Table 15.1 Learning about, from, and in/through religion 226
Acknowledgments
The proposal for this book was originally put forward at an international sym-
posium on the theme of “Religion, Spirituality and Education for Human
Flourishing” held on February 24–26, 2012, in Marrakech, Morocco. This vol-
ume is a collection of selected articles presented at the symposium.
We first want to thank each of the contributors of this volume who were
also participants and discussants at the Marrakech Symposium. We are grate-
ful for the invaluable insights they shared into the challenges and complexities
confronting religious education today.
We are most indebted to Simon Xavier Guerrand-Hermès, the Chairman of
the Guerrand-Hermès Foundation for Peace, for his great generosity and hospi-
tality in hosting the symposium at his personal home in Marrakech.
We are equally thankful for the Guerrand-Hermès Foundation for Peace
for its financial sponsorship, which had made the symposium possible. We
thank, in particular, the trustees of the foundation, without whose support
we wouldn’t have been able to put together this collection.
We also thank the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations for its partnership
in helping draw together religious leaders, spiritual practitioners, policy makers,
and educationalists from around the world to participate in the dialogue and
conversation at the symposium. The leaders of the Alliance—in particular, its
High Representative, H.E. Mr. Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser—have been excep-
tionally supportive of us in the process of editing this unique volume, which
is also an expression of the Alliance’s dedication and commitment to religious
education for spiritual growth.
We owe a special note of thanks to Laura Hobson at the Guerrand-Hermès
Foundation for Peace for her invaluable administrative support, as well as to
the team at the Palgrave Macmillan for their assistance during the final produc-
tion phase.
Last, but not least, we are thankful for all other support, input, and help
from our families, friends, and colleagues.
We dedicate this book to the children and young people today who have
made this work worthwhile.
Scherto Gill and Garrett Thomson
Foreword
H.E. Mr. Nassir Abdul Aziz Al-Nasser

UN High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations
It is my great pleasure as High Representative for the United Nations Alliance

of Civilizations (UNAOC) to contribute the foreword of this book, which is
the fruit of the symposium on Religion, Spirituality, and Education for Human
Flourishing held in 2012 in partnership with the Guerrand-Hermès Founda-
tion for Peace (GHFP) at Dar Moulay Boubkhar.
This partnership is part of a longstanding and close collaboration between
our respective organizations. I’m very grateful to Mr. Simon Xavier Guerrand-
Hermès for his vision, his leadership, his gracious hospitality, and his continu-
ous effort to promote peace, respect among people and faiths, and the spiritual
dimensions of our lives.
This symposium and the publication of this book are timely, as the words
from these authors help highlight the crucial importance of religious education
in creating a peaceful culture in the world.
Since its creation in 2006, the UN Alliance of Civilizations has played a
pivotal role in countering the forces fueling polarization and extremism during
a particularly turbulent era in world affairs. For as long as we can see into the
future, identity politics based on religion, culture, and civilization will remain
central to the prospects for peace.
Growing turmoil exists in a number of countries around the world. While
the locations differ, there is a common thread connecting them. Radical notions
embodying a distorted perspective of religion often fuel acts of violence. No
religion calls for harm or incitement to hatred.
Whether you follow a certain faith or are not practicing any at all, there is
no set of beliefs that endorses violence, destruction, and harm. In fact, as the
authors illustrate in this book, every major religion and philosophy is based on
the idea of doing unto others as you would have them do to you.
xii O Foreword
So what does this mean for us? We must promote views that are open-
minded, not restricted. We must reject intolerance and encourage a culture of
acceptance and understanding. This can be done primarily through education,
communication, and sound policies. We need to start addressing the issue of
radicalization not just as a question of religion but as a problem rooted in edu-
cation and having economic, social, political, and humanitarian dimensions.
To live in peace, we must embrace our diversity, a task that must be taken up
by all elements of society, including nongovernmental organizations, religious
leaders, and other civil society groups, including business.
At the Alliance of Civilizations, we strongly believe that education plays a
tremendous role in preparing people to cope with diversity, whether religious or
cultural. That is why we were keen to join forces with the GHFP in organizing
this symposium to explore the role that religious education can play in culti-
vating virtues and spirituality and to redefine religious education aimed at the
spiritual and moral growth of the individual.
The UNAOC Fellowship Program, developed in partnership with the
GHFP, is also an educational initiative aimed at exposing world’s emerging
leaders to religion, media, culture, politics, and civil society. It is a platform for
sharing knowledge and ideas and inspiring partnerships across faiths, borders,
and cultures. The UNAOC Summer School Program extends the themes of
interfaith dialogue and multiculturalism. It is based on the idea that people
have more in common than what divides them.
I hope that through the theories and case studies captured in this book and
the different educative endeavors of both our organizations, the following mes-
sage is clear: Though we were born to different faiths, though we may speak in
separate tongues, we all live on this same earth as a part of one human family.
Thus it is our duty and our right to transcend our differences and build peace
across our communities.
General Introduction
T
his volume is dedicated to the proposition that religious education
should be directed primarily (but not exclusively) toward the spiri-
tual insofar as it is part of a flourishing human life. This proposal was
originally put forward at an international symposium on the theme “Religion,
Spirituality and Education for Human Flourishing.” Convened jointly by the
Guerrand-Hermès Foundation for Peace and the United Nations Alliance of
Civilizations on February 24–26, 2012, in Marrakech, Morocco, the sym-
posium drew together religious leaders, spiritual practitioners, policy mak-
ers, and educationalists in an attempt to redefine religious education in the
way described. This volume is a collection of selected articles presented at
the symposium.
In this introduction, we explain the initial plausibility of this proposal and,
in so doing, provide an overview of some of the obstacles that such a project
needs to overcome and some of the opportunities that it affords.
It is widely accepted that spirituality represents a core dimension of human
experience. Today’s world is facing unprecedented challenges, and this suggests
a pressing need for education to develop a deeper awareness of the spiritual
dimensions of our lives.
Most of the major world religions claim that their core teachings aim at cul-
tivating spirituality. In fact, some religions claim that the essence of the religious
life is spiritual. Despite the differences in their beliefs, practices, and concep-
tions of the divine or of ultimate reality, religions tend to promote values and
virtues that belong to all humans regardless of their tradition. Thus one might
presume that religion can play an important contributing role in cultivating
spirituality in education and schooling.
Given this perspective, there is renewed interest in exploring the part that
religious education might play in cultivating virtues and spirituality. Under
various names, such as “education about religion,” “faith education,” “reli-
gious studies,” and “religious education,” the teaching of religious beliefs has
already been integrated into the national curriculum of many countries. How-
ever, often the main focus of such religious education is to impart knowledge
2 O Redefining Religious Education
about religions and perhaps to develop some interreligious understanding. This

approach to religious education tends to regard religion mainly as an academic
subject at arm’s length.
In sharp contrast, in many parts of the world, governments are looking toward
religious education to provide for the moral and spiritual development of stu-
dents. We see this, for example, in the United Kingdom, where the Education Act
of 1944 mandated compulsory religious education and the 1998 Education
Act charged state schools with promoting the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental,
and physical development of pupils. In many countries, there is a similar gap
between this kind of policy ambition and the day-to-day educational practice
in schools. Therefore, the core question here is, how can one pass from educa-
tion about religion—that is, teaching religion merely as an academic subject
from external points of view—to education from religion, which regards reli-
gion as part of human experience, involving spiritual and moral development?
This challenge is made all the more difficult by the social factors that make
it important. In the past, religious education could readily be understood as
presenting the dominant religious tradition of the society. However, today,
in increasingly secular and multireligious societies, religious education shouldn’t
inculcate the beliefs and practices of a specific tradition. Consequently, in reac-
tion to this danger, schools often tend to view religious education as neutral,
and hence bland, with a focus on imparting of information about religions, as
we described earlier.
Neither of these two options seems satisfactory. The first sectarian option
threatens to offend our conception of public reason: what a society offers edu-
cationally should be reasonably acceptable by anyone in the society. The sec-
ond neutral option ignores young people’s need for meaning and for a deeper
understanding of ethical values that the first option may have provided. Given
that neither of the two options is entirely satisfactory, we must create a set of
alternatives that can function and be accepted in societies that are paradoxically
increasingly secular and multireligious at the same time.
In such a social and political climate, the conception of religion as spiritu-
ality faces challenges from several directions. From one side, modern secular
theorists tend to hold that religions are authoritarian social institutions that try
to indoctrinate people into a closed metaphysical view. They also regard reli-
gion as an imposition of a set of rigid moral rules that can be harmful in their
insistence on an exclusive loyalty that rejects other traditions and thereby results
in intolerance and segregation. Furthermore, religious views cannot be sup-
ported scientifically and are usually superstitious. From another side, postmod-
ern theorists critique the idea of religion as spirituality, claiming that religion is
no longer necessary in the postmodern era, in which the coherent meaning and
human values promoted by religions are mere illusions. From this point of view,
General Introduction O 3
religions promote ready-made solutions as certainties when societies should be

embracing uncertainty and change.
In addition, even if it were to be acknowledged that spirituality is an impor-
tant dimension of human life, nevertheless the concept appears to be too vague
and too contested to build a consensus around it sufficient for educational pur-
poses. We are left with the question, how can people who have no particular
religious affiliation and people from very different religions come to an agreed-
on understanding of what spirituality is?
This Volume
In the context of these challenges, there is a need for a new and reframed
inquiry and debate about these important issues. The chapters in this volume
address many aspects of this challenge from theoretical, religious, and educa-
tional points of view. We asked the contributors to answer the question, “How
can religious education aim to cultivate the spiritual development of the indi-
vidual?” We looked for a multidisciplinary approach that would address the
issues and challenges outlined in this introduction.
We considered an explicit focus on human flourishing as important and
innovative. Many interreligious dialogues tend to center their exploration on
pluralism, interreligious understanding, intercultural learning, and social cohe-
sion to the exclusion of the relevance of spirituality. Because of this, such dia-
logues often ignore the value of human life and sometimes instrumentalize
human ethics for political and social ends, such as social cohesion and intercul-
tural and interreligious harmony.
We were excited to ask representatives of different religions to share how,
within their traditions, individuals understand the spiritual life and its relevance
for education. We invited, in particular, traditions that are not often included
in mainstream dialogues, such as those of the Brahma Kumaris, Sikhs, Zen
Buddhists, and Indigenous traditions. We encouraged them to address thorny
value questions, such as “What is spirituality?” “How is spirituality relevant for
human flourishing?” and “How are religions relevant to spirituality?”
At the same time, we wanted the chapters to have both theoretical depth
and practical insight. For this reason, we included contributions from philoso-
phers and religious thinkers, as well as educational practitioners. We asked the
thinkers to develop theoretical frameworks for the spiritual life and to explain
how religious education can help enhance spirituality. We asked the educational
practitioners in the field to describe and explain their pedagogical strategies
and practices that tackle the dilemmas and challenges of education for spiri-
tuality. These case studies are drawn from different countries, including New
Zealand, the United Kingdom, other European countries, the United States,
Israel, India, and South Africa. We hope that they help make this scholarly book
accessible and practically illuminating for readers.
Religious Education
Why should religion be studied in schools? Some of the answers that seemed
obvious in many countries fifty years ago no longer look so convincing. For
example, in the United Kingdom, the Plowden Report, published in 1967,
claimed that the aim of religious education was to introduce faith, the love of
God, and moral virtues (Central Advisory Council for Education 1967). At
that time, teaching Christianity from within a Christian perspective seemed
very reasonable in a largely Christian society. Today, in more pluralistic and
secular societies, these once apparent certainties have dissolved.
It is important to ask why religion should be taught in schools. The answer
will determine how the religious education curriculum should be shaped and
what the tone of its pedagogy should be. Broadly speaking, we can classify the
possible answers as follows:
1. To impart an understanding of religion from within a particular religious

tradition
2. To study religion in general as an academic pursuit valuable in itself
3. To foster an understanding of various religious traditions in order to help
young people live better in a pluralistic society
4. To foster an understanding of religious traditions to help young people
cultivate moral attitudes, ethical virtues, and moral sensibilities
5. To foster an understanding of various religious traditions and religion in
general to help young people cultivate the spiritual aspects of their lives
Needless to say, these answers are not mutually exclusive. However, any course
of study requires one to have focused aims and cannot be overbroad, and in this
sense, we need to make some choices.
As we said at the beginning, this volume is dedicated to the idea that reli-
gious education should be directed primarily toward spirituality as a part of
human flourishing. Thus this book can be regarded as an attempt to articu-
late the reasons this fifth aim should be primary, though not exclusive. Conse-
quently, we will return to this theme in the conclusion to the book after hearing
from the contributors.
What Is Spirituality?
One of the fundamental challenges confronting any project like this one is to
define the notions of spirituality, spiritual development, and a spiritual life,
which are notoriously vague. If such concepts are to provide some direction and
content to religious education in schools, they need to be made more precise.
In this introduction, we will identify some of the main issues involved in such
a process.
Structure
The spiritual is supposed to be something good. Any account of the concept
must explain what is desirable about being spiritual. Part of this explanation will
include the causal benefits of being or living spiritually; for instance, it might be
good for one’s emotional health or for one’s mental abilities, such as concentra-
tion. Conceived in this way, these benefits only posit the spiritual as a means to
an end. However, to define the concept, we need to specify what is directly and
primarily or noninstrumentally valuable about being spiritual. Such a specifica-
tion would be central to any account of the concept of the spiritual.
This idea constitutes one way to structure different conceptions of the spiri-
tual. For example, states that are indirectly and noninstrumentally valuable may
relate in different ways to the central core of the concept of the spiritual. For
instance, there are psychologically, morally, and socially beneficial consequences
that flow from a state of being spiritual, such as good health. There are other
valuable states that are preparations or necessary conditions for being spiritual,
such as tranquility. There are yet others that are valuable as expressions of the
spiritual, such as generosity of feeling. The recognition that the concept usually
has a structure enables us to avoid defining “spirituality” as an unconnected list
of qualities.
Category
The valuable core of the spiritual might be characterized in terms of quite dif-
ferent categories. For example, it might consist of an experience, a set of activi-
ties or processes, a state of consciousness, a way of life, or a state of being (or
a combination of these). Furthermore, it might be conceived as a goal to be
attained or as a process without a defined end state. So, for instance, in many
versions of the Buddhist tradition, there is an end state that one works toward,
whereas in many versions of the Islamic tradition, the spiritual consists in a
process of a continuing submission to God rather than an end state that is to
be attained.
Thin and Thick

We might contrast thinner and richer/thicker conceptions of the concept along
a continuum. The thinnest conceptions involve psychological ideas, such as
creativity, self-understanding, and certain emotions, as part of a process of
self-development. Richer conceptions will include ethical and moral concepts,
which involve one’s relationship to other people. Richer still are those that
involve a right relationship with nature or the universe as a whole. The richest
notions involve a relationship with God or with the divine or some transcen-
dent reality. In short, thick or rich accounts embrace metaphysical and religious
concepts, which the thinner accounts eschew.
The thicker conceptions of the spiritual will usually include the thinner
ones. In other words, for example, a person who regards union with God as the
core spiritual state will usually have views about the psychological, ethical, and
ecological qualities that express such a union and that are needed to attain it.
In making this distinction, we are not saying that richer descriptions are
necessarily better. A purely psychological account might have great depth in
the way that it is structured around a unifying core. For example, some psy-
chotherapeutic theories have very detailed and profound accounts of human
development. Likewise, each religious tradition has many deep accounts of the
spiritual life and its stages.
However, we need the distinction because thinner and thicker accounts have
different advantages and drawbacks. Writers often employ thinner accounts
because such conceptions are more readily acceptable by people of varying
backgrounds. Also, the thinner ones are more easily operationalized. Both of
these advantages are important in an educational context.
However, in contrast, the downside is that thinner conceptions may omit
the distinctive features of the spiritual. For example, if being spiritual consists
in being close to God, then a purely psychological or moral definition of the
spiritual will omit the heart of the notion. To see this, consider the following:
it might be possible for a person to have a life that is creative, emotionally full,
morally oriented, and ecologically aware but that is nevertheless not spiritual. If
so, such qualities might be necessary for spirituality, but they are not sufficient.
Bracketed
Should a definition of “spiritual” bracket the reality of the phenomenon in
question? Many definitions include feelings such as awe, love, and worship.
One might take those to be experiences of something real (that exists indepen-
dently of one’s experiences). Religious traditions tend to do that. In contrast,
psychologists of religion will bracket or suspend this assumption. They will
investigate the experience without assuming that it answers to something real.
The idea that religious or spiritual experiences are sensibilities of something

real need not be confined to religious traditions. For example, suppose one
defines the spiritual in terms of a search for meaning or purpose. This definition
might be given with or without the presupposition that there are some such
meanings to be discovered. Here’s another example: suppose one defines the
spiritual in terms of feelings of transcendence. This definition might be given
with or without the presupposition that there really is something transcenden-
tal to be experienced. Without the assumption, the conception can be called
“bracketed.”
Generally, bracketed conceptions of the spiritual are more widely acceptable.
Furthermore, by bracketing a conception of the spiritual life, one may avoid
epistemological and metaphysical problems. On the other hand, a bracketed
conception of the spiritual life might not make sense. For example, suppose that
love of God is central to the spiritual life. Such a conception would not make
much sense if God did not exist (at least in some way).
In conclusion, we have identified four dimensions of conceptions of the spir-
itual: (1) the structure of the concept, (2) the central category, (3) the thickness
or thinness of the conception, and (4) what is or is not bracketed. We can con-
trast two extreme approaches to these dimensions: the subjective and the abso-
lutist. The subjectivist claims that there are no better or worse answers to any
of these points: each person, culture, or religious tradition can take their own
opinion on these issues, and there is no question of better or worse. In contrast,
the absolutist maintains that there is a single correct answer or true definition
of “spiritual.” In the face of these two extreme approaches, we might remind
ourselves that there are intermediate positions between them. For instance, the
question of the nature of spirituality might be neither subjective nor absolute.
This means that there are better or worse answers without it being the case
that there is a single correct one. What counts as better or worse might depend
on the context, and some definitions will be better in one way and others better
in another way.
Flourishing
How does spirituality relate to flourishing and well-being? Why is this ques-
tion important? The question is ultimately important for three reasons. First,
in some sense, human flourishing is a primary and fundamental value. Most of
our endeavors and activities make sense ultimately only as contributors to or
constituents of a happy life. For example, we don’t pursue economic wealth for
its own sake but rather because it helps ameliorate a lived life.
Second, our understanding of well-being improves when we see spirituality
included as part of it. The idea of the spiritual can help us deepen our view
of human happiness and flourishing. Recent studies have stressed that having
friends, family, good work, and reasonable material life conditions are essential
to living well. They have also emphasized the importance of psychological fac-
tors such as a sense of identity and a sense of purpose. Yet one might think that
even these psychological aspects of human flourishing are still superficial and
hence reserve the term “spiritual” to indicate factors that have been left out.
In other words, the idea of spirituality might help us form a more complete,
integrated, and profound view of flourishing and well-being. Of course, this
requires us to indicate what is left out of the standard psychological picture.
Third, the notion of a flourishing life can help us better understand the
idea of the spiritual. When spirituality is seen as a part of our lives, it is a more
engaging idea than when it is conceived abstractly and metaphysically. One
might argue that spirituality is valuable insofar as it partly constitutes and con-
tributes to human flourishing. This doesn’t mean that the spiritual should be
regarded only in psychological or therapeutic terms. It means that it should
be conceived as living spiritually.
While there is an ongoing multidisciplinary debate about the nature of well-
being and flourishing, we don’t need an overview of the whole field. For the
purposes of this volume, we can identify some issues relevant to spirituality in
religious education. A couple of preliminary points need to be made. There are
differences among the concepts “flourishing,” “well-being,” and “happiness.”
For this volume, we chose the former over the other two in order to emphasize
the dynamic and more objective aspects of what makes a life go well. Neverthe-
less, it seems reasonable to assume that flourishing and well-being will contain
both “subjective” and “objective” elements.
Obviously, the issue of how spirituality is relevant for flourishing depends
on how thickly or thinly we define “spirituality.” There ought to be no special
problem in showing how spirituality conceived thinly would be a constitutive
aspect of human flourishing. Having an openness of feeling, creativity, a sense
of oneself or of one’s identity that is self-loving, and a strong connection to
other people—all these aspects of a thin conception of spirituality are clearly
important features of a flourishing life.
Special problems arise mainly insofar as we define “spirituality” in richer
terms, for this requires explaining how the relevant set of phenomena con-
stitutes an aspect of flourishing. Suppose, for example, that the spiritual life
requires the worship of God. Given this, one would need to explain how such
worship is an important part of a flourishing life. Perhaps such a characteriza-
tion of spirituality is too specific; in which case, we might want to characterize
it richly but less specifically as something like transcendence, for example.
Even if they are hard to define, nevertheless, the spiritual dimensions of
flourishing might be considered as especially important. This is because they
are supposed to be closer to the core of a person’s life. For example, if spiritual-
ity pertains to the way in which one attends to things or to the quality of one’s
consciousness or awareness, then that touches all aspects of one’s life. Likewise,
if spirituality pertains to the extent to which one is open to others, then this
influences all aspects of one’s life.
The Conception of Holistic Educational Practices

Contemporary educational theory tends to embrace a holistic view of the aims
of education. According to this idea, educational institutions should be think-
ing of their objectives in terms of the development of the whole person rather
than only in terms of the acquisition of knowledge and skills. The holistic vision
is based on the acceptance that ignorance is more like a deficiency of character
than merely a lack of knowledge. It recognizes that as information becomes
available to more people through electronic means, young people will increas-
ingly need the cognitive abilities and noncognitive attitudes that enable them
to use that information well. This recognition underpins the acknowledgment
that education is fundamentally about the development of the whole person.
This holistic or human-centered vision lends some support to the idea that
religious education should be directed primarily toward spiritual develop-
ment as part of the flourishing life. This is because such education recognizes
the primacy of human well-being as a value: education should serve primary
values, and the good life shouldn’t be subservient to academic values or eco-
nomic growth. Therefore, education shouldn’t serve these subsidiary ends at the
expense of human well-being.
Spirituality within Religious Education for Flourishing

We have sketched some preliminary points toward the idea that it might be
appropriate to regard religious education as aiming to facilitate spirituality inter
alia. To bring these points together, we need to assume that religious traditions
in varying ways have spiritual content or direction and that human spirituality
is not confined to religious traditions.
Religious education for spirituality might be justified on the grounds that,
when possible, education should be more holistic and centered on the develop-
ment of the person as a whole. We should not miss the opportunities to help
young people develop as whole selves. Religious education presents such a pros-
pect that is not easily duplicated or addressed in other parts of the curriculum or
school life. This is because religious traditions are typically directed toward the
cultivation of spiritual qualities and states of being. Thus, given that spirituality
constitutes an important dimension of human flourishing, we need to address
it as part of religious education.
PART I
Theoretical Framework
Introduction
P
art I sets out a theoretical framework, and each chapter of this part is
dedicated to the philosophical articulation of the relationship among
spirituality, human flourishing, and religious education.
In many countries, school curricula already have a component dedicated to
religious education. This suggests that if education should include spiritual-
ity, then it might be most practical and opportune to fit it into the content of
religious education. If religions also have a spiritual content, then this sugges-
tion is also fitting and appropriate. However, schools tend to regard the aim
of religious education to be to simply impart knowledge about religions. Fur-
thermore, as we saw in the main introduction, the suggestion that religious
education should go beyond that and be directed primarily toward the spiritual
development of young people faces some serious challenges.
First, it might be claimed that this proposal is not desirable in a secular soci-
ety because religious views and practices are supposedly private and shouldn’t
be introduced into public, state-funded education. Even people who are sympa-
thetic to the idea that humans have a spiritual life might argue reasonably that,
as something personal, spirituality is best left out of the state school curriculum.
If religion is to be taught in state schools, then it should be as more neutral or
impartial, as social sciences.
Second, it might be argued that religious beliefs per se do not form part of
the commonly acknowledged body of human knowledge because they are not
acquired through reliable or scientific methods. We don’t want our students to
be subject to dogma and superstition.
Third, different religious traditions have understood spirituality in their own
terms, and in multireligious or pluralistic societies, young people should not be
exposed to a one-sided presentation of religious life. This suggests that if moral
and ethical values are to be taught in schools, then this should be part of civic
education or philosophy.
Fourth, the notion of spirituality is hopelessly vague. Furthermore, it is con-
tested. Even if it is acknowledged that the spiritual is an important dimension of
human life, it is not an idea that is clear enough to form the basis of educational
programs in schools.
Three chapters in Part I have made an attempt to address the first three
challenges, though in quite different ways. In answer to the first challenge, in
Chapter 1, Richard Pring appeals to Dewey’s notion of a common school. The
common school doesn’t react to the public/private distinction in a general lib-
eral fashion. Typically, liberals appeal only to a minimum or procedural concep-
tion of public rationality and try to avoid disputes regarding the good life for
humans. Such substantive questions are issues that must be dealt with privately
and not in the public sphere. Through Dewey’s notion of the common school,
Pring offers an alternative to the liberal conception. We must construct an edu-
cational vision that relies on the common characteristics of being human in
ways that transcend cultural and religious differences.
In answer to the second challenge, Pring points out that education inescap-
ably involves reference to values that define what counts as educationally better
or worse. This point defeats the claim that education should be confined to the
scientifically verifiable: there are other forms of knowledge that concern mean-
ing and value, presupposed by educational practice, and that don’t fit into a
scientific paradigm.
In a similar fashion, in Chapter 2, Marius Felderhof directs his attention
primarily to the first three challenges. He also claims that a society cannot be
neutral to value questions. Even the simple act of communication involves a
commitment to truth. This places teachers in a dilemma: should they be truth-
ful about their own religious beliefs? This question addresses the issue raised
in the general introduction: can definitions of the spiritual bracket the ques-
tions of reality? Felderhof ’s answer is nuanced. On the one hand, one cannot
systematically evade the issue of whether religious claims are true, but on the
other hand, asserting one’s own particular beliefs in a pluralistic society would
be unfair. The middle path is to find a broad consensus about religious truth
and values, as was achieved in the Birmingham project, which we will describe
in a moment.
Felderhof also challenges the possibility of neutral communication about
religion because classroom exchanges require the engagement of both the stu-
dent and teacher. The ideal of neutrality comes from mistaken ideas about the
secular state. A purely secular worldview isn’t neutral, and in any case, it is
overly simplistic to think of a society as secular when the majority of people
believe in God.
Katherine Marshall raises similar questions from a different angle in Chap-
ter 3. She discusses the perceived clash between the rights paradigm for interna-
tional development with the faith paradigm for human flourishing. These two
paradigms suggest quite different approaches to education, among other things.
Part I: Introduction O 15
On the one hand, the notion of human rights motivates and shapes a view of
international development based on equality, justice, and liberty. On the other
hand, flourishing presents a view of development more focused on the substan-
tive ends that constitute a good life for the individual.
Marshall seeks to show how the two paradigms can be reconciled and why
this is important. She advocates an urgent need for a rapprochement of these
two approaches. She highlights the positive and often unnoticed role that
religious institutions do (and can) play toward providing “education for all,”
and toward the rights-based Millennium Development Goals in general. She
also highlights the religious illiteracy in many pluralistic societies today, which
results in social tensions. She draws our attention to the need for policy mak-
ers and society in general to be more sensitive to religious issues. Given these
points, education must go beyond the functional role of preparing young peo-
ple for the labor market. It must include the sensibilities that are necessary for
a flourishing society.
The next chapters set out some responses to the fourth challenge. In Chap-
ter 4, Sharif István Horthy aims to characterize the spiritual through some
descriptions of his own personal experiences. From these, he emphasizes the
importance of a spiritual attitude, which can help one integrate the worldly
ego and the otherworldly soul. This attitude consists in being attentive to the
inner and outer worlds and their felt qualities: some experiences have width and
make us feel more alive and aware of value; others make us contract and feel less
alive and more numb to value. Horthy argues that the cultivation of this atti-
tude should be the ethos of a school. It would make the school a human-centered
learning community and would involve teaching from the child’s point of view.
In Chapter 5, Garrett Thomson sketches an argument for the claim that
religious education can help young people in their spiritual development in a
way that is conducive to their flourishing. In the first step, he outlines a simple
framework for a religious life. This framework can be employed to describe the
practices of different religious traditions in a way that would help people from
outside those traditions make sense of them and in ways that would allow
young people to connect them meaningfully to their own lives. As a second
step, Thomson uses this framework to describe spirituality as a central part of a
religious life. In the third step, he characterizes the concept of flourishing and
shows the different ways in which the spiritual might be considered integral to
a flourishing life. Finally, he attempts to show how this overall framework helps
reconceptualize religious education in a more human-centered way.
Together, these five chapters in Part I establish a conceptual basis, allowing
the chapters in the other two parts of the book to explore, from diverse perspec-
tives, how religious education can help cultivate the spiritual as part of a young
person’s flourishing.
CHAPTER 1
Is Religious Education Possible?

Richard Pring
Senior Research Fellow, University of Oxford
“T
eaching to be human” is an essential aim of education. Different
religious traditions embody different, though related, narratives
of what it means to be human, hence the importance attached to
the initiation of young people into their respective narratives. But here are dif-
ficulties: the accusation of indoctrination, the prevalence of a secular culture,
and the need for a common culture to overcome the divisions within society.
This chapter tries to reconcile these different positions by seeking dignity in, yet
reciprocal learning from, difference.
Introduction
Religious beliefs and practices provide the background to many people’s lives
and permeate the culture through which they see the world, their relations to
other people, and indeed what it means to be human. They embody a moral
and spiritual dimension. Such beliefs and practices, therefore, are not peripheral
to human life.
The central focus of education, so it will be argued, is to enable the next
generation to acquire the knowledge, understandings, feelings, values, and dis-
positions that make us distinctively human. Where a spiritual tradition charac-
terizes what it means to be human, then a deepening of the understanding of
that tradition—of its practices and underpinning beliefs—would necessarily be
part of that educational experience, both informally through participation in
the practices and formally through instruction.
There are, however, three difficulties that have to be faced. The first is the
accusation of indoctrination. Can an initiation into beliefs and practices that
18 O Richard Pring
articulate a particular form of spirituality be defensible where the basis of those

beliefs seems to be beyond verification? The second is the prevailing context
in many cultures of “a secular age,” where the default position of a growing
number of people is no longer (as it used to be) religion. The third difficulty
is the need, if we are to live together in harmony, not for schools segregated
along religious lines, but for the “common school,” where young people come
to respect differences.
This chapter addresses these difficulties and explores how far religious edu-
cation as a basis for spiritual life is defensible.
Teaching to Be Human
In a visit to a US high school some years ago, I met a school principal. The
school was very large, and inevitably there was a substantial turnover of teachers
each year. Therefore, the principal wrote the following letter to the incoming
teachers, explaining what she expected of them (published in Strom 1981):
Dear Teacher
I am the survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no man
should witness:
Gas chambers built by learned engineers.
Children poisoned by educated physicians.
Infants killed by trained nurses.
Women and children shot and burned by high school and college
graduates.
So, I am suspicious of education.
My request is: Help your students become human.
Your efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled psycho-
paths, educated Eichmans.
Reading, writing, arithmetic are important but only if they serve to
make our children more human.
There is a sense of irony in the reference to learned engineers, educated physi-

cians, trained nurses, and college graduates. Surely, people who use the knowl-
edge and skills gained from their high school and college “education” to gas,
poison, kill, and burn women and children can hardly be called “educated.”
Something was missing.
Of course, there is a double meaning to the word “education” or “edu-
cated.” There is the descriptive meaning—namely, its reference to whatever
learning goes on in establishments set up for “learning”: schools, colleges and
universities. When one asks, “Where were you educated?” people know what
Is Religious Education Possible? O 19
is meant. The answer will give the name of the school or college. Nothing
controversial there.
But there is a second meaning—namely, one that evaluates the learning that
takes place as somehow transforming a person for the better. In that respect, edu-
cation is like reform. To say a person has been reformed is to imply that he or she
has a changed and improved character. There is an implicit reference to standards
and values that are thought proper to being a person. Education is like that. It is
not merely descriptive of learning that takes place or of institutions where it does
take place. It is also evaluative of that learning. An educated person is one who,
as a result of learning, has acquired certain desirable qualities and capabilities. In
that sense, education in the evaluative sense is logically prior to education in the
descriptive sense. One might wish to say to a person that, despite his five years
at High School X, he was not educated there, even though he learned a lot. One
might question, too, the graduate status of some courses, despite their meeting
the college’s criteria for graduation. What is learned might lack certain ingredients
that one would expect of an educated college person—where, for example, the
so-called graduate lacks critical capacity.
Education, therefore, is in part a branch of ethics. What are the values, what
is the worthwhile form of life, one seeks to bring about through the formal sys-
tem of learning? Thus the high school principal made it clear that what makes
the learning educational is that it promotes those qualities that make us distinc-
tively human.
What, then, counts as an educated person in this day and age? There will
inevitably be different answers to that question. People, coming from different
traditions, will spell out different ways in which they perceive “being human,”
“human fulfillment,” and “human dignity.” There is a social, including reli-
gious, backdrop to our ethical appraisal of personal development. And such an
appraisal is never static, for it is part of a wider ethical debate and deliberation
between the generations and between the different social and religious tradi-
tions. Indeed, UK Chief Rabbi Dr. Jonathan Sacks speaks of “the dignity of
difference”—the value to be attributed to deep traditions through which we
separately understand humanity and from each of which we can learn:
I believe that globalisation is summoning the world’s great faiths to a supreme

challenge . . . Can we find in the human other, a trace of the Divine Other? Can
we recognise God’s image in one who is not in my image? There are times when
God meets us in the face of a stranger . . . That is not a threat to faith but a call
to a faith larger and more demanding than what we had sometimes supposed it
to be. Can I, a Jew, hear the echoes of God’s voice in that of a Hindu or Sikh or
Christian or Muslim? Can I do so and feel not diminished but enlarged? (Sacks
2002, 17)
20 O Richard Pring
Despite differences, there is much in common between traditions both as

they are theorized in theology or philosophy and as they are practiced in dif-
ferent forms of life. Hence it is important to identify common threads to what
it means “to become human,” within which we can understand differences,
maybe areas of dispute, but learn from them.
Aims of Education
It would be contradictory to speak of someone being educated and yet
extremely ignorant. To be educated entails the development of knowledge and
understanding—what John Dewey (1916) referred to as the wherewithal for
“the intelligent management of life,” hence the importance attached to the sub-
ject matter that appears to provide the conceptual equipment for the intelligent
management of life—the knowledge through which one comes to understand
what it means to be human, what one might aspire to, and what are the physical
and social contexts in which that humanity might be achieved.
Philip Phenix (1964) referred to these as the “realms of meaning” and edu-
cation as “the means of perpetuating culture from generation to generation”
(270), thereby widening one’s view of life and counteracting the provincialism
of customary existence. Those inherited realms of meaning provide the ways in
which we have come to understand the physical, social, and moral worlds we
inhabit. These ways embody the concepts or ideas through which we organize
experience and the well-tried modes of enquiry through which we examine and
pursue our understandings of those worlds. They do, in other words, make
meaningful what otherwise would be disconnected experiences.
Therefore, how we understand the world and find it meaningful is not
imprinted on us at birth but is acquired through the participation in a cul-
ture—or indeed in different cultural achievements. Such cultural achievements
evolve through experience, reflection, critical appraisal, enquiry, research, and
social interaction. They are what the philosopher Michael Oakeshott (1962)
referred to as “the conversation between the generations of mankind,” in which,
through education, the next generation comes to understand and appreciate
the voice of poetry, the voice of religion, the voice of science, or the voice of
philosophy. These are called “voices” because each is characterized by its own
distinctive concepts and approaches to enquiry, identified and extended by
philosophical argument and analysis within the separate disciplines.
However, one might distinguish between the “theoretical and propositional
knowledge” (through which people come to understand the physical, social, and
economic worlds they inhabit) and the “practical and activity based knowledge”
Is Religious Education Possible? O 21
through which they come to understand the material world in which they live,
create, and make things work—the techne as opposed to the theoria.
One needs, of course, to be careful here, for otherwise, as in so many edu-
cational systems, the practical becomes entirely divorced from the theoretical.
There grows a division between the so-called academic and the so-called voca-
tional. And those who concentrate on the latter are deemed less worthy than
those who engage with the former. But to live a fully human life, one needs
both this practical and this theoretical knowledge, and indeed the former is
integrated with the latter. Beneath practices are, if you like, theoretical under-
standings, often implicit but open to critical exposure and examination.
One might usefully take the example of religious practices. The child who
learns to genuflect, to make the sign of the cross, and to light candles before
shrines is learning not only how to behave in particular circumstances but also
how to understand the sacredness of the place and the theological understand-
ings within the community into which he is being initiated. Learning to be
human requires both a practical and a conceptual grasp of the world in which
one is to manage life intelligently.
But there is a third kind of knowledge—one that is often only implicit but
real nonetheless. That is achieved through reflection, communication with oth-
ers, the arts, religion, and initiation into communities and their values. It puts
the other kinds of knowledge into perspective and into some sort of moral
order. It comes through narratives of various kinds—in literature, in religious
scriptures, through example and tradition. It is that moral understanding that
gives a sense of purpose and a critical exposure to values and that evaluates cer-
tain practices as worth pursuing. Aristotle called it phronesis, and it is embedded
in particular virtues—particular conceptions of the “good life.”
Therefore, what is distinctively human is this capacity to think intelligently
in the various and relevant ways through which we understand the physical,
social, and moral universe we inhabit, to be intelligently practical and creative
within it, and to shape one’s thoughts and practices by the values one has inter-
nalized. To be human is to live by values. And to educate is to introduce young
people into these different forms of knowledge, into the conversation between
the generations of mankind, for it is through such “conversations” that one
learns what it is to be human—the ideals that can be pursued, the physical
universe that can be mastered, the feelings that engage one with others, and the
emotions that can be refined.
Implicit in such learning is the importance of the wider community and
relationships. To be human is to be part of a wider social context from which
one inherits language, moral traditions, friendships, and support. No one is an
island. There are limits to autonomy. That distinctively human form of life is
22 O Richard Pring
embedded in rules of reciprocal obligations and rights and in the commitments

to and the interdependence within communities of various kinds.
To learn to be human, therefore, is to acquire these understandings and
capabilities, a sense of responsibility and moral purpose, and the social skills
and virtues for living harmoniously together. Such an education is pursued
through communities that manifest and teach these values and understandings
and through entrance into what Phenix referred to as the different realms of
meaning.
But are there not different conversations, different ways in which these
realms of meaning have evolved, different insights arising from different narra-
tives, and therefore, within this more general analysis, different ideas as to what
it means to be, and thereby to grow as, a human being?
Religious Traditions and Learning to Be Human

The account so far given, in answer to the high school principal’s plea to teach
our children to be human, is a highly general one, albeit one that is deeply
important for education. Those studies that open up young minds to the differ-
ent realms of meaning should be part of the general education for all. Through
literature and the arts, human nature in all its strengths and weaknesses is
explored. Through science, one comes to see the complexity and wonder of
the natural world. Through history, one comes to see the evolution of political
institutions, the different modes of political control, and both the depravity to
which humanity can sink and the sublime heights to which it can rise.
However, behind these understandings, and no doubt providing distinctive
syntheses of them, are implicit philosophical, religious, and moral traditions—
what Charles Taylor (1991) referred to as peoples’ “horizons of significance”—
“the understanding that, independent of my will, there is something noble,
courageous, and hence significant in giving shape to my own life” (35–36). Such
“horizons” are embedded in words that have particular cultural significance—
such as “equality of opportunity,” “human rights,” and “freedom of choice.”
Their meaning evolves through criticism over time—part of the moral and
political voices in “the conversation between the generations.” The “Enlight-
enment” of the seventeenth century, for example, challenged old conceptions
and created new horizons that worked themselves out in moral and political
dialogue—and that are reflected in philosophical treatises on such major con-
cepts as “liberty,” “justice,” or “autonomy.”
Among these are, of course, the great religious traditions such as Christi-
anity, which provide a narrative of creation, of the human place within cre-
ation, of the human fall from grace and of ultimate redemption, of human
destiny, and of the significance of social togetherness and support—what in the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The Spittle Houses.
Among the properties which fell to the portion of Katherine
Legh, after the dissolution of the Hospital were “all those messuages,
houses and buyldinges, landes and tenements callyd the Spyttell
howses, with all the orchards and gardens thereunto adjoyning.” The
only property situated within the Precinct that can be traced as
belonging to Katherine, consists of (i.) four houses and gardens,
immediately to the east of the churchyard[613] and, between these and
what is now Shaftesbury Avenue, (ii.) a house, garden and orchard.
[614]
The westernmost house of (i.) was probably The Angel, which is
definitely mentioned as having been transferred to Katherine, but
the remaining houses, etc., almost certainly were the Spittle houses,
with their orchards and gardens. They are shown distinctly on Agas’s
Map (Plate 1).
Pasture Ground.
The whole of the remainder of the Precinct to the south of the
Hospital was, in the days of Elizabeth, pasture ground, and is
probably to be identified with the close lying within the Precinct,
commonly called the Pale Close, which is stated[615] to have formed
part of the property transferred to Lord Lisle. The first specific
mention of the ground occurs in 1564, when the jurors holding the
Inquisitionem Post Mortem on Francis Downes found[616] that he was
seized, inter alia, of and in four messuages and four acres of pasture
in the parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields. Downes, it is stated,
purchased the property from Thomas Carew, son and heir of Sir
Wymonde Carew, to whom it had been sold by Lord Lisle.
The four acres subsequently passed to John Graunge, in 1566,
whose son sold them in 1611 to Robert Lloyd (otherwise called Floyd
or Flood). On the latter’s death in 1617, he was found to be seized of
and in a house with a garden on the east side, a barn and garden on
the south of the house, and a stable and two closes of pasture,
containing four acres, adjoining the barn and garden.[617] The next
reference to the ground is in 1622, when it is referred to[618] as “two
closes, formerly pasture, late converted into gardens and
purchased ... by Abraham Speckard and Dorothy his wife.” It next
passed to Sir Richard Stydolph, for Charles Tryon, his grandson,
refers in his will,[619] signed 2nd November, 1705, to “a piece or
parcell of ground containing about four acres lying in the parish of
St. Giles-in-the-Fields ... near the church ... on which said ground are
now standing ... severall houses and other buildings held by severall
leases thereof granted by Sir Richard Stydolphe ... all or most
whereof will in few years expire.” With this fact is undoubtedly to be
connected the licence granted in July, 1671, to Sir Richard Stydolph
to continue building at the back of St. Giles’s church. The licence[620]
sets forth that Stydolph had let ground “on the backside of St. Giles’
Church in the way to Pickadilly to severall poore men who build
hansome and uniforme houses, some whereof were quite covered
and the fundacions of the rest laid,” before the proclamation
prohibiting building on new foundations had been issued. In due
course, “Christopher Wren, Esq.,” viewed the place and made a
report, approving generally of the scheme and suggesting that it
might “tend in some measure to cure the noisomnesse of that part,”
provided that the building was carried out in accordance with a
settled design. On this condition the necessary permission was given,
and it was provided that two copies of the “designe, mapp or charte”
should be made, neither of which, unfortunately, is available at the
present day. Stidwell Street preserved for some time, in garbled
form, the name of the owner of these lands.
The Manor and Possessions of St. Giles’
Hospital.
Up to within a few years of its dissolution, the Hospital of St. Giles, or
rather that of Burton Lazars, in whose custody it was, owned the greater
portion of the present Parish of St. Giles, together with large estates in other
parishes.
On 2nd June, 1536, however, Henry VIII. effected an exchange[621]
with the Master of Burton Lazars, whereby the latter received certain
property in Leicestershire and transferred to the King the undermentioned:
—
Manors of Feltham and Heston.
Messuages, etc., in Feltham and Heston.
2 acres of meadow in the Fields of St. Martins.
25 acres of pasture lying in the village of St. Giles.[622]
5 acres of pasture near Colman’s Hedge.[622]
5 acres of pasture in Colmanhedge Field.[622]
A close called Conduit Close, of five acres.
A close called Marshland.
A messuage called The White Hart, and 18 acres of pasture thereto
belonging.
A messuage called The Rose, and a pasture thereto belonging.
A messuage called The Vine.
Reserved were the church and rectory of Feltham, and all
glebes, tithes, etc., belonging thereto.
Of the lands and houses above-mentioned, only the last four
were in the parish of St. Giles, and three of them have already been
dealt with. The Vine was on the north side of High Holborn, and its
site, with that of the close behind, is now marked by Grape Street,
formerly Vine Street.
Dudley.
Very shortly afterwards, Sir Thomas Legh, the notorious
visitor of the monasteries, made a determined effort to gain
possession of the Hospital of Burton Lazars,[623] and obtained from Thomas
Radclyff, then master, the next advowson of the Hospital for his life. This
was confirmed in March, 1536–7, by Letters Patent.[624] In 1539 the
Hospital was dissolved, and its possessions reverted to the Crown. Legh,
however, for several years continued to hold the property, and enjoy the
profits, spiritual and temporal, until on 6th May, 1544, the King granted to
Sir John Dudley, Viscount Lisle, the Hospital with all its possessions in
Leicestershire, St. Giles-in-the-Fields, and elsewhere. Very naturally, this
resulted in “contencion, varyence and stryfe” being “reysed, stirred and
dependyng betweene the said Viscount Lisle ... and the said Sir Thomas
Legh ... of for and aboute the right, tytle, interest, occupation and
possession of the seyd late Hospytall,” and the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Wriothesley, was appointed arbitrator to settle the matter.
In the course of the same year (1544) Wriothesley gave his award,
dividing the property between the two claimants, but as the arrangement
was never completed it is not necessary to give details here.[625]
It appears that when the award in question was being obtained, Lord
Lisle was absent from the country, “beinge occupied in the parties beyond
the see in and aboute the Kynges Majesties affaires concernynge his
warres,” and on his return refused to carry out the decree, claiming that “the
veray trewe and hoole tytle of the seyde Viscounte of and in the premysses”
had not been disclosed. On 24th November, 1545, Sir Thomas Legh died,
[626] leaving as his sole heir a daughter, Katherine, aged five years. His
widow, Joan, pressed for the execution of the award, and eventually on 8th
March, 1545–6, a further decree[627] was made modifying the former. In
accordance therewith an indenture[628] was on 24th March drawn up
between Lord Lisle and Dame Joan Legh, providing for the transfer to the
latter during her life, with remainder to Katherine, of the undermentioned
property.
“All those messuages, houses, and buyldinges, landes and tenements
callyd the Spyttell howses, with all the orchards, gardens thereunto
adjoyning.”
A close called St. Giles’ Wood.[629]
The Chequer.[630]
4 cottages in the occupation of John Baron.
11 cottages in the occupation of William Wilkinson.
The Maidenhead,[703] with a garden.
The Bear and 2 cottages adjoining.
Bear Close and Aldwych Close.
The George.[703]
A “mese” in the occupation of John Smith.
The Angel.
6 cottages in the occupation of William Hosyer.
The King’s Head.[703]
2 cottages near The Greyhound.
Rents from The Crown and a brewhouse.
The tithe of two fields[631] in Bloomsbury.
13 cottages in St. Andrew’s, Holborn.
The Round Rents[632] and other tenements and cottages in St.
Andrew’s, Holborn.
Lands in Essex, Sussex, Northampton, York, Northumberland and
Norfolk.
Rents from a large number of properties in the City of London, St.
Clement Danes, etc.
In Lord Lisle’s hands remained:—
“The capitall house of the seyd late Hospitall of Seynte Gyles in the
feldes and all the stables, barnes, orchards and gardeyns thereunto
adjoyninge.”
Two “meses” parcels of the same site, with orchards and gardens,
etc., late in the tenure of Dr. Borde and Master Densyll.
A close of 16 acres lying before the Great Gate, in the occupation of
Master Magnus.
A close lying within the precinct, commonly called the Pale Close.
A close of 20 acres called The Newlands.[633]
A piece of ground called The Lane.[633]
Certain lands in Norfolk.
Lisle retained the property only for a few months, selling it in the
same year[634] (1546) to John Wymond Carew, (afterwards Sir Wymond).
Sir Wymond died on 23rd August, 1549, when he was found[635] to be seized
of “and in the capital mansion of the Hospital of St. Giles-in-the-Fields and
of and in certain parcels of land with appurtenances in the parish of St.
Giles-in-the-Fields ... in his demesne as of fee.”
In December, 1561, his widow, Dame Martha Carew, gave up, in
return for an annuity, to his son Thomas “all those lands, tenements, rents,
hereditaments, etc., lieing and being in St. Gyles and Maribone, nere
London, late belonging to Burton Lazar, which she holds by way of
jointure”;[636] and Thomas sold them to Francis Downes. On the latter’s
death in 1564 they were particularised[637] as four messuages, and four
acres of pasture in St. Giles, and 20 acres of pasture in St. Marylebone.
Although the manor of St. Giles is not mentioned, it
must have been included in the portion assigned to Katherine
Legh, for it is found afterwards in her possession. Sir
Thomas’s widow died on 5th January, 1555–6[638] (having
previously remarried[639]), leaving Katherine in her sixteenth
year. Such a desirable prize was not likely to remain long in
the matrimonial market, and a husband was soon found in
Blount.
the person of Sir James Blount, Lord Mountjoy. Blount’s life
seems to have been one of continual financial worry, and his
mortgages and recognisances figure very prominently in the Close Rolls of
the period.[640]
The date of his marriage with Katherine Legh is not known precisely,
but it was certainly within 13 months of the death of her mother.[641] By
degrees the greater portion of Lady Katherine’s inheritance was converted
into ready money, and among other transactions, the manor of St. Giles was
on 18th July, 1565, mortgaged to Robert Browne, citizen and goldsmith of
London, and Thomas his son.[642] The mortgage was never redeemed,[643]
and on 20th June, 1579, Thomas Browne parted with the manor to Thos.
Harris, who in turn sold it on 12th February, 1582–3, to John Blomeson.
Blomeson retained it for nine years, and on 3rd May, 1592, sold it to “Walter
Cope, of the Strand, Esq.,”[644] afterwards Sir Walter Cope.[645] On his death
in 1614, the manor came into the possession of his daughter and sole
heiress, Isabella, who married Sir Henry Rich, and on 2nd April, 1616, it was
sold to Philip Gifford and Thos. Risley, in trust for Henry, third Earl of
Southampton.[646]
On the death of the fourth earl in 1668, it became the
property of his daughter, Lady Rachel Russell, from whom it
descended to the Dukes of Bedford, who now hold it.
Russell.
LIV.—THE CHURCH OF ST. GILES-IN-THE-
FIELDS.
First Church.
In a book,[647] now in the possession of the Holborn
Metropolitan Borough Council, containing a number of extracts
apparently copied from an earlier volume, is the copy of a document
dated 26th January, 1630–31, in which it is stated that Queen Maud,
about the year 1110, here built a church “pulchram satis et
magnificam,” and called it by the name of St. Giles-in-the-Fields. It is
possible that the statement is merely based on the fact of the
foundation of the hospital, including the church, at about that date.
Although there is no record of any presentation to the living
before the Hospital was suppressed in 1539, the fact that the parish
of St. Giles was in existence at least as early as 1222[648] necessitates
the assumption that the church was partially used for parochial
purposes. After the suppression of the Hospital the whole fabric
became parochial.
The earliest institution that has been found to[649] this church
is dated 20th April, 1547, and was at the presentation of Sir Wymond
Carew. On the next occasion (1571) the privilege was exercised by
Queen Elizabeth, and since that time the patronage has always been
in the hands of the Crown.
Very little information remains as to the architectural
character of the church (whether the original structure or not) at the
time of the dissolution.[650]
Besides the high altar there must have been an altar to the
patron saint, St. Giles. There is also evidence of the existence of a
chapel of St. Michael, for in the 46th year of Henry III. Robert of
Portpool bequeathed certain rents to provide for the maintenance of
a chaplain “to celebrate perpetually divine service in the chapel of St.
Michael, within the hospital church of S. Giles.”[651]
According to an order of the Vestry of 8th August, 1623, there
then existed a nave and a chancel, both with pillars, clerestory walls
over, and aisles on either side.
The Vestry minutes of 21st April, 1617, record the erection of a
steeple with a peal of bells, but from the fact that “casting the bells” is
mentioned as well as the buying of new bells, and from the reference
to it in the following year (9th September, 1618) as “the new steeple,”
it seems probable that something of the kind had existed before.
Parton[652] says that there was in early times a small round bell tower,
with a conical top, at the western end of the church, but his authority
for the statement is very doubtful.
The size of the church, measured within the walls, was 153 feet
by 65 feet.[653]
Second Church.
The church was, in the early years of the 17th century, in
danger of falling, as indeed some of it did, causing a void at the upper
end of the chancel “which was stored with Lumber, as the Boards of
Coffins and Deadmen’s Bones.” A screen was erected at the expense
of Lady Dudley “to hide it from the beholders’ eyes, which could not
but be troubled at it.”[654] A further collapse caused the parishioners
to decide to erect a new church. This was begun in 1623 and finished
in 1631. The cost of building amounted to £2,068, all of which, with
the exception of £252 borrowed, was obtained from voluntary
offerings. The largest contributor was Lady Dudley, who gave £250,
and, in addition, paid for the paving of the church and chancel. A
small sketch of the church is given by Hollar in his plan of 1658
(Plate 3), and a lithograph (here reproduced) by G. Scharf is in
Parton’s Hospital and Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields.
Hatton[655] gives the length as 123 feet and the breadth 57 feet.
The church and steeple appear to have been built of rubbed brick[656],
surmounted with battlements, and coped with stone.[656] A western
gallery was erected in 1671, and others to the north and south in
1676–7.
The chancel had a large east window, and one on either side.
The nave had a window over the chancel arch, and a large one at the
west end.
There were north and south aisles, which must have been of
considerable height to admit of the galleries which were
subsequently added. They appear to have been of three bays,[657] with
two windows in each. All the windows, except the westernmost one
in the north aisle, were glazed with coloured and painted glass. There
were three doors to the church, one beneath the west window and
others under the third window from the east of the north aisle and
the westernmost window of the south aisle.
No window is mentioned by Strype at the west end of the
north aisle, so that it is probable that the tower was attached to the
church in this situation. This had battlements and was provided with
a vane.
The interior was well furnished and provided with numerous
ornaments, many of which were the gift of Lady Dudley.[658] Chief
among the latter must be mentioned an elaborate screen of carved
oak placed where one had formerly stood in the old church. This, as
stated in a petition to Parliament in 1640,[659] was “in the figure of a
beautifull gate, in which is carved two large pillars, and three large
statues: on the one side is Paul, with his sword; on the other
Barnabas, with his book; and over them Peter with his keyes. They
are all set above with winged cherubims, and beneath supported by
lions.”
The church had a pair of organs with case richly gilded, and
the organ loft was painted with a representation of the Twelve
Apostles.
Very costly and handsome rails were provided to guard the
altar. This balustrade extended the full width of the chancel, and
stood 7 or 8 feet east of the screen at the top of three steps.
The altar stood close up to the east wall, with a desk raised
upon it in various degrees of advancement.
The upper end of the church was paved with marble, and six
bells were provided in the steeple.
In 1640 the reformers were very bitterly incensed against the
rector with regard to the fittings in the church, and a petition was
presented to Parliament enumerating the various articles which were
considered superstitious and idolatrous. The result of this action was
that most of the ornaments were sold in 1643, while Lady Dudley was
still alive.
After the Restoration the church was repaired and decorated,
and a striking clock and dials added to the tower.
In 1716 the church had a very valuable addition made to its
plate in the form of an engraved gold communion cup, weighing 45
ozs., which had been purchased pursuant to the will of Thomas
Woodville, a parishioner who died at sea. This valuable chalice,
together with the rest of the sacramental and other plate, was stolen
from the vestry room in 1804.
The church was obviously not well constructed, for by 1715 it
was reported to be in a ruinous condition. Under a moderate
computation it appeared that it would cost £3,000 to put it in order.
The ground outside being above the floor of the church, caused the
air to be damp and unwholesome, and proved inconvenient in other
ways. In these circumstances it was thought better to recommend a
complete reconstruction of the church.
The parishioners accordingly petitioned that the church
should be included in the 50 new churches to be built in the cities of
London and Westminster and the suburbs, and the necessary
authority for this was eventually obtained in 1718.[660] Nothing,
however, was done until 1729, when an arrangement was come to
whereby the Parish of St. Giles agreed to make provision for the
stipend of the rector of the new parish of St. George, Bloomsbury, on
condition that the Commissioners acting under the Act of Queen
Anne should pay a sum not exceeding £8,000 for the rebuilding of
St. Giles Church. The arrangement was sanctioned by an Act of
Parliament of the same year.[661] By 1731, Henry Flitcroft had
prepared plans and entered into an agreement to begin pulling down
by 31st August of that year, and to have the new church completely
finished on or before 25th December, 1733. For this work the
architect was to receive £7,030, but in fact the contract was exceeded
by over £1,000, Flitcroft’s receipt being for £8,436 19s. 6d.[662]
Third Church.
The interior dimensions of the church are as follows: length
from the west wall to the east wall of the chancel, 102 feet; length
from the west wall of the nave to the east wall of the nave, 74 feet;
depth of the chancel, 8 feet; width of the nave and aisles, 57 feet 6
inches.
The plan is a nave of five bays with side aisles (Plate 43), over
which are galleries, these being connected by a western one in the
last bay of the nave. A shallow sanctuary is placed at the eastern end,
and at the west is the steeple and a vestibule containing the
entrances and the staircases to the galleries and tower.
The general treatment of the exterior of the church (Plates 45
and 47) is plain in character, but of pleasing effect. The walling is
faced with Portland stone rusticated (chamfered at the joints) to a
projecting band marking the gallery level. Above, the walling is of
plain ashlaring with rusticated quoins. The gallery windows have
semi-circular heads with keystones, moulded architraves and plain
impost blocks. The whole is surmounted by a bold modillion cornice,
with blocking course above.
Emphasis is given to the sanctuary by a pediment and by a
large semi-circular-headed window with panels on either side
forming a decorative composition.
The western end has a similar pediment with the tower rising
above. The central entrance doorway lacks emphasis and the
importance which its position seems to require, and is almost the
same in design as those to the vestibules facing north and south,
which are relatively unimportant. On the main frieze below the
cornice is the inscription—H. Flitcroft, Architectus.
Rising immediately behind the western pediment is the
steeple of about 150 feet in height.
Flitcroft’s able design was evidently influenced by that of
Gibbs for the neighbouring church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, but it
lacks the vigorous character of that noble structure. The banding to
the obelisk above the belfry tends to make this feature appear
somewhat overheavy in comparison with the graceful lantern
beneath. The change from square to octagon at the clock face level is
cleverly managed, and will bear comparison with the same feature at
St. Martin’s Church.
The following extract from A Critical Review of the Public
Buildings, Statues and Ornaments in and About London and
Westminster made by Ralph in 1734, is of interest, as it gives an
opinion upon the architecture of this church shortly after its
erection:—
“The new church of St. Giles’s is one of the most simple and elegant
of the modern structures: it is rais’d at very little expence, has very few
ornaments, and little beside the propriety of its parts, and the harmony of
the whole, to excite attention, and challenge applause: yet still it pleases,
and justly too; the east end is both plain and majestick, and there is nothing
in the west to object to but the smallness of the doors, and the poverty of
appearance that must necessarily follow. The steeple is light, airy and
genteel, argues a good deal of genius in the architect, and looks very well
both in comparison with the body of the church, and when ’tis consider’d as
a building by itself, in a distant prospect.”
Ralph disliked the position of the church, and would have
altered its direction, making what is the east end the main front, and
placing it in such a manner as to have ended the vista of Broad
Street.
The interior (Plate 49) is much finer than the exterior would
suggest, and is an excellent example of a well thought-out design.
Square panelled piers rising to the underside of the galleries support
Ionic columns with block entablatures, all of Portland stone (Plate
46). These carry the roof and ceiling. The ceiling of the nave is
barrel-vaulted in form, panelled and divided into bays by mouldings.
The ceilings of the aisle-galleries (Plates 44 and 51) take the form of a
species of groined vaults intersecting the barrel ceiling of the nave.
The whole is covered by a roof of one span.
The treatment of the galleries is more than usually
satisfactory, for the fronts, instead of being housed into the columns
—giving the suggestion of a necessary after addition—rest
comfortably upon the piers supporting the columns, and, if taken
away, would mar the proportion of the columns to their pedestals.
The shallow sanctuary is almost the full width of the nave. It is
ceiled with an ornamental panelled barrel vault following that of the
nave, and the eastern wall is filled by an architectural composition
harmonising with the general treatment of the nave.
On the frieze of the altar piece (Plate 51) is carved a cherub’s
head, and above is a scrolled pediment having in the centre a pelican
feeding her young in the nest.
The lower panels on either side of the altar and of the
sanctuary, are four in number, and enclosed in carved wood frames.
Two contain pictures; that of Moses to the left (Plate 52) and of
Aaron to the right of the altar.
The pulpit is of carved oak with inlay panels. The ironwork to
the choir balustrade is of wrought work, and the old iron bound chest
in the north-west vestibule is of interest.
The organ (Plate 50) is of considerable interest, and Mr.
George E. Dunn, the organist, has been good enough to supply the
following information. The instrument was built by the celebrated
Bernard Schmidt (known as Father Smith) for the second church in
1671, when he was 41 years old. He was known chiefly for the
perfection of his diapason stops—the true organ tone—and those in
this organ are among his best specimens. When the church was
rebuilt by Flitcroft he evidently did not desire to interfere with the
organ, and adopted the unusual expedient of erecting the tower of
the new church partially round the organ; consequently the back and
part of two sides are covered by the walling of the tower. Father
Smith’s original specification remained until 1856, when many of the
stops had become decayed after 180 years’ use. Dr. G. C. Verrinder,
the organist at that time, had it restored and enlarged by Messrs.
Gray and Davidson, and further repairs and alterations were made in
1884 by the same firm, under the instructions of the late Dr. W.
Little, the organist at that date. In 1889–1900 further alterations
were made by Messrs. Henry Jones and Sons, in collaboration with
the present organist. But through all the decay and changes the
organ has undergone Father Smith’s original diapasons in the front
organ remain and are still perfect. The blowing is done by hand, but
the well-balanced lever renders this comparatively easy, while,
despite the retention of the old tracker action, the instrument is quite
free from the “rattling” so often found in these old actions. In front
are carved the royal arms of George I.
All the glass to the windows, except a small panel (Plate 52) in
the west window of the south vestibule, is modern. This fragment,
which is probably from the earlier church, represents St. Giles’s tame
hind struck by the arrow.
The majority of the monuments in the church belong to the
19th century. Those of earlier date are as follows:—
On the north-east wall of the nave is a tablet of white marble,
on a black marble slab, with the following inscription:
H. S. E.
GULIELMUS WATSON EQUES
SOCIETATIS REGALIS APUD LONDINUM,
ET COLLEGII REGALIS MEDICORUM SOCIUS,
REGALI ETIAM ACADEMIÆ MADRITENSI ADSCRIPTUS,
IN UNIVERSITATIBUS HALÆ ET VIRTEMBERGIÆ
MEDICINÆ DOCTOR
HONORIS ERGO ELECTUS
VIR SUI TEMPORIS
SCIENTIÆ INDAGATOR STUDIOSISSIMUS:
ARTIS MEDICÆ ET BOTANICÆ, NECNON PHILOSOPHIÆ
NATURALIS,
PRÆCIPUE QUOD AD VIM ELECTRICAM ATTINET
INTER PRIMOS PERITUS.
OBIIT DIE MAII 10. A.D. 1787. ÆTAT. SUÆ 72.
HOC MARMOR NEC SUPERBUM,
NEC QUIDQUAM HABENS ORNATUS:
PRAETER IPSUM EJUS NOMEN,
FILIO PIENTISSIMO LEGANTE,
TESTAMENTI CURATORES
PONI JUSSERUNT.
Above, surmounted by a crest, is placed a coat of arms:
(Argent) on a chevron engrailed (Azure) between three martlets
(Sable) as many crescents (of the first).
On the wall of the north aisle is a white marble tablet to the
memory of John Barnfather, who died on 17th September, 1793, in
the 75th year of his age. A tribute is paid to his strictness and
impartiality in the execution of his duties as a justice of the peace,
and to his “mildness of Temper and benignity of mind” in private life.
The tablet is surmounted by a mourning female figure, and fixed on
an oval slab of black marble.
A little to the west along the aisle is a tablet of black marble,
with white marble cornice and base, bearing an inscription to the
memory of other members of the same family, viz., Robert
Barnfather, who died on 23rd October, 1741, aged 54, and his wife
Mary, who died on 6th December, 1754, aged 67. A long account of
the latter’s many good qualities is contributed by “their most
Affectionate Son.”
Still further westward is a tablet with the following
inscription:—
NEAR UNTO THIS PLACE LYETH THE BODY OF
ANDREW MARVELL ESQUIRE, A MAN SO ENDOWED BY
NATURE
SO IMPROVED BY EDUCATION, STUDY & TRAVELL, SO
CONSUMMATED
BY PRACTICE & EXPERIENCE: THAT JOINING THE MOST
PECULIAR GRACES
OF WIT & LEARNING WITH A SINGULAR PENETRATION &
STRENGTH OF
JUDGMENT, & EXERCISING ALL THESE IN THE WHOLE
COURSE OF HIS LIFE
WITH AN UNALTERABLE STEADINESS IN THE WAYS OF
VIRTUE, HE BECAME
THE ORNAMENT & EXAMPLE OF HIS AGE; BELOVED BY GOOD
MEN, FEAR’D
BY BAD, ADMIR’D BY ALL, THO IMITATED ALASS! BY FEW, &
SCARCE FULLY
PARALLELLED BY ANY. BUT A TOMB STONE CAN NEITHER
CONTAIN HIS CHARACTER,
NOR IS MARBLE NECESSARY TO TRANSMIT IT TO POSTERITY,
IT WILL BE ALWAYS
LEGIBLE IN HIS INIMITABLE WRITINGS. HE SERVED THE
TOWN OF KINGSTON
UPON HULL, ABOVE 20 YEARS SUCCESSIVELY IN
PARLIAMENT, & THAT WITH SUCH
WISDOM, DEXTERITY, INTEGRITY & COURAGE AS BECOMES A
TRUE PATRIOT
HE DYED THE 16. AUGUST 1678 IN THE 58TH. YEAR OF HIS AGE.
SACRED
TO THE MEMORY OF ANDREW MARVELL ESQR. AS A
STRENUOUS ASSERTER OF
THE CONSTITUTIONS, LAWS & LIBERTIES OF ENGLAND,
AND OUT OF FAMILY AFFECTION & ADMIRATION OF
THE UNCORRUPT PROBITY OF HIS LIFE & MANNERS
ROBERT NETTLETON OF LONDON MERCHANT HIS GRAND
NEPHEW
HATH CAUSED THIS SMALL MEMORIAL OF HIM
TO BE ERECTED IN THE YEAR 1764.
Further is a tablet of white marble, in the form of an
ornamental cartouche, recording the death of John Hawford and
Elizabeth his wife, and their two sons John and William. All four
deaths occurred between December, 1712, and July, 1715.
Next is a tablet to the memory of Thomas Edwards, who died
on 9th July, 1781, in the 71st year of his age. The tablet is of white
marble, surmounted by a black cinerary urn, on an oval slab of
painted marble. The inscription records his various bequests for the
use of the poor of the parish, and explains that the monument was
erected by his widow not only as a tribute of gratitude and affection,
but with a view to inciting others “whom God has blessed with
Abilities and Success” to follow his example. Her own death, on 23rd
November, 1818, is also mentioned.
Still in the north aisle, but near the entrance, is a tomb
bearing a white marble recumbent effigy of Lady Frances Kniveton,
resting on a black marble slab above a stone base. This is one of the
two memorials preserved from the second church. The inscription,
contained on a white marble tablet, reads as follows:—
In Memory of the Right Honble. Lady Frances Kniveton,
(Wife of Sr. Gilbert Kniveton,/of Bradley, in the County of Derby
Bart.) lyeth buried in the Chancel of this Church./She was one of the
5 Daughters & Co-heirs of the Rt. Honble. Sr. Robert Dudley Kt. Duke
of the/Empire; by the Lady Alice his Wife & Dutchess. which
Robert. was Son of the Rt. Honble./Robert Dudley, late Earle of
Leicester. & his Dutchess was Daughter of Sr. Tho: Leigh,/and Aunt

Textbook Redefining Religious Education Spirituality For Human Flourishing 1St Edition Scherto Gill Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Redefining Religious Education Spirituality For Human Flourishing 1St Edition Scherto Gill Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Redefining Religious Education

Spirituality for Human Flourishing 1st

Ethical Education Towards An Ecology Of Human

Morphogenesis and Human Flourishing 1st Edition

Positive Psychology in Practice Promoting Human

Practical Spirituality and Human Development: Creative

Contexts for young child flourishing: evolution,

Redefining Retirement for Nurses: Finding Meaning in

Assessment in Ethics Education A Case of National Tests

Personal finance Gill

Edited by Scherto Gill and Garrett Thomson

All rights reserved.

First published in 2014 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN® in the United

Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above

Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United

1. Education—Religious aspects. 2. Religious education. 3.

A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library.

Design by Scribe Inc.

First edition: June 2014

List of Figures and Tables vii

7 Religion, Spirituality, and Education for Human

Figure 13.1 The learning process 197

H.E. Mr. Nassir Abdul Aziz Al-Nasser

It is my great pleasure as High Representative for the United Nations Alliance

about religions and perhaps to develop some interreligious understanding. This

religions promote ready-made solutions as certainties when societies should be

1. To impart an understanding of religion from within a particular religious

Thin and Thick

The idea that religious or spiritual experiences are sensibilities of something

The Conception of Holistic Educational Practices

Spirituality within Religious Education for Flourishing

Is Religious Education Possible?

articulate a particular form of spirituality be defensible where the basis of those

There is a sense of irony in the reference to learned engineers, educated physi-

I believe that globalisation is summoning the world’s great faiths to a supreme

Despite differences, there is much in common between traditions both as

embedded in rules of reciprocal obligations and rights and in the commitments

Religious Traditions and Learning to Be Human

You might also like