Post on 30-Mar-2017




5 download


<ul><li><p>This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 23 November 2014, At: 17:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK</p><p>Religious Education: The officialjournal of the Religious EducationAssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urea20</p><p>DISCUSSION ON PROFESSORHARTSHORNE'S PAPERPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.</p><p>To cite this article: (1939) DISCUSSION ON PROFESSOR HARTSHORNE'S PAPER, ReligiousEducation: The official journal of the Religious Education Association, 34:3, 151-163, DOI:10.1080/0034408390340304</p><p>To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0034408390340304</p><p>PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE</p><p>Taylor &amp; Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor&amp; Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor &amp; Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.</p><p>This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urea20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0034408390340304http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0034408390340304</p></li><li><p>forbidden. Terms &amp; Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tem</p><p>ple </p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity L</p><p>ibra</p><p>ries</p><p>] at</p><p> 17:</p><p>19 2</p><p>3 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p><p>http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions</p></li><li><p>DISCUSSION ON PROFESSOR HARTSHORNE'S PAPER 151</p><p>ulated people to do things for themselvesand never did anything for them. He wasa catalyst. Things happened when he wasaround, not because he had a doctrine toteach or a program to put over or a cur-riculum to transmit, but because hetreated every one as a person and took theinitiative in establishing between himselfand others a relationship in which whatthey did assumed a fresh importance andcreated self confidence and self respect.</p><p>Just how far children of any age can beexpected to rise to this level of interrela-tionship remains to be discovered. Nat-urally those not trained in the skills ofthese relationships and acts will not beable at once to exhibit them. They mustbe acquired by beginning wherever the in-dividual or the group is and moving al-ways toward greater flexibility, freedomof thought, and democracy of procedure.</p><p>The tragedy of our present world situa-tion lies in our not having done thesethings. We are the victims of our ownfailure to sort out the vital, growing fea-tures of our Jewish-Christian traditionand of our lack of faith in God's way with</p><p>men. We assert our belief in the spirit ofbrotherhood but deny that men can betaught to be brothers. If we wait longenough for God to teach us doubtless hewill, by the sore road of universal catas-trophe. We call it God's judgment, butwe do nothing to correct the situation weassert he is judging. Repentance, partic-ularly our repentance, is not enough. Thetimes demand action. We may be too late.But whether we are or not, we shouldhave learned by now that to adopt anypolicy which denies to men their fullrights as persons is to fly in the face ofprovidence and to continue the very con-ditions which we claim will result in thedestruction of civilization. Fail thoughwe may, our only hope is to move alongthe ways that we are learning are the waysof God and begin now, in every situation,to deal with men as persons, and most ofall to reconstruct every educational taskwe face so that it shall yield as much aswe can make it yield of those experiencesof fellowship and mutuality which are thelifeblood of both democracy and religion.</p><p>DISCUSSION ON PROFESSOR HARTSHORNE'S PAPER</p><p>THE chairman, Professor Elliott, sug-gested that there were three mainlines of thought in the paper which shouldbe kept in mind in the discussion: first,the present situation offers a threat to re-ligious values and security; second, in theparticular processes in which we are in-terested we have failed to. develop basesfor security comparable with those offeredby the older processes; and third, we'knowhow to transmit an authoritative form ofreligion, but we have not become skilledin the processes of creative religious edu-cation and it is in this area that we mustdo our experimenting in relation togrowth in religion.</p><p>The consideration of Dr. Hartshorne'spaper was opened by comments of three</p><p>people who had been asked in advance toopen the discussion. The first of thesewas Professor Paul Schilpp of North-western University; the second Dr. Eman-uel Gamoran, of the Commission on Jew-ish Education, Cincinnati, and the thirdMrs. Sophia Lyon Fahs of Union The-ological Seminary.</p><p>Professor Paul Schilpp*:I think Professor Hartshorne's paper</p><p>can make a significant contribution tothinking wherever the problems of childnature and nurture are discussed, andwherever men are concerned with theproblems of democracy, of personality, of</p><p>Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern Uni-versity.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tem</p><p>ple </p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity L</p><p>ibra</p><p>ries</p><p>] at</p><p> 17:</p><p>19 2</p><p>3 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p></li><li><p>152 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION</p><p>religion, and of the influence of culturepatterns.</p><p>He has laid his finger in a most sig-nificant fashion upon some of the majorproblems in these fields and made us con-scious, on the one hand, of some of thedifficulties and contradictions in educa-tional and religious theory and practice,and, on the other hand, of some of thedirections in which we need to go, iffrom the standpoint of intelligent religiouseducatorswe would wisely cope with theproblems and resolve the contradictions.</p><p>Permit me to limit myself in my partof the discussion to those problems inwhich as a philosopher I may have somemore or less well formed opinions.</p><p>Here, obviously, belong three aspects ofthe problem raised by Mr. Hartshorne'spaper which raise questions concerningthe basic philosophical or theologicalpoints of view, particularly with respect totheir perhaps reciprocal influence uponreligion and upon the development of thereligious lifeon the part, perhaps, moreof mature society than on that of thechild.</p><p>Here also belongs the question of thesocial and spiritual milieu in which it is(or is not) possible to raise personalities,as well as questions as to what type ofreligion can undergird our faith in a com-mitment to democracy; as well as thefurther question, on what religious andspiritual grounds democracy itself can bejustified; and the whole interesting prob-lem of the making of personality throughsocial relation and mutuality.</p><p>Professor Hartshorne has, I think, laidhis finger on a very important point in ourunderstanding of the growth of religionwithin the developing life of the individ-ual, and of religion in general, when hepoints out that religion has not kept stepwith man's other changing attitudes to-wards life, towards the universe at large,and towards society in particular.</p><p>There can be no denying the fact thatreligion, for the most part, is still in thepatriarchial imperialistic stage, where Godreigns as king or is, even when he is con-</p><p>ceived as Father, thought of in terms ofthe absolutism with which the Oriental"master of the house" ruled his house-hold. For most religious people God isstill today absolute ruler and monarch.This conception has definite, far reachingand continuous consequences in men's en-tire attitude towards any problems of orbehavior in religion. It colors the re-ligious man's entire outlook upon everyaspect of his religion.</p><p>How important this problem is mayalso be seen by the fact that in Europepopular and traditional religion, as well asacademic theology, is today definitelyswinging back to a new emphasis on thispatriarchal, imperialistic position. Nor isthis the case merely in the totalitarianstates. It is quite universal in Europe:almost as much in Englandwitness theto us almost medieval-sounding majoremphasis of the Edinburgh Conference of1937!-and in Sweden (I listened recentlyto Professor Lindstrom of Lund on thissubject) as in Germany. It is almost asmuch in evidence in Oxford Universityas on the Continent; as much in Barthian-ism as in the more orthodox formulationsof accepted Nazi theology. The notionof God as the "Wholly Other" is, afterall, only the logically extreme conclusionof a patriarchic, imperialistic religion.</p><p>Nor need we deceive ourselves intobelieving that these positions are confinedto Europe. Even in America they arefinding all too ready acceptance amongour fundamentalist friends, to whom sucha position is quite natural, of courseandalso, sad to. relate, among leading the-ologians who would be quite insulted ifyou called them fundamentalists, such asEdwin Lewis.of Drew, Paul Tillich andReinhold Niebuhr of Union, WilliamPauck of Chicago Theological Seminary,and Charles Clayton Morrison of theChristian Century. Whether they like itor not, what they really represent mayrightfully be called Neo-Fundamentalism.This Neo-Fundamentalism may differfrom the old Fundamentalism in not be-ing half so crude; in fact, it usually is</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tem</p><p>ple </p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity L</p><p>ibra</p><p>ries</p><p>] at</p><p> 17:</p><p>19 2</p><p>3 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p></li><li><p>DISCUSSION ON PROFESSOR HARTSHORNE'S PAPER 153</p><p>quite academic, scholarly, and learned.But in its basic nature it is definitely re-lated to what we have known in this coun-try as Fundamentalism. For it is all ofthe following:</p><p>1. Otherworldly instead of earthly;2. God-centered instead of man-cen-</p><p>tered ;3. Original sin-conscious instead of</p><p>conscious of man's divine natureand possibilities;</p><p>4. Backward looking instead of for-ward looking;</p><p>5. Revelation committed instead ofpersonality committed;</p><p>6. Hierarchical-patriarchal instead ofdemocratic;</p><p>7. Static instead of dynamic;8. Absolutistic instead of relativistic;9. Transcendent instead of imma-</p><p>nent;10. Supernatural instead of natural.</p><p>It is true enough that any religious,theological, or philosophical position needssquarely and frankly to face up to thesordid, cruel, barbarous, and savage as-pects of humanity's life and behavior. Itsimply will not do to pass all this by witha nicely poetic, but hopelessly sentimental-istic and unrealistic remark about "heavenlying about our infancy." It is true enoughthat there is likely to lie as much hellabout a modern infant as has ever beenfound in human history.</p><p>But, on the other hand, is it not just asunrealistic and unscientific to permit thedastardly and barbarous events of thepast twenty-five or more years, particu-larly of the past ten, suddenly so to be-cloud our vision that we must all at oncetake refuge in a new medievalism withits wholly one-sided and therefore basic-ally misleading emphasis on the so-calleddepravity of human nature? One shouldimagine that at least philosophers or the-ologians could get a somewhat more long-range view of things than to let them-selves thus to be swept off their feet byrecent events. Not a hundred Mussolinisor a thousand Hitlers or ten thousand</p><p>Stalins should, after all, be able to dullour recognition of the basically moral orspiritual capacities of every normal hu-man being!</p><p>To bring out those capacities, to givetheir development a real chancethat, af-ter all, is the real ultimate task of anyreligious education worthy of the name.And in this task we cannot permit our-selves to recognize defeat, though therebe as many devils in Berlin, Rome, Mos-cow, Tokyo, New York, or Chicago asthere are tiles on the roofs. T H I S IS OURJOB! From it we can recede only at theexpense of losing our own soul.</p><p>And how is that to be done? Not, obvi-ously, by closing our eyes to any facts ofhuman nature or conduct, no matter howdastardly. Nor by trying to whitewashsuch behavior! But, also, not by suddenlydenying or explaining away man's spirit-ual possibilities. But rather: by growingmen, real men, rational men, moral men,spiritual men.</p><p>And this, again, can only be increas-ingly achieved by giving the growth ofsuch men a real chance by the right kindof environment and cultural and religiouspattern.</p><p>As Mr. Hartshorne has rightly said:we cannot expect to safeguard the pre-servation and promotion of democracyand of democratic procedure in the longrun in the midst of a society whose re-ligions pattern and theological indoctri-nation is imperialistic, patriarchal. If it istrue that the Christian spirit truly is thespirit of democracy, if it is further truethat real spiritual Christianity can surviveonly in a society committed to the growthand development of free creative person-alities, then we simply have got to getbusy at the fundamental task of revamp-ing our long-since passe and outmodedreligious conceptions and theological for-mulations and develop a type of relig-ious consciousness and milieu in which theindividual as well as society will not con-stantly find itself inwardly in conflict be-tween opposing social, political, and re-ligious concepts.</p><p>Dow</p><p>nloa</p><p>ded </p><p>by [</p><p>Tem</p><p>ple </p><p>Uni</p><p>vers</p><p>ity L</p><p>ibra</p><p>ries</p><p>] at</p><p> 17:</p><p>19 2</p><p>3 N</p><p>ovem</p><p>ber </p><p>2014</p></li><li><p>154 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION</p><p>Our job, therefore, is terrifically large.We must develop a religion and the-</p><p>ology fit for this age and I do not thinkwe have done this to any degree as yet.</p><p>And we must attack this problem at allfronts at once:</p><p>1. At the level of childhood religionand nurture,</p><p>2. At the level of religious growth ofadolescence, especially college stu-dents ;</p><p>3. At the level of our theological sem-inaries ;</p><p>4. At the level of society at large.Does religious education have a task?</p><p>I wonder whether any one could have abigger task than this.</p><p>It is our privilege and opportunity torise to this occasion.</p><p>Dr. Emanuel Gamoran:*In reading Professor Hartshorne's pa-</p><p>per, I was struck by two problems towhich I tried to give some thought pre-ceding our convention. One was the prob-lem of what constitutes "religious experi-ence" for a child. The other was, what isthe nature of religion. I tried to thinkback to my own religious experiences. Onein particular came to me. It was in con-nection with my own Bar Mitzvah (theJewish ceremony corresponding to Con-firmation for Christians). As is wellknown this ceremony takes place when aboy reaches the age of...</p></li></ul>


View more >