discussion on professor hartshorne's paper

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

Religious Education: The officialjournal of the Religious EducationAssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urea20

DISCUSSION ON PROFESSORHARTSHORNE'S PAPERPublished online: 28 Jul 2006.

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

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0034408390340304

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& 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 & 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.

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urea20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/0034408390340304

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0034408390340304

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DISCUSSION ON PROFESSOR HARTSHORNE'S PAPER 151

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.

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.

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

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.

DISCUSSION ON PROFESSOR HARTSHORNE'S PAPER

THE chairman, Professor Elliott, sug-gested that there were three main

lines 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.

The consideration of Dr. Hartshorne'spaper was opened by comments of three

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.

Professor Paul Schilpp*:I think Professor Hartshorne's paper

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

•Professor of Philosophy, Northwestern Uni-versity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

152 RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

religion, and of the influence of culturepatterns.

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, if—from the standpoint of intelligent religiouseducators—we would wisely cope with theproblems and resolve the contradictions.

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.

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 life—on the part, perhaps, moreof mature society than on that of thechild.

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.

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.

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-

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.

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 England—witness 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.

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 course—andalso, 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

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


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:

1. Otherworldly instead of earthly;2. God-centered instead of man-cen-

tered ;3. Original sin-conscious instead of

conscious of man's divine natureand possibilities;

4. Backward looking instead of for-ward looking;

5. Revelation committed instead ofpersonality committed;

6. Hierarchical-patriarchal instead ofdemocratic;

7. Static instead of dynamic;8. Absolutistic instead of relativistic;9. Transcendent instead of imma-

nent;10. Supernatural instead of natural.

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.

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

Stalins should, after all, be able to dullour recognition of the basically moral orspiritual capacities of every normal hu-man being!

To bring out those capacities, to givetheir development a real chance—that, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Our job, therefore, is terrifically large.We must develop a religion and the-

ology fit for this age and I do not thinkwe have done this to any degree as yet.

And we must attack this problem at allfronts at once:

1. At the level of childhood religionand nurture,

2. At the level of religious growth ofadolescence, especially college stu-dents ;

3. At the level of our theological sem-inaries ;

4. At the level of society at large.Does religious education have a task?

I wonder whether any one could have abigger task than this.

It is our privilege and opportunity torise to this occasion.

Dr. Emanuel Gamoran:*In reading Professor Hartshorne's pa-

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 13. Mine was heldin a traditionally Orthodox, ChasidicSynagogue. As part of the ceremony theboy is expected to chant certain blessingspreceding and succeeding the readingfrom the Torah, as well as to chant a por-tion from the prophets appropriate to theday, and also in some cases to deliveran address. The address which I was todeliver was an involved discussion on thesubject of the importance of concentra-tion during prayer. The address was pre-pared by the rabbi. By now I have for-gotten all of it except the first sentence.

There is one incident, however, that I

•Educational Director, Commission on JewishEducation, Cincinnati, Ohio.

shall never forget. I recall that when Irose to go over to the pulpit to deliver thisaddress, my father, of blessed memory,rose with me. According to custom heshould have remained in his seat, pretend-ing to be unconcerned about how hisyoungster would get along; but he did notfollow this custom. He rose, came overto the pulpit, covered himself completelywith his prayer shawl—so completely thatI could not see his face, and remainedthere throughout the period of my ad-dress. When I was through I caught aglimpse of his face. That moment im-pressed me more than anything else inrelation to my Bar Mitzvah. Thinking andfeeling very deeply on that occasion it wasobvious that his silent meditation wasaccompanied by tears which the prayershawl hid from those that surrounded him.There was a consciousness on my partthat I must prove myself worthy of thehopes and aspirations of my father.

Was this a religious experience, and ifso why? Was it religious because it wasassociated with a Jewish religious cere-mony? There is no doubt that it was avital religious experience for me. Whatmade it so?

Two months ago I was preparing myown boy for his Bar Mitzvah. It is thetraditional custom that when a boy reachesthe age of 13 he is expected to put onphylacteries every morning, and to recitethe morning prayers. The phylacteriescontain passages from the Bible. I con-tinued this practice myself from the ageof 13 until about 18 or 19. Should I ad-vise my boy to put them on or not? Thetraditional Orthodox Jewish attitude isthat this ceremony is exceedingly impor-tant and should be universally observed.On the other hand, thousands and thou-sands of Jews, especially among the mod-erns, no longer observe this custom. Aftergiving this problem considerable thoughtI decided to advise my boy to put on thephylacteries and to recite his prayers daily.I explained their significance to him andalso why I did it. I said to him, "If youthink you would like to do it I shall be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


glad for you to do it. It would make mevery happy. You would learn to knowthe prayers. You would feel yourself atone with the Jewish past." He said, "Yes,I shall do it." I had a certain satisfactionin this response. Was this a religious ex-perience or not ?

In talking both of these experiencesover with a friend, we came to the con-clusion that both experiences, my ownwhen I was a child, as well as my presentexperience in relation to my boy were re-ligious experiences, for this reason—thatanything may be considered a religiousexperience in which there is an element ofstriving or triumph in the direction of theideal. Both experiences involved elementsof aspiration toward the ideal.

Now as to Dr. Hartshorne's definitionof religion, perhaps we are not in disagree-ment ; perhaps it is just a question of em-phasis. Religion, it seems to me is not somuch concerned with a conception of real-ity. The study of reality, the study of theworld, the universe in which we live,is a function of science and not of re-ligion. It is the purpose of science toattain continuously more adequate con-ceptions of reality. Religion concerns it-self not so much with the discovery orwith a description of reality, but with ourdesires, with our aspirations, with our in-tentions to change reality. I might sayreligion concerns itself more with idealitythan with reality. Since in religion we areconcerned primarily with ideals, withaspirations, with values, the God of re-ligion becomes significant not so muchas the Creator but as the End of life whobecomes the summation of all our highestand noblest purposes. This, of course,will sound heterodox to those who holdtraditional views of deity. However, thereis some ground in Jewish tradition forthis kind of a conception, for Jewish tra-dition thinks of man as the partner of Godin the works of creation—a co-creator. Ifman works in the direction of values andideals, he is creating a better world. Heis helping to bring God into the universe.

But there is an important corollary

which follows from this conception ofreligion and that is that if religion lies inthe area of our ideals and our aspirations,then it must concern itself with the prob-lem of evil. Thus any conception of re-ligion which would take away the respon-sibility for evil in the universe from men,would be unsatisfactory from this pointof view. For if religion operates in thearea of ideals and aspirations its functionin relation to evil, is to resist it. The con-ception that evil must not be resisted andthat it can be eliminated without resistanceis, then, it seems to me, a mistaken one.

Thinking of religion in terms of thespirit reflected in Dr. Hartshorne's paper,all education is religious education. Theonly function of the Jewish religiousschool as a separate school is that of trans-mitting to the child the traditional Jewishculture in so far as it possesses beauty andtruth and goodness and furthers the aspir-ations of our young toward these ends.There are certain aesthetic values, cul-tural values, as well as universal valuesto be derived from the culture of a peo-ple as old as is the Jewish people. Andwhen that culture is so completely inter-woven with a religious view of life thatthe sacred and the secular seem to be al-most indistinguishable from each other,the value of inducting the young into sucha heritage is quite evident. This, it seemsto me, would be true of every group thathas a culture that is distinctive and thathas specific values of language, of litera-ture, of aesthetics to transmit. From thepoint of view of those, however, who donot have a distinctive culture, a very legiti-mate question might be whether educationwithout dogma, education for aspirationin the direction of the ideal life, could notbe carried on in the democratic publicschools of our great country. And if itcould, in other words, if the public schoolcan develop on the part of our childrenaspirations in the direction of the ideal,what then shall be the function of thosewho are engaged specifically in religiouseducation but who do not have a uniqueculture to transmit? This problem, per-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


haps, deserves special consideration atsome future convention of the Associa-tion.

Mrs. Sophia Lyon Fahs:*

The practical aspects of such a creativeprocess as that described by Dr. Hart-shorne were discussed by the third speak-er, Mrs. Sophia Lyon Fahs, and illus-trated out of her own experiences withchildren. The following resume repre-sents her major theses.

Whatever a teacher's philosophy of re-ligion may be, it should be possible forhim to lead children and young people insuch a way as to bring about the develop-ment of creative relationships.

Those who cling to the traditionalforms of Christianity as authoritariandoctrines and who attempt so to teachthem to children must realize the force ofDr. Hartshorne's statement that tradi-tional Christianity is an anachronism inour modern and scientific society. An ex-perience with a fifth grade class duringthe past year impressed upon Mrs. Fahsthe truth of Dr. Hartshorne's statement.Because of the children's contact with aCatholic group, and because of the manyquestions which this contact evoked, andin order to give the children a richer back-ground from which to look at their ownquestions, Mrs. Fahs told them the oldstory of salvation in its entirety, includingthe fall of Satan and of man, the comingof a succession of deliverers culminatingin Christ to save mankind from destruc-tion, the rejection of Christ, his resur-rection, his second coming, the thousand-year reign of God on the earth, the finaljudgment and the separation of the goodand bad in heaven and hell. The story wastold objectively with sufficient attention tothe dramatic movement to require four orfive hours in the telling.

The attitudes toward the story ex-pressed by different members of the class

•Lecturer on Religious Education at UnionTheological Seminary, Superintendent of theJunior Department at Riverside Church, NewYork City, and Editor of Children's Materialsfor the American Unitarian Association.

were impressive, suggesting clearly theconflicting concepts to which the childrenhad been exposed. Some, for example,assumed that the story must be true, butwondered how it had been proved. Somewished that it might be true but couldscarcely see how it could be true. Othershoped that it could not be true, for theyreacted against the kind of God pictured.They were not sure they really wished tolive forever, especially if it meant livingin the kind of heaven described, and theyfelt a sympathy for mankind and even forSatan when dealt with by so arbitrary andcruel a God. Finally, there were thosewho were sure that the story could not betrue, except in parts, for it seemed tothem to be unreasonable. They said, "Wesimply can't believe it."

One element then to be encouraged ifcreative relationships are to be establishedbetween teachers and children is the givingof opportunities to children, in an atmos-phere of frankness, to compare differingthoughts and points of view. Our pro-grams of religious education have been toonarrowly Christian and Jewish, and tooBiblically centered. Christians have ex-alted Jesus on such a lonely pedestal thathe cannot be adequately appreciated. Itseems important, even in dealing withchildren at an early age when they are firstintroduced to the history of mankind'sachievements, to let them see differingways men have had of imaging God, anddiffering concepts of the good life. Wehave made the mistake, to which Dr. Hart-shorne referred, of giving children theflowers and fruits of our religion beforegiving them an opportunity to develop theseeds within themselves and to grow theirown roots in the soil of their own experi-ences.

Such a process means something strik-ingly different from the propagation evenof the best religion that we can conceiveof. In a conference recently, ProfessorWilliam H. Kilpatrick was asked if wewere not justified in propagating Chris-tianity because in so doing we were striv-ing to develop people governed by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


highest ideals of which we can conceive.Professor Kilpatrick, however, replied inthe negative, because, he said that by notgiving children and young people the op-portunity to work out their positions forthemselves, we were not showing the re-spect due to them and we were makingimpossible for them the development ofsomething essential in Christian character,namely a development of their own innerresources.

In addition to so fundamental an ele-ment in the process as making availablefor children at an early age the data onwhich to build their own thinking, thereare certain physical conditions that mustbe met for our work with children, if sucha mutuality of relationship is to becomepossible. For instance, we need an atmos-phere where quiet can at times be secured.We need space so that a variety of ac-tivities may be engaged in. We needequipment and tools so that expression invarious art forms can be encouraged. Wealso need more time than the usual Sun-day school plans for. A three-hour ses-sion on Sundays seems increasingly im-portant.

Again, if activities are to emerge in thecreation of things worthwhile, there mustbe a consciousness of worthwhile prob-lems to be solved and shared purposes tosolve them. We have made slow progressin discovering genuinely interesting andworthwhile things which boys and girlsmay do together.

Mutuality of relationship must be basedalso upon an understanding betweengrown-ups and children. Through thestudy of mental hygiene and of psychol-ogy in general, we need to discern morediscriminatingly the types of relationshipwhich can result in a richer developmentof personalities. It is not enough to talkin terms of loving one another. Oftenwhen we seem to be loving the most, weare loving the least. When we are domin-ating or possessive in our love, we are notreally treating children as persons.

Finally, we need to learn how to guidechildren in building their faith and life

upon their own experiences with the uni-verse rather than upon indoctrination. Weneed to become conscious that somethingconcerning God and something concerningour philosophy of life may emerge outof any experience. We may begin withanything and find God if he really iseverywhere and we really dig deep enoughor think greatly enough.

Such an approach, however, means arevolution in our usual introduction ofchildren to religion. It requires that weshall delay instruction regarding God andJesus and prayer until children are ableto do their own thinking. To give theminstruction in doctrine before they havethe basis in experience stunts rather thandevelops growth. Instead of giving chil-dren theological concepts, we need to helpthem to live richly the experiences naturalin their situations. In due time, the chil-dren will see the religious implications forthemselves with a minimum of verbal in-struction.

In the preparation of a course to bepublished by the Beacon Press of Bostonfor use by church school teachers of chil-dren from three to five years of age, ac-tivities have been selected and stories writ-ten on the basis of an analysis of thenatural experiences of children of thoseyears. Those experiences have been chosenfor accent which seem to have in themwhat may be called the germs of religiousexperiences. Suggestions are given toteachers and parents to help them to dealwith these situations with appreciation andyet with a minimum of theological in-struction.

The following are some of the types ofexperience which it is believed little chil-dren may naturally have that have im-bedded in them religious implications andpossibilities:

1. Experiences with the forces of na-ture, such as rain, snow and wind.

2. Experiences when children are firstchallenged by the difference between ani-mate and inanimate things.

3. Experiences when children discoverthat living things are born and die.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


4. Experiences with sickness.5. Experiences with the world of

dreams and fancies in contrast to theworld of conscious experience whenawake. In such experiences lies the pos-sibility of the discovery that the mind isable in part to transcend the limitations ofthe body.

6. Experiences in social cooperation inthe family circle and in the larger com-munity through which children achievea sense of their own worth in relation toothers.

7. Experiences in which childrenachieve through their own purposing andoriginal planning something that seemsto them worth while.

8. Experiences in which children choosebetween two or more types of activity onthe basis of their relative worth and ex-periences in which they postpone theachieving of a lesser good for the sakeof achieving later a greater good.

Open Discussion: *The open discussion which followed

was at first centered around questions oftheology and their implications for re-ligious education, but by general consentthese questions were postponed until thenext day. The discussion then centeredon the practical aspects of a creativeprocess for growth in religion, particularlyas these had been suggested by Mrs. Fahs.

Mr. Herman Wornom of Union The-ological Seminary raised a question as towhat was to be done about the child'ssense of evil in his own disposition. Hequoted a boy as saying you never can getrid of this spirit of evil, but you cankeep it down. Dr. Hartshorne thoughtthat the degree of significance it had fora child depended upon the way it wasdealt with in the culture. Mrs. DorothyD. Barbour of Cincinnati, a former mis-sionary, doubted if this was found natur-

*Reports of the open discussions were preparedfrom notes taken by the chairman, ProfessorHarrison Elliott, and by four graduate stu-dents at Oberlin School of Theology, Messrs.John Hamlin, Francis Hutchinson, M. J.Philippi, and Miss Bertha Juel.

ally in the child, She thought Chinesechildren did not have it.

Rev. Victor E. Marriott of the Congre-gational Education Society of Chicagoasked whether certain norms were recog-nized in this process with which we startchildren. We do not expect, do we, thatthe child will have to go over the wholeexperience of the race again? Mrs. Fahsreplied that the norms are in the cultureand that one cannot be a parent withoutaccepting the results of certain norms;but that we do need to try to help the childto have a chance to begin with the begin-ning and learn through his own experiencethe value of cooperative doing rather thanjust to present norms to him. Mrs. Bar-bour said the norms are found in the expe-rience and we do weigh the experienceso that it is recognized that love is betterthan hate and truth better than falsehood.Mrs. Fahs emphasized the desirability ofnot trying to verbalize these too early. Shewas afraid of verbalized teaching of theseto children of three or four or five. Thereis a time, when the child is mature enough,when she naturally would share thesenorms.

Mr. Israel Chipkin of the Jewish Edu-cation Association raised a question in re-gard to the concept of religious as appliedto this growth of experience in children.To what extent is the sense of the differ-ence between good and evil moral, and towhat extent religious ? At what point, also,does a particular cultural pattern beginto function? Is there any room, for ex-ample, for a Christian pattern as com-pared with a Buddhist? Mrs. Fahs re-plied that the distinction between moraland religious was not one that botheredher. Any choice where the better is chosenover one that is not so good might becalled a religious choice; it might be calleda moral choice, if we preferred that term.If by moral is meant a sense of sin, sheprefers not to use the word. With ref-erence to Mr. Wornom's question abouta sense of evil, she continued, children arebetter off, according to the findings ofmental hygiene, if they are not given a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


sense of sin. Children are so easily over-burdened by it. It is more wholesome todecide the issues of everyday life on thebasis of the consequences of action ratherthan with reference to parents' attitudesor God's attitude. The child is so tightlybound to us emotionally that he feels hemust keep close to us, but we can lightenthat burden by the sense of security he hasregardless of what he does. It is contraryto the best data we have to assume thatthe child is essentially evil. This sense ofevil is given to him in the culture, andoften wrongly so.

Rabbi Leon Fram of Detroit noted thatGod is not mentioned in the lower rangeof the text series and asked when it isthat God begins to be mentioned. He saidthat he believed it was important to teachchildren early forms of prayer—kneeling,bowing the head, closing the eyes—other-wise it may be too late. Professor ErnestJ. Chave of the University of Chicago Di-vinity School added that he was interestedthat Mrs. Fahs does not feel any need inthe nursery school to employ the term"God." Are we consistent with other edu-cation, he inquired, when we keep theterm God out of all early religious educa-tion ? Why can not the term God be intro-duced with the idea of reconstructing it asthe child grows ? A child does not under-stand the term "sky," but he uses it, andso with other terms which he can recon-struct as he grows older.

Rabbi Isaac Landman of Temple BethElohim, Brooklyn, New York, said hethought it was not possible to protect achild from knowing the term. The ques-tion, then, is whether or not he will havesome concept that the teacher or parentwants him to have or obtain an interpreta-tion of religion which some outsider has.Mrs. Muriel Curtis of Wellesley Collegesaid there was danger of his knowing theterm only as a curse word. Rev. C. IvarHellstrom, Minister of Religious Educa-tion at the Riverside Church, New YorkCity, replied that no one assumes theworld is a vacuum. But we do not feel atRiverside Church we must dump these

patterns and words upon the child. Some-one who is close to the child should makethe explanations. We try to fit parents todo it. We take the children into thechurch, but we do not raise all the theo-logical problems. They regard it as theirchurch.

Rev. Ernest Kuebler, Secretary for Re-ligious Education of the American Uni-tarian Association, reported an experi-ment of Mrs. Fahs' with twelve year oldchildren on an island off the New Englandcoast. There they studied marine life, butthe children did not ask questions as towho made this until the fourth or fifthsession, after they already had a feelingof the wonder of creation. Then it waspossible to interpret God more meaning-fully.

Mrs. Fahs added that her own point ofview had grown out of her experiencewith children. There are many difficultiesin first introducing little children to theselarge concepts. Why should we expectthat we could present the meaning of Godto a four year old child? Usually the re-sult of talking about God to a four yearold child, or even a six year old, is a con-ception not really helpful. When should -we do it ? We don't know. We must carryon a great deal more experiment-ing thanwe have done. Because terms are usedin the adult world is not an excuse forputting them into our Sunday school pro-gram. We should deal with these termswhen the child meets them in experience,and then not in a manner which binds himemotionally. If you instruct a little childabout God or teach him to pray you arein danger of tying him emotionally to aconception which he will not with easerevise. Prayer is not a habit. The externalmanner is of no importance. Prayer hasto do with the spirit. You are not reallyteaching little children to pray, and toteach them to say prayers has no gain.

Mrs. Muriel Curtis reported the experi-ence of a child with a cocoon who volun-tarily wanted to say her prayers. Mrs. Bar-bour felt that we should share with thechild that which we have found best and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


thus challenge him. Mr. Wornom felt thatthe terms "sky" and "God" are abstract,but that love is concrete. It is with the ob-jective things in the environment, to whichthe child is related, that we should deal.Dr. Hartshorne commented that one ofour difficulties grows out of the fact thatwe conceive of our religion in too abstractterms. This makes it difficult to sharereligion with children. If we could sim-plify what religion essentially means, thenwe would find a way of sharing it. Godthen might mean to us what it might alsomean to a child. As we now use the term,it does not mean anything that the childcan comprehend. This is unfortunate.There is much in the child's experiencefrom which an adult can learn. If wewatched what happens when the child doesnot do obeisance, we might discover newmeanings which could be shared. Mr.Wornom thought this would involve pro-viding a controlled group, in which thechild was isolated from his culture, andasked how such a group could be secured.Dr. Hartshorne replied in the negative,but said it would mean adding other itemsto whatever cultural experience he has.

Dr. Gamoran reported that in his familythey did not teach their children to pray,but to recite prayers. His six-and-a-halfyear old asked a question about God oneday at the table, when a number of guestswere present. The reply was: God is allthe beautiful things in the world: thebeautiful trees and the lovely rivers andyour little brother when he laughs andyou when you come at once when mothercalls you. How are we going to observereligious experience in children? Whatwe see is the influence of our traditionalconceptions of deity, an anthropomorphicidea about God, the tyrant of the universe.As to norms, we need not be hesitantabout using some of our norms, if theyare satisfying to us. But we ought not totry to use the traditional norms. If a con-ception does not function for me, whyshould I try to impose that conceptioneither consciously or unconsciously uponmy children ? That God will occur in the

environment goes without saying. Whenthe opportunity presents itself I can an-swer the child's questions in the light ofmy own experience. The child who at thetable asked who is God, five years laterasked: How did it all begin? I shouldlike to present a thesis in regard to re-ligious experience, as a basis for measur-ing this experience in children. Religiousexperience takes place when human beingsreact to each other in relation to somequestion in which aspiration to higherideals takes place and in which one orboth are moved to go to something higherthan they have gone before.

The chairman, Professor Elliott, sum-marized the discussion. He said that thediscussion had been concerned with theproblem of providing little children withthe opportunity of creative types of re-ligious experience. It has been suggestedthat care must be exercised in determiningwhen the concepts of religion can be con-structively introduced. Mrs. Fahs andsome of the others have indicated thatterms like God are too difficult for thelittle child and to introduce them earlywith emotional associations may make itdifficult for these to be reconstructedlater. Others have felt that it is not pos-sible to avoid these terms and that earlyinstruction is important. Several construc-tive suggestions have been made: first,that these questions should be answeredas they arise in experience and by in-dividuals close to the child, such as par-ents; second, that the answers should bein the form of testimony out of experienceand that care should be taken so that theanswers are not emotionally reinforced insuch a way as to make revision of the con-ceptions difficult; third, that adults shouldexpect to learn out of this experience withlittle children.

Professor Chave asked: Are we consid-ering enough the nature of the child andtoo much the nature of the culture? Asthe child matures, he has a growing ca-pacity for a sense of relationship. Hegains increased skill in all of his adjust-ments and in the capacity to put things

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


together in a way to integrate his experi-ence. His religion is to.be constructed asan integrating experience. We should takemore account of these growing capacitiesfor appreciation and for a sense of rela-tionship. Are we considering enough thenature of the child himself and are we con-sidering too much the nature of the cul-ture ?

Mrs. Barbour objected to thinking ofreligion as concept and emphasized theimportance of attitudes or emotions. It isdevotion to God which is wanted. Wewant children to become interested in cer-tain changes in society where those whohave less opportunity are unjustly treated.The problem is how we are to get theseattitudes. Rabbi Landman remarked thatDr. Gamoran's was an unusual case andthat not many could work out the problemas Dr. Gamoran had. In his own case,he said, he had with his two sons and adaughter followed a very obvious methodof education. The God idea was takenfor granted and they were sent to Sundayschool from the beginning. He emphasizedthe importance of the problems of ado-lescent boys and girls which he said werethe same as those of adults. In our cur-ricula of instruction we should provideat the proper time opportunity for discus-sion of the time-old problems: of How,Why, and Where. How did religion be-gin ? Man as an ethical and social being;immortality; organized religion. Thereshould be opportunity for frank discus-sion so they can withstand anti-religiousinfluences. Mr. Charles Aznakian ofUnion Theological Seminary underlinedan earlier point that often childhood, ex-planations of God last through into ado-lescence and are injurious.

After a brief intermission, the discus-sion was opened by Mrs. Curtis who raisedthe question of freedom for children. Dowe let them be as free as we think we are ?Could anyone, for example, give childrenthe story of Salvation without givingthem a conditioned account. Howevermuch one wanted to be open-minded andtolerant, would not the account almost in-

evitably be given from a point of view?Had the story been given by someonemore heartily in sympathy, might not thereaction of the children have been differ-ent ? She gave the illustration of a groupwho had decided to be tolerant and gowhere the facts led them, to which onemember of the group replied: "You thinkyou haven't already made a choice, doyou? You certainly have by deciding tobe open-minded." Isn't a certain amountof conditioning of children inevitable anddesirable; at least conditioning to Jesus'way of life and service ? In achieving thataim, are we depriving children of powerto choose? Are we not, perhaps, intrying to impress children with the factthat they are completely free and that theyhave the problem of working out theirown ideas of God, are we not deprivingthem of an essential basic experience?We ourselves are anchored to something;do we not owe it to our children to sharethis with them?

Professor William C. Bower of theUniversity of Chicago Divinity Schoolfollowed up Mrs. Curtis' point by object-ing to any tendency to discuss the child asan isolated human being. There seemsto be an idea of a human being that is tosome extent disassociated from the cul-ture with a particularly strong feelingthat it is our business further to free himfrom the contradictions of his culture.We must recognize the actual relation ofany living being to the culture withinwhich his life comes into being, throughwhich he is nourished and in and throughwhich he must achieve for himself suchindividual freedom as he may achieve.Does not our psychological insight lead usto a particularly clear recognition thatwhat he develops is due to his social inter-action with his social group ? If we suc-ceed in freeing an individual from histradition, does he not have a new problemwhich gets out of hand rather more rapidlythan he can manage it? If we secure aradical degree of freedom through ideasthat do not function in his culture, wehaven't been of any particular help but

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


have instead done him a disservice. Free-dom must be achieved within the movingstream of attitudes and habits of the cul-tural group. There needs to be sensitivity,self-criticism, openness at the growingend, but never severing the individualsfrom their genetic ideas. We may not ap-prove it; but it is his culture. It may beenriched or revised as he develops newinsight. Is not one of the things that isgiving our major cultural problem and ourmajor individual distortion that we havebeen set free from a culture in whichideas function with some degree of co-herence and we find ourselves brokenloose, lost because we have broken withculture ?

Dr. Gamoran also emphasized that free-dom had to take place within the culture.The Roman Catholics are right in a sensein indoctrinating children in the acceptedreligion and culture. A choice has beenmade when the decision is made to beopen-minded. It is at least a kind ofchoice which permits alternatives to beconsidered, whereas to choose the oppositeis to choose a point of view and to ruleout alternatives. Between the two ex-tremes, there is a certain amount of at-titude-taking on the part of leaders. If weare democratic in our attitude we areruling out autocracy.

Mr. Hellstrom said that he felt Profes-sor Bower's emphasis upon culture seemedto imply an excessive simplicity whichdid not seem to exist. Every individualis brought up in the midst of a variety ofculture patterns that are inconsistent witheach other. Does not that fact have to berecognized? Professor Bower replied thatMr. Hellstrom adds a point which hewould want to stress. He said he meantby culture the complex of all these proc-esses which one identifies as the total lifeof the group. These cultures within thelarger culture have in them just the ten-sions which Mr. Hellstrom mentions. Thefunction of education is to raise thesetensions into attention, to get reflectionupon them, in perfectly normal situations.It is to help the immature members along

with ourselves to make judgments aboutattitudes. If there are no conflicts, thenthe individual is lost in the culture asseems to be true of primitive life. But itis still true that this education moveswithin the stream of the cultural process,and the attempt is not to educate an in-dividual as an isolated human being butan individual that is a participant in along-time evolving culture which containswithin it these tensions which carry thepossibility of more adequate ways ofthinking and of handling the situationswe face. Mr. Hellstrom said that it is notmerely a comparison of ideas, but the ac-tuality of being a part of some kind of afellowship.

Miss Rhoda McCulloch of the NationalBoard of Young Women's Christian As-sociations said that the culture may bebad, and therefore we may need to cul-tivate revolt against it. Further the con-stituency of the group is important. It isa highly selected group with which thechurch deals. This process cannot becarried on most effectively unless peoplewithin the groups represent the highpoints of the various cultures within anycommunity. In other words, if there isto be adequate ground for the experience,there will need to be within the group awide assortment of the outstanding ele-ments of the community and mutuality be-tween these elements.

Mr. Wornom said that culture hadgrowing points in opposite directions.Professor Bower replied that choices wereinevitable. The only question is howradical the choice will be. If the possi-bilities are diametrically opposite, it mayhave to be a radical choice. It is just atthese points of divergence where creativitytakes place. Dr. Hartshorne said that theground for such choice is important.Choices may be made on the basis of thatgiven in the tradition or of what can bediscovered to be truth through the scien-tific method. An experimental culture in-cludes within itself the possibilities ofchange. The question is whether we canget children into the atmosphere of such

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


a democratic and experimental culture.Professor Bower commented that the

ground for the choices was partly in thelight of tradition, partly in the light ofpossibilities of change through the use ofmethods of analysis and appraisal. Dr.Hartshorne replied that in a democraticprocess, the common judgment of man-kind as embodied in history and traditionwas not accepted as authority save for thepurpose of carrying on and conducting anexperiment. But the traditional culturedoes not admit that idea. Here is thedifference between the democratic and theauthoritative point of view. In the demo-cratic we do not accept the tradition justbecause it came down from our fathers.We say we are going to investigate thesethings. The question is: Can we democ-ratize religion? If so, we reject authorityas the last word. Then the question be-comes, how we can give children freedomto make choices in a democratic religionand what is the ground of security in ademocratic religion.

Professor Chave emphasized the impor-tance of the end-point in the process.What is this creative responsibility for?The furtherance of personality expres-sion? Mutuality? Is the end-point thequalities of these persons and their ca-pacity for growth? Along what lines ofgrowth? When do we know there is sat-isfactory growth ? Some patterns change.How do we know whether the change isgood or bad? Is the norm in the char-acteristics of the person or in the growth?What is the quality of personality we arelooking for? What do we consider to bethe possibilities for growth?

Professor Bower challenged the ideathat the end-point of religious education isthe development of persons. Person isunthinkable apart from his culture, andculture is unthinkable and impossible apartfrom collective behavior and the associa-tion of persons. Both must go on inreciprocal relations1. Professor Chavesaid that if in contrast with a mechanistic

world with simple adjustment to the partsof the world, personality is this self-con-scious quality of the world and the in-dividual person is one unit in that develop-ment of self-consciousness, it will give adifferent meaning to culture and to theprocess in which we are engaged. If thereare self-conscious beings who can differ-entiate in their actions, and if they arerelated to a world in which there is pos-sibility of choice in every movement, thenprogress of events takes place when theseself-conscious beings relate themselves tothe self-consciousness of the universe, notin a fixed culture, but in a culture which iscapable of growth in several directionsand among individuals who are capableof growth in several directions. Religionachieves its end when persons widen thegap between animal or mechanistic choicesto those self-conscious choices which arerelated to a consciousness of a worldwhich has in it many forms of growth.The fundamental thing is the quality ofpersons and their choices. This is inagreement with what religion has been forcenturies. Man has tried to discover theway the world works, to understand itand to utilize it more and more. Religionis achieving itself as persons have beentrying to find themselves in a world wherethey are not the victims of the world butoperate in relationship to the capacities ofthe world. Religion begins for the childwhen he finds within himself capacity tomanage life and when he knows there arevarious possibilities, that he can makechoices and form standards. The cultureinfluences a child. Totalitarian culturepresents to a child a limited set of experi-ences to which he can react. A democraticculture gives everyone as wide a range asis possible within that culture.

The chairman, Professor Elliott, inclosing the discussion for the day, com-mented that the question still had notbeen answered—how to keep the child- incontact with the culture and yet give himfreedom for growth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

17:

19 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

discussion on professor hartshorne's paper

Documents