To be uncomfortable with (evangelical?) christian organisations in schools?

[KeithLeMonde]

My DCs have mentioned doing something at school called "Bible Explorer". I've googled it and it lead me to www.bible.org.uk. Their website says:

"Bible Explorer is an educational programme taught exclusively in schools to children in Key Stage 2 years 5 & 6. There is a series of five one hour lessons for the Old Testament and five one hour lessons for the New Testament. The aim of Bible Explorer is to teach children the storyline of the Bible - the big picture. Bible Explorer is non-denominational, non-confessional and non-conversionary. "

Reading elsewhere on their website, they are part of a larger organisation called Walk Through Ministries, whose rationale is:

"....... to encourage Bible reading which, with the help of the Holy Spirit, results in real life-change."

They also say in their statement of faith:

"We believe that the Bible is God?s written revelation to mankind, and that it is verbally inspired, authoritative, and without error in the original manuscripts".

So we are talking Bible literalists I think. This is ringing alarm bells for me in suggesting a strong evangelical and fundamentalist basis - am I wrong?

These seminars are being offered free to all schools (they suggest that schools may wish to donate to the Walk Thru Ministries charity, but they don't charge a fee for the Bible Explorer sessions).

I will admit to a level of ignorance about how much RE kids in KS1 are supposed to be doing. I am not a Christian and the DCs' school is not CofE. They seem to have regular visitors from local churches who teach them Bible stories as "fact" - is this normal? Is this what the National Curriculum calls for?

I am really, really uncomfortable with the idea of RE being taught by people from international Christian organisations. AIBU?

YANBU - a similar thing is happening in my dc's (non-church) school. Local vicar comes in to do one assembly a week and teaches them bible stories and creationism. I'm far from happy about it tbh, but so far haven't spoken to the school about it. Something tells me that kicking up a fuss about Rev x's assemblies would generate some form of black mark against me.

Just spoken to my children about it actually, and apparently they're 'a lot better now than they used to be' because (and I quote my 10yr old here) 'he's not trying to make us become christians anymore, and not making us pray, he just tells us bible stories now'. SO perhaps there have been complaints?

I've always tackled it at home by telling them the 'some people believe' line. I've no objection to them learning about the different religions - I just don't think primary schools are the place for 'recruiting' by Rev x.

YANBU - inviting people from different religions to talk to children = fine. Inviting proselytising from whatever faith = not fine.

I would not want my DD2 to attend such sessions. She goes to a CofE school and I'm fine with that, but any of the hardline stuff - especially from a group linked with US fundamentalists - and the line is crossed. Especially if they're Biblical literalists - I'm an atheist and a feminist and even if you look only at the New Testament, which is supposed to be the 'nice' but, there's a lot of crap aimed at keeping women in their place. Not what I want my DDs to learn.

'Bit', even.

This seems to be happening in a few schools then? I would like this investigated I'm not sure how much parents are informed of the involvement. We have a Christian Mentor in our local LEA school and some people feel very uncomfortable with this but don't feel they can question it as many senior management are practicing Christians.

YANBU, particularly as you weren't informed beforehand. Is it possible the group is paying to hold the sessions?

I reckon your local newspaper would be very interested to hear about this.

YANBU. The wording you've quoted in the OP makes it clear that yes, they're an evangelical and fundamentalist organisation.

"verbally inspired, authoritative, and without error" means they take the whole Bible literally. Their views are likely to include things like women being subservient to men, homosexuality being a sin, no abortion etc.

As a liberal (non-fundamentalist) Christian I would be unhappy with this brand of Christianity being given airtime in schools.

madhairday's description on the other hand, sounds absolutely fine and how it should be - "bible stories with a bit of drama and fun, being kind to others, caring for the poor" etc.

"They seem to have regular visitors from local churches who teach them Bible stories as "fact" - is this normal? Is this what the National Curriculum calls for?"

It's what Section 70 of the 1998 Education Act calls for: "each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship... a single act of worship for all pupils or separate acts of worship for pupils in different age groups or in different school groups...wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character"

If you're uncomfortable with it, the British Humanist Association are campaigning for a broader, more inclusive interpretation of "collective worship".

I think there's a big difference between acts of worship of a broadly Christian character and teaching the Bible as fact, Mojoceratops The former I have no trouble with, there are many good things in Christianity which underpin Western European culture.

The latter is a whole different kettle of fish and I would not let my DDs have any part of it. Fortunately they would not want to, as over the years they have chosen to be as godless as I am. (FWIW DH is a non church-going Christian who believes in God but abhors organised religion, I am an atheist but not militant, and we have always let our DDs choose what to believe, including a very religious phase at about age 5-6).

pointyfangs is right. "Broadly Christian" could simply be something like the story of the Good Samaritan, as an example of kindness to others (and in this case someone of another race). Or it could be appreciating the world and thinking how we can best look after the environment.

Quite rightly, there's nothing about "Broadly Christian" which invites fundamentalism at all, quite the opposite.

It's not so much that it's given airtime, (although I'm not mad about that) it's the worry that the kids are told "Right, it's Christianity time, here's the Christians to tell you about Christian things". The children from atheist and Muslim homes will happily ignore this, but it's the ones from Catholic/Quaker/Methodist/C of E homes who may go home saying "Rev X says that if I believe in evolution/am gay I'm going to hell." Schools need to be very clear when they get people in that they are giving one version of Christianity which may or may not bear any relationship to what Benedict/Rowan Williams might believe.

YADDDDNBU

My daughter did this course in year 6 last year, just after the sats, they did 5 weeks of 2 hour lessons as they hadnt done much RE the rest of the year. We didnt really get to hear about the fact they were doing it either, almost as if they tried to slip it under the radar, as usually outsourced stuff is well publicised to parents.

Myself and another couple of mums were not happy at all by the way it was being taught, and we each spoke to the head teacher with a view to pulling our kids out. She didnt accept that it was evangelisism, and that they were being taught as fact, more that it was a point of view. however my daughter said that 'the mole lady' was pretty firm in her view that what she said was how it was. Although the headteacher said that the lessons opened up the opportunity for discussion, that sort of theological debate seemed a little beyond the yr 5 and 6s, who were not really used to questioning what they were taught in a lesson.

She didnt feel that they were being taught creationism, despite the fact that accorrding to the work book they were being taught that god created the worlkd and eveything in it.

When questioned on the children being told that 'god created Eve because Adam needed sons' and asked what that said to our girls, given that we lived in the 21st century now, she fluffed a bit and pointed out that it was a CoE school, and the diocese had expressed a desire for the lessons. I dont think she liked my refering to the whole thing as highly mysogynistic.

The only thing she conceeded was an oversight was the fact that, when working through the section on Abraham and Issac, they glossed over the fact of his first born, Ishmail, and disregarded him as 'not the son that god wanted' I pointed out that it was a highly contentious thing to be teaching, and inflammatory to anyone who knew islamic history, being pretty much the crux on which arab/jewish annimosity started. And given that my daughter had arabic parentage, that I felt it was certainly something they should have checked before allowing it to be taught.

The fact that the school is CoE in my mind shouldnt really come into it - most country schools ARE CoE, tis the nature of the country. And I have no complaints about the teaching and understanding of religion and culture from all corners of the earth. BUT I did have an issue with this particular set of indoctrination, especially as most children are not as questioning as the 3 dds of the complaining mothers, and in yr 5 and 6 many still believe 100% what they are told by a 'teacher'.

What was probably more depressing was that there were only 3 of us who were actually bothered though.