The value of values: why religion in school is more than a compulsory subject

As a bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I look with mixed feelings at the announced reforms of religious education in Flanders. My position is unique: I am not a directly involved party, because the theology I believe in is not taught as such in school. Nevertheless, I feel deeply connected to this debate, because it touches upon something I consider fundamentally important for our youth and for the future of our society.

Christian roots, different traditions

Let me first be honest about my own situation. My church is Christian, and I greatly appreciate that the Roman Catholic religious education in our schools strongly focuses on Christ. That common core is valuable and connects us across the boundaries of our specific traditions. But there remains a difference between what I believe and what is taught in the classroom. That makes me both an outsider and an involved observer. I have no direct interest in the continuation of Catholicreligious education in its current form, but I do have a deep interest in what religion can mean for young people.

That dual position might just give me an interesting perspective. I don't look at this debate from the defense of my own tradition, but from a broader awareness of what faith — any faith — can contribute to the formation of young people.

What we stand to lose

Apart from my own faith tradition, I continue to consider religion — whatever religion it may be — very important for our young people. It introduces aspects that we would otherwise miss. Religious education invites questions that are rarely addressed in other subjects. What is the meaning of life? What does it mean to live well? How do you deal with suffering, with loss, with the finitude of existence? How do you relate to something greater than yourself?

These are not abstract philosophical puzzles. These are questions that every person is confronted with sooner or later. And religion offers not only questions, but also answers — or at least frameworks within which people have sought answers throughout the centuries. We risk losing that wealth of wisdom and experience when we push religion out of education.

I know that substitute subjects like citizenship or philosophy are often considered. They certainly have their value, and I wouldn't want to claim they are superfluous. But they offer a different approach to learning values in life. They approach values from reason, from societal utility, from abstract thought. Philosophy teaches you to argue about ethical issues. Citizenship teaches you to function in a democratic society. These are valuable skills, without a doubt.

But it is not the same as values rooted in a living tradition, in stories spanning generations, in a community that collectively seeks meaning. When a child learns about compassion in the context of the story of the Good Samaritan, that is different from when it learns about 'prosocial behavior' in a citizenship lesson. Both have their place, but they are not interchangeable.

Values as the foundation of a healthy society

Aren't many problems arising in our society today because too little importance is attached to values? I don't ask this question rhetorically, but as an honest reflection. Look at the growing loneliness, at the increase in mental health problems among young people, at the polarization in public debate, at the distrust of institutions. I am not claiming that religion is the only solution to all these problems. But I do wonder if we are not losing something essential when we marginalize the sources of meaning and communitysystematically marginalize.

When we phase out religious education, we lose one of the last places where young people are systematically invited to reflect on what is truly important in life. Not what is practical, not what is economically viable, not what is measurable in competencies and learning outcomes, but what is good. What is valuable. What makes life worthwhile.

I realize that faith is increasingly becoming something that belongs in the private sphere for our society. Religion is seen as a personal choice, like your preference for a certain music style or sport. But I also find that a shame, because that comparison is flawed. Faith is not just a preferred option from a catalog of lifestyles. It is a way of being in the world, a lens through which you view reality, a source of direction and meaning.

The argument of practical usefulness

If we have to look at an education where only what is interesting or practically useful is taught, then we start by eliminating many things that can be different for everyone. For example, many will find history unimportant. Why should we learn about the French Revolution or the First World War? What is the practical use of that? Others will wonder why they should read poetry or know music history. What is the point of that in a world that revolves around technology andeconomy?

And you can say that all these things contribute to general development, to the formation of critically thinking citizens, to understanding our culture and identity. But my view is that religion does so just as much. Perhaps even more, because it not only imparts intellectual knowledge but also existential formation. It not only teaches young people facts about religions but invites them to reflect on their own place in the larger scheme of things. About what they find important. About how they want to live.

Precisely to develop values and to stand strong in life as an adult, young people need more than just practical skills and measurable competencies. They also need stories, traditions, frameworks of meaning. And these are found pre-eminently in religious traditions.

The fear of intolerance

What I also fear is that by abolishing or marginalizing religion, religion will be even less recognizable to our young people. And that there may be more intolerance towards those who do believe. Let's be honest about it: this is sometimes already a divisive issue in our society. Believers increasingly feel like outsiders, people who adhere to something strange that does not fit into a 'modern' world.

In some circles, it has almost become embarrassing to say that you believe. You are seen as someone who is behind the times, who has not yet caught up with the twenty-first century, who holds onto outdated beliefs. This attitude is not only painful for believers, it is also dangerous for society as a whole. For a society that dismisses a part of its citizens as backward or irrelevant is a society that carries the seeds of polarization within it.

If young people never again come into contact with religion at school, how will they then deal with religious classmates, colleagues, neighbors? Unknown makes unloved. A society that pushes religion out of the public domain risks becoming a society where believers are viewed with suspicion, where faith is associated with extremism or irrationality, where there is no longer room for discussion about meaning and transcendence.

I already see this happening. Young people who grow up without any knowledge of religion do not understand why some people go to church, why they pray, why they celebrate certain holidays. This lack of understanding can easily turn into rejection or even hostility. And that is exactly the opposite of what we should strive for in a diverse society.

An inter-religious alternative

If the subject of religion is to be tinkered with, then I believe it should not become a neutral subject. A neutral subject suggests that you can speak objectively about all philosophies of life from a position outside of them. But that position does not exist. Everyone looks at the world from a certain perspective, even those who claim to have no philosophy of life. Neutrality is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that, because it hides its own assumptions.

At the very least, the subject replacing religion should become a subject taught throughout the year and be inter-religious in nature. Not neutral, but polyphonic. Not hovering above the worldviews, but navigating between them. When it seems problematic for a young person to commit to one religion, I find it an appealing idea that young people are brought into contact with diverse religions and the values they stand for.

Let them get to know Christianity in its many forms — Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, and yes, also traditions like mine. Let them get acquainted with Islam, with Judaism, with Buddhism and Hinduism. Let them also discover humanistic and secular worldviews. Not to say that everything is the same or that it doesn't matter what you believe, but to show them the richness of the human search for meaning and purpose.

To that extent, I hope that if such a subject were taught, people would be open to many more opportunities to let people from the faith traditions themselves speak. As a bishop, I would certainly be more than willing to go to nearby schools and talk about what faith means to me. Not with the intention of winning souls or converting young people — that is not my role and not my ambition — but simply to offer what a rich meaning religion gives to my life.

Let young people hear testimonies from Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians of various traditions. Let them see that faith is not an abstract concept, but something that carries real people through life. That it offers answers to questions every person asks themselves. That it creates community and connection. That it offers comfort in difficult times and gives direction to daily life.

Freedom of religion as a fundamental right

I think it's important that we continue to pay attention to freedom of religion. This is not an incidental matter, not a relic from a bygone era, but a fundamental human right that forms the basis of a free society. Whatever changes in education: it should not be such that the non-religious takes precedence over the religious. Secularism should not become a state religion that pushes all other worldviews to the margins.

Faith is not just something like a hobby you practice, but truly forms part of your identity. A religious experience cannot therefore be treated in the same way as hobbies or matters that belong outside of education. Nobody would argue that you should keep music lessons or sports activities out of school because not everyone plays the same instruments or practices the same sports. But with faith, that reasoning seems to apply: because not everyone believes the same thing, faith should simply disappear from school entirely.

Since faith builds your identity, it is just as important to give our young people the opportunity to incorporate this, so that they can make well-considered choices of their own. Nobody advocates imposing a faith on young people. That would indeed be problematic and contrary to that same freedom of religion. But depriving them of the chance to learn about religion is just as problematic as imposing a faith on them. In both cases, you deny them the freedom to choose for themselves.

My suspicion

The changes now being announced might be a good thing. I don't want to be negative upfront, and I acknowledge that the current system also has its shortcomings. But I am a bit suspicious. It seems that they actually wanted to get rid of this subject, but an article in the constitution prevents them from doing so easily. Our constitution, after all, guarantees the right to philosophical education, and that is a wise provision that we should not lightly circumvent.

Everything will now be done to put the subject in a bad light. By reducing the number of hours, by concentrating it in short blocks, by giving it a marginal place in the curriculum. The message that this conveys is clear: this is not important, this is a remnant that we must legally tolerate but would rather be rid of.

If the subject degenerates into something that becomes a compulsory exercise, which can be dealt with in a few days per trimester, then we are really sending the wrong signal to our young people. Then we are actually saying: 'This is not important, this is residue from the past, you just have to get through this.' Which young person will then seriously reflect on the questions that arise in such a subject? Which teacher will still be motivated to teach this subject with passion?

And then I fear that the feelings towards those who do believe could change so much that our society further polarizes. If the school radiates that faith is unimportant, young people will adopt that message. And religious young people will feel even more like outsiders than they already do. While faith should precisely be unifying. While religions, at their best, build bridges between people, create communities, and care for the vulnerable.

A missed opportunity

I have full understanding for the fact that a solution is being sought for a difficult matter. The diversity of philosophies of life in our society has increased, and the old model of separate pillars no longer fits reality. There are practical problems with organizing different religious lessons alongside each other. There are financial considerations. There are ideological discussions. I understand all of that.

But one too easily overlooks what faith can truly mean. In the haste to find a political compromise, one forgets that this is about the formation of young people, about the transmission of values, about the big questions of life. That deserves more than a pragmatic solution primarily aimed at minimizing problems.

Perhaps one should rather look at the way this subject is taught and how one can make a positive story out of it. How can we shape religious education in such a way that it is relevant for all young people, including those who have not been raised religiously? How can we make the richness of religious traditions accessible without reducing those traditions to folkloric curiosities? How can we create space for real encounter, for conversation, for wonder?

Instead, we opt for a subject that must accidentally remain in the way and on which money can be saved. That is the wrong approach. That is a missed opportunity.

A call for reflection

I think the changes now being implemented are a missed opportunity. An opportunity to truly shape young people, to bring them into contact with the richness of religious traditions, to give them values that carry them through life. An opportunity to build bridges between different worldviews, to foster understanding, to jointly seek answers to the big questions.

Instead, we opt for the minimal, the neutral, the safe. We choose an education that must primarily be practical, that must yield measurable results, that fits into an economic model of efficiency and return. And with that, we impoverish education and society.

I hope that policymakers, teachers, parents, and all involved will once again reflect on what we are doing here. Not to return to a past that is over, but to build a future in which there remains space for meaning, for values, for the big questions of life. Our young people deserve that. Our society needs it.