Berkley Center

Background: As part of the Education and Global Social Justice Project, in May 2011, undergraduate student Conor Finegan interviewed Paul Faller, the national coordinator of religious education in Catholic schools, at the Catholic Institute of Education in South Africa. In this interview, Faller discusses the opposing ideologies of evolution and creationism in South African education, the two-way interplay between biblical literalism and social disadvantages, and the potential for the integration of faith and science in the classroom.

To start, can you tell me about yourself and the work that you do?

Well, my official position is National Coordinator of Religious Education in Catholic schools in South Africa, so I’m involved in any and every aspect of religious education. Our task is to support religious education in schools, so we’ve been involved in negotiating policy and developing curriculum, developing materials, training teachers—whatever it takes.

Just so I know for my own background information—when you talk about religious curriculum, is that strictly with Catholic schools then?

It’s Catholic schools. Our institute, which is Catholic Institute of Education, is a service body. It’s called an associate body of the Bishop’s conference, so we serve the needs of Catholic schools in South Africa.

Can you tell me about your personal journey to your present position and how you were inspired to do the work that you do?

Well, I’m a teacher not by training; I haven’t formally trained, but I have taught for a number years in Catholic schools in different parts of the country. Mathematics is my first choice, but mathematics is something really close to spirituality for me. I got involved in religious education in a school in Kimberly. I had the position of coordinator, which is a position that in our schools [means] managing the curriculum area, something like a head of department. I got into it there, and I soon took up other positions in the wider Catholic school network, working with teachers and student bodies and so on. Then I responded to an advert, now seventeen years ago, for this position. Having come into this position, [I have] found working in an NGO like this has a lot of freedom, [there is] a lot of trust and responsibility placed on one, which is what enabled me to fly and get totally involved in this area.

How do you think your personal religion motivates, influences, detracts from, or otherwise affects your work?

My personal religion is something that I always see as transformative and needing transformation, so in all the work that I do, I’m trying to encourage teachers in the classroom [and] leaders in the schools to look at things in a transformative way and to develop what they’re doing so that it’s relevant to the modern world and to the future.

Do you see it as your guiding principle with your work?

Yes it is—not religious tradition in itself, but the potential that religious tradition has for the future. That’s what guides me.

Before I talk about Jesuit Junior Program, I wanted to talk a little about the issue itself. Two of the people I’ve interviewed have said that 64 percent of South Africans believe in Biblical literalism, [meaning they] take the Bible as fact, including the story of Adam and Eve. As someone who was a teacher, and as an educator in a policy position as well, what do you think are the major reasons that drive a belief like that?

The first thought that comes to mind is a very chro-theological education among religious communities [and] a conservative mindset with respect to religion. I think South Africa going through those Apartheid years, and perhaps the whole of the twentieth century, was [using] a very isolationist kind of approach. I find that with religious educators in South Africa formally and when religious congregations were strong, religious education was in the hands of professional religious that had the advantage of belonging to international organizations and therefore were trained internationally. [They were] therefore exposed to all of the theological currents that were out there. For people in South Africa and in our schools, it’s one of the long struggles that we will have to get people to see that they are trapped in a particular mindset of literalism bordering on fundamentalism in some respect. It’s really a historical thing, but I see some breakthroughs. I had a student in an honors program last year that deliberately took on this question on the interface between science and religion because she was uncomfortable with it and realized that she needed to guide her students. There is a change in mindset, and I think the Jesuit program will go some way to help people move.

With this change in mindset and perhaps a lot of cause being from the past, do you think it’s a matter of time for a belief like that to fade away? Or is there something else that needs to be done?

I think a lot of that has to do with self-image. People’s self-image and the freedom to think are much is wider than just this particular question. A fellow American from Boston College [believes] it’s all about educating for freedom, freedom in the widest sense: freedom to be who I am, freedom to think, freedom to question, and therefore to learn.

Do you think other factors, like poverty or race relations, have also influenced many people’s lack of freedom and their lack of education?

I think poverty goes without saying because poverty, besides being a material condition, is exacerbated by a mental or perhaps even psychological perception of “who I am” in terms of the rest of society. If I am “someone who doesn’t count,” everything will follow from that. Poverty also goes together with access to education, so one of our programs here is called the “Education Access Program,” which enables people who are poor to actually get into school. Even though there is nominally free education in South Africa, for many people, especially rural people, there is no access in the sense that they haven’t a pair of shoes to get to school [and] don’t have the basic wherewithal to get to school. Poverty certainly plays a large role in all of this and is something that gets in the way of people realizing their freedom.

Do you see race as a factor as well?

I wouldn’t think so much race, I would think more along the lines of cultural differences, cultural mindsets. When you look at religious statistics in South Africa, you will find nominally Christian 90 percent, or something of that order, but in reality people’s deepest commitment is to the African tradition. African tradition hasn’t really, as far as I can see, worked through a number of contemporary issues, looking at the position of women in South African society. According to the Constitution, they are free [and] equal, but in the cultural context, it’s not so. A lot of work has to be done in order to change those mindsets or to allow African tradition to interact with the rest of the world—to find what is true and valid in it, but to also be able to change [and] to be able to say that [there are] certain practices do not uphold the Constitution, practices bind rather than free people.

In discussing gender, race, and poverty, can we call this a social justice issue?

Name the issue again.

The fact that Biblical literalism is so prevalent now, and that people either believe strictly in creation and forget about science, or they have a schizophrenic view in which they memorize both, but only truly believe in one.

I don’t think it’s as simple as saying that Biblical literalism on its own has this kind of end result because I think you can find people who are biblically literal, but that have a strong sense of social justice. It would be a factor to my mind, but not perhaps the key factor. I’m thinking off the top of my head at the moment, but I think it would be simplistic to put too much weight on the Biblical literalism as against more enlightened theology.

Are people who take the Bible literally put at a disadvantage because of [their beliefs]? If so, is that disadvantage part of a broader social justice issue?

I would say that Biblical literalism is a symptom of something much broader. In other words, people who tend to think literally with respect to the Bible would think literally with respect to other things. It’s more about an authority thing; it would be people who hadn’t found that authority within themselves. So Biblical literalism would be one manifestation of a more than overarching condition, and of course we also have Biblical literalism in the South African context. [In addition], we have what you might call Biblical manipulation, or using the Bible to justify things that go against social justice. Apartheid is the obvious one. That would be a different issue. If I understand you correctly, you are trying to establish a link between Biblical literalism per say and a lack of social justice. I think I’ve said what I understand really.

Do you see Biblical literalism as sort of a disadvantage for those students outside of the classroom and in other classes?

I think in the wider world, having a literalist approach to the Bible also means that for the vast majority of people, their religion becomes irrelevant. It’s difficult for them to have a meaningful conversation with people who are thinking people. The tendency is to then withdraw because they can’t have the conversation in modern terms. I think that would be a major drawback, and that’s why we would encourage trying to help people to move to see an understanding of what the Bible actually is and what it isn’t in terms of our religious education programs. This is one of the things we take up in grade 6 particularly, exploring this question. Helping grade six would be helping 10- and 11-year-olds to understand different literary genres and to appreciate that the Bible is a library and not a book. It is an important question.

So in talking about this program in particular, how much do you know about the program itself?

I was at the initial meetings when the program was presented to the Catholic Schools Office. The Jesuit Institute is located in Johannesburg, and the initial thrust is within the schools in Johannesburg. I haven’t yet had any feedback about its outcomes perhaps it’s too early to tell. How do you tell? I don’t know what sort of evaluation process the Jesuit Institute has in place, but I do know the program is associated with the origin center. It’s something that there is a UNISA. I don’t know if you know of UNISA University of South Africa—it’s the largest distance university in the world. I think they have hundreds of thousands of students, but they have an institute called the Research Institute for Theology and Religion in Pretoria. This is one theme they have been focusing on for a number of years, that is, the interface between science and religion. There have been some earlier attempts to influence the school curriculum way beyond the Catholic School Network and to try to get this question into schools, into the curriculum. I think you do find it in some of the higher grades; [during] the last two or three years of schooling there would be some attention to the question. But then, curriculum is something that happens in the classroom, and if teachers are not comfortable with it, then it’s just sidelined—so what actually is happening is difficult to say. I think with respect to the Jesuit program, I think it has to run for a number of years, and some kind of research needs to accompany it as to its outcome before one can really say.

Without that curriculum, it seems like there was a need for this program because that question of bringing the two together isn’t in the national curriculum—or at least with the teachers that I’ve talked with it hasn’t been. What is your hope for a program like this? How much can it accomplish?

The Jesuit program, I think if it’s demonstrated to have a positive outcome and a meaningful outcome, what we can do through our institute example and together with the Jesuit Institute that doesn’t have as wide a reach as we do is to help introduce it to schools—or perhaps not introduce this program, but to strengthen the focus within our other programs as they exist, because you will see our high school program and you’ll find the question treated in various ways in various grades. It’s not a big focus because our curriculum is very broad, and we have an approach that tries to process 15 different strands from theology, to scripture, to personal growth, social justice, and many others. What we can do is take this program and see how it interfaces with the processes that we have in place. I was just talking to Raymond on e-mail this past week, [and] there are teachers that are keen to write materials. This would be one of the areas where Raymond has probably spoken to you about the hope and joy thing. We are working towards some new materials for schools next year across the grades, and this could be one of the focuses.

I know they had mentioned perhaps changing the program so that they are teaching teachers how to teach the subject.

Yes. It would theoretically give a wider reach, but I think you need the two things. You need to help the teachers form their understanding of this issue. Also, you need materials to help them work with and through it. We had a curriculum here 15 years ago now which was totally outcome-based, and teachers were given total freedom. All they had to account for was outcomes. They could do what they like beyond that, but most teachers were totally incapacitated through that, so we know that we need to provide materials as well. I think it is an issue that, along with the interface between religions themselves, is a key issue in religious education; the interface between science and religion is a key issue. Have you read Thomas Berry? Berry is great on what he calls the new universe story. So we have to help teachers. The Genesis story is the basic foundational story from which Christians move and take all their meaning, and that’s why Genesis is so literally taken—because it’s the basis of the story. Now we have the scientific story, which also is in a certain sense very literal. So we’re moving from one literal story to another literal story. We also can’t get bogged down in this story, because, after all, it’s a story that we have now, but it might not be valid in 100 years time. We might have moved beyond that.

[We need] to give teachers the sense of myth, and also an understanding of myth. When you call the Genesis story a myth, most people say, “Therefore you’re saying it’s not true,” which is not what they’re saying.

So you’ve seen their lecture for the creation and evolution program—correct? Didn’t they recently demonstrate it?

Unfortunately when they did, I was away, so I actually didn’t see it in action.

Then you might not be able to answer this question, but knowing what you do know about the program, what do you see that it does well? What are its successes so far?

I don’t know that I can answer that. I haven’t seen the materials, nor have I seen an actual session. I haven’t seen student participation, so really I couldn’t answer that.

To get back to this idea of teaching creation and evolution, teaching science and religion can really come together. What do you see as the biggest opposition to an idea like that? How can educators handle that opposition and that challenge?

I think I was doing a presentation in Cape Town the other day, and I read a quotation which on the face of it sounds heretical. And then I said to people, “Let me read it to you again, but put it in its context.” I think the problem that people find with the story of creation and evolution is one’s understanding of what revelation means. The quotation that I gave was from the Second Vatican Council, or someone’s interpretation. It says, “The Scriptures are not revelation, the Scriptures are a witness to revelation.” That’s a subtle but profound change. People who are literalist take the written word as revelation—that’s God’s word, therefore it cannot be contested. But if you move to an understanding of the Scriptures as a witness to revelation, then it opens up a completely different understanding of what the Scriptures are. The Scriptures are human language.

Also, a deeper understanding of the concept of incarnation is important because the Scriptures, if you like, are the word of God in human language. The Christian belief is that Jesus Christ is the word of God in human form. It’s a useful kind of parallel for people to work through and think on. I think it’s a theological question for people. Working not only on the interface between science and religion, but also having a thorough theological and scriptural education is necessary. The fears that people have, I think, is also the image of God. Of course, taking the Bible literally, there are many things that make you frightened. Also, to see the Scriptures as part of the historical process and the image of God in the Scriptures as developing from a God of thunder to a God of love.

What is the greatest source of opposition to getting across an idea like science and religion?

I think the image of God—people’s image of God [as] someone not to be crossed. Once you go beyond the literal text, then you’re being unfaithful. You see, you’re not free to interpret. It’s a strange paradox because in South Africa, the majority of Christians are from Protestant backgrounds that would espouse a personal interpretation of Scriptures. So there’s a paradox there—I don’t know how you look that up.

So when we talk about things like this, part of it is some heavy theology. You talk about the Bible as the Word Incarnate—the word of God—but through human language. When you’re teaching this to high school children, it can get a little heavy. How do we bring it down to their level? What tools can we use to help them understand these pretty complex ideas? (Is this Conor’s question or the interviewee’s question?)

I think, with the Bible, first of all, working with it in the context of literature and in language studies, students would be familiar with a whole lot of technical language. Bring the Bible into the context of literature. Also, another key concept is inspiration—understanding what that is. Now these things might sound heavy, as you put it, but I think there are ways of working with it with high school, and even middle school, students where you can get through some very basic and profound concepts. I don’t think the concepts are complicated. The barriers are not in the concepts, but in the attitudes that people come to the concept with. So you talk about inspiration—you’re breathing all the time, aren’t you? Breathing is what keeps you alive. The very basic things. Once you’re talking about human experience, human language—well, let me not get too deeply into this. There are ways in which theological concepts can be worked with, with students. It’s really the art of the teacher that is important there. Unfortunately, many of our teachers are not theologically trained, so they haven’t got to the point of pedagogically content knowledge. They might have some of the knowledge, but they haven’t got to a deep enough understanding of this themselves in order to be able to rearticulate it in the language and in concepts that learners are familiar with. So I think that’s one of the key things. It’s called PCK for short. Yes, you can’t dissociate this issue from the whole state of education in the country.

You said earlier that it was not necessarily the ideas themselves, but the attitude people bring with them. When you bring this into the classroom and you have students who challenge it because of their traditional beliefs or because they have atheist beliefs, how do you deal with a challenge like that? Can you talk a little bit about that as a teacher yourself?

The problem with this is that it tends to be a hobby-horse. When you talk about science and religion, it’s straight into creation versus evolution. The battle lines are drawn. Perhaps what we need is a much broader curriculum of science and religion to deal with issues that are far less contentious, but where the interface between science and religion becomes evident, and where the interaction, the mutual challenge to each other, enlightenment of each other can be at play, but in a less contentious area. That would be curriculum for curriculum planners to think about—not going into this issue as the one and only issue in this whole Christian science versus religion. I could make a few suggestions, but I don’t think that’s the point now. I think that would be important not to make this the sole point of entry into the debate between science and religion because the feelings are so strong and the lines are very tightly drawn.

Part of the challenge with the program is the fact that they send a priest and a scientist into the school, and they’re there for two hours. They talk and they have maybe 15 minutes for questions, so it is in many ways pretty limited. What would you do? Change the program? How can you better get this message across?

My first thought would be, again, to look at the broad curriculum. Two hours in the classroom and a few questions—it might have a significant impact on one out of one hundred students. So this question has to be met at different levels and in different context, just as I was saying. With the Jesuit Institute, I would suggest that the Jesuit Institute and an institute like ourselves, for a start, to get into a conversation about how to make it something that is not just a one-off program and how to build this into our curriculum. There are many ways in which you can do it across the curriculum. History is an obvious area, and language study. Of course, science and the sciences, depending on teachers’ approaches to science. I’ve heard many people quote experiences in school where their religious education, in the truest sense, took place more in the science classroom than in the religion classroom simply because of the teacher who is there. That’s what I would suggest could follow such a discussion.

What the challenge is there, I think, especially when you’re talking about schools that aren’t Catholic, is how you talk about religion in a science classroom, or science in a religion classroom. Maybe it should be in a “life course” classroom?

No, I don’t think it’s a matter of talking about religion in a science class. It’s dealing with science in such a way that fundamental things like mystery or wonder—these are, you might basically say, religious experiences. Not in a formal, churchy way, but deep down in a person, these are religious experiences because it’s like meeting something transcendent, something beyond you. To awaken is something fundamental in what I would understand as religious education. Similarly, talking about science in a religion class—perhaps it’s the other side of the coin. You wouldn’t set out to teach science in a religion class because a religion class is more.