Ends and Means in Religious Education 31
Iish government on the grounds that there is a large body of
common knowledge which cannot fairly be regarded as
sectarian. :
Murray emphasizes that a culture which accepts denomi-
national division as normal is perennially in danger of con-
ceiving of religious education too narrowly. It easily neglects
the findings of critical scholarship as well as the profoundest
spirituality of its own time. He argues, in particular, that sec-
tarian controversy does not justify educational leadership in
disavowing responsibility for transmission of the total re-
ligious heritage from one generation to another. A large com-
mon moral and spiritual insight has emerged in the history
of the race. In the West, monotheism is in general accepted
over polytheism, responsible moral personal decision over
amorality, and a sense of the dignity and worth of human
persons over promiscuous destruction of human fife. This
common faith should be available to all persons who seek
broad cultural knowledge. The world’s great religions have
contributed significantly to the life of understanding as well
as to responsible citizenship. Indeed, the intellectual legacy
of the modem world cannot be explained apart from their
leading ideas.
Moreover, it is clear that religious education cannot be
limited to the disinterested study of the history of religion,
much less to the heritage of a particular religion, if it is to
fulfill its proper function in democratic society.9 Simply
factual knowledge about the past does not provide the stu-
dent with an adequate appreciation of either practice or be-
lief. Rather, the religious heritage of the race can be appro-
priated in its fullness only from personal participation in its
problems and responsibilities. In measure as each individual
person has ultimate concerns and commitment, his life is