Interpretations of the Johnson Report

Press, 6 November 1978, Page 16

Interpretations of the Johnson Report

(OLIN BROWN, a senior lecturer in religious studies at the University of Canterbury, has been looking closely at (he Johnson Report, and at criticisms of the report. Mr Brown believes that criticisms in the pamphlet, “The Moral and Spiritual Education of Children,” which has received wide circulation among some groups of parents, do not do justice to the Johnson Report. He has written this article in an attempt to persuade parents and others concerned with the moral education of young people to read the Johnston Report, rather than to accept the interpretations which may be placed on the report by its opponents.

The report “Growing, Sharing, Learning." the socalled Johnson Report, is still up for discussion. It is a document of more than 100 pages and not the easi iest reading for those unaccustomed to such reports. For that reason any brief guide will get a ready welcome. If its contents are spiced with references to sex and dark hints of incipient totalitarianism its appeal may well be quite extensive. Just such a guide is the Rev. K. J. Campbell’s “The Moral and Spiritual Education of Children: whose privilege and responsibility?” Mr Campbell is a minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, which took root in the wake of the controversy over Prolessor Geer- , big’s views. Mr Camphell’s dislike ’of Lloyd Geering’s views is so great that it leads him seriously astray at one point. i The report speaks of "The fostering of a non-sectarian spiritual dimension in New Zealand State education." Mr Campbell is sure that he J knows what this means: it is. he asserts, “defined as being equivalent to rhe theological position of Professor Geering.” But the report refers to Professor Geering only as suggesting the type of questions with which religions deal and not by way of sanctioning his answers.

Mr Campbell’s own brand of Christianity will not commend itself even to all Christians. It rests on a view of the Bible which would be repudiated by many wtio have as good a title to the label "Christian” as Mr Campbell. The Bible, he says, is “God’s own written infallible and inerrant word.” Such a view can issue in a literalistic fundamentalism which Mr Campbell himself exemplifies. Thus the saying of Jesus ‘He that is not with us is against us” is taken as decisive evidence that no teacher is capable of teaching about religion unless he or she has a religious commitment. The substitution of appeal to the Bible for arguments is at its most serious where the rights of children are concerned. “The Bible,” says Mr Campbell, “categorically states that it is the parent’s responsibility and privilege — particularly the father’s as head of the household — to educate their children.” Elsewhere he talks of this as a responsibility “which belongs to parents alone.”

This claim for what amounts to parental totalitarianism is reinforced by appeal to Biblical passages not all of which are relevant. Mr Campbell, who detects signs of “totalitarianism’’ in the report in spite of its reiterated insist-

fence on the role of community in general and parents in particular, appears to have no qualms about parental totalitarianism because it is, somehow, “God-given." The claim to detect “totalitarianism" in the report is nor the only instance of the fact that Mr Campbell is not a reliable guide as to what is in it. Commenting on the report’s statement that “We believe teachers should give their own opinions responsibly and explain that different people have different answers’’ he plays on the fears of “Christian" parents. He quite ignores what the report suggests by its use of the word “responsibly,” fails to mention that the report

advocates the closest possible co-operation between teachers <uw uarenu*. that it urges the “appointment of a senior teacher as co-ordinator, an experienced person who is able to assure parents that all points of view are fairly presented." Another point on which Mr Campbell misrepresents the report concerns education in human relationships; what he prefers to label “sex education.” He largely ignores the way in which the reoorl strives to get away from specifically “sex education” and to locate such teaching tn its proper setting in the study of human relationships generally. Thus the report speaks of course in “human relation-'

ships": Mr Campbell heads his comments on this section “Sex Education.” One is left with the suspicion that Mr Campbell may be more pre-occupied with sex than are either the report or today’s children generally. His claim that the over-all aim is “having all children, by the time they have completed primary school being experts in the realm of sexology,” confirms such a suspicion. Another instance of Mr Campbell’s capacity to mislead is his claim that the report, if implemented, will result in the inculcation of a “humanism in the guise of a nebulous world religion.” He fails to mention the way in which the report insists that no one view — humanism or any other — is to be inculcated through public schools. He himself quotes th? report’s remark that there must, not be “any suggestion of doctrinal preference so long as the Slate system is the one we work in." What Mr Campbell cannot seem to envisage is that it is possible to teach about religions without inculcating a particular point of \ >ew Teachers anl parents who respect the integrity of children are doing this sort of thing all the time as they discuss issues with children and help them to grow towards answers which are genuinely their own while

retaining a respect for th* views of others. Christian parents who take Mr Campbel) as guide should check his references to the report and to the Bible. The? should consider carefully whether Mr Campbell or the Johnson Report displays greater respect for the rights of parents, teachers, children, and minorities generally. If “The Moral and Spiritual Education of Children” is read carefully it will re found that its quotations and remarks are sometimes mi‘leading and unfair, it raises parental fears unnecessar.lv, does not envisage education as a genuine partnership, and exemplifies the totalarian tendencies which it attributes to the report. In short, as a guide to the Johnson Report. Mr Campbell’s pamphlet is systematically misleading. Nor should the views it adopts be treated as if all Christians hold them. The recent Anglican Diocesan Synod in Christchurch gave a decisive welcome to the report.* That report has its deficiencies but, even at the hands of its most severe critics, it deserves something better than Mr Campbell’s pamphlet. His views should not be ignored: they have a right to be heard, but little claim to be regarded as an adequate criticism of the Johnson Report.