Sarah Todd - Diana Coholic - Christian Fundamentalism and Anti-Oppressive Social Work Pedagogy

7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGE\>8QLYHUVLW\RI:DVKLQJWRQ@
2Q$SULO
$FFHVVGHWDLOV$FFHVV'HWDLOV>VXEVFULSWLRQQXPEHU@
3XEOLVKHU5RXWOHGJH
,QIRUPD/WG5HJLVWHUHGLQ(QJODQGDQG:DOHV5HJLVWHUHG1XPEHU5HJLVWHUHGRIILFH0RUWLPHU+RXVH
0RUWLPHU6WUHHW/RQGRQ:7-+8.
-RXUQDORI7HDFKLQJLQ6RFLDO:RUN
3XEOLFDWLRQGHWDLOVLQFOXGLQJLQVWUXFWLRQVIRUDXWKRUVDQGVXEVFULSWLRQLQIRUPDWLRQ
KWWSZZZLQIRUPDZRUOGFRPVPSSWLWOHaFRQWHQW W
&KULVWLDQ)XQGDPHQWDOLVPDQG$QWL2SSUHVVLYH6RFLDO:RUN3HGDJRJ\
6DUDK7RGGDE'LDQD&RKROLFF
D
6FKRRORI6RFLDO:RUN2WWDZD2QWDULR86$E&DUOHWRQ8QLYHUVLW\2WWDZD2QWDULR86$F6FKRRORI
6RFLDO:RUN/DXUHQWLDQ8QLYHUVLW\6XGEXU\2QWDULR86$
7RFLWHWKLV$UWLFOH7RGG6DUDKDQG&RKROLF'LDQD
&KULVWLDQ)XQGDPHQWDOLVPDQG$QWL2SSUHVVLYH6RFLDO:RUN
3HGDJRJ\
-RXUQDORI7HDFKLQJLQ6RFLDO:RUN٢
7ROLQNWRWKLV$UWLFOH'2,-YQB
85/KWWSG[GRLRUJ-YQB
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Christian Fundamentalism
and Anti-Oppressive Social
Work Pedagogy
Sarah Todd
Diana Coholic
Downloaded By: [University of Washington] At: 02:05 14 April 2011
ABSTRACT. Christian fundamentalist religious beliefs, expressed by

social work students, present a challenge to the social work educator. In
this paper we explore the tensions between Fundamentalism, diverse sex-
ual orientation and gender expression and social work pedagogy. Partic-
ularly, we focus on how an anti-oppressive pedagogical approach, while
important to providing educational equality for students with diverse gen-
der expressions and sexual orientations, has some limitations when
working with students with Fundamentalist beliefs. We wonder whether
there is a reasonable limit on inclusivity. The prospect of negotiating fun-
damentalism raises questions that require a critical reflection on our own
belief systems, a rethinking of social work anti-oppressive values and
ethics, and a consideration of our role as educators within the academy.
doi:10.1300/J067v27n03_02 [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth
Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@
haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The
Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]
Sarah Todd, MSW, EdD, is Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, 1125 Colo-
nel By Drive, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6 (E-mail: sarah_todd@
carleton.ca).
Diana Coholic, MSW, PhD, RSW, is Assistant Professor, School of Social Work,
Laurentian University, Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario P3E 2C6 (E-mail: sarah_
todd@carleton.ca).
The authors wish to acknowledge the helpful comments that James Wishart and
Karen Schwartz made on earlier drafts of this paper.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, Vol. 27(3/4) 2007
Available online at http://jtsw.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J067v27n03_02 5
6 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
KEYWORDS. Fundamentalism, anti-oppression, pedagogy, sexuality,

diversity, social work, education, spirituality, religion
Recently, discussions about Fundamentalism and its intersections

with social work practice have appeared in the American journals Affilia
and Social Work (Dinerman, 2003; Hodge, 2003; Reamer, 2003). This
discussion has focused on the professional relationship between practi-
tioners and clients. Encompassed in these brief debates was a major
concern for social workers, that is, whether practitioners with Funda-
mentalist beliefs can separate these values from their practice. Interest-
ingly, although one of these scholars advocated for the increased training
of Evangelical Christians in social work (Hodge, 2002), they all agreed
that “social workers must respectfully allow clients to make their own
choices” (Hodge, 2003, p. 431). Dinerman (2003, p. 251) wondered how
a Fundamentalist social worker who believes that she/he possesses the
truth can maintain the professional discipline to help a client reach their
own decisions and clarify their own values, especially if the client’s
goals and values challenge the Fundamentalist social worker’s beliefs.
We also question the possibilities for a separation of personal values
and practice, and can relate with Dinerman’s feeling that it might be
“harder” for a Fundamentalist social worker to separate their own be-
liefs from clients with different perspectives, experiences or identities.
One of the situations in which this question of separation between val-
ues and practice is of paramount concern is when the social worker with
fundamentalist beliefs is working with persons of diverse sexual orien-
tations and/or gender expressions.
The staging ground of social work practice is the social work class-
room. It is in this context that we have had to consider our response to
Fundamentalist students, particularly given our commitment to affirm
the experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (GLBT)
students, social workers and clients. The National Association of Social
Workers (NASW), the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) and
their Canadian counterparts, the Canadian Association of Social Work
(CASW) and the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work
(CASSW) have increasingly engaged with the movement to secure civil
rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) per-
sons and has worked to decrease homophobia and heterosexism. To
varying extents these institutions have regulated schools of social work
and social work practitioners to affirm the lives of people who are gay,
lesbian, bisexual, transgender and queer while also advocating for social
Sarah Todd and Diana Coholic 7
justice. A recent article in Social Work highlighted the need for the pro-
fession to not only provide queer positive interventions but to address
the “heterosexist conditions that oppress gay and lesbian clients” (Van
Voorhis & Wagner, 2002, p. 353). This perspective on the obligation
of social work has many similarities with the British and Canadian anti-
oppressive approaches to practice and education (see, for instance,
Campbell, 2002; Dominelli, 2003). However, social work’s approach to
challenging heterosexism has been somewhat contradictory. In Amer-
ica the “CSWE exempts religious institutions from the nondiscrimi-
nation standard related to sexual orientation” and, as a result, some
schools of social work “are not required to provide affirmative knowl-
edge about gay and lesbian persons” (Hunter & Hickerson, 2003, p. 2).
This contradiction occurs within broader social tensions between reli-
gious freedom and equality for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-
gendered persons, which has also been at the forefront of the same-sex
marriage debate in Canada.
In both Canada and the United States, the profession of social work
has tried to address this tension by setting its own limits. Along these
lines, many social workers have argued that there is little room for Fun-
damentalist beliefs within professional practice (Amato-von Hemert,
1994; Canda & Furman, 1999; Reed, 1998). However, given the scant
discussion of this complex issue within the literature, and the reality that
many of us have students with Fundamentalist beliefs and students with
diverse sexual identities and gender expressions in our courses, much
more exploration in this area must occur. Exploring the tensions between
Fundamentalism, sexual freedom, sex-gender expression and social work
pedagogy is necessary because classroom discussions inevitably enlist
students’ personal perspectives, which may include Fundamentalist be-
liefs and personal disclosures regarding diverse gender expression, sex-
ual orientation and sexual desires.
We have experienced Fundamentalism entering classroom discussions
even when the topic area is removed from the spiritual realm, for exam-
ple, in something as basic as constructing a personal social history. Nego-
tiating these tensions in social work classrooms is particularly important
given the current trends towards embracing holistic models of prac-
tice, and the growing literature on spirituality and social work in North
America (Canda & Smith, 2001; Coholic, 2003; Nash & Stewart, 2002;
Nathanson, 1995; Schwartz, 1999; Walsh, 1999). In addition there is a
sizeable body of literature arguing for sexual and gender diversity as cen-
tral to social work education and practice (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997;
Hunter & Hickerson, 2003; Krieglestein, 2003; Messinger, 2002; Van
Voorhis & Wagner, 2002; van Wormer, Wells, & Boes, 2000). Also,
many have argued that we are experiencing a societal and academic shift
towards reevaluating the importance of spirituality and sexuality in life
(Ai, 2002; Clark, 1999; Eisenberg et al., 1998), which in turn influences
the expectations of social work clients, students, practitioners, and educa-
tors. Furthermore, some schools of social work offer courses in spiritual-
ity, gender and sexuality while other educators include discussions about
spirituality, gender and sexuality in a variety of classes (Derezotes, 1995;
Kamya, 2000; Okundaye, Gray, & Gray, 1999; Russel, 1998; Sheridan,
Wilmer, & Atcheson, 1994; Swan, 2002).
In this paper, we use the term “Fundamentalist” to describe those
movements that “profess to be upholding some kind of orthodoxy or right

practice” and regard members of their group as “instrumental in pre-
serving tradition from erosion . . . they tend toward self-separation or
exclusivity. . . . Their practices also claim, by tacit or explicit decree, a
masculine hegemony . . .” (Schick, Jaffe, & Watkinson, 2004 p. 3). We
want to enrich this conceptualization by noting that people identify with
Fundamentalism to differing degrees and enact this identity through a
variety of practices. While we realize that the term Fundamentalism de-
rives from the American Protestant Evangelical movement that began
in the late 1880s, it can be employed to more generally refer to the
Christian Right in Canada and America.1 This paper restricts its analysis
to Christian Fundamentalism. While there are other Fundamentalisms,
limits need to be placed on the present discussion in order to maintain
clarity. Another reason to contain this exploration is the limited litera-
ture regarding Fundamentalism in social work pedagogy.
As Canadian social work academics, we are grounded in an anti-op-
pressive perspective. Written from this perspective, this paper’s focus
is on educational processes and relationships in the classroom, which
should be relevant to many American educators who are committed to
understanding how oppression shapes people’s lives and who see social
workers as key agents in achieving individual, community and political
justice. In our experience, Fundamentalist beliefs tend to become most
visible during classroom discussions that address sexual and gender di-
versity, abortion, social work’s commitment to client’s self-determina-
tion, and educators’ critiques of the institutional abuse perpetuated by
religious institutions. In this paper we will focus mostly on the tensions
that arise in the context of discussions about diverse gender expressions
and sexual diversity. When students present Fundamentalist views to
make sense of these subjects they also encourage educators to engage in a
transformative experience that is similar to the questioning and openness
we ask of students. We consider the difficulty of addressing Fundamen-

talist beliefs in the classroom and how an anti-oppressive pedagogical
approach to social work education, while necessary to provide educa-
tional equality for students with diverse gender expressions and sexual
orientations, has some limitations when working with students with Fun-
damentalist beliefs. For instance, anti-oppressive pedagogy can have the
effect of marginalizing and even excluding those whose values and be-
liefs do not fit within the secular, resulting in a lack of dialogue and
a lost potential for mutual transformation. We wonder whether this is
a reasonable limit on inclusivity given the need to respond ethically and
proactively to the needs of diverse students in our classrooms and/or
whether there is a need to develop pedagogical practices that expand our

notion of inclusivity to include those with competing and exclusionary
worldviews.
SOCIAL WORK, RELIGION AND FUNDAMENTALISM
In North America, the historical connection between religion and so-

cial work has been strong (Bowpitt, 2000; Lotz, 1997; Walkowitz, 1999).
For instance, social work in Canada grew out of the social gospel move-
ment (Wills, 1992) and has been described as the “secularization of
the social gospel” (Valverde, 1991). As a result, social work has been
constructed through the very notion of faith–faith in social justice and
a common humanity. More troublesome has been the ways in which such
religious interventions have contoured social work as a practice of be-
neficence and self-sacrifice in which people, not institutions and cul-
tures, are the object of change (Margolin, 1997). Such practices are
problematic in that they obscure our equality and common humanity–
one person is good, while another must change to “become better” (Ros-
siter, 2001). As most of us are well aware, social work’s modern history
has been characterized by an anxious effort to shed vestiges of charity
and spiritual practice, and to present itself as a secular scientific labor
(Walkowitz, 1999).
Most of the literature in the area of spirituality and social work, con-
tends that a nonsectarian definition of spirituality is far more palatable
to most social workers, and is more in-line with social work values
(Canda & Furman, 1999; Carroll, 1998). However, this dream of an all-
inclusive spirituality can be problematic in that it relies on the possibil-
ity of an innocent spirituality, somehow disconnected from histories of
oppression. A universal spirituality is also unlikely to escape becoming

a hegemonic spirituality, one that further excludes all who deviate from
its “inclusive” norms. Its flexibility becomes its rigidity, for all who can-
not be embraced by its breadth are too easily organized as deviant. As
Canda and Furman (1999) stated, “perhaps our greatest challenge is how
we can be inclusive of exclusivist spiritual perspectives.” Social work’s
historical links with religion and its contemporary desire for an innocent
spirituality form the context within which fundamentalist beliefs are heard
in the anti-oppressive classroom.
As one of the most prolific writers in the area of spirituality and so-
cial work, Canda (1998) suggested that a celebration of human diversity
needs to guide future innovation in spirituality. He argued that at a mini-

mum, social workers need to be educated to respect and increase their
knowledge of spiritual diversity, and that this needs to go beyond mere
“tolerance” to an appreciation of diverse spiritual views and a proactive
ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and universal spiritual awareness. In
Canda’s view transcultural spirituality addresses our true nature, which
involves a common heartedness with others. But this is a sophisticated
form of spirituality. Canda’s (1998) suggestion is to mentor students for
spiritual discernment, deep personal introspection, and active dialogue
and cooperation across spiritual perspectives, which could be a difficult
and contentious process to implement given the current state of knowl-
edge in this area. For example, how does an educator operationalize
such a vision in the social work classroom, particularly if the classroom
is framed as secular? Specifically, how can we use such a spiritu-
ality to interact with, support and/or challenge students with Fundamen-
talist beliefs?
ANTI-OPPRESSIVE PEDAGOGY
AND FUNDAMENTALISM
Important to our discussion of Fundamentalism, diverse gender ex-

pression and sexual orientation in the social work classroom is the body
of literature that challenges educators to develop anti-oppressive class-
rooms in which students engage in critical discourse (Cain, 1996; Camp-
bell, 2003; Wehbi, 2003). This literature draws implicitly and explicitly
on the pedagogical approaches of Paulo Freire (1971), which encourages
educators to move from “banking teaching methods” such as lecturing,
to an interactive approach in which students and educators connect their
own experiences of penalty and privilege with anti-oppressive theories.
The goals of such a teaching method include challenging how systems

of oppression are enacted in the classroom as a model for reflect-
ing on broader society (Campbell, 2002; Chand, Clare, & Dolton, 2002;
Hughes, Chau, James, & Sherman, 2003; Razack, 1999, Swan, 2002).
While this style of teaching is adopted because of its imagined potential
for achieving conscientization and liberation, it is not without its critics.
For instance, Blackburn (2000) presented a number of examples of
how such emancipatory pedagogies can be used to serve the interests
of the educator and their world-view rather than the perspectives and be-
liefs of students. He argues that “the inappropriate imposition of a certain
vision of power on people who may not perceive themselves as powerless
and moreover, may not want to be empowered in the way that is being
prescribed, is a problem area that has not been sufficiently addressed by
Freirians” (Blackburn, 2000, p. 12). Similarly, Kothari (2002) explored
such pedagogical approaches when they are used by people working in
the field of community development. She suggested that the use of the
language of participation actually reifies social norms. As the participa-
tory process is assumed to be emancipatory, the ways in which it might
replicate age old hierarchies and systems of oppression and/ or marginal-
ization are rarely accounted for, let alone discussed. In this way, the all-
inclusive is actually the mechanism through which we hide our own
investments and authority, leaving it difficult (if not impossible) for those
who feel marginalized to name their experience as marginalization.
Despite these critiques, anti-oppressive pedagogies are seen as prin-
cipally important in creating social work professionals who are self-re-
flective about how systems of privilege and penalty shape their lives
(Campbell, 2002 & 2003). Particularly, such approaches are seen as help-
ful for challenging students’ homophobia and heterosexism, racism,
sexism, etc. If instead of being told what to think, we engage students in
a process of reflection and questioning, they are more likely to integrate
anti-oppressive theory with their lives and practice.
At the same time, most anti-oppressive discussions about oppression
do not explore Christian marginalization as part of their analysis of si-
lencing and exclusion (see, for example, Chand et al., 2002; Dominelli,
2003). The distinction that anti-oppressive theorists make between the
marginalization of those with Fundamentalist beliefs from systemic op-
pression is helpful in our analysis. Mullaly’s (1997) description of op-
pression, though long, merits reproduction here:
Since people are social beings and live in societies, no one is

free from social structures. Such structures consist of boundaries,
barriers, expectations, regulations, and so on. One could make

a loose argument that everyone in society is oppressed because
one’s choices or freedoms are restricted by the facts of social struc-
tures. . . . [Yet] Not everything that frustrates or limits or hurts a per-
son is oppressive. So, if one wishes to distinguish between what
oppression is and is not, one has to look at the social context
of a particular restriction, limit, or injury (Frye, 1983). . . . If an indi-
vidual is oppressed, it is by virtue of being a member of a group or
category ofpeople that is systematically reduced, molded, immobi-
lized. . . . Nor are all groups equally oppressed. (italics added,
pp. 138-139)
Thus, while the silencing and/or marginalization of students with Chris-

tian Fundamentalist beliefs requires a rethinking of our imagined inclusive,
anti-oppressive classroom, we are not suggesting that these students’ neg-
ative experiences are equivalent to the oppressive experiences of those
in our classrooms who endure heterosexism, racism, and/or colonialism.
Christian Fundamentalists are not systematically oppressed through eco-
nomic, social and political institutions. However, they can be marginalized
within social work (Ressler & Hodge, 2000), challenging us to establish
clear limits of exclusion or broaden our pedagogy to make room for those
with competing world-views.
In its present form social work’s anti-oppressive pedagogy does ex-
clude (or at least works to change) those with competing world-views.
Canda and Furman (1999, pp. 113-114) provide an example of this by
way of their discussion about gay, lesbian and bi-sexuality. While they
argued that social workers are prohibited from practicing any form of dis-
crimination based on diversity (sexual orientation and religion), they
noted that since many religious traditions take a negative stance toward
homosexuality, the two ethical principles of supporting religious diver-
sity and sexual orientation diversity may conflict. They concluded that
there are limits on what spiritual perspectives about homosexuality could
be promoted by social workers, and asserted that an opinion that is di-
rectly anti-gay and anti-lesbian is clearly inconsistent with social work
ethics: “If a social worker holds such a view, we believe it is incumbent
on the worker to do some serious thinking about whether he or she can
in good conscience affiliate with and practice in the social work profes-
sion.” We wonder if this limit on Fundamentalism in social work ex-
tends to an intolerance of a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy
and/or a valuation of a patriarchal ordering of sex and gender roles?
Anti-oppressive approaches to social work rely on the belief that dia-

logue (among other interactive and creative pedagogical approaches)
will lead students to reflect on their values and beliefs, hopefully consti-
tuting a transformative experience (Campbell, 2002; Razack, 1999;
Wehbi, 2003). In part, this pedagogy is invested in questioning domi-
nant subjectivities and liberating subordinate ones (Campbell, 2002;
Chand et al., 2002). In conversations with students who adhere to Chris-
tian Fundamentalist belief systems, our constitution of a dominant iden-
tity (privileged through systems of sexism, racism and heterosexism)
often contrasts with students’ experiences of penalty within secular in-
stitutions (Dinerman, 2003). Additionally, educators’ desire for con-
sciousness-raising, which is central to anti-oppressive pedagogy, may

come into conflict with Fundamentalist belief and values, which de-
mand adherence to guidelines and do not necessarily promote critical
thinking (Reed, 1998). The change that the educator imagines for her/
his students can only be realized by shifting their Fundamentalist
beliefs. Thus, inclusivity can become a strong regulatory mechanism
when it is integrated with an anti-oppressive ideology. Its flexible, wel-
coming rhetoric is also its rigidity because it is envisioned as being ac-
ceptable to all but those who are unsuited or inappropriate for social
work practice. As a result, the practice of inclusivity is extended mainly
to those who similarly believe in social inclusion, equality and diversity.
What we are suggesting is that in order for anti-oppressive pedagogy
to function usefully in the increasingly diverse classroom, such prac-
tices need to be explicitly examined so as to ensure attention to the
losses and exclusions that result. Without such a reflective approach, it
becomes difficult to ask whether there is anything that members of Fun-
damentalist communities might offer social work practice. For exam-
ple, some research suggests that Fundamentalist communities can be a
vital space for Black communities to resist racism–a space where social
justice activities are carried out, and where support is provided to those
who are facing overwhelming challenges in their lives (Bowpitt, 2000;
McRoberts, 1999; Streib, 2001). Ressler and Hodge (2000) argued that
social work might be on the verge of abandoning its ethically mandated
stance of inclusion and diversity through adopting a posture of overt op-
pression directed towards Evangelical Christians. While there can be
little disagreement that discriminatory behavior directed at someone be-
cause of religious beliefs violates their human rights and runs contrary
to both Canadian and American social work codes of ethics, we also be-
lieve that their argument does not consider the following: that social
work’s emphasis on diversity and inclusivity does not necessarily mean
that all beliefs and values, in all contexts and situations, will be deemed
acceptable.
Educators have a responsibility to address statements, attitudes and
behaviors displayed by students that we understand to be hurtful and
harmful to others. For instance, when Fundamentalist beliefs are articu-
lated they often reinforce attitudes that reproduce patriarchy (that many
of us understand as harmful) and explicitly harm women and/or people
of diverse sexual and gendered identities. In other words, they perpet-
uate heterosexist beliefs that heterosexuality is superior to, or more nat-
ural than, homosexuality, and that heterosexual norms of the nuclear
family and firm gender roles are superior to alternative family struc-
tures, relationships and gender expressions. We understand these atti-

tudes as harmful because they have been proven to result in increased
homophobia and, in turn, violence against gay men, lesbians, trans-
gendered persons and others who do not adhere to heterosexual norms
(Baird, 2001; Dittman, 2003; Herek & Berrill, 1992; Kinsman, 1996;
Rivers, 1997; van Wormer et al., 2000). Heterosexist beliefs have
also been linked to the high rate of suicide among queer youth (Dorais,
2004; Gibson, 1994; Sheridan, 1997), social isolation and victimization
(Chrichlow, 2004; Findlay, June 1999; Mitchel, May 29, 2004), and in-
ternalized homophobia that can lead to depression, addiction issues, eat-
ing disorders, and suicide (Hunter & Hickerson, 2003; Savin-Williams,
1994). The harm of heterosexism and homophobia is also evidenced by
the high rates of homelessness among queer youth who have been
kicked out of their families’ homes (Lepischak & Moffatt, in press) and
in negative experiences with social services and health care systems
(Brotman & Ryan, 2002; Eliason, 1996; Martindale, 1994). If we follow
our professional beliefs, we need to allow students to believe in world-
views that are different than our own, but at the same time we are con-
cerned that fundamentalist beliefs are harmful in our classrooms and we
wonder about the effect of these beliefs on future clients.
It has been our experience that students with Fundamentalist values
and perspectives present themselves along a continuum of belief. Not
all will be concerned with converting clients or fellow students and many
will struggle with the interface of personal and professional values. For
some students this struggle will be painful and intense, as their religious
community offers a strong sense of belonging and support. Three exam-
ples are presented next, which are taken from our teaching experiences.
After describing the scenarios, we discuss how the tensions that have
been discussed thus far played themselves out.
Experiences in the Social Work Classroom
In our first example, students were asked to write a paper in which

they were to reflect upon their sexual values and experiences, and the
influence of these on their future practice. A number of students used
this opportunity to explore their religious/spiritual histories as members
of fundamentalist religions. As a result, many students in the class sub-
mitted papers that contained references to the “sinfulness and/or evils of
homosexuality.” These students drew upon Christian values of “loving
the sinner, not the sin,” to suggest that they could work effectively with
members of diverse sexual communities while believing these biblical
references contained a significant, even righteous, truth. The students

were following the guidelines of the assignment and because the papers
were not shared in class, their beliefs did not create hurtful or harmful
experiences for other students. A dilemma in this situation concerned
the following: How does one mark such a paper in a way that challenges
homophobia but also demonstrates some respect and inclusivity of vari-
ous religious experiences? The struggle was how to respond to the no-
tion that one can hold homophobic beliefs but still work respectfully
with members of diverse sexual communities: is that a possibility or do
we affirm Canda and Furman’s (1999) position that this may suggest a
disaffiliation with social work practice?
The second example involves a course on HIV/AIDS. The instructor
explicitly declared the class to be a gay positive space and argued that po-
sitioning the course as such was consistent with social work values. At
the same time, the instructor tried to manage the problematic of exclusion
by suggesting that students who struggled with this position could discuss
their concerns with her during her office hours. Two students did so and
the instructor attempted to support them by stating respect for their cour-
age to engage in, what was for them, a painful rethinking of their beliefs.
They were also offered material that provided an alternative reading of
the Bible’s references to homosexuality.2 Both students wrote interesting
reflection papers throughout the course and engaged with some of the
most challenging course materials. A third student, who identified as a
Christian voiced some homophobic and sexist views within the class and
avoided any individual contact with the educator. When the student let his
perspectives (perhaps somewhat edited) slip into the classroom, the in-
structor reviewed the guidelines for class discussion. The instructor de-
signed this particular approach in an attempt to decrease the possibility of
harm towards other students. At the same time, this ordering of the class-
room did not allow for a peer-driven, explicit discussion of the conflicts
between some students’ religious beliefs and the course material. We

wonder if such overt discussions would have been valuable within the
classroom–might they have provided a useful example of how these ten-
sions appear in our practice?
Along these lines, another teaching experience did include explicit
discussion, but this too presented particular pedagogical challenges. In
this case, a student’s Fundamentalist perspective was expressed as part
of his general anti-feminist and anti-lesbian viewpoints to the extent that
he expressed feeling angry about the educator’s use of the word “op-
pression.” He maintained that the educator was indoctrinating the young
women in the class with her “feminist ways,” and that the examples
used in class regarding oppression, oppressed him as the lone male.

While this student frequently voiced his viewpoint, he was not able to
develop any critical insights into his own behavior and perspective, and
how these clashed with social work principles. Over time it became evi-
dent that he was simply not interested in engaging in any sort of critical
struggle around his attitudes. He believed he was justified and correct in
his analysis. One of the concerns here was how this student would prac-
tice social work and whether his concerns should have been heard in the
classroom. The educator’s past experience with a different group of stu-
dents dissuaded her from encouraging the overt expression of Funda-
mentalist beliefs in the classroom. With this latter group of students, the
lack of safety and hurt that was created by the expression of heterosexist
beliefs was carried forward by the cohort into other courses.
Negotiating Harm
It is clear from these examples that we are not sure that once harm
is caused in a classroom via the expressions of Fundamentalist beliefs,
that this harm can be managed in a way that creates an inclusive space,
that is, when harm is expressed its very expression is exclusionary. We
are concerned that homophobic and racist attitudes can also incite ha-
tred, polarize discussions and put the most vulnerable at the greatest risk
of feeling re-victimized. For instance, the student described above used
his male privilege to influence classroom discussions so that the other
students, who were all very much younger and female, were reluctant
to engage with the material in class and share their ideas. Perhaps more
seriously, religious institutions have perpetrated grave injustice and
oppression against various marginalized groups. For those impacted
by such harm, opening up the space to explore Fundamental (or even
religious) beliefs can be hurtful. The people who might be negatively

affected by such discussions can be as broad and diverse as Aborigi-
nal persons who endured spiritual, sexual and cultural persecution at
the hands of many religious institutions (Miller, 1996) and/or gay, les-
bian and transgendered persons who may have been rejected by their
religious communities or who endured church sanctioned conversion
groups, homophobic sermons or hate-filled protests and campaigns to
deny equal rights for LGBTQ persons (see, for examples, van Wormer
et al., 2000).
Our first example also raises questions about assignment design and
how we, as educators, elicit diverse opinions and beliefs, but also ensure
that students are accountable to social work ethics and understand the
importance of affirming, not just tolerating diversity. It seems to us that
it is more useful to have such boundaries stated in the classroom and as-
signment design, rather than having an educator react to them with com-
ments and grades. In such a reactive process students cannot make their
identities and beliefs more complex, which often results in them feeling
increasingly marginalized. The second and final scenarios also raise
questions about what we can reasonably expect from classroom dis-
cussions. While such debates can be reduced to a question of facilitator
skill, we are not certain that harm can be controlled and regulated by
technique alone. What might be more helpful is to have educators role
model possibilities for working with persons who hold heterosexist be-
liefs. Creating the space for such dialogue, even if it takes place outside
of the classroom, is at least one step beyond the categorization and dis-
missal of persons who hold Fundamentalist beliefs.
The difficulty with the expression of Fundamentalism in social work
is that it is often antithetical to social work values. Indeed, there is em-
pirical evidence to support the view that people from Fundamentalist
backgrounds have a high degree of religious ethnocentrism, and hos-
tility towards gay men, lesbians, and various racial-ethnic minorities
(Altemeyer, 2003; Gorsuch, 1988). We struggle with providing room in
the classroom for the expression of Fundamentalist viewpoints because,
as was discussed previously, one’s experience of frustration or silence
within a social work classroom is not by definition about oppression. In
Canada, democracy has been constructed on a notion that one’s right to
freedom of speech is limited at the moment in which it harms another’s
right to freedom of choice and to a dignified existence (Abella, 2003).
What happens if we extend this limit to Fundamentalist voices that re-
produce affirmations of patriarchy and heterosexism in the classroom?
Although we briefly discussed examples in which Fundamentalist

beliefs were openly expressed in the classroom, in general it has been
our experience that the anti-oppressive narrative that permeates many
schools of social work silences students whose beliefs are antithetical
to social work values. In fact, a fear of being ostracized often silences
both students with Fundamentalist and Christian beliefs, and others who
are afraid of being labeled as such (Coholic, 2003). Dinerman (2003,
p. 250) also provided an example of this dynamic:
A student in class said to me that she did not feel the climate of the
school allowed her to voice her pro-life beliefs, because the over-
whelming majority of students and faculty not only believed but

also assumed that everyone else believed in a pro-choice point
of view. It seemed that the wall between personal values and rights
of expression within the school was not quite where it should be.
Accordingly, we are challenged to not assume a uniformity of sec-

ular beliefs in the classroom, but to instead see students as diverse
and possibly struggling with Fundamentalist beliefs in silence. Overall,
educators should be concerned that students may be struggling with
religious beliefs in their practice and development as professional
helpers. It seems reasonable to be troubled that students who do not
have an opportunity to fully explore their values and beliefs, and grow
increasingly resentful of and separated from social work, may find
themselves facing the demands of practice with little professional sup-
port or self-reflexivity.
However, the classroom is not necessarily an ideal space and it is also
not a counseling session. In some ways the classroom is more complex
than a counseling session as we are not often aware of how students
identify. Moreover, students are not necessarily interested in the possi-
bility of transformation or even participation. In our limited experience,
we have found that the often-irreparable loss of safety and the repro-
duction of harm to oppressed groups negate the classroom discussions
of opinions that are deemed harmful and antithetical to social work val-
ues. While we agree that it is imperative that space is made for discus-
sions about spirituality and religion, our anti-oppressive pedagogical
frameworks encourage us to have some discussions in private between
students and educators to reduce potential harm within the classroom.
We believe that this type of scenario demands the development of criti-
cal pedagogical approaches that seek to develop a trusting relationship
with students. As Romney, Tatum and Jones (1992) pointed out, unless
students feel respected and understood, they will withdraw or become

hostile when confronting challenging messages. Perhaps it is a process
of maintaining a strong commitment to social justice and a positive
view of minorities (all minorities), teaching as inclusively as possi-
ble, and drawing upon the values and wisdom of diverse communities
(Cheng & Soudak, 1994), that will encourage the development of a con-
text within which students will feel encouraged to approach educators
with conflicting points of view.
At the same time, we are aware that others do not share our viewpoint
or experiences, and we hope that this paper will elicit some of these al-
ternative perspectives. For example, Schuetz (2001, p. 102) asserted
that secular society is rooted in religious frameworks and a pedagogy is

required that allows for an explicit examination of how religious beliefs
often serve as “a grounding for public moral behavior.” She encouraged
students to explore religious and secular discussions about public issues
such as the death penalty in order to investigate the ways in which these
discourses intersect with one another. A similar critical examination
of the intersections between secular anti-oppressive social work, our
social gospel history and our complicity with the violence perpetrated
against LGBTQ persons and other minorities in the name of good social
work practice may serve as an interesting starting point for including
a discussion of religion in social work classrooms. While this conver-
sation must necessarily remain committed to social justice and social
inclusion, it may offer the necessary bridge for students with Fun-
damentalist beliefs to see themselves as a possibility within the pro-
fession. In this manner they would be able to critically reflect on what
aspects of their religious identities are incompatible with the profession,
and what aspects actually shore up the foundation from which social
work is practiced.
CONCLUSION
We began this discussion by wondering whether the anti-oppressive

pedagogy we draw upon to create a just classroom for queer students,
feminists and all others who challenge heteronormativity marginalizes
students with Fundamentalist belief systems and if this marginalization
was reasonable. We also considered how educators could respond to
students who feel silenced. These are pressing questions within the cur-
rent context of North American social work knowledge and practice
that is shifting to a more holistic approach that includes considerations

of spirituality while also broadening our practice to respond ethically
to sexual and gender diversity. We drew upon Mullaly’s (1997) notion
of oppression to argue that not all oppressions are created equal, and
that the welfare of the students as a whole outweighs the individual right
to classroom discussions that could harm students who are experiencing
and/or have experienced systematic oppression. However, some means
of responding to students who struggle with the interface of their per-
sonal beliefs with professional social work values is required. In our
experience, individual conversations with students increase dialogue
within schools of social work. While this is not sufficient, it is a starting
point. We also need to be clear about the limits of classroom discussions

and design assignments and exercises that allow students to see them-
selves as complex, yet accountable to a code of ethics that prioritizes sys-
temic oppression to individual discomfort.
Educators are encouraged to approach their students with the as-
sumption that queer students, feminists and students with Fundamental-
ist beliefs are all present. While it is important to prevent harm from
taking place or managing any hurt that may arise in discussions, we need
to place our truths as open for discussion and debate. In other words, we
encourage educators to approach tensions between social work values
and Christian Fundamentalist beliefs with less surety and judgment,
while remaining vigilant against the ease with which explicit harm, and
even more subtle reproductions of patriarchy and heterosexism can
shape a classroom.
One important question that faces our profession today is if students
and practitioners with Fundamentalist values can separate these beliefs
from their professional practice with clients. Although we have briefly
explored this issue by focusing on our experiences as educators, more
discussion and research in this area should be undertaken as we have
just begun this discussion. The prospect of negotiating Fundamentalism
in social work classrooms raises questions that require a critical reflec-
tion on our own belief systems, a rethinking of social work anti-oppres-
sive values and ethics, and a consideration of our role as educators within
the academy. Our discussion is certainly not designed to provide con-
clusive answers to the scenarios explored. We hope this conversation
will encourage others to critically reflect on how secularity, equality,
justice, heterosexism, Fundamentalism, academia and spirituality con-
stitute and are constituted through the social work classroom.
NOTES
1. While this is a rather imprecise use of the term, we agree with Schick et al. (2004,
p. 3) that such a mobilization of Fundamentalism is helpful when trying to understand
movements which may be diverse but also resemble one another quite significantly.
2. Students were referred to an unpublished paper that was presented in 2003 at the
Valdosta State Women Studies Conference in Valdosta Georgia. The paper was deliv-
ered by Michael Stoltzfus and is titled Homosexuality and the Bible: Rethinking Tradi-
tional Interpretations (2003). Daniel Helminiak’s What the Bible Really Says About
Homosexuality (2000) was also used.
REFERENCES
Abella, R. S. (2003, July 5). A Battle That Never Ends. The Globe and Mail, p. A15.
Ai, A. (2002). Integrating Spirituality into Professional Education: A Challenging but
Feasible Task. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 22(1/2), 103-130.
Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why Do Religious Fundamentalists Tend to Be Prejudiced? The
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 13(1), 17-28.
Amato-von Hemert, K. (1994). Should Social Work Education Address Religious Is-
sues? Yes! Journal of Social Work Education, 30(1), 7-11.
Baird, V. (2001). The No Nonsense Guide to Sexual Diversity. Toronto: Between the
Lines.
Berkman, C., & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and Heterosexism in Social Work.
Social Work, 42(4), 319-332.
Blackburn, J. (2000). Understanding Paulo Freire: Reflections on the Origins, Con-
cepts and Possible Pitfalls of his Educational Approach. Community Development
Journal, 35, 3-15.
Bowpitt, G. (2000). Working with Creative Creatures: Towards a Christian Paradigm
for Social Work Theory with Some Practical Applications. British Journal of Social
Work, 30(349-364).
Brotman, S., & Ryan, B. (2002). Reclaiming space–regaining health: The health care
experience of two-spirit people in Canada. Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 14(1),
67-87.
Cain, R. (1996). Heterosexism and Self-Disclosure in the Social Work Classroom.
Journal of Social Work Education, 32(1), 65-76.
Campbell, C. (2002). The Search for Congruency: Developing Strategies for Anti-Op-
pressive Social Work Pedagogy. Canadian Social Work Review, 19(1), 25-42.
Campbell, C. (2003). Principles and Practice of Anti-Oppressive Pedagogy as Repre-
sented by Dr. Terry Swice. In W. Shera (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Anti-Op-
pressive Practice. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Canda, E., R. (1998). Afterword: Linking Spirituality and Social Work: Five Themes
for Innovation. Social Thought, 18(2), 97-106.
Canda, E., R., & Furman, L. (1999). Spiritual Diversity in Social Work Practice, The
Heart of Helping. USA: The Free Press.
Canda, E., R., & Smith, E. (Eds.). (2001). Transpersonal Perspectives on Spirituality
in Social Work. New York: The Haworth Press, Inc.
Carroll, M. (1998). Social Work’s Conceptualization of Spirituality. Social Thought,
18(2), 1-13.
Chand, A., Clare, J., & Dolton, R. (2002). Teaching Anti-Oppressive Practice on a Di-
ploma in Social Work Course: Lecturers’ Experiences, Students’ Responses and
Ways Forward. Social Work Education, 21(1), 7-22.
Cheng, M., & Soudak, A. (1994). Education to Promote Racial and Ethnocultural
Equality: A Literature Review. Spectrum, 12(1), 28-40.
Chrichlow, W. (2004). Buller Men and Batty Bwoys: Hidden Men in Toronto and Hali-
fax Black Communities. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Clark, P. (1999). To Treat or Not to Treat: The Ethical Dilemma of Alternative Medi-
cine Therapies. AIDS and Public Policy Journal, 14(3), 117-131.

Coholic, D. (2003). Incorporating Spirituality in Feminist Social Work Perspectives.
Affilia, 18(1), 49-67.
Coholic, D. (2003). Student and Educator Viewpoints on Incorporating Spirituality in
Social Work Pedagogy–An Overview and Discussion of Research Findings. Cur-
rents: New Scholarship in the Human Services, 2(2).
Derezotes, D. S. (1995). Spirituality and Religiosity: Neglected Factors in Social Work
Practice. Arete, 20(1), 1-15.
Dinerman, M. (2003). Editorial, Fundamentalism and Social Work. Affilia, 18(3),
249-253.
Dittman, R. (2003). Policing Hate Crime. From Victim to Challenger: A Trans-
gendered Perspective. Probation Journal: The Journal of Community and Criminal
Justice, 50(3), 282-288.
Dominelli, L. (2003). Anti-Oppressive Social Work Theory and Practice. Hampshire:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Dorais, M. (2004). Dead Boys Can’t Dance: Sexual Orientation, Masculinity and Sui-
cide. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Eisenberg, D., Davis, R., Ettner, S., Appel, S., Wilkey, S., Vanrompay, M. et al. (1998).
Trends in Alternative Medicine Use in the United States, 1990-1997–Results of a
Follow-Up National Survey. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(18),
1569-1575.
Eliason, M. J. (1996). Who cares? Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the health care
system: Institutional barriers to care. New York: NLN Press.
Findlay, B. (June 1999). An Introduction to Transgendered Women: An Equality Anal-
ysis, from http://www.barbarafindlay.com
Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Continuum Publishing
Company.
Gibson, P. (1994). Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide. In G. Remafedi (Ed.), Death
by Denial: Studies of Suicide in Gay and Lesbian Teenagers. Boston: Alyson.
Gorsuch, R. (1988). Psychology of Religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39,
201-222.
Helminiak, D. (2000). What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality. New Mexico:
Alamo Square Press.
Herek, G. M., & Berrill, T. (Eds.). (1992). Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against
Lesbians and Gay Men.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hodge, D. R. (2002). Does social work oppress evangelical Christians? A “New Class”
analysis of society and social work. Social Work, 47, 401-414.
Hodge, D. R. (2003). Hodge Responds. Social Work, 48(3), 431-432.
Hughes, J., Chau, S., James, P., & Sherman, S. (2003). Controversies, Tensions, and
Contradictions: Anti-Oppression and Social Work Curriculum. In W. Shera (Ed.),
Emerging Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive Practice.Toronto: Canadian Scholars’
Press Inc.
Hunter, S., & Hickerson, J. (2003). Affirmative Practice: Understanding and Working
with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons. Washington: NASW Press.
Kamya, H. (2000). Hardiness and Spiritual Well-Being Among Social Work Students:
Implications for Social Work Education. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2),
231-240.
Kinsman, G. (1996). The Regulation of Desire: Homo and Hetero Sexualities. Mon-
treal: Black Rose Books.
Kothari, U. (2002). Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory Develop-
ment. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The New Tyranny. London:
Zed Books.
Krieglestein, M. (2003). Heterosexism and Social Work: An Ethical Issue. Journal of
Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 8, 2/3, 75-91.
Lepischak, B., & Moffatt, K. (in press). Supporting our Youth: Development of a Commu-
nity Based Response to Risk and Marginalization of LGBTT Youth. In S. Todd &
B. Lee (Eds.), A Casebook of Community Practice: Problems and Strategies. Don
Mills: CommonAct Press.
Lotz, J. (1997). The Beginning of Community Development in English Speaking
Canada. In B. Wharf & M. Clague (Eds.), Community Organizing: Canadian Expe-
riences. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Margolin, L. (1997). Under the Cover of Kindness: The Invention of Social Work.
Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.
Martindale, K. (1994). My Lesbian Breast Cancer Story: Can I Get a Witness? In
M. Oikawa, D. Falconer & A. Decter (Eds.), Resist: Essays Against a Homophobic
Culture. Toronto: Women’s Press.
McRoberts, O. (1999). Understanding the “New” Black Pentecostal Activism: Lessons
from Ecumenical Urban Ministries in Boston. Sociology of Religion, 60(1), 47-70.
Messinger, L. (2002). Policy and Practice: A Holistic Approach to Addressing Homo-
phobia and Heterosexism Among Social Work Students. Journal of Lesbian Stud-
ies, 6, 3/4, 121-132..
Miller, J. (1996). Shingwauk’s Vision: A History of Native Residential Schools. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Mitchel, A. (May 29, 2004). Welcome to Canada’s Gay High School. The Globe and
Mail, p. F6.
Mullaly, B. (1997). Structural Social Work: Ideology, Theory and Practice (2nd ed.).
Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Nash, M., & Stewart, B. (Eds.). (2002). Spirituality and Social Care–Contributing to
Personal and Community Well-Being. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Nathanson, I. (1995). Divorce and Women’s Spirituality. Journal of Divorce & Remar-
riage, 22(3-4), 179-188.
Okundaye, J. N., Gray, C., & Gray, L. B. (1999). Reimaging Field Instruction from a
Spiritually Sensitive Perspective: An Alternative Approach. Social Work, 44(4),
371-383.
Razack, N. (1999). Anti-Discriminatory Practice: Pedagogical Struggles and Chal-
lenges. British Journal of Social Work, 29, 231-250.
Reamer, F. G. (2003). Social Work, Evangelical Christians, and Values. Social Work,
48(3), 428-430.
Reed, L. (1998). What’s It Like Growing Up in a Fundamentalist Religion? AASW
Queensland Branch Newsletter, 4, 24-29.
Ressler, L., & Hodge, D. R. (2000). Religious Discrimination in Social Work: An In-
ternational Survey of Christian Social Workers. Social Work and Christianity,

27(1), 49-70.
Rivers, I. (1997). Violence Against Lesbian and Gay Youth and Its Impact. In
M. Schneider (Ed.), Pride and Prejudice: Working with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual
Youth. Toronto: Central Toronto Youth Services.
Romney, P., Tatum, B., & Jones, J. (1992). Feminist Strategies for Teaching About
Oppression: The Importance of Process. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 20, 95-110.
Rossiter, A. (2001). Innocence Lost and Suspicion Found: Do we educate for or against
social work? Critical Social Work, 2 (pp. http://www.criticalsocialwork.com/CSW_
2—1_1.html).
Russel, R. (1998). Spirituality and Religion in Graduate Social Work Education. Social
Thought, 18(2), 15-29.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1994). Verbal and Physical Abuse as Stressors in the Lives of
Lesbian, Gay Male and Bisexual Youths: Association with School Problems, Run-
ning Away, Substance Abuse, Prostitution, and Suicide. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 261-269.
Schick, C., Jaffe, J., & Watkinson, A. M. (2004). Contesting Fundamentalisms. Black
Point: Fernwood.
Schuetz, J. (2001). Relocating Religion in the Secular University. Listening, 36(2),
102-113.
Schwartz, R. C. (1999). Releasing the Soul: Psychotherapy as a Spiritual Practice. In
F. Walsh (Ed.), Spiritual Resources in Family Therapy (pp. 223-239). New York:
The Guilford Press.
Sheridan, M. J., Wilmer, C. M., & Atcheson, L. (1994). Inclusion of Content on Reli-
gion and Spirituality in the Social Work Curriculum: A Study of Faculty Views.
Journal of Social Work Education, 30(3), 363-376.
Sheridan, P. (1997). Preparing to Work with Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth. In
M. Schneider (Ed.), Pride and Prejudice. Toronto: Central Toronto Youth Services.
Stoltzhus, M. (2003). Homosexuality and the Bible: Rethinking Traditional Interpreta-
tions. Paper presented at the Valdosta State Women’s Studies Conference, Valdosta
Georgia.
Streib, H. (2001). Fundamentalism as a Challenge for Religious Education. Religious
Education, 96(2), 227-244.
Swan, T. (2002). Coming Out and Self-Disclosure: Exploring the Pedagogical Signifi-
cance in Teaching Social Work Students About Homophobia and Heterosexism.
Canadian Social Work Review, 19, 1, 5-23.
Valverde, M. (1991). In the Age of Light, Soap, and Water: Moral Reform in English
Canada 1885-1925. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Van Voorhis, R., & Wagner, M. (2002). Among the Missing: Content on Lesbian and
Gay People in Social Work Journals. Social Work, 47(4), 345-354.
van Wormer, K., Wells, J., & Boes, M. (2000). Social Work with Lesbians, Gays, and
Bisexuals: A Strengths Perspective. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
Walkowitz, D. (1999). Working with Class: Social Workers and the Politics of Middle-
Class Identity. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
Walsh, F. (Ed.). (1999). Spiritual Resources in Family Therapy. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Wehbi, S. (2003). Beyond the Role Play: Alternative Teaching Methods in an Anti-Op-
pression Classroom. In W. Shera (Ed.), Emerging Perspectives on Anti-Oppressive
Practice. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc.
Wills, G. (1992). Values of Community Practice: Legacy of the Radical Social Gospel.
Canadian Social Work Review, 9(1), 28-39.
doi:10.1300/J067v27n03_02

Sarah Todd - Diana Coholic - Christian Fundamentalism and Anti-Oppressive Social Work Pedagogy

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Sarah Todd - Diana Coholic - Christian Fundamentalism and Anti-Oppressive Social Work Pedagogy

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGE\>8QLYHUVLW\RI:DVKLQJWRQ@

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

ABSTRACT. Christian fundamentalist religious beliefs, expressed by

KEYWORDS. Fundamentalism, anti-oppression, pedagogy, sexuality,

Recently, discussions about Fundamentalism and its intersections

movements that “profess to be upholding some kind of orthodoxy or right

we ask of students. We consider the difficulty of addressing Fundamen-

whether there is a need to develop pedagogical practices that expand our

SOCIAL WORK, RELIGION AND FUNDAMENTALISM

In North America, the historical connection between religion and so-

oppression. A universal spirituality is also unlikely to escape becoming

needs to guide future innovation in spirituality. He argued that at a mini-

Important to our discussion of Fundamentalism, diverse gender ex-

The goals of such a teaching method include challenging how systems

Since people are social beings and live in societies, no one is

barriers, expectations, regulations, and so on. One could make

Thus, while the silencing and/or marginalization of students with Chris-

Anti-oppressive approaches to social work rely on the belief that dia-

sciousness-raising, which is central to anti-oppressive pedagogy, may

tures, relationships and gender expressions. We understand these atti-

Experiences in the Social Work Classroom

In our first example, students were asked to write a paper in which

references contained a significant, even righteous, truth. The students

between some students’ religious beliefs and the course material. We

used in class regarding oppression, oppressed him as the lone male.

religious) beliefs can be hurtful. The people who might be negatively

Although we briefly discussed examples in which Fundamentalist

whelming majority of students and faculty not only believed but

Accordingly, we are challenged to not assume a uniformity of sec-

students feel respected and understood, they will withdraw or become

that secular society is rooted in religious frameworks and a pedagogy is

We began this discussion by wondering whether the anti-oppressive

that is shifting to a more holistic approach that includes considerations

point. We also need to be clear about the limits of classroom discussions

cine Therapies. AIDS and Public Policy Journal, 14(3), 117-131.

ternational Survey of Christian Social Workers. Social Work and Christianity,

Potrebbero piacerti anche

7KLVDUWLFOHZDVGRZQORDGHGE\>8QLYHUVLW\RI:DVKLQJWRQ@