My first full-time teaching job was as a Latin and religion instructor at a religiously-affiliated (Episcopalian) middle and upper school. I had just exited seminary, and was now faced with the rather daunting task of teaching biblical literature to classes ranging from the seventh-grade level to seniors in high school. I was highly anxious and hopelessly naïve, but still confident that I could convey my experience of academically engaging the biblical text with a critical eye to these young students. It came as a surprise then that I was most often challenged not by the students themselves who embraced such an enterprise, but the parents. One particular seventh-grader came up to me one day, relating that she told her parents of our class on the tower of Babel story as an etiology, a creative mythic account explaining why things came to be for a particular audience. "My dad told me that you are wrong and that I should not listen to you," the student sweetly said, "but I like this class anyway."
I have ruminated on episodes like this recently as the issue of teaching the Bible in schools has entered public debate. The commonwealth of Kentucky passed a bill in the Senate in February proposing that "Bible courses" can be offered as electives. Known as Senate Bill 56, the stated intention of such legislation is "to acquaint students with a book that has had tremendous impact on American society and western culture." More recently in early March, the general assembly of the state of Arkansas passed a similar measure in the House to direct the Board of Education to adopt an elective course on the "academic study of the Bible" in any public school district. Such measures not only blur the line between government and religion but they should force parents and students to question whether such an adoption is truly worth the effort, and whether this movement is more politically inclined than pedagogically motivated. Using the Bible in courses at the secondary level is not only beneficial (Song of Solomon as an illustration of Hebrew poetry) but sometimes inevitable when discussing European history or art history. Unlike in Europe, where teaching a course on biblical literature is a non-issue, here in America it becomes a problem as the dip towards a more confessional and less-academic approach seems inevitable. By looking closely at both pieces of recent legislation, one can realize the problem of offering such a course in an American context.
The legislation from Arkansas, known as House Bill 1032, employs the phrase "academic study of the Bible" throughout, stating that the course would be "nonsectarian, nonreligious" and purely an unbiased study of the Bible and its influence on other disciplines. But what exactly are the representatives implying by invoking the word "academic" throughout? By consistently quoting the term "academic" in their legislation, the representatives are attempting to legitimate the teaching of the Bible as safely impartial and nonsectarian. But by justifying their stated intentions as "academic," the authors of the bill are really presenting a wolf in sheep's clothing. Personnel hired to teach such a course under the Arkansas bill's language shall be licensed to teach in the state, and will not be assigned to teach based upon a person's religious faith. In fact the bill goes so far as to say the course will not indoctrinate students as to "truth or falsity of the biblical materials." But nowhere in the bill's language does it state any requirement for a teacher of this course to be trained and prepared to truly instruct a class in the "academic" study of the Bible. The bill merely states what the teachers will not be, and nothing of what they should be: actually steeped in the discipline of biblical literature. Even in a private, religiously affiliated school, it was expected that a religion teacher would have a degree demonstrating their knowledge base in the discipline before setting foot in the classroom. With this legislation, it is unlikely any such instructor would be hired to teach an elective course. Instead, it will devolve as Rita Sklar of ACLU Arkansas fears, into classroom proselytizing. Sadly, many of us can recall moments in our secondary education where the teacher was woefully unprepared and unqualified to teach the material (where the instructor prefers to be addressed as "Coach"). The same standard must be applied for such an elective course or it will only be Sunday School in a weekday setting, and far from any "academic study of the Bible."
The Kentucky legislation that passed on the Senate floor 34-1 in February is even more aggressive in its language and intention. Unlike the Arkansas bill, there is no word or phrasing resembling the "academic study of the Bible." Kentucky seemingly does not desire a strictly "academic" study of the Bible but a course devoted to the study of the "Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament of the Bible." The bill contains no specific language as to personnel requirements of the instructor of such a course, and there is no clear and didactic mandate to teach the course objectively in a non-devotional manner. Unlike the Arkansas legislation, the Kentucky bill makes some curious moves regarding the course's implementation. According to the bill, students "shall not be required to use a specific translation" of the Bible in class. Any student is free to use a different translation than one specified by the instructor of his or her own choosing. For any student or instructor of biblical literature, this certainly opens Pandora's box. Not only are there multiple translations readily available of the Bible, there are many poor ones that manipulate the original text. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is usually regarded as the most scholarly translation, and easily accessible for classroom use. But there are many other translations that are intended for devotional usage not academic purposes, such as Eugene Peterson's The Message. Phrases of Jesus are updated to contemporary English, moving far from the original Greek where things are not only lost in translation but created ex nihilo. Allowing multiple translations in a classroom setting clearly reveals the motivations of voting such a class into the public school curriculum. An elective course on the Bible under these guidelines will not be an academic pursuit but a faith-based endeavor. And such legislation clearly favors and speaks from a Christian worldview.
There seems to be little impetus to provide the same energy applied to this curriculum change towards a study of the Bible in a global context, including the study of sacred texts like the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, or perish the thought, the Quran. Students (and lawmakers) would be surprised to discover that the scripture that seemingly endorses radical violence such as genocide, incest, and slavery are found in the holy book known as the Bible. Studying such controversial biblical stories would create very tangible and fruitful discussions of the nature of the Bible itself and its place alongside sacred books of other religions. The American Academy of Religion has even published guidelines for teaching religion in grades K-12. However, it appears highly improbable an elective Bible course will mirror such thoughtful models in its praxis. The representatives in both states are not as interested in developing critical thinkers as fomenting unquestioning believers sacrificed on the altar of creating good "character."
An elective course focusing on the "academic study of the Bible" is undoubtedly a noble pursuit. I teach such a course now at an undergraduate college and find it a keen contributor to a liberal arts education. I cannot, however, see such a course as outlined by these states' lawmakers as having the same type of impact. Opening the door to even an elective teaching of the Bible would only continue the sad tradition of myopically reading scripture, and would surely reduce to evangelism during school hours. Teaching the Bible "academically" is a serious enterprise, and it is easy to realize that such a course implemented under these guidelines would not be taken very seriously.
The recent legislation in these two states poses a larger question to the general public: why waste such energy on a problematic task when there are larger issues with education in this country. Students desiring a serious academic study of the Bible can easily find such courses at different institutions outside of a public school curriculum, and they will certainly not find such a course at publically funded high schools no matter what these bills say. Just as the young seventh-grader commented to me about her parent's displeasure with my teaching of the Bible, it consistently appears that the parents are more of the problem than the solution when it comes to curriculum choices. Instead of forcing a course that will ultimately become biased, why not let our young people explore other works of literature to hone their young minds and critical thinking skills. Let them read Shakespeare, Dante, Austen and Ellison. The Bible will always be there. It will be in their homes, their places of worship, and apparently always on the minds of politicians that seem to know best when to utilize the Bible to gain political capital.
Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jefferson's Wall of Separation Letter - The U.S. Constitution ...
The First Amendment Center is an excellent resource for educators and parents, and the publication Waters mentions is a fundamental starting point. Another important set of resources in this regard is provided by the Society of Biblical Literature, the oldest and largest learned society devoted to the critical investigation of the Bible from a variety of academic disciplines. SBL has created a website designed to help teachers create courses that are academically and legally sound. Its e-zine, Teaching the Bible, is aimed at secondary education teachers, and it has created a booklet, Bible Electives in Public Schools: A Guide, that focuses specifically on how to create and teach an appropriate course. For more information, see the resources at:
http://www.sbl-site.org/educational/thebibleinpublicschools.aspx
Mark A. Chancey
Chair, Department of Religious Studies
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX
Thank you again for an important column.
I think that studies of the Bible are best left to college curricula or to private instruction.
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.'
-- http://www.lp.org/platform
If the laws mentioned are unconstitutional, then they will be stricken. If the laws survive legal challenge, then why complain? The pubic forum should be open to all views.
Think of the firestorm of protest that would come from those same advocates of "religious freedom" when a teacher points out contradictions in the Bible, such as how the Gospel of Luke says that Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius (6-7 A.D.) but that the Gospels of Luke and Matthew say that Jesus was born in the reign of Herod the Great (who died in 4 B.C.).
The purpose of public schools should be to prepare children for life as adults by teaching them FACTS (to the best state of current knowledge), teaching them how to analyze and debate information and opinions and teaching them how to gather more information on their own. Religious education should be kept in religious institutions.
Like it or not, we are a pluralistic society -- even Arkansas and Kentucky. Having public employees elevate one one set of religious texts and one way of viewing them above the others is as un-American as elevating one race above others. Yes, there is a long history of Bible study in schools, just as there is a long history of state-endorrese racism. That doesn't make it right.
Facts sometimes lead to truth, but are not always truth itself. For example, the fact that someone is ill is a fact that may or may not lead to an effective cure. The Bible contains many facts and any judge will tell you that it isn't uncommon for different people to recount facts about a single event differently - even for events that occurred very recently. That said, the many facts of the Bible make it of historical significance. Some, however, seem to worry that in addition to facts, people may find truths in the Bible.
If a person's only concern is testing facts, then there should be no objection to teaching the Bible in school, as school is the place to test facts. It seems that many object to these proposed laws for the disingenous reason that they fear some may find truths in the Bible, truths that they would rather not accept.
The challenge with addressing world religions in schools (of any variety) is that it will be easier for instructors to become acquainted with the criticisms of varying faiths than it is to understand the truths and beauty found in each.
I have no objection to comparative religion classes where alternatives to christianity are discussed in an academic fashion, as is christianity itself and exposes students to the myriad of beliefs that they may encounter in the future.
But, this has always been rejected in favor of the holy bible, it is difficult to find alternate religious texts in the schools because of fear mongering by the right.
then it should be in the context of existing social studies courses, including history and civics.
if the Bible itself is to be studied, it should be done alongside the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita (or the whole Mahabharata), the Upanishads, the Mumonkan, the Confucian Analects and other texts. maybe even the unwritten religions of so-called 'pagan' societies, such as different American Indian nations, African & Asian cultures, etc.
i don't necessarily find "rich traditions" in a book soaked in blood, not counting slavery, misogyny, and more. traditions, maybe, but the only ones who got 'rich' were the priests and rulers.