I’m an evangelical pastor. I taught in a Christian school for twenty years, and I taught an introductory Bible class for a Christian college for several years. I love the Bible, I love the literary aspects of the Bible, and I love its life-changing power. It may seem odd, then, that I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of a Bible class in public schools. And yet, this is the place I find myself not because I am embarrassed of the Bible, but because I am protective of it, and of those students for whom it is a foundational, revelatory text for their faith.
First, a class that merely present the Bible as important literature reduces the Bible to just another book about religious ideas. I happen to believe it is inspired revelation; I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but that's an essential part of the Bible for followers of Jesus. What happens when that is not part of a curriculum? Well, we don't have to guess. England has taught the Bible in public schools for years. Meanwhile, the percentage of people claiming to be Christian has plummeted, especially among those under thirty. Here's the dilemma: teaching the Bible as literature is entirely different than teaching that the Bible as revelation. There is a reason atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens advocated the idea that the Bible should be taught in schools. They weren’t concerned at all about it having a religious influence, because they knew who would control the context. It would be treated as an interesting mythological text at best (with maybe some good ideas like all mythology), or it would be presented as a joke at worst. Just to get a feel for where this would go in the United States, check out this article from
The Telegraph: “WANTED: Atheist to teach religion. Knowledge of the Bible not necessary but experience of asylum seekers an advantage.”
Second, whoever writes the curriculum or teaches the class is going to have a HUGE influence on how the students absorb what they are presented. I doubt a curriculum is going to be a curriculum from David C. Cooke or Zondervan. It’s going to be from someone like Harcourt-Brace (they make great resources for teaching literature, btw. I used their stuff for years). If David C. Cooke were to make a curriculum about Islam, do you think their bias would creep in? Of course it would, and that's not an insult. It's inevitable. There will be a position taken about the subject matter by whoever makes the curriculum, and that position will influence how teachers and students process the information. Even if the curriculum were from a Christian source, the teacher would influence how the curriculum is presented. If you are in education, you know how this will work: the class is more likely to be taught by someone whose schedule is not full than someone who is interested in treating the Bible as sacred scripture. Asking someone who is ambivalent or even directly opposed to the messages of the Bible to teach the Bible would be like asking me to teach a class on Scientology. Yeah, it’s never going to get the benefit of the doubt. There's also no way I can honestly represent the beliefs and experience of a passionate Scientologist.
What if it were a zero hour elective that could be taught by someone who is invested in the integrity of the Bible? If you like that idea a lot better, just know that means than anyone with a religious perspective will be welcome to do that as well. If you didn't like Satanists opening government meetings in prayer after Christians were allowed to, then brace yourself for religious (and irreligious) views of all kinds taking their place at the table, empowered by the same laws that allow a Bible elective. In my opinion, this is not a can of worms we want to open. [1] We could avoid this if we strike down the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses in the First Amendment, of course. I really hope that all of us agree that's a very bad idea.
There's a reason public schools have tried to avoid this kind of scenario for a very long time. There's a reason government properties don't put up holiday decorations that favor a religious theme. If it's come one, it's come all. It gets very, very messy. For everybody.
Third, even simply reading passages of Scripture without a curriculum is going to create significant problems. There is proposal in Idaho in which students would simply have 20 verses from a King James Bible read to them. That's it. (This is an update added in 2024.) Really? The King James? With no context? From any part of the Bible? I'm a committed follower of Jesus who loves diving deeply into the Bible, and I don't like this idea at all. If you are a Christian and you are reading this, take a moment to think about passages that require teaching and study - sometimes a lot - to understand how they fit into the meta narrative of the Bible. Try Ezekiel 23, Genesis 34, 2 Samuel 13, Psalm 137, Song of Solomon, Judges 11, Old Testament Law in general, Noah's drunkenness, the taking of Canaan by the Israelites, Abraham's tryst with a woman he thought was a prostitute, or those times he claimed his wife was his sister... what about Jesus saying we have to hate our father and mother to follow him?
That's just scratching the surface. If you are thinking, "Hey, that is not fair to the text!" I agree with you. It's not. It's deeply unfair, and that's the problem. The Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, cannot be appreciated without deep understanding of the context, the subtext, the culture, the language, the worldview, styles of writing...so. many. things. There is no way simply reading 20 verses a day without context or conversation provides spiritual formation. If anything, I fear it will escalate confusion.
Fourth, this is going to be difficult for Christian students. Envision a class in which the teacher or the text claims the book of Exodus chronicles God-ordained genocide. Or maybe the reading for the day is 1 Samuel 15 or Deuteronomy 20. How many middle or high school students can offer John Walton’s or Paul Copan’s arguments against a genocidal reading of those texts? And Old Testament Law? Oh boy. Apocalyptic literature? An understanding of covenants, and why animal sacrifice was important to the ANE? Any concept of cultural context that adds soooooo much explanation to so many confusing things? How the Household Codes of the Romans or the cultural institution of Roman slavery were acknowledged but radically improved in Paul’s writing? Would they be assigned Sarah Rudan’s Paul Among The People or Matthew Rueger’s Sexual Morality In A Christless World before engaging Paul's teachings on sex, slavery, and the role of women in the family and church in the early church?
It is the job of the church and Christian educational institutions to make the gospel message of the Bible compelling. The government’s job is to protect our freedom to do that.
If the culture needs to know more about the God revealed in Scripture, well, church, that's our job. We don't need and shouldn't want the government to do our job for us.
_____________________________________________________________
[1] And I guarantee, that can will open. Consider what would happen if a public time of prayer were returned to public schools. A Christian prayer will only happen if prayers from any and all other traditions, religious and non-religious, are welcome. I believe there is an assumption that returning prayer to schools will return the Judeo-Christian God to school. That's too shortsighted. It will return every god to school.
