IMPOLITE TOPICS

Welcome back!

The controversies over teaching religion in public schools are especially acute on the topics of evolution and creationism. Various Christian groups advocate teaching creationism—recently renamed “intelligent design”—in public schools. Advocates want to counter what they regard as the false theory of evolution. Or, to use the phrase they repeat frequently, evolution is “just a theory.” 

While some staunch anti-evolution proponents argue that creationism should be taught instead of evolution, most conservative Christian politicians offer a different solution. Schools should teach both evolution and creationism as two equally valid systems of thought.

President George W. Bush expressed this opinion in a news conference in August 2005. This is what he said in response to questions by Ron Hutcheson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram

“Q I wanted to ask you about the — what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?
“THE PRESIDENT: I think — as I said, harking back to my days as my governor . . . Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.
“Q Both sides should be properly taught?
“THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.
“Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?
“THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.”  George W. Bush

 Both John McCain and Sarah Palin publicly advocate the same position. Creationism should be taught in public schools along with evolution.

As long as teaching evolution and/or creationism remains a matter of exposure to different viewpoints, once again the irreconcilable difference comes back to a matter of faith. As long as the issue is a matter of choosing between opposing beliefs, there can be no resolution.

Meanwhile, the real issue remains unstated. The heart of the matter is the question of genre. In classical rhetoric, one of the primary questions about any proposition concerns definition: “What is it?” (quid sit.) The question of “what is it?” underlies almost every conflict between differing religious viewpoints about the Bible.

There is no better place to begin than the beginning. Let’s look at the first creation account in Genesis. (The fact that there are two creation accounts in Genesis is a significant fact, which I’ll come back to in a later post.)

Genesis 1:1-2:13

1:1 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, 1:2 the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 1:4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 1:5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. 1:6  And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. 1:7 So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. 1:8 God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. 1:9 And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 1:10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 1:11 Then God said, “Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.” And it was so. 1:12 The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. 1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 1:15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 1:16 God made the two great lights–the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night–and the stars. 1:17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 1:18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.” 1:21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 1:22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 1:23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. 1:24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so. 1:25 God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” 1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 1:28 God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.” 1:29 God said, “See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 1:31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. 2:3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation (New Revised Standard Version.)

The conflict over whether or not to teach intelligent design and/or creationism in public schools with the same attention given to teaching evolution comes down to this basic question.

 What is Genesis 1:1-2:3?

Expressed another way, the core conflict between creationists and evolutionists comes down to the distinction between history and myth. The real question is: Is this first Genesis creation account history or is it myth? And with this question, we have two more “quid sit” questions. What is “history?”  What is “myth?”

Now we have come to another problem, the distinction between ordinary speech and scholarly definitions. 

If you ask the  proverbial “man on the street,” the average person, the ordinary Joe or Jane, “What is  the difference between history and myth?” you will probably get some version of this answer. History is an account of what really happened. Myth is a false story. The difference between history and myth is the difference between truths and lies.

Ask a scholar the same question, and you will get significantly different answers. This is one of the reasons that scholars are so seldom heard in public debate. Scholars need to define categories, define words, and define questions, to be precise. This need to be precise often drives other people crazy and makes it hard for scholars to get to the point. (In the words of that old adage, It takes one to know one. I live this tendency every day.)   

Here are three definitions of  myth.

A traditional sacred story, typically revolving around the activities of gods and heroes, which purports to explain a natural phenomenon or cultural practice. Myth

A usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.  Myth

An improvable story, almost always including miraculous events, that has no specific reference point or time in history. Myth

The great myths of the world answer the “Why?” questions. A mythic story gives meaning. It is not about truth or falseness, but it is about answering “Why?” A myth is not about what really happened but about why the world is the way it is.
  
What about the word “history?”  In school, we were taught that history books were true accounts about what really happened. Anyone who has studied a bit more about the making of histories understands something else.

Here are three definitions of history.

A chronological record of events, as of the life or development of a people or institution, often including an explanation of or commentary on those events. History

History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon. Napoleon Bonaparte

History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there. George Santayana

None of these definitions makes any claim that histories are accurate recounting of past events. Instead, they make clear that all histories are interpretations of events. This means that the real difference between myth and history is whether or not the interpretations include gods and other mythic figures, or whether they are limited to human beings and human events.

Those who argue that creationism should be taught in public schools are treating this first creation story in Genesis as a history—a  factual account of the way things really happened. The most ardent advocates of creationism and intelligent design take the whole account literally, and argue that God created the world in six 24-hour days.

Underneath creationism/intelligent design is the belief that this is history—in the terms of ordinary speech—and that the Bible is a true account of actual events.

Since creationists argue that the Bible is history, they are equally adamant that no part of the Bible is myth—using the ordinary speech definition of myth as an untrue story. And so we get to the real issue.

How do you reconcile the idea of an inerrant, infallible scripture with the idea of myth, when myth means a false story? The answer is that you can’t.

And so to maintain that the Bible is inerrant and infallible in all matters, including matters of history and science, Genesis must be treated as an accurate history of what really happened.

This is also the reason why the idea of evolution is such a source of consternation for Biblical inerrantists. Evolutionary science does not explain the origin of the natural world and living beings as the result of God’s action. Therefore, evolution cannot be reconciled with a belief in Genesis 1:1-2:3 as accurate history.

When we ask “what is it?” questions, we come to the real dilemma of teaching the Bible in public schools. If this account in Genesis is regarded as history, how does its accuracy square with accepted norms about teaching historical subjects?

A related question is: How does history relate to scientific theory? (The claim that evolution is “just a theory” deserves its own post.)

On the other hand, if the account in Genesis is regarded as a myth, how does teaching a myth compare with teaching a scientific hypothesis? Do they deserve equal treatment in the classroom?

The real problem with teaching both evolution and creationism/intelligent design in public schools comes down to teaching a religious belief on equal terms with a scientific theory.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

Going Broke With Jesus identifies untrue “myths” about what Jesus taught about money. Discover the difference between heroic stories about money and morality tales in Going Broke With Jesus: How Heroic Stories Intended To Liberate The Poor Become Biblical Urban Legends About The Evils Of Money. 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, creation stories, creationism, evolution, Genesis 1:1-2:3, George W. Bush, history, intelligent design, John McCain, myth, politics, religion, Sarah Palin, teaching bible in public schools

[This is the continuation of a series of posts beginning with "Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?" about the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to authorize the teaching of an elective course on Bible in public high schools. It brings to the surface just about every question imaginable about the relationship between religion, politics, and the Bible.]

1. Comment. An individual expressed the belief that knowledge of Biblical stories would be advantageous to understanding allusions/archetypes of literature, but finds the course necessarily limited. The individual suggests a complementary course in Greek/Roman mythology.

Agency Response. The agency has maintained language as filed as proposed. State law and rule do not prohibit the teaching of a course on Greek/Roman mythology.

 2. Comment. An individual stated that mythologies of the Norse, Greeks, Romans, and Babylonians as well as the holy works of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam had an enormous impact on Western literature and should be included in this course as well.

Agency Response. The agency has maintained language as filed as proposed. State law and rule do not prohibit the teaching of suggested additional courses.  Comments

These two comments and the official responses to them point out how much our current rules, laws, and practices have complicated any effort to reach consensus about the place of the Bible in our shared public lives.

They point out the unintended consequences of efforts to restrict teaching the Bible in public schools. The Texas State Board of Education has no such restrictions for other religious books or mythologies.

This leads to all sorts of interesting and disturbing situations.

I used to live in the Bay Area of California. The local paper—the Contra Costa Times—published an article claiming that children in the Byron school district were being forced to adopt Muslim practices at the same time they were not allowed to wear crosses or say the name of Jesus.

You can read the original article that was republished in newspapers and on the internet as well as responses to the claims in the story in “Mandated Teaching of Islam in California Public Schools-Truth! & Fiction!”

I have made a few excerpts from the article.

The message says “Public Schools Embrace Islam – A Shocker.” It focuses on seventh graders in Byron, California, and says that although students in a growing number of public schools cannot wear crosses or utter the name of Jesus, they are being required to attend an intensive three-week course on Islam including mandated study of the tenets of Islam, the important people of Islam, wearing of a robe, adopting a Moslem name, and staging their own Jihad. It says that the California-required course uses a textbook that says a lot more about Islam than about Christianity and quotes a teacher who says she couldn’t teach Christianity like that and can’t even say the name of Jesus in the classroom, but the seventh graders are learning how to pray to Allah. Mandated Teaching of Islam in California Public Schools-Truth! & Fiction!

Tom Adams, the administrator for curriculum framework at the state education department, told the Contra Costa Times that state guidelines (for seventh grade) do include a unit on Islamic civilization in the medieval world, however, it should be an academic approach on the historical significance of the religion. It should not be construed as an endorsement of it. Mandated Teaching of Islam in California Public Schools-Truth! & Fiction!

How the guidelines are implemented in the classroom is largely up to the teacher and critics say that in many classrooms, Islam has been emphasized while other religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have sometimes been hardly touched upon. In an article on WorldNetDaily.com, Diana Lynne said that other parents in California have reported Islam-related activities that have caused them concern. One parent says her daughter was indoctrinated about Islam for four months while in seventh grade in Elk Grove, California. She said one day, she arrived at school to find a banner in front that said “There is one God, Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet.” She says she had also seen children chanting from the Koran and praying. Mandated Teaching of Islam in California Public Schools-Truth! & Fiction!

Whatever the truth and fiction of this particular situation in Byron, it highlights some of the difficulties involved in teaching religion in public schools.

What is particularly ironic in the comments and responses in the Texas State Board of Education situation is that the rules and prohibitions against teaching the Bible in public schools do not apply to other religious sacred books, such as the Koran.

Although I don’t usually use the term “politically correct,” this is exactly the kind of situation in which the language of “political correctness” most applies, which complicates the whole effort to teach the Bible in public schools.

In the many years I subscribed to the Contra Costa Times, I noticed an evolution in how it treated Christian religious topics. I observed that Christmas and Easter—two major Christian holidays—were never mentioned on the front page. If they got any mention at all, it was about food drives to collect toys for poor children or meals served to the poor, but never on the front page.  The paper didn’t publish articles about Christian belief or practices at Christmas or Easter services. Meanwhile, the religious practices on holy days of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and other non-Christian groups received prominent treatment.

As an observer of religion, I became aware of this bias against acknowledging the religion of the majority population. In an effort to be unbiased against minorities, the paper practiced bias against the majority.

The second commenter claims that “the mythologies of the Norse, Greeks, Romans, and Babylonians as well as the holy works of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam had an enormous impact on Western literature.” It’s true that these mythologies and holy works have had influence, of varying degrees, but none of them has impacted Western society as much as the Bible.

And so we have a situation in which the religion of the majority of the population—and the sacred book of that majority—are treated as topics that must be controlled carefully, while the beliefs and holy books of other religious groups have no such guidelines.

As I continue to ponder the effort by the Texas State Board of Education to set guidelines to teach the Bible in public schools, I see no simple solution to the multitude of problems involved in this effort.

I remain convinced that any education that does not include the Bible would be equivalent to teaching students to read English using only the consonants and not allowing anyone to teach the vowels. The vowels are part of the alphabet and part of the language. To leave them out is to leave out a significant part of teaching anyone to read English.

The Bible has been an integral part of Western history—far more than Hindu, Buddhist, or Muslim scriptures. No one can be truly educated without it. But HOW to teach it in public schools in a way that respects freedom of religion—for Christians and non-Christians alike—remains the question. I don’t pretend to know the definitive answer. 

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, Bible in public schools, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Koran, muslim, teach, teaching Islam in California public schools, Texas State Board Of Education

[This is the continuation of a series of posts beginning with "Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?" about the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to authorize the teaching of an elective course on Bible in public high schools. It brings to the surface just about every question imaginable about the relationship between religion, politics, and the Bible.]

“The National Council of Jewish Women and an individual expressed concern that the vague guidelines under consideration focus on skills, not content, and include no meaningful standards schools can use to teach how the Bible has been influential in history and literature. The individual urged the adoption of clear, specific, and unbiased curriculum standards that promote a respectful study of the Bible and protect the religious freedom of students.”  Comments

The words in this comment that jumped out at me are: “focus on skills, not content.”
 
During my Air Force wife years in Arkansas, when I could not find a job because I had three-strikes against me—married, military, and Yankee—I joined the National Teacher Corps to find something to do with my life other than attend “Officer’s Wives Teas,” “Luncheons,” bake sales, and bridge games. Part of my Teacher Corps experience involved working as an intern in an elementary school in North Little Rock—the first elementary school in the district to be integrated.  

One day, all of the interns were required to attend a teachers’ convention on “reading skills.” We sat in a large auditorium and listened as speaker after speaker went to the podium and droned on and on about reading skills. At one point during a very long afternoon, I looked around the room with this thought in my mind: I wonder if any of these people love to read.

I had similar thoughts years earlier as I listened to my college roommate talk about reading skills. She was an elementary education major and her mother was the reading supervisor for a large school district. Between the two of them, they could talk about reading skills for hours. However, what I soon learned is that neither one of them much liked to read. I never saw my roommate read anything she wasn’t required to read.

And so, whatever “The National Council of Jewish Women and an individual” meant in their comments, I have a real concern about using the Bible as a textbook to teach “skills” in a way that misses the essence of the Bible itself. 

Since my years in Arkansas are on my mind, here is an example of what I mean.

I was in the National Teacher Corps during the school year of 1967-68. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was murdered in Memphis.

The night before he died, he gave his last speech, ”I’ve Been To The Mountaintop,” which ended with these words:

And then I got to Memphis. And some began to say the threats, or talk about the threats that were out. What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don’t know what will happen now. We’ve got some difficult days ahead. But it doesn’t matter with me now. Because I’ve been to the mountaintop. And I don’t mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land. And I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord. “I’ve Been To The Mountaintop” 

You can listen to the entire speech here.  (And I defy you to listen without being moved by these words.)

This “I’ve Been To The Mountaintop” speech is probably the best example I know of why knowledge of the Bible is essential for any educated person. These are the words of a black preacher who was immersed in biblical language and imagery. And he is also a man who knew that he was going to die.

The: “I’ve been to the mountaintop” language is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 34:1-5. After years of leading the people of Israel out of Egypt and in the wilderness, Moses goes up to the top of Mount Nebo and sees the “promised land.” 

Then Moses went up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, which is opposite Jericho, and the LORD showed him the whole land: Gilead as far as Dan, all Naphtali, the land of Ephraim and Manasseh, all the land of Judah as far as the Western Sea, the Negeb, and the Plain—that is, the valley of Jericho, the city of palm trees—as far as Zoar. The LORD said to him, “This is the land of which I swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants’; I have let you see it with your eyes, but you shall not cross over there.”  Then Moses, the servant of the LORD, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord’s command  (Deuteronomy 34:1-5, New Revised Standard Version.)

Moses saw the “promised land” that he himself would not enter. And King knew that he too would never see the “promised land” of racial equality that he envisioned in his even more famous, “I Have A Dream” speech on August 28, 1963.

How can anyone begin to grasp the power of the civil rights movement as a transformative force in American society who does not locate the motivation for this movement in a biblical vision of justice?

My concern is that “reading skills” teachers will point their students to the connection between King’s words and the reference in Deuteronomy 34 as a literary allusion, but miss the deep religious motivation behind the King’s quest for justice and equality. No one can begin to understand Martin Luther King’s role in the civil rights movement without understanding the place of the Bible in his life. 

And so my deepest concern is that the same type of educational process that can teach reading as a set of skills—without ever teaching students to love reading—will somehow drain the life out of the Bible, as “skills” educators devise guidelines to teach the Bible as simply a sourcebook for literary and historical references.

Once again, I return to the point I made in “Teaching The Bible In Public Schools: The Religious Elephant In The Living Room.” The Bible is a deeply religious book. If it were simply a sourcebook of literary allusions and historical references, no one would care very much if anyone taught it in pubic schools. 

The Bible matters precisely because it matters as a religious book, for good or bad. And it matters that educated people know how much the Bible—as a religious book—has mattered in our collective history.

And so, the challenge remains. How can the Bible be taught as a religious book without turning public schools into Sunday schools? 

I return to my previous assertion: ”It is possible for good teachers to teach the Bible as a religious book without indoctrinating anyone into a particular religious point of view.”

I promise that I will write much more about teaching the Bible in later posts.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, Bible in public schools, civil rights movement, I've Been To The Mountaintop, Jr., Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Martin Luther King, promised land, reading skills, teaching bible in public schools

[This is the continuation of a series of posts beginning with "Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?" about the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to authorize the teaching of an elective course on Bible in public high schools. This decision brings to the surface just about every question imaginable about the relationship between religion, politics, and the Bible.]

“A professor of comparative literature at The University of Texas at San Antonio and an individual expressed concern that the guidelines for teaching of the Bible in public schools are too vague and allow for the possibility of indoctrination rather than instruction.”  Comments

This comment exposes the core dilemma behind the attempt by the Texas State Board of Education to teach the religious book called the Bible without teaching it as a religious book.

The unnamed professor of comparative literature assumes that it is possible to instruct without indoctrinating. This is the false dichotomy that complicates the effort to teach the Bible in public schools.

The line between instruction and indoctrination might seem clear enough at first, but when you begin to ponder what these words actually mean, the line blurs. The truth is that teaching is never neutral and the best teachers are the ones who are most aware that they themselves are not neutral about any aspect of their subject matter.

This idea that any teacher can instruct without being doctrinal is the false dilemma behind this effort to teach a foundational religious document as something other than a religious book.The only way that this effort can succeed is by acknowledging at the outset that it is impossible to teach the Bible neutrally.

Bobby: “Psssst. Don’t tell anyone. It’s our secret! There’s an elephant in the living room, but we’re pretending it’s not really there and it’s not really an elephant.”
Billy: “But it smells and it’s enormous!”
Bobby: “Just ignore it. Maybe it will go away.”
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/info2/a/aa061197.htm

In various 12-Step recovery programs, the “elephant in the living room” is a metaphor for denial. As I ponder long and hard about the task of teaching the Bible in public schools, I can think of no better metaphor for the effort to teach the Bible for its history and literature while attempting to ignore that it is a religious book.

The beginning of a solution for the conundrum the Texas State Board Of Education has created is to stop pretending that the elephant will go away.

In fact, the Bible is a religious book. It is sacred to Jews, to Christians, and Muslims. Every religious group has its own doctrines about the book, but that is exactly the point. The Bible is as doctrinal a book as books can be.

So then the question becomes: How can anyone teach a religious book in public schools in a way that does not attempt to indoctrinate students into any specific religious understanding of the book?

Now we are getting into the tricky stuff. And this is where the quality of teaching becomes so critical.

Before we can consider the problems of teaching the Bible, we need to consider the problems of teaching anything. Let’s go back to the words “indoctrinate” and “instruct.”

In common speech, “instruction” sounds neutral and “indoctrinate” sounds biased, but when you go deeper, you realize that it is impossible to teach anything without being “doctrinal.” 

Let’s start with the words themselves.

• “Instruction” comes from the word “structure.” Instruction teaches something about the structure of a topic.
• “Indoctrination” comes from the word “doctrine.” It has the same root as the word doctor. A doctor teaches doctrine. Usually, “doctrine” refers to a body of teachings representing a specific set of beliefs.

As a teacher and student of language, I am fascinated by the concept of “in” as the prefix for both of these words.

• When you are “in-structed,” you enter “into” a specific structure of knowledge about a topic at the same time the structure of knowledge of that topic becomes part of you.
• When you are “in-doctrinated,” you enter “into” into a specific set of teachings (doctrines) at the same time the doctrines become part of you.

When you master a topic, the merging has become complete. The knowledge has become part of your “structure” and the “structure” of knowledge has become part of you. The set of teachings has become part of you and you have become part of the teachings. 

To put it another way, the set of doctrines has become part of your structure. “Instruction” has become “indoctrination.”

Even though this might be a bit too “woo-woo” here, my point is that the line between instruction and indoctrination is not as distinct as the professor of comparative literature implies. 

The Germanic root of the word “learn” is “to follow in the tracks of.” When you learn, you follow the tracks of a teacher who lays down a set of tracks for you. This means that there is nothing neutral about the teaching process. Every teacher has biases, points of view, and intentions as the teacher leads students “in” the way of mastery.

The major difference between good teachers and bad teachers is that the best teachers don’t pretend they are neutral and they are honest with their students about their lack of neutrality. They identity their own biases and they teach their students to recognize biases in themselves and others.

This is the art and science of teaching, whether the subject matter is the Bible, algebra, or English literature. And this is why the effort by the Texas State Board of Education is off track. It is trying to ignore the religious elephant in the living room that will not go away.

It is possible for good teachers to teach the Bible as a religious book without indoctrinating anyone into a particular religious point of view.

This will be the topic of my next post on this subject.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: indoctrination, instruction, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, teaching bible in public schools, Texas State Board Of Education

This is the continuation of a series of posts beginning with “Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?” about the decision by the Texas State Board of Education to authorize the teaching of an elective course on Bible in public high schools. It brings to the surface just about every question imaginable about the relationship between religion, politics, and the Bible.

Although my crystal ball is a bit clouded right now, I predict that the effects of this decision will echo throughout the land in courts and school boards for years to come.

In these posts, I will raise questions, objections, and suggestions for the problems involved in teaching what I am going to call, “The Public Bible” in public schools.

The Board has chosen to name the courses:

“Requirements for Elective Courses in the Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament and Their Impact on the History and Literature of Western Civilization.”

Let’s start with the name.

Nothing about language is ever neutral, and this decision to refer to Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament is a demonstration of language that is attempting to tiptoe through a minefield.

What are we going to call the portion of the Bible that is not explicitly Christian, and is the whole Bible for Jews? The Board has chosen to divide the Bible into two parts named the “Hebrew Scriptures, with “Old Testament” in quotations, and “New Testament.”

Already we have tripped the first mine.

At this point, I have a story to tell about the first time I stepped on a landmine about the name of this portion of the Bible.

During my doctoral work, I met regularly with a woman who was both a Professor of Political Science with a Ph.D. from University of California at Berkeley, and a Roman Catholic nun, who lived in community with other nuns at the private Catholic university where she taught.

Sister Barbara not only taught college level political science, she also offered spiritual direction. And so, I met with Sister Barbara for almost two years. She was without doubt the most radiant, happiest, and wisest person I have ever met, and I loved her dearly.

At one point, she invited me to spend a weekend on a mini-retreat in the convent, which was part of the college. I slept in a room that reminded me of my college dorm room, took showers down the hall, and ate meals with Sister Barbara in the nuns’ section of the cafeteria.

Sister Barbara had told me that very few young women were entering the convent.  During one of the meals, I met a young woman who was the only new member to join the order in recent years. The new member turned out to be a Jew who had converted to Christianity and decided to become a nun. Not very far into the meal, I told her that I was a doctoral student in Bible at the Graduate Theological Union, with an Old Testament emphasis.

I was completely unprepared for the explosion that followed. The new nun became irate and began to lecture me. “It is not Old Testament. It is the Hebrew Bible.” And she declared that she was “sick and tired of Christians who call it Old Testament.”  As I sat there, pulling out the shrapnel, I mused over a converted Jew in a convent who lost her temper when I mentioned the “Old Testament.”

Since then, I have heard many people argue for one name or another. Although I have never attended a meeting of the Texas State Board of Education, I can imagine many heated discussions over precisely this question.

“What do we call this section of the Bible?  If we call it “Old Testament,” we will offend many Jews. If we call it “Hebrew Bible,” we will offend many Christians.”

Let’s just look at the traditional Christian designations of “Old Testament” and “New Testament.” What does this mean?  Why old and new?  The simple answer is the old has been superseded because it was somehow deficient. If we add this to the idea that is prevalent in Christian churches that the Jews are part of the old covenant, this means that the old law that has been replaced by the new covenant, defined by grace instead of law.

So, out with the old!  In with the new!  They have the old stuff. We have the new stuff. But we really don’t want to offend Jews with the idea that their sacred book is “old” and needs to be replaced by something “new.”   

All of a sudden, “Old Testament” and “New Testament” are no longer simple historical designations. They are theologically loaded categories.

So, what do we do? One solution is to use the name, “Hebrew scriptures.” This seems like a good solution. Now we are not using a value judgment to identify this portion of the Bible

Since all of the books were written in Hebrew (with a few words and sections in Aramaic here and there,) let’s call the Bible the “Hebrew Scriptures” so that Jews will not be offended.

But then logic asks, is “Hebrew scriptures” really a parallel construction to “New Testament?” And if we are going to keep using the term “New Testament,” aren’t we still claiming that somehow this is the new and better covenant?

Here is another question–which I doubt came up in the discussions. If we are going to use language to designate the first part of the Bible, why not use language to designate the second part? Why not “Hebrew Scriptures” and “Greek Scriptures?” Now there is no value judgment about which is better. Both are simply referring to the original language. Yet, somehow, most Christians would probably ask, “Where is the idea of new covenant?  What happened to the “new” testament?”

And here’s another question. Why are they “Hebrew scriptures” in the plural, but the Christian portion is a singular “testament?”

I haven’t even asked all the relevant questions yet, but I will end for now with this suggestion.  As Bob–my friend from doctoral work who always started every conversion with a joke–put it, “What we have is the “Bible” (Old Testament) and the “Appendix” (The New Testament.)  By the way, Bob is now a New Testament Professor at a public university. This tongue-in-cheek suggestion acknowledges that there is a whole more Hebrew Bible than Greek Bible.

Here we are, not even past the name of the course, and we have already hit the first minefield. What shall we call the “The Public Bible?”

So far, the efforts of the Texas State Board of Education to name the course have raised more questions than answers.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Hebrew Scriptures, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, New Testament, Old Testament, public bible, teaching bible in public schools, Texas State Board Of Education

Religion, politics, and the Bible come together in the question: Should the Bible be taught in public schools? 

Broadly speaking there are three answers to this question.

• The first is a definite “NO.” The state has no business teaching religion and religion has no place in schools paid for with public money.




• The second is a definite “YES.” Public schools have no right to “ban the Bible” from the majority of the Christian population. Teaching religion in public schools is essential to educate a morally upright population.




• The third is a definite “YES with qualifications.” This position argues that the Bible is an essential part of our own history and culture. Study of the bible is necessary to understand literature and art, as well as the religious roots of our own history and government. However, the Bible must be taught “neutrally,” without bias for or against any religion.

As a prime example of the third position, the Texas State Board Of Education has approved an elective course about the Bible in the state’s public high schools.

What is striking to me is how hard the Board is trying to walk the tightrope of the third position, by acknowledging that the Bible has been an essential part of Western history, at the same time it attempts to lay out guidelines for teaching such a course that do not violate state and federal law. See “General Meeting.”

Here is: “Requirements for Elective Courses in the Bible’s Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament and Their Impact on the History and Literature of Western Civilization.”

The notes about the meeting also include  Summary of Comments about the proposed courses.

The proposed Bible courses raise significant questions about the connections between religion, politics, and the Bible. 

This course, and the comments about it, demonstrate the challenges of teaching a religious book without being religious about it in a society that is not supposed to promote one religion over another.

This is the dilmma that we face.  The Texas State Board of Education is attempting to meet that challenge head-on.

In my next post, I will make some comments about these course requirements and the comments.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: Bible, Bible in public schools, religion and politics, religion and the Bible, Texas Board Of Education