Archive for July, 2008

“Does Religious Authority Override Secular Authority?”

Welcome back!

When religious authority conflicts with political authority, which authority takes precedence?

Any consideration of the relationship between religion and politics in the United States must take into account that most churches, religious organizations, and ministers are tax exempt. Read more…

“Public Money For Religious Education: Pervasively Sectarian or Merely Religious?”

A recent decision by the United States Court Of Appeals Tenth Circuit raises significant questions about the relationship between religion and politics.

The question at issue was whether students at Colorado Christian College could receive scholarships from the State of Colorado.

In other words, should public money be used to fund private religious education? Read more…

“Teaching The Bible In Public Schools: The Religious Elephant In The Living Room”

[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

“Biblical Exegesis and Hermeneutics–What It Meant And What It Means”

As a biblical scholar, I can’t go any longer in this “Impolite Topics” blog about religion, politics, and the Bible without mentioning the two most important words behind every post I write. Read more…

“What Authority Will You Obey Above All Others?”

What authority in your life is primary? Is it God? The Bible? The government? Some person? An organization? A business? Whom or what do you fear the most? Or to ask the question in a different way, what authority will you obey above all others? Read more…

“Teaching The Bible In Public Schools…The Odd Couple of Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament”

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. Read more…

“Should The Bible Be Taught In Public Schools?”

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

“Why ‘Thou’ Language Misses The Point Of The Lord’s Prayer”

One of my most vivid memories from my first days as a seminary student was of the New Testament professor who stood at the front of the lecture hall, waving a book with a red cover.  The book was the United Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testament. It is a version for serious scholars, with dense textual notes about variant manuscript traditions. Read more…

“Is Godspeak A Biblical Language?”

“Words are static.  The world is dynamic.”
Dr. Ben Mack

I am a fan of crossword puzzles.  Occasionally the New York Times Crossword will provide a clue for a “biblical” word. The correct answer will be something like “shalt” or “hath.” Although I don’t get too annoyed by clues in crossword puzzles, every time I see this, I see it as a perpetuation of the idea that the King James English is authentic biblical language in a way that ordinary English of the early 21st century is not. Read more…

“John McCain’s Two Salvation Stories”

At this point in the presidential election campaign, John McCain’s candidacy depends on two salvation stories. The first story is of John McCain, prisoner of war. The second story is of John McCain, born-again evangelical. Read more…