Should the Bible be Taught in Public Schools?<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Sean McDowell
 
            The cover story of this week's TIME magazine asks the question, "Should the Holy Book be on the public-school menu?"[i] Surprisingly, the answer given is, "Yes." As an avid TIME reader, I was quite taken aback to find a positive case for the teaching of Scripture in public schools.
            According to David Van Biema, TIME's senior religion writer, the teaching of the Bible in public schools is growing considerably. 60% of Americans are in favor of having the Bible taught as an object of study in public schools. Last year <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Georgia became the first state to offer money for Old and New Testament classes where the Bible is used as the primary text. The two largest producers of Bible curriculum for public schools report that there are 460 public school districts in 37 states that use their materials.
In this article I am going to summarize the positive case made by TIME, and then offer some critical reflection.
 
The Case for Teaching the Bible in Public Schools according to TIME

1. Teaching the Bible in public schools is constitutional. In the 1963 Supreme Court decision, Abington Township School District v. Schempp, the majority opinion concluded, "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Ammendment."
2. Biblical literacy is shockingly low. Only one in two adults know the title of even one Gospel, and most can't name the first book of the Bible, Genesis. George Gallup dubbed Americans, "a nation of biblical illiterates."
3. The Bible is the most influential book ever written. The Bible has done more to shape literature, history, entertainment, and culture than any book ever written. Its influence on world history is unparalleled, and shows no signs of abating. Even pop culture is deeply influenced by the Bible.

 
Critical Reflection
            Although it is positive to see TIME endorsing Bible teaching in the public school, and to recognize the positive impact the Bible has had on world history, there are a couple concerns that should be noted as to the approach. First, Van Biema asks, "Why teach the Bible and not comparative religion?" In other words, if Bible is offered as an elective then, he says, "it should be twinned mandatorily with a world religions course, even if that would mean just a semester of each" (46). According to Van Biema, since there are people of different faiths in America, then out of fairness, their beliefs ought to be presented as well.
            If Van Biema is so concerned about fairness and equal time, then why not argue for equal time for all the people who have a different perspective on the creation-evolution debate? Statistically speaking, far more Americans believe in Creationism or Intelligent Design over and against evolution than embrace a non-Christian religion. If he was truly concerned about fairness in education he would defend this view as well.
The Bible has been the primary book shaping American history and values. The Bible should be taught because it holds a unique place in our country, which is not true of any other religious text. I am not against comparative religion classes. But I am against the idea that Bible class must be twinned with comparative religion.
            Second, he says, "Concerns about whether a Bible Belt Christian teacher could in good conscience teach a religiously neutral Bible course also plagued me" (46). But why is this concern unique to Bible class? Does he share the same concern over the inability of a Secular Humanist to teach a politically neutral government class? Is he concerned whether a feminist will teach an objective sex-ed class? We cannot let this challenge go unmet, for there is a double-standard being applied to religious claims that should equally apply to all others or apply to none.
            These concerns aside, we should welcome the movement of public schools to offer Bible class electives. The focus being placed on the teaching of "fair and neutral education" opens the door for further discussions about abstinence education as well as evolution. If they are going to demand that Bible be taught from an objective perspective, then why can't we make the same case for science class?
We should be involved in any way we can to make this a reality. Chuck Colson favors Bible-literacy classes: "Would I prefer a more explicitly biblical Christian teaching? Of course. But you can't do that in public education. What you can do is introduce the Bible so that people are aware of its impact on people and in history and then let God speak through it as he will." Any chance we have to get teens to read the Bible is a good thing.
 

[i] David Van Biema, "The Case for Teaching the Bible" TIME (April 2, 2007), pp 40-46.