“Is It Really Legal to Study the Bible

 in the Public Schools?”

 by Eleanor Rupp

 Many people do not realize that the Bible may be taught in our public schools.  Often these people do not even realize that for the educational welfare of the students the Bible needs to be taught.  Unfortunately, even when educators realize that it may be taught and that it needs to be taught, they do not include it in their curriculum for fear of possible legal problems.  As a result, even though the courts actually encourage the teaching of the Bible, few students have any knowledge of it.  The purpose of this textbook series is to give to public high school students a basic understanding of this great book which has so long been unnecessarily neglected in their education. 

This introduction will deal with the following considerations:  

•The necessity of teaching the Bible in the public school

•The legality of teaching the Bible in the public school

•The approaches to teaching the Bible in the public school

Why should the Bible be taught in the public schools?

No school can be considered a school of excellence if its students graduate without having received a basic knowledge of the Bible.  The Bible has been the single most influential book in shaping western culture.  An understanding of the Bible opens up understanding of our culture, our laws, our history, and even our speech.  American youth need to know their nation’s roots.

Northrop Frye, one of the most influential literary critics of this century, has written, 

The Bible forms the lowest stratum in the teaching of literature.  It should be taught so early and so thoroughly that it sinks straight to the bottom of the mind, where everything that comes along later can settle on it. 

Such a vast amount of writing contains biblical allusions that ignorance of the Bible cripples any meaningful study of literature. Every graduate of American public schools should have a thorough knowledge of the Bible.

In 1948 Supreme Court Justice Jackson stated regarding English classes:

Certainly a course in English literature that omitted the Bible... would be pretty barren...  One can hardly respect a system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for a part in which he is being prepared.

Just as literature cannot be understood fully without a knowledge of the Bible, neither can society nor culture be understood without this knowledge of the Bible.  E. D. Hirsch, in his book The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (p.1) states,

The Bible, the holy book of Judaism and Christianity, is the most widely known book in the English-speaking world...No one in the English-speaking world can be considered literate without a basic knowledge of the Bible...The Bible is also essential for understanding many of the moral and spiritual

values of our culture, whatever our religious beliefs.

Why should young people coming to America from other cultures study the Bible?

If students are going to understand the culture of their new land they must understand its most significant book.  It is impossible to be an intelligent member of a society or nation while neglecting to understand the thought patterns and the principles that formed that society.  Many of the rising generation will have no knowledge of this cultural heritage unless they learn it through our schools.

Is it legal to study the Bible in the public schools?

It has always been legal to teach the Bible in our public schools.

Unfortunately, however, many people are unaware of this.  They acknowledge that the Bible needs to be taught, but they are under the false belief that the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of the Bible in public schools illegal, when in fact it has not.

In 1963 the Supreme Court made a ruling, not against the study of the Bible, but against the devotional, religious use of the Bible.   Supreme Court Justice Clark stated:

It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.  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 Amendment.

Clearly the Supreme Court recognizes that the Bible may be taught in school--that the framers of our constitution never meant that freedom of religion mandated for young people an ignorance of the Bible or of religion.

What guidelines have the courts given for teaching the Bible in the public schools?

The Supreme Court did not forbid the teaching of any part of the Bible.  No event in the Bible, no word, was censored.  Their concern was only in how the parts would be taught.  The major issue regarding the use of the Bible in public schools becomes, not if it may be taught, nor if it should be taught, but how it may be taught in an academically responsible way.

To repeat Justice Clark,  

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 Amendment.

Justice Goldberg, when giving his concurring opinion regarding the Shempp case, said:

It seems clear to me ... that the Court would recognize the propriety of ... teaching about religion, as distinguished from the teaching of religion, in the public schools.

It is not information itself that the court has banned but the imposition of information--teaching for the purpose of belief or conversions.

In 1971 the Supreme Court established, among other things, that the public schools’ primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion. 

Justice O'Connor in 1984 enlarged upon this, saying that the schools may not convey a message either of endorsement or of disapproval.  In other words, the teachers may show their students what the Bible says, but they may not press it upon the students as beliefs they should hold or as teaching they should reject.  Schools may expose students to religions and to the Bible, but they may not impose these beliefs upon them.   For example, they may not say, "Students, you must accept this for yourself," nor may they say the opposite, "Students, we know that this information is false." 

A teacher might want to teach the story of Jonah and prove the account, while another teacher might want to teach the account in order to disprove it.  The factualness of Jonah, however, cannot be the issue.  The story of Jonah and the writer’s intentions must be the issue sought after in the public school class.

How are these guidelines a safeguard?

Some teachers and parents may be disturbed at these guidelines.  They may feel they are sure of what the correct understanding of the Bible is and may desire that those understandings be taught to the students.  By the same token, though, these teachers and parents should find some sense of satisfaction in the restrictions, for the same guidelines that prevent them from teaching any doctrine they wish and making any interpretation they wish also prevent people who have opposing doctrines and interpretations from teaching those opposing doctrines to the students. 

If the court guidelines are followed, parents should have no reason to fear that their children will be proselytized into changing their religious beliefs in a public school study of the Bible.  Certainly, giving students an understanding of the Bible, if it is done neither affirming nor disclaiming the book, cannot be looked on as proselytism.  The mere process of coming to understand thoughts cannot be equated with being a convert to those thoughts, for if that were so, we would have to forbid the study of all systems of thought beyond a small, shared, common core. 

How do we teach the Bible under these guidelines?

The court rulings allow a number of approaches to the study of the Bible.  The following six approaches are legitimate approaches whose use would depend on the educational experience, the needs, and the abilities of the students. 

First approach:  Study of historical and critical backgrounds

This approach seeks to know the background of the times and the writers.  It tries to determine who the authors were and whether their works have historical integrity.  It includes analyses of the dating of the book and the historical and cultural foundations of the book.  It opens up meanings of Hebrew and Greek words and their cultural intentions.  It seeks to know the origins of the writings.  Such scholarly studies have added a great deal to understanding the Bible. 

Second approach:  The Bible in literature

The use of the Bible in other works of literature is the main focus of this approach.  It examines biblical allusions and the use of biblical themes in other works outside of the Bible.  For example, a teacher teaching the works of Milton, which are saturated with the Bible, might teach Paradise Lost with the goal of showing how much Bible the work contains, or even how much of what Milton wrote was based on works outside of the Bible.  Or the course might be based upon works which never overtly refer to the Bible but which have clear biblical parallels in theme or characters.

Third approach:  Biblical literary techniques and devices

This approach examines the writers' structures.  It examines the style and the interrelationships of the parts.  A writer who produces good literature gives it in an artistic frame--at which the Bible writers were masters.  Knowledge of the writers' methods gives not only a greater accuracy in biblical interpretation but also a larger measure of enjoyment in the work.  It is a safe method because it deals only with what the author wanted to say and how he said it.  It does not deal with whether or not scholars are agreed on who the author was, or when it was written, or whether or not scholars agree with what was written.

Fourth approach:  The study of the Bible in culture

This method examines the place of the Bible in every area of culture, not just in literature.  It looks at biblically based art, music, laws, customs, and even language.  In such a course students see that western culture has been steeped in the Bible.

Fifth approach:  The study of the Bible as a mirror of the human experience

It has been said many times that every experience anyone will ever face is in the Bible.  This fifth approach brings the Bible characters and events into human life today.  It lays before the students situations that can be applied to their own lives.  For example, in this approach, students studying Jonah would be concerned to see his self-centeredness, his prejudice, and his indifference to human suffering.  Many teachers who use this approach say that in such a setting the classes become alive as students get deeper insight into the human condition. 

Sixth approach:  The foundational overview.

The Bible cannot be compared to an anthology of literature from which the reader picks and chooses what to read.  It is one overall "story" with a host of related, necessary subplots.  This approach gives students an overview of the Bible--a foundational knowledge.  The classes' main emphasis is in experiencing the stories in the framework of the one over-all story.  This approach holds that if the Bible is to be understood as a book the students need an organized body of information, not piecemeal information.

Are there any problems in these approaches?

It will be impossible for a public school class to meet the educational needs of the students if the teacher uses only one of these approaches.  Each, on its own, has problems.

What are the problems with the historical-critical approach?

Though the historical-critical approach is a legitimate study, it carries potential dangers.  It places upon the teacher, and ultimately the student, the problem of deciding which scholars should be heeded.  Since modern critical scholarship changes from generation to generation, the question needs to be asked how a high school English teacher can be expected to lead students in deciding which scholars are "correct."  Religious interpretations hang on which scholars are followed, thus it is difficult to enter these areas without violating differing religious interpretations and beliefs.  Since public school teachers are neither proving, nor disproving, the high school teacher who chooses this approach skates on thin ice.  Under this ice lie the forbidden waters of either affirming or disclaiming the Bible writings and biblical religions.

A comparison of other cultures will demonstrate the difficulty of meeting the educational needs of high school students using the first approach.  Imagine an American family moving to North Africa.  In order to understand the mind-set of the people of North Africa, the family enrolls in a course on Islam's sacred book, the Koran.  Suppose the teacher spent the whole time debating issues of the book's authorship--disputing whether or not Mohammed was the true author and when the book was actually written.  This teacher has not met the educational needs of that family.  They still do not know the Koran itself.  They do not have a feel of the book, neither do they understand the culture of North Africa any better.  

A class in the study of the Bible should not be an attempt to make students into Bible referees trying to make judgment calls.  A public high school course in the study of the Bible should educate students into the contents of the Bible itself, not into disputed areas of backgrounds.

It is safer to learn the concerns and aims of the writers rather than to debate disputed historicity.  We need to ask what the writers presented as the historical setting, what the writers gave as the historical perspective.  These men had reasons for what they wrote.  Our first concern is with the claims and with the events as the writers gave them.  For example, debate on the dating of Daniel should not be the classroom concern--rather, the concerns should be, "What does the writer of Daniel want to tell us?  When did this writer say these events occurred?  What did this writer intend the reader to see?

Do the rest of the approaches have problems?

Yes.  Whereas the first five approaches have value for those who already have a strong biblical background, for a student who has a limited knowledge of the Bible, studying the Bible for any length of time in those specific ways would give only a piecemeal view.  There would be no framework and no continuity in which to place the stories and characters and themes.  Piecemeal information is rarely assimilated and has little possibility of being remembered. The method chosen must not leave the students puzzled as to what the Bible is all about. 

Students might spend a majority of the time studying disputed authorship, dates, cultural backgrounds, literary techniques, the place of the Bible in culture, and yet never learn anything about the Bible as a body of literature.  In many cases, though not all, the knowledge of technical studies is not essential for their enjoyment and understanding of the biblical story flow.  The students should know and enjoy the "story" before they get into such studies.

For example, if students know literary techniques, such as Hebrew parallelism, but do not know the lives of the Hebrews, then they still do not know the Bible, they do not appreciate the Bible, nor do they understand why it has so long been the best seller.

What are the problems in the sixth approach?

It is easy for the foundational approach to become a mere memorizing of names and places and facts.  To know and enjoy the story requires more than this.  Students need to enter into the life the writer sought to portray and to relate the stories to the total picture of the human condition, seeing their own in it.  They should see why these stories hold such a place in our culture and what it is about them that makes them good literature. 

What approach is the best?

The choice should be a combination of all of the approaches, with the possible exception of the first.  (The difficulty in keeping on legal grounds may turn such a study into a battleground.)  The extent to which these approaches are used must be balanced with the time limitations and with the educational needs of the students.  Ideally, to provide the literary foundation for which Northrup Frye calls, students should be learning the stories of the Bible from the earliest grades.  Biblical literature should be incorporated into every age level.  Until it becomes a common practice to teach the Bible in elementary schools, teachers of these high school courses need to assume that their students do not have a biblical knowledge background.  Not everything can be taught in a one year course so we need to decide what is the greatest educational need which can fit into a one year course.

In a Bible course, more than in other literary studies, if the students are to understand the Bible's impacts and its place in our culture, they need to come away with a body of knowledge or information.   They must have first the knowledge of that overall story, and they must have the knowledge of the key stories that flow from it.  That body of knowledge, though, must not be simply a cataloging of names and events.  The students need to know names and events, but they do not really know them unless they have entered into an understanding of those human experiences.  The stories and events must rub against their own lives and experiences. 

Not until they have acquired that body of information (the larger story with its main parts), and have entered into its humanness, can they understand the Bible's greatness and its impact on the world. 

The fifth and sixth steps combined would thus become the bottom line in the high school class--the foundational overview joined with the study of relevance.  In addition, the teachers must personally come to understand the first four approaches and use them when they can illumine the students, but those approaches cannot be the focus of a class until the students have had an adequate foundation laid.  The teachers need to understand the insights of the other approaches but only bring them into the lessons to the extent that they give significant insights into, and understanding of, the story flow. 

Balancing the two considerations of the time limitations and the educational needs of the students, the type of course which would be most beneficial would be a foundational course which surveys the story of the Bible, giving students not only that needed body of knowledge but also understanding the stories' human relevance.  The teacher should be integrating other approaches according to the abilities and needs of the students.  Such a course would lay some of that foundation which Northrup Frye says must be laid for our youth that they may understand the culture and society in which they live.