Very informative article.
@Patrick, no doubt about it: Given some time, politicians can muck up just about anything.
Of course, there is a lot of pot-stirring and manipulations in the article—but I certainly agree that the idea of religious advocacy groups producing course materials is outrageous. There are lots of great Bible as Literature textbooks produced by excellent religious studies scholars. There should be no need to look elsewhere for course material which helps students learn the general themes of the Bible which impact American society (and world history) as well as lists of Bible phrases and vocabulary which appear in English literature and everyday speech. Those are some of the most important components of such a high school course if I were the teacher.
The author of the article, Professor Candida Moss, says
The problems with Biblical literacy courses are twofold. First, the focus on Judeo-Christian traditions to the exclusion of other religious traditions promotes the idea that Christianity is a privileged religion in the United States and misses an opportunity to educate children in the wide range of religious beliefs held by Americans.
Facts are facts, and high school students shouldn’t be shielded from history, even if that history is uncomfortable. Like it or not, Christianity has been and is a “privileged religion” in the USA because of the migration patterns primarily from Europe over several centuries. Saying that a course in Bible as Literature “misses an opportunity” to educate children on other topics is like saying that a traditional geometry course misses an opportunity to teach probabilities and statistics. No one course is meant to cover everything. One can always add other electives if one wants to diversify curriculum. (Or one can delay some topics until college. One can’t cover everything in high school.) Let’s be realistic: Christianity is a huge influence in American society and understanding it is a solid foundation on which to better understand the plight of religious diversity (and minority religions) in American culture, among other goals.
Second, it’s difficult to teach the Bible in a way that does not prejudice one particular denomination of Christianity.
I disagree. Facts are facts. Their presentation doesn’t have to “prejudice” any particular denomination. There’s not enough time in a high school literature course of one term to get into that kind of nuance and detail. If the course is “prejudiced”, then either the teacher or the textbook or both have been poorly chosen.
To give just one truly obvious example, Jews, Catholics, and Protestants do not use the same Bible. Catholics and Protestants don’t even agree on which books the Bible should contain, much less how we should understand the content of those books.
Irrelevant. Even the KJV, the most important Protestant Bible translation in English Bible history, included the Apocrypha. Protestant students need to understand why it was included and they need to understand why Jewish scholars also included the Apocryphal books in their Greek Septuagint even though they didn’t regard those books in the same way as the Hebrew Tanakh. In any case, facts of history should not be avoided simply because somebody in another country finds them inconvenient or uncomfortable! (Notice that the professor spun her complaint about Bible diversity in such a way as to give the false impression that the Apocrypha has not been an important text to Protestants and Jews as well as Roman Catholics! I will bet that many uninformed readers of her article fell victim to her manipulation on this topic.)
Add to this the fact that some denominations read certain passages metaphorically while others are more invested in literalist interpretations, and it’s very difficult to teach a Biblical literacy class in a non-sectarian manner.
Rubbish. There are plenty of high school and college-level Bible as Literature textbooks which have no difficulty presenting overviews of the history of literalist and metaphorial Bible interpretation. Of course a Bible as Literature course will help students recognize that the Bible has been read in diverse ways by diverse groups. I thought recognition of diversity was a major goal in American education nowadays. Sheesh! Ya just can’t please some people!
A single version will be used, and the selection of that text and the prioritizing of certain stories and perspectives over others will always lean in the direction of a particular kind of Christianity.
While the textbook for the course may focus on a single translation (although both the KJV and a modern translation are routinely cited due to language issues), it doesn’t really matter what translation students are reading outside of classes. The differences just don’t matter all that much for a high school course. (If a student’s favorite Bible translation has no Apocrypha, they can read those books at the school’s reference desk in the library.)
Christians should worry as much about denominational indoctrination as much as members of other religious groups and atheists should.
If the course teacher or textbook are guilty of “denominational indoctrination”, we all should worry—because the department chairperson and teacher aren’t doing their jobs properly.
I certainly agree with Candida Moss that religious organizations should have no role in the course content and textbook selection. Nevertheless, I’m not unaware of her life experiences in the UK and her own agendas concerning “secularization”, as well her TV pundit role on CNN and CBS as a commentator on American religion politics being loaded with biases and non-academic goals of her own.
The whole idea of totally avoiding the inclusion of a particular English literature elective (one offered in American schools for many decades now) simply because some professors complain, “It’s too hard to do!” and because many people think it too controversial or that it doesn’t teach some other worthy subject----that’s just sad. Reality is reality. Let’s teach it. That applies in science education. And it should apply to English literature education.
Some public high schools include an English department elective teaching Greek and Latin morphemes so that students can greatly enrich their vocabulary. This is driven heavily by students planning on going to medical school or pursuing careers in science. Is that “preferential” or even elitist? Should such a course be avoided because it neglects the far less significant linguistic influences of Hindi, Creole, and Russian languages in the history of the English language? Get real.