Posted: 8/19/05
Controversy surrounds National Council on Bible Curriculum
By Ken Camp
Managing Editor
As students load their backpacks for school this fall, a growing number include the Bible among their textbooks.
But critics–including Christians eager to see teenagers seriously study the Scriptures–assert some public school Bible courses are designed to promote a sectarian belief and advance a political agenda.
Few of the parties involved question either the value or constitutionality of Bible courses–provided they are nonsectarian and academically sound.
In the Supreme Court's 1963 ruling on Abington v. Schempp, Associate Justice Tom Clark wrote, “It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities.”
Other court rulings, notably Epperson v. Arkansas in 1968 and Stone v. Graham in 1980, underscored the constitutionality of teaching about the Bible and religion.
“Because biblical literacy is an important part of what it means to be an educated person, study of the Bible should be included in the public school curriculum,” said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. “Much of art, music, literature, law and history in Western civilization are incomprehensible without some knowledge of the Bible.”
The challenge, he said, is to make sure that any study about the Bible in public schools is both constitutionally and educationally sound.
“That means providing teachers with materials and lessons that are objective and balanced and offering in-service training to any teacher selected to teach a Bible elective. It can be done. But it takes work,” said Haynes, who has been involved in helping develop a forthcoming high school curriculum for the Bible Literacy Project.
But one course in particular–The Bible in History and Literature, produced by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools–has drawn fire from the Texas Freedom Network, a civil liberties watchdog group.
About the National Council
The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, based in Greensboro, N.C., claims its curriculum has been approved for use in elective courses in 37 states by 312 school districts, including 52 in Texas. To date, 175,000 students have taken the course, and 92 percent of the school boards that have been approached have voted to implement it, said Council President Elizabeth Ridenour.
The council does not release lists of all districts using its curriculum to protect them from being “brow-beaten and threatened,” said Mike Johnson, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney and member of the council's board of directors.
Instead, the council directs inquiries to a few flagship districts that have agreed to respond to questions. In Texas, the two flagship districts are the Brady Independent School District, about 75 miles southeast of San Angelo, and the Brazosport Independent School District, on the Gulf coast south of Houston.
Tracey Kiesling taught in the Brady Independent School District seven years and now serves as the local teacher trainer for the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.
This fall marks the beginning of the ninth year Brady has used the curriculum, and Kiesling taught the course the first four years in the district. About 18 students a year have taken the course in Brady, she noted.
“It is vitally important to offer a course of this nature because of the way the Bible crosses virtually all other parts of the curriculum,” she said. “Basically, we're into the second generation of Bible illiterates, and much interpretation in especially literature, science, history and the arts is lost if the student does not have at least some knowledge of the Bible.”
Ryan Valentine with the Texas Freedom Network agrees with Kiesling about the importance of public school students learning about the Bible, but he faults the National Council's approach.
“The Texas Freedom Network is all for teaching the Bible in public schools as long as it satisfies the two criteria we keep harping about. It has to be nonsectarian in purpose, and it has to be academically rigorous. The problem with this (curriculum) is that it fails miserably on both counts,” said Valentine, director of the Texas Faith Network, a branch of the statewide civil liberties group.
Critiquing the curriculum
Mark Chancey, who teaches biblical studies in the religious studies department at Southern Methodist University's Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences, wrote a 32-page report for the network critiquing the material.
Chancey supports the study of the Bible by public school students, but he finds fault with the approach taken in the National Council's curriculum.
“Asking a biblical scholar if the Bible should be taught is like asking a chef if he likes to cook,” he said. “I think students are well served to have familiarity with the Bible, and I think it's important to our cultural literacy. I also wish students got more exposure to the diversity of religions–in America and around the world. Now, more than ever, we need that.”
The council's curriculum consists of a 290-page teacher's guide, along with a CD of The Bible Reader: An Interfaith Interpretation, an out-of-print book first published in 1969 that includes commentary from Protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish perspectives. It sells for $150 directly from the council and more if purchased from secondary sources.
In his report, Chancey gives the teacher's guide for The Bible in History and Literature a failing grade on at least three counts.
He maintains it is a sectarian document that “attempts to persuade students to adopt views … held primarily within certain conservative Protestant circles.”
He asserts the scholarship is shoddy, failing to cite sources clearly and sometimes reproducing other materials word-for-word without sufficient attribution.
And, he said, “Much of the course appears designed to persuade students and teachers that America is a distinctively Chris-tian nation.”
A sectarian document
Chancey maintains the curriculum presents statements of faith as indisputable facts. For instance, he quotes passages in which the Bible is referred to in a manner-of-fact way as “the word of God” and a study on the gospels that urges readers to “picture Matthew as he begins his inspired book.”
He also cities passages in the teacher's guide in which Jesus is presented as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.
“It's not as if they had a whole unit on why Jesus fulfills Old Testament prophecy. But it's their assumptions that come through loud and clear. … Their own theological presuppositions come through very, very clear, and are often stated in a way that implies they are actual and normative,” Chancey said in an interview.
The curriculum's failure to distinguish clearly between objective, verifiable facts and statements of faith is a key failure, Valentine added.
“There's a difference between saying, 'Christians believe Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy,' which is a statement of fact and appropriate in a curriculum, and saying, as a matter of fact, 'Jesus is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.' That's where this curriculum crosses the line,” he said.
Chancey also takes issue with underlying assumptions presented in the curriculum, such as its teaching that the Bible is composed of 66 books, divided into the Old Testament and New Testament.
“As Protestants–as Baptists and Methodists–the Bible they are talking about (in the curriculum) looks very familiar to us because it's basically the Protestant Bible. To Jews, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, this doesn't look very familiar,” he said. “A good curriculum should be sensitive to the differences between the Bibles of the different faith groups.”
Chancey also believes the curriculum relies too heavily on one translation–the King James Version.
“Students who study this curriculum are receiving an introduction to a specific Bible–the Protestant Bible,” Chancey asserted in his report. “That Bible is presented as the standard; Bibles of other traditions, if they are mentioned at all, are often presented in ways that imply that they are deviations from that Protestant standard.”
However, an explanatory note on the first page of the National Council's teacher's guide states: “This curriculum has been prepared using the King James Bible because of its historic use as the legal and educational foundation of America, but school districts are free to use whichever translation they choose, or they may allow each student to use the translation of his or her choice. Sometimes the student can benefit from comparing translations in and out of class.”
Chancey acknowledged the material sometimes includes learning activities and statements that present a nonsectarian view, but he said these are few and far between.
“The material makes occasional attempts to be nonsectarian, but it's not successful. It falls far short,” he said.
The council's curriculum has been thoroughly scrutinized by curriculum experts, legal authorities and local school board personnel, and in no way has it been found to be sectarian, Kiesling insisted.
“We have personally worked with persons having Ph.D.s in curriculum in designing our curriculum; constitutional scholars from at least Princeton and Notre Dame praise our curriculum highly; and hundreds of school board attorneys and school board members of different political parties across the nation laud our curriculum,” she said.
“Also, every bit of material in the guide has gone through batteries of attorneys to assure that it complies with the law.
“The facts remain that our curriculum is sound according to the experts, … not even one teacher has been brought up on even one incident, and we have more schools calling and coming on board all the time.”
Poor scholarship
In his report, Chancey asserts the National Council materials directly reproduce lengthy passages from other sources, sometimes citing incorrect sources and sometimes failing to cite any source.
“When the number of pages copied directly from sources with minimal or no rewording and pages identical or nearly identical to uncited sources are totaled, the count approaches 100–approximately a third of the book,” Chancey wrote.
In an interview, he characterized the material as “thoroughly plagiarized … the kind of thing that gets students kicked out of school and gets teachers fired.”
The teacher's guide also includes errors, such as saying a sword–rather than a spear–pierced Jesus' side as he hung on the cross; stating that Herod built a synagogue, rather than correctly saying he renovated and expanded the temple in Jerusalem; and citing incorrect dates, he noted.
Attorney Johnson said, in all instances, the National Council obtained permission before reprinting material from other sources. Omitted citations of sources and factual errors will be corrected in future revisions of the material, he said.
Kiesling dismissed the criticism as inconsequential.
“Some of those flaws have been brought to our attention and most of them are unfounded, and some are simply typographical errors,” she said. “We are always working to improve our curriculum guide, as any good organization would do.”
But beyond problems with attribution and simple errors, Chancey also faulted the curriculum for its dependence on material from questionable sources not recognized by the established academic community.
“Showing creation science videos in class is, to me, one of the strongest examples of that,” he said, pointing to at least three learning activities in which teachers are encouraged to use materials produced by the Creation Science Museum in Glen Rose.
“Literal six-day creation is clearly a sectarian belief, and a 6,000-year-old earth is a sectarian belief most Christians would not accept,” he said. “The simultaneous existence of humans and dinosaurs–that's what's in these videos–old-school, new-earth creation science.”
Chancey also pointed out the curriculum's reliance on a book written by evangelist Grant Jeffrey, as well as the teachers' guide's characterization of J.O. Kinnaman as a “respected scholar” in the field of archeology. Kinnaman claims Jesus visited Great Britain, he claims to have seen Jesus' school records in India, and he reported finding a secret entrance to the Great Pyramid of Giza where he said he discovered records from the lost continent of Atlantis. He also claimed the pyramid was a 35,000-year-old radio transmitter built to send messages to the Grand Canyon.
Political agenda
A unit in the curriculum titled “The Bible in History” deals exclusively with American history, and it presents the view, as stated on the National Council's website, “The Bible was the foundation and blueprint for our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, our educational system and our entire history until the last 20 to 30 years.”
“This looks like an attempt not only to get a particular theological perspective into the public schools, but also a particular political ideology,” Chancey said.
The unit relies heavily on work by David Barton of Aledo, founding president of Wall-Builders and author of widely circulated but often-rebutted books asserting the Christian roots of American government.
Aside from the internal documentation for some sources, of the curriculum's 34 endnotes, more than one-third cite Barton's books, and his video, Foundations of American Government, is recommended viewing in the first unit as an introductory activity.
“The first thing they want students to do when then come into this curriculum, before they are even asked to open a Bible, they are sent to David Barton,” Valentine noted.
Much of the chapter consists of quotations about the importance of the Bible and Christianity, attributed to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Abraham Lincoln, among others, set against the backdrop of an American flag and other patriotic imagery.
The authenticity of some of the quotes has been questioned, the truthfulness of others has been refuted, and even Barton has acknowledged some of the quotations he cited in his early work could not be confirmed.
“We have quotes–some of them spurious–one after another about why the Bible and Christianity are great,” Chancey said. “I happen to agree that the Bible and Christianity are great. But the way these quotes are strung together with the American flag and soldiers in the background–this is really, in my mind, a disservice both to the flag and the Bible, particularly when you have fake citations that seem only to have an agenda of persuading students to buy into a particular ideology.”
The National Council's advisory board includes not only Barton, but also Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus; D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, founder of the Center for Reclaiming America; former Southern Baptist Convention President Charles Stanley from First Baptist Church in Atlanta, Ga.; and Marshall Foster, president of the Mayflower Institute.
The organization's website carries endorsements of the curriculum by organizations including the American Family Association Center for Law and Policy, Concerned Women of America, the Eagle Forum and the Liberty Legal Institute.
“To assign motive is difficult, but it's also difficult to ignore the list of endorsing organizations and the board of advisers,” Valentine said. “The simplest … (Internet) search of the names of the board of advisers takes you to a network of websites that unquestioningly have a political agenda.”
Responding to criticism
A news release posted on the National Council's website and widely distributed to media takes to task Chancey's report and the Texas Freedom Network's criticism of the curriculum, which the release labels as an “attack by anti-religion extremists” with a “radical agenda.”
In part, the release said, “It should come as no surprise that a small group of far-left, anti-religion extremists like the Texas Freedom Network is so desperate to ban one book–the Bible–from public schools.”
The public statement alleges Chancey took passages from the teacher's guide out of context and misrepresented them.
The curriculum does not suggest, and the National Council does not recommend, “that any public school teacher ever take a personal position regarding the truth or falsity of any biblical passage, nor commentators' positions about such passages. The (council) carefully instructs teachers of the course that public schools must remain objective and neutral in their treatment of religion,” the news release said, adding the curriculum “has never been legally challenged, because it clearly passes constitutional muster.”
The public statement quotes Ridenour: “It is ironic that a group which claims to be against censorship is now attempting to become the biggest censor in the state of Texas. At its root, the (Texas Freedom Network's) real objection to our curriculum is not the qualifications of our academic authorities, but the fact that we actually allow students to hold and read the Bible for themselves, and make up their own minds about its claims. This is something no other Bible curriculum does, and (the Texas Freedom Network) can't stand it.”
The Texas Freedom Network fears genuine academic freedom, and it wants to deny local school districts the right to decide which elective courses to offer students, she asserted. “That is not freedom; it is totalitarianism.”
Both Chancey–a former Baptist Student Union summer missionary who now attends a United Methodist church–and Valentine–a deacon at University Baptist Church in Austin, a congregation affiliated with the Alliance of Baptists and the American Baptist Churches, USA–disputed the charges that they are anti-religion and want to ban the Bible.
“I teach the Bible because I love the Bible,” Chancey said. “I wrote this report because I wanted to make sure that when the Bible is taught, it's taught with the best possible curriculum. And I wanted to make sure our students didn't have to worry about groups with sectarian agendas. That's what this is all about–to make sure the Bible receives the respect and the treatment it deserves.”
Valentine believes the National Council's curriculum trivializes a very serious and sacred subject.
“Responding as a Christian–as a Baptist–the most dangerous part about this curriculum is it makes Christians look silly, and it makes our Scriptures look trivial,” he said. “And that's the last thing we need to broadcast to society at large–particularly to students who may be making their minds up about faith choices. To treat the Bible such a trivial fashion is deeply hurtful to all Christians. That's why, in my mind, Christians should be leading the charge against this in the schools.”
“We're not out to ban the Bible,” Chancey added. “We're out to protect the Bible from curriculum that doesn't do it justice.”
News of religion, faith, missions, Bible study and Christian ministry among Texas Baptist churches, in the BGCT, the Southern Baptist Convention ( SBC ) and around the world.