Opinion | Should Every Teacher in Oklahoma Teach the Bible? Really?

I would remind Mr. Walters that the Montgomery County Public School System in Maryland attempted a similar mandate in 1973, but was met with such great opposition that the large quantity of Bibles ordered had to be returned to the book depository.

As a high school English teacher in Montgomery County, I personally enjoyed the idea of ​​teaching a unit called “The Bible as Literature.” I remember preparing my unit with poetry, metaphor, irony, proverbs, anthologies, editors, allegories, hyperbole, parables, letters, satire, symbolism, prophecy, personification, puns, and wordplay. The Supreme Court ruled in 1963 in Abington School District v. Schempp that religious texts used in classrooms cannot be used for religious purposes. My unit would have taught the Bible as any other book—as a product of the human mind, produced by real people living in real historical times, not as written under the direct inspiration of God and given to people as a guide to their faith and conduct. But all my preparation was in vain because of the indignation, protests, and objections of parents and even religious institutions.

While the intent of Oklahoma’s initiative may be applauded by some, I think the state Department of Education needs to consider the practical implications of Mr. Walters’ statement that “every classroom in the state will have a Bible” and that “every teacher” will teach from it. Mr. Walters needs to consider the cost to the state and the schools, as well as the utility in classes such as physical education, science, and geometry. Will the Bibles sit unused and eventually be put back in the warehouse, as ours were? Will curriculum writers be left scratching their heads, looking for innocent ways to incorporate the Bible in innovative ways? Mr. Walters and his office need to consider what we, as educators in Maryland, have been through, so that they do not repeat our past and spend a great deal of time, money, and effort on an initiative that will ultimately be forgotten.

Kathy A.Megyeri, Washington

Ryan Walters defended his policy requiring Oklahoma public schools to teach the Bible, including the Ten Commandments, as a “necessary historical document,” as he said at a meeting of the State Board of Education last month. In his announcement, he said his team had found “key points in history that point to the Bible.” He referenced the Mayflower Compact and the Founding Fathers, then jumped to Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.

Mr. Walters shows his hand when he skips history. He shows it even more when he links his education policy to his rhetoric, which often promotes Judeo-Christian values. For him, America’s values ​​are synonymous with a particular theological understanding of Christianity, and the nation’s ethical identity is embodied in the message of the Bible.

But when we look at the record, America’s understanding of the Bible’s message is far from clear-cut. Indeed, the “Judeo-Christian values” of one American were often played off against those of another. The influential Baptist preacher Richard Furman was a Bible-believing Christian who used biblical arguments to defend slavery in 1822. David Walker was no less of a Bible-believing Christian when he called on slaves to take up arms and use violence against their oppressors in 1829. In the early 20th century, John D. Rockefeller Sr. reportedly believed in “give, and it shall be given unto you” (Luke 6:38), an attitude Rockefeller demonstrated in both his philanthropy and his pursuit of unbridled material wealth. Meanwhile, Christian ministers such as Walter Rauschenbusch advocated socialist policies favoring public ownership and criticizing the “fictions of capitalism.” King used Scripture to expose the “triple evils” of racism, economic greed, and militarism, but J. Edgar Hoover was no less loath to use Scripture to justify King’s FBI surveillance and discriminatory “law and order” policies.

It is undeniably true that the Bible occupies an important place in American history. As a historian of religion, I am also concerned about upholding religion as a genuine agent of historical change. If Mr. Walters’s directive had urged teachers to pay close attention to the role religion has played in history, I doubt there would be much opposition. I would vigorously defend such a policy. The problem is that his demands imply specific theological judgments about both the Bible and the United States. It also prioritizes a moral vision of the Bible that, as I have suggested above, is anything but self-evident. To claim that America is good because of the Bible, or that the Bible points unambiguously in a morally unified direction—toward freedom, toward democracy, or toward a more just society—is to make a theological statement, not a historical one.

In arguing for the importance of the Bible, Mr. Walters correctly notes that Thomas Jefferson referred to a “creator” in the Declaration of Independence. Oddly missing is the fact that Jefferson literally took a razor blade to the New Testament, rearranged the teachings of Christ, and stripped the gospels of miracles and anything supernatural. In doing so, Jefferson preserved what he saw as eternal truths by stripping the gospels of their context and contingency, all to make the story of Jesus more palatable to his Enlightenment leanings. Jefferson loved the Bible—or at least the parts of the Bible that supported his preconceived worldview. It’s a strange thing, history.

Jacob Randolph, Oklahoma City

I am confused by the edict that Mr. Walters has issued requiring Bible lessons in public schools. Are not the proponents of this measure of the same party as those who were so deeply shocked by the prospect of Sharia law in the United States?

This measure seems even more hypocritical (and unconstitutional) than Louisiana’s requirement that schools post the Ten Commandments. Perhaps, as a show of fairness, these state officials could mandate the teaching of algebra in churches?

Larry McClemons, Annandale