Part two:
(ABP) — Not only does a popular Bible curriculum for public schools promote one religious point of view, it lacks academic credibility, says reviewer Mark Chancey.
The Bible in History and Literature, a 290-page curriculum resource produced by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, has been approved for use in elective courses in 37 states by 312 school districts.
Chancey, who teaches biblical studies in the religion department at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, favors teaching the Bible in public schools. But this particular popular curriculum relies on material from questionable sources not recognized by the established academic community, Chancey said in a 32-page report critiquing the material.
“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, Texas.
“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.
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, founding president of WallBuilders 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,” said Ryan Valentine of the Texas Freedom Network, which produced Chancey's review.
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; 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 advisors,” Valentine said. “The simplest … [Internet] search of the names of the board of advisors takes you to a network of websites that unquestioningly have a political agenda.”
A news release posted on the website of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, 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 council president Elizabeth 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, Ridenour 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 that they 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 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 in 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.”