The state of Texas, where I live, is making the news for its updated mandatory reading list for public schools, which includes passages from the King James Bible. One think tank describes the guidelines issued by the Texas Education Agency:
The . . . reading list . . . includes just eight passages from the Bible in Kinder through eighth grade. That is about one biblical passage out of 20–30 selections per grade. English I–IV, with its greater emphasis on themes, incorporates only five additional highly relevant passages.
Last year, the state released a new optional curriculum that included several Bible passages.
Many critics and even some conservative Christians have sounded the alarm that this comes close to violating the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause by favoring Christianity over other religions. This, coupled with the mandatory posting of the Ten Commandments in Texas classrooms, has some nervous about the encroachment of Christian nationalism.
But I don’t think constitutionalists should be so worried.
Bible as Central to Western Civilization
Texas’s approach rightly sees the Bible as a touchstone of Western civilization, an inescapable piece of literature in a well-rounded education. And it’s hard to argue otherwise. The United States was profoundly shaped by Christianity. The Founders, scarred as they were by Europe’s wars of religion and the carnal intermingling of church and state, didn’t want a state church. The Constitution’s First Amendment prevents this establishment.
Yet these same men weren’t shy about the necessity of Christianity as a guardrail for freedom. Though many didn’t hold orthodox beliefs, they appealed to providence and the Christian God.
James Madison, champion of religious liberty, issued a Christian prayer for the nation during the War of 1812. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, no theocrats, both suggested biblical symbols as the nation’s official insignia. And a cursory review of language used by presidents from Washington to Trump finds rich, scriptural language that appeals to America’s Christian character. This is why British journalist G. K. Chesterton remarked that America possessed “the soul of a church.”
A curriculum that deliberately eliminates any references to the Bible alongside classic works of literature and that omits the Bible’s influence on Western civilization would do its students a disservice. So the changes in Texas’s curriculum should be welcome.
Taught, Not Preached
Is there a way an official state office could go too far and violate rights of conscience? Yes, if public schools were mandated to preach and apply Scripture in a way that compels students to believe in Christianity or attempts to initiate spiritual formation. This wouldn’t only violate the establishment clause; it would violate Christianity’s own view that conversion cannot be forced but must come through the work of the Spirit and an active surrender of the human will.
A curriculum that deliberately eliminates any references to the Bible alongside classic works of literature and that omits the Bible’s influence on Western civilization would do its students a disservice.
When Paul urges Timothy to pray for civic authorities, he instructs him to pray that Christians might “lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified” (1 Tim. 2:2). Only Christ is the “mediator between God and men” (v. 5). The state isn’t the mediator. The state isn’t tasked with separating the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the tares. God gave the church the Great Commission.
What’s more, Christian parents shouldn’t want unqualified state actors tasked with biblical exegesis. This is best left to after-school clubs and other such nonstate, volunteer ministries that evangelize and disciple children. We wouldn’t want, for instance, state-mandated Muslim or Hindu worship in our schools either.
The Supreme Court has essentially said this, in the case of Abington School District v. Schempp: “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.”
Neither Theocratic Nor Secular
There is a middle way between state-compelled Christianity and secularism. A theocratic state is bad for the state and bad for the church. But so is an aggressively secular state that, in fearing any incidental contact between church and state, becomes a hostile actor toward Christianity and hollows out the public square.
Richard Land, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said it well:
You should never want the state to be deciding what is the correct understanding of religion. The last thing any devout follower of Jesus should want is government control of religion. The government will always get it wrong and pious followers of Christ will have their consciences violated. (emphasis original)
Christian parents shouldn’t depend on state schools for moral and spiritual formation anyway. This is the role of the church and the family. Neither should we deputize school boards to do the work of evangelism best left to the church. At the same time, we shouldn’t fear the inclusion of Bible texts as mandatory reading in state schools, because it’s an essential part of a well-rounded education.
The Gospel Coalition