Recently, the State of Texas voted to begin incorporating the teaching of the Bible to its 5.5 million public school students. The new social studies curriculum, which takes effect in 2030, mandates that at least one Bible passage be taught each year, beginning in the first grade.
This isn’t surprising given that Texas began requiring a Protestant version of the 10 Commandments be displayed in classrooms as of 2025.
The curriculum also de-emphasizes the role of racism in American history and reduces the scope of contributions that people of color and women have made to this nation. And it will offer “world history” that primarily focuses on Europe.
Unlike the past, school districts cannot opt out of the new mandate. (Notably, the “past” is as recent as two years ago.) Further, even though parents can opt their children out, it appears that those children would still likely be tested on the religious material.
Let’s set aside thorny questions about separation of church and state, The Establishment Clause, etc. What I find most fascinating about this situation is that the people who are backing the mandate (and others like it) tend to have a very particular approach to biblical hermeneutics. And, yes, I understand that the ostensible intent is to teach the Bible as a great work of literature as opposed to doing so for religious purposes. (Wink, wink). However, the new standards raise some interesting questions.
Even if I take the board at its word, the Bible is not merely “literature” to me. In fact, if one teaches the Bible using the “literacy criticism” method (as opposed to, say, the “inductive method”), one intentionally avoids the moral lessons in which Christians believe. While I enjoy the poetry and prose of the Bible, I don’t approach it as merely a book of literature. I doubt that the Board of Education does, either.
Further, would the board welcome Mormons or Muslims teaching these lessons? I doubt it. Will Old Testament passages be taught from a Jewish perspective — which not always in line with Christian ones? Indeed, in implementing the teaching of “Judeo-Christian values,” one wonders how comfortable board members would be when Jewish interpretations of Scripture differ substantially from conservative Protestant interpretations of the same (e.g., regarding abortion).
And not to belabor the point, but “Christian” perspectives can vary substantially among Catholics and Protestants (not to mention the latter’s infinite sub-sects). Issues such as these lead me to wonder what the board’s ultimate goal is — or even whether they have thought through the implications of their decision. Should we even broach the subject of how problematic it will be among various denominations when their preferred Bible translation isn’t selected? These are just a few of the problems when attempting to establish a theocracy, especially in a pluralistic and democratic (as of now) society.
I am an Evangelical Christian. If one were to create a Venn Diagram of my beliefs about the Bible, I suspect that there would be substantial overlap with what the school board members believe (e.g., the hypostatic union, the inerrancy of scripture, sola fide, etc.). Yet, we are on completely opposite ends of this issue.
To his credit, at least one board member, Brandon Hall, told the truth about his motivation: “We are bringing the Bible back into schools this week for the first time in 60 years.” Of course, I argue that if the Bible were brought back into homes, and Christian behavior were actually modeled by more believers, there would be no need to “bring the Bible back into schools.”
Too often, the type of people who support mandates like this act in decidedly non-Christian ways. For example, social media is replete with those who profess their “love of Jesus,” yet make dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of posts that can best be described as coming from the anti-Christ. It is not uncommon to read some of the most vile, racist drivel from people whose pages are filled with religious iconography and well-worn slogans. This leads me to believe that this mandate is merely another example of performative piety.
In any case, the clear intent is to indoctrinate Texas’ children into a certain worldview. Good luck with that. My former wife and I paid hefty tuition for our two younger children to attend a private, Christ-centered school from pre-K through eighth grade. The school aligns very well with our religious values. Both of us have even served on its board. Do our children, who are now young adults, share our beliefs? Eh, sometimes…
Importantly, those who most vociferously oppose Islam, and who promote baseless conspiracy theories about Sharia being mandated in America, also tend to be the ones whose private beliefs and public policy most closely align with Islamic law. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.
If only my fellow believers would focus more on actually being good Christians as opposed to forcing our religion on others, this nation would be better. Instead, they insist on doing things that even Jesus did not do. As Pastor Charles Sheppard of First Free Will Baptist Church is fond of saying, “Jesus is a gentleman; He doesn’t force Himself on you.”
This is not going to end well for those who have undertaken the task of circumventing our Constitution. (Cue the legal challenges!) With this Supreme Court, only God knows what’s going to happen.
Contact community leader Larry Smith at larry@leaf-llc.com.
