The Echo

While the crux of the Cape Henlopen Controversy over teaching the historical influence of the bible in a public school appears to have gone on hiatus - I found myself struck by one particular comment offered in the NJ story,

“Why is everybody so scared of a book? You would think that if someone read the Bible then, boom, they’d become a Christian,” said resident Larry Mayo. “I didn’t grow up reading the Bible. But I’ve learned more from the Bible about life and the meaning of life than I did anyplace else.” http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013307260036

Why is everybody afraid of this book? 

Holy men notwithstanding, I would argue that those who oppose this class have never read the bible in the context of historical purpose or for its influence on literature.  Just look at board member Roni Posner's comments during the Cape debate: 

“How exactly do you take the spirituality out of the Bible?” she said. “That’s the purpose of the Bible. It was never meant to be a literary text.”

Roni is wrong. 

Teaching professors at the University of Delaware have successfully taken the "spirituality" out of the bible.  For at least 15 years, our own public/private partnership post-secondary school has been offering:

ENGL320 The Bible as Literature

Academic year 2013 - 2014
3 credit hours
Studies the cultural contexts, narrative strategies, poetic forms, and literary archetypes of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.
College: Arts and Sciences ( AS )
Department: English ( ENGL )
Prerequisites: ENGL110

Ahhhh, the bible as literature. Notice that this class is listed in ENGLISH, not RELIGIOUS STUDIES.

I took this class about 15 years ago with Prof. Flynn - an inspired teacher who had perfected the art of re-directing the classroom discussion away from the tangents that can railroad the learning process.  If I had to guess, I would suppose Prof. Flynn was a Christian who lived the christian ideals.  But, I could never tell you for sure b/c he maneuvered the literature of the bible with such deftness that despite teaching the bible twice a week for an entire semester, he never once revealed his faith or his potential lack of. 

Now, I was raised of Catholic faith, attending Catholic School through 12th grade.  I thought myself well-prepared to succeed in Prof. Flynn's classroom.  I'd had religion nearly every school day from three to eighteen.  This class should have been an EasyA, right? 

Wrong.  Because there is a definitive difference between reading the bible for spirituality and the bible as literature or history. I owe Prof. Flynn a tremendous debt.  While he introduced me to a variety of works of literature, he really cultivated my interest in John Milton's Paradise Lost and its connection to the a predecessor text more commonly revered as the Bible. 

Nearly 15 years later,  I remember fondly this particular class in great detail not only for my prof's tremendous teaching talent and skill, but because the bible is a technical text - something my religion teachers in Christian education failed to teach me during those 15 years dedicated to studying the bible for spiritual purposes.

There are only two legitimate reasons for not supporting a class about the historical significance of the bible:

1. The class is elective and there is more support for another elective than there is for the bible, or
2. The particular curriculum to be utilized violates the separation of church and state - as in the emphasis is on teaching spirituality rather than technicality and influence.  In which case, you pick a different curriculum.

Pick your poison. Each option delineates the magic elixor that will cure your ills.

Our state's premier public/private post-secondary school has managed to navigate these same murky waters rather successfully.  The K-12 set can do it, too.