Biblical Literacy - Ignorance Is Not Always Bliss

Religious education in public schools is a controversial topic in the United States. In fact the idea that any publicly funded secondary school would offer a course aimed at religious instruction may seem like a strange concept to those of us born after 1963. That was the year that the Supreme Court ruled that devotional Bible readings and sectarian prayers in public schools were unconstitutional.* In fact the Abington v. Schempp decision was one of many that were handed down by the high court in the 60’s that, while not totally forbidding public religious education outright, convinced the vast majority of school districts that the gain of religious education was not worth risking potential litigation. As a consequence, the mention of religion by publicly paid educators and administrators became taboo and public schools became religion-free zones in which even comparative religious studies were virtually non-existent. According to a 2005 study by the Bible Literacy Project (an organization that promotes academic Bible study in public schools), on 8% of public high schools offer an elective course on biblical content and themes.** For many who want a completely secular public square statistics like this are welcome news, but there are some academics who say that religious ignorance is actually hurting citizenship in the U.S.

One of these voices is Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University and author of the book Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – and Doesn’t. In an article by Cathy Lynn Grossman in the March 7th, 2007 edition of USA Today, Prothero describes himself as a “confused Christian” who is not interested in promoting belief in a biblical view of God, but rather feels that familiarity with the themes and characters of the Bible and other major religious texts is vital for an informed American citizenry. He points out that many of the pressing geopolitical issues of our day are rooted in the interaction between competing religious worldviews. He believes that American citizens need to understand the profound differences among the world’s major religions in order to be able to make sense of the rhetoric and actions of various political and social factions both domestically and internationally. Examples of such religiously influenced confrontations abound; whether it is Hindu and Muslim conflict in Kashmir or tensions between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. A generation of Americans who have been taught that all religions are basically seeking and saying the same things are woefully ill prepared to understand the world in which we live. This is why Prothero makes a distinction between religious tolerance and religious literacy. Grossman describes his view this way:

But classes promoting pluralism and tolerance fail on the religious literacy front because they "reduce religion to morality," Prothero says, or they promote a call for universal compassion as if it were the only value that matters. "We are not all on the same one path to the same one God," he says. "Religions aren't all saying the same thing. That's presumptuous and wrong. They start with different problems, solve the problems in different ways, and they have different goals."

Prothero’s critique of an unthinking religious tolerance is worthy of our consideration. If we accept the notion that religions may differ on trivial particulars but are identical in their essential aims, intentions, and understanding then we will assume that a Muslim, Buddhist, and Christian are seeking to promote the same ends with social, economic, and foreign policy. In this case the only differences worth discussing are those that concern the means. But this belies the fact that worldviews usually have consequences that reach far beyond mere differences over technique. The truth is that religions are often not saying the same thing. Remaining ignorant to this fact is a recipe for misunderstanding and confusion. Prothero is advocating an expansion of public biblical and religious literacy so that the American people are better able to analyze and rebut the religious assertions that are made by politicians and activists. He wants a society that is more religiously discerning.

For those of us who are members of Churches that pride themselves on being faithful to the Bible, Prothero’s warning about biblical illiteracy appears to be aimed at someone else, but even evangelicals need to realize the perils of having a faith that is largely divorced from the text of Scripture. In an interview with Julie Kredens on the radio show “State of Affairs”*** Prothero described the differences between teaching in the relatively secular northeastern states and the more heavily churched southern states. His observations should give evangelicals pause. He told Kredens that, “biblical literacy was higher in the south for my students. They just knew more about the Bible. But I don’t want to overstate that, because one of the findings for me in working on this book project was that evangelicals actually know a lot less about the Bible than you would imagine from hearing the rhetoric about the Bible belt and the Bible as the inspired word of God. There’s a lot of evidence that evangelicals believe that God wrote the Bible, but they apparently don’t really care what God had to say because they’re not interested in reading it.” We should take his perspective seriously, because he is describing a serious malady in evangelicalism. Many in “Bible believing” Churches have a powerful emotional attachment to the idea of the Bible, but they have very little intellectual investment in the actual worldview and teaching of the Bible. This has produced Christians who are susceptible to false teaching, because they are unable to tell when a teacher or preacher is saying something that is in contradiction to the biblical witness.

It is my prayer that we will be a Church whose fellowship is not based upon a vacuous emotional attachment the Bible, but rather is founded upon a thoughtful and habitual interaction with the truths of the Bible. Prothero is right to commend academic pursuit of the teachings of the Bible, but our approach as Christians must be more pervasive than simple academic inquiry. The Bible is given for transforming our hearts and equipping our minds for the life that we have been called to live. Pray that the preaching of our Church will be faithful to the revealed Word and that our LIFE groups will live up to their aim of building fellowship based upon the truth that God has told about our world, our Savior, and ourselves.


* This was the significant 1963 Supreme Court ruling on the case of Abington Township School District v. Schempp
** An executive summary of the report is available at http://bibleliteracy.org/Site/PressRoom/press_execsum.htm ; the report itself can be viewed at http://www.cu-portland.edu/blp/pdfs/bible_literacy_report2005.pdf
*** “State Of Affairs” – on WFPL; November 12th : you can listen to the show at http://www.wfpl.org/CMS/?p=2628

A Place God Can Call Home

Over the past five weeks I have been sharing a series of messages with you that are intended to form a broad vision for how I see God using Gilead Baptist Church in the future. I have called this series “God’s Home Here At Gilead”. Our Church has long been known as “a place to call home” and to many this has evoked warm associations of belonging and fellowship. I am thankful for the fact that Gilead has a warm and welcoming reputation, and I am committed to ensuring that we continue to be recognized in this way. There is, however, another aspect of our motto that I have labored to lay before you over the last month, namely that people are not the only ones for whom we should be building a home. Gilead needs to be a place that God can call home. God has never intended that our faith should be a purely intellectual or academic pursuit in which we interact primarily with ideas and facts. This is because the very heart of God’s work in our lives was not primarily intellectual, but relational. We are not merely people who had problems understanding things about God, the world, and ourselves. We are people who had a profound and irreparable problem relating to God properly. To put it another way, by ourselves, we were not a place that God could call home. We often talk about Jesus coming to live in our hearts as though He is moving into a spacious, well-maintained, ocean front condominium, but the reality of what God has had to in order to come into our hearts is far more startling. He has had to do a miraculous work in our hearts by piercing our darkness, removing our blindness, and washing our sinfulness.* Our salvation was a transformation of the same magnitude as “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition” in which God had to remove a heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh (ref. Ezekiel 36:26). Since that time He has had a remodeling agenda in the individual lives of every believer, but He also has a remodeling agenda in the collective lives of every Church.

God’s transformation of our lives is a personal relationship with public consequences. When we are born again, we are born into a new family that is God’s family. Salvation does not happen any other way. We are not saved for isolation but for integration into the family of God and into the “home” of God. This integration of our lives into the Church can be understood in two different pictures that the Bible gives us of the “household” of God. They are both expressed and linked as follows: “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.” (Ephesians 2:19-22 [ESV]) Please observe that these two pictures describe the relationship between three entities: the individual Christian, the believing community, and God. In the first picture we see a “foreigner” or “orphan” who has been adopted into God’s new home and given the rights of a “saint” and a “member”. This is the family aspect of our new birth, because we are pictured as being joined with other children in belonging to God’s “home”. In the second picture, we see a house that is being built with a solid foundation, a structure that is joined together, and a holy temple or dwelling place that is growing for God to live in. This is the construction aspect of our new birth, because we are pictured as being joined with other stones in building up God’s “home”. This is an ingenious way in which God has communicated to us that our belonging is linked to our building of God’s home.

God is simply too big to live in only one person’s heart and that was never His intention. He wants to build us all together into His dwelling place by the Spirit and only together can we accomplish this. The beauty of this truth is that the same discipline and commitment that make us better brotherly material also make us better building material. This is how our individual efforts at living a more godly life connect with God’s larger “Extreme Makeover” agenda for the Church as well. As we pray, serve, give, and counsel, my hope is that we will see both the size of our individual hearts and the size of Gilead’s heart grow to become a more spacious home for God. I think that God really does deserve for Gilead to be a place that He can call home.

* Shaun Groves’ song “Welcome Home” describes the cleansing work of God on a human heart well. You can hear it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkU9LAWdVPY&feature=related .