Christianity (Protestant, Evangelical) 101
Steven G. Gey May/June 1999
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
For more than two years the Gulf Coast community of Lee County, Florida, has been in a fracas over the school board's proposal to offer high school students a "Bible history" course based on a curriculum developed by a North Carolina group linked with the Religious Right. What began as (supposedly) a neutral effort to teach the historical and literary aspects of the Bible soon degenerated into a sectarian battle for control of the public schools, complete with name-calling, the resignation of both the school district attorney and the school superintendent, a lawsuit, and general all-around animosity. In the end a federal court stepped in to prevent the school board from implementing the sectarian curriculum, but not before much the damage occurred.
The depth of the animosity between supporters and opponents of the Bible course became evident after several heated debates about the new curriculum within the school board's Bible Advisory Committee. According to the Washington Post, a committee member associated with the Christian Coalition accused opponents of the Bible course of being "Jews . . . and others [about whom] you wondered if they had any religion at all." The same committee member also noted that when a Rabbi member of the committee did not attend committee meetings "that helped the process quite a bit."
In one sense, the Lee County controversy represents the Founding Fathers' worst nightmare. The dispute over the proposed Bible History course split an otherwise tranquil community along religious lines, creating a volatile and dangerous mix of religion and politics that the Founding Fathers hoped to avoid by adopting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. On the other hand, there is also a happier and more hopeful element to the Lee County dispute. Many community members and local educators resisted the infusion of religion into the Lee County public schools, and an overwhelming majority of the local electorate eventually turned out of office most of the school board members who supported the religious course (which included many who controlled both the school board and the advisory committee). Ironically, the battle over religion in the Lee County public schools seems to have ended with a reaffirmation of the principles of church-state separation that the proposed religious curriculum was designed to undermine.
The Lee County controversy began in January 1996, when a member of the county school board received a copy of a model curriculum for a two-semester high school course on the Bible. The curriculum was prepared by an organization called the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. The National Council is a conservative Christian group devoted to the "study of the Bible as a foundation document of society," and its proposed Bible instruction curriculum reflects this point of view.
Despite the group's claim that its curriculum intended to use the Bible only as a focal point history, the curriculum includes multiple references to divine events that correspond with the Christian faith and cannot be verified historically. These events include the story of Adam and Eve, the creationist version of the earth's formation, the story of Noah and the Flood, and the resurrection of Jesus. The curriculum suggests several activities in each part of the course that also focus on highly divisive aspects of religious doctrine. In the Old Testament portion of the curriculum, for example, students were asked to "list the days of Creation" and "find what was created on each day." Students are also asked to discuss "the Bible's view of marriage" and calculate the number and size of the animals on Noah's ark. In the New Testament section of the course, teachers are instructed to "hand out a list of Jesus' miracles as they are studied," and told to divide students into groups to discuss "the four accounts of the resurrection of Jesus." The curriculum has almost nothing in common with the typical high school history course. It is, instead, little more than a lesson plan for a typical Sunday school class.
Nevertheless, the Lee County school board voted 4-1 to authorize a high school Bible history course based on this curriculum only two months after the curriculum was first brought to the board's attention. At the same meeting, the school board created a 15-member Bible Curriculum Committee to advise the board on the specific elements of the new course, using the National Council's curriculum as a starting point. These two actions placed Lee County at the center of the growing national debate over the reintroduction of religious instruction into the public schools.
Religious partisanship colored the debates within the Bible Curriculum Committee from its first meeting in the summer of 1996. At that meeting the director of curriculum for the school district instructed the committee that the curriculum for the new course would be limited to the Old and New Testaments. This gave the new course a much more limited scope than existing comparative religion courses, which used diverse religious texts. Following these instructions, a majority of the committee voted to use the National Council curriculum and another similar curriculum from Marion County, Florida, as the basis for the Lee County's own Bible history course.
From the beginning a minority of the committee objected that the proposed curriculum was "doctrinal and theological in nature"; one dissenting member wrote to the local newspaper questioning whether religion should be taught in the schools. A committee member who supported the curriculum responded with a newspaper column arguing that the schools already taught "secular humanism," and asserting that if the schools did not move from secular humanism to Christianity, "it won't be long until we reach Third World status."
These disputes did not slow the progress of the committee's work. Because there were roughly twice as many supporters of the new curriculum as opponents on the committee, the committee pressed forward hastily so that the new course could be taught in the upcoming spring 1997 semester. At this point, however, the committee ran into opposition from the school board's attorney, who warned that the Bible curriculum would probably result in litigation because it taught the Bible as "an inerrant document" and presented "a single Protestant perspective."
The attorney had good cause to worry. For many years the Supreme Court has prohibited public schools from incorporating any form of religious doctrine into the public school curriculum. Since the early 1960s the Court has prohibited the more obvious forms of religious indoctrination in public schools, such as state-mandated prayer and inspirational Bible reading. But in recent years the Court has banned more subtle infusions of religion as well. Thus the Court has held unconstitutional a Kentucky statute mandating that the Ten Commandments be posted in public school classrooms, and a Louisiana statute that attempted teach the biblical creation account in public schools.
Contrary to the claims of some religious conservatives, these cases do not prohibit discussions of religion or the Bible in public schools. The Supreme Court has held specifically that "the Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like," but only if it is integrated into the secular school curriculum. The Bible may not be used where it serves no educational function, but rather is used "to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey" the dictates of a particular faith. This was precisely the problem posed by the Lee County Bible history curriculum.
Despite these obstacles, the school board ordered the committee to develop the Bible history course, although the board moved the prospective starting date of the course to the Fall 1997 semester. The committee pressed forward throughout the spring, debating at length what to include in the New Testament portion of the new course. As a measure of its resolve, the board permitted students to register for the fall course, even though no curriculum or teacher training program had been established.
Meanwhile the board hired an outside law firm to review the legality of the course. The school board attorney, whose advice the board had essentially ignored, submitted his resignation. At approximately the same time, the board voted to buy out the remainder of the contract of the school superintendent. The superintendent told the Washington Post that the board "said I was dragging my feet on the course." Even though it had fired the messengers, the board could not avoid the message. In May 1997 the board's new outside counsel submitted its conclusions regarding the Old Testament portion of the course. The counsel noted that the course would probably lead to litigation, and that several parts of the course conveyed a religious message that "could easily cross constitutional boundaries." The new lawyers therefore recommended removing many of the more overtly sectarian references in the curriculum
The outside counsel's opinion angered many supporters of the new curriculum on the advisory committee. Many also didn't like one member's suggestion that the new curriculum omit all references to the biblical account of Creation and the resurrection of Jesus. The committee reacted by voting to insert into the curriculum the account of Creation from Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve, a discussion of "the covenant between the Israelites and their God," and an assignment directing students to define "sin." By a 7-7 vote, the committee did decide to omit a discussion of the resurrection from the curriculum, but it then voted to require students to "identify the historical influence of the belief by the Christian community and the resurrection of Jesus on the growth and development of the church."
After this vote the advisory committee presented the Old Testament portion of the Bible history curriculum to the school board--less than three weeks before the course was scheduled to begin. More than 200 people attended, and more than 70 members of the public addressed the board. Supporters and opponents appeared. One of the board members moved to adopt the Bible history curriculum with the changes suggested by the outside counsel, although he expressed reservations about the changes. In support of this motion, the board member quoted former Christian Coalition executive director Ralph Reed: "Not teaching the Bible as history is denying a large number of people a seat at the table." The school board chairman also supported the modified curriculum, noting that he quoted from the Bible when he taught elementary school in the 1960s. "We weren't afraid of a lawsuit at that time," the chairman noted; "we weren't afraid to really give things kids needed in our society." The board then voted 3-2 to approve the Old Testament portion of the curriculum. Six days later, however, the new school superintendent told the board that because teachers had had only minimal preparation to teach the course, the first Bible history class would be postponed until January 1998.
The most contentious battles at the school board level--over the New Testament portion of the curriculum--were yet to come. In a meeting in September, 1997, the advisory committee met once again to consider the outside attorneys' recommended changes in the New Testament curriculum. During a debate about the recommendation that the committee delete references to the Resurrection and the Epistles, a committee member named Rev. Michael Balfour tore up a copy of the edited curriculum and threw it over his head.
"This class is not history; this is censorship outright," he told the committee. "I move we cease discussions of this garbage on the floor, this atrocity, this blatant malignancy that has grown week after week. . . . Christians died over the last week of Jesus' life. Christians died over this." On Rev. Balfour's motion, the committee voted 6-5 to reject the attorneys' suggestions and to adopt the unaltered New Testament curriculum proposed by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. The committee then voted by the same margin to disband.
This action presented the school board with an overtly religious curriculum cloaked as a history course. Little effort was made to hide the curriculum's sectarian underpinnings. The curriculum even included the use of a proselytizing video distributed by the Campus Crusade for Christ. Meanwhile, the Christian Coalition was becoming more deeply involved in the Lee County conflict. On October, 14, 1997, the Lee County Christian Coalition held a "Faith Prayer Breakfast" at a local hotel. According to the state director of the coalition, "the purpose of the breakfast is to honor the Lee County school board for their decision to offer a Bible history elective, and raise the needed funds to continue the work of the coalition." The breakfast was attended by a member of the school board, and featured a talk by Jay Sekulow, who heads the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson, also the chairman of the Christian Coalition.
The Christian Coalition's influence was also evident at the school board meeting during which the New Testament portion of the Bible history class was approved. Prior to the meeting the school board's attorneys and professional staff had all expressed opposition to the advisory committee's recommendation to adopt the National Council's curriculum. The outside counsel also warned that the curriculum "could be viewed as an attempt to indoctrinate students" in violation of the Establishment Clause. The school board's new staff counsel concurred and recommended deleting much of the religious substance from the curriculum. The school superintendent also opposed the curriculum, and in a news conference held before the school board meeting asserted that the curriculum was not defensible. The superintendent therefore recommended that the board adopt a heavily secularized version of the New Testament curriculum.
The school board had other ideas. After opening its meeting with a local minister's invocation (in the name of Jesus), the board set about approving the New Testament curriculum by a vote of 3-2. The board's majority overrode both their educational staff's judgment and their attorneys' advice. The board even refused to bring in their outside counsel to speak to the meeting about the inevitable legal problems. One board member noted simply that "we know what she wanted to say anyway." In response to concerns about lawsuits, one board member asserted that the board would be provided free representation by Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice. Representatives from the group sat in the front row during the meeting. One month later, in another 3-2 vote, the school board authorized the ACLJ to take full control of the school's legal defense.
At this point the Lee County school board had become something of a national spectacle. Not only did the school board majority do little to underplay the controversial religious nature of their actions--they actually seemed to relish the media's attention. In an appearance on NBC's Today show, for example, school board member Lanny Moore discussed at some length his belief that the Bible contained a literally true historical account of real events. According to Moore, these events included Jesus turning water into wine, Jonah living in the belly of the whale, and Jesus' resurrection.
"The events in the Bible happened," Moore argued. "They need to be taught as history."
Religious disputes such as the one in Lee County usually follow a familiar pattern. Such episodes usually arise when a group of well-organized religious activists manage briefly to gain control of the political process and use that process to pursue their own sectarian ends. The single-minded religious zeal that motivates the initial crusade for control of the political process also tends to produce early victories over poorly organized opponents, and inevitably attracts the media spotlight. But this same righteous zeal usually dooms the efforts of religious groups to control the political process in the long run. Even relatively homogeneous areas of the country, such as Lee County, are populated by a large, usually silent majority uncomfortable with sectarian uses of the political processes. This same majority is even more uncomfortable with using public schools to pursue one sect's religious agenda. It did not take long for the Lee County school board to discover what happens when this silent majority becomes aroused and involved in the battle over control of the public schools.
Soon after the school board adopted the National Council's New Testament curriculum, a diverse group of parents, ministers, and taxpayers brought suit in federal court to enjoin the school board from carrying out its plan. The suit was supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way, and the plaintiffs were represented by Thomas Julin, an attorney at one of Florida's most prestigious corporate law firms.
The school board and its attorneys undoubtedly expected this lawsuit, but the board probably did not anticipate its insurance company's response to the suit. In a conference call with the school board's attorneys soon after the lawsuit was filed, the board's insurance company told the board that its action was illegal and a decision to defend the action in court would not be covered by their policy. A fax sent to the board on the same day bluntly summarized the insurance company's position: "The school board's adoption of the subject Bible study curriculum is facially unlawful and . . . will be struck down by the federal courts." The insurance company chided the school board for rejecting legal advice and going beyond its legitimate role in using the schools for a noneducational agenda. "It should be remembered that insurance policies are designed with an intent to preserve and protect financial assets of an insured, and not to test the legal waters for the advancement of an insured's social or political or legal agendas or missions."
It did not take long for the federal courts to prove the insurance company's predictions correct. Approximately one month after the insurance company criticized the school board for ignoring legal advice about constitutional problems with its new curriculum, federal district court Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich granted a preliminary injunction against the implementation of the New Testament portion of the curriculum. Citing cases in other jurisdictions in which similar Bible courses were struck down, the court added: "This court too finds it difficult to conceive how the account of the resurrection or of miracles could be taught as secular history." The court noted that the school board had been warned by its own lawyers about problems with the Bible history course, and concluded acidly that "it is an abuse of public trust when elected officials ignore established legal standards."
Despite its scathing rejection of the New Testament portion of the curriculum, the court refused to enjoin the Old Testament course, which had been modified heavily in response to legal advice. The court recognized, however, that although the course might be legitimate on its face, the implementation of the course could be problematic. Therefore, the court encouraged the plaintiffs to videotape the Old Testament classes "to prevent any veiled attempt to promote religion or Christianity in the guise of teaching history."
In the end, the court urged the plaintiffs to "remain vigilant," and strongly urged the parties to work out a compromise that would preserve the legitimate educational interests represented by an objective religious history course, while avoiding the illegal proselytizing that characterized the National Council course. "Litigation of this dispute is not the most constructive use of counsel's abilities," the court concluded, "nor is it in the best interest of the people of Lee County."
During the next month a tense standoff prevailed. The Old Testament classes went forward, with video cameras taping every class. The tapes revealed some apparent violations of the court's order to refrain from teaching the New Testament, including one class in which a documentary entitled "Jerusalem" was shown, "in which the narrator says, 'The memory of Jesus and the miracle of His resurrection live in Jerusalem every day.'"
During the same period, settlement negotiations continued. Finally, on February 27, 1998, plaintiffs reached an agreement with the school board. According to the terms of the settlement, the school board would abandon the curriculum based on the original National Council proposal, in favor of a secular curriculum designed around the college religious textbook An Introduction to the Bible. The book, written by five Stetson University religion professors, presents the Bible as a literary text with religious significance, rather than as a sacred document. The settlement agreement specifically prohibits any attempt to teach any aspect of the Bible as true, or to indoctrinate or proselytize students in any other way. The plaintiffs were also given the right to oversee the teaching of the course, and the right to go back to court if the school board violated the agreement by reintroducing a religious perspective into the classroom.
The supporters of the original plan to teach Bible history in the Lee County public schools accurately viewed the settlement as a moral, legal, and financial defeat. (It was a financial defeat both because of the money spent by the school board to defend its religious curriculum, and because the settlement required the school board to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.) The fact that the defeat came at the instigation of a federal court judge undoubtedly made the defeat even more bitter.
This case is not an example of religion being excluded from the public schools. As a result of the settlement of this lawsuit, the Lee County schools will offer a course on the Bible, but it will be a rigorously academic course based on an objective college text, not an overtly sectarian curriculum based on materials touting a particular brand of Christian fundamentalism.
Nor is this case an example of a federal judge overriding local desires in the name of "secular humanist" principles that the community does not accept. As it happens, members of the local community had a chance to express their views on the school board's action and the court's response only a few months after the settlement was concluded. In the school board primary elections held in September and October 1998 two of the three school board members responsible for adopting the Bible history course were overwhelmingly defeated. The board chairman was defeated in the first primary after receiving only 31 percent of the vote. The second conservative board member finished a distant second out of three candidates in the first primary, receiving just 32 percent of the vote. In the October runoff he received the same 32 percent share of the vote as in the first primary, and was trounced by his moderate opponent. Katherine Boren, one of only two school board members to oppose the Bible history course, also ran for reelection and was opposed by a candidate supported by the Religious Right. Ms. Boren won her race with 60 percent of the vote. Thus moderates will now control four out of five seats on the Lee County school board.
The resounding defeat of the Lee County religious activists sends a sobering message to the Christian Coalition and others on the Religious Right who have campaigned throughout the country to gain control of local school boards: even in a conservative, suburban, Sun Belt community that is dominated by Republicans, a vast majority of voters continue to support the constitutional separation of church and state--especially in the public schools. A leading opponent of the Lee County Bible history course said it best: "I don't think the religious right ever captured the hearts and minds of Lee County. But I do think they hijacked the school board." The people of Lee County demonstrated that with a little political effort by concerned parents, and some help from the courts, school boards will not stay hijacked for long.