I was recently talking to a friend about the Time magazine article on Prof. Prothero's suggestion that courses on the Bible should be taught in public school as a matter of essential cultural literacy.  (Prothero found in his classes (and in reading several national surveys) that whatever the country may say about its piety their grasp of the Bible is flimsy.)

I agree, and I like his proposal — although I'd include all of the world's largest religions.

My friend was flat against the idea — because religion is an inflammatory topic that cannot be taught well.  I, um, disagree.  Real education covers how to think about and assess incendiary subjects and any experienced, trained teacher will think out how to approach the subject and their lesson plans -  no one can get work done in a classroom that erupts into riots.  Experienced, trained teachers will also know that they're there to teach a subject (and to teach students to think about and use that discipline), not to create replicas of their own way of thinking or belief.  Teaching the Bible as Literature is no different than teaching Thomas Hardy's work as literature:  How does our author portray King David?  How does the Luke use public speeches in Acts?  Teaching the Bible as History is no different than teaching the Crusades as History: When did the Iron II era end?  How do we evaluate which Pharaoh is the best match for the figure in Exodus?  Was the Roman's response to Jesus (and similar rabble-rousers depicted in Josephus) wise policy?

Both disparaging and advocating religions are set aside in Religion Studies classrooms and, for the moment, the Bible is read the way the Iliad would be read in the same situation.  Yes, this may upset people - but I think all real education is upsetting.  No one learns by repeatedly encountering the dull and expected, and certainly no one learns to think (or see) in a new way, either.

Any critical thinking has to happen after the encounter with something strange and uncomfortable (in politics, in art, in history....)  I am no fan of cocooning students through High School (and/or college); I don't think that's a fair preparation.  Students will have to think through controversial issues again and again - when they vote, read the news, bump up against art, talk to someone from another country, talk to their coworkers, read the web.  Their faith (or their skepticism) should be able to survive outside a narrow and specialized habitat - the corners are not going to be trimmed off the world for anyone, no matter what their perspective.

Yes, be upset by the strange, be throughly upset, rant about that's-not-how-we-do-things - and then what?  Our instinct is to shut the unpleasant thing off, wall it out, defend our own way all the more - but what if we'd get somewhere by being flexible, thoughtful, and open-minded?  What if we benefited society as a whole by being able to compromise on matters of the common good?  What if a innovative or a  foreign idea really is a better approach to a problem?

Another friend once asked me if I went into this field in order to debunk or defend religion.  I answered 'neither'.  What I study is neat and its old - what more reason do I need?     I tried to describe what getting a degree in, say, the History of Christianity is like:  it's a systematic exposure to both side of every schism and controversy, to every episode of the religion being corrupt or political, to the whole spectrum of scholarly perspectives and the views on non-Christian contemporaries.  If you go in admiring Luther or Constantine or a particular Pope or Reformer then you're bound to encounter less rosy assessments of them in your studies.  You will come out knowing all the expediencies and borrowings behind the doctrines and developments of your era and nothing about Christianity and its history will ever, ever be simple (or all one thing) again.  But no good historian of Christianity will argue that every leading figure was ever and always a scalawag - or ever and always high-minded and selfless.  Good history has texture and complexity, gaps and difficulties.