Books: 'Religious Literacy'

Stephen Prothero, Chair of the Department of Religion at Boston University and an On Faith blogger, will be online Tuesday, March 6 at 3 p.m. to take questions about his new book, "Religious Literacy."

A transcript follows.

____________________

Stephen Prothero: Hi -- Delighted to be participating in this online chat.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.: This is a lament, but one laced with hope. I'm a pastor in this buckle of the Bible Belt, and long have been dismayed by the substitution of vaguely religious hearsay for Biblical knowledge. Tragic that we who profess such faithfulness to God aren't interested enough to actually read Scripture, our collective memory, and intentionally become part of the story. All of which means, then, that there is much work for the patient pastor/teacher. Therein lies the hope, for we do not engage this task alone but are guided and equipped by the One who loves the students.

Rev. Roger Gustafson

Advent Lutheran Church

Stephen Prothero: Hi Rev. Gustafson--

I love the idea of "collective memory." My book actually talks a lot about religion as a "chain of memory," something I borrow from a French sociologist of religion. I think one of the sources of our collective ignorance about religion is that we have just forgotten so much of what was once common cultural coin. More of that, I think, and we'd have better political (and religious) conversations.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: Does religious literacy now need to extend to faiths other than Christianity and Judaism? I do not claim other religions are better than these two. In fact, as an atheist, I give none of them any credence. But America now has many more religious minorities, such as Hindus from India and Muslims from the Middle East. So does it not make sense to extend religious literacy to these other religions? I agree we need to increase religious literacy, but not confuse it with proselytizing.

Stephen Prothero: Absolutely we need to extend religious literacy beyond Christianity and Judaism. One of my core concerns is that Americans don't know anything about Islam or the Quran. Given that situation, how can we decide whether President Bush is right when he says Islam is a "religion of peace" or some of his evangelical critics are right when they say it is a "religion of war"? Also, how can we figure out the quagmire in Iraq without knowing something basic about the differences between Sunnis and Shiites? So, yes, religious literacy cannot just be Judeo-Christian.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: A third of the nation can't name who the Vice President is. I believe a majority cannot name their member of Congress. Isn't the real problem that we're a nation, not of religious illiteracy, but general knowledge illiterates? I suspect over half the nation would think it's safe to deep fry a turkey if given the chance to do so.

Stephen Prothero: There are problems of course with historical illiteracy and scientific illiteracy and etc. And some of those illiteracies have serious consequences. But the consequences of religious illiteracy are in my view particularly grave. That's because religion is one of the most powerful constituents of culture -- it moves people to kill and to make peace, to work for justice and punish "evildoers." In short, religion matters. So it makes sense to attack this sort of illiteracy with particular force.

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Maybe you could start us off with a recap of your book's thesis?

Stephen Prothero: That's easy enough. My main argument is that Americans know astonishingly little about their own religions, or the religions of others. And I see this not just as a religious problem, but more importantly a civic one. With religion rampaging into the public square -- and politicians and TV pundits referring to religion in debates concerning Iraq and abortion and homosexuality -- it becomes imperative for citizens to understand religion in order to be politically engaged. More understanding of religion, more democratic engagement. That's the basic idea.

_______________________

Waldorf, Md.: Susan Jacoby's review of your (very timely and very necessary) book contains this: "and -- a finding that will surprise many -- evangelical Christians are only slightly more knowledgeable than their non-evangelical counterparts."

This finding surprises me not one tiny iota; most religious people I know are as ignorant as tree stumps about their own religion and their denominations, and what is even worse to me, they don't even seem to be aware of it. This makes it extremely difficult to respect any of their (religious) views and ideas, never mind their political and social views that may or may not derive from them. The biggest bad joke of all to me is what supposedly passes for "education" in Sunday school and in weekday evening Bible studies classes and whatnot: it is mostly indoctrination into ideology, and virtually nothing about history and allied studies of religion. I converted to Judaism when I was in my early 20s, so it's no skin off me how dumb Christians are, but it is certainly disconcerting. I'm not even Christian but I know more about these things than 90 percent of Christians do.

What has always perplexed me the most, though, are the (nearly invisible) distinctions between sects and denominations, and what their names mean. Lutheranism is named for Martin Luther, of course, and him I know about; but the is modern-day Lutheran ism, and how is it different from, say, Methodism? Exactly what is the "Method" in Methodism"? Do even Methodists know? (My wife has been a Methodist her whole life, and I know she's clueless on this). What the heck is a "Presbyter" and how does whatever it is relate to Presbyterianism? How is Presbyterianism different from Methodism different from Lutheranism different from UCC different from the Baptist Church, different from Episcopalians, ad infinitum among all the little lesser denominations? I bet about 0.02 percent of Christians know. But what it tells me is that basically the answers are totally irrelevant to anything and the distinctions, even if I did know them, are meaningless.

Sorry for the rant. Your thoughts?

Stephen Prothero: The issue here is what I call "denominational literacy" and believe it or not it affects not just "people in the pews" but also ministers. A friend of mine who teaches at a seminary devoted to training ministers says that every fall clergy-to-be show up without knowing the most basic teachings and practices of their denominations -- what Baptists think about baptism for example or Lutherans about Luther.

Baptists, by the way, believe in adult baptism. They think you should be baptized because you've had a conversion experience of a sort -- because you have chosen this route as an adult. Lutherans stress (as Luther did) salvation by faith and grace. Methodists differ from some other groups by stressing "sanctification" as a second experience of grace. But as you say these distinctions pale a bit if no one knows what they are.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: What current curriculum requirements do you propose ending to make room for requirements in biblical literacy and world religion?

Stephen Prothero: Great question, since public education is a zero-sum game. (Only so many days and so many hours.) Of course, every school district is different because the curricula differ. But I think we might be able to get by with 11 years of math instead of 12. That's a possibility.

_______________________

Nashville, Tenn.: How could religious literacy in public education remain anything but superficial and still maintain the important separation of church and state? We could teach them Genesis is the first book of the Bible, but how would a community agree on a non-controversial way to answer any questions about what happens inside the book about the creation, the fall, the flood...

Stephen Prothero: All you have to do is read the U.S. Supreme Court opinions on this to get the answer, since that court has addressed this question in virtually every ruling it's made in the last half century on religion in public education. What they repeatedly say is that you can teach religion but you can't preach religion. You can teach about religion academically, but you can't proselytize. As for Genesis, students should learn what Genesis says. There is no reason why a public school teacher needs to tell students whether what it says is true or false. Students should know that Noah goes with the flood story. That Abraham goes with the binding of Isaac story. That the serpent comes up in the Garden of Eden. And to believe that our public school students are educated if they don't know this basic information is folly.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: People expect me not to know much about the Bible because I'm an atheist. Unfortunately, I actually know more about the Bible than the people who claim to believe in it, even people who claim to have read it. I have even been accused of making up the story of Lot's daughters getting him drunk and having sex with him, and how he offered his daughters to be raped. I suspect pastors and priests deliberately withhold information from their congregations to keep them from realizing what a ridiculous fairy tale the Bible is. Have you studied which parts of the Bible get selected for church services and Sunday School? Are my suspicions about selectivity correct?

Stephen Prothero: EVERYBODY reads the Bible selectively, even you (as you are doing here). It's a large, sprawling text, and people dive into it here and there for various purposes. How could it be otherwise? That said, it is the case that churches pick and choose. Some of course have lectionaries that dictate which parts of the Bible are to be read on any given Sunday. And there are some black churches where the letters of Paul are not read (since he is the person who is reputed to have written "slaves obey your masters").

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Dr. Prothero, I'm looking forward to reading your book. An observation: a few years ago I went through the formal process of converting to Roman Catholicism while pursuing a graduate degree in systematic theology in an RC seminary. The RCIA process takes a year. During that year the deacon (translation for non-Catholics: man going through the priesthood process) who co-led our sessions with the church's religious educator made numerous mistakes. If this is the quality of the religious education the professionals have, lay people are going to be in a world of hurt.

Stephen Prothero: This brings up the broader question of teaching the teachers, which is a serious consideration of course in the public school world. There are some good examples of partnerships between public school districts and universities, however -- where faculty in Religious Studies departments are brought into workshops to train social studies and world history teachers, for example, on Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. This is a challenge, to be sure, but it can be met.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: At the end of Susan Jacoby's review of your book, she states what is probably the bottom line about attempt to improve religious education -- some parents don't want their children to learn facts that contradict faith.

How can anyone study the Pentateuch as literature if they think Moses wrote it? How does one critically examine the Koran if it supposedly fell out of the sky in perfect Arabic?

Is it possible to teach competing absolute truths?

Stephen Prothero: I get asked this one all the time. My answer is "I do it every day." Sure, there are some people who will refuse to engage in this enterprise of religious literacy. They have the truth, everyone else has falsehoods and they don't want to hear anything about it. That's why courses of the sort I'm proposing usually have "opt-out" provisions. But very few parents/students take advantage of those provisions. In a world religions curriculum in Modesto, Calif., for example, only 2 or 3 kids a year (out of 3,000 enrolled) opt out. The rest hang in and weigh, as you put it, "competing absolute truths." I think we underestimate the abilities of Americans to hold dearly to their own truths while respecting the beliefs of others. Just because you believe the one true God is Krishna doesn't mean you can't study the Bible. It can be done.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I'm very interested to read your book, as I am going through a process now of trying to understand other religions for many reasons, most of all to try and find out what "makes sense" to me, religiously. But what would you suggest is the first step in the process?

Stephen Prothero: I suggest TWO "first steps" (besides reading my book of course!). One is just to start engaging friends in religious conversations. If you are a Christian and you have a Jewish friend, Passover is coming up. Ask her about Passover. Or if you are Jewish and have a Muslim friend as him about the Quran. Step one: conversation. Step two is to read a good book about the world's religions. I think Huston Smith's "The World's Religions" is a good starter book. He's wrong about some things, largely because he's intent on making all the religions essentially the same (which, in my honest opinion, they are not). But he presents an easy-to-read and simple introduction to the leading religions of the world.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: It seems that people are confusing religious literacy with reading the Bible. As someone who went to Catholic schools, religious education was always more than just the Bible. It was history, the writings of theologians and more. Just a comment.

Stephen Prothero: For Catholics, of course, Biblical literacy is just part of religious literacy, and not necessarily a particularly large part. When I quiz my Catholic students, I ask them to name the Seven Sacraments of Catholicism. And that's not in the Bible. Moreover, Catholics of course read the Bible THROUGH the traditional teachings of the church. So those church traditions are equally important for Catholics. Another way of saying this is that part of religious literacy is knowing how Protestants and Catholics differ over what really matters. Protestants tend to emphasize the Bible more, and beliefs. Catholics tend to emphasize tradition, and practices. Those are sweeping generalizations of course, but they are part of the picture.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: How is it possible to increase religious literacy when so many groups are working feverishly to keep any serious mention of religion out of civic life? When you get arguments that it's only okay to display a Nativity scene at Christmas if it's alongside other "winter scenes" like Santa Claus and snowflakes, you get a serious dumbing-down of religion. No wonder people don't understand why religion in the Middle East and other areas is something people might stake their lives on -- it's presented as only vaguely relevant here in the U.S.

Stephen Prothero: Great point. But here's the interesting thing here. In order to even UNDERSTAND the various Supreme Court cases on what some have jokingly called the "three reindeer rule" (three reindeers and a Nativity display is sufficiently secular to get the constitutional seal of approval), you have to know something about religion, no? And in order to banish religion from the public square you need to know what counts as religious. The question, it seems to me, is unavoidable, even for those strict separationists who imagine (wrongly in my view) that the Founders contemplated a public space entirely bereft of religious influences.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: As a Muslim, I guess I'm not sure why my child in a public school needs to know what the book of genesis says. It is largely inconsequential to my religious beliefs as the majority of these stories are recounted in the Koran.

That said, who decides what will be taught in the public schools about what religions? The easy answer is "the community" but it is also fair to assume that the majority will always win out and my child will be forced to cloud her mind with religious knowledge without having the balance of reading the other side of the story as told in the Koran, specific to Abraham's binding of Isaac this would be the story of Ishmael and Hagar

Stephen Prothero: Glad to have your perspective here. But with all respect "my religious beliefs" (or yours) are not the issue here. Your child needs to know what the Book of Genesis says because politicians quote from it, refer to it, argue based on it. So if she doesn't understand its references she will be effectively absenting herself from a wide swath of public debate. And that would be too bad. We need more Muslim voices in the public square, not fewer.

As to who decides, we need to have that conversation. Most Americans do not know that many Bible stories and Bible characters recur in the Quran. In the world religions course I propose, students would learn about the Quran, and they could discuss Ishmael and Hagar alongside Abraham and Isaac.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I am 24 and a product of public schools. I think we need to look no further than your typical HS history class to see that perhaps our schools should not be involved in teaching religion. I wish they could be, I was a religion minor and find it incredibly interesting and valuable. But when a history class teaches that the Civil War was just about "freeing slaves" and not about state's rights. Or that the U.S. government knew nothing about the Holocaust while it was happening, or neglects to mention that the vast majority of our founding fathers owned slaves... I don't want to see what would happen when they get their hands on something as nuanced and complicated as religion.

I think public schools are great, but to have the quality teacher one would need to teach that particular subject I think would be hard.

Stephen Prothero: Well, the logical conclusion to draw from this approach is that we shouldn't teach history either. Or math. The fact that some teachers teach poorly or some learners learn poorly isn't a reason to give up. It should be a catalyst to do better. I think we need to do better teaching religion too.

_______________________

Phoenix: Whose responsibility is the inculcation of religious literacy?

1. Parents are already apathetic about their ignorance.

2. Pastors, too often, entertain rather than educate. And get hired for that reason.

3. Teachers are afraid of a lawsuit because issues of separation of church and state chill their exercise of religious literacy.

4. TV generates caricatures of religious figures to blunt interest, to serve as a whipping boy and to make a buck.

5. Movies and books, like Dan Brown's, purposely exploit religious ignorance to pander and proselytize the illiterates into a web of misinformation, so that religious seekers get frustrated at the know-ability of the religious body of knowledge.

6. Political figures generally botch religious knowledge and blunt its appeal by their hypocrisy--betraying faith and undermining civil society by denigrating their religion.

7. Myself? Yes. I took time at age 50 to get a grad degree at a seminary, now my old friends need assurances I'm as approachable as ever -- not just some kook to be written off.

How do you, Professor Prothero, make discussion of religion socially acceptable -- an honorable pursuit?

Stephen Prothero: How to make the study of religion socially acceptable? Well, current events seem to be doing an excellent job of that. 9/11 taught us not only that we are vulnerable to terrorists but also that we need to know more about Islam. And the 2004 "faith-based" election brought home the point that religion matters in US politics too. As for who is responsible . . . well I suppose we all are. I'm trying to do my bit. But the venue we use in the U.S. for teaching basic stuff to young people is the public schools, so that's why I'm stressing it here.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Anyone who questions whether Islam is peaceful or not just has to remember who was flying the planes on 9/11 and what religion is on the jihadists Web sites.

Stephen Prothero: Well, I happen to think that the question "Is Islam peaceful" is ill-posed. Is Christianity peaceful? Is America? Any religion (or society) that exists for more than a hundred years or so needs to know how to do (and justify) both war and peace. It's obvious to me that Islam is, like Christianity, a religion that does both war and peace. So this just isn't a well-formed question. The question is what resources are there inside Islam for peace? For war? For martyrdom? For reconciliation with people of other faiths?

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Do you advocate that we read religious texts such as the Bible as religious texts, or as some other kind of texts (Bible as historical document of the Jewish people, Bible as literature, Bible as philosophy, Bible as legal document)?

Stephen Prothero: Well you need to read any text for what it is. Otherwise education is just obfuscation. You need to read a novel as a novel, not as a political platform. You need to read a poem as a poem, not as an economic manifesto. So, yes, you need to read the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita or the Quran as religious texts. But that is not to say that you need to read them religiousLY. You read them objectively and academically, knowing that they are religious texts to those who hold them dear. But it's also important to see the AFTERLIFE of the Bible and other scriptures. Public school students need to come to see some of the 1300 allusions to the Bible in Shakespeare. And the uses of the Bible in the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.:"...even for those strict separationists who imagine (wrongly in my view) that the Founders contemplated a public space entirely bereft of religious influences."

So their (the founding fathers of the United States of America) "idea" of separation of church and state really means not totally separated?

Stephen Prothero: The Founders did not contemplate a wall of separation. They gave us a First Amendment that said we would not pass federal laws "establishing" religion. What that means is what justices and citizens need to figure out. But it obviously did not mean total separation since (a) that is impossible (not least because courts need to decide what "religion" means) and (b) they endorsed all sorts of entanglements early on, including military chaplains, prayers at the start of Congressional sessions, oaths on Bibles, etc. Church/state issues aren't black and white. The question is where to draw the line separating these two, and how thick the line (the common space between them) is.

_______________________

Kansas: Greetings, I have been teaching religious education in Catholic schools for several years and your comments strike a chord. There is a woeful gap in religious ed, so by eighth grade or confirmation, kids can't wait to leave it behind. Lesson plan books have been mostly unhelpful and vague. We need a better clear-cut background of the history and the key themes and ways to make those themes come alive throughout the entire grade school period. I am so tired of kids simply wanting 'hangman' for words without understanding any context. Like other volunteers, I am well-meaning but frankly ill-informed. I don't need more ideology (for example: hammering home to kids that abortion is wrong in the eyes of the Church. That is the position.) I need more and better ways to explain why things have evolved so kids can understand and then respect the Church's positions-without simply telling them, "this is the way it is." In my opinion, the Catholic church is losing an entire generation of folks who simply don't know.

Stephen Prothero: There is definitely a crisis in Catholic education. When I ask my Catholic students at Boston University what they learned in CCD classes, the first thing I hear is "COLORING!" The second thing is social service projects. But Catholics aren't learning any more the basic teachings and practices of the church. Many of my students can't name even ONE of the Seven Sacraments of the Church. This is a religious problem, of course, but I'm interested in the civic dimension. If Catholics argue against gay marriage, for example, on the basis that marriage is a sacrament, is that true? Well, it's a sacrament for Catholics and most Protestants. But it isn't for Quakers, for example. Anyway, I think the Catholic Church has a lot of work to do on this question. But that's for Catholics to figure out, not me.

_______________________

What about...: Creationism? Do you feel that should be taught in schools too?

Stephen Prothero: I think creationism could and should be taught in public schools, yes. But it should be taught as part of the religious studies curriculum. To teach it as truth is to start "preaching" rather than "teaching." Discussions of creationism need to start with . . . "Some Christians and Jews believe that . . ."

_______________________

Goodview, Va.: Do you think the Biblical illiteracy is as bad in "unchurched" Europe? If not, why?

Stephen Prothero: Europe really the mirror image of the US on this. Less religious belief, but more religious knowledge. Why this is the case is fairly simple--education about religion is mandatory in much of Europe in most primary and secondary schools.

_______________________

St. Mary's City, Md.: I think religious literacy in public schools is a great idea, as long as we don't play favorites among competing religions. Many public high schools offer courses in comparative religions. An example might include contrasting Genesis with the creation myths of ancient Greece and Egypt, or examining the disputes that led to the Protestant Reformation or the Shiite/Sunni schism in Islam. What do you think?

Stephen Prothero: Very important not to "play favorites." In fact, doing so would plainly be unconstitutional.

_______________________

Stephen Prothero: Thanks for an interesting chat, and thanks to all of the questioners for their interest in "Religious Literacy."

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.