fbpx
Articles

Can Christian teachers express their faith in public schools?

/
November 11, 2016

Can a teacher in a public school display a personal Bible on a desk? What about answering a student’s questions about faith or the Bible?

At Focus on the Family, we received many questions like these during our nationwide religious-freedom event for students—Bring Your Bible to School Day on Oct. 6— as well as in response to a blog I contributed for ERLC on students’ rights.

A great deal of confusion exists over whether Christian educators can openly acknowledge their personal faith in the public education system. That’s because our nation’s courts have often rendered opinions on teachers’ rights that vary from case to case, rather than creating a clear-cut standard.

Generally speaking, students in public schools enjoy powerful protections for their religious-freedom and free-speech rights. Adults, on the other hand, are much more limited since they are government employees. As Alliance Defending Freedom puts it, public school teachers “are both individual citizens and agents of the state.” So the manner in which First Amendment protections apply to them is “somewhat unique.”

Below, I’ve provided a Q&A with general tips for teachers.

Can teachers respond when a student directly asks them about their faith or spiritual beliefs?

In general, teachers can respond when a student directly asks them a question about their personal beliefs. But teachers can get into sticky situations if they use the questions to begin giving what amounts to a church sermon to the entire class. That’s why it’s best to keep the answer focused on the exact question the student asked.

Teachers can also run into claims—especially when very young students are involved—that it wasn’t clear whether they were explaining their personal beliefs or those of the school. So it’s also a good idea for teachers to preempt their answers with a clear statement that they are expressing their personal perspectives.

Can teachers pray or do Bible studies with other teachers?

Teachers can engage in religious-freedom activities with other adult educators before and after school. This can include after-school Bible study and prayer groups for teachers or the distribution of invitations to religious-themed community events among educators (if the school already allows teachers to distribute flyers to one another about community related activities).  The U.S. Department of Education itself issued a memorandum acknowledging this, which stated that, “Before school or during lunch, for example, teachers may meet with other teachers for prayer or Bible study to the same extent that they may engage in other conversation or nonreligious activities.”

Can teachers give factual explanations of Christianity and/or the Bible in their classrooms?  

Yes, teachers can provide classroom instruction about Christianity and the Bible in a way that meets state academic standards and related curriculum requirements, especially when doing lessons about history, culture or literature. But keep in mind that teachers must address these topics in an objective and purely educational manner—i.e., it must be academic, not devotional.

Did you know that some state academic standards actually encourage instruction about Christianity? For example, California sixth graders are expected to note “the origins of Christianity in the Jewish Messianic prophecies, the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth . . . and the contribution of St. Paul the Apostle to the definition and spread of Christian beliefs.”  In Massachusetts, seventh grade students are expected to describe “the origins of Christianity and its central features.” Gateways to Better Education has more excellent resources on references to Christianity or religion in state academic standards.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also affirmed that the “Bible may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, ethics, comparative religion or the like” (Stone v. Graham, 1980). And even in its infamous ruling against adult-led Bible reading in public schools (Abington v. Schempp, 1963), the Supreme Court acknowledged “that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

Can teachers put their personal Bibles on their desks?

This is one of those questions that can be answered in two ways—whether teachers should have that right or whether consistent court rulings have granted them that right. Personally, I believe teachers should have the right to put their personal Bible on their desk, just as they would a personal photograph. The Alliance Defending Freedom has stated that “there’s no legitimate basis for public schools to prohibit employees from having Bibles at their desks for their own personal use.”

Unfortunately, though, when you look at how cases have played out in court, the answer seems to differ according to the facts in each individual case. To give a few examples:

So what does all this mean for teachers? When it comes to deciding whether or not to display a Bible on a desk, it’s prudent for teachers to follow the school administration’s policy. If a teacher is feeling compelled to test the waters in a gray area that may go beyond that policy, it’s absolutely crucial to seek the advice of competent legal counsel beforehand.

What if a teacher wants to support students who are engaging in religious-freedom activities or event?

Perhaps the best way teachers can be supportive is to recognize and allow students’ free-speech and religious freedom activities. A “fast facts” sheet explaining students’ rights is available in the “Know Your Rights” section of BringYourBible.org.  A teacher can also show support by volunteering to serve as a faculty sponsor for student-led Christian clubs. (Many schools require student clubs to have a sponsor.) But when it comes to promotional efforts like putting up posters or making announcements, all of those efforts should be initiated and led by students. Likewise, it’s up to students to initiate the creation of the Christian club and then organize and lead the activities.

I want to encourage Christian educators in public schools: You are likely having far more of an impact than you realize, as demonstrated by multiple Focus on the Family listeners who shared their stories on our broadcast (see transcript). By simply modeling the love of Jesus to a child whose self-esteem has hit rock bottom or by exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit consistently through your personal actions in the classroom, you also are letting “your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven,” (Matt. 5:16).

Candi Cushman

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family, is a leading national expert on education issues affecting public and private education, including school choice and home school initiatives, sexual agendas in public schools, censorship of Christian students and academic freedoms issues surrounding the evolution debate. Cushman served for several years … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24