How Public Schools Began Offering Bible Courses: The Perspective from North Carolina
By Rod Dreher
Rawlings School of Divinity
CLED 720: Biblical & Theological Foundations of Education
Genevieve Hamer
July 1, 2022
How Public Schools Began Offering Bible Courses: The Perspective from North Carolina
In the early twentieth century, the legal status of school-sponsored Bible reading across the
country was dictated by a mishmash of state laws, court decisions, attorney general opinions,
and state and local policies. The situation remained fluid as legal conditions within particular
states changed as the result of new laws and court decisions. Such variations would continue
until the Supreme Court weighed in in 1963.[1] North Carolina fell into the category of states
with no law or court rulings on the matter. Many Carolina communities—likely most, though it
is hard to determine conclusively—incorporated Bible reading into their school day, whether in
homeroom, opening assembly, or elsewhere.
The practice of Bible reading generated controversy in some quarters, and such debates
about its appropriateness both reflected and contributed to heightened interest in the Bible’s
place in public education. When this interest combined with growing support for more
systematic religious education, the result was a new phenomenon: grade-school courses
devoted to the Bible, as well as courses in theology and character formation. These classes
were offered collaboratively by public schools and local faith communities, often in a program
called Weekday (or Week-Day) Religious Education (often abbreviated WRE or WDRE).
The traditionally cited pioneer in WRE is Gary, Indiana, which instituted a program for
Protestants and Jews in 1914.[2] Some school systems awarded academic credit for religion
courses. The latter idea actually predates the Gary program, as North Dakota had launched a
widely hailed plan in 1912 in which schools gave credit for Sunday School and similar off-
campus religious education classes that covered material specified on an official state syllabus.
[3]
When the first North Carolina Bible courses appeared is not clear, but by 1916-1917, the
state had begun tracking the number of students taking them (29 in rural school systems, as
opposed to 7410 taking Latin, with no reported number for urban systems).[4] The number of
courses and students increased modestly as communities devised policies allowing academic
credit for Sunday School or similar classes and specifying requirements for instructional time,
teacher certification, and administration of exams.[5] Some programs created in this period
lasted for decades, such as Charlotte’s, which ran from 1925–1984. Its theological stance was
representative: “The course was to be taught as the Word of God from the Christian viewpoint
without denominational emphasis, elective to all students but compulsory for none.” Despite
this claim of denominational neutrality, however, the Charlotte program’s bylaws specified
further that the material be taught from “the conservative viewpoint.”[6]
The early and mid-1940s were a heyday for WRE throughout much of the country.[7] The
turning point for North Carolina Bible courses came when the Durham-based North Carolina
Council of Churches (NCCC), a newly formed group comprised mostly of mainline Protestant
churches, made such courses a top priority. In 1940 NCCC’s Committee on Week-day Religious
Education, which included the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, devised a Bible credit
program to be collaboratively implemented by the NCCC, churches and other organizations,
and state and local educational agencies.
The council recommended that elective courses be offered “on school time and in the
school building,” although alternative locations were deemed acceptable, especially “if there is
likely to be any protest against the use of public school property.”[8] In each community local
sponsors, whether churches, ministerial associations, YMCAs, women’s groups, or other civic
organizations, recommended a suitable teacher and raised sufficient funds to pay her (less
often, him). The NCCC quickly became a job placement clearinghouse, connecting prospective
instructors with searching schools.
“A veritable wave of enthusiasm for the teaching of the Bible in the public schools is
sweeping the state of North Carolina,” the council soon proclaimed.[9] Its newsletter carefully
charted increases in the number of Bibles courses, claiming in late 1943 that courses in 90-100
communities drew more than 20,000 students (“both whites and Negroes”).
[10] Newsweek declared that year that North Carolina had the “fastest growing state program
for religious education in the nation.”[11]
The NCCC emphasized the importance of teacher qualification and professionalization. As
early as spring 1941, Bible teachers were sufficiently organized to petition the North Carolina
Education Association for official recognition as its Bible Department.[12] The state’s
Department of Public Instruction became the first in the country to issue formal certification for
Bible teachers, requiring “15 hours of Bible in an accredited institution of higher learning,” a
number that later rose to 21 at the NCCC’s urging.[13] Any courses taught by uncertified
teachers would not count toward the credits required by the state for admission to college. The
NCCC occasionally succeeded in getting schools like Duke University, the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Guilford College to provide training for Bible teachers.
The sole textbook for students was the Bible, although teachers were free to draw upon
supplemental resources. The course’s focuses were life lessons and familiarity with biblical
material, rather than critical analysis. Although local systems had tremendous freedom to craft
their own courses, the council recognized the need for some degree of standardization.
[14] Uncomfortable with existing materials, it developed its own curriculum, which received
approval from the state in 1951.[15] North Carolina thus became one of several states with an
official Bible curriculum or syllabus.[16]
This curriculum suggested course policies and best practices, which included regularly
scheduled worship; specified which biblical books and stories should be read in particular
grades; identified suitable memorization verses; recommended supplemental books, filmstrips,
and other resources; proposed service projects; and provided advice for creating Bible clubs.
Course objectives included moral training, spiritual growth, and cultural literacy. High school
courses, for example, were to “teach the Bible as the Book among books, containing the
supreme revelation of truth, the laws of God, the greatest of literature and the inspiration for
the best in art and music;” and to “help each student discover by experience a vital relationship
with Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, Lord, and Friend.”[17]
From the council’s perspective, the program was perfectly compatible with the separation
of church and state, a principle it vigorously affirmed.[18] The council promoted its courses as
“non-sectarian in content and presentation,”[19] but its understanding of nonsectarianism
generally extended only to avoiding preferential treatment of one traditional Protestant
denomination over another. To be sure, other Christian groups were not systematically
excluded from the program—a 1947 study noted a smattering of courses sponsored by Roman
Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witness, and Christian Scientist churches.[20] In general,
however, any concerns about how a widespread Protestant-dominated program might affect
other Christians, Jews, adherents of other traditions, or the nonreligious are largely missing in
the NCCC’s materials.[21]
Ironically, the major legal challenge to WRE was directed not at a solely Protestant program
but rather at one designed to include Protestants, Catholics, and Jews in Champaign, Illinois. As
that lawsuit made its way up through the courts, WRE supporters nationwide worried that a
far-reaching decision might prohibit all school-sponsored Bible reading and religion courses as
well as in-school prayers, devotionals, and hymns. Warning about a potential “staggering
tragedy for Protestantism,” the NCCC asked every local Bible committee to contribute $5 for
Champaign’s legal defense fund.[22]
The Supreme Court’s 1948 ruling on the issue, McCollum v. Board of Education, was widely
regarded as ambiguous. On the one hand, the Court flatly declared the Champaign program
unconstitutional, rejecting the use of “tax supported property for religious instruction and the
close cooperation between the school authorities and the religious council in promoting
religious education” and the “utilization of the tax-established and tax-supported public school
system to aid religious groups to spread their faith.”[23] Thus, on-campus courses taught on
school grounds during class hours by religious groups were no longer acceptable. On the other
hand, the decision was less clear about the legality of off-campus courses or, for that matter,
on-campus courses taught by regularly certified teachers rather than religious representatives.
Many North Carolinians, like Americans elsewhere, were confused about the import of the
case. Most North Carolina school systems with Bible courses decided that because their
programs were voluntary and nonsectarian in nature and thus distinct from the plan prohibited
by the Court, they could continue them without modification, a decision supported by the
NCCC.
The Supreme Court decisions of 1962 and 1963 invigorated debates about the place of
religion in public education. The first, Engel v. Vitale, prohibited school-sponsored prayer,
whereas the second, Abington v. Schempp, barred school-sponsored Bible reading.
[24] Like McCollum, these decisions met with confusion, with some thinking that they applied
only to laws and policies mandating the practices. “We do not require the Bible and praying but
we do these things because we want to,” North Carolina Gov. Terry Sanford reasoned. “We will
go on having Bible readings and prayers in the schools of this state just as we always have. As I
read the decision, this kind of thing is not forbidden by the Constitution, and indeed, it should
not be.”[25] Both prayer and Bible readings continued in some North Carolina communities.
Twenty years later, an investigation by People for the American Way found schools in the state
continuing these practices.[26]
The immediate impact of Abington v. Schempp on North Carolina is difficult to determine.
Student interest in religion courses had already been fading in some communities; only days
before the Court’s decision, one newspaper announced the cessation of local courses because
of low enrollments.[27] The NCCC itself soon retreated entirely from on-campus courses.
Nonetheless, many existing courses continued, some adapting to meet the Court’s goals of
objectivity and others maintaining their overtly Protestant nature. When the North Carolina
Education Association revised its Bible curriculum guide in 1965, it retained course goals such as
“cultivating a personal relationship with Jesus” and advice on planning devotionals and creating
Bible clubs. Its introduction directed, “When questions arise on which our Christian groups
differ, either an unbiased explanation of the attitude of each group is given or the students are
referred to the ministers of their own denominations.”[28] The guide’s understanding of
“nonsectarianism” was still merely intra-Protestant non-denominationalism. In its ongoing
affirmation of Christianity, the state’s official Bible curriculum thus displayed no hint
that Schempp had ever occurred. This document would eventually fade from memory and
usage, but the equation of "nonsectarianism" with nondenominational Christianity that it
reflected lingers still.
A half century after Schempp, many North Carolina schools continue to offer Bible courses.
The single biggest difference between current and recent courses and those offered pre-
Schempp are that today's courses no longer bear the trappings of worship in the form of
prayers, hymns, and devotions. Any such practices that do occur under the radar are anomalies
rather than the norm. Similarly, courses are (theoretically, at least) no longer offered for the
primary purpose of faith formation, and they no longer explicitly function as extensions of
church-related religious education programs.
Current North Carolina Bible courses have no curricular guidelines of any type--no learning
objectives, course standards, or recommended resources. This lack contrasts sharply with
earlier decades, where teachers had the benefit of the general guidelines, outlines of study, and
recommended bibliography, theologically infused though they were, that the NCCC and state
Education Association had prepared.
Today’s Bible courses likely exhibit considerable variety in content. Many may be
completely locally produced, based on whatever resources (sometimes nonsectarian,
sometimes religious) available to their teachers. Others rely on materials from organizations
such as the North-Carolina based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which
has traditionally produced highly sectarian materials, or the Bible Literacy Project, which strives
much harder to be genuinely nonsectarian, though with varying degrees of success.
A district-by-district review of current course materials would no doubt discover notable
successes that exemplify the hopes of the 1963 Supreme Court. However, it would almost
certainly also find courses that promoted particular religious viewpoints over others.
Ultimately, if North Carolina and the country as a whole are going to ensure progress toward
the Court’s goal of academic, nonsectarian Bible courses, educational authorities will have to
create expectations for those courses, their teachers, and their curricula that go beyond laissez-
faire.
Notes
[1] William Ross Hood, The Bible in the Public Schools: Legal Status and Current
Practice (Washington, D.C.: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, 1923); Ward W.
Keesecker, Legal Status of Bible Reading and Religious Instruction in Public
Schools (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior, Office of Education, 1930),
Donald E. Boles, The Bible, Religion, and Public Schools (3rd ed.; Ames: Iowa State University
Press, 1965), 48-154.
[2] Arlo A. Brown, “The Week-Day Church Schools of Gary, Indiana,” Religious Education 11:1
(1916): 5-19.
[3] Vernon P. Squires, “The North Dakota Plan of High School Bible Study,” Religious
Education 8:2 (1913): 225-31.
[4] N. W. Walker, Tenth Annual Report: State Inspector of Public High Schools of North Carolina
for the Scholastic Year ending June 30, 1917 (Raleigh, 1917), 12 (North Carolina Digital
Collections; http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm4/index.php).
[5] E. C. Brooks, “The Public School and the Churches,” North Carolina Education 16:1 (1921):
14.
[6] The Fifty-Nine Year Miracle: The History of Bible Teaching in the Public Schools of Charlotte
(1925-1984) (Charlotte: Friends of Bible Teaching in the Public Schools, 1984), 2, 22.
[7] Mary Dabney Davis, Week-Day Religious Instruction: Classes for Public-School Pupils
Conducted on Released School Time (Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior,
Office of Education, 1933).
[8] Price H. Gwynn, Jr., Teaching the Bible in The Public Schools of North Carolina (Durham:
North Carolina Council of Churches 1941), 5.
[9] P. H. Gwynn, Jr., “Elective Bible Courses are Offered in Many Schools,” Church Council
Bulletin 2:2 (1941): 1.
[10] “Teaching the Bible in the Public Schools of North Carolina,” Church Council Bulletin 4:5
(1943): 4.
[11] “N.C. Bible Classes,” Newsweek (Jan. 25, 1943): 62.
[12] “Bible Teachers Organize,” Church Council Bulletin 2:3 (1941): 1-2.
[13] Gwynn, Jr., Teaching the Bible, 2.
[14] “Curriculum Studies,” Church Council Bulletin 6:5 (1945): 5.
[15] “Condensed Report of the Board of Christianity Activities for Year 1951,” Church Council
Bulletin 12:1 (1952): 3.
[16] Davis, Week-Day Religious Instruction.
[17] North Carolina Education Association, Suggested Twelve-Year Program of Biblical Education
for the Public Schools of North Carolina (Raleigh: North Carolina Education Association, Bible
Department, n.d.), 9.
