Teaching Not Preaching: Scripture as a Pedagogically Necessary Tool in Political Theory

Teaching Not Preaching: Scripture as a Pedagogically Necessary Tool in Political Theory

آموزش نه موعظه: کتاب مقدس به عنوان ابزاری ضروری برای آموزش در نظریه سیاسی

Modern political thought in the West cannot be understood apart from 

 biblical tradition any more than it can be severed from the intellectual heritage of the Greeks. While scholars of teaching and learning have rightfully advocated for expanding political theory instruction beyond the Western canon (Getachew and Mantena 2021; Wagle 2024), this expansion does not aim to displace the foundational texts of modern political theory. As Strauss (1981) stated, “…Western civilization consists of two elements, has two roots, which are in radical disagreement with each other. We may call these elements…to speak in non-metaphorical language, the Bible and Greek .” By addressing only the Greek influence on the genealogy of political thought, some of the greatest and most commonly used political theory texts lack a dimension that is fundamental to understanding their work.

The question of including scripture in political theory instruction is first and foremost a pedagogical one, as the aims of the course should define the educational resources that we . In political science pedagogical literature, there are several suggested purposes of political theory instruction. From reading comprehension (Kassiola 2007) to critical thinking skills and encouraging moral self-examination (Moore 2011), each instructor chooses their specific goals and emphases. I am partial to Parrish (2007)’s first goal of teaching political theory to undergraduates: “to induce students to think critically and theoretically about the fact that there are a variety of ways to conceive of and organize political existence” (280). I also emphasize the goal of argument evaluation, where students are encouraged to evaluate the effectiveness and persuasiveness of various arguments encountered in primary texts. These aims all require student access to proper textual resources. In the case of modern political thought in the Western tradition, biblical knowledge is a prerequisite requirement for the arguments we expect students to evaluate and think critically about.

Kries (1996) points out, “There is a tendency in American universities…to push all religious questions to the background, or even beyond the background” (356). Overwhelmingly, the intellectual foundation of Western political thought is a story of the Greeks and the moderns, cities in speech and cities in practice, without adequately addressing one fundamental difference between the two: modern thinkers were in conversation with the Bible. To speak of politics in the early modern period was to speak for or against established religious doctrine, as religious and political authority were almost inseparably intertwined. These thinkers saw themselves in a rich dialectical contest with the Bible, and in order to understand what they accomplished and what they did not, I argue that scripture should be included in the instruction of political theory courses as a necessary means of understanding these thinkers and evaluating their contributions.

A descriptive analysis of political theory syllabi at the top ten political science programs found that of the eight universities offering introductory political theory courses, not one accessible syllabus assigned scripture to accompany early modern political thinkers. Pushing religion beyond the background is overlooking an important facet of political thought, and this phenomenon is widespread at the national level of political theory instruction. While there are several reasons one might keep the Bible out of the classroom, I believe one reason for this oversight is a kind of chilling effect surrounding the Christian religion in American classrooms. The chilling effect usually refers to refraining from some type of legal expression for fear of litigious reaction, in the form of threats or lawsuits. While not entirely implausible, I doubt that the majority of educators deliberately distance themselves from religious instruction for fear of legal or professional retaliation. Rather, adding scripture to a syllabus comes with added pressure and implications that many would simply rather avoid. Religion is a sensitive subject in the public education system at all levels, and it can require a more delicate treatment than classic works of political thought. There is a difference between teaching the Bible and preaching the Bible, but some onlookers might not clearly see that divide, which can make such instruction intimidating.

The Bible is also not an easy text to digest. Instructors who are not confident in their understanding of scripture are likely to be hesitant to bring it forward while teaching. Since scripture is not a widespread focus in political theory training, instructors brought up in such a tradition are going to follow in the footsteps of their intellectual predecessors. In this way, leaving scripture out of modern political thought is a cyclical phenomenon that requires a conscious attempt to break. Despite the difficulties, not including scripture in political theory is still a disservice to our instruction of the foundational texts of early modern thought. After all, if our goals are to encourage the classic skills of a liberal education–critical thinking, questioning dogma, argument evaluation, moral-development–we must give students all the information they need to be successful. To that end, we ought to approach the Bible not as a work of theology nor literature–as the former might subject the instructor to accusations of proselytizing and the latter of atheism–but as necessary context. Context does not require interpretation nor authoritative instruction; context is a tool students can use to enhance their understanding of the modern works of political theory. Just as reading passages from Homer can help contextualize the critique of poetry in Plato’s Republic, passages of the Bible can help contextualize the arguments presented by modern theorists. These modern theorists were reading and responding to the Bible. Students need to know what exactly they are responding to in order to evaluate the quality of that response. Students’ individual relationships with scripture are outside the scope of our instruction. Providing context necessary for argument evaluation is not.

While knowledge of scripture would help students contextualize all works of early modern political theory in the Western canon, this phenomenon is well illustrated by a passage in Machiavelli’s The Prince. Chapter 12 of Machiavelli’s The Prince (1998) is titled, “Of Auxiliary, Mixed, and One’s Own Soldiers” (56). Here, Machiavelli is giving his famous lesson that one’s own arms are superior to all other kinds, and he illustrates this with several historical examples. One such example is the biblical story of David and Goliath. Machiavelli says,

I want to further recall to memory a figure of the Old Testament apt for this purpose. When David offered to Saul to go and fight Goliath, the Philistine challenger, Saul, to give him spirit, armed him with his own arms – which David, as soon as he had them on, refused, saying that with them he could not give a good account of himself, and so he would rather meet the enemy with his sling and his knife.

In writing The Prince, Machiavelli expected readers to recognize this tale from the Bible. The relevant verses are I Samuel 17: 38–40 and 50 (NIV), and they tell a different story of David:

38 Then Saul dressed David in his own tunic. He put a coat of armor on him and a bronze helmet on his head.39 David fastened on his sword over the tunic and tried walking around, because he was not used to them. “I cannot go in these,” he said to Saul, “because I am not used to them.” So he took them off.40 Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, and put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine.50 So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

In the Bible, David famously triumphs over Goliath with only his slingshot. While we couldn’t call this unarmed per se, he is not traditionally armed; he has no blade. Machiavelli changed the story, giving David both his slingshot and a knife. Machiavelli knew that his readers would be familiar with the original story, which begs the question, why did he give David a knife? What is Machiavelli trying to tell us about having one’s own arms by deliberately, without obfuscation, changing a story he expects his readers to know? That question is imperative for critical reading, analysis, and argument evaluation. In absence of biblical knowledge, the inclusion of this story in The Prince loses its original intent, which is to draw our attention towards this deliberate change.

Excluding scripture from our understanding of political theory in the modern Western tradition leaves out an essential piece of the conversation, one that’s necessary for proper textual analysis. Religion and philosophy do indeed speak to one another in the dialectical framework of political thought. We cannot assume students’ understanding of the Bible is adequate enough to evaluate religious elements in political theory without including scripture alongside these traditional texts. The teaching and learning literature gives us great insights as to the purpose of teaching political theory, and what students ought to gain from these courses. Many of these learning outcomes require students to read carefully and critically as they evaluate primary texts, and this evaluation requires scriptural knowledge. If we do not provide it, we are not giving students all the resources they need to achieve the desired learning outcomes. I’d wager that if any other historical text was quoted, cited, and referenced as often as the Bible in foundational works of the field, that book would have never been left off the syllabus.

References

Getachew, Adom, and Karuna Mantena. 2021. “Anticolonialism and the Decolonization of Political Theory.” Critical Times 4 (3):359–388

Kassiola, Joel. 2007. “Effective Teaching and Learning in Introductory Political Theory: It All Starts with Challenging and Engaging Assigned Readings.” PS: Political Science &  Politics 40.4: 783-787.

Kries, Douglas. 1996. “Faith, Reason, and Leo Strauss-Susan Orr: Jerusalem and Athens: Reason and Revelation in the Works of Leo Strauss.(Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1995. Pp. ix, 245. 23.95, paper.).” The Review of Politics 58.2: 354-356.

Parrish, Rick. 2007. “Getting Outside the Canon: The Role of World, Contemporary, and Lesser Known Texts in the Political Theory Curriculum.” Journal of Political Science Education 3.3: 277-291.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1998. The Prince: Second Edition. Translated by Harvey Claflin Mansfield, University of Chicago Press.

Moore, Matthew J. 2011. “How (and What) Political Theorists Teach: Results of a National Survey.” Journal of Political Science Education 7.1: 95-128.

Strauss, Leo. 1981. “Progress or return? The contemporary crisis in Western civilization.” Modern Judaism: 17-45.

Wagle, Gauri. 2024. “Ladies and (White) Gentlemen, Introducing Political Theory: Activist Learning and Teaching the Political Theory Canon.” Journal of Political Science Education: 1-12.