SF has a point, but some evangelicals might respond that the Holy Spirit can work even in unpromising circumstances.

Al Mohler interviewed Professor Fish on this very subject, here:

Mohler and Fish

wm, I’m going to move you link into my post itself. Thanks.

Contra Fish, there is justification for using the term "Judeo-Christian" to describe large segments of American culture, for that matter to describe the European heritage. He takes to task some professor advocating the study of the bible in schools (public secondary schools? probably bad idea except maybe junior or senior year...universities?...bad idea not to do it) for saying “The academic study of religion provides a kind of middle space. ... It takes the biblical truth claims seriously and yet brackets them for purposes of classroom discussion.” Look, it’s hard to do this, but why object to trying to do it. It is gobsmackingly obvious if you’re a secular American who aspires to be educated, it’s really sort of important to read a good deal of the Bible, and to become familiar with its most common Christian interpretations, if you’re to understand American culture, and well, a good third of European literature. So what problem doe The Fish have with this? What does he want professors pushing for more Bible in the curriculum to say? Or does this man who made his initial reputation on Milton want to resist more Bible in the curriculum? The Fish says interesting and genuinely responsible things from time to time, but who knows what he wants.

Fish has been laughing all the way to the bank -- no, celebrity -- for years. Take the Bible seriously. Yes. What else can a Milton scholar do? What else can any scholar do? What else is he saying, that has hearts thumping?