1. christian music 1
2008 marks the fiftieth anniversary of Lois LeBar's classic Christian education text, Education That
is Christian. During her tenure as a professor at Wheaton College, LeBar wrote several influential
texts, including Children in the Bible School (1952) and Focus on People in Church Education
(1968). However, it was Education That is Christian that established this educator as an influential
leader in the http://www.pandora.com/ field of Christian education. Nearly all historical
examinations of evangelical Christian education include LeBar as a spokesperson, and this
commendation is typically attached to her 1958 book (e.g., Pazmino, 1988; Burgess, 1996; Anthony
and Benson, 2003). The book was highly regarded at the time of its publication, and its revised
editions retain wide usage in colleges, Bible schools, and seminaries around the world. In this brief
article, I hope to discuss the development of LeBar's text, wrestle with some of its key themes, and
comment on what I see as its enduring value academically and pedagogically.
The Development of an Idea
To be forthright, I have more than a passing academic interest in Lois LeBar's influential text. While
completing my master's degree at Wheaton College in 1993-1994, I wrote my thesis on LeBar's life
and contributions to the field of Christian education (Setran, 1993). During that time, I studied all of
her written work, talked with many of her former students (including my own professor Jim
Plueddemann), visited her home town of Olean, New York, and tracked down many of her early
curriculum contributions to Scripture Press. The highlight of the project, however, was a three-day
trip to Shell Point Village--a retirement community in Fort Myers, Florida--to talk with LeBar about
her life and ministry. Eighty-six years old at the time, she had lost none of her passion for the
principles that defined her legacy. During my stay, we reflected quite a bit on Education That is
Christian and her ongoing devotion to its basic tenets. Although she claimed that her spiritual gift
was teaching rather than writing, she acknowledged "When I received ideas from Him, I got so
eager to share them that He helped me get them out to others.... So, you see, I was just there at a
time when the Lord needed somebody to do this" (personal communication, January 14, 1993).
The "need" was indeed great, and LeBar cited many factors that sparked her desire to write this
seminal text. Primary among these was her perception of lifeless and dull teaching in local churches.
She continually lamented Bible teaching that failed to motivate learners and prompt them to action.
She felt that most Christian teaching was little more than "poor lay preaching" that gave people a
second-hand understanding of God without allowing them to experience Him for themselves. In
addition, Christian education books written from an evangelical perspective were hard to find.
Nearly all the readings utilized in her classes were found on reserve in the library, worthwhile short
sections from otherwise unhelpful or liberal books. LeBar was bothered by the fact that evangelicals
were simply borrowing secular (particularly Herbartian) models of education for the work of the
church. She was adamant in pressing her colleagues and students to develop a new approach, while
she acknowledged that secular educators had many contributions to make because of their deeper
understanding of educational and developmental psychology:
Why should Christians borrow a system of education from the secular
world? Why should we not derive from God's revelation our own
philosophy, God's own ways of working that are inherent in the very
structure of the universe? Of course, there will be correlation
between the secular and the spiritual, for both deal with the same
human learner. Secular educators have studied the learner much more
2. thoroughly than have Christians. But the foundations and the
orientation of Christian education are distinctive if they are
truly Christian LeBar and 1995, 25).
Named acting chair of the graduate Christian education department at Wheaton in 1952, she felt a
great burden to come up with a text that evangelical educators could hold up as a standard amidst
the manifold and many times contradictory methods recommended by other leaders.
The search for such a distinctive paradigm began in her "Philosophy of Christian Education" course.
Devoid of precedent-setting texts, she decided that this course would be a laboratory for
determining a biblical and Christ-centered philosophy of teaching and learning. Using the gospels as
the primary resource, she asked students to analyze all of the teaching situations recounted in the
biblical narrative, looking in particular at two questions: 1) What was the approach of the lesson
(pupil initiative, a personal approach from the teacher, or a content approach from the teacher)? 2)
Was there a greater emphasis on outer factors (physical environment, words spoken, and deeds
performed), inner factors (will, emotions, inner drives, purposes, thinking), or an equal emphasis on
both? (Griffiths, 1952). This laboratory method--given as it was to inductive, cooperative study--fit
perfectly with LeBar's desire to create a philosophy from the bottom up. "That's the way it all
started," LeBar noted. "I had no confidence that any of the systems I had studied were biblical.
Where else were we going to find it but in the Bible? " (personal communication, January 14, 1993).
In the area of approach, LeBar's students discovered that approximately fifty percent of the gospel
teaching incidents were actually initiated by the pupil rather than the "teacher." In addition, forty
percent of the incidents were started by the teacher with a personal rather than an informational
approach. By and large, when the teacher initiated the lesson it was at the level of the present needs
and concerns of the individual rather than as a distant, pre-determined body of content. This left
only ten percent of the incidents in the category of "teacher initiated and content-driven." The
students also discovered that close to sixty percent of Jesus' contacts worked from a balanced
combination of inner and outer factors, dealing with both external words and environment and the
internal constructs of emotion and will (Griffiths, 1952). This too was revolutionary in its
implications. LeBar felt that the traditional church was characterized by a teaching style that was
teacher oriented, content centered, and obsessed with outer factors. On the other hand, liberal
theologians and educators emphasized pupil initiation, student experience, and inner factors almost
exclusively. LeBar began to sense that, while both sectors had their strong points, neither one was
complete in itself. The proper teaching/learning process should consist of both traditional and more
progressive elements
Through these analyses, the classes also determined ten key aspects of Jesus' teaching methodology:
Was ready to help when they could not go ahead, (h) He made individuals discover truth for
themselves, (i) He provided opportunities for individuals to act on that which was presented to them,
such actions being the proof of their understanding, and (j) He encouraged people by recognition of
faith; He challenged them by extending promises for them to claim (Griffiths, 1952), even though (a)
He used many ways of contact in leading individuals on in truth, (b) He led to the unfamiliar by using
familiar ideas and terms, introducing new concepts on the level of the pupil's understanding, (c) He
used common objects and terms and natural openings in conversations to illustrate spiritual truths,
(d) He set up situations to arouse questions which would help people see their needs, (e) He told
stories of persons with problems similar to those which his pupil had so they could draw parallels
and see their own solutions, (f) He used an individual's felt need to lead him to his real need, (g) He
let the student do as much as possible. Through a constant refining process and the addition of other
biblical passages (including the OldActs and Testament, and the Epistles), these principles were
eventually written up and published in greatly expanded form as LeBar's magnum opus, Education
3. That is Christian.
To briefly summarize, the book proposes an educational approach that is inner,active and
continuous, and disciplined. Learning was to be "inner" in that it focused initially upon student needs
and desires, using these impulses to help them see their need for God's truth. "Our task as teachers"
LeBar suggested, "is not so much to motivate as to use the pupils' current motives and values and
purposes" LeBar and 1995, p. 184). The reason for this was simple, according to LeBar: Something
that they feel, and help them to see that 'this is the answer to my need' they are motivated...,
"Because if you start with people's needs. The closer it comes to my own personal feelings and
wishes, the more highly motivated I am" (Lois LeBar, personal communication, January 14, 1993).
Learning was to be "active" in that it required teachers to transfer the learning process from the
teacher to the pupil, allowing students to make discoveries on their own rather than simply receiving
pre-packaged information from the teacher. "Continuous" learning implied that education was to
take place in age-appropriate fashion at every stage of life. Rather than simply storing the child's
mind with religious facts in preparation for an unknown future, teachers were to make sure that
students could integrate biblical content into their present living at every stage of the life process.
Finally, learning was to be disciplined in that students would give focused energy to discovering
biblical truths related to life experience.
Drawing from Scripture and from theorists such as John John and Dewey Amos Comenius, these
principles formed the basis for LeBar's well known "boy-book-boy" model of teaching and learning
(later conceptualized as the gender-neutral equivalent, "person-book-person"). In this scheme,
learning started with student needs. For answers to these needs and to their own life experiences,
the students were meaningfully and actively led to the authoritative truths of Scripture. Finally,
when the connection was made between student problems and the answers in Scripture, there was a
practical application necessary in the lived daily life. This model, which she also referred to as the
"Way-Truth-Life" approach, has deeply influenced evangelical curriculum and teaching design since
1958. Importantly, LeBar proposed that this process was fostered by the dynamic interaction of the
student, the human teacher, and the divine Teacher. Her final chapter outlines the role of the Holy
Spirit in educational ministry, challenging teachers to submit to the Spirit's leading in curriculum
planning and teaching, to mark reliance upon the Spirit through prayer, and to seek divine wisdom
regarding student needs and the truths of Scripture. The entire person-book-person model is
dependent upon this supernatural reality: "The divine Teacher, with the cooperation of the human
teacher, leads the pupil from his current need into the Word, where he gains new insight into truth,
then out again to practice the Word in daily life situations" 1995 and LeBar, p. 244).
Philosophical and Historical Contributions: An Evangelical/Progressive Model
There are many reasons why, fifty years later, I still find LeBar's book helpful and use it as a
centerpiece of my own Philosophy and History of Christian Education class. First, within the recent
history of Christian education, the book demonstrates for my students an early example of the
theologically conservative appropriation of progressive educational insights. LeBar was one of the
first Christian educators to bring Deweyan educational theory into the mainstream. Despite her
contention that Dewey was "one of the greatest foes of Christianity," it is clear that LeBar owed a
great deal to this reformer (1995, p. 46). She had studied him extensively in her Ph.D. training at
New York University, and she mentioned early in the book some of the ways in which his thinking
was helpful for those in educational ministry. She noted the importance of his idea that education
was not a preparation for life but life itself. She commended his focus upon pupil experience and the
use of content as purposeful activity for solving life problems. She also appreciated his democratic
impulse, suggesting that the classroom become a learning community marked by cooperative
relationships. The teacher in such a scheme "need not act as an outsider to enforce order, but as a
4. most respected member of the 'in-group' to share responsibility and insight with the others" (1995,
p. 47). Robert Pazmino's contention that LeBar was a "sensitive Christian complement to Dewey" is
therefore right on the mark (1988, p. 147).
An evangelical adoption of these ideas was fairly new, although liberal religious educators had
readily adopted Dewey's basic framework. E.G. Homrighausen, an early twentieth century religious
educator at Princeton Theological Seminary, argued in 1939 that
Religious education, by following after education in general,...
has not been able to keep its critical detachment from these trends
in order to save its own nature.... It has yet to wake up to the
fact that it has thereby capitulated to a naturalistic and
positivistic idea of religion and can no longer claim any right to
exist, except as an organic annex to a type of humanistic
religion.... What is needed for religious education is a genuine
return to, or progress toward, a religion of definite divine
content, without giving up its concern for man's present life....
This proposal would mean.., that modern methods would have to be
christened to a new purpose and directed from a higher vantage
ground. Every phase of religious education which was bent on
keeping religion close to life will be utilized and maintained with
a greater realism that is born of a clearer perception of the
truth. 1939 and Homrighausen, p. 16).
This, in reality, was the genius of LeBar's approach. She did indeed fight against the formalism of
Christian education models, seeking instead to breathe life into the curriculum through modern
educational approaches. She wanted to resist mere "telling" to emphasize the practical
appropriation and application of biblical knowledge in real-life experiences. She wanted to be
relevant to people's needs and interests, meeting them on the level of life rather than on a plane of
abstraction. LeBar saw the need to be relevant, she did this in a way that was in keeping with true
Christian education, even though but. She could conceive of the dynamic nature of the child's
experience without imposing these same views on the authoritative Word of God. She could envision
the importance of the concrete experience of the learner without making this the center of the
curriculum. She could turn the focus back on the student without making their ideas reign over
basic scriptural truths. In short, LeBar could be progressive without being a Progressive.
Second, I also find Education That is Christian helpful because it introduces students to one classic
example of a Christian resolution of historic educational debates. Traditional educational
philosophies, such as essentialism, behaviorism, and existentialism, tend to focus upon certain
aspects of the human person--knowledge, behavior, and affect, respectively. It incorporates and
integrates all of these dimensions within the teaching/learning process. That's the genius of LeBar's
person-book-person model. Beginning with the affect-oriented needs and desires of the student, the
teacher is called upon to connect these inner factors with the content-oriented knowledge of God's
Word. The resulting transformation in the student's life will then result in behavioral and "way of
life" changes. Therefore, LeBar synthesizes the helpful aspects of these alternative philosophies into
one overarching model. In addition, while essentialism and behaviorism highlight elements outside
of the student environment and content, etc.) and existentialism tends to place solitary emphasis
upon inner factors of personal will, desire, and emotion, LeBar's model recognizes the need for a
dynamic interplay between inner and outer factors. Like Comenius and Dewey, she noted the
importance of creating connections between the inner needs and desires of the student and external
content, thus eliminating false dualisms between "the child and the curriculum."
5. While this contribution was quite significant, the real help to Christian educators was that she made
her argument in a distinctly theological manner. Dewey's call to avoid the focus upon "either"
content transmission "or" student needs was clearly echoed in LeBar's central text (1938). However,
LeBar spoke of the need for a decidedly biblical and evangelical rationale for avoiding such dualistic
thinking. Not content with a Bible-centered approach (a "poor traditional model" focused on outer
factors) and clearly opposed to a pupil-centered approach (a "liberal model" focused on inner
factors), she instead posited a Word-centered curriculum paradigm that represented the desired
interaction between inner and outer factors. In her model, the written and the Living Word together
represented the center of the curriculum, both serving as inner and outer factors. Through the
teaching and learning process, the written Word and Living Word would progressively transform
inner experience and merge with the inner life. "The pupil's experience impels her to seek
knowledge of the Word [both written and Living], which in turn commands her to return to life to
practice the truth, as she noted. The real test is the amalgamation of outer and inner forces until it is
difficult to separate them. The Word becomes flesh, and our mortal bodies reflect the Word" (1995,
244).
The real power behind this process was the Holy Spirit, and LeBar was one of the first contemporary
evangelical Christian educators to consciously delineate the role of the Spirit in the
teaching/learning process. Speaking of the third member of the Trinity, she proposed that, "The
Word of God is originally an outer factor, external to the learning pupil. But as the human and divine
teachers stimulate interaction between the Word and the pupil, both written and Living Word
gradually or suddenly penetrate to the interior of the pupil. It is the peculiar ministry of the Holy
Spirit to make the outer Word an inner experience, for He operates both without and within" (1995,
244). This argument provided a decidedly evangelical rationale for the Deweyan notion that
educative experiences were defined by the interpenetration of outer and inner factors. LeBar could
describe the supernatural aspects of this transformation and link life transformation both to human
and divine processes, even though dewey could posit active and experiential learning as means of
linking inner and outer factors together.
An evangelical rationale for progressive educational insights was a welcome addition to a field in
need of foundations. Using David Bebbington's (1989) classic schema describing evangelicals as
activist, biblicist and conversionist and crucicentrist, it is clear that LeBar was a classic evangelical
in every sense of the word. Her book champions evangelism and conversion as key attributes of
those maturing in Christ. Her approach was clearly biblical in its very essence, drawing educational
insights from Old and New Testament passages and creating principles from inductive Bible study.
She was deeply Christ-centered in her philosophy, centering her text both on Jesus' teaching
example and on His power to transform students' lives. It would be fair to say that LeBar's text
prompted evangelicals in her day to look anew at Jesus' teaching methods and to recognize the
genius of His approach. In fact, many of her former students commented that this approach provided
a new pride and confidence in the educational heritage we possess as evangelicals. For while it is
clear that LeBar's study of general education opened her eyes to progressive methods in the gospels,
this book also allowed her to argue that secular educators were only beginning to grasp the
concepts that Jesus had been showing us all along.
A Critical Issue: FeltNeeds and Teaching, and Curriculum Design
Another rationale for my use of LeBar's text is that it forces students to grapple with a critical issue
that continues to arise in Christian education practice and theory: the place of "felt needs." At the
time LeBar wrote her book, some criticized her appeal to begin the teaching/learning process with
student felt needs. In the eyes of her critics, starting with human needs rather than Scripture was an
invitation to anthropocentrism, a teaching philosophy pandering to a therapeutic and consumer-
6. driven society. Scripture, many supposed, would become merely a tool to foster human happiness, to
meet needs and preserve personal flourishing. Many, in fact, saw needs-based teaching as a slippery
pathway to a full-fledged prosperity gospel.
While it is certainly possible that LeBar's model could be used in such a way, LeBar herself clearly
refutes this human-centered approach. On the one hand, she contended that beginning with human
needs was at its root a theocentric educational philosophy. As she contended: "Why did the Creator
constitute us with these needs? So, that He could satisfy them with himself. According to His riches
in glory by Christ Jesus he is waiting to supply all our needs. (Philippians 4: 19) ... Every problem in
life ought to drive us to Him for its solution" (1995, 174). In other words, LeBar took seriously the
reality that God placed needs within humans so that those needs would become driving forces to
Christ.
In addition, LeBar made a critical distinction between felt needs and real needs in her description of
the learning process. If teachers were to use the Bible simply as a means to meet human felt needs
(i.e., the need for material comfort, for happiness, for marital bliss), the critique of therapeutic
anthropocentrism would be well warranted. However, LeBar noted that the teacher should start with
felt needs--often inconsequential in the light of eternity--as a means to help students recognize the
deeper spiritual needs beneath conscious awareness. If the text was allowed to incisively probe felt
needs to unearth the real needs of the human condition met in Christ, students would begin to
recognize the transforming power of the Gospel. "Starting with felt needs," as LeBar contended,
"doesn't mean that we're stopping there" (1995, 174).
Importantly, LeBar recognized that needs were dynamic, that they would ultimately be transformed
by the Word and the Holy Spirit to more accurately reflect the purposes of God. In other words, as
students matured in Christ, they would begin to see that God's desires were also their desires, thus
transforming their needs accordingly:
As we delight ourselves in Him and become identified with Him in
His death and resurrection, He can take us up into His divine
purposes and give us spiritual burden that He will accomplish in
us. He becomes the center of all o, as the self-life is deniedf
life. We may know Him, an,. That's then our entire concentrationd
the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His
sufferings. We are no longer concerned about our own needs but
about His great plan of redemption for the world (1995, 174).
Perhaps the critical element to recognize here is that Scripture has the power not only to meet our
needs but also to redefine our needs and re-shape our identity as a people. Within our culture, we
have often lost the ability to distinguish between needs, to differentiate between false and real
needs. We live in a society, in fact, where we are led to believe that there can be no false need, that
we possess the right to fulfillment in all domains of life. The Word, however, serves as a sword
(Hebrews 4: 12) and a mirror (James 1: 22-25judging, revealing and ) the attitudes and thoughts of
our hearts and in many cases revealing to us our real needs. In some cases, therefore, the piercing
and reflecting role of Scripture (its role of rebuking and correcting) is to re-orient our own
perceptions of our needs, demonstrating that our real needs are quite distinct from those things that
have flooded our perceptual horizons. Through Christian education, our sense of "need" should
begin to be enveloped by God's global Kingdom purposes.
In this light, I want to offer one word of caution regarding LeBar's perspectives on biblical
curriculum development. In implementing LeBar's model, many students ask me whether a teacher
should choose biblical texts that directly apply to student needs or, alternatively, teach through
7. previously selected passages and connect textual themes to student life situations. LeBar notes that
the first step for a teacher is to determine student needs, as she addresses the process of lesson
preparation. Following this, she suggests, "We then select specific and general areas of essential
content that meet these needs. The needs will be met by the written Word of God, which leads to the
living Word, but not by just any part of the written Word. Teachers ought to be ready to suggest that
part of the Bible that is closest to the problematical life situation, whose characters have most in
common with our life today" (1995, 247).
Selecting passages on the basis of human needs can be useful, but we must always be aware of the
potential to skew the purposes of biblical revelation. At one level, we can begin to abstract texts
from the immediate and larger biblical narrative, generating a proof-text approach that eliminates
the importance of textual and historical context in order to find packaged solutions to human need.
This can readily create distorted interpretations of individual texts to conform to human expectation.
In addition, however, it can also diminish the power of the larger scope of redemption history and
promote individualistic readings of passages brimming with God-centered purpose. If the story of
Joseph, for example, becomes a platform only for thoughts about how to deal with temptation, it
loses its broader potency as an account of the salvific power of God in sparing and redeeming a
people for his own glory. Within such a system, self is often at the center, personal need is the focus,
and happiness is the ultimate goal, thus converting the text into one more lifestyle-enhancing
appliance rather than an account of the larger story that defines our life, purpose, and teleology. The
text reveals to us the story of God's redemption of His people and we should therefore begin to see
our lives conforming to the purposes of this larger story rather than "using" the story to meet our
own personal felt needs.
Of course, the Bible itself claims to be "useful" in teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in
righteousness (2 Tim. 3: 16). However, the fact that "all Scripture" is useful means that we cannot
select our own "canons" of helpful texts and in essence assert a human authority to determine
"relevant" passages for study. Precisely because Scripture can re-orient our own perceptions of
need, we "need" the entire storyline of the Bible in its fullness. We might be missing out on the
potent role of "all Scripture" in evoking our real spiritual needs and awakening a larger sense of
purpose, by selecting passages of scripture in order to meet our felt needs. Many liberal religious
educators in the early twentieth century began arguing that the Bible possessed a functional power
to solve student problems, but they gradually began to contend that only those portions of scripture
that possessed problem solving capacity (chiefly from the New Testament) were worthy of teaching
(e.g., Elliott, 1920). Eventually, such an approach led these theorists to rely upon the Bible's cultural
hegemony and proven potency rather than its revelatory origin for defining a continued place in
Christian education. It is always helpful to be aware of this potential, even though leBar obviously
never approached such a mindset.
Perhaps my perspective on this issue, therefore, is best stated by distinguishing between the
teaching/learning process and the curriculum design process. While felt needs serve as an excellent
starting point for teaching, we must be very careful about making them the guiding factor in the
selection of all curricular content. All of scripture must be taught (rather than selecting pragmatic
passages), but the teaching of all texts also must consider student needs and situations, connecting
life to the truth of the Word. In curriculum design, in other words, the person-book-person model
might very well require a preceding "book."
Education That is Christian and Our Pedagogical Task
The final, and perhaps most important, reason I use Education That is Christian is that I find it to be
a helpful guide to my own pedagogy. This is a factor both of my reading of the text and of my
8. interaction with its author. One of the most refreshing aspects of my study of Lois LeBar was to see
a woman whose life so clearly echoed her philosophy of Christian education. The person-book-person
model was an accurate reflection of her classroom teaching. her and She sister Mary made a very
conscious effort to get to know the personal and ministry needs of their students. The Record, the
student newspaper of Wheaton College, was replete with references to social outings and gatherings
of Christian education students with their esteemed professors: progressive dinners, Saturday
pancake breakfasts, and picnics with group songs, skits, devotions and games and s'mores. In the
Faculty Bulletin of Wheaton College (1954), select teachers were asked yearly what changes they
would like to see at Wheaton in the coming years. While other faculty members suggested improving
classrooms or reducing the teaching load, LeBar pleaded for "a lounge up under the eaves in the
graduate building with a four o'clock coffee hour for sociability with students" (8). On Sundays, they
regularly observed students teaching in local churches, taking notes that would serve as course
material during the week. In addition, the LeBars provided many opportunities for students to
practice their learning both inside and outside the classroom. The "Way-Truth-Life" model was
indeed a way of life for the LeBars.
This paradigm requires much more creativity and intentionality than more traditional approaches.
Beginning with the student needs and desires assumes teacher-student interaction outside of the
classroom. While we can gain significant understanding of students through developmental and
sociocultural analyses, these must be accompanied by personal relationships fostered in office hour
meetings, open homes, and collaborative ministry ventures. Helping students see connections
between the content of our teaching and their own life situations obviously requires an awareness of
their ministry and lives needs. Furthermore, the fact that LeBar's educational process includes the
living out of truths obtained in the classroom means that our tasks are not completed when the
formal teaching ends. As she states in her book, providing opportunities for practice is absolutely
essential if we are to avoid the common disparity between knowing and doing in the lives of our
students. Even more to the point, LeBar calls us to walk alongside our students as they practice the
truths they have gained. The person-book-person model is in this way a dynamic paradigm. As
students live out the truths they have begin and gained to mature in practice and faith, there is an
ever new "person" with whom to begin the teaching process.
Finally, LeBar's emphasis on the role of the Holy Spirit and prayer should be a powerful reminder to
us all. " prayer will be a central component of every aspect of the "person-book-person" approach if
we really believe that it is the Holy Spirit who "makes the outer Word an inner experience" and that
"the only work that counts is His work through us. Prior to our teaching, prayer for students will
give insight into their needs and into the content of our teaching. Within the teaching process,
prayer will open eyes to teachable moments and foster the illumination of spiritual truths. After our
teaching is over, prayer for students to live out the truth is absolutely essential. We know that the
"person-book-person" model can be followed without reference to the active and intervening work of
the Holy Spirit if we are honest. LeBar was deeply concerned about this and noted the tendency
among evangelicals to ignore the supernatural aspects of the Christian teaching/learning process. If
contemporary ministers and educators are to truly embrace the core tenets of LeBar's model they
will be required to recognize the involvement of the Holy Spirit and to provide contexts for the
Spirit's work in students' lives.
Fifty years later, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to this educational pioneer who attempted
to help Christian educators become more truly Christian and more truly educational in their efforts.
There are certainly gaps in her philosophy. She attends only briefly to the larger Christian
responsibilities to the social and global needs of our world. She remains a bit narrowly focused upon
classroom efforts and speaks little of informal and non-formal educational settings. Education That is
Christian remains a classic and relevant text because of its clear biblical foundation and grounded
9. educational approach, however. As one evangelical seminary could write in 1987, "When those to
the left of us on the theological spectrum discuss representative evangelical educators, LeBar is
inevitably chosen and this book is the primary reason. Though published in 1958 and revised only
slightly in 1981, LeBar evidences a maturity and timeless approach that will make this book worth
reading in the year 2000" 1987 and Moo, p. 15). And maybe even in 2008.
REFERENCES:
Anthony, M. J. & Benson, W. S. (2003). Exploring the history and philosophy of Christian education.
Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.
Bebbington, D. (1989). Evangelicalism in modern Britain: A history from the 1730s to the 1980s.
London, UK: Unwin Hyman.
Burgess, H. (1996). Models of religious education: Theory and practice in contemporary and
historical perspective. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Dewey, I. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Elliott, H. S. (1920). How Jesus met life questions. New York: Association Press.
Faculty Bulletin of Wheaton College. (1954, February). Wheaton CollegeWheaton and Archives, IL.
Griffiths, M. (1952). The place of experience in Christian education. (Master's Thesis, Wheaton
College, Wheaton, IL).
Homrighausen, E. G. (1939). The real problem with religious education. Religious Education, 34(1),
10-17.
LeBar, L. E. (1952). Children in the Bible school: The HOW of Christian education. Old Tappan, NJ:
Fleming Revell Publishing Company.
LeBar, L. E. (1968). Focus on people in church education. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming Revell Publishing
Company.
LeBar, L. E. (1995). Education that is Christian, rev. ed. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
Moo, D. (Ed.). (1987). An annotated bibliography on the Bible and the Church (2nd ed.). Deerfield,
IL: Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.
Pazmino, R. (1988). Foundational issues in Christian education: An introduction in evangelical
perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
The Record. (1956, April 26; 1957, Sept. 19). Wheaton CollegeWheaton and Archives, IL.
Setran, D. (1993). The intellectual and spiritual formation of Lois E. LeBar and an assessment of her
contributions to the field of Christian education. (Master's Thesis, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL).
David P. Setran
Wheaton College
10. David Setran (Ph.D. Indiana University) is Associate Professor of Christian Ministry and Formation
at Wheaton College, where he teaches courses in the history and philosophy of Christian education
and college and young adult ministry. He recently published a book on collegiate ministry in the
early and nineteenth twentieth centuries, entitled The College "Y: " Student Religion in the Era of
Secularization (New York: Palgrave/Macmillan, 2007).