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). It was Education That is Christian that established this educator as an influential leader in the field of Christian education, however. 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 dull and lifeless 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 developmental and educational 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

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: (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 terms and objects 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, but 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). Through a constant refining process and the addition of other biblical passages (including the OldTestament and Acts, and the Epistles), these principles were eventually written up and published in greatly expanded form as LeBar's magnum opus, Education That is Christian.

To briefly summarize, the book proposes an educational approach that is inner,continuous and active, 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). According to LeBar, the reason for this was simple: 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 Dewey and John 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 teaching and curriculum 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 http://www.yourfreemusicdownloads.com/ teacher in such a scheme "need not act as an outsider to enforce order, but as a 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 Christian music online 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 maintained and utilized 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. The genius of LeBar's person-book-person model is that it integrates and incorporates all of these dimensions within the teaching/learning process. 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 content and environment, 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." 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). LeBar spoke of the need for a decidedly biblical and evangelical rationale for avoiding such dualistic thinking, however. 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. As she noted, "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. 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 divine and human 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 inner and outer factors. Dewey could posit active and experiential learning as means of linking outer and inner factors together, but LeBar could describe the supernatural aspects of this transformation and link life transformation both to divine and human processes. 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 biblicist, activist 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 It forces students to grapple with a critical issue that continues to arise in Christian education practice and theory. That is another rationale for my use of LeBar's text: 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-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. He is waiting to supply all our needs according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (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. 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, however. Students would begin to recognize the transforming power of the Gospel if the text was allowed to incisively probe felt needs to unearth the real needs of the human condition met in Christ. "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. As the self-life is denied, He becomes the center of all of 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). Scripture has the power not only to meet our needs but also to redefine our needs and re-shape our identity as a people. That's perhaps the critical element to recognize here. Within our culture, we have often lost the ability to distinguish between needs, to differentiate between real and false 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: 22-25revealing, ) and judging the thoughts and attitudes 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 previously selected passages and connect textual themes to student life situations. As she addresses the process of lesson preparation, LeBar notes that the first step for a teacher is to determine student needs. 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). We must always be aware of the potential to skew the purposes of biblical revelation, even though selecting passages on the basis of human needs can be useful. 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 lifestyleenhancing 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. By selecting passages of scripture in order to meet our felt needs, 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. 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 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 gatherings and outings of Christian education students with their esteemed professors: progressive dinners, Saturday pancake breakfasts, and picnics with group songs, devotions, games and skits 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 lives and ministry 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. 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, as she states in her book. 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. There is an ever new "person" with whom to begin the teaching process, as students live out the truths they have begin and gained to mature in faith and practice. 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. If we are honest, we know that the "person-book-person" model can be followed without reference to the active and intervening work of the Holy Spirit. 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 global and social 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 educational approach, however. "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, as one evangelical seminary could write in 1987. 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 philosophy and history 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: practice and Theory in historical and contemporary 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 CollegeArchives and Wheaton, 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 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).