Outline

 I. Introduction

II. Theological and Political Concerns

A. The Restraints of Pluralism

B. The Limitations of Depravity

III. Hermeneutical Concerns

A. Taught as Literature

B. Taught as Case Histories

IV. A Practical Concern

V. Conclusion

 I. INTRODUCTION 

Presumably it should be an easy task to develop a paper dealing with values education from a biblical perspective. After all values and the Bible seem to be virtually synonymous and if education is the discipline of mind or character, certainly the Bible through instruction can relate to that process.

But once these preliminary and cursory impressions have been registered and the paper begun, it becomes apparent that this assignment is not a facile one.

One complicating dimension is setting--the immediate setting of this workshop and the issue setting of our discussion. The immediate setting has me relating my efforts to those of the philosopher, the psychologist, and the sociologist, and frankly, I feel somewhat intimidated. While their disciplines may be in a state of flux relative to values and how they are communicated/acquired, they have, nevertheless some well defined and easily structured approaches. This is not the case with biblical studies as I will note below.

As will be stressed in this paper, the qualifying prepositional phrase, "in the public schools," complicates things considerably. If the focus of this workshop was in teaching of values in the home and church, my assignment obviously, while not simple, would have been easier. Dealing biblically with values in the public schools is an entirely different matter.

Then there is the nature of the Bible itself. Contrary to popular expectation and use, the Bible is not a leveled homogenized encyclopedic treatise of values, but is rather a volume that contains a variety of literacy genre produced over an extensive period of time, involving a number of civilizations. Thus, it is not as simple to arrive at a biblical position on values as some would think.

As I will observe later, the Bible's role here is complicated further by its Eastern orientation and by its pre-modern development. For instance, education is now defined (and perhaps will be used thus in this meeting) as a science dealing with the principles and practices of teaching and learning--a science--the systematic arrangement of the contents of knowledge and the expression of that knowledge in formal statement--this the Bible does not do. As for values, once the philosopher has finished his refinement of this term, distinguishing between "valuing" and "being valuable," "having value because of being valued" and "having inherent value," subjective vs. value "recognition," description of values vs. normative evaluation of values, [1] it is again apparent that the Bible is not synchronized with such refinement.

In spite of these restraints, given the nature of our public schools, the abysmal moral climate and our own personal convictions, it is necessary for a biblical dimension to be presented. But a word of caution is in order. At best this paper will appear choppy, disconnected, incomplete, and what I dread most--contradicting. But such characteristics may stimulate discussion, resulting in a more cohesive appreciation of the biblical role in teaching values in the public schools.

II. THEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL CONCERNS

There are two factor which make teaching values in the public schools difficult, if not impossible for Christians.

The first factor is a theological one--which does not so much impact the teacher (although it obviously affects her too) as the student. This has to do with the depravity of human kind.

The second factor is a political one, which has more consequences for the teacher than the pupil (although it also has ramifications for the student). This has to do with the pluralism of American society.

 1. Depravity. This doctrine has been insufficiently grasped and grossly exaggerated, resulting in confusion. As Bloesch notes, "The erroneous impression is given that the imago Dei itself has been lost through sin so that the very substance of man is nothing but sin." [2] Humans, accordingly, have lost all natural goodness and freedom. Given this reality the only possible way to bring about moral development is regeneration and this requires evangelism.

 2. Pluralism. Given the pluralistic nature of our society, both within and with out the public schools, evangelism in the classroom is obviously impossible. Some extremists would argue that it ought not to be so, that they be allowed to practice proselytism while not tolerating such efforts from other religious groups. Convinced of the need of evangelism (their brand), and chafing under the restraints imposed upon them by a pluralistic public school, they feel compelled to withdraw from the public arena and retreat to the private church school.

This is, I believe, unfortunate because it fails to recognize the prevenient grace of God and the benefits of pluralism.

I shall not spend much time on the latter, allowing the sociologists and educators to address this. Frankly, however, pluralism can be enriching, allowing such values as understanding, appreciation, tolerance, temperance, and justice to be developed, not simply as a unit of a course, but in the total public school experience.

Another benefit of pluralism is that it both allows and accentuates the difference between preparing citizens of heaven (primary responsibility of church) and citizens of our country (primary responsibility of school). Here in America the tendency has been to merge these two relationships, to equate our American culture with Christianity, thereby minimizing or even eliminating the distance between being an American and being a Christian. Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon in their recent book with a rather provocative title, Resident Aliens, stress that the church is a colony, a holy nation, a people, a family standing for sharply focused values in a devalued world. The decline of a synthesis between the church and nation:

. . . means that we American Christians are at last free to be faithful in a way that makes being a Christian today an exciting adventure.

One of our former parishes was next door to the synagogue. One day over coffee, the rabbi remarked, "It's tough to be a Jew in Greenville. We are forever telling our children, 'That's fine for everyone else, but it's not fine for you. You are special. You are different. You are a Jew. You have a different story. A different set of values.'"

"Rabbi, you are probably not going to believe this," I said, "but I heard very much that same statement made in a young couples' church school class right here in Bible-belt Greenville the other day."

Pastors who listen to their members, particularly to young parents, will hear them saying to their own children, with increasing regularity, "Such behavior is fine for everyone else, but not fine for you. You are special. You are different. You have a different story. You have a different set of values. You are a Christian."

And we believe that recognition signals a seismic shift in the world view of our church, which makes all the difference in the world for how we go about the business of being the church. [3]

The former factor--depravity--given the nature of this paper, merits a greater response.

While I have difficulty with a theology that denies depravity, that views humans through rosy-tinted glasses, I equally have trouble with a position that so emphasizes and distorts depravity that humans are left totally devoid of any goodness and one that ignores the operation of God's prevenient grace.

Andersen in his TOTC commentary on Job makes the following pertinent observations about Job:

This insistence on Job's uprightness should not be weakened in the interests of a dogma of universal human depravity. Job is not considered to be perfect or sinless. All the speakers in the book, including Job himself, are convinced that all men are sinful. Job's first recorded act is to offer sacrifices for sin. This is not the point. It is possible for sinful men to be genuinely good. It may be rare, but it is possible. . . ." [4]

 As Donald Bloesch observes:

 Total depravity does not mean that there is no natural goodness or freedom remaining in man. The imago Dei has been darkened but not destroyed. It is marred by sin, but it still exists. Man continues to reflect the glory of his Creator, even in his sin and defiance. Man, even in the state of sin, has natural talents, intelligence, and also a moral sense, though because of sin it cannot be regarded as a safe or sure guide.

It is not only the imago Dei but also the common grace of God that accounts for sinful man's ability to arrive at a modicum of justice. Common grace is the grace of preservation by which man's rapacity is restrained. . . . is responsible for the fragments of wisdom and truth that exist in the non-Christian religions and also in the moral codes of the great civilization of pagan antiquity. [5]

Wesleyan thought prefers to emphasize prevenient (rather than common) grace.

In his sermon "On Working Out Our Own Salvation," Wesley notes:

 . . . there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man, unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural: it is more properly termed, preventing grace. Every man has a greater or less measure of this, which waiteth not for the call of man. Every one has, sooner or later, good desires; although the generality of men stifle them before they can strike deep root, or produce any considerable fruit. Every one has some measure of that light, some faint glimmering ray, which, sooner or later, more or less, enlightens every man that cometh into the world. And every one, unless he be one of the small number whose conscience is seared as with a hot iron, feels more or less uneasy when he acts contrary to the light of his own conscience. So that no man sins because he has not grace, but because he does not use the grace which he hath. [6]

This grace--preventing grace--is universal in its extent and is the source of good in unregenerated humans. It is also the source of feelings of right and wrong that are the result of the activity of conscience

In reference to John 1:9, [7] Wesley states, "Everyone has some measure of that light, some faint glimmering ray, which sooner or later, more or less, enlightens every man that cometh into the world." [8]

In his discussion of the law, Wesley considers the law as an embodiment of the mind of God and states that it was coeval with human nature, but was "well nigh effaced" by the fall. He continues:

And yet God did not despise the work of His own hands; but, being reconciled to man through the Son of His love, He, in some measure, reinscribed the law on the heart of the dark, sinful creature. [9]

This preventing grace of God then has mitigated the most devastating consequences of the fall, and, while it is not saving grace (properly responded to, it could be such) it allows the possibility of good from unregenerated humans.

Jesus acknowledged the remnant of goodness that exists in evil people: "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" [10]

John Burnaby contends that:

 . . . "to assert that man is totally corrupt, that there is no longer any free response to the Spirit which is the Life of God manifesting itself as love," [is contrary to experience].

. . . We must needs believe that the capacity to recognize and bow down in adoration of goodness exists in all men; for it is to this capacity that the Spirit ever makes his appeal. [11]

Thus this preventing grace of God, reaching all as it does, allows for the teaching of values and the expectation of a response even from those who do not yield to saving grace. In short, values can be communicated/acquired apart from evangelism.

III. HERMENEUTICAL CONCERNS

The Bible is at once both an excellent and a controversial source for values education, if not a prohibited one, in public schools. Some who would concur with many of its values will have arrived at their convictions quite apart from the Bible and would likely challenge the deployment of the Bible in teaching those very values in the public arena. Consider, for instance, respect for human life. While the evolutionists share a profound regard for human life with the biblicist, their predication is very different. It is not because of the biblical affirmations of divine creation (which would satisfy some biblicists) [12] but rather because humans are the current apex of the evolutionary process and are awesome and precious. It is not a matter of faith, but an issue of science. Science to them is more believable and is a more effective means for ordering public accord and action. A mutual high regard for life, but very different predications.

This disregard for, and opposition to the Bible, is intensified many times over by the profound regard for (almost idolatrous at times--a kind of bibliolatry) and extensive utilization of the scripture by the biblicist. A clash here is inevitable. Agreement in the use of the Bible in the public school is problematic, not only in direct proportion to its vocal opposition, but even more so, in direct proportion to its ardent advocacy. In fact, the higher (also perhaps the narrower) the view of scripture, the less likely that accommodation can be reached and a compromise can be struck with its critics for its use in the public school. An "all or nothing" situation pertains.

 This is perhaps unfortunate for there are ways for the Bible to be used in the public school if its advocates are able and willing to make some adjustments. Able--because they may be inclined to see these adjustments as fatal concessions--concessions which are endemically impossible.

A. Taught As Literature

One such adjustment, which would probably open (already it has) the door of the public school to the Bible, is a treatment of it as literature.

What does it mean to read the Bible as literature? Gabel and Wheeler respond:

Simply that for the time being one looks at the Bible in the same way that one would look at any other book: as a product of the human mind. In this view the Bible is a collection of writings produced by real people who lived in actual historical times. Like all other authors, these persons used the languages native to them and the literary forms then available for self-expression, creating, in the process, material that can be read and appreciated under the same conditions that apply to literature in general, wherever it is found. [13]

Is this sufficient? Many biblicists would argue with Bloom that it is not: "To include it in the humanities is already a blasphemy, a denial of its own claims," and yet realistically Bloom concedes "The best that can be done, it appears, is to teach 'The Bible as Literature' as opposed to 'as Revelation,' which it claims to be." [14]

Is this best good enough? Does such a restrictive approach concede so much that the Bible ceases to be itself? Gabel and Wheeler think not:

"This view is not necessarily in conflict with the traditional religious one, namely, that the Bible was written under the direct inspiration of God and given to humans to serve as a guide to their faith and conduct. But it is clearly different, with its own requirements and its own aims. 

Reading the Bible as literature should not be uncomfortable for persons who hold the religious view (though it may seem a little strange at first), and it places no demands upon the many persons who, for reasons of their own, take a skeptical or noncommittal view of the Bible. The Bible is the common heritage of us all, whatever our religious beliefs, and we should be able to study it, up to a point, without getting into religious controversy. Later--and separately--anyone who chooses to should be able to return to viewing the Bible as a repository of religious truth. "[15]

This possibility of the student being attracted to further exploration of the "Bible as a repository of religious truth," is attractive and perhaps indirectly impinges on the matter of values education. But this issue of the Bible and values education must be confronted more directly. Once admitted to the curriculum as literature, can the Bible be used to define, to teach and to enhance moral values?

Bloom is pessimistic. Even in the "good old days" before some of the current challenges to prayer and Bible reading in the public school, he notes their ineffectiveness. "The gods never walked very tall in our political life or in our schools. The Lord's Prayer we mumbled in grade school when I was a child affected us less than the Pledge of Allegiance we also recited." [16]

Gabel and Wheeler state that their book, The Bible as Literature, does not "advocate or presume the value of the Bible as a vehicles of moral instruction:

". . . . We do not deny these values, but we shall not take them into account either." Their reason: "everything beyond it is in the area of personal beliefs and is subject to sectarian controversy." Presumably then, from their perspective, the Bible taught as literature in the public school should not be "a vehicle of moral instruction." [17]

My response is: "Why should it not be used as such a vehicle?" Do we not use the other literature taught in the public school, at least to define, if not to instill, moral values? Bloom, in lamenting the contemporary ignorance of the literary classics observes: ". . .students today have nothing like the Dickens who gave so many of us the unforgettable Pecksniffs, Micawbers, Pips, with which we sharpened our vision, allowing us some subtlety in our distinction of human types. It is a complex set of experiences that enables one to say so simply, 'He is a Scrooge.' Without literature, no such observations are possible and the fine art of comparison is lost." [18]

Indeed! Literature is an effective medium through which values can be studied and the Bible qualifies as the best.

When thinking of virtues why not refer to the steadfastness of Job, [19] the loyalty of Joseph [20] and Ruth, [21] the selflessness of Esther, [22] the passion for justice of Moses, [23] the integrity of Samuel, [24] and the moderation and temperance of the sage? [25]

B. Taught as a Case History

Another adjustment which might open the public school to the Bible is to consider it and treat it as a book of case histories. Such a deployment of scripture may be as troublesome if not more so, than treating it as literature because of an inclination to view the Bible as an encyclopedia of values, a source of abstract doctrine. The popular "concordance" approach to the Bible is essentially an encyclopedia one since the literary (cotext) and the sociological historical setting (context) are generally ignored. The Bible is made to address every current issue in an abstract, consistent, and uncomplicated manner. Such teachings are then frequently prefaced by "the Bible says," eliminating any thought or question.

Such an approach to the Bible grossly distorts it. Stuart and Fee observe:

The Bible, however, is not a series of propositions and imperatives; it is not simply a collection of "Sayings from Chairman God," as though He looked down at us from heaven and said: "Hey you down there, learn these truths. Number 1, There is no God but One, and I am He. Number 2, I am the creator of all things, including mankind"--and so on, all the way through proposition number 7,777 and imperative number 777. 

These propositions of course are true; and they are found in the Bible (though not quite in that form). Indeed such a book might have made many things easier for us. But, fortunately, that is not how God chose to speak to us. Rather He chose to speak His eternal truths within the particular circumstances and events of human history. [26]

The nature of the Bible is similarly characterized by George Wright:

 The primary means by which God communicates with man is by his acts, which are the events of history. These events need interpretation, it is true, and God provides it in his Word by chosen heralds or messengers. But the focus of attention is not upon the Word of God in and for itself so that it can be frozen, so to speak, within a system of dogmatic propositions. The Word leads us, not away from history, but to history and to responsible participation within history. It is the accompaniment of history. The Bible thus is not primarily the Word God, but the record of the Acts of God, together with the human response thereto. [27]

These characterizations need additional treatment which this paper cannot provide, but they do allow, as noted above, a possible case study approach to the Bible. Kraft defines a casebook as ". . . a collection of descriptions of illustrative real-life exemplifications of the principles to be taught." [28]

Kraft continues by noting the pedagogical implications here:

American education seems to feel that the most effective way to teach is to present the principle and allow the students to perform the supposedly less difficult application, God knew better. He seems to have realized that the process of analogizing is easier from the specific to the general and thence again to the specific than if one starts from the general principles alone. So he has provided us with a casebook rather than a theology textbook. [29] 

This approach disallows the easy answer or resolution and forces the student to identify with the characters of the story and in the process to struggle and then to discover. [30]

Further, since the Bible is a multiculture book which deals with universal human problems, it lends itself to wide, yet personal, use. Dealing with a time and culture foreign to our western students, the Bible presents aspects of Semitic culture in particular, that have present significant application to our moral struggles. Space does not allow extensive development here, but rather a cursory and illustrative approach. Consider the Semitic concept of corporate personality. Here the emphasis is upon national, societal and communal values, rather than personal ones. [31] The welfare of society took precedence over the welfare of the individual. The rugged individualism of the west with all its competitive spirit was simply unknown in Semitic culture. What an excellent medium through which to emphasize cooperation rather than competition.

These two treatments of the Bible--as literature and as a casebook--may give it access to the public school. That in itself is a significant achievement. But it is to be admitted that this is a kind of minimalist approach, which will not satisfy all biblicists. Whether some is better than nothing will continue to be debated.

IV. A PRACTICAL CONCERN

At issue here is whether the Bible can (or should) be identified with and made to conform to current philosophies of development.

Dan Motet of Seattle Pacific University responds affirmatively here, observing:

Kohlberg's approach is analogous to what we find in scripture, where we can follow God's work to raise human moral judgment through the six stages. [32] 

By jumping about through scripture, ignoring both the cotext and the context, Motet finds examples of persons who have functioned at these respective levels. He also claims that Jesus "gauged His audience and spoke appropriately to all stages." [33] Again, he discovers no clear pattern here but is content to go searching indiscriminately for illustrations.

Finding biblical illustrations of Kohlberg's stages may be affirming, but it is a far cry from proof that the Bible advocates and systematically practices a particular kind of western, modern moral development.

Bonnidell Clouse of Indiana State University begins her article on a comparison between Jesus and Piaget on mature moral judgment by stating,

It would follow, then, that psychologists and those of other disciplines who hold to the historic Christian position would look to the life of Jesus as the ultimate example of moral conduct and to His words as recorded in Scripture as a guide to the most advanced thinking possible in the realm of moral discernment. [34] 

By casting about throughout the Gospel accounts, Clouse claims to have found similarities between Jesus' approach to moral discernment and development and that of Piaget. She concludes,

The teachings of Jesus and Piaget's concept of mature moral judgement are remarkably similar. In his omniscience, Jesus knew all things and represented the most advanced thinking possible in the area of morality. Piaget's cognitive-developmental approach, although not religious in nature, approximates the same type of reasoning. [35] 

That Jesus always exercised mature moral judgment and that his words reflected a level of moral maturity far in advance of any views before expressed are beyond debate. [36] But to limit him to a single educational ideology and to a theory at that which is concerned only with "cognitive equilibrium" [37] and has simply as its goal the attainment of a higher level or stage of development, is to misrepresent Jesus. Even a casual reading of the Gospel accounts will show that Jesus was not simply interested in how people reasoned, but in how they acted. [38]

I believe it is difficult, if not impossible and perhaps unwise, to fit the Bible into current philosophies of development. This is true for the following reasons:

1. Most of these are occidental in their origins and development, while the Bible clearly has an oriental orientation.

2. While these theories may have deep roots in humanity, their present couching is technical and scientific, and they are dominated by sophisticated technologies, all of which are foreign to the Bible for obvious reasons.

3. There is no single or consistent approach to moral development in the Bible. The various genres of literature have different emphases which must not be leveled.

In spite of these restraints, I will briefly address moral development biblically, particularly from the perspective of my discipline, the Hebrew Bible, where, I believe, the primary (not necessary exclusive) emphasis is on deliberate moral instruction, on the transmission of established values. Note some of its characteristics:

1. There are bodies of information, rules, and values collected from the past that are to be transmitted. These are expressly stated in casuistic and apodictic laws. The latter are the Ten Commandments which have a "universal applicability unconditioned by temporal considerations and unaffected by shifting political conditions. They are of truly binding validity for the present and the future. This, of course, is so because the 'suzerain' who dictates the terms of the covenant is none other than God Himself. The 'vassal' may contravene them, but it is beyond his capacity to rescind them." [39]   It is of these laws that the Shema states: ". . . you shall teach them diligently to your children." [40]

2. The teaching process was not only tradition-centered, but it was also society-centered, rather than child-centered. This did not deprecate or exonerate the individual, but simply considered the individual within the context of the family, the tribe, and the nation. The welfare of the child was tied to that of the state. Even when individualism begins to develop in the 8th century (BC) it was still within the context of the nation. [41]

3. Values were transmitted by reference to models. Even God is identified by reference to heroes (The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). [42] Heroes were not unrealistically portrayed. Their moral imperfections were not hidden or glossed over. Rather they were exposed and the hero repented of his failures.

4. Discipline was used to inculcate tendencies. Not only were standards enunciated, they were engrained by discipline. There is a strong emphasis on rewards and punishments. In the Wisdom Literature the retributory was seen as virtually automatic. The Prophets who were enforcers of the covenant regularly appealed to reward and punishment with a much heavier emphasis on the latter. An effort is made in Job and Ecclesiastes to rise above this quid pro quo approach, but their context indicates how pervasive the retributory was.

I am not attempting to fit the Bible into one of the current educational ideologies, nor am I suggesting that we must use biblical pedagogical methods. I am content to yield to the educator when it comes to methods. The Bible in its very composition and contents demonstrates a tolerance for us to utilize the methods most appropriate to our times.

V. CONCLUSION

While difficult, the Bible can be used in the public schools to contribute to the development of values. There are adjustments, but these are not so much a matter of the text as they are of the believer.

A decision will have to be made by the believer whether a limited use of scripture is preferable to no use. Perhaps even more fundamental is the issue of the domain of scripture. Should it be confined to the community of faith--to citizens of God's Kingdom? Are its values foreign and inappropriate to these who choose not to be citizens of God's Kingdom?

Ultimately there is a parallel here to the issue of creationism. Can the Bible be presented as one potential source for values amid many others even as the adherents of creationism argue that it should be presented in the public schools as one explanation for creation amid others. Since the Bible does not claim to be a book of science, but rather a book of faith and religion, it is problematic to insist that biblical creation be taught in a science class, possibly by a non-believer who is compelled to do it. If the Bible is the book for the Household of Faith, as some claim, can it rightly be used in the public schools, amid other sources, for values education, possibly by a teacher who is neither converted nor sympathetic?

The issues here are not simple nor have they been resolved by this paper. But they can be clarified and tackled if we will concede that the problem is not so much with the Bible as it is with us who use the Bible.

Copyright by author.

1. Carlton Fisher, a working paper on values.

2. Donald G. Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology. (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1978), Vol. I, p. 90. 

3. Stanley Haverwas and William Willimon, Resident Aliens. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), p. 18.

4. Francis I. Anderson, Job - Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1976), Vol. 13, p. 79.

5. Donald C. Bloesch, op cit., p. 91.

6. Works 6:512.

7. "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world," RSV.

8. Loc cit. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. (London: Epworth Press, 1954).

9. Standard Sermons 2:43.

10. Luke 11:13 RSV

11. John Burnaby, Is the Bible Inspired? (London: Duckworth and Co., 1949), p. 82.

12. Note "some," certainly not all. This statement is not meant to suggest that biblieists are limited strictly to scripture in arriving at their conclusions.

13. John B. Gabel and Charles B. Wheeler, The Bible as Literature. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), p 3.

14. Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), pp. 374-375.

15. John B. Gabel and Charles B. Wheeler, op cit., pp. 3-4.

16. Allan Bloom, op cit., p.56.

17. John B. Gabel and Charles B. Wheeler, op cit., pp. XI-XII.

18. Allan Bloom, op cit., pp. 63-64.

19. Job 1-2 and James 5:11.

20. Genesis 39:6-18.

21. Ruth 1:6-18.

22. Esther 4:1-17.

23. Exodus 2:11-22.

24. 1 Samuel 12:1-5.

25. Proverbs 30:7-9; Ecclesiastes 7:16-17.

26. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible For All It's Worth. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), pp. 19-20.

 27. George Ernest Wright, God Who Acts. (London: SCM Press, 1952), p. 107.

 28. Charles H. Kraft, Christianity In Culture. (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1984), p. 198.

 29. Ibid., p. 199.

 30. Kraft notes that the Bible frequently includes interpretations with its case studies. Ibid., p. 198.

 31. Nahum M. Sarna, Exploring Exodus. (New York: Schocken Books, 1986), pp. 142-143.

 32. Dan Motet, "Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development and the Christian Faith," Journal of Psychology and
Theology. (Vol. 6, Winter, 1978), p. 18.

 33. Ibid., p. 21.

 34. Bonnidell Clouse, "The Teachings of Jesus and Piaget's Concept of Mature Moral Judgment," Journal of Psychology and Theology., (Vol 6, Summer 1978), p. 175.

 35. Ibid., p. 181.

 36. Ibid., p. 177.

 37. Nicholas Wolterstorff, Educating For Responsible Action. (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980), p. 26.

 38. I do not believe that Jesus' imprimatur was considered critical either by Piaget or Kohlberg. Certainly Jesus' validity is not to be determined by an endorsement by Piaget or Kohlberg.

 39. Nahum M. Sarna, op cit., p. 141.

 40. Deuteronomy 6:4-9.

 41. Evidence of this emphasis on the individual can been seen in Jeremiah (31:29-30) and Ezekiel (18:1-24).

 42. Exodus 3:15.

Return to Carl Schultz's Links 

 Houghton College Home Page

E-mail to cschultz@houghton.edu