Dwayne E. Huebner

Work, Education and Teaching

Dwayne E. Huebner was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on October 16, 1923. He was the second of two sons born to Louise Vogt Huebner and Ernest Huebner. Huebner’s parents were both born in Grand Rapids. Ernest Huebner and his siblings were the first generation of the family to be born in the United States. Their parents had come to this country from Germany.

The Huebners, a working class family, made their home in a Northeast side Grand Rapids neighborhood at a time when Grand Rapids, a West Michigan city, was known as the nation’s “furniture capital.” Ernest Huebner was a furniture worker for one of the city’s many furniture companies.

Dwayne Huebner grew up in the depression era. When the furniture industry fell on hard times, the Huebner family moved to Chicago. Active members of the United Methodist Church in Grand Rapids, only Dwayne’s mother continued to be active in the Methodist Church after the move to Chicago. Having experienced a lack of support by the church during the depression Ernest Huebner did not remain active in the church. The Huebners lived in Chicago for three years (until Dwayne finished the eighth grade) before returning to Grand Rapids.

Huebner attended Aberdeen Elementary School through the fifth grade. Drawn to the sciences by a gifted high school chemistry and physics teacher at Creston High School in Grand Rapids, Huebner majored in chemistry and served as a lab assistant at the Grand Rapids Junior College.

In 1942, Huebner enlisted in the United States Army. He went into active service the next year and, following basic training, was assigned to a fifteen-month-long training program in electrical engineering at Texas A & M and then to work as a radio technician (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20 and 22, 2003).

At first, Huebner was inclined to enter the field of nuclear physics, but, as he writes, “That idea lost its hold as I became more and more disillusioned with my own education and the education of some of the people around me. I was also becoming less excited by the challenges of the physical sciences” (Huebner, 1975a, p. 213). Instead, Dwayne decided to enter the field of education, choosing to major in elementary education.

Two schools topped Huebner’s list as places to pursue his interest in education: “The University of Chicago and Teachers College, Columbia University seemed likely places because of the well-known educators associated with both places and the early influences of the two institutions” (Huebner, 1975a, p. 213). Although he lacked a B.A. degree, Huebner was accepted by the University of Chicago based on examinations that determined the educational background of applicants without a baccalaureate degree. He enrolled in a masters program in elementary education in the social sciences division of the university (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 22, 2003).

During the two years it took him to complete the masters degree at the University of Chicago, Huebner would come under the influence of leading figures in the field, like Virgil E. Herrick and Ralph W. Tyler. While Huebner was a graduate student there, Herrick and Tyler organized the Conference on Curriculum Theory, hosted by the University of Chicago on October 16-17, 1947. There he also met Paul Eberman, doctoral candidate who taught in Chicago’s elementary education program. Herrick and Eberman would later play a significant role in Huebner’s decision to pursue doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Following the completion of his masters in elementary education at the University of Chicago, Huebner taught a fourth grade class at an elementary school in East Lansing, Michigan for two years. Those two years were, according to Huebner, “long enough to know that I knew very little about teaching and education” (Huebner, 1975a, p. 213).

Nonetheless, his experience in the elementary school classroom—and later in the university seminar room—taught Huebner some important lessons. One of those lessons involved appreciation of the child’s capacity for curiosity and wonder.

… as an elementary teacher and educator I have had opportunity to witness the gradual change in children from the spontaneous, curious, poking, exploring, questioning, wondering child—a child full of awe in preschool, kindergarten, even first grade to the stodgy, accepting, pliant, unresponsive student in the fifth grade, in the freshman year in college, and, indeed, in graduate school classes (Huebner, 1959b [1999], p. 1).

After two years as an elementary school teacher, Huebner—encouraged by Eberman—left Michigan for Madison, Wisconsin. He spent the next three years in full-time doctoral studies in education and sociology at the University of Wisconsin’s Madison campus. In an autobiographical statement, Huebner described the ethos as “primarily positivistic—empirical and statistical and good” (Huebner, 1975a, p. 214).

Both Huebner and James B. Macdonald, a fellow doctoral student, came under Herrick’s influence at Madison. Huebner and Macdonald would become close friends, a relationship that continued until Macdonald’s death in 1985 (Cf. Huebner, 1985d). Like Huebner, Macdonald would also come to be known for his work in the curriculum field. Huebner and Macdonald were among a group of doctoral students who participated in a continuing seminar with Herrick during the three years of Huebner’s full-time study at Madison (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003).

Paul Eberman helped Huebner find appointments as a research assistant. Huebner’s research assistantships involved handwriting studies and the study of classroom interaction. He used a Q-sort technique in the latter.

As he completed the course work and turned his attention to the dissertation, Huebner developed competence in statistical and empirical research methods. He spent his last year at Madison in the library and in an advanced social psychology seminar with Hans Gerth. He was introduced to the writings of Donald Hebb and Talcott Parsons in psychology and sociology. Huebner’s philosophical interests began to develop, shaped by Ernst Cassirer, Susanne Langer, and Bertrand Russell (Huebner, 1975a, p. 214).

Huebner completed his doctoral dissertation—From classroom action to educational outcomes: An exploration in educational theory—in 1959. The dissertation was primarily sociological and theoretical.

His last year at Madison represented the beginning of a shift in Huebner’s intellectual development. As he described it, “From that point on the intellectual development was strange, rather subconsciously self-directing, and increasingly alienating from my colleagues in education” (Huebner, 1975a, p. 214). The shift from a positivistic-scientific perspective, with its emphasis on objectivity and empirical evidence to a more philosophical and qualitative perspective would draw Huebner into religious and theological writings as he began his career in college teaching.

From 1954 to 1957, Huebner was an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at Northern Illinois University in De Kalb, Illinois. He taught courses in educational psychology and human development, and supervised student teachers (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 22, 2003). During this time, Huebner’s reading included Meister Eckhardt and some Rhineland mystics, as well as Buddhists. He began reading the first volume of Paul Tillich’s three-volume Systematic Theology.

In 1957, Huebner left De Kalb for New York City and a position as assistant professor at Teachers College, Columbia University. He would spend a large part of his professional teaching career at Teachers College (1957-1982), moving from assistant to full professor. From 1979 until 1982, he chaired the Department of Curriculum and Teaching (From “Chronology of Events,” in The Lure of the Transcendent, 1999, p. 451).

Huebner spent four weeks at the Episcopal Seminary of the Southwest in Austin, Texas, in 1963. He participated in a program designed to bring scholars in different fields to study at the seminary and to interact with seminary faculty (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 22, 2003).

From 1964 to 1966, Huebner also served as principal of the Agnes Russell School at Teachers College. The school was established when Teachers College closed their lab schools. Huebner writes that Agnes Russell School was a small elementary school, in the College complex, with the specific purpose of providing education for the students and staff of TC. If space was available it also accepted children from Columbia, Union, Julliard, JTS. It was intended to be a service school, not a demonstration or lab school. However, we were free to develop our own program and were innovative in many ways. Some TC students would do their student teaching there, and we had enough really superior teachers that others would come to observe the program (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 22, 2003).

Just ten years after joining the faculty at Teachers College, Huebner was already shaking the foundations of the curriculum field. He was one of the presenters at a major curriculum conference held at Ohio State University in 1967. William F. Pinar has called Huebner’s paper, “Curriculum as a concern for man’s temporality” (1967a), a “groundbreaking paper” (Pinar, et al., 1995, 1996, p. 179).

Huebner’s association with Union Theological Seminary, located across the street from Teachers College, began in 1970 (From “Chronology of Events,” in The Lure of the Transcendent, 1999, p. 451). The two institutions offered a joint program in religious education. His reading in religion and theology following the completion of his doctoral work led him to volunteer to advise doctoral candidates enrolled in the joint program. He writes:

“The connection with Union via the joint program in Religious Education was most formative—working closely with Bob Lynn, Mary Tully, Ellis Nelson, and getting to know many of the faculty at Union” (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003). For several years, Huebner taught a course for Teaching Assistants at Union Seminary—something that C. Ellis Nelson pushed hard for. Dwayne observes, “It was one of the first courses in a Seminary devoted to improving teaching skills of doctoral students” (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003).

The joint Union-Columbia program produced a number of well-known Christian religious educators such as Maria Harris and John H. Westerhoff III. Huebner’s doctoral candidates in the joint program included Mary C. Boys, Michael Fuchs, Thomas H. Groome, Byron Jackson, Robert Pazmiño, and Kieran Scott. With Mary Tully and Philip Phenix, Huebner served on Maria Harris’ dissertation committee and was an outside reader for Westerhoff’s dissertation (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003).

Huebner also advised many doctoral students who were jointly enrolled at Teachers College and Jewish Theological Seminary (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003). Recalling those years, Huebner writes:

I would have to say that my work with students in the joint program between TC and Jewish Theological Seminary was as important to me, and hopefully to them, as my work with students in the joint program between TC and Union. Joe Lukinsky, who taught at JTS, became a colleague. When Will Kennedy came to Union, the three of us worked together at times (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 22, 2003).

Huebner’s influence has not been limited to doctoral candidates in religious education. His students have included Michael Apple at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Greta Morine-Derschimer who taught at Syracuse and retired from the University of Virginia. Though he only took one course with Huebner, William F. Pinar, who teaches curriculum theory in the College of Education at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, would be among those influenced by Huebner’s thought (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003).

Eventually, Huebner’s capacity to integrate education and theology attracted the attention of other institutions. When Barbara Wheeler became President of Auburn Seminary at Union, she asked Huebner to join the faculty as an adjunct professor. At that time, adjunct faculty, which from time to time included Jim Forbes, Maria Harris, Parker Palmer, and Larry Rasmussen, supplemented the teaching of the one full-time faculty member, Walter Wink. Huebner taught short courses at Auburn, most often a course on the Art of Teaching Bible Study with Wink. Sometimes Huebner taught alone, and at other times with Forbes, Harris, and Michael Warren. Huebner retired from Auburn Seminary in 1995 (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003).

Following Randolph Crump Miller’s retirement as Horace Bushnell Professor of Christian Nurture at Yale University Divinity School in June of 1981, Huebner became Visiting Professor of Christian Education (1982-1985). In 1985, he was named Professor of Christian Education at Yale’s Divinity School, and from 1992 until his retirement from Yale in 1994 Huebner served as the Horace Bushnell Professor of Christian Nurture (From “Chronology of Events,” in The Lure of the Transcendent, 1999, p. 451).

Huebner’s engagement with theological education was not limited to the classroom. From 1990 until 1993, he served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Divinity School (From “Chronology of Events,” in The Lure of the Transcendent, 1999, p. 451).

Huebner’s appointment to the faculty of the Divinity School at Yale was a significant event. William Bean Kennedy, a colleague on the Union Seminary side of the joint Columbia-Union program, interviewed Huebner on the occasion of his appointment. The interview, along with responses from a host of established Christian religious educators, appeared in the July-August 1982 issue of Religious Education. In that interview, Huebner articulated the core values and central themes of his work (Cf. Kennedy, 1982, pp. 363-374).

Huebner was usually ahead of his contemporaries in thinking about education and teaching. William F. Pinar, who took a class with Huebner at Teachers College in 1969, and who has been one of his most articulate interpreters, comments: “Efforts in the late 1970’s and 1980’s to understand curriculum politically, phenomenologically, aesthetically, and theologically can be directly traced to Huebner’s groundbreaking scholarship in the 1960’s and early 1970’s" (Pinar, 1999, p. xx).

Huebner’s ideas about education were challenging and inspiring. Students and colleagues spread his reputation as a thoughtful and articulate speaker. Not surprisingly, Dwayne received many invitations to speak at conferences, deliver papers to seminars, participate in panel discussions, and serve as a reactor to presentations. The list of such engagements includes:

• a paper on moral values and the curriculum delivered at the Conference on the Moral Dilemma of Public Schooling in Madison, Wisconsin (May 12, 1965)
• a presentation on the changing role of the supervisor at the Annual Supervisors’ Conference, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (October 31, 1966)
• a paper on the leadership role in curriculum change at the Kenwood Conference on Curriculum Leadership, at the University of Wisconsin (May 22, 1966)
• a presentation on curriculum at the Conference on Craft, Conflict, and Symbol: Their Import for Curriculum and Schooling, held at the Tennessee Technological University (April 25-26, 1974)
• a paper on educational content at the Conference on Reconceptualizing Curriculum Theory, Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio (October 18, 1974)
• a presentation on the development of teacher competencies at the Western Canada Educational Administrators Conference in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (October 19, 1979)

While these engagements dealt with issues in education, in the 1970’s Huebner’s focus was broadening to include Christian religious education. In 1971, he delivered an address at the Autumn Convocation of Andover Newton Theological School (1971). He read a paper, “An educator’s perspective on language about God,” at the Consultation on Language About God held at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky (October 3-4, 1977) and was the critical reactor to four papers presented at the Boston College Symposium, "Christian Education: Handing on Traditions and Changing the World," at Boston College (April, 1978).

With his appointment at the Yale Divinity School in 1982, the themes of such presentations came more and more to address Christian religious education themes. Huebner presented a paper on education in congregation and seminary at the Project on the Congregation and Theological Education at the Candler School of Theology, Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia (June 3-5, 1985) and later the same year he spoke on growing in faith at an ecumenical conference sponsored by the Delmara Ecumenical Agency in Newark, Delaware (October 12, 1985).

Louisiana State University, Loyola University, and Xavier University sponsored a seminar—Seminar on Spirituality and Curriculum—held on the campus of Loyola University in New Orleans in 1993. Huebner presented a paper on “Education and Spirituality” at the seminar (November 20, 1993).

Early on Huebner was dissatisfied with the language of education (Huebner, 1975a, p. 448). He turned to philosophy, particularly the existentialists, and to religion and theology. Huebner audited John MacQuarrie’s seminar on Heidegger at Union Theological Seminary (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003). In his “Autobiographical Statement,” he wrote: “Heidegger’s basic work Being and Time kept coming before me, and when the MacQuarrie translation of it became available, I bought it, to remain on the shelf for a year until I had time to get into his language” (Huebner, 1975a, p. 215). In a 1977 paper presented at a conference on God language held at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Huebner spoke about the contribution of Heidegger and other intellectual sources that had shaped his thinking. From Heidegger, Huebner learned that language both discloses and hides; from Piaget, he learned about method and the genesis of knowledge; from Merleau-Ponty Huebner discovered the value of being open to the other; and from Ricoeur, he learned about symbol and the interpretation of metaphor (Huebner, 1977a).

Huebner was active, at various times, in a number of professional organizations. He belonged to the Association for Childhood Education (ACEI), the American Educational Research Association (AERA), and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). At one time he ran—unsuccessfully—for President of ASCD (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003). In 1988, Huebner was among the Lifetime Achievement Honorees, who were named by Division B: Curriculum Studies of AERA for making “a demonstrable difference in curriculum studies.”

His professional memberships also included the Association of Professors and Researchers in Religious Education (APRRE) and the Religious Education Association (REA). Huebner also attended the East Coast Professors of Religious Education, a group formed by Randolph Crump Miller (Yale Divinity School) and D. Campbell Wyckoff (Princeton Theological Seminary) that met in Princeton (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 20, 2003).

Huebner was both an active participant in these professional organizations and a sharp critic of their principles and practices. He dared say to those in the field, in the sharpest terms, “The curriculum field of the past one hundred years is not just moribund; for all practical purposes it is dead” (Huebner, 1976 [1999], p. 253). And addressing an ASCD meeting, Huebner concluded his presentation with this challenge:

Another image: this conference and those of the past few years strike me as a smorgasboard. Take your pick, please your palate, take home a memory or two—all in the spirit of free enterprise and rampant individualism. Contrast that image to the Last Supper—a few people, sharing something in common, breaking bread and drinking wine, and then changing the shape of the public world.

ASCD will surely die if the smorgasboard continues as its metaphor. It might live—smaller, more powerful—if the metaphor shifts (Huebner, 1975c, p. 239).

“I am not a theologian or a professional religious,” Huebner told an audience at a conference on the campus of Louisville Presbyterian Seminary in 1977 (Huebner, 1977a, p. 269). Although Huebner grew up in the Methodist tradition, following his discharge from the United States Army in 1946 his religious journey became more ecumenical and diverse. Like many Christians, Huebner looked around for a compatible church to attend. Preaching made Presbyterian churches attractive, but after moving to New York City one visit to the local Presbyterian church left him dissatisfied. For a time it was sufficient to be reading in religion and theology, meditating privately, and alternating attendance at worship between Riverside Church and St. John the Divine. While Huebner’s first wife was Episcopalian, it was not until they moved to New Haven that he joined a local Episcopal church.

For a time following his retirement from Yale in 1994, Huebner continued to engage issues in the curriculum and religious education. In 1996, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA established a new committee that would focus on curriculum. The stated purpose of the committee, according to the prospectus that accompanied a 1996 letter from the steering committee, was to "serve as a resource to denominations and the academic community in affirming foundations in, staying current about, and advancing curriculum theory for educating for faith" (From the PROSPECTUS accompanying a letter from the Steering Committee, May 3, 1996).

Huebner was among those participating in the first meeting of the Committee on Curriculum Research and Theory (CCR&T) at Nashville, Tennessee, on February 3-5, 1997. As a resource person at that meeting, Dwayne commented:

Our task is to look for new images, even if they cannot be put into the structures of today. Who in curriculum today dreams dreams and where do they find the time to do it? Think theologically, not dogmatically (From Exhibit 4 of the Summary of Activities and Actions of the Committee on Curriculum Research and Theory, February, 1998).

Huebner served as one of three academic consultants to the CCR&T for several years. When the Committee met at Nashville in 1998, members organized themselves into three "field of inquiry" sub-groups. Huebner chose to work with the "Christian Practices" sub-group. In February of 2000, when the CCR&T met at the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta, Georgia, the Thursday evening session was devoted to a discussion of Huebner’s work, reflected in a collection of his essays—The Lure of the Transcendent—which had been recently published. Frances Schoonmaker moderated the discussion, with Huebner actively engaging as a respondent (Attachment #1, from the Minutes of the CCR&T meeting in Atlanta, GA, February 10-12, 2000).

In 1996, Dwayne moved with his wife, Ellen Davis, to Alexandria, Virginia, where she taught for five years at Virginia Theological Seminary. Dwayne lived in Durham, North Carolina, where his wife, Ellen Davis, teaches at Duke Divinity School. He had two daughters (Morley and Gillian) from his first marriage, and eight grandchildren. Dwayne passed away on March 13, 2023 (From personal email correspondence with Huebner, March 22, 2003, and updated in April 2023 from correspondence with Ellen Davis).

William F. Pinar noted in 1975 that Huebner’s “work spans fifteen years, and his voice has been original, alone, and insufficiently recognized for most of those years” (Pinar, 1975, p. 209). This statement is an apt summary of the nature of Huebner’s contribution to education and Christian religious education.

Writing about Huebner’s contributions to education and religious education presents certain challenges. Access is one such challenge. Unlike many influential twentieth century Christian educators, Huebner did not write books. While Huebner did edit a book on curriculum (1964a), his thought is to be found primarily in the form of addresses, essays, class lectures, and papers. Since most of this work was originally published in journals and periodicals, some of which are difficult to locate because of their specialized focus, Huebner’s work has not been as accessible as the work of other Christian educators who contributed to the field in the twentieth century.

Only in 1999 were thirty-five of Huebner’s addresses, class lectures, essays, and papers collected and published in The Lure of the Transcendent (1999), finally making the major body of his work more accessible to a broader audience. Prior to 1999, only four of Huebner’s writings could be found in a single collection (Pinar, 1975).

If access to Huebner’s writings is one challenge to writing about his contribution, audience presents another challenge. At one level, Huebner wrote for educators. Most of his earlier writing, beginning with his dissertation in 1959 and extending well into the 1970’s, was written for those engaged in the education profession. Beginning in the early 1970’s and continuing until 1996, Huebner’s writing was primarily for religious educators. Yet, religion was the golden thread of consistency and continuity running through his writing for both audiences. While there are two distinct audiences at one level, at another level it is possible to identify a single audience. Huebner’s audience was always scholarly, whether engaged in education or in religious education. This means that much of his thinking about curriculum and education was disseminated in the form of public addresses, graduate school lectures, professional papers, and scholarly articles. Their tone and texture were usually philosophical and theoretical.

Therefore, Huebner’s influence often has been indirect. His thought has been largely mediated by some of his more prominent students who have gone on to teach at colleges, universities, and theological schools. Huebner’s influence on school teachers, administrators, and curriculum specialists has come primarily by way of the writings and work of William Pinar (1975, 1999; Pinar et al. 1995, 1996) and Michael Apple. Huebner’s influence on religious educators and those who teach them has come primarily by way of the writings and work of Thomas Groome (1980) and Mary Boys (1989).

Moving from Huebner’s contribution in education and curriculum to his contribution in Christian religious education, it is important to keep in mind that Huebner’s influence here is more indirect than direct. Thomas Groome’s Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision (1980) is perhaps a prime example of Dwayne’s indirect influence in Christian religious education.

• In the Preface to Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision, Groome acknowledges Huebner’s influence (Groome, 1980; xvi).
• The title of Chapter 1—“Education in Time”—reflects something of Huebner’s thinking about temporality, politics, and education. The several references to Huebner’s writings in the endnotes to this first chapter (See endnotes 11, 30, 31, 34, and 40) confirm the connection.
• Critical reflection, with its focus on the present, past in the present, and future in the present, as outlined by Groome reflects Huebner’s understanding of the implications of temporality for teaching (Groome, 1980, p. 185f.).
• And Groome’s recognition of the mutual or reciprocal relationship between teacher and learner in the final chapter reflects Huebner’s understanding that teachers can be transformed by their engagement with learners and that they are co-learners with their students.

A third challenge in writing about Huebner’s contribution has to do with assessment. Pinar has been a major source of information about Huebner’s work and its significance for education, especially curriculum theory (Pinar, 1975, 1999; Pinar et al., 1995, 1996).

In the Preface to Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists (1975), Pinar identifies three groups of curricular theorists: traditionalists, conceptual empiricists, and reconceptualists. He locates Huebner among the postcritical reconceptualists in the curriculum field. Pinar, one of Huebner’s students at Columbia Teachers College in the 1960’s, provides this description of the reconceptualists:

… the reconceptualists tend to concern themselves with the internal and existential experience of the public world. They tend to study not “change in behavior” or “decision-making in the classroom,” but matters of temporality, transcendence, consciousness, and politics. In brief, the reconceptualist attempts to understand the nature of educational experience (Pinar, 1975, pp. x-xi).

Pinar wrote, “I regard Professor Huebner as one of the two most important curricularists in this group, although he may well be the most important” (Pinar, 1975, p. 209).

Landon Beyer and Michael Apple (another student of Huebner’s) cite the work of James Macdonald, Maxine Greene, Elliot Eisner, Joseph Schwab and Dwayne Huebner as being “among the most important” of the “significant figures in the field” who address important questions about traditions and resources in the history of curriculum. They note in particular Huebner’s “eloquent insistence that we focus on language, environment, and politics” (Beyer and Apple, 1998; 6).

An article in the Journal of Curriculum Theory (White, 1980) summarized Huebner’s work. A more extensive description of Huebner’s contribution to curriculum is to be found in Understanding Curriculum (1995,1996). There Pinar and his associates locate Huebner’s work in the discourses of phenomenology, politics, and theology (Pinar et al.¸1995, 1996, pp. 213-215) and in curriculum language (Pinar et al.¸1995, 1996, pp. 417-419).

Huebner’s work has not been the focus of extensive doctoral research or critical scholarship. His work has been the focus of a master’s thesis (Plantinga, 1985) and has received attention in a few doctoral dissertations (Archer, 1983; Brooks, 2000; Pipan, 1985). Another doctoral dissertation focusing on Huebner’s work is currently in process, an indication that the significance of Huebner’s work is still being explored and may have a greater impact as time goes by.

While these sources offer an assessment of Huebner’s contributions to education and curriculum theory, assessment of his contribution to Christian religious education is largely limited to one source—the July-August 1982 issue of Religious Education, which featured an interview by William Bean Kennedy and responses by a number of religious educators. The interview took place as Huebner was moving from Teachers College at Columbia to the Divinity School at Yale. The interview is significant as an overview of major themes in Huebner’s thought:

• curriculum as access to knowledge
• the hidden dangers of power and control in socialization
• the dominance of psychological language as a barrier to the redevelopment of curriculum
• the role of “otherness” in transformation
• the hermeneutical character of the educational act

The religious educators’ reflections on the interview are significant as a sample of the assessment of Huebner’s contributions to Christian religious education. Sara Little was "moved by his references to 'ways of being with others,' by his incredible respect for others, especially children, by his utter disdain at the idea of control of another's life, by his awe before the 'norm of absolute otherness which raises into question all finite conditions, all life-styles'." (Little, 1982, p. 375).

The Kennedy-Huebner interview spurred Maria Harris, who was then teaching at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary, to reflect on the implications of Huebner’s notion of education as the way learners come in contact with "otherness" (Harris, 1982, p. 400). Mary C. Boys, another former student of Huebner’s, noted that his understanding of curriculum as access to knowledge or cultural wealth was one of his "major contributions" (Boys, 1982, p. 377).

Huebner’s critique of the dominance of psychology was noted by Gabriel Moran and Susan Thistlewaite. Moran observed that Huebner’s warning of the "danger of psychological reductionism, especially in the use of developmental theories" was one that religious educators needed to hear (Moran, 1982, p. 395). Thistlewaite, then at Boston College, found herself in agreement with Huebner’s concern about the influence of developmental theory on religious education curriculum (Thistlewaite, 1982, p. 425)

C. Ellis Nelson noted Huebner’s rejection of control as the goal of socialization (Nelson, 1982, p. 403). In a similar vein, Craig Dykstra, then teaching at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, was drawn to Huebner’s rejection of attempts to control learning through a misuse of power (Dykstra, 1982, p. 408). Iris V. Cully was intrigued by Huebner’s suggestion that children could help transform tradition (Cully, 1982; 412).

The corrective thrust of Huebner’s thought was noted by James Michael Lee and Robert L. Browning. Lee, teaching at the University of Alabama in Birmingham, found Huebner providing a “vital corrective” both to conservative Christian educators who emphasize tradition and to existentialist Christian educators who emphasize learner experience in curriculum (Lee, 1982, p. 386). Browning saw Huebner in the interview as an "alarm" or "corrective" (Browning, 1982, p. 415).

Roman Catholic religious educator, Clarisse C. Croteau-Chonka of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, highlighted the hermeneutical element in Huebner’s comments (Croteau-Chonka, 1982, p. 419). Former student, Kieran Scott noticed in the interview Huebner’s unmasking of the politics of curriculum design (Scott, 1982, p. 430).

Huebner’s comments about socialization drew responses from Lee and Nelson. Lee wrote that his “only reservation about Huebner’s application of socialization to curriculum and instruction is that his view of socialization is basically an intolerant one” (Lee, 1982, p. 392). Nelson, who has emphasized the value of a socialization approach, felt that Huebner’s point was too generalized but thought they might be able to find common ground (Nelson, 1982, p. 404). Perhaps Thomas Groome, in Christian Religious Education, strikes the proper balance, by recognizing the power of socialization while calling for critical appropriation of its use by religious educators.

While expressing appreciation for some of Huebner’s positions, Lee also shared some of his misgivings about Huebner’s work. His misgivings centered on Huebner’s neglect of the instructional side of the curriculum and instruction connection, Huebner’s rationalistic view of curriculum and instruction, and Huebner’s attack against the element of control (Lee, 1982, pp. 387-390).

Huebner’s contributions to Christian religious education include challenging its dependence on secular education and the behavioral sciences, especially psychology. In the 1982 interview by Kennedy, Huebner said, "One of the major stumbling blocks to the redevelopment of curriculum is the domination by psychological language today" (Huebner, 1982, p. 372). He had written about this earlier in “Toward a Remaking of Curricular Language” (1974a). There he said that his intention was to call attention to the way the language used in talking about infants and young children masked the traditions, memories, and intentions of parents and educators. He wrote:

This language is unconsciously furthered and developed by the scientific study of the child, a study that has ignored the place of the adult in the child’s world, the politics of adult-child relationships, the child’s participation in the building of public worlds, and the art of interpretation about the meaning of life as people, children, and adults live it together (Huebner, 1974a [1999], pp. 186-187).

This statement lifts up a number of themes in Huebner’s work: (1) language, (2) politics, (3) hermeneutics, and (4) relationships.

Language

The teacher, according to Huebner, is both guardian and servant of language (Huebner, 1969 [1999], p.149). "For the most part, when we teach we are in the world with others by way of language," he wrote (Huebner, 1969 [1999], p. 144).

Huebner’s concern for language was not restricted to education. In his response to presentations by conference panelists at the April 1978 Boston College Symposium on "Christian Education: Handing on Traditions and Changing the World," Huebner articulated the need for a “public language” for religious education (Huebner, 1979a, p. 90). Huebner noted the existence of a division of labor between specialists (i.e., academics) and practitioners. The specialists assume responsibility for creating a public language of religious education, without paying attention to how practitioners use language. Practitioners and those who participate in religious education do not participate in the creation of a public language of religious education, but defer to the specialists/academics (Huebner, 1979a, p. 93). For Huebner, the conference papers contributed to the “ongoing construction of the edifice within which religious educators can work and talk about their work.” But the work of constructing this edifice, he argued, is not just the responsibility of academics and specialists, but of practitioners and educatees as well (Huebner, 1979a, p. 94).

A gifted and articulate writer, Huebner himself uses language in a way that uncovers the hidden and opens up fresh possibilities. A good example of this is his definition of education as “the lure of the transcendent.”

Education is the lure of the transcendent—that which we seem is not what we are for we could always be other. Education is the openness to a future that is beyond all futures. Education is the protest against present forms that they may be reformed and transformed (Huebner, 1985g, p. 463).

Politics

In writing about the education of the young child, Huebner noted that The language of socialization encourages us to assume that the new being must be brought into near conformity with what we take for granted to be our world. Our language does not encourage us to see him or her as a living question mark about that which we take for granted (Huebner, 1974a [1999], p. 186).

While C. Ellis Nelson and John Westerhoff were introducing Christian educators to the dynamics of religious enculturation and socialization, Huebner was critiquing the easy enthusiasm for the socialization model of religious education. He was wary of an uncritical use of socialization in Christian formation. Always attentive to issues of power and control in education, Huebner said, " … I do not use the term 'socialization' as an educational term because it carries with it hidden forms of control" (Huebner, 1982, p. 364).

Although many educators avoided thinking about politics and power, perhaps because of the negative connotations of these terms, Huebner viewed them more positively. He believed that concepts drawn from political science offered curriculum workers new ways of addressing old problems (Huebner, 1962a, pp. 16-17, 21). In fact, Huebner argues that a teacher must increase his or her power or prestige if he or she is to effectively influence others (Huebner, 1966b [1975], p. 225). While politics and power are discussed in a number of Huebner’s writings, these themes are specifically addressed in “Politics and the Curriculum” (1962a), “Politics and Curriculum” (1964b), and “Poetry and Power” (1975c).

Hermeneutics

Power has implications for hermeneutics or interpretation. As Huebner notes, The natural educative consequences of conversation are broken when the power relations between speaker and listener are unequal and when power is used to impose an interpretation, when interpretation is not recognized as a constituent part of language, or when the event of discourse is subservient to some other social act, such as a market exchange, or a ritual or conventional social action (Huebner, 1977a [1999], p. 265).

Political activity and the exercise of power are not the only activities that concern Huebner. He writes about “three presences”—the individual, the society, and culture or tradition (also identified as the individual, the past, and the community). “An educator,” he writes, “cannot intentionally educate without thinking about the individual, the society, and the culture or tradition” (Huebner, 1974a [1999]; 188). He continues, “It is in talk about these three presences that we find the stuff for our hermeneutical and world-building arts” (Huebner, 1974a [1999]; 188).

In thinking about education we cannot effectively start our thinking with the individual and then make the past and the community secondary. Rather, our thinking must start with all three: the individual, the past, and the community. Then we can ask how the three are interrelated. We need not relate them by the language of teaching and learning, or by goals and objectives. I suggest they can be interrelated by hermeneutical or interpretive activity, by political activity, and by work activity (Huebner, 1974a [1999]; 188).

For Huebner, the interpretive act is not simply linguistic; it is also social, reflecting the linkage between speaker and listener, teacher and learner, caregiver and caretaker.

Relationships

Huebner claims that “We are our relationships” (Huebner, 1987b, p. 571). In “New Modes of Man’s Relationship to Man”, Huebner identifies four ways people encounter one another: (1) deny or escape from his or her own (or others) aloneness, (2) ignore the existence of others, (3) become subservient to others, and (4) dominate others (Huebner, 1963a [1999], p. 76). Huebner critiques the rampant individualism that characterizes so much of North American culture. In defining the terms “religious” and “education” that comprise the activity of religious education, Huebner notes that “To be religious is to be with God in the world with others” (Huebner, 1987b; 569) and that “To be in the world in an educational way is to be conscious of how the present is shaped and reshaped by the past and the future—our own past and future and future of those who share (have shared and will share) life with us on this planet and perhaps in the universe” (Huebner, 1987b; p. 570).

Relationships include our relationship with the people of our past, which Huebner calls the “fabric of yesterday.” He calls attention to two “weaves” of the “fabric of relationships: (1) the relationships of intimacy, and (2) the relationships of community (Huebner, 1987b, p. 571). The language of repentance and forgiveness are important for the “language habits” of the family, as are the language of scripture and liturgy (Huebner, 1987b, p. 575).

In addition to these central themes in Huebner’s work, transcendence is another that deserves attention.

Transcendence

Transcendence—the “other” or “Other”—plays an important role in Huebner’s understanding of education. The other may be the stranger, the neighbor, or the alien. The stranger, the alien, the enemy—anyone who is different than I am—poses an unspoken question to me, in fact to both of us. The question is why I am as I am, and why is she as she is? Her life is a possibility for me as mine is for her. And in the meeting of the two of us is a new possibility for both of us (Huebner, 1985g, p. 464).

The “other” may simply be that which is different, unfamiliar, or unknown. While the lure of the transcendent or the presence of the other is necessary for education, it is at the same time a threat.

For Huebner, love is the assurance that, in the face of the threat represented by the unknown and the stranger, we are not alone and that encounter or engagement with the unknown or the stranger will not destroy us. But, he points out, “Love is a sticky wicket in educational circles” (Huebner, 1985g, p. 466). For Huebner, this means that “Those who claim to be educators must care for, indeed love, those whom they would presume to educate” (Huebner, 1985g, p. 467). The faith community is the source of love, for faith communities are “the primary keepers of the traditions of love and care” (Huebner, 1985g, p. 467).

Philosopher, Provocateur, and Prophet

In a 1977 essay about God language, Huebner wrote that his intention was “to gather together some plausible ideas about language, sexism and religion which might stimulate reflection, spark conversation and perhaps mobilize action” (Huebner, 1977a [1999], p. 258). Stimulating reflection, sparking conversation, and mobilizing action aptly summarize the nature of Huebner’s contribution to education and to Christian religious education. These three intentions suggest three ways of thinking about Dwayne and his contributions to the fields of education and Christian religious education: philosopher, provocateur, and prophet. As a Philosopher, Huebner stimulated reflection on education, curriculum, and teaching.

Huebner’s search for a language that would illuminate the limitations of current educational discourse and open fresh possibilities led him to philosophy and theology. Existential philosophy, in particular, provided useful tools for reflecting on education, curriculum, and teaching. Huebner contributed to the philosophy of education by introducing the religious language of love, forgiveness, and hope as a counterweight to the language of psychology and the behavioral sciences. As William Pinar pointed out, “It has been Professor Huebner who has brought the traditions of existentialism, phenomenology, and theology to the curriculum field, and this contribution is of serious consequence” (Pinar, 1975, p. 209).

As a Provocateur, Huebner sparked conversation with his incisive remarks and contrarian views. Sparks were likely to fly when Huebner engaged others in dialogue around curricular and instructional issues. He confronted curricularists’ uncritical acceptance of the dominant categories of purpose and learning and challenged curricular theorists to explore the potential fruitfulness of the philosophical concept of temporality and the political concepts of power and control.

In a 1962 lecture for a class in Elementary Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, Huebner said that his intention was “to do no more than to offer some ideas for discussion, reflection, and possibly future exploration. The formulations are only tentative and suggestive” (Huebner, 1962a [1999], p.17).

As a Prophet, Huebner both forecast the future and issued warnings and cautions. Dwayne’s contributions were prophetic in two ways. First, his critical reflection on curriculum and teaching often forecast future trends in the field. Second, his conversations about curriculum and teaching often sounded warnings. His forecasts and warnings called for action. Like many prophetic voices, Huebner’s words for Christian educators may have their greatest impact in the future. He offers a vision for Christian religious education that lies beyond the horizon of much current theory and practice. It is not yet clear whether or not Christian religious education will be able to break its reliance on secular education and live out of its own rich tradition, shedding the value system of individualism for a more communal and covenantal understanding of education.

Works cited

References cited in the above sections and in the one which follows are to the sources listed in the bibliography which appears at the conclusion of this entry. Brackets in the citation of a reference in the text indicate that pagination is from a particular publication rather than from the original date of the material quoted or cited. For example, in (Huebner, 1967a [1975]; 237), the quote is from an essay that has appeared in three different publications. It was first published in 1967, but the page from which the reference is found in the 1975 publication. Thus, the citation in the text provides the reader with a sense of chronology as well as a specific source.

• Archer, G. D. (1983). A critical analysis of time and change as presented in the works of Carl Rogers and Dwayne Huebner. (Doctoral dissertation, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1983).
• Beyer, L. E., & Apple, M. W. (Eds.). (1998). The curriculum: Problems, politics, and possibilities (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Boys, M. C. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education 77 (4), 377-383.
• Brooks, N. J. (2000). Researching the reconceptualization: A hermeneutic inquiry. (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 2000).
• Browning, R. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education 77 (4), 415-419.
• Croteau-Chonka, C. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education 77 (4), 419-423.
• Cully, I. V. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education 77 (4), 411-415.
• Dykstra, C. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education 77 (4), 407-411.
• Groome, T. H. (1980). Christian religious education: Sharing our story and vision. San Francisco., CA: Harper and Row, Publishers.
• Harris, M. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education 77 (4), 399-403.
• Huebner, D. E. (1959, Summer). The capacity for wonder and education. Paper presented at the All College Lecture Series, Teachers College, Columbia University. Also published as Chapter One in The Lure of the Transcendent: Collected Essays by Dwayne E. Huebner, edited by Vikki Hillis and collected and introduced by W. F. Pinar. London and Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 1999. (Hereinafter referred to as The Lure of the Transcendent.)
• Huebner, D. E. (1962a). Politics and the curriculum. In A. H. Passow (Ed.). Curriculum crossroads. (pp. 87-95). New York: Teachers College Press. Paper presented at a three-day conference sponsored by the Department of Curriculum and Teaching at Teachers College, Columbia University. Also published as Chapter Thirty-five in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1963a). New modes of man’s relationship to man. In A. Frazier (Ed.) New insights and the curriculum. (pp. 144-164). Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Also published as Chapter Eight in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1964b). Politics and curriculum. Educational Leadership 22 (2), 115-129. Also published as Chapter Nine in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1966b). Curricular language and classroom meanings. In J. Macdonald & R. Leeper. Language and meaning. (pp. 8-26). Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Also published as Chapter 13 in W. F. Pinar (Ed.) Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan and as Chapter Ten in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1967a). Curriculum as concern for man’s temporality. Theory into practice 6 (4), 172-179. Later reprinted in William F. Pinar (Ed.) Curriculum theorizing: the reconceptualists. (pp. 237-249). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1975. Published as Chapter Twelve in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1969). Language and teaching: Reflections in the light of Heidegger’s writing about language. Paper presented at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. Also published as Chapter Thirteen in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1971, October 20). Education in the church. An address delivered at the Autumn Convocation of Andover Newton Theological School. First published in the Andover Newton Quarterly (January, 1972), 122-129, and later reprinted in Colloquy (December, 1973) 6 (10), 6-10. Also published as Chapter Fifteen in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1974a). Toward a remaking of curricular language. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.) Heightened consciousness, cultural revolution, and curriculum. (pp. 36-53). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Also published as Chapter Sixteen in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E.(1975a). Autobiographical Statement. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.) Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. (pp. 213-215). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Also published in The Lure of the Transcendent, pp. 447-449.
• Huebner, D. E. (1975c). Poetry and power: The politics of curricular development. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.) Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. (pp. 271-280). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Also published as Chapter Nineteen in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1976). The moribund curriculum field: Its wake and our work.
• Curriculum Inquiry 6 (2), 153-167. Also published as Chapter Twenty in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1977, October 3-4). An educator’s perspective on language about God. Paper prepared for the Consultation on Language About God, Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. Also published as Chapter Twenty-one in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1979a). The language of religious education. In Padraic O'Hare (Ed.), Tradition and transformation in religious education (pp. 87-111). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
• Huebner, Dwayne E. (1985d). The redemption of schooling: The work of James B. Macdonald. Journal of Curriculum Theory 6 (3), 28-34. Also published as Chapter Twenty-seven in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1985g). Religious metaphors in the language of education. Religious Education 80 (3), 460-472. First published in Phenomenology & Pedagogy: A Human Science Journal 2, (2). Also published as Chapter Twenty-eight in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1987). Practicing the presence of God. Religious Education, 82 (4), 569-577. Also published as Chapter Thirty-one in The Lure of the Transcendent.
• Huebner, D. E. (1996a). Teaching as moral activity. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 11 (3), pp. 267-275. An early version of this article was presented at the Summer Institute on Teaching, “Teacher Leadership and Moral Values in Education,” at Teachers College, Columbia University, July 8, 1990.
• Huebner, Dwayne E. (2003). Personal Email Correspondence with George Brown, March 20 and 22.
• Kennedy, W. B. (1982). From theory to practice: Curriculum. An Interview with Dwayne Huebner. Religious Education, 77 (4), 363-374.
• Lee, J. M. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education, 77 (4), 383-395.
• Little, S. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education, 77 (4), 374-377.
• Moran, Gabriel. (1982). Reflective response. Religious education, 77 (4), 395-399.
• Nelson, C. E. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education, 77 (4), 403-407.
• Pinar, Wm. F. (Ed.). (1975). Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualists. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
• Pinar, Wm. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995, 1996). Understanding Curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. Counterpoints, Studies in the Postmodern Theory of Education, Vol. 17, Joe L. Kincheloe and Shirley R. Steinberg, General Editors. New York: Peter Lang.
• Pinar, Wm. F. (1999). Introduction. In Vikki Hillis (Ed.), The lure of the transcendent: Collected essays by Dwayne E. Huebner. Collected and introduced by Wm. F. Pinar. (pp. xv-xxviii). London and Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
• Pipan, R. C. (1985). Curriculum and collective consciousness: Speculations on individualism, community, and cosmos. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, 1985).
• Plantinga, D. (1985). Dwayne Huebner’s curricular language model revisited.
• Unpublished master’s thesis. Faculty of Education, Department of Secondary Education, Edmonton, Alberta.
• Scott, K.. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education, 77 (4), 430-434.
• Smith, J. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education, 77 (4), 427-430.
• Thistlewaite, S. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education, 77 (4), 423-427.
• Westerhoff, J. H. (1982). Reflective response. Religious Education, 77 (4), 434-436.
• White, K. (1980).The work of Dwayne Huebner: A summary and response. Journal of Curriculum Theory, 2 (2), 73-87.