Encouraging Christian Eloquence

 

Joanne Neal

Professor, Concordia University College of Alberta

Published in the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith (journal.ccscf.org) on 27 October 2015

 

He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the
Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?
~ Micah 6:8 ~

 

Introduction       

Peace is more important than all justice; and peace was not made for the sake of justice, but justice for the sake of peace.  Martin Luther (1483-1546), icon of the Protestant Reformation, originally penned this quotation as a line of his famous sermon regarding marriage.  However, the passage of time has not lessened its significance; indeed, the scope of its applicability has expanded over the past five centuries. 

In Christian terms, there is an intimate interplay between the concepts of peace and justice.  A portion of Psalm 85 (10-13) echoes that connection.                      

Steadfast love and faithfulness will meet;

righteousness and peace will kiss each other.
            Faithfulness will spring up from the ground,

and righteousness will look down from the sky.
           The Lord will give you what is good,
           and our land will yield its increase.
           Righteousness will go before him,
           and will make a path for his steps.

In essence, the theological understanding from the Christian perspective is that we cannot have peace without justice.  Therefore, if the Church is to truly pursue peace, there is an imperative for us to marshal our efforts around issues of justice: social justice, environmental justice, and economic justice.
            In his work, Justice: WhatÕs the Right Thing to Do?, Michael J. Sandel (2009) explores the meaning of justice from three vantage points:  maximizing welfare, respecting freedom, and promoting virtue (p.6). 

 

It’s true that most of our arguments are about promoting prosperity and respecting individual freedom, at least on the
surface.  But underlying these arguments, and sometimes contending with them, we can often glimpse another set of convictions  about what virtues are worthy of honor and reward, and what way of life society should promote.  Devoted though we are to prosperity and freedom, we canÕt quite shake off the judgmental strand of justice. The conviction that justice involves virtue as well as choice runs deep.  Thinking about justice seems inescapably to engage us in thinking about the best way to live (pp.9-10).

Through examples and illustrations, he compels the reader to begin to appreciate the complexity of the concept of justice in our contemporary context.

A central theme of Sandel’s text is that there is an inherent challenge to justice built into our globalized market economy.  Typically, arguments favoring free market trade include the need to respect freedom and maximize welfare.  That is, proponents of this type of market economy contend that it allows for the exchange of goods and services in such a way that promotes individual freedom.  Secondly, advocates argue that mutually beneficial deals made within the globalized market economy support overall welfare as long as both parties gain.  At a surface level, both of these lines of reasoning seem viable.  But the paradox lies in Sandel’s third layer of justice:  promoting
virtue.  It is entirely possible that, while respecting individuals’ freedom to enter into the buying and selling of goods and services, a level of that process may involve the exploitation of producers.  Consider the example of Ethiopian coffee bean growers.  Next to oil, coffee is the second most traded commodity on the market.  The Ethiopians sell their beans at auction to representatives of Western
corporations.  The actual market prices are then set on the stock exchanges in New York and London.  The profits realized by Western corporations are far greater than the monies paid to the original Ethiopian coffee growers; many of whom live in extreme poverty.  This type of activity set against of backdrop of a multitude of similarly exploitative or corrupt market activities should lead us to question the virtue of the globalized market economy. 

Although Sandel’s work is grounded in a secular perspective, he raises several central points about the business of moral clarity that need also to be heeded by the Christian Church.  Recognizing that we live in a culturally pluralistic society engaged in a globalized market economy also requires us to recognize that we have a responsibility to understand the issues at hand and be a voice for justice in the world:
socially, environmentally, and economically.

 

The Christian Church as a Social Institution

Indeed, the Christian Church of the 21^st century has a role to play in bringing about moral clarity to issues of justice.  However, in order to properly understand that role, we need to be cognizant of the fact that organized religion is a social institution.  This is not to suggest that God is a social construct.  Rather, the Christian Church itself is integrated into the societies in which exists, dealing with humans as social beings, and interacting with other social institutions as it seeks to serve God.  When cloning technology, for example, was introduced to broader society by the social institution of science, the Church had a great deal to contribute to the debate about the morality of such reproductive processes.  

The traditions, ceremonies, and expressions of worship associated with the Church have been designed by and are carried out
human beings.  While it is true that many of these manifestations of Christian practice may be divinely inspired, they are still carried out within the context of society.  In some instances, those practices may be altered to better accommodate the needs of those it serves.  The contemporary Fresh Expressions movement towards alternative forms of worship is an illustrative example.

As a social institution, the Church has the ability to reflect and reinforce societal values and norms, but it also has the power to help shape those values and norms.  It has the potential, for example, to actively promote an agenda for justice.  This is significant because both justice and injustice occur within the context of society.  Lewontin (1991) comments on this concept. 

Some kinds of inequality of status, wealth, health, and power have been characteristic of every known society.  That means that in every known society there has been some form of struggle between those who have and those who have not, between those with social power and those deprived of it (p.2).

 

Certainly the people of ancient times struggled with such issues of inequity and Holy Scripture makes many references to this disparity.  Poverty and wealth, for example, are not cited in the Bible as issues in and of themselves.  Rather, it is disparity that is at the heart of the issue.  Proverbs 19: 4 notes this in the statement:  Wealth brings many friends, but the poor are left friendless.

            Beyond being a social institution, the Christian Church has, historically, also held the role of being an institution of social legitimation.  That is, it was perceived as having the capacity to explain how the world worked and why certain social constructs
should be considered legitimate.  King Charles I provides a case in point.  When Charles was crowned King of Scotland and Ireland on March 27, 1625, his appointment was considered to be divinely sanctioned, or Dei gratia (by the
grace of God).  However, he proved to be something of a tyrannical and controversial ruler and this eventually led
to his beheading on January 30, 1649.  Charles’ last words before the executioner’s axe fell were in the form of a prayer:  I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.  Oliver Cromwell noted that the downfall of Charles I was a result of God’s grace having been withdrawn from the monarch, and cited the severed head as proof.  Not without compassion, however, Cromwell arranged to have Charles’ head reattached with needle and thread before his family received his remains for burial.

            Lewontin (1991) describes this notion of social legitimation in greater depth, citing the Christian Church as the primary institution of social legitimation for a goodly portion of European history.

For almost the entire history of European society since the empire of Charlemagne, the chief institution of social legitimation was the Christian Church…

 

For an institution to explain the world so as to make the world legitimate, it must possess several features.  First, the institution as a whole must appear to derive from sources outside of ordinary human struggle.  It must not seem to be the creation of
political, economic, or social forces, but to descend into society from a supra-human source.  Second, the ideas, pronouncements, rules, and results of the institutionÕs activity must have a validity and a transcendent truth that goes beyond any possibility of human compromise or human error.  Its explanations and pronouncements must seem to be true in an absolute
sense and to derive somehow from an absolute source.  They must be true for all time and all place.  And finally, the institution
must have a certain mystical and veiled quality so that its innermost operation is not completely transparent to everyone.
It must have an esoteric language, which needs to be explained to the ordinary person by those who are especially knowledgeable and who can intervene between everyday life and mysterious sources of understanding and knowledge.

 

The Christian Church or indeed any revealed religion fits these requirements perfectly, and so religion has been an ideal institution for legitimating society (p.5).

 

While it is true that the Christian Church no longer holds the position of being the chief institution of social legitimation that it once was in Western society of past centuries (science now lays claim to that title), this does not mean that it is off the proverbial hook when it comes to promoting justice today.  Ironically, silence and an appearance of complacency on the part of the Church can potentially be seen by the secular world as the legitimation of injustice.  This is a cautionary tale that the Christian world must take very seriously, in spite of potential protests by the secular world for us to mind our own @#!$% business.  While operating within an increasingly secular society, the Christian Church, as a social institution, holds a unique responsibility to be a credible and strong voice for justice.  The familiar words of Isaiah 40: 3-5 perhaps best summarizes this task.

A voice cries out: ‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.  Every valley shall be lifted up, and every mountain and hill made low; and uneven ground shall become level, and the rough places a plain.  Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all people shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.’

Faith and Politics

The spirit of the Lord is upon me,

because the Lord has anointed me;

he has sent me to bring news to the oppressed,

to bind up the brokenhearted,

to proclaim liberty to the captives,

and release to the prisoners;

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor…

~ Isaiah 61: 1-2~

 

When then Archbishop of Canterbury was asked by the British press for his reaction to the death of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, Rowan Williams provided the following commentary.

I think the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling, because it doesn’t look as if justice is seen to be done…I do believe that in such circumstances, when we are faced with someone who was manifestly a war criminal in terms of the atrocities inflicted, it is important that justice is seen to be served (May, 2011).

 

Media response was critical and swift, punctuated by rhetoric around the need for separation of Church and State.  But what His Grace’s detractors failed to understand was that his commentary was not at all an allusion to Church control regarding matters of State.  Rather, the Archbishop of Canterbury was drawing attention to the very crucial and appropriate role of the voice of the Church in the public square.  There is a key distinction between the concept of Church and State and Faith and Politics that many in the secular world do not grasp; indeed, many within the sacred world do not necessarily understand the difference.

Within the Anglican tradition, we have historically experienced the era of the Church-run State.  The rule of King Henry VIII provides a
case in point.  But Faith and Politics is an entirely different matter.  The word politics has its origin in the Greek word polis, meaning the welfare of the people.  From that vantage point, the faith community most certainly has a mandate and a responsibility to have its voice heard in matters of justice: social, environmental, and economic.  Indeed, the 20^th century was an unparalleled period in human history; a time that did not reflect humanity’s best character.   Dr. Philip Kennedy of Christ Church, Oxford provides us with the following insight.

 

Poverty is the most lethal danger faced by humans today…If poverty is the world’s most ruthless killer, and if theologians want to talk about God saving humanity, they need to be able cogently to explain how God might rescue people from the ravages of the most menacing threat to their happiness and survival.  The story of twentieth-century theology is at least a tale of gradual awakening from a cosy Christian indifference to poverty…

 

What is particularly shocking about the twentieth century is that it produced a history of suffering, degradation and poverty in an age of unbridled affluence and colossal wealth.  The indifference of the affluent to the nightmares of the destitute in the last
century did not produce an admirable portrait of human beings (2010, Twentieth-Century Theologians: A New Introduction to Modern Christian Thought,  pp.13-15).

 

Kennedy’s argument is neither a new nor a novel one.  But it serves as a timely reminder of the imperative that the Church be actively engaged in safeguarding the welfare of all people.

One of Rowan Williams’ 20^th century predecessors was also a strong voice for the importance of Faith and Politics.  In 1942, then Archbishop of Canterbury William Temple challenged the Christian community to consider the relationship between Christianity and the nature of society by posing a compelling question:  What right has the church to interfere?  Temple elucidated:

 

Theclaim of the Christian Church to make its voice heard in matters of politics and economics is widely resented, even by those who are Christian in personal belief and in devotional practice.  It is commonly assumed that Religion is one department of life, like Art or Science, and that it is playing the part of busybody when it lays down principles for the guidance of other departments, whether Art and Science or Business and Politics.  When a group of Bishops attempted to bring Government, Coal-Owners and Miners together in a solution of the disastrous Coal Strike of 1926, Mr. Baldwin, then Prime Minister, asked how the Bishops would like it if he referred to the Iron and Steel Federation and the revision of the Athanasian Creed; and this was acclaimed as a legitimate score (1942, p.29).

 

Temple’s response to his own query was pointed:  The art of government in fact is the art of so ordering life that self-interest prompts what justice demands (1942, p.65).  Essentially, Temple asserted that government holds the responsibility for organizing society in such a way that justice, rather than self interest, should be the driving force.  Further to this point, Temple contended that, if the government is unwilling or unable to carry out this charge, then the Church indeed does have the right and the responsibility to makes it voice heard and its presence felt in all aspects of societal endeavour. 

            Currently the Church has an unprecedented opportunity to engage in dialogue and corresponding action with regard to issues of social justice, environmental stewardship, and economic violence that are occurring within the context of our globalized market economy.
However, in order for the Church to have a commanding collective voice with the necessary credibility and pragmatism, there is also a clear need for the dissemination of theologically grounded information to its membership.  John Lovatt (1992) highlighted this concern about the proverbial conversation between sacred and secular interests ‘falling flat’.

 

…once the discussion reaches any depth or detail, confusion and bewilderment result, because those arguing from a Christian standpoint have no proper theology to work from (p.1).

 

Essentially, the membership of the Church (both laity and clergy) may have a strong desire and clear intent to speak out about issues of justice.  The hindrance lies in our inability to be articulate from a theological standpoint.  There is a need for the fostering of Christian eloquence.

 

Understanding Christian Eloquence

            What do we understand Christian eloquence to mean?  Essentially it is the dynamic interplay of the art of gracious and respectful listening with the art of intelligent and informed persuasion.  It requires us to enter into dialogic exchange in order to seek truth and to create understanding. 

Christian eloquence is fundamental to the baptismal charge to have an inquiring and discerning heart.  It is about promoting gracious debate with our interlocutors while avoiding the drive to bring closure to conversation by simply claiming our ‘rightness’ in issues of moral deliberation.  It is about opening up conversation with humility in order to engage in sensitive and productive exchange that is aimed at moving society toward being more just.   Christian eloquence requires practice in our capacities to listen deeply and profoundly in order to become
more Christ-like, allowing us to open pathways to the core of what another is saying in the context of a culturally and religiously pluralistic society. 

            Encouraging Christian eloquence also involves the development of the skills of critical hinking and ethical reasoning.  These skills are, necessarily, integral to the post-secondary experience, and the years when students are engaged in obtaining a degree from a faith-based post-secondary institution are potentially rife with opportunities to cultivate Christian eloquence.

 

The Faith-Based Post-Secondary Classroom and Beyond

            Justice is most certainly an appropriate topic for discussion within the context of the faith-based post-secondary classroom.
Historically, instructors at this level have relied on the lecture as the primary vehicle for disseminating information to students, punctuated with
discussion and activity.  To an extent, there is potential for the lecture to take on an appropriately exegetic
tenor.  Willmon (2005) reminds the Christian Church of the theological significance of the
spoken word.  

It is the nature of the Trinity to be communicative, to establish, through speech, communication and community.  All Christian preaching rests upon a conviction of God’s discourse.  The same God who, by speech, brought a world into being (Genesis 1) continues to create, to bring something out of nothing, to order chaos, to shed light, and to raise the dead through the power of the word.  It is the nature of the God of Israel and the church to be loquacious.  All Christian homiletics has its right and its origin in the statement of faith, ‘And God said..’ (p.2).

 

In this quote, we find the encouragement to continue the conversation into deeper and more profound educational opportunities and to
encourage Christian eloquence.  In Romans 10:17, Paul echoes this support:  So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.   The faith-based classroom experience has the capacity to educate its membership in order that they may take ethical, informed, and intelligent action as individuals and as a collective; ultimately, to use their education to help make the world more peaceful and just.  Such a process would be an exemplar of faith in action.  This begs the questions, How might this be achieved? and  How might we encourage Christian eloquence amongst our students?  One potential response rests in pedagogically sound practices that allow us to effectively deliver content while simultaneously challenging students to think and to be articulate from both secular and sacred perspectives. 

 

Opening up the Conversation to Promote Christian Eloquence

            The faith-based post-secondary institution holds a dual responsibility in the education of its student population; the advancement of both intellectual and spiritual character.  Certainly this can be promoted through extracurricular opportunities such as social justice clubs, the screening of films advocating for social justice (e.g., Black Gold, Flow, Taking Root, Food Inc.), and through mission trips and other community service endeavours.  But classroom discussion and assignments also provide potentially rich soil from which to cultivate Christian eloquence.

            Essential Questions.  One starting point is to have students consider issues and topics for classroom discussion from both the secular and the sacred perspectives.  It may be advantageous, for example, to structure a course around two or three open ended queries that can be approached from this dual stance.  Educational theorists Grant Wiggins and Jay McTighe (2004) refer to such queries as essential questions.  Essential questions are characterized by the following attributes.

 

• have no simple “right” answer; they are meant to be argued
• are designed to provoke and sustain student inquiry, while focusing learning and final performances
• often address the conceptual or philosophical foundations of a discipline
• raise other important questions
• naturally and appropriately recur
• stimulate vital, ongoing rethinking of big ideas, assumptions, and prior lessons (p.91)

 

The intent is to revisit these essential questions throughout the course : indeed, throughout the passage of a lifetime – and for students to continually develop a more robust and mature response over time.  Students might keep a cumulative record of this growth by making weekly entries to a journal or concept map.  This form of record assists them in capturing and gauging their own progression as learners; both
intellectually and spiritually.     

Structuring Open Dialogue.
Envision students preparing for an open dialogue in which they will share a perspective on a given issue.  The overall goal of the collective conversation is to promote understanding and appreciation of the diversity of opinions from both secular and sacred viewpoints.   Potential questions to promote discussion would vary according to the course content, but should be open ended, debateable, and accessible from an interdisciplinary stance.  One such question might be, What constitutes the responsible use of power?  The table on the following page outlines a series of questions that prompt students to think from both secular and sacred standpoints and is intended to assist in preparing them for such open dialogue.

 

Table 1:  Potential Discussion Questions

From a Secular Lens:	From a Sacred Lens:
What makes an issue a ‘hot topic’?	What makes an issue a ‘hot topic’?
What types of sources provide relevant information on a current issue?	What types of sources provide relevant information on a current issue?
What are the criteria for a credible source? Might this change according to the context?	What are the criteria for a credible source?  Might this change according to the context?
How will you know when you have accessed sufficient sources/supporting information to provide you with an adequately complete picture of an issue or topic?	How will you know when you have accessed sufficient sources/supporting information to provide you with an adequately complete picture of an issue or topic?
How might a personal connection to the issue or topic influence your perspective?	How might a personal connection to the issue or topic influence your perspective?

 

            Active Participation.  One of the perennial challenges for post-secondary instructors is to draw all students into actively participating
in classroom discussions and activities.  This is imperative in the quest to nurture Christian eloquence and for the academic success of all students.  A number of instructional strategies that contribute to such active participation are described in the paragraphs that follow.

            The Snowball Fight is a strategy that engages students in responding to a true-or-false quiz at the start of a class.  The results of the quiz are not recorded for a grade; rather, the contents of the quiz (4-8 questions) are intended to introduce a topic for exploration.  Students are given five minutes to complete the quiz and they are instructed to not include their names on the paper.  Once students have finished the quiz, request that they ‘crunch’ their papers into the size of a snowball and then toss the ‘snowball’ papers around the room for approximately thirty seconds.  At the end of that time, each student must find a ‘snowball’ and open it up.  Students are polled for the responses noted on the paper that they have retrieved (as opposed to their own answers), and the collective results are discussed along with the correct replies.  This engages all students and provides an aggregate overview of their prior knowledge before embarking on the topic for further examination.  The intent is also to provide a safe environment and to rouse students’ curiosity about the topic.  Once the activity is completed, supply students with a clean copy of the original quiz and the correct responses for their notes.

            The Exit Pass involves posing a diagnostic question near the end of a class to check students’ individual understanding of a concept.  It should not require more than two minutes for students to answer and a written response (including each student’s name) is handed to the instructor as students exit the classroom.  This may be done on a recipe card, a post-it note, or a slip of paper.  The responses can then be used to determine the next steps for instruction, and/or to group students for follow up activity or discussion.  This same strategy may be used to determine students’ individual stances on an issue.  Grouping students with opposing views for a follow up discussion would require them to deepen their own thinking as well as to consider the perspectives of others.  This is at the heart of Christian eloquence.

            Inside-Outside Circles involves placing students in two concentric circles, with the inner circle facing outwards and the outer circle facing inwards.  Thus, each student should be sitting facing another student at the outset of the activity.  Each student of the pair will share, in
turn, information (or an opinion) on a given topic or issue for 30 seconds.  After each has shared, all students in the outer circle will shift one chair to the right and the process begins again.  However, students should share something different with each subsequent partner.  The number of shifts will be dependent upon the number of students in the class and the length of time that the instructor wishes to devote to the activity.  An alternative to this strategy is to have students engage in several exchanges with each partner, building upon the conversation with each contribution. This has the added benefit of requiring them to listen closely to the other.        

            The ABCDE strategy requires students to work in groups to respond to a series of multiple choice questions posed by the instructor.  Every group is supplied with a collection of cards, each with the letters A, B, C, D, or E, respectively.  Groups must determine their collective
response before voting.  A simple adaptation is to make E a response of other, or to provide options for more than one correct answer (e.g., D may represent an answer that includes both A and C or some other such variation).   Having students defend their group choices furthers the conversation and creates additional opportunities for learning.

            The Popsicle Stick strategy simply involves printing each student’s name on the flat side of a popsicle stick (or equivalent). Popsicle sticks are stored in a container (coffee tin, yogurt tub, coffee cup) with the names towards the bottom.  Students are randomly selected to
respond to questions.  The key is to pose the question prior to calling a student name and to wait for a minimum of five seconds before drawing a popsicle stick.  This helps to ensure that all students are attending to the question and mentally preparing a response.  If particular students appear to be chronically less engaged, consider placing a shorter container such as a juice tin within a larger container such as a coffee tin.  The sticks sporting the names of the reticent students would be placed in the shorter tin.  While it would appear to all students that the chance of being selected to respond to a question is equal, the reality is somewhat different.  One cautionary note:  never use this tactic to punish or humiliate students. The intent is to draw them into the conversation in a way that safeguards their dignity.  If a student is selected and responds with, ‘I don’t know’, it is important to provide that student with a ‘life line’ or an opportunity to elicit help from a peer.  A second way to achieve a similar result is to pose the question again, select a new stick, and have another student respond.  Then, check back with the original student with a query such as, ‘How does that sound to you?’  A variation on this strategy is to have multiple students respond, each building on the contributions of previous student responders.  Educational theorist Dylan Wiliam (2011, p.82) refers to as ‘pose-pause-pounce-bounce’.  We can
imagine the same question being ‘lobbed’ about the room, much like a tennis ball in play, with each subsequent student adding a new dimension to the conversation.  

            The use of a Value Line requires students to publically declare their individual stances on a particular issue or question by physically placing themselves along a continuum.  One end of the continuum might represent a response of ‘strongly agree’ while the other end would represent a response of ‘strongly disagree’.  Providing individual students with an opportunity to explain their own placement along the value line creates another dimension to the discussion.  After earing others’ perspectives and/or providing additional information, it is important allow students to re-evaluate their own unique positions and to possibly alter their places along the value line.

            A similar strategy is Four Corners.  In this instance, there are four potential positions that might be taken in relation to a question or issue.  Each of the four corners of the classroom might be labelled  A, B, C, or D or yes, no, sometimes, or other.  As each question or issue is posed, students would physically place themselves in the corner that best characterizes their own perspectives.  If the labels of A, B, C, and D are used, the instructor will provide the representative responses in a format similar to a multiple choice quiz.  While there are no right or wrong
answers to the queries posed, studentsÕ explanations for their respective positions provide the fertile ground for larger discussion.     

The use of a Graffiti strategy involves the placement of an open ended question on large piece of paper or cardstock in the centre of a table or cluster of desks prior to the start of a class.  Multiple questions may be used as long as each paper or piece of cardstock includes only one question.  Students circulate around the room for a set period of time, pencilling in their own responses to each of the questions posed.  A second round requires them to ‘branch off’ from the written response of another student, expanding on the original reply.  All responses must
be respectful of others’ opinions or thoughts.   

Conclusion

            There can be little doubt that the time has come for the Christian Church to marshal its collective voice and enter in earnest into the struggle for peace and justice in the 21^st century. It is a responsibility to be shared and shouldered by every Christian person.  But this charge must be undertaken with grace and skill, and in the spirit of Christian eloquence.

            Post-secondary students attending faith-based institutions have a unique opportunity to cultivate the ability to think and act from both secular and sacred perspectives.  But in order for them to develop a collective voice that is both credible and pragmatic, they need continual practice in nurturing that voice to be an intelligent, informed, and confident one.

           

 

References

Kennedy, P. (2010). Twentieth-century theologians: A new introduction to modern Christian thought. London: I.B. Tauris.

 

Lewontin, R.C. (1991). Biology as ideology. New York: Harper Perennial.

 

Lovatt, J. (1992). Theology and business ethics. London: Industrial Christian Fellowship.

 

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. (2004). Understanding by design: Professional development workbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

 

Sandel, M.J. (2009). Justice: WhatÕs the right thing to do?

 

Temple, W. (1942). Christianity and social order. New York: Seabury Press.

 

Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

 

Willmon, W.H. (2005). Sermons from duke chapel: Voices from Òa great towering churchÓ.  Durham: Duke University Press.