Failure to see clearly what Scripture is compromises one's ability to convey this knowledge of God through curricula and teaching. In contrast, the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is often treated as merely a tool for developmental and behavioral objectives.

"Bible stories" tend to be weighted too much on the anthropocentric. Biblical narrative all too often is searched for moral examples that can be followed or shunned, as the case may be. Biblical history thus is dissolved into a number of instances of human conduct, moral or immoral. The historical context within which the events are placed by the biblical author tends to be ignored. When a straight line is drawn from "then" to "now," the uniqueness of the biblical events as instances of God's self-revelation is in danger of being overlooked. The nuances of meaning placed in the biblical account by the inspired authors fail to get their due, for everything turns around the supposed "lesson." Biblical events tend to be lifted out of their redemptive historical context by being made into timely paradigms of moral behavior.5

When a text such as Genesis 41-46 is used to teach that Joseph is a good example of how God wants us to treat others in competitive situations, the integrity of the narrative is violated. The students miss the central teaching of the narrative section, which has to do with the providence of God. Sometimes this may be a result of truly not knowing what else to do with the text. Other times it merely demonstrates how thoroughly our commitment to developmental and behavioral issues has overshadowed our commitment to sound hermeneutics, sometimes compromising how clearly we convey the authority of the text.

This must change. The Bible does not intend to focus our primary attention on Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Hannah, David, Nehemiah, Esther, Mary, or the disciples. These are the bit players; God is the focus. When we apply the Bible to our lives only through the role models we find there, we miss out. The message of Daniel 1 is not that since Daniel ate healthy food, you should eat healthy food too. Such an emphasis is not teaching what the Bible is teaching. When this approach is used. human wisdom is masqueraded for God's authority, and in the process what the Bible is really teaching can be easily missed. In this Daniel passage, for instance, the point is the sovereign protection of God. Sunday school curriculum must not focus on the human actors at the expense of God's self-revelation.

This is not to say that Scripture's teaching has nothing to do with the human characters. The authors of the Bible take note of Abraham's faith, of Job's righteousness, of David's seeking after God's own heart, and certainly those things are commendable to emulate. But that must not take the focus off God. Each of these narratives seeks to reveal something about God.

Respecting the authority of Scripture requires a more careful integration of theology and educational theory. Publishing houses must reexamine their use of Scripture in curriculum development. In Bible-based lessons the purpose of the biblical passage must guide the lesson development process. The focus of the story, the teaching aim for the unit/lesson, and the application must all grow out of careful interpretation of the passage. Educational considerations such as developmental issues and teaching methodology must be held in proper relationship to the teaching of the text. This means that the focus of some passages of Scripture will render these narratives inappropriate for certain age groups (e.g.. Cain and Abel for 3-year-olds), and that concepts one might desire to teach may not be presented in Scripture in a form appropriate to all ages.