The FeAutor Resource “Stewardship: Involving Kids in Stewardship” lacks two prominent features that inhibits it from being an effective educational tool: there is no definition of “stewardship” and there is no clear movement within the document relating the content internally or externally. Despite this, there does exist merit in its child-appropriate suggestions for learning.
According to Jane Vella’s principle of “Accountability”( from Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach, Jane Vella, San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers, 1994; p 21) there appears within this document to be no clear understanding of that which is purposed to be learned. Lacking a definition of Stewardship calls into question the purposed learning of the resource; one might argue that there is implicit understanding of stewardship through the implementation of the suggested activities. However, with no clear definition there lacks a sense of “purpose” or goal of this education (a prominent question asked by Mary Boys in Educating in Faith: Maps and Visions (Sheed & Ward, 1989)): what is it we seek to teach the children and why?
There appears to be a variety of biblical references for generating a diverse definition of stewardship but these resources remain untapped in developing a principle of Biblical stewardship. The formatted Stewardship Prayer seems to indicate some underlying characteristics of stewardship (sacrifice, resources, excess, blessings, generosity, responsibility) but none of these are explored nor synthesized into a generally understood cohesive purpose. The many aspects of stewardship such as environmental, financial, social, etc. must be explained and explored as it relates to a base understanding of stewardship. One wonders what “wiping one’s feet” has to do with stewardship. More over, what does “wiping one’s feet” and “consolidating car trips” have in common within the realm of stewardship? If one chooses to use this resource, a general definition of stewardship would need to be generated; the activities appropriate for children learning stewardship can then be more readily explored in hopes of communicating the Biblical principle.
The natural progression of learning (Vella also recognizes this necessity in the “Sequence and reinforcement” principle) necessarily generates an interrelatedness of the aforementioned thematic purpose. This resource, lacking a definition, also lacks any clear progression or coherent movement within itself. It is merely a collection of suggested concepts which one can impress upon a child and vaguely associate it with the ambiguous “stewardship.” It would prove far more beneficial to lead children through a progression of learning activities or personal applications of stewardship that leads them to conceive of the diversity and vastness of stewardship. Certainly, stewardship is a large concept for children and adults. Therefore, using a progression of activities that relate (if only minimally) to each other might generate an expansive understanding within a child’s experience. Simply throwing a group of seemingly random activities and concepts together under the banner of stewardship does not ensure a full understanding of stewardship nor prove to be good learning for children.
One laudable point of this piece is the immediacy of its application (another basic Vella principle)—that is, the suggestions are activities which children can readily participate in both individually and corporately (in a team/family setting). The activities are appropriate in their ability for children to participate and reflect upon, empowering them with the opportunity to name what they learn and make decisions within the context of the learning experience. However, the goal of this style of teaching appears to be imparting to or impressing upon the children a definitive understanding; it does not accomplish its goal if the child does not name “Stewardship” with a correct understanding.

The FeAutor Resource “Stewardship: Involving Kids in Stewardship” lacks two prominent features that inhibits it from being an effective educational tool: there is no definition of “stewardship” and there is no clear movement within the document relating the content internally or externally. Despite this, there does exist merit in its child-appropriate suggestions for learning.
According to Jane Vella’s principle of “Accountability”( from Learning to Listen, Learning to Teach, Jane Vella, San Francisco: JosseyBass Publishers, 1994; p 21) there appears within this document to be no clear understanding of that which is purposed to be learned. Lacking a definition of Stewardship calls into question the purposed learning of the resource; one might argue that there is implicit understanding of stewardship through the implementation of the suggested activities. However, with no clear definition there lacks a sense of “purpose” or goal of this education (a prominent question asked by Mary Boys in Educating in Faith: Maps and Visions (Sheed & Ward, 1989)): what is it we seek to teach the children and why?
There appears to be a variety of biblical references for generating a diverse definition of stewardship but these resources remain untapped in developing a principle of Biblical stewardship. The formatted Stewardship Prayer seems to indicate some underlying characteristics of stewardship (sacrifice, resources, excess, blessings, generosity, responsibility) but none of these are explored nor synthesized into a generally understood cohesive purpose. The many aspects of stewardship such as environmental, financial, social, etc. must be explained and explored as it relates to a base understanding of stewardship. One wonders what “wiping one’s feet” has to do with stewardship. More over, what does “wiping one’s feet” and “consolidating car trips” have in common within the realm of stewardship? If one chooses to use this resource, a general definition of stewardship would need to be generated; the activities appropriate for children learning stewardship can then be more readily explored in hopes of communicating the Biblical principle.
The natural progression of learning (Vella also recognizes this necessity in the “Sequence and reinforcement” principle) necessarily generates an interrelatedness of the aforementioned thematic purpose. This resource, lacking a definition, also lacks any clear progression or coherent movement within itself. It is merely a collection of suggested concepts which one can impress upon a child and vaguely associate it with the ambiguous “stewardship.” It would prove far more beneficial to lead children through a progression of learning activities or personal applications of stewardship that leads them to conceive of the diversity and vastness of stewardship. Certainly, stewardship is a large concept for children and adults. Therefore, using a progression of activities that relate (if only minimally) to each other might generate an expansive understanding within a child’s experience. Simply throwing a group of seemingly random activities and concepts together under the banner of stewardship does not ensure a full understanding of stewardship nor prove to be good learning for children.
One laudable point of this piece is the immediacy of its application (another basic Vella principle)—that is, the suggestions are activities which children can readily participate in both individually and corporately (in a team/family setting). The activities are appropriate in their ability for children to participate and reflect upon, empowering them with the opportunity to name what they learn and make decisions within the context of the learning experience. However, the goal of this style of teaching appears to be imparting to or impressing upon the children a definitive understanding; it does not accomplish its goal if the child does not name “Stewardship” with a correct understanding.