Ernest John Chave

Ernest John Chave was born in Woodstock, Ontario, Canada in 1886 to William John Chave and Mary Hargreaves Chave. During his earlier years, Chave's father, William, ran a grocery store. The family developed world-wide horizons and eventually scattered from Woodstock. Ernest's brother Reginald became a businessman in Vancouver, British Columbia; his brother Elmer served as a civil engineer in India for all of his professional life. Ernest began his studies at Woodstock College and by the age of twenty had earned the Batchelor of Arts degree from McMaster University in Toronto. The University conferred upon him the Bachelor of Theology four years later. In 1911, he received a call to a Baptist pulpit in British Columbia. In that Province he served consecutively as the pastor of three Baptist Churches until 1917.

In 1918 Chave applied and was accepted for short-term work in France with the YMCA. While there he served as a volunteer ambulance driver and received a medal for his service.  Following a brief ministry in France he returned to Canada and married Frances Orth. The couple made immediate plans to go to India as missionaries. As a part of the process in moving to India, Frances had a physical exam that indicated she had TB. She died shortly thereafter in 1919. In 1920, while back in Vancouver serving as pastor of South Hill Baptist Church, Ernest married Winifred Mary Carruthers, a school teacher. Not long after his marriage to Winifred, the new family moved to Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Chave's had three children: Margaret, born in 1922; Grant, born in 1924; and Keith, born in 1928. After Dr. Chave and his family moved to the Chicago area in 1926, they lived an active life not far from the University. During all of his time in Chicago, Ernest Chave was a member of the Hyde Park Baptist Church, a liberal church many of whose members were faculty and staff at the University of Chicago. The church was quite active in the university community and at least one of its pastors became Dean of the Chapel at the University (Fallers, 2005).

Margaret Fallers, Ernest Chave's daughter, records the following items that shed important light on Chave's life in Chicago: "My mother and my father came from Ontario, from a sober, serious, socially responsible Protestant heritage. They were hard working and frugal. Their early married life was one far from friends and relatives. There was a small group of Canadian expatriates at the University of Chicago (especially, William McNeill and family, and Professor W. A. Irwin and family of the Oriental Institute). It is hard for me to imagine the immense impact of WWI on both my mother and my father. In addition, in 1930, my brother Keith had polio which left him lame in one leg. This occasioned a burden of operations and treatments for years - treatments which were later considered to be unnecessary and ineffective. And then there was the Depression. However, it was a happy and secure family" (Fallers, 2006).

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELD OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION:

In 1920, Chave accepted a call from City Temple Baptist Church in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Sioux Falls was located advantageously for him to continue his academic work. He seems to have found time to complete a course of studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York and, eventually, his PhD at the University of Chicago by 1924. In 1926 Ernest Chave accepted an appointment to serve on the faculty of the University of Chicago in the Department of Religious Education of the Divinity School (Cole, 1961).

Not many names are attached to the relatively sparse account of Ernest Chave's development as a scholar, teacher, and author in the field of religious education. However, two giants in the academic and professional arena of Religious Education invested considerable time and energy in helping Chave develop the scholarly gifts that enabled him to leave his particular mark upon the Movement both in it's academic and it's professional expressions. Chave's daughter, Margaret Fallers, identifies Shailer Mathews, Dean of the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, as the primary influence in moving Ernest along the path of scholarship, research, writing, and leadership in the field of religious education. Little is directly written by contemporaries about Mathew's influence on Chave. Nonetheless, the evidence supports the view that Mathews functioned as a kind of mentor to Chave during Ernest's student days and that, as Dean of the Divinity School, he actively recruited him as a faculty member and promoted him as a professional in the field of religious education (Schmidt). Shortly after Chave was added to the faculty of the Divinity School, Dean Mathews wrote "We have what is coming to be regarded, as it undoubtedly is, the best department of religious education in the United States" (Schmidt, 69). George Albert Coe also exerted a meaningful influence on Chave's thought. Coe's contribution to his development seems to have been through Chave's studies at Union Theological Seminary and contacts facilitated by their years together as members of the leadership and planning groups related to the Religious Education Association and by Chave's semi-regular visits to Columbia University in New York.

From the late 1920s until the early 1950s, Ernest Chave's signature was regularly attached to articles, reviews and reports in Religious Education and, to a lesser extent, in International Journal of Religious Education. His book reviews in Religious Education are essential reading for anyone wishing to gain a sense of the flow of the prevailing thought of the period. Chave's consistent perspective is a distinct advantage in that he offers the reader something of an insider's view in his analyses and evaluations of the mostly liberal book literature of the period. Perhaps even more important to historians of religious education are Chave's occasional reports in Religious Education relating to the effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s and 1940s. For example his 1937 report might properly be titled, ["Deep debt --- shall we go on? Yes!"] (Religious Education, 32). This report offers insight into the troubles of the depression period that dampened the enthusiasm of many leaders in the Religious Education Association. (This report is printed in full below). Chave's special contribution to the Association during these two decades seems to have been a certain unflappable optimism that shines through a number of his reports and articles. At times his optimism waned, but his inner resources seem to have enabled him to recover and plan for the future. In his "In Memorium" to Ernest John Chave, Stewart Cole credits Chave together with Laird Hites as being the leaders whose "Spartan efforts" made it possible for the Religious Education Association to survive the "adverse period of financial and editorial trial" brought on by the Great Depression (Cole, 1961).

Chave wrote several books that played meaningful roles in the development of the psychological, philosophical, and leadership underpinnings of the prevailing educational theory of the Religious Education Movement as it entered the post-war world of the 1950s. His Personality development in children(1937) helped define human beings as related only to this present, space-time world. In it Chave developed a viewpoint that increasingly appeared in religious education literature of the period. This twofold theme, in brief, amounted to an argument that man [sic] is both an organism and a self. These factors are regarded as basic to the process that results in the creation of selfhood. They undergird the concept of man [sic] that regards human beings as organisms composed of (and characterized by) physical, mental, emotional and social attributes that together function as a single unit. In summary, the forces that work together to bring about a completed self are heredity, environment, and the growing self (Richey). In his 1931 book, The supervision of religious education, Chave developed the concepts that in the early 21st century might be presented under the rubric of leadership. Perhaps the most useful description of Chave's notion of leadership through supervision is this: Supervision "provides for shared evaluations; for mutual consideration of ideas, purposes, plans, and outcomes; for adjustments continually made as joint thinking shows the way. . . . The supervisor is not a superior officer but a specialized worker" (29). Edwin Farley's review of Supervision gives high praise for the potential of Chave's concepts to raise the level of teaching, especially by encouraging the teacher's attention to the student. (Farley, 177). The most influential of Chave's books is surely his A functional approach to religious education (1947).This book lays out in memorable fashion the elements of his philosophy and his approach to almost all issues in religious education. In brief, there are no gods, nor any God, to anchor Chave's philosophical perspective. Man [sic] (and in particular, teachers and learners) must not expect to find anything fixed or final in theology, customs, or institutions (Hermanson). Accordingly, a key goal of religious education is to help "everyone" realize that persons are to receive primary consideration. It follows that Chave,s ten stated aims of religious education call for the teacher to arrange such educational experiences as those that enable the student to realize, for example, (1) a sense of worth, (2) social sensitivity, and (3) appreciation of the universe. (Hermanson). In his review of A functional approach to religious education, Stewart G. Cole writes: In this book the author poses the basic issue in religious education for our times [1947]. What shall be the frame of reference, and how shall educators attempt to make that frame of reference effective in the experience of persons? Without evasion or compromise Chave has put a provocative thesis squarely before the reader. It is emotionally, morally and intellectually challenging. The author has broken with all forms of religious orthodoxy and pseudo-liberalism. He takes the position of an uncompromising spokesman for naturalism in religion and functionalism in religious education, and he enjoins these viewpoints providing a fresh orientation for religious education. A functional approach to religious education is the first introductory treatment of the grounds for this position. Such a book has been overdue for many years (Cole, 1947).

Ernest John Chave is clear about the naturalistic foundations of his approach. During the later years of his active career a number of significant theoretical changes were being proposed by new leaders of the religious education movement. Many of these changes were rooted in the yearnings for a return to a theology that took the bible and revelation seriously. Perhaps the most influential spokesperson for such a revised theoretical perspective was Randolph Crump Miller's. Miller struck a chord that moved numbers of theoreticians and practitioners to seriously consider the new perspective in his seminal work, The clue to Christian education (1950). Lewis Joseph Sherrill's longing for a new emphasis upon a dynamic relationship with the Holy Spirit was developed in his The Gift of Power (1955) and James D. Smart's celebration of an interpersonal, spiritual dynamic was described in his The teaching ministry of the church (1954). For the greater part, such writers based their insights upon the brand of neo-orthodox thought generated by such thinkers as Karl Barth. Further, they proceeded with little reference to the liberalism of such theorists as Chave. James Smart merely pauses to observe that Chave was more consistent than others in carrying his liberal model through to its logical conclusion. Religious education theory, then, as it entered the decade of 1960s represented a sea-change from the standard expressions of theory a decade earlier. The "thought world" was vastly different from that demonstrated by Chave in his 1947 classic, A functional approach to religious education.

Religious education for liberal progressives: a statement and evaluations (Religious Education 45 (2) 67-100).

Perhaps the single most important source for understanding the role that Ernest John Chave played in the Religious Education Movement during the second quarter of the Twentieth Century is his brief but important article, Religious education for liberal progressives. This article was published, together with responses by seventeen colleagues, in 1950 toward the close of Chave's career.

Chave begins his article by establishing definitions for the three principal terms used in the title of the article: liberal, progressive, and religious education. By liberal, Chave means "open-minded to free inquiry in all phases of religion, with expectancy of growth in insights and refined achievements." The term progressive suggests to Chave such notions as experimental, desireous of improvement, and preparedness to act along lines of promise for human betterment. By religious education, Chave refers to a comprehensive program involving trained people seeking "to make developing moral and religious ideas and ideals meaningful and operative in personal-social living." "This is the day," he argues, "for religious liberals to assert themselves" and to prove their philosophy by integrating [it] into life, making "clear the growth process in all matters of morals and religion." Too many liberals, Chave suggests, fall short in that they lack the "moral fibre to follow their convictions." Liberals, then, must learn to take criticism in their efforts to get satisfactory answers to "ever changing problems of cosmic and human relationships." Such committed liberals, in Chave's vision must not be swayed by vague sentimental phrases and customs; rather they must move forward by analyzing religion into its "functional factors" so as to be able to clearly identify what is meant by the religious way, or likewise to be able to properly identify "spiritual attainments." Chave notes that he has attempted to do just this in his book, A functional approach to religious education (1947).

Chave then proceeds to summarize the ten categories developed in his book: sense of worth, social sensitivity, appreciation of the universe, discrimination in values, responsibility and accountability, cooperative fellowship, quest for truth and realization of values, integration of experience into a working philosophy, sense of historical continuity, and group celebration of values. The religious educator, in Chave's vision, might tailor these categories to his or her specific intentions. The educator would then proceed to diagnose the needs of learners. Then, in the light of the findings, proceed to plan experiences that would address the shortfall. In summary, then, Chave argues that "The possibilities of advance will not be realized by any wholesale preaching or evangelistic crusade but by a long time program of carefully planned educational procedures." To provoke thought and discussion on his thesis, Chave concludes the article by raising a number of questions that follow in abbreviated form. Does his analysis draw proper attention to the complex nature of religion? Is the difference between indoctrination and education clear? What is the secular function of the church in the social order? What kinds of materials for the curriculum are most needed? What place does worship have in religious education? And, where can liberal progressives find satisfactory outlets for their faith?

Seventeen of Ernest Chave's contemporaries submitted evaluative essays that were printed immediately following his article. A number of the evaluations gave praise to the ideas presented in Chave's article, others offered various kinds of criticism. George Coe, for example, judged Chave to be "on solid ground" and called for a yes-or-no response to the broadened naturalism he espoused. William Clayton Bower found positive value in Chave's approach that seeks to discover and develop moral and spiritual values that might contribute to the urgent demands of public education. While in basic agreement with the broad themes of Chave's article, Marguerite Harmon Bro thought Chave fell short of helping us find God in a way that fosters "joy and peace to well up in us as they did in the one we call his son." Stewart G. Cole saw Chave as a social idealist whose experientially conceived selection of ten criteria offer a meaningful basis for his enthusiastic and aggressive crusading. Gaines S. Dobbins offered his opinion that Chave's ten categories are not unique to liberals, but that they can be affirmed by progressive conservatives, such as himself. Dobbins challenged Chave to consider the fact and consequences of sin, so visible in our culture, and to bring back, again "the New Testament answer through the best possible means." Nevin C. Harner found much to commend Chave's thesis, but offered areas for "frank and friendly consideration." First, Harner believes Chave is to be faulted for too closely associating "liberalism" and "naturalism." Harner considers himself a "liberal" in the sense of following truth wherever it leads - but he does not come out at a naturalistic position at all. Second, he disagrees with Chave's reduction of God to a "name for integrating qualities of our universe which support personal-social values." Harner argues that the hypothesis that God is a person is more intellectually and religiously satisfying than the naturalist alternative. Third, Harner faults Chave's ten categories with "minimizing the intractable, selfish, sinful elements in human nature." Finally, Harner responds negatively to Chave's propensity to neglect any mention of Jesus or Christ in his educational proposals. Albeit, Chave does use such terms as "Christian and Christianity." In sum, Harner faults Chave for his presuppositions, while supporting his methodology. Hugh Hartshorne professed general agreement with the thrust of Chave's article, but noted the difficulty of identifying Chave's deity, particularly since his methodology leaves so little room to reflect upon such concepts

Ernest Chave was invited to respond to the seventeen evaluations of his article that appeared in Religious Education 45 (2) 67-100. He did so in a letter that was published in Religious Education, 45 (3), 131-132. In his response, Chave celebrated the "experiment in cooperative thinking" and noted the general agreement with his proposal regarding the "functional analysis of religion." He identifies the "concept of God" as a principal problem and a divisive factor. Chave appreciatively recognized the general recognition of spiritual forces that operate independently of ecclesiastical authority, noting also the agreement on the need for both individual and group approaches in religious education. Chave also comments that the seventeen evaluators "found it easier to take a pot shot at Chave than to express ‘their own basic concepts of religious education.'" He summarizes his "evaluation of the evaluations" by reflecting upon areas that invite cooperation and suggesting that such interactions as recorded here might occur more frequently.

Works Cited

• (2006). Fallers, Margaret. Letter to the author providing additional important details.
• (2005). Fallers, Margaret. Letter to the author providing essential details of Chave's life. Fallers is Ernest John Chave's daughter
• (2000). Burgess, Harold W. Models of religious education: in historical and contemporary perspective. (Nappanee, IN: Evangel Press).
• (1983). Schmidt, Stephen A. A history of the Religious Education Association. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
• (1961). Stewart G.Cole. In memoriam. Religious Education, 56 (6), 402.
• (1960). Richey, Everett E. A comparative study of selected educational philosophers. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Iliff School of Theology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Theology [in the] Department of Religious Education.
• (1955). Lewis Joseph Sherrill. The gift of power. (New York: Macmillan).
• (1954). James D. Smart. The teaching ministry of the church. (Philadelphia: Westminster).
• (1952). Hermanson, Robert F. The functional concept of religious education of Ernest J. Chave compared and contrasted with the teachings and practice of Jesus. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Sacred Theology in The Biblical Seminary in New York.
• (1950). Chave's evaluation of the evaluations. (Seventeen individuals made evaluative responses to Chave's article Religious Education for liberal progressives. Here Chave evaluates the evaluations, thus providing considerable insight into the times and into his own thought process). Religious Education, 45 (3), 131-132.
• (1950). Ernest John Chave. Religious education for liberal progressives: a statement and evaluations. (Religious Education 45 (2) 67-100).
• (1950). Randolph Crump Miller. The clue to Christian education. (New York: Scribner's).
• (1947). Ernest John Chave. A functional approach to religious education. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• (1947). Cole, Stewart G. [Review of the book A functional approach to religious education]. Religious Education, 42 (4), 252.
• (1937). The R.E.A. must go on (this article provides important insights into the depression environment in which Chave urged continuation of the R. E. A.). Religious Education, (32 (3), 242.
• (1937). Ernest John Chave. Personality development in children. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• (1932). Farley, Edwin. [Review of the book Supervision of Religious Education]. Religious Education, 27 (2), 177.
• (1931) Ernest John Chave. Supervision of religious education. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.