George Herbert Betts

Early Life and Education

George Herbert Betts was born on a farm near Clarksville, Iowa on April 1, 1868. The son of a Dutch father and an English/ Irish mother, Betts was raised to appreciate the soil and the hard work necessary to bring crops from it. He retained an interest in rural life and its impact upon education throughout his career. He was raised in a family that valued education. His widow, Anna (Freelove) Betts reported that the young George was surrounded by good books, including the works of Dickens, Thackery and other writers of that era (Booth 1931). Like most other young persons in Iowa, Betts was educated in a one room, red school house. When he had exhausted the educational resources of his community, Betts' family made arrangements for him to go to college and prepare himself for his chosen profession: education. He attended Cornell College in Iowa, receiving his A.B. degree in 1899, following his 1893 marriage to Anna Freelove and several years of work as a teacher and superintendent of schools in rural Iowa. His hard work, intelligence, and self-confidence made him successful in his first experience at living far from home. His gifts as an educator and scholar were evident early on, resulting in his appointment as Principal of Cornell College one year after his graduation from that institution.

Betts pursued further education while engaged in teaching, receiving his Ph.M. degree from the University of Chicago in 1904 and his Ph.D. degree from Teachers College at Columbia University in 1909. Betts was appointed to a Lectureship in Educational Psychology in the department of Extension Teaching at Teachers College while taking his graduate coursework. His dissertation, which was directed by E. L. Thorndike (professor of Educational Psychology at Teachers College), was entitled The distribution and functions of mental imagery (1909). His study involved research with Junior and Senior students from Cornell College, "extension"students (all practicing teachers), and both psychology faculty members and professional psychologists, concerning voluntary and spontaneous imagery, using surveys developed by Galton and Thorndike. The dissertation was published by Columbia University in 1909.

He served several significant roles in public education in Iowa before becoming Professor of Psychology at Cornell College, a role he served from 1901-1918. It was out of this position of teaching and research that Betts wrote and published his first book, The mind and its education (1906). This small book was an early example of the developing field of educational psychology. He focused his research on the ways the brain functions and its effects upon learning.

Betts took a leave of absence from the College in 1918-1919, during which time he taught as a visiting professor of Religious Education at Boston University while conducting research in the field. Upon the completion of that project, Betts resigned from the faculty at Cornell College and accepted a position as Professor of Religious Education at Northwestern University. He served in that capacity from 1919-1926. When Northwestern organized the School of Education in 1926, Betts was appointed Professor of Education and Director of Research, a position he held until his death in 1934.

The Betts' had two children: Muriel Marie and Harlan Cedric. Muriel, like her mother and father, pursued education as a profession, specializing in the nursery school. Harlan followed a career in business and accounting, becoming Auditor for the Chicago Daily News. Muriel's death, which preceded Betts' own death by almost four years, affected him deeply.

Betts was remembered by his students as a consummate teacher and a person of profound personal faith. He frequently taught his courses from a manuscript for one of his numerous books. He was said to be brilliant without being ostentatious. Dr. L. W. Crawford, Professor of Education at Peabody College stated, "Perhaps the strongest characterization of his teaching was its simplicity. The marvel of all his students was the fact that never did Dr. Betts parade his wealth of knowledge. He seemed to hide so inconspicuously behind a screen of modesty that we were never over-awed by the breadth and depth of his erudition." (Booth 1931, 86-7)

Paul H. Vieth considered Betts one of the most influential religious educators of the first two decades of the twentieth century. Vieth's study, based upon a questionnaire sent to over one hundred professors of religious education, listed Betts among a group of ten persons selected by their peers: Walter S. Athearn, Norman E. Richardson, Joseph M. Artman, Luther A. Weigle, Theodore G. Soares, George A. Coe, Hugh Hartshorne, Henry F. Cope, William C. Bower, and Betts. (Vieth 1928)

Betts made contributions to the fields of education, educational psychology, and religious education as a teacher, a researcher, an author, and an editor. In a dissertation that studied the Education Department at Northwestern University, Bruce William Colwell stated Betts was the most prolific scholar in a department that included John Stout and Norman Richardson. (Colwell 1988)

As a researcher, Betts surveyed clergy opinions about theological issues considered essential in the church (The beliefs of 700 ministers and their meaning for religious education, 1929), the significance of laboratory studies for education (Laboratory studies in educational psychology, 1924), and character education (The character outcome of present-day religion, 1931). Jack Seymour considers Betts' work as an educational researcher to be one of his greatest contributions to the field of religious education. (Seymour 1990)

Betts authored over twenty books, ranging in topic from curriculum theory, to classroom teaching method, to social principles of education, to character education, to agricultural and hygiene issues in the schools. Stephen Schmidt has indicated that most of Betts' books focused on educational method more than on theory. (Schmidt 1983)

Betts' work as editor of the Abingdon Series of Religious Education brought the scholarly work of religious education out of the graduate classroom and into the local church. Many volumes in this series were extensions of papers written by graduate students in courses he taught at Northwestern, and for these volumes Betts served as both mentor and editor. The Bobbs- Merrill series of textbooks for public schools, which he also edited, provided widely influential readers for students.

Betts held memberships in the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Association of University Professors. He was active in the Religious Education Association throughout his career and applied empirical studies of religion and religious education to the theoretical work being done by such contemporaries as Coe, Weigel, and Bower. He remained an active member of the Methodist church throughout his life and, upon his death on December 8, 1934, funeral services were held at the chapel of the First Methodist Church of Evanston, Illinois. (Obituary, The Evanston Review, December 12, 1934) His wife reported that his last words were, "I am going; it is all right." (Booth 1931)

George Herbert Betts was an influential voice in the development of religious education as a legitimate focus of the ministry of the church as well as a significant segment of the larger field of education. Jack Seymour claims that, "[f]undamental to Betts' understanding was the conviction that the church had finally awakened to the importance of education in the process of Christianization." (Seymour 1982, 155) H. Shelton Smith stated, "In 1921, Betts urged that 'control of the church should gradually, but without unnecessary delay, be taken over' by the religious educator." (Smith 1942, 101) Betts' work in the first three decades of the twentieth century brought the insights of educational theory, psychology, and sociology to an approach to religious education that reflected the theological and philosophical influences of liberal, progressive ideas. Betts never considered himself a theologian, and contented himself with a consistent focus on educational method throughout his career. The work of his later career applied empirical studies of educational and religious practice to his claims that religious education should result in character change in those who had come under its influence. His contributions to religious education can be divided into three areas: theological and philosophical foundations, educational method, and empirical studies.

Theological and Philosophical Foundations

George Herbert Betts "contributed in a number of important ways to the practical fleshing out of the liberal theological model." (Schmidt 1983, 84) He was profoundly influenced by the thought of George A. Coe, with whom he was linked by such critics of the liberal progressive approach to religious education as H. Shelton Smith. Betts agreed with liberal progressive assumptions about the nature of humanity. In a passage that was reminiscent of Horace Bushnell, Betts rejected the concept of the child as sinful and in need of repentance:

We no longer insist with the older theologies that [the child] is completely under the curse of 'original sin', nor do we believe with certain sentimentalists that he comes 'trailing clouds of glory.' We believe that he has infinite capacities for good, and equally infinite capacities for evil, either of which may be developed. We know that at the beginning the child is sinless, pure of heart, his life undefiled. To know this is enough to show us our part. This is to lead the child aright until he is old enough to follow the right path of his own accord, to ground him in the motives and habits that tend to right living, and so to turn his mind, heart, and will to God that his whole being seeks accord with the Infinite… It means that the child need never know a time when he is not within the Kingdom, and growing to fuller stature therein. It means that we should set our aim at conservation instead of reclamation as the end of our religious training. (Betts 1919, 32-33)

In his dissertation at Vanderbilt University, J. C. Booth likewise identified the influence of Bushnell's "Christian Nurture" as the "all inclusive method" used by Betts. (Booth 1931)

Betts focused much of his theological and methodological discussion on how best to present the Christian faith to children. For example, he discussed the "concept of God which the child needs" to focus on God as loving Father, as Friend, as friendly Protector, as one who can understand and sympathize with children, as Creator, and as one who fills the heart with love and gladness. (Betts 1919, 62-63) One of the most influential examples of his empirical studies (The beliefs of 700 ministers and their meaning for religious education 1929) discovered that the only theological statement on which all of the ordained ministers who participated in the study could agree was belief in the existence of God. Beyond that simple statement of belief, the clergy of his time were divided on virtually every other doctrinal issue.

Similarly, Betts considered the Bible as "the storehouse of spiritual wisdom of the ages, the matchless book of religion", but claimed the knowledge of the Bible that would be of most use to children was a functioning knowledge which could be put to use in helping the child reach a "true sense of moral values." (1929, 68-69) He maintained that, while the Bible must be the center and foundation for the religious curriculum, the curriculum must also address issues experienced in literature, music, and art, in nature, and experienced through life itself. "We can love and prize the Bible for all that it means and has meant to the world, and yet treat it as a means and not an end in itself." (1929, 113) This attitude toward the Bible was consistent with statements made by Bower, Coe, and numerous other representatives of liberal theology and progressive religious education.

Educational Method

One of Betts' goals as a teacher and author was to apply the research into educational method being done in public school classrooms to the teaching of the Christian faith. The centrality of questions of method in religious education can be seen in Social principles of education (1912), Class-room method and management (1917), How to teach religion (1919), The new program of religious education (1921), The curriculum of religious education (1924), and Method in teaching religion (1925). In all of these books, as well as in numerous articles in journals, Betts maintained that the primary focus of religious education, and the main objective of teaching, was the child being taught. (Betts 1919) Harold Burgess maintains, "[t]he fundamental assumption upon which his understanding of aim is based is that 'children can be brought to a religious character and experience through right nurture and training in religion.' The end which religious education seeks is certain desired changes in the life, thought, and experiences of the learner." (Burgess 1996, 91)

Betts believed that content-oriented teaching merely disseminates nonfunctional facts, which "play no part in shaping life's ideals" (Burgess 1996, 92-93) "Betts maintains that two principles are to be observed in the selection of content: 1) it is to be suited to the aims that are sought and 2) it is to be adapted to the student." (Burgess 1996, 95) The student remains the primary focus of education in religion.

Jack Seymour claims that Betts emphasized five tasks for religious education: 1) training ministers in education; 2) the development of true educational standards for church schools; 3) the improvement of church school teachers; 4) clarification of developmental and conduct goals for religious education; and 5) relating of home and church in Christian education. (Seymour 1982) This commitment to the improvement of method in religious education is especially evident in The new program of religious education (1921) and in Betts' 1928 article in Religious Education 23, "Perennial Tasks of Religious Education."

Betts was convinced that the chief objective of religious instruction was "spiritual changes and growth to be brought about in the children they teach." (Booth 1931, 24) In How to teach religion (1919), Betts claimed that the teacher must have his or her own religious experience to properly teach the child, and that the teacher of religion required continuous preparation, needing to know not only the Bible, but also the students. In order to accomplish all this, "he must be a student himself." (Booth 1931, 25)

Like other progressive religious educators, Betts emphasized a functional approach to education, with a focus on helping children achieve a continuous growth in moral values and the ability to live one's life in ways that were consistent with the Christian faith. As Harold Burgess states,

Thus Betts contends that teaching ought not be evaluated simply on the basis of how many facts have been acquired by the learner. The real issue has more to do with how much effect has been made upon the learner's life, character, and conduct. The final test of teaching, Betts argues, is whether the learner, as a result of religious instruction, actually lives differently here and now in the home, school, church, and community. (Burgess 1996, 104)

George A. Coe was especially appreciative of Betts' book, Method in teaching religion, which Coe regarded as a "highly practical handbook" (Coe 1922, 322). The "methods" of teaching Betts identified included project lessons, story telling, dramatics, manual arts, and discussion. This book appears to have been addressed to the volunteer teacher in the church and presented both principles behind teaching methods and their "application to classroom practices." (Booth 1931, 31)

Betts was one of the first religious educators to intentionally address the nature of curriculum in the church. Kendig Cully lists Betts' The curriculum of religious education (1924), along with William Clayton Bower's book by the same title, as the two standard works on the subject up until Campbell Wyckoff's work in the area, published in 1961. (Cully 1965, 190) Betts' book combines a survey of the development of Sunday school curriculum throughout the history of the church with a rationale for the "evolution of a graded curriculum" (Betts 1924, 137). A major feature of the discussion of the "new" approach to curriculum he proposed was his attempt to apply the "scientific method" to the curriculum. (1924, 184-193).

In addition, Betts emphasized the importance of what he described as the "social origins" of curriculum, including the influences of both psychology and sociology. The "primary sources" of curriculum content were said to be "the first-hand contacts of man with God as he meets him directly in his everyday living, mediated as it is by his physical and social environment." The "secondary sources" were "the records other men have made of God, the record of their beliefs, hopes, fears, inspirations, as these matters have been written down for us in books," including the Bible and theological interpretations of human religious experience. (1924, 214)

Toward the end of his career, Betts emphasized the role of religious education in character formation as the key to the educational ministry of the church. Jack Seymour claims that The character outcome of present-day religion (1931) is an example of the thought of one who "substituted a kind of middle-class character study for [Coe's] radical social prophecy." (Seymour 1982, 132) Similarly, L. W. Crawford, Professor of English and Religious Education at Peabody College for Teachers in Nashville, Tennessee in the 1930s, and a former graduate student of Betts, both at Boston University (where Betts taught from 1918-1919) and at Northwestern University, saw Betts gradually leaning "toward character education for he looked upon character as the vital every-day exemplification of religion and religious teaching." (Booth 1931, 90)

Empirical Studies

One of the more significant contributions to the field of religious education that can be attributed to George Herbert Betts is his insistence that method in religious education and curriculum in the church be based upon empirical evidence and sound scientific method. Stephen Schmidt claims,Betts typified the REA progressive religious education. He sought to improve religious education by taking seriously the scientific data available and making application to the work of religious instruction. His major contribution was to inform the religious education community of the prevailing theories growing out of psychology and public education theory and adapting those theories to religious education. Never claiming to be a theologian, he sought insight from his own discipline, psychology. (Schmidt 1983, 82)

Betts' commitment to this "scientific data" was evident throughout his career. His first book, The mind and its education (1906), written while teaching at Cornell College in his native Iowa, was a study of the psychology of learning and gave attention to the nature of the mind, the functioning of the brain and nervous system, and such topics as sensation and perception, memory, and imagination. He was an early advocate of developmental psychology and argued in favor of the graded curriculum on this basis. His church curriculum theory was an embodiment of the social theory of religious education that was advocated by fellow progressive religious educators. As Stephen Schmidt has argued, "[h]is proposals were consistent with the REA tradition, one should teach only those values that are derived from reasonable human experience." (Schmidt 1983, 80)

One of the more recognizable features of Betts' commitment to empirical studies in religious education is a series of books and articles he authored, based upon surveys conducted among religious educators, ministers, and professors. Jack Seymour claims that Betts' most important contribution to the field of religious education was applying empirical research to the study of religion and education. (Seymour 1990, 59-60)

The beliefs of 700 ministers and their meaning for religious education (1929) was the result of a questionnaire, devised by Betts, that was distributed to 1500 members of the Protestant clergy, mostly persons from the Chicago area. The fifty-six questions on the questionnaire addressed doctrinal and theological issues ranging from the nature of God, to the inspiration and authority of the Bible, the humanity and divinity of Christ, and other major tenets of orthodox Protestant teaching. The study revealed a wide range of belief in these areas of religious thought. There was little agreement about even the most commonly accepted doctrinal issues as the use of the Apostles' Creed and the Doctrine of the Trinity (only 20% of the Methodist clergy in the survey accepted this doctrine). Only the Lutherans showed uniformity of belief. The only theological claim that was accepted by virtually every respondent was belief in the existence of God. The theological students who responded to the questionnaire showed even more diversity of theological opinion.

As Schmidt states, "Betts concluded no Protestant denomination except the Lutherans 'has any right to demand of its religious educators the teaching of specific doctrinal standards, for the clergy themselves do not agree.'" Betts called for an interdenominational commission to develop a new creedal statement, based upon "universal human experience, proved knowledge, and reasoned conclusions." (Schmidt 1983, 80)

A second significant study was conducted two years later. In The character outcome of present-day religion (1931), Betts put two questions to those attending Northwestern University's conference on religion and conduct: 1) do our churches today preach a religion that can effectively influence conduct and character? and 2) if they do, why is it not working better to that end? The result was that 28% of the 300 church leaders who responded answered yes, with 36% answering no, and 36% offering a "qualified" response. The responses to the second question were equally diverse.

A 1929 conference, also at Northwestern, included a survey of attendees who were asked "Whether religion as we interpret, teach, and practice it to-day, is capable of motivating life." The results of the study were reported in Religion and conduct (1929).

Conclusions

George Herbert Betts was among the more influential representatives of the progressive era in religious education. His major contributions were in the areas of curriculum theory, the influences of psychology and sociology on religious education and education in general, the practical application of progressive approaches to theology and religious education, and the importance of empirical studies and scientific data to the effective teaching of religion. His students remembered Betts as an effective, engaging, and modest teacher. His prolific writing career influenced generations of leaders in the field. When growing deafness began to limit his ability to function in the classroom as well as he had previously, Betts adapted his teaching style to accommodate his condition.

Throughout his three decades of teaching, Betts consistently emphasized his claim that education in the Christian faith should result in measurable changes in the character of the individual. Toward the end of his life, Betts was progressively more convinced that the development of character was the ultimate goal of religious education. As J. C. Booth stated, "his belief in God and in Divine Providence and the eternal values of God's goodness never wavered" even when his scholarly focus had shifted toward character education and away from religious education per se. (Booth 1931, 9)

Works Cited

• Betts, G. H. (1906). The mind and its education. New York: D. Appleton and Company.
• _______ (1919). How to teach religion. New York: Abingdon Press.
• _______ (1924). The curriculum of religious education. New York: Abingdon Press.
• _______ (1929). The beliefs of 700 ministers and their meaning for religious education. New York: Abingdon Press.
• _______ (1929). Religion and conduct: A conference report. New York: Abingdon Press.
• _______ (1931). The character outcome of present-day religion. New York: Abingdon Press.
• Booth, J. C. (1931). Life and works of George Herbert Betts. A thesis. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.
• Burgess, H. J. (1996). Models of religious education: Theory and practice in historical and contemporary perspective. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books.
• Coe, G. A. (1929). Review of Betts, G. H. Method in teaching religion. Religious Education 28, 322.
• Colwell, B. W. (1988). The study of education at Northwestern University, 1900-1945: Institutional conflicts of mission and men. Dissertation, Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University.
• Cully, K. B. (1965). The search for a Christian education-since 1940. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
• Schmidt, S. A. (1983). A history of the Religious Education Association. Birmingham, Ala.: Religious Education Press.
• Seymour, J. L. (1982). From Sunday school to church school: Continuities in Protestant church education in the United States, 1860-1929. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, Inc.
• _______ (1990). George Herbert Betts. In I. V. Cully and K. B. Cully (Eds.), Harper's encyclopedia of religious education. (pp. 59-60). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
• Smith, H. S. (1942). Faith and nurture. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
• Vieth, P. H. (1928). Who are the leaders of thought in religious education? International Journal of Religious Education. 6-15.