Paul Herman Vieth

Early Life and Education

Paul Herman Vieth was born on January 18, 1895 (Vieth, 2002), in a farm near Warrenton, Missouri. He grew up in "a German Evangelical Church, which later became a part of the Evangelical and Reformed Church (and in 1957 the United Church of Christ)" (Kathan, 1978, S-149). While still in Missouri, he belonged to the Evangelical Synod, but when he moved to Connecticut, at Yale, he joined the Congregational Christian Church, which later emerged as the United Church of Christ (Vieth, 2003).

His higher education began at Central Wesleyan College (in Warrenton) where he earned an A.B. in 1917 (Taylor, 1960, 436). As a junior in college, he became the secretary of a country Sunday School Association, which was under the tutelage of the old International Sunday School Association. "The day after graduation" he joined the staff of the Missouri Sunday school Association first as a field worker and then as its General Secretary, resigning after about six years to pursue graduate work at Yale University. While studying at Yale, he was involved in the organization of the New Haven Council of Religious Education. Even before graduation, he was called to the National Council as Director of Research and Service (Vieth, 1963, 2). In 1924 he received his B.D. degree from Yale cum laude (Williams, 1964, 21). He earned a PhD. from Yale in 1928.

Vieth recalled that those years were turbulent. There was a battle going on between "the International Sunday School Association and the International Sunday School Council of Evangelical Denominations" which was settled by the creation of the "International Council of Religious Education" in 1922 (Vieth, 1963, 2). In 1925 he joined the staff of the International Council of Religious Education, to which he much contributed with written research, one being his famous title Objectives in Christian Education (1930), "an outgrowth of an immense study which involved the collecting of thousands of case studies of behaviorial (sic) situations" from church schools across North America (Kathan, 1978, S-150). This "immense study" was his doctoral dissertation, and the Objectives in Christian Education represented a "condensed version of portions of the dissertation, leaving out substantial and sophisticated (for the times) discussions of research methodology and theoretical reflection" (Melchert, 2003). While he was serving in the International Council he also served as the Chairman of the International Journal of Religious Education for six years (Williams, 1964, 21).

Since the field of "Religious Education" was in its infancy, Vieth captured the vision of articulating clearly the task at hand, as he stated, "The aim has arrived in the development of religious education when an effort should be made to formulate and summarize the best thinking concerning its fundamental aims…to providing a point of departure for a new impetus and development of constructive thought…" (Vieth, 1930). But he was not alone in this concern. The already referred 1930 title, Objectives in Christian Education, represented the views of a plethora of religious educators who were members of the International Council and who equally subscribed to clear objectives. Little emphasized that Vieth was reporting on the work of the community, i.e., "he was the key person to organize it," and that these objectives became a formative factor for over forty years, mediating a balanced approach to Christian education" (Little, 2002). Melchert emphasized that "the diversity of their views is what required Vieth to forge something of a consensus" (Melchert, 2003). Thus Vieth represented leadership in the field, as one who was able to articulate a diversity of views and yet retain an "independent position, even a new position" (Little, 1964, 207 and Little, 2002). As such, he was indeed a catalytic leader for the years that followed.

In 1931 Vieth resigned from the International Council and took a teaching post at Duke seminary. A year later he went to Yale, where he spent the rest of his academic career (Williams, 1964, 21). At Yale, he first became the Director of field Work and Associate Professor of Religious Education. Then, in 1939 he became the Horace Bushnell Professor of Christian Nurture, a very appropriate position, since one of his passions was to acknowledge the importance of the family and its role in religious education. He held this title until his retirement in 1963. In addition, he developed a Visual Education Service at Yale Divinity School to help faculty, students, and churches in the area. He co-authored Visual aids in the Church (1946), and offered the first seminary course ever on audio-visual education (Kathan, 1978, S-150).

Although devoting most of his energy to Yale, Vieth remained connected to the International Council, chairing the Educational Commission, and being influential in the formulation of educational policies of the Council. "His most distinguished service was probably the direction of 'The study of Christian Education,' which formulated a new statement of basic philosophy and policy, reconciling the viewpoint of The Curriculum Guide of the twenties with trends in basic thinking going on in the churches during the thirties" (Williams, 1964, 21). Actually this work became a published title, i.e., The Church and Christian Education, and it was an "attempt to reconcile earlier religious education theory with new theological and biblical insights" (Kathan, 1978, S-150). Sara Little considered this book Vieth's masterpiece in which he provided a historical background and gave direction for the future (2002). For James D. smart this "book" exposed the controversial nerve that had divided Christian educators over the years, i.e., whether or not to embrace "the optimistic liberation of Coe or Chave" (1976, 65).

This controversial nerve was well illustrated by Vieth's historical review presented at the dinner of the Professors and Research Section of the Division of Christian Education, National council of Churches on February 13, 1963. In this document, among other things, he told of a two-part presentation in 1939. The first part was led by Harrison S. Elliott and discussed by W. C. Bower under the title of "A Naturalistic Philosophy of Religious Education." The counter part was offered by H. Shelton Smith on "Revelation and Classic Supernaturalism as a Philosophical Basis for religious Education." Vieth cited Ernest Ligon's comments, "Well, I certainly remember that. I was there. It was certainly the hottest meeting of the Professors Section we ever had. We didn't quite get to fisticuffs, but there were moments when it looked as if we might. Never forget it as long as I live. Very exciting, and nobody went home early!" (Vieth, 1963, 13). In the same document he shows that Elmer G. Homrighausen acknowledged how G. A. Coe "warned the religious educators against the theological emphases of the Oxford and Edinburgh Conferences." Homrighausen, who was pleased with the new direction, said Coe proclaimed "the end of religious education" if Edinburgh's view would become prevalent (Vieth, 1963, 13).

However, this controversial report illustrates precisely Vieth's ability to work with a "polemic theological tone" rather than Vieth's determination to claim one and only theological stand. For Melchert, Vieth "having worked for years among Christians who espoused differing theological orientation, never assumed there could be such a singular thing as 'a true theology," and thus he argued Christians must find ways to work together despite those differences…" (Melchert, 2003).

Vieth's career, nevertheless, went beyond controversy. Three times he rendered services in Japan. The first time was from 1947-1948. He served as the advisor on religious education with the religion division, civil information and education section staff of General Douglas MacArthur. According to Kathan, he was to formulate "long-range policies for the purpose of implementing the religious objectives of the supreme commander in regard to the reorganization and redirection of religious education in the Japanese educational system" (1978, S-149). Little recognized this assignment as a great honor for Vieth (2002).

The second visit to Japan was from 1954 to 1955, when he served as the Fulbright professor at the International Christian University in Tokyo (Williams, 1964, 21). Lastly, in 1958, he went to Japan to participate in "the 14th assembly of the world Council of Christian Education function as the dean of the World Institute on Christian Education and to serve as dean of the World Institute on Christian Education" (Kathan 1978, S-149). Taylor said he was given a Hum. D. from the St. Paul's University in Tokyo at this time (Taylor, 1960), 436).

Another part of his career was editorial work. From-to 1959-60, 1966-76, and 1970 he acted as the editor of the journal Religious Education, a position held by his Yale colleague, Randolph Crump Miller, while Miller was on sabbaticals (Kathan S-150).

After retirement he did all but stop working. He was involved in multiple activities such as setting up a continuing education program at Yale (Little, 2002), and serving as the visiting Professor at Andover-Newton Theological Seminary, where he taught two courses in Christian Education. He was an avid participant on ministers' and directors' workshops; and he worked intensely in churches. In 1964 he delivered the 1964 Rufus Jones lecture at a Society of Friends workshop. In this speech he had only fifty years of rich Christian education experiences to share! He reviewed his time-line from age eighteen, when he became the Sunday School superintendent member of the Evangelical Synod of North America, until then. Also, a masterpiece was produced in his 1965 title, Worship in Christian Education, in which he elaborated the very item he identified as missing in his 1930 analysis of what comprised the movement of religious education, i.e, worship or "the relation of the individual Christian to God" (Vieth, 1930, 62).

Overall, Paul H. Vieth is best described as a theoretician and a practitioner. He held an envious balance, desired by all. Randolph Crump Miller recognized in him one who "was always concerned about the educational work in the congregation" (Miller, 1990, 861). Sara Little, who treasured his mentorship, said, "Vieth did not try to persuade people that he was right…He did not sit back and tell people what to do. He spoke and wrote on those things that were important, and which he had acted upon and evaluated…He did not bother to get caught up in fads…He was a keen analyst, very much aware of his time, but he did not operate by the latest fad. To me planning and doing religious education by the latest fad is irritating and irresponsible…Vieth would have thought so" (Little, 2002).

But he did persuade many by the integrity of his teachings and writings. Lillian Williams attempted to acknowledge from Vieth the paths of many who in turn served as college or seminary professors (in the U.S. and abroad), church Christian educators, council or committee members, curriculum editors and designers and the like (22).

Vieth died in 1978 in a retirement center in Pennsylvania (Little, 2002), but at Yale his legacy carry the deserving honor of "Professor Emeritus." In his writings he had a reoccurring theme, i.e., as teachers we are "to learn" our students. He told of the note from a "poor washwoman," whose son had been perceived as lacking hygiene, "I want you to learn Johnny, not smell him!" (Vieth, 1929, 78-79). Vieth saw in that note a lesson for all teachers, i.e., "through her error in grammar she had unintentionally given the teacher a bit of sound advice. To learn Johnny is exactly what every teacher must do…" (79).

Immersed in an ideology greater than self and yet aware of his own limitations, he thought of tomorrow as a time when others would "laugh" at his "crude and archaic ideas" (Vieth, 1929, 27). It was far from it. We stand in the presence of a giant, who by word and deed left a legacy worthy of consideration. We will do well if we take the time "to learn" from him!

Paul H. Vieth "is, indeed, a symbol of Christian education as it has developed in the twentieth century" (Little, 1964, 202). His theological pronouncements in the mid-1940's may have been defined as "vague" by some critics (Smart, 1976, 65), or just a "summary" by others (Wyckoff, 1960, 104), but it does place him as a spotlight, which led other critics to see his theological emphasis in Christian education as distinctive enough to be termed "a movement" (Little, 1961, 12 and Burgess, 2001, 113). This perception became stronger when realized that Vieth was a spokesman for prominent Protestant educators, who aimed at reconciling "the social-cultural approach of the liberals with neorthodox theology" (Elias, 2002, 173). Little heard in his voice a move from "a self-critical modern religious education" to "Christian education, rooted within the Christian community and explainable only in terms of the Christian heritage" (Little, 1961, 12).

One could argue that throughout his writings (whether his or reporting on others), Vieth did not have a clear theological articulation. "At this time there was not a demand for a theological stand as there is one today" (Little, 2002). However, if read consistently and carefully, the reader can see a continuity of thought and a strong emphasis on the role of the divine initiative and revelation in the process of "growing persons." For Melchert, Vieth was consistent across time with a theological view for Christian education (Melchert, 2003), and whatever he wrote reflected the thinking of committee members, not necessarily his own only.

Through research three reasons have surfaced to substantiate Vieth's involvement as part of a new movement in Christian education of the twentieth century and his leadership therein.

The first reason to perceive Vieth's contribution to a new movement in Christian education in the twentieth century is where he stands in regard to a religious education starting point. Miller identified at the time a shift in centering-from "man" to "God" (Miller, 1956, 54). How does Vieth relate to this centering? In the beginning of his career through the International Council of Religious Education Vieth was involved, along with others, in the project of writing objectives for religious education. L. J. Sherrill identified Objective in Religious Education (1930) as "a landmark" or that which "deeply influenced" programs in the denominations thereafter (Sherrill, 1963, 198). As influential as this work might have been, in it Vieth was careful to convey the views of his colleagues from a variety of theological backgrounds. Thus he may have reported a liberal or a more conservative view on the same page. But that changed as the years progressed.

By the early 1940's, his involvement with the "Study of Christian Education," which was published as The Church and Christian Education (1947), became an orientation for a Christian education which addressed more than morality or a human production, rather, as highlighted by Sara Little, it addressed a Christian education "divinely given" and grounded in revelation that went beyond "noble insights" (Little, 1961, 23. Melchert argues that this apparent shift was not so for Vieth. All along Vieth advocated divine initiative. If in Objectives in Religious Education he reported the views of many, Vieth was affirming the work of a diverse committee as well as his ability to interact within such diverse views. It is not that Vieth's theological views had changed, "while it may have been 'new' for some, it was not for Vieth […] Vieth's genius lay in his ability to present the work of others both faithfully and comprehensively, harmonizing diverse views into a more unified whole…" (Melchert, 2003).

Since the 1947 work followed the same procedures, i.e., reporting on the views of many educators, could it be that the views of committee members had become more unilateral in recognizing the role of theology in religious education? Vieth had been greatly influenced by L.A. Weigle, whose quotations in the 1930 work had endorsed divine initiative in religious education. Could it be that Vieth as well as other educators now expressed this theological endorsement more clearly and as in one voice? Perhaps further research is needed to validate this premature conclusion.

Vieth's (and others) theological convictions can further be seen in the definition provided in the Church and Christian Education (1947): "Christian education is the process by which persons are confronted with and controlled by the Christian gospel" (52). At that point he acknowledged the contribution of natural sciences for understanding the person, but such did not resolve the human alienation brought by the illusion of the "modern science and the machine age" (57), which created a faulty reality. He clearly revealed his view of the human predicament, i.e., "man cannot effect his own deliverance," and its one option as "depend upon resources beyond himself…" (58). For him (and others), Christianity had never offered a superficially optimistic view of life and Christian educators were "to help persons face their problems realistically" (59).

R. C. Miller believed Vieth combined "theological and educational insights and marked a significant advance in educational philosophy" (Miller, 1956, 34), and further attempted to differentiate the role of religious education as a "reevaluation of values," to the role of Christian education as a "theological responsibility," i.e., "we have a Gospel and that Christian education begins when we are confronted with it" (Miller, 1956, 53-54). Perhaps it is safe to say that, conscious or not, Vieth contributed to reinforce a Christian education which is initiated by the divine and not by a human effort. One example of that would be his lack of comfort with curriculum materials that had moved from "content" to a "pupil" orientation exclusively (this will be further explained in the second reason).

Furthermore, in Our Teaching Ministry (1967) Vieth, as a committee editor, used the word "discipleship" to describe the purpose of Christian education (43, see endnote). Reflecting the common view of those involved in the Cooperative Curriculum Project (see endnote), he defined the work of the Christian educator as well as that of the community of faith as being an agent "in God's work, giving witness and guidance and providing the conditions for confrontation with God's word" (44-45). Again one could argue that Vieth did not stand alone, since he was reporting on the views of a committee. However, should not credit be given to his leadership role as a spokesperson?

A second reason to perceive Vieth's contribution to a movement in Christian education of the twentieth century is his emphasis on both content and experience as they relate to teaching in the church and in the home. While trends at the time reflected one or the other, Vieth insisted there should be a balance between content and experience. Even as early as 1929 he stated, "If the experience-centered curriculum is allowed to degenerate into a mere discussion of or talking about experience, without an effort to find the best available resources for guidance and enrichment of that experience, then we are depriving our children of an inheritance which is rightly theirs" (Vieth, 1929, 133-134).

Thus experience to be of value needed proper guidance. Where did the teacher find this guidance? "It is a part of the business of teaching to share with the pupil those bodies of truth and facts… Christian education cannot do less than present these facts and convictions with all the weight of authority which has gathered around them because of the long Christian history which has been sustained by them and the millions of those who have lived and died by that faith" (Vieth, 1947, 80). With this legacy he then proclaimed, "…the Bible is central in Christian education…universally affirmed by theory and practice" (80). At this junction Sara Little connects Vieth to Erwin Shaver's Present-Day Trends in Religious Education (1929) in which the Bible was interpreted as a source book, containing "principles of living," "symbols and codes," and an "ever-enlarging revelation" (Little, 1961, 20).

Once "enriched" by proper guidance, learners could then engage in experience. He illustrated this process by many life vignettes, one being teaching learners to understand worship while engaging them in the planning and the actual carrying out of worship.

Vieth saw the home and the church as two agencies where content and experience could facilitate religious learning. The church should be responsible for parents' education and should provide resources to facilitate the parents' role as teachers (see quote from The Church and Christian Education, 1947, 188-189). R. C. Miller listed Vieth alongside with C. A. Bower and Philip Henry Lotz as contributors with curricula materials to facilitate home education (Miller, 1956, 374).

While the church teacher needs training in order to be the provider of "enrichment," the learner is to take responsibility and "control" of his/her own learning. Vieth used metaphorical language to describe how teachers were to perceive students. The learner was "not like a Christmas tree, to which other fix tinsel, shiny balls, and lights which are not really its own and never will be," rather, the learner is "like a tree" (Vieth, 1947, 74-75). Recognizing this uniqueness about the learner implies a careful choosing of methodology, in order to allow for a mutual and rich exchange between the teacher and the learner. Since teaching and learning is formal and informal, it can happen at any time and by anyone, often by someone who has a legacy to pass on to younger generations. He recognized the need for the "more mature members" to share "their fuller understanding of and commitment to the Christian faith with those who are less mature" (Vieth, 1947, 95).

How can a church be a teaching church? He identified at least two very important elements: the role of the pastor and lay leadership. For Vieth, training in Christian education and theology was mandatory in theological institutions for all ministers, pastors, Christian educators and the like (Vieth, 1947, 96-109, 200). Miller thought Vieth was the best one to identify the pastor's role in order for Christian education to succeed in the church. "Unless the pastor is convinced that it is worth the effort, nothing is likely to happen even if the committee or board is formed" (Miller, 1956, 302).

Likewise, lay leadership was very important for the structure of Christian education to function properly. Although Vieth acknowledged the importance of professionalism, he saw "…every person in the Christian fellowship" as "one and the same time a learner and a leader" (Vieth, 1947, 193). The training of teachers, however, was to be more than a time to learn attractive and new methods. "Christian teaching requires a background of experience in the Christian faith…It involves a grounding in religious experience which gives specific character to the whole enterprise for Christian teaching at all levels" (213). At this junction he emphasized formation as an essential element for Christian teaching.

So, professional workers should offer training especially through supervision. Even as early as in the 1930's he saw the role of supervision as a mentoring enterprise. Supervision was to be practical and offered only with the consent of the teacher (Vieth, 1930, Improving your Sunday school…, 57).

It is important to highlight that creativity was a key to Vieth's life and works. In 1946 he co-authored a title, Visual Aids in the Church, with William Rogers. Reed and Prevost point out that "motion pictures, slides, and filmstrips projectors had not long been used in churches…The authors included a history of the technology of visual aids, including mentions of Comenius' Orbis Sensualium Pictus and the New English Primer. Vieth and Rogers dealt with bulletin boards, chalkboards, charts, diagrams, dioramas, models, projected media, and field trips" (Reed and Prevost, 1993, 345).

A final reason for the current religious educator to perceive Vieth's contribution as part of a new movement in Christian education of the twentieth century is his views on the teaching of religion in the public school and the complementary role of the church through the weekday ministry. In The Church and Christian Education he stated, "…we are in danger of producing a generation of people so secularized that they will have little appreciation for or interest in the churches of the communities in which they live" (1947, 301). He did not believe the church alone could undertake the task of teaching children to live religiously. "Some other solution must be found," he said (1947, 302).

From Vieth's perception, perhaps, one of these avenues was the weekday education ministry as it related to the overall ministry of the church. To help with this task of integration, R. C. Miller (1956, 383) considered most valuable the evaluation Guide for Curriculum in Christian Education by the National Council of Churches published in The Church School (Vieth, 1957, 82-89; 267-279). Now we have available funds but such were scarce in his days (Vieth, 1947, 202-203), but his criticism for curricula integration still remains unresolved.

In conclusion, the contributions of Dr. Paul Herman Vieth are numerous and have touched the lives of many contemporary Christian educators, even if they are unaware of such. Sara P. Little and Charles F. Melchert, who studied under him, acknowledge his outstanding contributions to the field of Christian education. Vieth helped create an ethos in the twentieth century in which Christian education needed to be carried out by an authority other than self or humanity, if it were to bear fruit for the Kingdom of God, although he would never say that he was alone on this effort. Dr. Sara P. Little identified Vieth's authority through polarities: he was a theorist and a practitioner, a manager of continuity and a manager or change, and a condenser of views while preserving his own authentic thinking (Little, 1964, 202-208). And Little "was one who knew him at his work best" (Vieth, 2002). Thus, we will do well if we continue to "learn" from Paul Herman Vieth!