CHAPTER XXVI

THE SOCIOLOGY OF MODERN CHRISTIANITY

In a foregoing chapter the invaluable contribution of the Hebrews to social thought was presented; the attack of the prophets on social injustice was the outstanding feature. In another chapter the emphasis by Jesus upon love as a dynamic societal principle was described. In the centuries which followed the beginning of the Christian era, the Church apotheosized beliefs, creeds, dogmas. Near the close of the nineteenth century a renaissance of the social teachings of Jesus occurred.

The trio of writers who brought forward the social ideals of Christianity in a new, positive, and stimulating way in the closing decades of the last century were Washington Gladden, Josiah Strong, and Richard T. Ely. All three of these men began about 1885 to discuss in print the social content of Christianity. These men had been aroused by the apparent impotence of the Christian Church in face of the increasing power of capitalism. While many church leaders allowed themselves to be carried along in the powerful arms of capitalism, there were a few who perceived the wreck of human lives that was often left in the wake of the capitalistic movement. These individuals, while not blind to the social values of capitalism, were in touch with the laboring man, and by these contacts caught the social need of the hour. In this social crisis they heard the still, small voice coming down through the centuries, even the voice of Jesus as he spoke in behalf of the poor and outcast.

It was Washington Gladden who startled and even angered the world of religious and economic thought by protesting against the acceptance of “tainted money.” By this term he referred to money which had been made under a capitalistic system at the expense of the lives of men, women, and little children in the industrial processes. Dr. Gladden weathered the storm of protest and gave the capitalistic world a new concept which, while it aroused anger, also brought introspection and a new type of social conscience into the lives of many Christians.

It was Dr. Gladden’s contention that employer and employee ought to be friends, because they are so closely associated. It is a very large part of the business of the employer to maintain sympathetic relations between himself and his employees.[XXVI-1] If the business man will not let his fellowmen share in his prosperity, he will become in spite of himself a sharer in their adversity.

The attitude of Dr. Gladden toward the acceptance of railway passes by the clergy attracted widespread attention. He came to the conclusion that a railroad company is bound to render an equal service to all the people; its business is not to show special favors to the representatives of either religion or charity.[XXVI-2] “What it has no right to give me, I have no right to take, and for several years I have not taken it; I pay the regular fare as all my neighbors do or ought.”

Dr. Gladden urged the abolition of city slums by governmental action. Inasmuch as slums are rife with moral miasmas and are breeding-places of pauperism and crime, the city has the same right to abate such curses as to drain a morass. Moreover, individuals ought to have no property rights “in premises which breed death and engender vice. When they have proved that they lack the power to keep their property from falling into such conditions, their property must be summarily taken away from them.”[XXVI-3]

Without minimizing the importance of conflict as a principle of social progress, Dr. Gladden stressed the concept of co-operation. For example, in industrial matters he advocated the idea of a true trades union--“the union of employers and employed--of guiding brains and willing hands--all watchful of each other’s interests, seeking each other’s welfare, working for the common good.”[XXVI-4]

In his well-known treatise on _Social Salvation_, Dr. Gladden asserts that, in order to be soundly converted, an individual must comprehend his social relationships and strive to fulfil them, as well as set up right relationships with God.[XXVI-5] Sanctification consists in fulfilling one’s social as well as one’s divine privileges, and in living according to the needs of human society as well as according to the needs of the human soul. An individual can no more be a Christian by himself than he can sing an oratorio alone.[XXVI-6]

It is no purely social gospel that Dr. Gladden taught. He was correct in protesting against the attitude of certain reformers who hold that changing the environment is all-sufficient. It is possible to go too far in removing temptations from the pathway of men; it would be unwise to neglect the problem of equipping men to resist temptation, and hence to weaken the sense of moral responsibility.[XXVI-7]

In the field of practical social reform Dr. Josiah Strong did effective work. He also re-interpreted the social principles of Jesus, and boldly proclaimed the spirit of love as the cardinal principle for the organization of human society.[XXVI-8] He indicated that people have stressed properly the importance of _believing_ the truth, but underestimated the importance of _living_ the truth.[XXVI-9] He protested against the tendency to separate the sacred and the secular, and to divorce doctrine from conduct. He believed that the prevailing religious tendency to neglect the sacred commandment, of loving one’s neighbor as one’s self, has led to a selfish individualism on the part of many religious people.

The contributions to social thought by Gladden and Strong were ably supported by the social ideas of Richard T. Ely. Professor Ely remonstrated against the tendency of many church people to think that they can serve God without devoting their lives to their fellowmen.[XXVI-10] He made vivid the complaint of American workingmen that church membership on the part of employers and landlords does not necessarily insure just and considerate treatment of employees and tenants.[XXVI-11] Professor Ely insisted that it is as holy a work “to lead a crusade against filth, vice, and disease in slums of cities, and to seek the abolition of the disgraceful tenement houses of American cities, as it is to send missionaries to the heathen.”[XXVI-12]

The pioneer work of Gladden, Strong, Ely, and others in rejuvenating the social meaning of Christianity in the closing years of the nineteenth century has been carried forward in the present century by a host of able writers. The list includes the names of well known socio-religious thinkers such as Peabody,[XXVI-13] Mathews,[XXVI-14] Rauschenbusch,[XXVI-15] Batten,[XXVI-16] Ward,[XXVI-17] Atkinson,[XXVI-18] Ryan,[XXVI-19] Stelzle,[XXVI-20] and Taylor.[XXVI-21] Special attention will be given to the contributions of Rauschenbusch and Ward, because each has been a storm-center in socio-religious matters.

In his _Christianity and the Social Crisis_, Professor Rauschenbusch gave a brief history of Christianity and its Hebrew antecedents, showing first that “the essential purpose of Christianity was to transform human society into the Kingdom of God by regenerating all human relations and reconstituting them in accordance with the will of God.”[XXVI-22] He then raised the question, why has Christianity not undertaken the work of social reconstruction? He believed that if the Church were to direct its full available force against any social wrong, probably nothing could withstand it.[XXVI-23] Despite the fact that Christianity has played a leading part in lifting woman to equality and companionship with men, in changing parental despotism to parental service, in eliminating unnatural vice, in abolishing slavery, in covering all lands with a network of charities, in fostering institutions of learning, in aiding the progress of civil liberty and social justice, in diffusing a softening tenderness throughout human life, in taming selfishness, and in creating a resolute sense of duty, it has not yet undertaken a reconstruction of society on a Christian basis.[XXVI-24] It has been engaged in suppressing some of the most glaring evils in the social system of the time.[XXVI-25]

Dr. Rauschenbusch pointed out several historical factors which have prevented Christianity from entering upon a program of reconstructing society, many of which no longer obtain.[XXVI-26] These hindering factors have been: (1) the moral resentment of the classes whose interests are endangered by a moral campaign; (2) the belief in the immediate return of Christ, which precluded a long outlook; (3) the primitive attitude of fear and distrust toward the state; (4) the other-worldliness of Christian desire; (5) the ascetic and monastic ideals; (6) ceremonialism; (7) dogmatism; (8) the monarchial organization of the church; (9) an absence of the intellectual prerequisites for social reconstruction. To the extent that Christianity is no longer hampered by these characteristics it is ready to undertake the task of making over society.

The main danger in the present crisis which demands the attention of social Christianity was found by Professor Rauschenbusch in the autocratic, unjust phases of capitalism, with its somewhat undemocratic wage system. To this expression of autocracy there is a three-fold class reaction.[XXVI-27] First, there are those classes which are in practical control of wealth; they have no reformatory program; they are anxious to maintain the present social order intact. Second, there are the middle social classes, which, sharing partially in the advantages of the present social adjustment, are also chafing under social grievances which their ideals do not allow them to attack vigorously; they want reform work by peaceful and gradual methods. Third, there are the disinherited classes, which see a widening chasm between themselves and the wealthy, a chasm that “only a revolutionary lift can carry them across.” It is around the condition and attitudes of the masses that the social crisis revolves. This social attitude is like a tank of gasoline, which by a single explosion will blow a car sky-high, or which, by a series of little explosions will push a car to the top of a mountain.[XXVI-28] Which process does Christianity wish to further? If the latter, then Christianity must socialize first the attitude of the classes of wealth and social power. Unfortunately, wealth often grows stronger than the man who owns it; it may own him and rob him of his moral and spiritual freedom.[XXVI-29] Can Christianity dissolve this dilemma?

The principle that a Christian should seek an ascetic departure from the world of life and work is no longer acceptable. He has two other possibilities. He can either condemn the world and try to improve it, or tolerate it and gradually be conformed to it.[XXVI-30] By these sharply drawn alternatives, Professor Rauschenbusch awoke the Christian world. While many Christians did not believe that the situation was as crucial as thus depicted, they nevertheless were jarred from a state of moral lethargy.

As a pastor for eleven years among the working people of New York City, Dr. Rauschenbusch learned to understand the heart throbs and yearnings of the masses, and dedicated his life through Christian service to easing the pressure upon the working classes and to increasing the forces that bear them up. He saw the solution of the social problem in a Christian socialism that would destroy the autocracy of wealth and establish a democratic form of industrial relationships. He believed in the social or public ownership of the natural resources of the earth. “It is preposterous to think that an individual or a corporation can have absolute ownership in a vein of coal or copper. A mining company owns the holes in the ground, for it made the holes; it does not own the coal; for it did not make the coal. The coal is the gift of God and belongs to the people.”[XXVI-31]

Another difficulty is found in the fact that business methods and the principles of Christianity have always been at strife.[XXVI-32] Individuals are struggling to get the better of their fellows. This tendency has been institutionalized in the form of business enterprise. Private persons have been permitted “to put their thumbs where they can constrict the life blood of the nation at will.”[XXVI-33] Christianity, on the other hand, lauds the principle of unselfish service, and of ranking the individual as the greatest who gives most. Christianity is awakening to its gigantic task of stopping the nation on “its headlong ride on the road of covetousness.”

It is in this connection that Professor Rauschenbusch has made famous the phrase, “Christianizing the social order.” This term means “bringing the social order into harmony with the ethical convictions which are identified with Christ.”[XXVI-35] Such a program involves attacking “the last intrenchment of autocracy,” namely, in business,--and Christianizing business. The struggle is already on. In many of the phases of the conflict, capitalism is swallowing up Christianity. The church becomes traditional, narrowly ecclesiastical, dogmatic, opposing science and democracy. Where capitalism is strongest, the churches as virile social forces are weakest.[XXVI-34]

In reply to the often repeated charge that socialized Christianity is no Christianity at all, Professor Rauschenbusch shows that personal religion, instead of being defeated by a socialized religion, will gain strength and be able to present a much stronger appeal than it now does. The advocate of the social teachings of Jesus is not attacking personal religion, but rather endeavoring to give personal religion a new dynamic, especially in those phases of modern life where personal religion has lost most of its appeal. The opponents of social Christianity cannot afford to neglect the fact that the often one-sided, mechanical, and superficial gospel and methods of evangelism have created a religious apathy, if not a definite reaction against religion.[XXVI-36] It is blind foolishness to try to fence out the new social spirit from Christianity instead of letting it fuse with the older religious faith and “create a new total that will be completer and more Christian than the old religious individualism at its best.”[XXVI-37]

Dr. Rauschenbusch insisted that there must be a Christianizing of international relations, that individuals must be taught to see the sinfulness of the present social order, and that the popular conception of God must be democratized.[XXVI-39] He reinterpreted the organic unity of human society,--asserting that when one man sins, other men suffer; and that when one class sins, other classes bear a part of the suffering.

In 1908, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America was organized at Philadelphia. The Council adopted with slight modifications the resolutions which some months earlier had been accepted by the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church (North), and which Rev. Harry F. Ward and others had drawn up.

This Bill of Rights, as the Resolutions have been called, imposed upon the members of the more than thirty Protestant denominations the duty of obtaining industrial justice for the cause of labor. It spoke for (1) the principle of arbitration in industrial dissensions, (2) the adequate protection of workers in hazardous trades, (3) the abolition of child labor, (4) the safeguarding of physical and moral health of women in industry, (5) the suppression of the “sweating system,” (6) the reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest practicable point, (7) a living wage in all industries, (8) one day of rest in seven for all workers, (9) the most equitable division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised, (10) suitable provisions for old age or disability of workers, and (11) the abatement of poverty.

At the meeting of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America at a special meeting held at Cleveland, Ohio, May 6–8, 1919, the foregoing platform was re-affirmed; and in addition, as a means of meeting the needs of the reconstruction days following the World War, the following notable resolutions were adopted. The Council declared not only that labor is entitled to an equitable share in the profits of industry, but took the new step of expressing the belief that labor is entitled also to an equitable share in the management of industry. “The sharing of shop control and management is an inevitable step” in the attainment of an ordered and constructive democracy in industry. The Council asserted that the first charge upon industry should be wages sufficient to support an American standard of living.

In 1919, the Committee on Special War Activities of the National Catholic War Council published a brief but important document on social reconstruction. In this pamphlet the defects of the capitalistic system of industry are declared to be: “Enormous inefficiency and waste in the production and distribution of commodities; insufficient incomes for the great majority of wage-earners; and unnecessarily large incomes for a small minority of privileged capitalists.”[XXVI-40] The Committee urged that employees shall exercise a reasonable share in the management of industrial enterprises, and that the State should inaugurate comprehensive provisions for health insurance and old age insurance. It recognized that the true line of progress is in the direction of co-operative production and of co-partnership arrangements. “In the former, the workers own and manage the industries themselves; in the latter, they own a substantial part of the corporate stock and exercise a reasonable share in the management.”[XXVI-41] The Catholic pronunciamento demands that the spirit of both labor and capital be reformed. The laborer must give up the desire of a maximum of return for a minimum of service; he must remember that he owes society an honest day’s work for a fair wage. On the other hand the capitalist must learn that wealth is not possession but stewardship, and that “profit-making is not the basic justification of business enterprise.”[XXVI-42]

Inasmuch as the Rev. Harry F. Ward has written more extensively on social Christianity than any other person, save Rauschenbusch, and has created widespread and heart-searching discussions, his contributions to socio-religious thought will be considered next. Dr. Ward does not believe in social service as a bait for drawing people into the church. He objects to bribing people in order to get them into an evangelistic meeting. To him social service is a natural phase of religion, expressing itself freely and without sinuous designs. In his estimation, soup kitchens are not to be established as a means of enticing the laboring man inside the church walls, but as an unselfish expression of the Christian’s desire to be true to the Christ spirit. Social service is not a selfish program, on the part of the church, for increasing its membership. It is as natural to Christianity as personal evangelism, and equally intrinsic and vital. It has won more than national recognition. While it is radical in the eyes of the conservative, it contains an analysis of social conditions that many of its critics have not appreciated. It breathes a sincerity and a straightforwardness that compels the fair-minded reader to give heed.

Slavery was rejected as the economic basis of civilization, and monarchy has recently been rejected as the political basis. In each instance the world came to a junction where idealistic impulse overthrew entrenched power. It is Dr. Ward’s contention that the world is now reaching a similar junction point, a point where idealistic impulse will dethrone the autocracy in capitalism. The idealistic impulse, to which reference has been made in the foregoing lines, is germinal in the teachings of Jesus.

With prophetic vision, more organized than the vision of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, but equally sincere, and fearless, Dr. Ward points out the principles of the new social order which he believes are almost upon the world. He then describes the various factors which are struggling each in its own way to inaugurate the new order.

The five principles of the new social order are equality, universal service, efficiency, the supremacy of personality, and solidarity. (1) Equality is the old word which won attention in the American and French Revolutions. It grew out of the theory of natural rights which was discussed in