Christianity’s social side:
the Social Gospel movement and labour
Bert den Boggende
In Galatians 1: 6-9 Paul complained that some Galatians Christians were “turning to a different gospel.” Is the Social Gospel also another gospel, as Harry Antonides in his book Stones for Bread, has argued? Unquestionably, he is correct as far as the more extreme views are concerned, but that’s not the whole picture, since the Social Gospel was richly varied.
Some background
As the stories of Cain and Abel and Ruth indicate, we are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, and, as the prophets made clear, that included all of life. After preaching a sermon and feeding the people, Jesus showed that there was to be no disconnect between his preaching and the people’s physical needs. Throughout history the church has tried to implement the social side of the gospel. At times their efforts were all-encompassing, but sometimes there was a serious disconnect. In Luther’s views there was a significant gap between his teachings and the commercial world. In spite of Calvin’s attempt to restore that connection, there continued to be a significant chasm between the church and the working class.
This was partly due to the influence of pietism, which all too often concerned itself only with the saving of souls. John Wesley tried to restore that connection again and Methodism followed suit. Yet, in the 19th century, Canadian Methodism gradually moved to the middle class and away from the needs of the workers. William Booth, the founder of the Salvation Army, however, left no doubt about the connection between the gospel and social needs in his book In Darkest London and the Way Out.
It should be quite clear by now that, since early Bible times, attempts have been made to ensure that the social side of life was integrally related to the gospel. As far as the Social Gospel is concerned, its proponents argued that the church had failed in several areas to keep the two areas connected.
In its conservative guise the Social Gospel was little more than a restoration of the gospel’s social side. In its radical guise it wanted to transform society. In order to understand the movement, I want to look first at a variety of developments and then at the variety of Social Gospel’s religious views.
Dreadful working conditions
Industrialization began in England in the mid-18th century, but in Canada a century later. Consequently, some of its abuses, which happened mainly in the cities, became apparent later in Canada than elsewhere. With industrialization, time became a commodity. People had to learn to synchronize their time with industry. The tyranny of the clock began to spread and the cheap watch began to appear (in the US in 1880). Time as a commodity created friction for those who had to change their lifestyles. Industrialization also meant working long hours, sometimes up to 16 hours a day. No wonder that people began to clamour for shorter workdays. Moreover, working conditions were dreadful and, not surprisingly, the workers tried to strike.
Employers, many of whom were influential churchmen, strenuously opposed shorter work hours, which, they argued, would hamper international competition. Newspaper articles indicate their views on strikes. In 1872 the Presbyterian Witness remarked on the Toronto printers’ strike that it struck at the very root of personal independence and perpetuated moral demoralization. The Methodist Christian Guardian commented that the workers’ individualistic ethic was untenable, suggesting sobriety as one solution. Later, the Nova Scotia Presbyterian Witness observed that “Strikes are in the main foolish and costly luxuries to all concerned.” Between 1880 and 1900 tension grew between churches and the working class over strikes, resulting in an increasing sense of alienation by workers towards the often middle-class-dominated churches.
The flood of immigrants contributed to the expansion of industries as well as to the anxieties of the churches. Their entry, as well as their exit to the US, created instability and uncertainty at a time of recession and recovery. Most moved to the cities, creating urban problems in housing, water supply, sanitation, public health, transportation, fire and police protection, environment, and city government. They were perceived as posing a threat to the country if they were not assimilated. Long before the Social Gospel appeared, Christian individuals as well as some churches, most notably the Salvation Army, showed concern about these developments. Generally speaking, however, during much of the 19th century the churches showed a remarkable lack of concern about poverty.
Three complications
In addition, two intellectual developments created anxieties for the churches. While there is no need here to review the crisis which Darwin’s theory of evolution provoked, it may be pointed out that many Christians came to accept evolution, not infrequently in its Spencerian social guise. Significant for Social Gospel thinking was that Darwin focused on the origins of species rather than on the survival of the fittest individuals. While the churches had emphasized individual salvation, the Social Gospel showed interest in groups (species).
Historical criticism of Scripture caused a second intellectual crisis. Many Christians came to reject the simple literal interpretation of Scripture. One reaction to these crises led to fundamentalism, another led to an attempt to salvage Christianity by transforming it into an essentially social religion.
Finally, there was still another crisis, which is often overlooked. While men were usually the leaders in the churches, there was also a significant loss of men attending. As one author put it, “the loss of men from church and pulpit was frequently described as a clear sign of the incompatibility between typical religious forms and the masculine character.” Religion came to be regarded as too otherworldly. Men began to equate public profession of faith with unmanliness. Early 19th-century chivalry gradually was transformed into “muscular Christianity” as a way to attract males to the faith. The emphasis was on a strenuous life, character building, self-control, and active service to others. While the Social Gospel cannot be equated with muscular Christianity, the issues of loss of male membership and manly character played a role in the movement.
A mixed bag
It is in this context that various types of Social Gospel emerged. American Social Gospel ideas differed from those in Canada; the Canadian Maritimes differed from Ontario and Ontario from the Prairies; the Presbyterian Church differed from the Methodist Church and the Anglican Church; the conservatives differed from the progressives and these again from the radicals. To cite here just one example: the American Social Gospel was heavily influenced by German theologian Albrecht Ritschl, whose influence in Canada was limited; in fact, the Canadian Social Gospel was influenced by British idealism. Thus, while Willem Visser ‘t Hooft’s 1928 [1963] book on the origins of the Social Gospel is still very useful for the American scene, it is of much more limited use for the Canadian scene. Likewise, Richard Allen’s publications, which concentrated on Methodism, should be treated with considerable care when dealing with Presbyterians.
The Social Gospel had a variety of roots. From evangelicalism it inherited activism. Revivals spread the idea that radical change in life was possible; that God’s love was available to anyone desiring it; and that the individual could take the initiative in approaching God. They popularized the idea that God was an immanent being available to man and working in the process of reformation. They stressed personal repentance and God’s grace for restoration. While much of revivalism borrowed from Arminianism, Presbyterianism, through predestination, provided the foundations for the reassertion of the gospel’s social mandate.
Anglicans, however, did not rely on evangelicalism but on their traditions of paternalism and sacramentalism. After the revivals, the churches started to struggle with original sin in connection with children’s baptism. Out of this struggle emerged the idea of original goodness, which provided a more hopeful basis for Christians to engage in “secular” social reform. Moreover, the sense of an immanent God working in the revivals became transferred to social movements.
Scholars have mentioned Scottish evangelical liberalism and British idealism as roots. I would like to add another theological root. The 19th century saw two diverging forms of millennialism, pre-millennialism, which has influenced so many North American denominations, and post-millennialism. The latter was optimistic and allied to the notion of progress. In its extreme form it held that human beings could establish God’s Kingdom on earth and that progress was providentially ordained. That optimism was shattered by World War I, which was why Richard Allen argued that after WW I the Social Gospel movement was in decline. Not all scholars have agreed with Allen’s assessment, but it cannot be denied that this optimistic post-millennial view contributed significantly to the Social Gospel’s attempt to reform society.
Theologically, the Social Gospel movement cannot easily be defined because it has different wings, different geographic places, and different ecclesiastical backgrounds. Thus the views described here don’t necessarily apply to every group or individual. Two premises, however, seem to hold for most: Christianity was seen as a social religion concerned with the quality of human relations, and competitive individualism was regarded as the fundamental evil that could be overcome by industrial democracy.
It seems to me that the search for a theology can only be understood when keeping these premises in mind. Canadian Christians always related the gospel to some parts of social life and always believed that social action was a religious duty; they also held that individual salvation would precede social regeneration. The Social Gospel wanted to relate the gospel to all of life, and some even held that social regeneration should precede individual salvation. Social Gospellers may never have heard of Kuyper’s “square inch,” but they proclaimed the same thing about the same time as Kuyper. They differed from Kuyper, however, in their much more optimistic view, thinking that they could reconstruct society based on democratic principles.
Rejected the fall
Put differently, they thought they could usher in God’s Kingdom on earth themselves. Consequently, they emphasized God’s immanent activities in the world, while largely ignoring God’s mysterious transcendence. That optimism also led them to reject the doctrine of man’s fall. They were less concerned about individual and more about societal regeneration. Although they expected the “new state” to overcome “big business,” they also wanted the church to be the effective force for social change and thus gain the victory for evangelicalism. Over against the divisions among the people they emphasized the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man (which would replace class conflict). That emphasis manifested itself in cooperation, service, and valuing human personality.
For their ethics they turned to the Old Testament prophets, who, they argued, presented a clear analysis of social conditions and directed their ethical teachings at those who abused the resources of the nation, and to the Sermon on the Mount.They turned away from Paul, who, they argued, had complicated Jesus’ simple gospel. Their ethical emphasis called for sanctification of society rather than for individual sanctification. In its more extreme form Social Gospellers held that religion was “simply the utmost reach of man – his highest thinking about the deepest things in life.”
They abandoned many traditional doctrines, replacing them with an organic, progressive evolutionary view of society. As one historian has argued, they had inadequate doctrines of God, grace, sin, and the church. In their desire to make the Protestant churches culture builders, the churches became in effect little more than clearing houses for research and publicity, and lobbyists for reform legislation. One would not be too far amiss to conclude that in its more extreme form the Social Gospel lacked a systematic intellectual underpinning.
Social involvement
Practically and theoretically, Social Gospellers concerned themselves with a wide range of issues. There were discussions about a weekly rest day; indeed, many strongly adhered to a rather strict Sunday. They talked about Canada’s native peoples, child welfare, challenges to the churches, urbanization, and political issues. They posited that Christian love was sentimental if it was not translated into justice at the socio-political level. They advocated political purity, prohibition, prison reform, the abolition of gambling and prostitution (commercialized vice and white slave traffic). They sought improved educational facilities for the young, and amelioration of the poor conditions facing the working class. They researched industrial life, labour problems, the effects of immigration, and protested against industrial exploitations. They opposed the oppression of the poor and called for a world of social justice. As the American historian William McLoughlin has suggested, the Social Gospel wanted to combine science and religion to uplift the masses.
Views on work
Using science and sociology, Social Gospellers constructed some ideas about work. They viewed work, however hard and difficult, as a necessary element in the education of a human being. It contributed to the growth of character and taught people that they were instruments of a wider good than their own. The key issue to work was motivation: were the workers simply dissatisfied with their conditions and seeking to amass wealth, or were they motivated by an inner desire to improve the collective well-being of the community? The workers deserved support and applause if their attempts to gain higher wages and shorter work hours aimed at providing them with greater opportunities for social and moral progress. They stood condemned if their agitation arose out of a distaste for work or a love of money and ease.
The Presbyterian Social Service Council, a fairly representative Social Gospel body, suggested the application of Christian principles to the operations of industrial associations, whether of labour or capital, a more equitable distribution of wealth, the abolition of poverty, the protection of childhood, the safeguarding of the physical and moral health of women in industrial life, the adequate protection of working people in case of industrial accidents and occupational diseases, Sunday rest for every worker, conciliation and arbitration in industrial disputes (some Mackenzie King influence could be detected here), proper housing, and adequate care of dependent and handicapped persons. Aspects of this list would not raise many eyebrows today.
Success and failure
The Social Gospel seemed to have a lot going for it to attract the workers, but its success was questionable. While the working classes sought greater control over the factors that determined wages and working conditions, the churches had a hard time identifying with these labour issues in meaningful ways. Many influential church members adhered to a laissez-faire perspective of the economy, viewing those left behind in the struggle as lazy, incompetent, or immoral. Moreover, it offered few resources for dealing with the social ills of spreading slums or with inadequately paid workers, who suffered from poor housing, high medical costs, and economic insecurity. The laissez-faire perspective hardly endeared them to the working classes.
Suggested corrections were often hardly adequate. Conservative Social Gospellers usually emphasized personal and ethical issues combined with some legislative reform, while progressive Social Gospellers favoured some state intervention, although they would not go as far as did the socialists, who they thought undermined the solidarity of the community by pitting class against class. Only the radical wing approved of socialism.
Moreover, most leading Social Gospel figures were middle-class people, concerned with social respectability and stability. And, while in theory they had sympathy for the working class, they were all too often far removed from the experiences of the workers. Many Presbyterians were anti-union, identifying it with advocacy of modernism and church union. In addition, they argued that the welfare of the nation rather than the rights of working people were paramount. The effect of the Social Gospel on the workers was thus rather mixed. Few were attracted to the Social Gospel; in fact, they were often attracted to traditional evangelical preaching, while, at the same time, middle-class congregations began to endorse the new, modern tenets of the Social Gospel.
A number of workers who were attracted to Christianity formed labour churches, which on the whole did not survive very long. The strikes of 1919, especially the one in Winnipeg, only aggravated the tenuous connection between labour and the churches. The irony is that, while the churches began to respond to labour upheavals, the workers showed limited interest in the gospel. In other words, the Social Gospel was not able to overcome the disconnect between the churches and workers.
Before the Social Gospel grew strong, people realized there were social problems, but they thought these could be solved by harnessing individual energies and individual wills. In contrast, the Social Gospel posited that the solution could only come through collective effort. Their perspective experienced a boost during World War I when the state exercised significant control over industry. Salem Bland, one of the more radical Social Gospellers, even came to regard public ownership as an essential part of the Kingdom of God on earth, and an attack on it was an attack on Christianity. Politically the Social Gospel manifested itself to some extent in the United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) and the United Farmers of Ontario (UFO).
In the process of reconnecting the gospel with all rather than parts of life, the Social Gospel at times failed to keep a theological balance. This is certainly true for its radical wing. Rather than Christianizing the nation, as was fervently hoped, it may even have contributed to the secularization of society, as some scholars have argued. But the theological weakness should not prevent us from recognizing its strength: the gospel’s claim to be relevant to all of life. More than likely the conservative and progressive wings of the Social Gospel movement would be very much in agreement with the activities of such later 20th- and 21st-century organizations as the Christian Labour Association of Canada, Citizens for Public Justice, Christian Reformed World Relief Committee, and Christian Farmers’ organizations, who seek to connect the gospel with society.
Helpful references
Crucial for an understanding of the Social Gospel Movement are Richard Allen’s books The Social Passion: Religion and Social Reform in Canada 1914-28 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1971) and his edited The Social Gospel in Canada (Ottawa: National Museums of Canada, 1975).
For its secularization, see Ramsay Cook, The Regenerators: Social Criticism in Late Victorian English Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985) and David B. Marshall, Secularizing the Faith: Canadian Protestant Clergy and the Crisis of Belief, 1850-1940 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992).
For different perspective, see Michael Boudreau, “Strikes, Rural Decay, and Socialism: The Presbyterian Church in Nova Scotia Grapples with Social Realities, 1880-1914,” in Charles H.H. Scobie and G.A. Rawlyk, eds. The Contribution of Presbyterianism to the Maritime Provinces of Canada (Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997).
Nancy Christie and Michael Gauvreau. A Full-Orbed Christianity: The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900-1940 (Montreal/Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1996).
Brian J. Fraser, The Social Uplifters: Presbyterian Progressives and the Social Gospel in Canada, 1875-1915 (Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1988).
For its theology, see Harry Antonides, Stones for Bread: The Social Gospel and its Contemporary Legacy (Jordan Station: Paideia Press, 1985) and Willem A. Visser ‘t Hooft, The Background of the Social Gospel in America (Haarlem, 1928; St. Louis: The Bethany Press, 1963).
Bert den Boggende (bertdenb@yahoo.com) has a Ph.D in British history and is a retired teacher. He lives in Brooks, Alberta