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]