:3...

u. .z...

331!
. : .l

.;rvn£v:c.h¢ ‘
f . . luv... .

.. 3..

‘,..y....q..... .
s 2 {V _ .
3.. .

,3...)
3:15:21»
.13... I . 3.

‘3

.

 

{3.2.3 :1
-.., 1.,.

 

fliwfi

.3
. .

 

lWillilll‘lllllI '_
LIBRARY

Michigan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Methodist Responses to Labor Uhrest
In Late Nineteenth Century America:
A Critical Theory

presented by

Robert James Henning

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

The Ph . D. degree in Intendisniplinary
Studies

 

 

Major professor

Milton Powell

Date October 20, 1994

 

MS U L! an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771

PLACE“ BENIN! BOXbmmNMMMywm.
YOAVOIDFINESrdunonorbdmddoduo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE !

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

USU lemmmqflomlm
W1

 

METHODIST RESPONSES TO LABOR UNREST
IN LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY AMERICA:
A CRITICAL THEORY

By

Robert James Henning

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Arts and Letters
Interdisciplinary
History, Philosophy, Religious Studies

1994

ABSTRACT
METHODIST RESPONSES TO LABOR UNREST
IN LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY AMERICA:
A CRITICAL THEORY
By

Robert James Henning

This research project interprets late nineteenth century Methodist responses to
labor unrest in the United States. The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, modified by
Reinhold Niebuhr's concept of irony, serves as the perspective from which these historical
developments are interpreted. The responses are part of the rational process of modemi-
zation which calls for rational critique of economic and political orders controlling society,
culture, and personality. The irony is that Methodist "success" became the source of its
failure.

Methodist responses to labor "earthquakes" of 1877, 1886 and 1894 are
summarized from three official Methodist publications, The Christian Admte (New
York), The Methodist Karim, and Zion's Herald Data also come from writings of
Methodists Rutherford B. Hayes, Frances Willard, and William Carwardine.

Background chapters explore liberation concerns of John Wesley's Methodism,
marriage of Methodist liberation concerns to liberation concerns of American civil reli-
gion, and challenges to the marriage by events of 1877, 1886, and 1894. Three basic
responses were discovered. First, some sought to maintain the marriage by "defending

the institutions," especially by promoting a "Pentecostsl revival" of in-depth spiritual

experiences. Others sought to re-structure the marriage, either with a Gospel of Wealth,
putting greater emphasis on the cultivation of economic virtue, or with a Social Gospel,
putting greater emphasis on converting the society to the kingdom of God. Yet others,
especially Hayes, Willard, and Carwardine, labored for a renewal of the union of concerns
for spirituality and concerns for political liberty by listening and communicating with labor
in quest of a solution. The first two responses exemplify Habennas's interpretation of
modernization leading to "colonization" of the lifeworld by the rational demands of econo-
mic and political structures. The third exemplifies his hope in the rationality of the human
lifeworld to resist and restore social ordering by free communication by all, rather than
order controlled by money or power. Concluding reflections suggest limitations of this

hope in the human quest for rationality.

Copyright by
ROBERT JAMES I-IENNING
l 994

To Barbara, the beautiful person who shares life with me,
and to Christy and Mark, the beautiful children God has blessed us with.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The patient support and encouragement of Professors Powell, Bailey, Peterson,
and Anderson have made completion of the project possible. Milton Powell encouraged
my efforts and guided my writing. David Bailey challenged me to express my theological

convictions. Richard Peterson illuminated Marx, Hegel and Haberrnas and challenged me
to clarity in philosophical expression. Robert Anderson started me on the project and

sUPPOI‘ted my efforts. Each of these persons has not only contributed to this academic

PFOject but has also contributed to me as a person.

My mother and father, Richard and Mary Henning, led me into and encouraged me
in the Christian way, a way of faith matched with social concern. That faith and social
COHCCITI inspired a love of learning, especially learning about the Christian heritage and its
relevance to the oppressed of our day. This project results from that love of learning.

My wife Barb and our children Christy and Mark have Shared my time and
energies with this time-consuming project. In spite of fi'ustrations this has caused, they
have steadfastly supported my efforts, for which I am gratefirl.

I am grateful for the help of these and many others in completing this project.
Most of all, I am gratefirl for the grace of the One who said, "My grace is sufiicient

fo
r you, for power is ;made perfect in weakness."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction
I. Historical Background

A. Liberation in the Wesleyan Tradition
Elements of Communicative Action
Seeking Lifeworld Rationality

B. Marriage to American Civil Religion:
Developing Strategic Action
Seeking Subsystem Rationality

C. Challenges to the Marriage:
Labor Uprisings of 1877, 1886, and 1894

H - Methodist Responses

A. Maintaining the Marriage
Defending Free Institutions and
Promoting Pentecostal Revival--
Strategic Action Seeking Subsystem Rationality

B. Restructuring the Marriage:
The Gospel of Wealth and the Social Gospel--
Strategic Action Seeking Subsystem Rationality

C. Renewing the Marriage:
Listening to Labor in Solidarity--
Communicative Action Seeking Lifeworld Rationality

C
oncluding Reflections

vii

43

82

104

139

179

228

280

INTRODUCTION

The Methodists grow more and more self-indulgent,
because they grew rich. For wherever true
Christianity spreads it must cause diligence and
frugality, which, in the natural course of things,
must beget riches. And riches naturally beget
pride, love of the world, and every temper that

is destructive of Christianity.

«John Wesley1

Wesley's Critique of Christian Discipline
Long before late nineteenth century Methodists faced problems and possibilities
in 1‘ elating to labor, John Wesley had succeeded in methodically organizing many of

his English fellow citizens "to reform the nation, particularly the Church, and to spread

Scriptural holiness throughout the land."2 But, by 1789, two years before his death, he
Saw the irony that the English Church, especially Methodist promoters of holiness within
lt’ had "done so little good in the world." Others might theologize about Original Sin or

indiVidual vices, but Wesley focused on the specific practical problem of "riches" as he

saw it Biblically explained.3 The virtue of spiritual discipline in Methodist small groups
ld become the vice of self sufficiency. Small-group solidarity in disciplined godliness
as replaced by indivrdualistic membership and discipline that no longer shared the fruits

o - . .
f dlllgence in Christian community. A movement that began by attracting many from the

W . . . .
thlng class by solidarity with labor no longer seemed committed to such solidarity.4

1

By the late nineteenth century, the same irony Wesley had seen in late eighteenth
Century England was evident in American Methodism. The Methodist Episcopal Church

the largest American Protestant denomination, had acquired vast wealth in church facil-
5

ities, colleges, and seminaries and boasted a highly financed world missions program.
Yet, the same organization that had declared at the 1784 organizing Conference in Balti-
more its sense of mission "to reform the continent and to spread scriptural holiness over

these lands" had become an institution of wealth and power to be defended against a

perceived threat by the American working class.

Interpreting the Lost Critique
The basic question explored in the following pages is: how may various Metho-

dist responses to late nineteenth century labor unrest in the United States be interpreted
as part of historic developments of the times? More specifically: what interpretation
may be made of the shift in the perfectionist revival movement that had so much to say
befor e the Civil War about freedom for American slaves, yet had so little to say after the
Civil War about freedom from oppression for factory workers? Also, what interpreta-
tion may be made of the role of institutional Methodism, which saw itself as an agent of
Civic reform after the Civil War, yet did not speak up in behalf of the wage laborer?

The data for this research effort are selected on the basis of Henry May's focus

0 O! . .
‘1 three earthquakes" which challenged post-Civil War Protestantism's perspective on

I
ab°r.é My research focuses on responses to three critical events: 1) the July 1877

a"50ml Labor Uprising; 2) the May 4, 1886 Haymarket Bombing and resulting trial and

execution of the Chicago anarchists; and 3) the May to July 1894 Pullman Strike in
Chicago and related National Railway Union Boycott. Data comes from three influential

Methodist publications: The Methodist Reyiem The Christian Adxecate (New York),

and Zion's Herald7 The scholarly bI-monthlyReyim and the more popularly written
weekly Admate were official national Methodist publications. The Herald, controlled
by the Boston Wesleyan Association, spoke for new England Methodism. These three
publications presented a variety of responses and not a single "party line, " so they pro-
vide a “ride-ranging source for the analysis of Methodist responses to late nineteenth
century labor unrest.
Additional data comes from diaries, autobiographies, and other accounts of
Methoclist President Rutherford B. Hayes, Methodist national women's leader Frances
Willard, and Methodist Pastor William Carwardine. Hayes sent troops to subdue the
l 877 Strikes. Willard took sides with labor after the events of May 1886. And, Pastor
Cwardine wrote an extensive commentary on the 1894 Pullman Strike.
The basic philosophic framework for interpreting this segment of history will be

the CI‘itical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, as expressed in his Theory ef Cemmunieatixe

Amiga especially the second volume, Lifewerld and Sgrstem.8 Habermas's Critical
Theo“, involves both a theory of the modernization of society and a theory of the human

1— -
atlonality expressed in that modernization. It is both a social theory and a philosophic
I>ersIDective.9

On the one hand, Habennas interprets the modernization process as an evolution

0‘11 traditional society to a rationally ordered commumcative socral lifeworld to rationally

Ordered political and economic subsystems. The social "lifeworld" includes culture,
Society, and personality, which are, respectively, reproduced, integrated, and socialized
by communicative action. 10 Political and economic subsystems are developed to serve
the more fundamental lifeworld, and they develop a rationality of their own.
On the other hand, Haberrnas observes the steering of the lifeworld by the money
medium of the economic market and the power medium of political administration. He
also notes the challenge to this steering by the more fiindamental medium of language of
the lifeworld.

Modernization, as Habennas interprets it, is a process of the rationalization of
society, leading to conflict of lifeworld and subsystem rationalities—-communicative
actions conflicting with strategic actions--and eventually overcome by the more funda-

mental communicative action seeking lifeworld rationality. Social conversation leads to
rafional worldviews replacing traditional ones. Further conversation leads to rational
eGonornic and political plans for the benefit of the lifeworld. But, the media of money and
p OWCI‘ of the economic and political subsystems come to steer the lifeworld rather than

the Illedium of language. Eventually, the lifeworld asserts itself to put economic and

political rationality in their place, subservient to the rationality of the lifeworld that is de-

t -
errTuned by the medium of language.

Additional perspective for interpreting these events will come from theological
i -
Ilslgins of Wesley and Reinhold Niebuhr. Wesley saw rational economic discipline as a
13(3‘1entia1 threat to the Biblical call to share resources with those in need. He also saw a

D . . . . . . . . ,, .
rt“3km in religious idealism that 15 "Without God, " a moral commitment to justice,

mercy, and truth" that is not grounded in and dependent on a personal experience of

God. 11 Niebuhr saw the irony of American religion that ignores the Christian doctrine

of Original Sin, the irony of a nation whose pretentious claim to virtue is the seed of its

greatest vice.12
What Wesley saw as the threat of "riches," and what Niebuhr saw as the irony
of American virtue becoming the source of its vice, Haberrnas sees as the conflict, in the
modernization process, between the rationality of human communicative society (the
lifeworld) and the rationality of economic and political subsystems, with the media of the
economic and political subsystems, money and power, replacing the language medium
0f the lifeworld. A rationality generated to serve the filndamental rationality of the life-
WOrld takes the place of the rationality it was generated to serve. Mixing the perspec-
tives of Haberrnas and Niebuhr, it was the irony of rationality become irrational. From
weSley's Methodist perspective, it was the irrationality of spiritual discipline leading away
from Spirituality. Disciplined Pentecostal community was replaced by individual quest for
Pentecostal experience.

Each of these thinkers in his own way expresses commitment to rationality that
recogt'tizes potential conflicts in the exercise of human reason, conflicts which, if unrecog-
nized, lead to the use of reason to legitimate bondage and oppression rather than to
erT‘DOVi/er human liberation. Their critical understanding of the conflicts of human reason-
ing l'lelps interpret Methodist efforts to rationally respond to late nineteenth century labor
“them in the United States. Habermas's theory points to a more critical philosophic per-

8
Dective, while Wesley and Niebuhr point to a more critical theological perspective.

Using Haberrnas's framework, three general responses to labor unrest may be
Observed among Methodists. First, institutional Methodism, married to an American
System of Civil Religion, pursued Strategies of defense of the American political system,
including promotion of Pentecostal revival. The "Pentecostal Revival" promoted by
Methodist leaders to save the nation and to save the church was not the glossalalia-
employing ("speaking in tongues") phenomenon of the early twentieth century. Rather,
it was a quest for a "deeper life" spiritual experience to empower for Christian living.
Strategic promotion of such a revival sought to preserve the existing sense of political
and administrative order in the nation and the church. The perfectionist revival move-
ment tnade common cause with this Pentecostal Revival promotion, an individualistic
Pentecostalism, in contrast to Wesley's communal Pentecostalism.

A second Methodist response sought to re-structure the marriage by a new
Gospel of Wealth or Social Gospel. It was a strategy making the rational order of the
economic or political subsystem primary. Whether the individualistic Gospel of Wealth
or the socially compassionate Social Gospel, it placed the rationality of the political or
econ<>tnic subsystems ahead of a communicatively discovered lifeworld rationality.

A third Methodist response, motivated by human compassion, and sometimes
ConneCted with Wesleyan roots, challenged Americans to listen to labor so as to re-vital-
ize the union of Methodist religious concerns for liberation and American political con-
Gems for liberation. This supports Haberrnas's optimistic view that modernizing human

r -
atlotlality contains the source of its own deliverance from the steering of the lifeworld by

learns of money and power. Although Wesley and Niebuhr's theological perspectives

agree with this emphasis on human communicative rationality as more fundamental than
economic or political rationality, they both would see these hopes as unduly optimistic,
Wesley because of "the deceitfulness of riches," and Niebuhr because of the problem
classically identified by the Christian label of Original Sin. Wesley and Niebuhr were
optimistic as to possible social improvement, but their critical and realistic sense of "the
deceitfulness of riches" and the human quest for "power and glory" moderated that
optimism.

On the one hand, Methodism expressed the irony of communal spiritual disci-
pline destroying spirituality through individual and collective prosperity. In Habermas's
sociological and philosophic perspective, it was the modernizing rationality of economic
and political subsystems dominating the rationality of the more fundamental communica-
tive lifeworld. It was the media of money and power steering the human lifeworld rather
than the language of uncoerced communication seeking rationality. On the other hand,
Methodism also displayed the humanity of those motivated by concern to practice the
Spirit Of their Master in community with the working class. In Haberrnas's terms, it was
the rationality of the human communicative lifeworld asserting itself, the "self-conscious-

ness 0f modernity" in action.

Ilabel‘lnas's Interpretive Framework: Critical Theory
Haberrnas's Critical Theory continues the Frankfiirt School's effort to update

[man analysis to take into account twentieth century social and historical realities. 13

[ax Horkheimer, a key early leader in the Frankfiirt school, articulated the basics of

Critical Theory in a 1937 essay titled "Traditional and Critical Theory." 14 He sought

philosophically to refine insights of Marx, an effort continued by Habermas, even as

Reinhold Niebuhr sought theologically to refine Marxian insights. 15 Horkheimer wanted

to avoid what he viewed as a Marxist error of reducing social explanation to economic
factors.16 Niebuhr wanted to avoid what he saw as a Marxian religious apocalyptic

vision whose hope was in a proletariat uncontaminated by any interests to defend. 17
Rather than follow the Traditional Theory of Descartes in organizing experiences

in the light of questions randomly arising from everyday life, Critical Theory, Horkheimer

explains, studies persons "as producers of their own historical way of life in its totality."18

Critical Theory differs from Traditional Theory in exploring social sources of questions
and the likely social uses of science. Rather than follow Traditional Theory's "adoration

of facts and the social conformism this brings with it," Critical Theory seeks "the rational

organization of human activity which it is its task to illumine and legitimate."19 It seeks

"to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers" of humankind, not aiming simply

at an increase of knowledge, but, rather, at human "emancipation from slavery."20 Hork-
heimer explains that it sees itself as holding to the ancient Greek notion of Plato and Aris-

totle ”that the fiee development of individuals depends on the rational constitution of

Society," a belief that inspired Karl Marx to a critique of political economy."21

Critical Theory especially sought to unmask false consciousness so as to emanci-

Date individuals and society:22 On the one hand, Horkheimer explains, it unmasks the

DoDular materialism of the age...camouflaged by idealist slogans" which "has become the

\--

\

l

 

 

 

real religion of the age. "23 Niebuhr's critical perspective similarly unmasked the "work-

ing creed" of materialism most Americans practiced while professing abhorrence of

Communist materialism."24 Similarly, Wesley's critical perspective unmasked preten-

sions to Christianity by those who violated Jesus' command in the Sermon on the Mount,

"Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth."25
Haberrnas builds on Horkheimer's neo-Marxist critique of ideology as he inte-
grates insights of Karl Marx, Max Weber, Talcott Parsons, G. Herbert Mead, and Emile
Durkheim. His theory critically challenges domination of the fundamental human social
lifeworld by the rationality of non—communicative economic and political subsystems of
that lifeworld. He believes that humans are interested in knowledge for emancipatory

reasons that go beyond quests for knowledge for technical control or for achieving tem-

porary social consensus.26 His practice of Critical Theory in the interest of emancipation
is an eXpression of that knowledge interest. as well as of his optimism. His Critical
The-’01? unmasks the ideological role of verbalized concerns for economic or political
rationality by groups with interests to defend from the uncoerced participation of other
groups in the quest for a lifeworld rationality. His Critical Theory helps in interpreting
the ideological nature of some Methodist responses to labor unrest in late nineteenth
cenmry America. Those with interests to defend, interests resulting partly from religious
discipline, placed the rationality of political and economic subsystems ahead of the
rationality of the communicative lifeworld.

Haberrnas's Critical Theory relates especially to what has happened in the

‘Odernization of Western society. He notes Max Weber's explanation of the process of

5"“ .
,1..‘.»

av. .-
I

 

o
to.

 

 

10

the modernization of society as primarily a developing "rationalization" that "disenchants"

worldviews from traditional bases to rational ones.27 Thomas McCarthy explains that
despite Enlightenment hopes to the contrary: "The triumph of reason brings with it not a

reign of freedom but the dominion of impersonal economic forces and bureaucratically

organized administrations."--what Weber termed an "iron cage."28 The Critical Theory
ofHorkheimer and others became somewhat resigned to this "reification" of conscious-

ness and the domination by a "means/end rationality" of "instrumental reason" that de-

revolutionized the proletariat into submission to the demands of a consumer society.29

Haberrnas maintained the insights of Critical Theory and of Weber by "shifting
paradigms" from "philosophy of consciousness" and "critique of rationalization as con-

sciousness" to an analysis of communicative foundations of social action and the relation-

Ship of systems theory to social integration.30 First, he added to the concept of "instru-
mental action" seeking a rational order (teleological) the concept of "communicative
action" seeking a rational order. Second, he joined concepts of the human quest for
"lifeworld rationality" to the concept of the modernizing quest for "system rationality" in
the economy and politics. He did this by using the sociological theory of G. Herbert
Mead to explain communicative foundations of human society, the sociological theory of
Emile Durkheim to explain the material foundations of society preceding communicative
foundations, and the systems theory of Talcott Parsons to explain the fiinctional develop-

ment of economic and political subystems of the more fundamental social lifeworld

System.

ll

Haberrnas analyzes society from the perspective of human language-"language-

in-use" or speech rather than syntax or semantics.31 he argues that the speech act
implies solidarity, and that this solidarity calls for communication free of coercion. This
is not a "foundationalist" appeal to an epistemological base that may not be questioned,
but an analysis of the rationality of human communicative action. Building on Critical
Theory's concept of persons as "producers of their own way of life in its totality," Haber-
mas explains:
If we assume that the human species maintains itself through the
socially coordinated activities of its members and that this coor-
dination is established through communication--and in certain

spheres of life, through communication aimed at reaching agree-
ment--then the reproduction of the species also requires satisfy-

ing the conditions of a rationality interest in communicative action.32
Haberrnas's foundation is not something the individual, autonomous thinker may
discover, as with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." Rather, it is the human communica-
tive efl‘ort engaged in for social coordination needed to reproduce the species. This
efl‘Ol't often involves communication seeking agreement. For the communication to seek
uncoerced agreement, appeals must be made based on rational justification. In an intro-
ductow survey of Critical Theory in general and of Haberrnas's Critical Theory in par-

ticular, Paul Lakeland explains that the theory of truth presented by Haberrnas involves

not ol‘lly consensus, but a consensus with rational justification, "if and only if every other

perSOn who could enter in a dialogue...mould" agree.33 Lakeland continues to quote
Iiiabet‘rnas as stating: "The condition of the truth of statements is the potential agreement

of all others." This communicative quest for potential agreement is implied by the speech

12

act.
As he closes the first volume of The Theory of Communicatixe Action, Haber-
mas notes that, to avoid problems of seeing rationalization as the "reification" ("thingifica-
tion") of consciousness, he will turn in his second volume to the theories of G. Herbert

Mead and Emile Durkheim to be free of the assumptions of a philosophy of conscious-

ness- 34 He sees Mead and Durkheim as explaining social reality without resorting to
non-material emphasis on "consciousness."

Haberrnas uses Mead to explain the "communication-theoretic foundation of

sociology. "35 This is a kind of "social behaviorism" in that it begins with observable
reality and rejects a phiIOSOphy of consciousness whose fundamental data would be
human consciousness that becomes objectified in social relations, but it does not involve

behavioristic explanation of group behavior in terms of the conditioning of individuals by

their environment.36 Rather, it rejects "methodological individualism" and objectivism
for "reconstruction of general structures of linguistically mediated interactions."

Mead viewed the self as an "internalized conversation" among a "me," a "gener-

al“Zed other," and an "I."37 The sense of self or "me" is experienced from the stand-

po‘nts of other persons in society by way of gestures that become univeralized in the

Syl“hols of language.38 The self is not experienced in "consciousness," but in the
gestul‘e—mediated perspective of others. A similar process leads to a sense of the organ- ~

lzed Community and its expectations, which Mead terms the "generalized other. "39

Mg takes place as the individual takes the attitude of the generalized other.40 This

13

process of personality formation takes place essentially through language, "predominantly

based on the vocal gesture by means of which co-operative activities in a community are

carried out."41 The "I" is the individual response to a situation, not calculable, but some-

thing that "just happens" and is experienced only after an act has been carried out.42

The personality in social experience is thus a conversation among a "me" (what others
define the self as by gestures), a "generalized other" (what gestures tell the self the social
order is), and an "1" (individual responses to situations). Society is composed of selves

interacting in this fashion, neither understandable primarily in terms of consciousness nor
primarily in terms of external behavior.
Haberrnas uses Mead's sociology to understand the rationalization of society
Weber observed. He does this to avoid problems of viewing society as a reification of
the rationality of consciousness, such problems as a split between internal, subjective
ideas and an external, objective world. Then he uses Durkheim's "theory of social soli-

darity" and of religion to explain the historic origins ("phylogenetic" foundations) of the

anthority of the generalized other, with its sacred symbols.43

Durkheim explained that the social order rested on a non-rational foundation de-
ter“lined by the density of social interactions and mediated by rituals energized by
S°°iety Rejecting utilitarian assumptions of isolated individuals preceding society and
entering into contract for individual advantage, Durkheim contended that social unity

must precede individual interests, since mere self-interest would serve only to divide indi-

Vlduills fi'om one another.44 A sense of social cohesion "essentially due to a community

-
.bhl

.a In

. a
. a . .t. -5.

 

14

of beliefs and sentiments" must precede any division of labor.45 That pre-contractual

social cohesion was grounded in rituals with "collective representations, " shared social

symbols of an agreed on social order that preceded rational discussion.46 Those rituals

were what Randall Collins explains as "a moment of extremely high social density"--high

physical density with an added component Durkheim called moral density.47

The "collective conscience" of that society changed from a "concrete conscience"
to a more "abstract conscience" as the society became "more voluminous."48 The

society itselfbecame more "rational," since: "That alone is rational which is universal."49

Also, because of increased "social density," the individual is "made more and more free
of the yoke of the organism" (instinctually determined actions).50 "The organism is spiri-

tualized" (socialized), distinguishing humans from animals.51 But, at the foundation of all

this was the ritual, symbolic unity generated by shared experiences investing society with
the anthority of a god to its members.52 That divine authority could be incarnate in flags

or Other formulae, or in persons, real or mythical.53 The spiritual cohesion of societiy
always rested in a non-rational social solidarity.

Haberrnas weaves together varied sociological insights into a Critical Theory of
SoCiety. It seeks to unmask and emancipate from domination of the human lifeworld by
the rationality of economic and political subsystems. Thomas McCarthy explains that
I~111bet‘rnas sees society as engaged in communicative actions of understanding, coordina-

ti . . . . . .
on, and sociation by means of speech acts that are proposrtlonal, illocutlonary, or ex-

pressive.“ This affects the three basic elements of the "lifeworld," which are culture,

 

.
‘Ji ‘
_i‘ -
ass-‘9‘
, .
.5" ~
u—h ~
0

 

 

;
n‘:
i.‘

 

 

15

society, and personality. Culture is reproduced. Society is integrated. Personality is
socialized. If the logic or rationality of the economic or political systems is subservient to
these concerns, so much the better. But, when they dominate the more fundamental
lifeworld, as they ofien do, they must be resisted.

Haberrnas acknowledges that the rationality of the economic market and the
rationality of political administration came to dominate the more fundamental lifeworld
with modernization, producing Weber's "iron cage." But, he sees Durkheim's and

Mead's theories as pointing to natural and rational sources of resistance, Durkheim's to
ritual social solidarity grounded in material reality, and Mead's to a socially defined self.

As rationalization has proceeded with modernization, political and economic sub-

systems have been differentiated fiom the more fimdamental social lifeworld, with their
own political and economic rationality. The strategic and instrumental actions taken in be-
half of political and economic subsystems increasingly come to dominate the communica-
tive rationality of the more fiindamental lifeworld in a process Haberrnas terms "steering."
The Political and economic subsystems, governed by the impersonal media of money and
power, "steer" the more fundamental "lifeworld," which, of itself, would seek to be gov-
emed by communicative consensus through the medium of language. The rationalization
of put'1)Osive/strategic/instrumental action in work that seeks "extension of power of
techhical control" has come to dominate the more fiindamental rationalization of lifeworld

“teraction, which seeks "extension of communication free of domination."55

Haberrnas uses insights of Marx to interpret this as a kind of "colonizing" which

an be resrsted and reversed by the actrvrty of "commumcatlve rationality." Weber and

W‘

u,‘

'I

\

‘19-;1

a
. _,.,

 

ii iii I:

15 .-

e!‘
V“

I
‘1
Q

‘H .

 

ii

 

16

Others "could locate the spontaneity that was not yet in the grip of the reifying force of

Systemic rationalization only in irrational powers--in the charismatic power of the leader

Or the mimetic power of love."56 In contrast to that perspective, Haberrnas argues that
lifeworld rationality involved "rationalization of worldviews" before organized domains
0f action (political and economic subsystems) could develop. Then, he concludes: "It is
only this communicative rationality, reflected in the self-understanding of modernity, that

gives an inner logic-mot merely the impotent rage of nature in revolt-~to resistance
"57

against the colonization of the lifeworld by the inner dynamics of autonomous systems.

Methodism and Modernization:
Gracious Ability to Rational Ability

Bernard Semmel has made the case that John Wesley's Methodism was much
more liberal and optimistic than Calvinism in seeing possibilities of grace overcoming sin

m human life and community. Thus, Wesley was a significant contributor to the transition

to modern society.58 While Semmel makes Wesley out to be more of a rational human-
iSt than he was, his observation of Methodism's role in "modernization" links both Wesley
and his spiritual descendants of the 18905 to Haberrnas's "communicative rationality, re-
flected in the self-understanding of modernity" that gave "inner logic" to resistance to col-
Quiz"=1tion of the social and political lifeworld by media of money and power. For Wesley,
it was a miracle of divine grace empowering Christians to responsibly resist the deceitful-

ness Of money and power. For Habermas, it would be a manifestation of "the self-under-

standing of modernity."

 

17

Robert Chiles explains how Methodism moved from Wesley's emphasis on

divine grace to late nineteenth and early twentieth century emphasis on human freedom

and ability.59 Methodist optimism in the face of threats of domination by money and
Power came to be grounded in a "self-understanding of modernity" rather than divine

grace. In Chiles's terms, it was a move from a concept of "sinfiil man" to a concept of

"moral man."60

But, this optimism was severely challenged by inescapable realities which Metho-

dist Social Gospelers sometimes evaded in their challenge to fellow Christians to "rise up"

and apply Christian faith to the social needs of the day.61 Sidney Mead has argued that

this optimism led to a substitution of sociology for theology, and by the early twentieth

century it resulted in a "new theology" that was "secularized and innocuous."62 But, such
realities as unmerited suffering, death, and the twisted pride that divides humankind were
"0t Overcome by human activity in "rising up" in collective Christian action against them.
These realities would eventually push many Methodist Social Gospelers back to the clas-

s' - . . . . . . .
to Christian proclamation stressrng dlvme redemption from human Sinfillness and resur-

rectiOn afier suffering and death.

Nlel"lllr's Critique of Democracy:
Limitations of Communicative Action

Reinhold Niebuhr's analysis sought to relate the traditional Christian proclamation
0 the liberal modernization effort as that modernization has sought expressron in demo-
crafic community. Concerning the American experience, he observed: "The conviction

of file perfect compatibility of virtue and prosperity which we have inherited from both

18

Our Calvinist and Jefl‘ersonian ancestors is challenged by the cruel facts of history."63
His critical perspective presents an ironic challenge to Haberrnas's confidence in the
"inner logic” of human communicative rationality to resist the steering of the human life—
world by the media of money and power. He used the concept of irony to describe the
Way the human communicative ideal, free of coercion, is often most severely undermined
by the twisted pride of its most passionate advocates. Niebuhr explained:
The religious vision of a final realm of perfect love in which
life is related to life without the coercion of power is changed
into the pretension that a community, governed by prudence,
using covert rather than overt forms of power, and attaining
a certain harmony of balanced competitive forces, has
achieved an ideal social harmony.(64)

Seeking to provide a realistic justification for democracy, Niebuhr asserted:

Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man's
inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.(65)

The lifeworld quest for rational order free of domination might inspire democratic ideals.

Bl“, the frequently masked human quest for "power and glory" inclines persons and

groups to seek to dominate others "for their own good."66 Haberrnas might envision a
evolt against political or econorruc rationality 1n the name of a more human communal

F ' . . . . . . . .
anonallty. But, Niebuhr would force that vrsron toward the political realism of recogniz-

i - . . .
“3 In all participants "some corruption of rnordmate self-love."67

Haberrnas notes the deceptive domination of the lifeworld of human society by
the, l‘ationality of economic and political subsystems of the lifeworld. He sees hope in the
human drive for a rational lifeworld resisting domination by media of money and power.

0“ the other hand, Niebuhr notes the deceptive domination of human social ideals for fill-

l9

fillment in society by the human will to "power and glory. " His hope is in "wisdom" by
"the children of light" to "see the power of self-interest in human society"—-including them-
selves--and to "beguile, deflect, harness, and restrain self-interest, individual and collec-

tive, for the sake of human community."68

Setting and Responses

In the chapters which follow, I will apply Haberrnas's analysis to interpret varied
Methodist responses to labor unrest in late nineteenth century America. I will note those
Methodists whose concerns for political and economic rationality "steered" their con-
cerns for social order. I will note those Methodists whose concerns for the total human
community, motivated by religious understandings of "love of neighbor" and New Testa-
ment community, as well as "the self-understanding of modemity," led them to resist the
"COIODization of the social lifeworld by the media of money and power." I will also note
the theological forgetfiilness that assumed that the human quest for rational order in the

Social lifeworld, even when seeing itself as empowered by divine grace, too easily forgot
the motivations of self-interest in "power and glory."
In my first chapter, based largely on secondary literature and some of Wesley's
Works) I will sketch the way John Wesley's Methodism pursued solidarity with the
oppressed of his day in England and sought their holistic liberation by means of a theolo-
gicany grounded communicative rationality. At first, Wesley had done this to earn his

own Salvation. Later, it was a matter of "working out" the salvation he had experienced

as a gift of God's Spirit.69 A recent study of Wesley’s thought by Theodore Jennings, Jr.

20

explains that, in Wesley's case, this was a "preferential option for the poor."70 Jennings
also observes and analyzes the failure of this "preferential option" to continue among

Wesley's English and American spiritual descendants.

Wesley had sought to discover what it meant to "take sides with God" in the
social life of his Oxford University "Holy Club," in the religious societies and class
meetings he organized, and in the Annual Conferences of preachers he organized.
Although he and his American representative Francis Asbury ruled the developing Meth-
odist movement with an iron hand for strategic reasons, the foundation of their authority
was an " appeal to mean of reason and religion, " in Wesley's case, or an appeal to Gener-
al Conference, in Asbury's case. But, by the end of the nineteenth century in the United
States, social modernization had resulted, in Haberrnas's terms, in the "colonization" of
the rationality of the firndamental social lifeworld by the rationality of monetary and
bureaucratic systems. The informal communicative action of Wesley's religious societies
and Class meetings, as well as the greater informality of pre-Civil War American class
meetings and small group quests for holiness, had been replaced by the strategic action
and rationality of more formalized large group meetings, from more formalized worship
SerViCes to National Camp Meetings for the Promotion of Holiness, to Methodist-sup-
ported city-wide evangelistic rallies.
In my second chapter, also based largely on secondary literature, I will sketch
the Way American Methodism became institutionalized and manied to the developing
Amer”ktan Civil Religion by the end of the Civil War. The Christmas Conference organ-

\Zing the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States in 1784 had stated its purpose

21

to be "to reform the continent and to spread scriptural holiness over these lands." It was
an application of John Wesley's similar vision for England. "Holiness" for Wesley in-
volved eudemonistic concern for human happiness through wholehearted love for God
and neighbor achieved through spiritual liberation that would in turn liberate from social
and economic barriers to human community. It was sometimes expressed by Wesley
with the somewhat misleading term "Christian perfection." The very term suggests an
impossible ideal or a group of legalistic and pretentious persons professing to have
achieved that ideal. However, Wesley viewed this as a promise of spiritual wholeness
enabling joyful and loving lives of service to humankind by very imperfect persons in the
midst of a very imperfect world. His concern for human happiness and wholeness is
Summarized by Wesley scholar Albert Outler in his Iheology in the Malayan
m7 1

Wesley's concerns for social and economic liberation are documented in Jen-
nings's Good News 1.0. the Boot. Within the half century after American Methodism's
founding, it decided that its vision "to reform the continent" no longer included the libera-

ti . . . . .
on of abolishing human slavery. As it moved from "sect" status to "denomrnatron"

Status, to use the terminology of Richard Niebuhr's Ihe Social Sources QfDfiani:

Wm. it became more concerned to preserve its political unity throughout the nation

than it was to preserve its reforming mission.72 However, the developing institutional
IVlefl'KDdism (the Episcopacy and General Conference) was challenged by a perfectionist
moVement within Methodism, reinforced by Puritan visions of a "Christian America" and

mote in keeping with Methodism's original concern for human liberation, which challenged

 

 

 

‘V' ¥..

s...

 

‘J
’

I".
f

‘4
‘a
~P‘n‘\
'\
-
h

22

institutional Methodism to return to the vision of human liberation from slavery. Some
perfectionists refirsed to involve themselves in political issues, including Phoebe Palmer's
Widely influential Tuesday Meeting for the Promotion of Holiness, begun in the 183 Os, but
many others, such as Gilbert Haven, Lucius Matlack, and Luther Lee, insisted that spiri-
tual perfectionism demanded the abolition of slavery.

After the Civil War, the movement to revive Wesleyan perfectionism re-united
with institutional Methodism, sharing a vision for "Christianizing America." By then,

Methodism had become united with and a powerful advocate for the developing Ameri-

can Civil Religion.73 However, in a somewhat puzzling turn of events, the perfectionist
movement called for a return to early Methodist spiritual perfectionism, but it no longer
challenged institutional Methodism, or the nation as a whole, to be reformed to the extent
many of its members had called for the abolition of slavery befOre the Civil War. These
new Perfectionists included the National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion

Of Holiness, organized in 1867, Eastern in origin and essentially supportive of institutional

IVlethodism, and regional associations, organized in the 18705, Middle and Far Western

in origin, and essentially critical of the authority of institutional Methodism. The national

and regional associations were in historical continuity with the "Pentecostalism" that
would develop by 1900, emphasizing speaking in tongues and other dramatic gifls of the
Spirit- They were in many respects responding to the threat perceived from the industri-

a‘ization of America, and to the urbanization and immigration that went together with that
h‘duStrialization. At the same time, institutional Methodism was responding with the de-

fense of American "free institutions" and others would eventually develop the "Gospel of

 

.-

I
I“-l

u.-
’r

.’

 

‘\

.7

i

l I

23

Wealth" and the "Social Gospel."

Following chapters on Wesley's Methodism and early nineteenth century Ameri-
can Methodism, I will summarize the three labor "earthquakes’ of 1877, 1886, and
1894. Sources for this will include secondary literature and reports in selected Methodist

publications. Chapters four through six will interpret basic Methodist responses to these

earthquakes.

Chapter four will consider the first pair of Methodist responses to late nineteenth
century labor unrest. They sought to maintain the marriage of Wesleyan liberation con-
cerns to American Civil Religious liberation concerns by the strategic actions of defending
free institutions and promoting Pentecostal revival. Institutional Methodism, seeking to
defend fi‘ee institutions, placed political rationality ahead of the lifeworld rationality of
cOIIlmunicative action with labor. The perfectionist National Holiness Association placed
a certain political rationality ahead of communicative rationality, believing that by seeking
"deeper life spiritual experiences" and maintaining political unity the church and the nation

would be changed for the better. Institutional leadership, represented by Methodist edi-

t . . . . . .
orS’ Promoted the same Pentecostal experiences, both for the spiritual benefit of rndrvr-

duals and to maintain the political order.
A second set of responses, which I shall discuss in my fifth chapter, sought to
rest“lfiture the marriage of Wesleyan liberation concerns and American Civil Religion.
Adh'firents of the developing "Gospel of Wealth" sought to de-emphasize efforts to
dire(:tly "Christianize" America and to cultivate virtues in individual workers and indivi-

(“‘3‘ owners of capital who would maintain and develop the economic order. They

24

placed the economic rationality of individual responsibility and philanthropy in the "free
market" ahead of the lifeworld rationality requiring communicative action in relating to
labor. Together with institutional Methodists and Pentecostal revivalists, advocates of
the Gospel of Wealth adhered to what Eric F oner terms a middle classs "Free Labor

Ideology"--"a stolid liberal orthodoxy, in which individualism, laissez-faire, the defense of

property, and the rule of the 'Best Men' defined good government."74
On the other hand, proponents of what became the "Social Gospel" were in-
clined to turn to what Foner terms the working class version of the Free Labor Ideology,

"an affirmation of the primacy of the producing classes and a critique of the emerging

capitalist order."75 However, these same Social Gospelers also wanted to restructure
the marriage of Wesleyan perfectionist revivalism and American Civil Religion. They
wanted more emphasis on social liberation and perfection and less on individual spiritual
liberation and perfection. And, they wanted more emphasis on enacting the kingdom of
God in America. They often placed the political rationality of dependence on an elite of
the educated and morally mature ahead of the rationality of the lifeworld to be found in
communicative solidarity with the working class. Many Social Gospelers pursued their
strategy as an alternative to the perceived threat of "barbarism" to American institu-

tions.76

A third kind of response, which I shall examine in my sixth chapter, sought to
renew the marriage of Wesleyan liberation concerns with American Civil Religious liber-
ation concerns by renewing communicative action seeking lifeworld rationality. In addi-

tion to several advocates of a Social Gospel who contributed to the Methodist press,

25

three other Methodists of this period exemplify the quest for a lifeworld rationality that
would keep the subsystem rationality of politics and economics secondary to the ration-
ality of the more fidndamental social lifeworld. Rutherford B. Hayes, a layman active in
the Methodist Episcopal Church (although he felt himself unworthy to be an official mem-
ber), sent Federal troops to maintain order in 1877, but came to describe himself as a
”nihilist" by the early 18903. He was able, to a degree, to identify with the lack of power
for working class persons, since he saw American political institutions becoming "govern-
ment of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich." Frances Willard, Methodist leader of the
Women's Christian Temperance Union, although she once saw the solution of labor
problems chiefly in temperance, came to make the risky step of taking sides with labor

in 1886. And, Methodist Pastor William Carwardine of George Pullman's model factory
town in Illinois went so far as to preach a sermon and write a book in 1894 supportive

of the cause of the oppressed workers there.

Pastor Carwardine had originally endorsed neither the strike by Pullman employ-
ees nor the sympathy boycott by Eugene Debs's American Railway Union. But, as one
who found himself in solidarity with Pullman employees, he felt he must speak up for
them. As a Christian pastor, he saw it as a matter of "taking sides with God." He wrote:

Napoleon said God was always on the side of the heaviest battal-

ions, but God himself has said that He is on the side of righteous-

ness and justice for the poor and needy, and that he will avenge

their cause against the oppressor.(77)

In Haberrnas's terms, Carwardine was pursuing the lifeworld rationality of communica-

tive action, a communicative action requiring dialogue among George Pullman, his em-

26

ployees, and the rest of society.78 He was rejecting solutions to labor-capital problems
which would make the primary concern in resolving the strike strategic and instrumental

action aimed at rationality in political and economic subsystems of the total lifeworld. He

advocated "National and State Courts of Arbitration" to settle such disputes.79

Concluding Reflections

In my final chapter, I will present some reflections on philosophical and theolog-
ical issues raised by this study. On the one hand, Methodist responses raise the prob-
lems of religious legitimation of oppression. They also raise the problem of a quest for
truth and justice that excludes dialogue with non-religious persons. On the other hand,
Methodist responses and the Wesleyan heritage suggest promise of help. Although many
Methodists sided with political and economic rationality against a more fundamental life-
world rationality that would include strikers, other Methodists' religion drove them to take
sides with labor. Also, the Wesleyan heritage in particular and the Christian hope in gen-

eral is hope in the fact of incoherences in Haberrnas's solidarity perspective explicitly

cited by Helmut Peukert and implied by Niebuhr.80

Haberrnas's Critical Theory unmasks the ideology of some Methodist responses
to late nineteenth century labor unrest. A political or economic order in their self interest
was more basic than an uncoerced communicative lifeworld. The conflict of rationalities
(lifeworld vs. economic and political) helps interpret the irony Wesley observed in spiritu-
ally disciplined Methodists becoming unspiritual. Their strategic spiritual quest for econo-

mic and political rationality was steering the more fundamental need for lifeworld

27

rationality in an inclusive Pentecostal community.

Haberrnas's Critical Theory also helps in interpreting efforts at solidarity through
communication by other Methodists. Persons such as Hayes, Willard, and Carwardine
pursued a lifeworld rationality that was more holistic than that of those focusing on politi-
cal or economic rationality. They were expressions of an "inner logic" of the moderniza-
tion process that resisted colonization of the lifeworld by the logic of economic or political
subsystems.

But, Hayes, Willard, and Carwardine eventually confronted three barriers to
human communicative solidarity: 1) undeserved suffering; 2) death; and 3)n the twisted
pride that prevents human communicative action. Helmut Peukert's analysis of Haberrnas
deals with the first two issues and Reinhold Niebuhr's deals with the third. Peukert
points to the challenge of undeserved suffering and death to the logic of solidarity implied
by the human speech act. Niebuhr points to the conflict between expectation of a human-
ly discovered rational solution to social problems and the irrationalities of human experi-
ence.

Methodism has also always been, in its finer moments, hopeful of grace overcom-
ing sin, not sin as private vice or metaphysical substance, but sin as pride and selfishness
than resists Pentecostal community. There was irony in Methodist responses to late
nineteenth century labor unrest, the irony of a disciplined working class movement be-
coming middle class and showing its loss of spiritual disicpline by forgetfulness of its
Christian calling to join its Master on the side of the poor. But, along with the irony,

there was the humanity of Methodists going beyond any particular ideology to express

u
-0'1
-

 

 

 

28

love of their Master and love of neighbor because driven by a shared human concern to
love neighbor, or because driven by the Pentecostal Spirit described in Acts 2 in the
Christian New Testament. Haberrnas would interpret it as an "inner logic" of the moder-
nization process overcoming subsystem colonization of the human communicative life-

world. Wesley would interpret it as grace overcoming sin in Pentecostal community.

NOTES

‘1th Wesleys Sermons: An Anthology, Edited by Albert C. Outler and
Richard P. Heitzenrater (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991), p. 556, in a sermon by
Wesley which his historic editors have titled "Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity"
(pp. 550-557).

2"Minutes of Several Conversations Between the Rev. Mr. John Wesley and
Others From the Year 1744 to the year 1789," by John Wesley in The Works of
John Wesley, Volume VIII, Addresses, Essays, Letters (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, undated reprint of 1872 edition from the Wesleyan
Conference Oflice in London), p.299.

3 Albert Outler, Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit (Nashville: Tidings, 1975),
has summarized Wesley's perspective on Original Sin in a chapter titled "Diagnosing
the Human Flaw: Reflections on the Human Condition" (pp. 23-44). As with Wes-
ley's sermons on the topic, though, the discussion focuses on the relation of Original
Sin to the need for divine grace for salvation. It does not deal with the impact of
Original Sin on human organizational life--in the church, in politics, and in other rela-
tionships. Wesley's sermons "On Sin in Believers" (1763), "The Repentance of Be-
lievers" (1767) and "The Duty of Constant Communion" (1787) , as reproduced in
Cutler and Heitzenrater, op. cit, call Methodists to humility and confession of sins,
but they do not analyze the impact of Original Sin on Methodist accumulation of
riches due to spiritual discipline going together with economic discipline. Outler

29

(pp. 40-41), attempting to express Wesley's theological spirit, one that included

both Protestant emphasis on justification by faith and Roman Catholic emphasis on
holy living, gives a generalized definition of sin that is missing in Wesley. Outler
writes: "Sin is not our actual misdeeds, nor even the evil impulses that still lurk in the
murky depths of the human heart. Sin it its essence is human oyemeachuthe reck-
less abuse of our human outreachings and upreachings--those aspirations that make
us human but whose corruptions make us less than truly human. Sin is the bitter
fruit of pride. It springs from out intimations of the infinite and our desires to avoid
or escape the actual terms of our finite existence. Sin is our unwillingness to be rad-
ically dependent upon God 'for life and breath and all things.” Outler relates this

to quests for liberation sliding into oppression of others, quests for learning becom-
ing intellectual arrogance, quests for self-knowledge and self-control turning into nar-
cissism and self-deception, and pursuit of joy getting stuck in nostalgia or depression.

Wesley would have agreed, but his approach was not so explicitly theologi-
cal. Rather than relate to the theological concept of Original Sin, Wesley attacked
"The Danger of Riches" in so many of his sermons that Outler and Heitzenrater (op.
cit, p. 451) suggest the generalization that "surplus accumulation leads Wesley's in-
ventory of sins in praxis." Rather than a theological analysis of the origin of the quest
for excess accumulation, Wesley warns his fellow Methodists of this great danger to
Christian living. Outler and Heitzenrater (loo. cit.) conclude: "What is interesting is
that Wesley's economic radicalism on this point has been ignored, not only by most
Methodists, but by the economic historians as well."

4Wesley challenged Methodists "who continually grieve the Holy Spirit of
God.” He declared: "Many of your brethren, beloved of God, have not food to eat;
they have not raiment to put on; they have not a place to lay their head. And why
are they thus distressed? Because you impiously, unjustly, and cruelly detain from
them what your Master and theirs lodges in your hands on purpose to supply their
wants!" (Outler and Heitzenrater, op. cit, p. 553)

Responding to those who might question whether all the poor could be sup-
plied this way, Wesley referred to the model Pentecostal church in Jerusalem in Acts
2 in the Christian New Testament: "It was possible once to do this... In the first
church at Jerusalem 'there was not any among them that lacked, but distribution was
made to everyone as he had need.” (p.554) Observing that Methodists were leav-
ing large fortunes to their children rather than help the poor, Wesley proposed giving
a small amount to the poor after he had given these biting reflections: "But I will not
talk of giving to God, or leaving half your fortune. You might think this to be too high
a price for heaven. I will come to lower terms." In further remarks in this sermon
applying the Hebrew prophet J eremiah's words ("Is there no balm in Gilead?") to his

30

day, Wesley explains concerning Methodists: "Although many of them are still deplor-
ably poor ('Tell it not in Gath; publish it not in Askelonl'), yet many others, in the
space of twenty, thirty, or forty years, are twenty, thirty, yea, a hundred times richer
than they were when they first entered the society. And it is an observation which ad-
mits of few exceptions, that nine in ten of these decreased in grace in the same pro-
portion as they increased in wealth. Indeed, according to the natural tendency of
riches, we cannot expect it to be otherwise."(p.556) The Gath and Askelon where
Jeremiah had urged to "tell it not" were enemy Philistine cities he did not want to hear
of the ineffectiveness of faith in the Hebrew community. Wesley recognized how this
ironic powerlessness undercut the appeal of the Christian Gospel.

Although welcoming any who would propose another solution to this problem,
Wesley saw only one way "to hinder riches from destroying the religion of those who
were diligent and frugal. The only route to "escape the damnation of hell" was to "giye
all you can" to persons in need.(p.556) Wesley's three rules of stewardship--"gain all
you can, save all you can, and give all you can"--must go beyond gaining and saving
to giving. Otherwise, Methodist discipline would spiritually destroy Methodists.

Wesley's classic statement of his three rules of stewardship, "The Use of
Money," is found in Outler and Heitzenrater, op. cit, pp. 348-357. Outler and
Heitzenrater observe: "The breach here with the economic wisdom of the day is
drastic and deliberate. On no other single point, save only faith alone and holy
living, is Wesley more insistent, consistent, and out of step with the bourgeois spirit
of his age.

5Methodist statistical bragging is a common occurrence in the 18805 and
18905 in The Methodist Reyiery (MR), The Christian Adyocate--New York
(NY CA), and Zion's Hetald (ZH). The goal of a "Million for Missions" was adver-
tised regularly in these papers, successes were reported, and the standard was raised
to $1,200,000. The 1892 General Conference included pleas for greater spirituality,
but such self-congratulatory statements as Bishop R.S. Foster's speech in behalf of
all the Bishops arguing that "both the church and general society are advancing to a
better future."(ZI-I, May 1, 1992, p. 1) Foster cited a numerical increase of 442,000
in the previous four years (1888-1892) as compared with an increase of 264,000 the
preceding four years (1884-1888). Also, speaking of less emotional excitement but
greater stability, he praised the increase in Methodist seminary enrollment because, as
he put it: "We must meet the demand for an educated pulpit." NYCA of May 19,
1992 included a supplement with the Bishops' report of increases in numbers, foreign
missions, church publications, and revivals.

31

6Henry May, Protestant Churches and Industrial America (New York: Har-
per & Brothers, 1949). May's earthquakes are: 1) the July 1877 National Labor
Uprising, which began with railroad strikes; 2) the May 4, 1886 Haymarket Bomb-
ing and related striking, including the hanging of the Chicago anarchists; 3) the 1893
depression and related 1892 lockout and management-labor violence at Carnegie
Steel in Homestead, Pennsylvania, as well as the 1894 Pullman Strike in Chicago
and related boycott by the American Railway Union. To simplify the research, I fo-
cused on the Pullman Strike for the third earthquake.

7The following abbreviations will be used to represent these three Methodist
publications: NYCA--The Christian Adyoeate (New York); MR--Ihe Methodist
Renew (The Methodist Quarterly Reyiely before January 1885); ZH--Zion's Herald
(Boston).

8Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicatiye Action, translated by
Thomas McCarthy. Volume One: Reason and the Rationalization of Society
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1984 translation of 1981 original German text). Volume
Two: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Eunctionalist Reason (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1987 translation of 1981 German text, as edited in 1985).

Haberrnas uses insights of Karl Marx, Max Weber, TalcottParsons, George
Herbert Mead, and Emile Durkheim. He argues that, in Weber's terms, the moder-
nization of society, with its "rationalization" that "disenchants" worldviews from tradi-
tional foundations to rational ones, has also involved a separation of political and eco-
nomic subsystems, governed by the impersonal media of money and power, from the
more fundamental social lifeworld, governed by communicative consensus, of which
politics and the economy are a part. The "lifeworld" (fundamental social lifeworld)
is grounded in basic social solidarity and rituals, as analyzed by Durkheim. This
framework is developed and transmitted by communicative interaction of society and
its members by symbolic interaction, as analyzed by Mead. But, as modernization
has developed, the rationalization of the political and economic subsystems of the so-
cial lifeworld has developed to the point of their separation from the more fimdamen-
tal social lifeworld. Using Marxian analysis, Haberrnas argues that whatever strategic
or instrumental action is needed to maintain economic or political rationality comes
to have a "steering" control over the rest of the social lifeworld.

9Haberrnas, Theory, Volume I, pp. 1-7, "Introduction: Approaches to the
Problem of Rationality," discusses this inter-relationship between philosophy and
sociology.

32

10Thomas McCarthy, "Translator's Introduction," Habermas, op. cit, p. xxvii.

llIn a 1790 sermon "On Living Without God," Wesley challenged those
”practical atheists" who did not have a personal experience of God.(Outler and
Heitzenrater, op. cit, pp. 568-572) He asserted a "wide difference...between
Christianity and morality."(p.571 True Christianity "cannot exist without the inward
experience and outward practice of justice, mercy, and truth"--which is morality.
But, "all morality, all justice, mercy, and truth which can possibly exist without Chris-
tianity, profiteth nothing." Wesley qualified this for those "not under the Christian
dispensation." He explained: "I have no authority 'to judge those that are without.’
Nor do I conceive that any man living has a right to sentence all the heathen and
Mahometan world to damnation. It is far better to leave them to him that made them,
and who is 'the Father of the spirits of all flesh'; who is the God of the heathens as
well as the Christians, and who hateth nothing that he hath made." But, those who
called themselves Christians should not be content with anything less than a
transforming personal experience of God giving a sensitivity to God that was missing
from "practical atheists' who called themselves Christians. This was not a matter of
having "right ideas," though, for, as Wesley put it: "I believe the mercifill God regards
the lives and tempers of men more than their ideas. I believe he respects the goodness
of the heart rather than the clearness of the head; and that if the heart of a man be
filled (by the grace of God, and the power of his Spirit) with the humble, gentle, pa-
tient love of God and man, God will not cast him into everlasting fire prepared for
the devil and his angels because his ideas are not clear, or because his conceptions
are confused. Without holiness, I own, no man shall see the Lord; but I dare not
add, or clear ideas." (p. 572)

Regardless of the disclaimers and expressions of Christian charity, though,
Wesley was distancing himself from any Enlightenment optimism that the human com-
munity could overcome its problems by unaided human reason in community. As
Cutler and Heitzenrater observe (op. cit, p. 567): "His obvious concern was the
rising influence of Enlightenment ideas about human autonomy, which he had come to
regard as a mortal danger to evangelical Christianity." Late nineteenth century Meth-
odists seeking to practice love of neighbor tended not to have such fears.

12Niebuhr expresses this in The Irony of American History (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952).

13 Documents in this development are presented in Roger S. Gottlieb, Editor,

An Anthology of western Marxism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
Gottlieb introduces Max Horkheimer's essay "Traditional and Critical Theory" with a

33

note on his key role in developing the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt in the
19305 for "nondogmatic Marxist theory"--"new paradigms of leftist theory opposed
both to Stalinist totalitarianism and the 'one dimensionality' of modern bourgeois cul-
ture and political life."(p. 171) He introduces Haberrnas's essay "Technology and
Science as 'Ideology'" with a note on his connections with the Frankfurt School.(p
248) Martin Jay, TheDialecticalImagination: AHistoryoftheErankfirrtSchool
and the Institute of Social Research, ram (Boston and Toronto: Little,
Brown, and Company, 1973) traces the beginnings of the movement back to the
19205 in a chapter on "The Genesis of Critical Theory." (pp. 41-85)

14The Postscript of this is found in Max Horkheimer, "Traditional and Criti-
cal Theory," from Critical Theory (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company,
1972), as found in Gottlieb, op. cit, pp. 171178. The original was in Zeitschnflfirr

Socialforschung, VI, 2 (1937) It is analyzed in Martin Jay, op. cit, pp. 80 ff.

15Paul Merkley, Reinhold Niebuhr: A Bolitical Account (Montreal and Lon-
don: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1975), biographically traces Niebuhr's use of
Marx in the 1920s and 19305, as well as his pragmatic decision to support the Cold
War effort against the Soviet bloc after World War II.

16Horkheimer criticizes reduction of Critical Theory to "eConomism," which
involves a "levelling-down ideology" making political dependence on the economy a
programmatic requirement rather than an observation of how society is now working.
(Gottlieb, op cit, pp. 175-177) Thus, Horkheimer joined Marx in a critique of eco-
nomic and political liberalism while also critiquing the application of Marxism in effect
in communist nations when he wrote. He also critiqued Marxist analysis practiced in
capitalist nations because he saw it as incorrectly assuming economic determinism.

17Merkley, op. cit, p. 165, notes Niebuhr’s 1932 Moral Man and Immoral
Society as saying that Marx's "apocalyptic vision" provided a "useful illusion" for a cri-
tique of capitalism. But, by the time of his 1952 The Irony of American History, he
would declare: "In the Marxist apocalypse one error is piled upon another with re-
gard to the virtue of the poor. They are not only assumed to be completely disinter-
ested or to have interests absolutely identical with the interests of the whole of man-
kind, but also no thought is given to the fact that if they become historically success-
firl they will cease to be poor. Furthermore, the oligarchy, which presumes to speak
for the poor claims to participate in their supposed sanctity."(p. 165)

18Horkheimer in Gottlieb, op. cit, p. 172.

34

19m, p. 173.
”on.
2lipid.

27-min. Paul Lakeland, Theology and Critical Theory: The Discourse ofthe
Church (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), p. 15, notes "ideology critique" to be "one
of the clearest distinguishing marks" of Critical Theory, as it seeks to emancipate indivi-
duals by exposing ideology, leading to greater rationality. Lakeland explains: "To the
Critical Theorist, the critique of ideology leads to the unmasking of false consciousness
and with it the emancipation of the individual from that false consciousness."

Martin Jay, op. cit, pp. 81 ff, observes three fundamental emphases of
Horkheimer's essay in unmasking the ideological dimensions of Traditional Theory.
First, Critical Theory views knowledge as neither separate from nor superior to
action (the goal of which should be change). He speaks of it as a refusal to "fetishize
knowledge" as "superior to action" as Traditional Theory would do.(p.81) Marx cri-
ticized such a detachment in the eleventh of his 'Theses on Feuerbach": "The philoso-
phers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to
change it." (Robert Tucker, The Marszngels Reader, Second Edition, New York
and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1978, p. 145) Second, Critical Theory
recognizes the social structuring of research categories. Traditional Theory falsely
holds out the hope of value-free research, while Jay observes that Critical Theory
"recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which
men were not yet themselves autonomous."(Jay, loc. cit.) Third, Critical Theory ana-
lyzes society and history relationally rather than abstractly. Traditional Theory falsely
abstracts fi'om social and historical relationships. Jay (op cit, p.82) cites George
Kline ("Some Critical Comments on Marx's Philosophy," in Map; and the Western
World, Edited by Nicholas Lobkowicz, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1967, p.431) as not-
ing Marx's Hegelian distinction of the "concrete" ("many-sided, adequatley related,
complexly mediated") from the "abstract" ("one-sided, inadequately related, relative-
ly unmediated"). In summary, Jay explains that Critical Theory unmasks Traditional
Theory's isolation of knowledge from use, social interests, and relationships.

Jay also notes Horkheimer's rejection of Pragmatic notions of truth that led to
conforrnism. As with Positivism, it lacked critical means to go beyond existing "facts."
(op cit, p. 83) Jay reports Horkheimer’s call to intellectuals to challenge proletarian
conformism rather than idolize the working class as the instrument of liberation.

35

23M, p. 274.

24Niebuhr observes this "creed" as part of the irony of the American critique
of communist "materialism." On the one hand, he sees a Hegelian idealism mixed with
communist materialism to see a "rational structure of meaning" running through the
whole of reality. On the other hand, he states: "The crowning irony in this debate
about materialism lies in the tremendous preoccupation of our own technical culture
with the problem of gaining physical security against the hazards of nature. ...Our ora-
tors profess abhorrence of the communist creed of 'materialism' but we are rather
more successful practitioners of materialism as a working creed than the communists,
who have failed so dismally in raising the general standards of well-being." (The Irony
of American History, pp. 6-7)

25Wesley's sermon on this text (Outler and Heitzenrater, op. cit, pp. 23 9-
253) is typical of his identification of riches as the most deceptive threat to a living
Christian faith.

26Lakeland, op. cit, pp. 43-46, discusses these interests as expressed in
Haberrnas's 1968 Knowledge and Human Interests (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971).
The first knowledge interest is a "cognitive interest in technical control over objecti-
fied processes" (p. 44, Lakeland quote of Habermas).The second interest is "prac-
tical cognitive interest" in "the attainment of possible consensus among actors in the
framework of a self-understanding derived from a tradition" (Lakeland quote of
Habermas, p. 310). The emancipatory interest is the interest in knowledge to eman-
cipate from ideological constraints developing in the other two knowledge interests.

27Thomas McCarthy, "Translator's Introduction" to Habermas, The Iheogt
of Communicatiye Action, Volume I, pp. xiv, xix ff.

28mm, p. xx.
29rind, p. xxi.
3°1bid.

31Ibid., p. xi.

36
32McCarthy, in his Preface (Ihid), cites Habennas's explanation from p.
397 of the same volume.

33Lakeland, op. cit, p. 52. The quote is from Thomas McCarthy, The
Critical Theory of Jurgen Haberrnas (Cambridge: MIT. Press, 1978), p. 299.

34Habermas, Theory, Volume I, p. 399.
35Haberrnas, Theory, Volume II, p. 1.
36Ihid., pp. 4 ff.

37George Herbert Mead, "Thought As Intemalized Conversation," from
Mind. Self, and Society, Edited by Charles W. Morris (Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1934), as excerpted in Three Sociological Traditions: Selected Readings
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 268-281.

33mm, pp. 270-273, 280-281.

39mm, pp. 276 ff.

40M, p. 277.

41I12id., p. 279.

42min, pp. 280-281.

43Haberrnas, Theory, Volume I, pp. 1, 46 ff.

4"’Ernile Durkheim, "Precontractual Solidarity," from The Diyision of Labor
in Society (New York: Free Press, 1964), as reproduced in Collins, op. cit, pp.
161 - l 74.

451bid, p. 165. Durkheim believed that when division of labor occurred,
it would further strengthen already existing social bonds.

37

4firms is explained by Randall Collins in Three Sociological traditions (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 128-129.

47and.

48Durkheim, in Collins, Selected Readings, p. 167.
49min, p. 169.

5011211, p. 170.

51min, p. 171.

52Emile Durkheim, "Social Rituals and Sacred Objects, " from The Elemen;
tary Eorms of the Religious Life (New York: Free Press, 1963 ), as excerpted in
Collins, Selected Readings, pp. f1 74-186.

5311nd, p. 186.
54Haberrnas, Theory, Volume I, p. xxvii.

55Jurgen Habermas, "Technology and Science as 'Ideology,'" from Toward
a Rational Smiety, as excerpted in Gottlieb, op. cit, p. 251.

56Habermas, Theory, Volume II, p. 332.
57Ilzid., p. 333.

58Bernard Semmel, The Methodist Reyolution (New York: Basic Books,
Inc, 1973), pp. 41-45.

59Robert E. Chiles, Theological Transition in American Methodism, use
123.5 (New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965).

60m” p. 187. Chiles sums up three basic dimensions of this transition:
1) fi'om faith as self-authenticated response to God to faith as the justified right to be-

38

lieve; 2) fi'om the concept of the "sinfirl" human condition to the "morally responsible
condition"; and 3) from the concept of "free grace" to that of "free will." In Chiles'
words: ”Thus scriptural revelation was compromised by reason's concern for evi-
dence and logical implication; man was identified in terms of his moral capacity rather
than his capitvity in sin; and the sovereignty of God's grace in salvation was qualified
by man's intrinsic freedom."

61A favorite hymn of the day, "Rise Up, 0 Men of God," expressed the opti-
mism of the day, an optimism later Christian critics, including Karl Barth, saw as a
triumphalistic, humanistic salvation that did not reckon with the seriousness of human
sinfulness and the necessity of divine grace for salvation, social or otherwise.

62Sidney Mead, The Liyely Experiment: The shaping ofChristianity in
America(New York: Harper and Row, 1963), pp. 183, 186.

63Niebuhr, Irony, p. 7.
6411211, p. 12.

65Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children ofLight and the children ofDarkness
(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1944), as excerpted in Free Goyemment
in the Making: Readings in American Rolitical Thought, Edited by Alpheus Thomas
Mason ((New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, Third Edition), p. 899.

66Niebuhr further explains that the very persons who seek justice in demo-
cratic community are often blind to their own self-interest. He explains: "The children
of light are foolish not merely because they underestimate the power of self-interest
among the children of darkness. They underestimate this power among themselves."
(Ibid., p. 902) Noting the modern secular rejection of the classic Christian doctrine
of Original Sin, Niebuhr observes: "No matter how wide the perspectives which the
human imagination may conceive, how universal the community which human state-
craft may organize, or how pure the aspirations of the saintliest idealist may be, there
is no level of human moral social achievement in which there is not some corruption
of inordinate self-love."(p. 903)

67Niebuhr maintains that the natural human survival impulse, which he sees as
”at the core of all human ambitions," is"5piritualized" in one of two ways. First, it ex-
presses itself in the desire to firlfill human potential, which humans eventually come to
realize is only fulfilled in self-giving. (Ihid., pp. 903-904) Second, though, this survi-

39

val desire is "spiritualized" in the desire for "power and glory," and the result is that
human conflicts are "never simple conflicts between competing survival impulses."
(Ibid., p. 904) Niebuhr explains: "Since the very possession of power and prestige
always involves some encroachment upon the prestige and power of others, this con-
flict is by its very nature a more stubborn and difficult one than the mere competition
between various survival impulses in nature."(Ibid.)

Niebuhr argues that conflicts are "not as easily resolved by the expedient of
dissolving the groups (i.e., those in conflict) as liberal democratic idealists assumed."
(Ibid.) On the one hand, Niebuhr argues that bourgeois liberalism assumes a natur-
al equilibrium of economic power which historic facts refilte."(1hid., p. 906) On the
other hand, he argues that Marxist theories obscure the fact that "the destruction of
private property does not... guarantee the equalization of economic power in commu-

nity.”(Ihid.)
63m, p. 905.

69Loon Hynson, ToRefonnTheNation: TheologicalEoundations offles:
lcyls Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press of Zondervan Publish-
ing House, 1984), p. 34.

70Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., Good News To The Poor: John Wesley's
Eyangelical Economics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990).

71 Outler, Theology.

72H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sources of Denominationalism (New
York: World Publishing Company, 1957; Reprint of 1929 publication by Henry
Holt and Company, Inc.) Niebuhr maintains (p. 71) that American Methodism
changed fiom a religion of the disinherited to a church of the privileged. "Religion
of the disinherited" is his description of Ernst Troeltsch's exclusive "sect" whose mem-
bership is formed by joining. "Church of the privileged" is his term for Troeltsch's
inclusive "church" in which membership is established by birth. (He points to this as
the basic distinction on p. 17.) Troeltsch's analytic types were developed for study
in European nations with an established church and Niebuhr has applied these to
the American scene so as to allow for the lack of a single established church and
yet to observe the development of 'churches of the disinherited" (sects) which de-
veloped due to North-South, East-West, black-white, and other socioeconomic
factors, and later became settled into church-like denominations. He is arguing that
”denominationalism represents the moral failure of Christianity," because of the "fail-

4O

ure of the churches to transcend social conditions which fashion them into caste or-
ganizations...to resist the temptation of making their own self-preservation and exten-
sion the primary object of their endeavor. "(pp. 24-25) Having argued that European
class factors were replaced in the United States by East-West, North-South, and
black-white factors and that the Western denominations (Methodist, Baptist, Dis-
ciples of Christ, and others) "followed partly in the tradition of the European churches
of the poor" (pp. 135-137), he argues that the Methodist Episcopal Church "above

all others, became the frontier church of the nineteenth century."(p. 170)

73 The term "civil religion, " used two centuries ago by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
in The Social Contract. was revived by Robert Bellah in a 1967 Daedelus article to
describe the American "collection of beliefs, symbols, and rituals with respect to sa-
cred things" which have been institutionalized." The Daedelus article ("Civil Religion
in America"), originally published in Winter 1967, has been reproduced in American
Ciia'l Religion, edited by Russell E. Richey and Donald G. Jones (New York: Har-
per and Row, 1974), pp. 21-24. Jones and Richey (p. 26) note the presence of the
phrase "civil religion" in chapter 8, book 4 of The Social Contract referring to these
simple dogmas: the existence of God, the life to come, the reward of virtue and the
punishment of vice, and the exclusion of religious intolerance. They observe that, for
Rousseau, all other religious opinion was outside the concern of the State and to be
freely held by its citizens.

Neither antithetical to Christianity nor sectarian nor a substitute for Christian-

ity, civil religion is observed by Bellah to be present in John Kennedy's 1960 Presi-
dential inaugural as well as in the American ritual calendar of Memorial Day, Thanks-
giving, Independence Day, Veterans' Day, and the birthdays of Washington and Lin-
coln. Noting its potential for good and for ill, Bellah states: "It has its own prophets
and martyrs, its own sacred events and places, its own solemn rituals and symbols."
(pp. 40-41) In a followup essay in 1973, Bellah observes American Religion's "cen-
tral tenet" to be "that the nation is not an ultimate end in itself but stands under trans-
cendent judgment and has value only as it realizes, partially and fragrnentarily at best,
a 'higher law.'" (Bellah, "American Civil Religion in the 19705, " in Richey and Jones,
op. cit, p. 225) However, the central argument of the 1973 essay is that the con-
cept of "civil religion" is usefirl for discussing an existing social phenomenon in such a
way that "the question of evaluation could for the moment be bracketed."(p.257)
He cites Richard Nixon's second inaugural of 1972, which basically praises America
in a way which contrasts with the 1960 Kennedy challenge, as evidence that Bellah's
critics who deny the reality of "civil religion" are overlooking a basic social phenom-
enon.(pp. 259-264)

41

Jones and Richey distinguish five inter-related meanings of the concept "civil
religion": 1) :"folk religion" (inevitably in idolatrous competition with particular reli-
gions); 2) "transcendent universal religion of the nation" (what Sidney Mead has
termed the "essentially prophetic...religion of the republic" which judges its "folkways";
3) "religious nationalism" (the religion of patriotism); 4) "democratic faith" (such as
John Dewey's "humane values and ideals of equality, freedom, and justice" without
a necessary transcendent deity); and 5) "Protestant civic piety" (the "Protestant
nationalism" which Will Herberg has seen as a secularization of Puritanism and Revi-
valism).(pp. 15-18)

A simplified analysis of civil religion is presented by Martin Marty in "Two
Kinds of Two Kinds" in Religion and Republic: The American Circumstance (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1987). One general "kind" sees the nation as "under God," with
concepts of God varying greatly. Another general "kind" stresses "national self-trans-
cendence," with little or no reference to any deity. Each of these may function in
either a "priestly" or a "prophetic" fashion. "The priestly will normally be celebrative,
afirmative, culture-building. The prophetic will tend to be dialectical about civil reli-
gion, but with a predisposition toward the judgmental." (p.82) The result is four kinds
of civil religion: 1) priestly "nation under God"; 2) prophetic "nation under God";
3) priestly "nation as self-transcendent"; 4) prophetic "nation as self-transcendent."

74Eric Foner, Bolitics andIdeology In The Age QfIhe Ciyil war (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p. 126. This is part of his chapter titled
”Reconstruction and the Crisis of Free Labor." Foner's earlier book, Eree SoiL
EreeLaborandEreeMen: IheIdeologyoftheRepublicanBartyBeforetheCiyil
War( New York, 1970), developed the argument that two basic ideologies were
predominant in the United States in the 18505, one a pro-slavery Southern ideology
and the other a "Free Labor" Republican ideology. The "Free Labor" ideology
united various Republican factions in support of an equalitarian emphasis on the
"self-made man," who needed to be enabled to succeed as a small entrepreneur
against the threat of competition of the slave power, and who was a foundation for
political democracy against the threat of the Southern aristocracy of slaveholders.

751bid.

76This point is made by Philip D. Jordan in "Immigrants, Methodists, and a
'Conservative Social Gospel,’ 1865-1908," Methodist History, October 1978,
Volume XVII, Number 1, p. 20.

42

77William Carwardine, The Brllman Stdke (Chicago: The Charles H. Kerr
Co., 1894), p. 121, written during the strike.

78Ibid. Habermas, Theory.

79Carwardine, op. cit, p. 123.

80Niebuhr, Irony. Helmut Peukert, Science Action, And Fundamental The;
ology: Toward a Theology of Communicatiye Action (Cambridge, Massachusettsr
The MIT Press, 1984 translation by James Bohman of 1976 German text).

Peukert, in studying the convergence of modern sociological theories and
modern theology in Haberrnas's theory of communicative action, argues for "anam-
nestic solidarity" with all the living and all the dead as implied by human speech acts.
For this solidarity to make sense, says Peukert, theological concepts of redemption
and resurrection are necessary.

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A. LIBERATION IN THE WESLEYAN TRADITION:

ELEMENTS OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
SEEKING LIFEWORLD RATIONALITY

John Wesley, as part of his own quest to be "more than half a Christian,"
initiated the Methodist movement in England. His perspective on human liberation
arose fiom personal, pastoral, and polemical concerns. Personally, after reading
Jeremy Taylor's Rules and Exercises of Holy Liying and Dying in 17 25, he declared

he "instantly resolved to dedicate all my life to God, all my thoughts and words, and

actions."1 To carry out this resolve, he joined in communicative action pursuing a
rational life of godliness through discussions, prayers, religious Observances, and
social service projects in what came to be called the "Holy Club." This quest for
"holiness of heart and life, " as Wesley termed it, would eventually lead to an exper-
ience of spiritual liberation and confidence at a small group meeting on Aldersgate

Street in London in 1738 as someone was reading Martin Luther's explanation of

the experience of living faith.2

Pastorally, Wesley sought to share his own experience with others and
learn more of the way of faith by field preaching, small group societies of believers,
conferences with preachers who submitted to his direction, and many publications,
espcially his written sermons. Although this pastoral effort was driven by personal
conviction as to what it meant "to reform the nation, particularly the church" and "to

spread scriptural holiness over the land," Wesley continually expressed his concern

43

44

to "think and let think" as he and the Methodist movement developed a growing

consensus as to the reform and holiness that the England of his time needed.3

Polemically, he wrote to challenge Moravian Lutherans, Anglican Calvinists,
and Methodist extremists, as well as to rationally appeal to other Anglicans and
Roman Catholics. The challenges and the appeals were in behalf of the liberating
and inclusive gospel he had experienced and was concerned to lead others into.
Although Wesley led in the development of a system intensely concerned for
"strategic action" in the disciplined quest for holiness, his preaching, writing, groups,
and method of pursuing truth all involved a concern for the "lifeworld rationality"
to be discovered by persons sharing a common concern to be all out for God and
humankind and sharing their experiences of seeking to practice wholehearted love
for God and all of humankind.

Wesley's 1725 resolve to be a wholehearted Christian was reinforced by
his reading of Thomas a Kempis's Imitation of Christ and it was even more clearly

shaped by his reading the following year of William Law's Treatise on Christian Ber;

fection and Serious Call to a [layout And Holy Life4 Wesley later recalled, "I then

saw in a stronger light than ever before that only one thing is needful, even faith that

worketh by the love of God and man, all inward and outward holiness."S This
sequence of readings had commenced when a "new seriousness" entered his life as

he prepared for his ordination as a deacon, an ordination performed September 19,

1725 by Bishop Potter of Oxford.6 Having achieved his Bachelor of Arts degree

in 1724, he had let his parents know in January of 1725 that he intended to seek

45

ordination, an intention his father recognized as related to a desire to secure a teach-

ing fellowship.7 The following March, he received an appointment as a fellow at
Lincoln College, Oxford, which would not only provide financial support for timber
study, but was a part of a process common at the time for preparing persons for

the pastorate.8

Whatever the motivations, Wesley began keeping a diary as part of his new
sense of seriousness. In 1729, his brother Charles, partly influenced by John's
example, began a similar methodical diary and sought to join with John and others
for mutual support in the disciplined quest for holiness. In 1729, John and Charles
Wesley began joining others at Oxford in what came to be called the "Holy Club,"

9

a group whose origin he would look back to as the origin of Methodism. Having

been ordained a deacon in 1725 and a priest in 1728, he had served two different

times between 1726 and 1729 as his father's pastoral assistanat.10 He visited the

beginnings of the Holy Club at Oxford in the summer of 1729 and joined them that

fall, with the group being essentially "an informal literary society."1 1 Beginning in
August of 1730, the group began visiting prisons as well as visiting and seeking to

12 Although the group had originated as "a pious group meeting for

help the poor.
mutual exhortation, reading the Scriptures, praying and singing hymns," group mem-

d.13 The visits went

ber William Morgan's suggestions to visit the prisons prevaile
beyond serrnonizing and delivering pious books to efforts to relieve prisoners' mater-

ial needs, including fiiel, food, and clothing, as well as collection of money to pay

46

for the release of those imprisoned for debt. 14 They also secured legal advice for

the prisoners, went to court with them, and even provided schooling for prisoners

and their children. 1 5

Richard Heitzenrater has observed something basic about Wesley's per-
sonal quest for holiness at this stage of his life. Most of the activities which came to
characterize the Oxford Methodists of the time ("visiting the prisons, helping the

sick, teaching the poor, attending the sacrament") were not originated by Wesley

himself. 16 Heitzenrater notes that for Wesley "his method was not a static, settled

scheme, but rather an approach to life that grew and developed and changed as he

confi'onted different crises, had firrther insights and med new friends."17 This dis-
ciplined small group effort was helping John Wesley determine, in the context of a
rational community of faith, what it meant for him to "do good," but it left him unful-

filled until his spiritually liberating experience at Aldersgate Street in London in

173 s. 13

The climax of Wesley's personal quest came after the disillusionment of his
journey to Georgia to serve as a missionary to Native Americans. He had rejected
his father's invitation in 1734 to succeed him in the pastorate at Epworth because,
he said, "In the state wherein I am, I can most promote holiness in myself," and that

involved "daily converse with true Christian friends" and opportunities "for doing

good for our fellow creatures."19 But, within a year he would accept appointment

by the Societiy for the Promotion of the gospel to a Chaplaincy in Georgia, and he

47

20

would do it as part of a continuing quest to achieve holiness. His sense of failure

in that mission is captured in his exclamation: "I went to convert others, who will

convert me?"21

On his return to England, after a series of encounters with Moravian Lutherans,
he went "very reluctantly" to a religious society meeting in Aldersgate Street in London
on May 24, 1738. As someone was reading Martin Luther's preface to his comments
on Romans, the part of the preface which defines faith as living and active rather than
merely intellectual, Wesley experienced what he would later describe in his diary as his

heart being "strangely warmed" with the awareness of his personal trust in Christ for sal-

vation and the work of God's Spirit in his life.22 Although he would later question his
faith and acceptance with God, this marked a turning point from pursuing holiness as a

means to personal acceptance with God to pursuit of holiness as an expression of gra-

titude for the new life he now experienced.23

Wesley expressed his goal of personal liberation so clearly in a sermon before the
University at St. Mary's, Oxford, on January 1, 1733, that he later reproduced it in his
”Standard Sermons" which became the guide for Methodist preaching. But, in 1733, the
focus was on his personal liberation rather than liberation for others. He spoke of the
need for "circumcision of the Heart," based on a passage in the Apostle Paul's letter to the

Romans (2.29), and he concluded: "Let your soul be filled with so entire a love of Him

that you may love nothing but for his sake."24 This "circumcision of the heart involved

"humility, faith, hope, and charity" and included for the person of faith "the testimony of

48

their own spirit with the Spirit which witnesses in their hearts that they are the children of

God."25 At the heart of all this was love. Wesley declared:

In this is perfection and glory, and happiness. The royal law of
heaven and earth is this, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with
all thy strength.‘ Not that this forbids us to love anything be-
sides God: it implies that we love our brother also. Nor yet does
it forbid us (as some have strangely imagined) to take pleasure in
anything but God. To suppose this, is to suppose that the Foun-
tain of holiness is directly the author of sin; since He has insepar-
ably annexed pleasure to the use of those creatures which are ne-
cessary to sustain the life He has given us.(26)

Eleven years later, after his May 24, 1738 Aldersgate experience, Wesley re-
turned to St. Mary's Oxford with the same ultimate commitment to wholeheartedly love
God, but it now revealed a greater concern for the liberation of the rest of humankind.
Taking as his text a verse in Acts describing the first century church as "all filled with the

Holy Ghost" (4.31), he preached on "Scriptural Christianity" so as to challenge his fellow

Oxford Christians to go beyond the forms of religion to its substance.27 After speaking
of what it meant for earliest Christians to be "filled with the holy Ghost" and for that faith
to spread, and after expressing optimism that "time will come when Christianity will pre-
vail over all, and cover the earth," Wesley rhetorically asked for what he did not see in
the England of his day:

Where does this Christianity now exist? Where, I pray, do the
Christians live? Which is the country the inhabitants whereof are
all thus filled with the Holy Ghost?--are all of one heart and of one
soul; cannot suffer one among them to lack anything, but continue
to give to every man as he hath need; who, one and all, have the
love of God filling their hearts, and constraining them to love their
neighbor as themselves; who have all 'put on bowels of mercy,
humbleness of mind, gentleness, long-sufl‘ering'nwho ofl‘end not

49

in any kind, either by word or deed, against justice, mercy, or truth;

but in every point do unto all men, as they would these should do

unto them? With what propriety can we term any a Christian country,

which does not answer this description? Why then, let us confess

we have never yet seen a Christian country upon earth...

...I entreat you to observe, that here are no peculiar notions now

under consideration; that the question moved is not concerning

doubtful opinions of one kind or another, but concerning the

undoubted, fundamental branches (if there be any such) of our

common Christianity. And for the decision thereof, I appeal

to your own consciences, guided by the Word of God.(28)

Wesley's intervening religious experience at Aldersgate Street Chapel in London
had changed his holiness concerns from a means of acceptance with God to a means of
expressing gratitude for salvation. Wesley scholar Leon Hynson has observed: "Before
Aldersgate his social ethics grew out of a deep concern to save his own soul. After Al-

dersgate, he was motivated by the power of a new affection and gave himself to others

out of the love he came to know in Christ."29 Methodist social ethics historian Richard

Cameron notes that Wesley's motive had changed from "anxiety for self. . .to compassion

for others and love for God."30

The realization that love for God must involve loving
deeds for humankind continued, as did the appeal to each individual's conscience, but the
motivation for so doing had changed toward a greater spontaneity and confidence.
Inspired by his own experience, he sought both physical and spiritual liberation
for his fellow human beings. After the Aldersgate experience in May 173 8, he had been
both inspired and disappointed by a journey to the Moravian home base at Herrnhut on

the European continent in following months. Albert Outler notes three further experiences

in 1738 that preceded his successful field preaching experiences and the related pastoral

work with religious societies which began in 1739.31 First, he was deeply impressed by

50

reading in October 1738 of Jonathan Edwards's report of "the truly surprising conversions
in and about the town of North Hampton in New England." Second, the Fetter Lane reli-
gious society he participated in at London was split because the dominant Moravians
advocated a "stillness doctrine" which minimized good works and the church's "means of
grace." Third, in response to what he saw as Moravian antinomianism, Wesley began in
November 1738 "more narrowly to inquire what the doctrine of the Church of England is
concerning the much controverted point of justification by faith; and the sum of what I

found in the Homilies I extracted and printed for the use of others."32

On November 30, George Whitefield, Methodist evangelist, returned from his
successes in his first tour of America, seeking to enlist Wesley. Afier seeking support
fiom his Fetter Lane Society and his brother Charles to resist Whitefield's invitation to
preach in the fields at Bristol, Wesley finally reports how, on April 2 at Bristol, he finally
yielded to what would be vital to Methodism:

At four in the afiemoon I submitted to be more vile, and proclaimed

in the highways the glad tidings of salvation, speaking from a little
eminence in a ground adjoining to the city, to about three thousand

people.(33)
Outler notes the impact of field preaching on Wesley's faith. He had been told

by Moravian Peter Bohler to "preach faith until you have it"; he had experienced faith at

Aldersgate in May 1738; he now experienced greater faith as he saw his message con-

firmed in the hit of faith in the lives of the common people of England.34 This was
typical of Wesley's concern for empirical confirmation in the lives of others of whatever

doctrine he preached. Regardless of whether a doctrine seemed to him to be scriptural,

51

it must be confirmed in the lives of living witnesses for him to be fillly confident in it.
To use Haberrnas's terminology, Wesley was convinced of the rationality of a doctrine
when he sensed that it was experienced in the lifeworld of common people and that its
explanation arose fiom some kind of communicative consensus.

By the end of 1739, Wesley saw a need to go beyond mere preaching and to
commence the organization of converts for pastoral care. He reports that in late 1739,
when several came to him seeking spiritual advice on how to "flee from the wrath to

come," he organized them into the first of the Methodist "Societies," groups for mutual

religious support and exhortation.35 The "wrath to come" was the possibility of divine
punishment in this life and the certainty of judgment after death. As the Societies grew
in numbers, Wesley had them divided into smaller groups of about twelve each, one of
whom would be the leader. Wellman Warner's study The Wesleyan Moyement in the
Industrial Reyolution argues that the essentially democratic process of selecting class
leaders contributed to a democratizing of the Societies and a liberalizing of English

society. 3 6

Besides a basic "desire to flee from the wrath to come, to be saved from their
sins," Wesley required of members of Methodist Societies mutual support and challenge
to one another to follow three basic rules: doing no harm, doing good, and "attending

upon all the ordinances of God" (worship, the Lord's Supper, prayer, Bible reading,

fasting).37 Specific kinds of harm to avoid were listed, including such expected prohibi-
tions as "profaning the day of the Lord" and "drunkenness, buying or selling spirituous

liquors, or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme necessity." But, also prohibited were

52

"the using many words in buying or selling" (deceptive advertising) and " giving or taking
things on usury" (interest) and "laying up treasures on earth." In addition, "doing good"
was to be ”of every possible sort, and as far as is possible, to all men: to their bodies,

of the ability which God giveth, by giving food to the hungry, by clothing the naked, by
visiting or helping them that are sick, or in prison; to their souls by instructing, reproving,
or exhorting all..." Clearly, Wesley saw "liberation" as affecting one's use of material
wealth, and he felt compelled himself, and exhorted his followers, to work for physical

as well as spiritual liberation.

Theodore Jennings, Jr., in a recent study of Wesley's social and economic ethics,
has observed the similarities of Wesley's pastoral attitude toward wealth and liberation to
the perspective of twentieth century "liberation theology." In Good News to the Poor:
.1th Wesley's Eyangelical Economics, Jennings observes Wesley's "demystification of

wealth," "preferential option for the poor, " and advocacy of "the redistribution of wealth,"

all grounded in deep theological concerns.38 Jennings also notes some key statements of
qualification by Wesley which were later used by Wesley's followers and help explain why
they found a convenient way to depart from his program.

Jennings argues that Wesley's ethics opens to us more clearly if we focus on his

economics rather than his politics.39 Writing as one who has sought to teach Wesley's
sermons in a "third world country" (Mexico), he notes that "for the majority of the earth's

population, the most pressing questions are those of economic justice," not issues of poli-

tics.40 Wesley may have been quite conservative politically, favoring monarchy over

democracy, but he was extremely radical in his economic pronouncements. Also, Wes-

53

ley's economic pronouncements were more fundamental to his theology than his political
ones. Wesley's seemingly legalistic demands on dress, jewelry, and tea drinking are ex-
plained by Jennings to be part of his method of dealing with concrete reality ("praxis") be-

fore theorizing, confronting the threat to his people's faith of spending excessive money on

self when their neighbor had little or nothing.41
Wesley's "practical divinity," in common with twentieth century liberation theo-

logy, begins with commitment to the poor (a "preferential option for the poor") in what

Jennings terms "evangelical economics."42 Also in common with liberation theology, this
makes the perspective of the poor normative when in conflict with the perspective of

43

wealth and power. This involves a "demystification of wealth and power" as threats to

faith, solidarity with the poor in the spirit of gospel ministry, protest against injustice and

oppression, and a call to a Pentecostal redistribution in communal economics.44 How-
ever, Wesley's manner of presenting this perspective opened the door to misunderstanding

and drawing back from his "evangelical economics" by his many qualificaitons.4'5

The communicative rationality Wesley sought required demystification of wealth,
both to enable solidarity with the poor and to empower a Pentecostal community. That
community would put into practice the standard of the Christians described in the New
Testament books of Acts, where "no one said that any of the things he possessed was his

own, but they had everything in common," and "distribution was made to each as any had

need."46 Wesley went so far as to comment in his Explanatory Notes on the New Testa:

ment concerning Acts 2.45 that community of property "was a natural hint of that love

54

wherewith each member of the community loved every other as his own soul."47 Then,
Wesley added: "To afiinn, therefore, that Christ did not design that this should continue,

is neither more nor less than to affirm that Christ did not design this measure of love

should continue. I see no proof of this."48 Pentecostal community required a commu-
nicative rationality of love, a fill] gospel empowering shared property, which Wesley saw
as more vital than any other supernatural signs. Extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, such as
speaking in tongues, might have been intended only for first century Christians. But, in
the mind of Wesley, the Pentecostal love which motivated first century Christians to prac-
tice community of goods was not confined to the first century.

A fear that grew increasingly stronger over the years for Wesley was that the
Methodists would become a "dead sect." In 1786, at the age of 83, Wesley expressed
this fear that the Methodists would only exist "having the form of religion without the

power. "49 The chief threat to the power of religion, for Wesley, was financial prosperity.

Increase in wealth would lead to "increase in pride, in anger, in the desire of the flesh, the

desire of the eyes, and the pride of life."50 The only way to avoid "that our money may
not sink us to the netherrnost hell" was to give all one could beyond one's personal and

family necessities, and to give it to the poor.51

Wesley responded to the criticism that
giving to the poor might either confirm them in their vices or not succeed in treating their
true Spiritual problem: "Whether they will finally be lost or saved, you are expressly
commanded to feed the hungry, and clothe the naked. If you can, and do not, whatever

becomes of them, you shall go away into everlasting fire."52

55

The problem Wesley saw was that the Christian faith would lead to diligence,
which would lead to wealth, which would distract one from loving God and loving one's
neighbor. Thus, the faith that was to empower one to love in practical ways might be de-

serted to focus on the increased financial prosperity that came from Christian discipline.53

Wesley viewed this as one of the chief causes of the ineffectiveness of Christianity.54

Wealth threatened humility and patience, encouraging contempt, resentment, and anger,

thus destroying Christian community.55 In a letter to a wealthy man dated May 16, 1759,
Wesley issues this warning:

The grand maxims which obtain in the world are, The more power,

the more money, the more learning, and the more reputation a man

has, the more good he will do. And whenever a Christian, pursuing

the noblest ends, forms his behaviour by these maxims, he will infal-

libly (though perhaps by insensible degrees) decline into worldly

prudence.(56) ‘
Wesley sensed a need to break the mystic hold on the popular imagination of the quest
for money, even for doing good, and to replace it with a quest for godliness to do good,
to be "holy and happy, " as Wesley would put it. He was aware of the irony Reinhold
Niebuhr would point out a century and a half later of a religious vision of an uncoerced

community of perfect love changing to the "pretension that a community, governed by

prudence" would achieve "an ideal social harmony,"57

Wesley challenged his people to have concern for the poor, not a mere senti-
mental concern, but solidarity with the poor in their struggle against poverty. He had
sensed this need fi'om the beginning of his quest to be "more than half a Christian," and

now he challenged the members of his religious societies to such a life. He attributed his

56

own exclusion from Church of England pulpits to his attraction of the poor to hear his

sermons. He wrote in A Short History of the Reople Called Methodists concerning
why people objected to his preaching:

The far more common (and indeed more plausible) objection was,
'the people crowd so, that they block up the church, and leave no
room for the best of the parish.(5 8)

When Wesley sought to help his followers to avoid discouragement in their
quest for Christian perfection, he explained in a sermon the "Heaviness Through Mani-
fold Temptation" experienced by the most devoted of Christians, and he marvelled at
the faithfulness of those poor persons who labored and did not receive the just reward
for their labor. Expressing his sense of solidarity with the poor, Wesley wrote:

But how many are there in this Christian country, that toil, and
labour, and sweat, and have it not at last, but struggle with weari-
ness and hunger together? 15 it not worse for one, after a hard
day's labour, to come back to a poor, cold, dirty, uncomfortable
lodging, and to find there not even the food which is needful to
repair his wasted strength? You that live at ease in the earth, that
want nothing but eyes to see, ears to hear, and hearts to under-
stand how well God hath dealt with you,--is it not worse to seek
bread day by day, and find none? perhaps to find the comfort of
five or six children crying for what he has not to give! Were it not
that he is restrained by an unseen hand, would he not soon "curse
God and die?" 0 want of bread! want of bread! Who can tell
what this means, unless he hath felt it himself? (59)

Wesley challenged the Methodists to express solidarity with the poor by visiting
them, not merely to observe or to make the poor "better people," but so that the Metho-
dists could become more godly. Carrying help to the poor was superior to sending it

because it was "far more apt to soften our heart, and to make us naturally care for each

other."60 This would increase "all social affections" and was a kind of "means of grace,"

57

just as public and private prayer and the sacraments were "means of grace."61 Besides
improving the spirituality of the visitor, this would correct false stereotypes.

After one visit with the poor in their cold and hunger, Wesley remarked:

But I found not one of them unemployed, who was able to crawl

about the room. So wickedly, devilishly false is that common ob-

jection, "They are poor, only because they are idle." If you saw

these things with your own eyes, you would not lay out money

in ornaments and superfluities.(62)
With respect to the need of a "gentlewoman" to be transformed by visiting the poor,

Wesley wrote:

I want you to converse more, abundantly more, with the poorest
of the people. Creep in among these, in spite of the dirt, and

a hundred disgusting circumstances; and thus put off the gentlewoman.63
Wesley was seeking to develop a community of faith by means of these communicative
actions.

Wesley's communicative actions of solidarity with the poor combined with a modi-
fication of classic Protestant theology to create a sense of optimism and equality for the
poor. Rejecting classic concepts of total depravity preached by Martin Luther, John
Calvin, and English Refonners, Wesley offered the possibility of deliverance from human
selfishness for all. Wellman Warner explains that Wesley saw the human will as "dis-
eased," saw perfection as a possibility for all, and thus inspired democratic feeling, be-

cause he "placed rich and poor, high and low, on a level in the equality of their need and

worth. "64 Rather than presenting perfection as an achievement of a flawless ideal, a
kind of intellectual and physical perfection, Wesley presented it as an integration of char-

acter in cooperation with grace. Warner maintains that the possibilities of such a faith

58

for a population "burdened with a sense of inferiority would be revolutionary."65 It may
have been overly optimistic, and Wesley's spiritual descendants departed from its equal-
itarian implications, but it provided theological underpinnings for a lifeworld rationality
grounded in communicative action.

Wesley engaged in a wide variety of activities expressing solidarity with the poor--
regularly begging for fiinds to relieve needs, starting a cotton spinning collective for the
unemployed, creating a "lending stock" to help the poor acquire tools and materials for

66

small businesses, and providing free health care for the poor. Aid was given to the poor

irrespective of whether they joined Methodist societies.67

Wesley sought to make available to the poor and uneducated the best reading of

the day (in his estimation), including his own edition of a dictionary.68

With respect to
construction of Methodist preaching houses, he urged plainness, because he feared over
reliance on wealthy contributors would make Methodists dependent on people of wealth.

In Wesley's view, this would mean "farewell to the Methodist discipline, if not doctrine,

too."69 To make sure that the poor saw themselves as important, he even advised one

of his preachers in 1783: "Put the most insignificant person in each class to be the Leader

of it."70 Also, to publicly take sides with the poor, Wesley published in 1773 his
Thoughts on the Present Scarcity of Broyisions. It was an indictment of national policies
which allowed half the annual corn crop to go to distilleries, which some argued helped
provide Royal revenue. Wesley responded in his typical style:

0, tell it not in Constantinople that the English raise royal revenue
by the flesh and blood of their countrymen!(71)

59

After further explanations of the plight of the poor, he prescribed prohibition of distilling

(but not of beer and wine), luxury taxes on exported horses and gentry carriages, and

reduction in the size of farms to prevent small farmers from being thrown off the land.72
These were his efforts to produce a lifeworld rationality grounded in communicative
action with and on behalf of the poor of eighteenth century England.

From his perspective of solidarity with the poor, Wesley not only condemned

the injustice of distilleries, but he also condemned the oppression of the poor by mer-

chants, doctors, and lawyers.73 As one example, he spoke concerning the law: "With-

"74

out money, you can have no more law; poverty alone shuts out justice. Three spe-

cific national policies also stood condemned for oppressing the poor--war, colonialism,

and slavery.75 Jennings observes that Wesley viewed each of these from the perspec-
tive of the "poor" (oppressed) participants--soldiers who killed and died, natives of col-
onized lands, and African slaves bought and sold by Europeans.

One of Wesley's prime objections to the American revolution is expressed in biting
sarcasm to one who would say that the colonists were throwing off the yoke of slavery to
England:

You and I, and the English in general, go where we will, and enjoy

the fruits of our labours; This is liberty. The Negro does not; This

is slavery.(76)

In what proved to be Wesley's final letter, he encouraged William Wilberforce to per-

sist against "the opposition of men and devils" until "even American slavery (the vilest

that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it" (that is, before the might of God).77

60

Wesley was so committed to solidarity with the poor that, in spite of his Tory

support of public order, he supported some poor English people who waylaid a ship of

grain to distribute among them "at the common price."78 When some Irish people pro-
tested against the "legal" confiscation of their lands with insurrection, Wesley rhetorically
observed:

It is no wonder that, as their lives were now bitter to them, they

should fly out as they did. It is rather a wonder that they did not

go much further. And if they had, who would have been most

at fault? Those who were without home without money, without

food for themselves and families? Or those who drove them to

this extremity? (79)

Clearly, Wesley pursued the rationality of a lifeworld which included all the poor, and
he would not submit to the rationality of a public order that excluded the poor and their
rightful protests for not being heard.

The foundation of Wesley's quest for lifeworld rationality was what he saw as
the grace of God, grace invading all dimensions of human life, not merely a private "spir-
itual" dimension. He rejected such notions as the idea that the economy would benefit
if the wealthy believed that "it was the duty of every man that would, to be 'clothed in

purple and fine linen' and to 'fare sumptuously every day rather than "feeding the hungry

and clothing the naked."80 Alluding to Jesus' reference to wealthy Dives and poor
Lazarus as recorded in the New Testament Gospel of Luke, Wesley responded that the
suggestion that the best way to help the poor was to spend and consume to help the
economy was an example of the possibility of a person believing nearly anything if they

wanted to strongly enough. The remedy was the challenge of grace confronting these

61

expressions of human self deception on the Methodist societies and classes.
Theodore Jennings aptly expresses Wesley's holistic concern by observing

"Wesley would be just as ready to leave economics to the free exchange of the market-

place as he would be to turn over the care of souls to psychologists."81 Part of commit-
ting one's soul to God, as Wesley saw it, was to view one's possessions as not private,
but as a divinely given stewardship for the common good. Jennings notes that, in this
respect, Wesley was rejecting an "economic Deism" or "economic atheism" for an

"evangelical economics. "82

Wesley's direction to his people was: "You should look upon yourself as one of
a certain number of indigent persons, who are to be provided for out of that part of his

d..t83

[God's] goods wherewith you are entruste Whatever one possessed beyond "the

necessaries and conveniences of life for himself and his family" was "riches, " and was to
be given to God by giving it all to the poor.84 In fact, any such wealth which one spent

on luxuries while the poor went hungry and unclothed was theft in Wesley's eyes.85 The
remedy for rationalizing such theft was the grace of God producing a Pentecostal commu-
nity in which: "None of them will say, that aught of the things which he possesses is his
own; but they will have all things in common." This new Pentecostal community, with its
community of goods, would be a part of the convincing power of the Gospel and lead to

to the conversion of unbelievers around the world.87

But, from 1760 onward Wesley found it necessary to plead with the Methodists

that their material prosperity was robbing them of the holiness of this Pentecostal commu-

62

nity. As they moved from the working class to the middle class, Wesley saw them fall-
ing fi'om grace. One of these many expressions of fear comes in his Thoughts 11an
Methodism in 1786:

I fear, wherever riches have increased, (exceeding few are the

exceptions,) the essence of religion, the mind that was in Christ,

has decreased in the same proportion.(88)
The rationality of the lifeworld of solidarity with the poor was being replaced by the
rationality of the economic subsystem, and money was driving Methodists rather
than the Pentecostal Spirit of communicative action with the poor.

One firrther expression of Wesley's communicative action in connection with his

pastoral concern for the Methodist societies was his meeting with Methodist preachers in

Annual Conferences.89 Beginning in 1744, Wesley invited several revivalist Church of
England clergy, together with selected lay preachers, to discuss how best to continue their
work. As Albert Outler explains, Methodist doctrine and organizational patterns were

hammered out in these Conferences in a process of group interrogation and debate, with

Wesley always pronouncing the final word, in the light of the discussions.90 In spite of
the authoritarian character of the decisions, the quest was for a rationality for the societies
and the preachers that was grounded in the interests of all its members.

In Outler's reproduction of the notes on the first Conference session of June 25,
1744 in London, the spirit of the Conference is reported early in the session. A statement

was read declaring that they would "meet with a single eye as little children who have

everything to learn, that every point may be examined from the foundation."91 The first

question then raised was: "How far does each of us agree to submit to the unanimous

63

judgment of the rest?" The agreed upon answer was: "In speculative things each can

only submit so far as his judgment shall be convinced; in every practical point, so far as

we can without wounding our consciences."92 There would be full and free discussion
without coercion, and there would be an effort to reach a rational consensus. The remain-
der of the conference discussed beliefs about justification and sanctification and relations

with the rest of the Church of England and rules for societies and other groups and for
Lay

Assistants and Stewards.
The Second Annual Conference, holding its first session August 1, 1745 in Bristol,

took considerable time at the beginning to remember that they should "still consider our-

selves as children, who have everything to learn."93 Next, it was agreed to re-examine the
work of the preceding Conference and to take care concerning each item "to speak freely
and hear calmly." The procedure to be sure that "everyone may speak whatever is in his

heart" was "by taking care to check no one either by word or look, even though he should

say what was quite wrong."94 In the rest of the Conference, the chief topics were again
beliefs about justification and sanctification and church discipline. The tone continued to
be one of encouraging a communicative quest for a rational approach to ordering the
life of Methodists as they sought to "spread scriptural holiness."

The Third and Fourth Annual Conferences continued the communicative approach
of the first two Conferences. The Third Annual Conference at Bristol May 12, 1746 did
not raise the issue of open and free discussion, but began with a reading of Wesley's

abridged version of two tracts by Jonathan Edwards: The New England Narration and the

64

DiSIinguiShing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.95 It was an example of Wesley's
use of materials produced by persons whose theology he disagreed with, in this case
benefitting from Edwards while disagreeing with his Calvinism. The remainder of the
Conference discussed beliefs about the nature of righteousness and assurance, as well as
issues of church discipline, including the issue of examining whether a person ought to be
a lay preacher and, if they should, how they should study and prepare themselves.

The Fourth Annual Conference in London July 15, 1747, as with the First Con-
ference, began with an extensive time of making it clear that there was to be free and firll

96

discussion of all items. In a reminder that the First Conference agreed to "examine

every point from the foundation, " the question was raised: "Have we not been some way

too fearful of doing this?"97 This was seen to be a vain fear of rejecting first principles,
since:

Ifthese are true, they will bear strict examination. If they are false,
the sooner they are overturned, the better.(98)

Then, in reiterating the desire to "submit to the unanimous judgment of the rest" so far as

conscience would allow, this statement was agreed on: "Every man must think for himself

to God."99 Once again, extensive time was given to discussing justification, sanctifica-
tion, and church discipline, including issues such as field preaching and other work of

preaching assistants.100

The perspective in all these Conferences was one of seeking
the lifeworld rationality that can only be achieved by open communicative action seeking

consensus.

Wesley's polemical writings reveal a concern for the liberating and inclusive gospel

65

he had experienced and which he sought to impart to those joining the Methodist

societies. Albert Outler presents some of these writings in the third and final major

division of his volume on John Wesley in the Library of Protestant Thought. 101 Inclu-
ded are materials critical of Moravian Lutherans, Antinomian Methodists, and Calvinist
Evangelicals, as well as an appeal to Anglicans concerning the reasonableness of
Methodism and an appeal to Roman Catholics to recognize common Christian concerns.

Wesley's Journal from November 1, 1739 to September 3, 1741 presents his con-

troversy with Moravian Lutherans. 102 Although these Moravians had helped him to his
experience of faith May 24, 173 8, Wesley gradually became disenchanted with them be-
cause of their "stillness doctrine," a belief which undercut Wesley's concern for holy living.

At first, he thought he could join the Moravians in the Fetter Lane Society in London, but

the appearance and teaching of Philip Molther made him realize he could not. 103 Wesley
discovered that Molther had been telling many that their faith was mere "animal spirit,"
that the presence of any doubt or fear meant one did not have true faith, and, in what
especially concerned Wesley, that one should not do any works before receiving faith.
Wesley parted company with the Moravians, because he was convinced that his
people had experienced faith-mot by "stillness" and waiting for Christ, but in using the

"means of grace," which included attending the Lord's Supper, prayer, Bible reading, and

doing "temporal good" for others. 104 Matters became worse when the Moravians said
one was not even obligated after receiving faith to use the means of grace and to do good

105

works. This was what Wesley would term "the enthusiastic doctrine of devils" in

66

his Rules for the Methodist Societies. It was the belief that a Christian believer was free

to do good or not to do good "according as he finds 'his heart free to do it.'"106

The conflict with the Moravians climaxed in a debate with the Moravian leader

from Herrnhut, Count Ludwig von Zinzendorf. 107 Zinzendorf was defending the Luther-
an belief that one does not "grow in holiness," and Wesley was contending for "growth

in grace" to "Christian perfection." In writing a letter protesting to the Moravians in
Herrnhut, in his next to final paragraph, Wesley condemned the substitution of "an

uncertain, precarious inward motion in the place of the plain written word," a word which

called to "means of grace, " and "especially works of outward mercy." I 08 Wesley was
contending for the very kind of "perfection" that Wellman Warner would conclude in his

1930 study imparted a sense of worth and possibilities to many in England in the
eighteenth century and contributed to a democratizing of the society. 109 Bernard Semmel

made the same observation in his 1973 study, The Methodist Reyolution.110

Wesley also found it necessary to confront the unrealistic enthusiasm of some of
his own followers. In particular, two of his lay preachers were making extravagant claims,
matched with contempt for "ordinary Christians." Thomas Maxfield and George Bell anti-

cipated the end of the world February 28, 1763, and they provoked Wesley's tract A

BlowattheRootorChristStahlz'dintheHouseoinsEriends.111 The problem was
an antinomianism similar to the Moravian problem in that it counselled that good works
did not have to go with faith. And, Wesley protested concerning the experience of Chris-

tian faith: "You are really changed: you are not only accounted, but you are actually

67

made righteous. "1 12 That is, this was true if they were experiencing true Christian faith,
according to Wesley. Those who professed great faith were warned elsewhere against

pride, enthusiasm, antinomianism, sins of omission, an schism in a tract entitled "Cautions

and Directions to the Greatest Professors in the Methodist Societies."1 13 Wesley saw
these warnings as necessary, since some believed that they would never die, others

believed that they could not err or sin, and others believed that any Methodist preachers

who didn't agree with them were "in the dark."114 Yet, they were denying their need to
practice holy living.

A third conflict Wesley faced was with the Calvinists, from the controversy with
his fellow Methodist preacher, George Whitefield, to the controversy with the Anglican
Evangelical leader of late eighteenth century England, the Countess of Huntingdon.
Whitefield had come to believe in double predestination, the view of John Calvin that God
has decided before humans make any choices who will be saved and who will be lost.
Wesley saw this as undercutting his offer of salvation to "whosoever will," although
Whitefield had never seen it as an obstacle to his field preaching in England or his
evangelistic tours of the American colonies. Nonetheless, Wesley found it necessary in

1752 to systematically respond to various arguments for predestination in a tract titled

”Predestination Calmly Considered."115 Wellman Warner argues that Wesley's
perspective helped overcome two bases of early eighteenth century class distinctions:
1) "a relic of Calvinism supported the idea of one's assigned place, " and 2) a "political

arithmetic" suggested there was need for significant numbers of the poor for the welfare of

68

the nation.116

This may have been a popular distortion of the teachings of John Calvin,
but Wesley clearly made an appeal that helped break down previous pessimistic

perspectives on the poor. 1 17

Bernard Semmel argues that Methodism was a spiritual revolution "of a pro-
gressive and liberal character" which increased optimism about human possibilities by

stressing the possibility of salvation for all and by warning against "falling from grace,"

something Calvinists believed to be impossible. I 18 Arguing that Methodism was much
more liberal and progressive than Calvinism, he sees it as part of the move from a
traditional to a modern society. Semmel makes Wesley more of a rational humanist than
he was, but he correctly stresses Wesley's optimism concerning the possibilities of divine

grace for everyone. 1 19

This optimism for the poor is part of the reason Methodism
appealed to the poor, while the Calvinism of the Countess of Huntingdon appealed to

persons of privilege. 120

Two other appeals by Wesley illustrate his quest for a rational consensus from

the lifeworld of as many people as possible. The first is his Appeals to Men of Reason

and Rel'mon.121 It was the first of a series of efforts to communicate the rationality of
Methodist religion to "men of reason" and to communicate Methodist conformity to the
Anglican heritage to "men of religion." To "men of reason," Wesley argues: "Whenever

...you see an unreasonable man, you see one who perhaps calls himself by that name but

is no more a 'Christian' than he is an angel."122 He adds that the religion the Methodists

preach is "a religion evidently founded on,and every way agreeable to, eternal reason, to

69

the essential nature of things," with a foundation that " stands on the very nature of God

and the nature of man, together with their mutual relations. "123 To "men of religion,"
Wesley responds to charges that he is departing from the Church of England teaching and
promoting separation by explaining how these charges are untrue.

In addition to his Appeals, Wesley addresses a rational appeal to Roman Catholics

in Ireland in "A Letter to a Roman Catholic."124 Acknowledging the bitterness existing
among both Protestants and Roman Catholics, he presents what he terms beliefs of a "true
Protestant," and the practice of love of neighbor, in such a manner that Roman Catholics
would not disagree with his position. Then, as he closes his "Letter," he urges that they
resolve "not to hurt one another," to speak nothing harsh or unkind of each other, " "to

harbour no unkind thought...towards each other, " and "to help each other on in whatever

we are agreed leads to the Kingdom." 1 25 "Above all," says Wesley, :"let us each take

heed unto himself (since each must give an account of himself to God) that he fall not

short of the religion of love..."126 Clearly, Wesley's polemic efforts sought a lifeworld
rationality grounded in communicative action.
Wesley grounded his communicative approach to lifeworld rationality in theo-

logical convictions. Theodore Jennings has identified five of those convictions which

prompted Wesley's approach. 127 First, he believed in a "grace" that really transformed
people and made them more actively loving. This led to effort for an inclusive community.
Second, he believed that Christian "believers" were empowered, not merely enlightened,

and enabled to live new lives, neither denying the necessity of divine empowerment nor

7O

conceiving God in a Deist fashion of not intervening in human affairs. 128 They were

empowered to deal with human differences. Third, he saw "holiness" as grace over-
powering sin, not "perfecting nature."129 It was power to get beyond "natural" divisions.

Fourth, he saw "love" as essentially a rational ordering of human life. 1 30 That rational

ordering came in Pentecostal community. Fifth, he saw "worldliness" as most threaten-

ing in the realm of economics. 13] Economic self-interest--"riches"«was the greatest
threat to Pentecostal community.

In spite of Wesley's "evangelical economics" which pursued a lifeworld rationality
that would communicate with and express solidarity with the poor, the generation after
Wesley departed from this emphasis. The departure is studied in the works of Jennings,
Semmel, and Warner. Jennings observes Wesley's "hedges and qualifications," making
exceptions to his radical Pentecostal economics, especially his Standard Sermons and
his unbiblical maxim urging Methodists to gain all they could, save all they could, and

give all they could. 132 Warner cites for England the turn of the century (eighteenth to

nineteenth) "rise of a new class, revolution phobia," and association of radicals with

irreligion.133 As a result of successes of a mixed pietism and business action, Metho-

dists moved away fi'om a "divine-ownership theory" (stewardship) requiring the giving

of whatever one earned beyond life's necessities. 134 Warner argues that Wesleyanism
lost its ”capacity for creative leadership" as it drifted away fiom its religious societies,

changed its official pronouncements, and came to grant greater prestige to the econo-

mically successfirl.135 Semmel observes with respect to England the role of a fear of

71

repression of itinerant preachers whom the government had tried to restrict for fear

they were organizing the poor and working classes in ways that had potential for revo—
lution.136 Also, Methodists found an outlet for potentially revolutionary impulses in

foreign missions and in the effort to abolish slavery in the Empire. 137 Yet, in spite of
the rejection of much of Wesley's teaching by ;Methodists shortly after his death, his
concern for the poor lived on in the Methodist heritage. Although moves were made

to follow a rationality grounded in strategic action governed by the political needs of
both the Methodist Church and the wider society, the concern for communicative action

in solidarity with the lifeworld of all the oppressed did not die out completely.

NOTES

1Referred to in Wesley's A Rlain Account of Christian Reflection as contained
in Albert C. Outler, John Wesley (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964) ("A
Library of Protestant Thought" Series), p.7. Outler's source is Works of the Rey.
John Wesley, AM” Third Edition (1829-1831), Thomas Jackson, Editor, Volume XI,
pp. 366-367. This also may be found in John Wesley, A Rlain Account of Christian
Reflection: AsBeheyedandTaugmbytheReLMLJohnWesleyfi'omtheXearllZS
to 1111 (Boston: McDonald, Gill, and Co., undated reprint, p. 1, second paragraph.
This is referred to in the analysis m John L. Peters, Christian Reflection and American
Methodism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1985, Second Edition of 1956
Edition by Pierce and Washabaugh of Nashville, Tennessee), p. 19. This is also re-
ferred to in the analysis in Albert C. Outler, Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit (Nash-
ville, Tennessee: Tidings, 1975, p. 70.

2Passages in Wesley's Journal related to this are re-produced and analyzed in

outlet, John Wesley, pp. 51-69.

72

3Wesley gives his sense of the purpose of the Methodists in what is sometimes
called "The Large Minutes," a compilation of "Minutes of Several Conversations Between
The Rev. Mr. Wesley and Others From the Year 1744, to the Year 1789," as found in
The Works of John Wesley, Volume VIII, Addressed Essays, Letters (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, undated with unidentified editor, from 1872
edition fi'om the Wesleyan Conference Office in London), p. 299. Question 3 of these
"Minutes" reads: "What may we reasonably believe to be God's design in raising up the
Preachers called Methodists?" The answer provided is: "Not to form any new sect; but to
reform the nation, particularly the Church; and to spread scriptural holiness over the land."
In question 4, Wesley asks: "What was the rise of Methodism, so called?:" He answers:
"In 1729, two young men, reading the Bible, saw they could not be saved without holi-
ness, followed after it, and incited others so to do. In 1737 they saw holiness comes by
faith. They saw likewise, that men are justified before they are sanctified; but holiness
was still their point. God then thrust them; out, utterly against their will, to raise a holy
people.”

4Wesley, Rlain Account, paragraphs 2 through 6; Outler, John Wesley, pp. 6-7;
Peters, loc. cit; Outler, Theology, loc. cit.

5Peters, op. cit, p. 20. Reference to The Letters of the Rey. John Wesley,
Edited by John Telford (London: The Epworth Press, 1931), Volume IV, p. 299.

6Vivian H. H. Green, JohnWesley (London: Nelson, 1964), p. 15. Outler,
in John Wesley. p. 7, argues that Wesley's "consequent decision to prepare for ordin-
ation" followed his "conversion" to a resolve to dedicate his entire life to God.

7Green, op. cit, p. 14. Richard P. Heitzenrater, "The Oxford Diaries and
the First Rise of Methodism," in Methodist History, XII (July 1974), p. 114.

8Green, ibid.

9Heitzenrater, loc. cit, pp. 110-135. Green, op. cit, pp. 1-34. "The Large
Minutes, " The Works of John Wesley, loc. cit.

10Outler, John Wesley, p. s.
11Heitzenrater, op. cit, p. 117.

12mm.

73

13Green, op. cit, p. 29.
”thin, pp. 29-30.

15mid, p. 30.

16Heitzenrater, op. cit, p. 118.
l7rhid.

18This thought is developed in Leon Hynson, To Reform The Nation: Theological
Foundations of Wesley's Ethics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press of
Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), "Christian Faith and Social Ethics: The Signifi-
cance of Aldersgate" (pp. 21-31).

19Green, op. cit, pp. 33-34.

2olhid., pp. 34-3 7, says this was a Chaplaincy under the Society for the Promo-
tion of Christian Knowledge. Outler, John Wesley, p. 11, cites a record of the Society
for the Promotion of the Gospel as having appointed Wesley to this mission.

21Quoted from the Jackson Edition of Wesley's Works, Volume I, p. 74, by
Robert G. Tuttle, John Wesley: His Life and Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1978), p. 176.

220utler, John Wesley, p. 66.

23Ibid., p. 14, Outler discusses some spiritual uncertainties Wesley had after
Aldersgate.

2411211, p. 197.
25112111., pp. 189, 191.
26Ibid., pp. 192-193.

271nm, pp. 53-73.

74

23112111., pp. 68-69.
29Hynson, op. cit, p. 34.

30Richard Cameron, Methodism and Society in Historical Rerspectiye
(New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1961) (Volume I in four volume set), p.33.

31Outler, JohnWesley, pp. 14-16.
32112111., p. 14.

33Ilzid., p. 17, reference to Joumfl, eight volume standard edition edited by
Nehemiah Cumock (1909-1916), Volume 111, pp. 172-173.

34mm.

35Outler, John Wesley, pp. 177-180, reference to Jackson Edition of Works
of Wesley, Volume VIII, pp. 269-271.

36Wellman J. Warner, The Wesleyan Moyement inthe industrial Reyolution
(London: Longrnans, Green, and Company, 1930), p. 274. Warner writes: "Religious
experience served as the stimulant of that social mobility which is an invariable symptom
of fiee initiative and liberal sentiment." He adds on p. 176: "Wesleyanism made vigorous
contributions to the process which undermined the foundations of the old standards and
made new values of spirit and personality supreme." But, he concludes on p. 179 that
Methodism failed its great opportunity when leaders after Wesley decreased their stress
on developing character for the good of society.

370utler, John Wesley, loc. cit.

38Theodore W. Jennings, Jr., Good News to the Roor: John Wesley's Eyangelical
Economics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990).

391m, pp. 13-15.
4011nd, p. 14.

“this, pp. 15-16.

75

42111111., pp. 18-22.
43m, p. 22.
44112151., pp. 2425.
45112111., p. 26.

46Acts 4.32 and Acts 4.35. This "Pentecostal Community is described in Acts
2.43-47 and Acts 4.32-37.

47John Wesley, Explanatory Notes 11an the New Testament (London: The
Epworth Press, 1958 reprinting), p. 402.

48rbid.

49Jennings, op. cit. p. 136, reference to Thoughts 11an Methodism in Volume
XIII, p. 258 of the Jackson Edition of Wesley's works.

50rhid.
51rhid.

52Ilzid., p. 129. This warning is issued by Wesley in the fourth of his Standard
Sermons on the Sermon on the Mount.

53Jennings (p. 135) notes that Wesley observed this thesis that Protestantism
results in Middle Class prosperity long before it was developed by Max Weber in The
RrotestantEthicandtheSpiritofCapitalismand RH. Tawney inReligionandtheRise
of C . l'

54l’hid. Writing on "The Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity," Wesley asked:
"Does it not seem (and yet this cannot be) that Christianity, true scriptural Christianity,
has a tendency, in process of time to undermine and destroy itself?" He explained: "For
wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and fiugality, which, in the
natural course of things, must beget riches! and riches naturally beget pride, love of the
world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. Now, if there be no way to
prevent this, Christianity is inconsistent with itself, and, of consequence, cannot stand,
cannot continue long among any people; since, wherever it generally prevails, it saps
its own foundation." (Jennings quotes this passage from Works, Vol. VII, p. 290.)

76

55Jennings (pp. 29-46), in a chapter titled "The Demystification of Wealth, " cites
many sermons and letters by Wesley warning against the threat of riches to motivate hos-
tility toward those perceived to have fewer possessions. Jennings sees this de-mystifica-
tion as a antidote to "the pseudo-gospel of wealth and power."

56Jennings, op. cit, p. 36, reference to a letter of May 16, 1759.

57Reinhold Niebuhr, Ihc Irony of Amonoan History (New York: Charles Scrib-
ner’s Sons, 1952), p. 12.

58min, p. 50, reference to Works, Volume XIII, p. 307.

591bid., p. 51.

601bid., p. 54, reference to Journal for November 24, 1760.

61Ibid., reference to "On Visiting the Sick," Works, Volume VII, p. 60.
62mm, p. 55, reference to Journal for February 9-10, 1763.

63M” p. 57, reference to "Letter to a Member of the Society" of February
7, 1776. Jennings cites a similar letter of June 9, 1775 with this challenge: "Go and
see the poor and sick in their own poor little hovels! Take up your cross, woman!
Remember the faith! Jesus went before you, and will go with you. Put off the gentle-
woman: You bear a higher character."

64Ibid., p. 64.
651m, p. 71.
6611211, pp. 58-62.

67Jennings (p. 61) notes that Wesley wrote of how he gave medical attention
in ABlainAoconm ofthoBeoplo CalledMethodists (Works, Volume VIII, pp. 263-
265): "I did not regard whether they were of the society or not." Jennings observes
(p. 224) that Wesley criticized the Moravians in his Journal of November 28, 1750
this way: "I do not admire their confining beneficence to the narrow bounds of their
own society."

77

68mm, pp. 62-64.

691nm, p. 65, reference to "The Large Minutes" of Wesley in Works. Volume
VIII, p. 332.

7OIhid., reference to "Letter to Mr. John Cricket" of February 10, 1783.
71Ibid., p. 68, reference to Works, Volume XI, p. 55.

72Ihid., p. 69.

7311211, pp. 72-78.

74Ihitl., p. 77, reference to Works, Volume VIII, p. 165.

75112151., pp. 78-88.

76lhid., p. 93, reference to "A Calm Address to our American Colonies" in
Works, Volume XI, p. 81.

77m, p. 89, reference to letter of February 26, 1791.
7811211, p. 94.

79Ibid., p. 95.

8011211, p. 99, reference to Journal of January 21, 1767.
81 Ihid.

821121:l.,pp. 98-102.

8311211, p. 103, reference to "The More Excellent Way" in Works, Volume
VII, p. 36.

84mm, pp. 106-108. Jennings contrasts Wesley's call to give all to God in
the poor with that kind of "stewardship" appeal which calls church members to give
a "Temple Tax" of a tithe for church buildings and programs.(p. 105)

78

85Ilzirl., pp. 108-111. Among other references, Jennings gives this Wesley
direction on dress: "Therefore, every shilling which you needlessly spend on your
apparel is, in effect, stolen from God and the poor!" (P. 109 reference to "On Dress"
in Works, Volume V1], p. 20)

86mm, p. 113, reference to "The General Spread of the Gospel" found

in Works, Volume VI, p. 284. Jennings expands on this with reference to Wesley's
works on pp. 111-116.

8711211, pp. 113-114, 131.

83m, p. 137, reference to Wesley's Works, Volume XIII, p. 259. Jennings
summarizes Wesley’s expressions of these concerns over the years on pp. 130-138,
including a section titled "Wesley Against the Methodists."

89These are summarized by Albert Outler in John Wesley. pp. 134-196.
9°0ut1er, op. 1:11., p. 135.

91Ibid., p. 136, reference to Publications ofthe Wesleyan Historical Society,
No. 1 (1896).

92111111.
93112111., p. 147.
94m, p. 148.

951ml, pp. 155-156. Outler notes that this source for these minutes is Wesley,
as found in Works, Volume VIII, pp. 275-298.

96Ibid., pp. 163 ff. Outler (p. 135) observes that these minutes are once again
those of lay preacher John Bennet

97Ibid., p. 164.
93112111.

99112111.

79

10011111, pp. 165-176.
10111111, pp. 345-499.
102mm, pp. 353-376.
10311211, p. 354.
104mm, pp. 357-358.
10511211, pp. 360-361.
10616111., p. 361.
10711211, pp. 367-372.
10811211, p. 376.
10911214., pp. 364-371.
110mm, pp. 35-40.
“1112111.,p. 377.
“2112111., p. 381.
“311m, pp. 298-305.
“4mm, p. 305.

115mm,, pp. 427-472. Wesley also offered in 1774 another tract titled
"Thoughts Upon Necessity" related to the same t0pic.

116Warner, op. cit, pp. 10-11.

117Warner's thesis is that the Wesleyan movement provoked a more liberal
and humanitarian perspective by breaking down social conditions preventing re-
appraisal of community values and by fostering a situation making a new outlook

8O

possible.(p. 274) He does not deal with differences between John Calvin's writings
and popular Calvinism of eighteenth century England.

118Bernard Semmel, Ihc Methodist Reyolution (New York: Basic Books,
Inc., Publishers, 1973), pp. 4-5, 41-45.

119Wesley was more "liberal," in the sense of optimistic about human possibil-
ities, than Luther or Calvin. ; But, Semmel's quote (p. 19) of Wesley's definition of
faith as "an assent upon rational grounds" is a definition that precedes the more char-
acteristic definition of faith as "an assent to what God has revealed because he has
revealed it and not because the truth of it can be evinced by reason." (Letters, Tel-
ford Edition, Volume I, p. 25, as cited in George Allen Turner, The Vision Which
Transforms: Is Christian Perfection Scriptural (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press,
1964), p. 197.) Also, with respect to "free will," Semmel incorrectly argues that
Wesley departs from Lutheran and Calvinist emphases to stress "free will," thus
becoming more consistent with a "modem" or "liberal" perspective.(pp. 41-45)
However, Robert Chiles, in Iheologioal Iransitions in American Methodism: 1.720;
1935 (New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1965), stresses that it was those who
followed Wesley in America who made the transition to belief in "free will," while
Wesley continually stressed gracious ability or "free grace."

morbid, p. 53.

121Outler, JohnWesley, pp. 384-424.
12211211, p. 393.

123112111, p. 394.

124112111, pp. 492-499.

12511211, pp. 498-499.

126mm, p. 499.

127Jennings, op. cit, pp. 139-156.

128mm, pp. 145-148. Jennings observes (pp. 143, 144) that Wesley stressed
the inner change of the believer as part of his concern for outward change, not as an ex-
pression of disinterest in outer human behavior. He writes that "a conversion that lefi

81

unchanged my manner of relating to my neighbor would be an imaginary conversion, an
exercise in irreality." In a footnote (p. 229) Jennings sees this perception of Wesley as
"relatively disinterested in outward transformation" as "the characteristic
misinterpretation"

of ER Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Random
House, 1963).

1291mm pp. 148-149.

13OIbitL pp. 150-151. Jennings summarizes (p. 150): "Wesley regards this
pure disinterested love for every human being as rational religion--rational because it
corresponds to the true character of the created subject, rational because it corre-
sponds, as that subject must, to the divine subject."

131E151, pp. 153-156.

132nm, pp. 157-179, a chapter titled "Why Did Wesley Fail?"
1331mm p. 123.

13411211, p. 196.

135mm, pp. 198-206.

‘36rbid, pp. 124-136.

137nm, pp. 145-146, 168-169.

B. MARRIAGE TO AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION
DEVELOPING STRATEGIC ACTION
SEEKING SUBSYSTEM RATIONALITY

Wesley's followers in North America asserted their adulthood and independence
in the 1784 formation of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore. At the same time,
the thirteen colonies were asserting their adulthood and independence in the 1776 Declar-
ation and the 1787 Constitution in Philadelphia. As the years passed, both entities, the
newly formed Methodist Episcopal Church and the newly formed United States of Amer-
ica, realized a commonness of interests, and Methodism became a vital component in the
religious support of the nation. Wesleyan concerns for personal and social liberation were
married to American concerns for liberty within republican institutions. Concerns for
Christian maturity were blended with concerns for national unity in a civil religion which
appealed to all American Protestants, uniting Evangelical heirs of the American Great
Awakening with Deistic heirs of the Enlightenment. A community of concern and reli-
gious devotion to the survival of the new republican institutions was developing. When
the developing civil religion came to be more concerned about political order in the
church and in the nation than about the liberation of slaves, perfectionists from within
Methodism challenged the institutional church to a more inclusive lifeworld rationality
that would include the well-being of slaves. After these and other conflicts led to Civil
War, institutional church Methodists and perfectionist Methodists re-united in a Civil
Religion whose objective was the spread of spiritual and civil liberty throughout the
nation and around the globe.

Bishop Francis Asbury and the General Conference communicated their best

82

83

wishes and prayers for success to newly inaugurated President George Washington in

1789.1 This act symbolized the marriage of Methodist and American concerns for lib-
erty. Bishop Asbury's visits with President Washington clearly expressed wholehearted

Methodist support of independence from Great Britain. It also helped overcome doubts

caused by Methodist founder John Wesley's opposition to the cause of the colonists.2
Methodists were among the Evangelical Revivalists whose rejection of cold for-

malism found common cause with Deist opposition to traditionalism to support religious

freedom in a context of a voluntary civil religion in the new American nation.3 Sidney
Mead has described this "lively experiment" with religious freedom and voluntaryism as

grounded in rationalist emphasis on the primacy of reason and revivalist (he speaks of it

as "pietist") emphasis on the primacy of the heart.4 Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin,

and other Deists were convinced that the revivalist religious groups would each "inculcate

in its own way the basic religious beliefs that are essential" to public order.5 Jefferson
opposed "whatever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth" and Franklin resented the re-
marks of a preacher he thought would "rather to make us Presbyterians than good

citizens. "6

Mead explains that this alliance of revivalists and rationalists required the revival-
ists to "inculcate the basic religious beliefs essential for the existence and well-being of the
society" by persuasion and to accept the view that only what the churches held in common

7

was relevant to the well-being of society and state. Persuasion and voluntaryism would

have to be the means of appeal, since the United States was already so diverse that no

84

group could dominate. This "religion of the nation" (which I am referring to as "Civil

Religion") was imparted by the public schools as more important than the "religion of the
denominations" taught by the churches.8 Mead argues: "In this sense the public school

system of the United States is its established church."9 Henry May observes that by 1850
this civil religion had a clearly Protestant flavor, part of what he terms "Progressive

Patriotic Protestantism." 10

When the revivalist/rationalist marriage of the Revolutionary period divorced with
the 1800 Presidential campaign of Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists evoked fears focusing
on the threat of French political instability associated with Jefferson rather than on the
theological differences of rationalist naturalistically revealed religion versus revivalist
supernaturalistically revealed religion. Thus, the Civil Religion of beliefs promoting poli-
tical rationality remained supreme, even as the F ederalists aroused public fears of Jefferson
by associating him with the excesses of the French Revolution. The civil religious unity of
rationalists and revivalists remained, while debate focused on who could be trusted to
maintain the political stability of American republican institutions.

Civil religion provided a connecting link between the concerns of Methodism to
organize itself and concerns of the new nation to conquer the frontier and organize itself.

Charles Ferguson has analyzed the parallel rationalization of American life in general and

of Methodism in particular.1 1 He argues that American Methodism bears a major re-
sponsibility "for the worship of methodology in America," and that it is both an example
of and a major cause of the American combination of "exuberance and statistics. . .,

idealism and bureaucracy, ...ponderous effort and quick wit, ...grandiose plans and

85

infinite detail."12 Ferguson analyzes the role of organized circuit riders, class meetings,
and camp meetings in presenting, in addition to religious instruction, "the claims of regu-
lation and social control" and the related sense of order for new settlers on the American

fi'ontier. 13

Strategic actions pursuing political order within Methodism, under the control of
Bishops from Francis Asbury to Joshua Soule, came to be resisted over the years by those
seeking communicative action to achieve a more inclusive lifeworld rationality. The even-
tual result was the 1844 split of the Methodist Episcopal Church into Northern and South-
ern branches largely due to the conflict over the power of the General Conference of the
preachers to regulate the Bishops. Methodist preachers had withdrawn to form the Primi-

tive Methodists in 1791 , the Republican Methodists ("Christian Church") in 1798, the

Methodist Protestant Church in 1830, and the Wesleyan Methodist Connection in 1843.14
But, the Bishops control of the church was finally challenged successfully when the Gener-
al Conference voted 110 to 68 on June 1, 1844 for Bishop James Andrew to cease fiinc-

tioning as Bishop so long as he owned slaves, slaves he had come to possess by marriage

and had found no way to set free. 15 Even as the strategic action of the national political
parties and the Congress to prevent communicative action on the slavery issues (so as to
maintain a certain political rationality) was being overcome during these years, so the stra-
tegic action pursuing church political rationality by the Bishops and General Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church avoiding the slavery issue was overcome. The result was
the division of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1844 and the division of the nation in

1861.

86

The founding Christmas Conference at Baltimore had demanded that those unwill-

ing to free their slaves within one year (two years for Virginia) be expelled. 16 But, the

rule was not enforced, because Methodist leaders Francis Asbury and Thomas Coke had

suspended the requirement within six months as being impractical. ‘7 In 1785, Asbury had
urged George Washington to support a petition making emancipation of slaves legal.

Washington had refused to sign but said he would support such an action by the Virginia

Assembly. The petition had come to nothing. 18 Asbury was undisturbed, because he pre-
ferred improvement of the slaves' condition rather than emancipation. A 1793 slave revolt
on Hispaniola led by Toussaint L'Ouverture followed by 250 slave revolts in the United

States in the next half century influenced Asbury to stress conversions and let converts

change society rather than threaten church unity with such a social issue.20 The concern
for political order within the Methodist Episcopal Church developed to be so strong that

the 1836 General Conference approved by a vote of 120 to 14 a censure of 2 delegates

for attending an antislavery convention.21 Bishop Joshua Soule, presiding at the 1844
General Conference, expressed the overriding concern for political rationality in confront-
ing the slavery issue. He praised Methodist evangelistic efi‘orts, especially toward blacks,
and he added: "But to raise them up to equal civil rights and privileges is not within our

power. Let us not labor in vain and spend our strength for nought.22

A growing movement within Methodism and American revivalism was not content

to tolerate human slavery. Timothy Smith has analyzed the development of this movement

in many denominations in his Reyiyalism and Social Reform:23 Methodism had stressed

87

Christian perfection in love as an equipping experience and relationship from its begin-
nings in England and its early days in America. By the 183 Os, Presbyterians, Congre-
gationalists, and Baptists shared similar concerns and beliefs. While some saw the quest
for "entire sanctification" to be the pursuit of an experience so vital that concern for social
issues would not be permitted to interfere, others viewed it is enabling confrontation with
what was seen to be the key moral issue of the times, human slavery. In fact, Charles
Finney, a non-Methodist who came to share many Methodist perspectives, in his emphasis
on "new measures" to provoke the outbreak of revivals of religion, stressed that taking a

wrong stand on such human rights issues as slavery was one of the key hindrances to revi-

val.24 These perfectionists were part of a movement for communicative action seeking
a rational order by means beyond strategic or instrumental action that meely sought what
seemed necessary for the political order of the nation, a church, or a movement.

"New measures" in American religious history are usually associated with the work
of Charles Finney. In analyzing the impact of this change in American revivalism, William
McLaughlin explains that his sermons "combined reason and emotion, faith in the Bible

and faith in human intelligence, belief in the benevolence of God and belief in the perfecti-
bility of man."25 He points to Finney's 1835 Lectures on Reyiyals of Religion as "the de-

finitive statement of techniques and criteria for modern revivalism."26 F inney called for
a raising of excitement as politicians would do to bring people to a decision, and he shared

the post-millenial optimism of most revivalists of the time that society could be trans-

formed.27 From the pages of the Qberlin Eyangelist he condemned the church for its

"pernicious attitude..on the reforms of the age," and he challenged religious leaders to

88

speak out on issues of reform that would otherwise divide the church.28 The "strategic
action" of his "new measures" were seen as a means to reform individuals and society,
but not something more vital than communicative action concerning the great social issues
of the day.

McLaughlin contends that F inney harnessed frontier revivalism to the institution-

alized church system and helped stabilize and unify American evangelical Protestantism

and "transform it into a national religion."29 He argues that the social outlook of F inney's
theology was the "Christian counterpart of Jacksonian democracy," but that, as it came

to be a "national religion," it went hand in hand with social conformity and political con-

servatism.30 Perhaps the use of Finney's "new measures" without his reformist agenda
went together with social conformity, but F inney's perspective was clearly not one of
social conformity. His communicative efforts had such clear social implications, even
when not explicitly stated, that Lyman Beecher feared Finney's "appealing dangerously to
levelling and democratizing" by his speaking the same message to all classes, and Beecher

saw this as a "sure presage of anarchy and total destruction."31

However, some people's use of "new measures" for strategic reasons not clearly
related to reform did go hand in hand with social conformity. John Peters, Timothy Smith,
and Charles Jones all document the developing "new measures" in America from the

18303 onward to encourage the quest for "Christian perfection" understood as being

experienced in a crisis of "entire sanctification."32 Methodists had always exhorted one

another to "go on to perfection" (as Wesley had asked them to do), but the 18205 and

89

18305 saw a renewed emphasis on this. Methodists published books on the subject and
wrote articles on it for their official publications. Even as they had taken the camp meeting
and organized it, and used it to replace the more personal and communicative class
meeting, so they used the "new measure" of direct confrontation for decision for conver-

sion, as employed by F inney, and applied it to the call to confess entire sanctification.33

A key event in this developing concern was the beginning of a "Tuesday Meeting
for the Promotion of Holiness" in 1835., combining two Methodist women's prayer groups
under the leadership of Phoebe Palmer. Men were eventually welcomed to the meetings
and it became an interdenominational quest for an experience of entire sanctification.

Timothy Smith relates this both to Finney's efforts and quest at the time and to "the

temper of the time."34 Smith sees it as related to the strivings of "a romantic and tran-
scendentalist generation" that hungered for an experience that would "make Christianity

work."35

About 1847, Palmer developed her controversial "altar theology, " a strategy which

advocated public testimony to entire sanctification before one felt assurance. This was

seen as an expression of faith and as a means to advance the movement.36 It was based
on an emphasis of the Apostle Paul on presenting oneself as a "living sacrifice" (as in
the twelfth chapter of the Letter to the Romans in the Christian New Testament) and
an Old Testament declaration that "the altar sanctifies the gift."

Not all Methodists agreed with this exegesis. Nathan Bangs, a friend of Palmer,
criticized the departure from Wesley's emphasis on "the witness of the Spirit." In spite of

the controversy, though, by the 18505 Phoebe Palmer and her husband, Dr. Walter

90

Palmer, as well as numbers of other evangelists, were becoming quite successful in mass

meetings, especially in using Methodist camp meetings as a vehicle for calling persons to

an experience of entire sanctification using the "altar theology."37 However, Timothy
Smith has pointed out that Palmer and "her New York and Philadelphia coterie" (bishops,

editors, and other Methodist leaders) were "laggards in whatever demanded stern attacks

on persons and institutions."38 The 1857-58 "Prayer Meeting Revival" ("Business Men's
Revival"), which Smith presents as a high water mark of the pre-Civil War combination
of revivalism, perfectionism, and millenialism, would not permit discussion of such contro-
versial issues as slavery.

But, contrary to Phoebe Palmer's kind of strategic action, many other revivalists,

especially many Methodists, combined revivalism, perfectionism, and millenialism into a

movement to socially apply Christianity.39 In fact, Timothy Smith's basic thesis is that

American revivalism and perfectionism "helped prepare the way both in theory and in

practice for what later became known as the social gospel."40 Smith argues that "what-
ever may have been the role of other factors, the quest for perfection joined with com-
passion for poor and needy sinners and a rebirth of millenial expectations to make pop-

ular Protestantism a mighty social force long before the slavery conflict erupted into

war.41 The groundwork was laid by the attack upon slavery in the 18405 and 18505.
As revivalistic abolitionists had dealt with the issues of whether church or national unity
should be jeopardized for their cause and whether the church in a democratic society

should seek to impose Christian values on society, revivalistic perfectionists became

91

involved in "the rehabilitation of the Bible as an instrument of reform." This included
rational and historical approaches to use against slavery a document allowing slavery

in Old and new Testaments.42

Three unusual perfectionists who challenged institutional Methodism on the sla-
very issue before the war were Gilbert Haven, Luther Lee, and LC. Matlack. Haven's
biographer William Gravely documents his Puritan, revivalist, Methodist context and his

abolitionism from within Methodism before the war. This included a Biblical case that all

slavery is sin and that racial equality, not mere freedom, was the ultimate goal.43 It also

included a rational appeal to a "higher law" than the Constitutionally adopted Fugitive

Slave Bill of 1850 (which he never regarded as a "Law.")44

Matlack and Lee both withdrew from New England Methodism in 1843 with

Orange Scott and others to form the Wesleyan Methodist Connection.45 Lee states in his
autobiography what he saw as the three reasons for the secession: 1) slavery was known

to be a sin; 2) the Methodist Episcopal Church endorsed slavery; and 3) the antislavery

cause was crippled within the church.46 But, Matlack, looking backward from 1881 to
write a history of "The Anti-Slavery Struggle," maintains that there was a continuing anti-
slavery position within the Methodist Episcopal Church through the Civil War. Both

Matlack and Lee state that they returned to membership in the Methodist Episcopal

Church at the end of the War, since the cause of their leaving had been removed.47 The
writings of all three of these social perfectionists are filled with optimism, and each repre-

sents the civil religion which both institutional Methodists and social perfectionists shared

if:
r
r‘

92

after the Civil War.

Millenial optimism and civil religion were related to a changing perspective on
"Providence" that developed during the 18505 and was very strong after the War. Before
the War, and before the 18505 intensification of the slavery debate, Providence had tended
to be a doctrine invoked by conservatives in favor of social and civil conservatism, as
when Bishops Asbury and Soule stressed individual evangelism and avoidance of poten-
tially divisive social issues. Methodist leaders saw the growth of Methodism as a sign of
Providential mission. It was not something to be jeopardized by what seemed to them to
be shortsighted attention to "issues of the day" such as abolition. Donald Jones has ob-
served that afier the War the doctrine of Providence motivated "a strong conviction of
being mission-sent into the world; a logical outgrowth of a fervent religious nationalism;

and a felt requirement of a providential Lord who was judging, renewing and calling ...to

obedience.48

This changed view of Providence went hand in hand with a post-Civil War reunion
of perfectionists with institutional Methodism in a renewed synthesis of civil religion which
saw as its goal the spread of civil liberty throughout the nation and the world. Specific
examples of this synthesis were Luther Lee and Lucius Matlack, founders of the Wesleyan
Methodist Connection in 1843, who returned to the Methodist Episcopal Church after the
War and made common cause with Bishop Matthew Simpson, a perfectionist who spoke

at the first meeting of the National Camp Meeting for the promotion of Holiness in 1867

and who was a strong exponent of American civil religion.49 President Lincoln gratefillly

thanked his fiiend Bishop Simpson for his wartime support, especially his often repeated

93

"War Message," which was one of the clearest expressions of the American civil
religion.50 Arguing for the providential mission of America, Simpson declared: "I would

say it with all reverence. God cannot do without America."51 As Donald Jones describes

it, Methodism after the Civil War combined both "the religion of the nation" and "the

religion of evangelical Christianity."52 This civil religion of American freedom was
"a fervent nationalism rooted in traditional faith," says Jones, not the kind of thing brought

to mind by twentieth century concepts of civil religion which are either a kind of "folk

religion" replacing traditional faith or "a religion of politics."53 Jones argues that this
sense of mission to Christianize America (advance freedom and fi'ee institutions) may help
to explain two other processes: 1) "how a revivalist-oriented denomination came to
assume a social mission to the nation" and 2) "how northern Methodism could acquiesce,
along with the nation, to the compromise of 1877 and gradually lose its concern for civil

justice in both the North and the South."54

Referring to Methodist post-Civil War leaders, Jones argues that the greatness

of such men "is seen in their capacity to affirm and work for humane causes without ignor-

ing the biblical and historical origins of the human virtues."55 He contends that post-Civil
War Methodism, rather than being shaped primarily by the frontier, was in a mood for

"turning eyes back to New England to gain perspective for the meaning of the conflict,

of national destiny, of the meaning of the church."56 In a time of national upheaval, the
Puritan sense of calling to be a Christian nation was remembered, and at a time of cele-

bration of the centennial of the first Methodist preachers sent by Wesley to America

94

in 1766, the sense of Methodist mission to "reform the continent" was remembered.
Jones cites Bishop Jesse Peck's 1868 History of the Great Republic as seeing Methodism
to be battling "the sins that threatened the Republic"--sin5 of slavery, intemperance, social

inequality, rebellion, ignorance, and all the forces which endangered free institutions and

civil liberty.57 He also cites Methodist leader George Crooks' January 24, 1863 article in
The Methodist which stated: "The manifest destiny of the nation is to be a Christian
nation; our democracy will be a democracy of schoolhouses. And so long as church and

schoolhouse, religion and education, are cherished, so long shall we be bound by indissol-

uble ties to the spirit of Puritanism."58 He gives extensive space to Daniel Whedon's con-

cept of "The Man-Republic" in an essay by that title in the Methodist Quarterly Reyiery

and his 1852 Public Addresses.59 This concept was part of the developing Methodist
supported civil religion which saw itself to be evangelizing the nation as an entity. In con-
nection with this, Methodist historian Abel Stevens remarked concerning Gilbert Haven's
book of sermons dealing with his struggle against slavery after the 1850 Fugitive Slave

Bill that "the struggle not only emancipated our slaves, it emancipated our clergy.6O

Philip Jordan and Leon Hynson have made the same point as Jones with respect

to post-Civil War civil religion.61 Jordan seeks to explain the rise of the Social Gospel
as an essentially conservative movement, and initiates his discussion with a summary of

what he terms the "evangelical Religion of the Republic" evident in public remarks by

Bishop Matthew Simpson and Wesleyan University President C.D. Foss.62 Simpson's

"War Message" not only argued "God cannot afford to do without America," but it also

( m

95

was very Optimistic with respect to the positive future power for America of free imrrrigra-

tion and social mobility in carrying out America's world mission of teaching the world

republican government.63 Foss argued that the United States was made by God "the

grand repository and evangelist of civil liberty and of pure religious faith."64

Leon Hynson presents Bishop Jesse Peck's History of the Great Republic as repre-
senting the post-Civil War Methodist concern to "convert the nation"--not into a theo-
cracy, but into an example of civil liberty. Peck spoke of "the progressive development of

the new manhood" in a process by which "the social elevation...make5 vice disgracefirl,

and instills virtue and piety as the dominant forces of reason."65 He argued:

The race is conring to feel the imperative for a divine regeneration

of society, the grand model of which is found in every true Christian

in whose heart, purposes, motives, and acts, old things have passed

away, and all things become new.(66)

There was a strong feeling that the Civil War had led to such a "new birth of freedom,"
to use the Lincoln phrase.

Methodism had organized itself in 1784 in Baltimore "to reform the Continent
and to spread scriptural holiness over these lands." Early on it committed itself to per-
sonal and social liberation, and it even went on record as seeking the abolition of slavery.
But, as the years passed, Wesleyan social perfectionism, including commitment to the
abolition of slavery, was deserted for strategic action to maintain the political stability of
the American Republic and the Methodist Episcopal Church. At the same time, Wesleyan

perfectionists, some concerned for individual perfection and others for both individual and

social perfection, challenged institutional Methodism and the Nation to return to the more

96

inclusive vision of a lifeworld rationality which included slaves, rather than let the expedi-
ency of political rationality triumph. As conflict led to War, the civil religion preached by
Methodists inspired Northern unity. President Abraham Lincoln expressed gratitude both
for Methodist soldiers and for Methodist Bishop Matthew Simpson's "War Message"
calling for devotion to the Union cause. By the end of the War, the previously antithetical
elements of institutional Methodism and perfectionism had been synthesized in a renewal
of civil religion which saw its mission to be the advance of "free institutions" around the
world. The marriage of Methodism and American civil religion had been threatened by
temporary separation, but it was now renewed in the covenant to spread social holiness

over the globe.

NOTES

lCharles w. Ferguson, QrganizingtoBeattheIleyil: MethodistsandtheMaking
of America (Garden City, New Jersey: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1971), "Hail to
the Chief, " pp 13- 21; Frederick A. Norwood, Ihe Story of American Methodism
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1974), pp. 120, 121.

2Early American Methodist leader Thomas Rankin expressed the skepticism some

Methodist preachers had felt concerning the war for independence. Part of his diary is
reproduced in Sourcebook of American Methodism, Edited by Frederick A. Norwood
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1982). On a day set apart by the Continental Congress for
a fast (July 20, 1775), Rankin recorded in his diary this summary of sermon he gave at
Gunpowder Falls (apparently in Maryland): "I endeavoured to open up and enforce the
cause of all our misery. I told them that the sins of Great Britain and her colonies had
long called for vengeance and in a peculiar manner the dreadful sin of buying and selling
the souls and bodies of the poor Africans, the sons and daughters of Ham." (Norwood,

Sourcebook. pp. 47-48)

97

In a diary entry for Wednesday, August 23, 1775, Rankin expressed his discom-
fort with actions of his fellow colonists: "I cannot I dare not, countenance the measures
taken to oppose Great Britain; and yet at the same time, I would do nothing to hurt the
inhabitants of America. How difficult to stand in such a situation; and not to be blamed
by violent men on both sides? I had frequent opportunities from the first general congress
that was held in Philadelphia, till now; to converse with several of its members; and also
with many members of the Provincial Congress, where I travelled. I found liberty to
speak my mind with fi'eedom and so far as I could see they were not offended. I could
not help telling many of them, what a farce it was for them; to contend for liberty, when
they themselves, kept some hundreds of thousands of poor blacks in most cruel bondage?
Many confessed it was true, but it was not now the time to set them at liberty. ...1 en-
deavoured according to my little abilities to lead all those who heard me, (among whom
were sometimes members of the Congress) to a proper improvement by turning with our
whole hearts to the living God." (Norwood, Sourcebook, p. 49.)

3Sidney Mead, IheLiyely Experiment: The shaping ofChristianity in America
(New York: Harper and Row, 1963), p. 35 and elsewhere. See Introduction above,
note 72 on pp. 39-41 on use of the concept of "civil religion."

4Ibitl., p. 61.

5Mead, op. cit, p. 63, gives his summary of Jefferson and Franklin's thought on
this.

6Mead, op. cit, p. 64, refers to Jefferson and p.66 refers to Franklin.
7Ibitl., p. 65.

8min, pp. 66-71.

9112151., p. 68.

10Henry May, Ideas, EaithsandEeelings: EssaysonAmericanIntelleetualand
Religious History: 1252-1282 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983),
p. 171. May's essay "The Religion of the Republic" (pp. 163-186) develops this thesis.
He contends that the predominance of this civil religion ended in 1919 with the end of the
Interchurch World Movement. Robert W Wuthnow deals with the history of recent ex-
pressions of American civil religion in The Restructuring of American Religion: Society
and Palm Since World War II (Princeton, New Jersey: The Princeton University Press,
1988). Wuthnow argues that there are two current American versions of civil religion,
one conservative and the other liberal. He also suggests that, due to the lack of agreement

98

between these two, yet a third "secular mythology" appears to be rising to dominance as
American civil religion. His chapter "Two Cheers For America" (pp. 241-267) presents
this perspective, including an explanation of the conservative and liberal varieties.

llFerguson, op. cit.
1211211, pp. vii, viii.
13Ibitl., p. 67.

14Ibi£l., chapters titled "The Mischief Begins" (175-184), "Reform With a
Vengeance" (185-200), and "Half Slave and Half Free" (201-217).

ISIbid, p. 229. Harry Richardson speaks of Bishop Andrew as a "kindly, sincere
man" who could not bring himself to sell his slaves and was not legally permitted to free
them. He does this inDarkSalyation: IheStoryofAmericanMethodismasitIleyel:
oped Among Blacks in America (Garden City, New Jersey: Anchor-Press/Doubleday,
1976), p. 55. The conflict and decision are recounted in Norwood, Ihe Story, pp. 197-
199.

16Richardson, op. cit, p. 53.
”Ibid, pp. 53-54.
18Ferguson, op. cit, p. 17.

1911214., p. 205. IN contrast, James O'Kelly, a Virginia Methodist preacher,
freed his slaves and responded to the assertion that slavery might be God-ordained
by declaring: "If there be such a being in existence as may be called God, who was
the author of this tragedy, it must be one of those gods that ascend from the bottom-
less pit. Such a god I defy in the name and strength of Jesus and declare eternal war
against him!"

20min, pp. 206-208. Ferguson sees this as a triumph of the "spirit of Asbury"
over the "spirit of Coke. "

21min, pp. 208-209. This was in spite of the defense of the two delegates by
Orange Scott, leader of the New England delegation. Scott, converted in a camp meet-
ing, was known as a flaming evangelist whose services were described as "overwhelm-
ing pentecostal seasons." When the General Conference continued to refilse to deal with

99

slavery issue, he joined Luther Lee and Lucius Matlack in forming the Wesleyan Metho-
dist Connection in 1843. Scott died before the Civil War began, but Lee and Matlack
rejoined the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1867, after the War ended the slavery issue.
Norwood, Ihe Story, pp. 195-196; L.C. Matlack, Ihe Antileayery Struggle in the
Methodist Episcopal Church (New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969), p. 371;
Luther Lee, Autobiography (New York: Garland Press, 1984, reprint of 1882 edition
by Phillips & Hunt of New York), pp. 305-310.

22Ferguson, op. cit, pp. 219-220.

23Timothy L. Smith, Reidyalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on
the Eye of the Ciyil War (New York: Harper Torchbooks, originally published by Abing-
don Press in 1957).

24Charles Finney, Reyiyals of Religion (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H.
Revell Company, undated reprint of 1835 original, pp. 325-327, 337-343. Donald

Dayton, Diseoyering an Eyangelical Heritage (New York: Harper and Row, 1976),
pp. 15-24.

25William McLaughlin, Jr., Modem Rey'ryalism: Charles Grandison Finney to
Billy Graham (New York: The Ronald Press, 1959), p. 67.

26min, p. 84.
27112151., pp. 87, 105-106.

28Dayton, loc. cit, discusses Finney's role in reform and reprints a Letter on
Revival that other editions of Finney's works have edited so as to remove references
to reform issues. On p. 19, Dayton refers to an edition of Reyiyal Eire published sev-
eral times in the twentieth century by Bethany Fellowship of Minneapolis which reprints
Finney's words on "excitement" but does not give the full letter. The letter reproduced
by Dayton includes these words: "Now the great business of the church is to reform
the world--to put away every kind of sin. The church of Christ was originally organized
to be a body of reformers. The very profession of Christianity implies the profession and
virtually an oath to do all that can be done for the universal reformation of the world. The
Christian church was designed to make aggressive movements in every direction--to lift
up her voice and put forth her energies against iniquity in high and low places--to reform
individuals, communities, and governments, and never rest until the kingdom and the
greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints
of the most High God--until every form of iniquity shall be driven fi'om the earth." F inney
concludes: "Is it possible my dearly beloved brethren, that we can remain blind to the
tendencies of things—-to the causes that are operating to produce alienation, division,

100

distrust, to grieve away the Spirit, overthrow revivals, and cover the land with darkness
and the shadow of death? 15 it not time for us, brethren, to repent, to be candid and
search out wherein we have been wrong and publicly and privately confess it, and pass
public resolutions in our general ecclesiastical bodies, recanting and confessing what has
been wrong--confessing in our pulpits, through the press, and in every proper way our
sins as Christians and as ministers--our want of sympathy with Christ, our want of com-
passion for the slave, for the inebriate, for the wretched prostitute, and for all the rniser-
able and ignorant of the earth." (pp. 21,24)

29McLaughlin, op. cit, p. 13.
30112111., pp. 13, 100.
31112111., p. 36.

32John L Peters, Christian Perfection and American Methodism (Nashville, Ten-
nessee: Pierce and Washabaugh, 1956, Second Edition by Zondervan Publishing Com-
pany, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985); Smith, op cit, Charles E. Jones, Perfectionist
Persuasion: Ihe Moyement and American Methodism 1861:1236 (Metuchen, New
Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1974).

33Ferguson, op. cit, pp. 141-150, explains Bishop Asbury's positive response
to camp meetings because of their results. Methodists regularized the camp meeting and
it became a very popular and dependable activity. At first, effort was made to keep both
class meeting and camp meeting, but, when it was found impossible to keep both, the class
meeting fell into disuse. Ferguson relates this to the emphasis on individuals and saving
numbers as opposed to saving structures. He writes: 'On the primacy of the individual,
Methodist doctrine and American temperament agreed." (p. 150) But, it was part of
a process of stressing strategic action toward individuals to fit them into a political unit
of the church rather than the communicative action of the class meeting seeking life-
world rationality. '

34Smith, op. cit, pp. 103-113.
35112111., pp. 142-145.

36r12111.,p. 125.
3711221., pp. 123, 1124.

38112111. , p. 212.

101

391bid., p. 64.

40Ibid., p. 8. This is especially developed in Smith's chapters on the post-Civil
War period .

411nm. , p. 149.

421oio., pp. 188-203, 216-219

4:i’This goal of equality is especially discussed in chapter two of William Gravely,
GilbertHayen. MethodistAbolitionist: AStudyinRace, ReligionandReform, 185048311
(Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1973).

4‘i'Gravely, loc. cit, observes that Haven never regarded the Fugitive Slave "Law"
as law.

45Mat1ack, too. ete.; Lee, roe. ere.
46Lee, op. oir., pp. 241—246.

47Matlack, op. cit“, p. 371; Lee, op. cit“, p. 303.

48Donald G. Jones, The sectional crisis and Northern Methodism: A Study
in Piety, Political Ethics and Ciyil Religion (Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow
Press, 1979), pp. 63-71, 177-190.

49The story of the beginnings of the National Camp Meeting Association for the
Promotion of Holiness, Bishop Simpson's appearances, and sermons by Matlack are
recounted by early participants in the following: A. McLean and J .W. Eaton (Editors),
Penuel: or Pace to Pace With God (New York: W.C. Palmer, Jr., 1869); George
Hughes, DaysofPoryerintheEorestIemple: aRera'eryoftheWonderfierorkof

God at Fourteen National Campemeetings from user to 1812. with an introduction by
Bishop Haven (Boston: John Bent and Co., 1873); Adam Wallace, A Modern Petite;

cost: EmbracingaRecordoftheSixteethafionalCampmeetingforthePromotion
ofHolinessHeldatLandisyille, Pas fromlulythoAugustlst, 1813(Phjladelphia:
Methodist Home Journal Publishing House, 1873.)

50November 7, 1864 New York Herald Tribune as cited in Ferguson, op. cit,
p.243.

51min.

 

102

52Donald Jones, op. cit, p. 145. Jones sees this "two religions theory" to be
present in the thought of Alexis de Tocqueville (Democarcy in America, 183 5), Ralph
Gabriel (fire Course of American Democratic Ihought, 1956), Will Herberg (Protestant,
Catholic, Jena 1960), Sidney Mead (Ihe Liyely Experiment 1963) and Martin Marty
righteous Empire, 1970).

531hid., pp. 145, 146.

54lhto., p. 147.

55M, p. 127. Jones (p. 1) presents his conclusions concerning post-Civil
War civil religion as a "dissent" from the "summit of complacency" view of Henry May
(Protestant Churches and Industrial America, 1949), Robert Handy (Ihe Quest for a
a Christian America: 1830:1230, 1967), and Martin Marty (Righteous Empire, 1970,
with its chapter on Reconstruction titled "The Complacent Era. ") He also sees his con-
clusions to be a "polemic" against the "carpetbagger" interpretation of northern Metho-
dism (Ralph Morrow's 1956 Northern Methodism and Reconstruction and Hodding
Carter's Hie Angry Scar He explains that his views have been shaped by the "revision-
ist" works of C. Vann Woodward (Reunion and Reaction: Ihe Compromise of 1.8.71
andthe EndofReconstmction, 1951), Kenneth Stampp (Ihe Era ofReconstruetion:
1861811, 1965), James McPherson (Ihe Struggle for Equality Abolition and the Negro
in the Ciyil War and Reconstruction, 1964), Timothy L. Smith (Reyiyalism and Social
Reform. 1956), H. Shelton Smith (American Christianity, Vol. ’II, 1820-1960, with
Robert Handy and Loefferts A. Loetscher, 1963) and William Gravely (Gilbert Hayen:
Methodist Abolitionist, 1973). It is also a "quarrel" with Gravely's biography of Haven
because Jones argues: "Haven was not along by far in desiring to mix religion with poli-
tics in a prophetic and redemptive fashion." Jones names T.M. Eddy, Daniel Curry,
Daniel Whedon, James McClintock, and Abel Stevens as examples of those who sought
to mix religion and politics.

551hid., p. 128.

57min, p. 136, reference to Jesse Peck's History of the Great Republic
(New York: Broughton and Wyman, 1868), pp. 140-544.

581bid., p. 123.
SQMO, pp. 153-158.

6OIbid., p. 198, reference to December 30, 1868 article by Stevens in the
Christian Adyocate (New York) titled "G. Haven's Sermons...Liberty of the Pulpit,"
tr4ro.

103

61Philip D. Jordan, "Immigrants, Methodists and a 'Conservative' Social
Gospel, 1865-1908," Methodist History, October 1978, Volume XVII, Number 1,
pp. 16-43. Leon 0. Hynson, "Reformation and Perfection: the Social Gospel of
Bishop Peck," Methodist History, January 1978, Volume XVI, Number 2, pp. 82-92.

62Jordan, op. cit, p. 16, reference to the "War Message" as reported in the
the New York Daily Iribune, November 7, 1864, p. 7.

631bid.

64Ibid., p. 17, reference to "The Mission of Our Country" in Christian Adyocate
(New York), July 7, 1876, p. 210.

65Hynson, "Reformation and Perfection," pp. 88-89, reference to History of the
Republic, Pp. 479-482.

661bid., reference to Peck's Hiotozy, p. 510.

C. CHALLENGES TO THE MARRIAGE:
LABOR UPRISINGS OF 1877, 1886, AND 1894

Labor strife, symbolized by crucial events in 1877, 1886, and 1894, severely
challenged both Methodism and American civil religion in their combined sense of mission.
The 1877 railroad strikes and National Labor Uprising in July raised the spectre of the still
freshly remembered Paris Commune of 1871. The 1886 Haymarket bombing symbolized
fears of the new immigration, with its anarchists, socialists, and Roman Catholics who re-
fused to be assimilated into America by way of the Protestant-dominated "common
schools." The 1894 Pullman Strike, and especially the sympathy boycott of Pullman cars
by Eugene Debs's American Railway Union, aroused fears of a society dominated by
organized labor. Both Methodism and American civil religion felt themselves under
attack.

During this same period, confronted by challenges of strikes, new immigration,
and other dramatic social changes, various voices within Methodism moved from shocked
outrage to increasing sympathy for the plight of the working class. The editors of the
three most prominent Methodist publications--Ihe Methodist Reyiery. The Christian
Admcate (New York), and Zion's Herald (Boston)--came to try to look at strikes from
the point of view of the working class, publishing contributions of advocates of a develop-
ing Social Gospel as well as Gospel of Wealth advocates, yet maintaining a posture of
defending the "free institutions" they still believed Methodism and America had a mission
to spread to the rest of the world.

Dr. C.G. Truesdell of Chicago, writing in the Methodist Reyiery in a September

1889 symposium on "The American Republic, " expressed the sense in American
104

105

Methodism that the marriage of Wesleyan liberation concerns and American civil religious

liberation concerns was threatened.1 Having expressed his faith that the Declaration of
Independence was "the religio-political creed of the American people," he praised "all
nationalities and all religions" who had labored for "the defense and support of our Amer-

"2 He praised them because:

ican institutions and Christian civilization.
They love liberty and education... They hate anarchy and infidelity,
and are mostly sober, industrious, law-abiding citizens who appreciate
the blessings of Christian civilization.(3)

Then, Truesdell closed with this appeal:

The institutions founded by our fathers or called forth by the exigency
of the times, and which are ever to be maintained at any cost as the
bulwark of our civil and religious liberties, are free church, free schools,
free press, and free speech, manhood suffrage, an untrammeled ballot
and an honest count. ...Any man who opposes or violates any one of
these is a common enemy, and dangerous to the peace of the State and
the Christian religion. ...Only those who stand by these are worthy to
be accepted as citizens of a free republic. ...Protestant Christianity
stands for these, and the American Republic guarantees these to every
citizen. May both continue to increase and extend their influence and
power as long as there are men on the earth who love truth and liberty
and hate error and oppression. 'What God hath joined together let no
man out asunder (4)

The three great "earthquakes" of 1877 to 1894--the National Labor Uprising
of 1877, the 1886 Haymarket Bombing, and the 1894 Pullman Strike--were in the pro-
cess of threatening both partners in the marriage as surely as they were threatening the
marriage itself. Henry May's 1949 study of Protestant Churches and Industrial America
explains that changes in the attitude of churches toward labor and economics resulted

5

from the threat of these upheavals. Rather than being a matter of theological innovation

or response to world opinion, May argues that changed perspectives resulted from the

K

106

question of why such things could happen in the "home of Christian progress."6

May's perspective that only the Labor Uprisings could get Methodism to change its
outlook had been voiced by the Rev. William Bull in reflecting on the Declaration of Inde-
pendence on the Fourth of July in 1889. Comparing "chattel slavery" before the Civil War
with the "wage slavery" of 1889, and asking whether there is no higher law for Christian
employers than that of supply and demand, Bull observed concerning himself and his fel-
low Christians in their awareness of problems faced by the working class:

...we live our lives absorbed in money-getting and in pleasures

of social life, until a rude shock such as was felt in Chicago in

1886, arouses us from our lethargy into some realization of its

awfirlness, and impresses us with the sense of our personal re-

sponsibility for it. . . .(7)

The National Labor Uprising of 1877 not only raised the spectre of communism,

but it also helped to shake Methodist confidence in the middle class version of Free Labor

Ideology, with its "individualism, laissez. faire, and the defense of private property.8
Robert Bruce and Philip Foner offer two general interpretations of those events of the

last two weeks of July 1877 which challenged other religious groups as surely as they

did Methodism.9 Bruce's thoroughly documented study argues that the ingredients of a
great "bonfire" present in 1877 American society, plus a "fuse" of depressing events, were

ignited by the "match" of wage cuts and increased work loads to produce a nationwide

explosion of violence. 10 F oner's intensive analysis, building on Bruce's factual discov-
eries, argues that a "national labor consciousness" was developing which, rather than lead

to "mindless riots," expressed itself in "crowds" (not "mobs") which reflected "the

107

economic, political, and social grievances, needs and aspirations" of each group of

participants." 1 1

Both Foner's and Bruce's interpretive studies, as well as secular and religious
news reports of the times, observed the feelings of business, political, and religious lead-
ers that these actions threatened fiee institutions. By September, though, Wendell Phillips

argued that the conditions which led to the Uprising were the true culprits and the real

threats to republican institutions. 12 As the Massachusetts Labor Party's candidate for
Governor, he expressed what Eric Foner describes as the labor movement's Free Labor
Ideology, a perspective to be distinguished from the middle class version of the same
ideology. Henry George also began in September 1877 a serialized version of what would
later become his influential Progress and Boyerty, a work for which President Hayes

would later express favorable impressions. 13

Two series of uprisings may be distinguished in the events of late July 1877. The
first were "explosions" related to union-planned strikes against wage cuts and more
demanding working conditions at Martinsburg (West Virginia), Baltimore (Maryland),
Reading (Pennsylvania), Homellsville (New York), and several less influential locations.
The second series were systematic efforts by the Workingmen's Party of the United
States (WPUS) to coordinate strikes in New York City, Cincinnati, Louisville, Chicago,
and St. Louis. The "explosions," in the minds of business, political, and religious leaders,
posed a threat to "the right to work" and the right to property. The systematic efforts
threatened the "flee market" and accentuated the spectre of communism.

Four main trunk lines, the largest businesses of the day, had entered a pooling

108

agreement to cut trainmen's wages 10% beyond already severe cuts made in preceding

months. 14 The "free market" might be a good idea when considering a worker's "right

to wor " without union interference. But, it was not helpful, from the perspective of these
leaders, as a guide in overcoming rate wars or negotiating a common front for businesses
on wages for railroad workers. To make matters worse, John Garrett, President of the
Baltimore & Ohio, clumsily chose to report a 10% stock dividend and good business

progress in the July 15 Baltimore Sun the day before he reported the "necessity" of a 10%

wage reduction for trainmen.15

That was too much for the trainmen, who had already

been organized into a National Trainmen's Union by Robert Ammon during June. 16 They

refused to operate trains at Camden Junction near Baltimore but were overcome by strike-

breakers and police. 17

Six hours west on the Baltimore & Ohio, at Martinsburg, West Virginia, with
strong support from other local citizens and sympathy of local rrrilitia, striking trainmen
were able to hold out several days until federal troops forced them to permit freight move-
ment on trains. Governor HM. Matthews of West Virginia and President Garrett of the
Baltimore & Ohio had wired President Rutherford B. Hayes to send the troops, and

Hayes only sent them when convinced that state militia were inadequate for the task.

They seemed a strategic need of the time to maintain political order. 18 As in other
strikes of July 1877, strikers sought to preserve property, prevent violence, and insure
passage of mail and passengers while preventing freight movements.

Response to the challenge of the Baltimore & Ohio strikes varied. The New York

109

times editorialized over the foolishness of the strikers, describing their action as "nothing

more than a rash and spiteful demonstration of resentment by men too ignorant or too

reckless to understand their own interests."19 Yet, the Times also acknowledged the
strikers' moderation, the sympathy for them from a large part of their communities, and
the fact that they had "leaders of no little degree of capacity. On Friday, July 20, their
strike having been broken, the Martinsburg strikers posted a manifesto with these words:

The merchants and community at large along the whole line of the

road are on our side, and the working classes of every State in

the Union are in our favor, and we feel confident that the God

of the poor and the oppressed of the earth is with us.(20)

In contrast, Baltimore & Ohio Second Vice President William Keyser accused the

strikers of having "aroused a spirit" that "strikes at the very life of the country."21 The
Martinsburg Statesman (West Virginia) saw a different threat in arguing that the strikes
should teach "heartless and selfish railway corporations that there is a point in oppression

beyond which it is not safe to go."22

The strike against the Pennsylvania Railroad and related rioting in Pittsburgh
represented a far larger "explosion" and threat than incidents on the Baltimore & Ohio.
Saturday night and Sunday, July 21 and 22, fires burned so as to be seen three miles from
Pennsylvania Railroad property, and the strikers provided the only order in the city. The
immediate cause for the strike was Pittsburgh Division Superintendent Robert Pitcaim's
decision to order all freights travelling east from Pittsburgh to be "doubleheaders,"

halving the work labor force and doubling the work for already overburdened trainmen

(especially brakemen).23 More than being a drastic change, it was poorly timed, conring

110

on Thursday, July 19, at the height of the Martinsburg strike.24

When Pittsburgh militia proved sympathetic with the strikers, Philadelphia militia

were sent on Saturday to settle the strike.25 Ignoring advice to wait until some would
go back to work on Monday, General Superintendent Pitcairn of the Pennsylvania Rail-

road and Allegheny County Sheriff Hugh Fife led 600 Philadelphia militia to seek to dis-

perse a jeering crowd of 5,000 to 7,000.26 The militia was ordered to charge with
fixed bayonets, the crowd threw rocks, and the militia was ordered to fire. When the
smoke had cleared, 20 were dead, including a member of the Pittsburgh militia and a

woman and three small children.27

As news of the slaughter spread, "the whole city went mad," with looting and
burning of railroad property. The Philadelphia militia escaped and returned to Philadel-
phia, and a citizens' mass meeting on Sunday afternoon appointed a committee of five
which worked to restore order, together with the Mayor and 300 volunteers. When 50

federal troops arrived on Monday morning, they discovered that order had been

restored.28

Although the public tended to sympathize with the strikers and be anti-monopoly
and anti-corporation, the response of most newspapers, who accepted the views of
Herbert Spencer, is summarized by a "composite editorial" suggested by Robert Bruce:

Strikes, though legal, are foolish and mischievous, at odds with the
law of supply and demand, doing the strikers themselves more harm
than good and seldom gaining their objects. Theory aside, the rail-
roads are essential to public welfare, and so there is a question as

to whether work stoppage should be tolerated at all in the field. The
pay cuts may or may not work some hardships, but hard times and

111

fierce competition require them. The railroaders ought to accept

them as cheerfully, or at least with manfirl resignation, as others

have had to do and as widowed and orphaned stockholders have

born dividend cuts. Thus far...we speak of policy. But from the

moment that strikers trespassed on railroad property or kept a single

strikebreaker off the job through force or intimidation, the issue

became simply and wholly one of law. Only one question remains:

how to crush the outbreak most effectively.(29)

Both instrumental action to maintain the rationality of the "free market" and strategic
action to maintain the rationality of "republican institutions" were being advocated.

A second series of uprisings proved to be a more threatening challenge to middle
class Free Labor Ideology. Going beyond the efforts of the Trainmen's Union to resist
wage cuts, the Marxist Workingmen's Part of the United States (WPUS) sought a general
strike and appealed for a drastic structural change in the American economic system.
From the first Saturday of the strikes (July 21), The National Republican, published in
Washington, DC, raised the spectre of "the American Commune," although President

Hayes said he did not consider the disorders to be a result of a spirit of communism, since

the attacks were not primarily against property.3O Foner reports that wherever the WPUS

was influential, it never encouraged insurrection, and its influence always was a moderat-

ing one.31 As Peter Clark, African American principal of Cincinnati's "Colored High
School" and a Republican-tumed-Socialist argued, railroad managers would be more likely

to secure their property by employing sections of the WPUS than by having the help of the

US. Army.32
Large rallies were held in New York City under WPUS sponsorship, with 20,000

turning out Wednesday, July 25, and 3,000 the next night, but no successfirl city-wide

 

112

strike. Wednesday's meeting was punctuated by a call by Party leaders for a socialist

state, as well as by New Xork Sun editorialist John Swinton's speech describing the crowd

as "as good-looking...as Henry Ward Beecher's church."33 Brooklyn Congregationalist
Pastor Beecher, then widely believed to be involved in an extra-marital affair and earning
$20,000 to $30,000 annually, had preached the previous Sunday that a family with 5 chil-
dren could live on $1 a day if they did not smoke or drink. Beecher contended that they

could survive on bread and water.34

In both Chicago and St. Louis, the WPUS proved far more influential, and far
more of a threat to middle class Free Labor Ideology, than in New York City. At a

WPUS rally in Chicago Monday night, July 23, 6,000 to 15,000 came and supported

resolutions to nationalize the railroads and telegraph and to encourage trade unionism.3 5

Michigan Central Railroad switchmen began a strike that night, and the WPUS attempted

to coordinate this with a strike by other industries on Tuesday.36 But club-swinging
police fired rubber bullets to disperse a WPUS rally of 1,000. And, on Wednesday, as

the WPUS called for "peaceful though firm behavior," a crowd gathering that night was

attacked by policemen, with three members of the crowd killed and 8 wounded.37 The

police invaded a Hall where the WPUS were meeting, killing one and wounding others.38

The "Battle of Chicago" was over.
In St. Louis, the WPUS did not face police opposition, but was overcome by its
own indecisiveness. It was the first General Strike to paralyze a major industrial city, but

its leaders, fearing violence, curtailed demonstrations and lost touch with their suppor-

113

ters.39 On Monday, July 23, Trainmen's Union workers from nine railroads voted to

strike, and an open-air meeting the same night attended by 5,000, led by the WPUS,

"established the party as the directing force of the strike in St. Louis."40 The first
speaker, Albert Kordell, expressed the labor movement's variety of Free Labor Ideology:

I believe that our railroad monopolies today have no other object than

to take the government in their possession and rule for the next fifty

years to come, to the injury of our free institutions, and while we have

some knowledge of their scheme, we purpose to prevent them.(41)
Afier the meeting, Sergeant F. Hinn, federal signal officer from St. Louis, wired Washing-
ton concerrring this large meeting. He reported that it opposed violence, that it urged a
General Strike for the eight-hour day, and that it called on the President to convene

Congress to appropriate $200 to $300 million for benefits to the workers. He concluded:

"No trouble apprehended tonight."42

Another giant rally of 10,000 on Tuesday night passed resolutions cautioning

against violence and advocating various causes of the workers.43 On Wednesday, the
WPUS led a 3 hour parade through St. Louis, closing shop after shop on their way to
another rally. WPUS control in St. Louis has been contrasted by Robert Bruce with "mob

improvisation of the other cities, " and Philip Foner summarizes the role of the WPUS at

that point: "That night, the executive committee ruled the city. "44 But, when the Com-
mittee issued a proclamation on Thursday that, to avoid riot, no more large processions
would be held until all was "completely organized," the crowds lost confidence in the

45

Committee. Then, on Friday afiemoon, July 27, police cavalry and soldiers used clubs

(but not guns) to disperse a crowd waiting outside WPUS headquarters and proceeded to

114

arrest the entire WPUS Committee.46 The General Strike was over.

Amidst all the challenge to the middle class Free Labor Ideology, with its support
of "the right to work" and the rights of property, and with its faith in the law of supply and
demand, there was a continuing awareness of the human needs of the strikers and the
threat to republican institutions posed by unregulated capital. Even the Pennsylvania
Railroad's Tom Scott, through the New York World (which he controlled) labelled

Henry Ward Beecher's simplistic solution to the labor protests " suicidal and the work

of a lunatic."47 At the heart of the National Labor Uprising, Beecher had followed
up his "Bread and Water" sermon with a sermon declaring that God intended "the great
to be great and the little to be little." Even the "great" Tom Scott was uncomfortable
with that. If too many people heard such a claim, it would be bad for business.

Robert Bruce notes the"wide crack" the 1877 strikes put in "the foundation of
Social Darwinism" as expressed in editorial reactions after the strike in The New York
Times, Ihe National Republican, The Philadelphia Inquirer and other publications. 4 8
The July 31 Cabinet Meeting of President Hayes suggested the possible need to regulate
the railroads. Secretary Sherman suggested "national action." Secretary Evarts, respond-

ing to Secretary Thompson's suggestion of solution by "contract between railroads"

said, "It is a case for Government, not contract."49 Secretary Evarts also said the country

was ready for "the execution of power" and Secretary McCrary noted wages to be a part

of the problem. But, the subject was then dropped.50

Wendell Phillips, in a September 15 letter to the New York Herald, put it all in the

115

perspective of a desirable political economy to produce citizens with the virtue needed to

maintain republican institutions.51 First, he rejected excessive reliance on "supply and
demand" by declaring: "That is a political economy which forgets God, abolishes hearts,
stomachs and hot blood and builds its world as children do, out of tin soldiers and blocks
of wood." Second, he argued that saying "capital will only pay what it pleases and labor
must submit" is an argument for "slavery." then, Phillips concludes:

If a day ever comes when, by any means, Americans are obliged to

submit permanently to that, a republic here will be impossible. A

class of such workmen will do well for the footstool of a despot;

they can never serve as the sturdy bedplate for the heavy working

of republican institutions. ...The necessities which underlie free

institutions are their (workingmen's) strongest allies, and the

conscience of mankind is on their side.(52)
The greater challenge to "free institutions" was not the organized working persons on
strike, but it was the dictatorial economic power of unregulated capitalists. Concern
for preservation of the rationality of the free market was being challenged by concern
for strategic action to preserve the rationality of republican institutions. Phillips saw that
as necessarily including the empowering of working class persons to participate in civic
affairs.

Two prominent Methodist publications of the day saw a different threat to free
institutions than Phillips did. The Rev. CH. Fowler, writing the editorial for the Christian
Adyocate (New York) for Thursday, July 26, spoke for official American Methodism

when he said the strikers were guilty of "crimes against society and against our free insti-

tutions, for which they must sooner or later be punished."53 Expressing sympathy for

workers "fighting up to the limit...to keep the wolf away from the door" and condemning

116

excessive railroad salaries, he, nonetheless, viewed the workers as "in the wrong" and

needing to be righted on ideas of possession and liberty. The strikers were guilty and

must be punished to avoid anarchy.54 Fowler sketched the background of the French
Commune of 1871 as having "originally embraced much of the best brain and heart of
France." He saw it as motivated against a church that had been siding with a State
to oppress and rob the workers. However, he made no comparison with a possible
similar alliance in the United States. Rather, he warned of the need to move quickly
against an "American Commune." Then, he offered this explanation:

It is principally the importation and child of the trades-union. These

are foreign to our institutions. They are chiefly composed of foreigners.

They have brought with them their infidelity, and disregard for the

sanctity of the Sabbath, and for the rights of others.(55)

Editor Bradford K. Peirce of Zion's Herald, voice of New England Methodism,

had a perspective similar to that of CH. Fowler. In a July 26 editorial, he spoke of

"scenes never before witnessed in this country, and only paralleled by the Commune of

Paris. "56 Referring to the strike leadership as "atheistical, brutal, reckless persons" who
were both "imported and indigenous" and "only want occasion to break out into lawless

robberies, indiscriminate rioting, burnings, and murders, " Peirce called for a mission to the

workers on a par with missions to China and India.57 In an August editorial condemning
"communistic riot" in Chicago, Peirce continued his evangelistic concern by way of dis-

agreement with Ihe Methodist:

It is not enough to shoot down, as our peaceful confrere of Ihe
Methodist rather seems to advice (sic), these miserable wretches.
It is poor use to make of any men to blow them into eternity
with gunpowder.(58)

117

The strategic action of evangelizing workers would help to maintain the political rational-
ity of the existing American political system. It would not involve the communicative
action of listening to labor.

Other Methodists chose to remain silent concerning the strikes. Ihe Methodist
Quarterly Reyiew had gone to press with its July issue before the Uprising, but it had
revealed a defensive attitude toward criticism for not being more successful in the cities.
The Rev. John Atkinson of Chicago, in an article titled "Methodism in the Cities of the

United States, " had presented statistics to counter a series of articles that had appeared

in the Congregationalist Independent in February of 1877 59 Daniel Whedon, Editor of
the Reyiew, who had been outspoken on the slavery issue before the Civil War, chose
not to deal with the National Labor Uprising in 1877.

Other Methodist sources reveal a similar silence. The renewed perfectionist
movement, which many leading Methodists were actively involved in (including Bishop
Matthew Simpson), published a summary of "Holiness Conferences" in Cincinnati on
November 26, 1877 and in New York on December 17, 1877. Neither Conference
dealt with the Labor Uprising. They would "defend free institutions" by promoting deeper
life spiritual experiences and avoiding divisive political issues, even as the 1858 "Business-
men's Revival" and the National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of Holiness

had decided to do in previous years.60

A second major "earthquake" to shake Methodist confidence in the status quo was
the Haymarket Bombing of May 4, 1886. From February 27, 1885 to March 16, 1885,

the Knights of Labor had successfirlly struck Jay Gould's Southwestern Railroad holdings

118

to restore wages that had been cut.61 But, Gould had played off skilled workers against

unskilled to fight off strikes and fragment labor organizations from February to May of

1886.62 At the same time as this great defeat for labor, there was a growing movement
for an eight-hour day. It was represented by the beginning of Labor Day on September
5, 1882 (which became an official national holiday by President Grover Cleveland's signa-
ture June 28, 1894) and the setting of a deadline of May 1, 1886 for the eight-hour day

limit by the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (which became the Amer-

ican Federation of Labor in 1886) and Local Assemblies of the Knights of Labor.63
As early as the September 5, 1882 Labor Day Parade in New York City, a

popular slogan was: "Eight hours for work--Eight hours for rest--Eight hours for what

we will."64 In spite of opposition from Grand Master Workman Terence Powderly of

the Knights of Labor, about 350,000 workers in 11,562 establishments across the country

went out on strike for the eight-hour day on May 1, 1886.65 At McCormick Harvester
factory in Chicago, 1400 members of Local Assembly 582 of the Knights of Labor were

locked out because they had struck on May 1 for an eight-hour day, a $2 daily wage,

an end to wage cuts, and an end to the piece work system.66 On May 3, 300 "scab" "
replacements of the strikers had been put to work at McConnick under the protection
of 350-500 police. When the strikers demonstrated against the scabs, the police fired
into the unarmed crowd without having given any warning. F our were killed and others
were wounded.

A meeting was called for May 4 at Haymarket Square to protest the police bru-

Flt

1.11

it

if.

119

tality. Mayor Carter Harrison approved the rally and attended to hear speeches by
Anarchist organizers August Spies, Albert Parsons, and Samuel Fielden. Condemnations
of the police were combined with warnings against violence and challenges to steadfast-
ness in pursuing the eight-hour movement.

At about ten o'clock, with a rainstorm threatening and supposing the meeting to be
nearly over, the Mayor left and stopped at a nearby police station to report that there was
no trouble at the rally and that the police need no longer be on special alert. F ielden was
winding up his speech when the Mayor left, and most of the crowd had gone home.
Suddenly, 180 marching policemen appeared, commanding the crowd to disperse. As
Fielden cried out that this was a peaceable meeting, a bomb was thrown from the crowd
toward the police, killing one and mortally wounding five more. The police fired back into

the crowd, killing several and wounding many others.67

The bombing touched off a "Red Scare" in which hundreds were arrested, the

eight-hour day movement was condemned by association, and eight anarchists were

arrested to be punished as public examples.68 Though no evidence was found that any
of them had thrown the bomb or directly encouraged anyone to do so, they were con-
victed of murder. Five were hanged on November 11, 1887, one had committed suicide,
and three were pardoned in a politically very unpopular move by Illinois Governor John
Altgeld on June 26, 1893.

In the year preceding the Haymarket Bombing, the Rev. Bradford K. Peirce,
Editor of Zion's Herald, and the Rev. James M. Buckley, Editor of the Christian Adyocate

(New York), opened the columns of their official Methodist papers to discussion of the

120

problem of the growing tension between capitalists and labor. On February 25, 1885,
Methodist layman and laborer Edward Rogers contributed to the Herald a page 2 article
on "Communism and Socialism, " calling for 'fair discussion" of "the needs of the time, "

and setting forth "The vision of a communal Church (the New Jerusalem), encircled by a

socialist State."69 Rogers followed this up with an October 7 exposition of "The Social

Idea] of Prophecy, " which was placed on the front page, and a February 3, 1886 call for

"Arbitration" of labor capital disputes, which was published on page 2.70 As one of the

founders of the Christian Labor Union in Boston, Rogers would later command the re-

spect of those hearing him address the Evangelical Alliance in December of 1886.71

Perhaps to present the opposite point of view, Editor Buckley published in the
Adyocate a series of six "Object Lessons in Social Economy" by an anonymous "Master
Mechanic" between October 1, 1885 and February 4, 1886. The "Master Mechanic"
saw "Providence urging us irresistibly toward a manifest destiny" of factory-related mutual
dependence, specialization, labor-saving machinery, and workers pooling their capital
to become capitalists whose success would be grounded in character.

Editor Bradford Peirce of the Herald had joined the chorus condemning "wage

slavery" in August 1885, but he switched his stress to a response to the barbarism he saw

threatening the country in April and May of 1886.72 After the Haymarket Bombing,
Peirce editorialized:

We have been receiving fully in later years fiom Europe the flying
anarchists, nihilists and communists, whose lives had become periled

by their revolutionary and violent words and acts in their own countries.73

121

Noting the need for a changed approach to dealing with concerns of labor, and defending

himself against charges of a lack of sympathy with workingmen, he stressed the contri-

butions of "our thoughtful correspondent, himself a wage-laborer, Mr. Edward Rogers."74

But, be displayed his concern for strategic action to maintain political order in the face

of the threat symbolized by Haymarket when he explained that the religious press had

to "change their tone of late" because "the principle has been widely held and acted upon

that 'the end justifies the means.” Writing one month after the McCormick Strike and the

Haymarket Bombing, Peirce maintained that the "illegal and murderous acts" he blamed

the strikers for justified a different approach by the press. Less emphasis was needed now

on justifiable demands of labor and more stress needed to be put on maintaining order.
Similarly, Adyocate Editor Buckley had called for Pastors to "nringle" with

workers to get their point of view and bragged that he read even the Anarchist papers

to see what the workers were concerned about.76 But, after the Haymarket Bombing,

Buckley declared: "All mobs should be ordered to disperse, and, if they resist, they should

be shot down without parley and without delay."77 He added that he wrote this so that
"the authorities may know that in the maintenance of order they will have the sympathy of
the Christian community for whatever measures may be necessary."

Buckley again enlisted the contributions of "A Master Workman" for a series of
articles May 27, June 3, and June 10. Although he gave the typical condemnation of the
Knights of Labor for "tyranny" of "dictating" wages, hours, and work conditions for a
million members, he also raised an issue troubling all the Methodist editors of the time.

After asking why workers could not share increases in wealth just as owners did, he said

122

his biggest concern was: "The majority of the laboring class are learning to hate Christi-
anity because their hated employers are generally Church communicants or at least influ-

ential supporters of the church."78

Daniel Steele, a frequent contributor to Zion's Herald and a widely respected
New England Methodist seminary professor and expositor of the traditional Methodist
belief in perfection in love, expressed concerns similar to those of the editors when he
addressed the Boston Preachers' Meeting in December 1885. Speaking on "How to

Save the Masses, " he declared: "A fearfill heathenism and a volcanic socialism exists

in the bosom of the wealthiest nominally Christian civilization on the globe."79 His
solution was workers prepared for preaching and visitation among the masses "before
Rome has so triumphed over our great cities as to suppress our Protestant liberties."
In a May 1886 contribution to the Methodist Reyiew, he called for "Non-Classical

Theological Serninaries" to prepare lay persons to go to the "thirsty multitudes through

the spigot of street language."80 It was an effort to be understood by the masses,
partly to protect the church and the nation, mostly for the good of those same masses.
But, it did not stress communication to find a shared solution to the problems besetting
those who found it necessary to strike

Although they shared Steele's concern to evangelize the masses, the editors of all
three major Methodist publications expressed great fear of the new immigrants, a fear
SymbOIized by the Haymarket Anarchists. Bradford Peirce wrote in Zion's Herald, after

the Anarchists were found guilty, that there was little doubt that there was "a conspiracy

to bring about a social revolution."81 Then, he pointed out that "these kinds" were not

123

confined to "our Western cities, " but that there was "a weekly importation of the same
atheistic, socialistic and lawless class."

Similarly, Editor James Buckley of the Christian Adyocate made these comments
just before the hanging of five of the Anarchists:

If these men are not punished, all government is gone. This

is the freest and best Government possessed by any populous

country in the world. The foreigners who teach the doctrines of

anarchy have fled fi'om despotisms, but in many cases are them-

selves to blame for the particular oppression which they had to

endure. They come here and concoct schemes which will over-

throw the best experiment in self government that man has yet

contrived. Whoever sympathizes with them is a foe to his country.

...To talk about pity, sympathy, or delay in connection with such

demons, is to encourage their kind ...... Order is heaven's first law;

'surely anarchy is hell.'(82)

J.W. Mendenhall, Editor of the Methodist Reyiew, expressed the same kind of

concerns in a May 1890 editorial.83 Fearing a turn to sociali5m because of immigrants,
he recommended public schools and evangelism as the means to avoid this. He warned
of a "foreign contagion" brought by "the degraded classes of Europe" who increasingly
came to America, and "whatever is inimical to a pure democratic form of government is
borne to us by every ship that anchors in our waters. "

The Rev. Charles Parkhurst, who had replaced Bradford Peirce as Editor in 1888,

continued the concern about foreigners matched with evangelistic challenge in an October

1892 editorial.84 He argued that the immigrants then coming represented "the combined
evils we have to contend with--socialism, communism, Romanism in its most bigoted

form, ignorance, and the drink habit." He continued:

124

It is this vast army disgorged here weekly which we are to make into

self respecting men and women, not alone as a Christian duty, but also

as a matter of self-defense. The work is imperative; we must Christian-

ize these people, or we must in time be paganized by them.
Parkhurst was voicing the sense of challenge to American civil religion posed by the immi-
grants who had been so dramatically symbolized by those Anarchists who had been
executed in connection with the Haymarket Bombing.

At the same time that fears of immigrants were challenging Methodist editors,

those same editors were also publishing analyses that took sides with the workers. All

three publications presented analyses and challenges by Methodist Pastor Frank Mason
North of New York City.85 The Christian Adyocate published 13 articles by Professor

Richard Ely.86 Zion's Herald published two articles by Socialist W.D.P. Bliss.87 And
contributions by the Rev. Frederick Merrick to the Adyocate, Dr. Abel Stevens to the

Herald, and the Rev. C. M. Morse to the Royiew challenged Methodism to get beyond

defending the status quo.88 For example, Morse, in persistently arguing in the Reyiew
that "regeneration" of individuals was not enough to solve social problems, said the
Christian "must place himself in touch with the poorest class, study all social questions
from that point of view." It was a call for communicative action.

The third major "earthquake" to challenge Methodism and American civil religion
in the late nineteenth century was the 1894 Pullman Strike and related boycott by Eugene
Debs's American Railway Union. By the Spring of 1894, some of the worst results of the
Panic of 1893 were making the lives of American workers miserable. A particularly

dramatic example was the model factory town industrialist George Pullman had built south

125

89 This supposedly caring capitalist was proving to be a feudal patemalist as

of Chicago.
he economically compelled his employees to live in over-crowded tenements, charging
rent often 25% higher than rates in nearby communities. When the Panic of 1893 hit,
many workers were dismissed, and those who remained saw their pay cut at east 25%.
Pullman continued to pay 8% dividends on his stock, and he continued to charge his
workers the same rent, even though their pay had been cut. Pay was withheld from
paychecks to pay rent, with one worker receiving 2 cents as a paycheck after rent was
withheld.

Pullman workers began organizing with the American Railway Union in April and
May l894,with membership reaching 4,000. When workers grievance committees
approached Pullman executives, they were not only rebuffed, but some were dismissed.
In response, at noon, May 11, 1894, the workers left their jobs.

When the first national convention of the American Railway Union met in Chicago
June 12, Eugene Debs and other leaders listened to requests by workers from Pullman
for help with a sympathy boycott, but they urged arbitration instead. For the next ten
days, Union committees proposed arbitration to Pullman corporation leaders, only to be
told: "We have nothing to arbitrate." At noon of June 26, a boycott of Pullman cars by
the American Railway Union began across the country.

Nearly 150,000 workers answered the Union call for boycott, and rail traffic for
Pullman cars was stopped. It was the first truly nationwide strike, and it impressed rail-
road owners with the awesome power of labor that was organized. John Egan, coordin-

ator of the Railroad General Managers' Association, declared it to be "a fight between the

126

United States Government and the American Railway Union." The government decided
not to detach mail cars from Pullman cars, so the charge could be brought that the Union
was obstructing the mails. Richard Olney, US. Attorney General, who had been a
railroad lawyer and member of the General Managers' Association, and who was a
Director of the Burlington Railroad and a Co-director with George Pullman of the Boston
& Maine Railroad, recommended an injunction against the Union, based on the 1890
Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Sherman Act had been passed to help curb the power of business monopolies,
but Olney chose to use it instead to fight the power of organized labor. A petition was
presented by railroad lawyers, guided by Olney, for an injunction by federal district court
in Chicago prohibiting interference in railroad conduct of interstate commerce. The in-
junction that was issued in effect prohibited strikes and boycotts against railroads.

After careful deliberation, the American Railway Union decided to ignore the in-
junction. To enforce the injunction, Olney wired President Grover Cleveland, who sent
federal troops, in spite of protests by Governor John Altgeld that the Illinois militia could
handle the situation. Arriving July 4, the troops provoked violence and destruction of
railroad property, with 25 strikers being killed and 60 badly injured. Since directing their
members in the strike was considered contempt of court, Union leaders were arrested and
the strike collapsed. A short-lived hope of a General Strike of all Chicago unions in

support of the American Railway Union ended when a conference called by Samuel
Gompers on July 12 decided the prospects for success were slim. Also, American F ed-

eration of Labor leaders (including Gompers) saw the Railway Union as a potential

127

threat to their craft unionism. When the General Managers' Association rejected his
offer to call off the boycott if strikers could have their jobs back, Debs was arrested

July 17 for contempt of court in renewing the boycott. He was jailed, tried in December,
and sentenced to six months in jail.

The threat of an organized industrial union had been overcome by a combination
of business and government. Conservative craft union leaders of the American Federation
of Labor and the railroad brotherhoods saw this as vindication of their more conservative
politics. The challenge of a powerfirl organized labor appeared to have passed for a while.

Methodist publications had been critical of the power of the Knights of Labor since
the 18805,and they were even more strongly challenged by the massive unity of the Ameri-

can Railway Union. Methodist Reyiew Editor William Kelley expressed such resentment

in a September 1894 editorial.90 He argued that Governor Altgeld's two appeals to Presi-
dent Cleveland not to send troops "found no support except from strikers, labor dema-
gogues, socialists, and other enemies of our constitutional system of liberty under law."
Further, he declared: "There is quite as much distress, probably, among refined people,
whose lives are one long service of humanity as there is among workers."

Editor Charles Parkhurst of Zion's Herald complained against the power of organ-
ized labor in August 1892 in the aftermath of the Carnegie Steel Lockout at Homestead,

Pennsylvania. Parkhurst asserted: "Organized labor must cease to be the tyranny it has

become."91 In condemning the American Federation of Labor for supporting the Altgeld
pardon of three of the Haymarket Anarchists, he declared: "An organization professedly

representing the working classes which thus flaunts the red flag should be promptly be

128

repudiated and execrated. "92

In the midst of the Pullman Strike, Parkhurst spoke of the "startling exhibition" of

power by Eugene Debs's American Railway Union by contending: "He is mightier than

the foremost millionaire."93 When the US. Senate voted to support Cleveland's sending
of troops to Chicago, Parkhurst supported that, stating that "the masses of the nation are
not the anarchists or socialists," and urging workingmen to stop strikes and seek legisla-
tion instead. The following November, Parkhurst was forced to report that Strike Com-
mission appointed by President Cleveland concluded against Pullman, and acknowledged::

"The Pullman Company is sharply arraigned; the Debs rebellion is practically justified."94

But, by December Parkhurst was remarking concerning Debs's six months sentence to the
county jail that it would remind Debs that "the public have also some rights, and that these

rights are not to be rudely set aside in order that he and his followers may force redress

for alleged private grievances."95 Parkhurst's fear of organized labor was preventing
him fi'om hearing the just protests of the working class.

The 1877 Railroad Strike and National Labor Uprising challenged the assumption
of progress by the marriage of Methodism to American civil religion. The 1886 Haymar-
ket Bombing, symbolic of the strikes and unrest of that year, posed the threat to free
institutions represented by foreign immigrants. The 1894 Pullman Strike, and the related
Sympathy boycott by the American Railway Union, represented the threat of the power of
organized labor to potentially undermine free institutions. Each of these in its own way
Challenged the easy assumption that existing American institutions could be the unstop-

Pable vehicle of progress and human liberation Methodist had thought they could be after

129

the Civil War was over.

Three Methodist periodicals of the day reflected varying ways of trying to respond
to these challenges to the marriage. Editors and contributors increasingly addressed these
challenges in the columns of the Methodist Reyiew, the Christian Adyocate (New York),
and Zion's Herald (Boston). The editors in particular wrote to defend existing free
institutions and to encourage political authorities to maintain "law and order" against
strikers, and occasionally against monopolists. The strategic action of doing whatever
was needed to maintain existing American free institutions seemed uppermost in their
minds. These same editors and other contributors also looked to revivalism and the
quest for a new spiritual Pentecost as a means to empower individual workers to avoid
violence and individual employers to avoid exploitation. Although concern for spiritual
cultivation of individuals was expressed, the frequently stated strategic objective of such
efforts was the need to deal with the problem of city evangelization, particularly with
respect to what was recognized to be the extremely difficult problem of seeking to evan-
gelize the new immigrants if they were to be assimilated into American society.

A few contributors to these periodicals supported the older economics, including
laissez faire, as the only means to prosperity. An instrumental rationality of maintaining
and increasing economic grth seemed important to them. At the same time, an increas-

ing number of writers challenged the church to the social application of the gospel to the
labor problem. Sometimes this was promoted with a view to the strategic rationality of
saving America from barbarism. At other times, the concern was for a rational community

that would include working-class persons as agents of their own liberation. The chapters

130

which follow will attempt to analyze and interpret these varied responses.

NOTES

1MethodistReyiew, September-October, 1889, pp. 679-680. Following an intro-
ductory essay by Editor J .W. Mendenhall titled "The Constitutional Basis, " and preceding
a presentation on "The Mission of the Republic, " Truesdell's contribution to this symposi-
um was titled "The Religious Factor. " Mendenhall had asserted in his essay the sacredness
of the American Constitution as "the sheet-anchor of the nation's hopes and the guiding
star to her destiny" and Truesdell argued a similar firnction for the Declaration of Indepen-
dence.

Further references to Methodist publications in this chapter will be:

MR--for Methodist Reyiew (Methodist Quarterly Reyiew before January 1885)
NYCA--for Ihe Christian Adyocate (New York)
ZH--for Zion's Herald

zrbid, pp. 678-680.
3rb‘td, pp. 680-684.
4Ibid., p. 684. My emphasis.

5Henry May, Protestant Churches and Industrial America (New York: Harper
& Brothers, 1949), p. 91.

6Ihid. May analyzes the impact of these Labor Uprisings on pp. 71-111. Sidney
Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1972) p. 847, echoes May's description of Protestantism's defense of
the status quo of this period. He presents ideological precedents to the Social Gospel
movement (787-793) and snapshot biographies of movement leaders (793-802) rather
than an analysis of the impact of the labor uprisings on social thought. Winthrop Hudson
has summarized the transition fi'om defense of the status quo, to terrified response to the
labor uprisings, to the development of the Social Gospel rn Religion in America: An
HistoricalAccountoftheDeyelopmentofAmericanReligiousLifemew York: Mac-
millan Publishing Company, 1992, Fifth Edition, as revised by John Corrigan) ("The

131

Churches and the Economic Order, " pp. 292-305). Frederick Norwood's Ihe
StoryofAmericanMethodism: AHistoryoftheIJnitedMethodistsandtheirRelations
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1974) briefly describes the transition from early Methodist
opposition to workingmen's organizations to some support for labor, in many respects
due to Pastor Carwardine's support of his parishioners in the 1894 Pullman Strike

(pp. 341-344). Emory Stevens Bucke's The History of Methodism in Three Yolumes
(New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964), Volume 11, contains a chapter by
Walter W. Benjamin on "the Age of Methodist Affluence" (pp. 316-339), which includes
a four-page summary of the transition from Methodist opposition to labor organizations
to the time when "after much stumbling" Methodism did "respond creditably if slowly
to the challenge of modern, urbanized, industrial America." (pp. 335-339).

72H, September 4, 1989, p. 1.

8Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age ofthe coir War (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1980), "Reconstruction and the Crisis of Free Labor, " pp. 97-
127, argues that this is one of two perspectives from which the "Free Labor Ideology"
which had united the Republican Party before the Civil War was coming to be viewed
after the War. Foner maintains that before the War, "to men like Abraham Lincoln the
salient quality of northern society was the ability of the laborer to escape the status of
wage earner and rise to petty entrepreneurship and economic independence." (p. 100)
After the War, this was split into two perspectives. On the one hand, for the middle class,
"Free Labor" became "a stolid liberal orthodoxy, in which individualism, laissez-faire, the
defense of property, and the rule of the ”Best Men' defined good government" (p.126).
On the other hand, for the labor movement after the 1873 financial Panic, "Free Labor"
became "an affirmation of the primacy of the producing classes and a critique of the
emerging capitalist order" (p.126).

9Robert V. Bruce, 1811: Year of Yiolence (Indianapolis and New York: The
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1959). Philip S. Foner, Ihe Great Labor Uprising (New
York: The Monad Press, 1977). Bruce acknowledges the planning, discouragement of
violence, and protection of employers' property by labor leadership, while frequently
referring to youth and "tramps" as encouraging violent encounters. Foner acknowledges
the mixture of groups involved in the strikes and related violence while stressing the
development of a national labor consciousness.

loBruce, op. cit. The first two of three main parts are titled "Powder Keg"
and "Explosion," and Part I is subdivided into "The Charge," "The Fuse," "The Match,"
and"Hangfire. His study was researched in more than one hundred libraries in thirty-nine
cities and towns. His "Acknowledgements" (p. 373) describes the locations.

otutuHASVl

w:

132

11Foner, op. cit, pp. 10-11. F oner acknowledges the influence on his analysis
of the work of George Rude (The Crowd in History: A Study of Popular Disturbances
in France and England, 11m New York, 1968); Eric Thompson (Ihe Making of
the English Working Class, New York, 1963); and Eric Hobsbawm (Primitiye Rebels:
SmdiesinArchaichnnsofSocialMoyememintheIchandZchCenturies, New
York, 1959).

12Wendell Phillips, New York Herald, September 15, 1877.

13Bruce, op. cit, p. 312. Charles Richard Williams, Ihe Life of Rutherford
BirchardHayes: NineteenthPresidentrJtheUnitedStates: WithPortraitsandmher
Illustrations, Volume II (Columbus,Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical
Society, 1928 reprint of 1914 F]. Heer Printing Company edition). Reference to
Hayes diary entry for December 4, 1887.)

14Bruce, op. cit, pp. 40-41. The pooling railroads were: The Baltimore &
Ohio, The Pennsylvania, The New York Central, and The Erie. They had begun the
pooling arrangements for freight rates in March of the same year.

15Foner, op. cit, p. 34. Bruce, op. cit, pp. 63-65, notes that this involved a
deliberate choice to lower wages rather than lower the 10% annual stockholder dividend,
and that it was done in spite of the fact that June wages had not yet been paid and morale
was very low.

16Bruce, op. cit. pp. 59-63. Foner, op. cit, pp. 29-30.
17Foner, op. cit, p. 75.

18Bruce, op. cit, pp. 85-92, presents this as part of his analysis of Hayes as one
seeing himself as a "national" President needing to deal with issues of labor and industry
which were "growing too big for the states to handle."

lgIheNewYorinmes, July 18, 1877, p. 4

20Foner, op. cit, p. 45, citing Reading Daily Eagle (Pennsylvania) of July 21,
1877.

lebid, p. 53.

22Ibid., p. 54.

133

23Bruce, op. cit, p. 115. Foner, op. cit, p. 63.

24Foner, loc. cit.

25111111., pp. 57-60. Bruce, op. cit, pp. 138-140.
26Foner, op. cit, pp. 61-62. Bruce, op. cit, pp. 147-149.

27Bruce, op. cit, p. 147, cites the Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette as estimating 20
killed, with 10 deaths certain, and many wounded, including small children. Foner, op.
cit, p. 63, reports from his sources that 20 were dead, 29 maimed or wounded, and that
the dead included a woman and 3 small children.

28Bruce, op. cit, pp. 149 it. and 180-183. Foner, op. cit, pp. 64 ff.
29Bruce, op. cit, pp. ‘62-‘64.

30mid, p. 225, reference to an interview of President Hayes by The National
Republican. F oner, op cit, p. 103, also refers to this issue. In connection with the
Franco-Prussian War, beginning March 18, 1871, the working class of Paris had con-
trolled the government for 72 days in the Paris Commune.

31Foner, opcit., p. 116.
32112111., p. 132.

33112111., pp. 120-121.

34Richard A. Bartlett, Ihe oilded Age: America, rsoaraoo: Interpretiye
Articles and Documentary Sources (Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley Pub-
lishing Company, 1969), pp. 82-83, as reproduced from Ihe New York Times,
July 22 and 29, 1877. The Iimes noted that this was a reproduction of Beecher's lecture
on "Hard Times," and paraphrased his July 22 remarks as: "It was true that $1 a day was
not enough to support a man and five children, if a man insisted on smoking and drinking
beer. Was not a dollar a day enough to buy bread? Water costs nothing. (Laughter)
Man cannot live by bread, it is true; but the man who cannot live on bread and water is
not fit to 1ive.(Laughter " Beecher's July 29 response to criticism of his July 22 sermon
included these remarks, as paraphrased by the Times: "God has intended the great to
be great and the little to be little. Persons have the right to work when and where they
please, as long as they please, and for what they please..." He decried government efforts

134

to "take care of the welfare of its subjects" as "uh-American," preferring a "Hands off"
attitude by government except for protection of "our rights and our individuality."

35Foner, loc. cit, says 15,000. Bruce, loc. cit, says 6,000

36Foner, op. cit, pp. 144-148. Bruce, op. cit, pp. 239-243.
37Foner, op. cit, p. 150. Bruce, op. cit, p. 246.

38Foner, loc. cit. Bruce, op. cit, p. 249.

39Foner, opcit., pp. 158, 180. Bruce, op. cit, pp. 273-276, 280-282.
40Foner, op. cit, pp. 163-166. Bruce, op. cit. pp. 257-258.
41Foner, op. cit, p. 166.

42Presidential Papers of Rutherford B. Hayes, July 24, Midnight report.
(Papers at Hayes Presidential Center, Fremont, Ohio.)

43Foner, op. cit, p. 174.
44Ibid., p. 179. Bruce, op. cit, p. 274.

45Foner, op. cit. p. 180. Bruce, op. cit, pp. 281-282.

46Foner, op. cit, pp. 185-186. Bruce, op. cit, p. 282.
47Bruce, op. cit, pp. 314-315.
43112111.

49Presidential Papers of Rutherford B. Hayes. Cabinet Meeting notes by Hayes
for July 31, 1877.

50mm.

135

51Wendell Phillips, The New York Herald, September 9, 1877.
521nm.

53C.H. Fowler, "Labor and Capital Riots," NYCA, Thursday, July 16, 1877,
p. 472. '

54mm.

SSIbid.

56Bradford K. Peirce, ZH, July 26, 1877, p. 4.
57Bradford K. Peirce, ZH, August 2, 1877, p. 4.
58Bradford K. Peirce, ZH, August 9, 1877, p. 4.

59John Atkinson "Methodism in the Cities of the United States, " MR, July-
August 1877, pp. 481-505. Atkinson rejected arguments that Congregationalist settled
pastorates were superior to Methodist itineracy and spoke of the "foreign-born" of the
cities as an explanation of why Methodists were not as successfirl there. The fourteen
largest cities were 35% foreign born, while the rest of the country, where Methodists
were successful, was only "11 89/ 100 per cent" foreign born.

60Timothy L. Smith, Rerriyalism and Social Reform (New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1965), in a chapter complimenting the 1858 revival, observes that the
prayer meetings forbid "controversial subjects like water baptism or slavery." (p.64)
Later, he notes that Phoebe Palmer, respected as head of the perfectionist revival
in Methodism, and "her New York and Philadelphia coterie" (Bishops Edmund James
and Leonidas Hamline, then Methodist Quarterly Reyiew Editor Nathan Bangs, and
others) "were laggards in whatever demanded stern attacks on persons and institu-
tions."(p.212) They chose to be silent on the issue of slavery, rather than divide the
perfectionist movement. Similarly, the opening session of the National Camp
Meeting Association For the Promotion of Holiness in 1867, as reported in Penuel:
EacetoEaceWithGodand the first issue ofthe AdyocateofChristianHoliness
in 1870, edited by John Inskip, forbid the debate of "controversial items" that might
interfere with the quest for a spiritual experience of entire sanctification. Strategic
action to preserve the political wholeness of the movement was considered more
important than communicative action to seek a firller rationality that included dis-
cussion of major social issues until some sort of consensus could be reached.

11.11

V

511

136

61Philip S. Foner, History ofthe Labor Moyement in the United States,
Volume II: EromtheEoundingoftheAmericanEederationofLabortotheEmergence
of American Imperialism (New York: International Publishers, 1955), pp. 50-53. For
many years, the basic study of this period was Henry David's The History of the Haymar:
ket Afir (New York: Russell & Russell, 1936, 1958), often cited by Foner.

62min, pp. 83-86.
63Ibid., pp. 93-101.
64Ibid., p. 96.

65Ibid., 103. Powderly preferred the legislative route to change rather than
strikes.

66Ibid., p. 105. The account of this and the Haymarket Bombing are on pp. 105-
106.

671cm.

681nm, pp. 107-114, recounts the events from the Red Scare to the three pardons.
692H, February 25, 1885, p. 2.

70ZH, October 7, 1885, p. 1, and February 3, 1886, p. 2.

71The Rev. R. Wheatley reports on this in ZH for January 4, 1888, p.2. He places
Rogers on a par with his Pastor from Chelsea, Massachusetts Methodist Episcopal
Church, Dr. Dorchester, who also addressed the gathering. Wheatley maintains that
Rogers "commands universal respect," but many could not "endure his Scriptural herrne-
neutics." As Rogers argued that labor should not be regarded as a commodity, he main-
tained that the law of supply and demand meant single men were at an advantage in
seeking employment over married men, and that this undermined the family. Bucke, op.
cit, pp. 337, 338, observes that Rogers helped found the Christian Labor Union in Boston
in 1872, and he notes this challenge from Rogers's 1876 book Like. IJnto Me: "So the
church says that, to build a theological seminary is serving God; and she accepts half a
million of money from a man, Daniel Drew, who got it by the most iniquitous service of
mammon, and names the seminary after the man." (Ahlstrom, op. cit, p. 791, only names
the congregationalist Rev. Jesse Henry Jones as founder of the Christian Labor Union.)

137

72m "Upheaval or Revolution," ZH, August 5,1885, p. 4, Peirce wrote: "It is a
state of slavery as real as was the slavery of the black people. Then the means of subjec-
tion was the lash. Now it is starvation." In "Our Blood Lesson," ZH, April 28, 1886,
p. 4, Peirce wrote: "We have raised an army of devils, the socialistic-anarchists, into
power and given to their deadly embrace a large body of laborers who when these
troubles began were peacefirl citizens trying to accumulate some of that 'property' which
is the horror of anarchism."

73211, May 12, 1886, p. 4.
742H, June 2, 1886, p. 4.
751bid.

76NYCA, April 1, 1886, p. l, "The Crisis," and April 29 , 1886, p. 1, "Perilous
Times."

77NYCA, May 13, 1886, p. 1, "The Mobs."
78NYCA, June 3, 1886, p. 3

79ZH, January 20, 1886, p. 2, reproduction of address given the previous
December 31.

80MR, July-August, 1886, pp. 454-459.
81211, August 4, 1886, p. 5.
82NYCA, October 6, 1887, p. 1.

83"The Common PeOple," by J .W. Mendenhall, MR, May-June, 1 890, pp. 427-
435.

84Charles Parkhurst, "City Evangelization," ZH, October 6, 1892, p. 1.

85"Pews and Prejudice," NYCA, September 10, 1885. Four articles on
"Christianity and Socialism" in ZH for January 14, 1891-February 4, 1891. "City
Missions and Social Problems" in MR, March-April, 1893.

138

86Richard T. Ely, NYCA, February 12, 1891 to March 31, 1892.

87W.D.P. Bliss, "What 15 Christian Socialism?" in NYCA, September 11,
1890, p.3. "Christian Socialism," in ZH, December 17 1890,p.1. (Includes this
statement: "If Methodism be defined as 'Christianity in earnest,’ Christian Socialism
may be defined as METHODISM APPLIED TO THE SOCIAL ORDER."
"The Growth of Christian Socialism," ZH, May 13, 1891, p. 1.

88"The Labor Question," by Professor F. Merrick, NYCA, April 8, 1886, p. 3.
"The Great Problem" by Dr. Abel Stevens, ZH, May 28, 1890, p.1 "Regeneration as
a Moral Force in Reform" by the Rev. C. M. Morse, MR, November-December, 1891,
pp. 923-931, and November-December 1892, pp. 876-883.

89Foner, History of Labor, p. 261 ff., tells the story of the Pullman Strike and
the sympathy boycott by the American Railway Union. I have used this source for the
information above. Almont Lindsey's basic account, The Pullman Strike: The Story

of a Unique Experiment And of a Great Labor Upheayal (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1942), as well as many other sources are used by Foner.

90MR, September-October, 1894, pp. 788-794.

91m, August 31, 1892, p.4, "The Aftermath of the Strikes."

92211, December 20, 1893, p. 1, "Organized Labor Siding With Anarchy."
93ZH, July 11, 1894, p. 1.

94ZH, October 28, 1894, p. 1, "The Strike Commission's Report.

95ZH, December 19, 1894, p. 1,"The Significance of the Debs Sentence."

II. METHODIST RESPONSES
A. MAINTAINING THE MARRIAGE:
DEFENDING FREE INSTITUTIONS

AND PROMOTING PENTECOSTAL REVIVAL
«STRATEGIC ACTION SEEKING SUBSYSTEM RATIONALITY

Methodist editors of the Christian Adyocate. the Methodist Reyiew, and Zion's

Herald responded to late nineteenth century labor unrest with a two-fold strategy of

defense and promotion.1 With the Adyocate and the Reyiew speaking officially for the
entire Methodist Episcopal Church, and the Herald speaking for New England Metho-
dism, they sought, on the one hand, to defend the free institutions they saw themselves
as divinely ordained to evangelize the globe with. This was in keeping with the civil
religion of the time. On the other hand, they urged their readers to work for revival,
increasingly describing the envisioned spiritual renewal as a "Pentecostal" Revival. This
was in keeping with Wesleyan concern for Christian perfection. Both strategies sought
to maintain a political and religious order that seemed to be slipping away. Yet, even as
these editors wrote to defend and to promote, and as they published contributions by
Others of the same perspective, they increasingly considered the claims of a developing
Gospel of Wealth and Social Gospel, as well as challenges to try to see things from the
striking laborers' point of view.

In 1877, Charles H. Fowler of the Adyocate and Bradford K Peirce of the

Herald advocated force by the government against the perceived threat of the strikers,

even as they called for an evangelistic mission to them.2 Daniel Whedon of the Reyiew
chose to remain silent. In 1886, after the Haymarket Bombing, Adyoeate editor James

139

140

Buckley, Reyiew Editor Daniel Curry, and Herald Editor Charles Parkhurst united to
defend fi'ee institutions and to promote Pentecostal Revival. The same was true of editors
Buckley, William Kelley, and Parkhurst of the same publications in responding to the 1894
Pullman Strike and American Railway Union boycott.

Peirce had warned of "communist riot" threatening "public peace" in 1877, even

as he called for an evangelistic mission to the "vicious masses."3 In 1886, James Buckley

let the authorities know he supported forceful suppression of Haymarket Anarchists, even

as he perceived a solution to "the dangers of the times" in "a modern Pentecost."4 In
1894, Buckley's Adyocate praised "that pentecostal evangelist, the Rev. Dr. S.A. Keen, "

and hoped for a revival to follow the 1893 Panic comparable to revivals in the past which

had followed the Panics of 1837, 1857, and 1873.5 Such an event would preserve from
the threat of a "Debs the Second" Buckley feared after American Railway Union President

Eugene Debs's imprisonment.6

The "fi'ee institutions" these editors and contributors to their publications labored

to defend included representative government, free churches, free schools, free press and

speech, and a free market.7 "Free schools" meant the "common" or public schools,
against which Roman Catholic parochial schools were seen to be a direct threat.
Repeatedly, the editors and their contributors expressed the added concern for the
institution of the "Sabbath." This was not the Saturday day of worship and rest of the
Hebrew Bible and Judaism, but a Christian institution applying Saturday Sabbath

restrictions to a "Christian Sabbath" on Sunday. As a social issue, it usually ranked

141

alongside temperance and Often ahead of labor-capital conflict. In fact, Sabbath obser-

vance was viewed by some as a cure for labor-capital conflict, if capitalists would only let

their workers have Sunday free from work, perhaps with a "half-holiday" on Saturday.8
Methodist editors strategically sought to preserve the Christian Sabbath institution along-
side other American "free institutions" for the sake of the American religious and political
order. Thus, the "free institutions" to be defended were: free government, free churches,
free schools, a fiee press, a free market, and the Christian Sabbath.

The "Pentecostal" emphasis in revivalism by these editors was consistent with the
perfectionist emphasis of the developing Holiness Movement within Methodism at the
time, which was a movement to renew John Wesley's emphasis on Christian perfection as
the pre-Civil War Methodist perfectionists had done. Within Methodism, there was an
increasing questioning in the late nineteenth century concerning how "Pentecost" and
Christian perfection were to be experienced in the lives of Christian disciples. But, the
editors of the Adyocate. the Reyiew, and the Herald made special effort to make clear
their fiill agreement with what was perceived to be John Wesley's perspective on the issue
The National Camp Meeting Association for the Promotion of Holiness had been formed

in 1867 by Methodist leaders concerned to maintain Wesley's teaching on the subject.9

By the 1880's and early 1890's, members of this group and of various regional holiness
associations came to insist on very specific formulation of the doctrine, stressing such
expressions as "the second blessing." Eventually, many members of the National Associ-
ation as well as other holiness associations would "come out" of Methodism, forming new

denominations between the 1890's and 1920. Editors of the Adyocate, the Reyiew, and

142

the Herald objected to what they saw as the narrowness of such groups, but they declared
themselves on the side of continued emphasis on Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection.

By the 18905, the strategy was to pursue Pentecostal Revival as a vital means to
preserve the church and the American political system. Editor Buckley expressed this in
an editorial titled "Holiness to the Front" with these words in the May 24, 1894 edition of
the Adyoeate:

From the ...Scriptures it is as clear as vision that pentecost prayer

brings pentecost fullness, and that pentecost firllness moves to pen-

tecost speech that fiilfills the great commission and saves the multi-

tudes. Holiness, entire sanctification, perfect love, full salvation to

the front; and with it revivals, evangelism, city evangelization, per-

petual waves of soul-saving, soul-helping power. Let every church

be a revival society! Let every member be a revivalist! (10)
For the preceding year, Buckley had been exhorting his fellow Methodists that revival,

especially Pentecostal Revival, was the need of the hour, for the nation, for the church,

and for the individuals Methodism was called to minister to.1 1

THE CIVIL RELIGIOUS MISSION
Before the July 187 7 Labor Uprising, Adyocate Editor Charles Fowler printed on

his fi'ont page Luther Lee's "Our Great Law Book, " which argued that the United States

Constitution legalized only Christianity. 12 Lee argued that the singular in "no law
respect-

respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" meant
Christianity was the national religion, since Congress rightly restricted such religious prac-

practices as Mormon polygamy. He concluded:

143

Thus is Christianity our national religion, free and unrestrained,
and the Bible is our great Law Book, from which the substance
Of our jurisprudence is drawn.
Apparently Lee had forgotten his pre-Civil War antagonism against the Constitution

for not nanring God and for legitimating slavery!

That Lee's perspective was not unique to him is revealed in front-page comments

by Editor James Buckley of the Adyocate for March 25, 1886.13 After a glowing report
of the work of Evangelist Samuel P. Jones in Chicago, Buckley presents the first of two
promised editorials on "Church and State." He reports the results of Jones' efforts to be
that "one thousand persons have pledged themselves to him to enter upon a new life." He
Observes: "It is cheering to know from such reports that at this time, when the relations of
capital and labor are so much disturbed, and in a city where politics are so much
debauched, the ancient power of Christianity to humanize and to harmonize men has not
wholly failed." Relating this to an anticipated "trial of American institutions" to come due
to labor-capital conflict, he notes: "It may be so; nothing can better prepare us to meet
such a trial--if it must come--than the all-pervading influence of a living Christianity."
Following this report and analysis, Buckley declares in his next article on "Church and
State": "The American Commonwealth is historically Protestant Christian." He supports
this, as did Lee, by explaining that this has been the basis of criticizing Mormon polygamy.
Buckley sees America as a Christian Nation, and he sees Methodist evangelism, as repre-
sented by Methodist Samuel P. Jones, as a necessary strategy to maintain American
institutions.

Several Reyiew articles and comments by various Methodist editors firrther illus-

144

trate the strategy of some Methodists to seek to maintain the marriage of American civil
religion to Methodist liberation concerns. In a Symposium on "The American Republic"
in the September-October 1889 issue of the Reyiew, Alexander Martin wrote of "The
Mission of the Republic."

The outward mission of the Republic is to liberalize the govem-
ments of other nations. To do this we need not enter on an
armed crusade. ...It is true of the Republic, as of the Church,

'a city set on a hill cannot be hid.‘ ...In this direction our mission
is to illustrate to the world the value of freedom and free institu-
tions, and, as a beacon, guide the nations to realize the same for
themselves. (14)

Martin later expounded on the threats to this mission:

A powerful and unscrupulous hierarchy, losing ground in the old
world, has fastened its eyes, and is largely concentrating effort,
on this Republic. It would destroy our system of education and
suppress freedom of inquiry, freedom of speech, and freedom of
the press. It holds that the magistrate should receive investiture
from the priest, and the State be subject to the pope. Strikes
and strife between capital and labor, between grasping and self-
ish monopoly, and honorable manly industry, too often occur.
Intemperance, the prolific source of so much poverty, crime,
and misery, still rears its hydra head, and the smoke of the distil-
lery darkens our skies and poisons and pollutes our atmosphere.(15)

Martin closes with optimism that "the omnipotent reign of heaven's love for man" and
individual heroism such as manifested in Revolutionary and Civil War days will overcome
these Obstacles to the mission of the Republic.

In the summer of 1890, editors of both the Adyooate and Herald united in praise of
Dr. James King, Methodist Pastor in New York City, for leaving his pastorate to become

General Secretary of the National League for the Protection of American Institutions. 16

Editor James Buckley wrote of the new league's efforts "to secure constitutional and legis-

145

ative safeguards for the protection of the common-school system and other American

institutions."17 Both Buckley and Charles Parkhurst of Zion's Herald reported positively
King's efforts in leading the League in presenting legislation to the US. Senate to prevent

tax money from being spent on schools that were not subject to "the same supervision and

control as the Government schools."18 Of course, this was an effort to make sure that
future government appropriations were not used to support Roman Catholic parochial
schools. Protestantism was unofficially in control Of the public schools, and did not see
the need for public firnding of private church schools that many 19905 American
Protestants seek. To tell the story fairly, it must noted that Methodist editors of the
18905 also urged the church to reject public funding of Methodist schools for Native
Americans on reservations, because those schools were Methodist rather than public
schools.

In another symposium in the Reyiew in March 1891, this time on "The Christian
Sabba " The Rev. James Durrell argued that Christianity is the American national

religion and that the Constitution recognizes this in honoring the Christian Sabbath. 19

Referring to the Declaration Of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the
Constitution, and George Washington's Farewell Address, Durrell concludes:

We have, then, by the fundamental law of the land, a national

religion, and that religion is Christian. The Observance of the

Sabbath is a part of our religious system...
He argues that the exemption of Sundays from the ten days the President has to return

bills to Congress is evidence for such recognition! The logic of his argument may be

strained, but he expresses the sense of many late nineteenth century Methodists that

146

America was a Christian nation with a mission to the world, a mission that would be

injured if the instituinstitution of the Christian Sabbath were not appropriately observed.
Editor William Kelley Of the Reyiew continues to express this sense of mission in

March 1894 remarks on an address by Dr. George Smith of Scotland, who said Americans

were the only people in the development of humankind ready to be "the apostle of liberty

in its highest form--the freedom which is in Christ J esus."20 Kelley comments:

America seeks no geographical extension. ...Missions from Amer-
ica have, therefore, the unmixed meaning of unselfish benevolence
which none apprehended more quickly than the heathen themselves.
Thus America not only represents the evangel of Christian liberty,
but her missionaries have a 'clearance' for every spot on the globe.
The opportunity involves the responsibility. ...It is for such a time
we have come to the kingdom. (21)

Kelley was continuing to express a sense of mission that Professor O.B Super had stated
in the November-December 1890 issue of the Reyiew. Writing Of "The Mission of the
Anglo-Saxon," Dr. Super maintained that the Anglo-Saxons were "pre-eminently expo-

exponents of spiritual Christianity" and that God was preparing the world for their mission

as he had prepared it for his Son nineteen hundred years before.22 Claiming "due rever-
ence and humility," Super saw the Anglo-Saxons as:

...God's chief instruments in bringing about the time of which
Tennyson sings, when
'The war drum throbs no longer, and the battle-flags are furled,
In the parliament of nations, the federation of the world.’
as well as that more glorious time when
'the kingdoms of this world are become
the kingdoms of our Lord and Of his Christ,
and he shall reign for ever and ever."'

Kelley and Super were two of many voices expressing the Methodist sense of mission, a

147
mission whose institutions were threatened by labor unrest.

DEFENDING FREE INSTITUTIONS

As the 1877 National Labor Uprising came to an end, both Editor Charles Fowler
of the Adyocate and Editor Bradford Peirce of the Herald expressed concern for the
perceived threat of organized strikers. On July 26, Fowler accused the strikers of "crimes

against society and our free institutions" and urged swift action to prevent the formation

of "an American Commune" such as had taken place in Paris in 1871.24 Relating "trades-
union"and "foreigners" to the threat to "our institutions," he condemned their "infidelity
and disregard for the sanctity of the Sabbath." On August 30, he condemned "Despotism
in temporarily suspending the Republic and permanently disgracing free institutions in the

eyes of the world. "24

Peirce also expressed anxiety when he declared on August 2: "The one great need

to be accomplished is to effectually break up these communistic alliances."25 Yet, he
added: "Men cannot be safely treated as machines." He recommended that corporations
give their employees a sense of partnership. The following week, he condemned commu-

nistic riot" it Chicago, but he disagreed with his fellow editor of The Methodist who

recommended that the authorities "shoot down" strikers.26 "It is poor use to make of any
men," said Peirce, "to blow them into eternity with gunpowder." Instead, Peirce chal-
lenged his fellow Christians to evangelize the strikers. Both Fowler and Peirce were
defending free institutions and the American mission to spread them around the world.

Peirce wanted to be sure that the mission extended to American strikers.

148

Even before the May 1886 Haymarket Bombing, terror was in the air over the
strike intentions of the Eight-Hour-Day Movement. James Buckley of the Adyocate.
writing of "Perilous Times" for his March 11 edition, declared: "We regard the elements
at work in the United States tO-day as more fraught with peril to our institutions than all

the merely political and personal discussions, conflicts, and agitations which culminated in

the late war. "27 It's hard to know how Civil War issues could be considered "merely
political and personal," but Buckley remembered "the country in 1877 trembled on the
verge of anarchy." Now, he believed, "In every city there is a definite number Of wild
beasts in the guise of men who would rejoice in universal havoc and ruin."

Later in the year, Buckley published the Rev. E.D. McCreary's "Socialism in
America." McCreary argued that Socialist organizations were Germans who came to
America after the failed 1848 German revolutions, and he argued further that the Inter-

national Workingmen's Association wanted to do away with all religion and believed

"robbery, arson and murder" were necessary to advance their cause:28 Herald Editor
Peirce wrote of "Our Bloody Lesson" on his April 28 fi'ont page. Popular support of

other strikers had encouraged a "march toward barbarism and away from the most

precious principles of civilized society," as Peirce saw it.29 He also saw this to be raising
"an army of devils, the socialistic-anarchists" who wrapped otherwise "peaceful citizens"
in the "deadly embrace" of Opposition to private property.

After the Haymarket Bombing, Buckley, writing on the front page of the Adyocate

of "Rights of Knights and Rights of Men," spoke to defend "free government" and a "free

market" involving the "right to work."30 A member of the Knights of Labor had objected

149

to a Congressional Committee that a "scab" replacement worker had no "right" to replace
a striking worker. Buckley declared concerning the Knights: "If this fatal error, born of
its rapid grth and placing power in the hands of irresponsible and indiscreet Committees
should not be checked, it would become a revolutionary tribunal which no free govem-
ment could safely permit." Apparently, from Buckley's point of view, Labor Committees
could not be trusted, but the "right to work" structure Of individual employees negotiating
with wealthy and powerful employers could be trusted.

Reyiew editors perceived Henry George's "single-tax" scheme and Edward
Bellamy's Nationalism to be threats to American free institutions. In the November-

December 1887 issue, interim editor Daniel Wise published a critique Of George's

proposals written by "ELF."31 He argued that the landowners who would bear the
burden of George's tax on the "unearned increment" of land value used those profits from
rising land values to help the poor. Then, he issued this warning and reminder:

Consideration will arise touching the danger of the attempt

to sweep away existing bulwarks of civilized society, and the

Opening Of the door to communistic tendencies that may

plunge our peaceful land into the horrors of socialism and

anarchy.

The constitution and laws Of this land--in particular now

assailed by the Communists--were established before such

theorists came here.

Of course, George's proposals were viewed by one Methodist layperson, Rutherford B.

Hayes, as helpfirl in finding a solution to the problem of labor-capital conflict.32 Also,

Methodist editors Buckley, Mendenhall, and Parkhurst would take pains in the 1890's to

let people know that George was not a wild-eyed radical.33

150

Editor Mendenhall of the 391m whose major editorial concerns were against
rationalism and higher criticism of the Bible, repudiated the program of Edward Bellamy

as a threat to American institutions. In the March-April 1891 issue, he wrote of "Edward

Bellamy's New Civilization."34 Noting the popularity and literary appeal of Bellamy's
Looking Backward. Mendenhall felt compelled to respond to this fast-selling book
because of its "mischievous influence on American society." He stated:

The palmary error of the author is his failure to recognize the moral
integrity of the civilization of the nineteenth century. He starts wrong
in assuming that our civilization is essentially an inherited depravity and,
like the idolatry of Israel, must be annihilated.(35)

Apparently Mendenall could spot individual depravity, but not social depravity.

Mendenhall acknowledged some "disabilities" needing "reformation," but he also
declared, "The competitive spirit belongs to human nature, and is the moving cause of its
largest external activities; without it stagnation is inevitable." Then, he rose to his most
vehement attack on what he labelled a "minority" movement of about one-fourth of the
population-~persons related to the Knights of Labor, the Trades-Union, the Federation
of Railroad Employees, and the F anners' Alliances, persons totaling about 15 million of
the American population of 62 million. He declared:

It is time to say the plain word that one man should not be allowed to

dictate to three men, and that the laboring man, urging himself to the

front and proposing to reform and reconstruct society, should take

a back seat, and feel the pressure of reason, law, and religion. He

is demanding too much; he is trespassing on the rights of the majority.

The 'striker' should be branded a tyrant, and the 'reforrner' should be

reformed. It is time that the majority speak. It is time that culture,

refinement, and the spirit of unity, order, and progress should combine

against the ignorance, jealousy, hatred, and lust of the laboring classes;
for the vices of the land inhere in those classes. It is time that the labor

151

movement, so far as it contemplates legislation in its own interests and

reconstruction for the minority, should be rebuked and forced into

silence. Mr. Bellamy's scheme is in the interest of the minority.(36)
Continuing to state his case, he argued:

It abolishes the republic, destroys individuality, reduces every man to

a slave of the State, and by a system as inelastic as it is impracticable

enforces uniformity of wages, prices, and conditions, and controls

society by the ceaseless energy of its aggregated power, defiant alike

of the rights of the individual and the obligations of religion.
Mendenhall's alternative to Bellamy is " gospel agency" operating through "the church,
the schoolhouse, and the family institution." He concludes:

The New Testament, once adopted as the text-book of the nation,

obeyed by the individual citizen, its spirit incorporated in general

legislation, and the new life it enjoins experienced by the people,

will not only transform the republic into the kingdom of God, but

do it so thoroughly, so easily, so permanently, as to obscure the

inconsiderate idealism of the reconstructionists, who have nothing

to offer for the ills of men except the impracticable visions of

disordered intellects and the vagaries of fi'uitless speculation.

These same "visions" and "vagaries" of Edward Bellamy appealed to the popular

Methodist women's leader of the day, Women's Christian Temperance Union President

Frances Willard.3 7 Various contributors to the Advocate, the Remind, and the Herald
agreed in supporting Bellamy's ideas or some other form of Christian Socialism. These
perspectives will be considered in the next chapter. But, the views on Bellamy and social-
ism by the editors and most national Methodist leaders were expressed by Review Editor
William Kelley when he charged in the September-October 1894 issue that socialism was
"slavery all over again," interfering with the "liberty of contract" that was threatened by

the 1894 American Railway Union Boycott of Pullman cars in support of the Pullman

152

Strike.38 As far as Kelley was concerned, opposition to President Grover Cleveland's
use of troops to end the strike was voiced by "strikers, labor demagogues, socialists, and
other enemies of our constitutional system regulated by law." "Free institutions" of
"representative" government and the "free market" were to be protected against the labor
threat. Defending fiee institutions and the sense of an American mission to spread these
institutions around the world was one major response by Methodists to labor unrest in the

late nineteenth century.

PROMOTING PENTECOSTAL REVIVALISM

Even as Editor James Mendenhall of the Review saw the Gospel message to be the
antidote to the poisoning of labor-capital relations, so the editors of the Advocate. the
Review. and the Herald saw revival, especially the "Pentecostal" variety, as a fundamental
strategy of response to the labor unrest. On the one hand, it was a means to defend fi'ee
institutions and the mission of spreading those institutions throughout the earth. On the
other hand, it was an effort to restore the sense of order provided by the content and
experience of the Methodist faith as passed down from Wesley. But, it increasingly
involved less of the small-group communicative element of Wesley's or America's class
meeting context. The revival that was to be the means of a "Pentecostal" experience of
perfecting holiness was a church-wide or city-wide effort more than an interpersonal and
communicative development in faith.

In reading basic histories of the development of the Holiness Movement which

resulted in the separating off of various denominations fiom Methodism during this period,

153

one would think that the Methodism of the 1890's rejected John Wesley's teaching that
every Christian believer could expect and should seek a second crisis of evangelical faith

called "entire sanctification." John Peters, Charles Jones, and Melvin Dieter all suggest

that this was the case.39 But, reading the Advocate. the Review, and thefierald for this
period suggests something different. While the editors challenged precise use of termino-
logy by contributors to the Christian Mness and by various "special measures" to
cultivate holiness by holiness associations, the editors consistently praised books by
holiness writers, challenged and disagreed with those writers who argued Christian
experience was confined to what was experienced in conversion, supported such Wes-
leyan terminology as "entire sanctification" and "perfect love, " and essentially recognized
the Holiness Movement's classic theologian, Daniel Steele of Boston University, as a
mediator between themselves and those holiness exponents insisting on precise formu-
lations of the doctrine and evidences for the work of the Holy Spirit.

Editor James Buckley of the Advocate consistently supported the Wesleyan teach-
ing of entire sanctification, even as he resisted criticisms wanting him to insist on narrow

formulations of the doctrine and experience. He recommended Asbury Lowrey's Possibil;

ities of £31m in the January 15 edition of the Advocate.40 But he had to respond in the

April 2 and April 23 issues to charges that he opposed "the Wesleyan doctrine of Christian

perfection."41 He explained that he only opposed "holiness as a hobby," not "holiness
itself. " In a February 18, 1886 announcement, be praised holiness leader Phoebe Palmer

on the fiftieth anniversary of her "Tuesday Meeting For the Promotion of Holiness" in

New York City.42

154

In a front-page editorial November 4, 1886, Buckley clearly related his concerns to
defend free institutions and to advance pentecostal revival. Writing under the title "Our
Country's Need of a New Pentecost," he declared:

Manifestly the need of the time is a modern Pentecost, a new Refor-

mation, another time of refreshing kindred to that which gave birth

to Methodism, a vast outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon whole

communities ...... This, even this, is the great, the grand, the merci-

fiil, visitation from on high required to beat back the forces of

darkness and to prevent the seeds of communism and proletarian

demagogues fi'om growing into the upas of mob violence and

social revolution. (43)

Buckley and the Advocate consistently supported the work of Congregationalist

revivalist Dwight Moody and his Methodist songleader Ira Sankey, as well as Methodist

revivalists Samuel P. Jones and Samuel Small.44 But the particular kind of revivalism
Buckley desired for Methodism was more explicitly in keeping with Wesleyan traditions.

He published an essay by New York City Pastor Frank Mason North early in 1887 titled

"Indirect Rays Upon Church Methods."45 It viewed the successes in the United States of
an Anglican missioner Aitken as a reminder of the strengths of Methodism-«revivals,
popular singing, the prayer meeting, and personal assurance of salvation. Concerning
revivals, North declared:

...Religion is more than conservative, it is absolutely radical.
It not only educates, it revolutionizes.

He added concerning Methodism: "It has not only believed in revivals, but it is a revival."
Condemning the drift away from congregational singing to professional performances and
the conversion of the prayer meeting into a pastor's lecture, he called back to a Wesleyan

emphasis on divine assurance of salvation and "the doctrine of a pnesent and full salvation

155

eonseiouslv known bv the suhjeet of graee."46 He concluded:

This is a part of the mystery of grace the Wesleys preached nearly

a century and a half ago.. It is certainly no time for us to become

distrustfiil of our methods and less insistent upon our historic doctrines.

The following month, in response to criticism of the ambiguous term "Christian

Perfection," Buckley presented a paragraph-long quotation from the Rev. John Fletcher,

Wesley's chief theological helper in combatting Calvinism in evangelical circles in the

eighteenth century Church of England.47 After this explanation of and endorsement of
the temi, Buckley asks: "Why should the harmless phrase offend us?" He continues:
"We give the name Christian perfection to that maturity of grace and holiness which
established adult believers attain to under the Christian dispensation."

As Editor of the Advocate and elected spokesperson for Methodism, Buckley was
continuing to voice support of Wesley's call of Christian disciples to an experience and life
of entire sanctification. In late 1891 and early 1892, he opened the columns of the Advo;
sale to the editors of three prominent holiness publications, Christian Witness Editor

William McDonald, Guide to Holiness Editor George Hughes, and Christian Standard

Editor E.I.D. Pepper.48 Following the 1892 General Conference, Buckley published the

books of the official course of study for both local pastors and those "travelling

preachers" who were pursuing ordination.49 Required books included such writings as
Wesley's Plain Account of. Christian Redeetion and English Methodist William Arthur's
Ihe Iongue of Eire for first year travelling preachers (those who were beginning study
leading to ordination). Fourth year local pastors were required to read Daniel Steele's

Love Enthroned. All three of these gave very clear expression to Wesley's teaching on

156

entire sanctification. Arthur's book in particular stressed both the need for Pentecostal
experience and for thorough reform of society. In urging readers to seek a Pentecostal

touch of "The Tongue of Fire," Arthur declared this to be the primary way to "regenerate

society."50 But, he continued:

On the other hand, have not those who see and feel the importance
of first seeking the regeneration of individuals, too often insufficiently
studied the application of Christianity to social ills?
Fearful social evils may coexist with a state of society wherein many
are holy, and all have a large amount of Christian light. Base usages
fostering intemperance, alienation of class from class in feeling and inter-
est, systematic frauds in commerce, neglect of workmen by masters, ne-
glect of children by their own parents, whole classes living by sin; usages
checking marriage and encouraging licentiousness; human dwellings which
make the idea of home odious and the existence of modesty impossible,
are but specimens of the evils which may be lefl age after age, cursing a
people among whom Christianity is the recognized standard of society.
...Nothing short of the renewal of society ought to satisfy any soldier of
Christ... ...Satan might be content to let Christianity turn over the subsoil,
if he is in perpetuity to sow the surface with thorns and briers; but the
gospel is come to renew the earth. (51)

But, Arthur's social reformist Pentecostalism was not stressed by Methodist editors or
Holiness Movement leaders.

Buckley continued to express official Methodist support of traditional Wesleyan
belief in entire sanctification a51894 began and he continued to see this as the means to
deal with crises of the times. Revivalism, especially Pentecostal Revivalism, was on his
mind from his call to pastors to renewed revival efforts in January to the challenge in late

May t0 bring holiness "to the front."52

In August, Buckley published the Rev. Dr. William Reddy's "'Are They Right?'--

Which?"53 Explaining two theories then prominent in Methodism, Zinzendorfian, teach-

157

ing one was fully cleansed from sin at conversion, and Wesleyan, teaching one needed to
pursue grace after conversion to cleanse "sin which remains," Reddy declared:

Poor time and policy for the Methodists to go back on the distinctive
feature of our inheritance, which has been the secret of our power.

Although the editors of the Methodist Review did not devote as much space to
entire sanctification, they also continued to support what was perceived to be the
traditional perspective of Wesley, even as the Advocate did. Their editor was also elected
by the Methodist General Conference, and their words may be viewed as an official voice
of Methodism. They urged continued loyalty to Wesley's proclamation of the possibility
of this experience and life of grace, even as they opposed what official Methodism saw as
extremes of various holiness associations with respect to terminology and required
experience that would be evidence of entire sanctification.

In 1885, Editor Daniel Curry united with the Advocate in praising holiness expo-
nent Asbury Lowrey's Bossihilities of Grace, although he maintained that the book really

presented "nothing new" and its publication was a good time to warn against those who

would become "specialists" in religious experience.54 He complimented the Rev. J. A.
Wood, a Methodist holiness advocate, for his newly published Christian Perfection as

Ianght Bv John fleslev, and he eulogized National Holiness Association President the

Rev. John Inskip upon his death.55 In what amounted to an exposition of Wesleyan
doctrine as much as a eulogy on Inskip, Curry praised Inskip as "not much given to
theorizing on the subject" and challenged the contrasting emphasis of some on an "altar

theology.” This was a coded criticism of the Palmer Tuesday Meeting's favorite termino-

158

logy, an emphasis that advocated public testimony to entire sanctification before one felt
assurance of the experience. Rather than opposing the doctrine and experience of entire
sanctification, Curry was challenging what had come to be seen by many in the Holiness

Movement as a practical necessity to express faith and to advance the holiness cause.56

Curry chose to present further criticism of this emphasis in Revivalism in general
by printing an article by the Rev. W.R. Goodwin in July 1886 warning of the Revivalists

who brought their own hymnbooks for sale, encouraged "mechanical clapping of hands,"

and substituted "the word of the revivalist for the witness of the Spirit."57 Revivals were
viewed as necessary, but the profession of a revivalist was viewed with skepticism, even as
specializing in the experience of entire sanctification was frowned upon.

In the late 1880's, Review Editor James Mendenhall joined the Advocate and the

Herald in praising the Rev. Dr. S.A. Keen's EaithBapers as well as The Guide to Holiness,

a holiness publication observing its fiftieth anniversary.58 But, Mendenhall, as well as the
Advocate, went beyond praising holiness publications and leaders to criticizing their pri-

mary theological opponents. In a May 1889 book review, Mendenhall opposed Dr. J .M.

Boland's IheBroblemoflMethodism.59 Mendenhall agreed that doctrine should not
merely be based on what "Wesley said," and appreciated the fact that Boland's book might
inspire new investigations. But, he saw a need to get beyond theorizing on the subject to
living out the experience, and he called back to Wesley's teaching:

We are constrained to write that, leaving Wesley out of the case,

Dr. Boland's theory will paralyze the aspiration for holiness and

ultimate in a suspension of all activity for the development of the
spiritual life.

159

In the 1890's, Mendenhall saw it to be necessary to publish a challenge to his
recommendation of Pentecostal Revival as the solution to the nation's ills. The Rev. CM.
Morse contributed "Regeneration as a Force in Moral Reform Movements" to the
November-December 1891 edition of the Review and a similar essay responding to
criticisms in the November-December 1892 edition. In words reminiscent of William
Arthur's challenge in Ihe Iongue of Eire (not explicitly referred to in the essay), Morse
argued that a faith experience of regeneration was not enough to reform society, that
careful thought, employing the discoveries of the developing science of sociology, was
also required. Morse explained:

...The 'regenerated' rich man is no more liberal in relieving want

and reforming social institutions than his unregenerated neighbor.

...I state it as a fact that if every individual in the United States

should be 'regenerated' in an hour their wholesale conversion

of the community--under present methods--would not result

in a single reform in the industrial or social world.

The only change would be that the present unjust methods in

the distribution of wealth would be given the sanction of baptism

and the authority of the church. (60)

Real practical change would require "Biblical sociological teachings," preachers would
have to speak about "human conduct in the social realm," and this would require what
twentieth century theologians have called a "preferential option for the poor." Morse
explained: "In order to accomplish this, the 'man of God' must place himself in touch with

the poorest class, study all social questions from that point of view, investigate without

prejudice or fear the teachings of Jesus and the apostles."61

Mendenhall published challenges to Morse from the pen of RF. Bishop and J .E.

Learned favoring "spiritual methods" and arguing that "concerns of the soul" were to be

160

focused on by preachers, leaving "questions of politics" alone.62 Mendenhall took pains
to compliment Leamed's warning to stay out of "questions of politics, " meaning issues of
political regulation of economics rather than political regulation of the common schools,
immigration, the Sabbath, and alcoholic beverages. Morse's eventual response in late
1892 hearkened back to a Wesleyan pentecostal theme. Responding to challenges to his
support for "the communism of the primitive church, " Morse wrote:

It was only when the world-spirit took possession of the Church,

and when covetousness led men to sneer at the communism of

the early brotherhood, that the gloom of the Dark Ages settled

upon humanity. (63)
He reminded his readers that the descent of the Spirit at the first Christian Pentecost
caused the disciples to sell their possessions and to put them into a fund for everyone in
need. But, neither Editor Mendenhall nor the other Methodist editors advocated this kind
of Pentecostal Revivalism.

Further evidence of oflicial Methodist support of Pentecostal Revivalism may be

seen in the eulogy for Mendenhall afier his death June 18, 1892, and in glowing praise for

the republication of Arthur's IheIonguoofiEire in 1894.64 Professor W.F. Whitlock
gave basic biographical information of Mendenhall's ife and spiritual journey, eventually
recounting his conversion as a college student. He followed this up with an account of
Mendenhall's "quest for scriptural holiness" beginning in September 1870 and leading him
to lay aside all books but the Bible and to prayerfully await the required experience.
Whitlock continues:

Soon the power and the witness came. He had perfect rest in
God, his peace flowed like a river, his joy was unspeakably full.

161

The interim editorial staff was assuring readers of its appreciation of an example of its
cherished Wesleyan doctrine.

The new Editor, the Rev. William Kelley, continued to express the Methodist lead-
ership's view that Pentecostal Revivalism was the necessary strategy to deal with the
multitude of problems facing the church and the country in the 1890's. In reviewing
Arthur's classic, Kelley declared:

The baptism of the Holy Ghost was the power of the early Church,

is the need of nineteenth century Christianity, and will be the key to

the success of the fixture church. Whoever has read Mr. Arthur's

long-celebrated book has already consented to these truths.

It is a great volume, by a great writer, on a great subject.

The marriage of Methodist spiritual liberation concerns and the American civil religion's
political liberty concerns was to be maintained by a strategy of defending American
institutions, especially through the means of Pentecostal Revivalism.

The Editors of Zion'sHerald in Boston took the same basic position as the official
national publications in New York, the Advocate and the Review. They seemed to have
more conflicts with the Holiness Movement's publication IheChristmflitness (also pub-
lished in Boston) than the Advocate and the Review, but they also were carefirl to identify
with Professor Daniel Steele of the Holiness Movement by publishing columns by him.

On July 12, 1877, Editor Bradford Peirce of the Herald placed first on his front

page an editorial by Bishop Jesse Peck titled "Dangers to New England Methodism."65

Warning Methodist preachers against putting logic ahead of feelings, Peck summed up the

faith and religious experience Methodist leaders saw as the remedy for any threats that

162

might come:

The utter depravity of man, a vicarious atonement, justification
by faith, sanctification, entire, by the Holy Ghost, the resurrection
of the body, the eternal happiness of the righteous and the pun-
ishment of the finally impenitent, are the fixed creed of the New
England Methodists, as of all evangelical Christians; and so let

us trust they will continue to be.

Editor Peirce placed a similar call to faithfulness to traditional Wesleyanism on the
second page of his February 17, 1886 edition. This time, the editorial was by Bishop W.F
Mallalieu on "Vital Orthodoxy":

The present duty of all Methodist preachers in the present crisis

is to stand by the old faith; preach the old doctrines; read up in

Fletcher, and Watson, and Whedon; sing the old Methodist hymns;

use the old Methodist methods; get the old experience of fiill salva-

tion; make no compromise with the world, the flesh, or the devil;

and especially cling to the assurance that God calls us to subdue

this world to Christ. (66)

The strategy of promoting the "old faith" of "full salvation" (a synonym of "entire sancti-
fication), by means of Pentecostal Revivalism, was the necessary means to "subdue this
world to Christ."

Peirce personally wrote of the need to be faithful to this dimension of Wesleyanism
in an editorial titled "Wesley's Advocacy of Perfectionism" in the Herald of June 30, 1886.
Noting Wesley's 1744 acceptance of witnesses to this experience, he declares:

It holds forth an unspeakable privilege. It presents an indispensable

duty. Happy, therefore, is he in whose heart the pure love of God

reigns without a rival! (67)

Charles Parkhurst's installation as Editor of the Herald in January 1888 did not

change the publication's perspective on Wesley's teaching of entire sanctification. In a

February 20, 1889 editorial, preceding Review Editor Daniel Curry's May analysis, he

163

challenged Dr. J .M. Boland's Ihe Emblem of Methodism as an "anti-Wesleyan" attack on

this "crowning article of Methodistic faith."68 Asserting that the "received doctrine" as
preached by Wesley was of "salvation in two stages, " he urged: "Let us abide by that,
without any hairsplitting or newly-devised theories or methods." Although Parkhurst
would be attacked by various holiness organizations, including the Rev. William
McDonald, Editor of the Christian Witness, on various matters, he continued to support
Wesley's views on entire sanctification in the years that followed. In an October 1 1, 1893
editorial titled "The Holiness We Believe In," he repeated his opposition to Dr. Boland's
theory (now also associated with the work of J .T. Crane and S. Franklin) because they

believed Christians were as pure as they ever would be at the time of conversion.69

Instead, Parkhurst maintained that all believers "may, by deeper consecration and faith in
the all-cleansing blood, have that impurity and weakness removed and live a life free fiom
sin properly so-called." But, he was quick to add: "We stand for freedom in Methodism
as to the great mass of non-essentials." He urged all to steer clear of "all formalism and
fanaticism and Pharisaism." In a November 29, 1893 editorial on "The Mission of Meth-
odism," he spoke of Methodism as a "continuous Pentecostal revival" and observed:
"There was never more imminent need of a present and operating spiritual religion."
Parkhurst, as with Buckley in the Advocate and Mendenhall and Kelley in the
Review, supported the strategy of Pentecostal Revival as part of their concern to defend
American free institutions and spread them over the earth, even as they favored the same
strategy for the well-being of individuals for whose spiritual care they felt responsibility.

The Rev. James King had expressed this same view in a November 1890 contribution to

164

the Herald. Writing of "Methodism and the Social questions of the Day," King concluded
with a plea for "the baptism of the Holy Ghost upon Methodist preachers and press" that

would "firrnish our quota of the solvent of all social issues of the day."71

As a potential split with the Holiness Movement developed, Daniel Steele sent a
contribution to the Herald in late 1890 which helped Parkhurst to pursue two basic goals:
1) opposition to narrow formulations of holiness doctrine and experience; and 2) affirma-
tion of a traditional Wesleyan perspective on doctrine and experience. William McDonald,
President of the National Camp Meeting Association and Editor of its principal publi-
cation, Ihe Christian Witness, apparently praised fasting as a sign of being Spirit-filled and

criticized Henry Drummond's "The Greatest Thing in The World" as "salvation by

works."72 Parkhurst challenged both positions, asking:
Are our people aware that the trend of the present holiness
movement, as led by the Witness, is wholly divisive, a menace
to peace of the churches, and directed towards schism in
a large number of our societies in New England?(73)

In this context, Professor Daniel Steele of the Methodist Boston University and a

theological leader of the Holiness Movement, submitted "Mandatory Fasting-Proof Texts

Wanted."74 Parkhurst maintained that he did not solicit Steele's contribution, but that

Steele sent it to the Herald out of concern lest the church be misled on the issue of

fasting.75 In connection with the Witness assertion that fasting was mandatory for those
who would be Spirit-filled, Steele responded:

The new wine of the pentecostal dispensation would have been
wasted if it had been poured into that bottle.(76)

Speaking fi'om his experience of attending National Camp Meetings for the Promotion of

165

Holiness, as well as other Holiness Conventions, he declared that they had not promoted
mandatory fasting. He followed this up in January 1891 by declaring that the Witness was

advocating a return to the asceticism Christianity had been progressively escaping since

the Dark Ages.77
But, the larger issue of entire sanctification was addressed by Parkhurst's repro-

duction of a paper Steele was asked by the Boston (Methodist) Preacher's Association to

present on "Regeneration and Entire Sanctification" at their December meeting.78 Park-
hurst explained the response at the crowded Wesleyan Hall where Steele had read the
paper in December:

Not a dissident note or word of criticism was heard. This attests--

what the writer believes is true--that there is not, and has not

been, any opposition to the Wesleyan doctrine of 'perfect love.’

This overlooks Parkhurst's response to the challenge of J .M. Boland, but it does convey
the sense of support for Wesley's teaching on entire sanctification by 1890's Methodist
leadership.

Steele began with an emphasis on the great improvement in life through regenera-
tion (conversion), something some holiness advocates had sought to maximize the imper-
fections of so as to stress the need of entire sanctification. Steele continued to stress the
necessity of this second crisis of evangelical faith, but he concluded:

In my conception it would be better for the church if all

her preachers should preach the whole Gospel, and give

the specialists a chance to rest.

The "fiill gospel" included both conversion and entire sanctification, and Steele refused to

accept the strategy of minimizing the accomplishments of conversion or of bringing false

166

accusations against his fellow Methodists to advance that gospel.
In the following years, Parkhurst continued his balancing act of opposing what he
saw as excesses of some members of the Holiness Movement and affirming what he saw

as the Wesleyan teaching and experience. He reproduced parts of Bishop Randolph

Foster's BhilosophvofChristianExperience in May 1891.79 He began publishing a

column headed "Dr. Steele's Column" June 24, 1891, and presented new entries approxi-
mately every other week. The July 8, 1891 edition included a major section titled

"Holiness: a Symposium."80

This included a statement by the Rev. J.M. Durrell of the
New Hampshire Conference declaring that "most believers" who enjoyed entire sancti-

fication had as clear a witness to this as to their justification. However, in keeping with
Parkhurst's and other Methodist leaders' perspective, Durrell added that it was possible

that some had experienced this from the moment of justification.

Parkhurst reported positively the Pentecostal Meetings of the Rev. Dr. S.A.

Keen at the General Conference of 1892.81 In August 1894 he printed two essays
by Bishop S.M. Merrill titled "Sanctification--Current Views and the Right View, "
citing favorably books by J .A. Wood, William McDonald, Asbury Lowrey, John
Inskip, and Daniel Steele, all Holiness leaders of the time.

In 1891, Parkhurst challenged what he saw to be excesses of some in the

Holiness Movement by publishing contributions by Bishop Foster and Professor

Steele challenging the mechanistic nature of the "altar theology."82 Parkhurst himself

wrote questioning the uncharitableness of much of the Holiness Movement.83

167

Melvin Dieter has observed how the "altar theology," combined with increasing

post-Civil War "new measures" camp meeting promotion of Pentecostal experience,

contributed to the uncharitableness Parkhurst was concerned about.84 Phoebe Palmer

had developed her "altar theology" in 1847 to explain her own experience and to urge

others to confidently seek the same experience.85 She had joined the Tuesday Meeting
for the Promotion of Holiness initiated by her sister Sarah Lankford in 1835 and, together
with her husband, physician Dr. Walter Palmer, had engaged in successful camp meeting
evangelism promoting entire sanctification before the Civil War. Her "altar theology"
urged persons seeking entire sanctification to express confidence by claiming the exper-
ience after making a complete consecration to God, and without waiting for what tra-
ditional Methodists called the "witness of the Spirit."

Dieter observes the consequences of the organization of camp meeting pro-
motion of the altar theology under the National Camp Meeting Association, which
was organized 1867. He notes that it resulted in an unwillingness to compromise to
the degree that had been possible at the much smaller Tuesday Meeting and that,
although the National Camp Meetings sought to keep alive many of the Tuesday
Meeting's "small-group communicative and therapeutic values," its "more public
nature" led, in Dieter's estimation, to "a more rigid formulation of the theology,

practice, and standards by which the orthodoxy of true holiness faith and life were

measured."86 Dieter adds:

...the informal lay emphasis fostered by the Palmers as lay
leaders was to be overshadowed by the more formally organ-
ized efforts of the ardent ministerial advocates who maintained

168

a loosely structured, but tight control over the movement for

thirty years.
While the earlier parlor meetings at the home of Dr. and Mrs. Palmer had invited
personal testimony of persons of widely differing creedal views to dialogue on the
"higher Christian life," camp meeting promotion tended toward being a "more

polemical, definitively dogmatic proclamation of the doctrine in terms which tended

to become stereotypes."87 In the analytic terms of Jurgen Habermas, the lifeworld
rationality pursued by communicative action within the Tuesday Meeting was
replaced by strategic action pursuing the political rationality of the Holiness Move-
ment. The result was a division between those promoting Wesley's doctrine and
experience of entire sanctification in the 1890's, even among those seeking it by
way of a "pentecostal revival." Some demanded a standard formulation and
method, while Methodist leaders favored a more open communicative dialaogue
that would share varying ways of experiencing entire sanctification.

Regardless of these differences, though, Editor Parkhurst foresaw "A
Pentecostal Year" after General Conference in 1892, partly due to the "thoughtful,

tender, tactfirl" work of Dr. Keen at the General Conference calling delegates

attending the Pentecostal Meeting "to ask for the Holy Ghost."88 As with Metho-
dist Editors of the Advocate and the Review, Parkhurst spoke for Methodist leader-
ship in pursuing a Pentecostal strategy seeking a Wesleyan experience of entire
sanctification as a means to defend American institutions as well as a means to the

spiritual well-being of those persons in their care. Defending American institutions

169

and promoting Pentecostal Revivalism went together for them, and these were their
prime strategies of response to late nineteenth century American labor unrest. But,
they also saw fit to publish responses recommended by persons of different persua-

sions. It is to those views that the next chapters are devoted.

NOTES

1The following abbreviations will be used to represent these three Metho-
dist publications:

NYCA--Ihe Christian Advocate (New York).

MR/MQR--Ihe Methodist Review (Ihe Methodist Quarterlv Review
before January 1885).
ZH--Zion's Herald (Boston). .

ZNYCA, July 26, 1877, p.8. NYCA, August 30, 1877, p.8. ZH, July 26,
1877, p.4. ZH, August 2, 1877, p.4. ZH, August 9, 1877, p.4. Fowler drama- tically
expresses his fears and anger in the August 30 issue of NYCA: "We are in great peril
through the sentimentality of public ninnies, and the pusilanimity of politicians, of excusing
these great criminals without adequate punishment. ...We have had too much of the shoo-
pussy business in our time to need any more of it."

32H. loc. cit.
4NYCA, October 4, 1886, p.1.

SNY CA, January 4, 1894 report of Round Lake, New York Camp Meeting
by Joseph H. King included by Editor Buckley on p. 10. NYCA, January 18,1894.
"The Crisis of the American Church," by Editor Buckley, pp. 1-2.

6NYCA, July 19, 1894, p. 2, "May There Be a Debs the Second?" Buckley notes
the New York Sun statement: "The reign of DEBS the first has been one of the shortest

170

known to history. There will be no DEBS the second. " Buckley says he's not so sure, and
states: "If the principle of sympathetic strikes is not repudiated, those who favor it will
learn by their mistakes." He concludes by calling for "'eternal vigilance'. . .to prevent the
rise and triumph or longer reign of DEBS the second."

7C.G. Truesdell presents one of the clearest summaries of the "free institutions"
many Methodists sought to defend in late nineteenth century America. He speaks of the
”bulwark to our civil and religious liberties" as: "free church, free schools, and free
speech, manhood suffrage, an untrammeled ballot and an honest count." (MR, September-
October, 1889, p.684) Clearly, "free church" included neither those endorsing polygamy
(Mormons) nor those considering church leader- ship more important than government
leadership (Roman Catholicism). "Free schools" were the public ("common") schools,
whose assignment was to inculcate American civil religion. (Sidney Mead, Ihe Livelv
Experiment: Ihe Shaping of Christianitv in America, New York: Harper and ROW,
1963, p. 68, argues, "...The public school system of the United States is its established
church") The institution of the "free market" (really, private ownership of the means of
production) is the key institution defended against striking laborers by all the Methodist
editors surveyed in this study. Free speech and free press were basic to the activities of
these and other editors. Truesdell's "manhood suffrage" suggests the institution of limited,
representative government, a government whose limitations are suggested by his use of
the term "manhood."

8George May Powell, in "The Chief Cause of Labor Trouble, " NYCA,
July 29, 1886, p. 3, argues this case. Powell declares, "Sunday is the 'red-flag day'
of the communistic operation." Then, he declares: "The quiet Sabbath of the
fathers who founded the great republic is the keystone of the arch now crumbling
in the blood and the fires of these anarchic, purse—proud, and purse-corrupting
times." The Rev. James Thames presented a series of second-page essays on
"The Half-Holiday Movement" to ZH in 1887 (May 25, June 1, June 15, and
July 6). It was a call to limit the Saturday work day to a half day so that workers
could do things they would otherwise do on Sunday and miss out on worship
opportunities.

9The story of this is told in the following: A. McLean and J.W. Eaton
(Editors), Benuel: or Eace to Eace With God (New York: W.C. Palmer, Jr.,
1869, Reprinted by Garland Publishing, Inc: New York and London, 1984);
George Hughes, DavsoonwerintheEorestIemple: AReviewoonurteen
National Camp Meetings From 13.61 To 1812 (Boston: John Bend and Co.,
1873); John L. Peters, Christian Rerfection And American Methodism (Nash-
ville, Tennessee: Pierce and Washabaugh, 1956; Second Edition by Zondervan
Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1985), pp. 133-135; Melvin
Dieter, Revivalism and Holiness (Temple University Doctoral Dissertation,
Submitted November 1, 1972; Copyright 1973), pp. 112-117.

171

10NYCA, May 24, 1894, p. 7.

1 1On January 26, 1893, Buckley praises revivals and calls the churches to
work for and expect more revivals. His opening front-page editorial, typical of
earlier editions, is titled "Awake, O Zion!" A September 28, 1893 front-page
editorial titled "Is It True?", presented in slightly larger type than the rest of the page,
declares: "The most urgent need of the Church is ministers who will give themselves to the
promotion of a revival that involves reconstruction of wholly or chiefly worldly lives, and
of laymen who will assist them in the work." A front-page editorial of October 5, 1893
titled "The Need of the Times, " again in slightly larger type than the rest of the page, urges
pastors to "enter upon earnest revival efforts." A front-page editorial of October 19,
1893, also in larger type, titled "Missing the Vital Point," observes: "When a ship is
sinking routine work is sus- pended till safety is assured. Many a church is like such a
vessel, but the people are preparing for fairs, concerts or lectures. Only a genuine revival
will save such a church, and to accomplish that the energy of all is essential." Talk must
go beyond minor things and show interest in sons, daughters, and fiiends so as to testify
that they must be born again to see the kingdom of God.

12NYCA, March 15, 1877, p. 1.

13NYCA March 25, 1886, p. 8. The second article on the subject does
not appear in later editions of NYCA.

l4MR, September-October, 1889, p. 686. Other contributors are: Editor
Mendenhall, "The Constitutional Basis"; Dr. C. G. Truesdell of Chicago, "The Re- ligious
Factor." Martin is listed as a DD. from Greencastle, Indiana.

15mm, pp. 688-689.

16NYCA, June 12, 1890, p.1. NYCA, July 24, 1890, pl.
ZH, July 21, 1890.

17NYCA, June 12, 1890, p. 1, "The New Work of Dr. King." Buckley
praises King for leaving 25 years of pastoral work to be General Secretary of
"a National League to secure constitutional and legislative safeguards for the pro- tection
of the common-school system and other American institutions, and to pre- vent all
sectarian or denominational appropriation of public filnds."

l8ZH, July 21, 1890, p. 1, Editor Parkhurst supports Rev. James King's
effort with the National League for the Protection of American Institutions to se- cure an
amendment to the US. Constitution to prevent tax money from being used for sectarian

172

programs (i.e., Roman Catholic parochial schools!) NYCA, July 24, 1890, p. 1, Editor
Buckley praises the same effort for not allowing money to be given to schools not subject
to "the same supervision as the Government schools. "

19MR, March-April, 1891, pp. 218-219. Other contributors to the Sympo-
sium are: Rev. L.R. Fiske, D.D., President of Albion College; Rev. J .C.W. Coxe, D.D.,
Agent Sunday-School Union, Washington, Iowa. Rev. Durrell is described as a DD. from
Manchester, New Hampshire.

2OMR, March-April, 1894, p. 308.
21min.

22MR, November-December, 1890, "The Mission of the Anglo-Saxon,"
pp.865,867.

23NYCA, July 26, 1877, p.8.

24NYCA, August 30, 1877, p.8.

25211, August 2, 1877, p.4.

26ZH, August 9, 1877.

27NYCA, March 11, 1886, p.2.

28NYCA, April 15, 1886, p.3.

292H, April 28, 1886, p.4.

3ONYCA, June 24, 1886, p. 1.

31MR, October-November 1887, p. 133.

32Hayes' views of Henry George are summarized in Charles Richard
Williams, IheIerofRutherfordBirchardHaves: NineteenthBresidentofthe

United States, Volume 11 (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and

Historical Society, F.J. Heer Printing Company, 1928; from copyrighted edition
of Charles Williams, 1914), pp. 381-3 85. Hayes agreed with George's portrayal

173

of "the rottenness of the present system, " but believed "We are not yet ready
for his remedy." Hayes felt that more was needed than a "single tax." The educa-
tional system needed improvement and laws needed to provide better regulation
of corporations and inheritance. Hayes was surprised at the Fall 1887 meeting

of the Peabody Fund in New York (of which he was a trustee) to discover support
for George by such persons as New England conservative Robert Winthrop and
Chief Justice Waite of the United States Supreme Court.

33Writing in the April 12, 1894 Advocate on the front page concerning
"Single Tax and Other Taxes," Buckley objected to being listed as a "single taxer,"
but he expressed admiration for George's Brogress and Bovertv as "exceedingly
difficult to answer." However, he contended George's plan was "impracticable."
For the January-February 1891 edition of the Review. Editor Mendenhall had
presented Professor George Steele's "The Industrial Reconstruction" (pp. 27-43),
which, although very critical of both George and Edward Bellamy, declared that
neither of them was "a mere sensationalist, nor a senseless agitator, nor altogether
a demagogue. " (p.30) Editor Parkhurst of the Herald does little more than name
Henry George without analysis, other than a front-page essay in his August 20, 1890
edition by George Howard Fall, Lecturer at Boston University, titled "The Modern
Altruist." Parkhurst wrote of the article: "Some of the modern schemes
for reforming society are clearly stated and ably refirted..." In the article itself,
Fall merely criticizes George for only recommending a tax on land values and not
on other properties.

34we March-April, 1891, pp. 280-286.
35m, p. 282.
36Ibid., p.286.

37Willard biographer Ruth Bordin explains Willard's perspective in Eranees
Willard: A Biographv (Chapel Hill and London: The University of North Carolina
Press, 1986). Willard preferred Bellamy's "total control of the economy by an egal-
itarian state" as that which would remedy the evil by which "the working classes
were cruelly exploited," in Bordin's description (pp. 145, 146). She corresponded
with Bellamy about a "manifesto" of Nationalism to be published in the Union Sik
nal of her Women's Christian Temperance Union. Bellamy's support of peaceful
change was in keeping with Willard's opposition to violence.

8

3 MR, September-October, 1894, pp. 788-794. Kelley observed con-
cerning the needs of various groups of the time: "There is quite as much distress,
probably, among refined people, whose lives are one long service to humanity,

174

as there is among workmen."

39Peters describes the transition in "The Doctrine Modified: 1865-1900,"
pp. 133-180, in Christian Rerfection and Amelicmr Methodism. Dieter explains
the same period in "A Tradition in Dilemma" (pp. 224- 261) and "In Search of
Order" (pp. 262- 330) in Revivalism and Holiness. Charles E. Jones relates this
to the use of the Camp Meeting by various holiness associations in Rerfectionist
Rersuasion: Ihe Movement and American Methodism (Metuchen, New Jersey.
Scarecrow Press, 1974).

4°NYCA, January 14, 1885, p.18.
41NYCA, April 2, 1885, p. 1 and April 23, 1886, p. 4.
42NYCA, February 18, 1886, p. 8.

43NYCA, November 4, 1886, p. 1. Buckley employs here the rare word "upas"
for the poison of the threatened "mob violence and social revolution."

44An example of strong praise for Jones is a page 1 editorial of the NYCA for
March 25, 1886. An example of equal praise for Moody is found on page 1 of NYCA for
September 23, 1886.

45NYCA, January 6, 1887, p. 3. This is the same Frank Mason North prominent in
leading the development of the Social Gospel in the 1890's and early
1900's. He is well-known to many as the author of the hymn "Where Cross The
Crowded Ways of Life."

46North's emphasis. Concerning music, he declared: "Undoubtedly the Methodist
Church is slighting an element of great power in its drift concerning
church music. In many places criticism is supplanting devotions. Some churches are
giving more to maintain the quartets than they do to convert the heathen. In-
stead of aping richer and, it ;may be, more aesthetic Denominations in the produc-tion of
music unsuited to religious worship, why do we not give firll opportunity for the use of
grand choral and congregational singing?:" Concerning prayer meeting, he states: "To
Methodism it has been from the beginning the center of power, both conservative and
aggressive. It is perilous to convert it into the pastor's lecture hour, or into the arena
where a few chosen spirits may display their spiritual exercises."

47NYCA, February 24, 1887, p.4.

175

48NYCA, December 24, 1891, p. 3 for Hughes; December 31, 1891, p.4
for Pepper; January 21, 1892, p.4 for McDonald.

49NYCA, NovemberIO, 1892 , p.12. The February 9, 1893 edition (p.4) ofthe
Advocate contains an explanation of "The New Course of Study" by the Rev. Dr. W.C.
Wilbur. He reported that the Episcopal Committee placed this set of books in the 1892
Discipline, and he saw it as a useful improvement over previous books in the course of
study, since authors had been chosen "as men of the highest ability in their several fields"
rather than for "denominational relations they may hold. "

50William Arthur, Ihe Tongue ofEire: or, The True Bower ofChristianitv
(New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1857), p. 91.

51Il'zid., pp. 91-93.

52NYCA, January 18, 1894, p. 1, "The Crisis of the Church." NYCA, May 24,
1894, p.4, "Holiness to the Front," in which Buckley very deliberately listed synonyms for
what he was calling for: "Holiness, entire sanctification, perfect love, filll salvation to the
front."

53NYCA, August 16, 1894, p. 3.
54MR, January-February 1885, p. 151.

55MR, September-October 1885, p.802, has the review of Wood's book.
MR, May-June 1885, pp. 406-422, has the eulogy of Inskip.

56Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and Social Reform: American Protestant:
ism on the Eve of the Civil War (New York: Harper Torchbooks, originally pub- lished
by Abingdon Press in 1957, p. 125, describes the origins of this terminology, and he also
notes that many holiness leaders opposed it. Dieter, op. cit, pp. 30-3 7,
presents the same basic story.

57MR, July-August 1886, p. 605 of a four-page essay.

58MR September-October 1988, pp. 801-802 favorably reviews Keen, who
was a popular leader of "pentecostal meetings" at General Conference in 1892 and at
other Annual Conference meetings in the 1890's. MR, March-April 1889, devotes its
final two pages to positive references to the Guide, a publication begun by the Rev.

176

Timothy Merritt as The Guide to Christian Perfection in 1839. Editors Sarah Langford
Palmer (Phoebe Palmer's sister) and the Rev. George Hughes are praised for the
publication's "catholicity and non-controversial character. "

59MR, May-June 1889, pp. 475-476. The subtitle summarizes Boland's concerns:
"Being a Review of the Residue Theory of Regeneration and the Second Change Theory
of Sanctification and the Philosophy of Christian Perfection." Peters, op. cit, summarizes
two views present in Methodism at the time and presents a table of the two perspectives
on pp. 175-176, essentially distinguishing those Methodists who viewed sanctification as
effected by one experience of divine grace from those who viewed sanctification as requir-
ing two experiences of divine grace.

60m November-December 1891, p. 927.
61min, p. 930.

62MR, March-April 1892, pp. 303-304 essay by Bishop favored "spiritual
methods." MR May-June 1892, pp. 434-437 essay by Learned is annotated by
Mendenhall to express agreement that preachers should disregard "questions of politics."

63MR, November-December, p. 882.

64MR, September-October, pp. 876-883, eulogizes Mendenhall. MR,
May-June 1893, p. 511, praises Arthur's book.

65er July 12, 1877, p. 1. Bishop Peck seeks to distinguish Methodism
by explaining: "Logic reasons and enjoys. Methodism gets happy and then reasons."

662H, February 17, 1886, p.2.
67211, June 30, 1886, p. 4.
63m, February 20, 1889, p.4.
692H, October 11, 1893, p4.
7°er November 29, 1893, p.4.

71ZH, October 12, 1890, p.2.

177

72 Parkhurst responded to these challenges in ZH, October 10, 1890,
p.4, objecting to McDonald for being "censorious" and "divisive" over fasting, and
in ZH, October 15, 1890, p4, to McDonald's opposition to Drummond's exhorta- tion to
Christians to live according to Paul's call to steadfast love in 1 Corinthians l3.

73ZH, October 15, 1890, p.4.
74ZH, November 19, 1890, p.2.
752a, November 19, 1890, p.4.
76m, November 19, 1890, p. 2.
77

ZH, January 24,1891,p.1.
78

ZH, January 7, 1891, p.2.

79ZH, May 13, 1891, p.2. This was an excerpt fiom Philosophy of
Christian Experience (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1890), which the title page
explains is "Eight Lectures Delivered Before the Ohio Wesleyan University On
The Merrick Foundation." In avoiding excesses on all sides, Foster declared:
"The truth to be preserved is that there is a higher experience possible to Chris-
tians than that which is attained in and at the time of regeneration; and this must
be so taught as not to reflect discredit on regeneration on the one hand or to
excite fanaticism on the other, and so as to inspire aspiration after it as a duty and
a privilege." Foster maintained that the route to attaining this was "by the proper
action of the soul itself and the co-working of God with it. It will not be forced;
it will not come unsought; it will not come improperly sought. Mere desires or
mere prayers or mere faith will not secure it; external reforms or mere legal mor-
ality will not bring it. There are no artificial means or magical appliances that will
help to it; it is not the necessary outcome of lapse of time; it is not a reserved grace
to be realized only in the dying hour. " To those who did not profess this exper-
ience he spoke the encouraging reminder that professing to be a Christian was a
"great profession." Then, he warned them that they should not be hostile to those
who professed entire sanctification. To those who professed to having attained to this
experience, he declared: "Remember that there is no difference between you
and your brethren that marks an essential distinction." Although he acknowledges that it
is impossible to be "too holy," he warns: "Do not make the mistake of imagining that the
profession of holiness is holiness, or is a means to its attainment
or a means to its continuance. Above all, avoid extravagance in the manner and
terms of profession."

178

30211, July 8, 1891, p.2.
81ZH, May 18, 1892, p.1.

82The above cited article by Bishop Foster from ZH of May 13, 1891, p.3,
used such expressions as "Profession does not aid it" to challenge the altar theology.
Professor Steele, in ZH for September 30, 1891, p.4., specifically named the "altar
theology" as inconsistent with such Methodist theologians as Miner Raymond, William
Pope, and Richard Watson. He pointed out what he saw to be "the stu-pendous fallacy
involved in the so-called 'altar theology' or 'shorter way of faith'--lay yourself on the altar
and believe that God accepts you on your own estimate of your fulfillment of the
conditions." He declared that it was the role of the human to put self on the altar, but then
one must wait for the work of entire sanctification to be done by God alone and to be
witnessed to by God.

33er June 14, 1893, p. 4, "Is It Perfect Love?" He viewed as "unchari-
table" actions which did not "acknowledge a legitimate difference of ways to de-
scribe the Christian life."

84Dieter, op. cit, pp. 70, 108-112.

85 Smith, op. cit, p. 125, and Dieter, op. cit, pp. 30-37, describe these de-
velopments.

86Dieter, op. cit, p. 70.

87Ilzid., pp. 109-110. Dieter also observes that "the theological tolerance
which the more intimate atmosphere of the smaller group meetings could practice
without diversion from the main issue also suffered in the midst of larger meetings
and the later institutionalization of the revival."

88ZH for May 18, 1892, p. 1, gives the report ofthe May 11, 1892 meeting led by
Keen. ZH for June 8, 1892, p.4, gives Parkhurst's expectations
of a Pentecostal Year.

B. RESTRUCTURING THE MARRIAGE
THE GOSPEL OF WEALTH AND THE SOCIAL GOSPEL
--STRATEGIC ACTION SEEKING SUBSYSTEM RATIONALITY

A second Methodist response to late nineteenth century American labor unrest
was to seek to re-structure the marriage of Wesleyan concerns for spiritual liberation
and American civil religious concerns to advance human liberty. Two basic strategies

were advocated to save perceived benefits of late nineteenth century American society.1

On the one hand, some favored greater concentration on applying the Gospel to indivi-
duals and less religious interference in economic structures, believing that virtuous labor-
ers and virtuous capitalists would automatically resolve their conflicts without interference
by religious leaders. Although the editors of the Christian Advocate (New York), the
Methodist Review, and Zion's Herald rejected the Gospel of Wealth views of both
Andrew Carnegie and Herbert Spencer, they frequently proclaimed the solution to the
labor-capital conflict to be greater diligence by individual laborers and greater philan-
thropy by individual capitalists. The appeal was to cultivate character that lived by the
Golden Rule and not to interfere with matters of economics.

On the other hand, these same editors would sometimes suggest, and their con-
tributors would sometimes advocate, the application of the Gospel to the social order.
This Social Gospel approach sought a re-structuring of the marriage that would place the
regeneration of society on a par with the regeneration of individuals. This kind of con-
cern had been suggested at a general level by the popular Methodist book The Tongue

of Eire in the 1850's, and writers in the late nineteenth century began relating that vision

179

180

of social regeneration to various kinds of socialism. Even as such practitioners of the
Social Gospel as Washington Gladden and Walter Rauschenbusch challenged Christians
to apply the Gospel to the social and economic order, Methodists also, motivated by
pastoral experiences and concerns, came to believe that the Gospel called them to seek
the re-structuring of society.

Both Gospel of Wealth advocates and Social Gospelers sought a new structure
for the Methodist marriage of concerns for personal spiritual liberation to concerns for
liberation through American civil religion. The Gospel of Wealth stressed equipping indi—
viduals to work out economic and social issues within the non-religious economic re-
quirements of the larger society, downplaying the old concern for a "Christian America."
The rationality of the economic subsystem required a laissez faire approach that was seen
as more important than a democratic quest for a rationality eXpressed by political controls
challenging domination by concentrated economic power. The Social Gospel stressed
application of Christian principles, such as those in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, to the
economic and social order, increasing the emphasis on a "Christian America" while
stressing the inadequacies of individual spiritual liberation in dealing with labor-capital
conflict. The rationality of the political subsystem required a forceful effort to put into
effect the kingdom of God, which was also seen as more important than a democratic
quest for a rationality grounded in popularly determined controls over society and the
economy. Both "Gospels" placed great faith in elite leadership to do for the masses what
was "best" for them, Gospel of Wealth advocates trusting the leadership of the wealthy

and Social Gospelers trusting religious and intellectual leadership.

181

THE GOSPEL OF WEALTH

Pittsburgh steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie succinctly stated the basics of the
Gospel of Wealth in a June 1889 essay in The North American Review. Comparing the
cost of following "the law of competition" with the advantages to be gained, he concluded

that "while the law may be sometimes hard for the individual, it is best for the race, be-

cause it insures the survival of the fittest in every department."2 Matching Carnegie's
laissez. faire call not to restrict competition was his challenge to the possessor of wealth to
"modestly" provide for self and dependents while "becoming the mere agent and trustee
of his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and

"3 This trus-

ability to administer, doing for them better than they could do for themselves.
teeship especially involved provision of "ladders upon which the aspiring can rise," culti-

"4

vation of virtue rather than provisionof "indiscriminate charity. Thus, the Carnegie

"Gospel" included: laissez faire, patronizing trusteeship, and individual virtue cultivation.5
Both post-Civil War national economic prosperity and the developing Social Darwinism
espoused by former New Jersey Episcopal priest William Graham Sumner at Yale

strengthened support for this perspective.6

Many Americans agreed with Carnegie's
conclusion: "Such, in my opinion, is the true Gospel concerning Wealth, obedience to

which is destined some day to solve the problem of the Rich and the Poor, and to bring

'Peace on Earth, among men of Good-Will.”7

182

Although Methodist leaders quibbled over Carnegie's terminology, many of them
operated fiom the same perspectives of laissez faire, patronizing trusteeship, and indivi-
dual virtue cultivation. Editors of The Methodist Review, The Christian Advocate (New
York), and Zion's Herald consistently urged support for the existing economic system
while challenging Methodism to preach and practice the Golden Rule for both workers
and capitalists. Editor Bradford K. Peirce of Zion's Herald exemplifies this practice. In
a February 10, 1886 editorial, he declared: "However unwise charity may be, the Chris-

tian is brave who refuses to help a pauper--brave enough to the point of denying his Mas-

ter." 8 But, in a May 5, 1886 editorial on "the let alone principle," he objected to inter-

ference with "freedom of contract" and argued that "the laborer, like everyone else, must

work out his own salvation. "9 He may have recoiled from some implications of the "let-
alone" perspective on the economy, but he essentially supported this key element of the
Gospel of Wealth perspective.

Editors Daniel Curry and James Mendenhall of the Methodist Review expressed

similar support for laissez faire. In reviewing Henry Sidgwick's "Economic Socialism,"

Curry agreed that socialism was "flowing in with a firll tide."10 But, he stated his agree-
ment with Herbert Spencer that this meant "a new form of slavery," and he cited approv-
ingly Spencer's assertion: "Political economy attempts to show that wealth tends to be
produced most amply in a society where government confines itself to the protection of
personal property and the enforcement of contracts not obtained by force or fraud."

Curry noted that workers must be protected from bad working conditions and provided

183

with public services such as education, water and light, sanitation, and communication.
But, none of this could be permitted to conflict with "motives of self-help" and "regard for
self interest" in regulating supply and demand.

In one of his first editorials as newly installed Editor of the Review in 1888,
James W. Mendenhall declared: "Many of the gradations in the human sphere are neces-

sary, having been benevolently designed, and rebellion against them would imperil the

foundations of life."1 1 Condemning "unlicensed freedom of criticism of the social order"
and "clamorous, if not barbarous, proposals for an immediate and perilous change in the
social structure," he believed their source to be "the science of Darwin" and a "revolt
against God," since "The socialist is an atheist." In later issues, Mendenhall would pre-
scribe several solutions--education, philanthropy, evangelism, and cultivation of individual
virtue. His major worry as editor was to respond to what he saw as the threat of
rationalism and higher criticism of the Bible, but he wrote a number of editorials respond-
ing to labor unrest from a Gospel of Wealth perspective. And, to his credit, he printed
contributions of many who did not share his perspective-from Rev. C.M. Morse's
argument that individual conversions were not enough to Rev. CH. Zimmerrnan's call

for "an ethical political economy" to Rev. Frank Mason North's call for intelligent city

missions and condemnation of laissez faire.12
Editorializing in the May-June 1890 issue of the Review, Mendenhall feared the
"virus" of the "degraded classes of Europe" coming to America who could only be over-

come by the public schools and by "benevolent, patriotic, and philanthropic" action by

184

the wealthy. 13 Condemning the vast "spoils system" and "enlargement of the power of
the state" if socialism were attempted, he recommended in the January-February 1891
issue "to press the claims of the Gospel with renewed vigor on the understandings, the

consciences, and the affections of all classes ofmen."14

This would cause the working
classes to "lay aside the vices which cause at least one half of the misery of which they
complain." And, employers would pay better and share profits. The same year, Men-

denhall praised the current system for "working through philanthropic and educational

forces" and stressing "gospel agency for the improvement of men" by focusing on "the

Church, the schoolhouse, and the family institution" as agents of change. 1 5 As individuals
adopted the New Testament as a guide, the result would be to "transform the republic
into the kingdom of God." Of course, Mendenhall would write in the May-June issue

that this would require "laws...for the promotion of the observance of the Sabbath, in

favor of temperance, frugality, honesty, and fraternity."16 The "let alone" principle did
not apply to these items.

After the untimely death of James Mendenhall at age 48, the Rev. William Kelley
was elected Editor of the Review and continued Mendenhall's Gospel of Wealth perspec-
tive. In his first editorial work, he positively reviewed Charles Roads' Christ Enthroned in

the Industrial World because it emphasized applying the law of love, with the chief diffi-

culty being "the unregenerate, selfish human heart." 17 Two months later he expressed his

conviction that it was "the individual, not the society, which the Church directly seeks to

185

reach and improve."18 Later the same year, he responded to the Rev. F .M. Sprague's
Socialism from Genesis to Revelation by declaring that self-interest is not unChristian and
that socialism, rather than having a "higher morality" as Sprague asserted, "in fact...rests

on a principle of covetousness" and it was time to expose "the wolf in the hearts of the

mass of socialists."19 As 1894 began; he was condemning "fantastic reformers" of whom
he said:

It is a helpless, hopeless, and ignorant movement away from

plain morals, away from the truths that character is essential

to the success of the poor and degraded and that we must

lift them into heroic abstinence from such things as saloons

into heroic self-help or fail to lift them at all. (20)
Although Kelley was continuing Mendenhall's practice of publishing other views, includ-
ing praise of Professor Richard T. Ely's Outlines of Economics ("more advanced and

socialistic than might have been expected a few years ago"), he appeared to be intensify-

ing his commitment to making an official voice of Methodism supportive of a version of

the Gospel of Wealth.21

Although Editor James Buckley of the weekly official Methodist Christian Advo;
cate and Editor Charles Parkhurst of Zion's Herald (voice of New England Methodism)
continued to support Gospel of Wealth emphases into the 1890's, they were not as nega-
tive toward socialism as Editor Kelley of the Review was. The Advocate published two

series of articles by an anonymous "Master Mechanic" advocating Gospel of Wealth

emphases.22 But, it also published fourteen contributions by Professor Richard Ely

challenging Gospel of Wealth ideology, as well as an essay on Christianity and Socialism

by the
Popul
Georg
11. R
Fran

Sort

0pm

the

186

by the Christian Socialist Rev. W.D.P. 31155.23 The Herald published eight essays of

Popular Fallacies Concerning Labor and Wealth" by the Gospel of Wealth advocate Rev.

George W. Steele.24 But it also published a rebuttal by Methodist workingman Edward

H. Rogers as well as four essays on Christianity and Socialism by Methodist Pastor

Frank Mason North and two more on the same topic by the Rev. W.D.P. Blisszs
Some elements of Gospel of Wealth ideology were intensified, especially stress on devel-
opment of virtue in workers and employers, but opposition to government interference in
the economy moderated, partly due to the threat of the labor uprisings and partly due to
the pastoral experiences and advice of contributors to the publications.

In the mid 1880s, Editor James Buckley of the Advocate focused on the need
for worker virtue. He exhorted to diligence in hard times and reproduced a sermon by

Methodist Evangelist Sam Jones calling for prohibition as a solution to the problems of

labor.26 He published a series of six essays by an anonymous "Master Mechanic," who,
while arguing that God was using self-interest and selfishness to lead to Christian brother-

hood, also prescribed that workingmen needed to overcome their "character flaw."27

The extreme point in this line of analysis came, though, with the January 21, 1886 edition

of the Advocate, when he used the entire front page of this official voice of Methodism

to reproduce Benjamin Franklin's "The Way of Wealth."28 In an editorial on the fifth
page of the same edition, he went so far as to say that this document "did more to lay the

foundation for the prosperity of the common people than any other document...in human

187

history." Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was not spoken of.

To be fair to Buckley, though, it must be noted that he exhorted Methodist
pastors to mingle more with the working class.29 He practiced this himself, reading

works of socialists and anarchists as well as speaking with members of Trades Unions.3O
He also attempted a series of balanced criticisms of both working class persons and cap-

italists, which actually ended in a condemnation of "union despotism" and support of what

a capitalist would love to hear, "the right to work."31 But, his presentation of a second

series by his anonymous "Master Mechanic" revealed a greater awareness of workers'

perception of the hypocrisy of many capitalists.32 Although the basic appeal was the old
appeal to the cultivation of virtue that would practice the Golden Rule, whether by cap-

italist or worker, the presentation of "A Capitalist-Hater's Soliloquy" revealed a new

sensitivity.33 The speaker in the soliloquy had gone to work in a nut and bolt factory at
age 14, had been told not to talk with other workers, and viewed his boss as desiring "to
grind as much work out of us as possible, and all that we cared for him was his money."
The worker continued:

I hate that old sniveling, praying hypocrite to this day. If we hadn't
had a Sunday one day in seven to get out of doors, and smell the
fresh air, and have a ball game in summer, or skate on the ice in
winter, we would have died of old age before we were twenty;
but that old hypocrite told us we would go to hell if we didn't
stop breaking the Sabbath. If he was so anxious that we should
keep the Sabbath, why didn't he offer us a half holiday once a
week, if we would go to church on Sunday. It is my opinion that
very few poor people would ever get to heaven if it depended on
on rich men's money. I have long since made up my mind that

I am as good as any of these church-going folks and they will
have to sing a very different song before they will catch me.

188

Later contributions in the series turned back to typical Gospel Of Wealth themes, defend-
ing the right of capitalists to accumulate wealth, attacking the "tyranny" of the Knights of
Labor, urging mutual yielding of rights by labor and capital, and charging labor as being

as wrong as capital.34

For the next several years, Buckley would make occasional remarks on labor
unrest and publish contributions of others, but his chief concerns became "the woman
question" (opposing the seating of female delegates at General Conference), prohibition,
and Methodist rules against playing cards, dancing, and theater attendance. In 1893 he
published four contributions by Professor David Kinley of the University of Illinois, which
advised gradualism and avoidance of anything that would prevent "self-reliance" and "rug-

ged character which comes from experimentation and struggle with adverse circum-
stances."35 Socialism would be a terrible mistake, since it ignored the basic selfishness

of human nature, and "The ultimate reform must be in human nature. "36 Although his
opening essay argued that material change must precede moral change, he concluded,
"We should seek to develop the moral and religious character, and industrial and other ills
will then largely settle themselves on the basis of greater existing justice and brotherly
love."

Perhaps this series by Professor Kinley was Buckley's way of keeping a promise

afier presenting a series of fourteen essays by Professor Richard Ely that others of "equal

or greater eminence" could present a decidedly different view.37 Professor Ely's 1890 to

189

1892 series, which challenged the economic underpinnings of the Gospel of Wealth, had
been initiated by a request by Buckley to respond to a contribution to the Advocate by

Henry George, author of Progress and Povertv and advocate of the single tax on the un-

earned increase in land values.38 Because of his respect for the work Of George, even
though he did not firlly agree, Buckley found himself accused by Judge William Lawrence
of Ohio of supporting socialism "under the pale of the teachings of a professed religious

newspaper" and thus encouraging "alien sentiments" which were "rife in the land, destruc-

tive of property, good government, and social order."39 Buckley explained again that
he respected George but did not agree with his panacea, and he added:

Furthermore, because there are communistic ideas abroad,

is no reason why men should refirse to consider the inequalities

and evils that exist, and endeavor to correct them. It is an

amusing variety in our experience to be practically charged

with radical or socialistic notions by our esteemed friend,

whom we hope will take the time to read with care the

editorial referred to.
Buckley was moderating his Gospel of Wealth perspective, and he even published with-

out negative criticism an essary advocating compulsory arbitration just before the 1894

Pullman Strike began.40
Zion's Herald Editors Bradford Peirce and Charles Parkhurst also continued to
support elements of the Gospel of Wealth while moderating on others during this period.

After the 1877 National Labor Uprising, Peirce had recommended evangelizing rather

190

than shooting strikers, to rely on "the power of God unto salvation" for "these abandoned

masses of men."41 Charles Parkhurst recommended the same virtue-cultivating strategy
in the aftermath of 1892 strikes, especially the one at Homestead, Pennsylvania. Afier
several reports blaming incidents on the workers, Parkhurst asked why Christian
missionaries had not gone among the strikers "preaching forbearance and gentleness

under wrongs" and among employers confronting them with the reminder that they were

"dealing with brother-men."42 Although the stress on virtue-creation as a solution con-
tinued, the laissez faire emphasis stressed by the Rev. George M. Steele in an 1887 ser-
ies in the Herald, by the Rev. Reuen Thomas in an 1889 series, and by Boston University

Lecturer George Fall in an 1890 series was being rejected by Parkhurst in the aftermath

of the American Railway Boycott in connection with the 1894 Pullman Strike.43 After

the typical anti-mob response to strikes, Parkhurst urged workingmen to seek legislation

and concluded: "Compulsory arbitration is the panacea." He was moving away from
Editor Peirce saw the solution to the labor problem in changed human wills. In

an 1886 editorial, he referred to the "let alone principle" as a basis for objecting to the

kind of compulsory arbitration Parkhurst would support in 1894.44 But, the year before
he had recognized the "cruel injustice by men who stand well with the church and the
world" and pay the lowest wages the market will bear, arguing workers are free to go

elsewhere if they desire higher wages. Peirce declared:

191

The man with reduced wages, in many cases, cannot go
elsewhere. He must provide for wife and children, and
has neither time, money, nor knowledge to take himself
elsewhere.(45)

He then quoted a professor he had been speaking with on this topic:
It is a state of slavery as real as was the slavery of the black
people. Then the means of subjection was the lash. Now
it is starvation.

The following month, Peirce felt he had spotted an example of a virtuous capital-

ist who demonstrated the road to the solution of the problem of labor unrest.46 This cap-
italist could evict tenants at ten days' notice, and could thus rid the community of saloons
and "objectionable houses." His model factory situation was, said Peirce, exactly what
he had been speaking of in his August editorial. Peirce explained:

It is an industrious, sober population like this which is the best

safeguard against communistic uprisings, and the most efficient

protection against riots. All this comes from 'the broad

Christian inspiration' of the founder, and it shows the practical

consequences of the spirit of Christianity when its flame burns

brightly in the hearts of capable business men of the world.
Slightly over nine years later, Editor Charles Parkhurst would have a different perspective

on this model industrial leader when he reported the findings of the United States Strike

Commission: "The Commission finds that the ideal features of the town of Pullman were

adopted from business rather than philanthropic motives."47 Although the Gospel of
Wealth emphases on individual virtue cultivation and patronizing trusteeship continued,

reliance on laissez faire was being severely questioned.

192

THE SOCIAL GOSPEL

While there is no single document defining the Social Gospel comparable to
Carnegie's "Wealth" for defining the Gospel of Wealth, certain key elements may be
identified. First is the movement beyond concern for individual regeneration to concern
for social regeneration. William Arthur's Ihe Tongue of Fire, required reading for Meth-

odist pastors in the 1890's,called beyond individual regeneration to social regeneration.48

Timothy Smith, in explaining "The Evangelical Origins of Social Christianity," cites the
quest for perfection, compassion for sinners, and a rebirth of millenial expectation as in-

gredients which made "popular Protestantism a mighty social force" before the Civil War

began.49 A resolution of the newly formed Christian Labor Union in Boston in 1875

stressed a second element, the challenge "to establish in the earth that divine order and

conduct in human society which Jesus Christ called the kingdom of God."50 For revival-
ists, this was combined with an optimism concerning what divine grace could do to per-
fect American society working through human agency, an optimism Henry May observes

came to others through a rationalistic and humanistic religious perspective on human abil-

ilities.51 In comparison with the Gospel of Wealth, laissez. faire was replaced by a drive
to establish the kingdom of God, a drive combined with an optimism as to what divine

grace could accomplish. Cultivation of individual virtue, often defined in economic terms,

193

was replaced by cultivation of a social activist virtue seeking social regeneration. And the
patronizing trusteeship of wealth was replaced by a trusteeship of spiritual and intellectual
leadership that could also become patronizing.

Congregationalist Pastor Washington Gladden, Episcopal Professor Richard T.
Ely, and Baptist Pastor and later Professor Walter Rauschenbusch are usually cited as
key figures in the development of the Social Gospel. Gladden illustrates the long-terrn
development of the position as well as development of a theology in the context of pas-

toral practice.52 Ely academically challenged the reigning economic orthodoxy.53

Rauschenbusch wrote the Social Gospel manifesto, Christianitv and the Social Crisis

(1907) and the standard Social Gospel theology, A Iheologv For the Social Gospel

(1917).54 Several other influential early leaders are also often mentioned--Charles Shel-
don, William Dwight Porter Bliss, George Herron, and others--but Methodists are rarely

spoken of. 5 5

The role of Frances Willard, Frank Mason North, William Carwardine, and the
Methodist press is generally overlooked in accounts of the development of the Social
Gospel. Sidney Ahlstrom acknowledges Willard's conflict with previous Women's
Christian Temperance Union President Annie Wittenmeyer who wanted to focus on pro-

hibition while Willard preferred her "Do Everything" program and by 1896 began de-

manding "Gospel Socialism" rather than merely "Gospel Politics."56 Yet he confines his

discussion of Willard to a section on prohibition as a Protestant crusade, separated by 70

194

pages from his extensive discussion of all possible contributors to Social Gospel develop-
ment. Henry May notes that Willard in 1874 supported Labor's demands for a living

wage and later supported their 8-hour day demands, and that she recognized in an 1894

statement that poverty needed to be wiped out before drink did.S7 Yet, he, too, separ-
ates this by many pages from his discussion of Social Gospel origins. Frank Mason
North is ignored by May in his account of the formation of the Federal Council of
Churches in 1908 and is confined by Ahlstrom to a footnote citing a former delegate
remembering 60 years later how tears came to his eyes after a report to the organizing

Federal Council session on the Social Creed and singing North's hymn "Where Cross

the Crowded Ways of Life."58 Even Methodist historian Frederick Norwood states that
"During the labor troubles and recurrent panics, the Advocates frequently urged relief for

the unemployed, but had little to say about the causes of labor unrest or the policies of

employers."59 While it is true that Methodist leadership, as represented by Editors of
major Methodist publications, advocated a variety of the Gospel of Wealth approach to
issues of labor unrest, a reading of the Methodist Review, the Christian Advocate (New
York), and Zion's Herald for 1885 to 1894 not only reveals a concern for the causes of
labor unrest, but also presents a developing Social Gospel perspective that worked to-

gether with what Gladden, Rauschenbusch, and others were doing to lead to the forma-
tion of the Federal Council of Churches in 1908. Perhaps the overlooking of Methodist

contributions to the origins of the Social Gospel results from the same thing that happens

195

when histories of revivalism dwell on Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists and
their special efforts which seem more dramatic than the way revivalism was built into the
Methodist heritage.

Four persons provide a basic outline of Social Gospel developments between
1885 and 1894 in key Methodist publications. Layman Edward H. Rogers sought to
apply the Bible to society from a workingman's perspective. Professor Richard T. Ely,
whose books were required reading for Methodist pastors, called Methodists to a new
economics and a more positive view of the role of the State. The Rev. C.M. Morse fo-
cused criticism of conversion, as popularly understood, not only as not improving society,
but also for potentially making society worse. And, the Rev. Frank Mason North identi-

fied commonalities of Christianity and socialism as he called for social regeneration.

"Dr." Edward H. Rogers: A Workingman's Perspective
on the Bible
The Rev. R. Wheatley reported for Zion's Herald that "Drs. Dorchester, Bal-

dwin, and Rogers" spoke concerning labor issues at the General Conference of the Evan-

gelical Alliance in Washington, DC. in December 1887.60 Then he noted that only Rev.
Baldwin and Rev. Dorchester had been awarded Doctorates, but he quickly added that
"many less worthy" than Rogers wore the title. Rogers, a member of Methodist Dr.
Daniel Dorchester's Chelsea, Massachusetts congregation, was described by Wheatley

as "a practical workingman" who "revealed a breadth of thought and force of reason that

196

commanded universal respect." Wheatley said "many" could not endorse "his Scriptural
hermeneutics," but that Rogers was "singularly eloquent and able, theocratic, and withal
somewhat mystical," and "certainly right in looking for the solution of all difficulties in the
teachings of the Holy Scriptures, and particularly in the Sermon on the Mount."

Something of a Victorian Eric Hoffer, Rogers had been one of the founders of

the Christian Labor Union in Boston in 1872.60 In addition to the report of his address
to the Evangelical Alliance in December 1887, Rogers had three contributions published
in Zion's Herald In the speech in December 1887, he had challenged the "law of supply
and demand" as placing single men at an advantage over married men, thus undermining

the family. In 1885, he had contributed an analysis of "Communism and Socialism" as
well as an application of "The Social Ideal of Prophecy."62 In 1886, he presented a

Biblical perspective on labor arbitration.63 After the Haymarket Bombing, when Editor
Bradford Peirce of Zion's Herald was challenged for lacking sympathy for labor because

he supported forceful suppression of strikers, Peirce pointed to contributions by Rogers

as evidence of his even-handedness.64 Rogers was viewed as one who spoke from the
perspective of wage laborers.

Rogers' essay on "Arbitration" explained the efforts of labor negotiating with cap-

ital in terms of Matthew 18.15-18 in the Christian New Testament.65 Admittedly, this
was using the Bible to provide justification to what was already in practice. But it demon-

strated use of the Bible for something beyond personal regeneration and church discipline.

197

The procedure of the passage was: 1) go to the offending "brother" (employer);
go with another (organized labor) if the first effort were refirsed; 3) resort to "action of
an extraordinary character" (such as a strike) if the first two failed, "for the Christian
churches cannot deny the just claims of the poor."

Writing of "Communism and Socialism," Rogers noted socialist practices of the

American government of the time--road construction, public schools, and weapons of

war.66 Although he acknowledged that his rejection of "individualistic theories" was no
justification for a too powerful state, he saw the "grand hope before the American
people" to be "the vision of a communal Church (the New Jerusalem) encircled by a
socialistic State." This, he declared, would be the firlfillment of "the institutes of Moses,
the predictions of the Hebrew prophets, ...the New Testament promises of the final and
now proximate revelation which the Lord Jesus Christ will make of himself. "

Continuing to pursue this prophetic perspective, he agreed with the Rev. Heber
Newton's relating of Christian socialism to the Puritan "commonwealth of free and bro-

therly citizens," although Rogers regretted Newton's "doctrinal deficiencies" related to

"naturalistic theories."67 He saw the hope of the poor lying in adoption by the Church of
both the principles of the Ten Commandments and "the true prophetic ideal of Scripture."
He saw the Church's mission to be:

To develop the whole prophetic question in such a com-

prehensive manner as to include a momentous crisis--
now imminent--involving the second coming of Christ

198

in a spiritual mystery; the sudden overthrow of Babylon-

commercialism--and the expansion of the field of labor

of the American churches by care for the bodies as

well as the souls of men.
Clearly, Rogers challenged Methodism to look at the Bible from the perspective of the
working class.

Professor Richard T. Ely: New Economics

and New Confidence in the State

Richard Ely is generally recognized as one of the key figures in the development
of the Social Gospel. Although his personal religious afiiliation was with the Episcopal
Church, he was especially influential in Methodism by way Of his writings. On the one
hand, Methodist Pastors were required to read his Social Aspects of Christianitv in the

Trial Year to become "Travelling Preachers" (persons assigned by the Bishop to pastoral

circuits) and Ely'slntroduction to Political Economv in their Third Year of preparation for

firll ordination.68 On the other hand, Editor James Buckley of the Chn'stian Advocate
(New York), official weekly voice of Methodism, published fourteen contributions on
economics between December 25, 1890 and March 31, 1892. They were both a chal-
lenge to the economics of laissez faire and a magnification of the desirable role of the
State.

Ely was originally invited to contribute to the Advocate a response to Henry
George's Single Tax ideas. He declared George to be too simplistic, not realizing that

"all production is social...and society as a participant in production is entitled to share the

199

product," not merely a tax on unearned increases in land value, as George recommended,

but a tax on all production.69 When Buckley asked Ely to contribute a series on labor

and economics, Ely began it with an analysis of "Social Classes, " challenging the

accepted notion that all could "rise in life" if they only worked at it.70 The principle of
laissez faire did not provide equal opportunity for all to advance. Ely's critique called for

what the Rev. C.H. Zimmerman wrote of in the Methodist Reidewovas "an ethical political
economy."71 Zimmerman blamed reigning economic theory for sending forth "an army

of graduates...from college every year to prey upon their fellow men."72 He saw hope
in the economic perspective of teachers such as Ely helping to "substitute altruistic for

egoistic aims, to displace the purely selfish 'economic man' by one governed by the

Golden Rule."73
In his next four contributions, Ely magnified the role of the State in achieving
divine purposes. As a preface to an essay condemning the placing of property rights

ahead of the rights of persons, he declared: "The State is religious in its essence, and its
mission is religious."74 He declared that too much credit was being given to philanthro-

pists, who could not do what only the "strong arm of the law" could.75 In response to
the challenge that legislation could not make persons good, he quoted the English Metho-

dist leader, Rev. Hugh Price Hughes: "1 never heard anybody say that except when he

was trying in some way to hinder the kingdom of God."76 When he analyzed the role of

the State, he condemned a skeptical view of the State in declaring, "The truly contemptible

200

doctrine that the State is a necessary evil was as far from Aristotle as it has been

from all great political thinkers."77 As he continued his advocacy of an Aristotelian per-
spective on the State, he declared: "God works through the State in carrying out his pur-
poses more than through any other institution." He believed that the Protestant Reforrn-
ers had exalted the role of theState, liberating it from Church control, and concluded:

The true unity of Christians...is found in the State. Men of all

Denominations act together in the administrative, legislative,

and judicial branches of government for the establishment of

righteousness.(78)
this fit the American sense of Civil Religion, and was not contradicted by Editor Buckley
or any other contributors to Zion's Herald.

In firrther contributions, Ely challenged the economic basis of inequality before
the law, criticized the Church for focusing on the future life at the expense of the present,

blamed the economics of self-interest on a materialistic age, defended labor unions

against unfair criticism, and objected to charity organizations becoming "detective

agencies" in deciding how to aid the poor.79 Then, in responding to the question of
whether social reform were going too fast, he declared:

Impatience is disastrous; wise and carefirl consideration
of all proposed measures is important; but we cannot
go too fast in social reform provided we are moving in
the right direction for the accomplishment of desirable
ends, and all apprehension of going too far is ground-
less until when we look about us we can see the exist-
ence of that kingdom of righteousness for which all
Christians have been taught by their Lord and Master to
offer daily prayer.(80)

201

Episcopal social and economic theorist Richard T. Ely influenced Methodism to
a greater application of Christian principles to society, both a rejection of laissez. faire
economics and political theory and a greater emphasis on the power of the State. Al-
though this was expressed in Christian terms, it did not speak of a vital role for personal
spiritual liberation. It was an important element in the developing Social Gospel recon-
struction of the marriage of Wesleyan spiritual liberation concerns to American civil

liberty concerns.

The Rev. C.M. Morse: The Problem of Conversion

The Rev. C .M. Morse initiated a dialogue in the Methodist Review concerning
the role of conversion in social reform. Not only did he question the positive value of
conversion for accomplishing social reform, but he went so far as to say that conversion,
as it was then being experienced in America, often only led to a blessing of American cul-
ture rather than a prophetic challenge to it.

Six years before Morse challenged the popular notion that social problems would
work themselves out if only workingmen and capitalists experienced conversion, Editor
Bradford Peirce had raised the issue in Zion's Herald:

It is not enough for us to convert men to God. We must also

convert men to men. ...Men may be eminently pious, and yet

be vastly injurious in their action and influence on the social and

industrial life. Save the firture world by all means, but save,
also, this world to the utmost. (81)

202

The Rev. D.H. Ela, in two essays on "Christianity's Next Social Problem, " had observed
in the Review that Christian over-stress on individual religion had gone together with

over-stress on individual property rights and a wrongfirl tendency to make accumulation a

virtue, a proof of piety.82 Zion's Herald had published the challenge of The Rev. Josiah
Strong, General Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance, to "get beyond getting persons in
right relation to God to the second commandment," the command to "love your neighbor

as yourself. "83

Editor James Mendenhall of the Review prefaced Pastor Morse's essay with a

disclaimer asserting that Morse's criticism of the Church for "inattention to social and in-

dustrial questions" was "not wholly justified," since "such questions are new."84 Morse
expressed his loyalty to the church, but noted that "regeneration, or faith in Jesus alone,"
as experienced in 1891, did not fit a person to "act intelligently and righteously upon
questions of grave public importance" since "our present religious system nowhere enters

a protest against present economic conditions, nor insists upon a return to the precepts

of the Bible along these lines."85 On three key examples, slavery, war, and possession
of riches, "modern regeneration" seemed to make no difference, so, Morse concluded:

I state it as a fact that if every individual in the United States should
be 'regenerated' in an hour this wholesale conversion of the commu-
nity--under present methods--wou1d not result in a single reform in
the industrial or social world. The only change that would follow
would be that the present unjust methods in the distribution of
wealth would be given the sanction of baptism and the authority of
the Church.(86)

203

Morse offered both a solution for the problem and an explanation for the cause.
The solution was:

...The 'man of God' must place himself in touch with the poorest
class, study all social questions from that point of view, investigate
without prejudice or fear the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.(87)

The explanation of the current predicament was:

...The great adversary constantly brings up other and less impor-
tant questions to occupy the minds of religious thinkers. If the
same earnest discussion and investigation were applied to the
Bible doctrines concerning land-tenure or usury that are given

by the Presbyterian Church to the opinions of an errant professor,
or the Baptist Churches to the question of immersion, or the
United Presbyterian Church to the matter of psalmody and the
use of instruments in divine worship, or the 'woman question' in
our own denomination, Christianity would soon forge to the
front as a social factor.(88)

Morse added that if Christians did not take up this mission soon, some other organization
would and would receive credit for the achievement.

The Rev. RF. Bishop of Marietta, Ohio, and The Rev. J .E. Learned responded
to Morse the following year. Bishop challenged Morse for using a Unitarian cyclopedia
as a source for a definition of "regeneration" and accused Morse of condemning the

church's "spiritual methods," those of Paul, Wesley, and Moody, as inferior to those of

social critics Spencer, Bellamy, and Tolstoi.89 Learned charged Morse with confirsion
as to the purpose of the church, and declared:

The great question in this, as in old times, is of righteousness, temper-
ance, and judgment to come, and not of bimetallism, tariff, single-tax,
and trusts. These are matters of state, of police merely, of material and
temporal character, which the Church has no more to do than with the
fire department or the public works.(90)

204

Editor Mendenhall was careful to footnote Leamed's essay with an affirmation of his
agreement with Learned.

Morse responded the same year, declaring concerning those who "sneered" at
talk of the church's early communism: "It was only when the world-spirit took posses-

sion of the Church, and when covetousness led men to sneer at the communism of the

early brotherhood, that the gloom of the Dark Ages settled upon humanity."91 He de-
clared that the United States consisted of two classes, "the robbers and the despoiled,"

because land and money were held by the few and methods of unjust gain were regarded
as "legal."92 A church supporting these unjust practices would only "convert" persons

to acceptance of these unjust principles.93 The solution lay in following Mosaic prin-
ciples of Sabbatical release of debts and Jubilee return of alienated lands, as well as pay-
ing attention to Jesus' teachings against "laying up treasures," and following the example
of the disciples at Pentecost, who, when the Holy Spirit descended upon them, "sold

their landed possessions and put their money into a fund for the benefit of all who were

in need."94 Referring to divine laws of justice and their relation to 1890's practices, he
declared:

...The Church is becoming more of a fashionable organization than

a living power for righteousness. Every reform movement...is

opposed by the Church.(95)

Thus, everyone could be "regenerated" in the United States, without a single reform re-

sulting. Morse was exhorting to a Social Gospel that would change American society

205

to be more in conformity with Biblical teachings, a regeneration that took a person
beyond virtue empowering for economic success to a virtue empowering for personal

and social reform.

The Rev. Frank Mason North: A Pastoral Perspective
on Socialism
Frank Mason North, New York City Methodist Pastor, frequently contributed
to the Methodist Review, The Christian Advocate (New York) and Zion's Herald in the

1880's and1890's. In The Advocate he condemned the "pew system," and called for a
renewed Methodist revivalism.96 In Ihe Review he called for a new kind of Urban

Mission.97 And, in Zion's Herald he called for a new kind of City Evangelization in

1893 after he had challenged Methodists in 1891 to consider the relationship between

Christianity and Socialism.98 With respect to the marriage of Wesleyan spiritual libera-
tion concerns to American civil liberty concerns, North gave practical application to
William Arthur's call to seek social regeneration, even as be challenged his fellow Metho-
dists to greater effort for solidarity with working class persons. His call for "men and
women of culture and godliness" to enter a new kind of mission to the cities could easily
become the "patronizing trusteeship" of intellect the Social Gospel and its related political
movement of progressivism often substituted for the "patronizing trusteeship" of wealth
characterizing the Gospel of Wealth. But, for North, listening, in pastoral solidarity with

the working class was essential to that effort.

206

In 1885, North wrote in The Advocate condemning a "pew system" of financing

new church construction, since it made the poor feel unwelcome.99 The poor had
reason to feel suspicious, said North, because the resulting "spirit Of caste" conveyed "the
impression...that many of the churches are...private religious clubs. " The following year,
in writing of the success of a Church of England Missioner Aitken in the United States,

North considered it to be confirmation of Methodist stress on revivalism, popular music,

prayer meetings, and personal assurance of salvation. 100 Challenging those who feared
such methods might cause undue "nervous shock" to persons attending Methodist ser-
vices, North declared:

...Religion is more than conservative, it is absolutely radical.
It not only educates, it revolutionizes.

Six years later, North issued a challenge in The Methodist Review for caring
missionaries to the cities who would not function chiefly in tract distribution, small prayer
meetings, street comer meetings, or annual reports "in the wealthy districts to tell the

benevolent 'better class' what they are doing 'to reach the masses.” 101 Rather, they

were to battle "rum traffrc, poverty everywhere" in overcrowding, sanitation abuses,

and injustices to workers reducing them to machines and buying and selling them as com-

modities.102 It was impossible for him to walk through the community he served
"without coming to conclusions touching laissez faire and the new political economy."

Such a journey readjusted his views of "the sacred rights of property," and led him to

207

conclude: "God cares as much for the personal rights of each man in the million who

have not a bank account as he does for those of each man of the hundred who have."103

He added concerning a person such as himself:

The possibilities of the applied Gospel in curing social iniquities
seem to him less distant and the socialism of Christ more reason-
able than the many who are following the Master and studying his
teachings where the crowds cannot jostle thought or disturb
complacence.(104)

Moved by his experience of urban need, North continued his challenge to his fellow
Methodists:

The first need of this decade is that men and women of culture

and godliness, disciplined equally in mind and heart, who can be
indifferent to nothing that concerns human welfare, shall with pro-
found devotion to Christ consecrate themselves to the life of con-

tact with the multitudes in our cities over whom the master weeps.(105)

Later in 1893, North wrote in the columns of Zion's Herald his sense of the
Church's responsibility to the people of the cities;

It must concern itself with what concerns them, place itself
in the very centres of community life, and by a warmer fel-
lowship, a deeper human sympathy, a wiser tolerance of
inherited prejudices, a manner less self-protective and a
spirit which is not afraid to be called humane, come into
touch with the people, the touchtwhich can convey the
magnetic thrill of the divine longing for the well-being

of men. (106)

North's most lengthy contribution to the discussion of how to respond to labor

issues came in a series of four essays published in Zion's Herald in 1891 relating

208

Socialism and Christian faith. The Rev. GE. Hiller had declared in 1888 that all human
possessions partook of unrighteousness and that Christ would have looked upon "the
present method of adjusting property in the same way as he looked upon divorce; it is

permitted on account 'of the hardness of our hearts, but in the beginning it was not

so."107 William Bull had suggested in 1889 Fourth of July reflections that "much that we

have hitherto called property. . .may...become a form of robbery deserving condemna-

tion."108 Editor Charles Parkhurst of Zion's Herald had been the first in the Herald, The
Methodist Review, or the Christian Advocate (New York) to use the term "social gospel"

as he described the London Dock Workers' Strike of 1889 and declared the first need of

the time was justice rather than charity or mercy. 109 The Congregationalist Rev. W.D.P.
Bliss, Editor of the Socialist publication Dawn, had written for The Christian Advocate
(New York) and Zion's Herald that "If Methodism be defined as 'Christianity in earnest,‘

Christian Socialism may be defined as METHODISM APPLIED TO THE SOCIAL

ORDER. "1 10 Citing as "contemporary socialists" Ricth Ely, Frances Willard, and

others, he had concluded, "It is not a matter of following any of these, but of following

Jesus Christ."111

In keeping with the developing socialist movement in America and the continuing
contributions to the Methodist press of challenges to consider socialism as a way to live
out the Christian Gospel, North presented his four essays in 1891. First, he dealt very

deliberately with five reasons the church had been hesitant to involve itself in matters of

209

social reform.112 Some misconceived the Gospel as redeeming persons from this world
rather than in it and had substituted charity for justice. The Church had become an
"endowed institution, " willing, in the words of Karl Marx, to accept attacks upon its
Creed ("thirty-eight of the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England") before accept-
ing attacks on the established economic order. Many socialists were anti-Christian and
many Christian attempts at socialism were contemptible for their foolishness. And,
Americans were very reluctant to accept State interference in issues of private rights.

In his next essay,North turned from reasons for reluctance of the Church to deal
with social reform to the declaration that the late nineteenth century had not discovered
social reform. "It was a Christian conviction," North reminded his readers, "which com-

manded the liberation of the slave, the relief of the prisoner, and justice to the poor. "1 13

However, North observed that British Christian Socialist F.D. Maurice's theology of
man's essential sonship to God, of which even sin could not rob him, and its companion
truth that brotherhood is not an accident of society," had influenced the social thought of
Washington Gladden, Phillips Brooks, Lyman Abbott, and others. Returning to matters
of heritage, though, North observed concerning Methodism:

It inherited from its founder a mission to the poor and oppressed.
Methodism was a social as well as a spiritual reformation.

Referring to the "General Rules" Wesley had prescribed as required of Methodists to
practice as evidence of their sincerity, North spoke of them as "packed with the seed

principles of a new social order." He concluded:

210

In a word, Methodism has long been conscious of its mission to
regenerate souls. Let us now realize, also, that God calls it to
regenerate society.
At the hardest time of the Panic of 1893, while others were looking back to the Panic of

1857 and the Christian revival that followed, in hopes of a similar occurrence in 1893,

North raised the challenge: "Is it impossible that the answer may come in such a social

regeneration as the world has never known?"114

In the remaining two articles, North pointed up "The Christianity of Socialism"

and "The Socialism ofChristianity."115 Besides the fact that the Bible attacked "the
despotism of money, " North observed another similarity. The charge that socialism is
charged with not living up to its ideals is comparable to Christianity being charged with
not living up to its ideals. He acknowledged that Christianity seeks better conditions by
seeking better character and that socialism seeks better character by seeking better
conditions, thus recognizing a difference. And, he charged that many reformers "need
introduction to a problem more imperative than reconstruction of society, and that is the
transformation of man." Having said that, though, he declared that "the Gospel has acted
not only on the hearts of men, but also upon the social order which expresses and controls
their relationships." He listed challenges to more urgently apply Christ's teachings, to
illustrate those teachings in the life of the Church, and to better human conditions. As part
of these challenges, he declared:

The Gospel stands for brotherhood, simplicity, humility, helpfirlness,

self-sacrifice. The church belies it when it encourages caste, ex-
travagance, pride, exclusiveness, selfishness. ...'Present idols--the

211

golden beasts of a false worship--must be replaced by a simpler,

purer, more spiritual culture. The pride that despises labor must go.

The selfishness which seeks men simply to use them must die.

North was optimistic as to what the Church could do in the presence of these
challenges if it would only realize its opportunity. North's concern was for personal spiri-
tual liberation and for social liberation. He sought a restructuring of the marriage of
Methodist personal spiritual liberation concerns to American civil religious concerns.

His stress on personal spiritual liberation was continuous with early Wesleyanism. His
concern to Christianize the social and economic order helped lay the groundwork

for stress on political rationality that in the progressive movement and much of the Social
Gospel would become more important than concern for communicative action pursuing

a more democratic ordering of society. Together with Edward Rogers, Professor
Richard Ely, the Rev. C.M. Morse, and others, the Rev. Frank Mason North responded
to late nineteenth century labor unrest with a call for applying the Gospel to the Economic
Order.

These and others lay the groundwork for the Methodist Social Gospel Move-
ment which produced the Social Creed. Richard Cameron, in Methodism and Societv

in Historical Perspective, describes the role of five persons in leading the Methodist Fed-

eration for Social Service which contributed the Social Creed to the Federal Council of

Churches in 1908.116 New York Pastor Herbert Welch, WestemChristianAdvocate
(Cincinnati) Assistant Editor Elbert Zaring, and Cleveland Pastor Worth Tippy, joined

Frank Mason North, and Chicago Pastor Harry Ward, principal author of the Creed,

212

in leading the Methodist Social Gospel movement. Tippy said that Walter Rauschen-

busch was the prophet of the movement and North was the leader.1 17 In December
1907 they formed the voluntary Methodist Federation for Social Service, which received

official sanction by the Methodist General Conference of 1908, which adopted a report

containing the Methodist Social Creed.118 Several months after the Methodist General
Conference, the organizing session of the Federal Council of Churches adopted a Social
Creed modeled after the Methodist one. The Federal Council, the prime institutional ex-
pression of the Social Gospel, was uniting in declaring the faith the Methodists had
affirmed in these words:

The Methodist Episcopal Church stands--

For equal rights and complete justice for all men in all stations of life.

For the principle of conciliation and arbitration in Industrial dissensions.

For the protection of the worker from dangerous machinery, occupational
diseases, injuries, and mortality.

For the abolition of child labor.

For such regulations of the conditions of labor for women as shall safeguard
the physical and moral health of the community.

For the suppression of the "sweating system."

For the gradual and reasonable reduction of the hours of labor to the lowest
practical point, with work for all: and for that degree of leisure for all
which is the condition of the highest human life.

For a release from employment one day in seven.

For a living wage in every industry.

For the highest wage that each industry can afford, and for the most equitable
division of the products of industry that can ultimately be devised.

For the recognition of the Golden Rule and the mind of Christ as the supreme
law of society and the sure remedy for all social ills.(119)

NOTES

1Winthrop Hudson observes that by the turn of the century two antithetical
gospels, "the gospel of wealth" and "the social gospel," struggled for predominance
in American Protestant religion. Winthrop S. Hudson and John Corrigan, Religion
inAmerica: AnHistoricalAccountofthellevelopmentofAmericachligiousLife
(New York: Macmillan, 1992 revision of book first authored by Hudson and copy-
righted in 1965), p.292.

2Andrew Carnegie, "Wealth," North American Review, June 1889, pp.
653-664. This article is also reproduced in The Gilded Age: America, 1865:1200:

Interpretive Articles and Documentary. Sources, Edited by Richard A. Bartlett
(Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1969), pp. 44-53.

3min, pp. 661-662.
4Ibid, pp. 663-664.

5ZH Editor Charles Parkhurst, in a June 19, 1889 editorial, responded: "Andrew
Carnegie, in a somewhat too patronizing style, firrnishes an article on 'Wealth.'" (p3)
John A. Garraty, in The New Commonwealth: W (New York: Harper Torch-
books, 1968), p. 27, suggests that, while the Carnegie doctrine "seems insufferably pa-
tronizing to modern readers, " it was "not a selfish doctrine." If Parkhurst's view was
shared, Carnegie was "insufferably patronizing" to 1890's readers as well as "modern"
ones.

6Sydney Ahlstrom makes these points in A Religious Historv of the American
People (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972), p.790. Hudson, op. cit, p. 293,
observes the same connection. Paul A. Carter, in The Spiritufl Crisis of the Gilded Age
(DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1971), pp. viii, 136, 137, relates
support for Social Darwinism to the strange way in which the age became "more religious
and more secular at the same time," with "the gospel of Christ...felt to be in full harmony
with the Gospel of Wealth," while "science-minded members of the comfortable classes"
could discount Biblical challenges to wealth.

213

214

7Ibid. Carnegie followed up his June essay on "Wealth" with a December con-
tribution to The North American Review titled "The Best Fields For Philanthropy." (pp.
682-698) Attempting to justify this departure from previous explanations of Biblical
teachings, he declared: "The 'Gospel of Wealth' but echoes the words of Christ. It calls
upon the millionaire to sell all he hath and give it in the highest and best form to the poor,
by administering his estate for the good of his fellows, before he is called upon to lie
down upon the bosom of Mother earth." If this were done, Carnegie felt assured that
"against such riches as these no bar will be found at the Gates of Paradise." (p.698)

82H, February 10, 1886, p.4. Peirce noted that emancipation of the slaves had
countered Herbert Spencer's "let-them-alone" principle. He added: "The weak have not
pulled us down; they have lified us up."

92H, May 5, 1886, p. 4. Peirce saw hope for the laborer in cultivating personal
virtue, which would lead to greater popular support.

”Mk March-April, 1887, pp. 318-320.
11MR, November-December, 1888, "The Chronic Disease," pp. 921-923.

12MR, November-December, 1891, "Regeneration as a Force in Reform
Movements, " by Rev. CM. Morse of New Wilmington, Pa, pp. 923-932. This
initiated a dialogue among several contributors to MR. MR, September-October 1892,
"Wanted, An Ethical Political Economy, " by Rev. C .H. Zimmerman of Evanston, 111.,
pp. 737-744. NR, March-April 1893, "City Missions and Social Problems," by
Rev. Frank Mason North of New York City, pp. 228-23 9.

”MR, May-June 1890, "The Common People," pp. 427-435.

14MR, January-February 1891, "The Demand of Socialism for the Reconstruc-
tion of Society," pp. 120-126. This follOwed Mendenhall's more primary editorial con-
cern: "Is The New Testament Safe?"

15MR, March-April 1891, "Edward Bellamy's New Civilization," pp. 280-286.
16MR May-June 1891, "Sociological Christianity a Necessity," pp. 449-456.

17MR, May-June 1893, pp. 503-504.

215

18MR, July-August 1893, "What Are the Functions of the Church?"
pp. 628-633.

19MR, September-October 1893, pp. 838-839.
20MR, January-February 1894, "Fantastic Reforrners," pp. 107-109.

21MR, March-April 1894, p. 333. Kelley noted Ely's praise of socialists for
"calling attention to social problems, " but he appreciated Ely's support for private prop-
erty and his opposition to radical change.

22NYCA, December 31, 1885 to February 4, 1886 and May 27 to June 17,
1886.

23NYCA, December 25, 1890 to March 31, 1892 for Ely and September 11,
1890 for Bliss.

2“er January 26 to May 25, 1887.

25ZH, July 20, 1887 for Rogers, December 17, 1890 and May 13, 1891 for
Bliss, and January 14 to February 4, 1891 for North.

26NYCA, May 7, 1885, "Christian Workingmen In Hard Times, " p. 1, has
Buckley's call to diligence. NYCA, November 19, 1885, p.2, has the reprint of the Sam
Jones sermon.

27NYCA, December 31, 1885, "Object -Lessons in Social Economy: I. Drif-
ting Whither." p.3, article said self-interest was leading to Christian brotherhood. (This
was an exact reproduction of an essay first printed in NYCA October 1, 1885.) The
series continued in issues for January 7, 1886 (p.3, "11. Every Man a Specialist"),
January 14 (p.3, "III. Labor Saving Machinery"), January 21 (p.3, "IV. Co-Operation"),
January 28 (p.3, "V. Over-Production"), and February 4 (p.3," VI. Starting Aright").
The January 21 and February 4 essays challenged workers to remedy a "character flaw"
and develop "steadfastness."

28NYCA, January 21, 1886, pp. 1 and 5.

216

29NYCA, April 1, 1886, p. l, "The Crisis." Buckley wrote: "Let, then, the min-
istry, wherever they are throughout the land, mingle more freely than ever with all classes,
especially with workingmen, that there may be no ground for the charge, often made, that
they care nothing for the workingman so long as they can fatten upon the dinners and ride
in the carriages of the rich--a charge ofien without foundation, but occasionally, we regret
to have to say, borne out by the facts. Almost every difference can be adjusted
where both sides are anxious to compromise. Let the Golden Rule and its spirit per-
vade all Christian capitalists and workingmen, and a way of adjustment will be found."

30NYCA, July 8, 1886, p. l, "The True Sphere of Labor Organizations."

31NYCA, April 29, 1886, p.1, "1. Rights ofWorkingmen." NYCA, May 6,
1886, pl, "11. Rights of Employers and Capital." NYCA, May 13, 1886, p. 1,
"HI. Employers and Employees." NYCA, May 20, 1886, p.1, "IV. Collisions Between
Employers and Employees." NYCA, May 27, 1886, p. 1, "V. Collisions of Labor and
Capital.

32NYCA, May 27 and June 3, 10, and 17, 1886, p.3 essays on "Labor-Capital
Agitation."

”mid, June 3 essay.

3A‘lfitzid. June 10 essay justifies right to accumulate and attacks Knights "tyranny, "
June 17 essay calls for "a mutual yielding of rights, " and June 24 essay says labor is as
wrong as capital.

35NYCA, August 17, 1893, p.3, "The Law of Social Progress." NYCA,
August 24, 1893, p.3, "The Relation of Social Reform to Social Evolution." NYCA,
August 31, 1893, p.3, "Some Tendencies in Social Reform." NYCA, September 7,
1893, p.3, "The Relation of the Church to Social Reform."

37NYCA, April 14, 1893, p. 1, "Professor Ely's Letters."

38Buckley kept a promise issued in an earlier Advocate by publishing on the first
page of the July 24, 1890 edition George's "The Single Tax--What It Is, And Why We
Urge It." George argued that since the society had added value to land the state could
rightfully tax it. Buckley wrote on the first page of the August 7, 1890 edition that pub-
lishing George's article was in keeping with Advocate policy of presenting "the best

217

articles on both sides of important debated questions." Then, he promised, "A writer of
equal force with Mr. GEORGE will present the other side" and complimented, "As an
illustration of the high art of putting things, Mr. GEORGE'S article is a model." (Buckley's
editorial on George's name) The one chosen to respond in December and for the next

two years was Professor Richard Ely. But, after Ely's presentation, Buckley was com-
pelled to deny Advocate responsibility for Ely's "reasoning, facts, or conclusions,"
although he expressed admiration for Ely's "respect for Christianity." (NY CA, April 14,
1892, p. 1) He then suggested that others of "equal or even greater eminence" could pre-
sent a view decidedly different from Ely's.

39NYCA, May 10, 1894, p.5.

40He presented "Compulsory Arbitration" by H.L. Wayland in the May 10, 1894
edition of the Advocate (p3). Wayland had commented on the remark of "a gentleman of
property" after the Homestead Strike who had said concerning arbitration, "There is
nothing to arbitrate. It is simply matter of whether a man shall control and manage his
own property." Wayland had commented: "That a man has a right to use his own
property as he will is an assertion so monstrous that it cannot be held by any sensible
person who has for a moment reflected upon the situation. The State is bound in the
end to interpose; and if the State is to come in at the finish with the bayonet, it may as well
come in at the start with the balance." The doctrine of laissez faire was being abandoned.

41NYCA, August 9, 1877, p.4.

42211, page one reports for July 6, 13, 20, and 27 had blamed the workers.
Parkhurst's editorial "The Aftermath of the Strikes was in ZH, August 31, 1892, p.4.

4321-1, "Popular Fallacies Concerning Labor and Wealth," by the Rev. George
M. Steele, pl of January 26, 1887; February 2, 9, and 16 1887; March 2, 1887;
May 4 and 25, 1887. This included the February 9 assertion: "Anything which tends to
check the increase of capital is a damage to the interests of labor." ZH, "Christian Social-
ism," by the Rev. Reuen Thomas, p. l of January 16 and 23, 1889; February 6, 13, 20,
and 27, 1889; March 6, 1889. This included no explicit reference to the laissez faire
principle in economics, although it included a February 13 favorable citation of English-
man George Dawson's request with respect to the New Jerusalem to "wipe my name out
of its citizenship if the stout and lazy vagabond and all who have no talent for work" be
welcomed. ZH, "The Modern Altruist," by George Howard Fall, "Lecturer on Roman
Law in Boston University, pl of August 20 and 27, 1890. In the August 27 essay, Fall
declared: "Natural selection and the survival of the fittest is the only law." Parkhurst's
remarks were in ZH, July 18, 1894, "Liberty--but Law, " p. 1.

218

44ZH, May 5, 1886, "Law and Labor," p. 1. Peirce declared: "To make it law
would interfere with the freedom of contract." He saw it as a reversal of the way of pro-
gress by increasing individual rights. He then added his typical virtue plea: "The hope for
labor lies not in law, but in another direction altogether. To begin with, it must become
sober and self-respecting. It must boycott rum, tobacco, and laziness, and sensuality and
dishonesty. It must cultivate the homely virtues of industry and thrift." This would help
it cultivate popular support.

45ZH, August 5, 1885, "Upheaval or Peacefirl Revolution," p.4.
46ZH, September 2, 1885, "Pullman," p.4.
47ZH, November 28, 1894, "The Strike Commission's Report," p. 1.

48William Arthur, Ihe Tongue ofFire: Or, The rare Power ofChristianitv
(New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1857). Arthur raised the question of whether
"those who see and feel the importance of first seeking the regeneration of individuals,
too often insufficiently studied the application of Christianity to social ills?" (p.91)
For the many Methodist pastors who sought ordination while pastoring, the General
Conference prescribed a disciplined reading program. Those "On Trial" had certain
books to read, and those who had moved to "First Year" status were required to read
Ihe Tongue of Eire (even as "On Trial" persons were required to read the first volume
of Wesley's sermons and "First Year" students were required to read the second volume
of Wesley's sermons). These are listed in NYCA, October 10, 1892, p. 12 and NYCA,
March 23, 1892, p.12. The Rev. W.C. Wilbur reports in the February 9, 1893 issue
of NYCA (p.4) that the Episcopal Committee chose the books and authors on the Disci-
plinary requirements in the Course of Study "more with reference to their prominence as
leaders of thought...than for any particular denominational relations that they may chance
to hold." He also noted that "the new course of study corresponds more firlly with the
curricula of the theological seminaries and colleges than ever before." On this basis, it
would seem that Arthur's work was very influential in 1890's Methodism..

49Timothy L. Smith, Revivalism and social Reform: American Protestantism on
the Eve of the Civil War (New York: Harper Torchbooks, originally published by
Abingdon Press, 1957), pp. 148-162.

50Cited in Smith, op. cit, p. 236, as cited in Aaron I. Abell, The Urban Impact
on American Protestantism (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Historical Studies,
1943), p.24. Smith compares this to similar discussions in Charles Hopkins' Ihe Rise

219

of the Social Gospel in American Protestantism (New Haven, 1940), pp. 42-49, and
Edward H. Rogers; National Life in the Spirit World (Chelsea, Massachusetts, 1891),
pp. 2, 9-11, 64. Rogers, a Methodist layman, contributed several challenging essays to
Zion's Herald during this period.

51 Smith, loc. cit, chapter on "The Evangelical Origins of Social Christianity"
explains the role of this optimism of grace in motivating social reform as distinct from an
optimism of unaided human ability. May, op. cit, notes such things as "Unitarians helped
alter Protestant ideas of the possibilities of mankind." (p.35), and "humanistic religion"
was helping Protestants turn their eyes toward the world and making it easier to empha-
size social change (p.87). May does not deal with the motivations Smith describes.
Both of them are describing varied motivations going into the Social Gospel that devel-
oped by the early 1900's, a perspective that especially revealed after World War I the
two great deficiencies May cites: 1) a shallow theological and emotional content which
could not provide "spiritual sustenance" needed by "the great mass of Christians" (some-
thing the revivalist Social Gospel had provided) and 2) "The simplicity and optimism of
its social analysis did not fit it to lead the way through the deep jungles and morasses of
the twentieth century. The second criticism applied to most revivalist Social Gospel as
surely as it did to the more humanistic variety May refers to.

52Gladden (1836-1918) began his pastoral work in the 1860's in North Adams,
Massachusetts, where he took sides with strikers. In 1875, he began a seven-year pas-
torate at Springfield, Massachusetts, where he also expressed sympathy for unemployed
workers. While there, he wrote Workingmen and their Emplovers (1876). From 1882
to 1914 he served as pastor of First Congregationalist Church, Columbus, Ohio, where
mine owners were members of his congregation, but he took sides with striking mine
workers in the Hocking Valley Coal Strike southeast of Columbus in 1884. (Ahlstrom,
op. cit, p. 794 and Hudson, op. cit, pp. 298-299) His 1886 Applied Christianitv illus-
trates his essentially conservative perspective as he condemns unrestricted competition as
"poisoning the very sources of the national life" even as he also acknowledges that "pri-
vate enterprise has filled the world with blessings." (Quoted by John Garraty, op. cit,
pp. 321-322) Henry May, Protestant Churches and Industrial America (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1949), pp. 171-176, in presenting Gladden as the most represen-
tative and influential exponent of the Social Gospel, describes the Social Gospel as "a
middle class creed, " even as he quotes Gladden as saying in Applied Christianity:
"The doctrine which bases all the relations of employer and employed upon self-interest
is a doctrine of the pit; it has been bringing hell to earth in large installments for many
years."

53Ely (1854-1943) studied economics in Germany under professors who repu-
diated "alleged laws of classical economics" and emphasized "the prior importance of

220

differing cultural contexts, historical developments, national needs,and political realities."
(Ahlstrom, op. cit, p. 796) Ahlstrom observes the influence of Ely's The Social Aspect
of Chrrstranrtv (1889), in which Ely declared he belonged to "the ethical school of econo-
mists" and of which Ahlstrom says, "With this book he became one of the most widely
read of all American econorrrists." (Ihid., p. 797) Garraty, op. cit, pp. 322-323, cites
Ely as an example of the kind of social scientist of whom Gladden could say, "Social
science is the child of Christianity, " despite the fact that some social scientists' stress on
objectivity kept them from involvement in reform efforts. Garraty cites B.G. Rader,
IheAcademicMindandReform: IheInfluenceofRichardI. ElvinAmericanLife
(Lexington, 1966) as presenting Ely as critical of capitalism but opposing drastic social
changes. May, op. cit, pp. 138-142, notes the 1885 origins of the American Economic
Association, in which Gladden and 22 other clergy opposed the dominant classical eco-
nomics, with Richard T. Ely being the most important leader.

54Rauschenbusch (1861-1918) pastored a German Baptist congregation near
New York City's Hell's Kitchen from 1887 to 1897 in a decisive period in his life.
(Ahlstrom, op. cit, pp. 800-802) He labored for playgrounds and better housing.
While serving as Church History professor at Rochester Seminary, he took a study
leave in Europe and published Christianitv and the Social Crisis. His 1917 Theology
for the Social Gospel formulated a more realistic doctrine of "the Kingdom of evil" than
other Social Gospelers taught.

5 5Sheldon's In His Steps (1896) popularized the movement and Bliss and
Herron became outspoken socialists. (Hudson, op. cit, p. 300 and Ahlstrom, op. cit,
pp. 799-800) Josiah Strong is described by Ahlstrom, op. cit, pp. 798-799, as "the
dynamo, the revivalist, the organizer, and altogether the most irrepressible spirit of the
Social Gospel movement." May, op. cit, lists other influential figures.

56Ahlstrom, op. cit, pp. 868-870. Ahlstrom speaks of her as "the single most
impressive reformer to have worked within the context of the evangelical churches" and
adds a description of her as "the chief exception to the rule of evangelical social compla-
cency during the 'halcyon years.” But, he includes this in a discussion of prohibition as
a crusading Protestant effort, clearly separate from his discussion 70 pages earlier of the
Social Gospel.

57May, op. cit, pp. 127-128.

581m, p. 203. Ahlstrom, op. cit, pp. 802-803.

221

59Frederick A. Norwood, Ihe Storv ofAmerican Methodism: A Historv of
the United Methodists and their Relations (Nashville: Abingdon, 1974), p.343.

60m, January 4, 1888, p.2.

61He is comparable to the San Francisco longshoreman, who did not have a
college degree, but contributed the perceptive social analysis The True Believer.
Rogers is reported as helping found the Christian Labor Union in Emory Stevens Bucke,
Ihe Historv of Methodism in Ihree Molumes (New York and Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1964), Volume II, pp. 337, 338. The possibility exists that he was influenced by
the Rev. D.H. Ela, who served as pastor of Mt Bellingham Church in Chelsea fiom 1878
to 1881, as reported in ZH, October 22, 1890, p.4. Ela contributed two essays to the
Methodist Review in 1886 supportive of labor, and titled "Christianity's Next Social
Problem. " The first, in the May-June 1886 issue (pp. 597-603) saw the "social financial
problem" as "the next step in the work of making modern civilization Christian." Other-
wise, "the bloody path of anarchy and barbarism" lay ahead. Christians, said Ela, had
overly stressed the individual and property rights, and they had tended to make accumu-
lation a virtue, a "proof of piety." Ela's second essay, in the September-October 1886
issue (768-773) warned that employees had become mere machines to be thrown aside
when worn out and that the marketability of the ballot threatened liberty. Property
would have to be widely distributed, and Christian principles, which dethrone wealth,
had not changed since Pentecost, as Ela saw it. "Surplus profits" beyond what was con-
sumed in support of the worker should not be accumulated by the employer. Perhaps
these views by a fellow Methodist pastoring in Chelsea encouraged Rogers in his con-
victions.

62ZH, February 14, 1885, p.2, "Communism and Socialism." ZH, October 7,
1885, p. 1, "The Social Ideal of Prophecy."

63211, February 3, 1886, p. 2, "Arbitration."

64ZHY, June 2, 1886, p.4, "Not Lack of Sympathy."

652H, February 3, 1886, p.2, "Arbitration."

66ZH, February 14, 1885, p.2, "Communism and Socialism."

67ZH, October 7, 1885, p. l, "The Social Ideal of Prophecy."

222

68NYCA, November 10, 1892, p.12, and NYCA, March 23, 1893, p.12, list
these requirements. The Rev. W.C. Wilbur, in NYCA, February 9, 1893, explains that
the Episcopal Committee placed these requirements in the 1892 Methodist Discipline as
part of an effort to include the best writers on a given subject, regardless of their denom-
inational affiliation. He also noted that these requirements were in conformity "with the
curricula of the theological seminaries and colleges" of Methodism.

69NYCA, December 25, 1890 p.4, "The Single Tax."

70NYCA, February 12, 1891, p.3, "Social Classes." Ely observed the two
main classes of modern society, employers and employed, viewed events and wrote
newspapers from different points of view. Economic forces made it impossible for per-
sons to move about freely, even though there was no legal prohibition. "The law does
not directly and immediately prevent the man who is sweeping the street in front of my
house from taking a pleasure trip to Egypt this winter, but is he free to do so?" "It is ab-
surd to hold out to the masses of men the prospect of 'rising in life' as the saying is. A
few may rise as the few may draw prizes in the lottery..." "If we are going to improve
society, we must in some way bring it about that the carpenter as carpenter, the black-
smith as blacksmith, the farmer as a farmer, and even the most ordinary drawers of water
and hewers of wood as such, shall be able to lead happier and more wholesome lives."

71MR, September-October 1892, pp. 73 7-744, "Wanted, An Ethical Political
Economy."

721bid., p. 740.
73min, pp. 742, 744.

74NYCA, March 19, 1891, p. 4, "Person and Property." Ely declared that
"the spirit of our law is pagan and not Christian, because it tends to put property ahead
of person. ...It is idolatry." He asked: "What protection have we in this country for the
right of the laborer to the labor power residing in his own person?" He concluded: "The
Christian State must antagonize the worship of wealth."

75NYCA, April 16, 1891, p. 3, "Inadequacy of Private Philanthropy for Social
Reform."

76NYCA, May 14, 1891, p. 3, "Making Men Good By
Statute."

223

77NYCA, June 11, 1891, p. 4, "The State.

781bid. he explains: "Factory acts, educational laws, laws for the establishment
of parks and playgrounds for children, laws securing honest administration of justice,
laws rendering the Courts accessible to the poor as well as the rich--all these are reli-
gious laws in the truest sense of the word."

79NYCA, July 16, 1891, p. 3, "Legal Inequality." NYCA, July 30, 1891, p.7,
"The Church and the World." Ely states: "Christianity is primarily concerned with this
world, and it is the mission of Christianity to bring to pass here a kingdom of righteous-
ness and to rescue from the evil one and redeem all our social relations." NYCA, Aug-
ust 13, 1891, p.4, "The Widening and Deepening Range of Ethical Obligations." Ely
writes: "It was an unbelieving age of materialism which asserted the all-sufficiency and
even beneficence of self-interest, and attempted to restrict economic inquiries to this
one question: 'How produce the greatest wealth?"' NYCA, September 10, 1891, p. 4,
"Labor Organizations." NYCA, November 12, 1891, p.2, "Some Remarks on the
Eight-Hour Day." NYCA, December 3, 1891, p.2, "Wages and Salaries." NYCA,
February 11, 1892, p. 4, "The Difficulties."

80NYCA, March 31, 1892, p.6, "Are We Going Too Fast?"
81ZH, October 28, 1885, p.4, "Necessity of a Christian Sociology."

82MR, May-June 1886, pp. 597-603, and MR, September-October 1886,
pp. 768-763. The reference to the problems of individualistic religion is in the May-June
issue, pp. 601-602.

832H, January 14, 1891, p.2, "The Outlook For Practical Religion In The De-
cade," as reprinted fiom Ihe Independent.

84MR November-December 1891, p.923, preface to Morse's "Regeneration
as a Force in Reform Movements, " pp. 923 -932.

85MR, November-December 1891, p.926, Morse, "Regeneration..."

86mm, p.929.

224

87min, p.930.

881bid., p. 931. The "errant professor" of the Presbyterian was Dr. Charles
Briggs, then on trial for heresy. The "woman question" in Morse's own Methodist de-
nomination was the question of permitting female delegates to be elected to General
Conference.

88MR, March-April 1892, pp. 303-304, "Regeneration as a Force in Reform
Movements. "

90MR, May-June 1892, pp. 434-43 7, "The Church and The World."

91MR, November-December 1892, "Regeneration As A Force In Reform
Movements. Second Paper, " pp. 876-883. The reference to the "Dark Ages" is on
p. 881.

92mm, pp. 876-877.
93m, p. 878.
941ml, pp. 880-882.
95mm, p. 882.

96NYCA, September 10, 1885, p.3, "Pews and Prejudice." NYCA, January
6, 1887, p. 3, "Indirect Rays Upon Church Methods."

97MR, March-April 1893, pp. 228-239, "City Missions and Social Problems."

98ZH, October 18, 1893, p.4, "City Evangelization." ZH, January 14, 1891,
January 21, 1891, January 28, 1891, and February 4, 1891.

99NYCA, September 10, 1885, p.3, "Pews and Prejudice."

100NYCA, January 6, 1887, p.3, "Indirect Rays Upon Church Methods."

225

101MR, March-April 1893, pp. 228-239, "City Missions and Social Problems."
102mm, pp. 230-234.

103mm, pp. 234, 236-237.

104mm,, p.237.

105mm, p. 239. The final line is reminiscent of a stanza of North's hymn:

"In haunts of wretchedness and need,

on shadowed thresholds dark with fears,
from paths where hide the lures of greed,

we catch the vision of Thy tears."

106ZH, October 18, 1893, p.4, "City Evangelization." English Methodist Editor
Hugh Price Hughes of The Methodist Times had written in ZH, August 19, 1891, p. 1, an
article titled "Jesus and the Masses." In it, he said: "If you are at the standpoint of some
doctrinaire political economist or of some thoughtless writer who has never known what
hunger means, you may pour forth column after column of heartless folly, but if you know
the suffering of the poor as Christ knows it, you will pity them. ...We-~society at large--
must take a big share of the blame for the sin and folly of those who break the law.
There was a good old Saxon rule in England many years ago: when anybody did some-
thing wrong in a parish, every parishioner was fined for it--a most excellent rule founded
upon profound reasons."

107NYCA, April 26, 1888, p. 1, Supplemental Edition, "What Is the Duty of the
Christian Church in Regard to the Socialistic Movements of OurTime?" Hiller pointed
out that the early church in Jerusalem "had all things common," and that he ws not in favor
of legislating this, but favored pursuing this ideal. Comparing the current relation of many
Christians to labor to the refirsal of many Christians to liberate their slaves before the Civil
War, he said: "We, as Christian citizens, would appear in the very same light now if, while
we are willing to give laboring men the Gospel, that they may go to heaven, we would at
the same time refiise to better their condition in this world by introducing suitable political
and economical reforms." Calling for a Christian socialistic movement, he closed with this
alternative: "But if this is neglected a great lava-stream of bitter discontent will gather
in the bosom of society,and this will some day burst forth and cause fearful destruction."

226

108ZH, September 4, 1889, p.1 "The Social Problem. Fourth of July Reflec-
tions," by Rev. Wm. L. Bull.

109ZH, October 9, 1889, p.4, "The Social Gospel," by Charles Parkhurst. Park-
hurst wrote of the unity of Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists in support
of London Dock Workers on strike and the statement by a Baptist Dr. Clifford rejoicing
in this union of religious forces for "the first fiuits of the social gospel."

110NYCA, September 11, 1890, p.3, "What is Christian Socialism?" ZH, De-
cember 17, 1890, p. 1, "Christian Socialism" (source of this quote, with Bliss's emphasis).
ZH, May 13, 1891, p. 1, "The Growth of Christian Socialism."

111In the May 13, 1891 article, he quoted British Methodist Rev. Peter Thomp-
son speaking at the centennary of John Wesley's death declaring: "Methodism must do
for the masses what our founder did." Bliss believed the Church's involvement in social
questions would "make the kingdoms of this world the kingdom of our Lord and of His
Christ." Professor George Herron contributed similar convictions in writing on "The
Kingdom of God" for ZH for February 7, 1894 (p. 1). Speaking of the earliest preachers
of the Christian Gospel, he declared: "No blasphemy would have seemed to them so
terrible as the partitioning of life into the secular and the sacred, the economic and the
spiritual; as the division of any part of life from the sphere of Christ's authority. ...The
theory that the whole actual life of the world must be lived out under the dominion of
selfishness is the science of treason to the kingdom of God." Mere conscientiousness
was not enough, since "Conscience is a safe guide only when God is the guide of con-
science. Conscience will compel us to righteousness when conscience is educated by
righteousness. "

112ZH, January 14, 1891, p. 1, "Socialism and the Christian Church." Editor
Parkhurst praised this as a "very thoughtfirl" essay.

113211, January 21, 1891, p. 1, "The Christian Church and Socialism."

114ZH, January 28, 1894, p. l, "The Unemployed Poor in New York." North's
main concern in this essay was to call for public support for the unemployed rather than
mere reliance upon private charity to help through the severe winter.

1 1521i, January 28, 1891, p. 1. ZH, February 4, 1891. p.2-

227

116 Richard Cameron, Methodism and Society in Historical Perspective (New
York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1961), pp. 315-325.

117Ilzid., p.319.

1 18Georgia Harkness, the Methodist Church in Social thought and Action
(New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964), p. 46.

“911281., p.47.

C. RENEWING THE MARRIAGE:
LISTENING TO LABOR IN SOLIDARITY
«COMMUNICATIVE ACTION
SEEKING LIFEWORLD RATIONALITY

A third Methodist response to late nineteenth century labor upheavals was a
quest to renew the marriage of Wesleyan revivalism and civil religion. Sometimes the
editors of the Christian Advocate, the Methodist Review, and Zion's Herald, sometimes
their chosen contributors, and sometimes persons involved in specific labor upheavals
sought to bring laborers into the conversation over what to do about the labor-capital
conflict. Communicative action pursued a rational ordering of the life of late nineteenth
century America that would benefit all. A fundamental feature of that communicative
action involved taking sides with strikers and advocating their cause. The columns of the
Methodist press included calls by a wide variety of Methodists to take sides with wage
laborers. Methodist layman Edward Rogers, historian Abel Stevens, editor Hugh Price
Hughes of England, Professor Frederick Merrick, and Pastor Frank Mason North all

challenged their fellow Methodists to see issues from the perspective of the working

class.1 Pastor C.M. Morse warned that, even if all Americans were to become "Chris-
tian," rather than solving the labor-capital conflict, if it were the Methodist Christianity of

late nineteenth century America, it would only seek to justify existing oppressive relation-

ships.2 He, too, called his fellow Methodists to view labor-capital conflict issues from
the perspective of solidarity with labor.

In addition to the Methodist press, persons in close touch with strikers in late
nineteenth century labor uprisings came to take sides with the workers. Methodist lay-

228

229

man and President Rutherford B. Hayes sent troops in 1877 to end strikes. By 1887,

he responded positively to Henry George's proposals in Progress and Poverty for reme-
dying inequalities. Methodist Women's leader Frances Willard identified with the
Knights of Labor after the 1886 Haymarket Bombing and came to favor Edward Bel-
lamy's variety of socialism as a way to respond to labor's pleas. William Carwardine,
Pastor at the Methodist Episcopal Church in Pullman, Illinois, in 1894 spoke out in favor
of the strikers and their sympathetic boycotters, including support of President Eugene
V. Debs of the American Railway Union. Each of these Methodist figures was saying
that the marriage of individual spiritual needs for liberation to social needs for liberation

needed the freshness of a two-way communication with the strikers.

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE METHODIST PRESS

In the April 1, 1886 issue of the Christian Advocate (New York), Editor James

Buckley challenged Methodist pastors to "mingle" with workingmen so as to defuse

workers' resentment over pastors who catered to the rich.3 Buckley's "communication"
seemed designed to get worker support for his version of Gospel of Wealth ideology.
But, one week later Buckley chose to publish a contribution by Professor Frederick

Merrick calling the Christian community to more clearly communicative activity.4

Professor Merrick, one of the founders of Ohio Wesleyan University in 1842,

and a Professor there before serving as President for thirteen years, exhorted Methodists

230

to take sides with labor. He called on them to follow the examples of both Christ and

John Wesley and "give more especial attention to the poor."5 Merrick's rationale for the
church to "be in favor of the laborer rather than of the capitalist" was three-fold:
1) laborers outnumbered capitalists; 2) "Capital is more likely to oppress Labor than

Labor Capital"; 3) laborers were "more susceptible to religious influences than the

wealthy."6 Care should be taken, said Merrick, to construct sanctuaries in such simpli-
city that they would be places where "the rich and poor meet together." The week fol-

lowing this challenge, Merrick credited great numerical increases in the Midwest to stress

on entire consecration and baptism with the Holy Ghost as "the world's only hope."7 He

was praising historical Wesleyan emphasis on entire sanctification for a personal spiritual

liberation that would bear the fruit of communicative relationships with the working class.
Zion's Herald Editor Bradford Peirce cited Methodist layman Edward Rogers

8

as one who spoke from a working class perspective. Peirce published a Rogers

response to Gospel of Wealth Advocate George Steele's eight-part series critical of

"Popular Fallacies" questioning the wealth and power of capitalists.9 After stressing that
he was "thoroughly conversant with the Opinions and feelings of his fellow-laborers,"
Rogers offered a possible explanation of "the brother whose views I have called in ques-
tion." The problem, argued Rogers, was one of relating to workers as isolated indivi-
duals for limited periods of time and not noting "the altered conditions of associated labor
under competition." From his perspective as a member of the working class, Rogers

viewed this as "in direct antagonism to the Divine will."

231

In "An Open Letter" to the Christian Advocate (New York), the Rev. C .M.
Morse, Methodist pastor in New Castle, Pennsylvania, declared that loyalty to Jesus

required him to speak out against church sanctioning of an economic system enriching the

few and forcing many into poverty. 10 After making sure that his readers knew he was
presently enjoying the experience of justification and that he loved the Methodist Episco-
pal Church, he explained that social questions are moral questions, and that, as moral
questions, they must be dealt with by the word of God. Then, he proposed this commu-
nicative solution:

Let any minister...disguise himself and mingle with working-men, and

he will soon discover their feelings in the matter. ...And the situation

is more clearly defined against a background of history which shows

that the cause of the captive, the slave, the oppressed and downtrodden,

has always been the cause of God. ...Moses and Isaiah, Jesus and Paul,

Wesley and Lincoln, were the champions of the common people.
Morse envisioned renewal of vital Christian faith, as well as renewal of the marriage of
personal spiritual liberation and civil religious liberation, as coming from this communica-
tive interaction with the working class. Memories of Wesley and Lincoln were invoked
in behalf of a renewed marriage of revivalism and civil religion as Morse sought a more
firndamental spiritual renewal of his fellow Methodists.

Methodist historian Abel Stevens contributed a three-part series to Zion's Herald
in 1890 challenging the church not only to confront Labor-Capital issues on behalf of
workers in general, but also to face the prime threat of war-making that drained national

budgets. First, speaking of Jesus' humble birth and choice of lowly apostles, Stevens

declared:

232

His name is the most democratic word in the universal speech of

men, his 'kingdom' means the reclamation, the elevation, and the

divine reorganization of universal humanity. Christianity must

become disloyal to its Founder, and contradictory to its very

self, before it can fail to take sides with the masses in the great

problems of the day.(11)

In the two articles which followed, Stevens denounced "The Problem of War"

as burdening "the laboring masses, " with "the 'ruling classes' ...infected with a species of
demoniacal infatuation."12 Stevens declared the time had come for legislation "for the

'masses,' and not for the classes."13 He concluded:
War is the greatest drain on the resources of the people; hence
the Socialistic and workingmen's conventions in Europe have
denounced it as the chief of their oppressors, and the chief
calamity of the industrial masses.

The following year, the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, Editor of English Methodism's

Methodist Iimes, contributed to Zion's Herald a front-page challenge on "Jesus and the

Masses."14 Hughes called "Christians of the privileged class" to return from the suburbs
"in the Spirit of Christ" to liveamong the masses. Many feared the masses, said Hughes,
because they did not know them. These fears could be overcome by taking "Christ's
Standpoint." This could be found by living among the working class. Hughes explained:

Ifyou are at the standpoint of some doctrinaire political econo-

mist, or of some thoughtless writer who has never know what

hunger means, you may pour forth column after column of heart-

less folly. But if you know the suffering of the poor as Christ

knows it, you will pity them.
Then, he added his sense of the social causes of what some found fault with in the beha-

vior of the working class:

We--society at large--must take a big share of the blame for

233

the sin and folly of those who break the law. There was a good

old Saxon rule in England many years ago: when anybody did

something wrong in a parish, every parishioner was fined for it--

a most excellent rule, founded upon very profound reasons.

In the years that followed, the columns of the Methodist press reported other

calls to take sides with the working class. A report of an 1892 General Conference ses-

sion noted a resolution by the New Jersey delegation for Methodism to pledge "to the

toiling masses our sympathies in this unhappy strife."15 Alter a Dr. Hanlon spoke in
favor Of it, the Rev George Mains dispensed with the motion by having it referred to a
committee, avoiding the need for Methodism to take an official position. Words on "City

Evangelization" by Pastor Frank Mason North in 1893 called Methodists to get in closer

touch with working class people. 16 But especially strong challenges came in the lives of
three persons associated with three major late nineteenth century American labor upris-
ings--Rutherford Hayes, Frances Willard, and William Carwardine.

Editor James Buckley, speaking for the official voice of Methodism, the New
York Christian Advocate, presented a positive perspective on each of these persons.
At the death of Hayes, Buckley stressed Hayes strong Christian commitment, which he
argued should not be challenged, in spite of the fact that he never Officially joined the
Methodist Episcopal Church. Buckley wrote:

Nevertheless, it cannot be said of him that he did not confess CHRIST;

for everywhere he spoke of Him, and of the principles of Christianity,

not in the manner of one considering a social force or a philosophical

system but of one who felt himself identified with the Saviour of the world

and his kingdom.(17)

In addition to the positive reports by Buckley and other Methodist editors of

234

Frances Willard's work with the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Buckley de-

fended Willard in 1894 against gossip that she had deserted the Prohibition Party and

drunk wine.18 After extensive criticism of gossip in general and the observation that
Willard had only drunk unferrnented grape juice, Buckley noted her acceptance of the
Labor Party's nomination as its 1892 Vice-Presidential Candidate, and quoted her:
"The Prohibition and Labor Parties have almost everything in common, and ought to try
to cooperate."

Buckley was less favorable toward Pastor Carwardine, although he did not de-
nounce him. Reviewing Carwardine's Ihe Pullman Strike, he observed that Carwardine

endorsed neither strike nor sympathy boycott, and he found Carwardine's book "very

interesting."19 But, he rejected Carwardine's solution of compulsory arbitration, and he
particularly objected to Carwardine designating "whoever refirses to arbitrate, whether
corporation or union" as "traitors to their country's best interests, violators of the laws,
instigators to riot, and enemies to every principle that is good and pure and holy and
peaceable." Buckley saw such conclusions to be "extreme," as "arbitrary" as anything
that could be suggested by the Czar of Russia, and, if compulsory, as "unqualified
despotism. "

Hayes, Willard, and Carwardine were each respected by the Methodist press.
And, each in their own way, as a result of personal experiences, came to advocate com-
municative activity with the working class to resolve Labor-Capital conflicts, rather than
mere strategic or instrumental action to defend American political or economic institu-

tions.

235

RUTHERFORD B. HAYES:
THE PRESIDENT WHO SENT TROOPS IN 1877

Over the years after he left the Presidency in 1881, Rutherford Hayes' perspec-
tive on labor-capital relationships moved from a stress on the "right to work" for labor to
a concern for the assault on civic virtue caused by an existing system that involved the

accumulation of large holdings by the few while most workers were unable to purchase

property for themselves.20 Hayes' transition was not so much a matter of deserting one
set of values for another as it was a matter of seeking to apply continuing values to a
more clearly comprehended social world. His firndamental theological and ethical per-
spective had become fairly well established by the 1840's. It took the remainder of his
life to apply and clarify that perspective. Theologically, he rejected his Presbyterian
mother's belief that every event of life was an expression of God's favor or judgment, and

related beliefs in the realities of Hell and Original Sin, for a faith centering in a Christ who

empowered for living by the Golden Rule.21 Ethically, he was concerned to do that
which would best facilitate his own grth in virtue and a similar development in others.
As expressed in his Presidential leadership and in his labors as a trustee with various
educational and philanthropic institutions after his Presidency, his theology and ethics mo-

tivated him to seek a rationality grounded in the give and take of communication rather

than one dictated by concerns for money or power.22 He steadfastly pursued a set of

ideals--national unity, civil rights for former slaves, civil service reform, education for all,

236

prison refomr, and others. But the achievement of those ideals depended on the power
of rational dialogue rather than mere political or economic strategy.

Although he never formally joined the church, Hayes attended faithfully with his
wife Lucy fiom the time of their marriage.23 It was an expression of his commitment

since youth to what he saw to be firndarnental Biblical principles.24 Beyond mere atten-

dance, he was actively involved, as is indicated by diary entries for January 1, 1889.25

At 4:30 in the afternoon, he and Lucy and others took their pastor to a "home mission
meeting" ten miles out in the country. They shared supper with a local family, promised
gifts of books to the family's children, and then drove to a nearby small town Methodist
Episcopal Church. After recitations, songs, and a 30 or 40 minute sermon by their pas-
tor to a firll house, Hayes reports: "I spoke with good emphasis a few minutes. Alto-
gether a good meeting." They reached home at 11:00 P.M., where their son Scott's
dancing party was "still on and merry."

Hayes' diary includes frequent references to his thoughts about sermons he
heard. For Sunday, December 25, 1877, he expressed appreciation for the sermon of
his Pastor, Parker B. Pope:

Quiet; no dancing around the pulpit, no low, whispered tones, no

straining of the voice, no elaborate gestures; a natural, straight for-

ward delivery of weighty matter. In the morning, Christ's love for

men; in the evening, all things changing but a longing for stability

and rest, which can only be satisfied and supplied by the Future

of the Bible.(26)

Apparently "the Future of the Bible" was a reference to the firture promised by the mes-

sage of the Bible. In later years, after Lucy's death, he would develop a fondness for the

237

writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, a fondness cultivated by a shared reading program
with Mrs. John Herron, whose husband had died. A letter to Mrs. Herron reveals both
his admiration for Emerson and his awareness of Emerson's limitations:

He will not change our faith; he will not lead us to any faith.

But I insist that we shall be more comfortable with God, with

the future, with this whole bovtwow. We shall have more

charity for others' errors. We shall have fewer errors of our

own. Therefore, let us read him.(27)

Hayes' opposition to emotionalism and favorable response to Emerson was in no
way a negative remark about Methodist revivalism, though. Harry Barnard has noted

that Hayes supported the holding of revivals in the Methodist Episcopal Church in Fre-

mont, Ohio, "even against ardent church members who opposed them."28

Another response to a sermon and a eulogy by Washington Gladden point to the
heart of Hayes' faith. A diary entry for December 29, 1891 records a reaction to a ser-
mon in the Congregationalist Church the preceding Sunday:

Heard in the Congregationalist church a good and wholesome sermon...

on the text, 'and the second is like unto it, love thy neighbor as thyself.‘

All churches neglect this second '1ike'--equal in duty, importance, etc,

etc. All creeds give their chief attention to the first, and almost totally

neglect the 'like' duty and work.(29)

Gladden reported similar remarks by Hayes in response to a similar sermon, stressing
love for neighbor as "like unto" love for God. Gladden then cited words of the Apostle
John to the effect that every one who loves knows God and concluded: "The unselfish

ministry of the last ten years...prove that the first great commandment ["Love God'] was

also the law of his life."30

In a January 8, 1893 diary entry, Hayes declared: "I am a Christian according

238

to my conscience in belief, not of course in character and conduct, but in purpose and
wish;--not of course by the orthodox standard. But I am content, and have a feeling of
trust and safety." On the death of his beloved wife Lucy, he wrote a letter summarizing
her faith, which was the same as his, other than his "lack of orthodoxy":

She loved Christ and all good Christians. She cared very little for

the formalities of religion. Believed in all the orthodox doctrines;

but was liberal and all-embracing in her charitable views as Christ

himself. She would never dream ever of forcing others in matters

of opinion or conduct, unless the conduct was greatly crimina1.(3l)

Hayes' theology, though not systematic, sought to be, as Lucy was, "liberal and all-em-
bracing...as Christ himself." This was not a mere agreeableness with his wife's prefer-
ences, but a flowering of convictions from the 1840's. It was a perspective that would
seek rational order in society through communication rather than through strategies of
any single group to impose a rational order on society.

Hayes' ethical concern for virtue is revealed in his concerns about his own devel-
opment as well as his objectives in serving others. Frequently, he would reflect on his
life on the occasion of his birthday, October 4. In 1877, after expressing satisfaction
with his Presidency and the affairs of his family, be resolved to do better in the firture in

seeking "lasting benefit" for the country. "Let me be kind and considerate in treatment of

the unfortunate who crowd my doorway, and firm and conscientious in dealing with the
tempters."32 In 1878, his resolution was: "To make others happy and make men and

women better to the extent of my power--this is my aim."33 On his seventieth and last
birthday (1892), he reflected on overcoming his naturally nervous disposition and a num-

ber of his father's and mother's relatives "having become insane" and related this to

239

everyone's ability to change.34 He had steadily labored throughout his life to provide

resources for the similar development of virtue in others, the Freedmen, other unedu-

cated persons, and prisoners.35 There was no reliance on laissez;faire or "the survival
of the fittest" for Hayes, but, rather, a public-spirited effort to help others have the re-

sources to grow in personal and civic virtue if they chose to.36

In another sermon response, Hayes expressed admiration for a Mr. Wilson's ser-
mon at the Fremont, Ohio Methodist Episcopal Church. The preacher had not only "in
sweet tones and words portrayed the consolations of the Christian in times of affliction,"

but he had also given "a comparison of the Church to a palm-tree and the cedar of Leb-

anon."37 The palm tree and cedar of Lebanon symbolized for Hayes what was the all-
important virtue of strength of character that related rationally and responsibly to life in
human society. Ten years later, in mourning the loss of his fellow Civil War General,
George Crook, he stressed these "cedar of Lebanon" qualities:

Faithfirl in his friendship; appreciating the volunteer soldier; with
an Indian's patience, endurance, and sagacity.(3 8)

In his diary entry for New Year's Day 1886, Hayes reports seeing the same "cedar of
Lebanon" qualities when he visited with a Spiritualist, Thomas Clapp, whose virtuous life
impressed Hayes:

Is called a spiritualist. Is not a believer in orthodoxy... He meets
poverty and disability so uncomplainingly and with a spirit which

in a church member we would call that of an exemplary Christian.
His wife, afflicted with a cataract-almost blind--is another meek
and sweet-tempered person--like her husband a Christian in the

best sense, and yet both are regarded as infidels! They are never

in a church, but have all the virtues except the devotional, which the
church seeks to inculcate and extol.(39)

240

With respect to social ethical issues, Hayes believed in the power of virtuous
living and example rather than enforced virtue. Harry Bamard's biography details Hayes'
struggle while a student at Harvard in 1843 to decide for the conservative constitutional-

ism of ex-Justice Story, whom he greatly admired, or for the support of fiJgitive slaves by

John Quincy Adams, whom he also admired.40 He would be compelled by historical
developments to choose for Adams, but he would always prefer the power of persua-
sion and a life of virtue that chose a middle way between extremes. He was compelled
to support the use of force in the Civil War and he was compelled to resort to force in
the 1877 National Labor Uprising. But he preferred the powers of example and persua-
sion through rational communication.

With respect to the temperance issue, which illustrates Hayes' perspective on so-
cial ethical issues, he reports in a diary entry of July 1891 that he had personally chosen

total abstinence, but he opposed the use of political power in behalf of temperance.41

He preferred the methods of "education, example, argument, and friendly and sympa-

thetic persuasion."42

The only laws on the subject should focus on preventing nuisance,
and then they would not be, strictly speaking, "temperance" legislation. Rather, they
would be "in the interest of good order, for the suppression of crime and violence, and

such legislation may well be left to the sense of duty and self-interest of the community at

large."43

This social ethical perspective matches well Hayes‘ reluctant use of force to sus-

tain order in the National Labor Uprising of 1877. His August 5, 1877 diary entry notes

241

that the strikes had been put down by force, but now they needed a "real remedy."44

The remedy was to be "by education of the strikers, by judicious control of the capital-
ists, and by wise general policy." After noting the three problems of preventing workers
from working, seizing the property of employers, and encouraging criminal disorders,
Hayes closes his remarks by stressing "the right to work." By the late 1880's, he would
be developing his perspective on Labor in the context of his larger perspective on social
ethics in general.

Harry Barnard observes the seeds of Hayes' critique of capitalism in the July
1877 Cabinet meeting in which he raised the point that if railroad workers were to be

subjected to governmental force, then perhaps the railroads should be subjected to gov-

ernmental supervision of their labor policies.45 By 1886, this had led to a shift of focus
from that of Middle Class Free Labor Ideology to Working Class Free Labor Ideology,

from stress on the "right to work" to stress on the rights of "the working, productive

many" and the "dangerous power in the hands of the few."46 Harry Barnard observes
that this transition by Hayes was shared by several others who had been founders of the
Republican Party who "saw a disturbing likeness between the intensity of the emotional

hatred for anarchists and socialists and the hatred in the 1350s for the Abolitionist."47

In a St. Patrick's Day speech in Toledo, Ohio in 1886, Hayes expressed con-
cerns about defending free institutions from a new perspective:

The ideal community for a free government is one in which all are
educated,in which all are or have been workingmen, and in which
all are or can be owners of homes. In America, as we approach

this ideal condition the foundation of our institutions grow stronger.
As we drifi away from it they are more and more imperilled.(48)

242

In a diary entry for November 6, 1887, he describes his perception of the problem: "A

few get more than their share; the working, productive many get less than their share."49

On December 4 of the same year, he observes that "in church it occurred to me" that it
was time for the public to be fully informed of "the giant evil and danger in this country--
the danger which transcends all others--is the vast wealth owned or controlled by a few

persons."50 The consequence of this "giant evil" was an assault on the virtue essential

for a free republic. "Excessive wealth in the hands of a few means extreme poverty, ig-

norance, vice, and wretchedness as the lot of the many."51 Hayes does not record what
it was in church that day that impressed this concern upon his mind, but he does express

admiration for Henry George for portraying "the rottenness of the present system," al-

though Hayes maintains: "We are not yet ready for his remedy. "5 2 Instead of
George's "single tax" on the "unearned increment" in land values caused by market
changes in land values, Hayes prescribed both education and "changes in the laws regu-

lating corporations, descent of property, wills, trusts, taxation, and a host of other impor-

tant interests, not omitting lands and other property."53 Hayes apparently favored a
more wholistic restructuring of the system than George's "single tax." He would record
in his diary for March 11, 1888: "Hundreds of laws of Congress [and of] all the State
legislatures are in the interest of those men and against the interests of workingmen.

These need to be exposed and repealed."54

Hayes' admiration for Henry George's critique of the existing relationship of

Capital and Labor was shared by fellow members of the Peabody Fund. While visiting

243

New York for their annual Fall Meeting in 1887, Hayes spoke with a friend, William

Henry Smith, about Henry George's mayoralty campaign, which was then in full swing.55

Hayes was surprised by fellow Trustees' sympathies for George. Robert Winthrop, a

Puritan New England conservative, saw George as "a protest against the wrongs that

[are] now threatening the Republic."56 US. Supreme Court Chief Justice Waite
commended George' campaign because, "The dollar is too much regarded; character

and humanity too little." A Bishop Whipple said he lay awake nights worrying over the
evils the George campaign was fighting. "There are great inequalities in society; suffering

and deprivation on the one side, and luxury and unjust, dangerous power in the hands of

the few.:"5 7 Hayes told his fiiend William Henry Smith that "justice and education" were
the only instruments adequate to prevent concentration of ownership in the hands of the
few. He added:

The governmental policy should be to prevent the accumulation of

vast fortunes; and monopolies, so dangerous in control, should be

held firmly in the grip of the people. Monopoly is offensive;

it destroys individual enterprise; it antagonizes the principle of

personal liberty which is the very comer-stone of republican

government; it is a menace to the people.(S 8)

After acknowledging Standard Oil's liberality in paying its employees better than other

employers, Hayes observes: "The Roman people were fed and entertained while being

robbed of their liberties."59 He then points out Standard Oil's attempt to seize political
power by electing Governor Hoadly and Senator Payne and attempting to defeat Senator

Sherman, a development requiring government power to supervise such combinations.60

Whatever the sermon when Hayes attended church the Sunday before Decem-

244

ber 4, 1887, something brought to mind his strong feelings on what was really threatening
free institutions in the United States. In a diary entry two years later (March 18, 1890),
he would support the "nihilism" he saw in the novels of Dudley Warner. Explaining his
understanding of nihilism, he wrote:

I use it to mean all opinions tending to show the wrong and evils of

the money-piling tendency of our country, which is changing laws,

government, and morals, and giving all power to the rich and bring-

ing pauperism and its attendant crimes and wretchedness like a

flood. Lincoln was for a government of the people. The new

tendency is "a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich."

The man who sees this and is opposed to it I call a "Nihilist."(61)

Recognizing the negative impact of calling his position "nihilism," he pondered a
response to William Dean Howells' novel Annie Killzum in a January 13, 1889 diary
entry:

It opens the democratic side of the coming questions. I do not find a

ready word for the doctrine of true equality of rights. Its foes call it

nihilism, communism, socialism, and the like. Howells would perhaps

call it justice. It is the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence,

and of the Sermon on the Mount. But what is a proper and favorable

word or phrase to designate it?(62)

Whatever name would come to be attached to his perspective, Hayes sought a renewed

application both the spiritual power of the Sermon on the Mount and the political ideals

of the Declaration of Independence. It would be a renewal of the marriage of Methodist
revivalism and American civil religion.

In relating Hayes' changing perspective on Labor and Capital to similar changes

in other Republicans who had been Abolitionists, Harry Barnard notes several places

where Hayes cautiously incorporated nihilist elements into speeches to the National Pri-

245

son Congress and to the veterans group called the Loyal Legion.63 Recording his strug-
gle "hammering out a speech" for the National Prison Congress on July 4 and 5, 1888, he
concludes: "A little 'communistic' in its tendency, the 'privileged class' will say. But I quote

largely on this topic from such high authorities as Webster and Horatio Seymour."64

On ship for Bermuda April 18, 1890, he recorded reading in the Philadelphia Inquincn

"a good editorial quoting and commending my nihilistic paragraphs in the Loyal Legion

speech of the 16th. "65

A November 27, 1890 diary entry stresses the duty of 'simple justice" which

the "rich and the so-called fortunate" owed "the poor and unfortunate."66 A December
10, 1890 entry raises a series of questions about whether "wealth,education, opportunity,

[and] power, " which "go together, " were to be controlled by a few or "wisely, equitably,

that is, widely distributed."67 In a diary entry of January 29, 1891, Hayes noted com-

pletion of preparations for a talk at Western Reserve University for February 4 in which:

"One idea in the line of my nihilism I get in, viz., that pmpflty is 3. 111151 fo: the welfare of

the public."68 On returning from giving the address in Cleveland, he recorded in his
diary for February 6 something of his hopes for educational empowerment of laborers to
help in a communicative resolution of the Labor-Capital conflict:

Let men both intelligent and true to the interests of the laborer take up

the problem. All fair-minded men admit that labor does not now get

its fair share of the wealth it creates. All see that wealth is not justly

distributed. Let education send into our society a body of laborers

educated and intelligent--able to deal with this grave question.(69)

Hayes' perspective on Labor-Capital relations had changed from what Eric

246

Foner has termed a Middle Class Free Labor Ideology, with its stress on "individualism,
laissez faire, the defense of property" and "the right to work" to a Working Class Free

Labor Ideology, "an affirmation of the primacy of the producing classes and a critique of

the emerging capitalist order."7O Yet, in another sense, this was the flowering of basic

life commitments he had made in the 18405, commitments which life experience had
revealed the meaning of, commitment to the theology of an inclusive God and to an ethical
concern for virtue within a society rationally ordered by communication among educated

members from all segments of society.

FRANCES WILLARD:
THE METHODIST NATIONAL WOMEN'S LEADER
WHO SIDED WITH LABOR IN 1886

Frances Willard's changed perspective on labor issues is similar to that of Hayes.
Labor issues were thrust upon her while she was absorbed with other issues, beginning

with "the woman movement and the education of women," continuing with temperance

and evangelism, and moving to labor issues and total national social reform.71 She was
more clearly committed to orthodox Wesleyanism than Hayes, having settled some
matters of religious doubts in an experience of entire sanctification in a Winter 1866

series of meetings by Holiness Movement leaders Walter and Phoebe Palmer at Evan-

ston, Illinois.72 From January 1860, she was an official member of the Methodist Epis-

247

copal Church, a step Hayes had never chosen to make, in spite of his loyalty to the min-

istry of that Church.73 However, she shared Hayes' inclusive concept of God, and
wrote in her diary shortly after joining the Methodist Episcopal Church:

Before I ever declared myself determined to live, being helped by

God, a Christian life, I resolved to educate myself in an unsectarian

spirit. I honestly believe that I regard all churches, the branches

rather of the one Church, with feelings of equal kindness and fellow-

ship."(74)
Whatever rationality she would seek in life would involve respectful communication with
those of differing opinions and beliefs.

Her "nonsectarian spirit" and reform concerns led her to break ties with Dwight

Moody's revival crusades in 1877 when Moody challenged her appearances on the

same platform with those who denied the divinity of Christ.75

Moody rejected her argu-
ment that she was doing so to advance the cause of the WCTU. She had served for

three months in Boston, conducting daytime "women's meetings" while appearing at night
in area rallies for temperance. She had seen large numbers of conversions in response to
her preaching. But, in response to Moody's objections, Willard saw the need to write to
Moody's wife to let Moody know she was convinced that if all were invited to the com-

munion table, as they were, "then surely in the sacred communion of work for poor hu-

humanity, " all were invited to join, with the only requirements being "earnest purpose,

devout soul, and irreproachable moral character. "76 In spite of Moody's otherwise gen-
erous attitude "upon the woman's question, " Willard wrote, "Brother Moody's Scripture

interpretations conceming religious toleration were too literal for me; the jacket was too

straight-J could not wear it."77 Strategies to secure conversions to a particular theology

248

would have to take second place to the communion of serving poor humanity.
While on her knees in prayer preceding a temperance address in Columbus,

Ohio in the Spring of 1876, she became convinced God was calling her to advocate

women's suffrage together with her WCTU efforts for temperance.78 It was the begin-
ning of a public means of expressing an expanding agenda of reform. By 1878, she was

challenging Annie Wittenmyer's more conservative presidency, and in 1879 she won

election as President of the WCTU.79 By 1881, she had convinced the national WCTU

to accept her linking of women's suffrage with temperance under the rationale of "Home

Protection," with women needing the vote to secure prohibition. 80 At the same time,
she was leading the WCTU to eventual endorsement of the Prohibition Party in 1885,
with the party not only supporting a prohibition amendment to the US. constitution, but

also such other social reforms as direct election of senators, the income tax, and the vote

for women.81 Biographer Ruth Bordin observes that this linkage with the primary issue
of prohibition explains why this most popular American at her death in 1898 came to be
ignored as an embarrassment by social reformers and as a voice of a dying way of life by

historians.82

Willard become a member of the Prohibition Party central committee in 1882,

when she influenced a change of name to the "Prohibition Home Protection Party."83
It was in the midst of these reform activities in an expanding agenda that Willard reached
out to labor at a time when it was unpopular to do so. Her 1881 WCTU Presidential

Address slogan "Do Everything" was expanding beyond "use all available means to ad-

249

vance temperance and women's rights" to "be involved in all that needs to be dealt with

to make society more just."84

In May 1886, after Knights of Labor demands for an eight-hour day and related

strikes resulted in the Haymarket Bombing and the blaming of labor for the incident,

Willard chose to send a WCTU delegation to the May 1886 Knights convention.85
Grand Master Workman Terence Powderly, leader of the Knights, stated in his Thirty

Years of Labor that it was the first time that a representative of another organization had

been admitted to a Knights of Labor convention.86 Bordin analyzes possible reasons
for this move that was not being demanded by the WCTU constituency and could have
undermined her leadership and concludes that, beyond the Knights' support of temper-

ance and "equal pay for equal work regardless of sex," Willard's concern over economic

distress and injustice was primary.87 Bordin writes of Willard:
She had not forgotten her center city experience of the mid-seventies [i.e., in
Chicago] and seems to have been firrther radicalized by the combination of
unemployment, economic distress, and labor unrest that characterized the 18805.
To urge temperance and philanthropic aid no longer seemed enough to solve the
economic and social problems she saw all around her.(88)
When Elizabeth Rodgers was elected in August 1886 as Master Workman of
District Assembly 24 , the central organization of the Knights of Labor in Chicago,
0
Willard sought a meeting with her, wrote a supportive article about her for the WCTU

Union Signal, and later cooperated with her in the Chicago Woman's League and the

Illinois Woman's Alliance.89 In her Presidential address to the WCTU for1886, Willard

suggested the WCTU could "do much to ameliorate the deepening battle between capital

250

and labor."90 Arguing for support of "all lawfill efforts of the toiling millions to better

their condition," she declared: "We will stand by them. Their triumph is our own."91
Anti-labor persons might agree with her later assertion: "The central question of labor

reform isnot so muchhnwmgclwagcs, ashnwmmmmscntwagcsmbfinfl

account."92 But, she knew that temperance was only part of a more holistic solution.
The WCTU membership authorized her to seek cooperation with labor and she pub-
lished a December 1886 address to labor which Powderly published in the Knights'
official newspaper, including these words:

We rejoice in your broad platform of mutual help, which recognizes

neither sex, race nor creed. Especially do we appreciate the ten-

dency of your great movement to elevate women industrially to their

rightfill place, by claiming that they have equal pay for equal work;

recognizing them as officers and members of your societies, and ad-

locating the ballot in their hands as their rightful weapon of self help

in our representative government.(93).

Willard was invited to address the Knights in February 1887, and she became an official

member of the Knights.94 As part of her expanding agenda seeking a rational ordering
of all of society, she labored to the end of her life to make sure that the working class
was a part of the national dialogue.

Willard had not dealt with the labor issue during the 1877 National Labor Upris-

ing, being absorbed in issues of temperance and women's rights.95 However, by the late
1880's, she was so inclusive in her concern to transform society to enable virtue in indi-

viduals that some regard her as the "Social Gospel theologian of the age"--preceding

Washington Gladden, Walter Rauschenbusch, and Charles Sheldon in her impact.96

251

After Edward Bellamy's Looking Baobaand was published in 1887, she corresponded

with Bellamy about publishing a "manifesto" of Nationalism in the WCTU's Union Signal

in 1888.97 Although she admired Henry George, she preferred Bellamy's confidence in

what the government could do to provide a rationally ordered society over George's sus-

picions over too much power in the hands of the government.98 She maintained her in-

volvements with the WCTU and the Knights of Labor while encouraging WCTU mem-

bers to join Bellamy's Nationalist clubs throughout the country.99 Her 1889 WCTU
Presidential address exhorting to Christian socialism marked her transition from 1880
focus on issues of temperance and women's rights to 1889 cooperative efforts with the

labor movement and advocacy of Christian socialism. 100

When the WCTU voted to send fraternal delegates to national meetings of the
Methodist Episcopal Church and Presbyterian General Assembly, they were refused
admission to speak at either body, and Willard reluctantly conceded defeat, only to be
elected delegate to the 1888 Methodist General Conference and provoke discussion

that would lead to women as delegates, afier her death, to the 1904 General Confer-

ence.101 Her effort at inclusiveness supported involvement of persons of Jewish and
Roman Catholic persuasion in combined temperance efforts, an inclusiveness that even
feminist Mary Liverrnore opposed because of implied support of Catholic political organ-

ization. 102

Although it could be argued that Willard's ideas stressing government as an instru-

ment for change rather than mere individual moral change or philanthropic effort was the

252

result of the Social Gospel developing in the late nineteenth century, Willard biographer
Ruth Bordin argues that she was in many ways in the forefront in the development of the

Social Gospel. Gladden's Applied Chrislianiiy appeared in 1886, Sheldon's In His Steps in

1896, and Rauschenbusch's Chnistianity and the Social Crisis in 1907, while Willard W35

expanding to a Christian socialist agenda in the 18805.103 Bordin maintains that Willard
did for the Social Gospel, by her use of the rhetoric of orthodox Protestantism in her
radical causes, something comparable to what Herbert Gutman observes to have

happened by trade unionists' use of Christian rhetoric in expressing their concerns. 104

Willard's greatest communicative effort, which eventually failed, was her 18905

attempt to bring together the forces of the Prohibition Party, on whose central committee

she was a member, the Knights of Labor, and the Populist or "People's Party."105 By
1892, the farmers' alliances, the heart of what became the Populist Party, had replaced
the Prohibitionists as the largest source of third-party strength in American party politics.
After a May 1891 meeting of reform groups in Cincinnati, including farmers' alliance
members, Prohibitionists, Bellamy Nationalists, and Henry George single taxers failed to
achieve unity, Willard invited leaders of all the major reform movements to a private
conference at Chicago's Sherman House for January 1892 to try to arrive at an agreed
upon platform. Those who accepted her invitation included: James B. Weaver, first
People's Party candidate for President; Minnesota Populist Ignatius Donnelly; Herbert
Taubneck, who had been elected temporary chairman of the party organized in the
Cincinnati meeting; Nationalist George Washbum; Henry Demarest Lloyd; Prohibition

Party Chairman Samuel Dickie; and Edward Wheeler, editor of ;the Prohibitionist party

253

paper. 106

Twenty-two men and six women responded to this invitation, initiated solely by
Willard's desire to unify reform movements. In the "address" developed to express areas
of agreement, Willard supported two compromises. The first would not advocate na-

tional prohibition, but would only condemn the saloon. The second would only advocate

municipal suffrage for women who were educationally qualified. 107 These compromises
would satisfy Populists who opposed Prohibition and southerners who opposed woman
sufii'age.

There was complete agreement on planks "advocating cheap money, condemn-
ing land speculation, and asking for limitations on the amount of land that could be owned
by any corporation or individual." There was also agreement on government control
rather than ownership of public transportation and communication. Willard and fellow
Prohibitionists signed the address, as did Populists Donnelly and Weaver. But, the lack
of unanimity in getting all signatures indicated troubles ahead.

The same organizations which had met in Cincinnati in May 1891 met again at
the St. Louis Industrial Conference in February 1892. Willard had called her conference
a month in advance to prepare for the February Conference. But, the Prohibition Party
withdrew from the Conference because they sensed the new party would not have a
prohibition plank. Willard stayed on, designated by the Conference a representative of
the WCTU and chosen as a member of the platform committee which brought planks
for a platform before the entire Conference. In spite of much opposition, she brought

two minority planks before the Conference, supporting what she had worked out as a

254

compromise at the Sherman House conference in Chicago. Her universal suffi’age and
antisaloon planks were voted down by the Conference 352 to 23 8, with Populists fear-
ing loss of support from the antisaloon plank and southern alliance members fearing lost
support from the suffrage plank. Willard was bitter over the political maneuvering, but
she was hopeful as late as June 1892 that the Populist Party ("PeOple's Party") would
nominate a Presidential candidate who supported prohibition and suffrage and the
Prohibitionists could support the same candidate and thus "mass" the reform vote.

At the Cincinnati Convention of the Prohibition Party that summer, she prepared
a resolution supporting "total suppression of the liquor traffic" and "the enfranchisement
of women" as a condition of union of the Prohibition with the People's/Populist Party,
hoping the change of wording would advance success. She also hoped for nomination
of a Presidential Candidate who would withdraw when the People's Party named its
candidate if that candidate favored these two positions. An obscure Prohibitionist,
John Bidwell of California, was nominated and refirsed to withdraw. Willard was even
unable to offer her resolution on the two key issues to the Prohibition Party Convention.

At the WCTU convention in the Fall, Willard was able to have a resolution
adopted stating that "because we are positive rather than negative...we express hope
that the Prohibition Party will, in the near firture, adopt a name that is as broad as its
purpose toward humanity." As late as November, being interviewed in New York, she
expressed optimism, stating:

There must be a new party continuing the reform elements for the

interest of humanity. The Democrats and Republicans are like

boulders in the path; the Prohibition and People's parties must
combine.

255

But, she had essentially abandoned the fight the previous August as she went to the bed-
side of her dying mother and grieved the loss. She would continue to labor for union of
reform parties until 1896, but she would never again exert the influence she did in January
and February of 1892. After travelling to England to work together with close fiiends

for temperance and reform there, she became ill in the spring with the illness that would

lead to her death five years later at age 59.108 The diagnosis was "pernicious anemia, "
and she developed a bad cold that became pleurisy in June. In spite of these difficul-
ties, she returned to the United States for the Fall convention of the WCTU.

Her speech, which had to be read by her English fiiend Lady Henry Somerset,

provided a challenged WCTU members to be "Christian socialists."109 Entitled "The Do
Everything Policy, " it included a section on "Gospel Socialism." Opposing single-issue
reforms saying "virtues, like hounds, hunt in packs, " her plea was for a "corporate" con-
science by the country which would "conceive of society as a unity which has such rela-
tions to every faction thereof that there could be no rest while any lacked food, clothing or
shelter or while any were shackled by the grim circumstances of life that they were unable

to develop the best that was in them in body and mind."110

By 1896, Willard was barely able to prevent the WCTU from endorsing the

Prohibitionist Party, which had become a single-issue party by then. 1 11 Speaking pos-
itively of both William Jennings Bryan and William McKinley, she advocated non-en-

dorsement, and was able to have that position supported at the final WCTU convention

she presided over in 1897.112

256

Willard responded to labor-capital conflict, as well as other issues of the day,
with a concern to get beyond strategies to advance a particular agenda to the give and
take of compromise that did not ignore the conditions of the powerless. She was bitterly
disappointed by the rejection of her efforts in 1892. But, her efforts were widely

recognized at her death. Memorial tributes included the praise of Holiness Movement

leader Hannah Whitall Smith as well as British Socialist Sidney Webb.113 Smith de-
scribed her as "the greatest democrat I knew," an intimate fiiend of 25 years with whom

she sometimes disagreed, but who saw persons through the eyes of Christ. "She looked

at everything and everybody through His eyes, and saw the good, not the evil, in all.114
Frances Willard may have seen "the good, not the evil, in all," but she was not as

reserved in the use of force as Hayes was. She preferred Edward Bellamy's Looking

Backyard, with its prescription of 'total control of the economy by an egalitarian state"

which would remedy the evil that "the working classes were cruelly exploited" by, in the

words of Willard biographer Ruth Bordin.115 Bellamy favored peacefirl change, which
was in keeping with Willard's opposition to violence. She was moving from the Middle
Class Free Labor Ideology that stressed thrifi by the individual workers with the wages
they earned to the Working Class Free Labor Ideology that stressed the claims of the
workers to a greater share of economic profits and stressed a critique of the existing
capitalist system. Even as she favored political force on the temperance issue over
Hayes' stress on example and persuasion, so she favored a more wholistic overhaul of the

system, represented by Bellamy's Nationalism, over Hayes' prescription of education and

legal efforts for justice. Yet, as with Hayes, Willard represents a changed perspective on

 

257

labor issues which represents not so much a radical shifi of values as a new awareness of
what would be required in the economic, social, and political system for there to be free-
dom and wholeness for all persons in the American Republic. That would involve a quest

for a communicative rationality that did not overlook the needs of the least powerful.

WILLIAM CARWARDIN E:
THE METHODIST PASTOR AT PULLMAN
WHO TOOK SIDES WITH STRIKERS IN 1894

As with Hayes and Willard, Pastor William Carwardine of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church in Pullman, Illinois, urged communication among all parties to resolve the
conflict between capital and labor brought so dramatically to national attention by the
Pullman Strike and sympathetic boycott of all Pullman cars by the American Railway
Union in 1894. When George Pullman refilsed to negotiate, Carwardine saw his
Christian calling to be to take sides with the Pullman workers. He would have preferred
that there had been no resort to strike or boycott, but George Pullman's autocratic rejec-
tion of negotiations angered Carwardine. Rational ordering of capital-labor relations
by open and uncoerced communication was more important to him than a national econo-
mic and political order unresponsive to the interests of labor.

At age six, Carwardine had determined some day to dramatically take sides with

workers. Born in Brooklyn February 22, 1858, his parents died when he was very

258

young. He found work in the composing room of the New York Post, where an abusive

foreman focused his anger.116 Carwardine wrote in his history of the Pullman Strike:

In those days there was engendered in my soul a hatred against

tyrannical foremen and abusive treatment of men which has never

left me, and which during the past months [i.e., leading up to the

1894 Pullman Strike] of our long and sad winter, made my very

blood boil with indignation at what I have seen and heard.(l l7)

Carwardine continued:

Then it was I declared that if ever the opportunity presented itself

to defend the true rights of laboring men, and smite those who un-

mercifully oppressed them, I would lift up my voice and cry aloud,

in the name of the God of Israel.

Carwardine's dedication of his book on the Pullman Strike suggests that his
filture father-in-law may have encouraged and helped direct that indignation. Carwar-
dine states that his book is:

Afl‘ectionately dedicated to my beloved Father-in—law, Rev. John

Williams, Pastor of the First M.E. Church, Creston, 111., who was

for thirty years in his early life connected with the daily press of

New York City, and who did loyal service at that time in arous-

ing public sentiment to the needs of the toiling masses.

Carwardine's response to the Pullman Strike was rooted in the values he had learned in

his earlier years.1 18

Married in 1880, Carwardine was ordained in the South Kansas Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, serving in that conference from 1882 to 1887.119
Stephen Cobb, in his history of Carwardine and the Pullman Strike, notes the impact of

Populism on these formative years, with Kansas papers filled with Populist rhetoric advo-

cating "industrial democracy," and with Populist Governor Lorenzo Lewelling challenging

259

the Gilded Age for putting property rights ahead of individual liberties. ‘20 Lewelling de-
clared that it was the duty of the government to protect the weak. The powerful could
take care of themselves. Reforrners of the age were coming to look to government

power to defend the weak, and Carwardine was coming to agree with this perspective in

the 1880's.121
When the Pullman Strike began May 11, 1894, Carwardine had pastored there

for two years and was "familiar with almost every face and fireside in the town" of Pull-

man and knew both George Pullman and Eugene Debs and their lieutenants. 122 On Sun-
day evening, May 20, Carwardine preached from the text of Luke 10.7, "The laborer is
worthy of his hire," condemning the "hollow mockery" of Pullman's pretense as a "model
factory town" and concluding to the strikers:

I am with you to the end. I hope you will get your just demands.

I shall always in the filture count it as the proudest moment of my

life that I could say a word of comfort at this crisis, and take my
stand beside you in this great and apparently unequal contest.(123)

Newspapers throughout the country carried reports of this sermon.124 The
courage required to deliver it is suggested by a Chicago limos editorial of the previous

day declaring that it was common knowledge Carwardine had been warned, if not threat-

ened, of possible disaster to himself and his church. 125 The editorialist continued: "But
if Mr. Carwardine has the courage of his convictions and is a true follower of the gospel
he professes he will speak the truth that is in him and thereby gain a reward which no

Pullman bulldozing can destroy." Carwardine's response to any such fears was:

260

Better a thousand times that our church be disorganized by the
company than that we truckle to them, forego the God-given
and American right to free speech, smother our convictions,
muzzle our mouths, fawn beneath the smiles of any rich man
or corporation. Better to die for the truth than be surfeited by
a lie.(126)

He spoke from convictions grounded in both Wesleyan revivalism and American civil

religion. He took a decidedly different perspective from that of the pastor whose con-
gregation used Pullman's one church building in the town, and who had counselled the
workers that "half a loaf is better than none at all," but who disappeared on "vacation"

during the difficult times of the strike, never to return. 127

Carwardine had tried from the beginning to be impartial, respecting the business
genius of Pullman, but refusing to agree that he could be considered a "benefactor" when
he cut wages in half, required the same rents of the workers who had to rent his homes,

and yet reaped a profit of $4,000,000 after paying expenses and stockholder dividends

for 1893.128 In taking sides with the workers, whose pleas he thought would not other-
wise be heard, union leadership acknowledged his support. In one of his most prized
possessions, the Central Strike Committee sent him a note dated July 23, 1894, affirming
him to be a "man of sterling character" and declaring:

The Rev. is noted for his veracity and fearless devotion to justice at

all times. He is respected by all and loved by many. We heartily

endorse all that he writes about the present strike and the town of

Pullman.(129)

As a result of publicity attending his May 20 sermon, Carwardine began a lectur-

ing program that extended for many years after the Pullman Strike. The goal was to let

the public know that the strikers were "not simply illiterate troublemakers," but

261

responsible and skilled Americans subjected to intolerable conditions, " as Cobb para-

phrases Carwardine's mission. 130 However, Carwardine himself had to counter the
charge that he was an "anarchist."

Carwardine published his story of the Pullman Strike in July 1894, essentially
amplifying upon his concerns and challenges from the May 20 sermon, ending with an
appeal to arbitration. Arguing that the society was dividing into two classes, oppressor

and oppressed, he declared that the nation faced two threats--lack of military support in

wartime from workers as soldiers and divine judgment against oppression. 131 Observ-
ing that the nation had drifted from equal rights intended by the founders and that the cur-
rent conflict could be solved by "federal bayonets and bullets," he proposed this arbitra-
tion as a solution in these words:

The strong arm of the law should compel the autocratic millionaire

as well as the dependent mechanic to submit his case and abide

by the decision. And where, as in this strike, there is an obstinate

refusal to arbitrate, then the federal and state governments should

take possession of the railroads, the telegraph, the coal mines, or the

manufacturing plants, and run them in the interest of the whole people.

and not in the interest of the obstinate corporations. The public

peace of the country demand this.(132)

Carwardine charged those who resisted to be traitors, riot-inspirers, and enemies of the

good. 133 He was placing the "anarchy" charge that was often brought against him and
the unions against corporate interests refilsing to arbitrate. These were the recommenda-
tions New York Christian Adm: editor James Buckley regarded as leading to a gov-
ernment like that of Czarist Russia, a kind of government Carwardine saw to be already

in operation in Pullman. 134

262

When called to testify before the United States Strike Commission investigating
the Pullman Strike, Carwardine considered the charge that he was an "anarchist" both

"contemptible and false, " although he could be fairly considered a Christian socialist. 135

For "settlement of these difficulties," Carwardine told the Commission: "There will have

to be more justice, more of the spirit of co-operation, more of the spirit of recognition."
In speaking of the need for "recognition," he was pointing to the reality Pullman

bragged to exist but did not practice--"mutual recognition." A company propaganda

piece advertised: "It has illustrated the helpfirl combination of capital and labor without

strife or stultification upon lines of mutual recognition"1 36 At the beginning of his book
on the Strike, Carwardine had declared:

I contend now that in the discussing of this theme I am preaching the
gospel of applied Christianity--applied to humanity--the gospel of

mutual magnition. of co—operation, of the "'brotherhood of humanity.” 1 37
At the close of his book, he had appealed to the working class to use the democratic
vehicle of the ballot, which he said was:

...a ballot that represents a government of the people, by the

people, and for the people, free homes, free schools, fi'ee press,

a united people, the right of every man unmolested to worship

God according to the dictates of his own conscience; the great-

est gift given by God to man outside of his blessed Son, our

Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and one that can give us, if we

use it right, the grandest type of government under the sun.(138)
Carwardine was appealing to the traditional values of American civil religion against what
he saw to be the distortion of those values by laissez. fairs: capitalism. It was a distortion
which Stephen Cobb's book on the Pullman Strike views as early nineteenth century

values of nature organically unfolding, divine providence, and will leading to individual

263

success into "the success myth [Horatio Alger], laissez faint: capitalism, and Social Dar-
winism."139 It was the transition from pre-Civil War Free Labor ideology to Middle

Class Free Labor ideology that Eric Foner speaks of. 140

In opening his book on the Strike, Carwardine had sought to renew the
relationship of Wesleyan revivalism and American civil religion by an appeal to both heri-
tages which also responded to the charge he should "stick to preaching the Gospel":

He who denies the right of the clergy to discuss these maters of great
public concern has either been brought up in a government totally
foreign to the free atmosphere of American institutions, or else he
has failed utterly to comprehend the spirit of the age in which he
lives. ...I am preaching the gospel of applied Christianity...

The relation existing between a man's body and his soul are such

that you can make very little headway appealing to the soul of a
thoroughly live and healthy man if he be starving for food. Christ
not only preached to the multitude, but he gave them to eat.(141)

It was an appeal to live by the rule Wesley had long ago instructed Methodists in, to
show evidence of salvation by concern for the well-being of person's bodies as well as
their souls.

The monthly Chicago Methodist preacher's meeting finally expressed publicly

their support of "Our Methodist Pastor in Pullman." 142 The meeting passed and had
published this statement:

Whereas, the Rev. W. H. Carwardine, pastor of the Pullman
Methodist Episcopal Church, has been accused of anarchy

in the Christian sympathy which he has extended to the work-
ing people in recent distresses; therefore, resolved, that we,
the members of the Methodist preachers' meeting of Chicago,
express our utmost confidence in the Rev. Carwardine's
loyalty to Americanism, Methodism, and Christianity in the
manly sympathy which he has manifested in word and deed
for the law-abiding working people of Pullman, and believe

264

that the accusations of anarchism made against him have been

unjust and untrue, if not malicious.(143)

The Chicago Times report of the meeting that passed this resolution indicated that many
clergy persons, previously opposed to the cause of strikers, were caused to re-think their
position because of the work of William Carwardine.

Stephen Cobb tells the story of Carwardine's continuing labors as a pastor and
advocate for the working class until his death August 25, 1929. In addition to continuing
to give public lectures on the relationship between Christian faith and the cause of labor,
he unsuccessfillly ran for the Illinois state legislature and contributed editorials as religion
editor of the Chicago Herald and Examiner. Although he had the support of Samuel

Gompers, the American Federation of Labor, the Legislative Voters' League, and many

others, he lost the contest for a gerrymandered district in 1904.144 As an editorialist,
he had written against evils ranging from the opium traffic to bad housing to the imprison-
ment of Eugene Debs during World War I as "unpatriotic," a charge Carwardine saw to

be a smokescreen for punishment for Debs's labor activities. 145

At his death in 1929, several editors had special praise for his Christian spirit. 146
The Herald and Examiner declared that he had, for so many years, "walked with God"
as a "spiritual comrade" that for young men and women who had worked with him, "the
glory of religion will always be defined as having the Carwardine spirit." Theater Editor
Ashton Stevens, after acknowledging Carwardine enjoyed a good play better than Ash-
ton enjoyed a good sermon, remarked: "He was a godly man who didn't know how to

be miserable about it, and I miss his gusty, spontaneous laughter." The Daily Ems

265

complimented him as a pastor at Pullman who sought to find out why his parishioners
were on strike, sought to help others to understand the workers' concerns as he under-
stood them, and as one "beloved by his own people" and "acclaimed by the labor unions

as one minister who dared stand for social justice."

As with Rutherford Hayes and Frances Willard, William Carwardine was one
who chose to respond to the labor-capital conflict with "no theory," but with Christian
concern related to the Methodist heritage extending back to John Wesley. It was a her-
itage that often had been waylaid by concerns for strategies to secure political or econo-
mic order, but also a heritage unsatisfied with an order that chose domination by elitist
strategy rather than dialogue seeking a communicatively grounded order. All three of
these persons espoused views which were part of the deveIOping "Social Gospel" move-
ment in America, and all three were susceptible to the elitism and middle-class bias char-
acterizing so much of the Social Gospel and the related progressive movement in Ameri-
can life. All three of them were also susceptible to an unrealistic faith in the powers of
reason and human progress that would later go together with a de-emphasis on the
Christian heritage of confronting the false pride Christians have always called sin. They
were also susceptible to a faith in human ability for change that would later discard the
Christian heritage of dependence on divine grace for individual and social tranforma-
tion, ultimately in resurrection and a divinely completed kingdom. Yet, their very open-
ness to uncoerced communication in dealing with the labor-capital conflict was not only

a means to renewal in their day of the marriage of Wesleyan revivalism and American

266

civil religion, but also a means of renewal of a Wesleyanism that had become a Middle
Class Church in the twentieth century that working class persons often rejected as not

ministering to their spiritual hungers.

NOTES

1Editor Bradford K. Peirce cites Rogers as calling for such a dialogue in "Not
Lack of Sympathy" in ZH, June 2, 1886, p.4. He published contributions by Rogers
making such a call February 14, 1885 ("Communism and Socialism," p.2), October 7,
1885 ("The Social Idea] of Prophecy, " p. 1), February 3, 1886 ("Arbitration," p.2), and
July 20, 1887 ("Some Unpopular Truths Concerning Laborers and Employers, " p. 2).
Editor Charles Parkhurst of ZH published Stevens' concerns in ZH for May 28, 1890
("The Great Problem," p. 1), June 4, 1890 ("The Problem of War," p. l), and June 11,
1890 ("The Problem of War, " p. 1). Parkhurst published Hughes' challenge in ZH. for
August 19, 1891 ("Jesus and the Masses," p. 1). Editor James Buckley published Mer-
rick's plea in "The Labor Question.--The Proper Attitude of the Church" in NYCA,
April 8, 1886, p.3. Editor Parkhurst printed North's concerns in "City Missions and
Poverty" in "City Evangelization: a Symposium" in ZH for February 1, 1893, p. l, and
"City Evangelization" in ZH for October 18, 1893, p.4.

2"Regeneration as a Force in Reform Movements, " in MR, November-Decem-
ber, 1891, pp. 923-932; "Regeneration as a Force In Reform Movements: Second
Paper, " in MR, November-December 1892, pp. 876-883.

3"The Crisis," NYCA, April 1. 1336, P-l-

4Frederick Merrick, "The Labor Question--The Proper Attitude of the Church, "
NYCA, April 8, 1886, p. 3.

5mm.

6mm.

267

7"Letters on Revival by Rev. F. Merrick," NYCA, April 15, 1886, p. 4.
82H, June 2, 1886, loo. cit.

92H, July 20, 1886, loo. cit.

IONYCA, April 11, 1889, p. 4.

11"The Great Problem," ZH, May 28, 1890, p. 1.

12"The Problem of War" in ZH for both June 4, 1890, p. 1, and June 11, 1890.

13ZH, June 11, 1890, loo. cit.
14"Jesus and the Masses," ZH, August 19, 1891, p. 1.
ISNYCA, May 26, 1892, p. 9, report of session of May 13, 1892.

16"City Evangelization," ZH, October 18, 1893, p. 4, where North pleaded for
the development of relationships with working class people. Earlier the same year, the
February fl, 1893 issue of ZH gave front-page space to "City Evangelization: A
Symposium." Both North and Mains contributed. North had the first contribution,
"City Missions and Poverty." Arguing that poverty is no incentive to faith, he declared:
"Many a sleek church member who shows annoyance at 'the discontent of the poor'
would lose what he calls his religion in less than a week if he should find himself reduced
to a two-room tenement on the East Side of New York City with no work by which to
earn bread for his family or money for his rent." The fourth contribution to the Sympo-
sium was Mains' "Importance of Right Location of Churches." One sentence expresses
his concern: "A first-class location will double the membership and the revenues as com-
pared with a poor location in the same general community." North represented a com-
municative Methodism. Mains represented a strategic and instrumental Methodism, con-
cerned for political and economic rationality.

17"Ex-President Hayes, " NYCA, January 26, 1893, p.2. Buckley also noted
Hayes' trusteeship in the John F. Slater Educational Fund, the Peabody Educational
Fund, the National Prison Reform Association, and Ohio Wesleyan University, as well
as his interest in the well-being of Native Americans and Afiican Americans.

18"Needless Denials," NYCA, October 4, 1894, p. 1.

268

19NYCA, October 4, 1894, p. 12 ("Literature" section).

20Charles Richard Williams, The Life ofRuthedord Birchard Hayes (Columbus:
F.J. Heer Printing Company, 1928 reprint of 1914 original), Volume II, pp. 382-3 84,
presents this changed perspective. The "right to wor " emphasis is evident in Hayes'
August 5, 1877 diary entry as published in Charles Richard Williams, Diary and Letters
of Rutherford Birehard Hayes (Columbus: F .J . Heer Printing Company, 1924), Volume
V, pp. 440-441. The concern for civic virtue to sustain the republic is evident in Hayes'
diary entry for March 18, 1886, after a St. Patrick's Day speech in Toledo, Ohio on
"America the land of the free and the home of the brave." He wrote: "My point is that
free government cannot long endure if property is largely in a few hands and large masses

of the people are unable to earn homes, education, and a support in old age." (Williams,
Diary, Volume VI, p.277)

2lWilliams, Life of Hayes, Volume II, p. 435.

22Kenneth E. Davison and Ari Hoogenboom have published recent studies of
Hayes' Presidency which describe this style of leadership. Davison, Ihe Ermideney of
Rutherford B, Hayes (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1972, stresses
Hayes' "prudence and care" in relationship to the 1877 National Labor Uprising (p.149).
(Davison's work is the third of six in a series titled "Contributions In American Studies"
edited by Robert H. Walker.) Hoogenboom, Ihe Residency of Rutherford B. Hayes
(Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press, 1988) notes Hayes' concern for law
and order mixed with sympathy for workers against "plutocrats" and against any more
than eight hours of labor in a day (p.81). (Hoogenboom's work is part of the "American
Presidency Series" edited by Donald McCoy, Clifford Griffin, and Homer Socolofsky.)
In his concluding chapter, he sums up Hayes' style: "Hayes was both a good man and
an able president. His administration of that office contradicts the widely held view that
he was an inept politician. In dealing with...problems, Hayes was principled but prac-
tical, cautious yet courageous, open to the advice of cabinet members and fiiends but de-
cisive."(pp.223-224) In a "Bibliographic Essay" (pp. 257-262), Hoogenboom cites
Williarns' biography (1914) as "though laudatory in spirit,...crammed with information,"
Bamard's (1954) as "more concerned with Hayes the man than with Hayes the president,"
and Davison's (1972) as "useful."

23Williams, Life ofHayes. Volume 11, p.435.
24min.

25Williams, Diary, Volume IV, pp. 432, 433.

269

26min, p. 359.
27Williams, Life of Hayes. Volume II, p.434.

28Harry Barnard, Rutherford B, Hayes and his Ameriea (Indianapolis and New
York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1954), p.504. Hayes was so loyal to his
local pastor that he appealed to Bishop Randolph Foster in Cleveland in 1883 against
the "cruel injustice" of removing Pastor M.M. Mather on false charges (gossip) of
"improper interest in women parishioners." (pp.504-505) Hayes succeeded in having
his pastor re-appointed to the Fremont church.

29Williams, Diary, Volume V, p.27.

3OWilliams, Life, Volume II, p. 436. Gladden was speaking at Hayes' funeral
January 20, 1893, of Hayes years of service after leaving the presidency in 1881.

31Williams, Diary. Volume IV, p.483. Hayes' last recorded words were: "I
know that I am going where Lucy is." (Diary, Volume V, p. 145)

32Williams, Diary. Volume III, p.444.
3 3Ide p. 501.
34Il2id., Volume V, pp. 110-112.

35 An October 4, 1882 Diary entry concerning his work with the Slater Fund
for Freedmen's education reported: "Help none but those who help themselves. Educate
only at those schools which provide in some form for industrial education. These two
should be insisted on. This is the gospel of salvation for the colored man." (Ihid,
Volume IV, p. 88)

Harry Barnard (op. eit, p.506) reports that Hayes used his influence, even
against existing rules, to get a fellowship from the Slater Fund to pay for the education
of W.E.B. DuBois, one of the founders of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People.

Although Hayes has been condemned by many for his role in the ending of Re-
construction alter his 1876-77 election as President, Williams, Barnard, Davison, and
Hoogenboom all recount Hayes' efforts to advance both educational and civil and voting
rights for Afiican Americans. Davison (op. cit, p. 12) observes that in the 1867 Gover-
nor's race in Ohio, incumbent Republican Governor Jacob Cox opposed black voting

270

rights as did the Democratic candidate, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Allen Thurman.
There was also a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot guaranteeing blacks
the right to vote. Hayes, as the Republican candidate, conscientiously supported the
amendment. He won the election by fewer than 3,000 of the nearly 500,000 votes cast.
The proposed amendment lost by 38,000 votes. Later, Hayes lent his support as Gov-
ernor to the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the US. Constitution, even as he
had, as a member of Congress, supported the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

36Williams, Diary. Volume IV, p.343, gives Hayes' report of a meeting with his
fellow trustees of the Peabody Education Fund. Volume IV, p.126 gives his diary entry
concerning the reorganization of the National Prison Association September 7, 1883, with
Hayes as President, William Round as Vice President, and Theodore Roosevelt as
Treasurer. Williams notes this reorganization in a footnote to Hayes' October 4, 1883
entry: "Called at Bible House on Mr. Round. Favorably impressed with the National
Prison Association."

Barnard (op. cit, pp. 506-507) describes Hayes involvement in the Peabody
Fund for education in the South and the Slater filnd for education for blacks in the South.
He also describes Hayes' belief that "manual training" should be part of the education of
all persons, regardless of status or educational goals, so as to keep touch with physical
labor.

Hayes especially thought the "manual labor" part of his educational prescription
would be USClel in the rehabilitation of criminals. His work in the National Prison Associ-
ation was a continuation of a life-long concern for those accused of or convicted of
crimes. He had first gained fame as a lawyer in Cincinnati defending three persons who
had been convicted of murder and were sentenced to hang. The first, on Hayes' appeal
to the Ohio Supreme Court, rather than being hanged was sent to an asylum for the in-
sane, based on Hayes' moving plea to understand an insanity defense. The second,
although Hayes' appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court was turned down, had their sentence
commuted by the Governor. The third was hanged, with Hayes present on the sad
occasion. Davison, op. cit, pp. 6-8, recounts these events of the 1850's.

37Williams, Diary, Volume III, p.624, entry for August 30, 1880.
38Ibid., Volume V, p. 557.

39112M, Volume IV, p. 259.

40Barnard, op. cit, pp. 135-136.

41Williams, Lire, Volume II, pp. 379-381.

271

42Diary entry of October 12, 1881, cited by Williams, Life, Volume 11, p.380.
43rhid.

44Williams, Diana. Volume 111, p. 441.

45Barnard, op. cit. p. 446.

46Williams, Life, Volume II, pp. 381-385, summarizes Hayes' later views on
this.

47Barnard, op. cit, pp. 515-516. Barnard notes that former Illinois Governor
Richard Oglesby said that if the same " guilt by association" brought against the Chicago
Anarchists of 1886 in connection with the Haymarket Bombing had been applied in
connection with John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry Arsenal, all American Abolitionists
and most Republican Party leaders, including Lincoln and Hayes, might have been
hanged!

48Williams, Life, Volume II, p. 332.
491nm.
501m
51 M.
521m

53Ibid. Henry George's Brogress and Roxerty was one of the fundamental pro-
tests in the 1880's against the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of "Big
Business."

54min, pp. 382-383.
55min, p. 383.
561nm.

5711211, pp. 383-384.

272

58min, p. 384.

59M.

6OIbitl. Williams, Diary, Volume IV, p. 556.

61%.

62Ihid., Volume IV, pp. 434-435.

63Barnard, loe. cit.

64Williams, Diary, Volume IV, p. 397.

651bit1,p. 565.

66Williams, Life, Volume II, p. 384. Williams, Diary, Volume IV, p. 616.
67Wi11iams, Lire. pp. 384-385. Williams, Diary, Volume IV, p. 621.
68min, p. 635.

69min, p. 637.

”Eric Foner, Politics and Ideology in the Age ofthe char War (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1980), p.100.

71Ruth Bordin, Erances Willard: A Biography (Chapel Hill, North Carolina:
The University of North Carolina Press, 1986), p. 53 speaks of her Winter 1871 com-
mitment to the "woman's movement" after early teaching experiences and the death of
her sister Mary at age 19. Bordin's chapter "Commitment" (pp. 54-71) speaks of Wil-
lard's term as first president of Northwestern Woman's College and her choice to leave
her enjoyable educational efforts in 1874 and reliance on Divine provision and guidance
in becoming involved with the Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1874.
Her preaching skills developed as she sought the down and out in Chicago's Loop area
and she remarked concerning one preaching occasion: "This little Gospel meeting, where
wicked men have wept and prayed and said they would see Jesus--it thrills me through

273

and through."(p.76) She was elected Corresponding Secretary for the crucial first year
of the WCTU, with the more conservative Methodist Annie Wittenmyer serving as the
WCTU‘s first president.(p.79). She maintained her influential Corresponding Secretary's
position when she resigned her position as President of the Illinois WCTU to join Dwight
Moody in his January 1877 evangelistic campaign in Boston, with 6,000 hearing her
speak at the Boston Tabernacle on a Sunday afternoon on "What Think Ye of Christ?"
and several hundred converted (pp. 87-88). Conflicts with Moody over her work with
Unitarians in WCTU rallies led to her withdrawal from the Moody effort, a short-term
effort as editor of a Chicago newspaper, and return to firll-time WCTU work in 187 8
(p.89). Bordin explains Willard's involvement in labor and other national reform issues
in chapters titled "Reformer" (pp. 129-154), "Christian" (155-174), and "Politician" (pp.
175-189). Bordin's biography is the primary source for this section on Willard, together
with: Frances E. Willard, Glimpses of Eifty Xears: Ihe Autobiography of an American
Woman (Chicago. H J. Smith & Company, 1 889) and Anna A. Gordon, Frances E
Willard: A Memorial Molume (Chicago: The Woman's Christian Temperance Publishing
Association, 1898).

72Bordin, op. cit, p. 156.
73 . .
Bordin, op. cit, p. 29.

74Ibid. Footnote on p. 246 refers this to Willard's diary entry for January 20,
1860. Bordin, pp. 24-37 traces the related romantic idealism that led her to accept an
engagement ring fi'om Charles H. Fowler in 1862, only to return it the next February be-
cause she rejected the thought of any "emotionally trimmed, functional marriage" that
would be a "marriage of convenience" in keeping with nineteenth-century norms. Inter-
estingly, this was the same Charles H Fowler who would be the editor of the New York
Christian Adyocate during the National Labor Uprising of 1877.

75Willard, op. cit, pp. 358-359.
7611211, p. 359.

77Ibid., p. 361.

78Bordin, op. cit, p. 97.
791bid., pp. 105-106.

8011211, p. 111.

274

81min, pp. 134-137.

32min, pp. 3-12. Flags were at half staff in both Chicago and Washington,
DC. at her death on February 17, 1898.(p.3) Bordin writes: Willard's devotion to
home and womanliness was paired with radical social ideas. Willard used conserva-
tive values to promote radical ends. Nevertheless, Willard's triple emphasis--woman-
liness, the pivotal role of temperance in her reform program, and her complete faith in
progress--doomed her to obscurity by the mid-twentieth century."(pp. 10-12) Bordin
contends that by the 1980's people were ready to re—examine Willard's concerns about

alcoholism and Willard's belief in the unique contributions she believed only women could
make.

8311211, p. 136.

84Ibid., p.130. Bordin sees this process taking about 8 or 9 years for Willard
after the1881 address.

35min, p. 135. Philip Foner, History ofthe Labor Moyement in the United
States: YolumeII: EromtheEoundingoftheAmericanEederationofLabortothe
Emergence of American Imperiflism (New York: International Publishers, 1955)
does not mention this, Willard or the WCTU in his discussion of the role of women in
the Knights of Labor (pp. 61-66). He only mentions (p.64)the 16 women delegates
out of 660 at the 1886 Knights Convention. Also mentioned by F oner is Mrs. Elizabeth
Rodgers, who served for several months as Master Workman of District Assembly 24
in Chicago, who presided over 40,000 members and whom Bordin notes to have be-
come good friends with Frances Willard.

86Ibid.,140, footnote, p. 261 to Ihirty Years of Labor, W (Columbus:
Excelsior Publishing House, 1890), p. 601.

37min, pp. 140-144.
33min, p. 144.
89min, p. 140.
90min, p. 141.

91min, p. 142.

275

92Willard, op. cit, p. 413. Willard's emphasis.
93Bordin, loc. cit.

94min, pp. 142-143.

95Bordin, op. cit, p. 129.

96mitt, p. 174. Bordin cites Mari Jo Buhle, Women and American Socialism,
1.8le1220 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1981), p. 64 as arguing that this was
the case.

97m, p. 146.
93min, pp. 146-147.
991cm, pp. 147-148.
100mm, pp. 148, 154.

10111231., pp. 160-168. Bordin cites Zion's Herald, which she mistakenly calls
"A Chicago publication representing the progressive West" (really, it was a Boston pub-
lication), as supporting election of female delegates to the Methodist General Conference
while James Buckley and the New York Christian Adyocate led the opposition (l64ff).

102mm, pp. 168-170. Ironically, Liverrnore was a Unitarian, and Willard's
ecumenicism of ministry to human need that included Unitarianism had been what caused
her split from Dwight Moody's Boston Crusade.

103m, p. 174.

1O41bitl., reference to Herbert Gutman, Work Culture and Society in Industri:
alizingAmenca2EssaysinAmericanWorking1ClassandSccialHistory(New York:
Vintage Press, 1976) chapter 2. Ken F ones-Wolf has applied a modified Gutman
perspective to Philadelphia in Trade Union Gospel Christianity and Labor 111 Industrial
Bhiladelphia, 13.654215. (Philadelphia. Temple University Press, 1989), in which he
contends that religious rhetoric was used by trade unionists into the twentieth century to
challenge the oppressiveness of capitalism.

276

105mm, chapter XI, "Politician," pp. 175-189, is the source of the information
in this paragraph.

l06Ibitl., p. 179. Bordin notes (p.267) that "the two most comprehensive stu-
dies of Populism pay no attention to the attempt to organize a reform coalition that in-
cluded women, Prohibitionism, and Populism. " The two studies she has in mind are:
Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Bromise: Ihe Bopul'rst Meyement in America (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1976) and John D. Hicks, Ihe Eopulist Reyolt (Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1931). She does note that the effort to arrange a
union between the Prohibitionists and the new Populist Party is described in detail in

Jack 5. Blocker, Jr, Retreat from Reform: The Prohibition Moyement in the United
Slams 1829;1213. (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1976).

1°7Ibid, p. 180.

108M, p. 206.

109M, p. 210.

“OIbid.

”‘Ihid, pp. 232-233.

llzlbid, p.234.

113Gordon, op. cit, pp. 401 ff.
“4min, p. 401.

115Bordin, op. cit, pp. 145-146.

116Stephen G. Cobb, Reszerend William Camardine and the Rullman Strike of
18%: Ihe Christian Gospel and Social Justice (Lewiston, New York: The Edwin
Mellen Press, 1992), p. 191. William H. Carwardine, Ihe Rullman Strike (Chicago:
Charles H. Kerr & Company, 1894; re-published for the Illinois Historical Society in
1971), p. 111. Cobb's book is apparently a re-writing of a 1970 doctoral dissertation
for Frederick Norwood through Northwestern University, as suggested by a footnote
on page 344 of Norwood's Ihe Story of American Methodism (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1974).

277

117Carwardine, op. cit.

118Winthrop Hudson (with editor John Corrigan), Religion in America: An His;
toricalAccount ofthe Deyelopment ofAmen'can Religious Life (New York: Macmillan,
1992, revision of book first by authored by Hudson and copyrighted in 1965), pp.289-
290, contrasts Carwardine and Gladden in his account of the origins of the Social Gos-
pel. Hudson views Carwardine as typical of clergy whose consciences were disturbed
by personal acquaintance with the workers' circumstances and thus became supportive.
He says of Carwardine: "He had no theory to support his opinions." His "immediate
and first-hand experience" of workers' conditions at Pullman convinced him of "the jus-
tice of the strikers' demands." In contrast, he states that, although Gladden's exposure
to workers' plight first occurred in his Springfield, Massachusetts pastorate, "The conver-
sion was not quite so sudden and dramatic [i.e., as Carwardine's to the justice of the
workers' demands]. His views did not mature until the Hocking Valley Coal Strike
of 1884 when he was minister of the First Congregational Church of Columbus, Ohio."

Carwardine had "matured" through pastoral experiences, perhaps in terms of
coming to some conclusion as to the need for governmental action to defend the workers'
cause, perhaps in terms of how the church ought best to relate to the issue. There had
been no "sudden conversion" to support of the justice of workers' demands. His com-
mitment to the cause of justice for workers dated from experiences as early as child-
hood. His "theory" on which he based that commitment may not have been grounded in
sociological analysis, but it was grounded in long-lasting theological commitments, com-
mitments suggested in the troubling question raised by Charles Sheldon's 1896 Social
Gospel classic In His Steps: "What would Jesus do?"

119Cobb, op. cit, p. 191.
12Orbt'tl, pp. 58-59.

121Ibid., pp. 65-92. Cobb presents a chapter on "Sources of Carwardine's
Value Orientations," focusing on "Labor" (pp. 35-42, speaking of the writings of Henry
George, Lester Frank Ward, Richard T. Ely, Edward Bellamy, Jacob Riis, Henry Dem-
arest Lloyd, and Thorstein Veblen), "Social Gospel" (pp. 42-44, with very general refer-
ences to Walter Rauschenbusch, Shailer Mathews, Josiah Strong, and Washington Glad-
den), "Populism" (pp. 44-65, with references to Lloyd, Lewelling, and Carwardine
speeches), and "Christian Socialism" (pp. 65-92, with references to beginnings of English
and American Christian Socialism and to Ely, Lloyd, and George Herron and W.D.P.
Bliss. Cobb suggests that Carwardine was especially influenced by those who viewed
government power as the proper means to deal with injustices.

278

122Carwardine, op. cit, p.7. This is the account of John Merritte Driver in the
Introduction. Driver was Pastor of the First Methodist Episcopal Church in Marion,
Indiana, as cited in Cobb, op. cit, p. 129.

123 Cobb, op. cit, pp. 125-126. Quote is from "Preacher to Strikers; Pullman
Minister's Plain Words" in the Chicago Herald of May 21, 1894.

12411211, p. 120.

125mm, pp. 119-120.
126nm, p. 121.

127Cobb, op. cit, pp. 116-117, reports the sermon of the Rev. EC. Oggel of
the Greenstone Memorial Church who had preached a sermon in Spring 1894 eulogizing
Pullman's "Horatio Alger" story of "rags to riches" success, condemning union agitators
and declaring "half a loaf is better than none." Other pastors tended to speak in general-
ities or counsel against violence, as summarized by Cobb, pp. 117-118. Cobb, pp. 118-
128 summarizes Carwardine's sermon and responses to it.

128Carwardine, op. cit, pp. 27-30 praises Pullman's business genius, but
charges: "Determination and resolution have turned to arrogance and obstinacy."
Carwardine reproduces a report of the Springfield, Illinois Republican for July 11,
1894 listing the 1893 $4,000,000 surplus. Carwardine specifies wage cuts, rents
in comparison with the surrounding towns, and shop abuses that contradict any claim
that Pullman was a "benefactor" (pp. 68-117).

129Cobb, op. cit. pp. 201-202. This was signed by President T.W. Heathcote,
Vice President R.W. Brown, and Acting Secretary J. W. Jacobs.

l3OIbid., p. 99.
131Carwardine, op. cit, p. 121.
132nm, pp. 122-123.

133m, p. 124.

279

134Editor Buckley's comments were in the October 4, 1894 edition of NYCA,
p.12, the "Literature" review section. Carwardine's comparison of Pullman to the Czar
is in op. cit, p. 49.

135Cobb, op. cit, pp. 153-154.

136Carwardine, op. cit, p. 15. My emphasis on "mutual recognition."
137Ibid, p. 14. Again, my emphasis on "mutual recognition."
138112151., p. 125, with the appeal extending from pp. 124-126.

139Cobb, op. cit, p. 3, presents these as early nineteenth century core values,

as described in John William Wood's Andreyy lackson--Symbol For An Age (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1962). Cobb gives further application to late nineteenth
century laissez faire and Gospel of Wealth on pp. 10 and 59.

140Foner, loc. cit.
141Ibitl., pp. 13-14.

142Ihe Northwestern Christian Adyocate (Chicago), edited by the Rev. Arthur

Edwards, had remarked in its June 13, 1894 edition that "Mr. Pullman has a Universalist
brother and is said to favor that faith." Then, Edwards had declared: "Our Methodist
Pastor in Pullman, Rev. W.H. Carwardine, who advised against the strike, now advo-
cates the cause of his pe0ple as against the company." Edwards also published excerpts
from Carwardine's history of the strike. The September 19 issue reports that Carwar-
dine and his wife were given gold watches in special recognition at the September meet-
ing of the Chicago Methodist preachers.

143Cobb, op. cit. pp. 157-158.
144mm, pp. 180-186.
14511211, pp. 187-190.

146m” pp. 195-198.

CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

Late nineteenth century labor uprisings threatened the Methodist sense of rational
order that had married Wesleyan perfectionist revivalism to American Civil Religion. The
irony was that a movement that originated in a quest for spiritual liberation that would
share in Pentecostal community became a movement to defend an old order or to advance
a new one that did not ground itself in Pentecostal community. The prime concerns of
most Methodists were human liberation by quality religious experiences, by the smooth
functioning of American "free institutions, " by the cultivation of economic virtue, or by the
enforcement of "the kingdom of God." "Liberation," though, was usually to be achieved
by strategies that denied the liberty of participation by working class persons in the pro-
cess of socially deciding what the fundamental social order would be. The continued
"rational order" of a "free market" or of American "free institutions" of government or of
Methodist institutions of "spiritual freedom" were more important than the free partici-
pation of the working class.

Methodist responses to late nineteenth century labor unrest in the United States
may be critically interpreted from historical, philosophical, and theological perspectives.
Historically, the responses were part of the modernization of society and they also inclu-
ded rational social sources of resistance to domination of the communicative social life-
world by economic and political systems. Methodist pastors and lay people, when they
sought a reasonable solution to the challenges of the day in conversation with one another
found resources to refuse to be squeezed into the mold of the money of the marketplace or
the power of political and religious institutions.

Philosophically, the responses reveal both the partial rationality of strategic actions
280

281

and the more holistic rationality of communicative actions. Human communities, includ-
ing religious ones, find a sense of purpose in communicative interaction. They seek
strategies of political and economic activity to implement that purpose. But, the moral
foundations crumble when those strategies become more important than the shared sense
of the group's purpose.

Theologically, the responses expressed ultimate concerns that were often dis—
tracted and distorted by transitory material and self-glorifying interests. Ultimate concern
for the nation or the church or Pentecostal Revival became a religious commitment of
greater importance than commitment to the one who said "Blessed are the poor in spirit."

Methodist responses to threats posed by strikes in 1877, 1886, and 1894 moved

in three directions, each of which fits social theorist Jurgen Haberrnas's understanding of

the quest for rationality by modernizing societies.1

Some Methodists sought to steer the
late nineteenth century American social and political lifeworld with the medium of power
to maintain the existing marriage of Methodism and American civil religion by strategic
action to "defend free institutions," including the strategic action of promoting mass
Pentecostal revival to save the nation and to save the church from the perceived threat of
striking laborers. Others sought to re-structure the marriage by steering the same lifeworld
by the medium of money legitimated by an emerging Gospel of Wealth or the medium of
power legitimated by an emerging Social Gospel. Gospel of Wealth advocates would let
the medium of money steer the lifeworld by way of the "free market" and some Social

Gospel advocates would let the medium of power steer the lifeworld by way of a State-

imposed "kingdom of God." The objective was human liberation by private virtue in a

282

minimally-regulated economy according to the "Gospel of Wealth." Or, it was human
liberation in a religiously-regulated economy and politics for many adherents of the "Social
Gospel" A movement originating in small-group dynamics of communication, trusting
divine grace to work through this structure, was turning to faith in divine grace to work
through strategic action for economic or political order. The Pentecostal "gift of tongues"
for "all flesh" was being replaced by a gift of strategic leadership for the preservation of
"free institutions."

Another alternative, stressed by other Social Gospel advocates, contributors to
the Methodist press, and Rutherford Hayes, Frances Willard, and William Carwardine,
was the quest for what Haberrnas terms "communicative action" that sought to employ
the medium of language to find a renewed marriage of Wesleyan perfectionist revivalism
and American Civil Religion. These leaders did not often use the language of Pentecost,
and they did not regularly refer to the Wesleyan heritage. But they sought a "gift of cars"
to hear the working class that would match a "gift of tongues" to communicate in the
quest for a community rationally ordered by the Divine Spirit through the medium of
language rather than the media of money or power. They were pursuing, in Haberrnas's
terms, an "extension of communication fiee of domination" by the media of money and

political power.2

Their "communicative rationality," rather than the mere "impotent rage
of nature in revolt," gave, as Habennas describes it, an "inner logic...to resistance against

the colonization of the lifeworld by the inner dynamics of autonomous systems" of

economics and politics.3 It was a communicative rationality their spiritual ancestor, John

Wesley, saw to be inspired by the Spirit of Pentecost, resisting worldly reliance on money

283

and power and instead seeking Pentecostal community.4 So long as it was an "appeal to

reason," such as Wesley made in his Appeals to Men of Reason and Rehgion, it was one

source of the "rational hope" Jurgen Haberrnas speaks of for breaking free from the "iron

cage" of modernization Max Weber spoke of.5 It was a source of communicative action
that would resist domination by the strategic and instrumental actions of the economic
and political subsystems.

This segment of Methodist history reveals religion as a force that can either con-
tribute toward enslaving or emancipating the human spirit. It can be a source of "false
consciousness" that seeks to legitimate orders dominated by money and power. In that
case, it is false consciousness because it supports the human rationality of the market-
place or the political system while ignoring the more fundamental human rationality of
the uncoerced and inclusive human lifeworld Or, religion can be a source of protest for
the loosing of the tongues of the oppressed and opening the ears of potential oppressors to
participate in the creation of a democratic civic order. It can be, in the words of socio-

logist Peter Berger, "alienating" or "dc-alienating."6

As contributors to the Methodist press in the late nineteenth century, Abel
Stevens, Hugh Price Hughes, Frank Mason North, Frederick Merrick, and C .M. Morse all
challenged their fellow Methodists to seek a new order grounded in what all members of
society had to say, including those who were striking. As leaders intensely related to
Labor Uprisings of 1877, 1886, and 1894, Rutherford Hayes, Frances Willard, and
William Carwardine also called their fellow Methodists in particular and Americans in

general to listen to and empower the working class. Although many other Methodists

284

were steered on the labor issue by the media of money or power, these Methodist resist-
ers called for empowering the tongues of the working class to join the quest for a just
social order. They sought a rational order grounded in uncoerced communicative involve-
ment by all citizens. These Methodists reveal that, alongside the irony of disciplined
Methodist spirituality seeking Pentecost without Pentecostal community, there was the
humanity of persons motivated by religious commitments to swim against the stream of
popular antagonism against striking laborers and support the rationality of holistic human
community as superior to economic or political rationalities.

Methodist responses to labor unrest in late nineteenth century America raise
further issues beyond the role of religion in either submitting to or helping to overcome
the steering of the lifeworld by the media of money and power. Methodist responses
suggest the question of how to determine justice for a given society as well as the
question of the limits of a philosophic theory of rationality such as that proposed by

7

Haberrnas. These issues are suggested by Paul Lakeland and Helmut Peukert in their

efforts to employ Haberrnas's perspective in both Roman Catholic and Protestant

theological and ethical thought.8 They are also raised by Reinhold Niebuhr in his critique
of rational optimism. They are not questions this study was designed to answer, but they
are issues arising out of the study that invite further reflection.

Lakeland contends for a public ethic of emancipation implicit in Haberrnas's
starting point of the communicative speech act. Haberrnas argues that the speech act
rationally implies solidarity, and that this solidarity calls for communication free of

coercion. This is not a "foundationalist" appeal to an epistemological base that may not

285

be questioned, but an analysis of the rationality of human communicative actions.9 The
"foundation" is not something the individual, autonomous thinker may discover, as with
Descartes' "I think, therefore I am." Rather, it is that which the human community dis-
covers in uncoerced communication and has a rational justification for. In an introductory
survey of critical theory in general and of Haberrnas's critical theory in particular, Lakeland
explains that the theory of truth presented by Haberrnas involves not only consensus, but a

consensus with rational justification, "if and only if every other person who could enter in

a dialogue ...WQuld" agree. 10 The agreement would be grounded in consent to the most
convincing argument. Lakeland continues to quote Haberrnas as stating: "The condition
of the truth of statements is the potential agreement of all others." An acceptable public
ethic, justice for a given society, is determined in the collective human quest for truth for
social and political relationships.

Lakeland notes Haberrnas's explanation of modernization as the development of
rationalization by which "the sacred has been progressively diminished and replaced by
communicative reason." Economic and political systems of money and power have

developed a rationality originally designed to serve the lifeworld but eventually separating

and "colonizing" the more fundamental communicative lifeworld.12 Then, Lakeland
states what he sees to be the hope for overcoming this loss of human rational control:

We can only look to the exercise of human rationality in and through
the communication community to fight back against human loss of
control over the system. Haberrnas's argument would suggest
that a first step is to begin to resist mightily the forces that privatize
art, philosophy, ethics, and even religion, and to promote a vigorous
communication community dedicated to a public ethic that will win
back control for the lifeworld of the system that is, inevitably, a good

286

servant but a very bad ruler.(12)

Although Lakeland acknowledges that Habennas has been criticized for an
emphasis on "procedural rationality and procedural ethics" that has nothing to offer sub-
stantively, Lakeland notes that Haberrnas has stressed a social structure with "lifeworld"

controlling subsystems of the economy and politics, thus going beyond an individualistic

procedural justice. 13 Lakeland uses the remainder of his book to apply this perspective
on method to arrive at ethical decisions in general and public ethics in particular as the
Roman Catholic community participates in the wider human community .

Communicative Methodists of the late nineteenth century were supporting a simi-
lar method for arriving at social justice. They tended to lack any single scheme for a just
society, but, rather, advocated rational conversation among strikers, employers, and
other members of the public in seeking industrial justice. Consensus grounded in the re-
sults of that rational conversation would be the foundation of any justice. The motivation,
though, was religious commitment to love of neighbor rather than a philosophical analysis
of human rationality. As with the ancient prophets of Israel, the source of their rational

objection was a religious sense of Divine judgment of humanly created institutions. 14

But, their approach agrees with a philosophical quest for justice that goes beyond just
individual procedures or distributions or the following of any specific ideal to a substan-

tive justice grounded in control by the communicative lifeworld over economic and
political

subsystems.

Peukert's analysis finds Haberrnas's work helpfirl in underlining the human

287

solidarity required to make rational sense of human communicative activities. But, he
observes two basic discontinuities in human communicative solidarity--undeserved
suffering and death. Following a lengthy introductory analysis of developments in
scientific theories of society leading to a theory of society understood primarily in terms
of communicative action, Peukert suggests that without traditional theological concepts of
redemption and resurrection, there is a fundamental incoherence in the human sense of

15 If solidarity is not to involve forgetfulness of those who have suffered

solidarity.
unjustly in the past, as well as not involve forgetfillness of all who have died, Peukert
argues that there must be concepts of redemption of that past suffering and resurrection of
the dead. He does so with a lengthy analysis of sections of both the Old and New
Testaments.

Haberrnas has responded to Peukert's challenge by saying that, although the
"ethics of compassion and solidarity" are limit problems for communicative ethics, he

thinks that, in the words of Peukert translator James Bohman, "Peukert does not suffi-

ciently take into account the counterfactual and discursive nature of universalist ethical

claims."16 Haberrnas is trying to make rational sense of the speech act, but he is not
concluding that life rationally agrees with all inferences. The ideal human speech commu-
nity implied by the speech act does not exist. Peukert acknowledges Haberrnas's response
to issues he has raised. In a footnote, Peukert quotes Haberrnas's recognition of problems
Peukert has raised and Habermas's resolution of these problems:

Considering the risks to individual life that exist, a theory that could

interpret away the facticities of loneliness and guilt, sickness and death
is, to be sure, not even conceiyable. Contingencies that are irrevocably

288

attached to the bodily and moral constitution of the individual can be
raised to consciousness only as contingency. We must live disconsolately
with them.(l7)
Haberrnas has responded to Peukert's challenge and chosen what Peukert sees as the
incoherence of living disconsolately rather than the acceptance of theological concepts.
In connection with Methodist responses to labor uprisings in the late nineteenth

century, both Rutherford Hayes and Frances Willard, with all their confidence in human

rationality, longed for reunion with departed loved ones, Hayes with his beloved wife

Lucy and Willard with her sister and father and mother. 18 As the Social Gospel devel-
oped in the twentieth century, rational theologies de-emphasizing resurrection and
redemption were found unacceptable in the lifeworld of everyday members of the
Christian community. There seemed to be something unreasonable about a permanent
separation at death. Peukert would ground hope in the rationality of the communicative
speech act.

Reinhold Niebuhr's critique of rational optimism suggests a further problem for
Haberrnas's theory of rationality. Walter Rauschenbush had argued, and Niebuhr would
later emphasize, that the traditional Christian conviction was that mere human rational
communication was inedequate to overcome human selfishness dividing the lifeworld.
Rauschenbusch's 1917 A Theology for the Social Gospel warned of the "Kingdom of Evil"

that could deceitfirlly overcome the Kingdom of God and Niebuhr's 1932 Moral Man and

Immoral Society warned of the hidden self-interests involved in social crusades. 19
Although Niebuhr's critique was aimed at an overly optimistic religious community, one

that overlooked its own "corruption of inordinate self-love," it would apply to any vision

289

of a "final realm" in which "life is related to life without the coercion of power. "20 For
Niebuhr, a concept of rationality would have to include the "irrational" obstacles to the
rationality implied in the human speech act.

With re5pect to the Methodist attraction to rational optimism during this time,

Robert Chiles has explained the Methodist theological transition from John Wesley's focus

on Divine grace to later Methodist emphasis on human freedom and ability.” A5 Chiles

describes it, the "new theology of the early twentieth century "seemed relevant and

appealing to the optimism, and scientific age which gave it birth."22 Chiles contends that
John Wesley's perspective had held together tensions "every generation" in the Christian
community is tempted to resolve at the expense of truth--tensions between God and man,
between reason and revelation, and sin and grace. Chiles could have added that every
generation also tends to resolve too simply the tension Wesley held between optimism
concerning human possibilities through grace mixed with a critical perspective on ob-
stacles to that achievement. For Niebuhr, those obstacles to rational human community
included "inordinate self-love."

Historians seek an interpretive pattern for past events, and they also seek to relate
that to a better understanding of contemporary realities. On the one hand, historians seek

past sources of contemporary events. On the other hand, they attempt to see the present

more clearly in the light of the social dynamics of past events.23 The pattern of Methodist
responses to the strikes of 1877, 1886, and 1894 fits Haberrnas's interpretation of the
modernization of society. That modernization leads to colonization of the lifeworld by

media of money and power, as is exemplifed in some Methodist economic and political

290

strategies of responding to the strikes. But, it also includes the source of rational protest
against that colonization, as exemplified by Hayes, Willard, Carwardine, and other Meth-
odists of this period. The pattern of these responses reveals the irony of Methodist
spiritual discipline and quest for a modern Pentecost leading away from the spiritual
discipline in Pentecostal community Wesley had envisioned. These responses also reveal
the irony of Methodists loyal to Wesley's concern for love of neighbor ignoring Wesley's
emphasis on the need for divine grace to overcome what Reinhold Niebuhr in the
twentieth century would speak of as the "corruption of inordinate self-love" in the most
idealistic of social planners.

Philosophy seeks a critical and constructive perspective on human experience
so as to live it.24 Haberrnas defines it in terms of the human effort to understand ration-

alaity.25 Methodist responses to the late nineteenth century strikes in the United States
provide examples of the social conflict between lifeworld rationality and the rationality
of economic and political subsystems. They also suggest the imperative to keep the eco-
nomic and political subsystems and their rationalities servants and never masters of the
more rationally basic rationality of the social lifeworld.

Theologically, each of the Methodist responses displays an ultimate concern, a

religious commitment, and each reveals a potential for distortion.26 Paul Tillich labels

as "religion" the "dimension of depth in the human spirit," the Ultimate Concern he argues
that all humans have in some fashion. Defenders of free institutions and promoters of
Pentecostal Revival were ultimately concerned to practice the will of God through free

institutions and through liberating spiritual experiences. But, the less than ultimate means,

291

defending free institutions and promoting Pentecostal revival, became an ultimate end,
more ultimate than a possible divine calling to develop better institutions or to have a
fresher perspective on Christian experience. In particular, they made secondary the
communicative work of the Divine Spirit in Pentecostal community.

Similarly, promoters of a Gospel of Wealth or a Social Gospel were convinced
that this was the divinely prescribed route to the will of God on earth. But, they, too,
often made less than ultimate means, individual virtue cultivation or enforcement of the
kingdom of God for justice in society, more important than a divine calling to a social
activist virtue or a kingdom of God by consent. They, too, made the activity of the
Divine Spirit in communicative action secondary to strategic and instrumental action.

Although other Methodists listened for the Divine Spirit in solidarity with labor,
they, too, found confilsion on ultimate issues. Rational concerns for love of neighbor
confronted obstacles to expressing that love in undeserved suffering and death. Also, the
classic dependence on the grace of God was departed from, leading to undue optimism
without the needed blend of critical realism.

Hayes, Willard and Carwardine all sensed their own weaknesses. But, they
were optimistic about possible human achievements. The irony was that they were plac-
ing hope for a just society in human rational and democratic sources. Reinhold Niebuhr
would later remind Americans that the classic Christian faith puts such ultimate hope
only in God.

Habermas, Niebuhr, and Wesley, each in their own way, lend critical perspec-

tive to Methodist responses to the strikes. Haberrnas points to the power of concern

292

for subsystem rationality, and also to the power of concern for lifeworld rationality to
overcome domination of the lifeworld by subsystems of political and economic concerns.
Niebuhr points to the irony of Christian communication being replaced by unaided human
communication that ignores the traditional Christian understanding of Original Sin.
Wesley points to the threat of riches to disciplined godliness in Christian community.

In an ironic way, Wesley's Pentecostalism of Christian community of material
goods in the service of godliness was replaced in the late nineteenth century by a
Pentecostalism of spirit or consciousness. Wesley's Pentecostalism of material community

shares Haberrnas's concern for uncoerced rational community. Haberrnas speaks of

communicative rationality "connected with ancient concepts of logos."26 He contends
that participants in communicative action "assure themselves of both the unity of the
objective world and the intersubjectivity of their lifeworld." They do this by "uncon-
strained, unifying, consensus-bringing force of argumentative speech, in which different
participants overcome merely subjective views."

For Wesley, the grace to listen to what Haberrnas terms "unconstrained...speech"
was the gift of the Pentecostal Spirit. He also believed, together with the author of the
Gospel of John, that the "Logos" foundation for communicative speech was made known
when "The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us" in the person of Jesus. He fre-
quently stressed a verse from the same passage about "the true light that enlightens every-
one who comes into the world" as stressing a universal offer of salvation as opposed to
other views of an offer to only a select few. The "Logos" or "Divine Reason" was a

source of potential enlightenment for all, by grace, and this was to be shared in Pentecostal

293

community, not a community of disemdisembodied spiritual experience, but in a commu-
nity of shared material goods. The irony was that many who spoke of Pentecost or
rational order did not seek Pentecostal community or a rational order that included the
working class in determining the social and political firture. But, matching this irony was
the humanity of those Methodists who, for religious or non-religious reasons, listened to

labor in solidarity.

NOTES

1As in the Introduction above, and the body of this paper, this analysis is based
on Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicatiye Action, Volume Two, Liferyorld
and System: A Critique of Eunctionalist Reason, translated by Thomas McCarthy
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1987), especially pp. 256 ff. and 332 ff. This is also the per—
spective presented by Habennas in "Technology and Science as 'Ideology,"' reproduced
fiom onltard a Rational Society (Boston: Beacon Press, 1970) in Roger S. Gottlieb

(editor) An Anthology of Western Marxism (New York: Oxford University Press,
1989), pp. 248-275.

2Habermas, in "Technology and Science, " p. 251.
3Haberrnas in Lifeworld, pp. 332-333.

4John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the NfiW Testament (London: The
Epworth Press, 1958 reprinting), p. 402, comments on Acts 2 and 4. Theodore Jen-
nings, Jr., Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Eyangelical Economics (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1990), "The Demystification of Wealth" (pp. 29-46), cites many ref-
erences by Wesley warning against the threat of riches to break Christian bonds of sol-
idarity with the poor, and Jennings sees this as an antidote to"the pseudo-gospel of
wealth and power." For Wesley, the steering media of wealth and power were enemies
of the Divine medium of language.

5Habennas, loc. cit.

294

6Peter Berger, IheSacredCanopy: Elements ofa Sociological Theory ofRe:
ligion (Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, 1967), dis-
cusses this in his chapter "Religion and Alienation," pp. 81-101. "Alienation" is defined
there as a process by which the individual forgets that the social world is a human cre-
ation, and Berger notes the role of religion in legitimating this. He also notes the poten-
tial role of religion to relativize human social constructions in the presence of belief in
divine judgments and thus to "dc-alienate."

7Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicatiye Action, Volume 1, Reason
and the Rationalization of Society , translated by Thomas McCarthy (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1984), pp. 1 ff.

8paui Lakeland, Theology and critical Theory: The Discourse ofthe church
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990). Helmut Peukert, Science, Action, and Eundamen;
tal Theology (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1984), translated by James
Bohman from 1976 German edition.

9Translator Thomas McCarthy analyzes this in his introduction to Habermas,
Reason and the Rationalization of Society.

10Lakeland, op. cit, p. 52. The quote is from Thomas McCarthy, Ihe Criti-
cal Iheory of Jurgen Haberrnas (Cambridge, MIT. Press, 1978), p.299.

11lbid., pp. 54, 64-65.
12Ibid., p. 69.
l3Ibitl., pp. 65-69, gives substantive applications made by Haberrnas.

14Peukert, op. cit, p. 218, noting the normative value for the prophets of the
Hebrew experience of liberation from Egyptian slavery, explains: "The cultic attempt
to approach God the redeemer fi'om slavery becomes a perversion and cries out for
condemnation so long as others are enslaved." The source of rational criticism is the
experience of the God of the Exodus. Further, Peukert adds: "The claim of this basic
relationship, in which the recognition of the unconditional equality of the other is the
condition of access to and acceptance of God, loses its former merely national limita-
tions in prophetic proclamation. It becomes universal. From Amos to the book of
Jonah, an ethnocentric conception of divine election, insofar as it is supposed to legi-
timate the refusal to extend solidarity beyond one's own people and does not make
obligatory the commitment to this unlimited solidarity, is attacked."

295

Peter Berger, op. cit, pp. 98-101, notes the prophetic "debunking" of the
supposed sacred character of humanly developed institutions, focusing on kingship
and the prophet Nathan's condemnation of King David's adultery and murder (2 Sam-
uel 1210-17) as violations of the demands of a transcendent God. Berger sees three
motifs of Israelite religion in general and the preaching of the prophets in particular as
providing a source of challenge to versions of order advanced by other civilizations of
the day. Those three motifs are: "transcendentalization, historization, and the rational-
ization of ethics." (p.115) A God distinct from the cosmos revealed himself in human
history, calling his servants to impose a rational order of service to God and fellow
humans. (pp. 115-121) The source of rational criticism is the historic experience of
the transcendent God..

15Peukert, op. cit, pp. 208 ff.

16Ibid, p. 277. Reference to "A Reply to my Critics," in Haberrnas: Critical
Debates, edited by J .B. Thompson and D. Held (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.
Press, 1982), pp. 246-247.

17Ibid., p. 311. Reference is to Haberrnas's Legitimation Crisis (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1973), p. 120.

18Harry Barnard, Rutherford B. Hayes and his America (Indianapolis and New
York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1954), pp. 510-511. Ruth Bordin, Frances
Willard: A Biography (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina
Press, 1986), p. 207.

19Sidney Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American Reople (New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, 1972), pp. 801-802, notes this realism in Rausch-
enbusch's A Theology for the Social Gospel. Ahlstrom also notes the "religio-ethical
bombshell" effect of Niebuhr's 1932 Moral Man and Immoral Society (p.941).
The biographical and theological foundations of Niebuhr's thought, including his
transition from Social Gospel optimism to Neo-orthodox re-emphasis on the tradi-
tional Christian concept of Original Sin coloring with self-interest the most idealistic
of human efforts, is presented in Paul Merkley, Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Account
(Montreal and London: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1975).

20Reinhold Niebuhr, The children ofLight and the Children ofDarkness, p. 899,
as discussed above in the Introduction, pp. 17-18 and notes on p. 38.

21Robert E. Chiles, Theological transition in American Methodism: 1120:1235
(New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965).

296

”mid, p. 187. Sidney Mead, The Liyely Experiment: The shaping orchristiara
ity in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1963 ), describes the new theology of the
early twentieth century as substituting sociology for theology (p.183) and as eventually
becoming "secularized and innocuous."(p. 186). Mead thus describes a liberal theology
that was a contrast to a fundamentalist theology he describes as "archaic and anachron-
istic." He closes his book with hopes that a post-1930's critique of "liberalism" and
"modernism" would lead to a more imaginative theological effort to combine "traditional
Christian formulations" and "contemporary culture." (p. 187) His "contemporary culture"
is the social and intellectual demands of today's culture. Mead's vision of a better
theology is the kind of theology Helmut Peukert sees developing from the convergence of
sociological and theological reflection on a theory of communicative action, a theory
Peukert argues requires concepts of redemption and resurrection.

23Gerald N. Grob and George A. Billias, Interpretation of American History:
Battems and Berspectiyes, Volume I: To 1877 (New York: The Free Press, 1976),
p. 1, quote Benedetto Croce: "Every true history is contemporary history." Then, they
comment on past history writing: "History--as distinguished fi'om chronicle-was
meaningfill only to the degree that it struck a sympathetic chord in the minds of
contemporaries who saw in the past the problems and issues of their own day."

24Twentieth century philosophers have given a variety of definitions of their work
and priorities. An introductory text by Robert C. Solomon, Introducing Bhilosophy (New
York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1986) sees phiIOSOphy as "a critical approach to all
subjects" (p.11) and "an attitude of critical and systematic thoughtfulness." (p. 13) Morti-
mer Adler sees it as concerned about "first-order questions" about "that which is and
happens" and "what men should do and seek" and "second-order questions" about "the
content of our thinking when we try to answer first-order questions." (Quoted from The
Conditions of Bhilosophy, 1965, by Atheneum Press, as reproduced in The Range of
Ehilosophy, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1975, edited by Harold H. Titus,
Maylon H. Hepp, and Marilyn S. Smith, pp. 6-7) Adler argues that philosophy must go
beyond "critical" and "analytic" second-order questions to "constructive" and "synthetic"
first-order questions. On the other hand, C.D. Broad argues that the main task of philo-
sophy is "Critical Philosophy," the analysis and definition of concepts and the critical
analysis of fimdamental beliefs. A secondary task, says Broad, is "Speculative Philo-
Philosophy," which seeks "to reflect upon the whole" of human experience. (Quoted fi'om
Scientific Thought, 1952, by Humanities Press, Inc., as reproduced in Titus, Hepp, and
Smith, op. cit, p.10)

25Habermas, Iheory, Volume I, pp. 1 if.

26Paul Tillich, "Religion as a Dimension in Man's Spiritual Life, " in Theology
of Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), pp. 3-9. He maintains that

297

religion is manifest in "all the creative filnctions of the human spirit," including moral,
cognitive, and aesthetic, and especially "ultimate seriousness," because "ultimate con-
cern, or the state of being ultimately concerned, is itself religion." (p.8)

27Habermas, Iheory, Volume I, p. 10).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL

Rutherford B. Hayes, Presidential Papers, July 16 to August 5, 1877. Hayes Center,
Fremont, Ohio.

NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS

IheBostonGlobe, July 30, 1877.
TheChicagoIn’bune, May 1-15, 1886.

The Christian Adyocate (New York), January 4, 1877 to December 27, 1877 and
January 1, 1885 to December 27, 1894.

The Methodist Brotestant (Baltimore), July 14 to August 18, 1877, May 1 to 22, 1886.
The Methodist Recorder (Pittsburgh), July 14 to August 18, 1877., May 8 and 15, 1886.

The Methodist Reyiely (The Methodist Quarterly Reyieylt before January 1885), January
187 7 to April 1878 and January-February 1882 to November-December 1894.

IheNeryXorkTimes. July 17 to August 6, 1877.

The North American Reyiery, June 1889 and December 1889.

The Northwestern Christian Adyocate (Chicago), May 18 to July 13, 1894.
Zion'sHerald, January 7, 1877 to December 13, 1877 and February 25, 1885 to

December 26, 1894.

298

299

BOOKS AND PAMPI-ILETS

Arthur, William. The Tongue of Fire: Dr, The True Router of Christianity
New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1857.

Bartlett, Richard A., Editor. The Gilded Age: America, 18654209: Interpretiye
Articles and Documentary Sources. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison
Wesley Publishing Company, 1969.

Carwardine, William. The Eullman Strike. Chicago: The Charles H. Kerr Company,
1 894.

Finney, Charles. Reyiyals of Religion. Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell
Company, no date. Reprint of 1835 original.

Hamilton, J .W., Editor.The Beople's Church Pulpit. Boston: The People's Church, 1885.

Harkness, Georgia. The Methodist Church in Social Thought and Action. New York
and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964.

Hughes, George. DaysofRoWerintheEorestTemple: AReyieryoftheWonderfill
WorkofGodatEourteenNationalCampcmeetingsfromlfioltoIBJZ.
Boston: John Bent and Company, 1873.

Lee, Luther. Autobiography. New York: Garland Press, 1984. Reprint of 1882
Edition by Phillips & Hunt of New York.

McLean, A. and Eaton, J .W., Editors. Benuel: or Face to Eace With God. New
York: W.C. Palmer, Jr., 1869.

Manual ofthe Methodist Social Union ofBoston and Xicinity. Boston: Rand, Avery
& Company, 1885.

Matlack, LC. IhcAntileayery Struggle in the Methodist Episcopal Church (New
York: Negro Universities Press, 1969.

Norwood, Frederick A., Editor. Sourcebook of American Methodism. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1982.

Outler, Albert C. and Heitzenrater, Richard P. John Wesley's Sermons: An Anthology.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1991.

300

Outler, Albert C., Editor. John Wesley. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
A Library of Protestant Thought series.

Wallace, Adam. AModemBentecost: EmbracingaRecordoftheSixteenthNational
CampmcetingfortheBromotionofHolinessHeldatLandisyille, Ea, fromluly
23. to August 1st, 1313. Philadelphia: Methodist Home Journal Publishing
House, 1873.

Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament. London: The Epworth
Press, 1958 reprinting.

Willard, Frances E. Glimpses of Fifty Years: The Autobiography of an American
Woman. Chicago: H.J. Smith, 1889.

Williams, Charles Richard. Diary and Letters of Rutherford Birchard Hayes.
Columbus, Ohio: F.J. Heer Printing Company, 1924. Volumes I through V.

SECONDARY SOURCES

Ahlstrom, Sidney. A Religious History of the American People. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1972.

Barnard, Harry A. Rutherford B. Hayes and his America. Indianapolis and New
York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Incorporated, 1954.

Berger, Peter. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion.
Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, 1967.

Bordin, Ruth. Erances Willard: A Biography. Chapel Hill and London: The Uni-
versity of North Carolina Press, 1986.

Bruce, Robert V. 1.811: Year of Yiolence. Indianapolis and New York: The
Bobbs-Merrill Company, Incorporated, 1959.

Bucke, Emory Stevens. The History of American Methodism in Three Molumes.
New York and Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1964.

Cameron, Richard. Methodism and Society in Historical Eerspectiye. New York
and Nashville: Abingdon, 1961.

Carter, Paul A. The Spiritual Crisis of the Gilded Age. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern
Illinois University Press, 1971.

301

Chiles, Robert E. Theological Transition in American Methodism. New York and
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1965.

Cobb, Stephen G. Reyerend William Camardinc and the Pullman Strike of 1&94:
The Christian Gospel and Social Justice. Lewiston, New York: The Edwin
Mellen Press, 1992.

Collins, Randall. Three Sociological Traditions. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1985.

. ThreeSociologicalTraditions: SelectedReadings. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1985.

Davison, Kenneth E. The Presidency of Rutherford B Hayes. Westport, Connecti-
cut: Greenwood Press, 1972.

Dayton, Donald. Discoyering an Eyangelical Heritage. New York: Harper and Row,
1976.

Dieter, Melvin. Reyiyalism and Holiness. Temple University Doctoral Dissertation,
Copyright 1973.

Ferguson, Charles W. Organizing to Beat the Deyil: Methodists and the Making of
America. Garden City, New Jersey: Doubleday & Company, Incorporated,
1971.

Foner,Eric. EreeSoiLEreeLaborandEreeMen: TheldeologyoftheRepublican
PartyBeforetheCiyilWar. New York, 1970.

.PoliticsandldeologyInTheAgleTheCiyilWar. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1980.

F oner, Philip S. The Great Labor Uprising. New York: The Monad Press, 1977.

_. HistoryoftheLaborMoyementintheUnitedStates. Volume II:
EromtheEoundingoftheAmencanEederationofLabortotheEmergence
of American Imperialism. New York: International Publishers, 1955.

Fones-Wolf, Ken. Trade Union Gospel: Christianity and Labor in Industrial Phila:
delphia, 1865;1215. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1989.

Garraty, John A. TheNeWCommomyeflth: W. New York: Harper
Torchbooks, 1968.

302

Gordon, Anna A. Frances E. Willard: A Memorial Molume. Chicago: The Woman's
Christian Temperance Publishing Association, 1898.

Gottlieb, Roger 8., Editor. An Anthology of Western Marxism. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1989.

Gravely, William. Gilbert Hayen, Methodist Abolitionist A Study in Race, Religion,
and Reform, 1850:1889. Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1973.

Green, Vivian H. H. JohnWesley. London: Nelson, 1964.

Habermas, Jurgen. The Theory of Commumcatiye Action. Volume II, A Critique
of Eunctionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon Press, 1987. Translation by
Thomas McCarthy of 1981 original German text.

TheTheoryofCommunicatiyeAction, VolumeI, Reasonandthe
Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1984. Translation by
Thomas McCarthy of 1981 original German text.

Heitzenrater, Richard P. "The Oxford Diaries and the First Rise of Methodism."
Methodist History. July 1974, Volume XII.

Hoogenboom, Ari. The Presidency of Rutherford B. Hayes. Lawrence, Kansas:
University of Kansas Press, 1988.

Hudson, Winthrop and Corrigan, John. Religion In America: An Historical Account
of the Deyelopment of American Religious Life. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company, 1992. Fifth Edition. Revision by Corrigan of 1965
Edition originally authored by Hudson.

Hynson, Leon. "Reformation and Perfection: the Social Gospel of Bishop Peck."
Methodist History. January 1978, Volume XVI, Number 2.

.ToReformtheNation: TheologicalEoundationsofWeslcylsEthics.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press of Zondervan Publishing
House, 1984.

Jay, Martin. TheDialecticalImagination: AHistoryoftheErankfilrtSchoolandthe
Institute of Social Research, 122L910. Boston and Toronto: Little, Brown,
and Company, 1973.

Jennings, Theodore, Jr. Good Neyys To The Poor: John Wesley's Eyangelical
Economics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990.

303

Jones, Donald G. TheSectionalCrisisandNorthemMethodism: AStudyinPicty.
Political Ethics and Ciyil Religion. Metuchen, New Jersey: The Scarecrow
Press, 1979.

Jones, Donald G. and Richey, Russell. American (2in Religion. New York: Harper
and Row, 1974.

Jones, Charles E. Perfectionist Persuasion: The Moyement and American Methodism,
W. Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press, 1974.

Jordan, Philip D. "Immigrants, Methodists, and a 'Conservative Social Gospel..' 1865-
1908." MethodistHistory. October 1978, Volume XVII, Number 1.

Lakeland, Paul. Theology and Criticm Theory: The Discourse of the Church. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1990.

McLaughlin, William, Jr. Modern Reyiyalism: Charles Grandison Einney to Billy
Graham. New York: The Ronald Press, 1959.

Many, Martin. ReligionandRepublic: TheAmen'canCircumstance. Boston: Beacon
Press, 1987.

May, Henry. Ideas. Eaiths. andEeelings: EssaysonAmericanIntellecmaland
Religious History. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

. Protestant Churches and Industrial America. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1949.

Mead, Sidney. The Liyely Experiment: The Shaping of Christianity in America.
New York: Harper and Row, 1963.

Merkley, Paul Reinhold Niebuhr: A Political Account. Montreal and London: McGill-
Queen's University Press, 1975.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Irony of American History. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1952.

. The Children ofLight and the Children ofDarkness. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1944.

Niebuhr, H. Richard. The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: World
Publishing Company, 1957. Reprint of 1929 edition by Henry Holt and Com-
pany, Incorporated.

304

Norwood, Frederick A. The Story of American Methodism Nashville: Abingdon, 1974.

Outler, Albert C. Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit. Nashville: Tidings, 1975.

Peters, John L. Christian Perfection and American Methodism. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Zondervan, 1985. Second Edition of 1956 Edition by Pierce
and Washabaugh of Nashville, Tennessee.

Peukert, Helmut. Science, Action, and Eundamental Theology: Toward a Theology
of Communicatiye Action Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT. Press,
1984. Translation by James Bohman of 1976 German text.

Richardson, Harry. Dark Salyation: The Story ofAmerican Methodism as it Deyeloped
Among Blacks in America. Garden City, New Jersey: Anchor Press/Doubleday,
l 976.

Semmel, Bernard. The Methodist Reyolution. New York: Basic BOOkS, 1973-

Smith, Timothy L. Reyiyalism and Social Reform: American Protestantism on the Eye
of the Ciyil War. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965. Reprint of 1957
Edition by Abingdon Press of Nashville, Tennessee.

Solomon, Robert C. Introducing Philosophy. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich,
1986.

Tillich, Paul. Theology of Culture. new York: Oxford University Press, 1959.

Titus, Harold H.; Hepp, Maylon H.; and Smith, Marilyn 8., Editors. The Range of
Philosophy. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1975.

Tucker, Robert C . The MathzEngels Reader. New York and London: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1978. Second Edition.

Turner, George Allen. The Mision Which Transforms: Is Christian Perfection Scrip;
rural? Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964.

Tuttle, Robert G. John Wesley: His Life and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1978.

Warner, Wellman J. The Wesleyan Moyement in the Industrial Reyolution. London:
Longmans, Green, and Company, 1930.

305

Williams, Charles Richard. The Life of Rutherford Birchard Hayes: Nineteenth Presi:
dent ofthe United States: WithPortraits and otherlllustrations. Columbus,
Ohio: Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, 1928. Reprint of
1914 Edition by F]. Heer Printing Company. Volumes I and II.

Wuthnow, Robert W. The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Paith Since
World War 11. Princeton, New Jersey: The Princeton University Press, 1988.

 

 

..l'i;
. «a 1.:

£ .l '
it,

, in. fimfludufl..f ”Hrs-w. 38%..»