Reflections on the Passing of a Generation and Mission

​

In the end the progressive reformer generation passed from this life without seeing or bringing about the millennium or being players in the final act of history. Most held to their rapidly evolving faith to the end while some did not. Harvard professor Irving Babbitt observed regarding the progressive view of inevitable historical progress, “some persons began to have doubts on this point even before the war, others had their doubts awakened by the war itself, and still others have been made doubtful by the peace”. He further noted that “an age that thought it was progressing toward a ‘far off divine event, and turned out instead to be progressing toward Armageddon, suffered, one cannot help surmise, from some fundamental confusion in its notion of progress.” A writer in New Republic observed that the war consumed the “secular deity of progress” (1 pp. 233-37)

​

While some were realists others found such doubts to be a form of heresy calling their whole world view into question like a believer, who was struggling with doubt, left to ponder how God could allow such things to occur as someone may experience grief for a personal loss. As opposed to losing faith however, the true believers in the social gospel looked inward for what they could control that would lead to a spiritual rebirth like a sinner seeking repentance. Quoting from Richard Gamble:

​

“A deeper, more authentic reevaluation of liberal assumptions seemed to be indicated by Professor John Buckham of the Pacific School of Theology, who criticized the prewar New Theology for being “too optimistic.” In 1919 he admitted that the world was much farther from the reign of Christianity than progressive theology had assumed.  Nevertheless, Buckham found nothing fundamentally wrong with the theology itself, only with the disappointing extent to which it had been applied to everyday life. The progressive clergy’s activist theology had not gone far enough toward reconstructing human thought and action. But now, faced with the war, Christians were compelled to acknowledge the stubborn presence of “the Christ less elements and conditions in modern life” The dominant social forces before the war carried humanity “not to the progressive coming of the kingdom which it pictured but straight to the awful cataclysm which befell the world in 1914.” The turn of events could not be ignored. Buckham acknowledged that he had been among those who had expected the imminent arrival of “the golden age.” Every enthusiasm of the day – social reform, missions, and internationalism – had seemed to indicate that the kingdom of God was very near. Nevertheless, to Buckham the appropriate response to the war’s “harsh awakening” was not despair, but rather a “reinforcement of faith”, a commitment to a new hope, to “the vision that arises afresh from the ruins of the old order.” One that was “better and larger… than that attending the advent of the twentieth century.” Righteousness had not been defeated, it had merely been postponed.” (1 pp. 238-39)

​

This sort of thinking inherently makes the future seem more controllable than it is, makes the observer or the adherent to the faith to seem more significant than they are, and transfers guilt inward.  It also reaffirms the need for the reformers ongoing efforts which Historian Forrest MacDonald described as follows:

​

“In the first place, the Yankee (or pietist) has always been uncomfortable when times are good, for then it appears that the millennium may be near, in which case there will be no further need for his reforming services. In such circumstances he looks frantically for evils and injustices, so as to reassure himself that there is a great deal left to be done; and if he blames himself for what is wrong he thereby stakes out a claim to be the one who must rectify it”(2)

​

While committed progressives may have been willing to accept this sort of redirection and recommitment, the American public generally was not. On the 20th anniversary of America’s entry into the war a Gallup poll found that 70 percent of respondents thought "it was a mistake for the United States to have entered the Great War." Dr. George Gallup observed "this conviction has been the great master principle of the post-war period in the United States."(3)   This pattern of recognizing a catastrophic mistake after the fact would unfortunately repeat itself.  American public opinion turned against the war specifically and progressivism in general to the point where the title “progressive” was gradually suppressed like a focus group talking point that was having the wrong effect. The propaganda push, which was somewhat successful for a short period of time, came to be seen as official deception, arguably making it more difficult to repeat in the future or, at least, it would require more sophistication. Events that unfolded in Europe after the conclusion of the war only exasperated the doubts. This was summarized by historian and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan:

​

“Disillusionment with the treaty Wilson brought home would deepen in the 1920’s 1930’s as all Allied powers, save Finland, defaulted on their war debts and America fell deep into Depression.

​

Perhaps the greatest loss Britain suffered was in her standing and credibility with the American people.  British propaganda had convinced us the Germans were beasts and we must join the good war for a new world where Prussian militarism would never menace mankind again.  But after Versailles enlarged the British Empire by 950,000 square miles, as the Allies walked away from their war debts mocking Uncle Sam and “Uncle Shylock”, Americans came to believe they had been hoodwinked and swindled.  They came to concur with British historian H. Fisher: Versailles had “draped the crudity of conquest… in the veil of morality” (4 p. 103)

​

Even President Wilson, who was the face of the crusade, eventually acknowledged in 1919 that. “We all know this was a commercial war”(3). Historian Thomas Fleming gave a more complete description leading to essentially the same conclusion; “Germany’s aims before the war began were relatively modest. Basically, Berlin sought an acknowledgment that it was Europe’s dominant power. It wanted an independent Poland and nationhood for the Baltic states, to keep Russia a safe distance from its eastern border. Also on the wish list was a free trade zone in which German goods could circulate without crippling tariffs in France, Italy, Scandinavia and Austria-Hungary. It is not terribly different from the role Germany plays today in the European Economic Union. But the British Tories could not tolerate such a commercial rival in 1914 and chose war.”(5 p. 496)

​

Still the progressive clergy ultimately chose not to look back but to accelerate towards internationalism.  Had they looked back they might have noticed that their ability to lead followers, which was never as great as they perceived, was starting to diminish.  Progressive author Samuel Batten who before the war had argued a vision that amounted to a virtual combining of church and state recorded an even more dramatic vision in his book, “If America Fails”.  He continued to see God as active in history and America as having a uniquely enabling role.  He continued to make no distinction between individuals, private institutions, communities, and nations stating that “the nation is but the person writ large”. He observed that the war had shown us “that we cannot stand apart as mere spectators; it has called us out of our isolation and has given us a stake in the world life as an active participant” and then went on to proclaim our glorious future, “from this time forward things will be different with us, and a new national policy is imperative” (1 pp. 233-34). While one author’s or commentator’s inputs can’t directly speak for anyone beyond himself, this was generally representative and reflected the path we would ultimately take. We were to be perpetual redeemers and perpetually, as Forrest Macdonald noted, in need of the services of those who make it a profession to show us the way.

​

Bibliography

​

1. Gamble, Richard M. The War for Righteousness - Progressive Christianity, the Great War and the Rise of the Messianic Nation. Willmington Delaware : ISI Books, 2003.

2. McDonald, Forrest. Abbeville Institute. The Abbeville Institute. [Online] August 6, 2015. https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/why-yankees-wont-and-cant-leave-the-south-alone/.

3. Ross, Stewart Halsey. Propoganda for War. s.l. : Progressive, 2009.

4. Buchanan, Patrick J. Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. New York, New York : Three Rivers Press, 2008.

5. Fleming, Thomas. The Illusion of Victory. New York, New York : Basic Books, 2003.