Introduction

In 1905 the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions proudly announced the arrival of an unexpected gift. Both the size of the gift and the identity of the donor made this story into headline news. $100,000 was a large sum of money in those years, especially for this agency. By this time in history the American Board's appeal had so dwindled that it had become, in effect, the de facto Congregation Board of Foreign Missions. But the news value of the announcement lay in the name of John D. Rockefeller, already one of the world's wealthiest persons and at the center of a broiling controversy about the power of the new American “plutocrats.”

It did not take long for the contagion of that controversy to engulf the American Board. For the better part of the year the Commissioners spent most of their time fending off critics and defending the reputation of the Board. Their first line of defense was staked on the claim that they had done nothing more than passively accept Rockefeller's unsolicited benefactions. That argument then crumbled when someone learned that the agency's leaders had been, in fact, pursuing this gift for several years. (During this entire episode Rockefeller remained silent and said nothing that would further enflame the passions.)

The Board was also unlucky enough to attract a very formidable critic. Washington Gladden (1836-1918), pastor of the First Congregational Church of Columbus, Ohio, had long been a major leader in American Protestantism. An articulate interpreter of the Social Gospel, hymn writer and prolific author, he spoke and wrote with the kind of authority that attracted a following across the denominational spectrum. Most important, Gladden was particularly well equipped to mount a counter-argument against the Board on this occasion, for he had been writing about the issues surrounding “faith and money” for at least twenty years. For instance, ten years before this conflict erupted, he had written about “Tainted Money” and the ethical problems of accepting money from notorious plunderers.

That phrase – “tainted money” – became famous when Washington Gladden invoked it again in his spirited attack upon the American Board. The charge followed both John D. Rockefeller and his son to the end of their days. Frederick Gates, one of the early philanthropic advisers to both generations of Rockefeller, wearily referred to it as that “deathless phrase.”[1] Meanwhile the author of the “deathless phrase” did not escape unscathed from criticism. “It has been greatly ridiculed,” he wrote. Even “some of those who agree with me have deprecated the use of it, but I think it conveys a meaning we must not miss. If money cannot be tainted, then it cannot be sanctified. I hope that we are not yet ready to say that there can be no such thing as consecrated money.”[2]

Gladden's response was grounded in his underlying convictions about the sacramental nature of money. “It is only gifts which require some public recognition of the giver, and which connect themselves with the giver, about which any question can be raised. Every such gift represents the giver. His character is more or less reflected in it.”[3] Who I am and what I have done becomes embodied in my public gifts of money.

In offering this line of argument, Gladden was actually pointing to a neglected dimension in the prevailing teachings about giving. For the most part, nineteenth century Protestants had slighted any questions about the integrity of the giver. Their primary concerns were elsewhere. They felt an unrelenting pressure to raise the money necessary to keep up with the competition and to support their own ambitious plans for expansion. Consequently the task of convincing enough church folk to give in a systematic and generous fashion became all important. It was understandable, therefore, that they tended to focus on the gift itself – its size and its regularity – and to bury any sustained worries about the history of the giver. Whether welcomed or not, Gladden's dogged insistence on the question – “Who is the giver?" – provided a corrective to early twentieth century Protestant perspectives upon giving.

His most important contribution, however, came in his prophetic demand for integrity on the part of those who ask for and receive the gift. In other words, the reign of Mammon is not just a problem for the rich or the indifferent lay giver. The worship of Mammon afflicts Protestant leaders every bit as much as it does those “out there.” He wrote, “How often have I heard men at the head of great Christian enterprises saying: ‘The one thing we need is more money!’”[4] Gladden is at his best in urging his contemporaries to see the presence of Mammon in their own good works as well as in the stubborn resistance of others who resists their appeals for funds. This call for confession and self-criticism is almost singular in the history of American visions of giving.

---

Source: Selections from Washington Gladden, The New Idolatry and Other Discussions (New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1905).

The New Idolatry

WHAT is the trouble with this present world? It is its lack of religion.

The one thing that the world needs is the restoration of religion to its rightful place in the life of the people.

Especially is this true of the nation. Doubtless the nation needs better government, better and wiser legislation, better systems of taxation, a better industrial organization, better education, better sanitation; but beneath and above and beyond all these it needs religion in the hearts of the people. Without this none of these things is possible.

I do not say that we want any establishment of religion by law; we want nothing of the kind; it is only the husk and shell of religion that can ever be established by law.

It is not Protestantism, nor Congregationalism, nor Evangelical Orthodoxy, nor Liberalism; it is not the old theology nor the new theology; it is not belief or disbelief in the literal infallibility of the Bible, that we most want; some of these things may be better than others, but the thing that we need is deeper and more fundamental than any or all of them: it is religion.

What is religion? In its most primary sense it is a conviction that the spiritual world is the real world, and that the material world is temporary and ephemeral; that the things which are unseen, like truth, purity, honour, justice, integrity, fidelity, unselfish love, are the only enduring realities, while the things that can be seen and handled and weighed and counted are phantasms and vanities. Religion, as Professor James has told us, is, fundamentally, the realization “that the physical universe is part of a more spiritual universe from which it draws its chief significance,” and that “union or harmonious relation with that higher universe is our true end.”

Of that “more spiritual universe,” whose unseen realities are such as I have mentioned, God is the Life and the Light. His name is the great name which stands for all these things, in their perfection. Truth, justice, purity, love, are not abstractions, they are personal qualities. To believe that they exist, in their perfection, is to believe in God. To believe that they are the supreme realities and to govern our lives by this belief is the substance of what we mean by religion.

There can be no question that the men who laid the foundations of our national life were men to whom religion was the supreme reality. They had no doubt that justice and truth and righteousness, which are the habitation of God’s throne, are the ruling forces on earth as well as in heaven. It is this faith which has been greatly weakened in this generation, and which needs to be restored.

I have said that what the world needs to-day is religion; it would have been truer, perhaps, to say the true religion. Religion of some sort it has; and there is worship most punctilious, and service most submissive, and devotion most abject. It is hardly necessary to name the god of this present world.

Mammon, the least erected spirit that fell from heaven. Milton calls him. To him the homage of the multitude is given with no reserve. The worship of Mammon is the one stupendous social fact of this generation. We must not say that it is universal; that would be a grievous error. As in the days when idolatry cursed Israel there were thousands, unknown to the desponding prophet, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, so in these days there are hundreds of thousands who have not been debauched by the worship of Mammon, but it is the religion of the multitude. Men do believe in him; their faith is sincere and unwavering; they are ready to prove it, every day, by their works. They have no doubt of his power, of his supremacy; all things are possible, they think, to those who secure his favour. That he holds in his hands the real good of life for man, and that there is no real happiness for any unless they propitiate him, is the first article in the creed of the great majority. It is not the rich or the prosperous alone who hold this creed; the poor and the degraded are equally ensnared by it; their expectations of good are concentrated upon the same potentate.

Never, since time began, has this worship been so widespread, so nearly universal as it is to-day. It is only within the last one or two centuries that the way to the altars of Mammon has been cleared for the multitude. In slavery and in feudalism the opportunities of gain were confined to a very few; now that freedom is the heritage of all, this craving has become the common experience of mankind. Like every other natural passion it is a good servant but a tyrannical master. We are suffering now from its domination.

To a very large extent the worship of Mammon has supplanted the worship of God. It is not a mere lip service, it is a living allegiance. It is by their works that the devotees prove their faith. We know that they believe in Mammon more than in God, for their lives give clear and abundant testimony. The evidences of this devotion are visible on every side. To what other cause can we attribute the evils that infest the government of our cities and that fill many of our state capitals with the stench of rotten politics; that turn many of our railway systems into gigantic instruments of extortion, and build up a mighty enginery of finance with power to exploit the savings of a nation for the enrichment of a few?

What is it that teaches men to be hard and cruel in the pursuit of their advantages, and ruthlessly to crush all who stand in the way of the building of their fortunes? What is it that dulls the sense of honour and the impulse of probity and makes men faithless to their trusts? How shall we explain such a ghastly exhibit as that which is now in sight in the great New York insurance companies; such continental extortions as those which the government is now trying to unearth, and such eruptions of graft and boodle as every newspaper chronicles? Are not all these convincing proofs of a prevailing faith in the supremacy of Mammon? Many of the men who are engaged in such operations as these say with their lips that they believe in God, but it cannot be. Their actions prove that the real object of their faith and allegiance is Mammon. In their hearts they believe that Mammon is stronger and greater than God; that he is a better protector and friend than God; that he can do more for them than God can do. When the claims of Mammon and of God conflict, their conduct makes it perfectly clear in whom they put their trust.

But these instances which I have mentioned are not exceptional. They are striking illustrations of tendencies which we see at work on every side. They are symptoms of a constitutional malady. Love of money, faith in money, devotion to material things, has become the prevailing distemper of the time. It was doubtless true when the apostle said it, but it is probably ten times truer now than it was then, that the love of money is the root of every kind of evil.

And it must be confessed that this habit of thinking has become quite too prevalent even in the churches and in the colleges and in the philanthropic world. How often have I heard men at the head of great Christian enterprises saying: “The one thing we need is more money!” Of course, if that statement had been challenged it would not have been defended; but the fact that it so often finds utterance, in one way or another, shows how overpowering is the emphasis which men have come to put upon the value of money, not only in the gratification of personal desires, but also in the promotion of philanthropic aims. All this is half-unconscious; it is in the air; we can hardly help thinking and saying what everybody else is thinking and saying. When the crowd all about us is all the while falling prostrate before the throne of Mammon and acknowledging him to be supreme, it is hard for us to keep from going down with the rest.

It seems to be a time, just now, for some pretty serious thinking on the part of Christian people, respecting this form of idolatry. None more debasing has yet appeared before men; its devastations threaten the life of the nation.

It is producing social and political disintegration. It is sowing dishonesty, suspicion, enmity. It is hurrying us on in the paths that lead to anarchy. For it must not be forgotten that Mammon cannot rule. Rule implies orderly governance, and what Mammon inevitably brings is disorder and strife and social chaos. A society in which the love of money is the ruling principle can have no end but destruction. Even now it may be seen that the throne of the usurper is unstable; it is tottering to its fall. We may worship this false god, but the worship can bring only degradation to ourselves and overthrow to the nation.

The church in the olden days often found herself crippled and corrupted by idolatry. The prophets were always lifting up their voices against it. Is there no need to-day of such testimony? Is not this the very sin and shame of the church to-day – the worship of Mammon? Is it not true that the church, as well as the world, is putting a tremendously exaggerated estimate upon the value of money – whether as a means of personal enjoyment or as a means of service? And is it not true that this tremendously exaggerated estimate of the value of money must affect our characters and our conduct? Does it not lead, inevitably, to a lessening of our scruples as to the means of getting it, and to a great undervaluation of the spiritual qualities and the moral convictions which must be sacrificed in obtaining it, in the coveted quantities?

I seem to have read somewhere, within the last few months, an intimation that the hope of the church was in the rich men who have heaped up enormous gains during the last generation; that the one thing needful was to enlist them in our Christian enterprises. I trust that there may be men of wealth among us who will find it in their hearts to help the church in its work, and whose help we may welcome. Much of this wealth, I trust, is consecrated; we shall surely get our share of that, and we will take it and thank God for it. But it is a great error to turn the emphasis of our appeal toward the resources of multimillionism. “A little that a righteous man hath is better than the riches of many wicked.” It is better for us. It is worth more to us. If we believed in God we should know that this is true. And, even as a matter of practical economy, the direction of the thought away from the many to the few is a capital blunder. From what source have these great fortunes come? In most cases they have been gleaned, in the smallest sums, from millions of the poor. These rich men have learned how to gather in, from vast multitudes of the people, fractional contributions, for their enrichment. We do not want to levy any other tribute than the tribute of love; but if we can get that sacred flame kindled in the hearts of the common people, our resources will be far more abundant and far more sure than if we trust in the large gifts of the few millionaires. Trust God, and the common people whom he loves. We shall find it safer, as a financial proposition, than putting our trust in princes or in plutocrats.

There is nothing that the church needs to-day so much as faith in God. Its weakness is not due to its uncertain hold on some of the minor theological beliefs; it goes a great deal deeper. The doubt which paralyses it is the deadly uncertainty about God. We are hearing much of the need of a new evangelism, and the need is great; but the note of this evangelism which must be sounded first and clearest is the glorious truth that God reigns, that his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and that his dominion endureth for ever and ever. If the church could really yet hold of this truth and believe it, and make men believe it; if Mammon could be cast down from his throne in the hearts of the Christian people, and God could be exalted thereupon; if men could really feel that the justice and truth and purity and integrity and love in which God is revealed are worth more than money; that the weapons which are not carnal are mightier far in our warfare than all the powers of this world - the feebleness and infirmity of the church would soon depart, and she would go forth to her conquests fair as the moon, clear as the sun and terrible as an army with banners. In the face of such witnessing the power of Mammon would wane.  . . .

Standard Oil and Foreign Missions

It seems important to those who feel that a mistake has been made in soliciting and accepting a large gift from Mr. Rockefeller to the American Board that the grounds of their opposition should be more fully set forth than has been possible hitherto. As the discussion has been going on some things have grown more clear. At first the acceptance of the gift was approved by many on the ground that it was unsolicited. It was admitted that it would have been a mistake to ask for it, but the voluntary proffer could not be rejected. It now transpires that it was not a voluntary proffer, that it was diligently sought for the space of three years. Those who approved the erroneous statements first given out, may be ready now to reconsider.

It is also needful to make it entirely clear that those who disapprove of this alliance are not acting upon mere gossip or rumour, but that they rest their judgment on well-accredited evidence. To bring these facts succinctly before the people of our churches is one purpose of the present paper.

Certain elementary moral principles appear to be repudiated in the explicit statement of the prudential committee: “Our responsibility begins with the receipt of a gift.” The contention is that, no matter what may be the character of the giver, his gifts should be welcomed with thanks. It can hardly be possible that the committee means to stand on this rule. At any rate, it is very important that a clear statement be made respecting the principles which should govern the receipt of gifts from doubtful sources. Our benevolent societies cannot knowingly accept gifts which are the proceeds of lawlessness, nor must they knowingly be the partners of those who are winning gains by methods which, though not yet punished by the law, are yet notoriously and indubitably extortionate and dishonourable. In the complexities of modern commerce it is often possible to take advantage of the necessities of men or of their weakness, and extort from them their property without incurring the penalty of any law. But property thus acquired is held by no better moral title than the booty of the highwayman, and the principle which forbids complicity in unjust gains applies to this no less rigorously.

It may be agreed that gifts coming from sources unassailed may be accepted without questioning. It is not necessary that a missionary society should undertake the duties of a moral inquisitor; it ought to assume, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that gifts laid on its altars have been honestly acquired. But when the question is raised, and there is reasonable ground for believing that the money has been iniquitously obtained and does not rightfully belong to the one who offers it, the society must refuse to receive it until the doubt is resolved. There is a moral obligation here which cannot be shirked. It may sometimes be a difficult and disagreeable duty; that is no reason why it should not be faithfully performed.

The prudential committee lays down this maxim: “Our responsibility begins with the receipt of a gift.” By this it means, as its argument shows that its responsibility begins after the gift has been received. Let us amend by saying, “The responsibility of a missionary society begins in the act of receiving a gift, if that gift is unsolicited.” And surely it will not be maintained that a missionary society has no responsibility for the character of a gift which it has spent three years in soliciting.

With matters of fact the prudential committee and its defenders deal no more satisfactorily than with matters of principle. Referring to the reasons given by the protestants why this gift should be refused, the committee says that if it does not feel warranted in passing judgment upon “questions which have never been settled, either before the courts or at the bar of public opinion.” This must mean that neither the courts nor public opinion have furnished any adequate reasons for believing that the fortune out of which this donation comes has been flagitiously acquired. It is true that certain accusations against this company are now being investigated by the officers of the United States Government, and that legal or legislative proceedings of one sort or another against the company are now pending in thirteen or fourteen states, and it is true that these questions have not been settled.

But it is not true that no charges against this company have been proved in court. More than once the courts of the United States and the states have rendered judgment against it, setting the seal of their condemnation upon its offences. The facts concerning these court proceedings have been spread before the people in newspaper reports; they have been discussed in magazines and in public addresses; the common people, as a rule, are well informed concerning them. Much of the popular knowledge of the operations of this company comes from two sources: Mr. Henry D. Lloyd’s “Wealth vs. Commonwealth,” and Miss Ida M. Tarbell’s “History of the Standard Oil Company,” and those who argue that nothing has been proved against the Standard Oil Company are wont to disparage these books as reckless in their method or partisan in their temper.

Most of those who thus judge them have never read them. Those who have read them know that all their important statements are based on official documents, on testimony presented before legislative and congressional committees, on copies of contracts and other business instruments, and on the records of courts. In all these cases the authorities are cited. Every man who can read the English language can verify them. About one-third of each of Miss Tarbell’s solid volumes is made up of such documentary evidence. To represent either of these books as the careless or slanderous assaults of ignorant persons is less than just. Neither of these writers is capable of such injustice. Each of them wrote with a deep sense of social responsibility.

Mr. Lloyd’s volume exhibits more feeling; it is the testimony of a knightly soul aflame against oppression. But none who knew this man, who spent his life in the service of humanity and laid it down as a sacrifice in a great battle against wrong, needs to be told that in all his passionate devotion to the highest ideals, he could never have wantonly slandered any man. Miss Tarbell’s style is more restrained. From beginning to end her book gives the impression of being a dispassionate exposition. The evidence is fairly weighed; the investigation is judicial.

The conclusive proof that these revelations are true is found in the fact that no action has been brought against either of these writers. The statements made by both of them respecting the methods and operations of this company are damning. It is incredible that these men would have rested under such charges if the charges could have been disproved. Mr. Lloyd was not an irresponsible person; he was a man of wealth and position. Miss Tarbell spread her indictment before the public in the pages of a great magazine, whose publishers could have been severely punished if what she stated was libelous. There was money enough to prosecute slanderers, and shrewd lawyers enough to have exposed their malice, and courts not at all loath to do them justice. The fact that not a finger has been raised to punish them is evidence that their indictment cannot be overthrown.

Not only from these books, and from the authorities to which they refer, but from a great variety of other sources open to the people of the United States, may be drawn abundant materials for a judgment respecting the Standard Oil Company and its methods. It is thus a matter of common knowledge that the Standard Oil Company has been frequently convicted, sometimes out of its own mouth, of transgressions of the laws of the land. A fearless judge of the United States District Court denounced their system of rebates as “gross, illegal and inexcusable,” and said of it: “The discrimination complained of in this case is so wanton and oppressive that it could hardly have been accepted by an honest man having a due regard for the rights of others.” The plea of the apologists for the company always is that their system of rebates was not illegal until the interstate commerce law had forbidden it. But Judge Baxter brushes that sophistry aside. He declares that the charter of every railway involves “the obligation to carry for every person offering business under like circumstances at the same rate. All unjust discriminations are in violation of sound public policy and are forbidden by law. . ..  If it were not so, the managers of railways in collusion with others in command of large capital could control the business of the country, at least to the extent that the business was dependent on railroad transportation for its success, and make and unmake the fortunes of men at will.”

This is precisely what the Standard Oil Company is charged with doing through all its history, and the solemn declaration of a judge of the United States Court that it is “greatly abhorrent to all fair minds” finds an echo in every honest heart. It was but a small amount that the company was compelled by this decision to disgorge, but the words of Judge Baxter apply with equal force to the great bulk of the transactions of this company with the railroads for a period of ten or twelve years, and he describes a kind of operation under which they extorted from their competitors, through the railroads, many millions of dollars. It was by help of this “wanton and oppressive” exercise of power that this stupendous monopoly was built up. The Standard Oil Company, with its present power to rule and ruin the business of the country, could not have existed but for this illegal and outrageous use of the railroads in the extermination of competitors. There was never any appeal from Judge Baxter’s judgment in this case, and if anything can be “settled by the courts” it was settled then that it was by the help of flagitious methods that this fortune has been reared. However persistently, in accepting gifts, we may shut our eyes to these facts, millions of the American people are fully informed concerning them.

There are other facts not less notorious. It is known that the managers of this combination, after doing business illegally as a trust for ten years, were compelled by a decree of the Supreme Court of Ohio to dissolve their organization and go out of business. Their entire procedure during all that time had been in violation of law. They found in New Jersey, of course, a “legal” outfit for carrying on their depredations.

On various occasions they have been constrained to make distinct confession respecting the nature of their business. In 1879 when their leaders were under indictment for conspiracy, they refused to answer questions put to them by an investigating committee on the plea that if they told the truth they would incriminate themselves; and again, in 1898, when ordered by the Supreme Court of Ohio to produce their books in court, the secretary of the Standard Oil Company of Ohio made oath that he could not do so without incriminating both the company and himself.

The American people know of all these things and many more like unto them. More than this, they are fully aware that the business methods of the company, even when not technically illegal, are often utterly dishonourable. Competitive business at its best estate is apt to be hard and merciless, but it recognizes certain principles of decency and fair play. It is a game, and it is played to win; but the rules of the game are fairly observed by honourable competitors. It is the simple truth to say that the Standard Oil Company from the beginning has violated all these rules. It has played continually with stacked cards and loaded dice. On the football field or in the prize ring such unsportsmanlike behaviour would be execrated.

There is a kind of competition which the German law makes criminal. This is the kind of competition which this company has always practised. The system of rebates is, of course, the most abhorrent of these practices. It is often said that the acceptance of rebates has been nearly universal on the part of large shippers, but the kind of rebates extorted by this company – rebates not only on its own shipments, but on all those of its competitors, ordinary concerns could never have collected. Other gigantic combinations are now enforcing the same kind of tribute from independent dealers, but it is palpable that only those aggregations of wealth which are able to dominate the railroads could compel them to collect tribute for their benefit from their competitors. There is nothing more startling or more ominous in American history than the fact that such a tremendous injustice has been permitted to go on year after year, with no interference by the Government. Of this kind of extortion Mr. Rockefeller has the credit of being the inventor. It was a weapon that he forged and wielded most mercilessly in the destruction of his competitors. Others have since learned the art, but the credit of originating it must be given to him. Is it not entirely clear that no man, with the most elementary notions of justice, could ever have conceived of it?

Besides this colossal wrong many practices of the utmost baseness have characterized this business. The subsidizing of local railway freight agents, by whom full reports have been sent to the Standard of all shipments arriving at the station from competing companies; the bribery of the employees of competitors to reveal to the Standard the secrets of their employers’ business; especially the contemptible manner in which prices are always cut to kill competition, and then raised as soon as it is killed, and every poor oil peddler anywhere in the land selling other than Standard oil is dogged and driven from his livelihood by this giant – these are illustrations of a kind of thing which does not deserve to bear the name of business. In Miss Tarbell’s chapter on “Cutting to Kill” will be found photographic reproductions of the kind of “reports” made to this company and many letters from dealers all over the land reciting their experience.

Let no man say that such methods as these are characteristic of American commerce. What do the reputable business men mean who come forward to defend or to apologize for this brigandage? Do they wish to associate themselves with an enormity of this nature? Do they want us to believe that they are doing business after this fashion? Is it Pharisaism to claim a higher standard of business morality than that which rules in such transactions?

Such are a few of the notorious facts upon which the American people have made up their judgment respecting the business of the Standard Oil Company. If iniquitous gains are not to be welcomed into the Lord’s treasury, a serious mistake must have been made in soliciting these.

It is sometimes said that this man and this company are only the products of bad social conditions. But history shows that they are producers more than products. They have done more to create these evil social conditions than any score of other agencies.

We are often asked why we single out this man for reprobation. If the answer has not already been given it is enough to say that we did not single him out; it was the prudential committee who singled him out by soliciting his donation. We object to this gift because it is now before us for judgment. It is said that there are others from whom a gift would be equally objectionable. Even if that were true, no gifts have been offered by these others, and it will be time to decide about them when they are offered. Each case must stand on its own merits.

That there may be others with whom the churches ought to refuse alliance is probable. The methods which the Standard Oil Company has found so successful are being adopted by other great companies, and this is the alarming fact.

This vast power of concentrated wealth, which is exerted, with a growing disregard of human welfare for the aggrandizement of the few by the oppression of the many, has filled the minds of the people with a mighty indignation. It is not true that all rich men are robbers, but the facts which have come to light within the last year respecting some of the aggregations of wealth are sufficiently disquieting. The Standard Oil Company is not the only gigantic monopoly which evinces an unsocial purpose, and there is no intention on the part of those who resist these aggressions to confine their warfare to this one organization. But this is the mightiest and probably the worst of these anti-social forces; its operations are better known than those of any of its kindred; the case against it is clearer than against any other monopoly. If the churches of Christ are to separate themselves from the iniquity of conscienceless and predatory wealth, there can be no better place than this to begin. If we accept in our Christian work the alliance of the Standard Oil Company, we can refuse no other alliance with oppressors and despoilers of the people; to say that we will not testify against this iniquity because others are nearly or quite as heinous is practically to say that we will testify against no iniquity, that in the presence of all this wrong we will shut our eyes and seal our lips.

Is it not plain that the association into which the Church is being drawn in its solicitation of this gift must be full of injury to the cause which it represents and embarrassing and humiliating to the people upon whom it depends for support? Surely, there are those with whom we cannot be profitably yoked together, and we beseech our churches, before it is too late, to consider well the harm which this alliance is sure to work in several directions.

The Church which accepts the Standard Oil Company as its yoke-fellow can hardly hope to keep the respect of right-minded young men and women. Tens of thousands of these have been studying social problems in our colleges and universities, and their minds are clear upon the bearing of these social questions. The Church which, for money, is ready to condone social injustice will lose its hold on these young people. They are able to understand the law of Christ, and they have studied the record of this iniquity, and they know that there can be no agreement between them. They will either be repelled from the Church, as too many of them have already been, or else, drawn by the example of those who ought to be better guides into complaisance with what they know to be wrong, their moral standards will be lowered and their characters undermined. Let no man dismiss this as a chimera; the Church is in great danger of inflicting terrible injury upon the youth of this generation, and thus of striking a fatal blow at her own life.

The effect upon the working people of the land and upon the whole of the non-churchgoing class must also be well considered. There are many explanations, some of which are more or less plausible, of the increasing absence of the industrious self-respecting working people from our churches, but the one great cause is the almost universal belief that the churches of the country are in too close relations with unscrupulous and predaceous wealth. A good many of us have been trying hard to correct this impression and to remove the causes of it. We have felt that the separation between the churches and these honest, hard-working people, who are the bone and sinew of our population, is the opprobrium of our Christianity. We had hoped that our Congregational Churches were making some progress toward a better understanding with them, but the effect of the acceptance of this gift will be to widen and deepen the chasm between the churches and those whom they most need to reach. It is fatuous to doubt it. From all over the land, already, the testimony is pouring in, showing that this is sure to happen. By the working people, the average people, everywhere, the protest against the acceptance of the gift was met with a glad outcry of hope and thanksgiving; while the tidings that it has been overruled has called forth bitter words of despairing indignation.

If the Church wishes to regain its hold upon the people who heard its Master gladly, it must keep itself free from such alliances as these.

The truth is that the great masses of the American people have a very clear and positive opinion respecting the sources from which this gift has come. No casuistry will change their minds. They never can be persuaded that friendship with such malign powers is not suspicious and shameful. They will insist on believing that churches as well as men are known by the company they keep, and they will never be convinced that a church which cultivates the society and co-operation of such men is a true representative of Jesus Christ.

Finally, the national aspects of this question press upon our attention. This nation is facing a crisis in its history. Our easy-going optimism may ignore it, but the battle is on between corporate greed and industrial freedom. Enormous aggregations of capital are seeking to gather up and control not only the railways and the mines and the food supply of the people, but the Government itself. This power already lays a heavy hand on industry and enterprise. Thoughtful men confront the future with sober faces. If we want to save our nation from the vast oppressions that are sure to provoke reactions, we must gird ourselves for a determined struggle. In all this warfare the Christian churches ought to be at the front, leaders in the fight for equal opportunity, witnesses for the liberty with which the Son makes us free.

Now, it is undeniable that among the powers and influences which have led the nation into the peril which now threatens us – the peril arising from aggregations of selfish wealth – none has been more potent or more ruthless than that which it is now proposed to take into partnership in our missionary work. It is an impossible suggestion. As Christian patriots we cannot think of it. We must keep our churches from all entangling alliances with the enemies of our country, no matter in what guise they may appear. Failure here will be the costliest blunder that the Church has ever made.

Source:  Selections from Washington Gladden, The New Idolatry and Other Discussions (New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1905).

---

[1] John Ensor Harr and Peter J. Johnson, The Rockefeller Century (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988), p. 84.

[2] Washington Gladden, The New Idolatry and Other Discussions (New York: McClure, Phillips and Co., 1905), p. 63.

[3] Gladden, p. 62.

[4] Gladden, p. 9.