Produced by Tom Roch, Karen Dalrymple, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images produced by Core Historical
Literature in Agriculture (CHLA), Cornell University.)
Church Cooperation in Community Life
By
PAUL L. VOGT
THE ABINGDON PRESS
NEW YORK CINCINNATI
Copyright, 1921, by
PAUL L. VOGT
Printed in the
United States of America
TO
MY FATHER AND MOTHER
WHOSE PUBLIC-SPIRITED AND LIFELONG LOYALTY TO
RELIGIOUS WORK IN A COUNTRY COMMUNITY
HAS BEEN A CONSTANT INSPIRATION
TO CHRISTIAN SERVICE
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PREFACE 7
I. SOME PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS 9
II. THE BASIS FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE 26
III. THE ECONOMIC CHALLENGE TO THE CHURCH 44
IV. THE SOCIAL CHALLENGE TO THE CHURCH 69
V. BUILDING FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE 84
VI. THE CHURCH AND RURAL PUBLIC THOUGHT 94
VII. ADJUSTING THE LOCAL CHURCH TO THE COMMUNITY 104
VIII. INTERDENOMINATIONAL READJUSTMENT 124
IX. THE CHURCH AND OTHER RURAL AGENCIES 142
X. MISSIONARY PROGRAMS AND RURAL COMMUNITY SERVICE 152
XI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 169
PREFACE
Many books have been written during the past few years on the rural
church. Some of these have given excellent concrete illustrations of
methods that are proving successful in solving local problems. Others
have discussed the general rural church situation. The rural life
movement, however, has been so rapid that it is believed that a brief
restatement of the place of the church in the rural life movement is
desirable at the present time.
It has been the task and privilege of the writer for the past four
years to be almost constantly in the field traveling from the Atlantic
to the Pacific and from Canadian border to the limits of Florida and
getting so far as possible first-hand impressions of rural church and
community conditions. It is the purpose of the present essay to
discuss some of the general problems in rural life presenting
themselves to the religious forces of America, and to note some
conclusions as to the next steps to be taken if these forces are to
render the service in rural advance that it is believed is theirs to
render. Suggestions as to local programs will be made only as evidence
that when the church undertakes in an adequate manner the solution of
problems whose solution is demanded of it, it receives both the moral
and the financial support of the people served. The chapters on phases
of the local program are intended only to help in preparing the way
for the larger service contemplated.
As with individuals, so it is with institutions. It is difficult to
discuss the place of different organizations in the rural life
movement without arousing the antagonism of leaders in the respective
organizations. It is hoped that the point of view held will be
accepted as one of sympathy for the efforts of all organizations
concerned and that the purpose of the discussion is to point the way
toward a larger cooperation resulting from a better understanding of
the work that may be expected of each.
PAUL L. VOGT.
CHAPTER I
SOME PRELIMINARY DEFINITIONS
When one begins to discuss a subject it helps very much if his readers
know what he has in mind in the terms used. In the title selected for
this text there are at least three words that need definition.
Probably no reader will agree fully with any of the definitions given,
but an attempt to define should at least help the reader to understand
better in what sense the terms are used by the writer.
The term "community" has come into such common use that it might be
assumed that definition is unnecessary. And yet when learned bodies
get together to discuss community problems a large part of the time is
usually taken up in attempting to define what the different speakers
are talking about.
When the writer lived in the open country several years ago he went to
Mifflin Center school and attended Wesley Chapel church. The
schoolhouse and the church were located at the same crossroads, and
these two institutions drew for their constituency from an area of
about four square miles for the school and a somewhat larger area for
the church. Brownstown school, to the south, Hendrickson's to the
east, and Whetstone to the west made up other school communities.
Pleasant Grove church, Salem, and Brownstown, with a different
territory covered by each, made up church areas that did not coincide
with the school areas bounding Mifflin Center school territory. In
like manner, when trading was to be done, Upper Sandusky and Kirby,
five and six miles away, were the centers to which everybody went,
generally on Saturday afternoon, when friends from other sections of
the county might be found on the streets. The boundaries of the trade
center were thus much larger than those of either the school or the
church. In politics, the center of interest of the particular township
with which the writer was concerned was the old schoolhouse turned
into a township house at Mifflin Center, the location of the church
and school. The local political interests of the other communities
mentioned were at the appointed places in the respective townships.
The seat of justice was for some time in the parlor of the writer's
father's residence, or in the front yard, to which court was
occasionally adjourned when weather conditions permitted. In a larger
way county courts were held at the county seat, as were other of the
larger political activities.
One could go on indefinitely illustrating the boundaries of interests
of various kinds. Some of them centered in the State House; others in
the national Capitol; and many a wordy political battle was fought in
the little country section over the question as to whether the
protective tariff or the Democratic party was responsible for the hard
times the farmers and others were suffering. There were even world
interests involved, as during the Spanish-American War or the
Venezuelan difficulty during Cleveland's administration.
This concrete illustration both raises the question, Which of these is
the "community?" and also points the way to the answer. None of the
groupings mentioned can be considered "_the_ community." Yet each is
"_a_ community." A "community" is a psychical and not a physical
thing. It can only approximately be bounded by physical lines. In the
last analysis the true "community" is nothing more nor less than that
group of two or more individuals who are bound together by a single
interest. Thus two people living within sight of one another may be
members of the same religious community and at the same time be
absolutely separated from one another in their political affiliations.
Also one person can at the same time belong to many "communities."
But this definition, if adhered to strictly, would lead to confusion
of thought perhaps more serious than a less accurate use of the term.
Careful investigation of the relation of the different psychic
communities to one another reveals the fact that geographically the
areas of individual community interest overlap one another; and that
in the better organized regions the centers of interests coincide and
it is only the boundaries of the several interests that are not
coterminous. The Mifflin Center illustration given above is good in
that it had the religious, educational and political interests
centered at one physical spot. The social and recreational life of a
large part of this local area also was centered here. In the other
local groups mentioned there was a division of interest much more
marked. A more practical definition, then, of a "community" would be
"That aggregation of population which is bound together by a
predominating proportion of its local interests."
If this definition is accepted, then an inspection of almost any local
aggregation, in the open country at least, will lead to the conclusion
that there are few groups of people who have any large number of local
interests in common. Perhaps the most powerful force to be considered
in determining what is an open country community is that of the social
life. People in a given section habitually seek those with whom they
are best acquainted when they get together for social affairs of
interest outside the family circle; and it is only occasionally that
the mass will go out of these habitual associations in seeking social
relaxation. This social life may be sought at one time in the school,
at another in the church, again at a picnic, or in the home of some
one in the "neighborhood." But the dominating factor is
acquaintanceship rather than religion or education or business.
Villages are more easily defined as to the number of interests holding
the group together.
One principal objective in the modern local community organization
movement seems to be to bring together at some central point the focal
points of as many local interests as possible, thus strengthening the
community bonds and increasing the community consciousness. As this
end is achieved the necessity for the strict definition given above
disappears and the "community" becomes _that aggregation of people the
majority of whose local interests have a common center_. This is the
sense in which the term will be used in this discussion.
The term "rural" likewise conveys a different thought to different
people. Indeed, so likely has the term been to mislead that in a
recent national survey of religious conditions, the term was abandoned
and "town and country" substituted. The simpler plan is to arrive at a
definition of the word "rural" which will include what the latter
term connotes. To confuse "rural" with "agricultural" is to ignore
both the past and the present in movements of population and in
organization of interests. To an increasing degree the interests of
the open country are centering in the village, or even larger centers.
So that in discussing the problems of the agricultural population it
is often necessary to make the center of discussion the organization
of the village with an agricultural environment. The better plan is to
definitely discuss the problems of the open country under the term
"agricultural" and retain the other term for all interests of groups
of population in smaller communities, whether in the open country or
in the villages. In general, the division of the United States Census
will be observed and the term "rural" regularly applied to all groups
of under two thousand five hundred population.
At a recent meeting of country ministers an attempt was made to define
what is the problem of the rural church. The definition as framed is
herewith presented: "The rural task of the church is the nurture and
development of all phases of human welfare in those communities where
the general life and thinking of the people are related to matters
which pertain to material natural resources."
This definition is inadequate from the administrative point of view in
that it would exclude the small manufacturing community, the
educational center, the summer and winter resort communities, and
similar specialized groups where population is small. The problems of
these small communities not directly related to material natural
resources have many characteristics in common with those included in
the above definition. Size of community has much to do with the type
of problem presented; and the one who understands the problems of the
agricultural village is probably better able to deal with the problems
of the villages of the type mentioned than is the one trained for
service in a metropolitan center.
The term "church" is here used in the sense of including all religious
forces in rural life. The Sunday School Association, the Christian
Associations, Church Federations, and other groups allied to the
church are included in the general term.
THE MANIFOLD FUNCTIONS OF THE CHURCH
The church is the only agency in existence that is concerned with man
in all his relationships. It is concerned with keeping alive in human
consciousness the existence of a Divine Being and of man's
relationship to that Being. It is the only agency that proceeds on the
theory of the immortality of the human soul and that has a program of
preparing the soul for a life after death. In common with other
agencies the church is concerned with the individual life of man on
this earth and endeavors to lead human beings to that course of life
which will result in the maximum of personal spiritual welfare. And in
common with other agencies it is concerned with man in his relations
to others and to his material environment because these relationships
have a vital effect on his spiritual life.
A full analysis of the functions of the church would include a
discussion of those features of church work which have to do with
man's relation to God and to an immortal existence. But in a
discussion of the church in relation to the community it is not
necessary to consider man's relation to God nor to a future life
except in so far as beliefs in such relationships influence his
personal welfare on this earth or his relationships to his fellow man.
Thus this discussion falls in the field of sociology rather than in
the field of theology or psychology. A casual observation of the
forces at work in human relationships, especially in the smaller
communities, leads quickly to the conclusion that beliefs both with
reference to God and to a future life have a vital effect on social
conduct. But it is the effect instead of the truth of beliefs that is
the subject matter to be considered.
Having thus defined the field of our discussion both as to subject
matter and as to the phase of the interests of the church to be
considered, it is next in order to note the size of the task.
According to the census of 1920, 50,866,899 people in the United
States lived in rural territory, that is, in communities of less than
2,500 population. This was 48.1 per cent of the total. For the first
time in the history of the country the records showed a larger
proportion of the total population living in urban centers than in
villages or in the open country. The population in incorporated
villages of less than 2,500 population was 9,864,196, or 9.3 per cent
of the total, while that in unincorporated or open country communities
was 41,002,703 or 38.8 per cent, as compared with 8.8 per cent and
44.8 per cent respectively in 1910.
The total rural population increase was but 1,518,986, or 3.1 per
cent. Incorporated village increase was 1,745,371, or 21.5 per cent,
while the unincorporated community population actually decreased
227,355, or .6 per cent.
These figures indicate two conclusions of importance to our
discussion. The first is that the villages of less than 2,500
inhabitants are sharing with the large centers in the general increase
in population. Their increase proportionately is not so marked as is
that of the extremely large centers, but it is sufficiently marked to
indicate that they offer opportunities that attract more than does the
open country. This village growth must be reckoned with in determining
policies of location of church buildings and the type of local church
program for community service.
The second conclusion is that the open country is still at a
disadvantage so far as its possibilities of supporting a large
population are concerned. Actual depopulation of the open country, the
enlargement of the size of farms, the abandonment of acreage once
under cultivation, which preliminary figures issued by the Census
Bureau indicate, show that not yet is the demand for agricultural
products such as to make a much larger open country population
possible. This fact also points the direction for readjustment of
rural community life.
The data from the religious census of the United States, taken in
1916, while not classified as rural and urban, give hopeful figures as
to the progress of religious institutions in this country. While the
total population of the United States increased during the decade
1910-20, 14.9 per cent, the church membership from 1906-1916 increased
19.6 per cent. The total church membership increase, 6,858,796, was
50.2 per cent of 13,710,842, the increase in total population. These
figures of church membership increase, covering a period before the
European war began to affect this country seriously, indicate that the
general rising ethical standards of American life have had their
reflection in the larger personal as well as financial support of the
religious forces.
While data are not available as to the proportion of rural and urban
population belonging to church, the census gives figures as to the
church membership in communities of over 25,000 population. According
to census estimates, 32.7 per cent of the population lived in cities
of over that population in 1916. The religious census shows that 36.5
per cent of the church membership lived in communities of that size.
Contrary to popular impression, the larger centers actually have a
larger proportionate church membership than do the smaller
communities. The facts show that the problem of advance of the
Christian Church is more of a small-community problem than it is of
the larger centers.
While the proportion of the total population belonging to church
increased from 38.1 per cent in 1906 as compared with the 1910
population to 39.6 per cent in 1916 as compared with the 1920
population, the magnitude of the unfinished task is still almost
staggering. If the proportion for rural America were the same as for
the country as a whole, there would be 20,143,292 people not belonging
to church. Church membership, of course, is not the only criterion of
the influence of the church; nor would all denominations admit that
all the people should belong to church, since some would not accept
children not yet having reached the age of accountability. But in any
case Christian America is not Christian even in church membership.
This does not take into account matters of social and economic
relationships which the spirit of Christianity has not yet penetrated
and by which church members as well as nonmembers are bound.
More than 50,000,000 rural folk rising to a consciousness of their
inherent solidarity and community of interest, and more than
20,000,000 of these not affiliated with any religious organization,
present a challenge for trained leadership unequaled in the history of
the world. Urban interests have grown powerful. Urban life has rapidly
advanced for at least the more favored groups until it has far
outstripped conditions in rural communities that go to make up the
best in modern civilization and culture. Germs have been found in the
"Old Oaken Bucket" in the country, while the scourge of typhoid has
been banished from the city, and the "Church in the Dell" has crumbled
in decay, while the metropolitan pulpit has taken the best leadership
for its own. The country has been unable to compete with the urban
centers for educational, religious, or social leadership because
wealth has accumulated in the cities. Rural population has declined
because the prizes in wealth accumulation were in the cities and
because it was easier to secure those things there that people have
learned to value as most worth while, in good housing, medical
attendance, education, and recreation. While city poets have sung the
praises of country life, many people who have lived in the country and
endured the long hours and little pay from husbandry have, like the
Arab, folded their tents and slipped away; and when once they have
tasted the advantages of urban life, have not returned.
No civilization can be wholesome or permanent so long as any one great
group is permanently handicapped in its struggle for economic or
social welfare. So long as any group is evidently at a disadvantage
the shift of population from the less-favored to the better-favored
groups will continue; that is, unless castes are formed which compel
people to remain permanently in one group or the other. And this does
not happen in modern democratic society. And so long as there is a
continuous shift of population in one direction or another we have
evidence that conditions are such as to induce the shift.
It is the existence of conditions such as these that makes the
challenge for a trained loyal service on the part of those selected to
attend to matters concerned with rural public welfare.
It is the purpose of the following pages to outline briefly some of
the conditions to which the church must give attention if it is to
meet the demand now made upon it by modern rural life. It is not
intended to be a treatise on practical theology in the sense
ordinarily accepted in courses on that subject. Very little attention
will be given to matters of organization or administration of the
local church. It is believed that if only ministers of the gospel can
once attain an adequate grasp of the purposes of religious service,
the matter of method of accomplishing results may be left largely to
the pastors themselves. On the other hand, emphasis upon method, which
seems to be demanded by many ministers instead of knowledge of ends to
be attained, is more than likely to lead to overorganization, or
organization not adapted to objectives. One of the essentials in all
leadership is that of having definite objectives toward which to work,
and it is the purpose of this text to call the attention to objectives
and to organization, both local and general, adapted to the attainment
of objectives rather than the methods of attaining them.