Sociological Analysis 1983, 44, 3:227-242

The Idea of a Christian Sociology:

Some Historical Precedents and
Current Concerns*
David Lyon
llkley College, England

It is argued that some current efforts to relate sociology and theology constitute revivab of earlier
attempts in England and America to make "Christian Sociologies." These latter are briefly described
with reference to some of their leading theorists, ideas, contexts, and influences. Reflection on the
distinctive situations and contributions of such attempts is recommended, focussing particularly on a
comparison of the social carriers, the philosophical bases, and the social and intellectual climates of
past and present endeavours. It is concluded that while today's intellectual treruis and social condi-
tions may lead to renewed attempts to introduce 'Christian perspectives" into social science, that
such efforts must still confront the philosophical issues at the core of the disciplines, especially those
of philosophical anthropology, ethics and the "good society," and epistemology.

The idea of a "Christian sociology," or at least of "Christian perspectives in sociology"

is apparently enjoying a revival (see, for example, Grunlan and Reimer, 1982, Poloma,
1982). Afrer the clashes and collapses of old certainties in the 1970s, renewed efforts are
being made to find a modus vivendi between sociology and Christian commitment. In a
sense, it is hardly surprising that a discipline which has frequently shown antipathy to
religion should provoke attempts to produce a more Christianly sympathetic alterna-
tive. What is surprising-and likely in the long-run to discredit them-is that such at-
tempts should be mobilized in ignorance of historical precedents and continuities. This
paper, by pointing to two of the more important historical efforts to make a "Christian
sociology," suggests some warnings about the limitations of such an enterprise. At the
same time it is argued that new potential for dialogue over the issue exists in the present
intellectual climate.
Eyebrows sometimes rise at the revelations that the most important question for read-
ers of the inaugural issue of the American Joumal of Sociology was said to be its attitude to
"Christian Sociology," or that, in England, a journal claiming devotion to "Christian
Sociology" was published for over twenty years. These were explicit attempts to formu-
late a Christian sociology, simultaneously opposed to the common secularism of their
mainstream counterparts, and yet convinced that the churches' traditional individualist
explanations of social ills in fact required proper structural analysis along sociological
lines. In England Christian sociology was primarily a product of an Anglo-Catholic
Christian-Socialist-inspired intellectual movement, although Free Church contributors
were by no means silent or insignificant. A largely clerical elite discussed and dissemi-
nated their Christian sociology, whose greatest impact was probably in the formulation

*I wish to acknowledge the helpful criticisms of Howard Davis, W.S.F. Pickering and tbe editor and anony-
mous reviewers of Sociological Analysis of an earlier version of this article.

227
228 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

of aspects of the Welfare State ideal of the 1940s. In the United States, on the other
hand, the social-religious movement which provided the Christian Sociology base was
the Social Gospel, whose distinctly sociological concern was ultimately to be transmuted
into the academic sociological mainstream.
Curiously enough, little sense of continuity seems to be felt between those historical
movements and similar present day discussions. Jolted into activity on the one hand by
the sociological questioning of scientific dogma and the rise of movements like critical
theory, and on the other hand by the emergence of liberation theology and rising Chris-
tian confidence (especially in the U.S.A.), various groups have been engaging in socio-
theological dialogue or even, once again, promoting "radical Christian sociology." Either
way, certain old questions are being raised again in a new intellectual and social context;
questions which could both contribute to the reshaping of Christian social sensibilities,
and, to reverse the equation, reactivate a Christian critique within sociology.
One caveat: I shall not be discussing "paradigmatic possibilities" of a Christian sociol-
ogy, not only because of the confusion about and probably inapplicability of the Kuh-
nian notion of "paradigm" here (see Harvey, 1982), but also because the primary purpose
is simply to set the current concerns which cluster round the "Christian sociology" topic
against the historical backdrop. This will, however, raise the question of whether a
"Christian perspective" in sociology might emerge, and whether this could constitute a
"radical intervention" in sociology, analogous to those generated in recent years by
Marxism and feminism.
Christian Sociology: English and American Precedents
Attempts to make a Christian sociology on both sides of the Atlantic grew from a so-
cially-minded Christian feeling of inadequacy to cope with modem industrial capital-
ism. They were, in other words, motivated by precisely the same desire to comprehend
the social world as others who are more commonly regarded as founding fathers of so-
ciology. New forces apparently beyond the control of individual citizens were shaping
their lives. How could authentic humanity be sought in a world increasingly dominated
by mass-production, bureaucracy, new social classes and economic theories?
The crucial questions were certainly not born of detached academic curiosity. In
America, Christian sociology had overtones (but not the content) of the American
Dream, as great faith was placed in human ability for social improvement and the tran-
scending of social evils. In England, on the other hand, Christian sociology often in-
volved a nostalgic backward look at the ideals of medieval Christendom, and an at-
tempt to translate them into terms appropriate for the alleviation of suffering in the bit-
terly depressed 1920s and 1930s. Here again, there are parallels with the motivational
thrust of the classical founding fathers, Marx, Weber, Durkheim et al (see, e.g. Ciddens,
1977:21-25) who also sought a social science related to the perceived social ills of their
day.
There is another sense also in which the Christian sociologists were not unlike their
secular contemporaries, struggling at the same time to define the scope and boundaries
of sociological analysis and theorytheir intentions were alike. Geoffrey Hawthorn has
argued that four major intentions have characterized most attempts to do sociology,
namely, to "account for man's place in the scheme of things" in the post-Enlightenment
 THE IDEA OF A CHRISTL\N SOCIOLOGY 229

world, to decide whether, even if persons are not simply "part of nature," whether society
is, to analyze the connections between particular individuals and particular societies, and,
a fourth intention which cuts across the other three, to do science (1976:255-60). De-
spite the fact that the possibility of realizing the fourth intention does seem to rest logic-
ally on some resolution of the others, mainstream sociology has tended to lean towards
the third and fourth intentionsof scientific, empirical social analysisas if the con-
tested metaphysical difficulties had been decided (see further Lyon, 1983, 1983a). Unfor-
tunately for them, while they recognised these problems, the Christian sociologists gen-
erally followed the mainstream route, without elaborating the implications of their par-
ticular metaphysical commitments, some of which could, ironically, have contributed in
the long run to a genuinely distinctive sociological outlook.
As hinted above, Christian sociologies were also an expression of negative reaction.
Theologically, dissatisfaction was voiced concerning Protestantism's perceived overindi-
vidualistic understanding of human nature and welfare. The American social gospellers
especially, ranged themselves over against revivalist movements which, they said, lim-
ited their concerns to individual salvation. But if this negative reaction was theological,
it was also social. The churches did not seem to have any message for the inadequacies
and inequalities of prevailing social arrangements. Practical reform linked to social ideals
was the goal of social inquiry.
Most Christian sociologies made much of the Kingdom-of-God motif, though in
slightly different ways. The Americans, with some British free-church people, saw the
kingdom as a fresh, immanent and future development. The English Anglo-Catholics,
on the other hand, having a putative age-of-faith to look back to, felt that the good so-
ciety would preserve or revive aspects of medieval Christendom. Of course, others
balked at this utopianism. Albion Small, founding theorist of American sociology, re-
spected Christian sociology but was highly suspicious of its "ideal society" (see below and
Barnes, 1969:785). And R.H. Tawney, who had a deep influence on English Christian
sociology, had no time for a reconstructed medievalism in Britain (Terrill, 1974).
The social criticism of the Christian Sociologists is a reflection of their membership of
social movements. To a certain extent it is plausible to speak of the common roots of
Christian sociology in England and America as being in Christian Socialism. In Eng-
land, the Christian Sociologists wished to prevent revolution, after the failure of Char-
tism, but also to expose the ruling class abdication of responsibility. They were leaders
(though never had control) of the co-operative movement, and aimed in every way to
"socialize Christianity and Christianize society." F.D. Maurice's efforts prefigured Chris-
tian Sociology in England, even though the term was not used until P.E.T. Widdring-
ton, a member of the Church Socialist League (an offshoot of Christian socialism) self-
consciously advocated its development. Several leading sociologists in the U.S.A. were
also affected by Christian Socialism, including Albion Small, Franklin Giddings, and
Benjamin Kidd.
But while there clearly was cross-fertilization between English and American Chris-
tian Socialism (Hopkins, 1940), until we have a definitive comparative study of the dif-
ferent Christian Sociology movements, it is circumspect to treat them separately. To as-
sume that both were more closely associated with Christian Socialism than any other
social carrier is to gloss over significant differences, as well as exceptions. American
230 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Christian Socialists included for example state-socialism advocate Edward Bellamy,

whereas their English counterparts, such as Arthur Penty (Lyon, 1983) were deeply sus-
picious of such centralized schemes.
What is important to notice-and this could well have contemporary significance as
well-the persistence of the idea of Christian sociologies appears to be strongly depen-
dent upon the social base. The notion was carried by specific social movements (which is
partly why isolated examples have slipped from historical purview even sooner than oth-
ers), and the eclipse of the idea of Christian Sociology would appear to be closely related
to the decline of those movements. This will become clear as we take a closer look at the
career of Christian Sociology, first in England, then in the U.S.A.

English Christian Sociology

It is misleading to imagine that English Christian Sociology was linked exclusively
with the Christendom group, an association of Anglo-Catholics which spanned the
three decades from the 1920s to the 1950s. Non-conformists did in fact enjoy a small but
significant role in social-political thought from the late nineteenth to mid-twentieth cen-
tury (see, e.g. Matheson 1893, Garvie, 1930, and Bebbington, 1982). However, because
it was the most prominent exponent of Christian Sociology, for present purposes con-
centration on the Christendom group will suffice. People connected with this group at
one time or another included Dorothy Sayers, T.S. Eliot, Arthur Penty, Vigo Demant,
R.H. Tawney and others whose names are now either forgotten or hardly associated
with "sociology."
While they met at various times for discussion and debate, it was mainly through their
Summer Schools in Christian Sociology, held in Oxford from 1925, their books, and
their periodical, Christendom: A Joumal of Christian Sociology, that the Christendom
group obtained its public hearing. They deliberately intended to reach as wide an audi-
ence as possible, for they had a vision of putting content once more into the notion of a
"Christian England." The group believed, even at that late hour in the laicization pro-
cess in Britain, that the church could act as moral guardian for the shaping of social con-
sciousness, and that the group could provide an intellectual clerisy to guide the develop-
ment of such a social eidos. This notion has clear parallels with Karl Mannheim's ideas,
and helps to explain his willingness, in later life, to be associated with a similar Christian
group himself, despite his personal agnosticism (Mannheim, 1943: ch. VII).
Several interrelated tasks faced the would-be Christian Sociologists as they attempted
to assess British society. They first had to demonstrate the need for serious analysis to
mediate between Christian social concern and social action. Afrer that, decisions had to
be made as to their attitude to other sociology, and thus to the question of normativity,
and whether their own sociology should be concerned primarily with the articulation of
ideals in theoretical form, or in the empirical analysis of concrete social situations.
In 1906 P.E.T. Widdrington issued a call for Christian Sociology as a prerequisite to
the political involvement towards which the Church Socialist League was pressing. Oth-
ers were impatient with efforts such as his which they saw as "armchair socialism," subse-
quently described by historian P. d'Arcy Jones as the "rarefied and philosophical investi-
gations by a donnish and clerical circle" (1968:440). His and others' persistence, how-
 THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN SOCIOLOGY 231

ever, meant that by the 1930s a steady stream of books and articles on Christian Sociol-
ogy had been published (including Demant, 1933, Hudson, 1935, Penty, 1923, Temple,
1942, Reckitt, 1932). It must not be forgotten that at this time sociology was far from be-
ing established as a recognised academic discipline, either in Britain or the U.S.A. The
only consensus among the rag-bag of intellectuals who formed the "Sociological Society"
in London in 1903 was that there could be a "science" of "sociology" (Abrams, 1968:3).
This was a time for the carving-out of the parameters of the discipline.
The Christian Sociologists were aware of what was going on in English sociology gen-
erally, and in fact several of their concerns were close to the survey-and-legislation tradi-
tion established at British sociology's first home, the London School of Economics and
Political Science. Maurice Reckitt, who became the representative figure par excellence of
the Christendom group, hovered between two opinions on where Christian Sociology
stood in relation to other sociologies. Quite sure that good will would not solve the pro-
found crises of the 1920s and 1930s a structural analysis of socio-economic relation-
ships was requiredReckitt was less certain whether social analysis should be normative
(as the term Christian Sociology clearly implied) or "amoral . . . inductive, and empiri-
cal" (1932:76; see also Bocock, 1973).
His hesitation, however, was not shared by the majority of Christendom Group mem-
bers who, with Vigo Demant, would have insisted that "there never has been a purely
descriptive sociology, independent of judgement of what is socially better or worse"
(1931:273). In Demant's work, in fact, the link between normative ideals and empirical
analysis was clearly made:
The discovery of what man is, in himself, in society, as part of nature, of the limits placed upon
men (real or believed) is a factual quest necessary before we can see what measure of violence to
the actual life of man and the structure of human society is demanded by the spiritual and ethi-
cal requirements of the redemptive powers (1931:275, see also 1931a).
While his aim was to produce "objective and dispassionate analysis," this was to take
place within a socially-critical framework. Thus for Demant, sociology could be Chris-
tian
insofar as we undertake it for the purpose of judging in the light of Christian standards the qual-
ity of the behaviour to which the social structure predisposes men and also claim to elucidate
and evaluate the forces which make up that structure in the light of the Christian doctrine of
human nature and the purpose of God (1933:59).

It is hardly surprising, however, in view of such sentiments and of the increasingly em-
piricist proclivities of much British sociology, that Demant's only academic position was
not in sociology, but as professor of Moral Philosophy in Oxford.
Demant was not uninfluenced by the prolific pen of Arthur Penty, whose vision of
Christian Sociology he shared to a considerable extent. Penty was an anti-industrialism
social critic of the Ruskin-Morris variety who believed that Christian Sociology should
break with the merely "empirical attitude to social questions" and relate social analysis to
the true nature of humanity (Lyon 1983). He believed that socialism tended to reduce
human nature to productive relationships rather than emphasizing the spiritual sig-
nificance of human work as vocation. Thus he opposed the Fabians, who, he believed.
232 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
underestimated the degrading effect of factory-labour, and the Marxists, who, though
they were concerned with such issues, placed too much emphasis on the control of the
means of production, and not enough on work-conditions as such.
It was, however, the chronic lack of paid employment, rather than the mere condi-
tions of work, which preoccupied the Christian Sociologists in the 1930s. This issue
most clearly illustrates the tension (noted above in relation to Hawthorn) between em-
pirical analysis and meta-sociological debate within Christian Sociology. The Christen-
dom people were, admittedly, mainly concerned with the latter, but one of their more il-
lustrious spokesmen, William Temple, helped provide the exception. He chaired the
team of investigators which produced the major empirical study Men Without Work (Pil-
grim Trust, 1938), which was begun in 1933. More typical of Christendom thinking was
Temple's influential Christianity and Social Order (1942), which was a plea that social jus-
tice based on Christian principle shoule be enshrined in British social policy.
Had Demant's vision for Christian Sociology been pursued, however, the rift between
the Temple of Men Without Work and the Temple of Christianity and Social Order might
have been bridged in a recognizably sociological fashion. For, to return to previous com-
ments on Demant, he singled out three main foci for Christian sociological analysis and
theory: one. T h e aims and desires of men in society at any particular time," two, "Ele-
ments in the social structure which are not amenable to the immediate will of the indi-
vidual and which to some extent constrain behaviour and outlook (alongside the need
to understand elements in the social structure which are the result of human aims)" and
three, to "Assess the aims and interests in terms of a Christian outlook on life (and this
has a concomitant in social political action)" (1933:60). In this, especially the second
point, we find a patently sociological agenda.
Demant began to spell out what he meant in relation to unemployment, the huge ex-
tent of which, he asserted, was related to economic practice under capitalism. He at-
tacked those who described the Depression merely in terms of "commercial breakdown,"
arguing that it had much deeper roots. He stood with men such as R.H. Tawney, main-
taining from an early date that British unemployment was an involuntary, structural
phenomenon. Moreover, said Demant, economic arrangements under capitalism con-
demn people to regard economic activity as the summun bonum^ which obscured what
was really going on. In essence, by indicating the pervasive hold over public life of cer-
tain economic theories, Demant was pleading for a Christian version of ideology-cri-
tique. People maintain harmful practices even when they may be seen as such, he ar-
gued, continuing "to find conscientious reasons for working (the system) even when it
becomes divorced from true human purposes . . . pride has a trick of blinding itself to
such a divorce" (1933:220; see also Lyon, 1981).
As I mentioned above, if one asked these English Christian Sociologists where they
would obtain their understanding of "true human purposes," they would have pointed
to medieval Christendom. Maurice Reckitt had a vision for an "autochthonous" Chris-
tian Sociology: one which dug for its authentic roots into the notion of the kingdom-of-
God, which was "essentially constitutive of human social order" (1945: chapter 6). The
Christian Sociologists wanted a revival of the "Just Price" doctrine, popularly seen by
them as an antidote to the "alchemy" of big finance, which operated by "transmitting
values in accordance with its own mysterious principles, and demandswhat it has long
 THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN SOCIOLOGY 233

enjoyedthe blind, unquestioning submission of the millions whose precarious fortunes

it dominates" (Reckitt, 1932:389). The Social Dividend (still alive today in Alberta, Gan-
ada, as "Social Gredit") was another idea which was supported in an attempt to combat
depression, along with a "Universal Living Income" (not just a "living vuage"), for which
radical people's bishop Temple argued as early as 1927 (Reckitt, 1932:389).
All this indicates, of course, that the Ghristian Sociologists' notion of sociology was
closely bound up with social policy; they would not have made the modern distinction.
And it was in this area that they probably had their biggest impact; their ideas have
been lost to academic sociology. After the end of the war, the journal began to go down-
hill, and eventually petered out in 1951; meetings had also ceased. The inter-war crisis of
industrial capitalism, which had given Ghristian Sociology its raison d'etre, was, for the
moment, over. And some Ghristian Sociology aims had been realisedthough not in a
manner which would have satisfied all in the creation of the state welfare system. It
was said that Temple's ideas formed "one of the foundation pieces of the welfare state"
(Munby, 1960:157). With the urgency of depression and unemployment past, support
for a radically different social vision waned.
I am not here suggesting that the spirit of Ghristian Sociology was lost, however. Their
concerns were to emerge again in the work of figures such as E.R. Wickham (1957) and
David Sheppard (1974, 1983) whose studies and energies have been directed to issues of
urban mission. There has even been the odd attempt to revive Ghristian Sociology in a
more academic fashion (Storkey, 1979) and there are several examples of academic socio-
logical work which bear the imprint of Ghristian sentiment, but anything like a Ghris-
tian Sociology movement has disappeared.
Ghristian Sociology, as a self-conscious movement, declined after the war because of
the increasingly secular context, the complexity of the issues, and competition from em-
piricist, academic sociology. There was a certain irony in the first reason; the Anglo-
Gatholic movement, which had once lent legitimacy to the Labour Party, and now to
the Welfare State, found itself out in the cold. While it still seemed plausible before the
war to think in terms of a "national church," after the war the church appeared merely
as one more organization within an increasingly secular society. It could be argued,
moreover, that state welfare became more of a symbol of national identity than the
church. Hence it was especially Ghristian social ideas which lost credibility.
But, second, such social ideas also lost credibility because of their apparent lack of re-
alism. Not only was the post-war world more socially-complex within societies, it was
now a world of internationalism; global issues were increasingly seen to have a bearing
on local. Not only were there social-structural limitations on "Ghristianizing society,"
but the issues seemed beyond the grasp of "non-experts." E.R. Norman expresses relief
that Ghristian Sociology bowed out after the war. He maintains they had to, "because
Ghristian social critics had themselves seen the need for a more realistic approach to the
hard realities of the world of the mid-century" (Norman, 1976:372). On the one hand,
the socio-economic problems of depression and now reconstruction left the simplism of
Ghristian Sociology a long way behind. On the other, a renewed emphasis appeared in
the writings of Temple, Reckitt, and Demant: Original Sin. Demant in particular be-
moaned the "Utopian idealism in social ethics which leaves all real problems outside it"
(Demant, 1947:148). He was referring to the use of such ideals as "fellowship, service, sac-
234 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
rifice" which had characterised earlier talk of Ghristian Sociologists. He believed they
had underplayed the effects of sin on human social relationships, and overplayed the
ability of ordinary society to close the gap between ideals and practice.
It was not only that a sub-cultural social movement declined, moreover, or that its
ideas were seen to have lacked realism. Alternatives had also appeared. Social eidos,
once provided by religion and theology in particular, now had surrogates originating in
or fueled by the burgeoning secular disciplines of sociology and psychology. Gompeti-
tion became overwhelming. Ghristian Sociology had not bothered much with questions
of epistemology or sociological method. The empiricism which came to dominate aca-
demic sociology vuas concerned with method, but it eschewed "metaphysical" issues. So
there was a basic incompatibility of definition.
On the one hand, sociology was conceived as social analysis closely yoked to a social
philosophy and to socio-economic action. On the other, sociology was held to be empir-
ical social analysis detached from human interests. It was, supposedly, the end of ideol-
ogy. Ghristian sociology was simply not plausible in such a climate. Mannheim, one of
the only major sociologists living in Britain who was sympathetic to the former notion,
was not the mentor of the new sociological generation. Ghristian Sociology had left the
methodological and conceptual issues to others. The new sociology which concerned it-
self above all with methods and data was bound to leave any "ideological" tag off its
product. "Ghristian" and "sociology" came to have the appearance of incompatible
terms.
American Ghristian Sociology
American Ghristian Sociology, like that in Britain, was primarily connected with a
movementthe Social Gospelwith which it was sometimes synonymous. As suggested
above, the two movements also shared a common heritage in Ghristian Socialism, al-
though this was far more significant in the English context. As in Britain, one might
complain that the term Ghristian Sociology was used rather loosely, although in neither
case must this be used as an excuse for ignoring their real contributions to the intellec-
tual and social climate of their day. For in the United States, sociology was also emerg-
ing as a grab-bag of concerns, differentiating itself from economics, and from the indi-
vidualism of the American Social Science Association (Haskell, 1977). It did not yet
have a coherent identity of its own. And, here is the major difference between the pro-
ponents of Ghristian Sociology in the U.S.A. and England: the Ghristian Sociology
movement had a major role in the institutionalisation of American Sociology, helping
to provide its early identity.
To begin, as I did with the discussion of the English material, it is helpful to examine
the social carrier with which American Ghristian Sociology was associated. The Social
Gospel movement was an amorphous grouping of church leaders to promote social re-
form around the turn of the century. Nevertheless, it had its centers of influence, and
these were also, by definition, centers for the propagation of Ghristian Sociology. Par-
ticularly important was Ghautauqua, for many years a meeting place for clergy, social re-
formers, and social scientists, where the American Institute for Ghristian Sociology
(A.I.S.G.) was founded in 1893 (Oberschall, 1972:200). Their notion of "applied Ghris-
tianity" was extremely popular, and led many seminaries, and, in time, universities, to
 THE IDEA OF A CHRISTL\N SOCIOLOGY 235

adopt sociological studies as part of the curriculum. The A.I.S.C. also operated a sum-
mer school of Christian Sociology at Oberlin, which attracted leading speakers such as
Jane Addams and Samuel Compers.
Christian sociology within the universities also had a strong foothold for a time, espe-
cially at Chicago. Anthony Oberschall cogently argues that the reason for this was that
the wide resource base and competitive nature of the rapidly expanding higher educa-
tion system in the U.S.A. was exploited by influential and organised groups who saw so-
ciology as being in their interests. The reason why Christian Sociology emerged as a con-
tender was because many clergy, losing their social place in industrializing America,
were seeking new outlets for legitimate intellectual activity. Sociology provided an ideal
meeting-place for Christianity and Reformism (Oberschall, 1972:188-203). As Richard
Hofstadter argues, such Christian Sociological concerns may best be seen as an "attempt
to restore through secular leadership some of the spiritual influence and authority and
social prestige that clergymen had lost" (Hofstadter 1955:152).
Because early American Sociology was so deeply infused with Christian Sociology, it
also meant that the new journals carried large numbers of Social Gospel articles. Their
editors were sympathetic to the movement, as may be seen not only in the better known
case of Albion Small and the American Joumal of Sociologywhich serialized Shailer Mat-
thews' articles on "Christian Sociology" between 1895-6but also later on in Sodology
and Sodal Research and Sodal Forces. Thus the American Christian Sociologists did not
need to launch separate journals, but found the burgeoning social science periodicals
ready at hand. All in all it was a very handy "alliance for progress" (as Myer Reed calls it)
in which religionists of the Social Cospel stamp and social scientists both wishing to
promote social reformfound the "gates of science" open to them. (1981:36).
The general spirit of Christian Sociology in America is well captured in this quote
from Charles EUwood, sociology professor at the University of Missouri, and a founder
of American sociology: "just as there must be a synthesis of practical politics and social
science, so there must be a synthesis of practical religion and social science." (EUwood,
1923:3) More specifically, Wilbur Crafts (1895) described the task of Practical Christian
Sodology as "the study of society from a Christian viewpoint with a view to its Christian-
ization."
Theologically, American Christian Sociologists were also reacting against what they
saw as the excessive individualism of American culture and Christianity, with its con-
comitant sacred/secular dualist and other worldly mentality. Like their English counter-
parts, they argued for a more structural understanding of modern society, impatient
with others who still appeared to see individuals as being fully responsible for their social
and economic condition. A Christian-inspired social science was the answer, and this, it
was argued, would also put the church back on the map. The church could become a
"constructive force" by engaging in social investigation linked to social reform.
Although it is frequently assumed that the Social Cospel movement was thoroughly
liberal, theologically, this judgement is not entirely sound. While it is true that, as Reed
points out, the supernatural element of Christian teaching was downplayed by men like
Matthewsand this aided the detente with secular sociologists who had no truck with
Christian sociologyothers maintained a distinctively Christian stance in the midst of
the dominant currents which reduced Christianity to social ethics. Crafts himself ap-
236 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

provingly quoted conservative theologian A.A. Hodge to the effect that "the individual
is saved by the cross of Ghrist, but society is saved by his crown." (1895:23) Grafts main-
tained a belief in personal regeneration as well as social liberation. Matthews, on the
other hand, exuded pure progressivist optimism in declaring that "social regeneration"
was the "moral transformation of humanity's sinful but potentially noble nature"
(1897:209).
It was once again a kingdom-of-God vision which inspired and offered a model for the
Ghristian sociologists. Their concern for moral regeneration, and their notion of society
as an interdependent organism, met here. As Graham Morgan neatly puts it: "As sociol-
ogists they approach society from an organic conception of its workings: as men of God
they translate their environmental organicism into moralistic suggestions for the al-
leviation of societal ills" (1969:48). Of course, this was a different kind of kingdom-vision
from that which provided the motif for English Ghristian Sociology. The former
stressed the biblical framework - above all the so-called "social teachings of
Jesus"-whereas the latter leaned rather on the prior interpretations of those teachings
enshrined in medieval Ghristendom.
Another difference between the two Ghristian Sociologies was this. The English
Ghristendom Group mainly narrowed their interests down to a concern over unemploy-
ment and depression. The American vision, on the other hand, was diffusely related to
a number of social issuesespecially poverty in urban areas, and to what might be called
"social work" concerns, rather than social policy. Indeed, Louis Wallis, in his AJS articles
on "Biblical Sociology," warned against the identification of the church with economic
and social policy as such. He was worried lest the church be "converted into a political
party," sounding a warning note about Ghristian Sociology in general (not to mention a
Ghristendom-type in particular!):
Any proposal that seeks to turn the church away from its function as a moral and spiritual gen-
erator of energy, looks back to troubled times when church and state were connected, and re-
ligious questions were economic and political issues (1911:350).
But to say that the American Ghristian Sociologists had no focal issue would not be
quite accurate. Most were united in their opposition to the "Gospel of Wealth," which
seemed to be a travesty of the "Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Man" which
(with the accent on the latter) was the Social Gospel slogan. Matthews' position was
that Jesus was "the economic philosopher who seeks properly to relate all economic de-
sires and efforts to those other desires and strivings which together constitute life" (Mat-
thews, 1897:43). Albion Small, whose grasp of economics and sociological sophistication
was considerably greater, made it his very rationale for doing sociology:
I am spending my life in the study of sociology because 1 believeand 1 see more and more rea-
son for my belief the longer I study- that the social system in which we live and move and have
our being is so bad that nobody can tell the full measure of its iniquity . . . (we live) in the thralls
of the most relentless system of economic oligarchy that this world has known (1899).

Small lived up to this aspiration.

Although Small began his career in theology, it was through a study of economics
that he joined the quest of a "science of society" in sociology. He himself was influenced
 THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN SOCIOLOGY 237
by, and sympathetic to, social gospel concerns, and he was a Christian Socialist for a
time. Small played a key role in the promotion of sociology as a university discipline in
the first part of the twentieth century, which meant that he had to walk a tightrope be-
tween "Christian" and "scientific" interests. This is seen in his editorial in the first issue
of the American Joumal of Sociology:
To many readers the most important question about the conduct of the Joumal will be with ref-
erence to its attitude to 'Christian sociology.'The answer is, in a word, toward Christian sociol-
ogy sincerely deferential, towards alleged 'Christian sociologists' severely suspicious (1895:15).
Small never allowed his conception of sociology to be cut off from ethics. Indeed, one of
his most famous books Bettueen Eras: Erom Capitalism to Democracy (1913) has been
said to be in a class with Veblen and Tawney (Barnes, 1969:775). But while he believed
that sociology's aim is social betterment, he also held to the importance of sociological
method, something which was not always high on Social Gospellers' priorities. There is
little indication, however, that he wished directly to infuse his understanding of socio-
logical technique with Christian principles.
The same might be said for Charles Ellwood, his student, who clung tenaciously to
the Christian Sociology idea long afrer academic sociology had been established in
American universities. Like Arthur Penty in England, Ellwood was deeply opposed to
what he saw as "materialism" in science; humanitarian science and religion could not
but be friends. And yet when it came to the knotty issues of method and theory u^ithin
sociology, Ellwood sounded like the harbinger of American academic sociology's regular
stance:
The independence of ethics from sociology as a science, as in the case of all the other social sci-
ences, is a matter of methodological expediency, of the division of labour, not of difference of
subject matter.
And yet, he went on,
the various social sciences cannot explain what is . . . in human society without showing, at
least by implication . . . what ought to be. (1908:324)
As with English Christian Sociology however, its American counterpart failed to make
a systematic investigation of the connections between "what ought to be" and "what is,"
or between a Christian view of humanness and sociological theorizing. Christian sociol-
ogy, although it had played an important mediating role between the Social Gospel and
the establishment of American sociology, did not survive as a distinct entity. As a
branch of theology, sociology continued to be taught in seminaries, and as a secular aca-
demic discipline, it burgeoned in the colleges from the 1940s onwards. Apart from spo-
radic forays into print, however (e.g. Heddendorf, 1972), the idea of a Christian sociol-
ogy remained virtually dormant until the later 1970s.
Two reasons for its demise are prominent. One, American Christian Sociology lacked
a social carrier after the decline of the Social Gospel movement. Groups like the "Insti-
tute for Christian Sociology" had simply gone the way of so many associations which
form the penumbra of a rising intellectual star like sociology. Christian sociology, as the
instrument of a larger cause, the Social Gospel, had the unintended consequence of aid-
238 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
ing the institutionalisation of academic sociology proper. But it had no continuing life of
its own, once sociology was established as a university discipline.
This is the second reason for its demise, that academic sociology was established (by
"practical Gomtists," Friedrichs, 1970:231) as a decidedly secular discipline. The very
logic of sociology was seen to be naturalistic, and often even opposed to Ghristian faith.
Especially in the U.S.A. sociology aped the supposed empiricist basis of "natural"
science, with the result that, even if Ghristian sociology had still had its advocates, they
would have been excluded by the growing positivist majority. Academic sociology in the
U.S.A. could not allow "religion" and "science" to cohabit-it seemed almost un-
constitutional. Even today, of course, many wish to retain such distinctions, maintain-
ing that sociology and religion are implacably separate (Gavanaugh, 1982).

Current Goncems
Although the idea of a Ghristian sociology was eclipsed from the 1940s on, something
like it is being revived in the present day. Some refer to "Ghristian sociological perspec-
tives," others to "Ghristian sociology," and others, more detachedly, to a "sociol-
ogy/theology dialogue." This is related, necessarily, to real social conditions: the grow-
ing strength of churches, especially in the U.S.A., and rising challenges such as "third
world" poverty and "first world" unemployment. Also, other streams such as the Ghris-
tian-Marxist encounter and "Liberation theology" have fed their concerns into this one,
the points of confluence often being key concepts, such as "structural evil."
What then might a reminder of historical precedents offer to such contemporary ef-
forts to reopen some of the same debates? The first answer is contained embryonically in
the question. There is perennial value in knowing what has already been said on a given
topic. It is foolish to allow short-term memory to be the excuse for failing to tap re-
sources available in the work of antecedent thinkers and social analysis. "Theological"
constructs such as "sin" and "evil," while they have a palpable relevance to social realities
such as racism or Kampuchea, have yet to have their connection with social analysis
clearly demonstrated. Stanford Lyman, exploring the topic in the 1970s (Lyman, 1978)
is right to glance back to Edward Ross's Sin ard Society (1907) as a precedent to his work.
Again, those concerned to explore the issue of individual-and-society could do worse
than to make at least passing reference to someone like V.A. Demant. He argued, way
back in 1931, that the false dichotomy between individualism (he cites Hobbes, Spencer
and Bucher) and "communism" (Maine, Engels and Durkheim) lies in a failure to grasp
social truths originating in Ghristian revelation (1931:176-7). One need not necessarily
agree with such theorists, but their efforts to investigate the issues repays study.
A second aspect of the contemporary relevance of the earlier Ghristian sociologists re-
lates to the social base of their movements. It would appear that a social "carrier" was vi-
tal to their impact. While, presumably, Ghristian theorists will be willing to be "voices in
the wilderness" it is unlikely that they will receive even the customary derision accorded
to prophets unless they have some kind of organizational base. In the U.S.A. the
"Ghristian Sociological Society" boasts a fast-growing membership, and could potentially
influence the mainstream with informed Ghristian sociological reflection and analysis.
Other groups, related to the Ghristian GoUeges Goalition, or to the Gatholic Universi-
ties, could also make a contribution. In England the symposia held in Oxford in 1978
 THE IDEA OF A CHRISTL\N SOCIOLOGY 239
and 1979, which produced the (somewhat esoteric) Sociology and Theology book (Martin,
1980) is evidence of a potential base, as is the decade-old "Ilkley group" of Ghristians in
sociology, which meets twice yearly in London.
Although no perceptible dent in mainstream academic social science has yet been
made by these groups, it is possible that social conditions might themselves provide the
opportunity for such an impact. After all, it was the bankruptcy of the American Dream
and the harsh social realities of 1920s and 1930s depression which opened the door to ef-
forts at Ghristian social analysis once before. In Britain, for example, there is the chance
that "poverty" could provide the focus for at least fruitful "socio-theological dialogue,"
given the existence of explicity Ghristian-based social analysis such as that of Robert
Holman (1978) alongside Anglican Bishop Sheppard's Bias to the Poor (Sheppard, 1983),
which is a theological expose from the perspective of wrongful church complicity in a
poverty-producing system. It was issue-oriented social thinking which had most impact
in the past; the same could be true again.
In North America a variety of contributions is in evidence, some of which could possi-
bly spur furthur Ghristian sociological reflection. They include Gregory Baum's efforts
at relating liberative sociologies and theologies, (1975) George Hillery's attempts to let
Ghristian ideas penetrate theorizing (1981), and the uneven collection edited by Gharles
De Santo, Galvin Redekop and William L. Smith-Hinds (1980) as well as work already
mentioned by Poloma (1983) and Grunlan and Reimer (1982) and the writings of Paul
Hanley Furfey, David Moberg, and others.
A third comment about the relation of the past and present efforts at Ghristianizing
sociology has to do with intellectual climates. The fate of both American and Ehglish ef-
forts at Ghristian sociology was bound up with the institutionalisation of academic soci-
ology, from which they are ideologically estranged. While positivism, naturalism and em-
piricism were the order of the day, there was little space for "Ghristian sociology." Any
group or individual attempting to get a hearing for similar ideas today meets with similar
professional resistance. Moreover, in the struggle to get ideas accepted, a certain degree
of "cooling out" of any radical perspective is likely to occur as agreements are discovered
at the empirical and theoretical level, and as academic convention is observed.
But one major shift has occured since the mid-century, which could bode well for
those wishing to promote Ghristian social understanding in the analytical realm. I refer
to the widespread breakdown of empiricism as an adequate base for social theory and
analysis. Although "post-empiricism" is a negatively-defined term at present, the trends
connected with it signal a decisive change of direction within social science (Tudor,
1982). The importance of valuing, and of some conception of the "good society" is again
being recognised in sociology, not least since the advent of "critical theory." As An-
thony Giddens remarks, "instead of leaving aside problems of what the 'good society'
might look like, it is today more necessary than ever to confront them directly." (Gid-
dens, 1981:248). While many may be glad of his qualification that this need not relapse
into utopianism if it is related to analysis of "actually existing" societies, the point is well
taken.
As sociologists grapple with the issues of valuing within the very logic of social ex-
planation (e.g. Thomas, 1979) a strategic door is opened for socio-theological dialogue.
This may in time be related to the contemporary recession-induced calls for "relevance"
240 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
in social science, and the tendency to erode old boundaries between the disciplines. The
revival of "political economy" for instance, may mean greater freedom for Christian as
well as Marxist penetration in social science. In time past, articulation of Christian ideas
such as the very important "kingdom-of-God" motif was insufficiently focussed. Unless
previous efforts can be bettered, Christian vagueness at this level will probably prove fa-
tal once again.
A fourth and last observation on Christian sociological concerns as a revival, rather
than a novel departure, relates to the philosophical groundwork. It is one thing for reli-
gious concern to be manifest over poverty or unemployment, quite another, as earlier
analysts discovered, to translate this into distinctively Christian social science. To be
credible, any effort at doing social analysis and theory must confront what Hawthorn
describes as the "intentions" of sociology. These are problems at the core of the philoso-
phy of social science, concerning the relationships between "nature" and "humanity,"
"individual" and "society," "facts" and "values," and so on (Hawthorn, 1976). I have al-
ready commented upon some of these issues above, but can now add that, given the cur-
rent intellectual and cultural climateespecially perhaps in the U.S.A. opportunity for
dialogue at this level could well increase.
The hoUowness of empiricism, the perplexing plurality of perspectives, the urgency of
contemporary social problems, all catalyse the quest for an outlook which offers authen-
tically "human" alternatives. As in Demant's and Reckitt's day, philosophies of social sci-
ence incompatible with Christian thought abound. (One thinks, for example, of the ex-
plicity post-Christian philosophical anthropology of Michel Foucault and Louis Althus-
ser.) Attacking these issues is no simple task. By and large, it seems that the urgency of
the analytical concerns of earlier Christian sociologists blinded them to the need for de-
veloping an adequate philosophical base for their endeavours. Today, however, tools ex-
ist which could at least provide a foil for renewed Christian activity in this area. (Some,
for example, might cite the work of Bernard Lonergan 1977, others, Hermann Dooye-
weerd, 1954, or Mary Hesse, 1980.) Epistemological, anthropological, and ethical issues
may not lightly be evaded.
Conclusion
If nothing else, history teaches us that the idea of Christian sociology is not such a
new thing after all. What we are witnessing today is in part a revival of previous efforts.
The problems encountered in the present are likely to be similar to those facing past gen-
erations of would-be Christian sociologists. Recognition of this should temper current
concerns, and could contribute to their realism.
Margaret Poloma recently expressed the hope that a Christian perspective would play
"a role similar to black and feminist sociology" (Poloma, 1982:106). Such a radical inter-
vention is unlikely, however, unless the lessons of the past are learned. Christian sociol-
ogy, or to use her more felicitous term, Christian perspectives in sociology, require social
carriers and institutional or organizational bases even if of the most rudimentary kind.
Moreover, as with black and feminist sociologies, their relevance to explaining features
of the modern social world must be made apparent. This is why, as with earlier Chris-
tian sociology, it may be well to focus on specific topics, such as unemployment or pov-
erty. The quest to understand the real social world is surely fundamental to the sociolog-
ical task.
 THE IDEA OF A CHRISTIAN SOCIOLOGY 241
It has been argued, however, that the emergence of post-empiricism as an alternative
philosophy of social science to the previous orthodox consensus, could potentially pro-
vide new opportunities for the articulation of such "Christian perspectives." The radical
questioning of the utility of old distinctions such as that between "facts and values" may
offer space for the development of perspectives of an overtly religious kind. For this to be
credible, though, close attention must be given to that cluster of issues which is ever at
the core of social analysis and theory, identified above by Geoffrey Hawthorn. They
comprise the unavoidably philosophical issues of the relation of humanity and nature,
individual and society, and of acceptable modes of theorizing such relationships in con-
crete social situations and in the light of the desired "good society." Many earlier Chris-
tian sociologists floundered or funked over these questions, leaving them by default to
others operating without the benefit of a Christian foundation. Whether today's
putative penetration of Christian perspective of social science will fare any better re-
mains to be seen.

REFERENCES
Abrams, Phillip. 1968. TKe Origins of British Sociology: 1834-1914. University of Chicago Press.
Baum Gregory. 1975. Reiigion and Alienation: A Theological Reading of Sociology. New York: Paulist Press.
Barnes, H.E. 1969. An Introduction to the History of Sociology. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Bebbington, David. 1982. The Nonconformist ConscieiKe: Chapel and Politics 1870-1914. Winchester, MA:
Allen &L Unwin.
Bocock, Robert. 1973. "Anglo-Catholic Socialism: a Study of a Protest Movement Within a Church." Social
Compass (XX, 1).
Cavanaugh, Michael. 1982. Tagan and Christian: Sociological Euhemerism versus American Sociology of
Religion." Sociolo^cal Analysis 43(2): 109-129.
Crafts, Wilbur. 1895. Practical Christian Sociology. New York: Funk and Wagnalls.
Demant, Vigo A. 1931. T h e Doctrine of Creation." Christendom (4).
. 1931a. T h e Philosophic Basis of Christian Sociology." Christerulom (1).
. 1933. God, Man, and Society: An Introduction to Christian Sociology. London: S.C.M. Press.
. 1947. Theology and Society. London. S.C.M. Press.
De Santo, Charles, et al. eds. 1980. A Reader in Sociology: Christian Perspectives. Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.
Dooyeweerd, Hermann. 1957. A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, (3 vols). Nutley, N.J: Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co.
Ellwood, Charles A. 1908. "Sociology, Its Problems and Relations." American Joumal of Sociology (13):300-348.
. 1923. Christianity and Social Science. New York: MacMillan.
Friedrichs, Robert. 1970. A Sociology of Sociology. Glencoe: Free Press.
Garvie, Alfred. 1930. The Christian Ideal for Human Society. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
Giddens, Anthony. 1977. Studies in Social and Political Theory. New York: Basic Books.
. 1981. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grunlan, Stephen, and Reimer, Milton, eds. 1982. Christian Perspectives on Sociology. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.
Harvey, Lee. 1982. "Use and Abuse of Kuhnian Paradigms in the Sociology of Knowledge." Sociology.

Haskell, Thomas A. 1977. The Emergence of Professional Social Science. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Hawthorn, Geofifrey. 1976. Enlightenment and Despair: A History of Sociology. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Heddendorf, Russell. 1972. "Some Presuppositons of a Christian Sociology." Joumal of the American Scien-
tific Affiliation (September): 110-117.
Hesse, Mary. 1980. Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Bloomington: University of
Indiana Press.
Hillery, George. 1981. A Research Odyssey: Developing arui Testing a Community Theory. New Brunswick, N.J:
Transaction.
242 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Hofstadter, Richard. 1955. The Age of Reform. New York: Vintage Books.
Holman, Robert. 1978. Poverty: Explanations of Social Deprivation. London: Martin Robertson.
Hopkins, Charles Howard. 1940. The Rise of the Social Gospel in American Protestantism. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Jones, P. d'Arcy. 1968. The Christian Socialist Revival. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Lonergan, Bernard. 1977. Insight. New York: Harper and Row.
Lyman, Stanford. 1978. The Seven Deadly Sins. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Lyon, David. 1981. "A Critical Sociology of Implicit Religion: Inter-War Christian Sociology versus Capi-
talist Idolatry." Paper read at FVth consultation on Implicit Religion, Denton, May.
. 1982. "Sociology and Humanness: The Action-Structure in Secular and Christian Thought." Paper
read at Midwest Sociological Society, Des Moines, April.
. 1983. "Arthur Penty's Post-Industrial Utopia." World Future Society Bulletin (XVU, 1 Oct.):7-14.
. 1983b. "Valuing in Social Theory: Postempiricism and Christian Responses." Christian Scholar's
Review (Xn, 4).
-. 1983. (forthcoming) Sociology and the Human Image. Inter-Varsity Press: Downers Grove.
Mannheim, Karl. 1943. A Diagnosis of Our Time. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Martin, David et al. 1980. Sociology and Theology: Alliance and Conflict. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Matheson, Scott. 1893. The Church and Social Problems. London: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier.
Matthews, Shailer. 1897. The Social Teachings of Jesus: An Essay in Christian Sociology. London and New York:
Macmillan.
Morgan, Graham. 1969. T h e Development of Sociology and the Social Gospel in America." Sociological
Analysis 30(l):42-53.
Munby, Denys. 1960. God and the Rich Society. London: Oxford University Press.
Norman, E. R. 1976. Church and Society in England 1770-1970. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Oberschall, Anthony, ed. 1972. The Establishment of Empirical Sociology. New York: Harper and Row.
Penty, Arthur. 1923. Towards a Christian Sociology. Allen &. Unwin: London.
Poloma, Margaret. 1982. Toward a Christian Sociological Perspective: Religious Values, Theory and
Methodology." Sociological Analysis. 43(2):95-108
Reckitt, Maurice. 1932. Faith and Society. London: Longmans.
. 1945. The Prospect for Christendom. London: Faber.
Reed, Myer, S. 1981. "An Alliance for Progress: The Early Years of the Sociology of Religion in the United
States." Sociological Analysis 42(l):27-46.
Ross, Edward. 1907. Sin and Society. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin.
Sheppard, David. 1974. Built as a City. London: Hodder &. Stoughton.
. 1983. Bias to the Poor. London: Hodder &. Stoughton.
Small, Albion. 1895. "Editorial." American Joumal of Sociology 1(1).
. 1899. Newspaper report of speech, unnumbered, untitled. University of Chicago Albion Small
Arcbive.
Storkey, Alan. 1979. A Christian Social Perspective. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
Temple, William et al. 1938. Men Without Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Temple, William. 1942. Christianity and Social Order. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Terrill, Ross. 1974. R. H. Tawney and his Times: Socialism as Fellowship. London: Andre Deutsch.
Thomas, David. 1980. Naturalism and Social Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tudor, Andrew. 1982. Beyond Empiricism. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wallis, Louis. 1911. "Biblical Sociology". Am^ncan Joumal of Sociology. (17):329-50.
Wickbam, E.R. 1957. Church and People in an Industrial City. London: Butterworth.