Churches, Revolutions, and Empires (1789-1914): Interview with Ian Shaw

Interview by Matthew Claridge–

Today, Credo is pleased to introduce Ian J. Shaw and his new book entitled Churches, Revolutions, and Empires (1789-1914). Dr. Shaw is currently the Director of the Langham Scholarship programme in the UK. As one can see from the tile and the time span covered, Dr. Shaw has assumed the daunting task of summarizing this volatile and crucial period in church history. For the church in the 21st century, I cannot think of a more informative and comphrensive introduction to the churches of the 19th century.

I believe you have made a strong case that the period covered in your book, 1789-1914, represents a epoch of revolutionary change in the church’s two thousand year history. As such, do you think this period should receive equal if not more attention as is given to the Reformation period in evangelical centers of higher learning?

 Yes, alongside a thorough grounding in the Reformation period, those preparing for Christian ministry should understand the 1789-1914 period equally well. 

The Reformation was clearly foundational to the formulation and articulation of the theology that lay at the heart of evangelicalism. Between 1789 and 1914 the work of the Reformers then sustained severe theological challenges, and the responses to those challenges (sometimes successful, sometimes less so) shaped the church for much of the twentieth century. The period also brought profound social changes, the legacy of which the church still struggles to come to terms with. The beginnings of the extraordinary global expansion of Christianity, which became such a feature of the twentieth century, also proved equally revolutionary and need to be understood by evangelicals training for ministry in today’s world. 

In the popular imagination, Christian mission is often stained by its connection with imperialism and its record of cultural and economic exploitation. Is this a fair association?

 There were clearly some serious mistakes made in the nineteenth century missionary movement, where some became apologists for, and agents of, colonialism. Yet others saw the spread of colonial influence from the West as God’s providential opening of a door for global mission. As chapters 9 and 13 show, some enlightened advocates of mission appealed to the conscience of the imperial authorities, and called for wise rule, or challenged inappropriate actions. By bringing access to literacy, and rendering spoken languages into modern form, much local culture was preserved, and the seeds sown for future development potential. Churches, Revolutions and Empires explores both sides of this complex story.

Although I had seen the film Amazing Grace, I was genuinely shocked at how extensively the church was involved throughout the 19^th century in social causes, both moral and practical. It continues to be a hotly debated topic in Evangelicalism over how we should integrate social justice with gospel proclamation. Any lessons from our 19^th century forbearers?

 For much of the nineteenth century evangelicals were able to retain a healthy balance between evangelism and social concern. As several chapters in the book demonstrate, it was a natural outflow of their compassion for society as a whole, including those who did not know Christ. Evangelicals were prepared to live and work where the need was the greatest. As with the medical missionary movement, they hoped for the double cure of the soul and the body, and this did not lead to a watering down of the gospel. Only later in the century did this balance begin to be lost, with social concern becoming associated with a social gospel shaped by liberal theology. However, a number of examples in the book show how it was possible to be absolutely committed to evangelism and a desire for conversion, whilst also being moved to compassionate social action for those in great need.

The triumph of Darwin was not necessarily a foregone conclusion. How was it that Darwin’s theory finally gained the ascendancy in the scientific community?

 Many of those who promoted Darwinism did so from a strongly anti-religious stance, for which they were determined apologists. Part of their agenda was to undermine deeply held Christian views on the origin and nature of creation, although most retained an admiration for the moral and ethical teaching of Christianity. The way they presented their case in the popular media was an important part of their growing influence – as is shown in the way that the outcome of the famous Wilberforce – Huxley debate (see chapter ten) as portrayed. As a result, those committed to a Creationist position found themselves increasingly excluded from leading scientific positions, making it difficult for them to offer a sustained challenge to the growing acceptance of Darwinism.  

In some quarters of evangelical or Reformed thought, “voluntarism” has created a consumer-minded church with a watered-down theology. Yet voluntarism appears to have been quite a dynamic force in the resilience and spread of the church during the 19^th century. Is that a fair assessment?

 As the first chapter of Churches, Revolutions and Empires shows, the strength of evangelicalism in the United States in the early nineteenth century owed much to the voluntarist approach. Free of any association with an ‘Established’ church, evangelicalism was able to dynamically adapt its structures to the opportunities that the new nation presented. The strength of Nonconformity in Britain was similarly notable, with most Nonconformists committed to a strongly evangelical theology, although the evangelical tradition was also important to many Anglicans. Most of the missionary movement was also organized on voluntarist lines, and vast sums of money and large numbers of recruits, were mobilized.

I have often placed the Enlightenment and biblical Christianity in two radically opposing camps. Yet it became clear as I read your book that, despite the obvious antagonisms, the Enlightenment did lend some of its values to the social priorities of the church.  Could you tease out for our readers some of these cross-winds of influence?

 The historian David Bebbington has stressed the continuities between the Enlightenment and evangelicalism. It must be remembered that the Enlightenment grew notably out of Europe’s rich Reformation heritage. Evangelicals stressed the value of education and the dignity of the individual. Through their emphasis on education (shared with other enlightenment thinkers) evangelicals sought to open the capacities of the mind to read the Bible, and understand the truths of Christian teaching. The outflow was seen in the promotion of day schools, Sunday schools, and approaches to mission, as chapter seven especially shows. The Christian faith was to be preached ‘reasonably,’ appealing to the rational faculties of hearers. The importance of the individual’s rights and individual conscience was shared by both evangelicals and enlightenment thinkers, and both promoted a good deal of humanitarian concern. As chapter five shows, John Wesley’s hatred of slavery was moved by both biblical teaching and humanitarian enlightenment values.

Could you help us understand why the growing nationalistic conscience of the 19^th century often helped the church in some countries and hindered it in others?

 This is discussed in chapter twelve of Churches, Revolutions and Empires. In some countries churches helped to shape national identity – such as in Greece, or Russia. A close connection between church and state resulted, such that national and religious identities were fused together. Elsewhere, there was a strong reaction against the power of the church, and its influence on state policy, which was a feature of some independence movements in Latin America. In revolutionary France, as chapter two shows, there was even an attempt to remove Christianity and all Christian influence from the nation.

A profound shift seems to have occurred in missions philosophy in the mid to late 19^th century. Early on there was a focus on developing indigenous and self-sufficient churches. Why did the missionary movement begin to move away from this model?

 One cause for this shift was an impatience with how long it took to educate and prepare Christian leaders who had no educational background. The economic development of some regions was very slow, making it hard for churches to support their own clergy. Yet, as chapter thirteen shows, something of the harmful racial thinking of the late nineteenth century crept into churches and mission thinking, rendering white missionaries reluctant to entrust non-white Christians with leadership roles, amidst claims that they were less well developed peoples, and not to be trusted with leadership. When missionary control of the newer churches was eased in the second half of the twentieth century they exploded into growth. In parts of China and Korea, the acceptance by missions leaders of the need for self-governing, self-supporting and self-propagating churches created churches independent of mission control far more quickly.

“Paternalism” was a term I found coming up several times in your book to describe how the church conceived of the task of social justice at home and abroad. Could you define this term and its pros and cons as it played out in the years 1789-1914?

 Paternalism was the view that those with power and influence should use it responsibly for the sake of those without power and influence – it was a God-given duty to do so. This was the approach of the evangelical Philanthropist Lord Shaftesbury. It was based on a hierarchical social view, and often those who held it were fearful of popular democracy. Despite this, those who used their power and wealth wisely did a great deal of good for those who benefitted from it. Many governments still see it as their role to act ‘paternally’ towards their people, and use power responsibly. However, paternalism can limit the capacity of the marginalized in society to have a say in their own fate, underplaying their own capacity and dignity.