The Evolution of the Country Community Part 8

The task of dealing with newcomers in the country community is educational, financial and recreative. One should add that it is also evangelistic, but I have in mind the possibility that these newcomers may be Catholics with whom Protestant evangelism will not be successful.

It is possible also that they will be of another Protestant sect from that of the reader of this chapter, so that to evangelize them would mean proselyting. The writer believes very heartily in rural evangelism.

It is an essential process in building the country church. These chapters are devoted primarily to the building of the country community and in that process the securing of members for the country church is preliminary only. Leaving, therefore, the question of rural evangelism for treatment in another place, let us take up the educational treatment of the newcomer in the country community.

The proper machinery for this education is the common school and the Sunday school. As the common school is treated elsewhere, the use of the Sunday school in organizing the rural population belongs here. Few churches realize the power and value of Sunday-school training. I am insisting that the life of country people is religious. The use of the Sunday school is to train the young of the community in religion. All country people accept the Bible as a holy book. They all believe in the education of their children and in much greater numbers than they will respond for a church service their children will respond to the work of religious culture on Sunday at the church. The Sunday-school organization is interdenominational. Its lessons and its methods are a common heritage of the churches at the present time. The machinery is perfect, but the Sunday-school leaders lack vision and they lack the progressive spirit. If only the teachers and ministers realized the value of the Sunday school and its acceptance with the people, there would be needed no other machinery for building the country community.

The Sunday-school should be a close parallel to the day school. If the day school in the community has any progressive features, the Sunday school should use these and improve them. Between the two there should exist the closest sympathy, not formal or definitely organized, but actual and expressed in parallel lines of work. Where the day school is graded, the Sunday school should accept the same grading, strongly organizing all its cla.s.ses. The pupils in the Sunday school should pa.s.s by successive promotions from teacher to teacher and from grade to grade.

If the day school in the country is unprogressive and is taught by a succession of indifferent persons, the Sunday school should practise under the guidance of religious leaders those principles of modern pedagogy which should be used in the common schools. Graded lessons, the organization of material and progressive development of religious truth from the simpler to the more complex, should find their place in every Sunday school. The opportunity for service to the whole community thus offered through the Sunday school is excelled by none in the country community.

The upper cla.s.ses of the Sunday school should be organized. Young men and women especially, who are in danger of finding the Sunday school irksome because their intelligence has pa.s.sed beyond its control, should be organized in cla.s.ses which on week days have a club or society character. The Sunday school should use as an ally their tendency to organization and should satisfy their social needs by giving them regular and approved opportunities for meeting and for pleasure.

Another principle which the Sunday school can practise for the benefit of the community is the centralization of religious teaching. Even if the common schools are not centralized, the children for the Sunday school should be brought to the church from outlying regions in hired wagons every week. It is better that a large Sunday school be maintained under efficient leadership than that a number of small schools with indifferent teachers should be maintained in various school districts.

The larger body can have better leadership. It is more closely under the supervision of the minister, who is generally the superior in education of the laymen, and the social value of the meetings of the Sunday school will be greater in the larger body. All the arguments which make for the centralization of the day school have force for the consolidation of Sunday schools in one large school.

The Sunday school offers a basis for church federation. In the community it is frequently possible for Sunday schools to be united and for the advantages of this common teaching to be made even greater because all the children of the various churches are in one body. The best leadership and the best teachers are thus secured and the community spirit is cultivated through the young people and more loosely attached members of the community.

The older cla.s.ses of the Sunday school on a basis of study of the Bible should be organized for practical ends. The adult Bible cla.s.s can be made to have all the influence of the grange in the country community.

The fathers and mothers of the community may meet throughout the week socially. They may undertake together the study of the economic life of the community. Lecturers from the agricultural college, representatives of the Play Ground Movement, of the county work of the Y. M. C. A., of historical societies interested in the community's past and other representatives of national movements, may be welcomed and heard by this organized cla.s.s, the basis of which is religious education.

What I am urging may be accomplished by any church in some measure, however divided the community may be. It is the business of the individual church which has a vision of the community as a whole to act as if it were a federation of churches. Frequently ministers are in favor of church federation, as if that process were an end in itself.

The writer believes that the individual church can accomplish the ends of federation if the union of churches can do so. The best means for effecting federation of churches is to practise the program of federation until it shall come about.

The community made up in a degree of new families and the community in which the newcomers are young men and women, children of the residents, are bound to educate these invaders of the community, whether they come from without or whether they come by "birthright membership," in the spirit of benevolence. The giving of money to public uses is one of the cherished social forces of our time. The country community is just entering into the day of cash. The period of barter is over. The farmer therefore needs in his ethical and his religious training, to have definite culture as a philanthropist. The future of the farm-hand in America is still very hopeful. The tenant farmer expects to be an owner.

The farmer's son believes himself to have a future. These hopes from earliest years should be disciplined by the practise of giving. For this end the church is a rarely well fitted means. The financial system of the church must be made democratic. The custom of renting pews belonged in the land-farmer period. The writer does not suggest that it be abolished because it can often serve a more democratic purpose in its mature forms under careful supervision than any subst.i.tute, but it is all important that the country church be a training-school in the consecration of money to the uses of the community and of the kingdom of G.o.d.

For the average countryman the kingdom of G.o.d should be embodied in the country community. This is not to say that his vision should be narrow.

On the contrary his vision is often of the spread-eagle sort. He overlooks the opportunities for benevolence which are near at hand. He believes in foreign missions sometimes, and contributes impulsively to the support of men in China who are paid a better salary than the pastor in his own community. He applauds the gifts of millionaires and of city people generally to hospitals, but he ignores the ravages of disease in his own community. The divine imperative is that the country community be first organized, by those who live there, for local well-being. For this, contributions of money are necessary and they must be made by all in the community.

The question has been raised frequently whether an endowment is not necessary for the country church. The writer began his ministry in a country church which was generously endowed. He still believes in the value of endowment for some country communities. Ex-President Eliot of Harvard recently commended the principle of endowment to the New England Country Church a.s.sociation, as a solution of the rural problem.

President b.u.t.terfield of Ma.s.sachusetts Agricultural College has emphasized the same principle. It is quite likely that in the Eastern States where the country community has been depleted by the departure of an extraordinary number of families and individuals, an endowment would be of value for the country church. One must not hold to a theoretic opposition to such a method. The important thing is to provide a trained pastor for the country community. In these Eastern communities a larger proportion of the former members of the community have prospered than in Western communities. Many of them are very rich. In these cases it is but natural that an endowed church in the country community express the ministry of the more prosperous citizen to his poorer brethren, but everybody knows that these depleted communities--I will not say these excessive fortunes--are among the most lamentable factors in American life.

The endowment of the church, however, is a very poor apology for a bad situation. It has but limited use, and the creation of a large fund to be used in the country community necessitates careful supervision by men of such business ability as are not usually found in a country community. To remedy such conditions as those with which President Eliot and President b.u.t.terfield are most familiar is a specific problem. It is not the general situation throughout the United States.

The purpose of these chapters is to make plain the way by which the average American community may escape depletion, may retain the leadership of its best minds and may prosper in a democratic way. I am interested more in training the country population for the future than in mending the mistakes of the past. But I believe that for depleted country communities in New England, New York and Pennsylvania an endowment of the country church would in many instances be effective: and for them alone.

Let the country church undertake its financial problem in a business-like way. At the beginning of the year make a budget of all the monies needed for the year's work. Face the issues of the year frankly.

Pay to the minister and to other employees of the church a sufficient amount to provide them with needful things throughout the year. A living wage is not enough. The minister especially needs a working salary. With little variation throughout the country as a whole the minister in the rural community should have in order to minister to his people, to educate his children and to look forward without fear to old age, twelve to fourteen hundred dollars a year and a house. Many country communities have a more expensive standard, and there are a few in which less is required. But in Southern States and in Western communities I have found the conditions, created by the prices which prevail throughout the country as a whole, at this standard.

When the budget of the year is prepared, including missionary and benevolent gifts, it should be distributed by the officers through consultation with all the members of the church, young and old, rich and poor, in such way as to secure a gift from every one and to meet the obligations of the church as a whole. For the moral values of the situation the small gift of the poor and of the child are even more important than the large gift of the well-to-do. For the securing of these gifts the envelope system, especially the so-called duplex envelope, is the best means which can be generally used by churches. It is a method flexible enough to reach every member and it represents in its duplex form the double motive of giving to the community itself and to those larger national and missionary enterprises to which the country should contribute.

The third method of developing the country community is recreative. I mention it here for completeness of statement. Another chapter is devoted to recreation in the country community. The amus.e.m.e.nts and recreations of the country community are immersed in moral issues. The ethical life of the community is the atmosphere in which social pleasure is taken. Therefore the recreations of the community are to be provided and supervised by those who would undertake to create a wholesome community life. A maximum of provision and a minimum of supervision are required. Country life is devoid of means for recreation. Some one must provide it. Usually it is either neglected altogether, and the result is dullness and monotony; or it is provided for a price, and the result is an organized center of immorality. Recreation requires but little supervision. The presence of older persons, and those of a humane friendly spirit, is usually necessary to the games. These are based on honor and with a few simple principles the young people and working people of the community will organize their own play and find therein a great benefit.

To summarize this chapter, the acute problem in many communities today is the merging of the life of newcomers in the community into the organized social life which is older and more settled. This task belongs above all to the country church. Many of the detailed applications are for the school to follow out, but the business of the church is to see and to inspire. If the church is not democratic, the community will be hopelessly divided. If the church welcomes the newcomer and finds him a place, the community will be inspired with a democratic spirit. The task of the church is indicated in the new prosperity of the country which tends from the first to remove from the community those who prosper. The church's business is to win to the community all who come into it and to release from its hold as few as possible.

In a discussion of country life in a Tennessee college town the question was asked of a professor of agriculture who was speaking about farm tenantry, "What should the church do for the tenant farmer?" "Borrow money for him and help him to buy land," said the professor.

Such a solution might be the church's task, but the example of England's policy for Ireland shows that the professor commended a governmental rather than a religious service. For it is found that the Irish farmer--a tenant on land whereon his ancestors have for centuries been tenants--when he secures the land in fee through the new policies of the British Government, frequently deserts the country community, selling his land to a neighbor. Some sections of Ireland are said to have a new kind of small tenantry and a new sort of small landlord. The task of the country community begins where the task of government leaves off. It is to inspire the resident in the country with a vision, and to lay upon him the imperative, of building up the country community out of the newcomers, who enter it by birth or by migration.

FOOTNOTE:

[Footnote 31: "The Agrarian Changes in the Middle West," by J. B. Ross.]

X

CO-OPERATION

In contrast to other cla.s.ses of the population country people have a marked preference for individual action and an aversion to co-operative effort. The causes of this are historical. In general these causes are of the past and they are not a matter of persuasion. The American farmer has not co-operated in the past because: first, the necessities of his life made him independent and impatient of the sacrifices necessary in co-operating with his fellows. We have still many influences of the pioneer in modern life. So long as agriculture is solitary work and its processes take a man away from his fellows, co-operation will be r.e.t.a.r.ded. So long as the countryman has to practise a variety of trades, he will be emotional, and the social life of the country will be broken up by feuds, divisions, separations and continued misunderstandings. No mere education as to alleged right and wrong can plaster over the old economy with new ethical standards. Until the loneliness and the emotion are taken out of farming country people cannot co-operate.

A good part of the United States is still in the land farmer period. The characteristic of the land farmer is his cultivation of group life. The historical process by which this group life is broken up is exploitation. Farmers whose lands have not been exploited and whose group life has not suffered the undermining influence of exploitation will not normally co-operate. I am convinced that in most farming territories the loyalty of the countryman to his group is the second reason for his refusal to co-operate. Again, this refusal of his is not subject to persuasion. He is obeying an economic condition which shapes his life and controls his action. Striking instances are furnished in many regions of the amazing disloyalty of farmers to one another, and to their own pledged word. These are to be explained by the type to which the farmer in these sections conforms. We must not expect the land farmer to obey the ethical standards of the husbandman.

A good instance of this conformity to type was furnished in the case of meetings held in Louisiana and Western Mississippi among the farmers who raise cotton. The occasion of the meetings was the approach of the boll weevil to their districts. The attendance upon the meetings was large, indeed universal. The situation was clearly understood and the speakers secured from the farmers present a promise quite unanimous to refrain from cultivating cotton for a year. The purpose of this was to meet the boll weevil with a territory in which he would find no food. Thus his march eastward across the cotton field would be arrested.

The farmers having made their promise and agreed heartily in the proposal, adjourned. Weeks and months pa.s.sed and the time approached for planting cotton. Farmer after farmer, who had attended these meetings and given his promise, privately decided that he would plant a cotton crop and secretly expected that he would secure a larger price that year because so many of his neighbors were to raise other crops. When the full season for planting cotton had come it was discovered that so many farmers had planted cotton that the plan of co-operation was a failure, and the whole district went back to cotton, with full prospect of a.s.sisting the boll weevil in his course toward the East. The reasons for this action lie in the type of farmer who thus found it impossible to co-operate. Each of these farmers regarded above all other things the success of his own farm and his own family group. In contrast to this interest no other claim, no exhortation and not even his word given in public had any lasting influence upon his action.

The third element in the inability of country people to co-operate is the ideal of level democratic equality which prevails in the country.

Where universal land-ownership has been the rule every countryman thinks himself "as good as anybody else." So long as this ideal prevails, that subjection of himself to another, and the controlling of his action by the interests of the community, are impossible. The farmer cannot co-operate when he thinks of social life in terms of pure democracy.

There must be a large sense of team work, a loyal and instinctive obedience to leaders, a devoted spirit which looks for honest leadership, before there can be co-operation. These things come not by persuasion, but by experience. Co-operation is the act of a mature people. Not until country people have pa.s.sed through earlier stages and discarded earlier ideals can the preacher and the organizer and the teacher successfully inculcate a spirit of co-operation.

Country churches are highly representative in their present divided condition. This multiplication of churches in the country is lamentable chiefly because it registers the divided state of country life. It is true that divided churches are religiously inefficient, but it is vastly more important that divided churches are embodiments of what one country minister calls "the tuberculosis of the American farmer, individualism."

It was natural for the pioneer to desire a religion in terms of a message of personal salvation. Personality in his lonely life was the n.o.blest, indeed the only form of humanity known to him, therefore the herald was his minister and emotion was his religion. It is very natural for the land farmer to organize religion in terms of group life. His churches were only handmaids of his household. They had but the beginnings of social organization. They taught the ethics of home life, of the separate farm and of a land-owning people. Obviously the church for the pioneer and for the land farmer could be a very weak and indifferent organization, but efficient for the religious needs of those independent, self-reliant types of countrymen.

For these reasons in all parts of the country the pitiful story is heard of divided communities. One need not recite it here. It usually is the account of three hundred or four hundred people with five or six country churches. At its worst there is a small community in which missionary agencies are supporting ministers who do not average one hundred possible families apiece in the community. The condition of Center Hall, Pennsylvania, has been described in another chapter, in which there are within a radius of four miles from a given point twenty-four country churches. This community represents a condition of transition from the land-farmer type to that of exploitation. Some of these churches are the old churches of the land-owning resident farmers, but the most of them are said to be the newer churches of tenants who have come into the community. Our present concern is to recognize the relation of the divided churches to the divided social life of the community. The criticism of the country community must be made on an understanding of the stage of development to which that community has attained. Whatever is planned for the upbuilding of the country community must be planned in harmony with the well-known facts of rural development.

Business life introduces into the community a new standard of values.

Cash and credit take the place of barter. The exchange in kind on which originally the community depended comes to an end. Business life very shortly induces combination. The whole of modern business presents a spectacle of universal combination and co-operation. The farmer who is most conservative is surrounded on all sides by the aggressive forces of business. Combined in their own interest they compete with him on unequal terms. He stands alone and they stand combined.

Americans are looking with growing interest on the experience of Denmark where a mult.i.tude of co-operative a.s.sociations represent the spirit of the people. This spirit has been deliberately cultivated in the land for forty years. It is the universal testimony of observers that the prosperity of Denmark is dependent on these co-operative agencies and upon this united spirit. The exodus from the country has been arrested, agriculture has been made a desirable occupation, profitable for the farmer and most probable for the state, and the people as a whole have taken front rank in social and economic welfare. Essential to this constructive period of Denmark's life is co-operation.[32]

In Sir Horace Plunkett's recent book, "The Rural Life Problem in The United States," he develops this principle clearly. He says that in the organization of country life in Ireland it was necessary to go into the very heart of the people's experience and organize their economic and social processes in forms of co-operation.

"When farmers combine, it is a combination not of money only, but of personal effort in relation to the entire business. In a co-operative creamery for example, the chief contribution of a shareholder is in milk; in a co-operative elevator, corn; in other cases it may be fruit or vegetables, or a variety of material things rather than cash. But it is, most of all, a combination of neighbors within an area small enough to allow of all the members meeting frequently at the business center.

As the system develops, the local a.s.sociations are federated for larger business transactions, but these are governed by delegates carefully chosen by the members of the const.i.tuent bodies. The object of such a.s.sociations is primarily, not to declare a dividend, but rather to improve the conditions of the industry for the members.

"It is recognized that the poor man's co-operation is as important as the rich man's subscription. 'One man, one vote,' is the almost universal principle in co-operative bodies.

"The distinction between the capitalistic basis of joint stock organization and the more human character of the co-operative system is fundamentally important.

"In this matter I am here speaking from practical experience in Ireland.

Twenty years ago the pioneers of our rural life movement found it necessary to concentrate their efforts upon the reorganization of the farmer's business.

"1. We began with the dairying industry, and already half the export of Irish b.u.t.ter comes from the co-operative societies we established.

"2. Organized bodies of farmers are learning to purchase their agricultural requirements intelligently and economically.