Does the 'collapse of synthesis' adequately explain the later decline of Nonconformity?

Liberalist values were generally favoured and the Liberation Society was formed in 1844 to campaign against the civil liberties, which were imposed on Dissenters (and ultimately to force Disestablishment). Helmstadter argues that since the importance was still firmly on the individual, Dissenters remained primarily apolitical and resisted central organization in favour of self-regulation and Congregationalism.  Helmstadter conjures a picture of a passive bunch of people who persisted with their goals with a quiet and dignified silence.   However, the argument fails to acknowledge that working class trade unions were an alternative to Liberalism and were not representative of this scenario at all. Methodism and Primitive Methodism had an overwhelmingly working –class membership.  The sheer size and influence of the trade unions halts Helmstadter’s social theory of complete middle-class dominance.  Indeed they were dominant within their own branches of Nonconformity and the notion of individual responsibility complemented their laissez-faire society.  They ran their chapels in the same way that they ran their businesses: independently, free from the interference of a central organization and as democratically as possible.  

The general attitude towards social reform, says Helmstadter, was again influenced and enforced by Nonconformist religion and politics.  Self-help was the road to recovery for those who had given in to evil temptations such as alcohol, gambling and sex.  W. Guest’s dramatic sermon exemplifies the traditional Nonconformist opinion of some of the leisure activities that were becoming popular: “If your feet have turned aside, retrace, I beseech you, your steps.”  Because of the civil disabilities that faced Nonconformists, they distrusted any interference from the state, which after all, did not represent their community.  The scriptures and ultimately conversion were the correct prescription for curing society.

According to Helmstader’s theory, ‘the collapse of synthesis’ was due to a number of changes within society.  Bible criticism was becoming widespread and state education of the unchurched masses meant that they had access to scientific and historical material that undermined the scriptures.  The removal of civil disabilities meant that the Liberation Society became the ‘National Council for Free Churches’ but since the “fight” was over, it seemed that the Nonconformity identity was beginning to blur and its position on social issues was uncertain.  Helmstadter says that whilst a congregation retained a conservative stance on matters such as personal conduct, ministers began to recognize that both pastoral and state aid were important.  In conclusion he says, “Free Churchmen were unable to develop a new synthesis of religious, political and social attitudes.” It seems that just at the time Nonconformity achieved everything it had fought for, it was no longer needed by a more sophisticated and developed society.

Helmsatder’s argument provides a neat explanation for the popularity and subsequent demise of Nonconformity, in the form it took during the Mid-Victorian period but a number of inconsistencies exist.

Critics, such as Matthew Arnold, have suggested that the various sub-groups and branches of Nonconformity are evidence of it’s narrowness and an inability to agree on a common theology. Others responded by pointing out the inconsistencies within the Anglican Church.  R. W Dale5 targeted the divisions within the Church of England: “but multitudes of them become Nonconformists as soon as they write a theological treatises…” Many theologians have sensed that there must be an underlying common denominator running through the different Nonconformist branches, although they had difficulty identifying it.  Indeed, James Martineau attempted to institute a Free Christian Union in 1869.  He argued that despite the religious pluralism that had begun to exist in Britain, denominations could find a multiparty factor, which he called “the common spirit”.  He maintained that if all denominations could unite in a basic belief in God, a “universal church” would “restore the natural order of religious organization”. In theory the idea might have worked but it was not successful.  This could have been due to the enormous size of the task but also because such a contrived beginning for a “new” religion could not have worked.  When Martineau speaks of a “natural order” he seems to overlook the fact that doctrines are part of that order and are developed over time, not simply dreamed up as a type of utopia. However, Martineau’s did made way for future speculation on the cohesiveness of Nonconformity and is evidence that many church men were accepting, or certainly assessing ideas of religious plurality and bible criticism.  Indeed, R.W. Dale’s lecture in 1862 also confirmed that a more liberal theology existed within the Nonconformist community when he commented that the Essayists dissented from both liturgy and The Articles and furthermore: “…you will find it difficult to discover, not those who dissent from the teaching of the Prayer Book, but those who completely and thoroughly accept it…”  Martineau and Dale certainly do not mirror the dogged adherence to the scriptures that Helmstadter suggests.  

There is still more evidence to suggest a trend towards bible criticism existed a long time before the ‘collapse of synthesis’.  When Thomas Nicholas, (1820-1879) a Professor at Camarthen Presbyterian College wrote in support of Samuel Davidson (1807-1898) after he was forced to resign he very clearly stated the need for a more liberal theology: “…A work in Biblical literature for our day must be a mirror of the state of modern thought…” The vote for his resignation is even more notable: eighteen to sixteen for his resignation demonstrate that Davidson and Nicholas were not alone.

On the question of social reform, there is much evidence to suggest that many Nonconformists were concerned with the state of society and advocated intervention from the state.  In 1884 Dale, admitted, “…good men will be slow to come to the conclusion that the powers which are ‘ordained of God’ have lost the Divine sanction.”  The sermon was the result of many years as a Nonconformist spokesperson and there is no question that he feels that the state and God should work together: “…Christian men in Parliament…should remember whose servants they are and should levy taxes and rates justly, and expend them wisely and fairly as the representatives of the authority of God.”  So middle-class branches of Nonconformity did promote a civic gospel and infact, this sermon came after over forty years of dedication to the cause in Birmingham itself.

        Contrary to Helmstadter’s claim that effective organization did not come into practice until after 1880, there were the Baptist and Congregational Unions, amongst others, which had emerged during the 1860s.  There were also many societies and Sunday schools, libraries and printed reading matter, so if it did appear that Nonconformity became organizationally sophisticated after the 1880s, it was because of the hard work which preceded it.

        Another change came from within the churches themselves.  In 1869, Thomas Binney noted in his sermon, which looked back over forty years of Nonconformist activity that chapels and places of worship were becoming more ‘churchly’ both in their services and their architecture.  Official prayer books and a concern over the ceremonial and liturgical aspects of worship could be seen as a trend towards Anglicanism, not because of a need for respectability but because of a need to be seen as equals.  Certainly the chapels did not want to be mistaken for other buildings, which they sometimes were, hence the birth of Nonconformist Gothic.

        It was these developments that influenced the set up of the first Free Church Congress in 1892.  Local Free Church Councils had flourished and were looking for a universal voice, since they felt a need to be perceived as a set of denominations whose objectives were the same.  The liberating name of “Free Church” was more positive than “Nonconformist”, which implied that one might be “going against” what was right.

        Theological developments were not the sudden phenomena that Helmstadter suggests they were.  All denominations were feeling the effect of modern criticism and both Anglicanism and Nonconformity were faced with problems of a changing morality and the theological challenge of science and history.  They also shared the problems of the unchurched and low attendance.  Try as they might to cure the unbelievers of their ills, the state took over although they did try to cater for other social needs: the rise of entertainment forced meant that all denominations provided entertainment in order to prevent diminishing numbers.

        Generally attendance was suffering and it was unfortunate for Nonconformity that it happened at the highest point of their existence.  They had achieved liberation from their disabilities, respect, and a successful representation in parliament and had earned the title of “Free Church”.

        Helmstadter’s fifty years of synthesis provides one explanation for the popularity and subsequent decline of Nonconformity and gives a fair general over-view of the situation, it certainly doesn’t provide all of the answers.  The ‘synthesis’ has a beginning and end, rather than a series of developments and changes, which influenced all denominations.

        Perhaps the real reason for the decline of Nonconformity after such a huge upsurge of popularity is that it’s hey day really was over: the nature of conversion is so dramatic and sudden that it was sure to be discarded once the novelty had worn off.  If a clergy member from another denomination was asked why they did not follow the example of the lively services held by the Free Churches, they might say, “ Because all of that dramatic, born again stuff is short-lived – it’s like a fad that people quickly tire of.” 

Words: 2050

Bibliography

Religion in Victorian Britain III, James R. Moore, ed., Manchester University Press, 1998

Religion in Victorian Britain IV, Gerald Parsons, ed., Manchester University Press, 1998

Religion in Victorian Britain Study Guide One

The World’s Religions, Ninian Smart, Cambridge University Press, 1998