Changes

The churches played a major role in the debates on the League of Nations. The mainline denominations, especially influenced by the [[Social Gospel]], provided strong support. Opposition came from [[Fundamentalist]] and Calvinist groups.  

The churches played a major role in the debates on the League of Nations. The mainline denominations, especially influenced by the [[Social Gospel]], provided strong support. Opposition came from [[Fundamentalist]] and Calvinist groups.  

Most Americans who belonged to Dispensationalist Fundamentalists, Calvinists, German Lutheran and Catholic churches opposed the League.  Ethnicity played a role, as German Lutherans and  Catholics were especially hostile, as were Irish Catholics. There was some opposition from Methodist and Episcopalian ranks.  

Most Americans who belonged to Dispensationalist Fundamentalists, Calvinists, German Lutheran and Catholic churches opposed the League.  Ethnicity played a role, as German Lutherans and  German Catholics were especially hostile, as were Irish Catholics. There was some opposition from Methodist and Episcopalian ranks.  

Dispensationalists denounced the League as fulfilling the prophecy of a final world empire and as a sign of "human pretensions of self-sufficiency" in thinking that they could prevent the sin of war without God's help. Although many Calvinists backed the Social Gospel and therefore the League, conservatives, including Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Christian Reformed, counter-argued that such a human endeavor to improve the world without a Christian core doomed it to failure. Furthermore, they lamented the lack of mission language in the League charter and warned against cooperating with non-Christian states on an equal plane. The Missouri Synod Lutherans argued against such Social Gospel endeavors because of their amillennialist bent and insistence on the separation of church and state. Conservative Methodists and Episcopalians found themselves in the minority within denominations that publicly endorsed the League of Nations but nonetheless derided it as dangerously socialist and too divorced from Christianity for success.  Much of this rhetoric has reappeared in recent years in discussions of the United Nations.<ref> See Markku Ruotsila, ''The Origins of Christian

Dispensationalists denounced the League as fulfilling the prophecy of a final world empire and as a sign of "human pretensions of self-sufficiency" in thinking that they could prevent the sin of war without God's help. Although many Calvinists backed the Social Gospel and therefore the League, conservatives, including Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Christian Reformed, counter-argued that such a human endeavor to improve the world without a Christian core doomed it to failure. Furthermore, they lamented the lack of mission language in the League charter and warned against cooperating with non-Christian states on an equal plane. The Missouri Synod Lutherans argued against such Social Gospel endeavors because of their amillennialist bent and insistence on the separation of church and state. Conservative Methodists and Episcopalians found themselves in the minority within denominations that publicly endorsed the League of Nations but nonetheless derided it as dangerously socialist and too divorced from Christianity for success.  Much of this rhetoric has reappeared in recent years in discussions of the United Nations.<ref> See Markku Ruotsila, ''The Origins of Christian