Changes

While their theology was to preach good works to help resolve social problems, their goal was the basic transformation of the American social order by attacking what it believed to be the problem: individualism.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q3xyPFA_8O0C&pg=PA354|last=Nelson|first=Clifford|title=Lutherans in North America|publisher=Fortress Press|year=1975|pages=354}}</ref>  The new emphasis on "social Christianity" did foster some criticism among some Protestants, but the Social Gospellers were able to straddle a kind of middle ground by only rejecting some aspects of individualism; primarily, those of economic and social theories.<ref name=curry>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z_JUqFAXzKkC&pg=PA181|last=Curry|first=Richard|title=American Chameleon: Individualism in Trans-national Context|publisher=Kent State University Press|year=1991|pages=181}}</ref>

While their theology was to preach good works to help resolve social problems, their goal was the basic transformation of the American social order by attacking what it believed to be the problem: individualism.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q3xyPFA_8O0C&pg=PA354|last=Nelson|first=Clifford|title=Lutherans in North America|publisher=Fortress Press|year=1975|pages=354}}</ref>  The new emphasis on "social Christianity" did foster some criticism among some Protestants, but the Social Gospellers were able to straddle a kind of middle ground by only rejecting some aspects of individualism; primarily, those of economic and social theories.<ref name=curry>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z_JUqFAXzKkC&pg=PA181|last=Curry|first=Richard|title=American Chameleon: Individualism in Trans-national Context|publisher=Kent State University Press|year=1991|pages=181}}</ref>

This is where the middle ground lay between the socialist and non-socialist elements of the Social Gospel lie, as it was for the rest of the [[Progressive Movement]].<ref name=McGerr>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sRt6SrSxuU0C&pg=PA59|last=McGerr|first=Michael|title=A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in A|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=2010|pages=59}} Noted in the book is that Lyman Abbott, [[Edward Alsworth Ross]], as well as one of the characters in the book [[Looking Backward]] all point to "individualism" as the problem.</ref>

This is where the middle ground lay between the socialist and non-socialist elements of the Social Gospel lie, as it was for the rest of the [[Progressive Movement]].<ref name=McGerr>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sRt6SrSxuU0C&pg=PA59|last=McGerr|first=Michael|title=A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in A|publisher=Simon and Schuster|year=2010|pages=59}} Noted in the book is that Lyman Abbott, [[Edward Alsworth Ross]], as well as one of the characters in the book [[Looking Backward]] all point to "individualism" as the problem.</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=[[Larry Schweikart]]|title=A Patriot's History® of the Modern World, Vol. I: From America's Exceptional Ascent to the Atomic Bomb: 1898-1945|publisher=Penguin|year=2012|pages=110|quote=Woodrow Wilson subscribed to the Progressive view of the individual's place in society espoused by Jane Addams "we must demand that the individual shall be willing to lose the sense of personal achievement, and shall be content to realize his activity only in connection with the activity of the many."}}</ref>

Washington Gladden and Walter Rauschenbusch argued the most forcefully and clearly about this.<ref name=McGerr />  Gladden wrote "I do not believe that political society or industrial society or any other society will endure on a purely individualistic basis.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z_JUqFAXzKkC&pg=PA181|last=Gladden|first=Washington|title=The Church and the Nation|publisher=The Homiletic Review, Volume 50|year=1905}}</ref> Rauschenbush was the most clear and concise: "individualism means tyranny."<ref>{{cite book|last=Goldberg|first=Jonah|title=Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning|publisher=Crown Publishing Group|year=2008|pages=87}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p7g_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA202|last=Rauschenbusch|first=Walter|title=The Ideals of Social Reformers|publisher=The American Journal of Sociology, Volume 2|year=1897}}</ref>

Washington Gladden and Walter Rauschenbusch argued the most forcefully and clearly about this.<ref name=McGerr />  Gladden wrote "I do not believe that political society or industrial society or any other society will endure on a purely individualistic basis.<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z_JUqFAXzKkC&pg=PA181|last=Gladden|first=Washington|title=The Church and the Nation|publisher=The Homiletic Review, Volume 50|year=1905}}</ref> Rauschenbush was the most clear and concise: "individualism means tyranny."<ref>{{cite book|author=[[Jonah Goldberg]]|title=Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning|publisher=Crown Publishing Group|year=2008|pages=87}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p7g_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA202|last=Rauschenbusch|first=Walter|title=The Ideals of Social Reformers|publisher=The American Journal of Sociology, Volume 2|year=1897}}</ref>

With the individual rejected and the collective embraced, the State becomes the primary agent for coercion,<ref name=realAgenda /> especially for the most ardent socialists in leadership roles.

With the individual rejected and the collective embraced, the State becomes the primary agent for coercion,<ref name=realAgenda /> especially for the most ardent socialists in leadership roles.