« A Transformation Paradigm

Featured

The rise and fall of the Student Volunteer Movement

1920s: A growing lack of agreement

In 1921, the International Missionary Council launched, and became a “nerve center” of global mission intelligence. It went on to engineer a global network of “comity” agreements. At the same time, the National Councils fostered by Mott began inviting churches to become members, and as a result eventually become National Councils of Churches.

The SVM was falling into serious trouble. John L. Childs questioned the value of the Movement, pointing to ways in which the missionary situation had evolved past it. He suggested elimination of the declaration card on the grounds that “modern missionary activity has become so complex that merely to decide to become a foreign missionary is a step of doubtful value in determining what one shall do with his life.’’ (Childs 1923)

By 1924, in addition to the liberalization problem, several minor but equally compelling issues were rising: (1) complaints that the “Big Four” (Speer, Mott, Eddy and Wilder) had too much power and restrained the youth; (2) the relationship of the Student Volunteer Movement with the YMCA and YWCA; and (3) the role of “colored” students in the SVM.

Beneath all of this was the strain of decreasing financial support, even before the onslaught of the Depression (Smalley 1980). Paul W. Harrison suggests that Movement activities were “hindered by a most unsuitable mass of administrative machinery” (Harrison 1924). As rifts between liberals and conservatives pulled at the movement, financial gifts were drying up.

Robert Handy’s “American religious depression” from 1925-35 articulates a moment when American Protestantism could no longer identify itself with American culture and civilization. “The liberal drift of the Student Volunteer Movement was accentuated by the gradual withdrawal of conservative elements from the Movement. By 1925, at least three local Volunteer Bands had disassociated themselves from the national Movement, groups which [pro-liberal] E. Fay Campbell dismissed as uncooperative ‘controversial fundamentalists.’“ (SVM Archives, Series III, Campbell to Wilder, December 2, 1925.)

In 1928, Moody Bible institute withdrew its support for the Movement. By then even E. Fay Campbell was concerned: “We need their point of view decidedly; in fact it would be nothing short of a major tragedy if they were to pull out of the Movement now and take with them some of our more conservative groups.” (SVM Archives, Series III, Campbell to Wilson, January 31, 1928.)

At the same time, SVM General Secretary Jesse Wilson reported a revival of interest in missions on the campuses he had visited. The total number of outgoing missionaries for 1929 was a twenty-four percent increase over the total number sailing in 1928 and a forty-eight percent increase over the number sailing in 1927. In 1928, there were 252 new student volunteers, while in 1929 there were 609 new volunteers.

So if missions seemed to be on the decline in the view of popular culture—or at least, in relation to the SVM—what was happening?

While in the early years the vast majority of volunteers had sailed under appointment to mainline denominational boards, after the 1920s an increasing number sailed under faith mission boards. These mission boards, generally theologically conservative, had participated enthusiastically in the early years of the Student Volunteer Movement, though their programs were not nearly as large.

A growing proportion of missionaries were supported by the faith mission boards because “Liberalism has never been noted for its missionary zeal. The inroads of scientist, behaviorism, and humanism may well have been the consequence of an uncertain theological note which carried no impelling conviction of the Gospel imperative for those without Christ.” (Harr 1962)

The theology of the faith missions, on the other hand, had a compelling motivation for missions: they firmly proclaimed that no person could be saved from eternal damnation except through hearing and believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their theology, however, also meant they were not inclined to ecumenical cooperation and increasingly drew away from the perceived-liberal SVM, drawing off financial support and potential volunteers.

As the missiological gap between conservative and liberals widened, the Student Volunteer Movement found itself increasingly unable to simultaneously serve the interests of both the conservative faith mission boards and the liberal denominational boards. Yet, in spite of the fact that the ‘plausible promise’ of the SVM was all about mission mobilization, the SVM did not ‘go’ where most missionaries were going. Instead, it threw in its lot with mainline groups.

Wilson thought the SVM could survive and thrive by falling in with the conservative missions, but the majority of the Movement leadership was reluctant to see the Movement go in that direction. They were “appalled” that the Movement’s membership was increasingly conservative. A leadership battle was beginning. The Great Depression of 1929 would make it worse.

Christian Endeavor was still strong: at its meetings in New York, 4 million members were represented by 20,000 delegates on hand. It was the “largest religious meeting in history” (New York Times). In the period from 1920-21, nearly 10,000 new societies had been organized and more than $1 million donated to missionary enterprises.

It appears Christian Endeavor had what SVM lacked in substantial supply: a firm standard, on which were organized grassroots societies and meetings. For example, the Nebraska SVM did not organize its own meetings so much as it sent people to speak at Christian Endeavor meetings. “Mr. Judd is being sent as a missionary to China by the student volunteer movement of America and will be in the Twin Cities until Tuesday interviewing students interested in missionary work. The Student Volunteers of Nebraska arranged for his trip to the University.” However, Christian Endeavor was providing the meeting site, the “special music,” and further the discussion following Mr. Judd’s talk would be led by “Sarah Fisher ’27” (Urbana Daily Courier, 1/18/1925).

Other Related Posts

None Found

© 2008 Momentum Magazine.
Related: The Mission Manual · Justin Long's Annotated Links and Notes