John Carter Wood has produced the first book-length study of the Christian thinkers gathered by J. H. Oldham at the time of World War II to debate Christian responses to the civilizational crisis of Europe. Participants included John Baillie, Kathleen Bliss, T. S. Eliot, Karl Mannheim, John Middleton Murry, Michael Polanyi, Oliver Tomkins, and Alec Vidler. They met twenty-four times between 1938 and 1947 in a discussion group known as the Moot and also published the Christian News-Letter. They discussed the possibility of a Christian society during an age they identified as secular (although their definitions of this word and state of affairs were complex).
Wood provides an intellectual history of the group's activities. The central focus is their vision for postwar social reconstruction, which required their reflection on subjects such as war, totalitarianism, secularization, capitalism, Communism, nationalism, democracy, and egalitarianism. The group did not have ready access to influential figures in government, but their personal and intellectual connections with leading figures such as William Temple, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Jacques Maritain suggests that the group's work was both influential and indicative of broader, elite Christian conversations about the nature of Christian society at a time of profound upheaval.
Wood's conclusion is that although the group did not produce a blueprint for a Christian society, nevertheless they forged a series of “middle ways” through some the era's knotty problems. After an introductory chapter that introduces the group members and their project, Wood takes each of these problems in turn.
In chapter 2, the focus is on the group's beliefs about religion and society. They steered clear of both a Barthian rejection of human politics and the optimistic liberal Protestant belief that society could be made Christian through ethics. Oldham and others hoped for a more Christian society. Similarly, they rejected a sharp distinction between the religious and the secular on the one hand, and the fusion of the two in such a way that Christianity lost its distinctiveness on the other (chapter 3).
Chapter 4 covers the group's discussions of social and economic planning—an idea popular in Europe at the time despite, or perhaps because of, totalitarianism. One of the group's members, Karl Mannheim, argued that Christians should reject the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism and totalitarian control in favor of a limited form of state planning, for which the churches would provide the necessary spiritual resources. The group discussed and concurred with the Beveridge Report.
The group also addressed issues relating to nationalism (chapter 5). They rejected the internationalism of the left and the extreme, malignant nationalism of the Fascist countries. There was, however, a place for national loyalty—especially if one was British. Ideas of British exceptionalism made sense in 1940 and endured long thereafter. Wood notes that such ideas had support among Christians in continental Europe during the war. They were also tempered by acknowledgement of Britain's national shortcomings. As the war progressed, the Moot talked more of European civilization, now marred by Soviet and Fascist disfigurement. But English/British/Anglo-Saxon civilization was the stronger pull on these mostly English/British/Anglo-Saxon thinkers.
Wood examines the group's attitudes to liberty in chapter 6. They charted a course between liberal individualism and collectivism. Embracing a philosophy of personalism, they claimed that Christianity was essential for true freedom and democracy.
Finally, the Moot addressed questions surrounding human equality and privilege (chapter 7). In theory, they opposed privilege, embracing an egalitarian ethos that called for narrowing the gap between rich and poor. However, they feared that social leveling would threaten social and intellectual standards in society. This, the final “middle way” explored by Wood, made them elitist egalitarians.
The book makes a valuable contribution to our understanding of the history of religion and ideas in mid-twentieth-century English history. Its focus on a group makes it especially welcome, giving as it does a sense of where some of the core intellectual disagreements were and how participants navigated these. Wood guides the reader through complex theological and social questions with admirable clarity. The book will be required reading for those wanting to understand the ways that some European Christians were addressing the questions raised by popular politics and totalitarianism.
Wood is candid that J. H. Oldham and his group had little political influence. He mentions the part played by some in the discussions leading to the 1944 Butler Education Act, but there was little besides this. Their ecclesial influence was greater: the group's personnel and ideas helped to shape the World Council of Churches, and Alec Vidler went on to be a leading radical in the Church of England. Even here, however, the group's impact was limited: they did not enjoy close ties to the archbishop of Canterbury, for example.
For those interested in mid-twentieth-century English religious and intellectual history, this book repays careful reading. Readers wanting to understand the true significance of the Moot in the cultural history of Britain will have to make the connections to the work of others who have explored Christianity and society in the interwar and postwar years, especially Matthew Grimley (Citizenship, Community, and the Church of England: Liberal Anglican Theories of the State Between the Wars [Clarendon, 2004]).
