Editor's Choice
Compare and contrast the "gospel of wealth" with the "social gospel."
Quick answer:
The "gospel of wealth," promoted by Andrew Carnegie, argued that the wealthy should use their money to benefit society, as they were deemed the most qualified to decide how funds should be spent. In contrast, the "social gospel," led by Christian Protestants, aimed to address social and economic issues through government intervention and collective Christian duty. While both sought societal improvement, their methods and underlying philosophies differed significantly.
The gospel of wealth and social gospel were two largely competing philosophies in the late-nineteenth–century United States. The era is known as the Gilded Age and was marked by rapid economic growth, industrialization, and a considerable rise in wealth and income inequality. The free market was championed (particularly by the wealthy who were benefiting from it), and a laissez-faire approach to the economy was taken by the United States government, which meant that the government attempted to take a limited role in regulating the economy. This benefited the rising wealthy class and contributed to the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth in the country.
In this time, the gospel of wealth was a philosophy created and promoted by Andrew Carnegie, one of the wealthiest men in the United States. The philosophy argued that the wealthy should use their extra money to invest in ways they found the most beneficial. While it...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
was philanthropy (i.e., the rich using their money to help the world), it also helped to support the division between the rich and poor. The gospel of wealth considered the wealthy to be the most qualified to decide how money should be responsibly spent and was used to justify the wealth inequality of the era—the rich hadearned their money, and the poor were similarly responsible for their own status. If wealth was a perfect indicator of their positive attributes (intelligence, hard work, etc.), that meant the wealthy were the ones best suited to deciding how money should be spent.
On the other hand, the social gospel was a rising movement that sought to solve many problems within Gilded Age society. It was led by Christian Protestants and was a strong indicator of the rising progressive moment that would take hold of the United States in the early twentieth century. Proponents of the social gospel sought to solve economic problems like wealth and income inequality, poverty, and child labor, as well as social issues like alcoholism, crime, and even racial inequality. The movement tackled these issues through the lens of Christian Protestantism, in the hopes of improving humanity through earthly reform.
While both of these ideologies tried to improve society, they had very different methods. The gospel of wealth argued that the rich were the only ones responsible enough to handle the issues of the era, as they were the most successful. The social gospel, on the other hand, was a progressive movement that sought to improve humanity through government intervention and assistance. While both thought money should be spent to improve the country, social gospel proponents argued the government should be involved in these reforms, while the gospel of wealth asserted that the wealthy were the only ones truly qualified to improve society in a responsible and effective manner.