From NotebookLM prompt “Who provided critiques that David Nasmith may have spread himself out too thin?”
The critique that David Nasmith may have spread his efforts too thin, often by launching numerous societies simultaneously, was a recurring theme expressed by his colleagues and supporters, particularly those involved in the London City Mission (LCM) that he founded. These critiques generally centered on concerns over prudence, discretion, and the stability of the core mission, especially the London City Mission itself.
Individuals and groups who voiced this criticism include:
- The Hon. and Rev. B. W. Noel: A highly respected Evangelical clergyman, Noel was an examiner of agents for the London City Mission. In March 1837, he resigned his connection with the Mission, citing several reasons, including the multiple organizations Nasmith had formed, which he believed created an “irreparable breach” in the mission’s constitution. Noel’s chief complaint was that Nasmith’s preoccupation with establishing other societies was detrimental to the primary work of the LCM. His withdrawal was a severe blow that Nasmith’s biographer suggested forced Nasmith to reconsider his actions.
- The Rev. Robert Ainslie: An ardent and judicious friend of the London City Mission from its beginning, Ainslie resigned in February 1837. He expressed concern that the Mission, which was struggling financially, was surrounded by a number of other, newly originated institutions, all founded by Nasmith. Ainslie stated that Nasmith’s mind and energies were being divided among these new ventures, jeopardizing the efficiency of the LCM. He felt Nasmith’s involvement in other projects—such as the Philanthropic Institution House and the London Female Mission—shook his confidence in Nasmith’s “prudence, discretion, and judgment”.
- Other Anglican Clergy and Examiners: The resignation of Noel, Robins, and the two Anglican clerical examiners of the LCM agents demonstrated collective concern regarding the proliferation of Nasmith’s societies. The feeling was that Nasmith’s time and talent were needed exclusively for the London City Mission.
- The LCM Committee and Managers: The governing body of the London City Mission expressed collective alarm and were generally supportive of consolidating efforts. When Nasmith insisted on adhering to his principle of supporting multiple causes, the Committee held its ground, ultimately leading to Nasmith’s resignation in 1837 to prevent the “wreck of the Society”. The Committee sought to move forward with a focus that Nasmith’s broader vision could not sustain.
- Nasmith’s Biographer (John Campbell): Writing posthumously in 1844, Campbell noted that Nasmith’s constant organizing led to some practical error, and confessed that he himself, along with others, had “earnestly and honestly opposed” the founding of the Cremorne Mission (Nasmith’s second mission in New York City in 1882, after Nasmith’s death but drawing a parallel to his tendency to found many ventures). In assessing Nasmith’s career, Campbell noted that if David had been a man of property, he might have been leaving his family in opulence, but instead he sacrificed everything to conscience and duty.
- Friends in Dublin: In October 1835, David Nasmith himself wrote of the opposition he received, noting that some of his Dublin friends did not approve of his work in London, arguing that money should remain in poor Ireland. He also acknowledged that his intense focus on multiple projects meant he left the Glasgow City Mission to pursue his vision elsewhere.
- Mr. Joseph Claypon: A faithful friend, Claypon maintained that while he prized Nasmith’s worth, he questioned his wisdom in not focusing solely on the City Missions, suggesting Nasmith would have increased his usefulness and comfort by sticking to one area.
The issue came to a head because critics feared the numerous, concurrently formed organizations (such as the Philanthropic Institution House, the Metropolitan Monthly Tract Society, and the London Female Mission) drained attention and funds needed by the primary City Mission. This situation ultimately compelled Nasmith to resign from the London City Mission in March 1837 so that the remaining leaders could restore public confidence.
From NotebookLM prompt “Explain how David Nasmith spreading himself out too thin may have lead to his early death as well as affected his wife and family”
The commitment of David Nasmith to establish and expand the city mission movement was marked by extraordinary zeal and self-sacrifice, but this dedication to founding many simultaneous ventures eventually led to significant personal consequences, notably his early death and severe hardship for his wife and family. The history of his prolific organizing illustrates the high personal cost incurred when dedication outpaces capacity and prudent self-care.
The Excessive Workload and Critique of Overextension
Nasmith’s organizational efforts spanned numerous countries and encompassed diverse fields of benevolence, leading critics to suggest he was spreading himself too thin, which undermined the stability of his core projects:
- Proliferation of Societies: After founding the Glasgow City Mission in 1826, Nasmith became a compulsive founder of societies. His vision included establishing over 140 missions and societies across Scotland, Ireland, France, the United States, and Canada.
- Initial Signs of Strain (1828): Early in his career, while serving as secretary for twenty-three different societies in Glasgow, the burden proved too heavy. His mind and body suffered materially, leading medical friends to recommend a change of pace for his safety. He acknowledged that managing the twenty-three societies was “more than I could attend to with safety to my mind”.
- Continued Expansion: Despite these early warnings, Nasmith continued this pattern upon moving to London in 1835 and establishing the London City Mission (LCM). However, he immediately began forming numerous supplemental institutions, including the Philanthropic Institution House, the Young Men’s Society, the Adult School Society, and the London Female Mission.
- Formal Criticism and Resignation (1837): Colleagues grew alarmed, feeling that his divided efforts compromised the core mission. The Rev. Robert Ainslie stated that Nasmith’s mind and energies were being divided among new institutions, thereby shaking confidence in his “prudence, discretion, and judgment”. The perceived threat to the stability and funding of the LCM eventually led Nasmith to resign in March 1837 to prevent the “wreck of the Society”.
- Unrelenting Pace: In the two years before his death, as he traveled for the British and Foreign Mission, he continued this rigorous pace. His aims for 1839 included forming 102 societies of various types. He admitted that during these expansive journeys, he was “bare enough repeatedly,” sometimes dining on just threepence.
Physical Toll and Early Death
The relentless pressure and self-neglect resulting from his excessive workload are directly linked to his declining health and premature end:
- Exhaustion and Self-Sacrifice: Nasmith consistently overextended himself, working hours that routinely spanned from “half-past four in the morning” until midnight or one o’clock. He believed he could make up for his “lack of quality as a minister by the quantity of time I put in”.
- Final Decline (1839): By the end of 1839, his body was failing. For weeks prior to his death, his accustomed energy of body and mind were sinking, and he labored under an unusual depression of spirits. He experienced “great agony of spirit from want of money”.
- Sudden Fatal Illness: In November 1839, he traveled to Guildford to establish another mission. He was suddenly attacked by severe pain. He passed a night of intense suffering. He died at Guildford at the early age of forty.
- Medical Findings: The post-mortem examination revealed the cause of death to be the ulceration of the bowels, extensive ulceration of the intestines, and chronic inflammation of the stomach. This physical collapse was understood by contemporaries as a direct result of his devotion, with friends concluding he had “fallen a sacrifice to his own ardent zeal”. He was considered to have “burnt himself out in the Lord’s service”.
Impact on Wife and Family
The combination of Nasmith’s extreme dedication and refusal to accept a fixed salary created relentless financial and emotional distress for his immediate family:
- Wife’s Sacrifice: Frances Hartridge Nasmith, his wife, was described as a resolute helpmate who sacrificed her own interests for his mission. She disposed of her respectable business in Glasgow for an “insignificant consideration” to accompany him. She shared privations.
- Financial Destitution: David Nasmith voluntarily declined a salary to maintain his freedom and relied on precarious funding. By 1839, the family, raising their children, faced the prospect of “starvation and bankruptcy”. He was deeply worried when he left home about whether his wife had sufficient money.
- Emotional and Marital Strain: Frances experienced persistent spiritual and emotional difficulties due to the strain of his lifestyle. She confessed that her feelings caused her to wish he were home, though she approved his mission. The difficulties were so profound that Nasmith confessed that he had put his marriage at risk, leading him to pray to be released from the temptation of taking any course that would contradict his wife’s views on their welfare.
Posthumous Outcome: When David Nasmith died in 1839, he left Frances an impoverished widow with five young children. The tragedy was highlighted by the fact that friends quickly rallied to raise a provision fund, collecting the “noble sum of £2,420” to support the family, tacitly acknowledging their lack of financial security due to his self-sacrificial life.