Labor Day (and Labor Union) Ruminations

This is the third time that my September 5 blog post has been made on Labor Day, but on this date in 2011 and 2016 I made no reference at all to it being a federal holiday in the U.S. But now I am sharing some reflections on the history and significance of Labor Day—and of labor unions. 

On June 28, 1894, President Cleveland signed S. 730 into law declaring Labor Day a national holiday. Since 1882, Labor Day had been celebrated at local and state levels, and from 1887 to 1894, 23 states had enacted a Labor Day holiday. Now it had become a nationwide observance.

It is highly ironic that the creation of Labor Day in 1894 came in the midst of the Pullman Strike, one of the most consequential strikes in U.S. history.*

Just four days after Cleveland signed the Labor Day bill, the U.S. Attorney General got an injunction against the strike, and on July 3 the President dispatched federal troops to enforce the injunction. Then on the 7^th, the Guardsmen fired upon the strikers; 30 were killed and many more wounded.

What a sad start for the new federal holiday to honor the nation’s working class!

Despite Labor Day becoming an official national holiday in 1894, it took decades as well as much struggle and suffering for laboring people to achieve the reforms they had ardently sought.

From long before 1894, the laborers clamored for an eight-hour workday and a forty-hour workweek. They also called for safer working conditions, a minimum wage, unemployment compensation, and the end to child labor.

The appeals/demands of the labor movement were augmented by some prominent religious voices. For example, in 1886 Walter Rauschenbusch began his pastorate of a Baptist Church in "Hell's Kitchen," New York.

His first-hand experiences there led Rauschenbusch to lead what became the Social Gospel movement, which was to a large extent the struggle against systemic injustices foisted upon exploited laboring people in New York and elsewhere.**

Then in 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued “Rights and Duties of Capital and Labor,” an encyclical addressing the condition of the working classes.

The Pope’s primary concern was some amelioration of “the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class,” and to that end, he supported the rights of labor to form trade unions and to engage in collective bargaining.  

Such efforts and support were still necessary for long after 1894. Finally in 1938, President Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). That law established a minimum wage (of 25 cents per hour!)

The FLSA also instituted a standardized 44-hour work week, which later dropped to 40 hours, a requirement to pay extra for overtime work, and a prohibition on certain types of child labor.

Even though it was forty-four years later, the dreams surrounding the founding of Labor Day in 1894 were finally realized, and labor unions experienced widespread growth and acceptance over the next 20+ years.

Support for labor unions was highest in the 1950s when three-fourths of USAmericans approved of them. According to a recent Gallup Poll (see here), now over 70% approve of unions, the highest point since 1965.

This is a good sign—as are recent initiatives by Amazon employees and Starbucks baristas to form unions.

President Biden, thankfully, is a big supporter of labor unions. In his remarks in honor of labor unions last September, the President said that “a union means there is democracy. . . . Organizing, joining a union—that’s democracy in action.”

In his Labor Day Proclamation last Friday (Sept. 2), President Biden said, “I call upon all public officials and people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities that honor the energy and innovation of working Americans.”

No matter how, or whether, you celebrate Labor Day today, remember those across the nation who are part of the laboring class, those people who are working for an hourly wage including many who are still working for a highly-inadequate minimum wage and still unable to form a labor union.

_____

* In May 2022, History.com (here) posted “10 Major Labor Strikes Throughout U.S. History.” Following the disastrous Homestead Steel Strike of 1892, the Pullman Strike is the second of those ten. For more about the latter, see “How a Deadly Railroad Strike Led to the Labor Day Holiday” (here).

** See here for my Sept. 30, 2021, blog post about Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel.

Immigration Joys and Sorrows

One hundred and thirty years ago, on January 1, 1892, the first federal immigration station in the U.S. opened on Ellis Island in New York Harbor. That day nearly 700 immigrants started not just a new year but a new life in a new land (to them). That day led to joys for some and sorrows for others. 

Ellis Island federal immigration station, 1892~97

The First Immigrant

Annie Moore (1877~1924), an Irish émigré, was the first immigrant to pass through the new Ellis Island station. Here is the link to an informative History.com story about her. 

Annie Moore statue

Following Annie, and the 700 other immigrants who moved through the immigration facility on that opening day, that year over 400,000 immigrants were processed at the Ellis Island station. 

That original immigration station on Ellis Island was, sadly, destroyed by fire in 1897, but by that time it had processed a whopping 1,500,000 immigrants.

In memory of Annie Moore, in 1997 Irishman Brendan Graham wrote a poem titled “Isle of Hope, Isle of Tears” (which you can read at this link). Here is the first stanza and refrain of that poem:

On the first day of January / Eighteen ninety-two
They opened Ellis Island and they let / The people through
And first to cross the threshold / Of that isle of hope and tears
Was Annie Moore from Ireland / Who was all of fifteen years

Isle of hope, isle of tears / Isle of freedom, isle of fears
But it's not the isle you left behind / That isle of hunger, isle of pain
Isle you'll never see again / But the isle of home is always on your mind

The First Immigrants

Most of the immigrants in 1892, like Annie Moore, were from Europe. According to this History.com article, “The reasons they left their homes in the Old World included war, drought, famine and religious persecution, and all had hopes for greater opportunity.”

Some did well. Despite the various initial challenges, many went on to gain what they were seeking in the U.S. The stories we mostly hear, such as in this YouTube video, are by or of people who were successful. They, thankfully, experienced the joys of immigration.

But, unfortunately, there are other stories also. Many had a terribly tough life. They experienced the sorrows of immigration. Most of those, perhaps, did not have a life any worse than in the land from which they came, but it was certainly not the life they dreamed of upon reaching Ellis Island.

I first began thinking about this matter when doing research for my blog post on Walter Rauschenbusch last September. As I wrote then, from 1886 to 1897 he served as the pastor of the Second German Baptist Church, located in the slum section of New York City known as Hell’s Kitchen.

Many of those people had passed through Ellis Island, or had come through other facilities a few years before 1892. The unsatisfactory living conditions of many of those earlier immigrants are depicted in the book How the Other Half Lives (1890) by Jacob A. Riis.

Last year I read part of Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel, The Jungle, and I soon will finish reading Mary Doria Russell’s captivating historical novel, The Women of Copper Country (2019).

The former “portrays the harsh conditions and exploited lives of immigrants” in Chicago, mainly in the meatpacking industry, and in similar industrialized cities.

Russell’s brilliant book graphically depicts the plight of immigrants who worked in the copper mines owned by the Calumet and Hecla Mining Company in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Specifically, it is about the history-changing strike there of 1913-14, of which I had known nothing.

Many of those exploited immigrants had most likely entered the U.S. at Ellis Island. But their joy upon arriving turned to sorrow because of the harsh conditions they faced and had to endure for many years after arriving.

The Immigrants Now

The question for us now is this: how are we USAmericans treating the many immigrants who are entering our country now? Many don’t have immigration documents, but neither did the 1,500,000 who passed through the first immigration station on Ellis Island. 

In Memory of J. Howard Pew and Appreciation for Pew Research Center

This post is about a notable man about whom I have mixed feelings and about a notable research center about which I have much appreciation. I am writing about J. Howard Pew, who died 50 years ago (on Nov. 27, 1971) at the age of 89, and about the Pew Research Center, sponsored mainly by The Pew Charitable Trusts. 

The Notable J. Howard Pew

In the Presbyterian church in the small city of Bradford, Pennsylvania, the pews were often occupied by Pews. Joseph Newton Pew, Sr., (1848~1912), founder of the Sun Oil Company (later Sonoco), was a devout Presbyterian and he raised his children to be the same.

In 1876, the Presbyterians started a “normal school” in Grove City, Penn. After it became Grove City College, J. Howard Pew enrolled there, graduating at the age of 18 in 1900. Later he served as president of the board of trustees of his alma mater for four decades.

After his father’s death, J. Howard became the president of Sun Oil Company at the age of 30 and soon became a wealthy man.

Pew was a strong conservative, both theologically and politically. Using his oil money, he helped found the National Association of Evangelicals in 1942, Fuller Theological Seminary in 1947, and Christianity Today, the influential evangelical magazine launched by Billy Graham, in 1956.

Politically, Pew was a staunch Republican and opponent of FDR and the New Deal in the 1930s. In 2018, one scholar wrote about Pew’s “Godly Conservatism.” His conservative politics were rooted in his conservative evangelical views.

The Notable Pew Research Center

While I disagree with many of J. Howard Pew’s theological and political views, I much appreciate the work of the Pew Research Center, which since 1996 has been largely supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which was established by Pew and his siblings.

In spite of Pew’s strong conservative evangelical and Republican views, The Pew Research Center (PRC) is a non-partisan think tank, or as it refers to itself, a “fact tank.”

Now based in Washington, D.C., PRC describes itself as “a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world.”

They go on to explain, “We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.”

Society benefits greatly from the extensive work of the PRC as it provides accurate information on social issues, public opinion, and trends shaping the United States and the world.

A Notable Pew Research Center Survey

On November 18, PRC released a report titled “What Makes Life Meaningful? Views From 17 Advanced Economies.” That survey clearly indicates that one source of meaning is predominant: family.

In 14 of the 17 advanced economies surveyed, more mention their family as a source of meaning in their lives than any other factor.

However, outside of the U.S., religion is never one of the top 10 sources of meaning cited—and no more than 5% of any non-U.S. public mention it. In this country, however, 15% mention religion or God as a source of meaning, making it the fifth most mentioned topic.

Here is a chart showing how the 17 countries ranked on the “what makes life meaningful” poll. 

I was surprised that only 15% of USAmericans said “faith” is what makes life meaningful—but even more surprised that no more than 5% of the people in any other country said that, as indicated on the image on the right. 

Back in 1912, Walter Rauschenbusch, the proponent of the social gospel that was opposed by conservative evangelicals such as J. Howard Pew, wrote,

No material comfort and plenty can satisfy the restless soul in us and give us peace with ourselves. All who have made test of it agree that religion alone holds the key to the ultimate meaning of life.**

I agree with Rauschenbusch and with the 15% in this country who say that faith makes life meaningful.

What about you?

_____

** These significant words are included in To Live in God: Daily Reflections with Walter Rauschenbusch (2020), p. 21.

Edward Bellamy's Vision of a Socialist Utopia

Francis Bellamy, who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance in 1892, was the subject of my August 30 blog post. In that article, I mentioned that Bellamy was a democratic socialist—but he was not so to the extent of Edward Bellamy, his cousin who authored a powerful novel about a socialist utopia.

Edward Bellamy’s Bio, Briefly

The fathers of Edward Bellamy (1850~1898) and Francis Bellamy (1855~1931) were brothers. Edward’s father was a Baptist minister, but Edward did not follow his father’s footsteps and did not become a minister as his cousin Francis did.

Edward, rather, became a journalist and then after developing tuberculosis at the age of 25 he became a novelist and wrote three unremarkable novels that were published between 1880 and 1885.

The life of Edward Bellamy changed drastically, though, after his utopian science fiction book Looking Backward, 2000-1887, was published early in 1888. Within a year it sold some 200,000 copies. 

By the end of the century, Looking Backward had sold more copies than any other novel published in America except for Uncle Tom’s Cabin and Ben-Hur. It “especially appealed to a generation of intellectuals alienated from the alleged dark side of the Gilded Age” (see here).

(Curiously, while I have known of the latter books for most of my life, I don’t remember ever hearing of Bellamy’s book until August of this year.)

Bellamy published Equality, a sequel to Looking Backward, in 1897, but it was a disappointment. The following year, less than two months after his 48^th birthday, Bellamy died in his home state of Massachusetts.

Edward Bellamy’s Book, Briefly

Even though, as indicated, I had not heard of Bellamy’s highly successful book before this past summer, I bought a Kindle copy (for 99 cents!) in early September and read it with great interest, in spite of some of it being rather pedantic.

The novel narrates the story of a young Bostonian named Julian West, who falls into a deep, hypnosis-induced sleep in 1887 and wakes up 113 years later in a radically changed Boston.

West is discovered in his underground sleeping chamber by a Dr. Leete, who along with his lovely daughter Edith explain and introduce West to the city, and the American society, of the year 2000. To his great amazement, the country, indeed, has become a socialist utopia.

Spark Notes (here) provides a detailed summary and analysis of the book—and even the full text of the novel—so I will make only the following brief comment about its content.

From Dr. Leete’s explanation, it becomes clear that Boston and the entire U.S. has become a utopia by the choices made through the years by the general public and not at all because of government control and/or coercion. It was, truly, the result of democratic socialism.

So, What About It?

I found Bellamy’s novel so intriguing because it was written at the very time that unchecked capitalism and “robber barons” such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller were causing such suffering by exploitation of the working people of the country.

The year Looking Backward was published was also the very time Walter Rauschenbusch was beginning to develop the Social Gospel—and his biographers say that the young pastor of the church in Hell’s Kitchen read Bellamy’s book.

A 2019 article titled “When Christian Evangelicals Loved Socialism” states, “Rauschenbusch never became an overt political activist allied with any socialist group. But he was sympathetic to the goals of socialists, if not always their methods.”

At the present time, the progressives in the Democratic Party are often vilified as being socialists, but perhaps they are merely seeking what Edward Bellamy and Walter Rauschenbusch envisioned; that is, a society in which the needs of all people are adequately met.

Why don’t we all want, and work for, such a society?

Affirming the Social Gospel: In Appreciation of Walter Rauschenbusch

He was born 160 years ago on October 4, 1861, the first year of the Civil War, and died in 1918, a few months before the end of World War I, but Walter Rauschenbusch hated militarism and other societal problems that cause human suffering and the degradation of human life.

Acknowledgment of Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel

In all three of my “theological” books, I wrote about Rauschenbusch. In Fed Up with Fundamentalism (2007, 2020) I wrote that the Social Gospel was “the third factor [after Darwinism and biblical criticism] which helped instigate the fundamentalist movement.”

And I explained, “The most significant leader of the Social Gospel was the prominent Baptist historian Walter Rauschenbusch” (p. 30).

In The Limits of Liberalism (2010, 2020), one sub-section is “The Liberalism of Rauschenbusch” (pp. 31~35), and later I wrote that for many “the main religious appeal of liberalism is found in its ethical stance, which has often been shaped by the emphasis of Walter Rauschenbusch and the Social Gospel” (p. 109).

Then in #5 of Thirty True Things Everyone Needs to Know Now (2018), I wrote about Rauschenbusch’s “strong emphasis on the idea that the kingdom of God is both here now and also coming in the future” (p. 36).

In his book Christianizing the Social Order (1912), Rauschenbusch used the phrase “the kingdom is always but coming,” and that became the title of the superb 2004 biography of Rauschenbusch by Christopher H. Evans.

Formation of Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel

Walter Rauschenbusch was the son of German parents who had immigrated to New York. After graduating from Rochester Theological Seminary, from 1886 to 1897 he served as the pastor of the Second German Baptist Church, located in the slum section of New York City known as Hell’s Kitchen.

That was at the apex of the Gilded Age when there was great and growing inequality between the upper and lower classes. For example, at the time when so many lived in crowded, vermin-infested tenements in Hell’s Kitchen, rich industrialists lived in luxury on 5^th Avenue and Madison Avenue.

John D. Rockefeller’s NYC home was less than a mile from Second German Baptist Church, and J.P. Morgan as well as William K. Vanderbilt and his flamboyant wife Alva lived only 1.2 miles from Rauschenbusch’s church. Here is a picture of the Vanderbilt mansion, completed in 1882. 

Rauschenbusch said that he went to his new pastorate “to save souls in the ordinarily accepted religious sense.” But in the area where his church was located, unemployment, poverty, malnutrition, disease, and crime were rampant.

He came to understand that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount spoke more about how to live in the present rather than how to prepare for life after death. Further, he came to realize that Jesus’ key teaching about the Kingdom of God was also for the here and now, not just about the “sweet by and by.”

Affirmation of Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel

Even though I have remained critical of some aspects of Rauschenbusch’s “liberal” theology, such as his being overly optimistic about the possibility of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth by human effort, through the years I have increasingly come to affirm his basic theological ideas.

Here are some of the most important emphases in Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel.

    * Jesus’ core teachings are found in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5~7) and in his parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46).

    * The basis of Jesus’ teachings was his understanding of the Kingdom of God, which Rauschenbusch rightly understood as “always but coming.”

    * In addition to the reality and seriousness of “personal” sins, the pervasiveness and destructiveness of social sin and sinful social structures must be recognized and adamantly opposed.

The crux of Rauschenbusch’s Social Gospel is still sorely needed now as it was in the 1890s and in 1917 when he published his last book, A Theology for the Social Gospel.

Can we and will we affirm, accept, and implement that Gospel? It is truly good news for the multitude of people who are suffering deprivation, discrimination, and destructive social structures right now.

Criticizing Criticism of Critical Race Theory

Critical race theory (CRT) is one of the hottest topics of the day, so it seems fitting to critique the profuse criticism of it.

Basically, critical race theory is an academic concept that explains racism as a social construct. That is, racism is understood not merely as the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies. Why, though, should that be a target of constant criticism? 

(From a 1/22/2017 post by Kyia Young)

Political Criticism of CRT

The political criticism of CRT has been strongest since September of last year. On Sept. 4, then President Trump had the Executive Office of the President issue a memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies.

That memo ended with these words: “The divisive, false, and demeaning propaganda of the critical race theory movement is contrary to all we stand for as Americans and should have no place in the Federal government.”

Since then, several states (Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas) have banned/restricted the teaching of CRT.

Perhaps most egregious is Oklahoma’s ban, for earlier this year it was reported that over 80% of the citizens of that state had never heard of the Tulsa race massacre at the end of May 1921.

Nevertheless, on May 7 Oklahoma Gov. Stitt signed a bill that seeks to prevent teachers from saying things so that “any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race or sex.”

But how could Tulsa 1921 possibly be taught without Black students feeling some anguish at the way Blacks were so seriously mistreated then, without White students feeling some guilt at what their ancestors had done, and without all feeling considerable discomfort?

However, all across the country Republican-led states are criticizing CRT, and more states will likely ban/prohibit the teaching of CRT in public schools.

SBC Criticism of CRT

In recent years, perhaps a higher percentage of Southern Baptists have voted for Republican politicians than voters belonging to any other major Christian denomination. Accordingly, CRT has been widely discussed, and criticized, by Baptist pastors and Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) leaders.

There was a major push by the new organization known as Conservative Baptist Network (CBN) to get Pastor Mike Stone of Georgia elected as the next president of the SBC.

In the run-off election on June 15, he lost by a narrow 52%-48% vote at the SBC annual meeting in Nashville. (Lee Brand, Jr., a member of CBN’s steering council, was elected 1st vice president.)

In CBN’s May 20 statement endorsing Stone, the third reason they gave for their support was his opposition to CRT. They boasted that Stone “holds that the Bible is the only analytical tool he needs, leading him to reject unbiblical ideologies such as Critical Race Theory.”

Criticizing the Criticism of CRT

In twentieth-century American Christianity, an important emphasis emerged on what came to be widely labeled as “sinful social structures.” Early on, that emphasis was found in the writings of Walter Rauschenbusch and other Social Gospel proponents.

In A Theology for the Social Gospel (1917), Rauschenbusch wrote that “we are continuing to sin because our fathers created the conditions of sin by the African slave trade and by the unearned wealth they gathered from slave labor for generations” (p. 79). Sin was embedded in the system of slavery.

Fifteen years later, Reinhold Niebuhr published his highly influential book with the sometimes misunderstood title Moral Man and Immoral Society. That means, for example, some slaveowners might treat their slaves kindly (morally) while simultaneously the system of slavery was grossly immoral.

True, some teachers might use CRT in harmful ways. But the greatest harm to society will come from those who refuse to recognize the reality of sinful social structures.

The longer that reality is denied and attempts to understand/dismantle it are rejected (such as by most criticism of CRT), the stronger the roots of racism will become and the longer the detrimental effects of racism will be experienced by so many People of Color.

Yes, criticism of Critical Race Theory must be forthrightly criticized.

TTT #5 God’s Main Desire for the World is the Realization of the Kingdom of God

Assuming that God created the world in which we live (but certainly not assuming that such creation was accomplished in six days some six thousand years ago), what was God’s reason for creating this world and what is God’s main desire for us humans who inhabit it?

God’s Purpose

In keeping with what we know of God through Jesus Christ and the witness of the Holy Spirit, we can say that God created the world because of love and only because of love. 

And God lovingly created this world with the purpose of there being a realm of existence filled with persons who would love God and each other. That realm is known as the Kingdom of God.

Yes, there are problems with the use of the word “kingdom.” It can be criticized for being “sexist” or archaic. Perhaps some other term would be better—such as “realm” or the creative word “kindom.”

But since “kingdom” has been used for so long and is still used even in most newer translations of the Bible, I have decided to stay with it—and to focus on what it means as an expression of God’s purpose for creation.

God’s Kingdom

In many Christian circles, there has been a widespread belief that the kingdom of God is mainly something coming in the future.

But I have long liked the both/and approach of Georgia Harkness in her book Understanding the Kingdom of God, published in 1974, the year of her death:

The Kingdom of God is both present and future; both a growth and a final consummation by God. It is our task and our hope—our task which we face with the power of Christ; our hope that the last word will be spoken by God and that that last word will be victory. The Kingdom means both acceptance and action, a gift and a task. We work for it and we wait for it (pp. 61-62).

This is consistent with the emphasis of Walter Rauschenbusch (1861-1918), who placed strong emphasis on the idea that the kingdom of God is both here now and also coming in the future. “The kingdom is always but coming” is a (somewhat awkward) phrase he often used. 

Words of Walter Rauschenbusch

God’s Desire

If God’s main desire for creation is the realization of the kingdom of God, beginning now, it should be evident that God’s primary desire for us humans is not just the happiness of individuals (although that may be an important spinoff).

Much of Christianity over the centuries, perhaps especially in the United States, has been much too other-worldly and much too individualistic.

Other-worldly views of the Kingdom of God have not placed enough emphasis on life in this world and the responsibility of Christians to wrestle against sinful societal structures that harm so many people now.

Similarly, individualistic views of the kingdom of God means focusing on one’s “soul” being saved for eternal life in Heaven after death, with little concern for life in a community of love in the “here and now.”

If we understand, though, that God’s main desire is the realization of the kingdom of God, beginning now and culminating in the realm beyond earthly history, then we are freed from the errors of excessive other-worldliness and of individualism.

Thus, one thing that everyone needs to know, and act upon, now is that God’s main desire for the world is the realization of the kingdom of God—beginning in this world now.

Next, we need to consider the primary characteristic of the kingdom of God, which is shalom (peace), the main topic of the next chapter.

[Click here to read the entire fifth chapter of Thirty Things Everyone Needs to Know Now.]

In Praise of Toyohiko Kagawa

He is no longer well known in the U.S., but there was a time, especially up to the early 1940s, when Toyohiko Kagawa was the best-known Japanese in America, except for Emperor Hirohito.

Kagawa was born 125 years ago today, on July 10, 1888. Although sickly from the time he was a young man, he lived until April 1960. During his lifetime of nearly 72 years, he was creatively involved in a wide variety of activities.

He was a Christian evangelist, social reformer, labor activist, author, and peace activist. Because of his contributions in the two latter arenas, he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1947 and 1948 and for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1954, 1955 and 1956.

Kagawa studied at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1914 to 1917 and later made several other trips to the U.S., the most extensive one being for more than six months beginning in December 1935.

In the spring of 1936, he delivered the Rauschenbusch lectures at Colgate-Rochester Divinity School. (Those lectures were named for Walter Rauschenbusch, whom many consider the most prominent Baptist theologian of the 20^th century.)

Kagawa’s Rauschenbusch lectures were published later that year under the title “Brotherhood Economics.” Even though (or because?) he was a Christian evangelist, Kagawa was deeply interested in economic matters, especially the plight of the many people in Japan (and the world) who were living in poverty.

He knew about being poor from his own experience.

When he was still a seminary student in 1909, he moved into the largest slum area of Kobe and lived there for years. He freely shared what he had, including his small house, with needy people.

As a result, he contracted trachoma (a serious and contagious eye disease) from one of the poverty-stricken people he took into his home.

Because of his concern for the poor, Kagawa was active in the founding of the first labor unions in Japan soon after his return in 1917. Over the next several years he worked extensively in forming unions and cooperatives, and that was a major topic in his 1936 lectures.

Kagawa has been called a “reverse missionary.”

Bo Tao is a doctoral student at Yale University. His master’s thesis at a university in Shanghai was on Kagawa, and his article in the July 2013 issue of “International Bulletin of Missionary Research” is titled “The Peacemaking Efforts of a Reverse Missionary: Toyohiko Kagawa before Pearl Harbor.”

Tao tells how President Roosevelt personally asked for Kagawa to be allowed to enter the United States after he had been detained by immigration authorities in San Francisco in 1935. He was held, ostensibly, because of fear that his trachoma might be transmitted to others.

There were some, though, who opposed his involvement in labor unions and cooperatives. They were the same ones who objected to President Roosevelt’s implementation of New Deal policies during the Depression years of the 1930s.

A few years later, after being arrested and detained in Japan for nearly three weeks in 1940 because of his anti-war activities, Kagawa again visited the U.S. from April to August of 1941 in a “last-ditch” effort to avert war in the Pacific.

Unfortunately, as we know, his peace activities were unsuccessful. But not because he didn’t try.

There is much more I would like to write about Kagawa, who as early as 1939 had been deemed one of three “modern saints”—along with Gandhi in India and Schweitzer in Africa.

After all, I included Kagawa on my list of “top ten Christians” in my Sept. 15, 2010, blog posting.

“Failed Prophecies, Glorious Hopes”

Richard Rorty was an American philosopher who is not well known outside of academic circles. I certainly have not read him extensively and do not know a lot about him. But I have recently read, and have been impressed with, his 1998 essay titled “Failed Prophecies, Glorious Hopes.”

Rorty, who died six years ago this month (in 6/07) at the age of 75, was the grandson of the noted German-American theologian Walter Rauschenbusch, the son of the latter’s oldest child. But unlike his grandfather and mother, Rorty was a secular humanist rather than a Christian believer.

Still, Rorty had great appreciation for his grandfather. That is evident from the afterword he wrote for “Christianity and the Social Crisis in the 21^st Century,” the centennial re-issue of Rauschenbusch’s classic work “Christianity and the Social Crisis” (1907).

From his secular humanist viewpoint, Rorty compares the New Testament and the Communist Manifesto in the 1998 essay. He avers that

both documents are expressions of the same hope: that some day we shall be willing and able to treat the needs of all human beings with the respect and consideration with which we treat the needs of those closest to us, those whom we love.

That glorious “hope for social justice,” says Rorty, is “the only basis for a worthwhile human life.” And, according to Rorty, the idea of social justice includes the hope that “the world might be changed so as to ensure that no one goes hungry while others have a surfeit.”

Rorty realized that if social justice is to be achieved there will have to be some redistribution of wealth. Echoing the emphasis of his grandfather on the “social gospel,” non-Christian Rorty declares, “There is no way to take the New Testament seriously as a moral imperative . . . without taking the need for such redistribution equally seriously.”

Then, alluding to the Communist Manifesto, Rorty writes,

To say that history is the history of class struggle is still true, if it is interpreted to mean that in every culture, under every form of government, and in every imaginable situation . . . the people who have already got their hands on money and power will lie, cheat and steal in order to make sure that they and their descendants monopolize both for ever.

But, alas, both the New Testament and the Manifesto of Marx and Engels have to this point been “failed prophecies.” We in the United States have no trouble seeing the miserable failure of Marxism in most of the countries where it became dominant.

Cambodia is a good example. The Khmer Rouge was the Communist Party of Cambodia under the despotic rule of Pol Pot. It may have embraced a glorious hope for social justice in the beginning, but it is hard to imagine a more dismal failure. More than 2,000,000 Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge in the 1970s.

Certainly the New Testament has not failed so miserably, especially in recent decades. And yet, from the time of Charlemagne through the era of European colonialism to rather recently, political and military rulers who have claimed to be Christians have led to the slaughter, enslavement, and oppression of people around the world.

I am not as pessimistic as Rorty was. Many Christians are still seeking social justice based on the teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. But, sadly, there are many others who are not. Rorty’s pessimism was not completely unfounded.

Things would have been much different, though, if the ideas of Rorty’s grandfather had been implemented more widely, rather than being largely rejected by the fundamentalists of the 1920s and afterward.