Newspaper Page Text
PAGE FOURTEEN
The Kingdom of God and Modem Industry.
By Ira W. Howerth, Ph.D., in Amer'
lean Federationist.
There is a difference of opinion
among Bible students as to the
meaning of the phrase, “the King
dom of God.” It will hardly be de
nied, however, that in some of its
uses it means a society to be realized
some time, somewhere, either here 01
hereafter, in which the principle of
love shall be supreme, and the spirit
of brotherhood shall regulate all the
affairs of men —social, political, re
ligious and industrial. Assuming
that this is a legitimate interpreta
tion of the phrase, let us examine
one section of these affairs, namely,
the industrial, in order to see how
far they conform to this ideal con
ception. First, however, let us note
three important facts concerning the
Kingdom of God as we conceive it.
In the first place, then, the King
dom of God is a social ideal. A so
cial ideal is a conception of society
proposed by the mind for realiza
tion or attainment. It is the stan
dard or model of social perfection.
In the Kingdom of God, as set forth
in the New Testament, we have the
social ideal entertained by the foun
der of Christianity. In setting it
forth he was engaged in no idle spec
ulation, for the value of such an ideal
is as inestimable as it is obvious. A
social ideal naturally begets in those
who grasp it the disposition to realize
it. This is but an instance of the
psychological law that an idea tends
to work itself out in action. A so
cial ideal is necessary as a standard
of comparison and a criterion of
judgment. Unless men have some
conception of what society ought to
be they cannot pass judgment upon
society as it is. Christ saw, what
every great teacher has seen, that
men engaged in the practical affairs
of life are sure to have their vision
clouded by the smoke and dust of
conflict. They must, therefore, have
a social ideal to which they can lift
their eyes, and which will enable
them to discern whether ar proposed
measure is properly directed. With
out such an ideal there will be no
conscious social progress.
_ This, then, is the first fact—the
Kingdom of God is an ideal. The
second is that if we accept the King
dom of God as an ideal we must ad
mit that it exists potentially in the
society of today* A true ideal is
latent in the actual. An ideal that
cannot be realized is a false light
leading men away from the true path
of progress, an ignis £atnus luring
men into the slough of defeat and
despond. If Christ set up an im
possible social ideal, then Christ was
a false teacher not worthy to be
followed. This we do not admit. Un
like most teachers Christ disregard
ed details, and sketched only the
broad outlines of the future society.
Ho dwelt only on the completion
of principles at work among men.
Intelligence exists, love exists, broth
erhood exists, and these principles
have but to be carried out to perfec
tion to usher in the ideal society.
“The Kingdom of God is within
you.”
The third fact in regard to the
Kingdom of God is this: If we ac
cept this ideal as realizable, our
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
“Christian duty” consists, and con
sists alone, in the obligation to pro
mote its realization. When this
kingdom is to be established is not
our primary concern. Our business
is to advocate and support by word
and work, by voice and vote, every
measure which tends most strongly
to establish it, and not to stand
around idly inquiring: “How long
do you think it will be before men
are so animated by love that the
Kingdom of God shall be realized?”
No kingdom was ever established in
that way. When an “anxious visi
tor” tried to discourage Lincoln from
prosecuting the war for the Union
by speculating about the time neces
sary to bring the war to a success
ful conclusion, he said: “There is
no alternative but to keep pegging
away.” And so with those who ac
cept the Christian ideal of humanity,
and wish to realize it, there is no
• alternative but to keep pegging away.
Suppose, for instance, that William
Lloyd Garrison, when he conceived
the ideal of freedom for the slave,
had allowed himself to be diverted
by speculations about the length of
time that must elapse before the
slave-holder could be induced to re
lax his grasp upon the slave and let
him become a free man. He might
have been speculating to this day.
But Garrison was not so impractical
as that. He left the time of the reali
zation of his ideal of freedom, to
God. It was enough for him, having
conceived his ideal of freedom, to
strive with might and main to real
ize it. Hear his declaration as al
most alone he raised his voice for
emancipation: “I will be as harsh
as truth, as uncompromising as jus
tice. lam in earnest. I will not
equivocate. I will not excuse; I will
not retreat a single inch, and I will
be heard.” We know the result. He
was heard, and the shackles of bond
age, touched by the finger of love
and of patriotism, fell from the limbs
of 4,000,000 slaves.
These, then, are the three funda
mental facts in regard to the King
dom of God: It is an ideal, it ex
ists potentially in the society of to
day, it is our duty to promote its
realization.
Now, the first step towards realiz
ing an ideal is to see how far exist
ing facts and circumstances fall
short of it. We are obliged to exam
ine the actual in the light of the
ideal. Let us, therefore, carry the
lamp of investigation into modern
industrial conditions, to see how far
they conform to the principles of
the Kingdom of God. We shall find
that these conditions are far from
perfect. Perhaps no one would con
tend that they are all they should
be. Some, however, cannot read with
patience any criticism of these con
ditions. And it is hard to tolerate
a criticism that is merely captious,
simply fault-finding. But the criti
cism that reveals things as they are
in order to promote effort to make
them what they should .be, is not
captious, it is not fault-finding, but
a most helpful service. Sjluch criti
cism is constructive, it is essential
to progress. The individual or the
nation that sets itself against this
kind of criticism, by itself or others,
defeats its own interests. Intoler-
ance of constructive criticism is a
manifestation of the pride which
goeth before destruction, and the
haughty spirit which precedes a fall.
With due recognition, then, of the
many elements of good in modern
industrial life, let us observe the
principal features which illustrate
how far it is from being an exempli
fication of the principles of the
Kingdom of God.
First, then, as to the end of in
dustry. Modern industry is organ
ized for business purposes. Its end
is profits. In seeking opportunities
for investment the main question of
business is: “Will it pay?” If it
is profitable to manufacture shoddy
goods, to sell adulterated food, to
mislead the public in regard to an
article by lying advertisements, to
starve the bodies and stunt the minds
of little children by over-employment,
we may be sure that it will be done,
for from a business standpoint it
pays. Business! is business! Why
does England sell opium to China,
..utterly regardless of its injurious ef
fects upon the Chinese? Because it
is profitable to do so. Why does
America, while professedly bestow
ing the blessings of civilization upon
inferior peoples, permit the sale to
the Filipinos, for instance, of fire
water, which is more destructive to
these so-called wards of ours than
both the elements of fire and water?
Because it is business. Imagine, if
you can, a single way of making
money, not legally prohibited, which
is not now pursued. The meanest
occupations, though not fairly repre
sentative of the business order, have
the same end in view, namely, profits.
The end of industry is essentially
selfish. Its motto is not °I serve,”
but “Thou must starve ere I want.”
Private profits, not the general good,
is the first object of consideration.
Now, obviously, all this is incon
sistent with the principles of the
Kingdom of God, namely, love and
sen’ice. These demand that the pri
mary object of industry be the well
being of men. General welfare must
be not the incidental but the main
object. The progressive realization
of the Kingdom of God means, there
fore, so far as industry is concerned,
that it must be progressively organ
ized and conducted on the basis of
the welfare and happiness of all the
workers and not on the basis of the
prosperity of those who are in control
of the system.
So much for the end of modern in
dustry. Let us now examine its
method.
The dominant method of the in
dustry of today is competition. Our
industrial system is consequently
called the competitive system. Com
petition is its mainspring. The end
being, as above shown, individual or
selfish, the method cannot rise to the
high level of emulation. It will in
evitably be accompanied by practices
inimical to the general good, misrep
resentation, fraud, adulteration, se
cret agreements, and all the other
shady practices known to modern
business. The results of unbridled
competition would be socially disas
trous. They are best suggested irtt
Byron’s poem entitled “Darkness.”
The poet pictures the consequences
of blotting out the heat and light
of the sun. “The bright sun was
extinguished, and the stars di£ wan-
der darkling through the ethereal
space.”
The final outcome is the depopula
tion of the world. His description
of the gradual advent of desolation
and chaos is one of the most horri
ble in all literature. And yet the
effects are no more destructive and
hideous than those that would in
evitably follow if the bright sun of
love and mutual help were extin
guished, and men were left to fight
out the industrial battle under the
law of competition alone. “An
archy and competition,” says Rus
kin, “are the laws of death.” Ob
viously, then, competition is incon
sistent with the complete realization
of the Kingdom of God. Its princi
ples can become dominant only ~
through co-operation.
Finally, let us consider, in the light
of the Christian ideal, some of the
results of industry. We must con
fine ourselves to one phase of these
results. We pass over production
and distribution and consider only
the more immediate effects upon some
of the people engaged in' industry.
The maxim of industry is, “every
one for himself and the devil take
the hindmost.” Now, who are the
“hindmost” in the .economic strug
gle for existence? You will say,
“they are the ignorant, the intemper
ate, the depraved, the vicious, the
physically unfit, the mentally incom
petent; they make their own bed and
they must lie in it,” though let us
noi. forget that that is not a Chris
tian sentiment. But are these all
that are to be found among the
hindmost in the industrial struggle?
By no means. Among them are to
be found the inheritors of physical
and mental weakness, who being thus
handicapped through no fault of
their own are predestined to failure.
They are the product of industrial
conditions. England has long boast
ed that she is the workshop of the
nations. For the profits of trade her
mills and her factories have been
kept going at a breathless and ex
hausting pace. What has been the
effect upon her people? Parliamen
tary inquiries have shown that there
is a physical and mental degeneracy
among them unparalleled in any of
the continental nations of Europe.
One-third of the men who enlisted
for the Boer war were rejected as
physically unfit, although the stan
dard of fitness was lower than at any
time since the battle of Waterloo.
The average life of the laboring
class in England is twenty-two years,
while that of the so-called upper
classes is forty-four years. The life
of the laborer is, in large measure,
sacrificed to industry. Yet the la
boring man is the basis of England’s
greatness. Well might Lowell’s
words be addressed to Englan’s em
ployers—
Have ye founded your thrones and
altars, then,
On the bodies and souls of living
men?
And think ye that building shall en
dure
Which shelters the noble and crushes
the poor?
But there are still others who are
left behind. They are the highly sen
sitive, the scrupulously conscientious
—individuals endowed with the finest
qualities that have blossomed in our