wow, I very much disagree with Rauschenbusch here: sin was the product of an evil society.  In my opinion, the evils of a society come from existential sin, not sin comes from the evils in society.  Sin existed before societies and civilizations.  This is not only what the Bible teaches, but what I observe in reality.  I don't like this blame game of saying everything is society's fault, because society is birthed out of our humanity, our fallen humanity.  Selfishness lives inside everyone of us.  It is not because society praises it higher than brotherhood that we are selfish.  It is our innate human condition.

The first step toward the redemption of our fallen state is admitting it.  Yet in our self-righteousness, we decide rather than look at the ugliness in our own selves, we blame a conglomerate.  It's easier to blame a "society" or a "corporation" or an ideology because it is impersonal, but the truth is that it is all very personal.  Virtue cannot be forced upon people from society down, but rather, the people's hearts must be transformed, thus transforming the society.

I am definitely not against social action.  I do think it is an essential part of the Christian faith.  But we need to be careful to what we attribute blame and how we go about social change.  Remember that in Jesus' ministry, he worked on an individual basis.  He did not come to build a new govenment, a new kingdom on earth, a new utopia as his followers thought He would.  He transformed lives by speaking directly to the people, speaking directly to their needs.  He spoke words of conviction to people about our oppression of the poor, and he spoke words of healing to the downcast.

And this also is how Martin Luther King, Jr. impacted the United States through nonviolent protest.  Because when people began to witness for themselves the oppression of Black Americans as they simply took these beatings, it spoke volumes to their individual consciences, thus changing the way they would vote, thus changing our society.

thanks for the clarification jen...funny, it's as if you've read the subsequent pages of the book for me, where the author speaks of King's philosophical position evolving until he finally accepted the teachings of personalism, in which he "not only rejected Nieburh's argument that evil could never be eliminated; he also disagreed with Rauschenbusch that evil was social rather than personal.  Evil was essentially personal, but it could be conquered- and social salvation attained- through our willing acceptance of God's mighty gift.  Hence, all of us potential sons and daughters of God."  I think the mighty gift he speaks of is the transformation of the human heart...i'm really just repeating what you already said :)