Listening to MLK (by Ryan Rodrick Beiler)
Mary Nelson just posted on MLK's Riverside speech, but I have some reflections to add. I'll admit that I took a "day off" yesterday instead of a "day on," making a four-day weekend backpacking trip in the Adirondacks with some buddies. But I did participate in some popular education on the van ride home yesterday, observing the occasion by playing two of the three MLK speeches I've been able to find for free online. I skipped ubiquitous and well-known "I Have a Dream" speech. We did listen to his "Mountaintop" speech, given the night before he was assassinated. Though it's more popularly known for the haunting forshadowings of this death—"I may not get there with you ..."—we were struck by its connection of economic to racial justice.
But "Beyond Vietnam" is worth a listen as a history lesson, as a challenge to the more domesticated gloss that gets applied to MLK's legacy every January, and perhaps most importantly as a continuing challenge to society and the church to take seriously the imperative of nonviolence: "We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation." A few passages are familiar to me by now since they're the kind of things that we at Sojourners frequently quote. There's the painfully relevant assertion that:
America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube.
And this warning:
I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.
But those passages are primarily political. Listening yesterday, another passage jumped out that I was less familiar with—one that rooted King's nonviolence in his faith, and an important reminder to Christians that allegiances to political movements and divisions must fall beneath our allegiance to Christ:
This is a calling that takes me beyond national allegiances, but even if it were not present I would yet have to live with the meaning of my commitment to the ministry of Jesus Christ. To me the relationship of this ministry to the making of peace is so obvious that I sometimes marvel at those who ask me why I'm speaking against the war. Could it be that they do not know that the good news was meant for all [people]—for Communist and capitalist, for their children and ours, for black and for white, for revolutionary and conservative? Have they forgotten that my ministry is in obedience to the One who loved his enemies so fully that he died for them?
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web editor for Sojourners.
Add to:
Category: Movement, Nonviolence, Peace, Race
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Materialism, militarism and racism are indeed the enduring and even sustaining traits for the unsustainable worldly system.
When greed becomes the overarching individual and collective principle, as it has, militarism is necessary because violence is necessary to enforce unfounded claims for domination and impoverishmnet of others in favor of one's own group which are deceptively justified by either overt or unspoken assertions of inherent superiority - racism.
We are now on the cusp of the greatest economic hardship since the Great Depression. In the nation that profited most from the division of the world's wealth into those of the haves and the have-nots, the Baby Boomers are about to become the Baby Busters.
Will the world respond through generosity and sharing or hold desperately to its greed through increased militarism, racism and warfare?
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 22, 2008 12:48 PM
i spent much of yesterday reading the public words of dr. king. truly he had visited the mountaintop! no one has articulated the vision of the kingdom of god so clearly since we heard it from jesus of nazareth. he was always a minister and a disciple of the living God first, & everything else flowed from that. this frustrated the human urge to place him squarely within any ideology that was either irreconcilable or not as all-encompassing as the kingdom of god. "where do we go from here?" his final speech as head of the SCLC made clear that enacting the kingdom of god included a massive restructuring of our society, demanding human dignity for all and questioning much of our capitalistic system. he was no communist, but he did remark countless times that a system that produces and tolerated poverty, racism, materialism, and militarism, has some serious core issues to address.
and at the heart of it all was (and is) agape love and hope. king loved america but was hopeful it could be better and more just. his ethic of nonviolence (active, immensely courageous nonviolence), of not seeking vengeance but mutual respect and justice, is remarkable and a recent and enduring testament to godly means producing godly results, and a reminder of how much a godly means is absolutely essential to godly results.
it is affirming to know he is celebrated as a person of grand historical significance and a true catalyst and leader for civil rights. may we also continue to honor him for what he was at his core - a prophet of the living and loving God!
Posted by: nad2 | January 22, 2008 1:00 PM
Thanks for these reflections! The words of prophets are frequently glossed over. Just one look at our national budget tells us where our values are. Martin Luther King has been trivialized by the culture. On the one hand the secularist wants to soft pedal the religious basis of his conviction, and on the other the religionists want to forget about the radical call for justice and compassion for the poor, and the commitment to peace and non-violence.
Posted by: Bill R. | January 22, 2008 1:03 PM
The riverside speech is indeed powerful. I agree w/ Martin on everything but sometimes I wonder if America is ready to deal w/ the practical reality of Martin's words and the level of sacrifice it will take to see his dream and goals fulfilled.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 22, 2008 1:54 PM
Bill R., Payshun,
Actually, I think the real issue is that not all Americans are inclined to treat all of King's speeches as equally inspired.
King was brilliant and at times inspired, but that does not make him an infallible "prophet" whose platform must be installed across the board and without question.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | January 22, 2008 2:31 PM
King was brilliant and at times inspired, but that does not make him an infallible "prophet" whose platform must be installed across the board and without question.
That's not the point, because the observations have to come first and thus determine the "platform." Many people denigrated King in his day -- let's not forget he wasn't exactly popular with either side even then -- and later have tried to soften his words simply because they didn't like the direction he was headed.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 22, 2008 2:51 PM
Rick, I think Wolverine's post actually is the point.
He's referring to Payshun's words: "I wonder if America is ready to deal w/ the practical reality of Martin's words and the level of sacrifice it will take to see his dream and goals fulfilled."
So, the "dreams and goals" of King would essentially be a platform. Are you suggesting that King was merely an observer and offered no "platform"?
So, Wolverine's assertions seem to make sense to me. Maybe some would agree with King's positions on racial inequality, but not on his anti-war ideology. Do we have to agree with everything he suggested?
Posted by: Blake | January 22, 2008 3:16 PM
So, the "dreams and goals" of King would essentially be a platform. Are you suggesting that King was merely an observer and offered no "platform"?
Look at it this way. Scripture often gives guidelines to deal with contemporary problems but not always specific remedies because they may not be germane to particular situations. Besides, not everything can be reduced to a platform, program, ideology etc. that can be plugged in and voila! problem solved -- that mentality represents only a shortcut to the real issue, which is "doing justice, living mercy and walking humbly with God."
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 22, 2008 3:47 PM
who ever said prophets are infallible? they are always the weirdest, awkwardest, unlikeliest characters in the bible!
and i'd be interested to hear which of king's speeches, not the end result with which you may disagree, but his speeches that include the ethical decision-making he went through, you feel were not drawn from his relationship, knowledge, belief, and love for the divine.
Posted by: nad2 | January 22, 2008 3:59 PM
Rick, I agree with you when you say, "not everything can be reduced to a platform, program, ideology etc. that can be plugged in and voila! problem solved -- that mentality represents only a shortcut to the real issue, which is "doing justice, living mercy and walking humbly with God."
Obviously the difficult part is deciding which "programs/platforms" reflect the values of your last sentence. And it's also important to admit that neither side has justice, mercy, and humility down to a science, nor will they ever.
Posted by: Blake | January 22, 2008 4:59 PM
And it's also important to admit that neither side has justice, mercy, and humility down to a science, nor will they ever.
That's why people on both sides need to talk to each other on a consistent and non-judgmental basis. Interestingly enough, my newspaper ran a piece I had written 20 years ago, before I started working for it, which advocated interracial, multi-cultural worship (and I don't think even King went that far -- even in those days it was pretty much a pipe dream). Being a part of the same church, because you're worshipping the same God, can and should foster intimacy with fellow parishioners (but it often doesn't, unfortunately).
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 22, 2008 5:30 PM
"Actually, I think the real issue is that not all Americans are inclined to treat all of King's speeches as equally inspired.
King was brilliant and at times inspired, but that does not make him an infallible "prophet" whose platform must be installed across the board and without question."
I'm not aware that King had a "platform." Being a prophet does not mean "infallible." What it does mean is challenging the culture to self examination and conversion. I think that King saw that to be a follower of Christ is to be in continual tension and conflict with human culture and most especially with government as an extension of human culture. Caesar must be held accountable. Hence our choice of values of organized violence over compassion and addressing human needs will never be accepted by the culture as long as we remain committed to violence and the cultivation of fear and hatred of our fellow human beings in order to feel secure. It just seems to be the condition of the human soul that we justify ourselves and our enmeshment in our self-centered lives. Hence we are most inclined to see as "inspired" and enshrine that prophetic teaching that doesn't ask any self-confrontation or conversion. We reject and dismiss as "uninspired" what challenges our sick condition of soul.
Posted by: Bill R. | January 22, 2008 5:54 PM
We reject and dismiss as "uninspired" what challenges our sick condition of soul.
Ain't that the truth.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 22, 2008 6:11 PM
Wolverine,
If you want to call King's stance a platform then I think you are missing the point. It's a paradigm shift. It's a value system where we value human dignity over making bombs. I don't know how that would be a platform. If you are merely talking about his stance on war then you are ignoring the central goals of overcoming militarism, racism and materialism. Those involve a heart change. King held a mirror up to the nation. The nation could not handle what it saw but if we listen to his words then we have a shot. If not we don't.
p
Posted by: payshun | January 22, 2008 9:33 PM
King was brilliant and at times inspired, but that does not make him an infallible "prophet" whose platform must be installed across the board and without question.
Posted by: Wolverine
I would go along with that for the most part . King was obviously better abled to be used as an inspiration then most of us also . I have to wonder how the media would treat the man today .
Martin Luther King Said at Birmingham
"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.… [S]egregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful
Posted by: Mick | January 22, 2008 11:14 PM
It is entirely consistent with the dark spirit of racism for one group of humans to assume the self-appointed right to militarily and financially dominate others. They tell themselves the lie that this unaccountability is inherent in their own self-recognised superiority.
We ignore this propensity for rationalization at our peril, because it is the same disease that has afflicted all of humanity and our particular curse is to have been given the ability to fulfill it more than others due to an historically overwhelming yet transient superior military and financial prowess. Our eventual disaster in the unsustainability of it will be the more dramatic in consequences.
Call it the looming bursting of the materialism and militarism bubbles.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | January 23, 2008 3:41 AM
The media were very kind to King back then -- but then again, this was before they started being attacked as "liberal" (there is no doubt that he came from the left of the political spectrum).
"[S]egregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful."
For saying this, he was denounced as a Communist.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2008 10:19 AM
Many good points by Ryan and commenters.
Maybe that in itself is a tribute to Dr. King.
I think Wolverine's 'platform' comment is fair--simply observing Dr King was not without particular demands or policy aims. And I think it also fair to acknowledge that the deeper challenge from Dr. King might lead different persons to differing 'platforms'. Hence, it can also be fair to encourage all of us to not bypass the more fundamental challenge based on whether we agree with particular strategies. Dr King obviously faced much opposition solely over strategies--and I think to his credit was able to communicate and act in such universal terms.
Mick's question as to how Dr. King would be treated today is interesting. My hunch is to the degree his ministry was prophetic he would not be treated kindly. Today (which may be different than tomorrow) I am most compelled by his brief journey as a young man. What happens when we take what has been placed in our hand (Like Moses with his staff)--and respond to the question, "What is that in your hand, Moses?"
I believe we all face great risk (a severe terror) when we agree to take that which is in our hand and step into the purposes of God. There is no way to know the forces that will be arrayed against us--nor the power that is for us.
But it can be a pressure cooker. It condensed Dr King's life. He was ordinary--bright and gifted. And stepped into the pressure cooker for a brief period. We can hear him walking with one foot in both worlds.
It costs only our lives to be a 'watchman', an 'ambassador' for the One who lives on a holy mountain. Dr. King's message is not friendly. Jesus message is not friendly. It is not a friendly thing to place one's foot on the holy mountain.
We'd rather hang onto life. And lose it.
Ironically (or not ironically), my wife and I (White & Black) were moved to Montgomery six years ago. It was (and remains) spiritual warfare and the Lord made it clear I would have to stand and fight. My wife became very ill and died in 2006. These fights are real and for keeps.
I share this because (and I know many of you well understand this better than I) these discussions engaged in here are not just idle chatter. These issues matter to God. Our days are not meaningless. Our words and thoughts shape us and our world. I cannot listen to Dr. King and hear 'chit-chat.'
I have been very challenged by Dr. King. But it isn't about him. It is that the Lord continues to use the instrument of Dr King to minister to me.
I pray God's mercy and gracious kindness rest and abide on this conversation.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 23, 2008 12:33 PM
"If you want to call King's stance a platform then I think you are missing the point. It's a paradigm shift. "
I think it's both. He wanted to change the paragigm, but he also had a preferred political platform. Those who embrace his platform want to suggest that we must as well, lest we reject the paragigm shift. This is an understandable position to hold.
However, the question over whether the paradigm in extricable from the political platform speaks to the very nature of the disagreement over the platform in the first place. As such, I'm not sure where Ryan's post gets us, other than to a place of disagreement.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 23, 2008 1:03 PM
Why?
Do you believe materialism, militarism and racism are three of the most important principalities to fight against?
Do you want the paradigm shift or not?
p
Posted by: payshun | January 23, 2008 1:14 PM
letjusticerolldown,
are you still in Montgomery? there are others in the area, me included, committed to the justice issues and the kingdom of god articulated by jesus and king. nadstuff@gmail.com
Posted by: nad2 | January 23, 2008 1:38 PM
Those who embrace his platform want to suggest that we must as well, lest we reject the paradigm shift. This is an understandable position to hold.
However, considering the reactionary rhetoric of his opponents, what actually was a paradigm shift looked to some people like a specific political platform. Remember, he was opposed not only by Southern segregationists but also by "Cold Warriors," generally non-Southerners, who accused him, with no solid evidence whatsoever, of being a Communist or at the very least in league with the Communist Party. (Interestingly, he even prophesied -- the best word I can think of -- in the early 1960s that such an accusation might be forthcoming.)
Incidentally, those two forces came together to form today's modern political right, which has over the years tried to sanitize King's words to try to absolve themselves of responsibility for the injustices King was fighting. But blacks, who know better, aren't having that.
The Vietnam War started before my parents even met, but from what I've read I see some parallels between that and Iraq. And I don't think it's any coincidence that Coretta opposed the war in Iraq, so she must have seen come comparisons as well. This is where the paradigm shift starts to look like a political platform, a change of heart and mind possibly leading to a change in policy.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2008 2:55 PM
"Do you want the paradigm shift or not?"
Yes, but I disagree on what policies do or do not constitute or propogate same. That's the difference, and it is the core of all ideological agreement.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 23, 2008 3:38 PM
That's the difference, and it is the core of all ideological agreement.
Does everything have to be based on ideology? Isn't simple justice sufficient without the left/right dichotomy?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2008 3:48 PM
This was quite the speech . I loved the way he so articulates his position . And promotes America while disagreeing with its policy . Offering hope for what America can be . Hope , love , and forgiveness , sprinkled with truth .
I recall writing a letter to Nixon protesting the Vietnam war and got a form letter saying I was listening to communist agitators who had infiltrated our college campuses .
Too many tactics used against those who spoke out back then , appear to be used by the same folks who now allign themselves as followers of King now .
Thanks for sharing this . His points are so articulate , no wonder people who disagreed with him either had to debate with him on points he made that illuminated and inspired , and concede his honesty and sincerity , that would be hard to measure up to , many I guess fell to slander and steretypical rhetoric.
Politics appear to not have changed much though .
Posted by: Mick | January 23, 2008 5:24 PM
Too many tactics used against those who spoke out back then, appear to be used by the same folks who now allign themselves as followers of King now.
As a die-hard King follower, I'd like to know what tactics.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2008 5:33 PM
"Does everything have to be based on ideology? Isn't simple justice sufficient without the left/right dichotomy?"
No because reasonable people will in some instances define justice differently.
e.g. Does simple justice demand that everyone who works make the same salary, or does it simply demand that everyone have the same opportunity, in terms of educational access and hiring policy, to strive for a higher salary? A radical equalitarian would argue for the first; most of us would probably argue for some variant (even there is difference) of the second.
Posted by: carl copas | January 23, 2008 7:06 PM
A starting ideology for justice might be the centrality of relationships characterized by justice and shalom within God's Creation and the Good News of Jesus--not the least of which is our relationship with God and the acknowledgement of God as the 'owner of the Earth'.
I don't think of that as left or right.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | January 23, 2008 7:16 PM
Does simple justice demand that everyone who works make the same salary, or does it simply demand that everyone have the same opportunity, in terms of educational access and hiring policy, to strive for a higher salary?
Well, in practice, the Scripture allows for class differences, I would say for the purpose of diversity -- no one is saying that everyone needs to be the same. I told one of the elders of my church, a spiritual mentor of mine and a practicing lawyer who lives in the ritziest part of town, "I don't have what you have, and I don't want what you have." The challenge, then as now, is "unity in diversity."
That said, I believe in equal opportunity but not necessarily equal outcomes. I'm aware, however, that some people see that statement as a cop-out.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2008 8:09 PM
"Does everything have to be based on ideology? Isn't simple justice sufficient without the left/right dichotomy?"
Ummm. No. I just said it didn't.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 23, 2008 10:37 PM
kevin s. -- Then why did you bring it up?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 23, 2008 11:54 PM
"kevin s. -- Then why did you bring it up?"
The distinction between paragidm and platform? Because such a distinction exists, and MLK was possessed of a desire to shift the former and advocate for the latter.
Posted by: kevin s. | January 24, 2008 1:45 AM
Because such a distinction exists, and MLK was possessed of a desire to shift the former and advocate for the latter.
What, then, did you see as his platform?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | January 24, 2008 7:53 AM
I pray God's mercy and gracious kindness rest and abide on this conversation.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown
So sad to hear of your loss . You indeed have been blessed by God , and that may be the hardest to understand by any of us . For your chit chat almost always makes me think about what you have said and it is allowed to take hold , in aggreement or not , but always in a manner that allows it to see fairness and love in the perspective .
Posted by: Mick | January 24, 2008 11:24 AM
letjusticerolldown,
I cannot imagine making my way through life w/o my wife. She and I will pray for you.
Posted by: carl copas | January 24, 2008 12:09 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?