I will admit to some shame from my past. I did not grow up in a context that thought much of Dr. King. Even in recent years, I have heard individuals from my childhood make snide remarks about the holiday.
My question is this: Why?
I listened to the entire speech this morning. It is a great speech, better than the Gettysburg Address. I cannot think of anything about the content of the speech that any Christian could object to. If I am to love my neighbor as myself, then I cannot be happy with a world where a person has to ride in the back of the bus because of their color or has to go to a different school simply because of their race.
If I would not want to be treated this way, as a Christian I cannot want others to be treated this way.
No argument--THAT is the Christian position. If your natural tendency is to balk at this and say, "Yes, but..." then you are trying to "kick against the pricks," you are resisting the will of God. Anyone with the heart of Christ should have supported the goal of civil rights, end of story.
So why didn't they? Help me out here.
Did they oppose the civil rights movement while supporting the ultimate goal? I would say that this is the reason they gave. Mind you, often our given reasons are rationalizations rather than the real reasons.
Standing up for your rights was not considered appropriate in my Pilgrim Holiness background. Yet standing up for the rights of others should have been!
Frankly, Dr. King's approach was not violent like some others. It was civil disobedience. I know some in my context did not think that was appropriate. Funny how they support the Revolutionary War, however--a far less noble cause in itself. They supported the north in the Civil War, but in a way demeaning to the slaves--"Let us help you poor people." Free the slaves and then abandon them to rot without any means of living.
I guarantee that more in the South felt comfortable being around slaves than those in the North did, despite high sounding rhetoric. The North may have argued for freedom, but most did not think of the slaves as equals. At least Southerners were up front about their prejudices.
Much of it is obviously fallacious. Some of it is ad hominem--attack the person rather than the argument. So at this point people will resort to attacks on Dr. King. "Did you know he plagiarized his dissertation?" or something else. Sorry, you can't oppose the content of this speech because of who is giving it. The content of the speech is thoroughly Christian and completely sound.
Some of it is the fallacy of division--prejudice. We should oppose this because all African-Americans are x. Or the fallacy of composition--so and so in the civil rights movement did this and so the whole movement is wrong.
Or perhaps it was too Democrat. Now in the pre-Roe vs. Wade days, what excuse did Republican Christians have for saying it was un-Christian to be a Democrat? It's all a farse. I guarantee you that most Christian Republicans use abortion as a smokescreen for nothing but a civil form of religion that misidentifies Christianity with a particular party.
"I don't think I could vote for a Democrat as a Christian because..." I doubt that what follows is usually the real reason. More often it's a rationalization, just as people rationalized away what King represented, coming up with reasons that weren't the real reasons. Certainly we wouldn't want to identify Christianity with the Democratic party either. We shouldn't identify Christianity with either party.
By the way, time has shown that the Republicans of that day were on the wrong side of history on this issue. We would find repugnant today any Republican who would say the things they were saying in the early 60's. Anyone with the heart of Christ would, anyway.
So what are we--Republicans and Democrats--on the wrong side of today. Cut through all our skubala and ask, what will our grandchildren wag their heads at us over? Don't pick something easy, something your group is speaking out against. Ask what issue your opposition is speaking out against that history will show you to be wrong about.
I guarantee, there is something that falls in this category for you... and me.
10 comments:
Excellent thoughts, Ken. I think it is often hard for Wesleyans in particular to identify the areas that our grandchildren will chide us because we are a church in power; and a church in power often has trouble identifying with those who are not. Blame it on the curse of Constantinianism, chalk it up to white privilege, but getting a church like the Wesleyan denomination to not only take a controversial stance on an important moral issue that the rest of the church might not even realize but also to go down to the mat fighting for it (non-violently of course) is nearly impossible. The fact is, we like fitting in with mainstream evangelicalism because we see the power and prestige it has brought us. We like our comfortable lives, our segregated churches, and our Wesleyan members that make the national news. Perhaps we need to remember what it means to be forcibly dragged out of an annual conference because you won't shut up about the abolition of slavery. I think Orange Scott could help us out here, and he could probably point us in the direction of other Christ centered causes to embrace (genocide, economic justice, creation care, war).
I actually think some of the environmental stuff that both sides are speaking out against might come back to be laughed at. It's not that the environmental concerns aren't legit, but that I believe a few generations from now will look back and say: "Yeah, maybe, but the Church took their cues from the overwhelming culture as to how we should approach it."
(I'm thinking along the lines of "preserving a better world for ourselves" versus "over-consuming Christians." )
Though I think our grandchildren will be missing our hearts true desire...I believe they will chide us for our preoccupation with the "oppressed." Whether it is political sludge that will distort our efforts or a lack of a full and authentic (orthodox) presentation of the gospel, only time will tell. I think wherever we drop the ball they will throw mud at us in this area. (like we do with their love of the Bible, their worship style, their going to church three times a week, etc.)
There is no question in my mind that should be no dissension in the Christian community in regards to having a pro-civil liberties agenda. yet, if the issue is not race, is it sexual- in either practice or orientation? Apples and oranges, yet still divisive and inclusive of a true civil liberties agenda.
That is one reason why there is dissension within the ranks - define civil liberties and who should get them. A sticky wicket to be sure and one that we will answer for in the coming generations.
While I can't agree with the statement of the I Have A Dream speech being better than the Gettysburg Address - once again apples and oranges, I do agree with the sentiment. Similarly, stating that the Revolutionary War was much less noble - which would fail to address the desires - even by the slave-holding Jefferson to eliminate or quell slavery within the new country - would fall on the side of rhetoric, to me at least. While I may have issues - extreme ones with "Dr. King", the academician, I have nothing but lifelong respect for the man who would accomplish more by the age of 39 for equality and for giving a voice to that which is socially unpopular than I ever will. I truly believe that he would have crossed more vilified lines- at least according to many "conservative" Christians - the embodiment of those virtues that have been picked up by only a few per generation, I pray, will continue to live on.
The question of how these matters apply to the homosexual debate is of course one of the more pressing issues. If I am to be consistent, I have to ready myself for the possibility that my grandchildren will wag their heads at me on this issue. To paraphrase Gamaliel, if I have God right on the issue, then things will work out my way. If I have God wrong, then no amount of blabbing on my part will change the trajectory.
Regardless of that, what my attitude toward homosexuals should be is clear to me. I must treat them as, with a Christian mind, I would want to be treated if I were them and wrestling with the same issues. For orthodox Christianity, that would be a longing for the Christian community to come along side me in my wrestling and to mediate the ministry of Christ to me.
As for rhetoric, I seriously stopped before making the comparisons to the Revolutionary War and the Gettysburg Address and at least tried to be objective. I could be wrong, but I put those comments with reflection and not just pathos.
I have long found it hard to justify the Revolutionary War from a Christian perspective--as did John Wesley. The best I have come up with is self-defense. The founders said what they thought was right and then defended themselves when the British came to enforce their rule. But I don't think that "taxation without representation" on a home grown aristocracy constitutes a greater injustice than the way blacks were treated in the South.
Similarly, Lincoln only came to advocate abolition as the die became more and more cast. He did not run on an abolitionist platform. Once the South had seceeded, what did he have left to lose in giving this address?
The rhetoric of the Dream speech is so powerful--by someone on the other side of empowerment--I think it is a better speech and more powerful because of who is giving it.
In any case, we will all become old and disempowered one day. And with our dying breath we will watch the world change with no power to effect the consequence.
If our grand children do chide us for our preoccupation with the "oppressed," it will because they have succumbed to a Christianity long on passion but short on memory. If they can somehow construct an orthodox and authentic gospel without remembering that we too were once slaves in Egypt, then we will have done a terrible job passing down those memories through our common life together.
Just to push the historical questions here for a sec - you know I love you much - with all respect, if the Revolutionary War only involved aristocracy, I'd agree.
While the questions of race and slave-holding were not addressed properly at that time - nor in the hideous 3/5 Compromise to come, the parallels exist in the area of the disenfranchised seeking voice and empowerment. Apples and oranges, but it should be noted that parallels exist. MLK = Thomas Paine? not totally, but thought provoking...
We do see that the leaders of the Revolutionary War, the political leaders were guilty of treason and therefore subject to death. With that, every supporter ran the same risk. There was so much to lose and the belief in the right to make a move, to them at least, seems to be justified and on par with those in the American Civil Rights movement. Not the same, no way - but freedom means just as much to any oppressed group.
I do believe, for the record, that Wesley could not and would not be able to appreciate the severity of the situation.
At any rate, thanks for the thoughts, and ironically, Gamaliel came up today in Bauer's Acts class!
Gamaliel's my hero :-)
I took Acts with Bauer too--it was wonderful.
Always up for a push back--it makes me look smarter and smarter with each new group of students because I've learned from the previous ones (and from erudite blogrims such as yourself).
Note on Mike's Comment: Considering the environmental concerns, the future generation may have a position to criticize us on one hand..but on the other, aren't we simply putting resources and actions into play that have been largely ignored by the Church catholic for a long time? I don't think it's overcorrection but legitimate direction. A big push does seem to be from the outside though, and every time there is a push from the outside...a new fad springs up in the church interestingly enough.
I think perhaps we should be concerned that one of Dr. King's sad observations still rings true: "the most segregated hour in America is 11 a.m. on Sunday".
The Civil Rights Act was monumental, but still just one more step toward the full manifestation of racial reconciliation, the ultimate in human community and brotherly love. This, of course, takes decades. Our (African Methodist Episcopal) pastor that Sunday challenged us in only fraternizing with other black churches in Marion. We have no regular contact with white churches in the area. It's so easy to shake hands and keep our respective distances and maintain the appearance of peace and equality.
Anyone game out there in Marion?
Post a Comment