Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Martin Luther King Jr.


by 4 Comments

Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr., and non-violence

MLK Montgomery March 1965 (Photography by Associated Press)

MLK Montgomery March 1965 (Photography by Associated Press)

Martin Luther King, Jr., will be honored tomorrow with a federal holiday that celebrates his birthday. This has inspired a few thoughts:

This morning I read this excellent short blog post titled “Weapons and Jesus” from the blog Rudimentary Bible. The author reminds readers that passages like Matthew 26:52 (“For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”) give us good reason to attribute some sort of philosophy of non-violence to Jesus while passages like Luke 22:36 (“And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one…”) temper our anabaptist ideals. He writes:

“The Jesus movement was small.  He warned against a futile effort of resisting imperial rule with violence, not unlike Isaiah who warned against futile alliances with Egypt.  That’s the most we can say in terms of Jesus and weapons.”

When we discuss Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr., we must acknowledge though Jesus as remembered in the Gospels may have inspired these men, Jesus existed in a different context. As the aforementioned blogger notes, Jesus’ movement was small and he was aware that there was no defeating Rome. Gandhi and King benefitted from living in evil societies whose consciences could be pricked by appeals to Christian teachings (the British Empire and the United States).  Gandhi and King could appeal to the Jesus of the Gospels to shame British and American “Christians” who were not following their religion’s ideals. If Jesus would have challenged Rome to live according to the ideals displayed by pagan deities then I think events would have unfolded the same way. Roman deities were murderers, fornicators, and cheaters. While Israel’s God was remembered as a warrior in various contexts there were traditions like the Suffering Servant of Isaiah or the sacrificial deaths of the Maccabean martyrs upon which Jesus could draw from the culture’s memory, but as the Jewish War of 66-70 indicates, approaches like that of Jesus were far less enticing to many than those that advocated violent uprising.

There is something that Jesus shared with King that is more important than what these men taught though: their actions. While we may have a hard time reconstructing Jesus’ teachings on non-violence because we don’t have enough material to establish whether Jesus was being more or less pragmatic (why fight Rome if defeat is assured?), or principled (killing other humans is wrong) or somewhere in-between these two poles, we do know that Jesus is remembered as choosing not to fight and that he suffered a horrible death passively.

Likewise, the early Christians interpreted Jesus’ willingness to die as (1) the will of God for a greater purpose; (2) something he could have prevented, even arguing that he said he could have asked his Father to send warrior angels to his defense; and (3) that (for most Christians) violence does not appear to be an option if one is to be a true disciple (until the rise of Emperor Constantine). We have narratives that depict the early Christians as willing to suffer violence and death as a way of modeling their crucified messiah to the world. If it is impossible to reconfigure Jesus’ exact words on non-violence it is much easier to reconfigure how most early Christians interpreted Jesus’ death.

King’s non-violence is obvious. We have articles and books he wrote. We have interviews he gave to magazines and radio stations. We have audio, video, and transcripts of speeches he gave. Yet, like Jesus, we honor King because he died non-violently, not because he taught non-violence, per se. If King would have fought back, or killed another person in defense of his well-being, we would not remember King as we do. We might forgive him for failing to live up to his ideals. We may have debased him as a hypocrite. We wouldn’t celebrate his birthday every year. It was King’s death that was his ultimate message.

As a Christian who is an American citizen this is where I find my inspiration. I don’t call myself a “pacifist” because, well, I don’t like how it implies being “passive”. I do advocate non-violence though. I do affirm that as a disciple of the teachings of Jesus his actions speak as loud or louder than his words, and I do not think I am alone in interpreting Jesus’ death as a message greater than any of his sermons, since the earliest Christians, as far as we know, interpreted Jesus’ death as advocating for their own cruciform posture in the world.

__________

We could discuss hypothetical situations where my idealism would be challenged: would I defend my wife from an attacker in the home (yes, but not with the aim to kill)? would I have killed Hitler if I had a time machine that put me in the position to do so, saving millions of lives (we don’t know if it would have saved millions of lives since any venture in multiverse must include the reality that one change creates many others, which means it is possible that an outcome worse that World War II could have occurred)? Yet hypothetical extremes do a terrible job of addressing present concerns. When our world and nation are captivated by violent solutions to our problems–whether war against terrorist all over the globe or “Gun Appreciation Day” to advocate for our right to own weapons a few weeks after many of our children were slaughtered by weapons–we don’t need to worry about extreme hypotheticals. We need to worry about taking steps toward peace, especially if we claim to be Christians. As a Christian who is an American citizen let me say to fellow American citizens that our obsession with weapons is more than concerning. We don’t want to own something to shoot a deer only. We want something that can destroy dozens of people at one time. We want weapons made for extreme warfare to be available in our homes. I hope that this causes some to pause for a moment. Even if you are not an advocate of non-violence, surely, common sense indicates that our edginess and our culture of fear is going to increase violence.

__________

mlk-the-strength-to-love-cover-image1In his book Strength to Love King knew that his advocacy of non-violence would be deemed “impractical”, to which he retorted:

“My friends, we have followed the so-called practical way for too long a time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way.”[1]

I think we have bought into the lie that our wars, and our violent postures, are the “lesser evil”. We imagine scenarios where if this war didn’t happen this enemy would have risen to greater power bringing this evil on the world. Of course, none of these hypotheticals have happened, but our wars, wars we do not know how to end (as an American it seems like Afghanistan and Iraq are eternal wars, and places like Afghanistan seem ready to collapse into chaos as soon as our military withdraws, causing me to wonder what we did there that was good ultimately).

[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., Strength to Love (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), 56.

About these ads


by 2 Comments

1961 interview with Martin Luther King, Jr.

I notified people on Facebook and Twitter regarding this interview a couple days ago, but I realize many who read this blog may not be connected to me via social media, so I want to place a link here as well. WNYC has released a previously unedited interview with Martin Luther King, Jr., recorded in 1961. You can listen to it here.

Dr. King discusses a variety of thing related to being Black in the south, his education, his reason for becoming a minister, his understanding of the “social Gospel”, his approach to non-violence as influenced by the teachings of Jesus and Gandhi, and much more.

One quote from early in the interview that I appreciated in this one (statement starts around 2:54): ”I came to see that religion could be emotionally satisfying as well as intellectually respectable.” I agree, Dr. King!


by 13 Comments

Forgiveness and reconciliation: a challenge from Martin Luther King, Jr.

mlk-the-strength-to-love-cover-image1Today is the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. I decided to read some of his writings this week (with the 21st being the federal holiday in his honor), so I began with a book from which I have read large portions before today that I enjoyed. Yet the quotation that I want to ponder is not one I enjoy, so I chose to share it, because my reaction to Dr. King’s words were more defensive than usual. Let me share the quote, then I will tell you why I reacted less favorably that usual, then you can tell me your thoughts in the comments:

“Forgiveness does not mean ignoring what has been done or putting a false label on an evil act. It means, rather, that the evil act no longer remains as a barrier to the relationship. Forgiveness is a catalyst creating the atmosphere necessary for a fresh start and a new beginning. It is the lifting of a burden or the cancelling of a debt. The words ‘I will forgive you, but I’ll never forget what you’ve done’ never explain the real nature of forgiveness. Certainly one can never forget, if that means erasing it totally from his mind. But when we forgive, we forget in the sense that the evil deed is no longer a mental block impeding a new relationship. Likewise, we can never say, ‘I will forgive you, but I won’t have anything further to do with you.’ Forgiveness means reconciliation, a coming together again. Without this, no man can love his enemies. The degree to which we are able to forgive determines the degree to which we are able to love our enemies.”[1]

Now, I know Dr. King is addressing the love of enemies. I have at least one relationship of which I am conscious that would be challenged by Dr. King, but I don’t consider the person to be an enemy. Rather, I consider this person to be someone who after many years and many attempts at relationship showed disinterest over and over again. So, over time, I decided that if that person did not want to invest in the relationship then I wasn’t going to worry myself any longer, and I quit trying. Honestly, I haven’t missed the person at all. Then I heard from a couple sources that this person has complained about my unwillingness to have anything to do with them, which I found ironic.

If I were pastoring or counseling, and I saw someone being hurt time and time again, I would tell them that one can forgive that person while also putting themselves in a place to avoid further physical or emotional abuse. Whether it was the child of an abusive parent, or the ex-spouse of a scorned lover, it has been my conviction that one can come to a place where one loves that person, prays for that person, hopes the best for that person, and honestly can say that day-to-day there is no hatred manifesting in their hearts or anger in their emotions, yet (!) this person knows that it is best for their well-being and the well-being of the abuser if contact is minimalized, if not ended altogether. It seems to me that Dr. King’s vision of true forgiveness wouldn’t allow for this.

Now, I know Dr. King’s words aren’t timeless. He was a man with a context writing to an audience who shared that context. Much like reading the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles one wonders what Jesus or Paul may have said if someone raised their hand after a discourse on something like loving one’s enemy, turning the other cheek, or something far more practical like divorce, and asked, “What if my child is in danger?” or “What is my spouse sexually abuses my children?” Would Jesus and Paul have altered their answers? If Dr. King was given several hypothetical situations would he stand by his statement’s seemingly universal declaration on forgiveness? I don’t know, but for the sake of discussion tell me your thoughts. What do you think about Dr. King’s statement on real forgiveness? Can one forgive without full reconciliation?

[1] Martin Luther King, Jr., “Loving your enemies” in Strength to Love (Philadelphia: Fortess Press, 1981), 51.


by Leave a comment

Mondays with MLK: Why we should forgive our enemies.

Each year after September 11th it is good to remind ourselves that while we may “never forget” that does not mean we should not seek to forgive. Today I will share a few excerpts from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s sermon “Loving Our Enemies” published in Strength to Love (reprinted by Fortress Press in 2010, pp. 47-48). He gives three main reasons:

“Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive our hate; only love can do that. Hate multiples hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiples toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says, ‘Love your enemies,’ he is setting for a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies – or else? The chain reaction of evil  - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars – must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

“Another reason why we must love our enemies is that hate scars the soul and distorts the personality. Mindful that hate is an evil and dangerous force, we too often think of what it does to the person hated, This is understandable, for hate brings irreparable damage to its victims….But there is another side that we must never overlook. Hate is just as injurious to the person who hates. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.

“A third reason why we should love our enemies is that love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend. We never get rid of an enemy by meeting hate with hate; we get rid of an enemy by getting rid of enmity. By its very nature, hate destroys and tears down; by its very nature, love creates and builds up. Love transforms with redemptive power.”


by 2 Comments

Mondays with MLK: toughness of mind v. softness of mind.

Now that Daniel James Levy has adopted the weekly blog post dedicated to the writings of N.T. Wright it is time that I write on someone else. For the next while I have chosen Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. After reading portions of Strength to Love (reprint by Fortress Press, 2010) it became evident that I should read more of this man’s writings. Today will be my first post.

In a sermon titled “A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart” based on Matthew 10.16 (“Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”) Dr. King says the following:

“Who doubts that this toughness of mind is one of man’s greatest needs? Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

“This prevalent tendency toward soft mindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility. Take our attitude toward advertisement. We are so easily led to purchase a product because a television or radio  advertisement pronounces it better than any other. Advertisers have long since learned that most people are soft minded, and they capitalize on this susceptibility with skillful and effective slogans.

“This undue gullibility is also seen in the tendency of many readers to accept the printed word of the press as final truth. Few people realize that even our authentic channels of information – the press, the platform, and in many instances the pulpit – do not give us objective and unbiased truth. Few people have the toughness of mind to judge critically and to discern the true from the false, the fact from the fiction. Our minds are constantly being invaded by legions of half-truths, prejudices, and false facts. One of the great needs of mankind is to be lifted above the morass of false propaganda.” (Strength to Love, pp. 2-3)

Dr. King exposes what the same thing the show Mad Men exposes regarding advertisements. He debunks the “Fair and Balanced” claim of propaganda machines like Fox News. He deconstructs society with the precision of Jacques Derrida. Oh, and by the way, he says all of this about culture more than five decades ago. Seems like little has changed, huh?