Tag: Martin Luther King Jr.

Posted on

God in the Whirlwind

By Amy Spiegel

As Jim will tell you, my mind is generally a whirlwind of ideas, wide-ranging and seemingly disconnected ideas all swirling, and sometimes colliding, in my head. Thoughts about home improvement projects I want done spiraling alongside books I want to read and opinions about current events that make me want to cry.

The other day, I was definitely having a whirlwind-head moment, driving home from work and listening to the “Battle Hymn of the Republic.” I’m not a big fan of contemporary Christian music, but I do have a mash-up playlist of classic hymns, Kayne West and a few CCM songs that I often unwind to at the end of the day. So I’m thinking about the time period in which this song was written, thinking about the times we are living in, and of the ways they are the same. The unrest and uncertainty. The violence and fear. The topic of race and injustice being on everyone’s minds.

I think there is another connection though: God’s uncanny ability to bring beauty out of the ugliest of situations; to salvage and even amplify joy out of great sorrow; to create glory in the midst of the horrific events. That’s what Julia Ward Stowe saw when she declared that her eyes had “seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.” Consider the America that she looked upon in 1861. I think few of her contemporaries would see glory on the march when they looked out and saw a country torn by civil war, fighting over the rights of all men to be acknowledged as having been created equal. But Howe believed that His truth was marching through the nation and that it would triumph and bring a “righteous sentence” to the guilty.

I want to see with the eyes of Julia Ward Howe and with the eyes of Martin Luther King Jr., who quoted her beautiful lyrics in the last speech he ever gave. He said “Like anybody, I would like to live a long life; longevity has its place. But I’m not concerned about that now. I just want to do God’s will. And He’s allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land… I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”

The union soldiers huddled around their campfires that inspired Howe to write her poem made many sacrifices. Some even laid down their lives, to free America’s slaves and to reunite our country under one flag. MLK wasn’t afraid either. He saw what was coming and stood in harm’s way to further the rights of blacks in the U.S.

There is no doubt in my mind that our country continues to be guilty of a great number of sins, both against God and humanity. You might believe those to be sins of systemic racism; I might believe them to be of the slaughter of the innocent. But something Christians from anywhere on the political or theological spectrum should all agree on is that there are wrongs to be righted in the world, and if Jesus “died to make men holy” we should be willing to “live to make men free…” Free from the bondage of poverty, from oppression and fear; but also free from gluttony and selfishness, from greed and lust. We can sing of liberty all we want but no one is truly free unless they are first free in Christ.

On the one hand, we must not neglect seeking to right wrongs where we see them done and to be the voice of those who have none. “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another” (Gal. 5:13). On the other hand, we cannot preach for the sake of political power and neglect to preach for the sake of the Gospel. We are told in Luke that Jesus, speaking for one of the first times in public, said that God the Father “anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed” (Luke 4:18). Yet he never freed one slave or spoke out against one governmental policy. I believe he left that work to be done by his disciples and those who followed them, but he focused his time on earth in freeing the hearts and minds of those he loved from the burden and guilt of sin. If we do the same, the world will be transformed into his kingdom.

So let us climb the mountain top with MLK and peer over the other side into the promised land. And then let us set about working in our minds and hearts and lives to make that promised land a reality. While God is marching on.

Posted on

Open-mindedness, Civility, and Our National Crisis

By Jim Spiegel

During the last month turmoil around the nation has been dizzying. From Officer Derek Chauvin’s hideous killing of George Floyd to the wave of protests and riots which followed to BLM’s calls for defunding the police to the CHAZ/CHOP protest occupation of downtown Seattle to a rash of firings and public shaming of college professors and other professionals who have critiqued some of BLM’s tactics. More recently, Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe has been charged in the murder of Rayshard Brooks, and protesters have begun to topple statues and monuments all around the country.

While these events seem to highlight a deepening rift in our nation, one thing about which nearly all Americans agree regarding all of this is that Officer Chauvin’s killing of Floyd was a horrific act which warrants severe punishment. And we should all agree that racism in this country has been and remains a serious problem. But there is disagreement over whether Chauvin’s act was racially motivated or a manifestation of systemic racism, whether Chauvin should be charged with manslaughter or second-degree murder, whether this heinous act is symptomatic of widespread police corruption in the U.S., whether such corruption warrants a fundamental restructuring of law enforcement, whether there is Edward Colston statue toppled in Bristolany merit to the Black Lives Matter call for defunding the police, whether the Black Lives Matter protest tactics are morally legitimate, whether local law enforcement responses to the protests and riots have been appropriate, whether Officer Rolfe’s killing of Brooks was justified, and whether Rolfe should be charged with murder. It is tragic that despite the gravity of these questions, cool-headed, rational discussions have been rare over the last several weeks. Many insist that high-pitched emotions are understandable and appropriate, given the issues at stake. While this may be true, none of us should allow our emotions to cloud our judgment or prevent us from a rational appraisal of evidence and coming to logical conclusions about these issues. Allowing feelings to reign over reason can only lead toward more division and turmoil as many of the residents of cities impacted by the rioters can attest.

Oxford University ethicist Neil Levy has observed that “part of the reason that controversial moral and political questions are controversial is that there is something to be said on each side.” Levy says that a belief is controversial when “conflicting beliefs are held by a significant number of relevantly well-informed, intelligent, and rational people over an extended period of time” (from Open-Mindedness and the Duty to Gather Evidence, Public Affairs Quarterly, p. 56). It is interesting to note that while everyone will readily admit that the above noted issues are controversial, many people will refuse to admit that there is, as Levy says, “something to be said on each side”—and by this I suppose Levy means that there is something reasonable to be said on each side which should be acknowledged and respected by those who disagree. There are, after all, intelligent and well-informed people on all sides of the current debates over racism and law enforcement in the U.S. So why are we seeing so much hysteria and so little respect between people who disagree on these issues?

In recent years I have published several articles and book chapters on open-mindedness and am currently working on a book on the subject. Most people believe, as I do, that open-mindedness is an intellectual virtue. It is a trait which, as virtue epistemologist Jason Baehr would say, involves a willingness to transcend one’s default cognitive standpoint on an issue. This means that the open-minded person is willing to consider that her view on an issue might be false and to seriously entertain evidence which contradicts her perspective. Open-mindedness seems especially appropriate when it comes to controversial issues, for the reasons that Levy notes: whatever view you hold—on say, the nature of racism in America and how it should be addressed—there are well-informed, intelligent people who disagree with you. So, as difficult as it is, you have an intellectual duty to listen carefully, respond patiently, and proceed respectfully as you engage the debate. To do otherwise is uncivil and does little to advance dialogue and productive work toward solutions. If we are going to remain (or return to being) a rational and civil culture, we absolutely must conduct ourselves with at least a modicum of intellectual virtue, especially open-mindedness.

I have despaired at the level of dogmatism and foreclosure when it comes to many of the above noted issues. This is especially dismaying when I consider how many important moral and epistemic questions are being ignored or particular answers to them are being taken for granted (despite the fact that intelligent, well-informed people would demur at those assumptions). Here are just some of those questions. As you read each one, ask yourself: How would I answer that question? And what are my evidence-based reasons for my answer?

  • What is the primary carrier of human sin? Is it systems and institutions or is it individual human hearts?
  • What exactly is “systemic racism”? What are the criteria for ascertaining when a system or institutional structure is racist? Are these criteria statistical? If so, then what are they? If not, then what is the nature of these criteria? In any case, how are they established?
  • Given one’s view on whether the sin of racism is fundamentally rooted in individual human hearts or institutional systems, how does this impact our approach to addressing this sin? In either case, what are the prospects for fully eradicating racist sin from society?

These are just some of the more foundational questions which are being widely overlooked, ignored, or only dogmatically addressed. There are many other questions that are not as foundational but still very important, such as these: Why is it no longer acceptable to question or critique some of the tactics and precepts of the Black Lives Matter organization, even if one emphatically affirms, as we all should, the understatement that black lives matter? Since many college professors and other professionals are being fired for critiquing BLM, how might this affect our national conversation about racial issues? Is the firing of people for raising critical points about BLM likely to make people more or less sympathetic with the BLM cause? Also, what criteria should be used to evaluate the continued display of historical statues and monuments? And how can we balance historical relevance with a desire to atone for past injustices?

Again, these are just some important questions. No doubt other questions come to your mind, perhaps even questions about why I list the questions that I do. That’s fine. The point is that we need to address these and other vital questions in a rational, evidence-based, and open-minded way. Such is essential to the maintenance of a civil society.

In closing, it is fitting to recall the standard set by Martin Luther King, Jr., who consistently demonstrated an evidence-based, rational, and civil approach. It is also noteworthy that he grounded his civil rights work methodology in the biblical themes of imago Dei, unconditional love, and non-violent resistance. (See my recent article on the subject here.) Why are these ideals not prevailing during our current unrest? What would it take for these values to take root (again) in our society? Without these values becoming preeminent today is there any real hope for pervasive racial justice and reconciliation in this country? These, too, are challenging and controversial questions, and they are more urgent than ever.

Posted on

Thoughts on MLK’s Case for Civil Disobedience

By Jim Spiegel

As today we are celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., I have again been looking over his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” a crucial document in the history of the civil rights movement.  It is in this potent defense and application of an ethic of civil disobedience that we find such well-known statements as these:

  • “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
  • “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust…is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
  • “The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be.  Will we be extremists for hate or for love…for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?”

In his argument for full equality for black Americans, King appealed repeatedly to Scripture (especially the New Testament and the words of Jesus) and the authority of Christian theologians such as Augustine and Aquinas.  Now it is interesting to note that today many Americans Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTSstaunchly oppose any mixing of religion and politics.  More specifically: they are critical of any use of theological arguments to defend public policies.  So by this standard, King was way out of line when he appealed repeatedly to Scripture to defend his views.  And he was completely off base when declaring “We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.”

Of course, some theological arguments are better than others, whether they regard issues in metaphysics, ethics, politics, or any other subject matter.  Some criticisms of theo-political arguments are quite warranted.  But the point is that not all such arguments are necessarily flawed or illegitimate.  And if one believes otherwise, then one must be willing to accept the uncomfortable conclusion that King’s approach was fundamentally flawed.

So the next time you hear someone complain tout court about appeals to theology to defend political views, you might want to kindly inquire what they think of the tactics and rhetorical strategy of Martin Luther King, Jr.  I suspect that more often than not the person will be disturbed by the realization that their anti-theological dogma forces them to bite a bullet they aren’t prepared to bite.