Monday, January 18, 2016
A brief note on MLK
I'm glad that we celebrate today the accomplishments of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. His legacy is remarkable, and his dream remains unfulfilled.
At the same time, though, I am troubled by the way he is described by some people today-- by what Cornel West called the "Santa Clausification" of King. West noted last year that King was viewed as dangerous by the American power structure: “The FBI said he was the most dangerous man in America, and the FBI said he was the most notorious liar in America.”
Institutionalizing a prophet's legacy risks leaching from that legacy the edgier side of prophecy. I see that when I watch people struggle to distinguish King from Black Lives Matter.
When we quote King, we should also quote the loathsome responses from the politically powerful of that time. Those declamations sound ridiculous now, but that-- exactly that-- is perhaps the most powerful part of the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
At the same time, though, I am troubled by the way he is described by some people today-- by what Cornel West called the "Santa Clausification" of King. West noted last year that King was viewed as dangerous by the American power structure: “The FBI said he was the most dangerous man in America, and the FBI said he was the most notorious liar in America.”
Institutionalizing a prophet's legacy risks leaching from that legacy the edgier side of prophecy. I see that when I watch people struggle to distinguish King from Black Lives Matter.
When we quote King, we should also quote the loathsome responses from the politically powerful of that time. Those declamations sound ridiculous now, but that-- exactly that-- is perhaps the most powerful part of the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Comments:
<< Home
Washington. Jefferson. Lincoln. FDR. King.
What do all these American heroes have in common? They are literally marble men at the center of our metanarrative (our core narrative that explains who we are and why). We are right and really smart and 100-perent morally justified in integrating King into our unique and dramatic American story (the story of US).
I do not discount the voices who warn that the officially iconic story of MLK loses much of the human richness that was the flesh and blood man. Of course. However, those voices who want to paint MLK as the radical prophet only do more service to their particular political worldview than they offer a nuanced view of King's life story.
Prophet? Yes. Preacher? Yes. Activist? Yes. Great American? Yes. Great Believer in American-style pluralism and self government? Yes. Intimately connected to the tradition of GW, TJ, and Lincoln? Yes.
Apropos to nothing in particular, my favorite MLK quote (from his "Letter From Birmingham Jail"):
"If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands."
Only in America. May God Continue to Bless Our Noble Experiment.
What do all these American heroes have in common? They are literally marble men at the center of our metanarrative (our core narrative that explains who we are and why). We are right and really smart and 100-perent morally justified in integrating King into our unique and dramatic American story (the story of US).
I do not discount the voices who warn that the officially iconic story of MLK loses much of the human richness that was the flesh and blood man. Of course. However, those voices who want to paint MLK as the radical prophet only do more service to their particular political worldview than they offer a nuanced view of King's life story.
Prophet? Yes. Preacher? Yes. Activist? Yes. Great American? Yes. Great Believer in American-style pluralism and self government? Yes. Intimately connected to the tradition of GW, TJ, and Lincoln? Yes.
Apropos to nothing in particular, my favorite MLK quote (from his "Letter From Birmingham Jail"):
"If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands."
Only in America. May God Continue to Bless Our Noble Experiment.
CLARIFICATION: In the interest of accuracy, although I called GW, TJ, AL, FDR, and MLK "literally marble men," I should note that the Jefferson Memorial features a bronze casting, as does the FDR Memorial, and the giant King statue actually utilizes precious high-quality granite.
Isn't it important that Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and FDR all had power, while MLK only had influence? The longer I observe politics, the more important that distinction seems to be.
Wow! What a great observation.
Let me offer a complicated and conflicted answer.
When we study the Civil Rights Movement (and our great Civil Rights breakthrough moment, 1954-1965), I like to frame the discussion with this question: how did a people so powerless achieve so much (in a system based on political power and majority rule)?
On the other hand, King, while not elected to national office, wielded a lot of power.
Let's deal with Washington, Lincoln, and King. Those three men represent the three most holy figures in the American pantheon of heroes; they emerged from their time as emblematic figures that dominated their respective centuries but also cast a gigantic shadow across the political culture of the following century. They are quite different but also similar in some ways; their differences surely represent change over time in terms of culture between the eighteenth century and our time.
Two Presidents and a Preacher.
GW and MLK are similar in that they inherited privileged positions in society and risked it all (their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor) on ideas and principles and revolution that would mostly benefit people well below their socio-economic ranks. I often compare King to the Rich Young Ruler (Matthew 19: 16-22), who, in an alternate universe, actually heard and heeded the call of Jesus.
I see MLK and Abraham Lincoln as very similar in the sense that they built up moral authority from unlikely places. While I noted that King came from privilege in the sense that he was wealthy and comfortable within his oppressed class, he did emerge from a politically powerless class. Like Lincoln, King became powerful and a public figure based on his powerful oratory and incisive analysis regarding an important public issue of the day. King and Lincoln emerged because they promulgated bold and influential innovative ideas at a key moment of transition. Importantly, their moral authority preceded their power (and this is somewhat true of Washington as well).
Washington's public career as a national figure lasted 25 years. King 13 years. Lincoln less than a decade. They are all important not just for the public policies they enacted (the laws they passed or helped to pass), but they are the three most important men in American history because of the moral authority they embody.
Finally, I think we err in underestimating MLK as a politician. He was great at picking fights, venues, and opponents for maximum effect. He was masterful at manipulating presidents, politicians, and public opinion. He excelled at triangulating between the two great political parties that controlled national politics. Great instincts! We must remember that King not only ran a church--but also a political organization, and we remember him more for his political speeches than his sermons (which is too bad--he's got some great sermons).
But, King, hands down, stands out as the best ever at combining politics and religion in American political culture, which is hard to do and very few public figures can pull it off.
Let me offer a complicated and conflicted answer.
When we study the Civil Rights Movement (and our great Civil Rights breakthrough moment, 1954-1965), I like to frame the discussion with this question: how did a people so powerless achieve so much (in a system based on political power and majority rule)?
On the other hand, King, while not elected to national office, wielded a lot of power.
Let's deal with Washington, Lincoln, and King. Those three men represent the three most holy figures in the American pantheon of heroes; they emerged from their time as emblematic figures that dominated their respective centuries but also cast a gigantic shadow across the political culture of the following century. They are quite different but also similar in some ways; their differences surely represent change over time in terms of culture between the eighteenth century and our time.
Two Presidents and a Preacher.
GW and MLK are similar in that they inherited privileged positions in society and risked it all (their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor) on ideas and principles and revolution that would mostly benefit people well below their socio-economic ranks. I often compare King to the Rich Young Ruler (Matthew 19: 16-22), who, in an alternate universe, actually heard and heeded the call of Jesus.
I see MLK and Abraham Lincoln as very similar in the sense that they built up moral authority from unlikely places. While I noted that King came from privilege in the sense that he was wealthy and comfortable within his oppressed class, he did emerge from a politically powerless class. Like Lincoln, King became powerful and a public figure based on his powerful oratory and incisive analysis regarding an important public issue of the day. King and Lincoln emerged because they promulgated bold and influential innovative ideas at a key moment of transition. Importantly, their moral authority preceded their power (and this is somewhat true of Washington as well).
Washington's public career as a national figure lasted 25 years. King 13 years. Lincoln less than a decade. They are all important not just for the public policies they enacted (the laws they passed or helped to pass), but they are the three most important men in American history because of the moral authority they embody.
Finally, I think we err in underestimating MLK as a politician. He was great at picking fights, venues, and opponents for maximum effect. He was masterful at manipulating presidents, politicians, and public opinion. He excelled at triangulating between the two great political parties that controlled national politics. Great instincts! We must remember that King not only ran a church--but also a political organization, and we remember him more for his political speeches than his sermons (which is too bad--he's got some great sermons).
But, King, hands down, stands out as the best ever at combining politics and religion in American political culture, which is hard to do and very few public figures can pull it off.
He had the advantage of not holding office-- that gave him latitude to speak in terms of faith in a way that many Americans could relate to. It broke the issue out of politics, and into morality.
Post a Comment
<< Home
