“There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the morés of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”‘ But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God-intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.” By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.
“Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent—and often even vocal—sanction of things as they are.
But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” (1963)
My daughter never ceases to amaze me. In a recent homework assignment she analysis two pieces of literature from two government antagonists and advocates for civil disobedience—Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both these men, according to my daughter, Amanda, challenged “the ‘rightness’ of government laws and its justice system through civil disobedience.” These two essays reflected these sentiments: Thoreau in his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” (1849) and King in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” (1963). She utilizes these essays and how each of these recognizable civil antagonists provoked others to be persuaded by their point of view. She summarizes the essence of these men’s conflict with Governing laws and the laws of personal morality:
“Humanity is ruled by a large range of moral law, which dictates the difference between right and wrong. However, society is ruled by a government that dictates what is considered right and wrong according to laws. These laws set the standards by which a society functions and the penalties for breaking the laws. When the law of society clashes with the moral individuality of humanity, it is only fair that one should be able to ask if the government’s laws are sound and morally correct.”
My Amanda contends that Luther, rather than Thoreau, has a better persuasive essay, for in the end both use appeals to justice, both from two very different angles. Thoreau because of how what he considered unjust laws affected him—he pushed his argument from an individualistic point of reference; whereas Luther, on the other hand concentrated on what is just for all people, especially those marginalized in places of concentrated poverty. I, too, read Thoreau, not in high school, but in college and I told Amanda I always felt he was a whiner. He complained about what he didn’t like personally. He would no more want you or his neighbor to exercise their personal morality if it somehow placed him in conflict with his own.
I never read King until I was a Christian, out of college and grad-school and working in a Community Action Agency. King on the other hand, despite any personal failings, didn’t complain for himself, but identified what ought to be just for all. My daughter’s brief essay contrasting these two firebrands draws out King’s poignant comment to the Church:
“King’s essay is exceedingly more personal than Thoreau’s. Within this letter there is also a hint of logical appeal, for example when his is talking to the church and how disappointed he is with their role in segregation, King ‘logically’ states that if the church does not ‘recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed and an irrelevant social club…’ (King). This logical appeal attempts to get the church to think about the consequences of their actions and inaction, drawing the point that it may be their downfall to not aid in the termination of segregation.”
I was amazed at both the reference in the Letter and that my daughter would draw out her own attention to the Church’s culpability in following unjust laws (and allow and not confront structural sin that leave many poor and marginalized around us). She ends her own argument that King was more persuasive than the selfish, bellyaching, whining Thoreau:
“In comparing King’s letter to Thoreau’s essay—both on civil disobedience— it appears that King’s letter is more effective in its use of emotional appeals and ability to draw in the audience with a convincing tone and persuasive argument. King is fighting for something he believes to be right and the reader can feel his passion simmer throughout the letter. King also is more effective in the way he establishes his authority. In the letter he gives a brief introduction of who he is and his purpose for being in Alabama. Thoreau, while demonstrating a well thought through and logical argument, still fails to truly captivate the reader. At the closing of his essay it appears as though he is just bitter for being placed in jail. Thoreau was not prepared for the consequences of his actions. King, on the other hand, was convinced that suffering the consequences of his actions was part of his argument.”
Perhaps one reason the Church fails to captivate the public is that we argue like Thoreau—we’re only complaining about what affects us, selfish, moralizing whiners who just don’t want what is unjust toward us. We ought to reflect more King’s argument and stop being “an irrelevant social club,” and realize that whatever suffering as Christians we are to endure on behalf of others is part of our apologetic, part of our argument for Christianity and that Christ is alive and the true King over all things in heaven and on earth.
Posted by Chip Anderson at 09:34 AM. Filed under: In the Margins • Apologetics • Church Life • Politics • Social and Cultural • The Public Square • Thoughts on justice •
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink