Alan Cross blogs at Downshore Drift.
Today marks the 50th Anniversary of one of the most important speeches in American history, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech given on the Washington Mall on August 28, 1963. It marked a turning point in the Civil Rights Movement and it had such galvanizing power because it called America back to who we claimed to really be. It lifted up our nation to what we were supposed to be – to what we could be together. An excerpt:
I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor’s lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.
Dr. King called us, just as Abraham Lincoln did in his first inaugural address, to be touched by the “better angels of our nature.” Dr. King rooted his “Dream” in his vision of America as a place of freedom where all men are created equal and where people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” We have struggled with this “Dream” in America because people are selfish and they seek to oppress others, but Dr. King called us back to who we should be and to who we knew we could be, if we tried. Dr. King was also led by a vision of the “Beloved Community,” which was a Biblical vision of people coming together and working together from all different tribes and races and groups as one. He believed that this “Beloved Community” could happen throughout society, but I would have disagreement with him there. I do not think that is possible because of man’s sinfulness. Only in Christ are we truly able to come together as one and many reject Christ. But, his vision was good and his Dream of unity was powerful.
However, I fear that even while we celebrate Dr. King and his speech, his Dream is dying before our eyes. Instead of coming together as a nation, we are splintering into tribes and special interest groups and every group based on race and ethnicity and status is clamoring over their piece of the proverbial pie. Instead of calling for “But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream” (Amos 5:24) like Dr. King did, we see each group and even person grabbing after power based on their own sense of entitlement.
“I built this!” “I worked for this!” “I am a victim of past injustices!” “I deserve what you have!” “You are racist!” “You are lazy!” We have become a Nation of Accusation.
Instead of trying to come together and have a standard of character that will advance a person, we seek advancement based on what kind of power we can accrue and we see this as a zero-sum game. We think that if one person/group has power, then it means that another group does not. So, envy and class warfare result. If one political party has the White House, then the other party is in turmoil because having power is everything. If one group has more wealth than another, then there is injustice and the playing field must be leveled by force. We are no longer the Land of Opportunity. We are instead the Land of Disproportionality. Greed, Lust, and Envy mark us, which the Bible says is all idolatry. We are being eaten alive from the inside.
Instead of Dr. King’s Dream of being one people with fair treatment for all, we people who have wealth/power trying desperately to hang on to it and we see people without it trying desperately to grab hold of it. The result is constant conflict. We were once a country with a belief that a man could and should work hard and apply himself and make a life for himself with his hands and his brains. Yes, there were injustices because there was sin, but we also believed in God and that things would be set right one day. So, we lived and worked under that truth and in the light of that Day that would eventually come. Now, we have lost that. We no longer believe that there is any justice out there or that there is Anyone to appeal to. Dr. King spoke from a Christian framework 50 years ago. He appealed not only to America’s foundation but to a Higher Law. America still believed, so we listened. But now, we have rejected the Higher Law and the Lawgiver and all that is left is us climbing over one another grasping for power which results in anger and frustration.
We are moving toward Marx’s vision of the class conflict. Cultural Marxism has emerged as a viable philosophy in American thought which means that we now see our society through the lens of conflict between races, class, and the “haves” and “have-nots.” Critical Race Theory has emerged that sees every institution and aspect of American life as fundamentally racist because it is all based in White Privilege and was designed to oppress minorities. So, we cannot have justice until it is all torn down and replaced by something else. Dr. King’s Dream of a “Color-Blind” society is seen as a White/Conservative ploy to keep minority populations believing a lie that they might one day have equal footing while all of the mechanisms of American society and culture are still lined up in favor of White “Privilege.” We are no longer able to “just get along” as the late Rodney King once implored us to do.
I see no hope for the “Dream” that Dr. King called us to because the very foundation upon which he dreamed has eroded out from under us – or has been removed piece-by-piece. Dr. King was only able to dream his dream with a Christian imagination. He was immersed in the Biblical narrative. As that has been removed, all that is left is conflict and grasping and war. Calls for Peace have given way to Conflict.
The White Evangelical church in America, especially in the South, was deep in heresy when Dr. King called us to repentance. We should have listened. When we rejected his call (and the Biblical call to stand with the oppressed and work for justice) we sowed to the wind and reaped the whirlwind. We could have joined him and torn down the wall of segregation and made things right and established righteousness. Because we did not, other views/philosophies came in. By the late 1960’s and especially after Dr. King’s assassination in 1968, Black Liberation Theology began to emerge that was heavily influenced by Marxist thought. Critical Race Theory came on the scene and a Multiculturalism that has done more to keep us apart and in conflict than bring us together has become the dominant vision.
We need each other. We need diversity and different expressions. Racism in every form is evil and it distorts the truth of Creation, that we are ALL made in God’s image. God made all of us and we are stronger when we are working together. One race is not more valuable than another and should not exert power over another. The Bible says that Christ tore down the dividing wall that kept Jews and Gentiles in conflict and that He is our peace (Eph. 2:11-22). It says that there is no difference between us in Christ and that we are all one (Gal. 3:26-29, Col. 3:11). This unity is to be expressed in the church and it is a unity that is found in Christ. It is a unity that exists in Christ but works out in diversity as we all celebrate Jesus together with many different expressions. There are to be no divisions between us and the racial constructs that keep us divided should be seen as results of sin and selfishness and oppression and not something that is permanent. We should love one another sacrificially.
But, when the Christian vision is lost, the only thing that can take its place is a an appeal and grasping for power. One group wants power over another. Jealousy, envy, selfishness, and greed are all that is left. We see this in the Bible and we see it in world history. When the church lives like the world in this area (as we have in the past and continue to), then we have nothing to offer the world in the way of solutions. I do not agree with all of Dr. King’s theology as he was also influenced in many ways by theological Liberalism, but on this issue, he was hitting at something true and right. We are to be one. He located that oneness in American society and I think that was a mistake. The oneness comes as the Church guided by the light of Christ demonstrates true Christian unity and brotherhood both in the church and in society no matter what race or background a person has. The basis must be Christ and His Church, not America’s Founding. But, we missed that and located the Dream in the wrong place. It is only when we have a vision of what Christ enables that we are truly able to lay down our own self-interest and love sacrificially and serve others. I am not saying that only Christians can participate in this as there is also common grace that allows others to benefit as they live out these principles. But, when the Christian vision is rejected – and that is what fueled Dr. King’s Dream – then we have nothing real to call people to beyond ourselves and our own self-interests. The Dream dies. It can only live again in a country with a Christian vision of humanity. When that vision is replaced with conflict and constant fear, self-protection, and grasping, we cannot even see straight much less dream of a better future.
The result is becoming a Nightmare.
Alan offered me this article and it seemed so appropriate and timely.
By the way, if you haven’t see “The Butler” yet, do so. Powerful and moving!
Dave, according to Michael Reagan, son of President Reagan and frequent visitor to the White House, “The Butler” is one of most untruthful “true story” ever put out by Hollywood.
Here is his commentary regarding it…
http://townhall.com/columnists/michaelreagan/2013/08/22/the-butler-from-another-planet-n1670773/page/full
Michael Reagan may not be objective, you think?
Seriously… Are you implying that you believe Hollywood’s version over Reagan? Did you read his commentary on just the facts of where the butler was born, his family history, and his marriage history? Are you really insinuating that we should take Hollywood’s “adaptation” over Reagan’s, or were you just being “tongue-in-cheek.”
It is a movie. It gives one person’s perspective. It is a powerful look at the black experience in America.
Dave miller,
but at least according to Micheal Reagan the perspective of the butler is based on lies and sensationalism.
(At least as presented alleging to be based on a true story of the Butler, but it turns out that very little is actually true.)
It does clearly appear that major and easily discernible facts are odds with the portrayal of the “butler”.
I wonder how the movie portrayed the democrat presidents and first ladies? Were they racists? How about the other republicans? Was there are trend?
There is a pretty clear pattern of a concerted effort to Paint RR as a racist and worse in Hollywood movies…it would not surprise me.
What would be the positive purpose of making a movie and marketing it as based on the true story of a real person and change so many of the basic facts and even add quite incendiary ones at that…namely the rape of his mother, murder of his father, and adultery by his wife….when none of those things actually happened to the “real life character” on whom the movie is supposedly based?
I can only think of nefarious motivations for such actions, honestly.
Dr. Martin Luther King gave a great speech 50 years ago today. And basically, the goals he outlined in his message have been fulfilled.
There are more black elected officials in Mississippi than any other state in the Union.
Blacks and Whites today do sit down in brotherhood.
Segregation is ended. Black folks can eat, lodge, and go to school anywhere they choose.
We have a black USA president.
The SBC has a black president.
The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention has a black president.
More than ever, instead of judging men by the color of their skin, we judge them by the content of their character.
A great speech, and things have dramatically changed for the better since 1963.
David R. Brumbelow
The fact that we have to even talk about the “first black elected” to anything tells how far we haven’t come, in my opinion. I’d be happy if the color of a person’s skin wasn’t even an issue raised in his/her election to office.
Alan,
You have brought up some excellent points. If the church doesn’t stay on track and become a refuge for those who come out of the world, we will soon join them. I strongly believe that it is also going to take black pastors preaching about the necessity of forgiveness. With Jesse and Al continually rattling the saber of racism, pastors need to be vocal about what that really is and disciple their people in the right way of thinking. The problem is, the unforgiving mindset is set in stone and the Dream has faded away.
Great post.
The ground of the debate is shifting from racial justice to economic justice. Unfortunately, I fear that the evangelical church of 2013 may make a version of the same mistake she did in 1963. As a class we’ve supported leaders whose policies have given even greater advantage to those with “wealth/power trying desperately to hang on to it.” We have not heard the cry of the poor in our suburban fortresses. We have conveniently chosen to believe that they are lazy. We have not advocated for fair wages. We have refused to acknowledge those working multiple jobs without health insurance. We have relished our suburban perks, our cheap fast food, and our Nikes made by 14-year-old girls who can’t afford shoes. What would Amos say about us?
You’ve got a great point here, but we must go further. What route will we take? Will we challenge the privileged in our pews with the plain words of scripture? Will we remind our church family of the macedonians who gave out of thier poverty? Or… will we take the easy route and charge the government with levying more taxes on the weathy so that they can be christians in our place?
Thanks, Adam. I agree that far too many people are dependent on public assistance already and that the best solution is not to multiply programs that increase their dependence. However, our government is currently providing back-door welfare to corporations by subsidizing healthcare and food for low-wage workers. The Affordable Care Act, as ill conceived as it was, at least attempted to address this problem.
As long as the wage gap continues to increase, the working poor will become increasingly dependent on help because jobs that used to pay a living wage have been shipped overseas, leaving US workers with macjobs that cannot sustain a family above the poverty line. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the government to legislate some measure of economic justice (I’m not a Libertarian), at least to insist that businesses pay fair wages and stop exploiting virtual “slave labor” overseas. Perhaps it’s unrealistic to mandate $15/hour immediately but they have to do something.
I understand your point, but just remember that “slave labor” you refer to, while not ideal in our context, provides for and takes tens of thousands of would-be child prostitutes and sex-laborers off the streets.
Wow! This sounds suspiciously like arguments used in the 1840s to justify slavery.
No sir. I would never encourage anyone to employ cheap child-laborers. I’m just trying to remind you that it all doesnt come out in the wash. Whenever the US dictates child-labor laws to a third world country, an increase in child sex slaves is the usual side-effect.
I believe SEBTS has a video of an excellent lecture on this at the Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture. http://apps.sebts.edu/multimedia/?p=4163
Oh, and no cheap shot here (race card).
Thanks for the link, Adam.
We agree that the use of cheap child-labor should be discouraged. What shall we do about it?
There are things that we can do to influence global economics other than dictating child-labor laws to third world countries. As consumers, we have choices. We have opportunities to persuade others to make different consumer choices with powerful moral arguments that could be compelling to both liberals and conservatives. We have opportunities to encourage fair-trade entrepreneurship through church-based community development, as Rick Warren’s PEACE plan proposes.
Adam, there are gospel-centered leaders who are moving beyond the classic conservative-as-opposed-to-liberal political dialectic that has been sown so deeply in our evangelical institutions since the 1980s. The number of leaders who are theologically conservative and advocates for social justice is growing. What we need are more conversations about solutions.
Yes, good point Adam. The solution is not more government involvement in taxes to redistribute nor is it more government involvement in wages…trying to bring justice or equality in wages.
As in other parts of the country, fast food workers (some, a few) are striking here in St. Louis area calling for $15/hour wages minimum. Well a couple of things. First, fine if the MCDs of the area decide under pressure to start paying $15/hour. We just need to be prepared for the doubling of the menu prices. The owners of the franchises cannot just absorb all those rippling added costs. Their margins are not that good. Second, if they don’t give in to the pressure, and the government forces them to pay that wage, are we prepared to see the layoffs to go along with those higher prices?
Government mandates on wages and prices have proven to not work. They have a severe negative effect on the economy. See Nixon.
The fact is what my high school social studies teacher answered to almost every question is still true: “It all comes back to supply and demand.” Fast food, where many younger people work and in some places many minorities work, or in any other low paying job, they pay what the market will bear.
The solution is us. Believers must step up to help the poor of all ethnicities and not with just handouts. But help them become prepared to help themselves.
I certainly appreciate what you’ve written here, Alan. I also appreciate King’s dream and wish we were more united as Americans. Unfortunately, it seems the only way Evangelicals could united with King is as Americans rather than Christians given King’s denial of core Biblical doctrines.
Mark, there are definitely areas where I disagree with King and his theology. To affirm much or part of what he says is not to affirm everything. I have read a great deal of his writings and his sermons and I agree that he was influenced by liberal theology. But, his father was also Biblically conservative and he does not leave it all behind. He is a mixture of the two. If he were my pastor, I would have a problem with his theology. But, because he was a movement leader calling for justice (and rightly so), I think that we have the opportunity to look at his teachings and discern where he was working from a Biblical perspective. As we do that, I think that we find that where he had the most power and authority in his ministry was when he was most Biblical and theologically orthodox. He believed in the dignity of man and that man was made in God’s image. He believed that God had a standard and that God called for justice. He believed that nonviolence was what Jesus called for. There was incredible power in those beliefs and he called the rest of us to submit to God’s ways instead of establish our own.
His primary reason, I think, for adopting liberal theology, was because the conservative white Christians (and the conservative black Christians, as well) did not offer a way out of the bondage and injustice that was racism and segregation. We should have. It was there in our theology all along. We just subverted our Christianity to the culture and it had an enormous impact. So, King went looking for answers elsewhere. It was a shame, but I understand his frustration.
I still maintain that the only ground for the unity that we seek is in Christ. King would not have even known what that was apart from his Christian background, in my opinion. Even though he deviated in some ways that were significant, he was also influenced by the person of Christ and Biblical theology enough to have real prophetic power in his message – more power than what the orthodox, conservative, white Evangelicals of his day had. And, that is to our shame.
Alan, his heresy started early though. In one of his writings, King states, “At the age of 13 I shocked my Sunday School class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus.” He also denied the deity of Christ and the virgin birth. So, despite all of the good you reiterated – and I agree with you – the doctrines King denied are not those over which we can simply agree to disagree.
Ironically, King cited Jesus (and Gandhi) to support his non-violent movement, but Jesus never pressed for political/social reform even in the midst of His repressed people under Roman rule.
If Christians can’t unite with King due to his “liberal theology,” what are the implications for all the “orthodox” white men of yesteryear whose words continue to be read and affirmed and treated as a fellow Christians by today’s conservatives?
Someone like Richard Furman who made influential arguments on behalf of Christians owning slaves strikes me as much more of a damnable heretic than a man who fought for freedom and equality (from a distinctly biblical perspective, mind you) who also had a complicated (and inconsistent) relationship with theologically liberal ideas.
Come on Aaron…we already apologized for all of that. It’s water under the bridge… 😉
I don’t think the Bible’s view on justice necessarily applies outside of the elect. But the Bible’s view on injustice applies equally to all. Which is to say: MLK’s political success didn’t help our nation get closer to God. But it did help our nation see its own sin. We have done things by force of law since then to attempt to correct the thoughts and behavior of the people, and to some extent it has been successful.
But I hope you aren’t suggesting that there is indeed a civil religion that accomplishes the same result as the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Because I would have to disagree just on the basis of the evidence just from the one nation we all share. That result isn’t redemptive in my opinion. But it is diagnostic. The redemption can only come from Jesus Christ.
And that’s the point that those in disagreement with MLK’s theology are making. Yes: Furman’s defense of slavery was damnable. But redemption “light” isn’t redemption at all.
I want to be clear about this use of words:
“We have done things by force of law since then to attempt to correct the thoughts and behavior of the people, and to some extent it has been successful.”
That is an act using the violence monopoly that the government maintains to coerce citizens to change thoughts and external behavior in order to be more acceptable to the population at large. One could argue that such a change can occur in one of two ways:
1. The person analyzes his or her own behavior and decides the price of not changing it is too high to pay and accepts the economic incentive of a high price as an adequate subsidy to change behavior. This is not a biblical model for redemptive uptake of righteousness.
2. God leads the person to an understanding that sin irreparably harms the relationship between the creature and the Creator and further convinces the person to accept the free gift–which has no economic price–of salvation provided through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ in the form of forgiveness of sin, cleansing of unrighteousness, the imputation of Jesus’s righteousness onto the person, and the seal of the Holy Spirit as a promise of completion of the work that has been started.
The first arguably is what was accomplished via civil rights legislation, not the second. A liberal often will say “that’s good enough” in part due to just being satisfied that “something was done about it.” But that’s an awfully low standard compared to the Holiness of God.
I hate to agree with BDW about anything but baseball, but I think he makes a good point here. I do not agree with much of anything about Dr. King’s theology – denying the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, etc.
But the words of this speech are powerful and moving and (to me) completely in line with biblical truth – the desire that people be treated justly and decently.
We can appreciate and learn from this speech without buying into everything Dr. King believed.
If there was a “like” button on this blog, I would have pressed it for your comment.
“Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.”
(1 Corinthians 15:12-19, ESV)
Fantastic post Alan! Spoken like a preacher of God’s Word. Thanks!
“even hero’s and leaders have warts. Leave them there”. -John Piper
MLK Jr. Was a theological liberal, and an adulterer – certainly things biblical Christians should avoid….
But, socially and politically his “I have a dream” speech perhaps singularly, but certainly coupled with his non violent, sacrificial civil disobedience ignited the flame of needed and appropriate change, or actually as he put us back on course (as he said in his speech) “to reclaiming the promissory note of the founders regarding life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that had been returned for insufficient funds”
Take time to watch this in its entirety. It’s worth it.
Ooops forgot link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Umm…Dave & Tony: his family has been known to collect money for portrayals of the speech in longer presentations than snippets. I’m not sure I’d leave a link up to the whole thing. They’re rather litigious.
All truth is God’s truth, right?
So, where Dr. King was right and true in what he said, I do not see why his errors should distort that. If I had a coffee with him, we would likely disagree on quite a few things. But, I would thank him for saying what theological conservatives were often too cowardly or to deceived to say – that the evil system of racism and segregation must come down. He was right on that. His theological errors should serve to shame us instead of take away from his message where he was right. Why did he see it and could say it the way that we did and Southern Baptist leaders, for example, were unable to?
Because perhaps for all of our correct theology, we used it to bend to the cultural wind so that life would be more pleasant for us. So, Baptists in Birmingham helped elect Bull Connor knowing full well what he stood for and what he would do for them. Henry Lyon, Hershel Hobbs’ brother in law, and pastor of the largest church in Montgomery, AL and a flaming racist (and president of the Alabama SBC in the 50’s) gives George Wallace’s inaugural prayer. The list goes on and on. We supported a civil religion that gave cover to evil. And, we did it to be more relevant and to benefit ourselves – which is exactly what we accused liberals of doing. Our conservativism was the flip side of theological liberalism because it did not produce life change on the biggest moral issue of the time.
But, all of that is not what this post is about. This post is about how Dr. King’s very good dream has been discarded for the division and error of racial identity politics and social movements by many in our nation. While many still appeal to judge a man by the content of his character, many are continuing to judge by the color of one’s skin – and it is happening from blacks as well as whites.
Only in Christ will we find true unity. Everything else gives way to frustration. That is where Dr. King erred. He rightly spoke against injustice, but I think that he underestimated the pervasive evil in the heart of man that would never allow us to truly come together until our selfishness was dealt with, and that can only really happen at the Cross.
“Only in Christ will we find true unity. Everything else gives way to frustration.”
In the long run, I believe that precision in our use of language is our friend. To the degree King did not embrace the virgin birth, deity, and bodily resurrection of Christ, we should not (and indeed cannot) say we share true Christian unity with him. At the same time, though, to the degree he was on target with regard to racial discrimination, social and economic injustice, and nonviolence, as Christians, we should (and indeed must) show solidarity to those causes he advocated. Though it may seem like a triviality to some, Christian unity and solidarity, though in some ways related, are not the same thing.
Ultimately, the victory over racism and injustice of all kinds depends on the gospel, which in turn depends on a truly divine Christ, who was born of a virgin, and rose from the dead. As the Church, we are called to live in the present age as signposts and models of the world to come. As salt and light in the world, we point the way to those who don’t share our unity in Christ, and invite them to repent of their self-sufficiency and embrace the cross of Christ (not just metaphorically, but literally). If we lower the bar to say we share true Christian unity with all those who share the same convictions on this issue or that issue, though, we have sold our soul to the company store, no matter how important that issue may be.
It would have been a wonderful 50th Anniversary if there were equal amounts of blacks, whites, browns and others. I heard last night that there was 100,000 expected and only about 20,000 showed up, but it was the same mix of race as it was in 1963. If that is true, not much was accomplished.
Does anyone know if Senator Tim Scott spoke at the rally? I watched a lot of it but I didnt see him.
No. He was not invited to speak.
I wondered that too…I also was struck by the fact that Associate Supreme Court Justice Thomas was not invited.