While The civil rights movement was led by Christians, it is easy to forget how many believers -- particularly evangelicals in the South -- did not support the efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On this day set aside to honor this great leader we should read his “Letter from Birmingham Jail" and reflect on how his words are applicable to us today.
I’d also add that for most of us Gen X-ers, our knowledge of Dr. King begins with his assassination and works backwards to his “I Have a Dream" speech. We tend to forget the small yet momentous events that sparked the civil rights movement in America. To help fill in some of the gaps in our education I would highly recommend viewing the superb Boycott.
Because the movie came out on HBO and was about a boycott of public busses in the ‘50s, it’s not hard to see why it slipped beneath most people’s radar. But the inherent drama of this true story is as exciting as anything you’re likely to see in the theaters this year. Watching it will make you wonder why we can’t seem to muster the same will to fight injustice today.
Ah Joe
Happy MLK day!
Let us learn from it.
For, alas, it is not our sins that need explanation, it is our reformations. In particular, how could evangelical christians read Acts 17 where it says all nations are created from one man and not see the sin of racism?
Th answer is that we are too often blinded by our context and our sins. In that regard, some years ago I had to observe, including of myself, in the Caribbean Challenge:
And so, the issue is to hear the voice of God to us in or time, so that we will not repeat the sins of the past.
Grace to all
Gordon
"While The civil rights movement was led by Christians,..."
And Jews. And Black Muslims. The civil rights rights movement is more accurately characterized as a liberal movement than a Christian one. Christians were split on it, but liberals were squarely in favor of it.
See the Book: Stones of Hope for the Christian backround on the the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was essentially a movement that came out of the black church. others such as Jews, muslims, etc. were never at the heart of the movement.
It is obviously true that the Civil Rights Movement of 1955-1968 was deeply rooted in the black church. This is well chronicled in many sources, including the outstanding book mentioned above ("Stone of Hope" by David L. Chappell, who happens to be my major professor). The church was the central institution of African-Americans from before the Civil War until recent years. It was the one place where blacks could totally control what happened. They were the preachers, the deacons, the financial backers, etc. Even the black schools were not in a position to lead the resistance as they were dependent on white taxpayers, school boards, and donors.
As Joe rightly notes, however, it was largely white Southern evangelicals who provided most of the opposition to the movement. The vast majority of Southerners in the 1950s and 1960s were conservative Christians who strongly opposed integregation (one shining exception: Billy Graham). Of course, most of them were not members of the Klan, but they were part of the silent majority. This white Southern evangelical majority eventually ended up leaving the Democratic Party largely, though not totally, over issues related to Civil Rights.
Many of those who lent support to the CR movement in the South were Jews and liberal northerners. In particular, the contribution of Jews to the movement is a story that is forgotten today. I believe two of the three killed in Philadelphia, Miss. ("Mississippi Burning") were Jews. One of the sparks that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the murder of a Unitarian Universalist minister (James Reeb) in Selma.
It should also be remembered that two of three main organizers of the 1963 March on Washington were atheists (A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin). MLK was the third. The man that is recognized as the leading figure in civil rights for the first half of the twentieth century was also an atheist (W.E.B. DuBois).
Finally, let it be remembered that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an evangelical. Most of his followers in the black church were conservative, but MLK himself was considered liberal, even radical. He rejected the inerrancy of the Bible. He questioned the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus. He rejected the notion of hell. He was deeply critical of the racism and nationalism that pervades much of the Old Testament. The following quote from MLK appear on page 61 of the "Martin Luther King, Jr. Companion" edited by Coretta Scott King:
"The God of early Old Testament days was a tribal god and the ethic was tribal. 'Thou shalt not kill' meant 'Thou shalt not kill a fellow Israelite, but for God's sake, kill a Philistine.'"
"liberals were squarely in favor of it"
Somebody needs to read some history. If this is true then how come more Republicans (as a percentage) voted for the civil rights act than Democrats?
If this were true then how come Al Gore Sr. introduced a bill to effectively make the civil rights act meaningless (by not allowing federal money to be witheld from school districts that did not integrate)?
Yes, ex-preacher, God was a tribal God, but that is only because it was the only way the Israelites were capable of understanding God at the time. There is the little thing called the New Testament and this more than historical character called Jesus that changes everything on our understanding of God. God sent his only Son because we were finally ready to see God for who he is (amongst other reasons).
Evangelical means to spread the Good News. That makes MLK an incredible evangelical even if there were parts of his theology that we were to disagree with.
As someone who has lived in the North and the South and who has worked with elderly people all of my career, it is rather apparant that Northerners were not any less racist and prejudice than Southerners. Talk to any person that is non-white that lived in Minneapolis even just 20 years ago and certainly 30 years ago. (This is not to take away the horridness of the way deep south blacks were treated, just stating that while the behavior of the south was much worse the hearts of northerners were not much better)
The reality (unfortunately) for most people, the CR movement gained a stronghold because of power. The is a lot of votes to get by increasing the civil rights of a large group of people. Many southerners made up excuses not to support the civil rights movement because of the loss of power that they were to experience.
Fortunately the right power won! And incredibly, we had a leader who stated to love your enemy, to love those who are persecuting you and mistreating you! (These are statements that liberals today would have very little understanding of). MLK is in my opinion clearly one of the greatest American and Christian leaders of the history of our country. A day to commemorate him is well founded.
"Somebody needs to read some history. If this is true then how come more Republicans (as a percentage) voted for the civil rights act than Democrats?"
I know the history, Tim. I said liberals were squarely in favor of it, not Democrats. In the early '60s, many, if not most, southern Democrats were quite conservative. You must be a young person not to know that.
Yes Rob, I am quite aware of the "dixiecrats" but Republicans were conservative as well. Yet more Republicans voted for the CRA. This is a fact.
My point is that a differentiation of conservative and liberal in this argument is incredibly simplified. Perhaps politically liberal people were more likely to support the movement. But using this fact really distorts the truth. First of all liberals today are much different then liberals of the 1960's. But even that is not what is important.
I interpret your point to be that liberals are therefore superior to non liberals (and thus democrats). Certainly, they were on the right side of the issue. But so were Republicans in the 1850's and 1860's. This does not mean that Republicans were morally superior. They were just as racists and prejudice to blacks, they feared the "mongrelization" of the races, as the Democrats. The difference is that they did not want the horrible institution of slavery to spread to the North and at the time the risk of there being more slave states than free states were very high (thus the problems in Kansas).
In their hearts, the liberals were not any better in the 1960's than others. Do you think they wanted black men dating their daughters or a black family living right next to them? Yes, they wanted equality for the blacks, the equality that is promised in our constitution.
And thank God for that! Thank God that liberals led this movement or no one would have. But to claim a moral superiority (which is my feeling that you are doing) is simply wrong. Even today, I know liberals who are very prejudiced against certain groups of people, despite there liberalness. Many conservatives are too as many conservatives also supported the CRA! There is no room for judgment of moral superiority here.
"I interpret your point to be that liberals are therefore superior to non liberals (and thus democrats)."
But that's NOT my point, Tim. My objection to Joe's statement is really quite similar to your objection to your interpretation of my comment: the fact that it is an oversimplification. I say it is more accurate to call the civil rights movement a liberal than a Christian cause. I'm not in favor of either. Let's call it what it is, the civil rights movement, and get behind it instead of scrambling to take credit for it. I did not intend to cast liberals (and I didn't even mention Democrats in my original comment) as morally superior to conservatives (although I believe that to be the case); I merely meant to point out that characterizing the civil rights movement as a Christian-led phenomenon was a misleading oversimplification.
Ok,
I understand!
Though you wrong about liberals being morally superior. ;-)
The more they talk about racism the more racist they are.
MLK Day has been renamed Louis Farrakhan Day.
A while ago my father-in-law (who has a garbage company) brought back an old copy of our local paper, The Daily Record from 1969. I used to read old newspapers on microfilm in college...it's very interesting to see 'daily life' from long ago. But this was interesting because this was a local paper from Morris County, NJ. Not the NY Times or some other paper one would expect to be archived in a library.
It's amazing how much race was on people's minds not that long ago. Even though this wasn't the south. Most of the columns and editorials were about race relations...usually with the 'can we all just get along' POV that would today be banal because it is so obvious. The 'lifestyle' section had an article on a South African doctor who had developed a skin peal that left black skin looking white. One patient of his who he treated for a skin disease had been asked to join the equilivant of the KKK by whites who did not realize she was really black.
If I ever were to become a history teacher I would assign my students a project of reading a complete newspaper from different periods. I'd put an emphasis on finding papers from regular days, not days of great historical moment. It is amazing to see how dramatically a culture can change.
the KKK also consider themselves christians!
so, by the arguments on this post, the KKK were for the movement.
get a grip and admit it, it was the liberals, yes the damn liberals. and history sees them as being in the right. just like it has for women's rights and will for gays (after 'the christians' get out of the way and let God do some work)
the horror
Hindsight's easy, kids; it involves no personal sacrifice. So, if Civil Rights is an Evangelical movement, tell me, what have you done LATELY???
Hmm. Let's see. Cut taxes for the rich while cutting social services for the poor. Advocated a military invasion without just cause. Outlawed people's families. Sat on your hands while health "reform" increased provider profits instead of improving public health.
Way to go!! Just look at you making MLK proud!!
Heck of a football season though.
Amy