Parting Is Such Sweet Sorrow

The first time I met Jim Phegley, I was, to be honest, playing hooky from my church that my wife and I had been attending for over a decade. That particular Sunday morning, Maria had some things to tend to and I just didn't feel like making the trek all the way down to the South Shore.

I can't tell you how many times Maria and I had passed that small white building, which is home to the Glen Cove Christian Church. If I had to guess, I'd say it was in the hundreds. But this time, instead of passing it, I decided to turn into the parking lot and go inside. I sat at the back of the church near where the coat rack is.

The experience was vastly different from what I was used to at the my other church. The worship was broken up into two sets with announcements in between. Then came the Eucharist, followed by the pastor's sermon. While I can't recall the exact theme of his message, there was one moment that grabbed my attention quite profoundly. A little boy had recently lost his dog and wanted to know if he'd be reunited with him up in Heaven. I suppose Jim could've given any number of answers that would've been scripturally sound, but instead he just told the boy that yes he would be reunited with his dog in Heaven.

I was deeply touched by Jim's words and I took them to heart. For I, too, had a dog and two cats and have often wondered if I would see them in Heaven. I did not know it at the time, but a seed had been planted. A couple of years later, when Maria and I decided it was time to look for another church, we tried a number of places, but ultimately decided to make the Glen Cove Christian Church our home.

It has often been said that a church takes on the character of its leaders, and that has certainly been the case with this church. From its pastor, to its elders, to its deacons, GCCC is truly a place where the spirit of the Lord dwells. Jim's sermons often speak to the relevant issues that affect our everyday lives; there's never a trace of that "holier than thou" mindset that so often afflicts other congregations. He uses his life's experiences the way an artist uses a canvas to draw his pearls of wisdom from. And make no mistake about it, that canvas is full. A Godly man, a loving husband, a proud father and grandfather, a good friend, and a humble servant of Christ. In baseball parlance, Jim would be known as a five-tool player.

But all was not smooth sailing. There were times when tragedy struck where Jim's mettle was put to the test. Several years ago, one of the leaders of this church, a man I was proud to call friend - Ralph Pedone - died suddenly of a heart attack. All of us were devastated, but Jim's strength and courage somehow got us through it. I will never forget the sermon he gave the following Sunday. While there was barely a dry eye in the room, Jim was a rock. That was truly God working through him. And just last November, another member of the church, and a dear friend of Maria and I - Ramona Bobe - lost her battle with cancer. Again, Jim rose to the occasion and had just the right words to comfort a grieving congregation. Such men are rare indeed.

Over the last decade, Maria and I have been privileged to not only get to know this man and his wife, Ann, but to occasionally have dinner with them at the Downtown Cafe. The words, salt of the earth, do not come remotely close to describing them. A better definition would be that they live out the meaning of the scripture in their day to day lives. They walk the walk as well as they talk the talk. If there is any pretense in either of them, I have yet to spot it. They are servants of the Lord in the highest sense.

Sometimes after the service, Ann and I would talk about the issues of the day and share our concerns about what was happening in the country. I don't suppose I'd be betraying too much if I were to say that the four of us shared more than just a profound belief in God. I can count on both hands the number of people I've known in the Church who share my political beliefs and Jim and Ann are two of them.

So I was deeply saddened to learn about a year ago that Jim was stepping down as pastor and that the two of them would be retiring to Connecticut to be with their kids and grand kids. On the one hand, I really couldn't blame them. If any two people had earned the right to retire it was Jim and Ann: Jim, a minister for over thirty years; Ann a school teacher for nearly that many. Most people never get to enjoy their golden years, so I was truly happy for the both of them.

On the other hand, I will miss them both terribly. The way they comported themselves, the way they welcomed Maria and I into their lives, the service they gave to their community and the sacrifice they made for all of us. The bar has truly been set high. My only regret is that I wish we'd found this church earlier. Imagine how many more fond memories we could've had.

I have struggled to find just the right words that I believe best encapsulate what Jim and Ann have meant not only to Maria and I but to everyone who had the good fortune to know them. And I think I finally found them from a poem by Joseph A. Torrey.

Through this toilsome world, alas!
Once and only once I pass.
If a kindness I may show,
If a good deed I may do,
To my suffering fellow men
Let me do it while I can
Nor delay it, for t’is plain
I shall not pass this way again.

Thank you, Jim, for exhibiting the finest qualities of Christ; for being a power of example that I could look up to; for the times you came to visit me in the hospital when I needed encouragement and prayer; for the times you consoled me when I lost a pet to illness and when my father passed away two years ago.

Thank you, Ann, for being a kindred spirit whose ear I could always bend in those trying moments that often looked so bleak; for the hugs I needed; for your sense of humor and wit. Now that you are a civilian, I hope you'll hit the "like" button occasionally on some of my Facebook posts. Jim, too.

I wish the both of you God's speed on your new journey, and I leave you with the words a former pastor of mine often used to close out his services with.

May the Lord bless you and keep you, make His face shine upon you and be gracious unto you. May He lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

P.S., don't be strangers. We have a guest bedroom and you are always welcomed.

The Lack of Empathy in America

Every once in a while, my wife and I will get a call from a charitable institution seeking a donation.  Sometimes, depending on what the cause is, we will send in a check.  Over the last few years, though, the predominant answer has been either a no or a response along the lines of, “I’m sorry but the homeowners are away. Could you call back?”

It’s not that my wife and I don’t want to contribute, or can’t; it’s because, though we have been quite fortunate to both be employed during this economic downturn, we are ever mindful – at least I am, anyway – that the storm clouds are still on the horizon.  Nothing is guaranteed.  Empathy often comes a distant second to taking care of your own.  And this from a self-described progressive!

It makes me wonder how many other people have succumbed to such fearful thinking.  I have a theory, and it’s one that quite frankly gives me the shivers.  In rough economic times, people’s hearts tend to turn colder and more indifferent.  Worse, there is almost a resentment of those who are perceived as a drain on their standing.

A case in point, recently I came across this posting on facebook:

What struck me most wasn’t the actual sign, but some of the comments that followed:

Here Here!!! There should be better control over Welfare recipients and where they spend their money since it's actually our money they are spending :(

Just clicking like is not enough for me. This motto should be spread across every billboard, every newspaper, and announced in church every Sunday. I don't know who created this, but my hats off to them! Right on!!

Ain't that right! Someone who is on welfare, 2 kids, gets $2k a month, food stamps and wic OVER double what I make working 40 hrs a week!

Let’s not forget IPhones!!

Or any other handouts you claim to be entitled to.

What I found most revealing about these comments and the others – some of which were truly depraved – was how completely devoid of even a semblance of empathy they all were and how very angry all of the respondents clearly are.  Obviously there is a deep resentment towards this particular group who they see as moochers; people who they feel are stealing from them.

I have seen this before in American society and, without exception, it is most evident when times are tough. It’s as though the uncertainty and fear that often define our circumstances turn our hearts cold to the suffering of others.  Indeed, one could make the case that the relationship between empathy and callousness lies in direct proportion to how well the economy is doing.  When times are good, people tend to be more upbeat about their personal circumstances, hence they are less concerned about whether someone might be mooching off of them and are, therefore, far more likely to be giving and compassionate; but when times are rough, the need to scapegoat and blame others rises dramatically along with resentments. 

Not only does empathy tend to vanish during bad economic times, it is replaced by a self-righteous indignation that strikes out, not at the true villains who caused the calamity in the first place, but at those who’ve been victimized the most.

That’s the irony of it.  You’d think that a bad economy would foster greater empathy from the general public towards those less fortunate.  In fact it is just the opposite.  Empathy is replaced by antipathy.  Maybe it’s because at a core level we see in their plight what could happen to us and, rather than deal with the fear, which is real and legitimate, we transfer our rage onto them.  Someone must be to blame.  Why not the one with his hand out?

The idea that the poor and indigent in this society are somehow getting a free ride at the expense of our hard-working tax dollars is not even remotely supported by the facts.  Most of these people barely scrape by on the food stamps and subsistence checks they receive each month.  For the most part they are not splurging on luxuries; they can barely afford the essentials to keep them alive.        

That the idiots who made this sign, along with the dozens of respondents who chimed in, can’t process what’s really going on inside their souls, is the real problem in America today. Fear and resentment are certainly nothing new.  But in tough economic times, they often become the fuel for an unrest that seeks to take its vengeance out in the ugliest and, sometimes, most violent means.  What happened in Germany in the 1930s started out as nothing more than pent up frustration that was quickly exploited by sick and twisted minds to unspeakable ends.

We must always be on guard that our fear doesn’t get the best of us, lest we say or do something we truly regret.

What Would Jesus Do?

You've seen it on bumper stickers; people wear it on their bracelets.  The term has become, for lack of a better word, a catch-phrase among many Christians and even non-Christians.  What Would Jesus Do?  Sometimes it's not even a question, so much as a statement of fact.

The recent controversy involving the food chain Chick-Fil-A has become a lightning rod for both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage and, if recent history is any indicator, the issue promises to be around for quite some time.  Why?  Because both sides consider the matter settled and can't see, for the life of them, why the other side is so intransigent.

And while the political perspective on this issue may be crucial so far as the candidates vying for the presidency are concerned, I wanted to address it more from a purely spiritual perspective, for I, for one, do not think it is settled by any means.

I do not claim to know what is in the heart of every man or woman and, certainly, each is entitled to their opinion.  Nor do I claim to know what motivates each of them to that opinion.  But there is something about the interview that Dan Cathy gave that just doesn't sit well with me. In fact it bothers me to no end.  When asked about his support of traditional family values, Cathy said the following:

“Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that. We operate as a family business … our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that. We intend to stay the course. We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

At first glance, the statement seems benign, even innocuous.  What's so bad about a business operating on biblical principles?  Wouldn't the world be a better place if every company ran its operation like that?

And then I took a closer look at his choice of wording and that's when the hair on my back began to stand up.  Everything about that statement, though obviously written for a Christian audience, is about as far removed from any Christian value as any I've seen lately.

Let's start with the word guilty.  For a Christian, the word has only one true meaning: we are guilty as sin and it is only through Christ, who took our place on the cross and, in so doing, took the sins of the world upon himself, that we become justified.  When a Christian speaks of guilt, he or she is speaking of the conviction of being a follower.  And to be a follower means that we will be condemned by this world - guilty as charged - the way Paul and Peter were before they were martyred.  Cathy is comparing himself to Paul and Peter.  How self aggrandizing can someone get?

But the line that makes my skin crawl is the one in which Cathy gives "thanks" for running a family-led business in which "we are married to our first wives."  Of all the sins that Jesus spoke out against, none were greater than pride.  One of his best and most important parables in the New Testament was the one about the Pharisee and the tax collector.

"To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.   The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.  I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’ 

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The sheer arrogance of Cathy's statement makes it clear that, far from being a truly God-fearing man who understands what it means to be a follower of Christ, his actions are motivated more by a need to point out just how good he is, and, therefore, how bad someone else must be.  You don't have to be a biblical scholar to see the hubris and pride of such a damning pronouncement.

And then there's the closing line, in which Cathy admits that his company's stance may not be "popular with everyone" but then thanks the Lord again for living in a country where he can "share" his values and "operate on biblical principles."  Again, the assumption that Cathy has a monopoly on what constitutes a biblical principle is in itself so unbiblical that it practically glows in the dark.  When Jesus said to his disciples that it is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," he wasn't merely speaking of personal wealth.  Pride is a form of self wealth and Cathy's statement reeks of it.  Sadly, many conservative Christians today are equally guilty of this sin.

For any true believer, the key to living a Christian life is through humility and grace.  We are called to love all God's people and not to judge others, lest ye be judged.  Whichever way you land on the issue of same-sex marriage, there is one thing which no follower of Jesus can deny: All of us are created in His image.  He loves us all, sins and all.

And there many sins out there; not just the ones some Christians love to trot out and pontificate on.  Dan Cathy would do well to remember that the next time he finds himself in an interview.

In Search of Whoville

Once more, it’s that time of year when millions of Christians not only reflect on the truly important things in their lives, but prepare to celebrate the birth of their savior.  They also set out in their annual quest to do battle against what they perceive as the single greatest threat to their faith. No, not the plight of the oppressed; no, not the increasing gap between the wealthy and poor; and no, not the corporate corruption that has permeated, polarized and paralyzed every aspect of our politics.  No, the battle that these Christians are waging that poses the greatest threat to their very way of life is the war on Christmas.

Yes, you heard right, the war on Christmas.  Poverty, injustice, corruption, that’s small potatoes.  For these “dedicated” followers of Christ, the only thing it seems that matters to them is the assault by the secular Left on not only Christmas, but on Christianity as a whole.

And this year the assault began early; Thanksgiving in fact.  Our beleaguered and elitist-socialist President, Barack Obama, threw the first salvo when he neglected to mention God in his Thanksgiving dedication.  The faithful wasted little time answering the affront by blasting the Dark Overlord.

Never mind that, in the words of Jon Stewart, Thanksgiving is really the celebration of pagans teaching religious zealots to farm, just neglecting to mention God was enough to whip up the hoards of the faithful into a frenetic lather.

Really now, this has gone way beyond bizarre.  With all the problems that beset our country, that any reasonably sane believer could spend even a nanosecond worrying about such trite and irrelevant issues as whether or not the President included God in a Thanksgiving message, or whether someone, in an attempt to be “politically correct,” opted to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” is sad.  To suggest, as some do with a straight face, that their faith is somehow under siege or in jeopardy of becoming extinct just because of a less overt seasonal expression is pathological to say the least.

And yet every year now for the last two decades the rest of us have had to put up with these “believers” as they rant and rave about their phony war and the erosion of a holy day that long ago got sold down the river by the very same corporate interests they purport to hold as equally sacrosanct.  That’s the irony: the very same followers who defend with every fiber of their being the right to keep Christ in Christmas continue to worship at the alter of the very agencies that are ripping the guts out of it.

I’m not talking about the over indulgence of gift giving – though that certainly is systematic of a trend that has escalated to as yet unheard of heights over the last couple of generations.  No, the real culprit is the mindset that has persisted within this segment of Christians that their faith and the system of greed and avarice that embodies the heart and soul of capitalism are somehow joined at the hip.  To suggest that maybe the very basis for their way of life is at odds with the teachings of Jesus is met with the most fervent of denials.  One would have more success questioning the deity of Jesus than to insinuate that everything they have come to know as true is in fact a lie.  

And yet a lie is what it is, pure and simple.  Think about the actual story of the first Christmas.  A young child in a manger surrounded by his mother and father and some farm animals.  Hardly the way most of us would want to enter the world.  And yet from that humble beginning, God would usher in a new kingdom that would offer the world a chance at true freedom and salvation. 

The price for admission into this kingdom?  Simple.  Live your life according to the principles of that child, who as a man gave his life to save us all.  Those principles are contained in that most famous of sermons that Jesus gave his followers, called “The Sermon on the Mount.”

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,

for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”        

None of us – even on our best day – is up to the challenge of those daunting words.  Fortunately we have grace to compensate for our shortcomings.  But if it’s a war Christians are looking for, why not a war against anything that would challenge the righteousness of those words.  Where is the outrage for the suffering of millions who every winter have to choose between starving or freezing to death?  Where are the shouts of anger for the corruption that steals our elections and causes tremendous economic upheavals that rob us of our savings and cost millions their jobs?  Where is the indignation at the hypocrisy of a movement that would forbid a woman from terminating her baby, yet provide her with no assistance to help raise it?  Where is the outcry over the injustice at the incarceration of countless men and women whose only crime is that they fit the profile of someone who might mean us harm?  And finally, where is the condemnation of those who, in their ignorance, have badly tarnished the reputation of a faith they claim to hold near and dear to their hearts and whose actions might well have resulted in millions of lost souls turning away from a chance at everlasting salvation?

These words of St. Augustine are as relevant now as they were when he wrote them more than a thousand years ago.

“Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

This is our war: to feed the hungry, to tend to the sick, to help the oppressed.  We don’t need phony wars about holidays and seasonal greetings to distract us from what Jesus has commissioned us to do.  Keeping Christ in Christmas ought not to be something we do only every December 25^th, but rather all year long.  But to do that we must truly understand what Christ was and what he stood for.  Only then will we be able to “follow” him and be worthy dwellers in his kingdom.   

Wishing someone a Happy Holidays doesn’t mean you don’t care about Christmas, any more than wishing someone a Merry Christmas means you do.  In the end, it’s what’s in your heart that counts.  And, after all, wasn’t it our hearts that Christ was after in the first place?

Well Done

Every once in a while, the good Lord puts someone in your path who changes irrevocably the trajectory of your journey.  And while I have never subscribed to the notion that every single thing we do is somehow orchestrated and predestined by God to happen – as so many Christians seem to – I nonetheless acknowledge the all too apparent fact that there are a lot of “coincidences” out there that just aren’t reconcilable by anything other than Devine intervention.

The summer of 2005 tested my faith.  I had grown increasingly bitter over the growth of fundamentalist Christianity in America.  It was even seeping into my own church.  Frustrated at the lack of pushback I saw coming from more moderate and progressive groups within the Christian community, I considered giving up and leaving the Church altogether.  Note, I wasn’t giving up on Jesus, but I had had it with His people.  If there was a better way, I was determined to find it, even if it meant leaving the familiar surroundings of a congregation I had been a part of for nearly fourteen years.

But before leaving, I decided to give one of the associate pastors at the church a call.  I had known Steve Munson for about five years.  We were both in an accountability group with two other men from our church, and I wanted to run what I was thinking and feeling by him.  I once had a very close and trusting relationship with another member of the church, but she had made a decision to leave the faith altogether.  I guess what I was after was a reality check.

After listening to me for what must’ve seemed like forever, Steve said something that quite frankly surprised me.  On every single point I made about the Church and the direction it seemed to be heading, he concurred.  He also said he shared my concern and frustration, and while he did not chide me about my decision to quit the whole thing, he did make a suggestion that shall we say intrigued me.

He informed me that he had been writing a blog for several years, which he said was an outlet for the frustrations and concerns he was feeling as a Christian.  In it he could share those thoughts that he could not otherwise share with certain members of the congregation.  He showed me the blog – Where Do I Go To Surrender (I still remember it) – and as I read the postings two things hit me almost simultaneously: one, Steve was a helluva good writer; and two, I had never known that side of Steve before.  I always knew he was somewhat left of center on certain issues, but I never knew he had such passionate views about certain topics.

He explained how easy it was to set up a blog and that I might find it an enjoyable outlet just like he did.  And then he issued a challenge.  Steve is not one to confront you right away; rather he takes a more deliberative and delicate tact, which I’ve always found is far more effective, especially with strong-willed types such as me. 

The “challenge” he issued was not to make any decisions just yet.  Rather, he said, I should set up a blog and start expressing my thoughts and feelings on it.  It would be a shame if I let the enemy win and deprived God’s church of yet another soul.  He said there were more of us out there than I was willing to concede and that I owed it to them as well as myself to stay in and fight the good fight.  If, after I gave it a whirl, I still felt like leaving that option would still be there.

I wouldn’t say I left his office totally convinced, but I did stay in the Church.  And over the last six years, I have in deed fought the good fight, putting in more than my nickel’s worth of opinion, some of it welcomed, the rest not so much.  So, you see, it’s Steve’s fault that I became the blogger that I am and the canker soar I can be to some.

Seriously, from that moment on, though I didn’t know it at the time, I would develop a trusting and special relationship with Steve.  We would often discuss topics that were of mutual interest to us, trading blog postings and commenting on each other’s sites.  More often than not, he was the only one who made any comments at all on mine.  At least I knew somebody out there was reading me and for that I was and am grateful.

In my times of need, I could always count on his Godly advice and compassionate heart.  When I had gone through a severe mid-life crisis in the autumn of ’07, which again tested my faith – not to mention my sanity – Steve was once again there for me.  He didn’t judge or lecture me, but rather consoled and comforted me.  He was far more a counselor than a pastor, a teacher more than a preacher. 

Over my fifty years of living, I have gotten to know a good many people, some of whom left a positive impression with me; others, well let’s just say I shed no tears that they are no longer around.  Go with God, I say.  Steve Munson has been one of those few men who has not only left a positive impression with me, he has taught me to rethink what my definition of a man is and what it means to be one of God’s children.  No matter what ordeal – emotional or physical – he might’ve been going through, he always found the time to ask you how you were doing.  Me? I get a hangnail and I’ll bore you to tears about how heavy my cross is.  Not Steve.  He was always other focused.  Like Jesus, he considered it his mission to be a humble servant.  And it that endeavor he was found not wanting.

That was Steve.  That IS Steve.  Never the complainer, always the trusted servant.  His flock was who ever happened to be in front of him, and he felt it his duty to ensure that all the sheep were present and accounted for.  In a world that only sees and acknowledges the stupendous and Herculean-type feats, men like Steve Munson are rare in deed.  But what I have come to realize and appreciate is that the glory that some crave is all too fleeting, but the true nobleness of the selfless man is the only thing that endures. 

A while back, I learned that this man, who had been so instrumental in my walk, would soon be leaving the church.  When I first heard the news, my heart was heavy.  It was a bittersweet moment for me.  On the one hand, I was happy for him and his family.  While I always enjoyed Steve’s sermons, deep down I knew that was not his calling.  He always seemed like the square peg in a round hole.  There was something else out there that the Lord had in store for him, and I always suspected he would one day leave in search of it.  So I was NOT surprised to hear that he was leaving.

What makes this bittersweet is the thought that I am losing someone in my life who has made a difference; someone who has been a mentor of sorts and someone I can bounce ideas off of.  And while I know that in this age of social media no one is ever truly gone from our lives, it just won’t be the same, somehow.  A chapter has come to an end and now it is time to turn the page.  Parting is such sweet sorrow, after all.

So I want to send this off to you, my good friend, to thank you for all the phone calls, emails and personal visits (both in your office and at your home) that helped steer this listing ship of mine safely into port.  Knowing you the way I do, you will undoubtedly defer all the credit to God, and that is fitting, I suppose.  After all, we are nothing without Him who gives us strength.

But I think, nay know, that in this Kingdom, many are called to serve; few have answered the bell so faithfully and tirelessly as you have.  As you depart with your family to North Carolina, I hope you find what your true calling is.  I know, once you do, you will bring the same selfless dedication to it that you brought to your vocation here.  Our loss will be their gain. 

You have touched profoundly the lives of so many that words alone cannot suffice both the loss and joy I feel at this moment, but I will try nonetheless.  If I may evoke a passage from scripture, this one, I believe, would crystallize the sentiment perfectly.   “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

Are Christians asking the wrong questions concerning Bin Laden?

The following blog post is a letter written by a believer who posted it on facebook.  Out of respect for him, I will withhold his name.  Suffice to say, he has helped me reconcile what has been a seemingly troublesome contradiction concerning my faith. I am indebted to him.

The question that keeps cropping up a lot is do we have the right to take "vengeance" on Bin Laden? That is the wrong question; it is nothing but a red herring. The question denotes an ignorance of the Bible as well as the situation.  1) A Christian is not going to be asked by the President of the United States to kill Bin Laden. 2) Bin Laden was killed by the government of the United States, not the Baptist Church on the corner.  If the president asked the local Baptist church to "carry out this mission" than they would have an argument to make as to why they should not kill Bin Laden.  But Christians are not being asked to kill, so the entire question is very moot.  So why are Christians asking this question?

The reason is they are asking this type of question because they are under the assumption that America is a Christian nation, governed by the Sermon on the Mount as its constitution, and that the US Government are filled with Christians who are breaking the rules of "not loving your enemy." The other reason I think they do this is because they want to be relevant somehow to the event of Bin Laden's death.  

The assumption is that all men are "In the image of God" and therefore, should be given the assumption of such an image.  Therefore, the image of God should not be killed, at least by a Christian.  Yet no one is asking a Christian to do such a thing.  But even if that was the case, here is a man who is killing/murdering others who are in the image of God, so where is their justice in this?  Does the murderer, who is still living, get more rights to the image of God then the ones who were murdered?  That seems to be the implication of this argument.

I think one of the reasons for this is because Christians have made the word "Justice" into a four letter word that Christians should never say nor do.  So the idea of allowing Justice to be executed would be counter to the argument of all men being in the image of God, and therefore, only God should execute such justice.  So the cycle continues, a Christians should never execute justice against an evil person, because, that evil person is a person in the image of God.  It is a vicious cycle of nonsense.  The question that arises from this: How can Christians make the right decision on justice today, if they are making such nonsensical logical statement, and still be trusted by Christ to judge the angels and the world at His return?  

At this point, I would trust Obama to make the right choice than I would a Christian, who holds the view that only God should execute vengeance.  But the problem is, no one is executing vengeance, but Justice.  If Christians are willing to defer Justice to God all the time, how can God trust them to execute Justice during the reign of Christ?  At least Obama did the right thing and executed the order to bring Usama Bin Laden to justice.  I assume they wanted to bring him in person and try him, but he put up a fight and had to be killed.  As President of the United States Obama did the right thing, he ordered Seal Team 6 to bring in Usama Bin Laden. 

The question that Christians need to be asking is: “how does justice works within the world and how Christians should respond to such justice?” By this example Christians are asking the wrong questions and they are making themselves irrelevant to the situation.  The way the questions are being asked, they are inserting themselves into the situation where they are not supposed to be.  Vengeance belongs to God, but no one is asking you to commit Vigilante justice on Bin Laden.  The President of the United States is not asking the local Baptist Church to send out the choir to kill Bin Laden.  The Pastor is not the President of the United States to determine such actions against Bin Laden.  America’s government is not based on the Sermon on the Mount and Ten Commandments, where we are commanded to love God and our neighbor as our-self.  So stop judging the situation, it is not your responsibility to condemn the actions of the U.S. Military who were ordered by the President of the United States to go after and bring Bin Laden to Justice.  President Obama was doing what was required of him, Seal Team 6 were carrying out their orders given to them by the President of the United States.  God ordained that Governments do exactly what the US Government did to Bin Laden.  The killing of Bin Laden was a just act in the eyes of God.

The question of “Does God delight in the death of Bin Laden” posed by John Piper. “Should we love our enemies by the Resurgence” (Mars Hill Church, Pastor Mark Driscoll) are irrelevant to the situation.  They are just muddying up the waters; making a simple act into a more complicated situation by dragging in questions that have nothing to do with the situation.  Stop trying to be relevant to the situation until you gain a proper understanding of what it means to execute Justice.     

Remembering King: Forty-Three Years Later

On April 4, 1968, a violent act by a hateful man deprived the nation and the world of one of its true visionaries and men of peace. Martin Luther King, Jr., like Gandhi and Jesus before him, was that rare bread of leader: a man who spoke truth to power and challenged all of us to look in the mirror. As Robert Frost would say, he took the road less traveled, and for millions of us that made all the difference.  More than forty years later, what he stood for is no less relevant than it was at the time of his untimely death.

Of all the eloquent and moving speeches King gave throughout his relatively brief life, none more crystallized the state of the nation both then and, sadly, now as the one he actually never gave but wrote from a Birmingham jail in 1963. Never one afraid to stir the pot, King held nothing back and, like the good parent with a wayward child, he did not spar the rod.

If his words make you squirm, so be it. For like Gandhi and Christ, King never seemed all that concerned with the comfort level of his followers. This letter – a rebuke to his fellow clergymen who were critical of his stances – is both biting and salient, for the issues it deals with are as old as society itself and they challenge much of what we have come to accept as our pre-conceived core values in this so-called Christian nation.

It needs no explanation, nor justification, for it suffices on the sheer merit of its truth, wisdom and conviction.

Bon Appétit!


MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities “unwise and untimely.” Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against “outsiders coming in.” I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their “thus saith the Lord” far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. We have gone through all of these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

As in so many past experiences, our hopes had been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : “Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” “Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?” We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic withdrawal program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham’s mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene “Bull” Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-off we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension, which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken .in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: “Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?” The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily.

Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, “Wait.” But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you go forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness” then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may want to ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of “somebodiness” that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible “devil.”

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the “do-nothingism” of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as “rabble-rousers” and “outside agitators” those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides--and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: “Get rid of your discontent.” Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was not Amos an extremist for justice: “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.” Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” Was not Martin Luther an extremist: “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.” And John Bunyan: “I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And Abraham Lincoln: “This nation cannot survive half slave and half free.” And Thomas Jefferson: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ...” So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some---such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as “dirty nigger lovers.” Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful “action” antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative critics who can always find something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; and too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.” In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: “What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Wallace gave a clarion call for defiance and hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?”

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

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 mores 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 arch-defender of the status quo. Par 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. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ecclesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches; have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.

I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. 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.

Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping “order” and “preventing violence.” I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather “nonviolently” in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: “The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”

I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. There will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face jeering and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. There will be the old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: “My feets is tired, but my soul is at rest.” There will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he is alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.



Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,



Martin Luther King, Jr.