My Brother, My Sister and Our Churches. Part II

“Your piece is both compelling and well-states the breadth of the topic. But…

 Let me focus on the bit currently directly above this post. On one hand I agree (both generally and with this specifically) that we need not be painting with a broad brush.On the other hand, if a group of people would continue to be part of an organization after the leadership of that organization had committed nefarious acts, then is that not tacit approval? Thus, broad stroke away.

Perhaps not you say. Perhaps they have the courage of conviction to stay and shape the organization from within? To that I would say, perhaps. But if that organization has a clear, established, elitist hierarchy, then what are the chances of that?

 Perhaps pretty good. There are probably stories of the hierarchy (most likely local) drawing upon the strength of their flock. Or perhaps, the remaining members just nailed a posting to the front door.”

NCS

This is all so much more complicated than simple dogma, and I think you make an excellent point.

I hope you will indulge a response that wanders some from the subject at hand but circles back to it.

In the Civil Rights struggle I believe there may be a clearer prism, wizened by the distance of history, to view this. We can definitely draw a distinction between Ebenezer Baptist and any of the hundreds of whites only churches scattered across the South. With Dr. King’s leadership and an activist community of engaged African Americans, one can draw a positive view of both the Ebenezer and its leader at the time, Dr. King, excepting of course the treatment of women. On the other side the southern Methodists, George Wallace for example, allowed for the creation of White Citizens Councils (actually) inside many of their congregations across Alabama. There is no argument to be made that those congregations or their leader’s actions deserve anything less than condemnation. Both cases present fairly clear cases where a more generalized determination is not only called for, but also it would seem eminently fair.  

And yet,  Dr. King viewed the faith of white church goers as the basis on which an appeal could be made for greater tolerance. This appeal is most graphically displayed in The Letter from The Birmingham Jail which was both militant and searching which was a direct response to statements made by white Southern church leaders questioning his tactics.  Dr. King wrote…

 “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.”

King confronted whites in general, as well as church leaders and their congregations. But in doing so, he did not condemn the religious foundations of the South. King went onto write…

“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.”

Kings efforts to create a color-blind society in the face of brutal treatment from white racists caused Stokely Carmichael and others to depart for the far more militant Black Power movement and the creation of the Black Panther Party. Derrick Bell, a civil rights pioneer deceased but now much in the press, took stock of that militancy, from which Critical Race Theory was born. Arguments were made, battles were won and lost. But there is little doubt that anger, the urge to condemn, to strike, to separate for the purposes of acceleration of the cause fueled both militancy and rejection. As King predicted intolerance among the Civil Rights community gave whites all the reason they needed to challenge the moral legitimacy of the movement. With fresh attacks on Bell, a man so much more than CRT, this continues even into today.

With his magnificent intellect and his expansive morality Dr. King was able to rise above condemnation, and to challenge both a racist power structure as well as a compliant silent majority. Dr. King condemned neither the church leaders or the members of their congregations to the oblivion of the other, rather they were called to join the community of love that Dr. King fought and died to create.

I recognize the anger that so many hold for the institutions of the church across America. In many places churches are still the most segregated places in America, and many pursue a dogma that is infused with a paternalistic, misogynist view of women, as well as open tolerance and in some cases theology of homophobia. The crimes we have seen are repulsive, and the cover-ups that ensued cannot be measured on any scale of human decency. I have no words for those that committed or condoned specific acts, or hold the church now blameless in contrast to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In addition, there can be little doubt but that the conversation on contraception is skewed by a religiously inspired and logically cramped view of sexuality and the relations between the sexes.

But if I am asked to choose between condemnations, especially of the individuals in church communities or dialogue based on a mutuality of concerns, I chose dialogue. While I often feel my own words run dangerously close, and sometimes cross the line towards condemnation, in my rational mind I know that King is and was right.

 “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.”