News Alert
|
Get intelligent!
|
Main Menu
| Home |
| Radio Shows - LISTEN |
| Brad's Blog |
| Irwin's Blog |
| Brad In the Media |
| Irwin in the Media |
| Bridges TV - WATCH |
| Podcast |
| Forum |
Members Login
| Brad Blog Jan 18, 2008 |
|
|
| Friday, 18 January 2008 | |
     A Test of Faith
& Other Thoughts on Martin Luther King Jr
Posted by Brad Hirschfield recognizing a historic public hero
A TEST OF FAITH
April 9th, 1968 was the first
time I remember seeing adults cry. My family, including Mary Lee
Marshal, an African American woman who helped care for me and my three
siblings, gathered around the television in my grandparents’ living
room at their home in Palm Springs, California, as we watched the
funeral of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I don’t remember how they
explained their tears, or even if I asked them why they were crying,
but it left a lasting impression on my toddler mind. I became
fascinated, like so many other school children, by Dr. King’s life and
impact, but at no time has his work seemed more crucial to our nation’s
future than it does today.
The combination of faith and politics, of political and religious identity is more powerful right now than perhaps at any time since the Crusades, and unless we find better ways in which to think about this new/old reality soon, all of us will suffer, regardless of whatever side of whichever divide we find ourselves. As we face an election year in which candidates compete to prove that they are both animated by deep faith and committed to the religious dignity of others, Dr. King’s legacy of uniting his most deeply held beliefs with a vision that served even those who did not share them is something from which we all could learn. Beyond the specific issues of racial equality, social justice, and the economic empowerment of the disadvantaged, Dr. King’s method of integrating deep faith and his political agenda was fundamentally different and far more constructive than the typical footnoting in which most contemporary politicians and activists engage. Today’s leaders choose those religious texts and ideas which just support their positions and policies, while ignoring those that could be used to prove the opposite. If they are liberal, they teach their audiences about the sacredness of choice, the dignity of living a gay life, the necessity of economic equality, and the value of prayer as a private experience. If they are conservative, they choose those passages that prove the sacredness of life at conception, that gayness is an abomination, that economic success is individually earned, and that we are a Christian nation that ought to pray in public. In each case, religion is invoked to prove the goodness and the Godness of their particular position. And the success of the argument is based on how many people are convinced to advocate for those positions. Success is defined by how those who already share a specific faith are served by the implementation of those policies in which they already believe. Dr. King offered an alternative model, one in which religious ideas and imagery were offered not as ammunition toward narrowly defined practices, but as inspiration for all Americans, including those who were deeply divided about how best to build a better nation. Success for Dr. King was not a function of sharing his dogma or doctrine, but of seeing all Americans engaged in enhancing the dignity of every citizen. I know of no example in which he claimed that those who did not share his views were condemned to hell or that only those who did would be saved. His litmus test was not the extent to which a specific group of people, united by a particular faith, skin color, or ethnicity would be better served because of the triumph of his vision -- his test was the extent to which all people, regardless of those things would be better served. His was not a vision in which America would be better when all of us looked or sounded like him, but when all of us were freer to look, act, and live as the people we most yearn to be. In the Biblical story, God blesses Abraham as he sets out to found a new tribe who would be known as Israelites. Abraham is told that he will be successful not when his new tribe achieves victory over other tribes or when they get everyone to join their tribe. They will be successful when they are a blessing to all people in the world, when non-Israelites feel fortunate that this new tribe exists. As with Dr. King, the biblical story shows that religious ideas and communities are not successful until they serve even those who lie beyond themselves. There is room for faith in the great debates which animate our society, but only when it is used like it was by Dr. King -- when those who follow it view success as a function of the good, not only of the faithful, but of everyone affected by the debate.
Other Thoughts on MLK
Dr. King provided a way of combining his deep faith with his political agenda and was different and more constructive than the typical footnoting in which most contemporary politicians engage. Today’s leaders choose the religious ideas which support their positions, while ignoring those that could prove the opposite. Dr. King offered an alternative model, one in which religious ideas and imagery were not used as ammunition toward narrowly defined practices, but as inspiration for all Americans, including those who were deeply divided about how best to build a better nation. Dr. King did not claim that only those who shared his views would be saved, as many conservatives do, nor tell people to hide their faith, as many liberals do. His litmus test was the extent to which all people, regardless of those things would be better served. Success for Dr. King was not a function of sharing his dogma or doctrine, but of seeing all Americans engaged in enhancing the dignity of every citizen. His vision was not one in which America would be better when all of us looked or sounded like him, but when all of us were freer to look, act, and live as the people we most yearn to be. There is room for faith in the great debates which animate our society, but only when it is used as it was by Dr. King. When those who follow it view success as a function of the good of everyone affected by the debate. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|