This breakfast reminded me of many things, one of which is that we should be mindful of the labels we put on one another. In today's politically hostile environment, I regularly hear talk of "radicals" and "the left" as if they were something bad, but I am always aware that Jesus was despised by the establishment, ultimately killed because he resisted its policies and practices. Jesus was a radical who butted heads with both governmental and religious rulers. I'm pretty sure that the titles "radical," "leftist" and "social justice warrior" would be applied to Him today.
Yet I've seen people spit out those words as if they were venomous. I wonder what they think Jesus meant when He (quoting the prophet Isaiah) said:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind,to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."
Or what He meant when said He came, not to bring peace to the Earth, but a sword? I realize there are differing Biblical interpretations, and exegesis isn't the purpose of this post, but I wonder how folk can claim to love Jesus and be so busy demonizing those who do His work?
For instance, I've seen people spit out the label Democrat, saying the noun, but using it as an adjective (i.e., the Democrat attempt....") and all that comes across is the bile and the hatred with which they regard everything that "democrat(ic)" stands for. We must be careful whether we term people with whom we disagree democrats or deplorables. We must be mindful of the fact that people are more than a particular ideology, more than the candidate for whom they work/support/vote. People are more than one governmental policy.
We have to come together to see a larger picture, one based on Power, Love, and a Sound Mind. We have to come together living out the radical love of Jesus Christ if we are to continue as a nation. And no, that does not imply that everyone must convert to Christianity. It does imply that we in the Christian majority respect the faith traditions of our Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish and other non-Christian neighbors just as we expect them to respect our Christian traditions. If we are concerned about our Christian identity, then Christ told us that people would know we were Christians by our LOVE. If we call ourselves Christians, then it is incumbent upon us to live out the radical love of Jesus, to bear witness to the work of Jesus in our walk and in our talk, if our faith tradition is to continue with any credibility.
Dr. King's "mountaintop" speech was delivered while he was supporting a worker's strike, while he was confronting systemic injustice against sanitation workers. Because he spoke of the possibility of dying before his time, the speech is considered prophetic, and we were told today that we honor prophets not by sitting back and celebrating them, but by carrying on their work. Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was delivered in the midst of a protest rally against systemic racism and economic inequality. How can we celebrate Dr. King and tread upon the ideals for which he stood? Are we to treat him like Jesus and whitewash or outright deny the revolutionary character of his message, opting instead to enshroud him in some mystical divinity? Is that how we honor either of them?
Perhaps we should take a moment to read and take notes from Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." In it, Dr. King is an object lesson in how to deal with political/philosophical opponents: showing them the respect due every living creature, drawing on a long theological tradition, he presents his case and, rather than attempting to vilify his adversaries, he patiently and thoroughly offers them an opportunity to rise to a different level. Whether they do it or not is, of course, their decision, and while Dr. King may judge the validity of their actions or lack thereof, he does not diminish their worth as individuals. While there may not have been much conversation in response to this letter, Dr. King did not close the door.
More than 50 years later, many of the issues against which Dr. King campaigned remain as cancers upon our society. Our current social/political environment is not one conducive to collaboration; already we are seeing ideological splintering that could result in a second term for the individual presently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. While varying opinions often add to any conversation, an inability to unite and coalesce around one candidate, a very possible outcome of this present environment, could lead to an undesirable result.
If we really want to honor the legacy of Dr. King, perhaps we could work, not towards our own individual goals, but towards mutual goals and ideals that are larger than our immediate agendas. Perhaps we could begin to work with people who look, love and pray differently than we do, focusing not on the things that differentiate us, but on the things that bind us together. Perhaps we could show our love for America by recognizing that not only is it not perfect, but that it was forged through revolution, through rejecting an unjust and repressive status quo. Perhaps we could show our love for America by embracing the fact that the checks and balances built into the very core of our system of government are there in recognition of the fact that people both disagree and can sometimes abuse the power invested in them. There is no shame in political checks, balances, accountability, or verification.
Those of us who claim to be Christian might do well to remember that while we should certainly give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, our first responsibility is to give to God that which is God's. John asked how we could claim to love God whom we have not seen and hate our neighbor whom we have seen (OK, John didn't really ask how we could do it, he said if we make that claim while hating, we are liars). So if we claim to be Christian, shouldn't people be able to identify us by our love? When love includes upsetting an unjust social order, should not the LOVE be identifiable? When that love precipitates a disagreement in politics, should not the LOVE be identifiable? When our love for our neighbor necessitates the dismantling of unjust systems, should not the LOVE be identifiable?
Dr. King's legacy is one of nonviolent social change. He took on many of the institutional powers of his day, but he did so not by belittling his opponents, but by overwhelming them with radical love. As we move ahead into a pivotal social and political era, let us remember Dr. King not just with a couple of soundbites, not sanitized to respectability, but in the battled, beleaguered, revolutionary, radically-loving fullness of who God created him to be.
We have to come together to see a larger picture, one based on Power, Love, and a Sound Mind. We have to come together living out the radical love of Jesus Christ if we are to continue as a nation. And no, that does not imply that everyone must convert to Christianity. It does imply that we in the Christian majority respect the faith traditions of our Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish and other non-Christian neighbors just as we expect them to respect our Christian traditions. If we are concerned about our Christian identity, then Christ told us that people would know we were Christians by our LOVE. If we call ourselves Christians, then it is incumbent upon us to live out the radical love of Jesus, to bear witness to the work of Jesus in our walk and in our talk, if our faith tradition is to continue with any credibility.
Dr. King's "mountaintop" speech was delivered while he was supporting a worker's strike, while he was confronting systemic injustice against sanitation workers. Because he spoke of the possibility of dying before his time, the speech is considered prophetic, and we were told today that we honor prophets not by sitting back and celebrating them, but by carrying on their work. Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was delivered in the midst of a protest rally against systemic racism and economic inequality. How can we celebrate Dr. King and tread upon the ideals for which he stood? Are we to treat him like Jesus and whitewash or outright deny the revolutionary character of his message, opting instead to enshroud him in some mystical divinity? Is that how we honor either of them?
Perhaps we should take a moment to read and take notes from Dr. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." In it, Dr. King is an object lesson in how to deal with political/philosophical opponents: showing them the respect due every living creature, drawing on a long theological tradition, he presents his case and, rather than attempting to vilify his adversaries, he patiently and thoroughly offers them an opportunity to rise to a different level. Whether they do it or not is, of course, their decision, and while Dr. King may judge the validity of their actions or lack thereof, he does not diminish their worth as individuals. While there may not have been much conversation in response to this letter, Dr. King did not close the door.
More than 50 years later, many of the issues against which Dr. King campaigned remain as cancers upon our society. Our current social/political environment is not one conducive to collaboration; already we are seeing ideological splintering that could result in a second term for the individual presently residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. While varying opinions often add to any conversation, an inability to unite and coalesce around one candidate, a very possible outcome of this present environment, could lead to an undesirable result.
If we really want to honor the legacy of Dr. King, perhaps we could work, not towards our own individual goals, but towards mutual goals and ideals that are larger than our immediate agendas. Perhaps we could begin to work with people who look, love and pray differently than we do, focusing not on the things that differentiate us, but on the things that bind us together. Perhaps we could show our love for America by recognizing that not only is it not perfect, but that it was forged through revolution, through rejecting an unjust and repressive status quo. Perhaps we could show our love for America by embracing the fact that the checks and balances built into the very core of our system of government are there in recognition of the fact that people both disagree and can sometimes abuse the power invested in them. There is no shame in political checks, balances, accountability, or verification.
Those of us who claim to be Christian might do well to remember that while we should certainly give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, our first responsibility is to give to God that which is God's. John asked how we could claim to love God whom we have not seen and hate our neighbor whom we have seen (OK, John didn't really ask how we could do it, he said if we make that claim while hating, we are liars). So if we claim to be Christian, shouldn't people be able to identify us by our love? When love includes upsetting an unjust social order, should not the LOVE be identifiable? When that love precipitates a disagreement in politics, should not the LOVE be identifiable? When our love for our neighbor necessitates the dismantling of unjust systems, should not the LOVE be identifiable?
Dr. King's legacy is one of nonviolent social change. He took on many of the institutional powers of his day, but he did so not by belittling his opponents, but by overwhelming them with radical love. As we move ahead into a pivotal social and political era, let us remember Dr. King not just with a couple of soundbites, not sanitized to respectability, but in the battled, beleaguered, revolutionary, radically-loving fullness of who God created him to be.
