Three years ago I thought about taking some kind of vow of silence for lent or for some shorter length of time for the purpose of focusing on more selfless listening. This weekend I got to experience what that might have been like had I gone through with it, because I lost my voice worse than I've ever lost it before.
I've been sick for the last week, and I pretty much just woke up one morning, got out of bed, had a coughing fit, and like that my voice was gone.
When instructed by a couple nurses at a minute clinic that I should just shut up completely, I decided to heed their advice.
The actual being silent bit wasn't so bad. The many awkward moments were.
Although I decided that this would be a good opportunity to practice being a "listener," I quickly realized that people have a hard time conversing with you when you don't verbally respond. I realized that the best way to listen is to engage in conversation, because when you say nothing, even if you look engaged (i.e. eye contact, nodding, etc.), once a person has said what they intended to say, they don't know where to go after that until you've put in at least your two cents. Conversation is an essential element to actively listening. I turned to writing on a pad of paper and trying to use sign language, but it wasn't remotely the same.
I also realized that it feels really creepy in group contexts to just watch people and not say anything to anyone. People notice you staring. And not singing in church is also super awkward.
So, although James 1:19 says to be slow to speak and quick to listen, it doesn't say not to speak. I didn't have a choice this time around, really, but I'm glad I experienced it... and learned my lesson.
Still, it was nice to spend that time just in my head, taking in the world around me and keeping my thoughts a secret. Hopefully I'll take a bit of "lost voice" with me.
God bless.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Weekend backpacking
One thing I rarely do on this blog anymore is actually talk about my life and things that happen to me. So let me talk about the backpacking trip I went on this weekend. How's that sound?
I'm in the backpacking club at my school, and with them I've been training for a week-long backpacking trip that we're taking over spring break in the Rocky Mountains. This weekend we had our preparatory over-nighter in a state park nearby.
We hiked out into the hilly, snowy, wooded terrain and got a little lost a couple of times, but found our way back quickly. I wasn't used to the hills (since most of the places I'd been hiking before were on flat ground), so I got a bit winded on a lot of the uphills and was fairly nervous on the slippery downhills. I think I slowed the group down a few times. However, there were several absolutely lovely views.
For almost the entire time, we hiked in a single file line, so I spent a lot of time in my head, not talking to anyone, which was really nice. I don't get enough time to retreat to my thoughts anymore.
When we finally got to our campsite, which was beautifully and mercifully furnished with a latrine, I nominated myself to help with fire-building rather than tent-building, since one is obviously a lot more fun (and doable). However, with all the sticks were were able to find being pretty icy and no real logs available, starting and maintaining a fire was pretty challenging. I was a little worried about how we would make dinner until Stephen whipped out this little fold-out gas stove thingy that was apparently what we were supposed to use to cook. The point of the fire, I learned, was just warmth and drying clothing.
Because two of our group members are vegan, we had rice and lentils for dinner. Almost immediately after, right as the sun was going down, we went to bed. It was strange going to bed so early (before 7 p.m.), but it was too dark and too cold to stay up, especially since our fire was so pitiful.
For the next 12 hours I slept on and off, somewhat restlessly. There were two other ladies in the group, so the three of us huddled in what I'm pretty sure was a two-person tent. The three guys did likewise. The next morning we checked the weather and found out it had gotten down to at least 13° F that night. We survived!
We packed up quickly in the morning and left. About halfway through our hike back to the cars, it started snowing, and by the time we finished I literally had icicles in my hair. It was so pretty outside, but I was exhausted. We didn't go as far as planned because of the snow, but I think we still went a total of about 10-12 miles with 20-25 pound packs on our backs.
We drove back into the city and got Chipotle for lunch. We sat there eating our burritos looking and smelling like greasy bums.
It was wonderful showering up, but I worry that the cold temperatures are what contributed to my current viral infection.
I'm also concerned that I'm not physically ready to take on a week's worth of hiking through mountains. But. I'm sure it will all be fine. And I'll look back and be really glad I did it. And I really, really hope that it won't be as cold or wet when we go on the spring break trip.
So, that's that. In case any of you were wondering.
God bless.
I'm in the backpacking club at my school, and with them I've been training for a week-long backpacking trip that we're taking over spring break in the Rocky Mountains. This weekend we had our preparatory over-nighter in a state park nearby.
We hiked out into the hilly, snowy, wooded terrain and got a little lost a couple of times, but found our way back quickly. I wasn't used to the hills (since most of the places I'd been hiking before were on flat ground), so I got a bit winded on a lot of the uphills and was fairly nervous on the slippery downhills. I think I slowed the group down a few times. However, there were several absolutely lovely views.
For almost the entire time, we hiked in a single file line, so I spent a lot of time in my head, not talking to anyone, which was really nice. I don't get enough time to retreat to my thoughts anymore.
When we finally got to our campsite, which was beautifully and mercifully furnished with a latrine, I nominated myself to help with fire-building rather than tent-building, since one is obviously a lot more fun (and doable). However, with all the sticks were were able to find being pretty icy and no real logs available, starting and maintaining a fire was pretty challenging. I was a little worried about how we would make dinner until Stephen whipped out this little fold-out gas stove thingy that was apparently what we were supposed to use to cook. The point of the fire, I learned, was just warmth and drying clothing.
Because two of our group members are vegan, we had rice and lentils for dinner. Almost immediately after, right as the sun was going down, we went to bed. It was strange going to bed so early (before 7 p.m.), but it was too dark and too cold to stay up, especially since our fire was so pitiful.
For the next 12 hours I slept on and off, somewhat restlessly. There were two other ladies in the group, so the three of us huddled in what I'm pretty sure was a two-person tent. The three guys did likewise. The next morning we checked the weather and found out it had gotten down to at least 13° F that night. We survived!
We packed up quickly in the morning and left. About halfway through our hike back to the cars, it started snowing, and by the time we finished I literally had icicles in my hair. It was so pretty outside, but I was exhausted. We didn't go as far as planned because of the snow, but I think we still went a total of about 10-12 miles with 20-25 pound packs on our backs.
We drove back into the city and got Chipotle for lunch. We sat there eating our burritos looking and smelling like greasy bums.
It was wonderful showering up, but I worry that the cold temperatures are what contributed to my current viral infection.
I'm also concerned that I'm not physically ready to take on a week's worth of hiking through mountains. But. I'm sure it will all be fine. And I'll look back and be really glad I did it. And I really, really hope that it won't be as cold or wet when we go on the spring break trip.
So, that's that. In case any of you were wondering.
God bless.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Letter from Birmingham Jail
Happy Black History Month! I'm white, but I can still celebrate, right?
Today I turned in my analysis of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail for my Christian Ethics class. Occasionally I include school documents on my blog if I really like the subject content, so here is said analysis:
(Before we should start, I should warn you that this is a somewhat long analysis and that parts of it may not make sense without having read Dr. King's letter, which is also somewhat lengthy. If you have time, his letter is certainly worth reading, though.)
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. makes a compelling case in his letter from a Birmingham Jail about the moral integrity of his recent actions. Written to white fellow clergymen whom he regards as brothers, he appeals to their morality and common faith in his response to their recent criticisms. Using many examples from history, including Biblical events, he addresses the main issues that came up in their critique, at least the ones that stood out to him, and respectfully and lovingly, but firmly, explains his disagreement with each of those points. Overall Dr. King makes his point well that he is right in his battle against the evils of segregation and legal and social prejudices.
For the overall outline of Dr. King’s letter, he chooses several points of significance from the statement he sees and carefully counters each of them. Although he deals separately with each point, he maintains a cohesive, overall theme. First, Dr. King explains why he was in Birmingham, then his reasoning for direct action (anticipating an argument against it), addresses the accusation of the untimeliness of actions taken, the accusation of his encouraging others to break laws, his disappointment in the “white moderate,” his disappointment (and later glad acceptance) of being labeled “extreme,” his disappointment with the church, and finally his disapproval of the commendation of the Birmingham police. He closes with warm regards and an image of hope.
When Dr. King begins his discussion, he makes the letter more readable to outsiders by giving context for the situation: he was in Birmingham dealing with the injustice that he felt strongly compelled to fight. He makes several brief references to Biblical prophets and apostles and how they travelled for the things they were passionate about, i.e. the word of God. He also claims that because Birmingham is in America, it affects all Americans and therefore all Americans should be concerned with the injustices happening there. Dr. King went on to defend the nature of his actions and why they were an appropriate method for the situation at hand (a point to which he comes back throughout his letter). He highlights four steps to engaging in a nonviolent campaign: "collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action." Although Dr. King was confessedly involved with direct action, he also had clearly engaged in the others (aside, perhaps, from negotiation, which he anticipated would be a better course to take after the direct action step). He had collected the facts: injustices were happening; there was no doubt about it. The self-purification step, which he discusses more in-depth later, involves an evaluation of motives and an earnest effort to make the best moral and courageous decision (in this case, non-violent action and protest). Dr. King then argues that negotiation, which should theoretically lead to a solution, would not be possible because the offending side would be unwilling to engage in it. In order to make negotiation happen, tension must be created through direct action—something that will make the community notice and be forced to respond (hopefully through negotiation). Dr. King explains every piece of this argument that may be misconstrued or argued with in anyway. He covers up all the holes so that the point he is trying to make has utmost validity.
As for the untimeliness that Dr. King has been accused of, he does not hesitate to share the reality of the horrors happening all over the South at that time and essentially claims, what better time but the present? He iterates that the issues at hand are urgent and demand immediate action, listing many unacceptable truths about the way African Americans must live their lives: in fear of violence, being excluded because of the color of their skin, and growing up developing bitterness toward white people. He points out that a protest will never be timely or convenient for the oppressor, illustrating by using the word “wait” (read: never) meaning that the oppressor simply does not consider itself ready to change its ways. He closes this section by appealing to the humanity of his addressees by saying that it is not within human nature to endure such hardship for so long; that patience will inevitably run out because the oppression is too great and what patience that existed has already been stretched too thinly.
Next, Dr. King addresses the concern that his critics have about his encouraging others to break laws. He immediately allows them some credibility, saying, “This is certainly a legitimate concern.” However, he is also quick to distinguish between what he calls just and unjust laws. Just laws include laws that “uplift human personality,” align with God’s law, and encourage sameness among people (that is, equality rather than conformity). They also apply to everyone in the population and give the people to whom the law applies fair voting rights. Unjust laws have, unsurprisingly, the opposite of all of the characteristics that just laws possess: they damage personality, are misaligned with God’s law, encourage inequality among people, apply to certain populations but not all, and are not well represented by the voice of the people. He claims that the laws he will obey and encourage others to obey are just laws, while he has no qualms about nonviolently and respectfully disobeying unjust laws. However, he contends that one who is going to dare to disobey the law, even if it is unjust, must be completely willing to suffer the legal consequences of their actions. This detailed description again seals up holes and the possibility for any misunderstandings.
To back this point up, Dr. King again references Biblical stories from both the Old and New Testaments as well as stories from history such as Socrates’ civil disobedience and the disobedience of Americans during the Boston Tea Party. Knowing that all Christians regard the Biblical events to be moral acts and all Americans regard the historical events to be moral acts, Dr. King was wise in his strategy to include these stories. He even includes the more recent history of how Nazi Germany created many unimaginably unjust laws that would be absurdly immoral for any Christian to obey.
When Dr. King brings up those he calls white moderates, he expresses deep disappointment in the way they prefer silence and order over just turbulence. He reintroduces the idea of tension as a positive motivator for people to communicate as well as his firm belief that one cannot set a “timetable for another man’s freedom.” This reminder aids to the cohesion of the letter. He claims that true order of society is grounded in justice and social progress. It may seem that by remaining silent, Americans are trying to retain order and keep the peace, but in reality they are practically enabling the violence that was happening to African Americans simply because they are too afraid to stand up for justice. However, he does not confine the blame to any particular race. He later points out the error of many African Americans in taking either a complacent, helpless stance or a violent, hateful one. Again, self-purification was the remedy for this. He also commends several white comrades on their contribution to Dr. King’s cause.
In this section, Dr. King makes several compelling analogies. First, he compares the problem of injustice to a boil on the body that cannot heal when covered but must be exposed to light and air in order to heal, the same way violent and prejudiced deeds must be exposed in order for people to take notice and allow the problem to heal. He also says that the accusation he has received of causing violence through protest can be compared to blaming a victim of a robbery for being robbed because he possessed money, among various other analogies. These vivid and logical analogies build up Dr. King’s case well.
Dealing again with time, Dr. King references a critique he received from a pastor, not about his untimeliness, but introducing an argument based on the cliché that time heals all wounds, and, again, that the African American population must be patient and wait for history itself to make all things right. Dr. King argues (without directly saying so) that such an idea is preposterous. He claims that time is, in fact, neutral, able to be used either beneficially or malevolently. He argues that “we must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right.” He says that if progress is going to made, time has to be used constructively, but as of late, the “bad” people have been using time much more efficiently for their evil cause of injustice than the “good” people who believe that injustice is wrong but have done nothing to remedy it. He exhorts his readers again to see the value of time and to use it effectively, not wasting it.
Dr. King was initially disappointed that he was labeled an extremist. He claims that he and his ideals of nonviolent protest have firmly stood on middle ground between complacency and violent retaliation. He claims that it is ridiculous to call “normal and healthy discontent [being] channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action” extreme. He then, however, changes his mind and claims to be pleased with his new title, citing many extremist people who are highly regarded in history (including, of course, a few Biblical references) for their bold and extreme stances against injustices that led to revolutionary change and betterment of society. He even calls Jesus an “extremist for love.” Although comparing himself to Jesus is a bold move, Dr. King feels so strongly that he is in the right and acting in love that he does not hesitate to make this analogy. In fact, it is a sturdy argument given the audience he is writing to: clergymen. Showing that Dr. King’s own actions are in line with the man they revere most of all makes an alluring and convincing case.
Dr. King’s expression of disappointment with the church is, again, introduced in a non-offensive way. He indulges that he shares a deep love for the church and claims that he does not tend to be overly critical of it the way many others seem to be. However, he has no choice but to express disappointment in the church for either its refusal to see the side of freedom or for, again, remaining silent on the issue. He poetically writes, “all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.” Dr. King uses dramatic phrases such as “shattered dreams” and “I have wept” to show the power and depth of his disappoint, and it is hard to believe that he is not being genuine in such statements. He describes his wonderings of various churches, asking questions about what, if anything, they have done in various heated times, and who, if anyone, was their God. Claiming that churches may not be following God due to their satisfaction in ignoring social issues, believing that such issues are unrelated to Gospel issues, is another bold move on Dr. King’s part. Again, though, he asserts that he dearly loves the church and that he could not be disappointed in it if he did not love it.
An effective tactic that Dr. King uses in this section of his letter is comparing the modern church to the early church. While the early church bravely ventured into cities and regions where they knew they would be persecuted because they caused a stir just by being there, the modern church, in Dr. King’s opinion, has a “weak, ineffectual voice.” Like a prophet, he warns his readers of the coming wrath on the church for their pathetic and fearful behavior. He expresses concern that he may need to give up hope in the church (although, numerous times, he describes the hope he has had, and numerous times that he fears that that hope was too optimistic). Although this may not be considered by his readers to be a threat, the effect is intended to show the sorry state the church is in and how useless it is to be involved in such an unauthentic organization.
Dr. King still does not give up hope. He praises the few people who have “broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity” by rallying behind African Americans in the name of God to battle injustice alongside them. He again states that he still has hope, both in church, and especially in the outcome of the efforts being made to end injustice. He believes this so firmly because “the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.” Dr. King points out yet again that his will for social justice and freedom are God’s will, a message he hopes his clergymen recipients are able to comprehend.
Finally, Dr. King addresses his critics’ commendation of the Birmingham police for their efforts and ability to keep the peace and end the protests that were occurring. He reminds his readers that they were not there to see what the police were, in fact, doing, and hastes to correct any misunderstandings by describing their cruel treatment of nonviolent African Americans in general, during arrests, and in the jails. He submits that the policemen were publicly nonviolent, but were still fighting justice. He compares immoral means to moral ends and vice versa to ethicize the issue at hand. Essentially, he says that it is wrong to use moral means (nonviolent public displays) to achieve immoral ends (defending injustice), which he claims is exactly what the Birmingham police department has been doing, just as it is wrong to use immoral means (violence) to achieve moral ends (justice). He opts that the best method and only truly moral procedure would be to use moral means (nonviolence) to achieve moral ends (justice). In this argument, he uses pure intellectual reason to get his point across.
Dr. King closes his letter by prophesying about how someday the true heroes will be recognized for their dignified courage and disciplined fight. He claims that these will be the people America will thank for bringing it back to a place of true democracy (and indeed Dr. King was correct in his predictions of the future). He also says that he believes everything he has said to be true and reasonable, and asks forgiveness from both his readers and God if he is mistaken (although in his statement he implies that he believes he and God are on the same page and that he is more likely to have to ask for forgiveness from his readers than from God). Finally, he refers to his fellow clergymen as brothers and regards them warmly and with a final vision of hope, poetically writing in his final sentence, “in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.”
It is clear that in his letter, Dr. King uses the debating powers of a true scholar, ethicist, and Christian. He appeals to his readers through constant references to God and characters and stories from the Bible, through ethical logic, and with intelligent reason. He also writes with kindness and respect, not withholding any audacious and highly controversial claims, but maintaining that he does so in an exhortation of love. Although he never cites any specific verses (except once when he quotes Jesus), he writes his letter in the spirit of Proverbs 27:6, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses” (NIV). He regards his fellow clergymen as brothers, and hopes that they will have the wisdom to hear him as he speaks with harsh, loving truth. Overall, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s letter is a prime example of a good ethical argument, and, in part, its effect is evident in the society we live in today.
Today I turned in my analysis of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail for my Christian Ethics class. Occasionally I include school documents on my blog if I really like the subject content, so here is said analysis:
(Before we should start, I should warn you that this is a somewhat long analysis and that parts of it may not make sense without having read Dr. King's letter, which is also somewhat lengthy. If you have time, his letter is certainly worth reading, though.)
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. makes a compelling case in his letter from a Birmingham Jail about the moral integrity of his recent actions. Written to white fellow clergymen whom he regards as brothers, he appeals to their morality and common faith in his response to their recent criticisms. Using many examples from history, including Biblical events, he addresses the main issues that came up in their critique, at least the ones that stood out to him, and respectfully and lovingly, but firmly, explains his disagreement with each of those points. Overall Dr. King makes his point well that he is right in his battle against the evils of segregation and legal and social prejudices.
For the overall outline of Dr. King’s letter, he chooses several points of significance from the statement he sees and carefully counters each of them. Although he deals separately with each point, he maintains a cohesive, overall theme. First, Dr. King explains why he was in Birmingham, then his reasoning for direct action (anticipating an argument against it), addresses the accusation of the untimeliness of actions taken, the accusation of his encouraging others to break laws, his disappointment in the “white moderate,” his disappointment (and later glad acceptance) of being labeled “extreme,” his disappointment with the church, and finally his disapproval of the commendation of the Birmingham police. He closes with warm regards and an image of hope.
When Dr. King begins his discussion, he makes the letter more readable to outsiders by giving context for the situation: he was in Birmingham dealing with the injustice that he felt strongly compelled to fight. He makes several brief references to Biblical prophets and apostles and how they travelled for the things they were passionate about, i.e. the word of God. He also claims that because Birmingham is in America, it affects all Americans and therefore all Americans should be concerned with the injustices happening there. Dr. King went on to defend the nature of his actions and why they were an appropriate method for the situation at hand (a point to which he comes back throughout his letter). He highlights four steps to engaging in a nonviolent campaign: "collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action." Although Dr. King was confessedly involved with direct action, he also had clearly engaged in the others (aside, perhaps, from negotiation, which he anticipated would be a better course to take after the direct action step). He had collected the facts: injustices were happening; there was no doubt about it. The self-purification step, which he discusses more in-depth later, involves an evaluation of motives and an earnest effort to make the best moral and courageous decision (in this case, non-violent action and protest). Dr. King then argues that negotiation, which should theoretically lead to a solution, would not be possible because the offending side would be unwilling to engage in it. In order to make negotiation happen, tension must be created through direct action—something that will make the community notice and be forced to respond (hopefully through negotiation). Dr. King explains every piece of this argument that may be misconstrued or argued with in anyway. He covers up all the holes so that the point he is trying to make has utmost validity.
As for the untimeliness that Dr. King has been accused of, he does not hesitate to share the reality of the horrors happening all over the South at that time and essentially claims, what better time but the present? He iterates that the issues at hand are urgent and demand immediate action, listing many unacceptable truths about the way African Americans must live their lives: in fear of violence, being excluded because of the color of their skin, and growing up developing bitterness toward white people. He points out that a protest will never be timely or convenient for the oppressor, illustrating by using the word “wait” (read: never) meaning that the oppressor simply does not consider itself ready to change its ways. He closes this section by appealing to the humanity of his addressees by saying that it is not within human nature to endure such hardship for so long; that patience will inevitably run out because the oppression is too great and what patience that existed has already been stretched too thinly.
Next, Dr. King addresses the concern that his critics have about his encouraging others to break laws. He immediately allows them some credibility, saying, “This is certainly a legitimate concern.” However, he is also quick to distinguish between what he calls just and unjust laws. Just laws include laws that “uplift human personality,” align with God’s law, and encourage sameness among people (that is, equality rather than conformity). They also apply to everyone in the population and give the people to whom the law applies fair voting rights. Unjust laws have, unsurprisingly, the opposite of all of the characteristics that just laws possess: they damage personality, are misaligned with God’s law, encourage inequality among people, apply to certain populations but not all, and are not well represented by the voice of the people. He claims that the laws he will obey and encourage others to obey are just laws, while he has no qualms about nonviolently and respectfully disobeying unjust laws. However, he contends that one who is going to dare to disobey the law, even if it is unjust, must be completely willing to suffer the legal consequences of their actions. This detailed description again seals up holes and the possibility for any misunderstandings.
To back this point up, Dr. King again references Biblical stories from both the Old and New Testaments as well as stories from history such as Socrates’ civil disobedience and the disobedience of Americans during the Boston Tea Party. Knowing that all Christians regard the Biblical events to be moral acts and all Americans regard the historical events to be moral acts, Dr. King was wise in his strategy to include these stories. He even includes the more recent history of how Nazi Germany created many unimaginably unjust laws that would be absurdly immoral for any Christian to obey.
When Dr. King brings up those he calls white moderates, he expresses deep disappointment in the way they prefer silence and order over just turbulence. He reintroduces the idea of tension as a positive motivator for people to communicate as well as his firm belief that one cannot set a “timetable for another man’s freedom.” This reminder aids to the cohesion of the letter. He claims that true order of society is grounded in justice and social progress. It may seem that by remaining silent, Americans are trying to retain order and keep the peace, but in reality they are practically enabling the violence that was happening to African Americans simply because they are too afraid to stand up for justice. However, he does not confine the blame to any particular race. He later points out the error of many African Americans in taking either a complacent, helpless stance or a violent, hateful one. Again, self-purification was the remedy for this. He also commends several white comrades on their contribution to Dr. King’s cause.
In this section, Dr. King makes several compelling analogies. First, he compares the problem of injustice to a boil on the body that cannot heal when covered but must be exposed to light and air in order to heal, the same way violent and prejudiced deeds must be exposed in order for people to take notice and allow the problem to heal. He also says that the accusation he has received of causing violence through protest can be compared to blaming a victim of a robbery for being robbed because he possessed money, among various other analogies. These vivid and logical analogies build up Dr. King’s case well.
Dealing again with time, Dr. King references a critique he received from a pastor, not about his untimeliness, but introducing an argument based on the cliché that time heals all wounds, and, again, that the African American population must be patient and wait for history itself to make all things right. Dr. King argues (without directly saying so) that such an idea is preposterous. He claims that time is, in fact, neutral, able to be used either beneficially or malevolently. He argues that “we must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right.” He says that if progress is going to made, time has to be used constructively, but as of late, the “bad” people have been using time much more efficiently for their evil cause of injustice than the “good” people who believe that injustice is wrong but have done nothing to remedy it. He exhorts his readers again to see the value of time and to use it effectively, not wasting it.
Dr. King was initially disappointed that he was labeled an extremist. He claims that he and his ideals of nonviolent protest have firmly stood on middle ground between complacency and violent retaliation. He claims that it is ridiculous to call “normal and healthy discontent [being] channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action” extreme. He then, however, changes his mind and claims to be pleased with his new title, citing many extremist people who are highly regarded in history (including, of course, a few Biblical references) for their bold and extreme stances against injustices that led to revolutionary change and betterment of society. He even calls Jesus an “extremist for love.” Although comparing himself to Jesus is a bold move, Dr. King feels so strongly that he is in the right and acting in love that he does not hesitate to make this analogy. In fact, it is a sturdy argument given the audience he is writing to: clergymen. Showing that Dr. King’s own actions are in line with the man they revere most of all makes an alluring and convincing case.
Dr. King’s expression of disappointment with the church is, again, introduced in a non-offensive way. He indulges that he shares a deep love for the church and claims that he does not tend to be overly critical of it the way many others seem to be. However, he has no choice but to express disappointment in the church for either its refusal to see the side of freedom or for, again, remaining silent on the issue. He poetically writes, “all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.” Dr. King uses dramatic phrases such as “shattered dreams” and “I have wept” to show the power and depth of his disappoint, and it is hard to believe that he is not being genuine in such statements. He describes his wonderings of various churches, asking questions about what, if anything, they have done in various heated times, and who, if anyone, was their God. Claiming that churches may not be following God due to their satisfaction in ignoring social issues, believing that such issues are unrelated to Gospel issues, is another bold move on Dr. King’s part. Again, though, he asserts that he dearly loves the church and that he could not be disappointed in it if he did not love it.
An effective tactic that Dr. King uses in this section of his letter is comparing the modern church to the early church. While the early church bravely ventured into cities and regions where they knew they would be persecuted because they caused a stir just by being there, the modern church, in Dr. King’s opinion, has a “weak, ineffectual voice.” Like a prophet, he warns his readers of the coming wrath on the church for their pathetic and fearful behavior. He expresses concern that he may need to give up hope in the church (although, numerous times, he describes the hope he has had, and numerous times that he fears that that hope was too optimistic). Although this may not be considered by his readers to be a threat, the effect is intended to show the sorry state the church is in and how useless it is to be involved in such an unauthentic organization.
Dr. King still does not give up hope. He praises the few people who have “broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity” by rallying behind African Americans in the name of God to battle injustice alongside them. He again states that he still has hope, both in church, and especially in the outcome of the efforts being made to end injustice. He believes this so firmly because “the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.” Dr. King points out yet again that his will for social justice and freedom are God’s will, a message he hopes his clergymen recipients are able to comprehend.
Finally, Dr. King addresses his critics’ commendation of the Birmingham police for their efforts and ability to keep the peace and end the protests that were occurring. He reminds his readers that they were not there to see what the police were, in fact, doing, and hastes to correct any misunderstandings by describing their cruel treatment of nonviolent African Americans in general, during arrests, and in the jails. He submits that the policemen were publicly nonviolent, but were still fighting justice. He compares immoral means to moral ends and vice versa to ethicize the issue at hand. Essentially, he says that it is wrong to use moral means (nonviolent public displays) to achieve immoral ends (defending injustice), which he claims is exactly what the Birmingham police department has been doing, just as it is wrong to use immoral means (violence) to achieve moral ends (justice). He opts that the best method and only truly moral procedure would be to use moral means (nonviolence) to achieve moral ends (justice). In this argument, he uses pure intellectual reason to get his point across.
Dr. King closes his letter by prophesying about how someday the true heroes will be recognized for their dignified courage and disciplined fight. He claims that these will be the people America will thank for bringing it back to a place of true democracy (and indeed Dr. King was correct in his predictions of the future). He also says that he believes everything he has said to be true and reasonable, and asks forgiveness from both his readers and God if he is mistaken (although in his statement he implies that he believes he and God are on the same page and that he is more likely to have to ask for forgiveness from his readers than from God). Finally, he refers to his fellow clergymen as brothers and regards them warmly and with a final vision of hope, poetically writing in his final sentence, “in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.”
It is clear that in his letter, Dr. King uses the debating powers of a true scholar, ethicist, and Christian. He appeals to his readers through constant references to God and characters and stories from the Bible, through ethical logic, and with intelligent reason. He also writes with kindness and respect, not withholding any audacious and highly controversial claims, but maintaining that he does so in an exhortation of love. Although he never cites any specific verses (except once when he quotes Jesus), he writes his letter in the spirit of Proverbs 27:6, “Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses” (NIV). He regards his fellow clergymen as brothers, and hopes that they will have the wisdom to hear him as he speaks with harsh, loving truth. Overall, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s letter is a prime example of a good ethical argument, and, in part, its effect is evident in the society we live in today.
God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)