Taking a Stand: Considering "Letter From Birmingham Jail"

I invite you to reflect with me upon two “open letters” that I think are instructive in the way they show how Christian people can differ in discerning the nature of the times and therefore deciding upon a Christian course.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote his "Letter From Birmingham Jail" in April 1963. It became an important document in the history of the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s, and remains a persuasive discussion of the duty of every citizen to resist unjust laws, for an "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

What were you doing in April 1963?

If you are a senior citizen, you might have watched the debut of the long-running soap opera General Hospital.

This picture is, as you can see, from January 1963. The family is playing Monopoly. That would be me in the dark rimmed glasses.

If you are a baby boomer, you might have purchased the first album put out by the Beatles, Please Please Me. That would have been me. I liked the Beatles enough that it created a battle with dad over the length of my hair. He wanted a burr cut, and I wanted it long. He ridiculed the Beatles because, “All they say is Yeah, Yeah, Yeah,” a reference to the song “She Loves You,” which was the only song that included that refrain. We lived in Mapleview, MN, a little village north of Austin, MN. Dad started drinking a lot. Mom started taking us five children to Crane Addition Community Chapel, where I would give my life to Jesus sometime that year. The Twins and Vikings were everything to me. I turned my four sisters into “tom boys” by playing ball with them. I was concluding my sixth grade. Warren Howell, a man of whom I have no memory, was my teacher. I received a satisfactory grade in all subjects that year. I was only a year away from first unsatisfactory grades in art and music. Such were the issues of this eleven-year-old, going on twelve as I quickly would have added.

Of course, if you are a member of Generations X, Y or Z, you were not even born yet.

Why get into such personal matters? I realized how different my life was from a whole group of Americans of whom I had little knowledge.

If you were a leader of the clergy in Alabama, you would have received a strongly worded letter from the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. On April 16, 1963, King issued his Letter from Birmingham Jail. By the way, in August of the same year, he would deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. In November of that year, Oswald would kill President John F. Kennedy.

Authorities locked up the civil rights (he called it the freedom movement in the letter) leader in the city jail after arresting him for his part in the Birmingham campaign, a nonviolent protest conducted by the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. King was president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. The Alabama Christian Movement invited him to take part in the protest.

King wrote his letter on the margins of a newspaper, which was the only paper he could find. His lawyers carried bits and pieces of the letter back to the headquarters of the movement.

So why did King write the letter?

Eight white Alabama clergymen -- four bishops, three pastors and one rabbi -- had written a statement known as “A Call for Unity.” It said that while they understood the “natural impatience, King's efforts of direct action on the streets was "unwise and untimely." They agreed that racial segregation was a problem, but that religious leaders should pursue change through negotiation and judicial action. They thought that although Dr. King espoused nonviolence, his direct action had incited violence, which has no sanction within the religious tradition. These religious leaders rebuked King for being an outsider causing trouble in Birmingham.  

We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement in particular, on the calm manner in which these demonstrations have been handled. 

Of course, King, who had personal experience with the police department, disagreed with their assessment. They concluded with a message of hope: “We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.” One can see that what the Alabama clergy saw was quite different from what Dr. King saw. They saw that the defeat of “Bull” Connor meant the possibility of a new day for the city. Dr. King saw that the problem was not just one man, no matter how much of a symbol of racism he had become. Of course, calling Dr. King’s non-violent demonstrations “extreme measures” does seem odd, in light of the Black Nationalist movements.

Among the bishops were two Methodist bishops. One was Paul Hardin, Jr., who would later become President of the Council of Bishops. Another was Nolan Bailey Harmon, who lived to be 100 years old. I was pleased to see that King referred to them as “men of genuine good will” and that they sent forth their criticism “sincerely.” Yet, he also suggests that such “white moderates,” who agree with the goals but not the methods, may be the greatest hindrance to advances by the Black people.

I vaguely recall around this time seeing a report of Dr. King on the television and my dad reacting in a violent and negative way. To him, Dr. King brought violence everywhere he went. As for me, I more clearly recall receiving inspiration from him. I do not recall the letter, but I do recall his famous speech a few months later in Washington, DC. I never quite understood treating someone different simply due to the color of his or her skin, and at my present age, I do not think I want to try.

King responded to the open letter with his own admittedly long letter. He said he was not an outsider because he had ties to the Alabama Christian Movement. More importantly, "I am in Birmingham because injustice is here." He refers to the interrelatedness of all human communities. As he beautifully put it, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

Alabama clergy leaders were upset because demonstrations were happening in Birmingham. King acknowledged that the demonstrations were unfortunate, but said, "it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative."

The church leaders also questioned the timing of the protests. They wanted King to wait and see if a new city administration would improve conditions for blacks. King responded that those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation could easily tell others to wait. He offers a long list of the abuses of segregation. He refers to lynching, hate-filled officers of the law, violence, poverty, blocking entrance to public places, inferiority, hatred within black children for white people, and called disrespectfully “nigger” and “boy.” The “cup of endurance” has reached its limit. For blacks in the United States, the word "wait" had meant "never." They had already been waiting 340 years for their "constitutional and God-given rights."

That is too long to wait. King was sick and tired of waiting for human authorities to act.

It was time to obey God.

If you think you must disobey an immoral law, King says to do so openly and lovingly.

Not that King was the first to practice civil disobedience. He spoke of the Old Testament's Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, refusing to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar ..., Socrates practicing civil disobedience in ancient Greece ..., American patriots participating in the Boston Tea Party ..., and, of course, early Christians facing persecution for their faith.

Like Martin Luther King Jr., they knew that they must obey God rather than human authority. In fact, as King says later in the letter, the church was powerful in its witness when it suffered for the right cause.

However, how did he know that he was hearing the voice of God? After all, the clergy of Birmingham believed that they were obeying God. They had the authority of religious institutions on their side.

King addresses this question head-on. In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," he says 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.'"  

Of course, the obvious question is how we are to know the difference. That is the tough part.  

"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. A just law is any law that uplifts human personality." An unjust law is: "Any law that degrades human personality." [Based on this reasoning, he concludes that] "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." 

King refers to the deep connection between America and the African-American. 

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 the destiny of America. 

He contrasts himself with various Black Nationalist movements that have lost faith in America. He urges the more excellent way of love and non-violent protest. He wants to channel the normal and healthy disturbance that oppression brings into nonviolent action.

King quotes the theologian Paul Tillich in saying that sin is separation, and then makes the point that segregation is an  

"expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness." [If segregation is sin, then King can justifiably urge his followers to] "disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong."  

In other words, one can legitimately disobey segregation ordinances because they alienate people from each other, when morality will bring people together in mutual regard and respect.

King expresses his disappointment in the church, represented by “A Call for Unity” letter, especially since he has led a nonviolent form of direct action.

All of this leads me to reflect upon where we draw the line between just and moral laws in contrast to moral and immoral laws. I am sure those in the legal profession would have much to say about such notions. Depending upon where we draw the line, we will come to differing conclusions as to when and where to practice civil disobedience.

Most of us would agree that Dr. King had the superior argument to that of the other religious leaders. In the post-war era, it was simply time for the racial alienation that segregation represented to end. To wait actually meant it would never end. Such is the gift of “discernment” so long after the event.

Yet, can we see the dilemma that these two Christian groups faced? Can we see that they at least try to treat each respectfully, even if they deeply disagree?

Sadly, today, I do not find much effort at mutual regard and respect. To take direct action today is not to do so “openly and lovingly.” Often, such action is covert, accusatory, and even violent.

I do not come to the positions I hold easily. I have never been much for politics in the pulpit. In so many issues, I feel the need to study thoroughly, and that takes some time. After my study, I may well come to some personal conclusions. Yet, I can always understand that someone might legitimately take a differing opinion.

I have counseled people considering abortion to value life instead. As I think of one family, that baby is now a valued member of an extended family. Does that mean I would always do so? Could I imagine circumstances where I might offer a different counsel?

The definition of marriage for society has always been between a man and a woman. Apart from biblical arguments, it has been a good guide for healthy expression of our sexual desire, need for intimate friendship, encouraging responsibility and work, and passing on basic values to the next generation. Society is now going through a change. How can society stand in the way of any two people who want a marriage license? We do not know what the outcome of such change will be. Will we witness the breakdown of the family? Will we see the growth of personal hurt and pain because we no longer have a guide to healthy sexual expression? What happens if society allows the sexualization of every relationship?

We have long had limits on immigration from other countries. The reason was that it takes time for people to assimilate into the American idea of political and economic freedom. Do these rules need re-consideration? What do we do with people who come without going through legal channels?

The rise of Islamic militancy presents a challenge, of course, due to its religious ties, but we must also defend our neighbors from those who want to do harm. The religious genocide against Christians in the Middle East deserves opposition from all forms of government.

I know I need more education on the ending of child sex slavery and human trafficking. I have puzzled as to why it took a Civil War to end slavery in America, but the fact that it continues may suggest that slavery is a far deeper issue than I presently think.

We are in a presidential election year. People feel deeply about their candidate. Does it make me a non-Christian or racist if I do not support your candidate? Does it make me a hater of America if I do not support your candidate?

The point is, can we frame the discussion in such a way that it actually makes us think about whether we advance human alienation or enhance our common humanity in our creation and destiny. While God created us in the image of God, due to our separation from God, each other, and nature (see Genesis 3-4), we are now on the way to our destiny, to be conformed into the image of Jesus Christ. Note that our commonality in creation and destiny does not obliterate our individuality. Rather, this commonality leads us toward the actualization of love to God and to others, to the actualization of faith, hope, and love.

Regardless of the stand you take, the solution will not be quick or easy. I hope we can always engage in such discussions with mutual regard and respect. As Dr. King put it, we are to discuss matters openly (and therefore courageously) and lovingly (and therefore with understanding of those with whom we disagree).

Does this mean that two people, standing on opposite sides of an issue, could legitimately say, “I must obey God rather than human authority?”