I have sympathies with Niebuhr, but I’m not a strict Christian realist. That said, it is sad that “taking the gospel seriously” is assumed to be the property only of the non-violent part of the Christian tradition (which is a very small sliver). Furthermore, Christian realism was (and is) counter-cultural – remember, Niebuhr wrote all that stuff when much of the world was still enamored with the social gospel, and convinced that God’s Kingdom could come through better policy. Christian realism is still counter-cultural in insisting on the sinfulness and finitude of humans and all their projects…which, in the age where the liberal faith in progress is still alive and well (they just call it “change we can believe in”), falls on deaf ears to many American Christians.

The dividing wall that Jesus tore down was between Jews and Gentiles, not between all the aspects of fractured humanity. This was the Lord, after all, who declared the he came not to bring peace, but a sword.

I am all for speaking the truth in love. But the self-professed “prophetic” voices among radical American Christians seems much more involved with its own notion of truth than with love for the state. I’m not sure I love America. But I do know that many of those you cite – Hauerwas, Cavanaugh, and the like – have no love for any liberal democracy, much less America. They may love a Wendell Berry agrarian fantasty community, but not an actual state that I know of.

I don’t care about this, other than the fact that their distaste for America seems to make them blind to the conditions in other countries. This leads to profound moral confusion. America has its issues, but don’t conflate it with the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, or, in Cavanaugh’s case, Pinochet’s Chile.

Anarchy as an answer? I was going to go to a meeting about that once, but nobody showed up.

Nope. I was quoting Peter’s epistle. Although one loose translation says ‘strangers and temporary residents.’ Not much difference there.

“There is more tension in Christian existence than you recognize.” If by tension you mean that the struggle between two kingdoms, then I think I’m recognizing that tension just fine. If by tension you mean the type of Christian realism that thinks it’s sophisticated and open-minded enough not to take the gospel too seriously when it contrasts with western culture, then I accept.

“If he cared so little for the world that you loathe, it is doubtful he would have taken his prophetic protestations to the streets.”

You wrongly understand me if you think I loathe the world or think that King cared little for it. It is precisely this world that Christ died for. It is that love that compels us to speak the truth. I think you’re mistaking me (and Hauerwas and R.O.) for some straw man that wants to withdraw from the world into a holy huddle safe from the dangers of this world. Au contraire.

You’re being too kind to North Carolina. People of differing nationalities, skin colors and tribes have lived in self-giving love under the gospel since the beginning. Love demands that King and the rest of us work for this peace, to draw attention to the idea that God has torn down the wall of hostility (as Paul called it). Black people and white people were living together in peace at Koinonia Farm against enormous opposition before King marched.

You are right that his call was to a very public ministry. But his drive to hold the u.s. to its better promises was not because of their intrinsic worth but rather his apocalyptic vision (‘dream’). He saw democracy as being worth held accountable to the politics of heaven, not the pplitics of heaven being useful to the democratic project.

I’m not some anti-american. I talk about how to love this country appropriately in a previous post (look for the Obi-Wan Kenobi with an anarchy pin)

“This is exactly where I disagree. You say his ministry was effective…why? Because blacks can drink from the same water fountain? That’s wonderful. But you don’t praise your 30-year old child for brushing his teeth.

The narrative that we’re fed in the u.s. uses King as some sort of happy, black Santa. As long as he’s here to support our rights as individuals to choose whatever we want, then he supports the liberal democratic project and is ‘celebrated’. The fact that he called us to public goods that were pricklier and even at odds with the powers of western-style democracy and capitalism, this isn’t touched.”

If King was so at odds with “western-style democracy” – whatever that is – why did he and his followers work so tirelessly to get the vote (which is denigrated by so many ‘radical’ Christians nowadays)?

And of course we are going to remember him for “having a dream” rather than condemning our entire system – surely you aren’t as shocked about this as you seem to be.

It seems to me that he was both a friend and enemy of liberal democracy. The black church tradition in which he was nurtured is very much “liberal” theology insofar as it is liberation-oriented and people-oriented. He was a critic of liberal democracy, at least in part, because it wasn’t living up to its own (basic) purported program: and one could argue that he wasn’t so much working for broad, sweeping changes in the system, as for his people to be fully included in the system. Certainly his project flowed from his roots as black Baptist preacher – see Lischer’s ‘The Preacher King’ for more – but he’s not in the same mold as the Hauerwas/Radical Orthodoxy crowd you appear so fond of. I think you’re conflating their projects in a manner that doesn’t really work.

Nevertheless, thank you for listening to my little musings. Peace.

Oh, and you do praise your 2-year old child for brushing his teeth. I don’t understand the ’30-year old’ analogy because all of this was new for America during his time. To suggest that America did not make some read and important strides under King’s leadership is both insulting and insane. Certainly we have a ways to go – but remember, there was a time when drinking from the same waterfountain was a real concern for many, rather than a throwaway line on a blog. My father was raised in Greensboro, NC, where some of the first sit-ins took place. Back then, getting a hamburger at Woolworth’s was an achievement. Sad, but true – and not to be marginalized.

Welcome. Thank you for visiting my blog.

A certain amount of provocation is necessary in the blogiverse. Would you have commented if I had a different title?

Similarly, I didn’t flesh out my thoughts much, here. But if you listen to his speech or read the excerpts I thought he made the point a lot better than I did.

The main point is this: Christianity is a form of alienation. We become ‘aliens and strangers’ in this world. This means that MLK should be seen primarily as he saw himself…a citizen of another kingdom. He was a citizen of the city of God, and only incidentally a citizen of the u.s.america.

There is an arc in his thinking, however. This speech comes later in his public ministry when he’s willing to identify less and less with the ideals of global capitalism and liberal democracy.

While the Apostle Paul used his Roman citizenship to further the kingdom of God, I don’t think anyone would argue that Paul was a hero of the Roman empire. He was, above all, an apostle of Jesus Christ.

King’s project was a critique of the u.s., but gradually became something much stronger…something more akin to a prophetic denouncing of the powers and principalities at work in the u.s.

“How can you expect anyone to take you seriously with categories as broad and undefined as “the corporations?””

We take the Supreme Court seriously when they give unprecedented rights to “the corporations”, why not take me seriously?

Mostly this was a reference to the impersonal forces of global capitalism. I don’t think this is too misleading a synecdoche. By “the corporations” I’m not referring to WorldVision or Partners in Health, if that’s what you’re afraid of.

“You speak of King as if he is exclusively Church property – and yet he was so effective because his ministry reached out from the church and pulpit to the streets of Washington and Birmingham and touched the soul of an entire nation. Seriously, other than your own theological biases, why can’t be be an American hero who was a Christian prophet?”

This is exactly where I disagree. You say his ministry was effective…why? Because blacks can drink from the same water fountain? That’s wonderful. But you don’t praise your 30-year old child for brushing his teeth.

The narrative that we’re fed in the u.s. uses King as some sort of happy, black Santa. As long as he’s here to support our rights as individuals to choose whatever we want, then he supports the liberal democratic project and is ‘celebrated’. The fact that he called us to public goods that were pricklier and even at odds with the powers of western-style democracy and capitalism, this isn’t touched.

His sincere religious devotion, his call for economic justice and his condemnation of violence are almost entirely ignored because they don’t fit the narrative. Like King himself notices, his non-violence is only a good thing when he preaches to the blacks in the ghetto. When he starts preaching it to the Defense Dept he’s out of line. There’s something wrong with this.

You can’t understand King without listening to him. And its his own words that demonstrate where his allegiance lies. If you read my previous comments I think they already said what I can on the subject.

“And I can’t help but notice that most of the sophisticated critics of liberal democracies…still live in them. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.”

It is nice. It’s nice to be richer than nearly anyone in the world. It’s nice to have this computer that I’m typing on. It’s nice that my kids have full bellies and gymnastics class. It’s nice that I can go and see a movie. It’s nice that I have nearly unlimited choices in how I want to live my life…and what I consume.

It’s nice. But it’s deadly. Because enthroned at the center of liberal democracy is personal choice. And that way lies nihilism.

It’s deadly because the habits that it forms in me and my church are to serve self above all.

It’s deadly because we let our nation and our corporations do our sinning for us while we reap the benefits.

It’s deadly because it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

So, yes. It is nice. But the kingdom of God isn’t nice, and I recognize where my failure to live as a citizen of that kingdom.

But Dr. King was not, contrary to the myth I’m trying to deconstruct, nice. He was a pain in the u.s.american ass. It is not nice that he was assassinated. It is not nice that we ignore him.

So I would place King in your category of ‘sophisticated critics of liberal democracies’, but I would say he’s a much better citizen of the kingdom of God than I am.

Thanks for your thoughts!

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously with categories as broad and undefined as “the corporations?”

I am growing increasingly convinced that self-consciously “radical” Christians are no more than college leftists who discovered a stack of theology textbooks. You speak of King as if he is exclusively Church property – and yet he was so effective because his ministry reached out from the church and pulpit to the streets of Washington and Birmingham and touched the soul of an entire nation. Seriously, other than your own theological biases, why can’t be be an American hero who was a Christian prophet?

And I can’t help but notice that most of the sophisticated critics of liberal democracies…still live in them.

Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too.