A Time for Change
by Rev. Colin Bossen, January 17, 2010
We gather this morning, on the occasion of his 81st birthday, to celebrate the life of a man who strove for peace and racial reconciliation, a man who above almost all others is lauded as a model for civic virtue and self-sacrifice. On such occasions it is customary to present a sanitized version of the man that is almost suprahuman. This man, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is portrayed, from the contemporary standpoint, as uncontroversial and his cause is described as worthy and just.
In these sanitary descriptions it is the practice to quote a few words of King's great "I Have Dream" speech and perhaps recite his powerful litany that closes that text. We might hear: "I have a dream [that] my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by content of their character..." Or:
"So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.
Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.
Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.
Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.
Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slops of California.
But not only that.
Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.
Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.
Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.
And when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children--black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Catholics and Protestants--will be able to join hands and to sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'"
After such quotations Martin King is often portrayed as a sort of Black Moses. Though he did not get there with them he led the people to the promised land. Such portrayals suggest that Martin King would not recognize the world in which we live today. There is a black President. The chairman of the Republican party is black. There have been black Secretaries of State. There are black governors and black mayors. Major media figures are black and even bastions of cultural and political conservativism like the Trinity Broadcasting Network feature black broadcasters. The emergence of all of these successful African Americans is held up to suggest that Martin King's dream has become a reality. To borrow a strophe from the last Presidential election, the current generation is portrayed as the Joshua generation, living out the dream of their ancestors in a new land.
There is another unsanitized Martin King. You will not often find him mentioned in the official celebrations or as part of the media profiles. He is a Martin King who would look around today and see that as much as things have changed they have stayed the same. He is the Martin King who would travel to the ghettos of Cleveland, of Los Angeles, of Detroit, of Milwaukee and of Atlanta and decry the desperate poverty found there. He is the Martin King who would despair of a country where the unemployment rate for African Americans is almost twice that of the national average and where as many as one out of two black children lives in poverty. He is the Martin King who would condemn a country that spends vastly more on foreign wars than on foreign aid. He is the Martin King who would denounce the folly of the war on terror.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was not just a civil rights activist. He was a peace activist and towards the end of his life he spoke out against the war in Vietnam, a war that has much in common with the current U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his views about Vietnam King was more like a Hebrew Prophet than like Moses. He did not lead his people to the promised land. He spoke out against a morally corrupt nation and called it to higher standards. He argued that the choice was between "a genuine revolution of values" and moral ruin. If the United States did not end its war with Vietnam it would, he said, be "dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight."
In "A Time to Break Silence," his most famous speech against the war, King articulated "seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of...[his] moral vision." In order to understand why King would oppose the war on terror it is important to understand why he opposed the Vietnam War.
King's first objection to the war was that he recognized "that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money." This realization led him to understand that in war the poor are sent "to fight and die in extraordinarily high proportions relative to the rest of the population." Additionally, the war created a false sense of unity between blacks and whites, one that was not affirmed in other places in society. This meant that soldiers of different races might "in brutal solidarity...[burn] the huts of a poor village, but...would never live on the same block" of any major city.
Fourth, King opposed the war because it undermined his own non-violent efforts at home. He found it difficult to urge "rejected and angry young men" to work for change "through nonviolent action" when his "nation...[was] using massive doses of violence to solve its problems." He said, "I knew I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today--my own government."
Fifth, King felt that the war was "poisoning" America's soul. This poisoning would continue, he believed, "so long as [America]...destroys the deepest hopes of men the world over." The actions of the U.S. military in Vietnam were designed to stifle local autonomy and, therefore, could only be seen as extinguishing the dreams of the Vietnamese for freedom.
King's last two reasons for opposing the war were closely intertwined. He saw himself as part of the international "brotherhood of man." This meant that he was "bound by allegiances and loyalties which are broader and deeper than nationalism." He was opposed to the war because he was concerned for the impact it had on the Vietnamese people. He was concerned about them because he was concerned about all people. Most especially though, King was opposed to the war because as a Christian he felt that it was his duty "to speak for the weak" and remind everyone that whatever the "nation's self-defined goals...no document from human hands can make these humans [the people of Vietnam] any less our brothers."
My thesis this morning is simple. If he were alive today Martin King would oppose the war on terror for almost the same reasons why he opposed the Vietnam war. He would say that the war on terror is not so much the result of external enemies but the product of a failed revolution in values. If we wish to truly disarm the enemy, described so often as a global network of Islamic terrorists, then we must transform ourselves, he would preach.
This is also the thesis of military historian Andrew Bacevich. Bacevich, a self-described conservative, retired Army colonel and professor at Boston University, draws many parallels between the Vietnam War and the war on terror. He believes that at their core both wars are the result of "a relentless personal quest to acquire, to consume, to indulge, and to shed whatever constraints might interfere with those endeavors." This personal quest to consume, which Bacevich labels an "ethic of self-gratification," is rapidly outpacing the natural resources of the country and has left the United States in "a condition of profound dependence." All rhetoric aside, it is an effort to shore-up the resources necessary to meet our consumer demands that drives the war on terror. Such a war, in Bacevich's view, is ultimately futile because of the growing gap between the resources available and the resources needed to meet America's constantly increasing consumer desires. In order to break this cycle Bacevich thinks our country needs something like Martin King's "revolution of values." We need to shift our understanding of freedom from a freedom to consume to a freedom to be. Self-expression and collective culture must become a realistic alternative to consumption and individualism.
Affecting such a shift on a national scale is difficult to imagine. With possible exception of Barack Obama, the last President, as Bacevich notes, to argue for such a shift was Jimmy Carter. His pleas to the country to change from a "path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest" to "another path, the path of common purpose and restoration of American values" were one of the major reasons for his defeat by Ronald Reagan. Carter called for people to end the nation's dependence on foreign oil by developing alternative energy sources and engaging in conservation. He challenged people: "to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel." Reagan decried the need for sacrifice and, in Bacevich's summary, pushed a policy with "two crucial beliefs: Credit has no limits, and the bills will never come due." The pursuit of this policy has over the last thirty years shifted America's major foreign interests from Western Europe and Northeast Asia to the Middle East. The Middle East is where the oil is and maintaining a steady flow of oil is essential for the United States to continue with a culture of consumption. Without a steady flow the bills will come due and credit will dry up.
The U.S. presence in the Middle East has done much to create the terrorists with whom we are supposedly at war. They see us as occupiers of the Muslim holy land. They create narratives whereby the downfall of America will bring about the world they long for. The violence that we do abroad serves as propaganda for their cause. The products of so-called collateral damage, the bodies of civilians killed or maimed, become recruiting advertisements.
All of this divides the world into an us and a them, it shatters King's vision of an international "brotherhood of man." At the same time it creates false unity. Former war correspondent and author Chris Hedges describes this false unity in his book "War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning." War, he writes, "generates a warm, unfamiliar bond with our neighbors, our community, our nation, wiping out unsettling undercurrents of alienation and dislocation."
The operative word in Hedges's description is "our." By creating two groups, an us and a them, people find a false sense of belonging. They belong to one side of the conflict and not the other. Opponents become somehow less than human, their lives not as valuable as those who are on "our" side. A false unity is created and the divisions within each side of the conflict--be they of class, race or religion--are smoothed over while the differences between each side of the conflict--be they of class, race or religion--are obscured. The fact that we are all one human family is temporarily erased by national or partisan allegiances.
This false unity, which quickly crumbles when conflict ends, allows combatants--whether they be U.S. soldiers or Al-Qaeda operatives--and the civilians that support them to "see...[themselves] on the side of the angels, [and]...embrace a theological or ideological belief system that defines itself as the embodiment of goodness and light, [and]...carry out murder."
War, in short, poisons us and eats away at our humanity. To live in a state of perpetual war--as envisioned by the American architects of the war on terror--is to daily sacrifice a little of our higher nature on the bloody altar of organized violence. For non-combatants it is to deny the suffering and the humanity of millions of people on the other side of the planet. For combatants it is to forego empathy, love and compassion in favor of brutality and, often, torture.
But war does not just poison our souls. It, as King correctly saw, rips apart the fabric of our society. The money spent waging foreign wars is money that could be better used rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of our inner cities, searching for green energy sources, building mass transit systems and helping us create a more equitable and sustainable society.
The war on terror has erased the so-called peace dividend that existed after the end of the Cold War. Over the last decade the budget of the Pentagon has more than doubled. With such priorities is it any wonder that America's primary and secondary education system is frequently described as being in crisis? That our health care system fails to deliver adequate care to millions of uninsured Americans? That in the depths of an economic recession millions of citizens in the richest country in the world, the richest country in the world, struggle with hunger and lose their homes? Such realities are surely the product of a continuing moral crisis.
We celebrate Martin King this morning because he was not afraid to point to another way. A way where the nation's wealth and talents were directed towards peace instead of towards war. A way where non-violence and peace were posited as a realistic alternative to violence. A way where meaning was found not upon the bloody battlefield of combat or amidst the shrill clarion call to war but in service to others.
There are certainly those who would argue that such an agenda is unrealistic. They might say that such visions are fine for preachers like me or Dr. King but fail the test of realpolitik. Such critics could not be more wrong. Imagine how different the world would be if instead of responding to the attacks on 9/11 with force the United States government had sought a peaceful solution. The Taliban offered on at least three occasions to turn Osama bin Laden over to the international court system if the U.S. would refrain from invading Afghanistan. How many lives would have been spared if that offer had been accepted? Thousands? Millions? Would terrorist organizations still be able to recruit suicide bombers?
Perhaps they would. But I doubt that they would be able to recruit as many. And thousands of American soldiers would be safely at home with their loved ones rather than risking death by roadside bomb or suicide vest. Remember that more American lives have been lost in Afghanistan and Iraq than were lost on 9/11 or in terrorist attacks since then.
Sure, some of you may argue, the reason why there have been so few terrorist inflicted deaths since 9/11 is because the U.S. has occupied Iraq and Afghanistan and is pursuing al-Qaeda militarily. I do not suspect that this is true. Instead, I believe that the limited number of terrorist inflicted causalities is a result of measures like increased airport security and a change of awareness on the part of many citizens. Actions like the terrorist attacks on 9/11 are less likely because now people are aware that they are possible. Vigilant passengers stopped the recent terrorist plot over Detroit and on 9/11, once the terrorist objectives were understood, they foiled efforts to turn United Airlines flight 93 into a missile.
The alternative to the war on terror is not a world in which we are more prone to terrorist attacks. It is a more peaceful world. It is a world where we find meaning not in conflict and discord but in cooperation and solidarity. It is a world where service to others and not strife with them is what brings us meaning.
And surely this world offers us too many opportunities to find meaning in service to others. As the tragedy in Haiti this week so clearly demonstrates the needs of the world's poor and downtrodden vastly outstrip our ability to meet them. Thousands die of starvation every day. Natural disasters shatter cities and lives because poor countries cannot invest in adequate infrastructure. Lack of access to education stunts far too many from reaching their full human potential. What would the world be like if instead of turning all those resources to war we used them to wage peace? What would the world be like if meaning was to be found most not in the false and bloody idols of difference and dissension but instead in the service to common humanity?
Service to others, beyond racial justice and peace, was beyond all else the core of Martin King's message. That he gave his life for others is why we are celebrating him today. For as he said in the oft quoted and powerful sermon "The Drum Major Instinct":
"If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don't a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long...
I'd like somebody to mention that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life serving others. I'd like for somebody to say that day, that Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody. I want you to say that day, that I tried to be right on the war question. I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try to feed the hungry. And I want you to be able to say that day, that I did try, in my life, to visit those who were in prison. I want you to say that I tried to love and serve humanity."
May the same be said for all of us.
Amen.