STILL STRIDING TOWARD FREEDOM

a sermon preached by the Rev. Dr. Tim W. Jensen
at the First Religious Society in Carlisle, Massachusetts
Sunday January 16th, 2005


Of all the things that can and have been said about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, there’s one thing in particular that is patently untrue. Regardless of what you may have heard or been told elsewhere, there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to the rumor that Dr. King was, in fact, a Unitarian Universalist without knowing it. Yes, it’s true that he wrote his doctoral thesis at Boston University comparing the work of the relatively obscure Unitarian theologian Henry Nelson Wieman with that of the far more famous Paul Tillich; and also that his philosophy of non-violent civil disobedience was inspired to a large degree by an essay by Henry David Thoreau...but don't be fooled. Dr. King was a Baptist minister, a man whose political sympathies and social conscience were directly informed by his understanding of the Christian faith. And this faith both inspired and empowered Dr. King to change the way that Americans live with one another, and in the process earned him a form of immortality in the hearts and minds of individuals like myself, who have grown up in a society shaped by his vision of social justice and his dream of racial pluralism.

But as some of you here will undoubtedly remember, Martin Luther King Jr. has not always been held in such high esteem. During his own lifetime he was often viewed with suspicion, and even outright hatred, by both his enemies and sometimes even his friends. He was accused (and not without cause) of sexual immorality and also (with much less cause) of being a communist sympathizer. He was spied on by the FBI, frequently a target of both personal vilification and physical attack, and spent more than one night locked up in jail for "offenses" that today many of us would applaud. Supporters of the Civil Rights Movement likewise sometimes grew impatient with his philosophy of non-violent resistance, -- at times some of them even referred to their leader as “Martin Loser King” -- while others simply resented that so much public praise and adulation should be directed at a single individual, when so many others had also sacrificed and put their own lives on the line. For thirteen years -- from his public leadership of the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott at the age of 26 to his murder in Memphis a few months after his 39th birthday, Martin Luther King Jr. was, for many Americans, the public face of the Civil Rights movement. And in the years since his death, his image and reputation have essentially become iconic of that profound moment of historic transformation in American Society.

It requires a very special sensitivity to bring religious values to bear in the political arena. Without this sensitivity, the results of such activity all too often reek of demagoguery, rather than reform. And it all begins with an understanding of the nature of power, and the rationale behind our constitutional separation of Church and State. Governments govern by the Power of Law. And in a democratic society such as ours, this power is legitimized by the consent of the governed--it is structured by a social contract, the Constitution, and must apply equally to all: the majority and the minority alike. The people elect representatives who are responsible for monitoring and enforcing these laws, and these representatives are accountable to the people for seeing that the rights of all are protected. At least this is what I was taught in my high school civics class. But the bottom line when it comes to the Power of Law is the Power of the Police, and if you break the law, if you violate the social contract, if you steal something or murder someone or refuse to pay your taxes, you can expect a visit from a armed officer of the law, who will use all the means at his or her disposal to compel your conformity to the social contract.

But the power of Religion and of the Church is of an entirely different nature. The power of the Church resides in the authority of its traditional ethical teachings, and in its ability to persuade or influence people to follow them. As the etymology of the word reveals, "religion" is that thing which "binds us again" to our higher moral and ethical obligations as human beings. Its authority derives from its ability to inspire, which is why, for example, if you decide at some point that you no longer wish to contribute financially to your Church because maybe you don’t like the person who is in charge or what’s going on there, no one is going to show up at your door with a warrant and a pistol and handcuffs. The worse the Church can do is send someone around to listen to your concerns, appeal to your better motives and maybe convince you to change your mind.

Now I know there are some who would say, cynically, that governments govern at the point of a gun, while churches maintain themselves solely through the power of guilt. But these sentiments reflect only the underside of moral and legal authority, which are perhaps best understood simply as the Power to help make us Good, and the Power to prevent us from being Evil to one another. And they are not simply two sides of the same coin. The fact of the matter is that the power of the State and the power of the Church are radically different from one another, both in their nature and in their effect; and they are fundamentally incompatible when mixed within a single institution. When Churches attempt to give their moral influence the power of law, we end up with things like the Spanish Inquisition, or more recently, Prohibition; while when Governments assume for themselves the moral authority of religion, we find ourselves with situations like the McCarthy witch-hunts, or on military Crusades in faraway corners of the world, sometimes even "destroying" a country in order to "save" it.

Perhaps in a perfect universe, this tension between Church and State would not exist. Perhaps with perfect leaders: wise, just, compassionate, decisive...the need for a Constitutional separation between Church and State would disappear. But I suspect that in such a world, the need for Churches and States and perhaps even leaders themselves would also disappear. And, of course, this is far from being a perfect world. And despite frequent claims to the contrary, our leaders are far from perfect leaders. We need the protection of the Rule of Law to keep us from exploiting one another. And we need Religion to help us become more fully human. The existence of each helps to correct the abuses of the other; and in their proper relationship, allow us to move hesitantly forward toward what we hope will be a less IMPERFECT world.

In many ways, it is precisely because human beings are at once both political and religious that we have insisted on this strict separation between the powers of the Church and the powers of the State. The separation between religion and politics, or even between spirituality and patriotism, can never be so tidy. It almost goes without saying, but one's political sympathies will inevitably be influenced to some degree by one's religious values, and I do not see how it can be otherwise, regardless where you may fall on the spectrum between liberal and conservative. Thus the issue of Leadership, of wielding power within institutions, becomes critically important. For in the absence of perfection, the best we can hope for is sensitivity and judgment, and an honest and humble recognition of the limits which our imperfections place upon us.

Leadership itself is a vague and imperfect art. Most times it is thrust upon us, through no fault of our own, as part of our institutional roles. Let me explain what I mean by this. This afternoon when you are home watching the Patriots play the Colts, you will notice that every time the teams line up for a play, it is the Quarterback who calls the signals. The Quarterback has this power by virtue of no reason other than being the Quarterback; and the issue of how the Quarterback got to be the Quarterback in the first place, or whether this is the first-string Quarterback or the back-up Quarterback or perhaps even the punter substituting for the Quarterback has absolutely nothing to do with the way that power is distributed there in that moment at the line of scrimmage. The authority resides within the role. And this is true of institutions as small as a family. Your mother is your mother simply because she is your mother, and not necessarily by virtue of any special qualifications for the job. Within that role she is charged with certain responsibilities, and from that role, draws the authority to meet them.

Within an institution like government, an individual who wields power by virtue of role is generally known as a bureaucrat. And since bureaucrats are hardly the most popular kinds of people within a democracy, there is a tendency for the people to look elsewhere to fill the highest leadership positions. Specifically, we look to individuals with "charisma"--who wield power by virtue of their personal "gifts." Once again, these gifts are not necessarily related to one's ability to do the job. Rather, they reflect one's ability to pretend to perfection: the force of one's personality, the ability to inspire loyalty or to project a certain image, the strength of one's Will, and the willingness to muster the required resources to impose that will upon the rest of the world. Charismatic leadership is glamourous and seductive, wild and untamed; it undermines entrenched bureaucratic power through its ability to work outside of established channels, and to gather power directly to itself. At its worst, it is simply the Power of Law unto Itself; and thus it reveals itself as the power which corrupts, and when held absolutely, corrupts absolutely.

There is yet a third kind of leadership which can be seen in contrast to either bureaucratic leadership by role or charismatic leadership by personal gifts, and this is what I like to think of as prophetic leadership by virtue of personal faith and example--the kind of leadership exemplified in the life of Martin Luther King Jr. It is the leadership of the power of religion unto itself, of altruism and self-sacrifice, of the SURRENDER of the Will to some higher value or ideal. This type of leadership wields power by empowering others, and through its willingness to stand as a witness to what is right, rather than as a force which bends others to its will. A prophet is someone who speaks on behalf of others, and prophetic leadership attempts to inspire each of us to our highest potential, while deepening the level at which we approach our existence in this world. And it is not dependent upon any resource but truth, and the willingness to follow that truth wherever it may lead.

The society which Martin Luther King Jr prophetically envisioned has yet to come about. There is still plenty of poverty, racism, and oppression in America; there is still plenty of injustice and prejudice to go around. But the society which King confronted has all but disappeared, at least in the mainstream of American life. We live today in a fundamentally different nation than we did a half-century ago; and while there are still those who would like to turn back the clock, I feel confident that deep in their hearts most Americans still believe that the way to the future lies forward, and that we will never return to a system of American apartheid. Old Jim Crow lies a-moulderin' in his grave; and for most Americans at least, the content of one's character truly has become more important than the color of one's skin.

Yet "Injustice anywhere," as Martin Luther King wrote from his cell in the Birmingham City Jail, "is a threat to justice everywhere." And not just injustice, but ignorance, prejudice, intolerance and hatred threaten all of us for whom liberty and a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning” are deeply-felt religious principles which form the foundation of our personal ethical standards and moral values. Whether we wish to admit it or not, we live within the interrelatedness of One World: in King’s words "an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny." Martin Luther King Jr. recognized this, and he also recognized the power of Truth, boldly witnessed and proclaimed, to sweep away the injustice and repression which so often lurks in the unlit corners of such a world. This power is primarily, although not exclusively, a religious power; it is a power which is often purchased with the blood of martyrs or "Witnesses" (as the word means in Greek), who through the courage of their convictions find the strength to Stride Toward Freedom even in the face of overwhelming odds, whose lives become a testimony to their faith in the essential decency of human kind, and the ultimate authority of Goodness over Evil.

It is a power which is not threatened by our diversities, but which draws its strength from our more fundamental unity. It is a transformative power, a transcendent power -- a wholeness which calls us to a greater holiness. Not the holiness of "holier than thou," but rather one which recognizes that "there, but for the grace of God, go I" -- that is to say, a holiness which is rooted in one's sense of connectedness to all things, and the humble recognition that we are, each of us, so tiny, and yet so precious, in the eyes of the Infinite Absolute.

For all his many shortcomings, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. exemplified these values, this holiness. He understood that the prelude to direct action was the discipline of self purification -- for evil is powerless when confronted openly by honest men and women. But he was also not afraid to go to where freedom was not, and say "I am for it" -- and for this he deserves to be honored, and even idolized I suppose; not only through our admiration of him and the things he accomplished, but through our imitation as well, as we too endeavor to Stride Toward Freedom still, in our religious lives, and as citizens of a single community of humankind....