Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, April 13, 2008
David R. Stokes :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Preacher King: His Last Year
by David R. Stokes
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Attending a national conference on preaching here in the Washington, D.C. area this past week, I noted many references to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as the recently past 40th anniversary of his tragic assassination was referred to by speaker after speaker. King was certainly a giant in our history, a man of thought and action remembered as someone who had the courage of his convictions.

Dr. King was a great man on so many levels. But he was first a Pastor-Preacher, erudite and eloquent – persuasive and passionate. And with preaching in the news recently, I revisited some of his last sermons and speeches, wondering how they’d play in today’s cultural and political climate.

Of course, such a translation of any discourse from one era to another is potentially perilous, running the risk of ignoring the context of the remarks and the idiosyncrasy of the current moment. But I think it’s fascinating to consider the words themselves, especially in light of the firestorm recently created by the pulpit pronouncements of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

While there are occasional similarities in language between Wright and King, there is most certainly a difference in tenor and tone. Yet, Dr. King could be a controversialist himself when it came to saying provocative things from the podium or pulpit.

A year to the day before his death in Memphis, Martin Luther King Jr. occupied the pulpit of Riverside Church in Manhattan. This church, built against the backdrop of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the 1920’s, was founded by Harry Emerson Fosdick and John D. Rockefeller Jr. - a liberal preacher with a generous benefactor. Mr. Rockefeller initially donated more than $10.5 million and his contribution grew to more than $32 million by 1959 – a case of petrodollars funding Protestant liberalism.

As Dr. King spoke to a crowd of nearly 4,000 on April 4, 1967, he said that as a religious leader he wanted to “move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high ground of a firm dissent.” His subject was not Civil Rights – it was the Vietnam War.

Though careful to talk about America as his “beloved nation,” and not at all hesitant to address the crowd as “my fellow Americans,” he said that “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world” was “my own government.”

At that time, polls indicated that nearly 75% of Americans supported the war.

Dr. King faced his own media firestorm in the immediate aftermath of his “Beyond Vietnam” speech. The Washington Post described it as “unsupported fantasy,” and the New York Times called it “Dr. King’s Error.” U.S. News and World Report went even further suggesting that King was “lining up with Hanoi” and President Johnson angrily speculated that King had “thrown in with the Commies.”

Even legendary baseball player/hero Jackie Robinson came out against the speech and the NAACP adopted a resolution warning that King’s effort to connect the anti-war movement with civil rights was a “serious tactical mistake.”

Later that year, the annual Gallup Poll of the Ten Most Popular Americans would not include the name of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - for the first time in more than a decade.

One long and very difficult year after his Riverside remarks, Dr. King was in Memphis. And the night before his death he was scheduled to speak at Mason Temple. There were storm and tornado warnings and he was weary from travel, so he asked Rev. Ralph Abernathy to go in his place. When Abernathy got to the church, he saw thousands who had braved violent weather to hear King, so he called back to the Lorraine Motel and encouraged his friend to come over. King did and he gave what was to be his last sermon.

During his 20-minute extemporaneous address that evening he asked: “Who is it that is supposed to articulate the longings and aspirations of the people more than the preacher?” - adding as a word of encouragement to the great number of preachers in the crowd: “I want to commend the preachers…and I want you to thank them, because so often, preachers aren’t concerned about anything but themselves. And I’m always happy to see a relevant ministry.” As he warmed to the crowd and his message he said: “We don’t have to argue with anybody. We don’t have to curse and go around acting bad with our words.”

He called for the development of what he referred to as “a kind of dangerous unselfishness,” and segued to a rhetorical comfort zone, the Biblical story of The Good Samaritan. He used the famous story as the basis for his admonition: “Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with greater determination…We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.”

Then he waxed personal and described a previous assassination attempt by “a demented black woman” ten years before and how the blade came so close to his aorta that one sneeze would have ended his life. This was a familiar King story, one that he told many times with the refrain “If I had sneezed…” being repeated again and again for effect. At this point, other preachers on the platform that night became unsettled because this story was usually one placed earlier in a speech. The concern was that Dr. King might “miss his landing” and not end on a high note.

There is an old formula in the African-American tradition of preaching: “Start low, go slow. Rise higher, catch fire. Retire.” The concern was that King was not quite catching fire. Then, however, came those final moments as he talked about being to the mountain top and seeing the “promised land” and the now famous and passionate ending: “So, I’m happy tonight! I’m not worried about anything! I’m not fearing any man! Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord!”

As a preacher King was Sunday-centric, always with an eye on the next sermon. So the next afternoon, Thursday, April 4, 1968, he placed a call from room 306 of the Lorraine Motel back to Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta and gave his secretary the title for his upcoming Palm Sunday sermon: “Why America May Go to Hell.”

He never had the chance to preach that one. A few hours later his voice was silenced in a brief and deadly explosion of violence.

Dr. King is remembered 40 years later for his words and deeds. He is honored - appropriately so - as a hero. It is, though, an interesting question: “What would Dr. King say today – and how would he be received?”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David R. Stokes is a minister, writer, and broadcaster. His weekly talks at Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia and host of Loud on Purpose, heard Monday to Friday in Washington, D.C. on WAVA 105.1 fm.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Martin Luther King's Earned Doctorate
While Martin Luther King surely was awarded many honorary doctorate degrees, his sole "earned" doctorate (in Religion, from Boston University) was quietly, posthumously withdrawn by Boston U. after his significant plagiarism of another man's doctoral dissertation was proven beyond any doubt. Truth can be painful. Check it out.

Honorary doctorates are, well, honorary, and do not warrant the title of "Doctor."

While King did much good, he had -- as many do -- several flaws. Read the bio by his best friend, Ralph Abernathy...if you can find the book anywhere. A bit more vituperative is Hosea Williams' "The King That God Didn't Save."

This -- like the flatus in church -- is most uncomfortable for many to acknowledge or discuss.

Better understanding
I really appreciate this article.
I mentioned in another column response that I didn't like King when he was here but have come to think he is a man that well deserving a day of commemoration.
I do believe that much of history happened as a result of prayer. I believe MLK was God's answer to the prayers of His children.
At the time we focused on the things that caused us to fear. We focused on traits and actions that in no way affected history.
As we look back today (without the gossip) we see the best of the man; the fruits of his actions on a whole country; and praise God for him.

Nothing new here on MLK
Rev. Stokes is retelling what most people interested in the history of King and the civil rights movement have long known. King saw the batle for civil rights as one part of a much larger set of political, social, and economic problems, which included the Vietnam war.

Conservatives really have no room--should not have room--for King. He, and the movement he led, belong on the Left. Todayi's conservatives don't realize how serious conservative opposition to the civil rights movement and King were in the 1960s. I say: conservatives understood these issues correctly, from their ideological standpoint, back in those days. They saw that King was an enemy of American conservatism. So he was, which is why we on the Left celebrate him.

Preachers' Duties
One of the functions of a preacher is to admonish the people. Rev. King was called to do that at the national level and did it well, lifting up the whole nation toward a closer relationship with the "better angels of our nature". He held up a mirror to We the People and we did not like what we saw. The people responded and we are a better nation for it.

In order to admonish, the preacher must often use strong language. Read the words of the Jewish prophets, Jesus of Nazareth, and Paul of Tarsus. Neither King nor even Wright can hold a candle to their scathing denunciations.

Gestell
Are you incapable of not turning this into some left/right debate? The article is not about politics but about how King peformed his duties as a minister...not whether or not he ruffled the feathers of conservatives (such as Fulbright, Byrd, Faubus,and the like...all Dems, BTW). King's work as a civil rights leader flowed directly from the calling he had as a minister, one cannot be separated fom the other. But thanks so much for attemoting to turn this into the same old lame left/right argument.

reply to Flagwaver
Perhaps you don't know that beloved conservative icon Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. More to the point, the "conservatives" I had in mind were the real ones--Bill Buckley, the "National Review" writers, and the "Human Events" guys. They all opposed the entire agenda of the civil rights movement, repeatedly. The intellectual leaders of American conservatism stood solidly against advancement for black Americans. Develop some literacy about your own ideological position, please.

There were abundant reasons why the civil rights movement first got white support on the left, and then among Democratic liberals.

I contend, even more, that on the basis of fundamental conservative principles, there can be no genuine conservative support for civil rights for blacks. The support alleged to exist now, as conservatives stumble all over themselves to show their liberal PC credentials on race, is ill-considered and ideologically incoherent.

Flagwaver
Hi, nice to see you still come by once in a while.

Goldwater
Gestell writes: Sunday, April, 13, 2008 7:47 PM

"reply to Flagwaver
Perhaps you don't know that beloved conservative icon Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

"Develop some literacy about your own ideological position, please."

Good idea - perhaps you need to look up why. Then you won't equate "civil rights" and "black advancement".

Rich D.
Just curious, was Goldwater right in your opinion to vote against the CRA of 1964?

Gestell
I care not about what Barry Goldwater did, and FYI I did know of his vote. I also know that his vote was not about trying to deny blacks their rights, but was based on the knowledge that there was no need for new legislation...since there were already civil rights acts on the books. There was a need for the enforcement of the existing laws, not new laws to restate what was already codified in existing statutes. Also, his objection was framed around the idea of federalism, and the notion that the federal government should basically stay out of local issues.

But do you realize that it was your beloved Democratoc Party that stood foursquare against the legislation, that filibustered it, and did everything in their power to derail it? Did you know that your beloved Kennedy brothers cared so much for the civil rights of blacks that they opposed the March on Washington, allowed (and listened to) the illegal wiretaps of King, and that most of the ideas in the civil rights legislation that was eventually passed came from Lyndon Johnson?

Maybe it is you who needs to learn the roots of your beloved party and ideology; you know, the fracturing of the Union in defense of slavery, the foundation of the KKK, the roll back of Reconstruction policies, and opposition of civil rights legislation in both the 1860s and the 1960s. That is the historical legacy of the Democratic Party; do you think that your Party is defined by 30-40 years of leftism or 100 years of racism?

Savage99
I still pop up every now and then, but it gets old reading the same column by 10 different people every day! The blog is still active, so drop by when you get some free time.

Ralph
I'm about to pull a Steve Spurrier: I know you didn't ask me, but here's what I think!

I think that on the merits of the legislation, Goldwater was wrong in his no vote. But I believe that his vote was not against the bill itself, but against the idea of the federal government creating NEW legislation when there was legislation that was not invalidated, simply not being enforced. And he was sticking to his long held belief in the principle of state's rights, wherby he did not see the place the federal legislature had in writing such a law. Like I said, I don't believe it was in any way racist, but a vote he cast on principle and not on the merits of the legislation itself.

Tiresome
I am really tired of hearing about King. I thought that he was under surveillance by the FBI because of communist connections and I thought that there was some question about the authenticity of his doctoral work. I have also been led to believe that he was a serial philanderer. While he touted himself as the 'prophet of nonviolence,' I know that he traveled with a pack of thugs everywhere he went; I saw that. King is tiresome to me. I agree with the writer that suggested we focus our attention on Booker T. Washington; he was, indeed, a great American with a fascinating story to tell. And his is a real story, not a media contrivance.

Flagwaver
dead at the name Steve Spurrier.

I know you did not mention that man's name to me!!! My hatred for him almost reaches Reagan/Conservative/GOP/Trent Lott levels!!!

reply to Flagwaver
What laws already on the books could Goldwater have had in mind? As for the 'federalism,' argument, this is nothing more than a conservative re-tread of the old 'state' rights' (=pro segregationist) argument that is such a venerable part of Southern conservatism.

As for Democratic opponents, unlike you, I am aware that the two parties underwent important changes between the 1960s and today. The Democratic party had a reasonably full spectrum from conservatives (mostly, but not exclusively, Southerners, and yes, the Kennedys did vote with them on some issues--I don't have to defend the Kenndys as liberal icons, since I don't regard them as such, certainly not JFK and RFK)to liberals. So did the Republican party. The pro-civil rights element in Congress consisted of liberal Democrats, liberal Republican (now called RINOs), and moderates in both parties. Conservatives (more in the Democratic than in the Republican party) were opposed.

The Democratic party moved to the Left in the late 1960s and had mostly completed this change fy the mid-70s. The Republicans moved to the Right, shedding most of their moderates and liberals.

So it is incorrect for conservatives to try to smear today's Democratic party with the "segregationist/racist" label. Just remember: the Southern Democrats who were segregationists were conservative; they were trying to maintain the power whites had over blacks, and Goldwater sided with them, regardless of his 'federalist' rhetoric.

MLK,JR
ONE OF THE ABOVE POSTERS
WROTE THAT MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS NOT
HIS REAL NAME ?
WHAT WAS HIS REAL NAME?

------------------------------------------
HE REMINDS ME OF " PASTIC BANANA , PHONY
BALONEY, ROCK AND ROLL " , TO BORROW ONE OF
RUSH'S OFTEN USED QUIPS.

Gestell
The Laws on the books start with the 13th, 14th, and 15yh amendments to the Constitution whose provisions were not being enforced by the federal government. Then there were was the Brown v. Board decision that the federal government did not reasonably enforce, and going back even further there were civil rights acts enacted in 1866, 1872, and 1875 that contained many of the SAME provisions that were included in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

As for the history of the parties, everyoe knows that the Democrats began to drift leftward during/after the 1960s...but that does not erase the considerable history of the party up to that point. Changing your stripes does not mean that you're able to simply pretend that all of the historical racism of your party passes from existence. And it surely does not mean that you get to transfer the racial animus of the Democratic Party that existed for over 100 years onto the GOP...simply because you want it to be so. It WAS the Democrats that opposed EVERY piece of civil rights legislation from 1866 to 1964; it was the Democrats that founded the KKK; it was a Democratic president who said that "The Birth of Nation" was basically the true history of the south in Reconstruction; and it was/is the Democrats who use race as a wedge issue in any election that they feel threatened in.

And what of the "conservative" southern Democrats...they were still Democrats weren't they? And they remain, many of them, icons in the Democratic Party...and one still sits in the Senate today. So what's your point? The racism practiced by the GOP (especially in the 1910s and 1920s) cannot be denied, but in more recent times the alleged racism of the GOP is usually a transfer of Democratoc ideals to the GOP.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.