Tough Minds and Tender Hearts: An Open Letter to Young Clergy

On August 28th, the 48th anniversary of the March on Washington, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King memorial was to be dedicated at the National Mall. Due to Hurricane Irene, the dedication has been postponed. Nevertheless, King's presence marks the first non-presidential, private citizen and clergyperson to be honored on our nation's most hallowed grounds.

And yet, ironically, his presence there underscores the absence of his theological influence in many churches. King's correlation between the Beloved Community and the Kingdom of God, for instance, is largely unacknowledged, unappreciated or unknown to clergy born after 1980. Given the vast numbers of Christians in America, this absence is of civic note. Neglecting King's theology increases the likelihood that our democracy will forego a dedicated minority of clergy who insist upon active citizenship as an expression of Christian discipleship.

As we ponder King's legacy, let us add a moment of interrogation to our justified moments of celebration. How might we, in his words, ensure that young clergy can "bring the Christian message to bear on the social evils that cloud our day"? Revisiting King's "A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart" sermon can aid us in this matter, presenting a vision of preaching that fully engages the head and the heart.

King's sermonic thought comes from Jesus' commissioning of the disciples in Matthew 10:16. The text reads: "Be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." Interpreting the passage as a formula for action, King equates serpents with toughmindedness, doves with tenderheartedness. The former signifies "incisive thinking, realistic appraisal, and decisive judgment"; the latter represents "genuine compassion, a sharing in the joy and sorrow of one's fellows." King wields these traits together in two ways: 1) Highlighting contrastive themes within the Bible-living as sheep in the midst of wolves, living in the world but not being of it and so on; and 2) a Hegelian rhetoric which strives for "a creative synthesis of opposites in fruitful harmony." After defining his terms, he unveils the main idea: Segregation demands a loving and yet critical response from Christians. His conclusion: The creative synthesis of nonviolent resistance offers the best route to integration.

Dr. King preached a great sermon for his time. But what, if anything, might the Kingian couplet mean for young clergy in an age of austerity, a post-Civil Rights and supposedly post-racial era?

Today, clergy who aim to think clearly and love meaningfully must reimagine the doctrine of providence. Many Christians, particularly black ones, encounter notions of divine providence through praise and worship music. Exuberant and well-intentioned worship leaders exhort congregations to praise their way through pain; to know that when the praises go up, blessings invariably come down; to trust that God will either change an individual's circumstances or an individual within that circumstance. We might call this version of the doctrine "privatized providence" -- the idea that God mysteriously orchestrates all things, and above all else, is after the hearts of human beings. In the midst of massive unemployment, persistently high rates of default on student loans and an affordable housing crisis, privatized providence instructs us, as individuals, to praise our way through the storm and otherwise trust that God won't let trouble last always.

This is a powerful and pervasive, yet partial, response. Such an explanation warms the heart, but leaves tough minds wanting more. In Dr. King's terms, it provides no rationale for one to "move creatively toward the goal of freedom and justice." We might instead speak of "public providence," which differs from privatized providence in three important ways. Public providence, with the Nicene Creed, affirms that God became human in Christ "for us and for our salvation." God in Christ renews and transforms individuals within, and not in isolation from, community.

Secondly, it views the church as the ekklesia, a distinct assembly of Christ-followers, which moves within a broader national and global public. Privatized providence envisions the church as an aggregation of believers; public providence claims that the church itself is a public. Following Dr. King, it views the ekklesia as a community of transformed nonconformists whose love of God, neighbor, enemy and stranger compels them to seek just sociopolitical arrangements.

Thirdly, public providence argues for ever-expanding circles of moral compassion and conceptual clarity. When politicians narrowly define national priorities and economists ignore those who are willing but unable to obtain housing, healthcare, and decent wages, tender-hearted clergy draw a wider circle -- one that insists on equity and economic productivity, in America and abroad. When foggy preaching ambiguously handles the topic of social suffering, toughminded clergy bring a foghorn, exposing the policies and practices that, in part, contribute to disproportionately high levels of joblessness, foreclosures and poor health in black and brown communities. Such adverse outcomes are largely preventable -- they are neither inevitable nor divinely ordained.

Privatized providence perceives the Christian life as an individualized benefit plan. Public providence maintains that we are blessed to be a blessing; that the Gospel, among other things, is still about good news to and among the poor.

Soft-mindedness and hard-heartedness are afoot in America, even in the Church. In the spirit of Rev. Martin Luther King, let us redouble our effort to love intently and think critically.

 

Follow Andrew Wilkes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AndrewJWilkes

Comments

[Markr1111]

12:35 PM on 09/06/2011

I think we may be coming to Socialized Health Care,,,,, President Obama’s healthcare reform bill became law in March 2010 with the passing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Since Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, this represents the most noteworthy change of the healthcare system in the United States. Most of the issues and concepts are not new and focus on whether changes will make the healthcare system more efficient and equitable. Economists have specific definitions of these 2 attributes. Efficiency refers to the objective of maximizing the amount of goods and services and total societal welfare that are produced with a fixed level of resources. This implies a focus on costs. Equity refers to the distribution of goods and services across individuals in society, measuring who gains and who loses when some policy change occurs. With the passage of the healthcare legislation, it is expected that every aspect of care delivery will undergo transformation, from health insurance premiums to quality of patient care.http://www.newsonhealthcare.com/preparing-for-socialized-health-caresome-patients-may-die-waiting-for-treatment/.

[Andrew Wilkes]

02:40 PM on 09/07/2011

If you haven't seen it already, I recommend that you start with the primary sources:
Health and Human Services: http://www.healthcare.gov/law/introduction/index.html
Public Law: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3590

[GHarry]

08:40 AM on 09/06/2011

I doubt that the Rev. King would still be in the ministry if he were alive today. He might well not even still be religious. Why? His writings show that King's views had evolved and matured in the turbulent 1960s. Toward the end of his life he better understood the economic and political forces that fueled oppression in America and around the world, and he recognized that it was through political action -- not religion -- that solutions to those problems would be found. It's unfortunate that so many people are still so mired in primitive superstition, especially traditional forms of religion, that social activists cannot communicate with them effectively except in those terms.

[Andrew Wilkes]

10:03 AM on 09/06/2011

Religious faith can fuel solid economic and political analysis. Dr. King's faith actually grew more religious (in terms of theistic belief in a personal God) as he evolved towards a more mature understanding of how wealth and power operate in American society. I recommend you read some of Jeffrey Stout's work. Stout, who is an atheist, is also a philosophical pragmatist that writes movingly about the need to overcome secularism and religious resentment of the secular. In particular, I commend "Democracy and Tradition" and "Blessed are the Organized" to you

[trthsetsfree2]

09:03 PM on 09/05/2011

The objective of the civil rights movement was equal rights. And it was successful. Although we must remain vigilant to protect and secure equal rights when they are denied, we have them by law.

The oppressors and those willing to take advantage of the weak in America have a new strategy to become rich and powerful. The new strategy is to divide and conquer the American family. And through the Child Support System the men of America are being classified as second class parents. The value of the fathers is to send money and visit or prove you can provide for two households.

Unfortunately the church is more than willing to cooperate with that strategy because responsible and strong men get in the way of the church clergy, also. The church clergy like being able to coerce the women and children to pay large tithes and offerings. The church is in bed with the other forces that feed off family breakdown such as the child support system, the courts, the criminal justice system, the illegal drug industry, the stripper club industry, the section 8 program, the attorneys, the child care services, the elderly care services, and many more.
Martin L King respected men, women and children. He would campaign against the sabotage of the child support system by supporting pending legislation called Shared Parenting which presumes equal custody for both parents. Why does the church NOT advocate for its fathers and the family? Read more at www.acfc.org.

[Andrew Wilkes]

10:10 AM on 09/06/2011

Please say more about what you mean by the American family. Most churches, denominations, and so on, advocate on behalf of families. There are differences across the continuum of Christian communities about what constitutes a family, but there is, I think, basic agreement that families are precious social formations to be cultivated, celebrated, and protected.

[trthsetsfree2]

02:22 PM on 09/06/2011

There are many, myself included, who believe the family is under assault by those who do not respect the man, woman and children family. The men are unfairly targeted for loss of child custody if there is a break up and then are required to pay child support money that does not exist. That dynamic fuels the process of marriages that do not last very long because most women know in advance they are entitled to preferential treatment. Everybody in the family loses. The church makes no effort to protect the men's rights to custody of his children. The church makes no attempt to teach the women to ignore a system that is tainted by greed and immorality by accepting its entitlements. It is no different than white churches accepting the spoils of slavery earlier in the history of this nation.
Also the church is instrumental in the spread of homosexuality and feminized males. Why is it a known fact the black church choir is replete with homosexual males? Many church clergy address non-clergy men as "young man, boy, weak males" etc. just because the men are not under their direct line of authority. And I repeat, the church is in bed with the child support, courts, criminal justice, attorneys, sex industry, drug industry, gay industry, section 8 and other industries that benefit from family breakdown. Why doesn't the church support Shared Parenting Legislation which presumes equal custody for fathers? Read more at www.acfc.org.

[trthsetsfree2]

04:31 PM on 09/11/2011

Why doesn't the church support Shared Parenting Legislation?