Excuse me, Sir

I have to post a short response to an incident which happened last Friday at our Fuller Seminary Book Store. We have been attempting to raise money and awareness about the crisis of orphans in Africa through a Men's Basketball League called Hope Sports. Hope Sports is a non-profit basketball league, which first and foremost connects people with sports so that we can participate in a mutual activity together, and secondly takes all the proceeds and gives them to Mosaic Church which in turn gives them to Breath of Heaven Children's Village in Zambia, Africa. The whole aspect of aid to Africa is a Pandora's box which I will not open at this time.

Anyhow, on Friday the Hope Sports jar is on the counter of the Coffee Shop as most jar's for charities are located. Inside the jar were dollar bills and other change. In walked a customer who was not a Fuller student and asked if someone could re-fill his water bottle, which they obliged. As soon as the employee turned around the customer reached into the jar and took a handful of money, put it in his pocket, took his refilled water bottle and left. This story is not to display the horrible deed of stealing money designated for an orphanage, because in my opinion this man is just as desperate as anyone for money.

So, you ask, "What gets you annoyed?" The fact that it was witnessed by other Fuller students who were sitting inside the Coffee Shop. Some of the students pointed it out to the employee after the man was long gone. I told this story to another person and he stated, "Well, did you want the students to grab him, what if he had a gun?" I will address the first part of his answer about "grabbing him and the second part about "a gun" in the next paragraph. Why, does it have to be either "Do nothing" or "Attack him violently?" There is a middle ground, which is confront him about his actions, speak kindly to him, maybe simply point out that the money is not his, say to him, "Excuse me sir, may I speak to you?" Address him with terms of respect, but pointedly so that he is aware that someone saw his actions. In all honesty, if Christianity is social, why are we so afraid of other people? Sometimes people commit crimes because they want someone to notice, to notice that he exists. Oh, how odd, someone would do something like that for attention? Yes, it happens all the time in inner cities across the country.

Gang violence is a perfect example. Why though do we assume that everyone in a city carries a gun? Has anyone besides myself and I don't count actually ever seen anyone ever with a gun? Seriously, I have NEVER seen anyone with a gun, outside of being a police offier. I know that guns exist, but where? Maybe it is fear which is perpetuated by the media and the police department which keeps people ignorant about gun violence, and keeps people doing nothing.

Let us look at how we as a society have abandoned the inner cities, as we chose to live comfortably in the suburbs, i.e. white flight from the '70's and '80's, excluding people due to skin color, economic status, or both, and by building "Housing projects" for them to live. So, the next generation growing up in poverty will gain the necessary attention by committing acts of violence. It would have been more efficient for the government to have allowed groups such as the "Black Panthers" to exist, since they predominantly were a political organization, speaking about issues of racism in the cities. Since people have no voice, violence creates a voice which we ALL hear "Loud and clear!" People from affluence gain attention by becoming elite and getting an education. Either way, in God's world both when misdirected (gangs as violent or education as elitist) cause the social death of any society. I heard a great quote by Hernando De Soto an excellent economist, not the explorer who said that, "Capitalism is first and foremost for the poor of society, not the elite, because the elite already have money."
Anyhow, just some food for thought. As my friend Corey Paxton said about this incident, "Just Do Something, anything!"

Bye Fuller Bye Bye...

Last quarter at Fuller! After this quarter I am officially finished with my theological studies at Fuller Theological Seminary. I have stated, "As soon as I am done with Fuller, I can finally start studying." Being forced to study certain disciplines at Fuller has been difficult, since it involved pretending to be concerned about issues which I am not concerned. I think Seminary spreads people too thin, since it is completely impossible to study everything, so why not focus and study a certain discipline. This is considered a "concentration." I am convinced though that merely studying does not change behavior, nor does it make anyone more loving. Also, merely seeking God does not allow people, outside of study to be able to engage culture contextually, because they won't know how various traditions have engaged the culture in the past; learning, then acting accordingly. Merely following culture could develop into a civil religion, where we simply reiterate the Christendom model.

Kelly Brown Douglas, a marvelous female African American theologian has written in her book, "What's Faith got to do with it?" Black Bodies/Christian Souls that our Platonized Christian traditions have caused our faith to demonize the black body. Separating the "flesh from the Spirit" can cause us to believe that our human flesh is evil, which is not what Paul meant in Romans. She has contended that this Platonic thought influenced Christendom and is therefore a damaging force in Christianity, because if the cross is the dominant paradigm of our faith, then if the cross should be demonstrated by societal power, it could become a part of this civil religion. We could then use the cross as justification to sacrifice that which we have demonized, which is usually found in "the other". Kelly Brown Douglas also points to Augustine as the one theologian most influentail in developing Platonized Christianity into a Christian dogma, through the Nicene/Chalcedonian confessions. She points to the fact that why is the life of Jesus not discussed in the Nicene Creed? Her answer is that Jesus' life doesn't matter in Platonized Christianity, because "the cross" had become to dominant symbol of promoting power of other people.

I too continually struggle against my own projection onto "the other", because it is easier to project our anger, frustration, and insecurities onto other people, whom we consider lower than us, than to deal with them, face the reality in our life, and in turn as Miroslav Volf says in Exclusion and Embrace, "understand God's truth inside the reality of our life." I think that this is a beautiful statement because reality is "frickin' difficult sometimes!" We must face that we have objectified people, not treated other human beings as a subject, meaning that they think, feel, and desire to be treated as human beings and that I continually place my own desires for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (or property) above my understanding that "the earth is the Lord's and everything in it." (Psalm 24:1 and I Corinthians 10:26) Of course I am speaking out of my own experience, but I use the term "we."

In one of my classes today I referenced racism in regards to societal factors which do not allow the poor to participate in activities which cost a lot of money, therefore many of the poor are relegated to activities which incorporate much more communal living. I was told that I was "wrong" on three different points in regard to economics. I embrace being wrong and it being pointed out, because I said, "Finally, someone cares enough to say that I am wrong or that I bring up a good point."
I can't pretend I didn't chuckle a bit though, because in Scripture I see those who exclude others, especially as a result of wealth being one day "shut out" themselves from the eschatological kingdom. We need to start looking at the activities in our lives to see if our daily activities reflect communal living or not. If they don't, then we should start to question whether our benefits are from God, or part of my human greed. If I am participating in communal activities, even if they are small, this is a great start towards the inclusiveness of the kingdom. If my activities simply reflect greater cultures obsession with wealth, I should reflect upon this so that it does not draw me away from the eschatological kingdom in the here and now. (N.T. Wright)

The Bottom Billion

Does God think differently than we do? This is of course a simple question. LOL. I am reading a book entitled The Bottom Billion by Paul Collier in which it details that 1/6 of the population of the world lives in "extreme poverty", which is below $1.00 a day. Extreme poverty is something which plagues our world, because the reality is that "it kills". The people who live in extreme poverty will die. In the 1800's, pre-industrial revolution, much of the world, especially Europe lived in extreme poverty. The growth since the 1800's until now has increased in the developed nations, at least in the U.S. Twenty-five fold. From 1820 to 1998, the U.S. economy grew at a rate of 1.7 percent per year with per-capita income rising from $1200.00 per person to $30,000 per person. African nations did grow, but only about .7 percent per year. (Jeffrey Sachs, The End of Poverty) The two fastest growing economies in the world today are China and India, not the U.S., so this does mean that certain nations can grow their economies that were previously poor, also note that China is still Communist, but has embraced a globalized market, so it does not depend upon democracy as President Bush would have everyone believe. Always with the rise of a global market, there is a corresponding rise of global abuses, drugs, sex-trafficking, slavery, human rights abuses. Many in the U.S. will decry these real abuse's in China, but don't address them in our own nation. (Just a side note).

As I am finding out, economic growth in certain nations, is so dependent upon the neighboring nations. If a country in Africa is "landlocked", they are not able to export, nor import resources, (capital) because their neighboring nations, either will not let them, or they charge high tariffs, to allow goods to travel through the repective nation. Having a "United States", has helped in the transfer of goods and services to neighboring states. Could this have been done outside of the Civil War, I do not know. I struggle with this issue, because it seems as though war destroys, but also sometimes brings economic prosperity to a nation, but I CAN NOT support the killing of people, so I am stuck. I therefore do believe in the partnering with foreign nations to keep investments in the economies of poorer nations. Africa has the greatest amount of natural resources on the planet, so to see African nations being exploited for those resources causes me pain. This is why I entitled this post, "Does God think differently than we do?"

The World Bank has charted numerous statistics which detail economic issues involved in our world, but the most telling in my opinion is life expectancy, since the ability to function, i.e. work, live, have a family, enjoy the life God has given us, is reliant upon being alive, another reason that war is anti-Christ, since it takes away the one ability humans have to be in relationship with each other and God, life itself.

If you click on the World Bank link above, it will bring you to a map which shows the Life Expectancy at Birth/2002. In red are the nations where life expectancy is 55 years old or below. The African nations have the lowest life expectancy in the world today. There are numerous reasons why some of these African nations have low life expectancy, HIV/AIDS, disease (malaria), no clean drinking water, poor sanitation, no economic growth (food). I sometimes get angry because of after European nations left Africa, post-colonialism, the African economies now had to begin to survive without the assistance of Europe within the structure of a European market. It is the great paradox of colonization.

What strikes me is that Jesus said in Matthew 20:16 "The last shall be first and the first shall be last", but this ending statement of Jesus' was in reference to a parable which involved the economic practices of a landowner. (Click on link to read the parable, I would love to know what anyone else thought) There is much debate over whether Jesus is saying that the landowner had a right to do "whatever" he wanted with his money (denarius) or whether Jesus is using the parable to show that it is unjust in paying someone so little for doing so much work (greedy). Either way, I believe that God sees things differently than we do. God will one day "wipe away the tears from the eyes" of the poor and afflicted and has prepared them a place in the "bosom of Abraham", while those who had everything in this life will not be invited to this place of rest. It should cause us a little discomfort in not knowing who God will justify.

Image of the Institution

I have been thinking a lot lately about something I have entitled, "The Image of the Institution", which is not a title that I developed but is something which Scripture has developed through the biological process by which God made humans. I believe that God designed humans to be social beings, but our social standing is only determined through our relationship with other humans, institutions, culture, etc. Whatever I follow, I mirror it, which was the original design for creation to follow its Creator and mirror God, i.e reflecting his sustaining presence. Jeremiah 2 was God's call for Israel to return to the covenant faithfulness of Yhwh, but Yhwh had a specific claim against Israel by stating in Jer. 2:5 "...they followed after worthless idols and became worthless themselves."

As I follow a certain structure, that structure shapes and forms my thinking, until it moulds me into its own image. Miroslav Volf, a theologian at Yale has written in Exclusion and Embrace that "violence robs humans of their innocence and will re-make us into the image of violence, creating in us a propensity towards violence". Volf's thoughts are not developed in a laboratory per se, but have culminated in the fighting which he was involved in the Balkan's. My own thoughts concerning violence have also been shaped and formed by attempting to fight violence with force, and thereby being overpowered by the sheer magnitude of that violence, and becoming violent myself.

Consider the concept of race in the U.S. Whenever we say the term, "White", it must always be in relation to "black", since whiteness was a concept constructed in the U.S. to determine for political and social reasons who would be accepted into the elite society which had been developed over against the Africans who had been kidnapped into the U.S. Once this concept developed, there no longer was any thought whatsoever about using these terms, "White or Black". Society developed a term which in turn has created us to think in categories which were constructed because of prejudice. Are we then to simply accept the categories as normal? I believe the answer is yes and no. Yes, we affirm human beings as being those designations, because that is what we now are. But we also say no, because when it perpetuates the racial inequalities, we must stand against that. The problem will be that when we stand, others who have benefited, i.e. white dominant society may stand against those who decry racism. After all, this is what got Jesus killed.

We are created as beings who are transformed into whatever it is that we follow. Christianity should therefore engage the way we think about life, sociology, politics, and our relationships with one another. I think that if reconciliation is not at the core of our theology, something is inherently wrong. If we are not desparately concerned with facilitating opportunities for human beings to participate in the beauty of God's creation, then we may have a theology in a laboratory, not as a missionary. The apostle Paul's theology for the Greek world was developed in the Greek world, therefore, our theology needs to be developed as we engage God's creation. The Platonic thought of the Greek world is alive and well in Western culture, so we as Christians need to develop a theology which engages our hyper-sexualized society, by affirming our dignity as human beings.


Maybe because I moved so much as a child and young adult, I developed an ability to have a fluidity in my understanding the sociological constructs within our culture very well. I understand how environmental factors produce people to think in certain terms and their thinking can definitely be changed, but not unless humans are given the opportunity to connect with those we consider "the other". I have also been wanting to stop forgetting about the power of the Holy Spirit in the conversation of change. God's Spirit empowers humans to stand against oppression, because as I have already found, unless God is moving in our midst, we will be created into oppressive people, even when we are attempting to liberate people from oppression.

Why We Fight

So, I watched another amazing documentary last night, probably the BEST documentary I have ever seen, entitled Why We Fight. It takes place during the Iraq War (Oh wait, that war is still going on) and it traces the history of the past fifty years involving military conflicts in foreign nations and why we have been involved. It shows also a dramatic "conversion" of a man, a former NYPD Sgt. and also a Vietnam Veteran, who lost his son in the 9/11 attacks. Throughout the documentary it showed how he supported the Iraq War, even to the point of having the Marine Corp place his son's name on a bomb which was dropped in Iraq on April 1, 2003. This man supported the troops, until one day he was watching the news and they showed President Bush at a Cabinet Meeting, where he stated, "The 9/11 attacks and the Iraq War do not have anything to do with one another." The problem with that statement was the fact that Vice President Cheney had drawn a definitive link approximately one year before between 9/11, Al-Qaeda, and Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction." The man who lost his son said that he was so enraged about his son's death that he simply wanted vengeance, he wanted as many dead bodies as possible, and if Iraq was the culprit, we needed to "kill them!" His attitude and heart were turned by the end of the documentary to feelings of sorrow over his "blind" support for the war. He said that he is from the "old school", which in my opinion means unquestioning allegiance to the state, which promises to secure safety, as violently as necessary. Don't worry, Rome did the same thing. (Oh, wait, they don't exist anymore.) In theological terms we might call those who seem so different from us "the other". Today it may be Iraqi's and how does God interact with "the other", i.e. those who do not claim allegiance to our God? I believe God calls out to them and desires that our's and their vengeance, anger, and acts of violence be expressed in a language to him. He is continually seeking those who will cry out to him in times of fear and anger, those are "the other".

These feelings are normal for an act of aggression, such as the 9/11 attacks. People are confused, scared, and unsure why anyone would hate us, and they wanted answers. The problem is they were not spoken to with compassion, but were told, "This is why people hate us, because we are free and you are not." I had to research the history myself in order to understand the violence in this country.
This documentary (biased, as all documentaries are) traces the history of our interaction with Iraq and it's massive oil reserves from the 1950's onward. It showed how we used Saddam Hussein and showed Donald Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam in the 80's, shaking his hand when he was our friend, over against our enemy; "Iran". This documentary even showed a clip from Osama Bin Laden who said that he did not like Saudi Arabia "using" the U.S. to maintain power against Iraq, during the time period when Iraq attacked Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm. Osama either felt as if the U.S. was being inevitably drawn into a conflict in the Middle East, or he thought that Saudi Arabia as a Muslim Nation should not be making deals with the U.S. (It was not explained either way in the documentary)

Saddam became enemy #1 when he attacked Kuwait, because he was one step closer to possibly taking over Saudi Arabia and therefore controlling the Middle East's two largest Oil Reserves.
How does any of this have to do with "freedom". Well, it actually does. We as Americans define freedom as security, i.e. security as defined over the last forty-five years as the U.S.'s "Industrial Military Complex", which was a phrase coined by Eisenhower at the end of his term in office. In order to continue to secure our own freedom, we must establish our imperial agenda in countries where we know we can dominate. The "no standing armies" from our Constitution was also mentioned, which having "standing armies" in foreign nations would violate our own Constitution.
We never "attacked" the Soviet Union or East Germany during the Cold War years, because it would not benefit us to attack a nation which has the power to fight back. Cheney was quoted as saying in this movie that at the end of the Cold War era, the U.S. is now has the foremost power in the world and we must preserve that power.
There is a theme which dominates the discussion, even today, and that is of "power". If we have all this power, will it ever affect another nation? If it does affect another nation, are we concerned about their freedom? We as a nation have accepted the bloody revolutions fought over how this country would be governed as perfectly normal. If we have so easily accepted this premise, then it becomes very easy for us to #1, make sure we as a nation never again experience those revolutions, and #2 believe that other nations must experience blood before they can be "free."

We should not fear.

So, I listen to talk radio sometimes. Not Rush Limbaugh or Michael Medved, but Calvary Chapel. I do it mainly because I am naturally a curious person, but sometimes I do not agree with what I hear on the radio from Calvary Chapel. I know that sounds harsh, but hearing about how angry God is with creation simply makes me squirm. When Calvary Chapel initially was founded it was to attract hippies and outcast's to Jesus Christ, but I do not hear that message from them anymore. I was listening to a sermon today from Calvary Chapel, Pasadena and I only heard the end in which the preacher said, "...and the reason that heresy entered into the church was a direct result of women..." What about Marcion, the Gnostics, Pelagius, none of them were women and they were the causes of great amounts of heretical teachings in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries?
I am making a judgment call because I did not hear the context of what he was saying, but in all actuality should it really matter that I didn't hear the context, I mean are you kidding? The preacher then reiterated the I Timothy passage which prohibits women from teaching and says that the context does not matter, i.e. I Timothy was a letter written about Ephesus issues with the temple goddesses and the goddess Diana, but simply that the Bible is the Word of God and it does not change. For more on those issues, N.T. Wright has written about them, and if you only want to read the I Timothy section, scroll down to point # five: click here to read.
The Calvary Chapel Pastor then said, "Men today need to stop being afraid and speak the truth, because it is the Women's Liberation movement which has caused most of the problems today." I also named this blog, "We should not fear", because in my humble opinion fear drives people to preach these sermons. They probably are truly afraid that if they do not hold to what they believe in a strict, literal, interpretation of Scripture as the Word of God, people will fall away from God. I think that if people obey God, NOT out of love for him and all the amazing actions which God has initiated in creation, but instead through an obedience, derived out of fear of "losing control"; life will eventually overwhelm people and the control which they believed they possessed will overcome them. So, the main issue is control, i.e dominance. I hope this makes sense.

What I hear this pastor preaching is that, 'These are simply the Absolute Truths of Scripture, never to change, never to be contextualized within our world, but applied in strict obedience, because God is concerned with obedience.' Of course I am being somewhat facetious in my above mentioned statements, but I still find it perplexing how the concern in churches is not to proclaim the gospel, that our God assumed the flesh of humanity in the life of the Lord Jesus the Christ, then absorbed into his own body the violence of humanity exhibited towards God, died the death of a criminal on a cross, forsaken by humanity, and through the resurrection from the dead was vindicated by God, proclaiming that death has no power over God.

Why is that not the message which we proclaim in our churches. Why are we not talking about living intentionally as the community of faith: sharing, loving, learning to trust each other, and learning to trust in the grace which God has given to us for each day. I heard another person on Christian radio question a caller when the caller talked about how consumerism has created us to believe that we can purchase anything we desire. The Christian radio announcer did not think that being able to buy anything we want is NOT a Christian principle.

In reference to speaking though about the Absolutes of Scripture, I believe we must focus on the particularities before we focus on the universal. It is important to God that our unique qualities which are created by our world be affirmed in Christ. I do think that the dismantling of our worldview needs to take place so that we do not interpret Scripture based upon my own sinful humanity, but we interpret in light of the community of faith. Stanley Hauerwas has a quote which my friend Michael DeFazio quoted on his blog, which says, "In Hauerwas' book "Unleashing the Scripture", where he argues that the first task of the church in America is to get the Bible out of the hands of individual North American Christians. This is admittedly hyperbolic, but his point stands: people are not capable of rightly hearing Scripture on their own - none of us are, "scholars" and "laypeople" alike - not least because we need each other to discipline our sinful tendency to see what we want to see, what will confirm our present convictions, what will prove our arguments."

This is why I enjoy the teachings concerning "The Historical Jesus", because understanding the history of Jesus enables us to understand how deeply affected God is by our world, "good and evil".
"The historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ (kerygmatic, meaning New Testament proclamation) must once again be brought into unity." (James Dunn) I will close with one last comment by Jurgen Moltmann in "The Crucified God" which I have been reading and enjoying immensely.

"His preaching was literally the same as that of John: "The kingdom of God is at hand", but the content of his preaching of this imminent kingdom was different. The kingdom does not come as judgment, so that one must anticipate it in one's self through repentance in order to endure. Rather, anticipated by the word of the gospel which Jesus preached and his living offering of himself to the poor, the sinners, the tax-collectors, it comes as the unconditional and free grace of God, by which the lost are sought out and those without rights, and the unrighteous, are accepted. It is this different and new righteousness of God promised and demonstrated by Jesus which separates him from John the Baptist and his repentance movement in Israel."
Moltmann, Jurgen: The Crucified God: The Historical Trial of Jesus: page 130: Fortress Press: MN: 1993.

Therefore, our proclamation of his resurrection must be stated from the "I"- "Thou" encounter, which means that we do not say, "He said...", since we would only speak of someone who was dead in that manner, but we proclaim the life of Jesus in the present. Jesus saw the past, present, and future in his own life. This is why we believe that Jesus opened the kingdom of God here and now. Anyways, I do not think that the pastor at Calvary Chapel is intentionally preaching something which he does not believe, but his "belief in belief in God" has transcended the present day call to embody the life of Jesus. "The only way to live with the hope in the present is to believe that God will justify in the future." (Miroslav Volf)

The Letter itself

(Martin Luther King, Jr., Leaning on a Lecturn: March 26, 1964: Library of Congress)

This letter speaks volumes about the cause of MLK, Jr.: it is long, but extremely interesting.

Hope you enjoy, Paul M. Pace

*LETTER FROM BIRMINGHAM JAIL*

April 16, 1963

MY DEAR FELLOW CLERGYMEN:

While confined here in the Birmingham city jail, I came across your recent statement calling my present activities "unwise and untimely." Seldom do I pause to answer criticism of my work and ideas. If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work. But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statements in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.

------- *AUTHOR'S NOTE: This response to a published statement by eight fellow clergymen from Alabama (Bishop C. C. J. Carpenter, Bishop Joseph A. Durick, Rabbi Hilton L. Grafman, Bishop Paul Hardin, Bishop Holan B. Harmon, the Reverend George M. Murray. the Reverend Edward V. Ramage and the Reverend Earl Stallings) was composed under somewhat constricting circumstance. Begun on the margins of the newspaper in which the statement appeared while I was in jail, the letter was continued on scraps of writing paper supplied by a friendly Negro trusty, and concluded on a pad my attorneys were eventually permitted to. leave me. Although the text remains in substance unaltered, I have indulged in the author's prerogative of polishing it for publication. -------

I think I should indicate why I am here In Birmingham, since you have been influenced by the view which argues against "outsiders coming in." I have the honor of serving as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization operating in every southern state, with headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. We have some eighty-five affiliated organizations across the South, and one of them is the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. Frequently we share staff, educational and financial resources with our affiliates. Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. So I, along with several members of my staff, am here because I was invited here I am here because I have organizational ties here.

But more basically, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here. Just as the prophets of the eighth century B.C. left their villages and carried their "thus saith the Lord" far beyond the boundaries of their home towns, and just as the Apostle Paul left his village of Tarsus and carried the gospel of Jesus Christ to the far corners of the Greco-Roman world, so am I. compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid.

Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly by in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds.

You deplore the demonstrations taking place In Brimingham. But your statement, I am sorry to say, fails to express a similar concern for the conditions that brought about the demonstrations. I am sure that none of you would want to rest content with the superficial kind of social analysis that deals merely with effects and does not grapple with underlying causes. It is unfortunate that demonstrations are taking place in Birmingham, but it is even more unfortunate that the city's white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative.

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self- purification; and direct action. We have gone through an these steps in Birmingham. There can be no gainsaying the fact that racial injustice engulfs this community. Birmingham is probably the most thoroughly segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of brutality is widely known. Negroes have experienced grossly unjust treatment in the courts. There have been more unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches in Birmingham than in any other city in the nation. These are the hard, brutal facts of the case. On the basis of these conditions, Negro .leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.

Then, last September, came the opportunity to talk with leaders of Birmingham's economic community. In the course of the negotiations, certain promises were made by the merchants --- for example, to remove the stores humiliating racial signs. On the basis of these promises, the Reverend Fred Shuttles worth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to a moratorium on all demonstrations. As the weeks and months went by, we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. A few signs, briefly removed, returned; the others remained.

As in so many past experiences, our hopes bad been blasted, and the shadow of deep disappointment settled upon us. We had no alternative except to prepare for direct action, whereby we would present our very bodies as a means of laying our case before the conscience of the local and the national community. Mindful of the difficulties involved, we decided to undertake a process of self-purification. We began a series of workshops on nonviolence, and we repeatedly asked ourselves : "Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?" "Are you able to endure the ordeal of jail?" We decided to schedule our direct-action program for the Easter season, realizing that except for Christmas, this is the main shopping period of the year. Knowing that a strong economic with with-drawl program would be the by-product of direct action, we felt that this would be the best time to bring pressure to bear on the merchants for the needed change.

Then it occurred to us that Birmingham's mayoralty election was coming up in March, and we speedily decided to postpone action until after election day. When we discovered that the Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, had piled up enough votes to be in the run-oat we decided again to postpone action until the day after the run-off so that the demonstrations could not be used to cloud the issues. Like many others, we waited to see Mr. Connor defeated, and to this end we endured postponement after postponement. Having aided in this community need, we felt that our direct-action program could be delayed no longer.

You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved South land been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken .in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor. will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant 'Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

We have waited .for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God- given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we stiff creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging dark of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six- year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored"; when your first name becomes "nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you no forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal .law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I- it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti religious laws.

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fan in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber.

I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth concerning time in relation to the struggle for freedom. I have just received a letter from a white brother in Texas. He writes: "An Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but it is possible that you are in too great a religious hurry. It has taken Christianity almost two thousand years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth." Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this 'hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation. We must use time creatively, in the knowledge that the time is always ripe to do right. Now is the time to make real the promise of democracy and transform our pending national elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to 6e solid rock of human dignity.

You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At fist I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best- known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."

I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.

If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black- nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.

Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself, and that is what has happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom, and something without has reminded him that it can be gained. Consciously or. unconsciously, he has been caught up by the Zeitgeist, and with his black brothers of Africa and his brown and yellow brothers of Asia, South America and the Caribbean, the United States Negro is moving with a sense of great urgency toward the promised land of racial justice. If one recognizes this vital urge that has engulfed the Negro community, one should readily understand why public demonstrations are taking place. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him march; let him make prayer pilgrimages to the city hall; let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. If his repressed emotions are not released in nonviolent ways, they will seek expression through violence; this is not a threat but a fact of history. So I have not said to my people: "Get rid of your discontent." Rather, I have tried to say that this normal and healthy discontent can be channeled into the creative outlet of nonviolent direct action. And now this approach is being termed extremist.

But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action. I am thankful, however, that some of our white brothers in the South have grasped the meaning of this social revolution and committed themselves to it. They are still too few in quantity, but they are big in quality. Some-such as Ralph McGill, Lillian Smith, Harry Golden, James McBride Dabbs, Ann Braden and Sarah Patton Boyle---have written about our struggle in eloquent and prophetic terms. Others have marched with us down nameless streets of the South. They have languished in filthy, roach-infested jails, suffering the abuse and brutality of policemen who view them as "dirty nigger lovers." Unlike so many of their moderate brothers and sisters, they have recognized the urgency of the moment and sensed the need for powerful "action" antidotes to combat the disease of segregation.

Let me take note of my other major disappointment. I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. I am not unmindful of the fact that each of you has taken some significant stands on this issue. I commend you, Reverend Stallings, for your Christian stand on this past Sunday, in welcoming Negroes to your worship service on a non segregated basis. I commend the Catholic leaders of this state for integrating Spring Hill College several years ago.

But despite these notable exceptions, I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. I do not say this as one of those negative .critics who can always find. something wrong with the church. I say this as a minister of the gospel, who loves the church; who was nurtured in its bosom; who 'has been sustained by its spiritual blessings and who will remain true to it as long as the cord of Rio shall lengthen.

When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leader era; an too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.

In spite of my shattered dreams, I came to Birmingham with the hope that the white religious leadership of this community would see the justice of our cause and, with deep moral concern, would serve as the channel through which our just grievances could reach the power structure. I had hoped that each of you would understand. But again I have been disappointed.

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: "Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother." In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious. irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: "Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern." And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, on Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

I have traveled the length and breadth of Alabama, Mississippi and all the other southern states. On sweltering summer days and crisp autumn mornings I have looked at the South's beautiful churches with their lofty spires pointing heavenward. I have beheld the impressive outlines of her massive religious-education buildings. Over and over I have found myself asking: "What kind of people worship here? Who is their God? Where were their voices when the lips of Governor Barnett dripped with words of interposition and nullification? Where were they when Governor Walleye gave a clarion call for defiance and .hatred? Where were their voices of support when bruised and weary Negro men and women decided to rise from the dark dungeons of complacency to the bright hills of creative protest?"

Yes, these questions are still in my mind. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. But be assured that my tears have been tears of love. There can be no deep disappointment where there is not deep love. Yes, I love the church. How could I do otherwise? l am in the rather unique position of being the son, the grandson and the great- grandson of preachers. Yes, I see the church as the body of Christ. But, oh! How we have blemished and scarred that body through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists.

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators"' But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent and often even vocal sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it vi lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

Perhaps I have once again been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom, They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jai with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.

I hope the church as a whole will meet the challenge of this decisive hour. But even if the church does not come to the aid of justice, I have no despair about the future. I have no fear about the outcome of our struggle in Birmingham, even if our motives are at present misunderstood. We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham, ham and all over the nation, because the goal of America k freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with America's destiny. Before the pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson etched the majestic words of the Declaration of Independence across the pages of history, we were here. For more than two centuries our forebears labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king; they built the homes of their masters while suffering gross injustice and shameful humiliation-and yet out of a bottomless vitality they continued to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands.

Before closing I feel impelled to mention one other point in your statement that has troubled me profoundly. You warmly commended the Birmingham police force for keeping "order" and "preventing violence." I doubt that you would have so warmly commended the police force if you had seen its dogs sinking their teeth into unarmed, nonviolent Negroes. I doubt that you would so quickly commend the policemen if .you were to observe their ugly and inhumane treatment of Negroes here in the city jail; if you were to watch them push and curse old Negro women and young Negro girls; if you were to see them slap and kick old Negro men and young boys; if you were to observe them, as they did on two occasions, refuse to give us food because we wanted to sing our grace together. I cannot join you in your praise of the Birmingham police department.

It is true that the police have exercised a .degree of discipline in handing the demonstrators. In this sense they have conducted themselves rather "nonviolently" in public. But for what purpose? To preserve the evil system of segregation. Over the past few years I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends. Perhaps Mr. Connor and his policemen have been rather nonviolent in public, as was Chief Pritchett in Albany, Georgia but they have used the moral means of nonviolence to maintain the immoral end of racial injustice. As T. S. Eliot has said: "The last temptation is the greatest treason: To do the right deed for the wrong reason."

I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes. They will be the James Merediths, with the noble sense of purpose that enables them to face Jeering, and hostile mobs, and with the agonizing loneliness that characterizes the life of the pioneer. They will be old, oppressed, battered Negro women, symbolized in a seventy-two-year-old woman in Montgomery, Alabama, who rose up with a sense of dignity and with her people decided not to ride segregated buses, and who responded with ungrammatical profundity to one who inquired about her weariness: "My fleets is tired, but my soul is at rest." They viii be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo-Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Never before have I written so long a letter. I'm afraid it is much too long to take your precious time. I can assure you that it would have been much shorter if I had been writing from a comfortable desk, but what else can one do when he k alone in a narrow jail cell, other than write long letters, think long thoughts and pray long prayers?

If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me.

I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for me to meet each of you, not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader but as a fellow clergyman and a Christian brother. Let us. all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our fear-drenched communities, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and brotherhood will shine over our great nation with all their scintillating beauty.

Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood,

Martin Luther King, Jr.

University of Pennsylvania, African Studies Department

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 1994 09:49:35 -0800 (PST)

From: "Arthur R. McGee"

Subject: Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Message-Id: