God and Human Dignity

The Personalism, Theology, and Ethics of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Rufus Burrow Jr.

• Publisher: University of Notre Dame Press
• Year: 1992
• Print ISBN: 9780268021955, 9780268021948
• eBook ISBN: 9780268161019
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: 20th Century History

Although countless books have been devoted to the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr., few, if any, have focused on King's appropriation of, and contribution to, the intellectual tradition of personalism. Emerging as a philosophical movement in the early 1900s, personalism is a type of philosophical idealism that has a number of affinities with Christianity, such as a focus on a personal God and the sanctity of persons. Burrow points to similarities and dissimilarities between personalism and the social gospel movement with its call to churchgoers to involve themselves in the welfare of both individuals and society. He argues that King's adoption of personalism represented the fusion of his black Christian faith and his commitment not only to the social gospel of Rauschenbusch, but most especially to the social gospelism practiced by his grandfather, father, and black preacher-scholars at Morehouse College. Burrow devotes much-needed attention both to King's conviction that the universe is value-infused and to the implications of this ideology for King's views on human dignity and his concept of the "Beloved Community."

Burrow also sheds light on King's doctrine of God. He contends that King's view of God has been uncritically and erroneously relegated by black liberation theologians to the general category of "theistic absolutism" and he offers corrections to what he believes are misinterpretations of this and other aspects of King's thought. He concludes with an application of King's personalism to present-day social problems, particularly as they pertain to violence in the black community.

This book is a useful and fresh contribution to our understanding of the life and thought of Martin Luther King, Jr. It will be read with interest by ethicists, theologians, philosophers, and social historians.

CHAPTER 1

King’s Intellectual Odyssey

From Morehouse to Crozer

Born on January 15, 1929, King entered the public school system of Atlanta in 1935. By the time he enrolled at Booker T. Washington High School, he was known to be studious. Almost immediately he exhibited signs of intellectual promise, and as a result, he was allowed to skip both the ninth and twelfth grades. Upon completion of high school in 1944 at the age of fifteen, he entered Morehouse College in September. In part, King was able to attend at such an early age because enrollment at Morehouse, as in other colleges throughout the United States, was quite low as a result of World War II. The idea to lower some of the entrance requirements was proposed by Benjamin Mays, president of Morehouse. Mays saw this as a temporary measure to raise and stabilize enrollment. King graduated high school at the right time to take advantage of this decision.

As a college student, King was impressed by the sense of freedom that he found on the Morehouse campus. For example, he engaged in candid, open discussions about a number of sensitive social issues. Looking back on the Morehouse experience he wrote, “[I]t was there that I had my first frank discussion on race. The professors were not caught up in the clutches of state funds and could teach what they wanted with academic freedom. They encouraged us in a positive quest for a salvation to racial ills and for the first time in my life, I realized that nobody there was afraid.”¹ This experience made a strong impression on the young King. He majored in sociology under Walter Chivers, and joined several clubs on campus. In addition, King worked relentlessly at sharpening his oratorical skills, a practice he would continue in seminary.

King was neither an A student nor a consistent B student at Morehouse. He was, rather, an average student, one whose ability to perform well was not always displayed in his academic work. What we need to remember, however, is that he was quite young—emotionally and psychologically—and had much growing and maturing to do when he entered college. He was at best an academic “underachiever.” According to Dean B. R. Brazeal, King had a “comparatively weak high school background.” Looking back, King recalled that by the time he matriculated at Morehouse he was only reading on an eighth-grade level.² One can easily see how this alone made for tough times for the fifteen-year-old college student. Even President Mays said that King was “capable of ‘substantial B work’ but ‘not brilliant.’” This is borne out by the fact that King earned one A, 20 B’s, 18 C’s, and one D during his years at Morehouse. He also earned a number of P’s for pass.³ It may be that George Kelsey, his teacher in religion, gave the most accurate and prophetic assessment of King’s time at Morehouse. “Professor Kelsey termed King’s record ‘short of what may be called “good,” but designated him ‘one of those boys who came to realize the value of scholarship late in his college career. His ability exceeds his record at Morehouse.’”⁴ Nevertheless, even late in King’s college career he earned mostly B’s and a few C’s.

Early in his college career, King had made the decision to become an attorney or a doctor. Like many Morehouse men, he took seriously the challenge extended by professors and administrators to prepare himself to contribute to the uplift of the race. His parents had impressed this point upon him and his siblings from the time they were young children. However, the courses he took in the biological sciences, for which he earned C’s, convinced him that whatever contribution he would make toward the liberation of his people would not be in the area of medicine. For a longer period of time, however, King trained for a career in law. Having grown up in the South, and having witnessed firsthand the way blacks were mistreated in its criminal justice and judicial system, King believed that becoming a lawyer was the best way he could address its injustices and help create better living conditions for his people.

This early choice of a career in law is quite interesting in light of the fact that King grew up a preacher’s son and was also the grandson and great-grandson of Baptist preachers. He was initially dissuaded from the possibility of becoming a minister because of his embarrassment that so many black preachers and churchgoers had a propensity to become (in his view) unduly emotional in church. The young King understood and appreciated the value and need for passion and liveliness in sermon delivery and the worship service. He understood that in light of what his people endured during the week, it was necessary for the church to deliver comfort, encouragement, and hope on Sunday morning. Nevertheless, the frequent practice of shouting, stomping, and walking the pews, which black Baptist preachers frequently did (including his father), was too much for him.

This early indecision about ministry was quite real. During his first two years at Morehouse, he and a number of other preachers’ sons were in active rebellion against ministry and had no desire to follow in their fathers’ footsteps.⁵ What is most important is that even as a young college student, King was clear about his responsibility to help his people. Later, as it turned out, King was so impressed and inspired by the sermons preached by Mays and Kelsey at Morehouse, for example, that he decided in his junior year to answer the call to ministry. Although he reported that he experienced no abrupt religious conversion, religion had been central in his life from the time he was a young boy. He asserted that “religion for me is life.”⁶ As for his call to ministry, King said that it “was not a miraculous or supernatural something. On the contrary it was an inner urge calling me to serve humanity.”⁷

At the age of six, King had promised his father that he would help him eradicate segregation and related evils.⁸ His sense of social responsibility grew increasingly stronger as he progressed through college. He knew even then that he had to do something to help end racial discrimination in the United States. In this regard, King’s father was an excellent role model for him. Daddy King, who had been dirt poor growing up in Stockbridge, Georgia, insisted that blacks should be self-determined in their quest for equality, and that from those who have much, much is expected. By the time his own children were born, he and his wife were members of the black elite in Atlanta. They were not rich, but were better off financially than most blacks in the South. Daddy King had learned from his father-in-law, A. D. Williams, that the black preacher was morally obligated to champion the cause of blacks for justice.⁹ In addition, he believed that black pastors were less vulnerable than most of their people because they did not have to depend on whites for their livelihood. They therefore had no excuse for being fearful of white retaliation or for holding back in the struggle.¹⁰ Martin shared this view and uttered it frequently during his ministry. During the Birmingham, Alabama, campaign, for example, he lectured black ministers on the “need for a social gospel” that addresses the social, economic, and political needs of oppressed blacks. Furthermore he said, in language quite characteristic of his maternal grandfather and Daddy King: “I pleaded for the projections of strong, firm leadership by the Negro minister, pointing out that he is freer, more independent, than any other person in the community.”¹¹ According to King, the minister must always attend to the needs of the soul as well as the body. Reflecting on the meaning of the preaching ministry during his student days at Crozer Seminary, King said: “On one hand I must attempt to change the soul of individuals so that their societies may be changed. On the other I must attempt to change the societies so that the individual soul will have a chance.”¹² The minister must therefore be concerned about any and all conditions that maim and devalue the worth of persons.

King’s goal was to position himself to help his people. When he considered becoming a lawyer, it was not for the purpose of lining his own pockets but rather as the best means to make it possible to eradicate the injustices in the legal system that harassed and hounded his people. The family and church values that were instilled in him and reinforced at Morehouse served as a reminder of the obligation to contribute toward the survival, liberation, and empowerment of his people. As a child, King was taught the value of sharing as well as serving others,¹³ of being responsible for himself and for the society in which he lived, and of having a healthy sense of self as well as individual responsibility. King’s parents modeled for him the importance of giving back to the community and championing the poor and oppressed.

During the summer months of his college days, King worked labor-intensive jobs, much to the chagrin of his father, who desired to spare him this experience. King clearly had a choice in this, for by virtue of his parents’ financial status and social standing he did not have to work such jobs. Nevertheless, he chose to work with those who were less fortunate than he, in order to learn firsthand their plight and what they thought about it. Although Daddy King preferred that he do other work during the summers, King’s decision was actually consistent with the values instilled in him by his parents.

The choice to do hard labor during the summers was probably also fueled by the influence of King’s sociology adviser, Walter Chivers.¹⁴ King’s transcript from Morehouse reveals that he took no fewer than eight courses under Chivers, a sign that he was probably making a significant impression on the young student. It was also during the Morehouse years that King gained an appreciation for social science methodology, which would serve him well in the civil and human rights movements. This method stresses the importance of collecting facts in order to know the actual state of affairs regarding specific social ills. This approach remained of great importance to King in the struggle from Montgomery to Memphis. Each nonviolent campaign was preceded by gathering the pertinent facts to determine whether injustice existed and whether negotiation or direct action was needed.¹⁵

When King worked those labor-intensive summer jobs, he came face to face with the evils of the capitalist economic system in a way he had not previously experienced. He saw for himself how black workers were paid less, and treated worse, than white workers who performed the same jobs. He also saw poor whites misused on the job, and thus had his eyes opened to the problem of economic class. There were poor whites as well as poor blacks, and both were severely mistreated and dehumanized. The race factor exacerbated the mistreatment of blacks. In his sociology classes, King learned that money was the root of much of the social evil and racism that was so prevalent in the United States. The experience affected him deeply, and he never forgot it. It surely influenced his level of sensitivity to the plight of the nation and the world’s poor throughout the duration of his ministry. Working with the poor during those summers helped to pave the way for King’s later ministry.

It is important to observe that by the time King decided to go to Crozer his mission in life was clear. He was now poised to find both a more sophisticated theological rationale for his still-growing social conscience, as well as a method for the elimination of racism and economic exploitation. Having grown up in the black church, King knew instinctively that Christianity required that one exhibit strong social concern for working to eradicate injustice and other social ills. Indeed, King reflected that by the time he entered Morehouse College his concern for racial and economic justice and political matters was already substantial,¹⁶ and it had intensified by the time he enrolled at Crozer. King knew just as instinctively that as a Christian it was necessary to develop a sound theological rationale to support his social conscience. This, in part, was King’s reason for wanting to go to seminary. As an average, “not brilliant” student, King earned college grades that were sufficient to allow him a place in the entering class of 1948 at Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania. Since Professor Kelsey said that King learned late in his college days the importance of scholarship and academic achievement, one might expect a better performance in his work at the next academic level, despite the fact that he would have to leave his beloved South and a loving family, and for the first time would be in an academic setting where the majority of the students and professors were white. He was ordained on February 25, 1948, and was named assistant pastor under his father at Ebenezer Baptist Church.

CROZER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Looking back, King said that his experience at Morehouse College provided the key that unlocked the chain of fundamentalism that threatened to choke both reason and freedom.¹⁷ In the fall of 1948, he matriculated in the Bachelor of Divinity degree program at Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, not far from Philadelphia. Away from home for an extended period for the first time (and in the North!), King was happily surprised to find that in an entering class of thirty-two he was one of eleven black students (by the beginning of second semester).¹⁸ The total student body numbered nearly one hundred. Only half of the entering class, including six of the black students, would graduate three years later.

Crozer was a remarkably different experience for King, primarily because he was a black southerner in a predominantly white academic setting. King had grown up under fundamentalist teachings such as belief in the absolute infallibility of the Bible, although at the age of thirteen he began to question this as well as the bodily resurrection of Jesus.¹⁹ Because his conversion from black church fundamentalism had taken place under liberal black preacher intellectuals such as Mays and Kelsey at Morehouse, he did not, like many of his classmates from conservative southern Baptist churches, experience difficulty with Crozer’s liberalism in theology and biblical interpretation. King was more challenged by the cultural differences, and was especially sensitive to the fact that there were certain practices in black schools and the black community that simply embarrassed him. Consequently, when King went to the predominantly white Crozer Seminary, he was conscious of these tendencies, and of the tendency of many whites to stereotype all blacks as behaving in these ways. “I was well aware of the typical white stereotype of the Negro, that he is always late, that he’s loud and always laughing, that he’s dirty and messy, and for a while I was terribly conscious of trying to avoid identification with it. If I were a minute late to class, I was almost morbidly conscious of it and sure that everyone else noticed it. Rather than be thought of as always laughing, I’m afraid I was grimly serious for a time. I had a tendency to overdress, to keep my room spotless, my shoes perfectly shined, and my clothes immaculately pressed.”²⁰

King was no doubt also burdened by the idea, pressed upon him by whites, of having always to represent his entire race. This was a burden that individual whites seldom if ever experienced. King knew that his people did not expect individual whites to represent their entire race. He reasoned that because persons are autonomous beings the individual (generally) cannot act for the entire race. What the individual does is generally a reflection on that person alone.

It mattered to King—perhaps too much—what his white peers and professors thought of him and his people. It was indeed a tremendous burden, to feel the sense that he essentially had to represent his entire race in all that he did. It meant having to live constantly on a kind of moral tightrope on which he must always be steady. To show up late for an appointment, for example, did not mean, “Martin Luther King is always late,” but that “those people are always late.”

Although King refined his “political and social graces” while at Crozer, he also acquired some behaviors that caused his fundamentalist preacher father grave concern. Taylor Branch has written about this:

By the second year, King was so imbued with the Social Gospel that he dared to drink beer, smoke cigarettes, and play pool openly in the presence of his father, whenever Reverend King visited Crozer. He went so far as to usher his father into the poolroom beneath the chapel, inviting him to play, trying to act as though it were perfectly normal, taking pride in his hard-earned skill as a player. He knew Reverend King would object violently, which he did, but he trusted excessively in the persuasive powers of the liberal Christian teachings that defilement comes only from within (as in Matthew 15:11).²¹

It is not difficult to see that some of this was merely acting out, and thus was a case of strong parent-child rivalry. Whatever else may have been involved in those displays of rebelliousness, King was also trying to find his own self and voice amid the many new ideas and experiences he was encountering at Crozer. There would be more times during his days at Crozer that he and his father would have ideological and other clashes. One such time was when he decided to spend Christmas break of 1949 dividing his time between preaching at Ebenezer and reading the communist doctrines of Karl Marx. However, there was another incident that would surely have caused fireworks between Ki...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Chapter 1. King’s Intellectual Odyssey: From Morehouse to Crozer
• Chapter 2. Social Gospel and Walter Rauschenbusch
• Chapter 3. King and Personalism
• Chapter 4. King’s Conception of God
• Chapter 5. The Dignity of Being and Sexism
• Chapter 6. Personal Communitarianism and the Beloved Community
• Chapter 7. Objective Moral Order and Moral Laws
• Chapter 8. Use of Moral Laws and the Vietnam War
• Chapter 9. The Universe Is Friendly: Social-Ethical Implications
• Afterword: An Appreciation
• Notes
• Select Bibliography
• Index