The Michael Eric Dyson Reader
Page 82
33. Hauerwas and Baxter, “The Kingship of Christ,” p. 11.
34. Ibid., p. 14.
35. Stanley Fish, “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too,” in Debating P. C., ed. Paul Berman (New York: Dell, 1992), p. 241.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid., pp. 241–242.
38. Quoted in Thiemann, Constructing a Public Theology, p. 24.
39. Fish, “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too,” p. 242.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid., p. 243.
43. Ibid.
44. Hauerwas and Baxter, “The Kingship of Christ,” p. 10.
45. Ibid., p. 17.
46. Ibid., pp. 17–18.
47. This is not to deny universal dimensions of Christian faith. It is to challenge essentialist notions of Christian identity fostered by references to church without spelling out the church’s social location, who its members are, under what conditions they practice their belief, what historical factors have shaped their faith, and so on.
48. I understand “black church” as shorthand to symbolize the views of black Christianity. The black church is certainly not homogeneous, and I shall be focusing on the prophetic dimensions of black religious faith. Hauerwas and Baxter’s failure to take the black church seriously is part of a larger pattern that has rendered the black church invisible for most of its history. Even investigations of American religion have usually, until quite recently, excluded black religion as a central force in American life. As C. Eric Lincoln, in Race, Religion and the Continuing American Dilemma (New York: Hill & Wang, 1984), says, the “religious situation is structured in such a way that any investigation of religion in America has usually meant the religion of white Americans, unless ‘Negro,’ ‘folk,’ or ‘black’ religion was specifically mentioned” (p. 123). And as Charles Long says in Significations: Signs, Symbols, and Images in the Interpretation of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986): “In short, a great many of the writings and discussions on the topic of American religion have been consciously or unconsciously ideological, serving to enhance, justify, and render sacred the history of European immigrants in this land. Indeed this approach to American religion has rendered the religious reality of non-Europeans to a state of invisibility, and thus the invisibility of the non-European in America arises as a fundamental issue of American history at this juncture” (p. 149).
49. I have in mind here the large number of black ministers among current members of Congress, continuing a tradition in this century established by leaders such as Adam Clayton Powell; the activity of black church leaders in the civil rights movement and the political movements it gave rise to, especially the presidential campaigns of Jesse Jackson; and the large number of black churchpersons affiliated with historically black institutions of higher education. In each area, the black church has supplied many of these persons the principles they have appealed to in making the claims of black equality, justice, and freedom to the larger American public. For two examples, see Charles Hamilton’s biography of Adam Clayton Powell, Adam Clayton Powell Jr.: The Political Biography of an American Dilemma (New York: Atheneum, 1991), and Roger Hatch, Beyond Opportunity: Jesse Jackson ’s Vision for America (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).
50. Cornel West, Prophetic Fragments (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988), pp. 22–23.
51. See Mechal Sobel, Trabelin’ On: The Slave Journey to an Afro-Baptist Faith (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988; original ed., 1979), and James Washington, Frustrated Fellowship: The Black Baptist Quest for Social Power (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1986).
52. Sobel, Trabelin’ On, p. 85.
53. Ibid., p. 85; and Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, pp. 261–262.
54. I do not mean by any measure to romanticize the religious dissenters. Although they fought against slavery, they fought more effectively, desperately, and consistently for their own religious freedom, largely out of self-interest.
55. For instance, John Allen pointed out the hypocrisy of his fellow countrymen making claims to colonial freedom while simultaneously denying liberty to slaves, employing religious terms like “sacred,” “praying,” and “fasting” to drive home his point. He said: “Blush ye pretended votaries for freedom! ye trifling patriots! who are making a vain parade of being advocates for the liberties of mankind, who are thus making a mockery of your profession by trampling on the sacred natural rights and privilege of Africans; for while you are fasting, praying, nonimporting, nonexporting, remonstrating, resolving, and pleading for a restoration of your charter rights, you at the same time are continuing this lawless, cruel, inhuman, and abominable practice of enslaving your fellow creatures” (quoted in Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, p. 240). And Isaac Backus pressed arguments for the religious dissenters to be released from the bondage of the Church of England, asserting that civil and religious liberty were one. Backus tirelessly proclaimed that the church of Massachusetts “has declared the Baptists to be irregular, therefore the secular power still force them to support the worship which they conscientiously dissent from,” and that “many who are filling the nation with cry Of LIBERTY and against oppressors are at the same time themselves violating that dearest of all rights, LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE” (quoted in Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, p. 263).
56. Robert Wuthnow makes helpful distinctions between conservative and liberal versions of civil religion in The Restructuring of American Religion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988). About conservative civil religion, Wuthnow says: “On the conservative side, America’s legitimacy seems to depend heavily on a distinct ‘myth of origin’ that relates the nation’s founding to divine purposes. According to this interpretation of American history, the American form of government enjoys lasting legitimacy because it was created by Founding Fathers who were deeply influenced by Judeo-Christian values” (pp. 244–245). Wuthnow also states that conservative civil religion “generally grants America a special place in the divine order” and that the idea of “evangelizing the world is in fact a much-emphasized theme in conservative civil religion” (p. 247). He contends that despite “formal separation between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of man, the ‘two kingdoms’ doctrine in conservative civil religion also confers a strong degree of divine authority on the existing mode of government” (p. 248). Conservative civil religion also grants “capitalism a high degree of legitimacy by drawing certain parallels between capitalist economic principles and biblical teachings” (p. 248).
Liberal civil religion, however, makes little “reference to the religious views of the Founding Fathers” and doesn’t “suggest that America is God’s chosen nation” (p. 250). Liberal civil religion “focuses less on the nation as such, and more on humanity in general” (p. 250). Wuthnow says that rather than “drawing specific attention to the distinctiveness of the Judeo-Christian tradition, liberal civil religion is much more likely to include arguments about basic human rights and common human problems” (p. 250). Liberal civil religionists also “appeal to broader values that transcend American culture and, indeed, challenge some of the nationalistic assumptions it incorporates” (p. 253). The liberal “version of American civil religion taps into a relatively deep reservoir of sentiment in the popular culture about the desirability of peace and justice” (p. 253). As a result, Wuthnow mentions, “religious leaders who champion these causes may detract from the legitimacy of the current U.S. system rather than contribute to it” (p. 254).
It would be good for Hauerwas and Baxter to keep the distinctions between the two versions of civil religion in mind when making claims about its “counterfeit” religious status. Although it probably wouldn’t persuade them to change their views, it would nonetheless help them make crucial distinctions about the varying functions of civil religion as it is employed and exercised by different spheres of the cit
izenry, and even by different branches of Christianity.
57. Long, Significations, p. 152.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid., pp. 152–153.
61. Of course, King’s later beliefs about the necessity for radical social, economic, and moral transformation of American democracy presented a serious challenge to extant political arrangements. See James Cone, Martin and Malcolm and America: A Dream or a Nightmare (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1991), especially pp. 213–243.
62. Michael Eric Dyson, “Martin Luther King Jr., The Evil of Racism, and the Recovery of Moral Vision,” in Union Seminary Quarterly Review 44 (1990): 88–91.
63. Gen. 50:20 (Revised Standard Version).
64. Quoted in Martin Luther King Jr., Stride toward Freedom (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 160.
65. See William Safire’s comments on the attempts by both Democrats and Republicans to use God’s name “as a symbol for the other side’s immorality, much as the American flag was used in previous campaigns as a symbol for the other side’s lack of patriotism,” in “God Bless Us,” New York Times, Aug. 27, 1992, p. A23.
66. Fish, “There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too,” p. 243.
67. See, for instance, Martin Luther King’s discussion of his disappointment with the white church in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King Jr., ed. James M. Washington (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), pp. 345–346.
68. See King’s response to white clergymen who deemed his actions in Birmingham, Alabama, as “unwise and untimely,” in his famous “Letter from Birmingham City Jail,” in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), pp. 289–302.
69. Ernest T. Campbell, Locked in a Room with Open Doors.
70. Hauerwas and Baxter, “The Kingship of Christ,” p. 18.
71. Ibid., p. 19.
72. Ibid., p. 21.
73. Ibid., p. 22.
74. Denis Mack Smith, Mussolini: A Biography (New York: Vintage Books, 1982), p. 161.
75. James Hastings Nichols, Democracy and the Churches (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1951), p. 186.
76. Nichols, Democracy and the Churches, p. 182; and Smith, Mussolini, p. 65.
77. Nichols, Democracy and the Churches, p. 183.
78. Smith, Mussolini, pp. 159, 163.
79. Ibid., pp. 159–161.
80. Smith, Mussolini, p. 163; and Nichols, Democracy and the Churches, p. 189.
81. Smith, Democracy and the Churches, p. 162.
82. I have in mind here liberation theologians who link notions of Christian salvation with sharp forms of social analysis that get at the economic, political, and social forces that mask liberation in concrete form. For just one recent example, see the important work by Franz J. Hinkelammert, The Ideological Weapons of Death: A Theological Critique of Capitalism, trans. Phillip Berryman (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986).
Also, it seems that Hauerwas’s desire to make the church more socially relevant is better served by citing the work of black, feminist, and liberation theologians. Especially in regard to liberation theology, Paul Lauritzen argues that Hauerwas has a great deal in common with Latin American theologian Johannes Metz, particularly regarding each author’s use of narrative in their work. In “Is ‘Narrative’ Really a Panacea? The Use of ‘Narrative’ in the Work of Metz and Hauerwas,” in Journal of Religion (1987): 322–339, Lauritzen writes: “Although these writers represent different religious traditions, both rely in significant ways on the category of narrative in their work. . . . Both Metz and Hauerwas are concerned to revitalize Christian faith, both want to make it once again socially relevant, and both are adamant that it retain its distinctiveness. That both should also place such a heavy emphasis on the concept of narrative . . . is not coincidental” (p. 323).
83. I am not suggesting that all of Pius XI’s views about the social order are captured in the “Kingship of Christ.” His encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, issued in 1931, remains one of Catholicism’s most impressive statements containing the social teachings of the church, including government’s role in society and in the economy, the belief in a just wage, laborers’ right to organize, and strong Christian criticism of both capitalism and socialism. But this document must be juxtaposed to Pius XI’s antidemocratic actions and statements during the reign of Mussolini. Neither am I suggesting personal perfection as a criterion to determine the acceptability of an intellectual position; in that case, my example of King would be immediately nullified. I am suggesting, however, that these characteristics of Pope Pius XI that I have sketched have direct bearing on the principles and proposals under discussion; there is an organic link, I would argue, between Pope Pius XI’s views and practices regarding democracy, Fascism, and the morally subordinate status of the Catholic Church and his recommendations about the Kingship of Christ. His views are suspect precisely because they have to do with his moral and theological failures in his office as pope, the official head of the Catholic Church.
CHAPTER 17. “SOMEWHERE I READ OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH”: CONSTRUCTING A UNIQUE VOICE
The words “somewhere I read of the freedom of speech ” are from King, “ I See the Promised Land, ” in King, A Testament, p. 282.
1. Dyson, “The Cruellest,” p. 33.
2. Dyson, Race Rules, p. 81.
3. Barth, Christ and Adam and The Word of God and the Word of Man.
4. Pipes, Say Amen Brother! Mitchell, Black Preaching; Davis, I Got the Word in Me; Pitts, The Old Ship of Zion; Boulware, The Oratory of Negro Leaders; Thomas, They Always; Rosenberg, Can These Bones Live? Raboteau, Fire in the Bones, pp. 141–151; Hamilton, The Black Preacher, Spencer, Sacred Symphony.
5. Wall Street Journal, Nov. 9, 1990, pp. A1, 6; New York Times, Nov. 10, 1990, p. A10; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Nov. 11, 1990, p. A8; USA Today, Nov. 13, 1990, p. A11; Bloomington [Indiana] Herald-Times, Nov. 16, 1990, p. A6; Chicago Tribune, Nov. 18, 1990, p. V2; Washington Post, Nov. 18, 1990, p. C5; San Jose Mercury-News, Nov. 19, 1990, p. A1; Newsweek, Nov. 19, 1990, p. 61; Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 21, 1990, p. A8; New York Amsterdam News, Dec. 1, 1990, p. 24; Time, Dec. 3, 1990, p. 126; Los Angeles Times, Dec. 11, 1990, p. E1; New Republic, Jan. 28, 1991, pp. 9–11; Journal of American History, June 1991, pp. 11–123.
6. Higham, “Habits of the Cloth,” p. 109.
7. Miller, Voice of Deliverance.
8. Ibid., esp. pp. 1–28, 41–141.
9. Ibid., esp. pp. 142–158.
10. Lischer, The Preacher King.
11. Ibid., esp. pp. 8, 93–118.
12. Ibid., p. 63.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., pp. 106–111.
15. Miller, Voice of Deliverance, pp. 67–85, 186–197.
16. Lischer, The Preacher King, esp. p. 14.
17. Miller, Voice of Deliverance, pp. 169–197. Also see Miller, “Composing Martin Luther King Jr.,” pp. 70–82.
18. Lischer, The Preacher King, pp. 112–113.
19. The phrase is in Du Bois, The Souls of Black Folk, p. 45.
20. Lewis, “Failing to Know Martin Luther King Jr.,” p. 82; Genovese, The Southern Front, p. 174.
21. Coretta King claims that her husband, in his “I Have a Dream” speech, “intended to echo some of the Lincolnian language,” speaking of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, to which King made early reference in his oration (C. King, My Life, p. 236). The same speech famously extends Jefferson’s majestic words by giving them moral immediacy in the nation’s racial drama. King implored America to “live out the true meaning of its creed, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” (King, “I Have a Dream,” in King, A Testament, p. 219). King claims to have been profoundly influenced by Gandhi in his beliefs about nonviolence (“Pilgrimage to Nonviolence,” in Washington, ed., A Testament, pp. 38–39). Keith Miller, however, argues that “Gandhi exerted very little direct i
nfluence on King,” since King had “learned nonviolence almost entirely from American sources” (Miller, Voice of Deliverance, p. 88). But however he got hold of Gandhi’s ideas, there is little doubt that they profoundly influenced King’s beliefs and behavior. Finally, King paid homage to Du Bois’s greatness, and the influence on him of some of Du Bois’s ideas, in King, “Honoring Dr. Du Bois,” Freedom Ways 8, Spring 1968, reprinted in WE.B. Du Bois Speaks, Vol. 1, Speeches and Addresses, 1890–1919 (Foner, ed.).