After the jump is a lecture I gave a few weeks ago as part of our Adult Sunday School course on Martin Luther King's theology (even though I don't give a citation, to readers of this blog it might be pretty clear I was thinking about this post by Helen De Cruz at the time).
Presenting on King was a little bit humbling since one of the organizers of the Baton Rouge bus boycott is a member of Baton Rouge's University Presbyterian Church and was in the class audience.
King himself actually took a two semester course on Hegel taught by Edgar Brightman and Peter A. Bertocci. John Ansbro (author of Martin Luther King: The Making of a Mind) discusses King's debt to Hegel here.
U.P.C. ADULT CHRISTIAN EDUCATION - PARKS WILSON CLASS
MARTIN LUTHER KING’S THEOLOGY
NOTES ON “OUR GOD IS ABLE” AND “BUT IF NOT”
2/23/14
Jon Cogburn
I. Hegelian Background
I want to return to some discussion started by Patti a few weeks ago in reference to Hegelian elements in “A Tough Mind and a Tender Heart” and “Transformed Non-Conformist.” Our two selections for today again illustrate how profoundly Hegelian King is.
Patti’s discussion on January 26th was so interesting that it prompted me to do some more researching on Hegel in light of King’s theology this last month. One thing I have found was that there are two ways that Hegelian dialectic tends to get presented in the secondary literature. The traditional manner[1] presents dialectical logic as always involving a Thesis, which falls apart upon critical scrutiny, an Antithesis, which is simply the denial of the Thesis and which also falls apart under critical scrutiny, and Synthesis, which somehow gets what was right about the Thesis and Antithesis without falling apart (at least until the Synthesis serves as a Thesis for a further bit of Dialectic).
To see how this works, let our Thesis be scientific determinism, the idea that a completed science in some sense contains the resources to predict the future with 100% accuracy. The German philosopher Jacobi found this to fall apart because for people to discover and use such a science would require that they not just be robots determined to follow the laws of the completed science. But the mere rejection of determinism would yield, the view that some events occur for no reason whatsoever. But this completely fails to address what was problematic about scientific determinism, for it seems to entail that we do things for no reason whatsoever. A robot with a random number generator in its head dictating certain actions is still a robot!
The Synthesis would in some sense get what is right about determinism and indeterminism without falling apart (at least for the same reasons). With respect to human freedom, note that most worthwhile freedoms presuppose a radical narrowing of possibilities. For me to have the freedom decide whether learn a given song on the guitar, I have to have already have taken a lot of guitar lessons. If my parents had just let me do everything I’d wanted to, I’d be much less free today. Or consider libertarian approaches to health care. If most of us had to approach every aspect of our health care in the same manner that we approach purchasing automobiles, we’d have no time for anything else (not to mention the lack of freedom that untreated illness causes). The “freedom to choose” is often vastly less free in various ways, in part because the lack of certain freedoms is precisely what gives us the time and abilities to exercise a higher freedom of making rational choices about things that are important to us.
While many of Hegel’s arguments can easily be put in this structure, it actually describes the earlier German Idealist, Fichte, as well as some of Marx’s appropriations of Hegel. Recent English language scholarship[2] is slightly different. Here, the three phases are (1) Abstract (finite understanding), (2) Dialectical (negative reasoning), and (3) Speculative (positive reasoning).
For Hegel the mental facility of the understanding is the part of us that applies categories to the world. For a variety of reasons this faculty is forced to affirm the laws of excluded middle (P or it is not the case that P) and non-contradiction (it is not the case that (P and it is not the case that P)). This forces us into an either/or kind of thinking. For example, we characterize “freedom” in such a way and then any act must be “free” or “not-free” according to that characterization. Then the Dialectical phase is where we find the problems inherent in the either/or conceptualization itself. This leads to skepticism and despair. But, the Speculative phase of positive reason allows us to overcome our previous rigid dichotomies and see the world closer to the way an infinite intellect might.
For Hegel, Abstract thinking is both a feature and a bug. Since we are forced to understand the world and communicate this understanding with our finite intellects, we constantly have to oversimplify things. But this kind of either/or oversimplification gets us into trouble.
How might either/or thinking get us in trouble in a religious context? Examples of relevant dichotomies: faith versus reason, saved versus damned, literally true versus false, Christian versus heretic, secular humanist versus religious, unambiguously good versus bad, warfare versus surrender, etc. etc. etc.
Remember though that for Hegel, such thinking is also to some extent necessary. At the very minimum, it often has to be moved through in order to reach the truth. But such dichotomies lead to great error when they become windows through which we see everything.
II. Some Nick Cave Lyrics
When we are too proud about our finite understandings with respect to faith, monsters are born. The finite understanding says that you either have faith or you don’t, and never the two will meet. And moreover, the finite understanding will attempt to specify necessary and sufficient conditions for having faith. Thousands of years of philosophy of religion operate like this, and it’s a perennial temptation, just because we have to operate like this to tie our shoes in the morning.
But the finite understanding distorts essential facets of reality.
I often find that musicians, poets, and fiction writers are better attuned to wisdom than philosophers are. Let’s briefly consider two songs by Nick Cave, a musician known mostly for his sometimes terrifying updates on Appalachian murder ballads. In the first, Little Empty Boat, he describes himself as being a complete cad to a Christian woman that he meets at a party.
Little Empty Boat
You found me at some party
You thought I'd understand
You barreled over to me
With a drink in each hand
I respect your beliefs girl
And I consider you a friend
But I've already been born once
I don't wanna to be born again.
Your knowledge is impressive
And your argument is good
But I am the resurrection babe
And you're standing on my foot!
But my little boat is empty
It don't go
And my oar is broken
It don't row, row, row
But my little boat is empty
It don't go
And my oar is broken
It don't row, row, row
(Row!)
Your tiny little face
Keeps yapping in the gloom
Seven steps behind me
With your dustpan and broom.
I couldn't help but imagine you
All postured and prone
But there's a little guy on my shoulder
Says I should go home alone.
You keep leaning in on me
And you're looking pretty pissed
That grave you've dug between your legs
Is hard to resist.
But my little boat is empty
It don't go
And my oar is broken
It don't row, row, row
But my little boat is empty
It don't go
And my oar is broken
It don't row, row, row
Give to God what belongs to God
And give the rest to me
Tell our gracious host to **** himself
It's time for us to leave.
But my little boat is empty
It don't go
And my oar is broken
It don't row, row, row
But my little boat is empty
It don't go
And my oar is broken
It don't row, row, row
Row...row...row...row...
It’s a powerful song because it manifests such awareness that he’s being a cad. And the figure on his shoulder is completely indeterminate. Is it a devil telling him to ignore her because she might help him be a better person? Or is it an angel telling him to go home alone because he is not being respectful? It’s indeterminate.
The reference to the little boat is to John 21: 1-8.
After these things Jesus manifested Himself again to the disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and He manifested Himself in this way. Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two others of His disciples were together. Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat; and that night they caught nothing. But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus. So Jesus said to them, "Children, you do not have any fish, do you?" They answered Him, "No." And He said to them, "Cast the net on the right-hand side of the boat and you will find a catch." So they cast, and then they were not able to haul it in because of the great number of fish. Therefore that disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, "It is the Lord." So when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he put his outer garment on (for he was stripped for work), and threw himself into the sea. But the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not far from the land, but about one hundred yards away, dragging the net full of fish."
Is the narrator of this song being faithful? Well, yes and no. It’s complicated. He realizes his depravity and that part of his depravity is his inability to do anything about it. But he’s just paralyzed at the end.
Then Cave released a sparsely minimalist record called “The Boatsman’s Call” which begins with a song addressed to a Christian beloved, one thinks the same woman as “Little Empty Boat,” since the two songs were later released as B sides to one another.
"Into My Arms"
I don't believe in an interventionist God
But I know, darling, that you do
But if I did I would kneel down and ask Him
Not to intervene when it came to you
Not to touch a hair on your head
To leave you as you are
And if He felt He had to direct you
Then direct you into my arms
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms
And I don't believe in the existence of angels
But looking at you I wonder if that's true
But if I did I would summon them together
And ask them to watch over you
To each burn a candle for you
To make bright and clear your path
And to walk, like Christ, in grace and love
And guide you into my arms
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms
And I believe in Love
And I know that you do too
And I believe in some kind of path
That we can walk down, me and you
So keep your candles burning
And make her journey bright and pure
That she will keep returning
Always and evermore
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms, O Lord
Into my arms
The lyrics are pretty fascinating because he begins by announcing that unlike his beloved he doesn’t believe in an interventionist God. But in the middle final verse it becomes clear that he is not addressing his beloved any more, but is actually praying to God for intervention! He earlier said that he would ask the angels to burn candles, but now he says “keep your candles burning” and says “and make her journey bright and pure” so it is clear he is no longer singing to his beloved, but singing to God.
The effect of the song is to admit he doesn’t 100% believe this but he not only finds his beloved’s belief beautiful, but finds himself also praying.
Does this count as faith? It’s complicated, but Martin Luther King will argue that this kind of thing is paradigmatic of faithfulness.
Interestingly, a year after recording The Boatman, Cave wrote an introduction to the Gospel of Mark that worked its way into one of Patti’s sermons a few years ago.[3]
III. “But if Not” and “Our God is Able”
IIIA. Abstract
Consider the following dichotomies: Faithful/faithless, believing/non-believing, powerful/powerless, loving/non-loving. Now let us ask a question. Is God both all-powerful and loving?
The finite understanding leads us to answer these questions with simple yes or nos, as if the constituent concepts are themselves simple and clear-cut and we just need to philosophize a little bit to figure out where the chips will fall. Moreover, it treats the answer to such questions as if they are the most important thing about our relation to the world.
In a Christian context, this would mean that the most important thing about faith is lining your yeses and no’s up with whatever doctrine your church happens to teach. If you affirm that God is all-powerful and loving (among other things) you get to go to Heaven. And this also becomes a reason to so affirm these things.
IIIB. Dialectical
If we do not accept that God is all powerful and loving, we are faced with despair. Why try to do the right thing if it all comes to naught?
But, on the other hand, if we do accept that God is all powerful and loving, we seem to be minimizing the reality of evil.
The stark and colossal reality of evil in the world-what Keats calls “The giant agony of the world”- ruthless floods and tornadoes that wipe away people as though they were weeds in an open field; ills like insanity plaguing some individuals from birth and reducing their days to tragic cycles of meaninglessness; the madness of war and the barbarity of man’s inhumanity to man-why, we ask, do these things occur if God is able to prevent them (strength to love, 110)?
This can lead us to either atheism or blaming the suffering. Since God is all powerful and loving, they must have done something to deserve it. And it leads to bad faith with ourselves, having to pretend all of the time that everything is fine, because otherwise it might be evidence that God is punishing you.
IIIC. Speculative
King’s answer to this problem is interesting. On the one hand he celebrates and encourages belief in an able, loving God, but he notes that this is only possible if we realize that our finite understandings are not going to get the full picture:
. . .there is and always will be a penumbra of mystery surrounding God. What appears at the moment to be evil may have a purpose that our finite minds are incapable of comprehending. So in spite of the presence of evil and the doubts that lurk in our minds, we shall wish not to surrender the conviction that our God is able (strength to love, 110-1).
But this doesn’t prevent us from getting some of the picture. (1) God sustains “the vast scope of the physical universe” (111) which includes magnitudes of size and speed that vastly dwarf human abilities. (2) History shows that evil self-destructs. King gives the examples of dictatorial systems, colonialism, and segregation, all of which illustrate “the inevitable decay of any system based on principles that are not in harmony with the moral laws of the universe” (strength to love, 112-3) and how this leads to God’s working through history. (3) The failure of idols such as science, pleasure, and money to resolve the wrenching difficulties we all face. On the other hand, we often do experience grace, where
God is able to give us interior resources to confront the trials and difficulties of life. Each of us faces circumstances in life that compels us to carry heavy burdens of sorrow. Adversity assails us with hurricane force. Glowing sunrises are transformed into darkest nights. Our highest hopes are blasted and our noblest dreams are shattered (114).
Note that King does not say that these things don’t happen to people who God loves enough! They happen to all of us, and faith is a gift manifest when we confront suffering.
But isn’t this just to fall back into our finite understanding, with a little sop to God’s transcendence when these things don’t work well enough? Not at all, and “But if Not” makes this absolutely clear.
For King it is not simple enough to say that God is able. For King, faith is most strongly revealed when we are doubting that God is able. King takes as his key example from Chapter 3 of Daniel, what Shadrach, Meshach, and Abdnego say to King Nebuchadnezzar when commanded to bow before a golden image. Here’s the passage.
King Nebuchadnezzar made an image of gold, sixty cubits high and six cubits wide,[a] and set it up on the plain of Dura in the province of Babylon. 2 He then summoned the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials to come to the dedication of the image he had set up. 3 So the satraps, prefects, governors, advisers, treasurers, judges, magistrates and all the other provincial officials assembled for the dedication of the image that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up, and they stood before it.
4 Then the herald loudly proclaimed, “Nations and peoples of every language, this is what you are commanded to do: 5 As soon as you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music, you must fall down and worship the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar has set up. 6 Whoever does not fall down and worship will immediately be thrown into a blazing furnace.”
7 Therefore, as soon as they heard the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp and all kinds of music, all the nations and peoples of every language fell down and worshiped the image of gold that King Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
8 At this time some astrologers[b] came forward and denounced the Jews. 9 They said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “May the king live forever! 10 Your Majesty has issued a decree that everyone who hears the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music must fall down and worship the image of gold, 11 and that whoever does not fall down and worship will be thrown into a blazing furnace. 12 But there are some Jews whom you have set over the affairs of the province of Babylon—Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego—who pay no attention to you, Your Majesty. They neither serve your gods nor worship the image of gold you have set up.”
13 Furious with rage, Nebuchadnezzar summoned Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. So these men were brought before the king, 14 and Nebuchadnezzar said to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the image of gold I have set up? 15 Now when you hear the sound of the horn, flute, zither, lyre, harp, pipe and all kinds of music, if you are ready to fall down and worship the image I made, very good. But if you do not worship it, you will be thrown immediately into a blazing furnace. Then what god will be able to rescue you from my hand?”
16 Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to him, “King Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter. 17 If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to deliver us from it, and he will deliver us[c] from Your Majesty’s hand. 18 But even if he does not, we want you to know, Your Majesty, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up.”
King does something quite brilliant here. Instead of focusing on God’s saving Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, he focuses on the fact that they will still refuse to worship an idol even if their belief that God will save them from the furnace is mistaken.
King differentiates a “though” faith from an “if” faith. In an “if” faith you follow God’s commands if all goes well. With a “though” faith you keep doing it. King notes that friendship, love, and marriage are all like this. The relationship itself has to in some sense be prior to the relata.
King pushes this line of reasoning as far as it will go. One might have a though faith in this world because of the promise of heaven in the afterlife. But that would still be an if faith. The ending of the sermon (from around the 16 minute mark on) is remarkable:
And I'm coming to my conclusion now. And I want to say to you this morning, my friends, that somewhere along the way you should discover something that's so dear, so precious to you, that is so eternally worthful, that you will never give it up. You ought to discover some principle, you ought to have some great faith that grips you so much that you will never give it up. Somehow you go on and say "I know that the God that I worship is able to deliver me, but if not, I'm going on anyhow, I'm going to stand up for it anyway." What does this mean? It means, in the final analysis, you do right not to avoid hell. If you're doing right merely to keep from going to something that traditional theology has called hell then you aren't* doing right. If you do right merely to go to a condition that theologians have called heaven, you aren't doing right. If you are doing right to avoid pain and to achieve happiness and pleasure then you aren't doing right. Ultimately you must do right because it's right to do right. And you got to say "But if not." You must love ultimately because it's lovely to love. You must be just because it's right to be just. You must be honest because it's right to be honest. This is what this text is saying more than anything else. And finally, you must do it because it has gripped you so much that you are willing to die for it if necessary. And I say to you this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and so precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren't fit to live. You may be 38 years old as I happen to be, and one day some great opportunity stands before you and calls upon you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause--and you refuse to do it because you are afraid; you refuse to do it because you want to live longer; you're afraid that you will lose your job, or you're afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity or you're afraid that somebody will stab you or shoot at you or bomb your house, and so you refuse to take the stand. Well you may go on and live until you are 90, but you're just as dead at 38 as you would be at 90! And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit. You died when you refused to stand up for right, you died when you refused to stand up for truth, you died when you refused to stand up for justice. These boys stand before us today, and I thank God for them, for they had found something. The fiery furnace couldn't stop them from believing. They said "Throw us into the fiery furnace." But you know the interesting thing is, the Bible talks about a miracle. Because they had faith enough to say "But if not," God was with them as an eternal companion.
And this is what I want to say finally, that there is a reward if you do right for righteousness' sake. It says that somehow that burning fiery furnace was transformed into an air-conditioned living room. [light laughter] Somebody looked in there and said "We put three in here, but now we see four." Don't ever think you're by yourself. Go on to jail if necessary but you'll never go alone. Take a stand for that which is right, and the world may misunderstand you and criticize you, but you never go alone, for somewhere I read that "One with God is a majority," and God has a way of transforming a minority into a majority. Walk with him this morning and believe in him and do what is right and he'll be with you even until the consummation of the ages. Yes, I've seen the lightning flash, I've heard the thunder roll, I've felt sin's breakers dashing trying to conquer my soul but I heard the voice of Jesus saying still to fight on, he promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone; no, never alone, no, never alone. He promised never to leave me, never to leave me alone. Where you going this morning, my friends, tell the world that you're going with truth. You're going with justice, you're going with goodness, and you will have an eternal companionship. And the world will look at you and they won't understand you, for your fiery furnace will be around you, but you'll go on anyhow. But if not, I will not bow, and God grant that we will never bow before the gods of evil.
This is quite radical, and paradoxical too. There is a reward if you do right for righteousness sake. But there is no reward if you do right for reward’s sake.
For King the fact that God is love breaks through the prison of our finite understanding. We manifest faith by courageously loving in the face of evil. And to love for the sake of love is to love God. What else could it mean to say that God is love?
But now what has happened to our proposition (and its denial) that God is all powerful and loving? The big change is that faithfulness is now not simply seen as assenting or denying to such propositions. The reality that we can apprehend is how we confront evil and suffering with courage and love, and questions about God’s ability should be understood in terms of God’s relationship with us as we manifest our faith in this way. King thinks that if we see God as love, then we will see that love is its own reward, and not give into despair even if we do not understand the doctrinal question. When we act towards love, love will turn towards us, and we will not be alone.
If this works, the problems we faced at the beginning will be avoided. We will not give into the despair of those who deny that God is all powerful and good. We will not inhumanly deny the reality of evil as those who affirm that God is all powerful and good. What these philosophical problems show us is that faith does not consist in agreement with philosophical propositions, but rather in a more fundamental stance towards the God that transcends finite understanding. To honor God is to love because it is lovely to love.
[1] E.g. Llyod Spencer and Andrzej Krauze, Introducing Hegel (Icon Books, 2012), p. 14.
[2] For a brief account, see Robert Stern, Hegel and the Phenomenology of Spirit (Routledge, 2002), p. 15. For the cutting edge discussion of this question see Brady Bowman, Hegel and the Metaphysics of Absolute Negativity (Cambridge, 2013).
[3]It is well worth reading (http://www.nickcave.it/extra.php?IdExtra=78 )!
Recent Comments