Sunday Sermon with Dr. King #3 (Part 2 of 2)
On Being a Good Neighbor, Part 2 of 2
“And who is my neighbor?”
~Luke 10:29
In my previous blog, I provided the background by going into detail about the parable of the Good Samaritan. This week, I'll be discussing what Dr. King preaches regarding our everyday humanness in relation to this parable*. As the attacks in Ukraine continue this week, I've been reflecting on the big idea of a neighboring country, refugees, and the humanitarian responsibilities on a grand scale. I also continue to reflect on who I am as a human trying to be a better human everyday and what I am learning from writing this blog series.
So, today I pick up where I left off with three types of altruism and that Dr. King breaks down through theology and life situations. First, in universal altruism, Dr. King reflects that this means going beyond race, religion, and nationality. Specifically, he questioned: "Is this not why nations engage in the madness of war without the slightest sense of penitence? Is this not why the murder of a citizen of your own nation is a crime but the murder of the citizens of another nation in war is an act of heroic virtue?" (p. 23). The current situation the Ukraine in clear opposition of universal altruism. Dr. King continues to share a tragic story. Please read below (p.24)
I had many emotions when I read this in his sermon. The first reaction being: how much or how long would I have cried for the duration of this sermon if I had heard Dr. King tell this story to a live as a part of the congregation? Three young men, college-aged, allowed to die for no reason. These "barbaric consequences" are not too far-fetched from racial violence that continues today.
The second form of altruism is dangerous altruism where one risks danger to save a neighbor. In life situations, people ask about what could happen to their jobs, prestige, status, their homes (violence), their lives (threats), or their freedoms (i.e. imprisonment). Dr. King says that the good man would reverse the question and ask what would happen to the neighbor if he doesn't put himself in danger or take a risk? He uses this example:
The Negro professional does not ask, "What will happen to my secure position, my middle-class status, or my personal safety, if I participate in the movement to end the system of segregation?" but "What will happen to the cause of justice and the masses of Negro people who have never experienced the warmth of economic security, if I do not participate actively and courageously in the movement?" (p.26)
The reversal of the question, in any situation, can save many lives.
The final point is on excessive altruism, which is doing the good deed first hand or with your own hands. Dr. King magnifies what has always troubled me about the colonial model of missions. "Our missionary efforts fail when they are based on pity, rather than true compassion. Instead of seeking to do something with the African and Asian peoples, we have too often sought only to do something for them" (p27). This finally gave me the articulation I had been searching for, for years, to describe that nagging feeling I've always carried when I thought about how missions should be structured in a church setting. It is more than a donation or a visit. It should be hands on, getting to know the people you are serving, rather than donating or visiting without a relationship with the people. Dr. King continues on this point by saying, "Millions of missionary dollars have gone to Africa from the hands of church people who would die a million deaths before they would permit a single African privilege of worshipping in their congregation" (p.27). I'm not sure how much this has evolved since Dr. King preached this sermon, but I would like to think it has in different forms.
One last, and most poignant part of this sermon is how Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Emerson_Fosdick) made the distinction between enforceable and unenforceable obligations. Enforceable obligations are implemented by law enforcement agencies "but unenforceable obligations are beyond the reach of the laws of society. They concern inner attitudes, genuine person-to-person relations, and expressions of compassion that law books cannot regulate and jails cannot rectify" (p. 28). He goes on to provide examples of laws that enforce actions but there are no laws to enforce love. He also brings to light that "morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated" (p. 29). "The law cannot make an employer love an employee, but it can prevent him from refusing to hire me because of the color of my skin" (p. 29). This is true and continues to be true for so many areas of justice in the eyes of the law. This makes me think of my twin boys who are four. I am responsible for teaching them what is wrong through consequences (the law) because they don't yet know but they will only develop the innate motivation to continue that behavior with more time and understanding, making the same behavior unenforceable because it is part of their belief system. This is the ultimate goal -- that everyone in their hearts, organically possess the traits that are unenforceable -- that people will live together without racial bias, implicit or explicit, and that people will come together spiritually for common causes. "True integration will be achieved by true neighbors who are willingly obedient to unenforceable obligations" (p. 30). This is a goal that has not yet been met in totality but I pray it is one day accomplished.
*King, M. L. (1963). Strength to love. New York: Harper & Row.