America on the Brink

from The Black Pulpit and Public Square to open our eyes to this with hopes that we will find a different path in 2020 and beyond. We need a better way to take up political work that respects our common destiny while recognizing the many ways we differ on how to get there. While I applaud the passion and care of many fighting to make this country a better place and those who enter public service to make a difference, the retaliatory “eye for an eye” approach is politically impractical and religiously immoral. For one, it is a betrayal of both basic ideals this country was founded upon and a betrayal of the religion of Jesus who taught his followers to resist participating in the evils of retaliatory violence and hate. In fact, Jesus taught that we should not retaliate with violence and that we should we should not curse others, a clear reference to verbal dimensions of violence (Matthew 5:38-48). I am surprised by how many religious leaders participate in verbal violence themselves and encourage others to participate in it. As I conclude the first essay, I hope readers do not employ reductionist thinking such as “ here’s another minister telling us to play nice in a field that requires toughness. ” Such thinking reflects a misunderstanding of the depth of what Jesus is challenging us to do in Matthew 5 by refusing to allow violence to be our common response or to use a term from computer technology our “default” political setting. What Jesus is calling for – a commitment to love and good in the face of evil and violence - speaks to the character, internal strength, discipline required to be a nonviolent leader who can talk and disagree with someone without resorting to verbal violence. I refuse to believe these principles are not appropriate in politics, especially when so many profess to be Christians. The next section will explore the deeper problems with this form of political violence and provide constructive ways to practice “verbal” nonviolence in politics. King on Nonviolence: A Lesson for Political Discourse Today We need a different model of leadership today and an appropriate place to begin the work of developing such models is by revisiting one of America’s great theologians and prophets, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Though often quoted, most Americans do not understand the substance of his thought. One of the most misunderstood aspects of Dr. King’s philosophy of nonviolence was that he encouraged passivity. Nothing could be further from the truth. King believed in resisting oppression and challenging injustice. He stood up for righteousness, truth, and justice. King was not passive at all. He was principled in that he believed that you cannot challenge and dismantle unjust systems employing any form of violence. King modeled what it means to be centered in love and committed to not allowing hate and violence dictate how he chose to respond to injustice. This aspect of his legacy is sorely needed today because leaders today think that verbal and emotional violence should be tools of choice in politics. In the early years of the Civil Rights movement, King explained important aspects of his understanding of nonviolence and made three statements this country needs to hear.

| 9