Martin Luther King Jr. – Dan Harper

Martin Luther King, Jr., for Times Like These

Sermon copyright (c) 2025 Dan Harper. As delivered to First Parish in Cohasset. The sermon as delivered contained substantial improvisation. The text below may have typographical errors, missing words, etc., because I didn’t have time to make any corrections.

Readings

The first reading is from the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ‘I it’ relationship for an ‘I thou’ relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man’s tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong….”

The second reading is another excerpt from the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Perhaps I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual church, the church within the church, as the true ekklesia and the hope of the world. But again I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity and joined us as active partners in the struggle for freedom. They have left their secure congregations and walked the streets of Albany, Georgia, with us. They have gone down the highways of the South on tortuous rides for freedom. Yes, they have gone to jail with us. Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment.”

Sermon: MLK for Times Like These

The readings this morning were excerpts from Martin Luther King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.” King wrote that letter in response to a public letter from eight White clergy — seven Christians and one Jew — who together wrote what they titled “A Call for Unity,” which they published in the main Birmingham, Alabama, newspaper. In their letter, these eight White clergy said: “We are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens directed and led in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.” And their letter concluded by saying, “We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense.”

King wrote his reply to these well-meaning but narrow-minded clergy while he was in the Birmingham jail, having been arrested for taking part in the demonstrations which so bothered those White clergy. In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” he showed these eight clergy how they were wrong: that the principles of law and order should guarantee all American citizens equal rights; that American citizens should not have to wait for human rights; that he himself was not an “outsider” but rather someone caught up in the same fight for human rights as the Black people of Birmingham. And then King asked: “Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world?”

This question has bothered Unitarian Universalists, and the rest of American organized religion, ever since. We know those eight White clergy were misguided in their critique of King; we know they were misguided in their critique of the whole non-violent Civil Rights movement. At the same time, we secretly worry that King’s critique of organized religion might be correct: that organized religion would prefer to maintain the status quo, rather than to make the world a better place.

Conservative Christians respond to this secret worry by insisting that the primary purpose of organized religion is saving individual souls, preparing persons to get into heaven after they die. Go ahead and worry about making the world a better place if you want to, they say, but your top priority should always be saving saving souls for heaven. We actually see a similar response in other religious traditions; as one example, some Buddhists will tell you that your top priority should be spending time on your personal practice in order to achieve Enlightenment. These conservative religious groups answer Dr. King’s question by saying that they are not especially interested in saving the nation or the world.

We see a different response from those of us on the progressive wing of religion — Unitarian Universalists, progressive Christians and Jews, engaged Buddhists, and so on. Religious progressives really do believe that the primary purpose of organized religion is to try and make the world a better place. This is certainly true for Unitarian Universalists. Our old “seven principles” talked about the inherent worthiness of every human personality; the important of the democratic process; caring for the interdependent web of existence; and so on. The new Unitarian Universalist principles, adopted last June, talk about justice, equity, pluralism, generosity, and so on. We do our best to stay focused on saving the world.

The interesting thing about Dr. King was that his approach included both the impulse to save your own soul, as well as the impulse to save the world. The sociologist Jonathan Rieder put it this way: “King’s message was that God wanted you to deliver yourself. His gospel of freedom mixed responsibility [and] spiritual recovery…. This emphasis on the need for a change in Black consciousness aligned him with the most diverse cultural streams: the traditional American idea of being born again; its secular incarnation in … identity as a project of self-fashioning…. [and] It also jibed with the Exodus story: The Israelites needed forty years in the wilderness to get their minds right, so they would cease their whining….” So writes sociologist Jonathan Rieder.

Dr. King taught that it’s not enough to just go out and solve the world’s problems. We also have to solve our own personal problems. Maybe even we even have to figure out whether we’re a part of the problem. Dr. King tells us that personal and global problems may be linked. You can’t take on responsibility for solving the world’s problems unless you deal with your own internal personal problems. And you can’t solve your own internal personal problems until you also take on responsibility for helping to solve the world’s problems.

But how, you may wonder, does this pertain to the Exodus story? We usually read the Exodus story as a quaint fable, a primitive attempt at history. We chuckle a little at the naïveté of the story. We know that it’s only about 350 miles from Egypt to the Promised Land. If you take forty years to walk 350 miles, that works out to about 125 feet per day. How naive to think that Moses would take forty years to lead his people that short a distance.

But instead of reading Exodus story as a primitive attempt at history, we can read it as a sophisticated metaphorical account of internal psychological growth and change. You begin in a mental state that you want to escape from. What do you have to do to free yourself from that mental state? With that in mind let’s consider one episode from Exodus, the story of the golden calf. It goes something like this:

During their psychological journey from the fleshpots of Egypt to the freedom of the Promised Land, Moses has his people camp out at the base of Mount Sinai. While the people are making camp and taking care of the day-to-day necessities of survival in the desert, Moses climbs up Mount Sinai to talk with God. God tells Moses that he and his people are now under God’s special care. All they have to do is promise not to worship other gods. Then God provides insightful rules for living, given to Moses in the form of laws inscribed on stone tablets.

There comes a time when Moses stays on top of the mountain for a really long time. The people camped out at the bottom of the mountain begin to grow uneasy. They worry that Moses isn’t going to come back. Is he lost in meditation and contemplation? Has their new God has abandoned them? So they decide to make a different god. Aaron, the brother of Moses, gets the people to make a calf out of gold. Aaron and the people invent new ways to worship this god of their own invention. They worship this god, share a big meal, then begin to celebrate together.

At that moment, Moses comes back down the mountain. “What’s going on here?” he said. “Don’t you remember your commitment to stay focused on one spiritual task? Yet here you all are, distracted from your goal by some deity that you invented. And seriously people, a baby cow covered in gold? — this is not something that is worth worshipping.”

Moses takes the golden calf, burns it, grinds it up into a powder, dissolves it in water, and makes the people drink it. The people look a little shamefaced at first, but then some of them point out that Moses had been gone for a long time. For all they knew, Moses and his god had given up on them and gone somewhere else. Next Aaron tries to calm Moses down, telling him, “You know the people, they are bent on evil.” But Moses perceives these are merely attempts to placate him. He sees that the people are still running wild, and that they have no intention of actually improving their behavior.

“Who’s on my side?” said Moses angrily. “If you’re still committed to your original promises, if you can see that the golden calf is merely a distraction from your serious purpose, come with me!” Some of the people joined him. Moses made sure they all had swords, and then told them to go and kill anyone who still worshipped that golden calf.

So they did.

Now, if you read Exodus as if it’s naive history, this story of the golden calf sounds brutal, and it seems difficult to understand. But if we read Exodus as a psychological journey, the story of the golden calf makes more sense.

Think of it this way: Here we all are, on our journey to the Promised Land, the land where we will live in peace and plenty. But the journey to the Promised Land takes longer and proves more difficult than we had expected. The length and the difficulty of the journey causes us to get distracted by meaningless and trivial things. The only way to get ourselves back on track is by completely cutting out the trivial distractions. Yet those trivial distractions are pleasant, and cutting them out proves painful. If this is the general outline of the psychological journey described in the story of the golden calf, it doesn’t take much to imagine specific applications of this story to real life.

To take one example, the story of the golden calf might serve as a metaphor for how my friends in recovery programs describe their psychological journey out of addiction. The road to recovery takes longer than expected, and it’s more difficult than is expected. You may know the principles needed to recover from addiction, whether you’re following a twelve-step program or some other program. But it’s easy to abandon those abstract principles for the empty pleasure of trivial distractions. Sometimes successful recovery requires the harsh act of cutting ties with old friends, people who might drag one back into addiction.

To take another example, the story of the golden calf can resemble the journey of taking up a serious spiritual practice. Your spiritual practice, whether it’s meditation or some other practice, seems like such a good idea when you start out. But there often comes a time when your progress slows and stops. You grow weary of the effort required. You think to yourself: Maybe things weren’t so bad in the old days when you weren’t committed to this spiritual practice. Wouldn’t it be so easy to give it up? And so maybe you drop your spiritual practice for a time, and revert to your old way of being. When you realize that your spiritual practice really was doing you good, you find it can be wrenching to return to that spiritual practice, it can require the harsh acting of cutting out whatever trivial pursuits took the place of your spiritual practice.

To take one more example, the story of the golden calf can also resemble the journey towards some social justice goal. When you first start working for racial justice, for example, you’re invigorated and enthusiastic. Then there are the inevitable setbacks; the political climate becomes hostile; the party in power uses barely concealed racist vocabulary; the people who resist racial justice are spreading disinformation. You grow weary of the work. You begin to feel that you only have enough energy for your ordinary day-to-day tasks, and you pull back from racial justice. Yet something happens — another racially motivated killing, another law supporting racial inequality, whatever — and you find that you cannot simply ignore the problem. You find yourself forced to return to the hard work of establishing racial justice here in the United States.

If we read the story of Exodus as a psychological metaphor, it can apply to all these situations: to personal recovery; to personal spiritual growth; to making the world a better place. If we understand the story of Exodus as a psychological journey, it also helps us perceive the interrelations between all these things — between our personal recovery, and our personal spiritual, and our communal quest for making the world a better place. All these thing are interrelated.

Martin Luther King understood the psychological truth that all these things are interrelated. Our own personal spiritual growth cannot be separated from our communal quest to make this a better world. Our own personal recovery from pain and trauma cannot be separated from the communal attempt to recover from the wrongs arising out of our shared history. This psychological truth runs through all of King’s speeches and sermons and writings: correcting injustice in the world cannot be separated from caring for our own individual spiritual health.

I would suggest to you that this part of Dr. King’s message may be especially relevant to us in these times. Our country is faced with major problems that we must solve — racial injustice, economic injustice, ecological problems, the list goes on. Yet the psychological truth is that taking care of the world requires us to take care of our individual selves. If we neglect our own spiritual and emotional and physical health, we won’t be able to work on the world’s problems. If we ignore the world’s problems, our own personal health will suffer.

Thus you see: we cannot achieve our goal of the earth made fair and all her people free, unless we simultaneously cultivate our own spiritual health. That is one reason why we gather here each week: to take care of ourselves, while also considering how to care for the world. And so it is we continue to live out Dr. King’s teachings.

Who Deserves Our Love?

Sermon copyright (c) 2024 Dan Harper. As delivered to First Parish in Cohasset. As usual, the sermon as delivered contained substantial improvisation. Once again this week, more than the usual number of typos and errors, but I didn’t have time to correct them — sorry!

Readings

The first reading was June Jordan’s poem “Alla Tha’s All Right, but”

The second reading was June Jordan’s poem “A Short Note to My Very Critical and Well-Beloved Friends and Comrades”

The final reading was from Jordan’s introduction to her book of poems titled “Passion.”

In the poetry of the New World, you meet with a reverence for the material world that begins with a reverence for human life, an intellectual trust in sensuality as a means of knowledge and unity… and a deliberate balancing … of sensory report with moral exhortation.

Sermon: “Who Deserves Our Love?”

The English language has some distinct limitations. For example, we only have one word for “love.” Contrast this with ancient Greek, which has half a dozen words that can be translated by the one English word “love.” This creates some problems for us English speakers, because we’re the inheritors of the Western intellectual tradition which extends back to ancient Greece. When you’re speaking English and you hear the word “love,” you have to automatically do some internal translation.

When this person says “love,” do they mean erotic or romantic love? Do they mean the love that can exist between good friends? What about the love that exists between parents and children, which is different than the love that exists between good friends, because where friends are more or less equal, there’s an imbalance of power between parent and child — at least there is when the child is young. Then there’s love of oneself, which is a virtue when it’s tied to ordinary self respect, but is a vice when it becomes self-obsession.

Finally, there’s a kind of selfless love, the kind of love where you continue to love even when you get nothing out of it. The early Christians picked up on this last kind of love — the ancient Greek name for it is “agape” — and integrated it into their conception of God, and their formulation of the Golden Rule. The story of the Good Samaritan is a story of agape-type love.

As English speakers, we have all these different kinds of love sort of mushed together into the one word. This can cause a certain amount of confusion. But I think it’s also useful for people like Unitarian Universalists, who spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out how we can be the best people possible. We also spend a fair amount of time trying to figure out how to get through the day to day challenges that life throws at us, things like the death of people we love, or betrayals by people we thought we loved, and so on. Life rarely breaks down into neat, tidy categories. So I find it helpful to know that love doesn’t necessarily break down into neat tidy categories either.

And this brings me to the book of poetry that June Jordan published way back in 1980. The title of the book is “Passion.” The poems in the book cover a wide range. There are poems about passionate erotic and romantic love, as we heard in the first reading — and here I should point out that June Jordan was part of the LGBTQ+ community, so when she’s talking about passionate erotic and romantic love, she’s not restricting that love to opposite sex attraction. June Jordan also has a couple of poems in that book that are about rape. These particular poems are pretty graphic, and I find them very difficult to read — I’m giving you fair warning, in case you decide to pick up this book and read through it. But these poems are included for a reason. Jordan wants us to understand how for her as a woman, passionate erotic love can also become something twisted.

There are also poems about relationships between equals, the love of friendship between equals. That’s what we heard in the second reading, the poem titled “A Short Note to My Very Critical and Well-Beloved Friends and Comrades.” I’ll read you the last few lines of the poem again:

Make up your mind! They said. Are you militant
or sweet? Are you vegetarian or meat? Are you straight
or are you gay?
And I said, Hey! It’s not about my mind

I love this poem because I’ve had this sort of thing happen to me in my own friendships. And I’ve done this to others. We humans tend to put each other into boxes. We put people into boxes based on skin color, age, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, immigration status, political party…. Let me pause here and focus on political party, because that’s where people are putting other people into boxes a lot right now. And it’s pretty ugly. I hear Republicans talking about “Sleepy Joe” Biden, and I hear Democrats talking about “Dementia Donald” Trump. There’s no love lost here — there’s no love present here, none at all, just rank stereotyping and sometimes naked hatred.

This is what we humans do. We strive for love. We want to create a world where all people are loved equally. But when reality confronts us with other people who are doing things which we find distasteful or reprehensible or misguided, we can switch from universal love to individual hatred pretty quickly.

I feel like this has become a spiritual crisis in our country. There is a lot of demonization going on all around us. Going back to June Jordan’s poem, we all find ourselves saying unpleasant things about other people — that other people are too racist or too anti-racist, that other people are too much of a nationalist, that other people are too stupid, or too angry, or too idealistic. This kind of thing tips over into demonization very quickly. We demonize people, imagining them as demons rather than humans, when we feel those other people are too angry, or too old, or too different. To which June Jordan replies — “Hey! it’s not about my mind.” She’s right. Demonization is always about the mind of the person who does the demonizing. I’ve done my share of demonizing recently, mostly aimed at politicians and public figures with whom I don’t agree, and that demonizing that I do is more about me than about the person at whom I direct it. When I demonize someone, it damages me, and it damages our public discourse.

We need to find a way out of this — a way out of these demonizing behaviors that dominate our public discourse right now. To do so, I’m going to go back to one of our great spiritual resources, our Universalist tradition.

The early Universalists were Christians, of course, and not all of us now are Christians. But those early Universalists got at some universal truths through their liberal Christian tradition. One of those truths is encapsulated in the phrase, “God is love.” If you’re a Christian, this phrase might focus you on the Christian God. From that perspective, this phrase defines God as being all about love. If you’re not a Christian, though, this phrase can still make sense. Here in the West, the term “God” serves as a philosophical placeholder for the object of our ultimate concern. So this phrase need not be taken literally. It can be understood quite simply as saying that love is our ultimate concern.

The old Universalists wanted everyone to see the truth of that phrase, “God is love.” They understood that if God is love, there can be no such thing as eternal damnation, because love must eventually overpower hatred and evil. Instead, hell is something that happens here on earth, during our lifetimes, when we forget that love is supposed to be our ultimate concern. In particular, hell can arise here on earth when one group of people demonizes another group of people. Of course it feels hellish to be on the receiving end of the hatred that comes with racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ageism, and so on. But hell also arises in the hearts of those who demonize others. When we demonize others we throw ourselves into hell, into a place where hatred is more important than human connection.

So the old Universalists wanted us to get ourselves out of any hell that is here and now. They wanted everyone to truly feel in their bones that love is the most powerful force in the universe. They wanted to build their religious communities centered on love. The early Universalist Hosea Ballou put it like this: “If we agree in love, there is no disagreement that can do us any injury, and if we do not, no other agreement can do us any good.”

Over the next century or so, the Universalists pulled back from that early trust in the power of love. The power of evil seemed so strong that they returned to the old idea that there must be some kind of punishment after death. They decided that God would in fact condemn some people to hell, it just wouldn’t be forever. In other words, they decided that God might be love, but that God’s love had limits to it.

But in my view, they weren’t really thinking about God, they were thinking about themselves. They weren’t asking: Who deserves God’s love? Or to put it in non-theistic terms: Who deserves to be included in our ultimate concern? Instead, they were asking: Who deserves my love? IThey were saying: ’m not so concerned with ultimate concerns, I’m narrowly concerned with whom do I love? And whom do I not love? Even: whom do I hate?

Now remember the different meanings that the word “love” has in the English language. Of course we limit our romantic love to our romantic partners. Of course we limit parent-child love to our own families. Of course we limit the kind of love that exists in friendships to our friends. But there is also that larger love, that unconditional love, which extends to all of humanity.

It takes a truly great person to be able to extend universal unconditional love to all persons. Martin Luther King, Jr., was able to extend a universal unconditional love even to the White racists who beat him and jailed him and reviled him, the people who hated him and did everything they could to keep him in the little box they constructed for him. When I say he extended a universal love to the White racists, I don’t mean that he wanted to become best friends with them. I don’t mean that he liked them. I don’t even mean that he loved them personally. What he did was to see that even those White racists had an inherent worthiness, they had an inherent human dignity. From within his progressive Christian world view, he saw that God loved those White racists, and he respected that universal love.

By doing this, Martin Luther King, Jr., set an example for the rest of the world. In fact, he changed the world. His understanding of universal love changed the world. It might not have seemed like it at the time, but his unconditional love for all humanity, expressed through nonviolent action, changed even those White racists permanently.

Universal love is a real spiritual challenges right now. I don’t know about you, but I’m not as good a person as Martin Luther King, Jr. I find it quite difficult to turn the other cheek. Yet when I think about it, it’s pretty clear that responding to hatred and demonization with more hatred and demonization is probably just going to make things worse. I’m not as good as Martin Luther King, Jr., so I’m not sure that I can rise to the level of feeling that universal love.

What I can do — what all of us can do — is to do a little less demonizing. Asking ourselves to stop demonizing certain very public figures, such as the leading politicians of the other political party, is probably too much to ask. If you’re a member of one political party, you don’t have to love politicians in the other political party. Start small. Start with people you know here on the South Shore who are of a different political persuasion than you. When we see people who are different from us face to face, we can disagree with them, but we can also try to remember that they, too, are deserving of universal love.

This is going to be difficult in this election year — and this is an election cycle that promises to be especially rancorous. But here’s what I’ve found. Every time I manage to stop myself from demonizing some political figure, I feel a tiny sense of relief. I feel better about myself, too; I like myself better. I find that I’m also just a little bit nicer to my spouse. It’s not a huge effect, but I can notice the difference. I’m a little bit happier, I’m a little more at peace with myself and with the world.

Perhaps this is part of what Martin Luther King, Jr., was trying to tell us with his theory of nonviolent action. Real change begins within our hearts and minds, and then spreads outwards to affect others.

Roll Down like Waters

Readings

The first reading was a poem by Clint Smith, “For Your First Birthday.”

The second reading was from the Hebrew Bible, the book of Amos, chapter 5, verses 21 through 24.

I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them; and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; I will not listen to the melody of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream.

Sermon: “Roll Down Like Waters”

The birthday of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is a time for everyone in the United States to refer back to his writings and speeches and reinterpret them once again. We do this every year, and by this point in the history of the United States, it can seem like there’s nothing left to say. Maybe we should just skip it this year. The thing is, preachers love to quote Dr. King, because he was such a good writer — such a good stylist — and there’s something incredibly satisfying about saying aloud his words. Being a preacher myself, there’s no way I’m going to pass up this opportunity to read aloud something written by Dr. King. So, like it or not, you’re going to get yet another sermon about Dr. King and his legacy — even if I have nothing original to say.

Yet people continue to find novel and interesting ways to interpret King’s thinking. For example, King famously said that he wanted his children to live in a land where “they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Recently, this quote has been used by some conservative politicians and pundits to help bolster the claim that we should not teach critical race theory or the history of racism in our schools. This is certainly a creative use of King’s words, but it’s probably not what he intended.

On the other side of the political spectrum, liberal politicians take pleasure in invoking King’s words, but they tend to do so selectively. For example, they pass lightly over King’s pointed critique of capitalism, as when he said: “We have deluded ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the Protestant ethic of hard work and sacrifice. The fact is that capitalism was built on the exploitation and suffering of black slaves and continues to thrive on the exploitation of the poor — both black and white, both here and abroad.” [The Three Evils of Society, 1967] In today’s society, it would be political suicide to criticize capitalism quite so openly. And so political liberals creatively interpret King by leaving out some important parts of his message.

And I think something we all tend to forget these days is that King was a progressive Christian minister. Today, Christianity’s reputation has suffered as a result of the clergy abuse scandal, the hypocrisy of Christians who demonize LGBTQ people, the refusal of the largest Christian denominations to allow women clergy, and for many other reasons. We live in a time when progressive Christians feel the need to apologize for being Christian. As a result, I think many of us, including Unitarian Universalists, either try to apologize for King’s progressive Christianity, or try to ignore King’s supposedly outdated religious convictions.

It’s a mistake to dismiss his religious convictions so readily. King was a serious intellectual, earning his doctorate degree from Boston University in systematic theology with a dissertation titled “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman.” (Weiman, by the way, was a very progressive Christian theologian who late in life joined a Unitarian church.) With his progressive Christianity in mind, let’s look at one Bible passage that King repeatedly invoked. This was the passage we heard in the second reading today, from the Hebrew Bible, the book of Amos, chapter 5, verses 21 through 24.

The words we ehard are not the words of the human prophet. Amos was giving the actual words of his god, whom Amos knew as Yahweh. And Yahweh is not happy with humankind. God tells humankind that they have strayed from God’s core ethical and moral teachings. In particular, God calls out the privileged people who rule over the country where Amos lived. God tells the privileged people that they “trample on the poor” and “afflict the righteous,” that they take bribes and “push aside the needy.”

Amos was probably a real person. At the time he lived, the historic land of Israel was split into two countries, the northern kingdom and the southern kingdom. In those days, there was no distinction between politics and religion, for that distinction only dates back to the European Enlightenment. So the power of King Jeroboam II and the power of the official cult of Yahweh were the same thing. Thus, by repeating the words of his god, the prophet Amos was taking on the entire establishment. Amos’s prophecy makes clear that the king’s rule was against the will of God. The cultic leaders wrongly interpreted the will of God — so says Amos.

This helps us understand why Amos reports God as saying, “I hate, I despise your festivals, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.” God is telling the humans in charge of the northern kingdom that they were doing things that were completely against the will of God; no amount of festivals or church services or solemn assemblies on the part of the humans could make God ignore what they were doing wrong. As to what they were doing wrong, the Biblical scholar Norman Gottwald sums it up like this:

Amos was attacking “the patriotic and pious … reaction that had gained currency among the upper classes during the prosperous reign of Jeroboam II. The greedy upper classes, with governmental and judicial connivance, were systematically expropriating the land of commoners so that they could heap up wealth and display it gaudily in a lavish conspicuous consumption economy.” [The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-Literary Introduction, Gottwald, 1985]

Knowing this, we can better understand how King might find the book of Amos attractive. From the perspective of Black Americans in the mid-twentieth century, the American establishment had kept Blacks in low-paying jobs that supported the increasingly comfortable lives of the elite, all of whom were then White. And just like the greedy upper classes used their religion to maintain their position during the reign of King Jeroboam II, the elite White rulers of mid-twentieth century America used their interpretation of the Christian religion to maintain the status quo that benefited them.

If you remember King’s famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” he was responding to well-to-do ministers who were part of the White establishment of Birmingham, Alabama. These White ministers criticized the Civil Rights Movement in a public statement in which they called King and his allies “extremists.” King responded directly to this criticism by telling these Christian ministers: “Was not Amos an extremist for justice: ‘Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an everflowing stream.’” Later on in that same letter, King told these White ministers:

“So the question is not whether we will be extremists but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? Perhaps the south, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.”

This helps us understand why King quoted Amos so often. No doubt in the days of King Jeroboam II, the greedy upper classes called the prophet Amos an extremist. In much the same way, King was called an extremist in his day. Both of them said things that were uncomfortable to hear. And that discomfort was intended to provoke people to take action. I would go so far as to say that if we don’t feel uncomfortable when we hear King’s words, we’re not paying attention.

But sometimes King translated the passage from Amos differently than the version we so love to quote. The Hebrew word “mishpat,” usually translated as “justice,” can also be translated as “judgement.” So in his essay “Paul’s Letter to American Christians,” King wrote: “Yes America, there is still the need for an Amos to cry out to the nation: ‘Let judgement roll down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.’”

This translation, while equally valid, sounds more challenging. “Let judgement roll down” — in fact, this almost sounds threatening, and it may better translate the sense of the original. The prophet Amos was telling the people of his day that their God would judge their actions. Amos saw himself as spreading the words of Yahweh, and Yahweh was telling the people in power that they must stop supporting injustice. The purpose of the book of Amos is for the rich and powerful to realize that, despite the stories they liked to tell themselves, all was not well in their land.

Martin Luther King spread a similar message to America in the 1950s and 1960s. While the American economy was booming in those years, Black Americans were mostly excluded from prosperity. In response, King preached the message that his God wanted all persons to be treated with love and dignity; and while King was most focused on how America treated Black Americans, his message included persons of all races who were treated unfairly. King preached the uncomfortable message that if some people were excluded from prosperity, then his God would let judgement roll down like waters.

In our own time, Black Americans still face job discrimination, and people of all races face increasing economic inequality. This can seem overwhelming. Yes, we have made progress since King’s day, but so much remains to be done before we have true equality in America. But I will leave you with the thought that King’s message was ultimately a hopeful message. Speaking at the National Cathedral in March, 1968, King said, “We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” When King said this, he was paraphrasing the great abolitionist and Unitarian minister, Theodore Parker. Back in 1853, Parker preached a sermon in Boston where he said: “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”

No wonder Martin Luther King paraphrased this passage from Theodore Parker so frequently. I understand this as a message of hope. When Theodore Parker preached this sermon, slavery was the law of the land, and it seemed impossible that America would ever put an end to it. A century later, Martin Luther King paraphrased Parker’s words, and Jim Crow was the law of the land, and it seemed impossible that America would ever put an end to it. Yet we did put an end to slavery, and we did put an end to Jim Crow, and we can and will put an end to the other injustices that still confront us.

The arc of the moral universe may be long, and from where we stand today we do not see where it finally comes to rest. Yet we know deep within ourselves that we are moving towards justice — slowly, perhaps, but inexorably. We have not yet overcome injustice. But some day, sooner rather than later, we shall overcome injustice and build a land where we let justice roll down like waters, and peace like an everflowing stream.