He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8

Calling Christians to Stand Firm

In November 2009, a coalition of Christian leaders – Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical – issued The Manhattan Declaration:  A Call of Christian Conscience urging Christians in America to take a firm, biblical stand on three critical issues of our day: (1) the sanctity of human life, (2) the dignity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and (3) the rights of conscience and religious liberty.[1] The Preamble states,

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.  In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

To that end, the framers conclude, “We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s.  But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.”  In other words, when it comes to obeying man-made laws which do not line up with the laws of God, the signers of the Manhattan Declaration are choosing to obey God and not man (Acts 5:29).  They have taken their cue from Christians in the past who have stood against injustice, including Martin Luther King, as seen in Dr. King’s historic civil rights document Letter from a Birmingham Jail. [2]

Answering His Critics

In 1963, Dr. King was arrested and jailed in Birmingham, Alabama for “parading without a permit.”  While in jail, he answered the criticism he had received from eight Alabama clergymen – Christian, Catholic, and Jewish – who opposed his involvement in the civil rights demonstrations taking place in their city.  From a rhetorical standpoint, King’s letter easily ranks as one of the most perfect argumentation essays ever written: it’s a model of civil discourse – reasoned, passionate, humble, and persuasive.  King methodically answers their objections while exposing the ugly facts about segregation and urging his critics to put their faith into action.  To back up his arguments, he cites philosophers, theologians, and religious figures whom these clergymen would find impossible to refute.

First, King answers their complaint against “outsiders coming in” by pointing out that his organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, has ties to Birmingham.  More importantly, as an American citizen, King believes that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  To that end, he argues, no American can be considered an “outsider” anywhere in America, and what happens to one group of citizens concerns us all.

Second, King chastises these clergymen for deploring the demonstrations taking place in Birmingham but not deploring the “conditions that brought about the demonstrations.”  He carefully outlines the basic steps in nonviolent campaigns and explains how the black community in Birmingham had followed those steps to the letter.  It was only after negotiations repeatedly failed to end racial injustice in that city that they opted for direct action, action designed to “create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

Third, King blasts their claim that his actions are “untimely” – and their call for the black community to be patient – by telling why Negroes in the South find the word wait so repugnant.  In a masterful 310-word sentence, King vividly demonstrates what it feels like to be a black person in America:

But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking: “Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?”; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading “white” and “colored”; when your first name becomes “nigger,” your middle name becomes “boy” (however old you are) and your last name becomes “John,” and your wife and mother are never given the respected title “Mrs.”; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you go forever fighting a degenerating sense of “nobodiness” then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait.

Defining Just and Unjust Laws

The most famous section of King’s letter – and the one most relevant to the Manhattan Declaration – is his response to his critics’ anxiety over their “willingness to break laws.” In this section, King defines the difference between just and unjust laws:  “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.”  King believes it is morally right, even necessary, for Christians to break unjust laws; but he reveals his respect for the rule of law by his willingness to pay the penalty:

In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

Expressing His Disappointments

In the remainder of the letter, King lambasts his critics for condemning the demonstrators’ peaceful actions “because they precipitate violence”; dismisses their labeling him an “extremist”; and criticizes their praise for the Birmingham police force, which used brutal tactics to put down the demonstrations.  Most significant, however, is how King describes his disappointment with white moderates – individuals who oppose segregation but who were not willing to stand against it publicly – and with the white church, which tended to uphold the status quo:

I have heard numerous southern religious leaders admonish their worshipers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers declare: “Follow this decree because integration is morally right and because the Negro is your brother.”  In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churchmen stand on the sideline and mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard many ministers say: “Those are social issues, with which the gospel has no real concern.” And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, unbiblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

Being a Thermostat not a Thermometer

Finally, in words that are relevant to what the drafters and signers of the Manhattan Declaration hope to accomplish, King writes

There was a time when the church was very powerful in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being “disturbers of the peace” and “outside agitators.”  But the Christians pressed on, in the conviction that they were “a colony of heaven,” called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, they were big in commitment. They were too God intoxicated to be “astronomically intimidated.”  By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide. and gladiatorial contests.

Conclusion

In 1963, King’s letter was a wake up call to people of faith who claimed to love and serve God, and who lamented the racial injustices of their day, yet did nothing to oppose and overcome evil.  In the same manner, the Manhattan Declaration is a wake up call to Christians today to oppose the culture of death, the destruction of marriage, and attack upon of our freedom of conscience and religious liberty.  Will we, like King’s critics, be satisfied with merely lamenting the sin and evil we see all around us?  Or will we, like Dr. King and the signers of the Manhattan Declaration, live by Micah’s injunction?

He has told you, O man, what is good;

and what does the Lord require of you

but to do justice, and to love kindness,

and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)

[1] The Manhattan Declaration is available at http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration If you agree with this statement, please add your signature to show your willingness to stand for Biblical truth.

[2] Dr. King’s letter is available at http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html