What Does Eschatology Got To Do With Social Justice?

Ed Stetzer (click here for a bio) and Gabriella Seifert (could not find a bio) that would respond to, or more accurately affirm the eschatology of Martin Luther King Jr (click here for the article). What the article really affirms is only one the King's personal missions, he had more than 1 mission in terms of his work and ministry. Thus, their article seems to be lacking in terms of understanding both the battles King waged against injustice. In addition, their article does not adequately cover the eschatalogical issues that were involved in King's views.

As far as understanding King's missions in life, Stetzer and Seifert only talked about the eradication of racism. Though eliminating racism was important to King, he fought 2 other battles: economic exploitation and militarism/war. And it is only when we include all of those issues together along with what it will take to adequately address those issues that we get to meet the real Martin Luther King Jr. For the real Martin Luther King Jr. was calling for moral and structural revolutions in America. The moral revolution was concerned with society turning from being 'thing-oriented,' where gadgets, profits, and property rights were counted as being more important than people, to being 'person-oriented'. The structural revolution stood against the materialism that came with Capitalism. In fact, King stated that Capitalism's materialism was just as evil as Communism's materialism though they were significantly different.

Consider the following two quotes from Martin Luther King Jr. (click here for the source):

I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a "thing-oriented" society to a "person-oriented" society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

and

A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. n the one hand we are called to play the good Samaritan on life's roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life's highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just." 

In terms of eschatalogical issues, what is missing is how the eschatalogy one adopts limits the degree in which individual Christians and the Church should work for and expect justice and heaven to be realized on earth. Not that there are no Christians who think that we should not try to work for any justice. Rather, the issue is how much justice on earth should Christians work for and whether that work is to be done by the individual Christians alone or with the Church. Though I disagree with R. Scott Clark's approach to this issue, he does provide some useful distinctions on the different kinds of eschatology (click here for the source):

There are essentially three kinds of eschatologies: completely realized (e.g., full-preterism, Jesus has returned and this is the new heavens and the new earth); semi-realized (the dominant view among the Reformed and usually described as Amillennialism); and unrealized (or futurist; which would include most forms of chiliasm, premillennialism). Postmillennialism as we know it today has features that align it with the semi-realized and with the futurist views. It says that the Kingdom of God has been introduced into history but it also looks forward to an earthly golden age (prior to Christ’s return).

Having identified 3 kinds of eschatology, not to be confused with 4 schools of eschatology, Clark gives a mixed message in terms of how much the Church should be involved in bringing justice to earth. From the same previously cited article, Clark says the following:

We see modern versions of this over-realized eschatology in contemporary evangelical rhetoric about “social justice.” Some of them speak openly about bringing heaven to earth in ways that the apocalyptic Anabaptists would have understood entirely. We should not assume that such rhetoric is either biblical or Reformed.

Certainly Christians as individuals and even as groups should seek to approximate social and civil justice, insofar as lies within them. The Reformed do not share the Anabaptist eschatology, however. We expect both the church and the state to be an approximation, to reflect a semi-realized eschatology. This is not heaven. Social action cannot bring about heaven on earth. It cannot bring the Kingdom of God.

and:

Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God on the earth but the Kingdom is not to be found in social action, marches, or power politics. The visible, institutional manifestation of God’s kingdom is much more humble. It is more like Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a donkey than it is Caesar entering Rome. Remember, the disciples frequently pestered Jesus about when he was going to institute a glorious, earthly kingdom (e.g., Mark 10:37; Acts 1:6). They did not understand. Jesus explained to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). They would not understand that until Pentecost, when Peter announced that Jesus was reigning now (see his sermon in Acts 2) from heaven, that he was arranging all things for the progress of the gospel. That progress, however, did not mean earthly glory. It meant persecution (Acts 7), martyrdom, and death. The visible, institutional manifestation of the Kingdom is the preaching of the gospel, the use of the two sacraments, and the use of church discipline (see Matt 16 and 18; 28:18–20).

Indeed, there is no evidence in Acts that the Apostles sought to bring heaven to earth except insofar as the ministry of Word, sacrament, and discipline brought the elect into contact with the realities of the new heavens and the new earth by anticipation (Acts 2:42). They wrote no petitions. They conducted no rallies. They chanted no slogans, even as their brothers and sisters (c. 65 AD) were arrested unjustly, covered with tar, and set on fire to cover up Nero’s failed urban renewal program.

It is important to read the previously cited article by Clark along with this article being linked to here. For though Clark does well in warning us against reducing the Gospel to a social gospel only, his rigidity in thought and excessive loyalty to his theological heroes from the past prevents from him borrowing anything from those whose eschatology is too faulty--that is whose eschatology carried expectations that were too great. And in comparing today's world with that of the New Testament Church, Clark's call on the Church to simply imitate what was done then assumes that there are no significant historical changes between then and now.

Certainly, King's eschatology would be considered faulty in Clark's eyes--and we should note that Stetzer and Siefert inadequately described King's eschatology. But does that mean that Christians should not have joined and worked with King and his movement?

Though we really talked more about Clark than Stetzer and Siefert, the point of these citations from Clark is to show that Stetzer and Siefert did an inadequate job in talking about King's eschatology just as they underrepresented King's work by reducing his mission to opposing racism--which ironically is the typical white American's view of King's work. And King and his work are too important to inadequately write about.


 

Is It Better Late Than On Time To Write About King

Last week, there were understandably numerous articles about Martin Luther King Jr. That was because April 4th was the 50th anniversary of his assassination. And, with the violence in the world and at home along with the Trump Presidency, if the world seems to be spinning out of control, it even felt more that way back then. For back then, we had the real Cold War along with the Vietnam War, we were in the last year of the Civil Rights Movement, we had the Hippies vs the establishment, the feminist movement had started, and we had major riots in our cities. And we witnessed the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr and Robert Kennedy. The song title Eve Of Destruction seemed to be an apt description of the times.

Why am I writing about Martin Luther King Jr. now when the anniversary of his death was last week. It is because I am accidentally on purpose. I say accidentally on purpose because on one hand, because of busyness I was not aware of the anniversary of King's assassination. On the other hand, had I been aware, I might delayed writing about it anyway because I wonder if it matters. For whenever many of us pay homage to a recognized hero, we do so selectively. By selectively I mean that we filter out the deeds done and the messages spoken by a given hero so that we can publicly show appreciation for a given hero in ways that, in the end, are self-affirming. Thus, celebrating a hero often becomes more of an exercise in praising ourselves. And this is especially true with a person like Martin Luther King Jr. whose words, when not filtered, convict all of us as being guilty.

Consider King's speech against the Vietnam War exactly 1 year before his assassination (click here for that speech). King's public approval downfall began when he spoke out against the Vietnam War. And when tested his stance against the War with a number of people, they objected. And King's response was the following:

Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don't mix, they say. Aren't you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often understand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.
 

Note how King stated that to question why he opposed the war was to not really know what he was about. I suppose King would have received similar responses had he lived to see and object to the Persian Gulf Wars and our protracted war in Afghanistan, as well as our military use of drones in assassinating people in parts of Africa and Asia. After all, in the eyes of many, as well as what seems to be the view of the NFL, not supporting the presence of our troops and their use of weapons in some nations would be equated with not supporting the troops or being patriotic. And for many Americans, not being patriotic is the unforgivable sin.

King went on to say that with the war-driven expansion of the military budget came cuts in social programs which deeply hurt the war against povery. Isn't that even more the case now as we have a different form of Capitalism than we had in King's day. For in his day, the maximize profit ethic was not as pervasive as it is today. What we see today includes many more with wealth seeking to cut their social responsibility ties with the vulnerable than than existsed when King was near the end of his life. In addition, the same group of those with wealth is now seeking to be excused from any responsibility to not harm the earth while they seek to forever expand their fortunes. If King was not even a fan of the more restrained form of Capitalism in his day, imagine his indignation at today's Neoliberalism.

For many of us, we restrict King to speaking against racism in a very narrow sense. And yet, King saw the interconnections between a few somewhat popular beliefs and practices with racism. For note what he said in a speech that was given in August of 1967 (click here for the source):

I am convinced that this new life will not emerge until our nation undergoes a radical revolution of values. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people the giant triplets of racism, economic exploitation and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

Note how in calling them triplets, King is describing how racism, economic exploitation, and militarism are linked together. Then note what King identifies the driving force for these beliefs and practice to be: it's society putting a higher value on gadgets, profits, and property rights than on people. Here we should note that at this point, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians who have canonized Capitalism to sainthood with its emphasis on the individual, the  protection of property rights and the glorious seeking of profits would have to part company with King. But perhaps so would many of us who are enslaved by our gadgets that both entertain us and connect us not just to world outside of our own circle, but to those live in it. Note how King partially described Capitalism back then:

Again we have diluted ourselves into believing the myth that Capitalism grew and prospered out of the protestant ethic of hard word and sacrifice, the fact is that Capitalism was build 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.

In celebrating King's opposition against racism, a task which all sane people should enthusiastically support, we forget that King opposed the Vietnam War as well as the distribution of wealth that occurred through the Capitalism of his day. BTW, imagine what King would say to the decades long growth of wealth disparity which we still witness. Rather than looking at the causes of racism, many of which we might be complicit in, we filter King's words so that we can continue in our own racism. We filter out those words so that we can fully agree with King in judging people by the content of their character rather than color of their skin. But then we support systems that greatly impair the character development of many and who are subject to a racist enforcement of the law.

Martin Luther King Jr. is not special in how the general public selectively celebrates him so as to honor itself more than him. Others fall into that group as well. So why celebrate King's life when many of us are going to do so with the purpose of applauding ourselves? Perhaps, when done right, we can use the celebration of Martin Luther King Jr., as well as others, to speak prophetically, as King would have done, to everyone around in order to give them a chance to change.