"The world is better because . . . [she] lived in it."

At sundown this evening, we lit the Yahrzeit candle for my mother, who passed away a year ago at the age of 95.  She was a wonderful and great woman.

http://washingtonjewishweek.com/18712/hilda-barcan-fishback/community/obits/   

Since all of our immediate family were here Thanksgiving Weekend, we went to visit the cemetery together.  Bobbi chose this very appropriate and meaningful portion from the Reform Yom Kippur memorial service to read at her gravesite.  I thought I would share it:

"If some messenger were to come to us with the offer that death should be overthrown, but with the one inseparable condition that birth should also cease; if the existing generation were given the chance to live for ever, but on the clear understanding that never again would there be a child, or a youth, or first love, never again new persons with new hopes, new ideas, new achievements; ourselves for always and never any others – could the answer be in doubt?

"We shall not fear the summons of death; we shall remember those who have gone before us, and those who will come after us!

"Let us treasure the time we have, and resolve to use it well, counting each moment precious – a chance to apprehend some truth, to experience some beauty, to conquer some evil, to relieve some suffering, to love and be loved, to achieve something of lasting worth.

"Help us then, to fulfill the promise that it is in each of us, and so to conduct ourselves that, generations hence, it will be true to say of us: The world is better because, for a brief space, they lived in it."

Heschel Vision Award: Jews United for Justice, October 25, 2015

On October 25, 2015, I was honored by Jews United for Justice with a Heschel Vision Award.  Below is what JUFJ wrote about me, and here is the link to the video of my son Mike's presentation to me, and my remarks.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZeDsxNTxDc

And a picture of Mike and me:

MEET THE HONOREES

David Fishback, Advocacy Chair of the Metro DC Chapter of PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), is a long-time activist who draws from his Jewish roots in advocating for social justice.

For more than a dozen years, David has been a major force in Montgomery County on LGBT issues. In 2002, a few years after their sons came out as gay, David and his wife, Bobbi, established the Temple Emanuel Kulanu Committee for LGBT outreach and inclusion. That same year, the Montgomery County Board of Education appointed David to its Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development. After being elected chair of that Committee, he led the effort to revise the MCPS health education curriculum to include accurate information on LGBT matters. Over vociferous opposition by right-wing groups, that campaign achieved full victory in 2014.

David has also been a champion for LGBT rights in the state of Maryland, helping create the JUFJ Dream for Equality Coalition to secure victory in the 2012 state referenda on the Dream Act and Civil Marriage Equality, and serving on the Advisory Board of Gender Rights Maryland. David is now active with PFLAG on a national level, presenting workshops at PFLAG’s national conventions and assisting chapters across the country regarding health education curriculum matters. His Curriculum Victory in Montgomery County, Maryland: A Case Study and Handbook for Action was web-published by PFLAG last month.

The product of a Workmen’s Circle family, steeped in principles of social justice in the Jewish tradition, David began organizing social justice programs as an undergraduate at The George Washington University and served as a VISTA Volunteer in Memphis, TN, in 1969-70. After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1973 and working on Democratic Party reform issues in 1971 and 1972, he began a 40 year career in federal service, retiring in 2013 from the Department of Justice, where, among other things, he successfully defended the United States against attempts by manufacturers of asbestos products and Agent Orange to shift billions of dollars of their tort liability onto the federal taxpayers.

David has also been a local education advocate since serving as co-president of the Rosemary Hills Primary School PTA from 1984-86, where he led the successful effort to renovate and expand that magnet integration school to keep it viable. In the late 1990s, David organized the successful campaign to save from devastating budget cuts the MCPS magnet and signature programs at Richard Montgomery and Montgomery Blair High Schools and Takoma Park and Eastern Middle Schools.

http://www.jufj.org/heschel2015/meet-honorees

Here I am with my fellow honorees, Nikki Lewis, Barbara Kraft, and Roberta Ritvo:  

Student Commencement Speeches 1969

Hillary Rodham and Senator Edwin Brooke, May 31, 1969

Recently, the Daily Kos published an item on Hillary Rodham Clinton's student commencement address at Wellesley College on May 31, 1969, when she challenged the main speaker, Senator Edwin Brooke .  I think that, in many cases, seeing what a person was thinking at the age of 21 may give us a good sense of the person’s best, authentic self.

To test my hypothesis, I dug into an old trunk in my basement to find the text of the student address I gave a few days later at my graduation from The George Washington University.  That evening, the main speaker was Senator Edmund Muskie. (Picture below, with Senator Muskie, June 8, 1969)       

I did not challenge Senator Muskie by name; rather, I sought to challenge my fellow students – along with our entire society.  While I find some of my phrasing a bit hokey, tied to the idioms of the period, and while I would write it a bit differently now (I now think that our Vietnam Era foreign policy problems were more the fault of our civilian leaders and the defense industry than they were the military itself; and I would have been clearer that it was not just seeds of racism that were planted centuries ago, but that much of our country was based on racism – our country’s Original Sin, as I called it in a student newspaper column the previous year),  I would like to believe that it is a 46-year look back to my essential self.   

Anyway, I re-keyboarded it, and copy it here for my own family posterity.  Anyone else interested to reading it, is of course, free to do so.

GWU Student Commencement Speech (David Fishback), June 8, 1969

Today we receive diplomas from a university. The world appears far different from the time, only a few years ago, when we were handed diplomas by our high school principals. 

The world of 1964 and '65 was bright and optimistic. A few cities had erupted, but that was, we were told, a small side product of realistically rising expectations. The Government was sending some men to fight in a war in Southeast Asia, but that was, we were told, a small price to pay for the preservation of "freedom" in Asia. The Nation was making ready to uproot the last vestiges of injustice in what was to become a Great Society. 

Somehow we did not make it. A portion of our population is in incipient rebellion, not because of simple rising expectations, but because of disgust and anger and continued oppression.  The intervention in Asia has devastated a small land whose people, faced with authoritarianism from all sides, must only desire peace; the brutality of this now clearly senseless war has not only crippled the people of Vietnam, but has and continues to tear our own nation apart.  And rather than working to eliminate injustice, the Nation seems paralyzed in any attempts to deal with any problems. 

It would be ludicrous to speak of ourselves as young people now entering the society:  We have been in it for quite awhile. Some of us are extremely sensitive to the crises around us; some of us are relatively unconcerned. But the War and the draft and the domestic upheavals prevent any of us from being completely oblivious to them -- and perhaps that is a silver lining. To the extent we are born into a society, we have no responsibility for its shortcomings; but to the extent we live in it, we have total responsibility. The results of racism, poverty, and militarism threaten to explode or decay our society beyond repair. 

Some say that the problems can be solved simply by stern measures to maintain order:  To keep protesting people in their place, to give them no choice but to play in the game, albeit with a stacked deck. That is no solution:  As John Kennedy so wisely pointed out, "Those who make change impossible make revolution inevitable."

But then others say that revolution is what we need:  By revolution here is meant complete overthrow of the existing order, which, in the context of the conditions in this country, can only be done by violence. In our society this approach is dubious at its best, catastrophic at its worst:  A repressive fascistic counter-revolution would be virtually certain, and even if it were not, the dynamics of violent revolution lead almost inexorably to authoritarian or totalitarian regimes -- and such regimes, by their very nature, are likely to be most oppressive in industrialized and heterogeneous societies like ours.  

Nor will the crises of our time "blow over."  The seeds of racism were planted in this country hundreds of years ago and its trees grew and multiplied:  Today racism's poisonous fruit, which has always sickened our society, threatens to kill it.  Poverty, closely tied to racism, but going beyond it, has become clearer in its inequities:  People are increasingly unlikely to tolerate conditions of poverty imposed by circumstances beyond their control. The increasing influence of the military has led us into a catastrophic wake and could easily, if unchecked, lead us -- by sheer momentum -- to more such wars, harming ourselves and others and taking us down the road to a nuclear holocaust. 

So the alternatives are clear:  We either find humanitarian solutions to these crises or the crises will plunge us downward into an abyss of right or left wing authoritarianism or total annihilation. A social, economic, and political system can survive only if it meets the needs of its people. If our system does not deliver, it will die. 

Our society, for all its grave deficiencies, has much to offer and has great potential:  Prosperity, rich diversity, respect for human rights are possible within its broadest outlines. Shifts – fundamental shifts -- within the system will be required, and we must not shrink from that change. 

A very natural question at this point is, "What power have I to change things?"  The answer I would give is that very few people have power as individuals. But, as we are molded in large numbers by our society, in large numbers we have the capacity to mold the society in turn. People's attitudes create the climate of opinion in which change can take place; and the ballot box is still the ultimate repository of power. But public opinion is only a potent force if it is organized:  To that end we must "get our heads in place," "get ourselves together" to organize for change. 

Youth is always proclaimed to be the wave of the future. Well, we're it. In the final analysis it will be us and people like us who will determine whether this nation descends into more chaos and more repression or whether it develops into a truly just and truly free society. It is our responsibility -- the responsibility of each and every one of us. 

Climate Change: Example of a Local Effort

As President Obama seeks to make progress in Paris to save the planet (this is really not hypberbole), it is useful to also note the grassroots things that are being tried to contribute toward the battle against climate change.

Our local public school system (MCPS in Montgomery County MD) is seeking to foster the use of solar power and, at the same time, save money.  There was a public hearing recently, and, sadly, there was some NIMBY ("Not in my backyard") sentiment, but legitimate points were also raised -- concerns that should be able to be addressed.

Here are the comments I submitted to the school system.

RE:      Proposal that MCPS host ground-mounted solar photovoltaic systems that will generate electric power

     I write in support of the proposal that MCPS host ground-mounted solar photovoltaic systems to generate electric power, specifically the proposal to use the vacant MCPS property near the southwest corner of the intersection of Cashell Road and Continental Drive.

     I write this as a nearly 30-year resident of the neighborhood; indeed I live just a block and a half from the Cashell Road site.  Since the time we moved to the neighborhood, I have been concerned that the vacant property, while nice for some of the deer living in nearby Rock Creek Park, has not be used by MCPS nor has it generated any income for MCPS or the County.  I was thrilled to learn at the November 11 community meeting that MCPS is considering making good use of the property, not only to generate clean, non-carbon-based energy, but also to save money for MCPS that could be used for our important educational needs.  

     I do, however, have two concerns about the Cashell Road site that I am sure can (and should) be adequately addressed before MCPS moves forward.  

     First, the proposal for a security fence six feet high and topped by barbed wire could create a significant problem:  Large numbers of deer come out from nearby Rock Creek Park at dawn, dusk, and at night into all the neighborhoods, as well as the field where the solar system would be located.  I have seen deer easily hop over five-foot high fences in our neighborhood.  I fear that six-foot high fence topped by barbed wire would lead to deer being impaled on the barbed wire. The last thing we want is the necessity for the County or MCPS to have to remove dead or dying deer from the top of the fences, or to have wounded deer roaming the neighborhood (not to mention the pain it would cause to the deer).  While wild life experts could provide the best advice, it seems to me that the fence should be ten feet high to deter deer from seeking to jump over.  In any event, based on what I have seen in our own backyard, I am certain that six feet is too low.

     Second, residents of the half-dozen houses on the south side of the 5000 block of Continental Drive are legitimately concerned that the view from their backyards could be seriously damaged if they would be looking out onto a six-foot (or, of course, ten-foot) fence topped by barbed wire.  While those residents certainly had to know, when they moved in, that their currently pastoral view could be changed if MCPS decided to build a school on the site, they certainly had no reason to anticipate a fence topped by barbed wire.  In fairness, MCPS should commit to working with those homeowners to provide landscaping that would block the view of the barbed wire fences along that portion of the system. (Note:  I live on the other side of Cashell Road, away from any view of the site, and I am not personal friends with any of the impacted residents -- so my concern here is not of a NIMBY nature.)

     As a general policy matter, I agree that utilizing unused MCPS property for solar photovoltaic systems is good policy.  I am not aware of any impediments to using the Warfield Road site (although I have no specific knowledge of particular issues that might counsel against that site).  With respect to the Brickyard site, however, the presentation made at the Cashell meeting by a resident concerned about the Brickyard site was quite compelling.  She herself has solar panels on her house, but expressed concern -- something I recall being expressed by community members when MCPS considered using the site for soccer fields -- that the existing organic farm now leased on that property would be displaced.  Given the range of environmental concerns that MCPS has so positively responded to in recent years, I am inclined to agree that the organic farm should not be displaced in order to make way for a solar photovoltaic system.  

     Finally, I have one procedural comment.  MCPS really dropped the ball with respect to timely information about this proposal.  Neither of the local homeowner associations (Cherry Valley and Norbeck Meadows) were informed, nor were any of the nearby residents.  I found out about it only because I happened to notice a sign on Cashell Road (attached here) -- a sign which was taken down shortly after the November 11 community meeting.  People who tend to be suspicious of any action by government have their prejudices reinforced when an agency of government is not fully forthcoming about planned initiatives which will impact their neighborhoods.  This was illustrated by some of the negative comments at the November 11 community meeting.  As much as I disagreed with much of what those opponents were saying substantively, their procedural point was well-taken.

     Also, some at the meeting were concerned that, given the Thanksgiving holiday, December 1 was too early a deadline for public comments. While I understand the desire of MCPS to move expeditiously, given the time-sensitive nature of some of the federal or state tax incentives for solar contractors, it seems to me that extending the deadline for a month, to January 1, 2016, would be a prudent and fair move.  One month should not negatively impact on the tax incentives issue.  Again, it would be a shame if a useful proposal were undermined because people felt that MCPS was trying to slip it past them.

NOTE:  I WAS INFORMED BY MCPS THAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO JANUARY 1.

Theology, Morality, and Faith: A Legacy of Dr. King

                                                                                   

I presented the sermon pasted below at our congregation's annual Martin Luther King, Jr., Shabbat in 2005.  What brought it to mind this evening were two things today.

The first was a conversation I had with my son Mike, who pointed out the flaw in The Golden Rule: That what you might have others do to or for you might not be what they would want you to do or for them.  This reminded me of a formulation of The Platinum Rule, presented by a speaker at the recent PFLAG National Convention:  Do unto others what they would want to have done unto them.

The second was a Facebook posting this evening, quoting H.L. Mencken as saying, "Morality is doing right, no matter what you are told.  Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right."  I agree with the first sentence; the second sentence is not always correct.  Religion need not be so confining.  My 2005 sermon was, in some respects, an answer to Mencken's second sentence.

Theology, Morality, and Faith: A Legacy of Dr. King

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was the preeminent American religious figure of the 20th Century. In recent years, others have sought to apply their religious beliefs to the realm of public policy. Some, like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell, have sought to impose very conservative religious doctrines on the laws of our nation. When people say this is improper, the reply is often essentially this: "Well, look at Dr. King. He sought to impose religious values - and liberals applauded then, and we all applaud now."

That is a point well taken, but it is only the beginning of the conversation. I have read Dr. King's words carefully, not just for inspiration, but for understanding. How, in a diverse society, with many religious traditions that often disagree with each other, were we ultimately able to come together in the successful campaign to dismantle American apartheid? And what is the legacy of Dr. King as we deal with our religious beliefs in the context of the contentious social issues of our own time?

I believe that we start this conversation with an understanding that theology, morality, and faith are not concepts that are completely coextensive with one another. They overlap, they are connected, but they are not the same.

THEOLOGY

First, THEOLOGY: My dictionary [American Heritage Dictionary] provides this definition of theology: "An organized, often formalized body of opinions concerning God and man's relationship to God." This encompasses quite a lot. For some, these formalized opinions include compliance with a comprehensive set of unbending, unquestioned rules governing all human conduct which adherents believe constitute the absolute word of God. Dr. King himself wrote that he had "been raised in a rather strict fundamentalist tradition." His writings, however, reveal his intense interest in theology not as a search for unbending rules, but, rather, as a search for an understanding of "man's relationship to God." He described his theological studies, once he left home, as a "pilgrimage." (p. 35, 1960).

Dr. King wrote at length about his theological studies, during which he adopted much of what was known as "liberal theology." He became concerned, however, that liberal theology might assume too much regarding the inherent goodness of man. He wrote that a "large segment of Protestant liberalism defined man only in terms of . . . his capacity for good," while opposing views "tended to define man only in terms of . . . his capacity for evil." Dr. King concluded that an "adequate understanding of man is found . . . in a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both" views. (p. 36). He went on to add existentialism to the mix, observing that "history is a series of unreconciled conflicts and man's existence is filled with anxiety and threatened with meaninglessness." (p. 36). No where in Dr. King's writings do I find an insistence on the literal acceptance of every word in Scripture as a command from God.

So this is what, at the outset, separates Dr. King from those today who purport to bring God's literal word to our laws and our culture. The difference between scriptural literalists and modern theologians is enormous.

While the former focus on the literal terms of the Koran or the Bible (or their translations thereof), the latter focus on the developing effort to understand the relationship of humankind and God.

The former focus on absolutes as they see them, without reference to our developing perspectives on the nature of the human race. The latter understand that we have learned much, and still have much to learn in our ongoing conversations with each other and in our private conversations with the Almighty.

I suspect that much of this division has to do with feelings about the ability of human beings to make good use of freedom. There are those who fear that if people do not have absolute, unbending rules about human behavior, then they will make bad choices. On the other hand, there are those who believe that people do have the capacity to make wise choices.

Dr. King demonstrated his belief that human beings have the capacity to use freedom wisely, to use freedom to achieve justice. He recognized man’s capacity for violence, yet worked tirelessly to convince people to use non-violence to combat segregation. In community after community, he succeeded. Dr. King believed, and demonstrated, that people can use freedom wisely. Obviously, he did not, and could not, premise this on an insistence on following every word of Scripture, which is filled with violent responses, including violent responses to injustice. Rather, Dr. King looked to the essence of what he saw as good in religious tradition, and applied it to the problems we faced. And this leads is to the definition of MORALITY.

MORALITY

My dictionary defines MORALITY as the "quality of being in accord with standards of right and good conduct," and defines "moral" as "the judgment principles of right and wrong in relation to human action and character."

But how do we determine what is "right and wrong"? The simple way is to look at every single statement of what constitutes acceptable behavior in Scripture and to follow those statements uncritically.

But we know that that will not work: We no longer believe slavery is moral; we no longer believe that stoning to death adulterers is moral; we no longer believe that viewing women as property of men is moral; we no longer believe that execution of men who engage in homosexual activity is moral; we no longer believe that wearing garments that mix certain fibers is immoral; most of us no longer believe that doing any kind of work on the sabbath day is immoral. None of us really take every word of Scripture literally, and each of us who accept the Bible as part of our religious tradition must decide what in Scripture is useful and humane and, in the broadest sense, Godly.

This places a great responsibility on every human being. Freedom can be a scary thing, but it is what America is based upon. We cannot, in good conscience, simply say, "well, the Bible says so," without further exploration unless, for example, we are ready, to condone slavery. We really do have to use the brains God has given us.

So how did Dr. King, who was not a scriptural literalist, make his own judgments about what was moral? He did not simply take isolated passages from Scripture and then turn them to direction he wanted to go anyway.

To some extent, Dr. King’s approach was an application of the moral principle that, I think, all people of goodwill apply: The Golden Rule. In both Leviticus (19:18 and 19:34) and in the Christian Book of Matthew (19:16), that rule is expressed as "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Another version in Matthew (7:5) is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." In our Jewish tradition, perhaps the best formulation is set forth in the in the story of the cynic who is said to have approached the great philosopher Hillel and challenged him to summarize the whole Torah while standing on one foot. Hillel replied, "What is hateful to you, do not do to another. The rest is commentary. Go and learn."

But how do we learn? If the Golden Rule is just the starting point, how do we decide, in each instance, what is moral?

Dr. King addressed this question in a 1961 discussion of the difference between just and unjust laws in the context of segregation statutes.

"What is the difference" he asked,"between a just and an unjust law?" "I would say," he answered, "that an unjust law is a code that the majority inflicts on the minority that is not binding on itself" (p. 49). But this was not the end of his analysis. He elaborated on the question in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail in 1963: "How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? . . . . Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."

There, I think, is the core of how we assess what actions are moral and what actions are not moral. Dr. King went on to explain that "[a]ll 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. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an 'I-it' relationship for the 'I-thou' relationship, and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful." (p. 293).

This is the point that gives so much force to Dr. King’s message. He did not stop with the simple statement that the same laws must apply to everyone. He understood the impact of the words of Anatole France when that French author wrote, "The law, in its majesty, forbids rich and poor alike to beg in the streets and sleep under bridges." The key to just laws – and, I would posit, moral behavior – is, in Dr. King's words, the "uplift of human personality."

Dr. King knew that this understanding was not the exclusive preserve of any particular theological system. In 1967, he called "for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation," and that this call "is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men." Dr. King explained that "[w]hen I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality." He concluded that "[t]his Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up" in these words: "If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us" (p. 242).

FAITH

But how does FAITH connect to Dr. King's message? My dictionary contains many definitions of faith, including (1) a "system of religious beliefs," (2) a "belief and trust in God," and (3) a "[b]elief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." The first definition – a "system of religious beliefs" – may well be the one that has the most cachet in the current public discourse. When politicians speak of "people of faith," however, the phrase unfortunately often is used to connote only those from organized religions whose tenets are fundamentalist absolutes. As the broad ecumenical expressions of Dr. King demonstrate, his view of faith was not so narrow. The words he used show that his focus was "a belief and trust in God." And, I suggest, a "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Yet, it was a belief that, if acted upon, could create the evidence to support his faith.

Dr. King repeatedly preached that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Did Dr. King believe that he had objective evidence for this proposition? One could argue that the history of the human race provides plenty of evidence to the contrary. But Dr. King saw the progress we had made, and believed – as an article of faith – that we could continue to make more: To accomplish, to use our term, Tikkun Olam – repair of the world.

This was faith, not clear objective evidence. In explaining his philosophy of non-violent direct action in opposition to segregation, Dr. King said that the "method of nonviolence is based on the conviction that the universe is on the side of justice. It is this deep faith in the future that enables the nonviolent resister to persevere. " (p. 9, 1957)

In discussing the successful Montgomery, Alabama, bus boycott, Dr. King stated his belief "there is something unfolding in the universe, whether one speaks of it as an unconscious process, or whether one speaks of it as some unmoved mover, or whether someone speaks of it as a personal God. There is something in the universe that unfolds for justice and so in Montgomery we found somehow that as we struggled we had cosmic companionship. And this was one of the things that kept the people together, the belief that the universe is on the side of justice." (pp. 13-14, 1957).

Thus, he wrote in 1958, "the believer has deep faith in the future. This faith is another reason why the nonviolent resister can accept suffering without retaliation. For he knows that in his struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship. It is true that there are devout believers in nonviolence who find it difficult to believe in a personal God. But even these persons believe in the existence of some creative force that works for universal wholeness. Whether we call it an unconscious process, an impersonal Brahman, or a Personal Being of matchless power and infinite love, there is a creative force in this universe that works to bring the disconnected aspects of reality into a harmonious whole." (p. 20).

Dr. King wrote that he was "convinced that the universe is under the control of a loving purpose and that in the struggle for righteousness man has cosmic companionship. Behind the harsh appearances of the world there is a benign power. To say God is personal . . . is to take what is finest and noblest in our consciousness and affirm its perfect existence in Him." (p. 40, 1960).

While Dr. King expressed faith in the view that the "arc of the moral universe bends toward justice," he recognized that that could only be made reality through the work of people: As he said just a few miles from here at the National Cathedral only days before his death in April 1968, "[h]uman progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals who are willing to be co-workers with God." (p. 270)

In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, Dr. King asserted his "abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him." (p. 225).

And that was why his vision was not just of the end of segregation, but the end of poverty and war, as well. Dr. King’s expression of faith took him back to his view of morality:

He believed that "[a]ny religion that professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them and the social conditions that cripple them is a spiritually moribund religion awaiting burial." (p. 38, 1960).

He preached that "if we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. . . . No individual can live alone; no nation can live alone, and as long as we try, the more we are going to have war in this world. . . . [W]e must either learn to live together as brothers, or we are all going to perish together as fools." (p. 253, 1967).

In sum, Dr. King’s faith was a faith in the future. He observed that the theme song of the Civil Rights Movement had as its key words "deep in my heart, I do believe, we shall overcome." He explained that "out of this deep faith in the future [we] are able to move out and adjourn the councils of despair, and to bring new light in the dark chambers of pessimism." We "had faith in the future . . . [T]he movement was based on hope, that this movement had something within it that says that somehow even though the arc of the moral universe is long, it bends toward justice. . . . With this faith in the future, with this determined struggle, we will be able to emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man's inhumanity to man, into the bright and glittering daybreak of freedom and justice." (pp. 52-53, 1961).

So Dr. King’s legacy is not a faith in a particular theology or in a particularized, laundry-list set of rules for morality. His lesson is that we are in an ongoing relationship with God and with each other; that we are all connected; that we should act in a manner which enhances the dignity and worth of all humankind; and that if we so act, the moral arc of the universe will surely bend toward justice. All the rest is commentary, and it is our challenge and responsibility to learn.

David Fishback Temple Emanuel Kensington, MD January 14, 2005
NB: Page citations are to materials found in A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. (edited by James M. Washington).