Disgusted Young People: How Martin Luther King Predicted the Decline of the Mainline Church

01/18/2016 09:05 am ET | Updated 3 days ago

• Derek Penwell Author; Editor; Speaker; Activist

So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church’s silent--and often even vocal--sanction of things as they are.

But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.

~Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail

I remember listening to a series on NPR one time about young adults leaving their religion behind. The thrust of the weeklong series centered on the increasing number among the emerging generations who no longer claim any religious affiliation.

Some gave traumatic grief as a reason for giving up, and others named a ponderous ecclesiastical hierarchy they no longer found useful, while still others struggled with what felt like the silliness of trying to find consolation in mythology. I got the impression from listening to them that they’ve thought more about religion than many of the people I know who’ve remained in the church. They’ve carved their disbelief out of the cold existential marble of a future scape devoid of religious infrastructure.

Interestingly, though, some of what I heard sounded like wistfulness, a desire somehow to have the “something” they felt like religion offers. “Not consolation, necessarily” they say. “Not so much forgiveness,” they’re quick to add. For some it sounded like a desire for community. For another I heard it as a longing for the kind of taken-for-grantedness associated with a meaningful afterlife, which some religion offers.

“Do you still pray?” the interviewer wanted to know.

Haltingly, “Yes … well, sort of. I’m not sure you could call it prayer.”

Another, “I try to feel gratitude, which seems to me like prayer.”

Young man: “I’m embarrassed to admit it, because it makes me sound like a hypocrite after all the things I’ve said this week, but yes, when things get really bad, I still do.”

Many of them were quick to point out that they weren’t looking to get back into religion, but there seemed to be something …

I think the church ought to pay attention--not so we can figure out a way to give them what they want in the hopes that all these “nones” will want what we’ve got and come back to teach the 2nd grade Sunday School class. I think the church ought to pay attention because, whether they can articulate it with precision or not, much of what the nones are saying is that the kind of stuff often peddled in the name of religion just isn’t interesting enough to hold anybody’s attention--let alone young people who have precious little extra time and a mountain of student loan debt with which to be preoccupied.

The other thing I’ve heard the nones saying is that evidence of Jesus and his commitment to a new world is often difficult to find in the lives of the people who appear to claim his blessings with the most enthusiasm.

In other words, what nones tend to see when they see the church has less to do with the humble path of faithful service in the pursuit of justice, than with what appears to be the venal and self-aggrandizing building of personal kingdoms by those certain that the Jesus of the Gospels must not have meant what he said “literally.”

I mean, come on. Have you read the Gospels? I am not even lying.

·         Surely, Jesus was just doing a little fancy rhetorical two-stepping when he uttered the first words of his public ministry in Luke: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind” (Lk. 4:18-19).

·         It’s not like Jesus literally meant that we shouldn’t oppose people who think differently from us about God, not like Jesus was actually saying that “whoever is not against us is for us” (Mk. 9:40).

·         He couldn’t really mean it when he said, “Do not resist the evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also” (Mt. 5:39).

·         Jesus didn’t intend it literally (and especially not corporately … about congregations) when he said that “those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel will save it” (Mk. 8:35).

·         Yeah, that whole thing about “tax collectors and prostitutes going into the kingdom of God ahead of you [religious folks]” was just a figure of speech (Mt. 21:31).

·         Seriously, he was just trying to make a point when he proclaimed: “Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets” (Lk. 6:24-26).

·         Jesus was just being, you know, metaphorical when he set down the sweeping breadth of his vision of the saving love he was about to unleash through his death: “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself” (Jn. 12:32).

Irony: I--and progressives who view the Bible not as the blueprint of a castle meant to house a few select people but as a series of sketches meant, when taken together, to set down a comprehensive vision of an entirely new world in which everybody’s welcome--am regularly accused of not taking the Bible seriously, of picking an choosing only the parts I like, of failing to read the “literal sense” of Scripture.

Unfortunately, Christianity--because of so many botched attempts at fitting in, at being relevant, at making sure society doesn’t think us metaphysical rubes and hayseeds--has domesticated the faith to such an extent that disbelief takes little effort. We have fostered a situation in which it is appallingly easy, as Terry Eagleton says, to reject faith “on the cheap.” Faith, in the hands of too many of Jesus’ loudest and most unremittingly convinced fans, cannot but feel like the spiritual equivalent of polyester underpants--unflattering, out-of-date, and scratchy in the tenderest places.1

Here’s the thing: If the nones find disbelief preferable (and Lord knows there are plenty of really good reasons to do so) why not try to give them something interesting in which to disbelieve? My fear is that at the heart of much disbelief sits a reality that I, as a Christian, don’t have any stake in believing in either.

If the “nones” are leaving the church (and again, anyone with a little sense and some walking around change admits that there exist arguably compelling grounds for doing so) why not give them a true picture of what is they’re leaving? My fear is that they’re leaving because they’ve gotten a taste of a Christianity that many of us have no desire to defend.

If the “nones” ever should venture into a church looking for Jesus, they’re probably first going to have to witness him in the lives of his followers outside the church … years, miles before they ever get through the front door. My big fear is that what they’ll witness isn’t Jesus, but instead someone parading around wearing a symbol of the capital punishment that killed him, winking and talking knowingly about “those” people, and how this once proud Christian nation is going to hell because of ________ (fill in the blank: the humanists, the gays, the illegals, #BlackLivesMatter, the moochers who carry iPhones but who want us to pay for their healthcare, the gun control sissies, or the liberal socialists and their “class warfare”).2

Fifty years ago this April, Martin Luther King, Jr. sat in a jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama and wrote a letter to moderate clergymen in white mainline churches. In it he expressed his disappointment in the church’s inability to be a people formed more by a vision of Jesus than by fear of cultural rejection. Those “men of God” asked him to lighten up on the integration demands, to let time make the changes for which they were too afraid to stand. But in the process they forfeited something crucial--the ability to speak with integrity on behalf of Jesus, the one who gave his life as the ultimate embrace of the abandoned and the voiceless. It’s possible, I’ve heard it said somewhere, to lose your life by the very process employed to try to save it.

And do you want to know, at least in part, what losing your life while trying to save it might look like? According to Martin Luther King, it looks like a stampede of disgusted young people falling all over themselves trying to get to the back door.

They came. They saw. They got the hell out of Dodge.

The God who gave enough of a crap about this dirt mound to call it “good,” and then show up to rent a shabby one bedroom apartment in the very throbbing heart of it must find little utility in the overly sentimentalized and acculturated versions of piety that have come to be associated with popular Christianity. People are dying all over the world (many of them in our name) and we find time to fume over the fact that a baker has to make a cake for people whom she doesn’t approve of.

Poor folks in our own neighborhoods are hungry, cold, and sick, people of color are dying at the hands of the "justice" system, refugees in need are being refused hospitality because we can’t figure out a way to act like Jesus and build really cool bombs at the same time. So we spend our hours figuring out all the conspiratorial ways of rhetorically framing government bureaucrats as rapacious tyrants ready to relieve us of our money and our constitutional rights, instead of demanding that they help form an equitable society.

In 2015 the wealthiest 1% in the world owned 50% of the wealth, while those with a net worth less than $10,000 a year comprised 71% of the world’s population, but a vast swath of Christianity is much more concerned that folks with the same sexual equipment can now get a marriage license down at the courthouse in a handful of states.

Fifty years out, Martin Luther King called it. He said that “the judgment of God is on the church as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.”

And guess what happened. Over the next fifty years, we have seen those millions cast whatever loyalty to the church aside. Looking like a social club apparently just won’t get it done.

If the church ever figures to reclaim the respect of the “nones,” let alone their loyalty, it had better take a hard look--not just at itself, but at Jesus. Because to the extent that they’re looking at all, they’re looking for Jesus.

Why not try something new? We’ve done “disappointment” and “disgust” to death.

After I Buried My Son, I Learned to Grieve With Hope

Posted: 01/20/2016 8:14 am EST Updated: 01/20/2016 8:59 am EST

0

The church at Thessalonica was confused about some fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. They were frightened that they had missed Christ's second coming and they were concerned about their loved ones who had already died. So Paul wrote this letter to remind them of truth and offer comfort in their emotional distress:

"And regarding the question, friends, that has come up about what happens to those already dead and buried, we don't want you in the dark any longer. First off, you must not carry on over them like people who have nothing to look forward to, as if the grave were the last word. Since Jesus died and broke loose from the grave, God will most certainly bring back to life those who died in Jesus". -Thessalonians 4:13-14 MSG

This verse is quoted often to believers who have lost a loved one. At first, gently, sweetly, as an invitation to remember that God is in control, that He has a plan, that the grave is not victorious and that burying the body is not the end.
And, in the early days and weeks after the funeral, it IS comforting -- I chanted it to myself like a mantra and drew my heart from the brink of despair.
But at some point, this verse begins to feel like a rebuke -- "Here, here!" the well-meaning friend says, "Don't you know, that Jesus followers don't grieve like those who have no hope!"
And I turn, dumbfounded, to the person saying this, and wonder, "Have you buried a child?"
Have you grieved the too-soon, unexpected, violent end of your hopes and dreams without a chance to say, "good-bye"? Do you stand over the patch of dirt that now covers the buried body of your son and wonder how this happened? How can this be your life?
Do you wake up every morning and have that fraction of a moment where all is right with the world before your mind joins your eyes and reminds you that he is still gone?
• Yes, I firmly believe that my son is now with Jesus.
• Yes, I stand convinced that there will be a day when all tears are wiped away and I will be reunited with him.
• Yes, I feed the hope in my heart with truth from Scripture and remind myself daily that the grave is not the end.
But I am made of dust.
I am human. I am full of the emotions that God placed in my heart.
He gave me the capacity to embrace and love the tiny life growing inside me before I could see it or feel it. He made my child leap in my womb when I listened to praise music. He positioned Dominic as the third-born child in our family and gave him unique gifts and abilities.
And now He knows that as long as I live, I will grieve the son that I lost.
I will sorrow anew when others his age reach milestones -- get married, have children -- because not only did I lose the Dominic that WAS, I have lost the Dominic THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN.
I do "grieve with hope" -- I breathe in the life-affirming and spirit filling promise that the reality I am living is not the only reality there is. I lean into the Word of God and trust in, rely on and affirm the victory of Jesus Christ.
But I still GRIEVE.
I cannot force my heart to ignore the pain and sorrow that has been laid upon it.
So I continue to live each day, doing the work that God has left for me to do, but walking a little slower, a little more bowed down.
For those of us carrying this burden of grief, the greatest gift is grace and mercy and kindness -- we are doing the best we can.
Encouragement (lending courage to) must include acknowledging our daily struggle and the lifelong commitment we have made to battle on.
Ask us, listen to the answers and then hold our hand or dry our tears.
But don't expect us not to cry.
This post is part of Common Grief, a Healthy Living editorial initiative. Grief is an inevitable part of life, but that doesn't make navigating it any easier. The deep sorrow that accompanies the death of a loved one, the end of a marriage or even moving far away from home, is real. But while grief is universal, we all grieve differently. So we started Common Grief to help learn from each other. Let's talk about living with loss. If you have a story you'd like to share, email us at strongertogether@huffingtonpost.com.

Follow Melanie DeSimone on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeSimoneMelanie

More:

Bereaved Parents Grief Common Grief Child Loss Hope Common Grief

Japanese Schindler

'Japanese Schindler' Who Saved 6,000 Lives During World War II Finally Gets A Movie

"He just did what he thought was right."

01/19/2016 05:51 pm ET

• Carol Kuruvilla Religion Associate Editor, The Huffington Post

Steven Spielberg's 1993 film "Schindler's List" told the story of German businessman Oskar Schindler, whose determination to stand up for what was right saved approximately 1,100 Jews from the Nazis. Twenty-three years later, another hero who saved lives during the Holocaust is being commemorated on film. Chiune Sugihara was a Japanese diplomat who was stationed at a consulate in Kaunas, Lithuania during the early days of World War II. Between July 31 and August 28, 1940, Sugihara and his wife spent long nights writing and issuing more than 2,000 visas for Jewish refugees desperate to flee the Nazis and build new lives in Japan -- even though his actions defied the Japanese government's orders. "Persona Non Grata,” a biopic based on Sugihara's courageous actions, is scheduled to premiere in the United States on January 31 during the Atlanta Jewish Film Festival. Directed by Japanese-American director Cellin Gluck (best known for his work on “Remember the Titans,”  “Transformers,” and “Contact”), the movie was filmed in Poland and stars Japanese actor Toshiaki Karasawa as Sugihara. It's estimated that Sugihara, who is sometimes called the "Japanese Schindler," saved over 6,000 lives before he left Lithuania -- continuing to write and pass visas to people from the open window of his train as it was leaving Kaunas.When he returned to Japan years later, the diplomat was reportedly asked to resign from his government position. He resorted to taking up odd jobs and lived out his life quietly until 1968, when a survivor managed to make contact.In 1985, Israel granted him the designation of being "Righteous Among the Nations," a title conferred to non-Jews who refused to act as bystanders during the Holocaust. Gluck, the film's director, told Nippon that his goal wasn't to portray Sugihara as a "larger-than-life" figure, but to show how ordinary people can do extraordinary things. He pointed out that while Schindler saved the lives of people he knew, who worked in his own factory, Sugihara went above and beyond to rescue thousands he'd never seen."Heroes are born when ordinary people respond to extraordinary circumstances," Gluck said. “[Sugihara] didn’t advertise or flaunt his heroism. He just did what he thought was right, and as a result, thousands of people’s lives were saved, and their descendants eventually numbered in the tens of thousands. That’s what made him a hero.

Dress Uniform of the 79th Regiment, New York State Militia (“Cameron Highlanders”)

Dress Uniform of the 79th Regiment, New York State Militia (“Cameron Highlanders”) 1859-1861

The 79th NYSM was inspected by the Adjutant General of New York on October 25, 1859 with 223 officers and men present, and on the eve of the Civil War had a strength of 300, mostly first- or second-generation Scots. For war service the strength was increased to 795 men of various ethnic backgrounds.

It is not clear if all of the pre-war companies (six companies of about 50 men each) were given the full-dress uniform with kilts. In common with other pre-war militia units, each company may have had a different uniform, and each soldier probably was issued various orders of dress. Whereas the full dress uniform consisted of Glengarry (Scottish cap), tunic, kilt, sporran (hairy purse), hose (socks), and buckled shoes, a second uniform consisted of kepi (typical Civil War cap), tunic (the same as the full dress tunic), tartan trousers, and normal Army shoes. When the regiment went to war in 1861 it was this second uniform which was worn. Numerous photographs and engravings show that the full-dress tunic and tartan trousers were worn on active service. As the war progressed and these unique items wore out they were replaced by standard Army-issue blue trousers and navy blue “sack coats”. By mid-war the 79th NYSM was scarcely distinguishable from any other Union regiment.

The dress uniform as shown in pre-war photographs, and the Gettysburg uniform:
It is the pre-war full dress uniform that concerns us here. When I began researching the uniform (including a trip to Gettysburg) I was struck by how strongly the various sources coincided. Usually in historical research one is met with a variety of conflicting evidence and some sort of theoretical compromise has to be created. However, all pre-war sources pertaining to the uniform of the 79th New York agree. These sources consist of the only three photographs known of members of the 79th NY in kilts (shown here) and the uniform in the Gettysburg museum. The photographs speak for themselves. In the case of the Gettysburg uniform I am greatly indebted to Lee Phillips who was given permission to examine, photograph, and make diagrams of what is possibly the only extant complete pre-war uniform. Ancillary sources include the famous engraving which appeared in Harper’s Weekly in 1861, and the illustration on an 1861 recruiting poster (though these are artistic interpretations and have to be viewed with caution).
What is striking about the uniform is that every item is unique, not resembling anything made in Scotland for military or civilian use, nor resembling anything worn by any other American unit. The full dress uniform consisted of:

Glengarry: The shape of the Glengarry is different than those of today, being somewhat taller. These tall Glengarries were in vogue in Scotland for a short time after the Glengarry’s invention in the 1840’s and must have seemed old-fashioned to a Scot in 1859. The color is the typical dark blue with red tourie (yarn ball on top). However, the dicing (checked) pattern is unique, having two rows of squares in red/white/blue. All Scottish-made Glengarries have either three rows of dicing or no dicing. The cap badge is a small brass New York State seal. One photo shows metal numerals “79” worn on the front along with a metal thistle badge. The Gettysburg Glengarry has “79” over “NY” on the side in place of the New York State seal badge.




Tunic: This is also unique to the 79th NY. While the three-button three-pointed cuffs were worn by other New York units the collar and “skirts” are unique. The collar features red patches bordered by zigzags of white piping resembling lighting bolts (the “wings of Mercury”). The flaps or skirts around the bottom of the tunic appear to be a vague attempt at the “Inverness flaps” of a Scottish doublet, though the front panels of the tunic are each of one piece from the collar to the bottom of the flap, merely being “cut away” to accommodate the sporran. Removable elaborate fringed epaulettes were usually worn in full dress. The tunic itself had no shoulder straps. No collar badges were worn. This tunic was also worn on active service (with trousers and kepi) as is shown by the photographs of 79th NY members taken prisoner at First Bull Run, and sketches of 79th NY members wounded in hospital.

Kilt: About 200 kilts were made by New York tailors. These were machine-sewn throughout and contained six yards of Cameron of Erracht tartan. The back had 12 “box pleats” and were neither sewn “to the stripe” nor “to the tartan” but appear as if a half-hearted attempt to pleat “to the tartan” were being made. The tartan was not centered on the front panel, nor was the fringe aligned to the tartan. The strap on the wearer’s left does not go through a slot in the kilt as on Scottish-made kilts, but buckles internally, a system perhaps unique to the kilts of the 79th New York. I am indebted to Matthew Newsome, a kilt maker who has examined an original 79th New York kilt, for this information.

Sporran: Though not completely dissimilar to any Scottish sporran the 79th sporran is again unique: white horse or goat hair, three black tassels in black leather cones, and a uniquely shaped black leather cantle. Like other mid-19th century sporrans it is somewhat larger than those made today.

Hose: Red-and-white diced “full hose” were common to a number of Scottish regiments, but those of the 79th New York had unique plain white turnovers. The garter ribbons are typical of the 1810-1850 period, worn over the turnovers.

Shoes: These are neither colonial-style with functional buckle, nor the Scottish “Mary Jane” style worn today. They resemble loafers with a decorative (non-functional) buckle. This type can be seen in photos of Scottish officers in “Levee Dress” in the 1850-1870 period.

Belt: The group photo shows the typical Civil War black leather belt with brass oval buckle (bearing the letters “US” or “SNY”), while the photo of James Berry shows a tall rectangular buckle bearing the letter “B” (referring to Company B).

The Albany uniform:
There exists a somewhat different uniform on display in Albany, New York which is thought to be post-war (the 79th New York National Guard was not dissolved until 1876). The tunic and sporran are not quite the same as the pre-war type, and the Glengarry and hose-tops appear to be Scottish-made items quite unlike those worn by the 79th NYSM from 1859-1861. It is this uniform, and not the pre-war Gettysburg uniform, which has been photographed for a number of Civil War picture books (“First Blood” page 137 and “Memorabilia of the Civil War” page 10, both by William C. Davis).

Incorrect depictions of the uniform in various books:
The 79th New York’s uniform has been misrepresented in a number of books, especially “Uniforms of the Civil War” by Philip Haythornthwaite. In the illustration the Glengarry, tunic, kilt, sporran, hose, and garter ribbons are incorrect, and in the text the tunic and sporran are incorrectly described. Photographs of prisoners in kilts are mentioned: no such photographs are known to exist. The author alleges that kilt aprons were worn: kilt aprons did not appear until the Boer War, 40 years after the Civil War. Haythornthwaite, suspiciously, gives no sources for any of his ideas. “Combat Uniforms of the Civil War” by Mark Lloyd is scarcely better. In the illustration the Glengarry has bizarre red/white/pink dicing and the jacket is wrong in several details. Part of the jacket’s red piping has attached itself somehow to the sporran. However, the footwear is correctly shown. The text describes a uniform quite different than the one shown in the illustration and even more removed from what the 79th NY actually wore. While containing much of interest, “Blue Bonnets Over The Border” by William McKnight presents a fuzzy picture of the 79th NY’s uniform in which concrete evidence and pure conjecture are given equal weight. At least McKnight has a bibliography, which reveals that among his sources are the fanciful books by Haythornthwaite and Lloyd. It is in this way that misinformation is repeated by those who do not choose to be guided by the evidence. I should point out that McKnight or his publisher switched the captions to the photos of 79th New York uniforms displayed in museums (pages 145 and 146). Just what purpose the absurd and inaccurate modern drawings in all of these books are supposed to serve, when period photographs exist which show the uniform in wonderful detail, is hard to fathom.

Dissimilarity to the uniform of the 79th Foot (Cameron Highlanders) of Scotland:
Note that not a single item of the uniform of the 79th New York State Militia’s 1859-1861 full dress uniform resembles any part of the uniform of the 79th Foot (Cameron Highlanders) of Scotland, with the exception of the tartan (as we have seen, the construction of the kilt is quite different). I often see items of the Scottish Cameron Highlanders incorrectly worn on the uniform of the 79th New York by Civil War re-enactors, such as collar badges, cap badges, spats, kilt covers, and even the “blue hackle”, which was not adopted by Scotland’s Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders until 1940, making it an anachronism of nearly a century!

Did the 79th New York have pipers? The controversy:
Most serious students have come to the conclusion that the 79th New York did not have their own pipers or pipe band. Some contend that the “Pipe and Drum Corps” (whatever that may have been) of New York’s Caledonian Club provided music for the 79th New York on occasion. The photograph of the 79th New York marching down a New York street on July 4, 1860 shows what appears to be three pipers marching in front, their pipes held to the side with drones facing forward in the military “pipes down” position. Though it is possible that these are officers holding swords, on close examination I believe them to be pipers. If they are indeed pipers they are wearing the same uniform as the regiment except that their tunics seem to have three rows of buttons, a common distinction for musician’s uniforms in the Civil War. Adding to the uncertainty is a post-war (1890) engraving of Colonel Laing of the 79th New York State National Guard: his tunic, thought closely resembling the pre-war dress tunic, has three rows of buttons.

My 79th New York Dress Uniform: I have long been fascinated by this unique Scottish-American regiment, the only unit in United States military history to be issued the kilt. It was difficult to put together the uniform as almost everything had to be custom-made.
The tunic was beautifully tailored by Scottish Modern Enterprises of Archer, Illinois and the sporran was wonderfully crafted by L&M Highland Outfitters of Nova Scotia. The authentic 79th New York style shoe buckles were provided by MacKenzie Frain LTD of Dalzell House, Motherwell, Scotland. Both the tunic and sporran were based on diagrams by Lee Phillips made directly from the Gettysburg uniform. I feel that it is very appropriate to wear this uniquely American uniform when piping for US military functions.

Honor Dr. King By Rejecting Violence in All Its Forms

Posted: 01/18/2016 10:14 am EST Updated: 01/18/2016 10:59 am EST

• Share18
• Tweet
• Comment12

• 

Exactly one year before he was shot to death, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke out publicly against the Vietnam War. He did this in disagreement with many of his civil rights contemporaries, who were afraid he would fracture what was becoming a tenuous alliance with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, notwithstanding the fact that Vietnam was a Democratic war.

King's opposition to the war was entirely consistent with his lifelong adherence to non-violence; simply put, he believed that using violence as a response to the social or economic ills that plagued mankind only produced more violence and could never be justified as the necessary means to achieve a desirable end. I was at New York's Riverside Church when King made his first anti-Vietnam speech, and I recall how the emotions in that hall jumped as King accused his own country of using the same violence to quell the revolution in Southeast Asia as had been used to deny civil rights to African-Americans at home.

How much has changed in the nearly 50 years since Dr. King delivered that speech? I'd like to think that when it comes to the use of violence in response to social and economic problems, perhaps we have moved ahead. But I'm not sure this is the case, and I'm certainly not about to say that we have learned how to separate the use of violence from the use of guns.

A day doesn't go by without some pro-gun mouthpiece reminding us that guns protect us from crime. And basically what they are all saying is that violence can and should be used against violence, except they don't call it gun violence, they call it self-protection, freedom, and 2nd-Amendment rights. But make no mistake about it, when the NRA promotes CCW or Stand Your Ground laws, they are not only saying that violence is and should be a response to violence, they are asking for legal immunity for anyone taking that path. Now that most states have legalizedunconditional CCW when it did not exist as a doctrine during Dr. King's lifetime, shouldn't we say that violence has become more, rather than less of an accepted social norm since his death?

Not only is violence sanctioned in the American legal fabric, but when efforts are made to curb violence through lawful means, the gun lobby and its sycophants in and out of the media resist such efforts on a continuous and usually successful basis. Only 28 states have CAP laws which, by definition, would curb the unintended violence caused by accidental shootings, often committed by young children. And if this isn't bad enough, we have the disgraceful attempt by the NRA and several of its loony medical partners to demonize physicians for asking patients about access to guns, as if gun violence, as opposed to other forms of violence, lie outside the accepted purview of medical care.

We could blame this socially-acceptable diffusion of violence on the rhetorical excesses of the NRA, but Dr. King would be the first to object to such a facile explanation. Because in his 1967 speech, King was clear that we would not be able to reduce or eliminate violence at home if we did not find ways to reduce our use of organized, state-sanctioned violence abroad. And while I would like to say that we have learned this lesson from the debacle of Vietnam, in fact it appears that each succeeding generation needs to re-learn this lesson again. The $600 billion that we spent on the Pentagon in 2015 represents nearly 40 percent of military expenditures worldwide, and American military personnel are based in more than 100 countries that do not fly our flag.

Let's not forget on Dr. King's Day: the same president who signed the historic Voting Rights Act in 1965 signed the Gun Control Act in 1968. In between those two dates, he sent half a million young men to Vietnam

The Power Of Interfaith Activism

These Vintage Photos Of Jewish-Black Unity Prove The Power Of Interfaith Activism

"The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence."

 01/16/2016 04:13 pm ET

• Carol KuruvillaReligion Associate Editor, The Huffington Post

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Baptist Church priest Martin Luther King Jr. marched with leaders including Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, second from right, in Selma, Alabama, in 1965.

On August 28, 1963, a few minutes before Martin Luther King Jr. delivered one of the most important speeches in American history, a white man in a crisp suit took to the podium on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

Looking out over the National Mall, Rabbi Joachim Prinz told the quarter of a million people gathered there that he came to them "as an American Jew." 

He then spoke about his past as a rabbi in the German capital Berlin under theregime of Adolf Hitler. 

I learned many things. The most important thing that I learned under those tragic circumstances was that bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problem. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence ... America must not become a nation of onlookers. America must not remain silent.

Drawing on their own experiences of oppression throughout the centuries and particularly during the Holocaust, many American Jews refused to remain silent during the civil rights movement. They didn't lead the charge or take the place of black activists during that time, but they did act as important interfaith allies -- helping to build schools for young black children and serving as founding members and even presidents of the NAACP. Jewish rabbis developed close friendships with black community leaders like Dr. King. Jewish people also made up a significant portion of the white participants in the Freedom Rides, a series of trips through the South to integrate interstate bus terminals.

These rabbis' congregants didn't always support them, particularly those based in the South. Some American Jews during the time feared anti-Semitic reprisals from the Ku Klux Klan. But the social justice-minded rabbis pressed on, convinced by scripture verses that stated that all of humanity is "created in the image of God."

While there is some debate in the community about whether Jews are as visible in today’s #BlackLivesMatter movements as they were in civil rights issues of the past, many Jewish racial justice organizations have continued to take part in public protests and work behind the scenes towards legal reform that would ensure equality for black people. 

It's different this time around, since the American Jewish population has become more racially diverse over the past few decades due to interracial marriage, adoption, and conversion. According to Rabbi Jonah Pesner, director of the Religion Action Center of Reform Judaism, 10 percent of Reform Jews, the largestJewish denomination in America, are people of color.

We will march 50 more years or however long it takes to bring justice to all people.Rabbi Jonah Pesner

When protests erupted in Ferguson last year over the death of Michael Brown, localRabbi Susan Talve donned a Jewish prayer shawl and linked arms with interfaith clergy members to take in a peaceful march. And last summer, more than 150 rabbis joined an NAACP pilgrimage from Selma to Washington, D.C. to promote voting rights, education reform and economic equality, carried a torah scroll with them for the entire journey. Jewish synagogues along the route reportedly opened their doors to offer marchers a place to rest.

Pesner said that in honor of the life and work of the Dr. King, Jr, this weekend's Shabbat is marked out as a "shabbat tzedek," or a shabbat for justice. The readings this weekend -- which center on the Exodus from Egypt -- happen to fit perfectly with the theme.

"We didn't start marching 50 years ago," Pesner told The Huffington Post. "We started marching 5000 years ago when we came out of Egypt. And we will march 50 more years or however long it takes to bring justice to all people." 

HuffPost Religion has collected historical photos of just a few of the Jewish rabbis who took  action during the civil rights movement. This remarkable partnership between Jewish people and the black community is still a reminder of the power of interfaith activism. 

• Julius Rosenwald
  
  Buyenlarge via Getty Images
  Julius Rosenwald is a philanthropist and former part-owner of Sears, Roebuck and Company who lived before the civil rights era but used his personal wealth to advance the lives of young black Americans. Together with Booker T. Washington, he hatched an ambitious plan to build over 5,000 public schools for black students in the Jim Crow South. Many famous African Americans have graduated from these “Rosenwald” schools, including late poet Maya Angelou and U.S. Representative John Lewis.
• Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
  
  ASSOCIATED PRESS
  Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel’s early experience of both anti-Semitism and apathy in Nazi Germany set the tone for the rest of his life. He was an expert in the study of the biblical prophets, and used their examples as inspiration to speak out clearly against injustice and inequality. Heschel met Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1963 during a Chicago conference on race and religion. The two struck up a friendship, and on March 21, 1965, Heschel joined forces with Dr. King for the historic march from Selma. He said later that he felt as if his “legs were praying."
• 
  William Lovelace via Getty Images
• Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath
  
  ASSOCIATED PRESS
  Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath is seen to the right of Dr. King, holding the torah during a silent prayer protest against the Vietnam War. Dr. King was a staunch opponent of the Vietnam War, believing that U.S. presence in Southeast Asia smacked of imperialism and diverted money and resources away from the black poor. In a letter to King about Vietnam, Eisendrath wrote: “You have not only my unswerving admiration, my fondest wishes, and my prayers. You have my whole-hearted support and deeply felt pledge of cooperation and assistance in this painful but imperative task of seeking peace and justice for all the creatures of God.”
• Rabbi Joachim Prinz
  
  Universal History Archive via Getty Images
  In this image, civil rights leaders meet with President John F. Kennedy in the oval office of the White House after the March on Washington D.C. From left to right, they are Willard Wirtz (Secretary of Labour), Floyd McKissick (CORE), Mathew Ahmann (National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice), Whitney Young (National Urban League), Martin Luther King, Jr. (SCLC), John Lewis (SNCC), Rabbi Joachim Prinz (American Jewish Congress), A. Philip Randolph, with Reverend Eugene Carson Blake partially visible behind him, President John F. Kennedy, Walter Reuther (labour leader), with Vice President Lyndon Johnson partially visible behind him. 
  
  Rabbi Joachim Prinz fled from Nazi Germany in 1937 and resettled in America. He was active in the Jewish community in Newark, New Jersey, and eventually became the President of the American Jewish Congress. He participated in the March on Washington, coming to the podium just before Dr. King’s famous “I Have A Dream” speech.
  During his address, Prinz told the gathered crowd, “When I was the rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin under the Hitler regime, I learned many things. The most important thing that I learned under those tragic circumstances was that bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problem. The most urgent, the most disgraceful, the most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence."
• Rabbi Israel Dresner
  
  ASSOCIATED PRESS
  Three of 10 freedom riders on trial at Tallahassee, Fla., for unlawful assembly talk to each other during a court recess on Thursday, June 22, 1961 in Tallahassee, Fla. The riders were charged following an attempt to integrate the city airport restaurant on June 15-16. Talking are (from left) Rabbi Israel Dresner of Springfield, N.J., one of two Jewish leaders in the group; the Rev. A.L. Hardge of New Britain, Conn., one of three African Americans; and the Rev. Robert Storm of New York City, one of five white protestant ministers. 
  
  Rabbi Israel Dresner has been called “the most arrested rabbi in America.” He was one of the Tallahassee Ten, a group of Freedom Riders who were arrested in 1961 for trying to eat at a segregated airport restaurant in Tallahassee, Florida. Hereturned to Florida in 1964 to serve out a brief jail term, before proudly eating at the same restaurant that had refused the group years earlier.
• 
  ASSOCIATED PRESS
• Rabbi Martin Freedman
  
  Bettmann/Corbis
  Known as the “Renaissance Rabbi,” Rabbi Martin Freedman (far right) was also one of the Tallahassee Ten. Freedman and Rabbi Israel Dresner (next to him) are taken to the Tallahassee city building where they were charged with unlawful assembly after they and ten other 'Freedom Riders' were arrested attempting to eat at the Tallahassee airport.
• Rabbi Jacob M. Rothschild
  
  William Lovelace/Daily Express/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
  After serving Jewish congregations in the North, Rabbi Jacob Rothschild took up a position at The Temple synagogue in Atlanta, Georgia, and was “immediately disturbed” by the racism and segregation he saw in the community around him. For years, The Temple’s leadership had avoided confrontation with their pro-segregationist neighbors about racism. Rothschild changed that by using his pulpit to preach about racial justice and joining local interfaith organizations. The Temple was bombed on October 12, 1958, which only served to increase Rothschild’s resolution to fight for integration.
• Rabbi Perry Nussbaum
  
  Bettmann/CORBIS
  As a rabbi in the Jackson Mississippi, Perry Nussbaum faced immense pressurefrom his white neighbors and even from his congregants to stay quiet about racism in order to avoid drawing the attention of the local Ku Klux Klan. Nussbaum became more outspoken after waves of freedom riders arrived in his town in the summer of 1961 to protest segregation, becoming a chaplain to protesters who had been jailed. He went on to organize fundraising drives to rebuild churches. In 1967, his synagogue and his home were bombed. In this image, Nussbaum is talking to journalists on November 22, 1967, just one day after the bombing, in the living room of his house. Boarded-up windows can be seen behind him.