Earlier this month Jake Meador wrote a great piece titled “The Invisible Anglicanism of C.S. Lewis” wherein he reminded readers that while many people claim Lewis now, it would be wrong to ignore that Lewis’ willingness to work within the Anglican tradition gave him the necessary framework to become the C.S. Lewis we know in retrospect. Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day here in the United States and Meador’s article has me thinking about Dr. King’s roots. Last night I attended an interfaith service with my wife at Antioch Missionary Baptist Church here in San Antonio, TX, in honor of Dr. King’s memory and vision. One of the participants made a statement that we must remember that Dr. King didn’t do his work independently, but that he stood on the shoulders of those who had come before him. Admittedly, I don’t know much about Dr. King’s background in that sense, but according to Jacqueline Trussell’s article “Standing On Big Shoulders: The Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.”,
The African American Baptist church is a religious institution within the African American community that has produced leaders of national and international reputation. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a product of this denomination that had a history and legacy of giving leadership to the social, political, economic and spiritual development of African Americans.
Trussell goes on to unpack this claim in her article. This has me wondering if we’ve done the same thing to MLK that many do to C.S. Lewis: universalize him without acknowledging that the resources of a certain tradition made it possible for him to emerge as a great figure. In other words, MLK isn’t alone, but he is a product of the legacy of Black Baptists in the United States and the Black Church more broadly. If this is true, then part of remembering Dr. King may require investigating, to some degree, the message of the tradition that gave him to us all.
While Dr. King is a gift to the Black community, the people of the United States, all Christians of various denominational affiliations, people of other religious persuasions, and all those who seek to live in a world where “justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like an overflowing stream” (Amos 5:24), we should be cautious about universalizing him to the point where we forget his roots and the tradition that equipped him to challenge the injustices around him.
Thoughts? Any resources you’d recommend for people to better understand Dr. King’s roots? What role do you think the Baptist tradition played in his formation? What about other traditions?
the archives near Emmaus 
In some sense, it sounds like you’re saying that we must look at a persons accomplishments in light of their background but also in distinction to it.
C.S. Lewis’s world view was informed by the theology of the Anglican communion, but as an individual was able to communicate this in extraordinary ways. Similarly, Michael King’s (Martin Luther King Jr) world view was informed by Bayard Rustin’s ‘democratic socialism’ assimilated into Black American Baptist theology. While it’s true that neither Michael King nor C.S. Lewis’s influences are independent, yet history at least records both as exceptional in some sense.
Your question then, about whether King like Lewis, as been universalized without acknowledging that the resources of a certain tradition made it possible for him to emerge as a great figure, is a great question.
In the case of Lewis, the fact that he had been a rational atheist (decidedly so) as a consequence of his experience in two world wars meant that there are elements to his story apart from his religious tradition that influence his perspective and his faith. Accordingly when he converted to Christianity (under J.R.R Tolkien’s influence) he had to deconstruct what this meant rationally. Combined with his interests and intellect, this made him particularly suitable to explain the faith simply in a way that still resonates.
In the case of King, the African American Baptist church as a religious institution within the African American community, has produced leaders of national and international reputation, yet Michael’ King’s accomplishments are somehow seen to be more noteworthy in a historical sense, so what set him apart?
Like Lewis, King was also profoundly influence by experiences beyond his tradition. Although Christianity’s chief concern is with the separation between God and His people (the problem of sin). The chief concern of Bayard Rustin’s ‘democratic socialism were more wordly – specifically equality, fraternity, liberty, the pillars of the French Revolution. Caught between American Baptists theology of white and black and emerging socialist theory, King’s world view was held in tension (he says as much). However with support from Quakers, King was able to travel to India where he found a resolution to this tension by being introduced to yet another world view – namely Gandhi’s pluralistic teaching on non-violence; Gandhi’s Hinduism.
Accordingly, King was able to pull from his faith pluralistic socialism. He was also able to advance it in a (non-violence) way that appeared to stand in contrast to the cultural stereotype (of the dominant culture) his generation had constructed (this culture had used violence to reject violent socialism (communism)). The worldly appeal of non-Christian pluralism combined with peaceful socialism still resonates.
In some sense both men have been universalized without acknowledging that the resources of certain traditions, but they’ve also been universalized without acknowledging the specific context of their lives which makes them both exceptional – notwithstanding the differences between them – C.S. Lewis’s influene is really only of interest to Christians, whereas King’s influence, drawing on both pluralism and socialism, is far more worldly.
@ Andrew T
Some interesting points. You seem to make a point to use King’s birth name of Michael as opposed to “Martin Luther”. I’m curious, if this is so, as to the reason(s) you do so.
I may be reading into your comments on this next point, but you seem to be diminishing the influence of Christianity or Christian faith, on King’s part, in the development of his thinking and approach. I frankly can’t say if this is warranted or unwarranted but I’d be interested to know your reasoning if I’ve observed rightly.
@Andrew: I’d agree that MLK has a far broader appeal than Lewis, though I’ve heard Lewis is still revered by Medievalists! Also, it does seem as if King drew from more sources for inspiration than Lewis, at least at first glance.
Reblogged this on Sunday School on Steroids-The Seminary Experience.