Theological Response to Feminist Theology - Sexism and God-Talk and Battered Love

Introduction
I belong to a culture that is well known for its chauvinism and sexism. Women, even though they play an important role in society, are still under the auspices of men. As in many other Western societies, women are repeatedly treated unequally and despite the continual growth in awareness and inclusiveness of the sexes, they have not yet arrived where men today still stand alone.
With this being said, I look at feminist theology with respect. However, as I approach it, I bring with me the weight of a culture that praises male dominance, especially in church environments. This is my background; this is the way I was raised, and unfortunately, this will eventually become apparent in this paper, not in the form of sexism, but in the form of spontaneous reaction to a different paradigm[1]. However, my intention is not to perpetuate the wrongness of my culture, but to be challenged, transformed for the better, and as the result, be an agent of awareness and transformation regarding sexual equality.
I personally do not see women as being different from men in their humanity and capacity. I also recognize that I do not have trouble seeing men and women playing the same roles in society. For me, men and women are equally capable to execute the same jobs and have the same positions in any area of society. I affirm the same regarding public offices. Thus, for me, men and women can occupy any governmental position regardless of whether it is city, state or national. I disagree when I am aware that women normally are paid less for doing the same job as men. I feel bad every time I hear or see on TV domestic violence where usually the men beat or morally damage the women, or when I am aware of any violence (rape, torture, battery, etc.) against women practiced by men.
My struggle, though, arises when I try to equalize the roles of men and women in the religious sphere. In this case, my personal inclinations toward an equality of roles and my deep sympathies toward women’s leadership are seriously compromised. The simple reason for this dichotomy does not lie in my culture (although my culture ratifies this approach), but in my understanding of the Bible.

Sexism and God-Talk – Rosemary Radford Ruether

As any other oppressed group, women also redefined theology in such a way to rescue their voices and their importance among those who are considered oppressors. I appreciate the principle of feminist theology. However, I cannot totally agree with Ruether when she says that “[T]heologically speaking, whatever diminishes or denies the full humanity of women must be presumed not to reflect the divine or an authentic relation to the divine, or to reflect the authentic nature of things, or to be the message or work of an authentic redeemer or a community of redemption” (19). This statement is extremely profound as Ruether excludes anyone who denies the full humanity of women from their imago dei, reason, salvation and church (without mentioning its proper names). It sounds as if Ruether is considering this sin (which is horrible and must be completely avoided) as unforgivable. Not that she is stating this, but this is how it sounds to me. Furthermore, in her attempt to recognize the values of different beings, Ruether ends up negating humanity (both male and female) as the crown of creation. Thus, while I can see Ruether’s attempt to recover the full image of women in Scripture, I also see her denial or even complete rejection of basic truths in the Bible.
On the other hand, I believe that Ruether is completely right in her description of women as the oppressed of the oppressed. Thus, feminist theology in this regard, becomes more effective than other liberation theologies. Liberation theology in a sense seems to be blind to the particular struggle of oppressed women in their communities or in a sexist society. So, feminist theology goes deeper in the rescue of the oppressed women, calling oppressor the very person who in a larger scale is the oppressed (poor men in general).
Another characteristic of Ruether’s theology that I do not appreciate is her embrace of other religious texts (Gnostics and even texts of other religions) as an attempt to “clean” her theology from patriarchal influences. Personally, I find this problematic, especially considering the Bible’s own claims of the use of such texts. Apparently, many of the false teachings and teachers exposed in the New Testament were of Gnostics. The apostle John wrote an entire letter warning the church about false teachings. The short letter of Jude also talks about the influence of Gnosticism in the early church. Thus, Ruether’s use or appreciation of texts that are not canonical represents a problem in her theology. It seems that Ruether is trying to use the Bible texts to prove that it is permeated with sexism, and therefore, that it must be reinterpreted using alternate texts to form a feminist theology. In other words, she is using the Bible against itself to produce a new theology from extra biblical writings. Even though I disagree with the patriarchal worldview of both Old and New Testaments, I do not think that creating a new feminist non-patriarchal theology is the remedy to sexism and chauvinism. There must be another way of bringing equality of sexes from an orthodox view point (am I being too unrealistic?). Regarding Ruether’s term to express the fullness of the divine she wants to picture in her book, I do not see any problem with it. The term God/ess is really clever and according to Ruether it covers both male and female characteristic of God. However, when Ruether (rightly) suggests that “God/ess-language cannot validate roles of men or women in stereotypical ways that justify male dominance and female subordination” (69), I find it difficult to accept. As I said, the term is clever and appropriate and she is right in point this out, but nevertheless, it does not erase the patriarchal tendency found in the Bible or do justice to the larger amount of references to God as male. I know that the God I see in the Bible is a patriarchal-chauvinist God for Ruether, however, the God/ess of Ruether is a fake god. Let me try to explain my point. Ruether’s God/ess is the imagination of a God not found in the Bible. I know that in Jesus Christ we find the perfect revelation of God and that Jesus identified himself with the poor and the oppressed. I also know that since Jesus is our greatest model, we too must act like him toward the poor and oppressed. We must identify ourselves with the poor, the weak and the oppressed, no matter what their race or gender. Acting like that, we will sympathize with them and we will not act as oppressors. However, God the Father and the glorified Jesus are not like Ruether’s God/ess. We find in Ruether’s deity an only immanent God, whereas the biblical God is both immanent and mainly transcendent. He is as Barth extensively writes about, totally other. He is from a different category, so to speak. We must learn from the pages of the Bible and accept the patterns which are proposed there. Ruether’s God/ess is an idol or a fake god not because of its sympathy with women, but mainly because of its denial of the real God of Scripture. The problem I see here is that for Ruether every theology, every biblical and church tradition, every Scripture passage is corrupted by “patriarchal alienation.”
While reading Ruether’s book, I came across conceptions that I have never heard about. For example, Ruether, referring to churchmen’s ideas throughout the history of the church, writes “[A]s an ‘inferior mix,’ woman can never as fully represent the image of God as man” (94). She also states that “[W]ithin history, woman’s subjugation is both the reflection of her inferior nature and the punishment for her responsibility for sin” (95). These are only two examples from several stated in the book. I wish I could argue against these statements and say that Ruether was wrong. But unfortunately Ruether proves her case by showing in the writings of prominent theologians that in fact what she wrote was right, and by right I mean that the theologians indeed wrote about women in the terms quoted above. Augustine, the first theologian mentioned, did not consider the women apart from men as bearing the image of God. Aquinas talks about women in Aristotelian terms considering them inferior to men. These pre-reformation views of women, I confess, were entirely new to me. However, the views presented by Ruether after the Reformation I have heard about, and I am more sympathetic towards them. Basically, Luther considers the position of women as a punishment from her sin and Calvin considers the place of women as the divine created social order which has nothing to do with her sin. So, according to Calvin, before God created the world, He ordained that men would rule and women would follow men’s rule.
Following the patriarchal anthropology, Ruether brings the feminist egalitarian anthropologies into the discussion: eschatological feminism, liberal feminism, and romantic feminism. What these feminist anthropologies try to do is essentially rescue the value of women from patriarchal views of them. Ruether’s argument can be summarized in her own words: “[W]omen, through the opening of equal education and political rights, have indeed demonstrated their ability to exercise the ‘same’ capacities as men” (109). Thus, Ruether’s point is that the theologians were wrong and that even some feminist anthropologies were wrong. Instead, men and women are totally equal in every aspect if they receive the same education and opportunities in life. Furthermore, Ruether argues that as humans, male and female have a “full and equivalent human nature and personhood” (111). I personally find it difficult to argue against Ruether’s point in this matter. I read in Genesis where God seems to have punished Eve with submission to her husband, but what I see in our world is this passage being taken so mistakenly that I do not know if that is what God intended for women. I totally agree with Ruether that male and female are different because of the work of culture and socialization. But again, I must ask myself, who do I have to obey or follow, God or my own tendencies? One thing I know, Augustine and Aquinas completely missed the point on their observation of woman. I definitely disagree with them; however, Luther and Calvin’s views are tempting to me.
I now want to turn my attention to Weems’ book Battered Love. In this book Weems analyzes the metaphorical language of husband/wife found in the book of the prophets Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

Battered Love – Renita J. Weems

Weems’ book is an excellent study on the figurative language used by the prophets in order to convey a message that is effective in a patriarchal society. She uses the prophetic speeches of Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, concentrating on their use of metaphorical language. However, even though Weems recognizes the several types of metaphors used by these particular prophets, what she is more concerned with is specifically the husband/wife metaphor. In fact, the husband/wife metaphor has for the Old Testament society a deeper meaning. Weems says that “the metaphor of the promiscuous wife is the kind of metaphor Hebrew men shared with other Hebrew men, in that it was a metaphor that absolved them of guilt in battering their wives, a metaphor that absolved them of serving lore about women and women’s bodies, and a metaphor that justified the control and punishment of women” (42). Thus, Weems touches on the central nerve of ancient Hebrew society. She brings to the surface difficult to understand parallels between an unfaithful woman and an unfaithful society. She also exposes the prophet’s skills to provide a message that is greatly effective from men’s point of view, but at the same time, extremely biased towards women in general. Towards the end of the book, Weems brings the metaphor of husband/wife to the present, questioning what we are going to do with it. Is there a place in our post-modern society where we can continue to use the same type of language without promoting violence and sexism toward women? Is male violence justifiable in today’s society regardless of women’s behavior? These are the type of questions we need to respond to after reading Weems.
I really appreciated Weems’ approach to the matter of violence, sex and marriage in the Hebrew prophets. She does not try to move away from the biblical text, but she recognizes it and even understands the prophet’s use of such vivid and heavy language. She writes from the stand point of the oppressed (as an African American woman); however, we do not find any bitterness in her writings. I also think that she is right to be concerned about the reaction of the modern reader of such texts, especially women. For some people, it is hard to separate violence towards women from God’s ways of dealing with the unfaithful Israel.
However, in my personal experience, I have met several Christian women that would agree with God’s way of dealing with unfaithfulness. These women would say that God is not punishing women in general, but only those who are unfaithful. They would also say that the metaphor is not used for women only but for men as well, since the idea of the metaphor is not violence against women but punishment against unfaithfulness from either men or women. Another argument that these women use is that since God is male, he could not consider Israel as another male but only female, so, gender is not an issue in the metaphors but it is the only way to characterize the relationship between a male God and His people. Finally, these women agree that unfaithfulness in a marriage relationship is wrong and that it does not have a place among both Christian women and men. Now, whether these women agree that the means of gang rape and mutilation as described in Hosea 23 is God’s way to punish unfaithfulness, I do not know the answer. I assume that as followers of Christ they would also consider any type of violence against the spirit of the Gospel.
So, what makes these women accept the use of violence against women in the Old Testament and not accept the same type of violence today? My best answer for this question would be that today we are under a new covenant. The ways God dealt with His people in the past are not the ways Jesus relates to us today. Thus, they accept this type of language the same way males and females accept God’s command to slaughter the Canaanites or the Baal prophets. It was “okay” back then, it is wrong today.
Conclusion
Ruether and Weems are necessary voices in our society. I believe that our seminaries and religious institutions need to hear more attentively what feminist theology has to say. There must be more conversation and less debate. History has shown that women are not the weak vessels as mentioned in the Bible, and that they have their place in all areas of society. If we completely shut our ears from hearing the voice of courageous women such as Ruether, Weems, and many others, we are not only showing our prejudice towards them, but also, we are showing our ignorance and our fear of losing power. Hearing them, however, does not mean that we must accept all their claims and speculations. But it definitely means that we all, men and women alike, are still struggling to understand what the will of God on this matter is.

[1] I point this out not to say that I am completely influenced by my culture to the point that I agree with the position in which women are usually placed in society. I point this out as a way of positioning myself against this cultural trend but at the same time inescapably influenced by it.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao

Brief Biography of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Birmingham Letter

Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) was born in 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 15. His family was deep rooted in the African American Baptist church tradition in Atlanta. His maternal grandfather was a Baptist pastor as well as his father. Both (grandfather and father) served their community at Ebenezer Baptist Church, the same church where later on MLK would become the associate pastor. MLK soon learned about the social problems that African Americans faced in the United States. As Clayborne Carson states, “[K]ing’s formative experiences not only immersed him in the affairs of Ebenezer but also introduced him to the African American social gospel tradition exemplified by his father and grandfather, both of whom were of the Atlanta branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.”[1]
In 1944, at the age of fifteen, MLK entered Morehouse College, and three years later he was ordained to the gospel ministry at his father’s church.[2] In college, MLK not only struggled to make good grades, but also, to choose the right career to follow. MLK knew about his parents’ desire for him to follow his father’s career. However, MLK was skeptical about religion during his years of college. As Haskins says, “It seemed to him [MLK] that black religion, which was all he knew, concentrated too much on heaven and the rewards of the next life and not enough on the trials of this life. He also felt that religion appealed to the emotions more than to the intellect.”[3] During this period of doubt, MLK had Law or Medicine in mind rather than Religion. He ended up majoring in sociology, thinking about having a career in Law. However, instead of going to the Law school, MLK entered seminary after graduation. He went to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. In seminary, MLK was introduced to liberal and neo-orthodox theologies. MLK was very sympathetic with Niebuhr’s theology “which emphasized the intractability of social evil.”[4]
In 1951, MLK graduated from seminary and decided to further his education on religion. Thus, he began his PhD studies in theology at Boston University. In Boston, MLK met Coretta Scott, who later would become Coretta Scott King. MLK and Coretta were married in 1953 at Coretta’s father’s lawn in Heiberger, Alabama.[5] In 1954, MLK accepted the invitation to become pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, and a year later, he completed his doctoral studies.
Up to this point, MLK was neither a well known person nor a preeminent leader of the civil rights movement, but rather, a well educated Baptist minister in the southern United States. However, things were about to change in MLK’s life after he accepted the invitation to represent a group of black leaders at the newly formed Montgomery Improvement Association. This association was formed to protest against the arrest of Rosa Parks for her refusal to give her seat to a white male in a bus. MLK along with other black leaders of the city organized a yearlong bus boycott in the city of Montgomery. This boycott led the Supreme Court to order the desegregation of buses in 1956.
The successful achievements in Montgomery led MLK and other leaders to create, in 1957, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). According to Haskins, “the purpose of the […] (SCLC) was to urge the federal government to pass civil rights laws and to promote the movement for black equality in the South.”[6] In 1959, MLK moved back to Atlanta to become co-pastor of Ebenezer Baptist Church.[7]
In 1960, MLK began working with a new protest group called the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). Initially, this group was closely connected with MLK; however, differences in their tactics (confrontation) became evident during the protest in Albany, Georgia.[8] MLK was arrested twice in Albany, and he left the city without achieving victory.

Birmingham
With the defeat in Albany, MLK learned precious lessons that would later be applied in Birmingham. However, Birmingham was not the most receptive city for African Americans. It was considered the most segregated city in Alabama. The city was bombed so many times that it gained the nickname of “Bombingham.”[9] The Federal Government and the local authorities were informed about the campaign that was planned for the Easter of 1963.
The campaign orchestrated in Birmingham by MLK was made by direct action, sit ins and marches. This course of action was an attempt to push the local government to review and change the laws that supported segregation in the city.
Aware of the arrival of MLK to the city, eight clergymen of the city wrote a note in the local newspaper saying among other things that MLK’s coming was “unwise and untimely.” However, despite the critical approach of the white clergy in the city, the campaign was completed thoroughly. On Good Friday, MLK allowed himself to be intentionally arrested hoping “that by going to jail himself he would encourage other black ministers, noticeably absent from the campaign, to join. But they did not.”[10] MLK also wanted to achieve a national impact and push the “Kennedy administration to intervene in the escalating protests.”[11]
While in prison, MLK began writing a response to the arguments of the eight clergymen’s note. His original nineteen page long letter known as the “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” became widely quoted around the world and is still considered “one of the most famous essays on human rights ever written.”[12]
During the time that MLK was in jail, the city of Birmingham was the stage for one of the most hateful demonstrations of segregation. Under the command of Mr. Connor, the “[C]ity firemen went after them [children of the city] with their powerful fire hoses, shooting streams of water that slammed them against the buildings and sent them flying in all directions.”[13] All the violence was televised and the news ran nationally and internationally prompting the Federal Government to release a major law to guarantee the rights of all people.
In 1963, MLK was named Time Magazine’s Man of the Year, and in December 1964 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.[14] In August of 1963 MLK delivered his greatest speech, “I have a dream,” to a crowd of more the two hundred thousand people in the capital of the United States.
MLK also fought for justice in the North. In 1966 he went to Chicago where racism existed as strong as in the South. During the time MLK spent in Chicago, he campaigned against “job discrimination, poor schools and slum housing.”[15] Before his assassination, MLK also denounced the Vietnam War and demanded the withdrawal of the American troops from Vietnam. MLK was assassinated in April 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee.

Theology
MLK was an educated man. During his time in school, he came across the writings of several theologians and philosophers that shaped his understanding of God, humanity, and history. However, what most influenced MLK during his time in school was the African American spirituality and religious experience.[16] Some of the theologians that influenced MLK’s life and theology will be discussed below.
Walter Rauschenbusch – MLK was drawn to Rauschenbusch’s social gospel while he was still in seminary. Hak J. Lee points out that “[I]n Rauschenbusch, King found a theological framework that affirmed his ministry of social reform against racism and classism.”[17] In MLK’s particular case, he used the concepts of the social gospel to spread his message against racism. Lee also stresses that MLK’s socially oriented ministry was deeply inspired by Rauschenbusch’s social gospel.
Reinhold Niebuhr – What attracted MLK to Niebuhr’s theology was Niebuhr’s realism in reflecting the social reality. In this regard, MLK could see the reality of what was beneath segregation and racism, egoism.[18] Lee points out that this attraction was natural in MLK’s case due to his political orientation as an African American and his experience witnessing the white egoism of slavery. However, not everything in Niebuhr was appreciated by MLK. MLK often criticized Niebuhr’s pessimistic doctrine of human nature and sin, presenting his own perspective on the issue, instead. For MLK, “such acceptance of the total depravity and corruption of humanity meant a complete surrender to cynicism and pessimism.”[19]
Anders Nygren – MLK’s concept of agape love was shaped by the writings of Nygren.[20] However, as with most of other theological and philosophical concepts, MLK’s understanding of love is highly filtered by his African American tradition. MLK believes that “[A]gape is love seeking to preserve and create community. It is insistence on community even when one seeks to break it [...]”[21] The entire idea of love in light of community is what is distinctive in MLK’s theology of agape love.
G. W. F. Hegel – MLK was greatly influenced by Hegel’s philosophy. Scholars argue that MLK’s approach to racial problems as well as his ability for synthesis and dialectics had its root in Hegel. Others will argue that these abilities came long before MLK had contact with Hegel’s writings and is rooted in his African American heritage. Holism is the key word when we come to MLK’s dialect and synthesis. This idea of holism is totally in agreement with African American tradition. For Lee, MLK was attracted to Hegel especially because Hegelian holism agrees with African American holistic spirituality.[22] The holistic understanding of things either theologically or philosophically was good for MLK in order that he could see beyond what was presented to him.
Gandhi ­– Gandhi was the greatest icon of nonviolence resistance for MLK. MLK had his first contact with Gandhi’s ideas during his time at Crozer Seminary. In fact, Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence resistance was the answer MLK was looking for while he attempted to reconcile Christian love and political social change.[23] The widely spread idea that Jesus’ love was only applied to individuals was somewhat frustrating to MLK, since in African American tradition, community played an important role in the individual life. In Gandhi’s nonviolence resistance philosophy, MLK saw the ethics of Jesus in a more pragmatic way.
In combining all of these influences, MLK would not be considered a disciple of any particular theologian or philosopher, but would extract what he considered to be their major strengths. Lee puts this way, MLK “appropriated the strengths of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy without falling into their respective shortcomings of naïve optimism and pessimism.”[24]

Letter from a Birmingham Jail
The letter written by MLK in response to the eight clergymen in the city of Birmingham became widely known as the “Letter.” The importance of this document for the history of the civil rights movement around the world is difficult to measure. The content of this letter goes beyond the limits of time in history. Thus, in response to a limited local and historic event, MLK wrote a timeless document that is not bound to any culture or period in history; rather, it can be applied to humanity in general at any time.
The letter was a response to the note written by the clergy. In this, MLK counter argue several of the clergy’s contentions including: 1) that his (MLK) and his group (SCLC) activities were “unwise and untimely;” 2) that they were “outsiders;” 3) that while their actions were peaceful, they precipitated violence; 4) that their activities were extreme; and 5) that they (clergymen) commended the police to keep the order.
MLK responded carefully to each of the points above. He had a threefold purpose in mind while responding. First, he wanted to respond to the clergy’s use of religious language. Second, he wanted to respond to the national media and public in general. Third, he also wanted to reach the Federal Government and get their support. This is why MLK was so eclectic and holistic in his answer.
In order to achieve this goal and reach the several groups that would read this letter, MLK used a great variety of sources to support his points. Thus, he quoted several great figures from the fields of theology, philosophy and history. In addition to this, MLK made extensive use of the Bible, both the Old Testament and New Testament. In the theological field, MLK quoted Reinhold Niebuhr to explain that groups of people have the tendency to be more immoral than an individual person. He also quoted Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to support his argument of just and unjust laws. Then, MLK quoted Paul Tillich’s definition of sin. Schleiermacher, even though was not quoted directly, he was quoted indirectly when MLK referred to Jesus as having “unique God-consciousness.” When MLK developed his idea of being extremist, he quoted several biblical characters as well as theologians and historical figures. The theologians quoted were Martin Luther and John Bunyan. Among the philosophers, MLK quoted Socrates and Martin Buber. The historical figures quoted by MLK were Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson.
MLK used many biblical references in this letter. He quoted Paul, Jesus and Amos. Plus, he mentioned the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and their refusal to obey the law of Nebuchadnezzar. He mentioned Paul’s willingness to go to all the places in the Empire carrying the message of the Gospel. He also mentioned Jesus’ crucifixion.
MLK ended his letter making it relevant to the people by quoting a contemporary poet T.S. Eliot, the 1948 Nobel Literature Prize winner. The variety of sources used in the letter shows MLK’s skills for synthesis and dialectics as well as his ability to use the English language.
Martha S. Watson article on MLK’s letter shows five characteristics that help one better understand this important document.[25] First of all, she emphasizes the length of the letter. MLK’s letter is lengthy if compared with the clergy’s newspaper note. The length of the letter is what made it so effective. Secondly, Watson points out that the simple fact that MLK had chosen to respond to the note in a letter format was extremely important. Watson also mentions the influence of the apostle Paul and his letters on MLK. The letter format was also important to allow MLK to engage in a dialogue with the clergy. Watson puts it this way, “[H]is [MLK] personal letter to the clergy, then, helps to create the allusion at least of dialogue and exchange. By personalizing his response to the clergy, King in effect engages them in a theological and philosophical discussion.”[26] Thirdly, while the clergy had a local problem in mind, MLK’s response pushed the argument to a “superior level.” Watson writes, “King moves the discussion from the pragmatics of what should or should not be done in Birmingham to a larger context of what is just or unjust and what is the appropriate response to injustice.”[27] Watson’s fourth characteristic of the letter is that MLK’s response was not restricted to the here and now but aims at a greater “historical and philosophical”[28] context. Lastly, Watson explains that MLK’s entire focus was justice. She asserts, “[T]he relative weight they give to justice and peace as values for a civil society is a stark contrast between King and the clergy.”[29] Indeed the focus of justice and the consequent lack thereof permeates the entire letter. As MLK said in the beginning of the letter, “[…] I am here in Birmingham because injustice is here.”

Relevance for ministry
As ministers we will all deal with issues of racism, injustice and oppression. Perhaps these issues are not so evident today as they were in the 50’s and 60’s, however, they are still here. Segregation is not legal today; however, we still see unofficial segregation everyday in our society. The best example for this is Sunday mornings, the most segregated time in America. Racism can be seen in all directions nowadays. It is not only among Blacks and Whites anymore, but also among Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans. Other forms of racisms are developing, and the most common one is “economic racism.” People who are economic racists will not look at the color of one’s skin, but at their economic situation or position in society. In this case, poor people are the target of racism no matter whether they are white, black, yellow or brown; what will determine their acceptance will be their wealth. This kind of racism is common in the countries of Latin America, especially in Brazil. Furthermore, our society is still witnessing oppression on a large scale. Employers, in their attempt to make more profit, are constantly oppressing their employees. The rich oppress the poor; the more educated oppress the less educated and so forth. This problem becomes even more complicated in countries with totalitarian governments. In such cases, the entire population is under to the oppression of the State.
When we look at our broken and fallen world without the lens of hypocrisy, we will find in MLK’s life and work a great example of a man who understood that in order to transform the evil system one has to fight against the status quo. We will understand that the only way to transform our society is through the spreading of love and of the Gospel. We will understand that whoever loves God hates the world and its evil systems (including the religious system). However, first and foremost, we will understand that whoever tries to change the evil system, even using nonviolent methods, might pay with his/her own life.


References

Gates, Henry Louis and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham. The African American National Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. .
Haskins, James and Martin Luther King Jr. I have a Dream : The Life and Words of Martin Luther King, Jr. Brookfield, Conn: Millbrook Press, 1992. .
Lee, Hak Joon. We Will Get to the Promised Land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Communal-Political Spirituality. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2006. .
Lowery, Charles D., John F. Marszalek and Thomas Adams Upchurch. The Greenwood Encyclopedia of African American Civil Rights : From Emancipation to the Twenty-First Century. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2003. .
Watson, Martha 1. "The Issue is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy." Rhetoric & Public Affairs 7 (2004): 1-22.

[1] Henry L. Gates and Evelyn B. Higginbotham, The African American national biography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 103.
[2] Charles D. Lowery, et al, The Greenwood encyclopedia of African American civil rights : from emancipation to the twenty-first century (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 2003), 289.
[3] James Haskins and Martin L. King Jr, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. (Brookfield, Conn: Millbrook Press, 1992), 25.
[4] Gates and Higginbotham, The African American national biography 103.
[5] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 30.
[6] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 49.
[7] Lowery, et al, The Greenwood encyclopedia of African American civil rights : from emancipation to the twenty-first century 289.
[8] Gates and Higginbotham, The African American national biography 104.
[9] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 61.
[10] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 62.
[11] Gates and Higginbotham, The African American national biography 104.
[12] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 62.
[13] Haskins and King, I have a dream : the life and words of Martin Luther King, Jr. 69.
[14] Gates and Higginbotham, The African American national biography 104.
[15] Lowery, et al, The Greenwood encyclopedia of African American civil rights : from emancipation to the twenty-first century 290.
[16] Hak J. Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2006), 73.
[17] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 76.
[18] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 76.
[19] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 77.
[20] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 78.
[21] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 79.
[22] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 80.
[23] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 81.
[24] Lee, We will get to the promised land : Martin Luther King, Jr.'s communal-political spirituality 81.
[25] Martha 1. Watson, "The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy," RHETORIC & PUBLIC AFFAIRS 7 (2004): 14-17.
[26] Watson, The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy 14.
[27] Watson, The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy 15.
[28] Watson, The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy 16.
[29] Watson, The Issue Is Justice: Martin Luther King Jr.'s Response to the Birmingham Clergy 16.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao