Martin Luther King Jr Day and Civil Religion: MLK Jr. Day at St. Peter's Episcopal Church

The only federal holiday that is explicitly religious is Christmas. The only federal holiday celebrated by all states dedicated to a single person is Martin Luther King Jr. Day. (Columbus Day is no longer celebrated by every state). It just so happens that we typically celebrate Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. for mostly secular reasons, namely his contributions to the Civil Right's movement.

He was not a perfect man. He plagiarized his dissertation and he was a serial adulterer.

We sometimes forget a person's failures when we give someone a holiday or when we make someone a part of the country's civil religion.

Civil religion is a theory that in America there is a non-sectarian quasi-religious faith that exists alongside of traditional religion. We hear it when politicians make vague claims to God, and when the country "America" is invoked with an almost undue reverence.

Civil religion and church religion sometimes merge, and the commemoration and remembrance of Martin Luther King Jr. at St. Peter's Episcopal Church in Cambridge, MA was one example.

It was emphasized at this event that we often sanitize MLK Jr; that we fit MLK Jr. into our ready made conception. The emphasis of this civilly religious service was a lesser read, more controversial speech: Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence or Riverside Church Speech. You can listen here or read here.

This speech was given April 4, 1967, one year before his assassination. It caused him to lose many friends and some of the political influence that he had accumulated over the years. Mostly because he spoke against the Vietnam War, even encouraging young people to be conscientious objectors.

The centerpiece of this event was a quote from Beyond Vietnam:

When machines and computers profit motives, and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and extreme militarism are incapable of being conquered. -- MLK Jr. 

This service was mostly a set piece that is organized every year with community leaders reading excerpts from the speech on the topics of militarism, materialism, and racism. The songs and the main speech are different each year.

The first song "My Name is Peace" was sung directly before reading excerpts about militarism, the first of the three triplets. The second song was "Lift Every Voice and Sing," often referred to as the black American national anthem. This song has much in common with civil religion. It is about liberty and does not reference any particular theology or even religion; but, it does reference God.

The last song was a beautifully arranged version of Psalm 89. This was the most explicit reference to church religion in the service. This psalm expresses a faithfulness in God, despite the horror that Israel was going through.

The talk was given by Juliette Kayyem, a security expert in the Homeland Security department. Yes, that's right Homeland Security.

She also noted this apparent conflict, but she argued that MLK Jr. would be an excellent security adviser.

One of the main evidences of this was that MLK Jr's plan for withdrawal from Vietnam was eventually enacted and completed in 1973.

But more importantly, Kayyem argued against the critics of his speech that came in two forms. 1) He was naive and 2) he was angry.

Though her time was limited she argued that MLK Jr had an immense understanding of the situation in Vietnam:

The peasants watched and cringed and Diem ruthlessly rooted out all opposition, supported their extortionist landlords, and refused even to discuss reunification with the North. The peasants watched as all of this was presided over by United States influence and then by increasing numbers of United States troops who came to help quell the insurgency that Diem’s methods had aroused. When Diem was overthrown they may have been happy, but the long line of military dictators seemed to offer no real change, especially in terms of their need for land and peace. -- Beyond Vietnam, MLK Jr. 

Prior to our military involvement in Vietnam, America supported Diem's leadership of Vietnam, and at least apparently delayed the development of democracy in Vietnam. We helped him with his enemies and his election was obviously rigged. In short, America undemocratically prevented Vietnam from becoming Communistic.

Instead of similar courses of action or continued military involvement, he advocated the following:

We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops. -- Beyond Vietnam, MLK Jr.  

This does not seem to be naive.

According to Kayyem, other critics claimed that this speech was angry. If you listen to the speech, there is no way you can come to this conclusion. He speaks in a very calm and collected mannter. Kayyem brings attention to the last portions of the speech which reference love and the cost of love, as well as hate, and that his speaking about love is the exact opposite of anger. 

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: “Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.” Unquote. -- Beyond Vietnam, MLK Jr.

Finally, Kayyem makes the point that there are similar responses to the Black Lives Matter Movement and MLK Jr's civil rights. Specifically critics of Black Lives Matter often make the same two claims either that they are angry or naive.

Bottom Line:

I agree with Kayyem's analysis. And religion, at least African American religion, had a huge part in the Civil Right's movement. 

But this is also interesting from a sociological angle. When Robert Bellah developed the concept of civil religion, he contrasted it with church religion. In this instance civil and church religion literally merged. 

The service was held at a church, the choir sang from Psalms, and the welcome was given by Rev. Dr. Christian Brocato, the rector of St. Peter's Episcopal Church. 

However, the service was still mostly non-religious. The main speaker was a government employee with an extensive resume, most of the rest of the time was dedicated to the reading of MLK Jr's words, and many figures from the local government participated. 

Martin Luther King Jr. has entered the 'sainthood' of civil religion as its most religious member. 

Spotlight on Eastern Orthodoxy II: Christmas Service

Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church

There is something serenely peaceful about listening to religious chanting and there is much of that in the Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church in Allston, MA.

Because they go by the Julian calendar rather than the Gregorian calendar, their Christmas service is held on January 7.

The HROC is a relatively small building with the iconic orthodox cross on its roof.

As you walk in the entrance is unassuming with a small sign pointing the way to the sanctuary which is up the stairs to the left or right.

I was somewhat unsure at first whether I found the correct door to the sanctuary, but there was enough evidence that I somewhat timidly opened the door and found myself surprised.

Icon of Madonna and Child

Ahead of me were two pictures of saints on golden colored stands, one to my left and another to my right. There were two more ahead of those.

As people approached the icons they kissed them, bowed, and made the sign of the cross. Some of the bows were so low that they resembled a Muslim salah.

Ahead of the icons was an inner sanctum, which only the clergy was allowed to enter. The inner sanctum had two smaller entrances on the side and a larger one in the center.

Back: Inner Sanctuary

There was minimal seating and I found out later that the majority of people stood through the entire service. Near the walls there were more (but less ornate icons).

The entire service, with the exception of the short sermon, was chanted. There was a call and response from the clergy and the parishioners. Most of the clergy were wearing ornate white robes, with an icon: crosses, images of Jesus, and the like.

While the priests did most of the chanting, "Lord have mercy" was repeated several times as a response by the congregation.

As noted in my last post this was a common refrain (almost literally) in The Way of the Pilgrim. Lord have mercy was praised for its versatility; it could mean forgive my debts and give me alms (as well as other potential meanings).

With the exception of the sermon and the three or four carols they sung at the very end of the service, there was little to indicate that this service was a Christmas service. 

However, I was invited to dine with them, which I did. This is when it was obvious they were celebrating Christmas

It was a feast. Chicken, mashed potatoes, pork, good wine, cheese, deserts, and more. People where exchanging gifts at this moment as well. And the two new deacons (who were ordained during the Christmas service) received gifts from the church.

This was the second time I had a meal with members of this church. And both times I felt as though everyone I spoke to was thoughtful and genuinely lived a moral and devout life.

I was able to briefly talk to a few people in the process. One was the priest who let me borrow The Way of the Pilgrim and I told him that one thing that struck me was the repetition. And I mentioned that I saw that on their website they quoted St. John Chrysostom as encouraging people to read the Bible everyday.

He told me the following. He said, you have a job right? And in your job your expected to read your bosses instructions and carry them out. You would be fired if you did not do this. Heavily implying a good Christian is obliged to pray and read the Bible everyday.

Another person I spoke to was a convert to Orthodoxy. He and his mother saw an Eastern Orthodox priest talk about C.S. Lewis. His mother converted before he did and they felt this was the right path. Previously I saw this person bow the lowest out of the entire congregation during a part of the liturgy.

As I was leaving there were several performances of Christmas carols and classical music ensembles. I left during the first performance. I left through the back door so that I did not have to fight my way through the crowd to the front of the room.

As I was leaving I saw one of the parishioners speaking to a man outside who appeared to be homeless. The parishioner was offering food from their table on behalf of the church.

Bottom line:

There isn't much to critique here. The chanting is a reminder of collective effervescence formulated by Durkheim, but I have mentioned this elsewhere when writing about other traditions. Experientially, this was closest to Buddhist chanting at the Kurukulla Center.

More than most churches it seemed to me that all the people I had a chance to speak to had a sense of a shared mission and more than that a thoughtful disposition to their faith.

Though not entirely through reason, if reason is meant as a naturalistic worldview. The priest at least, seemed to advocate for knowledge based on revelation or at least intuition that is not empirically verifiable in addition to empirical knowledge.

Sure this type of epistemology (worldview or way of knowing) has opponents, but how we know anything is a very difficult question for philosophers. This includes theologians and philosophers of religion, as well as naturalistic philosophers. 

Spotlight on Eastern Orthodoxy I: The Way of a Pilgrim

On Dec. 25th I visited the Holy Resurrection Orthodox Church and on this day they were celebrating a feast day of St. Herman of Alaska. They celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7 which is Dec. 25 on the Julian calendar (most of us use the Gregorian calendar).


(I will discuss the structure of Eastern Orthodoxy in a later post)


They were very kind and told me that I should read The Way of the Pilgrim to better understand Eastern Orthodoxy. The copy they gave me also included The Pilgrim Continues His Way. 


The Way of a Pilgrim and The Pilgrim Continues His Way were written sometime between 1853 and 1861 by an unnamed devout Eastern Orthodox man traveling throughout Russia. It was printed by an abbot in 1884.


This book does not contain an argument that can be put down in premises and conclusions. Instead it urges the reader to contemplate and pray internally. Thus, I will not provide a bullet point summary.


At the beginning of the book the pilgrim, the narrator and subject of the book, is confused about a question: How can one pray unceasingly as in 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18?


The answer he first receives from his starets (a monk distinguished for his piety) is essentially just do it. Say the prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me." At first he was required to say it 3000 times in one day, then 6000, then 12000, and finally as many times as possible.


Eventually the prayer became something he did out of habit, such that he was continuously saying the prayer. This is part of the hesychast tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy. As Huston Smith notes in the introduction the prayer of this pilgrim is akin to a mantra, that gets repeated continuously.


He is also was told to read the Philokalia a book about internal prayer, what it is and how to do it written by various saints of Eastern Orthodoxy. 


The Way of the Pilgrim, and The Pilgrim Continues His Way is almost solely about that prayer and the Philokalia in the development of the pilgrim's spiritual life.



One commentary about this prayer in The Pilgrim Continues His Way struck me. Someone the pilgrim was speaking to told him that "have mercy on me," was an impressively economical use of words. 



The prayer can be a plea for forgiveness of debt and at the same time a request for alms. It can be a plea for forgiveness of sin and a plea to arouse in oneself holy feelings. And etc... 



Of course, this is because a plea for mercy is a vague plea, but sometimes you do not know what you require mercy for.


Throughout most of The Way of the Pilgrim, I was convinced that the pilgrim was very reverent. That he understood devoutness from experience. When he received mystical calmness and visions (such as being able to see the interior of his body), I believed that he was devout and a true believer in his religion.


However, the last part of The Way of the Pilgrim, did give me some pause. In this part, the pilgrim was rejoicing in the misfortune of a sinner because the misfortune helped bring the sinner closer to God. 


If I was that particular sinner, I would have contemplated hitting him. To make matters worse the pilgrim encouraged his companion to tell another story about misfortune befalling a sinner.


Up until this point I identified with the character, since he was visiting various Orthodox Churches and collecting stories. But for this brief moment I was hesitating. 


The story would give him his needed chastisement. At the very beginning of The Pilgrim Continues His Way, the pilgrim goes to confession and gets a harsher review than I could have ever given him.


A starets gave him the notes that he uses for his own confessions which in part reads:

...I listen to curious, unhappy stories about my neighbor, and I am not distressed; I remain quite undisturbed or, what is still worse, I find a sort of pleasure in them. - pg. 129.

Structurally The Pilgrim Continues His Way is simpler to read, because the person speaking is always identified in italics and it is written as a Socratic-style dialogue in defense of the ascetic lifestyle and internal prayer.


Despite promoting the internal life, ironically The Pilgrim Continues His Way convinced me that you need others around you to guide you, as the pilgrim realizes his flaws through confession and his travels to the Solovetsky monastery. 


Though, I would guess that even devout hermits would attend matins, confession, and communion, meeting this potential critique of the book.


The devout in this book are not holier than thou, they all recognize that they are imperfect humans. Thus, once their flaws have been pointed out work at it. And after reading it, there is simply no doubt that to be a good Orthodox Christian you have to read the Bible and pray daily. 

Bottom Line:

So far, from what I have witnessed and read followers of Eastern Orthodoxy are very devout, perhaps the most devout sect of Christianity in existence. 


In addition they seem to stress humility, in such a way that mitigates the problems that often come with such devoutness (i.e. judgments and in general a holier than thou attitude). 


The Way of the Pilgrim is a good quick read and should be read by anyone trying to understand prayer in the Christian tradition.  

Christmas III: Scripture (Isaiah 9)

"A prophecy that misread could have been." -- Yoda. 

Or Whose Bible is it Anyway

Christmas is not a time for extended exegesis about Bible passages. However, Isaiah 9 struck me as odd the six times I heard it in as many services as straightforward evidence that prophesied the birth of Christ.   


However, Jews typically interpret this verse as referencing the birth of Hezekiah son of King Ahaz. Both cannot be right. Let's look at the passage itself:

For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders, And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this -- Isaiah 9:6-7 (NIV translation).

There are Jewish commentators who dislike various aspects of this translation. 


First the English translation is in the present tense, when in the original Hebrew it is clearly past tense. I can forgive the KJV translation since 'is' was often used as a helping verb in some forms of past tense prior to 1900 or so (though not in every instance). The above NIV translation has no excuse. 


Second, 'Mighty God' could alternately be translated as mighty hero, as is done in other parts of the Hebrew Scriptures. 


Third, prince of peace should be ruler of peace. It was likely translated as 'prince' to make the association to Christ, the Son of God, stronger than the text would have otherwise implied.  


Even looking at just the English there are problems with associating this verse with Christ. 


There are more references to Earthly matters than Heavenly ones. 
Isaiah 9 uses the word 'government' twice and even references David's throne and kingdom. The verse seems to imply that there will be a future political ruler, which aligns better with the Jewish interpretation. 


Also can Jesus really be called 'Everlasting Father;' he is the son of the Trinity, not the Father. 


Of the three translation problems the first is the most damaging to a Christian reading. Though Christian apologists will point to other scriptures in which the past tense was used for things that have not occurred yet. 


The second and third should be noted as questionable translations, but from a Christian perspective neither is a smoking gun. Might God is an acceptable translation and ruler of peace would be an acceptable title for Jesus for most Christians. 


Finally, there are many theological ways to get out of the various problems apparent in the English translation. For instance, one could claim that Jesus' throne beside his father is King David's throne and the Church is the new Israel. 


Since the Trinity is three persons, but one God means that in some sense Jesus is the Father, as well as the son and Holy Spirit. And under certain interpretations could be the 'Everlasting Father' mentioned above.  


These are just examples of solutions; there are many more. However, it is not my goal here to adjudicate between who is right or wrong, but to contemplate how the same text is interpreted by different groups of people. 


Bottom Line:

People should be encouraged to read and think from another's perspective. We should always, when possible, acknowledge alternate translations and interpretations. 


Any translation involves interpretation. Prince of Peace implies a son of a king, whereas Ruler of Peace does not. This translation choice was an interpretative move. Though this example is blatant, other attempts at translation are interpretative in less obvious ways.