Martin Luther King Jr: The Drum Major Instinct

I apologize to those who may have heard me talk about the drum-major instinct, and I apologize for not using the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to focus on the main thrust of his life's work.

In high school, I went on a Martin Luther King kick that consumed a couple of those years. I read all of his speeches, picked up his autobiography and found a few biographies I thought I could trust and tried to learn everything I could about the man. I found in MLK a sensible alternative to some of the more radical writings of the era, namely my odd early obsession with Malcolm X. Suffice it to say (for now anyway) that I love MLK because his celebrated speeches are deeply grounded in God and natural right and largely provide a sturdy sense of honor, respect and equality that is compatible with the greater American project.

I found MLK's drum major instinct speech nearly four years ago. I think it struck me because it spoke to my premature sense of grandeur and taught me that I could bridle it into something productive.

Before going into the speech, let me ask if it's wrong to seek glory or want to be great? I think this is an honest and important question for all people, and especially Christians, to consider. Does the commandment to be humble leave any room for the quest for greatness?

Think on.

Here is the setup to the speech: MLK gives this speech two months before his assasination at the Ebeneezer Church in Atlanta. He begins by giving us a set of scriptures in Mark 10, beginning with verse 35.

"And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came unto him saying, ‘Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.’ And he said unto them, ‘What would ye that I should do for you?’ And they said unto him, ‘Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.’ But Jesus said unto them, ‘Ye know not what ye ask: Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?’ And they said unto him, ‘We can.’ And Jesus said unto them, ‘Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized: but to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared.’"

The setting is clear. James and John are making a specific request of the master. They had dreamed, as most of the Hebrews dreamed, of a coming king of Israel who would set Jerusalem free and establish his kingdom on Mount Zion, and in righteousness rule the world. And they thought of Jesus as this kind of king. And they were thinking of that day when Jesus would reign supreme as this new king of Israel. And they were saying, "Now when you establish your kingdom, let one of us sit on the right hand and the other on the left hand of your throne."

As MLK sees it, and as I see it, this scripture is about greatness, even glory. James and John come to the Savior and tell Him they want to be leaders; they want to be at the head. They want to be great. Here, where many of us would condemn these apostles, Jesus doesn't chastise but tells them that such an honor can only be earned.

And then the final great tragedy of the distorted personality is the fact that when one fails to harness this instinct... . Now the other problem is, when you don't harness the drum major instinct—this uncontrolled aspect of it—is that it leads to snobbish exclusivism. It leads to snobbish exclusivism. ... And you know, that can happen with the church; I know churches get in that bind sometimes. (Amen, Make it plain) I've been to churches, you know, and they say, "We have so many doctors, and so many school teachers, and so many lawyers, and so many businessmen in our church." And that's fine, because doctors need to go to church, and lawyers, and businessmen, teachers—they ought to be in church. But they say that—even the preacher sometimes will go all through that—they say that as if the other people don't count. (Amen)

And the church is the one place where a doctor ought to forget that he's a doctor. The church is the one place where a Ph.D. ought to forget that he's a Ph.D. (Yes) The church is the one place that the school teacher ought to forget the degree she has behind her name. The church is the one place where the lawyer ought to forget that he's a lawyer. And any church that violates the "whosoever will, let him come" doctrine is a dead, cold church, (Yes) and nothing but a little social club with a thin veneer of religiosity.

When the church is true to its nature, (Whoo) it says, "Whosoever will, let him come." (Yes) And it does not supposed to satisfy the perverted uses of the drum major instinct. It's the one place where everybody should be the same, standing before a common master and Savior. (Yes, sir) And a recognition grows out of this—that all men are brothers because they are children (Yes) of a common father.

It is natural to want to be great, to want to be important. It can even be good. But this natural desire is easily perverted. MLK even thought that much of the race problem had to do with the fact that many whites had let this desire become so perverted that they were willing to degrade another race so that they could feel superior. This is a perversion of the drum major instinct.

But let me rush on to my conclusion, because I want you to see what Jesus was really saying. What was the answer that Jesus gave these men? It's very interesting. One would have thought that Jesus would have condemned them. One would have thought that Jesus would have said, "You are out of your place. You are selfish. Why would you raise such a question?"

But that isn't what Jesus did; he did something altogether different. He said in substance, "Oh, I see, you want to be first. You want to be great. You want to be important. You want to be significant. Well, you ought to be. If you're going to be my disciple, you must be." But he reordered priorities. And he said, "Yes, don't give up this instinct. It's a good instinct if you use it right. (Yes) It's a good instinct if you don't distort it and pervert it. Don't give it up. Keep feeling the need for being important. Keep feeling the need for being first. But I want you to be first in love. (Amen) I want you to be first in moral excellence. I want you to be first in generosity. That is what I want you to do."

And he transformed the situation by giving a new definition of greatness. And you know how he said it? He said, "Now brethren, I can't give you greatness. And really, I can't make you first." This is what Jesus said to James and John. "You must earn it.... . And so Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. If you want to be important—wonderful. If you want to be recognized—wonderful. If you want to be great—wonderful. But recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. (Amen) That's a new definition of greatness.

And this morning, the thing that I like about it: by giving that definition of greatness, it means that everybody can be great, (Everybody) because everybody can serve. (Amen) You don't have to have a college degree to serve. (All right) You don't have to make your subject and your verb agree to serve. You don't have to know about Plato and Aristotle to serve. You don't have to know Einstein's theory of relativity to serve. You don't have to know the second theory of thermodynamics in physics to serve. (Amen) You only need a heart full of grace, (Yes, sir, Amen) a soul generated by love. (Yes) And you can be that servant.

Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major, say that I was a drum major for justice. (Amen) Say that I was a drum major for peace. (Yes) I was a drum major for righteousness. And all of the other shallow things will not matter. (Yes) I won't have any money to leave behind. I won't have the fine and luxurious things of life to leave behind. But I just want to leave a committed life behind. (Amen) And that's all I want to say. ...

Yes, Jesus, I want to be on your right or your left side, (Yes) not for any selfish reason. I want to be on your right or your left side, not in terms of some political kingdom or ambition. But I just want to be there in love and in justice and in truth and in commitment to others, so that we can make of this old world a new world.

I submit that the question of greatness must be subsumed into what we will be great for. There is surely a difference in the man who seeks glory only to point it all back on himself and the man who uses it show something far greater and nobler. This is the purpose of great men and women. Man wants to be great. The key is to channel this desire into being great for God. If you do not believe in God, be great in love, mercy, generosity and virtue. Be great for something that transcends the limited reach of passing fame. Be great for something higher than yourself.

Understood this way, glory has a certain humbling element that places man in his proper place. It shows man his potential, but reminds him that he is not great on his own. It is a glory that doesn't come from the adoration of others, but the glory of the Truth for which we live. It is the proper understanding of the drum major instinct.

Photo Credit: Americaslibrary.gov

A Very Merry (sterile) Christmas

I've tried to convince myself that as long as the Christmas lights are still up around the neighborhood I have good reason to be writing about Christmas. Unfortunately, despite my journalism training, timeliness doesn't appear to be my strongsuit when it comes to this blog.

I try to read A Christmas Carol every Christmas, and I've done so every year since my European history teacher, Mr. Rice, recommended it. Now that I think about, I'm sure he must have given extra credit for it, because I was far too lazy in high school to read something for enjoyment — during vacation nonetheless. Not too much has changed since then.

As I read the book this time, one thought was pounded into my mind. Let me preface this thought by saying that Charles Dickens was a deeply Christian man, and his deeply-rooted faith is evident in A Christmas Carol's first pages. While we may read A Christmas Carol every year, he wrote a history of Jesus Christ's life and teachings and read it to his children every Christmas. It's clear what Dickens wanted his children to celebrate in Christmas.

Perhaps this is why I find it ironic that some of the most richest and most Christ-oriented elements in A Christmas Carol are often sterilized in modern portrayals of the story as to transform the book into nothing more than an advocate for basic notions of humanitarian goodness. Of course, these things are an important of the book and essential parts of being a Christian, but it is not the only or even core lesson Dickens intended for his work.

From the beginning, Marley is the antithesis of "someone who knew how to keep Christmas well." He was "good man of business," but he neglected the needs of those around him and closed his heart to humanity and life's highest gifts. In explicit terms (which are often left out of modern versions), Marley tells Scrooge that he suffers most at Christmas and rhetorically asks Scrooge "Why did I walk through crowds of fellow-beings with my eyes turned down, and never raise them to that blessed Star (Dickens' emphasis) which led the Wise Men to a poor abode! Were there no poor homes to which its light would have conducted me!"

Dickens is in control of his work. The reference to Christ as the solution to Marley's miserable life and subsequent suffering is not by accident, and its omission from modern portrayals risks misunderstanding the story as a whole. If Marley represents what Scrooge's suffering will be, then Christ is the only way to escape it. If Marley is a life of misery looks like, Christ is the source of Scrooge's rebirth to into the life of happiness that we see at the end of the book. Dickens sets up the dichotomy from the beginning. Christ on one hand, misery on the other.

The remainder of the book is equally remarkable in its subtle references to Christ, and I'll perhaps take the time to write about them later — or maybe let you figure them out. The book is a rich read, and I highly suggest it for Christmas (or anytime) reading, and especially the kind of reading that doesn't mind being interrupted by reflection from time to time.

My favorite version was put out a few years ago. The illustrations are by P.J. Lynch and the words are Dickens', in their entirety. Lynch's work is beautiful and gives the story the added grace of a children's book, all while maintaining the depth and feel of the original. Here's a link to Lynch's work.

Moral discipline as a political principle

There is perhaps no more controversial political topic than the role (if any at all) morality should play in politics. It's particularly difficult for people to understand how government can even claim the right to set any sort incentive, standard or outright prohibition regarding behaviors in a free society. Many cannot see how morality issues have any bearing on how people want the government run. Many cannot even see how morality issues have any relation to other governing factors. After all, what does same-sex marriage have to do with the tax rate?

LDS leader and member of the Quorum of the Twelve Elder D. Todd Christopherson gave an excellent talk on moral discipline last week during general conference. The talk was rich on many levels, but I want to look at it for what it says on morality as a political principle. Before going further, let me state the obvious in that he did not take his points to the extents I will. I speak for myself alone.

Elder Christopherson decried that much of society has fostered a culture of moral relativism that makes it increasingly difficult to condemn any sort of value judgement.

"As a consequence, self discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments."

This point could not be simpler, but likewise cannot be over-emphasized. People need government b/c they cannot govern themselves. As Thomas Paine said, "Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness."

Think of it in terms of speed limits. In a perfect world, we'd be able to drive safely without causing any harm to others. Some people would naturally drive fast and some slowly. We'd all drive according to our ability. Sad experience teaches us, however, that this is not the case. We want to go too fast, beat trains, graze pedestrians and soon the government must step in. The same principle holds true with most laws.

Elder Christopherson goes on to quote the famous columnist Walter Williams in saying,

"Gentlemanly behavior used [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.... Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become."

In another powerful phrase, he quotes Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, who said "We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar."

Whenever people fail to govern themselves, it hurts society and inevitably leads to calls for "someone" to fix it. This someone is usually the government. When fathers leave children, this not only comes at a tremendous cost to their family, but to society at large. With some things, society is willing to absorb the costs (such as most free speech). In others, such as the disintegration of the family, the costs are simply too widespread and too deep to sit back and not step in. It affects crime, education, economic productivity, not to mention the damning toll it takes on the human soul. In these cases, government could never hope to do of necessity that which the family could not do for love. The most it can hope for is to minimize the damage to these people and to society. Likewise, what lady would suggest that the vague protection of sexual harassment laws is superior to a man who knows his boundaries and lives with honor?

The reason morality issues cannot be altogether ignored is because the private and the public run together. This is a complicated topic and the fact that government cannot ignore morality issues is temptation to the statist who would want to seize more control. This is why conservatives try to inculcate morality, most of the time not through government at all. When it does take a political form, it is usually through subsidiary roles such as tax exemption for churches, non-profits, charities, incentives to marry (tax cuts) etc. It is done by getting out of people's way, not the reverse.

Society is willing to bear the costs of most moral depravity simply b/c of the high value we place on liberty. However, while many may wish that government never interfered with morality issues, let me suggest that it is naive to think that the things most important (ie family) in "the laws of nature and nature's God" would not have any bearing in the here and now. It is nothing less than the tyranny of a strangling ideology to say "Who are we to tell others how to live?" and then, by necessity, ask society to forget yet remedy the consequences of this moral relativism. It is a tenuous order of liberty to say the least.

Photo Credits: Sodahead.com, lds.org and ceu.edu

Elizabeth Smart, Family and Miracles

Elizabeth Smart's testimony against her kidnapper this week was nothing short of powerful and inspiring. She demonstrated strength that proved even harder to comprehend as she unfolded the details of the account. Most people assumed that horrible things happened to her, but there was some sort of odd protection in leaving them unspoken.

I love her story for what it represents: that miracles still happen and that a family's love can be unadulterated (think back to the days when Salt Lake Tribune reporters

were literally peddling the story that Ed Smart was involved in the crime).

I couldn't help but think about the events that led to Elizabeth's being found. For those of you who don't remember, it is an amazing story that is worth remembering:

Four months after Smart was kidnapped, her nine-year-old sister, Mary Katherine, told her dad that she knew who had taken Elizabeth. Mary Katherine had been reading in her room that night when she saw an unrelated picture and suddenly matched the voice of her sister's kidnapper to that of a man and she had met for just moments nearly a year earlier. Not only this, she remembered his name, Emmanuel.

I don't know about you, but I can't remember half the names of people I've known for years, let alone someone I met for a few minutes nearly a year ago. I think of all the people I've met for a few seconds at work or at school and the chances of me remembering their name and voice? Not good.

That's what makes the story all the more amazing to me.

The Smarts pushed the police to consider the man, but the investigation's unit was reluctant to put much trust in the lead. The Smarts pushed some more, this time exploring other avenues. Eventually America's Most Wanted aired the story and Emmanuel's family called in with his real name, Brian David Mitchell. Even more importantly, one couple watched the story on TV and saw Elizabeth and her kidnapper the next day walking on State Street in Sandy.

Is it all a remarkable coincidence? I don't see how that's possible.

Maybe I'm simplistic, but I can't explain how a nine-year-old remembers such specific details in terms that don't flatly include God's putting it into her mind. I think of the bond the two sisters share today, and I'm sure it is indescribable -- a bond only deeper because of the divine influence that undoubtedly helped reunite them.

This story tells me that God looks out for His children, and He still works miracles among us. I'm at a loss for another way to see it.

Photo Credit: Deseret Morning News