How Did "I Have a Dream" Matter to My Neighbors in 1963?

Lincoln Memorial

On this date in history, August 28, 1963, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his immortal speech, “I Have a Dream,” from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. So many people have written and said so many things about this great speech. The speech was not really about a dream. King’s powerful images shook people’s hearts, but metaphors were not his point. His point was freedom. Let me back up and tell a story.

On August 29, 1963, the morning after the speech, I was an 11 (almost 12) year old boy waiting for the school bus on the corner a half-block from my house. The Lincoln Memorial was less than 20 miles from my parents’ almost new split-level. I was excited to start seventh grade at Sidney Lanier Intermediate. My biggest fear was to wonder how I would navigate the seemingly huge school.

The neighborhood was buzzing with commentary, not only about King’s speech, which disturbed and frightened almost everyone I knew, but also the massive demonstration on the Washington Mall. At the time, the crowd’s size and impatience dominated my neighbors’ thinking. Folks shook their heads at what they perceived to be a chaotic mess. And, indeed, my young friends at the bus stop shared in the excitement—and the concern. It is no secret that King terrified many white people. As should surprise no one, my neighborhood was (like almost all Virginia neighborhoods at the time) strictly segregated.

For the most part, my friends and their parents were not racists in any of the usual senses, at least not as white people understood racism in 1963. My schoolmates were nice kids who grew up in loving homes. They did not seethe with ill will. They were not angry.

Yet, one of my bus-stop companions asked, with disgust in his voice, “What do they want?” My best friend, Duncan, calmly replied, “They want their freedom.” I was never so proud to know him. Duncan grew up in a conservative home, much more conservative than my own, but he understood human dignity with a wisdom that belied his youth, his crewcut, and his traditional Oxford shirt. Somehow, I had never before understood civil rights with such simplicity, such clarity.

No one responded. Not even me. Awkward silence continued until the bus showed up a few minutes later. It was a learning moment for me, maybe for all of us. Yes, the clips of King’s speech on the news the night before thrilled the ears. In the long run, however, it is the audience, not the speaker, that makes a speech successful. What message did the audience need to hear? “They want their freedom.”

Dreaming was King’s metaphor, but it was not his main point. No, instead, his point was freedom. His thrilling conclusion talked about the centuries-long struggle for freedom:

“And when this happens, and when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

“Free at last! Free at last!

“Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Did the struggle for freedom end in victory? On the one hand, yes. Congress soon passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On the other hand, no. It seems that every few weeks in 2022 we hear about a police officer shooting an unarmed Black person. Mistakenly thinking that the struggle for civil rights was over, the United States Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Even the freest nation is never more than one election from tyranny. King’s message: People want their freedom.


Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" Made Biblical Morality a Public Imperative

Three Warnings about Political Action From Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream Speech”


P.S. Of course, as times change, we notice that King didn’t mention freedom for women: “black men and white men.”

Image: National Park Service

Biden Turned the Tables on the Topic of Student Loan Forgiveness. A Clever Debating Tactic.

Biden answers a reporter's question

Turning the tables on your opponent is often a clever debating strategy. Use your opponent’s own argument against them. President Joe Biden recently announced a program of partial forgiveness for student loan debt. Republicans immediately held that this was unfair to people who had already paid off their student loans.

In his White House speech announcing his student loan forgiveness program, Biden listed the expected facts and figures. He reviewed the personal problems that Americans face due to crushing student debt. That was all fine. His speech was calm, drama-free, and thoughtful. Ho-hum. The zinger came at the end, when he answered a few questions. Let’s look at what happened.

As Biden was walking out of the room, a reporter asked whether forgiving current student loans was fair to people who had already paid off previous student loans. Biden turned the tables on the questioner. Unable to say that his policy was equitable for everyone, which it obviously was not, Biden pointed out that conservative economic policies also lacked equity. Here’s how the exchange went:

“Q Mr. President, is this unfair to people who paid their student loans or chose not to take out loans?

“THE PRESIDENT: Is it fair to people who in fact do not own a multi-billion-dollar business if they see one of these guys give them all a tax break? Is that fair? What do you think?”

Why was that such a clever debating tactic? First, Biden’s response was short and crisp. A long answer would invite a convoluted response, which Biden had no interest in dealing with. Second, Biden shifted the burden of proof to his questioner: “What do you think?” Third, shifting the burden of proof, he broadened the issue to overall policy instead of just the one specific issue.

Biden’s point was that the same argument that Republicans were making against his student debt forgiveness plan could equally be made against programs favored by Republicans. Both policies lacked equity.

If, however, Biden’s opponents opposed loan forgiveness, Biden pressed them to reject their own previous positions. The challenger is then led either to defend loan forgiveness or to condemn the Republican’s previous policies. By broadening the concept, Biden challenged the questioner's assumption that policies must be equitable. 

Turning the tables often tames a debate opponent because the speaker uses the other side’s argument against them. They cannot very well refute their own argument, can they? Chalk up a point for Biden. 

___________________

How Did David Hogg Turn the Tables on President Trump to Advocate Gun Control?

AOC Turned the Tables on Republicans in Less Than a Minute During the Coronavirus Relief Bill Debate

How Does Tucker Carlson Use Personal Attacks Instead of Proof about Climate Change?

Image: White House YouTube channel

Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God:" Proof-Texting as a Rhetorical Tactic

Jonathan Edwards

In his 1741 sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God,” Jonathan Edwards terrified his congregation with a masterpiece of Gothic imagery. High school literature students marvel at Edwards' vivid metaphors. Edwards’ speech is, equally, however, a desolation of bad logic and ghastly argumentation. Ripping a single phrase from the Bible out of its context, Edwards created an imaginative masterpiece. He drew his power from the superstition of words. Religion scholars call this proof-texting. The idea is that the Holy Bible is divinely inspired, and therefore every sentence, every phrase taken out of context, must be literally true. Conservative preachers (and politicians!) use proof-texting to this very day. Let’s look at how Edwards cites one vague, marginally relevant Bible verse to prove that God hates his congregation. Edwards’ proof-text created the illusion that the speaker had proven something, even though the text itself proves little.


The Bible Phrase

Edwards took his text from Deuteronomy 32:35: “Their foot shall slide in due time.”

That was it! His sermon’s purpose was to develop that one short phrase. I’ll tell you more about that in a moment. What we must notice about his speech, however, is the terrifying imagery. That imagery distracts us from the logic and reasoning.

Deuteronomy 32 is the Song of Moses, in which Moses criticizes the people of Israel for unfaithfulness. Not only did Edwards rely on one single verse; he didn’t even cite the entire verse! Let’s look at the entirety of verse 35:

“To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.”

While we’re at it, let’s also look at the much more conciliatory verse 36, which seems to qualify the threat. Cleverly, Edwards skipped it:

“For the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left.”

Imagery, but What Happened to the Context?

Taking the Reformed Church doctrine of predestination to an extreme, Edwards inflicted upon his congregation such terrifying imagery as: 

“If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power.”

Or

“The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire.”

I have no idea how many Christians lost sleep after studying this speech in English class. I am nothing but a spider held over a fire by a God who abhors me? Eek!

But “Their foot shall slide in due time” doesn’t prove any of that, does it? It serves only as a springboard for Edwards’ theology. In fact, “slide” makes me think of accidentally falling down a muddy slope. Edwards turns sliding into a deliberate act by God.

How did Edwards move from sliding down a slope to the horrors of being cast, unworthy, into a burning pit? What did Edwards leave out? What did he add?

Let’s look at what Deut. 32:35 did not say. Now, Edwards' sermon said:

“That the reason why they are not fallen already, and do not fall now, is only that God’s appointed time is not come.”

That’s quite Calvinist, which is fine, but did his truncated Bible verse say that? No. It only said, “Their foot shall slide in due time.”

Edwards next threw in the concept of original sin. Again, that’s fine, but Deut. 32:35 doesn’t say this:

“They are already under a sentence of condemnation to hell.”

That is, Edwards re-interprets his fraction of a Bible verse to suit a theological point.

Continuing, Edwards depicted God as an arbitrary, capricious ruler who, in terrifying anger, saved or destroyed people on a whim:

“In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.”

Well, to belabor the obvious, verse 35 doesn’t say that. Worse, as we saw above, verse 36 (the context) said that God will repent of his anger. Context is not the proof-texter’s friend.

Proof-Texting Helps the Speaker Prove Things that Are Not Proven

So, proof-texting often gives the unscrupulous public speaker not one, but two contradictory advantages:

First, Edwards quotes the Bible verse mostly out of context. That enables the speaker to blithely ignore the historical and literary background. A Bible verse that means one thing in context can squirm out of that context to mean something quite different.

Second, since Edwards cited only a few words from his verse (occasionally supplementing them with cryptic references to entirely different Bible books), he freed himself to spin his own meaning. A more serious Bible scholar might want to explicate the Song of Moses with sensitivity. Edwards never intended to do that. Regardless of whether his message was theologically reasonable, his proof-text failed to support it. Instead, he cited a snippet of a Bible verse to give himself, not proof, but a metaphorical springboard. Indeed, what did his proof-text prove? Not much, really. The text in question, viewed literally but in context, proves that God both threatens and upholds his people. Ultimately, proof-texting is, too often, an unscrupulous technique that unscrupulous speakers use so they can play make-believe. They can pretend that the Bible (or other source) supports their opinion. The Bible (at least in Deut. 32:35) neither said, nor clearly implied, Edwards’ terrifying threats.

So, first, proof-texting requires an underlying text that the audience will accept as indisputably true. Second, it requires absolute literalism, a rigid denial that cultural or literal context could help the listener understand the text. The words take on a magical meaning, making context irrelevant. Not always, but often enough, the proof-text creates the illusion that the speaker has proven something. Edwards’ fiery language distracted the listener from the lack of logical content. Likewise, Edwards’ proof-texting gave the impression that the Bible proves his argument. In the hands of a good theologian, proof-texting draws listeners into the world of biblical morality. In the hands of a charismatic charlatan, proof-texting becomes the ultimate deceptive technique. Gullible listeners swallow a conclusion because an authority seems to prove it. Proof-texting often creates a superstition founded on words.

I don’t mean simply to rant about a historical speech by an otherwise-forgotten pastor. Nor do I intend to question the underlying theology; that’s not my field. I’m just analyzing Edwards’ argument. I point out that Edwards led his audience to think that he had proven something. In fact, however, he had proven little. Unfortunately, this rhetorical tactic continues to afflict us. A favorite tactic of conservative speakers, proof-texting lives on today:


Jeff Sessions, Romans 13, Proof-Texting, and the Magic Power of Words

Paula White Prayed against Trump’s Enemies and Showed How to Shut Down Reasoned Debate

__________________________

I don’t want readers to think that I am against sermons. I have previously posted about sermons that I thought were excellent. Here are three of my favorites. (For others, type “sermon” in the “Search This Blog” box to the right.)

John Wesley’s Sermon against Bigotry

Pope Francis’ Sermon for the World Day of Migrants and Refugees

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?



Research Note: Here is a quick explanation of proof-texting by Jessica Ellis. 

Image: Public Domain in the United States, via Wikimedia Commons