What do you think?
Rate this book
Search for the Beloved Community: The Thinking of Martin Luther King Jr.
Updated from the original version published in 1974, Search for the Beloved Community examines the thinking of Martin Luther King Jr. and the influences that shaped it. Late co-author Kenneth L. Smith was one of King's seminary professors. His firsthand knowledge of King's seminary studies provides the background for an incisive analysis of the influences of the Christian tradition and of Mahatma Gandhi upon this outstanding leader.
- GenresBiography
185 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1986
1 person is currently reading
33 people want to read
About the author
Kenneth L. Smith
43 booksLibrarian note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name
This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name
This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 19, 2021
This is the book I have been looking for for about three years. Dr. King is rightly regarded as the greatest organizer and change agent in American history, but to think of him merely as such is to fail to appreciate his status simultaneously as one of the greatest political philosophers in American history. King spent his first 26 years laying down a moral and political philosophy synthesized from christian theological traditions, Ghandian nonviolence, and philosophical personalism which served as the essential animating "text" of his sphere of the Black Freedom Movement that overtook his final 13 years. In Search for the Beloved Community, Smith and Zepp outline each of King's major intellectual influences, how they shaped his ever evolving thought, and the roles each played in the Civil Rights Movement and beyond. There is no better book for reconstructing the fullness of Dr. King's thought- an essential task even in the modern era considering how little the world has changed since that revolutionary era of the '60s, and considering that his way of thinking has already demonstrated its ability to change the world.
Written by two academics, one of them King's professor and close personal friend at Crozer Theological Seminary, the book includes lengthy primers on key intellectual traditions: evangelical liberalism, Ghandian nonviolence, christian realism, and philosophical personalism. The reader will gain a basic understanding of each and how they fit into Dr. King's greater synthesis, as well as how King's thinking shifted over time. As King became involved in movement work, his theories were tested and often required honing. Even more, the end of Southern segregation and King's subsequent turn to the North represented a significant inflection point in King's life and philosophy. An evolution of strategy and tactics was required when King's work shifted from a movement with clearly defined legislative goals, and one with the full support of Northern whites who saw their Southern compatriots as backward and antiquated, to a movement pitting itself against much deeper roots of oppression in economic violence and militarism, and which was willing to indict all of America for its participation in these sins. It was this later stage of his thinking which was considered by powerful enemies to be truly dangerous. King was a true intellectual with the incredibly rare- though ultimately tragic- opportunity to test the mettle of his theories and adapt them as his experience grew. It is an unspeakable tragedy that we will never be permitted to see what his philosophy would have become had he been granted more than just 39 short years. Insofar as his thought was able to mature, however, it is described in this book.
King was a dialectical thinker to the core, and was therefore able to hold elements of seemingly irreconcilable philosophies like christian liberalism and realism together. Beyond nonviolence, it is these two philosophies which most profoundly shaped his thinking, and the dialectic they created is in my view what allowed him to create such a powerful and enduring vision. Evangelical liberalism supplied the goal, and an idealistic though insufficient strategy for accomplishing it. King's Beloved Community was after all just his name for the concept others before him, including evangelical liberal Walter Rauschenbusch, had called the Kingdom of God. King saw it the christian's duty on earth to bring about such a society where one could truthfully say "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." He saw sin as in large part socially and institutionally created, and located sin inside of those antisocial institutions. By eliminating these social institutions which create impetus for sin- segregation, poverty, economic incentives for greed and cruelty- he believed he could usher in a society in which it was easier to be a moral person. Christian realism, on the other hand, helped to ground his vision in the often ugly nature of our current reality. Christian realism, led by Reinhold Niebuhr, offers a much more pessimistic outlook on what is possible in the fight to attenuate social evils, though it mostly agreed with liberalism about the evil nature of present society. It is often overstated, however, the extent to which King agreed with Niebuhr's worldview. Because he cites Niebuhr so often in sermons and speeches, it is frequently assumed that Niebuhr was a primary influence on King's theology. Niebuhr believed that while individual men have the capacity for goodness, it is the nature of society that all groups of men inevitably tend toward the basest elements of their constituents, and thus societies can never be truly moral but can at best manage their evil nature. It should more accurately be understood, however, that Niebuhr served as the antithesis to Rauschenbusch's original thesis in King's dialectic. The understanding of mankind's tendency toward evil never caused King to lose hope in the possibility of building the Beloved Community, but tempered his hopes and compelled him toward more shrewd- and eventually radical- tactics of achieving it.
This is worthy text for anyone to benefit from, and an essential one to those hoping to understand or even change this world that so closely resembles the one that King describes. King is regrettably flattened in his iconography in the modern era, and as a result is vastly understudied as a political philosopher in his own right despite his image's ubiquity. But to those involved in the continued struggle for racial justice, economic justice, and peace, so many of the challenges, question, and strategic controversies being raised today are the same that King wrestled with and eventually offered his invaluable perspective. This book is an essential step in uniting the most painfully earned wisdom of the past with the enthusiasm of the present toward taking our next step in the long journey to the Beloved Community.
Written by two academics, one of them King's professor and close personal friend at Crozer Theological Seminary, the book includes lengthy primers on key intellectual traditions: evangelical liberalism, Ghandian nonviolence, christian realism, and philosophical personalism. The reader will gain a basic understanding of each and how they fit into Dr. King's greater synthesis, as well as how King's thinking shifted over time. As King became involved in movement work, his theories were tested and often required honing. Even more, the end of Southern segregation and King's subsequent turn to the North represented a significant inflection point in King's life and philosophy. An evolution of strategy and tactics was required when King's work shifted from a movement with clearly defined legislative goals, and one with the full support of Northern whites who saw their Southern compatriots as backward and antiquated, to a movement pitting itself against much deeper roots of oppression in economic violence and militarism, and which was willing to indict all of America for its participation in these sins. It was this later stage of his thinking which was considered by powerful enemies to be truly dangerous. King was a true intellectual with the incredibly rare- though ultimately tragic- opportunity to test the mettle of his theories and adapt them as his experience grew. It is an unspeakable tragedy that we will never be permitted to see what his philosophy would have become had he been granted more than just 39 short years. Insofar as his thought was able to mature, however, it is described in this book.
King was a dialectical thinker to the core, and was therefore able to hold elements of seemingly irreconcilable philosophies like christian liberalism and realism together. Beyond nonviolence, it is these two philosophies which most profoundly shaped his thinking, and the dialectic they created is in my view what allowed him to create such a powerful and enduring vision. Evangelical liberalism supplied the goal, and an idealistic though insufficient strategy for accomplishing it. King's Beloved Community was after all just his name for the concept others before him, including evangelical liberal Walter Rauschenbusch, had called the Kingdom of God. King saw it the christian's duty on earth to bring about such a society where one could truthfully say "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." He saw sin as in large part socially and institutionally created, and located sin inside of those antisocial institutions. By eliminating these social institutions which create impetus for sin- segregation, poverty, economic incentives for greed and cruelty- he believed he could usher in a society in which it was easier to be a moral person. Christian realism, on the other hand, helped to ground his vision in the often ugly nature of our current reality. Christian realism, led by Reinhold Niebuhr, offers a much more pessimistic outlook on what is possible in the fight to attenuate social evils, though it mostly agreed with liberalism about the evil nature of present society. It is often overstated, however, the extent to which King agreed with Niebuhr's worldview. Because he cites Niebuhr so often in sermons and speeches, it is frequently assumed that Niebuhr was a primary influence on King's theology. Niebuhr believed that while individual men have the capacity for goodness, it is the nature of society that all groups of men inevitably tend toward the basest elements of their constituents, and thus societies can never be truly moral but can at best manage their evil nature. It should more accurately be understood, however, that Niebuhr served as the antithesis to Rauschenbusch's original thesis in King's dialectic. The understanding of mankind's tendency toward evil never caused King to lose hope in the possibility of building the Beloved Community, but tempered his hopes and compelled him toward more shrewd- and eventually radical- tactics of achieving it.
This is worthy text for anyone to benefit from, and an essential one to those hoping to understand or even change this world that so closely resembles the one that King describes. King is regrettably flattened in his iconography in the modern era, and as a result is vastly understudied as a political philosopher in his own right despite his image's ubiquity. But to those involved in the continued struggle for racial justice, economic justice, and peace, so many of the challenges, question, and strategic controversies being raised today are the same that King wrestled with and eventually offered his invaluable perspective. This book is an essential step in uniting the most painfully earned wisdom of the past with the enthusiasm of the present toward taking our next step in the long journey to the Beloved Community.
July 4, 2024
A MARVELOUS STUDY OF THE INTELLECTUAL ROOTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF KING’S THOUGHT
Authors Kenneth L. Smith and Ira G. Zepp Jr. wrote in the Introduction to this 1974 book, “Most of the studies of Martin Luther King thus far have attributed a major significance to the influence of Mahatma Gandhi upon King’s thought and have ignored almost entirely the distinctly Christian roots of King’s theology and ethics… it remains true that King’s ‘intellectual’ categories were drawn from Christian theology and ethics. King’s interpreters have not understood that many of the concepts attributed to Gandhi were actually cardinal tenets of the school of Christian theology and ethics which had the most influence upon King’s thought.” (Pg. 11) They continue, “Martin Luther King’s theology and ethics did not develop ‘from scratch’ or in a vacuum. They had very definite historical and intellectual sources; chief among these were Protestant liberalism and the philosophy of personalism.” (Pg. 12)
They add, “This work is clearly and intentionally an ‘intellectual’ biography. The authors are fully cognizant of the fact that the life and career of Martin Luther King, like any other eminent personality, cannot be accounted for solely in terms of the influence of professors, books, and theological and ethical theories. There were naturally other influences which shaped his attitudes and behavior; chief among these were his Black, middle-class family, the religion of the Black Baptist church, his friends and advisers, and the patterns of racial segregation and discrimination.” (Pg. 14-15)
They point out, “Most of the major themes of Martin Luther King were the themes of evangelical liberalism. His stress upon the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, the centrality of religious experience, the concern of God for all of life, the rights of man and moral feeling, the humanity of Jesus and his emphasis upon love, the dynamic nature of history and God’s action therein, his essential optimism about human nature and history, the tolerance and openness of the liberal spirit, his tolerance toward a pluralism of world religions---all of these were key themes of evangelical liberalism embraced quite early in his intellectual privilege.” (Pg. 29)
They observe, “One of the manifestations of evangelical liberalism was the Social Gospel movement. We are not surprised to find… that King acknowledged a great debt to the Social Gospel Movement and to Walter Rauschenbusch. King confessed that he found the theological basis for his social concern in the thought of Rauschenbusch. He wrote [in Strength to Love]: ‘Rauschenbusch gave to American Protestantism a sense of social responsibility that it should never lose…’ This meant to King that a religion that focuses exclusively upon the individual is a truncated form of religion.” (Pg. 33) They add, “there were certain key concepts [of Rauschenbusch] more directly important than others. These key concepts are: (1) the prophetic model of religion, (2) the relationship between the church and the world, (3) the kingdom of God and human community.” (Pg. 37)
They explain, “During the first term of King’s senior year at Crozer … King took an elective course with George W. Davis on the psychology of religion, which included case studies of eminent religious personalities, such as Gandhi. The only evidence, prior to this study of Gandhi with Davis, that King had studied any of the literature on pacifism, nonviolence, and civil disobedience is that he had read Thoreau’s ‘Essay on the Duty of Civil Disobedience’ in a philosophy class at Morehouse College. The essay stirred him greatly, and he reread it several times. Nevertheless, this initial encounter with Thoreau did not bear any immediate fruits.” (Pg. 47)
They point out, “King’s tribute to Gandhi… reads as follows: ‘Gandhi was probably the first person in history to life the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale…’ King’s ‘satisfaction’ was with Gandhi’s strategy and tactics. King’s presuppositions for his interpretation of nonviolent resistance were derived from Christian theology and ethics, especially Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the concept of agape. By Gandhi’s method, of course, King meant nonviolent resistance. King explained [in Stride Toward Freedom], ‘… Christ furnished the spirit and motivation, while Gandhi furnished the method.’” (Pg 48-49) Later, they add, “Whereas Gandhi’s view of nonviolent resistance was rooted in ‘Truth-Force,’ King’s was rooted in “Love-Force.’ By love King meant
They state, “King went to great lengths to make it quite clear that nonviolence is not passive but active; it is a dynamic way of resisting evil aspects of a social system. Following the lead of Gandhi and the criticisms of Reinhold Niebuhr, King questioned the validity of the phrase ‘passive resistance’ on the ground that it connoted resignation and quietism. In order to press this point home, King repeatedly emphasized the great difference between ‘nonresistance’ and ‘nonviolent resistance’ to evil. He was well aware that much of the criticism leveled against nonviolence had been predicated on the failure to distinguish between the two concepts.” (Pg. 58)
They note, “King studied Reinhold Niebuhr for the first time in ‘Christian Social Philosophy II.’ He also returned to the study of Rauschenbusch, but this time around he was Rauschenbusch in juxtaposition to Niebuhr… King was never again comfortable with certain emphases of liberalism after his introduction to the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr… In short, Niebuhr burst like a bombshell into King’s liberal theological-ethical world view.” (Pg. 71)
They say, “[King] began to criticize Booker T. Washington, the moderate, and to make favorable comments about W.E.B. Du Bois, the radical. ‘Washington’s error,’ King observed, ‘was that he underestimated the structures of evil; as a consequence his philosophy of pressureless persuasion only served as a springboard for racist Southerners to dive into deeper and more ruthless oppression of the Negro.’ By way of contrast, Du Bois was concerned with the use of coercive power to relieve oppression and to achieve liberation and social justice for all Black people.” (Pg. 86-87)
They observe, “Reinhold Niebuhr commended King’s realistic pacifism and his interpretation of nonviolence. He rejoiced over King’s practicality, and he was jubilant about the outcome of the Montgomery bus boycott. D. B. Robertson quotes Niebuhr as saying that ‘Martin Luther King’s position is right’ and that he is ‘the most creative Protestant, white or black.’” (Pg. 97)
They clarify, “It is important to point out that it was primarily Hegel’s dialectical method, not Hegel’s metaphysics… that influenced King. King flatly rejected Hegel’s metaphysics…. At the same time, the Hegelian methodology pervaded King’s thinking and writing. At the outset of ‘Strength to Love’ he said, ‘…the philosopher Hegel said that truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two.’” (Pg. 115) But they add, “Unfortunately, King did not always spell out clearly what he meant by the synthesis, in spite of the fact that it was obviously his position.” (Pg. 116)
They note, “After pointing out how his thinking had been stimulated by Marx, King observed [in ‘Stride Toward Freedom’], ‘In so far as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating totalitarianism, I responded with an unambiguous “no”; but in so far as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional capitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-consciousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, I responded with a definite “yes.”’ That King was influenced by Karl Marx is beyond doubt, but the extent of Marx’s influence has been overestimated both by his critics who would like to pin the Communist label upon him and by some of his supporters who would like to claim him for the ‘New Left.’” (Pg. 124)
They summarize, “King did not spiritualize the demand of the prophets for justice by projecting it into the world-to-come. To the contrary, he spelled it out in terms of equality in voting, public accommodations, education, jobs, housing, and related concerns In short, King conceived justice and righteousness in this-worldly terms, and he expected them to be achieved within history.” (Pg. 130)
They conclude, “Although Martin Luther King was acutely aware that the Beloved Community is ‘not yet,’ but in the future, perhaps even the distant future, he believed that it would be actualized within history, and he saw approximations of if already. Thus he worked unceasingly for the realization of his dream, and he never lost hope that ‘there will be a great camp meeting in the promised land.’ His hope was rooted in his faith in the power of God to achieve his purpose among humankind within history.” (Pg. 140)
This book is an excellent study and analysis of Dr. King’s intellectual roots; those interested in this book may also be interested in Toward a Theology of Radical Involvement: The Theological Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr..
Authors Kenneth L. Smith and Ira G. Zepp Jr. wrote in the Introduction to this 1974 book, “Most of the studies of Martin Luther King thus far have attributed a major significance to the influence of Mahatma Gandhi upon King’s thought and have ignored almost entirely the distinctly Christian roots of King’s theology and ethics… it remains true that King’s ‘intellectual’ categories were drawn from Christian theology and ethics. King’s interpreters have not understood that many of the concepts attributed to Gandhi were actually cardinal tenets of the school of Christian theology and ethics which had the most influence upon King’s thought.” (Pg. 11) They continue, “Martin Luther King’s theology and ethics did not develop ‘from scratch’ or in a vacuum. They had very definite historical and intellectual sources; chief among these were Protestant liberalism and the philosophy of personalism.” (Pg. 12)
They add, “This work is clearly and intentionally an ‘intellectual’ biography. The authors are fully cognizant of the fact that the life and career of Martin Luther King, like any other eminent personality, cannot be accounted for solely in terms of the influence of professors, books, and theological and ethical theories. There were naturally other influences which shaped his attitudes and behavior; chief among these were his Black, middle-class family, the religion of the Black Baptist church, his friends and advisers, and the patterns of racial segregation and discrimination.” (Pg. 14-15)
They point out, “Most of the major themes of Martin Luther King were the themes of evangelical liberalism. His stress upon the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man, the centrality of religious experience, the concern of God for all of life, the rights of man and moral feeling, the humanity of Jesus and his emphasis upon love, the dynamic nature of history and God’s action therein, his essential optimism about human nature and history, the tolerance and openness of the liberal spirit, his tolerance toward a pluralism of world religions---all of these were key themes of evangelical liberalism embraced quite early in his intellectual privilege.” (Pg. 29)
They observe, “One of the manifestations of evangelical liberalism was the Social Gospel movement. We are not surprised to find… that King acknowledged a great debt to the Social Gospel Movement and to Walter Rauschenbusch. King confessed that he found the theological basis for his social concern in the thought of Rauschenbusch. He wrote [in Strength to Love]: ‘Rauschenbusch gave to American Protestantism a sense of social responsibility that it should never lose…’ This meant to King that a religion that focuses exclusively upon the individual is a truncated form of religion.” (Pg. 33) They add, “there were certain key concepts [of Rauschenbusch] more directly important than others. These key concepts are: (1) the prophetic model of religion, (2) the relationship between the church and the world, (3) the kingdom of God and human community.” (Pg. 37)
They explain, “During the first term of King’s senior year at Crozer … King took an elective course with George W. Davis on the psychology of religion, which included case studies of eminent religious personalities, such as Gandhi. The only evidence, prior to this study of Gandhi with Davis, that King had studied any of the literature on pacifism, nonviolence, and civil disobedience is that he had read Thoreau’s ‘Essay on the Duty of Civil Disobedience’ in a philosophy class at Morehouse College. The essay stirred him greatly, and he reread it several times. Nevertheless, this initial encounter with Thoreau did not bear any immediate fruits.” (Pg. 47)
They point out, “King’s tribute to Gandhi… reads as follows: ‘Gandhi was probably the first person in history to life the love ethic of Jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale…’ King’s ‘satisfaction’ was with Gandhi’s strategy and tactics. King’s presuppositions for his interpretation of nonviolent resistance were derived from Christian theology and ethics, especially Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the concept of agape. By Gandhi’s method, of course, King meant nonviolent resistance. King explained [in Stride Toward Freedom], ‘… Christ furnished the spirit and motivation, while Gandhi furnished the method.’” (Pg 48-49) Later, they add, “Whereas Gandhi’s view of nonviolent resistance was rooted in ‘Truth-Force,’ King’s was rooted in “Love-Force.’ By love King meant
They state, “King went to great lengths to make it quite clear that nonviolence is not passive but active; it is a dynamic way of resisting evil aspects of a social system. Following the lead of Gandhi and the criticisms of Reinhold Niebuhr, King questioned the validity of the phrase ‘passive resistance’ on the ground that it connoted resignation and quietism. In order to press this point home, King repeatedly emphasized the great difference between ‘nonresistance’ and ‘nonviolent resistance’ to evil. He was well aware that much of the criticism leveled against nonviolence had been predicated on the failure to distinguish between the two concepts.” (Pg. 58)
They note, “King studied Reinhold Niebuhr for the first time in ‘Christian Social Philosophy II.’ He also returned to the study of Rauschenbusch, but this time around he was Rauschenbusch in juxtaposition to Niebuhr… King was never again comfortable with certain emphases of liberalism after his introduction to the thought of Reinhold Niebuhr… In short, Niebuhr burst like a bombshell into King’s liberal theological-ethical world view.” (Pg. 71)
They say, “[King] began to criticize Booker T. Washington, the moderate, and to make favorable comments about W.E.B. Du Bois, the radical. ‘Washington’s error,’ King observed, ‘was that he underestimated the structures of evil; as a consequence his philosophy of pressureless persuasion only served as a springboard for racist Southerners to dive into deeper and more ruthless oppression of the Negro.’ By way of contrast, Du Bois was concerned with the use of coercive power to relieve oppression and to achieve liberation and social justice for all Black people.” (Pg. 86-87)
They observe, “Reinhold Niebuhr commended King’s realistic pacifism and his interpretation of nonviolence. He rejoiced over King’s practicality, and he was jubilant about the outcome of the Montgomery bus boycott. D. B. Robertson quotes Niebuhr as saying that ‘Martin Luther King’s position is right’ and that he is ‘the most creative Protestant, white or black.’” (Pg. 97)
They clarify, “It is important to point out that it was primarily Hegel’s dialectical method, not Hegel’s metaphysics… that influenced King. King flatly rejected Hegel’s metaphysics…. At the same time, the Hegelian methodology pervaded King’s thinking and writing. At the outset of ‘Strength to Love’ he said, ‘…the philosopher Hegel said that truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two.’” (Pg. 115) But they add, “Unfortunately, King did not always spell out clearly what he meant by the synthesis, in spite of the fact that it was obviously his position.” (Pg. 116)
They note, “After pointing out how his thinking had been stimulated by Marx, King observed [in ‘Stride Toward Freedom’], ‘In so far as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating totalitarianism, I responded with an unambiguous “no”; but in so far as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional capitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-consciousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, I responded with a definite “yes.”’ That King was influenced by Karl Marx is beyond doubt, but the extent of Marx’s influence has been overestimated both by his critics who would like to pin the Communist label upon him and by some of his supporters who would like to claim him for the ‘New Left.’” (Pg. 124)
They summarize, “King did not spiritualize the demand of the prophets for justice by projecting it into the world-to-come. To the contrary, he spelled it out in terms of equality in voting, public accommodations, education, jobs, housing, and related concerns In short, King conceived justice and righteousness in this-worldly terms, and he expected them to be achieved within history.” (Pg. 130)
They conclude, “Although Martin Luther King was acutely aware that the Beloved Community is ‘not yet,’ but in the future, perhaps even the distant future, he believed that it would be actualized within history, and he saw approximations of if already. Thus he worked unceasingly for the realization of his dream, and he never lost hope that ‘there will be a great camp meeting in the promised land.’ His hope was rooted in his faith in the power of God to achieve his purpose among humankind within history.” (Pg. 140)
This book is an excellent study and analysis of Dr. King’s intellectual roots; those interested in this book may also be interested in Toward a Theology of Radical Involvement: The Theological Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr..
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews