AS we explore the factors that shaped Dr. King’s social and spiritual dream, it is sometimes too easy to forget that in addition to his being an effective leader of a remarkable political movement, he was (I would say first and foremost) a preacher in the black Baptist Church. He would introduce himself, proudly, as the son, the grandson and the great-grandson of Baptist ministers.

The organization that he put together to provide institutional leadership of the Civil Rights Movement (the Southern Christian Leadership Conference) was basically a group of black ministers committed to using their positions as church leaders to motivate and guide the campaign to achieve racial justice in the South. In my view, the non-violent civil rights movement in the United States is unimaginable without the institutional home – the social solidarity, the music, and the theology – of the black Baptist Church. Dr. King was a Baptist preacher who was remarkably successful in tapping into the emotional and spiritual power of the church in order to inspire and motivate a political movement.

Nonetheless, I would emphasize that Martin Luther King was not a typical, conventional preacher in that church. For one thing, he was much better educated than most of the preachers in that denomination, having attended Morehouse College, Crozer Theological Seminary and Boston University. And, no doubt in part because of that education, he was not a traditionalist or a literalist in his reading of the Christian scripture and message. This made for a certain tension between him and his father, for Daddy King was much more of a believer in the inerrant truth of the Bible read literally – miracle stories and all. Martin Junior, on the other hand, was quite skeptical regarding some of the more supernatural elements such as the miraculous healings and even the bodily resurrection of Christ.

But I certainly do not want to give the impression that Martin Junior was not serious about his theology. On the contrary, he was, I think, a creative theologian in his own right. It is clear that his contribution to theology was not that of the professor in his study, though he often dreamt of perhaps someday accepting one of the many professorships offered him repeatedly by the most prestigious divinity schools in the country. His contributions to theology were summed up in his sermons and in those speeches that he had to deliver at fund-raisers for the movement (sometimes at the rate of three and four a day). Here I want to concentrate on just one – what I find to be perhaps his most interesting contribution, theologically – his treatment of the age-old problem of evil.

When I say ‘age-old’, I mean age-old. This is a problem that dates to well before the beginnings of Christianity, and has troubled thoughtful theists at least since Plato. The problem of evil arises from the fact that God is supposed to be all-good and all-powerful. One would think that if God is all-good, He would want to see evil done away with. And if He is all-powerful, He could do away with it. And yet there exists evil in the world. An all-good, all-powerful God created a world in which there is so much evil and so much suffering. How could that be? King was troubled by this question, and he spoke about it in a number of his published sermons. He knew that it troubled other folks as well, and he often referred to it as a ‘great stumbling block to faith’.¹

 

The Martin Luther King Research and Education Project at Stanford University (under the direction of Clayborne Carson) is in the process of collecting, editing and publishing (in fourteen volumes) the most significant of King’s speeches, sermons, correspondence, published writings, and unpublished manuscripts.² Among the previously unpublished papers, now available, we find an exam paper that he wrote in Professor George Davis’s class at Crozer Seminary in 1951, in which he briefly summarizes, considers, and critically evaluates various traditional attempts to resolve the problem of evil. King was 22 years old at the time, deeply immersed in his theological studies, and clearly taking this problem very seriously. It seems as if he hoped that one or more of these traditional solutions would take care of the problem, but was acutely aware of the difficulties of each to embrace any one as ‘the answer’.

 

I will list here a few of the traditional answers to the problem that he considered and rejected from his youth in this paper. These are mentioned in order to remind the reader of the sorts of solutions that have been proposed, and to note that King’s own position, developed later, has elements of originality that go beyond these historically prominent suggestions.

1. Evil results from the misuse of human freedom: God gave us free will in order that we might freely choose to love and follow Him. Humans misuse this freedom, choose badly, and through those choices bring evil into the world. King concludes that much evil can be explained in this way, but by no means all.

2. Physical evils (pain, disease, earthquakes, etc.) are punishments for moral evils, i.e. for sins committed by us. Thus, these putative evils are instances of just punishment; and justice is not a bad thing, but rather a good one. Young King rejects this answer based on the obvious fact that suffering comes not only to the guilty, but often to the innocent. (He mentions, in this context, ‘Indian religion’ with its doctrine of karma, but rejects it. As a Baptist, he also cannot take seriously the Catholic doctrine of original sin).

3. Evil is nothing positive or substantive; rather it is only incomplete or partial good. The whole of reality is good; any appearance of evil is but a result of our partial and indequate view of things. Many colour patches within a painting might be ugly, and yet the whole be beautiful. King rejects this for it suggests that God intentionally uses the suffering of some as a means to the flourishing of others (and of the whole). This is unacceptable.

4. Evil is necessary as a contrast to good. ‘Like the dark places in Rembrandt’s pictures, they make the high lights possible.’ King reject this view for (as in #3) it holds that God intentionally creates evil and uses the suffering of some as a means to the good of others. Also (importantly) this view might lead one to conclude that we should not undertake to eradicate evil or alleviate suffering: ‘…to lessen evil would be to lessen the good of the whole.’ This (as we will see below) is entirely wrong-headed in King’s view.

5. Evil is unreal; it is maya or illusion, the error of mortal mind. King attributes this view to Christian scientists and Hindus. He reject it entirely.

6. A final proposed solution to the problem of evil relies on the view that God may not in fact be omnipotent. Perhaps there are limitations to the power of God that prevent Him from eliminating evil, though (being all-good) He surely would do so if He were able. King calls this ‘theistic finitism’ and discusses it in some historical detail (with references to Plato, Berdyaev, J.S. Mill, E.S. Brightman and W.P. Montague). This is the last proposal that King discusses and rejects before offering his own suggested solution to the problem, and it is especially interesting, in light of later developments, for his later view incorporates a version of this position.

His own positive solution, offered at age 22 in this exam paper, combines elements of the free will argument with an interesting reflection on the meaning of ‘omnipotence’. This view deserves to be discussed, but we will leave it for another day, for it seems to me that his considered, mature view depends less on traditional notions of free will, and more on his encounter with certain other metaphysical views while a doctoral student a couple of years later at Boston University.

 

King’s own answer, as it developed over the years, can best be understood as having three parts. Or so I will argue here. First, there is the formal, (so to speak) metaphysical answer, addressing the apparent contradiction between God’s omnipotence and the existence of evil. Then there is a second, possibly more original part, that we might dub the call to an active moral response to the problem. Finally, King’s Christian faith – especially his embrace of core doctrines of Christian non-violence – yields a deep and difficult spiritual principle that helps the believer to find positive meaning even when the innocent suffer. Together these three approaches constitute a worthy response (if not a simple answer) to the problem of evil. Let me take each of these three aspects in turn.

 

God, creation and time: In the course of his graduate studies King spent some time on the thought of Hegel, of Whitehead and of Henry Nelson Weiman. All of these philosophers, beginning with Hegel in the 19th century, emphasized the importance of time and of historical development as fundamental features of reality. King took these ideas seriously, and he believed that history – human history – is the locus and the medium of God’s creation. To put the point simply, King felt that the creation has not yet been completed. God is indeed omnipotent, but not even He can create the all-good world instantaneously. These things take time – even when God is doing them. The creation is not something which happened however long ago, and is now done. According to King, the creation is happening right now, and the all-powerful, all good God is in the process of producing a perfect world, without evil and without suffering.

This may be seen as a version of ‘theistic finitude’ (see #6 above), for one might think that if God were truly all-powerful the creation would not require time. Surely an omnipotent God could simply say ‘Let there be…!’ and it would instantly happen. But if we follow Hegel, Whitehead, et al, the introduction of time into the process is not a sign of weakness or debility on God’s part, but a recognition of the fundamentally temporal nature of reality (pace the traditional view – going back to Parmenides and Plato – that the real is the timeless or unchanging.

Thus, the problem of evil is resolved by suggesting that God did not create a world in which there is evil. Rather, God is right now creating a world in which there is no evil. It is just taking Him a while to do it. In one stroke, King has offered a way of explaining how it could be that God is all good and yet the creation is not (yet) perfect. A plausible solution to the traditional problem. A satisfying answer if one takes time seriously enough.

 

Our part in creation: We have the opportunity, as human beings, to play a role here. Our task, King believed, is (so to speak) to help God in His task. We have the opportunity to further the process of creation by doing what we can to end evil wherever we are. This move turns the existence of evil and suffering from a ‘stumbling block to faith’ into an opportunity and incentive to ‘get on God’s side’ – to help God out by joining in the struggle to complete the creation – to join the movement for freedom and justice. In making this world better, we further the cause of creation itself. We can be active co-creators with God.

It should be noted, too, that in giving us an opportunity, this vision of creation also imposes an obligation upon us. King often said, quite clearly, that ‘He who accepts evil, without protesting it, is really cooperating with evil.’ And cooperating with evil is, in King’s view, simply not an option. We recognize that God is all-powerful, and so know that ultimately (given God’s power and His goodness), justice will prevail. But that doesn’t mean that we can stand by and let God do all the work. We can know, with confidence, that ‘…the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’ But we still have to do our part. As King often memorably stated, ‘We can’t just sit by and expect change to come rolling in on the wheels of inevitability.’

The redemptive power of unearned suffering: The view recounted above explains how here could be evil and suffering in the world, and it calls us to join God in doing something to remedy the situation. But the account of King’s mature answer to the problem of evil would be incomplete if we did not consider one more aspect of his somewhat unique understanding of Christian theology. According to King, the evil and suffering that most concern us not only provide an occasion for action, but an opportunity for engagement in the most powerful kind of action – action that (in ways only partially understood) transforms suffering itself into a force for goodness.

 

In order to understand this we need to consider a phrase that King used over and over throughout the years of his ministry – though perhaps most often in his later years. It is a phrase that sums up his understanding, I think, of the significance of what theologians call ‘the Christ event’. King spoke often and earnestly about what he called ‘the redemptive power of unearned suffering.’ I want to focus the remainder of this essay on the meaning of this enigmatic phrase.³

For Christians, the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ constitutes the turning point in the spiritual history of humankind. An innocent man, who had done nothing to deserve it, was tortured and killed by the authorities – and he willingly accepted it, loving and forgiving those who tormented him even as they did so. According to Christian theology, he rose again from the dead, and through this extended event of suffering, death and resurrection, humankind was redeemed. There was redemptive power in Christ’s voluntary submission to unearned and undeserved suffering.

Martin Luther King believed that the Christ event was not just a unique and singular historical event, but that it models an important spiritual, social and psychological truth for all times. When an innocent individual willingly endures undeserved suffering, in a spirit of what might be called confrontational love, there is, in that act, power for positive transformation. No doubt some of this power, a spiritual element, will remain inexplicable. But much of this power can be understood in terms of traditional moral psychology.

 

King was convinced that no sane human being is entirely without a conscience, and no one is so thoroughly dead inside that he or she cannot feel compassion. In the context of the civil rights struggle, he often expressed his surprise and dismay at how hateful and hard-hearted many of the southern whites seemed to be, but he never gave up on the hope that their latent moral sensibilities could be awakened and appealed to. And King believed that the minds and personalities of the whites were disfigured and distorted by their participation in the irrational and cruel system of southern racial apartheid. Thus, he saw the civil rights movement not only as a campaign to win freedom and justice for blacks, but to brighten and heal the twisted souls of whites. It was a campaign ‘…to save the soul of America’ – the souls of Americans, black and white.

There is something about witnessing a person willingly suffering undeserved torment that is hard for a person to ignore. King believed that this act of willing self-sacrifice has a unique power to awaken the conscience of the person who is inflicting the suffering – a power that can soften the hard-hearted soul of the racist, reduce long-standing enmities between oppressor and oppressed, and begin a process of reconciliation. The belief in the redemptive power of unearned suffering is a central element in King’s understanding of the efficacy of non-violence as a strategy – the strategy – for bringing about positive social change.

When King warms to this topic, his rhetoric reveals the depth of his belief, and can become quite startling. A famous passage that he repeated on many occasions gives dramatic voice to his vision of the power of non-violent, loving acceptance of undeserved suffering:

‘To our most bitter opponents we say, "Do to us what you will! Threaten our children, and we will still love you! Come into our homes at the midnight hours of life, and take us out on some desolate highway, and beat us, and leave us there, and we will still love you! Run all around the continent, send your literature and say that we aren’t worthy of integration, that we are too immoral, that we are too low, that we are too degraded, yet we will still love you! Bomb our homes and go by our churches early in the morning and bomb them if you please, and we will still love you! We will wear you down by our capacity to suffer! And in winning the victory, we will not only win our Freedom – we will so appeal to your heart and your conscience that we will win you in the process"!’⁴

 

On another occasion, King was asked by a preacher in a small Mississippi town what he could do to oppose the injustices of racism. The preacher wanted to resist the powers that be, but feared possibly violent retribution from the white power structure. King wrote to him, ‘The fear of physical death and being run out of town should not be your primary concern. Your primary concern should be a devotion to truth, justice and freedom. Often this means bearing a cross, but like Jesus you must be willing to bear it, realizing that unearned suffering is redemptive.’⁵

King received death threats every day, and was often asked how he dealt with the inevitable fear and psychological pressure. Here, too, he repeatedly invoked the redemptive power of unearned suffering. ‘If physical death is the price that I must pay to free my white brothers and sisters from a permanent death of the spirit, then nothing can be more redemptive.’

 

It is clear that King was fully committed to the truth of this principle. But how, exactly, is this doctrine related to the problem of evil? As I understand it, King believed that much of the evil in the world – such as the violence and exploitation of one group by another, motivated by racial hatred and ignorance – can provide an opportunity for transformative goodness. When an individual or a group accepts the suffering in a spirit of confrontational love, refusing to comply with the unjust system, but refusing to fight back with violence, King thinks that a redemptive power is unleashed that can soften the heart, engage the conscience and begin to enlighten the mind of even the most vicious racist. Thus, the very evil itself can be converted into an occasion for good. We can join God’s creative process – get on God’s side – helping to create a more perfect world by opposing evil and converting it to good. Jesus showed the redemptive way as He willingly bore the unearned sufferings of the cross.

Seen in this way, many of the evils in the world cease to be stumbling blocks to faith, and instead become opportunities to practice one’s faith and demonstrate its power. Even the suffering of innocents – the toughest kind of evil for a theist to deal with – can sometimes, when addressed by the sufferer in the spirit of Christian love, become an occasion of creative power and goodness.

 

King addresses the problem of evil in more than one way, and with more than one purpose in mind. He provides us with a metaphysical account of the creation, focused on the centrality of time, that helps us to understand how there might be evil in the world despite God’s goodness and power. And since we are temporal and historical creatures, this account locates us at the scene of the action – the locus of the process of creation – and provides us with an incentive to do what we can to further the process. Finally, the realization that there can be redemptive power in unearned suffering helps us to see that sometimes even the worst of evils can be occasions for positive change and increasing goodness. It all depends on how we respond.

In the early exam paper that King wrote at age 22 for his seminary theology class, he admitted that any intellectual solution to the problem of evil will ultimately arrive at impasses. But for King, Christianity is not just an intellectual enterprise. On the contrary his natural action-oriented temperament led him always to think beyond the purely theoretical and to think in terms of ethics and engagement. As he put it in those early days, ‘The Christian’s answer to the problem of evil is ultimately contained in what he does with evil, itself the result of what Christ did with evil on the cross.’

 

Footnotes:

1. Following the phraseology of the Apostle Paul (cf. Romans 14:13 , 1st Corinthians 1:23 and 8:9, etc.).

2. In a great service to scholars around the world, the project has made these documents available and searchable online. The seminary exam paper discussed here, published in Volume 1 of the papers, is available at the following url: https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/religions-answer-problem-evil. I should emphasize that this paper is the work of a young student in a theology class, and the works that he draws on are chiefly his textbooks and other secondary sources. Still, this exam paper provides valuable insight into his thinking at that point in his life and at that stage of his intellectual development.

3. A thoughtful book length study of this concept has recently appeared: Mika Edmondson, The Power of Unearned Suffering. Lexington Books, 2017.

4. From a sermon preached on numerous occasions, entitled ‘Loving Your Enemies’. Various versions of this passage exist in printed form. One version can be found in Strength to Love – an early published collection of sermons. The version quoted here is from an address delivered at the Second Annual Institute on Non-Violence and Social Change at the Holt Street Baptist Church on 5 December 1957. It can be found in Clayborne Carson, et. al. (ed.), The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. Volume IV. University of California Press, Berkeley and LA, 2000, p. 340.

5. From ‘Advice for Living’, December 1957 (a kind of advice column responding to questions from readers). Published in Clayborne Carson (ed.), The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr. Volume IV. Ibid., p. 326.