Why We Can't Wait

This chapter is the revised text of King’s famous jailhouse letter, in which he responds to eight Alabama clergymen who accused the protestors of engaging in “‘unwise and untimely’” (85) action in Birmingham. King opens the letter by explaining that he is responding to their criticism because he believes them to be sincere people of “genuine goodwill” (85).

King first responds to the clergymen’s criticism by saying that he is an outsider. According to King, he is in Birmingham because the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights invited them. King then highlights the example of early Christians like the Apostle Paul, who preached far from home, to make the point that King’s Christian duty requires him to come to Birmingham because of the presence of injustice. Ultimately, “[i]njustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” according to King, so when it comes to fighting injustice, there is no such thing as an outsider in the U.S. (87).

The clergymen’s objection to the protests is unfortunate in King’s opinion because it fails to account for what led to the protests in the first place. The decision to protest in Birmingham is the result of a four-stage process King and his peers followed: collecting facts, negotiating, self-purifying, and engaging in direct action. King provides evidence to show that they completed each step before proceeding to the next.Because they followed this process, the leaders of the protests knew their timing was right. Their delay of the protests to avoid hurting the more moderate candidate during the mayoral election run-offs is more evidence of how deliberate they were in their actions.

King next responds to the question of whether direct action is preferable to negotiation by pointing out that “[n]onviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue” (89). Far from being destructive, such tension is “constructive, nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth” (90). The choice of direct action was explicitly used to force the hands of those in power in Birmingham.

Another point to which King responds is the accusation that protests were “untimely” (90) because they did not give the Boutwell administration a chance to demonstrate that it was different from the ideas of Connor. King counters this position by stating that despite his gentleness, Boutwell is still a segregationist who needs to be forced to change. Waiting means that freedom will never come, explains King. King gives numerous examples of the personal and political wrongs that have occurred while people waited for racial equality. Under the burden of such injustice, impatience, King believes, is understandable.

King then responds to the clergymen’s concerns about the protestors’ violation of laws by distinguishing between just and unjust laws. Just laws accord with moral law and should be obeyed. Unjust laws violate God’s law and must not be obeyed. Segregationist laws are unjust laws that transform the relationship between the oppressor and oppressor it an “‘I-it” relationship that creates separation from people and transforms African-Americans into things.

King further attacks the legitimacy of segregationist laws by pointing out that they were passed without the consent of African-Americans, who were prevented from exercising their democratic rights to register and vote. Laws can also be unjust based on how they are applied. King provides the example of the law against parading as one that is unjust in application because it is explicitly applied to prevent the exercise of free speech.

King then uses the resistance of early Christians and the participants of the Boston Tea Party as examples to establish that civil disobedience is an old and respected response to unjust laws. Refusing to obey Hitler’s laws forbidding aiding Jews, or Communist laws that prohibit religious freedom, are two other examples King uses to make the case for civil disobedience. King expresses his disappointment in the inaction of white moderates who fear disorder more than injustice and who believe they have the right to tell African-Americans to wait on their freedom.

King compares segregation to a boil that can’t be cured “as long as it is covered up” but that can be cured if it is “opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light” (98). The clergymen’s accusation that even peaceful protests are wrong because they “precipitate violence” is illogical and immoral, the equivalent of blaming Socrates or Jesus for the authorities’ role in their deaths.

King follows these examples with a discussion of white moderates’ “tragic misconception of time” (99), which allows them to believe that equality will eventually come as a matter of course with the passage of time. King counters this argument by stating that “time itself is neutral” and that “[h]uman progress…comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God, and without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of social stagnation” (99). King believes that this particular moment is therefore the right time to act.

King also responds to the clergymen’s accusation that his actions are “‘extreme’” (99). King expresses his disappointment in this criticism. According to King, the African-American community includes “a force of complacency [satisfaction or indifference]” and another of “bitterness and hatred,” like the Nation of Islam. King’s goal is to moderate these two extremes through nonviolence. Without this approach, King thinks “the streets of the South would…be flowing with blood...[and] a racial nightmare” (101). The marches and protests are constructive means for expressing frustrations and participating in the struggle for freedom.

Further reflection on the issue of extremism reveals to King that he is glad to be labeled an extremist. Jesus, the Old Testament Prophets, the Apostle Paul, and Abraham Lincoln were all extremists for just causes, notes King. Jesus was “an extremist for love, truth and goodness,” and could perhaps serve as an example of just the kind of “creative extremists” the South and the U.S.need to overcome their injustice (103). Although many white moderates have disappointed King because of their failure to act, King praises specific white moderates and those who in general have participated in the freedom struggle.

Another disappointment for King is the inaction of the white church on the issue of civil rights. King praises two of the ministers who composed the letter for their concrete actions toward equality in their churches but notes that during the Montgomery, Alabama, protests, the white church leadership was dominated by “outright opponents” or those who “remained silent” (104). The clergy in Birmingham has been equally disappointing, with some advising compliance with segregation from the pulpit, focusing on trivial details instead of the central issue of injustice, or elevating “otherworldly religion” over the social issues (105). In looking over the churches of the South, King finds himself wondering why they have been missing in action when government officials supported segregation and African-Americans rose up to protest.

King states that the modern church is “blemished and scarred…through social neglect and through fear of being nonconformists” (106). In early history, Christians “rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed,” and concerned towns labeled them “‘disturbers of the peace’ and ‘outside agitators’” (107). Their willingness to live out their morals “brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests,” according to King. Modern Christians are “[a]rchdefenders of the status quo” and provide cover for the power structure in many communities by standing by or opposing activism (107).

The churches’ complicity, King argues, is dangerous to their survival. King believes that if they do not act, they will become irrelevant, an outcome King already sees in the young people he encounters. King muses that perhaps his optimism in the power of churches to participate in change has been misplaced. Maybe, he argues, organized religion is only capable of supporting the status quo and change can only come from “the inner spiritual church” (107). King notes, however, that some of his fellow travelers in the freedom marchers are people from organized religion. King’s hope is that all organized religions will follow their example.

Even if the churches fail in this moral obligation, King is confident that the struggle for freedom will be won “because the goal of America is freedom,” despite the longstanding oppression of African-Americans (108). African-Americans’ resilience and persistence in believing in freedom despite “the inexpressible cruelties of slavery” means that the current opposition will not win either (108). The freedom struggle aligns with Christian morality and national values, King argues.

The final part of King’s response is his criticism of the clergymen’s praise of Birmingham law enforcement’s maintenance of order during the protests. King says he doubts the clergy would praise law enforcement if they had seen the violence against protestors in the streets and jails, against both the young and the old. King admits that law enforcement has been more disciplined this time, but notes that they are still participating in actions that support immorality in the form of segregation.

Instead, the clergymen should have praised the actions of the protestors, who demonstrated great courage and discipline by not striking back when assaulted. These protestors, argues King, will one day be recognized as “standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judeo-Christian heritage” (111).

King apologizes for the long length of the letter. It was all he could do in a jail cell, he admits. He also begs forgiveness for any flaws in the letter or arguments and expresses a wish that one day he will be able to meet the clergymen “not as an integrationist or a civil rights leader, but as a fellow clergyman and Christian brother” (112). His final thought is a “vision of [a] nation united in brotherhood, one free from prejudice” (112).