Something I noticed as a teacher of US History and AP US Government is just how little we tend to read Martin Luther King, Jr. We seem to agree (I think?), despite our deep political divisions, in our appreciation of Dr. King. He was the figurehead of the Civil Rights Movement, the decades-long struggle to end segregation and racist laws across the United States. This text, the “Letter From Birmingham Jail,” is a required text for AP US Government classes, and is one of the only texts people tend to read from Dr. King. Maybe you hear a short clip of his March on Washington speech—delivered just a few months after his stint in the Birmingham jail—with its key “I have a dream” phrase. We do ourselves a disservice by hearing and reading so little of Dr. King.
The “Letter from Birmingham Jail” is, at its core, a message to moderates—or, to use a different word that I want to emphasize here—to conservatives. As he makes clear, his message is not intended for extremists of either side, whether the KKK or of Black nationalists. Dr. King defines himself as a moderate, as someone standing between the extremes of revolutionary dreams to the Right or Left. For a deeper analysis of the text and the reading of important passages, check out the Part I podcast. More importantly, I implore you to read it for yourself.
I’ll refer to aspects of Part I in order to make the following argument: Dr. King’s message to moderates in 1963 defines a path between extremes that those who consider themselves moderates or conservatives today, in 2025, desperately need to hear. This new path for conservatives consists of three key elements: First, a commitment to Christian faith and a faith in America; Second, a real concern for justice; and Third, a commitment to the practices of observation and empathy.
This new path for conservatives consists of three key elements: First, a commitment to Christian faith and a faith in America; Second, a real concern for justice; and Third, a commitment to the practices of observation and empathy.
Failed to render LaTeX expression — no expression found
We’ll start with a bit of historical context. Dr. King is president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and he is leading initiatives across the South to end the social practices of racial segregation. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision which had established the principle of “separate but equal.” Public schools were now in the process of desegregation (at times by force through the federalized National Guard, as Eisenhower did in Little Rock, AR in 1957), while segregationists responded with a campaign of “massive resistance.” They sought to protect, as in Alabama governor George Wallace’s war cry, “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever.” Dr. King was jailed for leading a demonstration without an approved permit, which he briefly describes on page 3. He writes in response to a public statement given by eight white religious leaders of the South.
With this context in mind, I want to call attention to the differences in Dr. King’s America and ours. He refers to himself as a moderate, but he was not viewed as such at his time. According to conservatives of his day, he was viewed as a radical, accused of being a communist—an accusation leveled at almost any leader who sought social change after 1917. Some of this has to do with what it means to be “conservative”; a definition of which is one “averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.” Aversion to change in 1963 meant to support segregation, Jim Crow, and the numerous other practices of racial discrimination all across the county (including sundown towns, redlining, and ghettoization, just to name a few). Dr. King absolutely sought to overthrow these laws and social practices, to fundamentally change society. Despite the extreme polarization of our political moment here in 2025, there is broad agreement that Dr. King is an American to whom we can and should appreciate. Why is that?
This is my argument: Dr. King redefines conservatism by leveraging traditional values against aversion to change. Through this, he defines a different way of being conservative.
Dr. King redefines conservatism by leveraging traditional values against aversion to change.
In 2025, we’re obviously not dealing with the exact same issues, and to make a direct comparison with 1963 is, among other things, to deny the impact of Dr. King’s work and his sacrifice to the cause of civil rights. We are of course still dealing with issues of race and questions of laws and societal practices, but we cannot simply repeat Dr. King’s words without considering our actual historical situation and the many differences between our time and his. We can, however, be formed by his teaching to address the problems we face in a way that is faithful to his life and work. For us today, this is a different path for being conservative, of standing between political extremes by holding fast to our traditional values without the aversion to change that perpetuates the violation of those values. Dr. King defines this path through three key elements in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”
1: Commitment to Christian Faith and Faith in America
As a Baptist minister, Dr. King regularly supported his arguments with scriptural references. His definition of justice extends directly from the dignity of humanity testified to by the life, work, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the “Letter,” he points also to the history of the Church as it lived out its call to this theological commitment. Dr. King writes,
There was a time when the church was very powerful. It was during that period that the early Christians rejoiced when they were deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was the thermostat that transformed the mores of society (5).
As we’ve covered in previous podcast episodes, this Christian pursuit of justice in society has been a defining feature of American Protestantism throughout US history. As we’ve also covered, this feature has constantly produced conflict with respect to race, from disputes over the practice of slavery at the Constitutional Convention, throughout Western Expansion, up through Jim Crow and on into the present moment. Dr. King references Christian history to call back to times when Christians took action to address societal injustice. But, he continues:
Things are different now. The contemporary church is so often a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. It is so often the arch supporter of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's often vocal sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If the church of today does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authentic ring, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. I meet young people every day whose disappointment with the church has risen to outright disgust (5).
We can see here the two elements of conservatism at odds here: on one hand, conservative Christians share a commitment to the traditional values of the Church, but on the other hand, the aversion to change, the desire to maintain the unjust status quo, undermines traditional values and threatens the future of American Christianity itself. Dr. King seeks societal change in part to prevent churches becoming irrelevant social clubs with no meaning.
This commitment to Christian principles is directly tied to a “faith in America.” As I read in Part I, Dr. King describes how he stands “in the middle of two opposing forces” in his community, between a complacent middle class and a black nationalist movement that “comes perilously close to advocating violence” (4). This movement, Dr. King explains, “is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable devil” (4). Dr. King stands not only between two opposing forces in his own community, but, more obviously, between two extremes within American society—those calling for the perpetuation of White Supremacism through segregation, and those calling for the violent separatism of Black Nationalism. Both extremes deny a fundamental faith in America; a faith that Black people and White people can be free and equal as Americans.
Dr. King states this faith in America as what gives him hope despite his disappointment:
We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom. Abused and scorned though we may be, our destiny is tied up with the destiny of America. Before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, we were here. Before the pen of Jefferson scratched across the pages of history the majestic word of the Declaration of Independence, we were here. For more than two centuries our foreparents labored here without wages; they made cotton king; and they built the homes of their masters in the midst of brutal injustice and shameful humiliation—and yet out of a bottomless vitality our people continue to thrive and develop. If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands (5).
The commitment to Christian faith and faith in America is not a naive or simplistic one, but one steeped in a deep understanding of history and the practices of those who came before. This faith does not lend itself to the status quo nor popular opinions of the day. It is a faith that requires the deep work of learning and understanding that forms one in traditional values rather than the mere rote repetition of supposed beliefs.
It is from these commitments that two other closely related elements follow.
2. A Real Concern for Justice
Christian faith and faith in America are not just thoughts to which one assents, like boxes one checks on a sheet of preferences, but is a commitment, a decision to live according to a vision. For Christian faith, this entails recognizing one's own sin and a willingness to repent of it. For American society, it means recognizing injustice and taking steps to establish or reestablish justice. Dr. King’s call to conservatives is to embrace a way of being that seeks to realize the vision of traditional values by working for justice in the world. Instead of being averse to change, the conservative is one who is, at their core, open to change toward a more just society. This isn’t a simple process, especially in a democratic society that requires us to respect the freedoms of fellow citizens who may not agree with our vision of a just society. It is a call to the difficult work of moral reflection.
Dr. King’s call to conservatives is to embrace a way of being that seeks to realize the vision of traditional values by working for justice in the world.
Dr. King addresses this most specifically in his analysis of just and unjust laws. He writes,
One may well ask, ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘An unjust law is no law at all.’ Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. To use the words of Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher, segregation substitutes an ‘I - it’ relationship for the ‘I - thou’ relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful (3).
This is tricky territory, to say the least. When is it appropriate to ignore a law that one determines is unjust? Dr. King refers back to Christian history to make his point, citing Augustine and Aquinas, two of the most influential figures for both Protestant and Catholic theology. He states a clear moral position, that the moral law or law of God is just and therefore “uplifts human personality,” whereas unjust laws “are out of harmony with the moral law.” Segregation laws are unjust “because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.” We may well disagree on this statement of what makes a just law, on what ultimately guides our moral senses. What matters, however, is putting in the work to determine our moral sense in order for it to hold us accountable and for us to communicate it to others. When we refuse to put in this work, we become incapable of accountability and we refuse the very possibility of moral discourse across the differing perspectives in democratic society.
A real concern for justice requires that we put in this work to determine our moral sense. You cannot work to move society toward a vision of justice if you lack a vision of justice. Lacking such a vision, you can only establish an arbitrary morality dependent upon the whims of those wielding power (whether through legal or cultural influences). Does conservatism mean supporting the status quo determined by those in power, or is it a commitment to traditional values that transcend our ourselves as individuals and our particular culture?
3. Practicing Observation and Empathy
If we are formed by our commitment to Christian faith and faith in America, then we will be people who practice observation and empathy, people who are on the lookout for injustice and suffering. Dr. King makes this clear throughout the text— “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and therefore he is in Birmingham because “injustice is here” (1). If we have a real concern for justice, then we understand that there will be injustice, and refusal to hear the unjust suffering of others does not make it go away nor does our ignorance defend culture or society. In fact, as Dr. King argues, our willingness to ignore injustice only increases the bitterness and hatred of those who unjustly suffer, and thereby increases support for extreme movements; movements that reject American society because its claims of freedom and equality are lies veiling the truth that its values in reality only serve the whims of power.
As Dr. King describes, the first step of a nonviolent campaign is the “collection of facts to determine whether injustices are alive” (1). He goes on to present facts related to the injustices in Birmingham (unsolved bombings, broken promises in negotiations with economic leaders) personal experiences of segregation (most poignantly stated in his conversations with his children about segregation and his attempts to prevent their bitterness toward White people) and the frustration of being told to wait (the generations of Black people awaiting the freedom promised by American society but denied to them).
An aversion to change makes it impossible to hear these experiences of suffering. If the status quo represents my traditional values, then anyone suffering is a threat to my values. We saw a clear example of this in the episode titled “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis,” where Christian leaders viewed calls for the abolition of slavery as a threat to the Bible itself. The same was true for many White Christians in 1963, where desegregation was viewed as a threat to their faith and way of life. These were sinful errors, and they did nothing but harm the Church and faith in America.
An aversion to change makes it impossible to hear these experiences of suffering.
What if we abandoned the aversion to change, and embraced Dr. King’s call to conservatives?
We are not dealing with the same exact problems as Dr. King describes, and to suggest as much is to deny the accomplishments of the movement to which he gave his life. What might he teach us about how to address our different issues today? How different might our political moment be if conservatives or moderates—the majority of Americans standing between extremes—listened to the suffering of others, not just with respect to racial discrimination, but everyday people’s struggles with finding work, putting food on the table, or affording healthcare?
I hope, I dream, that we answer this call.