1 10 6 https://thurman.pitts.emory.edu/files/original/289331c44f7322cc887d447801e04114.pdf 143053ab0a0a15f7c08cdb6fc89de75d PDF Text Text Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu 394-554_A.mp3 Pitts Theology Library Emory University --countless other people in the English-speaking world who have thought seriously about the meaning of loyalty in any of its dimensions, I am deeply indebted to that great winsome-- and sometimes devastating-- philosopher, Josiah Royce, who during the early part of this century stated for the first time in definitive English the meaning of the philosophy of loyalty. Now I want to say that because the ghost of Royce will be moving in and out of my mind, as he has been for a long time. But I speak on my own authority. What I want to do this morning is to lay what seems to me to be the fundamental foundation for a consideration of this very important and crucial experience of the human spirit. Everybody, despite the private and intensely personal and intimate life that he lives, everybody is involved in the social process. I am not ever alone. I am never cut off from the social context. And therefore, I must start as a human being with a body of materials that are my heritage as a human being. And I become self-conscious only in relation to this social context. Now I wanted to take time to lay that down very carefully. It is only when the little child becomes aware of the not-self that the child becomes aware of the self. I often wonder what is going on in a little baby's mind when his eyes begin to be eyes, you know. I mean when he begins to see, not just expose his eyes to the world, but what really begins to narrow the thing down. And he watches the object of his devotion, his mother, for instance, as she, after administering to his need, or cuddling him, or whatever they may do, that then she puts him down. And then he's watching all the time because he's not aware of her, as though against himself. And then as he watches her, she withdraws. And his eyes follow. And there must be some moment of a very great shock to the sensitive, developing nervous system of the baby when the baby realizes that there is a not-self. There is that which is not really a part of him, but is close to him, that is involved in all of his little feelings. But it isn't quite a part of him. And as he watches his mother separate herself from him, it is then that his sense of isolation begins to emerge. And that sense of isolation takes its form first in terms of separateness. Now it is this fact that the individual becomes self-aware, only initially in relation to that which is not the self, but of which the self is conscious. Now let's push that just a little. That's all right. They are enjoying themselves out there, so let us enjoy ourselves here. We've heard them now. So let's just settle down. I become aware that I have a will of my own, only when I'm able to emerge with my will over against other wills. So that it is true that I come to myself as a willing creature only as a result of my ability to differentiate myself from the social context in which I am living now. Any self-conscious act on my part then must of necessity involve me directly and indirectly in the social heritage that has created me. Take the two passages that I read-- and I'll get to loyalty, if you'd just be patient. 1 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu [LAUGHTER] Pitts Theology Library Emory University Let me take the two passages that I read. One, the apostle Paul. I didn't know, said he, in the part that I didn't read, I didn't know what covetousness was until the law said, thou shalt not covet. That I was involved in the heritage, in all of the instruction, all that the law meant. I was it, and it was I. And I was a creature of the law. But I was also a creature functioning in other relationships. And the law, because it was the dominant, controlling, central fact of my world, it decided for me what would be my conscience. What would be a violation. The law said, thou shalt not. And when the law said, thou shalt not, then I said, I shall not. So the law, because of its very nature, created for me whatever conscience that I held with reference to the way I live my life. But deep within my relationship to the law, I was a person, said Paul. I was conscious of impulses that rooted back in to my biological past, that were great and unrestrained impulses that were a part of my nature, that could not take into account the law. These impulses, urging me to move in one direction, and the law insisting that I move in another direction created in me a profound area of conflict. And I had to decide. I had to decide. And in honoring one, the impulses of my body, as he calls it, I, says Paul, had to dishonor the other. So I split myself in two, in an interesting kind of rationalization. With my mind, I serve the law of God. While with my flesh, I serve the law of sin. And I can never find peace. I can never find happiness until I grasp willingly some transcending claim that will be for me so significant that in my relation to this claim my frustrations are resolved. That's what he's saying. "Who will deliver me from this body of death, this cleavage?" Something, some dimension of synthesis that is capable of pulling together in the good old dialectic the thesis and the antithesis. And he says, God can do that. And therefore, if I can respond as a self-conscious act to God, then that will resolve my difficulty. That's the way he dealt with it. Abraham Lincoln? "I want peace, peace for my land, my country. And as the Commander in Chief of all, the head man of the nation, it is my responsibility to be the living instrument of that kind of experience for my countrymen. I think that human slavery is evil. How can I get peace? How can I work for peace if on this issue of human slavery we are divided? We have lived for more than 100 years half slave and half free. But this dichotomy has grown wider and wider and wider. The character of the divisiveness has become so devastating that at last we are involved in a great civil war. We cannot resolve it unless we can find some transcendent claim that pulls together the abolitionists and those slaveholders. And I've thought about it, said Lincoln, I've thought about it. And I don't see the answer." For me, the answer is the Union. And I've even said publicly that if, in order to save the union, I must free half the slaves and hold the others, I'll do that. If in order to save the Union, I must turn my back upon what seems to me to be the direct moral imperative that is implicit from any gross or refined understanding of the meaning of the democratic dogma, I'll do that for the Union. Is the transcendent demand that is the creative synthesis capable of pulling together, resolving the thesis and the antithesis? 2 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu But nobody wants to go along with me right now. And I can't go on any longer. But what else am I going to do? I can't go on, and yet I must go on. Pitts Theology Library Emory University Now, what is the meaning of all this? I don't know. And I'll be through pretty soon. Loyalty seems to mean that there is a willing and a thoroughgoing devotion of a person to a cause-willing. Therefore, you see, loyalty can never be effectively realized if it makes a demand in which the world cannot concur. Willing. It is with reference to a cause. And here I think is what for me at any rate is a very important contribution that Josiah Royce makes to all the thinking that have been going on on this whole matter since 1906, in our country, I mean. He insists that it is always with reference to a cause to something that is in a sense outside of the individual, but to which the individual relates himself as a result of a self-conscious act of will. And therefore, you see, the demand of the cause become an inner response on the part of the individual. It is a willing and thoroughgoing devotion of the person to a cause. Now of course, you see, wherever that kind of response takes place, the individual becomes the living for instance of the cause to which he is loyal. Now let's examine that principle just a little. Here we have our hands on something which is fundamental to the very structure of the universe. For what we are saying is that when the individual surrenders, yields his will to a cause, the cause then gives him back his will in order that that will may become the servant of the cause. You see? I don't know if I can make that clear. I give up my will in response to the cause. But the cause then to which I'm devoted gives me back my will in order that I may put at the disposal of the cause all that I am. Now you can do that to something that is not worthy of you. You can do that as something that isn't worthy of your all. Have you ever encountered anybody who fulfills this requirement with reference to-- oh, let us say having a certain kind of daisy in all the public parks in the United States-- you know, just rather ridiculous. You've seen people who took just one little segment and it became their cause. This serves the purpose of doing what? Of galvanizing all of the fragmentary aspects of their lives into one whole, galvanizing it into one unit so that this person now functions as a whole creature, with reference to daisies. [LAUGHTER] And wherever it happens, you see, wherever it happens, there you see a dynamic release of power, of energy, and vitality, even though the cause may not radiate at all. Because this is the kind of universe that is so dynamic in character, that is essentially dynamic in character. And whenever any individual places at the disposal of any single end, and gives to that end his selfsurrender, then there is released in that individual the limitless power of the universe so terrific in its character that it fuses all of the parts of the personality into a single whole. And that is why-- that is why instinctively, again and again, we resist the impact and the pull of anything that is capable of doing that for us. We don't want it because we live in little fragments. And every little fragment is precious, and intimate, and wonderful. And we don't want to give it 3 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu up. So we reduce our exposure to anything that will inspire in us a whole-hearted response. We do that. That's what Augustine meant when he said, Lord, make me a good man, but not yet. [LAUGHTER] Pitts Theology Library Emory University Not yet. Not yet. Now just one more little step, if you just please. Loyalty then-- and this is the basic insight for our morning-- loyalty then is a word that we use to describe what is essentially a spiritual phenomenon derived from the nature of the universe. It means that it is the fusing of the outer and the inner. The cause to which I respond is external to me, and yet in some sense I participate in the cause. Because I am a social creature. And the degree to which I yield myself to it, my participation is enlarged. Because my will becomes the will of the cause. And the cause reinforms my will and gives it back to me. So that now it has staked out in me itself. Now, what does that mean? Does that mean that I cannot be loyal to a person? Let's examine that for just a minute. Loyal to a person? What do you mean? Perhaps this is it. I'm loyal to the tie that binds me to the person. And my loyalty to the person operates through the channel of the tie that relates me to the person. So in order to be true in this devotion to the tie, whatever tie it is, I will do no violence to the person. So my loyalty to the individual is a derivative, a secondary thing. Because the thing that is primary is my devotion to the tie that unites me, and you, and you, and you, and you, and you. Paul felt that he could be loyal to Paul only, by being loyal to that which was capable of putting the parts of Paul together. Lincoln felt that he could be loyal to Lincoln, , and to the slaves, to the Confederacy, to the Union, and to himself, only by being loyal to the tie, the transcendent tie that made of his relationships and all of these dimensions one collective and synthesized whole. That is what loyalty means. Are you loyal? Is there anything, any kind of cause or tie that relates you to your fellows? 4 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty (1951, Fellowship Church, San Francisco, CA) Description An account of the resource In this series delivered at Fellowship Church from May 6 to June 10, 1951, Thurman discusses the meaning of loyalty in our private and public lives. For Thurman, loyalty is a steadfast dedication to a cause. This commitment summons all the power within the personality and dedicates it to the goal. To the extent that we experience loyalty, we feel involved with life, giving our lives a sense of meaning and significance. For Thurman, loyalty is the measure of our self-conscious commitments, in which we make ourselves servants to the ultimate. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Descriptions by Rodell Jefferson III AudioWithTranscription Audio that is shown through the 3Play Media embedded interactive transcript Audio with Transcription <iframe width="100%" height="820" frameborder="0" src="/files/players/394-554_A.html" ></iframe> Location The location of the interview, speech, lecture, or sermon Fellowship Church, San Francisco, California Time Period The decade in which the recording was produced. 1950s Original Title Title as transcribed from tape cassette The Meaning of Loyalty, parts 1 and 2 (Fellowship Church), 1951 May 6, 13 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 394-554_A Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Thurman, Howard Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty, Part 1, 1951 May 6 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="http://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/rp8k9">MSS 394</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://pitts.emory.edu/">Pitts Theology Library, Emory University</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951-05-06 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"><img style="border-width:0;" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/80x15.png" alt="80x15.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License</a>. 2019. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant GEOMETRYCOLLECTION(POINT(-13627798.925371 4550756.1096806)) Description An account of the resource In this first lecture on The Meaning of Loyalty, Thurman speaks to the ways in which individuals are involved in their social context. Loyalty represents the fusion of a person's inner will and an outside cause. This is not simply a social matter for Thurman, but also a fundamental structure of the universe. Loyal commitment brings all the disparate parts of the personality into a single whole. Thurman ends by describing what it means to be loyal to a person. "The thing that is primary is my devotion to the tie that unites me and you." Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Description by Rodell Jefferson III. https://thurman.pitts.emory.edu/files/original/1c883fc7696b16c781218b3b1d21f4a8.pdf 58ba09fec9fd04f57b52926c782f1b14 PDF Text Text Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu 394-554_B.mp3 Pitts Theology Library Emory University Loyalty as defined is the willing and steadfast and practical devotion of a person to a cause. And the further that the basis of loyalty, the heart of loyalty, is what Royce calls loyalty to loyalty. Which becomes for him the basis of our morality and ethics. Now I want to pick up the thread from our discussion last Sunday and deal today on-- and if I don't get through next Sunday morning-- on the meaning of [? man ?] as it has bearing on the problems that arise from conflicts between loyalties. I would like you to be as open-minded and uninhibited as possible, so that as we work alone together, and you hear me say something with which you cannot possibly be in agreement, that when that moment happens, you will have the kind of discipline and self-control that will permit your mind to remain open for the rest of our working together. And then you can close it this afternoon. [LAUGHTER] The conflicts-- the very existence of experiences of conflicts between loyalties suggests at once that the individual was always involved in relating himself to what may be regarded as a kind of hierarchy of causes. Life would be very simple if it could be reduced to a single, solitary, objective cause. And that personality was so simple that it could, in all of its aspects, related itself to a single, objective cause. But because of the very complexity of personality, and because of the very complexity of the involvements of living experiences, we are called upon again and again to exercise selectivity in causes to which we shall relate ourselves. It is for this reason I think that Dr. Royce tries to cut through all of the hierarchy of causes as such, and insists that loyalty in its essence is loyalty to loyalty. Loyalty to loyalty. That I am regarding every cause as a vehicle that provides a hook, as it were, upon which I may hang my loyalty. Now, it is obvious that conflicts arise between loyalties because at any particular moment, I may be related to a cause, to a purpose, to an end, which cause or purpose or end is paramount at the moment? Is most significant at the moment? But in the light of the total context of my life, it may not be the most significant purpose or cause for me. In order to break this down in simple and comprehensible categories, let us look at [? two ?] [? or ?] [? three. ?] The conflict that arises when I am faced with the loyalty to the ideal, to the recognized and willingly embraced and accepted ideal of sincerity, for instance, genuineness, on the one hand. And the loyalty to the continued physical existence of my own life on the other hand. Shall I be true in terms of genuineness and sincerity? Loyal to that, even if it means the destruction or the annihilation of my own life? Now as we sit here in the quietness of this room, that question may be academic. But it is one of the oldest moral and ethical problems and struggles of the life of man. 1 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu In any kind of society, in any period in human history where there have been weak and disadvantaged people living side by side with strong and advantaged people, people have tended to survive by being true to this insistence upon loyalty to the experience, the raw experience of physical continuity. Even as, at moments, the have deny the validity of the claim of loyalty to sincerity. Pitts Theology Library Emory University It's curious, isn't it? The weak have survived by fooling the strong. And we don't think anything about it. You see, when we see the thing operating in nature, I've mentioned to you, perhaps, several times. But when I was a boy in Florida, I spent much of my time in the summer in the woods. And one of the things that always impressed me was the uncanny ways in which birds-- I know them when I see them. I don't know their names, but they were birds. [LAUGHTER] Could tell from the shape, the outline of the shadow of the hawk, that the hawk was about. And then they would literally play dead. Literally fall over. And sometimes with little grass in their toes. And the hawk, perhaps, blinked his eyes, and went on about his, business thinking he had an optical illusion. Hoping that he would come upon a meadow and he saw a little bird who didn't have sense enough to play dead. [LAUGHTER] Now when we see that operating in the world of nature, it is-- it doesn't present for us a problem of moral and ethical conflict, does it? When we turn to the book of Ezekiel, we read the consultation and the words of comfort and assurance that the prophet was giving to the Judites in exile in Babylon. And as we read those words, and read them very carefully, and we see that he is using a term like Hiram of Tyre. But the description of Hiram of Tyre was recognized by scholars as the description of Nebuchadnezzar. For Ezekiel could not say to the Judites in Babylon that I'm talking about Nebuchadnezzar. So he put the whole blame on poor old Hiram of Tyre. And every Judite who listened to him recognized what he was doing, but the Babylonian Secret Service couldn't do anything with it. Because he wasn't talking about Babylon. He was talking about Hiram. In France and in other parts of Europe during the days of the German domination. When they were deceptive! When they used every subterfuge to keep the enemy from recognizing who they were and what they were doing! Did we have any moral judgment about that? 2 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu In the conflict between loyalties-- loyalties to loyalty, to be the ideal of freedom, what of the loyalty to the ideal of self-preservation? As ever against loyalty to the ideal of genuineness and sincerity as touching the tyrant. Pitts Theology Library Emory University Can I be loyal to loyalty and thereby increase the total sum of loyalty without honoring the loyalty of a man who was loyal to a cause, which cause, in my judgment, is an evil cause? What about it? Or is it possible for me to honor his loyalty in order that my loyalty might increase the sum total of loyalty in the human experience? And at the same time, as a result of my loyalty, I must speak to destroying the powers to which he is loyal? Or let us look at another aspect of it. The loyalty to the ideal of genuineness and sincerity, as it may be brought into sharp conflict with the loyal to the mercy. You may not want to think about this, but it's all right. When Henry van Dyke wrote the rather famous Christmas dream of The Other Wise Man. And then one of the passages read, the other wise man walks into open court. And then in that courtyard, he finds a cottage. And in that cottage, there is a Jewish matron with her little 2-yearold baby boy. She's hiding in the corner, because as she hears the footsteps of the other wise man, she [? fears ?] that the other wise man is Herod's army coming to carry out this command to kill all male boys under two years old. And as soon as the other wise man comes in and sees her in this panic, in this fear-stricken condition, he hears the footsteps and the rhythmic beat of Herod's soldiers as they come into the courtyard. And he walks through the open door to meet the captain of Herod's host, or Herod's squad. And Herod's captains says, is there a male child in this house? And the other wise man says, no. There is no male child in this house. But here is a ruby to the captain that has sense enough to go on down the street. And when the other wise men-- when van Dyke wrote this, he was the senior chaplain in all the armed forces of the United States. A greatly beloved Christian poet, and a certain kind of philosopher and preacher. And there was just a tidal wave of protest. Because it seemed as if he was putting a premium upon [? wine. ?] The most searching experience, the new problem and the very personal reference here. Perhaps after I tell you this, you may decide that, well, you may decide anything you care to. [LAUGHTER] But the first year that I was out of Divinity School and was studying at Oberlin, I had a little church in the community. One day, I received a telephone calls form Steubenville, Ohio, saying 3 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu that the wife of one of the officers of our little church had been seriously injured in an automobile accident. And she had asked for me. And would I please come over at once? Pitts Theology Library Emory University A friend of mine who had an automobile drove me to Steubenville. We found a little hospital, and we went to it. I identified myself to the nurse on the ward. And the nurse said, it's a very serious accident. Her brother was killed instantly when the car turned over. We don't think she can live. Please go in, but don't stay longer than two or three minutes. You must not do anything to shock her, but give her comfort if you can. She was all bandaged. Terribly broken. Body and limb. I could only hear what she said by holding my ears very close to her lips just to pick up the muted whisper between her agonies. And she said, please, read the 17th chapter of John. Well, I quoted all the 17th chapter of John that I knew. And then she said, will you pray with me? And I said, I'm doing that. And then there was silence. And then she said, is my brother dead? And I said, no. He isn't dead. Then I left. Well, I didn't sleep much that night. Finally, Sunday came. And before I could preach My sermon to my congregation, I told them what I had done. I said I had to decide in a split minute what I would do. And I did the thing which at that time seemed to me to be right. The thing that disturbs me now is that, and that argued against it all, was this. That perhaps she will not live. And the last thing she ask of her minister, he deceived her. And I say that no matter what kind of judgment you will have of me for it. And perhaps you will not even want me to remain as your minister. But to me, in that instance, I choose to be loyal to mercy. I do not offer that as a general principle. But in that incident, that is the way I behaved. And perhaps if I faced another thing of that sort, I might. I don't know. Well, she lived. [LAUGHTER] And the first time I went to see her when she was back home-- we didn't talk about this when I'd go to see her in the hospital. It was just always, nothing was ever said. But when I went to see her when she came back home, she said I noticed that you never said anything to me about your first visit to the hospital. And I said, no. [LAUGHTER] I haven't. She said, I knew my brother was dead. But I'm so glad that you made it as easy for me as you could. Well, that made me feel better. What do you do? It's not an academic question. What do you do? What do you do? Does loyalty to loyalty, which means that in your loyalty you shall add to the sum total of the loyalty 4 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu experiences of the race, demand of you that in the presence of loyalty, to most, if you are sure that that's what it is. Pitts Theology Library Emory University And your loyalty to genuineness that stands over against the mercy. How do you cast your votes? What would you do? As you're thinking about what I did, what would you do? What would inform the quality of your religious insight at that point? Loyalty to loyalty. Is there a cause the essence of which is to be loyal to the experience of loyalty itself? That provides the principle that can be introduced in any situation, however complex and complicated the situation may be, and result totally in the increase in the confidence that the human spirit has? In the integrity of personality? What about it? Let's take just one more step. Loyalty. Loyalty to my faith. Which becomes the [? preview ?] manifestation of the total meaning of loyalty to me, if my faith means really my faith. When I am face to face with the behavior that might attack the integrity of another man's faith. And they illustrate it's better to talk in terms of windows. There was a man whose name was Naaman in 2 Kings. A very great leader was [? not a ?] Prime Minister and commander in chief of the armies of King [? Aram, ?] I believe his name was. But that doesn't matter. You can look it up. He was an honorable man, but he had leprosy. [? The problem ?] that [? ruined ?] his honor was that over on a certain area, they had taken captive a little Jewish girl. And this little Jewish girl became the mad servant of the king's wife. And when she heard that this man Naaman had leprosy, she said to the king's wife, I just wish that he would go over to Israel in some area, and let the prophet there cure him. Because the profit can cure him. And the world lept from that little private women's quarters to the king. And then the king passed the word on to Naaman. And so they set forth. He had a lot of gifts and things he was going to carry. And he went over to Somalia, and found the prophet, and sent word to the prophet that he believed that he could heal him. And the prophet didn't even come out to look at him. The prophet just said, you go and bathe in the water seven times. And Naaman was incensed, he said. He did not even have courtesy, common courtesy, to come out and talk to me face to face, but sent some underling to me to tell me to go and bathe. I am not dirty. But somebody else in the group said, well, it isn't much to add to do. You have the leprosy. And you don't have any choice if you just try it, you can't lose anything, because you have it. So he went and dipped himself in the water. And he came out clean. As the chronicler says, he came out with the skin of a baby. then he wanted to give gifts to the prophet. The prophet said no, I don't want anything. 5 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu Then he said, let give two new wagons full of soil! You see, at that time, God was a God, Jehovah was a national God. And he had more power if he were operating in a foreign land, you see. So unless there was some soil that he could feed a [? horse, ?] there's a certain nationalism that's back in the background of our whole faith at this point. Pitts Theology Library Emory University So he said, there's just one other little request that I want to make. When I'm carrying out my duties of speech, and the king, leaning on my arm, walks into the temple of [? Roman. ?] And then he genuflects at the altar of the temple of Roman! And I, and his support, genuflect also. Will the eternal thought give me if I behave in accordance with the demands of my office, even though those demands are in violation of my commitment to the eternal? It's a tremendous problem. My heart is not in the bowing. The altar Roman means nothing to me! But it is the center of the worship and devotion of my king! And he leans upon me! Shall I do violence to the sanctity of his religious experience in order that I might be true to the san-- 6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty (1951, Fellowship Church, San Francisco, CA) Description An account of the resource In this series delivered at Fellowship Church from May 6 to June 10, 1951, Thurman discusses the meaning of loyalty in our private and public lives. For Thurman, loyalty is a steadfast dedication to a cause. This commitment summons all the power within the personality and dedicates it to the goal. To the extent that we experience loyalty, we feel involved with life, giving our lives a sense of meaning and significance. For Thurman, loyalty is the measure of our self-conscious commitments, in which we make ourselves servants to the ultimate. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Descriptions by Rodell Jefferson III AudioWithTranscription Audio that is shown through the 3Play Media embedded interactive transcript Audio with Transcription <iframe width="100%" height="820" frameborder="0" src="/files/players/394-554_B.html" ></iframe> Location The location of the interview, speech, lecture, or sermon Fellowship Church, San Francisco, California Internal Notes Notes for project team Edited - GL 6/9 Time Period The decade in which the recording was produced. 1950s Original Title Title as transcribed from tape cassette The Meaning of Loyalty, parts 1 and 2 (Fellowship Church), 1951 May 6, 13, Side B Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 394-554_B Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Thurman, Howard Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="http://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/rp8k9">MSS 394</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://pitts.emory.edu/">Pitts Theology Library, Emory University</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"><img style="border-width:0;" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/80x15.png" alt="80x15.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License</a>. 2019. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty, Part 2, 1951 May 13 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant GEOMETRYCOLLECTION(POINT(-13627798.925371 4550756.1096806)) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951-05-13 Description An account of the resource In this second lecture on The Meaning of Loyalty, Thurman discusses the problem of conflicting loyalties. We live complex lives with a hierarchy of causes that cannot be reduced to one. How do we resolve loyalty to our ideals in conflict with our loyalty to self-preservation? There is no simple answer, but Thurman poses that we become loyal to the experience of loyalty itself. This principle may be brought into any situation, and serves to ensure the integrity of the person. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Description by Rodell Jefferson III. https://thurman.pitts.emory.edu/files/original/bf07d5fdeb13d69e8afda67f7328f52e.pdf a04f9b27d392659b6684e90d0aa16996 PDF Text Text Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu 394-555_A.mp3 Pitts Theology Library Emory University About the meaning, the meaning of loyalty and this experience-- experience of man. Last Sunday, we talked about various levels of conflict between loyalties. Today I want to take the discussion last Sunday just another step, and I hope that I'll soon be through with this discussion. Loyalty as defined in our working hypothesis here-- the willing and steadfast and practical devotion of a person to a cause. There is a hierarchy of causes of course, and the conflict arises often because of the conflict in the relative significance of the causes to which one is dedicated. This morning, I want to take the development that loyalty finally rests upon the devotion of the individual, the meaning, the self-conscious and deliberate devotion of the individual to a cause which to him is supremely worthful. Take this another step, you see. And in relation to its supreme worth and significance, the ultimate basis of self-respect for the individual is established and guaranteed. In the light of the commitment, the devotion to what is to the individual a supremely worthful, the supremely worthful cause, the commitment to that becomes at once the basis for the individual's ethics. It becomes at once the basis of the individual's values. It becomes at once the definition of the terms upon which the individual will live his life. It involves him, therefore, at every level of his other causes and at every level of his other commitments. It is an ultimate devotion. And it follows that the degree to which an individual is true to that is loyal to that. To that degree, does he contribute to the sum total of loyalty of his fellows? And to that degree, does his loyalty become contagious in its radical effect upon the individuals who themselves are trying to be loyal to an ultimate cause or an ultimate goal? It is the moment beyond all other moments that the true basis of human worth is established. It is the awareness on the part of the individual that he has apprehended that which is of ultimate significance and worthfullness. And of course, we need not be disturbed or our minds disarranged because of the different labels by which this is named. To me, the ultimate cause that has the final definitive, searching, penetrating, invasive demand of the human spirit is God-- God. You may serve truth. You may serve the supreme good. I don't care what is not my affair. But to me, it's God. And by that, I mean that there does come a time when I am-- when I am face to face with an ultimate scrutiny, when I am-- when I am without any pretense, when I am no longer involved in the estimate of my fellows, when all of the arrangements that have given to my life relative measures of stability and significance seem to be without merit and without significance, when I am stripped, what I am driven back upon the literal substance of my very self, when I, the human spirit, am brought face to face with God, the adversary. It is the idea that is expressed in Job. I wrestled with tragedy. I have wrestled with the loss of family, disease, with the loss of status, the loss of a certain kind of character. But none of those things measure me. I must find out what is my true genius, what is my true worth. So Job says, 1 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu behold, I go forward and he isn't there, backward I cannot perceive him. Where is he? Let me track him down through all the universe, or let him track me down until at last there is nothing between me and him. And in that moment of scrutiny, what I am in its true character will remain. Pitts Theology Library Emory University That is the ultimate business for loyalty. Now, any other cause, you see, becomes a secondary cause, which is interesting. So let's pursue it now. Any other cause becomes a secondary cause. And the significance of causes is defined for the person in terms of the degree to which a particular cause seems to be vehicular for making available to the spirit the transcendent quality of that kind of experience. Now, this is the true basis of the conflict at large between man and the state. This is it. This is it. Loyalty to country, let's talk about that for a little. There is a fundamental distinction in my judgment between the-- I want to say this right. [LAUGHTER] There is a fundamental distinction in my judgment between the genius of any particular nationalism, for instance, and the state. Let's work on that. Well, there's the bell. It's 12:00 o'clock. [LAUGHTER] Well, I'm sorry. I can't stop in this. Nationalism must always have a local center. Let's see if we can't hammer this out. Nationalism must always have a local center. It must be the-- it is the funded experience of individuals in the midst of neighbors, in the midst of the overarching understanding and benediction of a common dialect of language. It is the feeling of sharing in the same body of hopes and collective experiences. It is a sense of participation in one dream, in one destiny. All of that is the genius of nationalism. It has to do with the humanizing process through which the human animal moves collectively, and with some measure of creativity. Now the state is in a sense, you see, the vehicle, the expression, the formal expression of this collective psychological and, from my point of view, social and spiritual experience of the people. Now, the degree to which the state becomes the agent of that-- to that degree does the state become an instrument in the hands of the fulfillment of the genius of that kind of collective stirring, and collective experience of a segment of the human family. And when the state becomes that, then it also becomes involved in making and sensitizing itself to that same kind of process that may be going on in some other part of the world. And any attack upon that process in any part of the world becomes an act of violence upon the process as it is going on in this part of the world. All right. And therefore the individuals who are involved in that have a cause, and the cause emerges out of their collective experience, you see. And the degree to which that cause becomes vehicular, becomes-- the degree to which that cause does not conflict, does not do violence, to this initial thing about which I was talking at the very beginning, to that degree, is there no conflict between patriotism on the one hand and great religious devotion on the other? 2 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu But now, when the state becomes an instrumentality divorced from this ground, and becomes an end in itself, and insists that the individuals in the state relate themselves not to this movement, but to some organizational structure, some party, some individual, some office, then, to that degree, does the state move into the centrality of the position which in my definition of loyalty, you see, only God should occupy. Pitts Theology Library Emory University Now a dictator always recognizes that, very smart people, because one of the first things that he insists upon doing is this. He must become-- how shall I say it? He should become the kind of emulating epitome of the state itself so that he is not-- he is not X with a name who was born in a certain way, who eats, who gets hungry, who weeps, who has templar. But he is the state. And any loyalty that demands of any member of the body politic that that member of the body politic shall put-- anything in competition with the centrality of the state becomes the at once, you see, a threat to the very security upon which the dictator rests upon, which that kind of national state rests. It follows then, you see, that one of the first moves that must be made is the cutting off of any relatedness on the part of the individual in such a state to any cause that may be competitive to the central cause, the central loyalty, whether it's to God-- if it's to God then-- then the whole concept of religious experience and religious orientation must be rethought so that God and the state of God and the dictator may become one and the same. And any idea that is in competition with that has to be destroyed. Any individual who participates in that kind-- of any kind of experiences that recognizes an orientation, that transcends loyalty to the state of the dictator, has to be liquidated. I'm interested in applying this, and I'm sorry the time is running about. But in practical terms, this means that as long as an individual can be rooted and deeply committed to the kind of nationalism about which I've been thinking and make that nationalism vehicular or expressive of this major, major dominant loyalty which ultimately gives to the individual the basis of his own self-estimate and self-respect, there's no conflict in my judgment between that kind of patriotism and a recognition of a transcendent cause. But it is contingent, you see, upon the willing, the willing, the self-conscious yielding of the devotion and personality. And that is why I can understand and appreciate the provisions that are made in our Constitution for loyalty to the country to the state. That seems to me to have a very creative logic in it that is fundamental to the very genius of the experience of group belonging. It is inherent in the whole process of sharing the common life. I can understand that. But I cannot understand at all in terms of the meaning either of loyalty or religious experience, any beyond that formal insistence that men declare themselves in terms of the registering of their ultimate loyalty, non-competitive loyalty to a state. That, I cannot understand. Now there's one more step I want to take in this. There's something very instructive in the life, that much overworked life of Mahatma Gandhi, on this whole issue. Mr. Gandhi, by his own definition, recognized a transcendent loyalty to what he called truth. The truth became the 3 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu ultimate basis of his self-respect. And where he uses the term truth, I, from my own orientation and background, use the term God. Pitts Theology Library Emory University And he felt that any relationship, any tool, any instrumentality, that men might use to unscramble themselves from any particular predicament, however terrible that predicament is, even the tool itself, must be vehicular. For truth which is a transcendent loyalty. So when he decided to break the law and march against-- to break this salt business and march down to the sea, he informed the British government that he was going to do that, the time, place, so they could take whatever measures were necessary. Because he felt to be subversive about it, to be secretive about it, would be an utter violation of the spirit of truth to which he felt that men owe their transcendent loyalty. And whatever political machinery they used in an effort to work out a whole series of secondary loyalties, that machinery itself must be instrumental of vehicular for and to the basic loyalty to truth, which is the ground, the ultimate ground for the self-respect of the individual, the human spirit. And so, I ask him, why did your technique of nonviolence-- as I've told you before-- why did your technique of nonviolence, which, from your point of view, was the vehicle, you see, that was most congenial to what he thought was the spirit of truth, you see-- why did it fail in its objective, namely to bring freedom to the Indian people? And he said, it failed because a great creative spiritual ideal like that, that has its roots in man's relationship to truth, could not be sustained over a time interval of sufficient duration to be effective, because there wasn't enough vitality in the people to sustain it. They began, after a while, introducing elements in the method that denied the integrity of man's relation to truth. They became violent, he said. Bitterness arose, hatred arose. Then I felt that if they had enough vitality they could do it. So I quit what I was doing and began working on the problem of vitality, for I felt that that is where the secret is. Not changing my method, not trying to find a method that was less congenial to the spirit of truth, but more practical in terms of the short-ranged experience of the Indian people for their freedom, which is always a temptation, you see. So the first thing I did was to analyze. And I analyzed, and I found that they liked vitality for two reasons. One reason was they were hungry. 85-90 millions of the millions from childhood until the time of their death, without ever once having the experience of a full stomach. In the normal times that's true, and they lacked vitality, and I felt that if somehow I could reactivate an age-old technique to which they'd used, namely the spinning wheel, and make that spinning wheel vehicular in terms of this over mastering basic loyalty, then the spinning wheel in turn, in its practical effect, would begin to build within them some tissue growing out of the re-establishing of a new kind of economic pattern for their existence. The second basis for their lack of self-respect was the presence of untouchability in Hinduism. Here were 85-95 million people who are outside of any pale, outside of any sense of ethical and moral and spiritual responsibility. They had no grounds for human dignity. They could not experience even deeper than themselves any basis for ultimate self-respect, because they were denied the genius of truth itself by withholding from them all that the root of their religion, Hinduism, meant to them. And therefore, he said, I decided first I'd chose their names from 4 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu outcasts, or [INAUDIBLE], or [INAUDIBLE], to [INAUDIBLE], which means child of God. And I felt that if I could make all castes Hindus, call all outcasts, Hindus, children of God, then the constant repetition of that would create within them the kind of moral blood that could not be relieved as it built and built and built until they changed their social attitude towards them. Pitts Theology Library Emory University So I worked at it on that basis, all the time trying to do what? Trying to guarantee that the political expression of the will to live, the organized and collective agreement upon which men lived in a stable society, that that would be vehicular for expressing the true loyalty of the human spirit, which is a loyalty to prove to me, to God, which is the ultimate basis of self-respect. 5 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty (1951, Fellowship Church, San Francisco, CA) Description An account of the resource In this series delivered at Fellowship Church from May 6 to June 10, 1951, Thurman discusses the meaning of loyalty in our private and public lives. For Thurman, loyalty is a steadfast dedication to a cause. This commitment summons all the power within the personality and dedicates it to the goal. To the extent that we experience loyalty, we feel involved with life, giving our lives a sense of meaning and significance. For Thurman, loyalty is the measure of our self-conscious commitments, in which we make ourselves servants to the ultimate. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Descriptions by Rodell Jefferson III AudioWithTranscription Audio that is shown through the 3Play Media embedded interactive transcript Audio with Transcription <iframe width="100%" height="820" frameborder="0" src="/files/players/394-555_A.html" ></iframe> Location The location of the interview, speech, lecture, or sermon Fellowship Church, San Francisco, California Time Period The decade in which the recording was produced. 1950s Original Title Title as transcribed from tape cassette The Meaning of Loyalty, part 3: The State and part 4: Job's Dilemma (Fellowship Church), 1951 May 20, 27 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 394-555_A Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Thurman, Howard Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty, Part 3: The State, 1951 May 20 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="http://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/rp8k9">MSS 394</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://pitts.emory.edu/">Pitts Theology Library, Emory University</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951-05-20 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"><img style="border-width:0;" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/80x15.png" alt="80x15.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License</a>. 2019. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant GEOMETRYCOLLECTION(POINT(-13627798.925371 4550756.1096806)) Description An account of the resource In this third lecture on loyalty, Thurman discusses the conflict between the individual and the state. For Thurman, loyalty to something supremely worthy is the ultimate basis for self-respect and significance. Thurman's word for this ultimate cause is God. Thurman posits that the state can either make itself a vehicle of this human striving, or it can become a competitor to it; the state can attempt to move into the space that only God should occupy. At best, political expression is a vehicle for proving one's loyalty to God, the ultimate basis of personhood. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Description by Rodell Jefferson III. https://thurman.pitts.emory.edu/files/original/4b045ba27eb0e7cba73be37cebf71613.pdf ea141374dfd344fa55a93daed19e6db1 PDF Text Text Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu 394-555_B.mp3 Pitts Theology Library Emory University Today, I want to apply the principal to the experience of the great character and literature of religion, the character of Job. And as a simple background, I want to read just a little for two or three minutes a little of the stirrings of this man's heart. "Perish the day that I was born, the night that said, it is a boy. Utter darkness may be longing for light and finding none. May darkness and gloom reclaim it. May clouds rest on it. May all eclipses scare it. May the deep dark seize that night. Be that night severed from the days of the year, kept out of the count of the months. Yes, barren be that night, bereft of any joyous cry. May the enchanters curse that day, enchanters who can rouse the dragon. Dark be its stars so the dawn may never see the eyelids of the morning. Why died I not when I was born? Why did I not perish at birth? Why was I not buried like an abortion, like stillborn babes that never see daylight? I would have been lying still. I would have slept in peace with kings and statesmen of the world who built pyramids for themselves, with princes rich in gold who would fill palaces with silver. Man born of woman knows what few days, and is full of trouble. He flowers and fades. He is a fleeting shadow. And I will fasten upon such how wilt though? Thou will bring him to justice, his life rotting in decay like a moth-eaten robe. All that are among the impure might be found one pure man, but there is not one. And thou has fixed man's days and numbered his few months. Take thine eye off him. Let him have some peace until his laboring day be done. There is hope for a tree that is felled. It may flourish again. The shoots of it need not fail. Though its roots decay in the soil, though its stump is dead in the ground, it may bud at the scent of water, and put on our boughs like a plant. But man dies and departs. Man breathes his last. And where is he? Like the water of a vanished lake, like a dry, drained river, man lies down, never to rise, never to waken, though the skies wear out, never to stir his slumber. And then, why has not God set sessions for justice? Why do his followers never see him intervening? Evil men are removing landmarks, plundering flocks and shepherds, driving off the orphaned ass, seizing the widow's calf for debt, tearing her fatherless babe from her breast, seizing the very infants of the poor for debt, evicting poor folk till these humble souls must hide and huddle away. They wander like the wild ass in the desert, roaming in search of food, for the children have no bread. They have to steal corn from the fields by night and rob the vineyards of the rich. All night they lie naked, unclad, uncovered from the cold, drenched by downpour from the hills, and clinging to rocks for shelter till vigor fails them and their vital strength is gone. 1 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu Gaunt with hunger and with warmth, they [INAUDIBLE] in the world, gathering saltwort under bushes, using broom roots for their fuel. They grope in waste and desolate places, driven from the haunts of men. They hue and cry after them like thieves. They live in dark ravines and caves and rocks, grunting among the bushes, coupling under the scrub, brainless creatures, and [? base ?] routed out of the country. Pitts Theology Library Emory University Some have to go bare, unclothed, hungry while they are harvesting, pressing the oil between the rows of olives, thirsty while they crush wine from grapes. Others evade the daylight, caring not for the ways of God, refusing to pursue His path. The murderers rise in the dark to kill, to kill poor folk and hopeless. The groan of victims rise from the town and wounded men cry out. But God pays no heed to the crying. God pays no heed to the crying." And then one other place. Have marked here somewhere. Curious. Well, I don't suppose I'll read it after all, because it was marked and now I can't-- so I say-- "And then God speaks. Who darkens my design with a cloud of thoughtless words? Confront me like a man and answer these my questions. But I founded the Earth. Where were you then? Answer me that if you have wit to know. Who measured out the Earth? Do you know that? Who stretched the builder's lines? Who were its-- what were its pedestals placed on? Who laid the cornerstone when the morning stars were singing and all the angels chanted in their joy? Who helped to shut in the sea when it burst from the womb of chaos, when I swathed it in mists and swallowed it in clouds of darkness, when I fixed its boundaries, barred and bolted it saying, thus far and no further? Here your proud waves shall not pass. Have you ever roused the morning? Have you ever given directions to the dawn? To catch Earth by the corners and shake out the wicked? Earth stands out clear, like clay stamped by a seal, in all its colors like a robe while wicked men are robed of their dark hours, and their uplifted arms are broken. Do you know how wild goats breed on the hills? Can you control the calving of hind? Do you fix their appointed time? Do you know when they are to bear? Down they bend and the womb opens and they drop their young, lusty offspring thriving in the open, that run out and return not to the herd. Who gave the wild ass his freedom? Who let the swift ass roam at large, whose home I make the steps, whose dwelling is the salty land? Will the wild ox be content to slave for you? Will he stay in your stable? Does your wit send the hawk to soar and spread her wings to the sun? Does your word make the eagle mount to nest aloft among the hills? 2 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu Will critics still dispute with the Almighty, to argue with God? Answer all these questions. Will you seek to discredit my justice to justify yourself? Will you condemn me? Pitts Theology Library Emory University If you have an arm like God, if you can thunder with a voice like His, then deck yourself in majesty and pomp, array yourself in grandeur and glory, pour out the fury of your wrath, and [INAUDIBLE] all the proudly, all the [INAUDIBLE], and curse the wicked on the spot, bury them all in the dust, and shroud their faces with the darkness. Then I will offer praise to you, because your right hand wins the victory." Now the problem with which we are dealing this morning, the aspect of the problem [INAUDIBLE] with which we are dealing this morning is this. Is there-- is there a price tag on integrity? Is loyalty as defined in this series? Is it in the conflict when the logic-- when the logic of the mind says yes, and the logic of the heart says no? For what kind of vote does the life cast when the issue is of that character? When their mind says I should-- I should not be true to this, and the heart says I must be true to this. And if that which is at stake is of ultimate significance, if that which is that stake is the ultimate point of reference for the validity of the personality, then how do you work it out? The problem as applied to the principal, as Job worked it out, is very significant, very relevant for our purposes. In the here we are dealing with, with the kind of non-academic struggle in which in one way or another every person in this room and every person in the world is involved. And you'll see my meaning as we work along. The story is very simple. And you are familiar with it. But may I refresh your minds? It is a drama. A drama. It opens with a prologue. A very interesting prologue, because the prologue states that all of the spirits-- all spirits were part of the heavenly company, including Satan, which is interesting. But I'll try not to run down side streets as we work along. It's a very fascinating thing. I just wish I could take just a minute to say something about this fact that Satan is one of the members of the company. And [INAUDIBLE] he is mischievous. He is always fooling around on the fringes, upsetting things a little. But he is in good standing. He is a member of the company. And everybody reports, so God asks Satan, well, what have you been doing? He knew that he had been around. [LAUGHTER] Well, I've been around. I've been up and down the Earth. I've been looking around. Saw a lot of things. Then the question of Job comes up. Yes, Job. He's all right. Nothing to brag about. Who wouldn't be all right? Has a houseful of children. All of them love him. Has a wife devoted to him. He is the head man in the village. Whenever he comes in, people stand up. He has wealth, fame, reputation, character. All of it thrown in one. Why wouldn't he be all right? 3 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu But I'd like to tell you something, something you don't know. And that is his stability rests upon the stability of his station and his security. Rob him of it and he will collapse. Pitts Theology Library Emory University You have that's [INAUDIBLE]. And the interesting thing is that the people who-- the players who are revealed here, Job and the others, they don't know about this, this preamble. See, we knew it, you see, as we read it. But it's like going to a movie, and you see something that the people in the play and the movie don't see. You know something they don't know, you see. And you watch them act and go through their routines. And you say, gee, if I could just tell them. If I could just do that, they'd lose their heads. A lot of things they'd do now would make sense that would not make sense. They'd stop [INAUDIBLE]. Well, anyway, the figures here don't know this. So you see what happens, Job-- God let's Satan, or gives him permission to do everything but take Job's life. Ultimately, that's what it amounts to. Do everything but take Job's life. So you see, it opens with a fundamental affirmation of monotheism, of a philosophical and ethical and thoroughgoing unity. Oneness, a kind of moralism. There is no complete and fundamental dualism, you see. Satan is recalcitrant, but ultimately powerless, you see. Bear that in mind. Bear that in mind. Bear that in mind. Now, it moves very rapidly. Job has everything taken away from him-- children, family, all that. And you read his lamentation. And his first reaction is that how long is this going to last? When is this going to end? And the time came, and it was something else. And he wondered how much of that he could take. There must be something here. And then he was very, very irrational in his outbursts, because the suffering to which he'd been effected was suffering that had interrupted the even tenor of his [INAUDIBLE]. And therefore, the suffering itself became to him a great irrationality. Well, let's follow that. He did not apply any rational principle to all of the suffering that came. For the suffering became [INAUDIBLE] a rational principle, primarily because the suffering interfered with the normalcy of his life. Because that's one of our first experiences of suffering. It is because the suffering breaks the normal pattern of our life that it becomes, in the initial stages, an evil thing. Not because of the logic of the suffering itself. Not because of the relentless operation of the laws of antecedent and consequence, or the operation of natural law, or some other kind of moral law that the suffering is evil. Oh, no. But it is because in working out its logic, as it fulfills itself, it cuts across the pattern of our normalcy, of our sense of direction, of our meaning and our values. And we're moving this way, and it comes this way. We can't get the two together. Now, Job's friends came to talk to him. And that's what friends are good to do. They comfort him-- comforted him. And they begin very simply. 4 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu And you'll see the bearing of all this on our problem in a minute. They talk very simply. Now, they want to comfort him. And they told him, you-- don't lose your head. Just don't lose your head. Pitts Theology Library Emory University Let's see here. We love you and we trust you. This is-- there's something here that you don't quite understand, but don't go to pieces. That's all right. And [INAUDIBLE] [? I have ?] [? nothing ?] against your marriage. The heart of the problem-what is the problem? This is the kind of world in which a good man does not suffer bad things. If a good man suffers bad things, it is because in calling him a good man, you indulge in an oversight. And Job accepted that, you see, because it was a part of his whole training, a part of the whole philosophy of this period. And incidentally, just in passing, it's a part of-- it's in our working philosophy. And don't look as you are looking-[LAUGHTER] --while I say that. Honest denials were true that when things bear down on you, you run over in your mind some kind of balance sheet, you know, to see how this makes sense. You begin to weight it. Perhaps you don't do it as dramatically as Job did. But this whole sense of relating destiny and life to reward and punishment, that is what I mean. That's all. And it broods over the human enterprise, dropping down now and then to accentuate itself, and then going on. But it does that with us all the time. Now, it is true, said Job, that I-- that the good suffer, that men suffer because of what they do, and that balance. But I know, says Job, that I haven't been doing anything. Now, the logic is true. I accept that. It's a part of my morality that you reap what you sow. And lamenting, you reap what you sow, our usually thinking in terms of negative things always. We don't say you reap what you sow thinking of positive things. Isn't that curious? When I say you reap what you sow, it's a word of caution. But I don't recognize that if it's valid as a principle of life, you see, it is also operative in the positive and creative dimensions of life, as well as the positive and destructive dimensions of life. All right. So Job said, I haven't-- I don't reap this. I grant that men reap these things. But I don't reap this. I accept the principle, but I reject this application to me. Now, if I accept the principle and reject the application to me, then I am driven to the inevitable and inexorable conclusion that he who controls the life of man must, of necessity, be unjust. Do you see how he arrives there? If-- let me see. If you reap what you sow, these [INAUDIBLE] have terms, then I'm reaping what honestly I know I haven't sown. 5 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu Now, if I'm convinced that I am reaping what honestly I know I haven't sown, then the reaping is a gratuity. And if the reaping is a gratuity administered by God, then it means that God is dealing-- whatever may be the principle, God is dealing with me as a person as one who is unjust. Pitts Theology Library Emory University And I want to find him so I can tell him. And he keeps hiding, because he knows I have a case. So he sends all of you. And then they, in the second cycle-- there are three cycles of argument here. And when the second cycle comes along, they say, hey. But at first we use tame words. We try to comfort you and reassure you. But we find that the thing is worse than we thought. Not only are you paying for this sort of thing, not only reaping what you have been sowing, but nobody knew anything about it, you see. You see, they implanted it first. You think you're innocent, but what has happened is that the God's pulled the cover off. You heard of this been going on and nobody knew it. And now all of this calamity God shows his hand, which reveals your face. And then-- but now what we guessed we know, because you are now becoming blasphemous, you see? You are accusing God of being unjust. And then Job says, oh, I don't know. You get we're all confused. Miserable comforters are ye all. With mine-- with my mind, I know that according to my own and our ethical and moral and religious teaching, preaches that we pay for everything. And whenever you see a man paying, you can rest assured that he is paying for that which, in some antecedent manner, some previous manner, he has committed. Now, that's my mind. The logic of my mind says that nothing walks with aimless feet. Where there is smoke there is fire. That if all these things are happening, some kind of process must have set them in motion, so that what we see this man experiencing is but the unfolding of the logic of his life. [INAUDIBLE]. But if I accept that, if I am true to that intellectual conclusion about the nature of existence and what it reveals about the character of God, if I must be true to that, if my ultimate loyalty must rest on that kind of interpretation of who God is, then I must rip out and destroy the message that my heart gives me. And what is that? My heart says that God can be evil. My heart says keep on worshipping God, even though in the worshipping of God, in the midst of what you are going through, your mind tells you you're a fool. How shall I cast my vote? So Job tries to escape his dilemma by asserting that my integrity-- my referring to himself-- that my integrity is really greater than God's. I have fed the hungry. I have snatched the children of widows from the jaws of the usurer until his fang dropped, relaxed its hold upon their bodies. Never have I withheld my hands in the presence of the dumb, inarticulate churning of the needs of my fellows. I have done with reference to other human beings what God will not do with reference to me. 6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty (1951, Fellowship Church, San Francisco, CA) Description An account of the resource In this series delivered at Fellowship Church from May 6 to June 10, 1951, Thurman discusses the meaning of loyalty in our private and public lives. For Thurman, loyalty is a steadfast dedication to a cause. This commitment summons all the power within the personality and dedicates it to the goal. To the extent that we experience loyalty, we feel involved with life, giving our lives a sense of meaning and significance. For Thurman, loyalty is the measure of our self-conscious commitments, in which we make ourselves servants to the ultimate. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Descriptions by Rodell Jefferson III AudioWithTranscription Audio that is shown through the 3Play Media embedded interactive transcript Audio with Transcription <iframe width="100%" height="820" frameborder="0" src="/files/players/394-555_B.html" ></iframe> Location The location of the interview, speech, lecture, or sermon Fellowship Church, San Francisco, California Time Period The decade in which the recording was produced. 1950s Original Title Title as transcribed from tape cassette The Meaning of Loyalty, parts 1 and 2 (Fellowship Church), 1951 May 6, 13, Side B Internal Notes Notes for project team Tape label was incorrect. - SR 20210819 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 394-555_B Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Thurman, Howard Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="http://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/rp8k9">MSS 394</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://pitts.emory.edu/">Pitts Theology Library, Emory University</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"><img style="border-width:0;" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/80x15.png" alt="80x15.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License</a>. 2019. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty, Part 4: Job's Dilemma, 1951 May 27 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant GEOMETRYCOLLECTION(POINT(-13627798.925371 4550756.1096806)) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951-05-27 Description An account of the resource In this fourth lecture on loyalty, Thurman explores the story of Job. He wonders: How do we reconcile the logic of our minds and the loyalty of our hearts when it comes to God? The logic of the mind believes in order and justice – God being the arbiter of perfect reward and perfect punishment. However, we also find that the good and undeserving unnecessarily suffer, and thus God appears unjust. For Thurman, Job's answer to this dilemma is that Job's integrity to God and humanity remained firm, even when God's integrity to him seemed to fail. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Description by Rodell Jefferson III. suffering https://thurman.pitts.emory.edu/files/original/1c85641864301a413deadf9d50af6778.pdf 8c5fe335bcc30c4a69f2f767205211f9 PDF Text Text Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu 394-556_A.mp3 Pitts Theology Library Emory University We're working on the meaning of loyalty, but I shall spare you the experience of listening to a restatement of our basic proposition. Today and perhaps next Sunday, I shall have to continue this. I want to apply the theory upon which we have been working for these five weeks to one who seems to me to be perhaps the greatest of all of the prophets of Israel. The theory was applied last Sunday to Job, and today we shall apply the theory to Deutoro-Isaiah, to the second Isaiah, to the Isaiah whose writing begins at Chapter 40 in the book of Isaiah. I shall go as far with it as seems healthy this morning and then pick it up next Sunday. I want to read a little from this really tremendous personality that after I skip around through these 26 chapters just for three or four minutes, you may get a flavor. He opens by saying, console my people-- I'm using Moffatt's translation. The King James translation says, comfort ye, comfort ye my people, and that's beautiful. And it's so beautiful and so inspired that any other translation seems to be a sacrilege. But now that I have said that, you don't have to say it to yourselves. You can listen. Console my people, console them. This is the voice of your God. Speak to Jerusalem tenderly. Proclaim to her that her hard days are ended, her guilt cleared off that she has received from the Eternal's hand full punishment for all her sin. Up to the high hills, oh, herald of happiness to Zion. Raise your voice loudly, oh, herald of happiness to Jerusalem. Raise it fearlessly and tell the towns of Judah, here is your God. Here is the Eternal coming in power maintaining mightly his cause. Then he's asked a question about Cyrus, who's doing a lot of things up north that I shall be telling you about in a minute, who rised up from the East the man whom victory ever attends? Who lets them have nations as a gift and lays kings low before him? His sword drives them like dust, his burr like chaff. Before the wind, he chases them and passes for them safely, swiftly with feet that never touch the ground. Who brought this about? Who did it? Twas He who summons the generations from the beginning. Twas I, the Eternal, I who am the first and at the last, the same. And then He calls him by name, here thus the Eternal, the true God hails Cyrus whom he consecrates, whose right hand I have grasped to terrify nation, to open doors before him, to keep gates from being closed. And then after Babylon has fallen, down with you, sit in the dust, oh maiden Babylon. No throne for you now. Sit on the ground Lady Chaldea. Never shall you again be dainty and delicate. Grind meal at the hand mill. Off with your veil. Split your skirts, unbare your thighs, wade through the streams for I am taking vengeance. I will not relent says our deliverer. So listen to this you luxurious creature, lolling at your ease thinking to yourself, I am supreme. Never shall I be widowed. Never suffer loss of children. Birth sorrows shall befall you in a moment. In one day widowhood and loss of children, they are on you suddenly in spite of all your spells and mighty magic. 1 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu Though you feared nothing in your tyranny thinking that no one saw you, it was your magic craft and cunning that misled you till you thought to yourself I'm supreme. Therefore shall evil assail you that you know no spells to [? avert, ?] and mischief shall befall you. You cannot ward it off from you. Pitts Theology Library Emory University And then in Jerusalem, why was there no one when I came, no one to answer when I called? Think you my hand is too weak to deliver, that I have no power to release you? With one word of rebuke I dry the sea, I turn streams into desert lands so the fish shrivel for the lack of water and the sea creatures gasp and die for thirst. I shroud the scars in morning and cover them in sackcloth. Sounds a little like Job that I was reading last Sunday, doesn't it. And then-- let me skip over to the part that we-- Behold, my servant Israel shall rise. He shall be raised on high as many were [INAUDIBLE] once at his faith, Kings shall ring at his doom. Who could have believed their cry? What we have heard? Whoever had the Eternal's powers revealed to them? Why Israel of old grew like a sapling, like a shoot springing from dry soil. He had no beauty to attract our eyes, no charm to make us choose him, disfigured till he seemed a man no more, deformed out of the semblance of a man. He was despised and shunned by men, a man of pain who knew what sickness was. Like one from whom men turn to shuttering, he was despised. We took no heed of him. And yet ours was the pain he bore, the sorrow he endured. We thought him suffering from a stroke at God's own hand. Yet he was wounded because we had sinned. 'Twas our misdeeds that crushed him. 'Twas for our welfare that he was chastised. The blows that felled him have brought us healing. Like sheep, we had all gone astray. We had each taken his own way. And the Eternal laid on him the guilt of us all. He was ill treated, yet he bore it humbly. He never would complain, dumb as a sheep led to the slaughter, dumb as are you before the shearers. They did away with him unjustly. And who heeded how he felt, torn from the land of living, struck down for sins of ours? They laid him in a felon's grave and buried him with criminals, though he was guilty of no violence. Nor had he uttered a false word. But the Eternal chose to vindicate his servant, rescuing his life from anguish. He let him prosper to the full and a posterity with life prolonged, and so forth. Now, the fundamental proposition, as it has bearing on the theme that we've been considering for many weeks now, is this. Here is a man who is dedicated in his personal and professional life, for he is a prophet, to the restoration of his homeland that had been destroyed by captivity. Very simple-- a man who has a rather intense nationalistic feeling, but a feeling that is a part of the soil, a part of the land itself. But the land is a symbol of the soul of his people in a rather interesting way. But that's how he starts. He begins with a fierce loyalty to a place. You see? 2 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu And then as we watch it, that loyalty begins to expand. It's interesting how a commitment opens up more and more of its relations, its involvements, until we land way over here, right as we started way over at this point. So this feeling that he has for Jerusalem, the restoration of Jerusalem, begins to take the form of the feeling for the restoration of the temple. Pitts Theology Library Emory University What is it that makes Jerusalem significant? It is a temple. So we watch him go through that process. And then the restoration of the temple-- well, you can't have Jerusalem restored. You can't have the temple restored unless the people go back. And they can't go back unless they're released. And they can't be released unless there's a change in politics. So he becomes interested in politics and the change in politics in order that the people may be released, in order that they may go back to Jerusalem, in order that the temple may be restored. Now, let's work at it a little. Deutero-Isaiah was a very cultivated and cultured man, a man of refinement, a man who came from the kind of economic security that enabled him to travel and to travel not on any mission, particularly, but just to travel. And he saw many things. And one of the things that he saw was that all over the world that he traveled, he saw Jewish people, Jewish people scattered. And that fact becomes a very important fact in the unfolding of this concept that begins to work on his mind. Babylon had destroyed Jerusalem. It had taken the people into captivity. Now, Prophet Ezekiel is gone. The prophet Deutero-Isaiah emerges on the horizon with a concern about the restoration of his homeland. And while this is brooding in his mind and in his spirit, way up north, a young man whose name is Cyrus begins to make rather amazing conquests. And the last place, the last stronghold, that he faced was the stronghold that was presided over by Croesus, the man who, by tradition, was the richest man who's ever lived. And Croesus, out of his comfort and his secure insecurity, said this little upstart, Cyrus, he isn't even dry behind the ears. We don't have to do anything about him. And while he was thinking that, Cyrus, who wasn't dry behind the ears but was strong and a good warrior and a good leader, laid siege to the kingdom. And the great kingdom fell. And then, of course, everything began falling in his hands. And the prophet looking out on the horizon, seeing that, he said, ah, that is the finger of God. I know that he has not bowed his knee before Israel's God. But all of life belongs to God. And this movement in history-- what we see before our eyes is a movement of the God of history, even though the instrumentality is not one that is self-consciously related to God. It's an interesting kind of thinking, isn't it? See what he's saying? Cyrus doesn't know he's God's agent, but God is a god of history. And every significant movement in history is a part of the divine process. So one of the ways by which God reveals himself as being involved in the historical processes is by certain theories of mighty events. 3 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu And one of these events is the march of Cyrus. And it is related to the fate of Israel, says this prophet. So he says, it won't be long now before Cyrus will take Babylon on. And when he takes Babylon on, then that country that conquered Israel will now be conquered. Pitts Theology Library Emory University And since Cyrus has no interest in us, I'm sure that if we can make the right kind of presentation to him, Cyrus will give us permission to go back, for if Babylon behaved as it did towards us and he breaks the back of Babylon, there, of course, one of his simple psychological bits of behavior will be to undo what Babylon has done-- perfectly simple. So Cyrus will let us go back home. And when Cyrus did conquer Babylon, oh, he lets them go back. But he didn't give them their autonomy. I'll be through with the classroom aspect of this in a minute. You're very patient. He did not give them their autonomy. He let them go back, but he let the status quo remain pretty much as it was. That is, there was a head man representing Cyrus over everything. But despite that fact, the prophet was greatly inspired, because he said, at least we are permitted to go back. And then the call went forth. Remember now, the restoration of Jerusalem is the thing with which he starts. Now, hold that in mind, and you'll see where we go. And he felt, you see, that his concern is a concern of all of Israel, that in all parts of the world, wherever these people were scattered and also in Babylon in particular, where they had been held captive, that once the ban were lifted, that the roads and the highways would be full of people rushing back to restore Jerusalem. And when his call went forth and everybody knew they could go back, what do you think happened? Just a handful went back. You're comfortable in Babylon. You settled down. You had some security. You found out that this captivity wasn't so terrible, because there had been a little margin for juggling. And you had gotten into that. And now, pull up and go back to Jerusalem, when this place is desolate and the jackals and all kinds of things and not any good food? And the water is bad, and so we won't do that. And the prophet says, I don't believe it. Is my interest in the rebuilding of Jerusalem, which seems to me to be a part of my commitment and Israel's commitment to God and is a center of my loyalty at this point, is that wrong? Am I mistaken? Have I been misreading the thing? For if it is true that this is the will of Jehovah, would not Jehovah have inspired in these fellow Israelites, these fellow Judahites, the same kind of concern and agitation for freedom to rebuild the homeland that I have experienced? Where did I miss it? Well, I don't know, but I missed it. I will go. And he went, and he went along with the others. And when he got there, he said, I know that these people who've come, they have come because the root of the matter is in them. They will build. 4 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu And he found that those who were there, many of them had no interest in rebuilding of Jerusalem. They were trying to get their private lives straightened out. They were trying to make all kinds of personal adjustments to the experiences and the exigences of the moment. And then he made one of the great discoveries. And it was very hard for him to make it. Pitts Theology Library Emory University And they had no time to talk about the restoration of some city because of some vague and dim interpretation of an ultimate destiny of Israel. What is this man talking about? So once again, he said, am I wrong again? And that discovery was this, that all the Israelites, all the Judahites, because they were the sons and daughters of Abraham, because they had been involved in the miraculously significant movement of Jehovah upon the minds and hearts of these people, giving to order them in some rather radically gross sense, a sense of participation and a collective destiny with reference to the fulfillment of the meaning of life for all mankind, that all of these people, despite the fact that they were involved in this process, could not be regarded as being morally sensitive to its meaning. And he makes a distinction then between those of the house of Israel who are responsive to the mind and the spirit of God and those who are not. And he addressed his appeal to those who are morally sensitive and responsive. And he had to say to those others that they were just as people who had never been exposed to the movement of the mind and the spirit of God in this private or collective sense. Then he found that to build the temple would be one way by which, on the moral realm, he could match the thing that was happening on the national and international political realm. Now, let's see what he said, because his times are very much like our own, that here was this Cyrus moving, knocking national heads together, getting one world bound together politically under one dominant master. And what the prophet saw in that was the way in which that political fact provided a climate in which the ethical and spiritual concept of one God could be operative. Do you see? So he said, how can it be? How can I get it? I have not the power to set up some great theocratic state that would run along parallel with this political state. Ah, I remember what I saw when I traveled as a young man. Scattered all over the world were these little groups of Jews and individual Jews who had come out of Jerusalem. Now, said he, if the temple can be restored-- even if it's restored in a waste place, if the temple can be restored, then all of these scattered Jews may come back and redefine their sense of ethical and spiritual mission. Then they can go forth throughout all the world, having learned the skills and the techniques of adjusting themselves in foreign environments, knowing the languages, knowing all about the customs and the habits and the psychology of all these different kinds of people. 5 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu Now, if they have this mission, they can move all over the world as a vast creative manifestation individually of the spirit of God and bottom the political movement with the moral and the spiritual insight-- tremendous thing. Pitts Theology Library Emory University And then he discovered that they weren't interested in that. Again, it's tragically too difficult. And then he became depressed. He said, there is no point in my working at this. I've been shifted from position to position for the restoration of Jerusalem. No, I'm a voice alone. And then the rebuilding of the temple and with the hope that this vision that I have felt that God wanted Israel to fulfill, no. And he did what we often do. When I was a boy, there was a song that we sang often on the first Sunday in the month. And the phrase went something like this, that "if Satan says I don't have any grace, I will take him back to the starting place," the idea that even though the present may be very dark and meaningless and insignificant, if you can go back to the beginning and go all over the way, you will find that strength will come from experiences in the past. So the prophet went back in the experience of God and Israel, the captivity, the release from Egypt, all the rest of it. And he began to give words of comfort to himself, really. And the comfort that he gave to himself was so significant and far-reaching that it spilled over and became comfort to the other people. And then he moved from the necessity of building Jerusalem, the temple, the training of emissaries to go out to redeem the world, to the greatest single-- in my judgment-- to the greatest single moral and spiritual discovery in all the literature of religion. And what is that discovery? It is this, that perhaps the true function of Israel, the moral significance of life, is not to be measured in terms of power, in terms of status, in terms of respectability, in terms of prestige-bearing moments, in terms of the accumulation of wealth or training or skills. But the true moral grandeur of life is to be found in humility of spirit and of mind, humility of spirit and of mind. And if, somehow, Israel is willing to become humble, then it will discover that humility can never be humiliated, that if a people can relate themselves to the destiny of the race of mankind, in terms of the meaning and the significance of their witnessing as to the meaning of life and the meaning of God, then wherever people anywhere, whatever may be their language or culture of faith, wherever they move in that direction, they will move through a light which you saw. 6 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty (1951, Fellowship Church, San Francisco, CA) Description An account of the resource In this series delivered at Fellowship Church from May 6 to June 10, 1951, Thurman discusses the meaning of loyalty in our private and public lives. For Thurman, loyalty is a steadfast dedication to a cause. This commitment summons all the power within the personality and dedicates it to the goal. To the extent that we experience loyalty, we feel involved with life, giving our lives a sense of meaning and significance. For Thurman, loyalty is the measure of our self-conscious commitments, in which we make ourselves servants to the ultimate. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Descriptions by Rodell Jefferson III AudioWithTranscription Audio that is shown through the 3Play Media embedded interactive transcript Audio with Transcription <iframe width="100%" height="820" frameborder="0" src="/files/players/394-556_A.html" ></iframe> Location The location of the interview, speech, lecture, or sermon Fellowship Church, San Francisco, California Time Period The decade in which the recording was produced. 1950s Original Title Title as transcribed from tape cassette The Meaning of Loyalty, part 5: Deutero-Isaiah and part 6: Deutero-Isaiah II (Fellowship Church), 1951 Jun 3, 10 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 394-556_A Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Thurman, Howard Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty, Part 5: Deutero-Isaiah, 1951 June 3 Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="http://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/rp8k9">MSS 394</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://pitts.emory.edu/">Pitts Theology Library, Emory University</a> Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951-06-03 Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"><img style="border-width:0;" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/80x15.png" alt="80x15.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License</a>. 2019. Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant GEOMETRYCOLLECTION(POINT(-13627798.925371 4550756.1096806)) Description An account of the resource In this fifth lecture on The Meaning of Loyalty, Thurman delves into Deutero-Isaiah. Isaiah, as prophet is dedicated to the restoration of Israel and Israel's ultimate destiny in God's plan. However, according to Thurman, Isaiah is disappointed by the people who do not seem to be sensitive to their divine duty. Thurman explains that through this disappointment, Isaiah comes to a great spiritual discovery: the significance of Israel is not measured in power or status, but rather "in humility of spirit and of mind." Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Description by Rodell Jefferson III. https://thurman.pitts.emory.edu/files/original/03b5f415846826c610e7d635c9acb4b8.pdf 53840ee6353f3c8f2d65c3e725baf7be PDF Text Text Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu 394-556_B.mp3 As we complete our discussion on him against the background of our basic idea concerning the meaning of loyalty. As last Sunday I am reading from the translation by Moffatt. Pitts Theology Library Emory University "Ah, come all ye that thirst. Come to the waters. Come and eat, all fainting souls. Buy food for nothing-- wine and milk without money. Why spend your money on what is not food; your earnings on what never satisfies? Listen to me, and you shall seek out the Lord," The Eternal says. We ended our discussion last Sunday with the development-- the unfolding of the idea of the suffering servant, and the tremendous insight that had come to this unknown prophet of exile as he wrestled with the meaning of a simple purpose and commitment conceived originally along lines limited and narrow. And as that began to unfold, and unfold, and unfold, until finally he arrives at the great concept, that Israel, its role. The suffering servant. And all who add in to that fellowship, whatever may be the dimension of their need, or the acuteness of that experience, stand in immediate candidacy to fulfill the moral significance of the suffering servant. By their stripes, you're healed and I'm healed. By our stripes, they're healed. It's curious, isn't it? Now the prophet has to work out the implications of that. And here we're faced with a very and involved insight. And I hope I can make it clear as we work along. The suffering servant, the moral responsibility of the individual, the group, is measured in terms of the qualitative significance of the individual's opportunity. For what the prophet is saying is that through a long, rather fitful, and sometimes terrifying history in a manner that is strangely miraculous, the living spirit of the living god brooded over Israel. And Israel moved down across the ages always in some intimate and primary spiritual struggle, to see if the commonplace aspects of life, measured in terms of great, divine events which express the movement of God and history might give to them, Israel, an accumulated spiritual wisdom and power that increased their sensitiveness so that they would be aware, where other would be insensitive. They would feel where others had no feeling. They would know what the meaning of God is in human life, because they had had a sustained exposure with that spirit through all the fitful years of their amazing and miraculous history. And this primary exposure to God, however we may explain it, placed upon the people who had exposure a great responsibility. It's very simple. So we see two movements going along, one moving at this level. The moral responsibility that comes from moral privilege, the spiritual responsibility that comes from primary sustained spiritual exposure to the movement of the mind of God. But not for yourself merely are you to enjoy this. Not for yourself was this done, but all of life has a meaning, that life is not an accident, not a mere incident, but there is a divine movement at the very heart of existence that is working out a process, the beginning and the end of which I encompass by the sweep of the mind of God. 1 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu And if, in that process, you seem to see yourselves more and more involved, then by virtue of that involvement your responsibility is increased. By virtue of that involvement, you must be eyes for the blind. You must be health for the sick. You must be freedom for the captive. It is to that end that you had this exposure. Do you see? Pitts Theology Library Emory University Well, everybody who's caught under the aegis of a tremendous responsibility wishes sometimes that he could just be an ordinary individual. You get tired of carrying a load. Or do you? You just want to be yourself a little, just yourself, so that everything isn't loaded. I remember when I was at Howard one day, a freshman-- and it would take a freshman to do this- a freshman decided that he would like to invite Mrs. Roosevelt to come out to talk to the freshman class. Add a little tea. So he went down to the White House and invited her. And she came. Which I suppose that the nerve left her flabbergasted. But she came. And I shall always remember the little talk that she gave to the freshmen. She talked about her family, and what a very trying thing it was to give the Roosevelt children a certain sense of just being ordinary children. She said, you see, any move that any son of mine makes, or any move that-- I guess there's a daughter-- yes-- any daughter of mine makes becomes at once something that is interpreted in terms of the great responsibility that the president has. And my children, again and again, certainly, if we could just be children. But always there is something more attached to whatever we do. Now that's a quality of the feeling that is expressed here. That this responsibility, because of gifts, or whatever it is, is a responsibility that is inescapable, and for which there is no letting up. Now why that is true is not a part of our process this morning. But here it is. For the suffering servant is the suffering servant because he has had opportunities to understand and know the mind of God. And nothing walks with him to see that all the raw materials are involved in some creative synthesis that is indispensable for the mind, and for the growth of personality. All right. Now hold that development of mind. Now let's go back. While this is going on, another process is taking place also. The captivity-- the Babylonian captivity-- has taken place. And people who were high and mighty, some who were of great economic privilege, some who are prestige-bearing members of their society back in Jerusalem, when they were taken into captivity, they were just captives. Babylon had no interest in the prestige-bearing members of the society, as that society functioned back in Jerusalem. But here, under the swiftly [INAUDIBLE] in which for the emergence and the articulation of the prophetic doctrine that everybody is equal. You see? For as long as the doctrine of equality had to wrestle against the formal prestige-bearing inequalities in the climate, than the persons who talked about equality following the inspiration of the prophets found themselves operating in an environment, the unanimous judgment of which stood over against in an ocean of democracy. But suddenly, now, the environment says, by historical incidents, what the Jews of the prophets had been insisting upon all the time, even when the environment was dominated by various kinds of codes of inequality. You see? All right. 2 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu Pitts Theology Library Emory University And as soon as the environment made it seem rational-- follow me-- rational and expedient that man within the Judaic community were equal, then an ethical awareness began emerging. For, you see, if the equality is a gross equality, this kind of equality, if all men are equal-- and you see, they began including the Babylonians, you see, too. You can't for a [INAUDIBLE] aside that the thing that makes me equal to you is something that is far more significant than the difference between me and you and groups, then I throw wide the door, for every human being stands then in immediate candidacy for the same kind of equality. So the Judites could not be excluded-- I mean, the Babylonians could not be excluded. Now, when this equality begin being experienced against the background of the prophetic insight, then at once the same great social insight that the prophet is talking about-- namely this responsibility which the group has, because of the privileges that the group has enjoyed, now is transferred to the individual. If I am equal, then it follows that I am responsible. And if I am responsible, then it means that I am responsible. I can't say, you see, that Israel is responsible. I can't say that. But I am responsible. If I am equal, then that fundamental sense of equality, that fundamental awareness of equality, expresses itself immediately in terms of responsibility for the greatest tribute that can be paid to the integrity of my personality. And the dignity of my person is to assume that I am worthy to be responsible for what I do. And if I am responsible, then it means that I am a man-- not a child. And if I am responsible, then this equality of responsibility becomes the overtone of, number one, the equality precipitated by captivity; number two, the equality that is grounded in the insight of the prophets. Now let's look at that for a minute. And then we have two more steps till we get through. Now the equality of the prophet, at first applied merely to the community of Israel, it is an equality as sons of Abraham, an equality that was rooted in David that sprang as a great, ever, never-ending stream from the loins of Moses, as the tradition moved. So here they began to see that an equality that is based upon any kind of belonging, any kind of group relatedness, is an equality that in the very nature of the case becomes a first-rate expression of a count of inequality as far as anybody who doesn't belong to the group is concerned. So the logic of the insight means that the equality has to be established on some other basis. Could it be established on the fact that this group, this group of Judites, had had this unique experience with God through the ages. Could that be it? If that is it, then the thing that is significant about the experience that Israel has had with God is to be measured in terms of those persons in Israel who have responded to the mind and the spirit of God. And you remember last Sunday, we talked about the distinction that appeared in [INAUDIBLE] Isaiah that all the Israelites were not of this quality. But there appeared a moral principle moving straight through Israel that divided it into two groups-- those who are responsive to the will of 3 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu God, and sought to reproduce the will of God in their relationships; and those who were unmindful of it, even though they were the seed of Abraham. Pitts Theology Library Emory University Now the same principle begins to apply, you see. The thing then that establishes the equality in terms of moral character is to be found in the degree to which they are responsive to the wooing and the movement of the Spirit of God. Well, if responsiveness to the Spirit of God becomes the criterion, then that responsiveness cannot be confined to any race, any clan, any group. Wherever there are men who respond, whatever may be their particular background or religious orientation, whatever may be their culture or the persuasion of their climate and environment, if they respond, they qualify. "My house," says the prophet, "shall be called house of prayer not for Israel, not for the Judite. My house shall be a house of prayer for all nations. Therefore--" and I'm almost through with this, now. "Therefore the logic of it is, you see, that everybody-- not merely the Judite, but everybody stands in immediate candidacy for an ultimate and limitless exposure to the mind and the will and the purposes of God, and the degree to which each individual becomes involved in that. To that degree, does that individual become the living for instance of the intent of God?" Of course, all of that means that social responsibility is related to social privilege. Advantages are related intimately to responsibility. Where does that leave America? Where does that leave us? Is it because God is playing some kind of favorites? That he has given to us, all of us, so long a time, the opportunity to live in so fair a land because he likes us? Just pulled us out from the great scramble, and set us there that we might grow fat and stolid and lazy, self-centered and egotistic? Do we rape this? Is there anything in our history that should give us comfort this morning that we raped this almost terrifying blessing that is ours? Or does it mean, if the inside of the prophet is found, does it mean that inasmuch as all of life is involved, in ends and purposes that are part of the dream of God? And if it be true that God is the god of history, as well as a god who transcends history, as I devoutly believe, then it means that we must relate the great and limitless privileges of ours to responsibilities. We must be eyes to the blind, food to the hungry, strength and courage to the skinned and cast down masses of mankind, not because we wish to involve them in the political or economic machinations of our little minds, but because we, as a result of the logic of our opportunities and privileges, we are under the judgment of God, and the judgment of history to make our days [INAUDIBLE] for mankind. And if we don't, there is no power on Earth that can stay the movement of the relentless logic of antecedent and consequence that will level us. We didn't ask for it, but we have it. And given it, we must do it. Now the same thing, or then the same principle, you see, becomes operative for the individual. Do I have advantages? What do they mean? Do they mean they're actually thinking I'm better than you? That I should thank God? That I'm not as other men? Does it mean that I should take it 4 �Pitts Theology Library The Howard Thurman Digital Archive Transcription thurman.pitts.emory.edu to myself all the credit by saying, well, if other men were as clever as I, if other men were as smooth as I, then they would be where I am? Or does it mean that I must measure my privilege in terms of my responsibility? Pitts Theology Library Emory University And if I don't do that-- if I don't do it very quietly, or perhaps very catastrophically, the light goes out in the sky. A life become for me a grinning skull and crossbones. No God. No values. No meaning in experience. Nothing but the gross and stark survival of the temporarily strong against the time when they shall become permanently weak. And my loyalty is measured then in terms of my self-conscious commitments-- to that kind of moral cause that will not let me be at ease as long as there is fear, and depression, and bitterness and meanness, and injustice anywhere. And in my quiet moment I may find, welling up within me, a sure sense that what I'm trying to do, in my little way, where I am, God is at work doing in the limitless reaches of human history. And when that awareness comes, I know then for myself that I am his child, and he's my Father. Nothing else matters. 5 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty (1951, Fellowship Church, San Francisco, CA) Description An account of the resource In this series delivered at Fellowship Church from May 6 to June 10, 1951, Thurman discusses the meaning of loyalty in our private and public lives. For Thurman, loyalty is a steadfast dedication to a cause. This commitment summons all the power within the personality and dedicates it to the goal. To the extent that we experience loyalty, we feel involved with life, giving our lives a sense of meaning and significance. For Thurman, loyalty is the measure of our self-conscious commitments, in which we make ourselves servants to the ultimate. Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951 Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Descriptions by Rodell Jefferson III AudioWithTranscription Audio that is shown through the 3Play Media embedded interactive transcript Audio with Transcription <iframe width="100%" height="820" frameborder="0" src="/files/players/394-556_B.html" ></iframe> Location The location of the interview, speech, lecture, or sermon Fellowship Church, San Francisco, California Time Period The decade in which the recording was produced. 1950s Original Title Title as transcribed from tape cassette The Meaning of Loyalty, part 5: Deutero-Isaiah and part 6: Deutero-Isaiah II (Fellowship Church), 1951 Jun 3, 10, Side B Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 394-556_B Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Thurman, Howard Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived <a href="http://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/rp8k9">MSS 394</a> Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource audio Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available <a href="http://pitts.emory.edu/">Pitts Theology Library, Emory University</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/"><img style="border-width:0;" src="https://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/80x15.png" alt="80x15.png" /></a><br />This work is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License</a>. 2019. Title A name given to the resource The Meaning of Loyalty, Part 6: Deutero-Isaiah II, 1951 June 10 Coverage The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant GEOMETRYCOLLECTION(POINT(-13627798.925371 4550756.1096806)) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1951-06-10 Description An account of the resource Thurman finishes his lectures on loyalty using Deutero-Isaiah to explore the relationship between privilege and responsibility. The privilege of being exposed to God instills one with a sense of ultimate responsibility. Equality of moral character is founded on equal responsibility to God. To finish, Thurman ponders the role of America which enjoys great privileges. Thurman asserts that we must relate our privileges to our responsibilities, for we are under the judgement of God and history "to make our days for mankind." Our loyalty is measured in self-conscious commitment to the well-being of all life. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Description by Rodell Jefferson III.