Dear journal,
As someone who has read and evaluated numerous dissertations in my academic studies, I have come to view them as more than intellectual exercises or rites of passage. Dissertations are, in many ways, a reflection of their author’s intellectual foundation and aspirations. They are blueprints of the scholar’s emerging identity, revealing their preoccupations, philosophical leanings, and hopes for future contributions. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s dissertation, "A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman," is no exception. Written in 1955 at Boston University, this work is not only a theological exercise but also a precursor to King’s later moral and social leadership. By synthesizing Tillich’s abstract metaphysics with Wieman’s practical theology, King laid the intellectual groundwork for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance and social transformation.
In reflecting on this dissertation, its lasting influence on King’s life and work becomes clear. Moreover, its themes of reconciliation and action carry profound resonance as we celebrate MLK Day—a day not only to honor King’s achievements but also to reflect on how his life and ideas challenge us to confront injustice in our time.
At its core, King’s dissertation is an exercise in comparative theology. He examines two towering figures of 20th-century thought: Paul Tillich, the existentialist theologian, and Henry Nelson Wieman, the process theologian. These figures, though addressing the same fundamental questions about the nature of God and humanity, offer contrasting perspectives. King’s choice to study them reflects his own theological curiosity and a desire to reconcile divergent ideas.
Tillich’s concept of God as the “Ground of Being” emphasizes transcendence and immanence. For Tillich, God is not a being among beings but the ultimate reality underlying all existence. This framework allows for a profound exploration of human estrangement from God and the need for reconciliation through divine grace. Tillich argued that human beings experience existential anxiety because of their separation from God and that this anxiety could only be resolved through reunion with the divine. As he famously wrote in The Courage to Be, “The name of infinite and inexhaustible depth and ground of our being is God. That depth is what the word God means.”
In contrast, Wieman’s theology is grounded in empirical observation and pragmatic concerns. Rejecting supernaturalism, Wieman views God as the creative force that fosters growth, harmony, and moral progress. His focus is on the tangible and observable: God operates within natural processes, enhancing human cooperation and creating the conditions for the “greatest good.” As Wieman articulated in The Source of Human Good, “Creative good is always concrete and particular, taking form in actual experiences that contribute to human betterment.”
King’s dissertation critiques both theologians while drawing from their strengths. He appreciates Tillich’s existential depth but critiques his abstract language, arguing that it risks alienating ordinary believers. Conversely, King praises Wieman’s focus on moral progress but questions his dismissal of the supernatural, which, King argues, diminishes the transformative power of faith.
This dual critique is where King’s own voice emerges most clearly. He refuses to reduce theology to either abstract metaphysics or utilitarian pragmatism, instead calling for a synthesis that integrates the existential concerns of Tillich with the practical ethics of Wieman. This theological balancing act would become a defining feature of King’s later work, where moral philosophy and social activism were always deeply interconnected.
The connections between King’s dissertation and his later activism are striking. His exploration of Tillich’s and Wieman’s theological frameworks laid the foundation for his philosophy of nonviolent resistance, which would become the cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement.
Tillich’s concept of estrangement deeply informs King’s vision of the “beloved community.” For Tillich, estrangement is not simply a personal or spiritual condition but a fundamental feature of the human experience, one that manifests in societal structures and relationships. King applies this idea to the racial and economic injustices of his time, understanding segregation and poverty as symptoms of humanity’s broader alienation from the divine. His vision of the beloved community—a world where justice, equality, and love prevail—is a direct response to this estrangement. As King wrote in Strength to Love, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.” This vision reflects Tillich’s theological belief in the interconnectedness of all being.
Wieman’s emphasis on creative transformation, meanwhile, aligns with King’s belief in the power of nonviolent resistance to enact social change. For Wieman, God is present in the creative processes that lead to human progress. King translates this idea into the practical realm of activism, where nonviolence becomes a creative and redemptive force. As he declared in his sermon Loving Your Enemies, “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend. It is love that will save our world and our civilization, love even for enemies.” Here, one sees how King transforms Wieman’s abstract principle of creativity into a concrete ethical commitment.
King’s ability to synthesize these theological ideas and translate them into actionable principles is remarkable. While many dissertations remain confined to academic debates, King’s work transcended its original context, serving as a foundation for a lifetime of leadership and inspiring generations to come.
MLK Day is more than a celebration of Dr. King’s achievements; it is a call to action, a reminder that the work of justice is ongoing. Reflecting on King’s dissertation enriches our understanding of his legacy by revealing the intellectual and spiritual foundation of his activism. It challenges us to approach our own pursuits—whether academic, professional, or personal—with the same commitment to integrating thought and action.
King’s synthesis of Tillich’s and Wieman’s ideas reflects a broader commitment to unity—not just theoretical unity but the unity of diverse communities working together for the common good. This is the essence of the beloved community that King envisioned: a world where justice, love, and reconciliation are not abstract ideals but lived realities.
On MLK Day, I am challenged to ask myself: How can I bridge the gap between thought and action? How can I ensure that my work—academic or otherwise—contributes to the broader struggle for justice and equality? King’s life and work challenge all of us to move beyond passive admiration and toward active participation in the work of building a more just and compassionate world.
Reading King’s dissertation through the lens of my own academic and personal experiences, I am struck by the depth of his intellectual and moral courage. His willingness to grapple with difficult questions and synthesize divergent ideas serves as a model for scholars and activists alike. King reminds us that intellectual inquiry is not an end in itself but a means of serving humanity.
Dr. King’s dissertation is more than an academic document; it is a blueprint for transformation, a testament to the power of ideas to change the world. On this day of reflection and recommitment, may we honor his legacy not only with words but with actions that embody the principles he championed: love, justice, and the relentless pursuit of human dignity.
Always,
Dave