Sunday, July 10, 2016



Loving Your Enemies {A sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.}
 
I wanted to provide some thoughts in the wake of recent incidents, but first I wanted to provide the majority of a sermon delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. several decades ago.  Some of my thoughts will follow:
 
A sermon delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama on November 17, 1957.

…So I want to turn your attention to this subject: “Loving Your Enemies.” It’s so basic to me because it is a part of my basic philosophical and theological orientation—the whole idea of love, the whole philosophy of love. In the fifth chapter of the gospel as recorded by Saint Matthew, we read these very arresting words flowing from the lips of our Lord and Master: “Ye have heard that it has been said, ‘Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.’ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”

Certainly these are great words, words lifted to cosmic proportions. And over the centuries, many persons have argued that this is an extremely difficult command. Many would go so far as to say that it just isn’t possible to move out into the actual practice of this glorious command. They would go on to say that this is just additional proof that Jesus was an impractical idealist who never quite came down to earth. So the arguments abound. But far from being an impractical idealist, Jesus has become the practical realist. The words of this text glitter in our eyes with a new urgency. Far from being the pious injunction of a utopian dreamer, this command is an absolute necessity for the survival of our civilization. Yes, it is love that will save our world and our civilization, love even for enemies.

Now let me hasten to say that Jesus was very serious when he gave this command; he wasn’t playing. He realized that it’s hard to love your enemies. He realized that it’s difficult to love those persons who seek to defeat you, those persons who say evil things about you. He realized that it was painfully hard, pressingly hard. But he wasn’t playing. And we cannot dismiss this passage as just another example of Oriental hyperbole, just a sort of exaggeration to get over the point. This is a basic philosophy of all that we hear coming from the lips of our Master. Because Jesus wasn’t playing; because he was serious. We have the Christian and moral responsibility to seek to discover the meaning of these words, and to discover how we can live out this command, and why we should live by this command.

Now first let us deal with this question, which is the practical question: How do you go about loving your enemies? I think the first thing is this: In order to love your enemies, you must begin by analyzing self. And I’m sure that seems strange to you, that I start out telling you this morning that you love your enemies by beginning with a look at self. It seems to me that that is the first and foremost way to come to an adequate discovery to the how of this situation.
Now, I’m aware of the fact that some people will not like you, not because of something you have done to them, but they just won’t like you. I’m quite aware of that. Some people aren’t going to like the way you walk; some people aren’t going to like the way you talk. Some people aren’t going to like you because you can do your job better than they can do theirs. Some people aren’t going to like you because other people like you, and because you’re popular, and because you’re well-liked, they aren’t going to like you. Some people aren’t going to like you because your hair is a little shorter than theirs or your hair is a little longer than theirs. Some people aren’t going to like you because your skin is a little brighter than theirs; and others aren’t going to like you because your skin is a little darker than theirs. So that some people aren’t going to like you. They’re going to dislike you, not because of something that you’ve done to them, but because of various jealous reactions and other reactions that are so prevalent in human nature.

But after looking at these things and admitting these things, we must face the fact that an individual might dislike us because of something that we’ve done deep down in the past, some personality attribute that we possess, something that we’ve done deep down in the past and we’ve forgotten about it; but it was that something that aroused the hate response within the individual. That is why I say, begin with yourself. There might be something within you that arouses the tragic hate response in the other individual.

…And this is what Jesus means when he said: “How is it that you can see the mote in your brother’s eye and not see the beam in your own eye?” Or to put it in Moffatt’s translation: “How is it that you see the splinter in your brother’s eye and fail to see the plank in your own eye?” And this is one of the tragedies of human nature. So we begin to love our enemies and love those persons that hate us whether in collective life or individual life by looking at ourselves.
A second thing that an individual must do in seeking to love his enemy is to discover the element of good in his enemy, and everytime you begin to hate that person and think of hating that person, realize that there is some good there and look at those good points which will over-balance the bad points.

I’ve said to you on many occasions that each of us is something of a schizophrenic personality. We’re split up and divided against ourselves. And there is something of a civil war going on within all of our lives. There is a recalcitrant South of our soul revolting against the North of our soul. And there is this continual struggle within the very structure of every individual life…. There is something within each of us that causes us to cry out with Apostle Paul, “I see and approve the better things of life, but the evil things I do.”

So somehow the “isness” of our present nature is out of harmony with the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts us. And this simply means this: That within the best of us, there is some evil, and within the worst of us, there is some good. When we come to see this, we take a different attitude toward individuals. The person who hates you most has some good in him… And when you come to the point that you look in the face of every man and see deep down within him what religion calls “the image of God,” you begin to love him in spite of. No matter what he does, you see God’s image there. There is an element of goodness that he can never sluff off. Discover the element of good in your enemy. And as you seek to hate him, find the center of goodness and place your attention there and you will take a new attitude.

Another way that you love your enemy is this: When the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time which you must not do it…. Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.

The Greek language, as I’ve said so often before, is very powerful at this point…. It talks about love as eros. That’s one word for love. Eros is a sort of, aesthetic love…. And it’s come to us to be a sort of romantic love, though it’s a beautiful love….
Then the Greek language talks about philia, and that’s another type of love that’s also beautiful. It is a sort of intimate affection between personal friends. And this is the type of love that you have for those persons that you’re friendly with, your intimate friends, or people that you call on the telephone and you go by to have dinner with, and your roommate in college and that type of thing. It’s a sort of reciprocal love. On this level, you like a person because that person likes you. You love on this level, because you are loved….

The Greek language comes out with another word for love. It is the word agape. And agape is more than eros; agape is more than philia; agape is something of the understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. It is a love that seeks nothing in return. It is an overflowing love; it’s what theologians would call the love of God working in the lives of men. And when you rise to love on this level, you begin to love men, not because they are likeable, but because God loves them. You look at every man, and you love him because you know God loves him. And he might be the worst person you’ve ever seen.

And this is what Jesus means, I think, in this very passage when he says, “Love your enemy.” And it’s significant that he does not say, “Like your enemy.” Like is a sentimental something, an affectionate something. There are a lot of people that I find it difficult to like. I don’t like what they do to me. I don’t like what they say about me and other people. I don’t like their attitudes. I don’t like some of the things they’re doing. I don’t like them. But Jesus says love them. And love is greater than like. Love is understanding, redemptive goodwill for all men, so that you love everybody, because God loves them. You refuse to do anything that will defeat an individual, because you have agape in your soul. And here you come to the point that you love the individual who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does. This is what Jesus means when he says, “Love your enemy.” This is the way to do it. When the opportunity presents itself when you can defeat your enemy, you must not do it.
Now for the few moments left, let us move from the practical how to the theoretical why. It’s not only necessary to know how to go about loving your enemies, but also to go down into the question of why we should love our enemies. I think the first reason that we should love our enemies, and I think this was at the very center of Jesus’ thinking, is this: that hate for hate only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. If I hit you and you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that goes on ad infinitum. [tapping on pulpit] It just never ends. Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that’s the strong person. The strong person is the person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. And that is the tragedy of hate, that it doesn’t cut it off. It only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.

…And if somebody doesn’t have sense enough to turn on the dim and beautiful and powerful lights of love in this world, the whole of our civilization will be plunged into the abyss of destruction. And we will all end up destroyed because nobody had any sense on the highway of history. Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.

There’s another reason why you should love your enemies, and that is because hate distorts the personality of the hater…. You just begin hating somebody, and you will begin to do irrational things. You can’t see straight when you hate. You can’t walk straight when you hate. You can’t stand upright. Your vision is distorted. There is nothing more tragic than to see an individual whose heart is filled with hate…. For the person who hates, the beautiful becomes ugly and the ugly becomes beautiful. For the person who hates, the good becomes bad and the bad becomes good. For the person who hates, the true becomes false and the false becomes true. That’s what hate does. You can’t see right. The symbol of objectivity is lost. Hate destroys the very structure of the personality of the hater. And this is why Jesus says hate [recording interrupted]

…meet every situation of life with an abounding love. Never hate, because it ends up in tragic, neurotic responses…. Hate at any point is a cancer that gnaws away at the very vital center of your life and your existence. It is like eroding acid that eats away the best and the objective center of your life. So Jesus says love, because hate destroys the hater as well as the hated.

Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. That’s why Jesus says, “Love your enemies.” Because if you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption. You just keep loving people and keep loving them, even though they’re mistreating you. Here’s the person who is a neighbor, and this person is doing something wrong to you and all of that. Just keep being friendly to that person. Keep loving them. Don’t do anything to embarrass them. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they’re mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.

I think of one of the best examples of this. We all remember the great president of this United States, Abraham Lincoln—these United States rather. You remember when Abraham Lincoln was running for president of the United States, there was a man who ran all around the country talking about Lincoln. He said a lot of bad things about Lincoln, a lot of unkind things. And sometimes he would get to the point that he would even talk about his looks, saying, “You don’t want a tall, lanky, ignorant man like this as the president of the United States.” He went on and on and on and went around with that type of attitude and wrote about it. Finally, one day Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States. And if you read the great biography of Lincoln, if you read the great works about him, you will discover that as every president comes to the point, he came to the point of having to choose a Cabinet. And then came the time for him to choose a Secretary of War. He looked across the nation, and decided to choose a man by the name of Mr. Stanton. And when Abraham Lincoln stood around his advisors and mentioned this fact, they said to him: “Mr. Lincoln, are you a fool? Do you know what Mr. Stanton has been saying about you? Do you know what he has done, tried to do to you? Do you know that he has tried to defeat you on every hand? Do you know that, Mr. Lincoln? Did you read all of those derogatory statements that he made about you?” Abraham Lincoln stood before the advisors around him and said: “Oh yes, I know about it; I read about it; I’ve heard him myself. But after looking over the country, I find that he is the best man for the job.”

Mr. Stanton did become Secretary of War, and a few months later, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. And if you go to Washington, you will discover that one of the greatest words or statements ever made by, about Abraham Lincoln was made about this man Stanton. And as Abraham Lincoln came to the end of his life, Stanton stood up and said: “Now he belongs to the ages.” And he made a beautiful statement concerning the character and the stature of this man. If Abraham Lincoln had hated Stanton, if Abraham Lincoln had answered everything Stanton said, Abraham Lincoln would have not transformed and redeemed Stanton. Stanton would have gone to his grave hating Lincoln, and Lincoln would have gone to his grave hating Stanton. But through the power of love Abraham Lincoln was able to redeem Stanton.

That’s it. There is a power in love that our world has not discovered yet…. For they believe in hitting for hitting; they believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; they believe in hating for hating; but Jesus comes to us and says, “This isn’t the way.”

…Because of the power and influence of the personality of this Christ, he was able to split history into a.d. and b.c. Because of his power, he was able to shake the hinges from the gates of the Roman Empire. And all around the world this morning, we can hear the glad echo of heaven ring:

Jesus shall reign wherever sun,
Does his successive journeys run;
His kingdom spreads from shore to shore,
Till moon shall wane and wax no more.
We can hear another chorus singing: “All hail the power of Jesus name!”
We can hear another chorus singing: “Hallelujah, hallelujah! He’s King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Hallelujah, hallelujah!”
We can hear another choir singing:
In Christ there is no East or West.
In Him no North or South,
But one great Fellowship of Love
Throughout the whole wide world.
This is the only way.

…So this morning, as I look into your eyes, and into the eyes of all of my brothers in Alabama and all over America and over the world, I say to you, “I love you. I would rather die than hate you.” And I’m foolish enough to believe that through the power of this love somewhere, men of the most recalcitrant bent will be transformed. And then we will be in God’s kingdom. We will be able to matriculate into the university of eternal life because we had the power to love our enemies, to bless those persons that cursed us, to even decide to be good to those persons who hated us, and we even prayed for those persons who despitefully used us.

Oh God, help us in our lives and in all of our attitudes, to work out this controlling force of love, this controlling power that can solve every problem that we confront in all areas. Oh, we talk about politics; we talk about the problems facing our atomic civilization. Grant that all men will come together and discover that as we solve the crisis and solve these problems—the international problems, the problems of atomic energy, the problems of nuclear energy, and yes, even the race problem—let us join together in a great fellowship of love and bow down at the feet of Jesus. Give us this strong determination. In the name and spirit of this Christ, we pray. Amen.

– Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Source: Martin Luther King Jr., “Loving Your Enemies” (speech, Montgomery, AL, November 1957), The Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Education Institute, mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_loving_your_enemies/.

My heart aches over the tragedies of the past few days, and the recognition that these are part of larger contextual issues that span generations.  It is too easy to look at each incident that occurs, and feel our own fear and anger increase.  Yet this is not the path that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. followed; he confronted evil and anger in a way that is not easy to do.  He dared us to love all those we came into contact with, with an agape love.  This is a love that seeks the best for those we come in contact with, with no expectation of anything in return.  This was a love that he tried to demonstrate to all, including those who could be called his enemies.  He has given us that dare, and I feel that today is a day that we must take up that challenge; I must take up that challenge.  I must ensure that I make decisions that meet hate with love, that meet animosity with care.  This is not a call to meet someone else's demands, but a willingness to love them from the place that they come from.

There are some comments that I have been pondering over the weekend from John Stonestreet, with the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, in a Breakpoint radio broadcast that will be delivered tomorrow, July 11, 2016 entitled "The Gospel in the Aftermath of Dallas, Baton Rouge, and Falcon Heights.  Where To from Here?"  (Where To from Here?)The transcript has several poignant points, but what stood out to me is its statement that we are not okay; the events we have recently seen are a revelation of the unrest that is present in society.  They comment that our society is weak in its middle - the social glue that holds us together.  What is that social glue?  Human relationships.  These can't be mandated from on high; the federal government cannot create a new program to develop them.  We must live in community.  

I was also intrigued by their reference to a speech by Alexander Solzhenitsyn entitled "A World Split Apart" where he stated that the smooth surface film of our society is thin, with only illusions of stability and health.  I have only briefly read the speech, but I know the man.  Solzhenitsyn lived through the Gulags of Russia as a political prisoner, treated as less than human.  He saw a society where individuals were turned against each other by their government, and the social fabric that bound people to each other was torn apart.  He saw how easy it is for any society to do so.  This reinforces the problem with national solutions, which coldly turn people against each other in an effort to force us to get along and treat each other better.  Somehow, we must learn to do this at an individual level. Within his 1978 speech, living in exile here in the west, is the following quote:  "there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses. And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure."  Again, we have lost our social glue, we have lost our morals.  I have gone on extensively, hence I need to finish.  Yet, I encourage all of you to give Solzhenitsyn's speech a careful read, and considerable thought.  It was a critique from 40 years ago of our western society, but is still relevant today, and to this past week's incidents.  I may return to it with further thoughts at a later time.  For now, will sum this post up with an encouragement for all of us to demonstrate the "agape" love mentioned by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his 1957 speech.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016



Mission Muffins

I recently read about this ministry on a post at the Institute for Faith, Work, & Economics ( IFWE article ). Mission Muffins is designed to “empower homeless and employment-challenged individuals to start new lives full of hope, meaning and achievement,” ( Mission Muffins ).This is a ministry located in Washington DC that sells muffins to nearby office buildings.  Their employees learn baking, retail, marketing and business skills.  They are able to stay Central Union Mission’s homeless shelter and save their wages while they look for permanent housing.  At the same time, they are treated with respect, a recognition that each individual has inherent, unique skills and talents that are worthwhile.  They are taught basic business skills, such as accounting and marketing, as well as soft business skills, such as punctuality and respect for authority.  

The backgrounds of individuals involved in the ministry includes different levels of personal struggles; some have served time in jail, some have been drug dealers, some have been homeless, some have suffered from trauma or depression.  They have learned that they can, regardless of their struggles, have success and value as individuals through their interactions at Mission Muffins. 

I think one of the biggest takeaways I had of this ministry was the recognition that change can occur, when we are willing to work together and treat people as individuals.  The ministry is not about “fixing” people, it is about helping individuals who have come to a point where they recognize they are broken, meeting them in mutual brokenness, and working to show that regardless of anyone’s past there can be value in the future.  Mission Muffins does this through learning the value of labor based on a person’s skills, transitioning from a focus on dependence (“Will work for food”) to responsibility (“Will Work for my Future”).  

The efforts of many community members to make the “Bridges Out of Poverty” program a success locally are centered around some of these same goals.  I encourage you to look at the IFWE article, as well as the Mission Muffins website, and be encouraged to see how people can work together as a community to become stronger as a whole.

Friday, June 17, 2016



The Danger of Personality Leadership

I recently finished reading Bonhoeffer, Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor who was ultimately executed within weeks of Germany's surrender I World War II for his role in the conspiracy to assassinate Hitler and attempt to bring about a negotiated settlement with Britain.  Dietrich functioned as an advisor during the plot, and also passed information along to Britain through his international contacts in an attempt to inform the world of the atrocities occurring in Germany.  At one point, he assisted in helping several Jewish individuals to escape from Germany as well.  

This was the second time I have read this 500+ page biography, and there are many components of it that are personally challenging for me.  Due to its size and complexity, it is difficult to do a short evaluation of all its themes.  Both times through the book, though, I have been struck by Hitler's ability to force his will on the country so quickly; it has caused me to think about the events that occurred in Germany leading up to and through World War II.   

Hitler became the elected chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933, though his Nazi party was still a distinct minority in political representation.  Two days later, Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave a radio speech in which he discussed the problems of leadership by a Fuhrer, explaining that this type of leader will become an idol.  Prior to reading this book, I did not realize that Der Fuhrer meant "the leader", nor, more importantly, did I know that there was a popular concept called the Fuhrer Principle.  This principal had to do with a flawed concept of leadership.  The flaw had to do with its source of authority.  The Fuhrer principle found its authority in the leader himself, a self-derived, cult of personality that was autocratic, submitted to nothing, and acknowledged no weakness within itself.  Interestingly, Bonhoeffer contrasted this with a true leader, a leader that recognized that there is an ultimate authority for power outside of himself, a leader that serves others and leads others to maturity.  The entire speech, though not specifically aimed at Hitler, was prophetic in warning of the dangers that were soon to follow.

In response to the burning down of a government building, known as the Reichstag fire, in 1933, The Reichstag Fire Edict was signed, officially suspending those sections of the German constitution that guaranteed individual liberties and civil rights.  The legislative body (the Reichstag) subsequently passed the Enabling Act on March 23, 1933, and Act that formally took away their powers, abolished their existence, and transferred their power to the Chancellor (Hitler).
Soon after this, on April 7, 1933, what was known as the Aryan Paragraph took effect, under the politically correct title of "Restoration of the Civil Service."  Among other things, this act required that government employees be of "Aryan" stock, and that anyone of Jewish descent would lose their job.  Churches, who operated under a national church-state structure, were required to exclude people of Jewish descent from ministry as well.  Bonhoeffer was among the few who stood up to confront this path as a pastor and theologian.  For those familiar with Dr. Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail, they would find many parallels to Dr. King's distinction between the foundation of just and un-just laws, and the role of people of conscience to oppose laws that are un-just.  Dietrich Bonhoeffer was involved in communications with FDR's administration during these months, warning them of the ominous changes occurring in Germany.  Based on mandates of the Reichstag Fire Edict, Bonhoeffer was guilty already through this action of treason, yet he bravely moved forward with this and more over the ensuing years.

The Aryan Paragraph approved on April 7 1933, along with a government-organized boycott of Jewish businesses, were followed by increasing persecutions of Jews (along with the mentally and physically disabled, and others as well).  People of Jewish descent began losing their jobs with private employers under government coercion.  Government action on April 22, 1933 let to Jews being prohibited from serving as patent lawyers, or working as doctors in institutions with state-run insurance.  Jews began losing positions as universities in May, Jewish dentists lost the ability to work in institutions with state-run insurance, and spouses of non-Aryans began to be targeted by these policies within months.  September 29, 1933 saw Jews banned from all cultural and entertainment activities.  October saw all newspapers placed under Nazi control, and all Jews required to lose their positions in this field as well.  

Another pernicious change occurred at the same time.  In May 1933, Gleichschaltung began to be promoted; this concept was a requirement that everything in German society had to be in line with the Nazi worldview - no dissenting opinions.  This included books (anything that promoted other ideas was eventually eliminated/burned) and ideas (anyone with ideas that did not match the "appropriate"  worldview were dismissed from positions in government, hospitals, universities, and a multitude of other places as time went on.  People were spied on to ensure that their attitudes matched the party's ideology).  Germany was well on its way to the death camps of the next few years.
This book has continued to challenge me to question how similar issues could play out in our country.  How susceptible are we to following a leader that refuses to bow to any authority other than their own personality? How willing are we to exclude people based solely on their race, religion, lifestyle, or beliefs?  How willing are we to exclude the teaching of ideas in schools because they don't match the worldview that is considered politically correct?  All of these are things that are present in our culture, and probably have been present in almost all communities around the world and throughout time to some extent.  How do we keep them, though, in check?  Those are all questions that trouble me, and determining what my response should be when I see them arise is difficult as well.

Metaxas' book on Bonhoeffer had a couple of pointed ideas to keep in mind in this evaluation.  The first has to do with the theologian, Martin Niemoller, who initially took steps to pacify or work with Hitler.  Why did he do this?  Metaxas didn't go into great detail on Niemoller's decision, yet there were some things that stood out in the narrative.  For one thing, Hitler was highly popular with the public at large, and played to their passions and personal desires.  I think there was also some level of trying to work within the power system that was present at the time.  Years later, though, after ultimately finding himself in a concentration camp, Martin Niemoller penned the following words:

                "First they came for the Socialist, and I did not speak out--
                because I was not a Socialist.
                Then they came for the Trade Unionist, but I did not speak out--
                because I was not a Trade Unionist.
                Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
                because I was not a Jew.
                And then they came for me--
                and there was no one left to speak for me."

 The second idea that Metaxas touched on was the thought process that Dietrich Bonhoeffer went through as he tried to evaluate how to respond to the cult/leadership of Hitler.  One quote that is emblematic of his thoughts in this matter is as follows:  "If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction."  The point that Bonhoeffer was making is that being part of something that is fundamentally wrong, where there is no avenue to bring about change on moral grounds, is fruitless.  The point made by Niemoller is that a decision to wait and go along with the flow when immoral actions are taken against others is that those same immoral actions may be taken against you as well.

How do you determine what is fundamentally wrong?  I would encourage you to read the book and develop your own understanding of that.  There is much time and attention given to the dangers of a leader acting under the strength of their own personality and the dangers inherent in demonizing or belittling a group.  At the same time, I encourage you to read Dr. King's Letter from Birmingham Jail.  The discussion in Dr. King's work is an excellent development of how to determine the difference between just and unjust laws.

I hope you can find the opportunity to ponder the thoughts raised by these individuals, and determine how best to implement them in your life, and within our community.