In the opening chapters, Lischer sounds as if he is trying to criticize King by emphasizing his lack of creativity when devising his sermons. Lischer, on many occasions, points out various sermons by King that resemble sermons of other preachers. For instance, Lischer says "At no time did he [Martin] acknowledge his source in Episcopal Bishop Phillips Brook's nineteenth-century masterpiece, "The Symmetry of Life"." ( Lischer, 96) Then the author continues by writing both King's version and the original version to prove that there were some similarities. He went as far as to say that King's "I have a Dream" theme dates back to the Bible and that another preacher used the same theme long before King. Lischer mentions that King had a tendency to not give credit to whom he got his sermons from. Later on in the book, Lischer begins to introduce the concept of influential people in King's life.

For example, on one Sunday morning, King and a friend slipped out in the middle of his father's sermon to go down the street to a local church. The preacher at that church was gaining popularity in the city of Atlanta amongst the African American Churches for his unique style of preaching the gospel. King's curiosity urged him to see what was causing his father's church to be outnumbered four to one. Lischer believed that the style that King encountered at church on that Sunday was the same style King utilized when preaching, himself. In my opinion, the more you get into the book, the more Lischer fades from pointing out King's plagiarism and begins to emphasize King's ability to learn different methods of preaching the gospel, and his talent of opening his mind believing that there is more to religion than that of which he found at his father's church.

Lischer states that all preachers, at one time or another, proceed in quoting sermons without citing them. I have come to realize that all Lischer is doing is giving credit to those who influenced Martin Luther King Jr. for his prowess as a speaker of the gospel. People like his grandfather, father, and his teachers all took part in King's learning experience as a speaker. King, in my opinion, was thrown into the preacher lifestyle because of his father being a preacher himself. King, when young, probably was not truly dedicated but, eventually, grew into religion and decided that he, indeed, wanted to be a preacher. As a "preachers kid" he had to maintain a certain image; an image that was expected of him by his family, the congregation, and the community around him.

Unlike his grandfather and father, Martin Luther King Jr. was a Reformer. Reformers would raise hell to change their social conditions, while Sustainers, on the other hand, would never do anything to revolutionize how they were living and being treated. Not to say that the Sustainers approved or condoned the way they were being treated but, the Sustainers of the past did not incorporate social aspects of the world into the church in a way that would not arouse concert and retaliation by the church. The Sustainers strategy was formulated to "stimulate hope while deferring its reward." (Lischer, 30) King, if you think about it, had both Reformism and Sustainism in him. Lischer talked about how King informed the church of the most distressing news in the beginning of his sermons and, yet, still found a way to pacify the congregation at the end. For example, King would start his sermon off by telling a true story of how a young black boy was lynched for racially motivated reasons. Then the Sustainist part of King would incorporate the message that 'God does what He does for a reason' and that change was soon to come. This reassured the older half of the congregation of redemption in the "long-run". King would continue by devising a plan for the younger and more vengeful congregation to be implemented that would ease any thoughts of vengeance.

Ebenezer Baptist church was known for its traditional, yet , liberal views on religion. It is ironic how the church was so liberal compared to Dexter church, were King would later preach after Ebenezer, but had to have members in formal attire to monitor the seating arrangement. Lischer said that "the closer you were to the pulpit determined how important you were in the church" (Lischer, 16). The choir also had its own special seating arrangement; it seems that those members with seniority were placed in the front (in view of the congregation) and all other new member where placed towards the back. Ebenzer was not a big church with fancy architectural infrastructure . It was a small church with common people that believed and prayed to the same God. There at Ebenezer "everybody [was] the same standing before a common master and savior" (Lischer 20)

It was the norm at Ebenezer for common people to outnumber professionals in the church. King would poke fun at other churches that boasted about how the majority of their congregation consisted of doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, and glorify Ebenezer for serving the "common people". Regardless of what was said, Ebenezer still upheld their belief that at Ebenezer Baptist Church "everybody could be 'somebody'." (Lischer, 20) Here, at Ebenezer, people with humble positions in society could hold positions of leadership within the congregation; positions that would never have been held outside of church. This, in my opinion, is trust and faith instilled into individuals that the society beyond the church would not have given to them because of their race.

"Although all Baptists were brothers and sisters in Christ, and all could sing lustily, no member of Ebenezer would have dared to attend the white First Baptist Church of Atlanta or any other white Baptist congregation." (Lischer, 20) I found it very interesting how the African American Baptist Church and the First Baptist Church both preached about the same God, practiced the same rituals, and believed in the same beliefs, but the thing separating the two churches was color.

A strength in this book was that the religion was portrayed in an accurate manner. My relatives were Baptist and confirmed that, that was the situation of that time. The weakness occurs when Lischer comments on how King copied other preacher's sermons, and sometimes repeated his sermon when acting on obligations outside the church. Lischer should have stated that King was also, at the time, visiting different states giving speeches for the betterment of not only his people, but all people. Maybe he did not have time to come up with original material when he returned from traveling. After, all King did try to fulfill his duties as a preacher when he got the chance.

Certain branches of various religions broke because of disagreements within the churches; this was not the case at that point in time. It was interesting to know that even though King and his congregation were oppressed by the same people who believed in the same God as they did; King did not attempt to start a new branch of religion. Other religions would not follow or acknowledge the same laws of the country that oppressed them for so long. It reminds me of the Italians and how they were treated by their government that was ran by the Pope, and how they separated. They still acknowledge the Pope as a religious leader but, just not as theirs. Nevertheless, King still continued his quest for the emancipation of his people without violent threats of physical assault and successfully "moved the nation" with his inherited religious tongue and mentors and influential teacher's wisdom.