Evangelicalism and Martin Luther King, Jr.
- 1 view
Steve - maybe I should have written “70+” Sorry …
Now I’m offended!!!
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
A Few Comments:
To say that resolutions of the ACCC or any other Christian organization are “irrelevant” is somewhat arrogant. The resolutions may be irrelevant to your particular interests, but perhaps not irrelevant to someone else. Contrary to what some at SI think, SI is not the sum total of Christian interests or participation.
The concern of the ACCC and the resolution seems to be the willful disregard of King’s theology and personal life so that we (Christians with a guilty conscience) can “make up” for past sins. The problem the ACCC seems to be addressing is not that theological conservatives are embracing King’s theology, but that theological conservatives make statements that imply that his theology doesn’t matter. I have stated before and will state it again: King showed great courage in his opposition to segregation and the actions he took to oppose segregation. But (as some seem willing to do) his theology and personal life cannot and should not be whitewashed (I hope that isn’t a racist term; you never know today) in order to be culturally correct. By the way, knowledge of his personal life does not have to based on FBI files but on statements made by close associates, who were ostracized by the NAACP and others for daring to be honest about King. The NAACP believed that revealing aspects of King’s personal life would hurt the “movement”.
A valid topic for debate would be whether this resolution is the best way to express the concerns of the ACCC. But some of the reactions in this discussion are almost hysterical.
Comparing concerns about King (or more precisely concerns about Christians who seem to be eager to put King on a pedestal) to Jefferson or Franklin is weak. Neither Jefferson nor Franklin claimed to ministers (although Jefferson did butcher the NT to fit his theology, something which people in his time loudly criticized him for). King’s theology cannot be separated from his work. And his theology wasn’t just what he said in seminary.
Tyler has some good suggestions for what the ACCC could do as a “positive contribution”. Maybe they will do something like that. But it’s about more than separation. Tyler seems to be the one focusing on separation all the time, not others.
To state that King was used by God in ways similar to Cyrus or Nebuchadnezzar assumes too much. No way to know that.
Some Evangelicals and Fundamentalists seem to be using King as psychological healing for sins of the past, many of which they had no responsibility for. That itself is perhaps racist. With all of the progress on racial problems in America, it’s amazing that having a decent discussion about King is difficult and emotionally charged.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
King showed great courage in his opposition to segregation and the actions he took to oppose segregation.
I don’t recall any statements like this being made by a lot of fundamentalists when King was alive. Finally, after nearly 50 years, it’s good to hear.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I said the resolution was really about separation because the resolution said it was about separation.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
“GREENVILLE, S.C. (November 29, 2016) – Bob Jones University President Steve Pettit announced today that BJU will annually observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day beginning January, 2017. University offices will be closed and classes will be cancelled for the day.
Working with the Center for Global Opportunities, students will be encouraged to take part in service opportunities in the Greenville area and participate in prayer sessions centered on racial harmony.
“Dr. King accomplished much in his short life here on earth,” said Pettit. “We believe his voice and leadership to nonviolently oppose the wrongs of the day while paving the way for racial equality and harmony should be respected and honored.” -
https://blogs.bju.edu/pr/2016/11/29/bju-to-observe-martin-luther-king-jr-day/
–––––––––––––-
Accompanying remarks from BJU President Steve Pettit, in a BJU chapel session:
http://blogs.bju.edu/pr/2015/01/19/bju-president-steve-pettits-remarks-dr-martin-luther-king-jr/
–––––––––––––
Pettit spoke very favorably of MLK Jr. without once mentioning anything about his theology or presumptive indiscretions. Huh.
The concern of the ACCC and the resolution seems to be the willful disregard of King’s theology and personal life so that we (Christians with a guilty conscience) can “make up” for past sins. The problem the ACCC seems to be addressing is not that theological conservatives are embracing King’s theology, but that theological conservatives make statements that imply that his theology doesn’t matter.
Two things that I disagree with. First, there are many conservative evangelicals such as Piper who have distinguished the theology or personal life from what he stood for in helping wake up America when it came to racial injustice. Because of this, they have shown Biblical discernment. What’s interesting is that its not just the extreme fundamentalists such as ACCC that are attacking these evangelicals about Martin Luther King. Progressive evangelicals are also attacking Piper and other conservative evangelicals for the exact opposite. That is, questioning King’s salvation because of his liberal theology/personal life, while praising him for his example of a leader for social justice and change in America. Soon-Chan Rah, a professor at North Park University devotes a whole chapter in his book, the Next Evangelicalism attacking conservative evangelicals for this very reason.
Second, if you or the ACCC really believe that these evangelicals and fundamentalists who often incite King’s legacy believe that they are “using King as psychological healing for sins of the past, many of which they had no responsibility for” because they somehow feel guilty, then you and the ACCC have just committed the logical fallacy of assuming or judging the motive, which is basically an ad hominem attack. In Biblical terms, it crosses the line into the sin of slander. You or the ACCC have no idea what they are thinking and why they have come to their conclusion unless they come out and actually state they they feel guilty about the 400+ years of racial oppression on this continent. Yes, I have had conversations with a few white people who come up to me after I do a workshop or seminar on racial reconciliation that have some form of “white-guilt” but its never ever someone such as Piper who has spent many years of their lives and ministry devoted to racial reconciliation (because he was a pastor of an urban church for several decades) They moved way beyond that type of shallow thinking decades ago.
Joel: Just mentioning it as a possibility. Not giving absolute judgment on motive. Your logic doesn’t apply.
As far as BJU: Why not cancel classes for Presidents Day or Veterans Day? Why for King? The fact that King is being singled out suggests some other motive. Not judging, just asking.
Wally Morris
Huntington, IN
OK, if ACCC is going to require that any praise of Dr. King be tempered by pointing out that he gave some strong hints of being a theological liberal, do we then need to temper any praise of southern fundagelical theologians who worked before 1970 or so with a note of their outright, or tacit, support of Jim Crow? Or, for that matter, if we’re going to praise Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, or Methodist divines who worked prior to 1865…..?
Sauce for the goose, brothers, or more specifically, what’s going on is a thinly veiled ad hominem fallacy that does not say polite things about the ACCC, and it’s why I pointed out above that the ACCC is basically flipping the bird at our black brothers and sisters. Those who didn’t get the joke while watching Archie Bunker may approve, but for the rest of us….
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry]OK, if ACCC is going to require that any praise of Dr. King be tempered by pointing out that he gave some strong hints of being a theological liberal, do we then need to temper any praise of southern fundagelical theologians who worked before 1970 or so with a note of their outright, or tacit, support of Jim Crow? Or, for that matter, if we’re going to praise Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, or Methodist divines who worked prior to 1865…..?
Wally said this above: “King’s theology cannot be separated from his work.”
Steve Pettit’s statements demonstrated otherwise.
From the resolution:
Commenting on an upcoming TGC event titled, “MLK50: Gospel Reflections from the Mountaintop,” Moore also posited that “Dr. King appealed to [a gospel of reconciliation] , and it is this gospel that belongs to the church as much right now as it ever has.”[9] But in neither of Moore’s statements did he explain that MLK’s gospel was actually an unorthodox social gospel, which cannot reconcile any man to God (Eph. 2:13-17, 2 Cor. 5:18-21).
What think ye?
Here is a larger quote from the event promo, from Russell Moore:
The legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr., should remind us of what can happen when one speaks to the conscience of the culture and to the conscience of the church. Fifty years after Dr. King’s assassination, it is shameful that the church often lags behind the culture around us when it comes to issues of racial justice, unity and reconciliation. We should be leading the way.
The gospel that reconciles the sons of slaveholders with the sons of slaves is the same gospel that reconciled the sons of Amalek with the sons of Abraham. It is a gospel that reclaims the dignity of humanity and the lordship of God. It is this gospel that Dr. King appealed to, and it is this gospel that belongs to the church as much right now as it ever has. My eager prayer for this event is that it will bring a word of gospel hope, repentance and unity to many brothers and sisters in Christ.”
My initial thoughts:
- I’m not sure what MLK actually believed. His theological statements from Seminary are suggestive, but not the final word. Don’t people get graduate training to get an education? I’m not comfortable labeling MLK as promoting a social gospel
- I’m not familiar enough with the content of MLK’s message. Did he actually preach a social gospel? Do we have sermon transcripts? Did he write any theological works?
- The ACCC resolution suggests MLK was at best a compromised Christian, and at worst a heretic. I don’t know enough to say that. Others do know enough. We all come to rely on certain authorities to provide relatively unbiased presentation of facts. I just don’t trust the ACCC enough to believe the organization did due diligence before issuing a proclamation like this.
My issue with much of right-wing fundamentalism isn’t so much what they say, but rather the sloppy, irresponsible and shallow way they often say it.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]
- I’m not sure what MLK actually believed. His theological statements from Seminary are suggestive, but not the final word. Don’t people get graduate training to get an education? I’m not comfortable labeling MLK as promoting a social gospel
…..a question I’ve raised in the past, to others, by the way: What were MLK Jr’s alternatives for seminary education at the time? In 1948 (the year he graduated from college with a B.A. and then subsequently enrolled in seminary), what extant theologically-conservative seminaries (were he so inclined) in the U.S. would have enrolled a young MLK Jr. at the time? Was there even one seminary approved of by Fundamentalism that would have admitted him?
Piper and Petitt just right
To call MLK’s message “the gospel” is just plain wrong
I agree. Moore likely did go too far; I’m just not familiar enough with how MLK framed the racial issue to say he promoted a social gospel or the real Gospel. From what little I’ve read, I don’t believe he framed it as a theological issue. Maybe I’m wrong; but I just don’t know. I haven’t read a biography of the guy.
But, Moore’s comment is why, I believe, some conservative SBC folks are suspicious of him.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
At least MLK Jr.’s doctorate was earned. (Just trying for a smile amidst the battle.)
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Good one!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Discussion