BJU To Observe Martin Luther King Jr. Day

Michael King, Jr. (his legal name) did much wrong and in my opinion should not have been honored by a national holiday. Bob Jones, Jr. wouldn’t lower the flag when MLK was killed. The decision to celebrate was pure political correctness - BJU trying to make nice with the culture and no longer desiring to be the world’s most unusual university. On the other hand, the myth of MLK is so strong that it was hard to resist.

King was a serial adulterer, plagiarizer, communist sympathizer, probable embezzler, and denier of the virgin birth, deity, and resurection of the Lord. These are all documented but perhaps the embezzler part is only alleged (organizational funds used to purchase the services of prostitutes). J. Edgar Hoover had him under surveilance and wiretap for years and the FBI had extensive files on him. JFK and his brother Robert, the attorney general, authorized the wiretaps.

[Jim]

FOCUS!!!! MLK Holiday discussion ONLY!

[on this thread]

My apologies, Jim.

In the grand scheme of things I suppose I don’t really have dog in this fight. I was public schooled 1st grade through 12th grade. We never got the holiday off, we were just required to learn about the man and his contributions to the Civil Rights movement. We can debate whether or not DR Bob Jr was right in not lowering the Flag for his funeral or not. Regardless, I don’t think it’s helpful to treat any man as if he was an infallible prophet who never made a wrong decision or was sinlessly perfect.

I think this is a good thing because it does give BJU a real opportunity to demonstrate to the world that they are willing to repent of sin and also that they have changed. I admit that I was surprised when the announcement was made.

[dlhanson]

Michael King, Jr. (his legal name) did much wrong and in my opinion should not have been honored by a national holiday. Bob Jones, Jr. wouldn’t lower the flag when MLK was killed. The decision to celebrate was pure political correctness - BJU trying to make nice with the culture and no longer desiring to be the world’s most unusual university. On the other hand, the myth of MLK is so strong that it was hard to resist.

King was a serial adulterer, plagiarizer, communist sympathizer, probable embezzler, and denier of the virgin birth, deity, and resurection of the Lord. These are all documented but perhaps the embezzler part is only alleged (organizational funds used to purchase the services of prostitutes). J. Edgar Hoover had him under surveilance and wiretap for years and the FBI had extensive files on him. JFK and his brother Robert, the attorney general, authorized the wiretaps.

Yes, King did not have his moral or theological ducks in a row….and yet somehow just as God used a donkey to rebuke Balaam, He seems to have used a flawed messenger to rebuke “pastors”, church members, and even college administrators who thought segregation and Jim Crow was more important than the Gospel. The guy who did my wedding noted that in the early 1970s, majority white churches in the South were STILL fighting that one—he was deployed in the South at an Air Force base and couldn’t find a church that wasn’t preaching segregation. Just sayin’.

And no matter what we can say negatively about Dr. King, the fact remains that without his guidance, the civil rights movement could have ended up as a race war between Malcolm X and the Klan and related groups. To me, that in itself is worth a holiday and a celebration.

[dlhanson]

Michael King, Jr. (his legal name) did much wrong and in my opinion should not have been honored by a national holiday. Bob Jones, Jr. wouldn’t lower the flag when MLK was killed. The decision to celebrate was pure political correctness - BJU trying to make nice with the culture and no longer desiring to be the world’s most unusual university. On the other hand, the myth of MLK is so strong that it was hard to resist.

King was a serial adulterer, plagiarizer, communist sympathizer, probable embezzler, and denier of the virgin birth, deity, and resurection of the Lord. These are all documented but perhaps the embezzler part is only alleged (organizational funds used to purchase the services of prostitutes). J. Edgar Hoover had him under surveilance and wiretap for years and the FBI had extensive files on him. JFK and his brother Robert, the attorney general, authorized the wiretaps.

[Greg Long]

Thomas Jefferson was an adulterer (not sure about serial), slave holder, and denier of the virgin birth, deity, miracles, and resurrection of the Lord. By this standard, he and other Founding Fathers who fit similar criteria should not be celebrated, either.

Well, when our country actually considers a “Thomas Jefferson Day,” then we can talk. Nobody even celebrates “President’s Day” anymore, and even that holiday was a demotion for Washington’s birthday and Lincoln’s birthday. As long as we hold up someone as being superior to them in the amount he is celebrated, then I think his record is pertinent. The only other holiday I can think of at the moment in this country that has a name attached to it is Columbus Day, and that holiday is already on the way out in most places. If people want to celebrate King Day, fine, but as significant as he was, I hardly think him the most important figure in American History, his place in the list of holidays notwithstanding.

[On June 11] Facing federalized Alabama National Guard troops, Alabama Governor George Wallace ends his blockade of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa and allows two African American students to enroll.

George Wallace, one of the most controversial politicians in U.S. history, was elected governor of Alabama in 1962 under an ultra-segregationist platform. In his 1963 inaugural address, he promised his white followers: “Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!” When African American students attempted to desegregate the University of Alabama in June 1963, Alabama’s new governor, flanked by state troopers, literally blocked the door of the enrollment office. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, had declared segregation unconstitutional in 1954’s Brown v. Board of Education, and the executive branch undertook aggressive tactics to enforce the ruling.

I, for one, am very thankful for the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, although like so many other people, I can’t endorse everything that he was and did. I think it is fully appropriate to set aside a day to reflect on his legacy and work. The anecdote above is an very pointed and ugly reminder of the US’s history, and we should also remember that some Christians were just as ugly and bigoted as Gov. Wallace was.

The forced segregation of African-Americans in this country has a long and shameful history, and although I see this through my 21st century eyes, I am​ very​ thankful that someone was willing to stand up and defend the rights of our brothers and sisters to be counted as full and equal persons before God and under the law. I think that the work of Dr. King and the literally thousands of others who stood up for their rights ought to be celebrated.
​African-Americans have done much to advance the cause of American liberty (and the Gospel, by the way), and any position that they should be ‘separate but equal’ [or anything less] is a farce, a tragedy, and a sin against them and more importantly, against God. It is completely fitting that we honor MLK Jr in this way, and I am thankful that BJU is going to recognize it as well. I hope they have a convocation or something so that the students are able to learn a little bit more about him.

Looking forward to the day when this is fulfilled:

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures, and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, “Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might be to our God forever and ever! Amen.”

[dcbii]

Greg Long wrote:

Thomas Jefferson was an adulterer (not sure about serial), slave holder, and denier of the virgin birth, deity, miracles, and resurrection of the Lord. By this standard, he and other Founding Fathers who fit similar criteria should not be celebrated, either.

Well, when our country actually considers a “Thomas Jefferson Day,” then we can talk. Nobody even celebrates “President’s Day” anymore, and even that holiday was a demotion for Washington’s birthday and Lincoln’s birthday. As long as we hold up someone as being superior to them in the amount he is celebrated, then I think his record is pertinent. The only other holiday I can think of at the moment in this country that has a name attached to it is Columbus Day, and that holiday is already on the way out in most places. If people want to celebrate King Day, fine, but as significant as he was, I hardly think him the most important figure in American History, his place in the list of holidays notwithstanding.

I would say that celebrating MLK is quite significant because it is tied to July 4th, which commemorates the adoption of the declaration of independence. In it Jefferson wrote, “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Those rights were systematically denied for African-Americans for almost 200 years in the form of slavery and then Jim Crow laws. MLK exposed the hyposcrisy and apathy that our country was content to live with for the vast majority of its history. In fact, what MLK did was change the conscience of America. He brought to light to the world how Blacks were being systematically and personally unfairly treated in America. His leadership and his powerful orator skills to bring social change helped many laws come about such as the civil rights act of 1964 and 1968 that were instrumental for the declaration of independence to be for everyone in our country, not just white people. In my 25 or so years doing urban ministry, I have gotten to know many people that share stories what life was like before MLK came on the scene. One of my pastor friends in Grand Rapids is from Selma Alabama and has shared stories inequality and humiliation while living in the Jim Crow era. HIs father and uncle were beaten to a bloody pulp on the bridge at Selma. Another one of my friend’s father was a civil rights leader that was unjustly thrown in jail and tortured for several hours by white racist sheriffs in Mississippi. These law enforcement officers took turns beating him for several hours and then took a fork and shoved up his nose until blood came gushing out. Both of these friends of mine have hard time sharing these stories because the pain and trauma are far too real to them. I have friends that couldn’t move out of black ghettos in Grand Rapids until the early 1970’s because of corrupt racist practices were finally outlawed by the fair housing act. I have other friends who were unjustly fired from jobs just because they were black. I could go on and on. When I read posts on this thread that diminish MLK’s legacy or try to tie it to political correctness, I am blown away by the callousness of certain Christians. My advise is to try to have some empathy for African-Americans because if it wasn’t for this theological liberal, black social activist, there might still be areas of the country where people faced real voter intimidation, where people couldn’t live where they wanted to live, where people couldn’t get certain jobs, where people would have to tolerate being abused and discriminated against because of their color of their skin.

[Joel Shaffer]

…theological liberal…

Martin Luther King, Jr. attended Crozer Theological Seminary (which was located near Philadelphia) from 1948 - 1951. A large number of this school’s graduates were training to pastor in mainline churches, often American Baptist.

Question: What more theologically conservative seminaries in the U.S. would have admitted a 19 year old (the age at which he finished his B.A.) African American man in 1948? If so inclined, would he have been able to attend a more conservative seminary in the U.S. at that time? Would any then-existent fundamentalist schools have admitted him?

[Larry Nelson]

Joel Shaffer wrote:

…theological liberal…

Martin Luther King, Jr. attended Crozer Theological Seminary (which was located near Philadelphia) from 1948 - 1951. A large number of this school’s graduates were training to pastor in mainline churches, often American Baptist.

Question: What more theologically conservative seminaries in the U.S. would have admitted a 19 year old (the age at which he finished his B.A.) African American man in 1948? If so inclined, would he have been able to attend a more conservative seminary in the U.S. at that time? Would any then-existent fundamentalist schools have admitted him?

This is spot on. Whether we like it or not, for too many fundamental churches and ministries, the theological left, and some pretty sinful people, were used by God to bring us to repentance. Well, at least I hope we’re repentant. May God show me my blind spots just as Dr. King showed our churches one of theirs 50 years ago.

Wheaton College, with its abolitionist history, has always admitted African-Americans since its inception. What people don’t realize is that Wheaton used to be quite conservative and almost became an approved organization of the GARBC in the 1940’s (because of Dr. Otis Fuller’s influence who was a Wheaton grad). In the 1950’s Wheaton shifted more towards mainstream ecumenical and theological evangelicalism where they are today. I think Dr. King would’ve been admitted to Wheaton in the 1940’s if he’d applied.

In 1951, when Dallas Theological Seminary was probed as to whether they would admit blacks, Woolverd responded by saying: that until recently in Texas, it was illegal for blacks to be admitted to all white schools, no blacks had applied to DTS, and if one did apply they would be considered on their merits, not their color of skin. In the early 1970’s as the culture shifted, DTS began aggressively recruiting African-Americans to its seminary.

[Joel Shaffer]

Wheaton College, with its abolitionist history, has always admitted African-Americans since its inception. What people don’t realize is that Wheaton used to be quite conservative and almost became an approved organization of the GARBC in the 1940’s (because of Dr. Otis Fuller’s influence who was a Wheaton grad). In the 1950’s Wheaton shifted more towards mainstream ecumenical and theological evangelicalism where they are today. I think Dr. King would’ve been admitted to Wheaton in the 1940’s if he’d applied.

In 1951, when Dallas Theological Seminary was probed as to whether they would admit blacks, Woolverd responded by saying: that until recently in Texas, it was illegal for blacks to be admitted to all white schools, no blacks had applied to DTS, and if one did apply they would be considered on their merits, not their color of skin. In the early 1970’s as the culture shifted, DTS began aggressively recruiting African-Americans to its seminary.

Probably so. However, did Wheaton offer seminary degrees then? (I don’t believe they do now.) They have undergraduate & graduate degree programs, but not M.Div’s (or at that time likely B.Div’s), for example.

[Larry Nelson]

Joel Shaffer wrote:

Wheaton College, with its abolitionist history, has always admitted African-Americans since its inception. What people don’t realize is that Wheaton used to be quite conservative and almost became an approved organization of the GARBC in the 1940’s (because of Dr. Otis Fuller’s influence who was a Wheaton grad). In the 1950’s Wheaton shifted more towards mainstream ecumenical and theological evangelicalism where they are today. I think Dr. King would’ve been admitted to Wheaton in the 1940’s if he’d applied.

In 1951, when Dallas Theological Seminary was probed as to whether they would admit blacks, Woolverd responded by saying: that until recently in Texas, it was illegal for blacks to be admitted to all white schools, no blacks had applied to DTS, and if one did apply they would be considered on their merits, not their color of skin. In the early 1970’s as the culture shifted, DTS began aggressively recruiting African-Americans to its seminary.

Probably so. However, did Wheaton offer seminary degrees then? (I don’t believe they do now.) They have undergraduate & graduate degree programs, but not M.Div’s (or at that time likely B.Div’s), for example.

You are right about that…..