I read the June issue of Christianity Today with some pleasure after filtering out the New Evangelical drivel that is often spouted on various pages. As an Independent Baptist Fundamentalist who advocates “responsible, biblical militancy,” I would obviously disagree with the loosey-goosey theology, lack of ecclesiastical separation, lack of promotion of godly living, etc.
However, I was dismayed to read in the column, “Civility Under Fire” by Colson and George a reference to MLK, Jr. that needs to challenged. Evangelicals speak and write about civility and usually practice it with unbelievers and fellow Evangelicals, but often are most unkind, unfair, and uncivil when dealing with Fundamentalists. After all, tolerance only goes so far!
I totally agree with the general thrust of the article and I think every Fundamentalist needs to be seriously aware of our tendency to be “quick on the draw” during our debates and discussions. We often use a metaphorical shotgun when a BB gun will do the job. After all, while we don’t like the loosey-goosey theology of most Evangelicals and don’t like the unscriptural soft position taken on most issues, we are dealing with family. As a member of the same family I call to your attention a bad mistake in the column that uses MLK, Jr. as an example for the rest of us.
The statement regarding MLK that “His [MLK, Jr.] response reflected his deeply held Christian convictions” must be challenged. While some good resulted from King’s activities, it is a major mishandling of English and the Scripture to characterize him as a Christian. King himself was outspoken in supporting his unbelief. Many of his papers written while at Crozer are replete with evidence of his unbelief especially in the validity of the Old Testament, the Virgin Birth, Christ’s atoning work on the cross, His physical resurrection, and His deity. One is not a believer if he does not believe!
King wrote, “First we may say that any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the truimph [sic] of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death, and Satan is inadequate.” He added that to transfer guilt and punishment to another is bizarre. He goes on: “Moreover, no person can morally be punished in place of another. Such ideas as ethical and penal substitution become immoral.” No, King’s ideas are repugnant to any informed, sensitive believer and the early church fathers would have marked him as a heretic. Surely no informed person of any denominational persuasion would challenge my statement. For sure, no church historian would disagree with that assessment.
In my 33-page report, “Martin Luther King, Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color!” I document many other statements by King that prove his unbelief. Most of my information came from King’s people in Atlanta; David J. Garrow, King’s very friendly biographer; his “best friend” Ralph Abernathy; and others. The report is available at Amazon.com.
If this information is correct, how can any Evangelical call King a Christian? If I am incorrect then surely a brother in Christ will correct me in love. It will be interesting to see what Christianity Today and the authors of the page will do with this information. May I suggest that they may (1) thank me for the new information, followed by a correction in the next issue. (2) Or turn their guns on me! You know how it goes: You are a hater, a bigot. You are a legalist. You are jealous. You have mental problems, and on and on. (3) Or until you have accomplished as much as King, you have no right to criticize. (4) King’s work was so important, it is not profitable to detract from it to deal with peccadillos that everyone has. (5) Or ignore my information. My guess is it will be the latter. [It was!]
People with integrity are committed to truth at whatever cost. The truth is that King was an admitted adulterer, a critic and non-believer in the veracity of the Old and New Testaments, and a prodigious plagiarizer (including his “I have a Dream” speech and many of his books and term papers).
Furthermore, at the least he was soft on Communists having hired many of them and their fellow travelers to man his offices. Most importantly, never did he use his position in the media to challenge people to repent of sin and place faith in Jesus Christ. (Neither have Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton.)
King often spoke of love, peace, justice, fairness, equality, etc., and while all that is commendable, not one or all together trump the truth. Without truth, all you have is a cult.
Can Christianity Today, Colson and George handle the truth about Martin Luther King, Jr.? We shall see. (Colson is now deceased.)
Fact, Fraud or Faith?
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.