Christian Website Goes Ballistic Over my Column Dealing with Christianity Today and Martin Luther King!
My column, “Can Christianity Today and Chuck Colson Handle the Truth About MLK?” was totally on target, without error. In fact, almost all my charges were supported by King’s people in Atlanta, King’s very friendly biographer, King’s best friend, FBI tapes, etc. However, my column was politically incorrect. But then, I thought the media, especially Christian media, were interested in the truth. You know, we put it out there for public consumption and let the chips fall. That’s the way it used to be, but not today. However, it is disappointing, discouraging, and disastrous when Christians, like a recent critic, go weak, wimpy, and wobbly in face of the truth. I just had a Christian website publisher refuse to deal with the truth of my column or answer my charges.
An evangelical leader of a news website used his hatchet on my blonde scalp, not sure if he wanted to scalp me or decapitate me. Evidently he couldn’t handle the truth just like Christianity Today and Chuck Colson! Too bad, but I removed him from my master list and because of his diatribe, I have developed a way that will hopefully guarantee that he will not get back on.
I thought news websites would want to receive timely and controversial columns but evidently not so. However, I will answer his diatribe since he needs to read it; but he doesn’t have the guts or courage to reply in a sane, sensible, and scriptural way. Everyone knows you can’t defend the indefensible–-
You said that you could quote Scripture to answer me but please note that you did not. Then you intimated that I would not accept your answer unless it came from the KJV; however, you are wrong, but then, I suppose that happens often to you. Yes, I believe the KJV is inerrant, infallible, as well as inspired. (Remember when all Bible believers believed and used those terms?) That does not mean that I would not use many passages in other versions, especially since many verses are almost the same as the KJV. You probably don’t know, but many years ago many evangelists often preached a sermon from the Catholic Bible or the Jehovah Witness Bible, etc., and many people were saved from that preaching. Yes, there are some KJV people who would not do that but it was common in the past. So, you made a wrong assumption about me.
You sarcastically wrote, “I can never figure out just which version of the KJV you guys deem actually from God” suggesting a major difference in the revisions, but obviously you are uninformed. There were revisions done in 1629, 1638, 1762, and in 1769 that were, for the most part, correcting printing errors, using different fonts, updating spelling, and some modernizing of words that were obsolete. KJV haters often imply that there were major differences in the various early revisions, but that is untrue.
You characterized my column with a movie quote: “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I’ve ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul!” Now, I assume from that quote, that you did not like what I wrote. Too bad, you were not honest and competent enough to point out where I was wrong. But then you did not because you could not. If you could, you would or at least you should. Any moron knows that.
I haven’t been to a movie since 1951, so I had to research what movie you were quoting. Not being very fluent, you chose “Billy Madison,” a vulgar, vile, and vain movie, to express your distaste for my column and me. For sure, it was a little less than Shakespearean!
It seems my simple pleading for truth about Martin Luther King was more offensive than the movie’s vulgar dialogue! Were you indignant at such language in the movie? Did you walk out? Were any children with you? Were you embarrassed, even a little? Did you think of the statement Bible preachers used to make like, “Would you be embarrassed and ashamed if the rapture took place while you were there?” Oh, but maybe you don’t believe in the rapture, sorry for the assumption, but surely you believe in purity. Well, at least you believe in Hollywood!
It is obvious that you only have a little knowledge as is evidenced by your statement that we Fundamentalists think to “be separate” from the world means to attend an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. I’m a lifetime fundamental Baptist and I have never heard that before! Never! We do preach, as did the Apostle Paul (remember him?), that Christians are to be apart from the world. We should be Christian in our talk, our walk, our dress, our entertainment, our business, our family life and so on without being nuts. We are supposed to be peculiar (I Pet. 2:9) without being odd.
Is that a strange teaching? It may be for New Evangelicals but for those who are committed to the fundamentals of the Bible, it is normal Christian living.
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.