Graham swapped his commitment to truth for the bowl of porridge known as compromise that gave him an international bully pulpit. I think he failed and preached pabulum most of his illustrious life as the following facts clearly document.

I know many pastors and laymen who trusted Christ under Graham’s ministry; but that is not the criterion. Was he faithful in the work of the ministry? The answer is “no.” Graham showed some courage, especially in his younger days, when he removed the ropes that were to separate Blacks from Whites at his Chattanooga Crusade in 1953. But he believed that courage, convictions, and commitment to the Word were not as important as reaching the masses. He thought he had to give a little to get a lot. Surrendering Bible doctrine brought him much more than he expected.

He told the Lutheran Standard in a 1961 interview that water baptism can save a person! Dr. Graham said of infant baptism: “I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant …. I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christian through infant baptism.” That statement is not surprising since his own wife and three of his children were sprinkled, not baptized. However, surrendering on the subject of baptism brought him many new friends and supporters.

In an interview with McCall’s magazine, January 1978, entitled “I Can’t Play God Any More,” Graham said, “I used to believe that pagans in far-off countries were lost—were going to hell—if they did not have the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that. … I believe that there are other ways of recognizing the existence of God—through nature, for instance—and plenty of other opportunities, therefore, of saying ‘yes’ to God.” Graham’s defenders cannot plead his age or Parkinson’s disease. His statement is perversion of the Gospel and cannot be excused, defended, or ameliorated. His defenders need to ask themselves how they can still support him with that statement hanging around his neck. And would they support their local pastor if he said the same thing? I will ask all my critics to these columns those questions.

Christianity Today magazine came to Graham’s defense saying that he was misquoted; however later interviews substantiated the early remark and his staff was kept busy doing damage control and readjusting his halo so his followers would not be disenchanted, discouraged, and dissuaded from supporting his work.
I heard Graham say the following, “He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.” (May 31, 1997 interview with Graham by Robert Schuller with emphasis added.)

But it gets worser and worser! Graham continued, “I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.” He could not have made it any clearer: He believed in universalism and spouted it on television for the world to hear!

That statement is classic universalism that has been condemned by orthodox Christians for over 2,000 years. So, why does almost everyone dismiss Graham’s belief of it with the wave of the hand? That question must be answered by Graham’s supporters.

Graham’s major error was in changing his mind about whom he would work with in his city-wide crusades. He said, “I have promised God I will never have on my committee working in an active way in any of my campaigns men who do not believe in the virgin birth of Christ, who do not believe in the blood atonement of Jesus Christ, who do not believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible–these men will never be on my committee. I have promised God.” But he reneged.

I could take pages and prove that he had the most radical unbelievers on his committees as well as many Roman Catholic priests, sending convert cards to all of his supporting churches. Graham was sending new professing Christians to the wolves contrary to his earlier commitment. On Nov. 11, 1957, Graham told the San Francisco News, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meeting is seen later and referred to a local clergyman–Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.” Gasp!

Graham is known as “Mr. Facing Two Ways” reminiscent of John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. One day he had glowing praise for Bob Jones University, John Rice of the Sword of the Lord, etc., and the next he was climbing into bed with the most radical modernists in America. This supports the fact that compromise will usually take one farther than he wanted to go.

We are commanded to “earnestly contend for the faith” which I have tried to do. I have just climbed out on a limb and handed my critics a saw. They can do their worst.

Boys’ new ebook The Rise and Decline of Billy Graham: He Tried to do Right the Wrong Way! is available here.

In the late 40s, pastors who rejected strict Bible teaching associated with other pastors of the same opinion and began to disavow the term, “Fundamentalist.” Some felt fundamentalism was a term of honor, but others decided it had become an embarrassment. These men, given the New Evangelical label, went their own way, started their own schools and journals, and moved to the top of Mount Olympus away from uncouth Fundamentalists. It started in 1947 with Carl F. Henry’s book, The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism which strongly criticized Fundamentalist separation from unbelievers, so Evangelicals separated from Fundamentalists!

Soft Fundamentalists, called “New Evangelicals,” got as uncomfortable as a dog in hot ashes when preachers or authors demanded separation from the world and from religious unbelief. Fundamentalists taught, “Come on out” while the New Evangelicals taught, “Stay in and fight.” Two problems with that: it is disobedience to the Word and they didn’t do any fighting. They talked but refused to fight. Compromising Evangelicals seldom barked and never bit anyone. Most Evangelical leaders are not toothless but they are spineless.

Dr. Harold Ockenga started the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1947 as dissatisfaction was simmering throughout fundamental churches. Desiring to be known as “intellectuals,” New Evangelicals ended up with pseudo-intellectualism. They started Fuller Seminary taking the name and reputation of old time Fundamentalist Charles E. Fuller; however, the seminary was a poor imitation of historic Christianity. It is even more so today.

R.C. Sproul, Jr. (himself an Evangelical) said that an Evangelical is a Fundamentalist who wants the respect of Modernists, and sells his soul to get it. Some wags would say that Evangelicals are better at selling souls than saving souls. Sproul added, “We evangelicals are they who cut this deal with the Modernists, ‘We will call you brother, if you will call us scholar.’” Ah, yes, “scholar.” That is the driving desire of most Evangelicals–intellectual respectability.

Sometimes, the strict Fundamentalists were not very intellectual plus they sometimes wore shiny vinyl shoes and white socks with a blue suit and clip-on tie! Gasp! We were told that the alleged anti-intellectualism of Fundamentalists made it impossible to win Modernist preachers; however, the problem with the Modernist was not his self-professed intellectualism but his unspoken, unacknowledged, and unconfessed sin. This intellectualism argument is one of the main strings Evangelicals pluck ad nauseam and it smacks of arrogance and elitism.

Evangelical leader Billy Graham hit the big time in his Los Angeles Tent Crusade in 1949. In 1956, Graham, his father-in-law Nelson Bell, and Harold Ockenga started the magazine Christianity Today. Since that time, CT has been the obedient and reliable mouthpiece for loosey-goosey Evangelicalism.

Graham was the most successful promoter of “ecumenical evangelism” or “cooperative evangelism.” Few Fundamentalists would object to cooperative evangelism but see compromise, compliance, and corruption in ecumenical evangelism. Billy Graham, in order to reach the masses, decided that he would cooperate with unbelieving religious leaders, contrary to his former assurances to Bob Jones, John R. Rice, William B. Riley and others. He decided that he would preach anywhere under any sponsorship as long as there were no strings attached. At first blush that may sound noble and desirable but it is the anteroom to compromise.

After 1949, in Graham’s crusades the leading unbelieving pastors were in control, making decisions, leading in prayer, while the few Fundamentalists sat in the shadows. Often Billy sneered at Fundamentalists and refused to be called one, although it is a fact that Fundamentalists educated him and gave him his start in evangelism.

Thousands of times, Fundamentalist pastors in various cities served faithfully preaching the Word, and then Graham came to town insisting on cooperating with unbelieving religious leaders for his crusade. That compromise is the most visible difference in fundamentalism and evangelicalism. It is a fact that many Christians who defend Graham would never put up with their pastor calling lost pastors, even Catholic priests, their brothers and recommending their work.

One can discuss and debate whether ecumenical evangelism is scriptural or not but if II John 10-11 is right then such compromise is sinful. However, it is not debatable that Graham has colluded and compromised, but has never challenged unbelievers who supported his crusades. His cooperation with these pastors endorsed their false ministries. The fact that some people trusted Christ in the crusades is no justification for clear disobedience to Scripture.

I have often noticed the defensive, defiant, and distasteful attitude that many Evangelicals have toward Fundamentalists. Not sure, but I think they are guilt-ridden over their cowardice in facing the truth and making amends for a lifetime of compromise. I invite the guilt-stricken Evangelicals to “come home” to the roots of their fathers. All will be forgiven and I for one will personally kill, dress, and barbeque the fatted calf, wash off the stink of the pigpen, put a ring on their finger, shoes on their feet and may even dance a jig (solo, of course) upon their return.

The split should not have happened in midcentury and the breach can be healed. The last sixty plus years were summed up by R. C. Sproul, Jr. in “Our Fundamentalist Betters.” “The fundamentalists of the last century were laughed at and scorned. And for that they earned the praise of Jesus. May we find the courage not only to affirm the fundamentals, but may we be given a double portion of the spirit of the fundamentalists. They fought the good fight, while we collaborated. They kept the faith, while we merely kept our positions in our communities. May we learn to fear no man, and to fear God. For such is the beginning of wisdom.”

That says it all.

Those who are Bible-oriented and Bible-directed have problems with her chosen life of perversion. Yes, I could have been less direct and offensive but some slow readers would not have comprehended my message which is Bible-sourced in Rom. 1:26: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.” The Bible teaches that when a person comes to Christ, he or she is a new person. Old things pass away and everything becomes new. New includes a bed partner of the opposite sex to whom one has made a lifetime commitment in marriage, or no bed partner.

From my limited reading about her, she seems to be very sincere and very dedicated to helping the displaced, the discouraged, and the diseased. All very commendable, but the social gospel (where social work is emphasized and the true Gospel is eliminated) has never worked, is not working now, and will never work. It will serve some helpless, hopeless, and hapless people but such activities did not take my grandmother or “Mother” Teresa to Heaven and good works won’t help Sara.

That said, my big concern is her “conversion” experience. Now, all conversion experiences are not identical; however there are some common denominators: the risen Christ; the Word of God; repentance; and belief. It doesn’t have to be in church with an organ playing and the choir singing “Just as I am” but it does have to be a New Birth experience. If not, there is no conversion. Sara gives no indication of such a Bible experience. In fact, she said that “Salvation is not an experience; it is a journey.” False! The New Birth is comparable to the physical birth and all birth certificates have a name, place, time, and parents listed. Rather definite like the New Birth. Both births are the starting point of a new life.

Sara wrote, “Eating Jesus, as I did that day to my great astonishment, led me against all my expectations to a faith I’d scorned and work I’d never imagined. The mysterious sacrament turned out to be not a symbolic wafer but actual food—indeed, the bread of life.” What a twisted understanding of the Gospel. There is no salvation in a ritual. It is the old Roman Catholic heresy of the bread and wine actually becoming the body of Christ. A reviewer of Sara’s book, Take this Bread: A Radical Conversion, wrote, “But she ate a piece of bread, took a sip of wine, and found herself radically transformed.” Afraid not. She became a doer of good but that is not salvation. Good works proceed from the New Birth; they do not produce the New Birth.

In The Jesus Freak: Feeding Healing Raising the Dead (Rob Bell said: “one of the most inspiring books I’ve ever read.”) she writes, “that Jesus has given us the power to be Jesus.” No, He gives us power to live so that we remind people of Him. Such godly living would determine our sleeping arrangements. Christians cannot become “little gods” or “human Christs.” Such teaching is heresy. Sara continues her heresy when she wrote: “You have the authority to forgive sins. Raise the dead.” No, that is not true. No human can forgive sins, only God does that. Additionally, Christ gave authority to the Apostles that He did not give to other followers. And none of her Episcopal or Catholic fiends are raising the dead either.

She compares John the Baptist (calling him a “nutcase”) to an unwashed guy with “skanky dreadlocks” sleeping at the library entrance. She shows no understanding or appreciation for the local church that Christ died for.

One reviewer wrote, “Sara Miles shows genuine transformation and her life has clearly been changed. Repentance in the Bible is often NOT about contrition but about ‘metanoia’ which means ‘to live in a new direction.’ Miles seems to display this in clear and meaningful ways as a part of her conversion and encounter with Christ.” The shallowness is appalling. Yes, there was a change in her life. She stopped being an atheist but that commendable change did not make her a Christian. When a person becomes a Christian, change follows that experience.

Furthermore, the reviewer’s differentiation between repentance and contrition is bogus. Paul clearly wrote in II Cor. 7:10 “For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation.” Repentance is a change of mind and heart that results in a reverse of direction. It means “to change one’s mind, repent, a fundamental change of character.”

Christianity Today, in a review, was unable to be judgmental about Sara’s conversion and her subsequent lifestyle; however, it can be very judgmental about Fundamentalists! It reported, “Miles became pregnant. She and the father, Bob, another journalist, settled in San Francisco, where their daughter Katie was born. Here Miles’s life took on a new domesticity, rooted in one place. Bob, ‘who had come out as a gay man,’ lived nearby. And Miles and Katie…began to share their home with Martha, an editor with whom Miles had fallen in love.”

The review continues, “But it would be a shame if such lapses kept evangelicals from reading Miles, who has no doubt been at the receiving end of plenty of caricatures (not least, the preposterous claim that living arrangements such as hers constitute a great threat to ‘the family’).” Yeah, a real shame.

So, Christianity Today recommends her books and even defends her lesbianism (although characterizing such as “lapses”) saying it is “preposterous” that such a life could be a threat to “the family.” I wonder if the magazine could muster up enough courage to declare that such a life is not conducive to a normal, Christian family? Does the magazine recommend that homosexuality be accepted and recognized as normal? Just asking.

Maybe someday CT will acquire enough biblical certainty, courage, convictions, and candor to make a judgment about sin even if it agitates, angers and alienates their subscribers.

In 2010, a survey of U.S. pastors found Stanley to be the 10th most influential living preacher. In January of 2009, he was one of the speakers at the National Prayer Service following Obama’s first Inauguration. In January of this year, he spoke at the pre-inauguration service attended by Obama, Biden, the cabinet and some members of congress and all their family members.

During his 12-minute message Andy called Obama the “Pastor-in-Chief” for speaking to each family individually following the Sandy Hook murder spree. I think Andy was wrong, maybe sincere, but wrong in both accepting the invitation and praising Obama as “Pastor-in-Chief.” This was an Episcopal service which also had two rabbis attending. He did not “ring the bell” as preachers say.

He said that he purposely chose to speak from the New Testament and not succumb to the temptation of “staying away from Jesus.” For that he is to be commended; however, he chose to speak on Christ washing the Disciples’ feet in John 13. He then said that Jesus was saying, “This is what you’re supposed to do for each other.” Good point; however, the leaders he spoke too had not professed to being born again Christians! There was no proper application to them.

Mark Galli, editor of Christianity Today, asked Stanley if he was not endorsing Obama’s views by preaching at that service. Andy said that if Christ had been fearful of guilt by association, He would not have come to earth. He added, “So I do not make decisions based on guilt by association. I grew up in a culture that was all about that.” Like many New Evangelicals, Andy took the opportunity to take a swat at his Fundamentalist background. However, he is wrong. The Fundamentalist culture is not “all about that.” Committed Christians are concerned about associations as well as actions and affirmations.

Furthermore, he is wrong about guilt by association. If you wallow with dogs, you will get up with fleas–scratching. Solomon warned in Proverbs 2:20, “That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous.” We are not to shun evil men but never give them any support in their evil words, works, or ways. Solomon should have heeded his own warning.

Andy said he would refuse to pray at a bill signing that was contrary to biblical principles but not for something as general as the Inauguration. He added, “I have people in my congregation who have far more disturbing views than he does. I preach to them every week!” Andy is a better thinker than that. He knows there is a massive difference in his giving his stamp of approval at the political event and his preaching to people who have walked into his church!

Stanley makes the same mistake other religious leaders make. Our major responsibility is not to reach people with the message of Christ, as important as that is, but we are to do right in all matters, even if we reach no one. Serving Christ is not about crowds, cash, or converts. It is about obedience–doing right even when no one understands or tries to understand.

I wonder if Andy would have spoken or prayed at the wedding of King Herod whose daddy was the infamous Baby Butcher of Bethlehem. There was a “little” problem in that Herod had divorced his wife and taken his half-brother’s former wife. What a mess. But it was a big chance to reach people for Christ. However, I’m sure John the Baptist was absent that day. In fact, he would not have been invited since everyone knew he taught the truth.

No doubt, many preachers would have numbed their consciences and been thrilled to “give the invocation” for the occasion. Mark 6:20 reveals, “For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.” It is obvious that King Herod had some connections with John, even doing “many things” and was pleased to hear him preach. But like many men, he did not listen and obey the message he heard.

Herod had taken his brother’s wife and was living in adultery. John, not interested in climbing the clergy ladder, told him it was sinful. Not a good career move. At Herod’s birthday party (no Baptist preachers were there; although John was nearby–in prison), Salome did her lewd, seductive dance and Herod promised her anything she wanted. Having been prompted by her wicked mother, she asked for John’s head. She got it. And John got his ticket stamped for Heaven. Herod chose to decapitate John rather than displease his wife.

No, Andy Stanley and similar preachers are not in the mold of Elijah, Ezekiel, or John. Those prophets were addicted to truth, and did not try to walk a tightrope between right and wrong. They could not be bought. They were able to say “no’ to evil and “yes” to God. No doubt they would have challenged modern politicians by name to forsake wickedness, adultery, perversion, and lying.

Most preachers today don’t say yes or no, thereby not making anyone angry. They have developed a new word that means anything to everyone: Yo.

You really hit bottom when you suggested that fundamental Baptists, as a group, have “pride (and lust from the pride) has created a culture of sexual abuse, anxiety disorders, and a bunch of bible-beating no-knowers because they can’t understand what they are reading because pastors like you are filling their heads with nonsense and man-made doctrines.” You suggested I was a Bible beater or Bible thumper. Here, I must confess that I have, well, it’s difficult to admit but I have thumped my Bible a few times. Not often and not really hard, but I’m guilty. But what does that have to do with truth? Note that you did not offer any examples of “nonsense” or “man-made doctrines.”

You suggested that fundamental Baptists have a systemic problem of sexual abuse, etc., but surely you can’t be that uneducated, unfair, and unreasonable. But, then, maybe so. There is no question that we have our share of adulterers, pedophiles, thieves, and arrogant nuts in our group, but do you want to go tit for tat? I can do so if you want. I have publicly “called out” some of those offending preachers who were friends of mine! Have you ever done that with some of your New Evangelical friends who went astray?

New Evangelicals who only read Christianity Today border on heresy or at least a loosey goosey doctrine (and lifestyle), and they have their share of preachers with zipper trouble. I could start with the former head of the NAE and go on and on. If you were honest, you would admit that all groups have similar problems. Most of the problems would be solved if those men trusted Christ as Savior. They often preach a salvation to others that they have not themselves experienced. It is a tragedy that men, who call others to drink from the water of life, have never drunk themselves and have, instead, muddied the well.

You said that you have “gotten off [my] list a few times.” How many times? Once, twice, thrice, how many? I think maybe you are a little disingenuous if not dishonest. You mentioned that I should have a way for people to get off my list, and you are right. I have that option for my large Preachers List, but I thought that media sources such as yours would want to know the opinions of fundamental journalists like myself. I guess I was wrong. Evidently, you don’t want to hear truth from any source that might challenge your loosey-goosey theological position.

However, your diatribe was somewhat successful in that I will add an option for removal from the mailing list for my columns. There, you see, Fundamentalists can be corrected and move on up to a higher level. But, of course, we will never be able to reach the heights of leading New Evangelicals. But there is a price you will have to pay: You will no longer be privy to my lofty musings, religious ruminating, and soaring flights of purple prose, or my arguments, assumptions, afterthoughts, and appraisals of daily affairs. Too bad.

Moreover, you will not be permitted to read my already-finished columns dealing with Billy Graham (6), Nelson Mandela (4), the church-health care issue (2), Muslim columns (3), higher education series (4), Stupid Statements by Stupid People, Grandmother Sleeps with 900 Men, and my correction of a black liberal columnist for Cox Newspapers (4). I am saddened at your loss. You are really a loser.

As I think about your loss, I realize that you can access those columns by going to my blog! You can do it late at night when no one will ever know how you are playing with fire by reading the works of a Fundamentalist! Just punch in at the top of your computer screen the following: http://donboys.cstnews.com. Those are the magic letters that will open an incredible door of facts, faith, fun, and fellowship for you and no one will know about it! I don’t expect you to change your thinking but you will have some interesting nights of teeth gnashing and grinding.

You had the gall to write, “I tried my best to limit my response in a Godly and loving way but it is hard when you keep sending me such foolishness. I don’t believe it would have mattered if I said it softly and tenderly to you. It is called a harsh rebuke for a reason.” No, a “Godly and loving way” would have been for you to give me credit, as a Christian, for being sincere in writing a column that might help some uninformed people and to also point out error. Then you would have pointed out my mistakes, one by one, so that I would be forced to admit a sloppy job of research. Then you would have challenged me to face the fact of my honest mistakes, repent of those mistakes of carelessness, then print a retraction for libeling innocent men. Then, you and I would be friends for a lifetime. You chose not to do so because you could not do so.

But you did not do the Christian thing and try to help me. You did not point out my “foolishness.” You sent me a “harsh rebuke” because you looked into the mirror and saw a hypocrite who refuses to face the truth and do something about it. You are like many New Evangelicals who are guilt-ridden for repudiating their Fundamentalist background, education, and parents, while delighting in pointing out the warts, blemishes, and scars on fundamentalism.

You closed by asking if I am “really helping the Kingdom of God? Do you really think this strengthens people to ‘love’?” The issue goes back to, “Did I tell the truth?” If I did, then Christianity Today and Chuck Colson looking at the issue honestly would be forced to admit their error regarding King and admit the truth of my position. You see, the historical record is important. What people, especially Christians, believe is important. To permit people to believe that King was a dedicated Christian worthy of emulation would be dishonest, and could be detrimental and disastrous.

Sir Winston Churchill said, “Once in a while a man will stumble over the truth. But most will quickly jump up, brush himself off and hurry on as though he had seen nothing.” You didn’t even brush yourself off.

[Boys new eBook, Martin Luther King Jr.: Judged by His Character, Not His Color! Is now available for $3.99 at Amazon.com.]

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.

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.)