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.)