When he was 34 years old, married and with four children, one of them five days old; Martin Luther King was imprisoned for his non-violent opposition against racial segregation: "There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. . . . But the judgment of God is upon the church [today] as never before. If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the 20th century." (Letter, p. 17)Read his powerful words that have inspired and infuriated so many - Letter from Birmingham jail
Comments
Reading your blog and your recent postings pertaining on Emergent Malaysia about the need to demarcate certain core truths in order for one to be distinguished as distinctly a Christian, I would like to ask what do you think of Dr. Martin Luther King's beliefs that are not in vogue with Evangelical positions?
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol2/530515-A_Comparison_and_Evaluation_of_the_Theology_of_Luther.htm
We have someone who denied the ontological deity of Christ and the Incarnation (hence non-Trinitarian) and the substitutionary atonement of Christ, penal substitution, etc.,
He would prefer a more governmental/moral theory of the atonement and thus denied man's deadness in sin.
I believe he also opposed the sovereignty of God and the concept of an eternal decree.
In your view, was Martin Luther a Christian?
Having said tat, to the degree that the incarnation is denied in MLK's theology, it ought be viewed as heterodox. Yet we cannot be too quick to jump into conclusions tat one is therefore not saved etc
there is always the possibility of "happy inconsistency". Someone may live with Christ as Lord and God of their lives, without being able to articulate consistently a trinitarian theology. I mean, how many teenagers in our youth groups cud explain Trinity to their Tawheedian friends in school?? hehe
It wud be the same kind of difficult question if one is to ask whether Jonathan Edwards is a Christian because while holding a trinitarian and penal atonement theology, nevertheless defended slavery and opposed slave trade!!
This is a complex issue, and I found helpful this excerpt from the online book God Entranced View Of All Things...
Pastor Jones, an African American pastor commented that, “the challenge of the African American within the Reformed context is
that we are called to embrace the theology of our oppressors and to
reject the theology of our liberators.”
The article by Sherard Burns goes on: "This means that the odd and
ironic position of the African American who seeks to be shaped by
orthodox theology must reject, in many respects, the theology of a
Martin Luther King, Jr., and embrace the theology of a Jonathan
Edwards or Robert Dabney. While I admire Dr. King for his work and
efforts in fighting for the freedom of African Americans in this country (my freedom), I am not hesitant to note that he will not offer much help in theological precision. While, on the other hand, Edwards never held the mantle as social liberator, his theology will saturate a man in
orthodoxy".
Lest we be too harsh on these men's inconsistency, a lesson we cud perhaps glean here is if these great men cud fail to be more consistent in their social practice with their theology is to be more aware of OUR OWN inconsistencies as Christians...
How does tat work out in racial harmony and reconciliation in a diverse and pluralistic Malaysia?? Are we consistent with our proclaimed trinitarian position which says there is 'diversity in unity' within the Godhead?
And to the degree we fail, are we really worthy of the name "christian" too?
Just some thots...
As far as MLK believed that man could perform a "saving good" (not just "good", of which there is plenty, all of which should be celebrated as part of common grace), he was flat out wrong. As far as he strove to encourage godly goodness in men (and suggest nothing more than the biblical fact that God loves what is good), he was absolutely right.
A lot of people confuse "common grace" with "saving grace"... In common grace, God gives rain to all and sundry, all humans have conscience and rationality, image of God marred but intact in them but that doesn't mean all of them are saved. All have sinned and did not give the glory due to God.
It is simply wrong-headed to hear christians say that non-Christians 'reflect Jesus' in their lifestyle, when they wud attribute it to the teachings or inspiration from Buddha, confucius, Sai baba etc.
Saying tat is dishonest, it doesn't take the particularity of the others seriously by imposing a totalitarian system on them, which they wud deny. It also confuses common grace with saving grace.