Who Was Martin Luther King?
He was not a second Christ nor even a prophet, although many considered him so. Because he was a martyr at an early age, an eloquent preacher, a teacher of love and non-violence, and a friend of the down-trodden, some likened him to Jesus Christ. At his funeral, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who obviously does not believe that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus, read this chapter with the plain implication that it fitted King! “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” But King was not a Christ; and long after King is forgotten, the prophets, who are in a unique class, will endure in men’s memories.
Neither was Martin Luther King a Communist, as so many have asserted, largely on the basis of a picture of him with some Communists. He may have been soft on Communism; he may have associated with too many Communists and been used by them; he may have ridiculously parroted their line on Vietnam—He said that America is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” and that “U.S. soldiers may have killed a million South Vietnamese civilians, mostly children”—but he came through loud and clear in his deep-seated opposition to the Communistic faith. In his only published book of sermons, Strength to Love (N. Y., 1964), he wrote: “Let me state clearly the basic premise of this sermon: Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. A true Christian cannot be a true Communist, for the two philosophies are antithetical and all the dialectics of the logicians cannot reconcile them” (p. 114). King then moves on to state three reasons why they are incompatible.
Nor was Martin Luther King a Christian. He called himself Christian, but he was not—if he believed what he wrote. For he repudiated the historic Christian faith. He was brought up in what he describes as “a rather strict fundamentalistic tradition” (Strength to Love, p. 165), but while in Crozer Theological School, he overthrew this faith. In the course of his intellectual journey, he rocked first toward the optimism of Liberalism and then toward the pessimism of neo-orthodoxy, as he characterizes them, finally settling down to “a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both” (p. 167). Such a hodgepodge of unbiblical untruths has nothing to do with historic Christianity. It is a false gospel that is no gospel at all.
But who was he? Martin Luther King was an American Gandhi. In his fight for the rights of the Negro, he opposed the methods of Rap Brown’s and Stokely Carmichael’s hate, violence and riots. He replaced them with love and forgiveness. While abhorring segregation, he professed love for the segregationist. Being accused by black militants of being too impractical, he replied: “My friends, we have followed the so-called practical way for too long a time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way” (p.48).
Although he was bitterly opposed by black militants, anti-Communists, and white racists, his message of justice for the deprived Negro through love and non-violence, coupled with a charismatic eloquence and magnetic leadership caused him to be received and encouraged by presidents, premiers, Pope Paul VI, educators (including those at the Free University of Amsterdam), politicians, labor leaders and the masses among the whites and blacks.
Because of the assassination of such a man, it is natural that there should have been a great ground swell of nigh idolatry towards him. But what a shame that, during the funeral that lasted so long and was watched and heard by so many millions, a Negro King was idolized to the complete neglect of the King of kings! What better time could the claims of the King of kings have been presented!
At the same time the Christian will not let his sympathy, heightened by the tragedy, gloss over the unbiblical aspects of King’s life and teachings. He will be keenly aware that a synthesis of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy can never provide an adequate basis for justice and liberty for all. Only the Bible can. The Christian can be grateful for the insights into justice that non-Christians have in virtue of God’s common grace, but he will also be aware that such insights lack a firm, solid, enduring foundation, since the Christian God and his Word are rejected.
Furthermore, the Christian will deplore King’s chief thesis of civil disobedience, remembering that the Bible never allows, either by example or teaching, citizens to disobey the laws of the government—even unjust laws that deprive men of their rights—unless obedience to such laws compels a man to sin.
As a matter of fact, it was exactly Kings insistence on lawlessness—being a law to himself, such as disobeying the court injunction against his Memphis march—that contributed toward a climate of disrespect for the law which allowed him to be felled by a sniper’s bullet.
Having deplored the assassination, having appreciated the strengths and weaknesses of King’s philosophy, the Christian must ask: Where do we go from here? Here are some suggestions:
1. The Christian must think through the Biblical demands on race relations so that he knows what God requires of him. He must have a better foundation than the sloppy sentimentalism of Modernism and the vulnerable humanism of the civil rights movements. An excellent place to begin is with the superb race relations reports of the Christian Reformed Church Synod and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod.
2. The Christian must do something concretely to alleviate the moral, economic, educational, psychological and social plight of the Negro. Here are four proposals:
a. Christians who live relatively close to Negroes can become personally active in both community and church programs that will alleviate his daily, earthy needs.
b. The diaconate, individually or collectively, can use their imagination to innovate Christian social programs that are rarely tried in church circles, such as counseling services. The diaconate is too often bogged down with the task of giving money to the sick and widows.
c. Christians can actively promote a Poverty Bill of Rights, patterned after the G.I. Bill of Rights. Such a bill would provide for the economically deprived the financial ability to send their children to any school, public or private, that would accept them. Overnight, voluntary integration would be accomplished to a great degree and the universally lauded objectives of integration gained. This is a radical proposal, but radical crises such as the U.S. is in demand radical solutions.
d. The Christian can press for a greater presentation of the gospel of Christ to the Negro through churches in the ghettos, mass evangelism and person-to-person contact. In the past, orthodox Christians have neglected the socioeconomic needs of the poor. Today, however, there is a real danger that with the increased awareness of the necessity of providing social services, the Christian will forget that the most potent force for good is the simple proclamation that Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior.
Thus, there is plenty for the Christian to do in the wake of King’s death and he must do it for the sake of the King of kings.
He was not a second Christ nor even a prophet, although many considered him so. Because he was a martyr at an early age, an eloquent preacher, a teacher of love and non-violence, and a friend of the down-trodden, some likened him to Jesus Christ. At his funeral, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, who obviously does not believe that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus, read this chapter with the plain implication that it fitted King! “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities.” But King was not a Christ; and long after King is forgotten, the prophets, who are in a unique class, will endure in men’s memories.
Neither was Martin Luther King a Communist, as so many have asserted, largely on the basis of a picture of him with some Communists. He may have been soft on Communism; he may have associated with too many Communists and been used by them; he may have ridiculously parroted their line on Vietnam—He said that America is “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” and that “U.S. soldiers may have killed a million South Vietnamese civilians, mostly children”—but he came through loud and clear in his deep-seated opposition to the Communistic faith. In his only published book of sermons, Strength to Love (N. Y., 1964), he wrote: “Let me state clearly the basic premise of this sermon: Communism and Christianity are fundamentally incompatible. A true Christian cannot be a true Communist, for the two philosophies are antithetical and all the dialectics of the logicians cannot reconcile them” (p. 114). King then moves on to state three reasons why they are incompatible.
Nor was Martin Luther King a Christian. He called himself Christian, but he was not—if he believed what he wrote. For he repudiated the historic Christian faith. He was brought up in what he describes as “a rather strict fundamentalistic tradition” (Strength to Love, p. 165), but while in Crozer Theological School, he overthrew this faith. In the course of his intellectual journey, he rocked first toward the optimism of Liberalism and then toward the pessimism of neo-orthodoxy, as he characterizes them, finally settling down to “a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both” (p. 167). Such a hodgepodge of unbiblical untruths has nothing to do with historic Christianity. It is a false gospel that is no gospel at all.
But who was he? Martin Luther King was an American Gandhi. In his fight for the rights of the Negro, he opposed the methods of Rap Brown’s and Stokely Carmichael’s hate, violence and riots. He replaced them with love and forgiveness. While abhorring segregation, he professed love for the segregationist. Being accused by black militants of being too impractical, he replied: “My friends, we have followed the so-called practical way for too long a time now, and it has led inexorably to deeper confusion and chaos. Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities which surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way” (p.48).
Although he was bitterly opposed by black militants, anti-Communists, and white racists, his message of justice for the deprived Negro through love and non-violence, coupled with a charismatic eloquence and magnetic leadership caused him to be received and encouraged by presidents, premiers, Pope Paul VI, educators (including those at the Free University of Amsterdam), politicians, labor leaders and the masses among the whites and blacks.
Because of the assassination of such a man, it is natural that there should have been a great ground swell of nigh idolatry towards him. But what a shame that, during the funeral that lasted so long and was watched and heard by so many millions, a Negro King was idolized to the complete neglect of the King of kings! What better time could the claims of the King of kings have been presented!
At the same time the Christian will not let his sympathy, heightened by the tragedy, gloss over the unbiblical aspects of King’s life and teachings. He will be keenly aware that a synthesis of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy can never provide an adequate basis for justice and liberty for all. Only the Bible can. The Christian can be grateful for the insights into justice that non-Christians have in virtue of God’s common grace, but he will also be aware that such insights lack a firm, solid, enduring foundation, since the Christian God and his Word are rejected.
Furthermore, the Christian will deplore King’s chief thesis of civil disobedience, remembering that the Bible never allows, either by example or teaching, citizens to disobey the laws of the government—even unjust laws that deprive men of their rights—unless obedience to such laws compels a man to sin.
As a matter of fact, it was exactly Kings insistence on lawlessness—being a law to himself, such as disobeying the court injunction against his Memphis march—that contributed toward a climate of disrespect for the law which allowed him to be felled by a sniper’s bullet.
Having deplored the assassination, having appreciated the strengths and weaknesses of King’s philosophy, the Christian must ask: Where do we go from here? Here are some suggestions:
1. The Christian must think through the Biblical demands on race relations so that he knows what God requires of him. He must have a better foundation than the sloppy sentimentalism of Modernism and the vulnerable humanism of the civil rights movements. An excellent place to begin is with the superb race relations reports of the Christian Reformed Church Synod and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod.
2. The Christian must do something concretely to alleviate the moral, economic, educational, psychological and social plight of the Negro. Here are four proposals:
a. Christians who live relatively close to Negroes can become personally active in both community and church programs that will alleviate his daily, earthy needs.
b. The diaconate, individually or collectively, can use their imagination to innovate Christian social programs that are rarely tried in church circles, such as counseling services. The diaconate is too often bogged down with the task of giving money to the sick and widows.
c. Christians can actively promote a Poverty Bill of Rights, patterned after the G.I. Bill of Rights. Such a bill would provide for the economically deprived the financial ability to send their children to any school, public or private, that would accept them. Overnight, voluntary integration would be accomplished to a great degree and the universally lauded objectives of integration gained. This is a radical proposal, but radical crises such as the U.S. is in demand radical solutions.
d. The Christian can press for a greater presentation of the gospel of Christ to the Negro through churches in the ghettos, mass evangelism and person-to-person contact. In the past, orthodox Christians have neglected the socioeconomic needs of the poor. Today, however, there is a real danger that with the increased awareness of the necessity of providing social services, the Christian will forget that the most potent force for good is the simple proclamation that Jesus is our Lord, God and Savior.
Thus, there is plenty for the Christian to do in the wake of King’s death and he must do it for the sake of the King of kings.