How do we know the snippets provided to disparage MLK Jr were not taken out of context or written to mesh with the viewpoints of those grading the paper. My quote is from a published sermon.
Because they are MLK's published explanations of his faith apart from his sermons and we can read the entire papers for ourselves.
We can certainly read his sermons and take rhem as we will, without truly considering the man's personal faith. But we could also listen to the man explain his meaning and come to a better (althogh unfortunate) understanding of the man's philosophy and focus.
This is only one example:
"All ideas, however profound or however naive, are produced by conditions and experiences that grow from the producers’ environment. . . .we shall discuss the experiences of early Christians which lead to three rather orthodox doctrines—the divine sonship of Jesus, the virgin birth, and the bodily resurrection. Each of these doctrines is enshrined in what is known as “the Apostles’ Creed.” . . . But in the minds of many sincere Christians this creed has planted a seed of confusion which has grown to an oak of doubt. They see this creed as incompatible with all scientific knowledge, and so they have proceeded to reject its content
But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable, yet we can never undermind the foundation on which they are based. . .
The Church called Jesus divine because they had found God in him. They could only identify him with the highest and best in the universe. It was this great experience with the historical Jesus that led the early Christians to see him as the divine son of God.
. . . all New Testament scholars agree that the word virgin is not found in the Hebrew original, but only in the Greek text which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for “young woman.” . . .
The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know: What experiences of early Christians lead to the formulation of the doctrine?
The root of our inquiry is found in the fact that the early Christians had lived with Jesus. They had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality. This basic experience led to the faith that he could never die. And so in the pre-scientific thought pattern of the first century, this inner faith took outward form. But it must be remembered that before the doctrine was formulated or the event recorded, the early Christians had had a lasting experience with the Christ. They had come to see that the essential note in the Fourth Gospel is the ultimate force in Christianity: The living, deathless person of Christ. They expressed this in terms of the outward, but it was an inner experience that lead to its expression."
"What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection"
