Was MLK Jr. a Christian?

[JonC]

The fb0 did slander him badly. Just like Trump.

They did, I agree.

BUT we are not talking about the FBI. We ate talking about MLK Jr.'s explanations of his faith.

He preached the empty tomb and undying Christ. But he explained this (apart from the pulpit) as outward expressions of inner experiences.

Those ho followed Christ eorehis death were drawn to his personality. They found God (this higher ethical existance...good conquering evil) in Christ. When Jesus died this truth (this "god") lived on in them rather than dying with Christ.

MLK's explanations is that in a pre-scientific age these inner experiences found an outward expression in the myth of a bodily resurrection, virgin birth, and divine Christ.

But if you strip away what we know is false (the supernatural) you arrive at the foundation. The grave was empty (the ethical philosophy of Jesus did not die with the man).

I'm sorry, but that is NOT Christianity any more than the Jefferson Bible is Christian.

 

[AustinC]

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.

Read the entire letter to the Birmingham Jail, Van. Read his dissertation.

"The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus"

 

[Baptist Believer]

I understand liberal Christianity, and I don't believe liberal Christians to be any less Christian than I.

But there is a difference between liberal Christian and non-Christian.

I think you are using the more common view of "liberalism" that is popularly and poorly defined according to social positions (role of women, acceptance of LGBTQ+ persons, and an emphasis on the social/political ramifications of the gospel). However, classical liberalism (of the type popular when MLK was in seminary) rejected the resurrection of Jesus, the divinity of Jesus, historicity of the content of the Gospels, and the virgin birth of Jesus. So MLK was writing papers consistent with the mainstream of classical liberalism in seminary.

The most well-known holdover of classical liberalism is the example of the conclusions of The Jesus Seminar from a few decades ago.

 

[JonC]

I think you are using the more common view of "liberalism" that is popularly and poorly defined according to social positions (role of women, acceptance of LGBTQ+ persons, and an emphasis on the social/political ramifications of the gospel). However, classical liberalism (of the type popular when MLK was in seminary) rejected the resurrection of Jesus, the divinity of Jesus, historicity of the content of the Gospels, and the virgin birth of Jesus. So MLK was writing papers consistent with the mainstream of classical liberalism in seminary.

The most well-known holdover of classical liberalism is the example of the conclusions of The Jesus Seminar from a few decades ago.

With liberal Christian, yes, I was speaking of liberal Christianity. With MLK I was referring to "historical Jesus" as later used by the Jesus Seminar.

 

[Silverhair]

Regarding Christ, MLK Jr. rejected:

1. The virgin birth
2. The divinity of Christ
3. The bodily resurrection of Christ
4. The doctrine of the Trinity
5. A supernatural salvation

If these were the opinions of MLK when he died then one would have to say that NO he was not a Christian. These are core beliefs that all Christians must hold.

 

[Conan]

Regarding Christ, MLK Jr. rejected:

1. The virgin birth
2. The divinity of Christ
3. The bodily resurrection of Christ
4. The doctrine of the Trinity
5. A supernatural salvation

If these were the opinions of MLK when he died then one would have to say that NO he was not a Christian. These are core beliefs that all Christians must hold.

We cannot go by just hearsay. The man was under attack from many sides and many powerful factions.

 

[JonC]

We cannot go by just hearsay. The man was under attack from many sides and many powerful factions.

What hearsay?

MLK wrote several times what he believed. We know what he believed.

If any member here claimed to believe what MLK wrote (several times) that he believed they would be denounced as non-Christian.

Christians have a bad habit of "Christianizing" men who have done great things.

 

[Silverhair]

We cannot go by just hearsay. The man was under attack from many sides and many powerful factions.

Did you read what I wrote? Your response would say you did not.

 

[Van]

Read the entire letter to the Birmingham Jail, Van. Read his dissertation.

"The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus"

The link was submitted to be graded. How do we know the views were not set forth to mesh with the grader rather than reflective of his actual understanding? But we can rely upon his sermons and letters.

 

[Van]

This is a good snippet. In MLK Jr.'s Easter sermon he hits these points. It is good vs evil, and Easter coming to race relations.

MLK Jr. declared the grave empty. He explained that this is empty of the ideas proclaimed - that the gospel did not die with Jesus but rose and lives.

The question is why we dismiss MKL Jr.'s own explanation in favor of how we may take his words as orthodox when we would quickly dismiss tge pastor of somebody else.

As I said before, let's not take a paper submitted for a grade to be reflective of his actual view, as such submissions must reflect the viewpoint of the grader to be successful. Rather we should rely upon his sermons and letters.

 

[JonC]

As I said before, let's not take a paper submitted for a grade to be reflective of his actual view, as such submissions must reflect the viewpoint of the grader to be successful. Rather we should rely upon his sermons and letters.

It isn't. It is a seminary paper expressing his beliefs and letters as a civil rights leader.

For example, his Letter from a Birmingham Jail continues the discussion of Jesus' "God consciousness".

Elsewhere MLK wrote "We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. . . . The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate."

In his "Christian Theology for Today" MLK identified Gandhi as an individual who greatly reveals the working of the Spirit of God.


I understand that to you that may be within our faith. But to me, it is not.

 

[Van]

It isn't. It is a seminary paper expressing his beliefs and letters as a civil rights leader.

For example, his Letter from a Birmingham Jail continues the discussion of Jesus' "God consciousness".

Elsewhere MLK wrote "We may find the divinity of Christ not in his substantial unity with God, but in his filial consciousness and in his unique dependence upon God. . . . The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate."

In his "Christian Theology for Today" MLK identified Gandhi as an individual who greatly reveals the working of the Spirit of God.


I understand that to you that may be within our faith. But to me, it is not.

I am not defending your characterization of the view, I am saying papers submitted for a grade (near a B in this case) cannot be used to prove more than he wrote it, and not that he believed it. Can you imagine what grade I would get if I submitted a paper to you that you thought was wrong?

Please copy and paste the paragraph in the Letter from Birmingham Jail that covers "God consciousness."

 

[JonC]

I am not defending your characterization of the view, I am saying papers submitted for a grade (near a B in this case) cannot be used to prove more than he wrote it, and not that he believed it. Can you imagine what grade I would get if I submitted a paper to you that you thought was wrong?

If you submitted a theological paper to me that I thought was wrong but adequately presented your belief it would have no bearing on your grade.

Regardless, MLK could have recanted rather than reemphasize his previous stated belief.

It may be more fair to say MLK was influenced by a liberal college than to say he lied to get a passing grade.

 

[Van]

To be a "Christian" a person must have been born anew, not must hold all the right views.

 

[JonC]

To be a "Christian" a person must have been born anew, not must hold all the right views.

I agree to an extent.

Where we disagree is that I believe to reject Christ's divinity (or to redefine Christ's divinity as Jesus having a God consciousness as MLK expounded upon in his seminary paper and reaffirmed briefly in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail) excludes one from being a Christian.

We also disagree in that I believe redefining Christ's resurrection as Jesus' philosophy living on after His death is non-Christian.

I agree rejecting the Virgin Birth may not indicate a lost state.

But the other two do (the last one rejects Paul's definition).

 

[JonC]

We can put this I'm perspective by looking at other men who did great things but were not by definition Christian.

Like MLK, Thomas Jefferson allowed, with some failures, the moral teachings of Christ to affect his life. He also lived by a "Christian" philosophy that he adapted to his purpose in life. But he also denied the supernatural. Like MLK, he viewed Christ's bodily resurrection and divinity as a myth established after Christ's earthly ministry to outwardly make sense of a philosophy that did not fit the culture contemporary to its authorship.

I'd say Jefferson, like MLK, was not a Christian. It does matter what people believe.

Like MLK, Mahatma Gandhi fought for civil rights and non-violence. And he was also influenced by the teachings of Christ (among other religious texts). Like MLK, Gandhi did not view Christ as offering supernatural salvation. He did not view Christ as God.

I'd say Gandhi was not a Christian.

We can say being born anew is necessary. We all agree on that. But Christians also have a set of Christian beliefs that MLK, Jefferson, and Gandhi lacked.

We should not cheapen our faith to be inclusive of men who made great strides in this world.

When we do, we exchange the gospel of Jesus Christ for a social gospel.

 

[atpollard]

probably not a Christian.

 

[percho]

To be a "Christian" a person must have been born anew, not must hold all the right views.

Or

And ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God doth dwell in you; and if any one hath not the Spirit of Christ -- this one is not His;

 

[Van]

I agree to an extent.

Where we disagree is that I believe to reject Christ's divinity (or to redefine Christ's divinity as Jesus having a God consciousness as MLK expounded upon in his seminary paper and reaffirmed briefly in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail) excludes one from being a Christian.

We also disagree in that I believe redefining Christ's resurrection as Jesus' philosophy living on after His death is non-Christian.

I agree rejecting the Virgin Birth may not indicate a lost state.

But the other two do (the last one rejects Paul's definition).

I questioned whether MLK Jr believed what he wrote to get a grade, I did not suggest our faith must not include basic truths.
I asked for and did not get the paragraph of his letter that reaffirmed Christ's "God consciousness."

 

[Van]

It is certainly true that a non-Christian can hold Christian view or that a Christian can hold non-Christian view. This thread deals with whether MLK Jr's views expressed to get a grade reflected his views later during his life. Unless I missed it, little or no evidence of that has been forthcoming. Yes, claims have been made but I have not seen specific support cited from his sermons or letters.