There. I said it. Someone had to. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a bad person.
April 4th marked the 50-year anniversary of the assassination of MLK, in memorial of which many individuals and groups took the opportunity to reflect on the status of race relations in the United States. Even Evangelical Christian organizations held conferences in his memory. This is a natural reaction, and one that is not unnecessary. We must not be above reflecting on our faults, both our own personal sins and those of our forefathers. However, and here comes the rant, we need to be honest here, MLK was not a good guy. MLK did some "good" things, and he remains an important historical figure, but he was a bad person. He was not a morally righteous individual. He was not an orthodox Christian, and he was certainly not a "Reverend."
Before I proceed any further, let me clarify three things. Firstly, as I have already stated, MLK did some good and important things. He was certainly a passionate man, so far as politics and race were concerned. Secondly, racism continues to exist both in the US and in the Church. It is shameful in any setting, but is more heinous in the Church, where being a member of Christ's body should render meaningless all ethnic and national barriers. Such racism, or even the more subtle cultural distaste, goes many directions and should never be countenanced. Thirdly, I am intentionally leaving the definitions of "good" and "bad" ambiguous. "Good" can be defined in multiple ways: generically virtuous, morally upright by Biblical standards, or even redeemed by Christ and living for Him. None of these apply to MLK.
These clarifications made, we must be careful whom we celebrate, particularly when we're discussing spiritual leaders (pastors, elders, teachers, evangelists, etc.). MLK's flaws are well-published, but allow me to rehearse just the highlights. MLK was largely a fraud, his plagiarism being well-documented. He was a heretic, his Christ and his Gospel being patently unbiblical. He was a sexual degenerate, his adultery being well-known and his alleged aberrant behavior supposedly observed by the CIA. Regardless of the good things that he did, we should not hold him up as a good example. Many bad people did respectable things. We can learn from those things, but we should not celebrate those people. Take Thomas Jefferson as an example. He had some good ideas and did some honorable things, but we should not hold him up as a great man. He is not someone whom we should imitate or point to as a good example for our children to follow. MLK is no different. His teachings, both theological and political, range from dangerous to heretical. His life was far from exemplary. He is not someone whom Christians should honor or follow.
Furthermore, Christian leaders have the responsibility to warn the people of God about false teachers, an appellation that can unmistakably be applied to MLK. The New Testament is chock-full of warnings about false teachers who can destroy our faith and lead us into sin. Peter, Paul, and Jesus highlight the list of authors/speakers who issue these warnings. False teachers are not to be countenanced. They are not to be "appreciated." They are to be called out and warned against, despite anything helpful or beneficial they have to offer. Faithful ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly in the black community, need to warn their sheep about the teachings and life of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Is that too offensive for you? If so, you may want to stop reading right now because this next part will probably be more offensive. Alright...I warned you. MLK is, without a doubt, viewed more favorably because he was assassinated. Humans have a tendency to whitewash the legacies of those who die young (I'm looking at you, Billy Joel!). Once again, MLK is an important historical figure whose work partially paved the way for much of the progress this country has made in race relations, but, if we're being honest with ourselves, we have immortalized him largely because he was a martyr. Would his flaws be overlooked so easily if he were still alive? The 21st Century is all about exposing the sins of our beloved saints. How would he fare in the age of information? Let me put it plainly: Christians cannot ignore his false teachings and debauchery simply because he did some good things and died at the hands of an assassin.
You may think I'm just a skinny, white guy sitting behind a keyboard spouting racist ideas. Well, you're partially right. I am white (sort of, anyway...it's more complex than that), and I'm definitely scrawny, but that doesn't mean that what I'm saying is racist. MLK's race has nothing to do with his character, and it is that which should determine how history views him. I'm sad to say that, despite the powerful way in which God used him, Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a Godly man.
April 4th marked the 50-year anniversary of the assassination of MLK, in memorial of which many individuals and groups took the opportunity to reflect on the status of race relations in the United States. Even Evangelical Christian organizations held conferences in his memory. This is a natural reaction, and one that is not unnecessary. We must not be above reflecting on our faults, both our own personal sins and those of our forefathers. However, and here comes the rant, we need to be honest here, MLK was not a good guy. MLK did some "good" things, and he remains an important historical figure, but he was a bad person. He was not a morally righteous individual. He was not an orthodox Christian, and he was certainly not a "Reverend."
Before I proceed any further, let me clarify three things. Firstly, as I have already stated, MLK did some good and important things. He was certainly a passionate man, so far as politics and race were concerned. Secondly, racism continues to exist both in the US and in the Church. It is shameful in any setting, but is more heinous in the Church, where being a member of Christ's body should render meaningless all ethnic and national barriers. Such racism, or even the more subtle cultural distaste, goes many directions and should never be countenanced. Thirdly, I am intentionally leaving the definitions of "good" and "bad" ambiguous. "Good" can be defined in multiple ways: generically virtuous, morally upright by Biblical standards, or even redeemed by Christ and living for Him. None of these apply to MLK.
These clarifications made, we must be careful whom we celebrate, particularly when we're discussing spiritual leaders (pastors, elders, teachers, evangelists, etc.). MLK's flaws are well-published, but allow me to rehearse just the highlights. MLK was largely a fraud, his plagiarism being well-documented. He was a heretic, his Christ and his Gospel being patently unbiblical. He was a sexual degenerate, his adultery being well-known and his alleged aberrant behavior supposedly observed by the CIA. Regardless of the good things that he did, we should not hold him up as a good example. Many bad people did respectable things. We can learn from those things, but we should not celebrate those people. Take Thomas Jefferson as an example. He had some good ideas and did some honorable things, but we should not hold him up as a great man. He is not someone whom we should imitate or point to as a good example for our children to follow. MLK is no different. His teachings, both theological and political, range from dangerous to heretical. His life was far from exemplary. He is not someone whom Christians should honor or follow.
Furthermore, Christian leaders have the responsibility to warn the people of God about false teachers, an appellation that can unmistakably be applied to MLK. The New Testament is chock-full of warnings about false teachers who can destroy our faith and lead us into sin. Peter, Paul, and Jesus highlight the list of authors/speakers who issue these warnings. False teachers are not to be countenanced. They are not to be "appreciated." They are to be called out and warned against, despite anything helpful or beneficial they have to offer. Faithful ministers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly in the black community, need to warn their sheep about the teachings and life of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Is that too offensive for you? If so, you may want to stop reading right now because this next part will probably be more offensive. Alright...I warned you. MLK is, without a doubt, viewed more favorably because he was assassinated. Humans have a tendency to whitewash the legacies of those who die young (I'm looking at you, Billy Joel!). Once again, MLK is an important historical figure whose work partially paved the way for much of the progress this country has made in race relations, but, if we're being honest with ourselves, we have immortalized him largely because he was a martyr. Would his flaws be overlooked so easily if he were still alive? The 21st Century is all about exposing the sins of our beloved saints. How would he fare in the age of information? Let me put it plainly: Christians cannot ignore his false teachings and debauchery simply because he did some good things and died at the hands of an assassin.
You may think I'm just a skinny, white guy sitting behind a keyboard spouting racist ideas. Well, you're partially right. I am white (sort of, anyway...it's more complex than that), and I'm definitely scrawny, but that doesn't mean that what I'm saying is racist. MLK's race has nothing to do with his character, and it is that which should determine how history views him. I'm sad to say that, despite the powerful way in which God used him, Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a Godly man.
Comments
Post a Comment