Skip to comments.King’s God: The Unknown Faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Posted on 01/16/2012 10:47:21 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator
You undoubtedly know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a progressive Christian and champion of civil rights and the social gospel. You may also know that he spoke out against the Vietnam War, harshly criticized U.S. foreign policy, and questioned the capitalist system that produced poverty. But do you know his theology?
Right up until Dr. King's assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, where he had traveled to support striking sanitation workers, the civil rights leader workednot as a secular activist but as a Baptist ministerto awaken the conscience of the nation. What was the meaning of Jesus for Dr. King? Did he see Jesus as divine? How did he interpret the Bible?
Biographies describe King as a liberal Protestant, but what does this mean? What was his understanding of Christian doctrines and why are they important to us? A number of academic papers written during his seminary years (1948-1951) provide an intimate look at the young King as he struggled to reconcile religion with a changing, dynamic, and modern world.
(Excerpt) Read more at tikkun.org ...
“The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental. “
An accursed heretic.
Screw him and all who grovel at his feet.
In his own words from 1961, King opposed the liberty and freedom of Right to Work laws in his defense of forced unionism:
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as right to work. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone. Wherever these laws have been passed, wages are lower, job opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights."
The Memphis sanitation workers sought to join AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. This is a extremist, far left outfit contributing almost exclusively to the Democrat party and is known for its support of raising the minimum wage. This is the group that MLK supported.
Rev. King also obviously struggled with Christian moral issues in his life. Faithfulness in marriage was not one of his strong points.
Today, this is a much different story, but the origins will always remain.
It is because of America's racial discrimination then, that the communists gained so much power. They capitalized on these oppressed...these oppressed would easily and voluntarily align with anything, even evil communism, to improve their condition and/or destroy their oppressors lifestyles.
Today we see they have picked up other groups that are told they are oppressed and/or who have an ax to grind - the sexually perverse and women.
The ploy of communism is to enslave everyone and the already enslaved, perceived or truly, believe they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by attacking their oppressors. .
For communism to succeed in enslaving everyone, they must destroy morality, because with morality they cannot easily convince the enslaved that killing millions upon millions of unneeded and/or unwanted and/or moral persons is acceptable.
Much of the blacks' alignment with communism was out of hatred of the oppressors...because they were oppressed...today it is simple brainwashing by atheistic socialism in public schools and Marxist clergy in churches...much like in Nazi Germany, but the alignment here in the US was born out of, and began from, hatred brought on by racial and some gender discrimination at that time.
In a way, we brought this punishment upon ourselves, because we practiced an immorality in our capitalism and treated our brothers and sisters with contempt...as if they were subhuman and free to exploit. If whites and especially the men were still the majority of the enslaved, at that time in history, as they were in our nation for quite a long time, they too would have joined into the communist ranks in effort to turn the tables and this whole scheme would have not taken quite as long as it has.
Capitalism without morality, is no better at all, than atheistic socialism. On the other hand, no true socialism is or can be anything other than atheistic, in the end.
Capitalism is not like that - it can be moral as long as moral people lead/control/govern.
Today, what must be done to save capitalism is a return to God's laws - otherwise we are wholly condemning ourselves.
We had God's graces once...but our lever of immorality kept growing and growing. Communism saved nobody and never will. Communist/socialism/Marxism, whatever piece of the split hair one prefers to focus on, is immoral atheistic and evil and God's never going to allow any nation any graces who practices it. The further we, the world, get down that path, the more disgusted and impatient He becomes.
He is going to wipe out all nations who promote these evils of communism: abortion, euthanasia, assisted-suicide, infanticide, religious oppression, slavery, forced sterilizations, homosexuality, eugenics and genocide.
And on one level or another, the United States of America is practicing all of the aforementioned evils and as of late we have been pushing them and funding them worldwide.
I would say, we are first on the list for Chastisement, soon...very soon.
Imagine if something came out that would completely destroy his reputation. Say he was a Holocaust denier or something. It would be unreal how the media and elites would have to cover for him.
I guess Dr. King’s “Christianity” amounts to believing solely that Jesus was a nice guy and a philosopher and nothing more. He appears to believe in a rather small god.
King was apparently a Baptist who rejected Baptist doctrine solely because he would get more street cred by being a Baptist minister than being a Universalist minister.
I find it sort of odd that King (and the author of the article) seem to believe that “emergent churches” gather people not because they preach the Christian gospel but because they preach a “feel good, smiley face, watered down” version of a Be Happy, Don’t Worry Christianity.
Here’s a good insightful article about King’s socialism.
It was always obvious that Dr. King was a committed man of the Left. Is anyone surprised that his theology is so in error?
Thanks so much for the thoughtful and detailed response.
One can only envision how much further along blacks would be had they embraced the rising Conservative movement in the 1950's and 1960's instead of turning to communist outfits like labor unions and black liberation "theology".
It's impossible to rewrite history but a Barry Goldwater (as implausible as it appears in hindsight) victory in 1964 would have set America on the right course. That was a critical turning point for our country and my hope is that the damage inflicted on us since that era can be undone. It will be a daunting task to be certain.
For the record, as a young, idealistic (and utterly naive) college student in the early 1960's, I was actually a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the NAACP. For several months, I actually believed in that organization. Reality finally set in as I learned more about it from within the belly of the beast. It was a Communist outfit from the very top to the bottom. I ultimately transferred to a Conservative Christian college and fled my dalliance with the NAACP, returning to my roots and actively supporting AuH20 in the 1964 race. I will forever regret supporting the utterly racist, totally corrupt NAACP during my brief era of youthful ignorance.
The capitalist system only produces poverty in those who are too friggin lazy to work.
Socialism is for the useless.
That's certainly the message I get.
A couple weeks ago we had someone on this forum (if I remembered whom I'd ping him) who insisted that King was an orthodox "born-again" Baptist and that theological liberalism hadn't yet hit the institutions where he studied in the Fifties (which is nonsense, since liberalism had been around for a long time already).
You know something? I actually agree with you. I have become over the year extremely cynical and non-sympathetic to Black politics but the plain truth is that you can't get away with something like that. It's bound to come back and bite you.
There was no jim crow immediately after the Civil War. That came in with the "redeemer" governments of the 1870's/1880's and was finalized with Plessy vs. Ferguson (I think in 1890). In a way jim crow was worse than slavery. Contrary to popular stereotype, people do not "hate" their property. They care for their property. They take care of it and hand it down to the next generation. Why would the plantation aristocracy insist on keeping a large population of people they "hated" to do their work for them? Yes, their was cruelty and oppression and a denial of humanity (at least legally), but people don't hate their property.
After the war when Blacks were no longer property they found themselves right back where they'd started. But this time in addition to having to do all the work they were not cared for. They were hated and resented for being the "cause" of the War and all that followed. The plantation aristocracy, who formerly inculcated a hatred for poor whites in their slaves, now turned to those poor whites and inculcated in them a hatred of the Blacks. Now Blacks had all of the responsibilities of freedom with none of the dignity and none of the rights.
If there had never been a jim crow there would never have been a social revolution in the 1960's. And what is worse, white Southerners of the jim crow era attributed racial segregation to the law of G-d. And the ironic thing is, the liberals believed them, and still do. The liberals are convinced that in overthrowing jim crow they fought and won their first battle against "the tyrant in the sky" . . . the same "reactionary" force that now "holds back" the homosexuals. The revolution against jim crow now justifies everything . . . homosexual marriage, legalized abortion, pedophilia, everything. And the thing is, there are still those people out there who insist that things will never be rectified until jim crow gets re-established. Believe me, those people are out there. Only now they don't quote the Bible. They invoke "our western civilization." (I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some otherwise religious Blacks don't also fear that a victory over "gay rights" would begin the process of bringing it back.)
It is always a bad idea to add to the Laws of G-d. Even when instituting legitimate protections for the Laws of G-d these extra stringencies should not be attributed to G-d Himself. The Midrash says that when the Serpent asked Eve what G-d had said she answered that G-d had forbidden not only eating the forbidden fruit, but even touching the tree on pain of death. The Serpent then pushed Eve into the tree and said "Since you didn't die when you touched the tree, you also won't die when you eat of the fruit."
Some lessons are never learned.
I disagree. There was still the Vietnam War to protest.
The real problem is that society became too wealthy and hence spoiled and decadent. With or without Jim Crow or Vietnam, the social revolution would have occurred. Perhaps the revolutionaries would have just concentrated their efforts more on promoting feminism and environmentalism than racial equality and the anti-war movement.
“A couple weeks ago we had someone on this forum (if I remembered whom I’d ping him) who insisted that King was an orthodox “born-again” Baptist and that theological liberalism hadn’t yet hit the institutions where he studied in the Fifties (which is nonsense, since liberalism had been around for a long time already).”
Found him for you.
Louis, this was an eye-opening article for me. If you read it closely, you may see firsthand was ZC was talking about re: King’s liberal theology.
Best to you both.
Annual MLK Day bump.