In one of the few interviews about his religious beliefs, he denied belief in the Virgin Birth (which was a sort of litmus test in those days to see if you were a “liberal” or a “conservative” in matters of theology).
Ergo, he was not a “fundamentalist”.
He was more a philosopher in the mode of Gandhi.
Nevertheless, he was a great figure, as was Jefferson, etc., though not necessarily a Christian saint.
(Lincoln, btw, experienced a conversion just before Gettysburg; and went from being an agnostic to
a believer.)
no fan of Michael King ( aka MLK, jr. )
closely knit with communist party and womanizer....
“...he was a great figure, as was Jefferson, etc., though not necessarily a Christian saint.”
That was my point. I’m fascinated by how naive Christians are and how quickly we want to claim someone as ours who is great. I had an evangelical pastor insist to me that MLK was a devout, born-again, bible-believing, evangelical Christian. I did my homework and discovered in no uncertain terms, his beliefs had more in common with THE most liberal mainline leaders of today, or Ghandi, than basic Christianity, let alone evangelicalism.
King differed in even more basic ways from Christian essentials than the virgin birth too, both in doctrine, and more importantly even in his personal morality. It is proven, for example (and admitted, by the school in question, and historians...) that his doctoral thesis was plagiarized. Up to the night he was murdered too, fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy has written, he regularly used prostitutes.
So again, yes, King was a great leader who God used to bring much good to America. A great example of a Christian leader though? No.
I was aware of Lincoln’s conversion, my point was that most of the (public) good he did...preceded his personal faith.
God uses all kinds for our good. Men don’t have to be actual Christians to be used mightily to promote Christian virtues.