Cowardice asks the question–is it safe? Expediency asks the question–is it politic? Vanity asks the question–is it popular? But conscience asks the question–is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular; but one must take it because it is right.
ML King SBC Outpost
8 comments:
I'm out here, too, just wrapping up a post. It is probably too rambly and often lost in space, but I tried to put my mind around the many thoughts I have been having ever since we all started writing about Dr. Yarnell's article.
As to your post...Martin Luther King, Jr.--what an incredible man with incredible insights then, today, and for the future. While some are saying they wouldn't stand up in the pulpit with certain men because they believe doing so would in some way harm the Kingdom, I wonder if they would stand in the pulpit with MLK. I don't mean that they would refuse because of any racism on their part, and I hope no one even thinks for a minute that I am suggesting that; rather, I just wonder if their stands on "doctrinal purity" would prevent working together with such a message as the one MLK bore.
I adopted a "rule of thumb" many years a go that has proved helpful many times. It's simply, "It's never wrong to do what's right". I have fallen back upon this statement countless times as potentially controversial decisions have needed to be made.
i wouldnt join with mlk, jr. in an organization or association. i am glad for all the good he did for black people. he was an incredible man in a lot of ways. but, the fact remains that he was a good works preacher and a liberal theologian, and he was a socialist...a kissin cousin to a communist.
i dont hate black people. i dont hate mlk, jr. i dont hate bryan. i dont hate anybody. but, joining with people like mlk, jr. or benny hinn or kenneth copeland or bill clinton would not be for me.
btw, i am preaching a revival meeting at a methodist church in my area in march.
volfan007
I don't believe I'd share a pulpit with MLK because denying the denying the virgin birth, deity of Christ and Resurrection is beyond simply disagreement on interpretation of doctrine. In my view, this would fall along the lines of denying the faith. If I recall correctly, Thomas Skinner, a black preacher, who even tried to evangelize MLK during an interview.
The following is NOT to compare the individual below to MLK, but is an example by way of analogy. In a similar context, I would not share a pulpit with David Dukes no matter how much we agree doctrinally on paper. (Note: I have no idea what this man believes and really don't know much about him other than his Klan ties.)
To johnmark:
I have seen you make this accusation of Dr. King on a couple blogs, and I'm calling you out: give me proof...concrete MLA cited incontrovertible proof that Dr. King denied the Virgin Birth, the deity of Christ and Ressurection. 24 hours on this blog...post references to all three charges. Otherwise decease and repent of your slander.
TS
big sandy,
i heard mlk, jr. on a news program say some very theologically liberal things like johnmark says. it was an interview. i heard him say many things that would be considered false teaching. i heard him say that we all get salvation by living and dying if need be for a good cause. he said Jesus lived and died for His cause. and mlk, jr. said that he was working for redemption by living for his cause. of course, he also died for his cause. and, he told the news man that we all must find our good causes and live for that to get redemption.
mlk, jr. did much good for the black folks for our world, but he was a false teacher....a liberal theologian.
volfan007
Big Sandy, thanks for your "kind" demand er...request. Many or MLK's writings can be found online.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/
Clayborne Carson, Professor of History at Stanford University and Director of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute quotes King in "African-American Christianity" 1997,
"this uncritical attitude could not last long, for it was contrary to the very nature of my being. I had always been the questioning and precocious type. At the age of 13 I shocked my Sunday School class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. From the age of thirteen on doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly."
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/additional_resources/articles/gospel.htm
My inquiry into King's theology really started when I read Justin Taylor's post from 2005. Since JT has already documented what you are asking for see his post please.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2005/02/martin-luther-king.html
You can probably just read King's paper "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" which is linked in the above post.
You may also want to see ""The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus"
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol1/500215-The_Humanity_and_Divinity_of_Jesus.htm
Where King states, "The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. 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."
"So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit og God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers."
Wade, I apologize for hi-jacking this thread.
Thanks,
Mark
No problem Mark.
Well done on the documentation. I would obviously disagree with MLK's theology as cited, but he still had a good quote.
:)
Post a Comment