-By Don Boys, Ph.D.
I don’t have a major commitment to tell the world about Martin Luther King but about the King. So my time dealing with the MLK exposé is very limited; however, I do want to see his holiday revoked. And I do want to see Christian schools refuse to honor his day. Furthermore, I will never quote him without a disclaimer that I do not recommend his aims, actions, activities, associates, or his authorship.
It is incredible that major evangelical and fundamentalist churches and schools honor the memory of King. Following his death, Wheaton College, Westmont College, Fuller Theological Seminary, and Trinity Theological Seminary had memorial services for King! Many churches and schools honor his memory each year.
Even conservative groups are burning incense at King’s tomb. Groups such as The Heritage Foundation, the Christian Coalition (Ralph Reed), Bill Bennet, National Review, and many others are proving how much they have “grown” and are “reaching out” to others by their broadmindedness and understanding. This is a phenomenon of recent years. Those same people and groups were critical of King at one time. Yes, they have “grown” all right!
I called the President of a major Fundamental Baptist University about their honoring King’s birthday and his response was breathtaking. He told me that they had a number of black students who wanted to recognize King’s birthday and would be disturbed if the school did not do so. I said, “But my brother, you are honoring an unbeliever. He hated everything your school stands for. He ridiculed your beliefs all his life. Moreover, he was an admitted adulterer.
“As to your black students not understanding a critical position of King, that is what a university is all about. You should be educating students in the issues of the day and how to make decisions based on Bible truth. Your graduates must be informed people and know how to make judgments when they are in the ministry or are serving in a local church.” That conversation was not recorded so I am writing from memory.
I wrote the editor of a major Christian publication that most preachers receive or at least know about it. My concern was with a review done about a book of sermons by King. I enclosed my column that dealt with King so they could reveal some fairness and balance. They refused to publish my column. I think you will find the correspondence very revealing and by no means unusual:
To the Editor:
I just read your message to me regarding Martin Luther King, Jr., and of course, we can disagree on King. I have fought for that privilege in Fundamentalism and evangelicalism for 35 years.
However, I am surprised and amazed and somewhat disappointed that [your magazine] would be fearful of facing the truth of any matter. It is one thing for secular journals to worship at the shrine of political correctness and another for Christian magazines to do so.
You wrote, “I wanted to view King’s life in a balanced perspective and have an accurate view of him as a man, civil rights leader, and preacher.” You surely must be kidding! You did not do that in your review. Did you want “balance” in your review when every word was positive? You wanted accuracy when you praised his preaching and never mentioned his heresy! I assume that your reading of King was very limited; maybe only to the book you were reviewing!
You also wrote, “Neither do I agree with those who demonize him.” Is telling the truth demonizing him? You know, I believe between the two of us, I have a much more “balanced,” fair, and accurate view of King. I think some good came from some of his work while enormous harm also resulted. Unlike many conservatives and many haters, I think King was right in the bus boycott, and I believe that because Blacks should have equal rights to public facilities (since they pay taxes) as Whites have. They should not have been subjected to back of the bus status and “colored” water fountains. However, private businesses are something else altogether! The government has no authority (power yes, authority no) to tell a private businessman how he must run his business. But of course that is another issue.
You said, “Since the piece in [our periodical] was a book review and not an article we will not print your submitted article.” Of course, that is a classic cop-out! Surely [your magazine] is interested in balance, truth, and accuracy.
You did not deal with the various criticisms of King in my article. Please note that your book review dealt with King’s preaching. While you might like the particular book you reviewed, surely you were obligated to reveal to your readers that the book did not reflect King’s preaching and his beliefs. King was a life-long Liberal who rejected the virgin birth, deity and resurrection of Christ. Do you take the position that one can reject those doctrines and be a Christian? If so, you have removed yourself from mainline, orthodox Christianity!
Remember that the Apostle of Love in his second epistle told us not to even bid one God speed if he did not hold to the doctrine of Christ. Do you disagree with John or do you disregard John? And to disregard means to disobey! It seems you are more impressed with the writings of King than you are of John! At this point, you are defending King and disobeying John! King often spoke publicly to radio and television audiences of Christ and “faith” but never did he challenge men to place faith in the propitiatory work of Christ to experience personal salvation! He did not because he did not believe that was essential for one to have eternal life. I assume you and the folks at [your magazine] do believe it.
You did not seek to defend King’s many adulterous affairs as King admitted to Parade magazine. How can you do a book review of such a man without one word of caution, without one word of suggestion to readers that further research might be helpful? And to emulate his life would be disastrous.
Do you think the fact that King was murdered wipes out the many sins in his life? Do you think that because Blacks were mistreated during that period, that fact somehow excuses his sins? Are you suggesting that because he made some positive contributions, his doctrinal errors and his wicked life should be overlooked?
Does King get special treatment because he was black or because he was murdered or because he was a preacher? What drives you and others to give him the “kid glove” treatment? Why not treat him fairly, honestly, and accurately? Why do you and others seem to have a mission to protect King’s image? Why not tell the truth as you do, I assume, in other matters? Question: If David Duke wrote a book that was true, fantastic, a classic and an incredible contribution to American literature, would you review it without mentioning that he was a former KKK member? I think not.
Brother, why not treat people like people, not as white, black, rich, or poor? Just people. Why make decisions based on how you and the magazine will be perceived rather than on the merits of the case? Does truth matter any more?
You refused to deal with King’s thievery of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University and many of his other writings that were plagiarized from others without even a suggestion of giving credit. If you did not know about that it, it is inexcusable. If you did know about it and refused to mention it in your review, that too was inexcusable.
You did not even try to deal with King’s love affair with Communist Party functionaries during his very public life. Note that he was not simply involved with Communists but with Party activists! He hired many Communists to run various field offices and even refused to fire them when he was told by his politically sensitive friends that such action would be wise. Your selective quote of his regarding Communism does not cancel his ardor for the Communist Party members with whom he climbed into bed.
King was a Black opportunist who used people: Blacks, Whites, union leaders, the media, etc., to further his own cause. You have helped perpetuate his false image by burning incense to him with your book review. I am disappointed in [your periodical] not being willing to stand for Scriptural truth regarding separation from doctrinal error as well as separation from King’s personal immorality.
I trust you are not so naïve that you take the position that any criticism is unjustified and unchristian! You did not tell the truth about Martin Luther King. I did, but you don’t want your readers to know it. Truth still matters! (End of letter.)
I may be a little naïve but I am still shocked, shocked that an outstanding Christian periodical would be so unprincipled to present King (or anyone else) to their readers as an admirable person when he was really a very wicked unbeliever.
King, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Rudy Giuliani and assorted Republicans was a man without character. Informed, honest, decent Americans should not be honoring him with a special day each year.
While I was a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, a northern Indiana Representative introduced a bill to memorialize King before we had a national holiday forced upon us. The memorialization meant nothing since we did them almost every day as a routine. One day we would honor the Indiana University basketball team winning a national championship, the next day some person who had lived one hundred years.
When the King vote came up (it was a voice vote since it was no big deal) I voted a resounding no. And out of 100 reps I was the only no vote. Furthermore, no one in the senate voted no. I wondered where all the conservatives were. Soon they were around me saying that they should have voted with me but didn’t think it was worth the flack. I was told that had I demanded a recorded roll call vote and spoken against the memorialization, there would have been repercussions with my legislation!
The following year the same thing happened in exactly the same way! Now we have a national holiday, and I still vote a resounding “No!” I’ll celebrate Jan. 15, but not because it is King’s birthday but because it is mine. Well, King and I had something in common.
———-
Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 13 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years His most recent book is ISLAM: America’s Trojan Horse! His websites are www.cstnews.com and www.Muslimfact.com.)
Boys’ columns are copyrighted and may be republished, reposted, or emailed providing the person or organization doing so does not charge for subscriptions or advertising and the column is copied intact and the tag at the end in parentheses is included intact.
Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.