Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Christian?

Today would be a good day to address this topic.

I was at one point perusing the web to research claims that MLK drew from the example of Ghandi in his push for civil rights, and happened upon this very telling website (written by a black baptist [?] woman). She sets up a very good argument as to why MLK was far from a preacher – he was a heretic with a humanist message.

The site (Jesus-is-lord.com) is unfortunately no longer up and running, as it seems that they have been “preyed upon” by suspicious unknown person(s), and upon an attempt to join the mailing list, I got redirected to a Christian feed directory listing with apparently “1,955,024” subscribers.

This story is almost over. I decided to join one list called “THE ELIJAH LIST,” who’s byline reads (partially):

Find out DAILY what Christian Prophets and prophetic people are saying to the Church and regarding Continents, Countries, Regions and States. When we encounter a mature word that we believe to be from the Lord, which seems to be for the entire Body of Christ, and it appears that this word will either encourage, correct, exhort, edify, (etc) the Lord’s Family, we will put that word out to the whole list now numbering over 130,000 subscribers…

So I thought, interesting. Upon subscribing, though, this is partially what I got:

  1. Jeanette Reed: “PREPARING FOR THE DAYS AHEAD–WHEN DOES LOVE EQUAL CALAMITY?”
  2. “Right NOW, You Can Reach an Enormous Audience!”
  3. “Join Up With God’s ‘Throne Room Company!'”
  4. JIM DROWN, TODD BENTLEY, JEFF JANSEN, JOSHUA MILLS, and JOHN CROWDER; Feb. 28 – Mar. 3, 2007: Norcross, GA (PLEASE FORWARD TO YOUR FRIENDS)
  5. “It Has Been Given to YOU to KNOW the Mysteries!”

Needless to say, I would hesitate before subscribing…

Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Christian?

Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!
for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Luke 6:26

Preface.

Given the subject of this article–Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.–there is something that I want to establish here. I’m Black and there are some things that I’m glad about as a Black person. I’m glad that I don’t have to sit in the back of the bus when I choose to ride one. I’m glad that I was able to attend the University of my choice. I’m glad that my husband can work in a good career. I’m glad that when we stay at a hotel we don’t have to enter through the back door. I’m glad that we can eat at whatever restaurant we want to and that we don’t have to stand in the kitchen to eat our food. I’m glad that I don’t have to look for a “colored” sign when I need to relieve myself or when I want a drink of water. I’M GLAD ABOUT THESE THINGS. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a part in bringing these things about.

BUT

I am not defined by my color (though there are those that would choose to define me so). I am defined by Who my Father is. I am a blood-bought, born-again, sanctified, walking-with-the-Lord child of God. THAT is who I am. I serve the ONLY wise God and Saviour Jesus Christ. I don’t serve myself anymore. My life is all about Jesus. It wasn’t always, but it is now. If there be any good thing that springs forth from my life it comes from Jesus Christ my Sinbearer, my Saviour, and my Master. The only thing that matters in this life is what a person does with Jesus Christ–they will either humble themselves under His mighty hand, or they will be ground to powder. Did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. humble himself under His mighty hand or is Martin Luther King, Jr. in hell right now?

What made me question the salvation of Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Early this year (1998), my little sister asked me to look up some stuff on the ‘net for a paper she was doing on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. As I surfed, the Lord put a thought in my mind, “Did this man ever testify of Me?” I thought to myself, “Mmmmm. The world loved this man. If he was preaching the gospel, the world would have hated him.” I started looking up Martin Luther King’s writings. As I read, I realized that he was a stranger, a foreigner to me. Whenever he mentioned Jesus, it was along with mere mortals like Socrates or Ghandi. In his jailhouse letter, King lumped all religions into the same class. I could not find one “sermon” where he preached Jesus Christ and Him crucified. What I saw is that this man “preached” a social gospel using Black churches as his springboard.

King’s philosophy is rather reminiscent of the Catholic Liberation Theology in South America. After several hours of reading of him on the ‘net, I told my husband that this man was not our brother in Christ. Someone who called himself “Reverend” and preached in churches was obviously not saved. For 32 years, I’d heard great and favorable things about Martin Luther King, Jr. His name was, and is, synonymous with civil rights. But in 1998, the Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that “Reverend” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was nothing short of an heretick. It was a strange revelation.

Well, all these months have passed and I thought my meditation on this was over–I was wrong. The Lord wanted me to see something else. Last night, my husband gave me some papers that my sister wanted me to have. It was the stuff that I had printed out for her on Martin Luther King, Jr. I didn’t need that stuff back but the Lord wanted my mind to go back to this subject. Lo and behold, yesterday (it is about 3:30 am now) 10-7-98, I was surfing the ‘net for information on King Charles I (son of King James VI & I) when I came upon an article for Martin Luther King, Jr. I clicked on the link, and amazingly, I was taken to Stanford University’s repository for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s writings–they are on line. Their repository is a work in progress, but there is more than enough there for any human being to see that Martin Luther King, Jr. denied the most basic tenets of the Christian faith.

Since this article was written, the Stanford repository of Dr. King’s writings has been moved at least twice and I noticed that it’s contents were/are being sold by Amazon. The following links to Stanford may no longer work.

updated(1/19/03) “In your web document “Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A Christian?” (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/king.htm), the links to King’s papers are broke — but they are still at Stanford — they changed the pathnames a little bit: Edit the links’ partial pathnames as follows and they will work: From: … /publications/papers/vol1/ … To: … /publications/papers/vol1/ …”

Let’s get specific.

Under the fair use copyright laws , I will be quoting from the Stanford website and some of Dr. King’s writings. I will in no way be exhausting his revealing comments but will include links to the materials cited so that the interested reader can further investigate this matter. You will see what I mean when I call the man a liberal heretick.

**EXAMPLE ONE**

In his paper entitled,

“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”

We see by the very TITLE that he believed that EXPERIENCES, not scripture, dictated the BASIC, vital, critical doctrines of

the deity of Jesus Christ

the virgin birth

the resurrection

In his paper he went on to question, practically deny, each of these tenets of the Christian faith. How can you be a Christian and deny the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ? YOU CAN’T BE! Yea such an one is an heretick! Unsurprisingly, Martin Luther King, Jr. did not believe that the BIBLE is infallible or that it is to be taken literally (you can best believe he does now but it is everlasting too late for him). Below is an excerpt of this paper concerning these critical doctrines–

But if we delve into the deeper meaning of these doctrines, and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation, we will find that they are based on a profound foundation. Although we may be able to argue with all degrees of logic that these doctrines are historically and philolophically untenable*, yet we can never undermind the foundation on which they are based.

*According to Webster’s, untenable means that cannot be held, defended, or maintained. philology is scholarship or the study of literary texts to determine their authenticity or meaning. So in other words, the divinity, resurrection and virgin birth are undefendable based on the historical facts! Read on…

A King quote from this same paper about the Sonship of Jesus–

The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of development. It seems quite evident that the early followers of Jesus in Palestine were well aware of his genuine humanity. Even the synoptic gospels picture Jesus as a victim of human experiences. Such human experiences as growth, learning, prayer, and defeat are not at all uncommon in the life of Jesus. How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being?

We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him.

…As Hedley laconically states, “the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God.”

Next, King on the virgin birth–

First we must admit that the evidence for the tenability of this doctrine is to shallow to convince any objective thinker. To begin with, the earliest written documents in the New Testament make no mention of the virgin birth. Moreover, the Gospel of Mark, the most primitive and authentic of the four, gives not the slightest suggestion of the virgin birth. The effort to justify this doctrine on the grounds that it was predicted by the prophet Isaiah is immediately eliminated, for all New Testament scholars agree that the word virgin is not found in the Hebrew original, but only in the Greek text which is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for “young woman.” How then did this doctrine arise?

A clue to this inquiry may be found in a sentence from St. Justin’s First Apology. Here Justin states that the birth of Jesus is quite similar to the birth of the sons of Zeus. It was believed in Greek thought that an extraordinary person could only be explained by saying that he had a father who was more than human. It is probable that this Greek idea influenced Christian thought.

A more adequate explanation for the rise of this doctrine is found in the experience which the early christians had with Jesus. The people saw within Jesus such a uniqueness of quality and spirit that to explain him in terms of ordinary background was to them quite inadequate. For his early followers this spiritual uniqueness could only by accounted for in terms of biological uniqueness. They were not unscientific in their approach because they had no knowledge of the scientific. They could only express themselves in terms of the pre-scientific thought patterns of their day.

And finally, King on the resurrection–

The last doctrine in our discussion deals with the resurrection story. This doctrine, upon which the Easter Faith rests, symbolizes the ultimate Christian conviction: that Christ conquered death. From a literary, historical, and philosophical point of view this doctrine raises many questions. In fact the external evidence for the authenticity of this doctrine is found wanting. But here again the external evidence is not the most important thing, for it in itself fails to tell us precisely the thing we most want to know: What experiences of early Christians lead to the formulation of the doctrine?

The root of our inquiry is found in the fact that the early Christians had lived with Jesus. They had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality. This basic experience led to the faith that he could never die. And so in the pre-scientific thought pattern of the first century, this inner faith took outward form.

Read this paper for yourself here.

**EXAMPLE TWO**

Next in line is his paper,

“The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism
Considered Historically and Psychologically”

Herein, “Reverend” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. calls the garden of Eden a myth in line with “other oriental religions” and says that science and the Bible are at odds. He is scornful of “fundamentalism” and uncritical of liberalism. In this paper, King ascribes doctrines to “fundamentalists” that are so basic that you’d think they’d be ascribed to everybody who even thought about naming the name of Christ —

“…doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant in fundamentalist thinking.”

Here’s a further excerpt of this paper–

“The use of the critical method in approaching the Bible is to the fundamentalist downright heresy. He sees the Bible as the infallible word of God, from the dotting of an “i” to the crossing of a “T”. He finds it to be a unity and a coherence of parts; “the New Testament is in the old contained, and the Old Testament is in the new explained.”13 Upon this first proposition (the infallibility of the Bible) all other fundamentalist views depend. They argue that if the Bible is true–that is, so divinely inspired as to be free from error–then all other truths follow inevitably, because they are based upon what the Bible actually says in language clear and unmistakable.

“When the fundamentalist comes to the nature of man he finds all of his answers in the Bible. The story of man in the garden of Eden gives a conclusive answer. Man was created by a direct act of God.14 Moreover, he was created in the image of God, but through the workings of the devil man {was} lead into disobedience. Then began all human ills: hardship and labor, the agony of childbirth, hatred, sorrow, suffering, and death.15 The fundamentalist is quite aware of the fact that scholars regard the garden of Eden and the serpent Satan and the hell of fire as myths analogous to those found in other oriental religions. He knows also that his beliefs are the center of redicule by many. But this does not shake his faith–rather it convinces him more of the existence of the devil.16 The critics, says the fundamentalist, would never indulge in such skeptical thinking if the devil hadn’t influenced them. The fundamentalist is convinced that this skepticism of scholars and cheap humor of the laity can by no means prevent the revelation of God.\[Footnote:] Sores, op. cit., p. 54.\17

“Others doctrines such as a supernatural plan of salvation, the Trinity, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, and the second coming of Christ are all quite prominant in fundamentalist thinking. Such are the views of the fundamentalist and they reveal that he is oppose to theological adaptation to social and cultural change. He sees a progressive scientific age as a retrogressive spiritual age. Amid change all around he was {is} willing to preserve certain ancient ideas even though they are contrary to science.”

Read this paper here.

**EXAMPLE THREE**

King says Christianity grew out of mystery religions in his paper entitled,

“A Study of Mithraism”.

Here’s an excerpt–

It is not at all surprising in view of the wide and growing influence of these religions that when the disciples in Antioch and elsewhere preached a crucified and risen Jesus they should be regarded as the heralds of another mystery religion, and that Jesus himself should be taken for the divine Lord of the cult through whose death and resurrection salvation was to be had.

It is at this point that we are able to see why knowledge of these cults is important for any serious New Testament study. It is well-nigh impossible to grasp Christianity through and through without knowledge of these cults. That there were striking similarities between the developing church and these religions cannot be denied. Even Christian apologist had to admit that fact. For an instance, in the mystery-religions identification between the devotee and the Lord of the cult was supposed to be brought about by various rites of initiation; the taurobolium, or bath of blood; the eating of flesh of the sacrifical beast and the like. Now there was something of this in Paul too, for he thought of the believer as buried with Christ in baptism and as feeding upon him in the eucharist. This is only one of many examples that I could give to prove the similarity between the developing Christian Church and the Mystery Religions.

This is not to say that a Saint Paul or a Saint John sat down and copied these views verbatim. But after being in contact with these surrounding religions and hearing certain doctrines expressed, it was only natural for some of these views to become a part of their subconscious minds. When they sat down to write they were expressing consciously that which had dwelled in their subconscious minds.1 It is also significant to know that Roman tolerance had favoured this great syncretism of religious ideas. Borrowing was not only natural but inevitable.

One of the most interesting of these ancient cults was Mithraism, which bore so many points of resemblance to Christianity that it is a challenge to the modern student to investigate these likenesses and learn more about them.

Did you spot King’s lies about the apostle Paul? Read this paper here.

**EXAMPLE FOUR**

Did King repent and change before he died? The following was spoken the night before he died. The speech is entitled, “I See The Promised Land” and was delivered April 3, 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee. He had not abandoned his heretickal notions:

“As you know, if I were standing at the beginning of time, with the possibility of general and panoramic view of the whole human history up to now, and the Almighty said to me, ‘Martin Luther King, which age would you like to live in?’– I would take my mental flight by Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in spite of its magnificence, I wouldn’t stop there. I WOULD MOVE ON BY GREECE, AND TAKE MY MIND TO MOUNT OLYMPUS. AND I WOULD SEE PLATO, ARISTOTLE, SOCRATES, EURIPIDES AND ARISTOPHANES ASSEMBLED AROUND THE PARTHENON AS THEY DISCUSSED THE GREAT AND ETERNAL ISSUES OF REALITY.”

You see what I mean? It is in line with his other speeches that puts King’s humanistic “Christianity” in the same category as everything else. He USED “Christianity” as a springboard for his social gospel. The “promised land” for King was not heaven, it was social equality! Read this speech (it isn’t a sermon) here.

The answer to our question.

The “Reverend” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was no Christian. Period. He was an heretick. Below is a quote from Time Magazine (January 3, 1964)–King was Time Magazine’s 1963 Man of the Year.

(King speaking) “I had doubts that religion was intellectually respectable.” At Morehouse, King searched for “some intellectual basis for a social philosophy.” He read and reread Thoreau’s essay, “Civil Disobedience,” concluded that the ministry was the only framework in which he could properly position his growing ideas on social protest.

At Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pa., King built the underpinnings of his philosophy. Hegel and Kant impressed him, but a lecture on Gandhi transported him, sent him foraging insatiably into Gandhi’s books. “From my background,” he says, “I gained my regulating Christian ideals. From Gandhi I learned my operational technique.”


Thank you for your article on “was Martin Luther King Jr a Christian”. I surfed into your site with that very question from google. After reading the first chapter of Yancey’s “Soul Survivor” I decided I wanted to know more about MLK. I watched a video from the library, but it wasn’t much help. I bought a biography on tape that included audio clips, and started listening to it. Very quickly the question came to my mind – was he a Christian? He preaches a lot about God, but he doesn’t seem to think much of Jesus. It seemed almost impossible that a Baptist Preacher would not believe the Bible or that Jesus was God, but I wasn’t so sure about MLK. So I surfed and found your article and confirmed my suspicions. How strange – and thanks. I’m white and thankful for all he did for America, but sad that he was not a Christian — especially for his church members. Yours in Christ,


Your article on Martin Luther King Jr. was very enlightening. I have a friend here at work who was doubting the man that many of his friends follow, and he asked me to do some research. I am not taking your word for it from the web, I read some of the articles at Stanford.edu and that proved well, his disbelief. Many preachers would not join up with him and they were made fun of, verbally abused and called cowards. For non-violence, they sure strong armed people to join their movement, oh but if they had of convinced people to join the Lords Army, what a difference they could have made. Black America (I use that term as a whole) would be different if those people had of gotten saved and not marched because they wanted rights. There wouldn’t be the drug problems, the alcohol and the precious bastard children cursing the day they were born. White America would be a different place had MLK spread a Gospel message through America, many would have hated him even more, but many would have been saved if he had of preached the Gospel. What a shame, what a waste. It reminds me of the day that I watched Dale Earnhardts funeral on the TV and there were 15 Million Americans watching and 6000 in attendance that day. But did that Reverend preach, did he warn of Hells fire, and God’s wrath, NO he said that if you “Ever want to see Dale, just wait until you get to heaven”. Well friend, you and I both know that the only way to heaven is through the blood of Jesus, not because you were good, or had a movement that did “apparent” good. He had a chance to reach “White America” with the Gospel and he also failed. Why! Because he had a targeted message, his message was meant for a “White America” with a shallow tale of being a “good boy”. So instead of “preach the Gospel to every creature” he tried to tone down his message for “white people”. Plow, Plow, Plow, be instant “in season, out of season”. There is no Black Heaven, or White Heaven, but there are millions who will perish and burn forever and ever. Thank you for exposing him as the heretic he is. That shows great truth and courage in this apostate hour.

T M

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Christian?

  1. I thought about something this past MLK Day.

    Have you ever noticed that it’s acceptable and maybe even encouraged to spit all over the Name of Jesus? People do it everyday in very public forums.

    Yet, speak one negative (as perceived by whoever is offended) word against King and it’s the end of the world as we know it.

    Reply
  2. Have you ever noticed that it’s acceptable and maybe even encouraged to spit all over the Name of Jesus? People do it everyday in very public forums.

    Yet, speak one negative (as perceived by whoever is offended) word against King and it’s the end of the world as we know it.

    I haven’t noticed any anti-anti-MLK rhetoric, really. The black people I know/live with can actually be pretty pessimistic about what MLK accomplished at times. But as far as anti-Jesus or anti-Christian rhetoric is concerned, I can certainly agree – the spirit of the antichrist is alive and well, don’t be mistaken.

    Reply
  3. The majority of the thoughts weren’t mine, but I can see how they’d be interesting for you. What do you think about a Jesus-Ghandi-MLK dynamic?

    Also, I was reading the dark matter posts, but it didn’t seem like a real observation to me… too many specifics lacking, i.e. size, how long the “universes” were colliding, the fact that Clowe was quoted as saying “We believe these results prove that dark matter exists.” It comes off as spin by the way you say it.

    Reply
  4. god din’t create christians, he created people.

    paul used the pagan rhetoric regularly to get his point across.

    what’s the problem with MLK using the precepts of another civil rights advocate in his work? that is no more ‘un christian’ than jesus using the example of an average farmer in his parable of the sower.

    funny thing is, ghandi was rather impressed with jesus. but so woefully unsure of christians who lived so far removed from the gospel as to never have heard it that he ultimately rejected the gospel.

    wonder who will be held responsible for that one come the day.

    sad state of affairs when christians have nothing better to do than speculate about the christian-ness of a dead man.

    Reply
  5. Brahnamin, I don’t think that using Ghandi’s ideas make MLK ‘unchristian’. I’m not sure if MLK was a disciple of Christ, it’s not like we can ask him, therefore it is quite irrelevant to us in the present.

    Was Ghandi impressed with Jesus or Jesus’ teachings? He couldn’t have been impressed with Jesus Himself because Ghandi ultimately rejected Him. Rejection of Jesus Christ is on the individual. Putting up the actions of supposed “Christians” as the basis of rejection seems to me like a cop-out.

    Ghandi will be held responsible for his rejection of the Risen Christ (as he found out immediately after his death). He had the choice and he chose most unwisely.

    Reply
  6. god din’t create christians, he created people.

    I believe in a Christ-centric world, not a Christian-centric one.

    paul used the pagan rhetoric regularly to get his point across.

    You’re taking his message out of context.

    what’s the problem with MLK using the precepts of another civil rights advocate in his work? that is no more ‘un christian’ than jesus using the example of an average farmer in his parable of the sower.

    The problem was that it added to his own glory and not God’s, so your assertion of it being “no more ‘un christian’ than jesus using … his parable of the sower” is theologically inaccurate. As the post illustrates, the church to him was a platform from which he could convey a humanist message. How would you like it if someone came into your house to use it as a KKK gathering place (obviously a hyperbolic example, bear with it)?

    funny thing is, ghandi was rather impressed with jesus. but so woefully unsure of christians who lived so far removed from the gospel as to never have heard it that he ultimately rejected the gospel.

    wonder who will be held responsible for that one come the day.

    Not those Christians if that’s what you’re getting at. To illustrate (Luke 16:19-31):

    “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

    “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

    “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

    “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

    “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

    ” ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

    “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ “

    You continue:

    sad state of affairs when christians have nothing better to do than speculate about the christian-ness of a dead man.

    A common mistake that I’ve made in a couple cases: generalizing. Look on the right hand column to see the number of posts I’ve managed to accumulate in the last three months compared to yours.

    Reply
  7. One thing that never ceases to amaze me about born again “christians” is 1) their intimate knowledge of who is in hell 2) their intimate knowledge of who is going to hell.
    Their belief that out of the thousnds of different denominations of christianity, they are the only ones going to heaven. Every other type of Christian, especially those wicked catholics are hellbound. The other striking feature of born again christians is their intolerance, and that they are always highly judgemental of everyone else other than themselves, especially other christian groups, religions, homosexuals etc..this is in direct opposition to the words of Jesus in the Bible: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Matthew 7:5. It is gross blasphemy and arrogance to claim that you know who is in hell, because only Almighty God knows who is there and who is going there. It is not your place to judge others; that perrogative belongs to God alone. So, unless you are perfect (which you are not), examine first your own faults before you waste time slandering a dead man.

    Reply
  8. Hi Sarah,

    Thanks for the comment. I hope it wasn’t me you were intending this comment for, as my byline/paragraph wasn’t being judgmental, but rather merely factual. I would first examine the veracity of the argument being presented before pointing any fingers, but maybe that’s just me.

    Secondly, I agree – it is up to God who is and isn’t “in.” But your comment alludes more to the idea that fundy Christians need to examine themselves first before raining judgment down on others (something I am in complete agreement with). Perhaps you should look at my comment right above yours to exercise some of that yourself.

    Reply
  9. Hi Albert,
    No, it was not your posting I was extending the comment for, not at all. My comment was directed at the above article about Martin Luther King, in which the author is assuming knowledge of whether or not Dr. Martin Luther King is in hell.
    My comment was also directed at what would appear to be a significant minority of evangelical/”born again” Christians, and the fact that they do appear to be so keen to pass judgement on others.

    Reply
  10. Hi Albert,
    just saw the last part of your above comment. For your information, I do try very hard to examine myself, my faults and failings, (of which there are many) and I try not to cast judgement upon others, for the Bible tells me that if I do so then God will judge me in the same way. I think you have taken my comment as a personal attack on yourself, which is certainly was not intended to be. It was not even directed at your posting.

    Reply
  11. Hi Albert, the website to which your name appears to link is: https://fundamentalist.wordpress.com/. I take it that was the site to which you were directing me. Being British/Irish, I have never encountered the word “fundy”, and am assuming it is short for fundamentalist. I also note your above comment about generalizing not always being a good thing, but looking at the world around us I would say that fundamentalism, be it Christian or Islamic is a dangerous thing. We have George W. Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq, and Al-Qaeda claiming they were carrying out God’s orders by destroying the twin towers, both these examples of religious fanatacism have resulted in unbelievable misery, sufering and bloodshed. Here in the UK, the age old Catholic-Protestant conflict, especially in Ireland has caused countless acts of violence and bloodshed throughout history. The Spanish inquisition by the Catholic Kings in the middle ages being just another example of religious fundamentalism causing death and destruction. As a Catholic myself, I base some of my views about evangelicals upon the treatment I have recieved from them, including insults, and verbal attacks from an individual at a pentecostal church I used to attend. I have to say that I have observed that it is fairly commonplace amongst these Christians to mock and belittle any denomination not sharing their own rigid interpretation of the Bible and church practices. I also feel that fundamentalism can be dangerous in that it can actually cause people to abandon faith, and makes Christians for whom the journey to faith takes longer feel second class and inadequate. I would ask you to look at http://www.godhatessweden.com, and http://www.godhatesfags.com, hosted by the Westboro Baptist Church. I have viewed the content of these sites, and, quite frankly, I can describe it as being nothing more than filth. If you could explain to me how these websites, particularly the part about the Swedish Royal Family could be described as “Christian” or “Godly” I would be most interested to hear your explanation. I have actually known of non-christians reading these sites, and being so sickened by their content, that they have vowed never to have anything to do with Christianity. My point being that this kind of extremism actually turns people away from the Lord, which can only be a terrible thing.

    Reply
  12. Hi Sarah, I’m interspersing my comments in between yours to make this thread more readable.

    Hi Albert, the website to which your name appears to link is: https://fundamentalist.wordpress.com/. I take it that was the site to which you were directing me.

    Yes, the link is as such because this is my site.

    Being British/Irish, I have never encountered the word “fundy”, and am assuming it is short for fundamentalist. I also note your above comment about generalizing not always being a good thing, but looking at the world around us I would say that fundamentalism, be it Christian or Islamic is a dangerous thing.

    I agree yet disagree. I don’t know about Islam, but if Christian fundamentalism was done the right way, you’d have a lot more people risking their lives for Jesus, which would translate to more people loving one another.

    We have George W. Bush saying that God told him to invade Iraq, and Al-Qaeda claiming they were carrying out God’s orders by destroying the twin towers, both these examples of religious fanatacism have resulted in unbelievable misery, sufering and bloodshed. Here in the UK, the age old Catholic-Protestant conflict, especially in Ireland has caused countless acts of violence and bloodshed throughout history. The Spanish inquisition by the Catholic Kings in the middle ages being just another example of religious fundamentalism causing death and destruction.

    Actually, the Spanish Inquisition wasn’t so much a product of Catholic fundamentalism as much as it was the politicos afraid of losing their trade route to India. Those who believed they were fighting for God aren’t so much to be held accountable for it as much as the leaders who deliberately misled them. Sound familiar?

    As a Catholic myself, I base some of my views about evangelicals upon the treatment I have recieved from them, including insults, and verbal attacks from an individual at a pentecostal church I used to attend. I have to say that I have observed that it is fairly commonplace amongst these Christians to mock and belittle any denomination not sharing their own rigid interpretation of the Bible and church practices.

    Pleasure to meet you, sister.

    Allow me to say that I wouldn’t affiliate myself with fundamentalist churches in the states nor anywhere else. I think a lot of them are misled and that many people are being taken advantage of [edit: to forward political and personal agendas]. And while I’m sorry to hear about your own experiences, I do have some fundamental disagreements with what the Catholic church says and does. My opinion of interpretation is that the Bible is rigid in some areas while being a lot more flexible in others. Ultimately, it takes the leadership and wisdom of the Spirit to understand its true meaning (do you see how that last sentence is flexible while at the same time being rigid?).

    I also feel that fundamentalism can be dangerous in that it can actually cause people to abandon faith, and makes Christians for whom the journey to faith takes longer feel second class and inadequate.

    I agree, but this is a battle that has raged since the founding of the church. Ultimately we as believers need to base our foundation on Jesus, which includes his theology.

    I would ask you to look at http://www.godhatessweden.com, and http://www.godhatesfags.com, hosted by the Westboro Baptist Church. I have viewed the content of these sites, and, quite frankly, I can describe it as being nothing more than filth. If you could explain to me how these websites, particularly the part about the Swedish Royal Family could be described as “Christian” or “Godly” I would be most interested to hear your explanation. I have actually known of non-christians reading these sites, and being so sickened by their content, that they have vowed never to have anything to do with Christianity. My point being that this kind of extremism actually turns people away from the Lord, which can only be a terrible thing.

    Once again, I am in agreement – people turning away from God is the last thing I want to see. If I had the time, I would write reams to these people to tell them of their own wrongdoing, but at the present time I have my hands somewhat full.

    In any case, I hope my responses at least somewhat served as an indication that this site is much more than meets the eye. It is perhaps more the name in and of itself that ironically draws out fundamentalism in others.

    Reply
  13. Hi Albert,
    “It is perhaps more the name in and of itself that ironically draws out fundamentalism in others.” If your last statement was directed at me, then I would have to disagree. I am in no way a fundamentalist, and I think it is very clear that fundamentalism in all it’s varying religious forms is causing countless problems in today’s world. Being an American you experienced it first hand on 9/11. For the majority of people today the word “fundamentalist” has negative connotations, and with good reason. I get FRUSTRATED when I see websites such as those mentioned above, which would repel the majority of normal people, and could therefore play an active role in souls being lost. I also get OFFENDED about people claiming divine knowledge of things which are known only by God, such as the author of the above MLK article stating that Martin Luther King is in hell, which was actually the subject of my original posting.
    To me, assuming that kind of knowledge is a form of blasphemy. I get SADDENED when I see Christians of differing denominations fighting amongst each other, and criticizing and “nit-picking” each other, when there are so many more important and constructive things to be doing for the LORD. But a fundmentalist i am not. I would like to thank you for your responses to my comments, and can i just say how much I am enjoying this discussion. A place for these kind of discussions is long overdue. GOD BLESS YOU.

    Reply
  14. Hi Albert,
    “It is perhaps more the name in and of itself that ironically draws out fundamentalism in others.” If your last statement was directed at me, then I would have to disagree. I am in no way a fundamentalist, and I think it is very clear that fundamentalism in all it’s varying religious forms is causing countless problems in today’s world.

    Hi Sarah,

    Although it doesn’t seem that you’re a “fundamentalist” in the traditional sense of the word, but the fundamentalism I was alluding to was the extremity of reaction the phrase “Fundamentalist Christianity” has drawn out in other people who have commented here. So it wasn’t directed so much at you as much as it was other people who have commented on the site.

    Being an American you experienced it first hand on 9/11. For the majority of people today the word “fundamentalist” has negative connotations, and with good reason. I get FRUSTRATED when I see websites such as those mentioned above, which would repel the majority of normal people, and could therefore play an active role in souls being lost
    I also get OFFENDED about people claiming divine knowledge of things which are known only by God, such as the author of the above MLK article stating that Martin Luther King is in hell, which was actually the subject of my original posting.

    Interesting, I didn’t think of the MLK situation in that light. You’re right, ultimately no one knows who’s gone to heaven or hell, but at the same time apostles were quick to correct believers when they were in the wrong. Paul himself said to expel the sexually immoral brother (1 Cor 5) and that he himself had practiced this with regards to two blasphemers (1 Tim 20), so to some degree knowledge does play a role in defining heresy.

    However, you do make a good point in that fundamentalism “repels” people from God. When I first started this blog I was hoping that I might do something to defray that a bit.
    To me, assuming that kind of knowledge is a form of blasphemy. I get SADDENED when I see Christians of differing denominations fighting amongst each other, and criticizing and “nit-picking” each other, when there are so many more important and constructive things to be doing for the LORD. But a fundmentalist i am not.

    In terms of the first point, I wholly agree. As Christians it’s explicitly stated that we shouldn’t judge others (Matt 7:2), yet “pastors” such as the ones associated with Westboro Baptist commit blatant heresy. But with regards to the second point, I don’t see it being as much of a problem as you do, but perhaps something more of God’s will (even as unity does at times benefit). You could call it fate, but ultimately there is only a certain amount you can do about it as it seems more the natural progression to a truly unified Church in the last day.

    So in that sense, the splits that happen in a bigger church is a sign that it’s a living organism, and not stagnant and archaic. An extensive organization such as a mainstream church has no business being controlled by the dictates of one, or even a group of, men. It is at its core a Spirit-led grassroots organization, which is ultimately subject to the ebbs and flows of His own guidance (not so much a set of “charitable” things). Thereby, a split can also be a good thing for the Church while being a bad thing for the “church.”

    I would like to thank you for your responses to my comments, and can i just say how much I am enjoying this discussion. A place for these kind of discussions is long overdue. GOD BLESS YOU.

    I’m glad that this conversation has been edifying to you, but remember: to God be the glory. The place for these discussions – edifying or not – is everywhere if you keep an ear open.

    Reply
  15. Hi Albert,
    wanted to get your opinion on the subject of dreams and visions.
    Throughout history people have claimed to see visions…visions of heaven, hell, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary and angels being amongst the most common. What do you think of visions? What causes them, and how seriously should we take them?
    I am fairly cynical to be honest.

    Reply
  16. Hi Sarah,

    While I wouldn’t call myself an expert in this area by any means, I think dreams and visions do hold some legitimacy depending on where and how it is occurring. Because of some advances in psychology, there should at minimum be a good deal of separation from what would be considered psychosis and what is traditionally considered a dream or vision in biblical terms (i.e., John in Revelation, Daniel, and Pharaoh to name a few of the more notable).

    In the modern day I think visions have meant more for those without much knowledge of Christ than those with – and by that I mean specifically those without the light of Christ in their general vicinity. Some anecdotes I’ve heard of come from places like India, Africa, or the Middle East, where one man had a vision of an angel telling him to get himself and his family out of his house before a band of Hindu zealots were about to arrive; or where one woman living in a deeply witchcraft-based culture had had a vision of Jesus and immediately called out his name, even without ever hearing of it since birth. In terms of the Middle East, I’d also read that their culture is more open to dreams and visions.

    So as far as dreams in the vicinity of salvation and warnings go, I could see how they could be legitimate – but to address the question, heaven, hell, and the Virgin Mary are mostly things I would dismiss rather quickly as fabrications or possibly psychosis in line with a kind of demon possession.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s