When my grandfather died, a portrait of Martin Luther King Jr. hung above his deathbed. His name was Bishop Thomas Lee Cooper, and he was part of the civil rights generation of the now-fading black church that King defined.
It’s no great mystery why he and millions of other Americans held King in such high esteem. This confessing Christian leader literally sacrificed his life to exemplify love of neighbor. His prophetic dream was a clear application of the Gospel, which gave his people a reason to “keep going” while suffering under the sword of oppression. He demonstrated a tenacity and grace that challenged America’s wicked racial caste system. without reciprocating the hatred or belligerence of those who lynch his people. And King always pointed the hope of black Americans to Jesus Christ, not to himself. It is impossible to honestly pay tribute to him without recognizing the role that his Christian faith played in his social action.
Conversely, in February Comments more widely distributed This month, California pastor and theologian John MacArthur called King “not a Christian at all,” a “non-believer who has misrepresented everything about Christ and the Gospel.” He also called the Gospel Coalition (TGC) “woke” for honoring King in its MLK50 Conference in 2018, this meant the end of TGC’s loyalty and orthodoxy.
MacArthur delivered these condemnations casually, with an apparent air of self-satisfaction that suggests his theological expertise is associated with an infantile understanding of love of neighbor (Hebrews 5:11-13). Unfortunately, a deep knowledge of systematic theology can exist alongside a desperate need for remedial teaching on the greatest commandments (Matt. 22:37-39) and a failure “to know good from evil” (Hebrews 5). : 14), including that of King. good work of peace and justice enlightened by Scripture and motivated by the Gospel.
I spoke at MLK50 and I don’t recall seeing any speakers who weren’t unambiguously Orthodox. MacArthur’s accusations are not made lightly. They are clearly slanderous.
MacArthur may take issue with some of King’s early theological work, which questioned Christian doctrine. However, like Mika Edmondson, himself a pastor and systematic theologian, explain, “King’s early seminar papers do not reflect his fully formed final theology. » Much like Abraham Kuyper and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, King fought against theological liberalism but later it seemed “returning to the faith of his conservative black Baptist upbringing.”
And notice, like Edmondson also mentioned, that the salvation of Kuyper and Bonhoeffer is never in question. “They get the benefit of the doubt.” Why is King held to different standards? Even theologians who were slave owners receive less attention than King in some Christian circles.
But let’s be honest: The details of King’s theological background have never been the main concern of his detractors. J. Edgar Hoover and Taurus Connor He didn’t hate King because of his theology or even his indiscretions. They hated his audacity and the way he exposed America’s sins and denounced its fictitious intrigues. They hated that he didn’t know “his place” and that he was undermining their authority.
In Acts 5, Gamaliel, the apostle Paul’s teacher, warns his fellow religious leaders against attempting to kill the apostles based on their embarrassing testimony about Jesus. After reciting a brief history of the rulers and past upheavals, he said: “Therefore, in the present case, I advise you: leave these men alone! Let them go! Because if their goal or activity is of human origin, they will fail. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourself fighting against God” (vv. 38-39).
The leaders Gamaliel spoke to had rejected the Messiah and contributed to his death, just as Peter and the apostles had advocated (vv. 29-32). Yet they were not willing to accept the truth and repent. They thought they were close to God, but their behavior contradicted His purposes.
To their detriment, many evangelical (and other) leaders dismissed King’s just indictment injustices in America, just as religious leaders rejected the message of the apostles. God has sent a messenger to America, and some in the American Church are still unable to heed his message. They remain too focused on their justifications to accept verifiable historical facts. They might find themselves fighting against what they claim to stand for.
As for MacArthur, he might sincerely believe he is defending the faith, but he is actually defending a false narrative that has weakened the credibility of the Church. People drift away from the Church in part because they cannot reconcile the doublethink of this type of evangelicalism. One cannot worship the Prince of Peace and refuse to be a peacemaker in the social context.
That said, while MacArthur’s concerns about the impact of the ideological left on the Church are often exaggerated, they are not entirely unfounded. The far left has distorted social justice and disfigured its redemptive form. It is now more about individual autonomy and self-indulgence than equality before the law and social order. I, too, lament that Christian leaders emulate secular activists and academics in the public square and crave their validation.
But rejecting King is not a solution to this problem; he is the model of unapologetic, unquestionable Christian activism we need — the exact type of public Christian faithfulness that dysfunctional corners of the left have eschewed. Condemning King and evangelical groups who attempt to demonstrate contrition and repentance is a movement toward “bitterness, wrath, and wrath, strife, and slander” (Eph. 4:31), not redemption.
Ironically, those who are obsessed with political power and cultural domination are often the same as those who question King’s portrayal of the gospel. It is telling that he is known for his self-sacrifice, and they for their resentment and self-interest. They pick up a cross and clumsily try to use it as a sword, but King knew “The cross is something you carry and ultimately die on.” Their assessment of King is wrong.
And denigrating King is not enough to discredit the Christian social justice movement more broadly, as MacArthur points out. tried to do. To achieve this, MacArthur would have to do more than smear King’s legacy and deny his faith. He should rip out of the Scriptures the Spirit-filled prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Amos. It should retroactively nullify the eschatological motive behind God’s deliverance of the Hebrews. He should go back and rip the heart of Jesus out of the chest of Christian abolitionists.
He will fail in this effort. Social justice, as practiced by Amélie Boynton Robinson And Fred Shuttlesworth, is the fruit of the Gospel and is found wherever God reigns. And King’s vision and self-sacrifice rightly made him a symbol of the Church’s call “to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:16-21).
Ultimately, the imperative for justice comes from God, who sits on the throne of justice and righteousness, and not from any person or organization. And to the extent that MacArthur or others reject or even obstruct the American Church’s efforts to repent of injustice, imitate Christ, and heal our nation’s racism, sexism, and economic inequality, they will not will only find themselves fighting against God.
Justin Giboney is an ordained minister, attorney, and president of AND Campaign, a Christian civic organization. He is the co-author of Compassion (and) Conviction: The AND Campaign’s Guide to Faithful Civic Engagement.
