MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY

Over 40 years ago, back in 1985, my wife and I started a non-profit dedicated to breaking down barriers among people - racial, economic, educational, denominational, political, etc. This ministry is totally non-denominational and has published a lot of gospel literature and produced over 3,000 radio programs.  We have a black-white marriage, and there have actually been NINE interethnic marriages in our extended family - black, white, bi-racial, Hispanic, Asian, you name it.

Due to my passion for true unity, I was often the designated speaker at church on MLK Day. I honestly would have preferred it to have been called Civil Rights Day, as that is the nature of most Federal Holidays. Even George Washington, the Founder of our nation, and Abraham Lincoln, the one who preserved the Union, do not have a day with their name on it - only "Presidents Day".   Even Christmas and Easter are not named after the Lord who left heaven to come die for us and be raised up, do not accord that honor.  Only Columbus Day, which dates back to 1792, and MLK, Jr. Day remain.  Even then, only 20 states make Columbus Day a paid holiday, and many insist on trashing Columbus Day and celebrating Indigenous Peoples Day instead.  There is a lot of P.C. behind this, as well as a total glorification of those called Native Americans, often ignoring actual history, which indicates that they are no more sainted than any other people group. There was some pretty intense violence, massive intertribal warfare, and the like, flying in the face of the peace-pipe images.  I have nothing against honoring them as much as any other people group, as ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. However, to demonize Columbus and deify Native Americans is simply a non-starter for me.

The move a few decades ago to practically deify MLK led me to stop doing those speeches.  For the last few, I only talked about civil rights and barely mentioned his name. However, pushing him to sainthood despite the increasing hard evidence he was not a saint at all, from the Testimony of Ralph Abernathy, his successor of the SCLC, confessions of others close to him, the note from Boston University concerning his doctorate degree at the King Center at Stanford University, which should have been revoked for gross and massive plagiarism. They asked what purpose that would serve, ignoring academic integrity. The evidence of chronic plagiarism throughout his life including the "I Have A Dream" speech came to light when his papers were donated by Coretta to Stanford in the 1980's. Perhaps he felt privileged as predominantly white Crozer Theological Seminary gave him an A- average while predominantly black Morehouse College gave him a C+.  Boston University continued the favored treatment.

Perhaps even more alarming to Christians was his extreme serial adultery, even on the day of his death. Women at his speeches would give him their number or a key to his room, and his confidantes said he did not refuse any. Ralph Abernathy and others confirmed the extent of unfaithfulness and it was alleged Coretta simply looked the other way.

I have been to the King Center in Memphis, but have studied documents from Stanford. It has always bothered me that Christian evangelicals often call him a prophet, though originally they opposed him. With the rise of Malcolm X, he seemed more palatable, so it was Christian P.C. to embrace him as a fellow believer with a call on his life. However, any honest reading of his academic papers indicates he was never born again, and in fact was an enemy of the true gospel, never having preached it his entire life.  He says he was baptized at six but had no clue what it was about, simply joining others. He became a skeptic as a child, and by the age of 13, determined that Jesus Christ was not God.  Any "divinity" was simply because Jesus was doing God's work. The virgin birth and much of scripture were not in his belief system at all, and the entirety of his theological education was at apostate institutions. He leaned on theologians who denied the central beliefs of Christianity, and seemed to have never seriously studied scripture, but cherry-picked passages that were consistent with his message and interpreted them to suit his agenda. Of course, that is called eisegesis, and he is far from alone in doing that. Whether the purveyors of health and wealth on TBN and similar networks, those pushing feminism, or liberation theologians in Nicaragua and elsewhere, eisegesis is a sure-fire path to deception. Only exegesis, which seeks to take from scripture the pure, obvious, and eternal meaning, will keep one on the straight and narrow path to eternal life.  I Peter 2 warns us about people who appeal to Christians, but who have an immoral character and other issues that we need to avoid.

I find that those who are partial, who look past the sins of those they admire, fall into manifest deceptions. That is so common today among so many that millions honor and respect, and MLK is not the slightest unique in that. The reason we point out the specifics today, though, is that we have a Federal holiday that honors him above all others, even those whose character dwarfs his. To be impartial is more than a notion, and we need to be 100% consistent in that if we are to please the Lord.