 As a young man,Martin Luther King Jr. rejected many of the orthodox views of Jesus’s divinity, resurrection, and return. The author shows how King flatly rejected “a literal interpretation of biblical stories, claiming such a reading would be ‘absurd’ in a Copernican world.” On these issues, Scofield argues, King did not change his mind in later years. IMAGE CREDIT: Library of Congress
King’s God: The Unknown Faith of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.by Robert James “Be” Scofield
You undoubtedly know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a progressive Christian and champion of civil rights and the social gospel. You may also know that he spoke out against the Vietnam War, harshly criticized U.S. foreign policy, and questioned the capitalist system that produced poverty. But do you know his theology?
Right up until Dr. King's assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, where he had traveled to support striking sanitation workers, the civil rights leader worked—not as a secular activist but as a Baptist minister—to awaken the conscience of the nation. What was the meaning of Jesus for Dr. King? Did he see Jesus as divine? How did he interpret the Bible?
Biographies describe King as a liberal Protestant, but what does this mean? What was his understanding of Christian doctrines and why are they important to us? A number of academic papers written during his seminary years (1948-1951) provide an intimate look at the young King as he struggled to reconcile religion with a changing, dynamic, and modern world.
Prior to entering the liberal Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, King had developed only a tenuous relationship with Christianity. Despite being raised in a lineage of orthodox Baptist ministers, King at a young age demonstrated skepticism of the irrational claims of religion, and embarrassment at the emotionalism of his father's preaching. His entrance into Christianity at the age of six came from neither a genuine religious conviction nor a crisis moment; rather, he saw his sister make the altar call during a local religious revival and quickly followed suit. He claimed that during his baptism he had no idea what was occurring. Perhaps most striking was his denial of the bodily resurrection of Jesus during Sunday school at the age of thirteen. From this point he stated, "doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly."[i]
King carried these suspicions with him when he entered Morehouse College in Atlanta at the age of fifteen. He had originally planned on being a doctor or lawyer. At Morehouse, under the guidance of President Benjamin E. Mays and professor George D. Kelsey, he began to believe that religion could be both "intellectually respectful and emotionally satisfying." Mays's weekly talks on the social gospel enchanted King, while Kelsey's Bible course taught him to see the Bible metaphorically, leading him to conclude the Bible has "many profound truths which one cannot escape."[ii]
While the "shackles of fundamentalism" broke off during these years at Morehouse, it was at Crozer that King discovered the insights and potential of liberal theology and began to articulate his opinions about Christianity. It was here that he found his calling, graduating first in his class and delivering the commencement address. He would go on to study the twentieth-century giants of theology -- Tillich, Wieman, Niebuhr, and Barth -- while pursuing a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Boston University. But by the end of his seminary years at Crozer he had already laid out his understanding of the core doctrines of the Christian faith. And it is here that we now direct our focus.
How did Dr. King understand Jesus? Did he see him as the Son of God? In "The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus," a paper written for a class called "Christian Theology Today," King clearly lays out his view on the divinity of Jesus:
The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadequate. 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. To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: "Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possibly have ..." So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The 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 of God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers. The appearance of such a person, more divine and more human than any other, and in closest unity at once with God and man, is the most significant and hopeful event in human history. This divine quality or this unity with God was not something thrust upon Jesus from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation. [iii]
The question King answered was not whether Jesus was divine but rather how he became divine. This approach allowed him to deal with the "insuperable difficulties" of the orthodox position while still explaining why Jesus was unique and different from other people.
In line with his metaphorical interpretation of Jesus, King searched for the deeper significance of the history and context in which the Christian doctrines were created. He suggests, "We should delve into the deeper meaning ... and somehow strip them of their literal interpretation," and when we do this "we will find they are based on a profound foundation."[iv]
In a paper discussing the creation of orthodox beliefs, King argues that the virgin birth story represents a pre-scientific worldview: Christ's followers believed that Jesus's uniqueness could only be explained biologically. According to King, Jesus's early disciples saw his "spiritual life so far beyond theirs" that any attempt to explain his existence as human was inadequate. He concludes, "We of this scientific age will not explain the birth of Jesus in such unscientific terms."[v] This same type of thinking led Christ's followers to externalize their inner experience of his lasting power through the story of the bodily resurrection. Those who knew Jesus "had been captivated by the magnetic power of his personality," King writes, which led them to believe that he "could never die."[vi] The living and eternal presence they experienced was then transferred into the story of a bodily resurrection.
In "The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope," a paper King wrote for Christian Theology Today, he explores the core doctrines. The one he denounces most directly is that of the second coming, writing, "It is obvious that most twentieth century Christians must frankly and flatly reject any view of a physical return of Christ."[vii] What were the early Christians trying to convey in predicting the return of Jesus? King states:
Actually we are celebrating the Second Advent every time we open our hearts to Jesus, every time we turn our backs to the low road and accept the high road, every time we say no to self that we may say yes to Jesus Christ, every time a man or wom[a]n turns from ugliness to beauty and is able to forgive even their enemies. Jesus stands at the door of our hearts if we are willing to admit him.... The final doctrine of the second coming is that whenever we turn our lives to the highest and best there for us is the Christ.[viii]
This is in effect the continual return of Jesus.
In addressing the orthodox notion of the Day of Judgment, King suggests that we "set aside the spectacular paraphernalia of the judgment scene and the literal throne."[ix] Jesus has already come to judge the world. When we judge ourselves against the life of Christ or experience closeness to him we are experiencing the Day of Judgment. King also denies the traditional notion that some are destined for eternal communion with God while others are destined for hell. In "The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope," he writes, "A physical heaven and a physical hell are inconceivable in a Copernican world ... for us immortality will mean a spiritual existence."[x] And in "Why Religion?" he says, "In reality I know nothing about heaven ... personally I don't believe in hell in the conventional sense."[xi] In the end King interprets the kingdom of God not as some cataclysmic end time or a theocratic kingdom that triumphs over "satanically inspired regimes."[xii] Rather he associates the kingdom of God with the eternal love of God on earth, writing, "When we see social relationships controlled everywhere by the principles which Jesus illustrated in life -- trust, love, mercy, and altruism -- then we shall know that the kingdom of God is here."[xiii]
In a paper entitled "A View of the Cross Possessing Biblical and Spiritual Justification," King describes the various different views of the meaning of the cross throughout history and then concludes: "Any doctrine which finds the meaning of atonement in the triumph of Christ over such cosmic powers as sin, death and Satan is inadequate.... If Christ by his life and death paid the full penalty of sin, there is no valid ground for repentance or moral obedience as a condition of forgiveness. The debt is paid; the penalty exacted, and there is, consequently, nothing to forgive."[xiv]
Dr. King's understanding of the Bible is quite simple: he believed it was written in a pre-scientific world and used language that was representative of its era. He flatly rejects a literal interpretation of biblical stories, claiming such a reading would be "absurd" in a Copernican world. The pre-scientific worldview that informed the authors of the Bible is clearly inadequate for modern Christians. Written by men trying to understand their social environment and place in the cosmos, the Bible is filled with "mankind's deepest devotional thoughts and aspirations."[xv] Readers who accept the Bible literally are faced with impossibilities and deep contradictions, but those who read it as myth encounter "many profound truths which one cannot escape."[xvi]
For Dr. King, the value of biblical stories is not diminished by their mythological nature. Rather, the myth serves to take the reader beyond the idea or thought within the mind. In short, he accepts the standard methods for critically examining the Bible. In "How to Use the Bible in Modern Theological Construction," he explains that this modern method "sees the Bible not as a textbook written with divine hands, but as a portrayal of the experiences of men written in particular historical situations."[xvii] Textual and literary criticism, archaeology, and history revealed to King the inadequacy of a literal biblical interpretation. He claimed that this critical approach to the Bible was "the best or at least the most logical system of theology in existence."[xviii] He also believed that biblical criticism and biblical archaeology "will serve to justify the church in modern culture."[xix] However, King was keenly aware of liberal theologians' ability to get caught up in abstract theory. In "The Weaknesses of Liberal Theology," he expressed his understanding that his role as a religious leader was to reconcile theory with concrete meaning:
It is certainly justifiable to be as scientific as possible in proving that the Pentateuch was written by more than one author, that the whale did not swallow Jonah, that Jesus was not born a virgin, or that Jesus never met John the Baptist. But after all of this, what relevance do the scriptures have? What moral implications do we find growing out of the Bible? What relevance does Jesus have in 1948 A.D.? These are questions which the liberal theologian must of necessity answer if he expects to influence the average mind. Too often do we find many of the liberals dodging these vital questions. [xx]
King also wrote at this time that "to discuss Christianity without mentioning other religions would be like discussing the greatness of the Atlantic Ocean without the slightest mention of the many tributaries that keep it flowing."[xxi] During his first semester at Crozer, writing on the Hebrew Bible, he compared the creation accounts, flood stories, and theologies of Babylonia, Egypt, and Sumer with those in the Bible and concluded that biblical stories are rooted in the surrounding cultures. He concluded that the Hebrew authors of the flood story were "producing from Babylonian mythology an almost verbatim story."[xxii] While most Christians of his time would have seen both Judaism and Christianity as contradicting and rejecting pagan religion, King argued that they gave a more "profound and spiritual meaning" to the pagan views to which they must be indebted,[xxiii] adding that these traditions even prepared people "mentally and emotionally to understand the type of religion which Christianity represented."[xxiv] For King, the only reason Christianity triumphed was the particular historical and social circumstances. He even went on to suggest that Christianity might end up like those other cults, religions, and pagan practices that didn't survive. In The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity, he wrote: "The staggering question that now arises is, what will be the next stage of man's religious progress? Is Christianity the crowning achievement in the development of religious thought or will there be another religion more advanced?"[xxv]
The purpose of the church for King is not to create dogma, theology, or creeds but rather "to produce living witnesses and testimonies to the power of God in human experience," and to commit to action. From a young age, King understood the importance of combining his religion with social justice. From this perspective King viewed the church's role as promoting a way of life rather than a belief system, saying, "Jesus always recognized that there is a danger of having a high blood pressure of creeds and an anemia of deeds."[xxvi] He stated that Christ is more concerned with how we treat our neighbors, our attitudes toward racial justice, and living a high ethical life than he is with long processionals, knowledge of creeds, or the beautiful architecture of a church.[xxvii] According to King, the church had strayed from Christ.
In "Is the Church the Hope of the World?" he asserted that "nothing has so persistently and effectively blocked the way of salvation as the church," due to the church's condoning of evils such as slavery and monopoly capitalism.[xxviii] He went on to say, "On the other hand, the church can become the hope of the world, but only when it returns to Christ."[xxix]
By his senior year, King had developed a strong belief in the liberalism that defined the social gospel movement and progressive theology in his era. However, his encounter with Reinhold Niebuhr and the Neo-Orthodoxy movement led him to "recognize the illusions of a superficial optimism concerning human nature and the dangers of a false idealism."[xxx] Thus, he sought a middle ground and rejected original sin as "preposterous" while acknowledging that sin is a real choice we make, albeit far too often.
Like the great mystics, King viewed God as an experience not limited to any religion or restricted by any creed, stating, "Of course the true seeker will realize that there is no one way to find God"[xxxi] and "No theology is needed to tell us that love is the law of life and to disobey it means to suffer the consequences; we see it everyday in human experience."[xxxii] King meditated for an hour a day, prayed, and discovered God through nature. It was through this sort of devotional life that he believed our souls can be united with God, bringing our will in line with his.
For King, God is always near. In "Mastering Our Evil Selves," he writes: "God is not a process projected somewhere in the lofty blue. God is not a divine hermit hiding himself in a cosmic cave. But God is forever present with us."[xxxiii] Despite his liberal theology, he did, however, maintain the belief in a personal God that is both transcendent and immanent. In his dissertation King compared and contrasted his particular theology of personalism with the theology of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman, two leading voices in the process theology movement, which viewed God as an impersonal force. King also viewed God as synonymous with justice. He believed God was right there with him and others during the civil rights movement: "The God that we worship is ... but an other-loving God who forever works through history for the establishment of His Kingdom."[xxxiv]
On the issue of evolution and creation, King sought to reconcile the advances of science with his religious belief in God. He claims that the scientific origin of the beginning of the world "might be right in seeing the invalidity of the older view of a first creation."[xxxv] However, instead of denying any creation, he advocates the view of "emergent evolution," which suggests that God is "an intelligent conscious mind working out its purpose through the evolutionary process."[xxxvi] According to King, it is "here that we find creation and evolution working together."[xxxvii]
At this point a few important questions can be asked. Did King's views on the Christian doctrines while in seminary change later in his life? He was ordained as a Baptist minister. Would he not have chosen a different denomination if his views were so liberal? Dr. Clayborne Carson, a world-renowned King scholar and director of the King Papers Project at Stanford, told me that he had not seen any documentary evidence of a later shift in King's thinking from his early views on Christian doctrines. He also said King may have found creative ways to avoid expressing his unorthodox views, as he was trained in a liberal seminary but served a Baptist congregation.
King had numerous opportunities to express his understanding of Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity with his many sermons, books, interviews, and writings. If at any point he changed his views and became an orthodox Christian, he might have at least once claimed that Jesus was his savior, the Bible was the literal word of God, or non-Christians would go to hell. But there are no statements either during his educational career or in his work as a civil rights leader and preacher that would suggest he ever changed his liberal views of the doctrines. King's metaphysical and philosophical understanding of God and human nature did grow and develop while at Boston University, though his approach to the Christian doctrines remained constant. It should not be surprising then that while Dr. King served a Baptist church, his first choice of religion was Unitarian Christian (which later merged with Universalism).[xxxviii] Dr. King's liberal faith resonated with the dynamic Unitarian Christian tradition because of his acknowledgment of the truth in all religions, his view of Jesus as an exemplary teacher, and his rejection of biblical literalism. Coretta Scott had been attending Unitarian churches for years before she met and married Martin, and they both attended Unitarian services while in Boston. He ultimately faced the reality that he would probably not be able to play a role in the civil rights movement in this tradition and thus he became pastor of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, shortly thereafter being elected to lead the Montgomery bus boycott.[xxxix]
God is bigger than any one religion, and King's theology is a pertinent reminder of this. King was able to express a vision of Christianity that was both meaningful and welcoming of others. In our present world, where fundamentalism is on the march, a look back at his reasoned and thoughtful approach to religion can serve the public well. And for the spiritual progressives working to establish the kingdom of heaven on earth, Dr. King's expression of faith offers a powerful synthesis of how justice, love, and peace can be manifest as paradise here and now. His theology is inclusive, tolerant, renewing, and life-sustaining—free from dogma and exclusionary views, which can lead to violence and separation. The history of religious intolerance within Christianity is, needless to say, troubling. A historical and metaphorical interpretation of Christianity is valid: it need not lack energy and conviction as some fear. Indeed, such an interpretation is held by many in today's vibrant "emergent church." Dr. King is a voice for this movement, as he promoted Christianity as a way of life based on an inner experience and rooted in a commitment to the social gospel. For those of us progressive Christians who have fought for a seat at the table, Dr. King politely pulls a chair out for us to sit on.
Robert James Scofield (aka "Be") is a spiritual activist and the founder of www.godblessthewholeworld.org. He is pursuing a Master of Divinity at Starr King School for the Ministry in Berkeley, California. You can reach him at bjscofield@gmail.com.
Endnotes
[i] King Jr., ed. Clayborne Carson. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. Warner
Books. 1998 p. 6.
[ii] Ibid., p. 180.
[iii] King Jr., "The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol 1, p. 150.
[iv] King Jr., "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," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol 1, p. 224.
[v] Ibid., p. 229.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] King Jr., "The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope," in "The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol. 1," p. 269.
[viii] Ibid., p. 270.
[ix] Ibid., p. 271.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] King Jr., "Why Religion?" in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 83.
[xii] Ibid., p. 272.
[xiii] Ibid.
[xiv] King Jr., "A View of the Cross possessing Biblical and Spiritual Justification," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 265.
[xv] King Jr., "Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr. Vol. 1, p. 180.
[xvi] Ibid.
[xvii] King Jr., "How to Use the Bible in Modern Theological Construction," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 253.
[xviii] King Jr., "The Weaknesses of Liberal Theology," in the Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 78.
[xix] King Jr., "Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 180.
[xx] King Jr., "The Weaknesses of Liberal Theology," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 78.
[xxi] King Jr., "The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 311.
[xxii] King Jr., "Light on the Old Testament from the Ancient Near East," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 172.
[xxiii] King Jr., "The Influence of Mystery Religions on Christianity," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 1, p. 311.
[xxiv] Ibid.
[xxv] Ibid.
[xxvi] King Jr., "A Religion of Doing," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 171.
[xxvii] Ibid.
[xxviii] King Jr., "Is the Church the Hope of the World?" in "The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, pp. 105-106.
[xxix] Ibid.
[xxx] Ibid., p. 27.
[xxxi] Ibid., p. 232.
[xxxii] Ibid., p. 234.
[xxxiii] King Jr., "Mastering Our Evil Selves," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., Vol. 6, p. 97.
[xxxiv] Ansboro, John, Martin Luther King Jr., The Making of a Mind, p. 47.
[xxxv] King Jr., "Examination Answers, Christian Theology for Today," in The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr., p. 290.
[xxxvi] Ibid.
[xxxvii] Ibid.
[xxxviii] Bray McNatt, Rosemary, "The Problem of Theology in the Work of Anti-racism: A Meditation," in Soul Work: Anti-racist Theologies in Dialogue. Skinner House, 2003.
[xxxix] Ibid., p. 27.
A Note on Sources:
Most quotations in this article come from The Papers of Martin Luther King Jr.,
Volumes 1 and 6. A fully footnoted version of the article will be posted at www.tikkun.org on January 1, 2010. If you need a copy before that, please email dave@tikkun.org
|
|
Most want to claim ML King, Jr., who, in spite of his faults, did great things to end one of America's great sins, namely racial prejudice, division and hatred. This article makes a strong, well documented case that King was a very liberal Protestant, not evangelical or bible-believing at all...with more in common with Unitarianism, than any sort of evangelical Baptist beliefs. King, in college and seminary papers, denied the virgin birth, the resurrection, the trinity, and the unique divinity of Jesus, none-the-less, he accomplished great and godly things. There's no indication that he changed his religious view, even after ordination as a Baptist minister. Coretta Scott King had been an active Unitarian for years before marrying King, and, they apparently chose to become Baptist instead of Unitarian because a Unitarian would not have had the acceptance in, and impact on the black community which a Baptist could have.
ReplyDeleteIn any event--the openly non-Christian Thomas Jefferson also had a great impact for good in America...and God uses whom He will to bless, still, we should be honest with King, and not claim him as a Christian saint.
Interesting article, Ralph! I was expecting this guy to tear into King's beliefs, but I was thrown way off when he commended them as an answer to "modern fundamentalism."
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that we should be more discerning as to whom we claim as our "saints." People are still learning that people don't mean the same Jesus when they talk about Jesus. I have many friends that I think fall into that camp a bit too often.
Those were some hefty paper names that he wrote. I hate reading about the things that some of these guys wrote when they were in seminary and then I look at what I write...I always have to ask, "Why do I even bother?" haha. Well, I do know why I bother! It's just a little disheartening sometimes though.
Have a good day!
J
Keep in mind too that King unfortunately has been proven to have plagerized in major ways...including big parts of his doctoral thesis itself. Even the famous "I have a dream" speech is more or less a ripoff of another man's speech, years before. Black scholarship likes to call this in the African "echo" tradition, but, I call a spade a spade, and King cheated...even though, yes, he did accomplish great other things.
ReplyDeleteI just hate elevation of persons to god-like status, especially when by measures of personal character, they surely don't deserve it.
Another musing: I had a conversation last night with friends who argued that it is morally right to violate the law for "Justice," like King did in his civil disobedience to segregation laws. Putting aside the loaded and vague term "Justice" (who can possibly be against "Justice?" What kind of justice are you talking about however? Racial-justice? Social-justice? Environmental-justice? Women's-justice? Justice for criminals? Equality for gays? What??? "Justice" is more loaded than the word "equality" and used by every Marxist professor in America (and that's a LOT of professors)...) can we assume, because legal-racial-justice (the ending of legal racial discrimination) resulted from King's peaceful-violation-of-law, that therefore this proves his methods were morally right (and hence to be recommended to fight current and future injustices)?
ReplyDeleteTo me the logic is very obvious: NO! Just because something worked, or, even (seemingly) was used by God to obtain a just end, does NOT mean it was a just means. Arguing that way is saying ends justify means (which every tyrant claims), rightly labeled the slippery slope of utilitarianism...NOT Biblical ethics.
Hundreds of years before Christ after many hundreds of years of forbearance, God chose to judge Israel/Judah, by the pagan, brutal, sadistic Assyrians and Babylonians...did that make what those people did to the Jews right and good...not subject to God's perfect justice? NO. God uses good and evil to bring about his ultimately just/merciful ends...that is His prerogative as God...NOT ours.
The Roman occupation of Palestine in Jesus' day was CERTAINLY a very brutal and unjust rule. Tens of thousands of Jews were crucified and tortured to death--just on accusations of rebellion... Slavery of a much more brutal fashion than ever occured in America (a master could kill his slave (or his son) for any reason--without any legal penalty, for example) was common there.... Clearly social justice was terribly abused. Yet when Jesus (or Paul) taught about Rome...did He call for civil disobedience, protests, or resistance of ANY kind to these terrible social injustices? Oddly to our way of thinking, NO.
When a soldier forces you to carry his pack 1 mile (a terribly humiliating social injustice, to a devout Jew...), you should carry it 2, our LORD commanded... (Mt 5:41)
So I cannot agree that just because MLKing, or Ghandi, are the Baby-Boomers' supreme-(but actually secular)SAINTS, men who publicly at least, no one cannot say they "did no wrong," who did, certainly, effect positive change on our world, were right in HOW they did it--as they ultimately didn't change things, God did--through changing people's hearts--who then changed the law. Is passive-resistance and mob-pressure (protests) better than violence? CERTAINLY! However, does this prove it is Jesus' way of doing things? Do we have an automatic carte blanche to break "unjust" laws? I cannot find that in my Bible.
Disobedience to secular law is ONLY warranted when that law tells us to break God's law (as when the Sanhedrin forbade Peter & John from preaching)....NOT merely because it is non-nonsensical or even unjust.