Last month the U.S. observed the national holiday commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, and now Black History Month is upon us. What better time for Christians to contemplate King’s legacy and message, as well as the plight of the black person in this country? We therefore are pleased to feature La Shawn Barber’s informative and balanced cover article on King, his work, and his philosophy. Those of us who lived through the turbulent 1960s can recall that King was not always someone for whom white people would have expected to have a national holiday declared in his honor. Some suspected him of being a communist and even more viewed him as a lawbreaking troublemaker. In the South, even some of those who did not dislike him on racial grounds resented him for upsetting the status quo. One hundred years earlier, white Christians in the North had been at the forefront of the abolitionist movement that ended slavery, but in the 1950s and ’60s white Christians in the South often resisted desegregation and it was more often white secularists from the North, rather than white Christians, who marched with the blacks in their struggle to realize their civil rights. Though there were notable exceptions, on the whole it was not the church’s finest hour. The civil rights movement was identified at the time with the political Left. It was largely Democrats who participated, not Republicans. In today’s terms, it would be considered “politically correct.” Without the benefit of hindsight that we now have, it was easy for Christians to be suspicious of, and to stand aloof from, Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement, and the clear majority did. Yet, despite the faults one might find with King’s theology, his personal life, and even his political philosophy, the cause that he was fighting for was manifestly just and the repressive sociopolitical forces he was fighting against were manifestly evil. What he and his movement accomplished greatly benefitted not only American blacks, but other racial minorities, and it helped heal a moral cancer in the country’s soul. By not taking a clear stand on this issue, the white church ceded the moral high ground to the secular Left, and it left a smirch on evangelical Christianity. Despite their taking principled and even courageous stands on many issues before and after the civil rights movement (e.g., abortion), evangelicals’ past failure to offer a prophetic voice against civil rights abuses has continued to be a stumbling block in the way of many people considering the claims of Christ. I know this firsthand because I have tried to share Christ with many such people, and it was an obstacle that I myself had to overcome in order to accept Christ. What lessons can we draw today from this piece of not-too-distant history? One obvious lesson would be: just because the political Right is championing an issue doesn’t guarantee that it is morally right, and just because the political Left is championing an issue doesn’t ensure that it is morally wrong. Our God is transcendent, and it only makes sense that truth is transcendent and cannot be perfectly captured or embodied by any one political party or movement. Although the political Right is more closely associated with traditional values and therefore biblical influences on such issues as sexual morality, the sanctity of life, and the family, the political Left also exhibits direct or indirect biblical influences in its emphasis on social justice issues. Clearly, it seems, a majority of evangelicals identify themselves as Republicans, but there are also many evangelicals who are registered Democrats or Independents. Conversely, while secular humanists seem to have a clear preference for the Democratic Party, the Republican Party and the political Right in general have their own share of irreligious people, not to mention hypocritical professors of religion. In the name of increasing political clout, moral and immoral people on both the Right and the Left have often formed unholy alliances, and righteous causes have been compromised as a result. Conscientious Christians should therefore not enter the ballot box and mindlessly put a check next to every candidate and ballot issue they’ve heard advocated on Fox News, or even those tacitly endorsed in a handout received at church the previous Sunday. We should ask ourselves: are there any issues facing Christians today that future generations might look back on as we now look back at the civil rights issues of the 1950s and ’60s? Are we ceding any moral high ground to the secular Left? How should Christians view torture as an interrogation technique? The Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Wars of choice? It is not my purpose here to advocate for one side of these or other debates, but rather for critical thinking and deep biblical reflection. One of the purposes of the JOURNAL is to promote such critical thinking, and so we have published, and will publish again, debates, Viewpoint opinion pieces, and probing feature articles that will assist you in thinking through contemporary issues. As we consider the lessons evangelicals can learn from the civil rights movement, the need to think critically and biblically and not merely follow the right-leaning pack is surely one of them.

—Elliot Miller

In 1934, the Rev. Michael King, Sr., changed his name to Martin Luther King in honor of Martin Luther, the German Protestant reformer. Luther took on the powerful Roman Catholic Church. He criticized the papacy and such practices as indulgences and the “good works” salvation plan, and translated the Bible to the common language so the masses could read and study God’s Word for themselves, rather than have it filtered through the church. Only by faith alone, through God’s grace alone, was the sinner saved. This message spread throughout western Europe and eventually the world.

Luther was a revolutionary who took on a powerful system, and his spiritual passion ushered in the Protestant Reformation, changing the course of western civilization.

Martin Luther King, Jr., was a reformer and revolutionary of a different sort. King stood at the forefront of the civil rights movement, a secular reformation with Christian underpinnings, and changed the course of American history.

Every January 15th, America pays homage to the man whose bold oratory and use of civil disobedience (nonviolent resistance) roused the country from its racial slumber and hastened the dismantling of government racial segregation. One of the most turbulent periods in our history, the Civil Rights era is most associated with King.

Four decades after his death, his legacy reverberates. The legacy isn’t without controversy, however. Given recent revelations about his personal life, plagiarism,¹ and his beliefs about Christianity, some may conclude he’s no longer worthy of such reverence. Others believe that despite his moral failings and questionable theology, King has earned a place of respect for challenging a system that codified racial separation and branded black Americans as inferior. We should ask, therefore, “Are King’s ideas relevant to contemporary Christian apologetics?”

KING’S LIFE AND WORK

King was born into a middle-class family in Atlanta, Georgia, in 1929. This son, grandson, and great-grandson of ministers grew up in the church but began doubting his faith once he realized the cold reality of racial discrimination.² King writes of his resentment toward the injustice of racial segregation and the harsh treatment that sprang from it. One can feel his bitterness as he recounts scenes from his formative years in which he, his family, and his friends were subjected to condescending and disrespectful treatment. He tried to reconcile his faith with this treatment, particularly after a white friend’s father told him not to play with King anymore. “My parents would always tell me that I should not hate the white man, but that it was my duty as a Christian to love him. The question arose in my mind: How could I love a race of people who hated me and who had been responsible for breaking me up with one of my best childhood friends? This was a great question in my mind for a number of years.”³

At fifteen, King entered Morehouse College. He first learned about nonviolent resistance after reading Henry David Thoreau’s “On Civil Disobedience,” in which the author wrote about his refusal to pay taxes to protest “a war that would spread slavery’s territory into Mexico.”⁴ King ruminated on the notion of rebelling against segregation rather than accepting it.

After graduating from Morehouse with a bachelor of arts in sociology, King entered Crozer Theological Seminary. He went on to receive a B.A. in divinity from Crozer and a Ph.D. from Boston University. At age twenty-five and newly married, King and his wife, the former Coretta Scott, headed south, and he became a minister at the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. In 1955, the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) selected King to oversee the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the unofficial start of the civil rights movement. The city’s black citizens protested Montgomery’s racial segregation policy on buses by avoiding the buses, sharing rides, taking taxis, and walking. Vigilantes bombed King’s and the Rev. Ralph Abernathy’s houses almost two months into the boycott.⁵ The MIA filed suit in federal court. Pressure mounted, and on June 4, 1956, the court ruled the city’s segregated bus policy unconstitutional. On November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the court’s ruling.

The boycott, which lasted 381 days, thrust King into the national spotlight. Emboldened by this victory, King helped found the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1957 and served as its president until his death in 1968. Through the SCLC King and Abernathy began to harness the power of the black church as the political center for social action. On May 15, 1957, King gave the first of his famous Washington speeches titled, “Give Us the Ballot.”

Later that year, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first legislation of its kind since Reconstruction. In 1958, King’s first book, Stride toward Freedom, was published. Ironically, King was stabbed by a black woman at a book signing. After almost dying, King viewed this experience as a sort of case study. “I became convinced that if the movement held to the spirit of nonviolence, our struggle and example would challenge and help redeem not only America but the world.”⁶

Influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s civil disobedience campaign that ended British rule in India, King applied the techniques to his protest campaign. He encouraged participants to assemble peacefully and demand their constitutional rights through appeals to justice and brotherhood, even in the face of violence.

King traveled to India in 1959 to study Gandhi’s philosophy. He recalled that he and his traveling companions were treated as brothers, and he felt bonded to the Indians “by the common cause of minority and colonial peoples… struggling to throw off racism and imperialism.”⁷ As his own words attest, King was influenced by his faith and Gandhi’s techniques, writing that “Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method.”⁸

The civil rights movement continued in earnest as “sit-in” demonstrations began in 1960. In 1961, whites and blacks from the North traveled south in “freedom rides”; in 1962, King met with President John F. Kennedy; in 1963, King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech; and in 1964, King became the youngest person to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize. Over the course of the campaign, King was arrested thirty times.⁹

In late March of 1968, King went to Memphis, Tennessee, to lead a march of sanitation workers protesting low wages and poor working conditions. He was fatally shot April 4 on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel.

Shortly after King’s death, supporters began a campaign to commemorate his birth with a federal holiday. Congress man John Conyers introduced a bill in 1968; opposing lawmakers stalled it. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan signed the holiday into law. Twenty-seven states and Washington, D.C., observed the holiday, and in 2000, all fifty states observed it.¹⁰

INFLUENCES AND APPLICATION

King graduated from Crozer Theological Seminary, a school that had an “unorthodox reputation and liberal theological leanings.”¹¹ His philosophical and theological beliefs were a combination of the black church tradition (in which “black theology” reigned) and white Protestant liberalism. His sermons and speeches reflect these influences.

Liberal theology is linked to the cultural shift toward Progressivism in politics and religion in the late nineteenth century,¹² a movement focused on so-called social justice. Generally, liberal theology holds that the Bible’s truth claims aren’t absolute. They must be based on reason and experience rather than an appeal to an external authority. In other words, Scripture is authoritative concerning religious matters, but it’s not authoritative concerning claims about facts. Conservative theology, on the other hand, holds that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God, and its authority extends to all areas of life.

Black theology, which emerged from liberal theology, takes into account the black subcultural experience and attempts to apply Christian principles to social problems that affect blacks. Some Christians object to the idea of a black theology and believe it shouldn’t exist, though Reformed black authors such as Anthony J. Carter and Thabiti M. Anyabwile would take exception. Carter says the majority culture believes its theological approach is culture-free, but it isn’t. “Theology in a cultural context…has become normative.” Carter gives examples of theology distinguished by culture (German Lutheran, Scottish Reformed, etc.).¹³

Western Christianity, dominated by white males, “has had scant if any direct answers to the evils of racism and the detrimental effects of institutionalized discrimination.”¹⁴ Consequently, liberal theology, which tended to address black oppression in a way conservative churches didn’t, heavily influenced the black church. For better or for worse, “we need a sound, biblical black theological perspective because an unsound, unbiblical black theological perspective is the alternative.”¹⁵

The black church wasn’t always associated with liberal theology. Anyabwile, who traced the development of black theology through slave narratives, slave songs, and popular writings past and present, concluded that before emancipation, black Christians tended to be more orthodox in their beliefs than they are today.¹⁶ Early black Christians were concerned about justice and freedom, but their mission was to spread the gospel as well as practice social justice activism. The black church veered from the path: “Over time, especially following emancipation from slavery through the Civil Rights era, the theological basis for the church’s activist character was gradually lost and replaced with a secular foundation.”¹⁷

Advocating for social justice isn’t unbiblical; it becomes so when the advocacy is man-centered instead of Christ-centered. King acknowledged this danger in his writings. While at Crozer, he read social philosopher Walter Rauschenbusch’s book, Christianity and the Social Crisis, which gave his own social justice ideas a “theological basis,” but he diverged from Rauschenbusch’s “superficial optimism concerning man’s nature.”¹⁸ King believed Rauschenbusch had become “perilously close to identifying the Kingdom of God with a particular social and economic system—a tendency which should never befall the Church.”¹⁹

King was raised in a “strict fundamentalist tradition” and found that studying liberal theology roused him from his “dogmatic slumber.”²⁰ A liberal view of the Bible gave him more “intellectual satisfaction”²¹ than the conservative view, but as he further examined these liberal ideas, he saw faults in them as well. He wrote, “Liberalism’s superficial optimism concerning human nature caused it to overlook the fact that reason is darkened by sin…Liberalism failed to see that reason by itself is little more than an instrument to justify man’s defensive ways of thinking.”²²

King maintained his liberal theological beliefs while at Boston University, but he “became much more sympathetic towards the neo-orthodox position,” which he saw as “a necessary corrective for a liberalism that had become all too shallow and that too easily capitulated to modern culture.”²³ He adopted the philosophy of personalism, “the clue to the meaning of ultimate reality is found in personality.”²⁴ From a Christian perspective, it’s the idea that God, and not society or even ourselves, establishes our worth.²⁵ At the time of the writing of his autobiography, King held to this philosophical position.²⁶

With a confluence of ideas from thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Reinhold Niebuhr, and theologically liberal professors, King emerged from Boston University with what he called a “positive social philosophy.”²⁷

King had no qualms about preaching politics from the pulpit. After the Montgomery Bus Boycott, he preached on an “imaginary” letter from the apostle Paul to American Christians.²⁸ While Paul’s letters to the churches reflected spiritual matters, King’s sermon-letter was a mixture of the spiritual and the political, noting that capitalism is a system in which America has “been able to do wonders,” but we faced the danger of misusing capitalism, which can lead to “tragic exploitation.”²⁹ King criticized the class system and implored Christians to work “within the framework of democracy to bring about a better distribution of wealth.”³⁰

King criticized communism and Roman Catholicism, praised the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision, which ruled the doctrine “separate but equal” unconstitutional, and urged congregants not to allow the struggle for justice to turn them bitter or seek payback for injustices. “Let him know that the festering sore of segregation debilitates the white man as well as the Negro. With this attitude you will be able to keep your struggle on high Christian standards.”³¹

King continued to incorporate biblical themes into his public speeches. In one of his early speeches, he hoped to prompt the federal government to begin integrating schools in the aftermath of Brown. In the 1957 speech “Give Us the Ballot,” delivered at the Prayer Pilgrimage for Freedom rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., King said: “I realize that it will cause restless nights sometimes. It might cause losing a job; it will cause suffering and sacrifice. It might even cause physical death for some. But if physical death is the price that some must pay to free their children from a permanent life of psychological death, then nothing can be more Christian.”³²

King was arrested on April 12, 1963, in Birmingham for defying a court order against mass demonstrations. King’s long and eloquent “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” a reply to a brief rebuke, was perhaps his most memorable piece of writing. Responding to white clergy decrying “outsiders” protesting in the streets of their city and contending that social injustices should be fought in courts, King compared himself to biblical prophets. He said he carried the “gospel of freedom” to all men, and it required “direct action” as opposed to waiting. “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”³³

As the civil rights movement progressed, King realized total victory would not come quickly. In his famous speech, “I Have a Dream,” delivered on August 28, 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial, King invoked the Founders’ promise. A century after emancipation, “the Negro is still not free…still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination.”³⁴ Without overtly appealing to white Christians, King said it was time to extend justice to all God’s children and warned there would be no peace until justice

Until the end of his life, he continued to connect social justice and biblical themes in speeches and sermons, and to challenge the church to live up to biblical ideals.

WERE KING’S BELIEFS BIBLICAL?

The black church’s influence on King’s message is evident from his writings and in the substance and delivery of his speeches. He also was influenced by liberal theologians at Crozer and Boston. King’s orthopraxy—correct behavior in religious matters—at least in public, left a legacy all Christians may emulate. What about his orthodoxy, his actual beliefs? Are they compatible with biblical Christianity?

Black pastor Jerry L. Buckner wrote that orthodoxy in the black church in general isn’t strong for several reasons. The most relevant reason in this context is that pastors in black churches “lack a formal orthodox theological education,” and many who are formally educated attended schools that espouse liberal theology.³⁵ Buckner does note that theologically conservative seminaries didn’t admit black applicants whereas liberal seminaries “aggressively recruited” blacks.

Biblical Christianity, in its simplest terms, is belief in doctrines of the faith as revealed in the Bible. For instance, the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, and it teaches, among other things, that sin is an offense against God, man is fallen, having inherited sin from Adam, sin is rebellion against God, and victory over sin is found in Jesus Christ. I will focus on the central tenet—the bodily resurrection of Christ.

King was a precocious child to the point of verbalizing his doubts about the bodily resurrection of Christ at age thirteen.³⁶ Recently discovered papers King wrote while at Crozer reveal that he still questioned the authenticity of such doctrines as the resurrection.³⁷

In 1985, Coretta Scott King asked Stanford professor Clayborne Carson to become the head of The King Papers Project, tasked to publish fourteen volumes of King’s papers to preserve his work.³⁸ The papers’ dates range from 1948 to 1963. Around 1996, Mrs. King gave Carson a box with papers that affirmed King’s doubts about whether the Bible was literally true: “King didn’t believe the story of Jonah being swallowed by a whale was true, for example, or that John the Baptist actually met Jesus, according to texts detailed in the King papers book. King once referred to the Bible as ‘mythological’ and also doubted whether Jesus was born to a virgin, Carson said.”³⁹

While at Crozer, King argued that the Apostles’ Creed probably was influenced by Greek thought, and “in the minds of many sincere Christians this creed has planted a seed of confusion which has grown to an oak of doubt. They see this creed as incompatible with all scientific knowledge, and so they have proceeded to reject its content.”⁴⁰

In “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,” written in 1949 when King was twenty, he wrote that external evidence for the authenticity of the Resurrection is “found wanting.” He implied that the bodily resurrection was a mythological story early Christians spread to explain “the faith that he could never die” and to symbolize their experiences with Christ.⁴¹

Without the bodily resurrection of Christ there is no hope of salvation, and we’re still in our sins (1 Cor. 15:17). Based on these early papers, one could make the case King did not believe in basic tenets of the faith. One might also argue that his papers merely were theoretical exercises in which he stated and supported a thesis. Should we take into account King’s relative youth at the time? If these were his beliefs, did he ever repudiate them? Perhaps examining the entirety of his work will lead Christians to a definitive answer.

KING’S LEGACY AND OUR APOLOGETICS

Is King’s legacy still relevant to Christians today? Absolutely. Whether or not King’s beliefs later in life adhered to biblical Christianity, he infused the civil rights movement with Christian principles. The era brought about great and much-needed change.

When interacting with King’s legacy, the apologist must separate the wheat from the chaff. For example, King argued in favor of civil disobedience under the just/unjust law theory in “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” a topic that Christians on both sides of the issue have debated for centuries and will continue to debate. King wrote that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws,”⁴² and contended that a just law is a man-made law in harmony with the moral law, or God’s law. An unjust law is not. One of King’s examples of an unjust law is one in which the majority compels the minority to obey, but the majority doesn’t bind itself to obey.

Apologists attempting to make the case for or against disobeying unjust laws and/or arguing whether a law is unjust may look to King as an example of a man who did both.

That King was influenced by Gandhi’s philosophy and other non-Christian ideas should give us pause. It is important that Christians avoid becoming entangled in interfaith dialogue to the point where we fail to address theological distinctives on which we cannot compromise. In the same matter, it should give us pause that King doubted the resurrection of Christ, the very foundation of the Christian faith, and other tenets of the faith.

As the church grapples with racial issues today, King’s life may serve as an example of someone who challenged the church to live up to biblical ideals and invoked Christ in the name of racial justice. We must keep in mind the context in which King developed his views.

At times King doubted his faith, which many Christians do, and his personal shortcomings confirmed he indeed was a fallen man in need of a Savior, as we all are. King’s legacy continues to influence secular and religious arenas, and his method of protesting racial segregation garnered both praise and condemnation. His legacy endures, and the apologist should be prepared to interact with it.

La Shawn Barber is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in such publications as Christianity Today, Today’s Christian Woman, the Washington Post, and the Washington Examiner. Visit her blog at lashawnbarber.com.

notes

1 Clayborne Carson, “Editing Martin Luther King, Jr.: Political and Scholarly Issues,” in Palimpsest: Editorial Theory in the Humanities, ed. George Bornstein and Ralph G. Williams (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1993), 305–16; available at http:// mlk kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/home/pages?page=http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/ kingweb/additional_resources/articles/palimp.htm.

2 Martin Luther King, Jr., The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., ed. Clayborne Carson (New York: Warner Books, 1998), 7.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., 14.

5 Ken Hare, “The Story of the Montgomery Bus Boycott”; available at http://www.montgomeryboycott.com/article_overview.htm.

6 King, 119.

7 Ibid., 128.

8 Ibid., 67.

9 The King Center, “Biography”; available at http://www.thekingcenter.org/DrMLKingJr/.

10 Francis Romero, “A Brief History of Martin Luther King Jr. Day,” Time, January 19, 2009; available at http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1872501,00.html.

11 The Martin Luther King, Jr., Encyclopedia; available at http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/ index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_crozer_theological_seminary/.

12 Gary J. Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 1.

13 Anthony J. Carter, On Being Black and Reformed: A New Perspective on the African-

American Experience (Phillipsburg, NJ: P and R Publishing, 2003), 5–6.

14 Ibid., 6.

15 Ibid., 3.

16 Thabiti Anyabwile, The Decline of African American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007).

17 Ibid., 17–18.

18 King, 18.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid., 24.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid., 25.

23 Ibid., 31.

24 Ibid.

25 Carl Anderson, A Civilization of Love: What Every Catholic Can Do to Transform the World (New York: Harper One, 2008), 39.

26 King, 31–32.

27 Ibid., 32.

28 Clayborne Carson and Peter Holloran, eds., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Warner Books, 1998); citing from http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/ doc_pauls_letter_to_american_christians.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Carson and Holloran; citing from http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/papers/vol4/570517.004-Give_Us_the_Ballot.htm.

33 King, 188–204.

34 Ibid; available at http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/speeches/ address_at_march_on_washington.pdf (July 17, 2001).

35 Jerry L. Buckner, “Is Orthodoxy Strong in the Black Church?” Christian Research Journal 27, 4 (2004); available at http://www.equip.org/articles/is-orthodoxy-strong-in-the-black-church-.

36 King, 6.

37 The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.; available at http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/ kingpapers/article/volume_i_13_september_to_23_november_19491/.

38 The King Papers Project; available at http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/kingpapers/ article/what_is_the_king_papers_project/.

39 Matthai Chakko Kuruvila, “Writings Show King as Liberal Christian, Rejecting Literalism,” San Francisco Chronicle; available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/ 01/15/MNGHJNIR631.DTL.

40 The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr., vol. 1; available at http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/ index.php/kingpapers/article/volume_i_13_september_to_23_november_19491/.

41 Ibid.

42 King, 188–204.

Synopsis

“We must stage powerful and long term direct actions against local churches and local pastors who are the primary source of the antigay propaganda in our communities….”

—Rev. Mel White, founder of Soulforce¹

In the spring of 2008, pastors Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, T. D. Jakes, and Bill Hybels shared a dilemma. Each had been informed that his church was selected for a visit from Soulforce, a pro-homosexual religious organization that was sending a group of openly gay couples, along with friends and allies, to attend their worship services and inform their congregations of the “damaging impact of religion based discrimination” towards homosexuals.²

That wasn’t all, however. Soulforce would also “require” a forum for “personal and direct interaction” with each church and its leadership, which could take the form of a shared meal, panel discussion, or private meeting. If the pastors refused, they could expect “creative and visible nonviolent direct action.”³

They weren’t alone. Administrators at Biola University, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and numerous other Christian campuses around the country have received similar notice from Soulforce, often resulting in on-campus trespassing, additional security requirements, and arrests.⁴ Additionally, Focus on the Family’s facilities in Colorado Springs are visited regularly by Soulforce demonstrators, some of whom refuse to leave the property until their demands are met;⁵ the annual conference of American Catholic Bishops has had its mass interrupted by Soulforce activists;⁶ denominational conventions have been subjected to Soulforce-engineered demonstrations and disruptions of business;⁷ and Christianity Today magazine, commenting on the group’s activities, cited Soulforce as an example of “an inescapable conflict for every church” over homosexuality.⁸

Thus, an increasing number of Christian leaders are facing the question: What should we do when Soulforce calls? This article will attempt to answer that question by examining the history, beliefs, and tactics of Soulforce, and by offering biblical principles and strategies to assist pastors and leaders who will one day encounter this growing and aggressive organization.

REV. MEL WHITE AND THE HISTORY OF SOULFORCE

Soulforce was birthed in 1999 by Rev. Mel White and his partner Gary Nixon, with the intention of recruiting and training volunteers to join in “confronting the antigay words and actions of fundamentalist Christians.”⁹ White, a former pastor and professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, had ghostwritten books for some of America’s foremost Christian leaders, including Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, and was recognized as an accomplished film producer and communicator. In his autobiography Stranger at the Gate, however, he describes what was not well known about him: his private and lifelong struggle with homosexuality, a struggle he was aware of from his boyhood in the 1950s. Raised devoutly Christian, he felt his only option was to keep his sexual feelings a secret and marry, which he eventually did, fathering two children, one of whom became the well-known comic actor and screenwriter Mike White.

White recounts, movingly, his attempts to change his sexual orientation through counseling, intensive prayer, and even electroshock therapy.¹⁰ Unable to find relief from his attractions to men, he engaged in a number of clandestine homosexual encounters, even while ghostwriting for prominent leaders such as Graham and Falwell, none of whom knew of his sexual leanings. For most of his adult life, he’d believed homosexuality to be wrong, so his lapses into same-sex encounters caused him considerable guilt. His thinking gradually changed, influenced largely by a psychologist at Fuller who advised him, in 1980, that even though he was a married Christian father, he was also a gay man who needed to accept it, fall in love with another man, and move on.¹¹ An epiphany followed: “For twenty five years I had been in a kind of bondage, judging myself, hating myself, trying to change something in the heart of me that could not, should not, be changed.”¹²

He began discussing his sexuality with his wife, Lyla, and by 1984 he’d begun seeing Nixon, though still married, and eventually was amicably divorced from his wife (who is on record as supporting him in his work with Soulforce). He then formed a partnership with Nixon that was solidified in a California marriage ceremony in 2008.¹³ His “coming out” in 1993 sent shock-waves through evangelical circles, and the release of his autobiography the next year was accompanied by generous media coverage, from featured newspaper articles to interviews on 60 Minutes and Larry King Live. White was soon to became the most visible and vocal representative for those claiming to be genuinely Christian and openly gay.

From the beginning, though, his goal was not just to “come out,” but also to come out against.” I will not remain silent any longer,” he declared in 1993 while issuing a public challenge to those he referred to as the religious right. “I pledge myself to do my best to prove you wrong with all the courage, wisdom and love I can muster.”¹⁴ On this promise he made good. He would soon stage a demonstration against Pat Robertson’s CBN headquarters in Virginia Beach, resulting in trespassing charges for which he would be jailed and then, in Ghandi-style protest, begin a well-publicized hunger strike that would only end when Robertson came to him in jail and promised to change his rhetoric when speaking about homosexuals.¹⁵ A similar “Fast for Understanding” was staged in Colorado Springs in protest of Focus on the Family.¹⁶ Jerry Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church would soon face many similar public displays from White and his allies.¹⁷

By 1999, White and Nixon had organized and recruited others who shared their concerns and Soulforce was formed, seeking “freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.”¹⁸ The ensuing decade has seen the group’s visibility and aggression expand, making itself known at annual denominational conventions, church trials for pastors charged with violating their denomination’s standards regarding homosexuality, Christian universities, and churches, both national and worldwide. With public support from allies such as Jay Bakker (son of PTL founders Jim and Tammy Faye Baker),¹⁹ Arun Gandhi (grandson of Mohandas Gandhi),²⁰ and Yolanda King (daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr.),²¹ Soulforce has solidified its image as both a civil rights and progressive religious organization.

SOULFORCE BELIEFS

White continues to identify himself as a bible-believing Christian,²² and the frequent references Soulforce volunteers and associates make to scripture, along with personal claims of faith, suggest a specifically Christian organization.²³ Soulforce’s approach to the faith, however, is ecumenical: “Our Creator is not confined to any church or synagogue, any temple or mosque. Our Creator is on the front lines where people are suffering injustice. And when we join God there, we discover what it means to be a son or daughter of God, what it means to be truly human.”²⁴

Soulforce therefore believes that we are all children of God by birth (not rebirth, as Jesus claimed in John 3:3) who discover God’s fatherhood by doing social justice. In fact, the first of the “Six Soulforce Beliefs about Myself ” announces: “I am a child of a loving Creator, a daughter or a son of the Soulforce at the center of the universe.”²⁵ This belief stands in stark contrast to John’s declaration that “as many as received him [Christ] to them gave the power to become the sons of God” ( John 1:12 KJV), and to Jesus’ assertion that no one can come to God but by Him ( John 14:6).

So, while some Soulforce advocates may identify themselves as Christian, the organization’s self-description, posted on its Web site, is apt: “Soulforce is an interfaith and ecumenical movement.”²⁶ The name Soulforce refers to teachings by Gandhi called satyagraha, his term for “truth force.” Gandhi taught that people should live by this truth force through defining a “plan of action that developed inner lives while working to transform society.” These teachings influenced first Gandhi, then King, both of whom White claims as inspirations and models: “Gandhi developed and refined his Satyagraha or ‘soul force’ principles while leading justice movements in South Africa (1893–1915) and India (1915–1948). Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., discovered Gandhi’s ‘soul force’ rules and used them to shape his own nonviolent civil rights movement in America.”²⁷ White asks, “How would our [gay] civil rights movement be different if we rediscovered and applied those ‘soul force’ principles…?”²⁸

Seeing itself as following in Gandhi and King’s footsteps— the oppressed (gays) taking a righteous stand against the oppressor (the church)—Soulforce holds to three primary beliefs concerning homosexuality and Christianity: (1) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, (2) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is damaging, and (3) the traditional Christian position on homosexuality must be changed or silenced. Understanding Soulforce requires an understanding of each point.

“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Is Wrong”

Soulforce promotes a revision of the Bible as it regards homosexuality. In doing so, it joins established pro-gay religious organizations such as the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, The United Church of Christ, and Evangelicals Concerned, all of whom regard the Bible as inspired, but believe that scriptural references to homosexuality found in Genesis 19:1–11, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:24–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, or simply misunderstood. White explains his position on homosexuality and the Bible: “Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the Biblical texts used by some people to condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children. The Biblical authors are silent about homosexual orientation as we know it today. They neither approve it nor condemn it. The prophets, Jesus, and the Biblical authors say nothing about homosexual orientation as we understand it today.”²⁹

To Soulforce, the traditional Christian view that homosexual acts are biblically prohibited, and that homosexuality itself is abnormal, is wrong. By extension, then, all Christians who hold such views are equally wrong.

“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Is Damaging”

Here Soulforce goes further than many pro-gay theologians, who simply declare the traditional viewpoint on homosexuality to be incorrect.³⁰ Soulforce insists it is also damaging, causing depression and suicide among homosexuals, and violence against them as well.

Sometimes they claim the traditional view is damaging because unbalanced, homophobic people may use it as an excuse to assault homosexuals. In such cases it’s not the view itself, but its potential for misuse, that’s the problem. One Soulforce volunteer remarked: “I think over and over again how we must help all preachers understand how their negative ‘Biblical pronouncements’ about LGBT persons harms and hurts LGBT persons and gives some violent persons rationale for their violence against them.”³¹ White, in an open letter to a Catholic Bishop, makes a similar argument: “If God rejects us and you reject us, is it any wonder that our families and friends reject us, that we are demeaned by our classmates, fired from our jobs, evicted from our apartments, hunted down and hounded out of the military, harassed and taunted in the streets, and even killed by teenagers with knives and baseball bats?”³²

More often, though, Soulforce claims the traditional view is damaging in and of itself. For example, if you say homosexuality is a sin, that statement not only inspires others to hurt homosexuals, but the statement itself emotionally or spiritually violates them. White argues accordingly: “I’d rather suffer psychological or physical violence any day than be told over and over again the untruth that my sexual orientation is a sickness and a sin; that my Creator doesn’t love me as I am; and that my fifteen year relationship with Gary Nixon isn’t blessed by God.”³³

According to Soulforce, then, if you preach that homosexuality is a sin, you inspire others to commit violent acts against homo sexuals, and you yourself, by making that statement, commit violence against them as well. You diminish their sense of worth; you generate depression within them; you inspire rejection, abuse, and violence against them. Thus all Christians (Christian leaders, especially) who hold the traditional view are an ongoing source of suffering to the homosexual population. Consider a few more of White’s statements in this vein:

“These antigay, religion-based teachings and actions have become the primary source of misinformation against sexual and gender minorities, misinformation that leads to suffering and death.”³⁴

“We know that all Christian churches share responsibility for the mistreatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered Americans.”³⁵

“Religious leaders are the primary source of misinformation that leads to suffering and death for sexual and gender minorities.”³⁶

Mistreatment, suffering, violence, death—no wonder Soulforce declares itself “determined to help change the minds and hearts of religious leaders whose anti-homosexual campaigns lead (directly and indirectly) to—suffering.”³⁷ If you believe that a certain teaching causes emotional suffering, physical violence, or death to any group, you’ll no doubt do what’s within your power to change the minds of the people behind the teaching, or silence the teaching itself. Inevitably, then, Soulforce’s first two primary beliefs generate its third.

“The Traditional Christian Position on Homosexuality Must Be Changed or Silenced”

“This spiritual violence must end,” declares White. “We love…the body of Christ too much to allow it to continue these policies that lead to suffering and death.”³⁸ Elsewhere he warns, “The toxic rhetoric flows unabated, primarily from sincere but misinformed religious leaders. It is poisoning the national discourse, dividing homes and churches, ruining families and wasting lives. We must do our best to stop that flow of poison at its source.”³⁹

Traditional teaching on homosexuality sparks violence; religious leaders dispense a toxic flow of traditional teaching; the flow must be cut off at its source—churches, Christian schools, evangelistic institutions, or any other places where the traditional biblical view on homosexuality is promoted. But how? “What I suggest to all homosexuals and their supporters,” White advises, “is to create tension between the church and the gay community.”⁴⁰

To create that tension, Soulforce chooses a church, Christian college, denominational conference, or organization, then contacts them to request a meeting, warning of potential demonstrations or other “direct actions” if they refuse. Such “direct actions” may disrupt or inconvenience, but the group adheres to a strict policy of nonviolence, and there’s no evidence of Soulforce demonstrators ever threatening, vandalizing, name calling, or using obscenity in any form. Some leaders who’ve hosted meetings with Soulforce have positive things to say about the encounters,⁴¹ while others who’ve refused to meet their terms have been obliged to have them forcibly removed from their property.⁴² The meeting they request normally includes an allotted time to present their views to the church or campus, informal discussions, distribution of their literature, and meetings with the church or college leaders.

Annual events include the Equality Ride (bus riders visiting Christian seminaries and Bible colleges), the American Family Outing (delegates visiting megachurches), and Soulforce Q (international outreach). Clearly, then, Soulforce’s attempts to change the church’s views on homosexuality are expanding. So let me offer three general suggestions to consider when Soulforce calls.

DIALOGUE IS OPTIONAL, NOT MANDATORY

We are not biblically required to respond to every charge leveled against us, nor to every request for a conversation. Jesus at times refused to engage in dialogue when dialogue seemed useless or distracting, or when those “baiting” Him hoped to provoke an argument (Matt. 21:24). Paul likewise reserved the right to deny audience to men who would introduce false doctrine to churches he was responsible for (Gal. 2:5). Soulforce presents its concerns as though every pastor or administrator is obliged to consider them, but the fact is, a leader’s responsibility is first to the people he serves, not to an outside group demanding his attention.

There is scriptural precedent for avoiding conversations or debates that may divert a group from its primary goal, as there’s precedent for pastors protecting their flock from error. Nehemiah, for example, knew his responsibility was to rebuild Jerusalem, leading his men to fulfill his God-given vision. When Israel’s enemies tried to distract him from this, first by mockery (Neh. 4:1–3), then by threats (Neh. 4:11), then finally by an invitation to dialogue (Neh. 6:5–7), he ignored their attempts, focusing instead on the work at hand. In doing so he was hardly mistreating those who wanted to distract him. Rather, he knew his priorities, recognized his limited time and energy, and refused to engage with others who would divert him from his primary purposes.

Any leader contacted by Soulforce should “go and do likewise” by considering, first and foremost, his priorities. How does their request for access to his congregation or group match the needs of the group itself, and his God-given vision for it? If it doesn’t, then a polite but clear refusal of their invitation is called for. But if after prayerful consideration, he concludes that an encounter with Soulforce would be in the best interest of his organization or flock, then two more points should be considered.

SOULFORCE PREMISES ARE ERRONEOUS

Space prohibits a detailed response in this article to Soulforce’s claim that the Bible verses traditionally understood to condemn homosexuality have been mistranslated, misinterpreted, or misunderstood. A clear reading of these verses in context, utilizing common sense and respect for the inspiration of both testaments, leaves little doubt, however, as to their unambiguous prohibition of homosexual relations of any sort, under any circumstances. Still, an effective response to the pro-gay interpretation of Scripture requires an understanding of that interpretation and a detailed rebuttal of it.

It’s essential that those deciding to dialogue with Soul force first brush up on the finer points of pro-gay theology, because any dialogue with a group claiming homosexuality and Christianity are compatible must begin with either a concession to their claim or a challenge to it. Two helpful resources would be The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible by Joe Dallas (Harvest House, 2007) and The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Robert Gagnon (Abingdon Press, 2002).

Likewise, the premise that traditional teaching on homosexuality leads to the suffering of homosexuals calls for rebuttal. No doubt there is prejudice against homosexuals, evidenced at times in acts of violence and cruel words. Proof of a link between biblical teaching and violence against homosexuals, however, is lacking, though Soulforce presents this premise as established fact. One might respond that Anti-Semitism (prejudice against Jews) exists, and Christians generally believe Jews who reject Jesus the Messiah are unsaved. Does it logically follow that those who recognize Christ as Messiah therefore create Anti-Semitism? Likewise, Scripture teaches that parents should train their children, and some parents abuse their children. Shall biblical teaching on parenting be blamed for the horrors of child abuse, or shall we admit the obvious and significant distinction between a belief and its perversion or misapplication? Soulforce claims to the contrary, saying that homosexuality is wrong is one thing; encouraging hatred towards homosexuals is something obviously and entirely different.

Consider Soulforce’s Concerns; Assert Your Own

Respectful dialogue requires a careful analysis of the other’s claims, so when dialogue with Soulforce is decided on, then hearing their concerns is necessary. Much can be learned in doing so. But an error Christians often make when dealing with homosexual activists is to overindulge their desire for us to hear their concerns, while offering none of our own. “The servant of the Lord must not strive,” Paul warned, “but must be gentle to all men” (2 Tim. 2:24). Some leaders who have dealt with Soulforce seem to have achieved at least that part of the passage, congratulating themselves for having been gentle and respectful, leaving the meeting keenly aware of Soulforce’s complaints and concerns. One wonders, though, if Soulforce had a clue about any concerns the pastors themselves may have had.

Paul did, after all, continue by saying God’s servant must be “apt to teach…instructing those that oppose themselves” (2 Tim. 2:24–25 KJV). Surely a Christian leader who believes that homosexuality is wrong will be concerned for the spiritual welfare of Soulforce delegates who claim to be both gay and Christian (as many do). Surely such leaders, believing homosexuality to be sin, will be concerned about this group’s aggressive commitment to encouraging its normalization and celebration. And surely such leaders will feel some injunction to, as Paul said, “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather, reprove them” (Eph. 5:11 KJV). So those hosting a dialogue should insure that time spent expressing these concerns to Soulforce is equal to the time spent hearing theirs. If a conversation is requested, then let it be understood in advance as a mutual dialogue, not a monologue, because in the end, this dialogue is inevitable and unavoidable.

The past year (2008) saw unprecedented aggression from the gay rights movement, as it sought legitimization of homosexuality and the marginalization of any group or individual who opposes it. And since the last organized force resisting this movement is, for the most part, the Christian church, Christianity Today’s editorial on Soulforce and a Christian response to it seems both relevant and ominous:

“Soulforce’s message to evangelicals is clear: You are next.”⁴³

Joe Dallas is the program director of Genesis Counseling in Tustin, California, a Christian counseling service to men dealing with sexual addiction, homosexuality, and other sexual/relational problems. He is a member of the American Association of Christian Counselors and is the author of three books on human sexuality, including Desires in Conflict (Harvest House, 1991) and A Strong Delusion (Harvest House, 1996).

notes

1 “Why We Can’t Wait to End This Debate!” Interview in Gay Today.com, http://www.gaytoday.com/garchive/ viewpoint/051302vp.htm.

2 “Soulforce: The American Family Outing,” http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/AFOcomplete.pdf.

3 Ibid.

4 “The Equality Ride,” http://www.soulforce.org/equalityride.

5 “Pro-Gay Protestors Arrested at Focus,” citizenlink.com, May 2, 2005,http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/ A000000335.cfm.

6 “History of Soulforce 1999–2006,” http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.

7 Ibid.

8 “Coming Attractions: Gay Activism Is Not Just Found in Liberal Churches,” Christianity Today, August 1, 2003, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/august/31.33.html.

9 “Soulforce 1999–2006,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.

10 Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994).

11 Ibid., 155.

12 Ibid., 155–56.

13 http://www.allsaints-pas.org/site/DocServer/JEB080618_Mel_White_and_Gary_Nixon_Wedding_ Homily.pdf?docID=4624.

14 Stranger, 269.

15 “Partners in Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/10.

16 “Mel White Launches ‘Fast for Understanding,’” Holysmoke.org, http://www.holysmoke.org/ sdhok/homo06.htm.

17 “Jerry Falwell, Mel White, and the Model of Intervention,” Colorado Confidential, http://coloradoconfidential.com/ showDiary.do?diaryId=2068.

18 Soulforce Vision Statement from http://www.soulforce.org.

19 “Soulforce Meets with Joel Osteen; New Birth Next Target,” Gay Christian Movement Watch, http:// gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/soulfarce-meets-with-joel-osteen/.

20 “Media Photos,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/746.

21 Ibid.

22 Stranger, 238.

23 See, e.g., testimonials of the Freedom Riders at the “Equality Ride Blog,” http:// www.soulforce.org/article/1440.

24 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.

25 “Six Soulforce Beliefs,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/567.

26 Ibid.

27 Mel White, “A Soulforce Call for Direct Action: Bringing Truth and Love to Lynchburg,” February 22, 1999, http://www.soulforce.org/article/525.

28 Mel White, “The Original 17 Step Journey,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/531.

29 “What The Bible Says—And Doesn’t Say about Homosexuality,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/article/ homosexuality-bible.

30 See, e.g., John Boswell’s prominent defense of pro-gay theology, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), and for detailed rebuttal see Robert Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), and Joe Dallas’ The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2006).

31 “Bishop T. D. Jakes Agrees to Ongoing Dialogue with LGBT & Straight-Ally Families,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/email_campaign/email_5_22_2008.html.

32 http://www.whosoever.org/v5i4/mel.html.

33 Mel White, “The Second Trial of Jimmy Creech,” Whosoever, http://www.whosoever.org/ editorial/creechtrial.html.

34 Mel White, “Why We Can’t Wait for This Debate to End!” Gay Today, http://www.gaytoday.com/garchive/ viewpoint/051302vp.htm.

35 http://www.soulforce.org/article/469.

36 http://www.soulforce.org/article/395.

37 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.

38 “Declaring an Unholy War,” Circuit Rider’s Range, http://www.crrange.com/soulwar.html.

39 “History of Soulforce,” Soulforce, http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/historybook.pdf.

40 “Mel White Speaks about Being Gay and Christian in America,” Collegiate Times, http://www.collegiatetimes.com/ news/1/ARTICLE/8052/2006-11-16.html.

41 See http://www.soulforce.org/article/1107 for comments.

42 See http://www.soulforce.org/article/1483 for one of many examples.

43 “Coming Attractions: Gay Activism Is Not Just Found in Liberal Churches.”