Follow-up on MLK and "The Optional Jesus"

Let’s go back to what Dr. King was saying, as quoted in 11/25/09 blog post. From Google Books and page 189 of The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr, Volumes 2-3:

    Concerning the work of Christ the two reformers stressed a substitutionary theory of atonement. They maintained that Christ actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God, and as a substitutee suffered the punishment that was due to men. But all of this is based on a false view of personality. Merit and guilt are not transferable from one person to another. They are inalienable from personality. Moreover, on moral grounds, a person cannot be punished in the place of another.

Actually, two things that are false are (a) the denial of the fact that guilt is transferable from one person to another; and (b) the denial of the fact that a person can on moral grounds be punished in the place of another.

Whose law or whose moral rules have you broken when you do something that is wrong? Answer: you have broken God’s law. Since it is God who is the offended party in this case, does he not have the right to forgive and to excuse the offenders as he will? Answer: of course he does. And suppose that I were to stand up for someone else--in practically any case of a rule’s having been broken--and say “Punish me instead of him. I’ll take the rap instead of him.” Regardless of whether the person who actually did the crime could or should be excused, am I not worthy of punishment if I willingly offer to be punished in someone’s stead? It seems to me that I am in fact worthy of punishment if that is what I insist on having.  (Notice, meanwhile, that this idea certainly is not far-gone if the scribes and Pharisees of Matthew 23.29-36 and Luke 11.45-51 are worthy of punishment in virtue of their claiming to be descendants of those who persecuted the prophets of old.) Therefore, if I offer to be punished instead then I am worthy of punishment.

Moreover, if I am worthy of punishment for a particular wrongdoing, then I also bear guilt of this particular act. Of course, the words “guilt” or “guilty” in this case would clearly carry a different meaning than it carries in the English colloquial phrase “guilty of sb,” which in turn means he did the crime, and in the phrase “feelings of guilt,” which simply speaks of feelings of culpability. So if I bring worthiness of punishment upon myself by my intercession for someone who actually did the crime, then I have brought guilt upon myself. For what else is guilt, according to the sense of the term that Dr. King uses above? Therefore, if guilt is not transferable from one person to another, we have seen at least that guilt of one person’s act of wrongdoing can become a property or quality held by another person.

Yet the guilt of one person’s act of wrongdoing can in fact virtually or exactly be transferred from one person to another. Whose law or whose moral rules have you broken when you do something that is wrong? Answer: you have broken God’s law. Since it is God who is the offended party in this case, does he not have the right to forgive and to excuse the offenders as he will? Answer: yes. Now suppose that I were to stand up for someone else, saying, “Punish me instead of him. I’ll take the rap instead of him.” If the divine punishment that I now bring upon myself were sufficient to demonstrate the degree to which God takes evil acts seriously or were sufficient to appease God’s wrath or anger, then what would be the point in punishing a second person? With that said, it is entirely conceivable that the punishment of one particular person could be effective such that punishment of a second party becomes unnecessary. And guess what: that is more or less what the Bible teaches us. For it informs us in no uncertain terms that the punishment of the transgressors was upon Christ (Isaiah 53) and that sinners who will believe in Christ are forgiven and excused such that their guilt becomes no more. Therefore, the guilt of one party ceases to exist while apparently one party freely brings guilt upon himself and is punished in order to spare the first party (Matthew 20.28; John 10.11-18).

Then again, perhaps Dr. King would object to all of this, saying, “Oh no, this won’t do at all. The person who actually sinned: he should be the one to be punished for the crime. All the people who have done me wrong in life: why should they be let off the hook while someone who did not commit their evil actions is punished for what they did?” The objection is that those who actually commit wrongdoings should be punished, not necessarily those who bear guilt of those actions. However, if one will stop to think about it then it becomes clear that not all those who have done wrong necessarily deserve to be punished. After all, even after God has forgiven any sinner for what that sinner has done the fact remains that this sinner has done wrong at some particular time in the past, an example being that Peter’s denial of Christ is a matter of public record. Peter and the other apostles of Christ did wrong, yet they do not deserve punishment, given that their sins were forgiven. Therefore, not all of those who have done wrong necessarily deserve to be punished. Therefore, we can say this of the individuals who personally sinned against Dr. King: what they sinned against was God’s property (Ps 24.1, Rom 9, Rom 11.36) and God will avenge himself as he will (Romans 12.19-20).

Triablogue: The optional Jesus

Yet another referral to Triablogue, but certainly not without good reason: Triablogue: The optional Jesus.

Indeed, liberalism in the context of Christian theology has a long record of being content not merely to see things in a different-but-understandable way but ultimately to rebel against the Scriptures in one way or another.  This is how MLK held the heretical beliefs that he held while masking them with standard Christian terminology, or how the saying “A little Greek is a dangerous thing” is proven in the case of queer Christian theology (as it were), or maybe even why someone like Carlton Pearson was able to resurrect his preaching career.

Thanks, MLK, and Hero Worship

Martin Luther King, Jr. was both a driving force behind the Civil Rights Movement and a spearhead of the same. So when you find yourself not having to stand outside a restaurant to eat while patrons of another race get to sit down and eat inside and out in the sun, cold, or rain, you can thank Dr. King. You can think of the same when go to a voting booth or apply for a job. The works and accomplishments of Dr. King in the area of civil rights are not to be diminished.

With that said, the man was also not perfect. Adultery, plagiarism, leanings toward socialism: the evidence is all there. However, perhaps worst of all is the theology Dr. King. I mention it because Dr. White of aomin.org has a peculiar interest in dredging up and highlighting the bad theology of Dr. King, and he has done so recently.

From http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_500215_008/ (“The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus,” February 15, 1950):

The orthodox attempt to explain the divinity of Jesus in terms of an inherent metaphysical substance within him seems to me quite inadaquate. 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 possible have." In other words, one could easily use this as a means to hide behind behind his failures. So that the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied. The true 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 og 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, andstanding and standing 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.

If it appears that Dr. King is denying the deity of Christ yet retaining the language of Christ’s divinity so that Dr. King may remain within the Christian fold, appearances may not be deceiving. From http://books.google.com/books?id=Uwi_HJUbJUMC&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=luther+king+calvin&source=bl&ots=YRIa1nsD3R&sig=vIMa07HK8EF-suXj2spJEReDlIA&hl=en&ei=xZkLS4vbHcWKlQeZyuDvDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=luther%20king%20calvin&f=false

The papers of Martin Luther King, Jr, Volume 3, by Martin Luther King (Jr.), Clayborne Carson, Ralph Luker, Penny A. Russell, Louis R. Harlan, “A Comparison and Evaluation of the Theology of Luther with That of Calvin,” p. 189-190:

Hence, we must affirm that Christ is a unitary personality, and this unity we find in his own ego. There is nothing in rational speculation nor New Testament thought to warrant the view that Jesus had two personal centers. We must then think of Christ as a unitary being whose divinity consists not in any second nature or in a substantial unity with God, but in a unique and potent God consciousness. His unity [with] God was a unity of purpose rather than a unity of substance.
Concerning the work of Christ the two reformers stressed a substitutionary theory of atonement. They maintained that christ actually took the place of sinners in the sight of God, and as a substitutee suffered the punishment that was due to men. But all of this is based on a false view of personality. Merit and guilt are not transferable from one person to another. They are inalienable from personality. Moreover, on moral grounds, a person cannot be punished in the place of another.
Another weakness in this theory of atonement is that it is based on the assumption that the chief obstacle to man's redemption is in the nature of God. But there was never any obstacle to man's redemption in God himself. The real obstacle to man's redemption has always lain in man himself. It is from this standpoint, therefore, that the death of Christ is to be interpreted. Christ's death was not a ransom, or a penal substitute, or a penal example, rather it was a revelation of the sacrificial love of God intended to awaken an answering love in the hearts of men.

Yes, he moves from denying the deity of Christ to denying that the death of Christ was a substitutionary atonement, despite the likes of Isaiah 53 or Matthew 20.

**************

Of course, Dr. King is not the only one who is flawed. Over the years, Dr. White’s treatment of issues concerning the Trinity has not always been coherent and has never truly covered all the bases. Moreover, I think one can find that Dr. White also has had a reprehensible glib dismissal of the idea that certain non-Christian persons worship the one god that exists. And other unflattering things can be said of other religious leaders.

The point is this: When it comes to heroes, one should follow the words of Lush and “just take the bits you think that you can use.” Admire and remember the admirable actions of these heroes and thank them for their works, but do no more than this. If you do otherwise, you are bound to be disappointed by these heroes and their human flaws, or else lie to yourself to save face on their behalf.

Second point, in closing: Thanksgiving without thanks to God is nothing, period. Happy Thursday all!

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." Martin Luther King, Jr.

I think this quote illustrates the importance of getting involved in the political world, at the least, I mostly mean that one should be informed.

This also goes against the silly argument that "you can't legislate morality". Yes, you can. That is what laws do.

Derrick