MLK and the churches behind him

[Ken]

As Chesterton said .. “Christianity .. it’s not been tried.”

I find it telling that you reserve your "trust in Jesus not the government" advice only for those with whom you disagree.

i doubt you’ve read much of what i write, let alone with attention to intent. you wrote me off as irrelevant long ago.
to clarify further, my interest in Chesterton’s quote is not about giving advice (to anyone) with certainty, but about respecting his intriguing challenge to attempt that which is difficult and unnatural for mankind: trust and faith in Christ God.

it’s not advice, even from Jesus. it’s His invitation.

but, carry on. and on. when you tire, Jesus is waiting.

So do you apply the Chesterton quote to the conservative Anabaptism prevalent on this forum? That actual Christianity has been found difficult and left untried?

[PetrChelcicky]

Ken,
I just had the opportunity to look something up about the historical matter of "broken promises":

"One argument against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that opponents of the proposed legislation found particularly compelling was that the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools.[6] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Sen. Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[6] Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race".[6] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself", two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[6 "
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing

My argument here (you asked what I' aiming at):
The momentaneous mess and the polarization are mostly a consequence of liberal dishonesty in the past - promising things they could not really expect to happen and did not try to assure. And a lot of guilt must be heaped on the liberal churches. You would not expect liberal politicians to be honest, but you would expect your church.
I suppose that the liberal churches either preferred to simply believe the dishonest political promises or thought that a "white lie" was acceptable in such an important political case. And of course honesty would have made an agreement more diffcult - but dishonesty has its own bad consequences even later.
We have just the same probem with immigration reform - where liberal politicians at that time promised that the reforms would not change the ethnic composure of the United States.

[PetrChelcicky]

As for MLK as an adulterer I repeat my justification: It was not a personal problem, but the clerical fashion in his time. The chief proponent of a theologically liberal Protestantism. Paul Tillich, had a mistress. The chief proponent of a theologically orthodox but politically Leftist Protestantism, Karl Barth, just as well. Why should MLK be different from such luminaries?

[Soloist]

As for MLK as an adulterer I repeat my justification: It was not a personal problem, but the clerical fashion in his time. The chief proponent of a theologically liberal Protestantism. Paul Tillich, had a mistress. The chief proponent of a theologically orthodox but politically Leftist Protestantism, Karl Barth, just as well. Why should MLK be different from such luminaries?

It was a personal problem. It’s called sin.
What others do never justifies a person’s choices. Good can come from sinful men being used by God.

[temporal1]

I find it telling that you reserve your "trust in Jesus not the government" advice only for those with whom you disagree.

i doubt you’ve read much of what i write, let alone with attention to intent. you wrote me off as irrelevant long ago.
to clarify further, my interest in Chesterton’s quote is not about giving advice (to anyone) with certainty, but about respecting his intriguing challenge to attempt that which is difficult and unnatural for mankind: trust and faith in Christ God.

it’s not advice, even from Jesus. it’s His invitation.

but, carry on. and on. when you tire, Jesus is waiting.

So do you apply the Chesterton quote to the conservative Anabaptism prevalent on this forum?
That actual Christianity has been found difficult and left untried?

In further attempt to respond to bold above, i find Chesterton’s observation to be an intriguing challenge for Christians, which i FIRST internalize for myself (which i believe is part+parcel for Jesus in whole) THEN, i share it with intent that others might be impressed and impacted, each in their own way. On this forum, i esp want CM views.

Just because you understand anything/anyone in any sort of way, and respond noisily about your understanding, doesn’t mean you’re correct. It doesn’t even mean you’re in the ballpark. It just reflects love of self. The NYT and msm are really good at this, you’re a solid acolyte. A true believer. Congratulations, you get an A.

When i post on this forum, my #1 interest is CM response and understanding. i don’t need lib views, those are steady fare that are hard to escape. i’m interested in the CM response to Chesterton’s quote. i’m not attempting to advise anyone, i’m asking questions. or, trying. [i’m not a good writer, i try.] On this forum, i try to learn the CM view. (which i believe the majority of new members also seek, it’s not the common way in the world). There are some valuable voices present. It requires sifting through the weeds.

The common way is boorish, often wrong, often damaging, rarely a result of seeking after Truth.
This forum offers the opportunity to learn better. Each member must decide what they’re seeking. This forum is not a purist representation. It’s not a forum of professionals. It’s a source for laymen’s opinions. Layfolk have ALWAYS had their own opinions. The internet, this forum, offers a way to “connect” - the forum word used from inception. There are many sage professionals and academics present! That’s the beauty of it: connection, not purism.

Jesus does not require degrees, certifications. He could have! He’s after souls.

Thus, Catholic Chesterton’s quote, a sweeping, intriguing generalization. For myself, first.
“Why don’t i try it?” i see that as the root of his observation. “Why not try Christianity?”

[MaxPC]

If I read personal attacks on MLK, I tend to cringe. The man was not important as a person, but as a product of his time and above all of the churches which formed him and build up his reputation. For example, he started with plagiarism at university, but his teachers did not hold him on account for it, as they should have done. So he came to see plagiarism as a normal way of behaviour.
My impression is that a lot of protestant churches were looking at all costs for the Great Black Leader who would lead his people into a nonviolent struggle for power (but would of course use state violence once he had a grip to power). And if they had found a candidate with potential, they understood that they had to make all sorts of excuses for him.
Also there has been made much noise about MLK's communist sympathies. Fact is that Elizabeth Dilling. when she in 1931 wrote a rather negative book about her experiences in the Soviet Union, got so much flak even in her Episcopal Church that she decided to look deeper into the matter - leading to her book "The Red Network", which is still unreplaced as a reference book about Christian fellow travellers. MLK stood in a clear tradition line.
Well, all this is bygone. What aches us now: all warnings had already been given, all warnings had been answered by promises, and all promises were not kept. To begin with the worst failure: Whites were promised a "colorblind" future. And a lot Whites indeed educated their children that way - only to learn that now, in first class, the teacher divides his pupils into Whites on one side and PofCs on the other side. This is such a sudden break with conventional LIBERAL habits that it simply could not go unprotested (even if Ken probably thinks that a teacher may do whatever he wants).
A more peculiar example: Whites had been promised explicitly that there would be no enforced shuffling white pupils into black schools. That promise was broken. In fact, if I read the memories of those children they are so bad that nearly nothng could have destroyed the black-white relations more.
Generally, scientists like James Buchanan had even then said that the goals of equality and liberty are in the end irreconcilable. Every church had time to ponder about that but it was simply ignored as an unwished complication.

The great sin of the churches was dishonesty. They should not have made promises at all - or if they made promises they were obliged to keep track of what happened after. But most of them did not. And that's why the United States are where they are.

I remember vividly that era. I was married and had children when he was assassinated. My memories of that era remind me of the political attacks and rubbish panderings I see and hear today: the pointed attempts to destroy credibility and demolish the impact made by individuals.

MLK was a man and more importantly a man of his era. Some deified him but there were also those in his circle who were also Judas. Was he the 2nd Coming? Most African Americans will say he was not. Most, both caucasian and of color, saw and see him as a man willing to risk his freedom and life to draw the attention of the world to the heavy bigotry in society.

I remember that bigotry well: it existed and still exists in countries around the world, not just the American South. In point of fact, in our travels I saw less bigotry in the American South than I did in the American Northeast and California.

Why is MLK once again being demonised? I am convinced it is the same reason that those identical attacks were voiced by bigoted groups in the 1960s: his ideology and followers threaten a political entity. Democrats are upset that there are people of color who are supporting the Republicans and their numbers are growing rapidly. 60 odd years of empty political promises and the Democrat support of Planned Parenthood has them upset. They have been taught to think logically and critically by their leaders and their conclusion is that the Democrats are simply using them.

Attacks on Clarence Thomas come from the same sources as those attacking MLKs memory. Both Thomas and MLK believe in life and the protection of life. Those who attack them see these men as a threat to their profits and political agendas.

[temporal1]

As for MLK as an adulterer I repeat my justification: It was not a personal problem, but the clerical fashion in his time.
The chief proponent of a theologically liberal Protestantism. Paul Tillich, had a mistress. The chief proponent of a theologically orthodox but politically Leftist Protestantism, Karl Barth, just as well. Why should MLK be different from such luminaries?

It was a personal problem. It’s called sin.
What others do never justifies a person’s choices. Good can come from sinful men being used by God.

i’d like to add to Soloist’s words ..
Scriptures hold pastors and leaders to a higher standard, that’s part of it.
Another part is elevating MLK Jr to sacred cow status throughout government and culture. Idol worship is chilling for believers.
As is pride.

God uses all for His purposes. We may not recognize or understand His purposes.

When you say, “clerical fashion,” i’m not sure this is correct. Sins happen!! Temptation happens!! The more success, the more pitfalls. Typically hidden, not accepted and promoted.

[Ken]

Ken,
I just had the opportunity to look something up about the historical matter of "broken promises":

"One argument against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that opponents of the proposed legislation found particularly compelling was that the bill would require forced busing to achieve certain racial quotas in schools.[6] Proponents of the bill, such as Emanuel Celler and Jacob Javits, said that the bill would not authorize such measures. Leading sponsor Sen. Hubert Humphrey wrote two amendments specifically designed to outlaw busing.[6] Humphrey said "if the bill were to compel it, it would be a violation [of the Constitution], because it would be handling the matter on the basis of race and we would be transporting children because of race".[6] While Javits said any government official who sought to use the bill for busing purposes "would be making a fool of himself", two years later the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said that Southern school districts would be required to meet mathematical ratios of students by busing.[6 "
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desegregation_busing

My argument here (you asked what I' aiming at):
The momentaneous mess and the polarization are mostly a consequence of liberal dishonesty in the past - promising things they could not really expect to happen and did not try to assure. And a lot of guilt must be heaped on the liberal churches. You would not expect liberal politicians to be honest, but you would expect your church.
I suppose that the liberal churches either preferred to simply believe the dishonest political promises or thought that a "white lie" was acceptable in such an important political case. And of course honesty would have made an agreement more diffcult - but dishonesty has its own bad consequences even later.
We have just the same probem with immigration reform - where liberal politicians at that time promised that the reforms would not change the ethnic composure of the United States.

What happened with desegregation is nearly every single example of mandatory busing was court-ordered including up to and including the Supreme Court for districts that were violating the letter and spirit of the Civil Rights Act. In other words, districts that were complying with the act through various voluntary means were NOT subject to mandatory busing. Those that refused had that solution mandated for them by the courts. There are a lot of way to achieve desegregated schools short of mandatory busing and many districts were successful in doing so through things like open-enrollment, magnet schools, etc.

So no, the Civil Rights Act did not mandate busing. The courts ordered it for districts that were not achieving the objectives any other way. See Swann v. Charlotte in 1971, that was the seminal supreme court case on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swann_v._ ... _Education

[Soloist]

It’s really too bad the history of American christianity is stained by so much evil.

[Ken]

It’s really too bad the history of American christianity is stained by so much evil.

America really has two original sins and, unfortunately, Christianity was weaponized to justify both of them:

• The genocide of America's native peoples
• Slavery and it's legacy of racism.

It is hard to find some aspect of the modern American landscape that was not affected by one or the other. I find it unseemly for Christians to expend so much energy denying either happened, or that their legacies no longer affect our society.