Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[Odë:hgöd]

.
• 2Tim 2:3-7 . . No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs-- he
wants to please his commanding officer.

A soldier's primary responsibility is to accomplish the mission assigned by their
commanders. They don't give themselves leave to abandon their posts to go off on
their own personal agenda doing other stuff. Desertion and dereliction of duty are
courts martial offenses.

Christian men, ordained to serve Christ as per the epistles of Titus, 1&2Timothy
and to some extent 1Peter, have no business involving themselves in the world's
affairs and or using their pulpits for any other purpose than what Christ expects.

• 1Tim 4:13 . . Focus on reading the Scriptures to the church, encouraging the
believers, and teaching them.

According to Eph 4:11-15 God gives ministers to the churches for the express
purpose of building them up in the faith, NOT for leading them into secular causes.

I truly believe that if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr had stayed in church and complied
with the Bible's instructions for ordained Christian ministers as per the epistles of
Titus, 1&2Timothy, and to some extent 1Peter instead of getting involved in
political activism, social justice, and/or civil disobedience, he could have served
Christ another thirty-five years instead of getting himself assassinated when he was
only 39 years old.

Was Dr. King a martyr? Well, if he was, it certainly wasn't in a cause for Christ. No,
it was for a worldly cause. Dr. King marginalized his pastoral responsibilities. He put
duty to the color of his skin first, and duty to Christ second. That was a very bad
move for an ordained Christian minister.

Moral of the story is: nobody is twisting anybody's arm to commit to a ministry; but
once the commitment is made: then they'd do well to hold fast, stay the course,
and not get distracted.

• Luke 9:62 . . No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for
service in the kingdom of God.
_

 

[Josiah]

Monday is Rev. Dr. MARTIN LUTHER King, Jr. Day (did you know his father legally changed both his name and his son's name to honor Martin Luther?)

The whole world knows him above all for two things: His call to non-violence and perhaps the most famous speech of the 20th Century where he said (to paraphrase), I dream of the day when my children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." His dream, his call, was for a "colorless" society, where outward things like skin color, gender, shoe size, amount of hair (!) and such just doesn't matter BUT RATHER (equally important), instead of that, in place of that, what DOES matter is a person's character, integrity, morality. When I was in college, I took a Soc class "Racism in America" and the prof drilled in us, "King's dream will be realized when people NOTICE race, gender, etc, but simply could care less, who don't even think to mention it." I remember well him saying, "We will have succeeded when people mention race as often as they do shoe size." I recall him saying often, "We will succeed when people are hired because they are the best qualified rather than because they are the right race or gender."

I hold that Rev. Dr. MARTIN LUTHER King is one of the great figures of 20th Century America... and I feel strongly it's good we have this day. I honor his position that protest (and the ability to freely do so) is critical to a free society and an inseparable part of freedom of speech, and it's especially to be honored when we disagree with them... and that such must be non-violent. I think Jesus Himself is an example (as Gandhi noted). And where there is protest, I think it's good for us to listen... to try to understand (not necessarily to agree but to understand). But I'm just as affirming of the other point, the point virtually no one in America celebrates, the call to CHARACTER rather than RACE (and other externals).

I think BOTH of these remain dreams. Too often, protest is violent. And too often, there is little effort to listen (especially if we don't associate with the protest). When it's OUR 'side' we talk about rejecting the violence but the great importance of understanding the rage, listening to the perspective, putting ourselves in their shoes... but when it's THEIR side, such is pushed aside as irrelevant. I've even heard those trying to justify violence if they hold the protesters are (otherwise) unheard, marginalized, etc.... Too much partisanship, where "my side" needs to be 'heard' whereas "their side" needs to be ignored/condemned and silenced. Thinking of the last decade or so, violence seems on the increase. But even more, the other part remains a dream. Listen to the news.... listen to the conversation... there is almost an obsession with externals (race, gender, ethnicity) ... whereas you never so much as even hear the words "character" "morality" "integrity" - those are so far off the radar that the words have largely fallen from the American language. But in all the talk, articles and TV things about MLK, there was NOT ONE WORD about character or integrity or morality. We heard MUCH about the color of skin. In some ways, I think we're moving in the wrong direction in both of King's dreams.

It's good to have MARTIN LUTHER King Day! We need to embrace freedom of speech (and non-violent protest) .... and we need to embrace that it's internals that count (character, morality, integrity) not externals (race, gender, ethnicity). "King's dream will be realized when people NOTICE race, gender, etc, but simply could care less, who don't even think to mention it."

Just some of MY personal thoughts....


Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

Thread has been moved to Ethics & Debate.