CSTNews

Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a good man with some bad traits or a bad man who happened to  accomplish  some  good? Well, each person must decided that for himself, but most Americans don't know the facts about King since he is considered a saint who must have his image protected at all costs.
   
It is astounding that Christians are so uninformed about King and while others may be informed, they are intimidated by the media, academia, and the general public. Sure there are bigots out there who hate all Blacks, but most people are more interested in expanding King's public persona than exposing his personal problems.
   
I am sympathetic with pastors whose churches are located near Detroit, Washington, D.C., etc., who have to serve in a very sensitive area. Some of them take King's birthday off but call it a "teacher or staff work day." All right, I suppose that can be justified as practical, but for major magazines to publish an article without one negative word is absolutely incredible. Doesn't truth matter anymore?
      
The January 17, 1986 issue of USA Today is a good illustration of how the media refuse to tell the truth about King. On the Opinion Page, the issue to be debated was King, but not one of the five columns dealing with him said one negative word about him—not one word!  Some debate!
      
For three different years, the editors at USA Today refused my column that revealed the truth about King and his lack of character and morals. Wonder why? I documented the facts, but truth can be devastating to fanatics.
      
King admitted his many adulterous affairs but justified them because he was away from home so much! If a man won’t keep his marriage vows, I refuse to believe him if he quotes the multiplication table.
      
The night before his murder (which cannot be defended by any sane person), King spent the night with two women, then fought with a third, knocking her across a bed! Evidently the “non-violent” preacher didn’t practice what he preached to others!
      
Evidence of Kings’ lack of character was seen when U.S. papers belatedly revealed that he had plagiarized his Ph.D. thesis at Boston University. The papers tried to put a positive spin to the scandal, but if it had been Dr. Jerry Falwell, “investigative reporters” would have landed on Lynchburg like a chicken on a June bug.
      
I don’t think I have ever revealed  my involvement in this story. I discovered King’s plagiarism from English papers, and told my editor at USA Today that I wanted to do a column on the subject.  He refused to allow it. Now, either he did not believe I had factual information or he did not want to tarnish King’s image. Many months later another national paper broke the story. My editor refused a “scoop” because he burns incense to King.
      
King’s perverted theology was a major reason for his character flaws (sins).  Although he was raised in a fundamentalist home, he rejected the God of the Bible at an early age and became a flaming Liberal. He rejected the virgin birth and the physical resurrection of Christ as well as the inspiration of the Bible.
   
II John clearly commands us not to bid "God speed" to those who don't hold to the doctrine of Christ. Surely honest people will admit that we are doing far more than that by honoring such a man with a special day.
      
King was a Baptist “reverend” but he was not an historic or biblical Christian! While King often quoted the Bible, he never once publicly challenged lost sinners to repent of sin and exercise faith in the meritorious work of Christ.
          
 While our military men were dying in the rice paddies of Southeast Asia, King roamed the America making ridiculous accusations about the U.S. being the greatest purveyors of violence in the world. Even the New York Times took him to the woodshed for such untrue accusations.
   
Of course, King's longtime love affair with Communism is well known but it is not polite to remind people of that fact.
      
King and his posse of political parsons roamed this nation telling Blacks that the only thing holding them down was white “slave masters” and they chanted slave songs that fooled no one and impressed no one except Utopians, wishful thinkers, and half-wits.
      
Black writer, George Schuyler, (who was one of my favorites) wrote of King and his political parsons: “Never have so many innocent people been betrayed by so few for so little.” That is, not until the major censoring of facts by the Moguls of the Media about King’s actions, associates, and aims. Evidently the people don’t have a “right to know” the truth about  Martin Luther King, Jr. What kind of man was King? Not much of a man. 
   
Truth still matters!

Copyright 2005, Don Boys, Ph.D.   

                                                                  Letter to the Editor

Dear Bro._________:

         
I just read your message to me regarding Martin Luther King, Jr., and of course, we can disagree on King. I have fought for that privilege in Fundamentalism and evangelicalism for 35 years.
         
However, I am surprised and amazed and somewhat disappointed that [your paper] would be fearful of facing the truth of any matter. It is one thing for secular journals to worship at the shine of political correctness and another for Christian magazines to do so.
         
You mentioned that you were in high school when King was killed so you have grown up in an atmosphere where King has been idolized and almost beyond scrutiny especially in the public schools and the media.
         
You wrote, “I wanted to view King’s life in a balanced perspective and have an accurate view of him as a man, civil rights leader, and preacher.” You surely must be kidding! You did not do that in your review. Did you want “balance” in your review when every word was positive? You wanted accuracy when you raised his preaching and never mentioned his heresy! I assume that your reading of King was very limited, maybe only to the book you were reviewing!
        
You also wrote, “neither do I agree with those who demonize him.” Is telling the truth demonizing him? You know, I believe between the two of us, I have a much more “balanced,” fair, and accurate view of King. I think some good came from some of his work while enormous harm also resulted.
        
Unlike many conservatives and many haters, I think King was right in the bus boycott, and I believe that because Blacks should have equal rights to public facilities (since they pay taxes) as Whites have. They should not have been subjected to back-of- the-bus status and “colored” water fountains. However, private businesses are some-thing else altogether! The government has no authority (power yes, authority no) to tell a private businessman how he must run his business. But of course that is another issue.
          
You said, “Since the piece in [his paper] was a book review and not an article we will not print your submitted article.” Of course, that is a classic cop-out! Surely [his paper] is interested in balance, truth, and accuracy.
          
You did not deal with the various criticisms of King in my article. Please note that your book review dealt with King’s preaching. While you might like the particular book you reviewed, surely you were obligated  to reveal to your readers that the book did not reflect King’s preaching and his beliefs. King was a life-long Liberal who rejected the virgin birth, deity and resurrection of Christ. Do you take the position that one can reject those doctrines and be a Christian? If so, you have removed yourself from mainline, orthodox Christianity!
          
Remember that the Apostle of Love in his second epistle told us not to even bid one God speed if one did not hold to the doctrine of Christ. Do you disagree with John or do you disregard John? And to disregard means to disobey! It seems you are more impressed with the writings of King than you are of John! At this point you are defending King and disobeying John!           
          
King often spoke publicly to radio and television audiences of Christ and “faith” but never did he challenge men to place faith in the propitiatory work of Christ to experience personal salvation! He did not because he did not believe that was essential for one to have eternal life. I assume you and the folks at [your paper] do believe it.           
          
You did not seek to defend King’s many adulterous affairs as admitted to Parade Magazine. How can you do a book review of such a man without one word of caution, without one word of suggestion to readers that further research might be helpful? And to emulate his life would be disastrous. Do  you think that King’s murder wipes out the many sins in his life? Do you think that because Blacks were mistreated during that period somehow excuses his sins? Are you suggesting that because he made
some positive contributions, his doctrinal errors and his wicked life should be overlooked?
           
Does King get special treatment because he was black or because he was murdered or because he was a preacher? What drives you and others to give him the “kid glove” treatment? Why not treat him fairly, honestly and accurately? Why do you and others seem to have a mission to protect King’s image? Why not tell the truth as you do, I assume, in other matters? Question: If David Duke wrote a book that was true, fantastic, a classic and an incredible contribution to American literature, would you review it without mentioning that he was a former KKK member? I think not.
           
Another question: Bill Clinton writes a classic best seller. Not one paragraph in it that any honest, fair and informed person disagrees with. Would your review be totally positive without mentioning that he had been a moral leper, had been impeached by the House, had lied under oath, had sold or given valuable information to the Chinese Communists, etc.?
          
Brother, why not treat people like people, not as white, black, rich, or poor? Just people. Why make decisions based on how you and the magazine will be perceived rather on the merits of the case? Does truth matter any more?
        
Your refused to deal with King’s thievery of his Ph.D. dissertation at Boston University and many of his other writings that were plagiarized without even a suggestion of giving credit. If you did not know about that, it is inexcusable. If you did know about it and refused to mention it in your review, that too was inexcusable.
       
You did not even try to deal with King’s love affair with Communist Party functionaries during his very public life. Note that he was not simply involved with Communists but with Party activists! He hired many Communists to run various field offices and even refused to fire them when he was told by his politically sensitive friends that the firing would be wise. Your selective quote of his regarding Communism does not cancel his ardor for the Communist Party members with whom he climbed into bed.
        
King was a Black opportunist who used people: Blacks, Whites, union leaders, the media, etc., to further his own cause. You have helped perpetuate his false image by burning incense to him with your book review.
        
I am disappointed in [your paper] not being willing to stand for Scriptural truth regarding separation from doctrinal error as well as separation from personal immorality. I trust you are not so naïve that you take the position that any criticism is unjustified and unchristian! You did not tell the truth about Martin Luther King. I did, but you don’t want your readers to know it. Truth still matters!

Sincerely,

Evangelist Don Boys, Ph.D.
 
Dr. Boyd: (sic)

We are not fearful of facing truth. What God says through His Word I accept without question! He is Truth! Jesus Said, "I am the Truth." We want to boldly proclaim His Truth! The main point for [our paper] is our commitment is to lift Jesus up, not put people down.

In Calvary's Tie,

Tags: blacks, martin luther king jr, racial problems