When Kynn comes in disputing the Apostle’s Creed, he gets run out of the tavern. When Dr King does it, we promote him to sainthood. So apparently not even the Creed is the minimum—all it takes to be a Christian is a desire to live your life by WWJD?

I really hate for new people to read this paragraph- and its cousin over at the Angry Lutheran blog- without comment.

Kynn probably did dispute the Apostle’s Creed, but he was exited for dropping the F-bomb. He was well aware of what was going on, and we’ve maintained a good on-line relationship.

I suppose that Dr. King “disputing the Apostle’s Creed” is a reference to theological research papers during Dr. King’s college and/or seminary days. As a former seminary student, I would ask the audience to consider what our professors always said to us: This is theological formation. It’s your journey. Not your final point of arrival. I consider it a cheap shot of the lowest kind to start quoting someone’s college or seminary work years later as evidence the person’s faith was about “disputing the Apostle’s Creed.” If any of you plan to ruin me with this method, have at it, but you are a sad case.

I’ve read three major bios of King, and I’ve read many of his sermons, writings and books. To conclude from a seminary paper that the man who wrote “Letter From Birmingham Jail” or Strength to Love lived his life discarding the Apostle’s Creed is outrageous to me. You are entitled to your own opinion. But please, produce a quote from the mature Dr. King disowning the Apostle’s Creed.

No one elevated Dr. King to “sainthood.” I am including him in the Christian family, and he is, in my personal opinion, along with many others of his era, a legitimate martyr for the Christian faith in America. I said in my first post that many Christians couldn’t own the Christians who died as civil rights martyrs as Christian martyrs, and I was right. I never made a case for sainthood. I can name more of MLK’s flaws than most people in any crowd. But his life and legacy are worthy of celebration, and I tell my African-American students that I am embarassed they don’t know and understand Dr. King’s message.

He wasn’t an evangelical. He was a liberal of his era, which makes him considerably superior to many evangelicals and P/Cs of today. (I’ll take Willamon over Warren any day.) The man who preached this sermon isn’t an evangelical or an evangelist. I couldn’t live on just this. I’ll agree it’s flawed. But I’d go hear him anytime. Anyone on here READ Fosdick? Neibuhr? King? Or just what evangelicals have to say about them? You might be surprised. (Try Fosdick on The Meaning of Prayer.)

”...All it takes to be a Christian is….” No one entered into a discussion of all it takes to be a Christian, or WWJD.

One thing I’ve learned about those theologians. They can judge anybody. Any time. They are a sure shot. Why leave it to God? Why let God say on the last day if someone has faith? Why not look at their seminary papers or their adultery and say NOW that they don’t have faith? Why not draw the lines of the Kingdom with my little crayon so God will know where they are when He shows up? Has the irony hit anyone else? The MORE you know about theology, then the MORE everyone else has to know to be saved. And the more passes you can write yourself for pronouncing in advance whether a professing Christian is really saved. Such confidence. Theology is such a fortunate discipline.

When my students ask me if so and so is in heaven, I say I have no idea. That makes me a liberal, right? It’s our Bob Jones Press textbooks and our Chick Tracts that confidently tell us who is in hell. (“Now kids, Shakespeare was a great man, but he’s in hell.”) I should have just looked up MLK in the index of the BJU Press American history book. It would have saved me all this trouble.

Well, Chuck Baldwin could have straightened me out.

Don’t look for the JN, cause it’s not there.