During the 1960's in many cases it was Protestants and
people who would today be described as white Evangelicals who were leading the
charge against people like Martin Luther King.
Southern Segregation was engineered and supported by white
Protestant leaders and they largely had the backing of the churches. There were
whites who opposed all this, and it was brave of them to do so. But the
mainstream Protestant society went along with these things. The North despite
its self-righteous attitude regarding the American Civil War was only slightly
less guilty of racism. Civil unrest and the testimonials of the multitudes of
Southern blacks who moved North in the 1950's and 60's, and that of brutally
honest whites testify to this.
Dominionists often argue the Church withdrew after the
Scopes Trial and didn't re-enter the social fray until the forming of the Moral
Majority in the late 1970's. I don't agree with that interpretation or
narrative at all. It's used as a selling point for Dominionism.
"Look," they argue, "what happens when the Church retreats...the
secularists take over."
Secularism had been on the rise since the Renaissance and in
high gear since the Enlightenment. The Depression and the World Wars in the
United States gave it a boost. Besides, these proponents of Dominionism are talking in Sacral terms, not in
terms of the Church or Christianity as defined by Scripture. Social custom and
laws can bring about a legislated Christianity, a kind of Constantinianism, but
forcing Christian mores on an unwilling populace does not suddenly make a
society Christian...unless you redefine the term.
Redefining what it is to be a Christian needs to be rightly
identified...as heresy if not apostasy. It certainly another gospel worthy of Apostolic
curse as Paul makes clear in the opening chapter of Galatians.
The Church of the War and post-war period wasn't in retreat.
In part it was in chaos.
Denominations were falling apart, shifting and reforming due
to theological liberalism. It took a few decades for groups to regroup and
coalesce. Just look at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church as an example. J.
Gresham Machen led a conservative remnant out of the mainline Northern
Presbyterian Church in 1936. It was a tiny group and relatively speaking still
is. The mainline Church continued to just float along with the general social
current. Though Biblically speaking by 1936 the mainline Northern Presbyterian
Church had drifted off into theological liberalism, socially speaking, they
were still a conservative body. They certainly weren't signing on with
Left-wing political movements. That would come later.
These shifts were happening in almost every major denomination.
The mainline bodies largely lost any sense of theological antithesis to the
culture. The conservative break away groups took on 'Dissent' as part of their
identity. As society changed, it's not surprising the theological and social
issues coalesced in their minds. Being the faithful remnant, became a social
and theological mindset.
For many, like certain Methodist groups, the Conservatives
were concerned about doctrine to be sure, but their traditions had focused more
on conduct and in time they came to be defined more by pietistic hallmarks than
they did by specific adherence to historic doctrinal standards.
In the meantime, mainstream Christian society, (including
both conservative and mainline Churches,) was caught up in 'righteous' World War II,
praising McCarthyism, and encouraging Cold War symbolism during the Eisenhower
years (In God We Trust, and Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance), and
eventually (for the majority) opposing the Civil Rights movement. It was only
after the 1960's, that suddenly the white conservative Church felt like it was
becoming a persecuted social minority. The fact that the theologically liberal
mainline churches were embracing the social changes (as mainline Churches
always do and will) - seemed to validate the Remnant narrative.
Only then did theologically conservative Church leaders feel
the need to organize specifically in political terms. This gained momentum
after what many felt was Carter's betrayal. The "Born Again"
candidate let them down on many fronts. Christians didn't withdraw and hide.
They were part of mainstream society and the Churches were struggling and being
forced to reckon with a whole host of theological and social issues. It could
in fact be argued this time of confusion (rather than retreat as it is called)
actually strengthened the Sacral project. It weeded out the non-committed and
by the time Ronald Reagan was campaigning in 1980, the Sacralist political wing
was lean and mean and ready to take action.
They helped Reagan take the White House in 1980, and have
never looked back. They've harmed themselves a great deal along the way,
self-destructing at times, but they've hardly gone away. By 1992, the political
machine was failing only to be reborn in 1994 with the Contract for America.
Clinton their political nemesis was really their best friend. Don't be fooled.
Rush Limbaugh and Right-wing media celebrated when Clinton was elected. Instant
riches and job security were the result. Obama has helped make people like Glenn Beck quite
wealthy.
Bill and certainly Hillary revitalized the movement and
enabled them to get a candidate like George W. Bush elected. Obama's election
has only energized them even more. But as I said recently, despite their
victories and momentum, society is slipping away from them. People by and large
aren't buying their message and a lot of people who are fairly conservative when it comes
to social issues and politics are getting uncomfortable when they listen to
people like Santorum, Huckabee, Palin, and Bachmann who sound both extreme, and
frankly less than intelligent.
Returning to the Civil Rights era, it was Christians (at
least as defined by Sacralism) who resisted the Supreme Court's decisions
forcing school integration. Plenty of white Christians participating in 'White
Flight' to the ever expanding suburbs played a key role in the formation of the
Christian school movement. I'm not suggesting it was race alone which led to
this, but I think it would be a mistake to completely discount it as a
motivating factor. It's still happening today in almost every major
metropolitan area. Neighbourhoods that were white in the 1950's are filled with
minorities today and the whites have moved elsewhere.
Jerry Falwell and others preached in the 1960's and 70's
against integration, Civil Rights, Martin Luther King, and many preached
against mixed-race marriages and the like. Those sermons and books were pulled
from shelves about twenty years ago as a shift began to take place. These
things have all disappeared down an Orwellian memory hole.
That's great if the Church wants to repent on this matter.
But instead they've revised history and have decided to now call Martin Luther
King a Christian and 'claim' him as one of their own. Now it was
"Christians" who led the Civil Rights movement. Glenn Beck (the Mormon
many Baptists seem to love) thinks his platform is somehow a continuation of Martin
Luther King's project.
Do they think we're that dumb? Apparently, and all too often
the American public doesn't disappoint. I remember very well into the early
1990's being told by Christian leaders that Martin Luther King was not a
Christian that the Civil Rights movement was all about Marxism and other evil
ideas. I'm not talking about fringe groups. I'm talking about regular
Evangelical type Churches, and people in Christian schools. Martin Luther King was
demonized in my home while I was growing up. The Civil Rights movement was
explicitly understood to be anti-Christian. This was almost universal in
Conservative Protestant churches.
I don't understand why white Evangelicals are not being called
out on this? They are lying and these leaders have to know it. It hasn't been
that many years! I remember it clearly and I'm hardly a senior citizen.
Dominion theology wants to claim everything that is socially
'good' as Christian. In fact there are theological presuppositions that
struggle with calling anything 'good' that isn't Christian. And certainly by
the 1990's attitudes started to shift...this theology moved into the Church, a
new generation was coming of age and another generation dying off. At some
point the shift began, and twenty years later, the truth seems to have been
forgotten.
Let's deal with these things honestly. Lying and revising
history is shameful. Perhaps sometime I should talk about the whole Eugenics
movement, Planned Parenthood and the revisionism that's taking place with those
issues at well? People seem to forget that Barry Goldwater and many
conservatives supported Planned Parenthood and were not in the least opposed to
the idea that the state should take measures to rid society of undesirable and
unproductive segments. Part of the problem is today's political grid is imposed
on the past and sometimes the categories and narrative of the present don't fit
very well with past realities. It's much easier to just lie and exaggerate...people
by and large won't know the difference. NPR just had an interesting piece over
the weekend on Ronald Reagan. A good case could be made that he probably
wouldn't get the Republican nomination today...he wasn't conservative enough.
His name is constantly invoked by the present crop of candidates, but many of
the issues they're railing about...taxes and immigration...the truth is Reagan
was hardly in line with their narrative.
That said, I don't understand the white-washing of Martin
Luther King. I sometimes listen to a Christian radio station out of the Buffalo
area when I'm working up in New York State. Between the programming today
they're playing clips of Martin Luther King speeches. The rest of the time, on
other days they broadcast Christian Right wing diatribes during the gaps at the
top and bottom of the hour. It doesn't occur to them that Martin Luther King
and his ideological descendants don't concur, in fact find many of the policies
and ideas of the Christian Right (proudly espoused by the radio station) to be
racist?
I admire Martin Luther King but in the same way I admire
someone like Gandhi. Socially speaking he was a hero. In terms of Christianity,
he was pretty bad. His conduct as well as his theology are pretty
disappointing. I'm not sure if Biblically speaking he even meets the basic
definition of what a Christian is.
Sadly the Black Church in the United States has gone down a
very bad road. Self-esteem and improvement have largely replaced the gospel of
Christ. Like many people in other countries they have greatly erred in tying
their history in with Biblical imagery...casting the Civil Rights movement in
Redemptive (and thus often sacrilegious) typology.
King accomplished some great things and portions of his
speeches are very noble in sentiment. But I also have to say he was often
guilty as was Lincoln, Bush and others of twisting Scripture, taking redemptive
verses about Christ and applying them to the nation or racial struggle.
Christians seem to like the Bible being quoted, but they should be recoiling
when they hear verses ripped from context and Christ blasphemed by applying
prophecies and works belong to Him to a political struggle. Christians picked
up on it when Clinton tried to do it and got mad, but when Bush did it they gushed
and praised him.
So is it zeal for the Bible, or blind zealous idolatry of a
political cause?
I'm glad the Church is finally realizing racism is a sin,
but I have to say it has not translated into the Sacral politics the Church
largely embraces. The American Right and what it stands for is no friend to
minorities. That does not mean minorities in America are pure and righteous
victims either. As with most social problems...it's a complicated mess with
plenty of blame to go around. No side is pure or righteous, but certainly
prejudice is not justifiable. American conservatives are often guilty of
failing to understand the realities of daily life for minorities and the poor.
Listening to them I'm often struck by what is sometimes not necessarily malice,
but certainly a great deal of ignorance when it comes to the pragmatics of
low-wage living, health care, lack of opportunity, social glass ceilings, and
exploitation.
So what's my purpose in writing this? I admire Martin Luther
King, but my admiration is limited. In terms of Christianity, I do not admire
him at all. I think the Evangelical movement and the Christian Right have
deceitfully tried to hijack him and revise history, and I add this crime to
their ever growing list of trespasses. It only further proves lust for power
knows no morality and has no integrity.