Is Martin Luther King Jr. a Brother in Christ?

Between 1954 and 1968 was one of the greatest movements to ever take place in the United States. It was a movement that liberated blacks from the confines and chains of institutionalized racism, that is, racism that was instated within the very laws of the people. Racism that is imbedded into the very laws of our country encouraged racial segregation and all sorts of forms of racial discrimination. Many of these laws did not stand any chance of being lifted if it was not for the efforts of one Martin Luther King Jr. There is not doubt that Martin Luther King Jr (MLK for short) made astounding strides in his effort to abolish racial tendencies by his opponents. Martin Luther King is quoted saying, "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”[1] Martin Luther King certainly had controversy surrounding him, in particular in his efforts of buffering the attacks of those who stood against the black community. It is his efforts, along with those who stood with him, that eventually blacks were no longer seen as those who were unequal with whites, but equal in value and deserve respect and dignity.

During his most well-known speech “ I Have a Dream” at the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963 MLK uttered some of words that will forever live in the hearts of many Americans,  “When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”[2] These words still ring true even till today. They reverberate to the very heart and landscape of todays world, where we still see racism relevant and propagated in many areas of our culture. While Martin Luther Jr. is definitely a hero to many in this country, the question that’s asked in this video is should we count Martin Luther King as a brother in Christ? In order to examine this, we must understand what his convictions were concerning Christ.

Martin Luther King Jr. graduated from Morehouse College in 1948 with a bachelor’s degree in sociology. He then ventured on to graduate from Crozer Theological Seminary and was ordained as a Baptist minister in 1954. He then went on to obtain his PhD. in theology from Boston University in 1955. Throughout King’s educational travels he came upon the philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi, which preached nonviolence. This dogma of nonviolence was a heavy influence in his efforts as a civil rights activist. If fact, his promotion of a nonviolent approach was the very substance of all that he did, even within the confines of what he considered to be the Christian faith. King, in his authorship “Stride Toward Freedom” states, “True pacifism,” or “nonviolent resistance, is a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.”[3] Additionally he says, “morally and practically the Christian doctrine of love operating through the Gandhian method of nonviolence was one of the most potent weapons available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom.”[4] King was clearly influenced by principles that were foundationally biblical, but were lathered over with Ghadism. Thus, it played a major factor in how he approached his efforts to liberate blacks from the grasp of the white opposition.

Martin Luther King Jr. views on Christ was no less influenced as well. King was heavily influenced in the areas of theological liberalism, which is non-Christian at its core. "Liberal Christian theology is a tradition that derives from the late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century Protestant attempt to reconceptualize the meaning of traditional Christian teaching in the light of modern knowledge and modern ethical values.”[5]One area that liberal theologians have reconceptualized is how Christian theology should understand the person of Christ. Universities such as Boston University, where King received his doctorate in theology, is well known for its liberal stance on theology. Boston University was founded with a Catholic influence, more specifically a Jesuit influence. The Jesuits were well known to be aggressive opponents of the protestants during the Counter Reformation – Catholic Revival during the 16th and 17th centuries.[6]  Protestants rebuffed against the Roman Catholic church because of their idolatries and man centered theology and because of that the Roman Catholic Church sought to undermine the Protestants efforts.  

King was drawn to Boston University because of their heavy liberal influence of “personalism.” Personalism “is a school of philosophy, usually idealist, which asserts that the real is the personal, i.e., that the basic features of personality—consciousness, free self-determination, directedness toward ends, self-identity through time, and value retentiveness—make it the pattern of all reality. In the theistic form that it has often assumed, personalism has sometimes become specifically Christian, holding that not merely the person but the highest individual instance of personhood—Jesus Christ—is the pattern.”[7] Personalism was attractive to Martin Luther King because it centered around the wellness and value of the person. With racism and Jim Crow laws still in full affect in many areas, one can understand why personalism would be so attractive, as a black man in the racist south and his concern for those who look like him, we should not be surprised why King would adopt such a position.

Boston University “personalism” in the early 20th century was shepherded by Borden Parker Bowne who was a American Philosopher, Methodist minister and professor at Boston University. Bowne influenced many professors that taught at Boston University including Howard Thurman, who was Martin Luther King Jr.’s mentor and spiritual advisor. Howard Washington Thurman, who also received his education from Morehouse and Boston University, taught Martin Luther King the understanding of Personalism and also inclined King to the understanding of Mahatma Gandhism, which teaches, once again, a nonviolent or pacifist approach in life. It is here that we see King gaining all his influence and theological direction. It is my belief this (personalism and being taught by liberal theologians at Boston University) is why King’s views of Christ were not in line with Christian orthodoxy.

In an essay titled “The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus” King, during his course in Christian Theology for Today at Crozer Theological Seminary, wrote concerning the humanity and divinity of Jesus. This essay earned a B+ and was praised by his professor as “a solution which would appeal to the liberal mind.”[8] The praise of this essay was definitely appropriate, in that, it was indeed an essay that would appeal to liberal theologians. In this essay King starts off with giving what he sees as a lingering question concerning the divinity of Jesus. While he says that many theologians agree that Jesus was human, it was Jesus’ divinity that was up for debate.[9] In the portion of the essay called “Jesus Humanity” King attempts to establish that Jesus was fully human by pointing to  the gospels showing the genuine nature of Jesus’ humanity.[10]

King points out a variety of aspects that shows Jesus’ humanity, such as Jesus’ desiring to eat, asking for water from the Samaritan woman in John Ch 4, learning obedience and needing rest when He, Jesus got tired. While on the surface we all can agree that Jesus did experience the frailties of humanity, we all must treed carefully and not attribute the sin nature to Christ, which I believe King did not do. In fact, he points out that Jesus’ nature had no corruption to which the temptation that He encountered could not appeal to.[11] In other words, King seems to think that Jesus’ nature was not totally in line with corrupted human nature that all of humanity has from birth. The orthodox view of Christ nature would agree with King on this. Jesus, in His full humanity experienced the stifling needs and emotions of the human body. Jesus cried alongside his disciples[12]Jesus felt the need to eat[13] and Jesus felt pain. [14] The list goes on and on of Bible verses that touch on Jesus taking part in the fundamental needs and dispositions of the human body and the emotions associated with it. Whats interesting, in Kings attempt to show just how human Jesus was, he believed that Jesus was limited by the humanity that Jesus took on. King writes, “Again we may notice that Jesus was by no means omniscient. His knowledge was essentially limited by human conditions.”[15]

King goes on by appealing to H. R. Mackintosh, who was a notable theologian during the early 20th century, agreeing with Mackintosh that Jesus eliciting information from others and showing indications of ignorance showed that Jesus was human and was limited by that humanity.[16] Once again, while Jesus full humanity is certainly in agreement with the historical view of Christ, orthodox Christianity would depart from the idea that human conditions limited Jesus. Rather, orthodox Christianity would argue that Jesus limited Himself. We read in Philippians 2:5-7 “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

Paul the apostle is expressing here that Jesus though in the form of God self-emptied Himself, the Greek term is kenosis, which means self-emptying. In other words, Jesus was not limited because he put on flesh, it is very possible that Jesus could have displayed all His power if He chose to. In fact, we read in many areas in the biblical text where Jesus was very forthcoming in telling listeners of what He is capable of. For example, we read in Matthew 26: 53-54 that Jesus by a simple request from the Father could receive twelve legions of angels to come rescue him. Again, we see Jesus in many areas of the biblical text displaying power that no mere human who was limited by humanity could do. Yes, He put limits on Himself, but that in no way should be interpreted as Jesus being limited because of the human flesh. Professor of Systematic Theology Dr. Donald McLeod states:

 “The subject of the kenōsis, therefore (the one who “emptied himself”), is one who had glory with the Father before the world began (Jn 17:5). . . . He possessed all the majesty of deity, performed all its functions and enjoyed all its prerogatives. He was adored by his Father and worshipped by the angels. He was invulnerable to pain, frustration and embarrassment. He existed in unclouded serenity. His supremacy was total, his satisfaction complete, his blessedness perfect. Such a condition was not something he had secured by effort. It was the way things were, and had always been; and there was no reason why they should change. But change they did, and they changed because of the second element involved in the kenōsis: Christ did not insist on his rights . . . he did not regard being equal with God as a harpagmos.”[17]

The human flesh was a mode of existence for Jesus, in that he humbled Himself by becoming a servant. Moreover, we see that Jesus did not count equality with God as a thing to be grasped. Jesus did not need to desire to obtain equality with God because He already had it, he just chose to limit His power for the purpose and will of the Father. Philippians 2:5-7 shows Jesus as not only God, but also human. Paul uses the Greek term morphe in verse 6 (form of God). Scholars have tried to nail the meaning of this down exactly, and have concluded that morphe points to Jesus truly and fully expressing the essence of God and the essence of a servant[18]. Thus, it should not be concluded as King believes, that Jesus was limited by human conditions, rather it should be concluded that Jesus being fully God and fully man, being the full essence of God and a servant, limited Himself.

King, also asserts that Jesus had a human faith in God.[19] This could not be further from the truth. A human faith in God is filled with frailties and inconsistencies. We see throughout the biblical text in where Israel loses faith in God and instead of staying in communion with their God they go and follow pagan gods. Additionally, we see that humanity at the heart hates God and desires to satisfy the human flesh. Even after coming to faith in Christ the human heart and condition is still susceptible to failing to have a proper faith in God. King, seems to fail at developing the distinctions here. By King failing to pronounce the distinction of Christ faith in the Father versus humanities faith in that Father it seems that King is working overtime to make Jesus a mere humanist. King seems to desire to paint Jesus as a glorified man, instead of the living God of scripture. Once again, this is of no surprise due to his theological and social backdrop.

Jesus’ faith in God had more to do with eternal communion with the Father. Jesus’ relationship with the Father reached much farther and was much more intimate than what we have with the Father. In John 1:1b the scriptures suggest that Jesus existed face to face with the Father before the beginning of creation. In the Greek that second clause of John 1:1 would read Logos en pros ton Theon, which means the Word (Jesus) was with (Pros – face to face) with the Father (Theon). Jesus had the ultimate relationship with the Father. When one is face to face with a person they are intimately attached. With the Son and the Father that intimacy and communion and faithfulness is not broken at any point because they share the same nature and essence. Whats also important to remember is that Jesus never wavered in his continuous dedication to the Father. Throughout the gospels we notice Jesus continuous dependance on the Father. Notice in John 15:9 where Jesus says that “He can do nothing of Himself, but what he sees the Father do, for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.” Jesus is the ultimate example and standard of faith that is expected. Jesus’ faith supersedes any mere human ability of faith and exemplifies how faith should be expressed toward the Father as a servant. This faith and ability to do all that the Father commands of us is not attainable in our state. That’s why Christ is our standard and our representation. For King to suggest that Christ faith in the Father is some how on the same plan as humanity is to dismiss the clear distinctions that the gospels make. As I pointed out earlier, yes Jesus really felt the frailties and needs of a human. He did experience sadness, pain, suffering, thirst, hunger, fatigue, He experienced all those weights and burdens that us humans experience, but in dealing with this understanding distinctions and categories is a must. If one fails to make these distinctions then they are just postulating that Jesus was simply a great human being.

In the second portion of Kings essay he beings to deal with Jesus’ divinity. It is here that the unorthodoxy of Kings positions concerning Jesus are really revealed. In the beginning portion of the second half of Kings essay concerning Jesus’ deity, he correctly points out that Jesus is different from the average Jew.[20] King believes that social economic or psychological paradigms are not to be held in high esteem as it concerns why Jesus is different.[21] I tend to agree with King on this point. Jesus’ difference was not merely just a social economic one. It was not simply a game of psychology in where Jesus had the upper hand from an epistemological point, though He was fully God and fully man, these were not the primary factors that made Him different. King continues on to point out the big contention that lies before Christianity, and that is how Christ obtain His divinity.

King has no gripe with the idea of Jesus being divine, rather his concern is how did Jesus become divine. Though I would agree with King that it is important to have a Christology within our systematic, it is far more important to have the correct and biblical Christology within our systematic. King, as it concerns the divinity of Jesus Christ, seems to mishandle the subject greatly as it concerns Jesus’ ontology. For King, to say that Jesus is ontologically divine is detrimental to the Christian. King believes that by claiming Jesus is ontologically divine gives permission to the Christian to never attempt to live up to his or her calling, because they would never be able to reach Jesus’ example.[22] This is clear departure from the orthodox position of how Christ should be viewed. It is clear within scripture that Jesus Christ existed prior to creation and existed face to face with the Father.[23] Jesus is said in scripture to be the creator of all things.[24]

Additionally, Jesus is said to be the reason why all things hold together.[25] These are very alarming claims made by the biblical text, if Jesus is just a mere man with no ontological lineage, as King suggest.  Additionally, I would disagree with King on the idea of Jesus ontology being a detriment to Christians. Its actually Jesus’ very nature and essence, which point to His ontology being that of divine, that allowed Jesus to atone for the sins of the world. It took the act of God Himself to save His sheep. The act of taking on God’s wrath was not a feat that a mere human could accomplish. It was never Jesus’ will for humanity to live their best life now, but King seems to think so.  King states, “To invest this Christ with such supernatural qualities makes the rejoinder: “Oh, well, he had a better chance for that kind of life than we can possible have.”[26] As stated before, King clearly seems to suggest that Jesus should be seen as a mere man that had a high moral aptitude because of His relationship with the Father. King did not stop there. He continues his thought by stating that Christ divinity is readily denied because the Christian may be able to use the inability to live up to Christ ontological standard as a cover for his or her failure.[27] So, for King, Christ divinity in the ontological sense is outside of the proper understanding of how Christ should be viewed.

As pointed out earlier, King did believe that Jesus was divine[28], but in what way is the question. King answers this very question. He states, “The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit of God. Christ was to be only the prototype of one among many brothers.”[29] As we can see, for King Jesus divinity was directly connected to His submission to the will and Spirit of God.[30] It was not that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and because of that had eternal communion and intimacy with the Father, but rather Jesus just communed with God and submitted Himself. King, disregards numerous points of scripture concerning Jesus being the I AM (YHWH) within the Old Testament and New Testament in order to leave room for his humanism. King, clearly is not in line with historical Christianity and should be rejected as a Christian because of it. Kings position should be intolerable to the trained ear and should not be embraced as a brother in Christ. 

King closes his essay by stating that “Jesus divine quality and unity with God was not something that was thrusted on Him from above, but it was a definite achievement through the process of moral struggle and self-abnegation”[31] Kings  denial of the God man Jesus Christ is clearly seen in this closing statement. King, makes it clear that Jesus worked His way up the ladder to obtain divinity through His moral acts and self-denial.  While I agree that Jesus was the perfect example of morality and the prefect example of self-denial, Jesus was much more than how King views Jesus. To view Jesus as simply a man with a high moral understanding is to take away the atonement that Christ accomplished. Would a mere man be able to atone for the sins of the world? Also, how would that make God look to send an innocent man to die for something he did not do? Rather, I believe that the atoning work on the cross could have only been accomplished by the God man. God incarnate, Jesus is the only one who could perfectly atone for the sins of the world and satisfy the wrath of God.

In the beginning section of this paper the question is asked should we count Martin Luther King as a brother in Christ? Its clear that the answer to the question is a resounding no. King, seems to have some misunderstanding concerning Jesus’ humanity, but the major issues that put King outside of the scope of Christianity was his rejection of the ontological divine nature of Jesus Christ. The church has understood throughout history that Jesus is not just fully man, but also fully God. Furthermore, it is understood that Jesus is the second person of the Triune God. Jesus is understood to have the same essence and nature of the Father. It is these qualities of Jesus that point to His divine nature. For King to reject these clearly taught aspects of Jesus Christ he cannot be counted as a brother in Christ. Jesus says in John 8:24,” I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.” Here Jesus tells the listener that to believe that He is the I Am or Yahweh is detrimental to one’s salvation and if you don’t believe that you will go to hell. Though King did great works as a civil rights activist, and I as a black man will be forever grateful, good earthly works do not save  and they do not cover a multitude of sins. There is only one way that sins are covered and that’s through the superiorly better work that Christ did on the cross.

[1] King, M. L., & King, C. S. (2019). Strength to love. Beacon Press.

[2] King, M. L., & Washington, J. M. (2006). A testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr.. HarperOne, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers.

[3] King, M. L., & Carson, C. (2010). In Stride toward freedom: The montgomery story (p. 80). essay, Beacon Press.

[4] King, M. L., & Carson, C. In Stride toward freedom: The montgomery story (p. 79).

[5] Dorrien (2001, pp. xiii, xxiii)

[6] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2022, December 13). Counter-Reformation. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Counter-Reformation

[7] Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2013, June 12). personalism. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/personalism

[8] "The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. (2021, May 21). Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus

[9] "The humanity and divinity of jesus". Martin Luther King, Jr.

[10] "The humanity and divinity of jesus". Martin Luther King, Jr.

[11] "The humanity and divinity of jesus". Martin Luther King, Jr.

[12] John 11:35

[13] Luke 24:40-43, Luke 11:38, Mark 2:15

[14] Matthew 27:24, Luke 23:39-46, John 19:13-18

[15] "The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. (2021, May 21). Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus

[16] H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913), p. 79

[17] Macleod, D. (1998). In The person of christ (pp. 213–214). essay, InterVarsity Press.

[18] Wellum, S. J. (2016). In God the son incarnate: The doctrine of christ: Kindle (p. 4545). essay, Crossway.

[19] "The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. (2021, May 21). Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus

[20] The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. (2021, May 21). Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus

[21] "The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr

[22] "The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr

[23] John 1:1

[24] Colossians 1:16

[25] Hebrews 1:2-3

[26] The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute. (2021, May 21). Retrieved January 14, 2023, from https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus

[27] The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr.

[28] The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr.

[29] The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr.

[30] The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr.

[31] The humanity and divinity of jesus". The Martin Luther King, Jr.