Was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Heretic?

I’ve been wanting to write this article for a couple of years. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a widely misunderstood figure in American history. Dominant histories cast King as a moderate, passive, colorblind peacemaker. Today, we will not consider ourselves so much with the “historical King,” if I may. Rather, we will address the surging accusations that King was a heretic.

I first saw this claim leveled by a former colleague of mine, and our collegiality ended sometime after. My first impression was shock. Theological conservatism is one of my foundational commitments. But seeking justice in the land and time I live in is also foundational. King had long been a model of what it looks like to hold the two together. But if King was a heretic, are justice and orthodoxy mutually exclusive?

There was also a caution that stirred within me. I was raised evangelical. But I first committed to faith in the hyper-charismatic movement. There, the spiritual authorities were street preachers and charismatic influencers who proclaimed themselves to be prophets interpreters of dreams. In that world, every high-profile pastor had a video made about them, accusing them of being a false teacher or heretic. It was the abundance of these “take-down” videos that eventually led me out of the hyper-charismatic movement.

When I saw that those who leveled the heresy accusation against King also opposed his politics, I decided that these accusations required some critical investigation. In this article, we carry out that investigation. And in the process, we retrieve a better understanding of heresy from one of Christianity’s greatest theologians: St. Augustine of Hippo.

Examining the Accusations

King’s accusers often include his personal moral life in their criticisms. JD Hall at Pulpit & Pen calls King “a sex-trafficking adulterer and homosexual.” An unnamed author with The DISNTR also alludes to King’s “fruits of sexual immorality.” Daniel Wright at the American Reformer brings up “Dr. King’s noted Communist associations.” And Jackson Waters, who we will engage with closely, claims that King “built his legal legacy on the politicization of a minority to use as leverage for a radical social engineering project.”

Perhaps we can tackle King’s personal history another time. Unfortunately, there are a great many famous theologians (and ordinary ministers) with deeply serious moral failings and abuses, Catholic and Protestant, conservative and liberal. So neither King nor the “Religious Left” are uniquely guilty of these serious sins.

Here, we attend strictly to what King is claimed to have gotten wrong, theologically. Here is an aggregate list:

• Denial of the Virgin Birth
• Rejecting Christ’s physical resurrection
• Denial of the Trinity
• Denial of penal substitutionary atonement
• Denial of eschatological hopes for a literal Second Coming, final judgment, and bodily resurrection
• Rejecting the infallibility of Scripture (and conversely, employing Biblical criticism)

As one of the aforementioned critics puts it, King’s writings show “the ancient Christian faith being ridiculed and subverted, stripped and gutted of its meaning, and worn like sheep’s clothing.” Let the investigation begin.

Critical Analysis

Earlier I expressed my commitment to theological conservatism. This commitment logically defines and constricts my ideas of what false teaching is and is not. The thrust behind theological conservatism is adherence to Scripture and Tradition as sources for theology, rather than accommodating one’s views to suit the ideologies of the day.

From this perspective of theological conservatism, it is clear that King expressed ideas that qualify as false doctrine. King was undoubtedly theologically liberal, rejecting what he called “fundamentalism” in favor of higher criticism and a pseudo-naturalism which casts historical doubt on metaphysical claims like a virgin birth or bodily resurrection.

One critical point to raise against the critics, however, is the timing of the texts in which King expressed these ideas. Waters’s article for the American Reformer is the most exhaustive analysis of King’s writings and sermons. So to raise this point, we will engage more closely with Waters. Through this more critical engagement, we see that King’s persistence in apostasy remains yet to be proven.

I. King’s Undergraduate Seminary Papers

Waters draws from an impressive array of King’s writings. These writings are all pulled from Stanford University’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute. The texts quoted fall into three genres: seminary papers, a sermon, and an article for The Christian Century.

King attended Crozer Theological Seminary from 1948 to 1951 as an undergraduate. He graduated from Crozer with a Bachelor of Divinity. (Prior to this, he graduated from Moorehouse College with a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology.) King was born January 15, 1929. The seminary papers (cited at the end) in which King denies historic tenets of Christian faith were penned from 1949 to 1950. As the math holds, he was 20 to 21 years old; a junior.

It is significant that King’s explicit denials of orthodoxy only occur during his undergraduate career. Did the reader, King, or King’s critics obtain full and final certainty of their beliefs as a junior? Even as a senior, my paradigms have shifted very much since last year. King was quite the unorthodox youth. But let us look to see if we find unorthodoxy later on.

II. King’s Sermon

King finished his doctorate in 1955, when he was 25 years old. It is interesting that neither Waters nor any other accusers that I know of draw from his graduate papers. A couple of months after receiving his doctorate, King heads the Montgomery bus boycott, and becomes president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957. His campaign in Birmingham, Alabama begins in the early 1960s, and he is murdered in 1968.

The later works that Waters cites are all in King’s period of activism. One is a sermon titled “A Walk Through the Holy Land,” delivered in March 1959 at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. The other is an article King wrote for The Christian Century in 1960, “Pilgrimage to Nonviolence.”

King’s sermon is definitely suggestive that he never abandoned his theological liberalism, and even that he continued to deny a bodily resurrection. In the sermon, King says,

Whatever you believe about the Resurrection this morning isn’t important. . . . [T]he disciples felt, that it was a physical resurrection, that the physical body got up. Then Paul . . . tried to synthesize the Greek doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the Jewish-Hebrew doctrine of resurrection. And he talked . . . about a spiritual body. . . . Whatever form, that isn’t important right now. The important thing is that that Resurrection did occur. Important thing is that that grave was empty. Important thing is the fact that Jesus had given himself to certain eternal truths and eternal principles that nobody could crucify and escape.

King is speaking to a congregation united in their belief in Christ’s resurrection, but in disagreement over its form. King himself does not express his position. But from this text alone, it is not certain whether he denies a physical resurrection. This sermon suggests more likely that King was trying to keep a “big tent” among Christians across liberal/conservative lines.

III. King’s Article

Finally, King’s article for the Christian Century is also cited. In his article, King writes, “In spite of the fact that I had to reject some aspects of liberalism, I never came to an all-out acceptance of neo-orthodoxy.” Neo-orthodoxy, in Waters’s description, is a sort of theological centrism that stands between theological conservatism and theological liberalism.

As King expresses in that article, the crucial issue between liberalism and neo-orthodoxy is theological anthropology. King writes that he believes liberalism is too “sentimental” and “optimistic” view of human nature. Yet he thought neo-orthodoxy too “pessimistic.” King’s solution is to “synthesize” liberalism and neo-orthodoxy, rejecting a completely depraved view of humanity, while also focusing on human sin and the necessity for repentance.

From this alone, we do not see a full-fledged theological liberal. But Waters intersperses his discussion of King’s sermon and article with quotations from his earlier seminary papers. Any reader who does not know the chronological gap between King’s 1949/1950 undergraduate papers and his 1959/1960 works would think that King was always explicitly unorthodox due to Waters’s composition.

But a critical evaluation shows otherwise. We see an expressly unorthodox King at 20/21, but a critically liberal King at 30/31.

What is Heresy, Anyway?

My sophomore thesis centered on the question of balancing theological unity with theological diversity. As I discussed my research with fellow Christians, a common question kept coming up. Balancing unity and diversity is important, but what about heresy?

Indeed, what about heresy? King’s undergraduate expressions of false doctrine is indisputable. But he may not have espoused such ideas a decade later. Indeed, he preaches in a 1959 of Solomon, David, Gethsemane, and Jericho, as historical persons and places, not as legend or mythology. And in his Christian Century article, King if anything is critically liberal. There is one more accusation, however, that Waters makes. King called Gandhi, who was a Hindu, a Christian in another 1959 sermon that Waters also references.

We will now examine whether King was a heretic, given the information we have. We focus especially on King’s unorthodoxy as an undergraduate, and his calling Gandhi a Christian a decade after.

Augustine and the Donatists

In my thesis, I did not want to dismiss heresy. Tradition tells us heresy is real. But heresy is quite overused. As evangelical theologian Rhyne R. Putman writes in When Doctrine Divides the People of God, “Some bandy the term about too frivolously,” and “make every tenet of their systems a nonnegotiable article of belief.” [1] Heresy is not simply propositional incorrectness. It has deeper dimensions.

In my research, St. Augustine of Hippo helped me understand these deeper dimensions quite well.

Augustine was no stranger to doctrinal diversity. His first religious excursions were as a Manichean, a group which he later rebuked as heretical. He also had interchanges with another group later in life, the Donatists. We draw from Paul J.J. van Geest’s account of Augustine’s relationship with this second group.

Augustine saw the Catholic Church as a guardian of ecclesial unity. The Donatists, however, saw themselves as the only authentic Church. Meaning, they saw all other Christians as false. Augustine repeatedly entreated the Donatists to return to the Church, but they continuously refused him. In one of his last epistles to them (Epistula 44), Augustine requested to talk “in a calm and neutral village where neither party had a church.” [2] For nearly ten years, Augustine sought dialogue with the Donatists (from roughly 391 to 399 C.E.).

Augustine accused the Donatists of being schismatics, but not quite heretics. This is important; schismatics could be punished by the Christian State, but heretics were considered the State’s enemies. Augustine chose not to use a very, very dangerous term. For another six years (399 to 405), Augustine grew impatient and sought to “interrogate” the Donatists. Because they persevered in their error, he considered them heretics. But Augustine did not call upon the State to punish them.

From 405 and 411, Augustine sought dialogue again, still calling the Donatists schismatics. After this period, Augustine finally considered legal action. Not for punishment as an end in itself. But as a hopeful initiation to restore unity within Christ’s fractured Body. [3]

Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a Heretic?

Augustine’s engagement with the Donatists centered on one focal point: unity. Propositional differences were not the only defining factors of heresy. Heresy was persistence in error. But more than this, van Geest writes that Augustine thought

orthodoxy and a balanced and good life are connected. He also condemned Encratite and Gnostic movements in the first place because the lifestyle they practiced did not foster care of the body, a balanced sexual life, inner equilibrium, or moderation. Augustine’s attention to praxis in addition to the doctrine shows that representations of Christianity in the past as purely concerned with doctrine must be corrected. [4]

As Rhyne Putman adds, heresy “preys on the spiritually immature”; arises from “distorted interpretations” by ignorant interpreters; is spread by those with “ungodly ambition, ignorance, and conceit,” driven by “a desire for material gain”; is associated with “sexual immorality”; sometimes stems from “demonic deception”; and comes from a desire to “divide” the Body. [5]

Was King a heretic? He espoused propositionally unorthodox ideas as an undergraduate. But I have yet to see where he persists in these errors in later years. He did indulge in orgies and adultery, according to this FBI report. This misconduct is concerning, since heresy is also about one’s life and praxis.

The last issue to raise is King calling Gandhi a Christian. This is indeed doctrinally concerning. But Augustine is instructive once again.

King, Gandhi, and the Harbor

Augustine depicts salvation differently in his writings. In City of God, he depicts it as citizenship. But in an earlier work, he describes salvation as a harbor. De Beata Vita is one of Augustine’s early reflections on salvation, or the “happy life.” Here, he depicts salvation as a harbor.

There are three kinds of seafarers attempting to reach the harbor, which is their true home. Of these, Augustine writes that “far fewer were likely to attain it than those scattered few whom we actually see reaching that port.” [6] Three categories of seafarers wish to reach the port. The first class are intellectuals who become so proud that they miss the port, and delude themselves (and others) into resting at a false destination.

The second class are those who suffer terribly in the waters. A deceitful wind carries them into storms of pain and trial. But among these, some through education and reflection “somehow wake up in port, whence no promises of the sea . . . can lure them away.” [7]

The last class is made up of sojourners who know their destination. Some sail to port without delay. Others meander about, but eventually make their way home, also sometimes through great suffering.

Dear reader, might not Gandhi, who suffered terrible seas indeed, belong to the second class and “somehow” wake up in the port of beatitude?

Reader, read on! Augustine adds that all seafarers have one thing to fear: a terrible mountain occupied by deceivers. These deceivers content themselves on the mountain, and try to lure those in the sea and those in the port to them. And importantly, Augustine writes, “Sometimes, [the mountain] retains those who, enchanted by the very height, take pleasure in looking down upon their fellow men.” [8]

Would King and Gandhi enter the harbor? And might King’s critics, who look down upon their fellow men, be on the mountain? I do not offer answers to these questions. But we know now that the charge of heresy is no light matter.

Works from Martin Luther King, Jr.

Note the dates when the seminary essays, sermon, and article were delivered/published.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. “An Autobiography of Religious Development.” Essay, September 12, 1950 to November 22, 1950. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/autobiography-religious-development.
—”A Walk Through the Holy Land, Easter Sunday Sermon Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.” Sermon, March 29, 1959. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/walk-through-holy-land-easter-sunday-sermon-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist.
—”How Modern Christians Should Think of Man.” Essay, November 29, 1949 to February 15, 1950. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/how-modern-christians-should-think-man.
—”How to Use the Bible in Modern Theological Construction.” Essay, September 13, 1949 to November 23, 1949. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/how-use-bible-modern-theological-construction.—”The Christian Pertinence of Eschatological Hope.” Essay, November 29, 1949 to February 15, 1950. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/christian-pertinence-eschatological-hope.
—”Palm Sunday Sermon on Mohandas K. Gandhi, Delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.” Sermon, March 22, 1959. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/palm-sunday-sermon-mohandas-k-gandhi-delivered-dexter-avenue-baptist-church.
—”Pilgrimage to Nonviolence.” The Christian Century. Article, April 13, 1960. https://www.christiancentury.org/article/pilgrimage-nonviolence.
—”The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus.” Essay, November 29, 1949 to February 15, 1950. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/humanity-and-divinity-jesus.
—”The Sources of Fundamentalism and Liberalism Considered Historically and Psychologically.” Essay, September 13, 1949 to November 23, 1949. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/sources-fundamentalism-and-liberalism-considered-historically-and.
—”What Experiences of Christians Living in the Early Christian Century Led to the Christian Doctrines of the Divine Sonship of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, and the Bodily Resurrection.” Essay, September 13, 1949 to November 23, 1949. https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/what-experiences-christians-living-early-christian-century-led-christian.

References

1. Rhyne R. Putman, When Doctrine Divides the People of God: An Evangelical Approach to Theological Diversity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 205-206.

2. Paul J.J. van Geest, “Augustine’s Approach to Heresies as an Aid to Understanding His Ideas on Interaction between Christian Traditions,” in World Christianity: Methodological Considerations, edited by Martha Frederiks and Dorottya Nagy (Leiden: Brill, 2021), 254.

3. van Geest, “Augustine’s Approach,” 253-256. In this passage, van Geest also stresses that Augustine was mournful of the violence used by the majority of Christians against the Donatists. It seems his view was expressed on a straight and narrow path.

4. van Geest, “Augustine’s Approach,” 266.

5. Taken from Putman, When Doctrine Divides, 208-211.

6. Augustine, The Writings of Saint Augustine, vol. 1, in The Fathers of the Church, a new translation (New York, NY: Cima Publishing Co., 1948), 43.

7. Augustine, The Writings, 45.

8. Augustine, The Writings, 46.