Why MLK Day matters more than you think

January 17, 2022

A local Baptist association in Alabama once adopted a resolution that included these lines:

“Martin Luther King, by his advocacy of total integration of the races, is contributing to the breaking up of a friendly, helpful and peaceful relation that has existed for many years, between the white and negro races. This we believe is the Christian way for people to live.

“On the race question, we believe there are certain God given differences that make our traditional way of separation the best way for the two races to live.”

I wish I could tell you that this unanimously adopted resolution from a local Baptist association in Alabama during 1961 was unique. But it wasn’t. This group of Jesus-loving, gospel-proclaiming, believer-immersing white Southern Baptists was replicated in scores of similar letters, newspaper articles, and local church association resolutions. I’ve read countless letters from white Baptists all over the South who called Martin Luther King Jr. a communist, an agitator, rabble rouser, self-promoter, false teacher, and even “the Devil himself.”

That’s one reason why Martin Luther King Jr. Day matters. It’s a day that should force us as Americans — and especially as evangelical Christians — to pause and remember. We remember not only the victories of the civil rights movement, but we remember what it cost and why it was necessary. Nearly half a century after King’s murder, we have far too often forgotten our past. We’ve lost sight of the pervasive wickedness, injustice, and barbarity of a society guilty of racial hierarchy, dehumanization, and violence.

And here’s the scary thing. A lot of people in churches concluded things were just fine; that the status quo was not only reasonable, but biblically supported, and those who challenged that system were motivated by inherently anti-Christian motives. That haunts me.

Where did this day come from?

The whole history of this day is complex. For most Americans, the annual observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day is now something of an assumed and accepted reality. However, its establishment was one that forced the United States to seriously consider the legacy not only of King, but of the civil rights movement itself. And that moment quickly became one of bitter debate and controversy. As historian David Chappell documents in his recent book, Waking from the Dream: The Struggle for Civil Rights in the Shadow of Martin Luther King, Jr., the effort to establish a national holiday to honor King was prolonged and deeply contentious.1David L. Chappell, Waking from the Dream: The Struggle for Civil Rights in the Shadow of Martin Luther King, Jr. (New York: Random House, 2014).

It’s now been over 30 years since President Ronald Reagan signed into law the legislation establishing the third Monday of January as Martin Luther King Jr. Day. It now feels familiar. Every year we hear the same snippets of speeches, read the same scripted platitudes from elected officials, and pause to consider King’s legacy. But the holiday is about much more than that. In fact, it’s about much more than Martin Luther King Jr. That’s because the movement King led, and the vision he held up for America, was one that demanded commitment and sacrifice from everyday people.

The day also forces us to remember that King was no saint. How a courageous hero for social justice and righteousness could find it seemingly impossible to refrain from adultery is not something to be easily glossed over with patronizing allusions to his “humanity.” Nor should we suggest that the well-documented evidence of his plagiarism as a graduate student at Boston University — whatever the reasons for it may have been — was anything less than a moral failure.

But here’s the thing. A day like this reminds us that God uses sinners like King to carry out his purposes. He did it with King, and he did it through countless Americans — often anonymous — who marched, organized, protested, and were even martyred for the sake of justice and freedom. Every one of them was a sinner. The ultimate hope of the civil rights movement was never in one man, or even in millions of men and women marching. For those that understood it rightly and fully, it was hope in a resurrected carpenter from Nazareth, the God-Man.

The Church and the beloved community

Half a century later, King’s vision of what he called the “beloved community” still calls out to us. It cannot be a vision rooted in the vapor of liberal Protestantism, one that has eviscerated the centrality of the bloody cross and empty tomb and thus undermined the exclusivity of Christ.  Richard Niehbuhr famously indicted this kind of false Christianity as summed up in the axiom, “A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”2H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America (New York: Harper & Row, 1937), 193.

An evangelical vision for the beloved community will be marked by a gospel-framed vision of the Kingdom of Christ. And if the driving ethic of that kingdom is love, it will continue to press against the kingdoms of this world. It will transform our churches and, by the power of the Holy Spirit, serve to demonstrate to the world that we are indeed Christ’s disciples. Furthermore, the beloved community will not only confine itself within the walls of our local churches. It will, and must, spill over into our communities, our neighborhoods, and our cities.

However, evangelicals must be especially clear. The vision for this beloved community finds its locus in the local church and in the good news of Jesus Christ. If our own incarnational outposts of the Kingdom of Christ are still marked by strife, hostility, racism, and ethnocentrism, then we must repent, look to God for fresh mercies, and renew our commitment to pursue reconciliation by the power of the Spirit. We must also recognize that our failures within our churches have spilled out into our communities. If the church loses its prophetic witness and credibility, we should not be surprised that our cities and neighborhoods — even our nation — fall off course in building a culture that values those things that matter most.

What King understood, and what we must as well, is that reconciliation is central in this call. In the gospel, God calls sinners to be reconciled to himself through the saving work of his Son. And he also offers hope that we can be reconciled to one another. This call to reconciliation with one another is not an optional additive for some Christians. As civil rights hero and gospel preacher John Perkins has pointed out, it is central to the Christian life and is best understood as a matter of discipleship. Maybe today is as good a day as any to renew our commitment to that vision and confess that we still have a long way to go.3Charles Marsh & John M. Perkins, Welcoming Justice: God’s Movement Toward Beloved Community (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009).

A call to the Church

As a national holiday, Martin Luther King Jr. Day calls all Americans to pause and reflect on our national history. It should prompt good civil discourse that assesses where we’ve come from, where we need to go, and how we might get there as a society. This is an important part of the legacy of King and the black freedom movement — calling Americans of every color and creed to work together for the common good, to preserve and ensure that the promises made in our constitutional freedoms are protected for every one of our fellow citizens. It’s a call to make sure we live up to the standards and ideals we say are at the very heart of the American experiment.

But this day also calls Christians in particular to renew a gospel-centered vision for our life together. King spoke to our national conscience and organized for legal change in ways that transcended sect or creed, to be sure. But the heart of the civil rights movement was in its appeal to the church. Yes, King and the civil rights movement appealed to our national conscience to live up to the democratic promises of our Founders. But the animating ideas, songs, and vision of the movement were not most fundamentally in ideals of American democracy but in ancient and divinely revealed truths, in what God has said to be true. And that legacy still rings true for evangelicals in 2015.

Preaching in New York as the brutal Freedom Summer of 1964 was nearing its end, King articulated a call for this kind of witness. A true Baptist at heart, he understood the necessary connection between religious freedom and the church’s obligation to be faithful in its witness, even when the state would seek to suppress it.

“The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.”4Martin Luther King, Jr. “A Knock at Midnight.” Sermon preached at Riverside Church (New York, NY) on August 9, 1964.

That call from King still rings loud and true. Evangelicals of all people are those that understand that this call to justice and reconciliation is no “social gospel.” As those identified by our own designation as “gospel people,” we are those that confess the centrality of the salvific act at Calvary, the necessity of a substitutionary bloody sacrifice offered up for sons and daughters of Adam, the vindication of the crucified King by his bodily resurrection and empty tomb, and the good news that by grace through faith any sinner can be declared righteous in Christ, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic class. That’s good news. That’s gospel truth. 

But we still urgently need to hear King’s call to recognize that our creed must manifest itself in deed. If we preach calling sinners to be reconciled to God, but perpetuate the dividing walls of hostility that Christ came to tear down (Eph. 2:14), we have likely not understood the gospel.

Today my family will say a prayer of thanksgiving to God for Martin Luther King Jr. I hope you will too. Even as we pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven,” we look toward a day when peace and justice will reign. That day is sure to come.

Photo Attribution:

William Lovelace / Stringer

Matthew J. Hall

Matthew J. Hall was appointed as provost and senior vice president for academic administration of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in April 2019. Previously, Hall served as dean of Boyce College in 2016 and senior vice president of academic strategy at Southern Seminary. Read More by this Author

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24