Accurately Understanding King Jr.

Tuesday, January 20, 2026

For evangelicals who take both Scripture and history seriously, Martin Luther King Jr. deserves neither hagiography nor dismissal. He deserves understanding. That requires resisting the modern temptation to flatten him into a one-dimensional symbol—either a sainted mascot for every contemporary political cause or a villain dismissed because he does not fit neatly into today’s ideological boxes. The real King was far more interesting, far more challenging, and far more explicitly Christian than either camp prefers to admit.

At his core, King was not a progressive activist who occasionally quoted the Bible. He was a Baptist minister whose worldview, rhetoric, and moral imagination were saturated with Scripture. His leadership in the Civil Rights movement flowed directly from his theology, not in spite of it. Any evangelical attempt to understand King honestly must begin there.

King believed the Imago Dei—that every human being is created in the image of God. This was not a poetic flourish; it was the moral engine of his work. Segregation was evil not merely because it was unjust, but because it was sinful. It distorted God’s design for human dignity and neighbor-love. When King spoke of justice, he was not appealing to abstract political theory. He was echoing the prophets—Amos, Isaiah, Micah—who thundered that God despises systems that crush the weak while pretending to be righteous.

This is why King’s strategy of nonviolent resistance matters so much to evangelicals. Nonviolence was not merely tactical; it was theological. King believed that violence corrodes the soul of both the oppressor and the oppressed. His approach mirrored Jesus’ command to love one’s enemies—not sentimentally, but confrontationally. Nonviolence forced the nation to see its sin without allowing the movement itself to become morally compromised.

Accurately understanding Martin Luther King Jr. does not require agreement with every conclusion he reached. It requires acknowledging that his courage flowed from Christian belief, that his moral authority came from biblical truth, and that his call for justice was inseparable from his call to love.

That is not a progressive appropriation. It is an evangelical responsibility.

Related Episodes