Martin Luther King. Jr and Mahatma Gandhi SeminarDr. Josiah Young and Dr. Sathianan ClarkWesley Theological Seminary / Spring 2009Heesung Hwang

Possibility for King’sNonviolence action

in the Age of Terrorism

I. Introduction

My initial thought for this paper related with King words

and deeds was started while studying nonviolence resistance of

Gandhi and then of King. As I read the books and articles, a

series of questions burst upon me: “Nonviolence is nice in

theory, but is it really practical? Is it still possible in this

world that was seized with the fear of terrorism?1 Can it be

possible for the U.S.A. to accept the reality that we are

sometimes weak, we cannot be the winner all the time, and we may

1 Cf. Cortright, David. Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for an Age of Terrorism. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006. 1.

1

be able to forgive and heal the world with the nonviolent power

rather than brutal revenge?”

When I presented these questions in the panel discussion

related with the terror attack on Sept. 11, 2001, I obviously

could see two different kinds of faces. Some people showed their

interest in that insight, but others looked offended. Their faces

were talking to me “How dare you ask, even think like that!” That

situation even made me more interested in that thought.

Based on this initial experience regarding nonviolence

study, I would like to develop my ideas. Following King’s

insights of love and nonviolence, I will analyze how the modern

society can creatively adopt his nonviolence movement.

II. The Sources of King’s Thought

a. Experimental Influences

King was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on 15 January 1929.2 Even

though there were prevailing racial segregation and oppression,

“young Martin grew up in a home which was relatively secure

financially. He also grew up very much in church – Sunday school,

2 Washington James M. “Editor’s Introduction,” A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 1986. xvi.

2

Training Union, Youth activities,” 3 as a son in preacher’s

family. It was a great benefit for him that he was able to get

relatively stable childhood and a chance to get higher education

in his time.

Through the continuous experiences of racial segregation as

he grew up, King started to ask himself and looked for the

ultimate means to make a difference in the society. His question

was basically “how could Blacks battle against oppression and yet

act in Christian love for their oppressors?”4 As a result of

that, he developed the idea of nonviolence resistance based on

two sources: Jesus and Mahatma Gandhi.5

As an activist rather than a theologian or a religious

thinker, “his ideas and motivation always came from the specific

demands of an actual historical situation that required an active

response.”6 It was especially after becoming a minister of the

Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, that King

3 Ramsay, William M. Four Modern Prophets: Walter Rauschenbush, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gustavo Gutierrez, Rosemary Radford Ruether. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1986. 31.4 Ramsay. 34.5 Ibid. 34; Details about these two sources will be mentioned in Part II.6 Chernus, Ira. American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2004. 161.

3

actively involved into civil rights movement.7 During this time,

he combined and applied his thoughts and principles, which are

that he had developed through his seminary education, into the

real circumstances.8

The most important incident that made him get recognized as

a social leader was the Montgomery Bus Boycott.9 On Dec. 1, 1955,

Mrs. Rosa Parks sat down on the first seat which was the white

section of a Montgomery city bus. She refused to move to the

“black section” or to stand up and was arrested. NAACP10 which

King was involved helped her get out and decided to boycott of

the buses. It was the beginning of the legendary 381-day

nonviolence resistance.11

For this resistance, “King was chosen head of its organizing

network, the Montgomery Improvement Association.”12 In the same

night, through his opening speech, “King enunciated the concept

he had been working out, the idea to which he was to dedicate his7 King, Coretta Scott. “Foreword,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love. Philadelphia:Fortress Press. 1981. 7.8 King, Coretta Scott. 7; cf. King’s Essay “Pilgrimage to nonviolence” Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength to Love. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1963. 146-154.91955-1956; Cf. Chernus. 161. He said, “The experience in Montgomery did more to clarify my theology on the question of nonviolence than all of the books I had read.” 10 The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.11 Ramsay. 32-34.12 King, Coretta Scott. 7.

4

life: his faith in the power of active, loving, nonviolent

resistance.”13 Then he dedicated his life to keeping the social

movement going but in a loving, nonviolent way. 14

b. The Influence of Christianity: agape love

For King, “religion is and must be a personal experience.

This is because God is personal.”15 And this God loves all of us

equally. “So we should love all members of the human family

equally.”16 Just as God is agape (“selfless love”), so we should

treat all people with agape love. 17 Agape is “understanding,

redeeming good will for all men. It is an overflowing love which

seeks nothing in return. It is the love god working in the lives

of men” 18

13 Ramsay. 33.14 ibid. 34.15 Chernus. 162.16 Ibid. 163.17 Ibid. 163.18 King. A Testament of Hope. 13; 140; See also King. Strength to Love. 52.

5

Agape does not mean that “we should like all people; some

people are indeed unlikable.”19 But it means that we should

respect every person’s unique personality and help all

individuals fulfill their highest potentials. Therefore it means

caring about what happens to every person and responding to each

one’s unique needs. Agape creates “true person-to-person

relationships.”20 “In the beloved community, all action would

express agape love.”21

c. The Influence of Gandhi

Cortwirght mentions that “Gandhi’s greatest contribution was

the method of nonviolent social action, which he defined as

satyagraha.” 22 Gandhi believes that the core of holding on to

Truth is to withdraw support of what is wrong. So if enough

people join to hold onto Ultimate Truth, evil has to collapse

from lack of support.”23 This notion deeply influenced King. He

says “The whole Gandhian concept of satyagraha (truth-force or

19 King. A Testament of Hope. 13.20 Chernus. 164; see also King. A Testament of Hope. 19.21 Chernus. 171.22 Cortright. 19.23 Easwaran, Eknath. “Preface,” The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas. ed.Louis Fischer. New York: Vintage Books, 2002. xxiv.

6

love-force) was profoundly significant to me. As I delved deeper

into the philosophy of Gandhi, my skepticism concerning the power

of love gradually diminished, and I came to see for the first

time that the Christian doctrine of love, operating through the

Gandhian method of nonviolence, is one of the most potent weapons

available to an oppressed people in their struggle for

freedom.”24 For him, Jesus Christ provided the motivation; Gandhi

furnished the techniques.25 He also insists that Nonviolence is

not just intellectual or ethical value. It has to be a

“commitment to a way of life.”26

III. King’s Philosophy of Nonviolence

a. Interdependence

Through his speeches, King first indicates the importance of

interdependence of individuals and communities: “More than ever

before, my friends, men of all races and nations are today

challenged to be neighborly.”27 He also said, “This is the

24 King. Strength to Love. 150.25 Ramsay. 35.26 King. Strength to Love. 150. 27 King. Strength to Love. 38; See also King. A Testament of Hope. 210. “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

7

interrelated structure of all reality. You can never be what you

ought to be until I become what I ought to be.”28

b. Forgiveness

Creating the beloved community requires forgiving sins of

each other. And forgiving and loving those who try to harm us

often requires voluntary suffering. King says that “it is also

necessary to realize that the forgiving act must always be

initiated by the person who had been wronged, the victim of some

great hurt, the recipient of some tortuous injustice, the

absorber of some terrible act of oppression”29as did Jesus

respond with “aggressive” forgiving love toward crucifixion by

hate.30 Here is love as the foundational element to interweave

every part of society.31 King believed “This is the only way to

create the beloved community.”32

c. Social Responsibility: Love in Action

28 King. A Testament of Hope. 210.29 King. Strength to Love. 50.30 Ibid. 42.31 Cf. Ibid. 49-50. “Love even for enemies is the key to the solution of the problems of our world.”32 Ibid. 56.

8

Loving our neighbors is the essential link between faith and

action. “There can be no individual spiritual development without

a strong sense of social responsibility. Agape acted out in

society creates a sense of loving community. Because God is

agape, God is always working to create community.”33 Action is

even more important than the commitment to nonviolence: “There is

one evil that is worse than violence, and that’s cowardice.”34

In relation to the social actions, King urges the

significant role of the churches of America with the pen of

Apostle Paul: “I hope the churches of America will play a

significant role in conquering segregation. It has always been

the responsibility of the church to broaden horizons and

challenge the status quo. The church must move out into the arena

of social action. First, you must see that the church removes the

yoke of segregation from its own body. Then you must seek to make

the church increasingly active in social action outside its

doors.”35

33 Chernus. 164.34 King. A Testament of Hope. 360. 35 King. Strength to Love. 141.

9

IV. Scope and Limits of King’s Nonviolence

a. The Power of Nonviolence

Nonviolence can be used universally as an alternative to

violence. It is not just a lack of violence. Most of human

activities such as sleeping, eating, socializing and most work

are considered basically nonviolent, but that does not make them

nonviolent actions. 36 Nonviolence is positive action against

evil.

“King preached against violence because to injure another person

is to deny that person’s sanctity. No matter how evil a person’s

acts may be, the image of God is never totally gone. And violence

injures the image of God.”37 He even stated:

“We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our

capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical

force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall

continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey

your unjust laws, because noncooperation with evil is as much

a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in 36 Van Inwegen, Patrick. "The Limits of Strategic Nonviolence" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99840_index.html. 3. Web. Accessed on Feb. 5, 200937 Chernus. 173.

10

jail, and we shall still love you. Send your hooded

perpetrators of violence into our community at the midnight

hour and beat us and leave us half dead, and we shall still

love you..”38

How aggressive love it is!

b. The Challenge of Nonviolence

Although its high vision, the core challenge that

nonviolence encountered is that it would not be able to “work

against a heartless, brutal opponent.”39 It seems to assume that

the opponent also have a certain level of morality or goodness to

which the satyagrahi’s truth may ultimately appeal.

Many activists, even among peace and human rights activists,

also have similar doubts about the effectiveness of nonviolence

resistance.40 Some considers violence is sometimes acceptable to

achieve a good purpose. The question at the root of these

concerns is a basically this: “Should the victims of brutal

38 King. Strength to Love. 56.39 Cortright. 111.40 Ibid. 111.

11

tyranny be expected to maintain a strictly nonviolent response?

When a legitimate popular movement striving for justice has

attempted every nonviolent form of redress yet faces relentless

repression and terror, must it maintain a purely nonviolent form

of struggle?”41 King himself also faced that kind of questions of

whether violence may be necessary sometimes and can be

legitimate, but he was even more unbending in his response.42

c. The Limits of Nonviolence

There are several researches that show the objective

conditions and limits of nonviolence. The report of Patrick Van

Inwegan is one of them. He states, three components are necessary

to make nonviolent action work: “First, the international

situation must be ripe for the internationalizing of nonviolent

action. For this to be the case, justice becomes equally or more

important than national security. Second, the oppressing country

must be heavily dependent upon international actors. Finally, the

41 Ibid. 112.42 Ibid. 112.

12

state needs to be significantly weakened and thus prone to

pressure from the international actors.”43

Nonviolent movement is most likely to work successfully

where there is a strong power relationship. But the power

relationship may not even exist when a group or a country is such

a small minority that the government does not need to rely upon

it for the state’s sustained existence.44

V. Nonviolence: The Constructive Alternative to Terrorism

a. What happened on September 11?

Pope John Paul II described the attacks of September 11,

2001, as an “unspeakable horror.”45 Even though there are

different voices whether the terrorists were martyrs in their

faith or murders, the indiscriminate slaughter is never

acceptable for any purpose.46 We lost not only friends and family43 Van Inwegen. 14; In addition to the second component, the good example is the European colonization of North America. Unlike the case of India, the people living onthe colonized land were not needed to get what the land was acquired for. Colonists were not interested in trading goods produced in the colony by the natives, but ratherwere interested in the land itself. Then the indigenous population could be exterminated. This is a key indication that nonviolent action was unlikely to work. See. Ibid. 14-18.44 Ibid. 21.45 Quoted from Elshatain, Jean Bethke. Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books, 2003. 9.46 Elshtain distinguishes between a martyr and a murderer. “A martyr is generally recognized as one who dies for his or her faith. Even if he kills himself in the

13

but also hope and the sense of security; we gained not only

intense fear but also great anger by the death of nearly three

thousand people. “Through the manipulation of fear and constant

references to 9/11, leaders in Washington D.C. have maintained

public support for their war polices even in the face of

widespread skepticism about the military mission in Iraq.”47

When President George W. Bush addressed to the nation on

September 20, 2001, he proclaimed the war against terrorism.48

Even though he carefully mentioned it is more like justification

against terrorism, it was likely seen as revenge. “Revenge stems

from a desire to inflict harm for a real or imagined harm one has

sustained. Revenge does not involve deliberation or care, and it

often recognizes no limits.”49 In contrast, justice has to do

with fairness, “with putting things right when an injustice has

been committed.”50

Can we act with love and justice rather than with the desire

of revenge?

process, however, a person who murders is not a martyr but a murderer.” See. Elshatain. 10;18-19.47 Cortright. 212.48 Elshatain. 23.49 Ibid. 24.50 Ibid. 24.

14

b. Justice and Truth in Today’s world: American Power and

Responsibility

Above all, the answer is yes. “The first requirement is to

balance the demand for peace with the requirement for justice. It

is also necessary to apply pressure on the militants who commit

mass murder and to protect innocent victims.”51

Similar to other debates of nonviolent solutions to hostile

governments and groups, there has been discussions about how to

respond to the 9/11 attacks. In this situation, nonviolence

seemed to become less attractive. Why do we need to hold such a

thing like nonviolence against terrorists? “Most people in the

U.S. wanted to hold Afghanistan responsible and there was

overwhelming support to overthrow the Taliban regime. However,

there was almost no discussion about doing this through

nonviolent means, primarily because of policy-makers

understanding that this is not possible.”52

Yet, America is the only alternative power to counter the threat

presented by international terrorists who have no respects of 51 Cortright. 212.52 Van Inwegen. 19.

15

borders.53 Elshtain also insists, “If human dignity needs a new

guarantee,” who will be the guarantor? There is no state except

the United States with the power and (we hope) the will to play

this role.”54

She continues to suggest about American responsibility as a

victim and a superpower in the world at the same time.

It is difficult to underestimate the shock to the world’s

nervous system on September 11 and how much was at stake that day

and in our response. We were reminded in the cruelest way that

American stability and international stability are linked. As the

world’s superpower, America bears the responsibility to help

guarantee that international stability, whether much of the world

wants it or not. This does not mean that we can or should rush

around imposing “solutions” everywhere. It does mean that we are

obliged to evaluate all cries for justice and relief from people

who are being preyed upon, whether by nonstate marauders (like

terrorists) or by state-sponsored enforcers. We, the powerful,

must respond to attacks against persons who cannot defend

themselves because they, like us, are human beings, hence equal 53 Elshtain. 167.54 Ibid. 167.

16

in regard to us, and because they, like us, are members of

states, or would-be states, whose primary obligation is to

protect the lives of those citizens who inhabit their polities.55

c. Adopting Nonviolence: The Constructive Alternative to

Terrorism

“As an advocate of nonviolence, King was naturally opposed

to all war.”56 Nonviolence challenges all aspects of the

comforting assumptions about goodness, suffering, and violence.57

It provides abundant fountain for “crafting an effective strategy

against terrorism.”58 “The principles of conflict prevention and

transformation are also highly relevant to the fight against

55 Ibid. 169-170.56 Chernus. 179. 57 Kane, John F. “The Challenge of Gandhi,” Sanford Krolick and Betty Cannon. Gandhi in the “Postmodern” Age: Issues in War and Peace. Golden, Colorado: Colorado School of Mines Press,1984. 88.58 Cortright. 212.

17

terrorism. This is where nonviolent movement is especially

valuable.”59

Again, here is the answer. Violence cannot be justified in

any case. Only nonviolent actions can break the cycle of anger

and killing. This is possible although it is very difficult. The

best preparation for nonviolent action is a “constructive

program.”60 For pragmatic action, Cortright suggests major

principles: (1) understanding the political power; (2) Organizing

the network efficiently; (3) Clarifying goals; (4) organizing via

internet, media; (5) Financing; (6) Evaluating Tactics; etc.61

King said he was in a great time to be alive since he could

witness that “old systems of exploitation and oppression are

passing away; new systems of justice and equality are being

born.”62 He is the one who was able to dream the brightest

morning in the darkest and coldest night and prepare for that

glorious morning. That is why his principles of love and

nonviolence still cast a long shadow to us even more than 40

years after his death. 59 Ibid. 213.60 Tahinen, Unto. The Core of Gandhi’s Philosophy. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications, 1979. 56.61 For further details, see Cortright. 191-221 62 King. Strength to Love. 153.

18

Now, not just the black community but the white as well in

whole Unite States face the sever violence with terror attacks.

Although “just few have committed themselves to the strict

nonviolence that was so central to King’s message and life,”63 I

believe this is THE chance for America to apply aggressively

nonviolent love toward the world.

Nonviolence is a strategy and a way of life we need to

preserve to advocate justice and peace. “Nonviolence offers hope

in place of fear.”64 The new order of hope: this is the

possibility that King’s nonviolence leads us toward from the era

of fear and despair.

63 Chernus. 176.64 Cortright. 215.

19

Bibliography

Chernus, Ira. American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Maryknoll, New

York: Orbis Books, 2004.

Cortright, David. Gandhi and Beyond: Nonviolence for an Age of Terrorism.

Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, 2006.

Easwaran, Eknath. “Preface,” The Essential Gandhi: An Anthology of His

Writings on His Life, Work, and Ideas. ed.Louis Fischer. New York:

Vintage Books, 2002.

Elshatain, Jean Bethke. Just War against Terror: The Burden of American Power

in a Violent World. New York: Basic Books, 2003.

Kane, John F. “The Challenge of Gandhi,” Sanford Krolick and

Betty Cannon. Gandhi in the “Postmodern” Age: Issues in War and Peace.

Golden, Colorado: Colorado School of Mines Press, 1984.

King, Coretta Scott. “Foreword,” Martin Luther King, Jr. Strength

to Love. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1981.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and

Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. Edited by James M. Washington.

New York: HarperCollins Publishers. 1986.

King, Martin Luther, Jr. Strength to Love. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press. 1963.

20

Ramsay, William M. Four Modern Prophets: Walter Rauschenbush, Martin Luther

King, Jr., Gustavo Gutierrez, Rosemary Radford Ruether. Atlanta, GA.:

John Knox Press, 1986.

Sunnemark, Fredrik. “Introduction,” Ring Out Freedom!: The Voice of Martin

Luther King, Jr. and the Making of the Civil Rights Movement. Bloomington,

Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2004.

Tahinen, Unto. The Core of Gandhi’s Philosophy. New Delhi: Abhinav

Publications, 1979.

Van Inwegen, Patrick. "The Limits of Strategic Nonviolence" Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies

Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center,

San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>.

2009-02-05

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p99840_index.html. Web.

Accessed on Feb. 5, 2009

Washington, James M. “Editor’s Introduction,” A Testament of Hope: The

Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers. 1986.

21