THE POWER OF LOVE
King goes on in the article to address why violence and hatred had no place in the Montgomery Bus Boycott:
In my weekly remarks as president of the resistance committee, I stressed that the use of violence in our struggle would be both impractical and immoral. To meet hate with retaliatory hate would do nothing but intensify the existence of evil in the universe. Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love; we must meet physical force with soul force.{23}
When we look at the dynamics of oppression and injustice, we find hatred, violence, and toughness are major driving forces of these. And for the sake of clarity, I use the word ‘toughness’ as an apparent strength based on the exertion of physical and mental force, not a strength rooted in love that emanates from humility and spiritual surrender. If hatred, violence, and toughness are major factors in why we continue to suffer oppression and injustice, we would be wise to refrain from these. Especially since, particularly in Western culture, we are conditioned to respond to hatred with hatred, violence with violence, and toughness with toughness. In such responses, even if we have a seemingly temporary victory, we are sowing the seeds for future oppression and injustice -- whether we suffer these ourselves or leave them as unfortunate inheritances for future generations.
Gandhi saw this last point play out literally in India. For decades, Indians of various spiritual traditions worked together against the British colonization and oppression. During this time, there were constant efforts by Gandhi and others to restrain, if not eliminate, the burgeoning anger against the British that considered violence a viable means of resistance. Although most people upheld the standard of nonviolent behavior, the inclination to violence remained. And, as the dawn of the British departure from India became evident, this inclination toward violence shifted from the common opponent of the British to the different factions among Indians. One of the more prominent demonstrations of this was the friction that erupted between Muslim and non-Muslim Indians:
Look at the feud that is going on between Hindus and Muslims. Each is arming for the fight with the other. The violence that we had harboured in our breasts during the non-co-operation days is now recoiling upon ourselves. The violent energy that was generated among the masses, but was kept under check in the pursuit of a common objective, has now been let loose and is being used among and against ourselves.{24}
As a result of this violence being turned “against ourselves,” the long-standing fight to establish a free, united India that openly embraced many religions disintegrated into a plan that divided the country -- establishing a separate Pakistan for the Muslims. This led to intense violence and displacement, since for centuries Muslims and non-Muslims lived together throughout India; but in the intensity of this conflict, many Muslims left India to relocate to Pakistan, and vice versa for non-Muslims. These two countries, who are siblings by a shared extended history, are still vehemently engaged in a continuing conflict -- including armed warfare. Similar tensions arose in the Civil Rights Movement and other modern social organizing movements: divisions that may have been prevented if people embraced the call to not allow hatred, violence, and toughness to have any place in their work and in their lives.
This call to refrain from hatred, violence, and toughness goes beyond matters of practicality to the moral essence of Nonviolence. Gandhi noted:
Only those who realize that there is something in man which is superior to the brute nature in him and that the latter always yields to it, can effectively be Satyagrahis.{25} (emphasis mine)
King spoke to this something in the context of Christianity. Let me share some words he delivered in an Easter Day sermon in 1957. He reflects on military figures and forces attributed great fame in history: Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the Roman Empire, Charlemagne, and even Napoleon. Acknowledging their achievements, he notes that all of them -- who engaged in mass efforts of hatred, violence, and toughness -- fell. Using Napoleon as the prime example, King shares:
I could see Napoleon, with all of his military power, dying and faltering with his army at Waterloo. I said to myself, “This is the doom of every Napoleon. This is the doom of every man and every nation that feels that victory can ultimately come through force.”{26}
King then turns his attention to the life of Jesus:
I could see him at the age of thirty years old going out on his Galilean mission. He didn’t have any armies with him. He didn’t have many followers with him. He didn’t even have a hundred percent cooperation from them, for one of them betrayed him and another went around and condemned, denied it, denied that he knew him. ... And I watched him as he walked around the hills of Galilee just doing good, just preaching the gospel to the brokenhearted, healing the sick and raising the dead. And I just watched him, I looked at him, and I said, “Now, he doesn’t have a band following him. He has no great army! He has no great military power.” Then I can see him go with another kind of army. I can hear him as he says somehow to himself, “I’m just going to put on the breastplate of righteousness. And I’m going to take the ammunition of love and the whole armor of God, and I’m just gonna march.”{27} (italics mine)
In summation, King declares:
This is the Easter message, this is the question that it answers. It says to us that love is the most durable power in the world, more than all of the military giants, all of the nations that base their way on military power. I wish this morning that you would go tell Russia, go tell America, go tell the nations of the world that atomic bombs cannot solve the problems of the universe. Go back and tell them that hydrogen bombs cannot solve the problems of the world. But it is only through love and devotion to the justice of the universe that we can solve these problems. And then we can go away saying in terms that cry out across the generations that “God reigns, He reigns supreme, the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” He reigns because He established His universe on moral principles. And through the love that He revealed through Jesus Christ, things move on.{28} (italics mine)
Thus, King illustrates not only the connection between Christian love and morality, but the relationship between love and the moral principles upon which the universe is established. Herein lays a logic often overlooked: if we wish to address or change something, morality is a powerful means to do so since the universe is established upon such. Morality is a means to address and transform phenomena from their roots. And, love is a way of applying and putting into action these powerful moral principles.
Spiritual traditions utilize different language to name and describe this something which is superior to the brute nature in humanity. Thus, hatred, violence, and toughness -- attributes of brute nature -- are exposed to be weaker than this something upon which the universe is established. Knowing this, we would be wise to choose the greater means to address injustice. King frames this something as (Christian) love and morality: means that are more powerful to address injustice than hatred, violence, and toughness.
If we wish to realize the fullness of what Nonviolence offers, we must come to realize what this something is for ourselves -- each one, individually. Abiding by the standard of Nonviolence, with an open mind and heart, can lead to the realization of this something. King confesses:
It is probably true that most of them [Blacks in Montgomery] did not believe in nonviolence as a philosophy of life, but because of their confidence in their leaders and because nonviolence was presented to them as a simple expression of Christianity in action, they were willing to use it as a technique.{29}
There is value in those who have “the willingness to use nonviolence as a technique... For he who goes this far is more likely to adopt nonviolence later as a way of life.”{30} This brings us to one of the cornerstones of Nonviolence, as King explains:
Admittedly, nonviolence in the truest sense is not a strategy that one uses simply because it is expedient at the moment; nonviolence is ultimately a way of life that men live by because of the sheer morality of its claim.{31}
If approached with the precision of spiritual science, we can literally serve and transform the whole of the universe through the application of moral principles. The results may not be immediate but they are lasting (if not everlasting). Consider this: at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion it seemed to many that his work had come to a failing end. Most people thought he was dead, his disciples abandoned him and ran into hiding to avoid persecution and potential death. Yet nowadays, billions of people continue to be touched by Jesus’ love and teachings, even many who are not Christians. Is there any reason to think this will not continue to be the case for generations upon generations to come? Maybe until the end of time? Does Napoleon have the same widespread impact today? Did he have the same impact even when he was the military ruler of a large expanse of the earth? Or any great military leader or power: <