This January marks the 95^th birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.  One wonders about all the things that Dr. King might have done had he survived that fatal shooting or April 1968, almost sixty years ago.  What might King have done with another six decades of life, when most of us are astonished by what he did in under four?  This article describes one instance where Dr. King met the monumental figures of Mahatma Gandhi and Reinhold Niebuhr.  It is not, of course, a meeting that ever happened in actual reality.  It took place in the sanctuary of Dr. King’s mind, and specifically in chapter six of Stride Towards Freedom, where Dr. King makes his argumentative choice for non-violence.  It is a brilliant chapter, yet in the critical study of its pages one will still find the enduring relevance of Niebuhr’s thoughts. 

Dr. King’s inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi is very clear.  In chapter 5 of Stride King declared that “nonviolent resistance had emerged as the technique of the movement while love stood as the regulating ideal.  In other words, Christ furnished the spirit and motivation while Gandhi furnished the method.”  Influenced strongly by both the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr, and Gandhi, King describes his affirmation of non-violence: 

My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not non-resistance to evil, but non-violent resistance to evil.  Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate.  True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power, as Niebuhr contends.  It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, in the faith that it is better to be the recipient of violence than the inflictor of it, since the latter only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe, while the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart. 

Nothing can be said here to suggest that King made the wrong choice in espousing non-violence to promote civil rights.  King made the right choice, and God can call upon a person’s unique talents and abilities to serve a higher purpose in a variety of ways.  King’s choice of non-violence was right, and historically evaluated it was as practical as it was wise.  We owe him a great deal for his wisdom, his patience and his truly Christian dedication. 

It is the evaluation of Niebuhr in chapter six of Stride Towards Freedom which needs more attention, however.  King clearly shows that Niebuhr had deeply influenced him.  King wrote:  

“While I still believed in man’s potential for good, Niebuhr made me realize his potential for evil as well.  Moreover, Niebuhr helped me to recognize the complexity of man’s social involvement and the glaring reality of collective evil.  Many pacifists, I felt, failed to see this.”  

 Indeed, a realist would argue that many pacifists to this day still fail to see this direct point.  But MLK did not find Niebuhr’s thought without fault, writing: 

“It was at Boston University that I came to see Niebuhr had overemphasized the corruption of human nature.  His pessimism concerning human nature was not balanced by an optimism concerning divine nature.  He was so involved in diagnosing man’s sickness of sin that he overlooked the cure of grace.” 

Carefully consider, however, Niebuhr’s words from Moral Man, Immoral Society which Dr. King cites as influential upon him.  Niebuhr wrote:   

The technique of non-violence will not eliminate all these perils.  But it will reduce them.  It will, if persisted in with the same patience and discipline attained by Mr. Gandhi and his followers, achieve a degree of justice which neither pure moral suasion nor violence could gain.  Boycotts against banks which discriminate against Negroes in granting credit, against stores which refuse to employ Negroes while serving Negro trade, and against public service corporations which practice racial discrimination, would undoubtedly be crowned with some measure of success. 

The first sentence is pivotal, that non-violence will “reduce” but not eliminate these perils.  Niebuhr also wrote that it was an error to conceive of Gandhi’s non-violent approach as absolutely distinct from a violent one.  In Gandhi’s India, Niebuhr’s prediction was correct.  Gandhi’s choice of non-violence was not always rigorously followed by his adherents.  The beast of human nature escaped, and Niebuhr’s assessment was proven quite early on.  In February of 1922 demonstrations in Chauri Chaura turned violent, with 22 policemen killed by rioting mobs in one day.  It compelled Gandhi to fast in penance and suspend non-violent protest until order could be restored.  Gandhi persisted with non-violence, yet at the brink of independence hundreds of thousands were still killed in hateful religious rioting during Partition.  It was of course a tragic vindication of Niebuhr’s point that one man, no matter how saintly, could neither permanently eradicate nor tame the ugly beast always latent in human nature. Dr. King wisely chose non-violence, but as we know, that was not enough to save him nor the Mahatma from assassination.   

What about the limitations of a purely non-violent approach to the world can be gleaned from Dr. King’s mental meeting with Niebuhr and Gandhi?  We must return to our original quote where Dr. King asserted that violence “only multiplies the existence of violence and bitterness in the universe.”  In the case of Dr. King, he made the astute judgment in that place and time that violence must be avoided.  But is it the case that violence at all times and places only multiplies violence and bitterness?  In stark and plain terms, the violence that ended the regime of Hitler and Imperial Japan would illustrate that this was not the case.  The WWII context would also challenge his assertion that it is always better to be “the recipient of violence than the inflictor of it.”  Would it have been good to accept the brutal massacre perpetrated by Nazis?  Absolutely not.  King’s assessment do not overturn Niebuhr’s original view that non-violence can be just and good, but that we cannot make an absolute commitment to it in the interests of protecting and preserving a just state.