King’s Nonviolent Message Still Remains Timely

Much banter has been exchanged of late regarding “violent rhetoric” in the media. I thought this week of the irony of the time of this polemic, considering that it precedes a national holiday celebrating one of the most nonviolent icons of American history.

Martin Luther King, Jr., a staunch proponent of the idea of nonviolent resistance, came to Memphis in February 1968, when the city’s sanitation workers decided to strike for living wages and better working conditions. Demonstrators carried signs stating “I Am A Man” in the march to proclaim their humanity and demand their equal rights. However, the demonstration turned violent and resulted in looting and the death of a 16-year-old African American youth. In the wake of violence, King returned to Memphis in April to lead a peaceful demonstration.

If it had not been for these events that brought King back to Memphis, he might never have delivered his memorable, eloquent “Mountaintop” speech, nor would he have been assassinated on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel that April evening. Were it not for these events, King’s status as a martyr for civil rights might have been quite different.

I venture to say that very little of the American public—even those who use King’s name in their own stead—really know the ideals for which King stood.

It’s interesting to observe responses from students when I incorporate King in my teaching. I have taught King’s essay “Non-Violent Resistance” and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” on many occasions in my college classroom.

Sometimes students snicker at King’s mention of the word Negro, not cognizant of cultural references which have evolved over time. Some students also think that King’s message is passé, that we have nothing new to learn from King. I get the sense, too, that King may be off-putting to some who haven’t yet come to term with their own prejudices.

I once had a discussion with a friend who lacked the advantage of having read some of King’s work. He wanted to argue that King “was not a social justice Christian,” that King did not advocate the government helping others; instead, he posited, King urged individuals and churches to help the less fortunate. King may have indeed felt this way, but he expressed his belief in writing that it was the government’s responsibility to help its citizens.

I pointed out an excerpt from his Nobel Lecture titled "The Quest for Peace and Justice" from 1964, in which he outlines his three main projects: eradication of racial injustice, poverty, and war. Of poverty, he asks the government to carry out a significant task: to care outright for the underprivileged.

King writes, “This problem of poverty is not only seen in the class division between the highly developed industrial nations and the so-called underdeveloped nations; it is seen in the great economic gaps within the rich nations themselves.” Of course, in the forty years since King was writing, that gap between poor and rich has significantly widened in America.

King continues in his speech: “The time has come for an all-out world war against poverty. The rich nations must use their vast resources of wealth to develop the underdeveloped, school the unschooled, and feed the unfed. Ultimately a great nation is a compassionate nation. No individual or nation can be great if it does not have a concern for ‘the least of these.’ Deeply etched in the fiber of our religious tradition is the conviction that men are made in the image of God and that they are souls of infinite metaphysical value, the heirs of a legacy of dignity and worth. If we feel this as a profound moral fact, we cannot be content to see men hungry, to see men victimized with starvation and ill health when we have the means to help them. The wealthy nations must go all out to bridge the gulf between the rich minority and the poor majority.”

In his conclusion on poverty before moving to his third and final subject, war, King concludes: “In the final analysis, the rich must not ignore the poor because both rich and poor are tied in a single garment of destiny. All life is interrelated, and all men are interdependent. The agony of the poor diminishes the rich, and the salvation of the poor enlarges the rich. We are inevitably our brothers' keeper because of the interrelated structure of reality.”

While we enjoy a day off for King’s birthday this week, we should try to put aside our disagreements over words. Let us also not forget the charge he ascribed to those of us who are the more fortunate. It is, after all, action that is more important than words.