1964 Nobel Peace Prize

[barnhart]

From Dr. King's acceptance speech.

"Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert."

[Ken]

From Dr. King's acceptance speech.

"Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert."

He lead perhaps the most peaceful and successful protest movement in world history. That was an immense accomplishment.

[mike]

From Dr. King's acceptance speech.

"Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert."

I like it. I wonder though how far King and adherents to these ideas would take them. For example, would King categorize all use of force as violence, such as police and military actions; and if so, would he have been opposed to participation in those fields, or even to their existence.

I'm not sure exactly how Anabaptists would characterize violence, and whether they would say it just as King did. I think a strictly biblical view assumes that God has the prerogative to use violence (as he has according to the OT) and has appointed the state to exercise it (the sword), but also assumes followers of Jesus will not participate in that violence per Jesus' and Paul's explicit commands.

[Ken]

From Dr. King's acceptance speech.

"Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert."

I like it. I wonder though how far King and adherents to these ideas would take them. For example, would King categorize all use of force as violence, such as police and military actions; and if so, would he have been opposed to participation in those fields, or even to their existence.

I'm not sure exactly how Anabaptists would characterize violence, and whether they would say it just as King did. I think a strictly biblical view assumes that God has the prerogative to use violence (as he has according to the OT) and has appointed the state to exercise it (the sword), but also assumes followers of Jesus will not participate in that violence per Jesus' and Paul's explicit commands.

King did not oppose the existence of police. He opposed their use of violence to enforce segregation and other unjust laws.

Likewise King did not oppose the existence of the US military. But he did oppose the violent use of the military in Vietnam and the size of military budgets.

[barnhart]

From Dr. King's acceptance speech.

"Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert."

I like it. I wonder though how far King and adherents to these ideas would take them. For example, would King categorize all use of force as violence, such as police and military actions; and if so, would he have been opposed to participation in those fields, or even to their existence.

I'm not sure exactly how Anabaptists would characterize violence, and whether they would say it just as King did. I think a strictly biblical view assumes that God has the prerogative to use violence (as he has according to the OT) and has appointed the state to exercise it (the sword), but also assumes followers of Jesus will not participate in that violence per Jesus' and Paul's explicit commands.

There certainly were limits to how far the movement was ready to embrace the ideals. King resisted armed guards but eventually gave in. The black power movement gained support as prominent organizers like Carmichael lost confidence in nonviolence and embraced the Panthers. Ardent pacifist John Lewis was ejected from leadership of SNCC for refusing to compromise with the power movement. On the whole the leadership produced an amazing level of discipline.

As anAnabaptist, I not bothered with the phrasing because I hold to peace and nonviolence as an expression of my confidence in the kingship of Jesus and my conviction his instructions are reliable and represent reality (the actual way the universe works). I'm not to bothered by the violence God uses in mopping up the worst of human corruption, partly because I can see that when he moves redemptively, it takes the form of Jesus.