We often think that the distinctive element of MLK and Gandhi’s justice activism was non-violence. But non-violence only speaks of the absence of something, namely violence. But in their resistance, what took the place of violence? Was there ultimately an empty center? Was it just like other colas, just violence free? In this day when non-violence is assumed to be the right way to resist, are we missing something at the center? We cannot afford to be simply nonviolent. We need to get this right because the stakes are high and are rising every day. Maybe we are missing submission.
Some people have given submission a bad name. And I’m not just talking about preachers who insist submission is for wives but not husbands. (Don’t get me started.) Many people who feel negatively about submission make the mistake of assuming that submission is a tactic, a way to manipulate a situation. A way of recognizing the power of others while asking for a measure of justice. Or, submission is merely an admission of weakness. “I submit. I am giving in.”
Recently I read a comment on social media that declared that Jesus submitting to Pilate was a key image to understand how Christians are to submit to earthly rulers. I got the impression that this commentator thought that for spiritual things we submit to God, and for earthly matters, we submit to earthly rulers, presumably unless they are in conflict. This kind of Christian thinks that on earth there is a natural power hierarchy that we need to recognize and submit to. And that’s what Jesus did before Pilate. “I recognize your earthly power, but I have heavenly power.” Essentially, these Christians believe that by humbly recognizing our place, we can affect those above us by not challenging their power. “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” That’s why the church should mainly concern itself with ‘spiritual matters.’
On MLK Day 2019, I am taking the opportunity to revisit the idea of submission and resistance to power because I believe this was at the heart of MLK’s philosophy and approach.
Submission is a key strategic principle in nonviolent resistance, but it is too important to be misused as a tactic. In other words, we submit to God. We submit to Truth. We submit to love. But we never submit to injustice. In this view, power belongs to God, or for those who put no name on God, power belongs to truth. This is what Gandhi’s term Satyagraha means, “holding to truth.” MLK used the term “Soul Force” in a similar way with an added focus on love. Both leaders aimed at conversion. Both saw love as a weapon in the service of truth.
King writes:
“Like most people, I had heard of Gandhi, but I had never studied him seriously. As I read I became deeply fascinated by his campaigns of nonviolent resistance. I was particularly moved by his Salt March to the Sea and his numerous fasts. The whole concept of Satyagraha (Satya is truth which equals love, and agraha is force; Satyagraha, therefore, means truth force or 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 its potency in the area of social reform. … It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that I discovered the method for social reform that I had been seeking.” King, Jr., Martin Luther (1998). Carson, Clayborne, ed. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. pp. 23–24. ISBN 0-446-52412-3.
For both of these leaders Satyagraha is the strategy, putting hope in the power of God/Truth/Love. Submission to God is primary. That’s why non-violent resistance to temporary earthly power looks like submission. Not submission to the so-called authorities, but to something or someone else. There is submission at the core, not just on the edges. Let’s look deeper. Why does it make a difference whether submission is a strategy or a merely a tactic?
1. Submission as a strategy recognizes that only those in submission to truth/love/God have tapped into true power. But if it is the unjust ruler or system that has true power, the submission of those in opposition is a refusal to recognize reality. Submissive resistance becomes an effort to flip power to their side. This means that they are ultimately seeking power rather than truth.
2. In a struggle for justice, submission as a mere tactic is a psychological trick. They pretend that they are not interested in power. They feign nonviolence to signal their virtue, and by extension, the virtue of their side. They do not claim to already have power. “We are no threat. We just want what’s ours. We’re asking nicely.” But Satyagraha is nonviolent because it says. “You are not the enemy. We have tapped into power and whatever you do to us cannot take that power away.”
3. Submission to God/Truth/Love is a creative force, which makes it stronger. It is the power to bring life, not death. To build rather than to destroy. To heal rather than to injure. It is like light in the darkness. A small amount of light overcomes any amount of darkness because darkness is a void, an emptiness. Violence is a pretender to power because it never wins, it only reproduces. It can never fly the banner “Mission Accomplished.” That’s the problem with violence and coercion. They result in more violence and more coercion. Love, on the other hand, is the power to convert and to transform. It opens eyes, captures hearts, and converts. It eliminates enemies by making them friends.
As is sometimes the case, the Facebook commentator was wrong. Jesus never submitted to Pilate. He did not submit to the empire. He did not submit to injustice. Instead he submitted to God, Truth, and Love. He knew his source of power. He said “No one takes my life from me. I have the power to lay down it down and the power to take it up again.” He unleashed the creative power of life over death, and he planted the seed of his kingdom, which continues to grow, often in hidden places. This proved to be an act of profound subversion.
How does the missionary E. Stanley Jones fit into this story of these two eminent peace activists, one an American preacher and the other an Indian lawyer turned guru? They never met, but apparently one Gandhi biography was an important link. The granddaughter of the missionary E. Stanley Jones tells the following story. (http://www.estanleyjonesfoundation.com/shop/gandhi/)
“My mother told me of the occasion in Boston when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was honored by Boston University at a convocation prior to his leaving for Sweden to receive the 1964 Nobel Peace prize. At the reception following, my mother was introduced to Dr. King and my grandfather, E. Stanley Jones was mentioned. Dr. King immediately became very serious and said: “Your father was a very important person to me, for it was his book on Mahatma Gandhi that triggered my use of Gandhi’s method of non violence as a weapon for our own people’s freedom in the United States.” He continued, that though he had been very familiar with the writings on Gandhi and had been interested in his method of non-violence for years, still it had not “clicked” with him that it was a vehicle for “use” in the United States. Reading my grandfather’s book on Gandhi may have assisted King in the application of Gandhian principles within a Christian context.”
We know Gandhi had a profound influence on his friend E. Stanley Jones. We don’t know how much influence went in the other direction. We don’t know how much Jones’ Christianity influenced his friend Gandhi as he formulated his philosophy of Satyagraha. Apparently, some of the principles came to Gandhi before he even moved to India. Tolstoy was an influence. The Sermon on the Mount was another. In the end, the conduit matters much less than the source. As Jones writes, “If the Way is written only in the scriptures, … the foundation of authority is limited to the scriptures. It is not broadly based in the nature of reality. But suppose the Way is written in the nature of reality as well as the scriptures, then the Way is inescapable for everybody.” (The Way, p. 6)
The View From Here 