i found this fascinating book called “american personal religious accounts 1600-1980″. it is filled with descriptions of spiritual/mystical experiences and personal religious, moral and political conversions. there is so much in this book:

malcolm x submits to allah, irma lindheim embraces zionism, mary baker eddy receives spiritual insight, andrew carnegie feels the call of philanthropism, and orfeo angelucci (who?) speaks with aliens–all in this marvelous yellow-bound book.

i especially love martin luther king jr.’s “pilgrimage to non-violence”. i’ve always known dr. king more through emotional oratory–especially his “i have a dream speech”, so i was suprised to read the clear reasoning in the statement produced by this man of faith and passion. he pondered a variety of works between 1940 and 1955. here are some of his thoughts:

on hearing his first lecture on pacifism: “i was…far from convinced of the practicability of [the lecturer's] position…i felt that while war could never be a positive or absolute good, it could serve as a negative good in the sense of preventing the spread and growth of an evil force. war, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a totalitarian system–nazi, fascist, or communist.”

later, he learned about gandhi’s campaigns of nonviolent resistance: “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. prior to reading gandhi, i had about concluded that the ethics of jesus were only effective in individual relationship. the ‘turn the other cheek’ philosophy and the ‘love your enemies’ philosophy were only valid, i felt, when individuals were in conflict with other individuals; when racial groups and nations were in conflict a more realistic approach seemed necessary. but after reading gandhi, i saw how utterly mistaken i was.”

more on gandhi: “gandhi was probably the first person in history to lift the love ethic of jesus above mere interaction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a large scale. love for gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective transformation. it was in this gandhian emphasis on love and nonviolence that i discovered the method for social reform that i had been seeking for so many months.”

on reinhold niebuhr’s critique of pacifism: “niebuhr began emphasizing that…there was no ground for believing that it would be successful in preventing the spread of totalitarian tyranny. it could only be successful, he argued, if the groups against whom the resistance was taking place had some degree of moral conscience…at first, niebuhr’s critique of pacifism left me in a state of confusion. as i continued to read, however, i came to see more and more the shortcomings of his position. for instance, many of his statements revealed that he interpreted pacifism as a sort of passive nonresistance to evil expressing naive trust in the power of love. but this was a serious distortion…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…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 inflicter of it.”

he concludes his description of his pilgrimage by stating: “in 1954…i had merely an intellectual understanding and appreciation of the position…when i went to montgomery as a pastor, i had not the slightest idea that i would later become involved in a crisis in which nonviolent resistance would be applicable…i simply responded to the call of the people for a spokesman. when the protest began, my mind…was driven back to the sermon on the mount and the gandhian method of nonviolent resistance. as the days unfolded, i came to see the power of nonviolence more and more. living through the actual experience of the protest, nonviolence became more than a method to which i gave intellectual assent; it became a commitment to a way of life. many of the things that i had not cleared up intellectually concerning nonviolence were now solved in the sphere of practical action.”

for me, pacifism is a mental exercise. dr. king and the mahatma, however, applied the principles of nonviolent resistance in brutal reality and were rewarded with success. the real-world results of the actions taken by these courageous and visionary men are what keep me hanging on to the hope that we can resolve tough problems in this world without resorting to hatred, retaliation, and violence::