Here, MLK makes an argument that non-violent protest does not necessarily mean promotion of 'peace,' as in lack of tension. A peace that tolerates a stagnant complacency with the status quo is less tolerable than a state of tension in which conflict, disparity, and disagreement between fellows becomes clear. A path to justice is not through understanding and compromise, but an active fight for a good future against evils of the past.
A good peace is not simply a lack of some negative force, but the presence of a positive one. Justice. Goodwill. Equality.
"However, there is a type of war that every Christian is involved in. It is a spiritual war. It is a war of ideas. Every true Christian is a fighting passifist. In a very profound passage, which has been often misunderstood, Jesus utters this. He says “Think not that I am come to bring peace. I come not to bring peace, but a sword.” {Mt 10:34-36} Certainly he is not saying that he comes not to bring peace in the higher sense. What he is saying is: “I come not to bring this peace of escapism, this peace that fails to confront the real issues of life, the peace that makes for stagnant complacency.” Then he says, I come to bring a sword—not a physical sword. Whenever I come a conflict is precipitated between the old and the new, between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. “I come to declare war on evil. I come to declare war on injustice"
-MLK, "When Peace becomes Obnoxious"
Thx for tracking all that down. I agree Jesus' message precipitates conflict between the old and the new, but he specifically describes this conflict in terms of family. Was Jesus telling his followers to loot and burn the neighborhood to show their disgust with the Romans? Was that his sword?
No, he told his followers to obey the laws, render unto Caesar. Hell, Jesus told slaves to be happy with their lot in life and dont make waves. Was that peace obnoxious?
Here, MLK asserts that physically violent aspect of his movement represent a minority, and that this existence of a violent subset should have no bearing in either how his messages are perceived nor the moral value of his mission--which is to fight injustice. The moral character of the movement should be based upon the moral character of its majority--which is empirically largely peaceful and good.
Assuming for the sake of argument MLK discovered the protests he was leading had become cover for riots destroying neighborhoods, would he have continued? If people come to expect violence as a consequence of 'peaceful protests', the cause suffers. Plain and simple, it doesn't matter if the majority is peaceful. Who would want BLM protests in their neighborhood if the result was violence? The violent I guess.
Here, MLK makes an argument that while he condemns the riots and believes it to be self-destructive, that it is ultimately the status quo which is at blame for causing the riots to break out. Condemning a riot and failing to condemn the status quo or the oppressive conditions which caused it thus constitute a morally irresponsible act.
In addition, he condemns those who believe that status quo and 'tranquility,' that is, lack of protests and its accompanying riots, is preferable to justice and humanity, which he both noted previously must be fought for.
I dont see where MLK said they were self destructive, on the contrary, riots are the language of the unheard, ie riots allow them to be heard. He did say it would be immoral to condemn the riots without condemning the powers that be, but is that really a condemnation of riots? He's blaming someone else, it comes off as a rationalization - he's basically saying the targets of the riots deserve it even though most of the victims are black people.
I think MLK was using Jesus to excuse riots. The sword Jesus brings cleaves familial relationships apart, not the neighbor's livelihood. He wasn't preaching violence, just warning his followers they will be persecuted. And they were... Look at how long his followers remained peaceful in the face of horrendous crimes. Did they get it wrong and MLK got it right?
We didn't start the fire... 
