The Montgomery Story | Stride Toward| FREEDOM | tel ; BY MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR 1897 ! HARPER & ROW, PUBLISHERS | New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London i“Copyright © 1058 by Martin Luther King, J ‘Printed inthe United tates af Ameria Al rights mis ook are reserved, No pare of the book may be wed or produced in any manner whatsoever ‘ekkoot writen peeison except nthe ‘hie of brief otatons embodied to tes apie nd reviews, For tof sion ston Harper Re, Pe ‘i, Incorporated, 8 East 90rd Stet, Now Yer 16, N.Y. To Coretia my beloved wife and co-worker that pt regia Race Se Os a, 168; and bot of 188: copyright © saipaeiace Librry of Congress etalog cord rumber: 58-7050VI Pilgrimage to Nonviolence Orns the question has arisen concerning my cwn intellectual pilgrimage to nonviolence. In order to get at this question itis necessary to go back to my early teens in At Janta, I had grown up abhorsing not only segregation but also the oppressive and barbarous acts that grew out of it. had passed spots where Negroes had been savagely lynched, and bad watched the Ku Klux Klan on its rides at night. had seen police brutality with my own eyes, and watched Negroes receive the most trai {injustice in the courts, All of these things had done something to my growing peronality. I had come perilously close to re- senting all white people. Thad also learned thit the inseparable twin of racial injustice ‘was economic injustice. Although T eame from a home of eco- nomic security and relative comfort, I could never get ot of my ‘mind the economic insecurity ef many of my playmates and the tragic poverty of those living arcund me. During my late teens I worked two summers, against my father’s wishes—he never ‘wanted my brother and me to work around white people because of the oppressive conditions—in a plant that hired both Negroes ‘and whites. Here I saw economic injustice Ssthand, and realized that the poor white was exploited just as much as the Negro. ‘Through these early experiences I grew up deeply conscious of the varieties of injustice in our society. 0 PILGRIMAGE TO NONVIOLENCE a So when I went to Atlanta's Morehouse College asa freshman in 194 my concern for racial and economic justice was already substantial. Duiving’my student-deys. at Morehouse T read ‘Tao reau's Essay on Gill Disobedience for the frst timebscinated by the idea of refustig to codperate with an-evil system, I was 0 deeply moved that I reread the work several times. This was ry first intellectual contact with the theory of nonviolent re- sistance. ‘Not until I entered Crozer Theological Seminary in 1948, how- ever, did I begin a scrious intellectual quest for a method to climinate socal evil. Although my major interest was in the fields of theology and philosophy, I spent a great deal of time reading the works ofthe great social philosophers. I came early to Walter Rauschenbusch’s Christianity and the Social Crisis, which left an {indelible imprint on my thinking by giving me a theological basis for the social concern which had already grown up in me as a result of my early experiences. Of course there were points at Which I difered with Reuschenbusch, T felt that he had fallen, Victim to the nineteenthcentury “cult of inevitable progress” which led him to @ superficial optimism concerning man's nature. Moreover, he came perilously close to identifying the Kingdom of God with a particular social and economic system—a tendency ‘which should never befall the Church, But in spite of these short- comings Rauschenbusch had done a great service for the Christian, Church by insisting that the gospel deals with the whole man, not only his soul but his bodys not only his spiritual well-being but his material well-being It has been my conviction ever since reading Rauschenbusch that any religion which professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned sbout the social and economic conditions thet scar the soul, isa spiritually ‘moribund religion only waiting for the day to be buried. It well has been said: “A religion that ends with the individual, ends.”co ssTbe ToWAND FREEDOM. Alter reading Rauschenbusc, {turned toa serious study of tho social and ethical theories ofthe great philosopher, from Plato and Aristotle down to Rousseau, Hobbes, Bentham, Mill, and Deke. All of these masters stimulated my thinking—such as it was—and, while finding things to question in each of them, 1 nevertheless learod a grat deal from thelr study. During the Christmas holidays of 1949 I decided to spend my spare time reading Karl Marx to try to understand the appeal of ‘communism for msny penple. For th fist time I carefully srutin- {zed Das Kapital and The Communist Manijesto,Lalzo read some {interpretive works on the thinking of Mare and Lenin, Ia reading. such Communist writings { drew certain conclusions that have remaived with me as copvictions to this day. Fist I rejected their materialistic interpretation of history. Communism, ‘avowedly secularistic and materialistic, has no place for God. This I could never accept, for as a Christian I believe that there 4s a creative personal power in this universe who the ground and ‘essence of all relty—a power that cannot be explained in ma- terialistic terms. History is ultimately guided by spirit, not matter. Second, I strongly disagreed with communism’s ethical relativism Since for the Communist there is no divine goverment, no ab- solute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything force, violence, murder, lying-— 4 @justifable means to the “millenia!” end. This type of relaiv- fim was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preéistent in the mean. Third, T opposed communism’s political totalitarianism. fn communism the indi- vidual ends up in subjection to the state. Tru, the Marxist would sxgue thatthe state is an “inkeriow” reality which isto be eliminated ‘when the classless society emerges; but the state is the end while ‘PILGRIMAGE TO NONVIOLENCE. 83 ft lasts, and man only a means to that end. And sf any munis so-called rights or Liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His iberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to whet news he likes or to choose his ‘books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, ia commun, than & depersonslized cog in the turing wheel of the state. ‘This deprecation of individual freedom was abjectionable to me, Iam convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God. Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man. To deprive man of freedom Is to relegate him to the status of a thing, rather than elevate him to ‘the status of a person, Man must never be treated as a means to the end of the state, but always as an end within himself. Yet, in spite of the fact that my response to communism was and is negative, and I considered it basially evil, there were points at which I found it challenging, The late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, refered to communism as a Chris- tion heresy. By this he meant that communism had laid hold of certain truths which are essential parts of the Christan view of things, but thet it had bound wp with them concepts and practices Which no Christian could ever accept or profess. Communism challenged the late Archbishop and it should challenge every Christian—as it challenged me—to a growing concer about socal justice, With all of its false assumptions and evil methods, communism grew asa protest agelnst the hardships of the under. privileged Communism in theory emphasized a classless society, and a concern for social justice, though the world knows from sad ‘experience that in practice it crested new classes and a new lexicon of injustice. The Christian ought always to be challenged by any protest against unfair treatment of the poor, for Chris- tianity is itself such a protest, nowhere expressed more eloquently than in Jesus’ words: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, becauto4 stam ToWAND PRE=DOM ‘he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the ‘captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that axe bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.” T also sought systematic answers to Man’s erique of modern bourgeots culture, He presented capitalism as essentially a strug- ale between the owners of the produetive resources and the workers, whom Marx regarded as the real producers. Marx inter preted economio forces asthe dialectical process by which society moved from feudalism through capitalism to socialism, with the ‘primary mechanism of this historical movement being the struggle between economic classes whose interests were irreconcilable. Obviously this theory let out of account the numerous and sig. nifleant complexies—politial, economle, moral, religious, and psychological—which played a vital role fa shaping the coastel lation of institutions and ideas known today as Wester civliza: tion. Moreover, it was dated i the sense thatthe capitalism Mart ‘wrote about bore only a partial resemblente tothe capitalism we Jnow in this country today But in spite of the shortcomings of his analysis, Manx had taised some basic questions. was: deeply:eotcered:from.my./ ‘carlycteom days’ about the’ gulf botween superfiuous wealth and ” abject:poverty, md my reading of Marx made me ever more conscious of this gulf. Although modern American capitalism had greatly reduced the gap through social reforms, there was, still need for a better distribution of wealth. Moreover, Marx had revealed the danger of the profit motive as the sole basis of an ‘economie system: capitalism is always in danger of inapiring men to be more concemed about making a living than making a life. We are prone to judge success by the index of our salaries or the size of our automobiles, rather than by the quality of our service ‘nd relationship to humanity—thus capitalism can lead to a PILERIMAGE TO NONVIOLENCE 5 practical materialism that is as pernicious as the materialism ‘taught by communism, In short, I read Marx as I read all of the influential historical thinkers—from a dialectical point of view, combining a partial yes and a partial no. In so far as Marx posited a metaphysical materialism, an ethical relativism, and a strangulating totalitarian. fam, I responded with an unambiguous “no”; but in so far as he pointed to weaknesses of traditional ospitalism, contributed to the growth of a definite self-conseiousness in the masses, and challenged the social conscience of the Christian churches, T responded with a definite “yes.” My reading of Mare also convinced me that truth ie found neither in Marxism nor in traditional capitalism, Each represents 1 partial truth, Historically capitalism failed to see the truth in collective enterprise and Marxism failed to see the truth in indi- vidual enterprise. Nixeteenth-century capitalism failed to see that life is social and Marxism failod’and still fails to see that life is individual and personal. The Kingdom of God i neither the thesis of individual enterprise nor the antithesis of collective enterprise, but a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both. During my stay at Crozer, I was also exposed for the frst time to the ipaviit position in a lecture by DrovA: J. Muste- I was deeply moved by Dr. Muste's talk, but far from convinced of the practicability of his position. Like most of the students of Crozer, I fol 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 itis, might be preferable to surrender toa totalitarian system—Nezi, Fescist, or Communist. During this period I had about despaired of the power of love sm solving social problems. Perhaps my faith in love was tem-96 stripe TOWAND FREEDOM poraily shaken by the philosophy of Nietzzche. I had been read- {ng parts of The Geneology of Morals and the whole of The Will, 0 Power, Nietzsche's glorification of power—in his theory allio ‘expressed the will to power—was an outgrowth of his contempt. for ordinary morals. He atacked the whole of the Hebraie-Charis- tian morality—with its virues of piety and humility, its other worldliness and its attitude toward suffering—as the glorfcation of weakness, as making virtues out of accesity and impotence. He looked to the development of a superman who would surpass man at man surpassed the ape. ‘Then one Sunday aftemoon I traveled to Philadelphia to hear 4 sermon by Biel Johnsob, president of Howard Unie versity. He was there to preach forthe Fellowship House of Pila- delphia. Dr. Johnson had just returaed from a tip to India, and, to my great interest, he spoke of the life and teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, His message-wis'so profound:and elestrifying that Fe thsimeetingrand boughi-ahall-dozen-books on Gandhis-* fe ae Works. Like most people, I had heard of Gandhi, but I had never studied him seriously. As I read I became deeply fascinated by 1s campaigns of nonviolent resistanco.aasiparicuarly moved Toy the Salt-Matéhr tthe Seb Aid his mumerous fasts The whale concept of “Satyagraha’s(Satyo'l6-truth which equals love, and agri tétcb:"Satyageaha,” therefore, means truthforce ot love force) was profoundly sigaifcant 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 fist time sts potency in the area of social reform, Ruosto'readiy’ Géndhi, igdabout.conclnded:shat the thies of Jesus were oak effective ‘nyionvidaalsrelstionship:‘The *tuththe-other éhee¥” philosophy anc the *lowe your enemies” philosophy were only valid, 1 felt, PILEREMAGE TO NOSVIOLENCE o sehr tenia athe shvidlsy when racial groups and nations were in conflict @ move realistic ap- proach seemed necessary. Butéfter:teading: Gandhi; saw how utterly, mistaken was, Gandbi sasprobably the fidt pets i istory-to Lift the love cthio:of Jerus;above mere: interction between individuals to a powerful and effective social force on a, large scalg Love fot Gandhi was a potent instrument for social and collective trans formation. It was in this Gandhian emphasis on love and non- violence that I discovered the method for social roform that I hnad been seeking for so many months. The intellectual and moral satisfaction thet I failed to gain from the utilitarianism of Bentham, 4nd Mill the revolutionary methods of Marx and Lens the social contracts theory of Hobbes, the “back to nature” optimisin of Rousseau, and the superman philosophy of Nietzsche, 1 found in the nonviolent resistance philosophy of Gandhi. gam to feel ‘that this was the only morally.and)practicslly sound method open ‘fo.oppressed people in their struggle for freedom. But my intellectual odyssey to nonviolence did not end here During my lust year in theological school, I begen to read the ‘works of Reinhold Niebuhr. The prophetic and realistic elements {in Niebuhr’s passionate style and profound thought were appeal- ing to me, and I beoeme so enamored of his social ethics that I almost fell into the trap of accepting uncritically everything he ‘wrote. About this time I read Niebuhr’ eritique of the pacifist post ton, Niebuhr bad himself onco been a member of the pacifist ranks, For several years, he had been national chairman of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. His bresk with pacifism came in tho early thirties, and the frst full statement of his criticism of98 ria TOWARD FREEDOM ‘pacifism was in Moral Man and Immoral Society. Here he argued that there was no intensle moral diference between violent and nonviolent resistance. Te social consequences of the two methods ‘were diferent, he contended, but the diferences were in degree rather than kind, ati Sie began emhisixingthe.trespow sibflty-ofxelying-on nonvielene‘rexstance when there Was, 20, ‘rout for believing that it would be succesful in preventing the speed of totalitarian tyranny. Hyon mly-be succes et arguedsifthe groupe against whom the resistance was taking place Inadisome degree of moral consciencs, as was the casein Gandhi's struggle against the British, Niebuhr’ ultimate rejection of pac- ifism was based primarily on the doctrine of man. He argued that ‘pacifism failed to do justice to the reformation doctrine of jstif- ‘cation by faith, substituting for ita sectarian perfectionism which Delioves “that divine grace actully if’ men out of the sinful contradiction of history and establishes him above the sins of the world.” At Ast, Nicbubs's erique of pacifism left me in a state of confusion, As I continued to read, however, I eame to see more land more the shortcomings of his postion. For soatance, many of Iis statements revealed that he interpreted paciim as a sort of passive nonresistance to evil expressing naive trust a the power of love. But this was a serious distortion. My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifsm is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil. Between the two postions, there 4s a world of difference. Gandhi resste evil with as much vigor and power asthe violent resister, but he resisted with love instead cf hate. True pacifism isnot unrealistic submission to evil power as Niebuhr cantends. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love, inthe faith that it e better to be the recipfent of violence than the inBieter of i, since the latter only rmultiplis the existence of violence and bitternes a the universe, PrgRace To NONVIOLENCE © While the former may develop a sense of shame in the opponent, and thereby bring about a transformation and change of heart. 1n spite of the fact that T found many things to be desired in ‘Niebuh’s philosophy, there were several points at which he con- structively influenced my thinking. Niebuhr’ great contribution to contemporary theology is that he has refuted the false optimism, characteristic ofa great segment of Protestant liberalism, without falling into the anti-ationalism of the continental theologian Karl Barth, or the semi-fundamentalism of other dialectical theol- ogians. Moreover, Niebuhr has extzaordinary fasight into human nature, especially the behavior of nations and social groups, He 4s Keenly aware of the complexity of human motives aa of the relation between morality and power. His theology i a persistent reminder of the reality of sin on every level of snan’s existence. ‘These elements tn Nicbul’s thinking helped me to recognize the ‘usions of a superficial optimism concerning human nature and the dangers ofa false idealism, While I stil believed ia man's potentisl for good, Niebuhr made me realize his potential for cexil as well. Moreover, Niebuhr helped me to recognize the com- plexity of man's socil involvement and the glaring reality of coleaive ev Many pacists I felt, failed to see this. All too many had an ‘unwarranted optimism concerning man and leaned unconsciously toward selfrighteousness. It was my revel against these attitudes ‘under the influence of Niebuhr that accounts forthe fact that in spite of my strong leaning toward pacifism, I never joined pacifist organization. After xeading Niebu, I tried to arzve a -ealistio pacifism, In other words, I came to sce the pacifist pr tion not as sinless but asthe lesser evil in the circumstances. I felt then, and I feel now, that the pacifst would have a greater appeal if he did not claim to be free from the moral dilemmas that the Christian nonpacist confronts.300 “smnpe TOWARD aeEDOM ‘The next stage of my intellectual pilgrimage to nonviolence ‘came during my doctoral stdios at Boston University. Here I had the opportunity to talk to many exponents of nonviolence, both students and visitors to the campus. Boston University School of ‘Theology, under the influence of Dean Walter Muelder ana Pro- fessor Allen Knight Chalmers, had a deep sympathy for pacifism, Both Dean Muelder and Dr. Chalmers had a passion for socal justice that stemmed, not from a superficial optimism, but from 4 deep faith in the possibilities of human beings when they allowed themselves to become co-workers with God. It was at, Boston University that I came to see that Niebuhr had over ‘emphasized the corruption of human nature. His pessimism con- cerning humen nature was not balanced by an optimism ‘concerning divine nature, He was so involved in diagnosing man's sickness of sin that he overlooked the eur of grace, I studied philosophy and theology at Boston University under Edgar S, Brightman and L. Harold DeWolf. Both men greatly stimulated my thinking, It was mainly under these teachers that I studied personalstic philosophy—the theory that the clue to the meaning of ultimate reality i found in personality. This per sonal idealism remains today my basic philosophical postion, Personalism’s insistence that only pesonality—fnte and inGnite— {s ultimately real strengthened me in two convictions: it gave me ‘metaphysical and philosophical grounding for the idea of a per sonal God, and it gave me @ metaphysical basis for the dignity and worth of all human personality. Just before Dr. Brightiman’s death, I began studying the philos- cophy of Hegel with him. Although the course was mainly a study ‘of Hegel's monumental work, Phenomenology of Mind, I spent ry spare time reading his Philosophy of History and Philosophy of Right. There were points in Hegel's philosophy that I strongly disagreed with, For instance, his absolut idealism was rationally RoRDAAGH TO NONVIOLENCE 10 unsound to me becstie it tended to swallow up the many fo the fone, But there were other aspects of his thiking that I found stimulating. His contention that “truth isthe whole” led me to 2 philosophical method of rational coherence His analysis ofthe Alalectcal proces, in spite of its shortcomings, helped sne to tee tat growth comes through strugle. in 10541 ended my formal training with al ofthese relatively divergent intellectual forces converging into « positive social Philosophy. One of the main tenes of thi philosophy was the Eonvition that nonviolent resistance was one ofthe most potent ‘weapons available to oppressed people in their quest fr social juste. At this time, however, I had merely a intellectual under Handing and appreciation of the poatin, with no firm deter rmination to organize tin a socially fective situation. Whea I went to Montgomery as a pator, I had not the slightest {dea that I would later become ivolved ina ei in which non- violent resistance would be appicsble. I neither started the protest nor suggested it. I simply responded to the call of the people fora spokesman, When th protest began, 2ay mind, con- seously of unconsciously, was driven back to the Sermon onthe Mount, win its sublime teachings on love, and the Gandhian method of nonviolent reitance, As the days unfolded, 1 came to se the poner of nonviclone mace and more. Living through the actual experince of the potest, nonviclence became more than a method to which I gave intelectual assent; it became commitment toa way of fe. Many ofthe things that I had not leared up intellectually concering nonviolence were now solved in the sphere of practic] ction ‘Since the philosophy of nonviolence played such a positive role in the Montgomery Movement, it may be wise to tura to a brief discussion of some basic aspects of this philosophy.102 srxme TowARD Fnezpoxt Brg mise be emphastzed that nonviolent resistance is. nt. s-method for cowards; it does'resist: 1f one uses this method be- ‘eause he is afraid or merely because he lacks the instruments of Violence, he isnot truly nonviolent. This is why Gand often said, that, if gowardice-is.the-only alternative to violene, it ie Detter to fight. He made thie statement conscious ofthe fact that there i alWays another altaraative: no individual or group need submit to any wrong, nor need they use violunce ta wight the ‘wrong: there i the way of nonviolence resistance. This fs ul ‘imately the way of the strong man It snot a method of etaguant passivity. The phrase “passive resistance” often gives the fal ‘mpeession that this i a sort of “do-nothing method" fa which the resister quietly and passively accepts evil But nothing is further from the truth. For while the nonviolent resister is passive in the sense that he is not physically aggressive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to ‘persuade his opponent that he is wrong. The method is pasilve physically, but strongly active spiritually. It 8 not passive non- resistance 10 evi is active nonviolent reactance to evi. *Asecaptbasio'fact that charicterzes sonvolence is that it 7 ‘esnot sock to defeat or humiliate the oppouen; Int to win his” friendship and understanding. The nonviolent resister must often express his protest through noncodperation or boycots, but he realizes that these are nat ends themselves; they are merely ‘means to awaken a sense of moral shame in the opponent. The ‘end is redemption and reconciliation. ‘The, aftermath: of nonvio- lencg ithe cxeaton ofthe beloved community, while the after- sath of violeiceW Yagio bittemess: “Shit. chatdeteristic of this method is that the attack is directed against forces: of evil rather than against persons whe happen tojbe doing the evi 1s evl thatthe nonviolent resister seeks 19 defeat, not the persons victimized by evil. If he ie opposing racial ‘PuLonneace To NoNvio‘ENcE 103 {njustice, the nonviolent resister has the vision to see that the basic tension isnot between races. As T like to say to the people Jn Montgomery: “The tension in this city is not between white people and Negro people. The tension i, at bottom, between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forees Of darkness, And iF there is a victory, it will be a victory not rerely fr fifty thousand Negroes, bt a victory for justice and the forces of light. We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust” ‘A fointhpointthat,charactrizesnonvislent vesistanoe 16 a ‘willingness to accept sufering without retaliation, to accept blows from the-opponent without striking back/“Rivers of blood may have to flow before wo gain our freedom, but it must be our ‘ood." Gandhi said to his countrymen. olent ‘s-wiling to accep: yclence tf necessary, but never to fac it. Hr does uot séak to dodge fall. If going to jal is necessary, he centers: it“as bridegroom enters the bride's chamber’ ‘Ove may well ask: What i the nonviolent resister’ justifeation for this ordeal to which he invites men, for this mass political application of the ancient doctrine of turing the other cheek?” ‘The answer is found ia the realization that unearned suffering is redemptive. Suffering, the nonviolent resister realizes, has tre- rmendous educational and transforming possibilities. “Things of fundamental importance to people are not secured by reason ‘lone, but have to be purchased with thelr suffering.” said Gandki, He continues: “Sofeing is infinitely more powerful then the law of the jungle for coovertng the opponent and opening his ears ‘which are otherwise shut to the voice of reason.” "9 Bk othe concerting sonviclent resistance is that it avolds’ not anly external physical violence but also intemal violence of split The nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his op- ponent but he also refuses to hate him. At the center of noa-104 srupe TOWARD rnexoow *Rithence? iil pnoipe of te, The nonviolent resister ‘would contend that in the struggle for human dignity, the op- pressed people of the world must not succumb tothe temptation of becoming bitter or indulging in hate campaign. To retaliate in kind would do nothing but Intensify the existence of hate in the universe. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut of the chain of hate. This can only be done by projecting the etic of love to the center of our lives, In speaking of love at ths point, we are not refering to some sentimental or afestinate emotion. It would bo nonsense o urge men to love their oppresiors in an affectionate sense. Love fn thi connection means understanding redemptive good wil Here the Greek language comes to our aid. There ae three words for love in the Gresk New Testament. Fist, there 1s evv. I Platonle philosophy eroe meant the yeamming ofthe soul forthe realm of the divine. It has come now to mean a sort of aesthetic or romantic love. Second, there is pila which soeans intimate AMction between personal friends. Phila denotes sotto re- ciprocal Jove; the person loves because he is loved. When we speak of loving those who oppose us, we refer to neither eros nor pila; we speak of a love whichis expresed in the Greck word ‘gope. Agope means understanding, redeeming good will forall ron, Iti an overowing love which i purely spontaneous, un- motivated, groundless, and creative, It Js not set in motion by any quality or funtion ofits objet. It isthe love of God oper- ating inthe human heart. ‘WEAPP is disinterested love. New Nive Ih which the individual’ “Spidey ALOE ie pngood, debsthe: good.of is neighbor (I Cor. 10:24). Agopeaaes not begin by discriminating between worthy and unworthy people or any qualities people possess. It begint by loving others for ther sakes, 1 an ently “neighborre- ‘omcAce 10 NoNWOLENCE 105 garding concer for others,” which discovers the neighbor in every man it meets, Therefore, egope makes no distinction be- tween friend and enemy; it is directed toward both. If one loves an Individual merely on account of his friendliness, he loves him for the sake of the beneits to be gained from the friendship, rather than fr the friend's own sake, Consequently, the best way to assure oneself that Love is disinterested is to have love for the enemy-neighbor from whom you can expect no good in ro- tum, but only hostility and persecution Another basie point about agape is that it springs from the need of the other person—his need for belonging to the best in the human family. The Samaritan who helped the Jew on the Jericho Road was “good” because he responded to the human need that he was presented with, God's Jove is eternal and fais not because man needs his love, St.Paul assures us thatthe loving act of redemption was done “while we were yet sinners"—that i, at the point of our greatest need for love. Since the whito man's personality is greatly distorted by segregation, and his soul is areatly scared, he needs the love of the Negro. The Nogeo must love the white man, because the white man needs his love to remove bis tension, insecurities, and fears, ‘Agape isnot a weak, passive love Itis love inaction. Agape is love seeking to preserve and create community. Iti insistence ‘on community even when one secks ta break it. Agape is will Ingness to sacrifice inthe intrest of mutuality. Agape i a willing. ness to go to any length to restore community. Tt does stop atthe fist mile, But it foes the second mile to restore community. It is willingness to forgive, not seven times, but seventy times seven to restore community. The exes is the eternal expression of the Tength to which God will go in order to restore broken ‘community. The resurrection isa symbol of God's triumph overall the forces that seek to block community. The Holy Spirit i the108 some TOWARD Fusspone continuing community creating realty that moves through history. Hee who works agunst community fs working against the whole of creation. Thesfore fT rempond. tn hate with a seciprocal hate, 1 do nothing but intensify the cleavage in broken eotamunity. I can ony close the gap in broken community by meeting hate with lover Tse hate with hate, became depersonlized, because ‘creation is so designed that my personality can only be fulfilled 4m the context of community. Booker T. Washington was right: “Let no man pul you slow a5 to make you hate him.” When he pulls you that low he brings you tothe point of working against community; he drags you to the pot of defyisg creation, and thereby becoming depersonalized. nthe Gnal analysis, agape means a recognition ofthe fact that all if is interelated, All humanity i involved ina single proces, and all men are brothers, To the degre tha I hsrm my brother, ‘sa matter what he i doing to me, to that extent I am harming yell. For example, white men often refuse federel aid to edue cation in order to avoid giving the Negro bie rights but because all men are brother they cannot deny Negro culdzen without ‘harming their own. They end all efforts tothe contrary, by burt ing themselves. Why is this? Because men are brothers. If you Dharm me, you harm yourself. Love, agape, i the only cement that can hold this broken com- munity together. When I am commended to Jove, I am com amanded to restore commusity, to rest injustice, and to meet the needs of my brothers, shout nonviolent resistant that ti bases cn. the cquvietion thatthe universe ison the sde of juste. Con- fequently, the believer a nonviolence hae deep faith in the future. This faith is another reason why the nonviolent resister can accept suffering without retaliation. For he knows that ta is struggle for justice he has cosmic companionship, Tt is true PILGIUNAGE TO NONVIOLENCE 107 that there are devout believers in nonviolence who find it dificult to believe in a personal God. But even these persons believe in the existence of some creative force that works for universal ‘wholeness. Whether we call it an unconscious process, an im- personal Brahman, or a Personal Being of matchless power and Infinite love, there is a creative force inthis universe that works to Iing the disconnected aspects of reality into a harmonious whole,