​Nonviolent resistance therefore is not directed against people but against forces of evil. Those who happen to be doing evil are as victimized by the evil they do as those who are the object of their oppression. From the perspective of nonviolence, King argued that the enemy is not the white people of Montgomery, but injustice itself. The object of the boycott of the buses was not to defeat white people, but to defeat the injustice that mars their lives. The means must therefore be commensurate with the end that is sought—for the end cannot justify the means, particularly if the means involve the use of violence, because the “end is preexistent in the means.”This is particularly the case if the end of nonviolence is the creation of a “beloved community.”

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

This Gospel concept of the cross of the Christian does not mean that suffering is thought of as in itself redemptive or that martyrdom is a value to be sought after. Nor does it refer uniquely to being persecuted for 'religious' reasons by an outspokenly pagan government. What Jesus refers to in his call to cross-bearing is rather the seeming defeat of that strategy of obedience which is no strategy, the inevitable suffering of those whose only goal is to be faithful to that love which puts one at the mercy of one's neighbor, which abandons claims to justice for oneself and for one's own in an overriding concern for the reconciling of the adversary and the estranged.

​THE GREAT HERESIES IN THE EARLY CHURCH AROSE NOT FROM THE RAPID EXPANSION RESULTING FROM THE WORK OF THESE UNKNOWN TEACHERS; BUT IN THOSE CHURCHES WHICH WERE LONGEST ESTABLISHED, AND WHERE THE CHRISTIANS WERE NOT SO BUSILY ENGAGED IN CONVERTING THE HEATHEN ROUND THEM. THE CHURCH OF THAT DAY WAS APPARENTLY QUITE FEARLESS OF ANY DANGER THAT THE INFLUX OF LARGE NUMBERS OF WHAT WE SHOULD CALL ILLITERATE CONVERTS MIGHT LOWER THE STANDARD OF CHURCH DOCTRINE. SHE HELD THE TRADITION HANDED DOWN BY THE APOSTLES, AND EXPECTED THE NEW CONVERTS TO GROW UP INTO IT, TO MAINTAIN IT AND TO PROPAGATE IT. AND SO IN FACT THEY DID. THE DANGER TO THE DOCTRINE LAY NOT IN THESE ILLITERATE CONVERTS ON THE OUTSKIRTS; BUT AT HOME, IN PLACES LIKE EPHESUS AND ALEXANDRIA, AMONGST THE MORE HIGHLY EDUCATED AND PHILOSOPHICALLY MINDED CHRISTIANS. IT WAS AGAINST THEM THAT SHE HAD TO MAINTAIN THE DOCTRINE.
 
NOW ALL THIS SUGGESTS QUITE A DIFFERENT ATMOSPHERE FROM THAT WITH WHICH WE ARE FAMILIAR. THE CHURCH OF THOSE AGES WAS AFRAID OF THE HUMAN SPECULATION OF LEARNED MEN: WE ARE AFRAID OF THE IGNORANCE OF ILLITERATE MEN. THE CHURCH THEN MAINTAINED THE DOCTRINE AGAINST MEN WHO WERE CONSCIOUSLY INNOVATING: WE MAINTAIN THE DOCTRINE AGAINST MEN WHO MAY UNCONSCIOUSLY MISREPRESENT THE TRUTH THAT THEY HAVE LEARNT. THE CHURCH THEN MAINTAINED THE DOCTRINE BY HER FAITH IN IT: WE MAINTAIN OUR DOCTRINE BY DISTRUSTING OUR CONVERTS' CAPACITY TO RECEIVE IT. THE CHURCH THEN MAINTAINED HER DOCTRINE BY THINKING IT SO CLEAR THAT ANY ONE COULD UNDERSTAND IT: WE MAINTAIN OUR DOCTRINE BY TREATING IT AS SO COMPLICATED THAT ONLY THEOLOGIANS CAN UNDERSTAND IT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CHURCH THEN WAS QUITE PREPARED THAT ANY MAN WHO BELIEVED IN CHRIST SHOULD TEACH OTHERS WHAT HE KNEW OF HIM: WE ARE ONLY PREPARED TO ALLOW MEN WHOM WE HAVE SPECIALLY TRAINED TO TEACH IT. WHEN OTHERS WHOM WE HAVE NOT SPECIALLY TRAINED OF THEIR OWN SPONTANEOUS MOTION DO TEACH OTHERS WE HASTEN TO SEND A TRAINED TEACHER TO TAKE THEIR PLACE. THAT IS, OF COURSE, EXACTLY WHAT THE EARLY CHURCH DID NOT DO, YET IT MAINTAINED ITS STANDARD OF DOCTRINE. 
 
AND HERE I WOULD RECALL THE FACT THAT IN ALL THOSE SPORADIC CASES OF SPONTANEOUS TEACHING WITH WHICH WE ARE FAMILIAR IN OUR OWN DAY WE NEVER HEAR OF ANY DELIBERATE CORRUPTION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. WHEN OUR MISSIONARIES DISCOVER THESE CASES, THEY NEARLY ALWAYS FIND THAT THE TEACHING GIVEN IS, SO FAR AS IT GOES, TRUE, AND IS VERY OFTEN SURPRISINGLY TRUE AND DEEP. THESE CONVERTS SEEM TO HAVE LEARNED BY THEMSELVES MUCH THAT WE THINK CAN ONLY BE TAUGHT BY US. AND WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED IS VERY FUNDAMENTAL. AND THEY SEEM ALSO INVARIABLY TO SHOW A GREAT READINESS TO LEARN MORE. NOW THAT IS NOT THE SPIRIT WHICH BREEDS HERESY.THE SPIRIT WHICH BREEDS HERESY IS A SPIRIT OF PRIDE WHICH IS PUFFED UP WITH AN UNDUE SENSE OF ITS OWN KNOWLEDGE AND IS UNWILLING TO BE TAUGHT.
 
THE REASON WHY THE SPONTANEOUS ZEAL OF NEW CONVERTS DOES NOT BREED THAT SPIRIT IS NOT HARD TO FIND. SUCH CONVERTS ARE ALMOST INVARIABLY MEN WHO HAVE HAD SOME REAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. THEY HAVE HEARD SOMETHING OF CHRIST; THEY HAVE RECEIVED SOME TEACHING ABOUT HIM; THEY HAVE GENERALLY LEARNED TO REPEAT THE CREED AND TO READ THE BIBLE; THEY HAVE CALLED UPON CHRIST AND BEEN HEARD; AND THIS HAS WROUGHT A CHANGE IN THEIR WHOLE OUTLOOK UPON LIFE, SUCH A CHANGE THAT THEY ARE EAGER THAT OTHERS SHOULD SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE. HENCE THEY BEGIN TO TEACH OTHERS, AND TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHERS. NOW ALL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE DEMANDS DOCTRINE FOR ITS PROPER STATEMENT AND EXPLANATION. IF THEN THESE MEN ARE NOT WELL INSTRUCTED IN THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHERS THEY FEEL THAT THERE IS MUCH IN IT WHICH THEY CANNOT UNDERSTAND. CONSEQUENTLY INSTRUCTION IN CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE COMES TO THEM WITH AN ENLIGHTENMENT AND A POWER WHICH IS A JOY, AND THEREFORE THEY GLADLY RECEIVE IT, BECAUSE IT SUPPLIES A FELT NEED OF THEIR SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE. IN SUCH AN ATMOSPHERE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE IS IN LITTLE DANGER, FOR THOUGH FALSE OR INADEQUATE TEACHING, IF THEY RECEIVED SUCH, MIGHT PREVAIL FOR A TIME, YET THE TRUE TEACHING WHEN IT COMES MUST INEVITABLY DRIVE OUT THE FALSE. FOR THE EXPERIENCE IS A TRUE EXPERIENCE, AND A TRUE EXPERIENCE DEMANDS A TRUE DOCTRINE. IT IS AS THE COMPLEMENT OF EXPERIENCE THAT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FIRST TOOK SHAPE. IT IS NOTORIOUS THAT THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, FOR INSTANCE, WAS FORMULATED THROUGH THE ATTEMPTS OF THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST TO EXPLAIN THEIR EXPERIENCE. CHRIST APPEARED, AND THE APOSTLES EXPERIENCED HIS POWER: THE HOLY GHOST DESCENDED, AND THE APOSTLES AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FOLLOWERS KNEW HIS INDWELLING; THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AROSE OUT OF ATTEMPTS TO EXPRESS THAT EXPERIENCE.
 
AS THE COMPLEMENT OF EXPERIENCE, DOCTRINE RENEWS ITS YOUTH FROM AGE TO AGE; BUT DIVORCED FROM EXPERIENCE IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE STATEMENT OF AN INTELLECTUAL THEORY, AND TO REST IN SOMETHING WHICH AN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS HAS CREATED IS TO REST IN THAT WHICH AN INTELLECTUAL PROCESS CAN DESTROY…