Dear Editor:

This is a "me, too" and "amen" letter. I cannot express my views on the existing inequalities between the white and black man in our country any better than they were expressed by Jim Hawkins of Victoria, B.C., in his letter to you in the January 13 Christian Chronicle.

I would like to see such fine publications as yours and the others among "us" take the lead in approaching this momentous issue in a calm and dignified reasoning tone.

If segregation is to be accepted as socially, intellectually and morally right, then to be consistent it must be expanded to cover all those of divergent color, nationality and social status.

We of the U.S. are a heterogeneous people. Why single out one small segment of our people and make them the target of extreme discrimination? Our forefathers are the culprits in this unhappy situation. The negro didn't want to come over here in the first place. He was a victim of the greed of bestial men. Let's begin to amend our attitudes and his lot among us--Guy T. Cosand, Crane, Missouri.

Sometimes from a distant point we fail to see the problems that may be tied to a situation. To get the church involved into waging a war over this segregation issue as suggested by Brother Hawkins would only lead to confusion and trouble. Many do not realize the problems that arise when the races are mixed along the social level.

The brethren in our area (West Monroe, Louisiana) have for years supported the colored church, in fact started it. And the true Christian desires to see the negro race lifted up so as to make them proud of their race.

We believe today that slavery is wrong, yet the great apostle Paul lived during a time when such was the custom of the day. He did not spearhead the church into a war against such, on the contrary. He showed how one should conduct himself if he were slave or master. Paul preached the gospel to the world and as a result of this influence of the gospel, man has been lifted above slavery in this age in which we live in most parts of the world.

I feel sure no Christian had any part in the mobs that marched around in New Orleans and had it not been for outside troublemakers the situation would not have been as bad as the newspapers led us to believe.

There are many that have reason to believe that this whole movement of race trouble today is inspired by those who would divide and destroy our nation in the end.

Let not the church become a center of strife over this problem, but let us preach the gospel to a world full of sin and hatred so that men might be led to the kingdom of God where there is neither male nor female, rich or poor, bond or free, black or white, but one in our Lord.--Alton Howard, West Monroe, La.

This is the third time that a brotherhood paper has carried an article casting aspersions on the work of the church in New Orleans, always by a brother living and working 1,000- 1,200 miles away. Surely these brethren who have the answer to all the problems can write about something near them and at least their information will be nearer the truth.

Concerning the negro situation in this city--Doesn't a child know that our national news services have long been guilty of exaggeration and enlargement of all scandal and slander in the news? Indeed here in New Orleans we have seen news created rather than reported to the nation.

Fortunately almost no one believes all that they read or hear in the news reports.

Louisiana is not being torn asunder and New Orleans is not in a state of unrest. There are no atrocities being perpetrated upon the colored people and there has not been a single case of cruelty reported. No blood has been spilled and no freedoms have been denied them.

Furthermore the church is not standing by silently. Even the national news services did not leave such an extravagant picture of local events. Even so, the city officials asked the newsmen to please leave the people alone and not to encourage them to shouting and cursing with such questions as, "Would you resent your daughter being married to a negro!" (Three Life Magazine reporters were asked to leave the school area for causing tempers and emotions to show.)

Would you be surprised to know that we have only one school- board member in the whole city who still seeks to keep the schools segregated? The State government at Baton Rouge is quite another matter. Every single representative in Baton Rouge from New Orleans is known to be openly against the recent actions of the Governor Davis team. You may also be surprised to know that the famed mobs did not exist three full days in New Orleans, and no one was hurt except with fire hoses.

This reported multitude of 3,000-5,000 was actually about 800 women and teenagers. In 72 hours this crowd was less than 40 in number and lasted only as long as the TV cameras gave them a chance to be seen. For the past several weeks (Letter written January 16) there has not been a single per-[5]son in either integrated school. Even the shouting and shoving was not the white people against the negroes, but altogether among the white people who opposed others for not removing their children from the integrated schools.

The schools were not integrated as easily as was the city transportation system last year, but it has come close to being an orderly submission to the laws of the state and nation.

Now you ask, "Where is the church in New Orleans?" I suppose you mean by this, what is the church doing about the colored problem? Well, we have not done as much as we would like to have done for them, but we have not been "standing by silently." We have bought and paid for a $16,000 building for them. We are now in the process of selling this building and getting them a $39,000 building.

We furnish them with supplies and materials when they need such. We preach for them often and they are never refused the use of our building and equipment, such as the baptistry.

Colored people have never been asked to leave the buildings owned by white brethren, and have never been treated unkindly at the services which they have attended. If you feel that we should be on a soap-box defending by voice the rights of the colored, we simply and kindly disagree with you.

In the times of Jesus and the apostles there were more serious injustices than today. But our Lord taught, as did the apostle Paul, that equality among all people was to be accomplished by divine teaching and righteous example.

Onesimus was not elevated to his master's position by force, or combined pressure from Christian people who opposed slavery. Yet his master was taught the error of this relationship, and the change came from within, as is always most desireable. Surely we have put only a drop in the ocean, as compared to what we should be doing for all who are poor and oppressed, but we rather feel that such is also the case throughout our great brotherhood.

Let us pray fervently that our Heavenly Father will guide us into greater service and less judgement of each others' efforts. for we are all in this work together and indeed are "our brother's keeper."-- A. W. Chism, minister Carollton Avenue Church of Christ; Jerry Slatton, minister Gentilly Church of Christ; Joe H. Moulder, minister Hickory Knoll Church of Christ; all of New Orleans, La.

Dear Editor

This is in response to your invitation for an "intelligent and level-headed" discussion on the subject of race relations.

Careful consideration will reveal, I believe, that all bases for separation according to "race" only are superficial. In only one area of life can this even be tolerated, and that is the purely private, social relationships where the selection of personal friends is entirely subjective.

Here too, however, I believe we will be held accountable to the extent that we let our light shine less because of our haughty attitude toward those with whom we think we are unable to fellowship to the same degree of intimacy as others.

This degree of rapport itself must be governed by the practical circumstance that we cannot share a personal association with every single person in this world, and must not therefore be due to our imagined superiority over any other individual. I cannot accept that anyone unable to share the same regard for others as he does for himself in this life will have that opportunity around the eternal throne of God.

There are other spheres which are primarily economic or cultural which must not be influenced by our private, social limitations, even though there are secondary social facets involved by the sheer virtue that people are involved. I refer to employment, education, and but of course, religion.

We can ill afford to generalize as regards any ethnic group in our deliberations over whether we think they can be permitted to participate on a comparable basis with ourselves in these areas. This means any job, any school publicly supported and private schools supported by Christians, and any church building must be as easily accessible to all regardless of ancestry.

We simply have no Christian principles which can buttress our efforts to enforce separation because of ethnic or geographical background, even though we excuse ourselves by making reference to some allegedly wide deficiency among such a group, or by saying that we will lose the support of those who so excuse themselves.

Down to cases: I am at a total loss to conjure up a case to support the position taken by the respective boards of trustees of our various colleges which denies the entrance of Negroes. There are principles involved, and since there are, the rationalization that for practical reasons it cannot be permitted for fear of a reduction in white enrollment is tantamount to authorizing blanket permission for anything which might conceivably increase this enrollment. I doubt that we are prepared for the ultimate conclusion of this approach.

It is amusing in a pathetic sense to hear over and over that the case of Onesimus alleviates our need to be aggressive in pressing the Christian philosophy regarding human relationships. In reality, just the opposite is taught in Philemon than that commonly advanced: no authorization for social upheaval. On the contrary, let us review again this account apart from the light of 19th-century thinking from which I strongly suspect our "original" interpretation developed.

Paul does not with sweeping grandeur write finis to the economic institution of slavery, true. But he does everything to devoid it of its moral and social contingencies, which are, after all, what we are considering. With respect to his comment in verse 12, "I am sending him to you, sending my very heart," 20th-century Christians can thus apportion their regard among their fellow humans? And again in verse 16, ". . . that you might have him back for ever, no longer as a slave . . ., as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." From this we gather we can deny entrance to colleges some of us control?

In all this present world I cannot comprehend the tenor of reasoning which attempts to reverse the intent of specific Scriptural examples under the name of Christian restraint. The fallacy which causes the irreparable crack in such an attempted parallel is the effort to relate Paul's handling of an economic institution to our present situation, rather than facing up to his disposition of the moral and social ramifications which indeed could not be more closely akin to our problem.

The "previous condition of servitude" enjoyed by our Negroes a hundred years ago I think is the sub-conscious perverter of our present efforts to view this condition realistically.

Being practical, however, it is understandable that de facto moral performance is a legitimate criteria--that is, regardless of the causes of immorality--for admission privileges to schools. And due to our own neglect and shadow boxing a good proportion of those in minority groups exhibit amorality.

So here is our own test: do we rule them out of equal opportunity because they are Negroes, or do we place our unqualified and active support behind all efforts to correct such inadequacies. One excellent way to show good faith is to begin admitting those now morally qualified, of which there are many, to our colleges. It goes without saying, of course, that their attending "white" congregations should be met with every good pleasure.--Donald Irvin, Corpus Christi, Tex.

I read Jim Hawkins' letter and the ones in the February 3rd edition of the Christian Chronicle with interest. I am glad to see you want an intelligent and level-headed discussion of race relations in the church.

First let me make a few remarks in answer to Alton Howard's letter and the one by the three ministers, then I will write about something near me as they suggested. The ministers stated, "colored people have never been asked to leave the buildings owned by white brethren in New Orleans."

Having worshipped with the colored brethren in Cincinnati and talked frankly with them, three told me they first worshipped with the white brethren upon coming to Cincinnati. After two or three Sundays, a few members told them where the colored brethren met and suggested they go there. I am sure the leaders did not know about this.

Are the leaders in New Orleans still sure no white member had, on the side, asked the colored person that came more than once to leave?

Howard said, "Many do not realize the problems that arise when the races are mixed along the social level", yet preachers tell us the church is not a social organization. I see white and black men working on a job and getting along. Why can they not do the Lord's work together?

Other than that, the congregation is for worshipping God together. Can't the races do this together? In answer to the statement that northerners do not realize the problems of the South. May I state that they could not be any greater than Paul faced when he went to the Gentiles. What is needed is more faith in God.

Howard said Paul did not teach against slavery. What was the epistle to Philemon but a letter telling a master to treat his slave as a brother? It was not Paul's duty to try to change the social structure of the nations, just the hearts of the Christians. If the majority of the nations became Christians with a changed heart, the social structure would change.

Howard feels sure no Christian had any part in the mobs at New Orleans. How can he be sure after Carl Spain told of members of the church of Christ being among the ones protesting the use of a baptistry in a white congregation by Negroes (March 8, 1960). What makes him believe Christians are different from others when they are not taught?

What happened to the children of Christian homes in the integrated school districts? Howard feels sure no Christians were in the mobs, I wonder if any Christians with school children live in those districts.

Howard then ends his letter by calling on us to overlook this problem and teach the gospel to the world, to lead them to the kingdom of God where we are all one in our Lord. How can we teach that all are one, that there is neither "male nor female, rich or poor, bond or free, black or white" if we do not make the Church the "center of strife over this problem"?

This is a national problem, not just Southern. Here in Cincinnati I received the following answers to my questions about race relations in the churches of Christ: "It needs to be taught but let the next generation teach it."

One answered, "Bob, you have two nice blue-eyed, fair skinned blond headed girls and I'm sure you don't want them marrying colored men. Leave this alone."

Neither do I want them to marry a Catholic, Protestant, or non-Christian man. Which is most important, skin color or a person's religion?

One minister agreed it should be taught, but said he didn't know how to teach it. How can you not know how to teach brotherly love, when it is one of the things we are to add to our faith. Another said we are only to mix with Christians among the colored people.

Yet, we can work with people in other groups if they are white. The Bible does not speak on skin color when telling us what type of people we must avoid.

When I entered the church, I was taught to ask for a "Thus saith the Lord" for anything done or taught religiously. I have not yet received one. An elder sent me a copy of a speech telling why desegregation will fail, but there was not one scripture given to back up what was said.--Robert L. Wilson, Cincinnati, Ohio.

These five letters responding to Jim Hawkins do appear to represent a cross-section of white Churches of Christ in 1961. We may not doubt that they are a selection from a larger pool and that they have been edited; we cannot grant these texts the standing of a "scientific survey." Yet they demonstrate that in 1961 white Churches of Christ are not a monolith on the issues of race relations. Guy Cosand in the Missouri Ozarks and Donald Irvin in Corpus Christi argue against continued segregation from a Southern context. The three New Orleans ministers adopt a classic "Southern moderate" position; they are defensive, but they do not defend segregation as an ideology. Yet clearly they are not going to invite blacks into their churches. Alton Howard and the New Orleans ministers take quite different rhetorical positions, but they are united in defending what "white brethren" have "done for" black churches. They portray themselves as founders and supporters of black churches. That they have founded and supported separate black congregations in order to maintain segregation in their own seems to me an inevitable conclusion, whatever the distinctions in rhetoric. In his post on the northern banks of the Ohio River, Robert L. Wilson has learned that racial prejudice is "not just Southern." All of these testimonies reveal and define the contexts and relations of the authors. Almost all of them appeal in some way to Philemon and Gal 3:28. In 1961 the Churches of Christ are still situated within the confines of the paradigm drawn in 1907 by the discussion between DL and S. E. Harris. For the most part, they remain there yet.

Brother Craig Churchill, the Heavenly Librarian, has aided the cause of righteousness--being interpreted as accuracy and completeness--in several places where my old photcopies were inadequate. It is right to give him thanks and praise.

May God have mercy.

dhaymes, his mark +