Dear Sisters and Brothers,

In the autumn of 1963, following the March on Washington and the revelation of Martin Luther King's "dream," public discussion of race takes a dramatic turn in America and among the Churches of Christ. The issue can no longer be hidden or avoided. Yet once again it is only in the Christian Chronicle that the veil of silence among whites in the Churches of Christ is lifted.

Even as the Marchers are assembling in Washington, this dialogue is set in type, and less than three weeks later it appears in print. It is a genteel and gentle discussion between two earnest and dedicated white "moderates." (In the Byzantium south of the Ohio River, a "moderate" is a "conservative" who says "Negro.") Both of these preachers live and work in Memphis in 1963. Richard Frederick Baggett (1926-1988), a former missionary to Japan, is a member of the Coleman Avenue church. From the mid-1970s until his death he will teach in the Sunset School of Preaching. William Paul Jolly preaches to the Merton Street congregation in Memphis. Their essays appear side by side in the Mid-South edition of the CC, separated by a boxed, boldface editorial note. We may suspect that they have had this discussion before. In the Memphis of 1963 and today, the twentieth-century "color line" is a "wall of partition" resisting all winds of change, and the dominant fact of life for all who live there.

In the adjoining articles Richard F. Baggett and W. P. Jolly do take notice of this problem. Their ideas are not necessarily the ideas of the Chronicle publishers, but we feel they are worthy and that they may provide a springboard for further discussion and action.

We hope these articles make our readers think soberly about the racial issue and in turn, we welcome any reader comment about it. Letters should be mailed to Christian Chronicle, P.O. Box 1739, Abilene, Texas.

But in some areas, changes in neighborhood patterns of living are facing some congregations with this question: "Shall we refuse black people the right to worship with the whites?" Is it in harmony with the will of God for us to forbid Negroes to sit in our building to either (1) worship with us; or (2) hear the gospel? We turn to the life of Simon Peter for the answer.

In Galatians 2:11-16 Paul resisted Peter to his face because be stood condemned. He was condemned because he "Walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel" (vs. 14).

The incident where Peter failed to practice the truth is clearly pointed out. It was a matter of eating with Gentiles. There are two points that need to be brought out in order to reach an understanding of this incident.

First, the "truth of the gospel" against which Peter "walked" is that truth stated Eph. 3:6--that the "gentiles" (which means "the races") are ["]fellow-heirs." This truth is buttressed up by four points. (1) God is no respector[sic] of persons--Acts 10:34. Men "of every nation (race)" are now acceptable to Him. The church has been called the "third race" composed of all acceptable to God. Those acceptable to God should be acceptable to us.

(2) The gospel is universal. The New Birth applies to all men. Peter's vision (Acts 10:15, 28) showed that Gentiles ("the races") were not unclean. Paul declared that "there is no distinction between Jew and Greek" (Romans 10:12).

(3) The Promise is Universal. Eternal life is given to "whosoever believeth"--(John 3:16). The hope of the new Christ-like body is given to all--(I John 3:2).

(4) The work of Christ is universal. It did abolish enmity and the middlewall between Jew and Gentile and it did unite all in "one body" (Eph. 2:11-20). Entrance into this body is by salvation (Acts 2:47).

No kind of distinction is made by God. All races are saved by the same gospel, added to the same body, and are served by the same Lord as Saviour and High Priest.

The church is no denomination or cliquish club wherein we can change the "truth of the universality of the gospel." The church is not divided by status ("neither bond nor free") nor race ("neither Jew nor Greek") nor sex ("neither male nor female")--Galatians 3:28.

Whatever Society may do, the Church of the Lord disregards these distinctions because they are not in harmony with the nature and core of the gospel--the Truth.

Second, we notice that James especially forbids brethren to make these distinctions in the assemblies--James 2:1, 9. He tells us not to hold the Faith "with respect to persons." It is true that he does not have the race problem specifically in mind here, but the principle stated with regard to the status question would also forbid distinctions by race in the assemblies.

The rich man is rich and the poor man is poor, but no account is to be taken of this in the seating arrangement of the assemblies. This is because such distinctions would be contrary to the "truth of the gospel."

Peter stood condemned because he did not act consistently with this principle. His conduct in Antioch undid all the good done by his preaching in Caesaria[sic] (to Cornelius) or Jerusalem (at the conference--Acts 15).

His fault was not in eating or not eating but rather in the impression he gave that Jews were in some way superior before God to the Gentiles.

In "drawing back" and "separating himself" (Gal. 2:12), Peter was saying, "They are not worthy of me because of their race." In so doing, he was denying the gospel.

Paul withstood him to the face because a principle of truth was at stake--not just a social custom. It was no time to compromise.

Peter's weakness split the church in Antioch. All the Jews (even Barnabas) followed him and the one church actually became two--one for Gentiles and one for Jews. Such division is contrary to the Will of God; to the work of Christ; to the united nature of the Body (Eph. 2:16); and to the one universal promise or hope.

This is why Peter stood condemned and why Paul corrected him.

From this example and its principles, we reach three conclusions to apply to our problem today.

(1) Worship in our assemblies must be open to races and classes of people. The church is not a private club but God's Kingdom.

(2) The Gospel invitation is open to all, therefore all races must be free to listen to it preached. We can turn no one away simply because of race.

(3) We have no right to make distinctions by race in our seating arrangements in our meetings.

It is true that many practical matters are involved in this problem. However, regardless of one's judgment or feeling in these matters, God's people must want to do the right thing, trusting in God's Wisdom and Power to work out the practical aspects.

All people, regardless of their persons, must be free to sit in our assemblies to worship and to hear the gospel preached.

Several years ago an elder was heard to say, "The church must take a stand on this race question!" Another elder could have said the same thing while holding an entirely different point of view, which proves the impropriety of the proposition.

Nobody can presume to speak for the whole church. Each individual is personally accountable to God for his own thoughts and deeds. Where Christ has legislated clearly a thing is forever settled but where no specific teaching or example is found an issue must be resolved on the basis of Christian principles, prayerfully applied.

The Bible has been quoted and misquoted, applied and misapplied, on both sides of this issue. Let us be certain that we do not torture the Scriptures in presuming to give a "Thus saith the Lord" for our own willful opinions, however cherished they may be.

The Negro has suffered many indignities and much ill treatment. No Christian approves of this or desires a continuation of it. However, in seeking to eliminate wrongs inflicted on a minority group we trust that our legislators will be wise enough not to impose an even greater wrong upon the majority.

Freedom is a much abused term and some have not yet learned its meaning. Every individual should have the right to develop his potential and promote his own welfare. Still, by the same token, each person should have the right to choose his own associates and those with whom he will do business.

An unwarranted social burden placed by federal authority upon the citizenry will not promote harmony between the races; it will only increase tension and further misunderstanding.

It cannot be denied that a basic social difference exists between the races. Skin pigmentation has little to do with it; the real difference is in the people themselves, their background and culture, habits, customs, personalities, physical makeup, etc. With rare exceptions there is "a great gulf fixed" between the two socially.

We do not question God's wisdom in making such a distinction. Not only do we accept such a difference, we respect it. Segregation has become a bad word, an emotional term. Actually, segregation does not necessarily imply inferiority in either race; it simply recognizes that a very real distinction exists.

In the spiritual sense, all are created equal before God. In the social sense, however, segregation is practiced every day by both colored and white within their own respective races. Such is a natural occurrence and widely accepted.

In view of this undeniable fact can it successfully be affirmed that segregation of the races under certain conditions is morally wrong? We think not.

When it comes to established law, feelings do not count. The Christian is under subjection. (Rom. 13:1-7) Yet, as a citizen, he has the right to question the propriety of the law, to discuss it, and if possible to change it. In all things nevertheless, he will show charity toward all and hatred toward none.

Philemon and Onesimus occupied a master-slave relationship, yet were one in Christ. Though faced with many social evils Paul broke no laws, led no demonstrations, preached no sermons challenging the status quo. He was most confident that the gospel he proclaimed held forth the ultimate answer to every spiritual and social problem when applied. (Rom. 1:16-17)

We read these words with the cadences of Martin Luther King's masterpiece ringing in our ears. Here we have "law," but not "justice." Here we have "freedom" and "right"--of individuals to control their own lives and exclude others. The argument comes down to whether "distinctions" and "differences" may be used to excuse and enforce segregation in Christian worship.

To his credit, having called on "both sides" not to "torture the Scriptures," Jolly himself eschews prooftexts, except to use Rom 13 to support "subjection" to "established law." He concludes with the obligatory allusion to the relationship of Philemon and Onesimus and the behavior of Paul. He appeals at the beginning to "the Spirit of Christ," and he appears to assume that racial segregation is consistent with that spirit. For that inference he produces no chapter and verse.

In Baggett's essay, on the other hand, we meet a now-familiar catalogue of texts from Galatians, Acts, James and Romans. We have met them before in the arguments of R. N. Hogan and David Lipscomb. Indeed, although the world round about is changing radically, this exchange demonstrates that the vocabulary of discussion about race among Churches of Christ still draws on the fund available to S. E. Harris and DL in their extended, paradigmatic dialogue of 1907. It is useful to look at these documents side by side.

Although it may now appear prosaic and commonplace, this careful, reserved dialogue between "two Southern preachers," published only in a regional edition of the CC, elicits an unprecedented national response. Whatever the reservations of leaders in white churches, large numbers of the rank and file are ready to move beyond the status quo ante bellum. This discussion taps a reservoir of pent-up feeling, and we have now to examine the outpouring.

May God have mercy.

dhaymes, his mark +