In the week following publication in its "Mid-South" edition of mannered essays on race relations in the church "by two respected and distinguished ministers," Richard Frederick Baggett and William Paul Jolly, the Christian Chronicle issues an editorial call for further discussion. While this editorial is unsigned, and more than one hand may have worked on it, its final redactor is surely James Walter Nichols. It appears to seek, almost desperately, a middle ground where there is none. Two positions are described; we may perhaps infer the Editor's sympathies in his description of them. Both positions claim the sanction of the will of God as it may be revealed in the pages of the Bible; both points of view cannot be right; and yet the Editor cannot bring himself to name the wrong. If this reticence is a ruse, brilliantly calculated to prime the pump of reaction, it succeeds.

The church has seen its greatest growth in the South; its great leaders have come from this area; its biggest schools are located here; most of its missionaries are Southern-bred.

But the family ties of the South with the church, if we may call them that, present some huge problems--not the least of which is the negro question.

Have you noticed the silence of our gospel papers on this topic? Have you noticed how our preachers can somehow preach about everything under the sun except this ticklish situation? The editors of the Christian Chronicle are no exception. We have been afraid, it seems, to bring something disagreeable into the light of public discussion.

However, the problem is gaining so many facets now--both pro and con--that the editors of this newspaper believe the members of the Church of Christ (especially the Southern members) must discuss it.

In the Mid-South edition of the Christian Chronicle last week two respected and distinguished ministers from that region wrote special editorials on the subject and they were printed side-by-side. There was no effort to begin a debate between two faithful gospel ministers. The policy of the Christian Chronicle has always been against that. However, it is curious to note, that these two men--in all sincerity and with much good Biblical logic--disagree with each other on the issue.

One of them quotes Galatians 2:11-16 where Paul resisted Peter to his face because Peter stood condemned. The incident was where Peter refused to eat with Gentiles. The editorial writer goes on with his argument that "Gentiles" of course means all other races other than Jews, and that the New Covenant is available to all races. There can be no argument from any Bible scholar on this conclusion.

The preacher-writer continues with the argument that we have no right to bar entrance into our church buildings to the negro; that he has every right to attend, hear the gospel, obey it, and participate in worship. This is hard to refute in theory, but our general practice denies our adherence to this principal[sic].

The other writer in the Mid-South issue takes the opposite tack. He says that "the negro has suffered many indignities and much ill treatment . . . no Christian approves of this or desires a continuation of it." But he says there is a basic social difference between the races, not influenced by skin pigment, and that God has fixed "this great gulf" between the races and we must recognize and accept it.

He also, of course, brings in the old argument about Paul's saying nothing about changing the slave-master relationship between Philemon and Onesimus. In short, this writer, believes that the races must stay separated (and by inference, not integrated in the churches) because it is God's will.

Actually both men's arguments rely for their thesis on "God's will." We respect both of these men and their scholarly opinions, but surely God's will cannot be two-faced on this problem.

We don't pretend to know the answers. We are asking for help. We know that some of our colleges are now admitting negro students, and that one of our major Southern schools has found a delightful absence of any hard feelings toward its negro students. We know also that very few congregations across the land have negro members--except in the north and west.

Is it necessary that we admit the negro into full-fledged "participating" membership in our churches? Or can we with good conscience follow other action--and by so doing, do what God wants us to do?

We know that the state and federal governments cannot come up with the proper solutions. The resulting violence is much in evidence. As Christians we must always be sure our attitudes reflect the Spirit of Christ. (Phil. 2:5). We are asking for discussion of the issue. We are asking for fair appraisal. We are asking for Christian decision and commitment to a very real problem. (Address all letters to Editor, Christian Chronicle, Box 1739, Abilene, Texas).

Despite its resolutely uncommitted posture on the topic at hand, this editorial is a deliberately revolutionary document in the context of the Churches of Christ. Indeed, the refusal to take a position in this volatile controversy is itself the revolutionary attitude. Yes, there is no "thus saith the Lord" that prescribes the relations between Americans of European and African descent in the church--but when did lack of a "direct command" ever before give pause to an editor of a journal among Churches of Christ? Have we here no "approved example"? Can we find no "necessary inference"? Is there no "abiding principle"?

If there be a principle that must be admitted and declared, the Editor does not choose to assert it. Instead, he writes, "we don't pretend to know the answers." For an editor of such a paper, in a Christian sect defined almost exclusively by its vigorous arguments from silence, this is an extraordinary admission. The request for "help"--for "discussion" and "fair appraisal"--from the readers of the CC is in its way even more illuminating. It signals the dawn of a new day.

We do well to recall the atmosphere of tension and profound uncertainty into which this editorial issues. "Resistance" to the inevitable is everywhere in the air. Retaliation against advocates of change is primarily economic, but there are groups and individuals who will do whatever they think is necessary-- with rifles, with rope, or with fire--to "save our Southern way of life." In this climate our uncommitted Editor issues a call to personal courage and commitment, to speak out on an issue of ultimate concern. It is consensus, not editorial fiat, that will chart the course for the church in this perilous time. With irony and wisdom, the uncommitted Editor makes his plea: "We are asking for Christian and commitment to a very real problem." And the one who asks shall receive.

May God have mercy.

dhaymes, his mark +