When the editors of the Christian Chronicle publish a discussion of "racial issues" in the paper's regional Mid-South edition, and follow with a nationally circulated editorial calling for "Christian decision and commitment," they call forth a flood of concerned commentary from the grass roots. Within three weeks of the editorial the CC would present two full pages containing 11 letters. Not one of the 11 is then well-known among Churches of Christ; their responses span the range of intellectual incision and emotional confusion that almost always characterizes Christian confrontation with complex social issues.

This installment transcribes the text of seven letters on the first page of the spread; the four letters on the second page will follow.

Thank you for your editorial and cartoon in the 27 September issue of the Chronicle.

As a Son of the South, I once ardently defended segregation-- both in and out of the church. While a student at Abilene Christian College, I learned the way of the Lord more accurately.

The fundamental issue at stake, as far as the church is concerned, is the New Testament (especially the Pauline) teaching on the unity of the church. For instance, consider Paul's words to the Galatian churches:

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:27,28.)

Paul knew that once a Jew, always a Jew. And most slaves remained slaves. And, of course, a person's sex never changes. But all these natural differences were now of no consequence, compared to the fact of being "in Christ."

And this unity "in Christ" was no theoretical matter alone; it was to be real. It was to be expressed in such things as eating together. When Peter left the table-fellowship with Gentile Christians at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-21), his deference to the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem implied that the Gentile Christians were "Second-class Christians."

The issue was important, and Paul knew what he had to do: he opposed Peter to his face.

Of course, baptism will not change a man's color. It will not even necessarily clean up "poor white trash." But it will make all men--whether Jew or Gentile, black or white, rich or poor--one in Christ.

And the fellowship of those who are one in Christ is to be a real fellowship, expressed at the Lord's Supper and in all of our common life.

We have restored the New Testament doctrine of baptism, in so far as we practice adult immersion for the remission of sins. But what about the New Testament doctrine of baptism that says that all who are baptized are one in Christ?

Churches which do not actively carry the Gospel to Negroes who live in their communities must face up to the issue as to whether they take seriously the New Testament doctrine of baptism and the New Testament doctrine of the unity that is in Christ.

And in this day and time, the practice of an individual church is not only her own concern, but it also reflects a certain image for the brotherhood--thanks to newspaper and television. when a certain Church of Christ barred its doors to Negroes, the "Church of Christ" became labeled a racist sect.

Even if this journalistic label was unwarranted, it had its effect on the churches of Christ which were attempting to preach to all people, white and black.

I agree with your editorial that the Negro issue is "a very real problem," and I join with you in calling for "Christian decision and commitment."--Roy Bowen Ward, New London, Conn.

If I knew nothing about New Testament Christianity and those who claim to live it, except what I read in the New Testament, I would be shocked at the question you put forth on your editorial page.

You ask if we should allow colored people to assemble with us. What right have we to deny any sincere person the privilege of worshipping or serving with us?

What makes the colors white, yellow, red or brown so much better than the color black? Where did God ever ordain that black people should serve the white, as suggested by one writer in your paper?

Remember, many a white man has been a servant to other people.

But, then I know my brethren too well, I guess, so I am not so shocked. I even had the sad displeasure of knowing one white sister (?), who grew very angry because two "black" men were baptized in the "white" baptistry by a personal worker. And someone condemned the Pharisees for being hypocrites!

We can deny the colored person access to "white" services as long as we use our desires, our feelings, our traditions, or what the majority thinks, as our supreme law. (Of course, we condemn the denominations for using the same authority in their religion.)

If you're looking for the New Testament to condone such prejudice, you may as well read "Little Orphan Annie," for you will not find Christ or His Apostles, teaching any such thing.

Some seem to add a few words to James 2:17 and make it read "Love the brotherhood . . . unless they are black." But read again. Yes, you are to love all brethren, including black ones.

And if you love them you will be kind to them, you will not have a "higher than thou" attitude toward them, you will not embarrass nor offend them, you will not accuse them of bad, simply because they are black, and you will fellowship them. Read I Corinthians 13. See what love will do.

Consider the way you treat the colored man. Now feature yourself at the judgment, listen to Christ as he looks at you, points to a colored brother and informs you "as you have done unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Would you deny Christ meeting with you?

Christ's own will teaches us that all baptized believers are BROTHERS. So if I am a New Testament Christian I have BROTHERS who are "colored." True Christian love for our brothers, makes us "color blind." This is a tie that surpasses all "great gulfs" in this life.

Christ's invitation to be a member of HIS church says, "who-so-ever will" may come. Who are we to add except "EXCEPT"?--Clif Werhan, Ft. Cobb, Okla.

In your editorial of September 27, you wrote of a brother taking the argument of Philemon and Onesimus. He surely did not read verse 16, for even if Onesimus remained a slave, he is now more a brother.

He would thus be in the same family (would we bar a brother?), having the same privileges, the same father.

Moses' wife had dark skin and God was not pleased because of Aaron, and his sister made fun.

Pigments of our white skin might become dark or red. What would we do?--Amos Orrison, Barracksville, W. Va.

I was born into a church of Christ home in Tennessee and lived there until I was 11 years old when we moved to California in 1927. I attended David Lipscomb in 1935-36.

With this background, and many relatives--some in the Church and some out--living in the South I am aware of the feelings of the white man towards the black and of the black towards the white.

I attended integrated California schools from the fifth through the twelfth grades. My last two years of high school were spent in Compton, California, where there were many Negro, Japanese, Mexican and other nationalities represented as well as whites, who were in the majority.

Today, 29 years later, I would estimate that about 25% were Negro.

I recall no racial friction during that time; it may be because there was no agitation for it. We all attended the same classes, sat at desks opposite one another, took part in the same athletic events, plays, etc. and found our own crowd to run around with.

Our circle of friends were not racially segregated either. I do not know of any blacks and whites actually dating one another or of such a combination ever getting into trouble or getting married because of such association. I suppose there might have been an exception but, if there was I am not aware of it.

In fact, in that climate, before agitation, it was my observation that the black was no more interested in taking the white man's place than the white man was in exchanging with the black.

Here in California the dark brethren and the white brethren both attend one another's gospel meetings, singings, etc. and feel free to call upon one another to participate without any problem ever arising.

In two of the congregations, for which I have preached in the past, we have had colored brethren identified with us. Accepted and used as anyone else would have been.

The congregation for which I now labor has none but has let it be known that they would be welcome should they desire to come. (There is a colored congregation three miles away--by their own choice).

Strange as it may seem to many, 5 of our 6 elders and the bulk of the 300 to 350 who attend each Sunday morning are from the south. Blacks have visited and been welcomed.

Such passages as Col. 3:11, Gal. 3:28, Rom. 10:12 and I Cor. 12:13 make it clear, to me, that in so far as fellowship of His body is concerned the Lord has made no such distinctions as we have made in the past.

It is my opinion that there are enough members of the Church and members of the Baptist Church, in the south, both of whom rely on the scriptures (by profession) that if they practiced what they preached we would have no racial problem there.--Ben J. Franklin, Spring Valley, Calif.

I very much appreciated your editorial, "Let's Discuss The Negro Issue," in the September 27 issue of the Chronicle.

For too long we of the church of Christ have ignored the implications of Jesus' "second great commandment" (Matt. 22:39).

For too long we have engaged in "theological hair-splitting" about such matters as intra-church co-operation while Roman Catholicism, Liberal Protestantism, and even the civil government have led the fight against ungodly racial hatred.

Every faithful Christian must desegregate his heart and begin to promote "peace on earth, good will toward men."

It has been my experience that, although many older brethren refuse to even discuss their attitudes toward their dark complexioned fellow human beings, the younger generation is keenly aware of the race problem.

A question that I often hear from teen agers and young adults is, "How can they call themselves Christians while hating their fellow man?"

Although I am presently desirous of relocating with another congregation, I have vowed to become a "tentmaking preacher," if necessary, rather than have my family become financially dependent upon a church which forbids my preaching on such texts as Jas. 2:1-12, 1 Jno. 3:10-24, Lk. 10:25-37, Col. 3:9b-11, and other similar passages.--James B. Grotts, Carbondale, Ill.

I read with interest your provocative editorial on "Let's Discuss the Negro Issue." With all her outspoken talk on most subjects, the church as remained surprisingly quiet about the explosive human relations issue.

Many of our preachers appear to be scared stiff on the subject. In the midst of a revolution, we have begged the problem to go away.

Selfishly and protectively, we have guarded our interests in the "high potential" church member whom we dare not lose.

Meanwhile, we lose hundreds of men and women because of our detached neutrality. They say that the church has failed. It has not halted the liquor traffic or the alarming divorce rate.

It has not even delivered the hearts of its members from the bonds of hate and prejudice.

Two souls, cloaked in skins of different hue, cannot worship together or fellowship each other.

And we--the preachers and members of the Lord's church-- wonder why they can't "see the truth!" They see too well.

The time is late for pussyfooting about human relations. Platitudes and pronouncements are feeble substitutes for deeds of valor. "My children, let us love not merely in theory or in words--let us love in sincerity and in practice!" (I John 3:18, Phillips).--L. Denton Crews, Jr., Brookline, Mass.

I certainly agree with you that the time for the discussion of the "Negro question" is long overdue. Throughout all the years I can remember only two sermons that were devoted exclusively to this matter.

How can "we" claim to preach a complete gospel and not preach the teachings of Christ in regard to the Christian's treatment of his fellow man? Several years ago brother Willeford preached on this subject on the Herald of Truth program. Why hasn't there been any more?

I cannot show the love for my fellow man that I must show when I do not allow him the opportunity to satisfy one of the basic needs human beings have.

This is the need of being accepted as an equal member of God's highest creation.

The love a Christian has for his brother bears no resemblance to the love one might have for a prized pet.

It would have been impossible for Christ to have made the least distinction between two individuals because of differences in race or color.--J. H. Gardner, Biggers, Ark.

In October 1963 Roy Bowen Ward is a 29-year-old graduate student in Harvard Divinity School, writing his dissertation from the relative security of a New England congregation and contributing occasional articles and cartoons to the North Atlantic Christian. He has "learned the way of the Lord more accurately" from, among others, his mentor Paul Wilson Rotenberry, the uneasy son-in-law of Charles Heber Roberson. In five years RBW will be the careful and fully conscientious editor of Mission, at some sacrifice of his promising academic career and annihilation of any ambitions he may have entertained in the Church. As teacher, as editor, as writer, and as mentor in his own right, he would continue to "speak up clearly and pay up personally."

Benjamin Joseph Franklin is in 1963 a 47-year-old veteran preacher who has served five California congregations since 1949. After his year at David Lipscomb he also attended Pepperdine College.

James Bruce Grotts, a 27-year-old graduate of Freed-Hardeman, will soon move across the Ohio River to a church in Princeton, Kentucky. He is teaching himself Spanish and Portuguese with hope of entering the Latin American mission field. Where has he been, and where is he now?

In 1963 L. Denton Crews has just come to preach in Brookline, Massachusetts, after working with churches in Washington, DC, and Annapolis, Maryland. He has graduated from David Lipscomb College and, true to the priorities then in force at that institution, gone on to earn a master's degree in speech at the University of Maryland. By the 1970s, after a turbulent time at Brookline, he will become an administrator at Lesley College in Cambridge.

J. H. Gardner may be the same person as Jack Gardner, a 46-year-old native of Mississippi and self-taught, part-time preacher, who in this period manages an insurance agency in Little Rock. Of Clif Werhan and Amos Orrison i have no knowledge beyond what they write here.

The four letters that follow will reveal a wide range of experience and perception among Churches of Christ. But these responses are only the beginning.

May God have mercy.

dhaymes, his mark +