Dear Sisters and Brothers,

When the editors of the Christian Chronicle call their readers to "discuss the Negro issue," they cannot know what the response will be. They are not conducting a "scientific" poll, but the published response is historically valuable.

The CC's effort begins with a genteel discussion in the paper's Mid-South Edition of 20 September 1963 between two Memphis preachers, Richard Frederick Baggett (1932-1988) and William Paul Jolly. An editorial published in all editions on 27 September 1963 summarizes the arguments and summons readers to respond. After 14 letters supporting the idea of a racially inclusive church and a second editorial hedging the CC's position in the discussion, a third editorial quotes in its entirety a fifteenth letter from an anonymous "Christian brother from Memphis" who plaintively complains that "not one letter has been printed defending social segregation." Now a final, two-page spread offers nine more letters; we have seen the five on the first page, all of which favored an end to segregation. Now we shall see the last of this correspondence: three letters defending racial apartheid, as the sincere brother from Memphis had wished, and another, from an anonymous "ordinary housewife," that laments any discussion of the issue at all.

Dear Editor:

I have been wondering how long before the Christian papers would quit carrying news of the Church and begin to dabble in World affairs. Some of the large denominations are trying to make headlines by taking sides in the force race issue and our Brethren can't let them get ahead.

I am fully persuaded that if all publicity was cut off this issue, it would die overnight and we could go back to our task of teaching love rather than hatred.

Now what is segregation?

Who started it?

When was it started?

For what purpose was it started?

To me segregation simply means to separate or be set apart from. Wasn't segregation started by God in the Garden of Eden because certain standards were not met? Wasn't Noah and his family segregated from the rest of the world because he met certain standards?

Weren't the people of old segregated because of language (Gen. 11) and even today isn't there a group in some congregations called Elders? Are they segregated because of qualifications? What about the everyday Christians; is he or is he not segregated from the rest of the world? (2 Cor 6-17).[sic] There are many, many other examples that could be cited but maybe these will get the idea across.

Now by favoring integration what do Brothers Baggett and Jolly have in mind? Are they in favor of total integration, 3/4, 1/2, or 1/4 integration? Are they in favor of just letting the Negroes come to worship only or do they plan to invite them to their homes for a social hour or do they plan to intermarry with them?

God hath decreed that everything shall reproduce after its own kind. This is true of the vegetable kingdoms, animal kingdoms, the religious kingdoms and the social kingdoms. Do our Brethren wish to change God's way of doing things as so many have in the past. Do our Brethren agree or disagree that the races are the work of God?

What about the lower animals? Wouldn't it be quite a show to see old papa coon and mama opossum strolling down a trail with their offspring. You reckon that Brother Adam would have named them? Even these animals know better than this.

Are these Brethren suggesting that they can rid the world of all the heartaches about the race issue that has built up during the past 100 years. Simply by mingling all the races together under the same roof?

Brother Baggett used one of my pet scriptures, Acts 10:34, God is no respecter of persons. What he requires of one person to be acceptable he will require of all. Is this speaking of the spiritual being or physical being. Would our Brethren suggest we've all got to have the same color of skin, hair and eyes? Are we all to be integrated to this extent?

Most of us take pride in the wonderful progress our medical profession has made. A large part of their experiments were begun with the lower animals, cats and dogs. I'd like to suggest that our Brethren begin their crusade for integration by integrating their house cats with some beautiful pole-cats. 2 Tim. 2:5 "And if a man also strive for masteries[sic], yet is he not crowned except he strive lawfully."

Would you say the leaders of forced integration are abiding by this law of grace? Are they teaching love or hatred? Phil. 2:3 "Let nothing be done through strife or vain-glory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other[sic] better than themselves." Is this the motive behind the integration movement?

One of our postmasters remarked several years ago before the issue got to the boiling point as it is today. He said he didn't claim to be any better than anyone else, but that he knew he was a lot different than some other people. John 17:21--"That they may all be one;" What does this mean?

Are we all to have the same kind of body, color and make up. I think this is answered in I Cor. 1:10 (1) Speak same thing, (2) no divisions (3) perfectly joined together in same mind and judgment. To me this applies to doctrine and worship to God and not that everyone has to part their hair on the right side.

What about the nation of Israel? Was it segregated from the rest of the world? Wasn't this done to fulfill a purpose of God? What about the Great Commission? Was it given to instruct the people to tear down all racial and social barriers and make one race of all nations? Or was it to unite the faith of all men into the doctrine of Christ?

What is a Christian? It is being Christ-like. Do you believe there is one Christian in the leadership of the forced integration issue? Being Christ-like doesn't mean to me that I must force myself or my doctrine (Christ Doctrine) on any other individual Christian or non-Christian.

When 1 Cor 1:10 has been fulfilled the leaders of the race issue will be living off a different source of income. We are spending lots of money for and in the mission fields, which is good, but it appears to me our mission fields are a lot closer to home than we think.

1 Cor 13:3 "and though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity it profiteth me nothing." Where is the charity in the issue at present?

I hope that the remarks here will help us all to realize that segregation was here before we were and it will be here when we are gone. It is greater than any human or group of humans. So let's spend our few short hours teaching Christ and Him crucified, so we'll be prepared for the great day of segregation when the sheep and goats will be segrated[<>].--Woodward Butts

Dear Editor:

"Let's Discuss the Negro Issue." May I point out to you, that this is purely a social question you have put forth, and let's leave it as it is.

Christianity does not force itself upon any one, nowhere does God's Word teach such.

God made certain distinctions between the races and Christianity does not teach or require social equality.

The Church in the South has always, and still is, helping the Negro Christians.

The Southern Negro Christians are not and have not tried to force themselves upon the white Christians socially.

What Mr. Martin L. King is trying to do is not Christianity.

Throughout all history, the educated mind has ruled the uneducated mind. The uneducated mind has nothing to offer to humanity that will be of benefit.--Joe Morrow, San Augustine, Fla.

Dear Editor:

I read the recent issue on the race problem. And, I must say some of those letters were ugly. They didn't sound right.

Let us hope they were written with the right spirit. I wonder.

Since we are not under a pope or bishop, don't you think this is something for each congregation to work out for themselves? I do.

I worship with a strong congregation. There are no Negro members. They have a number of congregations of their own. Now if a Negro or more comes to this church, they will be seated wherever there is a vacant seat.

I don't know what any other congregation will do; that is their problem. This race problem will be worked out if the young preachers don't get too enthusiastic.

The Lord's church is not a denomination; therefore, it doesn't have to make public statements as to where it stands on anything; politics and what not. I don't want to be pessimistic but the world won't be converted over night.

The Lord must have had a reason for making some people black. I do not think I am better than a Negro who is Christian. I am not as good as Brother Keeble; he has done so much. It seems that the Negro resents being black. He shouldn't; God wants him that way. I think he should be happy and be what he is.

This letter is written with sincerity and good will. Best wishes to all.

I an just an ordinary housewife; therefore, any name is not important.--A Christian, Nashville, Tennessee

Dear Editor:

The greatest tragedy that could befall the Church of Christ today would be for the Church to defend or advocate integration of the races after the pattern that is being used to integrate our institutions and social life.

The Church should never become entangled in any contention that is worldly and greedy and that has no semblance of Spirituality. The worldly are concerned only about economic, political and social conditions which includes power.

As you well know that we, as members of the Body of Christ are not of this world and should not be concerned about worldly affairs. Our is [sic] Spiritual and not carnal.

It is difficult for me to comprehend how any Christian can condone the actions of minority groups of our country who are trying to break every law of reason and common sense by attempting to integrate every phase of our way of life. As you well know, integration is entirely unknown in the Word of God. We most certainly cannot associate it with brotherly love because integration is creating fear, hatred and violence and all three are condemned by God.

If integrationists contend that the Bible teaches integration, they are readily in deep water, because God, in his dealings with the children of Israel forbade them to have any dealings with heathen people and in fact he commanded that they be utterly destroyed. This was to keep His chosen people a pure and undefiled race. Of course we are under a different Covenant and are not commanded to destroy anyone but to love all men. This has its restrictions as to mixing the races, socially, which in many cases will lead to intermarriage and mongrelization of the races.

Until all the fuss about integration, hatred among God's people was at a minimum, I believe. It certainly was not at the level that exists today. We know that all Christians are commanded to love all men, regardless of race or color and I know that all Christians will do that, but it is to be done when all else is done in the spirit of love and brotherly kindness and not for worldly gain nor prestige.

I grew up among Negroes and am still closely associated daily with them. They work for me and I render a service to them. There is no ill feeling between us. They understand my position and I am fully aware of theirs. The good, honest and sincere Negroes do not want integration as is attempted today. They know that they are happier and can serve God and their fellowman by remaining as God intended them to be and the purpose for which he created them.

I have no conscientious scruples regarding worshipping with other human beings, regardless of race or color if they are sincerely seeking to worship and serve God. I have attended services to hear the able Gospel preacher, Marshall Keeble and other Negro ministers and was welcomed by the Negroes but they segregated the white people by seating us on one side of the tent or building while they sat on the opposite side.

Integration, when practiced in the spirit of love, will resolve itself.

I vehemently oppose the Negroes' attempt to integrate white churches solely for the purpose of breaking down the color barrier and according to a plan and pattern laid down by the NAACP and CORE. Their purpose and desire is not to worship God but to "show the white folks that they can do it and with the backing of the Federal Government."

I resent any white person, or black who condones such actions and uses the pretentious act of worship of the Almighty God to break down tradition and the color barrier. I believe that God will deal harshly with those who do this.

I would be the last person to refuse anyone, regardless of color or race to worship alongside me if I am convinced that that person is sincere in his efforts to worship in Spirit and in Truth. I could and would readily accept him in God's intended spirit.

I believe that every instance where Negroes have attempted or have entered white churches to worship was for the sole and avowed purpose of breaking down the color barrier and not for the all important purpose of "worshipping in spirit and in truth."

In your editorial of Oct. 25, 1963, entitled "Not a Brotherhood Issue," you stated, "The Negro question is indeed something that the Church should talk about."

I disagree with you on this matter. The sole purpose and duty of the Church is to save souls. The only way to save souls is to teach the pure and simple Gospel of Christ.

God does not intend and he warns against His people becoming entangled in worldly matters. Integration as attempted today is definitely worldly. It is a political, economic, and social matter and has no semblance of spirituality.

I do not agree with the famous Baptist evangelist, Billy Graham, especially his theology but I do respect him on one point. To my knowledge he has not issued a single statement regarding the integration question. I think he is aware that it is a dangerous matter to bring it into the teaching of God's word.

Preachers, both white and black are greatly responsible for much of the agitation of today. We talk long and loud about "speaking where the Bible speaks and remain silent where the Bible is silent." I say that some of our preachers should practice what they preach along this line.

If integration is brotherly love and God intended that it be practiced as is attempted today, why have our preachers not spoken out on the question long ago? Could it be that they want to be "like the people around them," want to get in on the agitation? This thing could and will divide the Church if it is brought into the Church either by teaching or advocating integration. Such division would exist for many, many generations.

The Christian Chronicle should teach, as you have done before, the pure and simple Gospel and let the chips fall where they may. God, as He has always done, will take care of the results.

Anyone is treading on dangerous ground when he leaves the Gospel and teaches or advocates something that is foreign to the Bible and that creates hatred, enmity and confusion. Any Christian publication should refrain from teaching or even discussing anything that will cause division and strife.

Your publication has a large circulation I suppose and what you discuss will have great bearing on your readers' thinking, as it should. I hope that you will not enter into this highly controversial question. If it were a spiritual question I would want to see you speak out on it with all your power, even proclaim it from the housetops.

Let's do not add oil to the fire when we can do much more by remaining silent. Continue to proclaim the Gospel in its purity and simplicity.--Claude Gentry, Baldwyn, Miss.

Woodward Butts, whose location in space is not specified, and Claude Gentry hinge their arguments on their common assumptions about what is "spiritual" and what is "carnal." They appear to believe that the "tradition" of social order in the American South has somehow been mandated by God. They see "segregation" or the "color barrier" as divinely ordained. They interpret opposition to this order as "worldly"; preachers who "teach or advocate integration" are, in their eyes, seeking to become like the "denominations." To "advocate integration" is to advocate "hatred"; those who seek change in the social order are "creating" the "fear, hatred and violence" expressed by those whites who oppose them. Both Butts and Gentry imply that Americans of African descent are somehow less than fully human.

Claude Gentry ardently proclaims his "love" for "all men," and he declares that he will share in "worship" with "anyone, regardless of color or race." Yet clearly, in his mind, no "Negro" will ever seek "sincerely" to "worship in spirit and in truth" if she should seek to worship "alongside" him. A "good" Negro is a passive Negro who accepts things the way they are and willingly shoulders the baggage of segregation. Such a person is "happier" because she is fulfilling her God-intended "purpose"--to hew Brother Gentry's wood and draw his water, to come forward when summoned and otherwise to stay out of sight.

All of these authors are most offended that a publication related to Churches of Christ has chosen to "discuss" the matter of race at all. The CC has not had the courage, and perhaps its editors have not the conviction, to name the sin of racism--but these authors know in their hearts where "discussion" will inevitably lead. They may never have seen or heard R. N. Hogan, but they have surely imagined him. They know that their only hope to perpetuate their precious social superiority--a work of raw power in the service of a rancid perversion--lies in veiling it with pious silence. "Let's do not add oil to the fire," Claude Gentry pleads, "when we can do much more by remaining silent." But these editors have already lifted the veil, and it will never be restored. The proud will be scattered in the imagination of their hearts.

May God have mercy.

dhaymes, his mark +