Dear Sisters and Brothers,

As the campaign for civil rights spreads and intensifies throughout the Southern United States, publications and pulpits of the Churches of Christ remain remarkably silent. Only the Christian Chronicle and the <> have expressed any concern for race relations in the church. In the months following the Kennedy assassination--as it becomes clear that Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" will have no place for the social arrangements favored by the unReconstructed--preachers, professors, college presidents, and publishers turn to face the inevitable. They do not relish the task, and some of them frankly resent it. With one voice they deny that they are "racist," for overt racism, publicly expressed, is no longer fashionable. Yet nostalgia for the passing order is palpable. They would prefer to remain silent, but the black struggle for dignity and decency can no longer be ignored.

By March 1964 Reuel Lemmons has "received scores of articles on the subject of integration, both pro and con." Now, with obvious reluctance and great disdain, he will publish two of them--a blistering attack on racism by Maurice Ethridge and criticism of the civil rights movement in Birmingham by a "Southern moderate," James F. Fowler. These essays will now break the silence on race in the Firm Foundation, but not before the Editor has his say. Out of the abundance of his heart, Reuel will write. We may not doubt that he expresses not only his own mind but that of his constituency; he speaks as a man of power for men of power. Let us attend to his words.

The social and political question of integration has been boiling for generations. Within recent years it has reached explosive proportions. As in all other questions there are a number of brethren who are sure they know how to solve the problem of integration. They are dead sure they are right and that all others are prejudiced and unchristian. And they do not hesitate to say so. And they want it printed. We have received scores of articles on the subject of integration, both pro and con. Up until now we have not printed any of them. We think our reasons for not doing so were legitimate.

In this week's paper we are publishing two articles. We do not now intend to publish any more soon. And while we are at it we feel a few things need to be said from an editorial standpoint. Many of the most positive among the writing brethren on this subject have not lived long enough yet to know enough about the many and deeprooted aspects of this problem to be as positive as they propose to be.

It would do good if all would carefully restudy the scriptures regarding the nature of the church. Christianity and the church were neither planned in heaven nor commissioned on earth to revolutionize existing governments nor to uproot social structures. Rather, Christianity was designed to live and to flourish under any kind of government. Governments do not exist tyrannical nor corrupt than was the government of Rome, and moral climate was never more adverse than in the Greek world. The church was (and is) in the world; but it was not of the world.

Slavery was an accepted norm of the first century. Slavery had nothing to do with integration so far as race is concerned, but it did have to do with integration so far as caste is concerned. There are many types of segregation and they are caused by various things--language--culture--social status--race and even occupation, for Paul segregated himself to live with Acquila and Priscilla because they were tent makers and so was he. He felt he had not sinned by so segregating himself. Even the Lord went off into the desert alone. The world will continue to have its segregation problems long after all of us do-gooders have passed on. Segregative practices will never be legislated out of existence. Some may, but others will arise. And brethren who fight one practice will be the first to practice another.

We do not believe that segregation has ever been a problem with the Lord's church. In my lifetime I remember only one man, in my early childhood, who would deny any human being the right to enter the kingdom of God. I know many thousands of brethren, but only one who was "off" on this point. Name any other religious question under heaven and I believe I can name more brethren who are "off" on it than on this one. It is universally believed among us that "in every nation, those who fear God and work righteousness are acceptable unto him." And certainly if they are acceptable to God they are acceptable to us. Since the day of Pentecost we have had integration in the kingdom of heaven and have believed in it. If that were not true we would not send missionaries to others. We go to men of every race and of every caste and of every vocation with the gospel, offering them the same terms and the same promises and when they accept the gospel we count them our brothers. The kingdom of heaven is the most completely integrated institution we know, and all the brethren accept all the brethren as brethren. We have never had a problem here.

There are social relationships between people who are brethren in the Lord that may present problems. Some of these problems have a valid basis and some do not. When Paul segregated himself from Barnabas at the beginning of his second missionary journey we believe he had a right to do so. We do not think it was a sin, and, somehow, we can't help but be glad that some of our brethren are not there to set the old fellow straight on this matter of integration.

On the other hand, when segregation springs from pride, vainglory, sophistication, or any other sinful characteristic it cannot be defended. Really it is but then the result of these other sins, and when we attack the symptom rather than the disease we can hardly expect to cure it. It doesn't render the rattlesnake harmless to cut off its rattles; the poison is at the other end. Paul withstood Peter because of Peter's segregation of himself from the Gentiles.

Segregation is not a "Southern problem," nor is it a modern one. Neither is it limited to a color line. The thing that pains us most is that those who know the least about it are the ones who always have the answers. They are like children --smartest at the age of 4 and 17. At 4 they know all the questions and at 17 they know all the answers. Any problem regarding human rights has two sides and the ignoring of either side will bring nothing but heartache.

Editorials in the FF are unsigned, but no one may doubt under whose aegis they appear. Reuel Lemmons is a master of ecclesial politics at the grass roots who knows "many thousands of brethren" and knows them well. No one better reflects or exemplifies the mind of that constituency. His power base is in Texas, but his influence ranges far beyond. He is a "shepherd of the people," and he takes that burden seriously--and pastorally, as well as politically.

When Eldridge Cleaver writes from his prison cell of "old, funny-styled, zippermouthed political night riders" who seek "the cause of unrest among the youth," he has in mind the generation of Reuel Lemmons, the generation that rules the United States and the Churches of Christ. That generation is now confronted with dissent and criticism from young people who "have not lived long enough yet" but "know all the answers." They are answering questions that Reuel Lemmons and his generation have not asked. Their impertinence is painful. As we read the articles that the Editor has now selected for publication, we shall see the opposing monologues passing as ships in the night. If we wait for "dialogue," then we are still waiting.

May God have mercy.

dhaymes, his mark +