Dear Sisters and Brothers,

In March 1964 James Franklin Fowler, Sr., has been minister of the Central Church of Christ in Birmingham, Alabama, for three years--years of escalating racial conflict in Alabama and the American South. George Corley Wallace is Governor of Alabama, having famously proclaimed at his inauguration that there should be "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" In Birmingham all power rests in a city commission controlled by its Commissioner of Public Safety, Eugene "Bull" Connor, who maintains his rule through terror and intimidation

On 3 April 1963 Martin Luther King, Jr., and other leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference joined Fred Shuttlesworth and other members of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights in a "campaign of nonviolent direct action" that would "galvanize" Birmingham. Connor and his forces met the black protest with arrests. When the jails were full, they brought out the police dogs and the fire hoses. These images, glowing nightly on television screens, stunned the nation and the world. On one Sunday afternoon, when "several hundred" blacks who had assembled to pray refused an order to disperse, Connor shouted, "Damn it, turn on the hoses." Instead, Connor's men retreated, while the protesters marched past them and joined in prayer as they had planned. Connor was beaten, but other forces would not capitulate. They bombed King's room in the Gaston Motel and the homes and churches of local leaders. On 15 September 1963 a bomb exploded in a stairwell of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, and several young women assembled for Sunday School became unwitting martyrs for their faith and their race.

Against this background James Fowler writes "from the midst of the crisis." We may not doubt his pain, his bewilderment, or his fear. When he writes that "the situation is still explosive," we have reason to take his words quite literally.

The Christian's attitude toward men of other races should be no different in times of crisis from what it is at other times. However, an emotionally charged climate, produced by organizations whose express business it is to create tensions, may alter the Christian's decisions and actions--even if his basic attitude remains unchanged.

Justice, mercy, kindness, patience, and respect for constituted authority for every man's civil and human rights should always control our attitude and behavior. When Jesus and his disciples were refused passage through a certain village because of their race, James and John wanted to call down fire from heaven to consume the village. Jesus rebuked them saying: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:54). Race prejudice was as strong in New Testament days as today. The law (which required segregation) died with Christ on the cross, but racial customs, traditions and prejudices did not vanish in a day.

It was ten years after the church was established before the gospel was preached by Peter to Cornelius. Even then it took miraculous intervention for that to happen. At the Jerusalem conference Peter championed the Gentiles' right of full membership in the church; yet at Antioch he yielded to the pressure of "Jewish customs and influence." Paul had to rebuke him before all the church because he refused to eat with Gentile Christians after certain Jews came from Jerusalem.

At the very heart of Christianity is the doctrine of the "Fatherhood" of God and the "Brotherhood" of believers. The great commission is in direct contrast to the old Jewish law; it emphasizes the doctrine that "God is no respector of persons" and that "in Christ" there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond or free. While we may all understand the teaching of the New Testament in this regard, we do not all agree as to how best to handle the politically involved racial problems of today.

The picture of Birmingham has, in many ways, been distorted through the various news media, but like most cities where Negroes live in large numbers we have our problems.

During the year 1963 Birmingham experienced more than one serious crisis, and the situation is still explosive. What is true of Birmingham is also true of many cities over the nation and over the world. Minority groups everywhere are rising up and demanding their place under the sun. Political opportunists are constantly studying the political winds, and seeking to ride the crest of every political wind to higher office. Organizers and organizations are competing for headlines in order to gain more popular support. Reporters, racing against deadlines, are often dead wrong in their coverage. Columnist Wm. S. White has appropriately warned of the hate mongers, but he warned also of the "hysteria" merchants who "all over this land are suddenly overstating and inflaming, rather a[sic] sensibly seeking to abate, the current racial tensions" (Christianity Today, Aug. 2, 1963). Prejudices are being fed by powerful personalities and unprecedented publicity. Religious groups (both colored and white) have entered the picture in large numbers. Some high officials in some of the larger churches have made "pronouncements," but they are often different from the grass-roots practices. Pressure is being brought to bear from within and without our brotherhood for churches of Christ to get into the fight and let the world know which side we are on.

Before making up our minds as to what the church or what Christians should do in this regard let us look at the spirit of the New Testament regarding an institution of social and moral injustice which was certainly as bad, if not worse, than anything that has prevailed in this country. Human beings were being sold at the slave market in the same way that a farmer would buy a mule. Certainly the church did not defend the injustice that prevailed, but neither do we see the church seeking deadlines and other dramatic ways of letting the rulers and the populace know where they stood. They did not run from the problem, but they did not turn from their primary purpose of preaching Christ to become involved in revolutionary demands and social reforms. Listen to these Scriptures: "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing" (1 Peter 2:18 RSV). "Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (1 Cor. 7:21 RSV). "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eye-service, as menpleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily, as serving the Lord and not men. . . ." (Col. 3:22, 23 RSV). "Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brethren; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved" (1 Tim. 6:1, 2 RSV). Such instruction to slaves did not give Christian masters license to abuse and take advantage. To masters Paul said: "Treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven (Col. 4:1). Again, "forbear threatening, knowing that he is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him" (Eph. 6:9). The apostles dealt with the injustices of slavery forthrightly--but they dealt with them within the church. while they were brethren in the church--they were still "Master" and "Slave" Christians within the legal, social system that prevailed, and they did not make the church party to political movements and pressure groups. Thus, within the framework of legalized slavery the world could see within the church the spirit that could overcome an otherwise cruel situation. Such was the case of Philemon and Onesimus.

As we apply these principles to the institution of "segregation" that existed for many years as the "law of many states" (and still exists in practice) we can gain some insights into the attitudes that should prevail between the races. While the '54 decision of the supreme court changed the interpretation of the law, it must be understood that it takes much time to change customs and long established traditions. I have no defense of the injustices that have prevailed in the past and that still prevail; nor does it help to point out worse situations in some other sections. But neither can I find it within the spirit of Christianity to join the church to organized movements whose ends are not always clear, and whose motives may not always be above reproach, and whose value in the cause of justice is questioned even by many of the people whom they are supposed to help. Leaders of the "Negro Revolution" say: "We are through with gradualism" . . . ["]we cannot wait. We want our freedom now" (King). "If the Negroes can't get what they want by non-violence, you may look for blood to flow in the streets of every city in the country" (E. Franklin Jackson, Wash., D. C.). To the city of Birmingham came the threat: "Hire 25 negro policemen within two weeks or there will be more negroes in the streets of Birmingham than you can count." In the spring demonstrations when the streets were filled with negroes, including several hundred negro school children, violence erupted--and who can say who threw the first stone? When a mob fills the streets in an effort to paralyze business and create a crisis packed situation, this is an "act of violence" regardless of what negro leaders prefer to call it. When such a climate prevails for days and then from the same demonstrators come delegations (with their photographers) to test the churches, who has the right to say that church leaders are acting with hatred or prejudice or malice when they kindly tell persons (who are admittedly a part of the overall demonstration) that they do not believe that it is best under the circumstances for them to take their demonstrations into the worship? Under such circumstance and with the prepublicity given to the demonstrations, a black man entering into a congregation of whites can create an atmosphere as "politically packed" as a white robed Klansman walking into a negro church. Some churches in Birmingham admitted demonstrators, some did not. Some churches admitted them early in the demonstrations and changed their policy later. I know of no church that admitted the demonstrators in Birmingham that is presently prepared to receive them as permanent members. It is my sincere opinion that the demonstrations in Birmingham have set back race relations many years, and has lessened our communication with our own colored brethren. I have checked our colored preachers of Birmingham and found knowledge of only one member that took part in demonstrations, and she now says she would not do it again.

It is my sincere faith that this matter can be and will be worked out by congregations of the south and other sections if they are left to work out the problems in the way that seems best for their local situation. If brethren from other sections of the country flood the southern churches [205] with a lot of letters similar to some that the elders of Central received, they may be guilty of "judging" their brethren unjustly and make some admittedly bad matters worse.

I am not ready to push the panic button and climb the band wagons and try to pull the Lord's church into a "social revolution," many aspects of which I fear are as evil as the injustices the integrationists seek to correct. I am not for "looking the other way" when my brethren are unChristian in ideals and practices, but tolerance is a two-way street. We must teach, pray, admonish and grow a step at a time. The New Testament era closed with the apostles still striving to lead Jewish Christians out of racial prejudices. It is doubtful that we will ever reach a spiritual plane in this regard that is what we would call ideal. But we can never attain the spiritual growth we need by trying to dictate to one another what each church should or should not do in handling the matter. When World War II erupted, some had very strong feelings that the question of taking up arms by Christians should be debated and settled then and there. I am glad that most of our preachers and most of our editors had the wisdom to avoid a brotherhood "issue" on that very serious question during a period of emotion packed tensions. It is my hope and prayer that such discussions as this can contribute to greater understanding and sympathy rather than more misunderstandings and censure.

In this regard let us never forget that there is in the church "great freedom" to differ and that each congregation is autonomous. All of the elders should search their own hearts and determine first if there is any unChristian spirit within themselves. They should then take heed to the flock. If teaching is needed (and I know of no place it is not) each eldership must determine what is the best approach in correcting wrong attitudes. Preachers, teachers, and all Christians have this same responsibility within the scope of their work and influence. Failure to take responsible action in these times of crisis can be tragic.

Also, let us remember the principle of expediency. The same Paul that rebuked Peter for racial discrimination, and refused to give an inch to the Jews who wanted to force Titus to be circumcised, acted quite differently in other situations. He circumcised Timothy because of the Jews, and late in his ministry, due to the prejudice of certain Jewish believers in Jerusalem, he submitted to Jewish purification rites which even required animal sacrifices. Many times what appears so simple a solution in one community is quite opposite in another. Many times what appears the most "consistent" position for a church is not the most "expedient." Let us not compromise the truth on any moral issue, but let us not by our lack of patience and understanding become more a part of the problem than the answer.

James Franklin Fowler, Sr., is, at age 44, a good and decent man, a veteran evangelist and Christian educator, generous, compassionate, and well-educated. He offers wise counsel that applies to many controversial and difficult situations in the church. He knows that "failure to take responsible action by church leadership in these times of crisis can be tragic." Surely he knows that tragedy from personal experience and close observation.

Yet it must be said that there is in this essay a fundamental and fatal moral confusion that obscures and taints the wisdom of its paranesis. It is remarkable that this review of the "crisis" in Birmingham does not mention Bull Connor, the fire hoses, or the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church. James Fowler is repelled by the "demonstrations," but he is not so exercised by the policies and quasi-legal repression that gave rise to them. His life and the lives of other white citizens of Birmingham have been disrupted by forces no longer within their control; the government they elected has by its behavior subjected all the whites of Birmingham and Alabama to worldwide scorn and opprobrium. James Fowler, like many of his contemporaries, blames the demonstrations and press coverage of them for damaging "race relations" as he has known them. If he were in fact dissatisfied with the way things were, it is not at all clear that he sees any change in the social order of Birmingham as necessary or useful.

In his essay, James Fowler offers a brief quotation from Martin Luther King, Jr.: "we cannot wait. We want our freedom now." He clearly disapproves of what he construes to be the impatience of this assertion and the action that it demands; he does not know the pain and the anguish of his black sisters and brothers. Ironically, King knows Fowler's anguish well, and in Why We Can't Wait (1964) he captures the real "crisis" of Birmingham in a vivid paragraph.

In Connor's Birmingham, the silent password was fear. It was a fear not only on the part of the black oppressed, but also in the hearts of the white oppressors. Guilt was a part of their fear. There was also the dread of change, that all too prevalent fear which hounds those whose attitudes have been hardened by the long winter of reaction. Many were apprehensive of social ostracism. Certainly Birmingham had its decent white citizens who privately deplored the maltreatment of Negroes. But they remained publicly silent. It was a silence born of fear--fear of social, political and economic reprisals. The ultimate tragedy of Birmingham was not the brutality of the bad people, but the silence of the good people.

May God have mercy.

dhaymes, his mark +