THE UNDERBELLY OF
THE BLACK CHURCH OF CHRIST

Of the three entities that have evolved from the Stone-Campbell Movement, only the Churches of Christ have a substantial number of black congregations. While the number is difficult to come by, estimates by black leaders themselves would suggest something like 70,000 members in about 1,000 congregations. Since the statistics of white churches have recently come to be recognized as somewhat less than once supposed, this estimate for black churches is a reasonable ballpark figure.

These churches, like our nation in general, which has officially been described as “two distinct societies, one white and one black,” are as separated from their white counterparts as if they were a separate denomination. There is almost no contact at all between white and black Churches of Christ, whether in a given locality or at a national level. The black churches have their own leadership, their own college, their own journals, and their own “Lectureship,” which is a Church of Christ euphemism for a convention, whether white or black.

There are some interesting comparisons between the white and black churches. While the black churches preserve the vigorous conservatism that was common with the white churches in pre-World War II days, they are surprisingly liberal in some areas where the right-wing white churches are reactionary. The divorce-remarriage question is not an issue among the blacks. “We don’t go around tearing up homes,” they’ll tell you. Neither do they have an authority-oriented “eldership” problem, which has already taken several white churches to court. They are more like the Baptists in that they have a strong minister-oriented polity. They do, however, unlike the Baptists, have elders, but their function is for all practical purposes subservient to the minister, who really “takes charge” of the church.

While black churches appreciate the gains made in civil rights, as do all fair-minded Americans, they do not want integration with white churches. The reason is simple and understandable. The black church, as the black schools once were, is the center of social life and blacks are in control. In integration this would be lost. Besides, black churches have in spirit a distinctly different religion. For this reason integration of black and white churches of any denomination is not a probability.

In terms of old-fashioned oratory after the order of Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King, the black preachers can preach circles around the whites. They rev it up with vim and vitality, which reminds one of the old maxim “If you don’t put fire in your sermon put your sermon in the fire.” But sometimes an impressive oratory gives way to offensive shouting, which many in the black churches do not like, especially the better educated.

And the blacks, like the whites, are getting better education, which accounts in part for the crisis these churches now face, which they identify as liberalism. But the liberal impact is caused more by a new appreciation of the person of Christ, the grace of God, and “the glorious liberty of the sons of God” than by educational progress. In practical terms “liberalism,” a vicious heresy to the black leadership, is hardly more than believing there are Christians other than among Churches of Christ.

I have been described by the black leadership as the “mentor” of the one who champions the more open view among them, and this is why I was invited to Miami to participate in the Gold Coast Restoration Forum. The forum was called to discuss the question of whether the Churches of Christ should see themselves as the only Christians or as Christians only. Some 200 gathered for the forum, their leaders being prominent ministers from far and wide, along with college administrators.

Our people generally have always insisted that while we are Christians only we are not the only Christians, a conviction that came to be expressed as a motto. It grew out of the controversy that dates back to the days of Stone and Campbell as to whether there are Christians in the sects when both Stone and Campbell answered in the affirmative. This question is supposed to be settled in the black churches, for they see the Churches of Christ as the only Christians, and they could not care less about what Stone and Campbell believed. They go strictly by the Bible, they say, and have no interest in what men have said. But when they speak they do not simply read the Bible, but give their interpretation, which they must consider important.

Yet the struggles of our pioneers in wrestling with the same problems we face and the conclusions they reached mean little or nothing. Each generation with Bible in hand has to start from scratch. History has nothing to say to us. But this ahistorical view is not only a trait of our black churches, but with all restorationsists, more or less, including our white churches. We are a people who assume to ignore the centuries, though of course no one does or can — not if he as much as uses a printed Bible in his own vernacular! We can learn much from history without considering it authoritative. Selectivity is the rule, with the Spirit of Christ ever serving as arbiter.

I was at the forum to serve as moderator for Ivory James, Jr., minister of the “S” Avenue Church of Christ in Riviera Beach, Florida, who was the bad guy and the one they were after since he believed there are Christians in other churches. This they called false doctrine and Ivory was named a heretic for believing that the likes of Martin Luther King and Billy Graham are Christians. Like their white brethren often do, they applied Scriptures to Ivory that in their context have reference to those who deny Jesus Christ, as in 2 Jn. 9; to the perverted, factious and selfcondemned, as in Tit. 3:10 and Rom. 16:17; and to those who would traffic with pagan Rome with all her gross iniquities, as in Rev. 18:4.

At one point I chided them for orating long and loud about how “We are people of the Book” and “We go by the Bible” and then twist and bend its meanings in order to “get” their own brother in Christ. At one point I referred to their use of Rev. 18:4 where it says, “Come out of her, my people,” and asked if such descriptions as “her sins are piled as high as heaven” (verse 5) and “a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird” could be applied to Ivory James and the “S” Avenue Church of Christ who are only charged with believing that there are Christians among the Baptists. To this I received a loud chorus of Yes’s! They applied to their own brother in Christ what the apostle applied to pagan Rome!

So I saw the underbelly of the black Church of Christ. Black ministers often have a less than an exemplary reputation when it comes to women. I was amazed to learn when I taught at a black college for a few years how “the pastor and his women” are taken for granted, even by the pastor’s wife! He is excused on the ground that “He’s a man.” It comes with poor grace when a man with a reputation like that rails against his brother who happens to be morally reputable, but whose only sin is that he believes God has children besides those in Churches of Christ. I called this ugly inconsistency to their attention.

The underbelly revealed incredible animosity, threats of withdrawal of fellowship, arrogance, angry shouting, and downright hostility. And now when I use the word hostility, I think of that dear black sister at the forum, who finally, like the prophet Jeremiah, grew tired of holding in and at last blasted the “bishops” for their unchristian behavior. She stood there with matriarchal authority, another trait of black homes and black churches, and told them in no uncertain terms that she didn’t like what was going on. “You hear me?” she roared at them, “I don’t like all this h o s t i l i t y. “ The way she said hostility went up and down my spine like an electric current. And the presiding brother was not about to call order on mama. When she got through with the “somewhats” they looked like “nobodies” that had just been taken to the woodshed. It was worth the trip to Miami just to see that! It was black and beautiful and eloquent. And it was the underbelly!

I was the only white on the program and except for a mixed couple in the audience the only white present, except that on the second day Ira Rice, the viceroy of orthodoxy, showed up, and I was told that he was there to take care of me, which of course would be no problem for such a one as he. But I doubt that he was there gaming for me, for he said no more than that I’d been a liberal for a long time and that I knew better than to say that Billy Graham was a brother in Christ. In any event I consider Ira an old friend, dating way back, and he is enrolled in my heart as a dear brother in Christ.

Jack Evans, president of Southwestern Christian College and “titular head” of the black churches, as some of his people put it, also criticized me, both privately and publicly, for accepting Billy Graham as a Christian. Moreover, his vice-president at the college, James Maxwell, in his “Review of the Gold Coast Restoration Forum” refers to this same error on my part.

In responding to this before the Forum I did them the way Frank Norris did the Church of Christ folk in his debate with Foy E. Wallace back in the 1930’s. In response to Wallace’s emphasis on Mk. 16:16, Norris charged that Wallace and his people did not really believe that verse, and he would prove it. He noted that he believed the gospel and had been baptized, just like Mk. 16:16 says, and yet Norris and the Church of Christ folk did not accept him as saved, as Mk. 16:16 promises.

And so I noted that Billy Graham believes the gospel and has been baptized, and so I accept him as a Christian. So I am the one who really believes Mk. 16:16, not you, I advised them. But their exclusivism even draws the line on Martin Luther King. Even though he gave his life for the cause of civil rights and for Christ, he was not a Christian since he was not a member of the Church of Christ. The “titular head” acknowledged him as a great man, but not a Christian. How could he be since he was a Baptist!

They were adamant that Graham could not be a Christian since he does not preach baptism. But the Scriptures make no such stipulation. It does not say “He who believes and preaches baptism,” but “He who believes and is baptized.” Moreover, Paul could not be a Christian on that basis, for he makes it clear that Christ sent him to preach the gospel and not to baptize. (1 Cor. 1:17). In fact I do not find any of the apostles preaching baptism. They preached Christ. I granted that once Peter preached the gospel on Pentecost (fully and completely before baptism was ever mentioned!) and sinners asked what they might do, that the apostle told them to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. I conceded that Billy Graham and all evangelists today should do likewise. But that Graham does not do this, does not mean that he does not proclaim the gospel, for baptism per se is not the gospel. The gospel is made up of facts about Christ; baptism is an act commanded of God in obeying the gospel.

In spite of my appeal that they show love and forbearance toward their brother with whom they differed, showing from Scripture that such differences are permissable, they did what they had come to do, and that was to withdraw fellowship from Ivory James, Jr., though they did agree to delay the action for 60 days. But when Ivory told them sometime later that there was no need for delay, that he welcomed the freedom that their action implied, as did his church which even celebrated the occasion, the “hierarchy” proceeded to do their thing, issuing a letter of withdrawal.

This story reveals how far we have gone toward hierarchical government. Ivory James, Jr. is responsible only to his own congregation with its elders, and only they have the scriptural right to discipline him. Since when does an ad hoc forum of preachers have the right to exclude a fellow minister from the fellowship? It is a brazen breach of the liberty we have in Christ. The preachers have the right to place matters before Ivory’s church for their consideration, but it is otherwise none of their business.

I believe the black Churches of Christ have a great deal to offer to the world and to other Churches of Christ, but they need to make some changes. First of all their leadership must come to see that by the bowels of Christ they might be wrong about some things. They must become more reasonable and responsible by shouting less and thinking more. They must cease imposing their personal opinions upon each other as tests of fellowship, and, above all, they must realize that God’s truth does not begin and end with them and that the kingdom of God on earth reaches far beyond what they call “the Church of Christ.” Their leaders must cultivate exemplary conduct, Christian character, humility, and a responsible handling of Scripture.

Even now that I have seen the underbelly I still love the black church and have hope for its future, for a change for the better among us is occurring there too. As more blacks come to see deeper dimensions of the grace of God and the glorious joy of freedom in Christ they will move farther and farther from the debilitating sectarianism that has dogged them. They will come to see that they can believe they are right without having to conclude that everyone else is wrong. Their enthusiasm, properly directed, could go far in lifting the white churches out of their doldrums. — the Editor