"Segregation, What About It?"
Before the Supreme Court's ruling on segregation, I do not recall hearing "our brethren" preach any sermons opposing it, over the air, or writing any articles advocating integration . . .? ? Since the ruling however, there has been at least one radio sermon and several articles in the papers condemning segregation and urging compliance with the Supreme Court ruling on two grounds (1) we should comply with the rulings of our highest court and (2) the Bible teaches against segregation.
The first, of course would be true if the ruling is in harmony with our Constitution; many deny the constitutionality of the decision. Second, does the Bible (the law of Christ) condemn segregation? Let us notice some of the passages used by integrationists: Acts 17:26 — This passage teaches we all find a common ancestry in one, namely: Adam, but it says nothing (even by implication) about the right or wrong of segregation. We know that later Adam's posterity was SEGREGATED (by God himself) and thus we have the different races today. Did God do wrong? The answer is obvious and those who use the above passage to condemn segregation, pervert it. The passage doesn't touch the issue at all. But, someone says, "Christ came to abolish segregation." If so he came to abolish ALL segregation. It is a fact that the races are segregated; if segregation is wrong we should join the Communists and preach a "one world government." Those who favor integration are forced to this conclusion, as I see it, but are they prepared to accept it? I know not.
Galatians 2:11 — This passage is also sometime used but when so done is mis-used. Peter did not stand condemned because he was "practicing segregation" but because he was "practicing hypocrisy"; his conduct lent influence to the contention of the Jews that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. He lived as the Gentiles yet would compel them to live as the Jews. This was hypocrisy and inconsistency and thus, he stood condemned. Pt is amazing the insight some folk do have. They can see institutionalism, centralization and integration in more passages, where neither is mentioned, or implied; it does beat all, doesn't it?
Galatians 3:28 — This perhaps is the integrationists "sugar stick." They would add to Paul's words, "neither BLACK nor WHITE for we are all one man in Christ Jesus." All of us know that Christianity does not destroy nationality, sex or color. All who obey the Gospel are Christians. God no longer extends blessings to one nation that He does not extend to all others. But someone says, "Is it right for Christians to practice segregation?" I answer "we all do; even among our own color." The anti-segregationist does not live who does not practice segregation in some form. There are many physical factors that contribute to it: educational, sectional, financial, background and color. Yet, we do not think of depriving any one of the right to segregate himself from others who have different background, more finances, better education, etc. Why should one be deprived of doing the same because of color? I would not however, withhold the Gospel from those of other sections; different background; better education or color. Every city has its segregated districts (even among the white people); is that sinful? The schools have segregated the children into different classes, for various reasons, etc. No one denies the colored man equality in "spiritual matters" (this is a matter between God and him) but segregation is in the realm of "the social" and not "the spiritual." If Christianity destroys all social barriers, none escape condemnation; even the Christian (?) Chronicle.
To take from me the right to choose my children's associates is evil. Adults will be allowed to voluntarily segregate but our children will be forced to integrate. If the court has the right to force integration on our children, in the realm in which they move, (the school) they have the right to force integration on the parents of those children, in the realm in which they move, (the home, clubs, etc.) and everywhere else. If, after all, this is a matter (religious in its nature) as Brother Willeford, James Nichols, Womack and Kearley have said then what right does the Supreme Court have to force religion on us? Truth is, it is not a religious or spiritual problem but a social and political problem. Brother James Willeford preached a sermon sometime back, on the Herald of Truth Society program, and condemned segregation. I do not know whether he has any sons or daughters, but when his son or daughter marries a negro boy or girl, (with his approval) I'll say, There's one brother that believes what he preaches." I hope to see some of the so-called reformers and liberators, among us, put to just such a test. I suppose there are others, among us, who believe something on this issue . . . .? ? If so, I think they should speak out.