Of recent articles concerning the clergy of the Deep South, some have been instructive and informative, others have been neither. Even the most helpful of articles have shown little appreciation of the real situation that is faced by the clergy of the Deep South.
A historian who has devoted his life to the history of the South remarked recently that it was difficult for him to read the southern daily papers and remember that he was reading contemporary newspapers, so closely did they resemble papers of Richmond in 1844. Unless we appreciate the mood of the South in these days, we can hardly evaluate accurately the crisis facing the clergy there.
Both liberals and conservatives in the South are facing dilemmas that call for basic revaluation of ideas which in another generation seemed sound. It should not be assumed that the liberal is the only one meeting new and soul-searching problems amidst the bombings, boycotts, and court rulings. (It seems that most of the clergy of the Deep South are facing winds that put new parts in their hair.) As one who assumes that the clergy of the Deep South are no better and no worse than the other clergy of America, I should like to share some of the conclusions I have drawn from a study of the situation in Alabama, before the Deep South clergy are read out of the Church as “liberals who have no concept of sin” or as “hopeless mossbacks.”
CHURCH AND STATE
The relationship of Church and State poses the most agonizing situation which the southern clergy of any theological stripe have to face. In their present attitudes toward the problem of Church and State, conservatives and liberals have switched camps. Fortresses formerly manned by the liberals are now defended by the conservatives. Ideas long considered hallowed by conservatives are now given new life by liberals, but for a different reason. Confusion is enhanced by the fact that the federal government and the local government are making demands of the citizens of the Deep South which are diametrically opposed. The federal government says to the South “integrate,” and sends troops to show that it means business. State and local governments say “remain segregated,” and send police to show that they mean business. Religion, which is theoretically a cohesive agent in a state, must now decide for whom it will be a cohesive agent.
Southern Baptist and other more conservative groups have long and ceaselessly advocated the absolute separation of Church and State, particularly as it relates to public education. Yet when the public schools were closed in Arkansas, it was the Southern Baptist churches that first allowed their church buildings to be used for schools. Although it seems that the Baptists have accepted no state money for their schools, they have accepted money which was in part raised by the pleas of state officials. Methodists, who have long defended the public schools, now find themselves, in Alabama at least, in the school business open to the public. Most clergy of the Deep South recognize that local church budgets and solicited gifts are not sufficient to operate good schools. Moreover, they recognize that the end of public schools in the South is a very real possibility. The natural reserve which the clergy feel about the church entering an area it has historically considered the domain of the state is intensified because they are aware that Roman Catholics in the South already have in operation schools that would take the Protestants years and millions of dollars to match. It seems, at least in theory, that any attempt to provide state funds for church schools would be opposed by every major Protestant group. Yet, so far as I know, there have been few if any significant protests from the clergy concerning the possibility of the church expanding its function in public education. Both traditionally and presently, the clergy of the Deep South have advocated the separation of Church and State. It seems that in these tense days there has been no significant change in sentiment, and yet the clergy face pressure from lay groups requesting the use of churches for schools—or, in other words, the assumption by the church of a function historically ascribed to the state. This is one dilemma the clergy of the Deep South face in their theoretical conception of the state.
CONCEPT OF LAW
Another perplexing problem for southern clergy is the necessity for change in the concept of law by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals who vigorously fought segregation when it was the “law of the land” are now pressing for integration on the ground that it is the “law of the land.” Liberals who once opposed the use of the Justice Department to prevent unions are now in sympathy with the use of the Justice Department to bring about integration. Some who have disobeyed and encouraged others to disobey the draft laws are now commending to people the “law of the land.” Furthermore, the plea to obey the law of the land is complicated in that the South faces two laws of the land—that of the federal government and that of the local government. Liberals are faced with the dilemma that their plea to obey the law of the land per se makes the claim of state laws as legitimate as the claims of federal government. Liberals also realize that violence is the order of the day if federal laws are to be enforced in the South. They seem increasingly aware that they have developed no concept of law to meet the present crisis, and yet they feel that the federal law has a claim on the South in the segregation-integration controversy.
When the conservatives have faced the problem of two laws that are diametrically opposed, they too have offered their allegiance without reference to a philosophy of law. Thus, without a philosophy of law, both liberal and conservative face a predicament when confronted by the necessity for practical decision in a section where the social core is being threatened.
PROFESSIONAL ASPIRATION
When an able man such as Representative Brooks Hays, congressman, and president of the Southern Baptist Convention, is defeated by a “write-in” vote by a man whose major qualification for office is his claim to be “an ardent segregationist,” the situation indicates the professional insecurity that even moderates face in the political arena. The clergy’s position is equally precarious. Men of every denomination have been forced to leave the South in recent months to find work in less tense areas. Not long ago, ministers of two of the largest congregations of their denomination, one a Methodist and the other a Presbyterian, were forced to leave Alabama because of their comments about segregation. An interracial group which only a short time ago had an attendance of 150, mostly clergy, is reported to have had at a recent meeting an attendance of ten, none of whom were white clergy. Though professional aspiration was only one factor involved in this decline in attendance, it seems to have been an important one.
One must realize that the background and education of many of the clergy of the Deep South make it impossible for them to compete at a significant level for pastorates in other parts of the country. Even those with superior education and ability do not qualify to join the caste of “conference jumpers.” Marx had his Engels to support him and his family. Winstanley could rely upon his “diggers.” Lilburne could count on the support of the small merchants of London. Martin Luther could rely upon the support of the princes. Martin Luther King can rely upon the Negroes of Montgomery and interested parties all over America. But the average minister of the Deep South would be forced to leave the ministry if he became “undesirable.”
Many of the clergy of the South face the dilemma of providing for families acquired long before the present crisis precipitated. Therefore, it is a dilemma for those who both feel they should take part in the revolution but also have professional aspirations as well as the practical necessity of providing for a family.
The quest for professional security also poses acute problems for conservatives who sincerely believe that integration is not only undesirable but wrong. Many of them seem to feel that the freedom of the pulpit is threatened when clergy are punished for their preaching. And few who sympathize with segregation seem willing to use the pulpit to enhance their status. Conservatives face the problem of defending the freedom in the pulpit without being identified with integration.
INSTITUTIONAL MAINTENANCE
The recent failure of the two largest Presbyterian groups in America to unite, and the persistent efforts of southern churchmen to maintain the jurisdictional system in the Methodist Church, offer some indication of the deep-seated sympathy for segregation among southern clergy and laity. That the largest Baptist body in America is still labelled the Southern Baptist Convention further indicates this sympathy.
Clergymen of the Deep South are faced with the task of preaching the Gospel in such a climate and ministering to the people who compose the culture of the South. Furthermore, they face the task important in some circles, of adding members and raising money. Many of the clergy must maintain the church and yet preach a gospel which they feel has something to say about the social order. That they may have to choose between the church they love and the Gospel which called them poses a serious predicament for many.
Where there is tension, there is power. How the Deep South clergy will react in the face of these dilemmas, only God knows.
Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.
