The Church and Social Concern

Three distinguished Washington clergymen discuss the controversial subject of the Church’s social concern. They are Dr. Clarence Cranford, for twenty-five years pastor of Calvary Baptist Church in Washington and a past president of the American Baptist Convention; Dr. George Davis, minister of National City Christian Church, which in recent years has become known as President Johnson’s home church in Washington; and Dr. Edward L. R. Elson, minister of the National Presbyterian Church, which was President Eisenhower’s home church during his eight years in the White House. Moderator of the discussion is Editor Carl F. H. Henry ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY.This is one of a filmed series of thirteen half-hour panel discussions prepared for public-service television presentation and for use by church and college discussion groups. The series, “God and Man in the Twentieth Century,” was produced by Educational Communication Association (P.O. Box 114, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204) under a Lilly Endowment grant.

Henry: Now, gentlemen, the subject before us is the Church and social concern. In view of the American principle of separation of Church and state, ought the Church to become concerned and involved in national affairs?

Cranford: Well, I think the Church must try to reflect God’s love for people. If it is going to do that, there are times when it must take a stand either for or against some things that are happening to people, even in the political realm.

Davis: I think the Church is involved whether it wants to be or not. It’s involved by indifference. But it needs to use caution and judgment and much prayer to know how to be involved and how fully.

Elson: I think it needs to be understood that the founding fathers intended that there should be complete separation of the organized institutions of the Church from the organized institutions of government, which is not the same as the elimination of religion from national affairs and from social concerns.

Henry: Well, how, and to what extent—in what way—ought institutional religion to become politically involved?

Cranford: Everything that affects the lives of people is the concern of the Church. As Dr. Davis has said, how the Church should be involved is a thing about which we need to pray and think very carefully. But that it should be involved I think is without question.

Davis: The Church has to follow its conscience—that is, individual members, including the clergy—but we must be very careful not to presume that our conscience is the conscience of the whole Church. And so we must be cautious about the extent in which we become involved in political and social concerns.

Elson: It seems to me that the Church should first of all be certain that it preserves and works everlastingly at its primary responsibility, which is the salvation of souls, the ordering of souls. Its chief contribution is to be the Church at all times, and by being the Church it does exercise an influence on social issues of the day. Perhaps the primary obligation is to produce the kind of people who, in the crisis moments of history, bearing the responsibilities of government, can make the highest possible moral choice.

Cranford: I agree with that, Dr. Elson, because I think we can spend our time trying to bring about changes, even good changes, and end up with society pretty much as it is because people themselves have not been changed. And we can’t do that even by our brilliance; this is something that God alone can do. So that our first responsibility is to bring people into a vital relationship with God.

Davis: Well, I think today the clergyman has to be very careful about his own personal arrogance. The Protestant conception is that every man is a priest, and if a clergyman can have a revelation from God, a politician can have one. There seems to be a very marked arrogance on the part of some clergymen today, as if they had a direct pipeline to God that maybe the President didn’t have, or the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense didn’t have. And I think it’s at this point that we need to be very, very careful.

Elson: There are times when the Church would be very remiss, it seems to me, if it did not enunciate clearly the principles of its own faith and life and its expectation for the transformation of human society and our own American culture and life. It seems to me that especially at moments when we might be threatened with idolatry, the absolutizing of some aspect of national reality and lifting this to the level of deity, and the threat of some personality’s being identified as a sort of human messiah—in these instances the Church would certainly be failing if it did not declare what it believed to be the truth and the wisdom of God for this moment. There the prophet of God speaks for God not only in condemnation of what is wrong but also in the assertion of what ought to be right and what ought to be God’s will in this moment.

Henry: Do you think the organized Church, the Church as an organized body, ought to endorse candidates for political office?

Davis: I think it ought to be very careful. I can think of extreme cases in which one man would be so completely immoral, another man so completely moral, that the Church would have a very easy choice. But I think the Church ought to be very cautious in giving its endorsement to particular candidates. It can speak very clearly on principles so that its view becomes apparent, but I think this is very dangerous.

Cranford: I do think that sometimes we need to encourage our people not to let religious bigotry decide what candidate they will support. But I would agree with your caution. I remember once by implication I took a stand because of certain personal convictions against a man in the political realm. He turned out to be one of the best administrators the office had ever had. So then I had to swallow my words later on.

Elson: I remember the episode, I think, quite well. A good many other leaders in the Christian churches of Washington felt as Dr. Cranford did. But this particular person in discharging the responsibilities of his office surprised a good many of his opponents and certainly became in the public image a different kind of person than some of the pulpits had been describing him to be before his appointment. The important thing, it seems to me, is that the Church should not always be in the role of judgment and condemnation. There are times when the important role is for the Church to commend those men of integrity and high purpose who do good things within government. In this, sometimes, in my experience and observation, we’ve either been belated or totally negligent.

Davis: Perhaps this leads me to say that I think clergy men—and I am one—and the Church lack the humility to confess having been wrong. Personally I think we were right in our involvement in the Dominican Republic.

Henry: You mean the Church or the nation?

Davis: I mean the nation. But the nation got kicked all over the place, so to speak, for its involvement. When it turned out fairly well to be right, fairly evident it was correct, there seemed to be little evidence of apology or admission by those in error that they were in error. I think humility would be good for all of us to have.

Elson: Dr. Henry, this is a case in point. The Ambassador of the United States to the Dominican Republic at the time the episode took place some months ago just happened to be one of my parishioners and a former Sunday school teacher, who had been trying to take his Christian dedication into his public service, and did. I’d be very curious to know whether anybody besides his own pastor ever sent a letter assuring Ambassador Bennett that we were praying for him, that the people of America in the Christian churches prayed for God’s guidance and for wisdom higher than his own human wisdom to come to him and to those associated with him. I think we’re much more prone to condemn and to criticize and to assail them with negations than we are to assure them of our prayers and our support.

Henry: Dr. Cranford, have you ever used your influence as a clergyman to bring pressures upon a member of your church to vote in a given way on legislative issues, such as civil-rights legislation, or minimum wages, or whatever else?

Cranford: Well, in personal conversation with some congressmen who happen to be friends, I’ve indicated where I stood, and I certainly have discussed principles from the pulpit in the light of which I hoped they would take certain action. I can remember one congressman who called me up to his office to tell me what he was going to do about a certain thing, and I think doing it cost him his office, because he was not re-elected. This was not a popular cause in his own area, but he did it because he thought his Christian convictions required him to do it.

Elson: Dr. Cranford, I think that on such a program as this, if we were to announce to Washington or to the rest of the world that we had guided people to a decision in some crisis moment in the exercise of their office, this would be a violation of the pastoral office. This is a holy rather sacred relationship between pastor and parishioner, and therefore I would be very reluctant to bring even to you as my colleagues, Dr. Davis and Dr. Cranford, a report of particular episodes, because we must preserve the usefulness of the pastoral office with our parishioners in all the years to come. Therefore I would simply say that there have been occasions when in the confidence of the pastoral relationship persons have sought some guidance as to how they ought to act, vote, or make directions of other persons under their jurisdiction in particular moments. And I’ve tried to lift this to the highest possible moral position in giving that judgment, but always allowing the judgment and the decision to be made by the conscience of the man himself.

Cranford: I think Dr. Davis gets a lot of letters these days asking him to bear his direct influence on the President.

Davis: I don’t think once in all of my ministry I’ve ever directly by letter or word suggested to a man how he ought to vote. I’m sure I may have had a little influence—how much I don’t know—at times. But never directly—perhaps wrongly so, but it’s against my basic pattern of behavior to do this. Never once in all of my ministry.

Elson: Dr. Davis, having had something of the same experience you’re now having, I’m just curious to know if you get a lot of letters from persons who want to use you as the avenue of access to the President in order to influence political action, appointments to high office, and matters of this sort?

Davis: I get many letters of all kinds, not only advocating but blaming me for the actions taken, and some of them I’d be very glad to take the credit for, but I have never once—my opinion has been asked at times.…

Elson: The most difficult period of my ministry in twenty years in Washington was the time immediately preceding the execution of the Rosenbergs, because Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, whose agency had something to do with apprehension and prosecution of these persons, was a parishioner of mine, and the President of the United States, who had the authority to change the verdict and prevent their execution, was also a parishioner. And it seemed as though a great many churchmen felt that the Church was the avenue of approach on this, rather than the White House staff and the processes of justice. At one time my mail ran something like 264 pieces a day for a period of four months.

Davis: I would like to say that I have often commended men by a letter or word of mouth for actions they have taken after they were taken.

Henry: Dr. Davis, how do you think the minister of the church ought to influence the members of his congregation so that their great beliefs will carry over into daily action?

Davis: Well, I think first of all you ought to express your own convictions of conscience, but always within the framework “I could be wrong.” This may be a sort of negative way to preach the Gospel. But I’ve never been sure enough that I had a direct pipeline to God and that my enunciations were the prophetic voice for God. There has always been a feeling this could be wrong. And within this context I present my opinions and my views prophetically but always with a hesitancy and a feeling that this could be the wrong answer.

Cranford: Well, Dr. Davis, I’ve had this problem because I keep reminding myself that I’m not a politician, I’m not an economist. There are people who know so much more than I in these other areas. I’m a clergyman, and I have to keep thinking of the ministry of the Church and reminding the people who are politicians and economists that they are the Church if they’re Christians. The Church isn’t just something to which people go. The Church is something that goes with them wherever they go, so that when they vote, or when they take a stand on a certain issue, if they’re Christians they are representing the Church, and they ought to remember this. They’re not just acting as politicians or as economists; if they’re Christian they are acting as Christian politicians and Christian economists.

Elson: Dr. Cranford, I think, is getting to the crux of it, that Christian work is being a Christian at your work, whatever that may be, and that every vocation should be deemed a holy vocation in which we serve God and his purpose. I like the first words of our catechism, that the chief end of man is to glorify God, that is, to exalt God in whatever we do. But it’s important for us to remember that we have to be pastor to all kinds of people, and not create barriers that separate us from some people because we are serving other people.

Cranford: I believe in separation of Church and state; but if we separate worship and work, then that’s tragic.

Davis: One of our greatest contributions as clergymen would be to encourage people to go into various professions like politics and journalism with the feeling that all callings are sacred and are to be used sacredly.

Elson: Dr. Davis, do you think a new foreign policy for the Church would be in order, and a new strategy, say, of foreign missions—encouraging dedicated and competent Christians to enter the foreign service, for example? And when they go to another country, instead of putting their Bible under the shelf, be unashamed of having it out on the table; be unashamed of going to the service of worship in the foreign capital to which they’ve been sent. Because perhaps the most effective witness that can be made today is simply being a Christian where you are and showing the world that this is the way Christians behave; these are the kind of persons who are Christian.

Cranford: One of the trouble spots in the world now is Guatemala. This is where the Communists are trying to take over. Well, it gives me a great deal of assurance to know that our Ambassador there is a wonderful Christian man who has talked with his pastor about some of the stands he ought to take.

Davis: This is being very personal, and you’ll pardon me. I’ve had a son on a Polaris submarine the last year as a doctor. And I think that he is serving God there just as effectively as I serve God in the pulpit. Some people may not agree with this. But I think we should encourage men to feel that the job they do, if it’s legitimate, is a sacred profession. The thing we do about politicians, particularly, is just to kick them to death. I wish we could somehow overcome this disease.

Henry: What do you think about the way in which religion and political elections are more and more becoming involved with each other? That is, the question is raised about a Catholic’s right to a political office, a Jew’s right to a political office, a Protestant’s right to a political office. Is there a religious right to office? What about the way in which this whole question is debated today?

Davis: I think there is a human right to office, and it’s irrespective of a man’s relationships, which happen to be accidental, quite often—even his religious relationships arc sometimes accidental. But I do think you take these things into consideration because they do influence a man’s life, his religion, his slant on every conceivable subject.

Elson: Dr. Davis, there is not only a human right; there’s also a constitutional right which every citizen has if he is qualified for office. And I think the view a man has of reality, of the cosmos, his view of man and man’s personal dignity, his inherent freedom, and so on, is very, very important. I believe, for example, that the theist is very likely to have a higher view of the atheist than the atheist has of himself. And therefore I’m happier if a man is in office who gets his judgment and his view of human life from some transcendent authority beyond himself.

Henry: Suppose one held religious views that involved certain attitudes on pacifism, or on birth control, or on health and sickness, or on racial discrimination—any variety of issues. Do you think it ought to be determined whether one believes that these sectarian commitments should be translated as an instrument of national policy? Do you think that this would have a significant bearing?

Cranford: I think every man has a right to his personal convictions. But if he is in public office he has to remember that there may be other points of view and he has to keep all these points of view in mind if he’s going to be a good American leader.

Elson: This is correct, and I think we’ve seen this illustrated in recent presidents. For example, President Eisenhower had for himself a very clear set of Christian convictions and items of personal faith, but when he spoke for and to the American people he spoke in the terms of a general theistic faith which encompassed pretty much the public philosophy. It’s very important, however, to all of us to know that in a man’s personal life he has some very deep and self-directing convictions about religion and God and Christ and the disciplines of the spirit.

Henry: Would you mind getting back for a moment to the question of ministerial involvement in social concerns? Did any of you march on Selma, or have you picketed or demonstrated in Washington, and do you think a clergyman ought to?

Davis: Well, Dr. Henry, I didn’t march on Selma or anywhere else. Perhaps it’s a cowardly answer, or perhaps oversimplification, but my conscience didn’t tell me to. But in the second place, and more important, I sensed at the very beginning that, within the framework of an American democracy, these demonstrations held the potential of something far different than what they started out to be, and time has shown this to be so. I was afraid of it at the beginning and I’m still afraid of it. I believe in dissent—don’t misunderstand me—but not in the framework in which it’s been expressed too much within recent days.

Cranford: Well, Dr. Henry, I think what Dr. Davis has said is true. They can get out of hand. I am persuaded that some things have been accomplished by demonstrations, in getting greater justice and rights for some people, that would not have been accomplished without some demonstrations. So I did march in the freedom march here in Washington because I felt the Church could not afford to stand on the sidelines when the issue of human rights was at stake. I was of two minds about Selma. I admire those whose conscience told them to go. In this case I did not go because I felt I should not invade another man’s area to tell him what to do until I had done something about my own area first. And so I feel that my responsibility is to try to get more justice, more human rights for my fellow men here in Washington before I tell Selma what to do.

Elson: Dr. Cranford, I think I would have to report that the congregation over which I preside, being the National Presbyterian Church, takes the official attitude of the denomination in most of these matters. And in the freedom and justice demonstrations several summers ago, the church was officially appointed by officers of our church as a sort of information center and resource place to which people might rally if they were to take part in the march. I did not take place in this particular march because I felt that my relationships and place of service are such that I can choose to do other things. I honor those who have participated in this kind of demonstration, and I believe that under certain circumstances these demonstrations have emphasized the crisis which is upon us and have actually accelerated action. However, the use of the same method for every kind of conceivable question involving human rights I think is unnecessary and ineffectual. Such actions should be very carefully chosen. Otherwise they become.…

Davis: I wish we had time to discuss the march on Washington and all of the safeguards, all of the protection, the military might of the United States, everything given to that march that kept it what it was. I keep thinking, what if you had a thousand Watts at one time, or a thousand Ciceros at one time, demanding the protection of the National Guard at one time? I wish we had time to discuss all this.

Henry: Dr. Davis, how do you think the Church best serves human betterment or promotes it?

Davis: I think men have to follow their consciences. I respect the men who take the other viewpoint; I think they must follow their consciences—being willing to pay the penalty for following their consciences. I think we should encourage men to go into the professions where they can influence decisions toward justice.

Henry: What is the relevance of the preaching of the Gospel of repentance to the pressing social problems and concerns that we have today?

Elson: Well, many of our concerns go back to the old concept of sin, and what is sin? It’s separation from God, and man as an individual can be separated, isolated from God, and his whole collective order can be. The trouble with today’s world is that individuals need reconciliation with God and reconciliation to one another. And part of the mission of the Church is to help reconcile men through the message of Christ.

Henry: What troubles you most, Dr. Cranford, about the American scene at the present time?

Cranford: I’m troubled by a drift away from some of the great principles on which our nation was founded. Unquestionably there has been moral erosion because men have gotten away from a consciousness of God. I believe that primarily I have a Gospel to preach, and this Gospel says that God himself involved himself in history in the person of Christ, and that if I’m going to be involved 1 must be involved in his spirit and through the kind of relationship to God he came to establish.

Henry: Dr. Davis, what troubles you?

Davis: Well, in addition to something that troubles me, I think one of the hopeful signs is that the world is troubled. No generation has ever been more troubled than ours. This is a good sign. We’re troubled, we do have a conscience about it. The thing that bothers me most is that the Church is unwilling to live in what Niebuhr called the age between the ages, in an age in which you simply cannot predict what’s going to happen and must live by faith.

Henry: Dr. Elson?

Elson: We Christians are troubled. The hope is that we know we’re troubled; this suggests to me that we have some sensitiveness to the deterioration of morals. There is no question but what many people have jettisoned their heritage and cast aside the great conventions and traditions of the past and walk over the Ten Commandments as though they were irrelevant. I think there is cause for alarm that there ceases to be any objective, uniformly accepted standard of moral judgment such as the moral law and the Ten Commandments to which we may repair to determine what is right and wrong.

Henry: We’re agreed that many of the finest things in modern civilization have their roots in the Christian faith, and that inevitably these features will wither from the social scene unless the Christian faith is appropriated and nourished. This is the issue before us when we face the big question of the Church and social concern. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for an illuminating and instructive panel.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.