The Decline and Fall of the Southern Presbyterian Church, Part 1
This is a sad story, but it must be told and remembered, for the good of our children and our children’s children. It’s a lesson on how politics affects the church, for good or ill, and how keeping covenant with God and our people usually overlaps. It’s a story of strong men who remained faithful in the face of liberal aggression, but whose resolve was slowly chipped away, and by the time they determined to separate from brothers turned enemies, they were already too much like them. The leveling wind had brought them low, and they could no longer articulate why their fathers had built defenses against it.
First, some definitions of terms.
PCUSA – The original American Presbyterian body founded in 1706 at Philadelphia. Also known as the Northern Presbyterian Church (1861-1958).
PCUS – The (Southern) Presbyterian Church in the United States (1861-1983), which formed one month after Lincoln made war on the South. Southern Presbyterians split from their Northern counterparts over the Gardiner Spring Resolutions of the PCUSA which required that Southern church members betray their Confederate governments. Southerners viewed this as a violation of the “spirituality of the Church” doctrine to which both North and South subscribed, and therefore an unwarranted binding of conscience.
The “spirituality of the Church” doctrine has great relevance for everything that follows. It comes from the Westminster Confession of Faith (31.4):
“Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.”
UPCUSA – The United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, formed by a union of the PCUSA and the UPNA in 1958.
PCA – The Presbyterian Church in America, which broke away from the UPCUSA in 1973 over its increasing liberalism. It was initially called the National Presbyterian Church, then it was renamed as the PCA in 1974.
PC(USA) – The apostate mainline body of Presbyterians today, formed in 1983 from a merger of the PCUS and UPCUSA.
The Federal Council – An ecumenical liberal organization founded in 1908 to promote the Social Gospel movement. It advocated for “racial justice” and warm concepts like international peace. In 1950, it merged with other agitators to form the National Council of Churches.
NCC – The National Council of Churches, the largest ecumenical body today, comprising about 38 liberal and apostate “churches,” representing over 100,000 congregations and roughly 40 million people.
WCC – The World Council of Churches was founded in 1948 in the Netherlands, now representing about 580 million worldwide. It’s mainly supported by the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church, and the Presbyterian Church (USA). The Roman Catholic Church participates but is not a full member.
The NCC and WCC support higher criticism of the Bible, reject infallibility, redefine Christology, support the ordination of sodomites, and push universalism and a globalist and egalitarian political agenda.
According to Morton Smith, in his book How is the Gold Become Dim, up until 1941, prior to Pearl Harbor, the PCUS “had not yet seriously departed from her standards.” This changed with the 1942 GA, after Americans had become involved in the war. Suddenly, the church was ready to get involved in politics. In the same year, Dr. L. Nelson Bell and the Rev. Henry Dendy protested by founding the Southern Presbyterian Journal. (Bell would later become Billy Graham’s father-in-law.)
All through the timeline that follows, the PCUS was giving financial support to the Federal Council and the NCC, and the Journal editors hated it. These councils advocated every Marxist, revolutionary measure that would afflict Presbyterians and many other Christians in the years to come.
In the first editorial of the first issue of the Journal in 1942, Bell writes:
“One of the symptoms of the underlying disease is misapprehension as to the mission of the Church. The Federal Council has caused confusion and resentment by constant meddling, in the name of the Church, in economic, political, social and racial matters, and in the affairs of State.”
In 1943, the PCUS GA exceeded their ecclesiastical duties, petitioning the President of the United States
“for a continuing collaboration of the United Nations… The peace must establish procedures for controlling military establishments everywhere. The peace must establish in principle, and seek to achieve in practice, the right of individuals everywhere to religious and intellectual liberty.”
In March 1944, Bell writes,
“[T]here is a line which must be drawn and which must not be crossed. This line was, we believe, established by God when He made men of different races. While Paul stated in his sermon on Mars Hill, ‘God…hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,’ he goes on and specifically states that God also determined ‘the bounds of their habitation.’
We wish to affirm that we do not believe that segregation is un-Christian. In fact, it is a kindness to those of both races…
This line which is fixed is racial… Racial difference is a fact which no human philosophy can change.
This line is also biological. Cross the line and half-breeds result.”
In July 1945, a Rev. Robinson writes that if the recommendation of the Federal Council was followed to “support all efforts to wipe out discriminations,” the “amalgamation of the races may be expected to ensue.”
On March 15, 1946:
“In serving our colored brethren in the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, we should be free to do so in ways that would not encourage them to think that we expect the amalgamation of the races.”
On May 15, 1946:
“If we have to choose between segregation of the races and race riots, we prefer segregation of the races, or even ‘Jim Crowism.’ The Negro as well as the white man has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
“I certainly hold to the inspired testimony that ‘God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on the face of the earth’… But there is no escape from the corresponding testimony, Biblical and historical, that the human family, originally one, has been divided into certain large groups for the purpose of being kept historically distinct. And all attempts, in every age of the world, and from whatever motives, whether of ambitious dominion or of an infidel humanitarianism, to force these together, are identical in aim and parallel in guilt with the first usurpation and insurrection of the first Nimrod…
The true policy of both races (meaning the whites and the negroes) is that they shall stand apart in their own social grade, in their own schools, in their own ecclesiastical organizations, under their own teachers and guides; but with all the kindness and helpful cooperation to which the old relations between the races and their present dependence on each other would naturally predispose.
I have said to the representatives of the black race, as I have had opportunity, you gain nothing by a parasitic clinging to the white race; and immeasurably less, by trying to jostle them out of place… Were I a black man, I should plead for a pure black race, as, being a white man, I claim it for the white race; and should only ask the opportunity for it to work out its mission.
“Noah in righteous indignation, knowing the lower moral and, probably, mental character of Ham, either with divine approval, or of his own intuition, said: ‘Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren’…
Noah then blessed his two loyal sons, and with each blessing repeated the curse poured forth upon Ham in the name of his son Canaan — ‘and Canaan shall be his servant’… How truly has that prophesy been fulfilled during more than forty centuries since its utterance…
The Federal Council of Churches, and some of our own and other denominations are now making forced social fellowship rather than belief in salvation through Christ, the standard of Christianity, with the intermarriage of whites and full-blooded Negroes legal in eighteen states and the District of Columbia and the intermarriage of whites and mixed-bloods of varying degrees of admixture legal in nineteen others. That, with closer social and physical contact, is the specter looming up before us, together with an increasing number of extra-marital mixed births
[Nehemiah:] ‘I contended with them and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.’ That was far from the social or religious intercourse advocated so vigorously today with the black children of Ham living amongst us. It is unnatural. It means race destruction. It is contrary to the teaching of God’s word. The true Negro knows that it is not natural, he does not desire it, and is making no effort to bring that about. It is the mulattoes who make the stir for racial unity. The true Negroes are much happier and better satisfied in developing their own varying culture as they have always contentedly done.
We should however extend them the hand of Christian fellowship and render all aid possible in teaching and guiding them along right lines. That need not involve social contact with social intermarriage with the mixed breeds, as the end result.
Even within our own race, types of society and culture based upon heritage, education, and mode of living, separate almost as clearly as does race itself.
It should not be considered a crime or unchristian when an educated and highly cultured person and one entirely the opposite cannot associate together upon terms of social intimacy.
The same is true, if they almost unconsciously and without studied purpose find themselves even in churches, separating into homogeneous groups
About the only text quoted for the strained ‘interracial brotherhood movement’ being worked up with a great flare, is Acts 17:26 — ‘And hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth.’ Note that they are to dwell — not dwell together — on all the face of the earth. When the latter part of the verse is read: ‘and hath determined the bounds of their habitation,’ we see clearly that God’s purpose is exactly the opposite to close interracial contact. To prevent that very thing, God at Babel gave them a distinct language, extreme physical differences, and sent them to the most remote part of the earth. Noah certainly did not place his three sons upon a plane of equality — one was emphatically in a lower class, and so has history shown that Ham’s descendants have been…
Find any, if you can, of the [mulattoes] who are interested in ‘Christian fellowship’ and that alone. Their first and only thought is crossing the social line.”
On Feb. 15, 1947, the president of the Federal Council, a Bishop Oxnam, is quoted:
“The man who excludes a Negro from any of the privileges of democracy, who sets up barriers against any human being because of his race or creed, is a Nazi.”
Oxnam is asked by Bell:
“‘Am I to gather that you are willing for your daughter to marry a Negro? In case you do not have a daughter would you still consider it proper to insist that this barrier be broken down, as a solution to the race problem?’
[T]he question was evaded entirely. Bishop Oxnam said three times in his reply that, ‘the issue of intermarriage is not before us’; that ‘Negroes are not interested in marrying white persons,’ that ‘neither the negro nor white is calling for it.’
But, according to Bishop Oxnam’s article, either he does set up a barrier against intermarriage between Negroes and whites, or, to use his own extreme language, he ‘is a Nazi.’…
Within the past year a white minister (not of our Church), has sought to marry a negro woman and was only prevented from doing so by the laws of the state in which he was living. Again, a director of religious education in one of our own churches, stirred by the present overemphasis on this matter, has been heard to remark that the ultimate solution of the race problem is intermarriage…
Yes, brethren, unless Christian leadership, both Negro and white, recognizes that there is a line which must not be crossed, the real problem will not be satisfactorily solved.”
“Christianity does not contemplate the amalgamation of the races, and those who advocate such a policy in the name of the Church are guilty of ignorance or premeditated confusion and disaster.
“The Northern Church at its last General Assembly went on record as regarding segregation of the races as un-Christian.”
On Oct. 15, 1947, Bell writes,
“We distrust an organization [the Federal Council] which by observation is shown to have a long-range economic plan which is largely identical with that of socialism… We distrust an organization which seeks to solve the difficult race problem by declaring segregation un-Christian and which advocates a nonsegregated society.”
On Nov. 1, 1947, L.E. Faulkner printed the Federal Council’s own duplicitous testimony, saying out of one side of the mouth that the question of integration “is one to be left to each Church,” and out of the other:
“The Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America hereby renounces the pattern of segregation in race relations as unnecessary and undesirable and a violation of the Gospel of love and human brotherhood. Having taken this action, the Federal Council requests its constituent communions to do likewise. As proof of their sincerity in this renunciation, they will work for a non-segregated Church and a non-segregated society.”
And in their 1946 Biennial Report, they have this laughable line:
“Segregation increases and accentuates racial tensions. It is worth noting that race riots in this country have seldom occurred in neighborhoods with a racially mixed population. Our worst riots have broken out along the borders of tightly segregated areas.”
“Racial barriers and distinctive characteristics of race and color will eventually break down and no longer prove to be stumbling blocks preventing marriage, if non-segregation comes in and continues over a period of time. Our children and children’s children will be called upon to endure a cross and burden the like of which none of us in our time have had to endure…
It has been said that negresses of an immoral character are ambitious to have their offspring begotten or fathered by white men in order to infuse all the white blood they can into their race, thereby hoping to get better standing in society through the Mulatto strain. If this is true, then it is a lasting shame on us that negroes should seem to seek advancement in such a shameful and sinful manner…
The amalgamation of races is definitely unscriptural. The integrity and pure strain of all races should be preserved inviolate, with segregation as a necessity…
Take a look at the South American mixture of races and see if you think God’s approval and blessing has been upon it. Observe their physical and social structure, their progress, their initiative, their ingenuity, and general outlook upon life, and see if you think God’s approval and blessing has been upon it. Then turn and compare their civilization with that of the pure strain of one race or many races kept inviolate as to mixture, where Christian enlightenment has gone, social, educational, physical, moral, and what have you…”
“[Segregation] is the best way to preserve the peace and protect the lives of all concerned. As between race riots and segregation, I prefer segregation, for race riots involve murder."
On Feb. 14, 1949, Bell writes,
“It is imperative that both Negro and white Christian leaders recognize and agree that the solution of and pattern for ultimate inter-race relationships does not include intermarriage. We say this in love and consideration for all concerned.”
Rev. William H. Frazer, on July 15, 1950, writes that God endorses “social separation of the races,” and without it our country would be weakened by miscegenation and violence.
“Racial purity was of prime importance to [God] when He brought Israel out of Egypt and settled them in the land of Canaan. He forbade the intermarriage with the people who were already in the land. (Read Deut. 7:3, Joshua 23:12-13.) And when Ezra returned to set up the worship of the restored temple, one of the first things that he did was to purge the people of ‘mixed marriages’ (Ezra 10:3, 10, 11). In Acts 17:26, Paul is declaring the common origin of mankind, and equally as emphatic is he declaring the differentiation of mankind…
We believe in the ‘social separation’ of the races because of the things to which the ‘mixing’ of the races leads.
1. It leads inevitably to miscegenation…
2. It will lead, indirectly, to confusion, strife, hatred, and bloodshed…
3. Miscegenation will lead to a weakening of the resistance to certain diseases by the hybrid offspring…
4. Miscegenation, which is the inevitable consequence of non-separation, will reduce the American citizen to a ‘common denominator.’ You will put back the race which has imbibed the spirit and adapted itself to the progress of hundreds of generations of civilization and culture, to accommodate the pace of the backward race of only a comparatively few generations of civilization and culture. It would be like placing a senior in college in the same class with a student in grammar school.
An article from Jan. 31, 1951, states that blacks were at the time 0.5% of the PCUS. The Rev. Alex Batchelor, Secretary of Negro Work, asked the Board of Church Extension to devote half a million dollars (worth more than six million today) “for the purpose of assisting Negroes in building better churches throughout the South.”
Whites were well-intentioned, trying to maintain segregation while denouncing “discrimination,” sinking millions into “Negro Work” that never bore fruit. All the good intentions didn’t spare them from becoming enemies for rejecting the new religion of liberalism.
It was also believed, as seen in this Aug. 8, 1951, article that Negro betterment would resolve all concerns with segregation. This was a principled but naïve perspective on the part of the Whites, who believed that a fair assessment of mutual concern would carry the day.
On Aug. 29, 1951, J.E. Flow writes,
“Segregation was decreed by God Himself… For fifteen hundred years till the birth of Christ, [Israel was] a segregated nation. They were forbidden by God to mingle socially, to intermarry, or to amalgamate with the nations around them. They did not always obey God, but nevertheless God commanded it and many times punished them when they disobeyed his command…
Does anyone dare to say that God made a mistake in segregating the Jewish nation? Does anyone dare to say that segregation is wrong and un-Christian when the Almighty Himself did it?...
Our God, the God of all wisdom, has never admitted that He ever made a mistake, in this or in any other instance. And He certainly has not authorized any men to correct his ‘mistake,’ or to improve upon his plan… God made one man’s face yellow, another black, and another white because it pleased Him to do so, and he means for them to remain that way. It is presumptuous for any man to think that he can improve on God’s plan.”
“The over-all question is: how far does Christianity demand that we shall go in association with other races? Does it demand that we shall abrogate all lines of demarcation that separate us as races?...
Is it any sign of ‘looking down upon’ one of another race when you insist on mingling with your own race and allowing him to mingle with his race?
Can we not insist upon each race remaining within its own circle and still be as considerate of one of another race as we are of members of our own race?
Can we not show the spirit of brotherly love to one of another race without breaking away from the custom which has required each one to seek association within his own circle?...
Do we really want miscegenation of the races? Will not the abrogation of segregation inevitably lead to it?”
On Jan. 20, 1954, these prophetic words were printed, just four months before the Brown v. Board of Education ruling. The homogenous, freely-associating society with broad moral consensus was about to end.
“It seems inevitable that the entire structure of social life will undergo many changes in the years to come…”
Thomas F. Booher
ATTENTION READER:
Institutional trust is at record lows. But without institutions, we cannot renew our people, much less provide an inheritance to posterity. In response to this crisis and as an organic outgrowth both of necessity and natural interest, American Mantle exists. And so we make our appeal.
Donate to the Cause. Help us reach our monthly goal in order to solidify this crucial institution.
