h- k « . » * i f(o;l i I s « ™ W . n f e o d h , |-530<2-6 a.weA e i v t & y t e v S • 1 / -

• "»v x g u / . j 

C O ^ g t U8I1ARY 

B A P T I S T - C A T H O L I C 
REGIONAL CONFERENCE 

ISSUES AND A N S W E R S 

MARCO POLO INN 
DAYTONA BEACH. FLORIDA 

FEBRUARY 1-3.1971 

SPONSORED BY 
HOME MISSION BOARD 

DEPARTMENT O F INTERFAITH W I T N E S S 
AND 

BISHOPS' C O M M I T T E E FOR ECUMENICAL 
AND INTERRELIGIOUS AFFAIRS 

FOR 
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC B ISHOPS 





SPEECHES FROM 
A BAPTIST-CATHOLIC REGIONAL CONFERENCE 

AT 
DAYTONA BEACH, FLORIDA 

FEBRUARY 1-3, 1971 

PREPARED BY THE 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERFAITH WITNESS 

M. THOMAS STARKES, SECRETARY 

HOME MISSION BOARD OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION 

ARTHUR B. RUTLEDGE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY-TREASURER 

1350 SPRING STREET, N.W., ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309 

1972 
Publications Office 

UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CONFERENCE 
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20GG5 



© Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention 1971 
Atlanta, Georgia 

Cover design: Mary Ellen Urban 

All rights reserved. International copyright secured. 
Printed in the United States of America 

uMuUMed 



February 23, 1971 

Foreword 

A few days have passed since our historic meeting at Daytona 
Beach earlier this month. Letters of praise and positive criticism have 
flooded to my desk. Statements of appreciation have come from such 
unexpected places as from the editor of The Texas Catholic. 

In light of all this expected and unexpected praise it is still my 
contention that what happened in Daytona was a good beginning, but 
only a beginning. The best results are yet to be seen as we who were 
privileged to be there in a rare moment of understanding continue to 
spread the good news that the Holy Spirit is in the business of com-
munication. 

The future holds, hopefully, more such encounters on one-to-one, 
small group, metropolitan and state-wide levels. It is a privilege to be 
part of a new day of discovering what Jesus meant when he said, "You 
shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." 

Thank you for coming and for continuing interest in Catholic-
Baptist dialogues. 

M. Thomas Starkes 
Secretary, Department of 

Interfaith Witness 
Home Mission Board, SBC 



Table of Contents 

Foreword 1 

I. OPENING REMARKS 
On Behalf of the Catholics Joseph A. Durick 5 
On Behalf of the Baptists M. Thomas Starkes 9 

II. MAJOR ADDRESSES: "SALVATION: ITS MEANING AND 
RELATION TO CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 

Program Personalities 13 
A Catholic View John May 14 
A Baptist View Cecil Sherman 23 

III. ISSUES RELATED TO SALVATION AND EVANGELISM 
A Catholic View Charles Miller 35 
A Baptist View Claude U. Broach 37 
Small Group Conference Reports 39 

IV. ISSUES RELATED TO CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS 
A Catholic View Emile Comar 49 
A Baptist View W. Barry Garrett 52 
Small Group Conference Reports 55 

V. ISSUES RELATED TO CIVIC RIGHTEOUSNESS 
A Catholic View Lura Ethridge 61 
A Baptist View Lewis E. Rhodes 64 
Small Group Conference Reports 66 

VI. CLOSING STATEMENTS 
On Behalf of the Catholics Bernard F. Law 73 
On Behalf of the Baptists M. Thomas Starkes 76 

VII. LISTS OF PARTICIPANTS 
Catholics 80 
Baptists 83 
Small Group Conferences' Conveners and Recorders 86 

2 







Opening Remarks 

By 
BISHOP JOSEPH A. DURICK 

As we relive the days and weeks of Jesus, the Church would have 
us prepare for the resurrection and triumph of the Lord. It is important 
to recall again that this resurrection has already begun: it takes place 
in every situation which presents itself to us for healing and reconcilia-
tion. 

As Christians, we attempt to say that we must seek out and en-
counter the "Christ Event" as it is made manifest to us. Christ comes 
to us in every problem to be solved; in every situation to be recon-
ciled; in every human being to be healed. 

Theologians often speak of "future eschatology" (the fact that 
Christ will come again at the end of time), but it is imperative that we 
also speak of "realized eschatology"—namely, the fact that Christ 
comes to us in the here and now. 

He comes to us in many ways. His coming is most evident in the 
modern movements for peace, in current efforts to alleviate poverty, in 
the contemporary struggle to restore greater human dignity to every 
man. Jesus has given us the power to heal these wounds in His Body; 
we must heed the "signs of the times" and be about it. 

What is called for in our day and time—is not only a churchly 
fellowship, one which is concerned with building bridges from Church 
to Church, but what we may call a secular cooperative effort, one 
which is directed toward a more effective service of God in the world, 
and for the world—and ultimately, for the sake of the kingdom. 

Therefore, we must be about our Father's business as we work 
here and now to alleviate the afflictions and injustices of our times, to 
reconcile, to bind up wounds, to heal. 

And we must be prepared to announce the coming of the Kingdom 
of God—in those "secular terms" which Our Lord Himself used—"The 
blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and 
the deaf hear and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news 
preached to them" (Mt. 11:5; Lk. 4:18-19). 

5 



When we are a Church that exists for others, a Church meek and 
humble, God's servant and the world's—then we can make the Gospel 
both meaningful and believable to the secular humanists of today. 

Then, the cooperative movement must not turn the Church in 
upon herself. It must not make us all Church-centered, but rather 
Kingdom-centered. All is for the sake of the Kingdom—that the Gospel 
of Christ be accepted and lived; that men, in their relationships with 
one another, exhibit the sympathy, sensitivity, concern, generosity and 
compassion which the Gospels demand of us all. 

So ecumenism's primary concern or cooperation as the Roman 
Catholic Church understands it, is not with the conversion of individual 
Christians from one church to another. It is directed to the unity of 
the separated Christian churches—insofar as they are communities of 
Christ-centered love and service. 

Therefore, the first and cardinal principle of ecumenism, or 
cooperation, is simply this: that as all the churches draw closer to 
Christ, they will at the same time draw closer to each other. 

But this is not an easy task. We cannot presume success. There 
can be no drawing closer to Christ—unless and until there has been a 
dying to everything that is not of Christ. Crucifixion must precede 
resurrection. As the Decree on Ecumenism "(No. 7) phrases it: "With-
out a change of heart, there can be no ecumenism worthy of the name. 
We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genu-
inely self-denying, humble, gentle." 

And then comes the most comforting thought regarding ecume-
nism, or Christian cooperation, namely, the basis of our dialogue with 
one another is broader and deeper than we have imagined. We confess 
together that Jesus Christ is Lord, that He is the one mediator between 
God and man. We share a common love and reverence for the Word 
of God in Scripture. We share a common baptism, the sacramental 
foundation of our unity. 

We share, too, a common resolution to stand by the words of 
Christ as the source of Christian virtue and to obey the command of 
the Apostle: "And whatever you do, in word or in work, do all in the 
name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to Gpd the Father through 
Him." (Col. 3:17) 

And, finally, we have a common concern to commemorate the 
Lord's death together. Christian Unity has been alluded to for a long 
time and by many people— 

1. By Isaiah—enlarge the place of thy tent and stretch out the 
sk ins of thy tabernacles. (54:2) 

6 



2. Jeremiah—"Work for the good of the city since on its welfare— 
yours depends." 

3. By the instructions of Peter and Paul—Repent for all that has 
separated us. 

4. By our founding fathers in this country—As Jefferson said to 
John Adams—"We ought not to die before we have explained ourselves 
to each other." 

5. By the late Cardinal Bea: "Let us leave the judgment of the 
past to the historians—even more to God: Let us try to regain what 
was lost centuries ago: The unity of all baptized in Christ. 

And last and most importantly, we turn back to the prayer of Jesus: 
"May they all be one, Father, that the world may believe it was you 
who sent me." (John 17:21) 

As I express in the name of all our people here today my sincere 
heartfelt gratitude to you once again for this privilege of fellowship, 
and breaking of bread, may we all be united with one another in the 
following godly ways: In asking forgiveness for our past faults against 
you and all separated communions—in common pledge of mutual 
prayer for this— 

1) We assert: We can pass through the day of togetherness only 
on our knees (Yves Congar); 

2) In alertness to the "signs of the times"; namely, to work for 
constant internal reform and renewal; 

3) To become more articulate through study of the faith and 
traditions of each other (in grass roots neighborhood action with other 
faiths); 

4) Through readiness to do the will of Christ—if through honest 
and patient dialogue, He wills—you or me—to move a little from our 
well-loved forms—to a position of theirs revealed to us by the Spirit; 

5) That we keep witness, fellowship and service before us at all 
times—in our dedication to human dignity, and especially in our love 
for the least and poorest in our congregations—and that of others: 

6) That we realize that all openness, that all seriousness, which 
avoids easy evasion—will bring us all to greater tranquility and joy 
of the Holy Spirit. 

For in this all—we can be certain of one thing—that in following 
the Spirit we cannot be wrong. For indeed, it is only by the effective 
carrying out of the spirit of Jesus—that all His followers will implement 
the holy will of the heavenly Father—through our common Lord and 
Master—and Suffering Servant—and Prince of Peace. Amen. 

Thank you and God bless you! 

7 





Opening Remarks 

By 
M. THOMAS STARKES 

Monsignor Law, Bishop Durick and various assorted dignitaries: 

Tonight we are making history. We are without a doubt part of a 
new wave of Baptists and Catholics determined—in spite of warnings 
to the contrary from some of our constituency from both sides—we are 
determined to learn from and to know each other as fellow human 
beings in search of God through Christ. 

This is indeed a new era in terms of openness and freedom, of 
dialogue and discussion. Part of the uniqueness of this conference is 
the diverse Baptist constituency here. We have a dozen or so Baptist 
pastors and professors of religion in Baptist colleges. We have local 
and state directors of missions and representatives of various Baptist 
agencies. This is reflective of the fact that in my lifetime there has 
been a shift in outlook. An adequate illustration of this is reflected in 
a comment made by a good friend of mine named Johnny Sheats who 
remarked in my living room early one morning, "I recall church 
training in my youth because at least once a quarter you could bet we 
would get a lesson on 'don't drink liquor' and 'hate Catholics.'" There 
is some truth in his statement which points out a shift in attitude. 

Baptists may join in a confession of a narrow outlook in the past 
which has resulted in a stereotyping of Catholics. For example when 
last week on the new television show "It's All in the Family," a Catholic 
nun called on a middle-class American family, the head of the house 
remarked, "Contribute generously. Give her fifty cents. After all they 
spend half of it on gold candlesticks anyway." Part of the laughter 
heard around the southeast came from Baptist homes because we still 
suspect that it may be true as stated on the program. 

But we are learning—learning that Baptists do not have all the 
answers in bringing the Gospel to bear in the midst of a needy world. 

We are also learning about dialogue—that it is not a polite ex-
change of jokes, anecdotes, punch and cookies. It also involves getting 
to know each other and being sure we don't sell out the other party 
in the process. 

9 



I hope that in the next forty hours there will be some sparks flying. 
These sparks will be assurance that honesty is there in abundance. 

So—it is my hope that we will covenant together to share from the 
very beginning of this conference—in open and candid exchange of our 
own selves. 

Speaking for many Baptists, I say we have come tonight to learn 
—but with the firm conviction that we have, at the same time, much to 
give! 

Baptists are a people who take their life from the living and 
written word—and who are learning what it means to know themselves 
by knowing others. 

It is my prayer—and I hope yours—that we go from this confer-
ence saying that the Spirit of the presence of the living God was here 
and we knew Him and each other in intimate exchange of our faith 
in Christ. 

So—"to be changed"—and thereafter 

"To change the world" is our purpose in being here. 

10 



SECTION II 

MAJOR ADDRESSES 
SALVATION: ITS MEANING AND RELATION 

TO CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 



I 

M 



Program Personalities 

Most Reverend John Lawrence May, D.D., Bishop of Mobile, 
was born in Evanston, Illinois. His education was in Chicago schools, 
leading to his ordination to the Catholic priesthood at St. Mary of the 
Lake Seminary, Mundelein, Illinois, in May of 1947. 

Through the ensuing years he served as a priest in Chicago in 
parish work, teaching in high school and at Loyola University, as a 
hospital chaplain, and in a national home mission office. In June of 
1967 he was named Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago where he served until 
his appointment as Bishop of Mobile in October of 1969. 

Dr. Cecil Sherman has served as pastor of the First Baptist 
Church, Asheville, North Carolina, since 1964. He is a graduate of 
Polytechnic High School in Fort Worth, Texas, in 1945. A native of 
Fort Worth, he is a graduate of Baylor University, Waco, Texas, 1950; 
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, B.D., 1953; Princeton 
Theological Seminary, Th.M., 1956; Southwestern Baptist Theological 
Seminary, Th.D., 1960. From Southwestern seminary he received 
the Albert Venting Award, 1953. 

He was staff associate, Campus and Clinic Evangelism, Evangelism 
Division, Baptist General Convention of Texas. He pastored churches 
in Texas; Princeton, New Jersey; Chamblee, Georgia; and College 
Station, Texas. 

13 



Salvation: Its Meaning and Relation 
to Christian Social Responsibility 

—A Catholic View— 

By 
BISHOP JOHN MAY 

My mother never told me there would be days like this. I am sure 
she never dreamed of such a day. Nor, I believe, did your mother. In 
fact, just a few years ago this intimate conference of Southern Baptists 
and Roman Catholics would have been to dream the impossible dream. 
Truly, this is the day which the Lord has made. So let us rejoice and 
celebrate this day. Many eyes have desired to see what we see here in 
this hall and have not seen it. It is good for us to be here. 

My role in the Church is that of a pastor. I am not a professor of 
theology in any seminary or university. Perhaps that statement will 
disappoint some, but I suspect it may reassure others. In any case, 
my intention this evening will be to present an overview of the subject 
assigned, hopefully in the nature of suggestions for subsequent 
discussion. So please understand that what follows will be such a 
summation and not a professionally schematic development of Catholic 
dogma on our topic. 

A Catholic view of salvation is simply enough stated for a group of 
this kind. We are all one in professing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. 
We acknowledge Christ as the author of salvation. "He was crucified, 
died, and was buried, and on the third day He rose again from the 
dead." This proclamation of our creed situates the salvation of man-
kind and every man in the life-death-resurrection—the paschal 
mystery—of Jesus Christ. 

While Jesus Christ has won salvation, or the new life, for all men, 
the application of His saving death is not an automatic thing but de-
mands the personal assent of faith and the continual conversion of the 
individual Christian. Although maintaining the practice of infant 
baptism by which the child is born again in newness of life, for it is the 
gift of God, Catholics hold that the Christian who has reached the age 
of reason must accept Jesus Christ as his personal Savior, and must 
confirm that faith by conversion of heart and life, if final salvation is 
to be his. This salvation for the individual Christian is a lifetime process 

14 



in which man says "Yes" to God. It is not enough to salute Jesus as 
Lord but the Christian must also do the will of the Father. 

Salvation for the Catholic Christian, then, involves both faith and 
life. A heart responsive to the Spirit promised by Christ is the measure 
of what we understand by salvation. 

So far, so good. I am confident that thus far we have considerable 
agreement—despite some apparent differences. But as we go on to the 
second aspect of our topic—salvation's relationship to social responsi-
bility, I have a feeling that we may have to fill some valleys, lower 
some mountains, and make some rough ways smooth. 

I realize that here we are skirting that ancient Christian battlefield 
over which so much ink and perhaps even more blood has flowed. We 
are happily rid of that silly radio and television commercial that asked 
whether we wanted good grammar or good taste. I hope we are also to 
be spared these days that ancient Christian warfare over faith or 
works. The position of each side down the centuries has been carica-
tured in countless simplistic talks and tracts. I hope during these days 
that we can put it all together. Certainly faith and works belong 
together regardless of how their relationship may be described. I 
believe the massive testimony of the Bible tells us so. Both sides in 
the theological fracas over faith versus works have hurled Scripture 
texts back and forth down through the centuries. Meanwhile the saints 
on both sides often knew little of the theologians' worries and simply 
lived lives of good works in their saving faith. I just do not think we are 
going to settle that ancient theoretical controversy in these few days. 
Somehow or other, the relationship of Salvation and Christian Social 
Responsibility is close and deep in the practical order. That, I think, 
we can all see from the Word of God. 

God has special concern for the poor and the oppressed in the Old 
Testament and He requires that of His people, as Isaiah says, before 
prayer, fasting, and sacrifice (58:1-9). The prophet Amos makes social 
justice Israel's integral response to God in covenant. There is much 
more of the same lesson for the Christian in New Testament teaching. 
Jesus flays the hypocrisy of religionists who are meticulous in temple 
worship and biblical law but oblivious of human needs. Someone has 
called His parable of the Good Samaritan the "most anti-clerical 
story ever told." Dives ignored the poor man and he was buried in 
hell. Jesus sums it up by saying love of God and fellow man go to-
gether. And He will judge every one of us on one criterion—"Whatever 
you did for the least of My brothers." 

The early Christian community understood and lived accordingly 
in their concern for their poor as we read in Acts and the Epistles. 
John put it all rather starkly in saying that anyone who says he loves 

15 



God whom he does not see but does not love his brother whom he sees 
is a liar. 

Without any further theological analysis, I believe we can agree 
as Christians that salvation and social responsibility somehow go 
together. Whether the relationship between the two is analogous to 
that between father and son or rather to that between two brothers 
arm in arm is another question. In any case there is an intimate 
relationship. Somehow the two belong together in the life of a Chris-
tian. 

So now—how does the community of Christian believers, those 
who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and live their life in a 
community of faith today, how does this community which is the 
Church relate to all other men in their daily needs? What is the meaning 
of poverty, injustice, war, in the light of faith? Does the Gospel have 
anything to say about man's life in the civic community, or does it have 
something to say only about man's life in the community of faith? Is 
the Church the concern of God's people, and the world the concern 
of the devil? 

These are certainly not new questions for the Christian, and yet 
they are painfully pertinent today. Is the Church an alien divine body 
inserted in man's world, or is the Church incarnate and as fully human 
as Christ Himself? 

These are the questions which prompt these remarks of mine. 
Surely as we look at the history of the Church which we share in com-
mon, and as we look at that history of the Church which belongs to 
Roman Catholicism more specifically, we see that there is no constantly 
identical response to these questions. Political, sociological, economic, 
cultural factors weigh heavily in the answers which Christians have 
given in the past. 

There is, in some quarters today, a great deal of criticism about 
the Church's failure to respond to the needs of mankind, about the 
Church's tendency to be too introspective in her interest and concern, 
about the Church's limited world view at a time when non-theological 
factors are forcing upon man a consciousness of his dependence upon 
every other man. First we Christians must confess our own failures in 
this regard. We have not responded to God's redemptive love in the 
measure to which we have been called to do so by Christ. We have not 
been holy, as our heavenly Father is holy. 

Furthermore, our critics who seem at first sight to be antagonistic 
to traditional Christianity, do voice great passion for human rights, the 
sacredness of life, peace on earth, the unity of all men, justice for the 
poor. But do not these and other such concerns spring from the seeds 
of the Gospel sown in Christian word and life? Can we not say to some 

16 



of these searching souls today, "Truly, you are not far from the King-
dom of God." And if their search is truly sincere, might it not bring 
them in God's grace to Him they already call "Jesus Christ, Super-
star"? All this is not to deny that they may also lose their way in the 
deadend paths of today's sins. This fact too. is a necessary pole of 
Christian realism these days. Nevertheless, I would just say that 
today's social responsibility and salvation in Christ may be nearer 
together, to paraphrase Paul, than when we first came to believe. 

Now to be more specific on the teaching of the Roman Catholic 
Church on the relationship of Salvation and Social Responsibility: 
Catholics believe that a man who comes to Christ by God's free gift 
of saving faith must then continue to work out his final salvation 
until the day when he will render an account of his stewardship to the 
Judge of the living and the dead. Serving Christ as Lord means in 
great part serving the needs of His brothers. The Christian must see 
the Face of Christ in the men God puts in his life—first in his family, 
then in the Church, but also in the wider community. 

More and more this evangelical teaching of Jesus has been spelled 
out for Catholics in the modern world. Increasingly since the coming 
of the industrial revolution Roman Catholic theology has developed a 
more precise social doctrine. Vatican Council II in its document on 
"The Church in the Modern World" says: 

The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the 
men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way 
afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxie-
ties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely 
human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. For theirs is a 
community composed of men. United in Christ, they are led 
by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of their 
Father and they have welcomed the news of salvation which 
is meant for every man. That is why this community realizes 
that it is truly linked intimately with mankind and its history 
by the deepest of bonds. 

I have often thought of these words as I drive into a stately old 
town in southern Alabama. The tree-lined streets lead to the heart of 
the city where a cluster of beautiful and venerable churches crown 
each corner. They are of the traditional denominations, including my 
own, established, affluent, and respected. A few streets away are rows 
of flimsy little shacks teeming with some of the poorest people in our 
nation, people who have been subjugated and neglected for genera-
tion after generation. What can we say of the saving faith of those 
Christians who through the years have gone up to these churches to 
pray and have passed by the man at the side of the road, beaten and 
half-dead? In the light of the Gospel is not the salvation of these 
Christians intrinsically one with their responsibility for those least 

17 



brothers of theirs? If not, how can men of our day see Jesus Christ in 
such a church? How can they see Jesus with His horror of hypocrisy 
and passion for integrity? 

To continue discussing Roman Catholic moral theology on this 
subject, and to limit ourselves to this country, I believe it would be 
fair to say that the Catholic Church in the official teaching of the 
Bishops, following recent Popes and the Second Vatican Council, has 
supported movements concerned with the rights of the human person: 
the labor movement, the governmental social programs, family assis-
tance plans, the civil rights movement, welfare reform, etc. At the level 
of the teaching authority of the Church, there has been a growing 
emphasis on the responsibility of the American Catholic for social 
justice as a moral obligation. 

At the level of the life of the individual Catholic, however, the 
story is as varied as there are individuals. If in the past Christian faith 
was able to influence culture through the Church's institutional life, 
this is much less the case today. We find committed faith in our culture 
only where there is personal conversion. The problem inhibiting 
personal conversion today is basically the same as it has always 
been. The problem is sin in its multiple forms. So it is that the individ-
ual Christian does not always respond to the teaching of the Gospel 
as enunciated by the Church. There is a hiatus between teaching 
and life. 

There is another development in Catholic doctrine which should 
also be pointed out. Increasingly, all Catholics are being called upon 
to shoulder their personal responsibility for the mission of the Church. 
It is not that the Catholic Church has de-emphasized the special 
teaching function of Bishop and priest. Rather our contemporary 
vision holds in clearer relief the dignity and responsibility of all those 
who have been born again of water and the Spirit. The priesthood of 
all believers has always been a doctrine of Catholic theology and 
tradition, but it is a concept which we have recently re-emphasized in 
fresh vision. 

Nowhere is the notion of co-responsibility more pertinent than 
in the question of the Church's mission in the secular order. The 
Vatican Council's Constitution on the Church in the Modern World 
points out that usually it is the layman, because of his responsibility, 
because of his direct involvement, who will be most able to apply 
Christian principles to the concrete problems facing society. 

Along with this renewed focus on the priesthood of all believers 
and all of its implications, there is also in the Church these days a 
growing awareness and sensitivity to the complexity of social problems. 
Surely the vision which inspired men of good will in this country in 

18 



the early 1960's in the area of racial justice was a very simple vision 
as we look back on that period now. The victory which some of us 
tasted in those first registered voters and integrated classrooms turned 
out to be but the momentary lull before much more complex battles. 
To preach the Christian principle of racial equality and the doctrine 
of the brotherhood of man does not yield a sufficiently detailed pro-
gram to cope with the multiple problems of the human rights struggle 
today. 

This is not to say that the Church has no role, nor is it to say that 
the preacher has done quit preachin' and gone to meddlin' when he 
attempts to relate the Gospel to the problems of contemporary man. 
It is to say, however, that the business of the Church is to read the 
signs of the times, and to apply to the shifting problems of contem-
porary society those unchanging principles which come from Jesus 
Christ, yesterday, today and the same forever. It is the principles of 
the Gospels which the Church must preach, and on those principles 
faithful believers must be united. 

In this era of growing complexity, there are many examples 
which might be cited to show the Catholic Church's efforts to apply 
the Word of God to the social problems of contemporary society. The 
first example that comes to mind is the action of the Latin American 
Bishops taken at Medellin, Colombia in 1968. Their statement is a 
magna carta for the Church in Latin America where we have had for 
too long a Christian belief turned in on itself, oblivious of any social 
responsibility. In this document we have all of the Bishops of a con-
tinent addressing themselves as Christian teachers to the inequities 
of a political, social, economic system in a singularly forthright way. 
In one place they say: 

Through his task in the world, man fulfills his own calling 
and gives transcendence to his life, gradually entering into 
the salvation of Christ and at the same time offering this 
salvation to his brothers. Through his cooperation with God, 
he creates with his actions a more just and fraternal world, 
which he transforms and perfects with his work. While man 
becomes more humanized, he shows in his accomplishments 
a sign of the greatness of God. 
The Christian, when fully aware of his faith and truly com-
mitted to its observance, will be able to attach the right 
meaning to things and to his own existence. His involvement 
in an effective way with his neighbors, or his unjustifiable 
evasion, determines his eternal destiny. 'The Christian who 
fails in his temporal obligations, also fails in his duties 
toward his neighbor; he is above all failing in his obligations 
before God and jeopardizing his eternal salvation.' Man does 
not find salvation by performing unrelated actions, unat-
tached from his condition, existence, and vocation amid the 

19 



People of God, but by doing things, often in a humble and 
silent way, in generous response to his commitment to the 
making of a new world which he must offer to God. Only then 
he will be able to overcome one of the greatest errors of our 
time, as indicated by the Vatican Council: the separation 
between faith and life. 
'Man is saved according to the human dimension that he 
gives to his own existence, but he cannot reach that human 
plenitude without God. An exclusive humanism, Godless 
humanism, is, in the last analysis, an inhuman humanism.' 
(Quoted from Populorum Progressio, p. 42.) 

Another Latin American theologian1 has recently put it this way: 

Salvation embraces the whole man. The struggle for a just 
society fits fully and rightfully into salvation history. Christ 
thus appears as the Savior Who, by liberating us from sin, 
liberates us from the very root of social injustice. The entire 
dynamism of human history, the struggles against all that 
depersonalizes man—social inequalities, misery, exploitation 
—have their origin, are sublimated, and reach their plenitude 
in the salvific work of Christ. 

Much the same doctrine has been stated in these words of a 
famous Baptist preacher:"1 

Any religion that professes to be concerned about the souls 
of men and is not concerned about the economic conditions 
that damn the soul, the social conditions that corrupt men, 
and the city governments that cripple them, is a dry, dead, 
do-nothing religion in need of new blood. I think the Gospel 
in its essence ministers to the whole man . . . . We are called 
to play the Good Samaritan on life's roadside, but that will be 
only an initial act. One day the whole Jericho road must be 
transformed so that men and women will not be beaten and 
robbed as they make their journey through life. True compas-
sion is more than giving a coin to a beggar. It understands 
that the edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. 

And I think it was expressed even better in these words of a superb 
Southern Baptist Sermon I read recently:1* 

Knowing that the disembodied, unformed Word is no Word 
at all, we shall again let the Word be flesh so that the love of 
God is expressed through our changed lives in a language 
men can understand. We shall recognize that social involve-
ment is not an optional matter of ethical obedience but a 

'Rev. Gustavo Gutierrez, M., Theological Studies, June, 1970. 
zRev. Martin L. King, Jr., July 6, 1965, Chicago. 
JRev. Foy Valentine, Best Sermons, 1965, Trident Press. 

20 



condition of being in communion with God at all. We shall 
understand that-to be hid with God in Christ is not to wallow 
in glossolalia but to be rightly involved in community. We 
shall quit singing, 'Far away the noise of strife upon my ear 
is falling . . . . Safe am I within the Castle of God's word 
retreating . . . . for I am dwelling in Beulah land,' and start 
singing, 'Rescue the perishing; care for the dying; snatch 
them in pity from sin and the grave.' 
We shall return to a concern for people with the assurance 
that as we do, our religion will burst gloriously into new life. 
We shall know again the heady, hearty, holy thrill of moral 
leadership. We shall stand in the bow of the ship as it cuts 
its way into the uncharted sea of a new world order. We shall 
not mythologize the pivotal point in the Christian Gospel: 
that the essence of the heavenly Father's majesty is Jesus 
Christ's magnificently successful humanity. We shall feed the 
hungry, heal the brokenhearted, set at liberty those that are 
bruised, clothe the naked, release the prisoners from bondage, 
and preach the Gospel to the poor. We shall recover the full-
ness of the Gospel. We shall acknowledge the claim of Christ 
on all of life. We shall own Him Lord. 

To conclude, there are, perhaps, two temptations which the 
Church faces today in this area of social doctrine. The first is this. It is 
the temptation to see the Church's social mission quite narrowly in 
terms of a specific revolutionary movement or economic system. The 
Church has made this kind of mistake in the past. As soon as the Chris-
tian or any group of Christians arrogates to itself, in its own narrow 
insights and perceptions, the position of the Church on a given social 
issue, the Church is being compromised. The function of the Church 
is to proclaim enduring Christian principles which bear refinement in 
the light of man's accumulated experience and wisdom, and certainly 
in the light of the signs of the times. But these principles should knit 
into a community a broad and diverse band of believers. 

The second temptation is that of reactive complacency, realized 
in the life of the Christian who stands so overwhelmed by the complex-
ity of the world, by the manifestations of sinfulness, that he retreats 
from the world with no intent of returning to minister to it. Surely 
there must be a place of retreat, a place of withdrawal for any valid 
Christian life. Even as did Christ, however, the Christian withdraws 
only to return and to minister. Christ was man, the Son of God, the 
Word of God made flesh. We fail to comprehend the implications of 
the Incarnation when we disembody Christianity. Christ did not 
establish His kingdom in the midst of angels but rather in the hearts 
of men. 

As Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics, we share so much 
in our understanding of salvation's meaning in the life of the individual 

21 



believer. I would also hope that we might see together what each 
believer's salvation means for the total welfare of all men in today's 
world. 

In God's providence, we are the two major Christian bodies in 
America today. If we do not give moral leadership—God have mercy 
on us! 

22 



Salvation: Its Meaning and Relation 
to Christian Social Responsibility 

—A Baptist View— 

By 
CECIL SHERMAN 

My qualifications to speak to this conference do not lie in any 
peculiarity of background. I am not a renegade priest, nor am I a long-
time Catholic watcher, baiter, or interpreter. I am a Baptist from the 
Bible-belt. My father's people came from Missouri and Tennessee. 
My mother's people came from Alabama and Georgia. I was reared on 
the southeast side of Fort Worth, Texas. I did not know a Catholic. I 
never had a public school teacher who was Catholic, and I can remem-
ber but one classmate who was Catholic—a girl named Connie Flan-
nagan. In the light of all the things I was told about Catholics, it was 
always disconcerting that Connie was such a nice person. In brief, I 
was reared in a Protestant ghetto. The public school I attended was 
a Protestant parochial school. I thought the Trinity was Baptist, 
Methodist, and Presbyterian rather than God the Father, God the Son, 
and God the Holy Spirit. 

Attitudes toward Catholics in my Protestant ghetto ranged from 
ignoring them—there were not enough to make any difference any-
way, to baiting them—Rome was a major threat to the government of 
the United States. At church I was urged to give attention to the 
Catholics around me—I should try to "win them to Christ." Since I 
gave money to mission causes to send evangelists to Central and South 
America to try to "win Catholics to Christ," it did not seem out of 
order for my church to urge me to "try to win Catholics to Christ" in 
this country. Underlying all this effort was the presupposition that 
there might be some Catholics who are Christians, but if this be so, 
they are Catholics who have happened into saving grace in spite of 
their Church rather than because of it. What all of this added up to 
was the Baptists have the truth; Catholics don't. As you have oppor-
tunity, try to share the Good News with Catholics. 

Two dawning realities have forced a rethinking of the views of 
my childhood. First, I have come to see that Baptists are not really in a 
position to be so smug. There are all kinds of Baptists. Some are saints; 
some are faking it. But even more disturbing—some just don't care 

23 



and don't bother to hide it. When you see considerable weakness in 
your product, you tend to develop a little humility in your evangelistic 
posture. Second, I have met a few Catholics. Not all of them impress 
me as giants in the faith, but on the other hand, some of them are 
impressive. Sister Mary Joseph of St. Joseph's Hospital in Asheville is 
a most persuasive Christian. Her discipline, service commitment, and 
obvious dedication to Christ are hard to down. To assume that she is 
not a Christian or that she is a Christian in spite of her Church—these 
are assumptions I cannot reasonably make. There is a devout woman 
in our town who is Catholic. She experienced extreme difficulty in her 
marriage. I was able to help a wayward husband back into his marriage 
vow. All the while, this woman demonstrated great Christian self-
discipline. Had she slipped for a moment and given vent to her 
feelings, her marriage would have been dead. I was watching a 
Catholic-Christian in action. I did not feel like trying to "win her to 
Christ"; I was rather humbled by her demonstration of faith. So, I 
come to this conference in the high hope that 1 may discover that 
Baptists and Catholics are really on the same team. I suspect that 
this is so, and I hope events confirm my suspicions. 

My value to this conference does not lie in my theological wisdom. 
Had Brownlow Hastings wanted to parade before you the best theo-
logical mind of Southern Baptists, I doubt that my name would have 
been considered. I have two things going for me. First, I am kin to 
Brownlow Hastings. I have no doubt but that this special relationship 
is some small factor in my presence before you. Second, 1 am an inter-
preter, a popularizer, a local churchman. Southern Baptists are like 
they are because people like me tell them how to think. If you want to 
understand the presuppositions of the average Southern Baptist, you 
must take into account the things he is being told by his pastor. It is at 
this point that I am valuable to this conference. Others could have 
done as well, but I am glad that I was asked. 

For a time I was disturbed about the overlap that would surely 
be a part of my speech and that of Bishop John May. We are dealing 
with the exact subject, back to back, and how can we fail to be repeti-
tious? And then the thought occurred, "Of course we will be repeti-
tious, and that is the point of the conference." If we do not repeat each 
other, then we are in trouble. If the planes of our thinking do not meet 
and provide common ground then we have no point of beginning for a 
rapprochement of Baptists and Catholics. So, rather than being dis-
mayed if we overlap, I shall be disappointed if we do not. 

And now to the subject. I am not aiming my remarks to the 
Catholic portion of the audience. There will be considerable difference 
of opinion inside Baptists on some of the issues raised by the topic. So 
I offer my remarks to a group of concerned, and I presume theologi-
cally literate, Christians. 

24 



I. THE MEANING OF SALVATION: 
I accept the biblical estimate of the human predicament. I am not 

a humanist; I am a Christian. And, though there are times when so 
bold a statement creates problems, I think there are fewer problems 
for a biblicist than there are for the well-intentioned humanist. The 
only reason I make a point of this is that any time a group of Christians 
come together to talk of social responsibility, I get the uncomfortable 
feeling that I am not always in the company of other Christians. The 
Bible is the only objective base I know for salvation or social concern. 

1. Our natural state is one of innocence. 
There are those who make much of the innate evil of the human 

spirit. Usually, such theologians and pastors make much of Psalm 
51:5, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my 
mother conceive me." (RSV) I do not know what Psalm 51 means. I 
prefer to take my stance with Genesis. God made the first of the human 
family in a state of innocence. The Adam and Eve story tells of an 
unblemished humanity. (Genesis 2:25) It seems to be that our children 
enter the world in this unblemished state. The lovely children who 
frequent my church are the nearest I know to the innocent. I do not 
view them as lost. Apparently Jesus did not view them as marred. He 
used one of them to make his point when he said, "Let the children 
come to me, do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of 
God." (Mark 10:14b, RSV) 

2. The affirmation of my Adamic nature (original sin). 
I enter this world with a tendency in my spirit that will even-

tually and surely undo my innocent state. When I was born I opened 
my eyes and viewed the world around me. Without a thought I came to 
think of my cradle as the center of the universe. Distances I measured 
from me. Height, depth, space and time—all were using my body as 
the point of reference. I am not the center of the universe, but un-
consciously, I acted as though I were. I did the same thing in the moral 
world. If something were pleasant to me, I interpreted that pleasant-
ness as "good." If something displeased me, I counted that displeasure 
as "bad." But I am not the arbiter of "good" and "bad." God is the 
Center of the universe. God is the arbiter of "good" and "bad." In 
each instance, I put myself in God's place. Though my act was 
"normal" my act was a distortion of life as it really is. This was my 
"original sin." Unless I can correct this false impression of reality and 
myself, I will bring hurt to myself and to those around me. 

Now a practical point. When does this affirmation of my 
adamic nature take place? Surely, a person must become self-aware. 
I think the time for this self-affirmation is around the time of eleven to 
thirteen. Now a point of truth. The Bible does not speak with any 
certainty to this point. Most Baptists have baptized their children at 
a younger and younger age. Today the average child is baptized into 

25 



the congregation at nine to ten years of age. This is too soon. The 
practice threatens the principle of a "gathered church." We say we 
do not believe in covenant theology, but we have come precious close 
to practicing it. The "fall-out" that comes to our own youth in the 
high school period and college years is evidence enough that our 
present practice does not in fact change permanently the person we 
baptize. We will do well to trust God and wait a while longer to baptize 
our children. 

3. Christ's part in salvation. 
The sense of the Bible is this: God has tried through hundreds 

and hundreds of years to save man from himself. Jesus told the story 
of the tenants in the vineyard. (Luke 20:9-18) The owner of the vine-
yard sent servants to receive his share of the harvest. The servants 
were treated cruelly. Finally, the owner sent his son, for he believed 
that the tenants would surely respect the owner's son. So debased 
were the minds of the tenants that they reasoned this way: "This is 
the owner's son. Let us kill him, and the vineyard will be ours!" (Luke 
20:14, RSV) Surely, this is Jesus interpreting God's efforts at the 
rescue of fallen man, and this is Jesus telling of his place in God's plan. 

So, our doctrine of salvation is built around Jesus. He is both 
illustration and interpreter. In the Cross of Christ all Hebrew sym-
bolism centers. The last Sacrifice, the Good One for the bad ones, the 
Lamb of God—these are the pictures that come to mind of the One who 
took our place. I tell my people that salvation begins in substitution 
and proceeds from there. Had He not died for me, I would have died 
an eternal kind of death. Because He died for me, my death is robbed 
of its great horror. Death does not defeat me. In resurrection I shall 
live again in a larger and more complete state. 

In the rush to this world, we do err when we forget the eschat-
ology in salvation. People are still dying, and so long as they die, we 
will do well to help them through dying with all that the Bible promises. 
We can be saved from hell and death. Only those who are far removed 
from the parish and the local church can forget that people are still 
afraid of death, baffled by dying, and long for some hope from death. 
I Corinthians 15 remains great solace to my people. Christ has saved 
us from the "last enemy." 

There is another side to Christ's salvation. When Jesus called 
his disciples, He called them "to follow me." Of all his invitations, 
"follow me" is the one he used most often. Following Jesus was a NOW 
kind of thing. The people who did not follow right then were passed 
by. The ones who did follow were asked to assume certain obligations. 
These obligations were usually given symbolic statement. In John 12 
Jesus said, 

26 



I tell you the truth: a grain of wheat is no more than a single 
grain unless it is dropped into the ground and dies. If it 
does die, then it produces many grains. Whoever loves his 
own life will lose it; whoever hates his own life in this world 
will keep it for life eternal. Whoever wants to serve me must 
follow me, so that my servant will be with me where I am. 
My Father will honor him who serves me (John 12:24-26, 
TEV). 

A similar statement is made in Matthew 10:32-33 and Matthew 16: 
24-28. These statements were tied closely to the price tags for "follow-
ing Jesus." 

Most of my people do not follow symbolic statements very 
carefully. They do not mind my preaching about "following Jesus." 
They expect me to do so. They do not mind my preaching about "a 
grain of wheat falling into the ground." But when such symbolic 
statements are given specific application to this life, my people pray 
that I hurry on to more symbolism and depart any attempt at applica-
tion. 

Mark 10 contains an interesting story. The Rich Young Ruler 
offered himself to Jesus. Jesus gave the man an ethical test—give away 
all of his money. The young man could not do it. Because He could not 
pass the ethical test, the young man could not follow Jesus. Most 
Christians do not have their salvation and their ethic so tightly knit. 

One last comment about Christ's interpretation of salvation. 
Jesus did not discuss salvation systematically. When He spoke with 
the ruler of the Jews, Nicodemus, he used the illustration of the new 
birth (John 3:1-21). When He talked with the Woman at the Well, He 
spoke of living water (John 4:1-30). When He spoke to the Rich Young 
Ruler, He told of greed that was of such strength that it could be a 
barrier to fellowship (Mark 10:17-22). All of us like for things to be 
simple and neat. Salvation is not so simple or so neat. I have tried again 
and again to tell my congregation that there is mystery and awe in 
salvation. It is not so compact as three little rules rattled by a child. 
I do not understand all that I am saying at this point; I only know 
that there is more to Christ's gift than I can understand or say. 

4. Our part in salvation. 
Neither John Calvin nor Karl Barth would approve this part of my 

paper. But I believe that there is a part that man plays in his salvation. 
Matthew 16 is a case in point. Though some may disagree, I believe 
that Peter's Confession is like to conversion. In that confession Peter 
was asked to do three things. 

First, Peter was asked to come under the authority of Jesus. 
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," became the basis for 

27 



a new relationship. (Matt. 16:16, RSV) One of the things every human 
being needs to see is his place in the scheme of things. A lot of Chris-
tians have not come to view Christ as Lord. Until we can make Jesus 
Christ Lord, we will remain in the sin of keeping ourselves in God's 
place. 

Second, Peter was asked to view things from the Christ per-
spective. Jesus told the disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, suffer, 
and die. Peter called this bad. Jesus saw this as necessary. Then Jesus 
said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for 
you are not on the side of God, but of men." (Matt. 16:23 RSV) Surely 
one part of salvation is the new point of view. God's point of view is 
hard to spot. Most of us are accustomed to handling holy things, but 
like all disciples, we can easily miss God's intent and direction in this 
world. One who is saved has taken God's point of view. 

Third, Peter was asked to take up a cross and follow the Christ. 
Few of my people want the cross discipline. They want the easy, NOW 
victory of salvation. They love feeling, but the stuff of the Christian 
life is the capacity to slug it out day by day. The Church has always 
been troubled with the quick victory mentality. Paul had to scold the 
Thessalonians. (I Thes. 5:1-22) Those early Christians wanted salva-
tion, and then they wanted Christ to come back. It has not turned out 
that way. Every generation of Christians has been asked to take the 
cross and follow and follow and follow and follow. This is evidence 
of salvation, but it is more. There is a sense in which taking the cross 
and following is salvation too. 

God does not convert us against our will. Our salvation is surely 
a combined act between God who wants to save us and a subject who 
wants to be saved. 

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SALVATION AND CHRIST-
TIAN SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: 

Just to get things off to an honest start here, why not admit that 
there are millions of Christians called Catholic and Baptist who see no 
relationship between salvation and social responsibility. The ethical 
issue of our lives and of the region where we work is race. We are the 
generation who work in the aftermath of slavery, reconstruction, Jim 
Crow, tokenism and segregation. 

I remember well the furor in South Louisiana when the Bishop 
ordered that the old order must give way to the new. Catholics 
came out of the woodwork to say that they saw no relationship between 
salvation and social responsibility. 

I remember well the rage of feelings when a black woman in Ashe-
bille, North Carolina, asked membership in my church in September of 

28 



1964. My church would not let her in. Baptists saw no relationship be-
tween salvation and social responsibility. This fight goes on. Catho-
lics and Baptists want to live out their salvation without letting that 
salvation touch this world. For such imperfect gospel our young have 
scored us and often abandoned us. It is not the point of this speech to 
condemn, but we might as well begin at the point of beginning. Most 
of the people called Southern Baptists do not want to admit that the 
relationship between slavation and social responsibility is real and 
they resent being told that it is. Catholics can speak for themselves at 
this point. Probably this meeting does not have many average South-
ern Baptists, but I have tried to tell you of the norm as I see them. 

1. Salvation is a larger word in the Bible than it is in the minds of 
our people. 

Most of my congregation think of salvation as a "new birth" ex-
perience. Such "new birth" is past tense—it happened in their yester-
days. Now that it has happened, it need not happen again. They are 
now saved. I think the strength of Baptist witness has been their em-
phasis upon the "new birth." There is no apology for this. It has made 
us what we are, and such strength as we have has come from it. 

But as is often the case, our strength is also the seed of our weak-
ness. The New Testament defines salvation as a continuing experience, 
and all salvation that we know in this life is partial. So, I have been 
saved. I am being saved. And I shall be saved. Baptists have not 
stressed this linear quality of salvation. Scriptures like Matt. 10:22, 
"But he who endures to the end will be saved" (RSV), Phil. 2:13, 
"work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at 
work in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure " (RSV), 
and Hebrews 11:39-40, "And all these, though well attested by their 
faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had foreseen some-
thing better for us, that apart from us they should not be made per-
fect." (RSV) All of these passages and numerous others speak of a 
continuing work of God in our lives. We shall not be saved in this 
lifetime. There is a sense in which all of us must await a later and a 
better world for so long as we are here the scales of the flesh will not 
fall from us and we shall see only in part, we are still subject to decay, 
and we do await for God to reveal his children (Romans 8:18-13). 

What does this mean? What effect does this have for a deacon in 
my church or a layman in yours? Plenty! God is still working to im-
prove him, correct him, salvage him, even save him. A lot of my 
people feel that they were saved twenty, thirty, forty years ago, and 
they have not let anyone tamper with any of their prejudices from that 
day to this. But from their point of view there is no need. If you are 
already saved, what more do you need? I must enlarge the definition 
of salvation in their minds before I can hope to relate that salvation to 
social action. 

29 



2. The goals of salvation are too small in the minds of our people. 
(1) I want to save the whole man, not just his "soul." You know 

that I am concerned with eschatology; I have expressed this concern 
to you already. But salvation is more than just salvation for another 
world. I want to save the whole man. Jesus came saving all the parts of 
the people he touched. His miracles, his concern, and the effect of his 
ministry were total on the lives that he touched. Blind were made to 
see while their sins were forgiven. The Woman at the Well had the 
whole of her life redirected. Jesus did not just say magic words over 
people and hurry on. He came to know, to become involved in, and 
finally, to save all the parts of the lives of people. 

Sometimes the salvation of my ministry is total and sometimes it 
is partial. When we move to help all of the broken parts of humanity, 
our church does a pretty good job at helping. When we just touch a 
piece of the life, our salvation is not much. Inside my church there 
are some well-intentioned evangelists who are mainly concerned with 
"souls." They are not happy with me. They want an evangelistic 
preacher. I am not happy with them. I want them to offer more than 
salvation for the "soul." 

(2) I want to save society, not just the individual. There is not 
much Bible on this. Jesus taught us to pray, 

Thy kingdom come, 
Thy will be done, 
On earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10 RSV). 

When the Church was small, she directed nearly all of her energies to-
ward the individual, but in these days we have found that one of the 
reasons people are as they are is that society bends them. The struc-
tures of society are hard to grasp. Some churchmen would never reach 
for them. But the churchmen of the Middle Ages are our example. 
They seriously laid hold of the economy, the politics, the military, the 
judicial system, and the educational system to make a godly world. 
Most Prostestants have failed to see the magnitude of their goals or 
the accomplishments of their attempts. But those medieval churchmen 
had an idea. They reached for all of the marbles, and in so doing, they 
redeemed many of the sores of a harsh world. A similar Protestant ef-
fort was made in New England in the seventeenth century. A secular 
world has held up to scorn the excesses of both of those experiments, 
but I doubt that God is so inclined to mock. 

Today we wrestle with racism, ecology, poverty, war, world 
disease, and world ignorance on a massive scale. Overpopulation and 
a fair distribution of the wealth of the world—these are some of the 
goals of the serious Christian who wants to "save the world." The 
person-oriented Christian of the nineteenth century does not see this 
as having anything to do with salvation. Today we have come to a 
larger interpretation of the word. There is no way that we shall be able 

30 



to save individuals if we do not do something about "saving society." 
So while some of the people called Baptists called Dr. Martin Luther 
King, Jr., a saint, others called him a renegade Baptist preacher. It 
all depends upon how large you are willing to allow your goals in evan-
gelism to become. King saw that he must touch the system if he was 
to save the individuals. I think King was right; I think he was a saint. 
It seems to me that we ought to go at the job both ways: save individ-
uals to save society and save society so that we may save individuals. 
Both are the legitimate goals of the twentieth century churchman. The 
one without the other is only half a gospel. 

(3) I want to save the Church as well as the lost. There is one 
kind of churchman who wants to save the "lost." Today we have grown 
another kind of churchman who wants to save the Church. There is no 
doubt in my mind but that one of the best fields for evangelism is the 
Church. Some people love to criticize Dr. Billy Graham. I think this 
is cheap. Some of their criticism runs like this: "All those people who 
come forward are already in somebody's church; they have no need 
for such emotional experience. He has done nothing when he has 
won them." Evidently, such critics have forgotton the nature of my 
church. My church has three thousand people on the role. I cannot 
find eleven hundred of them. About half of the nineteen hundred I can 
find have small part in our common life in Christ. Anything Dr. Graham 
can do for my two thousand church members who are so casual about 
their faith commitment can only be for the good. More power to Dr. 
Graham. 

Right at this point, we can do a great service to the Church by 
saving the Church. There is great conscience inside the Church. The 
Church has been poorly directed. Churchmen like you and me have 
failed in our tasks. We ought to tell the people what God expects them 
to do in this world. A surprising number of them are ready to hear 
what we say and give it a try. Some of us have had little faith in the 
laymen, and little hope for the gospel. God is at work in today's Church. 
He is remaking it. It will be smaller, but it will be more lean for the 
long pull. It will not be so gaudy in wealth, but it may have more of the 
pungency of saving salt. The Sunday worship may not be so stylish, 
but the Monday ministry may be more pleasing to Christ. When this 
comes to pass, the Church will be saved, and God's work will be done 
in the world. Now whether Baptists or Catholics can stand so radi-
cal an alteration is subject for comment, but I am not speaking of Bap-
tists or Catholics—I am speaking of Christ's Church. One way or the 
other, I am sure that His Church will go on. My prayer is that my con-
gregation will be a part of that on-going Church. 

3. The estimate of our resources has been made small by our de-
nomlnationalism. 

31 



When you speak of salvation as saving the whole man and sav-
ing the structures of society and saving life of the Church—then you 
are making tall talk. You would do well to have great resources. I con-
tend that our real resources have been cluttered in our own minds by 
our parochialism. For years I have been taught that Catholics were so 
different from me until they were really a part of the problem rather 
than a part of the solution. There is one sense in which the growing 
secularity of our time may do much to help us. We are being forced 
in upon each other. We will learn that a secular world cannot tell the 
difference between the two of us. If a secular world considers the two 
of us as Christian, might we not do ourselves a favor to consider each 
other as Christian and pool our resources where we can? "To save 
the world" by Christian definitions is a large order, and even Cod may 
need both of us to get the job done. If God is willing to use both of us, 
we might do well to lean upon the resources of each other in so large 
and grand a task. 

4. The timetable for salvation must be enlarged to include eternity. 

There will always be a partial quality about all conversation of 
salvation. I am but half saved. My ego is at work while I speak to you. 
Vanity, greed, and lust are with me yet. I am still of this world while 
I talk of another. So, I am living illustration of the state of society. The 
Church is flawed even while she is God's hope in the world. Society is 
mixed; some good, some bad. Purists will scream for an instant kind 
of salvation for the man, the Church, or for society. All such insistence 
upon perfection in this world will be frustrated. I will try to deal gent-
ly with the immature who shout the NOW slogans, whether they speak 
of saving souls or saving us from war. These people do not have the per-
spective of the Christian. 

Society will not be saved completely. My task is to be faithful 
to the gospel. If I preach a whole gospel I must be content for God to 
judge the effect. Eschatology enters again. I will not bring in the 
kingdom, my task is to be found faithful. It seems to me that the 
Church is divided: Some only want to save the souls of men. Some only 
want to speak of salvation as it relates to social responsibility. These are 
halfway houses. God's plans are larger. 

The individual needs his God, his personal faith, and his private 
hope of Heaven. The world needs the light and the salt of the gospel so 
that the world can be saved. But while we try to do both—you know and 
I know that we will not finish the task. Like Moses, we will work our lives 
out getting the children of Isreal as far as we can—but they will not 
yet have crossed Jordan. This will be the story of us. But our glory is not 
in finishing the task—our glory is in being a part of the plan. He will 
finish it in his good time. For the good Churchman, this should be 
enough. 

32 







Issues Related to Salvation 
and Evangelism 

—A Catholic View— 

By 
CHARLES T. MILLER 

Our speakers last evening each began with the conviction that as 
Christians our basic notions of salvation must be the same and, as 
they developed their ideas, we began to see on how many basic points 
we find ourselves in agreement. 

If I may list them under the headings presented by Bishop May, 
we are all one in proclaiming: (a) that Jesus is Lord; that, in St. 
Paul's expression, "there is no other name under heaven given to 
men by which we must be saved"; (b) that our salvation is through 
His death on the cross and through His resurrection which is the prom-
ise of our own rising and eternal reward; (c) that Christ's death and 
resurrection is not sufficient in itself without our cooperation; each of 
us individually must accept Christ as our personal redeemer and find 
in Him the only sufficient atonement for our sins; and that personal 
acceptance of Christ is something we both insist on whether or not 
we practice infant baptism. 

We are not aiming in this conference at top-level theological 
discussion of what differences in belief or in emphasis we would find 
as we each expounded further on our concepts of salvation. We are 
attempting more to reach a common understanding of the relation-
ship as we might separately see it between salvation and its reper-
cussions on our sense of Christian social responsibility. If we can 
differ while basically one on our concepts of salvation, we can differ 
equally on our concepts of evangelism through which we attempt to 
spell out to the world the carry-over from salvation to our social re-
sponsibilities as Christians. 

But as Bishop May said so well last evening, "While theologians 
on both sides have disputed the relative importance of faith and works, 
saints on both sides have lived lives of good works in their saving faith." 
We would like to think of ourselves here as siding with the saints, and in 
union, rather than with the disputing theologians. 

35 



The common recognition of the basic Christian law of charity is 
inescapable. The two great commandments of Christ, love of God 
and neighbor, have a close tie-in and carry-over that for Christians 
is indisputable. This is a lesson learned in germ as far back as Cain— 
that we are our brother's keeper. As our race and our church has 
grown, we have discovered that the relationship between salvation and 
social responsibility is "closer than when we first came to believe," 
as Bishop May paraphrased St. Paul. 

Our differing on this point may not be as much along denom-
inational lines as In the degree of fullness of our response as Christians. 
Our sincerity is questioned these days by some who fear our final judg-
ment by Christ may read this way: "When I was hungry, you took a 
survey; when I was thirsty, you formed an ad hoc committee to look 
into the matter; when I was naked you appointed a task force to investi-
gate the situation; when I was sick and in prison, you made an in-depth 
study of the causes." 

The decree on Ecumenism of our second Vatican Council reminds 
us that there is no ecumenism worthy of the name without an internal 
renewal of our hearts. Theologians in increasing numbers remind us 
that to make salvation meaningful we must give God's Word flesh— 
our flesh in service to others. From all sides we are exhorting one 
another to a fuller living out of our Christian faith. 

The complexity of the modern issues to which our Christian 
principles must be applied makes it difficult for us to avoid the 
accusation of retreating into a complacency of non-involvement on 
the one hand and the accusation of "meddlin' " if we do take a stand 
on a multi-sided issue. 

The naivete with which some of us could take for granted that the 
divisions among us are still along the same old lines could be effec-
tively exposed by the comment of our great American dry-humor-
ist Will Rogers: "There are two kinds of people— those that divide 
people into two kinds and those that don't." Let us no longer be 
divided. 

36 



The Meaning of Salvation 
—A Baptist View— 

By 
CLAUDE U. BROACH 

I am attempting here a brief and summary statement of the 
doctrine of salvation as that doctrine is generally understood and 
proclaimed by Southern Baptists today. 

We understand the word itself to be descriptive of a re-
lationship between God and an individual human being wherein 
the h uman being stands assured of God's forgiveness for human 
failure, God's grace for present endeavor, and God's power for 
victory over death. I n the fullest sense, therefor©, and by definition, 
salvation is conceived as a relationship which deals with the past, the 
present, and the futu re—the three dimensions in which every man lives 
out his life, and from which he develops the three dominant facets of 
his humanity: guilt, anxiety, and hope. 

This relationship with God is made possible by the unmerited and 
undiscourageable love of God for mankind. The great affirmation of 
John 3:16, "For God so loved the wo.rld that he gave his only begotten 
Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have ever-
lasting life," stands as a towering summation of the Gospel, to remind 
us that the initiative in salvation lies with God and is prompted by the 
nature of God. 

God's initiative in making possible this new relationship culmi-
nates in the incarnation, the coming of Jesus Christ. Believing with 
Paul that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," 
we see the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the unique and 
altogether sufficient event which creates the potential for salvation. 
That which is potential because of divine and sacrificial love becomes a 
reality when there is a human love in response of love expressed 
through repentance for sin and faith in Jesus Christ. 

It is our faith, confirmed in our experience, that this new re-
lationship with God is accomplished without the necessity for any 
human structure, system, symbol or sacrament. It is a covenant 
between persons; it is subjective and not objective. It is dynamic 
rather than static; it is personal rather than legal. 

37 



Like any other relationship, it must be cultivated if it is to 
grow in depth and meaning. It has, therefore, as the logical 
and imperative consequences of its being, the dimensions of devo-
tion and discipleship. The inner life must be nourished by prayer 
and celebration; the outer life must bring forth the fruits of repen-
tance in the faithful works of Christian love. All of this becomes the 
responsibility of the individual, who must decide and act for himself, 
even as he is encouraged and sustained by the fellowship of a believing 
community—the Church. 

In a very simple but yet profound way, Baptists find the mean-
ing of salvation summarized in the invitation which Jesus gave to Peter 
in the words recorded in John 21, "follow thou me." The central 
word "thou" is a call to personal decision and responsibility—no one 
can make my decision for me and I cannot be made whole without my 
own decision: my personal repentance and my personal faith. The final 
word of the invitation, "me," is a call to personal fellowship—we are 
not invited to give assent to a creed or obedience to a system. We are 
called into a dynamic relationship with a Person. But the word we are 
most likely to forget is the first word: "follow." Herein is a call to a 
program of living which reflects the spirit and the quality of the life of 
Jesus Christ. 

The guilt which burdens us from our past, the anxiety which 
frustrates us in the present, and the hope which haunts us for the 
future: all of these are caught up and dealt with redemptively in 
the reality of the salvation relationship of the believer with Jesus 
Christ. For our guilt, there is atonement and forgiveness. For our 
anxiety, there is grace and strength. For our hope, there is assurance 
and the sense of peace. 

Let this serve as a beginning for our discussion. 

38 



Small Group Conference Reports 
on Issues Related to Salvation 

and Evangelism 

ALABAMA —MISSISSIPPI: 
As a prelude to in-depth consideration of the subject, discussion 

first centered on the question of salvation with respect to man's rela-
tion to Adam, i.e., the doctine of original sin from both the Baptist 
and Roman Catholic viewpoint. 

Dialogue focused on the following points of divergency and agree-
ment: 

I. A. From the Baptist viewpoint: 
% Children are not condemned for Adam's sin and are 

not accountable until the age of accountability is reached. 
2. If the child is not guilty, why is infant baptism neces-

sary? 
3. Is there a proxy religion in the Church, a concept re-

jected by Baptists? 
4. How does the "limbo" doctrine relate to this? 

B. Roman Catholic response to these items (briefly stated): 
1. That a child is tainted, by original sin, not condemned; 

that original sin is a lack, that it connotes no guilt; that baptism is the 
gift of a new birth. 

2. There is need to distinguish between faith and theology: 
that the limbo doctrine is a theological resolution of a concept of faith. 
There is also the theological concept of baptism of desire which com-
pensates for the lack of the sacrament of baptism. 

II. The question of accountability was discussed within the follow-
ing context: 

A. When does accountability begin? 

Roman Catholics asked for a Baptist response to the ques-
tion of conflict in their minds that doctrine seems to point to the effec-
tiveness of Christ's death in salvation up to the point of accountabil-
ity, then is lost until the person accepts Christ, at which point he is then 
saved forever. (The chairman referred the discussants to the rules of 
dialogue, not to discuss theological points of salvation, but to focus on 
practical application). 

39 



A final point was made by Roman Catholics that there is no 
disjuncture between the Church as an institution and those who carry 
out its functions; for example, baptism is not the priest baptizing, 
but the Church baptizing. 

B. Relating the concept expressed in the foregoing statement 
to the need for a personal decision: 

Roman Catholic: 
1. Analogy was given to the relationship of the mother and 

her child, a relationship which begins immediately and continues. At 
some point, however, the child must respond to this love in his own 
positive and personal way. 

Baptists: 
2. There is a point in life in which one must make a personal 

decision. 

Discussion then centered on the matter of making a personal de-
cision for Christ; how this relates to the Sacraments of the Roman 
Catholic Church; whether this is a "once for all" matter or a con-
tinual decision-making throughout life, a series of decisions. There was 
general agreement that salvation is a progressive process. 

On this note discussion focused in on practical issues of Christian 
application to the conflicts of our age. 

1. Racial problems: 
a. Racial attitudes which deny the equality of man before God. 
b. Exclusion of blacks from white churches. 
c. Influence of culture over faith (a phenomenon in both 

churches); cultural viewpoints have prevented application of theology 
and faith. 

d. Many churches have actively sought out ministers who 
express the "conservative" viewpoint in order to avoid confrontation 
of this issue. 

e. The official position of the Southern Baptist Convention 
is an open policy in regard to racial membership; however, this posi-
tion does not prevail always in the local churches. 

f . Need to pool resources of both churches (Catholic and 
Southern Baptist) to attack these immoral social practices. Many state-
ments were made of progress on these matters in various communities. 

g. Problems of practical application of the theology of equal-
ity exist in Catholic Church also. 

h. Alienation of youth is also a current issue in application 
of the theology of salvation: 

(1) Youth rejection of adults who project a dichotomy 
of belief and application. 

40 



(2) Many gaps are evident: 
The sin gap; the economy gap; the class gap. 

(3) Many young people are grappling with this problem 
and are acting positively to resolve social issues; unless we can show 
that institutional religion is concerned with terminal values, we shall 
lose these youth. 

(4) Older people must assess their values and traditions 
and impart to youth those of lasting significance. 

(5) Young people see institutions other than the Church 
taking the forefront in social justice, for example, the federal govern-
ment; meaning is found in cultural concepts or in experiences outside 
established institutions. 

ARKANSAS—LOUISIANA: 
We found that the Baptists and the Catholics were in agreement on 

the following aspects of salvation: that it is the gift of God; that it is 
unmerited. 

The Catholics stated that the grace of God is systematized through 
the Church, the Word of God, the sacraments, and social responsibility. 

The Baptists held that salvation is by grace alone through faith 
and not of works. 

As to duration of salvation, the Catholics held that one's choice 
determines this. One spokesman said, "The Roman Catholic believes 
a Christian can be lost through a choice against salvation." He con-
tinued that actually "we don't know who is saved and who isn't." 

The Baptist position as stated here was that once a person is re-
born, in the experience of conversion and regeneration through repen-
tance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, he can never be unborn, that 
the believer in Christ is assured of eternal salvation. A further view was 
expressed by a Baptist that Christians are not able to live above sin, 
but as children of God, when Christians sin, God chastises them but 
does not punish them. The chastisement is for their discipline, he em-
phasized, and out of God's love for them as their heavenly Father. 

Answering the question, "What does it mean to be a Christian?" 
a Baptist replied: As far as one's eternal destiny is concerned, salva-
tion is complete the moment one commits himself to Jesus Christ. 
But there should be a growing in grace by the Christian throughout 
his earthly life; and the Christian is assured of perfection in Christ in 
the life to come. 

Responding to this, a Catholic spokesman said that faith on the part 
of the individual precedes the individual's baptism. The same spokes-
man pointed out that when those baptized into the Catholic Church as 

41 



infants reach the age of accountability, they must exercise personal 
faith in Christ. 

A Catholic wondered why, if grace is overpowering, as Baptists 
indicate in their view of the saving process, are not Baptists overpow-
ered by grace to do good works. 

Baptists admitted the point as well taken. One of the Baptists' 
problems, they said, is that they have been captives of political his-
tory and traditions which have militated against their having a pro-
gram of social action. But they reported that this is rapidly changing 
for the better. 

A Baptist raised a question about the dichotomy of priests and 
people—the problem of separation and isolation between the work of 
the priest and the work of the laymen in the church. 

A Catholic admitted there has been too much retreat and isolation 
of the priesthood, but that now there is a moving away from this con-
dition as Catholic lay people are being enlisted in a fuller participation 
in church work and affairs. 

A Baptist suggested that the medieval idea of a package deal for 
society, whereby the church was in control of politics, economics, and 
religion, was not all bad. He emphasized that when a person accepts 
God's grace he is not isolated from society. 

A Catholic viewpoint on salvation was that it comes as a gradual 
process. According to this view, an individual may be making choices 
for God long before he makes a public profession of faith in Christ. 
In line with this view, the speaker said that one cannot make an instan-
taneous decision for God without previous practice of making such 
decisions. He concluded that death-bed conversion is dubious. 

The Baptist general position on knowing who is a Christian was 
expressed by one as being determined by fruits of discipleship. A 
Catholic stated that the Roman Catholic moral theology is reluctant to 
judge this matter. 

A Baptist suggested that today the "father" image is in trouble 
and that perhaps the dynamic of an existential faith, involving the total 
Christian community, speaks to the needs of the modern church. 

GEORGIA—FLORIDA: 
We began our discussion of salvation and evangelism by stating 

the problem Baptists have with an apparent disregard of individual will 
in baptizing infants. Catholics responded by stating the problem they 
have with an apparent disregard for individual will in the Baptist con-
cept of "the perseverance of the saints" or "once saved/always saved." 

42 



We became aware of the variety of individual thinking in both denom-
inations, but it was clear that Catholics had a much more unified wit-
ness than Baptists. 

In response to the Baptist problem, Catholics agreed that baptism 
is symbolic of the initiation of a growing process of salvation. To have 
efficacy, it must be a "correct sign," and there are instances—as when 
there is no indication that a child will receive domestic Christian nur-
ture—when a priest would not baptize an infant. The estate of such an 
unbaptized child in death is not known. 

The efficacy of correct baptism is the imbuing of the child with 
an awareness of, and capacity for receiving, grace. A Baptist present 
felt that his two sons who had become ministers had had a capacity for 
grace without having been baptized in infancy. 

In response to a Baptist suggestion that infant baptism is not scrip-
tural, Catholics pointed out the Old Testament concept of community 
initiation. 

In response to the Catholic problem with the concept of perma-
nent salvation, Baptists seemed to agree that there is a growth in sal-
vation. Initial salvation is commitment to Christ, and saying one is 
"saved" is the expression of a relationship to Him. The scriptural 
premise for the permanence of the condition would be that if Cod did 
it, it cannot change. But, if salvation is God's action, there will be a 
reflection of that in the saved man's life. 

After the initial salvation encounter, one continues to be saved 
from the power of sin, and eventually will be saved from the presence 
of sin. 

In this discussion, there was concern that what we focused upon 
were the fine theological distinctions of how a soul gets into heaven. 
We seemed to decline to discuss the demand of salvation for social 
morality or to realize that evangelism is a call not to walk down a red 
carpet to the front of an elegant church building, but to walk the way of 
the cross in the hope of Easter morn. 

KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE: 

In any effective discussion the first fact that emerges is the answer 
to the question "Who are we?" Not who are we as Baptists or Catholics 
or pastors or educators, but who are we really? That is, who are we 
in terms of a basic philosophy of salvation? 

When one of our conveners began with the question: "Must we 
involve ourselves in social action to be saved?", it became almost in-
mediately evident that any division that existed was not Baptist-Cath-
olic but rather traditional evangelism as social action. 

43 



Salvation was described as being seized by God's spirit placed in 
a new estate in which estate we would work out our salvation in social ac-
tion till the final day when salvation is fulfilled. 

We seemed to struggle to keep the meaning of salvation broad. 
Christ is the Cosmic Christ saving the world, the individual and soci-
ety. He does not theorize only, but he acts. The Black Christ teaches 
us a new concept of beauty, the Youthful Christ a new concept of 
peace and love. He seeks out the needs of men and appears as the Jesus 
who answers a need—racial justice, better housing, bread for the hun-
gry. Herein li es the saving message. 

NORTH CAROLINA—SOUTH CAROLINA 
(See page 45 following for the report from this group as to all 

issues discussed.) 

44 



Small Group Conference Report 
North Carolina—South Carolina 

(As to all issues) 

If dialogue is premised on the theory that two persons confront 
each other as equals, freely open to each other's personhood and will-
ing to listen to each other's traditions, commitments and life-goals, 
and, furthermore, are willing to accept radical disagreement in these 
vital matters without undue pressure to convert, or to press for hasty 
and unwarranted conclusions, then our group had dialogue. 

Of course there was radical disagreement. Of course longseated 
misunderstanding rose to the surface. Of course we could not touch 
upon all the delicate areas of dispute which have divided us for 
centuries. 

But what we did discover about ourselves in this brand new epoch 
of Baptist-Catholic relations, was more positive than negative. Let us 
list some of the salient discoveries. 

Number One: We discovered, oddly enough, some Baptists taking a 
stance theologically and morally and socially very much akin to the 
unfavorable position that they had previously ascribed to Catholics, 
and vice versa. This was true on such widely divergent matters, say, 
as regards the nature of the damnation and salvation of infants to 
the defense of public funds for parochial education at all levels. What 
then occurred was a uniting of other Baptists and other Catholics in a 
consensus of a newly interpreted position. 

Number Two: We discovered that in our institutional roles as office 
holders in our respective ecclesiastical bodies (both presently numeri-
cal giants in the body-politic yet both still carrying psychological scars 
of our occasional minority status) that we often reacted quite similarly. 
As denominational power holders we are very much alike. In opening 
up to each other, we discovered the richness in the vast diversity of our 
respective denominations and were also willing to confess the tendency 
toward corruption in our church life. 

Number Three: We discovered that our readiness to cooperate and to 
join in a united front for theological and moral witness was too often 
based on our respective denominations being threatened by a hostile 
world, rather than by finding our commonality in the unbrokenness of 
the Body of Christ. Yet we discovered that within both bodies, there 
were persons life-long devoted to reaching out to touch hands in the 
true unity of our Lord and Master. 

45 



Number Four: We discovered that certain symbolic and semantic items 
in our historic confrontation were greater barriers to Christian brother-
hood when they were taken to be actual, objective, and final realities. We 
discovered that understanding and the promise of continuous dialogue 
was more possible for those persons who are willing to accept the tenta-
tive, the creative, the dynamic nature of this theological enterprise. 
Number Five: We discovered that in both our bodies we are consider-
ably hindered in our witness to the modern world due to our over-em-
phasis on traditional concepts and methods. This nostalgia for the per-
sonal, the spiritualization of life, the agrarian, ill-fits us for the con-
temporary challenge of the corporate, the "holistic," the urban, and 
the political nature of the contemporary approach. We discovered few 
experiments in each group equipping Christians for this change-over 
but we welcomed from any source any aid along this line. 

Dialogue as understood by our group is sui generis, that is, it 
exists in and for itself. It has no value outside itself. It can by defini-
tion have no other goal. It cannot be measured by a progression of 
ideas or by a calculated compromise of policies and by a watered-down 
merger of institutions. The abiding integrity of each body is respected, 
and the common pilgrimage to maturity is expected. Therefore plural-
ism within the body-politic was the generally accepted context, both of 
our discussions and of our continued existence as the Church in the 
World. 





ili 



Issues Related to Church-State Relations 
—A Catholic View— 

By 
EMILE COMAR 

When Father Bernie Law asked me to appear at this conference, 
my reaction was NO! I told him I saw no point in debating the issue 
of the "wall of separation between church and state" with people 
who have closed minds on the subject. But the more I thought about 
this conference and what has transpired in the South in the last few 
years, the more I became convinced that Baptists have shown by their 
ready acceptance of federal money that they no longer have closed 
minds on the subject of government aid to education, health care fa-
cilities, and the like. 

The only "wall" now separating Baptists and Catholics on gov-
ernment assistance in the field of religiously sponsored community pro-
grams is one of understanding—or it may be misunderstanding. Catho-
lics admit that near confiscatory taxefs on the part of local, state and 
federal governments, now make it virtually impossible to operate 
schools, hospitals, nursing homes, housing programs, etc., without 
some of those taxes being returned to the private sector of society. 

Baptists on the other hand—at least the quoted leadership of Bap-
tists I read about—would rather abandon their particular apostolates in 
the field of health care, education, and welfare, then concede openly 
that they need some return from taxes in order to carry out the work 
they once thought important. 

In my own state of Louisana, Baptists have abandoned their ear-
lier mission to care for the sick at Southern Baptist Hospital in New 
Orleans; Baton Rouge General Hospital in Baton Rouge; Alexandria 
Baptist Hospital. Is it, in your estimation, more important to hold on 
to the catch phrase "separation of church and state" than to op-
erate medical care facilities aiding persons of all religious denomina-
tions in the communities you once served? Are you going to be sat-
isfied when the direction of all health care is taken over by government? 
This will surely come to pass unless persons of dedication and com-
mitment remain in the health care field. 

49 



Are Southern Baptists really sure that they mean what they say 
when they echo over and over again "separation of church and state" 
in another field—that of education? 

In November of 1967 I read an article advocating a type of "G.I. 
Bill" for all students. It advocated that all students receive govern-
ment funds to attend the college or university of their choice. It was 
written by Mr. Miller Upton, president of Beloit College in Wisconsin, 
endorsed by Dr. Duke K. McCall, president of The Southern Baptist 
Theological Seminary, and it appeared in the Louisiana Baptist 
Message. 

That same month—November, 1967,— the Baptist Press, official 
news source of the Southern Baptist Convention, reported that for the 
four-year period of 1963, '64, '65 and '66, forty-eight Southern Bap-
tist colleges and universities received $55,892,000 in federal govern-
ment funds. 

One year later, in December of 1968, the Louisiana Baptist Con-
vention voted unanimously to recommend to Congress "the consid-
eration of legislation which would provide federally funded scholarships 
for college students in order that they may purchase their education at 
the college of their choice" 

Dr. McCall again spoke up for the Baptist position, saying: "We 
need to focus attention on a better way for the federal government to 
aid higher education simply because the principle of federal aid to 
higher education has been accepted by our society. Here is a situation 
in which our Baptist principles can solve our nation's problems." 

At the risk of further offending the Baptists here assembled, let me 
ask a question in closing: 

If there is a Baptist principle which says that students should, with 
government funds, be able to select the school of their choice, why does 
it apply only to college and university students? 

Could it be that this is a good principle for Southern Baptist 
Colleges and Universities because there is such a large number of 
them in our area? 

And could it be that the principle does not extend to elementary 
and high school students because the majority of parochial schools in 
the Southern area are operated by Catholic parishes or Catholic reli-
gious communities? 

I know that a great deal of agonizing decisions have been made by 
Baptist institutions as they have come to the realization that they 
can't make it without some return from taxes from the government. 

50 



Time magazine two years ago described the various back-door 
methods by which Baptist schools and hospitals were getting around 
the so-called "church-state" issue. The Reverend J. T. Miller, 
president of the Kentucky Baptist Convention, for example, explained 
a set of double entry books by which Baptist Georgetown College in 
Kentucky was receiving federal funds. The college, he said, had found 
a method of "beating the devil around the stump." 

May I suggest that it is time to stop trying to beat the devil around 
the stump "one way or another" and to admit that religious groups 
do have a role to play in education, health care, and other commun-
ity services and that they should not be ashamed to face the fact that 
the job can't be done with private dollars alone. 

51 



Issues Related to Church-State Relations 
—A Baptist View— 

By 
W. BARRY GARRETT 

For centuries Baptists and Catholics have talked "at" each 
other and "about" one another on thé subject of religious liberty and 
church-state relations. It is refreshing to participate in an experience 
such as this wherein we talk "to" one another, not as adversaries but 
as fellow Christians, both seeking to understand the truth of God as re-
vealed in and through Jesus Christ. 

In our discussions I hope that we will be careful to distinguish be-
tween things that differ. We should keep in clear focus the differences 
between constitutional provisions relating to church-state relations 
and basic Christian insights concerning religious freedom. The primary 
focus of our discussion should be on Christian principles. Then we can 
dialogue on how we apply these principles to the practice of religious free-
dom and church-state relations. 

To illustrate: A citizen of Spain, steeped in the culture and national 
traditions of his native land, will approach church-state relations from a 
vastly different viewpoint from that of a citizen of the United States 
of America whose church-state viewpoints are shaped by the First 
Amendment and our culture and national traditions. 

On the other hand, a Roman Catholic who is aware of the 
"aggiornamento" that is in process in his church will look to the "Dec-
laration on Religious Freedom" approved by Vatican Council II 
(Dec. 7, 1965), and a Baptist will take his stance from what he conceives 
to be the Biblical bases for religious liberty. (Incidentally, it is de-
lightful to note how similar these two viewpoints are becoming.) 

As we discuss "issues related to church-state relations" let us 
make clear distinctions between "separation of church and state" and 
"religious freedom." Religious liberty is a primary objective. Sepa-
ration of church and state is a political arrangement to maintain free-
dom. At least this is the situation in the United States of America, if 
not in Russia which also has "separation of church and state." 

After we have discussed our basic Christian premises relating to 
freedom, and perhaps have even agreed on many of these, it would 

52 



then be worth discussing how we translate them into public policy. To 
illustrate: Many Baptists that I know are certain that their personal and 
"Christian" attitudes on alcoholic beverages or sabbath observance 
should be enacted into law. Many of the Catholics I know are equally cer-
tain that their view on abortion or population control should be re-
cognized in the law of the land. You can think of other illustrations. 

Perhaps a major focus of our discussion should be on how 
Christians and Christian bodies should relate their ethical concepts to 
public policy. Here is an area where we all need to learn how to dis-
tinguish between things that differ— Christian commitment and the for-
mation of public policy. Maybe we can agree that the basic principles 
of religious liberty demand that we not impose our Christian precepts 
by legislation (or by any other method) upon the entire citizenry. 

After we have discussed some of the above problems, then we will 
be in a better position to approach the questions that arise in "issues 
relating to church-state relations." 

Here is a partial list of the kinds of questions that are involved: 
1. Religious Promotion: To what extent are the churches going 

to ask the government for aid to promote religious objectives? Or 
the reverse, to what extent will the government utilize the churches and 
church agencies for the accomplishment of governmental or nation-
alistic objectives? 

2. Public Policy:. What will be the permanent public policy in 
regard to the use of public funds by and for church-related institutions? 

3. Education: What is the relation between religion and education 
and what is the role of the churches in the field of public education? 

4. Taxes: In the absence of direct subsidies from the government 
for the churches, what principles should guide both the churches and 
the government in tax policies? Both the freedom of the taxpayers and 
the independence of the churches must be mutually respected. 

5. Welfare: With both the government and the church concerned 
about human welfare how are we to practice principles of religious 
liberty and separation of church and state, and, at the same time, 
adequately meet human needs? To what extent and in what ways shall 
government and church cooperate in meeting human need? 

6. Censorship: Problems of religious liberty in relation to censor-
ship, freedom of thought, academic freedom, and free speech are 
among the livest issues of our day. How do we practice religious lib-
erty in relation to these problems? 

7. Christian Nation: In the light of the New Testament, can a na-
tion be a "Christian" nation? What is the relationship between re-
ligion and public policy? 

53 



Here is another way of stating some of the church-state issues 
suggested by the questions above: (1) the use of public funds for church 
education purposes; (2) the treatment of religion as American heritage 
required by law; (3) the stimulation of church contributions by favor-
able tax policies; (4) using religious institutions abroad by the United 
States foreign policy programs; and (5) United States (or state) health, 
education and welfare programs administered by church agencies. 

54 



Small Group Conference Reports 
on 

Issues Related to Church-State Relations 

ALABAMA—MISSISSIPPI: 
I. The importance of religious liberty is the major point. 

A. Separation of church and state is a political vehicle to pro-
tect this liberty. 

B. What are our own objectives? Principles of religious free-
dom: 

1. Human dignity. 
2. The biblical basis of religious liberty: 

The doctrine of creation is one of religious liberty. 
3. Man must be free, not hindered by government; the re-

sponsibility of government is to insure individual freedom (Perhaps we 
are looking for "freedom to" rather than "freedom from"). 

4. Freedom is the absence of coercion. 

C. Is there really separation of church and state, or separation 
without domination? 

1. Fear by Baptists of Catholic domination—the historical 
basis of this fear which goes back to the Middle Ages. 

D. Lost Issue - reluctance to accept federal funds. 
Other related issues: 

1. Baptists do not wish to support Catholic schools (with 
tax dollars) to support a sectarian viewpoint. 

2. An individual should be required to pay for a religious 
viewpoint. 

3. Catholics are paying double—both to government in taxes 
and in support of Catholic schools. 

4. Catholics should not be seen as a threat. 
5. Baptists reaffirm their stance against supporting religion 

through tax dollars. 
6. Religion is a voluntary response to God; paying taxes is 

not voluntary but coerced. 
7. Acceptance of Gl bill money in Baptist colleges ap-

pears to be opposed to the Baptist position on acceptance of tax 
money for education (discussion on supporting teachers of subjects 
such as biology, physical education, etc.); these schools, in this con-
text, are providing the same services as public institutions. 

55 



The point was made that the question of purchase of services is now 
before the courts. 

E. When do we have the factor of government's supporting pa-
rochial schools? 

1. In some instances, Catholic schools have been rented 
when public schools were condemned. 

F. Are we backing out (or down) on the Christian principle by 
accepting federal grants? (Discussion on Baptist viewpoint). 

G. The great concern is fear of the increasing secularization 
of education—fear of the states' taking over all concerns of man and 
religion's being relegated to worship only—not to care of the sick, the 
poor, the uneducated. 

1. One position was expressed that the state take over all 
education. 

2. Another viewpoint was of the need for private schools 
for the sake of competition. 

II. What is the mission of the Church? 
A. The mission of the Christian in society. 

1. Public education may not be a Christian education. 
2. In a pluralistic society there is a limit to what the Christ-

ian can do. 
3. The Church does have a mission in permeating society 

and providing a Christian society. 

PROPOSALS: 
1. Religious education should fortify the student for participating 

in the secular world. (There was some question as to whether this will 
work; it is not supported by studies on the matter.) 

A side issue to this was that Baptist churches have frequently 
opened private schools in church buildings to support segregation; 
Catholic schools have de facto segregation in many instances; that 
the government, not churches, has forced the issue of integration. 

2. That Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics mobilize their 
best minds to hone in on the movement to change the systems which 
denigrate mankind, such as Welfare System, etc. 

ARKANSAS—LOUISIANA: 
At this session a Catholic raised the question: "From a practical 

viewpoint, is it right for the Church not to participate in the broad 
spectrum of welfare?" Then he asked: "Whose responsibility is it to 
educate the child?" He concluded that this is the legal responsibility 
of the state but that the parent is also responsible. He held that a parent 
has the right to decide where to send his children to school, and that 

56 



since the state requires elementary and secondary education, it should 
provide support for parochial as well as for public schools. 

The question was raised as to what the difference is in principle, if 
any, between the receiving of state funds for higher education and re-
ceiving such funds for elementary and secondary education. The only 
reply was that the lower education is compulsory while higher education 
is not. 

One Catholic speaker pointed out that, in our day, social pressure 
actually operates to make higher education a necessity. Several of the 
Catholics in the group saw no difference in principle between state funds 
for higher education and such funds for lower education. They regard-
ed the total picture of education as being for American citizenship. 

Objecting to the support of parochial schools by tax funds, a Baptist 
said that he saw this as being much the same thing as for representa-
tives of faiths other than his own to come to the door of his home so-
liciting funds for the propagation of their faiths. 

A Catholic replied: "We are not asking for state subsidy for teach-
ing religion, but for teaching arithmetic, etc." He said that Catholic 
schools are not used for proselyting. Any Protestant children attending 
Catholic schools are not included in the classes in religion except by 
written request by their respective parents, he said. 

The possibility of closing parochial schools and sending all Catholic 
children to the public schools was discussed. A Catholic replied that 
they were convinced that a monolithic system of schools is not desir-
able. He said that since such a system would be wholly supported by 
the government, it would be wholly controlled by the government and 
be used as an instrument of indoctrination and propaganda. He felt 
that it is for the best interests of both church and state that we continue 
to have a dual system of schools. 

Both Baptists and Catholics made suggestions for the improve-
ment of the public schools. A Catholic said: "We have ignored the 
public schools, but we must give our attention to them, and we now 
are." He suggested that we do what we can to make teaching an at-
tractive profession and encourage the paying of better salaries to 
teachers. 

A Baptist said that one of the things Baptists and Catholics can 
do, as representatives of the two largest denominations in the nation, is 
to support the superintendents of public education in the matters per-
taining to morality. 

It was pointed out that the Second Vatican Council specified that 
it is the responsibility of the Catholic church to teach religious educa-
tion and to conduct schools when possible. 

57 



GEORGIA—FLORIDA: 
In the afternoon session regarding the issues of church and state, 

both groups could demonstrate that they had been the victims of op-
pression by state churches. The Baptist concept of church-state sep-
aration was expressed as a refusal to permit the government to support 
or control religion. A Catholic response was that government should 
support religion as a public benefit, but should give no unfair support 
to a particular religion. They do not feel we must have absolute sep-
aration to permit religious liberty. 

Baptists and Catholics seemed to agree that since even religionists 
pay taxes, we too have a right to government funds. It seems agreeable 
to both groups that this be acquired through a voucher system in ed-
ucation, and possibly even in hospitalization, old age care and other 
ministries. 

Catholics denied any desire to seize or control government, but 
want their right to select schools not to be hindered by oppressive 
taxation. Baptists agreed that they had not previously understood 
this argument. 

The discussion closed with reflections by each group upon the 
images it has of the other. It became apparent that each group should 
seek to communicate itself honestly to the other, and that each has a 
responsibility to understand each other better. 

KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE: 
In our second session we quickly agreed that private education 

is in critical need. Tax money is necessary if we are to continue our 
present approach to education. 

Then the more basic question was asked: "Is our present ap-
proach to education the best approach for today?" And guess 
what? We couldn't answer that question. 

Perhaps public and private educators need to work cooperatively 
to preserve both systems, since it seems to be agreed that the chal-
lenge of a private system of education serves our country by being a 
challenge to public education. 

Perhaps the religious "school" should limit itself to education 
in very limited specialized areas not being adequately cared for by 
existing systems. 

It is difficult to be assured that the products of our private re-
ligious schools are any better Christians than those men and women 
who are in state schools. 

In a short discussion about pre-college education it was agreed 
that Sunday School - CCD types of religious education do not do 
everything, but do accomplish something valuable. 

NORTH CAROLINA—SOUTH CAROLINA: 
(See page 45 and following in Section III) 

58 







Issues Related to Civic Righteousness 
—A Catholic View— 

By 
LURA ETHRIDGE 

The term "civic righteousness" is so interwoven with the concept 
of social responsibility that the lines of demarcation merge. The con-
cepts resemble a great deal the doctrine of faith and works. A committed 
Christian can hardly embrace one without the other. My remarks are 
strictly those of a lay person and pretermit any discussion as to cler-
ical involvement in running for political office. Our thoughts are rath-
er directed toward the role we should play as Christians in our obli-
gations as citizens. 

My family and I are citizens of Mississippi which state is not 
unique in its history of electing people to public office who are cap-
tives of a bygone era. There is a certain irony in the fact that prob-
ably no politician could get elected in that state unless he ostensibly 
was a member of some organized church. What most high officials 
do, however, as a practical matter, after election as to serving all the 
people in the light of a professed Christian commitment, is something 
quite else again. The most disillusioning aspect of all has been that 
supposedly decent citizens of probity and integrity repeat their polit-
ical errors year after year by electing these incompetent men to office 
—men who are not imbued with Christian concepts of civic righteous-
ness. In Mississippi we are faced shortly with another gubernatorial 
election. Many of us wonder if again at election time we will be saddled 
with all the hoary shibboleths of the past. 

We have made progress in the South in many respects but there 
is one area which seems almost immutable to change and it is this: 
We cling tenaciously in political affairs to the appeals and slogans of 
a bygone era. A candidate for political office must almost certainly 
embrace all the outgrown slogans we have inherited—or so the perform-
ance of some of our candidates would indicate—or be subjected to a cam-
paign of innuendo and hate. What a breath of fresh air it would be to 
all our Southern states if a candidate could forthrightly express his 
views on labor, race and economic problems that beset us without im-
mediately being denigrated as a "liberal" with all the connotations 
the term implies locally. 

61 



It appears people have been preoccupied with the terms "liberal" 
and "conservative" for quite a while. I recall Disraeli once com-
mented that "Conservatism . . . shrinks from principle, disavows prog-
ress." In Mississippi, the terms are as changeable as a chameleon. 
Normally, however, we tend to think of a conservative as one who en-
courages isolation from the rest of the country, adopts the worn out 
creeds and mottoes of past generations, and is unable to plant his feet 
firmly in the twentieth century. The very minimum we have expected 
of a conservative in my own state is lip-service to a dead past with pro-
testations of loyalty to such concepts of the future. 

A liberal is anyone who has been unwilling to pay homage to such 
notions and who attempts to view with a'clear eye some of our prob-
lems, It is likely that by any other yardstick than the one we have his-
torically applied, a "liberal" in the South might well be a genuine 
conservative anywhere else. It is time to be realistic about politicians 
and their self-styled designations. 

What, then, are our obligations as citizens in the election of our 
officials? Surely we cannot, as Pilate did, wash our hands and be ab-
solved. 

Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for the tri-
umph of evil is for good men to do nothing. A far more serious con-
sequence is for good men affirmatively to lend aid, comfort and finan-
cial support to candidates who are not the most highly qualified 
persons, both morally and politically, for office. As long as all of us 
are guilty of withholding our wholehearted support from politicians 
on every level who seek the best interests of all citizens, we have 
failed in our responsibilities. No pragmatic cause should deter us from 
supporting in every way those persons who dare to be themselves 
and challenge the status quo for acceptable political and moral 
reasons. 

How can we determine who those persons are? And, what guaran-
tee do we have of their performance? We can only judge by past exper-
iences. I am mindful also of the biblical text "By their fruits ye shall 
know them." Individuals with a history of commitment to moral, 
civil, and spiritual causes are worthy of our consideration and support 
and we should support them in such a fashion that they need not fear 
to speak out on the issues of our times. We can make them secure in the 
knowledge they have a bulwark of support in the thoughtful people of 
our area. 

We can encourage candidates to quit paying lip-service to out-
grown concepts. It should not be that any candidate wins a public 
office because he can more effectively criticize the Federal Govern-
ment, the United States Supreme Court, organized labor and in-

62 



tegration. Actually, some decent, honorable men have fairly been forced 
into such an intolerable situation because (1) people expect it—including 
such people as all of us, and (2) financial support may be cut off if a 
candidate dares to say what he truly believes. We have indulged in 
the frequent hypocrisy of supporting a decent candidate while, at the 
same time, we encourage him to take a public stand completely con-
trary to his basic beliefs and to ours in the thought that otherwise he 
might lose the election. Can such ends justify the means? I think 
not. Many times, anyway, the candidate loses and we are left with noth-
ing but a feeling of our own dishonesty and a vague feeling short of 
unhappiness that we have been unfaithful to our promptings of con-
science. 

Some of us have felt that for economic and social reasons it has 
been impractical, if not unwise, to follow the dictates of conscience. 
We have attempted to rationalize our reasons for not committing our 
hearts and purses in political venture with the thought that politics is 
a dirty game and will always be thus. Our attempted justification makes 
little sense. Those of us who truly love the South will not indulge our-
selves in this kind of thinking. It is a luxury we cannot afford. 

In addition to our own personal commitment to civic honesty, we 
should be mindful of the effect the South's political history has had 
on this generation. I have found, as doubtless many of you have, that 
today's young people have an uncanny ability to see through sham 
and dishonesty. Some of these youngsters have become pretty dis-
illusioned with outworn campaign cries calculated to appeal to the emo-
tions and prejudices of the voters. These young people will be much 
more likely to believe our protestations if we by precept and example 
indicate our willingness to realistically assess the present and improve 
the future of the South. We have an obligation to our children to be 
honest with ourselves and with them. 

There are many other aspects of civic righteousness which are not 
comprehended within the scope of this statement. As for these other 
matters, we must search our own hearts and consciences. My principal 
concern today however is to direct our attention to that aspect of civic 
righteousness which deals with the election of decent candidates to po-
litical office. 

63 



Issues Related to Civic Righteousness 
—A Baptist View— 

By 
LEWIS E. RHODES 

Civic righteousness is used here to designate quality relationships 
of justice, mercy, and humaneness between individuals and social ins-
titutions, institutions and institutions, racial groups, government and 
individuals, government and groups, government and institutions. 
This is to be distinguished from personal piety—such as individual hab-
its of prayer, sobriety or moderation, honesty, sexual morality, and 
Sabbath observance, etc. Civic righteousness and personal piety are 
related, but not synonymous, and not enforced by the same powers. 
The enforcement of social righteousness is political and heteronomous; 
personal piety is more autonomous, though informed by religious and 
social forces. 

There is a difference between issue and conditions. Slavery was an 
evil condition long before it was a public issue. A damaged environ-
ment came many years before the issue. Law and order were an issue 
last fall. It is less an issue now, but not less a condition. School seg-
regation was a condition for centuries; an issue since 1954. 

In view of these distinctions, the following procedure will be used: 
the condition will be stated on the left and the degree of the issue on 
the right. The public intensity of the issue will be graded high, medi-
um, or low. The conditions are not listed in order of importance. 

CONDITION ISSUE 
1. Inadequate and/or prohibitive 1. Low, rising 

health care 
2. Poverty 
3. Racism 
4. Environment 
5. War and peace 
6. Decaying cities 
7. World poverty (Foreign Aid, etc.) 
8. Crime, drugs, gambling, etc. 
9. Military-Industry Coalition 

10. Public education 
11. Unemployment 

9. Low 
10. Low 
11. High 

4. High 
5. Medium toward low 
6. High 
7. Low 
8. Medium 

2. Medium to low 
3. Medium 

64 



There are other conditions and issues you may want to discuss. 
You likely will not agree with my grading of issues. One may wonder 
how these affect civic righteousness. 

It seems clear to me that every one of these has to do with civic 
righteousness. For example, environment is a public trust. We have 
the power to pollute it, but we do not have the moral right to pollute. 
If pollution damages the beauty of the environment, this violates a 
public trust. If polluted environment injures man and/or animals and 
plants it is unjust. The needless and useless destruction of natural 
life is bad theology, but also an inhumane act that brutalizes human 
life. The right to hold title to property does not carry with it the right to 
destroy it or to make it destructive. 

Look at unemployment. Unemployment is an evil if one's life and 
welfare depend on it. We have planned unemployment. We have of-
ficials who tell what percentage of unemployment is acceptable. It 
seems rather brutal for an employed person to say how many unem-
ployed are acceptable. If unemployment is good for the country, we 
should manage unemployment democratically. If we need 5,000,000 
out of work, we could use a lottery system. Put all our Social Security 
numbers in a barrel and draw out 5,000,000 at random. Let each of us 
help the country by serving it a year without employment. It is not 
difficult to see the injustices of present economic policies. 

If judgment begins first at the house of God, the Church should 
be able to review all human institutions and determine whether or 
not they are under the dominion of Christ. The Church is concerned 
with man and whatever helps or hurts man is within its sphere of in-
fluence and criticism. We are justified in trying to induce all human 
institutions to function with justice, mercy, and humaneness. 

65 



Small Group Conference Reports 
on 

Issues Related to Civic Righteousness 

ALABAMA—MISSISSIPPI: 
I. What are implications of the term "civic righteousness"? 

A. Dealing with the issue of electing worthy, moral candi-
dates: 

1. Support should be given to the man who is actively in-
volved in Christian endeavors. 

2. Churches should encourage Christian candidates to 
run for office. 

B. Exposing issues as regards the position taken by the candi-
date on such issues: 

Though political candidates are prone to becloud issues, 
the Church has an obligation to expose these issues to the voting 
public by: 

1. Mobilizing mass media through more creative exploi-
tation of radio and television (there is little likelihood that newspapers 
can be mobilized for such Christian effort). 

2. Bringing candidates and voters in contact, especially 
bringing candidates into contact with leaders other than those of the 
economic power bloc, and 

3. Making it possible for candidates to come in contact 
with black leadership. 

II. What can be done about getting the candidate elected who 
seems to be for black people and other oppressed groups and minor-
ities? 

A. Proposal: Court an aggressive black bloc vote in conjunction 
with the white minority. 

B. Proposal: Parishes/Churches should make it possible finan-
cially for the Christian to run for political office by: 

1. Conducting an active campaign for the Christian can-
didate. 

2. Supporting such candidates financially. It was noted 
that, though the Church itself may find blocks to such direct finan-
cial support, members should be encouraged to give this support. 

66 



C. Proposal: Get people to attend precinct meetings and 
to become involved in a political party. 

III. Other areas and problems directly affecting the imple-
mentation of civic righteousness: 

A. Involvement of youth—there must be education for 
Christian citizenship. 

B. There must be further exploration of what the Church 
must do when members/parishioners are part of the "machine" 
which oppresses. 

C. There must be exposure to the "folly of fears " . of a 
black takeover. 

Following is a summation of recommendations as arrived at in 
this discussion: 

1. Expose candidates to pockets of leadership other than those he 
normally meets. 

2. Mobilize a bloc vote of blacks and the white minorities. 
3. We as Christians should commend public officials when a job 

is well done. 
4. Develop cells of persons committed to civic righteousness and 

raising funds for such persons. 
5. The Church must mobilize itself to support such persons. 
6. Youth have tremendous power to help candidates and this pow-

er should be given direction. 
7. There must be Christian education to show persons how to par-

ticipate in the political process and in political parties. 

ARKANSAS—LOUISIANA: 
In its final session this group agreed that civic righteousness is a 

matter of Christian integrity exerted in the realm of civic and political 
affairs. 

The responsibility of the church in bringing about civic righteous-
ness was seen as entailing morality education within the church and 
participation by church members in community and state affairs. 

The discussion pointed up the fact that the Roman Catholic 
Church and Baptist churches, by the nature of their difference in or-
ganizational patterns, deal with specific issues differently. While the 
Catholic Church frequently takes official stands on issues, Baptist 
churches seldom do, the pastors dealing with principles underlying cur-
rent issues but leaving the members to act individually. It was pointed 
out, however, by the Catholic brethren, that even when their church 
takes an official stand this does not necessarily determine that all mem-
bers will act accordingly. 

67 



A Baptist stated the view that Baptist churches have often failed 
to teach their members the democratic process for dealing with civic 
issues. It was the feeling of this person that this situation could be im-
proved by starting at the state convention level to find ways of dealing 
with issues. 

We were agreed that the pastor is the key person in the local con-
gregation. It was noted that Catholic pastors, because they do not 
serve at the pleasure of their congregations, as do Baptist pastors, may 
frequently be in better positions than Baptist pastors to take righteous 
but unpopular stands on issues before the people. As an illustration of 
this, someone said that in his state there were two classes of pastors a-
mong Protestants—the unemployed and those who kept quiet on contro-
versial issues. 

A Baptist mission leader reported marked progress in recent 
months among Baptists of his state in becoming more aware and more 
concerned about human needs. He asserted that his denomination had 
long fallen short in the practice of its faith in this area of need. 

He said that there continues to be a critical need for the asser-
tion of leadership by Baptist pastors. He cited as a good example in 
human relations the forthright stand now being taken by W. A. Criswell, 
pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, and immediate past president 
of the Southern Baptist Convention. He said that Dr. Criswell's con-
tention that the Church must minister to and be open to people re-
gardless of race would doubtless have wide and beneficial influence on 
other pastors in the matter of race relations. 

The generation gap was pointed up as a continuing area of con-
cern for the Church. Several expressed the feeling that, as much as 
young people like to flaunt their thinking as being different from that of 
their parents, they frequently reflect the prejudices of their parents, 
particularly in race relations. 

A Catholic asked if Baptists have any conscience qualms over in-
adequate housing conditions. The reply was that the Southern Baptist 
Convention has pointed up this situation from time to time but that 
there is a need for corrective action on the local church level. One ap-
proach, it was suggested, would be for churches to help the poorly 
housed to have more adequate income. 

In closing this final conference session, the Arkansas-Louisiana 
group agreed unanimously to recommend to the whole conference: 
That, upon returning to our respective communities that we agree that 
during the coming week Baptists will contact Catholics and Catholics 
will contact Baptists to share highlights of the historic conference we 
are now concluding. 

68 



GEORGIA—FLORIDA: 
In the brief evening discussion of civic righteousness, several cler-

gymen recalled instances when ministers in their communities cooper-
ated to combat community sin and negligence. It was pointed out that 
most of these efforts involved "safe" issues (as eliminating pornog-
raphy and keeping a rock festival out of the town), and were negative in 
their emphasis. 

Baptists commented that there is a need to expose laymen to the 
practice of civic righteousness, and to let them be a leaven for the whole 
church loaf. Also, the power status of the layman needs to be capitalized 
upon, and the layman's Christian consciousness should be edified and 
supported through the Church. 

Catholics expressed frustration that there is no collective voice 
for Baptists, no "Baptist position" which can be nailed down. 

Some Baptist ministers expressed a leadership strategy that re-
quires them not to get too far ahead of their congregations for fear they 
lose their leadership power and lose the people. Others commented 
that we have not gone as far as we might, and that the people will give 
us more leeway to lead than we credit them for giving. 

Our session closed with a moving plea from the editor of the local 
diocesan Catholic paper for us to make the Church the Christ of Golgo-
tha. He observed that he had become convinced in this conference 
that he really has not been foolish in thinking we can have church unity. 

KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE: 
In our final session we sought to find some practical issue that 

would serve as a focal point for action. Housing, penal reform, poverty 
issues, literacy crusade, anti-crime crusade, etc. 

It was pointed out that Catholics have a center for united action 
in the Bishop which is an advantage in terms of decisive action in com-
parison with the Baptist system. 

We then adjourned, I having discovered for certain that Baptists 
are no more and no less confused about the words of the Church today 
than the Catholics. 

NORTH CAROLINA—SOUTH CAROLINA 
(See page 45 and following in Section III.) 

69 









Closing Statement 
(Summary) 

By 
MSGR. BERNARD F. LAW 

A debt of gratitude is owed the Department of Interfaith Witness 
for its work in planning this conference. The work of Dr. Hastings, Dr. 
Starkes and Mrs. Day is especially noted and deeply appreciated. 

While this is the first time that a meeting of this type has been 
co-sponsored with an agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, it 
is not the first time that Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics have 
met in such a setting. 

There have been three meetings co-sponsored by the Bishops' 
Committee for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs and the Ecu-
menical Institute at Wake Forest which brought together Southern 
Baptists and Roman Catholics for several days of dialogue. These 
meetings took place at Wake Forest, at Louisville, and at St. Joseph 
Abbey, St. Benedict, Louisiana. 

Among the names of those persons who were particularly instru-
mental in developing and fostering relations between Roman Cath-
olics and Southern Baptists, none looms larger than that of Brooks 
Hayes. It would be difficult to overestimate the contribution this man 
has made to the growth of understanding between Roman Catholics and 
Southern Baptists. 

Barry Garrett, too, has made a notable contribution to our grow-
ing relationship, as has Dr. Claude Broach. Another.man intimately con-
nected with the original planning of this consultation, and who remains 
a powerful force in Roman Catholic-Southern Baptist understanding, 
is Dr. Joe Dick Estes. 

I would like also to express a personal word of appreciation for 
the presence and active participation of those Catholic bishops who are 
here. The presence of these bishops indicates the high level of commit-
ment which the Catholic Church in the Southeast has to the bettering 
of relationships between Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics. In a 
special way it is good to know that a man with the enthusiasm, dedication 
and vision of Bishop Joseph Durick of Nashville will be especially re-
sponsible for the Bishops' Committee in its relationship with the 
Southern Baptist Convention. 

73 



While we can rejoice at being part of a historical meeting, it would 
be totally unrealistic to assume that there are no deep problems be-
tween us. For example, Claude Broach, in his remarks, has reflected an 
understanding of the Church which I could not share in all of its im-
plications. There is, certainly, a difference in ecclesiology between 
Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics which is fundamental. 

As we grow in understanding and in cooperative efforts, it is es-
sential that we not minimize our theological differences, but that we 
have serious theological dialogue as part of our growing relationship. 

There is a distinction in Catholic thought between the deposit of 
faith and a theological elaboration, a theological understanding of 
that faith. Certainly in the Catholic tradition there is a pluralism in 
theological approaches. It would have to be said, however, that Roman 
Catholics and Southern Baptists have a different comprehension of what 
is contained in the deposit of faith itself. We must, in candor, discover 
areas of agreement and refine our points of disagreement. 

Father Frank Ruff mentioned in his remarks that there has not 
been sufficient stress on the need of forgiveness for past sins against 
one another in this meeting. While no Catholic can speak for any other 
Catholic in all matters, let me at this point express a personal view by 
assuring you that I, as one Roman Catholic, do not stand waiting for 
an expression of guilt or sorrow from any Southern Baptist! 

There is enough in the history of both Southern Baptists and Ro-
man Catholics to be sorry about as our relationships have worked them-
selves out at various times and in different places. The past, however, 
I consign to the integrity of life of the individual Christian believer and 
to the mercy of God. Each day when I pray the Lord's Prayer I mean 
it when I say, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass 
against us." 

It is possible, I believe, for Christians to enjoy their guilt over 
the past and to use this concern over the past as an escape from their 
present responsibilities. Without in any way minimizing the need for 
confession, which remains good for the soul, I am rather more inter-
ested in the present press for cooperative action and the need for 
building a better future through cooperation between Southern Bap-
tists and Roman Catholics than I am in dwelling on past injustices. 

In terms of the future, I would agree with Bishop Durick and others 
who have spoken to the point that such conferences as this South-
eastern consultation are of great help and should be continued as fully 
as possible. 

I would further urge that meetings be arranged on a statewide basis 
using, on the Catholic side, the various diocesan ecumenical com-

74 



missions as points of contact, and on the Southern Baptist side the 
superintendents of mission. 

There is something of an organizational problem for a statewide 
conference. Given the Catholic diocesan structure, it is easier to mobi-
lize the structures of the Catholic Church for such cooperative effort. 

This conference, however, has proven what can be done in terms 
of an effective meeting of Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics. 
The Department of Interfaith Witness of the Home Mission Board and 
the office which I represent for the Bishops' Committee for Ecu-
menical and Interreligious Affairs should be able to serve in a consul-
tative and catalytic function in planning statewide meetings between 
Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics. 

Granted the theological differences that separate Roman Catholics 
and Southern Baptists, there is a fundamental unity upon which we 
must build our growing relationship. 

Bishop Waters has emphasized our acceptance of Holy Scripture 
as God's inspired word and the need to build cooperative programs 
upon this mutual acceptance wherever possible. Bishop Waters has 
also stressed our existence in this country, side by side as the two largest 
Christian groups, in the midst of this great political experiment in 
democracy. 

Bishop Waters referred to this as an experiment in democracy; he 
implies by this that democracy is in process. I don't want to put words 
into his mouth, but the notion of an experiment denotes, to me, a trial 
and error method. Appreciating as we do, we Roman Catholics and 
Southern Baptists in this country, the principle of (separation) of Church 
and state, we also acknowledge our responsibilities as Christian citizens 
to work for the common good. The experiment of democracy is quite 
compatible with the Christian vision of the dignity of man and the val-
ue of justice as a guiding principle in human society. 

Certainly in this area of civic righteousness, Southern Baptists 
and Roman Catholics have a special responsiblity to see to it that the 
experiment in democracy does not fail. 

There is also our fundamental unity in that complex which might 
be referred to as baptism—commitment—conversion. All of us in this 
room have been baptized in Christ Jesus, have expressed in one way 
or another our lifelong commitment to the following of Jesus Christ, 
and have turned from sin and are determined to stay turned from sin 
through conversion of life. The points of disagreement that we may have 
on infant baptism should not obscure the fact that newness of life, con-
version, commitment are an integral part of both Southern Baptist 
and Roman Catholic understanding of Christian existence. We must 
encounter one another as Christians in the very real sense of the term 
if our cooperative efforts are to have meaning. 

75 



Closing Statement 

By 
M. THOMAS STARKES 

We never know the future consequences of an action. One of the 
varying and stimulating factors is the role of the Holy Spirit, whom 
we have seen at work in the last few hours. We have left this confer-
ence somewhat unstructured to allow an element of freedom. What 
structuring was done was of equal sponsorship from both the Catholic 
side and the Baptist side. However, certain individuals deserve credit 
for long hours of planning what has happened here. They include 
Frank Ruff, a tremendous soul, and Monsignor Bernie Law whom we 
will all greatly miss as he leaves his national role in ecumenical plan-
ning. It has been my personal pleasure to get to know Bishop Durick. 
I have already come to appreciate him and his spirit and I am looking 
forward to future cooperation with him. Dr. C. B. Hastings deserves 
a great deal of credit because he has done much of the legwork and 
creative planning which has helped make this conference a success. 

We here have learned the meaning of dialogue as a common 
search for truth. 

We are learning together how to distinguish: 

a. between cordiality and hard-nosed encounter, 
b. between talk of souls and gut-level living, 
c. between "talking at" and "growing with," 
d. between "getting saved" and "redeeming a world," 
e. between "going to church" and "being the church," 
f. between "separated brethren" and "brothers in Christ," 
g. between "stereotyping" and "understanding in depth," 
h. between "verbal profanity" and "the scandal of ignorance," 
i. between saying "some of my best friends are Catholics" and 

"Bernie Law is a human being for whom Christ died." 

We are growing by discussing and discovering anew the topics un.-
der discussion. 

In the area of evangelism all Baptists and Roman Catholics 
should read a new book out of England entitled Secular Evangelism. 
The author builds a thought on Soren Kierkegaard's distinguishing 
between evangelism as being reading to a hungry man out of a cook-

76 



book and one hungry man showing another where he has found bread. 
Mr. Brown, the author, further warns against an evangelistic bread 
"warmed over in a denominational oven." We have profited from 
each other in learning about evangelism. 

In a similar fashion we have learned what it means to be a South-
ern Baptist, both in the majority and the minority, in a stage of reli-
gious pluralism, and to go beyond clever phrases such as "separa-
tion of church and state" to deeper issues such as so-called "seg-
regation academies." 

In the area of civic righteousness we are learning that what Christ 
said about the individual is also true of the church, i.e., "you find 
your life by losing it." 

We are learning that God is the God of GMC, IBM, NAACP, as 
well as CCD and BTU. 

What has been going on here is a spiritual "happening." The 
mass last evening was a high moment in worship for all of us. 

Indeed—sparks have flown— 
minds have been blown— 
emotions have run high— 
spirits have been encountered 
and souls have been a bit more redeemed. 

The Spirit is here— 
But, alas, there is a February 4, 1971, and we have the grace of 

a job to do. 

So—we go back to a world much more comfortable with prejudice 
than with peace— 

But our task is as a joint work: 
The passing of peace—so may we join in a symbolic action together 

as we say, "May the peace of God go with you and with your soul." 

77 



• 

I I 

• 

• 





Catholic Participants 
Baptist-Catholic Regional Conference, 

Daytona Beach 
February 1-3, 1971 

ALABAMA 
Rev. Finbar Desmond, Pastor 
St. Andrew Church 
439 Clayton Street 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 

Most Reverend John L. May 
Bishop of Mobile 
P.O. Box 1966 
Mobile, Alabama 36601 

Rev. Charles Miller, S.J., Prof. 
Spring Hill College 
4307 Old Shell Road 
Mobile, Alabama 36608 

Rev. Eugene O'Connor 
Coordinator, Southwest Deanery 
309 South Main St. 
Demopolis, Alabama 36732 

Mr. Harley Samford 
1713 West Street 
Montgomery, Alabama 36106 

Rev. John Peter Sheehan, Dir. 
Diocesan Ecumenical Comm. 
2112 Avenue H. 
Birmingham, Alabama 35218 

FLORIDA 
Rev. Claude Brubaker, Pastor 
57 Olive Street 
Brookesville, Florida 33512 

Rev. Louis Dunleavy 
P.O. Box 1527 
Ormond Beach, Florida 32074 

Rev. Martin J. Jung 
P.O. Box 117 
Palatka, Florida 33217 

Rev. John McGrath 
7525 N.W. 2nd Ave. 
Miami, Florida 33150 

Rev. Austin Mullen 
Newman Chaplain 
Diocesan Ecumenical Comm. 
13005 North 50th St. 
Temple Terrace, Florida 33617 

Rev. Joseph Nolin 
Holy Redeemeer Church 
P.O. Box 699 
Kissimmee, Florida 32741 

GEORGIA 
Rev. John Cuddy 
Vice-Chmn., Diocesan Ecumenical 

Comm. 
8412 Whitfield Avenue 
Savannah, Georgia 31406 

Most Rev. Thomas A. Donnellan 
Archbishop of Atlanta 
756 West Peachtree St., N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 

80 



Rev. Patrick McCormick 
Religious Unity Commission 
Holy Spirit Church 
449 Northside Dr. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30327 

Rev. Msgr. Andrew J. McDonald 
Chmn., Diocesan Ecumenical Comm. 
P.O. Box 3427 
Savannah, Georgia 31403 

Rev. Frank Ruff 
Glenmary Fathers 
Catholic Chapel 
Box 394 

Cleveland, Georgia 35928 

KENTUCKY 
Rev. Gerald Dentinger 
Our Lady of Lourdes Church 
500 Breckenridge Lane 
Louisville, Kentucky 40207 
Rev. Msgr. John V. Hegenauer 
Supt. of Education 
211 Garrard St. 
Covington, Kentucky 41011 
Rev. Anthony Higdon, Pastor 
St. John's Parish 
Paducah, Kentucky 42001 

Dr. Joseph Maloney 
Diocesan Ecumenical Comm. 
Gardencourt, Alta Vista Road 
Louisville, Kentucky 40205 

Rev. Stanley Schmidt 
Chmn., Diocesan Ecumenical Comm. 
501 Cherrywood Road 
Louisville, Kentucky 40207 

Most Reverend Henry J. Soenneker 
Bishop of Owensboro 
P.O. Box 773 
Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 

LOUISIANA 

Mr. Emile Cornar 
Dir., Citizens for Educational 

Freedom 
344 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Rev. Msgr. Robert C. Landry 
Chaplain, Univ. Southwestern 

Louisiana 
P.O. Box 532, University Sta. 
Lafayette, Louisiana 70501 

Rev. Gerald Lefebvre 
Diocesan Comm. of Ecumenism 
Rt. 7, Box 182A 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70807 

Rev. John L. Newfield 
Chmn., Liturgical Comm. 
146 Fourth St. 
Westwego, Louisiana 70094 

Rev. J. Emile Pfister, S.J. 
Theology Dept. 
Loyola University 
6363 St. Charles Ave. 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 

Very Rev. Msgr. John Wakeman 
2315 Texas Ave. 
P.O. Box 5228 
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301 

Rev. Walter Walsh 
St. Pius Church 
P.O. Box 7213 
Shreveport, Louisiana 71107 

MISSISSIPPI 

Mr. James Allen 
Member, Parish Council 
Christ the King Parish 
2303 Lynch Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 39209 

81 



Mrs. William Ethridge (Lura) 
Attorney 
554 Woodson Court 
Jackson, Mississippi 39206 

Mr. George Evans 
Attorney 
P.O. Box 651 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Rev. Patrick Farrell 
Dir., Dept. of Pastoral Services 
P.O. Box 2248 
Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Rev. Msgr. Bernard F. Law 
Exec. Dir., Bishops' Comm. 

for Ecumenical & Interreligious 
Affairs 

1312 Massachusetts Ave., N.W, 
Washington, D.C. 20005 

Mrs. Vincent A. Liberto (Maureen) 
Chmn., Diocesan Ecumenical Comm. 
Box 626 
Laurel, Mississippi 

Rev. Robert A. Olivier, Pastor 
Secy., Diocesan Ecumenical Comm. 
P.O. Box 8642 
Jackson, Mississippi 

Mrs. Leola G. Williams 
P.O. Box 891 

Greenwood, Mississippi 38930 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. Dale Francis, Editor 
National Register 
9 Northway Drive 
Huntington, Indiana 

Rev. Lawson Edward Howze, Pastor 
St. Lawrence Parish 
97 Haywood Street 
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 

Most Rev. Vincent S. Waters 
Bishop of Raleigh 
600 Bilyeu Street 
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

Rev. Msgr. Charles J. Baum 
Chmn., Diocesan Ecumenical Comm. 
338 W. Washington St. 
Greenville, South Carolina 29601 

TENNESSEE 

Most Rev. Joseph A. Durick 
Bishop of Nashville 
421 Charlotte Ave. 
Nashville, Tennessee 37219 

Rev. William Greenspun, C.S.P. 
St. Patrick's Church 
277 South Fourth Street 
Memphis, Tennessee 38216 

Rev. Robert J. Hofstetter 
St. Joseph's Parish 
1225 Gallatin Road, South 
Madison, Tennessee 37115 

Mrs. Charles Pittinger 
Diocesan Council of the Laity 
201 Vaughn's Gap Road 
Nashville, Tennessee 37205 

Mr. Jim Walsh 
Dir., Diocesan Office of 

Lay Affairs 
421 Charlotte Avenue 
Nashville, Tennessee 37219 

82 



Baptist Participants 
Baptist-Catholic Regional Conference, 

Daytona Beach 
February 1-3, 1971 

The Rev. E. McKinney Adams 
Reparto Metropolitano 
Shopping Center 
Altos Kresge, 303 
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00921 

Dr. Rollin S. Armour 
Stetson University 
DeLand, Florida 32721 

Dr. William Blevins 
Carson-Newman College 
Jefferson City, Tennessee 37760 

Dr. Claude U. Broach 
St. John's Baptist Church 
P.O. Box 17793 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28211 

Dr. Millard R. Brown 
Campbell College 
Buies Creek, North Carolina 27506 

Dr. George McLeod Bryan 
Wake Forest College 
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109 

The Rev. Larry Bryson 
Home Mission Board, SBC 
1350 Spring St., N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Miss Mary Burns 
Home Mission Board, SBC 
1350 Spring St., N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Dr. Trent C. Butler 
Atlanta Baptist College 
3000 Flowers Road, N.E. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30341 

Dr. R. P. Caudill 
Poplar at Parkway 
Memphis, Tenn. 38112 

The Rev. A. B. Colvin 
Kentucky Baptist Convention 
Baptist Building 
Middletown, Kentucky 40043 

Dr. Raymond Coppenger 
Ouachita Baptist College 
Arkadelphia, Arkansas 71923 

The Rev. R. L. Costner 
301 Hillsborough St. 
Raleigh, N.C. 27603 

Dr. A. D. Dawson 
1605 S. W. 20th Ave. 
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312 

The Rev. R. H. Dorris 
Dir. of Chaplaincy Ministries 
Arkansas Baptist St. Convention 
525 West Capitol 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 

Dr. T. E. Dougherty 
Kilbourne Park Baptist Church 
Columbia, South Carolina 

83 



Dr. W. A Duncan 
2239 Headland Drive 
East Point, Georgia 30344 

The Rev. J. T. Elliff 
Arkansas Baptist St. Conv. 
525 West Captiol Avenue 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 

Dr. Joseph R. Estes 
First Baptist Church 
725 North Woodland Blvd. 
DeLand, Florida 32720 

Dr. W. Barry Garrett 
Baptist Joint Committee 
200 Maryland Ave., N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20002 

Dr. Gilbert L. Guffin 
Samford University 
Birmingham, Alabama 35209 

Dr. I. B.Hall 
4910 Ronda 
Coral Gables, Florida 33146 

Dr. C. B. Hastings 
Home Mission Board, SBC 
1350 Spring St., N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Dr. James Hatley 
P.O. Box 17217 
Memphis, Tennessee 38117 

Dr. Roy A. Helton 
Belmont College 
Nashville, Tenn. 37212 

The Rev. J. Frank Hixon 
P.O. Box 11870 
Montgomery, Alabama 36111 

Dr. Glenn A. Igleheart 
P.O. Box 253 
Glen Ridge, New Jersey 07028 

Mr. Roy Jennings 
Program Manager 
Brotherhood Commission 
1548 Poplar Avenue 
Memphis, Tennessee 38104 

The Rev. Joe Carl Johnson 
P.O. Box 3647 
Balboa, Canal Zone 

Dr. George A. Jones 
120 Main Street 
Newport, Kentucky 41071 

The Rev. Oley C. Kidd 
P.O. Box 3408-A 
Birmingham, Alabama 35205 

Dr. Willis H. Kimzey, Jr. 
Union University 
Jackson, Tennessee 38301 

Mr. Lewis S. Ludlum 
P.O. Box 5471 
Ardmore Station 
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27103 

Dr. Erwin L. McDonald 
Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine 
525 W. Capitol Avenue 
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 

The Rev. Alton H. McEachern 
St. Matthew's Baptist Church 
Louisville, Kentucky 40207 

Dr. Stewart Newman 
Campbell College 
Buies Creek, North Carolina 27506 

84 



Dr. George W. Redding 
Georgetown College 
Georgetown, Kentucky 40324 

Dr. G. Willard Reeves 
Cumberland College 
Williamsburg, Kentucky 

Dr. Lewis Rhodes 
Broadway Baptist Church 
815 Broadway, N.E. 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37917 

The Rev. T. S. Roote, Jr. 
Florida Baptist Convention 
1230 Hendricks Ave. 
Jacksonville, Florida 32207 

Dr. James M. Sapp 
Baptist Joint Committee 
200 Maryland Ave., N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20002 

The Rev. George Sheridan 
The Christian Index 
291 Peachtree St., N.E. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

Dr. Cecil Sherman 
First Baptist Church 
Corner of Woodfin & Oak Sts. 
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 

Dr. Benjamin F. Smith 
William Carey College 
Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39401 

Dr. James Sorrell 
First Baptist Church 
200 S. Trenton St. 
Ruston, Louisiana 

Dr. M. Thomas Starkes 
Home Mission Board, SBC 
1350 Spring Street, N.W. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Dr. Frank Stubbs 
Georgia Baptist Convention 
291 Peachtree St., N.E. 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 

The Rev. Ernest C. Upchurch 
Baptist St. Conv. of N.C. 
P.O. Box 26508 
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27611 

Dr. Ralph L. West 
Foreign Mission Board 
International Office Park Bldg. 
1001 Virginia Avenue, Room 221 
Atlanta, Georgia 30354 

The Reverend Lloyd Whyte 
1452 N.W. 36th St. 
Miami, Florida 33142 

Dr. Fred M. Wood 
Eudora Baptist Church 
4686 Poplar 
Memphis, Tennessee 38117 

85 



Small Group Conferences' 

Conveners and Recorders 

ALABAMA—MISSISSIPPI: 
Conveners: George Evans 

Gilbert Guffin 
Recorders: Mrs. Leola Williams 

Mrs. George Evans 

ARKANSAS—LOUISIANA: 
Conveners: John Wakeman 

Raymond Coppenger 
Recorder: Erwin L. McDonald 

GEORGIA—FLORIDA: 
Conveners: Andrew J. McDonald 

I. B. Hall 
Recorder: George Sheridan 

KENTUCKY—TENNESSEE: 
Conveners: Jim Walsh 

R. P. Caudill 
Recorder: Robert Hofstetter 

NORTH CAROLINA—SOUTH CAROLINA 
Conveners: Lawson Edward Howze 

George McLeod Bryan 
Recorder: George McLeod Bryan 

REPORTER FOR THE FLORIDA CATHOLIC 
(Omitted from list of Catholic Participants) 
Mr. Henry Libersat 

86