"Here I am, stuck in the middle with you": the Baptist standard, Texas Baptist Leadership, and school desegregation, 1954 to 1956: in 1954, the Supreme Court of the United States declared in a unified voice that racial segregation in the nation's public school system was unconstitutional. Not everyone agreed, including some South Carolina lawmakers.

Like many Southerners, these legislators felt rebuffed by such a ruling, one that reached to and destroyed, in their minds, the central character of Southern culture. When their governor, George Timmerman, arranged for a renowned religious leader to speak on school desegregation, the legislators gathered to hear his address. Most of them knew of this leader, W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas, Texas, a key church of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Rising to the podium, Criswell stood tall and spoke forcibly. "Let them integrate," he declared. "Let them sit up there in their dirty shirts and make all of their fine speeches. But they are all a bunch of infidels, dying from the neck up." He then stressed the supremacy of the individual Southerner to maintain the lifestyle to which he had grown accustomed.

   Don't force me by law, by statute, by Supreme Court
   decision, ... to cross over in those intimate things where
   I don't want to go. Let me build my life. Let me have my
   church. Let me have my school. Let me have my
   friends. Let me have my home. Let me have my family. (1)

After his speech, Criswell returned to Dallas and further explained his sentiments on integration. By casing his argument in the need to maintain the "freedom of America and our way of life," he noted that each "church has the right to choose its own members like a man has the fight to choose his own house and to rear his own family. It is better that way, and we are happier that way." (2)

Reactions followed swiftly to Criswell's denunciation of integration. The Christian Century, a well-known mainline Protestant publication based in Chicago, stressed to its readers that Criswell was "not the Pope of Southern Baptists," and his opinions should be understood as personal and not representative of the entire membership of the Southern Baptist Convention. (3) In Texas, several Baptist leaders publicly stated their disagreement with Criswell, while others noted their hesitancy to advocate such strong language. (4) Perhaps the largest rebuff of all came from evangelist Billy Graham, who was a member of First Baptist Church of Dallas. He stated, "My pastor and I have never seen eye to eye on the race question." (5)

The statements by Criswell in South Carolina provide observers with an interesting dilemma. As the pastor of the "biggest white Baptist church in the world," (6) Criswell seemed to represent the beliefs of many Southern Baptist leaders. Comments by other Baptists, however, seem to indicate that Criswell spoke more for himself than for Southern Baptist leaders or for Texas Baptists. Thus, the question that needs to be answered in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education decision is this: did Criswell speak for Texas Baptists or merely for himself?

One of the most useful resources for tracking the opinions of Texas Baptists is their denominational newspaper, the Baptist Standard, which has been published in Dallas since the 1950s. With a circulation in the mid-1950s of approximately 280,000, (7) the Baptist Standard reached pastors, deacons, Sunday School teachers, and Baptist laity throughout Texas. Like many newspapers, the Baptist Standard helped to disseminate religious news; it also shaped the way in which the news was understood by its readers. Through a study of this denominational publication, one can discover the middle road that was traveled by some in Texas Baptist leadership. Specifically, following the Brown decision, those in charge of the Baptist Standard pursued a via media in the debate on integration. They rejected the rhetoric of individuals like Criswell or that of the biblical segregationists, but at the same time they avoided the more aggressive advocacy of progressive Baptists and their integrationist cause.

Baptist Options on the "integration Question"

By the 1950s, Texas Baptists had grown to respect and admire the editor of their Baptist Standard, David M. Gardner, who had assumed control of the denominational newspaper in November of 1944 and transformed it into a standard fixture in the Texas Baptist world. (8) During his time as editor, Gardner did little to conceal his thoughts on various issues, especially segregation. While admitting to the many problems between the races in the South, he sincerely believed that the situation, while not perfect, was nevertheless improving. According to Gardner, the real cause of problems with race relations in the South came not from present social conditions, but rather from outside "racial rabble rousers," northern civil rights leaders who, in his mind, would not allow the South to solve its own problems. No doubt looking to the growing influence of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Gardner stated in 1945 that he had little optimism that the South would ever be able to achieve racial harmony unless the "pestiferous pettifogers who are employed and paid fabulous sums to promote strife and trouble by pitting class against class, and race against race will let us alone." (9)

For his own part, Gardner proclaimed his desire for racial equality and justice so that peace among the races may be promoted. By 1945, some of these situations were seeing improvement, even if the "paid propagandists [were] pointing out and painting lurid colors of injustices and inequalities the Negroes of the South [had] suffered." (10) In Gardner's mind, the increasing financial and educational assistance of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT) to African American Baptist churches demonstrated a genuine chance to achieve the peace that he claimed to desire. Along with his support of this activity, Gardner stated that the South had a responsibility to ensure equal educational opportunities for all citizens regardless of their color. (11)

Most telling in Gardner's concept of equality is the arena in which it should be achieved. In the same 1945 editorial, he claimed, "Christianity and justice demand that we eliminate injustices and elevate and improve the social conditions of all citizens, irrespective of color or race, but we must seek such improvement within racial groups." (12) Like many Southerners, Gardner wanted to see the maintenance of Plessy v. Ferguson's concept of "separate but equal" throughout Southern society. Fearful of an "amalgamation of the races," he declared that "God created and established the color line in the races, and evidently meant for it to remain. Therefore, we have no right to try to eradicate it." (13) By defending Jim Crowism on the grounds of divine origin, Gardner aligned himself in part with the arguments proposed by biblical segregationists, even if he himself could not be counted as among the strongest supporters of this stance.

The Reaction of the Biblical Segregationists

Throughout the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, biblical segregationists provided the most fervent religious opposition to the proponents of racial equality and integration. Maintaining their strict reliance on biblical guidance for everyday life, Baptists who promoted this theory turned to scripture for support. In the Old Testament, segregationists found what they considered a clear explanation of the role of African Americans in society. Genesis 9 described an episode in the life of Noah after he and his family crawled out of the belly of the ark. In a drunken stupor one evening, Noah made his way to his tent and fell asleep naked. Shortly thereafter, Noah's youngest son, Ham, walked in, saw his father uncovered, and went out and told his older brothers. Shem and Japheth walked backwards into the tent and covered their father, obscuring their vision as much as possible to protect their father's dignity. When Noah awoke, he was quite irate with Ham and declared that Ham's descendents would become servants or slaves to Shem and Japheth, who would dwell in their tents together. According to pastor Humphrey K. Ezell, "In this account God has segregated the races. Shem and Japheth are to dwell in tents together; but a curse is placed upon Ham and his descendants, and they are to be servants to Shem and Japheth. There is no evidence anywhere in the Scriptures that this curse ... has been lifted." (14) Integral to this interpretation was the understanding of how the present-day races divided into the bloodlines of Noah's sons. As Ezell further explained:

   The encyclopaedias give fair as the meaning of Japheth, dusky as
   the meaning of Shem, and black as the meaning of Ham....
   [A]nyone making a careful study of the Genesis account of the
   descendents of Japheth will conclude that they were to occupy
   what is now Europe and northern Asia. Africa was given to the
   descendents of Ham, and southern Asia was given to the descendents
   of Shem.... We believe that the white race in the United
   States is composed of the descendents of Japheth and Shem, and
   that the Negro race is composed of the descendents of Ham. (15)

By the mid-1950s, while several Christians dismissed this view of racial segregation and suggested that Noah's pronouncement held no authority, proponents still claimed that Noah "spoke under the impulse of the prophetic spirit," actually giving a divine curse to Ham and blessings to Shem and Japheth. (16)

Another passage biblical segregationists used as justification for their stance came from the book of Acts. In his talk given to the philosophers in Athens, the Apostle Paul proclaimed that "[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." (17) From a segregationist's perspective, Paul in this passage affirmed their suspicions of the divine designs of God in his establishment of separate realms for the races to inhabit. In light of these and other similar passages, segregationists concluded that the social culture of the South merely reflected and maintained the decrees and plans of God. According to one Mississippi Baptist, "If God had wanted a mixed race, He would have made one. I just don't believe in trying to improve on His plans. Christ did not mix the races, but He did give them equal opportunities to gain salvation." (18)

At the heart of the biblical segregation arguments lay fears that through integration would come intermarriage, miscegenation, and the amalgamation of the races. In December of 1955, a Texas Baptist sent a letter to the Baptist Standard, expressing his concern of integration by stating that "[a]ll authority and history reveal the ultimate result of [the] commingling of races must inevitably lead to miscegenation, mongrelization, and, as a by-product, literal monstrosities." (19) One Virginia Baptist pastor also shared this concern, going so far as to state that the perceived inevitable amalgamation of the races was "part of the spirit of anti-christ." (20) Segregationists believed that they stood as the last bastion for the protection of the races against the assaults of integration advocates, whose main goal was to destroy the races through intermarriage. (21) If they failed in their mission, the United States would face God's wrath for the breaking of His law and would become a weak, vulnerable nation. (22)

Prior to the Brown decision, David Gardner seemed comfortable with some of the rhetoric of the biblical segregationists. Following the ruling, however, he tempered his tone, challenging Baptists to "keep calm, think clearly, and act courageously." (23) In this matter, Gardner, in some ways, reflected the mainline Protestant reaction to the decision in general and Southern Baptist leadership reaction specifically.

The Reaction of the Progressives

The Christian Century ran a one-paragraph editorial, written within a few hours of the announcement of the Brown decision, and a larger two-page article the following week. In both instances, the writers praised the ruling, claiming that "the decision by the Supreme Court is a great thing for colored Americans, ... Americans of all minority groups ... for the south, ... [and] for all of us." (24) Not nearly as laudatory in nature, the SBC nonetheless responded in a positive, yet restrained, manner to the decision. The president of the convention, J. W. Storer, reminded his fellow Baptists of the need to respect the authority of the Supreme Court and pray for divine guidance in the implementation of the decision. (25) Other leaders in the convention spoke out as well. The executive secretary of the Foreign Mission Board claimed that "the decision will strengthen American influence in many countries and will reduce some obstacles to missionary work among the races." (26) A. C. Miller, executive secretary of the Christian Life Commission, considered the decision to be "the inevitable result of social progress based on the Christian teaching that all men are included in the love of God and have dignity and worth in the sight of God." (27) Most of these statements cast a positive light on the overturn of Plessy, in addition to calling for calm and thoughtful implementation of integration policies. Interestingly enough, however, Gardner chose not to run the statements of the SBC leadership, statements that had been included in many other religious papers. (28) While he avoided the tone of the biblical segregationists, he also avoided an embrace of the decision--unlike those in the SBC progressive camp.

Promoting an alternative way of viewing the segregation debate, SBC progressives, scattered throughout various areas of leadership at both the national and state levels, called for Christians to engage in the social responsibilities that accompanied their confessions to Christ. Their most powerful vehicle for communication during the 1950s came through the Christian Life Commission (CLC), an SBC organization charged with the duty to challenge Baptists to remember the social implications of the gospel. (29) In its most common activity, the CLC worked to promote prohibition in individual cities or counties throughout the United States. (30) While most Baptists agreed with the need to ban alcohol where they lived, several found themselves hesitant to accept the activity of the CLC as it dealt with other issues in society. For these individuals, including W. A. Criswell and David Gardner, the CLC seemed more concerned with implementing the social gospel, which in their minds had failed, than proclaiming a salvific gospel, which would never fail. (31) Regardless of these detractors, the CLC continued to perform its stated functions, calling Christians to task for a variety of issues, including the need to cultivate just relations with African American citizens of the South. (32)

When the Supreme Court handed down the Brown decision, progressives in the CLC considered it necessary for Southern Baptists to demonstrate their full support of the ruling. At the 1954 SBC annual meeting, CLC leaders were provided a timely opportunity and utilized it by proposing that the SBC pass a resolution. These leaders urged Baptists to agree that the "Supreme Court decision [was] in harmony with the constitutional guarantee of equal freedom to all citizens, and with Christian principles of equal justice and love for all men." In addition, the recommendation called for Baptists to:

   conduct themselves in this period of adjustment in the spirit
   of Christ ... [and begin] to use their leadership in positive
   thought and planning to the end that this crisis in our
   national history shall not be made the occasion for new and
   bitter prejudices, but a movement toward a united nation
   embodying and proclaiming a democracy that will commend
   freedom to all peoples. (33)

After a brief but tense debate, a vote was taken for the adoption of the recommendations, a vote that was overwhelmingly positive. Out of the almost 10,000 messengers present, only about 100 rejected the statement. (34)

News of this support received mixed reaction from religious sources. While segregationists expressed their utter dismay, progressives applauded the decision. The Christian Century claimed that by passing the resolution, the SBC "did more than any other group in the country could to secure cooperation with the court's verdict." (35) Likewise, the North Carolina Baptist newspaper, the Biblical Recorder, presented the recommendation in a positive light, noting that the statements of the CLC would help Baptists better understand the segregation issue and that the vote presented a "good constructive statement concerning Christian attitudes toward the Supreme Court decision and the question of non-segregation in the United States." (36)

Throughout most of 1954, Gardner maintained an editorial silence on the integration issue. In his final month as editor, however, he let his thoughts be known. He expressed his respect for the Supreme Court but rejected the notion that their ruling automatically made the practice of segregation wrong. "Right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of what the court says." In concluding his article, Gardner issued a warning to those who pursued quick desegregation.

   In our opinion the church groups and denominational schools
   that go in for desegregation hastily will discover that they
   are doing a disservice to both whites and Negroes. Hasty
   decisions to desegregate will not advance the interests of
   education but will advance the interests and encourage the
   efforts of agitators. This is a good time for good citizens
   to exercise patience and poise mixed with plenty of common
   sense. (37)

As a parting farewell, Gardner appeared compelled to reiterate his opinion about racial segregation, regardless of the direction the federal government took the country. Interestingly, his hand-picked successor, (38) Ewing S. James, did not reflect these sentiments and went much further to demonstrate acceptance of the decision, albeit a reluctant acceptance.

The Middle Road

When James took over the reigns of the Baptist Standard, the progressive movement and the CLC in Texas acquired an important, yet tentative, advocate. Growing up in the South, James claimed that he "lived in a culture where segregation was practiced, and ... thought little about it until circumstances forced it upon [his] attention." (39) During the first two years as editor, he was forced to consider the issue that had been thrust upon the South. In turn, he attempted to shape the way in which Texas Baptists thought about the issue.

With his first issue as editor, James seemed to break with the editorial policies of Gardner by including several stories about segregation and the activities of African American churches. (40) He even included in his first issue a statement by A. C. Miller, emphasizing the social implications of the gospel. (41) Of particular significance was the inclusion in two subsequent issues of statements by Miller concerning the need for Christians to speak out for desegregation and futility of the concept of white supremacy. (42)

Although he then took a two-month retreat from the race issue, James began to gradually include more stories about African American Baptists for the remainder of 1955. Some of the recurring themes in the articles concerned Baptist work in missions, evangelism, and theological education with both Africans and African Americans. (43) Along with these articles, the Standard also reported on Christians who began to cross the color line. The first letter to break the two-month silence on race issues came from Mrs. C. E. Bybee of Brackettville, Texas. She stated:

   I saw two races mix at the Southern Baptist Assembly without
   any trouble or confusion. I have seen the different colored
   races doing outstanding work for our Lord while mixed together.
   If the Lord had never intended for them to mix He would have
   never brought them together on the day of Pentecost. (44)

Churches and Christian organizations in Galveston, Texas; Washington, D.C.; and Nashville, Tennessee each began to integrate. The Baptist association in Austin, Texas, voted to extend fellowship to two African American churches, reportedly the first occasion where African American congregations would associate with a Southern Baptist group. (45) As the Standard described each incident, it did so with little or no commentary.

The inclusion of these articles with minor editorial comments seemed silently to communicate James's views about how Baptists should interact with their African American brethren. A great need existed for outreach among the African American communities and among Africans abroad, and Baptists could not afford to neglect theological training of African American leaders nor could they forget to be active in their efforts at evangelism. In addition, the integration experiences initiated by Baptists all turned out to be successful and peaceful. The fears that many Southerners no doubt had about even mild mixing of the races were unsubstantiated.

These observations, however, should not be overstated. In each instance, the conclusions must be drawn from an observed tone in the combined articles, not a blatant statement inside them. In this matter, the Standard differed sharply from other religious publications that served as advocates for civil rights in the South, such as the Christian Century. (46) The Standard also avoided the advocacy for integration that came from members of the progressive camp like the GLC. (47)

During 1955, James, through his editorial policies, implicitly communicated to Texas Baptists his thoughts on the segregation issue. He remained silent on discussions of desegregation, emphasized the need to obey the law, and promoted voluntary cooperation between the races. In December, however, he broke this trend and explicitly stated his opinions. Don Kelog wrote a letter to the Standard questioning its lack of inclusion of the segregationist position. James's response was simple and to the point.

   The reason you have seen so little in the Standard about
   segregation is that the Bible says so little about it.
   Personally, I think it would be good to keep the races
   segregated, but I cannot prove by the Bible that this is
   His plan; and I do not think that any other can do so....
   If this were a moral question then Christians should
   initiate a referendum, but since the race problem is a
   social matter I believe God expects His people to do
   the best they can with whatever circumstances may obtain. (48)

James pointedly rejected the arguments of the biblical segregationists, yet stopped short of accepting the progressives' desire for more aggressive social action. Instead, he defended his moderate position by stating that the segregation issue dealt with social issues and not moral ones, and therefore Christians should feel no pertinent need to take overt action.

James's statement drew mixed reactions from Texas Baptists and mild criticism from several progressive voices. How these comments affected James is not known, but what is evident from the pages of the Standard was a shift from silence to mild advocacy on the integration issue as a new year began. (49) In the first two issues of 1956, articles by W. R. Grigg, director of Work with Negroes for the Louisiana Baptist Convention, argued for the abolition of segregation, dismissing the notion that "separate but equal" was ever a possibility. (50) Following in this line, other articles in the January issues of the Standard reported on various issues of integration, each maintaining an overall positive tone towards the movement. (51)

While some applauded the Standard's change in tone, others did not. H. D. Adams of Gilmore wrote to James objecting to "an erstwhile religious publication being manipulated into a propaganda sheet for integration, intermarriage, and internecine conduct." James responded that he believed the Standard was not a propaganda sheet, but rather a place where "people [had] an opportunity to express themselves on both sides of the segregation question." (52) Yet, as the months persisted, the inclusion of the segregationist perspective disappeared completely. In fact, by the time that Criswell spoke to the South Carolina legislature in February of 1956, the Standard had already eliminated all pro-segregation rhetoric from its pages. In its place remained a tentative middle ground, one that dismissed the idea of racial inferiority but also remained hesitant to advocate any aggressive changes. In pursuing this middle ground, James opted not to report on Criswell's segregationist comments, presumably because he either found himself in disagreement with them or felt that through their inclusion, he would forfeit his moderate position. (53)

Life in the Middle

Historian Mark Newman has pointed out that in the wake of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling, three distinct camps of Baptist thought emerged--the biblical segregationists, who believed in the divinely appointed segregation of the races; the progressives, who believed in the desegregation of the races; and the moderates, who accepted desegregation on legal grounds but would rather have maintained segregation for cultural and traditional reasons. (54) As James took over the editorship of the Baptist Standard from Gardner, the mouthpiece for Texas Baptists turned from mildly biblical segregationist to staunchly moderate tones. James rejected the arguments of the biblical segregationists, but also stayed uncomfortable with the more aggressive integrationist stance of the progressives. In his position of leadership, he used the Standard to promote a limited reaction to desegregation.

As a moderate, James stressed the need to promote harmony and peace among the races, regardless of one's view of Brown. In addition, he included stories in the Standard that painted positive pictures of African American Christians and of efforts towards outreach and integration. Absent, however, is any strong advocacy for desegregation prior to the January 1956 articles. Instead, James reported on integration in churches and racial harmony without providing any commentary on why these events reflected positive directions for Texas Baptists to follow. While presenting equal space for both views on the issue, he dearly favored the progressive side over the biblical segregationist view.

One may raise the question of why James chose the moderate path that he did. Clearly stated in his response to Kelog, James believed that the question of race relations remained in the realm of public policy, not private morality. When he proposed solutions for racial tension, he pointed to voluntary integration and the need to pursue Christian love among all people--both based on individual responses instead of social action. James, however, seemed to have little problem including many other social action programs for Texas Baptists to pursue. Through both the Gardner and James years, the Standard consistently included articles about groups fighting for the separation of church and state, efforts at prohibition, works to ban gambling, and actions taken to curb the sale of "questionable" comic books.

The key as to why James and many Texas Baptists considered such issues acceptable for church action but segregation unacceptable seems to be that segregation was pegged a social problem--not a moral sin. Gambling evidenced a squandering of one's money. Drunkenness defiled the temple of God. Obscene comics corrupted minors. If these individual moral sins went unchecked, social chaos would arise. In light of this, Baptists seemed drawn into debates on social policy. Not so with segregation. In the minds of many Baptists, racial segregation was a social condition, not a social sin. To view one race as permanently separated from another never obtained the label of racism; rather, it remained a matter of "common sense." In the end, the efforts of the progressives to promote integration did not break with the character of basic Baptist beliefs or practice, for Baptists had always been interested in shaping their societies. The progressives simply considered segregation a sin, while the segregationists and moderates did not.

In its discussion on integration, the Baptist Standard had the potential to shape opinions throughout Texas. Indeed, given the autonomous and congregational nature of the churches, Texas Baptists possessed no centralized authority to dictate social policy, such as Catholics in theory had with the Vatican. With this in mind, Baptists were and still are dramatically shaped by the power of individuals to persuade them to one position or the other. Because of his moderate stance on integration, James and the Baptist Standard attempted to reverse prejudices against the African American community and convince Baptists to accept the seemingly inevitable social change that was occurring in the South. But also because of his moderate stance, James and the Baptist Standard missed several opportunities to guide instead of nudge Baptists into forgoing their cultural upbringing and accepting African American men and women as their equals.

(1.) "Criswell Not the Pope of Southern Baptists," Christian Century (March 14, 1956): 325; Andrew M. Manis, "'Dying from the Neck Up': Southern Baptist Resistance to the Civil Rights Movement," Baptist History and Heritage 34, no 1 (Winter 1999): 33; Mark Newman, Getting Right with God: Southern Baptists and Desegregation, 1945-1995 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2001), 60. In all fairness to Criswell, it should be noted that in the late 1960s, he publicly repudiated the views of biblical segregationists (Newman, Getting, 84).

(2.) "Pastor Says Baptists Do Not Share Criswell's Views on Integration," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, February 24, 1956, p. 5, col. 3.

(3.) "Criswell," Christian Century (March 14, 1956), 325.

(4.) "Pastor," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, p. 5, col. 3.

(5.) "Segregation in Church," Newsweek, March 12, 1956, 64.

(6.) "Great Churches: Miller's Cove and First of Dallas," Newsweek, May 30, 1955, 74.

(7.) Baptist Standard, January 22, 1955, 3.

(8.) "David M. Gardner Retires," Baptist Standard, November 4, 1954, 2.

(9.) "Racial Rabble Rousers," Baptist Standard, August 16, 1945, 3.

(10.) "Racial Equality Demanded," Baptist Standard, October 4, 1945, 3.

(11.) Ibid.

(12.) Ibid.

(13.) Ibid.

(14.) Humphrey K. Ezell, The Christian Problem of Racial Segregation (New York: Greenwich Book Publishers, 1959), 14.

(15.) Ezell, Christian, 14. Emphasis his.

(16.) James F. Burks, "Integration Or Segregation," Religious Herald, May 3, 1956, 5.

(17.) Acts 17:26. Scripture taken from Manis, "Dying," 39. Manis points out that "African-American preachers used the same text to draw the opposite conclusion about segregation, emphasizing that God had made all persons 'of one blood.'"

(18.) "Gordon A. Cotton to Editor," Baptist Record, June 24, 1954, 4. The reference to Christ in this quote most likely refers to descriptions such as one where christ revealed Himself as the Jewish Messiah to a Samaritan woman. Instead of interpreting this scene as a breaking of social barriers (barriers of a Jew talking to a Samaritan and a man talking to a woman), Cotton seems to believe Christ reaffirms the social boundaries, acting more as an equal opportunity evangelist.

(19.) "H. C. Renz to Editor," Baptist Standard, December 31, 1955, 8.

(20.) Burks, "Integration," 5.

(21.) Ezell, Christian, 25; Newman, Getting, 60.

(22.) Some advocates of segregation seemed to link the proponents of integration to those of communism and feared that an "amalgamation" of the races would make the United States weak during the Cold War ("Mrs. J. R. Patterson to Editor," Baptist Standard, December 9, 1954, 3; and Newman, Getting, 60).

(23.) "Segregation's Problems," Baptist Standard, June 10, 1954, 2.

(24.) "No School Segregation Says Supreme Court," Christian Century, May 26, 1954, 627; "The School Decision," Christian Century, June 2,1954, 662-63.

(25.) "SBC President Makes Statement on Supreme Court's Decision," Baptist Message, May 27, 1954, 1, 4.

(26.) "Southern Baptist Leaders Call for Calm Appraisal of Court Ruling," Baptist Record, May 27, 1954, 1.

(27.) Ibid.

(28.) "SBC," Baptist Message (Louisiana), 1, 4; "Southern Baptist Leaders Call for Calm Appraisal of Court Ruling," Baptist Record (Mississippi), May 27, 1954, 12; "Southern," Baptist Record, 1; "Southern Baptist Leaders Call for Calm Appraisal of Court Ruling," Biblical Recorder (North Carolina), June 12, 1954, 22; "Southern Baptists Approve Decision," Christian Century, June 9, 1954, 691-92.

(29.) John W. Storey, Texas Baptist Leadership and Social Christianity, 1900-1980 (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1986), 15, 137; Bill J. Leonard, "Christian Life Commission," Dictionary of Baptists in America (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 82-83.

(30.) For examples of the prohibition activities of the Texas CLC, please see Storey, Texas, 15-38, or Proceedings of the Baptist General Convention of Texas (Dallas: BGCT, 1954), 171.

(31.) Storey, Texas, 137.

(32.) Southern Baptists and Race Relations (Louisville: Social Service Commission, 1949.

(33.) Annual of the Southern Baptist Convention (Nashville: SBC, 1954), 407; "Convention Story," Baptist Message, June 17, 1954, 4.

(34.) "Convention," Baptist Message, 4.

(35.) "Southern Baptists Support Court," Christian Century, June 16, 1954, 723.

(36.) "Proud of the South," Biblical Recorder, June 5, 1954, 5; "The St. Louis Convention--Comments and Interpretations," Biblical Recorder, June 26, 1954, 8.

(37.) "The Segregation Problem," Baptist Standard, October 14, 1954, 2.

(38.) "David M. Gardner," Baptist Standard, 2; E. S. James, Oral Memoirs of E S. James, interviewed by Thomas L. Charlton (Wace: Baylor University, Religion and Culture Project, 1973), 77.

(39.) Storey, Texas, 186-87; "Desegregation, Yes--by Legislation, No," Baptist Standard, July 24, 1963, 3. See also Oral Memoirs, 172.

(40.) "Segregation: Negro Makes Appeal," Baptist Standard, 4 November 1954, 14; News Flashes, Baptist Standard, November 25, 1954, 10; "Segregation: Conventions Act," Baptist Standard, December 2, 1954, 8, 13; News Flashes, Baptist Standard, 2 December 1954, 9; News Flashes, Baptist Standard, November 4, 1954, 24.

(41.) "A. C. Miller to Editor," Baptist Standard, November 4, 1954, 3.

(42.) Editorial, Baptist Standard, November 11, 1954, 2; Editorial, Baptist Standard, December 2, 1954, 2.

(43.) Baptist Standard, February 26, 1955, 1; "Southern Rhodesia: Seminary Opens," Baptist Standard, March 12, 1955, 8.; "Vacation Bible Schools," Baptist Standard, July 30, 1955, 22; Richard Voyles, "The christian Life: Negro Youth Retreat," Baptist Standard, August 13, 1955, 6; "Brotherhood Helps Negro Brethren," Baptist Standard, 20 August 1955, 10; "Simultaneous Crusade: Negro, White Unite," Baptist Standard, 16 April 1955, 11; "Cooperation and Desegregation," Baptist Standard, April 16, 1955, 2; Foy Valentine, "Education: Extension Graduates," Baptist Standard, July 2, 1955, 10; "Southwestern Seminary: First Degrees to Negro," Baptist Standard, June 4, 1955, 24.

(44.) "Mrs. C. E. Bybee to Editor," Baptist Standard, January 22, 1955, 3.

(45.) News Flashes, Baptist Standard, February 5, 1955, 13; News Flashes, Baptist Standard, July 16, 1955, 11; News Flashes, Baptist Standard, December 10, 1955, 11; "Associations: Negroes Join Austin," Baptist Standard, October 22, 1955, 13.

(46.) "The Desegregation Ruling," Christian Century, June 15, 1955, 701-03.

(47.) In 1955 the Texas CLC produced pamphlets on various social issues, including "The Bible Speaks on Race" and "The Supreme Court's Actual Ruling Against Segregation in the Public Schools." While James made sure to inform his readers of the availability of these CLC materials, he did not include their arguments. "Christian Life Commission: The Bible Speaks," Baptist Standard, February 12, 1955, 19; "Christian Life Commission: Workers Conference," Baptist Standard, July 16, 1955, 10.

(48.) "Segregation's Quietness," Baptist Standard, December 10, 1955, 3.

(49.) Oral Memoirs, 162.

(50.) W. R. Grigg, "Segregation: What's Wrong?" Baptist Standard, January 7, 1956, 9; W. R. Grigg, "Segregation: Separate but Equal," Baptist Standard, January 14, 1956, 6.

(51.) Winfred E. Garrison, "1955: The Year in Religion," Baptist Standard, 7 January 1956, 5; News Flashes, Baptist Standard, January 7, 1956, 11; News Flashes, Baptist Standard, January 14, 1956, 13.

(52.) "H. D. Adams to Editor," Baptist Standard, January 25, 1956, 3.

(53.) As the 1960s began, James changed his views on integration and became more of an advocate, although he still stated his preference for voluntary cooperation or integration over government intervention and expressed dislike for aggressive behavior among African American groups to achieve desegregation ("Desegregation," Baptist Standard, 3; Storey, Texas, 188-93; Oral Memoirs, 161-62, 172).

(54.) Newman, Getting, ix-x.

Blake Killingworth is a Ph.D. student at Texas Christian University and an adjunct professor at Dallas Baptist University. He lives in Cedar Hill, Texas.