"Advice for Living"
October 1957
Chicago, Ill.
Question: Why did God
make Jesus white, when the majority of peoples in the world are non-white?
Answer: The color of Jesus' skin is of little
or no consequence. The whiteness or blackness of one's skin is a biological
quality which has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the personality.
The significance of Jesus lay, not in His color, but in His unique God-consciousness
and His willingness to surrender His will to God's will. He was the Son
of God, not because of His external biological make-up, but because of
His internal spiritual commitment. He would have been no more significant
if His skin had been black. He is no less significant because His skin
was white.
Question: Our family has had more than its
share of pain and trouble. Does God send pain and anguish to punish us
for our sins and the sins of our fathers?
Answer: You are really raising the question, "Why
do men suffer?" It is often true that we suffer because of sins we
consciously or unconsciously commit. There are moral laws of the universe
just as abiding as the physical laws, and when we disobey these moral
laws we suffer tragic consequences. It is also true that the interrelatedness
of human life often necessitates our suffering for the sins of our forefathers.
We must admit, however, that we are often the victims of pain and suffering
that cannot be explained by sins committed by ourselves or our forefathers.
We must admit that there is some mystery surrounding God's being. There
are certain things that happen in our lives and in the life of the universe
that we just can't explain in rational terms. You must live by the faith
that all suffering has some purpose which the finite mind of man can never
comprehend.
Question: My husband follows the horses closely.
He says that it is legally right to gamble, but I say it is morally wrong.
Is it possible to reconcile our conflicting viewpoints?
Answer: Your husband is correct in saying that
gambling is often legally right. You, however, are correct in saying that
gambling is morally wrong. One should live by the principle that he will
not take from society without giving to it. The orderly existence of society
is dependent upon this type of reciprocity. Gambling is based on the principle
of taking from society without giving anything in return. It is really
getting something for nothing. Powerful, organized gambling makes for
a breakdown in the structure of social life and a breakdown in the moral
principles of any society. You should seek to get this idea over to your
husband by patiently explaining the moral issues involved. You should
make it clear to him that a thing may be legally right and morally wrong.
Question: How do you reconcile Paul's
statements on obeying duly-constituted authorities, Romans 13:1-7,
with the Negro's campaign of passive resistance in the South?
Answer: Like many Biblical affirmations, the
words of the Apostle Paul must be interpreted in terms of the historical
setting and psychological mood of the age in which they were written.
The Apostle Paul--along with all of the early Christians--believed that
the world was coming to an end in a few days. Feeling that the time was
not long the Apostle Paul urged men to concentrate on preparing themselves
for the new age rather than changing external conditions. It was this
belief in the coming new age and the second coming of Christ which conditioned
a great deal of Paul's thinking. Early Christianity was far from accepting
the existing social order as satisfactory, but it was conscious of no
mission to change it for the better. It taught its adherence neither to
conform to the external framework of their time, nor to seek directly
to alter it, but to live within it a life rooted in a totally different
order. Today we live in a new age, with a different theological emphasis;
consequently we have both a moral and religious justification for passively
resisting evil conditions within the social order.
Question: I believe in integration and work
for it with all my heart, but I am unable to reconcile my feelings on
this point with continued support of the United Negro College Fund. Am
I wrong?
Answer: I feel that you are wrong in your feeling
concerning the United Negro College Fund. There is no contradiction in
believing in integration and supporting the United Negro College Fund.
You must remember that although Negro colleges are by and large segregated
institutions, they are not segregating institutions. If these colleges
are properly supported they will survive in an integrated society. Many
of these colleges already have white students. It is not true to feel
that as soon as integration becomes a thoroughgoing reality the so-called
Negro private colleges will close down. In supporting these Negro colleges
we are only seeking to make sure that the quality and caliber of these
schools are of such nature that they will be appealing to all people.
Question: I'm confused. I hear some men of
God argue persuasively in favor of segregation and then others say it's
sinful. I would like to know once and for all, with no ifs, ands and buts,
can a man be a Christian and a staunch segregationist, too?
Answer: I do not feel that a man can be a Christian
and a staunch segregationist simultaneously. All men, created alike in
the image of God, are inseparately bound together. This is at the very
heart of the Christian Gospel. This broad universalism standing at the
center of the Christian Gospel makes segregation morally evil. Racial
segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we have in Christ.
There is not a single passage in the Bible--properly interpreted--that
can be used as an argument for segregation. Segregation is utterly unchristian.
It substitutes the person-thing relationship for the person-to-person
relationship.
PD. Ebony, October 1957.
|
