This week included the 50th anniversary of a landmark event
in America's civil rights struggle: the enrollment on October 1, 1962, of James
Meredith, a black man, in the University of Mississippi, an institution long
closed to black people by the segregationist policies then in force in
Mississippi.
Meredith's enrollment did not occur easily. With Ole Miss being a bastion of the Old South, and Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett declaring he was a segregationist and proud of being so, the town of Oxford and the campus itself erupted in violence. It took the intervention of President John Kennedy, 30,000 U.S. troops, federal marshals and national guardsmen to get Meredith to class.
Although Meredith's demand for admission to the school was backed by a federal court order, Barnett had publicly vowed to keep him off the campus and had denounced the federal government. Behind the scenes, however, the governor was on the phone with President Kennedy trying to find a compromise.
Before the violence was over, two people had been killed and more than 200 were injured, including some 160 U.S. marshals. Some historians call the integration of the University of Mississippi the last battle of the Civil War.
Meredith not only enrolled in Ole Miss, but went on to receive a degree in political science, history and French from the school. He later said he sought entry into the university because he "was born in Mississippi and personally never lost the idea that it belonged to me and my kind."
These days, Meredith, now 79, often wears his Ole Miss baseball cap in public.
About 37 percent of Mississippians today are black, and 16.6 percent of the Ole Miss student body is black, as is the current student-body president, Kim Dandridge. She is the fourth black person elected to that position.
Although sometimes described as a civil-rights hero, Meredith rejects the label and dislikes the term "civil rights" because it implies that civil rights are somehow different from rights in general. As he sees it, he was fighting for his rights as an American citizen.
This week Ole Miss held several events to mark the anniversary of Meredith's history-making enrollment. Meredith was invited to attend, but declined, saying he didn't see the point. He remarked to the Associated Press that he'd "never heard of the French celebrating Waterloo" and asked, "Did you find anything 50 years ago that I should be celebrating?"
The university's officials, however, are quick to describe the observance as a commemoration, not a celebration.
Meredith has attended and participated in other events on the campus.
On his website, Meredith writes, "I have long recognized the folly of advocating a change simply because it is right, because it is humane, because it is Christian, because it is in the Constitution, or for any other nonpractical reason. I am aware of another important fact: if I were a white man, I would not give up my favored position unless there was an extremely good reason. The greatest hope for a major change in the basic status of African Americans is to convince the American whites that it is in their best interest. It is my firm conviction that the solution must result in the material improvement of both groups concerned ...." (Recognizing that some people say that today, the "white man" no longer has a "favored position," we would like to concentrate on Meredith's statement that positive changes involve seeking "the material improvement of both groups concerned.")
One TWW team member reports memories from growing up in the South: "My extended family was ethnic German, and more-or-less didn't really think too much about the Jim Crow laws and whatnot. All [family members] were and remained what would nowadays be called 'conservative.' While none were particularly activist -- and generally would naturally side with the 'law-and-order' side of things -- I can remember within the space of a few years the idea that 'all men are created equal' and 'who cares about skin color: we're all Americans' was a winning argument, and they then tried to live that way. In other words, it was the appeal to the Constitution and to Christianity that changed them from going with the Jim Crow flow, to thinking that Jim Crow laws were stupid at best, and evil at worst. (To be fair, being from a historically persecuted minority themselves probably was also a factor.)"
In his book Robert Kennedy and His Times, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. quotes Meredith as saying about his decision to enroll in Ole Miss, "Nobody handpicked me. I believed, and believe now, that I have a divine responsibility to break white supremacy in Mississippi ..." (p. 317).
More on this story can be found at these links:
Integrating Ole Miss: A Transformative, Deadly Riot. NPR
James Meredith Loathes "Civil Rights" Moniker. KnoxNews
James Meredith website
The Big Questions
Meredith's enrollment did not occur easily. With Ole Miss being a bastion of the Old South, and Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett declaring he was a segregationist and proud of being so, the town of Oxford and the campus itself erupted in violence. It took the intervention of President John Kennedy, 30,000 U.S. troops, federal marshals and national guardsmen to get Meredith to class.
Although Meredith's demand for admission to the school was backed by a federal court order, Barnett had publicly vowed to keep him off the campus and had denounced the federal government. Behind the scenes, however, the governor was on the phone with President Kennedy trying to find a compromise.
Before the violence was over, two people had been killed and more than 200 were injured, including some 160 U.S. marshals. Some historians call the integration of the University of Mississippi the last battle of the Civil War.
Meredith not only enrolled in Ole Miss, but went on to receive a degree in political science, history and French from the school. He later said he sought entry into the university because he "was born in Mississippi and personally never lost the idea that it belonged to me and my kind."
These days, Meredith, now 79, often wears his Ole Miss baseball cap in public.
About 37 percent of Mississippians today are black, and 16.6 percent of the Ole Miss student body is black, as is the current student-body president, Kim Dandridge. She is the fourth black person elected to that position.
Although sometimes described as a civil-rights hero, Meredith rejects the label and dislikes the term "civil rights" because it implies that civil rights are somehow different from rights in general. As he sees it, he was fighting for his rights as an American citizen.
This week Ole Miss held several events to mark the anniversary of Meredith's history-making enrollment. Meredith was invited to attend, but declined, saying he didn't see the point. He remarked to the Associated Press that he'd "never heard of the French celebrating Waterloo" and asked, "Did you find anything 50 years ago that I should be celebrating?"
The university's officials, however, are quick to describe the observance as a commemoration, not a celebration.
Meredith has attended and participated in other events on the campus.
On his website, Meredith writes, "I have long recognized the folly of advocating a change simply because it is right, because it is humane, because it is Christian, because it is in the Constitution, or for any other nonpractical reason. I am aware of another important fact: if I were a white man, I would not give up my favored position unless there was an extremely good reason. The greatest hope for a major change in the basic status of African Americans is to convince the American whites that it is in their best interest. It is my firm conviction that the solution must result in the material improvement of both groups concerned ...." (Recognizing that some people say that today, the "white man" no longer has a "favored position," we would like to concentrate on Meredith's statement that positive changes involve seeking "the material improvement of both groups concerned.")
One TWW team member reports memories from growing up in the South: "My extended family was ethnic German, and more-or-less didn't really think too much about the Jim Crow laws and whatnot. All [family members] were and remained what would nowadays be called 'conservative.' While none were particularly activist -- and generally would naturally side with the 'law-and-order' side of things -- I can remember within the space of a few years the idea that 'all men are created equal' and 'who cares about skin color: we're all Americans' was a winning argument, and they then tried to live that way. In other words, it was the appeal to the Constitution and to Christianity that changed them from going with the Jim Crow flow, to thinking that Jim Crow laws were stupid at best, and evil at worst. (To be fair, being from a historically persecuted minority themselves probably was also a factor.)"
In his book Robert Kennedy and His Times, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. quotes Meredith as saying about his decision to enroll in Ole Miss, "Nobody handpicked me. I believed, and believe now, that I have a divine responsibility to break white supremacy in Mississippi ..." (p. 317).
More on this story can be found at these links:
Integrating Ole Miss: A Transformative, Deadly Riot. NPR
James Meredith Loathes "Civil Rights" Moniker. KnoxNews
James Meredith website
The Big Questions
1. Is
Meredith right that advocating change because it is right, humane, Christian or
in the Constitution is less effective than demonstrating that the change will
"result in the material improvement of both groups concerned"? What
about changes that Christianity advocates where "material
improvement" cannot be demonstrated? What about resisting changes that
benefit one group over another? What about resisting changes that Christianity
opposes?
2. What is
the difference between commemoration and celebration? Where does each belong in
the practice of the Christian faith?
3. What
outlooks did you once hold that the course of events in your lifetime has
caused you to change? What outlooks has maturing spiritually caused you to
abandon?
4. About what
things within your power to influence do you consider yourself to have a "divine
responsibility" to act?
5. While
changes in society can be positive, negative or neutral, what resources do we
have to help us decide which changes belong in which category (and thus, which
ones we as Christians advocate and work for, oppose or simply accept)?
Confronting the News with Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Exodus 3:9-10
"The cry of the Israelites has now come to me; I have also seen how the Egyptians oppress them. So come, I will send you to Pharaoh to bring my people, the Israelites, out of Egypt." (For context, read 3:1-12.)
This is God speaking to Moses from the burning bush, telling him that he (God) has heard the cries of the enslaved Israelites and wants Moses to be the human instigator of the action to free them. Moses was being given a "divine responsibility." When he obeyed God, a lot of trouble and resistance followed, but he served as God's agent in breaking Egypt's stranglehold on Israel.
Questions: Clearly, God called Moses to foment
change. Where else have you seen God's will expressed through forced changes in
society? Off the top of your head, can you name other places in scripture where
God advocates for the poor, the suffering and the oppressed? What does Jesus
have to say on the subject?
Joshua 17:3-4
"Now Zelophehad ... had no sons, but only daughters .... They came before the priest Eleazar and Joshua son of Nun and the leaders, and said, 'The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance along with our male kin.' So according to the commandment of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the kinsmen of their father." (For context, read 17:1-6.)
After dividing the land of Canaan between the tribes of Israel during the time of Joshua's leadership, sub-allotments had to be made to the individual clans and families. In normal cases, land was inherited by sons, but God had provided that, if a man had no son, then the daughter was to inherit. (There were also provisions in the case of childlessness; see Numbers 27:1-11.)
Here in Joshua, where the actual division of the land is taking place, Zelophehad's daughters remind Eleazar the priest and Joshua of God's commandment about it given through Moses. When reminded, Eleazar and Joshua comply. Although they live in a patriarchal society, it is apparent that the daughters were able to state their case and be heard successfully.
"Now Zelophehad ... had no sons, but only daughters .... They came before the priest Eleazar and Joshua son of Nun and the leaders, and said, 'The LORD commanded Moses to give us an inheritance along with our male kin.' So according to the commandment of the LORD he gave them an inheritance among the kinsmen of their father." (For context, read 17:1-6.)
After dividing the land of Canaan between the tribes of Israel during the time of Joshua's leadership, sub-allotments had to be made to the individual clans and families. In normal cases, land was inherited by sons, but God had provided that, if a man had no son, then the daughter was to inherit. (There were also provisions in the case of childlessness; see Numbers 27:1-11.)
Here in Joshua, where the actual division of the land is taking place, Zelophehad's daughters remind Eleazar the priest and Joshua of God's commandment about it given through Moses. When reminded, Eleazar and Joshua comply. Although they live in a patriarchal society, it is apparent that the daughters were able to state their case and be heard successfully.
Questions: As an issue of justice, the plight of
Zelophehad's daughters trumped the usual practice of only men inheriting land.
What other issues can you think of where justice trumps the laws or practices
of the state or your church? Compare this to the issues confronted in the civil
rights struggle half a century ago, as well as struggles for rights in our
time.
1 Samuel 3:10
"Now the LORD came and stood there, calling as before, 'Samuel! Samuel!' And Samuel said, 'Speak, for your servant is listening.'" (For context, read 3:1-18.)
This is from the account of God calling Samuel, and the circumstances make clear that God himself is a fomenter of change. The incident takes place at the end of the period of the judges, when there was as yet no king over Israel. The book of Judges, which describes that period, closes with these words: "In those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes" (Judges 21:25). That's where things stand when 1 Samuel begins.
As a result of this free-for-all approach to religion, people weren't hearing much from God -- largely because they weren't interested in listening for him. Chapter 3 opens by saying, "The word of the LORD was rare in those days; visions were not widespread." The person on whom the practice of religion focused in those days was Eli, who was both a judge and the high priest. Samuel was a boy who had been dedicated by his mother to the service of God, and he was living in the worship place, likely carrying out cleaning and serving duties.
One night, the Lord called Samuel and told him that big changes were coming: Eli was out; Samuel was in. Eli had forfeited the blessing of God; God's blessing now fell on Samuel. God had been silent; he would be silent no more. Visions had not been widespread; well, hang on to your seats, because they were coming now. The old ways were over; God was breaking into their lives with a new beginning. Things were changing, and how!
This is not only a story about how we should listen for God; it's also a dramatic announcement of surprising change. And it tells us that one of the ways God works is through change. (See also Isaiah 43:19, where God declares, "I am about to do a new thing.")
Questions:
What helps you to discern
when God is the fomenter of a change occurring in society? What helps you
discern when it is someone or something else fomenting the change? When God
calls you to be an agent of change, does God have to call more than once to get
your attention? Samuel had some difficulty recognizing that it was God speaking
to him. Have you had such a difficulty when you thought God was pushing you in
a difficult direction, especially with regard to issues of justice? Did someone
help you to recognize whose voice was speaking, as Eli helped Samuel? Were you
as willing as Eli to listen to uncomfortable news?
Ecclesiastes 3:1, 3, 7
"For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: ... a time to break down, and a time to build up; ... a time to keep silence, and a time to speak ..." (For context, read 3:1-8.)
This sampling of lines from the well-known passage in Ecclesiastes 3 reminds us that in some circumstances, actions that promote or even force change can be the right thing to do.
Questions: How do you determine when it is a time
to speak in favor of some unpopular change? How do you determine when it is a
time to speak against some popular change? What do you say to some who might
insist it is not time for certain rights to be granted to others? Do churches
and communities, in your experience, tend to resist extending rights to others?
When has your church been in the forefront? When has your church lagged with
regard to issues of justice?
Galatians 3:28
"There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (For context, read 3:23-29.)
At the time Paul made this statement, it was quite radical. Paul knew that racial, gender and economic identity may not be erased legally because that would threaten the empire. But within the communion of Christ, such divisions have no place.
Questions: In light of what Paul said here, do you
find it ironic that our churches tend to be ethnically and economically
segregated? How have the histories of various denominations led to this? Does
that kind of segregation call you to some paradigm-changing action? If so, what
action?
For Further Discussion
1. When
uncomfortable changes are being pushed in the culture around us, how can you
determine if God might be working in them? And if you conclude that he is, what
are some ways you can cooperate with those changes? If you conclude that the
push is from evil desires, what are some ways consistent with your Christian
witness that you can oppose such changes?
2. Respond to
this: One day, Wilfred Grenfell, a medical missionary to Labrador, was the
guest at a dinner in London with several socially prominent people. A woman
seated next to him said, "Is it true, Dr. Grenfell, that you are a
missionary?" Grenfell replied, "Is it true that you are not?"
3. Respond to
this: Bishop Will Willimon tells this story on himself: He once received a frantic
phone call from the parents of a young woman. The parents thought the young
woman was throwing away her life, and they requested that the pastor talk some
sense into her. So the pastor asked the young woman what had happened. She told
him that she had decided to drop out of pharmacy school and devote her life to
working with the children of migrant farmers. What in the world had motivated
her to do such a radical thing? "It was your sermon yesterday that started
me to thinking," she replied. In the sermon, the pastor had talked about
how God wants us to do something important with our lives. She had decided that
ministering to the children of migrant farm workers was something important and
fulfilling she could do with her life. After a long silence the preacher
stammered out, "But, Anne, I was just preaching!"
4. To get a
feel for the time when Meredith was knocking on the door of Ole Miss, see Bob
Dylan's song "Oxford Town" at www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/oxford-town.
Responding to the News
It's good to be aware that God may be acting in social changes surging around us, so that we take time to evaluate them carefully before deciding how we will respond.
No comments:
Post a Comment