Footnotes
[6]
Duane Holm was kind enough to send us lengthy and
insightful remarks. Although they arrived too late to be incorporated
in the text, we have paraphrased and summarized them below. We
appreciate both his explanations on various points and his bringing us
up to date.
A neglected factor influencing the differential development of
social-action emphases and styles by the two congregations is cultural
receptivity. Important differences in cultural milieu is noted in
comparing the two cities. Dayton is a new city with more recent growth
and more dynamic industry. It has a relatively liberal business
establishment, heavily influenced by Detroit. As in many other "army
towns," the expectations generated by the 30,000 WrightPatterson federal
employees are often in tension with the practices of the rest of the
community. Dayton, like Cleveland, has a clearly defined ghetto on one
side of the river. Like Detroit, many of its factories are located in
the black community, where racial unrest can threaten disruption of
normal operations.
In contrast, Cincinnati is an older city with a more conservative
establishment, no large outside presence, and scattered, separated black
communities similar to many old Southern cities. It is less dependent on
industry. Further, Cincinnati is a "churchier" town, in which problems
do not seem so severe or the need for solutions so urgent. Because of
these social and cultural differences some action strategies worked in
Dayton which would have been less successful in Cincinnati.
Many in the Cincinnati Congregation held responsible positions in the
established institutions and civic life of the city. They were
accustomed to running things and checked Holm's strong leadership when
it countered their expectations. They refused to allow Holm to involve
the Congregation in the grape boycott, in support of California farm
workers, for instance. Holm argues they insisted that be make most of
the routine housekeeping decisions instead of playing participatory
games with them. (Our point was that, in contrast, Righter insisted
participation in routine congregational decision-making was not a game.
Nor did the Dayton Congregation accept it as such.) Holm insists that
members of his flock were not sheepish in exerting their wills, however.
In addition, the Congregation contained a good deal of diversity in
political views. Many were open on the issue of race but closed on other
matters such as poverty, welfare, and war. Particularly in order to
minimize conflict and thereby increase efficiency, the Congregation set
out in its first year to establish priorities for action and to agree
upon a single project to be emphasized. The Congregation was groping
toward one focal social-action issue before the Black Manifesto
controversy erupted. It was not until several months afterward, however,
that their specific strategy took shape and their drive for selling
black economic development to the other Presbytery churches began in
earnest.
There are some tentative but hopeful signs that the influence of the
Cincinnati Congregation for Reconciliation lingers after its death.
First, the Presbytery's increased black investment and black
representation apparently have become established policy. Second, the
Cincinnati Presbytery's Education Department recently authorized an
initial printing of the Bible in Black and White curriculum for
suggested use in its churches. Third, Congregation ex-members have taken
the lead in insisting on a continuing legitimate channel for racial
concerns in the form of an Ethnic Affairs Committee in the currently
restructuring Presbytery. Finally, Holm was nominated and elected to the
General Assembly's (national) Council on Church and Race, where he has
pursued the Congregation's concern for curricular and congregational
action. These are signs that the experiment, although dead, has not yet
been forgotten. Some of its ex-members have at least kept the struggle
for racial reconciliation on the Presbytery agenda.
