benjaminmillerloras.weebly.combenjaminmillerloras.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/1/...down… · Web view‘good’ people getting down and dirty: the influence of the student nonviolent

‘GOOD’ PEOPLE GETTING DOWN AND DIRTY:

THE INFLUENCE OF THE STUDENT NONVIOLENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE ON

THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES DURING FREEDOM SUMMER, 1964

A HISTORY THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS

BENJAMIN MILLER

LORAS COLLEGE

DUBUQUE, IOWA

DECEMBER 15, 2016

Miller 1

“I believe further that this delivering God has raised up men as instruments of that deliverance to

himself.”1

The National Council of Churches was an unlikely ally to be seen deep in the heart of

Mississippi in the 1960s. A mostly white, northern group of Protestant Christians, the National

Council of Churches found itself aligned with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee

(SNCC) who, during the summer of 1964, had organized the Freedom Summer project which

took place in Mississippi.2 SNCC had staffers on-site in Mississippi and were accepting many

volunteers throughout the project from outside of the state and from different organizations, such

as the Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), which connected the leading organizations

involved in the Civil Rights Movement such as NAACP, SCLC, SNCC, and CORE.3 The

National Council of Churches felt a ‘Kairos,’ or a time of special opportunity due to their

religious obligations to work in the Civil Rights Movement and found a way into the physical

activism by creating their Commission on Religion and Race and working with SNCC during

Freedom Summer.4 The ideology and strategies of the National Council of Churches developed

and shifted as Freedom Summer came to fruition. The National Council of Churches began their

work in the Civil Rights Movement closely aligned with SNCC. SNCC was instrumental in

helping to form the National Council of Churches’ ideology during Freedom Summer and their

initial influence continued with the Delta Ministry, a project that the National Council of

Churches did alone.

1 Robert W. Spike, The Freedom Revolution and the Churches, (New York: Association Press, 1965), 121.2 James F. Findlay Jr., Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black

Freedom Movement, 1950-1970 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 3. ; Clayborne Carson, In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 111.

3 Carson, 114.4 Charles Eagle, review of Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black

Freedom Movement, 1950-1970, by James F. Findlay, Jr, The American Historical Review 99, no. 4 (Oct. 1994): 1403.

Miller 2

Much of this paper is greatly indebted to the work of Dr. James F. Findlay, Jr., whose

book, Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black Freedom

Movement, 1950-1970, provided the basic foundation for understanding the National Council of

Churches during Freedom Summer. Findlay covers twenty years of history in his book, but

works thoroughly regardless. He had access to oral histories from members of the National

Council of Churches which gave his book a new dimension through the use of memory sources.

He wrote that he had sent these interviews to a repository, but unfortunately they never made

their way to a public repository and remain at his desk on 30 year old forms of technology.5

Findlay argues in his book that the National Council of Churches “began in 1963 to lead by

establishing a new Commission on Religion and Race, which played… a key part in mobilizing

support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially among midwestern Republicans."6 He argues

that the National Council of Churches played a key role in the Civil Rights Movement and that

they came into their role because of a special time of action, also called “Kairos.”7

In terms of writing histories about the National Council of Churches, Dr. Findlay stands

alone at the top. It is the only organizational history of the National Council of Churches and

specifically looks at the Civil Rights Movement. In his book, Lift Up Your Voice Like a

Trumpet: White Clergy and the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1973, Michael Friedland praises

Findlay for his extensive work on the National Council of Churches, offering up his work to his

readers for a more extensive description on “the work of the NCC and the Mississippi Freedom

5 Findlay, 240. ; I reached out to Dr. Findlay via email on October 24, 2016 asking about the interviews to which I received a reply from Dr. Findlay that stated: “The oral histories you are interested in were never sent to the Presbyterian Historical Society.. They are sitting just5 above me on my desk. But they were recorded over 30 years ago and are completely out of date technologically. [sic]” Unfortunately these are the only interviews from National Council members that I was made aware of and had to rely on Dr. Findlay’s use of them in his own work.

6 Charles Eagle, review of Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black Freedom Movement, 1950-1970, by James F. Findlay, Jr, The American Historical Review 99, no. 4 (Oct. 1994): 1403.

7 Findlay, 4.

Miller 3

Summer and the Delta Ministry.”8 Mark Newman, in Divine Agitators: The Delta Ministry and

Civil Rights in Mississippi, acknowledged Findlay as one who gave essential aid to his project on

the Delta Ministry.9 Findlay has been an essential historian to this project as well as many others,

but there are still shortcomings in his argument. One of the holes in his argument is about how

the National Council of Churches came to select the Student Nonviolent Coordinating

Committee as the group to work with during 1964. Another hole that needs to be filled is the

ideological development of the organization after the creation of the Commission on Religion

and Race. These are the holes that this thesis answers by looking at Findlay and expanding upon

his work and works by other historians.

The National Council of Churches was involved in the Civil Rights Movement and

helped bring justice to many American citizens through their work. They would not have gotten

to participate in the Civil Rights Movement to the extent that they did without first experiencing

a “Kairos,” or a time of special opportunity which would lead them to action. The National

Council of Churches experienced this call during an interreligious conference on religion and

race that took place in Chicago in 1963. They took the “Kairos” to heart and accepted the

opportunity presented before them to make a lasting impact in the Civil Rights Movement.

The Beginning of a New Age

The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee organized a summer project in

Mississippi during 1964 that focused on voter registration and education. This project has

affectionately been called “Freedom Summer” or the “Mississippi Summer Project” depending

8 Michael B. Friedland, Lift Up Your Voice Like a Trumpet: White Clergy and the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1973, (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998), 268.

9 Mark Newman, Divine Agitators: The Delta Ministry and Civil Rights in Mississippi, (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004.), xv.

Miller 4

on which author is writing.10 Regardless of the name, the intent of the project was to assist in

voter registration and education, which occurred at the orientation sessions at the beginning of

the summer in June at the Western College for Women. There were two orientation sessions: the

first session, held June 14-20, was on voter registration and the second, the following week, was

on how to teach in freedom schools.11 The official goal of the program, as outlined by SNCC,

was to “force either Mississippi officials to change their policies or ‘the federal government to

intervene on behalf of the constitutional rights of its citizens.’”12 They also aimed to “develop

and strengthen a homegrown freedom movement that will survive after the 1,000 visitors

leave.”13 SNCC used voter registration and education in freedom schools as primary motives to

reaching these goals.

The National Council of Churches was pressured to get involved in racial struggles by an

interreligious conference at the beginning of 1963. A conference on religion and race, which the

National Council of Churches officially sponsored through the Department of Racial and

Cultural Relations, convened in January of 1963 in Chicago and was a major ecumenical effort

to get Protestants, Catholics, and Jews to join together and focus on the racial injustice that was

occurring in the country.14 At the conference, Albert G. Meyer, former Roman Catholic

archbishop of Chicago, warned that “if racial discrimination is not soon eliminated our whole

future as a nation and as a religious people may be affected.”15 The president of the National

Council of Churches, J. Irwin Miller, commented, “We cannot continue as we are,” endorsing a

10 Doug McAdam, Freedom Summer, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 4. ; Carson, 110. ; Spike, 20.

11 McAdam, 4. ; Carson, 111.12 Carson, 110.13 Carson, 110.14 Findlay, 32.15 Richard Philbrick, “Race Bias Perils U.S., 3 Churchmen Warn,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 15 January

1963, 1. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1963/01/15/

Miller 5

change that needed to occur.16 This ecumenical pressure begged for a change amongst the

various religious communities that were present. Robert Spike, director of the Commission of

Religion and Race, wrote that “the interreligious Chicago Conference on Religion and Race in

January of [1963] set a mood for concerted action with its four faith groups that has had many

concrete expressions since that time.”17 Simply talking about racial injustice would no longer be

enough if Miller’s words to be taken to heart. Findlay argues that the churches “seemed to be

entering a ‘Kairos’ moment,” a moment where unusual events seemed to be “determined by

God,” and where God “offers [people] a new set of possibilities [which they have to] accept or

decline.”18 The National Council of Churches and other religious organizations were called out

by the conference to act on their convictions and get involved in the struggle for racial justice.

The National Council of Churches had not been heavily involved in the racial struggles of

the Civil Rights Movement prior to the spring of 1963 when they formed the Commission on

Religion and Race. While individual churches sprang into action in the spring of 1963, it took the

National Council of Churches until June to get an activist arm going.19 In a report to the

president’s Temporary Committee of Six on Race, a committee that would become the

Commission on Religion and Race, the National Council of Churches wrote that the “mounting

tide of vigorous actions to secure full civil rights for all American citizens has at long last moved

into the center of this nation’s attention and has precipitated an unmistakeable crisis. [sic]”20 The

16 Richard Philbrick, “Race Bias Perils U.S., 3 Churchmen Warn,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 15 January 1963, 1. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1963/01/15/

17 Spike, 34. 18 Findlay, 4.19 Findlay, 33.20 “A Report to the President’s Temporary Committee of Six on Race,” June 7, 1963, 1, Student Nonviolent

Coordinating Committee Papers, 1959-1972 (Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1982), microfilm, A:17:125, 0992.; Findlay, 34. Findlay writes that on June 7, 1963 the NCC formed the Commission on Religion and Race. The original document forms the president’s “Temporary Committee of Six on Race.” The official name of Commission on Religion and Race does not come up until the news bulletin that they put out following the meeting (A:17:125, 0998).

Miller 6

document continued, “Now is the time for action – even costly action that may jeopardize the

organizational goals, and institutional structures of the Church, and may disrupt any fellowship

that is less than fully obedient to the Lord of the Church.”21 It then claimed that, “words and

declarations are no longer useful in this struggle unless accompanied by sacrifice and

commitment.”22 This document was the first document specific to the National Council of

Churches in the SNCC papers and is the founding document of the committee, showing that the

National Council of Churches was not involved in the Civil Rights Movement, at least with

SNCC, until the formation of the committee.

The Commission on Religion and Race was the arm of action in the National Council of

Churches. The Council “began in 1963 to lead by establishing a new Commission on Religion

and Race” by mobilizing and being able to reach the “church people” in America.23 James F.

Findlay, Jr., the historian who wrote the history of the National Council of Churches from 1950-

1970, wrote that starting with its formation in 1963, the “Commission on Religion and Race of

the National Council of Churches began to involve itself in the racial struggle in Mississippi

almost from the time it came into existence on June 7, 1963.”24 In the founding document, one of

the goals issued for the Commission on Religion and Race was to “focus and mobilize the

resources of the units of the National Council of Churches.”25 The Commission was intended to

be the arm of action from its inception, which is something that the Commission reminded itself

of at its first meeting by bringing up the words of their authorization: “The General Board

21 “A Report,” Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Papers, A:17:125, 0993.22 “A Report,” Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Papers, A:17:125, 0993.23 Charles Eagle, review of Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the

Black Freedom Movement, 1950-1970, by James F. Findlay, Jr, The American Historical Review 99, no. 4 (Oct. 1994): 1403.

24 Findlay, 111.25 “A Report to the President’s Temporary Committee of Six on Race,” June 7, 1963, 1, Student Nonviolent

Coordinating Committee Papers. 1959-1972 (Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1982), microfilm, A:17:125, 0993.

Miller 7

authorizes this Commission to make commitments, call for actions, take risks in behalf of the

National Council of Churches which are required by the situation and are consistent both with

the substance and the implications of the actions and decisions of the National Council of

Churches in the area of religion and race.”26 Findlay also brings up that the Commission received

“substantial budgetary support - $175,000 for the rest of 1963, and $275,000 for 1964 – more

than ten times the annual operating budget of the Southern Project.”27 The Commission was

given almost complete control of National Council of Churches’ resources in accord with the

words of President Miller from the January conference in Chicago.

The opportune time for action was met with resounding response from the National

Council of Churches and showed that they were ready to accept difficult work with SNCC. They

responded to the call to action from the interreligious conference which led to the creation of the

Commission on Religion and Race, an important commission that became the arm of action for

the National Council of Churches. Their desire to work with SNCC in Mississippi during the

summer of 1964 was an important decision to make and led to a working relationship between

the two organizations. The work that the National Council of Churches did for SNCC was

necessary and something that only the churches could supply.

Freedom Summer and the Relationship of SNCC and the National Council of Churches

The Commission on Religion and Race wanted to connect with SNCC to get involved

with the Civil Rights Movement. With no grassroots organization in place, the Commission

turned to SNCC, an organization that they expressed admiration for in their conception, who had

expressed their plans to work in Mississippi in a conversation with Robert Spike at the March on

26 “Minutes,” June 28, 1963, 2, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Papers, 1959-1972 (Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1982), microfilm, A:17:125, 1006.

27 Findlay, 34.

Miller 8

Washington.28 In a statement made by Rev. Dr. Jon L. Regier, chief of staff of the Commission

on Religion and Race, he wrote that, “the young people involved in the Student Non-Violent

Coordinating Committee have taught American citizens the true meaning of commitment. The

day of goldfish swallowing and joining ‘phoney’ organizations is past.”29 He continued by

writing: “We must not be frightened, but rather work with them.”30 Robert Spike lauded SNCC’s

passion for the movement, writing that SNCC is “characterized by the all-out commitment of its

members to drastic changes in the society which overtly and subtly have kept Negroes in

bondage.”31 He continued his praise for SNCC by looking at their appeal to the younger civil

rights workers and how SNCC was better for them, writing “those mainly in the Student

Nonviolent Co-ordinating Committee were committed to challenging the awful tyranny of

Mississippi.”32 The other organization that the National Council of Churches thought to align

themselves with, the NAACP, were criticized by Spike who wrote that they “did not want an

open confrontation.”33 The National Council of Churches, then, opted to go with “the more

aggressive group” with the “firm conviction that the time for change had come.”34 Mark

Newman writes that the National Council of Churches’ eventual project in Mississippi, the Delta

Ministry, was “to share SNCC'S outlook, and the group's influence was strongly evident in the

proposal for the Delta project approved by the NCC's General Board in February 1964. The

Summer Project's concern with voter registration, adult and child education, community centers,

28 Laura Visser-Maessen, Robert Parris Moses: A Life in Civil Rights and Leadership at the Grassroots, (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2016), 154.

29 “Statement by Rev. Dr. Jon. L. Regier, Chief of Staff,” June 18, 1963, 1, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Papers, 1959-1972 (Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1982), microfilm, A:17:125, 1001.


31 Spike, 29.32 Spike, 109.33 Spike, 109.34 Spike, 109.

Miller 9

and converting local whites all became part of the Delta Ministry's program of operations.”35

Robert Spike and the National Council of Churches had clearly thought about the various

organizations to get involved with and made an intentional choice to align themselves with

SNCC during Freedom Summer. They used SNCC’s leadership not only to get involved with

Freedom Summer, but also to look ahead at their own Delta Ministry, a project that would

emerge from Freedom Summer.

The National Council of Churches believed that they could provide help in the struggle

for racial justice. The National Council of Churches outlined the ways in which they would be

able to help out with the summer program plans in a statement made in June of 1963. The

document states that the National Council of Churches would continue to “see that expert and

responsible parties are involved in curricular matters” related to the “freedom schools” that were

set up, provide orientation for summer volunteers, securing the services of “counselling,

mediating, and reconciling agents during the summer,” help provide 80-100 lawyers to be

available for service, and assist in voter education-registration drives.36 In this way, the National

Council of Churches showed that their services would benefit SNCC and the Mississippi

Freedom Summer project. Doug McAdam writes that the “largest [“auxiliary force” volunteering

in Mississippi] was the contingent of 400 ministers, priests, and rabbis assembled by the National

Council of Churches to minister to the spiritual needs of the volunteers.”37 The Commission on

Religion and Race had known early in their conception that they would work with SNCC and

they believed that there was a mutual benefit to their work that summer, which had stemmed

from the call to action at the interreligious conference on religion and race in January of 1963.

35 Newman, 18.36 “A Statement on the Mississippi Summer Program of the Commission on Religion and Race,” June 1963,

1-2, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Papers. 1959-1972 (Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1982), microfilm, A:17:125, 1003.

37 McAdam, 4. ; Carson, 154.

Miller 10

In talking with Moses about the summer of 1964, Rev. Dr. Robert W. Spike, the

executive director of the Commission on Religion and Race, was able to see that the National

Council of Churches might be helpful to the movement by sponsoring orientation sessions for the

students who were to be involved in what would eventually be called Freedom Summer. During

the March on Washington, Robert Moses met Robert Spike. The March had influenced Moses’

thinking about “federal legislation and how to attain it.” 38 Moses thought Kennedy’s proposed

bill on civil rights was “disappointing for its failure to address voting rights,” but saw an opening

for future legislation. 39 The National Council of Churches had efforts to “lobby for congressional

and senatorial civil rights votes from Midwestern states.” 40 Spike told Moses about “the NCC’s

nascent plans for a campaign focusing on Mississippi” at the March.41 Moses and Spike’s

relationship helped Spike and the National Council of Churches to work with SNCC in

Mississippi rather than having multiple projects going on at one time. Spike brought forth the

idea of sponsoring the orientation sessions, which would take place in June, at a January meeting

with NCC. The first location for the orientation sessions, Berea College in Kentucky, backed out

due to the riskiness of hosting. The orientation sessions took place from June 12-27 at Western

College for Women in Oxford, Ohio, which held Presbyterian connections.42 Riskiness was

avoided and the orientation sessions were able to go on because of the religious connection of the

Western College for Women and the National Council of Churches. By the National Council of

Churches sponsoring this event, Spike had led his church people deep into the racial struggles of

Mississippi, Ohio, and elsewhere. This gave them an intention and reason for mobilizing

themselves and going to the SNCC headquarters to minister in the struggle.

38 Visser-Maessen, 154.39 Visser-Maessen, 154.40 Visser-Maessen, 154.41 Visser-Maessen, 154.42 Findlay, 84-85.

Miller 11

There is a misunderstanding between the National Council of Churches and

SNCC/Freedom Summer literature on the extent of what the National Council of Churches

actually did at the orientation sessions. Clayborne Carson writes that, “The National Council of

Churches, through its Commission on Religion and Race, contributed to the project by

underwriting the orientation program for the student volunteers and by sending to Mississippi its

own staff of ministers and lawyers under the auspices of its Delta Ministry.”43 Doug McAdam

writes that the “National Council of Churches sponsored two, week-long orientation sessions for

volunteers accepted for work in Mississippi.”44 Howard Zinn made a similar remark in his book,

SNCC: The New Abolitionists, writing that the National Council of Churches had “organized” the

sessions, but nothing further.45 Zinn writes that the National Council of Churches had more of an

impact on the sessions than other authors, while Carson and McAdam argue that the National

Council of Churches were involved in sponsoring and through funding alone, but Robert Spike

wrote in his 1965 book, The Freedom Revolution and the Churches, that “hundreds of students

recruited by the Council of Federated Organizations… were trained for their tasks by the

National Council of Churches.”46 Right away, there is a clear divide between SNCC/Freedom

Summer literature interpretations of the orientation sessions, how Spike viewed the sessions and,

consequently, the National Council of Churches’ role during Freedom Summer.

The National Council of Churches was able to shape the orientation sessions through

their leading role on the steering committee. While Carson and McAdam maintain that the

National Council of Churches supported the orientation through its funding, it is evident that the

organization had more to do with the orientation sessions than just money. The sessions were

43 Carson, 108.44 McAdam, 4. ; Carson, 66.45 Howard Zinn, SNCC, the New Abolitionists, (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1985), 244.46 Spike, 20.

Miller 12

headed by Rev. Bruce Hanson, a leading member of the National Council of Churches’

Commission on Religion and Race.47 The Steering Committee for the orientation sessions was as

follows: “Bruce Hanson, Conference Coordinator (NCC), Bob Moses (SNCC), Ivanhoe

Donaldson (SNCC), Norman Hill (CORE), David Dennis (CORE), Laplois Ashford (NAACP),

Dorothy Cotton (SCLC), Bob Allen, Matt Miles, & David Johnson, and Margaret Lawson,

Conference Manager (NCC).”48 The National Council of Churches played a bigger role in the

orientation sessions than Carson and McAdam gave them credit for due to the sheer amount of

staff members on the committee that were aligned with the National Council of Churches as

opposed to other organizations. None of the general sessions outlined in the plans for orientation

were headed by members of the National Council of Churches, leaving those responsibilities to

prominent members of SNCC, such as Bob Moses, and leaders of the SCLC and larger

organizations.49 While it is unclear whether any of the sessions were led by National Council of

Churches members, having leading members on the Steering Committee is evidence that they

played a bigger role in the sessions themselves. They were able to shape the sessions, choosing

what was important to devote attention towards. In a speech given by Dr. Vincent Harding, the

topic of churches was brought up in an attempt to reconcile the racism that existed in the

community. He spoke, saying:

Then of course there were Negro churches and white churches. We lived in this divided house for years. For three quarters of a century after emancipation these walls were not effectively challenged. And we came to believe that men were meant to live with walls between them. The terms "your people" and "my people" became part of the general vocabulary. I hear it now in, "the white community," and "the Negro community," rather than the white and Negro members of the community. We had accepted segregation as

47 Rev. Bruce Hanson, “Plans for Orientation – for staff consideration” (Memorandum, June 9, 1964), 1. http://www.crmvet.org/docs/msfsdocs.htm



Miller 13

part of the American way of life, even though we claimed to a great melting pot, color evidently didn't melt.50

This integration of religion with the Civil Rights Movement and the divide between black and

white shows influence of the National Council of Churches and their call to work in the

movement. While there was certainly more division in the country than just within churches, it

was used as an example to help show how much work still needed to be done in the country.

Churches want to be seen as a place of moral excellence. This speech shows the National

Council of Churches responding to their call to act and respond to the injustices in their

organizations.

The Commission on Religion and Race supported Freedom Summer by bringing lawyers

and ministers devoted to Freedom Summer. In April of 1964, the commission “issued the first

call for ‘ministers and laymen in Mississippi, Summer of 1964,’ to serve ‘as counselors to the

workers in a given summer project.’”51 The National Council of Churches, having sponsored the

orientation sessions, saw their mobilizing of lawyers and ministers into Mississippi as part of

their initial mission when they got involved with SNCC.52 There were approximately 275

ministers and lay people who helped out with Freedom Summer for varying degrees of time,

most for a short period of time of around “ten days to two weeks.”53 SNCC and the National

Council of Churches believed that volunteers and workers would be safer if there were ministers

with them. Their reasoning was that the presence of ministers would benefit all volunteers by

serving as “at least a partial restraint on the violence that lurked so near the surface throughout

50 Dr. Vincent Harding, “Freedom Summer Orientation Briefing” (Transcript of address, June 1964). http://www.crmvet.org/docs/msfsdocs.htm

51 Findlay, 89.52 See footnote 16.53 “Ministers and Adult Laymen Recruited by NCC for Work in Mississippi Summer Project – June 15 to

Sept 1, 1964,” n.d., 1-11, Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee Papers. 1959-1972 (Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corporation of America, 1982), microfilm, A:17:125, 1071-1076.

Miller 14

Mississippi.”54 In addition to the ministers brought down for spiritual guidance and protection,

Clayborne Carson wrote that the “National Council of Churches, through its Commission on

Religion and Race, contributed to the [Summer Project] by underwriting the orientation program

for the student volunteers and by sending to Mississippi its own staff of ministers and lawyers

under the auspices of its Delta Ministry.”55 The Commission, through its use of lawyers,

provided “legal assistance and bail money for civil rights workers and tried to work with local

white churches.”56 These lawyers were essential in providing legal guidance for staff members

and for volunteers who were arrested and needed counsel. The use of ministers and lawyers

helped to shape the ideology of the National Council of Churches by giving them a foundation

for organization in a project like Freedom Summer.

The involvement of the National Council of Churches in Freedom Summer shaped the

workings of the Delta Ministry. While the NCC had wanted to start a ministry in the Delta

region, they were not able to begin it until September 1964 due to their heavy involvement in

Freedom Summer.57 The National Council of Churches had approved of the Delta Ministry

proposal in February 1964.58 In the list of accomplishments of the Delta Ministry, Bruce Hilton

shows many of the same goals that SNCC had for Freedom Summer: “1. Helped register at least

seventy thousand of the state’s new Negro voters. 2. Operated a summer-long series of

workshops to train Negro candidates to run against whites for county office.”59 These goals are

similar to SNCC’s Freedom Summer goals of voter registration and education through use of

54 Findlay, 89.55 Carson, 108.56 Findlay, 85.57 Findlay, 115. 58 National Council of Churches, “General Board Action Concerning A Ministry among the Residents of

the Delta Area of the State of Mississippi” (General Board Action, February 26, 1964), 4. http://www.crmvet.org/docs/dochome.htm

59 Bruce Hilton, The Delta Ministry, (Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company, 1969), 14.

Miller 15

freedom schools. While the Delta Ministry was approved in February, the National Council of

Churches used Freedom Summer to help shape their own goals by making them more precise

and oriented towards the people.60 The National Council of Churches grew the Delta Ministry out

of Freedom Summer, although they originally proposed the Delta Ministry to be a solo project

for the National Council of Churches, and used SNCC organizational tactics and strategies to

continue a project in Mississippi.

The involvement of the National Council of Churches with Freedom Summer formed a

relationship between the organizations. The ministers brought down by the National Council of

Churches helped provide spiritual guidance and protection, while the lawyers provided essential

legal help. The orientation sessions that the National Council of Churches headed was a

successful way of starting off the summer and informing volunteers of the risks that they were

taking by entering into the struggle. This harmony of Freedom Summer would soon die out,

though, partially aided by the National Council of Churches. A meeting conducted in September

is an effective end date for the National Council of Churches’ working relationship with SNCC

in Freedom Summer. After the meeting, the National Council of Churches focused their efforts

into their own Delta Ministry, using the strategies that they had gained from SNCC to help make

it successful.

The End of Freedom Summer

On September 18, 1964, the National Council of Churches, along with the NAACP and

SCLC, conducted a meeting at the National Council of Churches’ New York office where

SNCC’s leadership was challenged. The meeting consisted of various members from the

60 Newman, 120.

Miller 16

National Council of Churches, NAACP, SCLC, and SNCC.61 The Summer Project was criticized

by these organizations, with some claiming that Freedom Summer was more harmful than

beneficial. Robert Spike wrote that COFO, the Council of Federated Organizations which

included NAACP, CORE, SCLC, and SNCC members, saw SNCC as “the dominant group, by

virtue both of workers and of financial support.”62 The organizations of COFO, believing SNCC

to be dominating the work in Mississippi, “became increasingly annoyed with this domination,

and [began] to seek other forms through which to work.”63 The culmination of this annoyance

occurred at the September meeting, where most of the criticism came from SCLC’s Andrew

Young. At the meeting, Young said that SNCC “ushered us into a new phase of the civil rights

struggle.”64 Young maintains this position because they “have become aware of the economic

issue, but political change, as implied in the MSP, must precede economic change.”65 Young was

troubled by this because he thought it was not time to enter into this new phase while still dealing

with other issues in Mississippi.66 He was concerned with the disorganization of SNCC in the

way that they ran the summer project. Laura Visser-Maessen writes that the meeting “painfully

exposed [the various organizations’] differences in organizational leadership and forced the

inherent contradictions of SNCC’s strategy of grassroots leadership financed by northern

backing into the open.”67 She continues by sharing the various criticisms at the meeting, “what

Courtland Cox called a ‘diatribe against Bob and SNCC.’”68 Visser-Maessen writes that “Gloster 61 National Council of Churches, “Rough minutes of a meeting called by the National Council of Churches

to discuss the Mississippi Project” (Minutes, unpublished, September 18, 1964), 1. http://www.crmvet.org/docs/dochome.htm

62 Spike, 30.63 Spike, 31.64 National Council of Churches, “Rough minutes of a meeting called by the National Council of Churches


65 National Council of Churches, “Rough minutes,” 1.66 Nicolaus Mills, Like a Holy Crusade: Mississippi 1964 – the Turning of the Civil Rights Movement in

America, (Chicago: I.R. Dee, 1992), 169.67 Visser-Maessen, 248.68 Visser-Maessen, 248.

Miller 17

Current criticized Moses as a mumbling dictator who ‘left a very negative impression.’ He

denied that the MFDP was a true grassroots enterprise.”69 The organizations thought that the

strategy of SNCC was not making progress or benefitting the people as well as a national

organization could and should.

The meeting, although called by the National Council of Churches, affected relationships

between other COFO groups and SNCC but saw no negative change in relationship between

SNCC and the National Council of Churches. James Forman, while not present at the meeting

and only able to read the minutes and hear from the SNCC representatives who were there, saw

the meeting as a way to “neutralize or destroy SNCC so that [the other organizations (NCC,

SCLC, NAACP)] could manipulate the movement in Mississippi as they wished.”70 Carson had

implied a sort of competition that had been going on in 1961 between civil rights groups,

especially between SNCC and SCLC regarding strategy.71 This meeting was an opportunity to air

grievances about the organization that was seen as dominating the work in Mississippi. Mark

Newman writes that despite the meeting being conducted at the National Council of Churches’

office, there was “no breach in the relationship between the NCC and SNCC/MFDP.”72 Robert

Spike defended SNCC from the criticisms at the meeting, saying, “with Bob [Moses] and Jim

Forman not here, we can't make any decision.” 73 Although it did not cause a breach in the

relationship, it was effectively the end of the working relationship in “the struggle” as the

69 Visser-Maessen, 248.70 Mills, 170.71 Carson, 63.72 Newman, 18.73 National Council of Churches, “Rough minutes of a meeting called by the National Council of Churches


Miller 18

meeting occurred just 17 days after the opening of the first office of the Delta Ministry in

Greenville, Mississippi.74

Historiography

Stephen Lawson and Charles Payne each have a different view on the Civil Rights

Movement, and both are important to learning about the movement in general. In the book,

Debating the Civil Rights Movement, 1945-1968, Lawson takes the “view from the nation” and

argues that the federal government is key to victory in the movement and that national

organizations and the leaders therein shaped the Civil Rights Movement. He argues that the civil

rights workers and organizations used a nonviolent direct action strategy to provoke a crisis in

order to force federal intervention through media. The federal government, to Lawson, shaped

the pace of the movement by choosing where to get involved and where to stay out of it. He

argues that local people pushed the federal government to act but that nothing would have

changed without government and the structure of media. Success was measured tangibly: if laws

were enacted or social change occurred, then there was success.75 Lawson argues that the local,

grassroots people would not have been successful without the federal government. He sees the

local people as the heroes of the Civil Rights Movement, but argues that there would not have

been any success without laws enacted by the federal government.

Payne, in his “view from the trenches,” takes a different approach and argues that Civil

Rights activists were able to maneuver around oppressive institutions to alleviate some of the

system’s worst features – or, in other words, he argues that there is no success without the local

74 Findlay, 111. Delta Ministry opened its first office on September 1, 1964.75 Stephen F. Lawson and Charles Payne, Debating the Civil Rights Movement, 1945-1968, (Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006), 2nd ed., 3-4.

Miller 19

people because political victories can be taken away, but the change in people is the real

victory.76 Payne argues that the process is more important than the results, which is really where

he and Lawson disagree. It’s a matter of how success is measured – if someone sees success as

measured in terms of tangible gains, then Lawson’s thinking would connect more with them. If

someone sees success measured by people getting transformed, an ideological shift in people,

then Payne’s thinking would connect more with them. Both of the views are valid and

determined based on how success is viewed.

Lawson and Payne bring up intriguing ideas on how to view the Civil Rights Movement

and, perhaps more interestingly, how those in the Civil Rights Movement viewed their own

ideology. Both of their views are legitimate viewpoints of the Civil Rights Movement as

outsiders to the movement, but also give crucial insight into how the activists would have viewed

their own causes. The two essays bring up different points, yet both need to exist in order to gain

the whole story of what happened in the Civil Rights Movement. There were organizations that

boasted Payne’s argument, seeing success through changing people and impacting individuals,

and there were organizations that followed Lawson’s argument who saw success through

changing laws and social norms. Not all of these organizations maintained one view on success

throughout their existence, which is where this thesis comes into the historical dialogue.

The National Council of Churches’ original ideology matched up with Payne and the idea

of success through laws and social change. It is difficult to find anything about the National

Council of Churches and the Civil Rights Movement during the 1950s without some mention of

the Brown v. Board of Education verdict. Findlay writes that the “National Council of Churches

expressed itself about discrimination – in support of the Supreme Court’s Brown decision in

76 Stephen F. Lawson and Charles Payne, Debating the Civil Rights Movement, 1945-1968, 2nd ed., (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006), 115.

Miller 20

1954, commending President Eisenhower’s handling of the Little Rock crisis in 1957,

announcing in 1957 that no meetings of National Council bodies were to be held in cities where

public accommodations discriminated because of race.”77 It was dependent upon laws and social

change in its day-to-day endeavors with the public. Robert Spike wrote in 1965 about how there

had been “great gains made, symbolized best perhaps by the Supreme Court Decision of 1954

[Brown v. Board of Education] and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”78 While Spike did, in his next

sentence, write that “Most important of all, there was a generation of determined Negroes who

never again could be pushed around or discounted,” which would indicate a view of success

through individuals, he still writes about it in a way that aligns with Lawson and viewing these

laws as the symbolic change of success.79 Spike even criticized SNCC for having an ideology

akin to that of Payne, writing that its weakness resided “in a romanticizing of ‘the people’ so that

all effective organization is suspect; and… the movement becomes vulnerable to outside

influence which, using the language of equality, can exercise leadership.”80 It is evident that the

National Council of Churches began and ended their time in the Civil Rights Movement with a

“Lawson” view on success through these statements from Findlay and Robert Spike, a prominent

member of the National Council of Churches. The important things that happened in the

movement are always based around laws and social change; anything else was open to ridicule,

as Spike criticized SNCC’s strategies regarding leadership after the split of the two organizations

during Freedom Summer.

While the National Council of Churches as a whole seemed to lean towards Lawson’s

argument, the Commission on Religion and Race tended to side with the Student Nonviolent

77 Findlay, 16.78 Spike, 22.79 Spike, 22.80 Spike, 30.

Miller 21

Coordinating Committee and Payne from their conception. The Commission had wanted to join

up with SNCC as early as their first meeting – a curious choice for two groups that were very

dissimilar.81 Robert Spike admitted to the Commission’s involvement not being about the change

of laws or social norms, but about the change of minds and hearts of individuals. He wrote that

the Mississippi Summer Project “was not designed to be a confrontation directly challenging

white segregated facilities and customs. Rather, it was intended to begin a more basic job of

bringing morale, training, and experience to a large number of younger Mississippi Negroes so

that they might be equipped to participate in the drastic changes coming over the region.”82 There

is a clear understanding by Spike and the Commission on Religion and Race that this project,

and their involvement with SNCC, was going to be different than what the National Council of

Churches was used to doing, such as publically supporting federal laws and Supreme Court

decisions.

Lawson and Payne are both crucial to understanding the development of the National

Council of Churches during Freedom Summer. It is not one ideology over the other, but both

arguments at the same time, used in a malleable fashion by the National Council of Churches and

the Commission on Religion and Race in order to advance in the Civil Rights Movement. The

National Council of Churches fits into this historical conversation as an organization that has a

flexible ideology consistent with their theological standing. The time that the National Council of

Churches spent with SNCC in Mississippi clearly had an impact on their ideology. The question

for the Council now becomes whether or not it was the right decision to go from one ideological

viewpoint to the other and back to the original, albeit with a new vision and appreciation for the


82 Spike, 21.

Miller 22

local people. It would be inappropriate to give an opinion on whether or not this organization

should have done something, but it raises a question for further consideration among scholars

and those familiar with the National Council of Churches.

Lawson and Payne showcase one form of historiography, but there are other types which

dialog with this thesis as well. Jaquelyn Dowd Hall, in her historiographical article, criticizes one

of the most accessible forms of how historians understand the Civil Rights Movement today –

memory. She writes that “remembrance is always a form of forgetting, and the dominant

narrative of the Civil Rights Movement,” yet it “distorts and suppresses as much as it reveals.”83

Her criticism of memory is not unfounded, as it is easy to see how and why someone who was in

the movement would want to shape their own story through their own memories, choosing to

suppress stories that might make them out to be worse than they would choose to show the

world. One of the most extensive sources used in this thesis, Robert Spike’s The Freedom

Revolution and the Churches, was not very critical of the National Council of Churches and their

Commission on Religion and Race, with criticisms only breaking through when talking about

how long it took them to get involved in the struggle, and he was critical of other civil rights

organizations like SNCC and the NAACP.84 It would be fair to categorize Spike’s work as a

primary non-memory source due to the content in the book and the fact that it was published in

1965, just a year after Freedom Summer. Still, his work should be read cautiously as many things

written in the book could be seen as biased due to his position working with the Commission on

Religion and Race.

83 Jaquelyn Dowd Hall, “The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past,” The Journal of American History 91, No. 4 (March 2005): 1233.

84 Spike, 29-31.

Miller 23

Hall continues her historiography by writing how “confining the civil rights struggle to

the South… simultaneously elevates and diminishes the movement.”85 As a Northern

organization, the National Council of Churches came down to Mississippi and concentrated their

efforts there, agreeing with SNCC how that was the place that needed the most help. This does

not necessarily go against what Hall writes; it is interesting to see how the National Council of

Churches came down from the North in order to help with voter registration and education,

something that they did not see as much of a need for in the North. Hall also writes about the

black church and its impact in the struggle for civil rights. She writes about how their prophetic

tradition allowed the southerners to rally participants and stymie their enemies.86 Steven Lawson

draws on this idea of black church as a religious motivation for involvement in civil rights

activism. This is largely due to King’s influence and Lawson points out that scholars are

“highlighting the primary impact of African-American religious experiences on King.”87 This

idea of black church and civil rights activism is separate from the idea of white church. It is

important to be able to distinguish these two types of churches, while both based in the Bible and

Christian thought, have different ideals that seem to stem from them.

The National Council of Churches efforts from 1963 through Freedom Summer showed a

great growth in their ideological development. They were willing to enter into a messy struggle

and answer the call to action that was imposed upon them by other religious leaders and by

seeing a need on their own. Robert Spike wrote that “the ‘good’ people often allow the ‘not quite

so good’ people to do the dirty fighting, while they remain aloof from the battle.”88 The National

85 Jaquelyn Dowd Hall, “The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past,” The Journal of American History 91, No. 4 (March 2005): 1234.

86 Jaquelyn Dowd Hall, “The Long Civil Rights Movement,” 1251.87 Steven F. Lawson, “Freedom Then, Freedom Now: The Historiography of the Civil Rights Movement,”

The American Historical Review 96, No. 2 (April 1991): 460.88 Spike, 122.

Miller 24

Council of Churches found their way into the struggle, and deep in it, by aligning themselves

with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. They did not remain aloof, but supported

the movement through funding and volunteer efforts. Their creation of the Commission on

Religion and Race was a statement that they were committed to the churches playing a role in the

Civil Rights Movement and being active rather than passive in their support for those who are

racially oppressed. Their work in the movement created the “largest civil rights staff in

Mississippi” after SNCC left in January of 1965.89 In working with SNCC, the National Council

of Churches grew strategically and formed an ideology determined on reaching the hearts and

minds of individuals.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century was not just a movement for the people

affected most – it was a movement that all “good” people ought to have supported. The National

Council of Churches was a bright light of the Christian organizations in the United States by

showing their allegiance to fighting racial injustice during Freedom Summer and in their own

Delta Ministry. They also showed that with the right timing, any organization can make a lasting

impact on people and a region as long as they commit themselves to the struggles that go along

with the fight.

There is still a struggle for justice in our country. It may not be as blatant as it was in the

1960s, but it still remains. It is beneficial for us today to look at the work that the National

Council of Churches did during Freedom Summer and see how our churches today can respond

to current issues that Americans face on a daily basis. History is not meant to remain in the past,

but can be used as a tool to make a better today and a brighter tomorrow. The National Council

89 Hilton, 15.

Miller 25

of Churches, while not written much about, shows how a most unlikely group of white

northerners can impact communities in need of help.

Miller 26

Bibliography

PRIMARY

Belfrage, Sally. Freedom Summer. New York: Viking Press, 1965.

Carson, Clayborne, ed. The Eyes on the Prize: Civil Rights Reader: Documents, Speeches, and Firsthand Accounts from the Black Freedom Struggle, 1954-1990. New York: Viking, 1991.

Carson, Clayborne, ed. The Student Voice 1960-1965: Periodical of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Westport, CT: Meckler, 1990.

Greenberg, Cheryl Lynn, ed. A Circle of Trust: Remembering SNCC. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1998.

Hilton, Bruce. The Delta Ministry. Toronto, Ontario: The Macmillan Company, 1969.

Holland, Endesha Ida Mae. From the Mississippi Delta: A Memoir. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997.

King, Mary E. Freedom Song: A Personal Story of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement. New York: Morrow, 1987.

Lewis, John, and Michael D'Orso. Walking with the Wind: A Memoir of the Movement. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998.

Martinez, Elizabeth, ed. Letters from Mississippi. Brookline, MA: Zephyr Press, 2007.

Spike, Robert W. The Freedom Revolution and the Churches. New York: Association Press, 1965.

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.). Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee papers, 1959-1972. Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corp. of America, 1982.

Zellner, Bob, and Constance Curry. The Wrong Side of Murder Creek: A White Southerner in the Freedom Movement. Montgomery, AL: NewSouth Books, 2008.

Zinn, Howard. SNCC, the New Abolitionists. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1985.

SECONDARY

Burner, Eric. And Gently He Shall Lead Them: Robert Parris Moses and Civil Rights in Mississippi. New York: New York University Press, 1994.

Carson, Clayborne. In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Chappell, David L. Review of Divine Agitators: The Delta Ministry and Civil Rights in Mississippi by Mark Newman. The Journal of Southern History 71, no. 1 (Feb. 2005): 213-14.

Miller 27

Dittmer, John. Local People: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Mississippi. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

Dudziak, Mary L. Review of I’ve got the Light of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition and the Mississippi Freedom Struggle by Charles M. Payne. Law and History Review 16, no. 3 (1998): 626-28.

Eagle, Charles W. Review of Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black Freedom Movement, 1950-1970, by James F. Findlay, Jr. The American

Historical Review 99, no. 4 (Oct. 1994): 1403-4.

Findlay, James F. Church People in the Struggle: The National Council of Churches and the Black Freedom Movement, 1950-1970. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Fleming, Cynthia Griggs. Review of Many Minds, One Heart: SNCC’s Dream for a New America by Wesley Hogan. The American Historical Review 113, no. 1 (2008): 222-23.

Friedland, Michael B. Life Up Your Voice Like a Trumpet. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

Garrow, David J. We Shall Overcome: the Civil Rights Movement in the United States in the 1950's and 1960's. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Carlson Pub, 1989.

George, Carol V. R. One Mississippi, Two Mississippi: Methodists, Murder, and the Struggle for Racial Justice in Neshoba County. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Grant, Joanne. Ella Baker: Freedom Bound. New York: Wiley, 1998.

Greenberg, Cheryl. Review of Many Minds, One Heart: SNCC’s Dream for a New America by Wesley Hogan. The Journal of American History 94, no. 3 (2007): 1007-008.

Hall, Jaquelyn Dowd. “The Long Civil Rights Movement and the Political Uses of the Past.” The Journal of American History 91, No. 4 (March 2005): 1233-63.

Hogan, Wesley C. Many Minds, One Heart: SNCC's Dream for a New America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Lawson, Steven F. and Charles Payne. Debating the Civil Rights Movement, 1945-1968. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2006.

Lawson, Steven F. “Freedom Then, Freedom Now: The Historiography of the Civil Rights Movement.” The American Historical Review 96, No. 2 (April 1991): 456-71.

Lewis, Andrew B. The Shadows of Youth: The Remarkable Journey of the Civil Rights Generation. New York: Hill and Wang, 2009.

Marsh, Charles. The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today. New York: Basic Books, 2005.

Martin, Sandy Dwayne. Review of Witnessing & Testifying: Black Women, Religion, and Civil Rights, by Rosetta Ross. Church History 73, no. 3 (Sept. 2004): 703.

McAdam, Doug. Freedom Summer. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Miller 28

McMillen, Neil R. Review of Like a Holy Crusade: Mississippi 1964 – the Turning of the Civil Rights Movement in America by Nicolaus Mills. The Journal of Southern History 61, no. 1 (1995): 188-89.

Mills, Nicolaus. Like a Holy Crusade: Mississippi 1964--the Turning of the Civil Rights Movement in America. Chicago: I.R. Dee, 1992.

Morgan, Iwan W., and Philip Davies, eds. From Sit-ins to SNCC: The Student Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2012.

Newman, Mark. Divine Agitators: The Delta Ministry and Civil Rights in Mississippi. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004.

Newman, Mark. Review of The Beloved Community: How Faith Shapes Social Justice, from the Civil Rights Movement to Today, by Charles Marsh. The American Historical Review 111, no. 2 (April 2006): 522-23.

Payne, Charles M. I’ve got the Light of Freedom: The Organizing Tradition and the Mississippi Freedom Struggle. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995.

Rogers, Kim Lacy. Review of Local People: The Struggle for Civil Rights in Mississippi by John Dittmer; And Gently He Shall Lead Them: Robert Parris Moses and Civil Rights in Mississippi by Eric R. Burner. The American Historical Review 100, no. 5 (1995): 1723-724.

Ross, Rosetta E. Witnessing and Testifying: Black Women, Religion, and Civil Rights. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

Stoper, Emily. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee: The Growth of Radicalism in a Civil Rights Organization. Brooklyn, NY: Carlson Pub., 1989.

Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (U.S.), and Microfilming Corporation of America. The Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee papers, 1959-1972: a Guide to the Microfilm Edition. Sanford, N.C.: Microfilming Corp. of America, 1982.

Visser-Maessen, Laura. Robert Parris Moses: A Life in Civil Rights and Leadership at the Grassroots. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2016.

Watson, Bruce. Freedom Summer: The Savage Season that Made Mississippi Burn and Made America a Democracy. New York, NY: Viking, 2010.