By Davis Carlton

The Gospel Coalition continues its agenda of blaming all of America’s problems, past and present, on the ubiquitous evils of white people. Ron Burns has posted an article authored by Presbyterian pastor Reed DePace on his congregation’s “repentance” for their evil racist past. Interestingly, DePace considers himself “Hispanic American,” so when he mentions the sins of “our forefathers” he’s really talking about your white forefathers. DePace pastors Historic First Presbyterian Church, founded in downtown Montgomery, Alabama in 1824 and now affiliated with the PCA. DePace describes the perennial success of the church which at its apogee in the 1920s reached a membership of 2,000 and maintained a membership of 1,100 as late as 1961. After this point the church experienced a precipitous decline and today only boasts about 50 active members. This naturally caused DePace and the leadership to inquire as to what has been going wrong. Why has God seemingly cursed their ministry efforts?

For DePace and his fellow elders the answer is obvious. The problem is the church’s “racist” past, of course! Specifically, DePace cites the church’s decision in 1956 to ban blacks from membership and attendance. This position was maintained by the church’s leadership until the late 1970s according to DePace. Many readers of The Gospel Coalition will conclude along with DePace that this is certainly the cause for the church’s decline in membership. But is this really the best explanation? There are several reasons to reject this explanation and simply understand the decline in membership of white churches like Historic First Church as a function of the decline of white demographics.

DePace considers the 1956 decision to be a watershed moment in the history of the church which precipitated a drastic decline in membership, but this naturally raises the question of the church’s history prior to this point. Would this particular church be considered “racist” prior to their decision in 1956? The answer is almost certainly affirmative, and yet by DePace’s own admission this was a period of unparalleled prosperity. This makes DePace’s conclusion about the 1956 decision seem overly simplistic at best. Were the pro-segregation views of the congregation particularly egregious and contrary to the Gospel? DePace certainly seems to think so but this claim isn’t substantiated.

DePace mentions that First Church founded a black congregation in the 1880s. This is likely where any remaining black Presbyterians were worshiping when this decision was made in 1956. It is highly unlikely that blacks who were peacefully attending this church were excommunicated and removed from fellowship. The more likely motivation was to avoid disruption by Civil Rights demonstrators in which protestors would stage “pray-ins” in white churches analogous to the “sit-ins” that were planned at white businesses. DePace disapproves of white members opposing ideas like free daycare and he attributes this to sheer malice against blacks. DePace suggests that “The dominant debate among the elders in the 1980s and ’90s was whether or not to reach the surrounding community with the gospel, a community that was no longer white. While not overt in every discussion, the underlying opposition to including blacks in outreach meant that virtually no witnessing ministries took place.”

DePace’s interpretation of these decisions gives the least charitable interpretation possible. Is it possible that white members simply thought that hosting large numbers of black children from broken homes might not be beneficial? Could this simply be an example of what Steve Sailer calls “postjudice?” While I can’t comment on the motivations of everyone involved, the simplest explanation is that the elders of First Church wanted to prevent this from disrupting Sunday worship. Blacks who just happened to take an interest in the church during the Civil Rights era would likely be directed to another church. This would fully be in keeping with good order and decency that is proper to Sunday worship.

DePace mentions that one of the church’s deacons served as the lawyer to Rosa Parks and his wife was one of Parks’ best friends. This is mentioned as a kind of saving grace; that First Church was gifted by at least some leaders who took the Great Commission seriously. Is DePace familiar with Rosa Parks’ involvement with the Communist Party and adherence to Marxist principles? More importantly, would it even matter to DePace that his heroes just happened to be aligned with Communist policies? What about the deacon who acted as Parks’ legal counsel? DePace’s lauding of a Marxist agitator speaks volumes, but so does the fact that Rosa Parks’ attorney was able to serve as a deacon at this church during the time that DePace decries for “racism.” It seems to strain credulity past the breaking point to imagine that the attitudes of the members of First Presbyterian were so heinous if someone with the beliefs of this particular deacon was comfortable enough to continue as a member and leader.

Another telling example of DePace’s anti-white bias is his account of what reconciliation looks like. DePace describes a white member of his congregation finding out through DNA testing that she had a black cousin who lived in Montgomery. This white member named Vivian discovered that her white grandfather raped his black maid and that her black cousin was his granddaughter. DePace states that Vivian’s grandfather would discreetly slip away on Sundays to visit his “black family” who resented him but had to show him respect as the patriarch of the family in keeping with the times. The irony was that Vivian’s grandfather was serving as an elder of First Church during this time. Ultimately, Vivian connects with her black relatives before she leaves and they even accompany her to church “where their white rapist grandfather was formerly an elder.” As an aside, DePace does not tell his readers whether or not this family became members or regular attenders.

Several aspects of DePace’s recounting demonstrate his bias against whites. No one would question that this man’s affair with his black maid was grossly immoral, least of all Kinists, but was it rape according to the Biblical standard? Deut. 22:25-26 defines rape as a forced act such that the woman actively resists to the point of crying out for help. Consensual sex with a man in a socially superior position doesn’t qualify as rape. The fact that this man was picked up by his illegitimate daughter and visited with “his black family” on Sundays seems contrary to an instance of rape. If this man’s “black family” resented him as much as DePace claims that they did they could have simply refused to meet with him and threaten to expose him to his church and to the community at large. They would have held all the cards, because this would have been cause for serious scandal at this time and especially in the Deep South. Based upon what we know about this situation, calling this deceased man a rapist is slanderous.

That DePace considers this “An archetype story” is particularly egregious. What is truly archetypal is the rampant rape of white women by black men, but this simply doesn’t preach well in the modern world. Whatever transpired between Vivian’s grandfather and his maid was not and is not the “archetype.” DePace relies upon the idea that “everybody knows that” white men have been raping black women in vulnerable positions for America’s entire history. This is false as I explained in my review of Joel McDurmon’s book on slavery. It’s far easier for DePace to thunder condemnation against the real or imagined sins of dead white men. The truth about interracial rape is passed over in silence by men like DePace eager to exploit white guilt.

Is there a more plausible explanation for the dramatic decline in membership at First Church following the Civil Rights movement? DePace is certain that the “racism” of the congregation of First Church during the 1950s and 60s is to blame. But perhaps the Civil Rights movement is itself to blame. American cities, and especially cities at the epicenter of the Civil Rights Movement like Montgomery and nearby Selma, have been devastated. If DePace has correctly discerned divine intentions regarding the declining membership at First Church as a judgment for its past “racism,” then why have virtually every institution and city effected by the Civil Rights movement seemingly been punished? Shouldn’t fidelity to equality and integration be rewarded with prosperity and flourishing? The fact that integration has wrought destruction whenever it has been implemented ought to indicate that the cure that DePace proposes is in fact the cause of the disease.

As inner city Montgomery has declined in the decades since the Civil Rights movement, many whites simply left in search of better circumstances in which to raise their families. It’s called “white flight” and it was the only option that many whites were left with after the implementation of Civil Rights era legislation. I believe that the simplest and most reasonable explanation for the decline of First Church is the decline of Montgomery as a result of the Civil Rights movement. If I am right then I would predict that First Church’s campaign of “reconciliation” won’t bring about the resurgence of membership that DePace desires. When this tactic inevitably fails the leadership of First Church can and likely will blame their failure on white “racism.” All of the virtue-signaling by First Church’s elders and leaders won’t help the church grow, but at least it will help them feel better about themselves.