The Covenant Responds to the Black Manifesto (1969)

Introduction

Fifty years ago, the Black Manifesto demanded $500 million from white American churches and synagogues as reparation for their complicity in the historical and ongoing economic exploitation of African Americans. In the wake of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the Black Manifesto confronted white Christians with the claims of black power and the charge of white guilt. Over the course of the summer of 1969, its clarion call “substantially changed the face of the race struggle. Manifesto-centered events caused greater vibrations in the US religious world than any other single human rights development in a decade of monumental happenings.”¹Robert S. Lecky and H. Elliott Wright, “Reparations Now? An Introduction,” in Black Manifesto: Religion, Racism, and Reparations, ed. Lecky and Wright (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969), 3.

The Evangelical Covenant Church of America was one of the many Christian denominations confronted by the Manifesto’s demands, as Herman Holmes Jr., director of the Midwest chapter of the Black Economic Development Conference, presented the Manifesto to the delegates gathered in Chicago at the 1969 Covenant Annual Meeting.

This article begins by describing the origin and reception of the Black Manifesto in the summer of 1969 and offering a snapshot of the Covenant at that time. It then narrates the Covenant’s response to the Black Manifesto at its 1969 Annual Meeting, traces into the late 1990s the evolution of the fund established in 1969, and finally evaluates denominational reception more broadly. The Covenant’s response to the Black Manifesto offers a window into a denomination in transition within a nation in transition.

The Black Manifesto: Origin and Early Reception

The Black Manifesto originated at the National Black Economic Development Conference, held April 25–27, 1969, at Wayne State University in Detroit. The conference was sponsored by the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization (IFCO), an ecumenical group organized in 1967 to coordinate faith-based community development efforts. By June 1969, IFCO membership reached twenty-five agencies, among them mission boards of the United Methodists, American Baptists, Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran Church in America, United Church of Christ, American Jewish Committee, Presbyterian Church, and Episcopal Church. On the second day of the conference, James Forman, director of international affairs for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), presented the Black Manifesto he had drafted, subtitled, “To the White Christian Churches and the Synagogues in the United States of America and to All Other Racist Institutions.”²The Manifesto text and background are collected in Lecky & Wright, Black Manifesto. See also Forman, The Making of Black Revolutionaries (rev. ed.).

In his presentation, Forman prefaced the Manifesto with an introduction on “Total Control as the Only Solution to the Economic Problems of Black People.” In this introduction Forman rejects Nixon’s “black capitalism,” insisting that as the “vanguard of the revolution,” black Americans should be opposing American capitalism outright as oppressive imperialism. Black economic empowerment would come instead through total black control of the US government and means of production. Forman directed the goal of total control to the conference itself: “We must begin seizing power wherever we are, and we must say to the planners of this conference that you are no longer in charge.”

The Manifesto proper began with a forceful indictment of American racism and concluded with a ten-point program and a monetary demand ($500 million initially, later increased in some formulations). The program listed publishing houses, TV networks, training centers, a national labor strike fund, an International Black Appeal, and a black university in the South among its projects. The Manifesto was adopted by the conference by a vote of 187 to 63.

Because no white reporters were admitted to the conference, many churches were unaware of its proceedings or the document it produced until the Manifesto’s instructions were enacted that “On May 4, 1969 or a date thereafter, depending upon local conditions, we call upon black people to commence the disruption of the racist churches and synagogues throughout the United States.” On Sunday morning, May 4, James Forman entered Riverside Church in New York City, read the demands, and named Riverside’s specific share as 60 percent of their annual income. That confrontation brought national attention to the Manifesto and its demands. The BEDC and the United Black Appeal soon came under FBI scrutiny. ³See FBI selections from James Forman file; Archives references in Lecky & Wright, eds., Black Manifesto.

Over the course of the summer, Forman and other BEDC members approached major white Christian and Jewish organizations. Responses varied: some groups rejected the Manifesto outright—especially because of its revolutionary rhetoric—while others separated demands from tactics, acknowledging the legitimacy of grievances but refusing to funnel funds to the BEDC. Religious leaders such as Rabbi Marc Tanenbaum of IFCO publicly opposed tactics that interrupted worship, framing them as violations of constitutional freedoms and suspect on Cold War ideological grounds.⁴“Proposed Statement to Be Issued by Member Groups of IFCO, Read by Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, IFCO President, to White Caucus of IFCO,” May 6, 1969. Covenant Archives and Historical Library (CAHL).

Some bodies, like the Board of Directors of the National Committee of Black Churchmen (NCBC), affirmed the Manifesto and its demands, calling Forman “a modern-day prophet” and urging churches to see the Manifesto’s demands as evidence of authentic contrition and a test of moral seriousness. Others—like mainstream Protestant bodies and many evangelical groups—focused on the Manifesto’s rhetoric and rejected it for what they saw as its revolutionary language and potential for violence.

The Evangelical Covenant Church of America in 1969

As it gathered for its eighty-fourth Annual Meeting in June 1969, the Evangelical Covenant Church of America was itself a denomination in transition. Historically Swedish in origin, the denomination had gradually shifted to English and grown beyond its Swedish ethnic envelope, but this growth was predominantly among European Americans. By 1969 only a small number of formally affiliated Covenant congregations were non-European in composition. The denomination had, however, made repeated statements condemning racism in the decades prior and had adopted race relations as an issue of concern at Annual Meetings since the 1940s and 1950s.⁵See Covenant Yearbook entries and studies of Covenant race engagement (cited in the PDF).

In 1969 the Covenant had begun to receive small numbers of non-European congregations as formal affiliates (Korean congregations in San Francisco and Chicago, a Spanish-language mission in Texas, a multi-racial congregation in Minneapolis), and denominational leaders were paying increased attention to urban ministry and the changing racial landscape of American cities. Still, the Covenant remained small and relatively less economically endowed than many mainline denominations.

The Manifesto Confronts the Covenant: Annual Meeting 1969

The Covenant learned of the Manifesto primarily through national coverage and local presentations by representatives. Worth V. Hodgin, director of urban ministries for the Central Conference, circulated the Manifesto to Chicago-area pastors and organized a pastor-panel discussion at North Park Seminary in late May. Interest in preparing the denomination to respond led to the Covenant Executive Board bringing a preemptive recommendation to the Annual Meeting “pertaining to relief funds for black America.”

The Executive Board recommended that Covenant member churches be asked to contribute an additional one dollar per member over and above the amount given the prior year to World Relief, to be distributed through responsible agencies recommended by the Commission on World Relief. The Executive Board set an initial target that would accumulate to $335,000 over subsequent years if continued. In the business session delegates amended the recommendation, debated whether the fund should be part of the coordinated budget and whether the oversight should be given to the Commission on World Relief or to a committee of Black Covenanters. After debate the meeting approved an amended recommendation that included oversight by a committee of Black Covenanters. ⁶Covenant Yearbook 1969; meeting minutes and Companion coverage in the PDF source.

Herman Holmes Jr., director of BEDC’s Midwest chapter, arrived and addressed the delegates, read the Manifesto’s ten demands, and named the BEDC’s expectations for denominational support. The Companion report noted that Holmes “spoke in explanation of the Manifesto, placing it in the context of the church’s concern for faithfulness to Christ and for racial justice.” Delegates applauded Holmes’s presentation, and contemporary commentators singled out the Covenant’s reception of Holmes as unusually calm and not stormy compared with many other public encounters that summer.⁷“Into All the World,” Covenant Companion (report of the 1969 Annual Meeting).

Outcomes: Evolution of the Fund

The inaugural committee to oversee the new fund met on October 8, 1969, and was composed of four African American Covenanters: Nathan Brown, J. Ernest Du Bois, Robert Dawson, and Robert Sloan Jr. The committee established recipient criteria and decided funds would not be restricted to Covenant initiatives. The first offering, collected during World Relief Week (Nov 23–30, 1969), raised $16,452.73—a modest amount compared to the request—though leaders expressed hope about starting small and growing the fund over time.

Press reaction and internal editorial commentary were mixed—some called the response a failure and reproached the denomination for insufficient generosity; others urged patience and continued effort. Adjustments were made to the collection schedule (Race Relations Sunday, February), publicity, and oversight. The fund’s scope broadened in 1970 to include “disadvantaged Americans of minority groups” rather than exclusively African American causes. Early years of giving were inconsistent; the fund was renamed in 1983 “HELP (Hands Extended Lifting People).” Over decades, the offering fluctuated and was at times administratively moved among denominational commissions. By the late 1980s and early 1990s receipts were labeled “mediocre” in denomination reports, with the HELP fund eventually being absorbed into broader denominational program directories by the mid-1990s.⁸For detailed Yearbook figures and committee reports, see the Covenant Yearbook entries and Commission reports summarized in the PDF source.

Outcomes: Response to the Black Manifesto

President Milton B. Engebretson led the Covenant response and consistently rejected the Manifesto’s revolutionary premises, tactics, and rhetoric. He insisted the Covenant did not support violence or the revolutionary tenor of the BEDC’s program. At the same time Engebretson did not dismiss the Manifesto’s central charge of racism; he framed the Covenant’s action as charitable relief rather than reparations. He described funds as distributed to vetted organizations that were supportive of the Constitution and assured critics no funds would be given to militants. He also emphasized that the denomination felt a responsibility before God to help alleviate indignity and poverty among Black Americans.

The Covenant’s action—establishing a fund and administering it through denominational structures—was understood by some BEDC leaders as inadequate and emblematic of white-run solutions rather than a reparative redistribution of resources. Herman Holmes Jr. insisted on a reparations framework and criticized approaches that kept white agency in control of funds rather than transferring decision-making authority to Black-led structures. The Covenant’s amended decision to place the fund under the leadership of Black Covenanters was an important recognition of this critique, though the denominational practice soon broadened the fund’s recipients and leadership in ways that diluted the reparations framework.⁹Herman Holmes Jr. correspondence and follow-up materials in Engebretson’s files (CAHL); see PDF source.

Within Covenant publications, voices both critical and sympathetic to reparations appeared. Worth Hodgin, for example, publicly argued in favor of reparations as both historically and theologically defensible, framing reparations as an expression of Christian repentance and accountability. Yet denominational leadership, while acknowledging racism as a sin, repeatedly framed the Covenant’s response in language of charity, voluntary giving, and linking domestic assistance to other World Relief concerns rather than endorsing the reparations paradigm as justice owed.

Conclusion: On the Threshold of What?

1969 proved a threshold in Covenant history. The Annual Meeting’s decision to create a fund and to require Black Covenanter leadership for oversight marked an institutional opening that made later developments possible. Over the decades that followed, the Covenant saw an increasing number of Black and other ethnic pastors join the ministerium and grew structures for urban, ethnic, and minority ministry. Policy changes and consultative processes in the 1990s and 2000s formalized attention to power-sharing and representation on denominational boards.

Fifty years on, the article argues, the Covenant continues to face the call issued by the Black Manifesto—an ongoing challenge about power, reparative responsibility, and the meaning of solidarity in denominational life.

This article originally published with the Covenant Quarterly on October 11, 2019.

Endnotes

• 1
  Robert S. Lecky and H. Elliott Wright, “Reparations Now? An Introduction,” in Black Manifesto: Religion, Racism, and Reparations, ed. Lecky and Wright (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969), 3.
• 2
  The Manifesto text and background are collected in Lecky & Wright, Black Manifesto. See also Forman, The Making of Black Revolutionaries (rev. ed.).
• 3
  See FBI selections from James Forman file; Archives references in Lecky & Wright, eds., Black Manifesto.
• 4
  “Proposed Statement to Be Issued by Member Groups of IFCO, Read by Rabbi Marc H. Tanenbaum, IFCO President, to White Caucus of IFCO,” May 6, 1969. Covenant Archives and Historical Library (CAHL).
• 5
  See Covenant Yearbook entries and studies of Covenant race engagement (cited in the PDF).
• 6
  Covenant Yearbook 1969; meeting minutes and Companion coverage in the PDF source.
• 7
  “Into All the World,” Covenant Companion (report of the 1969 Annual Meeting).
• 8
  For detailed Yearbook figures and committee reports, see the Covenant Yearbook entries and Commission reports summarized in the PDF source.
• 9
  Herman Holmes Jr. correspondence and follow-up materials in Engebretson’s files (CAHL); see PDF source.