The Cross and the Arch

Above is the cover from the upcoming issue of the New Yorker. It is poignant. It is well crafted. It is all too true. Not just of St. Louis and our current challenges, but true all across the nation. When I first saw it posted on Twitter, I enlarge the picture and stared at it for a few seconds (which in Twitter-time is the equivalent to hours). I appreciated it and I was saddened by its accuracy.

Below is a revised version of the picture I saw the next day. I reacted similarly to it.

When viewing this image, there are a couple of possible reactions.

One is the view the picture and want to dismiss it as trite and overly simplistic. I think this is false.

The cross of Jesus Christ isn’t a mere symbol of religious devotion or Polyanna, kum-ba-yah optimism. The cross is an instrument of death. It is a tool of capital punishment. It is an artifact of the actual, historical killing of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Cross isn’t weak or trite, it is costly. Specifically the cost of death and shed blood.

The Cross, in its brutality, in its savagery, in its torturous death-bearing, is about much more than convenient “solutions” and upbeat worship songs. It’s about much more than man being brought close to God (though this is essential!). It’s even about much more than the fact that, as Tim Keller puts it, I’m far worse than I’d ever imagined and far more loved than I ever dared hoped.

The Cross is about the tearing down of walls. The tearing down of the wall of separation between man and God. The tearing down of the wall of our guilty status before a righteous God. The tearing down of the wall of hurt and pain and brokenness from our past. And the tearing down of the walls between ethnic and racial groups.

Hear Paul in Ephesians 2:11-22:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that He might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Without launching into a full exegesis that would fill dozens (hundreds?) of pages, I can say this, the Cross is about healing ethic and racial divides.

Is that all it is about? No.

But that is exactly and primarily what the above text is talking about. Two groups of people. Separated ethnically, culturally, religiously, and socially being brought together under the headship of and by the blood of Jesus Christ to become one, unified people.

A humanity that strives together. That mourns together. That prays together. That worships together. That considers the other better than oneself. That sacrifices for one another. That listens to one another.

The Cross is the answer. The costly Cross where Jesus died so that the dividing wall of hostility would be torn down.

But there’s one other way this image could be interpreted. Another way to interpret it is indeed simplistic. Too simplistic. It looks at the bridge of the Cross and it relates, “Yes! Jesus is the answer. Now let’s host a joint worship service with a church that doesn’t look like ours. Let’s get lunch with someone of another race once a month and pursue genuine friendship. Let’s buy Lecrae’s latest album.”

And you should do ALL of those things. All of them. Seriously, go do them!

But, as you do them, don’t believe that will “fix” it. In Divided By Faith, a book I have discussed extensively here, the authors refer to a belief many Christians cite that the authors call “the miracle motif”, which simply is that if everyone became a Christian, all racial and ethnic problems would cease.

Once again, to limit this to paragraphs rather than dozens (hundreds?) of pages, I will only touch on the main points here, but personal relationships and church fellowships won’t erase the problem. The problem didn’t develop overnight, nor will it be healed overnight.

There are hundreds of years of history to reckon with first. There is the reality of systemic injustice to be wrestled with and ultimately deconstructed. There is the fact that the relationships and friendships I recommended above are really, really hard.

The solution isn’t just around the corner, but it is present with us. Jesus Christ cares about injustice. Jesus Christ cares about tension. Jesus Christ cares about division.

And He died to heal it.

DBF: Colorblind

Today's post is a guest post. It was written by my friend Jennifer. She does a lot of neat stuff, in particular, if not for her, I'm pretty sure our after school program would have never gotten off the ground two years ago. She wrote the rules. She told us how to enforce the rules. It was heroic.

Amongst her other skills, she wrote this blog post a couple months ago. It covers a topic I've touched on before and wanted to discuss in this series, but she does it more concisely and better than I would have. So, with her permission, I am just straight up stealing it. Enjoy.

Race Talks: Don't Be Colorblind

On the heels of the Zimmerman case, the door has swung open wide to discuss race in our country. Whether you believe the case to have been about race or not, the discussion is open. Let's talk.

I'm a white lady. I have friends of many different shades. Most of my adult life, I have found myself serving and ministering to people with black skin. So, I've tried to listen and learn, and I've picked up a few things along the way. I want to share with those of you who might live in a slightly more homogeneous world, or even if you don't, give you a different perspective to consider. 

It is a pet peeve of mine to hear white people say they are "colorblind." I cringe when I hear it. A friend of mine made a little joke about it last night, and I figured it was time I outed myself as a colorblind hater. Haters gonna hate, right?

Why does this bother me? Well, there are lots of reasons. First, have you ever heard a black person say they were colorblind? No, because they are not. They are acutely aware of the color of their skin. Has a black person ever asked you to be colorblind? No. I would venture to say that most of the black people I know would prefer to be respected AS black people, rather than IN SPITE OF IT. That's what the colorblind message says. "Don't worry, I'm okay with you, because I can't even see the color of your skin." That's a bad message, and a wrong one. It communicates that we, the colorblind, recognize there is something inherently bad about your color, so we choose not to even see it. No, no, no, no, no.

Don't get me wrong, here. I KNOW, without a doubt, that my white friends who are saying this are loving, well-intentioned people. If you are one of those people, I hope you know I'm not trying to bash you. I realize that because you ARE loving, well-intentioned people, after reading this and rethinking this idea, you will probably not use that statement again. That's why I'm telling you. It's like many of us are walking around with toilet paper stuck to our shoe. Consider me the friend who's willing to tell you that you're dragging that mess around. 

Where did the whole "colorblind" thing come from? Well, it seems to have been an extreme take on Dr. Martin Luther King's dream speech. We should judge people on the "content of their character." Yes, we should. However, we should also respect and appreciate their color. King wasn't saying that we should become "blind" to one another's differences. Instead, we should learn to love, embrace, and appreciate one another's differences. This is far more valuable on the road to healing the many, many race issues that are alive and well in America today. Post-racist America is still a long way away. In my opinion, frank and open discussion with people of other races and a willingness to LISTEN, not defend, are the most important tools for getting there. 

If you still think I'm crazy about the colorblind idea, just google "colorblind racism." You'll see what I mean. 

Also, one little disclaimer. Nothing is true of ALL black people, or ALL white people, or ALL Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. There are billions of opinions across the spectrum within each racial group. Let's just not be blind to the fact that these racial groups exist. That's all I'm sayin'.

DBF: Level Playing Field

(This is part of a series discussing Michael Emerson and Christian Smith’s excellent book, Divided By Faith)

In a previous post, the racialization of contemporary American society was demonstrated with a number of statistics. Most telling was that the average white household has 22 times the wealth of the average black household and that in Jacksonville, while the white intant mortality rate is average for the US, the black infant mortality rate is on par with that of Libya. The point: Race impacts outcomes in America.

It was also discussed that white evangelicals employ a particular cultural toolkit and that as it pertains to race, this toolkit’s emphasis on individualism, relationalism, and anti-structuralism becomes very important. This individualism value is rooted in the view that God has made individual persons and that are responsible for their own choices. Also, as an outworking of this staunch accountable free-will individualism, the authors also found most white evangelicals particularly committed to the idea of equal opportunity in contemporary America.

As a part of their research, the authors asked their interviewees to complete the following equation with regard to race in America:

Equally Created Persons + Equal Opportunity + X = Unequal Outcomes

Equal creation is enshrined in Scripture and cannot be challenged by any reasonable Bible believing Christian and equal opportunity is a staunch American value that is reinforced even more so for evangelicals by their anti-structuralism and individualism. However, almost everyone interviewed by the authors did agree that outcomes are drastically different for Americans of differing races.

So, the question becomes: Why is that? What factor (X) causes this inequality? If we are equally created and are given equal opportunity, why would some groups have different outcomes than others?

The authors engage is a fascinating discussion of the different answers plugged in for X (education, culture, motivation, history, discrimination, etc.), but I’m going to skip all that (I have to give you some reason to buy the book, right?) and go to what I think is the most important point.

The equation is flawed.

Specifically in that it carries with it an assumption that is not provable nor necessarily widely held. A view that is especially not widely held within the black community. The assumption of “equal opportunity”.

While the “bootstraps” story is a part of the American meta-narrative and "land of opportunity" is a fine concept, I would challenge you to ask, if it is actually true in reality for all Americans? Are we truly operating under equal opportunity?

The assumption of a level-playing field is one generally only held by those who were given a leg up on the playing field from the get go. 

For example, looking at my own background I can easily see how I would be able to buy into “equal opportunity.” Growing up, as a general rule, when I did well at something, I was rewarded whether tangibly or intangibly. Further, the same was true for most of the other families in my neighborhood. It was an assumption I could hold because all of my experience showed it to generally be true.

So, what other conclusions could I come to other than: “people generally have equal opportunity” and "get what they deserve."

But, what if I changed the situation? 

What if, as I grew up, I consistently saw the people around me who tried hard get pushed back down. Or get fired because they missed the bus one time or try to go to college at good ole Kaplan University, but end up with a handful of lies, student loan debt, and no diploma (a blog series on for-profit colleges is forthcoming and I will not be mincing words).

What if my experience showed that “equal opportunity” is a myth? That the playing field is not level? Well, then obviously, I would draw different conclusions about the equation offered above. 

In fact, I would probably laugh at it.

This was the finding of Emerson and Smith, non-white respondents did anything but explain the playing field as level. Even more interesting though, they also found that non-isolated white evangelicals (those who had multiple close relationships with those of other races) firmly rejected the “equal opportunity” premise.

Respondents base their explanations from their own life experience and then assume that everyone else is experiencing the same conditions they are. For white evangelicals, this presumption is fueled even more so by the individualism value that will subvert any discussion of disadvantage or inequality. If opportunity is actually unequal, then this is not just inconvenient, but feels like a threat to their accountable free-will individualism worldview. It makes a heavy emphasis on accountability feel unfair.

No one likes to have their worldview challenged. It's uncomfortable. It requires us to re-assess everything (and quite possibly change our actions as well) and that takes hard work. But, if the premises lead to a faulty conclusion, perhaps its time to re-examine the premises (Guess which of my favorite bald New York City pastors I heard use that phrase?)

There are literally thousands of explanations for why there are unequal outcomes by race in America and I don't intend to give my answer(s) here. 

I simply want to present this: If white evangelicals are on an entirely different page (or different book) than their brothers and sisters of a different ethnicity about the equation above, a page so distant they are not even willing to consider that their equation may be wrong, then we will see no growth real towards unity or reconciliation. 

However, if we (I'm talking to white folks here) laid aside our cultural assumptions and simply listened (without comment or conclusion), there would be a great opportunity before us to at least start flipping those pages in the right direction.

DBF: The Whole Gospel

(This post is part of a series exploring Michael Emerson and Christian Smith’s excellent book Divided By Faith)

Last post, I explained the concept of a toolkit: a collection of assumptions, beliefs, and views shared by a group. I explained that all groups have toolkits and that the white evangelical toolkit specifically impacts the way this group views race. Further, a toolkit limits a group or individual in the possible explanations or conclusions they can draw, so therefore a toolkit may close off an entire set of realities, simply because the beholder cannot fathom something outside of their group’s viewpoint.

In specific, white evangelicals have a strong attachment to accountable free will individualism, anti-structuralism, and relationalism. I argue that this toolkit is the greatest factor causing white evangelicals to actually do more harm than good when approaching race and will be looking at those reasons in the upcoming posts.

In specific, there is a significant theological error embedded within this standard toolkit. It is found in the value of anti-structuralism.

The helpful framework of Matt Chandler’s book The Explicit Gospel opens up a clear path to see this error. Chandler states that there is one Gospel of Christ, but that for it to be fully understood it must be seen from multiple vantage points. He calls these the Gospel on the Ground and the Gospel in the Air.

First, the Gospel on the Ground. Chandler labels this in four components: God. Man. Christ. Response. In brief, God made everything, owns everything, knows everything, and desires it all to reflect his goodness and glory, but man’s condition is a fallen one. Mankind has rebelled against God and twisted the goodness he gave us. We have chosen sin and self over him. This requires a response by a holy and just God, and ultimately if we will be made into worshippers who do give God the glory that he deserves, we must be made right with him and our sin atoned for. Thankfully, Christ was sent as this redemptive substitute, lived the righteous life we couldn’t and died the death we deserved. All of this calls mankind to a response, whereby each of us must either turn to God in repentance and faith or refuse and continue on our path of rebellion, sin, and self.

Looking at this, do you see the white evangelical toolkit?

It’s everywhere. Accountable free will individualism and relationalism are all over the the paragraph above. We can see them in every element. God is relational. Our relationship with him has been broken. We are going to be held accountable. This accountability will be for free will choices we made. This accountability will be applied to us as individuals. Jesus will not accept your religious aunt’s faith as yours, you need to have faith individually! In fact, the whole would not even make sense if not for those elements from the toolkit.

To me it seems that the white evangelical toolkit is largely drawn from looking at the Gospel on the Ground in a vacuum and then drawing implications out from it. 

However, I believe these implications go too far. For example, when Emerson and Smith performed interviews and asked if there are structural or institutional forms of racism or discrimination, many of their evangelical respondents replied that, "Racism only exists insofar as an institution is simply a group of individuals and if the individuals make sinful choices, then those sinful individual decisions will lead to institutions that do harm. So, no, institutions aren't a problem, individual human hearts are."

I disagree with this line of reasoning. In fact, while fully assenting to the Gospel on the Ground (I believe it and would “die on that hill” for every part of the framing above), I believe that this Gospel is too small. Further, I believe many evangelicals view the Gospel on the Ground as the totality of the Gospel. To do so robs God of glory, misrepresents the message of the Bible, and edges on heresy.

Because the Gospel is not only on the ground! It is in the air as well!

Chandler frames the Gospel in the Air in four components as well: Creation, Fall, Reconciliation, Consummation. In brief, God created the whole world, every person, plant, relationship, system, and mind. But, sin has horribly marred every person, plant, relationship, system, and mind. Sin means people hurt one another, plants get diseases, relationships end in divorce, systems propagate injustice, and minds are plagued by anxiety, depression, and insecurity. This is just the smallest sampling of the effects of the Fall. But, there is good news, Colossians 1:20 tells us Jesus is reconciling all things by the cross! All of this is being restored and made new. In fact, if we belong to Christ we are called ambassadors of reconciliation and are invited to join him in his mission. The final element is our hope for the consummation of all these things. That one day, Christ will return and he will set all things right. The world will be complete shalom, justice, and righteousness. Everything in creation will function and flourish as it was intended.

This is the Gospel in the Air! It does not and need not conflict with the Gospel on the Ground. They are simply two vantage points to look upon the same good news.

The Gospel is both! It is individual. It is cosmic. We need to understand, preach, and apply both!

Sadly, the white evangelical toolkit cannot assent to all of the Gospel in the Air. 

From the air, we see that the Fall broke everything. Not just individual hearts, but literally everything would no longer function as it ought to after the Fall. In the Fall, our social systems and institutions broke. Not just the people within them, but the systems themselves. Our economic system is marked by the Fall. Our educational system is marked by the Fall. Our legal system is marked by the Fall.

However, the white evangelical toolkit’s emphasis on anti-structuralism precludes the possibility that intuitions and systems could be broken. Anti-structuralism says that systems are never to blame. The Gospel in the Air says, "Yes, they are! They are broken. But they are being redeemed and Christ will reconcile all things, including structural, societal elements!"

If we hold strongly to the white, evangelical toolkit however, we will never see this. But if we dare to look at the complete story and the whole Gospel, it will be clear as day.

This was illustrated recently, by the incident and discussion that lead me to finally decide it was time to start blogging about race. The Trayvon Martin verdict.

The morning after the verdict, Christian spoken word/hip hop artist Propaganda (who is an absolute beast) weighed in on this very issue via Twitter saying:

2. I'm Disillusioned by the amount of folks (specially fellow Christians) that are CLUELESS to systemic injustices.
— propaganda (@prophiphop) July 14, 2013

If you can get your mind around depravity, as in inherited sin, you should get systemic issues
— propaganda (@prophiphop) July 14, 2013

I honestly don't think most are racist. I think their just unaware. Which is understandable.you don't know what you don't know
— propaganda (@prophiphop) July 14, 2013

Last 1. The gospel has fa show replaced the blood in my veins. I just see christ thru Black American male eyes, Lets trade eyes sometime.
— propaganda (@prophiphop) July 14, 2013

These statements capture the exact sentiment that the white evangelical toolkit stands in opposition to. If you want to be consistent theologically (rather than picking and choosing what parts of theology you believe, which is theological liberalism by definition) you must see the connection between sin and the systemic. To deny it is to misunderstand the Fall and in doing so to misunderstand the fullness of the Gospel.

Propaganda also hits on another key point in the last tweet I copied here, he's aware that he too has a toolkit ("Black American male eyes"). The reality however is most white folks are unaware of their toolkit and assume the way they see the world is normative and even moral. When one is in the majority they have the luxury of not having to consider such questions, but I assure you there are very few black Christian crowds in America that would object to a theology of systemic injustice and sin. White Christians however are both blinded and protected from having to consider such things. 

We cannot afford to miss this because the systemic impacts of race in America are pervasive. The failure to acknowledge them (or even see them) will only result in continual talking past one another, no matter how many individualistic approaches are attempted. 

The Gospel is personal. The Gospel is cosmic. To make it only one or the other is to misrepresent it. It is both. It needs to be both.

DBF: The Toolkit

(This is part of a series exploring Michael Emerson and Christian Smith's book Divided By Faith.)

In summary, this series first established that America is indeed racialized (both anecdotally and statistically). Further, history and the present both show American religion is currently racialized and segregated. Another post demonstrated that this type of segregation matters. God cares about it.

Previously, Emerson and Smith's thesis was revealed that white American Evangelical Christians do care about this problem, but in practice, they unintentionally and ironically perpetuate segregation and inequality rather than alleviate it. In connection with this, it was argued that most whites will respond to racialization and segregation by saying, "Yes, this is a problem, but . . . " The actions taken usually will not only fail to solve anything, but will make racialization more pronounced.

The primary explanation for this can be seen in a framework known as a "cultural toolkit". And specifically, that the toolkit employed by most white evangelicals is seriously lacking in a number of ways. These will be expounded on in the coming posts.

First though, what is this concept? The toolkit could also be described as a worldview, but more uniquely a toolkit gets at the idea that this is a collection of beliefs, values, and assumptions that can be drawn upon when necessary.

All people have a cultural toolkit. There is an American toolkit. There is an Argentine toolkit. There is a Zambian toolkit. But there are also more specific tools drawn upon by subgroups within a society, whether they be economic, geographic, professional, or religious. There is a middle class American toolkit. A Manhattan toolkit. A military toolkit. An evangelical Christian toolkit.

Of course, no group is monolithic. Every group (even a family unit) contains diversity, but I think we could all examine ourselves and see very obvious things from our various group memberships that impact how we think, see, and explain the world. But beyond, the obvious identifiers, we are also all being worked upon by covert assumptions that we may even be totally oblivious to.

A quick example. Everyone says Americans love efficiency. People from other cultures criticize Americans for being too speed oriented and unable to take a break. But, until I was 22 years old I doubted those proclamations. I used simple logic.

1. I'm an American.
2. I don't love efficiency.
3. In fact, I appreciate the complicated, slower things.
4. Therefore, don't group me in with those "efficiency people".

Then I moved to Asia for a year.

And check this out, I moved to a very large, buzzing city. One of the largest cities in the world. An academic and economic center. But within weeks, I found myself having a constant internal dialog "What is taking so long?", "Why is this line not moving?", "Is this even a line?", and perhaps more salty word choices.

Why?

Certainly not because I'm so culturally flexible, but because like it or not, I have been raised in and influenced by a middle-class American (specifically Midwestern) toolkit that emphasizes efficiency. In fact, I would say efficiency is a highlighted value for all three of the subgroups I listed above. I denied it, but in fact, my toolkit mattered. It impacted the way I thought, the way I saw, and the way I interpreted the world.

This toolkit concept is the biggest factor in causing white Evangelicals to perpetuate and re-create segregation. So understanding it is key. Our toolkit not just impacts how we see and interpret but literally everything we think or do as well.

But, what exactly are these values?

Emerson and Smith identify three key cultural tools that impact the white Evangelical view of race.

• Accountable freewill individualism
• Relationalism
• Antistructuralism

Of course, individualism is a core American value, but the authors identify that white Evangelicals hold it in a form and with a fervor that is distinctive. Evangelicals are marked by a particularly strong attachment to this value, seeing sin and salvation as personal entities and as marked by choices. Further, the idea of a Divine Lawgiver and Judge gives evangelicals a distinctive care for accountability within their individualism. Many of you can probably see how this plays out theologically, but also note that these tools are exercised elsewhere. They will, like-it-or-not, be used when assessing other situations (i.e. Why is their economic inequality? Why are churches segregated?)

Relationalism is putting "central importance on interpersonal relationships." This is most distinct in the view of a "personal relationship with God." God is a relational God. God has given us relationship with Himself as well as relationship with his Body, the fellowship of the Church. This is a "bedrock, nonnegotiable belief" that is "difficult to overemphasize" for evangelicals according to the authors. This relationalism makes evangelicals interpersonal ties and networks particularly strong and deep as well as highly influencing evangelical explanations (i.e. Evangelicals will be more likely to select "hanging around the wrong crowd" as a reason for criminal activity than Americans at-large).

Antistructuralism can be paired with the high value placed on individualism. It is the "inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept social structural influences." The authors found that often evangelicals are not just dismissive of structural explanations, but are even hostile towards them. It should be noted that, though Scripture often points to the influence of social structures, an emphasis on accountable individualism causes this group to see structural explanations as a mere attempt to shift the blame for sin off of oneself. In fact, I would argue that this anti-structuralism probably caused some of you to dislike my third post and that it probably even caused a number of folks to not be reading this post because they gave up midway through that one.

Just as a carpenter who only has a hammer will use nails and never screws, we all can only access the things that are already in our toolkit. Further, the process of adding to our toolkit is lengthy, uncomfortable, and requires being exposed to the views of people unlike ourselves. So as a result, most people are not just unaware of their toolkit, but if made aware, they are wary of acknowledging it's influence, let alone expanding it. 

Toolkits limit the explanations available to us. So as a white evangelical approaches a race issue, the reality is that the available explanations have already been highly limited by their toolkit. Many ideas and viewpoints are not even on the table, along with all thoughts that might flow out of those concepts.

I'd invite you to come along and see how these tools play out in various ways that impact the church and race.

In the next post, I'll unpack what I believe to be a serious theological error that the standard evangelical toolkit propagates and how that error harms both the mission of the church and the issue of race in particular.

DBF: Does This Stuff Matter?

Paul rebukes Peter in Antioch

(This is the fifth post in a series expounding on Michael Emerson and Christian Smith’s book Divided By Faith. If you’re just starting now, you’ll be ok. But the other stuff is helpful too.)

In a 1953 sermon Martin Luther King famously stated, “Sunday morning at 11 o’clock is the most segregated hour in Christian America.” How it got to be that way and the fact that this statement is still true was covered in the last post. In this post, I want to ask: Does that even matter?

In the past four decades some have argued "Yes", some "No", and many more “Yes, but . . .”

Interestingly, many of these ‘no’ answers arose not out of prejudice, but out of a church leadership teaching called the homogeneous unit principle. The HUP basically says: organizations grow the most quickly, the most effectively, and the best when their members have as much in common as humanly possible. This has been applied widely in the church.

Do you like motorcycles? We have a church for that. 

Do you like soft music? We’ve got that. 

Loud music? Yep. 

Being around artistic culture-shapers? Sure. 

Not being around post-modern-ish artsy people? We can set you up.

This isn't just found in overarching church models, but also in the way most white evangelical churches have been set up in an attractional, programmatic manner. The idea that what men need is a Men’s Ministry and what people under 30 need is a Young Adults group are on some level tied to the homogeneous unit principle.

Is this all bad? No. Is it pretty effective? Yep. When make a rule to live by though, is it ultimately Biblical? Maybe not.

In this post, I will argue that the church ought not be segregated by race and that there is even Biblical mandate that calls the Church to push towards multi-ethnic congregations and churches.

First, before I even unpack any Scripture there’s a simple demographic argument for intentionally working to desegregate our churches. If you’re white and you’re reading this you may or may not be aware of the following figures about America.

• In 2012, white births dropped beneath 50% of the total.
• In 2023, whites under 18 will be less than 50% of the population.
• In 2042, whites will drop below 50% nationally.
• In 2050, whites will be about 40% nationally.

Purely on the basis of demography, if you attend a nearly all white church your church will become increasingly unimportant in the next two generations. As our society becomes increasingly multi-ethic, segregated institutions will become increasingly irrelevant, especially, when these institutions, as we saw last post, are more segregated than society itself. 

Further, if we ask questions like “Does your church speak Spanish?” and “Are you ready to start?” many of us will respond with pushback and fear, but is that an attitude born out of congregations that really want to make disciples of all peoples? Can you hold that attitude and simultaneously see yourself as a missionary? As a representative of the Gospel? As an ambassador of reconciliation? As Ed Stetzer says, “You can’t hate a people and reach a people at the same time.”

Beyond statistics though, what does the Bible call us to?

Starting at the end, all believers will find themselves living in the New Jerusalem (Heaven) and how is this heavenly city described? It’s a place with people from every nation, tribe, people, and language living together with God (Rev 7:9).

This can be classified as a future reality and forgotten about, but then I remember that Jesus commanded us to pray this way, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” (Mt 6:10).

From these two passage alone, it seems incredibly difficult to defend a system that intentionally seeks to create congregations that are as internally similar as possible with regard to race. In fact, from these two passage alone it seems easy to say that at the very least every congregation should intentionally seek to represent the ethnic blend and makeup of their local community (which remember, they currently do not).

But, I’ll go on. The earthly ministry of Jesus is decidedly multi-ethnic, in fact at times I think our modern media would accuse Jesus of race baiting. Talking to a Samaritan woman (Jn 4), making a Samaritan the hero of his parable (Lk 10), and driving his hometown crowd to want to kill him by using the example of God healing a Gentile Syrian rather than a Jew (Lk4:24-30). Adding to all this, what does Jesus pray for His Church in the Garden of Gethsemane? He prays for our “complete unity” (Jn 17:20-23).

In Acts, the Holy Spirit acts on behalf of His own heterogeneous unit principle, by enabling no less than fifteen languages to be spoken at Pentecost so that the Gospel could be preached to the three thousand people (from all those ethnic groups) that would believe that day (Acts 2).

In many epistles there are clear ethnic disputes within the church, but Paul never suggests these congregations split. He doesn't even hint of it. When Peter starts to cave to pressure in a matter of ethnicity and race, Paul publicly confronts him so that he might “act in line with the truth of the Gospel.” As my dreamworld best friend Tim Keller says, “Paul doesn’t say, ‘Stop being a racist.’ He says, ‘Stop acting like the Gospel isn’t true!’” (that’s a paraphrase, from an actual Keller source, not something I imagined him saying) (Gal 2:11-21). Dealing with issues of race and ethnicity is not merely good social practice, but evidence of true gospel transformation. Further, in Ephesians Paul goes on state that in the ethnic relationship between Jews and Gentiles, God was making “one new man out of the two, thus making peace.” (Eph 2:15). Paul’s call to racial and ethnic unity is clear and a central pillar of his teaching.

The early church itself gives us much evidence of this. It was a movement started by an oppressed, minority people who did not withhold their message, leadership, membership, and love from the oppressors or majority peoples.

We can go any number of directions—missiology, ecclesiology, Christology, pneumatology, ethics, Pauline teaching, eschatology—and all of them point towards a Christian responsibility to racial unity and never towards racial and ethnic groups standing in between churches (even in unintentional ways).

But honestly, probably there are very few of you who have ever heard of the homogeneous unit principle and there’s probably even fewer of you who answered the question, “Does church segregation matter?” with a “No.” Most of us probably answered the way I referenced way back at the top:

“Does church segregation matter?”

“Yes, but . . .”

And the way we finish that sentence is what I plan to spend the rest of these posts on. The way we finish that sentence is what actually leads Emerson and Smith to their thesis of the book (which if you remember, I do believe they successfully argue and I also intentionally didn't state at the outset).

If you’re ready for it, their thesis is this:

To learn more about American life, this book examines the role of white evangelicalism in black-white relations. Our argument is that evangelicals desire to end racial divisions and inequality, and attempt to think and act accordingly. But, in the process, they likely do more to perpetuate the racial divide than they do to tear it down.

I have one more clarifying post to get out of my system, then we will dig into the meat of this claim. I’m looking forward to it.

DBF: Is the Church Segregated?

(This is the fourth post in a series summarizing and expounding upon Michael Emerson and Christian Smith’s book Divided By Faith.)

In the last two posts, the concept of a racialized society has been described and the fact that the United States is racialized has been proven in areas such as employment, health, and education. It should come as no surprise therefore that the U.S. is also racialized when it comes to religion.

Michael Emerson, the primary author of Divided By Faith, has continued to research trends in race and American religion and finds that 92.5% of American churches are segregated, with segregated being defined as over 80% one singular ethic group. And I would add that’s probably a lenient definition of segregated.

Further, this is not the result of residential segregation and the churches that serve such neighborhoods, as Emerson further found that churches are 10 times more segregated than the neighborhoods in which they are found. And 20 times more segregated than nearby local schools. Chris Rice, who teaches at Duke Divinity School adds, “90% of African American Christians worship in all Black churches, 90% of White American Christians worship in all white churches.”

There is some research to suggest these trends are perhaps waning however, but most of the evidence would show that while some large denominations are becoming more diverse, this is the result of new ethnic congregations, not of increased integration within congregations. The fact is black Christians are very unlikely to attend a predominantly white church, and white Christians are even less likely to attend a predominantly black church.

In my next post I will discuss if this is an issue we should even care about (or if it actually might be a good thing as some have argued), but for the rest of this post I want to give a brief historical overview as to how things got this way within American religion without diving too deeply into the “why” of them still remaining segregated.

Historically, America and white Christians have been friends. Some elements that have helped define America culturally and historically have been drawn from Christian teaching (i.e. the Protestant work ethic). This makes many American Christians particularly invested in not just there faith, but also in America as an entity, sometimes even confusing which is which. Further, American evangelicals have been very concerned about the work of evangelism (sharing of the evangel = gospel message) within American culture and as a result Christians often times have had reason to seek to conform to the status quo of American society, especially in regard to race. With a couple exceptions, American evangelicals have taken a "don't rock the boat" approach towards society and race in particular.

The early story of black-white race relations in America, obviously revolves around the institution of slavery. In the early 1700s, very few Anglos (Christian or not) did anything to even question the institution. Slavery was considered a part of "the American way of life" and one Virginia clergyman wrote, "To live in Virginia without slaves is morally impossible." Even in areas where slavery was not the norm, the furthest you might hear a clergyman go would be the view of Cotton Mather, who strongly believed slaves should be converted and admitted to churches, but also held that slaves ought not ever challenge their position or desire freedom, but ought to be content in this stage (Propaganda takes issue with this advice).

Fun Fact: Whitefield invented raising your hands on roller coasters.

As the 18th century moved on and the Great Awakening took hold little changed. Inarguably, one of the greatest preachers of all-history, George Whitefield publicly preached to blacks and whites in the same crowd and declared that "Blacks are just as much, and no more, conceived and born in Sin, as White men are." This would have been a bold statement at that time. But, at the same time, Whitefield lobbied Parliament to enact slavery in the colony of Georgia so slaves could be used to work his orphanages.

At the turn of the 19th century and with the birth of the American nation-state, the first abolitionist groups began to form. These groups were often tied to religion and it must be noted that while they opposed slavery, they generally were in favor of racialization (if not, outright prejudice). One of their primary advocacies was re-colonization: To free slaves and return them to Africa. Also, it is worth noting, that the rise of abolitionist feelings is easier to trace to the changing economy of the American north, than it is to trace to any sort of moral awakening.

Up until the start of the 19th century, black and whites almost exclusively attended church together. While much of this was rooted in a discriminatory fear and these congregations were literally divided with slaves being forced to sit in the balcony most often, it is worth noting, that American Christianity did not begin as a segregated institution. The authors of Divided By Faith entitle their history chapter "From Separate Pews to Separate Churches" highlighting the gradual creation of segregated congregations over time. In the city of Jacksonville, two of the largest churches in the city were once one church (I'm not naming names). But now exist separately because at one point the white members literally gave the building to the black members and built a new church a few blocks away, urging the black members to not come visit.

As the mid-19th century neared, positions on slavery and positions on race began to diverge in the North. Clergy and denominations in the North, notably Charles Finney, began to take stronger stances on the institution of slavery even declaring that no slaveholder could simultaneously be a true Christian. However, these views on slavery were tempered with views that racial prejudice itself was not a sin and that the church must be careful not to "divert itself with temporal issues" that may distract from the preaching of the Gospel. This led to opposition to slavery in principle, but rarely in practice.

These positions eventually lead the the geographical division of many major denominations into Northern and Southern branches.

In this same period, slavery was seen as a moral good in the South. The church in the South in particular identified Biblical (Abraham had slaves, see here why this argument is invalid), charitable (slavery got them out of backwards Africa), social ("We are protecting them"), and political (Abolitionists are dangerous) reasons for the continuation of slavery. And while, Northerners stood in contrast because of their opposition to slavery, the fact that slavery had almost zero impact on the Northern economy meant they could take this stand with no economic repercussions whatsoever. It was not a costly position to take whatsoever. When adjusting for this fact and seeing the rhetoric and vitriol of whites in both regions, it would be accurate to say whites views of blacks were much more alike than they were different in this time period. 

These attitudes were encountered by blacks both in the North and the South, so it is no surprise that in the early-to-mid 19th century black denominations, like the African Methodist Episcopal Church, began to arise in the North as a response to this discrimination. The history of the AME is particularly interesting as this church was formed after a black leader was forcibly, physically removed from his congregation for praying in a "whites only" section of the church. 

Following the Civil War, racial prejudice and injustice continued and these separate black institutions become commonplace in the South as well. It is very worth noting that these separate congregations were formed not because of doctrine (as is usually the case), but as a response to injustice and prejudice. Yes, they were formed voluntarily, but voluntarily because blacks could not be treated with anything resembling equality within white churches.

As the 20th century turned, some whites began to identify and draw attention to racial injustice (though often in a paternalistic manner). When religiously motivated these clergy were almost always mainline or theologically liberal however and as a result, white evangelicals basically set to disown any such discussion our of fear of being associated with such movements. White evangelicals were willing to participate in missionary and educational efforts with blacks, but avoided any discussion of injustice or other "boat rocking" issues (in the early part of the century this was often true of black evangelicals as well).

However, in the 1950s and 1960s the black church came to the forefront in leading the Civil Rights Movement though they were very rarely joined by white evangelical support.

Billy Graham makes a fascinating case study to illustrate this point. Early in his ministry, he followed the "local customs" based on where his events were held, such as segregating seating sections. At times he very clearly took a stand against prejudice and discrimination, but then the next week would cave to pressure and apologize for making such statements. After 1954's Brown vs Board, Graham never held a segregated event again, but openly stated he didn't believe in changing laws as "laws could not change wicked hearts." His approach to desegregation was extremely gradualist and in response to Dr King's "I Have a Dream" speech he stated, "Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children." Emerson and Smith note that this was "not meant to be harsh, but rather was what he and most evangelicals perceived to be realistic."

A concern for matters deemed to be eternal, a fear of theological liberalism and political socialism, and entrenched historic separation lead white evangelicals to have nothing more than empty words of "support" to offer their black brothers and sisters in the faith.

While there is much in the past 50 years that could be added, the events above establish the key patterns at play within evangelicalism and the problem of race. Next, I will dive deeper into the contemporary issue of segregated churches and why I contend this is a negative for the church.

DBF: Racialized Part 2

(This post is part of a series based on Michael Emerson and Christian Smith's book Divided By Faith.)

In the last post I introduced the term "racialized society" to refer to a society "that allocates differential economic, political, social, and even psychological rewards to groups along racial lines; lines that are socially constructed."

Racialized societies can perpetuate themselves with or without overt racial discrimination. In fact, the authors state that racialization can exist in forms that:

1. Are increasingly covert.
2. Are embedded in the normal operations of institutions.
3. Avoid direct racial terminology.
4. Are invisible to the majority racial group.

Intent of action need not matter for racialization to exist and even increase. Nor does awareness even need to be a factor.

Last time, I examined anecdotal evidence to answer the question, "Is America a racialized society?" While anecdotes often carry emotional or memorable weight, they are not a reliable source for drawing larger conclusions. For example, anecdotally I could tell you that New Zealanders often times are white British citizens and speak Mandarin as their native language. I say this because the only New Zealander I ever met was born in London and raised in New Zealand as the adopted son of a Taiwanese couple. This anecdote is 100% true, but its conclusions are far from representative for the Kiwi Country.

To check our anecdotal evidence is the wonderful art/science of demography (which also is full of interesting shortcomings), but with enough volume and care statistics do allow us to draw solid conclusions. So here, I will seek to answer our question of racialization via statistical analysis.

Is America a racialized society? Does race matter profoundly for outcomes and life experience in America?

The book presents an extremely compelling case to answer this question, but seeing that the book is now 13 years old, I have sought to update these numbers with newer statistics.

There are a number of different categories we can examine, here is just a minimal sampling. 

Economics:

In 2011, 27.5% of African Americans lived below the poverty line, compared to 9.8% of whites. For child poverty these numbers were 37.4% and 12.5%. (Census Bureau)

In the state level, Minnesota for example saw just 9% of whites fall below the poverty line in 2011 while 48% of African Americans lived in poverty. (Census/Kaiser Family Foundation)

For the city of Jacksonville (of those children in public schools), 35% of white children received free or reduced price lunch, while 71% of black children did. (JCCI, 2011)  

These economic statistics become far more telling when dealing with wealth. The average white household in 2012 had 22 times more wealth ($110,729) than the average black household ($4,955) (Census/CNN). Further, the recession impacted black families' wealth much more than white families. With black families losing 31% of their wealth compared to white families 11% (Urban Institute/NYT). Emerson and Smith write, "When white America gets a cold, black America gets pneumonia."

Health:

In Jacksonville, the infant mortality rate for black babies is on par with that of Libya (12.8 per 1000). It fits with the national average for whites (2.8 per 1000). (JCCI, 2012) The rate of new HIV cases for blacks is 664% that of whites. (JCCI, 2011)

Education:

In nationwide results, black and Hispanic students have about a two grade level difference from white students in math and reading examinations. (NAEP/EdWeek) 

In Jacksonville, while only 49% of white students read at grade level in tenth grade those numbers drop to 18% for black students. (JCCI, 2011)

Jobs:

Nationwide, the black unemployment rate of 13.7% is twice that of white's rate (6.6%). (Bureau of Labor Statistics) 

For jobs, these statistics become all the more compelling when we look to several academic studies performed on race and job seeking. Devah Pager of Princeton University (at the time, now at Harvard, Pager also not insignificantly holds a PhD from the University of Wisconsin) found conducted an experiment in Milwaukee and New York City. White and black college students were trained to impersonate job seekers. They were taught to act similarly, the speak similarly, to dress similarly, and were given identical resumes. Nearly identical. They were to seek to turn in resumes for entry level positions in person and then the number of callbacks received would be recorded.

The one difference in the applicants (besides race) was that Pager had half of the applicants in each case admit to a prior criminal offense. A felony drug conviction. 

The results:

Whites with clean records received the most call backs. 

Next? Whites with a felony. 

Then? Blacks with a clean record.

If Pager is accurate, being black in America is the equivalent to being born with a felony conviction on your record. (her book, CNN)

In a similar study, two scholars from the University of Chicago sent identical resumes out in Chicago and Boston. Their variation was the give some candidates statistically significant names associated almost exclusively with blacks (i.e. Jamal, Lakisha) and other candidates names statistically almost always associated with whites (i.e. Emily, Greg). Their findings? White-sounding names received almost 50% more callbacks than black sounding names.

Remember, identical resumes. There is no reasonable argument to be made here for any factor other than race accounting for this difference.

In response to the staggering evidence above, there is no choice but to answer the question "Is America a racialized society?" except in the affirmative.

Remember, this is not to say the explanation for this racialization is inherent within race, nor is it to say there are not complex factors other than race that play into racialization, but what it is saying is that, "Yes, race matters profoundly in America." It impacts the life experiences and outcomes of people.

Once we establish that race does matter, we can pursue questions of why, how, and what it all means. Next, we will look at race as it interacts with religion in America, both historically and in the present as we move closer to me actually telling you the thesis of the book.

Anecdotally and statistically, American society is indeed racialized. Race impacts our lives. With or without our awareness of it, race matters.

DBF: Racialized

(This is the second post in a series exploring Michael Emerson and Christian Smith's Divided By Faith)

There are helpful and there are unhelpful ways to enter most any discussion. This is particularly apt when discussing a polarizing and oftentimes entrenched issue, such as race.

When discussing race remember: Fist bumps solve EVERYTHING!

One key to constructive conversation is defining our terms, so that we are all having the same conversation. For many in contemporary American society, any discussion of race is immediately framed with labels.

Who is a racist?

Who is not? 

This is why I'm not!

This is why she is!

We seek to categorize and dichotomize, even at the expense of understanding, empathy, and the truth. This is why Emerson and Smith are wise to write based on a concept called racialization, rather than nebulously asking, "Who is or is not racist?"

Before I define racialization, a word about the trouble with nailing down racism as a term. Racism is a personally, historically, and experientially loaded term and concept.

Personally, in this cultural moment, most people will go out of their way to define themselves as not racist. They will usually set the standard to make sure that they and their inner circle are not included in the definition of racism. This means different people will set different standards on the basis of self-interest. This is a biased perspective. It is culturally and introspectively blind, therefore it won't work.

Historically, in different eras racism has been defined in differing ways. In the 1820s, the statement "Blacks are inferior to whites and should be kept in slavery for their own protection" would have been considered benign in most of America. By 1950, that statement would have been considered clearly and obviously racist. But in 1950, the statement "Whites and blacks ought to be separated in the public sphere" would have been considered morally neutral or morally right by most of America. Today, that statement in clearly and obviously racist.

This leads to a frightening question: What makes us believe that our views won't been deemed the same in 2050? When seeking to define racism, the historical record shows we as a society usually use a standard that is a least one if not two generations removed from the present. So, if one's definition of racism is Jim Crow, then by that standard one can rightly assume racism is dead in America. Or even if one's definition is individuals intentionally holding to discriminatory policies, the standard is very easy to "otherize" and blame some other group (As a Northerner at heart, I can readily admit we Northern folk do this to the South all the time).

Definitions are hard. De jure segregation is no longer enforced, but that doesn't means racism is dead. Our historical placement blinds our perceptions.

Finally, talking about race is experientially loaded. Most everyone in America has some story where they personally were either accused of racism or felt racism was enacted against them. These experiential and emotional back stories make racism further difficult to define.

None of this is to say we should shy away from discussing race or racism, please don't misunderstand me. It is only to say the issue is extremely complex for a number of reasons and we need to consider these complexities before embarking into such discussions.

So, with racism too convoluted to nail down for a sociological study, the authors of Divided By Faith use the terms racialization or racialized society throughout the book. They define it as such:

A racialized society is a society wherein race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities, and social relationships.

Or more tangibly:

The racialized society is one in which intermarriage rates are low, residential separation and socioeconomic inequality are the norm, our definitions of personal identity and or choices of intimate associations reveal racial distinctiveness, and where "we are never unaware of the race of a person with whom we interact."

The question the authors then ask: Is the United States a racialized society?

In the next post I will seek to answer that question statistically, but in the little space remaining here I want to pursue it anecdotally.

Does race matter profoundly in America? Yes or no?

Well wait, before you answer that question for yourself, consider asking it of someone else. If you're white, go ahead and ask one of your close black or Latino friends that question? . . . If you don't have a close friend of another race . . . Well, that suggests your experience is a racialized one. Yes or no? If you do have a close friend of another race, I would seriously encourage you to go ask.

OK, next thought have you ever answered the phone and immediately known the race of the person on the other end? Why did you take note of it? Surely, not because it didn't matter in any sense.

Last one, if you wanted to go to a part of your area where their would be people of a vastly different economic standing than yourself (upwards or downwards), what are the chances 85% of the people in that neighborhood would be of the same race as one another? Just from your own experience.

I think these answers likely provided you with some anecdotal evidence that America is indeed a racialized society, but if you were that kid who loved having a substitute because it meant videos, I've got something for you also:



OK, next time, I'll have a little more on racialization asking, "Statistically, is America a racialized society?"

Divided By Faith: An Introduction

The topic of race is at the forefront of the public eye right now. For me, it is nearly always on my mind and I am constantly considering its both subtle and endemic impacts, however I would say that makes me a very, very strange case among white folks. I've talked about race some in this space and over the next few posts I’d like to endeavor a much more wide-ranging discussion by taking us through a summary of a book: Divided By Faith. However, I will intentionally seek to write in such a way that each post can stand on its own, so you need not to have read the preceding posts nor the book from which they will be largely drawn.

Originally published by Oxford University Press in 2000 the book is a highly acclaimed academic work subtitled, “Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.” The authors Michael Emerson (not Ben from LOST) and Christian Smith are both sociologists and both committed Christ-followers, of whom I am confident in both their academic integrity and actual understanding of Christianity (and American Christianity in particular).

The argument of the book, which I believe they do successfully prove, is pretty strong and might be hard words for some of you to hear, so I’m actually not even going to put it in this first post as I feel some folks would dismiss the whole book if you knew the thesis from the outset (but if you are particularly set on figuring out what the authors argue, I’m sure a quick Google search would find the answer.)

Also, the book largely focuses on race in America in terms of African Americans and whites. This is not because the authors or I want to discount other groups, but is based in historical depth between these two groups especially with regards to religion. So, note that as you read.

I’m not sure whether this series will be five posts or thirty, I guess we will have to dive in to find out. In some cases I will simply summarize the content of the book, in other places I will add my own commentary, experience, and theological musings that usually aren't included in sociological discussions. My hope is that in looking at these issues, we would be people who first listen and seek to understand before emoting too strongly or jumping to ask “What should I do!?”

So, as we look to dive in I hope you’ll join me on the journey. The next post will be up Monday.

To ponder:

Does race matter in America in 2013?

Do Christians have any particular call to discuss or care about these issues?