Why well-intentioned White evangelicals contribute to a racialized America: Takeaways from "Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America"

I've been reading through Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America by Michael Emerson and Christian Smith in preparation for some lectures that I will give this semester in a course I teach on Christian vocation. It has been disheartening, illuminating, and motivating all at once. It has been particularly helpful to read this book, written twenty years ago, in our present context of heightened racial tension since the George Floyd, Breona Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery killings, and as evangelical churches are having more discussion about racism in America than in recent history. 

It is important to note that this book is a sociological analysis of the way in which white (and in some cases black) evangelicals think about the race problem in America. That is to say that they are not offering a theological prescription for how to deal with our racialized society, nor are they trying to offer a robust way forward.  Rather, they are using the tools of sociology in order to describe and analyze the way in which "evangelical religion" perceives race in America. The authors do this, in part, by reviewing the history of race and racism in America through the lens of the evangelical movement. In addition to the historical survey, they interview  2,200 evangelicals, compare those interviews with other research that is available, and offer an analysis that makes the following foundational conclusion:

• The vast majority of white evangelicals, directed by their cultural (and theological) tools, fail to recognize the institutionalization of racialization in economic, political, educational, social, and religious systems.
• On the whole, white evangelicalism does more to perpetuate the racialized society of the United States than to reduce it. Said in another way, the evangelical movement tends to perpetuate the chasm between white and black in America. 

These are sobering conclusions, in part because the authors suggest that the more white evangelicals try to bridge the divide within their conceptual framework, the more they worsen the situation. As they authors write in their introduction, "This book is a story of how well-intentioned people, their values, and their institutions actually recreate racial divisions and inequalities they ostensibly oppose. It is a narrative of how some of America's core values and assumptions and its reliance on market principles contradict and work against other esteemed values (pgs. 1-2)." 

Below are a number of key insights that Emerson and Smith make as they recount the history of race in America and as they analyze the data of their interviews. Instead of giving a detailed review of the argument of the book, I have chosen instead to focus on what I see as the main takeaways of their analysis and how these might be helpful for students, pastors, and theological educators who want their thinking on racial reconciliation in America to be informed by research. 

1. The United States of America is a racialized society. Race matters profoundly for life experience, life opportunities, and social networks. This racialized society produces segregation, socioeconomic inequality, and social networks that are racially distinctive. Perhaps the most important insight from conclusion is that one need not be a racist in order to participate in a racialized society. In fact, the point they make is that regardless of one's motivations, white evangelicals help perpetuate racism even as they stand opposed to it. 

2. Historically, white evangelicals in the United States have been complicit in slavery and segregation. Full stop. This is undeniable. (See also Jemar Tisby's Color of Compromise.) While there are no doubt examples of white evangelicals resisting racism and slavery, on the whole white evangelicals--from both the South as well as the North--have been actively involved in discrimination, segregation, and racialization. For the most part, white evangelicals have been more interested in preserving the social order or status quo. They have not consider baptism something that conferred a new social status on those who were slaves; in fact, many clergy declared that baptism did not free the slave from bondage to their slave master (p. 24). During the Great Awakening, most white evangelical leaders saw slavery as a means by which blacks could be Christianized--"bondage was their best insurance for salvation" (p. 26), even suggesting that their miserable conditions had the positive effect of making them more receptive to the gospel. What is more, in the post-revolutionary age, most white evangelicals saw anti-slavery agitation as a significant threat to order, peace, and prosperity of both the country and the church. During the age of revivalism, most evangelicals thought that slavery would end as more and more people became Christians. During the age of reconstruction, white evangelicals did little to nothing to oppose Jim Crow laws and in many ways accentuated the "separate but equal" ethos of that age. And during the Civil Rights movement, most white evangelicals were not involved (it was mostly white mainline, progressive churches involved with black civil rights leaders). 

3. White evangelicals have an individualistic framework, shaped by several theological convictions, that does not permit them to see the systemic nature of racism and inequality in the United States. "The popularized version for white evangelicals has emphasized mainly the individual-level components, leaving the larger racialized social structures, institutions, and culture intact (p.52)." White evangelicals have emphasized a personal relationship with Jesus, individualized autonomy and responsibility, free will, and personal relationships as the primary building blocks of society while negating any sense of larger structures or forces that contribute to our relationships or "free" will. Their solutions to racism focus on a personal relationship with Jesus that should lead to personal relationships that denounce racism; the assumption is that this is what will ultimately change society. They explains inequality and racism as a conglomeration of bad personal choices that can only be fixed by individual conversion.  As a result, the racialized system in the US is never challenged--only the treatment of individuals within the system. Emerson and Smith contend that white evangelicals are more individualistic than other white Americans, emphasizing "accountable free will individualism" and antistructuralism. That is, individuals exist independent of structures and institutions, have free will, and are individually accountable for their own actions. But this emphasis does not take into account the full biblical picture of how the world works and how Sin and the principalities and powers operate at a larger systemic level (Romans 5-8, 12; Ephesians 2-3; Colossians 1-3; Galatians 2-5). White evangelicals are unable to see how our legal system and the way institutions operate contribute to segregation and a racialized society. 

4. The white evangelical emphasis on  individualisation tends to make them ahistorical--unwilling and unable to see how history has shaped our present condition. As Mark Noll has shown (Scandal of the Evangelical Mind), this is a problem in lots of other areas of the evangelical movement. If white evangelicalism is going to move forward in racial relations, then pastors and Christian educators must know and teach the history of racialization in the United States. 

5. White evangelicals are socially isolated from blacks and therefore unaware of their experiences. For the isolated, the race problem is a creation of the media, the progressive education system, and nefarious black leaders who stoke the flames for their own gain. For those who are not isolated and for blacks themselves, the race problem is neither a creation of the media et al nor something that will go away if we just ignore it. One point that Emerson and Smith make is that context or social location have a hermeneutical effect, that is they impact the way we interpret reality. One of the products of racialization is isolation. This isolation perpetuates the problem, generating perspectives that help maintain a racialized society. 

6. Because most white evangelicals are socially isolated from blacks, they do not think that racial reconciliation is a priority. In fact, most white evangelicals think that blacks exaggerate the problem and need to just get over it. 

7. White evangelicals explain black-white inequality fundamentally in terms of inferior inborn ability; blacks lack ability, vision,  and motivation. And white conservative Protestants blame blacks more for their inequality than other whites do. Black conservative Protestants are more likely to point to structural forces to explain racial inequality. Conservative religion intensifies the values and experiences of each racial group, sharpening and increasing the divide between black and white Americans. White evangelicals believe that blacks have the same opportunities as they do. Blacks, they argue, have less hope and vision. "Given that white evangelicals are both comfortable with the black-white gap and inclined to do nothing about it, we do not think it is too risky to conclude that evangelicals will make little contribution toward reducing the black-white gap. But we wish to extend our argument further to say that evangelicals, despite not wanting to, actually reproduce and contribute to racial inequality" (p.110).  

8. White evangelicals root their engagement in the world in the "miracle motif", the idea that all social and personal problems will be resolved by coming into a personal relationship with Jesus and sharing God's love with others. This belief is coupled with the correlated affirmation that any interference at a social, governmental, legislative level actually hurts the healing process. It gets in the way of authentic change that comes from a real encounter with God's grace. 

    As a pastor and a theological educator, I am challenged by this observation. In my own teaching ministry, I work on the assumption that real change comes from a real encounter with the grace of God that is in turn transformative. As a general rule, I rarely offer no systemic steps or practices to work against our racialized society. In so doing, I am in fact complicit in some way with the status quo. My assumption that somehow our community, our local expression of the body of Christ, will just work things out--engage in organic ways with systemic racism and other forms of injustice is called into question with the research that Emerson and Smith present. I am beginning to see that there are real, systemic issues, intentional practices that were put into place (such as red-lining) that must be confronted with equal intentionality. 

    What is more, Emerson and Smith have concluded that white evangelicals often offer solutions to racial inequality that cost them nothing and that do not affect the status quo. Their solutions do not cost them (us) financial or cultural sacrifice. As they say,"The miracle motif allows Christians to avoid working with non-Christian reformers, and overlooks that people do not automatically become mature Christians on conversion", especially not mature Christians who seek to confront the systemic problems of the American way of life that has excluded non-Whites in an intentional and systematic fashion (pg. 131). 

    So as a professor and a pastor, my challenge moving forward is to think about how to engage us in an intentional effort to confront the systemic inequalities of racism. Said in the form of a question, how can we develop practices that both affirm the need for God's transforming grace as well as engage with the systemic inequalities? What Christian practices are at our avail? How can our Christian practices effect inequality in health care, education, police treatment, politics, housing, the penal system, and job discrimination? How might our Christian practices change the way our congregations are made up?

9. About 90 percent of American congregations are made up of at least 90 percent of people of the same race. Why is this the case? Emerson and Smith make the claim that American Christianity fosters homogeneity, that it drives people who are similar to congregate with others who are like them. Congregations end up being internally homogeneous without being necessarily comprised of prejudiced people. Why does this happen?

    Emerson and Smith use the metaphor of "religious marketplace" to explain this social phenomenon. Much like a shopping mall, today American Christians have a variety of  Christian brands to choose from. And many religious leaders view congregants as customers who they must attract and keep. This was all shaped by the Enlightenment and the separation of church and state early in America's history. This led churches to have to win the voluntary support of congregants in order to survive. The disestablishment of state-sponsored church led to creative religious entrepreneurs who marketed their alternative religious wares to religious customers.  As a result, churches survive by attracting like-minded people who tend to be of the same socio-economic level and the same race. Additionally, solidarity is a key for sustaining church communities. Solidarity demands homogeneity; those who are at the margins will simply feel out of place. 

10. Congregations are part of an elaborate structure of racialization in the United States. Micro attempts at minimizing the racialized society that we live in (e.g. joint worship services with a church of another race, making friends with people from another race, etc.) serve to solidify macro level racialization. It heightens isolation from other groups, and reduces opportunities for macro level bonds. "The organization of American religion into racially homogenous groups lowers the probability of intergroup mobility (such as through marriage) and heightens the importance of racial boundaries, identities, and other differences between groups (pg. 155)." What is more, Emerson and Smith argue that "religion, in the context of racialized society, accentuates group boundaries, divisions, categorizations, and the biases that follow...It both reinforces other aspects of racial identity and meaning, and is itself a product of racially separate identities and meanings (p. 158)." As a result, even though these groups are formed by well-intentioned, selfless people who desire to love others, at the group level service and loyalty to that group can actually turn into selfishness at the expense of other groups (e.g. families, neigbhorhoods). The important point they make is that while the vast majority of white evangelicals consider racism and inequality to be immoral, their ingroup bias does not afford them the tools to be able to identify with the experiences of blacks in a way that leads to change. 

11. Since churches have been formed in the marketplace of religion, most congregants come to church expecting to be comforted from the chaos of the world. They come to find meaning and belonging--but not necessarily meaning and belonging at personal cost or suffering. As a result, pastors who have a prophetic voice are usually limited by the wants and expectations of congregations who want their needs met. Pastors who violate this balance tend to find that they are either terminated or minimized. Congregations are essentially consumers rather than producers of God's love and mission in the world, and often resent pastors trying to push them in places of discomfort and sacrifice. As a result, on the whole, homogenous, racialized congregations do not foster conditions that allow for radical social change. 

 12. The racialization of society is very complex and requires deep, sustained analysis. As Mark Noll has argued in his The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, evangelicalism is pragmatic and utilitarian and doesn't care to wade in complexity. If white evangelicals are going to overcome the racialized society, then they will need to spend time engaging in more serious study with educated others. 

In his magisterial letter to the Romans, Paul writes "do not be conformed to the patterns of this world" (Romans 12.2). One of the ways to think about the research and conclusions of Emerson and Smith is as a thick description of the patterns of the world in the United States. In other words, they offer to us a detailed account of one way in which we are being conformed to the world. Interestingly, Romans itself offers a detailed account of how Jesus Christ and the Spirit confront the systemic issues of ethnic inequality and animosity, and is likely a good place to start in thinking about how to move forward. More about that on another day.