Finding Real Marriage: Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, and Evangelical Individuality in Wired America (An Evangelical Conclusion)

This was my final paper for my Evangelicalism course. As it stands, it treads murky waters between a survey of attitudes and a somewhat interesting theory. I wish I had devoted more time to exploring the thesis (which I only just stumbled upon after having written the majority of the essay). I think that how the Internet changes religious authority is an interesting topic, and, were I a more devoted student, could have produced a particularly relevant and insightful essay. As it stands, we have this.

In January of 2012, a book was published that created a firestorm of controversy amongst American evangelical Christians. The book Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together[1] by megachurch pastor Mark Driscoll and his wife, Grace, purported to offer insights into a “biblical view” of the marriage contract. The book reached the number one position on the New York Times Best Seller List. Despite its popularity and explicitly evangelical marketing, the book drew ire from within the evangelical subculture – with critics denouncing the book as immature, misogynistic, and backward. The majority of the backlash took place on blogs and through other online outlets. The Real Marriage controversy and ensuing online discourse between Complementarians (those who believe that men and women are inherently different and complement each other) and Egalitarians (who believe that all are equal and should be treated as such) reveals how the Internet age has altered the way that authority is dispersed within the evangelical community.

For most of the history of the movement, Evangelical attitudes toward marriage have been grounded in the “separate spheres” ideology of the 19^th century. A patriarchal system, separate spheres divided life into two discrete categories – public and private. Public life -- work, politics, and law -- was to be kept separate from home life – homemaking, education, child-rearing, and religion. Through various biological, psychological, and theological determinants, men occupied the public sphere, while women occupied the private sphere. Sociologists Sally K. Gallagher and Christian Smith write:

One hallmark of traditional evangelical Protestantism has been the adherence to a neotraditionalism in which women are seen as subordinate to men. This particular gender ideology focuses on gender differences in family responsibilities and has its roots in the ideal of separate spheres for women and men that emerged during the late nineteenth century. Natural, even God-given essences were argued to be the basis of masculine aggression, worldly wisdom, and rationality and its complement, feminine submission, purity, piety, and domesticity – an argument that continues to be presented by a number of contemporary evangelical writers today.[2]

By promoting separate spheres as “natural” and “God-given” early evangelicals were appealing to Weber’s rational-legal authority and traditional authority. Because male/female differences were “natural” they were therefore true and because they had been determined by God, the ultimate arbiter of the law, it was imperative that these spheres be reinforced. This authority would be challenged in the 1950s and 1960s, as social movements pushed for equality for all people, including women, and this challenge would necessitate the development of new forms of authority.

            Evangelicals were not immune to the effects of the civil rights movements of the mid-20^th century. The push for an egalitarian society by the culture at large was reflected amongst some evangelical groups, particularly evangelical women. In order to gain support for this position, progressive evangelicals appealed to the charismatic authority of Jesus of Nazareth. In their article “‘We are not Doormats’”: The Influence of Feminism on Contemporary Evangelicals in the United States,” Judith Stacey and Susan Elizabeth Gerard write:

To counter evangelicals' standard patriarchalist reading of the scriptural foundation for women's subordination to their husbands, Christian feminists have developed an ingenious, and perhaps somewhat forced, doctrine of mutual submission. Biblical feminists argue that the essence of Christ's message and practice was a radically egalitarian challenge to prevailing patriarchal society, a society so profoundly patriarchal that Jesus was compelled to couch his subversive and implicitly feminist teachings in terms comprehensible and tolerable to his compatriots. When read in this context, those troubling passages in the bible that direct wives to submit to their husbands, such as Paul's notorious message to the Ephesians, can be understood to mean instead mutual submission.”[3][4]

Gerard and Stacey go on to explain the influence that evangelical feminists have had on evangelical culture as a whole, claiming the impact of feminism on evangelical discourse is “profound and diffuse.” They cite the increasing number of male theologians who teach feminist ideas, evangelical support of the Equal Rights Amendment, and a survey that revealed that students at evangelical colleges supported both conservative and progressive views of marital roles.

As elements of egalitarianism crept into the evangelical discourse in the 1980s, a vocal segment formed that recognized the success that egalitarians were having, and openly fought against an egalitarian evangelicalism. Young (at the time) pastors and theologians like, Al Mohler, John Piper, and Wayne Grudem banded together in an attempt to rebuff what they viewed as the insidious encroachment of egalitarian thought.

These and other like-minded men founded the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, an organization explicitly devoted to promoting a complementarian view of sex and gender roles. One of the five goals of the CBMW is, “To act as a key player in stopping what was in 1985 a floodtide of evangelical feminism sweeping through the evangelical world almost completely unchallenged. (But even though it is no longer a flood, there is still a steady stream of egalitarianism flowing through the evangelical world, and it continues to harm marriages and the church.)”[5] In an article explaining the origins of and motivations for the founding of the group, Grudem attacks egalitarian interpretations of Ephesians 5, the idea of a gender-neutral (in regards to the deity) bible, and the influence of evangelical feminism.

            The CBMW eventually codified their beliefs into the Danvers Statement, published in 1988. The Danvers Statement articulates the need for the CBMW to exist and serves as an overview of the core beliefs of the movement. The statement is divided into two sections, a “rationale” and “affirmations.” The rationale section highlights ten contemporary developments, which CBMW observes with deep concern. These developments include:

…the widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity; the increasing promotion given to feminist egalitarianism with accompanying distortions or neglect of the glad harmony portrayed in Scripture between the loving, humble leadership of redeemed husbands and the intelligent willing support of the leadership by redeemed wives; and the widespread ambivalence regarding motherhood, vocational homemaking, and the many ministries historically performed by women…[6]

The affirmations section goes on to attack these observations by building a patriarchal hermeneutic through textual references.

            While there is no way to quantify the influence that the Danvers Statement has had on evangelicalism, the influence of Grudem, Piper, and Mohler is more easily seen. Grudem’s works of systematic theology are routinely prescribed at evangelical colleges, Piper is a best-selling author and hugely influential pastor, and Mohler is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The rise in the popularity and influence of these men seems to reflect the overall rise of the Religious Right in the United States.

Despite being damaged by the legacy of the Danvers Statement and the conservative takeover of evangelicalism, the egalitarian movement still exists. There remain well-known thinkers like NT Wright, Frank and Evelyn Stagg, and William J Webb who carry the torch for marital equality, using many of the same arguments that were developed by feminists in the 1980s. 

As experts debated complementarianism and egalitarianism via pulpits and periodicals, new technologies allowed the laity to lend their own perspectives to the pulpit. Through the Internet, everyday evangelicals were spreading their own gospel. Websites, podcasts, Twitter feeds, and YouTube channels sprung up, giving voice to those who were previously restricted to hashing out theological quandaries with those in their immediate surroundings. It also gave an even larger platform to superstar pastors. In addition to preaching to congregations of 5,000+, the most popular pastors have the ability to preach to an unlimited number of people through online networks.

            Enter Mark Driscoll. Driscoll is the pastor at Mars Hill Church in Seattle and founder of the Acts 29 Network, an evangelical ministry dedicated to church planting. The Mars Hill Church podcast is the third most downloaded Christian podcast on iTunes.[7] While Driscoll is heavily influenced by the thought of Mohler, Piper, and Grudem (he often appears with Piper at evangelical events), he does not present himself in the same way as these men. Instead, he has cultivated a populist image and a specific vision of Christianity. Driscoll’s is a hyper-masculine brand of Christianity, one that emphasizes male leadership and “proper” male behavior, said to include hunting, fighting, and having sex. His masculinized Christianity has been wildly popular, and Driscoll is one of the most influential young pastors in the nation whom wields a level of charismatic authority beyond the scope of even the most industrious itinerant preachers of the Great Awakenings.

It stands to reason then, that a book authored by Driscoll, discussing marriage and gender roles, would be widely read and hotly debated amongst evangelicals. Like Driscoll himself, Real Marriage presents itself as an alternative to a wishy-washy vision of Christianity. In many ways, it is, but largely superficially, and largely in relation to sex. The Driscolls write candidly about the passion or lack-thereof in their sex life, pornography, and the use of erotic devices in the bedroom, but the fundamental theology is no different than that of the CBMW. In a chapter entitled “The Respectful Wife,” Grace writes, “Men and women were created with equal worth but different roles. God created and called the man to lead and love his wife, and when he doesn’t do that in a holy way, he is sinning. God created the woman to help and respect her husband, and when she doesn’t do that in a holy way, she is sinning.”[8] Throughout the book, both Grace and Mark espouse similar complementarian sentiments.

Because of Driscoll’s stature in the evangelical community, the book engendered an enormous online response from Christians of all types, be they conservative, progressive, or moderate.

Rachel Held Evans, a feminist blogger and author of Evolving in Money Town and A Year of Biblical Womanhood, wrote:

As others have noted, the book focuses so much on sex that it can create the impression that it’s the most important element of marriage.  Also, as I’ve noticed before, Mark has the tendency to project. Because his wife was abused in the past, he believes that the majority of women were abused in the past. Because he and Grace struggled with their sexual relationship, he believes that most couples struggle with their sexual relationship. Because he likes sports and hunting, he assumes that “real men” like sports and hunting. Because his marriage is based on a hierarchal pattern of submission, he believes that “real marriage” is based on a hierarchal pattern of submission.[9]

Evans criticisms of the book focused on the complementarian bent, while she wrote that she found the graphic sexual content excessive, she did not condemn it in principle. Evans’ review engendered 526 comments from readers, most of them agreeing with her criticisms of the book. The most “liked” comment was from a reader who claimed that a passage of the book, in which Driscoll condemns his wife rather harshly for cheating on him prior to their marriage, “made her want to puke.” The majority of the conversation fixated on this passage and whether or not Driscoll was being petty or manipulative.

            On the other side of the aisle, Denny Burk blogger and associate professor at Boyce College (a subsidiary of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), praised the book for its complementarian stance, but spends a good third of his review expressing reservations about the graphic descriptions of sexuality:

First, the book is unashamedly complementarian. Mark’s challenge to men in chapter 3 is one of the strongest exhortations to biblical manhood that I have ever read… The Driscolls argue that the only way to experience marriage to its fullest is to embrace manhood and womanhood as the Bible defines it and to live out the roles that are prescribed in scripture. This is all to be commended… Among the activities that the authors deem permissible within this taxonomy are masturbation, fellatio/cunnilingus, sodomy (on both spouses), menstrual sex, role-playing, sex toys, birth control, cosmetic surgery, cybersex, and sexual medication. The Driscolls are careful to stipulate that these are activities spouses may participate in by mutual agreement, but not that they must participate in (p. 180). No spouse should be manipulated into doing anything that violates his or her conscience (p. 178). The only item in the list deemed impermissible in every circumstance is sexual assault…I think chapter 10 has the potential to wreak havoc in such marriages where one spouse will feel a whole range of taboos to be “permissible” if he can convince his spouse to participate. This to me seems like a recipe for marital disaster, and I do not think the Driscolls’ requirement of “helpfulness” mitigates the difficulty.[10]

Burk’s review received 173 comments, the majority of which agreed with his sentiment. Driscoll is praised for his “gospel-centrality” but condemned for his focus on sex. Many of the commenters were so offended by the chapter on sexuality that they disregard the work as a whole, despite its complementarian worldview.

            Lastly, David Moore, a blogger at Fuller Theological Seminary’s “The Burner” blog, and a self-identified complementarian also took issue with the book:

This book has an astoundingly unbelievable disrespect for women. I’m not much of a feminist. Men and women are different, generally have different gifts and abilities and both are valuable. In our household, I’m the chief decision-maker because my wife and I agree that is what the New Testament instructs. Plenty of people don’t agree with that, and that’s fine.[11]

Moore occupies a middle ground between Evans and Burk. While he fixates on the sexuality of the book, he does so because he finds it degrading to women, rather than its graphic nature. He writes, “This might be a new low for Christian marriage books. Is there more to marriage that male sexual satisfaction?” Likewise, Moore’s commenters are more split. The majority agrees with his determination that the Driscolls’s book is sexist, but some defend the work, claiming that it is “real and honest.”  Moore engages with his commenters and confesses that he has a personal distaste for Driscoll.

            I believe that this online discourse over Real Marriage reveals just how significantly the Internet has changed the way that evangelicals interact with authority and in many ways, this newfound liberty is a reflection of the evangelical ideal type. Evangelicalism is founded on a personal, experiential piety, where the individual is the ultimate arbiter of orthopraxy and orthodoxy. Despite this, limited resources for communication have vested authority, even within the evangelical subculture, in the institution. Evangelicals were largely bound to the teachings of their local pastor, and theological debates took place between experts, at conferences and in books and articles. The Internet erodes that institutional authority, and, in the case of Mark Driscoll, it simultaneously grants and erodes charismatic authority. Driscoll is able to reach many more sympathetic ears than he normally would, but he is also subject to the scorn of critics, who would otherwise have no means of hearing the weekly sermons of a pastor in the Pacific Northwest.

            It is this universal ability to render judgment that makes the Internet uniquely suited to American evangelicalism. Any individual evangelical can have a blog, or comment on a blog, and any individual evangelical’s opinion is just as valid as any other’s. It is the public expression of Paul’s exhortation that one “work out their salvation with fear and trembling.”[12] Using the Internet to attack institutional power structures is both a public and a personal act. It allows evangelicals to be Smith’s “engaged orthodoxy” while simultaneously being utterly autonomous. By giving any evangelical the ability to fully express his or her dualistic nature, the Internet distills the movement down into its purest form -- a movement of the engaged individual.

---

[1] Driscoll, Mark, and Grace Driscoll, Real Marriage: The Truth about Sex, Friendship & Life Together (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012).

[2] Gallagher, Sally K., and Christian Smith. "Symbolic Traditionalism and Pragmatic Egalitarianism: Contemporary Evangelicals, Families, and Gender." Gender and Society 13.2 (1999): 212-13.

[3] Stacey, Judith, and Susan E. Gerard, ""We Are Not Doormats": The Influence of Feminism on Contemporary Evangelicals in the United States." Uncertain Terms: Negotiating Gender in American Culture Ed. Faye D. Ginsburg and Anna Lowenhaupt. Tsing. (Boston: Beacon, 1990).

[4] The passage in question is Ephesians 5:22 in which the author (Paul’s authorship of Ephesians is disputed amongst scholars) writes, “Wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord.” NRSV

[5] Grudem, Wayne. "Personal Reflections on the History of CBMW and the State of the Gender Debate." The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. <http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-14-No-1/Personal-Reflections-on-the-History-of-CBMW-and-the-State-of-the-Gender-Debate>.

[6] "The Danvers Statement." The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. <http://www.CBMW.org/Danvers>.

[7] iTunes. Computer software. Vers. 10.53. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.

[8] Real Marriage 66.

[9] Evans, Rachel H. "Driscoll, “Real Marriage,” and Why Being a Pastor Doesn’t Automatically Make You a Sex Therapist." Rachel Held Evans.com. <http://rachelheldevans.com/mark-driscoll-real-marriage>.

[10] Burk, Denny. "My Review of Mark Driscoll's "Real Marriage"" Denny Burk.com. <http://www.dennyburk.com/my-review-of-mark-driscolls-real-marriage/>.

[11] Moore, David. "(It Seems) Mark Driscoll Thinks Wives Are Only Good for Sex.” The Burner Blog. <http://theburnerblog.com/arts/books/mark-driscoll-thinks-wives-are-only-good-for-sex/>.

[12] Phil 2:12. NRSV

Evangelicals Part 6 (Evangelicals and Politics)

This essay discusses the role of Evangelicalism in the public space, specifically as a it pertains to religious programs within secular federal prisons.

As the name of the movement would suggest, a key component of the Evangelical worldview is the necessity of evangelism. Evangelism often takes the form of missions – programs designed to specifically target a certain group. While most missions provide some sort of material or social benefit to their targets, the key goal of most missionary activity is the conversion of non-Christians. Due to its unique history of incarcerating criminals, the United States is replete with a very specific type of missionary activity – prison ministries.  (Sullivan 2). While prison ministries can be beneficial to both prisoners and cash strapped state correction facilities, they are also criticized for potentially violating the disestablishment clause in the US Constitution. Prison ministries are an example of Evangelical missions because, though they provide many ancillary benefits to prisoners, their primary purpose is win converts to Christianity. They are controversial because this conflation of religious practice and secular rehabilitation can be seen to violate the separation of church and state, as well as to unfairly deny treatment to prisoners.

            Sullivan’s Prison Religion: Faith Based Reform and the Constitution focuses specifically on Iowa’s Newton Correctional Facility and the prison ministry InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI). After winning a bid to provide pre and post release care for inmates in the Newton Correctional Facility, IFI began to operate its ministry out of a specific unit within the prison, Unit E. IFI provided prisoners with a “values-based” rehabilitation program. The program provided education, more prisoner access to families, a more comfortable prison environment, and the potential for a sympathetic voice at parole hearings. IFI also provided more explicitly Christian services, like Bible studies and revivals.

 In fact, despite the potential for good present in the non-religious aspects of IFI, the main focus of the group is on proselytization. Charles Colson, in a solicitation for funds for IFI, writes, “It is almost unimaginable – with all the resistance to Christian truth – that we should be running a prison that is, by the grace of God, turning hardened criminals into disciples of Christ.” In a brochure for the program, IFI describes itself as “a 24-hour-a-day Christ-centered, biblically based program that promotes personal transformation of prisoners through the power of the gospel… a joint effort between Prison Fellowship and the state… confronting prisoners with the choice of embracing new life in Christ and personal transformation or remaining in the grip of crime and despair.”

This literature is reminiscent of the rhetoric of many conservative Evangelicals. It is not the program that has the power to change the hardened criminal; rather, it is the transformative power of a relationship with Jesus Christ. As it has often been for the Evangelical mind, programs that attempt to put a stop to sin are doomed to fail, and it is only through the individual religious encounter that true transformation can be actualized.

It is easy to see how a secular thinker might be rankled by IFI, particularly when it is described as “a joint effort between Prison Fellowship and the state.” It’s decidedly muddy water. On one hand, it’s a very clear religious presence within a state institution, and on the other, it’s providing a valuable service that the state does not have the resources to provide for itself. IFI is upfront about its Evangelical leanings. It is also one of many private programs that operate within the state institution. This protection afforded by being “one of many” disappears if a group starts to become discriminatory, which IFI appears to have been. Bryan Chandler, a prisoner who underwent IFI’s orientation, decided not to join the program because it conflicted with his Catholic beliefs. He was transferred out of Unit E, and into the general population. In this way, IFI prevented prisoners who did not buy into their belief system from receiving the benefits of the program. This is, of course, their prerogative, but raises the question of whether or not a religious program should be able to dictate who receives treatment in a secular prison.

In essence, this is a microcosm of a larger debate about the role of religion in public life, and whether the religious and the secular can truly exist as discrete groups. Sullivan argues that they cannot, and I am inclined to agree. Various social, rhetorical, and institutional fixtures prevent any intelligible conversation about the two spheres from happening, much less any action.

Sullivan devotes a large portion of the introduction of her work to this very issue. How can real dialogue about the value of prison ministries and similar programs occur when Christians and secularists have very different ideas about what disestablishment means? For the Evangelical, disestablishment means that the government must not meddle in religious matters, but the religious are free to engage in public matters; whereas, for the secularist, disestablishment means that neither sphere should intersect. Obviously, both of these positions are unrealistic. Sullivan’s solution is to abandon the word “religion” in a legal context (also unrealistic).

Unlike Sullivan, I see no real way of resolving the religious/secular dichotomy in any appreciable way, particularly not with rhetorical cop-outs. At the risk of acquiescing to the Modern, it may be more useful to look at the results of various programs, rather than attempt to puzzle out their inner ideological workings.

Evangelicals Part 5 (Evangelical Entertainment)

In part 5 of our series, I tackle the distinction between Evangelical and secular entertainment. In this essay, I discuss the Power Team and Silver Dollar City (an attraction in Branson, MO). The reference material is Aaron K. Ketchell's "Holy Hills of the Ozarks: Religion and Tourism in Branson, Missouri" and Sharon Mazer's "The Power Team: Muscular Christianity and the Spectacle of Conversion." I got 4.9/5 on this essay, so Professor Seales thought it was pretty good. Personally, I found this to be my least adventurous essay so far.

In many ways, the distinction between Evangelical entertainment and secular entertainment appears arbitrary. Silver Dollar City and Six Flags both feature rides, games, and shows targeted toward families. Why then, is Silver Dollar City considered to be a place of Christian entertainment, while Six Flags is denounced (or at least not praised) for being secular? Why are the feats of the Power Team more valid as a form of Evangelical entertainment than what happens on the professional wrestling circuit? The easy answer to these questions is the fact that Silver Dollar City and the Power Team are marketed by Christians to other Christians, but what’s more telling is the way that this marketing is framed. Evangelicals are able to distinguish between religious and secular entertainment because religious entertainers deliberately market themselves as an alternative to the secular establishment and secular values.

The Power Team is fairly transparent about its role as religious foil to secular entertainment. The Power Team television program was broadcast on Saturday mornings to directly compete with secular children’s programming. The image of the power team is very reminiscent of secular programs featuring strongmen, particularly professional wresters and American Gladiators. In, The Power Team: Muscular Christianity and the Spectacle of Conversion, Sharon Mazer quotes team member John Jacobs as saying, “What attracts people to our shows is the same thing that attracts thousands of people to Wrestlemania… It’s a good way to get their attention.” (Mazer 7). Once an audience is attracted, the Power Team establishes their religious bonafides by explicitly putting themselves in contrast to secular entertainers. Mazer quotes team leader John Jacobs as saying, “And I tell you, Mr. Prince, there isn’t going to be any Purple Rain. There’s going to be a reign of power from Heaven.” Unlike their secular counterparts, the Power Team uses spectacle as a spiritual metaphor. A man breaking a pair of handcuffs takes on more significance when it is seen as a man symbolically breaking the chains of sin. All of the Power Team’s feats are positioned as expressions of the working of the Holy Spirit. By ascribing spiritual meaning to their actions, and distinguishing themselves from secular entertainers, the Power Team is able to establish a form of entertainment that is properly religious.

The marketing of Silver Dollar City is slightly less transparent. While Christians run the park at least partly for the purpose of proselytization, it is not as open about its spiritual mission as the Power Team. Instead, Silver Dollar City relies on the promotion of Evangelical values to foster a culture of religiosity. Silver Dollar City promotional literature draws upon a romanticized vision of the historical Ozarks and the family values that settlers of the era ostensibly adhered to. There are appeals to the transcendent power of nature, which carry the implicit understanding that this power comes from the creator. The annual old-fashioned Christmas is another appeal to an idealized vision of the past, one safe from the nefarious influences of secularization and the War on Christmas. In the words of Mary Herschend, “My job is to keep the modern from creeping in.” (Ketchell 70). The proprietors of Silver Dollar City insist that their park is a theme park, as opposed to an amusement park, because the term amusement park is associated with base places like Coney Island. This distinction between a sacred place, like Silver Dollar City, and a secular place, like Six Flags, is picked up on by the park patrons. In an online post, a Silver Dollar City patron recounts a story about how she recovered a lost wallet from the park and concluded it by saying, “I would like to add that there was nothing missing, not even a dollar, do you think that would happen anywhere else?... I went to Six Flags St. Louis recently and was really grossed out by the conditions of the park.” (Ketchell 85). She goes on to lament the presence of half-naked and half-drunk women cavorting around the Six Flags. While it’s never made explicit, the binary worldview espoused by Silver Dollar City is clear, there are good, clean places, like Silver Dollar City, and base, dirty places like Six Flags – and the reason the two are different is because one has religion and the other doesn’t.

The Power Team and Silver Dollar City both show how Evangelicals distinguish between religious entertainment and secular entertainment. For something to be religious entertainment it need not be overtly religious, instead, it must merely set itself apart from the secular.

Evangelicals Part 4 (Evangelicals and Race)

Here is part four of our series on Evangelicals, which focuses on the relationship between White and Black churches, and why Sunday morning is the most segregated time of the week. I attempt to explain that this is because of a) a historical White hegemony and White ownership of the Evangelical movement and b) a theological system that does not encourage integration, as it is a social issue and therefore not important. Essentially, the church is segregated because Whites do not see race relations are an ecumenical issue. Quotes are taken from "Divided By Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America" by Michael Emerson (not Ben Linus, sadly) and Christian Smith.

The division between Blacks and Whites in American Evangelicalism is perplexing. Why would the two groups, who both follow the same religious tenets (many of which are grounded in a radical egalitarianism), seem to willfully segregate themselves on Sunday morning? After decades of concern for Black souls in the 19^th century, why did White Evangelicals suddenly abandon their former brethren? Historical segregation in the United States obviously played a role, but I do not believe that reason that Blacks and Whites are segregated within the Evangelical church is the result of any malicious work by either group. Instead, I feel that White indifference to the Black community is to blame for the current racial make-up of American churches. Segregation in the Evangelical churched emerged from a unique blend of White ignorance of hegemony and a theological system that emphasizes personal salvation over social reform.

Evangelicalism originated as a White movement, at a time when an all-White hegemony was considered normative, and the Evangelical movement has maintained a White power structure since that inception. This absence of minority voices within either the historical or present day Evangelical church frames Evangelicalism as a White movement. Once this frame is established, there is no impetus for White churches to attempt to integrate, because it is not seen as wrong for churches to be homogenous. This is what I speak of when I refer to White indifference. This frame not only affects White churches, but Black churches as well.

In addition to the historical mindset limiting Evangelical integration, Evangelical theology also provides no imperative for churches to attempt to integrate. Evangelical theology emphasizes personal salvation to such a degree, that it is seen as the solution to all social problems. Once a person has found Jesus, the rest will take care of itself. Black churchgoers have all ostensibly experienced this. Why then, would it be necessary for White Evangelicals to pay any attention to them beyond what is paid to any other church? This plays into White hegemony as well – for, historically, White Evangelicals first dispensed the Christian message on the black community.

One finds evidence of White hegemony in the early proselytization of African slaves. Originally regarded as sub-human or not possessing of immortal souls, Black slaves came to be seen as a special case for evangelism, with slave-owners arranging for preachers to come minister to their slaves, and taking the slaves to church services. (Emerson and Smith).

The hegemonic structure is clear in this instance. The paternal White Christians are gifting the Africans with Christianity -- a gift that, cosmically, can never be repaid. It also establishes White dominion over Evangelicalism; Blacks can never take full ownership of the movement because it came from someone else. By essentially forcing Christianity on slaves, White Evangelicals were establishing a hegemonic and Anglo-normative view of American Christianity that would build into what we find today.

An important aspect of this paternalistic evangelism is that it placed Blacks in an odd place within the Evangelical theological consciousness. Blacks were brothers and sisters in Christ, but far from being equal. This led to a strange view of the moral obligations of White Evangelicals toward Blacks.

It was a moral imperative that slavery be stopped, it was a moral imperative that White Evangelicals provide aid to newly freed slaves during Reconstruction, and it was a moral imperative that preachers convert Black audiences, but it was not a moral imperative that Blacks and Whites co-exist equally.

In some ways, the central issue of American race relations – the inequality between Blacks and Whites – was ignored in favor of a benign benevolence that sought to meet the immediate physical and spiritual needs of the Black community. Once those needs were met, White Evangelicals didn’t really have a need to interact further with Blacks.

Whites were not in favor of integration; many of them wanted the Blacks shipped back to Africa. Without a perceived need to meet and most of the Blacks safely converted, Blacks no longer registered on the Evangelical consciousness.

Emerson and Smith allude to this laissez-faire approach to race relations by saying that the race problem was pushed to the “back-burner” for Whites. In contrast, they point out the work of Gunner Myrdal who wrote that Blacks found the race problem to be “all-important.”

It is this fundamental difference in perception that, I believe, prevents Black churches from being considered a true part of the Evangelical movement. Though both groups share many beliefs, this key difference makes them incompatible. The Civil Rights movement illustrates just how different the two groups became after a period of separation.

Unlike earlier social movements that had been grounded in race, the civil rights movement did not emerge from White paternalism. Instead, it was an organic, grassroots, Black movement, which was largely championed by Black Christian activists. It stressed a communal approach to solving a social injustice. And it did all of this as a discrete entity, largely without the aid of White Evangelicals.

The disconnect between Black Christianity and White Evangelicalism is striking. The fact that one side saw civil rights as the moral issue, while the other did not identify it as a moral issue at all shows just how completely White Evangelicalism had separated itself from the Black Church. Emerson and Smith even highlight an instance when Christianity Today refused to report on civil rights marches “for fear of giving the impression that civil rights should be a part of the Christian agenda.”

Fifty years after the start of the civil rights movement, Evangelical churches remain largely segregated. And the ones that aren’t still cater to White privilege. Edwards points out that interracial churches largely cater to White attitudes and White expectations of what a Church service should be. I believe this to be the result of White America’s unconscious belief that they are the true inheritors of Evangelical Christianity.

Historical and recent evidence shows that there is a clear blind spot in the White Evangelicalism in regards to race relations. I have attempted to show that this is because of a long-standing normative idea about what Evangelical church should be, and a theological framework that does not challenge that idea. I believe that Evangelicalism developing from an exclusively White background has caused Whites to take a subconscious ownership of the movement, an ownership that excludes Black engagement in positions of influence and leadership. It may also help to explain why a subculture that spends a decent amount of time discussing the roles of women and LGBT within the church is largely silent on the issue of race.