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.