Scan barcode
christinajcraig's review
4.0
Emerson and Smith present the argument that evangelical American Christianity is perpetuating racism within their communities. I found their argument compelling, and personal. I recommend this book to anyone and all peoples, especially those involved in faith communities in the US and especially those who find themselves embracing, rejecting, or questioning the evangelical label.
adamrshields's review
4.0
Short Review: A sociological look at why the Evangelical church is racially divided. I would probably rate this as a five star book if it weren't so dated. At this point it is nearly 20 years old and the data it cites is even older.
Even dated, it is still helpful and I understand why it is so commonly recommended. Two parts I think are particularly dated. One, the chapter on history I think is too simple and too easy for White christians to assume they would be 'on the right side of history'. The reality is that as Noll and many others have suggested, most of us would not have been on the right side of history with regard to racial segregation or slavery.
The second very dated part of the book is the exploration of the racial reconciliation efforts in the Evangelical church in the mid to late 1990s. Most of those efforts quietly faded, if not crashed and burned. Even from close look of 2000, Emerson and Smith suggest that a significant part of the decline of Promise Keepers should be attributed to their very public focus on racial reconciliation. And I wonder about that now as some new movements of evangelicals are starting to take a more public stand around racial issues and running up against similar problems of apathy and ignorance.
What I think helps to make this a good introduction to racial issues is the academic detachment. Emerson and Smith focus on 'racialized practices' and not 'racism'. Many whites want to separate themselves from racism because they view racism as an individualized activity and not a corporate reality. I think it is likely that churches are slightly more racially integrated today than the data suggests from 2000, but that starting point was so low that it would be difficult to become more racially isolated.
One of the insights that I hadn't really thought about was that Evangelicals are particularly racially isolated because of their commitment to the church. Evangelicals go to church more, have more friend and family groups rooted in the church and have less community involvement or volunteering outside of the church that non-Evangelicals. That does not require active racism to be racially isolated. But it will require active change to overcome.
My full review (nearly 1500 words) is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/divided-by-faith/
Even dated, it is still helpful and I understand why it is so commonly recommended. Two parts I think are particularly dated. One, the chapter on history I think is too simple and too easy for White christians to assume they would be 'on the right side of history'. The reality is that as Noll and many others have suggested, most of us would not have been on the right side of history with regard to racial segregation or slavery.
The second very dated part of the book is the exploration of the racial reconciliation efforts in the Evangelical church in the mid to late 1990s. Most of those efforts quietly faded, if not crashed and burned. Even from close look of 2000, Emerson and Smith suggest that a significant part of the decline of Promise Keepers should be attributed to their very public focus on racial reconciliation. And I wonder about that now as some new movements of evangelicals are starting to take a more public stand around racial issues and running up against similar problems of apathy and ignorance.
What I think helps to make this a good introduction to racial issues is the academic detachment. Emerson and Smith focus on 'racialized practices' and not 'racism'. Many whites want to separate themselves from racism because they view racism as an individualized activity and not a corporate reality. I think it is likely that churches are slightly more racially integrated today than the data suggests from 2000, but that starting point was so low that it would be difficult to become more racially isolated.
One of the insights that I hadn't really thought about was that Evangelicals are particularly racially isolated because of their commitment to the church. Evangelicals go to church more, have more friend and family groups rooted in the church and have less community involvement or volunteering outside of the church that non-Evangelicals. That does not require active racism to be racially isolated. But it will require active change to overcome.
My full review (nearly 1500 words) is on my blog at http://bookwi.se/divided-by-faith/
cdeck's review against another edition
4.0
Generally good book, great perspective sharing. The last third feels a bit stilted in the writing itself, but very very great first half of the book. Not a lot of solutions, but the problem of racialization throughout society is very clearly and simply laid out.
librarytech4's review against another edition
3.0
I started reading this book because it was mentioned by Voddie Baucham in his book Fault Lines. I like how much this book focuses on race divisions within the church. I haven't found many other books like that. Post go into the political fear and just mention the church. I wouldn't agree with everything Emerson says, but there were a lot of good points in this book that have made me rethink about some things.
shelfreflectionofficial's review
3.0
I’ve been trying to challenge myself and really consider what I think about racial inequality. I’ve realized that I largely avoid it. I’ve been coming to terms with the fact that it’s more prevalent than I realize, which as this book points out, stems from my own and my friends’ lack of personal experience. I wanted to read this book because I wanted to better understand how I fit into all of it as a white evangelical Christian. Unfortunately, this author did more condemning than helping—calling the very mission of the church naïve and pointing out all the ways the church failed and will always fail, even if they mean well—without offering any solutions of his own. Emerson’s bias against Christians is fairly evident and took away from the punch of some of his better points. It would seem he has set out on a mission of blame.
It makes it hard to take what an author says seriously when he chooses to conclude his book with this quote “The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an oversimplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and series reflection,” commenting that what Christians need to do is to “consider engaging in more serious reflection on race-relations issues, in dialogue with educated others…”
I am not defending every action and idea that comes from Christians and the church. He begins the book by exposing a lot of the real failings of the church in the past—we can’t deny Christians’ complicity in the slave trade and support of the past thought that black people were inferior to whites. Christianity, like every other religion, including atheism, has stains in their past, violence and ideals to be ashamed of. And we must do better.
Emerson’s main critique of the church is unfounded at its core. He condemns the church for failing to accomplish a goal they’ve never claimed as their priority. To Emerson, the very top priority of a church is/should be racial reconciliation. However, Jesus clearly lays out the core mission of the church in the Great Commission passages. The mission of the church is to proclaim the Word of God and introduce people to Jesus and the saving power of the gospel. Just because racial reconciliation isn’t the top priority does not mean that it’s not a priority at all! Racial equality and social justice are both found in Scripture. Kevin DeYoung says in his book, The Mission of the Church, “Ultimately, if the church does not preach Christ and him crucified, if the church does not plant, nurture, and establish more churches, if the church does not teach the nations to obey Christ, no one else and nothing else will. And yet, many others will meet physical needs.”
Much of the book is contrasting evangelicals’ focus of the individual vs structural change. Emerson is convinced that changing individuals will effectively do nothing for racism. Christians’ effort to change the world by leading individuals to Christ, to him is essentially saying our solution is to just ‘make friends’ with people from other races. That severely minimalizes the supernatural power of God and the Holy Spirit and does not take into account the worldview of Christianity as a whole. Of course, we still care about helping people on earth, but to strive for earthly restoration above and before spiritual restoration is not what the Bible teaches us to do or what Jesus exemplified.
Placing an emphasis on evangelism is not avoiding the problem. In John Piper’s book, Bloodlines, he says, “The impact of the gospel in race relations is unpredictable. It has potentials that no one can conceive. And, to our shame, there have been many contradictions between what the gospel is and what professing Christians have done… But the answer to those inconsistencies is not to domesticate the gospel into another ideological mule to help pull the wagon of social progress.” We cannot underestimate the power of the gospel. And yet, we are still called to “act justly and love mercy” and striving to help those oppressed by a broken system certainly qualifies.
It's telling that he would include this quote from Tony Warner, Georgia area director for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, “White evangelicals are more willing to pursue a white conservative political agenda than to be reconciled with their African-American brothers and sisters. It raises a fundamental question of their belief and commitment to the biblical gospel.” Granted this may describe some people, but this is an unfair statement for Warner to make and Emerson to perpetuate. It’s creating an unreasonable choice between two undefined items that aren’t even on the same spectrum and flagrantly and boldly questioning their faith as if the response was indicative of such things.
Emerson can disagree with the theology of Christianity, but it seems as if he has written an entire book to declare Evangelicals as failures when he clearly doesn’t have the same standard or definition on what ‘failing’ entails.
Of course, I am not so naïve to think Christians are fantastically succeeding either. And that’s where we can still glean some valuable information from this book. The sections he talks about ‘ingroups’ and outgroups’ is a good reminder. Because humans can’t help but categorize people and subconsciously view people according to groups, we need to be aware when we make judgments on people. Is our thinking fair, or are we classifying the cause of their behaviors as internal or external based on their similarity to ourselves? Additionally, I felt his parable regarding the two people in different weight loss situations/environments to be convicting in how I view ‘equal opportunity.’ Though aware of “white privilege,” I tend to fall into the thinking that everyone can be successful if they just try hard enough. This parable helped me to realize the struggle for others in a new way. One huge takeaway for Christians for this book would be to not assume we know what’s going on, but to expose ourselves to a reality that we have never experienced. Listen more and talk less.
Unfortunately, this book frankly did nothing to suggest any solutions or validate the good that Evangelicals do offer. One of the last paragraphs of this book, meant to summarize the thesis, actually doesn’t say anything. They made it sound academic, but I don’t think saying “a solution ought to adequately account for the complex factors that perpetuate the problem… and work against them… requiring attention to multiple factors… and replace structural barriers such as inequality with structural supports like equality” is helpful at all. It tells us nothing but-‘find the problem consider the information, and fix it.’ After an entire book, you’d think their conclusion would be a little more specific.
I would only recommend this book if you are not going to ONLY read this book. Read this, if you will also read:
- Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, by John Piper (reviewed here )
- What is the Mission of the Church?, by Kevin Deyoung (reviewed here )
- Talking to Strangers, by Malcolm Gladwell (reviewed here )
All of these books offer a piece of the complex and ever-changing puzzle of racism in America.
Side note: This book is a sociological book. Written in 2000, it may no longer be the most relevant in terms of statistics and data, especially considering the terms of their research. Their small sample size of 2500 people and their methodology in getting responses must be considered in evaluating their data, as well as how they defined “Christian” for their responders.
See more of my reviews at www.shelfreflection.com!
It makes it hard to take what an author says seriously when he chooses to conclude his book with this quote “The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an oversimplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and series reflection,” commenting that what Christians need to do is to “consider engaging in more serious reflection on race-relations issues, in dialogue with educated others…”
I am not defending every action and idea that comes from Christians and the church. He begins the book by exposing a lot of the real failings of the church in the past—we can’t deny Christians’ complicity in the slave trade and support of the past thought that black people were inferior to whites. Christianity, like every other religion, including atheism, has stains in their past, violence and ideals to be ashamed of. And we must do better.
Emerson’s main critique of the church is unfounded at its core. He condemns the church for failing to accomplish a goal they’ve never claimed as their priority. To Emerson, the very top priority of a church is/should be racial reconciliation. However, Jesus clearly lays out the core mission of the church in the Great Commission passages. The mission of the church is to proclaim the Word of God and introduce people to Jesus and the saving power of the gospel. Just because racial reconciliation isn’t the top priority does not mean that it’s not a priority at all! Racial equality and social justice are both found in Scripture. Kevin DeYoung says in his book, The Mission of the Church, “Ultimately, if the church does not preach Christ and him crucified, if the church does not plant, nurture, and establish more churches, if the church does not teach the nations to obey Christ, no one else and nothing else will. And yet, many others will meet physical needs.”
Much of the book is contrasting evangelicals’ focus of the individual vs structural change. Emerson is convinced that changing individuals will effectively do nothing for racism. Christians’ effort to change the world by leading individuals to Christ, to him is essentially saying our solution is to just ‘make friends’ with people from other races. That severely minimalizes the supernatural power of God and the Holy Spirit and does not take into account the worldview of Christianity as a whole. Of course, we still care about helping people on earth, but to strive for earthly restoration above and before spiritual restoration is not what the Bible teaches us to do or what Jesus exemplified.
Placing an emphasis on evangelism is not avoiding the problem. In John Piper’s book, Bloodlines, he says, “The impact of the gospel in race relations is unpredictable. It has potentials that no one can conceive. And, to our shame, there have been many contradictions between what the gospel is and what professing Christians have done… But the answer to those inconsistencies is not to domesticate the gospel into another ideological mule to help pull the wagon of social progress.” We cannot underestimate the power of the gospel. And yet, we are still called to “act justly and love mercy” and striving to help those oppressed by a broken system certainly qualifies.
It's telling that he would include this quote from Tony Warner, Georgia area director for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, “White evangelicals are more willing to pursue a white conservative political agenda than to be reconciled with their African-American brothers and sisters. It raises a fundamental question of their belief and commitment to the biblical gospel.” Granted this may describe some people, but this is an unfair statement for Warner to make and Emerson to perpetuate. It’s creating an unreasonable choice between two undefined items that aren’t even on the same spectrum and flagrantly and boldly questioning their faith as if the response was indicative of such things.
Emerson can disagree with the theology of Christianity, but it seems as if he has written an entire book to declare Evangelicals as failures when he clearly doesn’t have the same standard or definition on what ‘failing’ entails.
Of course, I am not so naïve to think Christians are fantastically succeeding either. And that’s where we can still glean some valuable information from this book. The sections he talks about ‘ingroups’ and outgroups’ is a good reminder. Because humans can’t help but categorize people and subconsciously view people according to groups, we need to be aware when we make judgments on people. Is our thinking fair, or are we classifying the cause of their behaviors as internal or external based on their similarity to ourselves? Additionally, I felt his parable regarding the two people in different weight loss situations/environments to be convicting in how I view ‘equal opportunity.’ Though aware of “white privilege,” I tend to fall into the thinking that everyone can be successful if they just try hard enough. This parable helped me to realize the struggle for others in a new way. One huge takeaway for Christians for this book would be to not assume we know what’s going on, but to expose ourselves to a reality that we have never experienced. Listen more and talk less.
Unfortunately, this book frankly did nothing to suggest any solutions or validate the good that Evangelicals do offer. One of the last paragraphs of this book, meant to summarize the thesis, actually doesn’t say anything. They made it sound academic, but I don’t think saying “a solution ought to adequately account for the complex factors that perpetuate the problem… and work against them… requiring attention to multiple factors… and replace structural barriers such as inequality with structural supports like equality” is helpful at all. It tells us nothing but-‘find the problem consider the information, and fix it.’ After an entire book, you’d think their conclusion would be a little more specific.
I would only recommend this book if you are not going to ONLY read this book. Read this, if you will also read:
- Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, by John Piper (reviewed here )
- What is the Mission of the Church?, by Kevin Deyoung (reviewed here )
- Talking to Strangers, by Malcolm Gladwell (reviewed here )
All of these books offer a piece of the complex and ever-changing puzzle of racism in America.
Side note: This book is a sociological book. Written in 2000, it may no longer be the most relevant in terms of statistics and data, especially considering the terms of their research. Their small sample size of 2500 people and their methodology in getting responses must be considered in evaluating their data, as well as how they defined “Christian” for their responders.
See more of my reviews at www.shelfreflection.com!
jonathancrites's review
4.0
I read this in conjunction with Tisby's the Color of Compromise - I think the idea of the 'Evangelical Toolkit' when discussing race is one of the most helpful ideas I've encountered in long time. Recommended.
sonofwilliam_reads's review
5.0
First reading (07/05/17)—
A must read. Insightful and convicting.
Second reading (13/03/19)—
The recently documented slow and steady exodus of African Americans from Protestant evangelical churches in America raises a pointed question not many are willing to engage: why is the majority of the black population in America uncomfortable in majority white churches? Better still, why is there even a racial divide within American churches? The Apostle Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2:11–22 paints a radical picture of the most divided people coming together as one new humanity in Christ. Contra Paul’s teaching, the evangelical landscape resembles a reality less than satisfying, falling far short from the supposed unity we have in Christ. Written almost twenty years ago, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America is Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith’s attempt to unearth evangelicalism and its relationship to race relations in America.
Michael O. Emerson is author of Religion Matters: What Sociology Teaches Us About Religion in Our World and serves as provost of North Park University in Chicago. In this title, Emerson is joined by leading American theorist of the philosophy of critical realism and the social theory of personalism, Christian Smith. Currently serving as the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame, Smith is the also author of American Evangelicalism and Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want.
In this present work Emerson and Smith examine the role of white evangelicalism in black-white relations (ix). Divided by Faith combines history with the authors’ own socio-theological research in which over two thousand interviews were conducted with contemporary evangelicals and other Americans in the late 1990’s. Emerson and Smith’s thesis is this: in spite of evangelicals attempting to end racial division and inequality their cultural and epistemological tools as well as the very structure of Protestant religion is more likely to perpetuate the racial division. The reader in challenged by the authors’ attempts to go beyond the “old idea that racial problems result from ignorant, prejudiced, mean people.” Instead, effects of culture, values, norms, and the very structure of evangelical religion in America are explored and shown to “paradoxically have negative effects on race relations.” (ix) Divided by Faith speaks directly to the recent exodus of African Americans from white churches, the latter serving as a fulfilment of the concerns espoused by Emerson and Smith some twenty years ago.
Summary & Critical Evaluation—
The introduction of Divided by Faith delineates key terms in their study, particularly the identity of evangelicals, which the authors apply broadly: holding to the authority of Scripture, believe Christ died for the salvation of all, and teaching the necessity of “being born again,” with evangelism being a central tenet. (3) I think that a broad application of ‘evangelical’ aided their research as it brought more variety into their field of questioning.
Chapter one sees Emerson and Smith further defining the scope of their study. More specifically, they get to the heart of the book’s fundamental concern: a “racialized society” (7). This is no doubt the most essential concept in the book’s intended aims. Without understanding this concept, not much of what follows will make sense. A racialized society is one wherein “race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities, and social relationships.” (7) But this concept has particular specificity in mind: economic, political, social, and even psychological discrepancies that are evidenced along racial lines. Another important aspect of the racialized society is that it is a dynamic phenomenon, adapting and existing in a state of fluidity. Racism, then, is not merely individual, overt prejudice, but the “collective misuse of power that results in diminished life opportunities for some racial groups.” (9) Racism, then, is perpetually changing, continually in motion, whilst simultaneously, and paradoxically so, remaining immutable in its application and justification of the racialized societal system. (9) To prove the reality of the racialized society, the authors engage and utilize several areas of disparity between white and black Americans: from marriage (11), to economic inequality (12–14), to health, life and even death (14). The statistics appear to be used fairly and represent clear lines of disparity. The more than 2, 500 phone calls and almost 200 face-to-face interviews over twenty-three states (18–19), more clearly reveal the theology and sociological underpinning that produce such statistics.
In chapter two the authors further support their thesis with a brief but concise examination of evangelical thought and practice from the beginning of the 18th century up until 1964. This chapter primarily seeks to understand how evangelicals have thought of race in the past and “what sorts of actions they have taken to address racial issues.” (19) Evangelicalism has historically been driven by evangelism and discipleship, whilst challenging institutions and social structures has not been a major concern (21). From Cotton Mather (23), to Billy Graham (46), racialization has remained intact, though, no doubt, it “changed in form” (48). In fact, from Mather to Graham, the white-black race divide has ironically regressed from separate pews to separate churches. The historical survey is compelling and reveals a sad state of affairs in which changing wider and larger structures has been something white Protestants have offered resistance to, perhaps in favor for the economic and political power it presented.
The author’s additionally looked at the Promise Keeper organization, which aimed at bringing about reconciliation between blacks and whites. They were, however, one of many organizations that represented the contemporary involvement after the Civil-Rights movement. The authors look at this involvement, surveying publications such as Christianity Today and the experiences of Curtiss DeYoung to demonstrate that even contemporary models and initiatives have been unable to repair the past.
Why is this case? How can significant moves toward racial reconciliation on the part of white evangelicals further exasperate the problem? Chapter four attempts to unearth the substratum that lies, for the most part, hidden in the minds of white evangelicals. Here, the authors begin to showcase some of the data from their interviews. The question is there a race problem in America? consistently reveals a stark divide between white and black conceptions of race relations in America. (68) To try to understand why this is, Emerson and Smith discuss the “religio-cultural toolkit” that white evangelicals use to make sense of reality (76). Included in this toolkit are three elements: “accountable freewill individualism,” “relationalism,” and “antistructuralism.” (76) Added to these elements is the relative isolation from racial pluralism that is typical of white evangelicals (80–82). The net result is that white evangelicals miss the “racialized patterns that transcend and encompass individuals,” (90) rendering a “color-blind” society (91).
As discussed briefly in chapter one, Emerson and Smith return to the issue of economic inequality in chapter five. Here, findings from national surveys reveal the explanations given for racial inequality among white and black evangelicals. The staggering consequence is the apparent divide between black and white evangelicals, with conservative religion actually intensifying and increasing the division. (97) The concept of “equal opportunity,” as an American phenomenon (98), and intergroup isolation (106), severely handicap white evangelicals from making sense of the black experience.
Chapter six sees Emerson and Smith exploring solutions to the problem of race in America. On a spectrum ranging from interracial relationships to racially integrated residential neighborhoods, the authors show how their interactions with evangelicals yet again display a variance on just how race-relations ought to be improved. Typically white evangelicals favor solutions involving personal relationships with a view to changing individuals, whilst simultaneously avoiding any change that would effect “institutions, laws or programs” (119), such as integrating neighborhoods.
Is there more to this racialized society than the religio-cultural tools applied by the respective groups? In chapter seven Emerson and Smith are so bold as to claim that the very fabric of American religion, specifically evangelical Protestant Christianity, is structured in such a way so as to harden and secure the divide between white and black evangelicals. Religious pluralism “powerfully drives religious groups toward internal similarity,” (136) fueling the “homogenous unit principle” (150). The need for boundaries, social solidarity (142), as well as the rampant religious marketplace (137), renders evangelicalism as resembling internally similar congregations.
Chapter eight continues the examination of the organization of religion in America, specifically two structural arrangements, that of racially homogenous religious ingroups and the segmented religious market (154). The authors examine how these two sociological concepts work to “contribute to segregated social networks,” as well as “perpetuate socioeconomic inequality by race.” (168).
In concluding the study, Emerson and Smith summarize their efforts as well as offer an exhortation to the reader to consider the complexities of the subject at hand. Any change to America’s racialized society will at once require “multiple factors—from historical forces to subcultural tools to the very organization of American religion.” (172)
Does Divided by Faith adequately discern the complexities of black-white race relations in American evangelicalism? On reading Divided by Faith, one has to admit the gravity of the study presented: it is a masterful and careful exhibition of historical, religio-cultural, and sociological enquiry.
As reality would have it, such a work cannot remain in the realm of the abstract: does the study line up with reality? In many ways, I am of the opinion that the answer is an emphatic yes. The book’s thesis that “evangelicals desire to end racial division and inequality but more likely do more to perpetuate the radical divide” is sadly, yet wonderfully exhibited in the authors’ findings. What is simply remarkable is how the many responses recorded in their interviews reflect many conversations I myself have had in another country with its own racialized society. The fact that their findings appear to resemble a conceptually universal integrity is a strong argument for their validity.
In many ways, Divided by Faith has also served as metaphor for my own journey in the world of race-relations. The painful truth is that I myself have mirrored the as-to-be-expected responses of white evangelicals, stressing interpersonal relationships, failing to discern the structures and wider political and economic context that is largely determinative for the lives of people of color. I am a living testament of the reality that racial pluralism and interracial contact is also powerfully determinative for ones response to solutions to eradicating a racialized society.
Additionally, I am of the opinion that another strength of this book is its critique of evangelicalism and the unwarranted inflation of certain theological ideas and concepts. The trio of “accountable freewill individualism,” “relationalism,” and “antistructuralism,” (76) are realities inherent in orthodox Protestant theology. However, to stress these without the dimension of corporate aspects of our being called as the people of God is to truncate the Gospel message. Christ not only saved us as individuals, he also destroyed the larger works of Satan that held us captive. Along with the authors, I am in agreement that until white evangelicals are ready to discern a broader perspective and examine their own biases, some of which are sadly more cultural than biblical, racial reconciliation will be a slow, and dreary road ahead.
Of course, one notable weakness is the lack of solutions provided by the authors. Nevertheless, the authors never intended to go that far and it would be unfair to insist that they present such a conclusion. Theirs was a survey and analyses seeking to unearth the paradigms that shape the evangelical mind and render it as, ironically, incapable in effecting change in race-relations, which I believe they accomplished.
Conclusion—
The question left with the reader is this: will we pursue the radically, transformed life that Christ calls us to? Emerson and Smith have labored to bring to the surface many challenging and convincing religio-cultural and historical realities that readers have to wrestle with. Will the reader be content to rest with the status quo, or will the steady exodus of African-Americans from white evangelical churches be something that does not arrest us, does not set off alarm bells that something is wrong with the very structure of evangelicalism? Will evangelicals, those who stand on the ‘evangel,’ be ready to cling to Christ and his word, and cut off the cancerous cultural norms and values that undermine the very ‘evangel’ we stand on? Only then can the one new humanity be realized.
A must read. Insightful and convicting.
Second reading (13/03/19)—
The recently documented slow and steady exodus of African Americans from Protestant evangelical churches in America raises a pointed question not many are willing to engage: why is the majority of the black population in America uncomfortable in majority white churches? Better still, why is there even a racial divide within American churches? The Apostle Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2:11–22 paints a radical picture of the most divided people coming together as one new humanity in Christ. Contra Paul’s teaching, the evangelical landscape resembles a reality less than satisfying, falling far short from the supposed unity we have in Christ. Written almost twenty years ago, Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America is Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith’s attempt to unearth evangelicalism and its relationship to race relations in America.
Michael O. Emerson is author of Religion Matters: What Sociology Teaches Us About Religion in Our World and serves as provost of North Park University in Chicago. In this title, Emerson is joined by leading American theorist of the philosophy of critical realism and the social theory of personalism, Christian Smith. Currently serving as the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame, Smith is the also author of American Evangelicalism and Christian America? What Evangelicals Really Want.
In this present work Emerson and Smith examine the role of white evangelicalism in black-white relations (ix). Divided by Faith combines history with the authors’ own socio-theological research in which over two thousand interviews were conducted with contemporary evangelicals and other Americans in the late 1990’s. Emerson and Smith’s thesis is this: in spite of evangelicals attempting to end racial division and inequality their cultural and epistemological tools as well as the very structure of Protestant religion is more likely to perpetuate the racial division. The reader in challenged by the authors’ attempts to go beyond the “old idea that racial problems result from ignorant, prejudiced, mean people.” Instead, effects of culture, values, norms, and the very structure of evangelical religion in America are explored and shown to “paradoxically have negative effects on race relations.” (ix) Divided by Faith speaks directly to the recent exodus of African Americans from white churches, the latter serving as a fulfilment of the concerns espoused by Emerson and Smith some twenty years ago.
Summary & Critical Evaluation—
The introduction of Divided by Faith delineates key terms in their study, particularly the identity of evangelicals, which the authors apply broadly: holding to the authority of Scripture, believe Christ died for the salvation of all, and teaching the necessity of “being born again,” with evangelism being a central tenet. (3) I think that a broad application of ‘evangelical’ aided their research as it brought more variety into their field of questioning.
Chapter one sees Emerson and Smith further defining the scope of their study. More specifically, they get to the heart of the book’s fundamental concern: a “racialized society” (7). This is no doubt the most essential concept in the book’s intended aims. Without understanding this concept, not much of what follows will make sense. A racialized society is one wherein “race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities, and social relationships.” (7) But this concept has particular specificity in mind: economic, political, social, and even psychological discrepancies that are evidenced along racial lines. Another important aspect of the racialized society is that it is a dynamic phenomenon, adapting and existing in a state of fluidity. Racism, then, is not merely individual, overt prejudice, but the “collective misuse of power that results in diminished life opportunities for some racial groups.” (9) Racism, then, is perpetually changing, continually in motion, whilst simultaneously, and paradoxically so, remaining immutable in its application and justification of the racialized societal system. (9) To prove the reality of the racialized society, the authors engage and utilize several areas of disparity between white and black Americans: from marriage (11), to economic inequality (12–14), to health, life and even death (14). The statistics appear to be used fairly and represent clear lines of disparity. The more than 2, 500 phone calls and almost 200 face-to-face interviews over twenty-three states (18–19), more clearly reveal the theology and sociological underpinning that produce such statistics.
In chapter two the authors further support their thesis with a brief but concise examination of evangelical thought and practice from the beginning of the 18th century up until 1964. This chapter primarily seeks to understand how evangelicals have thought of race in the past and “what sorts of actions they have taken to address racial issues.” (19) Evangelicalism has historically been driven by evangelism and discipleship, whilst challenging institutions and social structures has not been a major concern (21). From Cotton Mather (23), to Billy Graham (46), racialization has remained intact, though, no doubt, it “changed in form” (48). In fact, from Mather to Graham, the white-black race divide has ironically regressed from separate pews to separate churches. The historical survey is compelling and reveals a sad state of affairs in which changing wider and larger structures has been something white Protestants have offered resistance to, perhaps in favor for the economic and political power it presented.
The author’s additionally looked at the Promise Keeper organization, which aimed at bringing about reconciliation between blacks and whites. They were, however, one of many organizations that represented the contemporary involvement after the Civil-Rights movement. The authors look at this involvement, surveying publications such as Christianity Today and the experiences of Curtiss DeYoung to demonstrate that even contemporary models and initiatives have been unable to repair the past.
Why is this case? How can significant moves toward racial reconciliation on the part of white evangelicals further exasperate the problem? Chapter four attempts to unearth the substratum that lies, for the most part, hidden in the minds of white evangelicals. Here, the authors begin to showcase some of the data from their interviews. The question is there a race problem in America? consistently reveals a stark divide between white and black conceptions of race relations in America. (68) To try to understand why this is, Emerson and Smith discuss the “religio-cultural toolkit” that white evangelicals use to make sense of reality (76). Included in this toolkit are three elements: “accountable freewill individualism,” “relationalism,” and “antistructuralism.” (76) Added to these elements is the relative isolation from racial pluralism that is typical of white evangelicals (80–82). The net result is that white evangelicals miss the “racialized patterns that transcend and encompass individuals,” (90) rendering a “color-blind” society (91).
As discussed briefly in chapter one, Emerson and Smith return to the issue of economic inequality in chapter five. Here, findings from national surveys reveal the explanations given for racial inequality among white and black evangelicals. The staggering consequence is the apparent divide between black and white evangelicals, with conservative religion actually intensifying and increasing the division. (97) The concept of “equal opportunity,” as an American phenomenon (98), and intergroup isolation (106), severely handicap white evangelicals from making sense of the black experience.
Chapter six sees Emerson and Smith exploring solutions to the problem of race in America. On a spectrum ranging from interracial relationships to racially integrated residential neighborhoods, the authors show how their interactions with evangelicals yet again display a variance on just how race-relations ought to be improved. Typically white evangelicals favor solutions involving personal relationships with a view to changing individuals, whilst simultaneously avoiding any change that would effect “institutions, laws or programs” (119), such as integrating neighborhoods.
Is there more to this racialized society than the religio-cultural tools applied by the respective groups? In chapter seven Emerson and Smith are so bold as to claim that the very fabric of American religion, specifically evangelical Protestant Christianity, is structured in such a way so as to harden and secure the divide between white and black evangelicals. Religious pluralism “powerfully drives religious groups toward internal similarity,” (136) fueling the “homogenous unit principle” (150). The need for boundaries, social solidarity (142), as well as the rampant religious marketplace (137), renders evangelicalism as resembling internally similar congregations.
Chapter eight continues the examination of the organization of religion in America, specifically two structural arrangements, that of racially homogenous religious ingroups and the segmented religious market (154). The authors examine how these two sociological concepts work to “contribute to segregated social networks,” as well as “perpetuate socioeconomic inequality by race.” (168).
In concluding the study, Emerson and Smith summarize their efforts as well as offer an exhortation to the reader to consider the complexities of the subject at hand. Any change to America’s racialized society will at once require “multiple factors—from historical forces to subcultural tools to the very organization of American religion.” (172)
Does Divided by Faith adequately discern the complexities of black-white race relations in American evangelicalism? On reading Divided by Faith, one has to admit the gravity of the study presented: it is a masterful and careful exhibition of historical, religio-cultural, and sociological enquiry.
As reality would have it, such a work cannot remain in the realm of the abstract: does the study line up with reality? In many ways, I am of the opinion that the answer is an emphatic yes. The book’s thesis that “evangelicals desire to end racial division and inequality but more likely do more to perpetuate the radical divide” is sadly, yet wonderfully exhibited in the authors’ findings. What is simply remarkable is how the many responses recorded in their interviews reflect many conversations I myself have had in another country with its own racialized society. The fact that their findings appear to resemble a conceptually universal integrity is a strong argument for their validity.
In many ways, Divided by Faith has also served as metaphor for my own journey in the world of race-relations. The painful truth is that I myself have mirrored the as-to-be-expected responses of white evangelicals, stressing interpersonal relationships, failing to discern the structures and wider political and economic context that is largely determinative for the lives of people of color. I am a living testament of the reality that racial pluralism and interracial contact is also powerfully determinative for ones response to solutions to eradicating a racialized society.
Additionally, I am of the opinion that another strength of this book is its critique of evangelicalism and the unwarranted inflation of certain theological ideas and concepts. The trio of “accountable freewill individualism,” “relationalism,” and “antistructuralism,” (76) are realities inherent in orthodox Protestant theology. However, to stress these without the dimension of corporate aspects of our being called as the people of God is to truncate the Gospel message. Christ not only saved us as individuals, he also destroyed the larger works of Satan that held us captive. Along with the authors, I am in agreement that until white evangelicals are ready to discern a broader perspective and examine their own biases, some of which are sadly more cultural than biblical, racial reconciliation will be a slow, and dreary road ahead.
Of course, one notable weakness is the lack of solutions provided by the authors. Nevertheless, the authors never intended to go that far and it would be unfair to insist that they present such a conclusion. Theirs was a survey and analyses seeking to unearth the paradigms that shape the evangelical mind and render it as, ironically, incapable in effecting change in race-relations, which I believe they accomplished.
Conclusion—
The question left with the reader is this: will we pursue the radically, transformed life that Christ calls us to? Emerson and Smith have labored to bring to the surface many challenging and convincing religio-cultural and historical realities that readers have to wrestle with. Will the reader be content to rest with the status quo, or will the steady exodus of African-Americans from white evangelical churches be something that does not arrest us, does not set off alarm bells that something is wrong with the very structure of evangelicalism? Will evangelicals, those who stand on the ‘evangel,’ be ready to cling to Christ and his word, and cut off the cancerous cultural norms and values that undermine the very ‘evangel’ we stand on? Only then can the one new humanity be realized.