In 1955, a young black Air Force sergeant, being a member of the Church of Christ, decided to visit a branch (homogeneously white) of the denomination while stationed in San Antonio, Texas. Upon his first visit, he encountered no hostility, but on the third Sunday, he was instructed by a deacon to visit the “colored Church of Christ across town.” Instead of following this advice, the family attended the chapel on the air base. That young man was my father, and my attendance at military chapels, always filled with a variety of ethnic groups, continued through my marriage. However, in the “civilian” world, the situation in the church—in the 25 years since my father’s experience in Texas—had not changed much. Upon our move to North Carolina in 1980, my husband and I searched in vain for an inter-racial congregation. A chapel connected to a Bible college had international students of color, but we were the only African-Americans. The two books (listed above) address this issue of separation which still plagues the church in the 21st century: the first offers an explanation; the second provides a specific solution.

Evangelical faith seems to be the panacea for eradicating racism. Indeed, the principles laid out by Emerson and Smith in Divided by Faith seem to support this view: the Bible is the “ultimate authority,” believers should “shar[e] their faith or ‘evangeliz[e],’” and their faith should “offer solutions to pressing social problems” (3). Early in the book, however, the researchers lay the groundwork for their argument which suggests an opposite result. Stating a dearth of research that links “evangelical” to racial problems, the authors propose to analyze this connection by their interviews with white evangelicals from a variety of denominations. They, along with two research assistants, have collected data from interviews, Christianity Today articles, surveys, and historical material. In addition, they draw on studies by Christian and secular scholars in psychology, sociology, religion, and economics.  What they argue is that the evangelical principles of whites actually promote racism rather than dispel it (my italics) because conservative Christians have never challenged the status quo, even as far back as the antebellum times.

Following up this idea, the authors introduce a term, “racialized society,” defined as “a society wherein race matters profoundly for differences in life experiences, life opportunities, and social relationship” (author’s italics). Michael Emerson, the primary author of the book, believes that this term is more applicable than “prejudice” because “racial categories are social constructed,” and he asserts that race remains the “largest social cleavage” in the U.S. (7). The social construction results in treatment of minorities based on stereotypes, such as the author’s African-American friend who suffered frequent harassment from police officers. Racialization, Emerson claims, remains a constant phenomenon, occurring in many different forms over the years. The “black and white divide” appears in different areas of social life: marriage, neighborhoods, health issues, entertainment, and unfortunately, church.1 Even though “religion, as structured in American” can be an effective force for change, it “generally serves to maintain these historical divides and helps to develop new ones” (18).

Chapters Two and Three provide a historical survey of the church. Emerson discusses the opposition that early American clergy encountered in their attempts to evangelize the slaves. Stepping away from the religious implications of slavery, the domestic missionaries relegated the institution to a civic sphere. The grounds and impact of their decision appear in books by Margaret Creel, Joseph Washington, and C. Eric Lincoln; all three speak of the clergy’s decision to emphasize biblical passages that upheld the status quo (e.g., Pauline passages about the slave’s responsibility to the master).2  Speaking in a sardonic tone, Lincoln refers to compromise that satisfied pro-slavery advocates:

Protestants…bowed instead to an incipient racism, which, ere long, would develop a ponderous psychology of justification that would burden both church and society in the West for years. (29)

As Emerson and Smith explore the paradox of racialization and religion, they reveal discriminatory attitudes of both regions: Northern and Southern whites feared amalgamation (interracial mix) and at one point, they (President Lincoln included) even supported colonization of blacks in the African homeland. North and South only differed in their stances on slavery; the South being more supportive of the economic institution. Besides the revelation of national racism, three religious leaders (usually praised in church history) take a hit in this book. The much-heralded George Whitefield, while he “supported the Christianizing of slaves,” also campaigned for “the introduction of slavery in Georgia” to more cheaply build his orphanage in Savannah. Charles Finney, another lauded figure, maintained segregated seating in his churches and prohibited blacks from church leadership (33). Billy Graham at first accommodated local sentiments by racial segregation in his Southern rallies but “eventually came to agree” with a new movement of “racial reconciliation,” initiated by three prominent black clergy, John Perkins among them (52).  However, efforts against racialization have failed to eliminate this phenomenon:

The abolitionist movement worked to end slavery and free slaves, not to unite Americans in a common community. Likewise, the Civil Rights movement worked to gain rights and freedoms. Although it used the rhetoric of togetherness in its efforts, it was, to the consternation of many, unsuccessful in its realization. (48-49)

The racial reconciliation movement, appearing in Chapter Three, grants some hope; it functioned as acatalyst in Billy Graham’s transformation from segregation to integration. As a movement which spread throughout the evangelical world, it became adopted by Promise Keepers as a major plank in their program. However, Promise Keeper’s leader noticed a waning enthusiasm in the men’s gathering when this plank was emphasized. Emerson believes that “something was lost in the translation” of the call for reconciliation; and he develops his theory for this reaction in the ensuing chapters.

Emerson and Smith then insert theories from various studies, interview excerpts and statistics to discuss the white evangelical in these main areas: (a) his/her perception of the race problem, (b) proposed solutions, and (c) refutations to other points of view. They argue that the white evangelical Christian employs a “cultural tool kit” based on “accountable freewill individualism,” “relationalism,” and “anti-structuralism” (76). Since the evangelical refuses to attribute racial problems to institutions, he/she embraces a perception that “effectively reproduces racialization” (90). Through the next chapters, Emerson then explores several perceptions of the black situation. Concerning economics, the white evangelical assigns blame to the “blacks [who] suffer from relational dysfunction and a lack of responsibility” (101). In friendships, conservative white Christians resist “forced integration of churches or schools” and embrace the less costly “miracle motif,” that race problems disappear for those who accept Christ as Savior (130). Moreover, when inquiring about the race problem, the authors notice a vast difference between whites more isolated from minorities (white-dominated residential areas and church membership) and those whites more involved with black individuals, even those of former strong evangelical persuasion. The latter group is more willing to acknowledge individual and institutional racism.

Chapters Seven and Eight contain a multitude of excerpts, terms, theories and authorities as the authors, suggesting that this concept started with the separation of church and state, affix the concept of “marketplace” to the religious establishment. They describe the social/psychological dynamics involved in religion related to “meaning, belonging, and security” (144). Because of these dynamics, the group identity will be homogeneous. As churches compete for members (the marketplace concept)—knowing that they depend upon voluntary support and membership—they must create the appropriate “niche” to meet specific needs, especially since people join a church to meet their “felt needs.”  Then in Chapter Eight, the book moves from the specific to a more global discussion, bringing together the material from previous chapters. An interesting passage refers to churches and the “social networks [which] are formed and maintained in social groups” within them (160). Since these ties are linked to “valued resources, such as health, wealth, and status,” and most of these avenues reside in the white church, the black community suffers from a “racial inequality in access” (161). This last notion calls to mind a scathing remark of Joseph Washington (though directed at “negro churches”) which strongly suggests the “inequality” perpetrated by white religious society:

The Church is not approached as primarily a community of persons differing in ability, perspective, and degree of commitment to the love and purpose of God revealed in Jesus Christ; persons who are aware of their principal calling to communicate the love of God in relation to their neighbors whom they meet in the daily marketplace. Nor is the church seen as an extension of the Christian faith which it endeavors to clarify and make relevant in the world. (148)

The last sentence seems fitting to the “racial inequality in access.”  The white church typically has failed to be an “extension of the Christian faith” to church members of color, preferring, as Emerson remarks, to isolate themselves in homogeneous circles. This thought seems to color the conclusion of the book: Emerson and Smith reiterate the principles and findings from the other chapters and end with a call for change in the evangelical mindset.

To their credit, they employ many qualifiers; rather than adamantly claiming that these traits match the evangelical, they strongly suggest that the theories fit their argument. However, there are some problems with the book, among them. The first that struck me was a hint of bias in the findings. Emerson states that when conducting a particular survey, he expects the answers to be a certain way (pages 177 and 120), which the data seems to fulfill. Does this attitude influence the interpretation? Also, one or two tables are placed in a few chapters but the remaining graphics are stored in an appendix. Why this inconsistency? Such a tactic weakens the impact of their comments and casts doubt on the objectivity of the visuals. In the last two chapters, the authors toss around a plethora of terms, making for dense material: “niche edge effect” and “niche overlap effect” and “ethical paradox of group loyalty,” as well as many others. One might think that the authors are “bamboozling” the readers with fancy footwork (or in this case, “word-work”). After reading the conclusion, I wondered if the white evangelical, hampered by a limited perspective, would ever purchase or read this book, let alone answer the “call for change.”

Despite these shortcomings, many of the theoretical premises are applicable and most of their argument rings true, for I have noted these same principles among white conservative Christians myself.  I have heard statements resembling the “miracle motif” and seen the politics of the “racial divide”: an inner city outreach overlooked in favor of church planting in middle-class white neighborhoods (low economics in the inner city given as a reason). Some evangelical whites have expressed an “openness” to have blacks attending a white church but implement no efforts to woo them: “We just prayed and waited for blacks to come.” But hidden in the middle of Chapter Three is the ray of hope, which leads to discussion of the next book.

Emerson mentions a “flurry of books published on the topic [of racial reconciliation]” which included some “coauthored by a black and white team” (63). I have read one of those books. He’s My Brother presents the life stories of John Perkins (a black Civil Rights activist) and Tom Tarrants (a former white supremacy advocate). Both books alternate the life stories of the two men (white and black) and provide spiritual principles that promote racial reconciliation. The former book places the principles in the last few chapters. The format is more reader-friendly in Breaking down Walls. Besides alternating their life stories, Glen Kehrein and Raleigh Washington intertwine spiritual principles with personal anecdotes. Unlike Perkins and Tarrants who only met as fellow Christians, Kehrein and Washington worked together, adding stronger credibility to their advice. Their preface lists written pieces about racial strife in books, newspaper articles, and even a statement by Billy Graham. However, they also unequivocally assert that “this book is about a solution” (authors’ italics, p. 12). They also warn less wary readers of the material (I list only the subtitles from pages 13 and 14):

1. We use the “R” word! Racism is one of those terms used differently by different people.
2. We know about stereotypes.
3. It’s not just a black and white thing.

Divided into three parts, the authors (1) tell their respective stories, (2) outline and illustrate principles that they learned while working together, and (3) speak heart-to-heart with their own races.

The first chapter begins with a compelling incident. Kehrein and Washington sponsor a meal, served by white church members, for the black residents in the community. Washington leads the speaking presentation with his own story of racism suffered in the military. When Kehrein whispers to “leave it bitter” (26), Washington obliges by stopping at a crucial point of his story (a racist action by several white officers that resulted in his discharge from the Army). In response, an African-American male stands up and “roars, ‘Then let’s kill ‘em all!’” (28). Kehrein (the white partner) must restore a positive image of whites to prevent the shout from becoming action, and both men, concluding with the rest of Washington’s story (a white Jew helped restore him to the military), manage to alleviate the tension. This incident is then contrasted with the then-recently occurred L.A. riots (near the time of the writing), an example that resurfaces throughout the book. The rest of the content explains their faith-based answer to the racial strife.

The following five chapters provide their individual stories in chronological fashion. Here I find a fascinating connection with Divided by Faith. Kehrein, the Caucasian, originally holds the evangelical principles that Emerson and Smith describe in their book. However, Kehrein changes his views after his experience among blacks in Chicago. His transformation echoes the changed views of the modified evangelical outlook that Emerson speaks about; the condensed statement in Divided by Faith is fleshed out in Breaking Down the Walls, providing a fuller picture of how those changes transpire. Kehrein speaks of his cultural isolation in a mid-western town, his first exposure at a Bible college in Chicago, and finally his immersion in and commitment to the black community in that city.

Unlike Emerson and Smith who keep their informants anonymous, Kehrein tells specific names, incidents and places. Chapter Five is especially poignant as he describes the disintegration of the inter-racial church which he helped to found:

Relationships deeply committed to the principles of racial reconciliation might have weathered these conflicts. But as it turned out, the relationships between Pastors Mains [white] and Hilliard [black], like many relationships at Circle Church, were not deep enough to withstand the explosion. When the fissure opened between David and Clarence, the whole church split down racial lines. Racial camps emerged, each justifying their position in the conflict. As whites who had aligned ourselves with the “black movement” within the church, we felt the blacks defensively retrenching and closing us out. We retreated in response. Humpty Dumpty had fallen from the wall. (79)

Later, Kehrein describes his own feelings:

I can hardly describe the pain I felt as the dream crumbled around our feet. As a high profile church, often pointed to by homogenous church growth critics, the humiliation was publicly reported in Christianity Today. It was like watching a loved one die an agonizing, public death. (80)

Raleigh Washington finally meets Kehrein, who is initially skeptical of the black man’s sincerity in pursuing an inter-racial fellowship, and the chapter provides a satisfactory resolution to an earlier tragedy of conflict, split, and despair.4 In the rest of the second part, the authors must identify themselves parenthetically as they elaborate on these principles and bring in appropriate anecdotes. Each chapter ends with “applying the principle,” and a list of resource notes.

In the chapter entitled “Sincerity,” the authors identify a detrimental behavior: BBW (blacks talking to blacks about whites) and WWB, (whites talking to whites about blacks). Kehrein offers “a classic case of WWB/BBW”:

In stead of talking directly to Pastor Washington about the problem she perceived, Joan took her complaints to another white person (just as the black people took their complaints to the Pastor). As I bought into it, since as a white person I understood those expectations about starting and ending meetings. (148)

Working through additional confrontations that result from this behavior, Washington and Kehrein institute a “Fudge Ripple Sunday” where they “create an atmosphere that encouraged black people and white people to be open with their inner thoughts.” The first session of talk is segregated and then the two groups merge, and using “comments [written] anonymously,” they air their differences, a process that has worked for “seven years” (145). The other principles in the book include “sacrifice,” “interdependence,” and “sensitivity.” The last principle deals directly with the concept of “racialization” depicted in Emerson’s book, especially within the institutions. Kehrein mostly speaks in this chapter, warning white people not to use the term “you people” to blacks because of its condescending tone. To answer the whites who complain that they “have to walk on eggshells to make [a black/white] relationship work,” he retorts that “Black Americans are often testing . . . to see if whites are sincere and worthy of trust” (161).

In the last part of the book, each man exhorts the members of his race. Raleigh Washington writes a chapter for his fellow Black Christians, especially speaking about “Afro-centrism” and “Black heritage,” two areas which can hinder racial reconciliation. Kehrein speaks to white Christians, admonishing them, among other things, to avoid “deny[ing] the reality of racism” (234) as well as “white churches must become part of the solution” (238, author’s italics on both pages). His remarks echoes a similar stance taken years earlier by historian/scholar Joseph Washington.

Because the purposes of these two books differ, so do their formats. Geared to a scholarly readership, Divided by Faith provides the usual fare: graphs and tables, interview excerpts, quotes from other scholars and researchers. Informants remain in anonymity, an appendix contains additional graphics and few Bible passages are included. Breaking down Walls appears to target pastors but is accessible to any Christian who would not consider tiresome the many Biblical references.

Reading Breaking down Walls first, I experienced an initial depression when finishing the second book Divided by Faith. The emotion dissipated after reconsidering the principles expounded by Kehrein and Washington; their book offers hope for that the continued segregation in the church need not remain. Even C. Eric Lincoln, who seems to snarl at every turn about the evil of white Protestantism, speaks of a hope that both races “will someday rediscover that larger community of interests when the church was neither white nor black but just a simple fellowship of believers” (260).  What a delight to know that an inter-racial church can happen and is happening; there are some committed people—like Washington and Kehrein—who not only have heard this call of the past (Joseph Washington) and present (Emerson and Smith)—but also are answering it.