Multiracial church?

There are multiple problems that attribute to evangelicalism’s position on race issues. Firstly, premillennialism became the dominant eschatological view during these sad years. Such a view sees the world as evil and in rapid decay until Christ returns (p. 47). Thus, social reform has been seen as unimportant, and evangelicalism’s sole purpose has become “saving souls” for heaven. Often, from an evangelical standpoint, social reform is left to the misguided, mainline churches. American evangelicalism finds itself as a far from innocent bystander on the issues surrounding race and a promoter of the status quo. The dichotomy of evangelism and social action is a false one, and, unfortunately, premillennialism encourages it. Thus, premillennialism must change or cease to exist.

Secondly, when American evangelicalism eventually moved away from segregation, this seemingly only took place after the culture had moved this way first. Since evangelicalism focuses on “Christianizing” individuals, its constituents often do not want to disturb societal order in order to have a better chance of reaching people for Jesus. If this is the case, evangelical Christians cease from being a peculiar people and simply become another face in the crowd. Evangelicals are often passionate, charismatic individuals. They desire that all people find a relationship with Jesus. If channeled properly, such passion could quite literally change the world. Race issues still exist, and evangelicalism cannot wait for change from the culture. They must be at the forefront of this necessity.

Thirdly, white evangelicals are part of the majority and must take the first steps. However, there is a mentality that permeates white evangelical thinking that inhibits this. Emerson and Smith explain what they call the white evangelical “tool kit.” The authors state, “The racially important cultural tools in the white evangelical tool kit are ‘accountable freewill individualism,’ ‘relationalism’ (attaching central importance to interpersonal relationships), and antistructuralism (inability to perceive or unwillingness to accept social structural influences)” (p. 76). The white evangelical tool kit must be revised.

Emerson and Smith found that white evangelicals are “even more individualistic than other white Americans” (p. 77). White evangelicals embody “accountable freewill individualism” in the thought that everyone is giving equal opportunity, and blacks should simply work harder to free themselves from supposed inequality. Such a thought creates amnesty between blacks and whites. Individualism is rampant in evangelical circles, overemphasizing the ideas of the individual’s own sin, own salvation, own relationship with Jesus, and so forth. If all churches are to be multiracial, evangelicalism must be freed of such blatant individualism.

Evangelicals also emphasize the importance of interpersonal relationships. In light of this, racism is often seen as a problem of relationship. Emerson and Smith explain, “The concept of individual sin lies behind many white evangelicals’ accounts of the race problem. From this original sin, we fail to love our neighbors. These poor relationships are sin, antithetical to God’s command” (p. 78). Due to this, evangelicals also reject seeing social structures as the problem behind racism. They believe that suggesting a problem with social structures is simply shifting blame away from individual sin (p. 79). Evangelicals do not see the problems in such a worldview, and, as the authors state, “White evangelicals are severely constrained by their religio-cultural tools” (p. 78). Evangelicals must not forgo theological conclusions, but, if churches are to be multiracial, white evangelicals must revise their tool-kit to better explain social problems.

If churches are going to close the black-white divide, American Christians must being to do some things differently. According the contact theory, Emerson and Smith suggest “under the right conditions, having contact with people from other groups can reduce prejudice” (p. 106). Christians must be willing to cross the boundary of race and reach out to people of different color. Contact theory can be too simplistic. For instance, one might have great amounts of contact with his or her family, but family members are often some of the most difficult people with which to get along. However, contact cannot be neglected.

Contact with other racial groups is not always possible, especially for those in rural areas. The authors of the Christianity Today article suggest that any racial lines that can be crossed by rural Christians should, and “also, congregations that are in racially isolated areas should develop partnerships with congregations in other areas that are diverse” (par. 25). These suggestions are steps in the right direction.

Also, Christian congregations can follow a few practical steps. First, churches should place godly men and women of different ethnicities in leadership. In a sense, the congregation will reflect its leaders. Second, churches place people of different ethnicity on stage. These do not have to be the leaders in the church (although leaders should be on stage), but churches should incorporate people of different races in the service. Third, a congregation should invite another to join in on Sunday mornings. For instance, a predominantly white congregation could invite a black congregation to the Sunday service before Martin Luther King Day. Fourth, white Christians as the majority should apologize for how they have viewed and treated black Americans. The apology must be sincere and must be supported with change in thought and practice. Practical steps can push the American church in the right direction.

Christian congregations, when possible, should be multiracial. The divide is too blatant and extreme to be ignored. This paper has particularly focused on evangelicalism since evangelicals have been most guilty of ignoring the need for racial reform. Evangelicalism has not been immune to problems between blacks and whites, and it is time for change. Decisions to make churches multiracial are not comfortable or popular. However, they are necessary. White evangelicals have for too long been imprisoned to premillennialism and their tool kit. If the Church is to be an inclusive body consisting of different parts, Christian congregations must begin with resolving the issue of race within its own walls.

What can churches begin to do in order to make their congregations multiracial?

+++++++
This is the second part of a two part series on race and the church in America.

DeYoung, C. P., Emerson, M. O., Yancey, G. & Kim, K. C. “All churches should be multiracial:

the biblical case.” Christianity Today. 01 Apr. 2005.

Emerson, M. O. & Smith, C. (2000). Divided by faith: evangelical and the problem of race in

America. Oxford University Press: New York.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.