Summary
Title: Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America
Author: Michael O. Emerson, Christian Smith
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISBN: 0195147073
Pro:
• Model of how sociology of religion and sociological work generally should be done
• Insightful analysis of how theological assumptions shape social actions and opinions
• Devastating critique of the racial isolation of white evangelicals in America
Con:
• No solutions are offered for the problems
• No comparison of white evangelicals and non-evangelical white conservatives
Description:
• Sociological analysis of white and black evangelical Christians’ views on race in America
• Explains how whites and blacks differ fundamentally in what they see and experience
• Argues that white evangelicals’ theology and presuppositions help reinforce racial divides
Book Review
It’s interesting that while conservative evangelical Christians are unequivocal in their support for racial equality, the very structures of their faith serve to perpetuate inequality. How and why this occurs is the subject of Michael O. Emerson and Christian Smith‘s book Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. The authors conducted more than 2,000 telephone surveys and 200 face-to-face interviews with black and white evangelicals in order to better understand what they believe, why, and how the two groups differ despite both laying claim to the “evangelical” label.
- “[W]e argue that religion, as structured in America, is unable to make a great impact on the racialized society. In fact, far from knocking down racial barriers, religion generally serves to maintain those historical divides, and helps to develop new ones. ...[R]eligion in America can serve as a moral force in freeing people, but not in bringing them together as equals across racial lines.”
One of the barriers which has long posed a problem with evangelical Christians is the simple fact that they are “evangelical” — their primary task is seen as “evangelization,” not social reform, not alleviating social problems, and not fixing other people’s problems. Indeed, anything which “rocks the boat” socially or politically and thus might impede evangelistic efforts can be regarded in a very negative light:
- “This avoidance of boat-rocking unwittingly leads to granting power to larger economic forces. It also means that evangelicals’ views to a considerable extent conform to the socioeconomic conditions of their time. Evangelicals usually fail to challenge the system not just out of concern for evangelism, but also because they support the American system and enjoy its fruits. They share the Protestant work ethic, support laissez-faire economics, and sometimes fail to evaluate whether the social system is consistent with their Christianity.”
All through the Civil Rights era, white evangelical leaders attempted to put the brakes on what black evangelical and civil rights leaders were doing.
It’s not that they were themselves especially racist (though some were), but that they felt the confrontational tactics of the civil rights movement were too harsh and that change had to come more slowly. However opposed they were to segregation personally, they refused to challenge the system head-on. As a consequence, injustice prevailed longer than was necessary.
Similar concerns motivate white evangelical Christians today, but there are also far deeper issues which help keep them on the side of racial separation. Emerson and Smith outline three basic (and connected) evangelical doctrines at work here: freewill individualism, relationalism, and antistructuralism.
Taken together, they prevent white evangelicals from even perceiving that there is a race problem in America in the first place — and insofar as they do, they typically attribute it to fabrications or people causing trouble when they shouldn’t be. Black evangelicals, however, are acutely aware of just how much of an issue race really is. Quite simply, whites are completely unaware of what is going on: “Race is not a focal point of their day-to-day lived experience.”
