Sociologists see two different religions dominating white American Christianity
Sociologists see two different religions dominating white American Christianity
Book review: ‘The Religion of Whiteness: How Racism Distorts Christian Faith’ by Michael O. Emerson and Glenn E. Bracey II, ★★★★☆
In their new book on the connections between American Christianity and racism, sociologists Michael Emerson and Glenn Bracey recall a private discussion they had at an academic conference with a white man in his 50s who was a relatively recent convert to Christianity:
Over coffee, he explained to us that he attends a majority white church where he and his wife, who is black, are increasingly uncomfortable. He then described a church with all the hallmarks of the ROW [religion of whiteness], complete with Christian nationalist rhetoric, white Jesus iconography, hostility toward immigrants, and a devotion to gun culture. Nico said, “Some of these are lovely people, but others I would not want to know. ... It’s like we are practicing two different religions,” to which we responded, “You are!”
And they’re right.
For all but about a decade of my adult life — since my teen years, actually, beginning as I approached draft age during the Vietnam War — I have been a political and increasingly theological liberal involved with conservative churches. When describing my co-religionists to friends in the past decade or so, I have more often than not described them as belonging to the “same church but a different religion.” So I totally get where this man Nico was coming from.
Finally, Emerson and Bracey’s book, The Religion of Whiteness: How Racism Distorts Christian Faith, gives me a possible framework for understanding and explaining my description of most of those I supposedly share a faith with, whether it’s American Christianity as a whole or, more narrowly, those belonging to my denomination. We really are participating in different religions, religions whose boundaries transcend traditional theological and denominational markers.
Emerson and Bracey’s book is the outgrowth of the Race, Religion, and Justice Project funded by the Lilly Foundation beginning in 2019. The two were principal investigators in a study, which is ongoing and included surveys, focus groups and personal interviews along with the collaboration of some 300 scholars and other experts.
As might be expected in a book written by sociologists rather than theologians, Emerson and Bracey define religion in sociological terms. In a sociological sense, what separates two people into different religions is what “tribes” they belong to, not whether they are divided by theological differences such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism.1
In their research, Emerson and Bracey went about to test a hypothesis that a large percentage of American Christians are adherents to what they call the religion of whiteness or ROW. In part, they sought to explain why so many nonwhite Christians have felt betrayed by predominantly white Christianity. The full definition the authors used of the religion of whiteness is too detailed to explain here; suffice it to say here that one of the aspects of the religious whiteness is the worship of a white Jesus, “to reify the idea that whiteness is the best, that whiteness is on top because God looks just like us.”2 Whiteness is viewed as the “normal,” the way things are, while nonwhiteness is something viewed as ethnic or otherwise not the ideal.
One doesn’t have to be white to be an adherent of the ROW; in fact there are nonwhite ROWers. Nor does one have to consciously be a supporter of white supremacy. But the overwhelming portion of American Christianity has been and continues to be largely made of of white spaces and white leadership. The religion of whiteness is not so much a color but a self-perpetuating system of belief and practice.
Survey finds racial differences in applying Biblical teaching
One part of the study the authors used to test their hypothesis was to see how practicing American Christians interacted with certain parts of the Bible. For their test question, they read this statement to those practicing Christians who said the Bible should always be used to determine what is wrong: “In the Bible, the Apostle Paul taught that people should not use unwholesome words (Ephesians 4:29). Therefore it is bad to use curse words.” That found that the percentage of practicing Christians who agreed with the statement did not vary significantly by race.
They then used three similar statements to point out how the Bible condemned the unjust treatment of foreigners3, set an example of apologizing for sins collectively committed by ancestors4, and showed Christian leaders listening to complaints by an ethnic minority group and empowering leaders within the minority group to correct the injustice5. What they found was that there were substantial differences in how whites reacted to those principles compared with nonwhites. Whites were far more likely to disagree with those Biblical interpretations than were blacks and Hispanics, who agreed with them in approximately equal proportions.
Why the racial difference? The authors explain:
We view this as support for the ROW. It is remarkable that people who have just finished telling us that the Bible should always be used for determining right or wrong abandon that proposition when asked about applying the teaching for the benefit of other groups or confessing one’s own-group sins.
How prominent is ROW in American Christianity? Among white American Christians, the numbers are overwhelming:
About two-thirds of white American practicing Christians are adherents to the ROW.
The ROW adherents can be further divided into two categories. The first and by far the larger of those, making up about three-fourths of them, are what the authors call the White Veil group. Their defining feature is that they present themselves as not seeing whiteness, “it is as though there is a veil over the eyes that obscures whiteness.” Those in the White Veil group see “only people” and are unaware of racial inequality and injustice and therefore don’t see why their faith has anything to do with countering racism. They also don’t see their whiteness as a key part of their identity, seldom thinking about the fact they are white.
In select ways, the second group, which the authors call the White Might group, making up about a fourth of the ROW adherents, is the opposite of the White Veil group. The White Might adherents see racial issues everywhere, and their whiteness is a key part of their identity. And while they believe there are racial inequities, they think that whites are the victims of racial prejudice rather than the perpetrators. Those in this group are far more outspoken than White Veil believers and tend to be among the leaders of white Christian nationalism.
The authors use the label “the Remnant” to refer to the one-third of white practicing Christians who are not adherents of the ROW; this is the second religion that is prominent in white Christianity, one built around a framework of racial equality before God. Their surveying found that the Remnant believers were far more likely to agree with nonwhite Christians about various matters than to agree with white ROW Christians.
The appendix of the book is filled with reams of statistics backing up the assertions. More interesting than the analysis and the raw numbers are the personal stories — in the social sciences they might be considered anecdotes rather than raw evidence — of how the ROW reinforces its boundaries. Some of the tales of those who were excluded from Christian fellowship because of their views or activism on race were heart-wrenching.
Even though I am firmly in what the authors label the Remnant tribe, I haven’t become as convinced as they are that race matters are as big of a part of the dividing line as they do, although I don’t think they’re wrong either. I wonder what they would find if they started with a hypothesis of Christians being divided by class or by gender. But of course, class issues are closely connected with race, and even gender issues are not totally separated from it.
The Religion of Whiteness is a fascinating work. Emerson and Bracey make clear, often subtly, that their interests are more than academic; they want to see American Christianity move beyond its divisions and its marginalization of racial minorities. They conclude their book with an outline of how that could happen, but they recognize that change won’t be easy. They do conclude that positive change is achievable, however; I hope for the sake of my children’s generation and following generations that the two are right and that American Christianity can come to live to its potential of being part of the solution to racism rather than perpetuating the problem.
More precisely, the authors use a definition devised by French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), who defined a religion as “a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things ... beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community.” He saw religion as a group phenomenon where adherents experience what he called collective effervescence; this collective effervescence enables individuals to rise above themselves while acting in a way that evokes strong emotion and commitment.
The quote is from Ekemini Uwan, a theologian interviewed by the authors. The emphasis is in the original.
Deuteronomy 24:14.
Nehemiah 1:6.
Acts 6:1-7.