Note: From A Burning House: Redeeming American Evangelicalism by Examining Its History, Mission and Message (Zondervan 2023). Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Citations have been omitted.
While adjusting to the realization that I am a guest in the house that I’d previously deemed the family dwelling, I must discover how it occurred. It cannot go unexamined. It is among the reasons I, for this season, defy the appeals of brothers and sisters who insist I leave and join the movement of “exvangelicals.” I concede their observations, but my conscience compels me to stay and struggle. What if the movement they are leaving is not evangelicalism at all? What if it has been co-opted by masqueraders cloaked in evangelical garb? Maybe American evangelicalism has abridged the global evangelical message and is, therefore, off mission. I am not saying they are preaching an accursed gospel, but if it has little regard for systemic racism and injustice, the message is truncated and temporally inadequate. If we leave, we may be surrendering our house to interlopers. It is inappropriate for us to relinquish the moniker evangel – “The gospel” – to those who will reduce it. So I submit a question that has long engrossed me: Should we abandon the house or reclaim it?
An examination of American evangelicalism is a historical and theological venture. I suspect the ethnic rift within the movement results from divergent theological and historical methods based on cultural distinctions. I am not contending that cultural identities are innately wrong. On the contrary, culture and experience are unavoidable influencers that, when properly deployed, are advantageous. However, they are catastrophic when someone blindly universalizes their version of Christianity without considering the observations of other Christian forms. This tendency contributed to America’s racial rift. In theological terms, black evangelicals and white evangelicals are fraternal twins in orthodoxy (beliefs) but aloof strangers in orthopraxy (actions). By and large, they espouse the same foundational views, but they apply them in different, often conflicting, ways.
Generally, American evangelicalism espouses a culturally isolated view of the world. For instance, Christianity is commonly parceled as an embodiment of Western values. I’ve spoken on more than one Christian university campus that lauds Westernization as uniquely indicative of God’s character. But the Bible is decidedly non-Western. In an act of fascinating hubris, American evangelicalism attempts to improve upon the original model by roughly forcing Christianity in a Euro-American mold. This is unfortunate because there is much to glean from Christian groups that better embody the Bible’s non-Western communal values. When American evangelicalism carefully incorporates the credible perspectives of non-Western evangelicals, it will become a more robust Christian worldview.
By and large, our impaired orthopraxy results from segregation. Siloed Christianity robs its participants by depriving them of fellow believers and their theological perspectives. The upshot is stark: We do not segregate due to theological conflict; we are in theological conflict due to willful segregation. If we recognize this, then integration, though counterintuitive, is the obvious solution. We must sacrificially run toward, not away from, one another. Integration confronts corporate ignorance by exposing us to theological ideas and cultural contexts other than our own. In our siloed condition, we have an impaired view of the mission field, so we are falling short of our kingdom potential.
A Burning House
I am no fool. I know of the elephant in the room. Evangelicalism is not merely a house divided; it is a house ablaze. Black people are legitimately suspicious of integration.
After civil rights progress in the mid-twentieth century, desegregation was America’s professed norm. Still, Martin Luther King Jr., paraphrasing James Baldwin, admitted, “I’ve come to believe that we are integrating into a burning house.” [Belafonte with Shnayerson, My Song, p. 328-329; Baldwin, The Fire Next Time, p. 94] I empathize with King’s realization. I’ve often confessed the same of the evangelical house. King recognized that mere interethnic proximity is inadequate. If the house is divided – plagued by racism – then a seat inside is no better than the torrential storm outside. His 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech is his most cited message. But many who quote it appeal to one or two self-serving lines to the exclusion of the speech’s broader, indicting tenor. What’s worse is the disregard for King’s hindsight critique of those oft-quoted lines. In retrospect, he conceded, “The dream that I had that day has, at many points, turned into a nightmare.” He confessed, “Some of the old optimism was a little superficial, and now it must be tempered with a solid realism.” [Franklin, “King in 1967”] While new laws expressed desegregation, integration was still unrealized.
American history is blotted by segregation because the nation prioritized the dignity and worth of one racial group at the expense of the others. The end of slavery was only the prelude to Jim Crow – an elaborate racial caste system that openly enforced “separate but equal,” an outright lie. Then, as the civil rights movement agitated the country toward desegregation, Jim Crow laws were less viable, so society fell back on its organic norms and maintained racial divisions. Dr. King summed it up when he deemed desegregation “enforceable” while conceding that integration is “unenforceable.” [Washington, A Testament of Hope, p. 123; Ellis, Free at Last?, p. 88-89] Desegregation was a matter of law, but integration fell victim to national norms and values.
After the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), touted as the death knell of Jim Crow, racial segregation remained a de facto cultural norm. Even churches willfully resisted the legal imperative to desegregate. The cultural values were so effective that the nation needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968! Notwithstanding the nation’s professed allegiance to the US Constitution, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Amendments were powerless against de facto segregation in the post-Reconstruction era. Even after 1960s civil rights legislation reinforced these amendments, armed federal officers had to escort black children into disingenuously desegregated schools amid perilous protests. Actions did not align with words. The “melting pot” was the declared value, but a racial caste system was the actual value. So regarding integration, black people can be predictably cynical.
Both history and common sense teach that it is foolish to integrate into a house that is ablaze. If the structure is burning to the ground, who cares if we are all together! Self-preservation is a rational act, so potentially injurious integration is counterintuitive. I understand and even share the concerns of those who resist integration, especially if many occupants of the burning house are relational arsonists. However, unlike the world, we have the gospel – a comprehensive, effectual and compelling message. Holding American evangelicalism to standards set by a fallen world results in sinfully low expectations. We should strive for the virtues of Christ, our king. The world cannot, and should not, determine our ethical values! We have a message of reconciliation, so deliberately living without one another is “not in step with the truth of the gospel” (Galatians 2:11-14 ESV). Willful segregation is the fruit of an “antigospel.” [Williams, Galatians, p. 61] It condones and even adopts the world’s sin, which is theologically incoherent. The cross unifies kingdom citizens so they may jointly laud our unifying king (Ephesians 2:11-22).
In many respects, I concede that integration has failed. Often, it is a disingenuous façade – an attempt to show health where illness abounds. But some missions are vital; they compel us to persist. Unity around a comprehensive gospel message is such a mission. We cannot cite a history of half-hearted desegregation as justification for disunity. Christ purchased our union at the highest price. Embodying his kingdom, though taxing, is “true and proper worship” (Romans 12:1-2).
A Sacrificial Integration versus a Dishonoring Assimilation
Many of my friends who reject integration cite the poor way we’ve done it. But I contend they’ve never experienced a genuine attempt. We’ve known only disingenuous desegregation. Integration, especially on a global scale, is exponentially more communal. Desegregation means I can no longer legally reject you, but integration prompts me to engage you willingly. The former values legal and ethical loopholes, while the latter values people and community.
Assimilation occurs when a dominant group sits idle as all other groups huddle around and espouse their take on the world. Integration occurs when all of the groups sacrificially move toward one another. More often than not, a dominant culture reigns over a diverse group. Those who fall outside the dominant culture must assimilate the dominant language and norms to thrive. My education in the evangelical world regularly necessitated “code switching,” traversing back and forth between cultures. By and large, my white classmates did not experience this. There was no need because American evangelicalism generally fixates on white cultural norms.
In my first semester of seminary, the cultural rifts were impossible to ignore. I had to discuss it more often than I wanted. One conversation stands out. It was with a classmate who is now my friend. But our relationship had a complicated launch. Within weeks of our meeting, he asked, “Why do I have to see you as a black Christian? Why can’t I just see you as a Christian brother? Isn’t our faith more important than our race?” His queries were sincere but tremendously naïve. They underscore an often-overlooked state of affairs. My classmates were oblivious to their culture’s ubiquity. It is so common that they overlook its influence on their Christian education and values. As a fish in water is inattentive to its wetness, my classmates were so immersed in their culture that they were insensible to it. They believe they espouse a virginal Christianity – uninfluenced by culture. They treated our studies as a collection of universal facts. But, in reality, we were straightforwardly learning Euro-American Christianity, and few seemed to notice. Moreover, they obligated me to uncritically adopt the culturalized theology. More than once, my suspicions were met with, “Isn’t our faith more important than race?” It may have been unwitting, but they were subjecting me to dishonoring assimilation.
I will not waste this moment by ignoring the difference between diversity and integration. Ethnically diverse worship gatherings make for first-rate photo ops, but in the absence of genuine integration, some in the photo are not reciprocally valued. They are merely assimilating the dominant culture. If integration will work, the house’s occupants must receive mutual honor (Philippians 2:1-11). Cultural integration, especially on a global scale, is foreign to American evangelicalism. It should not be; Christianity is innately global. So we should not merely battle theological error; we should repent of theological isolationism.
Our options are limited. We can divide into separate homes or perish together in a needless housefire of our own making. These decisions dishonor God; we have seen the rotten fruits they bear. A third option, mutually honoring cultural integration, may be counterintuitive, but the alternatives are sinful. American evangelicalism is a burning house. Do we find an exit or honor Dr. King’s proposal to “become firemen”? [My Song, p. 329]
Taken from A Burning House by Brandon Washington. Copyright © 2023 by Zondervan. Used by permission of Zondervan. www.harpercollinschristian.com
Brandon Washington, lead pastor, Embassy Christian Bible Church
