I often wonder if my Canadian perspective keeps me from really understanding race relationships as they exist in the United States. Things are different here. I live in a city where over half of the population was born outside of this nation. A trip to any public location (or even a walk around the average neighborhood) will show an incredible variety of races and backgrounds and this seems to have been Canada’s historical pattern. To be Canadian is to be diverse. Canada never embraced slavery and never had shockingly unjust Jim Crow laws to overcome. We had no Martin Luther King Jr. and, in a sense, never had as great a need for one. Racism was never systematized here as it was just a few miles south. So when I read about racial issues I read about something that comes from outside of the context I know best.
Reconciliation Blues is, according to the subtitle, “A Black Evangelicl’s Inside View of White Christianity.” The author, Edward Gilbreath, editor at large for Christianity Today, has written this book to give a glimpse of what it means to be both black and evangelical. “My hope,” he writes, “is that this inside perspective on what I regrettably call ‘white Christianity’ can help both blacks and whites get a better sense of the condition of our racial reconciliation and the distance we need to travel to make it something more authentic and true.”
This book weaves together several elements: Gilbreath’s memoir, particularly as it pertains to his race, biographies of prominent black reconcilers such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson, philosophical musings on what reconciliation means to the church and whether it is even still necessary, and discussions of elements as diverse as music, politics, and the “whiteness” of evangelical institutions. It is, in a sense, a series of essays in which the author wrestles with the desire to embrace both his race and his evangelical beliefs. It is a book that celebrates the successes that have come, but laments the fact that much work remains.
And that, in essence, is what this book is about—the loneliness of being “the only black,” and the frustration of being expected to represent your race but still being stifled when you try, the hidden pain of being invited to the table but shut out from meaningful decisions about that table’s future. These “reconciliation blues” are about the despair of knowing that it’s still business as usual, even in the friendly context of Christian fellowship and ministry.
I found Reconciliation Blues most valuable as a perspective on the experience of one man as he comes to terms with both his race and his religion—what it is like to be a black evangelical in the church today and to want to embrace both of those aspects of his identity. It surprises me to hear that this is more difficult than it may appear. The book gave me much to think about, and especially how about I, as a white Christian, may well not even realize how much my “whiteness” affects my faith. It is interesting food for thought to consider how much of the white evangelical experience is a product of being white and how much is directly biblical. Take this quote, for example:
The first thing I learned in Sunday school was that black is the color of our hearts without Jesus, red is the color of Jesus’ redeeming blood, and white is the color of our cleansed hearts after we accept Jesus as our “Lord and Savior.” There were even visual aids, construction paper cut-outs, that demonstrated the red blood washing away the black sin to reveal a brand-new white heart.
Have we ever considered the potential ramifications of portraying black as evil and white as pure and good? Is this portrayal a cultural preference or divine fiat? Is there a better or more sensitive way of expressing good theology but in using word pictures that do not offend as this one might? And if the evangelical outworking of the Christian faith really is to at least some extent a product of our “whiteness,” what do we stand to gain by embracing more diversity?
The book can be provocative at times. For example, speaking of Jesse Jackson (and man who, according to Gilbreath, captures both the good and bad aspects of racial reconciliation in America) he writes, “In general, the African American Christian community has been more forgiving of its fallen members. Though few whites will admit it aloud, this is one of the things that sustains the fissures between black and white believers—the impression that blacks are lax morally, that they too easily excuse sin or fail to take responsibility for their behavior.” This is more food for thought, an example of where white Christians may harbor subtle beliefs that influence the way they think of their black brothers and sisters in Christ.
Reconciliation Blues is a book that deals more with questions than answers, more with describing the current state than providing concrete suggestions for the way forward. Gilbreath is clear in stating that he believes racial reconciliation needs to remain a priority for the church. I trust that this book will at least cause people to think and to consider how they may have, however inadvertently, contributed to the problem and how they can now work towards a solution.



Comments (18) »
1. Gary Inrig
June 14, 2007
11:07 AM
Tim,
As a fellow-Canadian who has ministered in the United States for many years, I can affirm that race relations in this country are far more complex than we often imagine. But your statements that we do not have an entrenched tradition of racial prejudice is naive in the extreme. The remarkable diversity of the country is a relatively recent phenomenon. The treatment of First Nations peoples and the Metis as well as Chinese people who were brought in to build the railroad, and the Japanese during the war are only a few of the issues of our past, never mind the English-French divide that has plagued so much of our history. There is an all too prevalent feeling of Canadian superiority to the US on ethnic- racial issues that we need to be wary of. Gilbreath’s book may speak to different historical realities, but the issue is ours as well.
2. Gary Inrig
June 14, 2007
11:07 AM
Tim,
As a fellow-Canadian who has ministered in the United States for many years, I can affirm that race relations in this country are far more complex than we often imagine. But your statements that we do not have an entrenched tradition of racial prejudice is naive in the extreme. The remarkable diversity of the country is a relatively recent phenomenon. The treatment of First Nations peoples and the Metis as well as Chinese people who were brought in to build the railroad, and the Japanese during the war are only a few of the issues of our past, never mind the English-French divide that has plagued so much of our history. There is an all too prevalent feeling of Canadian superiority to the US on ethnic- racial issues that we need to be wary of. Gilbreath’s book may speak to different historical realities, but the issue is ours as well.
3. Stuart Harsevoort
June 14, 2007
11:49 AM
In terms of whiteness being representative of purity, it is a biblical image. Psalm 51:7, Isaiah 1:18 speak of being made white, or purified. In the transfiguration, Jesus’ clothes were whiter than snow (Matthew 17:2). The heavenly messengers in the New Testament all have robes that are white (Matthew 28:3, John 20:12, Acts 1:10) and Revelation is full of the imagery of white.
Of course, this cannot be taken as an endorsement of a skin colour, that would be a wrong application. But the imagery of white representing purity is a basic biblical image, one that we have to work with, not around—it is biblical, not cultural.
4. Mike Reynolds
June 14, 2007
11:55 AM
I am also a Canadian pastoring in the U.S., and for me it is the rural south, northern Louisiana to be exact. And while I respect Gary’s comment above, in my experience the conflict between races is much more pronounced here than where I grew up in suburban Ontario. Thankfully, the hostilities here have been subdued, but there remains an underlying attitude of prejudice that really seems to be a way of life, and I believe it’s even harder to remove than the open conflict. Isn’t that always the case with sin?
I feel that there are many unbelievers who have a better handle on how things are supposed to be in this matter than many in my own congregation. I can remember one incident, growing up in Canada, when I heard the “n” word, used by an unbeliever. I may have been sheltered, but here I’ve heard it often. I’ve heard disparaging conversations about blacks “acting black.” And worst of all, these words have come from genuine Christians, and not just a few. It’s difficult for me to think of any attitude that could be more un-Christlike.
How do I combat it in preaching? In addressing relationships between Christian whites and unbelieving, less moral blacks, I preach John 4, and Jesus’ compassion for the Samaritan woman. I preach that sin is not determined by color of skin, but by the nature we all share. In addressing reconciliation between Christian whites and Christian blacks, I preach Ephesians 2, and the peace Christ made through His cross.
And at the same time, I have to force myself to look within, and preach to myself that I must combat my own sin with just as much, no, an even greater zeal. I’m not saying that I have no prejudice within me, I’m just saying that I hate it.
5. Brendt
June 14, 2007
12:48 PM
I’ll chalk it up to “Canadian perspective” (and/or repeating what Gilbreath wrote) that you referred to Jesse Jackson as a “reconciler”. ;-)
Sounds like an interesting book, though. Heading to my wishlist now.
6. rllowery
June 14, 2007
1:23 PM
Sounds like an interesting read — thanks for your helpful review.
I’ve got some “red flags” going off on both the use of the “wordless book” in evangelism (which removes The Word in favor of symbolic colors) and the author’s hyper-sensitivity to race which reads unintended meaning into symbols.
Maybe the author’s “frustration of being expected to represent your race but still being stifled when you try…” is a result of his own deficit in truly understanding the gospel in which: “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
7. Tim Challies
June 14, 2007
2:20 PM
“As a fellow-Canadian who has ministered in the United States for many years, I can affirm that race relations in this country are far more complex than we often imagine. But your statements that we do not have an entrenched tradition of racial prejudice is naive in the extreme.”
I do realize that Canada has some skeletons in the closet, so to speak, but simply meant to say that there was never the same kind of systematized racism that was in evidence in the US even just a couple of generations ago.
8. Michelle
June 14, 2007
2:58 PM
I must make a comment regarding what Rllowery wrote above.
As an African-American, and “evangelical”, I resonate deeply with what Mr. Gilbreath speaks of in this book. You are correct to state that the gospel speaks that there is “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” in Christ, but the experience of living says that we have not yet reached the true potential of these words. We are still working out in time and space was is true of us in Christ in eternity. The pain of living in that in between state is what the author is speaking of. To say that he has a “deficient view” of the gospel is an insult at worst, misunderstanding at best, of what he is trying to state.
The realities of life in America, and even in the American church is that race does still matter; otherwise, there would be no division of congregation as we see it now. Our history in this country has divided us and we are still living with the consequences of this.
I could say more, but will not for fear my emotional reaction to this topic will get me in trouble. Suffice it to say, race issues still hurt, and the wounds are deeper than can be expressed in words. To ask a Black person to “forget about it” or “get over it” dismisses the reality of our history and negates our identity. Even “in Christ”, we are still working the implications of race in America.
9. Michelle
June 14, 2007
3:03 PM
Want to clarify: by putting the words “forget about it” and “get over it” in quotes, I am not implying that that is what you have stated. These are simply words I have heard before in discussions about this topic. They cut very deeply, just as what you stated above did. You may not have intended that, but they did.
Blessings to you.
10. Michelle
June 14, 2007
3:03 PM
Want to clarify: by putting the words “forget about it” and “get over it” in quotes, I am not implying that that is what you have stated. These are simply words I have heard before in discussions about this topic. They cut very deeply, just as what you stated above did. You may not have intended that, but they did.
Blessings to you.
11. Claire
June 14, 2007
3:06 PM
Tim,
I liked your review…One comment on diversity though.
Like you, I’m Canadian. But I’ve moved to Toronto. Why? Among other things…There is a real lack of diversity in certain areas of the country. (Even within the city, there are monocultural areas.)
I mean this in a friendly way…But I’m always amused when people make general statements about how diverse Canada is. Because unless you live in certain areas, the opposite is true.
Mind you, I think you were right on concerning race relations in the States compared to life up here. Or could it be that our ethnic history isn’t as openly discussed? Have you read *The Hanging of Angelique*? The blurb on the jacket alone was enough to tell me that we’ve got our own demons to deal with.
Take care and God bless.
12. David
June 14, 2007
3:15 PM
A few years ago I went to a Promise Keepers event that was themed around racial reconciliation. What it basically ended up being was a bunch of older white men getting up on stage and telling how they used to harbor racist feelings until God opened their eyes. The black men sat quietly, many with their arms folded, watching the proceedings with what I perceived to be irritation and/or anger on their faces.
Not a single black man got up to also confess his sin of racial hatred. It was clearly a one-way street.
I had a feeling of déjà vu as I read this article. Especially confusing was the bit about Jesse Jackson. It’s one thing for the African American community to forgive its fallen members. It’s another altogether to assume that Jesse has recovered from the fall. He’s a race hustler and corporate shakedown artist extraordinaire, and if he’s recently started preaching a solid gospel message I am unaware of it. If someone could point me to even one solid gospel message I can listen to I would appreciate it greatly.
Far too many black churches are preaching “health and wealth”/”name it and claim it” sermons on Sunday mornings instead of preaching the Word and nurturing the flock. That kind of stuff tickles the ears, but doesn’t help anyone grow or face trials. It would be nice if Gilbreath addressed this issue.
Does America stand in need of racial healing and cross-cultural understanding? Yes. America isn’t alone in that. Does the Christian community need to improve as well? Of course. But it will never happen unless we can be honest and admit that it’s not only the white church community that needs to reach out and do the work of reconciliation. Sadly, the hyper-sensitivity that surrounds this issue stops any real and meaningful conversation right in its tracks. Even in the Christian community.
I wonder if a book by Angela McGlowan would be worth a review?
13. Jeri
June 14, 2007
3:25 PM
Thanks for the thought-provoking review, Tim. You have a talent for choosing good books that bring up topics people ought to think about!
I was impressed a while back with a fiction book written by Randy Alcorn, “Dominion,” whose main character is a black newspaperman. The story is told from the perspective of all he has to deal with racially as well as spiritually. It made me realize that there are areas of hurt and difficulty between blacks and whites I hadn’t ever thought about. Since I read that book I’ve been much more aware of it. I’d definitely like to read the one you just reviewed.
14. rllowery
June 14, 2007
5:59 PM
Although not his primary purpose, Piper’s “Let the Nation’s be Glad” does a great job of addressing race and the glory of God.
The vision of God gathering in His people from around the globe via the proclamation of the gospel is compelling.
The author wrote about the “frustration of being expected to represent your race but still being stifled when you try…” That compulsion to represent his race did not come from a biblical mandate.
I want us to think rightly about race and God. I think most of what we think on this topic is not based on scripture, but our painful interactions in culture (and comment pages).
May God bless us all with a better understanding of race and how we should use it to bring Him glory.
15. Wyeth Duncan
June 15, 2007
4:09 PM
Thank you, Tim, for posting a review of Edward Gilbreath’s book, Reconciliation Blues. I appreciate your bringing this book to the attention of your many readers. I read this book earlier this year and found it captivating. Like Ed Gilbreath, I, too, am a black American, an evangelical Christian and a member of a predominantly white evangelical church. I could strongly identify with what Gilbreath wrote. So, thank you for putting this topic out there for my non-Black brothers and sisters to consider.
If I may, I’d like to respond to three previous commenters
First, there is Stuart H who wrote, “The imagery of white representing purity is a basic biblical image, one that we have to work with, not around—it is biblical, not cultural.”
That’s true. But Stuart missed the point. The point was not white representing purity; the point was using black as an image for sin. In the Bible, sin in not black; sin is “scarlet” or “red like crimson” (Isaiah 1:18).
Then, RLLowery commented that “Maybe the author’s ‘frustration of being expected to represent your race but still being stifled when you try…’ is a result of his own deficit in truly understanding the gospel.” Apparently, RLLowery hadn’t gotten all his feelings out of his system, because later, in a separate comment, he again quotes the same sentence from Gilbreath, and adds, “That compulsion to represent his race did not come from a biblical mandate.”
Quite frankly, these comments reveal a total ignorance of what it means to be a black person in the US. Gilbreath did not express a “compulsion” to represent his race; he said he is “expected” to represent his race. It is white people, not Gilbreath, who expect the individual black person to represent the entire race. That is a common experience for black people in the US who work among whites. The frustration that Gilbreath expresses concerns the fact that sometimes black are treated like children: meant to be seen, not heard. It’s almost as if blacks are included only so whites can feel like they’re being racially inclusive, but they don’t really want to know what black people think.
Finally, David states
“It [“racial healing and cross-cultural understanding”] will never happen unless we can be honest and admit that it’s not only the white church community that needs to reach out and do the work of reconciliation.”
This is true, but I sense that David resents that whites are being asked by other whites to “do the work of reconciliation”. I’ve not taken a poll or read any statistics but, based on my own experience and observation, I suspect that are far more blacks involved in predominantly white churches than there are whites involved in predominantly black churches. In that sense, blacks are already reaching out to whites.
Please, don’t take this offensively but, we must not forget history: Whites were the original and dominant racial offenders in America. Blacks did not enslave whites, create “Jim Crow” laws, enforce segregation, institutionalize racism, etc., etc., etc. That’s the historic reality. So, yes, everyone needs to do the work of racial reconciliation, but whites, as the prime offenders, need to do more in order to demonstrate to the offended that they can be trusted. Biblically, it is the offender’s responsibility to make the first move toward reconciliation:
“So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24).
16. rllowery
June 15, 2007
6:25 PM
Wyeth,
I assume it is just us “talking” at this point. I used the word compelled because the author actually tried to accomplish the impossible task of representing his race. The fact that society demands that from him does not mean he has to comply.
He either felt compelled or volunteered for this duty. This duty did not come from a biblical mandate.
If we live our lives in light of what scripture calls us to instead of what society calls us to God gets more glory.
The authors autobiographical, anecdotal response to life is interesting but it does not command a response. God gives ample instruction on how to live. But when it comes to race instead of reasoning together from scripture we default to our experience. In that venue your assertion of your race gives you some authoritative position.
I don’t think it should or does.
17. rllowery
June 15, 2007
6:25 PM
Wyeth,
I assume it is just us “talking” at this point. I used the word compelled because the author actually tried to accomplish the impossible task of representing his race. The fact that society demands that from him does not mean he has to comply.
He either felt compelled or volunteered for this duty. This duty did not come from a biblical mandate.
If we live our lives in light of what scripture calls us to instead of what society calls us to God gets more glory.
The authors autobiographical, anecdotal response to life is interesting but it does not command a response. God gives ample instruction on how to live. But when it comes to race instead of reasoning together from scripture we default to our experience. In that venue your assertion of your race gives you some authoritative position.
I don’t think it should or does.
18. Wyeth Duncan
June 15, 2007
7:07 PM
RLLowery,
I understand what you’re saying. I really do: We should govern our lives by Scripture. Period. I agree with that part of your comments.
However, I don’t think you understand at all what I’m saying. Nor do I get the impressiong that you even care to understand what I’m saying.
And THAT’S why, 142 years after the slaves were set free, we still don’t have racial reconciliation in the USA.