Mary E. Gilbert often drove right by the large, intimidating church buildings in her community, never stopping to go inside because she feared she would not be accepted or welcomed.
God would invite her in, if He was there, but would the all-white congregation be as hospitable? The thought kept her away.
The 26-year-old Jackson State University student recently shared her feelings with a diverse congregation at Central United Methodist Church.
Sunday Morning Segregation: How much has changed since the days of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was the latest topic of The Medgar Evers/Ella Baker Civil Rights Lecture Series.
I think that the African-American community is largely self segregating. They appear unwilling to go out of their comfort zone and enter the majority group’s society. I see “Black” Churches all over the place. Some even use their ethnicity in their names. For example, the African Methodist Episcopal Church. (I know that this started because of racism, but sheesh, that was back in the 1800’s.) With a name like African Methodist Episcopal Church, how inviting is that to a Korean-American or an Irish-American? That is an entire denomination! There is a Congressional Black Caucas. Imagine if there were a Congressional White Caucus! What a hue and cry would be raised, and rightly so, for so blatantly a racist establishment. I see “Black” specialty stores all over the place, featuring African videos or specialty hair salons, etc. Of course there are lots of exceptions to what I have observed, but I maintain that today, the segregation that African-Americans experience is almost entirely self-imposed. I know our Church would love to be more diverse. Think about your own Church and their leadership…don’t you think they would love to have a more diverse congregation?
I don’t know what the answer is, except that it is going to have to come from the African-American community. Just as their 70% out-of-wedlock birth rate is self imposed, this religious segregation is self imposed. Maybe it’s the music? Maybe it’s the preaching style? Maybe it’s their low self esteem? I don’t know, but they will have to solve it and enter into the larger community (soon to be majority Latino – so I will have to do this at some point myself) if they want to be integrated.
Having grown up in the South, and then lived in Canada for the past 29 years, I sense the ongoing tension just below the surface whenever I go back there (usually every year). I don’t blame them for self-segregating, if that’s the case, since no one wants that sort of tension in corporate worship. It’s a comfort-zone. But also, black Christian spirituality and the way it is expressed can be very different from white, much like North American Roman Catholic or Anglican spirituality differs markedly from Russian or Greek Orthodox. As for that 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate, its roots can be traced back to slavery days when the tubabu (white masters) preferred to have their “livestock” breed but not to marry so that buying and selling would be easier. So after emancipation/abolition, what in the white view constituted a conventional Christian family was not conventional to them, nor was it a high priority when they were faced with zero security in terms of work, home, etc., all of which continued to be the main concerns for too many of them right up to the late 20th century. And of course most middle- and upper-class white congregations didn’t want dirty, unclean, spouseless/fatherless poor black people sitting in their pews. There’s a lot of hurt there. I’ve felt like an unwanted stranger myself in churches where I was not high enough up the ladder to suit the members– and we were the same colour! But I’d love an opportunity to worship with a black AME congregation. I think it would be profoundly moving, and I know I’d be made to feel far more welcome than if it were the other way round, simply because the charity there would be far greater.
Follow up: I highly recommend The Book of Negroes by Canadian author Lawrence Hill (ISBN 978-1554681563). I don’t think it’s widely available in the US yet. His attention to historical detail is very close, and he gives a very moving fictional account of life from capture to freedom.
[i]As for that 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate, its roots can be traced back to slavery days when the tubabu (white masters) preferred to have their “livestock†breed but not to marry so that buying and selling would be easier.[/i]
And I suppose 50 years of the “War on Poverty” with its continuous stream of incentive payments has nothing to do with all the fatherless families? Not to mention AFDC, WIC, and all the other alphabet transfer payments that make Uncle Sugar the bread winner of the “family”. And by the way, the decay hits whites, blacks, hispanics together. You might say Government Welfare is the most integrated institution in America.
RE: “As for that 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate, its roots can be traced back to slavery days when the tubabu (white masters) preferred to have their “livestock†breed but not to marry so that buying and selling would be easier.”
An unfortunate assumption since there was no 70% out-of-wedlock birthrate — it was equal with the Caucasians — in, say, the 1920s.
The out-of-wedlock birthrate began escalating — oddly — in the 1960s onward. Perhaps it was a “delayed reaction” . . . heh.
Glancing at the article, I noticed mentions of AME, UMC, and TEC. Each in their own way is “mainstream”, if not indeed “liberal”. Perhaps Ms. Gilbert would feel more comfortable in one of the “continuing” churches of Anglicanism. There’s one in my town whose clergy are 25% African, and whose Sunday attendance is at least 1/3 African or African-American. It’s their most integrated day of the week. BTW, all the Sunday School children at the moment are non-white. It’s truly a place where all anyone cares about is the “content of their character”.
I’m sorry but the segregation in churches is not entirely self imposed by African-Americans. Most white Protestant churches, particularly in rural America, did not welcome minorities. That is changing, but progress has been slow and even today racism is still very real just under the surface.
I think it particularly unfair to point to the AME church as an example of self imposed segregation. The entire church was created in response to overt racism in the Methodist church. At the time this church was created black Methodists were not welcome to worship with white Methodist in most churches in the north. They were given separate worship services and not allowed to enter particular churches at all. In the south most blacks were slaves and only entered churches attended by white people as servants.
Finally regarding Sarah’s comments, while this sounds good and supports her point, there are no reliable statistics to back that up. While there may be statistics in some of the northern states. There are none in the south. Prior to the Civil War, slaves really did not marry as we use that term; and until after WWII the vast majority of black children were born in their homes or the shelter provided by their mother’s employer. No reliable records of these births or the marital status of the mother were maintained; especially in the case of mixed blood children. In fact some states did not even keep records of illegitimate births at all until the 1930s.
A report prepared by Nation Center for Health Statistics in the 1960s reported
Year % Illegitimate births by Race
White Non-White
1940 1.95% 16.83%
1945 2.36% 17.93%
1950 1.75% 17.96%
1955 1.86% 20.24%
While these numbers seem tame by today’s standards, the under reporting during these years would have been tremendous. However, the point is that for all time periods for which we have any meaningful statistics the illegitimacy rate among minorities has been many times that among whites. In fact proportionately illegitimacy among whites has grown at a faster rate than among minorities since 1960.
#2 is, of course, laying out stereotypical social historical perspective, with little or no support or authoritative analysis. Sarah is pointing out what all of us who grew up in the middle of the 20th century knew anecdotally and from our own observations (especially in the South) – the Negro (as African Americans were known then) family was a strong bond in society, around the black churches. As #2 points out, one of the real evils and horrors of slavery in this country was the breaking up of slave families, when economics dictated sale of slaves away from their families. So family was extremely important and valued in the black community up to the 1960s. When the “Great Society” legislation was passed in the mid-60s, black men (husbands and fathers) moved out of their homes, so that their families could receive the “welfare” checks from the government, which were denied if an able-bodied male lived in the house. The well-meaning government social engineering, once again, was unable to see the collateral damage and consequences wrought on society by its interference and intervening. And now, several generations down the road, the continuing consequences have multiplied subtantially in both social and economic areas of our American culture.
So, lets talk about “now”… i don’t know how many times I’ve seen special programs/meetings for “black” clergy…. I can’t count how many times there has been discussion re: “black” churches. 7 miles away from our tiny church, there is an Episcopal church.most of the worshipers are of black heritage. We have almost nothing to do with them. “why”??? I really don’t know. Two E churches in a small town, working together could be a powerhouse.Its a SIN that they are not for whatever reason. The REC here is majority-minority, and apparently “thus its ever been” and to top it off they are members of ACNA!!.. I often think perhaps “making local Anglicans” and healing the greater and greater divide might be a more important calling..
Grandmother
#8, I don’t deny there may be some discomfort here and there in one’s being a minority (white or black) and going into an opposite majority situation. But I would contend in my Southern large city that the majority race Episcopal churches (black and white) are from neighborhood makeup, not from specific racial preferences or discrimination. Discrimination and separation is certainly not the order of the day in my own suburban church of @ 2000 folks, and I would feel no qualms about attending either of the majority black churches – and have on several occasions. But things may be different in the North and in Canada, where folks like to point a finger at the South as having this problem, when in fact, they are overlooking the 3 remaining fingers pointing at themselves.
I think Fr. Ian’s comments are spot-on. On the few occasions I’ve had to worship with predominantly black congregations, I’ve found them to be very welcoming. But I don’t think that predominantly white parishes are uncomfortable with black folks — there simply is a difference in worship styles and such that feeds different needs. But if you go to a place like the Salvation Army for worship, you see folks of different races and cultures coming together quite easily, probably because of the lack of formality.
I honestly don’t know how out-of-wedlock birth rates factor into the equation or why it’s an issue in this discussion. Are we making assumptions about people or checking birth certificates at the door?
Sorry, folks, I really don’t know what the real stats are. But it is true that the culture of non-married parenting was widespread. Also, I’m not saying self-segregation is a bad thing. I will go where I’m comfortable and welcome. Of course, the origins of segregated churches are owed to whites pushing blacks out. But quite often in large urban churches, blacks were allowed to sit in the back of the balcony, just like at the movies.
I really don’t blame black folks for their self-imposed worship segregation. Would I like it to change? Yes. Do I think there is some responsibility on both side to get together on Sundays? Yes. But..
I think someone has already mentioned this in passing but I want to highlight the role that all black churches have played in the history of African Americans in this country. It simply cannot be given enough credit for helping that community survive and thrive through conditions that us racially priviledged can only imagine and never quite grasp. As a white woman, I can only look at the black church, in all its forms and denominations, from the outside. But even from where I stand, I can see that it is an institution that goes well beyond our understanding and experience of church. As such, it is a powerful and enduring thing having been tested in the fire for centuries and it just won’t be tossed lightly aside by anyone who values it as a part of their lives.
So I think we should somewhat go easy on our African American brothers and sisters. Respect their church. Don’t ask them to abandon it. But out of respect and charity for us their Christian brothers and sister, we should expect them to meet us in the middle somewhere. Maybe in regular scheduled shared worship. Whether that is on another day of the week, or once a month, whenever.
I also think that it should be the white congregations who do the inviting to joint worship. Find a black congregation in your area, build a bridge. Invite to joint worship. I don’t think the burden rests on black congregations just because of that awful history that lies between us. I can understand how it would seem much more perilous from their side to reach out when their past is so full of examples where their hands have been sometimes cruelly slapped away.
Just some thoughts.
#12, I find your thoughts very good ones and generally true. But as long as we live in segregated neighborhoods (for many reasons, but in the South, now, mainly economic reasons) it is difficult to invite a minority to come across town to worship, without appearing paternalistic, or going across town to worship in a mostly or all black church, without the same appearance. Until economics change, I think we are just going to have to take whatever opportunities get presented to us and use them a much as possible – like choir and pulpit exchanges; diocesan meetings; etc.
Or you could go to your neighborhood Pentecostal church which has included blacks and whites ever since the Azusa Stree Revival of 1904. The Los Angeles Times noted this along with tongues and being slain in the spirit as unusual.
I think this is a non-issue. Certainly some of it is a matter of culture and style of worship, but mostly it’s simply a matter of birds of a feather flocking together. In my small Anglican parish with ASA of around 130, we are overwhelmingly but not exclusively white. Our choir of around 12 includes one black woman, and our congregation includes a mixed race (black/white) couple with children, a black couple with children, a number or families with children adopted from China, and until they moved away, a Hispanic man and his Anglo wife and their children. Our former bishop and archbishop were Africans and we have had Africans and Chinese in our pulpit. I guarantee that when a black person visits our parish, they are overwhelmed with hospitality, probably even more than when a white visitor comes in, because they are more easily identified as a visitor. I think I’d be far more self-conscious in one of my town’s black churches and I’d be very surprised if there are any non-black members in any of them.